HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #16461  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 12:41 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genauso View Post
Everything is poorly organized and poorly defined. Avoiding responsibility while claiming credit depending on what the political opportunity appears to be. Our local and provincial governments are very much perception first, actions last.
Thank you for the thorough explanation. I'm amazed that citizens are not revolted about the current system.
     
     
  #16462  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 2:45 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
I think pointing towards West Van would be a waste. The people who would use it (Lonsdale and the emerging neighbourhoods on eastern Marine) would be too far away and West Vancouverites would hate having "the poors" in their hood. And of course they would still drive.



This "agreement" that didn't include anyone on the north shore has been shot down by official sources and really needs to stop being brought up. It's not happening without a new car crossing, as your link states.
There's something called Park Royal around there... It's pretty dense, and we only want (and need) one station. The vast majority of West Van is untouched. They can have the Cypress and Grouse Heights. It's not like any transit will get there any time soon (unless you call the Grouse Mountain Skyride a Transit System.


It's like Hwy 1. It technically goes into Vancouver, but it only really hits its border before crossing 2nd Narrows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genauso View Post
No, they are vacant lots that will continue to be vacant lots because Vision Vancouver can't build units affordably.
I am in favour of social housing, and in favour of it being spread around the city just as I don't want to deal with homelessness by buying bus fare to another city. However, I care about people living hard getting the stability of a home and being surrounded by healthy people to get them moving forward. I don't give a damn if there's a TV news segment about opening housing that costs $1 million per unit in capital and $100,000 per unit per year to operate. That is offensive to me, worse than doing nothing at all it is deceitful and taking advantage of homeless people to project a positive identity on a politician.


The transportable homes they built and sited near Main and Terminal are interesting, but at the end of the day unless they have solved the cost issue there is no chance of them making up lost ground and will keep falling behind. They'll probably just become more and more symbolic in their actions, more noise to cover up for fewer results. Look at Little Mountain... still vacant, there are no excuses except incompetence in collaboration/managing/numeracy. That's reflected in the turnover of city staff, where the Grandview-Woodlands plan blew up, screwed up, and another chief planner had to be hired. They live in a vague big picture world where actions don't matter. They've had a decade and a mandate to try anything, but they still have no numbers to show they found any solutions... They have no plan, they just want you to feel good that they feel good.

The purpose of hoarding vacant lots is two-fold:
- ask for money from other levels of government
- as the largest owner of idle unused land in Vancouver, create the pretext to give away buildable land below market price to select developers in an opaque and corrupt process that is run by people who have a phobia of all numbers.

Council chooses to blindly believe whatever they want; they care about pet projects like the York Theatre or $50,000 vacations to Socchi, and that's why they prefer CD1 instead of broad based rezoning.

(There's now $715 million per year spent on housing for the needy in Vancouver you can't have a high market price/buildable s.f. and keep up with spending on subsidies or welfare. Broad-based rezoning would lower the cost per buildable s.f., and Robertson's VV has always opposed that as with how they chose to take over the Olympic Village's financing to prevent a fire-sale upon completion)

It might not matter much now because the private sector finally got up to speed and is finishing new housing units at a record pace after accessing enough developable properties, only a decade into the biggest RE boom ever. -- I don't fault VV for the flows of money beyond their control, I blame them from profiting personally by delaying a response to market prices. --

Vision Vancouver does more harm than good, the city gave them free reign to be bold and try new things but it gets worse everywhere they do take action. Allowing them to spend $100 to return $10 to the public takes away from initiatives that get actual results. When the time after the bubble comes, there will be nothing left and it won't be the folks who walked away with the $90 who will end up paying.


Politics out here lurches around, and Vision Vancouver has put image above results its entire tenure. The reaction will be tough love and hard numbers. Hopefully the next crew is more of a working-together themed council, but voters will accept a burn-it-to-the-ground approach just as well.


edit:
this is a transit discussion, and I was being glib that there's resources available. If they're smart and have the leadership to collaborate, they could use these 6 year old mega-budget items like Affordable Housing 2012 and actually make a difference. Better connections to the North Shore isn't exclusively about housing, but it's an improvement worth more than the city would spend on it. We need to find gains, it doesn't matter how much or how little we spend if we're not putting wood behind the right arrows.

