Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger
Ignore the fact that all the technical reports have the routing up 3rd Street..  |
Which ones? All the ones I've seen have vague corridors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Low Level Road severely reduces the catchment area - it cuts the stations off from all the density happening around both 3rd and Lonsdale, in exchange for grain silos, railways and water.. That's the kind of compromise that bites you in the ass ten years later like with the Canada Line.
|
Population within different radii of Low Level and Lonsdale vs 3rd and Lonsdale
800m - 14,600 vs. 17,800
1600m - 33,600 vs. 36,000
(That's according to this website,
https://www.freemaptools.com/find-population.htm. I am assume it is underestimating a bit but 3rd and Lonsdale, but when you look on a map it's not too different)
And I wouldn't even call this a compromise because having the Skytrain closer to the water means it is closer to the seabus. A Skytrain on 3rd kind of sucks as a transfer to the seabus. If it's on Low Level a new concourse to the seabus can be constructed just like one exists at Waterfront.
So
severely reducing catchment when it's 300m away let's be serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
And then they'll likely have to use a tunnel anyway to go from Forbes back onto 3rd, unless they can convince the Squamish to evict half of Mission 1 for the viaduct - that'll be wonderful PR for TransLink.
|
It could look something like this. You could run it down Forbes if god forbid you take out a lane or two. It would only need to run on that forest corner of the reserve. "Half of Mission 1" again be serious. Whats more likely is the BIRT terminates at Lonsdale anyways because there really isnt that much population from Lower Lonsdale to Ambleside.
