Results 1 to 80 of 80

Thread: Vancouver 4th Skytrain - The Evergreen line

  1. #1

    Default Vancouver 4th Skytrain - The Evergreen line

    Construction has already started as of January 2012, with expropriated businesses and houses now being demolished and city utilities being installed.

    Some quick, basic history:

    The line was originally going to be built in the early 2000s upon the completion of 2nd skytrain line (the Millennium Line) but was bumped for the Canada Line (Vancouver to Richmond and the Airport). It was then re-proposed as a largely at grade LRT line, but when costs for this LRT line rose to 1.2 billion, it was scrapped and once again proposed as fully grade separated, automated skytrain for a cost of 1.4 billion (only 2 hundred million more for much higher speeds, automation, greater frequencies, higher passenger capacity and integration with the existing network, so it was a no brainer of a decision)

    Basic Information

    Length: 11km
    Stations: 5 new, 1 expanded
    Technology: ALRT (Light Metro)
    Grade: Primarily elevated with a 2km tunneled section & several at grade sections (at grade sections have no interaction with roads, walkways, etc... The entire line is 100% separate from all other forms of traffic, thus allowing automation)
    Route: The Evergreen Line will interline with the Millennium Line until Lougheed station in Burnaby, from this station it will branch off and travel north along North Road (the border between Burnaby and Coquitlam), then it will turn east and travel through the town of Port Moody and it will terminate in the downtown core of the city of Coquitlam.

    Here is a map of Metro-Vancouver and the skytrain system, the Evergreen Line will be connecting the North East portions of the metro to the network:





    Here is a map of the Evergreen Line route:


    http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/d...gnment_map.jpg


    http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/image_gallery.htm

    Completion: The Line is expected to be completed in 2016
    Travel Time: 15 minutes

    Stations

    heading west to east

    The existing Lougheed Station will be expanded to have a third platform, from here the Evergreen Line branches off from the Millennium Line.



    Next is Burquitlam Station. Just after this station the train dives into the 2km tunnel to Port Moody.



    Next is the Port Moody station. Here the station will connect with the Port Moody Commuter Rail station (West Coast Express)





    Next is Ioco Station.





    Next is Coquitlam Central, which will also hub with Commuter Rail. Here, the tracks will also be designed to accommodate a potential future branch expansion to the east to Port Coquitlam.





    Terminus station is Douglas College.



    All pics are from the Evergreen Website:
    http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/image_gallery.htm

    The line will also be built for the potential addition of 2 stations in the future along the line.

  2. #2
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Yes Translink is finally building the Evergreen Line. However unless a stable, sustainable funding model is found, there might not be much bus service in the lower mainland. Surrey which is already nearing Vancouver in population has no where near the current required levels of service. Also here's a link to some of the current funding issues.
    http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local.../20207836.html
    Edmonton - Vancouver - Ottawa

  3. #3
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Vancouver:11 km for $1.4 billion or $127million per km for a fully grade seperated LRT.
    Edmonton: City Center to Nait, 3.3 km for $755 million or $228 million per km at grade.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    Vancouver:11 km for $1.4 billion or $127million per km for a fully grade seperated LRT.
    Edmonton: City Center to Nait, 3.3 km for $755 million or $228 million per km at grade.
    Yes, you are quite correct in those final numbers. But lets put those numbers in perspective here:
    -Edmonton's NAIT LRT numbers include LRVs, multi-use paths, stations, roadwork, transit station relocation, utility relocation.
    -Vancouver's Evergreen ALRT numbers don't include LRV, multi-use paths, roadwork or utility relocation.
    -A large portion of the 755 Million for NAIT LRT includes the purchase of vehicles. Most other transit authorities DONT include this in the cost of the line construction.
    -Edmonton's NAIT LRT requires work on more that just the 3.3 km extension. significant work is required at churchill station, and minor work at all underground stations, and also includes the construction of a tail track at health sciences.
    -Edmonton's includes a complicated underground switch... which had to be shipped from Europe (Denmark I believe).
    -Averaging costs per km over 3.3 km versus 11 km, and not consider the rest of the extension will be cheaper is kinda naive.
    -Once at NAIT, its pretty cheap to built the rest to St Albert. What happens to this figure when you consider the full line? It will be much lower cost on average per km.


    It's quite easy to look at the final numbers from one budget compare to another and jump to the conclusion you have... but if you don't look at the finer details, you miss the reasons the costs are so different....

  5. #5

    Default

    id be more interested how the price can be both lower while hongcouverites dont have to idle their bentleys at intersections for 5-10 min to let the train pass?

