Transit Fantasies

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by waves

Fredinno! Your spreadsheet is out of date and you need to update it.

Look, I know. My list of things to do is very long, and migrating is a pain.

I have some other things I want to do with the thing that I can't yet do because I don't have the time. So please be patient.

As far as I know, the Broadway Subway estimates have grown since then, so it's not exactly about to make things better.

[Bdawe]

Did anyone actually lose their elected office over cut and cover on cambie?

[fredinno]

Did anyone actually lose their elected office over cut and cover on cambie?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...suit-1.4812624
People were pissed.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The stretch of ROW in question is about ~10m. Even without fences, those'd have to be some pretty skinny trams.

Eh, '04 was a different time and scale. You had Burnaby and the Tri-Cities yelling about how our grandkids would be paying off a $2 billion debt, and how nobody rode the B-Line so obviously nobody would ride the SkyTrain... now we're blowing through $3B on six stations and (correctly) calling for more.

Cut n' cover on Hastings'd be almost as politically suicidal as Broadway, savings or not. Port Coq, maybe, depending on how well the R3 does; I doubt it's very high on the list to begin with.

---

Said station would likely leave no room for a bus stop - compare and contrast Marine Drive Station with the Rogers/Fido lot. Ditto 16th, which could also use a viaduct.

Yeah, there's the SNG line too... so 28 years max (or 20, if your guess holds). Twinning Brighouse should only come up when 15,000 pphpd maxes out - or when we extend to Steveston/Riverport/Ladner/whatever - and neither seems all that likely yet.

Ah THAT section? The Fir St part? They're selling the section off for development, aren't they?

I need clarity so we can be on the same page.


I mean, yeah, there's the Strathcona and DTES lobbying groups, but they'd be against any Skytrain in general. Hastings is used less than full capacity due to drivers avoiding the DTES (also, it's slower than most routes). I don't know if the Grandview-Woodlands residents would be a problem here.

Though, forcing the thing to be bored would jump the cost to $1.8B.

$900M is about the amount to get SkyTrain from 184St to Langley Center. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surr...e-july-19-2019

Point is, not exactly chump change.

White Rock wouldn't exactly be any higher priority, and PoCo is trying to advocate for the line and pre-zoning... https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/port...skytrain-study There'a already a couple of towers in the area coming up, so it seems like Coq Central circa 2005 right now.

It makes more sense to compare such a thing to Commerical-Broadway, which is also space limited and has streetside bus stops. 80m length by 25m width (the width of the Skytrain) plus 3.5m for the bus stop bay and 6-7m for the pathway is way less than the 38m width of the lot in total, leaving enough space for a bus waiting area. A bit of a tight fit, but we've done it before.
You may not be able to place in Spanish Solution though, but you wouldn't be able to do it with the rest of the stations going off the available land on the Greenway alone.

16th would yes, have to buy up the parking lot and maybe the Presentation Center on the site. It's not as big a deal of a station though, and could be done without or south of 16th if otherwise infeasible.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Ah THAT section? The Fir St part? They're selling the section off for development, aren't they?

I need clarity so we can be on the same page.


I mean, yeah, there's the Strathcona and DTES lobbying groups, but they'd be against any Skytrain in general. Hastings is used less than full capacity due to drivers avoiding the DTES (also, it's slower than most routes). I don't know if the Grandview-Woodlands residents would be a problem here.

Though, forcing the thing to be bored would jump the cost to $1.8B.

$900M is about the amount to get SkyTrain from 184St to Langley Center. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surr...e-july-19-2019

Point is, not exactly chump change.

White Rock wouldn't exactly be any higher priority, and PoCo is trying to advocate for the line and pre-zoning... https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/port...skytrain-study There'a already a couple of towers in the area coming up, so it seems like Coq Central circa 2005 right now.

It makes more sense to compare such a thing to Commerical-Broadway, which is also space limited and has streetside bus stops. 80m length by 25m width (the width of the Skytrain) plus 3.5m for the bus stop bay and 6-7m for the pathway is way less than the 38m width of the lot in total, leaving enough space for a bus waiting area. A bit of a tight fit, but we've done it before.
You may not be able to place in Spanish Solution though, but you wouldn't be able to do it with the rest of the stations going off the available land on the Greenway alone.

