Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Another way to look at it, the Coq was shut down while it was rebuilt. All the other highways were opened quicker, and so traffic could move again. By having a 3rd route across the mountains, and 4th route out of the Lower Mainland, it means that rail traffic may have moved sooner.

Actually, the Coquihalla fared much better than Highway 8, which was shut down for almost a year and reopened only a week ago.

I'm not sure why you think that the KVR would have survived any better than the other 3 rail routes and six highway corridors which take advantage of every valley route out of the lower mainland. There's already a lot of redundancy in terms of road and rail options, and adding another uneconomic route in the hopes that it might just possibly fare better than the other 8 in the event of a very rare weather event seems like a pretty dumb strategy to me.

It was an extraordinary event with unprecedented damage, but aside from the direct impact of the slides and floods, the transportation closures didn't seriously threaten any lives.

[logicbomb]

Ignore the economics for a second. The KVR goes through several reserves and towns which have seen population growth. It's also a widely used bike route. The rail-to-trails movement has been fantastic in preserving these routes for heavy recreational usage. Look at the Myra Canyon section for instance. Now imagine the uproar if multiple levels of government were to sign off on this. Hell, just look at how much resistance the pipeline faced and consider that railways pose way more risk with emissions and fluids seeping into the soil and groundwater table.

Rail routes are being consolidated across North America. It makes sense in mitigating risks and ensures main routes are maintained well.

The economics heavily favour trucking. It's dirt cheap to operate LTL operations. There's heavy competition that's being driven by new immigrant workers and temporary foreign workers. Operating railways, especially shorthaul has become cost prohibitive and maintenance of main routes has actually led to more optimization. You actually still see mainlines either being truncated or abandoned in the USA for this reason.

I'm not against rail transport. It would be environmentally and ecologically sustainable to develop a provincial/national electric rail network and would be even better for the environment if we could reduce the amount of truck freight by bringing back shorthaul operations however economics and politics trump all.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by scottN

Here's the wikipedia article for those who are interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zig_zag_(railway). I believe that this is the origin of the word "switchback" because switches were used. Locally the Stevens pass railway had real switchbacks before the completion of the first cascade tunnel.

None of those exist in Canada.
The 3rd picture was the one someone used to compare to KVR.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Actually, the Coquihalla fared much better than Highway 8, which was shut down for almost a year and reopened only a week ago.

I'm not sure why you think that the KVR would have survived any better than the other 3 rail routes and six highway corridors which take advantage of every valley route out of the lower mainland. There's already a lot of redundancy in terms of road and rail options, and adding another uneconomic route in the hopes that it might just possibly fare better than the other 8 in the event of a very rare weather event seems like a pretty dumb strategy to me.

It was an extraordinary event with unprecedented damage, but aside from the direct impact of the slides and floods, the transportation closures didn't seriously threaten any lives.

It was an extraordinary event, but it is expected that these events will become more frequent. Having more options make sense. However, until it makes economic sense to the companies, it will never happen. My original thought was not whether it should be brought back, but if it still existed whether it would have helped move freight in that time and now in the times of the ports being overburdened.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Ignore the economics for a second. The KVR goes through several reserves and towns which have seen population growth. It's also a widely used bike route. The rail-to-trails movement has been fantastic in preserving these routes for heavy recreational usage. Look at the Myra Canyon section for instance. Now imagine the uproar if multiple levels of government were to sign off on this. Hell, just look at how much resistance the pipeline faced and consider that railways pose way more risk with emissions and fluids seeping into the soil and groundwater table.

Rail routes are being consolidated across North America. It makes sense in mitigating risks and ensures main routes are maintained well.

The economics heavily favour trucking. It's dirt cheap to operate LTL operations. There's heavy competition that's being driven by new immigrant workers and temporary foreign workers. Operating railways, especially shorthaul has become cost prohibitive and maintenance of main routes has actually led to more optimization. You actually still see mainlines either being truncated or abandoned in the USA for this reason.

I'm not against rail transport. It would be environmentally and ecologically sustainable to develop a provincial/national electric rail network and would be even better for the environment if we could reduce the amount of truck freight by bringing back shorthaul operations however economics and politics trump all.

When the biggest thing companies care about is profits, we get what we have, which is a system that can easily be shut down. We are seeing that the consolidation of rail lines leave us vulnerable to extreme events.

We are also seeing that once the public gets something, they likely won't let it go, even though it was something more useful in the past.

We also have the perfect storm happening in the trucking world where there is a sever shortage of drivers, and they are paid low wages. That will cause more freight shippers to look back to the rail network, which is only going to make matters worse.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

When the biggest thing companies care about is profits, we get what we have, which is a system that can easily be shut down. We are seeing that the consolidation of rail lines leave us vulnerable to extreme events.

