inane Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 ^ What? No more comments from nitro or ron on this? In addition to providing a commute option to/from the Valley, an airport connection and facilitating high speed rail to Seattle, it also bridges the gap between Surrey/N. Delta and Richmond. If 'high speed rail' (whatever your definition of it is) is not suitable for this route, what is the maximum feasible speed for it? I say it should strive for 200 km/h and be electrified for quick acceleration. Maybe start at a lower speed until the entire route is grade separated. And the tracks should be compatible with whatever trains they have planned for the Northwest HSR corridor, since they'll be shared with them. It's easy to draw lines on a map. The land acquisition, social and political upheaval, and many other related costs make this not impossible, but on a 30/40 year + timeframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_1 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) ^ What? No more comments from nitro or ron on this? In addition to providing a commute option to/from the Valley, an airport connection and facilitating high speed rail to Seattle, it also bridges the gap between Surrey/N. Delta and Richmond. If 'high speed rail' (whatever your definition of it is) is not suitable for this route, what is the maximum feasible speed for it? I say it should strive for 200 km/h and be electrified for quick acceleration. Maybe start at a lower speed until the entire route is grade separated. And the tracks should be compatible with whatever trains they have planned for the Northwest HSR corridor, since they'll be shared with them. High Speed Rail is not even feasible for this area; it would be 100+ years away. I think government would be more open to a valley rail commuter run with speeds up to 80 miles an hour. It would cost a fraction of high speed and would not face the hurdles of constructing high speed rail. Costs would be minimal as existing rail rights of way would be used. Partnerships to double track and even triple track parts of the Roberts Bank corridor could also be a priority. A major flaw with the valley rail high speed idea is it doesn't even connect to Downtown Vancouver. The reason why Europe has so much high-speed rail is the rights of way and terrain were already established. An extra reason for high-speed rail construction is so that rail can compete with air travel. For example the Washington-Boston-New York Amtrak Acela high speed rail corridor competes air travel. High speed is too expensive to justify a valley option as a 60-80 MPH train would be sufficient to serve the area. If any high speed corridor is completed in Canada it should be Montreal-Toronto,Calgary-Edmonton, Vancouver-Seattle-Portland and Montreal-New York. All of which would compete with air travel. The costs your high speed rail for the valley would be at least $5 billion but probably closer to at least $10 billion. On the other hand a conventional commuter train could be completed sooner at a cost of $1-2 billion. Edited June 8, 2009 by tom_1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_1 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) They actually helped build a cruicial siding necessary for the second daily Amtrak run. It's the feds that are getting in the way with the customs fee. Maybe they should have confirmed that with the feds before giving money to an American Company. Edited June 8, 2009 by tom_1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Skytrain's kind of slow if you want to take it from Langley or Cloverdale all the way to DT Van. The HSR option to Richmond should let you bypass much of Surrey and all of New West and Burnaby, and get you there much faster. Top notch HSR that goes at 300+ km/h is out of the question, since we're talking relatively short distance with frequent stops and tight curves. I'm thinking speeds of about 200 km/h instead. Even 100 km/h trains would have very flat curve and grade requirements that would require huge property takes and tons of seperated grade crossings. That's why I like the spot in Cloverdale, it's very close, flat, and straight route to the US border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 High Speed Rail is not even feasible for this area; it would be 100+ years away. I think government would be more open to a valley rail commuter run with speeds up to 80 miles an hour. It would cost a fraction of high speed and would not face the hurdles of constructing high speed rail. Costs would be minimal as existing rail rights of way would be used. Partnerships to double track and even triple track parts of the Roberts Bank corridor could also be a priority. A major flaw with the valley rail high speed idea is it doesn't even connect to Downtown Vancouver. The reason why Europe has so much high-speed rail is the rights of way and terrain were already established. An extra reason for high-speed rail construction is so that rail can compete with air travel. For example the Washington-Boston-New York Amtrak Acela high speed rail corridor competes air travel. High speed is too expensive to justify a valley option as a 60-80 MPH train would be sufficient to serve the area. If any