HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 12:44 AM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,626
North Shore Rapid Transit | Park Royal-Metrotown via 2nd Narrows | BRT/RRT

In 2020 the provincial government's Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit Study resulted in five potential routes for rapid transit connecting the North Shore to the Burrard Peninsula. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2020TRAN0144-001729 [Archived Link][Archived Report]

Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit Study lists crossing options by Province of British Columbia, on Flickr


In 2021 North Shore Connects, a partnership of the North Shore municipalities and First Nations, commissioned a benefits assessment of two of the routes from the above report:
-the Gold route now as Park Royal-Downtown Vancouver via 2nd Narrows with 11 notional stations
-the Purple route now as Park Royal-Metrotown via 2nd Narrows with 10 notional stations.

Crossing at the 2nd Narrows was seen as ideal:
Quote:
- It was noted in initial recommendations that an alignment over the Second Narrows is more likely to provide service better capturing key destinations and population centres across the North Shore; and
- Alignments across the Second Narrows provide better regional connection to municipalities across the south and east of Metro Vancouver either directly or via the Expo or Millennium Lines.
This report found significant net benefit for the project. The modeling used showed 50,000-60,000 new daily transit trips, ~45,000 of those would otherwise be vehicle trips. https://northshoreconnects.ca/wp-con...ment_Final.pdf [Archived Link]


Translink's Transport 2050 plan identified their preferred alignment as following the purple route; Park Royal to Metrotown via Lonsdale, 2nd Narrows, and Brentwood.

Translink on Transport 2050 10-year priorities:
Quote:
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[Archived Link]


Translink has more recently said that Bus Rapid Transit will be initially used on the line for the sake of fast implementation and lower cost.
In 2022 Translink CEO said to 'expect Metrotown-Park Royal bus rapid transit in next 3-5 years'. https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...nk-ceo-5453443[Archived Link]

This will require a new crossing, the provincial study did look at integrating rail into the structure of the IWM Bridge but found that not to be practical. That study looked at a new dedicated bridge while recent comments by the provincial transportation minister suggests it could be a new road and rail bridge replacing the IWM. https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/0...nt-bc-transit/[Archived Link]

Last edited by madog222; May 22, 2023 at 9:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 12:54 AM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj View Post
Two birds, meet stone.

Ideally it'll be Skytrain in the middle or on a lower deck, with separated through-traffic lanes for those not exiting before Lynn Valley northbound and those not exiting before 1st ave southbound akin to the Port Mann.
Lower deck would provide snow protection for the LIM rail, but if it's cable stayed (with concrete box girder), I would expect one deck (double deck would probably require steel construction (?)).
The Port Mann was built to allow rail running inside of the concrete box girders. At least supposedly it was.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 3:28 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
The Port Mann was built to allow rail running inside of the concrete box girders. At least supposedly it was.
But isn't the main deck just steel with a road deck on top of it?



https://www.flatironcorp.com/project...dge-highway-1/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 3:50 AM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
But isn't the main deck just steel with a road deck on top of it?

https://www.flatironcorp.com/project...dge-highway-1/
Yeah you're right. This running inside the box girder must just be some rumor from way back when it was being built that for some reason I remebered.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 4:11 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,335
Thanks for making the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
The article doesn't mention HOV, and it doesn't say how transit might be configured. The Minister is quoted as saying about the existing bridge: "it’s not currently configured to allow us to have rapid transit uses on that bridge. So, we’re interested in looking at that."

It could be SkyTrain on or under a new bridge. It could be dedicated BRT lanes. What it won't be is a tunnel and "there’s not yet a timeline for the project" so it's likely to be a while. But before anything to Maple Ridge.
IIRC there's about 25-ish years left for the IWMB, so TransLink may very well decide to just let it stay there until then and build a separate SkyBridge for the train.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 4:48 AM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 5,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post

IIRC there's about 25-ish years left for the IWMB, so TransLink may very well decide to just let it stay there until then and build a separate SkyBridge for the train.
That's not what the Minister was suggesting. As TransLink don't build transit projects, and this is (I think) a Provincial bridge, I would assume they're in no position to fund a SkyBridge for future transit unless the Provincial government agrees it's a good idea.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 4:56 AM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
That's not what the Minister was suggesting. As TransLink don't build transit projects, and this is (I think) a Provincial bridge, I would assume they're in no position to fund a SkyBridge for future transit unless the Provincial government agrees it's a good idea.

I assumed HOV lanes from the article for that reason. HOV can be used by both buses and cars.

