Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City
That's not what the Minister was suggesting. As TransLink don't build transit projects, and this is (I think) a Provincial bridge, I would assume they're in no position to fund a SkyBridge for future transit unless the Provincial government agrees it's a good idea.
|
I guess it all depends on cost? One construction project is typically cheaper than two separate projects, so if the IWMB needs to be replaced anyways you may as well address that and the transit crossing at the same time. But if the government could build the transit connection separately and put off the IWMB replacement and associated capital outlays for an additional 15 or 20 years that may be attractive, especially if you're only looking at a minimal increase in costs (say 10 or 20 percent extra for two projects compared to one).
In terms of timeline, I think only the planning of the North Shore line was within the scope of Translink's 10-year priorities? So if Translink is not ready to build the line until the early/mid 2030s and Migrant is right about the 25 years of remaining useful life, the IWMB will only have 10 or 15 years left when the transit project is ready to start so you might as well replace it at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222
That's not the point. This won't be just some bus route, it'll be Bus Rapid Transit with dedicated lanes along the entire line.
|
While you're right about the romantic ideals of BRT, BRT creep happens all over the world with different projects. I think we won't know how BRT Tranlink's "BRT" will be until we see the plans for the first line.
Not having dedicated lanes on the IWMB would be a pretty large fly in the ointment for BRT, but dedicated lanes along the remaining route would still yield pretty significant time savings and some of the other common BRT features (all door boarding, pre-boarding fare payment, increased frequencies) would be a big improvement over the current Rapid Bus route.