We are also seeing that once the public gets something, they likely won't let it go, even though it was something more useful in the past.

We also have the perfect storm happening in the trucking world where there is a sever shortage of drivers, and they are paid low wages. That will cause more freight shippers to look back to the rail network, which is only going to make matters worse.

It's more profitable to create a system without redundancies and risk shutdowns than create a redundant network that would require an insane amount of initial capital and bleed money for the first few years. That's capitalism 101. CP and CN are making record profits year after year and are seeing increased market shares, and much of this is driven by the consolidation of mainlines, abandonment and sale of ROW's and property (switchyards and facilities). A $500 billion dollar investment in a redundant network (and that's a conservative estimate) would be nearly impossible to sell to shareholders. I know CN and CP are fortifying structures along their existing network in the interior which is where money is best spent.

Industrial railroads are becoming a thing of the past. Made obsolete by trucks and again, a shortage of truck drivers is easily backfilled by our temporary foreign workers program and deregulation of the trucking industry which sees substandard trucks on the road along with unlicensed or "under licensed" drivers in them. It's practically dirt cheap to transport goods via trucks right now and things aren't expected to change anytime soon. It's not only cheap, but super convenient to get a an LTL shipment delivered from Vancouver/Surrey to Calgary via truck than be at the mercy of a trains schedule which can be a logistical nightmare at times due to delays. Also have to factor in that many new industrial complexes are being built far and away from rail lines due to expensive and scare industrial zones.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

It's more profitable to create a system without redundancies and risk shutdowns than create a redundant network that would require an insane amount of initial capital and bleed money for the first few years. That's capitalism 101. CP and CN are making record profits year after year and are seeing increased market shares, and much of this is driven by the consolidation of mainlines, abandonment and sale of ROW's and property (switchyards and facilities). A $500 billion dollar investment in a redundant network (and that's a conservative estimate) would be nearly impossible to sell to shareholders. I know CN and CP are fortifying structures along their existing network in the interior which is where money is best spent.

Industrial railroads are becoming a thing of the past. Made obsolete by trucks and again, a shortage of truck drivers is easily backfilled by our temporary foreign workers program and deregulation of the trucking industry which sees substandard trucks on the road along with unlicensed or "under licensed" drivers in them. It's practically dirt cheap to transport goods via trucks right now and things aren't expected to change anytime soon. It's not only cheap, but super convenient to get a an LTL shipment delivered from Vancouver/Surrey to Calgary via truck than be at the mercy of a trains schedule which can be a logistical nightmare at times due to delays. Also have to factor in that many new industrial complexes are being built far and away from rail lines due to expensive and scare industrial zones.

What you state, I already know. However, with the state of the employment in Canada, and the desire to go green and the whole world situation, these practices cannot last. The first change that will happen is the end of TFW for low paying jobs. That will start the fall of he house of cards of the race to the bottom.

I predict the 2020's will be the decade where the house of cards comes crashing down.What will be left will be companies that pay good wages and treat their employees better than slaves.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by scottN

Here's the wikipedia article for those who are interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zig_zag_(railway). I believe that this is the origin of the word "switchback" because switches were used. Locally the Stevens pass railway had real switchbacksbefore the completion of the first cascade tunnel.

Indeed, most of what people have been posting aren’t “switchbacks” in railway terminology.

This shows the old Stevens Pass switchbacks



Here in B.C. I can think of two historical examples. The Tiger Switchbacks on the original Columbia and Western line between Trail and Rossland, and the switchbacks on Mount Richards on the old Leonora and Mt. Sicker Railway.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'll see your five and raise you eleven: Dubai, Paris, London, Manchester, Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Denver, Montreal, Auckland, Brisbane. The other half of the planet, including San Fran, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, Osaka and Sydney, uses zoneless per-distance fares (like taxi metres), which is what I was talking about and what TransLink is considering. It's Toronto, Calgary and their flat fares which are the weirdos.

While this is true... the TTC is also not handling suburbs, like Mississauga. Translink goes from Langley/Maple Ridge all the way to the Lion's Bay.

While it's true that Toronto's 40x15km size would encompass more than the CoV (An equivalent would be about from UBC to Coquitlam, and Downtown to North Surrey/Richmond) the SkyTrain does extend further out than the TTC's subway... especially the Evergreen and Langley extensions.

And since riders prefer convenient over cheap, it'd be better to increase convenience instead, which if done right, raises revenue that can be spent on more convenience.

Exactly.

