Canada Line Discussion | Metro Vancouver | In Service Aug 17 13:00-21:00

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Originally Posted by deasine

Not enough ridership levels. Look on cambie we have major attractions such as: BROADWAY, CAMBIE VILLAGE, OAKRIDGE, LANGARA where as Granville, we would only have BROADWAY, SOUTH-GRANVILLE. And if you have cut-and-cover on Granville... hmmm... looks like the super rich will be VERY ANGRY.

The only good thing about POSSIBLY having it on Granville is it could serve Granville Island; otherwise, Cambie is a better choice.

[mr.x]

With regards to the final product....they got the route right (Cambie), they got the stations right (though i would have liked to see a Cambie Village Station), they got the speed right. Everything but station length, vehicle capacity, and single-tracking. A key to metro systems is future expandability, especially in a metro as large as Vancouver with anticipated major growth in both the short and long-term (in terms of transit service, transit ridership, population and employment growth)....certainly, it doesn't mean building a platform a kilometre long :p but you get my drift.

Regardless of design, SNC-Lavalin has done a wonderful job in getting this thing built...i'm constantly amazed at the speed of progress.

[Overground]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

All this expense because, god forbid, they have an LRT down Cambie that had to underground in order not to offend the West side's sensibilities.
We could have built an LRT down Cambie and saved a billion or down Arbutus and saved $1.1 billion or just a fast bus-only road using the Arbutus corridor including a new bridge for just $300,000 and would have been just as fast.
$2.2 billion for just 70,000 passengers a day.

Where exactly down Cambie would you build an LRT? I hope you're not suggesting they should have destroyed the Cambie Heritage Blvd with it's 1000 trees which has species that range from places like California to Japan to North Africa.

Talk about flogging a dead horse. Arbutus is no where near as busy compared to Cambie and I can't fathom why anyone would even bring Arbutus as an option. Cambie has Langara College, Oakridge, QE Park(tourists), Cambie Village, City Square mall, City Hall, Vancouver Police Dept, 3 liquor stores, 2 Safeways, Capers, Pearson Hospital, Children's Hospital complex(2 blocks from Cambie), Vancouver General Hospital, a hotel, 2 high schools. No-brainer.

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Originally Posted by Overground

Where exactly down Cambie would you build an LRT? I hope you're not suggesting they should have destroyed the Cambie Heritage Blvd with it's 1000 trees which has species that range from places like California to Japan to North Africa.

Oh! I always wondered why they didn't put the route in the median; good thing they didn't tear up the place.

Talk about flogging a dead horse. Arbutus is no where near as busy compared to Cambie and I can't fathom why anyone would even bring Arbutus as an option.................3 liquor stores........No-brainer.

Arbutus seems pretty "empty" (based on what I remember); mostly just travels through residential areas and nothing else. Maybe they should convert the right-of-way into a trail, kind of what we're planning here in Seattle.

And I had no idea liquor stores were such big attractions in Vancouver

[mr.x]

Arbutus seems pretty "empty" (based on what I remember); mostly just travels through residential areas and nothing else. Maybe they should convert the right-of-way into a trail, kind of what we're planning here in Seattle.

The plan is to turn the Arbutus corridor into a streetcar route in the future, as an extension of Downtown Vancouver's future streetcar network (Seattle isn't the only one ).

It's possible, i guess, as others have suggested to upgrade the Arbutus corridor into an LRT line when the Canada Line reaches max. capacity.

[nova9]

I mean, just because the Arbutus Corridor requires less construction with it already being a different form of rail doesn't mean that's the best option. Honestly, none of the litle unique areas in Dubar or Marpole crave for the populace to arrive and partake and spend - they're better off as as the small, reclusive enclaves in the neighbourhood, not a destination for all Vancouverites. The areas served by the Cambie route are mostly along large streets which are frequented by lots of people daily. As much as I'd want to see the people along the Arbutus get disturbed and disrupted by construction, I like the Canada Line route as it is.

