PDA

View Full Version : We can learn from history Rail-based transit will work in the Fraser Valley


SpongeG
Oct 10, 2007, 9:07 PM
We can learn from history Rail-based transit will work in the Fraser Valley

By frankbucholtz

Oct 10 2007

The funny thing about history is that we rarely learn from it.

While this is true of almost everything, at present it is particularly true in the field of transportation — something that affects most Langley residents a lot, given the amount of time they spend going to and from work, school, shopping and home.

The debate over the Gateway Project and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge has exposed the fact that both proponents and opponents have paid little attention to the history of the Fraser Valley and its transportation corridors.

Two specific comments from readers in the past few weeks demonstrate that.

Bob Griffiths, a lifetime Langley resident who grew up in Coghlan, remembers the days of the B.C. Electric interurban well. He used the tram regularly, as it allowed people in his area to get to and from what is now Langley City (Langley Prairie then) and, more importantly, get to New Westminster and Vancouver.

He told me a few weeks ago that his father’s property was among those expropriated to build Highway 1, where it crossed 256 Street. The architects of the freeway project, Premier W.A.C. Bennett and Highways Minister Phil Gaglardi, came out to Coghlan one time to see how construction was going, and his older brother George struck up a conversation with them.

George suggested to them that it would be a good idea to put a rapid transit line up the freeway, given that there was plenty of right of way, and both men said it was an idea worthy of further thought.

Last week, I spoke with Henry Ewert, the acknowledged expert on the history of the B.C. Electric, who knows more details about interurban service than anyone else I know of.

He was a very popular speaker at the Douglas Day banquet a few years ago and is very interested in the whole discussion over how to best transport people in the South Fraser region.

He was telling me that he occasionally travels to downtown Vancouver from his Surrey home to lecture at SFU’s downtown campus. He finds it is often a two-hour trip by car to use the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1.

When the interurbans were running, as slow as they were in many areas (they used the city streets in part of Vancouver and made stops every mile or so), he could have made the same trip in about an hour and 15 minutes.

History tells us that a rail transit corridor will move people very efficiently, and whether it is along the freeway or on the interurban right-of-way, it could again work very well.

It is obvious that there has been a great deal of growth here in the past 20 years. At the same time, there has been minimal expansion of the freeway system (two HOV lanes were added west of the bridge, and an eastbound lane on the bridge). Perhaps most regrettably, there has been little expansion of transit to serve the growing population here, thus forcing people into their cars far too often.

There needs to be rail-based transit of some sort out into the valley, at least as far as Abbotsford. It’s time has come. We can’t simply wait six more years for rapid buses on the Port Mann Bridge.

http://www.langleytimes.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=47&cat=48&id=1080037&more=0

twoNeurons
Oct 10, 2007, 9:41 PM
There seems to be a momentum growing for more rail. I'm glad that not many have really been waxing poetic about the bus proposal.

bugsy
Jun 15, 2008, 6:13 AM
We certainly needs more rail in Vancouver. And I don't mean the glorified streetcars going nowhere fast called LRTs either. If only we had real trains, running on real electrified tracks, with EMUs from real train manufacturers (Bombardier is a joke) on both commuter and inter-city routes.

I say bring back the British Columbia Electric Railway as a public-private partnership, or break TransLink's monopoly and let someone with the investment vision go at it themselves. There's unused and abandoned track all over the place that can be put to better use.

Bureaucromancer
Sep 30, 2008, 5:18 AM
One of the things thats struck me about the FVLR proposal as written is that it makes the LRT based Evergreen potentially sensible after all. Operate it as a branch of the express route from New Westminster to Vancouver with transfers to a now "local" skytrain at Lougheed. Certainly worth an origin destination study for Evergreen. For that matter has one been done? This certainly makes sense if the biggest destination is going to be downtown, probably not if more are going to destination ON the Expo and Millenium lines...

