Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[casper]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Toronto understands that if you're going to go to the expense of building an underground line it makes sense to spend a bit of extra money during construction to provide large stations and ample access to them. Because trying retrofit it later when it's needed (and it will eventually be needed) would be far, far more expensive.

That's my big beef with the Canada Line. It's as if they never expected it to be very popular, so why spend money on the ability to handle lots of people? It's small town thinking, and Vancouver deserves better.

I think this has more to do with it a being a Private-Public-Partnership.

The government puts out an RFP for a system and tries to be non-prescriptive about station design, layout, technology etc.

Several private companies pull together teams to write up proposals. Each one trying to propose a system that meets requirements at the lowest possible price. This is what you end up with.

They probably do a points system where they evaluate the proposal on price, technology, etc. But ultimately everyone is trying to keep costs as low as possible.

There was a proposal based on the same technology as the rest of Skytrain. It did not win instead we have no interchangeability between the two systems.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by casper

I think this has more to do with it a being a Private-Public-Partnership.

The government puts out an RFP for a system and tries to be non-prescriptive about station design, layout, technology etc.

Several private companies pull together teams to write up proposals. Each one trying to propose a system that meets requirements at the lowest possible price. This is what you end up with.

They probably do a points system where they evaluate the proposal on price, technology, etc. But ultimately everyone is trying to keep costs as low as possible.

There was a proposal based on the same technology as the rest of Skytrain. It did not win instead we have no interchangeability between the two systems.

Still I think we need to fight so that the Line falls on the high end in terms of capacity, it's likely they will still try to cut costs.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by casper

There was a proposal based on the same technology as the rest of Skytrain. It did not win instead we have no interchangeability between the two systems.

It did not win because the RFP excluded any potential savings from trying in with the existing SkyTrain system.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by casper

The government puts out an RFP for a system and tries to be non-prescriptive about station design, layout, technology etc.

The government needs to specify the station requirements in the bid documents. PPP or not, there's nothing that prevents them from stipulating the platform lengths and widths, the number and capacity of station access points, etc. To allow a low bidder to stick you with a poor and restrictive station design is an abrogation of responsibility.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The government needs to specify the station requirements in the bid documents. PPP or not, there's nothing that prevents them from stipulating the platform lengths and widths, the number and capacity of station access points, etc. To allow a low bidder to stick you with a poor and restrictive station design is an abrogation of responsibility.

The problem is that they CAN give you a solution like the Canada Line I.e. designed to scale very well to a point (IMO only 13000 pphpd with current station flow). But, then it becomes restrictively expensive to go beyond that.

I think it would be worthwhile for people to take a look at he spec for Eglington Crosstown LRT's underground stations, they are significantly larger than the CL's as well as having multiple entrances etc. They are building ECLRT to be able to serve ITS max capacity which is the same as the Canada Lines from day 1.

http://www.thecrosstown.ca/stations_stops

[officedweller]

Low floor LRT vehicles have very awkward seating layouts in some parts of the cars and huge bulkheads for the wheels.
I definitely prefer high floor vehicles.
You can see the bulkheads/wheel wells in this pic of the Crosstown LRT vehicle where the aisle narrows to maybe 2 feet (?)
and there's even a step up to reach some of those seats:


https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/05/30/ttc_downplays_lrt_squabble_with_metrolinx.html

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Low floor LRT vehicles have very awkward seating layouts in some parts of the cars and huge bulkheads for the wheels.
I definitely prefer high floor vehicles.
You can see the bulkheads/wheel wells in this pic of the Crosstown LRT vehicle where the aisle narrows to maybe 2 feet (?)
and there's even a step up to reach some of those seats:


https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/05/30/ttc_downplays_lrt_squabble_with_metrolinx.html

Ridden on the Flexity Outlooks alot which are virtually the same albeit it slightly narrower. The bulkhead isn't actually that big and the aisle isn't too narrow but, it certainly does narrow. As you mentioned though this is the cost of having a low floor vehicle. In my experience these seats are perfectly comfortable to sit in.

Nonetheless I'm referring to the stations as a point of comparison that should be made because we obviously won't be running low floor LRVs on Broadway.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Jebby

It did not win because the RFP excluded any potential savings from trying in with the existing SkyTrain system.