Transit and transportation infrastructure are difficult because they are big items, but they're one of the few everyone appreciates and recognizes as a gain. Even the Port Mann bridge isn't hated despite there being both a toll, and a huge operating subsidy thanks to the BC Liberal P3 project organization.(CACs are the local form of P3s, and when a council has reached its spending limit so the CAC grants skyrocket look out for corruption and boondoggles)
And those vacant lots won't be sold, because if they are, there will be no place to develop more units in the near and long term.
     
     
  #16463  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 2:51 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Expo was (more or less) supposed to end at Waterfront; best to come up with a fourth SkyTrain line at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
With the recent news of the CNV mayor wanting Skytrain to the North Shore. I thought I would go about and do some analysis of a few possible options:



Option 1: Burrard Station to Taylor Way @ Marine Dr
1.1km tunnel crossing
3.9km land (cut&cover,bore,elevated,ect.)
5.0km total
Because of the long approaches, and LIM tech, grade shouldn't be an issue.

Option 2a: Canada Line to Lonsdale
4.0km total
Grade Requirement = 3%
Deepest Depth = 30m

Option 2b: Expo Line to Lonsdale
4.6km total
Grade Requirement = 2.5%
Deepest Depth = 30m

Option 3a.1: Canada Line to Lonsdale via 750m Floating Tunnel
3.45km total
Grade Requirement = 3.3%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 3a.2: Expo Line to Lonsdale via 750m Floating Tunnel
4.1km total
Grade Requirement = 2.1%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 3b.1: Expo Line to Lonsdale via 1750m Floating Tunnel
3.25km total
Grade Requirement = 2.5%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 4: Everblue Line from Lonsdale to Commercial Broadway.
3.35km from Lonsdale to Commercial-Hastings Station
Long approaches and shallow consistent depth. No grade requirement
Deepest Depth 30m
If building this means it's going to — money out of the rest of the transit system, I'm not supporting it. Just loop it around the Narrows.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Expo was (more or less) supposed to end at Waterfront; best to come up with a fourth SkyTrain line at this point.
There is still a spur at the end on the Expo Waterfront that extends into the CN yards. Why not? Looks like a good place to expand..
     
     
  #16464  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 2:57 PM
Bdawe Bdawe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: The West End
Posts: 535
What about by way of Brockton Point, like the old freeway plan, and then have a wye on the other side in that industrial area, allowing a branch serving Park Royal and Ambleside and another branch serving Lonsdale?

I would think that this would provide improved travel time over the sea bus, while feeding more people into that expensive water-crossing
     
     
  #16465  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 4:12 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
With the recent news of the CNV mayor wanting Skytrain to the North Shore. I thought I would go about and do some analysis of a few possible options:



Option 1: Burrard Station to Taylor Way @ Marine Dr
1.1km tunnel crossing
3.9km land (cut&cover,bore,elevated,ect.)
5.0km total
Because of the long approaches, and LIM tech, grade shouldn't be an issue.

Option 2a: Canada Line to Lonsdale
4.0km total
Grade Requirement = 3%
Deepest Depth = 30m

Option 2b: Expo Line to Lonsdale
4.6km total
Grade Requirement = 2.5%
Deepest Depth = 30m

Option 3a.1: Canada Line to Lonsdale via 750m Floating Tunnel
3.45km total
Grade Requirement = 3.3%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 3a.2: Expo Line to Lonsdale via 750m Floating Tunnel
4.1km total
Grade Requirement = 2.1%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 3b.1: Expo Line to Lonsdale via 1750m Floating Tunnel
3.25km total
Grade Requirement = 2.5%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 4: Everblue Line from Lonsdale to Commercial Broadway.
3.35km from Lonsdale to Commercial-Hastings Station
Long approaches and shallow consistent depth. No grade requirement
Deepest Depth 30m
Your analysis is very impressive, so you think it would actually be feasible to extend the Canada Line albeit on that adjusted alignment?
     
     
  #16466  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 1:23 AM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdawe View Post
What about by way of Brockton Point, like the old freeway plan, and then have a wye on the other side in that industrial area, allowing a branch serving Park Royal and Ambleside and another branch serving Lonsdale?

I would think that this would provide improved travel time over the sea bus, while feeding more people into that expensive water-crossing
At that point, you might as well twin 1st Narrows. It's only slightly to the west, and if you build it over Hwy 99, it's not going to cut as many trees.
     
