ronthecivil Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 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? It would be kind of redundant, and there is little reason to build your commuter rail to high speed rail standards, or to build a commuter rail line when there is existing line and right of way in place. The line out to the valley should of course be some re-instatement of the interurban. We can't run that all the way to Vancouver since the line on the north side of the river is currently taken up by the skytrain. Clearly, even without some sort of highspeed rail, if you want rail out to the valley, there should be some sort of common connection point. That could be at Scott Road. If you wanted to build high speed rail, and wanted to do it on the cheap, the logical thing to do would be to connect it to both. I suppose you could connect the high speed rail in at cloverdale and have it run on common track for that distance up to Scott Road, but the skytrain should be extended to Langely anways. A brand new right of way for either valley traffic or high speed rail would never win a cost benefit vs. using existing rail ROWs and connecting to existing skytrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) It would be kind of redundant, and there is little reason to build your commuter rail to high speed rail standards, or to build a commuter rail line when there is existing line and right of way in place. The line out to the valley should of course be some re-instatement of the interurban. We can't run that all the way to Vancouver since the line on the north side of the river is currently taken up by the skytrain. Clearly, even without some sort of highspeed rail, if you want rail out to the valley, there should be some sort of common connection point. That could be at Scott Road. If you wanted to build high speed rail, and wanted to do it on the cheap, the logical thing to do would be to connect it to both. I suppose you could connect the high speed rail in at cloverdale and have it run on common track for that distance up to Scott Road, but the skytrain should be extended to Langely anways. A brand new right of way for either valley traffic or high speed rail would never win a cost benefit vs. using existing rail ROWs and connecting to existing skytrain. Some kind of rapid rail transit going that way is needed eventually, unless you want to keep expanding Hwys 91 and 99, no? The problem I have with just building out Skytrain farther out east is that it is a system built for short inverval stops, and all points along its route are bound to get filled with sprawl. At least with this rail line I'm proposing, the stops are spaced farther apart and positioned in existing population centres, such as Cloverdale, Langley City, Aldergrove and Abbotsford Centre. Laying ground level tracks is also more cost effective that building an elevated Skytrain way out there. Vancouver got its connection to the airport through the Canada Line. I'm sure Delta/Surrey East will want theirs too with the way their population is growing. 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 Some kind of rapid rail transit going that way is needed eventually, unless you want to keep expanding Hwys 91 and 99, no? The problem I have with just building out Skytrain farther out east is that it is a system built for short inverval stops, and all points along its route are bound to get filled with sprawl. At least with this rail line I'm proposing, the stops are spaced farther apart and positioned in existing population centres, such as Cloverdale, Langley City, Aldergrove and Abbotsford Centre. Laying ground level tracks is also more cost effective that building an elevated Skytrain way out there. Vancouver got its connection to the airport through the Canada Line. I'm sure Delta/Surrey East will want theirs too with the way their population is growing. You want to connect Surrey/Delta south of the river with say Landner and Richmond? If you had a terminus in Cloverdale you could run express buses to go east on hwy 10 to Lander, the Port, Twassen, and Richmond/YVR. You could have them run norht on 15 and over the new bridge to Pitt Meadows. That would be much cheaper than rail and cost effective to run much more effectively. No matter what way this is run, there needs to be some sort of transit node in Surrey similar to Waterfront and Commercial drive in Van. Even if you have a node in Richmond you would need to have one in Surrey. Why not make the Surrey node the interface for the high speed rail, since it can be connected with interurban and skytrain very easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) You want to connect Surrey/Delta south of the river with say Landner and Richmond? If you had a terminus in Cloverdale you could run express buses to go east on hwy 10 to Lander, the Port, Twassen, and Richmond/YVR. You could have them run norht on 15 and over the new bridge to Pitt Meadows. That would be much cheaper than rail and cost effective to run much more effectively. But nobody likes to take the bus. It gets stuck in traffic too. If it was that good, we could have packed buses full of passengers running all along Kingsway, Broadway and Granville Street without ever sticking in a shovel to build rail. It's made even more difficult for air and HSR passengers with big baggage. No matter what way this is run, there needs to be some sort of transit node in Surrey similar to Waterfront and Commercial drive in Van. Even if you have a node in Richmond you would need to have one in Surrey. Why not make the Surrey node the interface for the high speed rail, since it can be connected with interurban and skytrain very easily. But those Interurban lines were built in the 1800's by the standards of that time for slow trains. They're probably still good for short distance travel, but are insufficient at providing infrastructure for modern high speed travel. 