HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1701  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 7:28 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
That's basically what a tram is: a B-Line on rails.

We're definitely not going to have both light and heavy rail on this corridor. True on electrification costs, but the ROW is defunct anyway - CP has hauling rights, that's it.

Problem is that we're an Asian-sized city with a European population. Unlike KGB/104th or Fraser, West Newton-Cloverdale isn't going to need SkyTrain until 2100, and they'll all be driving in the meantime. Build a tram though, and they're covered for the next 50+ years.
True. Though in our region, a tram is a bit better, since it has full ROW, but you could do that for buses on that corridor too (even though B-lines rarely have them).

Though, once you have full bus priority, one would wonder how much LRT is necessary.

An analogy is Maple Ridge. Should we be build LRT on Maple Ridge, because it's possible without cutting down the lane #. Or the Millennium Line. The entire existing Millennium Line could have been LRT without reducing the number of vehicle lanes (OK, let's assume the section west of Renfrew is grade-separated).

Even the Evergreen Extension could have been LRT by following the Southeast Corridor on Lougheed Hwy.

Decided to use Waves' calculator- a new line, stretching on Hwy 10 from 120st to Fraser Hwy. Perhaps not the most realistic, but a thought experiment.

[Image Removed without Citation]

LRT on old ROW with new lanes is 1.6x less expensive than Skytrain- a lot, but note that this is $2.2B vs $1.3B (saving $0.9B). Not unsubstantial, but both are in the 'large project' area that requires provincial and federal funding.

It's owned by BNSF, as dual-tracked, and actually dual-tracked, being part of Deltaport logistics. It's far from defunct.
Quote:
Doubtful. Unless there's a commuter rail network somewhere that has a branch with just two stations? Not every freight line makes for a good passenger line.
GO Transit.
https://www.gotransit.com/file_sourc.../train-map.png

Quote:
Hopefully, yes... though I've yet to hear from a credible source (and not a Letter to the Editor) why Iona could become a ferry terminal.
The problem is that most of the studies are old (like 80s-90s old), and the idea hasn't been revisited since for numerous reasons (Fast Ferries, and Duke Point).

Archives of the studies do exist, and it was part of a Vancouver Is. Fixed link study. Both are not available online, though they can presumably be requested.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/t...nk#Preliminary Studies
https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/...a-island-ferry

This gives some insight, though.
http://ferriesbc.proboards.com/threa...ola-short-link


Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
Rapid Bus Transit is defined in the NSATP as anything that might have one or some of the following: "Dedicated right of way, separate lane or mixed with traffic, limited stop or transit priority measures. Service frequency 2 – 15 minutes."

Run the 229/230 at 15 min frequencies staggered 7.5min apart. You could run the 229 with limited stops through CNV to provide a faster option for getting to the Quay versus 230 local service. Alternatively, you keep the 230/229 at current 15-30min frequencies, cut stops in the CNV so that they stop at 23rd/15th/13th/3rd/Quay only, and implement a new 10min local service bus from the Quay to 23rd.

Both these options would improve Lonsdale to a Rapid Bus Network but neither are a B-Line.
Were B-lines ever built on routes designated as 'frequent transit', like the 210?

Last edited by deasine; Mar 18, 2019 at 6:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1702  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 10:27 PM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
Decided to use Waves' calculator- a new line, stretching on Hwy 10 from 120st to Fraser Hwy. Perhaps not the most realistic, but a thought experiment.

LRT on old ROW with new lanes is 1.6x less expensive than Skytrain- a lot, but note that this is $2.2B vs $1.3B (saving $0.9B). Not unsubstantial, but both are in the 'large project' area that requires provincial and federal funding.

It's owned by BNSF, as dual-tracked, and actually dual-tracked, being part of Deltaport logistics. It's far from defunct.
You chose to highlight the LRTra vs the LRT or LRTro numbers? If the route stays mostly on the BNSF row I think the LRTro value would be more appropriate. Also you chose to have 11 stations over 9 stations?

Quote:
Were B-lines ever built on routes designated as 'frequent transit', like the 210?
I don't know - The North Shore ATP is the only ATP I have in-depth knowledge with. The idea of implementing new B-Lines to the same standard as the 99 seems to be relatively recent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1703  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 11:25 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
You chose to highlight the LRTra vs the LRT or LRTro numbers? If the route stays mostly on the BNSF row I think the LRTro value would be more appropriate. Also you chose to have 11 stations over 9 stations?



