HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6661  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2019, 4:45 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,172
ChangingCity, 20,000 commuters? Not trying to start anything, but if I'm reading StatsCan 2016 right, there's just under 4,300 a day driving in from Abbotsford/Mission; by contrast, the WCE averages 9,000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Perhaps you should note the date of the event...……….the Raptors game was on.
Opinion on the interurban aside, I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that what amounts to a Rail For The Valley event in the middle of nowhere would've gotten hundreds of people if not for the Raptors winning.
     
     
  #6662  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2019, 6:07 AM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
ChangingCity, 20,000 commuters? Not trying to start anything, but if I'm reading StatsCan 2016 right, there's just under 4,300 a day driving in from Abbotsford/Mission; by contrast, the WCE averages 9,000.
I'm looking at the table published by Stats Can for the 2016 census on Flow - POR (Place of Residence and POW (Place of work). it shows 20,500 total commuters travelling from Abbotsford / Mission to Metro Vancouver, and 9,155 in the other direction.

It shows of the 9,155 going to Abbotsford that 8,945 of them are in a car, 7,865 driving alone. 100 use public transit.

Coming from Abbotsford-Mission 19,705 are in a car, 16,220 of them are driving alone, and just 605 take transit.

Statistics Cnada table here.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Changing City; Jun 17, 2019 at 6:10 AM. Reason: add table
     
     
  #6663  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2019, 5:26 AM
BirchTrain BirchTrain is offline
Eat the sun
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 61
Anyone here presented anything at a Translink meeting? How much time do you usually get? Rick Green here is complaining about a delegation that’s *only* 5 minutes.

https://www.cloverdalereporter.com/opini...for-rail-service-on-interurban-corridor/
     
     
  #6664  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2019, 5:35 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchTrain View Post
Anyone here presented anything at a Translink meeting? How much time do you usually get? Rick Green here is complaining about a delegation that’s *only* 5 minutes.

https://www.cloverdalereporter.com/opini...for-rail-service-on-interurban-corridor/
Considering that political candidates usually only get two minutes, the only appropriate response from TransLink should be a tactfully-worded "deal with it."
     
     
  #6665  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2019, 5:27 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchTrain View Post
Anyone here presented anything at a Translink meeting? How much time do you usually get? Rick Green here is complaining about a delegation that’s *only* 5 minutes.

https://www.cloverdalereporter.com/opini...for-rail-service-on-interurban-corridor/
I spoke at a Mayors Council meeting and was only given five minutes. Unless you're doing some kind of formal presentation that you've been invited to give, that's the standard amount of time.
     
     
  #6666  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2019, 5:01 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,017
Quote:
Opinion: Interurban rail transit line from Surrey to Chilliwack not based on reality
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/south-fraser-community-rail-interurban-surrey-chilliwack
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
     
     
  #6667  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 1:43 AM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
This idea is dead from the first word.. "Interurban"
     
     
  #6668  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 2:58 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,978
The debate really comes down to what people believe is most important...........connecting the Fraser Valley or connecting downtown Langley to Surrey Centre and Vancouver and personally I think connecting the Fraser Valley is vastly more important.

The percentage of people who live SoF who commute over the Fraser has dropped dramatically over the last decade and that trend will accelerate.The VAST majority of people in the Fraser Valley {including Surrey/Lang} also work in the Valley. HWY#1 is constantly clogged, in fact dangerously so. In short there is only 1 single road connecting the entire valley and east of 200th it's in exactly the same shape as it was 50 years ago. SkyTrain will do absolutely nothing for people not along it's immediate corridor and in fact also serve very few students who are overwhelmingly transit dependent. The SkyTrain serves not a single major employment district between SC & downtown Langley...not one. The Hydrogen train would connect every single post-secondary in the entire Fraser Valley to each oither and serve hundreds of thousands of more people and tens of thousands of more jobs. The SkyTrain is a Langley connector and that is not what the Fraser Valley needs the most. The Valley from Surrey to Chilliwack is ONE region very distinct unto itself and hence it needs a system to connect itself.

