Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

And only 3 times the population. It is almost BC isn;t as green as they like to say. Imagine if they were closer based on a per capita what could happen, like maybe the E&N restored....


You stated those numbers are, like WCE, the current pandemic numbers. You stated the WCE was at 20% of their pre covid numbers. I simply used your numbers. Give better numbers. Remember, garbage in, garbage out.

We are; they've got 1.3-3x our emissions per capita. Guess commuter rail doesn't do jack in that regard.

Keep imagining it. Politics, economies of scale and unconscious bias say otherwise.

In your case, just garbage out. Every other poster has managed to follow the plot, but you got tripped up by your own mental gymnastics.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It would benefit more than just the potential riders. It also benefits the drivers stuck in traffic as they may have a slightly better commute. It also benefits those stuck living in the city and want to move but housing is too expensive as they ma move up island if a reliable means of transportation exists.


It is not my problem if you do not understand how to add and multiply.


All transit was down during covid across not just WCE or even BC, or Canada, but the world. Provide pre pandemic numbers, from 2019. Then no one needs to do anything more than adding.

According to the Province, 24,500 vehicles use the Malahat every day, and 84,070 total cross into Victoria. 1,500 riders, even if they're all former drivers, works out to 2% less traffic. Drivers won't even notice the difference.
Now if we were to build rapid transit from Langford to Victoria and get even 20k (Langley extension's pegged at 56k on Day 1, it's not impossible), that's 24% less traffic and a TCH that's back to normal.

If it were just adding and multiplying, we wouldn't need a Department of Transportation.

Those are the pre-pandemic numbers. They still suck balls. Cope harder.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

When the Malahat is shut down for hours, it is not reliable.

Both roads and rails close when you least want them to. Such is life.

[jollyburger]

Amtrak to restart Seattle-Vancouver Cascades run earlier than expected
"The more modes of transportation that we have, the more accessible transportation becomes, the better it is." — Walt Judas, CEO of the Tourism Industry Association of B.C.

Amtrak will restore another cross-border link in the region’s tourism industry by restarting its Cascades service between Vancouver and Seattle two months earlier than expected.

The U.S. passenger rail operator said this week it will resume once-daily service on the picturesque route starting Sept. 26, after being shut down since 2020 due to COVID-19 border closures, which is welcome news to the tourism sector on this side of the border.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...-than-expected

[twoNeurons]

Any thoughts on the $300M for Cascadia HSR in news lately? Is this just a re-announcement?

Does anyone know what corridors they are most actively studying? I'm going to assume that any line through Canada will have a minimum of a station in Surrey as well as Vancouver. Although it may complicate border procedures, this would an expensive line if we didn't at least get a local commuter out of it as well.

I've seen one proposal that went through Delta and ended around the Airport, which is interesting... but a route to one of the Vancouver stations after that wasn't clear.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Best to wait and see. Trying to get $3 billion for a train in BC is already like reenacting the Passion of the Christ, so $24-42 billion is probably a long way away, even if WA foots most of the bill.

Not sure why anybody'd come all the way from America just to go to YVR; Seattle and Portland have international airports of their own. I believe there was talk of a station at either King George or Waterfront, which makes sense. If Christmas comes early, they'll do both, and then we'd have a Fast Pass for the Expo Line.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I've seen one proposal that went through Delta and ended around the Airport, which is interesting... but a route to one of the Vancouver stations after that wasn't clear.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not sure why anybody'd come all the way from America just to go to YVR; Seattle and Portland have international airports of their own. I believe there was talk of a station at either King George or Waterfront, which makes sense. If Christmas comes early, they'll do both, and then we'd have a Fast Pass for the Expo Line.

I suppose the rational is you connect to the Canada Line for trips downtown, much the same way a traveller into YVR would take the Canada Line (or a taxi) downtown. Maybe Templeton will finally have a purpose?

Given infinite budget, of course we'd like to see a downtown Surrey and downtown Vancouver station, but maybe it's more realistic to have a connection in downtown Surrey and then a straight shot west across Queensborough and Richmond East to YVR?

[Migrant_Coconut]

I mean whatever - if we're already talking about $20B+ construction costs, we might as well go full pie-in-the-sky and tack on another half billion for a second station.