16th would yes, have to buy up the parking lot and maybe the Presentation Center on the site. It's not as big a deal of a station though, and could be done without or south of 16th if otherwise infeasible.

16th to 8th specifically, but yes, everything north of 16th is somewhat narrow. The 6th-Fir stretch is also partly on-road.

Consider that the full UBC route will be $6+ billion and the full Langley route $3.1+ billion (still less than the LRT plan, but still). $2.7 billion for Hastings and the rest of downtown seems like a bargain by comparison... also a much higher priority than a ~80k town (going by projections) that has has a "less" important RapidBus. I'm guessing the 95/R5 and 96/R1 will be at 99 levels by then.

16th could theoretically work as an elevated staton, but it's going to be a tight squeeze, and needs a rework if we don't want it messing with the traffic lights. It also depends on an elevated option for Broadway too.... and don't assume that Arbutus-Broadway will be built to accommodate an elevated tram station.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...suit-1.4812624
People were pissed.

Some people are pissed about something all the time. But I don't know what extent that the cambie construction yielded actually political action rather than just added to the noise

[Migrant_Coconut]

TransLink, SNC Lavalin and the Canada Line operators were served with a 200-strong class action lawsuit by Cambie businesses, and the decision may have contributed to the general dislike of TransLink that resulted in the 2014 referendum failure. Public goodwill is often as important as money.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

TransLink, SNC Lavalin and the Canada Line operators were served with a 200-strong class action lawsuit by Cambie businesses, and the decision may have contributed to the general dislike of TransLink that resulted in the 2014 referendum failure. Public goodwill is often as important as money.

The Lawsuits weren't about the technology but how it was done (all sections at once)
Also, City of Vancouver residents were pretty supportive in the referendum. It was a tax revolt off a population already pissed off about sales taxes after HST, and a suburbanite population pissed at TransLink for 'bad service' and 'inefficiency'.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ents-1.3134857

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

16th to 8th specifically, but yes, everything north of 16th is somewhat narrow. The 6th-Fir stretch is also partly on-road.

Consider that the full UBC route will be $6+ billion and the full Langley route $3.1+ billion (still less than the LRT plan, but still). $2.7 billion for Hastings and the rest of downtown seems like a bargain by comparison... also a much higher priority than a ~80k town (going by projections) that has has a "less" important RapidBus. I'm guessing the 95/R5 and 96/R1 will be at 99 levels by then.

16th could theoretically work as an elevated staton, but it's going to be a tight squeeze, and needs a rework if we don't want it messing with the traffic lights. It also depends on an elevated option for Broadway too.... and don't assume that Arbutus-Broadway will be built to accommodate an elevated tram station.

I know, that's why I said elevated. South of 16th is narrow too if you want to fit in a station as well as tracks and pathways.

West 6th Ave actually has the road narrowed to 2 lanes if you look closely.

I never said Hastings wasn't high priority. I said the DTES was the big reason why Hastings may be ignored, along with Suburban prioritization. https://globalnews.ca/news/3739683/t...strian-safety/
If you want goodwill, avoiding cut-and-cover seems to be less a deal than getting better transit out to the suburbs.
OFC you sacrifice efficiency. But it seems to be consistent with TransLink/BC Transit's history when building RT lines- build the lines that are more politically convenient first, even if you have the money to build the more expensive and less politically convenient but more necessary one instead or simultaneously (and we might if the Cure Congestion (https://www.curecongestion.ca/wp-con...n-Platform.pdf) movement succeeds).
Hastings has actually been considered the best or 2nd best (depending on the study) corridor for RT since the 70s. We still haven't got it. I'm not holding my breath. If History teaches us anything, we might just be getting everything BUT Hastings.
https://voony.wordpress.com/2010/03/...ansit-in-1970/

Logistically, attaching an Underground station isn't any easier. Plus, the station is going to be under-capacity once the extension to UBC goes through, meaning parts of the station should be able to be cut off for construction.

