SFPR64: New designs for Nordel and Hwy 91 are very similar functionally

SFPR#64. 2020-02-18. 

New designs were published for the Hwy 91 and Nordel interchange. And some were lamenting the old designs. However, the design honestly hasn't changed that much in terms of the "how" it works. The only real big difference is that the old design did not have a WB Nordel to SB Hwy 91 direction whereas the new one does. The unique thing about this design is that the light for NB Hwy 91 to WB Nordel retains the benefit of only stopping EB Nordel traffic and not also stopping SB Hwy 91 to EB Nordel traffic. (This light was in the old design). The new light in the design is for WB Nordel to SB Hwy 91 traffic and it interrupts that same EB Nordel traffic as the other light and also the EB Nordel to NB Hwy 91. The lights will almost certainly be timed with each other, acting as a "single" traffic light so to speak.

If you take away that WB Nordel to SB Hwy 91 in the new design, you basically end up with exactly the same functionality as the previous design.

New Design with two traffic lights

Old design with one traffic light.

Comments:

moosejaw: Could the NB Hwy 91 to Nordel WB be a parclo to eliminate a traffic light?
You could actually get rid of the first traffic light by allowing the onramp to Nordel Westbound to continue underneath Nordel into a parclo to the other side and it would make it free flowing leaving the remaing light to be the left turn lane going onto 91SB.

waves: Yes however, it would cause crossing conflict point on the highway which could be worse.
The problem with such a solution is that you would create a crossing conflict point on the Highway between those getting onto the bridge and those getting off before the bridge. If the truck volumes are high for either then its very possible that crossing conflict point could cause worse traffic congestion than the light they propose.

Illustration showing the crossing point conflict created by a parclo of NB Hwy 91 to WB Nordel.

c041v: That parclo would be an aggressive weave. There are also challenging utility restrictions and ground conditions.
The pier location of the existing structure and east abutment location of the new structure don't support this. It's an aggressive weave, and the parclo, as correctly surmised by another user is a substandard solution that does not work from a geometric perspective in that space. The Hwy 91 NB to Nordel Way EB movement is relatively low volume.

As for the complaints about the "additional" signals , the signal at Hwy 91C / 91 does halt the 91C EB through traffic to allow for Nordel Way WB to Hwy 91 SB, which is a very low (30 vph) movement, meaning the EB traffic will see a lot of green time in the cycle. It's a movement the contractor fought to eliminate, but was ultimately required by the Province to provide "all possible movements" at the interchange.

In response to, "No matter where road infrastructure gets built in BC, there is always an excuse about terrain", there's 8m+ peat layers for much of this project. Easy enough to solve from an engineering standpoint, less so from an economic perspective. Substantial ground improvements are required for most of the elements of the project, adding a few more bridges would have astronomically increased costs. BC is one of the most challenging jurisdictions to build any roads due to seismic design criteria and a dearth of flat land.

The Nordel interchange looks the way it does as most of the traffic volumes are on Nordel Way EB from Highway 91 and 17, not WB.

What nobody appreciates about the Highway 91C "choke point" location is that there are underground two FortisBC transmission lines, and an Overhead BC Hydro Transmission line that offered virtually no options outside of what is shown in this location due to utility envelope restrictions and settlement considerations.

If you think the price was high now, consider what it would have cost to alter the location of either of these utilities.

waves: Why wasn't a double trupet interchange considered?
They are so close to it with their current design. It would make the intersection free-flowing and with no conflict points. The only extra engineering different from the original new design would be a culvert for the EB Nordel on-ramp to the AF
SFPR#86. 2020-05-24. 

Highway 91 and Nordel Interchange as a Double Trumpet

Example Double Trumpet (yin yang interchange) in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina Source

c041v: Lane numbers and widths of ramps may be a barrier to the design.
The left hand exits for Nordel EB to Hwy 91 NB and Nordel WB to Hwy 91 SB are a non-starter from a geometric perspective. Obviously a lot of other options open up elsewhere were this condition allowed.

