Correspondence - Brendan Read re: E&N and LRT Issues

214415 - Rail in British Columbia

From: Dawes, Jacquie TRAN:EX Jacquie.Dawes@gov.bc.ca Date: Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:24 PM Subject: 214415 - Rail in British Columbia

Dear Brendan:

The Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, shared with me your e-mail of November 24, 2012, about ways to make the most of the E&N Railway, commuter rail in the Capital Regional District, and the Fraser Valley Interurban.

I was interested to read about your ideas relating to rail transit on Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley, and I have shared your suggestions with the ministry staff responsible for rail policy. The ministry closely monitors new developments in the transportation sector and welcomes new ideas for providing safe, affordable and environmentally-friendly transportation options.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Jacquie Dawes Assistant Deputy Minister Transportation Planning and Policy Department

---

Solutions, breakthroughs for E&N, CRD rail transit, Fraser Valley Interurban issues

From: Brendan Read Sent: November-24-12 1:37 PM To: Polak.MLA, Mary Subject: Solutions, breakthroughs for E&N, CRD rail transit, Fraser Valley Interurban issues

The Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure

Dear Minister Polak:

I am writing to you regarding financing E&N freight and passenger rail services, rail transit for the CRD, and of expanding rail transit into the Fraser Valley via the Interurban. There has been a recent breakthrough with an innovative solution that can meet the latter issues' needs.

I am a former B.C. resident, having lived in Victoria, Courtenay, and White Rock; my work has had me relocate recently to the New York/New Jersey area where I have now become a semi-regular rail commuter. I have served as a transportation advocate including co-founder of Streetcars for Victoria, later the Greater Victoria Electric Railway Society) and of the SaveRail Coalition that was formed in 2002 when the E&N was threatened with abandonment, and as a director of Transport Action Canada. Most recently I sat on and represented the City of White Rock's transportation committee, including on the Surrey Rapid Transit study stakeholders' committee. In addition I have written numerous articles on transportation for business and trade magazines.

1. E&N freight rail services

The proposed Raven coal mine could help make the E&N a profit-make entity; it could generate 10,000 carloads annually, which is over and above the minimum 8,000 carloads required to cover basic maintenance and operating costs. My understanding is that the mine plans to ship the coal by truck, over Highway 4 instead

Has the Ministry conducted a full-cost-impact comparative study between road and rail options to provide a fair level playing field assessment? This study would look at road wear-and-tear (US studies indicate that trucks incur many times the wear of cars, effects that are increased on heavy grades and curves—like on Highway 4), on local roads, emissions/health, on recreational resources e.g. Cathedral Grove, wildlife and habitat. It would study similar impacts and effects of a rail spur/transload facility, restoring the Port Alberni line, and coal train operations.

Having lived in White Rock I am all too aware about the issues such trains can bring, though the E&N ones would not be as long as those on the BNSF. On the other hand that traffic is better on the rails than on the roads. Driving Highway 4 can be slow and treacherous at the best of times without having to contend with additional heavy trucks. Crossing Cathedral Grove is an exercise in vigilance and patience at the best of times.

With this study data your office could decide to back an E&N option, with shared costs to avoid the impacts of added trucks on roads and highway. Or alternatively if the costs exceed the directly attributable contribution of fuel taxes by the mine, could you consider a surcharge on the mine to offset the effects? And if the E&N shows the best benefits could it satisfy community environmental concerns?

It is not uncommon for U.S. states, like neighboring Washington State, to finance rail line construction and rehabilitation to avoid the harm from heavy trucks, particularly in rural areas. Could the Ministry examine these programs, including engaging in discussions with communities and shippers, for possible application in British Columbia?

2. E&N passenger rail services

If the Raven mine goes ahead and coal is shipped on the E&N it will make such operations feasible through upgraded tracks. There is very strong potential for Nanaimo-Port Alberni and also for Nanaimo-Duncan-Victoria through connections with BC Ferries, feeding off the Vancouver tourism market and hub.

Could the Ministry undertake a more detailed examination of this in partnership with the ICF including capital and operating costs and returns, with the view of issuing an RFEI to interested operators?

