North Shore Rapid Transit | Park Royal-Metrotown via 2nd Narrows | BRT/RRT

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Still ahead of Scott Road and Maple Ridge, and there's a 99.999% chance Future thinks those ones shouldn't go ahead either.

So we just have KGB/104th, PoCo, Hastings, Willingdon, and 41st. (Disagree about Scott Road, but it's not on the Transport 2050 plans)
That's what- 45km of SkyTrain tracks?

It'll be a while.

No, because an extra 2-4 lanes plus a bridge plus upgrades to Cassiar for the same price as a SkyTrain A) skips almost all the places people want to get to, B) still isn't enough capacity to get everybody on and off the North Shore and C) does nothing to address trips inside the North Shore itself; if anything, NS trains are threatening the highway.

The MoT is not responsible for transit expansions, that's TransLink.

Marine Drive outside of CNV is ~1km away on average from Upper Levels.
For comparison, Line 4 Sheppard is avg. ~500m from 401.

There's going to be a huge number of people who just prefer to drive on a line with already weak ridership.



Upper Levels is also used for short-range travel in NS as well.
This is why NS is (and should) expand the east-west arterial road network.

Originally Posted by madog222

I really don't see a new road & rail bridge happening, well not without a change in provincial government at least. None of the local municipalities seem to want increased car capacity (they want transit) and replacing like for like car capacity when the bridge still has decades left doesn't make much sense.


https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/l...D%20she%20said.

Well, no Highway projects are going through until BC United comes back in power.
After GMB, NS is the most consistently congested highway corridor in Metro Vancouver.


I would expect them to pursue this next.
I doubt the NS would prevent the Province from doing this like New West did with NFPR, not when Upper Levels is so important to the region.

[Helvetia]

Originally Posted by fredinno

So we just have KGB/104th, PoCo, Hastings, Willingdon, and 41st. (Disagree about Scott Road, but it's not on the Transport 2050 plans)

There's no way a Willingdon SkyTrain is happening without it being bundled together with a NS line. Similarly, where exactly is a Hastings line supposed to connect to at its eastern terminus if not a NS line? The same platforms for a NS-Metrotown line could be used for a future extension along 41st/49th as well.

I agree there are other critical corridors, but the NS SkyTrain lays the groundwork for a lot of these future lines by creating anchor points.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

- snip -

Newton-Guildford's pegged at basically the same ridership as Gold/Purple; Port Coq isn't a priority, nor as high-demand; as mentioned, Hastings and 41st are much less effective without an N-S line down Willingdon, and if TransLink's doing Willingdon, they might as well do the North Shore.

The MoT's got other priorities. If you'll check around, they've got their hands full with Kicking Horse Canyon, the George Massey replacement, the Abbotsford TCH widening, and the Mount Seymour Parkway interchange they just finished up on... best for them to dump Second Narrows on TransLink for now.
And almost all the density and destinations on the North Shore are fairly out of the way of the Upper Levels, especially when traffic can make that single kilometre take 15-30 minutes. That's like saying people'd rather go from Metrotown to Surrey via the TCH instead of the Expo - yeah, only if they're that obsessed with driving. Gold/Purple are each estimated to remove 50-60k drivers from the road, while 2-4 more lanes doesn't even manage to add 37k.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Helvetia

There's no way a Willingdon SkyTrain is happening without it being bundled together with a NS line. Similarly, where exactly is a Hastings line supposed to connect to at its eastern terminus if not a NS line? The same platforms for a NS-Metrotown line could be used for a future extension along 41st/49th as well.

I agree there are other critical corridors, but the NS SkyTrain lays the groundwork for a lot of these future lines by creating anchor points.[/QUOTE]
Willingdon gets anchored by Hastings Line.
Hastings Line is anchored by 2nd SFU Gondola from Lochdale (which is not possible if you send it to NS.)


And there's no reason you can't connect the 41st line directly connecting to Willingdon without building the section to NS.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Newton-Guildford's pegged at basically the same ridership as Gold/Purple; Port Coq isn't a priority, nor as high-demand; as mentioned, Hastings and 41st are much less effective without an N-S line down Willingdon, and if TransLink's doing Willingdon, they might as well do the North Shore.

Yes, and I guess if Translink's doing Newton, they may as well do Semiahmoo (which is another common proposed SkyTrain extension despite low demand)?

The MoT's got other priorities. If you'll check around, they've got their hands full with Kicking Horse Canyon, the George Massey replacement, the Abbotsford TCH widening, and the Mount Seymour Parkway interchange they just finished up on... best for them to dump Second Narrows on TransLink for now.

