Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[jsbertram]

Has anyone seen the new MkIII train in the OMC yard?

I'm guessing that after they've done all the re-assembly and static testing indoors, it will be doing loops around the yard for a few days before being allowed on the mainline tracks.

[Vantage]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Has anyone seen the new MkIII train in the OMC yard?

I passed by yesterday afternoon and kept my eyes peeled, didn't see any MkIIIs though.

[Reecemartin]

Has anyone seen the technology Denver is using to create its Union to Aiport line? It looks like a cross between LRT and a subway
Very interesting

[logan5]

Interesting cost differential for this particular project. One billion dollars for 38 km's of commuter rail with EMU's. That translates to only 26 million per km. The average speed is just a bit over 60 km/h with 5.4 km station spacing.

I wonder if we can build commuter rail lines that cheaply here?

Edit - That cost is probly without vehicles. Can't find a reliable source for the total construction cost.

[Vancity]

been traveling for a few days in Korea and HK. and I've taken the bullet train to Busan for the first time. a friend of mine told me that it would take several hours to get to Busan on a regular train. but in a bullet train it cuts the time in almost half. made me wonder. how come Vancouver hasn't invested in bullet trains? they would sure get commuters into the downtown core from Surrey, Langely, Pitt Meadows, Abbotsford and even Mission quicker and much much faster. just curious. and I wonder if the government will ever look into that. it would be so much more efficient on getting people from outside the core of the city to the city. sorry for the side track.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vancity

been traveling for a few days in Korea and HK. and I've taken the bullet train to Busan for the first time. a friend of mine told me that it would take several hours to get to Busan on a regular train. but in a bullet train it cuts the time in almost half. made me wonder. how come Vancouver hasn't invested in bullet trains? they would sure get commuters into the downtown core from Surrey, Langely, Pitt Meadows, Abbotsford and even Mission quicker and much much faster. just curious. and I wonder if the government will ever look into that. it would be so much more efficient on getting people from outside the core of the city to the city. sorry for the side track.

Interesting question. Here in France, esp the Paris region, most commuting is done by train, and some people in cities like Le Mans and Tours even commute to work in Paris on the TGV.
However, I think it largely depends on market size. I just don't think the LM valley communities are big enough to support that kind of infrastructure investment.
What I could see, however, (and I hope it comes about) are fast, commuter-designed trains, such as the ones by Bombardier. They'd be very well adapted for the task, IMO.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Interesting question. Here in France, esp the Paris region, most commuting is done by train, and some people in cities like Le Mans and Tours even commute to work in Paris on the TGV.
However, I think it largely depends on market size. I just don't think the LM valley communities are big enough to support that kind of infrastructure investment.
What I could see, however, (and I hope it comes about) are fast, commuter-designed trains, such as the ones by Bombardier. They'd be very well adapted for the task, IMO.

the thing is. I can see more people using the bullet train if the government creates the infrastructure for it. and because it would be so fast and efficient. I can see people adopting it more and more. can you imagine? driving and being stuck on highway 1, or being on a train and seeing those commuters stuck in traffic while you whiz on by? I can see travel times being cut by half. if it takes 1.5 hours from Abbotsford to Vancouver. can you imagine getting into town in 45 min or less?

my experience on the bulletin train in Korea has been nothing short of impressive. they arrive ON THE DOT in terms of time. that's incredible. they say they arrive at a certain station by 10pm. they get there by 10pm. it's great. I can see so many people taking the bullet train if BC would provide it. it would be a fantastic way of getting to more places in and around the lower mainland quicker. who wouldn't want that?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vancity

how come Vancouver hasn't invested in bullet trains?

Cost and a lack of passengers to support it. High speed rail doesn't make sense for the kind of relatively short hops that most lower mainland commuters make, and there aren't enough people commuting to Vancouver from Langley and beyond to recoup construction costs.

[GeeCee]

High speed rail is good for inter-city transport, not intra-city transport as you have within the lower mainland. It takes too long for trains to speed up and slow down between stations - just look at how often SkyTrain is not travelling at full speed for an idea. It would work well for going to Seattle, for instance, but the geography between the two cities prevents it from being very feasible.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Has anyone seen the technology Denver is using to create its Union to Aiport line? It looks like a cross between LRT and a subway
Very interesting

That's an Electric Multiple Unit, essentially a heavy subway car for use on electrified mainline rails. In most of the developed world, that's what 'commuter rail' means, as opposed to one-way peak-only WCE type services that you see in North America.

The vehicles themselves, silverliners V's are of the variety used in Philadelphia's commuter rail system. Vaguely similar, though more modern, trains are planned for the upgrades to the Penninsula Line in San Francisco.

