Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Ehlun]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Cut and cover tunnelling down a secondary street like 10th Ave. would work best.

Won't somebody please think of the bikeway!

[dleung]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Seriously are we 10 years old or something?

Deserves? Deserve... to "show qualities worthy of". So let's replace that word with 'worth of' and listen to how absolutely snobby and childish that sounds.

So imagine your boss walks into your office after you ask for a raise and tells you "Well I think you should do more work and apply more effort to be worthy of a raise" and tell me how you'd react to him or her telling you that?

Take a chill pill; I was responding to makr3trkr using his own petty logic. The "7 points" in your preceding post isn't anything new. Of course Broadway can only fit a subway; the only question is whether switching to trench/elevated/at grade for the final stretch to UBC saves enough money to be worth wrecking a beautiful part of the city that coughs up tons of property tax for relatively little municipal service.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

or google: "Arbutus Corridor Official Development Plan" by-law

Tried that. That's why I asked.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

or google: "Arbutus Corridor Official Development Plan" by-law

The official PDF is no longer online but is on archive.org (page 2)

http://web.archive.org/web/20060417221238/http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/bylaws/ODP/AC.PDF

2.1
Designations for the Arbutus Corridor
This plan designates all of the land in the Arbutus Corridor for use only as a public thoroughfare for the purpose only of:
(a) transportation, including without limitations:
(i) rail;
(ii) transit; and
(iii) cyclist paths
but excluding:
(iv) motor vehicles except on City streets crossing the Arbutus Corridor; and
(v) any grade-separated rapid transit system elevated, in whole or in part, above the surface of the ground, of which one type is the rapid transit system know as “SkyTrain”
currently in use in the Lower Mainland;

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by dleung

Take a chill pill; I was responding to makr3trkr using his own petty logic. The "7 points" in your preceding post isn't anything new. Of course Broadway can only fit a subway; the only question is whether switching to trench/elevated/at grade for the final stretch to UBC saves enough money to be worth wrecking a beautiful part of the city that coughs up tons of property tax for relatively little municipal service.

"Petty" would be a few wealthy denizens holding the rest of the region hostage through threat of litigation over something that could save $500-750 million dollars. A lot of other things could be done with that money.

And a trench/at grade really is not all that horrific.

People everywhere else in the region have to put up with looking at and hearing Skytrains. If the richest postal code in the country doesn't want to, I won't loose sleep if they have to shoulder a larger share of the cost.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The official PDF is no longer online but is on archive.org (page 2)

http://web.archive.org/web/20060417221238/http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/bylaws/ODP/AC.PDF

thanx

[logan5]

American group says bus route to UBC a 'failure’

Urban Land Institute recommends underground subway, paid in part by employers along line

An international panel of land use experts injected themselves into the hot debate over a proposed Broadway transit line Thursday, saying TransLink’s current bus route to the University of B.C. is so inadequate that the system “is essentially at failure” and the only realistic alternative is a new high-capacity line bored underground.

The Urban Land Institute, a Washington D.C.-based group, said Vancouver also needs to avoid making other cities’ mistakes by trying to pay for expensive expansions by linking land use and density to the form of transportation. Putting highrise developments at every station isn’t a good idea, they said.

“You guys do high rises very nicely. But you are sort of drunk on high rises. You don’t need towers everywhere,” said Dick Reynolds, the chairman of a ULI “governor’s advisory panel,” which spent three days examining the Broadway route.

“Just don’t get caught up in the idea that if you pick an expensive transit system for a whole lot of good reasons, you’ve got to upzone everything.”

Reynolds and four other land use experts issued an interim report Thursday that backs up Vancouver’s preference for a bored tunnel between Commercial Drive and UBC. They met with city officials, TransLink and neighbourhood groups. A full report will be issued in two months.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/American+group+says+route+failure/9478912/story.html#ixzz2sbsnk52e

The end of the article indicates that Translink is in favour of an above ground system. That's the first time I've heard that position.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by logan5

American group says bus route to UBC a 'failure’

Urban Land Institute recommends underground subway, paid in part by employers along line


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/American+group+says+route+failure/9478912/story.html#ixzz2sbsnk52e

The end of the article indicates that Translink is in favour of an above ground system. That's the first time I've heard that position.

