Transit Fantasies

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Don't think the problem is the trains, it's the tracks. 1000's of kms of track thru some pretty unforgiving terrain. Could it be done, sure but is it worth it? Probably not today.

I'm not of the mind that a trans-canada HSr network should be built within next 25 years. Maybe 50. But within next 25 no reason why a Vancouver-Portland, an Edmonton-Calgary, and a Detroit/Windsor-Quebec City (with a Buffalo leg) couldn't be built within next 25 years.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I'm not of the mind that a trans-canada HSr network should be built within next 25 years. Maybe 50. But within next 25 no reason why a Vancouver-Portland, an Edmonton-Calgary, and a Detroit/Windsor-Quebec City (with a Buffalo leg) couldn't be built within next 25 years.

Exactly. And with that new Bombardier train, it could - and should - be exported to any city pairs looking for super quality HSR. I dunno ... like Rio-Sao Paolo; Mexico City- Guadalajara; Sydney-Melbourne; Jo'burg - Cape Town .... just ideas ......

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

IMHO, HSR east out of Vancouver is impractical, (read unfeasible) for the next few decades anyway, for reasons previously cited. To Seattle and Portland? ... maybe .....

Between Calgary and Edmonton?
Yes, a very good place to start; no mountains to tunnel through, just the main line to upgrade (probably using overhead electric alimentation, as in most of Europe), and of course the cost of the trains themselves, be they Ahlstom or Siemens.

No way that a 200+ KPH train will be run on the old railway lines. Just like the TGV in France or the Bullet trains in Japan, new straighter and traffic-separated HSR-specific tracks will have to be built for any HSR to work properly.

Who wants to see a news story that the new HSR train from Edmonton crashed into Farmer Joes' combine at the RR crossing outside of Balzac?
"I thought I could beat the train through the crossing like I've always done before - I guess maybe I was too slow this time" said Farmer Joe from his hospital bed.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Exactly. And with that new Bombardier train, it could - and should - be exported to any city pairs looking for super quality HSR. I dunno ... like Rio-Sao Paolo; Mexico City- Guadalajara; Sydney-Melbourne; Jo'burg - Cape Town .... just ideas ......

or perhaps L.A. & San Francisco?
They're pushing ahead with this, but I haven't heard if they've chosen the train manufacturer yet.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

or perhaps L.A. & San Francisco?
They're pushing ahead with this, but I haven't heard if they've chosen the train manufacturer yet.

Then let's get on down there and "sell, baby, sell !!!!"

[wrenegade]

I think a lot of people here are getting way ahead of themselves speaking of different trains and fanciful routes. One must keep in mind the relative size of Western Europe. It's tiny. 2.8 million sq. km, and that is if you include Portugal, Hungary and Poland where HSR isn't exactly abundant. Ontario and Quebec combined are 2.6 million sq. km, and with a population of 21 million, we're not exactly close to the 430 million in Western Europe. We're a long way off in most of these corridors, especially ones that are already well served by relatively cheap and quick airplane service, or highway, it takes a little over 3 hours to drive from Calgary to Edmonton.

Mexico and South Africa are hardly in the financial position to start building HSR, Jo'burg only just got it's first subway. Besides, airline travel from Cape Town to Jo'burg is about the cost of a flight from Vancouver to Calgary, and takes just under 3 hours, there is no way HSR could touch that.

So long as the track is compatible with different rolling stock in the limited areas that will see HSR in North America (likely New York-Philly-DC first) I don't really think it matters who builds the trains down there. Besides, Bombardier has lots of business to chase in China right now.

I'd love to have HSR from Vancouver to Portland as much as any of you, but we have to be at least somewhat realistic. Upgraded track and rolling stock for the Amtrack Cascades route to perhaps shave an hour or two off the travel time is probably all we can hope for in the next 20 years.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

No way that a 200+ KPH train will be run on the old railway lines. Just like the TGV in France or the Bullet trains in Japan, new straighter and traffic-separated HSR-specific tracks will have to be built for any HSR to work properly.

