Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

1989? thats a lie. they didnt stop running trains until into the early 2000s. i walked down those tracks as a child and waved as the trains went by.

That jumped out at me too. Freight service ended in May 2001 IIRC.

Also, “The Arbutus Corridor was home to a busy Interurban tram line between 1905 and 1958” is technically incorrect. Interurbans on the Arbutus line stopped in July 1952. From then on until 1958 the interurban only ran from Marpole to Steveston (and from Marpole to New Westminter until 1956).

[officedweller]

With the Broadway Extension, the utility of the streecar as a feeder between Expo and Canada Lines has been reduced,
but as has been mentioned, it would be good feeders / last milers for both Granville Island and Gastown.
The level of use by locals would depend on the frequencies.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Trains along Vancouver's Arbutus Corridor stopped years ago. Why are the rail signs still there?

So disgusted with Gregor Robertson and his City Council for derailing the plan to install a new streetcar line here. Their actions have set Vancouver back decades.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

So disgusted with Gregor Robertson and his City Council for derailing the plan to install a new streetcar line here. Their actions have set Vancouver back decades.

So it was approved and then Gregor came in and cancelled the whole thing? Please tell us more about this alternate history.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The streetcar was only pitched as a NIMBY alternative for the Broadway SkyTrain. Ironically, Vision gave it the most attention of any council by studying it as a feeder line and creating the Greenway.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

So disgusted with Gregor Robertson and his City Council for derailing the plan to install a new streetcar line here. Their actions have set Vancouver back decades.

This plan that you say Gregor Robertson and his City Council derailed - remind us all who was going to run the system, how much it was going to cost, and who was going to pay for it?

[GenWhy?]

I think we can all agree that keeping the ROW (even into 2030 with no promise of a streetcar or LRT) is a better outcome than getting rid of the ROW and regretting it decades later. I mean, we wouldn't even have the bikeway if the ROW was sold off.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think we can all agree that keeping the ROW (even into 2030 with no promise of a streetcar or LRT) is a better outcome than getting rid of the ROW and regretting it decades later. I mean, we wouldn't even have the bikeway if the ROW was sold off.

Absolutely. And once the False Creek South planning has finished (if it ever does) it might be worth making the remainder of the streetcar right-of-way into a temporary bike/pedestrian path to link up with the end of the Arbutus Greenway, at least as far as Cambie.

Getting funding for the Broadway line was always a higher priority for most Council members, and the City Engineers. There's no realistic way the City could (or should) establish its own transportation agency to run streetcars, and the Mayor's Council isn't going to prioritize the streetcar over more pressing regional transit needs any time soon.

One day, sometime in the future, funding transit along some or all of the route will make economic sense. Senakw and other developments will help to make the case stronger.

[officedweller]

The longer it's delayed, the more likely an Arbutus Corridor line will be upgraded in scope to be a Canada Line relief line.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The contract stipulates light rail, though - might end up looking more like Vancouver's own Eglinton Line.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The contract stipulates light rail, though - might end up looking more like Vancouver's own Eglinton Line.

Did it stipulate below-grade use? Edmonton and Calgary's LRTs are light rail and run on dedicated ROWs that don't stop for car traffic. Not the worst if it has to run above grade.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Did it stipulate below-grade use? Edmonton and Calgary's LRTs are light rail and run on dedicated ROWs that don't stop for car traffic. Not the worst if it has to run above grade.

The City's link is currently broken; in the meantime, 9.1 states "... an internal planning process to design the portions of the Lands for light rail use and walking and cycling use." In other words, anything which isn't those things is likely to summon CP's lawyers; SkyTrain may or may not count as "light rail".

Not the worst, but far from optimal either - at least in the current configuration between 16th-6th and along False Creek (current plan is to run it along 6th and put the trench up for development). Bear in mind that Calgary and Edmonton's on-road alignments generally have less walkability, slower speeds and frequencies, lower mode share and a higher accident rate than SkyTrain; at-grade is alright for a suburban route, but anything north of 16th and between 41st and 49th may need a more permanent solution.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

one big hinderace to any street car line is TransLink would need to run it. as it is now, no one is allowed to make transit that competes with TransLink. either the law would have to change, or TransLink needs to do it. highly unlikely either of those happen.

in 50yrs i could see a cut & cover SkyTrain line go under the RoW and then walking/cycling above to feed from West End - Broadway - 41st Av - Marine. but thats all fantasy and most here probably wont see it in their lifetime. .

it was a good thing to keep the corridor and not let it get developed since it has lots of benefits to a city. our version of the High Line so to speak. though it will never compare with that.

as for Gergor/Vision. they did cancel the planned rebuilding of the DHR from Cambie - Science World, along 1st Av. thats why all the poles are titled back slightly. they were installed prior to the cancellation, and so the weight of the gantry would have pulled them straight.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Bear in mind that Calgary and Edmonton's on-road alignments generally have less walkability, slower speeds and frequencies, lower mode share and a higher accident rate than SkyTrain; on-road is alright for a suburban route, but anything north of 16th and between 41st and 49th may need a more permanent solution.