Metro-One
Sep 30, 2008, 5:18 PM
Grade separated rail (skytrain) is perfect for connecting all of the inner Metro city centers, it is perfect for Coquitlam and UBC. Heavy rail should then be used to connect the further city centers (Abbotsford, Chilliwak, White Rock, etc...) and street cars should only be used for short distances around the cores of the city centers, connecting the skytrain and heavy rail stations to local attractions and amenities. At grade LRT is NOT a backbone rail service. And yes, i do support gateway but i also believe we should build a heavy rail line to the Abbotsford Langley City area. I also love the West Coast Express but we need to expand its service. I also support adding the rapid bus, for could you imagine how good our transit system would become? Two or three heavy rail lines, an extensive mini metro system, street cars around the city cores and rapid bus along the highways? In 15 years we could have one of North Americas best transit systems with a decent freeway system too.

Bureaucromancer
Sep 30, 2008, 9:35 PM
Keep in mind a system like Calgary, and that's what I see FVLR being like; essentially grade seperated, but using manually driven trains so you don't need full grade seperation of everything. Using it as an express route from New Westminster to Vancvouver Centre its really mostly a convienent bonus of reusing the existing corridors. I agree that GRADE SEPERATION is needed for Evergreen, but assuming you had that express route into central Vancouver, which route would should Evergreen through route with (I'm pretty sure that it would need a new study to get a decent answer).

As for Skytrain, I really don't see it as being needed in a route heading up the valley, potentially as far as Chilliwack, and it wouldn't have a speed advantage in the existing rail corridor anyway. I'd love to see Skytrain extended to UBC, and bouth southeast and south in Surrey, but using the former BC Electric route for service farther makes a lot of sense. Using light rail technology a shorter route along the highway between Langley and Abbotsford might also be affordable.

Anyway, my point is that Skytrain definatly makes sense everywhere it's been proposed, but I really see no point in using it for a route farther up the Fraser Valley, and insisting on it seems most likely to kill any proposal. If the FVLR takes advantage of the rail corridor near the Lougheed highway it can also be extended to Pacific Central station and be an express version of the Millenium line between New Westminster and Vancouver; such a service does raise a question of which line to connect Evergreen to.

Realistically though, what I'd like to see in the short term is some DMUs along the lines of what Ottawa has put into a commuter style service, entirely on the existing route, from King George to Chilliwack. It can be cut back to Abbotsford if the ridership isn't there and we get a decent idea of the market for a more fully developed service in the valley.

cornholio
Sep 30, 2008, 9:53 PM
The valley doesnt have the densities to support rapid transit, that includes LRT. How ever it can support a limited rail serice such as the WCE, and thats what they should get. Rapid bus and regular bus routes are sufficient, when the rapid bus routes become congested than you can worry about replacing them with rapid transit, and the best thing to do is to continue with technology we already are using region wide.

officedweller
Sep 30, 2008, 10:24 PM
Yeah, having Skytrain extended too far will also increase the journey time - while commuter rail can get passengers faster to a distribution node/hub. i.e. which is what is planned for WCE and Evergreen. Downtown workers continue on to Waterfront, those that work elsewhere can transfer to Evergreen at Port Moody or Coquitlam.

twoNeurons
Sep 30, 2008, 10:33 PM
As for Skytrain, I really don't see it as being needed in a route heading up the valley, potentially as far as Chilliwack, and it wouldn't have a speed advantage in the existing rail corridor anyway. I'd love to see Skytrain extended to UBC, and bouth southeast and south in Surrey, but using the former BC Electric route for service farther makes a lot of sense. Using light rail technology a shorter route along the highway between Langley and Abbotsford might also be affordable.

Preaching to the choir.

Metro-One
Sep 30, 2008, 10:42 PM
The outer valley needs heavy rail and raid bus, not LRT. LRT is too slow with too many stops in such low density highly spread areas. Heavy rail works for it will have 1 to 2 stations in each community, such as the west Coast, and people who take those trains will drive maybe 2 to 5 kilometers to the station houses and then park and ride to downtown or the nearest skytrain transfer etc...

