HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 1:16 AM
crazyjoeda's Avatar
crazyjoeda crazyjoeda is offline
Mac User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 861
Why does this thread refer to the Evergreen Line as "Proposed"? Hasn't the line and its funding been approved?
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 1:29 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyjoeda View Post
Why does this thread refer to the Evergreen Line as "Proposed"? Hasn't the line and its funding been approved?
Looking at my official "statuses" for developments, "approved" is not an option.
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 4:00 AM
amor de cosmos amor de cosmos is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: lodged against an abutment
Posts: 7,556
isn't it beyond approved? I thought the big news last week, with the opening of the project office, was that it's now u/c.
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 4:01 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
my guess is that the line will eventually expand towards Burke Mountain and Pitt Meadows will have a separate branch (like with the LRT plans) - although I don't know if a switch is being installed for a Pitt Meadows Branch.
I don't know if the expansion toward Bruke Mountain is even possible. The climb from the Coquitlam side is pretty steep. I think the maximum grade that David Ave have between Shaughnessy and Oxford is around 12% (that section of the road rise about 50 to 60m in just 600m, with the steepest part right in the middle).

I think if they want to expand north, they can only build it up Westwood Plateau (the grade on Pinetree is not too steep, can probably build one partially elevated/trenched station with underground tail tracks) or in the river valley between Westwood Plateau and Bruke Mountain (which has nothing but single family houses there). In my opinion, it would be quite reasonable to build a station at the empty land north of David Avenue and south of Robson Dr (1.1km extension north), and stop there permanently.
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 4:09 AM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,183
Maybe they should run it on Guildford, turn south towards Coquitlam Central Station, then allow for provisions for extension to PoCo and further east.
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 4:34 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,251
i thought the idea was to run it east into pitt meadows
__________________
belowitall
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 5:41 AM
arashi_1987 arashi_1987 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Yeah, I remember that Guildford Way was designed with a median for SkyTrain columns - but I think there may have been an issue with the curviness of teh route - not sure if that was operational or for station placement. There was also a question of proximity of schools to potential station sites (i.e. the "criminal" element). A Guildford route would have to turn south at Pintetree Way to hit the WCE Station (and made further northward expansion difficult - my guess is that the line will eventually expand towards Burke Mountain and Pitt Meadows will have a separate branch (like with the LRT plans) - although I don't know if a switch is being installed for a Pitt Meadows Branch.
I know you're just point things out but...
1) If the 10-lane Port Mann can be built I have no idea why a curved road would pose a problem for skytrain guideways. Just think of all the curved stations (with very long platforms) that exist around the world, why can't this happen in Coquitlam?

2) Criminal element?! It's probably safer for school kids to walk to a station in 2 minutes than having to walk all the way down to Barnet Highway (who knows what criminals will be along the way there?). And if most people who live there probably go to Coquitlam Centre frequently, so if they are afraid of crime might as well just forget about the whole transit project.

3) I love expansions, don't get me wrong. But look at how many years it took for construction to start on this Evergreen Line (it hasn't actually started still, so wait and see). So what expansion into distant suburbia can we expect from Translink? Maybe in another 50 years. And I don't see how any expansion will be limited by going down Guildford Way.

**Well, as negative as I have been about the Barnet route, one way to think about this positively is that it might induce redevelopment along the Barnet stretch, which, combined with the existing and future developments along Guildford Way would allow for a high enough density to support a very frequent bus line that would sort of loop from Ioco <--> Guildford Way <--> Coquitlam Centre area <--> Barnet <--> Ioco to connect with Evergreen Line stations...Perhaps the 160 could detour along Guildford Way for the entire service day once the Ev-Line opens...

