The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[superelevation]

Originally Posted by casper

Yes, that is the group.

I don't think the route is that bad. Yes, parallel to the highway would be more direct. However, it is still competitive to the highway especially with how things get backed up at busy times. The route hits all the major populations centers you would want to hit. It can be put into service for a fraction of the cost of a route that involves land acquisition, permitting and construction.

That rail route is not a a railway mainline.

The hydrogen powered trains is a bit out there. But not that out far out there.

It doesn't tho, Surrey central is circles and it's skirts downtown Langley and willowbrook.

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I have to somewhat agree. I don't know how common it is for people to commute all the way from Langley into Vancouver these days. So much of Langley's growth is happening in Willoughby and close to Highway 1. Getting from that area into Willowbrook area is now a really long drive, 200th is just a traffic mess these days and it's getting so much development. If skytrain is running to Willowbrook area getting down there won't be much time saving. The bus along hwy 1 to Lougheed may end up being faster overall as far as commuting into Vancouver.

It will be handy to get between Surrey and Langley though.

People are already complaining that they can't get a seat when they get on the Skytrain at Scott Road and with the extension, the trains are going to be even more crowded and they aren't looking forward to it.

Lots of people commute downtown, but also to Surrey Central where SFU (which has been very popular) and soon UBC are , and Metrotown. It's just good to be connected up and the redevelopment potential is huge. Plus the extension is all above ground.

Capacity is a concern but Scott Road is mostly bad because you get the crowds from Surrey Central but none of the most empty trains from the Lougheed Branch. It should be less of an issue in the future with big 5 car trains and some more frequency.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Can you post it? I would like to see just how bad it would be. However, saying that, the highway did need to be improved.

Ideally the highways that the commuter lines follow are 6 lanes, divided, 100km/hr or higher posted limit and are at/over capacity. Kind of like what Toronto, Montreal and the existing WCE does.

The study is a bit opaque, but still alright. In the end they upgraded the highway, but not nearly as much as anticipated in the highway option in this study, for ~$700 million 2005 dollars (the rail option had $400+ million of highway upgrades too).



Multi-Modal Corridor Transportation Study 2001 (PDF, 2.1MB)


Highlights (2000 $s I believe):

• "Travel time by rail will not be substantially improved over existing times without investing an additional $250 million to $300 million in tunnels, etc. so competition with the private automobile will be very challenging."
• Project elements in the medium scenario (high investment rail scenario screen out due to inferior cost/benefit ratio)
  • Replace and grow numbers of rolling stock (bi-levels assumed)
    • 6 sets of 10 cars needing for during Olympics
  • Peak 30 minute headway during Olympics
  • 5 round trips per day otherwise
  • CTC signals system
  • Reschedule freight operations to late night only
  • Increased track protection
  • new maintenance and crew facilities
  • new siding at Horseshoe Bay
  • screened out options:
    • DMUs (10 units)
    • Extend service to Lonsdale Quay, build link to Seabus
    • curve reduction to increase speed ($300 million tunnels)
    • twinning (not even considered)
    • enhanced terminal facilities
• Rail capital cost in multi-modal mobility option is $300 million
• Estimated rail net revenue: $12 million/year
• Estimated rail mode share: 12%

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J81

Both busy terminals. I guarantee the guy in London will tell u the same thing i have about the Chatham and Guelph subs with regard to freight traffic.

PS. Id never leave Capreol for London. Unless hes tired of being in the bush. But the work is better there. IMO anyway.

So, the guy is saying it is busy. So, you agree?
If some, then you do support the general idea that it needs to be upgraded to double tracks.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The study is a bit opaque, but still alright. In the end they upgraded the highway, but not nearly as much as anticipated in the highway option in this study, for ~$700 million 2005 dollars (the rail option had $400+ million of highway upgrades too).



Multi-Modal Corridor Transportation Study 2001 (PDF, 2.1MB)


Highlights (2000 $s I believe):

• "Travel time by rail will not be substantially improved over existing times without investing an additional $250 million to $300 million in tunnels, etc. so competition with the private automobile will be very challenging."
• Project elements in the medium scenario (high investment rail scenario screen out due to inferior cost/benefit ratio)
  • Replace and grow numbers of rolling stock (bi-levels assumed)
    • 6 sets of 10 cars needing for during Olympics
  • Peak 30 minute headway during Olympics
  • 5 round trips per day otherwise
  • CTC signals system
  • Reschedule freight operations to late night only
  • Increased track protection
  • new maintenance and crew facilities
  • new siding at Horseshoe Bay
  • screened out options:
    • DMUs (10 units)
    • Extend service to Lonsdale Quay, build link to Seabus
    • curve reduction to increase speed ($300 million tunnels)
    • twinning (not even considered)
    • enhanced terminal facilities
• Rail capital cost in multi-modal mobility option is $300 million
• Estimated rail net revenue: $12 million/year
• Estimated rail mode share: 12%

https://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/seatosky/

The upgrade of the highway was $600million. So, rail would have been cheaper, but the highway would still have needed to be upgraded.

