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 Bathymetry

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.

TF1570: Cut and Cover cheaper then elevated for RRT

Based on data compiled by Daryl Dela Cruz, cut and cover appears cheaper than elevated. I developed a spreadsheet that used this data for some calculations and was questioned about this discrepancy. My response:

You'll notice that for ALRT lines, Canada Line is the only line which used cut and cover. The others that used cut and cover were LRT and I am suspicious of their costs being higher for LRT with their typically larger train-cars and overhead AC (meaning they have to dig out substantially more than they would have to for third rail Skytrain).

However, even though Canada Line is the only line, I feel inclined to trust this data point since it's a very recent number, a very local number, and the above grade seems to be more expensive per km than the evergreen line (expected since Skytrain Marks are LIM and much lighter).

For reasons why though my guesses are:

• Cost of concrete is high (lots of concrete needed for above grade)
• Engineering cost is probably about the same
• Construction speed is faster with good soil, takes up less space, and is much easier.
• Stations are cheaper (a building on the ground is cheaper than a building in the air: you just dig a wider hole).
• You end up redoing the road surface in either case (North Road got rebuilt for the above ground Evergreen Line, and No.3 and Cambie for Canada Line)
• Don't need fancy bridge building cranes, equipment and workers.

TF#1570:2018-12-13

TF1551: Metro Vancouver 50 Year RRT Expansion Plan v2

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.

TF#1596. 2018-12-18. TF#1602. 2018-12-17.

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.

TF#1611. 2018-12-19