Last edited by arashi_1987; Mar 4, 2009 at 6:29 AM.
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 6:02 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by arashi_1987 View Post
I know you're just point things out but...
1) If the 10-lane Port Mann can be built I have no idea why a curved road would pose a problem for skytrain guideways. Just think of all the curved stations (with very long platforms) that exist around the world, why can't this happen in Coquitlam?
That doesn't make it fully accessible to all passengers then. We have to keep in mind the disabled here and even the elderly. A huge gap on the platform isn't safe nor is it acceptable in modern day standards. Those systems you are talking about (with very long platforms) aren't accessible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arashi_1987 View Post
Criminal element?! It's probably safer for school kids to walk to a station in 2 minutes than having to walk all the way down to Barnet Highway (who knows what criminals will be along the way there?). And if most people who live there probably go to Coquitlam Centre frequently, so if they are afraid of crime might as well just forget about the whole transit project.
It's a matter of the lighting in the area. Go Google Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CPTED.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arashi_1987 View Post
I love expansions, don't get me wrong. But look at how many years it took for construction to start on this Evergreen Line (it hasn't actually started still, so wait and see). So what expansion into distant suburbia can we expect from Translink? Maybe in another 50 years. And I don't see how any expansion will be limited by going down Guildford Way.
No on'e said anything about limiting... >___>
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 6:28 AM
arashi_1987 arashi_1987 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
That doesn't make it fully accessible to all passengers then. We have to keep in mind the disabled here and even the elderly. A huge gap on the platform isn't safe nor is it acceptable in modern day standards. Those systems you are talking about (with very long platforms) aren't accessible.
Given the length of trains we have here, there should be ways around this---why we have engineers

And I don't see why a station platform can't be built in a straight line even when it's going over a slightly curved road. No?

Quote:
It's a matter of the lighting in the area. Go Google Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CPTED.
Yes I am aware of this. What I am saying is that the crime (if there is any) will be either occurring near residences or near areas of activity that nearby residents frequent. So to me it doesn't make that much difference.

And, studies have been done regarding the correlation between transit and crime. I will not go into this since this will spark unneeded debate in this thread.

Quote:
No on'e said anything about limiting... >___>
Okay, sorry i was reading too quickly. Just saying that Guildford or Barnet route shouldn't have any effects on future extensions (in the distant future). Comment withdrawn. My apologies.
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 7:35 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by arashi_1987 View Post
Given the length of trains we have here, there should be ways around this---why we have engineers

And I don't see why a station platform can't be built in a straight line even when it's going over a slightly curved road. No?
No to your first comment. Don't make engineering sound as easy as you think. There's nothing wrong with a straight platform over a curved road, but your guideway is going to be very high and it's going to create that Millennium-Line like atmosphere, where Brentwood Town Centre is built overtop of the road. Essentially, you don't want it this to happen. This is why Richmond first wanted the Canada Line to be at-grade, then they shifted their guideway to one side of the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arashi_1987 View Post
Yes I am aware of this. What I am saying is that the crime (if there is any) will be either occurring near residences or near areas of activity that nearby residents frequent. So to me it doesn't make that much difference.

And, studies have been done regarding the correlation between transit and crime. I will not go into this since this will spark unneeded debate in this thread.
To you. Again, it's a matter of safety. We are trying to make the Evergreen Line as integrated as possible. I don't like the fact that Port Moody wants the SkyTrain to be at-grade for most of the route through that city, but it's understandable. It's much cheaper anyways to put it at-grade along the ROW. The only problem is that may limit the expansion (double tracking) of the WCE, but presently, I still think there's enough room with this plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arashi_1987 View Post
Okay, sorry i was reading too quickly. Just saying that Guildford or Barnet route shouldn't have any effects on future extensions (in the distant future). Comment withdrawn. My apologies.
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 8:11 AM
arashi_1987 arashi_1987 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
No to your first comment. Don't make engineering sound as easy as you think. There's nothing wrong with a straight platform over a curved road, but your guideway is going to be very high and it's going to create that Millennium-Line like atmosphere, where Brentwood Town Centre is built overtop of the road. Essentially, you don't want it this to happen. This is why Richmond first wanted the Canada Line to be at-grade, then they shifted their guideway to one side of the road.
I am not trying to start an endless debate here but I took a look at the google map images and the 150m stretch of Guildford just east of Falcon is straight. East of Lansdowne is straight. East and West of Johnson is straight. And the rest of Guildford Way is pretty straight. I can probably still tell if a line is straight, if other objective eyes can take a look for me too. So if a straight platform still can't make it over these sections of straight roads, maybe the line is not straight engineering wise and I just can't be enlightened on that matter.

