Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
TransLink, SNC Lavalin and the Canada Line operators were served with a 200-strong class action lawsuit by Cambie businesses, and the decision may have contributed to the general dislike of TransLink that resulted in the 2014 referendum failure. Public goodwill is often as important as money.
|
The Lawsuits weren't about the technology but how it was done (all sections at once)
Also, City of Vancouver residents were pretty supportive in the referendum. It was a tax revolt off a population already pissed off about sales taxes after HST, and a suburbanite population pissed at TransLink for 'bad service' and 'inefficiency'.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...ouver-tax-transit-improvements-1.3134857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
16th to 8th specifically, but yes, everything north of 16th is somewhat narrow. The 6th-Fir stretch is also partly on-road.
Consider that the full UBC route will be $6+ billion and the full Langley route $3.1+ billion (still less than the LRT plan, but still). $2.7 billion for Hastings and the rest of downtown seems like a bargain by comparison... also a much higher priority than a ~80k town (going by projections) that has has a "less" important RapidBus. I'm guessing the 95/R5 and 96/R1 will be at 99 levels by then.
16th could theoretically work as an elevated staton, but it's going to be a tight squeeze, and needs a rework if we don't want it messing with the traffic lights. It also depends on an elevated option for Broadway too.... and don't assume that Arbutus-Broadway will be built to accommodate an elevated tram station. |
I know, that's why I said elevated. South of 16th is narrow too if you want to fit in a station as well as tracks and pathways.
West 6th Ave actually has the road narrowed to 2 lanes if you look closely.
I never said Hastings wasn't high priority. I said the DTES was the big reason why Hastings may be ignored, along with Suburban prioritization.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3739683/trans...p-in-vancouver-citing-pedestrian-safety/
If you want goodwill, avoiding cut-and-cover seems to be less a deal than getting better transit out to the suburbs.
OFC you sacrifice efficiency. But it seems to be consistent with TransLink/BC Transit's history when building RT lines- build the lines that are more politically convenient first, even if you have the money to build the more expensive and less politically convenient but more necessary one instead or simultaneously (and we might if the Cure Congestion (
https://www.curecongestion.ca/wp-content...stion-2019-Federal-Election-Platform.pdf) movement succeeds).
Hastings has actually been considered the best or 2nd best (depending on the study) corridor for RT since the
70s. We still haven't got it. I'm not holding my breath.
If History teaches us anything, we might just be getting everything BUT Hastings.
https://voony.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-case-for-rapid-transit-in-1970/
Logistically, attaching an Underground station isn't any easier. Plus, the station is going to be under-capacity once the extension to UBC goes through, meaning parts of the station should be able to be cut off for construction.
If there's no other option, you could build the actual station on the daycare a block north and connect the station with the Arbutus station. This is similar to the situation with Commerical-Broadway, which was also not designed to be connected to the Millennium Line.
Threaded Mode