Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by antonba

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...

Yeah, that's not High Speed Rail except in name only. In order for HSR to work it has to be faster than taking the plane.

There's also not enough political will north of the border to actually make it run at 110mph since it would require CN/CP/BNSF shared infrastructure to make upgrades. We know how stubborn the cities are about playing nice with the rail companies. South of the border has similar issues.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/federal-money-to-improve-amtrak-cascades-train-travel/
On one or two stretches south of Puget Sound, upgrades may allow trains to briefly reach 90 mph, Witt said. But in most places, they will continue to reach top speeds of 79 mph.

At most, Witt said, speeds of 110 mph might one day be achieved. There are major hurdles to going faster than that, he said: the hundreds of curves in the current route and the cost of building and acquiring land for a new route.


“I won’t say it won’t (happen), because with enough money you can make anything happen,” Witt said, “but the numbers are so big I personally can’t see us getting to those levels.”

If it does happen, it won’t be on the track that’s being upgraded now.

We've had the tilting talgo trains for far longer than we've had infrastructure that can support their faster speeds.

So what ultimately would be long-term planning, would be building a dedicated HSR passenger corridor (Eg King George station to White Rock) , but given the current attitude from Surrey City, I doubt that's even on the radar.

European "High Speed Rail" is defined as 250kph (155MPH)

[CBeats]

Originally Posted by 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?

Wait for the mayors to make a secondary decision following the plebiscite and go back to Christy and the new Minister for Translink?

[Express691]

An articulated bus ran into a sinkhole up in Burnaby.

https://twitter.com/GlobalBC/status/665211441625042944?s=09

[GlassCity]

According to Canada's Department of Transport, 110 mph is considered highER speed rail, as defined from 99-149 mph/160-240 kmh. The States have the same term, but its definition varies widely depending on the department. Still I agree with antonba, 110 mph/177 kmh is nothing to sneeze at. Obviously it's not high speed rail, but we need to be realistic with our ambitions and comparisons to Japan does nobody any good. Incremental improvements are the way to go, and it seems that the US and Washington governments are working hard on them. If only BC did its share too...

[Sheba]

While I'd love to see more rail traffic replacing cars, a quick look at google maps shows that it'd be more feasible to have pretty much anywhere east of BC (those pesky mountains... ). Within BC there is a large section that looks pretty flat - but does it have the population for higher speed rail? I'd suspect cargo movement would be more likely that passenger trains but that's going to take a lot of pushing to move it from trucks.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Sheba

While I'd love to see more rail traffic replacing cars, a quick look at google maps shows that it'd be more feasible to have pretty much anywhere east of BC (those pesky mountains... ). Within BC there is a large section that looks pretty flat - but does it have the population for higher speed rail? I'd suspect cargo movement would be more likely that passenger trains but that's going to take a lot of pushing to move it from trucks.

The coastal area between Vancouver and Seattle actually quite flat. It's the approaches into the city ( especially Vancouver ) that are slow.

Long-term, I could see a high-speed line running parallel to the #99 and maybe along the #6 road and tunneled under Knight. Or for a less expensive route along the Arbutus corridor. This, however, would probably require a new terminus station in Downtown south.... like where the Molson land is, perhaps? One can dream.

[twoNeurons]

[ delete duplicate ]

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The coastal area between Vancouver and Seattle actually quite flat. It's the approaches into the city ( especially Vancouver ) that are slow.

Long-term, I could see a high-speed line running parallel to the #99 and maybe along the #6 road and tunneled under Knight. Or for a less expensive route along the Arbutus corridor. This, however, would probably require a new terminus station in Downtown south.... like where the Molson land is, perhaps? One can dream.

To have proper high speed rail right into Vancouver from Seattle or Portland there are only a few changes that would need to be made.

Reroute the rail line around White Rock, and run it through farmland all the way through east Richmond (if the government was able to build the SFPR through ALR this should be easy).