     
  #16467  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 1:27 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
At that point, you might as well twin 1st Narrows. It's only slightly to the west, and if you build it over Hwy 99, it's not going to cut as many trees.
I would say that all of these plans sound like a lot of buck for a disproportionately low amount of bang, however we do have a massive Skytrain only bridge over the Fraser which for nearly 30 years has only served four stations so I suppose it certainly isn't out of the question.

Serving different areas than the Seabus also makes sense so long as that we imagine those areas can provide significant ridership and perhaps draw Seabus riders. Otherwise it might be best to stick with Lonsdale where the demand is already there on a significant scale.
     
     
  #16468  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 4:10 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Expo was (more or less) supposed to end at Waterfront; best to come up with a fourth SkyTrain line at this point.
Yes it was but so what? Why would you think requiring a transfer at Waterfront would be better. It makes more sense to extend it than duplicate with a double terminus. It would be like the Yonge-University line in Toronto.
     
     
  #16469  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 4:16 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
With the recent news of the CNV mayor wanting Skytrain to the North Shore. I thought I would go about and do some analysis of a few possible options:

>snipped<

Option 1: Burrard Station to Taylor Way @ Marine Dr
1.1km tunnel crossing
3.9km land (cut&cover,bore,elevated,ect.)
5.0km total
Because of the long approaches, and LIM tech, grade shouldn't be an issue.

Option 2a: Canada Line to Lonsdale
4.0km total
Grade Requirement = 3%
Deepest Depth = 30m

Option 2b: Expo Line to Lonsdale
4.6km total
Grade Requirement = 2.5%
Deepest Depth = 30m

Option 3a.1: Canada Line to Lonsdale via 750m Floating Tunnel
3.45km total
Grade Requirement = 3.3%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 3a.2: Expo Line to Lonsdale via 750m Floating Tunnel
4.1km total
Grade Requirement = 2.1%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 3b.1: Expo Line to Lonsdale via 1750m Floating Tunnel
3.25km total
Grade Requirement = 2.5%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 4: Everblue Line from Lonsdale to Commercial Broadway.
3.35km from Lonsdale to Commercial-Hastings Station
Long approaches and shallow consistent depth. No grade requirement
Deepest Depth 30m
rough estimates for TBM tunnels are to expect $1 Billion per KM. 5-10% cheaper per KM for cut & cover. Plus $200 million per underground station.

Back Of Napkin estimates of the different routes would range from $3.3 Billion to $5.3 Billion.

Just to get to the North Van shoreline.

Extra costs are added to run the Skytrain tunnels under Lonsdale up the mountain with stations at Esplanade, Victoria Park, 15th St (LG Hospital), 23rd St (Centennal Theater), Queens Rd.

Is it really necessary to spend $billions for a comfy — ride to downtown from North Van?
     
     
  #16470  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 5:42 AM
Bdawe Bdawe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: The West End
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
rough estimates for TBM tunnels are to expect $1 Billion per KM. 5-10% cheaper per KM for cut & cover. Plus $200 million per underground station.

Back Of Napkin estimates of the different routes would range from $3.3 Billion to $5.3 Billion.

Just to get to the North Van shoreline.

Extra costs are added to run the Skytrain tunnels under Lonsdale up the mountain with stations at Esplanade, Victoria Park, 15th St (LG Hospital), 23rd St (Centennal Theater), Queens Rd.

Is it really necessary to spend $billions for a comfy — ride to downtown from North Van?
A billion per kilometer for...high-cost manhattan more like it
     
     
  #16471  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 6:25 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,182
Or just build a bridge at Second Narrows and order more SeaBuses.

If you really need to get downtown that fast, pay a little extra for a boat ride; otherwise you can take the long way around.
     
     
  #16472  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 2:23 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal View Post
Yes it was but so what? Why would you think requiring a transfer at Waterfront would be better. It makes more sense to extend it than duplicate with a double terminus. It would be like the Yonge-University line in Toronto.
Especially when you are operating at high frequencies it can sometime bring operational benefits to split the line. And a 3 minute transfer on a long journey isn't much. YUS makes somewhat more sense to have as one Line since it operates a similar parallel service pattern, and from the beginning was intended to be operated that way.
     
     
  #16473  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 3:13 PM
NewfBC NewfBC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
I would say that all of these plans sound like a lot of buck for a disproportionately low amount of bang, however we do have a massive Skytrain only bridge over the Fraser which for nearly 30 years has only served four stations so I suppose it certainly isn't out of the question.
Yes.. but 4 stations serving how many people? 180k people live on the North Shore.

