Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i say funnel the projects money into expanding millennium line to UBC

and build some really good parkades for park n ride at braid and lougheed town centre

Yea.....the 99 would only get worse with additional traffic funneling from the Evergreen, into the M-Line, and into the B-Line at Commercial.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i say funnel the projects money into expanding millennium line to UBC

and build some really good parkades for park n ride at braid and lougheed town centre

Go FALCO Go!

[Lee_Haber8]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Build Skytrain! 24 minutes is slightly faster than a B-Line bus. What a waste of money! Go with a proven winner; Skytrain.

How long does it take to drive the same stretch? How many lights are there on the way? There's no problem if transit takes a bit longer if it makes the street more pedestrian friendly and if cars are going even slower because they're are lights at least ever two blocks. I think people have to realize that driving has been way to fast and convenient to the point it has made walking undesirable.

[SpongeG]

it takes about the same amount of time to drive it - but there are a few options of routes one can take to make it shorter but strictly following the proposed route takes about 20 minutes or less

[cornholio]

Driving is faster, alot faster. During rush hour you can make the trip from Lougheed mall to Coquitlam center in around 10-15min going down lougheed highway or 20-25min going up North rd and and down Barnet hwy. Outside of rush hour there is no competition between a car and a 24min street car ride.
The bus that goes from Braid to Coq center is even quicker making the trip in about 15min, and this is not a expres bus

[twoNeurons]

Hate to say it... but add signal control and dedicated lanes to the B-line, to drop the time to 30 minutes. A HECK of a lot cheaper.

[The_Henry_Man]

To start off with, I don't understand why Translink wants to call Evergreen Line "light rail rapid transit". This is more of a street car line. Look at COV's street car line link in its website. Some of the pictures shown are not much different from the cars that'll most likely be used in the Evergreen Line.

So, Translink, especially the Mayor of Port Moody who wants "light rail" over Skytrain, should collectively hang their heads in shame. Mr. Falcon, please axe this project and switch concentration to the M-Line extension, thank you.

[mezzanine]

So really, I am guessing the evergreen is off the table for now as it's mid-april. Anything official?

If they want to make it a P3, in North america i can't see it going ahead without it being automated guideway transit.

As an aside, it goes to show that it is very difficult to get the stars aligned to get rapid transit built, which also why I'm glad that RAV was finally pushed through.

[Lee_Haber8]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

To start off with, I don't understand why Translink wants to call Evergreen Line "light rail rapid transit". This is more of a street car line. Look at COV's street car line link in its website. Some of the pictures shown are not much different from the cars that'll most likely be used in the Evergreen Line.

So, Translink, especially the Mayor of Port Moody who wants "light rail" over Skytrain, should collectively hang their heads in shame. Mr. Falcon, please axe this project and switch concentration to the M-Line extension, thank you.

Let's see what makes rapid transit: dedicated corridors and vehicles only stopping at stations. The Evergreen Line seems to fit these criteria. There are good reasons for picking light-rail over skytrain, most notably that skytrain doesn't integrate well into the urban fabric. Look at the Millenium Line especially near Brentwood, the possibility for a vibrant streetscape on lougheed is totally ruined by the fact that the guideway is in the middle. Light rail may not go that fast, but if cars are similarly slowed down by pedestrian-friendly development then I don't see a problem. After all, what's the point of going faster if you have to travel further?

[twoNeurons]

A Vibrant Streetscape at Brentwood is ruined by the fact that it's on a Highway. and surrounded by Car Dealers. Gilmore is rapidly becoming vibrant, as is Joyce Station.

As a sidenote. I was in Richmond yesterday. Those pillars are really LOW on No. 3 Road. I'll be curious how it looks when it's done.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by tintinium

Hate to say it... but add signal control and dedicated lanes to the B-line, to drop the time to 30 minutes. A HECK of a lot cheaper.

Given the anti-skytrain attitude of Port Moody, and the lack of funding for Evergreen, this is actually a viable solution. It fits the footprint of the existing LRT project (minus the blank-price-tag tunnelling), and would probably get you from Point A to B in about the same amount of time. As for capacity, use some of that $900M budget to buy some more buses and run them at 5 minute intervals.

