Canada Line races toward capacity

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Cambie's been a Heritage Boulevard since 1930-47 (Council merely made it official in '93), so probably never on the table. Not a big deal.



There's even an old streetcar ROW they can use... assuming they can un-convert it from park space.

Pretty sure we literally just had a major discussion about the preservation of historical property.

But really, the space underneath Skytrain tracks (outside the station areas) didn't have to be barren- there are plenty of shade-loving plants, and Richmond has plants underneath the Skytrain tracks as well (including where it's double-tracked.)

The reason Cambie specifically, and not King Edwards (for example, which has very similar street design, and is still not in the heritage register) was declared 'historic' was due to worries about RAV being built on top of it by nearby NIMBYs.

They're also planning on building the UBC Extension elevated atop the University Blvd median (also designed similarly).


They can probably keep the trail with the streetcar/BRT south of Granville Ave, similar to the Artubus Streetcar.

The bigger issue is that the tracks after Granville Ave were removed a much longer time ago vs the tracks from Granville to Steveston, so the corridor is narrower from there to Bridgeport.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The reason Cambie specifically, and not King Edwards (for example, which has very similar street design, and is still not in the heritage register) was declared 'historic' was due to worries about RAV being built on top of it by nearby NIMBYs

No it wasn't. It was designated years before a route for transit to Richmond was considered. And I'm fairly sure there's no final decisions about the UBC route and whether it's tunneled all the way yet. (And there's a separate thread for that topic).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Let's do the math. Using 2019 dollars, RRT viaducts are about $140M/km, bored tunnels are about $160M/km. $20M x ~5km from 16th to 64th is... $100 million; the savings are probably even less when adjusted for inflation, and for how the Cambie segment was cut and cover, not bored. Either way, that isn't even near enough for all sixteen stations.

They could close one side of Granville/Garden City and put the rails there. Need multiple side street closures and a lot more redevelopment to make it worthwhile, though.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No it wasn't. It was designated years before a route for transit to Richmond was considered. And I'm fairly sure there's no final decisions about the UBC route and whether it's tunneled all the way yet. (And there's a separate thread for that topic).

There were plans for a North-South LRT way before 1993- though most still used the Artubus corridor as an assumption.

There was serious planning done for a north-south rail corridor using the Cambie Corridor since at least 1990, which predates the 1993 designation.

https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/tag/bc-transit/

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Let's do the math. Using 2019 dollars, RRT viaducts are about $140M/km, bored tunnels are about $160M/km. $20M x ~5km from 16th to 64th is... $100 million; the savings are probably even less when adjusted for inflation, and for how the Cambie segment was cut and cover, not bored. Either way, that isn't even near enough for all sixteen stations.

They could close one side of Granville/Garden City and put the rails there. Need multiple side street closures and a lot more redevelopment to make it worthwhile, though.

Not if you account for the cost of stations, which are halved (in theory- bored tunnel stations are generally deeper than cut-and-cover stations)- so an additional $150M savings.

It could also be better since there's no property acquisition required for elevated stations on the Cambie corridor (you use the road median).

The Broadway study assumed the property acquisition costs would remain the same, and also assumed a 40-60% contingency for elevated tracks rather than the standard 25% contingency (contingency is higher for tunnels because you don't know what's down there.)
That's overall a $662.5M savings.

That savings is probably lower for cut-and-cover- but the planners were also penny-pinching here. Even $100M is worth it.

They almost didn't build the Olympic Village station, despite the it servicing the Olympic Village.

I wouldn't have been surprised if the Canada Line would have only had a single station on Sea Island if YVR hadn't paid up the cash.


Even removing the Richmond Section was on the table at the time (despite most of the demand being from Richmond.)

[Migrant_Coconut]

In other words, Metro Vancouver was apparently pretty lucky to get even the Canada Line we have now, much less an “optimal” one that really belongs in the fantasy thread. Like it or not, a plan that originated in the Thirties meant the RAV was effectively locked into some variant of below-grade the moment TransLink gave up on Arbutus; Bombardier’s competing bid for a trench all the way down Cambie would likely’ve been even worse.