Then bury the rest of the line all the way to Pacific Central (Waterfront would be great but it would also be more expensive). We seem to pretend these options don't exist because we aren't willing to pony up the money necessary. With enough funding, anything is possible. Manhattan is an extremely built up island that prevents an enormous obstacle for rail, but that didn't stop them from building dozens of tunnels to take numerous rail lines into the heart of Central Manhattan at Penn Station.

[Reecemartin]

Sorry to take things off topic.
After going up to SFU recently I've been thinking a lot about the Burnaby Mountain Gondola, what are the prospects for this? It seems like a really great idea because it could essentially connect SFU to rapid transit. What kind of Gondola would be used, would it be more similar to the Grouse Mountain Gondola with only 2 cars, or would it be a rotation system like the Peak2Peak.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Sorry to take things off topic.
After going up to SFU recently I've been thinking a lot about the Burnaby Mountain Gondola, what are the prospects for this? It seems like a really great idea because it could essentially connect SFU to rapid transit. What kind of Gondola would be used, would it be more similar to the Grouse Mountain Gondola with only 2 cars, or would it be a rotation system like the Peak2Peak.

I think it's a great idea too - but it's not going to be built anytime soon (unless we get a really bad snowstorm that shuts down the roads leading up Burnaby Mountain). There were some people concerned about the route 'obstructing their view / invading the privacy' but the biggest problem is lack of money. It's not as — as a subway along Broadway so it hasn't gotten a big push either. It would be a rotation system like Peak2Peak to handle the kind of loads the 145 bus carries.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

To have proper high speed rail right into Vancouver from Seattle or Portland there are only a few changes that would need to be made.

Reroute the rail line around White Rock, and run it through farmland all the way through east Richmond (if the government was able to build the SFPR through ALR this should be easy).

Then bury the rest of the line all the way to Pacific Central (Waterfront would be great but it would also be more expensive). We seem to pretend these options don't exist because we aren't willing to pony up the money necessary. With enough funding, anything is possible. Manhattan is an extremely built up island that prevents an enormous obstacle for rail, but that didn't stop them from building dozens of tunnels to take numerous rail lines into the heart of Central Manhattan at Penn Station.

I see SNCF crashed one of their new High Speed trains trains during testing last week.

Early thoughts are that it was going too fast for the particular stretch of track where is de-railed.

Even though it was a test run, unfortunately it had employees and their families aboard.

[Reecemartin]

Still the case for such a gondola is really strong and if it's like the one at Whistler the price tag should be pretty reasonable easily within Translink's reach

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Still the case for such a gondola is really strong and if it's like the one at Whistler the price tag should be pretty reasonable easily within Translink's reach

They did a study in 2010 and 2011 that found that over the next 25 years, a gondola would cost TransLink $12 million more than supplying bus service to SFU. They've put it on hold pending additional sources of funding.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

They did a study in 2010 and 2011 that found that over the next 25 years, a gondola would cost TransLink $12 million more than supplying bus service to SFU. They've put it on hold pending additional sources of funding.

Was that before or after potential tourist fare-revenue?

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

They did a study in 2010 and 2011 that found that over the next 25 years, a gondola would cost TransLink $12 million more than supplying bus service to SFU. They've put it on hold pending additional sources of funding.

So essentially we have to ask if $500,000 / year is a good capital investment for a gondola to SFU.

I'm curious to look into the study's breakdown.

• Does it include the reduced capital expenditure for new buses ( as these buses could now be repurposed ).
• Does it include the lower maintenance costs ( going up the hill every day puts a strain on those buses ).
• Does it take into account capacity and convenience, putting $ figures on those?
• Does it take into account greater capacity likely needed after the M-Line to Coquitlam comes on line?

Maybe I'll dig into that study later on.

I think Translink figured it wasn't worth the fight, to be honest. A few vocally opposed it and there are bigger fish to fry. There's no one to openly champion it, unfortunately. And since Corrigan is runs his budget VERY conservatively there's no one in Burnaby to push it through.

