Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The disruption happening during the construction of the stations wasn't because of TBM being used for the tunneling.

Sure, but the point is that the need to close the street in so many locations to build stations means that a TBM approach isn't really all that much less disruptive than cut-and-cover.

[red-paladin]

I expect that the extension to Arbutus will be open within 10 years, regardless of what happens. It flat out needs to get built in the near term.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by logan5

Even with the TBM section of the Canada Line downtown, there was still major disruption with the construction of the stations, so this statement is misleading and he knows it. With stations every 850 meters, whatever street is going to be screwed regardless of construction method.

If the sole benefit of a TBM is not to disrupt the 850 meter section between the disruptive station construction, then there is simply no justification for it. Disruption will happen because of those stations, and the distance between them is so negligible spending an additional billion or so for the TBM is simply not worth it. Might as well go Cut and Cover all the way since its going to be painful to businesses either way.

Evergreen Line had to use TBM because they had too. I cannot imagine digging a 2 km trench that deep on the mountain side would be economical, so TBM makes sense from a technical and economic point of view.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

If the sole benefit of a TBM is not to disrupt the 850 meter section between the disruptive station construction, then there is simply no justification for it. Disruption will happen because of those stations, and the distance between them is so negligible spending an additional billion or so for the TBM is simply not worth it. Might as well go Cut and Cover all the way since its going to be painful to businesses either way.

Evergreen Line had to use TBM because they had too. I cannot imagine digging a 2 km trench that deep on the mountain side would be economical, so TBM makes sense from a technical and economic point of view.

You're missing the big planning benefit.

With a TBM you don't have to follow the road grid. Trains don't like 90° turns most of the time and a direct line between stations is short than a zig zag. The section from GNW to Broadway will be both shorter and faster if it's bored.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

If the sole benefit of a TBM is not to disrupt the 850 meter section between the disruptive station construction, then there is simply no justification for it. Disruption will happen because of those stations, and the distance between them is so negligible spending an additional billion or so for the TBM is simply not worth it. Might as well go Cut and Cover all the way since its going to be painful to businesses either way.

Evergreen Line had to use TBM because they had too. I cannot imagine digging a 2 km trench that deep on the mountain side would be economical, so TBM makes sense from a technical and economic point of view.

I've always thought that real forward thinking would plan for a transit system in which the tracks dip down after leaving each station and then rise back up again as they reach the next station. That way you get gravity assist during the acceleration and braking phases and reduce the amount of energy and vehicle wear required to run the system. Depending on how deep you want to go with the "valleys" between stations a TBM might be the logical choice to avoid excessively deep cut and cover construction. In fact it seems that if you were forced to use a TBM for other reasons then it would pretty much eliminate the cost difference between a gravity-assisted track profile and conventional "flat" construction.

But that sure has heck isn't going to happen with the Broadway line in Vancouver, despite its adoption in a number of other places.

[ClaytonA]

For the record, it's right in the translink documents that the City of Vancouver is picking up the difference in costs between cut-and-cover and tunnelling. Personally if enough communication is done long enough ahead of time, giving businesses an opportunity to mitigate construction impacts, then the building owners and others benefit enough that it probably could reasonably be cut-and-cover. That requires civil discourse and public spirit though. You could even think of it as a sort of imperfect value capture, land tax.

http://mayorscouncil.ca/information-centre/


If there is a no, Broadway will likely be the one thing to go ahead relatively soon since it does have a business case as outlined for provincial funding. Next would be the (higher) tolled Patullo Bridge. Unless in the cynical, dystopian, American-style partisan politics some expect and thereby tacitly allow, Surrey can make a business case. Expect that the combo of a quantity of development in a given time period the LRT would have to instigate at a matching value capture price required for value capture to work to be unlikely. I don't believe that election promise. It'd be interesting to hear what people's estimates are for the $ amount of development needing generation to pay the $700 million one third of $2.14 billion 2014 estimated cost. I imagine it would sure change the landscape in Surrey. Of course Surrey if Surrey or its leaders want it enough, then residents just approved a property tax levy for recreation centres of $100 per property which tourists and non-resident users won't pay.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

You're missing the big planning benefit.