[Daguy]

Originally Posted by mr.x

The plan is to turn the Arbutus corridor into a streetcar route in the future, as an extension of Downtown Vancouver's future streetcar network (Seattle isn't the only one ).

It's possible, i guess, as others have suggested to upgrade the Arbutus corridor into an LRT line when the Canada Line reaches max. capacity.

Only problem is that the LRT will be nowhere near as fast as the Canada Line, and a lot of people wouldn't consider it as an alternative if they are going a long distance.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Daguy

Only problem is that the LRT will be nowhere near as fast as the Canada Line, and a lot of people wouldn't consider it as an alternative if they are going a long distance.

Certainly, far less people would use the Arbutus LRT/streetcar as the Canada Line...but it provides transit riders a second alternative and would alleviate some of the congestion problems on the Canada Line. The Arbutus LRT/streetcar wouldn't be a miracle worker for solving the Canada Line's congestion/capacity issues. Either way, the Canada Line will need massive modifications in the future.

...it's like as if people were to say that the M-Line would solve the Expo Line's congestion problems because it's also another east-west route. Perhaps this isn't the ideal comparison for the Canada Line/Arbutus LRT dilemma, but hopefully you all get where i'm going at....

[Vancouverite]

There will be another hospital in time along the Canada Line route. Providence Healthcare is rezoning the old St. Vincent's site at 33rd and Heather beside Children's hospital. The project went before the urban design panel tonight. The future 33rd Ave station will be two blocks from it. Also on 33rd at Heather is the RCMP Fairview Barracks site, which will be redeveloped into high density at some point, same with the Oakridge transit centre.

[splashflash]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Certainly, far less people would use the Arbutus LRT/streetcar as the Canada Line...but it provides transit riders a second alternative and would alleviate some of the congestion problems on the Canada Line. The Arbutus LRT/streetcar wouldn't be a miracle worker for solving the Canada Line's congestion/capacity issues. Either way, the Canada Line will need massive modifications in the future.

No more money should go into the RAV line for at least thirty years. Other measures could be taken to alleviate possible future capacity issues such as commuter rail further east along the BNSF rail line between White Rock and downtown Vancouver crossing a new road-rail Patullo Bridge. Skytrain is still nowhere near capacity, even on the Expo line, so a branch could be built south along Victoria Drive as far south as 49th Street and absorb ridership as far west as Fraser St which might have gravitated to the Cambie Street RAV line.

An Arbutus lrt perhaps could use Burrard Bridge and Burrard Street since many offices are nearer than along downtown Granville St. where RAV travels. Access to Georgia and Burrard office towers requires a transfer to Skytrain from the RAV line at a likely very crowded Waterfront Station.

Arbutus itself should have densification, especially considering the potential for retirees moving to this somewhat quaint, detached part of the city. The houses near the rail line, like those along Cambie, do not have particular heritage value, as many were built in the 1940s and 1950s as bungalows, unlike many mansions nearer Granville, many of which were built in the 1920s. Some densification already happened in the 70's as apartments were built near 41st and more recently further north near King Edward and 33rd.

CPR has been quiet for the last few years after their open houses pushing first for single family homes around 2000 and then townhouses around 2005.

I think the bike path idea is terrible. This part of the city already has plenty of green-space, and the residents have been particularly resistant to bikeway measures on local streets. I could support a bikeway between 33rd and 37th if a tunnel for a streetcar were since this really is windy and close to people's houses.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Vancouverite

There will be another hospital in time along the Canada Line route. Providence Healthcare is rezoning the old St. Vincent's site at 33rd and Heather beside Children's hospital. The project went before the urban design panel tonight. The future 33rd Ave station will be two blocks from it. Also on 33rd at Heather is the RCMP Fairview Barracks site, which will be redeveloped into high density at some point, same with the Oakridge transit centre.

