Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by KPELLY

From what I've heard SNC-Lavalin is actually going with a large diameter single tunnel for the Evergreen Line instead of side by side tunnels. The reason being time savings over having to launch the TBM twice, and cost savings over renting/shipping/assembling 2 TBMs. Likely the TBM will be launched from the Port Moody side because going uphill allows water to run out of the tunnel naturally avoiding any need to pump.

I hope so! Will be pretty cool passing another train in the tunnel.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by KPELLY

From what I've heard SNC-Lavalin is actually going with a large diameter single tunnel for the Evergreen Line instead of side by side tunnels. The reason being time savings over having to launch the TBM twice, and cost savings over renting/shipping/assembling 2 TBMs. Likely the TBM will be launched from the Port Moody side because going uphill allows water to run out of the tunnel naturally avoiding any need to pump.

This might also have another advantage. Currently, when the Skytrain travels through the single track tunnels downtown and in New Westminster the turbulence is quite annoying. It's very loud and hard on the ears because of the outside doors. The wind causes them to vibrate a lot, almost to the point where they feel like they will rip off.

But when the train travels through the wider tunnel between Columbia and New West stations, the noise is nowhere near as bad. Even when the trains pass each other the turbulence doesn't seem to be that much worse than passing in the open.

So, could a double tunnel be a quick and cheaper alternative to having to buy new Skytrain cars with inline doors? Granted the tunnel is not going to be very long, but looking forward, the Broadway line will be underground, and it will be a lot longer. Could they be looking for a solution that will both speed up construction and make the ride more pleasant already (using this tunnel as a testbed)?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by KPELLY

From what I've heard SNC-Lavalin is actually going with a large diameter single tunnel for the Evergreen Line instead of side by side tunnels. The reason being time savings over having to launch the TBM twice, and cost savings over renting/shipping/assembling 2 TBMs. Likely the TBM will be launched from the Port Moody side because going uphill allows water to run out of the tunnel naturally avoiding any need to pump.

Damn - and no underground station on that segment to show off the vaulted ceiling.

[xd_1771]

A new analysis and press release by SkyTrain for Surrey Initiative has solved the mystery of the "Millennium Line fiasco".

This analysis has the power to change regional thinking about transit planning forever, especially with the likely oncoming of a new provincial government. Former Port Moody Mayor Joe Trassolini, now part of the NDP, would be proud of this young man.... and then disappointed upon what he has found out from him.

(Seriously, I don't know where the heck this Greer guy got the info that lead him to believe that the Millennium Line as LRT was being planned with 160m platforms, or alternatively that Millennium Line as SkyTrain was being planned with 40m platforms).

Right, enough with the bickering; On with the controversy....

Initiative releases analysis, debunks misleading SkyTrain review from 1999
Misleading review defrauded thousands, delayed rapid transit construction for several years

SkyTrain for Surrey has released a new analysis that addresses misleading claims from a 1999 report that attempted to refute a revised study that lead to a change in decisions and the build-out of the current SkyTrain Millennium Line.

The 1999 “Greer Report” by Alan Greer of Greer Consulting Services reviewed new studies by a Rapid Transit Project (RTP) office, which made different claims about the differences between building out the rapid transit project as a grade-separated SkyTrain line or as an at-grade LRT than a previous study. The B.C. Liberals had used the report in an attack against the NDP pre-election in 2001, calling the RTP’s information “inaccurate, misleading and unsubstantiated”. The report may have lead politicians, and stakeholders at the time to believe that the then-proposed Millennium Line SkyTrain project was “another fast ferries fiasco” (CBC news, 2001).

The new analysis by SkyTrain for Surrey finds that an overwhelming majority of the information collected and presented in Greer’s report was misleading or completely false.

“Obviously, the material was not reviewed properly before it was recklessly released and used by the Liberals to attack the NDP; There’s so much about it that is incorrect,” says Daryl Dela Cruz, a SkyTrain for Surrey lead analyst and the accredited creator of the analysis.