If there's no other option, you could build the actual station on the daycare a block north and connect the station with the Arbutus station. This is similar to the situation with Commerical-Broadway, which was also not designed to be connected to the Millennium Line.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The Lawsuits weren't about the technology but how it was done (all sections at once)
Also, City of Vancouver residents were pretty supportive in the referendum. It was a tax revolt off a population already pissed off about sales taxes after HST, and a suburbanite population pissed at TransLink for 'bad service' and 'inefficiency'.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ents-1.3134857

---

I know, that's why I said elevated. South of 16th is narrow too if you want to fit in a station as well as tracks and pathways.

West 6th Ave actually has the road narrowed to 2 lanes if you look closely.

I never said Hastings wasn't high priority. I said the DTES was the big reason why Hastings may be ignored, along with Suburban prioritization. https://globalnews.ca/news/3739683/t...strian-safety/
If you want goodwill, avoiding cut-and-cover seems to be less a deal than getting better transit out to the suburbs.
OFC you sacrifice efficiency. But it seems to be consistent with TransLink/BC Transit's history when building RT lines- build the lines that are more politically convenient first, even if you have the money to build the more expensive and less politically convenient but more necessary one instead or simultaneously (and we might if the Cure Congestion (https://www.curecongestion.ca/wp-con...n-Platform.pdf) movement succeeds).
Hastings has actually been considered the best or 2nd best (depending on the study) corridor for RT since the 70s. We still haven't got it. I'm not holding my breath. If History teaches us anything, we might just be getting everything BUT Hastings.
https://voony.wordpress.com/2010/03/...ansit-in-1970/

Logistically, attaching an Underground station isn't any easier. Plus, the station is going to be under-capacity once the extension to UBC goes through, meaning parts of the station should be able to be cut off for construction.

If there's no other option, you could build the actual station on the daycare a block north and connect the station with the Arbutus station. This is similar to the situation with Commerical-Broadway, which was also not designed to be connected to the Millennium Line.

Right, and we're talking about the political fallout for how it was done.

That's a 51% disapproval rating in the CoV; Bowen Island and Lions Bay are the only ones who went positive. The "bad service/corruption/inefficiency" misinformation was prevalent through the metro - even I drank the Kool Aid for a month or two, before finding actual numbers - and it cost the TransLink CEO his job, so nobody should underestimate the power of bad press.

---

Correct, one of the streetcar lanes will be running directly on 6th... luckily, it's a pretty dead road most of the time.

You also said that CnC for Hastings might save money. Yes, but it'd likely hurt everybody who had anything to do with the decision in return for (relatively) minimal cost savings, and downtown would likely have to be bored anyway. Best you could do is bore until Boundary and dig the rest, kind of like what they did with the Canada Line.

I'm not seeing any kind of world where Port Coq or White Rock takes political priority; Vancouver, Burnaby and both North Van munis have a stake in building a Hastings Line, DTES or not.

Pretty sure that daycare is also going up for sale... and that a curved elevated station is probably a bad idea. Don't forget that there's still a Greenway to think about.
Sure, an underground entrance still takes up space, but not necessarily much surface space. Hell, in the case of Broadway, it could just connect to the Millennium's entrance (possibly add a second elsewhere) and call it a day.

[officedweller]

As a side note, one advantage to cut and cover is that you can have stations close to the surface, so fewer/shorter escalators and faster access to the platforms.

[DKaz]

I decided to end the transit fantasies in the Metro Vancouver Transit thread.

Back in the early 2000s, I envisioned a loop line inspired by Tokyo's Yamanote Line that would start downtown, go down Arbutus to 41st, cut east to Metrotown, up to Hastings, then back downtown. This would relieve and provide good redudancy for 3 lines now.

Would also love to see express service on the Expo Line but it's an expensive proposition. Tokyo's Chuo Line manages to do an express service with just a twin set of tracks by building stations that have 3 or 4 platforms and having the express trains leap frog the local trains every 4 or 5 stations. The major transfer stations here would be Commercial-Broadway, Metrotown, and Columbia. It's not a capacity adding initiative but rather just make the trips 6-8 minutes shorter for those commuting long distances which would be huge, although you are increasing dwell times for local commuters maybe by a minute per transfer station. The restriction of making the trains more frequent is the time it takes for the express trains to catch up with the local trains.