As for buses, I'm fine with them being flat fare anyhow, MOST bus routes are feeder routes (read: within about 1-zone) or are inconvenient. If the R-buses take off and offer a REAL time savings over time, I can see those buses costing more ( people will pay for convenience and speed )

Toronto has Heavy Rail GO Train... which is distance based. In Vancouver, that heavy rail job falls to SkyTrain, due to it being much faster than Toronto's Subway. I think I calculated that the average speed of the TTC Subway was 20–25km/h and SkyTrain averages roughly 35–40km/h but it's a long time since I did those calculations.

I remember SkyTrain being significantly faster overall, and that much of its speed was due to station spacing. Most stations are at least 1200m apart, compared to subway spacing commonly being 500–600m in quite a few areas.

This is what has allowed Vancouver to not DESPERATELY need commuter rail... although I DO think the city would be better off for it. The WCE is popular in part because it's comfortable... and right after convenience, people pay for comfort.

[Aroundtheworld]

Project Nexus - A Vision for Regional Rail in Southwest BC

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Project Nexus - A Vision for Regional Rail in Southwest BC

Quick look at it. It looks good,but most here won't agree.

[Migrant_Coconut]

So long as it remains a vision, it's a nice aspirational goal. The Cascadia HSR alone is pegged at 2-4x that lowball cost for the whole network.

They seem to have read my mind - skip the interurban altogether and "just" build the rail straight down the TCH. Still prohibitively expensive, but much less stupid.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

... and right after convenience, people pay for comfort.

Exactly

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Project Nexus - A Vision for Regional Rail in Southwest BC

A comprehensive vision that certainly belongs on the Transit Fantasy thread. Acknowledges that the cost estimates in the document are unrealistically very low - which is a) honest but also b) incredibly unhelpful.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So long as it remains a vision, it's a nice aspirational goal. The Cascadia HSR alone is pegged at 2-4x that lowball cost for the whole network.

They seem to have read my mind - skip the interurban altogether and "just" build the rail straight down the TCH. Still prohibitively expensive, but much less stupid.

Something to consider is that we in NA are paying an unnecessary premium for transportation projects. The actual cost of these projects may be higher than what is stated here but what we see now as projected costs for the Broadway and Langley Lines is not the norm worldwide.

In Spain and Italy because of smart design, construction and management processes, they are able to build similar infrastructure at about 1/2 to a 1/3rd the cost we build here.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Something to consider is that we in NA are paying an unnecessary premium for transportation projects. The actual cost of these projects may be higher than what is stated here but what we see now as projected costs for the Broadway and Langley Lines is not the norm worldwide.

In Spain and Italy because of smart design, construction and management processes, they are able to build similar infrastructure at about 1/2 to a 1/3rd the cost we build here.

But the $1.73bn Broadway extension construction is being built by a Spanish/Italian joint venture - and they were the lowest bidders. There is also a Spanish engineering firm on the design team. (The total budget is $1bn more than that, because it includes all the land acquisition and design work). It's hard to see how the costs could be significantly lower. (And the tunnelling on the ever-more-expensive Toronto Eglington LRT was done by the Canadian subsidiary of Dragados).

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Changing City

But the $1.73bn Broadway extension construction is being built by a Spanish/Italian joint venture - and they were the lowest bidders. There is also a Spanish engineering firm on the design team. The total budget is $1bn more than that because it includes all the land acquisition and design work. It's hard to see how the costs could be significantly lower.

Yes, but the tendering was handled as a lump-sum project instead of evaluating the prices item by item. Industry-wide, soft costs should be around 10%, though they are likely here (hard to tell because property acquisition and design are combined).

That consortium may be doing a good job but they are also probably charging much more for it than if they were building in either Italy or Spain. One of the problems we have here is we don't have the in-house expertise to design and call out poor bids.

For those interested in learning more about why transit projects are so expensive here, this article provides a decent summary.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

In Spain and Italy because of smart design, construction and management processes, they are able to build similar infrastructure at about 1/2 to a 1/3rd the cost we build here.

Don't forget more greenspace/less infill, less NIMBYs and less contractors. Not all of those are applicable here.

A large chunk of the SkyTrain budget is cost creep - and I'm sure more efficiencies would reduce it even further - but even at 50% of the current rates, ~$11 billion is ridiculously optimistic. 350 km x €‎25 million/km is close to $12 billion CAD.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Yes, but the tendering was handled as a lump-sum project instead of evaluating the prices item by item. Industry-wide, soft costs should be around 10%, though they are likely here (hard to tell because property acquisition and design are combined).

