Transit Service Discussion (Articulated/Conventional/Shuttle/Skytrain/Seabus)

[bob32189]

42 minutes ago, Express691 said:

Even with the slope of the skytrain line, there will need to be an indirect routing to get to the peak of the university, or involve an escalator longer than Granville station. 

Just extend the SFU gondola down Hastings street. Lol

This would be phenomenally expensive, but maybe build a full metro line to Kootenay Loop (which then can turn southbound to Metrodown via Willingdon and Brentwood) and then cut the 95 to Kootenay Loop/SFU. That way there is no need to build a gondola

(edited portion) - As far as the WCE goes, it all depends on CP rail, so we can see I guess

[Express691]

14 minutes ago, bob32189 said:

This would be phenomenally expensive, but maybe build a full metro line to Kootenay Loop (which then can turn southbound to Metrodown via Willingdon and Brentwood) and then cut the 95 to Kootenay Loop/SFU. That way there is no need to build a gondola

...if you can get the permit to remove buildings to expand space or get a viable turnaround option. Even then I think Hastings/Pender might be a viable terminus.

[maege]

13 hours ago, bob32189 said:

I'm rather new to this forum (so pardon me if I'm repeating what others have said), but I don't really think a tram on Hastings would work, especially if it's going from tri-cities (and essentially replacing the 160 and parts of the 14). As stated earlier, a big problem on the 95 is traffic lights that are littered everywhere on Hastings. Even if it's fully grade-separated, a surface rail would probably still have to navigate through these traffic lights which means that travel would not be faster enough to justify the cost of building a tram system.

Either that or I just don't know how trams work.

A better solution would be to do as you say, which is expand the WCE (CP Rail allowing) or maybe extend the Millennium Line further east. For Hastings, a proper metro line would be the only practical solution in my opinion.

I would envision the LRT most likely being in the median on it's own ROW (see image below), possibly with some elevated sections if needed to help with grade or particularly problematic areas (maybe around Hwy 1?)

Note, that the main purpose of this LRT system would be as follows:
1. Massively increase capacity to avoid the over-crowding that already exists.
2. Somewhat improve travel time due to more priority and further separated ROW
3. Further segregate transit from traffic with  to minimize disruptions from cars and make it more reliable.
4. Grow the existing medium-density that fronts Hastings for much of it's length to ~500m on either side of Hastings to improve walk-ability and live-ability.

As for the lights, the LRT should have complete priority over all the lights secondary intersections (there's a lot pedestrian/bike triggered lights), which would be relatively simple to build when the system is constructed, and would also have priority at major intersections, but may occasionally have to stop depending on the frequency of the line (basically timing a full-cycle of the lights, meshed with the frequency of the LRT). This could even occur now with the B-line, but I'm not sure the cities/Translink are willing to put in the cost as a stand-alone piece.

So yes, the lights are an issue, but it is totally solvable by building in transit-priority at the lights.

The downside of building more Skytrain lines, subways, etc is that there is a giant opportunity cost. As an example, for the cost of extending a Millennium line subway to UBC (~14km, $7-8B), you could build 70-120km of surface rail (LRT, regional rail, etc). That could mean a Hastings line (from Park Royal, across the 1st Narrows, to Barnet Hwy and PoCo) plus a 41st Ave line (from UBC to Joyce) plus a Marine Dr line (from New Westminster to Marpole).

I'm not saying that we shouldn't extend the Broadway line to UBC, but we need to be aware that the technology and grade (above, below, or at-grade) chosen has a massive impact on the scale of what we are able to build.

12 hours ago, ThatBusGuy said:

Two words:
Hastings Gondola

12 hours ago, Express691 said:

Even with the slope of the skytrain line, there will need to be an indirect routing to get to the peak of the university, or involve an escalator longer than Granville station. 

Just extend the SFU gondola down Hastings street. Lol

Yes. The best way to get to SFU will be gondola. From SFU to Duthie or Kensington, connecting with the Hastings line. It will literally save Billions of dollars compared to trying to tunnel under the mountain, provide a much more frequent service, and provide a unique draw for tourists and locals vs a tunnel.

11 hours ago, bob32189 said:

This would be phenomenally expensive, but maybe build a full metro line to Kootenay Loop (which then can turn southbound to Metrodown via Willingdon and Brentwood) and then cut the 95 to Kootenay Loop/SFU. That way there is no need to build a gondola 

Gondolas are cheap AF compared to any other form of rapid transit and can easily run in virtually all weather, unlike buses (and sometimes trains in the snow not working).

