Talk:Evergreen Extension

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Vancouver Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VancouverWikipedia:WikiProject VancouverTemplate:WikiProject VancouverVancouver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

construction date

We have not told people when the line will begin construction. As I recall, the project has been delayed a year, until September 2007, because a tunnel borer will become available then, and thus save one hundred million dollars. (205.250.167.76 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Disambiguation

This needs to become a disambiguation page for Evergreen Marine's Evergreen Line of container ships, which arguably is a better-known use of the term Evergreen Line. I propose moving this article to Evergreen Line (Vancouver, BC). Is this thing working? (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended to User:Isthisthingworking, but this page should not have been moved without a proper discussion and formal move proposal. There are significantly more hits for the transit line; more to the point, there isn't even an article for the shipping line, so no disambiguation is required. A hatnote linking to Evergreen Marine at the top of the page would be more than adequate. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, didn't think this would be controversial. Evergreen Line, the fleet, has a lot more notoriety worldwide (try a web search). Also the move was proposed here for ~2 weeks without any comment. Is this thing working? (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I did search on the term "Evergreen Line", and came up with results that favoured the transit line. However, my main concern is that there doesn't appear to be any need for a disambiguation page, given that no article titled "Evergreen Line (disambiguated title)" exists to require disambiguating. A note at the top of the page would be sufficient, would prevent us having to change pages, and would keep the naming consistent with other Vancouver transit articles. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I had placed a note at the "requested move" board asking to reverse this - however, given that discussion is now under way here, it has been pulled. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that search results favor the transit line. Here are my findings. I searched for "evergreen line" in quotes (the phrase). Using Live Search (live.com) the top result is the shipping company and in the first page of results there were 5 hits for the fleet and 3 for the transit line (not counting this article and copies of it). Using Google, the top result is the shipping company and in the first page of results there were 5 hits for the fleet and 3 for the transit company. Again, I think that these are at least equal in relevance and should be treated so with the disambiguation page. Is this thing working? (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there is no article about the Evergreen Line (shipping) that is being pushed aside by the transit line. If it was a case of Evergreen Line being about the transit line, while Evergreen Line (shipping) was for the ships, I could see the need for a disambiguation page. However, given that we only have one article using a variation of that title, it is more appropriate to use a hatnote at the top of the transit article. It doesn't change anything for readers looking for the shipping line, as they would have to make one additional click in either case, and it does eliminate an unnecessary extra click for the transit article. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this thing just got moved, but I'm not sure that "Evergreen Line (Vancouver)" is the best name. Sure, it's in Metro Vancouver, but it's no where near Vancouver itself. It also doesn't say what it is, unlike the shipping article. How about something like Evergreen Line (Rapid Transit)? Greg Salter (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's been a month... anyone against a move to Evergreen Line (Rapid Transit)? Greg Salter (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Evergreen Line (Rapid transit). єmarsee • Speak up! 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were some consistent Wikipedia style on this, but if you look at (for instance) Green_line#Public_transit_in_the_United_States, you'll see that generally the sort of disambiguation used does refer to either the geographic location or the transit agency for the transit line concerned. I'd suggest Evergreen Line (TransLink), except that TransLink itself needs to be disambiguated. Still, I'm hesitant to just use (Rapid Transit) in the disambig because some other agency could theoretically add an Evergreen Line to its system. --Jfruh (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current name does seem more informative to me. In an international context, the name of a city is commonly used for the entire metropolitan area (many of the best-known aspects of London lie outside the City of London), so I don't think 'Vancouver' is a problem here. Also, there isn't likely to be another Evergreen Line in Vancouver once this one is built, but someone else in the world might conceivably build a metro line by the same name. If it must be moved, I'd suggest something along the lines of (SkyTrain) for the disambiguator, rather than the jargonish 'rapid transit'. David Arthur (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it but SkyTrain is also a term that has disambiguation. I say keep it as Vancouver. This makes the most sense. Nebrot (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Evergreen Line (TransLink)

This should be moved from Evergreen Line (Vancouver) to Evergreen Line (TransLink). "(TransLink)" is the standard disambig on other articles about rapid transit in Metro Vancouver: Expo Line (TransLink), Granville Station (TransLink), Royal Oak Station (TransLink), 22nd Street Station (TransLink), Aberdeen Station (TransLink), and so on. Only U-Pass (Vancouver) and Waterfront Station (Vancouver) use "(Vancouver)" disambig, and the latter includes a fair amount of non-TransLink specific info.

