Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Kwik-E-Mart

Isn't that traveling in reverse of the morning rush hour traffic, which is from east to west instead of the other way around? Of course your trip would be faster.

Also, the main point of the Evergreen Extension is for faster travel to Vancouver (not just Downtown).

Exactly!

I dunno why anybody would even think that the 169 is going to be better than the Evergreen Line to get to Coquitlam Central just because of one lucky trip on the opposite side of the traffic flow. Plus the Evergreen Line is not just for faster travel to Vancouver, but also Burnaby, New West and Surrey.

And as already pointed out, they will add stops to the 169. This should serve the local population even better to get people to Skytrain at Coquitlam Central. The 169 is never meant to be a substitute for the Evergreen Line before, now and after. But if people think that they are willing to put up with the Brunette bottleneck on the off chance that they won't get stuck, then go ahead.

Some of us had the unfortunate option to be forced to use only the 169 to get to Skytrain from Coquitlam Central, and would be glad to be rid of that option once and for all come 2016. I dunno why anybody would be against that...

Originally Posted by nname

I used to take 169 daily, and the trip can take anywhere from 10 to 25 minutes on a normal day. This was before the PMH1 construction, which resulted in a permanent 2-3 min added to the route.

However, the longest trip I had on the 169 is about 1 hour wait plus 2.5 hours on the bus. Even the worse SkyTrain breakdown is nowhere as bad as this.

I've experienced something similar quite a few times last Fall, and this is why I gave up on transit altogether, until 2016 anyway. The thing is such instances are never in the news, nor it is acknowledged by most forumers when there is a debate regarding Evergreen Line's priority and significance to the region. And yes, it seems ever since the PMH1 "improvements", things have gotten worse.

[SOSS]

So they're going to shift the terminus of the 160 from Vancouver to Brentwood? That makes limited sense to me. I guess they expect DT bound travelers to take SkyTrain only and NS bound travelers to take SkyTrain to Gilmore then bus from there. When I did the transit commute I typically took the 160/190 to Kootenay Loop then 28/130 to Phibbs Exchange.

[red-paladin]

If anyone is the Lougheed station area, it would be great if someone can take pictures. The third platform has glass up now and can be seen from the parking lot behind/below it.

[nname]

Originally Posted by SOSS

So they're going to shift the terminus of the 160 from Vancouver to Brentwood? That makes limited sense to me. I guess they expect DT bound travelers to take SkyTrain only and NS bound travelers to take SkyTrain to Gilmore then bus from there. When I did the transit commute I typically took the 160/190 to Kootenay Loop then 28/130 to Phibbs Exchange.

The current plan calls for the 160 to terminate at Rupert. I'm guessing they're merging the 160 and part of the 27?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by SOSS

So they're going to shift the terminus of the 160 from Vancouver to Brentwood? That makes limited sense to me. I guess they expect DT bound travelers to take SkyTrain only and NS bound travelers to take SkyTrain to Gilmore then bus from there. When I did the transit commute I typically took the 160/190 to Kootenay Loop then 28/130 to Phibbs Exchange.

Originally Posted by nname

The current plan calls for the 160 to terminate at Rupert. I'm guessing they're merging the 160 and part of the 27?

I can't find the info now, but this isn't new news. They talked about it with the area transit plan and the Evergreen Line starting. The reasoning:

"Both these routes offer local stops along a portion of the route to collect customers and then at a point they become express and only drop off at major transfer points," Katherine says.

"The reverse trip only picks up on the return trip. This ensures that customers to a particular area will have space on the bus to get there. Customers in the area the bus is travelling through are then encouraged to use the local services already available so they do not fill the bus and exclude those customers that are destined for the terminus."

http://buzzer.translink.ca/2014/11/translink-101-what-is-an-express-and-pick-updrop-off-only-bus/

So you'll have to take the local 135 instead of the 160 / 190 to get to Kootenay Loop and then transfer as usual.

[Olden Retreiver]

Originally Posted by adrianroam95

There's also a goldmine of photos (that I think haven't been posted here yet) from the Ministry of Transportation's flickr account:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tranbc/sets/72157632226282626/
.
.
.
Ring segments. The site is located on the block of Barnet Hwy, Clarke Ave, and Douglas St.

.
.
.

Peculiar to see those "REJECT" rings near the gantry, and there seems to be another pile of them off to the right. Does anyone know if most of these segments are interchangeable of if many of them are custom shapes to accommodate curves in the tunnel?

[Olden Retreiver]

To go back (briefly) to the Park-and-Ride discussion: I was very upset that car parking at Moody Centre station was substantially increased with the construction of Evergreen, and I mad very strong comments on it during the public consultations. Apparently, I am just about the only person in Port Moody who feels this way.

