HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1261  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2017, 7:57 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Torcouver
Posts: 9,419
Zones need to go, period.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1262  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2017, 8:50 PM
retro_orange retro_orange is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by cganuelas1995 View Post
SCREW THE ZONES! Give us distance based fares!
That's what I thought. I'm seeing a lot of east-west travelers getting boned with that map. Frankly it again makes me think Burnaby and New West should be amalgamated into Vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1263  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2017, 9:18 PM
cganuelas1995 cganuelas1995 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
That's what I thought. I'm seeing a lot of east-west travelers getting boned with that map. Frankly it again makes me think Burnaby and New West should be amalgamated into Vancouver.
Maybe even extend that amalgamation to Richmond. Someone who gets on at Bridgeport and works at Marine Drive shouldn't have to pay for 2 zones to cross the river.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1264  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2017, 9:48 PM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by cganuelas1995 View Post
Maybe even extend that amalgamation to Richmond. Someone who gets on at Bridgeport and works at Marine Drive shouldn't have to pay for 2 zones to cross the river.
if there is zones, there needs to be a line in the sand somewhere. and a natural water body is the perfect place for it. look at any boundary, they will almost always follow water if it is convenient. such as Canada/USA and a bunch of states.

its easy for people to see "river, barrier, boundary" it is a natural place to have one. Richmond is an island and is disconnected from Vancouver, unlike Burnaby and New Westminster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1265  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2017, 4:12 PM
Kisai Kisai is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
if there is zones, there needs to be a line in the sand somewhere. and a natural water body is the perfect place for it. look at any boundary, they will almost always follow water if it is convenient. such as Canada/USA and a bunch of states.

its easy for people to see "river, barrier, boundary" it is a natural place to have one. Richmond is an island and is disconnected from Vancouver, unlike Burnaby and New Westminster.
The logical zone areas are the Fraser River, Pitt River and Vancouver Harbour.

Because of the way the trains work, it doesn't make sense to have to cross two zones just to go one stop that is within walking distance (eg Patterson-Metrotown-Royal Oak, and Rupert-Gilmore.) Any future system, at least for the trains needs to either be distance based, or needs to be time based (which I'd say is slightly fairer, but that screws people who take slow routes.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1266  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2017, 4:49 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,135
... as in Paris

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Zones need to go, period.
Here in Paris, the rough (though bigger) equivalent to the GVRD is Île-de France.
Just over a year ago, all 6 concentric zones, from zones 1 and 2 which made up Central paris, right out to the through the "rings at the perimeter (like Roissy CDG) were abolished.
The entire Île de France is now "Zoneless," and you pay the same wherever you go within the district, and it's a big district of 12 million people.
Not only that, but the basic "Passe Navigo" farecard, is only 3 €uros more than the basic, central zone card was. It's very fair; commuters are no longer penalized.

http://pssaintgermain.fr/wp-content/...e_zones1-6.gif
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1267  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2017, 8:30 PM
cganuelas1995 cganuelas1995 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 168
I personally think, in terms of Xrayal's sadistic fantasy map, that a jump from Z1 to Z3 JUST by going across the inlet is really fucky indeed. Tis gross.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1268  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2017, 8:32 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kisai View Post
I'll post this here:

http://vancouversun.com/news/politic...-subway-to-ubc



If everyone remembers, Mike Harcourt was Premier when the Skytrain opened for Expo 86, and was the Mayor of Vancouver previous to that.

He's not wrong, IMO. We are thinking too small, both with transit and development in Metro Vancouver.
Bill Bennett brought Expo 86 to Vancouver (including the Coquihalla and SkyTrain), then retired during Expo & Vander Zalm (mr faaaaaaan-taaaastik) became Socred leader and Premier. At the same time, Harcourt was Vancouver Mayor.

After Expo, Harcourt jumped to Prov politics and became leader of the NDP.

Socreds imploded in the '91 election (who can forget Fantasy Gardens, the Vander Zalm bags of money and the Faye Leung tapes? "You a bad Bad BAD MAN!!!!") and NDP swept to power with Harcourt as premier.

Last edited by jsbertram; Mar 20, 2017 at 10:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1269  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2017, 3:52 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 735
Just gonna shift this conversation off the general Transit thread before the usual suspects get irritated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
A 1 station spur off of a Hastings line to Phibbs exchange built along with a new Iron Workers bridge could also work. (in the far off future). Ultimately though the Iron Workers bridge should act as the main access route to the North Shore and beyond and should in the future have maximum capacity. 5+ lanes. Maybe they could build 3 lanes on each side of the bridge, then demolish the old bridge and complete 4 or 6 more lanes in its place without too much disruption. Looks like the space is there...