I don't know - The North Shore ATP is the only ATP I have in-depth knowledge with. The idea of implementing new B-Lines to the same standard as the 99 seems to be relatively recent.
It's on the Hwy 10 corridor. Maybe the # of stations is excessive, but the analysis was not meant to be entirely realistic, it was more a thought experiment. There's a station at approx. every arterial road it passes.

98 was built to the standards of the 99. I guess there's been more a push for speeding up the buses and improving B-line services, though, especially since Skytrain can't go everywhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1704  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2019, 6:58 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
True. Though in our region, a tram is a bit better, since it has full ROW, but you could do that for buses on that corridor too (even though B-lines rarely have them).

Though, once you have full bus priority, one would wonder how much LRT is necessary.

An analogy is Maple Ridge. Should we be build LRT on Maple Ridge, because it's possible without cutting down the lane #. Or the Millennium Line. The entire existing Millennium Line could have been LRT without reducing the number of vehicle lanes (OK, let's assume the section west of Renfrew is grade-separated).

Even the Evergreen Extension could have been LRT by following the Southeast Corridor on Lougheed Hwy.

LRT on old ROW with new lanes is 1.6x less expensive than Skytrain- a lot, but note that this is $2.2B vs $1.3B (saving $0.9B). Not unsubstantial, but both are in the 'large project' area that requires provincial and federal funding.
It's weird because I'm usually on the other end of this argument. Way I figure, if the corridor is important enough for a SkyTrain (e.g. Surrey's old plan), then a B-Line or BRT is a good enough stopgap until the funding and ridership exist. If it isn't, then the two best options are buses or trams, and trams might scale better long-term - even more so with a preexisting ROW. Emphasis on "might."

Thing about Coquitlam is that there were already plans for a SkyTrain... and now that the M-Line is aimed at Maple Ridge like the Expo to Langley, why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
If you mean Hamilton-Niagara or Union-YYZ, both are 3-4 stops and 20-50 klicks. Not really analogous to Bridgeport-Steveston.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
The problem is that most of the studies are old (like 80s-90s old), and the idea hasn't been revisited since for numerous reasons (Fast Ferries, and Duke Point).

Archives of the studies do exist, and it was part of a Vancouver Is. Fixed link study. Both are not available online, though they can presumably be requested.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/t...nk#Preliminary Studies
https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/...a-island-ferry

This gives some insight, though.
http://ferriesbc.proboards.com/threa...ola-short-link
Go figure - thanks, I'll give it a read.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1705  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2019, 7:21 AM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
It's weird because I'm usually on the other end of this argument. Way I figure, if the corridor is important enough for a SkyTrain (e.g. Surrey's old plan), then a B-Line or BRT is a good enough stopgap until the funding and ridership exist. If it isn't, then the two best options are buses or trams, and trams might scale better long-term - even more so with a preexisting ROW. Emphasis on "might."

Thing about Coquitlam is that there were already plans for a SkyTrain... and now that the M-Line is aimed at Maple Ridge like the Expo to Langley, why not?
The original M-line (the looping line) was pretty much useless at the time, and only made sense 20 years down the line, once the M-line system was built out, and could have been LRT. Not a great idea once the Broadway extension (the big draw and cause d'etre of the M-line) would be put in, but considering that's happening ~25y after the M-Line's original opening...

I guess you have a point, but then again, just because you have provisions for it, it doesn't necessarily mean it should happen. The Millennium Line had provisions for the NFPR too.
Quote:
If you mean Hamilton-Niagara or Union-YYZ, both are 3-4 stops and 20-50 klicks. Not really analogous to Bridgeport-Steveston.
The Union Pearson Express spur is 3 effectively 3km to the Airport, and the Hamilton spur (before connecting to the Lakeshore mainline) is 4.3km long.

Why are you measuring it from Union to the Airport?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1706  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2019, 9:50 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
The original M-line (the looping line) was pretty much useless at the time, and only made sense 20 years down the line, once the M-line system was built out, and could have been LRT. Not a great idea once the Broadway extension (the big draw and cause d'etre of the M-line) would be put in, but considering that's happening ~25y after the M-Line's original opening...

I guess you have a point, but then again, just because you have provisions for it, it doesn't necessarily mean it should happen. The Millennium Line had provisions for the NFPR too.
As observed by other posters, the M-Line was supposed to be immediately followed by the Evergreen and Broadway extensions, but those got delayed by Victoria's power politics. There was never a good reason to connect the primary corridors (anybody have the map with all the big arrows on it?) with a sub-par system; the secondary and minor corridors are a different story...

It could very well be that bi-artics would be enough for Highway 10, but you never know. Besides, speculation beats waiting fifty years for TransLink's study.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
The Union Pearson Express spur is 3 effectively 3km to the Airport, and the Hamilton spur (before connecting to the Lakeshore mainline) is 4.3km long.

