North Shore Rapid Transit | Park Royal-Metrotown via 2nd Narrows | BRT/RRT

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Was Port Mann really at the end of its life before being replaced?

Theoretically no, but the bridge had some issues after it was built. It kind of sank in the middle or something.

The idea of a train + vehicle bridge is always great but it never seems to play out in reality.

If we want a 3rd crossing that is rapid transit, let's just do it. It will be near the IWMB anyway because that's the narrow part. The second narrows, if you will.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If we want a 3rd crossing that is rapid transit, let's just do it. It will be near the IWMB anyway because that's the narrow part. The second narrows, if you will.

I'm not going to go over Norgate again and how it's the superior option, but I'd still point out that the ISMB is not optimal regardless of the crossing selection.



Other than the Thornton Tunnel problem, there's the fact that electrified 3rd rails and normal roadbeds do not mix at all (unlike LRT or BRT) and would require a special 'bed' section.

Also, there's probably very limited actual cost savings from using IWMB for SkyTrain, even if it was completely free.
SkyBridge only cost $60M in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The crossing itself isn't even anywhere near the main cost item.
That's getting to and from the crossing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

There really isn't a "cheap" way to get SkyTrain across Burrard Inlet. All three North Shore munis (who'd benefit from a crossing most) have stated preference for Phibbs though, and Norgate sucks in comparison to other options, so that narrows it down.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

There really isn't a "cheap" way to get SkyTrain across Burrard Inlet. All three North Shore munis (who'd benefit from a crossing most) have stated preference for Phibbs though, and Norgate sucks in comparison to other options, so that narrows it down.

Just make a dedicated bridge, and you have the freedom to choose, Norgate or not.
Major Squamish Nation developments would favor Norgate over Phibbs (which is a YIMBY as CNV), but whatever.

Going east of 2nd Narrows allows you to hit Maplewood instead of the Kootenay Loop as well.

Point is, there's very little reason to tie yourself to 1 crossing/bridge.
A $100M savings is not going to make a major difference. Just make a dedicated bridge.

[Migrant_Coconut]

A separate bridge is what they’re likely doing, assuming they let the IWMB run its clock down. Above-grade through Stanley Park and over harbour traffic is a non-starter; the Squamish reserves would more or less be covered by either alignment, but whatever.

I suspect environmental reviews and/or property disputes with the existing industries make Maplewood a bad choice too. With Phibbs, it’s “just” jumping over Second Narrows and landing at Railway Street.

[Changing City]

duplicate

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A separate bridge is what they’re likely doing, assuming they let the IWMB run its clock down. Above-grade through Stanley Park and over harbour traffic is a non-starter; the Squamish reserves would more or less be covered by either alignment, but whatever.

I suspect environmental reviews and/or property disputes with the existing industries make Maplewood a bad choice too. With Phibbs, it’s “just” jumping over Second Narrows and landing at Railway Street.

Again, the Minister in not talking about running the clock down. He's talking about 'a bridge'. Replacement. Including transit.

"Transportation Minister Rob Fleming says the province is looking at replacing the Ironworkers Memorial Second Narrows Crossing.

Speaking on Wednesday, Fleming says there’s not yet a timeline for the project, adding the bridge has plenty of life left in it.

But he says the province needs to work ahead and collaborate with the local cities and their mayors.

“It used to be a lot of saber-rattling. A lot of, you know, power-tripping between the province and mayors in this region, and it didn’t work. So, that’s not the approach we’re going to take on the North Shore,” he told CityNews partner, OMNI News.

“It’s in reasonably good shape. It’s not end-of-life, but it’s not currently configured to allow us to have rapid transit uses on that bridge. So, we’re interested in looking at that we’re talking with both the mayors of the district and the City of North Vancouver,” he said.

Whatever happens, Fleming says it will likely be a new bridge crossing the Burrard Inlet, as opposed to a tunnel"

CityNews

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Port Mann, George Massey, Golden Ears et al are each supposed to be compatible with train service...

Why do people keep saying this when it's not true?

The Wikipedia article for the Port Mann bridge even says this and has references, but the references say nothing about rail, only about BRT.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Why do people keep saying this when it's not true?

The Wikipedia article for the Port Mann bridge even says this and has references, but the references say nothing about rail, only about BRT.

The Port Mann is:

In addition to RapidBus service, the new bridge will be built to accommodate potential light rail rapid transit at a future date.

https://www.infrastructurebc.com/fil...4March2011.pdf

So is the Pitt River Bridge:

The new bridge, will have six through lanes, with the ability to accomodate two additional lanes in
the future that could be used for such things as light rail transit or other lane use options.

https://www.infrastructurebc.com/pdf...014-dec-05.pdf

The Massey Tunnel replacement doesn't from the released information and I can't see anything suggesting the golden ears can.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Why do people keep saying this when it's not true?

