Commuter Rail/Regional Rail in Canada - Page 3

milomilo · #41 Posted **Sep 8, 2021, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Don't even talk about adding to the WCE. It's like swearing in front of someone's grandmother.

Only if you pretend that it would be easy does it result in that response. But in reality any expansion of WCE would be a major investment, and the question is whether that money would be better spent on other transit projects in Vancouver.

swimmer_spe · #42 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Only if you pretend that it would be easy does it result in that response. But in reality any expansion of WCE would be a major investment, and the question is whether that money would be better spent on other transit projects in Vancouver.

Are you saying that extensions and additions to GO and AT/EXO were easy?

Getting cars off of the congested highways would be a good thing to spend it on.

milomilo · #43 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 12:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are you saying that extensions and additions to GO and AT/EXO were easy?

Easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Getting cars off of the congested highways would be a good thing to spend it on.

Vancouver has made the choice to focus on its high quality metro system to do this, which is a very justifiable decision and has been successful. Billions spent on the Broadway extension almost certainly beat out the similar order of magnitude cost to increase frequency on WCE.

swimmer_spe · #44 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Easier.

So, you are saying that putting commuter rail on the CN and CP mainlines in the 2 largest cities in Canada was easy? If that's true, then doing it in Vancouver should be even easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Vancouver has made the choice to focus on its high quality metro system to do this, which is a very justifiable decision and has been successful. Billions spent on the Broadway extension almost certainly beat out the similar order of magnitude cost to increase frequency on WCE.

Please define high quality. The way I see it, it is a substandard system due to the limitations on how many people it can move.

biguc · #45 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 10:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Agreed. I mean, despite their huge integrated S-bahn, U-bahn and regional rail networks, German cities barely perform better than Canadian cities for transit mode share.

These are state-level statistics, but Hamburg and Berlin are effectively city states. Hamburg's mode share (22%; see p. 13) and Berlin's (25%) are comparable to the Montreal CMA (22.3%) and the Toronto CMA (24.3%). The city of Montreal and the city of Toronto - comparable in population to the states of Hamburg and Berlin, respectively, have higher transit mode share still.

The Germans have a much higher % of walking and cycling, but with walking that's more a function of city form. Canada has a long way to go, but we are changing the forms of our cities toward making people able to walk to work faster than pretty much any Western country.

These are different statistics. The Germans measure all trips, Canadians measure commutes. In apples-oranges stats, Vancouver looks like Copenhagen. On the ground they're blatantly not comparable.

biguc · #46 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 10:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I mean we already have 6 railways that run in every direction I think commuter rail is feasible. Our suburbs are already apart of the city of Winnipeg so we don’t have to go as far as Portage or Brandon. Transcona and St. Norbert for example would be great commuter rail options and the equivalent to a suburb like Airdrie or Martensville. It’s not necessary to reach to the areas like Steinbach or Portage.

I’m genuinely curious is it more beneficial to use the lines you already have built and share with freight or is it better to build brand-new LRT lines? Surely a renovation of the existing infrastructure would be more financially feasible.

Or with the new Rail yards in Northwest Winnipeg repurpose all of our class-1 lines solely for commuter rail.

Although I agree with you that our current politicians would never implement this strategy for whatever reason so it won’t happen for decades if not ever.

Winnipeg could run a simple suburban commuter/light regional system for the cost of some second-hand DMUs, sidings, and a few platforms (and their souls, firstborn, or whatever the ghouls at CN/P want to give up some track time). It would pick off a significant amount of downtown-bound traffic from St. Norbert and Transcona, but also Tyndal Park, Ft. Richmond, and Southwood. It would also get people used to the idea that the city isn't a drive-in destination, and open road space within the city to restore the tram and streetcar system.