With a TBM you don't have to follow the road grid. Trains don't like 90° turns most of the time and a direct line between stations is short than a zig zag. The section from GNW to Broadway will be both shorter and faster if it's bored.

What's the rush? Even if they are able to get that part from GNW and Broadway done ASAP, they won't open the line until ALL the stations are ready. Lessons learned from the Evergreen Line's Burquitlam....

As for again Surrey's so called business case vs Broadway Line's so called business case, the only business case that matters is whatever political party in power that will find acceptable. You want Broadway to go first, perhaps you should support the Federal Conservatives (or Federal Liberals if Trudeau wins... ) and BC Liberals. But alas, Surrey has them instead, hence why Surrey has a better "business case" and will move forward first, and rightfully so.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

What's the rush? Even if they are able to get that part from GNW and Broadway done ASAP, they won't open the line until ALL the stations are ready. Lessons learned from the Evergreen Line's Burquitlam....

As for again Surrey's so called business case vs Broadway Line's so called business case, the only business case that matters is whatever political party in power that will find acceptable. You want Broadway to go first, perhaps you should support the Federal Conservatives (or Federal Liberals if Trudeau wins... ) and BC Liberals. But alas, Surrey has them instead, hence why Surrey has a better "business case" and will move forward first, and rightfully so.

Opening the line to Broadway/Cambie is a completely kettle of fish than opening the Burquitlam Station early.

Opening the Burquitlam Station early means disruptively transforming the current operations for both Expo and Millennium line for the benefit of a few local users.

Opening the GNW, Main and BDW-CB stations early would not fundamentally alter operations just require additional trains to service the additional tracks. It would benefit a greater number of local users (higher density), improve access to destinations and significantly reduce the travel time for the entire metro region.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I've always thought that real forward thinking would plan for a transit system in which the tracks dip down after leaving each station and then rise back up again as they reach the next station. That way you get gravity assist during the acceleration and braking phases and reduce the amount of energy and vehicle wear required to run the system.

Wouldn't the dip and the rise simply cancel each other out? If anything the rise will consume more energy and cause more wear and tear on the vehicle.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Wouldn't the dip and the rise simply cancel each other out? If anything the rise will consume more energy and cause more wear and tear on the vehicle.

The train rolls down the hill out of one station, building up speed. And it rolls up the hill toward the next station, which bleeds off the speed without having to brake as much.

It's the same idea as letting your car build up speed as you go down into a narrow valley so that you can coast up the other size.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

What's the rush? Even if they are able to get that part from GNW and Broadway done ASAP, they won't open the line until ALL the stations are ready. Lessons learned from the Evergreen Line's Burquitlam....

As for again Surrey's so called business case vs Broadway Line's so called business case, the only business case that matters is whatever political party in power that will find acceptable. You want Broadway to go first, perhaps you should support the Federal Conservatives (or Federal Liberals if Trudeau wins... ) and BC Liberals. But alas, Surrey has them instead, hence why Surrey has a better "business case" and will move forward first, and rightfully so.

Pretty sure he is talking about travel time for users.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Rico

Pretty sure he is talking about travel time for users.

Nailed it. No sharp bends means no slowing down for corners.

Also, less rail maintenance.

[mrjauk]

Has there been any discussion at all (at any level of government) about closing the gap between VCC/Clarke and the Canada Line?

It would require a few Kms of track and three (?) stations, right? What would that cost?

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The train rolls down the hill out of one station, building up speed. And it rolls up the hill toward the next station, which bleeds off the speed without having to brake as much.

It's the same idea as letting your car build up speed as you go down into a narrow valley so that you can coast up the other size.

It may be a benefit with conventional traction motors, but other than emergency stops there are no actual brakes applied on the Bombardier trains, it's all done through the LIM plate.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

Has there been any discussion at all (at any level of government) about closing the gap between VCC/Clarke and the Canada Line?

It would require a few Kms of track and three (?) stations, right? What would that cost?