They basically haven't taken a stance, which makes sense since nothing has technically moved onto phase 3. But, what they were saying is that an at-grade LRT option would apparently meet whatever corridor demand it attracts through to 2041. Of course, its' a very vague position that really has to do with the transit option in its transit aspect only and doesn't examine community needs, local businesses, existing transit impact during construction, reliability loopholes, potential capacity expansion need, etc. Given LRT did not present a negative business case, they would've been fine with building LRT if that was what the City of Vancouver preferred, which clearly is not the case.

People everywhere else in the region have to put up with looking at and hearing Skytrains. If the richest postal code in the country doesn't want to, I won't loose sleep if they have to shoulder a larger share of the cost.

I guess people have awkward standards for quietness. I've been living literally next to a SkyTrain guideway for the past 5 months. I hear trains through to 2AM in the morning; I remember them being much louder when I moved in, but this is after many years of living in quiet, quaint Surrey suburb. I simply got used to them. I think at the end of the day we humans can adapt to the sound of a train passing like this; it's just they're too close minded to attempt it.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Totally agree. However, what happens when it gets to the escarpment?
Does a guideway surface, and go up the hill, or does a deep bored tunnel get built the rest of the way to UBC?

10th from Alma to UBC is relatively wide - the trench could be stacked to minimize disruption during construction and maybe with compensation to businesses. That commercial stretch is quite short.

[memememe76]

I have never heard one person complain about looking at the Skytrain. Who are all these people? But I live in Surrey. I have never heard of anyone deciding to buy a condo near a Skytrain Station because it's underground as opposed to above-ground on the grounds of aesthetics. Noise? I can understand that (even if I disagree). But because it's ugly? Really?

[Alex Mackinnon]

I don't think people will find its ugly. You just wouldn't want it within 30' of your only windows in your hilariously overpriced condo.

[red-paladin]

I wouldn't want to live in those short apartment buildings right next to the skytrain line on Commercial Diversion. That's like Elwood's place in the Blues Brothers.

However, there are only a handful of properties in the entire system that are like that. Everywhere else, especially buildings built after the lines, are fine.

[WarrenC12]

My friend in east van used to complain about it a lot, and he lived about 3 blocks away. The problem is summer evenings, when you're outside and/or the windows are open, and it's quiet. You really notice the constant train acceleration (this was near a station, which might be worse).

There's not much room on the west side for a route that isn't really close to at least a few hundred houses. Property values would be negatively impacted, at least in the short to medium term.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Ehlun

Won't somebody please think of the bikeway!

I predict daily construction disruptions c/o Critical Mass.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I wouldn't want to live in those short apartment buildings right next to the skytrain line on Commercial Diversion. That's like Elwood's place in the Blues Brothers.

However, there are only a handful of properties in the entire system that are like that. Everywhere else, especially buildings built after the lines, are fine.

I think there's plenty of places, like Vanness Ave, for example, where lower units might be affected by noise, even with the trees they planted. Even from higher floors, depending on the person.

Yes, those lots were redeveloped, so those people chose to live there, but the previous owners didn't (even if there was a pre-existing rail corridor, like Arbutus).

Most of the apartments on North Road (of which there are hundreds) will be affected by noise from the Evergreen Line, too.

And the (hypothetical) elevated line on Fraser Highway would affect thousands of properties directly fronting the road, were that ever to come to pass.

[trofirhen]

Not to defend rich NIMBYs; I'm not.
However, the concept that the Broadway-UBC rrt would have to go underground, or face the wrath (and litigation) of wealthy west-siders has
become a bit of a "cause célèbre" here, IMO.
Firstly, a study shows that a tunnelled rrt is faster than other means.
Also, it's must more discreet than columns and guideways hacking up the view.
I think OD expressed it well when he suggested a tunnelled rrt under 10th Avenue that then went double deck (tunnel) up the 10th avenue hill.
Once there, sure, put it at grade level or elevate it, because that's where the really splendid views are anyway.
As has been noted on this thread before, much of the original Expo line could have, and perhaps should have, been tunnelled (cut-cover).
None of this means, however, that the Evil Rich Nimbys are either going to force a tunnel or take to arms (in their case, a massive lawsuit, no doubt).
When I say "tunnel, please," I'm thinking of the aesthetic value of the city "dans l'ensemble."

I get equally angry at rich NIMBYs dictating how things "should" be -- anywhere in the city -- but in this case, I think a tunnelled rrt would be appreciated
by most people in the city, if only for reasons of convenience and travel time alone.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

The end of the article indicates that Translink is in favour of an above ground system. That's the first time I've heard that position.

