Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Vin]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

There are a few things working in Switzerland's favour:
1. Switzerland has a number of medium-sized cities (by NA standards). Zurich, Geneva, Basel, Bern and Lausanne range from 400k to 1.3 million inhabitants. Since Switzerland is small, and since most of those cities are in a straight line on the Swiss plateau, they lend nicely to generating a TON of inter-city trips. Compare that to mainland BC where we essentially have Metro Vancouver, the Fraser Valley, and the Okanagan. Most of Metro Vancouver is well served (not perfectly) by buses and Skytrain, and those other regions are either two far away, too sprawling, or have too small a population to generate significant trips.
2. As Migrant mentioned, Switzerland also sees a lot of international train travel. A line from Zurich to St. Gallen, which has a 165k people (still larger than any of the valley cities) may not be justified on its own, but a train from Zurich to Munich with St. Gallen halfway in the middle makes too much sense. What large city is on the other side of Abbotsford to make a Valley train a slam dunk?
3. Switzerland has 130 fewer vehicles per 1,000 people than Canada. That might not seem like a lot, but it makes a difference in how people move around.
4. The development pattern of Switzerland is significantly different from Canada. And I'm not talking about the large cities. I lived in an Austrian town of 7k people for a year. This farming town was compact and walkable. Even the nearby dairy farmers walk or ride their bikes into town, because the rural areas are served by bike paths and sidewalks. Basically, towns of <15k people in Switzerland generate trips on the railways. But do you think anyone living in Aldergrove would catch a train to Murrayville?

If you build it, they will come.

There is a reason why Switzerland and the Swiss have fewer cars, build compact towns and cities, ride bikes or walk, have great international cross border ground travels >>>> they put in a great railway system in the past, and have since been constantly expanding and improving it to keep up with the times and demand! It is one of the national priorities that we sorely lack.

Why don't we have such nice things? Well, we put in a great rail system since the late 1800s up till WW2, then we tried to ape the USA by destroying most of what was put in, such that the next generation knows of no other alternatives but to embrace automobiles and highways 100%; creating ugly urban sprawls in the process.

Having a good rail system into the valley is just one step forward to right the wrong, but only if we make it a priority.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

If you build it, they will come.

They will only come if "they" are actually "there" and "they" don't have alternatives that they prefer. Folks in smaller communities with good road access in a country where the vast majority own a car are notoriously difficult to lure onto public transit.

That's why I'm in favour of school and university passes - get people used to transit from a young age and show that it can be fast, convenient and useful. Then maybe you have a chance of getting them to come.

I'm all for expanding service to encourage access - but when you're spending scarce public funds you need to do so in a manner that has the best chance of success. You don't build rails to nowhere or superhighways for villages.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The issue here is planning for the future and not just providing needs today.

Vancouver is NOT a high density area as much as some downtown elites would like you to believe. Vancouver sprawls just as much as any city in NA reflected by the fact that the 3 fastest growing cities in GV are the suburban wastelands of Surrey, Langley, and Maple Ridge. There is absolutely no reason to believe why this trend will not continue.

SkyTrain to Olympia and beyond is not financially viable not is it good for the travelling public. Rapid transit is not built to provide fast regional transit in a comfortable way. Vancouver needs a fast and effective regional transit network which does not have and, unfortunately, seems to have no intention of providing.

You don't build transit to serve your needs for the next decade but rather for the next century. In Vancouver's case this means a suburban rail system. Translink/Victoria should be buying up every single piece of rail/hydro corridor it can get it's hands on and forbade any development right up against those lines to guarantee them as transport corridors.

If Victoria has done this in the FV for it's highways, the province could affordably build a southern route from Abb to Twas but they didn't and allowed development to take place anywhere it wanted. Now such a route would cost exponentially more and face huge political backlash because it would mean the destruction of potentially hundreds of homes to do it. BC blew it with the highways so they should make sure that they don't blow it with their transit corridors as well.

There is no city on this planet that is expanding rapid transit to the hinterlands because it doesn't work and why Vancouver thinks it can somehow be an exception to this rule truly boggles the mind.