If you want phenomenally expensive, doing your proposed route  as a "full metro" would be accurate for that language. That ~15km route, fully tunneled, as a metro would cost ~$7.5-8.5B.

[bob32189]

4 hours ago, maege said:

Note, that the main purpose of this LRT system would be as follows:
1. Massively increase capacity to avoid the over-crowding that already exists.
2. Somewhat improve travel time due to more priority and further separated ROW
3. Further segregate transit from traffic with  to minimize disruptions from cars and make it more reliable.
4. Grow the existing medium-density that fronts Hastings for much of it's length to ~500m on either side of Hastings to improve walk-ability and live-ability.

A big problem with LRTs in general (especially along busy corridors such as Hastings) is that the cost-to-benefit ratio is rather low compared to a skytrain. A 'somewhat improved travel time' at the cost of $1.65 billion (to use Surrey as an example) is not worth it in my opinion. Even if traffic lights are fully programmable this would still not be enough of a travel time improvement. With a skytrain there would also be no disruption to current Hastings traffic, outside of the standard delays that would occur during construction.

4 hours ago, maege said:

The downside of building more Skytrain lines, subways, etc is that there is a giant opportunity cost. As an example, for the cost of extending a Millennium line subway to UBC (~14km, $7-8B), you could build 70-120km of surface rail (LRT, regional rail, etc). That could mean a Hastings line (from Park Royal, across the 1st Narrows, to Barnet Hwy and PoCo) plus a 41st Ave line (from UBC to Joyce) plus a Marine Dr line (from New Westminster to Marpole).

While I agree that skytrains come with a larger opportunity cost, I feel that they are the only type of mass-transit infrastructure that has a justifiable cost-to-benefit ratio. LRTs are cheaper than skytrains, but they (in my opinion) will always be a sort of temporary solution in terms of how they improve transit. A much cheaper solution would is to build a full BRT. This has the same problems as LRTs (such as lights needing to be reprogrammed) but they provide more-or-less the same service pattern of LRTs at a fraction of a fraction of the cost. This way, you can also measure how busy the BRTs are and see if it's justifiable to put in a proper metro service of some sort. It's also easier to expand a near-capacity BRT than a near-capacity LRT.

[maege]

8 hours ago, bob32189 said:

A big problem with LRTs in general (especially along busy corridors such as Hastings) is that the cost-to-benefit ratio is rather low compared to a skytrain. A 'somewhat improved travel time' at the cost of $1.65 billion (to use Surrey as an example) is not worth it in my opinion. Even if traffic lights are fully programmable this would still not be enough of a travel time improvement. With a skytrain there would also be no disruption to current Hastings traffic, outside of the standard delays that would occur during construction. 

8 hours ago, bob32189 said:

While I agree that skytrains come with a larger opportunity cost, I feel that they are the only type of mass-transit infrastructure that has a justifiable cost-to-benefit ratio. LRTs are cheaper than skytrains, but they (in my opinion) will always be a sort of temporary solution in terms of how they improve transit. A much cheaper solution would is to build a full BRT. This has the same problems as LRTs (such as lights needing to be reprogrammed) but they provide more-or-less the same service pattern of LRTs at a fraction of a fraction of the cost. This way, you can also measure how busy the BRTs are and see if it's justifiable to put in a proper metro service of some sort. It's also easier to expand a near-capacity BRT than a near-capacity LRT. 

Cost-benefit rations can be helpful, but they are limited by what someone determines should be included or excluded (for example, opportunity-cost isn't part of a CBR; how would that ratio change, if it looked at the combination of the 2-5 LRT lines that would exist as part of the CBR if LRT was chosen over Skytrain?). It is also hard to assign a monetary value to qualitative metrics such as reducing the road space for cars, and therefore the number of cars on the road, which often increasing walkability and liveability. You can assign values to portions like pollution reduction impacting overall public health, but you can't really assign values to the whole qualitative metric.

Basically, yes, CBR is important, but it should by no means be the main or only determinant of whether a project is worthwhile or better than another.

On already busy routes, BRT can quickly run into capacity issues, and end up costing more as you now have to pay for 2 projects instead of just one. Our current B-lines are a relatively cheap way to build ridership and learn the characteristics of that ridership without the full cost of BRT. BRT may still make sense for some routes, but can just be a costly short-term project if replacing a well-performing B-line or other busy route.