Metro-One
Sep 30, 2008, 10:49 PM
We actually need more park and ride facilities. More people will ride transit if there was better parking, and this is the truth. Many people, such as my self, love trains but hate buses. I will try to avoid a bus at all costs, unless it is direct and short, such as the 145 from production way to SFU, which i take often. I always get motion sickness from buses. My point being many more people will take sky-train and such future ideas as heavy rail in the south valley if decent parking is provided. This style of transit was also common where i was living in Japan. Many people i knew would drive to the nearest train station and park their car there for the day, and if park and ride was too expensive for them then they would have a family member pick them up or drop them off in their cars. There were very few buses in Japan actually *relative to the number of trains, it was almost all trains and cars.

Ok, aigan i have rambled, i think my main point is that heavy rail is best for low density areas such as the valley for they enable larger park and ride station facilities.

fever
Sep 30, 2008, 11:59 PM
The main thing I'd suggest with rail in the valley is to avoid having more than an absolute minimum number of stops. One station every 5 to 8 km is much much faster than a typical light rail system with stations every 1 to 2 km, and it's also much cheaper because you don't need so many trains to meet the same schedule.

I'd support park and ride as an intermediate use until the land around the station can be developed as a TOD. Good biking infrastructure should be included too, especially around the stations in the flat parts of the valley, like Cloverdale.

SpongeG
Oct 1, 2008, 12:21 AM
there probably isn't that large amount of riders for something larger and faster

again if there are stats to show it I am sure its a small number of people that need to get downtown

a good link to surrey would be a better idea

people from abbotsford needing to get downtown can already take the west coast express to do that trip

the people travelling from Abbotsford to Surrey or Langley have nothing

bugsy
Oct 1, 2008, 12:21 AM
avoid having more than an absolute minimum number of stops. One station every 5 to 8 km is much much faster than a typical light rail system with stations every 1 to 2 km

Can I has limited express?

http://www.kabanya.net/weblog/%E7%89%B9%E6%80%A5%E3%81%AF%E3%81%8F%E3%81%A8.jpg

Pic related, It's a Chizu Express HOT7000.

fever
Oct 1, 2008, 12:47 AM
I don't think it has to go downtown to start with. imo, Scott Road to Langley would be the best candidate for a starter line, and connecting South Surrey would be the second step. There are a lot of issues brought up in the report on this route but they don't seem insurmountable.

I was thinking more like a Bombardier Talent (but it's not really important)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/O_Train_over_Rideau_by_Wilder.JPG/800px-O_Train_over_Rideau_by_Wilder.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:O_Train_over_Rideau_by_Wilder.JPG

paradigm4
Oct 1, 2008, 12:59 AM
The outer valley needs heavy rail and raid bus, not LRT. LRT is too slow with too many stops in such low density highly spread areas. Heavy rail works for it will have 1 to 2 stations in each community, such as the west Coast, and people who take those trains will drive maybe 2 to 5 kilometers to the station houses and then park and ride to downtown or the nearest skytrain transfer etc...

You do realize that light rail does not necessitate more stops. It just facilitates more because the start and stop times are less than with heavy rail. For that matter, a segregated streetcar would go as fast as a segregated light rail, which would go nearly as fast as heavy rail. One point though is that light rail is almost always electric while heavy rail is almost always diesel based.

bugsy
Oct 1, 2008, 3:25 AM
It just facilitates more because the start and stop times are less than with heavy rail. For that matter, a segregated streetcar would go as fast as a segregated light rail, which would go nearly as fast as heavy rail.

Glorified street cars? Faster then a REAL train?

One point though is that light rail is almost always electric while heavy rail is almost always diesel based.

