Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[mooks28]

In reading all this, it's important to remember that Vancouver has a SIGNIFICANT number of people who simply believe the city is already too big and would readily draw the gates up.

These people fought Expo, fought Skytrain, fight development, and are now fighting the Olympics. Why? They don't want the city to get any bigger. They know it's paradise and don't want people showing up to spoil it.

Might not like it, but you have to deal with these folks.

[agrant]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

. . . . .

May I say I agree in principle with these two members? They both show foresight and common sense:

1: Build it underground, not on columns, stilts, or down the middle of the street.

2: Plan for the future, and build it big enough. The Canada Line (all the way from Paris) already seems prematurely small with short platforms and two-car trains (which, yes, I know, can be made into three-car trains. Wowee)

Foresight, aesthetic prowess, and the capacity to, as Samuel Goldwyn (MGM Studios) said; "Do it big, do it right, and give it class."

Something Canadians (Vancouverites anyway) just can't seem to grasp, by and large. Excuse the superciliousness, but these posts seem to know what they're talking about, and living in Paris, with a dense Métro system, a long-haul, high-speed commuter subway (the RER) plus commuter trains of all stripes, I have seen a successful transit system up close, and ridden on others that work because of the foresight that was put into building them. Too bad the province is nearly broke, and the people think small-town.

You blaming Vancouverites for the Canada Line being limited to 50 meter platforms? That's a bit tough. And Paris? Was it foresight, or the whole country putting in a massive effort one century ago. We are still small town in comparison. Paris probably had double the population when they just got started building.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

May I say I agree in principle with these two members? They both show foresight and common sense:

1: Build it underground, not on columns, stilts, or down the middle of the street.

I'm not so sure I agree. It's a really matter of cost. The underground station, at-grade station, and elevated station at the end of the day, functions the same. The main primary goal for rapid transit is to move people: aesthetics are important, but that's not the priority. If it's a matter of building it now elevated (in right corridors of course) or building it a lot later underground because of cost, I want it now.

A guideway can work with the surrounding developments. An excellent example of this is Vancity at Main Street-Science World Stn.


Source: Bosa Construction

The guideway can also work well providing shade on sunny days for pedestrian sidewalks and bike routes in addition to providing shelter during a rainstorm. City of Richmond places vines around the Canada Line columns to make them look better.

We haven't explored this option, but the guideways can also be the home to community art pieces, whether that's wrapped around the columns, or hanging from the guideway itself.

Of course, it all depends on the corridor.

[metroXpress]

^ only if we could have a whole row of buildings like that...

[kylemacmac]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Personally, I would love to see it become the location of the often talked about University of Vancouver. It could incorporate the Great Northern Way campus. I really think we should have a new University and stop having our 2 exiting ones (and few colleges) spread all over the city. I also think having a new University in that area would further spur on Transit usage and be a key factor in forcing the development of the Millennium line extension. A full blown University located in the False Creek Flats would be central and reachable by all Skytrain lines.

This topic is all about extending rapid transit to a university.
BCPhil is all about extending a university to rapid transit.

It's all good.

[flight_from_kamakura]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Tunnel could be bored to 10th & Blanca - TBM exit site could be on University Golf Course land. The station at Sasamat could be largely under the street with an exit on an expropriated retail site. Having the TBM exit off to the side would require the demolition and expropriation of a larger number of retail properties. Alternatively, the TBM could be extracted from an in-street pit, but that would cause more traffic headaches.

goodbye green median?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by agrant

You blaming Vancouverites for the Canada Line being limited to 50 meter platforms? That's a bit tough. And Paris? Was it foresight, or the whole country putting in a massive effort one century ago. We are still small town in comparison. Paris probably had double the population when they just got started building.

I guess what I'm saying is that here (in Vancouver) when things are planned, they are planned, it seems, for the capacity as it is AT PRESENT or in the near future.
An example of this was the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 1) and Port Mann Bridge through Burnaby. It had two lanes in each direction, and was outdated shortly after it was built. Now there's the hoopla about the Gateway Project.
*
I'm not advocating bigness for the sake of bigness, and frankly, I think Vancouver is about the right size as it is now. But like it or not, it's going to get bigger, the suburban town centres will get bigger, downtown condos will get more numerous, and there will be ever more people travelling on the transit system.
Therefore, with this in mind (and one only has to look at the statistics to show the growth in ridership), why didn't they build the stations to carry mature, full-length (4 or 5-car) trains?
*
I know there's a lot of "NIMBY-ism" in the city, much of it understandable from the residents' point of view, but I think that they should have "bit the bullet" and built the stations with more capacity.
*
In a growing city like this, all this is very subjective. Excuse me if I sound dogmatic.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I guess what I'm saying is that here (in Vancouver) when things are planned, they are planned, it seems, for the capacity as it is AT PRESENT or in the near future.
An example of this was the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 1) and Port Mann Bridge through Burnaby. It had two lanes in each direction, and was outdated shortly after it was built. Now there's the hoopla about the Gateway Project.