I wonder how long Corrigan is going to remain mayor in Burnaby?

I would imagine that the M-Line into Coquitlam will change the mood towards a high-capacity line. Once that line starts to ramp up, far more people will be taking rapid transit to SFU and wondering why they have to get on a bus to get to SFU.

[twoNeurons]

Did some digging. This graphic details the cost breakdown:

If the study was done over 30 years, the gondola ends up breaking even. This is just taking into account operating costs. Every year after 30 and the Gondola actually SAVES $60M ( in 2011 dollars ).

The study actually cites year 28 as the break-even date.

The results of the affordability analysis are presented in Exhibit 5-3, which shows that the
NPV cost of the Project over 25 years is $155 million while the BAU cost is $144 million. The
Project is approximately $11 million (8%) more expensive than the BAU on a purely financial
basis. This financial analysis of the impacts to TransLink’s budget that does not account for
other societal benefits identified in Section 2.12. The analysis has also not assumed any
third-party or senior government funding that would make the project more affordable to
TransLink. This analysis reflects expenditures over a 25-year horizon to match the
quantitative analysis performed in Section 4. The sensitivity analysis shows that the project
would break even relative to business as usual at year 28.

When you start to add in environmental impacts of diesel buses, and increased mode shift to transit, and better reliability, quality of service and speed... the gondola has a VERY strong case.

It's a shame they don't have the political will to "find" the capital. Perhaps a good project to ask for money from JT in Ottawa?

[WarrenC12]

First of all, I support the gondola idea. But that being said, it's a huge risk, and any estimates 30 years out into the future are susceptible to all kinds of factors, and hardly worth the ink they are printed on.

The $100M capital probably seals the deal... but would this be subject to the same 1/3 policy for Provincial and Federal contributions?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Did some digging. This graphic details the cost breakdown:

If the study was done over 30 years, the gondola ends up breaking even. This is just taking into account operating costs. Every year after 30 and the Gondola actually SAVES $60M ( in 2011 dollars ).

The study actually cites year 28 as the break-even date.


When you start to add in environmental impacts of diesel buses, and increased mode shift to transit, and better reliability, quality of service and speed... the gondola has a VERY strong case.

It's a shame they don't have the political will to "find" the capital. Perhaps a good project to ask for money from JT in Ottawa?

Ah but would you put it ahead of Skytrain to UBC...?

The problem isn't that it isn't a good idea, should be done, etc - it's who's going to pay for it. Quite a few routes need improved rapid transit (B-Line, ground rail and / or Skytrain) - hell there are routes that need improved regular transit, but where's the money going to come from.

Plus not only do we need to pay for infrastructure, but also operating costs. We really need to get local funding sorted out (gee thanks Christy Clark for making that easy).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Ah but would you put it ahead of Skytrain to UBC...?

The gondola is one of the relatively few transit projects that would reduce Translink's operational costs, and it's specifically those costs that Translink is having a hard time coming up with funds for. So by that measure it's a more worthy project than some others.

But of course the Broadway Skytrain also fits into that category and it will benefit a lot more people - so yes, it should certainly be constructed first.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The gondola is one of the relatively few transit projects that would reduce Translink's operational costs, and it's specifically those costs that Translink is having a hard time coming up with funds for. So by that measure it's a more worthy project than some others.

But of course the Broadway Skytrain also fits into that category and it will benefit a lot more people - so yes, it should certainly be constructed first.

Disagree. This is not an either/or situation. To build the gondola would cost 0.3% of what the UBC will ultimately cost.

Infrastructure costs are usually easier to get funding for. Not to mention that Burnaby had a $158M surplus in 2014, making a total of $834M dollars in its reserve account. Burnaby could easily bankroll the whole project if it thought it was worthwhile to the city. $40M from the province, $40M from Burnaby, $40M from Translink ought to do it.