Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I don't think I've seen anyone on here say that.

The only arguments I've seen are saying that the M-Line extension all the way to UBC should have been built first, but this was built first due to political considerations instead of prioritizing projects based on need.

Well, there's me.

I lived at Coquitlam Centre a decade ago; I have recently been stuck in the traffic jams on St John's. I thought Evergreen was a good idea and would eventually be needed. Also I believe that it should have been built first (the political reasons for doing so are legitimate - you can't run around breaking promises that have been the basis for decades of development and expect regional cooperation to continue).

However, I figured that Evergreen was not necessary yet. From a purely practical perspective, it seemed to me that it could have afforded to wait a little longer while we built Broadway first.

I change my mind. The fact that Broadway was necessary ten years ago doesn't change the fact that we need Evergreen now. I don't think that was obvious when the project was finally funded. This reinforces the idea that there are other transit projects that we should be building now, because we will need them before we think we will.

To quote my mechanic, I think the region is experiencing a phase change. As with housing, the change up to now has been linear: as there is pressure in one spot (a road fills up, a neighbourhood becomes too expensive) it is relieved somewhat by capacity elsewhere (another route (taken or built), another neighbourhood). At some point that capacity is exhausted. A few more cars or a few more residents are the straws that break the camel's back. The change ceases to be linear. Traffic transforms from a gas to a liquid, then from a liquid to a solid. The solutions that worked before - building more roads and subdivisions - no longer work, and new ones are called for (density, transit).

Though I voted for the transit tax, I thought the Yes campaign's predictions of imminent traffic Armageddon were exaggerated. More and more over the past year it has seemed to me that they were right.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Geof

For anyone who thinks this train isn't needed, the mess this morning due to an accident that closed Barnet Highway was something else. It appeared to me that every east-west route in north Burnaby was jammed: obvious ones like Lougheed, Hastings and Gagliardi (it was solid traffic from Como Lake up over the mountain to Hastings), but also partial and secondary routes like Parker, Broadway (the Burnaby one, not the Vancouver one), and Eastlake. I ended up taking streets like Forest Grove and Venables to get anywhere. And this was the mess after 9:30 and after the accident cleared. I figured the need for Evergreen was secondary to Broadway - but obviously it's still necessary, just less desperate than the ridiculous situation on Broadway. (And obviously no road building could really help, short of resurrecting the old plan to smash through Burnaby and Vancouver with a freeway along Burrard inlet.)

Aha, no wonder why I waited almost 45min for a 97 this morning! If the Evergreen Line is running, I would've arrived at my destination by the time the first bus came in sight!

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Also, isn't there some efficiency reasons? Like, it's better to have a station at the top of a gradient if possible, so you use gravity when you leave the station to help out acceleration and gravity when slowing down in the approach to a station.

That's true on older systems where the energy to brake the train created heat. Plus with underground systems, the rise means the platforms are closer to street level than the deeper tunnels.

But with modern regenerative braking, which skytrain uses, the rise no longer matters. Regenerative braking generates electricity which is fed back into the network for use by other trains.

The trolley buses also have regenerative braking.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Is the train running at normal operating speed in that video? Seemed really slow for the first few stations.

Also, there sure are a lot of switches along the line

It was zoomed in - so that would make it look slower. The camera operator zooms out to normal just after Coquitlam Stn.

I am confused by the configuration at Coquitlam? Two different side platforms for a branch makes no sense? Inbound, it means passengers would have to pick a branch to get a train from - therefore not benefiting from combined frequency.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I am confused by the configuration at Coquitlam? Two different side platforms for a branch makes no sense? Inbound, it means passengers would have to pick a branch to get a train from - therefore not benefiting from combined frequency.

Yeah, the configuration is even worse than Lougheed. It makes no sense to basically have to separate stations.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by nname

There are no X crossing anywhere on the Expo and Millennium Line. Not sure if it is because BCRTC don't like it, or a technical limitation of Bombardier ART system.

A design decision I think. By having them off-set like on Skytrain, it maximizes the usability.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So the Broadway line is the undisputed next in line. Surrey should be #2 IMO but I expect that is not an opinion shared by all...

