Transit Fantasies - Page 92

Sheba · #**1821** Posted **Oct 1, 2019, 2:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

To add to what BCPhil said, public art is seen as a waste by some vocal people like Jordan Bateman, who would love to get on TV again to rail against spending even the smallest amount of money on it.

My issue isn't with the public art - it's who pays for it. TransLink is our public transit agency. Why are they being forced to spend part of their limited budget on art? Shouldn't that be paid for by the cities, developers, private donors, etc?

Migrant_Coconut · #**1822** Posted **Oct 1, 2019, 3:59 AM**

Is decoration usually paid for by the city in other places? Genuine question.

Sheba · #**1823** Posted **Oct 1, 2019, 5:14 AM**

According to Wiki:

Quote:

Public art is usually commissioned or acquired with the authorization and collaboration of the government or company that owns or administers the space. Some governments actively encourage the creation of public art, for example, budgeting for artworks in new buildings by implementing a Percent for Art policy. Typically, one to two percent of the total cost of a city improvement project is allocated for artwork, but the amount varies widely from place to place. ...

logan5 · #**1824** Posted **Oct 1, 2019, 7:09 AM**

Translink could go to Winners and by some art work there. I mean, it shouldn't cost a lot to put artwork in the stations. Even a simple design would look way nicer than plain walls.

trofirhen · #**1825** Posted **Oct 1, 2019, 4:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Translink could go to Winners and by some art work there. I mean, it shouldn't cost a lot to put artwork in the stations. Even a simple design would look way nicer than plain walls.

In Paris, numerous stations are basic sterile white tiled. To sparkle things up, they simply placed red, blue, green, apricot, and violet plastic tiles over the existing tiles in a random pattern.
It is nifty to see how, with such little expense, the sterile utilitarian white blaaa walls suddenly took on a colourful, sparkly-spangly look. Not a lot of money need be spent.

CanSpice · #**1826** Posted **Oct 1, 2019, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

In Paris, numerous stations are basic sterile white tiled. To sparkle things up, they simply placed red, blue, green, apricot, and violet plastic tiles over the existing tiles in a random pattern.
It is nifty to see how, with such little expense, the sterile utilitarian white blaaa walls suddenly took on a colourful, sparkly-spangly look. Not a lot of money need be spent.

Similar to what they did at Inlet Centre?

scottN · #**1827** Posted **Oct 2, 2019, 5:21 AM**

C'mon this is supposed to be the transit fantasy thread, not the transit value engineering thread. Can somebody please photoshop a Van Gogh or a Michelangelo into your favourite bus shelter?

cganuelas1995 · #**1828** Posted **Oct 9, 2019, 7:44 PM**

My transit fantasy is a bit unconventional.

It's a 6-lane, bored tunnel starting from West Georgia street somewhere suitable downtown, underneath Stanley Park, then coming up and connecting with Marine Drive at the trumpet interchange.

The Lion's Gate will be demolished, allowing taller ships to enter Burrard Inlet.

Just wondering about the geography. If it's too steep to connect to Marine Drive, the alternative would be the Upper Levels highway.

Tvisforme · #**1829** Posted **Oct 10, 2019, 9:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

My transit fantasy is a bit unconventional.

It's a 6-lane, bored tunnel starting from West Georgia street somewhere suitable downtown, underneath Stanley Park, then coming up and connecting with Marine Drive at the trumpet interchange.

The Lion's Gate will be demolished, allowing taller ships to enter Burrard Inlet.

Just wondering about the geography. If it's too steep to connect to Marine Drive, the alternative would be the Upper Levels highway.

I can't speak to the technical aspects, but connecting to the highway would be great if it can get a large proportion of the traffic off of Marine Drive, Taylor Way and Capilano Road. As for the LGB, losing it would be tragic. In this scenario, I'd think it would be better to keep it for transit, pedestrian, bicycle and emergency traffic.

Dengler Avenue · #**1830** Posted **Oct 10, 2019, 12:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

I can't speak to the technical aspects, but connecting to the highway would be great if it can get a large proportion of the traffic off of Marine Drive, Taylor Way and Capilano Road. As for the LGB, losing it would be tragic. In this scenario, I'd think it would be better to keep it for transit, pedestrian, bicycle and emergency traffic.

