TF1292: Can we use old railways on Lulu Island to get RRT to Ladner?

TF#1292. 2017-08-11.

I was looking at the railways on Lulu Island and it actually looks promising that a future Canada Line Extension could utilize CN's Lulu Island Industrial (LII) Right of Way and CP's Van Horne Lead (VHL). The line would go North from Bridgeport turn right following CP's VHL until turning right once more down CN's LLI which goes straight to the Fraser.

If you look at the active businesses on the LLI, there are only 5 business that use the line. They do however seem to use it: If you look at the lot of WAL Vehicle Services they have 9 storage tracks. So you can't close the north south connector of the LLI without providing an alternative. Luckily however, CN has the Ewen Industrial Branch (EIB) just to the east of the WAL lot. CN could build 3.6km of track to connect the end of the LLI at the WAL lot to the EIB. This would be even be beneficial to CN because trains can go faster as they will not have to travel through urban areas, the overall amount of track and crossings they have to maintain will be significantly less, and the distance for the trains to reach the black bridge over the north arm will be significantly less.  It is also beneficial for Richmond because they don't have to pay CN as much because there will be fewer railway crossings, they will be less interaction between people and the railway and, they get a right of way for a transit line that won't bother current residents and can easily be connected to the Canada Line.

If CN can get that little portion of track built that opens up space for a new Canada Line extension alignment that can run North out of Bridgeport. This would be a great advantage as trains can run from Brighouse to Tsawwassen. Since the Canada Line currently alternates between YVR and Brighouse, the Brighouse line runs at half the frequency of the Waterfront-Bridgeport line. The frequency could be doubled on the Brighouse line with every second train heading towards Clarence, every fourth train heading towards Tsawwassen. My station proposals are:

• Bridgeport
• Shell
• St. Edwards
• Blundell
• Coppersmith-Steveston
• Ladner City Center
• Clarence
• 52nd-Mills
• Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal

Here is a link to an interactive map I have made showing the alignment of the new rail line and my proposed extension. Total Length is 28km. It could be done in phases. 1st Phase could be Bridgeport to Clarence (17km). 2nd Phase from Clarence to Tsawwassen (11 km).
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rNy8bK0rsYmhMKY3tgZbXnBoWn8&usp=sharing

• Bridgeport to Shell: Above Grade
• Shell to Fraser River: At Grade (except major road crossing: Overpass or Underpass)
• Fraser River Crossing: 600m Long Bridge
• Fraser River Islands: Above Grade
• 40th Avenue/Ladner Trunk Road/Clarence Taylor Way: Above Grade
• Clarence Taylor Way to the end of Hwy 17: In Highway Median. New Highway interchanges at 56th, 52nd and Tsawwassen Dr.
• Hwy 17 to Ferry Terminal Station: Above Grade

Comments:

cganuelas1995: Why not just extend down third?
I'm really questioning as to why have it go through the middle of nowhere to sexually gratify the NIMBYs as opposed to have the extension naturally go down No.3 road, then across the Fraser to the intersection of Arthur and Trunk to start off.

waves: 

Alternative Canada Line Extension

You certainly could. It wouldn't use an existing rail line like Sheba was suggesting though and would likely have to have Above Grade from Landsdowne all the way to Clarence. The No.3 alternative would however 3km shorter (14km to Clarence rather than 17km). Suggested stations at Blundell and Williams.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rNy8bK0rsYmhMKY3tgZbXnBoWn8&usp=sharing

forouhar: CN wanted to but there is some sort of conservation area
CN tried to do that a couple of years ago. There was something to do with that little stretch of land being some conservation area, hence the obvious lack of a connector line between WWL and Ewen. There are still piles of concrete ties sitting at the west end of the yard tracks in Ewen that might not be used until they expand the east end of the facility. This is also the reason why the pullback in Ewen is a silly two-unit stub track that provides just enough space to clear the switch.

waves: 
That's really interesting. I wonder what conservation concerns there were. The land from Google Earth already looks completely industrialized. Except for the stream cutting through WWL and the straight canal-like stream in line with No.7.

forouhar: Correction to Active Rail Users.
Also, bit of a correction to your active rail users. The only active businesses operating west out of Lulu/No8 are:

Mile 7

• Raymont Logistics
• Northgate Terminals (West Fraser Lumber)

Mile 9 (along Vulcan Way)

• Richply
• Bulldog Bags
• Norampac (down the Crestwood)

