Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[spm2013]

Yes, Keep Calm and Carry On since nothing will be built without funding.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

A Vancouver politician even half-seriously mentioning the idea of doing cut and cover again would be committing political suicide. People's memories are short but "cut and cover" is still deeply linked with "disastrous".

True and thats why you might as well look at the mayors council asking Vancouver to foot the bill for any excess costs is actual doing Vancouver a favor. Now they can balance the inconvenience of a cut and cover tunnel down a non commercial street with the inconvenience of shelling out $500 million dollars.

[WarrenC12]

This project is one vote away from happening, is it not? The mayors' plan is the crux of the transit referendum. Currently it seems to be an "all or nothing" plan, and I've heard support is somewhere in the 50/50 range.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This project is one vote away from happening, is it not? The mayors' plan is the crux of the transit referendum. Currently it seems to be an "all or nothing" plan, and I've heard support is somewhere in the 50/50 range.

I think unless you're a transit nerd like us, Translink might be the most hated thing in the city so I'm nervous about how people would feel about giving them more money. Especially if road pricing is included. Hell, if it is even I'd probably vote no. Not that people here don't appreciate transit, but Translink as an agency must be one of the most vilified transit organizations in Canada, if not the world. Ask a random person what they think of them and you're unlikely to get a positive response. For this reason I'm worried that the referendum will not pass.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think unless you're a transit nerd like us, Translink might be the most hated thing in the city so I'm nervous about how people would feel about giving them more money. Especially if road pricing is included. Hell, if it is even I'd probably vote no. Not that people here don't appreciate transit, but Translink as an agency must be one of the most vilified transit organizations in Canada, if not the world. Ask a random person what they think of them and you're unlikely to get a positive response. For this reason I'm worried that the referendum will not pass.

That was my initial reaction too, but:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Majorit...nsLink+polls+suggest/10179122/story.html

The polls were commissioned by Translink, which is important to note, but I'm cautiously optimistic.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't think there's much of a debate about bored or cut-and-cover. After the debacle that was the Canada Line, there's no way we'll ever cut-and-cover a major street again.

I agree with this. I don't think the CoV will ever be able to use cut and cover again on a major road, especially NOT on Broadway - there would be major upheaval there. it'll be bored tunnel for the skytrain.

[spm2013]

From the Sun link:

The polls, conducted in May and June before and after regional mayors unveiled a $7.5-million investment plan, suggest 57 per cent of those surveyed would likely vote yes in a referendum, while 35 per cent would reject it.

I wonder if they asked people if it was 7.5 million or 7.5 billion?

I think the question and inclusion of the funding options will probably play into the vote. If it was a slam dunk, they would have included it in the November municipal vote.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vancity

I agree with this. I don't think the CoV will ever be able to use cut and cover again on a major road, especially NOT on Broadway - there would be major upheaval there. it'll be bored tunnel for the skytrain.

I just hope it's bored tunnel, and not an elevated guideway. There are a number of people here who would
like a guideway because it has a great view, and it's cool, like Disneyland, or else a city in Japan, Malaysia or such.
Also, this attitude of "If Elevated is good enough for the East Side, it should be good enough for the West Side NIMBYs."
If you want a fun ride, go to Disneyland, or else back to Asia, and please please please, stop this "Hate the West Side Rich-NIMBY" stuff.
It rather sucks, if you'll excuse my being blunt.

[spm2013]

Yeah, I love how your whine about people making wise cracks about the "crème da la crème" and then you think anyone that happens to think that being able to ride a train with a view outside the car is just some whackjob that likes to ride the Disneyland monorail. Keep it classy!

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The most feasible plan for Broadway skytrain was always a CUT and COVER under 10th with a stacked tunnel and stairless station entrances / exists on to Broadway. I agree that it is unlikely that a elevated guideway could be built, but the cut and cover option is going to be significantly cheaper than a bored tunnel and more functional, with minimal disruptions to traffic and commercial properties during construction. I dont see how Vancouver could justify going bored instead of cut and cover (except to buy votes).

