Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

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.

I dunno, they'd be better off walking one of the other roads (Chancellor, 16th, SW Marine) if they're looking for nature. Between the golf course, churches, traffic, and upcoming Musqueam condos, they're going to have a real bad time on University.

What I've been suggesting is that the guideway could use 8th and the north side of the golf course, rendering the whole argument moot. Not much chance of golfers/pedestrians complaining about trains in the woods - NIMBYs and treehuggers, maybe.

[Sheba]

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.

As long as there isn't a cabin in the woods that contains a certain book - that would be really bad.

Let's let them get started on tunnelling for Phase 1 before we start making judgments on what might happen many years from now, when a lot of things will have changed.

[s211]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

Yeah, he joined my ignore list pretty darn quick.

[Alex Mackinnon]

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.

Tunnelled would likely be much better seismically. Seismic waves have the highest amplitude at the surface where soil is least dense. Any tunnel is going to be less exposed to seismic movement than an elevated guideway.

I doubt we'd be talking about a bored tunnel in the endowment lands though, in which case it would be just a cut and cover box, which isn't really a tunnel.

Massey is terrible seismically because it's a cut and cover box, built in mud, which is generally buoyant. The whole thing needs to stay aligned to be water tight, but it's buoyant so it wants to move and twist. The only thing that holds the Massey Tunnel down in the river bed is the weight of backfill on top of the boxes. If the mud under the tunnel were to weaken due to seismic movement, or the rip rap on top of the boxes moves, then the whole thing falls apart.

[aberdeen5698]

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.

OK, then let's turn that the same argument back on the people who claim that elevated Skytrain "ruins the city". If you don't want to live next to Skytrain, then move. Fair?

My point about the views is that for some reason the people on the ground seem to be looking for some sort of veto power over an elevated line on the basis of aethestics. But I really don't buy why their views should prevail over the experience of the riders.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

I read years ago that during the last big quake in San Francisco, all the BART trains automatically stopped when sensors detected the initial S-waves of an earthquake, including those trains that were in the tubes under the bay between SF and Oakland. The passengers only felt some bumps and shaking as the seismic waves passed around the underwater tunnels.

When given the all-clear, the drivers were allowed to bring their train (at slow speed, and extreme caution) to the next station to evacuate the passengers before the train went Out Of Service back to the OMC depot for inspection. Many people on the underground trains didn't realise the extent of the earthquake until they got to street level after evacuating the station

I'm told that the BART service was back to normal service for the next day's morning rush-hour after the post-Earthquake inspections of the system revealed no major problems

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

OK, then let's turn that the same argument back on the people who claim that elevated Skytrain "ruins the city". If you don't want to live next to Skytrain, then move. Fair?

My point about the views is that for some reason the people on the ground seem to be looking for some sort of veto power over an elevated line on the basis of aethestics. But I really don't buy why their views should prevail over the experience of the riders.

That argument bothers me a lot because it's the same argument LRT supporters use. Patrick Condon uses it to bring back his streetcar utopia, and Hepner uses it to make Surrey the new "cultural capital" of Metro Vancouver just because there's a train in the middle of a road, while flipping the bird to anyone who wants proper rapid transit like SkyTrain. It's looks over functionality.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

As long as there isn't a cabin in the woods that contains a certain book - that would be really bad.

Let's let them get started on tunnelling for Phase 1 before we start making judgments on what might happen many years from now, when a lot of things will have changed.

Oh jeez, I just realized that one was filmed in Vancouver.

You never know - the way things are snowballing, we may very well start planning Phase 2 as Phase 1 wraps up. It's something to ponder, at the very least.

Originally Posted by Firebrand

It's looks over functionality.

And looks are subjective. LRT lines have "unsightly" trolley wires and often a pair of fences running down the street... whereas the SkyTrain is like our very own Disneyland monorail. All it's missing is the soundtrack.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Oh jeez, I just realized that one was filmed in Vancouver.

You never know - the way things are snowballing, we may very well start planning Phase 2 as Phase 1 wraps up. It's something to ponder, at the very least.



And looks are subjective. LRT lines have "unsightly" trolley wires and often a pair of fences running down the street... whereas the SkyTrain is like our very own Disneyland monorail. All it's missing is the soundtrack.

Actually I was taking it back to the beginning (which wasn't filmed here and features a book - hey at least it doesn't have a puzzle box )

Hmm instead of a 'musical' (yeah 'the beginning' has that too) maybe we should just build the upright columns a lot higher and make them look like Roman aqueducts. Maybe that'll do something to appease the 'Skytrain divides cities and is ugly' crowd.

[GlassCity]

I just wanna reiterate again that I am definitely NOT saying I support LRT instead of elevated...that would be absurd. I will support the ugliest version of overhead SkyTrain 100% of the time over light rail. But underground over elevated? Also every time. So it's not like I'm at all disappointed when elevated is proposed, but if given the choice between that and underground, then yeah, I'd rather it be underground.

Aberdeen, you say you don't get why people on the ground should be prioritized over the riders. Well I could say that I don't see why riders should be prioritized over people on the ground! Again, in places like University Boulevard I really don't have a problem with elevated rail. But on south Cambie Street, that will in the future be lined with condos and ground floor retail with tons of people walking around, I think an elevated line would have really soured that vibe and been a scar on the street. So I'm glad it's underground.

