Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

From my time in Melbourne, I found the city centre to have alright, convenient, cheap (free in the CBD!) transit and the rail network was generally good, but the outer suburbs weren't great for transit at all (taking an uber to the airport was basically required) and they didn't really have a rapid transit system. Meanwhile in Metro Vancouver the Skytrain will soon extend all the way to the edge of the suburbs. And hot take, the Melbourne trams are no better than the Vancouver trolley bus system.

I don't doubt it. 12-20 minute headways? That's an excellent argument in favour of driving/ridesharing.

Point is, the detractors almost always use either Portland and Melbourne (sometimes a city on the East Coast) as examples of "good transit" we should be learning from... yet it appears that it's them who should be learning from us.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Portland and Melbourne don't even qualify? That's gotta sting.

60 cities over 5 regions, with approx. 12 selected by region. There's some selection bias too to include both high and lower level performers. There's also a focus on the largest cities in each region, so an accolade in itself that Vancouver makes it on the North America list. Melbourne just has way too much competition when lumped into the Asia-Pacific basket.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I don't doubt it. 12-20 minute headways? That's an excellent argument in favour of driving/ridesharing.

Point is, the detractors almost always use either Portland and Melbourne (sometimes a city on the East Coast) as examples of "good transit" we should be learning from... yet it appears that it's them who should be learning from us.

On top of that, people complain that the YVR -> Downtown Canada Line fare is $9, but the Melbourne Airport -> CBD Skybus fare is about $20 CAD ($22 AUD)!

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

And hot take, the Melbourne trams are no better than the Vancouver trolley bus system.

All trams are no better than trolley buses, without grade separation and/or dedicated right of ways, buses will always be functionally superior.

Come to think of it, Translink should do a rebrand of the trolleybuses when the new fleet arrives.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

All trams are no better than trolley buses, without grade separation and/or dedicated right of ways, buses will always be functionally superior.

Come to think of it, Translink should do a rebrand of the trolleybuses when the new fleet arrives.

There is one big benefit in that they can run 100ft trams while we max out at 60ft articulated busses, but a stalled bus can be easily removed from the overhead lines, a trolley bus can temporarily detach to go around any obstacles, and expansion is trivial (we simply moved a bunch of lines for construction of the Broadway Extension).

[Helvetia]

New accessibility tool being tested by TransLink: https://buzzer.translink.ca/2023/01/heres-how-translink-is-testing-new-navigation-technology/

Gotta love the changes TransLink have made in recent years to make their facilities more accessible!

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Helvetia

New accessibility tool being tested by TransLink: https://buzzer.translink.ca/2023/01/heres-how-translink-is-testing-new-navigation-technology/

Gotta love the changes TransLink have made in recent years to make their facilities more accessible!

It's an interesting idea, but I have a feeling that the demographic with poor eyesight and the demographic that will take out their phone to scan a decal don't overlap much. Seems like a super low cost and low impact solution, so if it works that's great.

[Mac Write]

and the code isn't scalable by the iPhone camera app which is a big loss. K.I.S.S.

Having to download another too ti read a new code………sigh.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

There is one big benefit in that they can run 100ft trams while we max out at 60ft articulated busses

That's true, and comparing costs the CAPEX works in favour of trolleys but the OPEX through reduced drivers & fleet maintenance likely tips things in favor of trams over time.

For example, a 100ft Flexity Freedom for example costs about $5M to $6M and the cost of an articulated trolley is probably in the range of $1.5M to $2.0M. Anywhere from $1M to $2M per unit. Assuming both require overhead wiring that costs approximately the same. We're left with the costs of track installation which for which, lets assume $2.0M per km, about $1M per km to repave the roads and about $1M per km to install the tracks.

Operating costs, assuming about $0.5M per year for maintenance and operator salaries per vehicle. So a net savings of $0.5M per Flexity Freedom on operating costs per year.

To convert all 160km of Vancouver's trolley network to trams that'd be $320M+ in extra capital costs over trolleys for the trackwork alone. With a fleet of 262 trolleys (assuming all are upgraded to articulated, so 131 Flexity Freedoms required), you're spending about an extra $131M to $262M on purchase costs (assume $200M extra for ballpark middle ground figure).

