SkyscraperPage Forum - Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

Viewing Page 6 of 245

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Transportation & Infrastructure (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=166)

- - Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=164316)

It's a BC election, and without pressure on the government, it likely won't be done.

As for TRUE high-speed happening here, I don't see it in the short-term here.

Obama is taking baby steps. What COULD happen is a series of upgrades that allow the trains to speed up here. However, still, the major hurdles are the area through White Rock and the New West Bridge.

Until those issues are dealt with, driving will always be faster than taking the train... which is a shame.

An elevated bypass along the #99 (instead of the circuitous route around White Rock) and we could probably shave 30 minutes off the trip.

As for gas reaching $5/L, that's ridiculous. Not sure about Europe right now, but I'm pretty sure Japan's gas costs less than $1.50/L right now.

They recover a lot more money for improvements from tolling. It's far more user-pay in Japan... for everything.

Quote:

I dream that such a high speed rail would travel the same route as the 99, have a station at Bridgeport (for those coming to and from the airport) and then travel on an elevated structure (just like the trains in Japan going through the cities) and have its Terminal station at Pacific Central (or Waterfront). Honestly if we really want rail to work in this country than we have to put the greater good and the health of the region before the individual.

Unless the train went completely underground, I just can't see it having a stop at Bridgeport. The closest I can see it getting is parallel to Shell Rd. in Richmond on the ROW there and then tunneled under Knight Street to meet up with tracks that could terminate at either Pacific Terminal or Waterfront Station.

The reasoning behind that route would be that it mostly goes along existing ROWs, avoids NIMBys, and would allow for the fastest speeds.

However, it misses the opportunity to put High Speed through Surrey, thus connecting the two largest cities in the region.

I know US Border rules "currently" specify that there be only one stop north of the border, but the route through Surrey would allow regional passenger trains to share the track. Northbound trains from Seattle can be non-stop. Besides, workarounds for these rules can be made.

it would be nice for that rule to change so Surrey and Vancouver could both be a stop
It would really help Surrey get its name out there in the states
Its sad that Surrey has the boarders but Vancouver got the well knownness
but the adding a fast train between just Vancouver and Surrey would be nice. Its seems to take a little to long by skytrain some times. To many stops lol

Adding a stop to a suburb already connected by metro seems a little counter intuitive with regards to HSR. If this was standard intercity rail like VIA it would make sense, but adding an extra stop in the city makes no sense when you are in direct competition with YVR for business, every minute counts when you are fighting from behind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster (Post 4206373)

I guess it depends to an extent on who your market is. Obviously you're going to have a hard time convincing a family from South Surrey to go all the way to Vancouver just to turn around and take the train past their house on the way to Seattle, which may serve to imply that a Surrey station would be better (a Vancouver station is more inconvenient and wastes more time to Surreyites than vice versa). On the other hand, the general experience is that HSR tends to win over air (i.e. buissness) passengers, not the family of four going to visit some inlaws. In that context, having the station near the heart of the buissness district (i.e. in downtown Vancouver) makes sense. Ultimately, I think it would be best to have both stations be built, if it's feasible. Here's the way I see it:

Vancouver only: Full benefits to downtown buissness travellers, and Vancouver and immediate suburbs residents. Highly inconvenient for South of Fraser residents

Surrey only: Maximum user friendliness for South of Fraser residents, inconvenient for Vancouver and immediate suburbs, who have to SkyTrain out to Surrey and transfer trains (this alone may cost you a chunk of buissness travellers).

Vancouver and Surrey: Still maximum user friendliness for South of Fraser residents, minor inconvenience to Vancouver and immediate suburbs compared to Vancouver only option, as they have an extra 5 minutes or so of travel time. Still faster and more convenient than SkyTraining it though (assuming upgrading tracks between Waterfront and the Surrey station).

Besides, you can always run express non-stop Vancouver-Seattle trains if the market is there for them.

^ Great analysis....
There are pros and cons to everything. Only a public poll would show what the majority wants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared (Post 4206646)

I guess it depends to an extent on who your market is. Obviously you're going to have a hard time convincing a family from South Surrey to go all the way to Vancouver just to turn around and take the train past their house on the way to Seattle, which may serve to imply that a Surrey station would be better (a Vancouver station is more inconvenient and wastes more time to Surreyites than vice versa). On the other hand, the general experience is that HSR tends to win over air passengers, not the family of four going to visit some inlaws. In that context, having the station near the heart of the buissness district (i.e. in downtown Vancouver) makes sense. Ultimately, I think it would be best to have both stations be built, if it's feasible. Here's the way I see it:

Vancouver only: Full benefits to downtown buissness travellers, and Vancouver and immediate suburbs residents. Highly inconvenient for South of Fraser residents

Surrey only: Maximum user friendliness for South of Fraser residents, inconvenient for Vancouver and immediate suburbs, who have to SkyTrain out to Surrey and transfer trains (this along may cost you a chunk of buissness travellers).