Oh wait a minute... this would require widening some roads to 6 lanes... bring out the anti-black top people.
Aiye. You can never win.

As for the comment about calling Evergreen "Light rapid transit"
This very thing has been annoying me for years.
How is 24 minutes rapid??? How can an at-grade system that interacts with heavy traffic be rapid?? Even with signal control, it won't be able to exceed the ground-level speed limit of 50km/hr.
This is not worth $900M. (and I think ole Falco knows this but simply can't say it).

[agrant]

Isn't this more of a capacity thing than about speed?

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by agrant

Isn't this more of a capacity thing than about speed?

If it was about capacity, get more buses running on the 97.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

Let's see what makes rapid transit: dedicated corridors and vehicles only stopping at stations. The Evergreen Line seems to fit these criteria. There are good reasons for picking light-rail over skytrain, most notably that skytrain doesn't integrate well into the urban fabric. Look at the Millenium Line especially near Brentwood, the possibility for a vibrant streetscape on lougheed is totally ruined by the fact that the guideway is in the middle. Light rail may not go that fast, but if cars are similarly slowed down by pedestrian-friendly development then I don't see a problem. After all, what's the point of going faster if you have to travel further?

There are no good reasons to pick light rail over Skytrain. The streetscape around Brentwood will evolve quite nicely once you get larger buildings built around the stations.

When it comes down to getting people to use transit, speed is the most important factor, not how esthetically pleasing the streetscape is. If people can cut down their commute times to and from work, public transit becomes a viable option. The less efficient the system is, the less people will be inclined to use it. Installing more traffic lights only promotes congestion which causes cars to either sit idling or constantly being forced to apply the gas pedal from a dead stop. Neither of these are good for the environment which is one of the objectives of using public transit in the first place.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Given the anti-skytrain attitude of Port Moody, and the lack of funding for Evergreen, this is actually a viable solution. It fits the footprint of the existing LRT project (minus the blank-price-tag tunnelling), and would probably get you from Point A to B in about the same amount of time. As for capacity, use some of that $900M budget to buy some more buses and run them at 5 minute intervals.

Oh wait a minute... this would require widening some roads to 6 lanes... bring out the anti-black top people.
Aiye. You can never win.

As for the comment about calling Evergreen "Light rapid transit"
This very thing has been annoying me for years.
How is 24 minutes rapid??? How can an at-grade system that interacts with heavy traffic be rapid?? Even with signal control, it won't be able to exceed the ground-level speed limit of 50km/hr.
This is not worth $900M. (and I think ole Falco knows this but simply can't say it).

Can't agree more!!

[smasher000]

I hope it gets switched to M. Line extension, cuz i'lll actually use it if I decide to go to UBC.

The people near the evergreen line dont even want it.. and its LRT.. 🞵🞵🞵?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

Let's see what makes rapid transit: dedicated corridors and vehicles only stopping at stations. The Evergreen Line seems to fit these criteria.

Nop, the Evergreen line does not satisfy this criteria. Five (or four, I forgot..) of the major intersections will NOT have signal priority, which means the train may have to stop at those intersections.

[mr.x]

Canada Line:
- existing 98 B-Line (Richmond to Waterfront): 50- 60 mins (does not include airport transfer)
- car travel: 30-40 mins
- new rapid transit rail line: 25 mins

Evergreen Line
- existing 97 B-Line: 35 mins
- car travel: 15-20 mins
- new rapid transit rail line: 24 mins

[Lee_Haber8]

Originally Posted by nname

Nop, the Evergreen line does not satisfy this criteria. Five (or four, I forgot..) of the major intersections will NOT have signal priority, which means the train may have to stop at those intersections.

Actually the Evergreen Line had signal priority at all intersections except at Barnet and Pinetree where the line is now going underground.

[Lead]

i dont get it whats stopping them from building skytrain...why do we need all these different systems, "skytrain", canada line, and now the evergreen line. it annoys me so much why cant it all just be skytrain?