Additional issues with this design:

The Highway 91 SB to Nordel Way EB ramp is currently two lanes, and needs to stay that way as it is a very high volume movement. The proposed Nordel Way Way to Hwy 91 SB laning is conveniently wedged between what is a very tight area. Interchange ramp lane widths vary between 3.7-4.8 m for tracking, which just won't fit in this space. You are also dropping a WB lane immediately after crossing the structure, which means you only have one Nordel Way WB through lane, which is less than the current design in terms of capacity. Sure, you could widen the existing structure to 5 lanes, but this comes with a huge cost increase as the existing structure is not being replaced with this design.

The Nordel Way EB to Hwy 91 NB ramp cuts under the existing embankment east of the current structure, necessitating an all new structure to accommodate this. Staging-wise, it would be very complicated to split or halve traffic on this abutment to build the structure, and schedule-wise (were you to build the bottom structure first) it won't work either.

The double trumpet could have worked if there was more space in this area, but there isn't - you need to work within the Right of Way limits shown on the drawings. Combined with the geometric preferences of the Province, not much else that could have been done here. Also, the green Nordel Way EB movement only has one intersection for traffic heading to AFB. All of the movements cited for full free flow interchange under a double trumpet design are relatively low-volume when compared to the high priority movements under the current design that are free flow. Essentially, high cost for little gain in performance.

waves: Can you clarify what exactly you mean by "geometric preferences of the Province"?
Also, just a note that the lines in the sketch were only intended to represent a geometric idea, rather than to show the specific lane configurations. I can see your concern with the limited of space in the south-west corner.

c041v: The level of comfort with innovative design solutions varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
I simply meant that achieving the desired number of movements, lane & shoulder widths, curve radii and other considerations (such as no left hand exits) can act as significant constraints in developing a viable design.

The level of comfort with innovative design solutions varies a great deal across Municipal and Provincial jurisdictions, some are willing to try something progressive or unconventional to solve a problem, while others are incredibly rigid in their desires, no matter how short-sighted it may seem.

makr3trkr: Left hand exits exist around Metro Van. Should they really be a deal-breaker?
I would think any left hand exits in a potential double trumpet interchange to be more like a split Y junction than a true exit per se. The Queensborough bridge has two lanes exit right and one lane "continue" left for example. Not to mention numerous HOV left exits in the region plus I'm sure other examples ... I don't think it really should be considered a deal breaker. There's a similar wye/shared exit southbound on Knight to exit to 91 westbound to Richmond or to 91 eastbound to Delta.

Northbound on the Queensborough Bridge.

Northbound Highway 1 near Lougheed Mall

c041v: Fair points, but the rule book is pretty clear;
"DESIGN-BUILD AGREEMENT
Schedule 4: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Part 2: Design & Construction Requirement
ARTICLE 1 LANING AND GEOMETRICS DESIGN CRITERIA
1.2.3 Interchanges
(d) The use of left side exit and entrance ramps shall not be permitted."
Design-Build Agreement

The Queensborough wye dates back nearly 60 years, a lot has changed since then. The 91 SB exit off Knight street is not a true left hand exit, it is a two lane right hand exit that then wyes off after. Again, something from a different era.


Mininari: What if it was a right hand exit to Nordel Way?
Well there's an easy 'hack' to make it not a left-exit. Just sign / stripe the Eastbound-to-Northbound left turn movement as the PRIMARY movement, and make the split to Nordel Way the 'exit' -- it would thus be a right-hand exit, and not 'merge' with the 91 exit traffic if each of the 'exit-to-Nordel-Way-EB' traffic movements had its own dedicated lane up the hill.


waves: This is clever, however, how is the primary movement defined and what are the volumes?
I imagine that the primary movement is defined by the movement that has the highest volume and you can't simply pick it - If the numbers are close, or, are potentially inhibited by the current design (latent demand) then you may be able to make the argument that future expected movements should dictate the design. Does someone have the volume movements for the interchange and can share those numbers?

