HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2017, 3:35 AM
dharper dharper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Surrey
Posts: 232
Actually the surrey history website looks like it is from an old book that I remember looking through, that is in my Mom's bookshelf.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2017, 6:29 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
The City of White Rock has applied to Transport Canada for the funding of the seven grade crossings in the City of White Rock and has received approval to reconstruct four of the crossings prior to the summer of 2018. The construction of Finlay Street, Bay Street, Ash Street and Balsam Street are currently being designed and construction is expected to begin fall 2017. We are hopeful, the City will be successful in obtaining further grant for the remaining crossing in 2018. Once all the crossings meet the Grade Crossing Regulations the City will apply to stop the whistling at each of the grade crossings in the City of White Rock.

Rail Line Relocation ( Nothing has been done since this report )

From a consultants 2014 report:

Conclusion
Changes to rail infrastructure in and around White Rock have left the municipality at a great disadvantage. Following the 1904 construction of the New Westminster Bridge connecting New Westminster with Surrey, the Great Northern rail line was moved; the new GN line ran directly through the heart of White Rock. This caused immediate safety problems as the trains cut off access to White Rock’s popular beach.
At the time, however, until the mid-1960s, freight service on the GN line was moderate and the freight shipped benign. Today, dangerous substances move daily through White Rock and Surrey’s Crescent Beach.
Initially the Bennett government planned to relocate the GN line recognizing that the massive spike in rail traffic would negatively impact the safety and quality of life for those communities. But the bill initiating the move never advanced.
In 1972, rail traffic jumped with a 1972 congressional decision allowing Amtrak to begin service along the line. Amtrak’s trains, which are faster and quieter than freight trains, have been responsible for the majority of line fatalities. In 2009, a second Amtrak train began servicing the route.
Last month, in October, the Port Metro Vancouver announced the construction of a $15- million coal transfer station at the Fraser Surrey Docks along the banks of the Fraser River in Surrey.

Twenty-eight people have been killed or injured attempting to cross the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (formerly GN) rail line at White Rock. Traffic is expected to jump again with the construction of the new coal transfer station at the Fraser Surrey Docks. Relocating the BNSF line away from White Rock and Surrey would immediately address /safety concerns by redirecting increasing traffic away from the community. This would also redress the B.C. government’s failure to act on its 1969 commitment to move the line.

Next Steps
Moving forward, it is proposed that the following measures proceed:
 Obtain the agreement in principle of all relevant parties, that is, the cities of
White Rock and Surrey, B.C. and the province of British Columbia;
 In collaboration with those parties, pursue urban development and transportation plans as the Act requires;
 Explore funding options as described in section 3(3) of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act;
 Review by the City of White Rock city regarding any potential by-law changes relating to the proposed relocation;
 Develop a list of certain key parties including BNSF, Amtrak, port authorities, a representative of the Canadian Transportation Agency, and relevant U.S. regional authorities, including: the City of Blaine, WA, Whatcom County, WA, Washington and the Washington Department of Transport;
 Schedule a partners’ meeting to develop a shared view of the project and to cooperate on research and best practices; and
 At this meeting of parties, establish committees, including a technical committee to assist in the formulation, assessment and resolution of any technical issues presented by the project. It is proposed that the committee be chaired by a representative of the CTA.

DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia this 15th day of October, 2014.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2017, 6:41 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
From the consultant's report. Very interesting history of line relocation attempts.

While competitor Canadian Pacific Railway’s routing to Robert’s Bank was problematic, GN had a plan for moving Kootenay coal to port. Working with a provincially chartered railway, Kootenay and Elk Valley Railway, (K&EV), GN proposed the construction of a line in B.C. Its western vice-president, Clark Eckart appeared before White Rock’s Chamber of Commerce in 1968 agreeing to participate in an engineering study on relocation.

Although White Rock’s City Council voted to support the relocation of the rail line away from the beach as part of allowing GN access to the new superport, the move was opposed by Surrey and Delta.