I have never heard that before, either.

More from today's article:

TransLink recently issued a high-level look at the corridor that examined three technologies; light rail, rapid transit (SkyTrain) and a hybrid concept. While no technology was chosen, TransLink thinks a light rail line from Commercial to UBC is workable, Raad said.

Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs said the ULI’s findings supported the city’s view.

“I was really gratified their conclusions were fundamentally the same as our technical evaluations by our engineers, which is that given the growth that Vancouver is going to have to absorb, the bored tunnel subway is the best answer,” he said. “Not just for handling the growth but to protect the neighbourhoods along the route that would suffer really serious disruption with light rail.”

Former premier and Vancouver mayor Michael Harcourt, who attended the ULI’s briefing, said he is not convinced TransLink will change from its position of wanting an above-ground system, despite the panel’s findings.

“I have a disconnect with TransLink. They have this thing about wanting to go at surface and I think they are out to lunch,” he said. “It’s just dumb, dumb, dumb. You are going to be moving the equivalent of the Expo line, 200,000 people a day. You can’t do that on a surface street car.”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/American+group+says+route+failure/9478912/story.html#ixzz2sfMUPgLo

Those are very surprising comments.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I have never heard that before, either.

More from today's article:



Those are very surprising comments.

Translink has got to have the dumbest people around.

Underground subway is the best means to transport people TODAY, and in the FUTURE, for growth. Such short sighted people. I have hope that it'll be a bored tunnel all the way through...makes the most sense. Translink has got to be the most dysfuntional organization I have ever seen. Silliness all around. LRT along the Broadway corridor. Seriously. Seriously? Short term, that MAY work, but long term, what are they going to do about that?

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I wouldn't want to live in those short apartment buildings right next to the skytrain line on Commercial Diversion. That's like Elwood's place in the Blues Brothers.

However, there are only a handful of properties in the entire system that are like that. Everywhere else, especially buildings built after the lines, are fine.

There's one person on this forum who used to live in one of those apartment buildings at the SkyTrain level and found the experience to be not bad at all, describing the cars as noiseless. He responded to one of my posts here before.

[spm2013]

New West experience and details on Skytrain manages it:

Although Elmer Rudolph lives at least eight blocks away from the SkyTrain line, the West End Residents Association president can hear the annoying squealing of wheels as the trains head down the hill from the 22nd Street station toward the New Westminster station if he has his windows open.

"I know many neighbours who live closer and it's much more bothersome to them," said Rudolph.

The annoyance was a hot topic at the WERA meeting last Tuesday and the association voted to write city council to get it involved in fixing the problem. Rudolph said the association believes the noise could be reduced with more maintenance or track replacement.

"We said this wasn't good enough and whatever needed to be done should be done to eliminate this squealing of the wheels," said Rudolph.

A while back, he said, TransLink did some track grinding following a complaint and it was quiet for two or three weeks, but it returned.

"It just seems they're reluctant to do the necessary maintenance to keep the things quiet. The TransLink person said 'there's only so much we can do,’" said Rudolph. "That implies to me there's another solution [such as replacing the tracks]."

Rudolph said when SkyTrain was launched in 1986 there was some noise for the first few months but after some grinding and maintenance it was reduced considerably.

"Apparently in the last couple of years residents have noticed there doesn't seem to be the same level of maintenance on those tracks, and those wheels and those trains," said Rudolph. "We're trying to get a dialogue going with city council to see if they can have some influence on SkyTrain."

TransLink spokesman Drew Snider said it has received only one complaint in the last six months about noise on the tracks in that area.

"Every week we run a specially fitted train over the track to check noise levels," said Snider in an email. "If we find spots where the noise exceeds standards we go in and grind the rails to clear the corrugation. We've checked the noise level charts for that stretch between 22nd Street Station and New West and found only a couple of 'spikes' in the sound level. So next week, we'll be sending a crew down to grind those particular parts."

Snider said TransLink replaced the rails in that stretch during the past five years at a cost of more than $5.5 million.

"It is, in fact, one of the better areas on the SkyTrain system," said Snider. "There has been no decline in the maintenance in that stretch."

Snider said in that particular area, upwards of 750 trains go by each weekday and while TransLink constantly monitors the noise to minimize it, "we can't eliminate it."

http://www.newwestnewsleader.com/news/130886793.html