To speculate, just looking at the design proposed by the province for the green movement however, the through volume has two-intersections and the northbound on-ramp only has one. That might indicate to me that the primary movement is the northbound on-ramp. However, it is difficult to decipher intention from unintended consequence without the volume counts.

TF2010: West Coast Express to Squamish and Whistler? LRT for West Vancouver?

There have been many thoughts for how best it might be to connect a SkyTrain like service to the North Shore and so maybe it comes unsurprising that an extension of the West Coast Express has not been something that people have realized is a distinct possibility. Unlike SkyTrain, however, there really is only one plausible route and technology: A submerged tunnel, similar to the George Massey Bridge. As a submerged tunnel, the max depth is 15m along the whole route and there is ample space to accommodate a 2% grade. LRT local service, WCE peak service to Squamish and Whistler. You'd essentially get a two-for-one commuter and rail rapid transit (albeit with manual drivers). I imagine it would be well after a Skytrain link to Central Lonsdale, whenever that is. West-Vancouverites would probably love it (yeh know LRT euopean craze whooha and all). Buying the railway back would be an issue. The seafloor is thick cap river sediment so it should be easy to dredge.

I might put out something more detailed later when I have time but for now:

TF#2010. 2020-02-13

Comments

scottN:

It looks like there is enough space to double or triple the track through Ambleside if necessary. Dundarave could probably be handled with 2 tracks - one for LRT and one for freight and commuter trains. Unlike other LRT / streetcar proposals, this one makes a lot more sense because there's minimal interaction with street traffic. Interchange with west van busses at park royal is poor though. Either the bus interchange or the LRT track would need to move.

TF1884: Arbutus LRT Thurlow Alignment?

TF#1551. 2019-01-15. 

A lot of talk has been going on around the routing of the Arbutus LRT in the downtown core with most of the conversation focused towards the Downtown Eastside. The below is an alternate, more direct connection to the Commercial Business District while additionally providing new RRT coverage for the West End.

Arbutus LRT Thurlow Alignment Option.

The alignment follows the existing Arbutus ROW to Burrard Street after which it will cut and cover under Fir St. and 4th Ave. This is necessary because it will likely be a conventional motor LRT and it will need a longer approach to dive underground because of the lower maximum grade for a conventional motor (4%).

Profile of the Route beginning at Burrard Street and Ending at Waterfront.

Comments

scryer: Could the LRT be grade separated at Broadway or 41st?
In my fantasy, if the Arbutus Greenway was going to be LRT, it would dip into short little tunnels underneath those major intersections. It wouldn't be a full tunnel; just a few convenient dips underneath some major intersections (like Broadway and 41st).

waves: Probably not with the constraint of a 4% grade maximum.
This might not be very practical with a conventional motor train set that can only get max 5% grade. The depths would need to be great enough to go under existing utilities in the street and deep enough for the overhead wires (8.5-10m). So at a 4% grade plus vertical curves, you would need 200-300m of distance minimum for each crossing. To go under Broadway, you would essentially need to start descending at 12th.

fredinno: Would they be less tall for road over rail rather than rail over road?
The entire Hastings St overpass over the rail there is that long. And it’s over an active freight line. These overpasses would be much less tall, if road going over rail. So maybe overpasses (of the road by the rail or the rail by the road) would work better than underpasses. I don’t even think you’d need 10m depth to get under the utilities on an underpass, but regardless.

waves: No. But the approach distance would be shorter for rail over road.
Roads and vehicles can climb steeper grades than train vehicles so a road overpass would be much shorter than a rail underpass, but practically, an overpass wouldn't really work for a developed intersection such as Arbutus and Broadway. 2-3m depth on utilities plus 6m depth on the train row is right in that 8-10m range. 6m is the Canada Line tunnel depth. 3-4m is a typical LRT vehicle height. Add tracks and overhead wires and you quickly use up that 6m of space.

scottN: Moving utilities may be possible to reduce height requirements.
Moving the utilities is also a possibility, and could be less expensive especially if they can accommodate a steeper grade than the train.