Right.
I've always considered anywhere south of Broadway Corridor, east of Chinatown and west of Burrard street a rather rundown URBAN SPRAWL SUBURB, In fact, many of the inhabitants do possess suburban mindsets. They are called the NIMBYs. Many of them drive everywhere and frown upon public transportation as they think it is only meant for the poor.

But don't waste your breath trying to convince them because they can't even recognize the fact that the original "suburb municipalities" are actually outpacing most parts of Vancouver when it comes to urban growth and development.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

They will only come if "they" are actually "there" and "they" don't have alternatives that they prefer. Folks in smaller communities with good road access in a country where the vast majority own a car are notoriously difficult to lure onto public transit.

That's why I'm in favour of school and university passes - get people used to transit from a young age and show that it can be fast, convenient and useful. Then maybe you have a chance of getting them to come.

I'm all for expanding service to encourage access - but when you're spending scarce public funds you need to do so in a manner that has the best chance of success. You don't build rails to nowhere or superhighways for villages.

Yeah incentives are definitely good. I read somewhere previously, and also heartened to know that many millennials no longer consider owning a personal automobile as a rite-of-passage like their predecessors. That is a good start.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Right.
I've always considered anywhere south of Broadway Corridor, east of Chinatown and west of Burrard street a rather rundown URBAN SPRAWL SUBURB, In fact, many of the inhabitants do possess suburban mindsets. They are called the NIMBYs. Many of them drive everywhere and frown upon public transportation as they think it is only meant for the poor.

But don't waste your breath trying to convince them because they can't even recognize the fact that the original "suburb municipalities" are actually outpacing most parts of Vancouver when it comes to urban growth and development.

So "build it and they will come" works for the Valley, but it doesn't work for the North Shore, Hastings or 41st? The ridership estimates say otherwise.

We've been over this. The densest part of Metro Van is the CoV (even not counting downtown), and the only suburb outgrowing it is Surrey.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

Right.
I've always considered anywhere south of Broadway Corridor, east of Chinatown and west of Burrard street a rather rundown URBAN SPRAWL

The downtown core is the pedestrian city, built before transportation faster than horses was common.

Most of the City of Vancouver is the streetcar city, built along streetcar routes around which commercial districts developed. The arterials that gave us are withing walking distance of probably 70 to 80% of the residences in the city because they had to be in order for people to get around before the automobile became ascendant.

South of Fraser is the automobile city, built around the needs of vehicles and very hostile to pedestrians.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Also most of Burnaby and Richmond - cul-de-sacs all over the freaking place.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Why don't we have such nice things? We put in a great rail system back in the past, then we tried to ape the USA by destroyed most of what was put in, so that the next generation could embrace automobiles and highways 100%, creating ugly urban sprawls in the process.

Well, for one thing the Swiss GDP per capita according to the IMF is around $96,000 (3rd highest in the world) and Canada's is $57,000 (14th).

They also pay a top rate of income tax of 40%, compared to Canada's 33%.

Total taxes raised in 2020 according to the OECD were 195 billion Swiss Francs, ($CA270b) so with 8.65m people that's $31,214 CA per capita collected in taxes.

Total taxes raised in Canada were $758b so with 38 million people that's $19,948 CA per person.

Also - new car prices in Switzerland are the highest in Europe, and they pay more for gas to drive a car than drivers in Canada - even in BC.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Running with this analogy, if all you've got is a dirt road, upgrading it to a superhighway instead of widening the existing one (or adding bus lanes) needs a really good business case that so far doesn't exist.

About the same time that any commuter rail service in Canada gets more than 1/7th or even 1/8th of its respective subway's ridership; the TTC could absorb GO's ridership if all service stopped that day, but not vice versa. All the present and future chokepoints in the SkyTrain network are most effectively solved with another SkyTrain.

Not when the rail corridor — and everything else is highways or ALR. Best you could do is put rail down the highway, and even that's a long way off.

That depends.... You see, some places, the dirt road becomes the superhighway while the old highway is left as is. The dirt road is easier to upgrade as nothing is in the way of it being upgraded.