The report had seen considerable use by advocacies for Light Rail Transit (LRT) when it was discovered by SkyTrain for Surrey analysts in early 2013, almost 14 years after its initial release and almost 12 years after its declassification as “confidential” and release to the public by the B.C. Liberals in 2001.

----------------

Today’s Millennium Line SkyTrain was built by the NDP government as a “Phase I” of the revised T-line project connecting Coquitlam with Vancouver that was originally planned as an at-grade LRT line. Following the election of then-premier Gordon Campbell and the B.C. Liberals in the same year, the new government mandated a complete cancellation in the planning process of the remaining portions of the proposal (Phase II) – including a portion that is only today being constructed as the SkyTrain Evergreen Line, with a slated 2016 completion year.

“It is evident that this report was part of that decision in the early 2000s to cancel phase II,” says Daryl. “Our initial discoveries about the invalidity of the claims in this report parallels a second discovery: the discovery of how one man used twisted information to defraud thousands of stakeholders by successfully delaying the construction of new rapid transit into Coquitlam for many, many years. When information is incorrect, it can disrupt the planning process of important investments that will really matter after 10 to 20 years. This report is a great example of that."

“Never mind that Coquitlam residents would be already benefitting from high quality rapid transit, which would have been built and serving those citizens before the economic downturn of the late-2000s; a second SkyTrain extension to Broadway and Arbutus, addressing the current Central Broadway transit woes that were just recently pointed out by the City of Vancouver, would probably have already been built as well,” Daryl remarks.

READ FULL PRESS RELEASE [CLICK HERE]
READ THE ANALYSIS [CLICK HERE]

[xd_1771]

This might also have another advantage. Currently, when the Skytrain travels through the single track tunnels downtown and in New Westminster the turbulence is quite annoying. It's very loud and hard on the ears because of the outside doors. The wind causes them to vibrate a lot, almost to the point where they feel like they will rip off.

Both of those are mostly not bored tunnels (i.e. flat walls, which is part of why there is less distance between the doors and the tunnel wall), so they may be narrower so than a potential bored tunnel. Nevertheless, the prospect of a single tunnel seems interesting and does seem better. Then it'll be just like that VAL system in... Turin, Italy or what was it?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

A new analysis and press release by SkyTrain for Surrey Initiative has solved the mystery of the "Millennium Line fiasco".

I have only read partway through Daryl's analysis so far, but already it seems contrived and biased to me. For example, Daryl attacks the following Greer paragraph as misleading. To me the following paragraph is not misleading at all. It is self-evident that the NDP built the cheapest segment of the M-line without regard for its suitability in building the network or maximizing ridership.

Originally Posted by Greer

The primary flaw in the study design is that costs were estimated for only part of full T line (18 of 33 km) for what the RTP called Phase 1 (see Figure 2) connecting New Westminster with Lougheed Mall and then west to Clark Drive. This segment had never previously been identified as a rapid transit corridor and has no clear purpose as a transit line. It omits the main source of new riders (Coquitlam, NE Sector) and the main destination (Central Broadway). It connects twice with the existing SkyTrain, effectively competing with the current line for riders. And, it poses significant operational difficulties at the Broadway station intersection of the two lines

In his "analysis" (quoted below), Daryl calls the built segment "the most cost-effective", whereas in reality, ridership guaranteed that the Central Broadway segment would have been the most cost-effective segment even though it was the most expensive.

Originally Posted by Daryl's analysis

This is not a flaw in the least bit, as the alternative to the new proposal by the RTP would have been to have no system at all. The RTP proposal allowed the most costeffective portion of the project to go forward, with the phase 2 extensions as a future option.

The above analysis by Daryl is not backed by any reference or logical argument. I don't buy his analysis, and I question his credentials and impartiality. The whole exercise reads as a thin attempt to push SkyTrain-for-Surrey's interests.

[DKaz]

Isn't it common knowledge that they were simply providing a carrot on the stick for the NDP ridings the line went through in order to save the NDP that Glen Clark decimated the name of?

I believe the M-Line did not go through a single Liberal riding at the time.

