Transit Fantasies

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Xrayal

Here is my attempt at some inspired rerouting.

Details:

123:Keep on Canada Way till boundary then along Grandview Hwy to Renfrew station. (Even I'm not sold on this reroute, but its an idea)

Comments welcome.

I just mapped your version of the 123 to see how it looks. Rerouting it to Renfrew Station would lead to some dead zones - but rerouting it to Gilmore Station (via Canada Way / Gilmore Diversion, currently has part of the 129) is possible.

I'm going to look at some of your other route ideas over the next couple days

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Xrayal

Here is my attempt at some inspired rerouting.

Details:

134:Stay on Parker and terminate at Kootenay Loop. Riders heading to Skytrain can still get there via the Burnaby Lake station stop, or the can take any of the north/south routes that go directly to stations.

C2: Extend capital hill service to Brentwood station via Delta ave. C2 ridership has been on the decline plus this will fill for the 136 now rerouted to Kootenay loop.

New 1:Same routing in South Burnaby. Reroute to Burnaby lake station via Sprott overpass then up Kensinghton to Hastings terminating at Kootenay loop.

Comments welcome.

I'm back again. I agree with Bdawe on the 134 (and 136) - it should go to the Millennium Line and not Kootenay Loop.

I tried to map out your vision of the C2. There are no left turns from Lougheed onto Delta, and Delta doesn't cross Hastings. Even if you could get around those two details, it's an almost entirely uphill route - and hills eat buses. It would work by starting the route at Holdom Station and primarily taking Springer.

What route does New 1 connect to???

[Large Cat]

Tried my hand at the South Burnaby / SE Vancouver routes, finally.



Basically, the changes try to accomplish two objectives:

-provide service to the River District
-add better N-S service, and more of a grid, everywhere in this area

I made two maps, one with the 57 and one without it, since the 57 is probably farthest away from happening right now (mostly fantasy). But I deleted the first map by mistake. The only difference in that map is that the 117 runs west past Boundary to pick up some of the current 26 passengers, whereas the 57 when it comes naturally takes care of them.

19, 20, 49, 100: No changes.

91 B-Line: Bring it on!

29 29th Ave Stn / Joyce Stn via River District: Extended down Fraserview, past Harrison Loop, and into the River District, and then straight up Kerr/Rupert to Euclid and Joyce Stn. Provides service "up the hill" for those on the far western side of the old river district, who have a tough uphill climb to the 20 currently, and for whom the current 29 is just too far uphill. Also provides fast service between River District and Joyce.

30 Joyce Stn / Metrotown Stn via River District: Services Champlain Heights, and connects the "new" River District to both Joyce and Metrotown (I view Kerr as the dividing line between the old and new river district, and also the natural place to split the N-S routes). Provides N-S service on Patterson. Will load/unload EB Central at Metrotown Stn. Routes via Tyne and Kingsway, rather than 45th and Joyce, en route to Joyce Stn.

116: Altered to provide N-S service on all of Joffre, and to be less circuitous getting to Metrotown Stn. Will load/unload EB Central at Metrotown Stn. Altered to provide the N-S service on Gilley before going to Edmonds Stn.

115: Renamed from C5. Community shuttle only. Now services all of Sussex N-S, and provides a faster connection to Skytrain, made possible by the 116 servicing the Gilley/Edmonds passengers. [Only downside I can see is for some passengers living between around Royal Oak, but too far down the hill to catch the 117.

117: Renamed from C7. Community shuttle only. Could serve as far west as Matheson in Champlain Heights before introduction of 57.


Let me know what you think.

Side note: a traffic signal has been installed at Nelson and Marine Dr!Finally! That was a terrible 4-way stop.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

Tried my hand at the South Burnaby / SE Vancouver routes, finally.


Basically, the changes try to accomplish two objectives:

-provide service to the River District
-add better N-S service, and more of a grid, everywhere in this area

I made two maps, one with the 57 and one without it, since the 57 is probably farthest away from happening right now (mostly fantasy). But I deleted the first map by mistake. The only difference in that map is that the 117 runs west past Boundary to pick up some of the current 26 passengers, whereas the 57 when it comes naturally takes care of them.

