Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are you his boss at Translink, keeping tabs on his trolling?

yeah, you aren't real at this point.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

You should check out the fantasy thread, there are some very fleshed out plans there, however, that doesn't make them not fantasies. There's nothing wrong with fantasy plans since they can help shape public sentiment, but without any commitment from any level of government, these are all still just fantasies. And also just because something is a fantasy doesn't necessarily mean it can't in the future become reality. I'm sure people here were talking about SkyTrain lines to the North Shore before Translink started talking about it.

And I wouldn't call the costs "reasonable" either. Whoever created this forgot about station construction ($50-100m per stop), so with eleven elevated or tunnelled stations, the heavy rail alone will be at least $550-1,100 million more than their submitted guesstimate; property acquisitions and vehicle purchases are only going to add to that. $9 billion? Tell them they're dreaming.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Who wrote it?

The people behind MVX. This is a more advanced version of it and there will be more advanced versions to come.

I'm fine with moving this to the Fantasy Threads. However, my counterargument is as you can see some of the parties involved hold political office and the goal is for this to become more than 'lines on a map' someday.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And I wouldn't call the costs "reasonable" either. Whoever created this forgot about station construction ($50-100m per stop), so with eleven elevated or tunnelled stations, the heavy rail alone will be at least $550-1,100 million more than their submitted guesstimate; property acquisitions and vehicle purchases are only going to add to that. $9 billion? Tell them they're dreaming.

The station construction is factored into the cost estimates. They are listed on Page 6. They are very ballpark and will change once a more detailed design of the stations has been developed. Vehicle costs have also been factored in but as an operating cost.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You’re quite correct – that’s a US site, so they use miles. But that means they also use US dollars, so the 2009 Barcelona line cost over $200m per km to build. That was 13 years ago – and have you seen what went wrong with that contract? It had an overspend of $5 billion euros (nearly 7 billion Canadian) – and came in three times the original 2002 budget, and many years delayed. Except it didn’t come in – the whole thing was paused for ten years. They’re only now tunneling the final 4 km link which will cost 926m euros (1.28m CA$), so just over $400m per km. That’s for a 12m diameter tunnel, with the two lines stacked on top of each other.

Converting to kilometers and Canadian dollars means Seattle (2016) was $496/km, Los Angeles (Purple) is $661/km, Melbourne and Sidney are each $620/km, and the Chinese example in Hangzhou ten years ago was $190/km. (We're at $500/km for Broadway). York-Spadina in Toronto was $372m/km over 5 years ago, and was only partly underground. Nothing was close to $100/km

If you’re proposing a 13m diameter tunnel, that’s likely to be more expensive than two smaller bore tunnels. The area of the head is over 530 sq metres. Broadway has two 6m tunnels. Those only displace 113 sq metres of material each, so 226 in total – less than half your huge tunnel. That’s a lot more material to have to dispose of, and more than twice the opportunity to meet rogue glacial boulders that slow everything down.

Any examples of four trains in the same tunnel?

You bring up some good points. Barcelona Line 9 was one of the first of its kind and a lot of lessons were learned from it that are now being applied to similar wide-bore projects. They also didn't follow all of the best practices such as standardized stations and I would argue the urban context was more challenging than it is for this project.

The best research I've seen indicates that costs scale linearly with diameter when it comes to TBMs, not quadratically (i.e. a 10 m diameter tunnel will be 2x more expensive than a 5 m tunnel, not 4x). Of course, it starts to grow exponentially towards the upper end as large TBMs become increasingly rare. However, the wide-bore projects and the machines that build them have become more common and technology has advanced to deal with challenging geology such as dealing with glacial erratics. You're right that bigger machines come with bigger risks, however, there are also significant savings when it comes to stations, crossovers and junctions - all of which need to be looked at.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

The people behind MVX. This is a more advanced version of it and there will be more advanced versions to come.

I'm fine with moving this to the Fantasy Threads. However, my counterargument is as you can see some of the parties involved hold political office and the goal is for this to become more than 'lines on a map' someday.

The whole point of the fantasy tread is to generate ideas for serious projects that might be more than a line on a map someday. It's probably not the right name for the thread, but initial thread names are often not a perfect representation of what they contain.