Obviously the costs have gone up, but, even if it cost about the same to have an average of 45-55mph trains it would still be worth doing at some time sooner than later. It is an obvious connection that would be good to add.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

...What about a line to Squamish or White Rock? Everyone is only concerned with the existing one and the places it already serves. GO expanded beyond where they first served. AMT did too, and EXO is doing more. My beef isn't that places that are already served aren't served enough, but that the other places not served aren't.

There was passenger rail service to Squamish, Whistler and up to Lillooet on a daily basis run with rail diesel cars. They weren't exactly fast but conventional rail would be even slower. Even accounting for the BC Liberals anti-rail bias, obviously it wasn't realistic to upgrade the line to increase speeds for 2010.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There was passenger rail service to Squamish, Whistler and up to Lillooet on a daily basis run with rail diesel cars. They weren't exactly fast but conventional rail would be even slower. Even accounting for the BC Liberals anti-rail bias, obviously it wasn't realistic to upgrade the line to increase speeds for 2010.

I took that rail trip up to Whistler some years ago. It was possible to go in the morning and return to Vancouver late in the day.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There was passenger rail service to Squamish, Whistler and up to Lillooet on a daily basis run with rail diesel cars. They weren't exactly fast but conventional rail would be even slower. Even accounting for the BC Liberals anti-rail bias, obviously it wasn't realistic to upgrade the line to increase speeds for 2010.

The part of that line that winds its way around the hills and past the mansions of West Vancouver almost feels like a model trainset. Upgrading it would have cost a lot of money for very little gain in utility or speed, but it sure would have been a fun tourist train.

Heavy commuter rail in Metro Vancouver is a hard sell, since most lines are almost comically useless for mass transit: they’re twisty and turny, sit in wooded valleys or along industrial riverfronts, and miss nearly every major trip generator.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There was passenger rail service to Squamish, Whistler and up to Lillooet on a daily basis run with rail diesel cars. They weren't exactly fast but conventional rail would be even slower. Even accounting for the BC Liberals anti-rail bias, obviously it wasn't realistic to upgrade the line to increase speeds for 2010.

Why wasn't it realistic?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I took that rail trip up to Whistler some years ago. It was possible to go in the morning and return to Vancouver late in the day.

Which is exactly the reason it should be revived and improved. Use it for both the commuters coming to Vancouver, and the people going to Whistler for the day or more. Give more people more reasons to give up on their car.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The part of that line that winds its way around the hills and past the mansions of West Vancouver almost feels like a model trainset. Upgrading it would have cost a lot of money for very little gain in utility or speed, but it sure would have been a fun tourist train.

Heavy commuter rail in Metro Vancouver is a hard sell, since most lines are almost comically useless for mass transit: they’re twisty and turny, sit in wooded valleys or along industrial riverfronts, and miss nearly every major trip generator.

And the West Vancouver portion wasn't even the most problematic. The section along Howe Sound was far more serpentine. You couldn't get much higher speeds there.

That said, it was stupid for the BC Liberals to abandon passenger rail to a resort like Whistler.

[Coldrsx]

City of Edmonton - LRT Capital Line South Expansion Design-Build - RFQ
The City of Edmonton Very Active Buyer
Posted On: 9 Jun 2022
Open for bidding on: 9 Jun 2022
Response Deadline: 26 Aug 2022 10:59 PM PDT


Posting Summary
The work includes, but not limited to, but not limited to, construction of a 4.5-km light-rail extension south from Century Park station (the current terminus) to the new Ellerslie station. The project will include two new permanent LRT stations, a new operations and maintenance facility (OMF), and integration with and expansion of the Heritage Valley Park and Ride facility and transit centre.

https://service.ariba.com/Discovery.aw/ad/viewRFX?id=13264057

[J81]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, the guy is saying it is busy. So, you agree?
If some, then you do support the general idea that it needs to be upgraded to double tracks.

Which guy? The Capreol guy? In SWO the only sub that should be double tracked is the Strathroy sub from Poplar to Sarnia. Thats it. Im sure there are places west that could use double track for sure. But your original argument was that every mainline should be double tracked and thats just unrealistic and unnecessary.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J81

Which guy? The Capreol guy? In SWO the only sub that should be double tracked is the Strathroy sub from Poplar to Sarnia. Thats it. Im sure there are places west that could use double track for sure. But your original argument was that every mainline should be double tracked and thats just unrealistic and unnecessary.

Yes, and most of the CP/CN mainlines are at that capacity. The minute those double track subdivisions open, the ones that are still single track will see their yards congested.