I can be ignored if I am just seen as making an absurd case here.
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 8:32 AM
touraccuracy's Avatar
touraccuracy touraccuracy is offline
Registered Loser
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,853
I made a plan:

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&...09863&t=p&z=14

Dark blue = my plan
Light blue = room for expansion
Dark green = current plan
Light green = possible expansion of current plan

My plan is only half a km longer and the room for expansion is about is about 0.7 km longer, but with potential for much, much more than the current plan involves.

Please take a look and let me know what you think. I've lived in this neighbourhood (around Guildford and went to all three schools on it) for my entire life and think that I can offer some perspective.

I placed markers for ideal station locations too.

Problems with the current plan: it is heading in the wrong direction; rapid transit will never expand up Westwood Plateau or David St. They should focus on expansion to downtown Port Coqtuitlam at Shaughnessy instead. By placing a station at Douglas College, it is much too far from the new collection of highrises growing between city hall and the mall. The original plan also misses the Newport area by a block. Barnet in that strip is: a restaurant, destination retail (ex: paint), light industrial/warehousing, couple little ground floor offices/car places, and fast food joints.

Then again there's the argument that such a line would develop and improve Barnet. Guildford is all built out quite nicely, not a lot of room for improvement.
__________________
"The modern metropolis is a teeming hive of strung-out dope heads, rapists, home invaders and fine regional cuisine." -Cracked.com
Don't quote me on that.

Last edited by touraccuracy; Mar 4, 2009 at 8:53 AM.
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 8:56 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,251
guildford in Coqutilam was planned with the idea of a future skytrain line running down the middle

anyone from coquitlam since the 80's has known of it

unfortunately the area developed a lot in the time since than and people were against that alignment

that whole newport are of port moody wasn't even imagined when it was thought out
__________________
belowitall
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 4:21 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,183
It'd be a shame if Newport wasn't directly served by Skytrain. A frequent bus like the would help similar to 106 connecting Highgate and Edmonds, but I did notice that there were nearby highrises and the heart of Newport seems to just be 800m away which is within walking distance for the average person.
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 4:46 PM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,287
The Ioco station would be directly next to the Sutter Brook development, which is the same size as the Newport village with towers and retail. That is just one block south of newport. So the person would just have to walk about one block to get to newport from the Ioco station, and only cross one road
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 6:12 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,663
double post
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 6:14 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
guildford in Coqutilam was planned with the idea of a future skytrain line running down the middle

anyone from coquitlam since the 80's has known of it

unfortunately the area developed a lot in the time since than and people were against that alignment

that whole newport are of port moody wasn't even imagined when it was thought out
The M-line near Gilmore may not have been approved today with all those condos there now. They would've forced it up Boundary and down Lougheed.

I don't think Guildford being "curvy" has ANYTHING to do with the alignment.

It's a whole lot easier (politically) to build down the main transportation vein than Guildford. Installing a "Y" switch at Pinetree will allow you to expand to Port Coquitlam or Maple Ridge.

But remember, much of the alignment to Maple ridge is paralleled by the WCE.

Then again, running the EG line to PoCo station would allow the WCE to divert away from its current route and go along the south line, but that's a whole other story.
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 6:27 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by tintinium View Post
Then again, running the EG line to PoCo station would allow the WCE to divert away from its current route and go along the south line, but that's a whole other story.
Yea, let's not discuss rerouting the WCE at all. It's not going to happen, ever.
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 8:29 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by tintinium View Post
Then again, running the EG line to PoCo station would allow the WCE to divert away from its current route and go along the south line, but that's a whole other story.
Having the Evergreen Line go to the PoCo WCE station would mean it will miss the majority of PoCo population and go into the sparsely populated industrial land if it is ever going to be extended again. I would rather have it at-grade along the north side of track and have the station above or beside the Shaughnessy underpass.
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 8:29 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,197
Of interest from the 2000 reports:

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/boa...m-Aberdeen.pdf

For the Aberdeen segment, one of the operational impacts of Option 1 is "additional curves". Curves would add wear to wheels and track and slow operating speeds.


http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/boa...al_report2.pdf

Quote:
Tail Track / Storage Issues

Terminus Stations play a key role in the operation of any rail system, especially those
operating at short headways, such as SkyTrain. As such, tail tracks are usually required
to provide a number of operational functions, including safety distance and rail arrestors,
vehicle crossover and reversal functions, operational (daytime) storage for adjustment in
delays and headway transitions, the take-out of trains during service reductions and
emergency storage of faulty trains, and overnight storage of trains.

The City of Coquiltam has expressed concern over the existence and length of the tail
track and its visual and urban impacts to its Town Centre. Initial reviews of the
Coquitlam terminus station configuration requirements by the BC Rapid Transit
Company have indicated that a tail track meeting all desired operational functions would
be up to 330 metres in length. In alternative configurations, a centre platform with
asymmetric pocket track in front of the station was also reviewed, in which case, the tail
track would still need to be a minimum length of approximately 70 m to allow for
overhang, safety distance, and rail arrestor. More work and design review is required
with RTP2000 to optimize the tail track configurations, noting that design variations
could tradeoff system capacity, operating efficiency, and customer convenience.

The existing Operations and Maintenance Centre (OMC) in Burnaby has reached its
storage capacity with the SkyTrain cars from the Expo and Millennium Lines. With the
completion of the PMC Line, storage of the additional 24 cars proposed by RTP2000,
could potentially be located in tail and pocket tracks, but delivery of a secondary OMC
facility will be required by TransLink as part of the PMC Line project. TransLink staff
are currently reviewing potential sites along the line including sites in Port Moody and
Coquitlam, for this secondary OMC site which would meet the long term needs of
SkyTrain, while meeting the operational and technical constraints of an OMC site. The
location of the spur line and switching equipment for the secondary OMC site needs to be
designed and constructed as part of the PMC line.
...


TransLink Staff Comments
...
While the Coquitlam City Council resolutions approved on February 5, 2001 calls for the
provision of three stations along the Pinetree Corridor – West Coast Express, Lincoln,
and Town Centre (City Hall), the project scope and budget only allows for two station
locations along this corridor. Investigations by RTP2000 into potential public/private
partnerships for the additional commercial centre station have resulted in an offer from
Morguard to provide land and $3 million for a Lincoln Station, but falls short of
providing sufficient funding to cover the additional station costs. There are also
operational and efficiency impacts on the SkyTrain Line in locating three stations with
two consecutive short distances of 560 m and 460 m. The optimal spacing between
stations is 1000 metres, and as such, these consecutive short distances make this option
not desirable. For comparison, the distance from Patterson Station to Metrotown Station
is 800 m. .
Found a supplemental report that shows Expo Line station spacing for comparative purposes:

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/boa...m_pinetree.pdf

This report sets out the whole "preferred allignment" for the PMC Line - scroll to "Preferred Allignment of Northeast Skytrain extension" in the left hand index:

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/boa...9-00agenda.pdf

More old stuff - see Page 40 for Coquitlam Line info from 1999:

http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pub...448/status.pdf

Last edited by officedweller; Mar 4, 2009 at 9:51 PM.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:52 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.