Besides, we're talking as if transit users and people in those areas are different groups. Myself, if I lived at Cambie and 49th, yeah I'd love the view rolling into the station of the boulevard and the new developments going up. But as soon as I got off and started walking to my house, I'd be disappointed in the visual impacts of the guideway. And to me, that second consideration as a street user would be more important to me than as a transit passenger.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Actually I was taking it back to the beginning (which wasn't filmed here and features a book - hey at least it doesn't have a puzzle box )

Hmm instead of a 'musical' (yeah 'the beginning' has that too) maybe we should just build the upright columns a lot higher and make them look like Roman aqueducts. Maybe that'll do something to appease the 'Skytrain divides cities and is ugly' crowd.

Ohhhh. Sorry, took "cabin in the woods" too literally.

Yeah, the German aqueducts just blend right in. Although in the interest of keeping expenses low, perhaps a sleeker viaduct will suffice.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Aberdeen, you say you don't get why people on the ground should be prioritized over the riders. Well I could say that I don't see why riders should be prioritized over people on the ground! Again, in places like University Boulevard I really don't have a problem with elevated rail. But on south Cambie Street, that will in the future be lined with condos and ground floor retail with tons of people walking around, I think an elevated line would have really soured that vibe and been a scar on the street. So I'm glad it's underground.

Besides, we're talking as if transit users and people in those areas are different groups. Myself, if I lived at Cambie and 49th, yeah I'd love the view rolling into the station of the boulevard and the new developments going up. But as soon as I got off and started walking to my house, I'd be disappointed in the visual impacts of the guideway. And to me, that second consideration as a street user would be more important to me than as a transit passenger.

Well, that's one way of seeing it. But elevated SkyTrain doesn't seem to be ruining Richmond or Metrotown or the Tri-Cities (etc etc etc); if anything, it gives those parts of the suburbs a "big city" vibe.

If Cambie were as narrow and dense as Broadway, I'd say yes, it'd be a bad fit. Otherwise, there's no reason development couldn't have simply shaped itself around the stations and and made them a complementary element; Marine Gateway, for example.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ohhhh. Sorry, took "cabin in the woods" too literally.

Yeah, the German aqueducts just blend right in. Although in the interest of keeping expenses low, perhaps a sleeker viaduct will suffice.

Oh mine was an inspiration for yours (and pretty much the entire movie takes place in a 'cabin in the woods').

Those German aqueducts are much too low for the Nimbys - they have to disappear into the sky!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

That argument bothers me a lot because it's the same argument LRT supporters use. Patrick Condon uses it to bring back his streetcar utopia, and Hepner uses it to make Surrey the new "cultural capital" of Metro Vancouver just because there's a train in the middle of a road, while flipping the bird to anyone who wants proper rapid transit like SkyTrain. It's looks over functionality.

Let me be clear: for me it's definitely functionality first, and looks second. Grade separated transit is much more functional than at-grade, and that's what we need.

But grade separation goes both ways - both below and above ground. I'd argue that on functional terms above ground is superior in view of its better bang for the buck. And I think it really does make for a far better experience for the riders - which means it could draw more people, making it even more functional.

[Migrant_Coconut]

^ Exactly. If it can be aesthetically pleasing AND functional, then you've hit the jackpot and should start building immediately.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Oh mine was an inspiration for yours (and pretty much the entire movie takes place in a 'cabin in the woods').

Those German aqueducts are much too low for the Nimbys - they have to disappear into the sky!

I dunno, Evil Dead's basically a campy version of the Exorcist that the sequels kinda turned into Zombieland, while Cabin's got more of an SCP-type flavour.

Pfft. Then they'll complain about the shadows.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Pfft. Then they'll complain about the shadows.

You mean they don't now? Maybe we should make the Nimbys disappear into the sky

[ilikeredheads]

I can picture it now: "Point Grey resident upset new Skytrain viaduct blocking their sundial!"
"I can't tell time any more after 3pm!!"

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, that's one way of seeing it. But elevated SkyTrain doesn't seem to be ruining Richmond or Metrotown or the Tri-Cities (etc etc etc); if anything, it gives those parts of the suburbs a "big city" vibe.

If Cambie were as narrow and dense as Broadway, I'd say yes, it'd be a bad fit. Otherwise, there's no reason development couldn't have simply shaped itself around the stations and and made them a complementary element; Marine Gateway, for example.

I mean it's all opinion right. I personally do think SkyTrain has scarred Richmond and definitely Coquitlam, Metrotown to a lesser extent.

In any case, it doesn't matter a whole lot. This is like arguing whether pizza or burgers are better - the right answer is the one you have!

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

I can picture it now: "Point Grey resident upset new Skytrain viaduct blocking their sundial!"
"I can't tell time any more after 3pm!!"

That’s funny!

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I mean it's all opinion right. I personally do think SkyTrain has scarred Richmond and definitely Coquitlam, Metrotown to a lesser extent.

You’re starting to sound like an LRT nut. They say the same statement about SkyTrain “scarring” communities.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

That’s funny!





You’re starting to sound like an LRT nut. They say the same statement about SkyTrain “scarring” communities.

Haha take it easy now, people can dislike elevated guideways visually and not be nuts. I can appreciate and support elevated SkyTrain construction all over the city, especially if the alternative is LRT, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the negative visual impacts I perceive it to have too.

I will almost always support SkyTrain and will never support LRT in any context, but yeah, I think elevated SkyTrain is ugly in some contexts and I'd prefer if it was underground. I don't see why that's a big deal. It's not like I'm writing letters saying "build it underground or don't build it at all!" I'm just sitting at home with one preference over another.

For what it's worth, when TransLink did the evaluations of different technologies for both Broadway and Surrey, elevated guideways' visual impacts were listed as a con for them.