NOW    Expo Line LOCAL   Surrey Central
3 Min  Expo Line EXPRESS Langley
4 Min  Expo Line LOCAL   Production Way-University
6 Min  Expo Line LOCAL   Surrey Central
9 Min  Expo Line EXPRESS Langley
10 Min Expo Line LOCAL   Production Way-University

Increasing the frequency would be possible by adding more bypasses say at Edmonds and 29th Ave Stations (both at grade, easy stations to build bypasses around), but at a cost of further increasing dwell times of local trains at these bypass stations by a minute each. We're maximizing the 108 second minimum average headways between trains with this option.

NOW   Expo Line LOCAL   Surrey Central
2 Min Expo Line LOCAL   Production Way University
4 Min Expo Line EXPRESS Langley
5 Min Expo Line LOCAL   Surrey Central
7 Min Expo Line LOCAL   Production Way-University
9 Min Expo Line EXPRESS Langley

I do remember the problem with trains bunching up when they ran 108 second or better headways though so maybe there's no point.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by DKaz

I decided to end the transit fantasies in the Metro Vancouver Transit thread.

Back in the early 2000s, I envisioned a loop line inspired by Tokyo's Yamanote Line that would start downtown, go down Arbutus to 41st, cut east to Metrotown, up to Hastings, then back downtown. This would relieve and provide good redudancy for 3 lines now.

Would also love to see express service on the Expo Line but it's an expensive proposition. Tokyo's Chuo Line manages to do an express service with just a twin set of tracks by building stations that have 3 or 4 platforms and having the express trains leap frog the local trains every 4 or 5 stations. The major transfer stations here would be Commercial-Broadway, Metrotown, and Columbia. It's not a capacity adding initiative but rather just make the trips 6-8 minutes shorter for those commuting long distances which would be huge, although you are increasing dwell times for local commuters maybe by a minute per transfer station. The restriction of making the trains more frequent is the time it takes for the express trains to catch up with the local trains.

NOW    Expo Line LOCAL   Surrey Central
3 Min  Expo Line EXPRESS Langley
4 Min  Expo Line LOCAL   Production Way-University
6 Min  Expo Line LOCAL   Surrey Central
9 Min  Expo Line EXPRESS Langley
10 Min Expo Line LOCAL   Production Way-University

Increasing the frequency would be possible by adding more bypasses say at Edmonds and 29th Ave Stations (both at grade, easy stations to build bypasses around), but at a cost of further increasing dwell times of local trains at these bypass stations by a minute each. We're maximizing the 108 second minimum average headways between trains with this option.

NOW   Expo Line LOCAL   Surrey Central
2 Min Expo Line LOCAL   Production Way University
4 Min Expo Line EXPRESS Langley
5 Min Expo Line LOCAL   Surrey Central
7 Min Expo Line LOCAL   Production Way-University
9 Min Expo Line EXPRESS Langley

I do remember the problem with trains bunching up when they ran 108 second or better headways though so maybe there's no point.

If the trains are already running at or near the minimum headway for capacity reasons, wouldn't you need a bypass for the express train to pass more frequently than that? Skipping a station would save about a minute so it only takes a couple of skips to catch up to the train ahead.

On the other hand you could do A/B style skip-stop service without adding any bypass tracks as long as the A and B stations are adjacent. That's not as effective (or as intuitive) as express service though.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Right, and we're talking about the political fallout for how it was done.

That's a 51% disapproval rating in the CoV; Bowen Island and Lions Bay are the only ones who went positive. The "bad service/corruption/inefficiency" misinformation was prevalent through the metro - even I drank the Kool Aid for a month or two, before finding actual numbers - and it cost the TransLink CEO his job, so nobody should underestimate the power of bad press.

---

Correct, one of the streetcar lanes will be running directly on 6th... luckily, it's a pretty dead road most of the time.

You also said that CnC for Hastings might save money. Yes, but it'd likely hurt everybody who had anything to do with the decision in return for (relatively) minimal cost savings, and downtown would likely have to be bored anyway. Best you could do is bore until Boundary and dig the rest, kind of like what they did with the Canada Line.

I'm not seeing any kind of world where Port Coq or White Rock takes political priority; Vancouver, Burnaby and both North Van munis have a stake in building a Hastings Line, DTES or not.