Agreed.

And if it's on the City's dime, that may tip the balance from bored to cut and cover.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Yeah, I love how your whine about people making wise cracks about the "crème da la crème" and then you think anyone that happens to think that being able to ride a train with a view outside the car is just some whackjob that likes to ride the Disneyland monorail. Keep it classy!

Keeping it in a tunnel would be keeping it classy. Thank you for your feedback.

[logan5]

When you consider that the stations will be 950 meters apart between Main and Arbutus, what difference does it make if it's cut and cover. Each station will require the street to be dug up, just like Granville street was when the Canada Line was being built. Granville street was bored tunnel, but it seemed just as bad as cut and cover.

If the savings are in the 500 million range, like it was with the C Line, then it would be crazy not to do it. Compensate the businesses this time though.

[spm2013]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Keeping it in a tunnel would be keeping it classy. Thank you for your feedback.

I like the not building it option, more classy. Thank you for your feedback.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by logan5

When you consider that the stations will be 950 meters apart between Main and Arbutus, what difference does it make if it's cut and cover. Each station will require the street to be dug up, just like Granville street was when the Canada Line was being built. Granville street was bored tunnel, but it seemed just as bad as cut and cover.

If the savings are in the 500 million range, like it was with the C Line, then it would be crazy not to do it. Compensate the businesses this time though.

Cut and Cover isn't always cheaper than bored tunnel and it will be way less disruptive. This mostly depends on geology and amount of work required to get around utilities. For example, aside from the station excavation at Capital Hill in Seattle, you would be hard pressed to figure out that they were building a tunnel under there for the Link LRT.

If the stations are entirely confined to lots on the side of the road then the construction should be no more disruptive than the construction of a tower with a deep foundation.

All this depends on the detailed design, but is easily done from a technical standpoint.

As far as I know the C-Line was mostly cut and cover due to the timeline. Cut and cover can be much faster since there can be many excavations.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Cut and Cover isn't always cheaper than bored tunnel and it will be way less disruptive. This mostly depends on geology and amount of work required to get around utilities. For example, aside from the station excavation at Capital Hill in Seattle, you would be hard pressed to figure out that they were building a tunnel under there for the Link LRT.

If the stations are entirely confined to lots on the side of the road then the construction should be no more disruptive than the construction of a tower with a deep foundation.

All this depends on the detailed design, but is easily done from a technical standpoint.

As far as I know the C-Line was mostly cut and cover due to the timeline. Cut and cover can be much faster since there can be many excavations.

I thought cut and cover was the primary reason we ended up with Rotem as opposed to Bombardier?

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This project is one vote away from happening, is it not? The mayors' plan is the crux of the transit referendum. Currently it seems to be an "all or nothing" plan, and I've heard support is somewhere in the 50/50 range.

It's not quite so cut and dry.

The Mayor's want the referendum to be a question of funding sources aka "we're funding transit no matter what... pick what you like."

The Province wants there to be a "no funding" option which the Mayor's don't want because they think everyone will pick that. Just like asking if "you want a new tax yes or no?" will be like 99% "NO!" even if you need it.

As for the transit priorities, I think the Mayor's know what is needed more than the Province and I have absolutely no issue with their plan as-is. The Province though pushed it all onto them because when they were wanting to fund things, they had 1 source, property tax.

The Mayor's basically said "We want other options." and the Province said NO PROPERTY TAX = ONLY OPTION or it's your problem. Mayor's said no, Province said "Ok here you go your problem."

It's just a pile of political BS unfortunately. The reality is this line needs to get done and should have been done with the Millennium line.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I just hope it's bored tunnel, and not an elevated guideway. There are a number of people here who would
like a guideway because it has a great view, and it's cool, like Disneyland, or else a city in Japan, Malaysia or such.
Also, this attitude of "If Elevated is good enough for the East Side, it should be good enough for the West Side NIMBYs."
If you want a fun ride, go to Disneyland, or else back to Asia, and please please please, stop this "Hate the West Side Rich-NIMBY" stuff.
It rather sucks, if you'll excuse my being blunt.