One has to remember that not everyone on the North Shore commutes downtown. Most of the growth in metro Vancouver is east and south of the Iron workers bridge.
Might be better to break that into two separate lines - one down Boundary (North Shore to River District), another down Hastings and possibly Willingdon. The downtown-to-suburbs model is getting thrown out the window as we speak.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1270  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2017, 9:12 PM
Aroundtheworld Aroundtheworld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 219
I put this in the Arbutus Corridor thread, but I think it also belongs here.

I've been thinking about how this could work for some time and I developed some concepts. I think it's pretty clear how the middle of the corridor will look, however, both the northern and southern ends present different options. I decided to map out these possibilities.



This map shows the corridor with the different options extending north, to Marine Drive and to the River District.



This map shows the options at the northern end. At first, I think the terminus will be at Arbutus - Broadway because that would provide connectivity with the Millennium Line extension and the fact that the corridor gets narrower and more complicated north of Broadway.

The Main St. extension is technically the easiest and would run largely on the Olympic Streetcar route. This would connect several Skytrain stations and provide access to Granville Island.

The Downtown Extension is much more complex, but I think might be necessary in the future to deal with congestion on the Canada Line section between Broadway-City Hall and Downtown. Without this extension all the people coming from the western and southern parts of Vancouver as well as Richmond will be using this section. Once the Millennium Line is extended to UBC, this could end up being a bottle neck.

I envision the Downtown Extension going underground at Arbutus-Broadway, east along Broadway to Granville and emerging at surface level just south of the Granville Bridge. There would be a station on the Granville Bridge and the line would continue on the surface on Granville all the way to Waterfront. This line would allow people from the west to get Downtown faster and provide an easy connection from Downtown to Granville Island. (If you think a station on the Granville Bridge is crazy, it is mentioned in Granville Island's future plans)



Now for the southern options! I see two possibilities extending to Marine Drive Station, along 70th St. and along the rail corridor. I prefer the 70th St. option as it is shorter, would get better ridership and could integrate better with Marine Drive station. You would probably still need a spur on the rail corridor south to an OMC. 70th would become a 2-way street with light rail down the middle.

The problems I see with the rail option is that the connection with Marine Drive station is a bit awkward and the area it serves is less built up. I also think the portion east of the bridge is still being used.



Both of the previous options could lead to extensions to the River District. For the 70th St. option, the best way to do this that I see is continuing it down Marine Drive and then joining the rail corridor at Fraser St. The Rail Option would require a separate line that would connect the River District with Marine Drive Station and would run along the rail corridor. Again, I prefer the 70th St. Option as it could be a seamless line and serves existing areas better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1271  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 5:23 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 735
Sounds about right. That downtown extension is a non-starter, though - Granville's already crowded enough, what with the existing buses and traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1272  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 7:12 AM
Anorak Anorak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 86
It could work, I think it would just have to go underground again at the north end of the Graville Bridge
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1273  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 4:21 PM
bardak bardak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anorak View Post
It could work, I think it would just have to go underground again at the north end of the Graville Bridge
Don't forget that the Canada line is under the Graville past Davie
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1274  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2017, 4:49 PM
Express691 Express691 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 308
To express Expo Line Oveecrowding, remove seats and (maybe) install handstraps on the white mark 2s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1275  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2017, 7:38 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Express691 View Post
To express Expo Line Oveecrowding, remove seats and (maybe) install handstraps on the white mark 2s
Pretty sure Expo Line crowding is a problem for which this is a REAL solution
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1276  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2017, 9:52 PM
Large Cat's Avatar
Large Cat Large Cat is offline
Vancouver Bus Driver
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
I put this in the Arbutus Corridor thread, but I think it also belongs here.

I've been thinking about how this could work for some time and I developed some concepts. I think it's pretty clear how the middle of the corridor will look, however, both the northern and southern ends present different options. I decided to map out these possibilities.



This map shows the corridor with the different options extending north, to Marine Drive and to the River District.



This map shows the options at the northern end. At first, I think the terminus will be at Arbutus - Broadway because that would provide connectivity with the Millennium Line extension and the fact that the corridor gets narrower and more complicated north of Broadway.

The Main St. extension is technically the easiest and would run largely on the Olympic Streetcar route. This would connect several Skytrain stations and provide access to Granville Island.

The Downtown Extension is much more complex, but I think might be necessary in the future to deal with congestion on the Canada Line section between Broadway-City Hall and Downtown. Without this extension all the people coming from the western and southern parts of Vancouver as well as Richmond will be using this section. Once the Millennium Line is extended to UBC, this could end up being a bottle neck.

