Transit Fantasies

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by bardak

While the railway that was quoted was a tram the same reason it can climb a 14%+ grade is the same reason you could do a passenger train bridge over the Fraser. You seem to be assuming that all trains are only capable of climbing a very small grades that most mainline rail is designed with. A small tram like the one previously quoted can climb high grades due to a higher power to weight ratio. I believe that most mainline rail is designed for a 1% grade but a passenger rail line run on a 3.5% grade. A 3.5% grade would require approaches of approximately 1.5km which is long but not unreasonable.

I assume that since the LINT can go up to 180km/h, it has a high power-weight ratio. And that it's high enough to make it over the bridge.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A) Either it's light rail, in which case an express bus does the same job for less money (and can use the exit ramps),

B) Or it's heavy rail, in which case a bridge with a shallow-enough grade would cost almost as much as the GMB. We've been over this.

well cganuelas1995 brings it up, all the time, in many threads, and doesn't listen to logic on why its a bad, unfeasible option. not just because of a lack of riders, but because of the costs associated with building it, and then operating it to Provincially protected farm land that wont get developed anytime soon, or anytime at all since it is excessively protected for good reason.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

well cganuelas1995 brings it up, all the time, in many threads, and doesn't listen to logic on why its a bad, unfeasible option. not just because of a lack of riders, but because of the costs associated with building it, and then operating it to Provincially protected farm land that wont get developed anytime soon, or anytime at all since it is excessively protected for good reason.

It's called a fantasy because it's assuming things would change and those project would get funded.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Oh fuck me, I forgot to finish the sentence.

...and, depending on the maximum grade and speed, adjust the starting point of the slope accordingly.

Also, tram cars tend to go slower, so my theory is that a higher speed will allow the DMU to cross the fraser easier.

This sounds like some sort of roller coaster at a theme park. See option at the very end of this post. If you care to prove me wrong research if DMUs can cross a short length bridge? Im merely pointing out your scenario would require slopes that would be quite distant and more than likely take up ALR farmland. For the money and the small passenger load plus having a third type of light rail to integrate into the current transit plan, its much more feasible to implement rapidbus.

Originally Posted by bardak

While the railway that was quoted was a tram the same reason it can climb a 14%+ grade is the same reason you could do a passenger train bridge over the Fraser. You seem to be assuming that all trains are only capable of climbing a very small grades that most mainline rail is designed with. A small tram like the one previously quoted can climb high grades due to a higher power to weight ratio. I believe that most mainline rail is designed for a 1% grade but a passenger rail line run on a 3.5% grade. A 3.5% grade would require approaches of approximately 1.5km which is long but not unreasonable.

A tram would be a total waste of resources as it doesn't hold any more passengers than a rapid bus and to give its own right of way along with its own bridge would be foolish to spend.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A) Either it's light rail, in which case an express bus does the same job for less money (and can use the exit ramps),

Exactly

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I assume that since the LINT can go up to 180km/h, it has a high power-weight ratio. And that it's high enough to make it over the bridge.

Riddle me this ...if your math works out? Why isn't this application being used? I mean it sounds great but I've looked at hundreds of LINT rail images since your post last night and not one of them has them climbing a bridge?

[waves]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I've wondered why people keep wanting to extend Skytrain in Richmond from Brighouse Station down to Steveston and No 1 Road (west Richmond). It would make more sense to put some form of rail from Bridgeport Station down Hwy 99 to Steveston (east Richmond) and have a big bus loop there - it would replace a lot of buses that take that route.

Steveston is a town center at the very edge of Richmond - it doesn't need Rapid Transit in the form of a skytrain just as Lynn Valley doesn't need it in North Van. Any of the options discussed about 30 posts back could have a bus loop along Steveston Hwy with a B-Line out to Steveston if it's absolutely necessary.

[Migrant_Coconut]

And it's a dead end for the Canada Line, rather than leaving room to expand. TransLink should bring the C-Line east to Riverport, possibly to Ladner later on; they can always create a dedicated BRT or LRT line for Steveston later.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

TransLink should bring the C-Line east to Riverport, possibly to Ladner later on

The problem with Riverport is the crossing is quite wide, and its an extra 2km of track to go to what is essentially a dead end just like Stevenson. I'm of the opinion the the route should be somewhat more direct.

These have been my options for the crossing that I have been mulling over recently, however, I didn't spend a lot of time on the riverport option because it seemed really out of the way with a poor crossing location. I'll look into options for riverport a bit closer and see what I come up with.

Note: Circles are Stations, Diamonds are bridges or changes in At/Below/Above Grade. Stars are terminus stations.


The google map https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Fh...Fo&usp=sharing

[Migrant_Coconut]

Maybe pivot it SE towards Deas right at No. 6?

But yeah, Option 3 is probably the best one, given the obstacles. Just seems like a waste of a potential high-traffic station.