  6. #6

    Default

    If you did a flat out compare of each budget and what is included in them, you'll see Edmonton's actual cost per km lower than Vancouver... but you'll need to dig into the details to get that.

  7. #7
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    I'd like to see if they ever build that long proposed / continuously delayed UBC line. That will be one expensive project if they ever do. But, from my brief experience living there, it seems to be the biggest missing piece of their public transit system.

    Still kinda disheartening to see this sort of development when Edmonton's LRT has been perpetually 25 years behind development. I guess that's what a dense tax / voter base gets you.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stunkermann View Post
    id be more interested how the price can be both lower while hongcouverites dont have to idle their bentleys at intersections for 5-10 min to let the train pass?
    5 to 10 minuets... (headshakes)

    God forbid anything get in the way of the automobile especially something that is more efficient and has a larger carrying capacity.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  9. #9

    Default

    having rail on a grade separate ROW has many advantages for the transit rider too.

    EDP: "(headshakes)" and "god forbid" is this your attempt at being "slanderous" or are always this edgy when someone mentions something about creating efficiencies?

  10. #10

    Default

    No the claim that you have to wait 5-10 minuets for a LRT train to clear in intersection is absurd.

    we can examine efficiency many different ways, such as taking an existing road and finding ways of increasing its passenger capacity by ensuring that high volume vehicles such as buses and LRT's have right of way... but statements such as "id be more interested how the price can be both lower while hongcouverites dont have to idle their bentleys at intersections for 5-10 min to let the train pass?" do not add anything constructive to the conversation.

    Let the poster reply Medwards you don't need to be his champion. As you have pointed out our LRT projects have significant area improvement projects attached to them so we can have an real conversation about that but not some outlandish claim that we have to wait 5-10 min for LRT to pass.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 10-10-2012 at 10:28 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  11. #11

    Default

    Its not absurd. Go stand out at 114/university avenue at any rush hour. You'll find times when it takes 5 minutes or more to go through the intersection because the trains crossing every 2.5 minutes which brings down the gates for 60 seconds. And no, its not a rare occasion, its constant. The traffic trying to head southbound on 114st from University Avenue frequently backs up and around to the traffic circle on Groat road and 87th avenue in the evening, and backs up in the morning down 114st, belgravia, and on to fox drive, sometimes all the way to the whitemud.

    And your post added something to the debate? Where do you get off being Mr Righteous when most of your posts add next to nothing to any debate??

    I'll reply as I feel the need to. You don't need to attempt to control when I post.

  12. #12

    Default

    Thanks for this thread. I've been following the Evergreen proposals for sometime now. Nice to see things going forward there.

    Coquitlam and area could use this much faster connection. That Lougheed corridor is going to get awfully busy.

    Of course I agree that the skytrain elevated track is the way to go for this project. Seems to work very well in the lower mainland and from a rider pov also extremely enjoyable with the added skyview. I love skytrain.
    Last edited by Replacement; 10-10-2012 at 10:33 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  13. #13

    Default

    ^ there are many intersections that take 5 min to make a turn through...

    and in the name of efficiency how many more people travel through that intersection a day now because of the LRT?
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  14. #14

    Default

    how many more could travel through this intersection even more efficiently with a simple LRT grade separation from that intersection is the real question you should be asking. A benefit to both LRT riders and car drivers, and the efficient movement of goods and services benefits as well.
    Another question you should be asking is why all major Canadian Cities are going doing grade separation as much as possible (Toronto subway, Ottawa LRT, Vancouver ALRT, Calgary LRT, Montreal Metro and potential new LRT project, Hamilton LRT proposal) and Edmonton isn't?
    Last edited by Medwards; 10-10-2012 at 10:40 AM.

  15. #15
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    having rail on a grade separate ROW has many advantages for the transit rider too.

    EDP: "(headshakes)" and "god forbid" is this your attempt at being "slanderous" or are always this edgy when someone mentions something about creating efficiencies?
    I happen to agree with Medwards regarding the desirability of grade separation between LRT and general traffic.

    I rode the Calgary C-train down the 7th Avenue stretch where there was no separation for 15 years. It took longer from me to go from the downtown apartment to the central library (also downtown) than it does for me now to get from the Health Sciences station to my office at Telus Tower.

    It's also a smoother ride when the train does not have to slow down to watch for cross traffic. While in theory the LRT always has the right of way, they do in fact have to watch for cross traffic because accidents can stall the system for ages no matter who is at fault. And I remember quite a few accidents on the 7th Avenue strip in Calgary.

