Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
When have we ever planned around raw residential land coverage...? Nanaimo must be one of the best station locations in Metro Vancouver and Waterfront must be really garbage I guess...
|
If you need it explained to you, in terms of zoning Waterfront is surrounded by high density offices and the like, Nanaimo only recently got upzoned, but only 5 FSR within 200m, 4 200m-400m, and 2 400m-800m. Compare that to Brentwood and Gilmore,
which in the areas that are zoned for density are about the same, with Brentwood having more of it, both within 800m, and beyond, the same way Waterfront has more stuff beyond 800m than Nanaimo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
You're so biased. By your own logic, most of those will be within 800m of Gilmore Station too if people really really don't want to take the train one station and instead want to walk.
|
Again, please read my whole post please.
"Even Buchanan West and Onni's Gilmore Place will be partially within 800m of Brentwood Station. Whatever is going up around Gilmore will be within a short walking distance of Brentwood,
whereas developments to the east of Brentwood won't be the same for Gilmore."
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
I heard a rumour that Translink will actually allow them the right to ride the train one station over to the interchange if they want to head North-South (for free even! As long as they were going to take the Purple Line regardless.)
|
It should be designed so that the
interchange is closest within walking distance for the most people (costs allowing). This isn't always possible, but with the Brentwood neighbourhood, should the price of tunneling through Burnaby Heights not be prohibitive, Brentwood Station is the obvious choice for an interchange, as it is the middle. This means shorter travel times for the average Brentwood neighbourhood resident and traveler (and mind you, Option 2 is shorter in length than Option 1, so travel times for those just going through aren't as impacted. It's not a massive deviation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
Remember remember remember! I never said that Brentwood didn't have more stuff! The big question is whether Brentwood has so much more stuff that it justifies spending potentially an extra billion dollars on tunnelling to build the station 800m to the east.
|
I agree, but it remains to be seen if that would actually be the case. It might not be a billion more, it could be low enough to justify it (mind you, it is a shorter route too, which might offset some but not all extra costs). As I said before, tunnel boring through the mountain would likely be much cheaper, like with the evergreen, than bore tunneling along Hastings, like with Broadway
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
Why are you so adamant that putting interchanges in the densest place must be the best option and anywhere else would suuuck? If anything, if all we care about is where is best for an interchange you actually would want them to be in the least dense places because you should be expecting a lot movement through the station and you'd want to limit the number of extra people entering. I'm convinced you just want a Brentwood interchange because it feels good, not because of any real reason. After all, it's in the middle! How could you not put the train station in the middle!?
|
If the interchange were at Gilmore, anyone further east, who would have walked if it were at Brentwood, would now be using up the M-line for only one or maybe two stations, traffic that would be less intense if it were in the middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
I'm so sorry I must have misunderstood you, that means you're advocating for no station from Burquitlam to Douglas which is, let's see... about 2.75km. Funny I feel like I've seen that number before...
|
1. The density in between Douglas and Burquitlam is very low, unlike Burnaby Heights, so an infill station would not be justifed, unlike with Burnaby Heights. Even with the redevelopment that is happening there, it is very little, and would be in proximity to Douglas St (mind the hill).
2. It's unlikely an infill station could even go there if the station would be on too much of an incline. As I've said, we should plan ahead for the possibility of infills, and it's not my fault, I'm not the one who designed the Evergreen extension.
Again, the stretch between the PNE and Brentwood with the heights is a dense, commercial filled, destination, the stretch between Port Moody and Burquitlam is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
Central Lonsdale is an interesting dense area with a lot of commercial, Maplewood is an interesting dense(ish) area with some commercial, Hastings-Sunrise is an interesting dense area with a lot of commercial. More likely than not these destinations will not be directly serviced by this line, and that's okay. The business case development needs to determine whether it's justified to take a much more challenging and much more expensive route when the mandate is to take the less challenging and less expensive route (above grade as much as possible). Odds are it's not.
|
Agreed. As I've said though, if tunnel boring through Burnaby Heights is not as expensive as elevating along Hwy 1, then it should be chosen because of the advantages of having a more central Brentwood interchange, and a station in the centre of the Heights. It remains to be determined if tunnel boring here would even be as expensive as you think it might be. It's these two things together that make Option 2 a better route, it's just the cost that would be the determining factor.
In brief, if Option 2 were billions of dollars more expensive, as you said, I would be against it. If it's not that much more expensive and around the same price, Option 2 would be my choice.