So, we have been over this about the rail corridors and why they —. None of them are insurmountable. In fact, all of them are quite easy. Replace a bridge and lay down track. That is actually quire easy. So is putting in lights and gates. So is closing off some rail crossings. In fact, even an over/underpass is easy.

I am guessing you are a middle management in Translink.

Originally Posted by Vin

If you build it, they will come.

There is a reason why Switzerland and the Swiss have fewer cars, build compact towns and cities, ride bikes or walk, have great international cross border ground travels >>>> they put in a great railway system in the past, and have since been constantly expanding and improving it to keep up with the times and demand! It is one of the national priorities that we sorely lack.

Why don't we have such nice things? Well, we put in a great rail system since the late 1800s up till WW2, then we tried to ape the USA by destroying most of what was put in, such that the next generation knows of no other alternatives but to embrace automobiles and highways 100%; creating ugly urban sprawls in the process.

Having a good rail system into the valley is just one step forward to right the wrong, but only if we make it a priority.

Makes me think of people in the Windsor - Quebec City corridor.
For example, cousin of mine lives in London. Has a car and can drive, but decided to visit family in Montreal.... by train. It took longer, but she said it was easier than driving and cheaper than flying.

The problem is that east of Vancouver, there is really no significant city till you leave the province. Yes, Abbotsford, Kamloops and others exist, but they are not major centers on their own. So, building something to anywhere is going to seem bad, but in the end, it will actually help the area become less car dependent.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So "build it and they will come" works for the Valley, but it doesn't work for the North Shore, Hastings or 41st? The ridership estimates say otherwise.

We've been over this. The densest part of Metro Van is the CoV (even not counting downtown), and the only suburb outgrowing it is Surrey.

I wounder why the 2 densest cities are what they are? Could it be that they are also the 2 largest cities in the province?

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The downtown core is the pedestrian city, built before transportation faster than horses was common.

Most of the City of Vancouver is the streetcar city, built along streetcar routes around which commercial districts developed. The arterials that gave us are withing walking distance of probably 70 to 80% of the residences in the city because they had to be in order for people to get around before the automobile became ascendant.

South of Fraser is the automobile city, built around the needs of vehicles and very hostile to pedestrians.

It is too bad someone killed Roger Rabbit.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That depends.... You see, some places, the dirt road becomes the superhighway while the old highway is left as is. The dirt road is easier to upgrade as nothing is in the way of it being upgraded.

So, we have been over this about the rail corridors and why they —. None of them are insurmountable. In fact, all of them are quite easy. Replace a bridge and lay down track. That is actually quire easy. So is putting in lights and gates. So is closing off some rail crossings. In fact, even an over/underpass is easy.

I am guessing you are a middle management in Translink.

Yet upgrading it (and for less lanes) actually ends up being more expensive than the old highway: longer distance, more time and resources, less demand. Every other word in this quote is shrinking the cost/km savings down to zero and into the negatives.

You demand citations, and all you offer in return is name-calling and poor guesses. No wonder the Navy didn't want you anymore.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Makes me think of people in the Windsor - Quebec City corridor.
For example, cousin of mine lives in London. Has a car and can drive, but decided to visit family in Montreal.... by train. It took longer, but she said it was easier than driving and cheaper than flying.

The problem is that east of Vancouver, there is really no significant city till you leave the province. Yes, Abbotsford, Kamloops and others exist, but they are not major centers on their own. So, building something to anywhere is going to seem bad, but in the end, it will actually help the area become less car dependent.

I wounder why the 2 densest cities are what they are? Could it be that they are also the 2 largest cities in the province?.

London to Montreal is VIA, not GO. Vancouver already has plenty of VIA service, and GO trains aren't viable yet. GO buses are.

BC's two densest cities are the CoV and New West. Victoria, despite having no trains at all, is in 4th place... while Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Mission and Abbotsford don't even make the top twenty.

[GenWhy?]

" Yes, Abbotsford, Kamloops and others exist, but they are not major centers on their own. So, building something to anywhere is going to seem bad, but in the end, it will actually help the area become less car dependent."