But if we really have to pick just one, it's probably got to be Waterfront or Pacific Central (downtown, and already equipped to handle large volumes of interregional visitors). After all, I'd hate for the Seattle stop to be in Northgate.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Maybe Templeton will finally have a purpose?

I have a weird feeling we'll need a connecting monorail between the Canada Line and South Terminal in the far future...

[chowhou]

I actually take it back, why bother transferring to the Canada Line in Richmond when you could transfer to the Expo Line in Surrey (other than avoiding Surrey )?

It either makes sense to do balls-to-the-walls Surrey + Vancouver or neither and terminate at YVR, not something in between.

[scottN]

I don't see the point of a stop at YVR. It's not like americans are flooding across the border to access our cheap domestic flights. . . .

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by scottN

I don't see the point of a stop at YVR. It's not like americans are flooding across the border to access our cheap domestic flights. . . .

Shared border services and immigration staff? The airport already has the infrastructure to process people leaving for the US, and arriving in Canada. Having one location would be more efficient for staffing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

So does Pacific Central - that one's a customs area, a train station and located downtown.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So does Pacific Central - that one's a customs area, a train station and located downtown.

There's no comparison between slowly processing a few people catching the one train a day out, or arriving at whatever time the one coming to Canada finally limps in, and a high-speed regular scheduled service. And the train stops at the US border and is inspected while sitting on the tracks. That's not what will be needed in future. Could there be two locations? Of course, but having one would be more efficient. (Who knows what they do with someone who arrives on the train and is not allowed into Canada? They're already here, and they can hardly put them on the next train back to the US - there's nowhere secure to detain them).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There's no comparison between slowly processing a few people catching the one train a day out, or arriving at whatever time the one coming to Canada finally limps in, and a high-speed regular scheduled service. And the train stops at the US border and is inspected while sitting on the tracks. That's not what will be needed in future. Could there be two locations? Of course, but having one would be more efficient. (Who knows what they do with someone who arrives on the train and is not allowed into Canada? They're already here, and they can hardly put them on the next train back to the US - there's nowhere secure to detain them).

That sounds like more of an argument for giving Pacific Central a much-needed upgrade and expansion (or building a large terminal in Surrey). YVR may be preferable in terms of border security, but that's the only thing going for it.

[officedweller]

Having a teminus station in Surrey also eliminates the requirement for a [high level?] bridge across the Fraser River.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Having a teminus station in Surrey also eliminates the requirement for a [high level?] bridge across the Fraser River.

Given the geography, Fraser River shipping requirements, and also property values in Surrey, I'd imagine that once crossing the Serpentine River anything further in Surrey and Vancouver would be tunnelled. I highly doubt Fleetwood or Newton (swing ridings!) would willingly accept surface level HSR tearing through their neighbourhoods (literally and figuratively).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I highly doubt Fleetwood or Newton (swing ridings!) would willingly accept surface level HSR tearing through their neighbourhoods (literally and figuratively).

Except the BNSF New Westminster Sub roughly follows the 91 and the Fraser, so it effectively avoids both Fleetwood and Newton. I suspect you are thinking of the SRY Fraser Valley Sub, but that would likely be a significant detour (unless they reroute the track from the boarder parallel to the Pacific Highway, which I guess is an option). HSR needs to be fully grade separated, so you want to avoid neighbourhoods with lots of cross streets.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Given the geography, Fraser River shipping requirements, and also property values in Surrey, I'd imagine that once crossing the Serpentine River anything further in Surrey and Vancouver would be tunnelled. ...

Could be, as an HSR tunnel would probably avoid the spirals needed for a a new New Westminster rail bridge (since there are no existing lines to connect with), but a new New Westminster rail bridge is probably a higher priority for a river croissing (of any kind) than an HSR crossing.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Except the BNSF New Westminster Sub roughly follows the 91 and the Fraser, so it effectively avoids both Fleetwood and Newton. I suspect you are thinking of the SRY Fraser Valley Sub, but that would likely be a significant detour (unless they reroute the track from the boarder parallel to the Pacific Highway, which I guess is an option). HSR needs to be fully grade separated, so you want to avoid neighbourhoods with lots of cross streets.