Ron.
     
     
  #16474  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 5:20 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
...however we do have a massive Skytrain only bridge over the Fraser which for nearly 30 years has only served four stations...
Calling the Skybridge "massive" is just plain wrong. Because it only has to handle a few trainsets at any given time it's far, far less "massive" than a bridge built to handle heavy trucks would need to be. And it only cost $28 million to construct, which is a "massive" bargain compared to building a road bridge with equivalent passenger carrying capacity (given the fact that the vast majority of traffic is single occupancy vehicles).
     
     
  #16475  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 6:43 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewfBC View Post
Yes.. but 4 stations serving how many people? 180k people live on the North Shore.

Ron.
New Westminster has 71k people and five SkyTrain stations.
     
     
  #16476  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 6:54 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
rough estimates for TBM tunnels are to expect $1 Billion per KM. 5-10% cheaper per KM for cut & cover. Plus $200 million per underground station.

Is it really necessary to spend $billions for a comfy — ride to downtown from North Van?


Bored tunnels aren't that much money. I think Evergreen was somewhere around $300M. Going underwater makes them pricier. The Port Mann water tunnel was reported at $240M and its pretty short. People in the industry joke about that one being two shafts, with a trivial tunnel between them though. The water crossing portion of a skytrain tunnel doesn't have to be all that long.

Right now, floating tunnels are also a pie-in-the-sky type idea. Nobody wants to do them because they're not tested. Translink being a conservative organization will probably never even look at something like that seriously.

For inner harbours, there is a huge chance for snags to damage the tunnel. A big ship snags the tunnel with an anchor? Floating tunnel probably sinks. What engineer would want to sign off on that. Metro Vancouver has had to repair their cross harbour water lines many times and they're buried.

The Canada Line can not be extended without bisecting the Expo Line. It's also the least suited to making any sort of deep tunnel due to the traction limits of the rolling stock.
     
     
  #16477  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 7:05 PM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post

The Canada Line can not be extended without bisecting the Expo Line. It's also the least suited to making any sort of deep tunnel due to the traction limits of the rolling stock.
The grades will also be at the Canada Line cars max capability. The grades I have in my image were liberal estimates, so Canada Line crossing over is pretty much out of the question.

The only way it could happen is going to be LIM technology (except for option 1, where the long approaches could make conventional possible)
     
     
  #16478  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 7:26 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
The grades will also be at the Canada Line cars max capability. The grades I have in my image were liberal estimates, so Canada Line crossing over is pretty much out of the question.

The only way it could happen is going to be LIM technology (except for option 1, where the long approaches could make conventional possible)
The LIM rolling stock can do a 6% grade.

A floating tunnel would work also only between immersed tube sections or surface anchored points. Nobody is going to want to bore into an immersed tube.
     
     
  #16479  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 7:29 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
Bored tunnels aren't that much money. I think Evergreen was somewhere around $300M. Going underwater makes them pricier. The Port Mann water tunnel was reported at $240M and its pretty short. People in the industry joke about that one being two shafts, with a trivial tunnel between them though. The water crossing portion of a skytrain tunnel doesn't have to be all that long.

Right now, floating tunnels are also a pie-in-the-sky type idea. Nobody wants to do them because they're not tested. Translink being a conservative organization will probably never even look at something like that seriously.

For inner harbours, there is a huge chance for snags to damage the tunnel. A big ship snags the tunnel with an anchor? Floating tunnel probably sinks. What engineer would want to sign off on that. Metro Vancouver has had to repair their cross harbour water lines many times and they're buried.
Or using immersed tube? This should be much cheaper than bored tunnel, and do not need to go nearly as deep too.
     
     
  #16480  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 7:57 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
Or using immersed tube? This should be much cheaper than bored tunnel, and do not need to go nearly as deep too.
The problem here would likely be the ends. You need a big box on each end to tie into with immersed tube. It would be hard to locate those. With bores, you just keep going until you don't want more tunnel. If the tunnel is bored on either end, it probably makes sense to bore the middle as well.

You need divers for the connections on immersed tubes, so the depths are more of an issue than in the bored tunnel. They generally favour shallow water.

The tube tunnel also needs dredging and has to be physically floated into place, so marine traffic can also be a concern.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.