Arbutus: Greenway & Future Streetcar | Proposed

[casper]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I'm all for privatisation where it makes sense, though there are some problems. Tokyo Osaka and HK are always brought up but, they are all incredibly dense across quite large areas compared to Vancouver making transit a more profitianle endeavour.

Interesting to bring up TOD, iirc MTR is as much a dev company as it is a transit company.

Another historic example in Vancouver is the Lions Gate Bridge. It was built by a property developer trying to sell land on the north shore.

I would love to see the water taxi integrated into the compass card system. Single card, you put some fare-gates at each of piers. The operator can toss on an extra surcharge (similar to the one at the airport).

[Tourist9394]

Didn't NDP ex-premier Michael Harcourt recommend Arbutus Light Rail to be built? Lots of speculators aka Fresh off the boat immigrants are pro-development, these are not the NIMBY camp that is showing up at the consultations. Many of the old folks NIMBY are selling off their lots around Arbutus corridor area because they are Babyboomers as well, and these babyboomers need to unlock house value to fund their vacations in Latin America.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Remember, our rail system (BC Electric) used to be Private as well.

If we ended subsidies for driving I could see private rail operators being viable again. Sadly that won't happen any time soon.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Jebby

If we ended subsidies for driving I could see private rail operators being viable again. Sadly that won't happen any time soon.

You mean for roads? Japan has a WAY more extensive expressway than BC has... even per capita. They do have toll roads, mind you.

Pay parking is everywhere. Tolls are a visible reminder of the costs of driving. Building it into the price of gas is something, but direct tolling is usually pretty effective. Also, it's typical for a Japanese employer to pay for transit to get to work. If that became standard here, you'd find people weighing the cost of effectively "FREE" transit vs. paying their own way more carefully.

Some employers partially subsidize transit here, but in Japan... it's pretty much the norm.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

You mean for roads? Japan has a WAY more extensive expressway than BC has... even per capita. They do have toll roads, mind you.

Pay parking is everywhere. Tolls are a visible reminder of the costs of driving. Building it into the price of gas is something, but direct tolling is usually pretty effective. Also, it's typical for a Japanese employer to pay for transit to get to work. If that became standard here, you'd find people weighing the cost of effectively "FREE" transit vs. paying their own way more carefully.

Some employers partially subsidize transit here, but in Japan... it's pretty much the norm.

Japan's gas tax is over twice that of Canada's, for example. Japan also has waaaay more tolled roads than BC.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[jlousa]

Kinda hard for the Japanese to cross the border and fill up with cheaper gas. We need to keep things in context, gas tax is the easiest to raise and collect and it penalizes that that drive larger vehicles and those that drive during rush hour, all the things we want to control. Problem is if we raise them too much people do and will cross the border into the states to fill up, or drive east to avoid the translink tax.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

You mean for roads? Japan has a WAY more extensive expressway than BC has... even per capita. They do have toll roads, mind you.

Pay parking is everywhere. Tolls are a visible reminder of the costs of driving. Building it into the price of gas is something, but direct tolling is usually pretty effective. Also, it's typical for a Japanese employer to pay for transit to get to work. If that became standard here, you'd find people weighing the cost of effectively "FREE" transit vs. paying their own way more carefully.

Some employers partially subsidize transit here, but in Japan... it's pretty much the norm.

Japan has a fantastic freeway network, it can take you to any corner of the country, but yes, nearly all free-flow roads are tolled. On average it costs between 1 to 2 dollars per 10 KM (depending on the day and whether or not you have a transponder).

The funny thing is, the cost of using the freeway can actually be cheaper than going to the same detonation by train, especially if you are going with multiple people (example, I often go to my wife's parent's house about 120 km south from where I live. Driving on the freeway is about 12 dollars each way while the train is a much higher 28 dollars. Since I have a free place to park at their house, driving makes way more sense in this situation.)

Japanese companies do indeed pay for your transit, something that should be introduced into BC. But, many also pay for you to drive. For example, my car is a company car, and they give me a monthly gas allowance. Also, if i have a special assignment, they will also cover my toll road expenses.

Essentially getting around by train or car in Japan is pretty easy. The only challenging part for using a car is parking in the big cities.

Also it should be noted that the base of the Japanese railway system has been built with government money. A lot of privatization has happened here (including the post office about 10 years ago) which I don't think is the best idea. Rail projects while now technically are "private" they are still massively subsidized.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I think the situation in Japan still speaks volumes, really what we should aim for is for all modes to be fantastic. It's just that our transit needs to catch up alot, (maybe even our roads too).

Our anime as well.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

I think the spur is dead meat due to the Squamish Towers proposed next to the Burrard Bridge, sadly. It's far more likely, and in my opinion preferable, for the Arbutus line to find a way to go directly to the Granville Island station and then on to Olympic Village.