19, 20, 49, 100: No changes.

91 B-Line: Bring it on!

29 29th Ave Stn / Joyce Stn via River District: Extended down Fraserview, past Harrison Loop, and into the River District, and then straight up Kerr/Rupert to Euclid and Joyce Stn. Provides service "up the hill" for those on the far western side of the old river district, who have a tough uphill climb to the 20 currently, and for whom the current 29 is just too far uphill. Also provides fast service between River District and Joyce.

30 Joyce Stn / Metrotown Stn via River District: Services Champlain Heights, and connects the "new" River District to both Joyce and Metrotown (I view Kerr as the dividing line between the old and new river district, and also the natural place to split the N-S routes). Provides N-S service on Patterson. Will load/unload EB Central at Metrotown Stn. Routes via Tyne and Kingsway, rather than 45th and Joyce, en route to Joyce Stn.

116: Altered to provide N-S service on all of Joffre, and to be less circuitous getting to Metrotown Stn. Will load/unload EB Central at Metrotown Stn. Altered to provide the N-S service on Gilley before going to Edmonds Stn.

115: Renamed from C5. Community shuttle only. Now services all of Sussex N-S, and provides a faster connection to Skytrain, made possible by the 116 servicing the Gilley/Edmonds passengers. [Only downside I can see is for some passengers living between around Royal Oak, but too far down the hill to catch the 117.

117: Renamed from C7. Community shuttle only. Could serve as far west as Matheson in Champlain Heights before introduction of 57.


Let me know what you think.

Side note: a traffic signal has been installed at Nelson and Marine Dr!Finally! That was a terrible 4-way stop.

I looked at a few of the routes. The 57 is interesting, although where is the western end of the route? I can't see Vancouver making Rumble into a through road - they want to keep people from taking short cuts through residential areas. That bit of construction can be avoided by having the bus do a short drive on Boundary. It's not pretty but it gets the job done.

The construction on Kent for a bus to travel through - that's new so I doubt they're going to remove it (for the same reason as Rumble). Plus there's the problem of steep hills south of Marine. I know there are people here who really really want buses travelling through the new River District but it's not being built for that - it's being built for SOVs.

There's a reason South Burnaby has mostly east - west routes.

Originally Posted by Kisai

The South Slope has a super-steep grade, that is the logical reason why you don't see any direct North/South routes between Metropolis at Metrotown (which is at the top of the hill) and the surrounding areas. Royal Oak and the surrounding streets are difficult to walk up south of Rumble Street. The grade is apparently up to 25%.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I looked at a few of the routes. The 57 is interesting, although where is the western end of the route? I can't see Vancouver making Rumble into a through road - they want to keep people from taking short cuts through residential areas. That bit of construction can be avoided by having the bus do a short drive on Boundary. It's not pretty but it gets the job done.

The construction on Kent for a bus to travel through - that's new so I doubt they're going to remove it (for the same reason as Rumble). Plus there's the problem of steep hills south of Marine. I know there are people here who really really want buses travelling through the new River District but it's not being built for that - it's being built for SOVs.

There's a reason South Burnaby has mostly east - west routes.

The western end of the 57 would either be at 57th Stn, or somewhere in Marpole (e.g. heading to 57th and W Boulevard and then to 63rd Loop, or to Granville and down to Marpole Loop). At Rumble and Boundary I'm imagining a "bus and bikes only" entrance/exit to Matheson for only these vehicles to cross Boundary, similar to what the city has done at Charleson in False Creek South. Similarly for the little section on Kent, a bikes and buses only bollarded solution, as on Charleson. If some drivers ignore this it's not an issue, since it's not so congested down there--the point is just to make an opening for buses that doesn't totally change the road structure.

Regarding slopes, that's one reason I changed the service on Sussex to "shuttle only" by rerouting the 116 to Joffre and creating a new routing for the C5. Limited-passenger shuttles can handle the grades on Sussex and Nelson, which really aren't any worse than those in DT New West anyway. And if we agree that N-S service sucks in South Burnaby, shouldn't we be looking for a solution to this rather than shooting it down as "always been that way"? Nevertheless I did avoid pencilling in any routes on lower Royal Oak, as I acknowledge it has the steepest grade.

