Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

Realistically, any HSR south of Seattle is there to service Portland. Without that city, I doubt that WA is going to build HSR for Olympia and Longview. Without a large contribution from the Oregon state government, I doubt that Washington will put up the funds to get HSR south of Seattle.

Even then I doubt you'll get OR to fund anything further than Longview; maybe Centralia if they're feeling generous.

Originally Posted by chowhou

If we could build HSR from Vancouver to Seattle for only $4 billion out of our pockets, that sounds like a no-brainer to me. Skytrain from VCC-Clark to Arbutus is going to cost almost $3 billion, and I'd have to see numbers but I'd guess the economic value of connecting Vancouver to Seattle could be similar to providing the Boardway Corridor with transit.

Sure, but $4 billion also gets us another SkyTrain, and it's obvious which rail line benefits BC more. If we want this under construction before 2050, we're going to need the feds to carry much more of the cost than usual.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

There's no doubt that there will have to be some significant reform in how we plan, manage and tender large public works projects. We need in-house expertise; this is a common thread amongst all the countries that have lower construction costs. I personally would like to see Infrastructure BC expand its mandate and become something like this: an organization that recruits the best expertise from around the world to plan and oversee major public works projects across the province.

The Ontario Line will be a 15.6-kilometre new rapid transit line linking the Ontario Science Centre with Exhibition Place / Ontario Place with 15 stations, including six interchange stations. As of November 2022, the estimated cost for the 15.6-kilometre line was $17–$19 billion with an estimated completion in 2031. Infrastructure Ontario and Metrolinx are using three separate P3 contracts to build the line. So far there are two contracts awarded: the Southern construction package $6bn (with the N American arm of a Spanish company involved) and the Central section, and train package at $9bn. That involves mostly Italian construction companies, with Hitachi providing the trains and signaling. The northern package has yet to be announced - but they're already at $1bn/km to build the project. It makes Vancouver projects at less than half that look like good value!

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Vancouver - yes, Portland - yes, Seattle - not so sure about that one. Not even going to start with the Bellinghams and Olympias.



And BC is any different? The only reason track would go north of Seattle is to get to Vancouver, and the only reason it would go south is to get to Portland. The value isn't in the track, it's in the destination, so sorry to say it would make sense for BC and Oregon to not pay up proportionally to land used.

Compare Seattle to any major California city and it's pretty transit friendly. By the time any HSR could get built it will also have a much better developed network.

Now compare Olympia and Bellingham to Bakersfield and Fresno.

It's not even close. It's like comparing Vancouver to Tokyo.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by chowhou

If we could build HSR from Vancouver to Seattle for only $4 billion out of our pockets, that sounds like a no-brainer to me. Skytrain from VCC-Clark to Arbutus is going to cost almost $3 billion, and I'd have to see numbers but I'd guess the economic value of connecting Vancouver to Seattle could be similar to providing the Boardway Corridor with transit.

That sounds like HSR is not what they are building at that low cost. Skytrain guideways are not built to HSR standards.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, but $4 billion also gets us another SkyTrain, and it's obvious which rail line benefits BC more. If we want this under construction before 2050, we're going to need the feds to carry much more of the cost than usual.

BC more? That would be a HSR.
Metro Vancouver, then yes, Skytrain.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

BC more? That would be a HSR.
Metro Vancouver, then yes, Skytrain.

Moving 135k+ local residents across the city each day helps the provincial economy much more than 5k tourists and business trips. HSR needs to happen. Local transit needs to happen even more.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Moving 135k+ local residents across the city each day helps the provincial economy much more than 5k tourists and business trips. HSR needs to happen. Local transit needs to happen even more.

But how does that affect those that do not live in the metro area?
I can imagine the HSR being used so that people can go to Whistler or over to Vancouver Island, or anywhere else in the province.

How does a Skytrain extension do anything like that?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

But how does that affect those that do not live in the metro area?
I can imagine the HSR being used so that people can go to Whistler or over to Vancouver Island, or anywhere else in the province.

How does a Skytrain extension do anything like that?

By "BC" I mean the province as a whole. Improving Metro Vancouver's infrastructure doesn't help Abbotsford or Kelowna directly, but the increased GDP translates into more spending power for the province (to spend on them), and less congestion in the core reduces congestion in the suburbs and on the highways.

And if you're an MLA in Victoria, obviously you're going to spend the money on the best business case, and one that benefits your actual residents the most; most Vancouverites spend more time in Vancouver than Seattle or Portland.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

By "BC" I mean the province as a whole. Improving Metro Vancouver's infrastructure doesn't help Abbotsford or Kelowna directly, but the increased GDP translates into more spending power for the province (to spend on them), and less congestion in the core reduces congestion in the suburbs and on the highways.

