HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1641  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:36 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
To put in in perspective: I would rather have the VCCEP + Canada Line than a more built up Canada Line and no VCCEP (for close to the same total cost).
     
     
  #1642  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:43 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
To put in in perspective: I would rather have the VCCEP + Canada Line than a more built up Canada Line and no VCCEP (for close to the same total cost).
A VCCEP and a "built-up" Canada Line were both possible over the last 5-years when the province was rolling in cash.



Quote:
Agree 100%. If anything, the C-Line is a ringing endorsement for P3, and a good example of building for demand, not overbuilding for debt.
Building for the next 40-50 years, like the Expo and Millennium Lines, is not overbuilding. If you want overbuilt, look to Seattle.
     
     
  #1643  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:49 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
With a P3, we would never have gotten the high quality design we got for the new convention centre. Corners would likely have been cut with escalating costs.

My point is, being a public project the quality of design was maintained.
A contract is a contract. The Canada Line was built exactly to spec.

It's still a contractor doing the building at the end of the day. Corners could be cut on everything from a new residential condo to GM Place. It happens all the time. The fact that the Convention Centre builders know they are dealing with an endless pile of taxpayer money is what changes things.
     
     
  #1644  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:50 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
A VCCEP and a "built-up" Canada Line were both possible over the last 5-years when the province was rolling in cash.
Why not cut 5% of health care costs and have the greatest transit system in the world? Apples and oranges.
     
     
  #1645  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:51 PM
raskal raskal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
I don't think the Oyster card works for the buses - just the metro system.

edit: my mistake, according to Wikipedia it works on buses in the Greater London area as well.

And looking at how inadequate the Canada Line is showing itself to be already, I think we should hold off on another P3 for now.
I use my Oyster card on buses, the tube, DLR and the Overground, although very infrequently on the latter two.
     
     
  #1646  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:51 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
A contract is a contract. The Canada Line was built exactly to spec.

It's still a contractor doing the building at the end of the day. Corners could be cut on everything from a new residential condo to GM Place. It happens all the time. The fact that the Convention Centre builders know they are dealing with an endless pile of taxpayer money is what changes things.
If you read my previous posts, i've also repeatedly acknowledged that RAVCO's design standards were set far too low.
     
     
  #1647  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 12:32 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
I think we got the best line we could get for $2 billion.

Personally I think the P3 saved the Canada Line from being a complete disaster. The fact it is "underbuilt" in some people's eyes is a budgetary issue. It wasn't an issue of the P3 constantly cutting corners. The P3 would have done anything Translink was willing to pay for.

RAVCO made most of the design changes before bids were tendered to lower the cost and bring it within the funding envelope.

Why I think it could have been worse is because ProTrans was looking out for their Future. They were going to be the ones responsible for running the line for 30+ years. So it was in their interest to try and build it as best they could with the money they had. If they built a horrible line, they would lose money. They have an investment in the Canada Line, and it's their actions in the future that will return on that investment.
That is precisely what people don't understand and I'm glad that you pointed this out. ProTrans BC's mother company, SNC/Lavin, in the end, owns the line and needs this line for them to generate revenue. Like you said, it is in their best interest to maintain decent level of transit services to the users of the line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Personally, I think part of the success of the Canada Line is due to the P3 nature. The fact that InTransitBC has to keep the stations cleaned and staffed is going to attract a lot of riders.
ProTransBC contracts cleaning services out to Omni and from what I know and seen at many occasions, staff come in and out of trains at different stations to maintain a decent level of cleanliness. Remember, ProTrans BC gets revenue based on these points, and if they don't maintain a clean line, they loose out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4 View Post
A little harder? Come on. Expansion options are minimal at best. Once we hit maximum headways, there'll be very little we can do to alleviate congestion

I agree with mr. x on this. The Canada Line was woefully underbuilt and will likely remain the only rapid transit corridor for the North-South for a very long time. Not only was ridership seemingly underestimated, but, due to a determined effort to stay in budget as costs escalated (as they always do), the Line was reduced. That partially has to do with the ideology and politics of the provincial government (P3s must be on time, on budget, blah blah).
It's going to take a little longer for them to hit maximum headways with our single guideway limitations. If we double our current fleet of 20 to 40 trains, we can still run trains to the single guideways without reconstructing any part of the line. And of course, ProTrans BC can run trains from Waterfront to Bridgeport, and then have those trains turn back to increase the frequency between the busiest sections of the Canada Line. Adding more to the fleet is all based on negotiation and I can't see why SNC/Lavin would say no to more trains when they are getting them for free, even factoring in the cost of maintaining them.