esquire · #47 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ue

Anyway, yeah, Winnipeg has a lot of rail lines. I could maybe see a commuter rail to Transcona, but that's about it, and honestly it's close enough that it'd be better served by a full functioning LRT line that runs along or adjacent to Regent, stopping at Kildonan Place before heading downtown either via Elmwood or St Boniface. While not as cheap as repurposing existing ROWs, Winnipeg has plenty of room for LRT down its countless stroads. And would function better than commuter rail as an urban transit than locating stations out in no mans land along rail lines. I mean, you already see this problem with the Blue Line, which has a terrible routing along light industry, poor connectivity to nearby dense areas, and that annoying dog leg. Lockport and Selkirk I can see a commuter rail service too, and perhaps St Anne and Steinbach. I would also argue Headingley could have commuter rail, but given it makes much more sense to run an LRT down Portage to Unicity, a short commuter line to Headingley from there doesn't make sense. A line to Niverville and maybe Oak Bluff I could also see being feasible.

Winnipeg would also benefit from a wider regional network that introduces (or re-introduces) regular rail service to Gimli, Winnipeg Beach, Kenora, Falcon Lake, Beausejour, Lac du Bonnet, St Agathe, and Morris, with enhanced service to Portage la Prairie.

The tricky thing with rail lines in the Winnipeg area other than the 2 east-west CN/CP main lines and the 3 north-south CN/CP/BNSF secondary mains, is that the rest are branch lines in various states of decrepitude. For instance, the line to Gimli has been badly neglected to the point where the speed limit is 40 km/h... that's fine for a once a week train consisting of 5 grain hoppers and 5 tank cars, but you can't run a passenger rail service at that speed. Yes, the right of way is there but the costs of roadbed, rails, signalling, etc. would pretty well meaning building a new rail line from scratch. And there is no way that the traffic generated by trains to Gimli could justify that cost.

At least with the places along the main lines (Kenora, Portage la Prairie, Brandon) the infrastructure and population are already there to support a basic level of service at reasonable operating speeds. But do CN and CP want passenger trains clogging their already busy main lines? Probably not. I'm not sure how you get over that hurdle.

GoTrans · #48 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

The tricky thing with rail lines in the Winnipeg area other than the 2 east-west CN/CP main lines and the 3 north-south CN/CP/BNSF secondary mains, is that the rest are branch lines in various states of decrepitude. For instance, the line to Gimli has been badly neglected to the point where the speed limit is 40 km/h... that's fine for a once a week train consisting of 5 grain hoppers and 5 tank cars, but you can't run a passenger rail service at that speed. Yes, the right of way is there but the costs of roadbed, rails, signalling, etc. would pretty well meaning building a new rail line from scratch. And there is no way that the traffic generated by trains to Gimli could justify that cost.

At least with the places along the main lines (Kenora, Portage la Prairie, Brandon) the infrastructure and population are already there to support a basic level of service at reasonable operating speeds. But do CN and CP want passenger trains clogging their already busy main lines? Probably not. I'm not sure how you get over that hurdle.

Having an available right away is the most important part of the puzzle. Yes it will take money but not everything needs to be done at once, just as most 4 lane highways started their life and non-grade separated 2 lane roadways.
Several cases are Hwy 17 west of Ottawa, Hwy 7 west of Ottawa, Highway 11 north of Barrie, Hwy 2 in Alberta, Hwy 16 in west of Edmonton and many segments of Hwy 1 in between Lake Louise and Winnipeg.

The main problem is running trains on time at a reasonable speed on shared trackage since it unlikely that a separate ROW will ever be built. We can either force the railways to give priority to passenger trains as they do in the US or assist in building and maintaining infrastructure for shared use. It appears that no political party has the desire to do either.

milomilo · #49 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Having an available right away is the most important part of the puzzle. Yes it will take money but not everything needs to be done at once, just as most 4 lane highways started their life and non-grade separated 2 lane roadways.
Several cases are Hwy 17 west of Ottawa, Hwy 7 west of Ottawa, Highway 11 north of Barrie, Hwy 2 in Alberta, Hwy 16 in west of Edmonton and many segments of Hwy 1 in between Lake Louise and Winnipeg.

The main problem is running trains on time at a reasonable speed on shared trackage since it unlikely that a separate ROW will ever be built. We can either force the railways to give priority to passenger trains as they do in the US or assist in building and maintaining infrastructure for shared use. It appears that no political party has the desire to do either.