I'll leave on note on the main Talk:TransLink (British Columbia) talk page. --user:Qviri 19:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links, mostly primary sources

Ouch, 7 of 21 references are dead links now. And they're mostly primary sources (i.e. TransLink), which are best avoided anyways. Anyways, tagged for now. --Ds13 (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lougheed station layout section unclear

The description of the Lougheed station layout is unclear and without citation. It's unclear because it conflates platforms and tracks. I think it means to say that the southwest track will be for Douglas bound trains, the centre track will be the termination of the Millennium line, and the northeast track will be for Clark bound trains. It is certainly incorrect to talk about the centre platform because the station will only have two. I've searched for some reference to cite for the layout of the station, but I can't find one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.9.241 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that the station layout is unclear (central platform is meant to be platforms 1 and 2, which are directly connected). What it should say is the southwest track will be used for Expo Line trains to Braid and beyond (platform 1); the central track will be used for Millennium Line trains to VCC-Clark and Expo Line trains to Production Way-University (platform 2); and the northeast track will be used for Millennium Line trains to Lafarge Lake-Douglas (platform 3). The following image verifies the new (3rd) platform's destination: Lougheed Town Centre Station Evergreen Platform Please note that I have yet to see concrete evidence from a reputable source state that the Expo Line will split at Columbia and terminate at Production Way-University and that the Millennium Line will run from VCC-Clark to Lafarge Lake-Douglas (as a noted point of contention below in the Millennium shortening unclear topic below). I will submit an edit to clarify the station layout shortly. --Sweetnhappy (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the description and added a link to the Island (aka Centre) Platform Wikipedia article --Sweetnhappy (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium shortening unclear

This article gives the impression that the Millennium Line will only run from Waterfront to Lougheed after the Evergreen line opens. So what happens to the Braid and Sapperton stations that exist between Lougheed and the Columbia station? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Evergreen line will go Lougheed Station. No further. The Millennium line will continue on its normal route. See http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/documents/Maps_Graphics/Transit_Map.jpg. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's no longer true, actually... there is no more "Evergreen Line:" they're calling it the "Evergreen Extension" (see this recent press photo on Twitter). The Millennium Line will go from VCC–Clark to Lafarge Lake–Douglas and the Expo Line will go from Waterfront to King George, with a spur from Columbia to Production Way–University (every 3rd or 4th train from Waterfront will head to PW–University, I believe) (see the map from TransLink's own Transit Network Consultation, which matches the press photo) Joeyconnick (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The FutureRailNetwork.png shows that the Evergreen will stop at Lougheed and it's not clear where the Millennium Line will go. We should simply wait until something clear is published. Walter Görlitz (talk)

