Castanet

The only way it would ever work here if it were to be elevated as well. Way to many roads to cross other wise. Cant have fast transportation crossing busy intersections. the 2 just don't go hand in hand. . Also if it were elevated, you could have different lines coming into the downtown core from different areas of town. Just a pipe dream though because of cost.
But I guess if Basran wants to use old rail lines, we may as well fix up the old KVR and join the communities to the south as well

dle wrote:alanjh595 says he rode Skytrain at Expo 86:

yah - good times - Expo 86! We were staying in North Van, rode the Lonsdale Quay seabus to & from Expo, rode the Skytrain around Expo, it was great - just sat back and had a blast - no traffic ....my cup of tea (& Carolann's )

While we are on the subject of moving people hither and yon, why don't we get a couple of seabuses too from the Westside to the Sails and back? Maybe from Summerland, couple pop-ins along the way to pick up in Peachland, West Kelowna, and Bob's your uncle! I'll ride it just for fun.....

So a couple of LRT's and a couple seabuses.....I'm in......

I was getting there, but I couldn't remember the "Sea buses" name. Thanks for the reminder.


since you have reminded me about the Sea buses...........employing that system here could delay a second OK Lake crossing by many years and the now huge associated costs, if they could get their act together.

vinnied wrote:The only way it would ever work here if it were to be elevated as well. Way to many roads to cross other wise. Cant have fast transportation crossing busy intersections. the 2 just don't go hand in hand. . Also if it were elevated, you could have different lines coming into the downtown core from different areas of town. Just a pipe dream though because of cost.
But I guess if Basran wants to use old rail lines, we may as well fix up the old KVR and join the communities to the south as well

Agreed. Placing elevated light rapid transit along the old rail lines would not interfere with those that still want to cycle and/walk below. Elevated would also help with the elevation changes that we have here in the valley. Spur lines can connect to places like the universities and park and rides could reduce the traffic over the bridge. It seems like a win, win, win for everyone.

Grandan wrote:
Traffic studies that involved stopped and asking drivers where they were coming from and going to found it was overwhelmingly drivers that would not benefit from a bypass. It's all local traffic because people love to drive all over sometimes because they have nothing better to do.

Then why is there a proposed bypass for the westside of the bridge? all that traffic has to funnel through Kelowna.

dirtybiker wrote:As for the LRT, In Vancouver it's elevated through City.
Here it would be through Rural, peoples farms yards and some estates.
A bit different

Haven't lived in Vancouver since I was a little 'un so not sure of the logistics. It runs over the City for sure, but don't the riders who aren't close enough to walk to the station drive their cars a ways to a park'n'ride lot and then catch it from there? I mean from like the rural areas, and out in Burnaby and farther? I guess maybe we could have some park'n'ride lots around here (you know how much Impark loves any square inch they can park(squeeze) a car on!) and the actual LRT could run along the route of the highway maybe?

vinnied wrote:

Grandan wrote:
Traffic studies that involved stopped and asking drivers where they were coming from and going to found it was overwhelmingly drivers that would not benefit from a bypass. It's all local traffic because people love to drive all over sometimes because they have nothing better to do.

Then why is there a proposed bypass for the westside of the bridge? all that traffic has to funnel through Kelowna.

westside bypass.jpg

...interesting.....

It is in the plan to do a "by-pass" starting at 97 and 33. Will end up doing what could have been done some years ago.

vinnied wrote:Then why is there a proposed bypass for the westside of the bridge? all that traffic has to funnel through Kelowna.

If you look closely at that jpg vinnied, you will notice a number of different options. They have done the same on the Kelowna side, that is recognizing that getting through West Kelowna and Kelowna is a chore at times. I was at the meeting on the westside when they presented this and in my opinion, the most likely option we will see play out is to trench underneath the major intersections and eliminate lights. The end goal is to make it easier and faster to get across the lake.

The numbers they presented was that the vast majority of traffic is local. But yes, bypasses may be the solution they go with. Personally, I hope not , it as several of the westside options take the route through Rose Valley Park and Smith creek, both areas I spend considerable time mountain biking and would hate to lose access to those areas.

