HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1841  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2019, 12:48 AM
Orcair Orcair is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by cganuelas1995 View Post
They just have to pass under the bridge at low tide.
Right: they do have to alter their planned schedules as a result. Entering Vancouver harbour at 2am isn't desirable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1842  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2019, 6:28 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orcair View Post
Right: they do have to alter their planned schedules as a result. Entering Vancouver harbour at 2am isn't desirable.
Who cares?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1843  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2019, 10:42 AM
cganuelas1995 cganuelas1995 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Who cares?
It kinda affects the economy of Vancouver a bit if some ships have to wait until low tide to enter the inlet
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1844  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2019, 10:40 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by cganuelas1995 View Post
It kinda affects the economy of Vancouver a bit if some ships have to wait until low tide to enter the inlet
hmmm...

the ship's passengers are sleeping at 2 a.m. (or should be). they likely only care if the ship is docked in port after breakfast so they can 'see the sights' or finish their cruise & catch the plane home.

what time overnight that the docking happens isn't of much relevance to the vacationing passengers. unless the cruise ship skips ports -of -call with no reason given (youtube & twitter & google have more info)

Last edited by jsbertram; Oct 15, 2019 at 10:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1845  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2019, 10:48 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orcair View Post
Right: they do have to alter their planned schedules as a result. Entering Vancouver harbour at 2am isn't desirable.
there's an old nautical expression you may have forgotten:

" time and tide wait for no man"

if something needs to happen at low tide, you have to wait for it (daytime or over night). missing the tide (high or low) means you're stuck waiting for the next one whenever it occurs again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1846  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 1:07 AM
Orcair Orcair is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 86
I understand the context, I'm just pointing out that cruise companies aren't going to enjoy having to alter the weekly schedules in order to meet a restriction which they didn't have previously with smaller vessels... the ships are used to leaving Vancouver at 4pm and getting back a week later at 7am.

Yes, change will have to happen. I'm just trying to point out how it will disrupt the status-quo...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1847  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 3:17 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
building and using a ship used for AK cruises that is so tall in can only enter / exit the harbour at low tide is awfully stupid planning on someones' part

US navy ships visiting Vancouver that require low tide to clear the LGB means they can't leave asap once they are in the harbour, so they are anchored outside the harbour, while the crews with shore leave are shuttled into port & back
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1848  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 3:44 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
building and using a ship used for AK cruises that is so tall in can only enter / exit the harbour at low tide is awfully stupid planning on someones' part

US navy ships visiting Vancouver that require low tide to clear the LGB means they can't leave asap once they are in the harbour, so they are anchored outside the harbour, while the crews with shore leave are shuttled into port & back
USS Ranger (aircraft carrier) was in port once

https://www.flickr.com/photos/msdwilkie/5357552593
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1849  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 4:03 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orcair View Post
I understand the context, I'm just pointing out that cruise companies aren't going to enjoy having to alter the weekly schedules in order to meet a restriction which they didn't have previously with smaller vessels... the ships are used to leaving Vancouver at 4pm and getting back a week later at 7am.

Yes, change will have to happen. I'm just trying to point out how it will disrupt the status-quo...
Sounds like a big deal at first, but then you Google around and find out that low tide's at 1-2, and that most cruise ships arrive and/or leave at around that time.

As it is, the taller ones spend 24 hours here as a workaround, or just leave; the Norwegian Joy's heading for the East Coast next year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1850  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 8:32 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orcair View Post
I understand the context, I'm just pointing out that cruise companies aren't going to enjoy having to alter the weekly schedules in order to meet a restriction which they didn't have previously with smaller vessels... the ships are used to leaving Vancouver at 4pm and getting back a week later at 7am.

Yes, change will have to happen. I'm just trying to point out how it will disrupt the status-quo...
Again, who cares?

The obvious solution seems to be that cruise ship companies can use ships that fit into harbours if they are worried about the convenience of their customers.

Solving the issue will cost the tax payer of BC billions of dollars. The net benefit is the City of Vancouver can generate an extra $500,000 GDP per sailing in 20 years when all cruise ships have been replaced by larger ones.

If something like the Princess cruise ships that carry 3100+ passengers can fit in no problem, what's the point of spending a lot of money so they can use boats that carry 3800?

Even if the Lions Gate Bridge were gone tomorrow, it's not like next year all 290 sailings from Vancouver would be replaced by monster ships. It would take decades to replace all the vessels. So the benefit is a small, gradual increase until one day far into the future, 300 sailings with 700 extra passengers generates $180 million GDP compared to just keeping the status quo with current sized ships. And that's GDP, not tax revenue to pay off the bridge.

