|
High Speed Rail Forum!
|
^excellent.
|
Another monsterous waste of money. High speed rail has almost no benefits on the number of vehicles it takes off the road.
Those huge billions would far better spent on urban transit where their contribution to GHG emissions would be huge. Also that supposed route would be ridiculous. Using that route it would actually take longer for Tor/Mon traffic and it would take longer to get to Toronto from London than it does right now on the express route. |
^Having posted that with exclamation points and dancing bananas and all, ssi, I partially agree with you. I don't think high-speed rail would be as beneficial as a lot of options, namely, improved regular service in the "Windsor-Quebec Corridor". The mode that rail should be competing with, in my opinion, is short-haul flights, not road traffic. Short-haul flights (eg in the Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto triangle) are a huge GHG contributor. People think that sexy fast trains are the only way to lure jet-setting business people away from these mega-carbon journeys, but they are wrong. All that is needed for a viable alternative is to make the existing trains more frequent and less subject to "unforseen delays" that prevent them from travelling at their design speed. The source of thess unforseen delays is the sharing of VIA trains with mainline freight trains, which get priority. But this problem will have to be dealt with as part of any high-speed proposal too! Otherwise you will have JetTrain trainsets creeping along in Hamilton Harbour, giving way to CN, just like trains do now.
Another of your criticisms is that we should improve intracity transit. I agree that this is a major part of the solution, and that dollar-for-dollar, intracity transit is a better investment. But ultimately, intercity and intracity transportation are two parts of the same whole, namely efficient, sustainable and affordable transportation to support a strong economy. We have deluded ourselves for far too long that the solution to this problem was carbon-burning personal transportation and inefficient short-distance air transportation. But that brings me to why I think you are only "partially" right, as I said at the beginning. Although you are right to think that high-speed rail is not the right solution for Ontario's transportation network, you are wrong to dismiss this initiative. At least people are talking. At least City Hall is listening! This proposal is on the right track, pardon the pun, even if its going exactly where we want it to go. Surely, the further we go down this path, the more rail-based alternatives will be discussed between their merits. Before, "intelligent" discussion about transportation was believed to be about plunking down a map and drawing thick lines for future highways- the more, the better. Now, intelligent discussion will mean the difference between expensive fast train sets (good) and service with European-style frequency and Japanese-style reliability (better) |
:previous: Bring it on I will be there!!!!!:banana: :banana:
|
The more I think about HSR, the less excited I get. While I agree Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal could use that service, I think the rest of the corridor really just needs better service. If we could just double-track the rest of those lines we could avoid the freight trains and run the current set at the speeds they are already capable of. Do that, up the frequency, and we'll slowly build a more train-friendly culture where further investment makes more sense. Until then HSR seems like overkill.
The one that thing would totally change my mind is a connection to the Chicago-Detroit line that's been proposed for serious upgrades. With compatible systems a Toronto-Chicago train sounds amazing, but I haven't heard any mention of including passenger rail in either of the two bridge proposals. :( |
Quote:
In fact, SW Ontario looks a lot like the UK, where you have a lot of small and medium-sized cities situated fairly close to one another and major metropolitan locales. To proactively manage highway congestion in those regions, high-speed rail has proven to be a necessity. To my way of thinking, HSR proponents seem to be trying to kill four birds with one stone: resolve existing problems with passenger rail in SW Ontario, reduce congestion on the 401, improve linkages between metropolitan areas in this part of the province and last, but not least, create a boatload of jobs that will last a little while. I don't think that SW Ontario currently has the real estate available to support two parallel rail systems. Remember that the 'green belt' that surrounds the GTA is one of several reasons why. HSR actually makes sense for smaller centres as well. Paul Langan, one of the founders of High Speed Rail Canada, told me that in many parts of Europe, cities as small as 100,000 are building light rail systems and even high-speed rail stations if they're close enough to the main HSR lines. In other words, they're not just waiting for population growth to become a reality but actually anticipating it. |
^I too like HSR for Southern Ontario, as a great way to tie in many of those medium-sized centres. The region needs to compete more like a unit. And you are correct about Europe, where it is increasingly common for HSR corridors connecting medium-sized cities.
|
:previous: Yes!!!!!
|
I agree entirely with the reasons we should do it. Connecting our cities is vital, especially our smaller cities. I just think we can do this without a $40B TGV system. And don't get me wrong, I think 200mph trains would be great. I just think regular 100mph service would accomplish the same things (excluding TO-OTT-MTL). If we can upgrade our system so that the train is faster, more comfortable, and more convenient than driving we could see the shift that's needed to make expanded HSR more economically palatable. France didn't build their system out of nowhere. They had a well run rail system, and a culture that favored public intercity transportation. Right now we have neither.