Yep, that's because the NDP refuses to expand highways unless they're forced to.
They're not going to be in office forever (especially after Hogan left), and then we can finally start going down the backlog and get Gateway Project 2.0.

And almost all the density and destinations on the North Shore are fairly out of the way of the Upper Levels, especially when traffic can make that single kilometre take 15-30 minutes. That's like saying people'd rather go from Metrotown to Surrey via the TCH instead of the Expo - yeah, only if they're that obsessed with driving. Gold/Purple are each estimated to remove 50-60k drivers from the road, while 2-4 more lanes doesn't even manage to add 37k.

No, Metrotown is 3 km from Hwy 1.
Brentwood is the only current SkyTrain station that has towers that is ~1km away from Hwy 1.
Brentwood suffers from being so close to the freeway vs most other similar town centers:


It's comparable to Gateway Station in terms of ridership, which is not normal for a town center of its size.
It's safe to say many people are driving from Brentwood.

Lougheed is not comparable, as Lougheed is actually much farther (~2km) than Brentwood from a normal Hwy 1 exit (closest is Brunette.)
Scott Road is also a major park & ride facility, so that should be ignored as well.

This effect will be duplicated across all NS stations outside Lonsdale and possibly Lynn Valley.
It's possibly a problem even with the current Upper Levels, as Hwy 1 traffic at Willingdon is quite brutal at peak.

This is why I'm so adamant about cutting out Hastings and Willingdon ridership from Marine Dr. ridership.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Willingdon is anchored by the Expo and Millennium, while Hastings is on its own for all 11km; a second gondola is not part of Transport 2050, and would be a very weak connection to the rest of the network. We've been over this in the fantasy thread.
South Van has many more options for getting around than North Van does. And nobody anywhere is suggesting SkyTrain to White Rock these days – it’s very far, very low-density, and very NIMBY, so the pitch is almost always a faster bus.

Since the party that likes more rapid transit over more highways is in charge and will likely stay in charge, guess which one the North Shore will probably get?

Yes: again, Metrotown to the nearest interchange is much more free-flowing than Lonsdale or Park Royal. A single kilometre on the North Shore at rush hour is as long as three or more in Burnaby.
As for Brentwood, a large part of its traffic is from Vancouver, Metrotown or the North Shore, none of which can currently be reached easily by transit; once Arbutus and the Willingdon RB open for business, one can expect the SkyTrain station to get much busier. You can’t cut Hastings or Willingdon from Marine Drive, because many of those commuters are one and the same. Nor can you judge the North Shore by park and rides in Surrey, because most of both future populations will be along transit corridors.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by madog222

I really don't see a new road & rail bridge happening, well not without a change in provincial government at least. None of the local municipalities seem to want increased car capacity (they want transit) and replacing like for like car capacity when the bridge still has decades left doesn't make much sense.

If the bridge deck continues to deteriorate and causes future lane closures I think that pressure will increase to replace it. In any case they still have to plan for it so it's better to figure out a plan that incorporates future replacement.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

If the bridge deck continues to deteriorate and causes future lane closures I think that pressure will increase to replace it. In any case they still have to plan for it so it's better to figure out a plan that incorporates future replacement.

The bridge deck could be rebuilt/rehabilitated, though that would require extensive lane closures.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Helvetia

I agree there are other critical corridors, but the NS SkyTrain lays the groundwork for a lot of these future lines by creating anchor points.

Plus, a NS line would go through Burnaby, Vancouver, North Van (City and District) and West Van. Burnaby and North Van would benefit the most, but compared to other lines like 41/49 and KGB where only one municipality would be directly served, a NS line would kill five birds with one stone.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Plus, a NS line would go through Burnaby, Vancouver, North Van (City and District) and West Van. Burnaby and North Van would benefit the most, but compared to other lines like 41/49 and KGB where only one municipality would be directly served, a NS line would kill five birds with one stone.

Yes I think you are 100% correct. My next question would be: WHICH route or routes do you see as the best for this? If it's the IWMB can it support the extra lane width and added weight of rrt? Big-time addition.
(I am assuming that you prefer the purple and gold routes over the Lonsdale or Stanley Park Park tunnels.) as these are too $$$$$. I refer to the necessary major IWMBridge re-engineering. Surely a "must."
Or ... are the western, tunneled lines to West Van and Lonsdale included in your idea as well. Imagine it!! All the lines are built out to the max. What amazing inter-city and interregional transportation Metro Vancouver would have!

