Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction - Page 91

Dave2 · #**1801** Posted **Sep 26, 2009, 7:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon

Speaking of longer trains, have any more new mark 2s entered service in the last couple of weeks thereby further increasing the number of 4 car on the E & M lines? have any 6 mark 1s appeared yet?

I haven't seen any 6 car MK-1 trains yet, apparently they're now running 12 4 car MK-IIs in the rush..

I saw cars 325-326 running without stopping this week.

wrenegade · #**1802** Posted **Sep 28, 2009, 10:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm not so sure about that... From what I know, Mr. X is the only other person I know who prefers it underground.

I am also 100% in favour of underground all the way to UBC. Cut and cover from Sasamat onwards. There wouldn't be any views due to the forest from Blanca to Acadia, and from then on you'd have residents complain about the noise. Plus you'd ruin the boulevard. It's not worth it.

mr.x · #**1803** Posted **Sep 28, 2009, 11:44 PM**

I'm split on whether the track should be elevated or at-grade between Blanca and Allison. You bring up a pretty good point that the tree canopy is quite high there, they wouldn't see much unless they build the a high elevated guideway and even if they did after another 20-years the trees will be even higher.

However, the UBC station at the centre of campus MUST be underground. There's no way around it.

Zassk · #**1804** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 6:46 AM**

Is it an issue to have exposed guideway tracks in an area that will have a lot of leaf fall from tall trees? It might be prudent to keep the tracks underground in/near a forest.

twoNeurons · #**1805** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x

I'm split on whether the track should be elevated or at-grade between Blanca and Allison. You bring up a pretty good point that the tree canopy is quite high there, they wouldn't see much unless they build the a high elevated guideway and even if they did after another 20-years the trees will be even higher.

However, the UBC station at the centre of campus MUST be underground. There's no way around it.

Doesn't seem to have ruined Central Park in Burnaby.

BCPhil · #**1806** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Doesn't seem to have ruined Central Park in Burnaby.

Infact, I really enjoy going past Central Park and looking down at the forest. Same on the Millennium line when you go past Burnaby Lake Park.

I used to live near Metrotown station when I went to school. Once you get passed a block away the trains aren't that loud. I used to hear the engine of the bus a lot more often than the Skytrain. And when a truck went by nearby it would shake the place, and then there was the fire and ambulance hall. In the grand scheme of things, the noise from Skytrain was pretty low on my list. More recently I lived just off Knight street, let me tell you, I would gladly go back to a block from Skytrain than live near Knight street (or any other trucking corridor) again. Trucks are freaking loud, and relentless.

I think Skytrain would work elevated down a large chunk of Broadway then transition to underground when it gets more residential. The view between buildings of downtown with the North Shore Mountains in the background would be pretty spectacular.

And remember, the Skytrain elevated guideways on the Millennium line are more narrow than the Canada Line in Richmond. The pillars on the Lougheed highway hardly take up any room (much less than an at grade LRT would) and an elevated guideway can be built pretty quickly (compared to a bored tunnel) and in a linear fashion.

officedweller · #**1807** Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 6:57 PM**

Agree that it's nice to view the tree canopy from Skytrain. I do think the City trims back the trees at Central Park away from the tracks though - and in the interurban ROW Cut near 29th Ave. the trees along the sides have been pruned well back of the ROW - remember the small tree that fell on the guideway last winter?

usog · #**1808** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 4:35 AM**

http://news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090929_220852_2196

Quote:

Light rail groups renew call to scrap SkyTrain expansion
Groups say light rail is a less expensive option

Sigh...wanna guess what those groups were?

mr.x · #**1809** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 4:40 AM**

Anyone here thinking of starting a pro-SkyTrain group for Evergreen just like what we did for UBC? or perhaps extend the UBC's group mandate to the Evergreen as well? (just like how a Fraser Valley group is now leaping to anti-UBC SkyTrain).

cabotp · #**1810** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 5:01 AM**

Oh me first me first. What they get it first. I'm more important, I must come first. If you give that guy less money, you will have more for me. Which is good for me, cause I don't care about them.

mrjauk · #**1811** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by usog

http://news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090929_220852_2196

Sigh...wanna guess what those groups were?

You don't even have to tell me that it's zweisystem and his friends. I agree with them on one thing, at least--that LRT is a viable alternative for Surrey and environs.

Two of their claims are just ridiculous obtuse:

1) They claim--correctly--that LRT would be cheaper [TO BUILD!] than Skytrain.

Yes, it would, but by how much, considering that a tunnel would be necessary for both, and part of the SKytrain line would also be at grade. But there are at least two problems with LRT:

a) It's cheaper only initially. Factor in operating costs over the lifespan of the project and any initial cost savings are eventually soaked up by higher operating costs. Additionally, you get what you pay for. There is a reason that ALRT systems are more expensive--they are more efficient and can move many more passengers than an LRT.

b) Isn't one of zweisystem's more grandiose claims that 70% of ridership is lost for each additional transfer? Then why would you make residents have to transfer from LRT to Skytrain at Lougheed?

2) The second claim: "The group says the Tri-Cities area would be better off with diesel-electric light rail vehicles, which is something the Committee proposed years ago."

"Better off" in what sense? I can't think of a single reason why the Tri-Cities area would be "better off" with their proposed system. They only one is the difference in the initial cost to build the systems. But I addressed the problem with that statement above.

I wish that they were just honest about their advocacy. They should just come out and admit that they are advocating against Skytrain for the east and west extensions of the Millennium Line because they're scared that Translink will not have enough money to build light rail in the valley. I support their core advocacy position--"Light Rail for the Valley." But if they weren't so selfish they would see that "Skytrain North of the Valley" is a much better choice.

cabotp · #**1812** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 5:23 AM**

If they wait they will get their rail in the valley. It is not like suddenly translink is going to run out of money and never build another line for the rest of eternity.

