Canada Line | Completed

[nova9]

DKaz is right, it is mostly businesses. It has always been a busy area so I'm not sure how prices have plummeted. (eyeroll)

The station and the tracks heading underground blend nicely and the black posts on the fencing is a wonderful touch.

[DKaz]

Lol it was SpongeG who's right. I was talking about the houses on the west side of Cambie, yes there are just commercial stores on the east side but I didn't remember how far up the street they extended.

I like how it looks too and there's enough concrete to buffer the sound anyway.

[Hong Kongese]

Only 7 posts and got banned?

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by Hong Kongese

Only 7 posts and got banned?

seems to be a common occurrence on these boards...

[dreambrother808]

I looked over his posts and seem to be confused as to what earned him a ban...

[Metro-One]

I have noticed that with a few people banned lately, none of their posts seem to be controversial. I should be banned more than them! hehe

[deasine]

Alright, normally I don't feel I have to make explanations. But people are usually banned (at least for SSP: Vancouver) because they were troublesome people in the past. I would prefer everyone to stop commenting when people are banned.

[Metro-One]

hehe, sorry, but we are like a bunch of old ladies on here, this site is nothing but gossip!

[cc85]

why was he banned, crazy talk.

[Delirium]

forgive me if this has been discussed before, but who the heck is going to use the Templeton station? I was coming back from YVr on the weekend and noticed that it's in the middle of nowhere. Are there future plans for the lands around that station? can't figure out why there's a station there.

[johnjimbc]

Ok, I have to say this.

Having moved here after living in DC, where I lived nearly a decade, I think a lot of this discussion here does reveal just how short-sighted some of these decisions are.

For as much flack as the US gets (and often deserves) about their urban planning flaws, the DC metro system is an amazing success. It is a large system, with the essential stations designed and laid out virtually from day one (going on 30 years in service now), designed to blanket the area for several decades to come. The core system of stations was then built. It is all one technology (including trains and cars interchangeable on all lines). It was designed with easy-access gates usable with smart-cards years before the technology even existed and easily retrofitted for them when they came into vogue (the smart-cards works on buses as well). The stations were all designed to be much larger than necessary when the system first began operating (the trains now run 8 car lengths, which work / fit for all stations). Stations were mapped out in congested areas as well as areas where the population was very light when construction began, and the metro authority purchased lands around the stations that have over time sold off to developers for high-density centers around the stations.

And all of that is for a system that covers three different jurisdictions (states of Maryland and Virginia as well as the District of Columbia), governed by an independent authority and a joint governing board (reps from each jurisdiction) in a charter that was written into the original plan.

I don't say this to throw dispersions at Vancouver or the skytrain system(s). But I do say it to point out that there is another way that could have been set up (or still could be set-up) to try to create a true, long-term transportation solution.

Here is the link: http://www.wmata.com/

Later today I'll try to post the article from a few years back that explained the history of the first 25-years. It was a really excellent series of articles that explained the background, history of the system.

It is proof you can design a full system instead of a patchwork, which is what Vancouver appears to be doing.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Delirium

forgive me if this has been discussed before, but who the heck is going to use the Templeton station? I was coming back from YVr on the weekend and noticed that it's in the middle of nowhere. Are there future plans for the lands around that station? can't figure out why there's a station there.

Long-term parking, office parks at Templeton.

[officedweller]

I'd hazard a guess that Washington DC gets a lot of US Federal funding, so they may be a special case. (Mind you, in the realm of capital cities, Ottawa has been a mess with its LRT plans up in the air for a long time, but I think that's due to municipal politics). I hear that Washington is having problems deciding technology and allignment for its new purple line.

*********

The following documents are available on the Canada Line website:

http://www.canadaline.ca/constructionSchedule.asp

2009 Annual Look-ahead
2009 6-month Look-ahead (Jan to June)
Vancouver Monthly Construction Update
Richmond and Sea Island Monthly Construction Update

Looking at the year ahead schedule,
http://www.canadaline.ca/files/uploads/docs/doc1127.pdf
all construction work on stations will be complete by May 2009 - the only item in June is restoration of the Cambie Bridge off-ramp (non-system related). The schedule then still shows testing and commissioning from June through November 2009 - so early opening seems likely depending on how testing and commissioning goes.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by deasine

Thanks officedweller. I haven't seen that Templeton Station rendering until now, which looks like what we have other than the fact that it's now white steel instead of wood [=(].