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Yes I think you are 100% correct. My next question would be: WHICH route or routes do you see as the best for this? If it's the IWMB can it support the extra lane width and added weight of rrt? Big-time addition.
(I am assuming that you prefer the purple and gold routes over the Lonsdale or Stanley Park Park tunnels.) as these are too $$$$$. I refer to the necessary major IWMBridge re-engineering. Surely a "must."
Or ... are the western, tunneled lines to West Van and Lonsdale included in your idea as well. Imagine it!! All the lines are built out to the max. What amazing inter-city and interregional transportation Metro Vancouver would have!

The Norgate option underneath Stanley Park was actually identified as the cheapest overall, as Burrard Inlet is actually relatively shallow there.

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Plus, a NS line would go through Burnaby, Vancouver, North Van (City and District) and West Van. Burnaby and North Van would benefit the most, but compared to other lines like 41/49 and KGB where only one municipality would be directly served, a NS line would kill five birds with one stone.

It's not the number of municipalities, it's the number of people.

Also, to service Vancouver, NS, and Burnaby, you'd have to build 26 km of track, or about the entire current Millennium Line of track.
That's going to take a very long while.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Willingdon is anchored by the Expo and Millennium, while Hastings is on its own for all 11km; a second gondola is not part of Transport 2050, and would be a very weak connection to the rest of the network. We've been over this in the fantasy thread.
South Van has many more options for getting around than North Van does.

Hastings apparently has more than enough riders without anchoring.

Willingdon also connects Hastings to the rest of the network as well.
Ditto any future FTDA additions (which are allowed and have been done before via amendments.)

And nobody anywhere is suggesting SkyTrain to White Rock these days – it’s very far, very low-density, and very NIMBY, so the pitch is almost always a faster bus.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/cana...richmond-delta
https://globalnews.ca/news/4445303/s...rock-over-lrt/

And yes, Doug McCallum is out of office, but the idea of extending SkyTrain to White Rock or Ladner comes up all the time in popular discussions.



Though TBF, the South Surrey is not all NIMBY.
It's mostly just White Rock itself, Crescent Beach and Elgin.
(Basically the western and southernmost parts of South Surrey, near the coast.)

Since the party that likes more rapid transit over more highways is in charge and will likely stay in charge, guess which one the North Shore will probably get?

John Hogan was a very unique leader that both side of the political spectrum could get behind.

BC NDP has been losing support to BC United ever since he left.
The center-right has also been historically the dominant political faction in BC.


Assuming BC United will never get into power within the next decade is...quite bold, to say the least.
Especially since people are not single-issue voters.

Yes: again, Metrotown to the nearest interchange is much more free-flowing than Lonsdale or Park Royal. A single kilometre on the North Shore at rush hour is as long as three or more in Burnaby.
As for Brentwood, a large part of its traffic is from Vancouver, Metrotown or the North Shore, none of which can currently be reached easily by transit; once Arbutus and the Willingdon RB open for business, one can expect the SkyTrain station to get much busier.

Maximum travel times from Metrotown at peak to Hwy 1: 22 min
Maximum travel time from Brentwood at peak to Hwy 1: 5 min
Maximum travel time from Phibbs at peak to Hwy 1: Negligible (duh)
Maximum travel time from Lynn Valley at peak to Hwy 1: 7 min
Maximum travel time from Park Royal at peak to Hwy 1: 7 min

I am justified in comparing Brentwood directly to the NS centers.


130 is already pretty close to the minimum service and priority levels of the R-buses due to the unusually large number of priority lanes on its corridor for a non-R-bus line.

It also doesn't explain how every other Town Center station other than Coquitlam and Port Moody have higher ridership.

You can’t cut Hastings or Willingdon from Marine Drive, because many of those commuters are one and the same. Nor can you judge the North Shore by park and rides in Surrey, because most of both future populations will be along transit corridors.

You can't terminate the PoCo extension in PoCo instead of going all the way to Maple Ridge by that standard.
Same thing with KGB/White Rock, as R1 is likely to be extended to White Rock soon, as it is within the Phase 1 R-bus plans and is in preliminary planning:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/rapi...rey-white-rock

I find this argument dumb.

We know the vast majority of people get off before crossing the 2nd Narrows.
Just follow demand.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It’s not the number of people, it’s the number of destinations which attract the people. King George, Port Coq, South Van, Scott Road and Maple Ridge all lack those, so they have to wait in line.

In other words, Willingdon should come first to anchor Hastings? Agreed - without it, expanding the current number of “more than enough riders” will be severely constrained.