The City of Vancouver, GVRD, and Victoria have made very conscious decisions over the decades to limit highway capacity and create a city that is ridiculously expensive fuelled by money laundering and now the real consequences of those decisions have come home to roost. People have being moving to the Valley by the tens of thousands to escape Vancouver's housing prices and businesses have been following suit at a equally dizzying pace because they can't get workers in Vancouver and they also can no longer afford to build & develop there.

Yes Surrey/Langley are suburbs but far more independent than what is the norm in most of the country. Vancouver choose to isolate itself physically and monetarily and this had led to SoF becoming far more than just a suburb like Burnaby or Richmond but rather it's own unique region and hence a Burnaby & Richmond transit policy will not work for the SoF's different reality.
     
     
  #6669  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 3:32 AM
Rico Rico is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
The debate really comes down to what people believe is most important...........connecting the Fraser Valley or connecting downtown Langley to Surrey Centre and Vancouver and personally I think connecting the Fraser Valley is vastly more important.

The percentage of people who live SoF who commute over the Fraser has dropped dramatically over the last decade and that trend will accelerate.The VAST majority of people in the Fraser Valley {including Surrey/Lang} also work in the Valley. HWY#1 is constantly clogged, in fact dangerously so. In short there is only 1 single road connecting the entire valley and east of 200th it's in exactly the same shape as it was 50 years ago. SkyTrain will do absolutely nothing for people not along it's immediate corridor and in fact also serve very few students who are overwhelmingly transit dependent. The SkyTrain serves not a single major employment district between SC & downtown Langley...not one. The Hydrogen train would connect every single post-secondary in the entire Fraser Valley to each oither and serve hundreds of thousands of more people and tens of thousands of more jobs. The SkyTrain is a Langley connector and that is not what the Fraser Valley needs the most. The Valley from Surrey to Chilliwack is ONE region very distinct unto itself and hence it needs a system to connect itself.

The City of Vancouver, GVRD, and Victoria have made very conscious decisions over the decades to limit highway capacity and create a city that is ridiculously expensive fuelled by money laundering and now the real consequences of those decisions have come home to roost. People have being moving to the Valley by the tens of thousands to escape Vancouver's housing prices and businesses have been following suit at a equally dizzying pace because they can't get workers in Vancouver and they also can no longer afford to build & develop there.

Yes Surrey/Langley are suburbs but far more independent than what is the norm in most of the country. Vancouver choose to isolate itself physically and monetarily and this had led to SoF becoming far more than just a suburb like Burnaby or Richmond but rather it's own unique region and hence a Burnaby & Richmond transit policy will not work for the SoF's different reality.
The key is the interurban route is not a particularly direct way of connecting destinations South of Fraser. That is its problem, look at a population or job density map, the interurban route misses most of the destinations and manages to do it in a long and windy way. It may have its uses and we definitely want to preserve our options but it is not a high priority yet.
     
     
  #6670  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 4:10 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
The debate really comes down to what people believe is most important...........connecting the Fraser Valley or connecting downtown Langley to Surrey Centre and Vancouver and personally I think connecting the Fraser Valley is vastly more important.
Then debate with Victoria and BC Transit - Vancouver and TransLink have no control over what happens (or doesn't) in the Fraser Valley.

Quote:
The percentage of people who live SoF who commute over the Fraser has dropped dramatically over the last decade and that trend will accelerate.The VAST majority of people in the Fraser Valley {including Surrey/Lang} also work in the Valley. HWY#1 is constantly clogged, in fact dangerously so. In short there is only 1 single road connecting the entire valley and east of 200th it's in exactly the same shape as it was 50 years ago.
Then maybe you should be sending e-mails to Victoria and BC Transit instead of ranting on here. TransLink and Metro Vancouver are working together to connect our region - other regions have to make their own decisions, working with Victoria and BC Transit.

