Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

1. CP should be compensating the city You just don't get it do you. Why in the world would they trench, they have ROW already. They can sit their trains in the way of the street all they want, they don't care. They can double track it much more easily, quickly, and cost effectively without trenching it, so their wanting to double the track is irrelevant.

2. There is only 259 m from Venables/prior to the shunting yard. 600m takes you all the way to Grant St, halfway through the yard. Once again why would CN go for this?

3. So Union? Are we just blocking off the road here too? If not the trench now needs to extend as far north as Raymuir, causing yet another road conflict, Should we shut down Raymuir too? How many roads are we closing so we can build this super easy trench?

All this to save a right turn in the road, when the current configuration forces you to take a hard turn at either Clark or Commercial already!

(1) And does the city enjoy having the trains sit in there and impede traffic flow? Doesn't the city want something of a win-win? I thought a meeting between feds and local government to solve problems is what governments are supposed to do?

(2) No, it won't be halfway into their yard: it would encroach the yard at around William Street but not halfway. Plus since the trench is relatively narrow, there is still ample storage space on both sides of the yard.

(3) Union is close enough to Venables to not render any longer trench. Look at the map! The two streets are only 55m apart.. So yeah, no additional roads will be closed don't be so dramatic.

(4) This is not to save just one right turn, but a couple of turns, and also to save the costs of having a new road bridge while other roads still have on-grade railway crossings that can be made worse once double tracking occurs.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) And does the city enjoy having the trains sit in there and impede traffic flow? Doesn't the city want something of a win-win? I thought a meeting between feds and local government to solve problems is what governments are supposed to do?

(2) No, it won't be halfway into their yard: it would encroach the yard at around William Street but not halfway. Plus since the trench is relatively narrow, there is still ample storage space on both sides of the yard.

(3) Union is close enough to Venables to not render any longer trench. Look at the map! The two streets are only 55m apart.. So yeah, no additional roads will be closed don't be so dramatic.

(4) This is not to save just one right turn, but a couple of right turns, and also to save the costs of having a new road bridge while other roads still have on-grade railway crossings that can be made worse once double tracking occurs.

1. No, the federal government has much bigger issues than forcing a railroad servicing Canada's biggest port to trench their lines since Vin doesn't want to build a bridge.

2. Yes, it would be halfway into their yard. The 600m you claim to have takes it well into the yard to Grant as I said before. At 500m the bare minimum needed to hit the grade, it is between Grant and Charles.



This means that a decent portion of CN's shunting yard is now on a slope and unusable for storage. Given that this is their only yard immediately supporting their port operations, why would they do this?? They clearly wouldn't. Also to get their trains in storage north to the port they would need to back them up to the trench entrance then run them forward to get into the trenched portion. This would be an operational nightmare and once again this is a non-starter, they would NEVER agree to this.

3. You have two choices, continue the trench under union at 21 feet deep, and ramp up after union. This means the 500 m needed to get back up to grade is now putting you out past Raymuir, so no I'm not being dramatic, it's a grade issue at Raymuir or a grade issue at Union. The other option is closing Union, but now were again closing another road, and this one happens to be the City's main E/W bike-route. Don't see this happening.

4. You're not saving any costs here. This is a very expensive solution and there's a reason the professional engineers who do this work did not advocate this solution, it's inferior to the bridge. It causes many issues for both the surrounding roads and the rail operations, all for limited cost savings to a potential increase, all of which the bridge does not incur. Also Prior is a terrible street, it is too narrow, fronts residential, and has many crossings. The new road makes much more sense.

Anyway this is all moot because CN, and the other rail operators would never play ball, ever. They would tell you to build the bridge and continue on with their day. So I'm going to stop arguing about a situation that could never occur due to the limitations of the railroads and go out and enjoy my weekend. I suggest you do the same.

[Vin]

You are showing 600m of trench down to Venables! Even at only 1.5% grade, you know what is the depth of the trench underneath Venables? 9.0m!! That's extremely deep!

In fact, only 400m of trench this side is needed, giving a 6m depth underneath Venables, which is more than enough IMO. Another 400m of trenching can be done on the north side of Union to achieve the same result. So yeah, 1.5% is hardly anything, and the storage yard can remain pretty flat.