“These days.” McCallum and Councillor Elgin said those statements two elections ago. And pretty much every opinion poll disagrees with your assessment of the next provincial election; I can flip that line around and say voters won’t simply give BC United (FC) twenty more ridings just to build one highway bridge for a bunch of NDP strongholds. But that’s better suited for the politics thread.

Once again, all three might as well be as far away as Metrotown at rush hour. Add 5-10 minutes to each of those North Shore ramps: 5-10 for Phibbs, 12-17 for Lynn Valley, Lonsdale and Park Royal.

Same answer: the R2’s got no rapid transit connection to the rest of the network. The 130 still has local stops spaced every 200-400m, as does the 28 (as they should - they’re feeder buses); even then, they and the peak-only express 222 have combined ridership on par with the R5. Once the 222 becomes a six-stop RapidBus with transit priority and many 28/130 riders and other commuters switch, both it and the R2 will see much more ridership than the present.

That’s a dumb argument; TransLink is following demand: to two of their biggest and busiest interchanges in the whole metro, as well as two town centres and a university. Most R3 riders disembark east of Port Coq, and R1 riders north of Newton, whereas the R7 will have standing room only all the way up and down.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It’s not the number of people, it’s the number of destinations which attract the people. King George, Port Coq, South Van, Scott Road and Maple Ridge all lack those, so they have to wait in line.

Again, you're ignoring the tons of smaller destinations people go to.


Also, you're overestimating the size of NS centers.

Phibbs and Park Royal both got 10-11,000 boardings in 2022.
This is the same amount as Scottsdale and Guildford.
Lonsdale Quay gets 6,400.

Newton gets 23,000 boardings.

“These days.” McCallum and Councillor Elgin said those statements two elections ago. And pretty much every opinion poll disagrees with your assessment of the next provincial election; I can flip that line around and say voters won’t simply give BC United (FC) twenty more ridings just to build one highway bridge for a bunch of NDP strongholds. But that’s better suited for the politics thread.

Polling is quite scarce vs US or Canada Federal elections.
It's very difficult to tell anything useful.


It's quite common for people to dream about SkyTrain to Ladner or South Surrey SOF.
Like SkyTrain for Surrey:
https://skytrainforsurrey.org/2021/0...ond-skybridge/
https://skytrainforsurrey.org/wp-con...APRIL-2021.pdf

Once again, all three might as well be as far away as Metrotown at rush hour. Add 5-10 minutes to each of those North Shore ramps: 5-10 for Phibbs, 12-17 for Lynn Valley, Lonsdale and Park Royal.

I have accounted for the ramps.

I'm using Google Maps for this, using its 'typical traffic' function.


Just because you get stuck in traffic in NS a lot, it doesn't mean it's so much worse than Willingdon that Upper Levels doesn't suck up potential transit demand.
Willingdon takes an eternity to get off and on during rush hour too, and it's only gotten worse over time.

That’s a dumb argument; TransLink is following demand: to two of their biggest and busiest interchanges in the whole metro, as well as two town centres and a university. Most R3 riders disembark east of Port Coq, and R1 riders north of Newton, whereas the R7 will have standing room only all the way up and down.

Once again: 130 Bus:


The vast majority of people are off the 130 bus by the time they get out of Kootenay Loop, indicating they're not heading to the NS.
Phibbs is the only station in NS on 130, BTW.
222 doesn't even go to Phibbs.

I'm not even going to calculate the % of people who get off before Phibbs, because it's pointless. The graph is obvious.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Smaller destinations don’t justify SkyTrains, they justify RapidBuses.

When was the last time Scottsdale or Guildford Exchange got an expansion? Exactly. The demand isn’t there. Granted, Newton did ten years ago... and as mentioned, SNG (by itself, not with SLS) is projected to have as many riders as Gold or Purple; it’s likely next in line right after the North Shore.

Untrue. Various polling firms do one every month or two, and they all come up NDP.
YVR wants a line from Richmond through Delta to Surrey. People can dream, but those aren’t on the agenda; the North Shore is, and it's right on the list next to UBCx.

Google Maps is a guesstimate, not a gospel. And it’s not just me; almost nobody ever wasted two hours on Willingdon, but it's common in North Van.