And to put a giant question mark on the whole thing, will there even be a cruise ship industry in 20 years? Will people pay to go to Alaska once there are no more glaciers? Will local governments rebel against them because of pollution? Will flygskam become so mainstream that no one will actual fly into Vancouver to take a cruise if they were available still?

It's a lot of unanswerable questions to pin a multi billion dollar investment on, don't you think?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1851  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2020, 12:09 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
Not really, because Georgia itself is a destination; same reason the Broadway extension has to be on Broadway. I understand that Georgia needs all the traffic capacity it can get, but the bus lane's probably staying.

The 6 is nowhere near bursting point though; artics can increase capacity, and a SkyTrain, even on Georgia, will reduce demand. Besides, I've yet to see any streetcar plan that has the Pacific Spur go past Roundhouse, though that might change as the plan gets finalized.



The Canada Line (prior to the new trains) was using 6k out of a possible 15k pphpd; even the best surface bus/rail options have a total capacity of 6k pphpd. When the C-Line overloads, we're going to need a bit more than 1.4x the capacity, but squeezing any more from a tram requires trains too long or frequencies too tight for downtown... at which point you need to bury it... and the cost of doing that means you might as well have built a tunneled line in the first place. Build it once, build it big - especially in a downtown area.

For more information, check the Surrey Rapid Transit thread - tl;dr, effective street rail supplements the RT backbone, rather than being the backbone itself. I'd say that the West End - and the DT Core overall - needs a backbone.

So sure, Broadway-City Hall to Waterfront is going to overload eventually, but then that calls for a second False Creek crossing instead of a "low"-capacity roundabout loop around it. I'm thinking of one branch of a Hastings Line down Burrard/Granville to Arbutus-Broadway and another to Stanley Park (which would help anchor the Coal Harbour tram too).

And on that note, perhaps we should move this to the Transit or Transit Fantasies thread?
OK, I moved this discussion to Transit Fantasies.

Yeah, but I’d also like to point out that the existing bus lane ends about Jervis, where the streetcar would be about 3 blocks away. The current lane isn’t bidirectional, and can’t be built bidirectional.

Here’s the report showing Davie and Denman as potential future streetcar corridors. It is however, lower priority- a ‘Potential Future Extension’ along with Main Street, Prior, and the Flats. They didn’t study it too much. https://council.vancouver.ca/990323/tt1.htm
https://www.via-architecture.com/por...ver-streetcar/



You're making an argument to not have the Artubus LRT/BRT built to begin with- though, TBF, Skytrain or Tram-Train there could be admittedly a good option, IF you can get the NIMBYs to agree to it somehow.


I mean, the need for the West End Subway is already a 'Last Mile' problem.

Note much of the West End is already covered in a 15 min walk watershed but not the 10 min watershed. Note also the Southern West End is far away from either watershed. Georgia/Robson is the logical place to put a Subway, if only to connect tourists and businessmen to Robson, Georgia, and Stanley Park better. That's your backbone. It excludes Beach Ave and Davie, however, which are at the edge of the walking watersheds, and are also destinations on their own right.

My downtown plan had a spur down Thurlow and a crossing at the reserve lands for that reason (and as overcapacity for the Millennium and Canada for UBC, eventually), but it still can't cover the entire West End in a 10 minute walk watershed...

And in any case, it costs way more than either LRT/BRT options.

BRT is about 1/3rd of LRT in cost as well. BRT’s Cost-benefit ratio is seriously constrained by the fact there wouldn’t be enough capacity on Broadway and by the diesel BRT GHG emissions. Bad for Broadway, not so much a problem for DT, so it’d make way more sense to do both Skytrain and the secondary West End routes here. It’d thus kill the idea of using Artubus as a relief line though.



The Broadway study also has operating costs for LRT and BRT similar:
Also of importance: The 1999 report indicates a cost-recovery of operating of 92% overall, while a 2007 presentation indicates a cost-recovery of 133-144% of operating- both despite Skytrain existing in the DT Core and a lot of the routes having low bus ridership (the ’99 study had the Pac Spur has 88% cost recovery). As the DT densifies, the cost-benefit increased. It’d not be unreasonable to assume the system in the West End wouldn’t do the same.
https://council.vancouver.ca/990223/rr2.htm
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/a...rtcrwright.pdf


Admittedly the proposed Granville Spur https://images.dailyhive.com/2017012...eetcar-map.jpg on the streetcar is a better idea than a Pac Spur for that purpose- but that option has been shuttered unless you can cantilever or build someplace else for the Granville Pathway to go on (under Granville Bridge?). The DT streetcar plans seemingly never were properly integrated with the Arbutus Plans.

