Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by deasine

Like I've been saying so many times, it won't be less than 72 metres. It won't be the same size as the Lougheed one, because Lougheed's platform is extra long from what I know.

Lougheed's usable platform is 80m, if I'm not mistaken. It just SEEMS longer because the walkway is part of the platform. They can extend it by taking down the glass partitions... probably to the 100m/120m? that the rest of the line can be expanded to. Because it has switches on either side, the station itself can't be expanded easily.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

To capture an image from google maps what I do is set the map up in the browser then push print screen to capture the entire screen. Then I go into Paint.net (because I'm cheap) and paste the image. Then crop it down to what I want so you can't see my windows 7 task bar. Paint.net has a neat function where it's really easy to crop the image, just draw a box around what you want and push the crop button.

It looks like from all our ideas that it is pretty hard not to have a situation where you need to take stairs. It would be nice if it could be done so you could take only one flight up or down (upper/lower stations like in Toronto and Montreal are always nice). But I think from an ease of doing standpoint, Translinks idea might be best, and just place the tracks next to one of the existing platforms. Then the station configuration would be very similar to what Lougheed will be like, with some transfers being cross platform, others, up and down stairs.

Thanks for the info.
I had the platform to the east because I think that the condo complex directly north of the existing station probably butts up against the station, preventing a platform except at extreme (under parkade?) depth.

Originally Posted by deasine

It has to be angled quite a bit (relative to Clarkson), so that it can fit. We don't know how deep the foundations/buildings above go into the ground, and so it would be hard to maintain existing buildings above while building the platform since the platforms would have to be directly underneath the building. Looking from the perspective of Fourth St & Clarkson St (Google StreetView Link), you can see that existing building above the proposed platform is an old apartment complex. There are a few metres before the edge of Clarkson St, but doesn't look like there is enough.

I was thinking that those old apartment buildigs could be expropriated (i.e. easier to expropriate than a condo complex with 100s of owners). There could even be a secondary stationhouse across the street from the existing one.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Here's a quick sketch.. I believe one of the buildings is a condo complex - not sure how many dwellings are there. I don't think the artist's rendering is terribly accurate, however, so it's a guess at best.



Gmaps untouched: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=49.26429,-122.886157&spn=0.003403,0.009645&t=h&z=17

I would have preferred to see the portal in the middle of the street with a trenched station (in the middle of the street).
I wonder how much of the route selection is based on construction disruption?
i.e. Portal isn't in the middle of the street because Clarke Road would have to be closed for too long.

[mr.x]

^ but i'm guessing they need a massive site for a tunnel boring entrance pit, akin to OV.

[officedweller]

Wait a second - I may have read that the TBM entrance site is on the Port Moody side.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Wait a second - I may have read that the TBM entrance site is on the Port Moody side.

This is correct. They'll probably be using the former Andre's Wines site as a works yard. The TBM (typed TVM at first again hehe) will enter on the Port Moody side and emerge at Clarke Road for both tunnels.

[mr.x]

^ from the PM side would make much more sense, going with gravity down the hill instead of going up.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I would have preferred to see the portal in the middle of the street with a trenched station (in the middle of the street).
I wonder how much of the route selection is based on construction disruption?
i.e. Portal isn't in the middle of the street because Clarke Road would have to be closed for too long.

That stretch of road is narrow. IIRC when Clarke crosses Como Lake it goes down to 4 lanes with no median/parking space. If it went underground south of Como you might have enough space to do it in the middle of the road.

Better yet have a ground level station in the parking lot of that Safeway (used to be a Shell there) and have it go under the intersection from there.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ from the PM side would make much more sense, going with gravity down the hill instead of going up.

I think you mean from the Clarke Road side? The PM side is a much lower elevation.. but either way, from page sixteen:

The Evergreen Line bored tunnel will actually be composed of two separate tunnels, one for each direction of travel. For each tunnel, bored tunnel construction will start from the Port Moody side and a staging area and worksite will be located nearby.

[nname]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That stretch of road is narrow. IIRC when Clarke crosses Como Lake it goes down to 4 lanes with no median/parking space. If it went underground south of Como you might have enough space to do it in the middle of the road.