I see MVX is suggesting $195m/km for tunnels, which is very different from the Nexus ideas, but still a lot less than anything built recently here. It'll be interesting to see what actual estimates might be to build the line (rather than using the numbers from a Seattle study, planned in a somewhat different context).

Comparing the idea of MVX to Brightline West (the Las Vegas / LA railway that isn't actually under construction or fully funded yet) is a bit disingenuous. That's mainly single track that will run down the centre median of the freeway, and only goes to Palmdale so that it doesn't have to be built within Greater LA, (which would be much more expensive and difficult). MVX does the opposite and goes right through the centre of Vancouver in its current design. Brightline West also only has 3 stations - at either end, and one with limited service at Hesperia.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

The people behind MVX. This is a more advanced version of it and there will be more advanced versions to come.

I'm fine with moving this to the Fantasy Threads. However, my counterargument is as you can see some of the parties involved hold political office and the goal is for this to become more than 'lines on a map' someday.

Oh that's interesting. Good on them! Though, looks like it glossed over a lot of elements, which is fine. They do seem to love tunnels and trains!

Ya this whole concept seems to be more fantasy, for sure. I'm absolutely keen to discuss PhD student discussion papers, but there definitely isn't a "reality" of it, so to speak.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

You bring up some good points. Barcelona Line 9 was one of the first of its kind and a lot of lessons were learned from it that are now being applied to similar wide-bore projects. They also didn't follow all of the best practices such as standardized stations and I would argue the urban context was more challenging than it is for this project.

The best research I've seen indicates that costs scale linearly with diameter when it comes to TBMs, not quadratically (i.e. a 10 m diameter tunnel will be 2x more expensive than a 5 m tunnel, not 4x). Of course, it starts to grow exponentially towards the upper end as large TBMs become increasingly rare. However, the wide-bore projects and the machines that build them have become more common and technology has advanced to deal with challenging geology such as dealing with glacial erratics. You're right that bigger machines come with bigger risks, however, there are also significant savings when it comes to stations, crossovers and junctions - all of which need to be looked at.

There's an interesting comparable project in San Francisco - the BART extension to San Jose. The design has switched between two bore and single bore, and is currently single bore with two stacked tracks, but they're reconfiguring some to side-by-side in part (in the same single bore tunnel). It's 10 km (6 miles) with four stations and budgeted at $6.8bn US (9.3bn CA) but could cost closer to $9.1bn (12.2bn CA). That's works out at $930 to 1,220 (Canadian) per km!

The choice between single and twin bore is a trade-off - there's only one machine (but the smaller ones cost less), there's less material to have to dispose of with twin bore, and they're also closer to the surface so offer better accessibility and lower travel times for passengers. The Spanish seem to always use the 6m twin bore, and that's what we had here for Canada Line and Broadway.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

The people behind MVX. This is a more advanced version of it and there will be more advanced versions to come.

I'm fine with moving this to the Fantasy Threads. However, my counterargument is as you can see some of the parties involved hold political office and the goal is for this to become more than 'lines on a map' someday.

So, this is kind of on the edge?
It has people in power who support it, and it has been fleshed out on the surface so it could be put forth as a plan?
That does not sound like fantasy. It sounds more like the beginning stages of a plan. The only element missing is approval and funding

Originally Posted by Changing City

The whole point of the fantasy tread is to generate ideas for serious projects that might be more than a line on a map someday. It's probably not the right name for the thread, but initial thread names are often not a perfect representation of what they contain.

This is why I feel you are either an employee of Translink, a lobbyist for Translink, or the real troll here.

A fantasy thread, on any other forum is things that are unrealistic ideas that could never exist.

An example is HSR between Vancouver and Calgary. It is quite obvious that there is no realistic way that this can be built for a reasonable cost and be used enough to make it viable.

An example of what is not fantasy is expanding WCE to other lines in the Lower Mainland. It can be done at a reasonable cost, and could be used enough to make it viable.

If you are stuck on that, maybe you should change your city.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

An example of what is not fantasy is expanding WCE to other lines in the Lower Mainland. It can be done at a reasonable cost, and could be used enough to make it viable.

If you are stuck on that, maybe you should change your city.