As far as capacity expansion, yes BRT is easier to expand until you reach basic operating thresholds (more-or-less 5 min headways), but after that, it is far easier to expand LRT capacity (simply add another section to the train). Additionally, a single LRT vehicle can carry about double the capacity of an articulated bus that would most likely be used for BRT, so you have a much larger initial room to grow before reaching those capacity constraints anyway. IMO in Metro Vancouver, we have little reason to build BRT in most places, until it is almost at that 5 min headway anyway. B-lines perform well, and you can have painted bus lanes which work relatively well for minimal cost compared to BRT.

The primary reason for LRT (or any train) over buses is capacity. There may also be additional reasons (city-building, shaping density, etc), but the higher capacity and easier expansion of capacity are the main capacity is the main reason for trains IMO.

Last thing as more of a thought-experiment; what is of more value to you?

1. A complete network (both N-S and E-W) of at-grade LRT, each line spaced roughly 1km apart, covering the whole city of Vancouver (basically covering the whole existing bus network)

or

2. Three "full metro" (tunneled) lines: the Broadway Extension to UBC, 41st Ave from UBC to Joyce, and Victoria/Commercial from Marine to Hastings

The cost of both is roughly the same. There isn't necessarily a "right" answer, but it forces you to take a larger perspective, looking at both opportunity cost, as well as viewing the transit network vs individual lines/projects.

[buizelbus]

Honestly I think Vancouver should look into a "semi" BRT system. Painted median busway but only basic bus stops (except at major stations) and minimal traffic signal modification, other than a few restricted left turns.

This would be cheap to implement and would really help the buses on the 95, the future 41st B Line and more.

55 minutes ago, maege said:

Last thing as more of a thought-experiment; what is of more value to you?

1. A complete network (both N-S and E-W) of at-grade LRT, each line spaced roughly 1km apart, covering the whole city of Vancouver (basically covering the whole existing bus network)

or

2. Three "full metro" (tunneled) lines: the Broadway Extension to UBC, 41st Ave from UBC to Joyce, and Victoria/Commercial from Marine to Hastings

The cost of both is roughly the same. There isn't necessarily a "right" answer, but it forces you to take a larger perspective, looking at both opportunity cost, as well as viewing the transit network vs individual lines/projects.

I'd personally have a hybrid solution. The above painted busways but with a few select elevated or tunneled lines. Even cut and cover would be an option imo.

[maege]

6 minutes ago, buizelbus said:

Honestly I think Vancouver should look into a "semi" BRT system. Painted median busway but only basic bus stops (except at major stations) and minimal traffic signal modification, other than a few restricted left turns. 

Just curious, why not existing side-of-road bus lanes with zero cars allowed with right-turns happen from the second lane? Same end result without the cost of adding bus stops since they can drop off on sidewalk like now, and also safer for people waiting for the bus, especially if it gets crowded due to delays, etc.

10 minutes ago, buizelbus said:

I'd personally have a hybrid solution. The above painted busways but with a few select elevated or tunneled lines. Even cut and cover would be an option imo. 

So, leave out Commercial for example, which would cover the cost many of busways, but not all. Busways on Hastings, Commercial, etc. You increase ridership (partly from organic growth, partly as the city continues to densify) on these already high ridership routes and, within a decade, you have the 99 problem where you literally can't increase capacity with more buses, and they are over-crowded much of the time

Now we have to spend more money to build LRT, or an even larger sum for grade separation, instead of building more lines in other parts of the region.

[buizelbus]

3 minutes ago, maege said:

Just curious, why not existing side-of-road bus lanes with zero cars allowed with right-turns happen from the second lane? Same end result without the cost of adding bus stops since they can drop off on sidewalk like now, and also safer for people waiting for the bus, especially if it gets crowded due to delays, etc.

So, leave out Commercial for example, which would cover the cost many of busways, but not all. Busways on Hastings, Commercial, etc. You increase ridership (partly from organic growth, partly as the city continues to densify) on these already high ridership routes and, within a decade, you have the 99 problem where you literally can't increase capacity with more buses, and they are over-crowded much of the time

Now we have to spend more money to build LRT, or an even larger sum for grade separation, instead of building more lines in other parts of the region.

Your solution could work too.

 

Or... bi-articulated buses.

 

Once those are over-capacity.... well, a standard 4 section LRV would likely also be over capacity.