EXCUSE ME?

http://www.02.246.ne.jp/~sugi2002/E531/P1050060-3.jpg

Bureaucromancer
Oct 1, 2008, 5:06 AM
In all seriousness, look at the stats on LRVs. In there own right of way they ARE (not can be, ARE) just as fast as what you call "real trains". To me though, big advantage of LRVs over heavy (commuter) rail in the valley is the ability to build in road medians, specifically, heavy rail is never going to be built down the Fraser Highway, or across the Port Mann bridge, light rail could.

Metro-One
Oct 1, 2008, 6:15 AM
:previous: But the system should and probably will be designed so that the rapid bus corridors will be turned into LRTs. the reason i feel we should do heavy rail is that heavy rail can run on existing tracks through out the lower mainland and that it can carry many more people in fewer trains and has a more obvious schedule, essentially another west coast express. Then the line could be extended further east all the way to hope and beyond, you could actually extend it one day all the way to the Okanagan to make it a larger southern BC regional rail network, not just a local commuter network. Just pipe dreams now i guess. Also heavy rail trains I feel attract many more riders in less dense areas, again the west coast express is the perfect example. I use to live in Maple ridge and after its first three stops in the morning (mission, port haney and maple meadows) the train is packed normally. Now a ROW LRT that does not ride down the meridians of busy streets might also work, but it would have to have exceptionally long LRT trains with very few stations and high operating speeds on a fixed schedule (example every half hour) People here seem to think very small and do not realize how to market towards people in outer lying cities, in fact Abbotsford is considered a separate Metro district than the GVRD, so this in a way would be a metro to metro line, therefore for the possibilities of extending the trains to other metro areas (chilliwak, Kelowna, Squamish, Kamloops, etc...) heavy rail is best.

paradigm4
Oct 1, 2008, 7:05 AM
Glorified street cars? Faster then a REAL train?

EXCUSE ME?

Uh, yea, let's not go all Vancouverite-SkyTrain FTW-glorified streetcar.

If then run on rails, they are trains.

And yes, one of the advantages of doing a light rail is that we can run them through city centres, as well as along exurban rail corridors. Some LRVs can run on both light and heavy rail track btw.

Speed is relative to stops, basically. A segregated right-of-way, with minimal crossings and stations would go very fast, no matter what form of technology - rails or road.

And yes, there are electrified heavy rail routes. I'm not saying there isn't. My point was, albeit a long one, that if we are going to make the investment to electrify an old heavy rail route, we might as well just build a new light rail line along the same corridor. It would be more flexible for transit services, and would last a much longer time.

paradigm4
Oct 1, 2008, 7:07 AM
:previous: But the system should and probably will be designed so that the rapid bus corridors will be turned into LRTs. the reason i feel we should do heavy rail is that heavy rail can run on existing tracks through out the lower mainland and that it can carry many more people in fewer trains and has a more obvious schedule, essentially another west coast express. Then the line could be extended further east all the way to hope and beyond, you could actually extend it one day all the way to the Okanagan to make it a larger southern BC regional rail network, not just a local commuter network. Just pipe dreams now i guess. Also heavy rail trains I feel attract many more riders in less dense areas, again the west coast express is the perfect example. I use to live in Maple ridge and after its first three stops in the morning (mission, port haney and maple meadows) the train is packed normally. Now a ROW LRT that does not ride down the meridians of busy streets might also work, but it would have to have exceptionally long LRT trains with very few stations and high operating speeds on a fixed schedule (example every half hour) People here seem to think very small and do not realize how to market towards people in outer lying cities, in fact Abbotsford is considered a separate Metro district than the GVRD, so this in a way would be a metro to metro line, therefore for the possibilities of extending the trains to other metro areas (chilliwak, Kelowna, Squamish, Kamloops, etc...) heavy rail is best.

I would agree that heavy rail is the way to connect with Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Surrey, and Vancouver.