So, yes, start construction now.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by J81

Which guy? The Capreol guy? In SWO the only sub that should be double tracked is the Strathroy sub from Poplar to Sarnia. Thats it. Im sure there are places west that could use double track for sure. But your original argument was that every mainline should be double tracked and thats just unrealistic and unnecessary.

The evidence of capacity constraints is shown by the delays to Via Rail trains all across the network. Both the Strathroy and Grimsby subs should be redoubled. The rest of CN and CP networks experience significant delays due to capacity constraints. While they might not need double track everywhere, they certainly need more extended sidings, especially between Toronto and Sudbury/Capreol on CN's Bala sub. The rest of the CN route in northern Ontario needs many more extended sidings. The CN routes to the Maritimes also nee additional extended sidings. Both the CN and CP mainlines between Winnipeg and the west coast ports need to have double track for most of the their respective routes.

Replacing what was previously double track is low hanging fruit as very little construction needs to be done. It is mostly track laying, switch installation and signal expansion that is required.

If we are to have expanded passenger rail in this country we need to have more double track. Selective double tracking needs to be done on a regional basis to expand service in the mostly in theMaritimes, Alberta and the CP route in the Prairies to avoid interference with freight trains. Clearly the priority will always be freight traffic.

If investors, especially hedge funds were not so concerned about Operating Ratios and dividends then the railways could increase their capital expenditures.

[canucklehead2]

Double-tracked electrified national railway grid please! At least in the major regions to start...government joint venture if need be... Just get it done!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Double-tracked electrified national railway grid please! At least in the major regions to start...government joint venture if need be... Just get it done!

.... that would be a great way to get close to our carbon goals.....

[Al Ski]

Some day, Canadian cities may collectively have as much transit as does the city of Berlin.

Not holding my breath though as Berlin keeps relentlessly expanding its networks.

[Truenorth00]

The stuff coming out of the hearing in Ottawa should offer up plenty of cautionary tales.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

Some day, Canadian cities may collectively have as much transit as does the city of Berlin.

Not holding my breath though as Berlin keeps relentlessly expanding its networks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin#Transport

System Stations / Lines / Net length Annual ridership Operator / Notes
S-Bahn 166 / 16 / 331 km (206 mi) 431,000,000 (2016) DB / Mainly overground rapid transit rail system with suburban stops
U-Bahn 173 / 10 / 146 km (91 mi) 563,000,000 (2017) BVG / Mainly underground rail system / 24h-service on weekends
Tram 404 / 22 / 194 km (121 mi) 197,000,000 (2017) BVG / Operates predominantly in eastern boroughs
Bus 3227 / 198 / 1,675 km (1,041 mi) 440,000,000 (2017) BVG / Extensive services in all boroughs / 62 Night Lines
Ferry 6 lines BVG / Transportation as well as recreational ferries

I'd argue we have about as much if not more.
Prove me wrong.

[lrt's friend]

Another Ottawa cautionary tale, are the stories that bike share should be the way to reach LRT stations. On the surface this sounds great, except the user then has to pay twice, and bike share directly competes with local neighbourhood transit especially in more urban areas, where transit has traditionally been more heavily used. I am not against bike share, but the tone of the news story concerned me. It could save the city money by investing less in transit.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

.... that would be a great way to get close to our carbon goals.....

It would also be a great way to bankrupt the country.

Catenary all over the country is laughable. The only option for freight or long distance passenger rail in terms of zero emissions is hydrogen.

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin#Transport

System Stations / Lines / Net length Annual ridership Operator / Notes
S-Bahn 166 / 16 / 331 km (206 mi) 431,000,000 (2016) DB / Mainly overground rapid transit rail system with suburban stops
U-Bahn 173 / 10 / 146 km (91 mi) 563,000,000 (2017) BVG / Mainly underground rail system / 24h-service on weekends
Tram 404 / 22 / 194 km (121 mi) 197,000,000 (2017) BVG / Operates predominantly in eastern boroughs
Bus 3227 / 198 / 1,675 km (1,041 mi) 440,000,000 (2017) BVG / Extensive services in all boroughs / 62 Night Lines
Ferry 6 lines BVG / Transportation as well as recreational ferries

I'd argue we have about as much if not more.
Prove me wrong.

No mate, the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

And these cheaply gained (and out of date) stats don't include Berlin's extensive RE and RB regional trains.

And please.. buses.. of course all Canadian cities combined will win that battle.

Of course I've already done my homework, time to do yours!

And are you REALLY going to rejoice if all Canadian cities COMBINED have slightly more transit than Berlin?

Ok, surface analysis: they have more subway than Montreal and Toronto combined. We don't have S-Bahn so they win that by default. They have more trams than Toronto.. then there's the aforementioned RE and RB Regio.. High Speed Rail.. all electric..

Prove me wrong.