Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[trofirhen]

^Do you think such technique could be used along the Broadway corridor, or maybe one day, even on E. Hastings through the character areas, from Main to Renfrew, and then again through cosmopolitan North Burnaby, to maintain the established character of these areas?

[SOSS]

That technique would be so cost prohibitive. Crazy and awesome idea.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

^Do you think such technique could be used along the Broadway corridor, or maybe one day, even on E. Hastings through the character areas, from Main to Renfrew, and then again through cosmopolitan North Burnaby, to maintain the established character of these areas?

Be careful what you wish for. The 2nd Ave subway is 4.5 billion US for 3km.....yes I know it is not directly comparible, but the pictures make that look complicated and expensive.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Rico

Be careful what you wish for. The 2nd Ave subway is 4.5 billion US for 3km.....yes I know it is not directly comparible, but the pictures make that look complicated and expensive.

HMM. I guess that means elevated concrete guideways all the way along. Ugly, but necesary, I presume.
Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I hope I am). That would be an operation scar that would rather disfigure much of the city. The remotest posibilty of bored sections?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Thought I'd share some photos of how Cut n cover is being done to build the new 2nd Avenue Subway in New York.

Similarly, when Granville Station was built for the Expo Line (original station, under Seymour St.) the excavation for the ticketing hall was covered over with temporary beams and Seymour remained active over top.

[Hourglass]

No, the New York example is not comparable at all. Costs in the US are much higher due to labor contracts which among other things guarantee overstaffing and lock in inefficiency, and the inability to enforce agreements with contractors. See here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-26/u-s-taxpayers-are-gouged-on-mass-transit-costs

What I don't understand is why cut and cover subway construction seems less disruptive in cities like Seoul (unless I'm mistaken, they seem to cover the tunnels being dug with iron sheets and traffic goes right over them).

[BCPhil]

I think it is going to need a TBM to get from the Rail Yards area up to the Boradway Corridor anyway, so may as well use it all the way to Arbutus. I think for sure it will be under 10th, that way the station pits won't close Broadway, and can be done between blocks to not close N/S streets.

If it is extended in a phase 2 from Arbutus to UBC, I would say that should be Cut and Cover. From Arbutus to Alma, 10th is mostly detached houses that all have laneway access. It will suck for them, but construction can be done quickly (the reason we used cut and cover on the Canada Line) and home owners need not worry about sink holes.

From Alma to UBC, 10th is wider and the road can remain partially open (plus it is not a huge detour to 4th or 16th.

Don't forget, Skytrain is narrower than the Canada Line. Cut and Cover should take up less space than it did along Cambie.

[officedweller]

That makes sense - the TBM would get you past the denser and more sensitive areas near VGH and central Broadway.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

^Do you think such technique could be used along the Broadway corridor, or maybe one day, even on E. Hastings through the character areas, from Main to Renfrew, and then again through cosmopolitan North Burnaby, to maintain the established character of these areas?

A reason for the development of TBMs was because the chaos of Cut n Cover construction was preventing projects from proceeding, in a majority of cases due to NIMBY opposition.

Using TBM construction neuters a lot of the arguments by NIMBYs, but because stations still need to be accessed, Cut n Cover construction is usually used on those individual blocks. Where traffic can't be impacted by Cut n Cover construction, the construction box can be 'planked over' so traffic can still flow, and construction continue within the box.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That makes sense - the TBM would get you past the denser and more sensitive areas near VGH and central Broadway.

Originally Posted by jsbertram

A reason for the development of TBMs was because the chaos of Cut n Cover construction was preventing projects from proceeding, in a majority of cases due to NIMBY opposition.

Using TBM construction neuters a lot of the arguments by NIMBYs, but because stations still need to be accessed, Cut n Cover construction is usually used on those individual blocks. Where traffic can't be impacted by Cut n Cover construction, the construction box can be 'planked over' so traffic can still flow, and construction continue within the box.

Sinkholes can still form and be disruptive as they are unpredictable in subway construction seen in the Evergreen Line as well as in Ottawa and Los Angeles. To be safe and economical, cut and cover should be utilized all the way. TBMs should be used only when absolutely necessary, like the tunneled portion of the Evergreen Line (imagine cut and covering that from the Andres Winery to the South Portal!). Its sad TBM would be used here simply to appease NIMBYs. Why should Broadway be treated more special than the Cambie merchants is beyond me.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Sinkholes can still form and be disruptive as they are unpredictable in subway construction seen in the Evergreen Line as well as in Ottawa and Los Angeles. To be safe and economical, cut and cover should be utilized all the way. TBMs should be used only when absolutely necessary, like the tunneled portion of the Evergreen Line (imagine cut and covering that from the Andres Winery to the South Portal!). Its sad TBM would be used here simply to appease NIMBYs. Why should Broadway be treated more special than the Cambie merchants is beyond me.

It's not that they're being treated more specially, I think we're just learning from our mistakes. If we had to built the Canada Line again, we'd bore it the entire way. Cut and cover along Broadway would just be devastating, especially considering how much denser and trafficked it is.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It's not that they're being treated more specially, I think we're just learning from our mistakes. If we had to built the Canada Line again, we'd bore it the entire way. Cut and cover along Broadway would just be devastating, especially considering how much denser and trafficked it is.

Its NIMBYism, plain and simple. As jberstram said, there is a solution for the traffic.

