TF#1551. 2018-12-07.
What does Metro Van look like to you in 2068? See more details via my map on
Map Hub. (I got frustrated with Google MyMaps). Zoom in, see all the station names, turn lines on/off, download for youself to play with.
This is my second iteration at a 50 year plan. In this iteration I attempted to configure some of the interlining, fill some gaps, and consider commuter rail. There are definitely still details to work out, specifically around the North Shore so there will eventually be a v3.
See full size imagine here:
https://i.imgur.com/z3NapIs.png
Comments:
lokyin: Priority of Hastings?
Would there be more benefit if the Hastings portion of the blue line be higher priority than 2042? It seems the route is high bus ridership already but also the redevelopment potential and higher density potential along Hastings. The car-abandonment probability is much higher along this route than suburb routes. We can densify much more of Vancouver proper (with the use of transit) spawning from expanding downtown, compared to the far off suburbs
waves:
Hastings: It's a good question. It's really hard to say. In a somewhat pessimistic but also a sad reality of building out our skytrain network in very tiny phases. In light of recent news, 2022 SFU Gondola, 2025 Expo to Fleetwood, 2024 Millennium to Arbutus (or maybe to UBC?), 2030 Expo to Langley, 2035 Millennium to UBC, 2040 Lonsdale Line or Hastings Line?
lokyin: Will Hastings and Willingdon be overcrowded?
For the north shore portion of the green line, I wonder if it's more beneficial to funnel it into the Hastings line because so much of the north shore traffic would be headed downtown, and making Hastings/Willingdon an interchange too busy unnecessarily.
waves:
Lots of North Shore transiters go downtown because getting downtown is easy. By contrast, getting from Phibbs to Millennium Line is a very slow windy infrequent bus ride (28 or 130). For example, if you are going to Metrotown mid-day from Phibbs, it is frequently more reliable and sometimes even faster to take the 210 downtown and get on the Expo Line rather than taking a direct bus. It's very slow no matter which way you go.
Car, by contrast, takes 20min typically so it's no wonder that with the North Shore's lack of housing has everyone is living in Burnaby and commuting to work in North Van by car. Translink has said that a Phibbs to Metrotown skytrain has been studied as not having enough potential ridership currently but I question how that was determined. If it was based off current ridership I would argue that with the horrendousness for bus-transit in that area, it's no wonder ridership is not growing/is not high to begin with.
I would argue that the regional connectivity connecting all of the North Shore, Brentwood, BCIT, Metrotown, and by connection Surrey would significantly increase ridership. Currently, if you are going anywhere west of Cambie on Broadway, it's faster to go downtown first. With a line to Brentwood, it'd be faster to go there and hop on a Millennium Line train (which at that point would be extended to Arbutus or UBC).
lokyin: Is downtown under-served?
Downtown looks underserved despite some new stations. Perhaps an LRT around false creek from granville island to olympic village up to gastown to waterfront station could be weaved into this plan for relatively cheap.
waves:
Downtown is actually pretty small in area. Studies have shown that 50% of people within 500m will walk to a metro station. If you look at the image below you can see that with a Hastings Extension and Lions Gate Extension you do provide really good coverage. In addition, I don't see the usefulness of an LRT from a transportation perspective when you could accomplish the same objectives by using electric trolley buses with some transit only corridors (kind of like all the trolley buses now which use Granville St).
TF#1568. 2018-12-13
scyer: What about the hills of the North Shore for going up to 23rd Street?
I feel that the Expo extension to 23rd is a little over-kill and probably very difficult to design as it is going up a mountain.
waves:
As for whether it goes up to 23rd, there are some tall towers going up all along the Lonsdale corridor (like 20+ stories). The Lonsdale corridor up to 23rd is also designated as an urban core in Metro Vancouver's 2040 growth strategy. As for engineering difficulty, check out my last post on the Lonsdale Line where I drew out a profile showing that it can be done in under the 6% grade. I agree with you that its not very simple, but I do think it could be achievable.
Why is Arbutus LRT not on the map?
waves:
The Arbutus Corridor is only 2.5km away from the Canada Line, heck it's only a 10 min bus ride to the Canada Line. My opinion is simply that I think other regional priorities are more important.
Bdawe: Is splitting the Expo Line at Commercial-Broadway a problem?
Commercial Broadway-Downtown is the busiest segment of the expo line and is likely to always be thus. Splitting at Commercial is essentially short changing the busiest segment for peak capacity.
waves:
What if you had 1:4 ratio of North Shore : Downtown on the main Expo Line and then 1:1 ratio of Commercial-Broadway:Surrey on the Lonsdale Line?
(Essentially every 5th train north (~10min assuming 2min headways on expo) would go the Quay from Surrey, and every 2nd train south from the Quay would terminate at CB so you have 5min frequency service to CB and 10min to surrey?)
CB now has the third platform which would allow it to have that flexibility for trains to turn back to the North Shore at CB.
It is a good question though if even that sort of interlining would be too much. If we look at the graph below, we can see the modeled on/off with the Langley extension. If you tally up all the alightings up to and including CB that number is 15371. After CB is 15366. 50% of all riders travelling on the Expo Line are not going past CB - So if you were to take 20% of the line and split it to North Van would that cause problems with capacity for downtown? According to these numbers at least, my thoughts are that it wont?