Check before you post. The 222 very much does go to Phibbs.
As for the 130, see those two big green bars of boardings/alightings at the exchange that combined are almost twice as large as the ones for Hastings and Kootenay? Yeah, you just proved my point for me: ridership all the way across the board.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Yes I think you are 100% correct. My next question would be: WHICH route or routes do you see as the best for this? If it's the IWMB can it support the extra lane width and added weight of rrt? Big-time addition.
(I am assuming that you prefer the purple and gold routes over the Lonsdale or Stanley Park Park tunnels.) as these are too $$$$$. I refer to the necessary major IWMBridge re-engineering. Surely a "must."
Or ... are the western, tunneled lines to West Van and Lonsdale included in your idea as well. Imagine it!! All the lines are built out to the max. What amazing inter-city and interregional transportation Metro Vancouver would have!

TransLink has already stated that rapid transit is going to be going from Metrotown to Park Royal via the Second Narrows corridor. It's not going to be going anywhere near the First Narrows corridor.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

TransLink has already stated that rapid transit is going to be going from Metrotown to Park Royal via the Second Narrows corridor. It's not going to be going anywhere near the First Narrows corridor.

That's not true.
They said it's going to be from Metrotown to Park Royal, not that it's going to be from any particular corridor.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by fredinno

That's not true.
They said it's going to be from Metrotown to Park Royal, not that it's going to be from any particular corridor.

Transport 2050: 10-Year Priorities is a blueprint that identifies our region’s top priorities, so we can get started right away on the first ten years of Transport 2050 investments, which will be funded through future Investment Plans. It is an update to the Mayors’ Council’s 2014 Vision for Metro Vancouver Transit and Transportation.

The proposal includes:

* Immediately advance the required planning, engagement, and design work to confirm the best alignment, technology, grade separation, terminus locations and phasing for a rapid transit connection between Metrotown and Park Royal via the Second Narrows corridor to be implemented in the latter half of the plan, while delivering better bus service in the short term

That's from the TransLink press release titled "TransLink unveils first 10 years of Transport 2050 priorities".

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's from the TransLink press release titled "TransLink unveils first 10 years of Transport 2050 priorities".

The original Transport 2050 document also specifically says only 2nd Narrows is expected to be possibly converted into 'rapid transit', which means a single spur of rail/bus to Phibbs.

Remaining regional priorities expected to be delivered at grade and within dedicated rights-of-way, with the exception of (2) King George,
(3) Willingdon/ Hastings/2nd Narrows, and (4) 41/49 Ave, which may require grade separation. Technology and level of separation to be
determined through further studies.

The Park Royal <> Metrotown thing is something completely different and mentioned elsewhere in Transport 2050, with no mention of where it crosses.
It's intended to be BRT notationally, but explicitly leaves open all technology options and alignments.

The person they hired to write that press release appears to have gotten confused between those two things, because there's no mention of any SkyTrain on Marine where it mentions 2nd Narrows.


I'm not even sure how useful a single spur across the 2nd Narrows would really be, even compared to Scott Road initially.

[madog222]

It's right there in the map...

The idea for the line as BRT initially is from after Transport 2050 was created.

All other MTN corridors are assumed to be BRT, with the exception of:
(5) Metrotown-Park Royal: Explore options for a dedicated transit crossing across the Burrard Inlet

https://www.translink.ca/news/2022/a...0%20priorities


It's also clear in the press release:

Immediately advance the required planning, engagement, and design work to confirm the best alignment, technology, grade separation, terminus locations and phasing for a rapid transit connection between Metrotown and Park Royal via the Second Narrows corridor to be implemented in the latter half of the plan, while delivering better bus service in the short term

https://www.translink.ca/news/2022/a...0%20priorities

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by madog222

It's right there in the map...

The idea for the line as BRT initially is from after Transport 2050 was created.



https://www.translink.ca/news/2022/a...0%20priorities


It's also clear in the press release:
https://www.translink.ca/news/2022/a...0%20priorities

I'm using the original Transport 2050 pdfs.
Again, there's an inconsistency between them and the press release, which is derived from them.
It's probably a mistake.

That image you linked does not mention anything about the 2nd Narrows specifically and states that alignments are for illustrative purposes only (meaning the map itself isn't really useful).

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by fredinno

That image you linked does not mention anything about the 2nd Narrows specifically and states that alignments are for illustrative purposes only (meaning the map itself isn't really useful).

TransLink said it themselves:

Immediately advance the required planning, engagement, and design work to confirm the best alignment, technology, grade separation, terminus locations and phasing for a rapid transit connection between Metrotown and Park Royal via the Second Narrows corridor to be implemented in the latter half of the plan, while delivering better bus service in the short term.

So TransLink misinterpreted TransLink's priorities? Or could it be that you're wrong about TransLink's plans, and TransLink might actually know what TransLink's plans are?