Right, but you need dedicated tracks, double tracks, and a ROW. If the Province took over WCE from TransLink, maybe, or if Abbotsford signs on to pay the extra $$ to join WCE service, I guess (and money for a new bridge from Mission to Abbotsford too).

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There's an interesting comparable project in San Francisco - the BART extension to San Jose. The design has switched between two bore and single bore, and is currently single bore with two stacked tracks, but they're reconfiguring some to side-by-side in part (in the same single bore tunnel). It's 10 km (6 miles) with four stations and budgeted at $6.8bn US (9.3bn CA) but could cost closer to $9.1bn (12.2bn CA). That's works out at $930 to 1,220 (Canadian) per km!

The choice between single and twin bore is a trade-off - there's only one machine (but the smaller ones cost less), there's less material to have to dispose of with twin bore, and they're also closer to the surface so offer better accessibility and lower travel times for passengers. The Spanish seem to always use the 6m twin bore, and that's what we had here for Canada Line and Broadway.

I'm not going to even compare it to a project in the US because the whole cost escalation situation there is out of control. The amount of over-regulation (they require Environmental Assessments for projects that run through built-up areas!) and political interference is ridiculous that you end up with stupid figures like this.

There are indeed a lot of advantages for twin bores, however, they work best in certain situations. If you can build your stations without requiring a mezzanine with them, that is ideal. Some of the tunnels mentioned in Project Nexus are being updated to twin bores because they make sense there, such as the tunnel going to YVR.

However, twin bores stop making sense in other situations, particularly where you are required to go deep and where you might not have a good footprint for your stations. They also become more expensive and complicated when you require crossovers and junctions with other tunnels. Many of these tunnels are intended to be shared with future rapid transit expansions in order to utilize infrastructure more effectively. In these cases, it makes sense to go with a wide bore.

A last thing I wanted to mention is that only 20% of the planned network is tunnels. Most of it (71%) will be at-grade. This includes significant portions through Vancouver along the BNSF/CN ROW. The previous interation made by MVX assumed high-speed rail and tunnels everywhere. This plan mostly assumes a top-speed of 160-200 kph.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I'm fine with moving this to the Fantasy Threads. However, my counterargument is as you can see some of the parties involved hold political office and the goal is for this to become more than 'lines on a map' someday.

I wouldn't claim Nathan Pachal as a credential; he's a very enthusiastic amateur who basically wants transit to Langley no matter what it looks like.

For comparison, the most recent Rail for the Valley pitch had an ex-premier, ex-mayor and UBC professor on their side... TransLink outright said No, and the Province opted to humour them a bit longer before probably reaching the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

A last thing I wanted to mention is that only 20% of the planned network is tunnels. Most of it (71%) will be at-grade. This includes significant portions through Vancouver along the BNSF/CN ROW. The previous interation made by MVX assumed high-speed rail and tunnels everywhere. This plan mostly assumes a top-speed of 160-200 kph.

So they're planning to widen the Cut? This thread just spent multiple pages explaining why that's not going to be cheap or easy either.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I'm not going to even compare it to a project in the US because the whole cost escalation situation there is out of control. The amount of over-regulation (they require Environmental Assessments for projects that run through built-up areas!) and political interference is ridiculous that you end up with stupid figures like this.

There are indeed a lot of advantages for twin bores, however, they work best in certain situations. If you can build your stations without requiring a mezzanine with them, that is ideal. Some of the tunnels mentioned in Project Nexus are being updated to twin bores because they make sense there, such as the tunnel going to YVR.

However, twin bores stop making sense in other situations, particularly where you are required to go deep and where you might not have a good footprint for your stations. They also become more expensive and complicated when you require crossovers and junctions with other tunnels. Many of these tunnels are intended to be shared with future rapid transit expansions in order to utilize infrastructure more effectively. In these cases, it makes sense to go with a wide bore.

A last thing I wanted to mention is that only 20% of the planned network is tunnels. Most of it (71%) will be at-grade. This includes significant portions through Vancouver along the BNSF/CN ROW. The previous interation made by MVX assumed high-speed rail and tunnels everywhere. This plan mostly assumes a top-speed of 160-200 kph.