And again, inflation: $100m in 2019 is ~$77m in 2004. Unless all the platforms could be lengthened for less than $5m apiece (which barely covers the design budget), it wasn't happening.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

For the first, that'll be Gordon Campbell's Liberals - who forced a P3 and fast-tracking for the Olympics - and Mayor Derek Corrigan, Mayor Don McLean and Councillor David Cadman, among others - who insisted the whole thing was a waste of money and should be scrapped - resulting in a watered-down, cheaper design with smaller stations and platforms; all are no longer in office.

For the second and third, Mayor Malcolm Brodie and council. They thought SkyTrain was ugly and wanted a streetcar, and when they didn't get that, they insisted the Richmond segment be minimalized to reduce the ugliness... but Brodie has also been reelected over and over again since at least '05 with 2/3rds majorities or higher (and was around to reject the Richmond Centre bus loop), so karma will have to wait a while longer.

One would think minimizing the Richmond segment would open up dollars for less cutbacks elsewhere.

We certainly could've done without the two extra stations on Sea Island - all it gave us in return was the hideous outlet mall. YVR better had covered 100% the cost of those, AND the hit on project NPV for the extra 2 minutes travel time to downtown.

Also, how much could they have possibly saved by not banking the track around QE park? The turn radii are comically small and add at least a minute to travel time. I'm not in favor of ripping up nice areas of town for elevated guideway, but that's where it would've been worth it to lose a few trees in the median to get the proper alignment.

Overall it looks like this $2 billion project would've been offered twice as much value if it had been a $2.5 billion project. A classic story of diminishing returns on cost-cutting

[Migrant_Coconut]

It could definitely have used another half billion, but as mentioned, we were already lucky enough getting the first two billion to begin with.

A) Since the viaduct itself is fairly pricey, single-tracking it and shortening Brighouse doesn’t actually save a lot of money.
B) YVR paid for all three of their stations, and got to add a surcharge to them; you’ll note that fares to and from Sea Island are a few bucks extra.
C) The bank at QE is because SNC cheaped out with a highly divisive cut n’cover that followed the road; boring straight through bedrock would likely have increased the cost, and as mentioned, elevated was off the table; the only way to make it cheaper would’ve been to follow Bombardier’s bid and dig a trench all the way from 16th to Marine.

[WarrenC12]

Hindsight is 20/20 but we're lucky to have gotten anything given the situation with the mayors and Translink at that time.

[Orcair]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It could definitely have used another half billion, but as mentioned, we were already lucky enough getting the first two billion to begin with.

A) Since the viaduct itself is fairly pricey, single-tracking it and shortening Brighouse doesn’t actually save a lot of money.
B) YVR paid for all three of their stations, and got to add a surcharge to them; you’ll note that fares to and from Sea Island are a few bucks extra.
C) The bank at QE is because SNC cheaped out with a highly divisive cut n’cover that followed the road; boring straight through bedrock would likely have increased the cost, and as mentioned, elevated was off the table; the only way to make it cheaper would’ve been to follow Bombardier’s bid and dig a trench all the way from 16th to Marine.

N.B. that the YVR addfare is collected by TransLink, not YVR Airport Authority.
https://www.translink.ca/transit-fares/transferring-and-addfare#yvr-airport-addfare

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

In other words, Metro Vancouver was apparently pretty lucky to get even the Canada Line we have now, much less an “optimal” one that really belongs in the fantasy thread. Like it or not, a plan that originated in the Thirties meant the RAV was effectively locked into some variant of below-grade the moment TransLink gave up on Arbutus; Bombardier’s competing bid for a trench all the way down Cambie would likely’ve been even worse.