I agree that the Canada Line is underbuilt, especially compared to the Expo and Millennium Lines, but like BCPhil mentioned, we got the best line for what we paid for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4 View Post
If there's one nice aspect to a fully public project, it's that we build to spec - which, for major investments, are usually designed to last generations. The Millennium Line will ultimately stand the test of time, unlike the Canada Line.
Wrong. The bidding process is what caused us to end up with what we have right now. If we ended up with RavXpress Bombardier, we would have a line similar to the EXpo and Millennium Lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4 View Post
I'm really interested in this. Why do you not have confidence in TransLink? What are they really doing so wrong in your opinion?

And what operating style do you wish them to change to?
TransLink has improved a lot since its first inception but it has a lot to go. For one, it doesn't seem to improve/change fast enough. I would like to see TransLink run more from a business standpoint, rather than just a transportation agency so that they can find more ways in making money. I hope that with the Evergreen Line and future Millennium Line extension, TransLink looks to own and develop the properties at/near stations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
Very, very little they can do for little cost. We'd probably have to throw well over a billion to expand the line, but where is that money going to come from? Around in this forum, people have said that it'll simply mean there will be an initiative to build a parallel Arbutus Line. But when and with who's money? The queue for funding for other projects is quite long. Evergreen, Broadway/UBC, Surrey....at this rate, we probably won't see the Broadway extension happening until well into the 2020's at the very earliest.
The Canada Line isn't just going to max out in capacity before 2030.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
As for Canada Line capacity issues: Not just in the long-term, beyond maximum headways and train lengths, but in the short-term as well. The current fleet of 20 trains won't be enough to keep up with the demand we're seeing, perhaps not even for two years...will Translink scrape enough money to buy the system more trains? (to put it to perspective, the new West Coast Express cars are in jeopardy and the refits for the existing two Seabus ferries have been axed) Each two-car train came at a price of $6-million.
Ideally, we should have bought 25 trains for today...
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
I've been saying the same thing for the last 5 years now....and unfortunately, it's all becoming true. At the end of the day, while a certain type of P3 would have worked (not the one we have today), I would have preferred a public project. At the end of the day, the Canada Line seemed to have been Campbell's flagship P3 project - to prove that P3's do work. His speech at opening day had much more to do with the success of the P3 rather than the new train. I get the impression that all they wanted was any train that works with the P3 model.
Well it's nice to see the P3 model be tested for the Canada Line. At least if we were to incorporate this model into other public transportation projects, we can learn from our mistakes. This is what happened to Transport for London, like I mentioned before, with the London Underground and London Overground, and now they ended up with an amazing Docklands Light Railway.
     
     
  #1648  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 5:49 AM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 6,394
CKNW Local News

Premier vows Evergreen Line will be built
METRO VANCOUVER/CKNW AM 980
Marcella Bernardo | Email news tips to Marcella
9/4/2009

Despite warnings from Translink the Evergreen Line may be delayed yet again, Premier Gordon Campbell is insisting that mega-project will be built, as promised during the election campaign.

The Premier says he believes Evergreen to be a top transportation priority.

He says its completion would take many thousands of cars off the road.

Campbell was speaking at the opening of a new pharmaceutical sciences building at UBC.

The province is covering more than 86 million dollars of the total 133-million dollar cost.
__________________
Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007

"orange vested guy" - towerguy3
     
     
  #1649  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 6:03 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
^ lol, i'm sure it will be completed. But when? 2020???

Where is the money coming from as we're basically almost $600-million for the project.
     
     
  #1650  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 6:17 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
That is precisely what people don't understand and I'm glad that you pointed this out. ProTrans BC's mother company, SNC/Lavin, in the end, owns the line and needs this line for them to generate revenue. Like you said, it is in their best interest to maintain decent level of transit services to the users of the line.
Owns? They operate the line, but own the trains. Translink owns the line, except for the Sea Island spur.



Quote:
ProTransBC contracts cleaning services out to Omni and from what I know and seen at many occasions, staff come in and out of trains at different stations to maintain a decent level of cleanliness. Remember, ProTrans BC gets revenue based on these points, and if they don't maintain a clean line, they loose out.
Compared to SkyTrain staff, so far they're doing a fine job of cleaning.