The only reason people hate RPP around here now is because the time and money constraints meant that having a stipulation that the line be future-proof would prevent it from being ready for the Olympics.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The only reason people hate RPP around here now is because the time and money constraints meant that having a stipulation that the line be future-proof would prevent it from being ready for the Olympics.

Why would the train technology affect the ability to have it constructed in the same amount of time?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Why would the train technology affect the ability to have it constructed in the same amount of time?

I meant if they mandated the station be built bigger and had the Richmond and YVR sections dual tracked, the Canada Line would not be complete for the Olympics.

The actual rail technology isn't as big of a deal if it doesn't interface with the rest of the metro system anyways.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I meant if they mandated the station be built bigger and had the Richmond and YVR sections dual tracked, the Canada Line would not be complete for the Olympics.

The actual rail technology isn't as big of a deal if it doesn't interface with the rest of the metro system anyways.

I don't think so. That would relate more closely to cost than anything else. Double tracking would take almost the exact same amount of time to build. They just have to lift bigger segments in place which are precast offsite.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I don't think so. That would relate more closely to cost than anything else. Double tracking would take almost the exact same amount of time to build. They just have to lift bigger segments in place which are precast offsite.

And the stations being bigger? (bigger stairs and all)

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by fredinno

And the stations being bigger? (bigger stairs and all)

It's not like you can't have more works in parallel occurring in a larger station. The tunnel was the limiting factor, just like Evergreen.

[WarrenC12]

I thought the main speed/cost advantage of the Canada Line was the cut and cover method?

Didn't the Bombardier consortium come in $500M higher but propose a bored tunnel? I can't remember the details. Regardless the ILM version of the line would not have had a direct connect to Expo anyway.

This is all off the top of my head.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I don't think so. That would relate more closely to cost than anything else. Double tracking would take almost the exact same amount of time to build. They just have to lift bigger segments in place which are precast offsite.

We will be regretting the shortsightedness of the Canada Line when it hits capacity. That's all I'm going to say on that. It's been something of a dog and pony show since 1990 and although the Liberals may lay claim to getting it and the Olympics, those were initially NDP projects.

They could do whatever they want to expand the Canada Line, but the obvious choice is to build a subway under the Arbutus corridor should capacity ever require that. It's also likely that if they went with a Arbutus subway/skytrain like originally planned, the Cambie line might be made an express route during peak to Richmond

[officedweller]

Apparently, a fully bored Canada Line would have required several TBMs to deal with the different soil conditions along the route (i.e. Little Mountain)
- that would have required a extraction pit wherever they needed a new/different TBM.

In addition, remember that the Bombardier bid only proposed tunnel to 49th Ave.
South of 49th Ave. to Marine Drive, Bombardier's proposal had a permanent open trench down the median.
(Think Grandview cut with planted sides)

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Nonetheless I'm referring to the stations as a point of comparison that should be made because we obviously won't be running low floor LRVs on Broadway.

Yeah, sorry, my reference was because the low floor LRVs don't have the best vehicle layouts/capacity, it seems that they build longer platforms for their stations.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by fredinno

And the stations being bigger? (bigger stairs and all)

They still had to dig up the entire length of the station along Cambie. Digger a bit wider for another 20 meters wouldn't have made a difference overall.

Same with the guideways. They're all precast concrete that was made off-site and then raised into place.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Kisai

We will be regretting the shortsightedness of the Canada Line when it hits capacity.

It won't hit capacity for another 30-40 years. By that time it'll make more sense to create a second north-south line to relieve capacity than expand the Canada Line.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Jebby

It won't hit capacity for another 30-40 years. By that time it'll make more sense to create a second north-south line to relieve capacity than expand the Canada Line.

PEerhaps 30 years at present, but things like Broadway may have some unexpected effects on this. 30 is probably absolute max time to hit capacity, and considering that a relief line will easily take 10 years from first proposal to construction this isn't something we should out off too much.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Jebby

They still had to dig up the entire length of the station along Cambie. Digger a bit wider for another 20 meters wouldn't have made a difference overall.

Same with the guideways. They're all precast concrete that was made off-site and then raised into place.

I guess it could be lack of experience with PPPs.