The matter, however, was of greater significance to White Rock. With deaths and injuries on the White Rock tracks then totaling twenty and nine significant mudslides, White Rock demanded action. During the summer of 1968 alone, three people were killed on the White Rock track within three weeks. Prime Minister Trudeau promised action. A flurry of proposals surfaced on how to deal with what was becoming an urgent safety issue. An off-shore rail line, fencing and underpasses were all examined.

By this time, GN had merged with several affiliates and had become Burlington Northern (BN) Inc. B.C.’s Premier Bennett introduced legislation in 1969 authorizing the relocation to proceed. But relocation hung on a pending decision on the Kootenay & Elk Valley railway in the Supreme Court of Canada. That decision would determine whether a BN provincial railway could service the area.

In May, 1972, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Kootenay and Elk Valley Railway and construction of the new line began. Newly installed B.C. Premier Barrett, however, refused to grant K&EV a right-of-way over Crown land with the practical result of the decision being that BN had no further interest in relocation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2017, 9:08 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,309
Thanks for the history!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2017, 9:54 PM
Bdawe Bdawe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunrise
Posts: 535
Weird claim about passenger traffic being a post 1972. Pre 1972 had *more* passenger trains and they moved generally faster
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2017, 11:11 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdawe View Post
Weird claim about passenger traffic being a post 1972. Pre 1972 had *more* passenger trains and they moved generally faster
But fewer people lived in the area. It's quite common to have faster trains in areas out in the Fraser Valley... even when access to the tracks essentially goes through back yards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2017, 12:54 AM
Tetsuo Tetsuo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy View Post
Following the 1904 construction of the New Westminster Bridge connecting New Westminster with Surrey, the Great Northern rail line was moved; the new GN line ran directly through the heart of White Rock. This caused immediate safety problems as the trains cut off access to White Rock’s popular beach.
Wasn't WR's growth and popularity as a beach due to the fact that there was a rail connection with New West/Vancouver allowing "tourists" to visit?

Ron,
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2017, 12:52 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetsuo View Post
Wasn't WR's growth and popularity as a beach due to the fact that there was a rail connection with New West/Vancouver allowing "tourists" to visit?
I am not sure about WR specifically, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. It is common for communities have a love/hate relationship with railways. Many towns were formed and thrived because the railway built a station there so they chose to build with the station at the centre of town. Now people look at the tracks going through the centre of town and want to get rid of them since the trains are causing issues, which isn't fair as the railway came first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2017, 1:28 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy View Post
The construction of Finlay Street, Bay Street, Ash Street and Balsam Street are currently being designed and construction is expected to begin fall 2017.
From this article (White Rock receives federal funding for upgraded rail crossings) it looks like the Finlay Street, Bay Street and Ash Street crossings will only have wigwags and Balsam Street will have wigwags and gates.

Quote:
Upgrades will include lights and bells. Gate arms will be installed where vehicle access is allowed.
Given that the track is elevated on the eastern end, it would make so much more sense to build tunnels under the tracks at Finlay, Bay and Ash, but they would be much more expensive.

The article also mentions the Coldicutt overpass:

Quote:
The Coldicutt overpass will be constructed to improve access to the west beach. Transport Canada will contribute $500,000 to that project, while the city will pay the remaining $1.7 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2017, 4:54 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
From this article (White Rock receives federal funding for upgraded rail crossings) it looks like the Finlay Street, Bay Street and Ash Street crossings will only have wigwags and Balsam Street will have wigwags and gates.



Given that the track is elevated on the eastern end, it would make so much more sense to build tunnels under the tracks at Finlay, Bay and Ash, but they would be much more expensive.

The article also mentions the Coldicutt overpass:
Great update!! I think we can take a mental leap and say that WR has given up on the relocation issue. All the preliminary work that has to be done and the costs associated with it, without any guarantee of success, is a huge negative. One line in particular talks about getting the affected parties ie BNSF, WR, Blaine, WA state, BC and Fed Governments together alone would be tough since no one else is talking about or bringing up the issue... hence very little interest.

Blaine would never agree to moving the tracks on the US side because the residents would shoot that down because it would affect so many people and businesses. Therefore, the relocation would have to happen once you cross the border into Canada. The only option is a long tunnel under WR and Surrey. Tunnelling is very risky as we discovered with the Evergreen tunnel.