Similarly, I have trouble believing the CoV envision the River District as a car-only neighbourhood going forward. I'm sure some residents would protest added bus accommodations, but despite them the neighbourhood is clearly being 'envisioned' as transit-oriented, what with the marketed future rail line, etc. And there are probably a majority of incumbent residents that would support bus improvements to the existing neighbourhood, not to speak of future residents who are coming with an expectation of transit improvements.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Xrayal

Here is my attempt at some inspired rerouting.
North Burnaby Bus Routes2 by mullux

Details:

• 9:Extend the trolley wires first to Gilmore station and loop back on Henning/Dawson. (see red oval)
  Eventually extend the 9 to Brentwood station once the major construction in the area is done to create redundancy to turn around. Then sell the boundary loop lands.
• 110:Stay on Moscrop till Boundary. Reroute terminus to Joyce station. (currently buses generally don't cross fare boundary. If they are removed with the current fare review this might be possible)
• 123:Keep on Canada Way till boundary then along Grandview Hwy to Renfrew station. (Even I'm not sold on this reroute, but its an idea)
• 129:Keep the Patterson/Gilmore/Hastings/Holdom segments the same. Included planned Holdom/Douglas Road overpass. (see pink oval) New alignment along Royal Oak. Possible looping option by continuing down Royal Oak to Rumble then back up Patterson to Patterson Station.
• 130: No change.
• 134:Stay on Parker and terminate at Kootenay Loop. Riders heading to Skytrain can still get there via the Burnaby Lake station stop, or the can take any of the north/south routes that go directly to stations.
• 136:No real change. I worked in the long term road configuration below Lougheed Hwy. (see pick oval) The route should work much better once the Concord development is done.
• 144:No real change. Except plan to rerouting along Greenwood and Bainbridge Ave long term before continuing up Duthie ave. (See green oval) This will provide service to new TOD in the area.
• C2: Extend capital hill service to Brentwood station via Delta ave. C2 ridership has been on the decline plus this will fill for the 136 now rerouted to Kootenay loop.
• New 1:Same routing in South Burnaby. Reroute to Burnaby lake station via Sprott overpass then up Kensinghton to Hastings terminating at Kootenay loop.

Comments welcome.

I really like a lot of your suggestions, especially with the C2, the western half of the 134, and the 129 rerouting to Royal Oak Stn. I also like the 110 reroute to Joyce--it always struck me as silly how it doubles back to Nelson and then again to Metrotown Stn, and with your 129 reroute there will still be N-S service in the area to/from Metrotown (with much needed service on Royal Oak finally).

One change I can think of right now would be to let the 110 take the 28's current route into Joyce Stn (Smith/Burke/Boundary/Vanness), and reroute the 28 to take the 29th Diversion, Boundary, and then Kincaid to the hospital, then following the rest of its current route. This would have 3 advantages:
-moves redundant service on Smith (shared with 129) elsewhere
-shortens trip time on 28 between Joyce and the hospital, north Burnaby, Phibbs, etc.
-110 to Joyce doesn't spend any time travelling away from Joyce (i.e. NB on Boundary), going backwards

Also, I think ridership data would show that the majority of passengers on the 123 really do just want to get to Brentwood, despite how cool it would be to have better service on Canada Way.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

The western end of the 57 would either be at 57th Stn, or somewhere in Marpole (e.g. heading to 57th and W Boulevard and then to 63rd Loop, or to Granville and down to Marpole Loop). At Rumble and Boundary I'm imagining a "bus and bikes only" entrance/exit to Matheson for only these vehicles to cross Boundary, similar to what the city has done at Charleson in False Creek South. Similarly for the little section on Kent, a bikes and buses only bollarded solution, as on Charleson. If some drivers ignore this it's not an issue, since it's not so congested down there--the point is just to make an opening for buses that doesn't totally change the road structure.