Also, I think the biggest limiter for IWMB is the Cassiar Tunnel. IWMB can't really be expanded more than 6 lanes because of the tunnel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 5:02 AM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,626
Whatever is built the public transit aspect won't be HOV lanes open to private vehicles, Translink wants BRT at a minimum which means dedicated lanes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
I assumed HOV lanes from the article for that reason. HOV can be used by both buses and cars.

Also, I think the biggest limiter for IWMB is the Cassiar Tunnel. IWMB can't really be expanded more than 6 lanes because of the tunnel.
The Cassiar Tunnel can be converted to six through lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 5:09 AM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
Whatever is built the public transit aspect won't be HOV lanes open to private vehicles, Translink wants BRT at a minimum which means dedicated lanes.
The Cassiar Tunnel can be converted to six through lanes.
So far TransLink has used HOV on Hwy 1 - and this is preferred vs the dedicated side bus shoulders on the George Massey (which are slower than HOV in normal traffic).
This was also the plan on the Liberals' George Massey Bridge.

As long as the cars aren't severely limiting bus speed, it should be fine.
HOV restrictions can be increased if this is the case.


Cassiar is already 3 lanes each direction because one is needed for the McGill exit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 5:12 AM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
So far TransLink has used HOV on Hwy 1 - and this is preferred vs the dedicated side bus shoulders on the George Massey (which are slower than HOV in normal traffic).
This was also the plan on the Liberals' George Massey Bridge.

As long as the cars aren't severely limiting bus speed, it should be fine.
HOV restrictions can be increased if this is the case.
That's not the point. This won't be just some bus route, it'll be Bus Rapid Transit with dedicated lanes along the entire line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
Cassiar is already 3 lanes each direction because one is needed for the McGill exit.
Yes, two through lanes and an exit lane. It could be changed to three through lanes with the exit past the tunnel as it was before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 5:25 AM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
Yes, two through lanes and an exit lane. It could be changed to three through lanes with the exit past the tunnel as it was before.
I'm not sure that would massively decrease congestion, or at least enough to allow expanding the IWMB.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 5:45 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
Yeah you're right. This running inside the box girder must just be some rumor from way back when it was being built that for some reason I remebered.
That's what happens when someone looks at the box girders being installed and imagines a crazy idea without taking the slightest amount of effort to notice that it's impossible.

And it spreads across the Internet via other people who do the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 3:15 PM
FarmerHaight's Avatar
FarmerHaight FarmerHaight is offline
Peddling to progress
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Vancouver's West End
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
That's not what the Minister was suggesting. As TransLink don't build transit projects, and this is (I think) a Provincial bridge, I would assume they're in no position to fund a SkyBridge for future transit unless the Provincial government agrees it's a good idea.
I guess it all depends on cost? One construction project is typically cheaper than two separate projects, so if the IWMB needs to be replaced anyways you may as well address that and the transit crossing at the same time. But if the government could build the transit connection separately and put off the IWMB replacement and associated capital outlays for an additional 15 or 20 years that may be attractive, especially if you're only looking at a minimal increase in costs (say 10 or 20 percent extra for two projects compared to one).

In terms of timeline, I think only the planning of the North Shore line was within the scope of Translink's 10-year priorities? So if Translink is not ready to build the line until the early/mid 2030s and Migrant is right about the 25 years of remaining useful life, the IWMB will only have 10 or 15 years left when the transit project is ready to start so you might as well replace it at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
That's not the point. This won't be just some bus route, it'll be Bus Rapid Transit with dedicated lanes along the entire line.
While you're right about the romantic ideals of BRT, BRT creep happens all over the world with different projects. I think we won't know how BRT Tranlink's "BRT" will be until we see the plans for the first line.

Not having dedicated lanes on the IWMB would be a pretty large fly in the ointment for BRT, but dedicated lanes along the remaining route would still yield pretty significant time savings and some of the other common BRT features (all door boarding, pre-boarding fare payment, increased frequencies) would be a big improvement over the current Rapid Bus route.
__________________
“Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of riding a bike” – John F Kennedy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 4:51 PM
Bobert Bobert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 231
Not replacing the IWB road bridge, and only building a transit crossing would be a failure imo.

The bridge and highway layout is poor and a lot could be done to improve traffic flows without increasing lane count.

Two separate structures would just end up costing more in the long term
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 5:05 PM
mcj mcj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: New West
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobert View Post
Not replacing the IWB road bridge, and only building a transit crossing would be a failure imo.

The bridge and highway layout is poor and a lot could be done to improve traffic flows without increasing lane count.

Two separate structures would just end up costing more in the long term
Agreed. I think that applies vice versa too, replacing the IWB without a rail capable transit provision is also a failure.