I think there's a bit of confusion when people say "The Valley". To some in Vancouver, this could refer to Surrey or Langley. To those of us further east, "The Valley" means Maple Ridge and beyond.

To be sure, Surrey is a completely different story than Abbotsford.

twoNeurons
Oct 1, 2008, 6:51 PM
Technically, the Fraser Valley starts East of Aldergrove, including Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Hope and Mission.

Surrey Langley, and Maple Ridge are part of Metro Vancouver.

Combined, they form the Lower Mainland.

paradigm4
Oct 1, 2008, 7:19 PM
Technically, the Fraser Valley starts East of Aldergrove, including Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Hope and Mission.

Surrey Langley, and Maple Ridge are part of Metro Vancouver.

Combined, they form the Lower Mainland.

No, I know that, and thanks for clarifying, but my point was a lot of people, whether on this forum, or out in the real world debating this same issue, don't have this same definition for "the valley"

fever
Oct 1, 2008, 7:52 PM
The line in my mind is a land use boundary instead of a municipal, regional district or CMA boundary. The Fraser valley refers to the more agricultural parts of the lower mainland in my mind. This thread is about what type of rail, if any, is the best fit in a pattern of populated hills and agricultural valleys.

The definitions of light and heavy rail are also open to interpretation. In my mind, Calgary has light rail, while Portland has light rail and a streetcar. Ottawa has regional rail and bus rapid transit. Toronto's subway is heavy rail, and GO is commuter rail that would become regional rail with regular, low-frequency, bidirectional service.

DKaz
Nov 10, 2008, 9:42 PM
Canada Line, Toronto Subway, New York subways, Tokyo's subways, etc. all use heavy rail vehicles!

I say we get a starter high speed commuter rail down the middle of the Transcanada Highway linking Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Langley, that little bit of Surrey, connection at Braid Station, with future provisions to extend it even further to downtown Vancouver as funds become available. Start it out with half hour rush hour schedules and hourly schedule all other times, no need to electrify. Acquire Ottawa's DMUs when they're ready to sell, build basic stations, and provide basic rail traffic controls and single rail with designated passing areas at stations and predetermined locations and provisions to double track in the future and away we go. The wiggly light interurban would also be up and running to provide local service and provide connections to the high speed line. What is it, four colleges/universities linked by the interurban? The line is going to be well used!

Metro-One
Nov 10, 2008, 10:52 PM
I still think heavy rail is the best choice for connecting the Valley cities to Vancouver - High speed rail i would love to see though.

twoNeurons
Nov 10, 2008, 11:38 PM
Canada Line, Toronto Subway, New York subways, Tokyo's subways, etc. all use heavy rail vehicles!



I don't think you can call the Canada line vehicles heavy rail by most people's definition.

Metro-One
Nov 10, 2008, 11:45 PM
Actually to me canada line vehicles look no lighter than subway cars in Tokyo or Toronto, just newer :tup:

DKaz
Nov 11, 2008, 12:29 AM
I don't think you can call the Canada line vehicles heavy rail by most people's definition.

The cars themselves are heavy rail but with two car trainsets, the capacity certainly is not for the time being (if ever).

SpongeG
Nov 11, 2008, 12:42 AM
maybe if vancouver had a population in the 4-5 million range it would make sense but we don't and are a few decades away from that

as it is people in abbotsford/chilliwack go to mission to catch the commuter rail

if we add another one south of the fraser there goes a large chunk of riders from the wce

it just not needed yet with the numbers out there

lightrail
Nov 11, 2008, 12:53 AM
One point though is that light rail is almost always electric while heavy rail is almost always diesel based.

Noooo. That's not true. There are many many examples of heavy rail electric trains - local and express. France's TGV is electric; eurostar is electric; most of London's and Paris and any other European city's suburban trains are electric heavy rail; most metros are heavy rail (and electric).

Montreal has electric heavy rail commuter trains, and I could go on.