The problem for introducing such services in Vancouver is that the rails in Vancouver are all privately owned, and the Railroads are rather hostile to electrification. The most viable main-line service in Vancouver is a busy freight line that it's owners are unlikely to part with.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

High speed rail is good for inter-city transport, not intra-city transport as you have within the lower mainland. It takes too long for trains to speed up and slow down between stations - just look at how often SkyTrain is not travelling at full speed for an idea. It would work well for going to Seattle, for instance, but the geography between the two cities prevents it from being very feasible.

thx for the response. maybe one day bullet train technology will be supported here in BC. but understandably not now. it's too bad. the experience of getting from one city to another was quite the experience. so fast and efficient. can't help but feel bad for our system compared to some of the systems that are in place in HK, Seoul etc. wether the comparisons are fair or not. Hopefully Van has a growing transit system. ours look rather "skinny" in comparison to the others.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Vancity

thx for the response. maybe one day bullet train technology will be supported here in BC. but understandably not now. it's too bad. the experience of getting from one city to another was quite the experience. so fast and efficient. can't help but feel bad for our system compared to some of the systems that are in place in HK, Seoul etc. wether the comparisons are fair or not. Hopefully Van has a growing transit system. ours look rather "skinny" in comparison to the others.

The Geography and political temperature in North America is unlikely to result in viable High-Speed-Rail on the West coast this century.

The major issue is that there is too much political hostility to building infrastructure that lasts, when cities would rather just build cheap inadequate infrastructure to kick the can down the road 10 years. The railways sold or abandoned much of the infrastructure they built before the car, that they didn't anticipate increases of train use by freight (see oil and coal shipping to China.)

[nname]

delete- wrong thread

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The Geography and political temperature in North America is unlikely to result in viable High-Speed-Rail on the West coast this century.

It'd work east of the Rockies fairly easily, if there was the political will for it.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

It'd work east of the Rockies fairly easily, if there was the political will for it.

Alberta has been dreaming of a High-Speed train between Edmonton and Calgary since the 70's.

Every few years there's another report that it should be done .... later.

Latest report tried to sweeten the deal by including Lethbridge and Fort MacMurray in the line, but the estimates showed that the gov't would have to subsidise the project for decades - and it was unlikely the project would ever turn a profit.

And then the price of oil dropped back from $110 /bbl.

I doubt it will make headlines again until oil is back over $100 for a few years and the province is back into boom-time mode.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Alberta has been dreaming of a High-Speed train between Edmonton and Calgary since the 70's.

Every few years there's another report that it should be done .... later.

People keep dreaming about high speed rail in Canada, but the economics just aren't there for it. High speed rail compares to a conventional grade-separated transit service (Skytrain, subways, etc) the way those services compare to a bus. You can't justify building a subway in Lethbridge because there simply aren't enough people making enough trips to get anywhere near paying for it - so you run buses instead. Similarly, there simply isn't enough passenger volume between Calgary and Edmonton to support the cost of a high speed rail line. The same is true in BC.

The densest part of Canada is Toronto and its surrounding area, and even there the economics don't favour it. The problem is that the denser the area, the more problematic (i.e., costly) it is to assemble the right-of-way that's needed for that kind of service. You can't just build the line around obstacles - it's got to be as straight and flat as possible. That means lots of elevated structures and long ramps to and from them. All of that costs money, which needs a high ridership to fund.

[ssiguy]

So now that the transit plebiscite is well over, what exactly are the plans for Translink over the next 10 years?

Obviously Evergreen will be done and that is certainly a fine addition to the system but that winds up next year. Has everything been put on hold? God knows Christy would dearly love not to have to give a dime if she thought she could get away with it. Quite the opposite of Wynne where she seems to be making transit announcements every week.

London just put forward it's official request to Queen's Park to pay for $900 million on top of the city's $125 million to build quite a significant LRT and BRT 4 spoke system and chances are very good that Ontario will pay and construction in London could start as soon as 2017.

Besides the standard bus schedule changes, is there any plans for the next 10 years?

[antonba]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The Geography and political temperature in North America is unlikely to result in viable High-Speed-Rail on the West coast this century.

The major issue is that there is too much political hostility to building infrastructure that lasts, when cities would rather just build cheap inadequate infrastructure to kick the can down the road 10 years. The railways sold or abandoned much of the infrastructure they built before the car, that they didn't anticipate increases of train use by freight (see oil and coal shipping to China.)

Couldn't disagree more. The Amtrak Cascades Long Range Plan plans multiple 110 mph segments. The cost is $6.5b.

Here is the plan:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AE6...F31/0/LongRangePlanforAmtrakCascades.pdf

The Obama administration funded $0.8b which is fixing only low-laying fruit (including PTC) but also means that the next projects will be speed improvement projects. So, if Hillary wins, and only provides the same amount of funding we're likely to get the first 110 mph segments and make this officially a high-speed line.

The thing is, if it could keep the low speed of 79 mph consistently it'll already be faster than driving or flying so at 110 mph it will be perfect. Unless you want to live in Vancouver and commute to a job in Seattle...

[GeeCee]

110mph isn't high speed rail. Not by a long shot. They might consider it that in the USA for political reasons, but pretending that it is is foolish at best.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by antonba

Couldn't disagree more. The Amtrak Cascades Long Range Plan plans multiple 110 mph segments. The cost is $6.5b.

If that's Amtrak's idea of "high speed rail" then their definition is at odds with everyone else's. From the Wikipedia article on High Speed Rail:

Many conventionally hauled trains are able to reach 200 km/h (124 mph) in commercial service but are not considered to be high-speed trains