Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[racc]

It's not like inTransit didn't import their tunnel workers from South America.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by racc

The section between VCC Prince Edward would be elevated, so that will be cheaper per km. I chatted with an engineer and he said the $2.8 billion would be plenty to bore all the way.

In Spain, they bore their subways and the cost include stations is $80 million a km. Of course, that is in 2005 or 2006 dollars I think.

I would think there's a contingency included in the $2.8-billion....and hopefully it includes 100-110-metre platforms considering it'll be difficult to extend later on....don't cheap out like what some other company did with some other project.....

[deasine]

80m platforms are fine... but at least provide future expansion.

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by deasine

80m platforms are fine... but at least provide future expansion.

I'd say make them 100-110m to fit in 6-car Mark II trains from the beginning. It can't cost that much to build the platforms 20-30 meters longer, especially when you realize the cost savings in the long run from not having to expand the stations. At the very least the interchange station at Cambie with the C-Line should be built out to the max length since it'll probably be very overcrowded during rush hour.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by eduardo88

I'd say make them 100-110m to fit in 6-car Mark II trains from the beginning. It can't cost that much to build the platforms 20-30 meters longer, especially when you realize the cost savings in the long run from not having to expand the stations. At the very least the interchange station at Cambie with the C-Line should be built out to the max length since it'll probably be very overcrowded during rush hour.

Well, the platform at Canada Line's Broadway-CH station is already maxed out at 50m...can't get any bigger and would certainly be overcrowded when the M-Line arrives.

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

Well, the platform at Canada Line's Broadway-CH station is already maxed out at 50m...can't get any bigger and would certainly be overcrowded when the M-Line arrives.

yeah i know, but if they build the M-line platforms to 100-110m at least that line wont suffer from overcrowding. as we all know one line wasn't exactly planned out as best as it should have been...

[DKaz]

I remember when they were originally planning to build the M-Line platforms to 50m lengths to fit 4-car Mark-I trains *shudder*.

I also remember back in 2003 when they were originally planning to build the RAV Line to 135m or something which would've fit the equivalent of 8-car Mark-II trains.

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by DKaz

I remember when they were originally planning to build the M-Line platforms to 50m lengths to fit 4-car Mark-I trains *shudder*.

I also remember back in 2003 when they were originally planning to build the RAV Line to 135m or something which would've fit the equivalent of 8-car Mark-II trains.

I think 135m would definitely have been overkill, but as most people here agree (and have argued for the past couple years) 80m would have been fine.

I just hope the have the foresight and build the platforms to a decent length, with Cambie station having a little extra room since it will be one of the busiest transfer station on the whole system.

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

It's not like inTransit didn't import their tunnel workers from South America.

And then the unions took it upon themselves to gripe that EVERYONE should be paid buckets more than they will EVER be worth.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by racc

The section between VCC Prince Edward would be elevated, so that will be cheaper per km.

The original plans were for it to dive underground on the eastern Finning Lands with an underground station for the campus area. I think one reason is to have the TBM launch pit area out of the way (not blocking GNW) and there's not much room south of GNW.
But I don't see why the guideway can't be elevated through the Finning lands and still dive down on the north side of GNW (other than asthetics)

[racc]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The original plans were for it to dive underground on the eastern Finning Lands with an underground station for the campus area. I think one reason is to have the TBM launch pit area out of the way (not blocking GNW) and there's not much room south of GNW.
But I don't see why the guideway can't be elevated through the Finning lands and still dive down on the north side of GNW (other than asthetics)

Not sure they would even need a pit. There is quite a hill at GNW and Prince Ed. I suspect they could just start tunnelling into the embankment without digging a pit. The station could even be at grade reducing costs although I believe the plan was to have it elevated a bit further east.