Final thought: Surrey rejected relocation years ago and is now doing a 180.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2017, 11:28 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy View Post
Great update!! I think we can take a mental leap and say that WR has given up on the relocation issue. All the preliminary work that has to be done and the costs associated with it, without any guarantee of success, is a huge negative. One line in particular talks about getting the affected parties ie BNSF, WR, Blaine, WA state, BC and Fed Governments together alone would be tough since no one else is talking about or bringing up the issue... hence very little interest.

Blaine would never agree to moving the tracks on the US side because the residents would shoot that down because it would affect so many people and businesses. Therefore, the relocation would have to happen once you cross the border into Canada. The only option is a long tunnel under WR and Surrey. Tunnelling is very risky as we discovered with the Evergreen tunnel.

Final thought: Surrey rejected relocation years ago and is now doing a 180.
I'm sure Blaine would be fine with getting their waterfront back. If there's any chance of HSR long-term that's a logical route to follow 176th instead of the shoreline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2017, 4:41 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
Some great articles about the history of BNSF along the White Rock waterfront.

https://issuu.com/peacearchnews/docs/bnsf_series
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 6:51 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
This article is from last year but from what I can see on the government website, their study has not been approved yet.

City eyes BNSF to pay share of rail move White Rock, Surrey, province await federal funds to begin year-long assessment of relocation

The City of Surrey is hoping for a spring 2018 to March 2019 timeline for a study – jointly funded by Surrey, White Rock and the federal and provincial governments – on relocating the BNSF route off the Semiahmoo Peninsula waterfront, Surrey transportation manager Jaime Boan said.

That is what the city included in its $300,000 grant application made to the federal Rail Safety Improvement Program (RSIP) on Aug. 1, he said Thursday, adding that a response is expected sometime this fall.

“Historically, projects like this are funded one-third provincially, one-third federally and one-third locally,” Boan said, adding the city is “optimistic” the federal component will be approved.

Federal transportation minister Marc Garneau encouraged Surrey to apply for the RSIP funding in a letter to Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner last December, he noted.

The split for local funding for the study, as suggested by Surrey, would call for $75,000 from White Rock to Surrey’s contribution of $225,000, Boan said.

Mayor Wayne Baldwin told Peace Arch News earlier this week that White Rock remains committed to studying the issue of relocating the route – adding that he can envision a new route travelling along Highway 99, for which the railway might shoulder “a substantial amount” of the cost.

However, the city will be watching Surrey’s progress with the federal grant before finally committing to costs for the study, Baldwin said.

“We’re letting them take the lead,” he said. “When they (get the grant) we’ll have to work out the numbers.”

The idea of relocating the shoreline BNSF route – raised by the cities of Surrey and White Rock in a joint community forum hosted by then-Surrey mayor Dianne Watts and Baldwin in 2013 – was the subject of a series of hearings before the federal Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in Ottawa last year, held at the urging of Watts, now MP for South Surrey-White Rock.

Representatives of BNSF participated in those hearings, and have requested to be included in the proposed study, Boan said.

Speaking before council in 2014, Baldwin made what he said was “a rough guess” that the BNSF trains could be relocated off the waterfront “in five years.”

The same year, Hepner – who had earlier, as a council member, said that talk of relocation was “premature” – made it a platform priority when campaigning in Crescent Beach as the Surrey First candidate for mayor.

The scope of the provincial contribution to the study has yet to be confirmed, Baldwin said Wednesday, although a letter from then-B.C. transportation and infrastructure minister Todd Stone to Garneau in February of this year expressed provincial support for the latest initiative by Surrey and White Rock.

“The provincial government has been invited to participate all along,” Baldwin noted. “But, at this stage of the game, while they’ve said they support it, no firm numbers have been given.”

Baldwin said the terms of the study will not only include identifying a potential alternative route for BNSF’s Seattle to Vancouver traffic – “obviously, it’s going to be in Surrey” – but also an assessment of the economic case for relocation.

“We have to look at whether it makes financial sense for BNSF to move it,” Baldwin added.