[ronthecivil]

Originally Posted by waves

The problem with Riverport is the crossing is quite wide, and its an extra 2km of track to go to what is essentially a dead end just like Stevenson. I'm of the opinion the the route should be somewhat more direct.

These have been my options for the crossing that I have been mulling over recently, however, I didn't spend a lot of time on the riverport option because it seemed really out of the way with a poor crossing location. I'll look into options for riverport a bit closer and see what I come up with.

Note: Circles are Stations, Diamonds are bridges or changes in At/Below/Above Grade. Stars are terminus stations.


The google map https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Fh...Fo&usp=sharing

You had the good sense to put the line to UBC under tenth!

After realizing that the expo line actually passes people up on every bloody station during rush hour, and there's not much more capacity to put in, the idea of a hastings line (which has good connectivity to evergreen, and could act as a second line to downtown) is intriguing.

The problem I have realized is that you can't really feed much more stuff into expo line anymore, it's already full, which is bad news if you are trying to figure out what order to build things in for people in Surrey and Langley (which you have done correctly as well.)

Heck, even things like building a lot more Blines is good, but they're just going to end up being sardined on the skytrain.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Maybe pivot it SE towards Deas right at No. 6?

Yeah that is a possibility, but it would move the station even further away from the center of Riverport (600m from the central roundabout). I drew up a few options that are bit more feasible then the curved bridge I had before.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But yeah, Option 3 [from the previous image, not the above] is probably the best one, given the obstacles. Just seems like a waste of a potential high-traffic station.

I have a preference for Option 5 or Option 1 because it utilizes the existing Bus Loop in Ladner as a Terminus Station and allows for easier and quicker bus connections to White Rock and other areas. I also have a preference for this option because I would expect we could get a lower cost from Ladner to Tsawwassen by running the skytrain down the center median of Hwy 17.

Option 3 south of the Fraser going north south along Arthur is certainly more direct, but would be significantly more complicated.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by waves

Yeah that is a possibility, but it would move the station even further away from the center of Riverport (600m from the central roundabout). I drew up a few options that are bit more feasible then the curved bridge I had before.





I have a preference for Option 5 or Option 1 because it utilizes the existing Bus Loop in Ladner as a Terminus Station and allows for easier and quicker bus connections to White Rock and other areas. I also have a preference for this option because I would expect we could get a lower cost from Ladner to Tsawwassen by running the skytrain down the center median of Hwy 17.

Option 3 south of the Fraser going north south along Arthur is certainly more direct, but would be significantly more complicated.

I'd personally like to see Trenant Park Square and Ladner Centre malls transformed into a large indoor shopping mall straddling across Ladner Trunk Road, with a bus exchange in the covered area, in the next couple of decades. A station would be at sandwiched between the walkway and the bus loop.

A bus loop closer to the centre of town would be a much better idea.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by waves

Yeah that is a possibility, but it would move the station even further away from the center of Riverport (600m from the central roundabout).

That's about 4-5 blocks, or five minutes. Same as the distance from one side of Metrotown to the other... or how far people are willing to walk to reach the SkyTrain in the first place.

Not saying it isn't a fair amount of walking, only that it shouldn't be a problem for most people (maybe seniors get a shuttle or HandyDART?).

Originally Posted by waves

have a preference for Option 5 or Option 1 because it utilizes the existing Bus Loop in Ladner as a Terminus Station and allows for easier and quicker bus connections to White Rock and other areas. I also have a preference for this option because I would expect we could get a lower cost from Ladner to Tsawwassen by running the skytrain down the center median of Hwy 17.

Option 3 south of the Fraser going north south along Arthur is certainly more direct, but would be significantly more complicated.

Option 5 maybe, but Option 1 requires either a very big bridge or a half-dozen tiny ones using the actual delta as a foundation - same problem as the GMT.

[waves]

Originally Posted by ronthecivil

You had the good sense to put the line to UBC under tenth!

I am impressed you noticed that small detail. The Broadway Line not being under tenth has been a real sour point for me because I feel like the decision was "political" rather than "technical" or "engineering-based".

Originally Posted by ronthecivil

After realizing that the expo line actually passes people up on every bloody station during rush hour, and there's not much more capacity to put in, the idea of a hastings line (which has good connectivity to evergreen, and could act as a second line to downtown) is intriguing.

I do think some point way in the future the 97 B-Line will eventually reach the same situation as the 99 as it is today. The issue with SFU though is that the Skytrain would need a 7% grade to get up to the top with the alignment I have (1% greater than the 6% current maximum). Maybe this okay? Maybe not? The other option is the tunnel, but with a straight alignment and a 6% grade the SFU station would be very deep at 62m. If we can up the grade to 8% then we could reduce that depth to 10m. All of this is very very far off though and I would like to see the SFU Gondola put in well before any Hastings Line is considered.