Quote:
I agree that the Canada Line is underbuilt, especially compared to the Expo and Millennium Lines, but like BCPhil mentioned, we got the best line for what we paid for.
I'll certainly agree with that.



Quote:
TransLink has improved a lot since its first inception but it has a lot to go. For one, it doesn't seem to improve/change fast enough. I would like to see TransLink run more from a business standpoint, rather than just a transportation agency so that they can find more ways in making money. I hope that with the Evergreen Line and future Millennium Line extension, TransLink looks to own and develop the properties at/near stations.
Agreed...but the problem is Translink isn't business savvy enough to buy up properties before developers get to them first. It'll always be a public agency, there's a lot of red tape for something like this. Translink also needs start-up capital in order to kick off its real estate department, and when it can't even find the millions it needs to fund and operate transit....



Quote:
The Canada Line isn't just going to max out in capacity before 2030.
I'm going to say 2030, assuming we don't get the Big One anytime soon. Regardless, it's a short-term demand line. It was built for today, instead for tomorrow. Nobody here is expecting us to pull a Seattle, nor would we want to, but a 20-year line is beyond ridiculous. In contrast, the Expo and Millennium Lines are 50+ year lines.

The problems we will see on the line over the next few years result from an insufficient number of trains. And small station platforms also mean a lot less people can wait on the platform for trains.




Quote:
Well it's nice to see the P3 model be tested for the Canada Line. At least if we were to incorporate this model into other public transportation projects, we can learn from our mistakes. This is what happened to Transport for London, like I mentioned before, with the London Underground and London Overground, and now they ended up with an amazing Docklands Light Railway.
It sure was one expensive test.
     
     
  #1651  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 6:52 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Evergreen Line remains on track, officials say
Local officials say they continue to talk to the province about the long-delayed project

By RICHARD J. DALTON JR., VANCOUVER SUN
September 4, 2009 9:01 PM

Although TransLink commissioner Martin Crilly is questioning the status of the Evergreen rapid transit line, local and provincial officials said Friday the on-again, off-again project remains on track.

In a report this week, Crilly questioned whether TransLink can afford the Evergreen Line and whether it should use expensive SkyTrain-type technology.

“Evergreen Line’s ridership performance is likely to be relatively weak,” Crilly warned in his report.


TransLink needs the approval of both Crilly and the regional mayors’ council to raise fares by more than two per cent a year, and to set up other fund-raising mechanisms.

He said he agrees with TransLink’s current approach of putting the Evergreen Line on a slow track, emphasizing upgrades to existing lines before building new ones.

But Crilly acknowledged that the line has long been part of regional planning and said its fate is ultimately a political decision.

Transportation Minister Shirley Bond said the Evergreen Line remains a provincial priority, and local officials said they are continuing to talk to the province about the project.

Crilly’s report was overshadowed by news from the provincial budget that the repeal of a parking tax on commercial spaces to make way for the harmonized sales tax would cut a $57-million hole in TransLink’s budget.

“Implications and options for TransLink related to the removal of the parking tax are being reviewed as part of the ongoing TransLink review,” budget documents said.

Opposition finance critic Bruce Ralston said the resulting hole in TransLink’s income is “one of the unintended and unthought-through consequences of entering into this agreement [for the HST].”

Bond said the province expected there would be some hitches in the implementation of the HST, but she wouldn’t say if her office had advance warning of the repeal of the parking tax.

The mayors’ council will vote next month on TransLink’s funding options, which are based in part on revenue from the parking tax.

Some mayors have said they can’t legally approve any option whose funding isn’t nailed down. If the parking tax revenue isn’t replaced by the time of the vote, TransLink could be forced to default to a scenario that requires “drastic cuts” to transit service.


Bond said the provincial comptroller-general is reviewing the options and will offer recommendations by the end of this month.

“Our goal is to get that solution sorted out so the mayors have certainty of the revenue stream in time for their decision,” she said.

Bond also said the province continues to support the Evergreen line.

The province’s new budget calls for $514 million over three years for the project: $60 million from the province and $454 million from the federal government and TransLink itself.

“There’s no doubt we’re going to have to take some time and figure out how we’re going to deliver this, but we’re not stepping away from that commitment,” Bond said. “We’re going to do our best to find a way to make the Evergreen happen.”