Edmonton has no current active on-road LRT and Calgary only has downtown. Both their systems run on dedicated ROW (except Calgary's downtown portion). Even Edmonton's soon to open Valley Line is in a dedicated ROW with no portions sharing space with cars (unless you count an intersection) and neither should Vancouver, if it keeps reminding us every few years it wants a train line (of whatever design) along these routes.

If Vancouver can build here what Edmonton's Valley Line delivers I think we'd be in good shape if we can learn to synchronize traffic lights like they do in Edmonton.

EDIT: Unless you meant at-grade?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

EDIT: Unless you meant at-grade?

Yup, my bad. Though you yourself may be confused with mixed traffic alignments; the C-Train and Valley Line are both at-grade and on-road, but not in mixed traffic.

Again, WRT Vancouver, the current plan for the streetcar is to run the whole thing at-grade but in the segregated ROW (okay) except for a few critical segments.

• 16th-6th, where the NB rail splits off and runs down Arbutus itself in mixed traffic. (much less okay)
• 6th-Granville Island, where it runs down Fir in mixed traffic. (slightly less okay)
• Granville Island-West 1st, where a new ROW replaces two lanes of 6th. (much less okay, just because that'll really slow down the 84).
• Quebec, where the ROW ends and both rails are in mixed traffic all the way to Waterfront. (definitely not okay)

If it's just a feeder route replacing the 16/50, no problem... but if we're serious about the streetcar being a SkyTrain relief line on a high-density corridor, #1, 3 and 4 are going to be trouble. 41st-49th might need grade separation too.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If it's just a feeder route replacing the 16/50, no problem... but if we're serious about the streetcar being a SkyTrain relief line on a high-density corridor, #1, 3 and 4 are going to be trouble. 41st-49th might need grade separation too.

As you noted above "The contract stipulates light rail". When the Downtown streetcar was first floated as an idea, it was in the 1990s when Portland was proposing their city centre streetcar that eventually opened in 2001. That runs in mixed traffic for the entire route.

There was serious consideration of the Arbutus corridor as a possible route as an alternative to Cambie for the rail connection from Richmond, (probably in a tunnel built as cut and cover) but the complications of getting the right-of-way from CP, and the potential for future development along a more major arterial favoured Cambie. At the time there were more jobs, and existing residents associated with an Arbutus alignment than a Cambie alignment. (CP only sold the Arbutus right-of-way to the City in 2016, having been thwarted in their idea to abandon it and develop it by the City introducing the Arbutus Corridor ODP in 2000, that designated it for transit or recreation use only.)

The $1.1bn estimated cost to create the streetcar that was calculated by consultants in 2021 was just for the Downtown lines, ending at Arbutus. To reinstate track south from Arbutus to the Fraser River would cost more. As far as I know there's never been any suggestion by the City that the route should be anything other than a streetcar, and it's not seen as a 'relief line' for the Canada Line - that's just something dreamt up here.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As you noted above "The contract stipulates light rail". When the Downtown streetcar was first floated as an idea, it was in the 1990s when Portland was proposing their city centre streetcar that eventually opened in 2001. That runs in mixed traffic for the entire route.

Devil's advocate: "light rail" in North America can be fudged to cover several non-Portland use cases; for example, Line 4 Eglinton runs for half the route inside a tunnel. Not saying there will be scope creep, only that there's some wiggle room to do so.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yup, my bad. Though you yourself may be confused with mixed traffic alignments; the C-Train and Valley Line are both at-grade and on-road, but not in mixed traffic.

I am confused. What is "on-road"? I assumed you meant at-grade, crossing regular traffic intersections with timed traffic lights. Are these the same? I would agree, but execution is huge.

[GenWhy?]

Would also agree Vancouver's LRT / streetcar doesn't fit the topic of this thread and I'll nip it at this comment.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, I'll move it to Transit.