HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 6:06 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,605
Now if somebody could turn Lightrail's topological map into a google map, we could see it relative to the road maps and major destinations. That would be amazing!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 10:07 PM
flight_from_kamakura's Avatar
flight_from_kamakura flight_from_kamakura is offline
testify
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: san francisco and montreal
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post


Purple Line = North Shore Line
-Line Running from SW marine up Knight St, hitting the Commercial Dr Transit hub, then crossing the Burrard inlet, where it narrows, to the North shore. Once on the North shore it will branch into 2 lines, one heading North up Lonsdale to the Upper Levels Highway, the other continuing West to Park Royal. Although sufficient densities exist along Marine Dr. to justify expansion, I did not show it on this map, because even with a burried line it would never be allowed in West Vancouver.
i think this purple line is an interesting proposal. while a train to northvan might or might not work (i'm thinking sea bus and a basic northshore light rail network would be best), the vancouver part could be a good idea in the long run. basically, you'd have stations in virtually every remaining underdeveloped quadrant of vancouver. like the m-line, your north van line would spur revelopment of the docks district between powell and hastings an area i think could eventually become very very cool low and mid rise), the broadway station hub, and several parts of central/south vancouver where there's very little going on. plus a real commerical drive station would be great (1st ave is perfect) and a station around kingsway/king edward/knight would be great (imagine if the city pushed this area as a high density live/work/play area).

the obvious question is cost. this would be hella expensive (probably impossibly so), and though i could see some justification for elevating it, running it down alleys and over streets, that would never get past the commercial drive gang - meaning it would have to start at broadway. still, if no. 3 road comes out well in richmond, maybe we'll have a precedent for knight street and we might look at an elevated train running down that street south of broadway, but then would do a lot of the work with a far lower cost.

at any rate, something needs to be done.

good rail down clark/night and commercial/victoria is essential, hell, make it a loop with turns on powell and marine drive s, and do both at once! anything that removes vancouver specials and replaces them with density receives almost irrational support from me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 10:13 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 26,182
its a joke

geez

one may as well move to Calgary if they have to move to Chilliwack
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 10:49 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
formerly tin²ium
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,227
I was just curious. But I think it depends on your perspective...

I can see someone hating Langley or Surrey, because it's "urban" with all the negatives that being a city bring such as traffic, crime etc but few benefits of the countryside, like wide-open spaces and great outdoors activities.

I've met people who think Stanley park trails are Wilderness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2008, 1:43 AM
Jared's Avatar
Jared Jared is offline
senior something
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
True re: London. However, there are two routes where this occurs - on the Circle Line (intermixing with the District, Metropolitan and Hammersmith and City lines, and on the Northern Line where it branches into the City and Charing Cross Branch, and then rejoins.

for the Circle - London Underground will tell you it is a nightmare logistically and the Circle Line is the reason more capacity cannot be added. They're actually thinking of ditching the Circle to increase capacity.

For the Northern, there is discusison of splitting it into two lines (Edgeware to Kennington via Charing Cross, to be called Edgeware Line, and another High Barnett to Morden via City called Northern Line). To do this, considerable expense would be required on new tunnels at the Camben deep-level junctions, and new interchange capacity at Camden Town Station

So yes, it is done, but not ideal.

Re: east-west southern routes - totally agree.
Does the Northern Line "reattatch" up north, or does it simply fork permanantly at Kennington station?

Anyways, I wasnt refering to either Circle (well, sort of, but differently) or Northern (the Circle Line especially is a different situation, its timing a bunch of different lines to use the same track, not timing one line to share a bunch of different sets of tracks), but rather just a line which interlines with two other seperate lines at different points. For example, Metropolitan interlining with Picadilly, and then by itself, then later 3 other lines at the Circle Line. Or the Hammersmith and City line sharing tracks with District and then by itself, before with the other three "circle lines".

I wonder if the issues with the Circle Line are simply due to such a high number of lines to co-ordinate all on the same stretch (4 lines), plus some of them must be acoomodated with other lines as well (i.e. Hammersmith+City joining with District), rather than issues like the one that would be present for the Millenium Line once Evergreen is built. There are several other cities which do the same thing the Millenium Line would. For example, in Washington DC, the Yellow Line has a (share with blue-by itself-share with orange) setup. The Blue Line also has a (share with yellow-by itself-share with green) setup. San Fransisco's BART also does something fairly similar in Oakland (actually its even more complicated, it would be equivalent to then also interlining Evergreen with Expo).
__________________
My Diagrams My Photos

I'm not the guy from Subway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2008, 6:04 AM
lightrail lightrail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared View Post
Does the Northern Line "reattatch" up north, or does it simply fork permanantly at Kennington station?