Mile 15 (Shell Rd)

• Layfield
• Steveston Branch (West Leg)
• Crown Packaging

Mile 17

• WWL/Toyota

The Ewen facility services:

• Lafarge Cement
• Lulu Island Terminal
• Coast 2000
• Western Canada Express
• Westran
• Euroasia

waves: 
This is a great list. It shows that no business are using the line between Mile 9 and 15, and that there are only 3 business operating past Mile 15. When I was creating the map, I picked out the properties that had extra railway lines going into them - I can remove the ones that are not on your list.

cganuelas1995: Where should an extension terminate
Also, I personally think the extension should terminate at Tsawwassen Town Centre Mall instead of the Ferry Terminal and just have the 620 truncate at Tsawwassen Mills.

waves: 
Seems silly to me to go to the effort of going all the way to Tsawwassen Mills and not go the last 5k in the highway median to the Ferry no? You could have some trains turn around at Tsawwassen Mills? If you are going to have to bus to the ferry anyways wouldn't it make more sense to just not complete phase two from Clarence? Just keep it as a bus from Lander Exchange to the Terminal?

MVTD16282: Initial Options Analysis for a North Shore RRT Crossing

With the recent news of the CNV mayor wanting Skytrain to the North Shore. I thought I would go about and do some analysis of a few possible options:

Option 1: Burrard Station to Taylor Way @ Marine Dr
1.1km tunnel crossing
3.9km land (cut&cover,bore,elevated,ect.)
5.0km total
Because of the long approaches, and LIM tech, grade shouldn't be an issue.

Option 2a: Canada Line to Lonsdale
4.0km total
Grade Requirement = 3%
Deepest Depth = 30m

Option 2b: Expo Line to Lonsdale
4.6km total
Grade Requirement = 2.5%
Deepest Depth = 30m

Option 3a.1: Canada Line to Lonsdale via 750m Floating Tunnel
3.45km total
Grade Requirement = 3.3%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 3a.2: Expo Line to Lonsdale via 750m Floating Tunnel
4.1km total
Grade Requirement = 2.1%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 3b.1: Expo Line to Lonsdale via 1750m Floating Tunnel
3.25km total
Grade Requirement = 2.5%
Floating Tunnel Depth = 35m

Option 4: Everblue Line from Lonsdale to Commercial Broadway.
3.35km from Lonsdale to Commercial-Hastings Station
Long approaches and shallow consistent depth. No grade requirement
Deepest Depth 30m

MVTD1682. 2017-03-02

Comments

jsbertram: Skytrain to North Shore is expensive!
Rough estimates for TBM tunnels are to expect $1 Billion per KM. 5-10% cheaper per KM for cut & cover. Plus $200 million per underground station. Back Of Napkin estimates of the different routes would range from $3.3 Billion to $5.3 Billion, just to get to the North Van shoreline.

Extra costs are added to run the Skytrain tunnels under Lonsdale up the mountain with stations at Esplanade, Victoria Park, 15th St (LG Hospital), 23rd St (Centennal Theater), Queens Rd. Is it really necessary to spend $billions for a comfy tushy ride to downtown from North Van?

Alex MacKinnon: Not THAT expensive.
Bored tunnels aren't that much money. I think Evergreen was somewhere around $300M. Going underwater makes them pricier. The Port Mann water tunnel was reported at $240M and its pretty short. People in the industry joke about that one being two shafts, with a trivial tunnel between them though. The water crossing portion of a SkyTrain tunnel doesn't have to be all that long.

Alex MacKinnon: Floating tunnels probably not feasible.
Right now, floating tunnels are also a pie-in-the-sky type idea. Nobody wants to do them because they're not tested. Translink being a conservative organization will probably never even look at something like that seriously. For inner harbours, there is a huge chance for snags to damage the tunnel. A big ship snags the tunnel with an anchor? Floating tunnel probably sinks. What engineer would want to sign off on that. Metro Vancouver has had to repair their cross harbour water lines many times and they're buried.

A floating tunnel would work also only between immersed tube sections or surface anchored points. Nobody is going to want to bore into an immersed tube.

The Canada Line can not be extended without bisecting the Expo Line. It's also the least suited to making any sort of deep tunnel due to the traction limits of the rolling stock. The LIM rolling stock can do a 6% grade.

RAV Station is Canada Line and ALRT is Expo Line at Waterfront Station. This shows how the Canada Line can't be extended from its Waterfront Station.

nname: what about immersed tubes?
Or using immersed tube? This should be much cheaper than bored tunnel, and do not need to go nearly as deep too.

