Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[Chadillaccc]

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

[Govertical]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

Bingo.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

Originally Posted by Govertical

Bingo.

And if we're to look 50 years into the future that might be closer to 3 million.

Herald article last year talked about 2.4 million in just 25 years.

[sim]

I'd go with Option B or Option D.

Option C is a non-starter. Option A would aid in replicating past mistakes - in that the travel time through the centre would reduce the lines diametrical efficacy, i.e. for trips going through the centre, not to the centre.

Although I'm for Option B or D, I predict and believe what will happen, assuming all the funding does come together, is that when actually looked at a bit closer, Option B will look a lot more challenging and would have actual costs that are much closer to those of D.

The large difference in costs appear to be because D would be bored and B would be cut & cover - otherwise the cost difference doesn't make sense to begin with.

While I don't doubt it can be technically done, I'd be curious as to how it is thought that the savings between the two methods can be realized, given the myriad of operational and logistical challenges presented by cut & cover.

So we are going to go under Macleod, go under CP, go under a parkade entrance, go under the current LRT line supposedly with, remove/relocate countless utilities, remove ~ 5 - 10 high value properties on a bluff and trench into something that will take some considerable stabilization, and disturb/disrupt businesses - some of which likely have disproportionate influence, all with cut and cover..? Or tunnel-jacking? The Evergreen Line jack (posted above) had considerably less constraints than any of the above would.

Well, good luck. Even if all that can directly save some of the $500 million, it may not be worth the headache and likely community opposition.

And that it needs to go 20 metres under the river in Option D, I'm sure can be reevaluated as well. Likely trying to stick to bedrock to avoid boring in very wet till, but if my limited understanding of tunnel methods and soil mechanics serves me correctly, there are methods to address this - freezing it for example.

Ultimately, I think the next step would be to take those two options and look at them in detail.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by sim

I'd go with Option B or Option D.

Option C is a non-starter. Option A would aid in replicating past mistakes - in that the travel time through the centre would reduce the lines diametrical efficacy, i.e. for trips going through the centre, not to the centre.

Although I'm for Option B or D, I predict and believe what will happen, assuming all the funding does come together, is that when actually looked at a bit closer, Option B will look a lot more challenging and would have actual costs that are much closer to those of D.

The large difference in costs appear to be because D would be bored and B would be cut & cover - otherwise the cost difference doesn't make sense to begin with.

While I don't doubt it can be technically done, I'd be curious as to how it is thought that the savings between the two methods can be realized, given the myriad of operational and logistical challenges presented by cut & cover.

So we are going to go under Macleod, go under CP, go under a parkade entrance, go under the current LRT line supposedly with, remove/relocate countless utilities, remove ~ 5 - 10 high value properties on a bluff and trench into something that will take some considerable stabilization, and disturb/disrupt businesses - some of which likely have disproportionate influence, all with cut and cover..? Or tunnel-jacking? The Evergreen Line jack (posted above) had considerably less constraints than any of the above would.

Well, good luck. Even if all that can directly save some of the $500 million, it may not be worth the headache and likely community opposition.

And that it needs to go 20 metres under the river in Option D, I'm sure can be reevaluated as well. Likely trying to stick to bedrock to avoid boring in very wet till, but if my limited understanding of tunnel methods and soil mechanics serves me correctly, there are methods to address this - freezing it for example.

Ultimately, I think the next step would be to take those two options and look at them in detail.

Great points.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

Although I sympathize with your point, just saying we are a city of 2 million doesn't necessarily mean we should build underground rail infrastructure everywhere. We need to have a better discussion of relevant capacities/reliabilities and speeds of above and underground alignments, what the future growth of the corridor will be and what our projections for ridership will be. Saying "we should act like a big city" doesn't do much to elaborate on the conversation.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

The one concern I have with option D is how far underground the stations are. How long does it take to get people up to the surface from that depth? Does that extra travel time take something away from the usefulness?

For example, we are talking about 13-15 stories underground. Assuming we are using escalators and are talking about a 15-20 second travel time per story, that mean 3-5 minutes in travel time. Now take somebody who wants to go just one stop, from 8th ave to 16th ave; it would take just as long to take the train between those two stops as it would to walk. And that is assuming not having to wait more than a minute for the train.