Originally Posted by ronthecivil

The problem I have realized is that you can't really feed much more stuff into expo line anymore, it's already full, which is bad news if you are trying to figure out what order to build things in for people in Surrey and Langley (which you have done correctly as well.)

Heck, even things like building a lot more Blines is good, but they're just going to end up being sardined on the skytrain.

We can however get the new mark 3, six car trains going on the line at the highest frequency. I think there is still a fair amount that can be done to increase capacity on the expo line; we have just be limited by funding in the past 8 years. That being said, having terminus stations where cars turn back rather than continue on a differently-named line is valuable as well to enable people from all destinations to be able to use the line.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by waves

I am impressed you noticed that small detail. The Broadway Line not being under tenth has been a real sour point for me because I feel like the decision was "political" rather than "technical" or "engineering-based".

Mentioned that to the engineers at an open house. Problem with 10th is that all the telephone and TV cables run under it, including Broadway's (because the streetcar was in the way at the time).

[waves]

I did some more visualization to show the parts of each of the lines that would be needed at a 3.5% grade to reach a bridge height of 55m from 8m (essentially 1.5km on each side of the center of the span). I also calculated out the different distances of new track needed for each option and the "clear-span" widths. I realize that likely it won't be that it will span the whole river, but it does give an idea of the potential length differences between the options.

No. 3 Bridge Option

• Main Span: 450m @ 55m High
• Secondary Spans: 290m & 170m
• Lansdowne to Ladner Bus Loop via No. 3: 14.0km
• Length of Bridge Approaches in Marshy Areas (LAMA): 1.8km
• Other Above Grade Track in Marshy Areas (AGMA): 2.7km

Kirkland Bridge Option

• Main Span: 570m @ 55m High
• Secondary Spans: 200m & 170m
• Lansdowne to Ladner Bus Loop via No. 3: 14.6km
• Bridgeport to Ladner Bus Loop via No. 3: 16.1km
• Bridgeport to Ladner Bus Loop via CN Rail Right-of-Way: 16.8km
• Length of Bridge Approaches in Marshy Areas (LAMA): 1.8km
• Other Above Grade Track in Marshy Areas (AGMA): 2.7km

Coppersmith Bridge Option

• Main Span: 670m @ 55m High
• Secondary Spans: 220m
• Lansdowne to Ladner City Center via No.3 and Arthur: 13.7km
• Lansdowne to Ladner City Center via No.3 and Ferry Rd Tunnel: 13.3km
• LAMA & AGMA: 0km

George Massey Bridge Option

• Main Span: 570m @ 55m High
• Secondary Spans: 150m
• Lansdowne to Ladner Bus Loop via No.3: 13.7km
• LAMA & AGMA: 0km

No. 6 Bridge Option

• Main Span: 720m @ 55m High
• Secondary Spans: None
• Lansdowne to Ladner Bus Loop via No.3: 14.6km
• LAMA & AGMA: 0km
• Height of Riverport Station above Ground: 30m

Steveston Bridge Option

• Main Span: 1100m (but likely less) @ 55m High
• Secondary Spans: None
• Lansdowne to Ladner Bus Loop via No.3: 14.5km
• LAMA & AGMA: 0km (depends on water levels, what the real clear span would be)
• Height of Riverport Station above Ground: 40m

The google map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Fh...Fo&usp=sharing

After all of this my preference is very much starting to trend towards the George Massey Bridge Option. Maybe with the review that is going to take place with the bridge they can incorporate cross section space for the skytrain along the west edge of the bridge with pedestrian and cyclist cross sections on the east edge. If we can get an 8 lane bridge with pedestrian, cyclists and skytrain cross sections, the project will have beyond exceeded my expectations.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by waves

Maybe with the review that is going to take place with the bridge they can incorporate cross section space for the skytrain along the west edge of the bridge with pedestrian and cyclist cross sections on the east edge. If we can get an 8 lane bridge with pedestrian, cyclists and skytrain cross sections, the project will have beyond exceeded my expectations.

Question: would there be enough pedestrian/cyclist usage to justify sidewalks and bike lanes?

[idunno]

I believe one of Translink's long term goals is to have a 'bike highway' of sorts that takes people out to Tsawwassen. This wouldn't really be for people commuting to Vancouver, rather to connect downtown Vancouver to downtown Vic (with their Lochside Trail/Galloping Goose).

[waves]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Question: would there be enough pedestrian/cyclist usage to justify sidewalks and bike lanes?

Right now cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from going through the tunnel so we don't actually have any sort of measure for how much traffic there would be. I was imagining a 160' (50m) cross section along the lines of:

2 x 10' Skytrain Lanes
3 x 12' Southbound Driving Lanes
2 x 12' Alternating Express Lanes
3 x 12' Northbound Driving Lanes
2 x 5' Bike Lanes
1 x 10' Pedestrian Pathway

[Express691]

Give or take, I think the definition of "FTN" will upgrade to service every 12 or even 10 minutes within the next 10 years.