Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

It will happen.

In 2075, maybe; TransLink's got other stuff to do within its actual jurisdiction (i.e. not anywhere south or east of Mission) for now. The one Vancouverite who wants to go to Hope every day needs to make other plans.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Think of it as a kick in the 🞵🞵🞵. Everybody agrees that the big thing stopping commuter rail expansion is lack of track space.

With freight having the priority, CP and CN's trains aren't affected, so they just sit on their butts; any expansion would have to come from public money. If passengers get priority, it's the company trains that have to wait, so then they have to widen the bridge or twin the track.

I think it's worth remembering that almost all of the rights of way for the major railways, and a lot more besides, were given to them. Railways have profited handsomely from their use and their sales of these granted lands. And we as a country have benefited from the access that the railways made possible.

There's an argument to be made in these days of highly developed urban areas that rights of way that enable transportation are kind of like the radio spectrum: a public good. I think that legislation which improves public use of these corridors without unduly burdening the railways is a net good for us as a society.

[Migrant_Coconut]

One could even argue that for much of its history, the "Canadian government" has effectively been two or three railroad corporations in a trenchcoat; they were given a lot of authority in order to connect the country.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

One could even argue that for much of its history, the "Canadian government" has effectively been two or three railroad corporations in a trenchcoat; they were given a lot of authority in order to connect the country.

As an example, how many private companies have their own sworn police force that's created by federal law? CN and CP do.

[Vin]

From back in June: an opinion piece...

Opinion: Let’s build new dedicated tracks for the West Coast Express commuter rail line
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/west-coast-express-commuter-rail-new-tracks

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

From back in June: an opinion piece...

I think that a dedicated line is a pertinent and proactive idea. It's time to address commuter rail seriously like big boys and girls. Treating it sort of 'half-way' is not good enough. This idea shows dedication.

As an additional remark, I'd like to submit this, although from going back years to 2019. //

A central idea is that if commuter rail is built into the valley to Abbotsford (as a starting point), the development that Vancouver will see so much of in the future would coalesce around stations and help proactive develop the form that a larger, denser, and more populous Vancouver will take. And doing it with elements of solid infrastructure, such as the dedicated tracking that Vin points out, is necessary for a system that will work really well.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/west-coast-express-expansion-opinion-2019
Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The current ridership for the WCE is 3,500/day. Before the pandemic, 10,400/day. Even if the bill passes, two-way service every 90 minutes is good enough; the R3 already exists and is apparently faster.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The current ridership for the WCE is 3,500/day. Before the pandemic, 10,400/day. Even if the bill passes, two-way service every 90 minutes is good enough; the R3 already exists and is apparently faster.

To be fair, a dedicated line which allows for faster and more reliable service might attract a larger ridership. Although I'm pretty sure that if we took whatever it costs to build it and apply that money to solve other bottlenecks instead we could probably benefit more people.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Hence why I'm suggesting a slight upgrade over the existing WCE (120 minutes, and only at rush hour in the peak direction): better service, but not at the expense of improving other bottlenecks which actually matter. We both understand how the M-Line/R3 combo is going to be much more useful to many more people.

[mattropolis]

Changing the West Coast express from 30 minutes rush hour service to 90 minutes is not an improvement! WCE is way faster than the R3 service!! There is no comparison. I ride the WCE every week and mid-week it is busy. I find it hard to believe that the service is only running at 30% of pre-pandemic ridership. It has probably improved since that number was published.

I fully support new dedicated tracks for the WCE, all day service and an extension to Abottsford.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

the R3 already exists and is apparently faster.

It isn't, it's slower by 4-6 minutes between Haney and Coquitlam Central. And asking someone to make two transfers to get downtown is going to slow them down as well.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by mattropolis

an extension to Abottsford.

Abbotsford is on the wrong side of the river, and good luck getting any sort of dedicated access to bridges.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mattropolis

Changing the West Coast express from 30 minutes rush hour service to 90 minutes is not an improvement! WCE is way faster than the R3 service!! There is no comparison. I ride the WCE every week and mid-week it is busy. I find it hard to believe that the service is only running at 30% of pre-pandemic ridership. It has probably improved since that number was published.

I fully support new dedicated tracks for the WCE, all day service and an extension to Abottsford.

30 minutes between 5-7 am, you mean; drop it to 60-75 if need be, but I'm willing to bet that A) the convenience of all-day service over red-eye offsets the reduced frequency, B) not enough riders would show up to justify half-hourly service, and C) there's no way in hell CP allows that many passenger trains on their tracks. Like it or not, the WCE has been the slowest line in the metro at recovering ridership.

As long as it's CP paying for it, sure. Rail expansion is up to $70 million/km in Canada (almost $5 billion from Waterfront to Mission), and TransLink ain't spending that on a fraction of five thousand Abbotsford commuters (page 9).

Originally Posted by CanSpice

It isn't, it's slower by 4-6 minutes between Haney and Coquitlam Central. And asking someone to make two transfers to get downtown is going to slow them down as well.

Fair, but the R3 also runs every 15 minutes - best of luck trying to get those kind of headways for the Express.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The current ridership for the WCE is 3,500/day. Before the pandemic, 10,400/day. Even if the bill passes, two-way service every 90 minutes is good enough; the R3 already exists and is apparently faster.

I'm thinking of the future - five, ten, twenty years from now. Growth is coming, and a lot of it. Looking ahead, I think a solid commuter rail system is necessary for metro Vancouver, even if it id only two major branches (current WCE and future line to Abbotsford)

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

To be fair, a dedicated line which allows for faster and more reliable service might attract a larger ridership. Although I'm pretty sure that if we took whatever it costs to build it and apply that money to solve other bottlenecks instead we could probably benefit more people.