You can't get much clearer than this (that's the Millennium Line at Burquitlam, so it's pretty clear where the Millennium Line is going), so unless you're contending the signage is faked... that's why, on the FutureRailNetwork map, the Evergreen Extension is indicated with a green border surrounding the yellow line representing the Millennium Line. Joeyconnick (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. It's not clear if the Millennium Line will run alternate trains from VCC Clarke to Lafarge Lake - Douglas and then to Waterfront, or possibly just Columbia much like the Canada Line sends alternating trains to YVR and Bridgeport. It's not clear if the Evergreen Line will go no further than Lougheed as an extension of the Millennium Line. There is a great deal of uncertainty. With the opening over a year away, even what you see in that image may change based on load. What is clear is the names of the stops on the Evergreen Line. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the Millennium Line were going to branch to Columbia or all the way to Waterfront, from VCC–Clark, then they would have indicated that on the map by running the yellow line representing it along that path, as they do in the map of the present system that shows the blue and yellow lines (Expo and Millennium) going from Waterfront to Columbia, where they split with the yellow line proceeding to VCC–Clark and the blue line going to King George. Instead, they show the Expo line, in blue, splitting at Columbia and continuing to both King George and Production Way–University. The Evergreen Extension, as an extension, won't go any further than Lougheed because then it wouldn't be an extension (and if for some bizarre reason it did, they would have shown that by continuing the green border past Lougheed). We can tell from the signage at Burquitlam that there is no "Evergreen Line," per se, just the "Evergreen Extension." And yes, you're correct--all of this might change but last I checked, Wikipedia is about what we currently know to be true, not what we think might happen in the future (unless we have some kind of tangible plan that can be pointed to, like, oh, I don't know... these maps and images). True, these are future plans that have yet to be implemented, but they are the most current information from official sources that we have. Joeyconnick (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing from silence. We don't know. TransLink is still officially calling it the Evergreen Line (not extension) despite what the signage says: http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/Rapid-Transit-Projects/Evergreen-Line.aspx and http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/ . Until we have confirmation of the name change, it may have been too soon for that, but I won't revert. Unless you can link to some prose to support what the actual purpose of that map was, it's not a reliable source for anything other than speculative conversation. Someone, and I don't know who, already created a huge mess in this article by indicating that the Millennium Line was going to go from Waterfront to Loougheed and not continue to VCC Clarke. Let's stick to what the government and TransLink are officially saying rather than try to imagine what that one image actually represents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my thoughts to this discussion if I may. As I stated above in the Lougheed station layout section unclear topic, I have not yet seen concrete evidence to support this but I have seen a few images now that support the Millenium Line with Evergreen Extension running from VCC-Clark to Lafarge Lake-Douglas while the Expo Line will branch at Columbia and continue to a second terminus at Production Way-University. The most substantive evidence is the following image from TransLink's 2013 Annual Report: TransLink Annual Report Page 23 (though it does not show the green outline of the Evergreen Extension portion).

Now it should be noted that the sign at Burquitlam is not the only sign that indicates the line will be known as the Millennium Line Evergreen Extension (see this image I linked above: Lougheed Town Centre Station Evergreen Platform). Other images posted of the new stations also provide confirmation, like this one from Inlet Centre station: Inlet Centre Station Preview (shows several signs along the track dividing fencing, though only the closest is at all legible, and they are not full diagrams). --Sweetnhappy (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An additional image (page 19 of PDF, 17 in document) from the City of Burnaby's Transportation Committee Meeting Document from October 7, 2015 confirms the extension route and updated Expo Line branch. --Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although the project website still shows the old route maps (with the Evergreen Line being a separate line that terminates at Lougheed), it's clear that the Millennium line will now go from VCC-Clark to Douglas, and that the Expo Line will be forked at Columbia to go either over the Fraser and into Surrey, or to Sapperton-Braid-Lougheed-Production Way. This is from the translink website (http://www.translink.ca/evergreen):

What are the changes?

The Expo Line now has two routes:

One Expo Line train travels between Waterfront and King George stations. A second Expo Line train travels between Waterfront and Production Way–University stations. The Millennium Line no longer travels to/from Waterfront Station:

The Millennium Line operates between VCC–Clark and Lougheed Town Centre stations, continuing on to the Evergreen Extension once it's launched.

What are the new transfer points?

You can transfer between the Millennium and Expo lines at three places:

Commercial–Broadway Station Lougheed Town Centre Station Production Way–University Station (via the same platform: no stairs, escalators, or elevators) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.184.98 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the M line is now shorter, but until TransLink stops indicating that the M Line and Evergreen Extension are one and the same, we cannot either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified January 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Evergreen Line (TransLink). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified February 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evergreen Extension (TransLink). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110611143435/http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/Evergreen_Line_Project_Update_May_2007.pdf to http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/Evergreen_Line_Project_Update_May_2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evergreen Extension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403034257/http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/cent+given+green+light+mayors/5530653/story.html to http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/cent+given+green+light+mayors/5530653/story.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tricitynews.com/news/172702541.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/route_and_stations.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/384394--evergreen-line-gets-addition-before-it-s-even-built?cid=dlvr.it

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evergreen Extension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]