FYI Surrey and Langley are not part of the Fraser Valley, no matter what you may say. Aldergrove undoubtedly feels a connection to the Fraser Valley as they're neighbours.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico View Post
The key is the interurban route is not a particularly direct way of connecting destinations South of Fraser. That is its problem, look at a population or job density map, the interurban route misses most of the destinations and manages to do it in a long and windy way. It may have its uses and we definitely want to preserve our options but it is not a high priority yet.
Plus it's already being used to move freight. We know just how well that's worked out for the WCE - limited rush-hour-only access that's been delayed many times due to 'freight congestion'. Even if the interurban somehow managed to get both TransLink and BC Transit behind it *and* they managed to come to an agreement with the rail companies, how many times per day would a passenger train be able to use it? Would it rival the 10 trips per day of WCE?

IF BC wants rail transit then we're going to have to create it ourselves and not beg the rail companies to let us use their tracks.
     
     
  #6671  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 7:44 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,978
Your last point is relevant but the Valley Line would be COMPLETELY different from the WCE. The WCE has to pay exhorbitant amounts to CP for the privledge and that would NOT be the case in the Valley. When they took over the line then Premier Vander Zalm kept the route for passenger service as part of the deal. That means that the entire route can be used for passenger service without having to give CP a dime to use it. Also in the terms of the deal, if passenger rail resumes and there is a conflict of usage between freight and passenger, the passenger service takes priority over the freight unlike almost everywhere else in Canada and if congestion becomes an issue and the tracks need to be twinned and overpasses/grade separation needs to take place in certain areas, as per the agreement, the cost would has to be born 100% by CP.

Obviously BCTransit/Translink should work with CP in good faith to make sure that both passenger and freight can safely use the line.........inhibiting freight movement does no favours to a port city like Vancouver. That said, when push comes to shove, passenger rail has priority on the line. The situation with the WCE has no analogy with a potential Valley line.
     
     
  #6672  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 8:48 AM
WestCoastEcho WestCoastEcho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Your last point is relevant but the Valley Line would be COMPLETELY different from the WCE. The WCE has to pay exhorbitant amounts to CP for the privledge and that would NOT be the case in the Valley. When they took over the line then Premier Vander Zalm kept the route for passenger service as part of the deal. That means that the entire route can be used for passenger service without having to give CP a dime to use it. Also in the terms of the deal, if passenger rail resumes and there is a conflict of usage between freight and passenger, the passenger service takes priority over the freight unlike almost everywhere else in Canada and if congestion becomes an issue and the tracks need to be twinned and overpasses/grade separation needs to take place in certain areas, as per the agreement, the cost would has to be born 100% by CP.

Obviously BCTransit/Translink should work with CP in good faith to make sure that both passenger and freight can safely use the line.........inhibiting freight movement does no favours to a port city like Vancouver. That said, when push comes to shove, passenger rail has priority on the line. The situation with the WCE has no analogy with a potential Valley line.
Where the hell did this notion that passenger rail has priority on the old Interurban line? The only source I can find is on Wikipedia, and it appears to be a fairly recent edit by a random user.

Reading this Translink board document, it seems to indicate the following:

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...mt-Report--Interurban-Passenger-Rail.pdf

Quote:
The SRY Fraser Valley Subdivision is a single-track railway that joins Vancouver, New Westminster, Surrey and Langley industrial customers with the national rail network of Canada. The railway extends from the New Westminster Rail Bridge in the northwest part of the study area, passes near the Scott Road SkyTrain Station, and runs south to Newton. From there, the rail line extends southeast to Cloverdale, joining the CPR Page Subdivision at Pratt Junction (near 180th Street).

Ownership of the railway infrastructure is with Washington Group (SRY is a subsidiary). The land on which the railway operates is still retained by BC Hydro. In 1988, BC Hydro sold its rail assets to SRY and granted it the right to operate a freight rail system on this section of the corridor. BC Hydro did not specifically reserve rights to operate passenger rail service using SRY facilities, but did retain the ability to grant operating rights to others, including to providers of passenger rail service, that do not materially interfere with SRY’s operations. Operation of passenger service on this subdivision would require an agreement with SRY.