The problem is the valley in terms of density is quite low compared to the Burrard Peninsula. So right now the evergreen and broadway line takes priority.

Hell I'm sure Surrey would love to expand there rapid transit system whether it be LRT or ALRT right now. But the even they know that the other two lines must come first.

Xerx · #**1813** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 5:35 AM**

Their plan for LRt would basically be WEst coast express that terminated at Pacific Central Station instead of Waterfront.

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/20...el-lrt-be-the-answer-for-the-tri-cities/

Quote:

A different plan for the Evergreen Line

The Light Rail Committee proposed a different plan for light-rail in the Tri-City area which is based on modern light-rail philosophy that has proven so effective elsewhere in the world.

The plan also takes into account the advice of several transit consultants, would use use diesel and diesel-electric light-rail vehicles, combining track sharing with existing railways and the use of on-street operation where practical. The plan consisted of on-street operation from Port Moody to Coquitlam Centre, with a spur line using the Ioco freight branch to the Esso refinery line to 1st Ave. in Ioco. The line would then travel South along Lougheed highway till it connected to the CPR rail line paralleling the Lougheed highway, connecting to the BNSF/CN mainline until it reached Pacific Central Station in Vancouver.

This would give very fast journeys for people living in the Tri-Cities to Vancouver and visa versa. The Light Rail Committee estimated that the cost of this line would have been in the neighbourhood of $400 million to $600 million and giving a superior and direct service to downtown Vancouver. For a fraction the cost of SkyTrain or TransLink’s grossly over engineered light-rail plans, we could get a much larger usable ‘rail’ network that would be available to far more transit customers than a truncated light-metro line.

TransLink officials quickly shot down the plan because: “We had just built a $1.2 billion metro line and we had get get as many passengers on the new rapid transit line as we can.”

Maybe the time has come for TransLink to get out of the business of transit planning and hire independent consultants to compete to provide plans for the best and most affordable transit solutions for our endemic regional transportation chaos. The taxpayer can no longer afford TransLink’s grandiose gold-plated rapid transit lines that, in the past, have not attracted the motorist from the car and at best, gives the bus rider a questionably faster, yet more inconvenient journey.

mr.x · #**1814** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 5:47 AM**

^ that makes absolutely no sense.

Vonny · #**1815** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 6:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrjauk

You don't even have to tell me that it's zweisystem and his friends. I agree with them on one thing, at least--that LRT is a viable alternative for Surrey and environs.

...

b) Isn't one of zweisystem's more grandiose claims that 70% of ridership is lost for each additional transfer? Then why would you make residents have to transfer from LRT to Skytrain at Lougheed?

...

choice.

Well taken,

it is interesting to see that the cornerstone of the argumentation against Canada line by the like, is the "forced" transfer for people coming from bus routes 601, 602,...

deasine · #**1816** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 7:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vonny

Well taken,

it is interesting to see that the cornerstone of the argumentation against Canada line by the like, is the "forced" transfer for people coming from bus routes 601, 602,...

That transfer significantly improves travel times. I'm not sure about you, but I know that the buses on Granville have not been reliable, at all, within the past year. The Canada Line brings you increased frequency and increased reliability.

racc · #**1817** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 8:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by usog

http://news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090929_220852_2196

Sigh...wanna guess what those groups were?

Two groups with a total of one member between them?

deasine · #**1818** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 8:26 AM**

Honestly, I can understand why people want LRT for the Evergreen Line instead of SkyTrain, but their proposal is incredibly stupid. They are essentially duplicating the Millennium Line and WCE, thinking they already have the tracks laid. You can't just use the existing tracks... Jeez...

NetMapel · #**1819** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 8:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deasine

That transfer significantly improves travel times. I'm not sure about you, but I know that the buses on Granville have not been reliable, at all, within the past year. The Canada Line brings you increased frequency and increased reliability.

I ride the 351 + Canada Line combo rather frequently and I want to share my experience with the whole Canada Line integration. In general, yes it does make the trip faster, especially when you are traveling to downtown or are traveling during rush hour. However, returning home at a non-rush hour time actually increases your travel time. The reason for that is because the 351 can travel through Vancouver faster than the Canada Line when there isn't much traffic. That's usually around 8pm and onward, which is usually when I travel back home these days. As such, the 10-20 minutes I saved traveling towards downtown earlier during the day is basically cancelled out by the travel back home. However, that is just my experience and I am quite confident that people traveling both ways during rush hours will find their travel time reduced if they're going to anywhere close to the Canada Line stops.

kylemacmac · #**1820** Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 6:10 PM**

In response to the light rail article, etc.

1.Light rail to 1st and Ioco in Port Moody makes no sense at all without a VAST increase in density in Ioco. I grew up in Belcarra, and as much as it'd be nice to use the rails on the north arm of Port Moody inlet, there's no desnity to support it. The community shuttles that run out that way ever hour are usually completely empty.

2.
Why would we have a light rail line run from Maillardville to Pacific Central? There's a Skytrain line there already. Get over it. Something else is built. He might as well say we should build a surface light rail line on the former BCER tracks from New West to False Creek....under the current Skytrain. Does he want commuter rail or a light rail system? I don't get it.

3. And as for any Lougheed Highway routing of rapid transit to oquitlam, I really think we should all just agree to bury this idea. The consultation plans have been decided on the northern (via Port Moody) routing, and this is the path that will give the best service to higher density areas, or areas that will densify further. The goal is not to just provide fast service from Coquitlam Centre to the existing Skytrain network, but to do that while encouraging density along a line with several stations.