From the schedules - so I think they probably are wood over steel beams:

Templeton Station Construction
Type of work: At-grade station construction: Underway east of Templeton
Road. Involves concrete works for the station stairs, installation
of the station roof decking and structural steel, glazing
installation of laminated wood beams, mechanical and
electrical work, installation of escalators and north elevator,
and general construction activity for Templeton Station.
General impact: Please see general impacts on last page.
Traffic pattern changes: No further traffic pattern changes are anticipated during this work.

[johnjimbc]

You are correct a good deal of the initial construction costs for the DC area system were federally funded. I think new additions or extensions are often shared between state, district, and federal funding sources. However, my understanding is that the operating costs are by and large self-supporting given that the ridership is quite high and constant.

My understanding of the history is the metro rail system grew out of funds originally set aside to blanket the city with interstates, which the community successfully fought as it would have led to the wholesale destruction of many downtown historic neighborhoods. As such, a compromise was forged in which only one interstate road was built in DC, skirting the edge of the southeast quadrant of the city away from the city core and the main population centers (in an area unfortunately vicitimized by "urban renewal' en vogue at the time - though the area has been experienced its own revival in recent years). In addition, a new interstate (I-66) was built in Virginia was built to add another highway approach into the city core. But the vast network of interstates originally envisioned never materialized (thank goodness).

I did find this link to a metro history, though I could not locate the really excellent series of articles from the Washington Post in 2001 (probably no longer available on-line and only in archives. At any rate, the system is actually approaching 33 years old now with the first operating day of the fledgling system on March 29, 1976. Here is the link to the bullet-point history I could locate:

http://72.30.186.56/search/cache?ei=UTF-...iversaries&d=C4qnNEfiR86e&icp=1&.intl=ca

Again, I just wanted to bring up the DC metro rail system to emphasize that there can be a more unified approach to planning - not to suggest it would be easy or that the DC system didn't have some advantages (being the federal capital area certainly helped, I'm sure ; ).

Regarding the system itself, my understanding that the 3 perennial issues facing metro these days are as follows:

1) ongoing operating costs / aging system concerns (to be expected)
2) Purple line planning, with that line representing the first line not to be part of the spoke & hub pattern. It would essentially connect points on 2 or 3 of the existing lines. I would be stunned, however, if they opted for a different technology on the rail system or cars itself - it just wouldn't make much sense in conjunction with the hundreds of miles on the rest of the unified system. The only way I could imagine that is if they opt for a different mode entirely - dedicated bus line perhaps. I know there has been talk of creating some type of street-car system to overlay the existing metro rail and bus system (creating a "third way" of transportation). I think there is even a short demo line planned for a portion of DC. DC like many north american cities once had an enviable streetcar system that was totally dismantled when the highway lobbyists got their way in the 50s and 60s.
3) Downtown congestion in coming years. There has been talk that because the system is hub and spoke (with separate lines merging to share track within the downtown core), the system will reach a congestion choke-hold in the coming decade or two that will start to limit the capacity of the entire system. As such, there has been talk of creating a new line through downtown and thus off-loading / separating some shared lines. That of course will be a massive undertaking requiring new tunneling downtown, which hasn't been necessary since the original core was built over 30 years ago. The route of such a split would also be subject to debate as well.

All of the above items, however, can be correctly categorized as "victims of their own success" issues (i.e. a well-designed system that nearly 4 decades later is starting to bump up against its own design constraints). But given how many major systems like that flop badly or remain non-profitable due to poor planning or design, the DC system still manages to be a rather impressive example of success.

I just wish there would be some move in Vancouver for a more integrated, common plan put together for future expansion of the entire skytrain system, at least from what I can see in my short time here.

[Metro-One]

Well i would just like to state for the record that Vancouver's Geography does cause a problem when planning transportation, it would be impossible for us to build a "spoke and hub" system. The Expo line corridor i think is a great route for it connect many of the Metro-Areas urban centers in a generally straight line. The C-line also has good alignment and besides needing to build a new OMC i do not see any other disadvantages to it being a separate system. Of course i feel the UBC extension and possible the Surrey extension should be skytrain to create a seamless ride and reduce the number of OMCs.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

My understanding of the history is the metro rail system grew out of funds originally set aside to blanket the city with interstates, which the community successfully fought as it would have led to the wholesale destruction of many downtown historic neighborhoods. As such, a compromise was forged in which only one interstate road was built in DC, skirting the edge of the southeast quadrant of the city away from the city core and the main population centers (in an area unfortunately vicitimized by "urban renewal' en vogue at the time - though the area has been experienced its own revival in recent years). In addition, a new interstate (I-66) was built in Virginia was built to add another highway approach into the city core. But the vast network of interstates originally envisioned never materialized (thank goodness).