If we are concerned however about maintaining the full capacity from CB to Burrard, there is a way to accomplish that goal using a 3rd track and the existing 3rd platform at CB. 5 of 6 trains will go from Langley to Burrard, 1 from Langley to North Shore, and 1 from Commercial Broadway to Burrard (which would be highly valuable considering that 4000 people need to board at CB alone). In some ways, this may actually improve the efficiency of Commercial-Broadway because it provides an empty train every 6min to provide relief for transfers coming in from the Millennium Line.
The schematic above shows the capability for maximum frequency/capacity of 75 second headways in the following directions:
- Langley Centre to Scott Road
- Columbia to CB [current]
- CB to Burrard [current]
- Hastings-Willingdon to Waterfront
In a 6 train timing cycle, 6 trains to one destination would have the capability of the Expo Line's max build-out capacity of 25,000. For a 3 train timing cycle with half the frequency of the 6 train cycle that halves the max capacity to 12,500 (which is just over double the current 6,000 capacity the Canada Line currently runs). The Seabus runs at a capacity of 1,200 pphpd right now (2 boats each with 300 person capacity @ 15 min frequencies). I think max capacity is 1,800 with 3 boats at 10min frequencies.
Migrant Coconut: Won't induced demand be an issue and 12,500pphpd not be enough?
Induced demand induces pretty fast. 15,000 is the Canada's peak, and half the city's going "no, that's not enough." Ditto the North Shore: we're not just talking about people on the SeaBus, we're talking drivers and bus passengers on both bridges, and possibly people who wouldn't ordinarily venture across the Inlet, but might now, because "hey, now there's a SkyTrain.
The
recent municipal study pegs North Van residents commuting south at around 40.5k, and vice versa at 21.3k; assuming a round trip, that's 123k trips. You probably know more than most of us about how many of those trips would be switched to what kind of SkyTrain route, but AFAIK it's better to overbuild. Two separate routes also creates less points of failure for the signalling system, a more comprehensible map, and more ridership from having twice the frequency. It's an elegant solution, what you came up with, but I think the KIS principle overrules it.
waves:
I decided to look at number somewhat more carefully and did some crude math with a lot of assumptions:
(A) INSTPP Population Increase by 2041 = 61,000 ppdpd
(B) Proportion Lonsdale TOD Assumption = 60%
(C) Mode Share of pLTOD Assumption = 60%
A*B*C = (D) New Population Ridership 2041 = 18,300 ppdpd
(E) Average Seabus weekday boardings = 18,740 ppd
E/2 = (F) Average Seabus weekday boardings per direction = 9,370 ppdpd
(G) Total Transit southbound from North Shore = 40,500 ppdpd
G-F = (H) Total non-Seabus Transit southbound from North Shore = 31,130 ppdpd
(I) Skytrain Diversion Rate Assumption = 40%
H*I = (J) New Stolen Ridership = 12,452 ppdpd
(K) North Shore Mode Shift from Car to Skytrain Rate Assumption = 15%
(L) North Shore Mode Share Car 2017 Average = 72%
(M) North Shore Mode Share Transit 2017 Average = 17%
G/M*L*K = (N) 2017 Shift from Car to Skytrain Volume = 25,700 ppdpd
D+F+J+N = (O) 2042 Skytrain Daily Average Ridership = 65,800 ppdpd
O/20 = (P) 2042 Skytrain Average Weekday Hourly Volume = 3,300 pphpd
(Q) 2017 Seabus Peak Hour (8am) South Average Volume = 1150 pphpd
(R) 2017 Seabus Capacity at Peak Hour = 1540 pphpd
(S) 2017 Seabus Average Weekday Hourly Volume (20hr/day) = 450 pphpd
Q/R = (T) 2017 Seabus Peak Hour (8am) South Average Peak Load Factor = 75%
Q/S = (U) 2017 Seabus Peak Hour (8am) South Average Peak Volume Factor = 256%
P*U = (V) 2042 Skytrain Peak Hour (8am) South Average Peak Volume = 8,500 pphpd
V/T = (W) 2042 Skytrain Capacity for 2017 similar crowding levels = 11,300 pphpd
This doesn't account for what kind of increased development might happen because of the line thereby further increasing the ridership. Tack on 1,200 pphpd and you are at 100% capacity at peak hour. This is all been very liberal though to see the high estimate. (50% car to others mode share, all seabus diverted to skytrain, similar peak volume factors, ect.) All of the mode share shifts are also assumed as if the switch to skytrain happened now, and was gradual over the next 25 years. If the line is built in 2040, then you won't see that mode shift right away and you could probably get away with 12,500 pphpd capacity for 10 years while the mode share shifts, but you will need more than that for the long term of the line which means that the 4th platform at CB will likely be a necessity immediately so that service can double up to 25,000 pphpd.
So yes, 12,500pphpd max capacity is an issue, but likely won't be for at least 10 years after completion. It will be important to have the integration with CB designed for expansion of the Lonsdale Line's maximum capacity.
The line can run completely independent between CB and 23rd. If you can run a direct train every so often from 23rd to Langley and if something goes wrong can't you just revert to the the lines acting separately? It's not quite synonymous with the Sapperton Branch since no trains run only between Production Way and Columbia.
.jpg/1920px-City_Hall_Station_(32200).jpg)