I recall during Canada line construction along Cambie (between Broadway and 6th) that they first the dug up the street to rebuild some sort of sewer pipe, then they dug up the street again again for the canada line tunnel. In that case I think the train tunnel crossed over top of the sewer as the train shifts from the east side of Cambie (At Broadway) to the west side (at 6th)

TF1799: High Speed Rail with Waterfront and YVR stations

TF#1799. 2019-07-21. 

Many like to use Hwy 1 for high speed rail fantasies, however, the highway is already built out, particularly though Burnaby, and there isn't space to mash a rail line in there. One route I see a possibility for is cut and cover under Arbutus to an above grade station at Templeton, down the shell rail right of way at grade, bored tunnel under boundary bay connecting to the existing amtrack in Blaine: https://drive.google.com/open?id=169...ZY&usp=sharing

Alternatively, with the Canada Line present, starting at YVR would be acceptable and connecting to downtown Vancouver may not be worth the added cost and construction disruption.

Waterfront-Templeton-Ladner High Speed Rail to Seattle.

Comments

LeftCoaster: Why Templeton over Bridgeport?
That's a lot of work to get it to a station where you need to transfer to get to YVR anyway. If you're going to force people to get on the Canada line to go to YVR why not make it a more convenient station for the HSR like Bridgeport or Cambie, then you don't need to do that weird double river crossing hard corner.

waves: Because Templeton has the space for Border Security and Park & Ride Facilities
You need space to set up Border Security Facilities + Park & Ride options. Templeton would have the space to accommodate those facilities and I am not sure Bridgeport would.

The train has to come to a stop at each station so it won't necessarily be going very fast through north Richmond and those curves. The problem with going straight is that it would likely need to be a bored tunnel. Above ground won't work with the Oak and Arthur Lang in the way.

LeftCoaster: Why do you have a Ladner station?
Drop the Delta-Ladner station. This is HSR not commuter rail. Ferry customers can take the express bus to Bridgeport/Templeton.

waves: It's a quick (Nexus only) for those going to and from the Ferry. 
The idea behind the Ladner station is not commuter rail, but instead as a quick pick up point for those travelling south who are coming from Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. It would be for Nexus passengers only so that border security is kept small and loading completed quickly. When coming back from Seattle northbound the stop would again only be for those with a Nexus pass.

There would be two separate areas in a single train to separate Nexus from non-Nexus passengers. Non-Nexus passengers would only be allowed to get on/off at Templeton whereas Nexus passengers can get on/off anywhere. 

TF1774: Burrard Inlet Batymetry

TF#1774. 2019-06-24.

In the past when I have looked at Burrard Inlet, I have made educated guesses to the underwater topography (bathymetry) of the inlet. Since then, I have been working to complete a full bathymetric map of Burrard Inlet. I am finally done! I have done some work at some crossing options but I'm not finished yet; it's coming soon though

Here are the maps in small size (click the link below it to see a full size that you can zoom into). Each shade of colour is a 5m contour and the topo lines are 1m contours.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/OyL80ln.jpg

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/AiyaqWe.jpg

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/XmOpj7i.jpg

If you want to do your own your own designs and profiles on top of the topo here are the download links to the Cad files:

Full Inlet Bathymetry and reduced LIDAR above sea-level: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AjWWltw_HSwziLcelq48RitiwTrq3Q

Bathymetry only: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AjWWltw_HSwziLcb6-YiUMFf2FXYbA

I spent $5 on an FOI request to see if the Port of Vancouver would give me any formal bathymetry they had but they denied my request - what you see here took me many hours of researching marine maps and various small snippets of bathymetry data and then digitizing by hand.