 

EDIT:

Even building a single one of the lines (example, Commercial) elevated would likely cover the cost of at least two or three busways.

[Pops1719]

1 hour ago, buizelbus said:

Or... bi-articulated buses.

New Flyer could make an XDE80

[ThatBusGuy]

44 minutes ago, popillil said:

New Flyer could make an XDE80

XDE5000. Covers multiple stops at once for maximum efficiency

[Phillip]

7 hours ago, ThatBusGuy said:

XDE5000. Covers multiple stops at once for maximum efficiency

I wonder how turning the corners will be like.  Or even the bus loops... 

[maege]

9 hours ago, buizelbus said:

Your solution could work too.

Or... bi-articulated buses. 

Once those are over-capacity.... well, a standard 4 section LRV would likely also be over capacity. 

Bi-articulated bus is 24m, and most modern LRV in North America are about 30m to start, and can be extended up to 50m or 60m fairly easily, so there is still double the capacity potential at a minimum.

26 minutes ago, Phillip said:

I wonder how turning the corners will be like.  Or even the bus loops...  

Would have to be a double-ended bus

[cleowin]

9 hours ago, popillil said:

New Flyer could make an XDE80

Or XE80

[martin607]

1 hour ago, cleowin said:

Or XE80

Or XT80

[Firebrand]

17 hours ago, ThatBusGuy said:

XDE5000. Covers multiple stops at once for maximum efficiency

XDE5280 to be more precise. For perspective, it's the same distance walking from Nanaimo St to Hwy 1.

[Urban_96]

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096160_80-foot-long-electric-bus-concept-from-poland-uses-fuel-cells-too# 

This might be the right bus for Translink, though I don't belive Solaris would ship to Canada/USA.  Maybe somebody could make a bus drawing of the XE80 and XT80 buses. I think that XT80/XE80s is a good idea, but, are you sure that they would need that large a bus here yet?

[buizelbus]

2 hours ago, Urban_Monkey Transit said:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096160_80-foot-long-electric-bus-concept-from-poland-uses-fuel-cells-too# 

This might be the right bus for Translink, though I don't belive Solaris would ship to Canada/USA.  Maybe somebody could make a bus drawing of the XE80 and XT80 buses. I think that XT80/XE80s is a good idea, but, are you sure that they would need that large a bus here yet?

ExquiCity already exists. 

[martin607]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 11:59 PM, Urban_Monkey Transit said:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096160_80-foot-long-electric-bus-concept-from-poland-uses-fuel-cells-too# 

This might be the right bus for Translink, though I don't belive Solaris would ship to Canada/USA.  Maybe somebody could make a bus drawing of the XE80 and XT80 buses. I think that XT80/XE80s is a good idea, but, are you sure that they would need that large a bus here yet?

This is  the Solaris 24m trolleybus version that is due to go on trial somewhere in Europe about now.

http://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/64636/solaris-bi-articulated-trolleybus/

[FlyingPig]

Sorry for bumping this thread...

Does anyone have a copy of what the UBC loop will look like in the end? I believe I've seen one on this thread before.

[8010]

1 hour ago, FlyingPig said:

Sorry for bumping this thread...

Does anyone have a copy of what the UBC loop will look like in the end? I believe I've seen one on this thread before.

https://planning.ubc.ca/vancouver/projects-consultations/under-construction/academic-lands/gage-south-student-residence-and-diesel-bus-transit-exchange

The Presentation Boards file probably has most of the stuff you're looking for.

[buizelbus]

1 hour ago, FlyingPig said:

Sorry for bumping this thread...

Does anyone have a copy of what the UBC loop will look like in the end? I believe I've seen one on this thread before.

A hairpin with a hairpin attached to it. 

[FlyingPig]

1 hour ago, 8010 said:

https://planning.ubc.ca/vancouver/projects-consultations/under-construction/academic-lands/gage-south-student-residence-and-diesel-bus-transit-exchange

The Presentation Boards file probably has most of the stuff you're looking for.

Thanks!

[8010]

Winter service schedules are up.

[Express691]

4 hours ago, 8010 said:

Winter service schedules are up.

clarification: the trip planner schedules are up, for both the 2-week Christmas cooldown as well as the following winter 2018 sheet.

Quick rundown of the 319 reveals that the short-turn trips added in mid-sheet are missing (hoping that this is likely a mistake)

[FlyingPig]

On 12/1/2018 at 4:56 PM, 8010 said:

Winter service schedules are up.

Where are the permanent changes?