Why are you measuring it from Union to the Airport?
Because that's how long the line is, not the branch? The UP services downtown, then the demi-urbs, then two suburbs, then the airport.

What you proposed is basically one full line that goes Weston, Etobicoke, end of story. No downtown or airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1707  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2019, 7:56 AM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
As observed by other posters, the M-Line was supposed to be immediately followed by the Evergreen and Broadway extensions, but those got delayed by Victoria's power politics. There was never a good reason to connect the primary corridors (anybody have the map with all the big arrows on it?) with a sub-par system; the secondary and minor corridors are a different story...

It could very well be that bi-artics would be enough for Highway 10, but you never know. Besides, speculation beats waiting fifty years for TransLink's study.



Because that's how long the line is, not the branch? The UP services downtown, then the demi-urbs, then two suburbs, then the airport.

What you proposed is basically one full line that goes Weston, Etobicoke, end of story. No downtown or airport.
Yeah, I know that, but the logic applies- that if building the rest of the M-line was cheaper, we could have gone down the laundry list faster.

Note that Brentwood, Lougheed, and Coquitlam Central were all suburban or industrial wastelands in 2000. The LRSP, as below designated town centres, but Aldergrove has the same level of designation as Brentwood or Lougheed.
Ok, extreme example, but you get the idea. Designations are, to an extent, arbitrary. That doesn't mean they should be ignored, but they are flexible.
-

(Metro Vancouver LRSP, copied from Daily Hive)


Secondary corridors for rapid transit become future primary corridors, as well. Even earlier RT plans, as below (I'm talking the 1978 Rapid Transit Preliminary Design here- yes, that old) for Metro Vancouver didn't even bother with the Phase 1 Millennium Line alignment for the most part.


(Rail for the Valley (ugh), copied from the 1978 Rapid Transit Preliminary Design)

The LRSP was only made in 1997, which designated the Phase I Millennium Line corridor as being important enough to build. Even then, it offered LRT as a possible solution to fulfilling its goals.




I don't think we're communicating properly. That was the point of asking about integrating it with the rest of the system, with the New West- Lander section being merely a section of it.

Perhaps something like this:
-

(Do I seriously have to cite google maps?)


Mostly suburban-Suburban lines, unfortunately. Dotted are areas where the line merges into other commuter rail, to save me the drawing.

Looking at it though, the Artubus corridor would be really useful, though the obvious should be obvious.

Last edited by fredinno; Mar 15, 2019 at 8:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1708  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2019, 5:51 PM
Tvisforme's Avatar
Tvisforme Tvisforme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 1,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
I assume the Mountain Highway plan is still pending approval? Because the only densification going on is the Keith/Fern block; everything between it and Phibbs is country-assed suburbia. WRT First Nations land[/URL], the Squamish claim lies between Orwell and Lynn Creek; the Tsleil-Waututh claim is due east of Windsor Park. District Council can most definitely redevelop Park & Tilford/Phibbs/Maplewood as they see fit.
Sorry, for the comment I was responding to, I assumed that we were referring to the Lynnmour area around lower Mountain Highway; as I understand it, many of the older homes just west of the freeway are native land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboi View Post
With all of the opposition of the North Shore B-Line, I decided to make a fantasy map of Metro Vancouver. I think B-Lines are our best tool in public transportation at the moment, and I would like to see them all over the region.
One question, as much as rapid transit would be beneficial on Lonsdale, is the heavier/longer B-line fleet suited to the hills on Lonsdale and 29th Street? The bus would spend a considerable portion of each run on steep climbs and heavy braking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
My impressions have been that WVan council is more in favour than not, despite public outcry.
Sadly, that's not the case now... West Van council, at the behest of a vocal chunk of its residents, is passing on the western end of the B-Line pending further review.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
Lions Gate: I never understood why the 240 goes to 15th rather than continuing on 13th. For a BLine it should go straight on 13th all the way to Grand Boulevard and then left all the way to Lynn Valley. Less turns = faster end to end speed. Plus it still serves the hospital with that route.
One significant advantage to 15th Street, as I understand it, is that it runs through the heart of the Central Lonsdale district. A stop on 13th would instead leave you near the southern end of where the City plans to have most of the density. At 15th, you're equidistant to either of the two supermarkets that serve that area (City Market at 17th, Whole Foods at 13th).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1709  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 9:43 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
Note that Brentwood, Lougheed, and Coquitlam Central were all suburban or industrial wastelands in 2000. The LRSP designated town centres, but Aldergrove has the same level of designation as Brentwood or Lougheed.
Ok, extreme example, but you get the idea. Designations are, to an extent, arbitrary. That doesn't mean they should be ignored, but they are flexible.

