Zwei Replies……………………

Edmonton's Duewag U-2 LRV. Edmonton was greatly influenced by German Stadtbahns and when the system first opened it became the world first light rail syastem.

Edmonton’s Duewag U-2 LRV. Edmonton transit planners were greatly influenced by German Stadtbahns and when the system first opened it became the world first light rail system.

 

The following has been posted on Facebook and other transit blogs with some unfavorable comments about RftV.

First off, the article is by Alon Levy, a chap I have never heard of before, who has been described as an expert.

An expert, well I think not, but neither is good ole Zwei for that matter, but I consult with experts and I try to keep well informed on transit developments around the world.

I am flattered Zwei has been mentioned, which is good because it tells me other people read the blog, but that is where it ends.

Rail for the Valley has been concerned for one route and that is the former BC electric interurban route from Vancouver to Chilliwack and reinstating a passenger service, using modern trains. TramTrains would be ideal because we could create in the future (I stress future) mini tram networks in Abbotsford, Langley and of course a natural  tie in with the originally planned Surrey LRT project.

Rail for the Valley engaged Leewood Projects (UK) to do a study on the viability of such a service and the result was the Leewood Report.

I have never advocated a Stadtbahn service for metro Vancouver, though it would be desirable, instead of our local SkyTrain light metro service. Using TramTrain or a variant would provide flexibility in design and application, unheard of with the current proprietary Movia Automatic Light metro, used on the Expo and Millennium Lines and the EMU’s on the Canada Line.

The problem with SkyTrain has always been cost and it is safe to say that taxpayers have paid three time more than they should have, by allowing politicians to “play trains” by continuing to build with the proprietary light metro.

The comparison to Stockholm is rather absurd, as Stolkholm has 7 T-Banana or subway routes; 6 commuter rail routes; 2 light rail routes; and 6 tram routes! Vancouver pales with 2 1/2 metro routes; and one very limited commuter rail route with only 5 trains in, coming into the city in the morning and 5 trains out, in the evening.

Hindsight is 20 /20 but………………..

If the region had invested in light rail, as was originally planned, we could conceivably have the Stadtbahn style system for Metro Vancouver, extending out to Chilliwack!

A real expert would have pointed this out!

In 1978, the cost of the full system, as planned for LRT was $430 mil. ($1.8 billion, 2022) to $558 mil. ($2.4 billion in 2022) The 16 km Langley extension is said to cost aprox. $5 billion!

In 1978, the cost of the full system, as planned for LRT was $430 mil. ($1.8 billion, 2022) to $558 mil. ($2.4 billion in 2022) T0day, the 16 km Langley extension is said to cost aprox. $5 billion!

Pedestrian Observations

For Walkability and Good Transit, and Against Boondoggles and Pollution
 

Vancouver, Stockholm, and the Suburban Metro Model

I was asked by an area advocate about SkyTrain, and this turned into a long email with various models to compare Vancouver with. In my schema contrasting suburban metro systems and S-Bahns, Vancouver is firmly in the first category: SkyTrain is not commuter rail, and Vancouver’s commuter rail system, the West Coast Express, is so weak it might as well not exist. The suburban metro model forces the region to engage in extensive transit-oriented development, which Vancouver has done. Has it been successful? To some extent, yes – Vancouver’s modal split is steadily rising, and in the 2016 census, just before the Evergreen Line opened, was 20%; supposedly it is 24% now. But it could have done better. How so?

Could Vancouver have used the S-Bahn model?

No.

There is a common line of advocacy; glimpses of it can be found on the blog Rail for the Valley, by a writer using the name Zweisystem who commented on transit blogs like Yonah and Jarrett‘s in the 2000s. Using the name of Karlsruhe’s tram-train as inspiration, Zwei has proposed that Vancouver use existing commuter rail corridors in suburban and exurban areas and streetcars in the urban core.