That's why TransLink is not interested in building a train outside their jurisdiction.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yet upgrading it (and for less lanes) actually ends up being more expensive than the old highway: longer distance, more time and resources, less demand. Every other word in this quote is shrinking the cost/km savings down to zero and into the negatives.

You demand citations, and all you offer in return is name-calling and poor guesses. No wonder the Navy didn't want you anymore.

Actually no. The reason it is usually chosen is due to it being cheaper. Just look at curves being taken out of TCH 1 near Rogers Pass. Granted, that is not a dirt road, but the point is, there is lots of places that they leave the existing highway alone for much of it. That was the case with twinning of Highway 69/400. It is also the case with the 401 not actually replacing the highways 2 & 3.

I was offered a contract but turned it down.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

London to Montreal is VIA, not GO. Vancouver already has plenty of VIA service, and GO trains aren't viable yet. GO buses are.

BC's two densest cities are the CoV and New West. Victoria, despite having no trains at all, is in 4th place... while Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Mission and Abbotsford don't even make the top twenty.

Via is heavy rail.

All that link proves is the Skytrain has done a horrible job of densifying the area. Otherwise Richmond and Coquitlam would be higher. Interesting though, if we are going by density as a metric, when is some sort of RT going to white Rock. It is number 5.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

" Yes, Abbotsford, Kamloops and others exist, but they are not major centers on their own. So, building something to anywhere is going to seem bad, but in the end, it will actually help the area become less car dependent."

That's why TransLink is not interested in building a train outside their jurisdiction.

They would rather them be car dependent?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Actually no. The reason it is usually chosen is due to it being cheaper. Just look at curves being taken out of TCH 1 near Rogers Pass. Granted, that is not a dirt road, but the point is, there is lots of places that they leave the existing highway alone for much of it. That was the case with twinning of Highway 69/400. It is also the case with the 401 not actually replacing the highways 2 & 3.

Via is heavy rail.

All that link proves is the Skytrain has done a horrible job of densifying the area. Otherwise Richmond and Coquitlam would be higher. Interesting though, if we are going by density as a metric, when is some sort of RT going to white Rock. It is number 5.

And now since we're talking about highways themselves instead of using them as a metaphor for trains, the analogy has derailed on a number of levels.

Yup. So I guess since VIA's here, we already have enough heavy rail.

You're the one who brought up density, now you don't like the results? It proves that SkyTrain's done a better job of densification than commuter trains have in the same amount of time. Which WCE-only town is in the top twenty? Which one has a train station that's not surrounded by SFHs and parking lots?
TransLink is currently planning an extension of the R1 to White Rock as we speak. Density or not, it's still the size of Ladner.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Well, for one thing the Swiss GDP per capita according to the IMF is around $96,000 (3rd highest in the world) and Canada's is $57,000 (14th).

They also pay a top rate of income tax of 40%, compared to Canada's 33%.

Total taxes raised in 2020 according to the OECD were 195 billion Swiss Francs, ($CA270b) so with 8.65m people that's $31,214 CA per capita collected in taxes.

Total taxes raised in Canada were $758b so with 38 million people that's $19,948 CA per person.

Also - new car prices in Switzerland are the highest in Europe, and they pay more for gas to drive a car than drivers in Canada - even in BC.

Perhaps their GDP is also higher because people can use their heads much better, and that they have good railway network?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They would rather them be car dependent?

I don't think Abbotsford has made any indication to separate from the Fraser Valley Regional District or join TransLink and pay their large fees on development and gasoline. You're right that Abbotsford probably wants to remain more car-centric.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They would rather them be car dependent?

I think the last time it was put up to a decision the valley and Sky Hwy said "no thank you" to TransLink and better transit / fees along with it to connect them to the TransLink system. I think it's due to their low usage and commutes from the Valley to the Metro for regular trips rather than one-offs. Mind you these studies are from pre-2016 I think

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And now since we're talking about highways themselves instead of using them as a metaphor for trains, the analogy has derailed on a number of levels.

Yup. So I guess since VIA's here, we already have enough heavy rail.