[red-paladin]

Street cars, trams and light rail are good, and there should be some built in Vancouver, there is no doubt about that, there is no doubt that they as better than having buses. But they are good as upgrades to bus lines, not a rapid transit. a street car network in downtown vancouver would be great, hell one day they'll probably have skytrain lines and street cars serving the same corridors. But proposing on-street LRT that is like a streetcar is ridiculous. If we had no skytrain, and lots of LRT lines already, then it would make sense to make more LRT. But it makes no sense to build one a two as a cheapout to building a skytrain

[Jared]

Originally Posted by eduardo88

I'd say make them 100-110m to fit in 6-car Mark II trains from the beginning. It can't cost that much to build the platforms 20-30 meters longer, especially when you realize the cost savings in the long run from not having to expand the stations. At the very least the interchange station at Cambie with the C-Line should be built out to the max length since it'll probably be very overcrowded during rush hour.

You can't run 6 car mark II trains from the beginning, because the rest of the line (VCC to Douglas College, if that pdf is right) are only 80m as it is. Unless you short turn them at Commercial, but I doubt they woud do that.

I'm not quite sure why you would build just one station extra long; no-one is going to stand at the end of the platform if they know that trains are never going to arrive there.

[Jared]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

I would think there's a contingency included in the $2.8-billion....and hopefully it includes 100-110-metre platforms considering it'll be difficult to extend later on....don't cheap out like what some other company did with some other project.....

I know I should like a broken record here, but let's make something very clear:

InTransitBC did NOT unilaterally decide to change the platform lengths, they simply offered a design, and RAVCO selected it. The fact is, the line will meet the ultimate capacity requirement of 15,000 pphpd, which is what is contractually required. Why on earth would you expect them to go above and beyond that, and loose hundreds of millions of dollars in the process?

If you're looking to play the blame game, blame a lack of funding to do the job properly from the get-go, and Cambie Street NIMBYs for forcing a bunch of unnessecary tunneling on the project, resulting in higher costs.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Jared

I know I should like a broken record here, but let's make something very clear:

InTransitBC did NOT unilaterally decide to change the platform lengths, they simply offered a design, and RAVCO selected it. The fact is, the line will meet the ultimate capacity requirement of 15,000 pphpd, which is what is contractually required. Why on earth would you expect them to go above and beyond that, and loose hundreds of millions of dollars in the process?

If you're looking to play the blame game, blame a lack of funding to do the job properly from the get-go, and Cambie Street NIMBYs for forcing a bunch of unnessecary tunneling on the project, resulting in higher costs.

It's just easier [less to type] and more fun to blame InTransitBC.

[Metro-One]

If you're looking to play the blame game, blame a lack of funding to do the job properly from the get-go, and Cambie Street NIMBYs for forcing a bunch of unnessecary tunneling on the project, resulting in higher costs.

That is exactly how i feel, and now these same nimbys are complaining about the impacts of cut and cover, there is no pleasing some people

mr.x2 is picking the low fruit, hehe.

[racc]

The buck in BC stops with the Province. They were unwilling to provide the extra $500 million or so needed to do the job right.

If, by the extra tunnelling, you mean the section from 49th south, this could have been on the surface or in a trench. inTransit found it less expensive to tunnel rather than go with a surface option. The surface option would involved the reallocation of the hydro conduit buried in the Cambie which they figured was more expensive than tunnelling.

[mr.x]

I wouldn't be complaining as much had InTransitBC not cheapen out on the aesthetics of the trains.......fyi, i know all about the funding issues and the NIMBY's, i'm quite sure i've typed out long posts about it at least a dozen or so times. :p

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by Jared

You can't run 6 car mark II trains from the beginning, because the rest of the line (VCC to Douglas College, if that pdf is right) are only 80m as it is. Unless you short turn them at Commercial, but I doubt they woud do that.

No I meant build them to able to accommodate 6-car mark II trains from the beginning to facilitate future growth, therefore saving A LOT of money on future expansion costs. It can't cost that much more to have the platforms a bit longer from the beginning...

[AKA-007]

^ Also, couldn't you run the 6-car Mark II's over the entire millenium/evergreen route and just not open the doors to the final car until you reach the start of the longer stations. In theory, that should work so long as people recognise at the previous stations that the final segment of the train is closed until VCC/Main area.