Pretty sure that daycare is also going up for sale... and that a curved elevated station is probably a bad idea. Don't forget that there's still a Greenway to think about.
Sure, an underground entrance still takes up space, but not necessarily much surface space. Hell, in the case of Broadway, it could just connect to the Millennium's entrance (possibly add a second elsewhere) and call it a day.

It's still literally the best of any of the major municipalities. Did anyone outside the Cambie Corridor actually get that mad about it, let alone years later? Even with bad press. TransLink gets bad press over disruptions all the time, only for people to forget about it months later.
Not to mention, Hastings east of Victoria is generally a place people tend to avoid.


The current plans have this section off-street. The street is clearly narrowed to support the streetcar.


Also, can you delete the references to the 'first post' thing on your post here? https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/sho...postcount=1892

[scryer]

Hey Guys,

So I went through the pages of LRT (specifically the Arbutus line) discussion. I just want to be clear on my understanding of the Arbutus + downtown line speculations:

- There's no way to make the LRT grade separated for major sections along the Arbutus greenway so it has to cross traffic (not a big deal IMO).

- The Arbutus Greenway from Broadway to W. 16th is pretty skinny so having it shared with bike or pedestrian paths is hard to do (maybe even impossible) unless significant fencing is involved. So we essentially lose a bike lane which will piss off the NIMBYs.

- I'm still a little unclear about the transition from the Arbutus Greenway to W.6Th/Lameys Mill Rd adjacency (sorry!)... Would the Arbutus line be grade-separated to cross from Arbutus/Fir Street to run adjacent/in-between W.6th and Lameys Mill taking over the abandoned tracks?

- Next, how would the line connect to the Main Street-Science World Skytrain station? Do you think that there would be an opportunity for a smooth transition for passengers between the two different modes of transit? Or is it just going to be a stop in the median with the idea that passengers will cross the street?

- I'm also still a little confused about the most feasible route that the LRT would take to get to Waterfront. I know that it would all be traffic integrated but would it be along Main or maybe Carrall street?

- Lastly I'm also wondering about the connection to Waterfront Station. Is it feasible to get it underground or on a similar level to the Expo Line tracks or is the connection going to be at street level along West Cordova street?

Sorry for my ignorance; some of this was lost on me throughout the discussion.

[waves]

I think what bothers me here about a "relief line" or "downtown streetcars" or "skytrain to the west end" is that the SkyTrain lines (incl. Canada Line) in Metro Vancouver are set up as the inter-regional backbone to our public transportation network. They are the "highways" of our public transit system, yet still, parts of are region are not connected with one. If a "relief" line comes in before Skytrain extends to Lonsdale I will be very annoyed. It'd be akin to deciding that False Creek needs a fourth bridge before the North Shore gets a third crossing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

It's still literally the best of any of the major municipalities. Did anyone outside the Cambie Corridor actually get that mad about it, let alone years later? Even with bad press. TransLink gets bad press over disruptions all the time, only for people to forget about it months later.
Not to mention, Hastings east of Victoria is generally a place people tend to avoid.


The current plans have this section off-street. The street is clearly narrowed to support the streetcar.

And it's still less than half; "supportive" indicates at least 60+, like the 68% approval rating taken that same year. Of note is that TransLink's approval rating in '09 was even lower.
Yet many people still use Hastings in spite of that. They only need to drive through the DTES.

That's another option that was discussed. Either way, that part of the Greenway is too narrow for anything above ground - not without hogging the road as well.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

Hey Guys,

So I went through the pages of LRT (specifically the Arbutus line) discussion. I just want to be clear on my understanding of the Arbutus + downtown line speculations:

- There's no way to make the LRT grade separated for major sections along the Arbutus greenway so it has to cross traffic (not a big deal IMO).

- The Arbutus Greenway from Broadway to W. 16th is pretty skinny so having it shared with bike or pedestrian paths is hard to do (maybe even impossible) unless significant fencing is involved. So we essentially lose a bike lane which will piss off the NIMBYs.

- I'm still a little unclear about the transition from the Arbutus Greenway to W.6Th/Lameys Mill Rd adjacency (sorry!)... Would the Arbutus line be grade-separated to cross from Arbutus/Fir Street to run adjacent/in-between W.6th and Lameys Mill taking over the abandoned tracks?