You're the one who brought up density, now you don't like the results? It proves that SkyTrain's done a better job of densification than commuter trains have in the same amount of time. Which WCE-only town is in the top twenty? Which one has a train station that's not surrounded by SFHs and parking lots?
TransLink is currently planning an extension of the R1 to White Rock as we speak. Density or not, it's still the size of Ladner.

This discussion derailed about 50 pages ago. Ironically, more people are joining this from all sides.It has helped me, and other understand the challenges and what is needed.

2-3 trains a week is effectively irrelevant. If it were at least 1 a day and reasonably on time, then maybe it would matter. Amtrak's Cascades is more relevant than Via's Canadian.

If the Skytrain is the best at densifying an area, explain how the cities of North Vancouver, Victoria, White Rock, Langley, and Duncan are all higher when they only have bus service to them. Below them are Port Coquitlam, Surrey, Richmond and Coquitlam which all have Skytrain. If anything, this shows that Skytrain does not do anything about density.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think the last time it was put up to a decision the valley and Sky Hwy said "no thank you" to TransLink and better transit / fees along with it to connect them to the TransLink system. I think it's due to their low usage and commutes from the Valley to the Metro for regular trips rather than one-offs. Mind you these studies are from pre-2016 I think

For Metrolinx"
https://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/publications/Metrolinx-2018-19-Annual-Report-FINAL.PDF

Page 22

Government Funding

Operating Subsidy

Metrolinx received approximately $478.1 million in operating subsidy from the Province of Ontario (the Province), an increase of about $136.8 million or 40.1% from 2017-18. Operating subsidy from the Province has increased at a compounded annual growth rate of 20.2% each year since 2014-15. No municipal or federal operating subsidy or grant has been received over the last five years. The operating subsidy is used for implementing many of the commitments made under the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

A significant portion of the increase in subsidy was used to support increases in operating expenses including: Supplies and Services, which increased by $80.0 million to $177.1 million; and, Operations, which increased by $41.8 million to $356.3 million.

Amortization has been fully funded by the Province. Amortization expense for the year was $699.6 million or $13.6 million over the budget of $686.0 million.

------

In short, they are not getting it by raising the gas tax or anything like that. So, yeah, if I were told I could get commuter rail but would pay higher fuel costs, I'd say no to it too. Sounds like a change in how Translink is funded is needed before expanding the WCE can happen.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

2-3 trains a week is effectively irrelevant. If it were at least 1 a day and reasonably on time, then maybe it would matter. Amtrak's Cascades is more relevant than Via's Canadian.

If the Skytrain is the best at densifying an area, explain how the cities of North Vancouver, Victoria, White Rock, Langley, and Duncan are all higher when they only have bus service to them. Below them are Port Coquitlam, Surrey, Richmond and Coquitlam which all have Skytrain. If anything, this shows that Skytrain does not do anything about density.

Easier than driving and cheaper than flying. Your words (or rather, your cousin's).

Does the phrase Pacific Ocean or ALR ring a bell? When you adjust for density over time, Burnaby and Richmond have almost doubled in people per square km since their SkyTrains came in ('86 and '09 respectively)... while Maple Ridge has had WCE since '95, and isn't even inclined to try. So much for commuter rail shaping anything.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Easier than driving and cheaper than flying. Your words (or rather, your cousin's).

London to Montreal is 700km.
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/London,+O...673919!2d45.5018869!3e0?hl=en&authuser=0

Vancouver to Golden is also 700km
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Vancouver...631367!2d51.2961188!3e0?hl=en&authuser=0

Vancouver to Calgary is about 1000km.
Vancouver to Edmonton is about 1,150 km.
Having a daily to them would make sense.
Having 2 trains a day would make sense.

I get the feeling you love your jacked up diesel truck.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Does the phrase Pacific Ocean or ALR ring a bell? When you adjust for density over time, Burnaby and Richmond have almost doubled in people per square km since their SkyTrains came in ('86 and '09 respectively)... while Maple Ridge has had WCE since '95, and isn't even inclined to try. So much for commuter rail shaping anything.

That still does not explain how North Vancouver, Victoria, and Duncan are more dense.