SRY operates an average of two daily trains in each direction on the segment passing through Newton. It dispatches trains by radio system and does not have a signal system to control their movement. Trains typically run between 01:00 and 09:00 Monday to Friday and between 21:00 and 05:00 on Sundays. Days and times are variable and trains can operate at any time between the start and end of each identified window depending on the customers' requirements. SRY also maintains a window, five days per week, for patrols and periodic / scheduled maintenance. All connecting movements from New Westminster, Fraser Surrey Dock and Burke Road to Cloverdale, Langley, Gloucester, Huntingdon and Chilliwack, must travel through the identified track. Maintenance windows typically are during the day between 09:00 and 15:00 Monday to Friday. Maintenance also may occasionally be required on weekends or outside the specific windows.

CPR Page Subdivision The CPR Page Subdivision continues east of Cloverdale from Pratt Junction through Langley City and beyond. In 1988, BC Hydro sold the track assets of this section to CPR, but retained ownership of the right-of-way. BC Hydro also granted CPR a statutory right-of-way to use this section of the corridor in perpetuity, but put agreements in place to retain partial running rights for passenger service, which were renewed in 2009. Operation of passenger service on this section would require an agreement with CPR.

This section, which CPR shares with Canadian National (CN) Railway and SRY, is part of the RBRC (along with the BC Railway Port Subdivision immediately to the west), serving export coal and international container traffic going to and from the Roberts Bank port facilities in Delta. It is a busy single-track line that passes through the north side of Langley City, carrying an average of 9 trains of 80-130 cars (1.8 to 2.9 km long trains) in each direction per day, with train movements occurring seven days per week at any hour of the day. CPR train dispatchers use a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system to manage trains because of the relatively high frequency of rail traffic.
So, no, Translink appears to be believing that there is no passenger service priority over the old interurban line sections, did not specifically reserve the right to do so, merely reserved the right assign the right to others as long as they didn't interfere with freight traffic, and agreements are needed between SRY and CP Rail in order to run a passenger rail service.

So, it appears that a passenger rail service would be subordinate to freight service along the corridor, per Translink's own documents on the line.

Also, Transport Canada's own regulations would require separation of any light rail service from freight trains on the same line, either by isolating the times to which both passenger and freight can run, or by laying down a new line parallel to the old line. And isolating the times won't work from SRY's position, as they run on-demand services as required by customer demands.
     
     
  #6673  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 7:09 PM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho View Post
So, no, Translink appears to be believing that there is no passenger service priority over the old interurban line sections, did not specifically reserve the right to do so, merely reserved the right assign the right to others as long as they didn't interfere with freight traffic, and agreements are needed between SRY and CP Rail in order to run a passenger rail service.

So, it appears that a passenger rail service would be subordinate to freight service along the corridor, per Translink's own documents on the line.

Also, Transport Canada's own regulations would require separation of any light rail service from freight trains on the same line, either by isolating the times to which both passenger and freight can run, or by laying down a new line parallel to the old line. And isolating the times won't work from SRY's position, as they run on-demand services as required by customer demands.
Exactly. IF BC wants rail transit then we're going to have to create it ourselves and not beg the rail companies to let us use their tracks.
     
     
  #6674  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 8:51 PM
ilikeredheads ilikeredheads is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: west coast
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Your last point is relevant but the Valley Line would be COMPLETELY different from the WCE. The WCE has to pay exhorbitant amounts to CP for the privledge and that would NOT be the case in the Valley. When they took over the line then Premier Vander Zalm kept the route for passenger service as part of the deal. That means that the entire route can be used for passenger service without having to give CP a dime to use it. Also in the terms of the deal, if passenger rail resumes and there is a conflict of usage between freight and passenger, the passenger service takes priority over the freight unlike almost everywhere else in Canada and if congestion becomes an issue and the tracks need to be twinned and overpasses/grade separation needs to take place in certain areas, as per the agreement, the cost would has to be born 100% by CP.
Do you have a source on this? You seem to say this alot.
     