Better yet have a ground level station in the parking lot of that Safeway (used to be a Shell there) and have it go under the intersection from there.

I would too prefer an at-grade station for Burquitlam (becoming trenched on the north side since its slightly uphill), and then a shallow cut-and-cover tunnel under Como Lake Av. before becoming bored tunnel. This would probably have the same construction cost but looks a lot nicer and turn 3 large curves into two small ones so the train can go even faster.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ from the PM side would make much more sense, going with gravity down the hill instead of going up.

Gravity?!? You believe in that stuff? It's only a "theory"--just like evolution--my Christian fundamentalist acquaintances tell me.

[DKaz]

Probably to give the residents a bit more time to get out of their properties?

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

Gravity?!? You believe in that stuff? It's only a "theory"--just like evolution--my Christian fundamentalist acquaintances tell me.

Yea, I know. It's all blasphemy. Gravity doesn't flow down to earth, it flows up towards the sky as that's where our almighty God lives.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That stretch of road is narrow. IIRC when Clarke crosses Como Lake it goes down to 4 lanes with no median/parking space. If it went underground south of Como you might have enough space to do it in the middle of the road.

Better yet have a ground level station in the parking lot of that Safeway (used to be a Shell there) and have it go under the intersection from there.

I was thinking that they could expropriate land from the shopping centre parking lot and the opposite side of the street at that location (south of Como Lake). The portal would be at Como Lake in the median and the station south of it. For that configuration you're really only affecting commercial properties - and properties that will likely be redeveloped anyways (where the new development can adapt to the new street layout).

The main issue would be the intersection to the south (Smith Avenue) - the trench would have to start south of Smith to allow it to pass below (and would eliminate any bents required to take the guideway to the side of the road since the trench would remain in the middle of the road):

Really bad drawing by me using MSPaint:


Evergreen Line render:


The trench would probably have to start right at the intersection where Clarke Road veers off North Road in order to pass under Smith Ave.:

[deasine]

Smith could have no access to Clarke Rd, making the street quieter (traffic calming). Cottonwood could be used instead for access.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I was thinking that they could expropriate land from the shopping centre parking lot and the opposite side of the street at that location (south of Como Lake). The portal would be at Como Lake in the median and the station south of it.

Thanks for the drawing. I don't see how your proposal buys the transit users or road users any advantage - I only see disadvantages when compared to an elevated or roadside station. Your trench station is connected to neither side of Clarke - every passenger is forced onto a crosswalk to get to/from the station.

[GeeCee]

If the trench/tunnel was located on the east side there, it would go under the condo complex which probably have underground parking and deep foundations. The tunnel would have to be significantly deeper much sooner than the opposite side of the street. Even if it were to cross the street immediately after the portal in your concept, there isn't enough space to turn both tunnels away from the first condo complex there which sits right behind that odd-shaped commercial complex.

[officedweller]

The trench would be in the middle of the road - the question would be whether the road RoW would be wide enough to allow two side by side bores below (or whether the two tunnels can come closer to each other just north of the station).

WRT pedestrian access the station as currently planned is located mid-block, so access from the west side of Clarke Road is poor as it is, unless a pedestrian signal is installed mid-block.

The access in the middle of the street - that's six of one half dozen of the other - instead of all passengers from the west crossing the whole street, everyone crosses half the street. This could create a focus / plaza in the median around which development could be focussed (it would also have traffic calming effects).
Alternatively, access could be provided using underpasses from either side of the street, but that would require a deeper excavation to introduce an underground mezzanine level.

The problem I foresee with the present allignment is that there may be bents (post and lintel supports) in two places -
1) where the guideway crosses from the centre of North Road to the east side of Clarke Road, and
2) where the guideway crosses from the east side of Clarke Road to the west side of Clarke Road.

[SpongeG]

there are plans to demolish that buriquitlam plaza and rebuild it - with Evergreen i imagine they will incorporate towers

the safeway was suppossed to move - they had demolished a big part of the plaza a few years ago - but there was an issue that arose and I guess they held back doing so

[mooks28]

Why add costs by putting the station underground? The beauty of this particular area is that it is so ripe for development. Whatever station they build here will really set the tone for the development going into where Burquitlam Plaza is.