I wish the same thing happened here when we rejected our freeway network over 40 years ago. That money should've gone to a rail network instead. Now we're playing catch up.

In regards to the Canada Line integration with the system, yes integration would've been nice but it serves a completely different north-south corridor compared to the east-west corridor of the Expo and Millenium Line.

[johnjimbc]

I feel like I'm being misinterpreted here, and I didn't mean to send the topic in a wrong direction so I'll just close with the clarification that I wasn't advocating the Vancouver system should - or could - be "hub and spoke." I simply explained that the DC system was, in the context of that actually causing one of the problems they now face (I might add ; ). While DC doesn't have mountains, it does have several rivers over and under which the system did have to be constructed. There were also bureaucratic and political hurdles of dealing with 2 different states, the local district government and the federal government so there had to be plenty of negotiating and compromise along the way (which can be just as daunting as a physical mountain .

The point I would like to make clear, though, is I don't see how having different technologies and cars is cost-effective in the long-run. It may be too far along to rectify at this point, but clearly there are advantages across the board (maintenance efficiencies, purchasing efficiencies, manpower training, etc, etc) if you have a system that uses one technology and cars that can be transferred to other lines for capacity smoothing, etc. Even during the time I lived in DC, the metro authority shifted car configurations among the various lines as population and demographic shifts occurred (and as some lines expanded, changing the transportation patterns within the system). Also, as new cars were ordered and arrived, the metro authority was able to provide new cars to increase capacity on the lines that needed them most to ensure they could handle the capacity.

It just seems when you use different technology and different cars for different segments or lines, you are setting yourselves up with increased costs for the lifetime of the system. Whatever money you might be saving up front (if any), I expect you would lose having to maintain and supply the disparate systems for the duration.


The last point I want to re-emphasize is the capacity issue that has dominated the discussion here. What kind of planning creates a system that from day one has no growth potential without additional massive spending (extending platform lengths, etc)? What I was trying to point out was that the DC system was built so that stations built 30+ years ago are just now beginning to approach their full capacity. When started, many of the trains were 2 or 4 car-length trains. Just during the time I lived in DC, they went from 6 to 8-car length trains on the lines during peak times, and those extended trains fit in the originally constructed station platforms. Without a doubt, it must have cost more upfront to construct the stations with the larger platforms and larger entrance systems. But as the capacity has grown, a great deal of money has been saved from the core system, meaning funds could instead by applied to expanding the system network to reach more communities and neighborhoods.

I am excited about the Canada Line, and I think the transportation system here in Vancouver is enviable in many ways. I'm just pointing out my own observations those things that do strike me as odd, having moved here from a city that had a very good planning process and a system that used a common technology and interchangeable rail cars.

As excited as I am by the sleek look of the new Canada Line cars, a little voice in my head still goes, "Why a new car? Shouldn't all the lines use the same cars?" And it does seem strange to me that the new line is built with (seemingly) little forethought into what will be necessary when the capacity needs to be expanded. Are there other ways of expanding the capacity that have been discussed (more runs on the same line, etc?). Perhaps I'm just not getting the full picture from what I have read.

Those were my main points - I should have just stuck to them. I certainly didn't mean to be perceived as attacking the system here. I like it, and use it, and am absolutely thrilled by the new line being constructed. Will be so happy when it is done, as I'll probably use it more than any of the existing lines.

[geoff's two cents]

I share the enthusiasm, as well as the criticism. I once heard it said that New York has grown the way it has in part due to the fact that city administrators planned for how they thought the city would grow 100 years down the road.

Vancouver's Millennium line is in some ways a good example of this way of thinking, in that much of the land surrounding the line is sparsely populated, but presumably that is where the metro area envisions much of the highest density growth taking place in the future. The Expo Line, of course, is an example of a transit line meeting existing demand.

I'm not sure what Canada Line planners were thinking in not accounting for the possibility that increased transit use in the future will require longer trains. Have these people ever ridden a TTC subway? Perhaps this is what happens when planning is "fast-tracked"?

[officedweller]

I think it boils down to available funding.
I think DC's metro was built at a time when the US Feds were funding rapid transit across the US - i.e. I think BaRT, DC's Metro and Atlanta's Marta are all from the same era and have similarities. In comparison, US cities today aren't building full fledged subways, they are building LRTs. I think I recall a Seattle forummer saying that there were plans back in that era for Seattle to have a subway too.
With transportation funding being very politicized, politicians are also not willing to plan so far beyond their terms in office.