I'd flip your argument around on you. Part of the problem with the 1980s design of the C-Train is the issue where the train doesn't actually go anywhere, it just takes you kind of close to where you are going. For example Chinook is a 7 minute walk, Saddledome is 8 minutes. There are others. I just don't see the benefit of adding extra time to walk out of the station; just to make it a little more underground. Add in the extra construction costs, and it makes D seem less of an option.

[nick.flood]

delete

[RyLucky]

(duplicate)

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The one concern I have with option D is how far underground the stations are. How long does it take to get people up to the surface from that depth? Does that extra travel time take something away from the usefulness?

For example, we are talking about 13-15 stories underground. Assuming we are using escalators and are talking about a 15-20 second travel time per story, that mean 3-5 minutes in travel time. Now take somebody who wants to go just one stop, from 8th ave to 16th ave; it would take just as long to take the train between those two stops as it would to walk. And that is assuming not having to wait more than a minute for the train.

I'd flip your argument around on you. Part of the problem with the 1980s design of the C-Train is the issue where the train doesn't actually go anywhere, it just takes you kind of close to where you are going. For example Chinook is a 7 minute walk, Saddledome is 8 minutes. There are others. I just don't see the benefit of adding extra time to walk out of the station; just to make it a little more underground. Add in the extra construction costs, and it makes D seem less of an option.

Yeah - and any future 8th ave subway would therefore need to be even lower.

Oh - and let's not forget the fact that the line would be down virtually every time there was rain. Definitely yesterday and today.

For those who griped about shadows, we're talking about a single elevated station. People are sounding like the ridiculous NIMBYs who were complaining about the elevated section in sunalta.

[nick.flood]

delete

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by nick.flood

Indeed. The same way all the underground parkades close during heavy rain.

At least in the west end of downtown.

[nick.flood]

delete

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Yeah - and any future 8th ave subway would therefore need to be even lower.

Oh - and let's not forget the fact that the line would be down virtually every time there was rain. Definitely yesterday and today.

For those who griped about shadows, we're talking about a single elevated station. People are sounding like the ridiculous NIMBYs who were complaining about the elevated section in sunalta.

The whole of 2nd Street downtown will be in the shadow of the elevated track most of the time.

What about all the many underground sections we have already, are they shut down every time there is rain? What about the 8th ave subway?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The whole of 2nd Street downtown will be in the shadow of the elevated track most of the time.

What about all the many underground sections we have already, are they shut down every time there is rain? What about the 8th ave subway?

Not all underground sections would be exposed to equal risk, and you'll note that even option C has one underground station, but it is at much higher elevation, not in the vicinity of the flood fringe, and not in the unstable geology of the downtown core.

This is no different than the underground parkades in the city. Only the ones in certain areas of downtown continuously and regularly flood, and end up costing "someone" a lot of money.

Anyway - my point has already been proven by the experts' assessment that the geology of the core (read, layers of materials under the ground and location relative to water) will deem option D not a possibility. I'm amazed people are still arguing for it in light of this. If I start saying the earth is round will you start arguing that it is flat, just because I cannot be correct?

[sim]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Not all underground sections would be exposed to equal risk, and you'll note that even option C has one underground station, but it is at much higher elevation, not in the vicinity of the flood fringe, and not in the unstable geology of the downtown core.

This is no different than the underground parkades in the city. Only the ones in certain areas of downtown continuously and regularly flood, and end up costing "someone" a lot of money.

Anyway - my point has already been proven by the experts' assessment that the geology of the core (read, layers of materials under the ground and location relative to water) will deem option D not a possibility. I'm amazed people are still arguing for it in light of this. If I start saying the earth is round will you start arguing that it is flat, just because I cannot be correct?

I'm amazed you keep babbling on as though you have an actual clue. You aren't correct, because you literally cannot be correct in this case.

The report clearly acknowledges the very preliminary nature of the "analysis" and if you had actually read it, it itself states the restrictive nature of an elevated track.

You need only go as far as Vancouver for a lesson in boring in challenging geology.

I won't bother getting into why it will look a lot more complicated than the simple diagram posted above, when it's actually attempted to put an effective station into an elevated alignment. My point here is not to say which is better technically anyway, only that you purporting your voice as somehow authoritarian on the matter is misplaced and grating. Par for the course I suppose.