The problem with this is that Vancouver has very little legacy mainline rail infrastructure to work with. There are two mainlines serving city center: the Canadian Pacific, and Canadian National. The CP line hugs the coast, full of industrial customers; the CN line is farther inland and has somewhat more fixable land use, but the Millennium Line partly parallels it and even after 20 years its ridership is not the strongest in the system. Most of the urban core is nowhere near a rail mainline.

This is completely unlike the Central European S-Bahn-and-streetcars systems, all of which have legacy commuter lines radiating in all directions, and use legacy streetcars rather than newly-built light rail lines. In the last generation they’ve expanded their systems, building connections and feeding rapid transit, but none of these is a case of completely getting rid of the streetcars and then restoring them later; the busiest system that’s entirely new, that of Paris, is largely orbitals and feeders for the Métro and RER.

Vancouver did in fact reuse old infrastructure for the suburban metro concept. The Expo Line involved very little greenfield right-of-way use. Most of the core route between the historic core of Vancouver and New Westminster is in the private right-of-way of a historic BC Electric interurban; this is why it parallels Kingsway but does not run elevated over it. The tunnel in Downtown Vancouver is a disused CP tunnel; this is why the tracks are stacked one over the other rather than running side by side – the tunnel was single-track but tall enough to be cut into two levels. This limited the construction cost of the Expo Line, which the largely-elevated Millennium Line and the partly underground, partly elevated Canada Line could not match.

The Stockholm example

In my post about S-Bahns and suburban metros, I characterized Stockholm as an archetypal suburban metro. Stockholm does have an S-Bahn tunnel nowadays, but it only opened 2017, and ridership so far, while rising, is still a fraction of that of the T-bana.

Stockholm’s choice of a full metro system in the 1940s, when it had about a million people in its metro area, had its critics at the time. But there wasn’t much of a choice. The trams were fighting growing traffic congestion, to the point that some lines had to be put in a tunnel, which would later be converted for the use of the Green Line as it goes through Södermalm. Working-class housing was overcrowded and there was demand for more housing in Stockholm, which would eventually be satisfied by the Million Program.

And there were too few commuter lines for an S-Bahn system. Swedes were perfectly aware of the existence of the S-Bahn model; Berlin and Hamburg both had S-Bahns running on dedicated tracks, and Copenhagen had built its own system, called S-Tog in imitation of the German name. But they didn’t build that. None of this was the integrated Takt timetable that Munich would perfect in the 1970s, in which branches could be left single-track or shared with intercity trains provided the regular 20-minute headways could be scheduled to avoid conflicts; the track sharing required in the 1940s would have been too disruptive. Not to mention, Stockholm had too few lines, if not so few as Vancouver – only two branches on each of two sides of city center, with most of the urban core far from the train.

So Stockholm built the T-bana, with three highly branched lines all meeting at T-Centralen, the oldest two of the three having a cross-platform transfer there and at the two stations farther south. The roughly 104 km system (57 km underground) cost, in 2022 US dollars, $3.6 billion. Stockholm removed all the regular streetcars; a handful running all or mostly in private rights-of-way were retained with forced transfers at outlying T-bana stations like Ropsten, as was the narrow-gauge Roslagsbana (with a forced transfer at KTH, where I worked for two years).

At the same time the T-bana was under construction, the state built the Million Program, and in the Stockholm region, the housing projects were designed to be thoroughly oriented around the system. The pre-Million Program TOD suburb of Vällingby was envisioned as part of a so-called string of pearls, in which towns would radiate from each T-bana station, with local retail and jobs near the station surrounded by housing. In 2019, the T-bana had 1,265,900 riders per workday, Citybanan had 410,300, and the remaining lines 216,100; Sweden reports modal split for all trips and not just work trips, but the commute modal split appears to be 40% or a little higher, a figure that matches Paris, a metro area of 13 million that opened its first metro line in 1900.

So why is Stockholm better?

