Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Does Paris, Tokyo, NY, or even Toronto build subways/metros far into the meandering suburbs? NO. Why not?....because it is unaffordable, impractical and doesn't properly serve the users who, due to living in less dense areas and far from downtown employment, it's suppose to help. I pray no one here thinks these cities can learn anything from Vancouver on the transit file.

Just because regional rail is needed in X city doesn't mean it's needed in every city in the world. When the Fraser Valley has the density of surban sprawl in 50 years like Southern Ontario come back and we'll listen to your argument for commuter rail.

[GenWhy?]

If BC Transit and the Valley cannot properly fund and design transit, then I definitely don't want a large amount of Provincial dollars (my dollars) going into a commuter rail that will bleed money and have low ridership.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

- snip -

Way to miss the point: if the Valley can't even create density and ridership along the FVX (their 99 B-Line analogue), then they're nowhere near ready for a replacement train.

The 99 runs every three minutes on a main throughway anchored by hospitals, colleges and unis, amenities, a lot of apartments and offices, and a network of efficient buses and trains that feed into each other and boost each other's usefulness; if you remove all of that, the Broadway Subway makes no sense. Likewise, the Valley needs to start with fixing the Flying Spaghetti Monster bus networks in Abby and Chilliwack, getting the FVX up to 10-15 minute headways, and building midrises along major bus/train stations, and then they can think about commuter rail.

[BaddieB]

If the Fraser Valley were to get a train, it should be 1. Down the middle of Hwy 1 and 2. on the Port Mann to reduce land acquisition costs.

I feel as though that region should get it, but it should be cheap.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

For Vancouver, regional rail is even more important than most cities. Due to Vancouver's geography, the area can only sprawl in one direction, into the Valley and boy is it sprawling. For those of you who never manage to get east of Commercial, you may not realize just how sprawling Vancouver is and that will continue unabated especially due to Vancouver's sky-high housing costs.

The Fraser Valley is far more sprawling than Metro Vancouver, and so far less able to justify the expense of any new rail investment, compared to the return on investment of adding more SkyTrain within Metro Vancouver.

The new StatsCan population estimates confirm that Vancouver needs more transit compared to The Valley. Metro Vancouver added 252,000 in 4 years to reach 2.97m in 2023, while the Fraser Valley (Chilliwack and Abbotsford) added 22,000 to reach 338,000.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Fraser Valley is far more sprawling than Metro Vancouver, and so far less able to justify the expense of any new rail investment, compared to the return on investment of adding more SkyTrain within Metro Vancouver.

The new StatsCan population estimates confirm that Vancouver needs more transit compared to The Valley. Metro Vancouver added 252,000 in 4 years to reach 2.97m in 2023, while the Fraser Valley (Chilliwack and Abbotsford) added 22,000 to reach 338,000.

It's wild to think that Metro Vancouver added 75% of the Valley's population in less than half a decade, even as the Valley grew at quite a clip.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Fraser Valley is far more sprawling than Metro Vancouver, and so far less able to justify the expense of any new rail investment, compared to the return on investment of adding more SkyTrain within Metro Vancouver.

The new StatsCan population estimates confirm that Vancouver needs more transit compared to The Valley. Metro Vancouver added 252,000 in 4 years to reach 2.97m in 2023, while the Fraser Valley (Chilliwack and Abbotsford) added 22,000 to reach 338,000.

It isn't far more sprawling than many of the Lower Mainland suburbs. Many of Fraser Valley towns are just separated by agricultural lands and forested areas, similar to many smaller Ontario or Quebec, or even European towns. The best way to serve these places would be with a commuter train system, especially if town/city planners want these settlements to be confined in the existing areas and not sprawl even more.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

It isn't far more sprawling than many of the Lower Mainland suburbs. Many of Fraser Valley towns are just separated by agricultural lands and forested areas, similar to many smaller Ontario or Quebec, or even European towns. The best way to serve these places would be with a commuter train system, especially if town/city planners want these settlements to be confined in the existing areas and not sprawl even more.

With limitless resources, maybe you're right. As we can't persuade governments to fund the extension of SkyTrain to UBC yet, or a North Shore transit line, or any of the other better-bang-for-the-buck transit lines in the TransLink plans, then it shouldn't be a priority.

Having some decent rapid bus routes (maybe using battery electric coaches as battery technology gets better and cheaper) seems a more realistic idea.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Abbotsford has a population density of 409 per square km, and Chilliwack is at 356 - that's even lower than West Van, and much lower than Ladner, Aldergrove or South Surrey. I'd definitely call that "more sprawling."

If the Valley wants the province to get serious about commuter rail, the Valley will have to at least meet them halfway. They aren't, so express buses will do for the next few decades.

[Vin]

An older article & perhaps posted before, but definitely a good read:

BC government study identifies potential West Coast Express extension and regional rail options between Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/fras...-coast-express

From Dailyhive, March 2024

WCE should focus on bringing the commuter service to Abbotsford as a first phase project since it is just a short from Mission City (Option 1). The rest can follow later with increasing funding and population.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Just because regional rail is needed in X city doesn't mean it's needed in every city in the world. When the Fraser Valley has the density of suburban sprawl in 50 years like Southern Ontario come back and we'll listen to your argument for commuter rail.