Simply put, yes. Totally agree.

Originally Posted by mattropolis

Changing the West Coast express from 30 minutes rush hour service to 90 minutes is not an improvement! WCE is way faster than the R3 service!! There is no comparison. I ride the WCE every week and mid-week it is busy. I find it hard to believe that the service is only running at 30% of pre-pandemic ridership. It has probably improved since that number was published.

I fully support new dedicated tracks for the WCE, all day service and an extension to Abottsford.

That's precisely what I think of, too.

[simons]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The current ridership for the WCE is 3,500/day. Before the pandemic, 10,400/day. Even if the bill passes, two-way service every 90 minutes is good enough; the R3 already exists and is apparently faster.

Slightly outdated. According to the Sept 2023 board report “On West Coast Express, the return of five-train daily service contributed to a 13% increase in weekly ridership compared to Q1 2023. Midweek ridership recorded levels between 71% and 86% of pre-COVID numbers.”

Also R3 doesn’t go to the same stops as the West Coast Express except for at Coquitlam Station, so they serve some different purposes. But just for comparison, it takes 1hr and 15 min for the WCE to go between Mission and Waterfront (56 minutes from Port Haney), while it takes 1hr and 24min to go from the R3 terminal at Haney Place to Waterfront (best case scenario). From Coquitlam Station to Haney Place Mall on the R3 takes 32 minutes and between Coquitlam Station to Port Haney on the WCE takes 26 minutes, but again, Port Haney and Haney Place are two different places, so a comparison between the two isn’t really helpful.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by simons

Slightly outdated. According to the Sept 2023 board report “On West Coast Express, the return of five-train daily service contributed to a 13% increase in weekly ridership compared to Q1 2023. Midweek ridership recorded levels between 71% and 86% of pre-COVID numbers.”

Also R3 doesn’t go to the same stops as the West Coast Express except for at Coquitlam Station, so they serve some different purposes. But just for comparison, it takes 1hr and 15 min for the WCE to go between Mission and Waterfront (56 minutes from Port Haney), while it takes 1hr and 24min to go from the R3 terminal at Haney Place to Waterfront (best case scenario). From Coquitlam Station to Haney Place Mall on the R3 takes 32 minutes and between Coquitlam Station to Port Haney on the WCE takes 26 minutes, but again, Port Haney and Haney Place are two different places, so a comparison between the two isn’t really helpful.

79% of 10,400 works out to about ~8,200 riders/day - much better than 3.5k, but still not amazing. For comparison, the 100 from Marpole to New West got 9.5k/day just last year.

Haney Place is much more accessible overall than Port Haney, so I'm not sure if that argument holds much weight.
More to the point, the R3/M-Line may or may not be nine minutes slower, but that's easily offset by its 15-minute headways (which can be slowly upgraded to the 99's 3-5 minutes). It's going to take at least two or three decades before the WCE can justify even 30 minutes; that's a lot of empty seats in the meantime.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I think it's worth remembering that almost all of the rights of way for the major railways, and a lot more besides, were given to them. Railways have profited handsomely from their use and their sales of these granted lands. And we as a country have benefited from the access that the railways made possible.

There's an argument to be made in these days of highly developed urban areas that rights of way that enable transportation are kind of like the radio spectrum: a public good. I think that legislation which improves public use of these corridors without unduly burdening the railways is a net good for us as a society.

Railfans like to through out this "gift" idea as if it means the railways owe teh government something today in return. That is misrepresenting history. CN and CP have very different histories, so I will cover them separately.

It is true the CP was given land, but that was in exchange for building a railway, something the government at the time wanted to have built, but didn't feel the need to own. As a result, it wasn't a gift, but quid pro quo. If you were to give someone something in exchange for doing something for you, unless it was a condition of the gift, you can't years later go to the person and say you should be entitled to use the item because you originally gave it to them.

CN was created by the Canadian government in 1918 to operate a number of nationalized railroads (including the old Grand Trunk lines, the Intercolonial Railway, the National Transcontinental Railway, and the Canadian Northern Railway), so obviously whatever land gifts were made before that are irrelevant now. In 1995, the Canadian government then sold its stock in CN, and thus sold its rights of way with it. As a result, the government was paid for it, thus it wasn't a gift.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Vin

From back in June: an opinion piece...

The quote from the article that really impressed me was:

Freight is incredibly important to our region, especially from an environmental perspective. We do not want to hamper CP’s operations, so we would need to negotiate to add dedicated tracks to the corridor. We would want to build some new tracks regardless, especially if we want increased speeds and electrified trains. A mutually beneficial strategy would be best.

Too many people thing we should just force the freight railways to allow more passenger trains without thinking of the consequences. Replacing freight trains with passenger trains (even commuter trains) would add far more trucks to our roads than cars removed, and would be a significant environmental negative. People often lust after the European railways, not realizing that most have very strict regulations on the maximum weight, length and height of a freight train, making trucking even more of a viable an option than here.

Does that mean I think we should just throw in the towel when it comes to passenger trains? Definitely not. However, we need to do it in a very intelligent, targeted way; focusing on routes that will be heavily used, creating dedicated right of ways whenever possible.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Replacing freight trains with passenger trains (even commuter trains) would add far more trucks to our roads than cars removed, and would be a significant environmental negative.

This is only true when the route in question is at capacity and is being managed in the most efficient possible way.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This is only true when the route in question is at capacity and is being managed in the most efficient possible way.

Kind of. Assuming you want the passenger train to run at a speed that is it even close to being competitive with driving, having a single passenger train, is equivalent to having multiple freight trains from a scheduling perspective.