Regarding slopes, that's one reason I changed the service on Sussex to "shuttle only" by rerouting the 116 to Joffre and creating a new routing for the C5. Limited-passenger shuttles can handle the grades on Sussex and Nelson, which really aren't any worse than those in DT New West anyway. And if we agree that N-S service sucks in South Burnaby, shouldn't we be looking for a solution to this rather than shooting it down as "always been that way"? Nevertheless I did avoid pencilling in any routes on lower Royal Oak, as I acknowledge it has the steepest grade.

Similarly, I have trouble believing the CoV envision the River District as a car-only neighbourhood going forward. I'm sure some residents would protest added bus accommodations, but despite them the neighbourhood is clearly being 'envisioned' as transit-oriented, what with the marketed future rail line, etc. And there are probably a majority of incumbent residents that would support bus improvements to the existing neighbourhood, not to speak of future residents who are coming with an expectation of transit improvements.

Coming up with a western terminus for 57th Ave is 'interesting' thanks to the golf course being in the way. I suspect any routes (that don't take Knight down to Richmond) would end at Marine Way Station or Marpole Loop. It's not ideal as there would be route overlap.

One of the problems with the South Slope area of Burnaby is that there are limited major through roads - and all of them have bus routes on at least part of them. Major-ish through roads south of the Skytrain:

east - west: Imperial, Rumble, Marine Dr, North Fraser Way
north - south: Gilley, Royal Oak, Nelson, Sussex, Patterson
(I'm not really counting Marine Way as it's more of a highway)

With the exception of most of Imperial all the east - west roads have bus routes. The north - south routes do north of Rumble and only Royal Oak and Sussex are missing bus routes south of Rumble.

I've mentioned on here that the 116, C6 and C7 south of Metrotown are a pet peeve of mine. I envision that area having the C7 travel up to Patterson Station (may require a traffic light), the 116 to take Joffre and then Boundary north of Rumble (there's no traffic lights at Joffre and Imperial) and the C6 does a coverage loop of the area.

I don't think the CoV knows what they're envisioning from one day to the next - I just look at what's being built and have trouble seeing how buses will physically fit in the River District.

[cganuelas1995]

Ok let's circlejerk about our fantasies for the canada line.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Ok let's circlejerk about our fantasies for the canada line.

Again?

Sure, why not: all the way down No. 3, sharp turn east to Riverport, cross the Fraser to Ladner and maybe Tsawwassen. Steveston and West Richmond served by a parallel LRT along Garden City-Granville-Railway. Anything else?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Steveston and West Richmond served by a parallel LRT along Garden City-Granville-Railway. Anything else?

Ew. LRT.

[Sheba]

Does anyone know how much traffic there is on Richmond's rail lines? I saw quite a few lines on google maps and if they're not heavily used they could form the majority of transit rail line(s) in the area. Obviously if they're already busy with freight that wouldn't work.

[waves]

I was looking at the railways on Lulu Island and it actually looks promising that a future Canada Line Extension could utilize CN's Lulu Island Industrial (LII) Right of Way and CP's Van Horne Lead (VHL). The line would go North from Bridgeport turn right following CP's VHL until turning right once more down CN's LLI which goes straight to the Fraser.

If you look at the active businesses on the LLI, there are only 5 business that use the line. They do however seem to use it: If you look at the lot of WAL Vehicle Services they have 9 storage tracks. So you can't close the north south connector of the LLI without providing an alternative. Luckily however, CN has the Ewen Industrial Branch (EIB) just to the east of the WAL lot. CN could build 3.6km of track to connect the end of the LLI at the WAL lot to the EIB. This would be even be beneficial to CN because trains can go faster as they will not have to travel through urban areas, the overall amount of track and crossings they have to maintain will be significantly less, and the distance for the trains to reach the black bridge over the north arm will be significantly less. It is also beneficial for Richmond because they don't have to pay CN as much because there will be fewer railway crossings, they will be less interaction between people and the railway and, they get a right of way for a transit line that won't bother current residents and can easily be connected to the Canada Line.