Another hospital there? I had no idea...i never thought they would be opening up another one there after closing the existing one for a senior home. that's great news, thx.

No more money should go into the RAV line for at least thirty years. Other measures could be taken to alleviate possible future capacity issues such as commuter rail further east along the BNSF rail line between White Rock and downtown Vancouver crossing a new road-rail Patullo Bridge. Skytrain is still nowhere near capacity, even on the Expo line, so a branch could be built south along Victoria Drive as far south as 49th Street and absorb ridership as far west as Fraser St which might have gravitated to the Cambie Street RAV line.

That would probably never happen....and the truth really is the Canada Line wouldn't get major investments until 20-30 years of its lifespan has passed.

An Arbutus lrt perhaps could use Burrard Bridge and Burrard Street since many offices are nearer than along downtown Granville St. where RAV travels. Access to Georgia and Burrard office towers requires a transfer to Skytrain from the RAV line at a likely very crowded Waterfront Station.

It wouldn't cross Burrard Bridge, but there's a possibility it might cross Granville Bridge. And of course, it'll also loop around the Creek into Chinatown, etc.

[splashflash]

Originally Posted by mr.x

It wouldn't cross Burrard Bridge, but there's a possibility it might cross Granville Bridge. And of course, it'll also loop around the Creek into Chinatown, etc.

The Vancouver Engineering Department nixed the idea of removing two traffic lanes from the Burrard Bridge arguing for transit-exclusive use on those lanes as justification for expensive, and unnecessary sidewalk widening, but I defer. Looping around the Creek to Chinatown would be an almost useless connection for Arbutus Corridor users. Regional money is not anywhere in sight for the South False Creek streetcar (and shouldn't be). The 32 Dunbar express bus has regular pass-ups and the 16 Arbutus is overloaded. The RAV line will do little for the Arbutus users except south of 45th Ave and nothing for Dunbar St passengers.

All this is moot anyway. The RAV line won't have enhanced capacity likely for sixty years and shouldn't have. I grant that Burrard Bridge won't likely have two lanes converted to transit use; that was just a ploy on the part of Vancouver engineering not willing to give up automobile space for cyclists. The Burrard Bridge was designed for a lower deck rail line, but the Kitsilano tressle was built providing CPR access to the dt peninsula. An lrt under Burrard could provide excellent ridership and a greater alternative to the three dt RAV stations, but the cost would be too high. LRT would not go down Granville St in dt Vancouver either though. Larry Campbell said he would be against lrt down Nelson and Smithe. Vancouver would likely bulk at an on-street lrt down Burrard. The Granville bridge won't likely have rail on it since the access to the middle of the upper deck would be difficult.

Commuter rail is likely between White Rock and Vancouver along the BNSF and paralleling the Millennium line, north along Glen and west to the WestCoast Express yards. Surrey now has more clout and Vancouver's influence is now clearly waning.

The westward expansion of the Millennium line may be the last hooray for a large-scale transit project for Vancouver for quite some time. A lot more buses will be purchased for South of the Fraser, not to mention construction of possible lrt along Southern Rail between Langley, Cloverdale and Whalley. South of the Fraser is likely where most of the future action will be, so Vancouver would probably be wise to push for decent commuter rail along the BNSF-CN-CP route, as this would be one of the few regional plans in the future which may benefit Vancouver.

[deasine]

There was a transportation study done years ago, which the city of Vancouver wanted expansion of the SkyTrain/rapid transit system to better serve its city centre. They wanted the Canada Line route, keep current SkyTrain, and even a SkyTrain/LRT Route underground Burrard. I wouldn't mind that - bored tunel under Burrard under False Creek then somehow back up to grade and down Arbutus corridor.