This is exactly why you shouldn't wait for me to come back in 50 years. If GO had this kind of mentality, the system would be a mere shadow of what it is now. It's because they started buying up the corridors 25 years ago is why they, in a less than 5 years, have the most comprehensive suburban rail system on the continent.

Regional/suburban rail is a long-term investment but one that pays off by monumental proportions at a fraction of the cost of ever extending Metros while offering a faster and more comfortable ride connecting the different regions of the area.

Once again, it may not be needed now but you don't plan transit/transportation system to get you thru the next 10 years but rather the next 50 years and beyond.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Abbotsford has a population density of 409 per square km, and Chilliwack is at 356 - that's even lower than West Van, and much lower than Ladner, Aldergrove or South Surrey. I'd definitely call that "more sprawling."

If the Valley wants the province to get serious about commuter rail, the Valley will have to at least meet them halfway. They aren't, so express buses will do for the next few decades.

Abbotsford and Chilliwack have way more forested lands and protected agricultural lands than those places you compare them to. We should keep it this way by making public transportation more efficient here.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is exactly why you shouldn't wait for me to come back in 50 years. If GO had this kind of mentality, the system would be a mere shadow of what it is now. It's because they started buying up the corridors 25 years ago is why they, in a less than 5 years, have the most comprehensive suburban rail system on the continent.

Regional/suburban rail is a long-term investment but one that pays off by monumental proportions at a fraction of the cost of ever extending Metros while offering a faster and more comfortable ride connecting the different regions of the area.

Once again, it may not be needed now but you don't plan transit/transportation system to get you thru the next 10 years but rather the next 50 years and beyond.

I'm glad Alberta is embracing bringing back passenger railway to the province. Go Alberta go!

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...8#post10195008

[Migrant_Coconut]

That's the benefit of living in a flat province. Luckily for BC's transit planners, we have one big city instead of two smaller ones, and its airport is already connected.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is exactly why you shouldn't wait for me to come back in 50 years. If GO had this kind of mentality, the system would be a mere shadow of what it is now. It's because they started buying up the corridors 25 years ago is why they, in a less than 5 years, have the most comprehensive suburban rail system on the continent.

If there were any corridors worth buying, we'd already have done it - that's where we got the space for the Expo and Millennium. Whatever's left is better for freight than passengers.

Originally Posted by Vin

Abbotsford and Chilliwack have way more forested lands and protected agricultural lands than those places you compare them to. We should keep it this way by making public transportation more efficient here.

Which is why I pulled their city population density. Their metro population density (after including those forests and farms) is even crappier.

Yes... by fixing the bus networks. No point spending billions of dollars on a train if everybody needs to drive to and from it, and the ridership estimates reflect that.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm glad Alberta is embracing bringing back passenger railway to the province. Go Alberta go!

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...8#post10195008

BC has already completed the route study phase. We're now in the funding and demand phase.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's the benefit of living in a flat province. Luckily for BC's transit planners, we have one big city instead of two smaller ones, and its airport is already connected.

Not to mention Calgary + Edmonton roughly equals Metro Vancouver, population-wise.

Which is why I pulled their city population density. Their metro population density (after including those forests and farms) is even crappier.

FWIW, including forests and farms for population density is kind of lying with statistics. That would be like saying the US is "far denser" than Canada even though it should be patently obvious that Canadians tend to live far closer to one another than Americans do. Population density as an urban area shouldn't matter for rail transit, only population density in the general region of where any stations would be (still not a winning proposition for the valley right now, unfortunately).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Kind of my point in the first post - if we only look at the density within the municipal boundaries (i.e. inside the red line)... it still comes up ass, compared to Vancouver's suburbs. Abbotsford and Chilliwack beat Bowen Island density-wise, and that's it.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Abbotsford has a population density of 409 per square km, and Chilliwack is at 356 - that's even lower than West Van

Calculating population density by taking the total population and dividing it by the total land area of a city is so misguided and wrong. You look at the population density of the urbanized area, you shouldn't be factoring in farm land or forests that sit on the outside of town.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Calculating population density by taking the total population and dividing it by the total land area of a city is so misguided and wrong. You look at the population density of the urbanized area, you shouldn't be factoring in farm land or forests that sit on the outside of town.

Sure, which is why that number drops even lower when you include those - the Valley is virtually the opposite of "dense."

Abbotsford wants a train (debatable)? Turning all of South Fraser Way into townhomes and midrises would be a good start.

[BaddieB]

No, the population density of Abbotsford increases when you exclude surrounding non urban areas. Your numbers include mostly farmland. Calculating the area of Abbotsford, excluding lands that are non residential on the outer edges of town, is about 37sqkm. Abbotsford has a population of 153k, and assuming 20% live outside the main core (which is very generous to you), this gives Abbotsford an urban density of 33 people per hectare, or 3300 per sqkm. Compare that to Richmond without the outside farmland and industry, and Queensboro (and their populations), which is at around 4600, for example.

If we're going to be spending money on improving interregional transit to the Valley, I'd rather it be spent on regional rail than more highways.