If CN can get that little portion of track built that opens up space for a new Canada Line extension alignment that can run North out of Bridgeport. This would be a great advantage as trains can run from Brighouse to Tsawwassen. Since the Canada Line currently alternates between YVR and Brighouse, the Brighouse line runs at half the frequency of the Waterfront-Bridgeport line. The frequency could be doubled on the Brighouse line with every second train heading towards Clarence, every fourth train heading towards Tsawwassen. My station proposals are:

• Bridgeport
• Shell
• St. Edwards
• Blundell
• Coppersmith-Steveston
• Ladner City Center
• Clarence
• 52nd-Mills
• Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal

Here is a link to an interactive map I have made showing the alignment of the new rail line and my proposed extension. Total Length is 28km. It could be done in phases. 1st Phase could be Bridgeport to Clarence (17km). 2nd Phase from Clarence to Tsawwassen (11 km).
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rN...n8&usp=sharing

• Bridgeport to Shell: Above Grade
• Shell to Fraser River: At Grade (except major road crossing: Overpass or Underpass)
• Fraser River Crossing: 600m Long Bridge
• Fraser River Islands: Above Grade
• 40th Avenue/Ladner Trunk Road/Clarence Taylor Way: Above Grade
• Clarence Taylor Way to the end of Hwy 17: In Highway Median. New Highway interchanges at 56th, 52nd and Tsawwassen Dr.
• Hwy 17 to Ferry Terminal Station: Above Grade

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by waves

I was looking at the railways on Lulu Island and it actually looks promising that a future Canada Line Extension could utilize CN's Lulu Island Industrial (LII) Right of Way and CP's Van Horne Lead (VHL). The line would go North from Bridgeport turn right following CP's VHL until turning right once more down CN's LLI which goes straight to the Fraser.

If you look at the active businesses on the LLI, there are only 5 business that use the line. They do however seem to use it: If you look at the lot of WAL Vehicle Services they have 9 storage tracks. So you can't close the north south connector of the LLI without providing an alternative. Luckily however, CN has the Ewen Industrial Branch (EIB) just to the east of the WAL lot. CN could build 3.6km of track to connect the end of the LLI at the WAL lot to the EIB. This would be even be beneficial to CN because trains can go faster as they will not have to travel through urban areas, the overall amount of track and crossings they have to maintain will be significantly less, and the distance for the trains to reach the black bridge over the north arm will be significantly less. It is also beneficial for Richmond because they don't have to pay CN as much because there will be fewer railway crossings, they will be less interaction between people and the railway and, they get a right of way for a transit line that won't bother current residents and can easily be connected to the Canada Line.



If CN can get that little portion of track built that opens up space for a new Canada Line extension alignment that can run North out of Bridgeport. This would be a great advantage as trains can run from Brighouse to Tsawwassen. Since the Canada Line currently alternates between YVR and Brighouse, the Brighouse line runs at half the frequency of the Waterfront-Bridgeport line. The frequency could be doubled on the Brighouse line with every second train heading towards Clarence, every fourth train heading towards Tsawwassen. My station proposals are:

• Bridgeport
• Shell
• St. Edwards
• Blundell
• Coppersmith-Steveston
• Ladner City Center
• Clarence
• 52nd-Mills
• Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal

Here is a link to an interactive map I have made showing the alignment of the new rail line and my proposed extension. Total Length is 28km. It could be done in phases. 1st Phase could be Bridgeport to Clarence (17km). 2nd Phase from Clarence to Tsawwassen (11 km).
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rN...n8&usp=sharing

• Bridgeport to Shell: Above Grade
• Shell to Fraser River: At Grade (except major road crossing: Overpass or Underpass)
• Fraser River Crossing: 600m Long Bridge
• Fraser River Islands: Above Grade
• 40th Avenue/Ladner Trunk Road/Clarence Taylor Way: Above Grade
• Clarence Taylor Way to the end of Hwy 17: In Highway Median. New Highway interchanges at 56th, 52nd and Tsawwassen Dr.
• Hwy 17 to Ferry Terminal Station: Above Grade

I'm really questioning as to why have it go through the middle of nowhere to sexually gratify the NIMBYs as opposed to have the extension naturally go down No.3 road, then across the Fraser to the intersection of Arthur and Trunk to start off.