And if you're an MLA in Victoria, obviously you're going to spend the money on the best business case, and one that benefits your actual residents the most; most Vancouverites spend more time in Vancouver than Seattle or Portland.

You said BC. That stands for British Columbia. That is a province. I feel that either you like to troll us, or you want to back track when you get caught in yet another soapboxing for Translink (your employer).

The problem a lot of people do is they think only the major cities deserve anything. Toronto is a prime example. If some thing does not benefit Toronto, Canada should not do it. That is as stupid of an argument as "Local transit needs to happen even more."

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You said BC. That stands for British Columbia. That is a province. I feel that either you like to troll us, or you want to back track when you get caught in yet another soapboxing for Translink (your employer).

The problem a lot of people do is they think only the major cities deserve anything. Toronto is a prime example. If some thing does not benefit Toronto, Canada should not do it. That is as stupid of an argument as "Local transit needs to happen even more."

I fail to see how "this train benefits BC more" has to literally mean "this train connects all of BC's residents;" SkyTrain is demonstrably cheaper per passenger and better helps BC's economy and more of its residents, and that's how Victoria will see it; most smaller towns like Nanaimo or Prince George have their own airports and can more easily fly over to Seattle than drive for hours all the way to Vancouver just to take the HSR, so how does it help any BCer outside of the metro?

Nor do I see how my understanding of how the province likely sorts their priorities makes me a TransLink goon. If there's anybody trolling here, it's you.

It's not a matter of "deserving," it's a matter of how Vancouver gets more attention by virtue of having more people and more GDP, the same way Toronto gets more attention from the feds than all of Western Canada. The fact that we're always arguing about trains from Abbotsford to Waterfront instead of trains within Abbotsford itself only proves that point.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I fail to see how "this train benefits BC more" has to literally mean "this train connects all of BC's residents;" SkyTrain is demonstrably cheaper per passenger and better helps BC's economy and more of its residents, and that's how Victoria will see it; most smaller towns like Nanaimo or Prince George have their own airports and can more easily fly over to Seattle than drive for hours all the way to Vancouver just to take the HSR, so how does it help any BCer outside of the metro?

Nor do I see how my understanding of how the province likely sorts their priorities makes me a TransLink goon. If there's anybody trolling here, it's you.

It's not a matter of "deserving," it's a matter of how Vancouver gets more attention by virtue of having more people and more GDP, the same way Toronto gets more attention from the feds than all of Western Canada. The fact that we're always arguing about trains from Abbotsford to Waterfront instead of trains within Abbotsford itself only proves that point.

How does the Skytrain help tourists get from the USA to places like Vancouver Island, Whistler or anywhere else in the province?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How does the Skytrain help tourists get from the USA to places like Vancouver Island, Whistler or anywhere else in the province?

It does not, just like the HSR does not. What it does is help tourists and locals alike get around Vancouver and stimulate growth, and that benefits BC more than a few American visitors (many of whom would've driven or flown here anyway) who'll show up at Waterfront or Pacific Central and may find themselves hard-pressed to even do that without more transit options.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

But how does that affect those that do not live in the metro area?
I can imagine the HSR being used so that people can go to Whistler or over to Vancouver Island, or anywhere else in the province.

How does a Skytrain extension do anything like that?

How would the HSR do either of the things that are in your imagination?

It won't go to Whistler, or to Vancouver Island. It'll carry people from Seattle, and Portland, and a few in between, by train instead of on a plane or by driving or travelling on a coach.

Its only benefits are to reduce GHGs by operating on electric power, and maybe reducing travelling time for some of the passengers. If they're travelling on to Whistler or Vancouver Island they'll still have to hire a car, or take a bus (and there are direct buses to Victoria and Whistler from both the Pacific Centre station and YVR).

It's potential negative impact on regional travel either within Metro Vancouver or the rest of BC is that the multi-billions it costs come out of federal and/or provincial capital project funds at the expense of projects that would otherwise be funded to improve local transit.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

Realistically, any HSR south of Seattle is there to service Portland.

Originally Posted by chowhou

The only reason track would go north of Seattle is to get to Vancouver, and the only reason it would go south is to get to Portland.