    Eve

  16. #16

    Default

    ^ Calgary is a poor example as the LRT is controlled by traffic lights and really doesn't have ROW.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  17. #17

    Default

    ^ Where as the planned line for Edmonton will be different running along 102 avenue? And doesn't really have a ROW? 7th avenue is for transit only vehicles!

  18. #18

    Default

    Its about signal priority.. you know this.. we all now it..

    anyways have fun discussing. Tap out.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  19. #19

    Default

    Right.. and guess who has signal priority down 7th avenue in Calgary? The LRT does... That's who.

    Not sure what you mean by tap out? Does that mean your done with your anti-car rhetoric ?

  20. #20
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,158

    Default

    You're right again, Medwards. As far as I know, the 102 Avenue LRT will share with regular traffic. It will be even harder to establish signal supremacy for the LRT here. When I'm discussing the Calgary example, I'm talking about a road that is shared only with other busses and emergency vehicles (which are supposed to know how to behave around a train). Doesn't stop accidents: including one where a police car did not know how to behave: "We had our flashers on!"

    Eve

  21. #21

    Default

    102 Avenue will be closed for the most part to regular traffic, similar to 7th avenue in Calgary. Cross traffic will still occur at everyblock, and there is also bike/bus lanes in certain spots.

  22. #22

    Default

    ^ I am sorry but there is NO supporting documentation that 102 Ave will be closed to veh traffic.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  23. #23

    Default

    Really? Look again. You won't be able to drive from all the way through like you can now. What documentation do you read?

  24. #24

    Default

    ^ ok produce the city docs that support your claim.....
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  25. #25

    Default

    Refer to the final pages of this doc

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...12-08-2010.pdf

    Note 102 avenue has various lane and complete closures in part. One won't be able to drive all the way from 109 to 100 st using 102 avenue.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ ok produce the city docs that support your claim.....
    I'll expect you to do the same now... So on with it.

  27. #27

    Default

    Already looked.. nothing...

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...connector.aspx



    I find it very interesting that you are claiming to know low level engineering facts when the first phase of this LRT line runs from Whitemud to Churchill and that is the primary focus at this time. There is a meeting in November to discuss infrastructure elements for the DT core in November...

    I am fully open to being wrong but I have never encounter anything saying west of Churchill that roads will be closed. Traffic lanes will be lost by the portal in the quarters. That is the only closure I know of.

    your turn.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 10-10-2012 at 05:50 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  28. #28
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Medwards, I did "dig into the details" as you suggested. I emailed the Evergreen Line's information office and asked what was included in their $1.4 billion budget. Following is the text of the response received today:

    To answer your question the 1.4 billion budget includes a lot more than the guideway, tunnel and new stations that will be built by the prime contractor. The budget includes new cars, all the studies (environmental, socio-economic and geotechnical to name a few) that went into the planning stage, preliminary engineering, property acquisition, community relations, consultations with the communities, and numerous “early works” projects.



    Early works, which have been underway since last January, are projects that have helped set the stage for the prime contractor to be able to quickly start work on the major infrastructure (guideway, tunnel and stations). Early works projects include:



    · North Road widening project. Building an additional lane on this major commuter route to replace the lane that will be lost with guideway running up the centre of North Road. Building the new lane now means the prime contractor will be able to keep traffic moving during guideway construction. This project also moves utilities out from under the guideway right of way including hydro, gas and optic fibre lines.

    · Power supply upgrades. There are several places along the project where there was not sufficient existing power capacity needed to power the Evergreen Line. Additional power was needed at Lougheed and Barnet, Como Lake and Clarke, Pinetree Way, Falcon Avenue, Mariner Way, and at the Port Moody tunnel portal additional power was needed both to drive the SkyTrain system but also to power the tunnel boring machine.

    · Rail track relocation. There is a short section of track in Port Moody that needs to be shifted slightly to the north (along Clarke Street between Queens and Grant). This will make room for the guideway to be built between the existing rail tracks and Clarke Street. This work also included relocation of several underground utilities.

    · Building demolitions / modifications. The construction of the Evergreen line requires several building demolitions and a few building modifications. Much of this work is being done as early works to help expedite the construction schedule for the prime contractor.



    In addition to all of the above the 1.4 billion dollar budget includes all the Ministry of Transportation oversight and quality control for the early work and the prime contractor’s work. It also includes a significant community and business relations program to minimize the impacts and maximize predictability for local residents and businesses in the Evergreen Line corridor.