... London, Chicago, Portland, New York City, Los Angeles, Panama City, San Francisco, Atlanta, Miami... list goes on about non "Asian" cities that have elevated rail lines in the city.

What is key though is most go underground in downtown cores. Through residential non-downtown cores though they are either elevated or at-grade.

Point Grey is not a downtown core. That's the distinction.

So unlike most cities, the debate is coming down to why the people in Point Grey are special unlike pretty much every other major city in the world where they get a subway through their residential area.

I actually don't care, but don't make it sound like elevated rail lines are just a Disney Line attraction. Even elevated SkyTrain is light years cheaper than a tunnel along the same stretch. Just 5km of elevated vs tunnel could drop $500 million+ off the final price tag if not more.

The devil's advocate though would argue that Cambie is also a residential area far more so than Broadway and it is entirely underground until Marine so that kind of sets a precedence. I'd have to agree, but as has been mentioned they did cut-and-cover for a large portion to reduce overall costs and they had a lot of money thrown in from the Federal Government due to the Olympics that Broadway is just not privy too.

Honestly I think it should be whatever combination of most cost effective vs the best long-term design and if Vancouver residents including those in Point Grey/UBC want it tunnel all the way, they can kick in the extra cost through a local municipal tax increase.

So $3 billion to build the new line, some cut-and-cover, elevated beyond Arbutus.

$4 billion to build the new line all tunnel.

Vancouver needs to raise the local property tax rate to make up the $1 billion difference to get the tunnel. That way Vancouver tax payers are on the hook for the fancier system. Best of both worlds imho.

You'll also find out really quickly with the above how many people actually hate elevated or cut-and-cover so much that they are willing to drop real-life money on avoiding either.

Obvious Disclaimer that my above numbers are just pulled out of my ass for illustrative purposes which is actually the big issue here, we don't really know hard numbers between each option.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I thought cut and cover was the primary reason we ended up with Rotem as opposed to Bombardier?

Yeah, InTransitBC's bid was lower, in part due to cut and cover.
However, the Bombardier bid had a permanent open trench for the tracks south of 49th Ave in the median of Cambie Street.
(probably like SkyTrain east of Nanaimo Station).

[logan5]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, InTransitBC's bid was lower, in part due to cut and cover.
However, the Bombardier bid had a permanent open trench for the tracks south of 49th Ave in the median of Cambie Street.
(probably like SkyTrain east of Nanaimo Station).

I presume the Bombardier proposal would have tied into the Expo Line at Waterfront. I wonder where their DT stations would have been.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by jhausner

It's not quite so cut and dry.

The Mayor's want the referendum to be a question of funding sources aka "we're funding transit no matter what... pick what you like."

The Province wants there to be a "no funding" option which the Mayor's don't want because they think everyone will pick that. Just like asking if "you want a new tax yes or no?" will be like 99% "NO!" even if you need it.

As for the transit priorities, I think the Mayor's know what is needed more than the Province and I have absolutely no issue with their plan as-is. The Province though pushed it all onto them because when they were wanting to fund things, they had 1 source, property tax.

The Mayor's basically said "We want other options." and the Province said NO PROPERTY TAX = ONLY OPTION or it's your problem. Mayor's said no, Province said "Ok here you go your problem."

It's just a pile of political BS unfortunately. The reality is this line needs to get done and should have been done with the Millennium line.

And they are correct, unless it is a progressive tax I ill be voting no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

I have a feeling there won't be anything progressive about the funding options (property taxes are semi progressive), so I almost certainly will vote no, and its good there will be a no funding option. I will never support a non progressive tax increase, regardless of what the outcome will be (no such thing as compromise for me on this issue, not falling for those publicity stunts), there have been too many of them over the years as is. (*tolls are not progressive either so I don't support them unless there are rebates at the end of the year based on ability to pay / income level / wealth level)