No, that's not a good example. The bridge was opened to the public in 1964. The Port Mann served its purpose for many many years and it wasn't outdated shortly after it was built. Traffic really worsened after the millennium. During the construction of the Port Mann, they weren't expecting Vancouver to be as big as it is today; the Expo really shaped Vancouver's growth and not that they would know the Expo would be in Vancouver.

Highway 1's traffic has really only worsened past 2004, but traffic still moves. Yes, there are some bottlenecks, but generally, traffic is still moving. Not to mention, Highway 1 was constructed so that it could be expanded and that probably wouldn't need any expansion whatsoever until at least another 30 years.

Granville St bridge is a monster bridge, primarily because it was designed with a downtown freeway in mind. To this date, it isn't even close to capacity. The only reason why there will be traffic jams on the bridge is because of the traffic lights entering downtown.

SkyTrain Expo Line was constructed so that it could be easily expanded in the future. Twenty years into service, the Expo Line still has quite a ways before expansions are necessary. The Millennium Line is also another example. It is also built to expand.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Therefore, with this in mind (and one only has to look at the statistics to show the growth in ridership), why didn't they build the stations to carry mature, full-length (4 or 5-car) trains?

The answer is simple: we simply didn't have the required funding to build a system that is expandable. RAVCO didn't set all the terms, and so private companies can bid whatever they want as long as it reached the capacity number. InTransitBC went with a 40 metre, expandable to 50 metres, but met the required capacity. This made their project cheaper, which was I think, the main reason why they were chosen. RavXpress, or Bombardier, originally with the favored design, had 80 metre platforms. Their project cost was probably closer to $2.5 billion, and that excludes inflation.

Historic projects in Vancouver were designed to expand. They went beyond servicing the required capacity at the time when they were built and served well in Vancouver for many years after.

[cabotp]

Also Richmond and areas south ie South Delta and White Rock. In the long term plans. Were never designed to have a major increase in population. So while yes the ridership will probably rise in the next few years. I do see it eventually leveling off.

Where as in North Surrey and the Tri Cities Region. There is going to massive growth.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

The DLR has been continually expanded since it has opened and now carries 60 million passengers up from 7 million. By the time the latest expansion works are done close £2 billion would have been spent and passenger numbers should be around 100 million. Now with hindsight they could have built it one go and could saved them selves some money in construction. But such a huge investment would never have been approved without any obvious demand.

The lesson to be drawn, is build for what you can support in passenger number upon opening. But leave enough space for expansion. If allow as much development as possible near transit, then watch your passenger numbers soar over the years.

If the Canada line reaches capacity, we'll just build a parallel line down Main, Granville or Arbutus.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm not so sure I agree. It's a really matter of cost. The underground station, at-grade station, and elevated station at the end of the day, functions the same. The main primary goal for rapid transit is to move people: aesthetics are important, but that's not the priority. If it's a matter of building it now elevated (in right corridors of course) or building it a lot later underground because of cost, I want it now.

A guideway can work with the surrounding developments. An excellent example of this is Vancity at Main Street-Science World Stn.


Source: Bosa Construction

Of course, it all depends on the corridor.

Agreed. Especially when I see that picture of the elevated guideways going throught the modern building at Science World, I have to admit that the presence of the train really enhances the futuristic feel of the place, and goes well with the architecture.

As for other places: hmmmm. West Broadway around between Main and Burrard has a "blaaaa", sterile, insipid quality to it, and elevated trains (or at least at grade) wouldn't really harm the aesthetics there, although crossing the major intersections presents a problem. (Perhaps these stretches could be tunnelled; but I won't make an evaluative statement on that; I don't know enough about it)

Conversely, further down, the Greek District of West Broadway has a certain (although limited) "charm" to it, and trains there, in my opinion, WOULD mess up the look of the place.

As for going through UBC from Sasamat on, most people SEEM to prefer underground, whether it's cut-cover, or bored tunnel. The view from the train might be great, but the curving boulevards, golf courses, and parklike environment would again (in my opinion) be scarred by a raised LRT right-ofway, either at grade, or worse, on pylons.

As you say, it all depends on location, and I can sure understand your wish to have the thing built ASAP, not 15 or 20 years down the road !!

[DKaz]

I realized something...

Take a look at Canada Line trains inside (3.0m wide). Take away one row of seats and that's how wide a MKII is (2.6m wide). Take away another row of seats (2.2m wide) and that's how wide an LRT down Broadway would have to be to fit on that street. The trams will be tight.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by DKaz

I realized something...