    So when you add in the 5 stations also included, complete grade seperation and the fact that the entire line is fully automated, not requiring operators it is clear that compared to Edmonton, Vancouver is building a much superior system at a vastly better price.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Refer to the final pages of this doc

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...12-08-2010.pdf

    Note 102 avenue has various lane and complete closures in part. One won't be able to drive all the way from 109 to 100 st using 102 avenue.
    I am sorry but the final pages of this doc say no such thing... not from what I can see... This doc is also 2 years old and the DT alignment has been tweaked.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  30. #30
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    I'm not the most computer literate but only the first and last paragraphs of the above are mine, the rest is the response from Evergreen

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Already looked.. nothing...

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...connector.aspx



    I find it very interesting that you are claiming to know low level engineering facts when the first phase of this LRT line runs from Whitemud to Churchill and that is the primary focus at this time. There is a meeting in November to discuss infrastructure elements for the DT core in November...

    I am fully open to being wrong but I have never encounter anything saying west of Churchill that roads will be closed. Traffic lanes will be lost by the portal in the quarters. That is the only closure I know of.

    your turn.
    Look at the drawings provided in the drawings. In the first phase of consulting, which I was a large part of, they said as much. Witness is in the documents by looking at the images.

    You still haven't proven that there won't be... I find it very interesting that you seem to think you have some insider knowledge the rest of us don't have access to. The road won't be fully closed, but closed in part. The details are all there. Go look harder.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    Medwards, I did "dig into the details" as you suggested. I emailed the Evergreen Line's information office and asked what was included in their $1.4 billion budget. Following is the text of the response received today:

    To answer your question the 1.4 billion budget includes a lot more than the guideway, tunnel and new stations that will be built by the prime contractor. The budget includes new cars, all the studies (environmental, socio-economic and geotechnical to name a few) that went into the planning stage, preliminary engineering, property acquisition, community relations, consultations with the communities, and numerous “early works” projects.



    Early works, which have been underway since last January, are projects that have helped set the stage for the prime contractor to be able to quickly start work on the major infrastructure (guideway, tunnel and stations). Early works projects include:



    · North Road widening project. Building an additional lane on this major commuter route to replace the lane that will be lost with guideway running up the centre of North Road. Building the new lane now means the prime contractor will be able to keep traffic moving during guideway construction. This project also moves utilities out from under the guideway right of way including hydro, gas and optic fibre lines.

    · Power supply upgrades. There are several places along the project where there was not sufficient existing power capacity needed to power the Evergreen Line. Additional power was needed at Lougheed and Barnet, Como Lake and Clarke, Pinetree Way, Falcon Avenue, Mariner Way, and at the Port Moody tunnel portal additional power was needed both to drive the SkyTrain system but also to power the tunnel boring machine.

    · Rail track relocation. There is a short section of track in Port Moody that needs to be shifted slightly to the north (along Clarke Street between Queens and Grant). This will make room for the guideway to be built between the existing rail tracks and Clarke Street. This work also included relocation of several underground utilities.

    · Building demolitions / modifications. The construction of the Evergreen line requires several building demolitions and a few building modifications. Much of this work is being done as early works to help expedite the construction schedule for the prime contractor.



    In addition to all of the above the 1.4 billion dollar budget includes all the Ministry of Transportation oversight and quality control for the early work and the prime contractor’s work. It also includes a significant community and business relations program to minimize the impacts and maximize predictability for local residents and businesses in the Evergreen Line corridor.

    So when you add in the 5 stations also included, complete grade seperation and the fact that the entire line is fully automated, not requiring operators it is clear that compared to Edmonton, Vancouver is building a much superior system at a vastly better price.
    Fair enough. We are getting ripped off! That's the only answer.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Refer to the final pages of this doc

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...12-08-2010.pdf

    Note 102 avenue has various lane and complete closures in part. One won't be able to drive all the way from 109 to 100 st using 102 avenue.
    I am sorry but the final pages of this doc say no such thing... not from what I can see... This doc is also 2 years old and the DT alignment has been tweaked.
    Could you share where a newer doc is? The alignment hasn't been tweaked much between 107st and 100st.

  34. #34

    Default

    I really hope I don't have to snagit an image out of a PDF to just to super illustrate EDP being the usual, wrong. But I will if need be. Will wait till to see if EDP can provide anything to counter my point outside of "NO IT ISN'T" or a dry link to the DT Connector main page...

