Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion II

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That, and I'm wondering how a 1-foot track sitting on top of the road will affect pedestrian and vehicle traffic. It's unlikely that either the hypothetical private contractor or City Hall have the hundreds of millions' worth of roadworks needed to integrate the rail into the street all the way to Senakw and Main Street Station.

The UK trial of the Very Light Rail system is in Coventry, and only started running this year, with an extension under construction. It uses ultra-high performance concrete pre-cast slabs, with the tracks on top, and then paving or a grass median added between the tracks. It's only 30cm thick, to the top of the track, compared to more than double that depth for traditional tram tracks. That's supposed to allow it to be buried in the road, leaving existing pipes, sewers etc undisturbed during and after construction. It's estimated to cost around £10 million per km ($19m CAD), compared to £30million for the same distance for tram tracks.

It begs the question of hot to keep the system running if something happens to the infrastructure that's left in the ground, underneath the tracks. For example, if this idea had been implemented a couple of years ago, how would it cope with the current sewer collapse in the Olympic Village? And of course, Someone still has to find (at least) $19m / km to build the tracks in the street.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Changing City

...if this idea had been implemented a couple of years ago, how would it cope with the current sewer collapse in the Olympic Village?

The rail service wouldn't be disrupted any more than the rest of traffic. You'd have to re-lay the rails, just like you'd have to re-pave the street.

[officedweller]

The Very Light Rail in Coventry looks like it has regular streetcar / LRT tracks though the video says they are easier and cheaper to install.
I think the main savings on infrastructure is the absence of overhead catenary because it is battery powered.

• Video Link

[Migrant_Coconut]

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

If we can get a tram for the same price as a bus, hooray. If not, hopefully it's not the City that blows $19 million/km on this.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The rail service wouldn't be disrupted any more than the rest of traffic. You'd have to re-lay the rails, just like you'd have to re-pave the street.

True, but if they put the tracks over the sewer, the rail service would be disrupted (shut down) until the sewer had been repaired. But the road traffic can divert onto the other lane, or if the road has to be closed, a parallel road. You can't do that with rail.

For me, it begs the question of whether running a battery electric bus service on a paved over existing rail right of way wouldn't achieve the same improvement to connectivity, but with greater flexibility of operation. Although supposedly there are some riders who will take a rail vehicle, but not a bus. Of course in this specific instance the rail option is only being pursued because someone has come along and offered to operate it. We'll see if they actually proceed with it.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The Very Light Rail in Coventry looks like it has regular streetcar / LRT tracks though the video says they are easier and cheaper to install.
I think the main savings on infrastructure is the absence of overhead catenary because it is battery powered.

They still need to install charging equipment, but construction of the track is also said to be much cheaper. See this webpage. Cost estimates here.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Changing City

True, but if they put the tracks over the sewer, the rail service would be disrupted (shut down) until the sewer had been repaired. But the road traffic can divert onto the other lane, or if the road has to be closed, a parallel road. You can't do that with rail.

Of course, but a sinkhole is the last of your worries when it comes to service disruptions. Any road work or even a road accident can basically cut off rail service.

That's the whole reason why there was such a big hoopla when the BC Electric Railway Company rolled out it's "Rails to Rubber" campaign to replace the city's trams with "trackless trolleys". And nowadays with batteries the trolleys don't even have to stay within reach of the overhead wiring to get around obstacles.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

They still need to install charging equipment, but construction of the track is also said to be much cheaper. See this webpage. Cost estimates here.

Thanks.
Interesting that they say conventional LRT needs 600mm of depth.
They also hint that the thinner base is partly because of the smaller lighter vehicles.

*****

Back-ups of streetcars in Toronto are legendary. That's one reason in University I never lived in a place relying on streetcars. I always found one close to the subway or frequent bus route.

[jollyburger]

I mean if they don't do a cost comparison/feasibility study versus a dedicated bus ROW/battery bus option they are out for lunch.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I mean if they don't do a cost comparison/feasibility study versus a dedicated bus ROW/battery bus option they are out for lunch.

The dedicated ROW vs running in mixed traffic is the main differentiator here. If you use a tracked tram in mixed traffic, it's not going to perform any better than a bus. If you use a bus in a dedicated ROW, it'll perform just as well as a tram.