Who wants to see a news story that the new HSR train from Edmonton crashed into Farmer Joes' combine at the RR crossing outside of Balzac?
"I thought I could beat the train through the crossing like I've always done before - I guess maybe I was too slow this time" said Farmer Joe from his hospital bed.

High speed European rail lines such as the TGV have very few level crossings even for farm areas, usually just a small single lane under/over pass is required. Where there are level crossings they are gated. It would be stupidity to do anything different when you have speeds of 250-300 km/hr. I can't tell for sure but I would even say that there are none.

If you are building a new rail line it is really not the difficult to have a short span crossing, the rail line can go in a trench and a small overpass can go in with the abutments on the retaining structures. Or in very flat areas ramps and an overpass or an underpass.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=q...04136&t=h&z=18

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

So wait, we have (or at least own) the technology to produce a 380kph/235mph train?

Why aren't we jumping to build HSR here in Canada with connections to the states? if we built to cities like Seattle via Vancouver, Detroit & Buffalo via a Hamilton Line, and Syracuse/Albany via Ottawa and Montreal, the Americans would be very much inclined to use our technology which is already being proven and close to home. The implications and benifits could be huge!

The Acela trains used on the eastern seaboard in the USA are Bombardier trains. Bombardier is a participant in the TGV, Eurostar, Thalys, and ETR 500. Bombardier is also involved in ICE in Germany, builds most of the trains for China's High speed rail system, and builds the 200km/h diesel trains for the British.

The Zefiro trains the link goes to are in production right now for use in China. Just because it's Canadian doesn't mean Bombardier is some backwater company, it's a worldwide leader in this field.

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I'm not of the mind that a trans-canada HSr network should be built within next 25 years. Maybe 50. But within next 25 no reason why a Vancouver-Portland, an Edmonton-Calgary, and a Detroit/Windsor-Quebec City (with a Buffalo leg) couldn't be built within next 25 years.

Even if we are targeting 50 years from now for the completion of a transcontinental HSR network, the first segments are going to need to be built soon. So we really should be focusing on several coridors, like Windsor-Quebec City (or at least Toronto-Montreal) and Calgary-Edmonton right now, like shovels should hit the ground within 5 years.

Originally Posted by awvan

I think a lot of people here are getting way ahead of themselves speaking of different trains and fanciful routes. One must keep in mind the relative size of Western Europe. It's tiny. 2.8 million sq. km, and that is if you include Portugal, Hungary and Poland where HSR isn't exactly abundant. Ontario and Quebec combined are 2.6 million sq. km, and with a population of 21 million, we're not exactly close to the 430 million in Western Europe. We're a long way off in most of these corridors, especially ones that are already well served by relatively cheap and quick airplane service, or highway, it takes a little over 3 hours to drive from Calgary to Edmonton.

Mexico and South Africa are hardly in the financial position to start building HSR, Jo'burg only just got it's first subway. Besides, airline travel from Cape Town to Jo'burg is about the cost of a flight from Vancouver to Calgary, and takes just under 3 hours, there is no way HSR could touch that.

So long as the track is compatible with different rolling stock in the limited areas that will see HSR in North America (likely New York-Philly-DC first) I don't really think it matters who builds the trains down there. Besides, Bombardier has lots of business to chase in China right now.

I'd love to have HSR from Vancouver to Portland as much as any of you, but we have to be at least somewhat realistic. Upgraded track and rolling stock for the Amtrack Cascades route to perhaps shave an hour or two off the travel time is probably all we can hope for in the next 20 years.

If you are going to compare Canada to Europe, you have to remember that about 90% of Ontario and Quebec are uninhabited. The Windsor-Quebec City corridor is home to 50% of the Canadian population. A single line from Windsor to Quebec would be within a transit ride of about 18 million people.

Finland has a population 5.3 million, and about 5000km of passenger rail tracks, with trains that reach speeds of 220km/h. Many lines are older, using tilting trains operating at 150-200km/h. Metro Helsinki has a population of 1.3 million and has several hundred km of commuter trains, some reaching speeds of 160km/h. It costs them a lot of money, but some consider Finland to have one of the best standards of living. BC has a comparable population to that of Finland, and we can't possibly build 1 high speed rail line through communities that would encompass about 2/3 of the provincial population?