There's a different option. Rather than spend money running heavy rail trains on shared track, cities can build their own transit infrastructure with more suitable technology. Calgary and other cities have extensive passenger railway systems servicing them, Winnipeg is choosing buses. All the mainstream political parties support this.

swimmer_spe · #50 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 7:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

There's a different option. Rather than spend money running heavy rail trains on shared track, cities can build their own transit infrastructure with more suitable technology. Calgary and other cities have extensive passenger railway systems servicing them, Winnipeg is choosing buses. All the mainstream political parties support this.

I'd bet if a cost comparison was done on using existing ROWs and building a new one, the existing one will always be cheaper. It's the getting them to play nicely together that seems to be the problem in Canada.

swimmer_spe · #51 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 7:22 PM**

One place that has not been mentioned yet, but could have a viable commuter rail is Halifax.

GoTrans · #52 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

There's a different option. Rather than spend money running heavy rail trains on shared track, cities can build their own transit infrastructure with more suitable technology. Calgary and other cities have extensive passenger railway systems servicing them, Winnipeg is choosing buses. All the mainstream political parties support this.

Since when have cities generally built or paid for interurban transit? WCE, GO and EXO are paid for by the provinces not the cities. Of course all mainstream parties support the urban areas with urban transit that generally only runs within city boundaries with a few exceptions. Most of the examples that were given were for centres further afield. Please explain why Winnipeg would build a transit line to places outside the city boundaries or why Calgary would build a line to Airdrie. Cities don't have enough cash to build lines within their own jurisdictions without worrying about routes to other centres.

Chadillaccc · #53 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 7:47 PM**

In that regard, I know Chestermere is paying for the extension of the MAX Purple BRT line to their city, and their long term municipal plan is to have the CTrain Purple Line through their new (yet unbuilt) downtown along 17 Ave SE (the primary alignment of the Purple Line), and terminating at Lake Chestermere. The MAX extension started Aug 30. I don’t believe the province has offered up anything for the BRT extension or the current Airdrie Intercity Express (ICE) service. They’re only funding the Calgary Rockies train, partially.

milomilo · #54 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Since when have cities generally built or paid for interurban transit? WCE, GO and EXO are paid for by the provinces not the cities. Of course all mainstream parties support the urban areas with urban transit that generally only runs within city boundaries with a few exceptions. Most of the examples that were given were for centres further afield. Please explain why Winnipeg would build a transit line to places outside the city boundaries or why Calgary would build a line to Airdrie. Cities don't have enough cash to build lines within their own jurisdictions without worrying about routes to other centres.

It doesn't necessarily have to be municipalities. Vancouver built its interurban rail system (Skytrain) at the regional level. There are regional buses around Calgary ran by different bodies, and Calgary is actually extending a bus route to Chestermere.

The reality is these exurbs you often propose running very expensive trains to will not justify them. Winnipeg is by far the biggest city in Manitoba and is quite neatly contained in its own boundaries with little surrounding it, so the only place where any mass transit makes sense will be within the boundaries, and Winnipeg can decide for themselves what best suits them.

milomilo · #55 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd bet if a cost comparison was done on using existing ROWs and building a new one, the existing one will always be cheaper. It's the getting them to play nicely together that seems to be the problem in Canada.

Do you know what existing ROW is really cheap to run transit vehicles on? Roads.

However, even if we limit the vehicles to trains, then many cities disagree. For example, Calgary has some rail ROWs, but instead they built new ones because they actually would provide good transit to places people want to go. The red line even runs beside a railway, but it was still a better option to build a separate system.

swimmer_spe · #56 Posted **Sep 9, 2021, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Do you know what existing ROW is really cheap to run transit vehicles on? Roads.

However, even if we limit the vehicles to trains, then many cities disagree. For example, Calgary has some rail ROWs, but instead they built new ones because they actually would provide good transit to places people want to go. The red line even runs beside a railway, but it was still a better option to build a separate system.

Focus.... this is about rail, not roads.
Please, try to stay on topic.