Light rail can be diesel too (or more correctly diesel-electric - which, by the way, most diesel trains are actually electric trains with their own on-board generators driven by the diesel engines).

DKaz
Nov 11, 2008, 1:15 AM
maybe if vancouver had a population in the 4-5 million range it would make sense but we don't and are a few decades away from that. as it is people in abbotsford/chilliwack go to mission to catch the commuter rail. if we add another one south of the fraser there goes a large chunk of riders from the wce. it just not needed yet with the numbers out there

Adding a South of Fraser commuter rail line would likely take away half the passengers boarding from Mission station, but Mission Station really isn't that busy to begin with. I would say that less than 10% of the seats get taken at Mission. Most of the passengers come from all the other stations and by Port Moody it's standing room only.

Diverting Abbotsford and Chilliwack passengers to South of Fraser would mean that Port Moody passengers can actually find a seat and trains would run at exactly 100% seating capacity to Waterfront (not accounting for future growth).

Meanwhile South of Fraser would get exactly what they need, their own high speed commuter line and we'd probably triple the number of Abbotsford/Chilliwack residents using transit.

SpongeG
Nov 11, 2008, 1:24 AM
if the numbers are already so low that just goes to show that chilliwack and abbotsford people don't work downtown ;)

officedweller
Nov 11, 2008, 2:07 AM
The "light" and the "heavy" in light rail and heavy rail refer to passenger capacity - not technology.

The Canada Line is a bit of a hybrid in that sense, because the physical dimensions of the cars are similar to heavy rail systems (like TTC subway cars) but the overall system capacity is more like light rail or intermediate capacity rail due to the two-car trainsets.

Metro-One
Nov 11, 2008, 4:06 AM
if the numbers are already so low that just goes to show that chilliwack and abbotsford people don't work downtown

Actually i think they don't take the WCE because it is a little inconvenient to do so, because to drive from Abbotsford to Mission is about a 15 to 30 minute drive in the wrong direction, and then you have to park and transfer onto the train. So it is easier at the moment just to take the direct route (the freeway) to the city. If there were a station house in Abbotford i am sure many more people would take the train. hence why i believe a commuter train into the Valley would work.

DKaz
Nov 11, 2008, 6:05 AM
Hence why I think a train from Abby/Chilliwack would triple the ridership for the Abby residents working in Vancouver and also get those working in Burnaby/Coquitlam/Surrey onto transit. I doubt that the high speed line will come anytime soon, I'd like them to get the Interurban back first.

I think the Golden Ears bridge will definitely bring in riders from Langley/Walnut Grove.

SpongeG
Nov 11, 2008, 6:28 AM
i think the interurban would be more valuable right now - when the population grows perhaps something heavier could work

either way downtown vancouver shouldn't be seen as "the" end point anymore

vancouver's economy is service based and spread out

Metro-One
Nov 11, 2008, 10:35 AM
:previous: I'm a little fuzzy on the inter-urban idea, is that a right of way light rail system? Similar to the C-train in Calgary?

fever
Nov 11, 2008, 4:01 PM
Yes. It could be like the c-train. It could have fewer stops and be more of a regional line as well.

Distill3d
Nov 11, 2008, 6:10 PM
Technically, the Fraser Valley starts East of Aldergrove, including Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Hope and Mission..

well, save for Hope, i'm convinced that before we start building anything like this, we should get these other cities part of Metro Vancouver first. there's a push to get Abbotsford, but not Mission or Chilliwack.

i understand the purpose behind having an inter-urban line, but lets get them part of us first.

Metro-One
Nov 11, 2008, 7:30 PM
So is this inter-urban the same commuter train mentioned in another thread, where they used the 2010 machine to help boost its publicity?

officedweller
Nov 11, 2008, 10:07 PM
Yeah, that's right.
To start, the trains could be like Ottawa's O-Train - a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) type of train - i.e. a two-car diesel powered light rail vehicle.
The problem with those vehicles is that they are not crash-rated to run on the same tracks at the same times of day as diesel freight trains (some system like the San Diego Sprinter and the River Line in New Jersey restrict freight train traffic to late night, which means the passenger service shuts early.)