Well for now the published details of MVX look like 'a line on the map'. Oddly, the 'vision' doesn't mention how long the route is, or how much is at grade, tunneled or elevated, so it's hard to tell whether the costs are in the ballpark or overly optimistic. At least Nexus (which was apparently generated by Lee Haber), had the various sections shown in detail - even if the assumptions were breathtakingly naive in places.

If 20% of MVX is tunneled, I estimate that's about 45 km of tunnel that's proposed (The route shown is about 225km). Even if you could really build tunnels at $195/km (which seems very unlikely) that's $8.8bn. If 71% is at grade then using the report's $28m a km that's $4.5bn. The other 9% is presumably elevated, so that's $3bn. So just the track route adds up to $16.3bn, before stations ($0.9bn if the report numbers could be achieved) and we're over $17bn, and that's without buying any land, or trains, or the power supply to run the (presumably electric) trains. It's also using what look to me to be extraordinarily optimistic cost estimates and some assumptions about available rights of way that are challenged by reality.

That means the quoted $7-16bn cost estimate has to be way too low. Which (sadly) undermines the credibility of the report, and the idea.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, this is kind of on the edge?
It has people in power who support it, and it has been fleshed out on the surface so it could be put forth as a plan?
That does not sound like fantasy. It sounds more like the beginning stages of a plan. The only element missing is approval and funding

The "people in power" is one Langley city council member. That's hardly enough to get the ball rolling, when most of the funding will need to come from the Provincial and Federal governments.

And you make "approval and funding" sound like trivial matters, when funding is the biggest barrier to any large infrastructure project.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is why I feel you are either an employee of Translink, a lobbyist for Translink, or the real troll here.

A fantasy thread, on any other forum is things that are unrealistic ideas that could never exist.

An example is HSR between Vancouver and Calgary. It is quite obvious that there is no realistic way that this can be built for a reasonable cost and be used enough to make it viable.

An example of what is not fantasy is expanding WCE to other lines in the Lower Mainland. It can be done at a reasonable cost, and could be used enough to make it viable.

If you are stuck on that, maybe you should change your city.

If you've finished your homework, why don't you go and play with your train set?

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I wouldn't claim Nathan Pachal as a credential; he's a very enthusiastic amateur who basically wants transit to Langley no matter what it looks like.

For comparison, the most recent Rail for the Valley pitch had an ex-premier, ex-mayor and UBC professor on their side... TransLink outright said No, and the Province opted to humour them a bit longer before probably reaching the same conclusion.


So they're planning to widen the Cut? This thread just spent multiple pages explaining why that's not going to be cheap or easy either.

Nathan Pachal was just elected Mayor of Langley City and Michael Pratt was elected to the council of Langley Township. No doubt there is a long way to go in terms of developing the vision and getting buy-in, however, the intention is to make something credible that is investor-worthy (whether private or public).

The Grandview Cut actually doesn't need to be widened. The next iteration will show that the preferred solution is to essentially have a new viaduct run along the southern portion of the cut.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Well for now the published details of MVX look like 'a line on the map'. Oddly, the 'vision' doesn't mention how long the route is, or how much is at grade, tunneled or elevated, so it's hard to tell whether the costs are in the ballpark or overly optimistic. At least Nexus (which was apparently generated by Lee Haber), had the various sections shown in detail - even if the assumptions were breathtakingly naive in places.

If 20% of MVX is tunneled, I estimate that's about 45 km of tunnel that's proposed (The route shown is about 225km). Even if you could really build tunnels at $195/km (which seems very unlikely) that's $8.8bn. If 71% is at grade then using the report's $28m a km that's $4.5bn. The other 9% is presumably elevated, so that's $3bn. So just the track route adds up to $16.3bn, before stations ($0.9bn if the report numbers could be achieved) and we're over $17bn, and that's without buying any land, or trains, or the power supply to run the (presumably electric) trains. It's also using what look to me to be extraordinarily optimistic cost estimates and some assumptions about available rights of way that are challenged by reality.

That means the quoted $7-16bn cost estimate has to be way too low. Which (sadly) undermines the credibility of the report, and the idea.