Anyways, I wasnt refering to either Circle (well, sort of, but differently) or Northern (the Circle Line especially is a different situation, its timing a bunch of different lines to use the same track, not timing one line to share a bunch of different sets of tracks), but rather just a line which interlines with two other seperate lines at different points. For example, Metropolitan interlining with Picadilly, and then by itself, then later 3 other lines at the Circle Line. Or the Hammersmith and City line sharing tracks with District and then by itself, before with the other three "circle lines".

I wonder if the issues with the Circle Line are simply due to such a high number of lines to co-ordinate all on the same stretch (4 lines), plus some of them must be acoomodated with other lines as well (i.e. Hammersmith+City joining with District), rather than issues like the one that would be present for the Millenium Line once Evergreen is built. There are several other cities which do the same thing the Millenium Line would. For example, in Washington DC, the Yellow Line has a (share with blue-by itself-share with orange) setup. The Blue Line also has a (share with yellow-by itself-share with green) setup. San Fransisco's BART also does something fairly similar in Oakland (actually its even more complicated, it would be equivalent to then also interlining Evergreen with Expo).
Good points. I'm sure it can be done - especially with a automated system. However, I still think from a customer service and reliability point of view, it's better to separate. Another advantage to separating at Lougheed is, if the "evergreen" extension is P3, maybe a operating concession for the entire UBC-Coquitlam line could be given out. Just a thought.

Another example in interleaving trains is on the Docklands Light Railway - but even there, the branches only run through trains on a 10 minute schedule, with every other train terminating at the junction station.

The Northern Line rejoins.

From Morden: Line splits at Kennington with trains alternating route - every seond via City, every other via Charing Cross

Just before Camden Town there is a complicated deep-level junction to allow trains from City branch or Charing Cross branch to access either Edgeware or High Barnett branch platforms at Camden Town - trains arriving via Charing Cross will alternate Edgeware/High Barnett - ditto for trains arriving via City Branch. Note the city branch takes 2 minutes longer to travel, adding to scheduling nightmare.

This system has operated without benefit of computer on a first train in system - if they get out out of turn, trains find themselves re-routed, sometimes up the wrong branch.

Here's a diagramme of the Camden Town deep-level tube junction on the Northern Line - it was built around 1924. A bit of trivia, the Northern Line carries over 204 millions people per year (more than any other line on the Underground, which collectively carries over 1 billion people per year).



Sit at Earls Court on the District line (where two branches of the District enter from the east, and 4 branches leave from the west. It's complicated and sometimes the signalmen and the station dispatcher don't always agree on where the train is going; opening the door for some amusing situations such as the famous, "this train is not going to Parson's Green"

From http://solo2.abac.com/themole/

This train is not going to Parsons Green
District Line, hometime, me and several hundred other passengers and indeed the station announcer at Earl's Court were thoroughly confused by the signal men. I hopped on the tube at Victoria thinking that I was on a Richmond bound train. At Earl's Court, the platforn indicator said Parsons Green. I ignored this as ...well, when did you last believe what the indicator at Earl's Court said? Anyway, there were several loud announcements and it turned out that the train was going to Parson's Green. Unfortunately the carriage was packed with Italian students who didn't get off. Now maybe they knew something I didn't, because they all carried on to Parsons Green, which is completely in the wrong direction to Richmond. Perhaps I should have been public spirited and said "Are you sure you all want to go to Parson's Green", but my Italian is non existent, so I didn't!

Anyway on the platform of Earl's Court, the female announcer was beginning to get a bit harrassed and apologises for the boards and enthusiastically tells us that the next Richmond train is just leaving South Kensington and will be with us in four minutes time. She then gave us minute by minute updates apologising for the confusion.

Four minutes later and the train appears with 'Richmond' on the platform indicator. We're all about to pile on the train, when lo and behold it changed to 'Parsons Green' again.