Though I still maintain a connection to the proposed mid-west network changes all of that, though it looks like they're going a similar route, upgrading to higher speed rail. Regardless, we still need a rail crossing in Windsor. |
Ok, so who is definitely going to attend the High Speed Forum?
|
Quote:
Ultimately this means you'll have to build new tracks and stations, so why not go all the way and build a HSR line? I doubt that the money could be found to build two parallel rail networks, and if you go with lines rated for 100MPH maximum, knowing you won't have more money down the road (excuse the pun) to build an additional set of lines you will have foreclosed on the prospect of ever building an HSR line. You might be able to keep existing stations but will have to upgrade the tracks so they can consistently handle 100MPH trains. Then there's the expense that will likely result from forcing CN/CP to build new tracks of their own. The bottom line is that there is simply no cheap way to bring passenger rail services in Canada up to 21st century standards. For far too long we Canadians have chintzed out on infrastructure and other things, and look at where that approach has gotten us. If we didn't have oodles of natural resources to sell, we'd rank dead last on the competitiveness scale. I say, 'go big or go home'. :psycho: |
Quote:
|
'Going big', as it were, is not exactly sound advice. I say 'go appropriately large' and 'go cost-effective' (not nearly as pithy, I'll admit). I don't want a project that we can whip out in a who's is bigger contest, I want a project that improves regional transportation at an acceptable cost.
The cost really is the key for me. Expanding and improving rail in the current ROW would be fairly expensive. Building a full HSR-exclusive, fully grade separated line in a newly purchased ROW would be phenomenally expensive. I'm also confused by the comments regarding parallel systems, and the space that requires. TOR-OTT-MTL (and points between) could be HSR, with regular rail connecting to those end points. I'm not suggesting overlapping coverage. Besides, making the best of our current arrangement with CN/CP uses virtually no extra space, while HSR needs a whole new ROW, be it for HSR or for the relocated freight lines. Japan's system, the envy of the world, was built through incremental upgrades, and I think we can do the same here. You may say 'go big or go home', I say 'slow and steady wins the race'. That's steady improvements of course, not trains. ;) |
edited
|
High-speed rail plan on summit agenda
Wed, May 20, 2009
ENVIRONMENT A proposal to bring high-speed rail service to Southwestern Ontario is expected to receive a boost at a clean air summit tomorrow in Woodstock. Described by organizers as the first of its kind for the area, the summit will bring together municipal officials from Southwestern Ontario and southeast Michigan. Eva Ligeti, executive director of the Clean Air Partnership, said the summit is intended to forge partnerships and share information and strategies for improving air quality in the region. The meeting will include representatives of organizations from southeast Michigan, she said, "because this is a trans-boundary issue." Many pollutants arrive in Southwestern Ontario on prevailing winds from the industrial midwest of the United States that settle in the Great Lakes basin. Ligeti hopes municipalities from Chatham-Kent to Kitchener and Waterloo will make commitments to green energy and improved practices and then follow up to see how well they have worked. Municipalities will be encouraged to reduce their emissions and where possible undertake research and share information and resources. Among the notions to be considered is a plan to advocate for high-speed rail service across the region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobile and short-haul air travel. "This is the first time this is happening in the region," Ligeti said of the summit. Municipalities will be joined at the summit by health units and medical and emergency services officials. The Southwestern Ontario Clean Air Summit is being funded by Ontario's Ministry of the Environment and is organized by the non-profit Clean Air Partnership. The poor quality of air across Southwestern Ontario has been linked to respiratory and heart problems and lung cancer. |
High-speed rail plugged in London
Update!!!!:cool:
A high-speed rail line would change London into a flourishing Toronto bedroom community, an industry expert says. Chuck Wochele, a vice-president with international rail manufacturer Alstom, told a London symposium tonight such rail lines — which carry passenger trains as fast as 170 miles an hour — are successful across Europe and could spur enormous growth in London. “It changes the dynamics of cities,” said Wochele, who called London a “perfect” stopping point on a high-speed line. “You would get people moving away from Toronto to live here and commute to work every day. “It would be a breeze commute.” Wochele was one of several industry veterans who were to discuss the merits of high-speed rail, which proponents say should run from Windsor to Quebec. The issue has been discussed for decades, but prohibitive construction costs have stood in the way. The event was run by Paul Langan of High Speed Rail Canada — a group he says gets no funding from industry heavyweights such as Bombardier. He’s speaking in cities nationwide, promoting what he says was “neglected in Canada for 50 years.” Coun. Judy Bryant and city planner John Fleming pushed for Langan to bring his presentation here. “We need to work very fast if we’re going to be relevant in the 21st century,” Bryant said. As if to prove the benefits of high-speed rail, the main speaker, a former federal transportation minister, David Collenette, was late — stuck in traffic on the Hwy. 401. |
I like the idea of HSR links in London, as our city needs about 100K more (relatively well-off) people to get the critical mass necessary to actually do something.