Also, you need a stop at Marine and Hudson, for the bus depot operators, and for the neighbourhood that's growing on Hudson (one of the designated areas in the Marpole Community Plan). Other than that, I love your map!

Another challenge is figuring out how to make the line towards River District a through-service at Marine Station, while also giving passengers a connection a reasonable walking distance from the Skytrain. I imagine they'll have to make a single track run up to the bus loop, or a double track that runs up along Marine to the station and down along Yukon towards the rail ROW again. The Docksteader Subaru redevelopment would have to help with this, so hopefully they can get a plan in place before that redevelopment happens. In any case, it's really convenient to have the ROW running all the way to River District. The 100 has a ton of ridership going to and from Marine Station. I guess the other challenge, though, would be figuring out how to connect the N-S arterial buses to the rail ROW in order to facilitate transfers. I'm thinking the 3, the 8, the 22, and the 20, all of which would be very difficult. On top of that, the buses servicing the River District need a complete reworking as well. But there are great opportunities.

Nice. It pisses me off to no end that the current Mayor & Council poo-pooed the Downtown-OV streetcar in favour of blowing money taking down the viaducts. That would have been an essential first step in your plan. Once it reached Granville Island, extending to Arbutus would have been an easy sell to meet an extended Skytrain.

Not sure about the SW Marine portion, not much residential there or likely to be.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nice. It pisses me off to no end that the current Mayor & Council poo-pooed the Downtown-OV streetcar in favour of blowing money taking down the viaducts. That would have been an essential first step in your plan. Once it reached Granville Island, extending to Arbutus would have been an easy sell to meet an extended Skytrain.

It's probably better to demolish the viaducts before installing overhead wires, lest they get in each other's way later on. Developing NEFC first also gives the streetcar more ridership.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Japan's gas tax is over twice that of Canada's, for example. Japan also has waaaay more tolled roads than BC.

Japan sets taxes differently. It's more regulated as I understand it... so prices don't fluctuate as much. That being said... price at the pump is comparable to BC when I've gone. It's a bit more expensive than BC, like $1.50/L or so with the current exchange.

[Feathered Friend]

The consultation report is out

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/arbutu...march-2017.pdf

What is your vision for the Arbutus Greenway? What do you hope it will become?
Summary of Findings
• Of all the individuals who completed the City of Vancouver’s Arbutus Greenway
survey, 2,352 respondents chose to submit a more detailed comment to the openended
question in the survey: “Question 5: What is your vision for the Arbutus
Greenway? What do you hope it will become?” All these responses were closely
reviewed and grouped into different coding categories.
Use
• A large number of respondents commented on the need for the path to be available
for walking as well as cycling. Though most saw a need for a cycling thoroughfare,
there were others who strongly felt the city does not need to create any more bike
lanes. There were a number of comments expressing a desire for separated lanes in
order to ensure safety for both cyclists and pedestrians.
• Many respondents stated they liked the streetcar plan or the idea of enhanced public
transportation in the corridor; however, there were some who felt it was unnecessary.
Some expressed frustration and confusion regarding removal of the tracks if some
kind of future rail transit was being considered.
• Many expressed a desire for the greenway to have public gathering spaces where
socializing and events, such as festivals and farmer’s markets, could be held. Some
suggested design based on open European plazas.
• A number of respondents saw potential for the greenway to be a place of exercise
and recreation. That included activities such as running or cycling. Many also
suggested implementing exercise equipment such as chin-up bars.
• Many emphasized their enjoyment of the community gardens and expressed
their hope these would be included in the development of the greenway. Reasons
included beautification, food security issues, and the opportunity to educate people
about growing food sustainably.
• Some respondents felt use of the corridor should be limited to humans and humanpowered
vehicles only (i.e. car-free). Many saw potential for the greenway to become
a tourist attraction and encouraged the City to create something unique and worldclass.
• There were some comments regarding the importance of availability of playgrounds
for children.
• The final mentions in the usage category were regarding the issue of affordable
housing in the City and suggestions that some be implemented along the corridor.
Some respondents expressed concern that this issue did not seem to be as high a
priority as the greenway.
Experience
• The majority of comments in this category expressed a desire to preserve the nature
and ecosystems of the corridor.
• These were followed by encouragement to make it safe, such as for women to use
alone at night and for both cyclists and pedestrians to share.
Consultation Summary Report | Page 23
• Many commented on a desire for a place of tranquility and calm within the city.
• Finally, some respondents suggested honouring local history, including the rail
history of the area and Indigenous history, through plaques and other educational
opportunities.
Site Planning and Design
• In category of design and site planning, the majority of comments were regarding
suggested amenities. These included benches, lighting, and small businesses along
the greenway. Many emphasized the importance of places to sit and places to get a
drink or snack, though there were others who preferred to keep the greenway totally
free of commercial enterprise.
• There were also a number of comments on landscaping, almost all of which hoped
for the natural (and in many cases, wildlife-friendly) environment to get top priority.
• There were a number of comments on public art, most of which were hopeful this
would be incorporated into the design. Some suggested the opportunity to profile
local artists. Many respondents stated their appreciation for the High Line in New
York and expressed a desire for something similar, though a minority encouraged the
City to do something original.
• Many saw the corridor as a convenient north-south route across the city. Many also
emphasized the need for the greenway to connect different neighbourhoods.
• In addition, a number of respondents expressed a desire that the greenway be
accessible to those of all ages and abilities.