The Wikipedia article for the Port Mann bridge even says this and has references, but the references say nothing about rail, only about BRT.

"Ability to accommodate future light rail rapid transit expansion across a new Port Mann Bridge."

But I didn't find any reference on whether the final project included this.

[officedweller]

It was never clear HOW the new Port Mann Bridge could accommodate a light rail line.
The assumption is that it could be built in one of the existing traffic lanes on the bridge deck (i.e. that the bridge deck is not too steep).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Ditto the George Massey Bridge.

The reference 10-lane concept for the George Massey Bridge from 2016 included HOV / transit lanes over the entire 24km length of the Highway 99 corridor and transit stations in the centre of the highway – to allow for possible future LRT capability.

Like I said, every government that builds a bridge uses "train lanes" as a selling point, but it never actually makes it past brainstorming, so I'll remain equally suspicious of this bridge too.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Again, the Minister in not talking about running the clock down. He's talking about 'a bridge'. Replacement. Including transit...

"... Whatever happens, Fleming says it will likely be a new bridge crossing the Burrard Inlet, as opposed to a tunnel"

I'm not disagreeing. It was part of the idea that IF an IWMB replacement is rejected (they're "looking" at it, implying the possibility of it not happening), the only alternative is a dedicated SkyBridge.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ditto the George Massey Bridge.



Like I said, every government that builds a bridge uses "train lanes" as a selling point, but it never actually makes it past brainstorming, so I'll remain equally suspicious of this bridge too.



I'm not disagreeing. It was part of the idea that IF an IWMB replacement is rejected (they're "looking" at it, implying the possibility of it not happening), the only alternative is a dedicated SkyBridge.

LRT can probably be put on those bridges with very little change vs the current HOV, and especially vs the more specialized tracks of SkyTrain.

[Bobert]

How sure are we north shore RT is next after surrey-langley? werent there some musings recently that it was off the table

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i personally doubt there will be one after Langley (UBCx being the exception).

we dont really *need* a north shore one. its a nice luxury but would cost an astronomical amount of $$$

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i personally doubt there will be one after Langley (UBCx being the exception).

we dont really *need* a north shore one. its a nice luxury but would cost an astronomical amount of $$$

Tell that to @Migrant.

I agree with you that there are probably 3 or 4 lines that would go first before NS due to low relative demand and development potential.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Bobert

How sure are we north shore RT is next after surrey-langley? werent there some musings recently that it was off the table

It and UBC are being studied, and that's well ahead of all the other possible extensions. The only alternate outcome is that we take a break from rapid transit for the next two election cycles (probably not).

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

... we dont really *need* a north shore one. its a nice luxury but would cost an astronomical amount of $$$

Sure, but by that definition, we don't really need another SkyTrain at all - no other project has as much demand as UBCx or the SLS, and they'd all be fairly expensive.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, but by that definition, we don't really need another SkyTrain at all - no other project has as much demand as UBCx or the SLS, and they'd all be fairly expensive.

That’s dumb.

Again, NS is the lowest demand and demand growth on the current preliminary list of future lines when you remove the Hastings and Willingdon corridors.



If the Upper Levels is widened to 6-8 lanes as well (along with other road improvements that would go along with it, like improving overall east-west connectivity with bridges over the creeks), that’s probably the end of the current wide political push for rapid transit from NS municipalities (or at least cripple it), since there would be express buses on the Upper Levels, and congestion would be less of an issue.

IWMB expansion is not really a benefit for NS trains, it’s mostly a threat.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Still ahead of Scott Road and Maple Ridge, and there's a 99.999% chance Future thinks those ones shouldn't go ahead either.

No, because an extra 2-4 lanes plus a bridge plus upgrades to Cassiar for the same price as a SkyTrain A) skips almost all the places people want to get to, B) still isn't enough capacity to get everybody on and off the North Shore and C) does nothing to address trips inside the North Shore itself; if anything, NS trains are threatening the highway.

[madog222]

I really don't see a new road & rail bridge happening, well not without a change in provincial government at least. None of the local municipalities seem to want increased car capacity (they want transit) and replacing like for like car capacity when the bridge still has decades left doesn't make much sense.

“[The ministry] anticipates that, with proper maintenance and regular rehabilitation, the Ironworkers bridge has probably up to 45 remaining years of serviceable life in it,” [Bowinn Ma] said.

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/l...D%20she%20said.