That consortium may be doing a good job but they are also probably charging much more for it than if they were building in either Italy or Spain. One of the problems we have here is we don't have the in-house expertise to design and call out poor bids.

For those interested in learning more about why transit projects are so expensive here, this article provides a decent summary.

But there were no lower bids to build the tunnel and stations. That suggests that even if there are Canadian companies qualified to do the work, they aren't cheaper. The idea that breaking up the contract into smaller bites could save costs is an interesting theory. It's equally likely that it could cost even more - and take a lot longer. Tunnelling (and that's what that Nexus idea is really - a series of tunnels all over the region and beyond) isn't straightforward or cheap here. Bilfinger-Berger walked away from the contract while trying to tunnel a water main for Metro Vancouver. A new 2.3 km long water tunnel under the Fraser River to be dug by Traylor-Aecon is costing $288m and will take over five years to finish (if it's on time). The same contractors just built the 1.1km 5.8m diameter water tunnel under the Second Narrows for $267m. (The total project cost is $445m).

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Don't forget more greenspace/less infill, less NIMBYs and less contractors. Not all of those are applicable here.

A large chunk of the SkyTrain budget is cost creep - and I'm sure more efficiencies would reduce it even further - but even at 50% of the current rates, ~$11 billion is ridiculously optimistic. 350 km x €‎25 million/km is close to $12 billion CAD.

If you look at the Italy paper I mentioned, most of those were for subway projects that ran through dense urban areas. In fact, I would say through areas a lot denser than what we have here. I'm also sure they have plenty of NIMBYs as well. (They also have to deal with things like archeological sites and disposing of unexploded war ordinances).

The $11 B estimate may end up being low. A more detailed estimate is currently underway, however, the numbers so far seem to track. If there's going to be an increase, it will be in the 20-50% range, not 100%.

Originally Posted by Changing City

But there were no lower bids to build the tunnel and stations. That suggests that even if there are Canadian companies qualified to do the work, they aren't cheaper. The idea that breaking up the contract into smaller bites could save costs is an interesting theory. It's equally likely that it could cost even more - and take a lot longer. Tunnelling (and that's what that Nexus idea is really - a series of tunnels all over the region and beyond) isn't straightforward or cheap here. Bilfinger-Berger walked away from the contract while trying to tunnel a water main for Metro Vancouver. A new 2.3 km long water tunnel under the Fraser River to be dug by Traylor-Aecon is costing $288m and will take over five years to finish (if it's on time). The same contractors just built the 1.1km 5.8m diameter water tunnel under the Second Narrows for $267m. (The total project cost is $445m).

You're right, tunnelling is expensive and Metro Vancouver's soil conditions are particularly complex. And your point about breaking up the project into smaller pieces does make some intuitive sense. However, experience has shown in places like Copenhagen that when there is competition, the price goes down. It probably doesn't make sense to break most tunnels down into pieces but these projects can be broken down in other ways (different tenders for electrification, signalling, etc.)

The tunnels you mention aren't particularly long, something which explains why their costs are relatively high. A TBM is like a tunnel-building factory; much of the cost is getting the factory set up. Having longer tunnels reduces the cost per km substantially. Updated versions of this proposal will factor things like this in.

[swimmer_spe]

I am noticing a theme.
Migrant and Changing are both against pretty much anything that Translink already has planned.
Makes me wonder if they are lobbyists for it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

If you look at the Italy paper I mentioned, most of those were for subway projects that ran through dense urban areas. In fact, I would say through areas a lot denser than what we have here. I'm also sure they have plenty of NIMBYs as well. (They also have to deal with things like archeological sites and disposing of unexploded war ordinances).

The $11 B estimate may end up being low. A more detailed estimate is currently underway, however, the numbers so far seem to track. If there's going to be an increase, it will be in the 20-50% range, not 100%.

AFAIK most train construction protests in Europe have environmental concerns or think the money could be spent elsewhere... as opposed to North Americans who often just hate trains near their houses altogether.

Once again, the Cascadia HSR alone is $26-42 billion, and that's from the experts who want it. 350 km at North American prices would start at $31.5B, and we'd attempt to water it down to $15-20B.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

You're right, tunnelling is expensive and Metro Vancouver's soil conditions are particularly complex. And your point about breaking up the project into smaller pieces does make some intuitive sense. However, experience has shown in places like Copenhagen that when there is competition, the price goes down. It probably doesn't make sense to break most tunnels down into pieces but these projects can be broken down in other ways (different tenders for electrification, signalling, etc.)

There's already competition for our subway contracts... and cost savings there are usually in the form of cut 'n cover or less station escalators or smaller platforms. It's safe to say that BC has probably bled the turnip as dry as it can be for now.