Vancouver and Surrey: Still maximum user friendliness for South of Fraser residents, minor inconvenience to Vancouver and immediate suburbs compared to Vancouver only option, as they have an extra 5 minutes or so of travel time. Still faster and more convenient than SkyTraining it though (assuming upgrading tracks between Waterfront and the Surrey station).

Besides, you can always run express non-stop Vancouver-Seattle trains if the market is there for them.

I don't think Surrey is ready for a stop... but provisions for a stop should be implemented so that when Surrey is ready for a station, we can build that easily.

Can't speak about the north american model, but in europe most of those HSR runs are your typical business trips, and not family trips. Most of the train is either professionals doing commerce or students hoping from city to city. In that situation a stop in Vancouver/Seattle/Portland would be the only stations that made sense. It kind of sucks for people in Surrey I agree, but no worse then having to drive west to get to YVR just to turn around and fly east to Toronto, see my point?

I agree with the previous analysis. The HSR track should run through Surrey centre so that a station can be easily built there in the future when Surrey grows. So far, a Seattle to Vancouver direct route will suffice.

^ agreed. land has to be reserved for future development.

I don't think HSR is that important here because it will only ever get you to Seattle and Portland. If there were a line, I wouldn't mind a Surrey stop. For a European example, Dutch intercity trains from Amsterdam to Brussels stop at the airport, Den Haag, Rotterdam, and Roosendaal before they cross into Belgium. That's sort of like having stops in Surrey, Bellingham, and Everett.

Dunno, the way they load and unload trains seems to be more efficient. Like, the shinkansen stops are as little as one minute before it starts rolling again. I'd be amazed if they managed to get everyone on and off in that time on a train over here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster (Post 4206373)

Surrey is its own metro these days
not a suburb! :hell:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetMapel (Post 4206703)

This I agree with
although i would expect it right in the centre more like the bridgeview are since it would being going over the westminster rail bridge. So it would like be best to scott road station

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa (Post 4206679)

The Cascades already has 4 (soon to be 5) stations in between Vancouver and Seattle, and 6 between Seattle and Portland. It's not like you're breaking up an otherwise direct journey by adding a Surrey station. Although Vancouver, Seattle and Portland are the 3 busiest stations, the smaller ones do account for a decent amount of ridership. Axing them would loose you quite a few trips; I'm not sure you'd be able to make up for all those lost trips simply by reducing Vancouver-Seattle travel times. Like I said, if there's demand for an express service, all you have to do is add a couple bypass tracks at the stations you want to skip.

The Toronto thing is a bit of an apple/oranges thing though. The point about people living in Surrey with a Vancouver only station is that they're basically a write off at that point. It doesn't take that long to drive to Seattle, and if you factor in the time involved in heading to downtwon Vancouver, driving is probably faster. Obviously, driving to YVR adds time to a flight to Toronto, but the difference is, despite that, you'll still arrive in Toronto on the plane several days before you would if you were driving. That's not the case for going to Seattle.

Whalleyboy, you are correct. The WSDoT range plan discusses a station at Scott Road SkyTrain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy (Post 4206756)

I don't think the westminster rail bridge agrees with high speed rail lol.

westminster bridge would be updated obviously after all
anyways its set for updates
as seen by this plan here
http://www.gvgc.org/pdf/MCTSfullmap.pdf

A much better article coming out of Abbotsford. Not a whole lot of attacking of other infrastructure projects like the last one. Just spills out a lot of the facts surrounding the idea.

Quote:

Rapid Transit: The light rail option

Published: April 20, 2009 4:00 PM
Updated: April 20, 2009 5:04 PM

Many of the issues facing Fraser Valley commuters could be solved with the adoption of a light rail system.

That’s the contention of the local advocacy group Rail for the Valley, which is lobbying the provincial government to take advantage of existing rail infrastructure to upgrade the public transit system.

“The future is going to require rail transportation,” said John Vissers, a local Rail for the Valley spokesperson. “Urban areas around North America are slowly making transitions to rail-based infrastructure, and we have to do the same.”

Light rail is a form of rapid transit that operates largely on a dedicated rail track, and refers to the fact that the streetcar-type system accommodates lighter loads. Many light rail systems are powered by overhead electric wires, but some diesel models are also in service.

Rail for the Valley supports the revival of the old B.C. Electric interurban rail line to serve as the backbone of a light rail system linking Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Aldergrove, Langley and Surrey. The 50-kilometre interurban route transported passengers between Chilliwack and New Westminster until the 1960s, and is currently used by the freight transporter Southern Railway.

According to light rail advocate Malcolm Johnston, based on studies of light rail systems in other jurisdictions, a basic diesel system offering hourly trips from Vancouver to Chilliwack could be started for an estimated $500 million. A six-kilometre SkyTrain extension planned for Surrey carries a price tag of $1.1 billion.