Tunnel it all the way to Upper Level Highway please.

Then Highway 99 will be a true highway again.

Too bad it won’t happen though.

cairnstone · #**1831** Posted **Oct 10, 2019, 3:13 PM**

If you look way back there was a report written around 2002 that had the 3 rd crossing going under the inlet and coming out at cap I believe from main street or knight as I recall

Kisai · #**1832** Posted **Oct 11, 2019, 9:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

My transit fantasy is a bit unconventional.

It's a 6-lane, bored tunnel starting from West Georgia street somewhere suitable downtown, underneath Stanley Park, then coming up and connecting with Marine Drive at the trumpet interchange.

The Lion's Gate will be demolished, allowing taller ships to enter Burrard Inlet.

Just wondering about the geography. If it's too steep to connect to Marine Drive, the alternative would be the Upper Levels highway.

The Lions Gate would not be demolished as it's a key landmark and Historic site for Vancouver. It would be like demolishing the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco.

It may be possible to raise the bridge and remove it from vehicle service (eg it becomes a bike/pedestrian/skytrain bridge) to extend it's life, as this style of bridge can actually be modified that way (the deck was replaced in 2001 in sections which is something that that Suspension Bridge can do that a Cable-stayed bridge can not.)

cganuelas1995 · #**1833** Posted **Oct 11, 2019, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kisai

The Lions Gate would not be demolished as it's a key landmark and Historic site for Vancouver. It would be like demolishing the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco.

It may be possible to raise the bridge and remove it from vehicle service (eg it becomes a bike/pedestrian/skytrain bridge) to extend it's life, as this style of bridge can actually be modified that way (the deck was replaced in 2001 in sections which is something that that Suspension Bridge can do that a Cable-stayed bridge can not.)

You're right. I overlooked that aspect. Raise and keep for local traffic/transit.

Migrant_Coconut · #**1834** Posted **Oct 11, 2019, 10:46 PM**

Is it even (politically) possible to raise it? If four lanes are forever beyond consideration, a truss replacement seems equally unlikely.

scryer · #**1835** Posted **Oct 12, 2019, 5:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

The Lion's Gate will be demolished, allowing taller ships to enter Burrard Inlet.

I think that a very big consideration that the shipbuilding industry will have to make in the future is the infrastructure of the world that it sails in.

Basically I think that it would be unrealistic to expect countries and cities to have the funds to make drastic changes to allow taller ships. Canada could probably do it but we have been giving away billions to the UN for "environmental solutions", so probably not anytime soon... It's much easier for ships to change as every port would be different. Perhaps it could partially submerge itself?

Clearly I am not an engineer but I think that the future of the shipping industry is a concept that should be open to new solutions and more likely to happen than raising the Golden Gate bridge.

BCPhil · #**1836** Posted **Oct 12, 2019, 8:09 PM**

Worrying about cruise ship is the stupidest thing. Who cares if one or two ships can't enter the harbor?

Unless Seattle spawns 5 more berths and the US government changes the law banning foreign flagged ships from making US to US port sailings, ships will always either stop in Vancouver or berth here.

The difference between the current ships and the new giant ones is just a few hundred passengers. That's what, a few thousand dollars of tourist spending per sailing?

I don't think it's worth spending billions of dollars to alter/replace the Lion's Gate Bridge so that we can make an extra few hundred thousand dollars for a few sailings a year. It's literally spending billions to not even make millions.

cganuelas1995 · #**1837** Posted **Oct 12, 2019, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

I think that a very big consideration that the shipbuilding industry will have to make in the future is the infrastructure of the world that it sails in.

Basically I think that it would be unrealistic to expect countries and cities to have the funds to make drastic changes to allow taller ships. Canada could probably do it but we have been giving away billions to the UN for "environmental solutions", so probably not anytime soon... It's much easier for ships to change as every port would be different. Perhaps it could partially submerge itself?

There was a cruise ship that entered but it had to enter and leave at low tide.