Alex MacKinnon: May as well bore if you need boring already.
The problem here would likely be the ends. You need a big box on each end to tie into with immersed tube. It would be hard to locate those. With bores, you just keep going until you don't want more tunnel. If the tunnel is bored on either end, it probably makes sense to bore the middle as well.

You need divers for the connections on immersed tubes, so the depths are more of an issue than in the bored tunnel. They generally favour shallow water.

The tube tunnel also needs dredging and has to be physically floated into place, so marine traffic can also be a concern.

officedweller: Where do North Shorer's actually need to go?
Back in about 1993 (when the Surrey Extension opened), there was Province newspaper article saying that BC Transit (at the time) was examining a SkyTrain crossing to the North Shore near Seconds Narrows (and Boundary Road SkyTrain Line) because commuters from the North Shore are not necessarily destined for downtown Vancouver. (Remember that's before the Millennium Line was built).

Hooknose: Why stop there?
Just a suggestion .. Any RR to the north Shore should terminate at the Upper Levels with a bus exchange like the Phipps Exchange. At Cap Road, the land inside the two cloverleafs is government owned and more than enough to build a Phipps like exchange.At Lonsdale and the Upper Levels, it might be a bit trickier but it also could be done.

From either, buses could fan out right across the North Shore bringing rapid, easy and relatively traffic free distribution from Horseshoe Bay and beyond to Phipps Ex at Iron workers, and beyond as well. Instead of running along Marine Drive and reaching up into the inhabited areas, you run along the Upper Levels and reach down and up using shorter legs. Instead of about two hour to reach Deep Cove from HB along Marine Drive, you might be able to do it 30 to 35 minutes.

Convenience and ease of use and speed makes for increased ridership - and I would guess we would all want that.

casper: Is this the most efficient use of funds?
I think the biggest question is Why? If you have n-billion to spend on improving transit on the north shore why this. Would it not be cheaper to build an LRT system on the north shore that is not connected to Vancouver and then enhance sea bus.

Alex MacKinnon: Yes because it eliminates transfers.
It's better because there wouldn't be transfers. If you're going anywhere other than downtown near waterfront, then that would be a minimum of 2 extra transfers. That alone would make any isolated LRT slower, and puts added demand on the busiest part of the transit system downtown. Doing a line across second narrows would add in another ridership group into play, eliminate many transfers and provide additional system reliability for downtown access.

The LIMs are also much more suited to any line heading up the hill than at grade LRT.

spaceprobe: Expo was designed to be extended to hastings?
From what i recall reading an old Expo86 tourist book, the Expo line was built with the possibility of future extension from waterfront station down hastings. Not sure if the writer was correct, but that is what was written.

Alex MacKinnon: Yes! Look at the satellite images.
Just look at the Satellite maps of where the line goes. It would be easy. It would just go over rail yards until Main St. Extending it eastward would make that segment act more or less like a new line. The challenge of it would be in making sure that delays from other segments don't spill over.

It would be much easier from an ops standpoint to isolate Expo into 2 segments if it was extended to ensure reliability. The downside would be that there would be an additional transfer required for any through traffic, making the line less useful for anyone looking to go further down the line.

ReeceMartin: Isolating Expo/Hastings should be a priority.
Isolating the lines should be a priority, transfers on rapid transit aren't a big deal when you have pretty high frequency lines.

Bdawe: But that is not common practice.
That seems to go against practice nearly everywhere with effective transit. Routes should be integrated with each other to expedite transfers from one to another. Most places run trains through downtown if they can, since it maximizes connectivity in different directions from the center and avoids the spacial constraints of turning large numbers of trains around in expensive real estate. London is spending many billions on connecting east and west commuter lines. Paris built the RER to accomplish the same. Subway lines in New York, Toronto, Paris, London, Philadelphia, San Francisco all run through to avoid this problem.

officedweller:
Illustrative (i.e. hypothetical, not planned) Track Level and Cross Section diagram from the Waterfront Hub plan:

waves: 2nd Analysis
I did another analysis of options, but this time expanded the scope to include the idea of a BRT along the highway. I think it produced some pretty good results.

If you are interested in fiddling around with my Paint.NET file you can download it here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AjWWltw_HSwzhPxQo1XPEmZ4HNdWIA

MVTD#16340. 2017-03-06