  35. #35
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    I don't believe we are getting ripped off, that would imply dishonesty.
    I'm implying incompetence.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I really hope I don't have to snagit an image out of a PDF to just to super illustrate EDP being the usual, wrong. But I will if need be. Will wait till to see if EDP can provide anything to counter my point outside of "NO IT ISN'T" or a dry link to the DT Connector main page...
    The let is to no longer cut through the middle of a city block.. That alignment was reviewed and voted on by city council. I posted the link to the city of Edmonton site that houses all the current related docs.. And we both can see there is nothing there.

    We will just have to see what is released after the next round of public consultation
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  37. #37

    Default

    I pulled the document I linked for the main page of the website you referenced.

    It's current until there is a new document...

  38. #38

    Default

    In a perfect world, LRT and road traffic both flow well.

    We need more LRT in this city, but choking off road traffic to improve LRT just creates new problems.

  39. #39
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,158

    Default

    Choking off road traffic also leads to unnecessary opposition to LRT projects from people who would other support (or be neutral towards) them.

    Eve

  40. #40

    Default

    Yeah, I don't like making road traffic worse to make LRT better. Cities need efficient roads AND public transit.

    In fact, I strongly oppose narrowing/removing busy roads, even though I ride the LRT a lot. This is one reason I hate the proposed low floor WLRT route so much (although there aren't a lot of ways the LRT can be brought westward.

  41. #41

    Default

    107th has room. 149th street has room or 87th and university avenue has room. We just decided to take the most difficult way for some reason.

  42. #42

    Default

    ^ That's because we also started looking at land use as part of the LRT picture....

    Choosing a difficult route doesn't = bad.. it just means it has some challenges. No you are free to disagree that those challenges are worth it.. I do personally do.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  43. #43

    Default

    I obviously disagree. The most challenging route is obviously the most difficult, and I don't see the benefits that you are trying to report, as you report them. Vague lines like "land use" really don't mean much. We have land use plans all over the city.

  44. #44

    Default

    Land Use is hardly vague

    The Canadian Institute of Planners offers a definition that land-use planning means the scientific, aesthetic, and orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities and services with a view to securing the physical, economic and social efficiency, health and well-being of urban and rural communities
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  45. #45

    Default

    Land use has always been a part of LRT planning. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
    There is various land use plans all across the city.

    It would be nice if you could speak in your own words rather than just copy/pasting the definition of land use. I know what land use is, and its not at all what I was asking you.

  46. #46

    Default

    No land use planning has not been part of LRT design.. that is why we saw our initial line taken up old Rail Right of ways through largely industrial tracts of land.

    We took the easy way, and now we are looking at moving stations and creating TOD on once industrial land.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  47. #47

    Default

    Clareview? Land use built around LRT...

    Perhaps what you are meaning to say is higher density land use? But then, Southgate, Century Park... Higher density Land use built around high speed/frequent transit lines, and LRT in the future. Meadowlark? Same.

    What are you really trying to say? Every part of this city is under some sort of land use or another...
    Last edited by Medwards; 11-10-2012 at 03:21 PM.

  48. #48

    Default

    The Org line didn't go out to Clareview Medwards.... When it did make it out there it was basically a station in a field. A field which we all agree has become a horrible example of a TOD and was poorly planed.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  49. #49

    Default

    You need to do a bit more study on the Clareview. It wasn't poorly planned, the plan was just never put in to place. The way its turning out isn't too bad, but is far from complete. Maybe read the NSP for Clareview.

    I guess you agree with me about Southgate and Century Park. The high density node has been there long before the LRT was, but it was built because the LRT was planned to go there.

    I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean by land use... or are you just throwing that out there trying to sound clever?

  50. #50

    Default

    I will agree that connecting Southgate and CP to the line was smart land use planning it's smart to connect our LRT system to places where people want to go, places where infill development can occur and places where one can easily transfer with a large number of buses that also connects with multi use trails
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You need to do a bit more study on the Clareview. It wasn't poorly planned, the plan was just never put in to place. The way its turning out isn't too bad, but is far from complete. Maybe read the NSP for Clareview.

    I guess you agree with me about Southgate and Century Park. The high density node has been there long before the LRT was, but it was built because the LRT was planned to go there.

    I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean by land use... or are you just throwing that out there trying to sound clever?
    as for clairview... many people have expressed dismay over how the area around clairview station has been developed. mostly from this board. You may like it but I gracefully disagree. Too many pedestrian barriers, too many big box power center style stores between people and the train and poorly planned.

    If this was a successful model it would have been copied in other locals.

    Again we can agree to disagree. trying to defend what is by using what it was supposed to be isn't valid. We have what we have.. and what we have is poorly executed.

    Tap out...