And again, inflation: $100m in 2019 is ~$77m in 2004. Unless all the platforms could be lengthened for less than $5m apiece (which barely covers the design budget), it wasn't happening.

This IS a fantasy thread...

And yeah, I agree we were lucky to get the Canada as it is now. It's ok for the current needs, even though I have gripes with it.

The Expo was also cost-cut quite a bit as well, for what it's worth.

Also, the Millennium's tight (ie. slow) curve around Home Depot at Gilmore is ridiculous, stupid, and obvious penny-pinching.


Bombardier didn't want to follow a trench the entire way from 16th to Marine.
It was south of 49th only.
Either way, it may not be such a bad idea, since you'd be able to 'cover' the tunnel later eventually, and thus cut the immediate construction costs down.

This may have been the cheapest option of all, considering that the 49th Ave trench + boring proposal was apparently around the same price as the Hyundai proposal.
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=150289

Let's just ignore that we're creating a giant trench in Cambie south of 16th for an indeterminate period of time, though.

That was probably too much for anybody involved at the time to take.


Anyways, we did cut through the Cambie Median to go elevated up to Marine- and the use of heritage designation by NIMBYs overall to protect things of iffy heritage importance is a pretty common occurrence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_N1Y9qRkjo

If all else fails, you could have narrowed Cambie to 4 lanes (+ bus bays and left-turn lanes) to widen the median to compensate for the lost area, or narrow the parking lanes by 0.5m (I don't think this is necessary, but still).

Also, preserving the heritage boulevard medians as much as they have been has kind of been a pyrrhic victory IMO- they would have made nice areas to put protected bike/walking trails on- certainly better than the painted bike lanes we have now.

Originally Posted by dleung

One would think minimizing the Richmond segment would open up dollars for less cutbacks elsewhere.

We certainly could've done without the two extra stations on Sea Island - all it gave us in return was the hideous outlet mall. YVR better had covered 100% the cost of those, AND the hit on project NPV for the extra 2 minutes travel time to downtown.

Also, how much could they have possibly saved by not banking the track around QE park? The turn radii are comically small and add at least a minute to travel time. I'm not in favor of ripping up nice areas of town for elevated guideway, but that's where it would've been worth it to lose a few trees in the median to get the proper alignment.

Overall it looks like this $2 billion project would've been offered twice as much value if it had been a $2.5 billion project. A classic story of diminishing returns on cost-cutting

Well, they almost didn't build the Richmond Section.

An extra $0.5B would allow for stations on 16th, 33rd, 57th, and Capstan at minimum, and that would allow for a bunch of extra east-west Vancouver bus lines, as well as future-proofing for future developments on the Broadway Corridor.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Meh, six of one, half a dozen of another. This is the situation now, and we need to deal with it.

Originally Posted by fredinno

This IS a fantasy thread...

Not even close.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by fredinno

This IS a fantasy thread...

NO, this is not.

this is the fantasy thread.

go there with fantasies. i dont look at that thread for a reason.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by dleung

Who are the names of those involved in the 40m platforms, the shortening of the Brighouse segment, and the single tracking? It would be nice to drag them through the mud, or at least wrest some commentary from them on what went wrong and how government can avoid doing such stupid again.

• 40m platforms - InTransitBC's proposal with wider trains to meet 15,000ppdph requirement
• the shortening of the Brighouse segment - cost-cutting measure so probably everyone managing the budget (i.e. government)
• the single tracking - another cost-cutting measure.

Be glad that they voted down the proposed single track segment around the future Capstan Station site.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No it wasn't. It was designated years before a route for transit to Richmond was considered. And I'm fairly sure there's no final decisions about the UBC route and whether it's tunneled all the way yet. (And there's a separate thread for that topic).

Cambie Boulevard was called "heritage" (signs were erected, and whether or not officially a nationally recognized heritage site, I'm not sure) following Vander Zalm's (or Rita Johnson's) proposal for rapid transit to Richmond in the eary 1990s (1993?), where SkyTrain down Cambie was a serious contender. At the time hundreds of new trees were also planted in the median. The threat of an elevated guideway above it was certainly a factor.