high speed corridor is completed in Canada it should be Montreal-Toronto,Calgary-Edmonton, Vancouver-Seattle-Portland and Montreal-New York. All of which would compete with air travel. The costs your high speed rail for the valley would be at least $5 billion but probably closer to at least $10 billion. On the other hand a conventional commuter train could be completed sooner at a cost of $1-2 billion. Now your thinking! You could terminate the interurban at Scott Road station, turn it into a intermodal, and transfer people easily onto the skytrain system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 Well said, it simply isn't feasible given both the capital and operational costs. Commuter rail is fine, the West Coast Express trains are designed to operate to up to something like 130 km/h...pending on the track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 High Speed Rail is not even feasible for this area; it would be 100+ years away. I think government would be more open to a valley rail commuter run with speeds up to 80 miles an hour. It would cost a fraction of high speed and would not face the hurdles of constructing high speed rail. Costs would be minimal as existing rail rights of way would be used. Partnerships to double track and even triple track parts of the Roberts Bank corridor could also be a priority. A major flaw with the valley rail high speed idea is it doesn't even connect to Downtown Vancouver. Unfortunately, acquiring land to build a straight track to Downtown Vancouver would be next to impossible. Plus, it's kind of redundant, with the Skytrain and Canada Line in place. Terminating at Bridgeport seems about as close as you can get to it, while building over mostly undeveloped farm land. Who knows? Maybe Richmond can eventually become the area's new downtown, with proximity to the airport to boot. We should set our sights to at least 90 mph, though sections that overlap with NW HSR should be made adjustable to 125 mph (200 km/h), as per Caltrain's ambitions: http://www.caltrain.com/pdf/Electrificatio...ion_03-2009.pdf Overhead wires will be designed to allow 90 mph operations, with ability to adjust for 125 mph (California High Speed Rail) Maybe they should have confirmed that with the feds before giving money to an American Company. They couldn't wait till they swayed the feds to overturn the fee before starting construction on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) Even 100 km/h trains would have very flat curve and grade requirements that would require huge property takes and tons of seperated grade crossings. That's why I like the spot in Cloverdale, it's very close, flat, and straight route to the US border. Caltrain goes over 100 km/h (127 according to Wiki), but has at grade crossings. Now your thinking! You could terminate the interurban at Scott Road station, turn it into a intermodal, and transfer people easily onto the skytrain system. What I like about the Richmond location is the proximity to the airport. Not only for Valley residents, but for YXX and SEA transfers, if you're seriously looking for rail to connect airports and replace short haul flights. Edited June 8, 2009 by Buggernut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Caltrain goes over 100 km/h (127 according to Wiki), but has at grade crossings. What I like about the Richmond location is the proximity to the airport. Not only for Valley residents, but for YXX and SEA transfers, if you're seriously looking for rail to connect airports and replace short haul flights. Caltrain also runs over approximately 30 people a year (I took the Caltrain for a couple years when I lived in the area) and can severy slow down traffic despite, for the most part, of running parralell with the main traffic flow. I suppose you could parrellell hwy 99 for most of the way, but you would still need extensive property and many overpasses for a long, long way. Either way, I would hope they do a cost benefit analysis of yours, mine, and several other strategies before comitting billions one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I suppose you could parrellell hwy 99 for most of the way, but you would still need extensive property and many overpasses for a long, long way. I wonder if it would be better to parallel Hwy 99 or 91. I thought 91 would better connect North Delta, and potentially Skytrain in East Richmond. 99, OTOH, could serve Ladner and be closer to the ferry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I wonder if it would be better to parallel Hwy 99 or 91. I thought 91 would better connect North Delta, and potentially Skytrain in East Richmond. 