To get this onto the Transit topic:

I think a good longterm project would be to build a high speed rail link to Kamloops. It doesn't need to be 380km/h right away, but even if it had an average speed of 150-180km/h using a combination of upgraded track and tilting trains, it would make a huge difference. Through the Fraser Valley, the trains could be used for commuter purposes, extending the reasonable daily commuting distance to Hope, and making day trips for business to/from Kamloops reasonable (increasing the economic possibilities for that community, and others along the route). Then Kamloops could become a provincial transportation hub. From there bus or train rides to other communities would be much shorter. And in the future, the rail link could be expanded from there to other points.

Much of the infrastructure in Vancouver could be used for both the link to Hope and for a link to Seattle, including a new river crossing. The link with Seattle should be a priority, but if it includes an upgraded station downtown, new bridge, and ROW through Surrey, that's a lot of cost taken off other HSR projects in the future.

[bardak]

My humble attempt at a map.

I didn't add anything north of Frasier that was not already planned because I don't feel I was informed.



All the new lines are light rail and would ideally be trenched at major intersections.

Oh and the lines going thought the Massey Tunnel would not be possible until the tunnel is replaced of course.

[logan5]

The Arbutus right of way would fit with the Richmond light rail line, and form a suburban service for Richmond, Ladner, South Surrey, and Tsawwassen. Maybe use the Siemens s70 trains that can operate at 106 km/h.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by logan5

The Arbutus right of way would fit with the Richmond light rail line, and form a suburban service for Richmond, Ladner, South Surrey, and Tsawwassen. Maybe use the Siemens s70 trains that can operate at 106 km/h.

Yeah that seems like it would be a good idea my only concern would be the switchback south of 33rd and a new bridge across the north arm. But with the ridership of the Canada line being so high it looks like we would need a second north/south line some time.

new map

[TransitJack]

Your forgot the "e" in BridgEport and SurrEy

[officedweller]

For the dark red line, you've missed several polulation centres - Steveston and Ladner.

Arguably, a Richmond / Delta LRT system would be a feeder into the Canada Line so a bridge crossing of the Fraser wouldn't be necessary - it could provide a transfer at Bridgeport, Aberdeen, Lansdowne or Brighouse depending on routing.
The Arbutus LRT line could then link up at Marine Station and continue east to New Westminster along the railway RoW.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by officedweller

For the dark red line, you've missed several polulation centres - Steveston and Ladner.

That was intentional on my part. As someone who lives in Ladner I would love to have it go through town instead of beside but Ladner Trunk road at it's widest would have just enough room for an LRT and it is the only east-west road in town and would really mess with the way traffic moves in Ladner.

I would argue that it would be better served by an extension of the Canada Line(yeah I know it is single tracked at brighouse and you would need to rebuild that portion) along the Granville and Railway.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Arguably, a Richmond / Delta LRT system would be a feeder into the Canada Line so a bridge crossing of the Fraser wouldn't be necessary - it could provide a transfer at Bridgeport, Aberdeen, Lansdowne or Brighouse depending on routing.
The Arbutus LRT line could then link up at Marine Station and continue east to New Westminster along the railway RoW.

I think that a bridge across would be a huge pull factor. I have two main factors that I based my south surrey and south delta lines on. First was cheap/easy building the most complicated parts would be Stevenson highway in Richmond and 152nd in South Surrey. the rest of the line is along highway. ALR or has a large ROW. The second was speed. Beacuse so little of the lines go along/across the trains can be faster than driving another big pull factor.

[xd_1771]

There is a 335 service increase that will definitely help, but especially with the new Port Mann incoming which is going to send lots of toll-averting traffic down 104th, there is absolutely no way Guildford will live off light rail or simple bus lines. The urgent need of a skytrain line to Guildford must be understood and planned for now! At the moment the roads are barely manageable; if you have been there, the same is true for transit. There about 5-6 Whalley-Guildford bus routes and all throughout the day whether peak or non-peak hours they are jam-packed to 110% their max capacity. Any thought of putting car traffic & transit on the same level on routes going in and out of Guildford is absolutely absurd considering the conditions there. With the Port Mann being tolled, it's also going to send a lot of new traffic onto 104th - a route which is unmanageable as it is.