This is the Phase I section that the Mayor's council is planning at the moment, and the new 0.5% PST increase will fund:


From http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/03/26/mayors-choose-pricier-subway-option

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

This is the Phase I section that the Mayor's council is planning at the moment, and the new 0.5% PST increase will fund:


From http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/03/26/mayors-choose-pricier-subway-option

Does it say anywhere what they expect this segment to cost, as opposed to the entire length to UBC, which is supposed to cost $3 billion? It sucks that we have to phase this. It will still be a huge improvement, but 5 kilometres doesn't really add all that much to the overall network and more importantly, doesn't allow for redistribution of buses that will become redundant.

[SOSS]

That "small" section would improve things drastically! That is such an employment hub (me included) and it would also connect to the Canada Line. It would reduce many train-to-train and train-to-bus transfers. Yes I would prefer it to go all the way to UBC but this section is what is needed vs wanted. Its also time to improve other non-Vancouver sections of the entire system.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by SOSS

That "small" section would improve things drastically! That is such an employment hub (me included) and it would also connect to the Canada Line. It would reduce many train-to-train and train-to-bus transfers. Yes I would prefer it to go all the way to UBC but this section is what is needed vs wanted. Its also time to improve other non-Vancouver sections of the entire system.

It'll obviously be huge, but wouldn't have nearly the same effect as a line all the way there would. Like I said in my previous post, a line all the way to UBC would free up so many bus hours as routes like the 480, 44, 84 could all be cut entirely, while others like the 49, 41, 33, 25, 9 and 4 could all be truncated and have their frequency reduced. These extra buses could then be redistributed all over the city. So while a Broadway subway to Arbutus is crucial for those along the corridor, it would not help people headed to UBC enough to make the buses there any less frequent than they are now. A subway to UBC would make transit everywhere else better too, as a very high number of buses could be added onto other routes.

[queetz@home]

Or they can just put a Park and Ride at Arbutus so those UBC students can just park their Lamborginis there (which they use to get to and from the campus) and take the subway all the way home. Alternatively, perhaps increasing student housing so people don't have to live far away to study in UBC, no?

Originally Posted by mrjauk

Has there been any discussion at all (at any level of government) about closing the gap between VCC/Clarke and the Canada Line?

It would require a few Kms of track and three (?) stations, right? What would that cost?

As for simply extending the Millenium Line up to the Canada Line, I vaguely remember hearing somewhere about possibly extending the Millenium Line track elevated up to the Olympic Village Canada Line station stop. It also has something to do with branching the Millenium Line to meet up with the Skytrain at Main St/Science World. But I don't know if its an official option or something that was suggested here and there.

I would support extending the Millenium Line to simply meet up with the Canada Line if that would help bring the project forward. In this way, the entire region can benefit (i.e. people coming from Northeast Sector and Richmond/Lander/Twassen) with having a central transfer point at a reasonable cost. Elevated would be preferred, of course...

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It'll obviously be huge, but wouldn't have nearly the same effect as a line all the way there would. Like I said in my previous post, a line all the way to UBC would free up so many bus hours as routes like the 480, 44, 84 could all be cut entirely, while others like the 49, 41, 33, 25, 9 and 4 could all be truncated and have their frequency reduced. These extra buses could then be redistributed all over the city. So while a Broadway subway to Arbutus is crucial for those along the corridor, it would not help people headed to UBC enough to make the buses there any less frequent than they are now. A subway to UBC would make transit everywhere else better too, as a very high number of buses could be added onto other routes.

It might have a bigger impact than you'd imagine. Up to 50% of the people boarding the 99 B-Line aren't UBC students, but work between Commercial and Arbutus. By starting the buses at Arbutus, you've potentially up to doubled effective capacity per bus. Traffic along Broadway also tends to be worse between Commercial and Arbutus, so by avoiding that section each bus can complete a single run faster. The route is also shorter, so you need fewer buses on the road even just to maintain existing frequencies (which could probably be increased slightly from 2 minutes).

I would guess extending Millennium Line to Arbutus could free up somewhere between 20% and 30% of the 99 B-Line buses, possibly more. Also important to remember that the Evergreen Line will be bringing more students in on transit when it opens.