I envision the Downtown Extension going underground at Arbutus-Broadway, east along Broadway to Granville and emerging at surface level just south of the Granville Bridge. There would be a station on the Granville Bridge and the line would continue on the surface on Granville all the way to Waterfront. This line would allow people from the west to get Downtown faster and provide an easy connection from Downtown to Granville Island. (If you think a station on the Granville Bridge is crazy, it is mentioned in Granville Island's future plans)



Now for the southern options! I see two possibilities extending to Marine Drive Station, along 70th St. and along the rail corridor. I prefer the 70th St. option as it is shorter, would get better ridership and could integrate better with Marine Drive station. You would probably still need a spur on the rail corridor south to an OMC. 70th would become a 2-way street with light rail down the middle.

The problems I see with the rail option is that the connection with Marine Drive station is a bit awkward and the area it serves is less built up. I also think the portion east of the bridge is still being used.



Both of the previous options could lead to extensions to the River District. For the 70th St. option, the best way to do this that I see is continuing it down Marine Drive and then joining the rail corridor at Fraser St. The Rail Option would require a separate line that would connect the River District with Marine Drive Station and would run along the rail corridor. Again, I prefer the 70th St. Option as it could be a seamless line and serves existing areas better.

I like your plan! A few thoughts:

-I agree that an extension to downtown from Arbutus would be wise. It would have to be relatively high quality and capacity, though, in order for it to function as relief for the Canada Line by capturing anybody other than Arbutus-corridor customers. A lot of people going to UBC, Kits, Dunbar, or Point Grey already have direct buses from downtown (14, 4, 7, 2), so in order to improve on these, the LRT connection will have to be orders of magnitude better than a bus--in other words, it will need to be as good as the Canada Line in terms of reliability and capacity. If it isn't, then people will continue to transfer at Broadway-City Hall, sticking to an all-skytrain itinerary and then transferring to the 99 or another bus at Arbutus. For example, if the downtown extension only comes every 10 minutes (which is optimistic for an LRT branch line), they won't see see the point in using it if they still have to transfer at Arbutus, they will just take a direct bus (provided the 4, 7, and 14 still exist in their current routing--and if they don't, people will complain).

On the other hand, if the downtown branch has at least 5 minute frequencies, and doesn't encounter congestion or regular obstructions while downtown, people may very well want to start using it to transfer to the 99, 14/9, and 4/7. In that case, a new transfer point could be set up south of Granville Island (5th and Fir area) in order to facilitate some of these transfers, and the 4/7 could be rewired to either terminate there or continue on to the False Creek flats along 2nd (splitting them both from their East Van halves). The 14 could also be cut in half, effectively merging it into the 9, with its passengers transferring to the LRT at Arbutus. Those service hours could be allocated to run the 14 Hastings all night between downtown and Kootenay Loop, solving some of the NE sector difficulties they've been having (i.e. allowing them to run the 16 up to Eton and Renfrew along the Powell Street corridor, while still servicing customers between Nanaimo and Kootenay Loop frequently and all day).

But all of that depends on having high reliability and frequency on the downtown branch. You'd have to show that that's possible while remaining above ground, or find a tunneling solution. I myself like the idea of totally closing the Granville Mall to vehicles, except for LRT, and having it function as the way to get across the Granville Bridge using transit--with the exception of maybe the 10, which could run on Seymour and Howe. But I don't know if that would ever really be possible, barring a catastrophic collapse of the taxi industry (lol). Even if so, the frequency would have to be fantastic, and that means no branching of the Arbutus Line--it would have to loop all the way around through Gastown (using a hopefully pedestrianized Water Street, and the Carrall St Greenway closed to car traffic) and NE False Creek, or the Olympic Village section would have to be made into a shuttle as it was during the Olympics.

-Regarding the southern options, I would favour the alignment going down to Marine and Hudson, to connect with the bus depot and, like you said, an OMC. (This could serve as an efficiency incentive for Translink to buy land there both to expand the bus depot, desparately needed, and to build the OMC.) While it would be ideal to connect the Oak and 70th area with the rail network, the amount of development completed around Marine and Hudson is just as large, and specified to be larger in the Marpole Community Plan. In addition, an alignment down 70th would be absolutely insane, traffic and collision wise, with several very dangerous and high-speed intersections to navigate approaching the Oak St bridge. Since the 70th and Granville area can still be served using the rail alignment, I think it would be safer to stick to it. This would also make the approach to Marine Station easier, since there is land to work with south of the station.