     
  #6675  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 9:11 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
Exactly. IF BC wants rail transit then we're going to have to create it ourselves and not beg the rail companies to let us use their tracks.
And it's going to be taxpayers footing the bill. CN (not CP, for the umpteenth time) is not paying for it any more than Mexico's paying for the wall.
     
     
  #6676  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 11:30 PM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
And it's going to be taxpayers footing the bill. CN (not CP, for the umpteenth time) is not paying for it any more than Mexico's paying for the wall.
Mexico's not paying for the wall? I'm shocked!

Of course the taxpayer would be paying for new passenger / public transit rail. I wonder how many lines could easily (aka no need to tunnel through mountains) be built in the province.
     
     
  #6677  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2019, 3:20 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
Mexico's not paying for the wall? I'm shocked!

Of course the taxpayer would be paying for new passenger / public transit rail. I wonder how many lines could easily (aka no need to tunnel through mountains) be built in the province.
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Also in the terms of the deal, if passenger rail resumes and there is a conflict of usage between freight and passenger, the passenger service takes priority over the freight unlike almost everywhere else in Canada and if congestion becomes an issue and the tracks need to be twinned and overpasses/grade separation needs to take place in certain areas, as per the agreement, the cost would has to be born 100% by CP [sic].
Keeps coming up for some inexplicable reason, even though it's 100% untrue.
     
     
  #6678  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2019, 5:32 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho View Post
Where the hell did this notion that passenger rail has priority on the old Interurban line? The only source I can find is on Wikipedia, and it appears to be a fairly recent edit by a random user.

Reading this Translink board document, it seems to indicate the following:

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...mt-Report--Interurban-Passenger-Rail.pdf



So, no, Translink appears to be believing that there is no passenger service priority over the old interurban line sections, did not specifically reserve the right to do so, merely reserved the right assign the right to others as long as they didn't interfere with freight traffic, and agreements are needed between SRY and CP Rail in order to run a passenger rail service.

So, it appears that a passenger rail service would be subordinate to freight service along the corridor, per Translink's own documents on the line.

Also, Transport Canada's own regulations would require separation of any light rail service from freight trains on the same line, either by isolating the times to which both passenger and freight can run, or by laying down a new line parallel to the old line. And isolating the times won't work from SRY's position, as they run on-demand services as required by customer demands.
Some more clarification on who owns what. The CP (leased) section of track runs from Cloverdale until the CN Hydro section that swings north by means of a switch to the CN main line at Fort Langley. East of that switch just after crossing Hwy #1, the SRY continues through Abb and Chill. West of Cloverdale is BC Rail track that was never sold to CN and is still retained by the gov. Several railways have trackage rights to use it.

If this sounds complicated, just Google Map it.

Any interurban would have to be be track separated because no one will agree to interrupt freight schedules without demanding a huge price. Traffic from the CN Hydro cutoff until Delta port will only increase and get busier.
     
     
  #6679  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2019, 1:44 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,978
I went to the Cloverdale Valley Rail open house so I am repeating what I heard there including with what was said by Vander Zalm who sold the line to CN. The info meeting provided paphlets and speakers ïncluding Vander ZalmÇ about the nature of the corridor. The corridor is a freight line and CN could use it as such because the province logically wanted to make the most of limited rail infrastructure and seeing the Interurban had been cancelled, it made perfect sense.

The line was reserved if there was ever a resumption of passenger rail. In such a scenario, passenger rail would have FIRST priority over the line. CN could still use the line but and would have to work in good faith with BC Transit {and vice-versa} to optimize usage of the line that benefits both parties but when conflicts eventually arise and twinning of tracks and overpasses/ grade separations would have to be built and the costs would be born 100% by CN. This is VERY unique in NA and BC should take advantage of it.
     
     
  #6680  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2019, 2:41 AM
WestCoastEcho WestCoastEcho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
I went to the Cloverdale Valley Rail open house so I am repeating what I heard there including with what was said by Vander Zalm who sold the line to CN. The info meeting provided paphlets and speakers ïncluding Vander ZalmÇ about the nature of the corridor. The corridor is a freight line and CN could use it as such because the province logically wanted to make the most of limited rail infrastructure and seeing the Interurban had been cancelled, it made perfect sense.