I think increasing lane count to an 8 lane bridge makes sense, even 10 lanes if 2 are dedicated BRT lanes (should the bridge be built as a single deck, eventually converting the BRT lanes to Skytrain). With those 8 lanes being split into a 2+2 configuration for local and express traffic. Reason being is simply because there are at a minimum 4 lanes on either side of the bridge currently feeding into it and at least 4 lanes exiting or continuing through on either end. This isn't a Patullo or Massey Tunnel scenario where increasing the number of lanes would spur a bottleneck at a further point. 8 lanes would simply better manage the multiple merge points that lead to slower traffic and unsafe conditions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 5:56 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj View Post
Agreed. I think that applies vice versa too, replacing the IWB without a rail capable transit provision is also a failure.

I think increasing lane count to an 8 lane bridge makes sense, even 10 lanes if 2 are dedicated BRT lanes (should the bridge be built as a single deck, eventually converting the BRT lanes to Skytrain). With those 8 lanes being split into a 2+2 configuration for local and express traffic. Reason being is simply because there are at a minimum 4 lanes on either side of the bridge currently feeding into it and at least 4 lanes exiting or continuing through on either end. This isn't a Patullo or Massey Tunnel scenario where increasing the number of lanes would spur a bottleneck at a further point. 8 lanes would simply better manage the multiple merge points that lead to slower traffic and unsafe conditions.
The bridge is already 6 lanes.
Any lower than 10 lanes is dumb.

SkyTrain is maybe problematic for IWMB.
It has to exit its subway tunnel at the same elevation as the bridge deck, while also being able to pass above/below the Thornton Tunnel.

You may just want to cross east of the Thornton Tunnel to avoid that.
The existing studies are crossing studies, and don't really take this into account.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 6:47 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarmerHaight View Post
I guess it all depends on cost? One construction project is typically cheaper than two separate projects, so if the IWMB needs to be replaced anyways you may as well address that and the transit crossing at the same time. But if the government could build the transit connection separately and put off the IWMB replacement and associated capital outlays for an additional 15 or 20 years that may be attractive, especially if you're only looking at a minimal increase in costs (say 10 or 20 percent extra for two projects compared to one).

In terms of timeline, I think only the planning of the North Shore line was within the scope of Translink's 10-year priorities? So if Translink is not ready to build the line until the early/mid 2030s and Migrant is right about the 25 years of remaining useful life, the IWMB will only have 10 or 15 years left when the transit project is ready to start so you might as well replace it at the same time...
My bad, it’s actually 45 years (as of 2021). So fast-forward two years and another decade, and there’s still ~33 years left to go – throwing away that bridge for the sake of one SkyTrain isn’t as easy a decision as 10-15 years.

The Port Mann, George Massey, Golden Ears et al are each supposed to be compatible with train service, but that never actually happens. Perhaps there’s advantages to having one bridge for traffic and another bridge for trains?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 7:42 PM
FarmerHaight's Avatar
FarmerHaight FarmerHaight is offline
Peddling to progress
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Vancouver's West End
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
My bad, it’s actually 45 years (as of 2021). So fast-forward two years and another decade, and there’s still ~33 years left to go – throwing away that bridge for the sake of one SkyTrain isn’t as easy a decision as 10-15 years.

The Port Mann, George Massey, Golden Ears et al are each supposed to be compatible with train service, but that never actually happens. Perhaps there’s advantages to having one bridge for traffic and another bridge for trains?
Leaving three decades of useful life on the table would seem like a waste to me. We have no idea how much a traffic/Skytrain combo bridge would cost compared to a Skytrain along bridge, but I think it's safe to guess multiple billions of dollars? Especially if extra lanes are added to the bridge, because then the project will have to include new interchanges and possibly highway widening on both sides of the inlet.

I, for one, would not want North Shore Skytrain delayed a decade or two because a $3? $4? $5? billion transit project needs a $3? $4? $5? billion roadworks project to be completed first to get said transit across the inlet.
__________________
“Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of riding a bike” – John F Kennedy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 8:05 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
My bad, it’s actually 45 years (as of 2021). So fast-forward two years and another decade, and there’s still ~33 years left to go – throwing away that bridge for the sake of one SkyTrain isn’t as easy a decision as 10-15 years.

The Port Mann, George Massey, Golden Ears et al are each supposed to be compatible with train service, but that never actually happens. Perhaps there’s advantages to having one bridge for traffic and another bridge for trains?
Was Port Mann really at the end of its life before being replaced?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 19, 2023, 8:20 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 2,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
Was Port Mann really at the end of its life before being replaced?
I think the balance is more than made up for by how far past EoL the Patullo was (is).
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 8:28 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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