“If it would make sense for them, they would pay a substantial amount of the cost,” he suggested, although he noted the final determination of how the project would be funded, taking into account costs and benefits of possible realignment options, would be left in the hands of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Baldwin also said the study would determine whether the existing line itself, or the route would be relocated off the waterfront.

“We’d be looking at a new rail bed, and the preferred route would probably travel all the way up Highway 99 and through the tunnel,” he said.

“It all depends on the economics and what the best route would be, although (travelling along the highway) would probably present the least amount of issues – nobody wants a railway running through their backyard.”

He said he notes some support for this option south of the border.

“The Washington State Department of Transportation shows it as a preferred route from their point of view, as the shortest distance between Vancouver and Seattle – they’ve also been talking about high-speed trains.”

Boan said he sees the proposed study as “taking a fresh look at all the options” and then screening them down, through public and stakeholder consultation, to a single best option.

But even if the federal funds don’t come through, he said, he expects that Surrey and White Rock will; “continue to pursue the idea of rail relocation.”


No way in hell will BNSF pay anything to relocate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 6:53 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
Check out the projects already approved for White Rock by the RISP

http://www.tc.gc.ca/en/programs-poli...s.html#prov-bc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 7:01 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
White Rock to renew BNSF lease
Agreement with railway, entering its last five year renewal option, will expire in 2023


White Rock is renewing its lease for waterfront land from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway for another five years.

Monday, city council endorsed the recommendation from financial services director Sandra Kurylo that it exercise its option for a further renewal of the agreement. The five-year renewal will begin Aug. 1, and under terms of the lease, council is required to give six months notice that it intends to renew.

The property, which includes the promenade, Memorial Park, the Museum and Archives, three public washrooms and waterfont parking lots, is currently leased from BNSF for a minimum annual base rent of $400,000.

Under terms of the current agreement, that amount will increase to $450,000 for the five years between Aug. 1, 2018 and July 31, 2023.

Kurylo’s report said it is “critical that the city continues to have current rights to this property.”

She noted that this is the third and final renewal in the current 20-year agreement entered into with BNSF in 2003.

In response to a question from Coun. Helen Fathers, chief administrative officer Dan Bottrill said that, once the next five years is up, the city would have to negotiate a new lease with BNSF.

“So, in 2023, BNSF could say it doesn’t want to renegotiate?” Fathers asked.

“In theory,” Bottrill said.

When Mayor Wayne Baldwin said “we have no obligation to move really fast on this,” Bottrill noted that the city is required to provide a minimum of three months notice to BNSF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 7:02 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
.

Last edited by Trainguy; Jan 24, 2018 at 9:34 PM. Reason: double entry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 9:12 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy View Post
No way in hell will BNSF pay anything to relocate.
That depends. If the new route is faster, it will save them money in the long run, so it might be worth the investment. It also builds good will, which is worth something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 9:38 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
That depends. If the new route is faster, it will save them money in the long run, so it might be worth the investment. It also builds good will, which is worth something.
They would have to drill a long tunnel under Surrey because there is no other place to go once BNSF crosses the border into Canada. No way will Blaine agree to move the rail line from where it is through their city. Tunnels are expensive to maintain and that is why railways avoid them as much as possible.

This is just another Surrey pipe-dream.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 2:41 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy View Post
Tunnels are expensive to maintain and that is why railways avoid them as much as possible.
Really? I thought the cost was almost all in the construction. What makes it expensive to keep them in good repair?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 5:08 AM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Really? I thought the cost was almost all in the construction. What makes it expensive to keep them in good repair?
Tunnels require regular inspections and maintenance in addition to the electricity costs associated with powering the ventilation fans. BNSF would possibly require their maintenance/electricity costs be covered as part of the agreement to move the line. Also, I highly doubt the residents above the tunnel would agree to it. Anytime you tunnel, you have the possibility of disturbing whatever is above with sinkholes etc.

At this point their "relocation study" hasn't even been approved for funding and Hepner wants to start this Spring. In the meantime, the trains keep rolling like they have since 1907.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:42 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.