- Next, how would the line connect to the Main Street-Science World Skytrain station? Do you think that there would be an opportunity for a smooth transition for passengers between the two different modes of transit? Or is it just going to be a stop in the median with the idea that passengers will cross the street?

- I'm also still a little confused about the most feasible route that the LRT would take to get to Waterfront. I know that it would all be traffic integrated but would it be along Main or maybe Carrall street?

- Lastly I'm also wondering about the connection to Waterfront Station. Is it feasible to get it underground or on a similar level to the Expo Line tracks or is the connection going to be at street level along West Cordova street?

Sorry for my ignorance; some of this was lost on me throughout the discussion.

This might clear things up (start on page 8).

Long story short:
A) There's limited room for a viaduct. Whether or not there's room for a tunnel, the City is not considering any (TransLink might). The current plan for 16th-Broadway is for the NB track to weave off the Greenway and onto Arbutus, which is by most accounts a Very Bad Idea.
B) Past 6th, the plan is to use Fir, then 2nd, then the trenched ROW, then the median on 1st.
C) From there, nobody knows - not even the City, one suspects. IMO it should be the westermost SB lanes down Quebec (possibly a trench under Pacific), then close off Water and a piece of Alexander and continue from there.

Originally Posted by waves

I think what bothers me here about a "relief line" or "downtown streetcars" or "skytrain to the west end" is that the SkyTrain lines (incl. Canada Line) in Metro Vancouver are set up as the inter-regional backbone to our public transportation network. They are the "highways" of our public transit system, yet still, parts of are region are not connected with one. If a "relief" line comes in before Skytrain extends to Lonsdale I will be very annoyed. It'd be akin to deciding that False Creek needs a fourth bridge before the North Shore gets a third crossing.

For the streetcar, the ballpark estimate at the last open house was less than a billion (roughly the same as the SFU gondola), so we can probably cram it in as a side project instead of a main.

For the Hastings/West End Line, I should remind the thread that we need to keep expanding the core at the same time as the arms.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by scryer

Hey Guys,

So I went through the pages of LRT (specifically the Arbutus line) discussion. I just want to be clear on my understanding of the Arbutus + downtown line speculations:

- There's no way to make the LRT grade separated for major sections along the Arbutus greenway so it has to cross traffic (not a big deal IMO).

There is a way to get LRT grade separated. Make it Skytrain.

I'm not seeing any kind of world where Port Coq or White Rock takes political priority; Vancouver, Burnaby and both North Van munis have a stake in building a Hastings Line, DTES or not.

This is what I mean by the fact the suburbs would likely be higher priority mostly for Skytrain than the City, excepting capacity.

Originally Posted by waves

I think what bothers me here about a "relief line" or "downtown streetcars" or "skytrain to the west end" is that the SkyTrain lines (incl. Canada Line) in Metro Vancouver are set up as the inter-regional backbone to our public transportation network. They are the "highways" of our public transit system, yet still, parts of are region are not connected with one. If a "relief" line comes in before Skytrain extends to Lonsdale I will be very annoyed. It'd be akin to deciding that False Creek needs a fourth bridge before the North Shore gets a third crossing.

Also, I really don't think people are going to be happy about that line of logic. "Hey, we know we can afford to connect you guys directly with Skytrain, but we're just going to build a Hastings+West End Subway first, instead. Don't worry, it'll improve bus service in your region (NS) too!"
Let's face it. That's not going to appease them. At all.

Also: the History of Skytrain, if we assumed the Canada Line was built when it was originally intended to (ie. no Olympics):
1. Expo Line
2. Expo Line Extn. to Surrey (Suburban)
[Cancelled] Expo Line Extn. to Coquitlam/Lougheed (Suburban)

3. Millennium Line Ph 1 (Suburban)
4. Millennium Line Ph 2- Coquitlam (Suburban)
4. Millennium Line Ph 2- Broadway (Urban)
5. Canada Line (Urban-Suburban)

6. Langley Skytrain Extension (Suburban)
6. SNG Line? (Suburban)

The Suburban lines are the ones that went first once the new transit plans were drafted (each paragraph space). One of the Urban ones were built because TransLink literally had to. The other went to an airport. Even then, it was the last on the list until the Olympics screwed everything up.