    Wasn;t this thread about the evergreen line?

    It looks good... I look forward to Surrey moving forward with ground level LRT however.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 11-10-2012 at 04:35 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  52. #52

    Default

    Surrey's going skytrain though... So... umm... ya.

    The original clareview plan rocked. What happened not so much.

    Still waiting for you to qualify your "land use" BS.

  53. #53

    Default

    ^ the current plan surrey is exploring is not skytrain.

    http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/10797.aspx



    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 11-10-2012 at 05:14 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  54. #54

    Default

    There is quite a push in Surrey for Skytrain (or building a real mass transit system, not a streetcar bandaid)

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=24389

    You started this thread, you know that already.

  55. #55

    Default

    Still waiting for that land use thing you blurted out with no relevance to what you were saying?

    Some how our current LRT line wasn't planned with land use around it in mind?

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    There is quite a push in Surrey for Skytrain (or building a real mass transit system, not a streetcar bandaid)

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=24389

    You started this thread, you know that already.
    You can find people who will be vocal about anything. It doesn't change the fact that Surrey's current plan explores LRT and that is what city council is moving forward with.

    Your off handed quips about "real" mass transit is your opinion and is off base.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  57. #57

    Default

    Nothing is set in stone with Surrey, and they are continuing to explore a lot of options.

    Your off handed quips all over the place is your opinion and is off base.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Still waiting for that land use thing you blurted out with no relevance to what you were saying?

    Some how our current LRT line wasn't planned with land use around it in mind?
    Still waiting

  59. #59

    Default

    ^ I answered your question.. You didn't like the answer.. its not my fault if you have selective reading.

    No I assure you surrey has come out with a plan that their city council is moving forward with, it's right on their city website.

    Rapid Transit Now
    Surrey is pursuing light rail transit as a way to shape and connect our growing communities.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 12-10-2012 at 12:35 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  60. #60

    Default

    yup. Skytrain is light rail too, you know. Automated LRT.

  61. #61

    Default

    ^

    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  62. #62

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    So when you add in the 5 stations also included, complete grade seperation and the fact that the entire line is fully automated, not requiring operators it is clear that compared to Edmonton, Vancouver is building a much superior system at a vastly better price.
    and they still wont wait for 5-10 minutes for the flashing red barriers.

  64. #64
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    here we go again, but close but not quite? Translink would be more like Edmonton Transportation (or even more close would be whatever they call the Capital Region Board Transportation Authority in say 10/20 years from now)...translink by their own very definition "Metro Vancouver, BC transportation authority providing planning and service for transit, roads, cycling, walking via Coast Mountain Bus, SkyTrain, SeaBus..."
    My bad, never took transit in BC much, I tend to just go to the mountains and avoid Vancouver, I've been in Seattle at least 10x more than Vancouver.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    So when you add in the 5 stations also included, complete grade seperation and the fact that the entire line is fully automated, not requiring operators it is clear that compared to Edmonton, Vancouver is building a much superior system at a vastly better price.
    Something I have noted, especially when you compare to NAIT LRT which is insanley expensive per km (as in, full subway price per km). Somebody's making a lot of profit.

  66. #66
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    I think the root of the cost discrepancy is the city administration. I sent an email to city council Oct 12 outlining the difference in costs and asking for some kind of explanation and as yet not a single reply. I guess they're too busy to deal with little things like a few hundred million.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    I think the root of the cost discrepancy is the city administration. I sent an email to city council Oct 12 outlining the difference in costs and asking for some kind of explanation and as yet not a single reply. I guess they're too busy to deal with little things like a few hundred million.
    I look forward to their reply, if they do reply. I hope they do, cause I sure would like to debunk this myth if possible, or put some irons into the fire to find out why there is such a enormous difference.

  68. #68
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    EDMONTON, AB
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    I think the root of the cost discrepancy is the city administration. I sent an email to city council Oct 12 outlining the difference in costs and asking for some kind of explanation and as yet not a single reply. I guess they're too busy to deal with little things like a few hundred million.
    If they don't reply, I wonder if it would be worth taking it to the Journal or some other media outlet, see if they can do some more digging around/ make the discrepancy a bit more of a public issue.

    Also, the Atlantic Cities had an article on this last year, interesting reading. Price per km varies hugely between transit authorities... I guess an optimist could always be happy we'll never come close to NYC's costs!

    "In Europe, too, subways cost less. Madrid's recently-opened Metrosur line is 41 km long, with 28 stations, yet was completed in four years at around $58m per km. Recent expansions in Paris and Berlin cost about $250 million per km.