With 131 trams in this example, you'd be saving approximately $65.5M per year on operator & maintenance costs, and to repay a capital cost of $520M on an undiscounted basis, it would take approximately 8 years.

A detractor for trams in this scenario is that frequency would be reduced by half on all routes, which is something that drastically improves the viability of a route, in addition to the other obvious technical benefits of trolleybuses you had mentioned.

Considering a 12-km network of (mostly) greenfield streetcars/trams (fleet of 18) was quoted to the city at ~$1.1B, I'm also being very generous in this example towards the trolley to tram conversion possibility.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/downtown-vancouver-false-creek-streetcar-route-map

Conclusion: I still think trolleys are the better option and capital funds should be used for grade separated rail (i.e. Skytrain).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by mcj

That's true, and comparing costs the CAPEX works in favour of trolleys but the OPEX through reduced drivers & fleet maintenance likely tips things in favor of trams over time.

For example, a 100ft Flexity Freedom for example costs about $5M to $6M and the cost of an articulated trolley is probably in the range of $1.5M to $2.0M. Anywhere from $1M to $2M per unit. Assuming both require overhead wiring that costs approximately the same. We're left with the costs of track installation which for which, lets assume $2.0M per km, about $1M per km to repave the roads and about $1M per km to install the tracks.

Operating costs, assuming about $0.5M per year for maintenance and operator salaries per vehicle. So a net savings of $0.5M per Flexity Freedom on operating costs per year.

To convert all 160km of Vancouver's trolley network to trams that'd be $320M+ in extra capital costs over trolleys for the trackwork alone. With a fleet of 262 trolleys (assuming all are upgraded to articulated, so 131 Flexity Freedoms required), you're spending about an extra $131M to $262M on purchase costs (assume $200M extra for ballpark middle ground figure).

With 131 trams in this example, you'd be saving approximately $65.5M per year on operator & maintenance costs, and to repay a capital cost of $520M on an undiscounted basis, it would take approximately 8 years.

A detractor for trams in this scenario is that frequency would be reduced by half on all routes, which is something that drastically improves the viability of a route, in addition to the other obvious technical benefits of trolleybuses you had mentioned.

Considering a 12-km network of (mostly) greenfield streetcars/trams (fleet of 18) was quoted to the city at ~$1.1B, I'm also being very generous in this example towards the trolley to tram conversion possibility.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/downtown-vancouver-false-creek-streetcar-route-map

Conclusion: I still think trolleys are the better option and capital funds should be used for grade separated rail (i.e. Skytrain).

Your conclusion is reasonable, but your numbers for putting in tracks are way off. To install track and power to the 1.8km Olympic Line Streetcar (single track with double track passing) cost $8.5m in 2010. That's without moving services already in the street (as it was on an off-street right-of-way). It would be a lot more today, and even more with service relocation that would be necessary.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Your conclusion is reasonable, but your numbers for putting in tracks are way off. To install track and power to the 1.8km Olympic Line Streetcar (single track with double track passing) cost $8.5m in 2010. That's without moving services already in the street (as it was on an off-street right-of-way). It would be a lot more today, and even more with service relocation that would be necessary.

Didn't the Olympic Line just revitalize the existing rail bed? I don't think that $8.5m went towards all that much.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Didn't the Olympic Line just revitalize the existing rail bed? I don't think that $8.5m went towards all that much.

There wasn't much 'just' in revitalizing the track - it involved effectively rebuilding it, with new ties and ballast. It also had to have completely new power substations to supply power for the Bombadier trams.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There wasn't much 'just' in revitalizing the track - it involved effectively rebuilding it, with new ties and ballast. It also had to have completely new power substations to supply power for the Bombadier trams.

I was under the impression that ballast and sleeper replacement was closer to general maintenance than to rebuilding. All the power infrastructure of course did get built for that cost, you're right.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I was under the impression that ballast and sleeper replacement was closer to general maintenance than to rebuilding. All the power infrastructure of course did get built for that cost, you're right.