"I am sorry," the announcer says "I was told this train was going to Richmond and the signal men have changed their mind and this train is now going to Parsons Green".

The same thing happened with a train that was supposed to be going to Ealing Broadway and ended up going to Wimbledon instead.

Another four minutes and a Richmond train appeared. The announcer was now in full swing "The train at platform three is not going to Parsons Green but to Richmond. The train approaching platform two is also not going to Parsons Green but to Ealing Broadway. These trains are not going to Parsons Green despite what the signal men think."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 8:28 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,539

Transport 2040 ~ Done by Me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 11:54 AM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,134
^ You're not going to wreck Wreck Beach for a Seabus terminal, are you?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 3:50 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,605
I'd extend the Canada Line to Tsawwassen. Gotta get access to the ferry terminal, which is inevitably going to be a major transit hub.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 4:15 PM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by djh View Post
I'd extend the Canada Line to Tsawwassen. Gotta get access to the ferry terminal, which is inevitably going to be a major transit hub.
It might be a good route for an at grade light rail line. Not enough density to justify a Canada Line though, since it's going through mostly barren rural farm land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 5:07 PM
flight_from_kamakura's Avatar
flight_from_kamakura flight_from_kamakura is offline
testify
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: san francisco and montreal
Posts: 1,319
oh wow deasine, nice work!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 6:29 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutterbug View Post
It might be a good route for an at grade light rail line. Not enough density to justify a Canada Line though, since it's going through mostly barren rural farm land.
Yeah, maybe that thin black line on deasine's wicked map could be extended past Boundary Bay airport to Tsawwassen. Then it would hit two transit hubs in one go. I'm assuming that thin black line is light transit?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 6:40 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutterbug View Post
^ You're not going to wreck Wreck Beach for a Seabus terminal, are you?
Well I was really iffy on that one - there are a lot of people going to the northshore from UBC so I wanted to include a SeaBus. I kinda forgot about wrek beach... hmmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by djh View Post
Yeah, maybe that thin black line on deasine's wicked map could be extended past Boundary Bay airport to Tsawwassen. Then it would hit two transit hubs in one go. I'm assuming that thin black line is light transit?
R99 RapidBus. Dark grey likes = RapidBus Routes, Ugly Pale Red = Light Rail Routes. There is a route number listed on the map as well as in the legend. I should include one more for R99 though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 7:12 PM
Dave2 Dave2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 404
The Expo Line goes up one side of Burnaby Mountain and down the other? That'd be interesting...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 8:07 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,409
I like that map, that is why I liked the southeast route for evergreen so that the hastings line would become necessary one day, but I don't think there's a reason for the 2 lines there though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 8:51 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,943
I could see the North Shore Line branching off the Hastings Line around the Second Narrows and also serving the eastern fringes of North Vancouver (rapid bus to Deep Cove?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 9:27 PM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2 View Post
The Expo Line goes up one side of Burnaby Mountain and down the other? That'd be interesting...
How's it going to handle the grade?

How about instead building a tram on the east side of Burnaby Mountain to a transfer station?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 10:21 PM
Kwik-E-Mart Kwik-E-Mart is offline
A.H.-Ha!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tri-Cities, Metro Vancouver, BC
Posts: 303
Hmm... what about a rapid transit link between Richomnd Centre and Metrotown?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 10:52 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutterbug View Post
How's it going to handle the grade?

How about instead building a tram on the east side of Burnaby Mountain to a transfer station?
Doesn't have to necessarly go literally up the mountain - could go underground and the SFU - Campus as well as the UniverCity stations be deep underground requiring elevator access or long escalators. There are a few stations in the world that are like this.

Beacon Hill Station of the Seattle Link Rail Project: http://hatch.ca/Infrastructure/Desig...eacon_Hill.pdf [see page 3 for diagram]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2008, 11:30 PM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Doesn't have to necessarly go literally up the mountain - could go underground and the SFU - Campus as well as the UniverCity stations be deep underground requiring elevator access or long escalators. There are a few stations in the world that are like this.

Beacon Hill Station of the Seattle Link Rail Project: http://hatch.ca/Infrastructure/Desig...eacon_Hill.pdf [see page 3 for diagram]
I don't know how it compares to Beacon Hill, but Burnaby Mountain is something in the excess of 1000 feet high. That would have to be one deep tunnel and long elevator ride.
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 > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:48 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.