Comments

Migrant Coconut: Tidal Scour!
So the depressions are tidal scour, that figures.

Tvisforme: Underwater Bridge?
Is it possible (from an engineering perspective) to have a "bridge" underwater to help level out the path across Burrard Inlet? As in, tunnel down to an appropriate depth and then have an elevated platform supporting the enclosed tracks across the deepest portion of the direct route from Waterfront to Lonsdale Quay? Or would the risk be too great if, for example, a ship was dragging anchor?

waves: Maybe?
I think there are examples of floating underwater tunnels although they are not many. I imagine that a ship dragging an anchor would be very bad. 

scottN: Norway is planning one.
Looks like Norway is currently planning to build the first one, but not in an active harbour. 

cganuelas1995: Would a train derailment be bad?
I'd also imagine the unlikely event of a train derailment would rupture the tunnel.

waves: No. They would be designed for that.
I don't agree. A floating tunnel could easily be designed to handle a train derailment.

Tvisforme: 
Yes, although I was thinking more of a submerged bridge idea rather than relying on buoyancy. Using the depth graphic posted recently as an example, a tunnel would be constructed underground in the blue areas directly in line between Waterfront and Lonsdale Quay, emerging from the white and crossing the black area in the centre on an underwater bridge before going underground again on the north side.

waves: Lateral forces add complication and grades not possible.
If these areas are a result of tidal scour, as Migrant Coconut supposed, then I would imagine that these water depths could see high lateral forces. It also supposes that you can even construct a straight line underground to the tunnel points within the appropriate grades. We already know that you cannot do this from my previous post back in March 2017

scottN: 
The water pressure doesn't weigh directly on the underwater bridge. What it does do is make the immersed tube much heavier than an ordinary bridge deck would normally be. The tube has to be strong enough not to be crushed by the water pressure, and the deeper in the water the tube is immersed the stronger it needs to be. The buoyancy of the tube can be used to counteract the weight of the tube (or nullify it entirely in the floating tunnel design).

TF1684: Frequent bus route options for Central Lonsdale

TF#1684. 2019-03-05.

A frequent transit network specifically of B-Lines (articulated express stop only buses 10min or better frequency 7 days a week) for North Vancouver was suggested by goldenboi (see image below right).

goldenboi's suggested North Shore FTN.

My feedback on what appears to be 4 B-Lines.

• East-West: Ideally it will end in Dollarton, the area is developing into a center and it is more appropriate than ever for it to finish there.
• Lions Gate: I never understood why the 240 goes to 15th rather than continuing on 13th. For a BLine it should go straight on 13th all the way to Grand Boulevard and then left all the way to Lynn Valley. Less turns = faster end to end speed. Plus it still serves the hospital with that route.
• Second Narrows to Metrotown: It should finish at CapU.
• Lonsdale - This line is not necessary. BLines are great for longer distances of travel but the problem with Lonsdale is the majority of movements are local - there are actually very few people who travel from Lynn Valley to the Quay to Downtown because the 210 runs straight downtown from Lynn Valley and is faster. At Mid-Lonsdale, the 240 also runs straight downtown and can also be faster for certain trips. Especially if the 240 is replaced by a BLine, this will make it even faster. Lonsdale deserves to be in the frequent transit network with buses every 10min or better, but I don't think it's suitable for a BLine.

My suggestion for specific B-Line routing on the North Shore.