Look at the price of the rail trail, and a lot of people think that won't pay off.
That is a fraction of the price of installing rails, which then would have to be paid off.
Remember the wine train using older cheap equipment that couldn't survive in peak season.

So let's just let it be the rail traill, works for me..

Just like IKEA and The Olive Garden - until the population hits one million plus - LRT isn't even sensible or viable option in any shape or form.

With the exception of a small part of track here and there, the existing track will not work. Just because something is there, doesn't mean it can be practical for something completely different.

The existing track was designed to get goods and passengers from city to city when the highway system was no where near to what it is today nor did the masses own vehicles. Times have changed, a design from generations ago will do no good for future generations when the infrastructure around it was not built up accordingly in the first place.

dle wrote: It runs over the City for sure, but don't the riders who aren't close enough to walk to the station drive their cars a ways to a park'n'ride lot and then catch it from there? I mean from like the rural areas, and out in Burnaby and farther?

Guess I worded my post wrong. to clarify.

The LRT in Van, runs in it's entirety, over the City and is contained 100% in the City.

It does not meander it's way through the rural Farmlands surroundings outside of the City,
as is being suggested in this thread.

I guess when the entire Valley gets swallowed up and annexed to the winning Cities name
then I will whole-heatedly be on board with the idea.

Running it through peoples yards, even over, not so much..

It's all a pipedream anyways..won't happen in two more lifetimes.

JagXKR wrote:LRT is super expensive. Calgary's West Leg cost $195M per km and Vancouver's Canada Line was over $100M per Km. And these were 2012 numbers! Going to cost a lot more now and those 2 examples were extensions of an existing system. Not a start from scratch system. Silly pie in the sky blah blah blah from Basran.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jesse-k ... -to-others

Some perspective, the bridge cost $144M with total expenditures to be $179M over 30 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Bennett_Bridge

That bridge cost considerably more than that.
The public never heard the truth on that one.

dirtybiker wrote:

dle wrote: It runs over the City for sure, but don't the riders who aren't close enough to walk to the station drive their cars a ways to a park'n'ride lot and then catch it from there? I mean from like the rural areas, and out in Burnaby and farther?

Guess I worded my post wrong. to clarify.

The LRT in Van, runs in it's entirety, over the City and is contained 100% in the City.

It does not meander it's way through the rural Farmlands surroundings outside of the City,
as is being suggested in this thread.

I guess when the entire Valley gets swallowed up and annexed to the winning Cities name
then I will whole-heatedly be on board with the idea.

Running it through peoples yards, even over, not so much..

It's all a pipedream anyways..won't happen in two more lifetimes.

Thanks for clarifying Dirtybiker - I see what you are saying, but I guess I don't know how far out the LRT goes and was thinking it must go over or near some residential somewhere along the way (not counting the bezillion highrise condo and apartment residences right in the City - can't see where it could avoid all of those entirely). I think it goes as far as Burnaby but how much farther out than that?

Grandan wrote:
Traffic studies that involved stopped and asking drivers where they were coming from and going to found it was overwhelmingly drivers that would not benefit from a bypass. It's all local traffic because people love to drive all over sometimes because they have nothing better to do.

vinnied wrote:

Then why is there a proposed bypass for the westside of the bridge? all that traffic has to funnel through Kelowna.

westside bypass.jpg

That study is for the west side not Kelowna. There is a proposed bypass for Peachland too.
There would be a lot less traffic if residents of West Kelowna were to take the bus but they are too good for that.

Bman wrote:

JagXKR wrote:LRT is super expensive. Calgary's West Leg cost $195M per km and Vancouver's Canada Line was over $100M per Km. And these were 2012 numbers! Going to cost a lot more now and those 2 examples were extensions of an existing system. Not a start from scratch system. Silly pie in the sky blah blah blah from Basran.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jesse-k ... -to-others

Some perspective, the bridge cost $144M with total expenditures to be $179M over 30 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Bennett_Bridge

That bridge cost considerably more than that.
The public never heard the truth on that one.

So they only told you how much it really cost?