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Where traffic can't be impacted by Cut n Cover construction, the construction box can be 'planked over' so traffic can still flow, and construction continue within the box.

I don't see why anyone wants to justify NIMBYism, especially for the wrong reasons. Cut and cover is doable and should be acceptable for Broadway, and there are far denser cities with far busier roadways that dealt with cut and cover and still manage to do okay (i.e. San Francisco).

Unless of course there is some "special" reason why they should be treated differently...

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Its NIMBYism, plain and simple. As jberstram said, there is a solution for the traffic.



I don't see why anyone wants to justify NIMBYism, especially for the wrong reasons. Cut and cover is doable and should be acceptable for Broadway, and there are far denser cities with far busier roadways that dealt with cut and cover and still manage to do okay (i.e. San Francisco).

Unless of course there is some "special" reason why they should be treated differently...

I think he was just referring to the station excavations. I'd be surprised if you could just plank over the entire length of the street, and continue to carry the huge amount of buses and cars that use it right now. And there'd still be a period where you'd need to do the "cutting," which wouldn't be all that short. And pedestrians wouldn't want to walk on sidewalks, if they were kept open, right beside big construction pits.

I wish we could do it to stretch out our money (maybe help bring it closer to UBC ) but I just don't think it's feasible. The Arbutus corridor I think is perfect for cut and cover however. Either way it's a moot point, because the city said they won't allow any more cut and cover on existing roads.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think he was just referring to the station excavations. I'd be surprised if you could just plank over the entire length of the street, and continue to carry the huge amount of buses and cars that use it right now. And there'd still be a period where you'd need to do the "cutting," which wouldn't be all that short. And pedestrians wouldn't want to walk on sidewalks, if they were kept open, right beside big construction pits.

I wish we could do it to stretch out our money (maybe help bring it closer to UBC ) but I just don't think it's feasible. The Arbutus corridor I think is perfect for cut and cover however. Either way it's a moot point, because the city said they won't allow any more cut and cover on existing roads.

I had no issues walking at Granville Street when there was an open pit when the Canada Line station was under construction. And if the CoV is the one dictating a ban on cut and cover, then maybe they should pay the difference of costs themselves.

Region, Province and Feds only contributes based on the cheapest method (i.e. elevated, at grade or cut and cover) while the CoV adds the cost for the bored tunneling costs, including the full cost of the TBM and its operations. CoV can easily pay for it as they had no issues finding almost a billion dollars to bail out a certain luxury condo development and seems to have no issues finding money to build bike lanes and tear down viaducts...

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Its NIMBYism, plain and simple. As jberstram said, there is a solution for the traffic.



I don't see why anyone wants to justify NIMBYism, especially for the wrong reasons. Cut and cover is doable and should be acceptable for Broadway, and there are far denser cities with far busier roadways that dealt with cut and cover and still manage to do okay (i.e. San Francisco).

Unless of course there is some "special" reason why they should be treated differently...

How much services would have to be dug up and relocated I wonder? This is why LRT wouldn't be built either.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I had no issues walking at Granville Street when there was an open pit when the Canada Line station was under construction. And if the CoV is the one dictating a ban on cut and cover, then maybe they should pay the difference of costs themselves.

Region, Province and Feds only contributes based on the cheapest method (i.e. elevated, at grade or cut and cover) while the CoV adds the cost for the bored tunneling costs, including the full cost of the TBM and its operations. CoV can easily pay for it as they had no issues finding almost a billion dollars to bail out a certain luxury condo development and seems to have no issues finding money to build bike lanes and tear down viaducts...

There's a difference between the disruptment caused by a station versus an entire street dug up.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

There's a difference between the disruptment caused by a station versus an entire street dug up.

The difference is there would be one block per station being dug up, instead of 30 blocks of the busiest section of Broadway.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

there's also no space for a guideway down Broadway. realistically you would need to take away 2-lanes of traffic and that street is way to busy for that to happen if we are being realistic.

tunneled to Blanca then elevated the rest of the way west to UBC. there just isn't space on Broadway. very narrow sidewalks, buildings right up to the street, massively expensive property acquisitions. i think the stations should be done in the New-York-City style; every street corner just has a simple entrance into underground passages to the station with just a simple elevator on a corner or two. you can even have an escalator as shown in the last pic of Chicago.
wally gobetz
thor christofer


french academic wiki
jag9889
photos are from the original people who uploaded them

[Ridgerunner]

The vote against the sales tax won't kill the need for expansion of the transit system.

Vancouver needs the whole package and quite badly.


So what revenue generation system is going to replace the sales tax. Politicians do not need, for example, anyone's permission to raise the property tax.

comments???

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

there's also no space for a guideway down Broadway. realistically you would need to take away 2-lanes of traffic and that street is way to busy for that to happen if we are being realistic.

tunneled to Blanca then elevated the rest of the way west to UBC. there just isn't space on Broadway. very narrow sidewalks, buildings right up to the street, massively expensive property acquisitions. i think the stations should be done in the New-York-City style; every street corner just has a simple entrance into underground passages to the station with just a simple elevator on a corner or two. you can even have an escalator as shown in the last pic of Chicago.
wally gobetz
thor christofer


french academic wiki
jag9889
photos are from the original people who uploaded them

love NY and Chicago. And yes, I agree. I don't think there should be elevation on Broadway. If it's a subway, then do it underground. and I love those examples from cities that have world class transit systems! Especially NY. We have much to learn from them in the way they've created their subway system.