PoMo has wrangled for the past 4 years over their Official Community Plan, with the most contentious issue being what density and building height would be allowed adjacent to the Station. This argument is kind of moot if TransLink's vision is for a massive car park. Surface parking lots are the absolute ugliest things any city can have in their central cores, and this is offensive to Port Moody's desire to be a compact, sustainable urban community. Maybe, years down the road we can have proper bus service from residential neighbourhoods to transit, and gradually dig up the acres of asphalt.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Olden Retreiver

Surface parking lots are the absolute ugliest things any city can have in their central cores, and this is offensive to Port Moody's desire to be a compact, sustainable urban community. Maybe, years down the road we can have proper bus service from residential neighbourhoods to transit, and gradually dig up the acres of asphalt.

At least the good news is that its a lot easier to convert a parking lot to another use than it would be to convert a building of some sort.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by Olden Retreiver

To go back (briefly) to the Park-and-Ride discussion: I was very upset that car parking at Moody Centre station was substantially increased with the construction of Evergreen, and I mad very strong comments on it during the public consultations. Apparently, I am just about the only person in Port Moody who feels this way.

PoMo has wrangled for the past 4 years over their Official Community Plan, with the most contentious issue being what density and building height would be allowed adjacent to the Station. This argument is kind of moot if TransLink's vision is for a massive car park. Surface parking lots are the absolute ugliest things any city can have in their central cores, and this is offensive to Port Moody's desire to be a compact, sustainable urban community. Maybe, years down the road we can have proper bus service from residential neighbourhoods to transit, and gradually dig up the acres of asphalt.

Port Moody has plenty of space, especially near Port Moody Station, to densify before starting to worry about running out of space for them like in the Vancouver downtown core. Cars are a currently a way of life in Metro Vancouver, and while a shift to mass transit is ideal, it's just not feasible in the near future with the way our cities are currently designed. Port Moody Station's parking is centrally located in a spot that also happens to run immediately beside heavy rail tracks, which is not exactly ideal for a residential neighborhood.

That being said, the OCP process is stupid and needs to die in a fire, but that is probably better suited for another thread which I don't feel strongly enough about to start it myself.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

That being said, the OCP process is stupid and needs to die in a fire, but that is probably better suited for another thread which I don't feel strongly enough about to start it myself.

OCP process?

[SpongeG]

orinoco culinary permeal

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

OCP process?

Official Community Plan
http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?page=313

[Olden Retreiver]

Traffic now restricted to one way northbound on Clarke Hill. Apparently, this air pocket at the machine chamber migrated to surface and "resulted in a hole in the asphalt on Clarke Road." That would constitute a sinkhole. 3-for-3 now.

http://evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/documents/EGL_DetourInfo.pdf

[officedweller]

Maybe the collapsing of the air chamber ahead of the TBM is a consequence of the diameter of the TBM and the size of the cavity that it creates?

(Which doesn't bode well for Seattle's Bertha)

[Olden Retreiver]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Maybe the collapsing of the air chamber ahead of the TBM is a consequence of the diameter of the TBM and the size of the cavity that it creates?

(Which doesn't bode well for Seattle's Bertha)

That could be a factor - the wider unsupported "back" or "roof" might be more likely to collapse. But I think the fundamental reason for these 3 failures has got to be an under-appreciation of the geotechnical properties.

By the way, I see Bertha is now out of the hole in Seattle. They hope to be tunneling again by August 2015 - a 20 month delay.

[red-paladin]

Shanghai to introduce sky-train with transparent carriages
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-04/09/content_20038612.htm

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Shanghai to introduce sky-train with transparent carriages
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-04/09/content_20038612.htm

It's a suspended monorail - they cite Dortmund as an example.

[xd_1771]

^ Seems to me that's more like a hanging monorail such as the Shonan Monorail near Enoshima, or the Chiba Urban Monorail. But if you guys wanted SkyTrain news, Malaysia just made a pretty big statement when they confirmed SkyTrain technology for a new 36km rapid transit line that begins construction early next year, and opens 2020. It'll tie in with the existing Kelana Jaya Line - and the trains may be supplied by CSR-Zhuzhou rather than Bombardier. (Will add: both are intending to bid).

MALAYSIA CONFIRMS SKYTRAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR 36KM KLANG VALLEY LINE

It’s official: SkyTrain technology has been confirmed in Malaysia for a brand new, 36km rapid transit line to be built on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur.

The new ‘Klang Valley LRT Line 3′ will begin construction at the beginning of next year, and is expected to open for revenue service in the year 2020. An alignment study has been completed, and the project owner has distributed the construction tenders just last week for the new line so that the detailed design process may proceed....

[READ MORE - My Blog]

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It's a suspended monorail - they cite Dortmund as an example.

Yep... didn't intended to mislead.

[red-paladin]

Glass partition going up on the third Lougheed Station platform:

From: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tranbc/16373087162/in/album-72157632226282626/
An older photo. Tailtracks for the Poco extension on the right, Coquitlam station potion on the left:

From:https://www.flickr.com/photos/tranbc/14557705368/in/album-72157632226282626/