Take a look at Canada Line trains inside (3.0m wide). Take away one row of seats and that's how wide a MKII is (2.6m wide). Take away another row of seats (2.2m wide) and that's how wide an LRT down Broadway would have to be to fit on that street. The trams will be tight.

Yes, too tight. More reason to put it underground, despite the cost.
(yes, there are those who will disagree vehemently, but that's my take on it, however uninformed)

[Zassk]

The Canada Line with 10m platform expansions should be sufficient until Metro Vancouver has grown to 3 million or more. If it was the difference between getting the line built or not, then I say, let the bigger future city of 2030 pay the cost to expand the stations later. The point is, the line can be expanded, at whatever cost. I'm sure some day, when I'm near retirement I'll see 4-car (or longer) Canada Line trains, and they'll actually be needed. :-)

By the way, does anyone know, can the Rotem trains add multiple C-cars in the middle to make them longer and longer? E.g. A-C-C-C-B

[Gordon]

Speaking of longer trains, have any more new mark 2s entered service in the last couple of weeks thereby further increasing the number of 4 car on the E & M lines? have any 6 mark 1s appeared yet?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Zassk

By the way, does anyone know, can the Rotem trains add multiple C-cars in the middle to make them longer and longer? E.g. A-C-C-C-B

Of course they can but expanding trains need not only expansions to platforms (unless you want an overhang), but an extension of the overhangs of each station. YVR-Airport is close to running out of space, but it can be done and Richmond-Brighouse Stn has space, but Waterfront really doesn't (and will be hard to make that space available).

[officedweller]

From the Seattle Times:

Friday, September 25, 2009 -

Sound Transit calls light-rail noise a public-health problem
By Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times transportation reporter

Noise from Sound Transit's light-rail trains is a public-health problem, the agency said Thursday in an emergency declaration meant to more quickly get contractors working to quiet the trackway.

The emergency order will accelerate work by at least a month, said spokesman Bruce Gray. Otherwise, it might take six months or more to install lubricating devices on the trackway near Mount Baker Station, where trains screech as they round a curve. Neighbors thanked Chairman Greg Nickels, the Seattle mayor, and other agency board members for listening.

"We can't have the light rail be more of a pollutant — with the noise, you've canceled out the carbon reduction," said Libby Clark, who lives on a hillside near the station.

Various spots on the 14-mile line from downtown to Tukwila exceed federal transit standards, said James Irish, light-rail environmental manager.

New agency studies in July found that, in Tukwila below the Duwamish River train bridge, test trains produced 83 decibels, compared to 73 dB in earlier studies. A 10 dB increase equals a doubling of perceived loudness.

Other loud spots include the south Tukwila curve at Highway 518, track switches in Rainier Valley and intersections along Seattle's Martin Luther King Jr. Way South, where train bells or clanging alarms annoy some neighbors. Bell volumes were recently lowered, but transit officials warned traffic safety will be compromised.

The agency has received 60 to 70 noise complaints, as well as 100 petition signatures from people in the Duwamish area. At least three senior managers visited homes last week, Gray said.

Sound Transit's public attitude has evolved since early summer, when Gray said the sounds fell within federal limits, and speculated that Duwamish neighbors weren't yet used to trains. "I don't think we downplayed anything," Gray said Thursday. "We've said that where there are issues, we'd go out and take a look and try to address it."

Normally, contracts of more than $200,000 require a formal request for proposals, an open bid competition and a vote by the transit board. Thursday's order allows the staff to award noiseproofing work of up to $1 million, to apply biodegradable lubricating oil and a retrofit of loud track switches.

Irish said noise walls will be added to elevated trackway in the Duwamish area next year.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or [email protected]

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company

[tybuilding]

I love the shelter the guideway gives when it is raining and I am biking. The shade is also nice on the hot days, but that moves around a lot.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Zassk

By the way, does anyone know, can the Rotem trains add multiple C-cars in the middle to make them longer and longer? E.g. A-C-C-C-B

Hah! I'd be happy just to see a three-car A-C-B, instead of a dinky-toy two-car train. But, as has been pointed out, cost is a factor (although maybe a three-car train could fit into an existing Canada Line station)

Wouldn't it break the imagination barrier if one could?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

As for going through UBC from Sasamat on, most people SEEM to prefer underground, whether it's cut-cover, or bored tunnel. The view from the train might be great, but the curving boulevards, golf courses, and parklike environment would again (in my opinion) be scarred by a raised LRT right-ofway, either at grade, or worse, on pylons.

I'm not so sure about that... From what I know, Mr. X is the only other person I know who prefers it underground.