I'm not thinking of either. If they're truly faithful to "high speed" rail, neither of these lines is rated for HSR speeds as far as I'm aware, not to mention the requirement to share track time with freight. I mentioned tunneling under Surrey as a potential RoW with a corresponding tunnel under the Fraser as an alternative to a bridge over the Fraser which would have at-grade or above-grade rail in downtown Surrey and would require a RoW cut through Newton or Fleetwood to handle the elevation change. No one's going to like that.

When I say tear literally and figuratively, I'm referring to the earthworks that would be required along with the fast zoom trains.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Could be, as an HSR tunnel would probably avoid the spirals needed for a a new New Westminster rail bridge (since there are no existing lines to connect with), but a new New Westminster rail bridge is probably a higher priority for a river croissing (of any kind) than an HSR crossing.

In a perfect world, we'd segregate freight traffic RoW from passenger traffic RoW. I'm not sure how realistic that is, though.

[logan5]

The HSR section between Surrey and Vancouver could be used as commuter rail. It would provide relief for both Skytrain and TCH. Surrey to Downtown Vancouver in Probly less than 10 minutes would be a popular commuting option.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I'm not thinking of either. If they're truly faithful to "high speed" rail, neither of these lines is rated for HSR speeds as far as I'm aware, not to mention the requirement to share track time with freight. I mentioned tunneling under Surrey as a potential RoW with a corresponding tunnel under the Fraser as an alternative to a bridge over the Fraser which would have at-grade or above-grade rail in downtown Surrey and would require a RoW cut through Newton or Fleetwood to handle the elevation change. No one's going to like that.

I was referring to the ROW, not the track. Certainly the track would need to be replaced and it would likely need modifications to it alignment for higher speeds, but it is a decent route. The reality is, regardless of which station location is used, the the train will be slowing down for entry into/accelerating out of Vancouver, so the track need not support the full 250 mph when getting in/out of the city. I would be surprised if the train was faster than 125 mph (if even that fast) north of the Serpentine River.

South of the Serpentine River they will need a route that supports faster speeds and it likely would only be at full speed south of the 49th (if nothing else, for political reasons).

When I say tear literally and figuratively, I'm referring to the earthworks that would be required along with the fast zoom trains.

While earth works will certainly be necessary, there isn't an infinite budget, and if an alternate route can be found that is reasonably straight, and saves a significant amount of earth works and expropriation, it will likely be selected.

In a perfect world, we'd segregate freight traffic RoW from passenger traffic RoW. I'm not sure how realistic that is, though.

At lower speeds, the trains can share track with freight trains. In places they want to run at full speed, they will be required to have dedicated track. I am not sure how many trains BNSF runs along its New Westminster sub, but I suspect that it is low enough that it shouldn't be too difficult to share.

[bloomtronzero]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Having a teminus station in Surrey also eliminates the requirement for a [high level?] bridge across the Fraser River.

Not to mention eliminates the need to find a good ROW that cuts through the urban core without becoming an obstacle later.

I always imagined an elevated or underground section up Boundary from Richmond might work, but you'd have to build in such a way to not block a Hastings or 41st/49th Skytrain line in the future. Plus, you know, getting to Richmond before then too. Could go parallel to the freeway, or above it in some areas, but getting to a crossing that allows for that from a southern approach is a nightmare. Existing rail north of the Fraser is too packed in, existing bridges are a massive bottleneck, I just don't see figuring this out without way more work than its worth compared to just using Surrey.

Scott Road Station in South Westminster has a lot of room to build a regional rail hub. The HSR from the States could get there super easily, trains from east/up province can get there easily, there's plenty of space in existing ROWs to use. It drops you next to an Expo Line station, which is basically Vancouver enough a place to end up for those coming from outside the Fraser Valley. New West and Whalley/Surrey Central are basically going to be alternate downtowns in a sprawling, unbroken urban Vancouver by the time we actually build any of this. Seems a no brainer. No one is sad that YVR still requires a SkyTrain trip to get downtown. I don't think anyone taking a train to New York would feel undercut if they ended up in Brooklyn, this wouldn't be too different. The only real hangup here is the gatekeep-y attitude some have that refuses to consider anything east of Boundary as even remotely part of Vancouver.