Pete Steblin, city manager of Coquitlam, said provincial officials are still discussing the line, which would run from Burnaby to Coquitlam via Port Moody.

“I just had a meeting with them yesterday,” he said. “Having said all that, we recognize that there are serious funding challenges for the project.”

Crilly’s report also said the region must push people to use transit by tolling major highways and controlling parking more tightly.

He said local planners must make their cities more dense. “There’s not as yet a firm commitment in the region for land-use control with real teeth which would lead to an urban structure that would support rapid transit projects,” he said in an interview.


But Surrey mayor Dianne Watts, who chairs TransLink’s mayors’ council, said planners need a transit plan before they can determine land use.

“One of the challenges is that we don’t have a fully built-out transportation plan that we can go from, so a lot of the land use has been planned in a vacuum,” Watts said.

Crilly also criticized the provincial and federal governments for using “large, lumpy investments” such as those in the Canada Line and, potentially, the Evergreen Line to dictate what gets built and where, rather than relying on regional planning to set priorities.

“TransLink has not been free to select its own optimum rapid transit configuration,” he said.

The report evaluated TransLink’s four 10-year plans, rejecting two extremes: the last-resort option, which called for drastic cuts, and a plan calling for dramatic expansion that lacked detail and is unfunded.

Crilly waived judgment on two middle plans, saying politicians must decide on the correct balance between expanding transit and raising revenue.

TransLink plans to revise its 10-year-plan annually, so it could revive its expansion plans if funding becomes available.

[email protected]
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
     
     
  #1652  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 8:20 AM
Vancity's Avatar
Vancity Vancity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Richmond, BC
Posts: 1,637
I'm curious. For the C-line stations, are the platforms able to be expanded beyond the 40 meters, and 50 meters? Could they expand the platforms to say...80 metres? Would it be possible? My thinking is, that if it's possible, engineering wise, then why not do this, than say, build a new line (although, that'd be pretty sweet - another north-south line).
     
     
  #1653  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 8:27 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
^ it's possible to do 50-metres with ease for all stations. A few stations, including all three downtown stations and the two terminus stations in Richmond, are already 50-metres. The underground stations that are currently at 40-metres already have their 50-metre platforms built, but they are just sealed off.

80-metres is not possible unless we decide to reconstruct most of the tunneled sections, which would probably cost us an arm and a leg. Grades need to be settled, curves need to be softened, and infrastructure like power and fan rooms need to be relocated.
     
     
  #1654  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 10:10 AM
gillty gillty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hyogo, Japan / Vancouver
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
ProTransBC contracts cleaning services out to Omni and from what I know and seen at many occasions, staff come in and out of trains at different stations to maintain a decent level of cleanliness. Remember, ProTrans BC gets revenue based on these points, and if they don't maintain a clean line, they loose out.
Omni Facility Services! are you serious? Im surprised the trains get cleaned at all!
(former employee and know a few higher ups in the vancouver operation.)
     
     
  #1655  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 7:57 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,717
Bond seems to be talking the talk, but this government has shown they are more than willing to say one thing and do another.

It would be a big shame to throw away that federal commitment.
     
     
  #1656  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 2:02 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Bond seems to be talking the talk, but this government has shown they are more than willing to say one thing and do another.

It would be a big shame to throw away that federal commitment.
It would be stupid to throw away the federal commitment.
     
     
  #1657  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 7:40 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
It would be stupid to throw away the federal commitment.
It would cost the BC taxpayer more if we lose it now and build without it later. Borrowing the extra money we are short now and building is cheaper than borrowing even larger sums of money in the future.
     
     
  #1658  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 7:56 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,025
If were up to me, i would continue on track with the current funding available, and i am 100% sure no government would want to leave a rapid transit line 80% complete and they would get their extra funding. I know it does not work that way, but one can dream...
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
     
     
  #1659  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 10:05 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
It would cost the BC taxpayer more if we lose it now and build without it later. Borrowing the extra money we are short now and building is cheaper than borrowing even larger sums of money in the future.
Not sure if your contradicting me or agreeing with me. Or just adding on to what I said
     
     
  #1660  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 12:44 PM
DKaz DKaz is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,301
Maybe we can build the stations at 50m for now to save costs with provisions to extend them to 75m/105m. 50m = 4-car MKI, or 2/3-car MKII.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:21 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.