In the reconstruction of 1st Avenue in Southeast False Creek, a right of way in the median has
been reserved for a modern streetcar and provision is being made for returning the Downtown
Heritage Railway (DHR) until the future of the full Downtown Streetcar project is determined.
However, returning the DHR along 1st Avenue to Quebec and then Science World will be
challenging to implement before the 2010 Winter Games.
In the meantime, a consultant has advised that continuation of the DHR requires major
repairs and rehabilitation if the DHR service is to continue operating. Costs for repairing the
entire DHR alignment from Granville Island to Science World are $8.1 million, of which $2.3
million is needed immediately for the section of track west of Cambie.
Alternatively, the same single-track west of Cambie could be upgraded for $8.5 million to
support both the DHR and a modern demonstration streetcar. As there is a potential
opportunity for a streetcar demonstration project during the 2010 Winter Games, including a
funding contribution from CMHC Granville Island, the General Manager of Engineering Services
supports the latter option.
The decision for Council in the first instance is whether there is value in investing in repairing
the rights of way to accommodate continuation of the DHR. The City Manager supports
investment into maintaining ongoing DHR operations, in particular, the $2.3 million required
for the section of track west of Cambie. Beyond that is a question of whether it is more
appropriate to allocate another $5.7 million in City funding to either invest in continued DHR
operations from Granville Island to Science World or to upgrade the track from Granville
Island to the 2nd Avenue Canada Line Station to facilitate the streetcar demonstration project.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20080311/documents/tt3.pdf

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Your conclusion is reasonable, but your numbers for putting in tracks are way off. To install track and power to the 1.8km Olympic Line Streetcar (single track with double track passing) cost $8.5m in 2010. That's without moving services already in the street (as it was on an off-street right-of-way). It would be a lot more today, and even more with service relocation that would be necessary.

Yeah I was assuming best case scenario (economies of scale would dictate a 160km network would be cheaper per km than a 1.8km project) and using ballpark figures that some European cities are able to achieve. Also, I imagine that the $8.5M for the olympic line retrofit had some railbed rehab work that I'm assuming is already sufficient on a roadway.

[WarrenC12]

The reserved median down 1st from Quebec St. to the Cambie bridge has been a useless eyesore for years, and looks to be for decades to come.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Difficulties in negotiating right-of-way with BNSF.

Also, because I believe it was tacked on to the project... the idea being that they'd feel pressure to EXTEND the line, as opposed to running a surface-level LRT on Broadway... it also avoids having to do any construction work around Commercial Drive more than once.

Especially after it was determined that Phase II may not happen right away, they at least got a stub out to VCC.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Difficulties in negotiating right-of-way with BNSF.

Found this note about the Grandview Cut/BNSF

In 1990, the City purchased the north and south banks of the Grandview Cut from Burlington Northern Railway. Burlington Northern (now Burlington Northern Sante Fe) retains ownership of the land in the bottom of the ravine. Following the purchase, the City leased the north and south banks of the Cut to Burlington Northern for 99 years. Burlington Northern pays rent of $1.00 per year, and is responsible for repairing and maintaining the banks. In addition, the City assumed ownership of and liability for maintenance and replacement of the bridges over the Grandview Cut, for which Burlington Northern compensated the City.

https://council.vancouver.ca/previous_years/000201/a9.htm

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The reserved median down 1st from Quebec St. to the Cambie bridge has been a useless eyesore for years, and looks to be for decades to come.

next time you're on the street, stand in the middle median and look at the lamp standards on both sides. you'll see they are tilted back slightly. this was done on purpose with the intent to build the street car. the weight of the overhead lines would have pulled them upright to be straight. its kind of funny looking. i wonder when those poles need to be replaced, if they'll install them straight over slightly tilted.

they really did plan to build it! but it was killed long after it was planned.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

next time you're on the street, stand in the middle median and look at the lamp standards on both sides. you'll see they are tilted back slightly. this was done on purpose with the intent to build the street car. the weight of the overhead lines would have pulled them upright to be straight. its kind of funny looking. i wonder when those poles need to be replaced, if they'll install them straight over slightly tilted.

they really did plan to build it! but it was killed long after it was planned.

The Squamish Nation + Westbank are pushing for it again as part of Senakw so maybe we'll see some movement this decade.