At least in Richmond you're not trying to connect two very major centres. Actually I think light rail down Garden City would be a good choice; it is not a major corridor, you are serving a lesser and more spread out amount of population and for the most part it is clear, great for traffic flow, the portion of Garden City before curving into railway has a good ROW, and even the ROW after that would be great for light rail construction.

As we speak I've still been working on my Metro Vancouver fantasy transit plan. Still mostly incomplete, I'll be posting an update of it soon though.

[officedweller]

I think eventual build-out of the system will be LRT feeders into the existing mainlines - rather than extension of the mainlines. Expo Line towards Langley may be an exception given the growth rates.

[logan5]

Hopefully lrt lines feeding into a future main trunk line that runs from Abbotsford to Waterfront, using the Burlington Northern route for good Skytrain connections at Lougheed and at Broadway.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by bardak

I would argue that it would be better served by an extension of the Canada Line(yeah I know it is single tracked at brighouse and you would need to rebuild that portion) along the Granville and Railway.

As someone who lives blocks from your imagined terminus in Steveston, this would be terribly convenient for me.... But this is not the part of Richmond that has been built with density, and I doubt that the residents want that part of Richmond to be redeveloped into TOD.

The preserved right-of-way to Steveston would be a nice place for LRT one day, but not the Canada Line.

The areas of Richmond that have density and plans for more density are basically 1) the oval lands, and 2) a strip of neighbourhoods roughly following Granville/GardenCity from Kwantlen to Gilbert Road.

I have shaded them on the following map, along with a proposed LRT line and 1-station Canada Line extension:

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF...57592&t=h&z=14

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I have shaded them on the following map, along with a proposed LRT line and 1-station Canada Line extension:

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF...57592&t=h&z=14

That's pretty much exactly what I could see being built too.

If it's more streetcar than LRT, I could also see a bi-directional downtown loop with a wye from Granville to Gilbert or No. 2 Rd. to more directly access the Oval area. Streecars from Steveston could alternate when they get to the looop - clockwise or counterclockwise.

If it's LRT, the stop spacing would be wider, so riding the loop wouldn't be as much of a problem.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Zassk

As someone who lives blocks from your imagined terminus in Steveston, this would be terribly convenient for me.... But this is not the part of Richmond that has been built with density, and I doubt that the residents want that part of Richmond to be redeveloped into TOD.

The preserved right-of-way to Steveston would be a nice place for LRT one day, but not the Canada Line.

The areas of Richmond that have density and plans for more density are basically 1) the oval lands, and 2) a strip of neighbourhoods roughly following Granville/GardenCity from Kwantlen to Gilbert Road.

I have shaded them on the following map, along with a proposed LRT line and 1-station Canada Line extension:

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF...57592&t=h&z=14

Yeah, I think it would be hard to justify ever spending a billion or more to get the Canada Line further into Richmond, but I can clearly see the desire to build it to Granville Ave, or even Blundell (that would be thousands of riders within reach of 2 new stations). And I do think Railroad Ave would be better suited to LRT, as it would completely minimize the cost, and actually justify the expense in building it.

I was thinking though, that if the Canada Line isn't extended, then the LRT line should turn up either Minoru or Gilbert. That way it would bring the line close to some major employment centers (hospital or City Hall). My preference would be Gilbert, as the hospital probably generates more trips, and there is a big office complex across the street, and you touch the edge of the oval developments.

Then turn eastward onto Lansdowne and have a transfer point at the Canada Line Lansdowne station. You could then continue it east down Lansdowne and into the Garden City Lands, and the lands could be a major TOD, with good density. That land is going to be developed eventually ($3 million homes in Richmond can't keep it off the market forever), and it could be pretty amazing if it was built around LRT. You could even push it through to the ROW on Shell, where you could head North past the office park (where BCLC used to be) to Bridgeport Road.