Ottawa O-Train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_O-Train

New Jersey River Line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Line_(New_Jersey_Transit)

See also the San Diego Sprinter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPRINTER

The official map here shows the extent of double track and single track.
http://www.gonctd.com/sprinter_intro.htm

DKaz
Nov 11, 2008, 10:15 PM
So is this inter-urban the same commuter train mentioned in another thread, where they used the 2010 machine to help boost its publicity?

The interurban is more about connecting smaller town centres to each other... a Chilliwack resident going to school at Kwantlen, a Surrey resident working in Langley, University of Fraser Valley students going to downtown Vancouver Friday after class for pub crawl.

The interurban would have running speeds of 60-80km/h and an average speed of around 40km/h so it is not as fast as a commuter train like the West Coast Express with running speeds of up to 150km/h (if the track is designed for those speeds... I think the WCE goes 115km/h tops between Mission and Port Haney) and average speed of 60km/h, but it's better to have a community oriented transit system first like the Interurban as a backbone before getting a commuter oriented transit system like commuter rail. The interurban tracks are already there linking Chilliwack, Abby, Langley, Cloverdale, Newton, Strawberry Hill, and Scott Road Station, a commuter train down TransCanada would require significant capital funds although likely way cheaper and way faster than skytrain.

Metro-One
Nov 11, 2008, 10:34 PM
Well then lets get the inter-urban going. That would be a massive improvement to our system.

having this along with the C-line and Evergreen sky-train lines all completed within 4 to 5 years (and possibly phase 0 completed of the Vancouver street car) along with the existing WCE and sky-train network would possibly give Metro-Vancouver the most extensive train system in Canada (per capita). Not to mention the possible M-line extension to UBC. Not bad for being the last major city to build a train network.

fever
Nov 12, 2008, 2:36 AM
The interurban would have running speeds of 60-80km/h and an average speed of around 40km/h so it is not as fast as a commuter train like the West Coast Express with running speeds of up to 150km/h (if the track is designed for those speeds... I think the WCE goes 115km/h tops between Mission and Port Haney) and average speed of 60km/h, but it's better to have a community oriented transit system first like the Interurban as a backbone before getting a commuter oriented transit system like commuter rail. The interurban tracks are already there linking Chilliwack, Abby, Langley, Cloverdale, Newton, Strawberry Hill, and Scott Road Station, a commuter train down TransCanada would require significant capital funds although likely way cheaper and way faster than skytrain.

It depends on the class of track used and noise considerations, but the operating speed of the dmu that od mentioned is much higher than 80 km/h. This is especially important for the longer distance links through farmland. Acceleration is more important in urban settings where stations are closer together. Bombardier Talent dmu's, like the one's used in Ottawa, have a maximum speed of 120 km/h (Norwegian version) or 140 km/h (German version) http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/diesel-multiple-units/talent---germany--db-ag-?docID=0901260d80010343# . I think Ottawa uses a different version, but it doesn't operate near the maximum speed anyway due to noise considerations and because it's a trial that uses existing track with virtually no improvements made.

The evaluation report of the O-train is here btw http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ttc/2002/12-04/ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0012.htm

A couple more thoughts... I did a regression analysis on the timetable of the WCE a few weeks ago and its operating speed is indeed 110 km/h. I also calculated its stop/dwell/start time, in other words the total time it takes to add a station to the line. You could find the results somewhere in another thread. One thing I was wondering is what the dwell time is typically. That way I can extract a combined accel/decel time.

ssiguy
Nov 12, 2008, 3:52 AM
I can definatly see using the line for LRT for the Langley/Newton/Delta corridors but only as a regular LRT not as a heavy rail commuter service.
It would take forever for someone going to downtown.