99, OTOH, could serve Ladner and be closer to the ferry. It would be better to paralell hwy 15. Then run an express bus from the cloverdale interchange via hwy 10 and 91 to RAV and the airport, or just get on the extended expo line for downtown. Then, in the future, if you wanted to be fancy, you could go up to hwy 1, follow that up to the hastings/port/waterfront area, and then connect into the dowtown terminal, if one had too much money on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 It would be better to paralell hwy 15. Then run an express bus from the cloverdale interchange via hwy 10 and 91 to RAV and the airport, or just get on the extended expo line for downtown. Then, in the future, if you wanted to be fancy, you could go up to hwy 1, follow that up to the hastings/port/waterfront area, and then connect into the dowtown terminal, if one had too much money on their hands. So no more commuter rail for the Valley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 So no more commuter rail for the Valley? Well, you would have the skytrain out to say Willowbrook Mall in Langley. But you then partner with the rail companies to put in enough sidings and what not to run passenger trains from Cloverdale out to Chilliwhack. In fact, you could probably have an interurban out to Chilliwack, and expo line extension to Langley via Cloverdale, and a intermodal highspeed rail south, interuban east, high speed rail south station and extension out to the states for the cost of a high speed rail line out to Richmond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) Well, you would have the skytrain out to say Willowbrook Mall in Langley. But you then partner with the rail companies to put in enough sidings and what not to run passenger trains from Cloverdale out to Chilliwhack. In fact, you could probably have an interurban out to Chilliwack, and expo line extension to Langley via Cloverdale, and a intermodal highspeed rail south, interuban east, high speed rail south station and extension out to the states for the cost of a high speed rail line out to Richmond. Forget 'high speed' rail then. Just lay tracks straight enough for commuter trains to run as close to their maximum of 130 clicks as possible for the most part. You can either have the American HSR terminate at Newton Station on my map, from which passengers can then either choose to go east, west or north, or at Bridgeport, to come as close to Downtown and the airport as possible. Edited June 9, 2009 by Buggernut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Forget 'high speed' rail then. Just lay tracks straight enough for commuter trains to run as close to their maximum of 130 clicks as possible for the most part. You can either have the American HSR terminate at Newton Station on my map, from which passengers can then either choose to go east, west or north, or at Bridgeport, to come as close to Downtown and the airport as possible. Still billions. Still need property. Can't have at grade crossings at the feeder routes to the highway. Still need very expensive crossing of the fraser. Still eating up a ton of ALR land which would require a ton in compensation even if you could get approval for it. You gotta remember that the existing rail lines were very expensive to build as well, and that's when there wasn't anything in the way and they had the first crack at the topography to build the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Still billions. Still need property. Can't have at grade crossings at the feeder routes to the highway. Still need very expensive crossing of the fraser. Still eating up a ton of ALR land which would require a ton in compensation even if you could get approval for it. You gotta remember that the existing rail lines were very expensive to build as well, and that's when there wasn't anything in the way and they had the first crack at the topography to build the lines. Still cheaper than acquiring prime urban real estate, burrowing for several miles and building big river crossings to build the Canada Line and Skytrain, I would imagine. There also seems to be lots of money going around for road projects. That too would take away lots of space as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Caltrain also runs over approximately 30 people a year Fences around the tracks and flashing red lights, loud bells and gate arms at the crossings aren't good enough? Those who get run over anyways seem deserving of a Darwin Award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Still cheaper than acquiring prime urban real estate, burrowing for several miles and building big river crossings to build the Canada Line and Skytrain, I would imagine. There also seems to be lots of money going around for road projects. That too would take away lots of space as well. Skytrain will carry 100k people per day. The highway and bridge can carry even more. High speed rail won't even touch that. You have to look at the cost per person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Fences around the tracks and flashing red lights, loud bells and gate arms at the crossings aren't good enough? Those who get run over anyways seem deserving of a Darwin Award. Apparently not. I don't want to see the number of flashing red lights, loud bells, and gate arms decrease, not put a bunch more in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Skytrain will carry 100k people per day. The highway and bridge can carry even more. High speed rail won't even touch that. You have to look at the cost per person. Are you sure a rail bridge that connects Surrey and the Valley to Richmond, with all day service and Skytrain transfers in two convenient locations, in addition to the HSR to Seattle, won't get sufficient ridership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now