Comments

jollyburger: Are you suggesting a new bus exchange at Dollarton?
If there ever is that demand they can extend it but you still need to run buses out to Deep Cove and it makes sense to terminate those routes at Phibbs than some new Dollarton mini-exchange

waves: No. Just a different termination point.
I don't disagree with you, however, just because the B-Line ends at Dollarton doesn't mean that the others have to. A new exchange is not needed. It makes more sense for the local buses to end at Phibbs. Extending the BLine to Dollarton adds at most 1min but provides a lot of value with all the businesses and new developments over there. The new Phibbs is being designed with the new BLine stop in a bus bay on the north side of Main St (so that it doesn't even have to enter the exchange, it arrives and leaves).

jollyburger: Isn't the time spent turning onto 15th negligible?
There are no delays from those turns onto 13th and 15th was always more built up (not just single family homes) which might be the reason it historically used that route.

waves: While small, the delay is still tangible.
Every turn has a delay, it's not a large one, but there is a delay. Not to mention the added stop signs and such. 5min could be cut from the route from continuing on 13th.

jollyburger: The Ironworkers is unreliable and service to CapU might be impacted if it relies on a B-Line?

They already switched the Cap College runs to a shorter route so it isn't dependent on buses getting stuck on the bridge.

waves: Local bus service to Cap can co-exist with a B-Line.
A Metrotown-Phibbs B-Line probably won't go without ahead without priority entrance on to the highway somehow from Hastings. With transit priority, the buses should be less likely to get stuck in bridge traffic. 10min frequency may also reduce the consequences from buses getting pushed back behind schedule. Also, just because CapU will be serviced by the B-Line doesn't mean that it can't have local bus service just as UBC sees service by the 9, 14, and 4 in addition to the 99 B-Line.

Migrant Coconut: A gondola is needed!
And there's not much room for artics at either loop anyway. What Cap really needs long-term is a short express line between it and Phibbs, upgradeable to a gondola.

waves: I agree!
If a gondola was put in place, terminating the B-Line at Phibbs would be very appropriate.

jollyburger: The Marine Dr B-Line is not a "destination" route, so won't a Lonsdale B-Line be fine?

Not all B-Lines are going to be UBC "destination" routes where almost is going all the way to the end. Even the new Marine B-Line will see fewer people going from Phibbs to Park Royal than more "localish" type commuters switching to another route.

waves: A Marine Dr B-Line is a destination route.
I disagree with the assertion that the Marine B-Line absolutely is a not a "destination" route. The big destinations are Dundarave, Ambleside, Park Royal, Capilano Mall, Quay, Brooksbank, Phibbs and Dollarton. All of these places benefit from express service. While true that not every rider will be going from Phibbs to Dundarave, it is true however that most riders will be travelling between those "local" destinations. Lonsdale does not have this characteristic because the travel patterns are truly local in a way that is more similar to the 9 than the 99.

fredinno: Isn't the 229 route already designated in the ATP for a B-Line?
Translink already designated the Lynn Valley B-line Jollyburger drew as their preferred corridor, and Lynn Valley is a designated Town Centre anyhow. Lynn Valley is hampered by lack of accessibility, hence, the B-Line. Also, connecting at Lonsdale future-proofs the line for a Skytrain 3rd crossing.

waves: Not necessarily; its designated for frequent transit which can be different from a B-Line.
Translink specified Lonsdale to Lynn Valley as a route that needed frequent transit. Remember that a B-Line is a form a frequent transit but frequent transit is not always a B-Line. Also, Lynn Valley really isn't that hampered in terms of accessibility. 228, 229, 255, 210, 227 and even the N24 all run through Lynn Valley at 30min or better frequency all day. There are, however, many scheduling and route alignment problems though:

• 229 SB turns right on to Lynn Valley road, then left onto 29th rather than continuing straight onto Fromme. Also leaves 3min to late in the afternoon to catch the Seabus.
• 255 is usually good and consistent
• 228 does lots of turns around grand boulevard and 15th that are really unnecessary
• 240 doesn't finish in Lynn Valley forcing Lynn Valley CapMall or Park Royal connections to transfer to the 255 or 228.
• Some 210s don't go all the way to Vancouver, and have no connections to Vancouver even at Phibbs until the next 210. 