The line was reserved if there was ever a resumption of passenger rail. In such a scenario, passenger rail would have FIRST priority over the line. CN could still use the line but and would have to work in good faith with BC Transit {and vice-versa} to optimize usage of the line that benefits both parties but when conflicts eventually arise and twinning of tracks and overpasses/ grade separations would have to be built and the costs would be born 100% by CN. This is VERY unique in NA and BC should take advantage of it.
Well, first, Vander Zalm is a total crock and a liar, so don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Translink believes differently, and there's no way Transport Canada will permit a light rail system to run on the same tracks at the same time as a freight train. The trains have either be separated by time, meaning that at certain times, passenger trains OR freight trains can be run, but never both at the same time, or by constructing a separate set of physical tracks.

And adding additional track is problematic, as noted by the Translink document, which says the following:

Quote:
To meet Transport Canada requirements for rail passenger safety, passenger rail vehicles must either be separated from freight train traffic through scheduling, or physically, by constructing separate tracks.

Due to freight traffic throughout the day on the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor, separate rail track would be needed to remove operational conflicts between passenger and freight, to ensure fast, frequent and reliable rapid transit service. While freight operations are less frequent on the SRY Fraser Valley Subdivision, there would still be a need for separate track to ensure reliable and frequent rapid transit service.

The 2012 study identified the following issues associated with construction of new track for passenger operations:
  • Environmental Risks A long section of the corridor travels along the Agricultural Land Reserve and the floodplains of the Serpentine River. Adding track would create risks to biodiversity, water resources, and farmlands.
  • Constructability Challenges The corridor has numerous challenges related to constructing new track. These include the constrained existing right-of-way, power lines, industrial lead tracks in Langley, grade crossings, narrow bridges, and poor soil conditions. Maintaining existing freight service would likely result in more complex and slower construction. To separate passenger from freight operations (providing reliability and enhancing safety), one grade separation would be required, and this would be in a section of the corridor constrained by existing and planned arterial bridges.
  • Cost Constructing additional track and stations, acquiring right of way to add the tracks along the existing Interurban corridor, and overcoming related construction challenges would be costly.

In summary, these findings indicate that operation of passenger rail on this corridor is unlikely to be any easier to implement than on arterial corridors, because providing safe, frequent and reliable service would require construction of separate tracks along the corridor. Given that the construction would likely have similar order-of-magnitude costs to arterial passenger solutions (the range was slightly lower to slightly higher, depending on design), and the lower density land use and ridership potential of the corridor, the benefits of implementing rapid transit on the Interurban corridor were considered insufficient to warrant further consideration as a rapid transit alternative.

TransLink is committed to delivering the Mayors’ Vision, including rapid transit south of the Fraser

The current regional priority for transit investment South of the Fraser, as set out in the Mayors’ Vision, is connecting Surrey Metro Centre with other regionally designated centres via 27 km of rapid transit on Fraser Highway, King George Boulevard, and 104th Avenue. These regional priorities are designed to deliver high frequency, high speed and capacity, all-day rapid transit connections between designated town centres within our service region.

Previous assessments have determined that the Interurban line, as a single-track corridor that does not connect to Surrey Metro Centre, does not advance regional objectives as well as other options and as a result, other regional priorities have been advanced. TransLink remains committed to deliver the Mayors’ Vision. The South Fraser Community Rail Interurban proposal is not an alternative or comparable option to rapid transit along Fraser Highway based on the objectives set out in the Vision. The historical alignment of the Interurban corridor within Surrey and Langley does not facilitate, quick, direct connections and as a single-track corridor the capacity is too limited for high frequencies. Further analysis would be required to understand the performance of the proposal in the current context of a new regional rail connection.
If you bothered to read the Translink technical document that was attached to the meeting minutes, it explains in great detail the technical aspects of the route.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:20 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.