[mr.x]

The Vancouver Engineering Department nixed the idea of removing two traffic lanes from the Burrard Bridge arguing for transit-exclusive use on those lanes as justification for expensive, and unnecessary sidewalk widening, but I defer. Looping around the Creek to Chinatown would be an almost useless connection for Arbutus Corridor users. Regional money is not anywhere in sight for the South False Creek streetcar (and shouldn't be). The 32 Dunbar express bus has regular pass-ups and the 16 Arbutus is overloaded. The RAV line will do little for the Arbutus users except south of 45th Ave and nothing for Dunbar St passengers.

Like I said, there are potential future plans to build across Granville Bridge - not Burrard Bridge. I highly doubt Translink would put funding into this, even though they will be operating the system with the same transit fare system. I see the city using its own money, perhaps asking the feds and the province to contribute as well.

All this is moot anyway. The RAV line won't have enhanced capacity likely for sixty years and shouldn't have. I grant that Burrard Bridge won't likely have two lanes converted to transit use; that was just a ploy on the part of Vancouver engineering not willing to give up automobile space for cyclists. The Burrard Bridge was designed for a lower deck rail line, but the Kitsilano tressle was built providing CPR access to the dt peninsula. An lrt under Burrard could provide excellent ridership and a greater alternative to the three dt RAV stations, but the cost would be too high. LRT would not go down Granville St in dt Vancouver either though. Larry Campbell said he would be against lrt down Nelson and Smithe. Vancouver would likely bulk at an on-street lrt down Burrard. The Granville bridge won't likely have rail on it since the access to the middle of the upper deck would be difficult.

60 years???? I can assure you that the Canada Line wouldn't survive without major improvements for additional capacity in 60 years...i honestly don't think you know what you're talking about with regards to that.

And with regards to LRT on Granville, Larry was against LRT...not streetcar, though similar but can be quite different. And Larry Campbell is nowhere in the picture of Vancouver politics, i'm not sure why you're even bringing him up.

The Burrard streetcar/LRT alternative does sound quite appealing.

[officedweller]

The Downtown Transportation Study had a number of alternatives for rapid transit corridors downtown - which depended on which route (Cambie or Arbutus) and technology (interlined Skytrain or LRT) was eventually selected. The Canada Line route downtown is a mix of a couple of those (i.e. the Downtown Transportation Study showed the corridor under Davie turning to under Burrard, not under Davie then under Granville).



WRT the streetcar around False Creek - I see it as a feeder to and from the Skytrain and Canada Line. It's success will depend on frequent service (so as to make it faster than walking the relatively short distances to the Main St Station, Yaletown-Roundhouse Station and Olympic Village Station). The only remote destinations will be the Planetarium and Granville Island.

[deasine]

i was thinking of this map:



And I think if there is a Arbutus LRT, it should be using B3 option.

[officedweller]

That map was for tunneled options. The surface LRT option in the study only went down Granville Street - Burrard (and Howe, etc.) was discounted for surface LRT because it is busy and the removal of the two lanes would increase congestion.
Given the proximity of the corridor to Burrard Street south of False Creek it is feasible to route a tunnel along Burrard Street, plus it would provide additional coverage rather than co-locating with Canada Line on Granville.

[officedweller]

From the National Post/Financial Post:

Rebel workers
They came to bore a tunnel, but were reamed by labour bosses

John Mortimer, Financial Post
Published: Thursday, December 20, 2007

Imagine you're working in another country, don't speak the language, and find yourself in the crossfire between a union (which claims to represent you), a human rights tribunal, a labour board, your employer, and now the courts.

This is the situation for 30 Latin Americans working on the rapid transit tunnel under False Creek and downtown Vancouver. They have been in Canada, along with 70 other internationally based employees, on temporary work permits since 2006.

All work for SELI Canada -- a consortium comprised of Italy's SELI and Montreal-based Lavalin. SELI, formed 60 years ago, is a worldwide specialist in boring tunnels under massive amounts of sediment, rocks and water. Given the nature of this work, it takes a portion of its international workforce with it as well as hiring locals.

SELI's Canadian troubles are unprecedented. Here, the largely European management team and international workforce have been confronted by the in-your-face political games played by organized labour.