Last edited by fredinno; Jan 7, 2020 at 12:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1852  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2020, 2:09 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
OK, I moved this discussion to Transit Fantasies.

Yeah, but I’d also like to point out that the existing bus lane ends about Jervis, where the streetcar would be about 3 blocks away. The current lane isn’t bidirectional, and can’t be built bidirectional.

Here’s the report showing Davie and Denman as potential future streetcar corridors. It is however, lower priority- a ‘Potential Future Extension’ along with Main Street, Prior, and the Flats. They didn’t study it too much.


You're making an argument to not have the Artubus LRT/BRT built to begin with- though, TBF, Skytrain or Tram-Train there could be admittedly a good option, IF you can get the NIMBYs to agree to it somehow.


I mean, the need for the West End Subway is already a 'Last Mile' problem.

Note much of the West End is already covered in a 15 min walk watershed but not the 10 min watershed. Note also the Southern West End is far away from either watershed. Georgia/Robson is the logical place to put a Subway, if only to connect tourists and businessmen to Robson, Georgia, and Stanley Park better. That's your backbone. It excludes Beach Ave and Davie, however, which are at the edge of the walking watersheds, and are also destinations on their own right.

My downtown plan had a spur down Thurlow and a crossing at the reserve lands for that reason (and as overcapacity for the Millennium and Canada for UBC, eventually), but it still can't cover the entire West End in a 10 minute walk watershed...

And in any case, it costs way more than either LRT/BRT options.

BRT is about 1/3rd of LRT in cost as well. BRT’s Cost-benefit ratio is seriously constrained by the fact there wouldn’t be enough capacity on Broadway and by the diesel BRT GHG emissions. Bad for Broadway, not so much a problem for DT, so it’d make way more sense to do both Skytrain and the secondary West End routes here. It’d thus kill the idea of using Artubus as a relief line though.

The Broadway study also has operating costs for LRT and BRT similar:
Also of importance: The 1999 report indicates a cost-recovery of operating of 92% overall, while a 2007 presentation indicates a cost-recovery of 133-144% of operating- both despite Skytrain existing in the DT Core and a lot of the routes having low bus ridership (the ’99 study had the Pac Spur has 88% cost recovery). As the DT densifies, the cost-benefit increased. It’d not be unreasonable to assume the system in the West End wouldn’t do the same.


Admittedly the proposed Granville Spur on the streetcar is a better idea than a Pac Spur for that purpose- but that option has been shuttered unless you can cantilever or build someplace else for the Granville Pathway to go on (under Granville Bridge?). The DT streetcar plans seemingly never were properly integrated with the Arbutus Plans.
Never said it would, I'm saying that "right next door" tram service probably won't justify a reroute - e.g. Hastings, Cordova and Powell all have their own bus lines despite being literally one block away from each other. Most of Georgia's buses are coming to and from the North Shore, so getting some to offload at a Stanley Park or Coal Harbour Station and SkyTrain in, that might be more productive for relieving that bus lane.

In this case, the last mile in question is half of downtown and all its respective destinations. Stanley Park alone gets ~22k visitors a day, to say nothing of all the other places you noted.

It may or may not be faster to walk/transit to a Robson station from Davie, but it would from Denman or English Bay or Robson itself (definitely Stanley Park), and that means less pressure on the buses and the existing stations. Once the buses are finally at 100% capacity, a Robson Extension also greatly justifies downtown road closures for streetcars or pedestrian boulevards.

---

Remember, Broadway's estimates are for an on-street alignment, and about three-quarters of Arbutus is an off-street alignment: theoretically, as cheap to build as BRT and visibly faster, and on a secondary corridor instead of a primary one (Cambie, Broadway, KGB-104). The problem with most of Vancouver's LRT plans is the pitch for a slightly larger, slightly faster BRT with SkyTrain-competitive pricing. If the pitch changes to a slightly larger, actually faster BRT with BRT-competitive pricing, it starts making sense.

Now if the study comes in sometime between 2025-45 and it says 5,000 pphpd and 22 km/h and $800+ million, you would be absolutely right and can disregard the above paragraph.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1853  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2020, 9:31 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
Never said it would, I'm saying that "right next door" tram service probably won't justify a reroute - e.g. Hastings, Cordova and Powell all have their own bus lines despite being literally one block away from each other. Most of Georgia's buses are coming to and from the North Shore, so getting some to offload at a Stanley Park or Coal Harbour Station and SkyTrain in, that might be more productive for relieving that bus lane.