“I know there are naysayers about light rail, but I think the movement will take hold,” said Abbotsford Coun. Lynne Harris, who chairs the traffic committee. “I think there’s feasibility to it. The infrastructure is already there, and in terms of economic affordability, it’s an idea that should be explored.”

Advocates also believe that light rail represents a more environmentally friendly solution to transit issues than expanding the road system. Road expansion just increases traffic, Vissers said.

The province is currently assessing the viability of using the interurban rail corridor as part of its Fraser Valley Transit Study. The $400,000 study, launched in late November, is expected to begin the public consultation phase later in the spring. A final report is expected in late 2009.

Speaking at a public forum last year, transportation minister Kevin Falcon noted that the business case conducted for the Evergreen Line linking Coquitlam, Port Moody and Burnaby concluded that SkyTrain technology would draw 2.5 times as many riders as light rail and would reach destinations in almost half the time.

That said, there has been little debate over whether a SkyTrain expansion could stretch to Abbotsford.

It prompted Harris to say last year that Abbotsford had been “shortchanged” when it comes to a B.C. government proposal to only extend SkyTrain’s lines from the existing limit in Surrey out to Langley.

Metro Vancouver’s SkyTrain service is operated by regional transportation authority TransLink.

Spokesman Ken Hardie acknowledged that a SkyTrain-type expansion – whether it be above ground or underground – would be the priciest way to connect Abbotsford to Metro Vancouver.

Light rail would be the next most expensive, he said, followed by rapid bus services.

These buses often have their own dedicated lanes. Their lower cost, when compared to light rail, allow for a larger network at the same price. Technology also means traffic lights can be held green for approaching buses, while bypass lanes can be created to allow the buses to speed past congestion at bridges or intersections.

“We need to look at how many people want to book it through [from Abbotsford] into Surrey, Coquitlam or Vancouver,” he said.

According to Hardie, the provincial study will likely examine whether there is high demand to connect Abbotsford to Metro through transit.

Last week, The News reported that 62 per cent of Abbotsford’s workers have jobs in their hometown. Most commuters travel to Langley and Surrey.

When it comes to reviving the old B.C. Electric interurban rail line, Hardie said a lot of “quite expensive” work would need to be completed before it could be opened. He also questioned whether it accommodates the sites that should be served by a rapid transit service. Another potential problem is that development tends to follow the establishment of any rapid transit network and could impact neighbourhoods that lie close to the track.

Any rapid transit service for Abbotsford is unlikely to come for free, Hardie continued.

TransLink operates the West Coast Express, a commuter train between Mission and Vancouver.

The operating cost for that service in 2008 was $16.7 million, of which TransLink recouped $15.4 million (92 per cent) through fares. That is better than the norm, according to Hardie, who said that on average for all TransLink services, only 53 per cent of operating costs are recaptured through fares. He doubts whether an Abbotsford rapid transit service would turn a profit, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the remainder

“You don’t necessarily have the population density, coupled with the demand for people trying to get from here to there,” he said.

Source: The Abbotsford News -- http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_va...il_option.html

Given that Vancouver isn't as much of a business hub, you'll likely get a lot of local passengers, with a few business travelers mixed in. Not a lot of people fly to Seattle, as it's so close, however, you'd get a few of those that travel by car. It looks like Surrey is trying to establish itself as a business centre as well. If it does, a Scott Road station would be two stops away from the centre of it all.

However, the terminus should obviously be in Vancouver. Surrey wouldn't add much to the time. The trains will have to make a sharp turn to cross the Fraser, even if it were a new bridge, so they won't be moving very fast to begin with. Also, speeds are usually slower in urban areas for noise reasons and safety.

The Shinkansen in Tokyo makes 2 stops within 25km of Tokyo station. Shinagawa and Yokohama. I know, that's Tokyo, but it doesn't add much to the time.

A Hikari Shinkansen makes about 9-12 stops between Tokyo and Osaka, compared to the Nozomi train which makes 6, and it takes 3:00, vs. 2:25. This includes stopping to let the express trains pass.

Considering the distance and the speed our trains would be, a stop in Surrey wouldn't add much time on at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodii (Post 4206979)

A much better article coming out of Abbotsford. Not a whole lot of attacking of other infrastructure projects like the last one. Just spills out a lot of the facts surrounding the idea.

Source: The Abbotsford News -- http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_va...il_option.html

This stuff has been going on for so long
I think south of the fraser could use both the interurban and a skytrain expansion. Although in my opinion i do think skytrain expansion south of the fraser will mostly just serve Surrey and a bit of the city of Langley
where as the Interurban could serve all but one place mainly south of the fraser(sorry delta)...it could even hit hope down the line if they wanted

also on the sort of the same not there is a volunteer group of people who have been working on restoring the interurban line through surrey for a while

Also its awesome to see most people agree both Surrey and Vancouver should have a stop or ad min Surrey should have one in the future

Viewing Page 6 of 245