Rapid Bus Transit is defined in the NSATP as anything that might have one or some of the following: "Dedicated right of way, separate lane or mixed with traffic, limited stop or transit priority measures. Service frequency 2 – 15 minutes.

Run the 229/230 at 15 min frequencies staggered 7.5min apart. You could run the 229 with limited stops through CNV to provide a faster option for getting to the Quay versus 230 local service. Alternatively, you keep the 230/229 at current 15-30min frequencies, cut stops in the CNV so that they stop at 23rd/15th/13th/3rd/Quay only, and implement a new 10min local service bus from the Quay to 23rd.

Both these options would improve Lonsdale to a Rapid Bus Network but neither are a B-Line.

Tvisforme: But isn't 15th Street more central that 13th street to Central Lonsdale?

One significant advantage to 15th Street, as I understand it, is that it runs through the heart of the Central Lonsdale district. A stop on 13th would instead leave you near the southern end of where the City plans to have most of the density. At 15th, you're equidistant to either of the two supermarkets that serve that area (City Market at 17th, Whole Foods at 13th).

waves: 13th and Lonsdale has more density than 15th.
The highest density in central Lonsdale is currently at 13th and Lonsdale. This is also the area that sees the highest day-lighting from buses that ascend Lonsdale Ave. In addition, the blocks aren't that long either. Walking from 17th to 13th takes 5min. In my opinion, the directness of the transit route has more advantages than making the bus do the weave onto 15th.

Tvisforme: But, higher density in the OCP is set out for 15th.
13th might be denser at the moment, but 15th is the centre of the four-block "Mixed Use Level 4B (High Density)", the highest-density zone on the Central Lonsdale OCP. It is a relatively quick walk from 17th to 13th, but if you're carrying groceries from City Market - which is much more affordable than Whole Foods - it becomes more complicated. As for the weave, it does not really matter too much; while it does add two extra turns (Keith -> Jones and Jones -> 15th) the net distance is the same on both routes. More importantly, perhaps, the existing east-west routes in Central Lonsdale are already operating on 15th.

waves: Snaking is not an efficient transit network.
The net distance may be the same, but the speed is slower with added stop signs, having to wait for traffic while turning left off of 13th, speed bumps on the west part of 15th. Also, if the route is ever upgraded to an articulated B-Line, those turns are going to become even slower and more difficult.

13th is simpler, faster and more direct for regional connections. If Lonsdale FTN is upgraded even more with buses every 10min or better, than a person can get off at 13th and they have a high likelihood of a transfer bus coming in 5min or less to get to 17th. But I also highly doubt that people from down Kieth's are that keen to get to the market on 17th vs. Walmart at Cap Mall. Other potential commuters to that particular market are basically Grand Boulevard, which is all SFH's anyways. Anyone north of the highway is going to Lynn Valley so even when the 240 is extended, I don't think the 17th Supermarket is enough of a "destination" to justify impacts to a highly important regional bus route.

While true that the existing east-west routes are on 15th now, that doesn't mean that they have to stay there, or should be there.

Vancouver's bus network encourages ridership because it avoids doing the suburban snaking. The network has proven its efficiency and reliability when the routes travel in straight lines in the block pattern. North Vancouver needs to do the same in aiming for a one-transfer grid bus network rather than a snaked network.

TF1659: Canada Line to Ladner?

SpongeG: "Ladner is such a small community though surrounded by land that will never be redeveloped so there isn't much chance of major redevelopment happening as there will never be a population increase. It's like a gold ticket VIP train service for a select few."

It's not just Ladner that would get served though. With a Park and Ride station just on the south end of the new bridge, plus a terminus at the Ladner Bus Loop it would serve all of Delta, Tsawwassen (and the ferries), White Rock, South Surrey and even potentially some Langley commuters. It would be an excellent anchor point for a new Commuter Light Rail Line from the ferries, to Ladner, then South Surrey, Langley and maybe even Abbotsford and Chilliwack.