In this case, the last mile in question is half of downtown and all its respective destinations. Stanley Park alone gets ~22k visitors a day, to say nothing of all the other places you noted.

It may or may not be faster to walk/transit to a Robson station from Davie, but it would from Denman or English Bay or Robson itself (definitely Stanley Park), and that means less pressure on the buses and the existing stations. Once the buses are finally at 100% capacity, a Robson Extension also greatly justifies downtown road closures for streetcars or pedestrian boulevards.

---

Remember, Broadway's estimates are for an on-street alignment, and about three-quarters of Arbutus is an off-street alignment: theoretically, as cheap to build as BRT and visibly faster, and on a secondary corridor instead of a primary one (Cambie, Broadway, KGB-104). The problem with most of Vancouver's LRT plans is the pitch for a slightly larger, slightly faster BRT with SkyTrain-competitive pricing. If the pitch changes to a slightly larger, actually faster BRT with BRT-competitive pricing, it starts making sense.

Now if the study comes in sometime between 2025-45 and it says 5,000 pphpd and 22 km/h and $800+ million, you would be absolutely right and can disregard the above paragraph.
It's about as far from Westin Bayshore to Burrard Stn as it is from English Bay to Westin Bayshore. You'd have to have min. 2 Skytrain lines to get everything via Skytrain.

I actually support a West End Skytrain, but it's already hard to justify $800M on a 2km line, let alone $800Mx2 regardless of what is at the other end. https://1drv.ms/x/s!AphyHYpEjmp-gppr...uJG1Q?e=JUer5a
It's again a last mile problem, so it may be justifiable to go with a slower solution here until the West End is dense enough that BRT/LRT is hitting capacity.

I do believe I said Tram-Train in the previous post you're referring to. Obvious problem with faster LRT is that it'd be less like the 'idyllic' LRT that seems to be pitched right now and more like a normal freight railway, with the ROW closed off to mitigate the # of deaths.

Maybe by the time we get to building the Arbutus Project, the NIMBYs won't be as aggressive. Though at that point, we might want to spend an extra billion and go Skytrain and wider ped/bike spaces instead.

Thing is, the same people who want LRT in Vancouver are generally the same people who want LRT en lieu of Skytrain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1854  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2020, 5:05 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
It's about as far from Westin Bayshore to Burrard Stn as it is from English Bay to Westin Bayshore. You'd have to have min. 2 Skytrain lines to get everything via Skytrain.

I actually support a West End Skytrain, but it's already hard to justify $800M on a 2km line, let alone $800Mx2 regardless of what is at the other end. https://1drv.ms/x/s!AphyHYpEjmp-gppr...uJG1Q?e=JUer5a
It's again a last mile problem, so it may be justifiable to go with a slower solution here until the West End is dense enough that BRT/LRT is hitting capacity.

I do believe I said Tram-Train in the previous post you're referring to. Obvious problem with faster LRT is that it'd be less like the 'idyllic' LRT that seems to be pitched right now and more like a normal freight railway, with the ROW closed off to mitigate the # of deaths.

Maybe by the time we get to building the Arbutus Project, the NIMBYs won't be as aggressive. Though at that point, we might want to spend an extra billion and go Skytrain and wider ped/bike spaces instead.

Thing is, the same people who want LRT in Vancouver are generally the same people who want LRT en lieu of Skytrain.
With a station at, let's say, Denman and Robson, people at both locations could just go to it instead of Burrard. But yes, this hypothetical Robson Line would have to be part of some other, more important SkyTrain project (Hastings?); it doesn't have a chance in hell of being built on its own.

I'd once again caution against underbuilding, especially downtown. If BRT/LRT is already insufficient for Central Broadway, then that applies even more so to the West End.

Eh, Arbutus would adhere closer to the "tram" part of that term. Modern Vancouver doesn't have a very S-Bahn friendly layout, and the "train" part can't properly kick in until Marine. That said, city planning teams have suggesting road closures and a hedge/fence-separated ROW, so the final product could end up anywhere between ION and Eglinton-Crosstown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1855  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:33 PM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
Your spreadsheet is a little out of date since it doesn't include the most recent 2018 Broadway Subway estimates. https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjWWltw_HSwzieAx...afvnw?e=9UjdcO
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1856  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 6:41 AM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
https://www.via-architecture.com/por...ver-streetcar/



You're making an argument to not have the Artubus LRT/BRT built to begin with- though, TBF, Skytrain or Tram-Train there could be admittedly a good option, IF you can get the NIMBYs to agree to it somehow...
I think that I have repeated my opinion a few times on the idea of Street-Level LRT for Vancouver so I do apologize if I sound like a broken record. I almost feel like the idea of streetcars in Vancity should be a thread of its own.