Look at this railway trench in LA, it is around 4.5 to 5 m deep:
https://www.sgvtribune.com/2018/09/10/wh...el-wont-have-to-wait-for-trains-anymore/

But please do have a good weekend.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Vin

You are showing 600m of trench down to Venables! Even at only 1.5% grade, you know what is the depth of the trench underneath Venables? 9.0m!! That's extremely deep!

In fact, only 400m of trench this side is needed, giving a 6m depth underneath Venables, which is more than enough IMO. Another 400m of trenching can be done on the north side of Union to achieve the same result. So yeah, 1.5% is hardly anything, and the storage yard can remain pretty flat.

Look at this railway trench in LA, it is around 4.5 to 5 m deep:
https://www.sgvtribune.com/2018/09/10/wh...el-wont-have-to-wait-for-trains-anymore/

But please do have a good weekend.

1.5% grade seems very steep for a yard. It's one thing to hit a grade when the train already has momentum, but another when you are shunting cars around from standstill. CN also parks trains on that section for marshaling, and they probably won't win any points for parking trains on a slope inside a city.

Transport Canada also mandates a clearance of 22 feet (6.7m), so 9m isn't that far off (the trench you linked to is 9m deep, so I don't get why you are on LeftCoster's case for saying a 9m deep trench).

A tunnel also has to be 16 feet wide per track. There is just enough room for trench that wide with the existing track in place, but I don't know about being wide enough for construction.

There is also only 225m between the Venables and the first switch in the yard. So either the yard will have to be in the trench, or much of it removed. (In fact, there is a switch right at Venables, so really the yard goes right up to the street).

On top of all that, I'm not sure how favorable the ground in the area will be to digging deep trenches. Part of it is infill, part of former shoreline for false creek. Maybe it's even below the water table in that area. I don't know how stable a 20 foot wide work site will be. It will be susceptible to cave in and a worksafe nightmare.

The trench will probably have to be 9 m deep to account for the distance between the top of the track and bottom of the road overpass, and lets say we want a 1% grade so slow moving trains can operate there safely.

You need 900m of climbing space on each side.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Where did you get this amount from? 300mil to trench rails?

Left_coaster, do you agree with this number?

In 2012, the the Port of Vancouver in Washington spent about 35mil building a railway trench underneath a low part of a railway bridge at the Columbia River mouth. Mind you, this is a lot more expensive than conventional railway trenching as they had to waterproof the walls from the Columbia river. The trench is about 500m. Given that our trench is about double that length, and even factoring in exchange and inflation, the project would be 120mil, and won't be the 300mil stated by you.

https://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jul/10/port-awards-rail-trench-contract-vancouver/

Railway trench location:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Port+of...e94edaef!8m2!3d45.6432944!4d-122.7038707

Cool. The Boston Green Line extension's trench cost $490 million USD per mile: that's $414 million CAD/km. Given all the difficulties previously mentioned, as well as the residential/commercial spaces to either side, a CP trench would lean toward the more expensive number.

Originally Posted by Vin

You are showing 600m of trench down to Venables! Even at only 1.5% grade, you know what is the depth of the trench underneath Venables? 9.0m!! That's extremely deep!

In fact, only 400m of trench this side is needed, giving a 6m depth underneath Venables, which is more than enough IMO. Another 400m of trenching can be done on the north side of Union to achieve the same result. So yeah, 1.5% is hardly anything, and the storage yard can remain pretty flat.

Look at this railway trench in LA, it is around 4.5 to 5 m deep:
https://www.sgvtribune.com/2018/09/10/wh...el-wont-have-to-wait-for-trains-anymore/

But please do have a good weekend.

Wrong again. The minimum clearance for a Canadian train is twenty-two feet, or just under seven metres; six is a good way to cleave the roof off every single train. Then there's the metre or so of compacted soil and/or concrete needed to run a road on top of it.
Even with only 8m of depth, that's 533m on a 1.5% grade. Any more than 200-300m completely cuts off CN's shunting yard. I trust that it made sense in Transport Fever, but it doesn't work in reality - it most definitely does not save any money.

