Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction - Page 52

mr.x · #**1021** Posted **May 4, 2009, 12:51 AM**

NEW DEVELOPMENT

We've opened a comments page on the blog and we've also created a poll on route and construction methodology:
http://ubcskytrain.wordpress.com/yakking/

metroXpress · #**1022** Posted **May 8, 2009, 3:30 AM**

I suggested the poll we have here for SKYTRAIN TO UBC to the Buzzer blog.

Read their reply via: http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2009/05/wanted-questions-for-the-friday-fun-polls/

By Jhenifer Pabillano, May 7, 2009 @ 9:50 am

Metro-One · #**1023** Posted **May 10, 2009, 3:35 AM**

Here is a rendering of a new LRT station to be built in Calgary (a new extension of the C-train). So if the LRT supporters use the C train as an example (which now involves many elevated and underground kilometers in planned and u/c renovations and new construction) we can use this pic as an example. Where in hell would you fit stations this large along broadway with its narrow width and short blocks? This is why the C-train is able to achieve decent ridership levels, because for the most part it has its own ROW and where it is running along a street it has long and large stations.

That is about the width of 4 or 5 traffic lanes. Forget ever trying to widen the sidewalks along broadway or adding any design elements, left turn lanes, parking lanes, etc...

metroXpress · #**1024** Posted **May 10, 2009, 4:10 AM**

^ Yes, I saw this in the C-Train thread as well. It will be overly crowded if we were to have something like this on Broadway. Even elevated SkyTrain on Broadway would be terrible.....

Calgary's again...

and I came across this:

Metro-One · #**1025** Posted **May 10, 2009, 6:05 AM**

look at that pic of Japan, putting the greater good over the individual and functionality over what is "pretty." Again, that is why Japan has such great transportation systems, because there you can actually build an elevated heavy rail structure and the majority of people are glad to have it.

Also i find those structures create their own urban beauty among such vibrant cities. In Japan they actually know how to integrate elevated structures in to the city fabric correctly, instead of letting the land beneath them rot and die. I find the Georgia viaducts to be mixed bag. Having the skytrain and the skate park built under them along with a few other surface roads at the easter portion = an interesting and well used city scape, the cesspool in the middle portion of the viaducts = poor use of land and integration, then the portion that goes between GM place and the skytrain station and condo towers with at grade streets below and Costco bellow = excellent city scape and use of land

In fact that one small portion of downtown where there is GM place, BC place, several condo towers, at grade streets, public courtyards at the stadiums, shopping, two elevated road viaducts and the skytrain viaduct with a station all crammed in to such a small space is my favorite part of downtown. It has a true big city feel in which every square inch of land and air it utilized for functionality, and despite what some people would call having all these "ugly" structures, it has remained relatively vibrant with pedestrian activity.

mr.x · #**1026** Posted **May 10, 2009, 6:23 AM**

^ well, with Japan's density and commuter travel times (i believe the average daily commute time is 2 hours!) functionality would certainly take importance over everything else.

Alex Mackinnon · #**1027** Posted **May 10, 2009, 10:03 AM**

That picture of japan may not look pretty, but if you look at it closer it has quite a high zoom to it. I'm sure if you took a picture down main st. between the viaduct and the skytrain it wouldn't look all that much different given the same lens setup.

Metro-One · #**1028** Posted **May 10, 2009, 5:53 PM**

If you go to Japan those viaducts (road, rail, and pedestrian) criss cross the cities. Some of them are very wide too.

racc · #**1029** Posted **May 10, 2009, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If you go to Japan those viaducts (road, rail, and pedestrian) criss cross the cities. Some of them are very wide too.

Closer to home, Granville Island is a great example of what can be done under elevated structures.

The problem is that we have too many lazy planners and urban designers that are not able or willing to do the work needed to create great public spaces beneath elevated structures.

frinkprof · #**1030** Posted **May 10, 2009, 9:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Here is a rendering of a new LRT station to be built in Calgary (a new extension of the C-train). So if the LRT supporters use the C train as an example (which now involves many elevated and underground kilometers in planned and u/c renovations and new construction) we can use this pic as an example. Where in hell would you fit stations this large along broadway with its narrow width and short blocks? This is why the C-train is able to achieve decent ridership levels, because for the most part it has its own ROW and where it is running along a street it has long and large stations.

That is about the width of 4 or 5 traffic lanes. Forget ever trying to widen the sidewalks along broadway or adding any design elements, left turn lanes, parking lanes, etc...

It should be noted that the station (26th Street Station) and some of the adjacent right of way pictured here in the median of Bow Trail was actually relocated due to changes made to appease a NIMBY group. It was originally to be on the north side of Bow Trail (left side of the rendering). The change was made because the elevated section to the east was shortened due to NIMBY concerns. These particular NIMBYs were fairly well organized and had their own website, which is still up (www.bestwestlrt.com, I suggest looking at the section Our Research -> How it Will Look for some laughs). Notice as well that access to this station will be from the crosswalk at the intersection near the top of this rendering. I personally think this is a bit of a safety concern, but it is mitigated by the fact that this will be a low-volume station.