So this the thing... With that map that I quoted I do honestly like the idea of streetcars (for lack of a better term) for the downtown peninsula and for the areas that it proposes the streetcar for. In fact I included this kind of surface LRT into a fantasy of my own. However I find that I have a hard time finding an argument for street-level LRT whereas it could just be replaced with more frequent trolley-buses .

In the context of this map, I would assume that everything within the downtown peninsula is all SLGI LRT except for some small bits like maybe by Waterfront station (?).

Point 1 - Capacity
For me, street-level and grade-integrated (SLGI) LRT is a way to address capacity. An LRT train should be able to carry significantly more people than a standard bus. Just doing basic google searches, the new Toronto LRT train can hold up to 181 passengers (standing) whereas an articulated bus can hold up to 98 people (standing)

So already we have our first counter argument against which is PPHPD where I think that it was mentioned on here that buses would out-do LRT for PPHPD? And the point of transit is to move as many people as efficiently as possible. Please someone correct me about the PPHPD.


Point 2 - Speed
Again, for me, SLGI LRT should address capacity and not speed. I know that SLGI LRT is not going to be faster than a bus and that is fine with me so long as we are all on the same page and understand that LRT is not a rapid transit solution (nightmares of the Surrey LRT come to mind here...).

Next counterpoint - why not spend the same amount of money on BRT? The only problem that I personally have with BRT is that I don't think that it has ever been executed well in Canada. Winnipeg's BRT is a disaster and the Rapid Bus program in Vancouver is just a bunch of money to paint some articulated buses with fancy signs. I think that BRT is totally feasible to implement but Canada has a pretty bad track record of doing BRT adequately which isn't a good enough reason to be against BRT but it is something that I do keep in mind.


Point 3 - Route Logistics
With SLGI LRT, the route of the tracks is extremely important since LRT collisions are insanely high. London just had its first fatal collision with LRT and Edmonton and Calgary each have plenty of fatalities of their own as well.

If we were going to go ahead with SLGI LRT in the downtown peninsula then I would personally like to see some grade separation at intersections that have a high collision potential.

My counterpoint against LRT is that if we need LRT grade-separated anyways for safety concerns then why not just build Skytrain?


Point 4 - More Bus Inventory
Trust and believe, once we see the Millennium extension to UBC, we are going to see some great things happening with bus routes across Metro Vancouver.

With an LRT system, it would free up even more inventory so that Translink is able to provide more frequent and better services to further out areas like South Surrey and Langley.


Point 5 - Land Values
There are studies to show that land value go up if LRT tracks are set. And then there are other studies and articles that show that the process of construction is so grueling that it drives away businesses.

Overall, I feel like LRT does make sense for downtown Vancouver and for the Arbutus greenway but it is incredibly hard to make a case for it. I think that it would all come down to the design of it for me. Thankfully we have Toronto to compare to when it comes to a successful streetcar system. And if Vancouver was to go ahead and build a streetcar system (like the one I quoted or the Arbutus Greenway) then I would also expect the system to expand like Toronto's has. I personally think that LRT can address capacity issues where we couldn't build Skytrain to like to the West End (sorry, but I don't think that a West End Skytrain station is ever going to happen) or through OV up to Senakw.

Sorry to give you guys such a wishy-washy reply. I am definitely in the grey-zone with LRT for downtown Vancouver.
__________________
There is a housing crisis, and we simply need to speak up about it.

Pinterest - I use this social media platform to easily add pictures into my posts on this forum. Plus there are great architecture and city photos out there as well.

Last edited by scryer; Jan 11, 2020 at 5:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1857  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 8:30 AM
Aroundtheworld Aroundtheworld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 618
^I honestly don't see streetcar/LRT making sense for Vancouver except for the Arbutus Corridor and False Creek.

There's no point building a streetcar that will just sit in mixed traffic and won't have signal priority except being a colossal waste of money. I also don't trust the planners here to do a proper job and implement those things.