Secondary corridors for rapid transit become future primary corridors, as well. Even earlier RT plans (I'm talking the 1978 Rapid Transit Preliminary Design here- yes, that old) for Metro Vancouver didn't even bother with the Phase 1 Millennium Line alignment for the most part.

The LRSP was only made in 1997, which designated the Phase I Millennium Line corridor as being important enough to build. Even then, it offered LRT as a possible solution to fulfilling its goals.
The difference is in geography and people movement. Intercity travel is from Surrey and Coquitlam to Vancouver and back, through Burnaby - that hasn't changed.

Coq Central's actually got the same status as Metrotown and New West, on both maps. Why Brentwood/Lougheed? Probably because they're due north of Metro/NW and right on Lougheed (making them important junctions, even if they were 99% warehouse at the time).

The later plan shows it too - connect the dots, and you have a giant web spiraling out from downtown. By contrast, Aldergrove's even further from that web than even Langley, and without the population or infill to show for it.

Ditto Highway 10. It may very well be a more significant corridor one day, but KGB and Fraser will always be on a higher level - they're the ones that need 25k+ capacity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
I don't think we're communicating properly. That was the point of asking about integrating it with the rest of the system, with the New West- Lander section being merely a section of it.

Perhaps something like this:
So that's what you were getting at by "integrated." My bad.

AFAIK that hairpin turn at Oak isn't possible until the decaying bridge gets replaced (and all those warehouses get demolished), and Sea Island's a no-go, but otherwise looks good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tvisforme View Post
Sadly, that's not the case now... West Van council, at the behest of a vocal chunk of its residents, is passing on the western end of the B-Line pending further review.
Technically, they only passed on bus lanes. It sucks, yes, but there's still a chance for the B-Line going all the way to Dunderave. Though what good that'll do without bus lanes, I don't know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1710  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 6:54 PM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tvisforme View Post
Sadly, that's not the case now... West Van council, at the behest of a vocal chunk of its residents, is passing on the western end of the B-Line pending further review.
They caved.. I am not sure why I expected any better from them..

Quote:
One significant advantage to 15th Street, as I understand it, is that it runs through the heart of the Central Lonsdale district. A stop on 13th would instead leave you near the southern end of where the City plans to have most of the density. At 15th, you're equidistant to either of the two supermarkets that serve that area (City Market at 17th, Whole Foods at 13th).
The highest density in central Lonsdale is actually at 13th and Lonsdale. The blocks aren't that long either. Walking from 17th to 13th takes 5min. In my opinion, the directness of the transit route has more advantages than making the bus do the weave onto 15th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1711  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 6:37 AM
Tvisforme's Avatar
Tvisforme Tvisforme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 1,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
Walking from 17th to 13th takes 5min. In my opinion, the directness of the transit route has more advantages than making the bus do the weave onto 15th.
13th might be denser at the moment, but 15th is the centre of the four-block "Mixed Use Level 4B (High Density)", the highest-density zone on the Central Lonsdale OCP. It is a relatively quick walk from 17th to 13th, but if you're carrying groceries from City Market - which is much more affordable than Whole Foods - it becomes more complicated. As for the weave, it does not really matter too much; while it does add two extra turns (Keith -> Jones and Jones -> 15th) the net distance is the same on both routes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1712  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2019, 7:26 AM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tvisforme View Post
As for the weave, it does not really matter too much; while it does add two extra turns (Keith -> Jones and Jones -> 15th) the net distance is the same on both routes.
The net distance may be the same, but the speed is slower with added stop signs, having to wait for traffic while turning left off of 13th, speed bumps on the west part of 15th. Also, if the route is ever upgraded to an articulated B-Line, those turns are going to become even slower and more difficult.

13th is simpler, faster and more direct for regional connections. If Lonsdale FTN is upgraded even more with buses every 10min or better, than a person can get off at 13th and they have a high likelihood of a transfer bus coming in 5min or less to get to 17th. But I also highly doubt that people from down Kieth's are that keen to get to the market on 17th vs. Walmart at Cap Mall. Other potential commuters to that particular market are basically Grand Boulevard, which is all SFH's anyways. Anyone north of the highway is going to Lynn Valley so even when the 240 is extended, I don't think the 17th Supermarket is enough of a "destination" to justify impacts to a highly important regional bus route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1713  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2019, 5:17 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Just as a reminder, forum rules require citation for all photos uploaded. If a citation is not provided in the post, the image will be deleted.