At any rate, a lot of C-Train expansion, both currently under construction and proposed, has right-of-way reserved, in many cases years in advance as part of planning new subdivisions. I presume that Broadway does not have right-of-way reserved, so unless the LRT or Trams being proposed will be in-street running in mixed traffic, Broadway would need to be widened to accommodate the line.

mr.x · #**1031** Posted **May 10, 2009, 10:57 PM**

^ LOL....WTF (points at the vandal):

From bewtwestlrt.com

Their website is absolutely retarded. Reading it just makes me sick.

It's unfortunate that they won that battle, but lets hope that they won't win future battles in both Calgary and Vancouver.

frinkprof · #**1032** Posted **May 10, 2009, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x

Their website is absolutely retarded. Reading it just makes me sick.

It's unfortunate that they won that battle, but lets hope that they won't win future battles in both Calgary and Vancouver.

They didn't fully win. It ended up as kind of a compromise. Oh yeah, and it ended up being $20M more expensive if you can believe it. This group mobilized fairly quickly so it might have made it difficult, but I would like to have seen a counter-group started to debunk some of their arguments, like what you guys are doing here. Anyway, I won't get into specifics so as not to turn this into a discussion about Calgary/C-Train.

Oh yeah, I don't know if it has happened yet or not, but I would be prepared to have one or more people representing their side of the argument to come on SSP to debate the issue. It happened with us, and while it wasn't drawn out, it wasn't pretty either.

Kodii · #**1033** Posted **May 11, 2009, 4:57 AM**

Still no reply from the Rail to the Valley people? Maybe they are unaware of our response?

Or maybe we should reciprocate and claim that they are unable to respond to our arguments and therefore we "win". That is, if we are as arrogant as they were towards their own arguments.

Metro-One · #**1034** Posted **May 11, 2009, 8:15 AM**

In that render why would there be cracks in the structure? I have never seen cracks that numerous or extensive in the expo line structure and it is near 25 years old. What a bunch of garbage that render is. Also why is there graffiti on the houses as well? And why is there no graffiti on the elevated highway structure in the background? hehe.

metroXpress · #**1035** Posted **May 11, 2009, 4:48 PM**

Mr X and I suggested a discussion question on bepartoftheplan.ca....this is what they said:

Quote:

colleen, http://www.translink.bc.ca replies:
May 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Hi Alain and X:

The UBC Line is an important discussion question, particularly because there are many people who are interested in weighing in on this topic. Unfortunately, it’s a bit too early to include the topic in this forum because we are currently in the early stages of the UBC Rapid Transit Study which is being undertaken with the Ministry of Transportation. As part of the study we are in the the midst of developing our consultation plan and we will be engaging with stakeholders and the public throughout the year. Look for more info about this in the coming months. You can also check out the consultation page on TransLink’s website for updates at http://www.translink.ca/en/Get-Involved/Public-Consultations/UBC-Rapid-Transit.aspx

One thing to keep in mind is that TransLink is facing a substantial funding shortfall, which is one of the key reasons that we are hosting this discussion. With this in mind, if we don’t find the funding for the shortfall we might not be able continue with the UBC project at all.

DKaz · #**1036** Posted **May 11, 2009, 5:14 PM**

The renderrings are completely one sided, the vandals will go after elevated road/freeway structures as well. NIMBYism at its best. Maybe they should focus less on NIMBYing transit projects and more on creating youth groups to prevent them from straying into the wrong path.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ well, with Japan's density and commuter travel times (i believe the average daily commute time is 2 hours!) functionality would certainly take importance over everything else.

Clarification, 2 hours EACH WAY!

Mine is 1:45 each way.

Alex Mackinnon · #**1037** Posted **May 11, 2009, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

The renderrings are completely one sided, the vandals will go after elevated road/freeway structures as well. NIMBYism at its best. Maybe they should focus less on NIMBYing transit projects and more on creating youth groups to prevent them from straying into the wrong path.

Clarification, 2 hours EACH WAY!

Mine is 1:45 each way.

And today's lesson is don't live in Mission kids.

twoNeurons · #**1038** Posted **May 11, 2009, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

The renderrings are completely one sided, the vandals will go after elevated road/freeway structures as well. NIMBYism at its best. Maybe they should focus less on NIMBYing transit projects and more on creating youth groups to prevent them from straying into the wrong path.

Clarification, 2 hours EACH WAY!

Mine is 1:45 each way.

To be fair... this commute time in Japan really primarily applies to the Tokyo area. It's often touted, because I think ~20% of Japan lives in this area.

Other cities are nowhere NEAR as bad.

DKaz · #**1039** Posted **May 11, 2009, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

And today's lesson is don't live in Mission kids.

Shut up, I was working in Abbotsford before I decided to switch jobs. And in my defense, I get to work for an hour each way on the train so I only have to be in the office for 6 hours so nyeh.

mr.x · #**1040** Posted **May 12, 2009, 12:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen

Mr X and I suggested a discussion question on bepartoftheplan.ca....this is what they said:

Actually no, I didn't suggest that.