WRT the image, simply measuring the stop sign gives a trench depth from overpass to floor of about seven metres. Since the train passed under the overpass, it's clearly at least that deep.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

wtf am i seeing in this thread? the railway is staying at-grade. period.

[red-paladin]

Can we please stay on topic from here on out?

[fredinno]

I'm going to move the discussion to the designated Heavy Rail thread. I have some questions myself.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Vin

You are showing 600m of trench down to Venables! Even at only 1.5% grade, you know what is the depth of the trench underneath Venables? 9.0m!! That's extremely deep!

In fact, only 400m of trench this side is needed, giving a 6m depth underneath Venables, which is more than enough IMO.

Your opinions are completely irrelevant. As I already stated earlier in this discussion CN and CP rail both maintain a minimum of 21ft of clearance for their Vancouver port operations. Your opinion does not change their operating agreements and statutory right of ways.

Also it was you who said there was 600m to play with, I was just showing how that was incorrect. You do need a minimum of 500m to achieve the railroad's necessary minimums, which you cannot achieve without heavily affecting the rail yard or impacting Raymuir.

But those are just pesky real world details that we can brush aside...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Your opinions are completely irrelevant. As I already stated earlier in this discussion CN and CP rail both maintain a minimum of 21ft of clearance for their Vancouver port operations. Your opinion does not change their operating agreements and statutory right of ways.

Also it was you who said there was 600m to play with, I was just showing how that was incorrect. You do need a minimum of 500m to achieve the railroad's necessary minimums, which you cannot achieve without heavily affecting the rail yard or impacting Raymuir.

But those are just pesky real world details that we can brush aside...

Would the road pass above help if it were to go 1m above grade over the train? That would cut the total trench length to 850m or so, wouldn't it?

[CanSpice]

Can you two please take the train discussion to the train thread please.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Can you two please take the train discussion to the train thread please.

Isn't this thread about the viaducts, and by extension conversations about the Malkin Overpass project that tie in to either the Viaducts or the replacement Streets?

And isn't discussing whether it's possible to build a rail underpass instead of an overpass part of that discussion?

Or are the 280 pages of this thread solely reserved for talking about the exact same thing over and over and over again?

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Isn't this thread about the viaducts, and by extension conversations about the Malkin Overpass project that tie in to either the Viaducts or the replacement Streets?

And isn't discussing whether it's possible to build a rail underpass instead of an overpass part of that discussion?

Or are the 280 pages of this thread solely reserved for talking about the exact same thing over and over and over again?

TBH, depends who is commenting

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Your opinions are completely irrelevant. As I already stated earlier in this discussion CN and CP rail both maintain a minimum of 21ft of clearance for their Vancouver port operations. Your opinion does not change their operating agreements and statutory right of ways.

Also it was you who said there was 600m to play with, I was just showing how that was incorrect. You do need a minimum of 500m to achieve the railroad's necessary minimums, which you cannot achieve without heavily affecting the rail yard or impacting Raymuir.

But those are just pesky real world details that we can brush aside...

TBH, Raymuir barely matters- it's going to be closed off anyways, so the main tragedy are emergency vehicles who might use it to bypass congestion.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Isn't this thread about the viaducts, and by extension conversations about the Malkin Overpass project that tie in to either the Viaducts or the replacement Streets?

And isn't discussing whether it's possible to build a rail underpass instead of an overpass part of that discussion?

Or are the 280 pages of this thread solely reserved for talking about the exact same thing over and over and over again?

I agree that this thread could be approached holistically. The coming down of the viaducts, the construction of a large, new St Pauls hospital, and the overarching issues warrant it.
Maybe split in to two threads? As the experts, but for me the access roads in and out of downtown, keeping the traffic intersections fluid, and providing quick hospital access are critical.
It doesn't just stop with the old tired question of "keep the viadcts or tear them down, they're ugly'" it implicates vehicle flow in the whole region from downtown south to the Flats.
It even, - and many will disagree - IMHO - could eventually - in 10 or 20 years - involve the question of connecting to the Grandview Cut, and any road possibilities there.
And again please allow me to bring up that "Hyde Park Underpass" concept, to speed through traffic under the road system, especially for hospital vehicles, and overall accessibility.

