Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
Ignore that inconsistency. Might work under the assumption of underground rail line, though an elevated line would more than likely better be suited to follow that ROW.
|
An elevated line? I know the comment was made really far back in time but "la creme de la creme" is still prevalent and they certainly won't like a bulky concrete structure snaking its way through Kerrisdale. Yes, it's possible to force things on the residents, but the city could get a really nasty legal and political mess in the form of lawsuits, complaints, and lost votes like what happened at Cambie Village before, during, and after any shovel gets put into the ground. We may even see a dramatic shift to the transit-stalling right if they are able to rally enough support around their message, however skewed it might appear to us centre or left leaning transit supporters.
The other option of course would be to go underground, and that will easily cause the price to skyrocket for something that shouldn't really cost that much for the demand that it currently handles. I can easily see other municipalities brandishing arms at Vancouver in an attempt to force it to do something cheaper or otherwise fund more transit in general in the rest of the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
At 2.2km vs 1.6km the distance difference is very minimal. The line can be constructed with little to no interfering development in a way. A station placed in the vicinity can also serve the mini commercial/business district around 4th & Burrard, as well as Granville Island. You make a good point about moving the Arbutus ROW in favour of a heritage streetcar however.... problem is would moving the line to Macdonald, resulting in more challenging ROW and taking away from some key areas such as Arbutus Village, really worth it? If environmental or surrounding impact is what you're worried about with construction of Skytrain along the Arbutus ROW, there is the option to place it underground.
|
For elevated structures in particular, again the community doesn't seem to like that idea in the past and unless there have been massive changes to the demographics in the area, it'll probably stay that way for a long long time. Underground certainly works but I've mentioned that it costs more than what the line is worth.
Having said all of that, which may give the false first impression of the area just hating rapid transit in general for no good reason, I do feel that the community may be more receptive to some sort of surface transit like what is constantly proposed to the death on Broadway (except in that case it's more like self-inflicted suicide for that corridor due to the lack of a wider ROW and heavy traffic demand). In addition, surface transit would go really well with bringing back some partial memories of the history of the old interurban, which again I think would be really receptive to affluent Kerrisdale and even Fraserlands to the east, if the line continues to that location. Besides, Arbutus Village may be the next big project in the west-side of Vancouver, but in relative terms it may only have the same amount of residents or less, if not just around half, compared to Olympic Village.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
If you were talking about why I'm placing the route where it is around the Burrard Bridge vs. a straight shot between Broadway/Arbutus and Yaletown, it has to do with other destinations (non-residential) along the route - i.e. Vanier Park, nearby museums, and Sunset Beach.
|
I'd disagree still. Let's consider for example Langara College. It's not even close to Cambie and they still put the stop there. No offense, but following your logic, should a bored route have been diverted over closer to the college? Much more convenient for students for sure, even though it costs a ton to do. =S
A similar story also occurs close to Broadway-City Hall... the hospital is rather far away from that location, so should the line have to swing by with another station to serve that area? It's very convenient for patients, visitors, and hospital employees.
Perhaps it might not cost as much to build such a winding route to service all the relatively important destinations at Kitsilano when the line approaches Downtown from the west unlike the other hypothetical scenarios that I posted, but any sort of additional costs will start to add up and make the project less economically viable for Translink and palatable to the rest of the region, as they'll certainly have to pay for some of the cost.
And finally, is there a particularly strong reason to having to complete the circle, other than the fact that it looks nice, if we have both Arbutus and Circle lines in existence? I don't think there's a strict rule or even convention out there that says that if the circle is not complete it must not be considered as such in the naming. If you look back at my previous concept I break the circle between Broadway and Macdonald and Kerrisdale due to lack of density, support, and demand in the area in between. Even Singapore doesn't complete their Circle Line for roughly the same reason.