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 But nobody likes to take the bus. It gets stuck in traffic too. If it was that good, we could have packed buses full of passengers running all along Kingsway, Broadway and Granville Street without ever sticking in a shovel to build rail. It's made even more difficult for air and HSR passengers with big baggage. But those Interurban lines were built in the 1800's by the standards of that time for slow trains. They're probably still good for short distance travel, but are insufficient at providing infrastructure for modern high speed travel. Express buses travelling in HOV lanes are a different matter altogether. Even without HOV lanes, the existing express buses on Broadway carry more passengers than many light rail lines, and that was before the U pass. Most of hwy 99 has HOV lanes doesn't it? The interurban was build before there was much in the way of property in the way, so they are pretty darn straight for the most part. If you want the interurban to be fast, electrify it (I think it was at one time and it wouldn't be that hard to do so). And skytrain is fast if you don't put many stops in. And extended skytrain to Cloverdale would probably have 2-3 stops before king george at the worst. But no matter what technology you use, you still need a transit node for surrey. There is one for richmond, it's going to be across the street from the River Rock at the branch of the Canada line and the terminus of intercity busses. Where would you put the node in Surrey? Decide that and then decide how to connect it. But no matter how you connect them (and they would be connected with skytrain, all be it a long route) you certainly wouldn't build a brand new rail line to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Express buses travelling in HOV lanes are a different matter altogether. Even without HOV lanes, the existing express buses on Broadway carry more passengers than many light rail lines, and that was before the U pass. Most of hwy 99 has HOV lanes doesn't it? The interurban was build before there was much in the way of property in the way, so they are pretty darn straight for the most part. If you want the interurban to be fast, electrify it (I think it was at one time and it wouldn't be that hard to do so). And skytrain is fast if you don't put many stops in. And extended skytrain to Cloverdale would probably have 2-3 stops before king george at the worst. But no matter what technology you use, you still need a transit node for surrey. There is one for richmond, it's going to be across the street from the River Rock at the branch of the Canada line and the terminus of intercity busses. Where would you put the node in Surrey? Decide that and then decide how to connect it. But no matter how you connect them (and they would be connected with skytrain, all be it a long route) you certainly wouldn't build a brand new rail line to do so. It seems the ideal spot for a node for Surrey is Surrey Central/King George. You've got skytrain there, Fraser Hwy for a diagonal route, King George for a N-S route, and 104th for an E-W route. You can put rapid buses or rail down King George, same with Fraser, and extend skytrain if you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) The interurban was build before there was much in the way of property in the way, so they are pretty darn straight for the most part. If you want the interurban to be fast, electrify it (I think it was at one time and it wouldn't be that hard to do so). Not the section through Surrey and N. Delta by the looks of it, and through Langley and Abbotsford, it strays well out of the way of the Fraser Highway corridor. It also goes through too many residential neighbourhoods, leading to safety and noise issues. But no matter what technology you use, you still need a transit node for surrey. There is one for richmond, it's going to be across the street from the River Rock at the branch of the Canada line and the terminus of intercity busses. Where would you put the node in Surrey? Decide that and then decide how to connect it. But no matter how you connect them (and they would be connected with skytrain, all be it a long route) you certainly wouldn't build a brand new rail line to do so. There's the one in Newton I suggested (with the extended Skytrain transfer), which would be central to all of North Surrey, S. Surrey/White Rock, Langley/Cloverdale and Delta, and the one in NorDel just before the bridge. Ideally, we'd have the HSR stop at both Bridgeport and Newton, but we'd need double the border staff and relations between the US and Canada would have to warm more. If the Americans can build the HSR line across all of Washington State, and into Oregon all the way to Eugene, we shouldn't cheap out on a crossing across the Fraser for it and Valley commuters. We're probably looking at a 20+ year time frame anyways. Edited June 10, 2009 by Buggernut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_1 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) 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? Plus the fact the government would be 100% responsible for the finances for the bridge that would connect to Richmond. There would be no demand for freight whatsoever and the costs of a line that doesn't even enter Vancouver doesn't