The big difference between trams and buses is that trams can traditionally move more people per vehicle/train than a bus, thus gaining the economic advantage of more revenue per driver. That differential has been partially bridged at the low end with articulated buses. But on the route we're discussing it's hard to imagine passenger volumes being high enough for the economies of trams to make any kind of difference.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It will be decades before there's enough additional density as a result of the Broadway Plan to make any difference to the viability of a Very Light Rail track running between Granville and Cambie. It stands, or falls, on the basis of there being enough potential riders to get to Granville Island, Fairview, and the Olympic Village. In a few years (maybe) there should be more residents at the eastern end, once McDonald's and the City parking lot get built.

Adding residents to the Mount Pleasant industrial area could reduce the viability of light rail, because you get a lot more jobs in the same space than you get residents, so if you displace potential employees with residents, you get fewer potential riders.

The new hospital will bring a ton of jobs and transportation needs into that area of the City.

It's funny talking about this area, one of the densest in the country, needing to be "just a little more dense" to support low end rail transit.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mcj

In this use case, a streetcar/tram makes sense since it is doing what streetcars/trams should be doing in a urban setting and making walking trips faster and more accessible.

I'm at OV and I would take that tram all day to get to Stanley Park, Granville Island, and the Kits area. Those are too far to walk and no good (rail) options exist. Today, I drive there, or maybe bike on the right day.

But my use isn't enough to run a line like that. It needs daily riders. The new St Paul's could bring that to the Main St area. I'm not sure about the other destinations.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The new hospital will bring a ton of jobs and transportation needs into that area of the City.

It's funny talking about this area, one of the densest in the country, needing to be "just a little more dense" to support low end rail transit.

That's why I said Granville to Cambie (which is what is being suggested for the initial route). It would still serve the western edge of SEFC, although it's a bit of a walk to the Olympic Village. If new track was added as far as Main, it might add some utility, but getting it to Station, and St Paul's would obviously make it more valuable.

It would also cost a lot more, and I'm still not convinced battery buses serving the same route wouldn't be cheaper and more flexible. The light vehicles they propose to use have capacity for 60, so they're not really much better than a bus.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The dedicated ROW vs running in mixed traffic is the main differentiator here. If you use a tracked tram in mixed traffic, it's not going to perform any better than a bus. If you use a bus in a dedicated ROW, it'll perform just as well as a tram...

In this case, we're talking about a tram that's smaller and less-expensive than regular light rail; it's a 60-person vehicle which can apparently be coupled for 120. We'll see if that's as cost-effective as a BRT.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

In this case, we're talking about a tram that's smaller and less-expensive than regular light rail; it's a 60-person vehicle which can apparently be coupled for 120. We'll see if that's as cost-effective as a BRT.

They said crush load is 116 on that 60-person car.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

In this case, we're talking about a tram that's smaller and less-expensive than regular light rail; it's a 60-person vehicle which can apparently be coupled for 120. We'll see if that's as cost-effective as a BRT.

...which makes the point even clearer. Why even bother with rails and a brand new type of vehicle with its own unique maintenance requirements when a bus can provide the same service?

[WarrenC12]

It's all about ROW. I think there are sections of the streetcar that could have uninterrupted ROW, like the stretch to GI where the initial demo was run, and parts of Stanley Park. It will get bogged down in traffic around FC though, unless they make some big expensive changes to the road network.

[cganuelas1995]

Why rails? Why not a concrete "track" wide enough for the bus like the O-Bahn that Adelaide has?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Roads aren't any cheaper than rails. Seems like six of one, half a dozen of another.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...which makes the point even clearer. Why even bother with rails and a brand new type of vehicle with its own unique maintenance requirements when a bus can provide the same service?

Something, something, "rail bias," something something "cost savings" (which are pretty miniscule)...

In this particular case, it's an off-street traffic-free ROW that has the chance of yielding decent ridership and is legally bound to surface rail only; it's the cost that's held it back, which is possibly no longer the case.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's all about ROW. I think there are sections of the streetcar that could have uninterrupted ROW, like the stretch to GI where the initial demo was run, and parts of Stanley Park. It will get bogged down in traffic around FC though, unless they make some big expensive changes to the road network.

If I'm reading the squiggly line correctly, the future extension would use the median on 1st... then duck across Quebec into Western or Station Street (presumably buying out the Midas standing in the way)? Definitely sounds like a "deal with it later" answer.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If I'm reading the squiggly line correctly, the future extension would use the median on 1st... then duck across Quebec into Western or Station Street (presumably buying out the Midas standing in the way)? Definitely sounds like a "deal with it later" answer.

The COV Endowment Fund owns the Midas.