There are parallels between Stockholm and Vancouver – both are postwar cities with 2.5 million people in their metropolitan areas with rapid growth due to immigration. Their physical geographies are similar, with water barriers inhibiting the contiguous sprawl of many peers. Both extensively employed TOD to shape urban geography around the train: Stockholm has Vällingby and other, less famous examples of TOD; Vancouver has Metrotown and smaller examples of residential TOD along the Expo Line, alongside a famously high-rise downtown. But the T-bana has more than twice the annual ridership of SkyTrain, and Stockholm has around twice the modal split of Vancouver – this is not a matter of Canadians riding buses more than Europeans do. So what gives?

Part of it is about TOD models. Stockholm is an exceptionally monocentric city, and this has created a lot of demand for urban rail to Central Stockholm. But Vancouver’s high-rise city center has a lot of jobs, and overall, around 30% of Metro Vancouver jobs are in the city or the University Endowment Lands (that is, UBC), and the proportion of Stockholm County jobs within an equivalent area is similar. Vancouver has never built anything as massive as the Million Program, but its housing growth rate is one of the highest in the world (around 11 gross units/1,000 people per year in the 2010s), and much of that growth clusters near the Expo Line and increasingly also near the worse-developed Millennium and Canada Lines.

I suspect that the largest reason is simply the extent of the systems. SkyTrain misses the entire West Side of Vancouver west of Cambie, has poor coverage in Surrey and none in Langley, and does not cross the Burrard Inlet. The T-bana has no comparable lacunae: Roslag is served by Roslagsbanan, and the areas to be served by the under-construction extensions are all target TOD areas with much less present-day density than North Vancouver, the cores of Fairview and Kitsilano, or the town centers in Surrey other than Whalley.

What’s more, Stockholm’s construction costs may be rising but those of Vancouver (and the rest of Canada) are rising even faster and from a higher base. Nya Tunnelbanan is currently budgeted at $3.6 billion in PPP terms – 19 underground km for about the same cost as the existing 104 – but Vancouver is building half of the most critical SkyTrain extension, that under Broadway, for C$2.83 billion (US$2.253 billion in PPP terms) for just 5 km, not all underground. The projected cost per rider is still favorable, but it’s less favorable for the planned extension to Langley, and there’s no active plan for anything to the North Shore.

The silver lining for Vancouver is that the West Side is big and underdeveloped. The region has the money to extend SkyTrain not just to Arbutus as is under construction but all the way to UBC, and the entire swath of land between Central Broadway and UBC screams “redevelop me.” The current land use is a mix of mid-rise, townhouses (“missing middle”), and single-family housing; Shaughnessy, whose northern end is within a kilometer of under-construction SkyTrain stations, is single-family on large lots, and can be redeveloped as high-rise housing alongside closer-in areas. Canada does not have Europe’s allergy to tall buildings, and this is a resource that can be used to turn Vancouver into a far more transit-oriented city along the few corridors where it can afford to build. The suburban metro is always like this: fewer lines, more development intensity along them.

Comments

3 Responses to “Zwei Replies……………………”
  1. Paul McGown says:

    I have long thought that the disused BC Electric right of way has been a waste. However, the development in The Fraser Valley has for the most part, zigged where population has zagged over the years. Not to say bits and pieces wouldn’t be useful but please, that long loop south of “Lake Sumas” isn’t good for anything except a bicycle trail. I like the rail line from Vancouver’s “River District” to Marine Drive station on Cambie ; that is a good route for a tram.
    East of Abbotsford, the right of way does not hit any population clusters of note until Chilliwack but has to take south of Sumas loop. Langley to Abbotsford isn’t exactly a beeline either. With a sky train extension to Langley now a probability instead of a possibility I don’t think Rail for the Valley is viable. If we knew in the 50’s what we know now, it would have been a different situation. Town centres could have been planned near the rail and all would be good. Too late now. Sorry.

  2. Haveacow says:

    This is the issue I see with many experts who I’m sure love and want to have rail rapid transit succeed but obviously haven’t been involved in actual railway planning, if Alon Levy has I apologize in advance but he doesn’t write like it. If he really understood Stockholm’s transit history he would have known that many of those S-Bahn lines were not the same set of tracks used by the legacy rail lines before them. These lines had significant segments added to them to steer them away from industrial and low performing areas. The ends of these lines were also added to and altered because Stockholm’s downtown or central area railway stations have changed locations over the years.