In June 2006, the Construction and Specialized Workers Union, Local 1611 (CSWU) unionized the workforce. Thirty-seven employees voted in favour, while 20 were opposed. Europeans were excluded from the union in bargaining.

In August, 2006, the union launched a complaint at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) on "behalf " of the Latin American employees. The union alleged racial discrimination, stating Latin American pay was less than Canadian pay on the project. A similar discrimination complaint was filed at the Labour Relations Board (LRB).

But the union never disclosed that at least 20% of the employees did not want the complaint filed, or that others may never have been fully informed. Employees were not advised of a legal right to opt out of the complaint. Updates in Spanish were spotty at best. Not that it mattered to the union, which claimed that all of them supported the complaint.

Over at the LRB, it turns out the discrimination complaint was unfounded. The LRB found the total pay and benefit packages were very similar in total value -- Canadians garnering $37,400 to $58,240; the Latin Americans between $46,556 and $57,978, including benefits. Complaint dismissed.

During bargaining, the union asked employees for a strike mandate. When SELI Canada and the union couldn't reach a collective agreement, the employer asked that employees be allowed to vote on the final offer. The union was opposed but lost its case at the LRB, and then told employees to reject the offer.

The union lost on both counts. Unionized employees denied the union leader's request for a strike mandate and eventually voted 75% in favour of the final offer, which then became their contract. The key pay and benefits provisions were the same ones all workers agreed to in 2006 when hired on to this project. This contract is the basis for the ongoing discrimination hearings at Human Rights.

The Latin Americans -- no doubt getting a sense of how disruptive some Canadian unions can be to employee lives -- followed up with a petition to the union demanding it stop visiting them. Then, in June this year, employees filed an application for decertification.

A vote was held within days, but the result is still not known -- the union is challenging everything at the Labour Board and in court. But here's a clue as to what the results might be: For that vote to even take place, at least 45% of the employees had to indicate in writing they no longer wanted the union.

Some of the Latin Americans, lost in this maze of unions, courts and tribunals, came to their employer to complain this fall -- stating their opposition to the union's actions. The employer drafted a petition for employees to sign (or not) which was presented to the Human Rights Tribunal. Twenty-one of 30 employees signed it, while at least two expressly did not. The views of another seven are unclear from reading the tribunal's recent ruling.

Apparently none of this mattered to the Human Rights Tribunal, which, in November, rejected all employer-led arguments, allowed the complaint to proceed and, alarmingly, ruled that employees may not bow out and settle directly with SELI. The Human Rights Tribunal also let the union use the Europeans instead of the Canadians as the group to compare to.

What's especially hypocritical is that the group of unions funding all this for the CSWU have lobbied hard to keep foreign workers out of Canada. Now, for those workers who managed to run the union gauntlet and get here anyway, the union continues to take a chunk of their paycheques while thwarting those same workers. The union has been further aided by the tribunal ruling that the petition was obtained by intimidation.

It's not difficult to figure out what's behind all this. In bargaining, the union told SELI it didn't care if its viability as a company was ruined. Organized labour's barrage of conflicting press releases against SELI and the increasingly global economy underscore that these 30 employees are mere pawns in a union war. SELI, its global workers and the Canadians who hired them will complete the tunnel in 2008, but the litigation will likely continue into 2009, when most if not all of these workers will be with SELI in another country on other projects offered to all employees.

This entire union-leader-friendly maze calls for a simple solution: A portion of union dues should be placed out of reach of the union, in a fund for employees to hire expert legal help to protect their rights. Employees deserve a counterbalance to the interests and power of not only the employer, but also the union.

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Wow....

[mr.x]

Updates from Tafryn's blog, Dec. 14:
http://canadalinephotos.blogspot.com/



BRIDGEPORT STATION (and park & ride, casino-hotel expansion)




















OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE CENTRE












NORTH ARM BRIDGE (note the off-ramp for the pedestrian/bike way)