Look at Sydney, Australia. They just spent $3B on a light rail line that goes 15 minutes slower than the bus it replaced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1858  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 1:12 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
I think that I have repeated my opinion a few times on the idea of Street-Level LRT for Vancouver so I do apologize if I sound like a broken record. I almost feel like the idea of streetcars in Vancity should be a thread of its own. ...................

Point 3 - Route Logistics
With SLGI LRT, the route of the tracks is extremely important since LRT collisions are insanely high. London just had its first fatal collision with LRT and Edmonton and Calgary each have plenty of fatalities of their own as well.

If we were going to go ahead with SLGI LRT in the downtown peninsula then I would personally like to see some grade separation at intersections that have a high collision potential.

My counterpoint against LRT is that if we need LRT grade-separated anyways for safety concerns then why not just build Skytrain?


Point 4 - More Bus Inventory
Trust and believe, once we see the Millennium extension to UBC, we are going to see some great things happening with bus routes across Metro Vancouver.
Is that really possible? You say it is next to nigh impossible to have, but please just imagine for a moment that it were; could you apply it to that possible LRT Vancouver map?
I would love to see some renders of what it might be like!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1859  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 3:54 PM
Galaxy's Avatar
Galaxy Galaxy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 472
The Millenium line and Expo line extensions both will have a huge impact on bus routes in the region and free up buses for other routes. I am so excited for both extensions to happen!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1860  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 5:31 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
Is that really possible? You say it is next to nigh impossible to have, but please just imagine for a moment that it were; could you apply it to that possible LRT Vancouver map?
I would love to see some renders of what it might be like!
In this modern day and age, anything is possible to engineer. We just need the funds, the right political climate, and a population wanting it (not gonna happen until the Boomers die off though - same with the view-cone thing). If i could, I would love to have Skytrain absolutely everywhere but the reality (in regards to the peninsula) is that people will want to bury the Skytrain doubling its expenses and people generally oppose elevated Skytrain. Let me speculate again on the feasibility on the two most likely LRT routes to be developed. Most of these are generalizations:

False Creek
- Transit oriented community

- Very Walk-able neighbourhood

- Skytrain Stations include OV and Main Street-Science World

- West 1st or West 2nd/West 6th avenue; and Quebec Street look like they could be good candidates for SLGI LRT routes.

- The connection to Waterfront station could be messy-ish, especially if the LRT has to go through Gastown. I know that it would be cool for historical purposes but I would rather have it behind Gastown (north) adjacent to the service road that is adjacent to all of the rail.

- The False Creek (specifically OV) community is under a lot of construction so construction fatigue might be a thing.

- Most of it would probably be integrated with traffic.

- Between the two streetcar lines, I can see this one being built first.

Arbutus Greenway
- The Greenway path itself is huge in length and it is pretty much the perfect size to accommodate LRT vehicles.

- The route here is mostly separated from traffic making it a lot more safer and dare I say, faster?

- Most walk-able and transit oriented neighbourhoods are located along Broadway or north of Broadway. And then there's Kerrisdale that would greatly densify.

- Goes through the heart of NIMBYville so they will oppose absolutely everything and anything. They will especially oppose Skytrain and will be more likely to accept LRT (which isn't a good excuse, but they haven't died off yet so nothing progressive can happen).

- On that note, these NIMBYs will probably shave 3 years off of their short remaining lives opposing anything and everything since Broadway will be a huge change for them. Even if we were to bring a streetcar system down the Arbutus Greenway pulled by horses, these NIMBYs will probably oppose these changes until their last dying breath.



Quote:
^I honestly don't see streetcar/LRT making sense for Vancouver except for the Arbutus Corridor and False Creek.

There's no point building a streetcar that will just sit in mixed traffic and won't have signal priority except being a colossal waste of money. I also don't trust the planners here to do a proper job and implement those things.
I agree with both points which is why my opinion on LRT is literally on the fence pending the detailed design plans. I want it but it has to be done right.

I think that Arbutus Greenway and the False Creek routes (with the LRT going all the way to Waterfront, combining the red-dotted and the black solid lines in the diagram) are a perfect start for LRTs. But we shouldn't be shy from expanding the service where it makes sense, and IMO, it would make sense to expand it throughout the downtown peninsula as the buses already sit in traffic anyways.

I have also copied and carried over this discussion to the Arbutus Greenway Thread...
__________________
There is a housing crisis, and we simply need to speak up about it.

Pinterest - I use this social media platform to easily add pictures into my posts on this forum. Plus there are great architecture and city photos out there as well.

Last edited by scryer; Jan 11, 2020 at 6:02 PM.
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 7:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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