    This might blow your collective minds in Vancouver but you can add new sections or rebuild and reorient existing rail lines so that, freight services are safely and efficiently separated from passenger services for much cheaper prices than building Skytrain rights of way completely from scratch. His point about Vancouver’s existing rail lines show this complete lack of experience and or vision:

    ” The problem with this is that Vancouver has very little legacy mainline rail infrastructure to work with. There are two mainlines serving city center: the Canadian Pacific, and Canadian National. The CP line hugs the coast, full of industrial customers; the CN line is farther inland and has somewhat more fixable land use, but the Millennium Line partly parallels it and even after 20 years its ridership is not the strongest in the system. Most of the urban core is nowhere near a rail mainline. ”

    This is a much cheaper way to build, especially if you already own or have legal dominion over all or portions of existing mainline railway rights of way. Yes, Alon is correct that the Skytrain does operate along former railway corridors but, you have so completely altered the form of it you lost any cost advantage you had of reusing existing infrastructure. Combine this with what I think is the complete fallacy or overly political motivations around modern Light Metro operations, you get really expensive Skytrain lines in both operations and building costs. Not to mention, lines that because of the complete overuse of above grade concrete rights of way, will be more expensive than tunnels to repair and update if you wait too long (like the legacy portions of the Expo Line).

    What the author Alon Levy is missing is that, if you don’t own the line, you have to negotiate with the railway owner to use or alter the line. This is the main reason many useable local existing rail lines don’t get used. Transit agencies in North America for the most part, are really bad at negotiating with private railway companies like CN or CP. Usually because theses agencies quite ironically have little experience in actual mainline railway operating experience or understanding how freight railways really function. This unwillingness to negotiate or change how modern rapid transit systems operate or even entertaining thoughts about altering the existing operating paradigms is one of the main reasons why, Skytrain lines end up being so expensive in the first place. Once you gain experience in this type of negotiating, the use of lines or parts of lines you don’t own and adding additional sections you do own new possibilities present themselves, many would never consider.

    This is one of the many approaches Stockholm used many, many years ago to better place there S-Bahn lines. There are several LRT operations and DMU driven diesel LRT like operations throughout North America that benefited partly or entirely from this type of design and operating model. GO Transit in Ontario, Ottawa, St.Louis, San Diego both the Sprinter and LRT services, Austin, Albuquerque, and New Jersey’s diesel LRT operations are examples of this approach. Re-use existing infrastructure wherever possible, add as little new technology to it as possible, if you don’t own a right of way, negotiate, then and only if you have to, build new segments, reorient or offer parallel rights of way to existing non functional (non functional for your needs) line segments used by the railway’s freight services.

  3. zweisystem says:

    I will reply to you the best I can. What the Leewood/RftV plan is for a regional railway, servicing many destinations.

    First of all, The line is an active railway.

    Secondly, the Leewood Study had the travel time from Chilliwack to Scott Road Station at 90 minutes, thus the section you mentioned would not alter overall travel time.

    Thirdly, greenfields construction is huge. The cost of the Leewood Study to implement today would be around $1.5 billion; compare this with the $3.95 billion Expo line extension to Langley and that is without the mandatory operations and maintenance centre, which will cost between $500 mil to $1 billion.!

    As the Leewood RftV plan is a regional railway, let us look at select destinations:

    1) Vancouver
    2) North Delta – faster travel time to Vancouver than the Expo line.
    3) Central Surrey – high density housing plus business parks.
    4) Cloverdale – front door service for the proposed hospital and KPU
    5) Langley – Central Langley and KPU
    6) Trinity Western University – front door service
    7) Gloucester Business Park
    8) Downtown Abbotsford – University of the Fraser Valley
    9) Huntington – US Boarder
    10) Yarrow/Vedder – For Cultus lake
    11) Sardis
    12) Chilliwack

    I would have a drive to Yarrow/Vedder/Sardis and see the large housing and condo estates being built. There only travel mode is the car.

Leave A Comment