TF#1659. 2019-02-25.

Light Blue = Canada Line Extension
Royal Blue = Expo Line Langley Extension
Dark Grey = At Grade Light Rail

Comments

fredinno: Light Rail not for Far & Fast?
Most people need to go far and fast, which is not really what LRT and Light Metro are designed for.

waves:

Ladner/Delta/South Surrey, these are all semi-urban areas. It's these kinds of areas where Light Rail works BEST!

• Line travels through both suburban and non-urban areas. Some stations need to be close together and some farther apart. For commuter rail, all the stations have to be far apart.
• LRT trains can be lower than commuter trains meaning stations are less bulky and cheaper.
• Faster acceleration and deceleration times for LRT vehicles over commuter rail vehicles means that LRT can run on roadway medians instead of only on heavy rail right-of-ways.
• The suburban and non-urban nature tends to have more roadway medians and other right-of-way land available than inner city. LRT is not a good choice for urban options because the land is only available with significant consequences to other transportation modes.
• Large suburban grid structures mean that signal timing can be achieved relatively easily without big effects on cars and without delaying the trains.
• Commuter trains are more expensive to operate and have higher minimum headways due to lower deceleration capabilities. (trains will come less often)

LRT vehicles are capable of 100+ km/hr if so desired. Portland's max operating speed is 95km/hr. Travelling at 100 km/hr from South Surrey to Ladner and then from Ladner to the ferries would be perfect for convincing many people to switch to public transit rather than driving and paying for parking at the ferries.

TF#1664. 2019-02-28.

What will it cost?

waves:

I revamped my Rail Rapid Transit Cost Calculator. It is now all in 2018 dollars and has the new Broadway Study numbers in it. I have also done the calculations to allow more specific calculation of Skytrain vs. Canada Line vs. LRT and ect.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjWWltw_HSwziMxlv1-Ki8hc5t2YRw

Without contingencies:

• Canada Line Extension to Ladner (14km/7stations): $1.53 billion
• Ladner to Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal LRT (11km/3stations): $818 million
• Ladner to Langley LRT (31km/9stations): $3.05 billion
• Langley to Abbotsford LRT (27.2km/11 stations): $2.98 billion

Since these are very long term projects, Surrey, Delta, Langley, MOTI and others could prepare for these improvements before hand which may bring down costs significantly (for LRT). For instance, utility replacement or road repaving could be completed along highway 10 with right of way accommodation for a future LRT line in the median. Also, when intersections are improved, they could be built with future LRT handling capabilities. Especially for such a long distance, having all of these things slowly get implemented incidentally and negligibly through other programs would significantly reduce the costs above. I would even hazard to say by up to 50%.

TF#1671. 2019-03-03

 But isn't $5.5 billion a lot of money?

waves:

When you only have to lay track rather than rip up the ground it can save you $50 million a km. Look at the cost difference per km of at-grade in Alberta vs. at-grade Kitchner/Victoria.

Characterizing it as $5.5 billion is a bit unfair as a Langley-Tsawwassen LRT would not be built at the same time as a Canada Line Extension to Ladner. You could, however, see a B-Line go in and then 10 years down the road have it replaced with LRT. With that in mind, you are looking at likely looking at a $2 billion Canada Line Extension + B-Line combo which is very reasonable.

You could of course send the line on the existing rail right of way from Ladner to Langley but it would bypass the suburban areas and it would be a missed opportunity for more development and ridership within the urban containment zone. (Green rather than Black). The better prepared a right of way is for LRT, the cheaper it becomes. LRT that has been put in place on exisiting rails and is single tracked has been know to cost as little at $1.5million/km. Where they have to put in rail, $10-15million/km. I imagine that if the governments are smart about setting aside land and utility locations they could reach the $20 million/km range. If they can reach that, they could get an LRT to Langley for under $1.5 billion.

TF#1675. 2019-03-05.