Thank You For Your Time And Consideration.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I agree that this thread could be approached holistically. The coming down of the viaducts, the construction of a large, new St Pauls hospital, and the overarching issues warrant it.
Maybe split in to two threads? As the experts, but for me the access roads in and out of downtown, keeping the traffic intersections fluid, and providing quick hospital access are critical.
It doesn't just stop with the old tired question of "keep the viadcts or tear them down, they're ugly'" it implicates vehicle flow in the whole region from downtown south to the Flats.
It even, - and many will disagree - IMHO - could eventually - in 10 or 20 years - involve the question of connecting to the Grandview Cut, and any road possibilities there.
And again please allow me to bring up that "Hyde Park Underpass" concept, to speed through traffic under the road system, especially for hospital vehicles, and overall accessibility.

Thank You For Your Time And Consideration.

Hyde Park...what?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I agree that this thread could be approached holistically. The coming down of the viaducts, the construction of a large, new St Pauls hospital, and the overarching issues warrant it.
Maybe split in to two threads? As the experts, but for me the access roads in and out of downtown, keeping the traffic intersections fluid, and providing quick hospital access are critical.
It doesn't just stop with the old tired question of "keep the viadcts or tear them down, they're ugly'" it implicates vehicle flow in the whole region from downtown south to the Flats.
It even, - and many will disagree - IMHO - could eventually - in 10 or 20 years - involve the question of connecting to the Grandview Cut, and any road possibilities there.
And again please allow me to bring up that "Hyde Park Underpass" concept, to speed through traffic under the road system, especially for hospital vehicles, and overall accessibility.

Thank You For Your Time And Consideration.

I know an SSP Vancouver forumer who is ticked off about discussions of pigeons in the Skytrain station reno thread. Cracks me up everytime he shows his agitation. I have a feeling he is ornithophobic.

I suppose anyone can be ticked off about anything. Can't please everyone here.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I agree that this thread could be approached holistically. The coming down of the viaducts, the construction of a large, new St Pauls hospital, and the overarching issues warrant it.
Maybe split in to two threads? As the experts, but for me the access roads in and out of downtown, keeping the traffic intersections fluid, and providing quick hospital access are critical.
It doesn't just stop with the old tired question of "keep the viadcts or tear them down, they're ugly'" it implicates vehicle flow in the whole region from downtown south to the Flats.
It even, - and many will disagree - IMHO - could eventually - in 10 or 20 years - involve the question of connecting to the Grandview Cut, and any road possibilities there.
And again please allow me to bring up that "Hyde Park Underpass" concept, to speed through traffic under the road system, especially for hospital vehicles, and overall accessibility.

Thank You For Your Time And Consideration.

But wasn't the Hyde Park tunnel packed as soon as it opened to the public? I think pedestrian overpasses and a Hastings SkyTrain would have a lot more value for money.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But wasn't the Hyde Park tunnel packed as soon as it opened to the public? I think pedestrian overpasses and a Hastings SkyTrain would have a lot more value for money.

https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/btnwrn/hyde-park-cornera4-underpass-london-united-kingdom-btnwrn.jpg

It seems OK here. Plus a similar version in Vancouver would not be overly long.
Just enough to take through traffic from the eastern end of Pacific Bvd under the street lights to Howe and Hornby.
But I'm all for a Hastings skytrain, for sure!! although that's the north side of downtown, not along False Creek.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/btnwrn/hyde-park-cornera4-underpass-london-united-kingdom-btnwrn.jpg

It seems OK here. Plus a similar version in Vancouver would not be overly long.
Just enough to take through traffic from the eastern end of Pacific Bvd under the street lights to Howe and Hornby.
But I'm all for a Hastings skytrain, for sure!! although that's the north side of downtown, not along False Creek.

Not here though. And Knightsbridge to Piccadilly is over three klicks long; again, the 'Ducts are barely one, which is pretty limited as expressways go.

Well, most of the traffic along Georgia/Dunsmuir is coming from the direction of East Van and Burnaby; a downtown-Hastings SkyTrain would address much of that demand, leaving the rest for the Pacific super road and some streetcar/B-Line routes.