Keep in mind the density of stations is far lower than it is for a typical subway system, something that brings the cost figure down. Also, some of that tunnel will be cut-and-cover. I have no idea how you are getting $28 M/km for at-grade; that portion could be done at less than $10 M/km which includes electrification. And that's for double track. (Some outlying sections will be single-track or use existing tracks.)

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Keep in mind the density of stations is far lower than it is for a typical subway system, something that brings the cost figure down. Also, some of that tunnel will be cut-and-cover. I have no idea how you are getting $28 M/km for at-grade; that portion could be done at less than $10 M/km which includes electrification. And that's for double track. (Some outlying sections will be single-track or use existing tracks.)

It's in the report, at a range of $13m - $28m. As I have no idea which is the more expensive, and which cheaper, I used the higher end. I also looked at the VIA Toronto to Montral new electrified line, which is estimated at $18.5m to $22m/km where the right-of-way already exists 100% of the way. There's no suggestion the MVX could be below $13m - I guess $20m is a mid point, so it might scrape in at the $16bn if things really costed as little as you seem to suggest. But that's without the contingency of 30%.

The idea of an elevated guideway on the south side of The Cut is interesting, but if CN build their proposed second track, there won't be much space, and I'm not sure how the guideway could be constructed without widening The Cut, or closing the railway down (which I don't think is likely). The elevation of the guideway would be critical, as it presumably has to be high enough to clear double-stack container trains running alongside, and low enough to fit underneath all the bridges that cross the cut.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Right, but you need dedicated tracks, double tracks, and a ROW. If the Province took over WCE from TransLink, maybe, or if Abbotsford signs on to pay the extra $$ to join WCE service, I guess (and money for a new bridge from Mission to Abbotsford too).

You may need new bridges, but there is no need for dedicated tracks or ROW. Fix the choke points and the traffic will not be as high.

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The "people in power" is one Langley city council member. That's hardly enough to get the ball rolling, when most of the funding will need to come from the Provincial and Federal governments.

And you make "approval and funding" sound like trivial matters, when funding is the biggest barrier to any large infrastructure project.

Approval and funding is the hardest barrier to get through. I know that.

Having 1 voice is how everything starts. The fact it is someone where no real higher order transit exists actually is a good thing. They tend to be the louder voices and seem to get action. Don't believe me? When does the Surrey LRT begin construction?

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's in the report, at a range of $13m - $28m. As I have no idea which is the more expensive, and which cheaper, I used the higher end. I also looked at the VIA Toronto to Montral new electrified line, which is estimated at $18.5m to $22m/km where the right-of-way already exists 100% of the way. There's no suggestion the MVX could be below $13m - I guess $20m is a mid point, so it might scrape in at the $16bn if things really costed as little as you seem to suggest. But that's without the contingency of 30%.

The idea of an elevated guideway on the south side of The Cut is interesting, but if CN build their proposed second track, there won't be much space, and I'm not sure how the guideway could be constructed without widening The Cut, or closing the railway down (which I don't think is likely). The elevation of the guideway would be critical, as it presumably has to be high enough to clear double-stack container trains running alongside, and low enough to fit underneath all the bridges that cross the cut.

I try to avoid Canadian cost figures because they suffer from the same cost inflation issues that exist elsewhere in the English-speaking world. Using an Italian cost figure as a basis (adjusted for Canadian purposes to account for 20% higher construction costs), a surface embankment railway should cost anywhere from $2.3 M/km to $10.9 M/km (the latter being a 9 m high embankment). Electrification adds about another $2.5 M/km. So in total, if we're going with a double-tracked 9 m high embankment, we get to that $13 M figure. Perhaps the VIA figure is higher because some of it is happening in remote areas but I think cost inflation is the bigger reason.

In Italy, they typically don't add contingencies or if they do they are much smaller (10%). The reason for this is that if you allow for a contingency, contractors will find ways to eat it up. Instead, they have systems that minimize change orders and contract disputes such as itemized contracts and a person whose sole job is to scrutinize scope changes.

Finally, the Grandview Cut is 47 m wide at Commercial Drive, wide enough to accommodate the Millennium Line, Regional Rail, platforms for both and two freight tracks. This is the section where the space demands for transit are at their greatest. The southern slope will need to re-graded like the northern slope but the overall footprint of the cut does not need to be enlarged.