3. Rail transit for the CRD

There has been much debate about commuter rail and LRT in the region over the past decade in particular. The sticking points are:

(a) The steep $950 million pricetag for LRT, which would only go as far as Langford, and not over the problematic Malahat Summit. LRT could interchange with the E&N at Langford—such transfers are not uncommon e.g. the Denton-Carrollton (Texas) A-Train that connects the DART LRT—but it would detract from ridership and revenues.

(b) High commuter rail costs, and limited ridership and low cost recovery on account of no direct access into downtown Victoria. Commuter trains require having their downtown terminals in walking distance destinations or on rapid transit lines for "final mile access" to succeed.

There has been a breakthrough that could make rail transit cost-effective in the CRD. And that is the approval by the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the lightweight low-floor diesel multiple units (DMUs) made by Stadler for mixed operation with freight trains. This marks the first time that any of this class of DMU designs, also known as diesel LRT or DLRT, have been so approved in North America.

http://www.dcta.net/images/stories/pdfs/press_releases/DCTA_Alternative_Design_Approval_by_FRA.pdf

What this approval means is that the Stadler-designed DLRT railcars to share the E&N tracks with freight and if/when resumed VIA trains, and have the ability to feasibly directly access the city centre. This was not feasible for the DMU cars that previous studies had assumed would be run in this service.

The Stadler design, which is articulated, could directly operate into downtown Victoria without requiring transfers. A similar Stadler railcar model runs on a short street section in Austin, Texas on the Capital Metrorail. Articulation permits an older Stadler design to operate in downtown Camden, New Jersey streets on NJ Transit's Camden-Trenton RiverLINE. While the cars for the DCTA are in a transfer service, this route, and the DART route, were engineering before this permission came through. There is time to plan and engineer through running under these scenarios:

• End-to-end through running from the E&N to the LRT, which would obviate the need to extensively rebuild the E&N east of Langford for fast commuter rail operation, and providing for shuttle buses.

This option is the best technically and it would offer ridership gains and cost savings over separate routes. However it still has a high price tag and would require a transfer at Langford or Colwood.

• Re-examine the case for the E&N route, updating the previous study to account for the potential of the new DLRT technology, and assuming a new bridge into downtown Victoria and street trackage from the bridgehead to and down Douglas.

A DLRT service with two-car or three-car trains, and with passing tracks strategically located between Langford and Victoria could operate every 15 minutes in both directions, which would be the minimum acceptable service level. It is not uncommon for LRT trains to operate at this frequency.

Moreover 2 or 3 trains a day could be extended to Duncan and Nanaimo. The DLRT equipment can also be used on E&N passenger services. They are operated on rural regional routes not unlike the E&N in Europe.

The DLRT could be supplemented in the city centre by local streetcars running from the north end and the arena in a park-and-ride people-mover service. There is also the potential to extend this high capacity service to the Ogden Point cruise ship terminal.

Also the DLRT/E&N choice will enable rapid transit service to communities bypassed by LRT: Esquimalt, and the dockyards, and VicWest. Moreover this option does not preclude future LRT via Uptown if/when funds become available; it pre-builds the downtown section.

Yes, having both LRT via Uptown and E&N commuter rail is the best set of solutions. But are they realistic with today's financial realities? Would the DLRT options above provide the best value for existing resources instead?

4. Fraser Valley Interurban service

There has long been a debate about restoring passenger service on the Interurban. I took a trip on the BRE railcars that operated from New Westminster to Abbotsford during Expo '86. Many participants argued for the Interurban option at th Surrey Rapid Transit study stakeholders meetings but were unsuccessful. One of the sticking points was the LRT cars would have to share tracks with freight trains, which is not feasible.

The recent FRA decision on the Stadler cars could change this. It could allow for DLRT operation from Scott Road through Cloverdale to Langley and Abbotsford on the same tracks as freight trains, which lowers capital costs. DLRT could even be extended west on the little-used New Westminster-Marpole-Bridgeport tracks for a connection with the Canada Line. The rails are adjacent to the Bridgeport station bus bay.

Could the Ministry study DLRT in the wake of the FRA announcement to see whether and where it is feasible in British Columbia, and what, if any benefits it could have in enabling new transit services? As in the case of the CRD while the Surrey Rapid Transit study shortlisted SkyTrain and LRT options given the financial pressures faced by the Government would not the Interurban offer the best value for existing resources?

Thank you very much for your time.

Yours truly,

Brendan Read