make financial sense. The bigger priority would be a complete double track re-build of the 100 year old Fraser River Rail Bridge and 80+ year old Mission rail bridge. Get some private-partnership partnerships with the railroads developed and you could see a West Coast Express extension to Chilliwack and a Abbotsford-Langley-Cloverdale-Newton-North Delta Scott Road Terminus station within 10 years. The bigger issue involves the proper development, modernization of Surrey also involving transit exchanges/junctions. Edited June 10, 2009 by tom_1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) Plus the fact the government would be 100% responsible for the finances for the bridge that would connect to Richmond. There would be no demand for freight whatsoever and the costs of a line that doesn't even enter Vancouver doesn't make financial sense. The bigger priority would be a complete double track re-build of the 100 year old Fraser River Rail Bridge and 80+ year old Mission rail bridge. Get some private-partnership partnerships with the railroads developed and you could see a West Coast Express extension to Chilliwack and a Abbotsford-Langley-Cloverdale-Newton-North Delta Scott Road Terminus station within 10 years. The bigger issue involves the proper development, modernization of Surrey also involving transit exchanges/junctions. Actually, if you look at a map of the area, you'll find that there are plenty of railroad tracks in and around Annacis Island and nearby parts of Richmond that probably could use a more direct link to the main BNSF line in North Delta. And even if passenger rail doesn't go all the way into Vancouver, it'll be only something like a 15 minute ride on the Canada Line to Downtown Van and 5 minutes to the airport from Bridgeport. Freight can also go through it and over one of the bridges on the North Arm of the Fraser into Vancouver. Yeah, I'm all for improving the rail bridge at New West and feel that needs to be done too, but the question then becomes, where to from there? There's no room to construct a direct straight line track to Vancouver. Edited June 10, 2009 by Buggernut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denrik Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 How come translink doesn't build light rail all over the city instead of building a train to UBC or coquitlam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 How come translink doesn't build light rail all over the city instead of building a train to UBC or coquitlam? Because there aren't enough rights of way left that haven't already been developed, and burrowing underground is too expensive. There's also the big NIMBY factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denrik Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Because there aren't enough rights of way left that haven't already been developed, and burrowing underground is too expensive. There's also the big NIMBY factor. Oh right the nimby's. I dunno it was on the news a couple months ago just though I'd ask. I knew there was probably like a logical reason behind it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 It seems the ideal spot for a node for Surrey is Surrey Central/King George. You've got skytrain there, Fraser Hwy for a diagonal route, King George for a N-S route, and 104th for an E-W route. You can put rapid buses or rail down King George, same with Fraser, and extend skytrain if you need. You would want your node somewhere along the southern rail line if you ever wanted rail service down the valley. You could put it at 72nd and King George and extend the skytrain to there. It would be challenging to put high speed rail to there though as that section of King George down to hwy 99 is very steep so I assume the general area is as well. Of course, you could still put high speed rail up 176th ish rail corridor and then spur onto the SRW to get to the node. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Plus the fact the government would be 100% responsible for the finances for the bridge that would connect to Richmond. There would be no demand for freight whatsoever and the costs of a line that doesn't even enter Vancouver doesn't make financial sense. The bigger priority would be a complete double track re-build of the 100 year old Fraser River Rail Bridge and 80+ year old Mission rail bridge. Get some private-partnership partnerships with the railroads developed and you could see a West Coast Express extension to Chilliwack and a Abbotsford-Langley-Cloverdale-Newton-North Delta Scott Road Terminus station within 10 years. The bigger issue involves the proper development, modernization of Surrey also involving transit exchanges/junctions. Operation fix the rail bridge at the same time as the putello is being replaced seems a good idea to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) CANADA LINE SNEAK PREVIEW WATERFRONT STATION ENTRANCE TO CPR BUILDING Edited June 14, 2009 by nitronuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 ....continued WATERFRONT STATION PLATFORM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 .....continued KING EDWARD STATION PLATFORM TUNNEL PORTAL NORTH ARM BRIDGE TRACK SWITCH (TO RICHMOND, LEFT; TO AIRPORT, RIGHT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 SINGLE TRACK MERGER AT YVR TRACK TO RICHMOND OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE CENTRE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 WATERFRONT STATION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 what's with the missing tiles is that for the safey gates? 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