[officedweller]

Yes, the M-Line was to cater to NE sector NDP ridings.
The Liberals switched the focus to the more Liberal friendly Vancouver and Richmond areas.

It should be noted that the "Phase II" of the M-Line was being designed and in public consultations when it was cancelled.
Phase I was never intended to be left "stranded" without the Phase II ridership base being connected soon afterwards.
I suspect that the Phase II segments were lumped together because both involved time-consuming tunnelling.

[xd_1771]

I have only read partway through Daryl's analysis so far, but already it seems contrived and biased to me. For example, Daryl attacks the following Greer paragraph as misleading. To me the following paragraph is not misleading at all. It is self-evident that the NDP built the cheapest segment of the M-line without regard for its suitability in building the network or maximizing ridership.

You've got to remember that the plan was to create a network and not individual lines. Hence "T line."
The Millennium Line was built because a key cost savings factor was the ability to interconnect with the existing OMC. It was either get the Millennium Line built, or lose the rapid transit opportunities for the Phase II segments altogether. Phase I was a stepping stone to allow Phase II to move forward. The problem is that Phase II didn't move forward due to Liberal decision. I can see how building the Central Broadway segment first would have given the best in terms of generating the most benefits and having perhaps the best cost-benefit ratio, but then there would be no connectivity with the rest of the network which would've made for trouble in terms of things like where to store the trains, etc.

I suspect that the Phase II segments were lumped together because both involved time-consuming tunnelling.

This as well. Bored tunnels on both segments could use the same TBM if planned/phased together; that may be a significant cost, time and hassle savings.

I would like to suggest that Greer's own statements are about just as unsourced and filthy if not more. Zassk, you might have not reached this part yet:

Originally Posted by Greer

The SkyTrain analysis reduced the costs of stations by halving the length of platforms.(6)
(6) Reducing station platform length reduces the maximum capacity of the system, by limiting how many cars can be linked into one "consist" at a time. This assumption is an admission that the RTP expects demand to fall substantially below the capacity levels that a full SkyTrain could provide. Nevertheless they continue to cite greater capacity as proof of SkyTrain's superiority (see following discussion of capacity and ridership).

The footnote (6) is not a source for this claim but rather an explanation, meaning this is completely out of the water. It is very fishy. Firstly, I don't know how 160m platforms for LRT would even be suitable given that would be just about impossible on Central Broadway!? (that's longer than 5-car or even 6-car C-Train platforms, and C-Train uses 3 cars in a consist!) or how 40m platforms on a Millennium Line SkyTrain would make sense if the rest of the SkyTrain system is at 80m (and that would be 8m of wasted platform space since no consist properly fits 40m). Secondly, the immediate presumption is that reducing platform length reduces capacity because it reduces train consist size and ignores how grade-separation + driverless system allows trains to run much more frequently, to offset the capacity reduction of a shorter platform even if this were true.

[Zassk]

xd, I don't disagree with what you are saying generally. I just think that the "analysis" is quite sensational.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I can see how building the Central Broadway segment first would have given the best in terms of generating the most benefits and having perhaps the best cost-benefit ratio, but then there would be no connectivity with the rest of the network which would've made for trouble in terms of things like where to store the trains, etc.

A track connection at the Grandview Cut would have addressed this problem. It was not a difficult problem to solve. M-Line could have been built westward first, giving the existing network access to Central Broadway via a single transfer. This would have greatly increased the usefulness and ridership of the existing Expo Line.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I have only read partway through Daryl's analysis so far, but already it seems contrived and biased to me. For example, Daryl attacks the following Greer paragraph as misleading. To me the following paragraph is not misleading at all. It is self-evident that the NDP built the cheapest segment of the M-line without regard for its suitability in building the network or maximizing ridership.



In his "analysis" (quoted below), Daryl calls the built segment "the most cost-effective", whereas in reality, ridership guaranteed that the Central Broadway segment would have been the most cost-effective segment even though it was the most expensive.