Just add HOV/bus-only lanes on HWY#10 from Chilliwack all the way to the PortMann. There could be EXPRESS buses from Chill/Abb/Alder/Lang/Guilf and just take the freeway. It would be FAR cheaper, more convient, faster, more direct, and more comfortable.
Vancouver already has this type of service..........351 Cresent Beach/Waterfront. It is a very fast, now frequent service using HOV and is supplimented by other rush-hour express routes. If people had to go up to the King George SkyTrain station then everyone would drive. There is no reason why this can't be done to those areas. It may not be ribbon cutting material which Translink and the province love but it is a far superior alternative.
For people coming from Newton/72nd Ave going downtown and/or Richmond/YVR they shoul also have bus-only lanes on both ends of the AlexFraser with cue jumpers. Again, too easy for Translink.

DKaz
Nov 12, 2008, 4:18 AM
A couple more thoughts... I did a regression analysis on the timetable of the WCE a few weeks ago and its operating speed is indeed 110 km/h. I also calculated its stop/dwell/start time, in other words the total time it takes to add a station to the line. You could find the results somewhere in another thread. One thing I was wondering is what the dwell time is typically. That way I can extract a combined accel/decel time.

I'm going to be using the West Coast Express again in December when I take a job downtown, and I live in Mission. I have a GPS dongle and my computer I can use to chart the speed of the train the entire way as the train definitely does not go more than 90km/h between Port Haney and Port Moody andI'm guessing 60km/h from Port Moody to Waterfront. I would say average dwell time is about 45 seconds?

As for the Interurban... we're pushing the people in power to get this in fast but so far only the local governments are on board. Falcon and the BC Government aren't budging.

Hong Kongese
Nov 13, 2008, 6:41 AM
Share Research lags on valley rail vision

By Jeff Nagel

Published: November 12, 2008 5:00 PM
Updated: November 12, 2008 5:09 PM

Demands for light rail to the Fraser Valley should wait for the results of a provincial government-led study into long-range transit improvements there, says one key player.

Southern Railway of B.C. runs freight trains on the old Interurban rail corridor through Surrey that advocates see as a fast and cheap route that could once again provide rapid transit to Langley and points east.

Southern president Frank Butzelaar said he has an open mind toward a rail transit revival, but says it depends on Victoria's wishes.

"We are open to the concept," he said. "It really requires that the province comes to us and says 'Look, this is something we're interested in.'

"To date, that hasn't happened."

The province is expected to soon pick a consultant to carry out a five-part strategic review of transit in the valley.

Butzelaar hoped that will help the province decide what type of transit upgrades to pursue.

Light rail advocates fear Victoria's interest is only lukewarm.

Work was to have started by September on the new studies.

But critics say there's now little chance any findings will be ready before the provincial election next May, and the final document may not be ready until well after the original target date of December, 2009.

"That is dreamland now," said Surrey rail advocate Peter Holt. "They have no chance of meeting their timeline. I think they are in disarray."

He said the government needs to catch up to the rising tide of public support for light rail that has played out in civic election campaigns across the region.

Numerous candidates throughout the South of Fraser area have embraced light rail and pledged to fight for it.

"I think the ball is rolling," Holt said.

Abbotsford city council has backed a strategy to press for light rail that includes forming a committee of mayors and councillors from Abbotsford to Surrey.

Both Abbotsford and Surrey are also considering launching light rail demonstration projects, ideally to be on track by the 2010 Olympics.

Rail for the Valley spokesman John Buker said local politicians from Delta to Chilliwack have jumped aboard the light rail push.

"It's very positive," he said, adding advocates need to keep pushing as the provincial election gets closer to make inroads in Victoria.

"So far the provincial government has been dragging its feet," he said. "It needs to turn that around or there's going to be a very interesting election out in the valley."