Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Migrant_Coconut]

Plexiglas roof. Problem solved.

[Metro-One]

Have to throw in my love for elevated rail. The Canada Line adds a great big city urban vibe to downtown Richmond and also offers some weather protection along #3 road. Having Skytrain crisscrossing our region overhead has cemented it as part of our region’s identity. Also I find that elevated stations create a far stronger sense of place (in general).

I also particularly love the bridges, the basket weave near Bridgeport, the area in and around New West Station (maybe the most urban looking metro integration in our region), Lougheed Station area, the guideway stretching over Highway 1 near 1st Ave, and the Evergreen Line through Coquitlam.

South of Oakridge the Cambie Boulevard is nothing special, and the Canada Like could easily have continued above grade until there with little loss to the area.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Have to throw in my love for elevated rail. The Canada Line adds a great big city urban vibe to downtown Richmond and also offers some weather protection along #3 road. Having Skytrain crisscrossing our region overhead has cemented it as part of our region’s identity. Also I find that elevated stations create a far stronger sense of place (in general).

I also particularly love the bridges, the basket weave near Bridgeport, the area in and around New West Station (maybe the most urban looking metro integration in our region), Lougheed Station area, the guideway stretching over Highway 1 near 1st Ave, and the Evergreen Line through Coquitlam.

South of Oakridge the Cambie Boulevard is nothing special, and the Canada Like could easily have continued above grade until there with little loss to the area.

Understandable, but the golfers in the golf park and (maybe) the Musqueam band might not like having concrete pillars next to them, especially dealing with the noise of a passing train. It may be pleasing to you, but it’s an eyesore to them. It’s like building highway ramps going through Blanca St, so it’s the same thing to them (even though the trains don’t emit soot when they accelerate).

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Understandable, but the golfers in the golf park and (maybe) the Musqueam band might not like having concrete pillars next to them, especially dealing with the noise of a passing train. It may be pleasing to you, but it’s an eyesore to them. It’s like building highway ramps going through Blanca St, so it’s the same thing to them (even though the trains don’t emit soot when they accelerate).

Well, as long as those groups are willing to pay any potential extra costs for tunneling, go for it.

Otherwise if there is a significant cost saving to elevate this section but they tunnel it instead it will come off as some pretty disgustingly blatant class based bias.

Also currently staying at my brother’s which is directly adjacent to the Skytrain guideway, the noise has yet to bother me. In fact I would say that the noise from the Skytrain here is less disturbing than a marginally busy 2 lane road that can be found every few blocks throughout our city.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Couldn't it be caged in?

I guess. But then you're adding more cost. I'm all for it, just not sure it's worthwhile. A tunnel would preserve precious trees too.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also currently staying at my brother’s which is directly adjacent to the Skytrain guideway, the noise has yet to bother me. In fact I would say that the noise from the Skytrain here is less disturbing than a marginally busy 2 lane road that can be found every few blocks throughout our city.

Exactly. I've lived in a few places (one similar to your brother's) and the Skytrain wasn't as noisy as cars driving by - including an old house with limited insulation so it was far from soundproof.

[misher]

Vancouver is pretty rich and we can raise quick money through selling off land or allowing higher density. I think the savings brought by building above ground are not worth the long-term problems above ground causes. Given the cost of land, noise pollution, and how it disrupts traffic underground is the best long-term solution. Also I suspect underground is easier to maintain due to it being isolated from the environment.

[officedweller]

It may be a moot point anyways.

The Musqueam have only agreed to withhold redevelopment of the Univeristy Golf Course lands until 2033.

The Musqueam have declined to comment on the negotiations except for a written statement that ruled out any development of the golf course until 2033.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat...-a-done-deal-critics-told/article691767/

[scryer]

Elevating a rail for the purpose of better views for the riders is ridiculous. Transit is about function not aesthetics. Want great views? Take a tour bus.

Elevating it to cut costs would make sense.

Either way, this thing needs to be grade-separated all the way (which it is). However if they do decide to make the rest of the line underground then we should be fighting to keep the TBM in the ground until the project is completed.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by scryer

Elevating a rail for the purpose of better views for the riders is ridiculous. Transit is about function not aesthetics. Want great views? Take a tour bus.

Elevating it to cut costs would make sense.

Either way, this thing needs to be grade-separated all the way (which it is). However if they do decide to make the rest of the line underground then we should be fighting to keep the TBM in the ground until the project is completed.

What about for earthquakes? Which is better in an earthquake zone?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What about for earthquakes? Which is better in an earthquake zone?