|
Quote:
During the question and answer period, Mario Péloquin of Siemens provided the example of Nuremberg, Germany, which was once thought to be a place where advanced transit options were non-viable. Today, as a city of just 500,000 (a bit bigger than London) it enjoys an extensive network of light rail, high speed rail and bus lines. The transit networks are so extensive there that most people can do without cars quite nicely. Péloquin used Nuremberg as an example of what can happen when city goverments are willing to engage in forward thinking and take some risks. On the other hand, David Collenette, former federal transport minister, proved to be a bit of a disappointment. Even though he is generally in favour of high(er) speed rail, he still sticks to the idea that we could just simply negotiate rights of way on CN/CP tracks and have the trains run on them. Via Rail has been doing that for decades now, yet none of its high-speed rail initiatives have ever worked because CN/CP freight trains take precedence. He also seems to have the idea that the only HSR line we need to build is one that runs between Montréal and Quebec City - and bugger the rest of the country. It was quite an eye-opener hearing how far ahead of London cities like Hamilton and Kitchener are when it comes to mass transit. The K-W area already has a number of dedicated bus transitways and it's already getting started on developing a light rail line. Hamilton is actively working on a light-rail line and recently secured $3 million in provincial funding to begin initial studies. The K-W and Hamilton areas aren't that much bigger than London, so what's London's excuse for not seriously looking into light rail?? |
Quote:
Letter to Editor UNLESS otherwise noted, these letters are to be considered unedited. The opinions expressed in the letters and comments are those of the writers and not of The London Free Press. RAILWAY Light rail transit in future requires city planning now It's time that our city politicians and planners put aside the bottled water and drive-through bans and considered the future of Londoners. Recently Metrolinx, which is an organization created by the government of Ontario, announced a $50-billion transit project to improve transit in the Greater Toronto Area. This includes not only the city of Toronto, but also Hamilton, Mississauga, Brampton and other outlying cities. Metrolinx's plan is to build light rail rapid transit lines all across the Greater Toronto Area. In Waterloo Region, they are doing the same thing with a $300-$500-million light rail project that will provide a transit line from Waterloo to Cambridge. In Ottawa, they already have light rail, but they are significantly expanding their system. If we considered other centres across Canada, we would see the same rapid transit plans being drawn up and talked about from Victoria to Halifax. So I guess the obvious question to London planners and politicians is this: Why are we sitting on our hands in this time of generous government handouts when we could be doing the same as Waterloo? Our transit planners' grand plans are for more of the same. They call it bus rapid transit, but only two of the words in that phrase are correct. It's really just bus transit. Cities that build light rail transit systems are the real "smart cities" because rail transit gets people out of their cars and onto fast and efficient trains. Calgary and Edmonton knew this when they were London's size and they planned for the future. Today they have terrific light rail systems. When I hear our politicians talk, they speak of how progressive and creative London is. But when I see their plans, I wonder who they are comparing us to: Teeswater? Is it any wonder that we consistently lag other cities in the rankings? Is it any wonder that Waterloo Region has now replaced London as Canada's 10th largest metropolitan area? If our city wants to stop drive-throughs, they should create a city that encourages alternative transportation. Oh well, I am sure this will fall on deaf ears as our council is too busy finding something else to ban. POSTED BY: Rob Dore, London POSTED ON: October 8, 2008 EDITORS NOTE: As published in The London Free Press on Oct. 8, 2008. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev