New Seabus: Burrard Pacific Breeze

[twoNeurons]

Yeah... somehow fixed rails on a floating bridge don't seem like a great idea.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Marginally related ....

How?

[officedweller]

Stray current and corrosion of the steel.

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by tintinium

Large trucks are not allowed on the bridge because the lanes are so narrow. In addition, they want truck traffic going over the 2nd narrows.

The Lion's Gate can Easily support the weight of a tram. You COULD make it trams and buses only during rush periods. You could still use the lane in the event of an accident.

I think the problems related to trying to retrofit the bridge to allow trams to use it aren't worth the benefits it would provide.

Using the money to buy a fleet of commuter ferries to zig-zag across Burrard Inlet would be a wiser investment.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Smooth

I think the problems related to trying to retrofit the bridge to allow trams to use it aren't worth the benefits it would provide.

Using the money to buy a fleet of commuter ferries to zig-zag across Burrard Inlet would be a wiser investment.

I don't know... Burrard Inlet is a busy route. And it still takes time to get across. Would retrofitting the Lion's gate to accommodate trams REALLY be that difficult?

[Smooth]

Well the obvious problem would be that with one set of tracks you would really limit the capacity of the tram route. I'm pretty sure it would be a no-go with the park board to expand it to 2 directions of travel through the Stanley Park causeway. So with one line all you could really do is a West Coast Express style system where you run the trams into town in the morning and out of town in the afternoon. With such limited capacity you'd hardly convert any North Shore drivers to transit users.

I'm quite sure the bridge deck would have to be completely overhauled for the installation of tracks (assuming the bridge could actually support the extra weight.

The grades on the bridge deck between center-span and West Van are probably on the upper limit of what a tram could easily handle.

The other issue would be that the only real high density area on the North Shore is around Lonsdale... which is already well served by the seabus and is a much faster commute into town.

[sacrifice333]

I'm never a huge fan of simply removing lanes, like the previous proposal to remove a lane from each side of the Burrard Street Bridge to accommodate fantastic bike lanes BUT if lanes are removed and replaced with fast public such as TRAMS, ALRT, etc. I think it's great.

The simply notion of sitting in your car stuck in traffic while the transit vehicle whizzes by should encourage many to explore that alternative.

I think a ferry from Ambleside or even from Park Royal would take some time to make it to downtown and there is the problem, as mentioned, of congestion in Burrard Inlet.

[Pinion]

LRT over Lions Gate makes little sense because everyone on that side of the north shore commutes by car and always will. They'd be the last neighbourhood in Vancouver to give up cars. It needs to service the poor schmucks living in condos/apartments in the Lonsdale area.

If they built LRT on Lions Gate I'd still take the seabus.

[Nutterbug]

How about adding an extra bridge deck? The support towers are strong enough for one, right?

They can build an elevated overhead guideway right over the causeway in Stanley Park.

And there is a pocket of density around the Park Royal/Ambleside area.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by Pinion

LRT over Lions Gate makes little sense because everyone on that side of the north shore commutes by car and always will. They'd be the last neighbourhood in Vancouver to give up cars.

Even if the LRT offers a time advantage and commuting over the Lions Gate becomes more of a congested nightmare?

What they should do is straighten out the Skytrain at Burrard to serve the Robson Corridor and the North Shore, and let the Canada Line serve Waterfront Station, with the two lines criss-crossing at Granville/Robson Stations.

[twoNeurons]

Yeah, I guess fitting two rails on one lane is not possible. Darn laws of nature.

Even with one rail, I don't necessarily think it's not doable... it can't take more than a few minutes to cross the span, so frequencies could be every 5 minutes with properly timed trains.

I was also thinking about the medium-term goal to remove all traffic from the Lion's Gate Bridge and through Stanley Park.

Does anyone know the depth of Burrard inlet?

Does anyone know the feasibility of actually burying the roadway leading up to the Lion's Gate Bridge? A Big Dig kind of thing, turning the surface top into a linear park.

If there was a third crossing, what do you think would happen to the Lion's Gate? Revert to two lanes, plus a transit lane and wider cyclist and pedestrian lanes?

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

Even if the LRT offers a time advantage and commuting over the Lions Gate becomes more of a congested nightmare?

I suppose in that case some would, but preferably we'd provide public transit to those who need and want it rather than those who don't want it.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by tintinium

Does anyone know the feasibility of actually burying the roadway leading up to the Lion's Gate Bridge? A Big Dig kind of thing, turning the surface top into a linear park.

There was lots of talk about that when Lions Gate was renovated but it was nixed for some reason, I assume price.

[fever]

I doubt any changes will be made to the Lions Gate Bridge any time soon. I wouldn't expect even modest bus schedule improvements in North Van, especially when bus depots are apparently not permitted. I don't think West Van would want a light rail line, anyway.

If memory serves, the new modular deck of the Lions Gate was designed to be light and thin because the towers were not designed with much extra capacity. The original deck was narrower than the current deck: the sidewalks were inside the towers and the lanes were very narrow. However, they did remove the steel trusses on each side of the deck, again if memory serves, that were there to prevent a repeat of galloping gertie. That should have taken some weight off? Tram cars aren't light either... they weigh about as much as the heaviest semi-trailers on the road.

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by Pinion

There was lots of talk about that when Lions Gate was renovated but it was nixed for some reason, I assume price.

Price was the main reason probably. Another reason was that even if they did bury the causeway ventilation shafts would have to come up above ground all the was along the route so the area could never really be reforested.

[officedweller]

The new wider deck has its strcture under the roadway and apparently weighs roughly the same as the old narrower deck.
There was a proposal to expand to 6 lanes (double-decker) but that would have required the conversion of the bridge to a cable-stayed span and the heightening of the existing towers.

[Smooth]

^For a conversion like that I would imagine it would be cheaper to just knock it down and start fresh.

Personally I think the bridge is perfect as is. A beauty like it shouldn't be tinkered with too much.

[Nutterbug]

I think the Lions Gate Bridge is a heritage site, hence untouchable.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

What they should do is straighten out the Skytrain at Burrard to serve the Robson Corridor and the North Shore, and let the Canada Line serve Waterfront Station, with the two lines criss-crossing at Granville/Robson Stations.

What's more, is there much point in having both the Skytrain and Canada Line run between Granville/Robson and Waterfront Stations now, considering it's a short walk between them? Let the Expo Line keep running west.

[Nutterbug]

Here's what my idea of a rerouted Expo Line looks like, Main Street Station westward:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...,0.142651&z=13