I'm honestly going with elevated, because it would be easier to rescue people. But if an engineer wants to correct me, have at it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I'm honestly going with elevated, because it would be easier to rescue people. But if an engineer wants to correct me, have at it.

Same reason they want a Massey Bridge to replace the tunnel. IIRC, at-grade > elevated > tunneled, emergency-wise.

[Xrayal]

Originally Posted by scryer

Elevating a rail for the purpose of better views for the riders is ridiculous. Transit is about function not aesthetics. Want great views? Take a tour bus.

So transit riders ride in a dark tunnel while drivers are allowed great views. Classic moterdom think.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Xrayal

So transit riders ride in a dark tunnel while drivers are allowed great views. Classic moterdom think.

Or you could say that pedestrians are allowed great views that aren't ruined by concrete guideways in the sky. That's actually more where I come from. The aesthetic of a passive "place" where people may congregate is more important than the view that transit riders would get while they're just passing through it.

I know some people like them, and I personally don't hate them, but I think the average person would prefer them out of sight. I personally think Cambie Street having an elevated guideway down its boulevard would be a major eyesore.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Or you could say that pedestrians are allowed great views that aren't ruined by concrete guideways in the sky. That's actually more where I come from. The aesthetic of a passive "place" where people may congregate is more important than the view that transit riders would get while they're just passing through it.

I know some people like them, and I personally don't hate them, but I think the average person would prefer them out of sight. I personally think Cambie Street having an elevated guideway down its boulevard would be a major eyesore.

So I guess we can’t have the Surrey-Langley Line be SkyTrain because the concrete pillars would be eyesores on Fraser Hwy by that logic, so let’s put a middle-of-the-road train with overhead wires that’s in NO WAY eyesores. ( ͡ಠ ʖ̯ ͡ಠ)

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

So I guess we can’t have the Surrey-Langley Line be SkyTrain because the concrete pillars would be eyesores on Fraser Hwy by that logic, so let’s put a middle-of-the-road train with overhead wires that’s in NO WAY eyesores. ( ͡ಠ ʖ̯ ͡ಠ)

Do you see me advocating for on-street? I've been a huge LRT opposer on here for years. Believe me I am more embarrassed of this than proud haha.

Yes, I would prefer underground to overhead on Fraser Highway as well. But that's just aesthetics.

If there's not much of a place to ruin visually (I include both University Boulevard and Fraser Highway in this - the Expo Line along the railway and Lougheed Highway are good previous examples), then yeah, overhead is nice because it costs less. But if someone wants to build it underground, I won't complain.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Xrayal

So transit riders ride in a dark tunnel while drivers are allowed great views. Classic moterdom think.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Or you could say that pedestrians are allowed great views that aren't ruined by concrete guideways in the sky. That's actually more where I come from. The aesthetic of a passive "place" where people may congregate is more important than the view that transit riders would get while they're just passing through it.

The SkyTrain doesn't seem to ruin existing plazas under it... and I highly doubt that people are going to congregate in the woods, or in that part of Point Grey. So far, the biggest crowd West 8th gets is the weekend summer carnival at Trimble.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I know some people like them, and I personally don't hate them, but I think the average person would prefer them out of sight. I personally think Cambie Street having an elevated guideway down its boulevard would be a major eyesore.

Yeah, I can understand that YMMV on exactly how attractive the guideways are, but it seems a tad asinine to bury 3km of track under near-empty space just because a fraction of Point Grey finds it ugly.

The important question should be if the viaducts would be practical, or if we'd have to level half the street and plunge the other half into eternal darkness to make it happen. If the answer is no, then go for it.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The SkyTrain doesn't seem to ruin existing plazas under it... and I highly doubt that people are going to congregate in the woods, or in that part of Point Grey. So far, the biggest crowd West 8th gets is the weekend summer carnival at Trimble.



Yeah, I can understand that YMMV on exactly how attractive the guideways are, but it seems a tad asinine to bury 3km of track under near-empty space just because a fraction of Point Grey finds it ugly.

The important question should be if the viaducts would be practical, or if we'd have to level half the street and plunge the other half into eternal darkness to make it happen. If the answer is no, then go for it.

Doesn't necessarily have to be congregation, but if people like that walk through a mostly natural feeling University Boulevard, I'd hate to give that up SOLELY for the reason of nicer view for the transit riders. For cost though, I might. And especially since we don't know how development of the golf course will go, there's just a lot to consider there.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yes, I would prefer underground to overhead on Fraser Highway as well. But that's just aesthetics.

The ALR section on Fraser Hwy would have complications when an earthquake or tsunami happens because of soil conditions there.