Further violations may result in additional warnings and/or suspensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1714  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2019, 9:03 PM
Tvisforme's Avatar
Tvisforme Tvisforme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 1,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
The net distance may be the same, but the speed is slower with added stop signs, having to wait for traffic while turning left off of 13th, speed bumps on the west part of 15th. Also, if the route is ever upgraded to an articulated B-Line, those turns are going to become even slower and more difficult.
We could debate this forever, but when it comes down to the actual route I would be quite surprised if Translink elected to use 13th Street. As mentioned, 15th Street is at the centre of the planned highest density section of Central Lonsdale. More importantly, perhaps, the existing east-west routes in Central Lonsdale are already operating on 15th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1715  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2019, 9:20 PM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tvisforme View Post
More importantly, perhaps, the existing east-west routes in Central Lonsdale are already operating on 15th.
Just because it has a certain route now, doesn't mean it should be there - that's a silly argument.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1716  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2019, 11:08 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
The difference is in geography and people movement. Intercity travel is from Surrey and Coquitlam to Vancouver and back, through Burnaby - that hasn't changed.

Coq Central's actually got the same status as Metrotown and New West, on both maps. Why Brentwood/Lougheed? Probably because they're due north of Metro/NW and right on Lougheed (making them important junctions, even if they were 99% warehouse at the time).

The later plan shows it too - connect the dots, and you have a giant web spiraling out from downtown. By contrast, Aldergrove's even further from that web than even Langley, and without the population or infill to show for it.

Ditto Highway 10. It may very well be a more significant corridor one day, but KGB and Fraser will always be on a higher level - they're the ones that need 25k+ capacity.



So that's what you were getting at by "integrated." My bad.

AFAIK that hairpin turn at Oak isn't possible until the decaying bridge gets replaced (and all those warehouses get demolished), and Sea Island's a no-go, but otherwise looks good.



Technically, they only passed on bus lanes. It sucks, yes, but there's still a chance for the B-Line going all the way to Dunderave. Though what good that'll do without bus lanes, I don't know.
Coq Central is a regional centre, a higher priority than the municipal centre of Lougheed and Brentwood.

Well, yeah, the Expo was higher priority than the Millennium since the beginning.

[Image Removed Without Citation]

Probably closer to the real alignment. The entire thing west of Arthur Liang would be a viaduct, similar to the Toronto GO spur to its airport.

I'd be amazed if Oak and Knight aren't rebuilt at some point in the next few decades.

Sea Island was not exact- the spacing is actually possible, but the Sea island crossing is pretty tight.

It would prevent people from having to get off at Park Royal.

Last edited by deasine; Mar 18, 2019 at 6:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1717  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 8:54 AM
Tvisforme's Avatar
Tvisforme Tvisforme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 1,436
Another day, another vote for cars in West Vancouver...

WV council voted unanimously this past Monday to support last month's decision against running the North Shore B-Line beyond Park Royal. Council is open to future consideration of extending the line, as long as it doesn't pass by schools, doesn't take parking spaces, doesn't have priority lanes in Ambleside, doesn't affect residential neighbourhoods, and uses a fleet of Mercedes SUVs instead of tacky Artics. Oh, and all North Vancouver residents will have to get off at Park Royal and walk.

Also with the B-Line, is anyone else concerned that cutting the 239 completely may negatively impact travel along Marine-Main?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1718  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 2:45 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
“Also with the B-Line, is anyone else concerned that cutting the 239 completely may negatively impact travel along Marine-Main?”

From the bridge to 15th Street, 240 and 255 can cover it. From 15th Street to Seabus Terminal it’s 236. East of that... uh oh...
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1719  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 5:28 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
From the bridge to 15th Street, 240 and 255 can cover it. From 15th Street to Seabus Terminal it’s 236. East of that... uh oh...
Going from experience, it's mostly Lonsdale SeaBus, blah blah blah, Phibbs, blah blah blah, Capilano. A bit of an uptick at Park and Tilford, but otherwise the B-Line should cover it fine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1720  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 11:31 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
“Also with the B-Line, is anyone else concerned that cutting the 239 completely may negatively impact travel along Marine-Main?”

From the bridge to 15th Street, 240 and 255 can cover it. From 15th Street to Seabus Terminal it’s 236. East of that... uh oh...
From SeaBus to Queensbury, 228 can cover.
From Brooksbank to Phibbs, 232 can cover.

From Queensbury to Brooksbank, there is only 1 stop lost, which is about 200m from the nearest B-Line stop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:22 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.