The above analysis by Daryl is not backed by any reference or logical argument. I don't buy his analysis, and I question his credentials and impartiality. The whole exercise reads as a thin attempt to push SkyTrain-for-Surrey's interests.

I don't even know why "Skytrain For Surrey" stuff gets posted here. Didn't that other Surrey youngling, paradigm4, that post in this forum say that Daryll de la Cruz was just some teenager?

Paradigm4 actually has the initiative to go through of running for office, speaking to the right people, and doing genuine research, which gives him a lot of credibility despite his young age. This Darryl guy....ugh! He's just a Malcolm Johnson Jr and with that in mind, actually hurts his cause for bringing Skytrain to Surrey (or anywhere really).

BTW, its already end of January and still no news about the final design and contract signing.....so let me guess. Shovels on the ground on April just in time for election campaigning?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Zassk

A track connection at the Grandview Cut would have addressed this problem. It was not a difficult problem to solve. M-Line could have been built westward first, giving the existing network access to Central Broadway via a single transfer. This would have greatly increased the usefulness and ridership of the existing Expo Line.

They didn't want a track connection along the Grandview Cut because it would have been unsightly, difficulty with the slope of the cut and it would have required closure of the main line - but that was in evaluating whether the M-Line should merge back into the Expo Line to access downtown (rather than a spur to Broadway) and reduced frequency due to interlinig also factored in that decision.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

They didn't want a track connection along the Grandview Cut because it would have been unsightly, difficulty with the slope of the cut and it would have required closure of the main line - but that was in evaluating whether the M-Line should merge back into the Expo Line to access downtown (rather than a spur to Broadway) and reduced frequency due to interlinig also factored in that decision.

Can you imagine interlining a Broadway now?

Larger subway systems like New York can interline because they have long high-capacity trains. They were built when labor was cheaper (relatively), there were fewer environmental and safety hurdles, and operation was more or less manual.

Vancouver has short, high-frequency, fully automated trains. Different ball game.

[rxp]

what if they extended the M line to Cambie while they built Evergreen line... dont need to build stations per say... just rough-in stations and expand Bway Cityhall... that would change the entire dynamics

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I don't even know why "Skytrain For Surrey" stuff gets posted here. Didn't that other Surrey youngling, paradigm4, that post in this forum say that Daryll de la Cruz was just some teenager?

Paradigm4 actually has the initiative to go through of running for office, speaking to the right people, and doing genuine research, which gives him a lot of credibility despite his young age. This Darryl guy....ugh! He's just a Malcolm Johnson Jr and with that in mind, actually hurts his cause for bringing Skytrain to Surrey (or anywhere really).

BTW, its already end of January and still no news about the final design and contract signing.....so let me guess. Shovels on the ground on April just in time for election campaigning?

Thanks man! I'm 22, bordering on 23 now, so not as much of a youngling anymore. And I've definitely learnt to tone down the rhetoric over the years While I am pro-LRT for Surrey, that is primarily due to fiscal realities. I am fully aware of the many advantages SkyTrain has and believe it is the only solution for Broadway. I'm fully aware though that any transit is better than no transit, whatever the technology.

[red-paladin]

We do need to keep the non-Evergreen Line related posts to the general transit thread.

[deasine]

Yes guys, let's keep it to Evergreen Line only.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I don't even know why "Skytrain For Surrey" stuff gets posted here............

The purposes of the "Greer Report" and this new analysis of it should be very clear and very fitting to the Evergreen Line context.

[CBeats]

Has anyone else been keeping up with the Evergreen Line postings on facebook lately? I think it's cool that the project has even got a facebook page. Unfortunately, it's still endless pre-construction photos. Better than nothing I suppose...

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by CBeats

Has anyone else been keeping up with the Evergreen Line postings on facebook lately? I think it's cool that the project has even got a facebook page. Unfortunately, it's still endless pre-construction photos. Better than nothing I suppose...

The guys on Facebook definitely know what's up. They were confirming that the new SkyTrain vehicle order is to be the Innovia 300 cars when someone asked about it.