Is the historical priority of TransLink to get suburban lines built first bad overall? Maybe. But I'm projecting that strategy out to the future.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And it's still less than half; "supportive" indicates at least 60+, like the 68% approval rating taken that same year. Of note is that TransLink's approval rating in '09 was even lower.
Yet many people still use Hastings in spite of that. They only need to drive through the DTES.

That's another option that was discussed. Either way, that part of the Greenway is too narrow for anything above ground - not without hogging the road as well.

The problem is really the businesses though, not so much drivers. So your point is moot.

Would TransLink take control of the project once it's built (Artubus and Streetcar?)

[Migrant_Coconut]

But that argument only extends so far, otherwise people would still be shouting down the Broadway extension. "Why should Vancouver get another SkyTrain when (insert suburb here) doesn't even have one, huh?" - you saw one of those types in almost every comment section back in the early 2010s. The answer is the same: if we increase capacity on the outskirts before increasing capacity in the centre, all we're doing is shifting the bottleneck further up the line.

If we build waves' Lonsdale line first, we're going to see bottlenecks on the Expo and the 95/R5; Port Coq first, the Expo and the Millennium. Commercial-Broadway will very likely resemble a Tokyo train either way.

Not to mention that Hastings is likely to become the new Broadway with the densest express bus routes - TransLink will point at the 95/R5 ridership, point at North Van/Port Coq/White Rock's ridership, and rest their case. As somebody who would directly benefit from both a Lonsdale and a Marine SkyTrain, Hastings should go first.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The problem is really the businesses though, not so much drivers. So your point is moot.

Would TransLink take control of the project once it's built (Artubus and Streetcar?)

Commuters (drivers and riders) got dinged just as much by cut n' cover as businesses did. Nobody wants a repeat of that - even more so, because there's TransCanada traffic too.

More likely is that TransLink will have control of all route planning and construction. The City knows that they're best at providing the space, and then getting out of the way.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This might clear things up (start on page 8).

Going into my favourites . Thank you!

There is a way to get LRT grade separated. Make it Skytrain.

Lol, if I could, I would .

For the streetcar, the ballpark estimate at the last open house was less than a billion (roughly the same as the SFU gondola), so we can probably cram it in as a side project instead of a main.

And that's what makes this project realistic to build is that we already have a huge right-of-way (Arbutus Greenway) spaced out to accommodate most of the track and it wouldn't cost nearly as much as Skytrain. For me to really get behind this, it would have to be a side-project as you said or in conjunction with the SFU Gondola.

My priorities (since I know that everyone is wondering):

1. Millennium Extension to UBC
2. Expo Extension to Langley
3. Hasting Extension
4. SFU Gondola/Arbutus - Downtown Streetcar

[Bdawe]

I have....bus fantasies



1) The 23 Brentwood/Beach

On the East End, run the 23 (with conventional buses) east from Main Street Station along Terminal 1st Avenue, and looping via Douglas and Halifax through Brentwood to offer a direct East - West connection through fairly populous and high ridership areas, while relieving the busiest segment of the Expo Line, and improving transit access to False Creek Flats

On the West End, run the 23 through to Second Beach, increasing recreational access to Stanley Park. You could construct a small turning facility in the parking lots



2) The 7 Musqueam

It would be a relatively trivial amount of trolley wire to extend the 7 down Dunbar and over into Musqueam (about 2.5 km) but would considerably increase transit access to Musqueam residents with a direct route downtown and quick connections to crosstown routes on 49th and 41st. The route could terminal looping around the Musqueam Cultural Centre by way of Musquam Avenue and Mali Avenue. The area is certainly not the richest, and would likely have fairly high ridership for the population.


3) The 9 to Gilmore or Brentwood

Boundary Loop's concrete by the highway overpass is simply a bad place to terminate a bus, and if it weren't for trolley wire terminating there due to the sparseness of 1950s Burnaby, it would have been extended to a more natural terminus long ago. It's just another 1-2 kilometers of trolley wire, similar to the extension of the Kingsway wires to Metrotown when the Expo Line opened, and with trolley-hater Corrigan gone in Burnaby it might even be politically viable now.