    New York, meanwhile, is building the most expensive subway line of all time, at $1.7b per km. This figure makes London's 16-km-long Jubilee line and Amsterdam's 10-km North-South line, which both faced delays and controversy and cost $350m and $400m per km, respectively, seem reasonable in comparison."

    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...e-anymore/456/
    Mike

  69. #69
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,030

    Default

    It is quite obvious that the cities with the highest land prices have the more expensive LRT per km if land acquisition is required for building the LRT.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  70. #70
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    Medwards, I did "dig into the details" as you suggested. I emailed the Evergreen Line's information office and asked what was included in their $1.4 billion budget. Following is the text of the response received today:

    To answer your question the 1.4 billion budget includes a lot more than the guideway, tunnel and new stations that will be built by the prime contractor. The budget includes new cars, all the studies (environmental, socio-economic and geotechnical to name a few) that went into the planning stage, preliminary engineering, property acquisition, community relations, consultations with the communities, and numerous “early works” projects.



    Early works, which have been underway since last January, are projects that have helped set the stage for the prime contractor to be able to quickly start work on the major infrastructure (guideway, tunnel and stations). Early works projects include:



    · North Road widening project. Building an additional lane on this major commuter route to replace the lane that will be lost with guideway running up the centre of North Road. Building the new lane now means the prime contractor will be able to keep traffic moving during guideway construction. This project also moves utilities out from under the guideway right of way including hydro, gas and optic fibre lines.

    · Power supply upgrades. There are several places along the project where there was not sufficient existing power capacity needed to power the Evergreen Line. Additional power was needed at Lougheed and Barnet, Como Lake and Clarke, Pinetree Way, Falcon Avenue, Mariner Way, and at the Port Moody tunnel portal additional power was needed both to drive the SkyTrain system but also to power the tunnel boring machine.

    · Rail track relocation. There is a short section of track in Port Moody that needs to be shifted slightly to the north (along Clarke Street between Queens and Grant). This will make room for the guideway to be built between the existing rail tracks and Clarke Street. This work also included relocation of several underground utilities.

    · Building demolitions / modifications. The construction of the Evergreen line requires several building demolitions and a few building modifications. Much of this work is being done as early works to help expedite the construction schedule for the prime contractor.



    In addition to all of the above the 1.4 billion dollar budget includes all the Ministry of Transportation oversight and quality control for the early work and the prime contractor’s work. It also includes a significant community and business relations program to minimize the impacts and maximize predictability for local residents and businesses in the Evergreen Line corridor.




    So when you add in the 5 stations also included, complete grade seperation and the fact that the entire line is fully automated, not requiring operators it is clear that compared to Edmonton, Vancouver is building a much superior system at a vastly better price.
    How are they able to get that system for that price?! Can Edmonton farm out their public transit system to BC transit and have the same contractor build the system for Edmonton??

  71. #71
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    I don't believe we are getting ripped off, that would imply dishonesty.
    I'm implying incompetence.
    It's funny how with the proposed downtown arena everyone is up in arms over costs...yet, according to certain above on topic posts regarding the costs of the evergreen line (with it being vastly superior) edmonton is over paying for dated technology and no one cares.

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    I don't believe we are getting ripped off, that would imply dishonesty.
    I'm implying incompetence.
    It's funny how with the proposed downtown arena everyone is up in arms over costs...yet, according to certain above on topic posts regarding the costs of the evergreen line (with it being vastly superior) edmonton is over paying for dated technology and no one cares.
    it's probab for the same reason this city's been called bedmonton or deadmanstown.

    So are the drug dealers in Vancouver contributing to the 416.7M the federal govt is funding the evergreen line? Or is it our income tax which pays for this. Maybe we can research this while waiting for the flashing barriers while our rear ends turn blue. http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan...ommun-eng.html

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    There is quite a push in Surrey for Skytrain (or building a real mass transit system, not a streetcar bandaid)

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=24389

    You started this thread, you know that already.
    You can find people who will be vocal about anything. It doesn't change the fact that Surrey's current plan explores LRT and that is what city council is moving forward with.

    Your off handed quips about "real" mass transit is your opinion and is off base.
    The main reason for Surrey to go for LRT is actually cost. They thought the fully grade-separated system is too expensive and they could use the same fund to build a LRT system system that is 3 times as long (in other word, they thought a LRT system would cost ~40M/km). However, the difference is much much smaller in the alternative study done by the transit agency (~85M/km for LRT; ~135M/km for SkyTrain).