I agree, Surrey at least has the road space for cars in the meantime. The Broadway corridor is seriously lacking both transit capacity and roadspace for cars; relative to the amount of people who use it regularly.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So the Broadway line is the undisputed next in line. Surrey should be #2 IMO but I expect that is not an opinion shared by all...

well Surrey doesn't want more skytrain. They want their fancy glorified street cars.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

well Surrey doesn't want more skytrain. They want their fancy glorified street cars.

It'd be best not not to generalize here. The leadership of Surrey wants to prove that they're as big and important as Vancouver proper. That means getting what Vancouver has, BUT not the exact same thing - so, streetcars.

The people of Surrey just want something that gets them from Point A to Point B on time.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So the Broadway line is the undisputed next in line. Surrey should be #2 IMO but I expect that is not an opinion shared by all...

Well I think the Newton - Guildford line can wait until the B-Line gets busier. The Expo Line really needs to go a few more stops down Fraser Hwy to Fleetwood, while the rest of it can be built as future phases. That could be done at the same time as the Broadway Millennium extension

Originally Posted by Geof

Well, there's me.

I lived at Coquitlam Centre a decade ago; I have recently been stuck in the traffic jams on St John's. I thought Evergreen was a good idea and would eventually be needed. Also I believe that it should have been built first (the political reasons for doing so are legitimate - you can't run around breaking promises that have been the basis for decades of development and expect regional cooperation to continue).

...

Though I voted for the transit tax, I thought the Yes campaign's predictions of imminent traffic Armageddon were exaggerated. More and more over the past year it has seemed to me that they were right.

People in Vancouver seem to think they're the only area that deserves Skytrain. The rest of the metro just wants to be able to travel across the region without having to depend on a car. In some cases that means Skytrain.

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

well Surrey doesn't want more skytrain. They want their fancy glorified street cars.

Surrey wants *something* and not much has been forthcoming. They believe they can get loads of LRT before they get a Skytrain extension.

[dpogue]

They are testing the new routing for trains tonight, between 21:20 and 00:20. Trains from Waterfront will go to King George and Production Way, and trains from VCC-Clark will only go as far as Lougheed.

[Mac Write]

Don't tempt me to go out and check it out tonight.

[twoNeurons]

Here's an interesting little factoid. After a line to UBC is completed, Vancouver's network will look remarkably similar to Toronto's.

We'll have an EAST-WEST cross line
Two North-South Lines, one that goes out at an angle.

And in actual fact, the lengths of these lines are very close to Toronto's.

I've made a map overlaying approximate equivalents to Toronto's system.

Here's a snapshot.
The TTC System:


Vancouver's system with TTC overlay

[MIPS]

Thing is, Toronto hasn't done any major line expansions for almost 30 years.

[Waders]

I was on a MK2.5 train today and noticed the LED route display was taped over with paper route map. I wonder whether this is done to prepare for the change on Oct. 22?

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

well Surrey doesn't want more skytrain. They want their fancy glorified street cars.

LRT going east-west on 104th is a stupid idea. Not sure what Surrey council is smoking.. Removing a lane of traffic in each direction will cause more headaches than what an LRT will solve. Skytrain should extend from King George along Fraser Hwy going east with stations in higher density areas. Langley deserves better transit and a skytrain station in downtown Langley will open up a lot of options.

LRT=Not For Surrey

[Express691]

https://youtu.be/Fj_AXNcas7w A tutorial I made for my friends

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

LRT going east-west on 104th is a stupid idea. Not sure what Surrey council is smoking.. Removing a lane of traffic in each direction will cause more headaches than what an LRT will solve. Skytrain should extend from King George along Fraser Hwy going east with stations in higher density areas. Langley deserves better transit and a skytrain station in downtown Langley will open up a lot of options.

LRT=Not For Surrey

Surrey council somehow thinks that they can have LRT running down the middle of the street, mixed with car traffic - not separated - and not have any problems. Whatever they're smoking has given them a major case of the stupids.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Surrey council somehow thinks that they can have LRT running down the middle of the street, mixed with car traffic - not separated - and not have any problems. Whatever they're smoking has given them a major case of the stupids.

It's a general consensus that Surrey is made up of above-average stupid political and civil figures. It's like Vision Vancouver if they were hiding a Heroin addiction.

[scryer]

Didn't Coquitlam pull a similar charade with wanting LRT (which is now being developed as the Evergreen extension)?

I kind of feel like these cities threaten metro Van with developing LRT so that they can get extensions out their way.... Is that even a tangible political strategy?