These were the options at the time, note the SkyTrain would have gone through Gastown and been on Garden City in Richmond and turned to reach No. 3 Rd.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Bombardier didn't want to follow a trench the entire way from 16th to Marine.
It was south of 49th only.
Either way, it may not be such a bad idea, since you'd be able to 'cover' the tunnel later eventually, and thus cut the immediate construction costs down.

This may have been the cheapest option of all, considering that the 49th Ave trench + boring proposal was apparently around the same price as the Hyundai proposal.
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=150289

Let's just ignore that we're creating a giant trench in Cambie south of 16th for an indeterminate period of time, though.

That was probably too much for anybody involved at the time to take.

One of the reasons that Bombardier's proposal was more expensive, was because there's supposedly a massive BC Hydro line and a water main under the Cambie median, so placing a trench there would have incurred the cost of moving that infrastructure.
InTransitBC wisely chose to dig their temporary trench and place the guideway under the northbound roadway, avoiding relocation of the BC Hydro facility.
That was smart thinking.
PS - InTransitBC did not end up using the "innovative method" and ended up doing cast-in-place because of delays in project approval.
The innovative method was precast tunnel segments which required moving in one direction from one end to the other end,
but with the shorter time frame, it was faster to pour concrete at multiple work sites.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

There's even an old streetcar ROW they can use... assuming they can un-convert it from park space.

It also travelled on Granville and around that wide curve onto Garden City.
That's why those streets are so wide.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Cambie Heritage Boulevard was designated heritage following Vander Zalm's (or Rita Johnson's) proposal for rapid transit to Richmond in the eary 1990s (1993?), where SkyTrain down Cambie was a serious contender. At the time hundreds of new trees were also planted in the median.

These were the options at the time, note the SkyTrain would have gone through Gastown and been on Garden City in Richmond and turned to reach No. 3 Rd.

It was Rita Johnson, but it wasn't going to be Skytrain, and it could have run on Cambie (or Arbutus) and not affected the Cambie boulevard. This 1999 City report says "Within the regional policy context, the City of Vancouver adopted a Transportation Plan. The City’s Transportation Plan is consistent with the Livable Region Strategic Plan and Transport 2021 including the provision of a higher capacity transit system along the Broadway Corridor and between downtown Vancouver and Richmond, a suburb to the south of Vancouver. Until June 1998 all levels of government were anticipating a conventional light rail system."

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It was Rita Johnson, but it wasn't going to be Skytrain, and it could have run on Cambie (or Arbutus) and not affected the Cambie boulevard. This 1999 City report says "Within the regional policy context, the City of Vancouver adopted a Transportation Plan. The City’s Transportation Plan is consistent with the Livable Region Strategic Plan and Transport 2021 including the provision of a higher capacity transit system along the Broadway Corridor and between downtown Vancouver and Richmond, a suburb to the south of Vancouver. Until June 1998 all levels of government were anticipating a conventional light rail system."

I think 1999 is too late. They wanted it operational by 1995 I think (or that could have been the Coquitlam branch).
I remember seeing a drawing of an elevated SkyTrain station at Oakridge (where the guideway shifted to the west side of Cambie to reach the mall building). I can't find it on line though.
The 1999 City perspective would include positions taken in response to public backlash against an elevated option.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think 1999 is too late. They wanted it operational by 1995 I think (or that could have been the Coquitlam branch).
I remember seeing a drawing of an elevated SkyTrain station at Oakridge (where the guideway shifted to the west side of Cambie to reach the mall building). I can't find it on line though.

1999 was when the City report was published, but it's referencing back to the early 1990s. Assuming it's correct, presumably there was no reason why an elevated transit station couldn't have been light rail, rather than SkyTrain? I think they were looking at all the options for both routes.