Washington State (or Microsoft, or some other stakeholder, I can't remember which) has said they hope HSR would help ease housing pressures by allowing someone to live in Bellingham or Olympia and take the train to work in Seattle two or three times per week while working from home the rest of the time.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It does not, just like the HSR does not. What it does is help tourists and locals alike get around Vancouver and stimulate growth, and that benefits BC more than a few American visitors (many of whom would've driven or flown here anyway) who'll show up at Waterfront or Pacific Central and may find themselves hard-pressed to even do that without more transit options.

Intercity transportation is different than inner city transportation. They serve completely different purposes.
I am guessing you think the 4 laning of the TCH that is happening now is stupid and that money should be spent on Vancouver.

Originally Posted by Changing City

How would the HSR do either of the things that are in your imagination?

It won't go to Whistler, or to Vancouver Island. It'll carry people from Seattle, and Portland, and a few in between, by train instead of on a plane or by driving or travelling on a coach.

Its only benefits are to reduce GHGs by operating on electric power, and maybe reducing travelling time for some of the passengers. If they're travelling on to Whistler or Vancouver Island they'll still have to hire a car, or take a bus (and there are direct buses to Victoria and Whistler from both the Pacific Centre station and YVR).

It's potential negative impact on regional travel either within Metro Vancouver or the rest of BC is that the multi-billions it costs come out of federal and/or provincial capital project funds at the expense of projects that would otherwise be funded to improve local transit.

You answered the reasons why it is better than spending that money on local transit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Washington State (or Microsoft, or some other stakeholder, I can't remember which) has said they hope HSR would help ease housing pressures by allowing someone to live in Bellingham or Olympia and take the train to work in Seattle two or three times per week while working from home the rest of the time.

That seems like a pretty niche case to me...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You answered the reasons why it is better than spending that money on local transit.

It's only 'better' if HSR benefits the same number of people, or saves more GHGs than the same investment in local transit. You'll have to prove that the small number of passengers on HSR reduce the GHGs produced by more than the equivalent investment in local transit. I'd doubt that you could do that. The intention of investing in better local transit is to get more people to switch from driving, and to improve journey times and convenience for people already taking bus transit.

As long-distance coaches switch to battery electric, and more and more cars are EVs, it will only be passengers switching from flying to using rail that will have any impact on GHGs. If Harbour Air manage to switch their flights between Vancouver and Seattle to electric power, even those flying might have a quicker and zero GHG alternative.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's only 'better' if HSR benefits the same number of people, or saves more GHGs than the same investment in local transit. You'll have to prove that the small number of passengers on HSR reduce the GHGs produced by more than the equivalent investment in local transit. I'd doubt that you could do that. The intention of investing in better local transit is to get more people to switch from driving, and to improve journey times and convenience for people already taking bus transit.

As long-distance coaches switch to battery electric, and more and more cars are EVs, it will only be passengers switching from flying to using rail that will have any impact on GHGs.

Your metric is wrong.
That is ok. You can be wrong.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Your metric is wrong.
That is ok. You can be wrong.

Sure I can be, but you'd have to explain. If reducing GHGs and improving movement for the most people using the greatest financial efficiency isn't the point of transportation investment, what is?

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Ontario Line will be a 15.6-kilometre new rapid transit line linking the Ontario Science Centre with Exhibition Place / Ontario Place with 15 stations, including six interchange stations. As of November 2022, the estimated cost for the 15.6-kilometre line was $17–$19 billion with an estimated completion in 2031. Infrastructure Ontario and Metrolinx are using three separate P3 contracts to build the line. So far there are two contracts awarded: the Southern construction package $6bn (with the N American arm of a Spanish company involved) and the Central section, and train package at $9bn. That involves mostly Italian construction companies, with Hitachi providing the trains and signaling. The northern package has yet to be announced - but they're already at $1bn/km to build the project. It makes Vancouver projects at less than half that look like good value!

I am very happy that we don't have the same dysfunctional culture that exists in Ontario. The problem is that politics is way too involved in everything transit related. I've looked at some of the renderings of the Ontario Line and it looks overbuilt. There doesn't seem to be any incentive to try and keep costs down. On the surface, it seems like they may be doing something right by hiring Italian companies and doing P3s but the devil is always in the details. I doubt they're doing itemized contracts, for instance.

[GenWhy?]

HSR or something with 300km/hr electric from Metro Vancouver down to Washington State might not be too bad to fund and have completed by 2050. If funding is for TransLink's first 10 year phase of their Transport 2050 is $7b for what I read as (could be wrong) roughly a dozen new Rapid Bus, Express IntraCity Bus and BRT lines, then I think the Province spending $7b on one "exclusive" rail line could wait until at least after 2030.