[forouhar]

Originally Posted by waves

*snip*

CN tried to do that a couple of years ago. There was something to do with that little stretch of land being some conservation area, hence the obvious lack of a connector line between WWL and Ewen. There are still piles of concrete ties sitting at the west end of the yard tracks in Ewen that might not be used until they expand the east end of the facility. This is also the reason why the pullback in Ewen is a silly two-unit stub track that provides just enough space to clear the switch.

Also, bit of a correction to your active rail users. The only active businesses operating west out of Lulu/No8 are:

Mile 7

• Raymont Logistics
• Northgate Terminals (West Fraser Lumber)

Mile 9 (along Vulcan Way)

• Richply
• Bulldog Bags
• Norampac (down the Crestwood)

Mile 15 (Shell Rd)

• Layfield

Steveston Branch (West Leg)

• Crown Packaging

Mile 17

• WWL/Toyota

The Ewen facility services:

• Lafarge Cement
• Lulu Island Terminal
• Coast 2000
• Western Canada Express
• Westran
• Euroasia

[waves]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I'm really questioning as to why have it go through the middle of nowhere to sexually gratify the NIMBYs as opposed to have the extension naturally go down No.3 road, then across the Fraser to the intersection of Arthur and Trunk to start off.

You certainly could. It wouldn't use an existing rail line like Sheba was suggesting though and would likely have to have Above Grade from Landsdowne all the way to Clarence. The No.3 alternative would however 3km shorter (14km to Clarence rather than 17km). Suggested stations at Blundell and Williams.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rN...n8&usp=sharing

[waves]

Originally Posted by forouhar

CN tried to do that a couple of years ago. There was something to do with that little stretch of land being some conservation area, hence the obvious lack of a connector line between WWL and Ewen. There are still piles of concrete ties sitting at the west end of the yard tracks in Ewen that might not be used until they expand the east end of the facility. This is also the reason why the pullback in Ewen is a silly two-unit stub track that provides just enough space to clear the switch.

That's really interesting. I wonder what conservation concerns there were. The land from Google Earth already looks completely industrialized. Except for the stream cutting through WWL and the straight canal-like stream in line with No.7.

Originally Posted by forouhar

Also, bit of a correction to your active rail users.

This is a great list. It shows that no business are using the line between Mile 9 and 15, and that there are only 3 business operating past Mile 15. When I was creating the map, I picked out the properties that had extra railway lines going into them - I can remove the ones that are not on your list.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by waves

You certainly could. It wouldn't use an existing rail line like Sheba was suggesting though and would likely have to have Above Grade from Landsdowne all the way to Clarence. The No.3 alternative would however 3km shorter (14km to Clarence rather than 17km). Suggested stations at Blundell and Williams.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rN...n8&usp=sharing

Yeah that would be a much more logical idea. Having more lines would make things way too confusing. Also, I personally think the extension should terminate at Tsawwassen Town Centre Mall instead of the Ferry Terminal and just have the 620 truncate at Tsawwassen Mills.

[waves]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Also, I personally think the extension should terminate at Tsawwassen Town Centre Mall instead of the Ferry Terminal and just have the 620 truncate at Tsawwassen Mills.

Seems silly to me to go to the effort of going all the way to Tsawwassen Mills and not go the last 5k in the highway median to the Ferry no? You could have some trains turn around at Tsawwassen Mills? If you are going to have to bus to the ferry anyways wouldn't it make more sense to just not complete phase two from Clarence? Just keep it as a bus from Lander Exchange to the Terminal?

[cganuelas1995]

Here's my idea to extend the 403 to Marine Drive station as a way of having it as a continuation of the 15.

[jbrizzy]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Here's my idea to extend the 403 to Marine Drive station as a way of having it as a continuation of the 15.

The point is ? For the most part serves nothing at all being on the freeway/bridge, and 403 reliability in Richmond would suffer from being subject to OSB traffic. A 2 min train ride already connects the start/end of that extension.