It's disappointing to see such low turnout numbers (only 260 for the open houses) for such an important project. I expect many of us on here came out to the consultation, or at least I would hope so, given how many pages this topic has lead to.
At least the city is bound and determined to have a transit corridor here.

1. INTRODUCTION
The Arbutus Greenway is a future, north-south transportation corridor that will connect
people, parks, and communities, from False Creek to the Fraser River. In 2016, the City of
Vancouver purchased 42 acres of land from Canadian Pacific Railway for the purpose of
creating a high-quality public space for walking, cycling, and future streetcar.
One of the requirements of the purchase agreement is that,
“The City in its capacity as owner of the Lands will commence and expedite an
internal planning process to design the portion of the lands for light rail use and
walking and cycling use.”

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The only reason Arbutus/Broadway to Science World could work as a street car is because all of those locations could be served with just one vehicle and would otherwise require two transfers by bus to get to anything north of Broadway. It would need a grade separation to go under/over broadway if it's to have any kind of usable frequency, and at that point you may as well grade-separate the entire thing. Arbutus/Broadway to Marine Drive is not viable as a street-car or light rail, because it is not frequency and time competitive to taking the bus that already exists, or a car.

If Uber is really coming this Winter, then all street-car and light rail projects should just be abandoned before they burn a hole in various government budgets. Few people will be willing to take a public transit option that is less frequent than a Taxi, and that is giving the benefit of the doubt to Taxi's.

I'm sorry, but the trains crossing Broadway would probably happen at the same kind of frequency as the light at Arbutus changes to allow cars and people to cross the street.

And Uber/Lyft aren't going to replace Transit, they compliment it.

In San Fran, something like 10 out of the top 20 pickup/dropoff locations are transit stations/stops. 1 in 5 rides in the Bay area start or end at a Caltrain or Bart station.

In fact, up until this year, when several airports started letting ride shares pickup/dropoff at terminals, Transit Stops were the number #1 category of pickup/dropoff locations for Lyft (now they are number #2) across the US.

The availability of ride sharing, makes the first/last mile of travel of a transit trip more attractive if it is difficult to make. Caltrain even has special rideshare pickup/dropoff zones at many stations.

The idea that rideshare is going to replace lower cost transit is absurd.

For example, travelling from U of W to Safeco Field in Seattle, is at least a $17 Lyft and can take 30 minutes. It is a 15 minute $2.50 ride on Link.

People typically don't go from doing a cheap thing to a more expensive thing, unless convenience is such an improvement. And in the case of rapid transit, studies show that having ride share available actually increases the convenience of transit. Like if you were going from outside UW to Safeco, you would probably take a $5 Uber to the station and then have an overall shorter and cheaper trip, than if you paid $25 for just Uber.

WRT the Arbutus corridor, if it were a segregated Streetcar, for $2.75 (or less) a ride, that integrated with Skytrain at Arbutus-Broadway, Olympic Village, Science World, and Waterfront, then I think people would be inclined to take it over using Uber.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The idea that rideshare is going to replace lower cost transit is absurd.

People are making all kinds of wild claims about ride sharing and about autonomous vehicles that are completely at odds with people's habits and the physical realities of road space. These developments won't change the fact that most car trips are still going to have a single passenger, and that means little to no reduction in trip costs or road congestion. The way to reduce these is if autonomous bus technology reduces transit cost enough to increase transit mode share. Buses are still a hugely more efficient way to use road space than the best Uber driver or autonomous vehicle.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

It's disappointing to see such low turnout numbers (only 260 for the open houses) for such an important project. I expect many of us on here came out to the consultation, or at least I would hope so, given how many pages this topic has lead to.

There wasn't really that much going on. A few infographics on posters, a suggestion wall, and a half-dozen tables (full of the exact same survey from the website). I suspect turnout will be larger once City Council and/or the Parks Board start putting an actual plan together.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

People are making all kinds of wild claims about ride sharing and about autonomous vehicles that are completely at odds with people's habits and the physical realities of road space. These developments won't change the fact that most car trips are still going to have a single passenger, and that means little to no reduction in trip costs or road congestion. The way to reduce these is if autonomous bus technology reduces transit cost enough to increase transit mode share. Buses are still a hugely more efficient way to use road space than the best Uber driver or autonomous vehicle.

Good thing we don't live in the States. They've used the self-driving car "rationale" to completely cancel all rapid transit project funding.