East of Marine Station, especially to the River District, would be an awesome extension. The difficulty would be with the bus connections. At least up to Victoria, it would be advantageous to run it on Marine Drive, since the artic trolleys (3, 8, 20) and the 22 have no way of getting down to the rail corridor closer to the river, at least not without massive trolley rewirings and new loop and road construction. But by the time you're at Victoria, the grade is almost too steep to run the LRT back down to the rail corridor before it enters the River District. And in any case, running LRT along Marine Drive, you would encounter similar problems with traffic and a hostile, anti-urban pedestrian environment encountered along 70th, barring massive redevelopment of the whole corridor such as Surrey has planned for King George. If that's what the city wants to do with Marine Drive then I would be all for it, but I don't know if they have the political capital or will necessary to concentrate that much on Marine Drive in the near future, even if it were just between Marine Station and Fraser. Inversely though, it would be almost pointless to run an LRT extension just to service River District residents going to the Canada Line--most of them hardly take transit at all right now, although that is admittedly partly due to the lack of options, and it would be good to tap and grow the latent demand. The vast majority of boardings on the 100 are between Victoria and Marine Station, but if the LRT line is too far south, people will just long for the 100 since it's closer to where they live and the stores on Marine. In any case, I don't think it would beacceptable to build the LRT line without connecting it to at least the N-S lines along Main, Fraser, Knight, Victoria, and Elliot, but that seems exceptionally difficult at the moment. In the long term I honestly think it more likely that the rail corridor would be used, but some way found for the buses to extend closer to the river, despite the engineering challenges. If you're not even using the rail corridor, why even think about building LRT in this section of Vancouver? The rail right of way would be the thing providing easy reliability and safety and the ability to provide good headways.


It's interesting to think about this stuff! I hope some kind of LRT gets built in the near future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1277  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2017, 9:15 PM
cganuelas1995 cganuelas1995 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 168
So, I was looking at this http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu...ties%20Map.pdf, and was wondering about the feasibility of a small ferry between Crescent Beach and Centennial Beach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1278  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2017, 10:17 PM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,681
Frankly, that will happen when pigs start flying...

Neither destination has a large all-year resident population or is a key employment centre that would require people to travel back and forth between the two.

Transit is not necessarily meant to cover every journey to every destination... it tries its best to cover the most common and frequent journeys to the most popular destinations, but that's about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1279  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2017, 2:19 AM
Xrayal's Avatar
Xrayal Xrayal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Westminster
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
I need some inspiration.

How would you restructure north Burnaby bus routes?
Here is my attempt at some inspired rerouting.
North Burnaby Bus Routes2 by mullux

Details:
  • 9:Extend the trolley wires first to Gilmore station and loop back on Henning/Dawson. (see red oval)
    Eventually extend the 9 to Brentwood station once the major construction in the area is done to create redundancy to turn around. Then sell the boundary loop lands.
  • 110:Stay on Moscrop till Boundary. Reroute terminus to Joyce station. (currently buses generally don't cross fare boundary. If they are removed with the current fare review this might be possible)
  • 123:Keep on Canada Way till boundary then along Grandview Hwy to Renfrew station. (Even I'm not sold on this reroute, but its an idea)
  • 129:Keep the Patterson/Gilmore/Hastings/Holdom segments the same. Included planned Holdom/Douglas Road overpass. (see pink oval) New alignment along Royal Oak. Possible looping option by continuing down Royal Oak to Rumble then back up Patterson to Patterson Station.
  • 130: No change.
  • 134:Stay on Parker and terminate at Kootenay Loop. Riders heading to Skytrain can still get there via the Burnaby Lake station stop, or the can take any of the north/south routes that go directly to stations.
  • 136:No real change. I worked in the long term road configuration below Lougheed Hwy. (see pick oval) The route should work much better once the Concord development is done.
  • 144:No real change. Except plan to rerouting along Greenwood and Bainbridge Ave long term before continuing up Duthie ave. (See green oval) This will provide service to new TOD in the area.
  • C2: Extend capital hill service to Brentwood station via Delta ave. C2 ridership has been on the decline plus this will fill for the 136 now rerouted to Kootenay loop.
  • New 1:Same routing in South Burnaby. Reroute to Burnaby lake station via Sprott overpass then up Kensinghton to Hastings terminating at Kootenay loop.
Comments welcome.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1280  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2017, 4:24 AM
Bdawe Bdawe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunrise
Posts: 291
I like what you've done with the C2, and think that sort of routing makes more sense in today's network than to Kootenay Loop.

I would suggest that not running the 134 through east is bad for the system as a network
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 3:51 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.