innsertnamehere said:
The Gardiner is not the most relevant comparison. The most relevant comparison would be more along the lines of the Skytrain in Vancouver.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the new SkyTrain Evergreen line is in fact tunneling because of high residential density along the route. So I would say the Metrolinx proposal is indeed similar to the Gardiner and that local groups proposals --at least at first glance--are more consistent with Skytrain's current operations:


Tunnel boring resumes for SkyTrain Evergreen Line
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/09/tunnel-boring-resumes-for-skytrain-evergreen-line/


____


Burquitlam
The Evergreen Line will run north from Lougheed Town Centre Station on an elevated guideway along the centre of North Road. Burquitlam Station will be on the east side of Clarke Road near Burquitlam Plaza. Leaving Burquitlam Station, the line will cross to the west side of Clarke Road, before entering a tunnel towards Port Moody.


Port Moody
The Evergreen Line will emerge from the tunnel just east of Barnet Highway. It will travel at ground level along the south side of the Canadian Pacific Rail (CPR) tracks to Moody Centre Station (with a connection to the West Coast Express), located at the Port Moody transit exchange site. Continuing east, the line will cross the CPR tracks just before Inlet Centre Station, located north of Barnet Highway.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Line_(TransLink)

 
Last edited:
TOareaFan said:
View attachment 61538
Click to expand...

Those renderings without the cantilevering are pretty consistent with Metrolinx own materials.



12049381_10153849996249305_8044593054622950942_n.jpg
12141005_10153849996899305_6173939850195081309_o.jpg




Sadly if you look at the maintenance of the still unfinished UPX station at Bloor you might get the impression that the Options for Davenport rendering is a little bit nicer that what Metrolinx has actually constructed so far.
12342483_10153096768720870_7733743714923590179_n.jpg
11755435_10155915795200287_8514349016283895493_n.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 12049381_10153849996249305_8044593054622950942_n.jpg
    12049381_10153849996249305_8044593054622950942_n.jpg
    117.9 KB · Views: 983
  • 12141005_10153849996899305_6173939850195081309_o.jpg
    12141005_10153849996899305_6173939850195081309_o.jpg
    269.9 KB · Views: 834
  • 11755435_10155915795200287_8514349016283895493_n.jpg
    11755435_10155915795200287_8514349016283895493_n.jpg
    92.4 KB · Views: 798
  • 12342483_10153096768720870_7733743714923590179_n.jpg
    12342483_10153096768720870_7733743714923590179_n.jpg
    110.5 KB · Views: 765
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vic
Here's an interesting place to explore on the Skytrain system

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2295...33jDHQJocqIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2293...C0iBj2d7EN2cdcGInhsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Edit: this one has interesting tree planting

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2286...oAQpmFvyqEzbfWNrq4Xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

These beams are about the same length (37m vs 33m) as the UPX structure.

The underside looks far from decayed. The structure would look different with catenary; I wonder if full height noise walls are needed if the trains are electric.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
Here's an interesting place to explore on the Skytrain system

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2295...33jDHQJocqIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2293...C0iBj2d7EN2cdcGInhsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Edit: this one has interesting tree planting

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2286...oAQpmFvyqEzbfWNrq4Xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

These beams are about the same length (37m vs 33m) as the UPX structure.

The underside looks far from decayed. The structure would look different with catenary; I wonder if full height noise walls are needed if the trains are electric.

- Paul
Click to expand...


Thanks Paul I'll take a look. My immediate impression is that Vancouver is much more generous in its landscaping.
But also that there's far more space allowance on the routes that you've linked to. Here are some pictures of the
areas the proposed overpass will be moving through. If you have any questions I can point out which buildings the
tracks are planned to pass between.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/47227453@N00/22219137244/in/album-72157658596908993/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47227453@N00/22653891410/in/album-72157658596908993/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47227453@N00/22828206432/in/album-72157658596908993/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47227453@N00/22853040221/in/album-72157658596908993/
 
Brent Cehan said:
Those renderings without the cantilevering are pretty consistent with Metrolinx own materials.
Click to expand...

True, I don't know what Aikens meant when she said the overpass wouldn't look like that. It seems pretty accurate as to how it would look.

crs1026 said:
More

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2224...oOEQH_3v0uaJbS1e4KxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2225...E8jjWJuSug-fn_oUYesw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Click to expand...

My favourite area for showing off Skytrain and how it can work here is No. 3 Rd. Evergreen isn't completed yet so I don't want to post streetviews of Clarke or North Rds, but I think in a few years once the vegetation is established it will look much better than Canada Line. I honestly don't know why the Prov never proposed something similar in MoveOntario2020, or why it hasn't yet been considered in place of a Yonge North extension. It's the exact same as a subway, and the cost savings would allow for a longer line.

There's a continued misperception that the system must be completely elevated (it doesn't, light rail is very much capable of the grades involved with dipping and rising above/below ground), that it can't handle high volumes (Expo and Millenium can do 25k peak), not to mention that it has to be some oddball proprietary system (it can use standard light rail, or subways...but preferably as narrow-bodied vehicles).

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.1754...mrAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e2!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Single track section:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.16791,-123.1366235,3a,72.3y,18.26h,92.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBQPyTfRPh8EJFjJcY07viQ!2e0!6s//geo3.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=BQPyTfRPh8EJFjJcY07viQ&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=112.77359&pitch=0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e2?hl=en

Sorry to derail this thread somewhat, obviously there are considerable differences between a 3-track 4-storey structure in a heritage neighbourhood, and a guideway above a highway-like suburban arterial. I just think it's a bit unfair that the Prov or City can support elevated solutions in one area as a means to save money, but not propose similar cost-saving measures in other areas. It's not very progressive to completely refuse to take certain ideas into consideration imo.
 
Last edited:
Brent Cehan said:
My understanding is that the new SkyTrain Evergreen line is in fact tunneling because of high residential density along the route. So I would say the Metrolinx proposal is indeed similar to the Gardiner and that local groups proposals --at least at first glance--are more consistent with Skytrain's current operations:
Click to expand...

The skytrain is being tunneled through a mountian. The most densely populated area will be elevated. In fact, Vancouver opened an elevated line through the middle of a busy urban area, to much fanfare.

XtYxP9r.jpg


VaEf4nv.jpg
 
Council voted 38-1 to tell Metrolinx that they oppose the bridge, but they know that Metrolinx can proceed with the unpopular bridge if it wants. They voted 38-1 to reiterate that elected officials should have seats on the Metrolinx board. They also wants the premier to meet with Mayor Tory on this issue.
 
salsa said:
Council voted 38-1 to tell Metrolinx that they oppose the bridge, but they know that Metrolinx can proceed with the unpopular bridge if it wants. They voted 38-1 to reiterate that elected officials should have seats on the Metrolinx board. They also wants the premier to meet with Mayor Tory on this issue.
Click to expand...

Of course, what I really wanted to know is how many of those 38 councillors voted to keep the real Gardiner up when that was up for them to make a decision this past summer.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Of course, what I really wanted to know is how many of those 38 councillors voted to keep the real Gardiner up when that was up for them to make a decision this past summer.

AoD
Click to expand...

For one, David Shiner made a lot of noise about the bridge, in fact he was one of the loudest opponents. "You're looking at a Gardiner Expressway for trains flying over this community". "Imagine an elevated rail corridor going up in the air, that's not what anybody wants to have in their community". "You're talking about a huge transformation and revitalization of this area, that could get severely impacted if you put this Gardiner Expressway in the sky flying this the community with trains going back and forth all day long."

This is the same guy that not only voted to maintain the Gardiner Expressway, but also fought to build the Spadina Expressway. It's amazing to what extent some councillors can't see their utter hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top