    But ultimately, it would be up to the province to decide which technology to use, as with the other 4 lines.

    For the Broadway project in Vancouver, there are even people, including an UBC professor, claim that they should scrap the 2.8B project as it would be enough to build 200km of LRT tracks. In this is the case, I guess the NAIT line is just 54km too short...

  74. #74

    Default

    Work on Vancouver's Evergreen Line starts in February. SNC-Lavalin has been awarded an $889 Million contract to build the line. This is the same contractor that built the Canada Line under budget and three months early in 2010.

    http://www.globaltvbc.com/work+on+lo...805/story.html

    When completed, Vancouver will have the longest metro-system in Canada - with more operational track than Montreal or Toronto - though those two cities will have more stations. As follows:

    Vancouver - 79 km of track, 53 stations (Evergreen opens in 2016)
    Toronto - 78km, 76 stations (when Spadina Subway expansion opens)
    Montreal - 69km, 68 stations
    Calgary - 56km, 44 station
    Edmonton - 23km, 18 stations (when NAIT extension opens in 2014)

    Vancouver will also continue to be the longest driverless metro system in the world.

    When Evergreen opens, the operating patterns will change, so the four lines will operate as follows:
    - Expo Line - Waterfront to King George - 20 stations
    - Millenium Line - Waterfront to Lougheed - 19 stations (16 shared with Expo Line, 1 with Evergreen Line),
    - Evergreen Line - VCC-Clark to Douglas College - 17 stations
    - Canada Line - Waterfront to YVR/Richmond-Brighouse - 16 stations

    The Evergreen Line is expected to add 70,000 riders to the system, bringing the skytrain ridership to over 500,000 people per day.

    To accommodate the demand, a fifth platform will be added across from Platform 3 (the northbound Expo Line platform) at Commercial-Broadway, allowing the northbound trains to be loaded from both sides. This station currently handles over 150,000 passengers every day - the busiest station in the system. In addition to the 4 train platforms, the station is the terminus for the 99-B-Line, North America's busiest bus route, which carries over 60,000 people every day with articulated buses running every 2 minutes in the peak and every 4 minutes in the day. Almost 4,000 people every day are passed up by the buses. With the other bus routes combined, buses carry 100,000 people along Broadway every day.

    The opening of the Evergreen Line will add to these numbers, so the station is being upgraded as part of the Evergreen Line expansion.

    And Vancouver really needs to build the Broadway extension of the new Evergreen Line towards UBC to replace the 99 B-Line. Estimates indicate this expansion alone would carry 200,000 people within 3-years of opening. A bored tunnel option, 11 km with 9 station would cost around $2.8 billion to build.
    Last edited by lightrail; 31-01-2013 at 07:14 PM.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  75. #75
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,383

    Default

    ^Thanks for the excellent summation as well as the update.

  76. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Vancouver - 79 km of track, 53 stations (Evergreen opens in 2016)
    Toronto - 78km, 76 stations (when Spadina Subway expansion opens)
    Montreal - 69km, 68 stations
    Calgary - 56km, 44 station
    Edmonton - 23km, 18 stations (when NAIT extension opens in 2014)
    You forgot to take 6km off Toronto when SRT is expected to be closed in 2015

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snowystar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Vancouver - 79 km of track, 53 stations (Evergreen opens in 2016)
    Toronto - 78km, 76 stations (when Spadina Subway expansion opens)
    Montreal - 69km, 68 stations
    Calgary - 56km, 44 station
    Edmonton - 23km, 18 stations (when NAIT extension opens in 2014)
    You forgot to take 6km off Toronto when SRT is expected to be closed in 2015
    True - but then we'd have to add the 52km of LRT that Toronto is building and expected to be opened in 2020:
    So in 2020 it will look like this ( funded lines only - does not include planned and unfunded):

    Toronto - 124km (7 lines - 3 subway, 4 LRT)
    Vancouver - 79 km (4 lines - automated metro)
    Montreal - 69km (4 lines - subway)
    Calgary - 56km (2 lines - LRT)
    Edmonton - 23km (2 lines - LRT)
    Mississauga/Bramton - 21 km ( 1 line)
    Ottawa - 20.5 km (2 lines - LRT and DMU)
    Waterloo - 15km (1 line)
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  78. #78
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,030

    Default

    Tunnelling delays push Evergreen Line opening to 2017
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...link-1.3340013
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  79. #79
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,133

    Default

    Delayed but they have finally completed the boring.

    Tunnel boring for the Evergreen Line is complete

    https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2015TRAN0165-001980

  80. #80

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •