HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2009, 2:11 AM
Jared's Avatar
Jared Jared is offline
senior something
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,058
Altough the $8billion for HSR isn't really all that much, when spread over an entire country, it's definately a step in the right direction. Also note that this is just the funding in the stimulus bill, there's more on the way:

FEBRUARY 26, 2009, 3:32 P.M. ET
Transportation Budget Reflects Focus on Infrastructure
By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY

The Department of Transportation would get $72.5 billion next year, a 2.8% increase that reflects the president's priorities to rebuild the nation's infrastructure and significantly upgrade to passenger rail service and air travel. Building on an $8 billion program in the stimulus bill, the budget would provide $5 billion more over the next five years to improve high-speed passenger rail corridors between major cities. The Federal Aviation Administration would get $800 million to accelerate the rollout of a satellite-based air traffic control system.

Left unanswered is where the administration will find the money to pay for the bulk of transportation spending that channeled to states for road and mass transit projects. The budget says today's primary revenue source -- fuel taxes -- is "not financially sustainable" with Americans driving less and switching to more fuel efficient vehicles. Aside from vowing to "work with Congress," the budget offers no specific remedies.

-------------------

I like Amtrak's plan for the next 15 years or so. Let's face it, a state of the art HSR built from scratch is currently a political non-starter; the first place in Canada to build one will most likely be the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (and rightfully so IMO). On the Cascades corridor, I think it makes sense to follow the German ICE model, rather than do a megaproject, do incremental upgrades that gradually increase the service quality of the line. We have the existing infrastructure right now to run trains (i.e. the current service), so let's simply work at double tracking key bottlenecks, grade seperating the busiest crossings, electifying once current trains wear out etc. and ensuring that all new construction will be compatible for future 250km/h or more HSR. As service improves (in both speed and frequency) so will ridership. As ridership improves, it becomes more politically feasible to do the big-ticket items.

Really expensive components like Chikkinlittle mentioned should be the last part of the puzzle IMO.

The main disadvantage to doing it this way is the ridiculous standards the US railway authorities improse on passenger trains; so long as there's any at grade crossing or sharing the line with freight, the trains have to be built like a tank. Most countries dont have such stringest regulations, and you can use much lighter train sets.

Hopefully the new Patullo will accomodate more rail lines somehow, but frankly I doubt it will, based on where the tracks are at either end of the current rotating bridge, the track geometry would be difficult to integrate, especially when you take into account the high clearance needed for the bridge (i.e. steep grades). Over the long term, I think a new rail super tunnel would be nice; 2 tracks for HSR, 2 for freight, 2 for regional/commuter rail.
__________________
My Diagrams My Photos

I'm not the guy from Subway.

Last edited by Jared; Feb 28, 2009 at 4:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2009, 1:16 AM
Rusty Gull's Avatar
Rusty Gull Rusty Gull is offline
Site 8 Lives
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver's North Shore
Posts: 1,287
Upcoming talks could lead to 2nd Amtrak run to B.C.

A second daily round-trip Amtrak train between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., could start running by early summer if upcoming talks between Washington state and Canadian officials go well.

By Kristin Jackson
Seattle Times Travel staff

A second daily train between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., could start running by early summer if upcoming talks between Washington state and Canadian officials go well.

"It's the first real step forward in getting the second train situation ironed out," Vickie Sheehan, a spokeswoman for the Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT), said of the meeting that will be held in the next few weeks.

A second train would be popular among business and leisure travelers, particularly with the Winter Olympics coming up in February 2010 in Vancouver and Whistler, B.C.

Amtrak Cascades, which currently has one round trip a day between the two cities, was poised to start the second train last summer after track improvements were made. However, the service was derailed by a dispute over payment for immigration/customs inspections of passengers arriving in Canada aboard the second train.

The Canada Border Services Agency wants a daily payment of $1,500 (about $1,170 U.S.) for inspection costs.

Amtrak Cascades, the Pacific Northwest rail service that is operated by Amtrak under contract with the governments of Washington and Oregon, doesn't want to pay that; no such fee is charged for the current Seattle-Vancouver, B.C., train.

"We're optimistic that we will reach a decision on the funding for customs," said Sheehan.

Officials from Washington's DOT and Canadian customs will meet in Canada in two or three weeks to discuss the issue.

"It was an unexpected charge ... in a budget crunch, that's hard to come up with," Sheehan said Thursday. If an agreement is made, Sheehan said, the second train would start in about 90 days, time that Amtrak needs to put staff and other matters in place.

Amtrak Cascades had record ridership last year, with 774,421 passengers on routes that stretch from Eugene, Ore., through Portland and Seattle to Vancouver, B.C. In 2007, it had 676,670 passengers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 3:25 AM
Rusty Gull's Avatar
Rusty Gull Rusty Gull is offline
Site 8 Lives
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver's North Shore
Posts: 1,287
Obama's high-speed rail plans for Vancouver

Take a look at the graphic that ran with this Washington Post article published Sunday:



High-Speed Rail Drives Obama's Transportation Agenda
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 8, 2009; A01

The Northern Lights Express is little more than an idea -- a proposal for a 110-mph passenger train between Minneapolis and Duluth, Minn., that has crept along in fits and starts for years.

But the slow ride may soon be over. The project is one of dozens nationwide that are likely to benefit from President Obama's initiative to fund high-speed and intercity passenger rail programs, including $8 billion in stimulus money and $5 billion more over the next five years in the administration's proposed transportation budget.

The money represents the first major step toward establishing a genuine high-speed train network in the United States and has sparked a stampede among states, advocacy groups and lobbyists who are not accustomed to this level of funding.

"We're going to turn over every stone we can," said Steve Raukar, a commissioner in St. Louis County, Minn., who chairs the Northern Lights Passenger Rail Alliance, which is spearheading the drive for the $500 million project. "We're trying to get everything moving as fast as possible with the understanding that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for funding."

High-speed rail has emerged as the cornerstone of Obama's ambitious attempt to remake the nation's transportation agenda, which for half a century has focused primarily on building highways and roads. Nearly half of the $48 billion in stimulus money for transportation projects will go toward rail, buses and other non-highway projects, including $1.3 billion for Amtrak and its successful rapid rail service, Acela. The Transportation Department also would receive $2 billion more under Obama's proposed 2010 budget, most of it for rail and aviation improvements.

The dream of rail backers is a nation connected by high-speed lines that would be faster and more convenient than driving or flying. For instance, a trip on a proposed 432-mile line between Los Angeles and San Francisco would take 2 1/2 hours.

But experts and government officials caution that despite the billions, the amounts are still not nearly enough to pay for the kind of sleek "bullet train" systems that crisscross Europe and Japan at speeds of 200 mph or higher. The California project, for example, would cost an estimated $45 billion, including $9 billion in state bonds that voters approved last year.

"It sounds like a lot of money to Americans, but it's really just a start," said James P. RePass, president of the National Corridors Initiative, a nonprofit rail advocacy group. "We're not going to wake up in a year and see a bullet train. But we are going to see much faster service for relatively little money."

Amid praise from rail and transit advocates, however, many Republicans have zeroed in on Obama's high-speed train initiative as a prime example of government excess. In his response to the president's address to a joint session of Congress last week, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said that the program represents "wasteful spending" and suggested that the bill included money for a proposed magnetic levitation, or maglev, line from Las Vegas to Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif. The project could be eligible for such funding, but it is not named in the bill.

Administration officials say the rail initiative is particularly important to Obama, who routinely talked about the benefits of high-speed passenger service during the presidential campaign and who initially requested $10 billion in stimulus money for such projects. In a speech to U.S. mayors last summer, Obama noted that China is home to the world's first commercial maglev train, capable of speeds faster than 300 mph.

"I don't want to see the fastest train in the world built halfway around the world in Shanghai," Obama said. "I want to see it built right here in the United States of America."

The next step is doling out the money. The Federal Railroad Administration, which distributed $30 million for similar grants last year, is scrambling to develop guidelines for the program within the next six weeks, officials said.

"We are pulling in staff from all over the department to help with this," said one senior transportation official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The department is allowing us free rein."

The official played down remarks by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who recently told reporters that he submitted a report to the White House identifying half a dozen corridors as prime candidates for funding. The railroad administration has already designated 11 high-speed corridors around the country, but other projects -- such as the Las Vegas or Minnesota projects -- could apply for stimulus funding.

"There is no preset position on what projects will be funded," the official said, adding: "Part of our criteria for selecting projects will be that there is a visible benefit to the public."

Although railroads are a major player on Capitol Hill, most of the industry's lobbying efforts have focused on freight trains rather than passenger rail. Of $44 million in lobbying expenditures by the railroad sector last year, less than $2 million was spent by companies or organizations focused on promoting high-speed passenger service, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. The handful of foreign companies that specialize in building rapid electrically powered trains, such as Bombardier of Montreal, also have relatively low profiles in Washington.

"High-speed and intercity passenger rail beyond Amtrak haven't gotten a lot of attention from the federal government historically," said Paul Dean, government affairs director for the American Public Transportation Association. "This is a new thing."

Industry experts and passenger-rail advocates say the strongest candidates for funding come from three areas of the country with the most developed plans for high-speed rail service: California, the Washington-New York-Boston corridor, and the web of rail lines centered around Chicago.

Laura Kliewer, director of the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission, said her organization identified $815 million in short-term projects that could be started almost immediately in the 10 states that belong to the organization. The group has also identified $15 billion worth of longer-range projects, including a $9 billion proposal to provide 110-mph train service between Chicago and eight states.

Thomas Simpson, executive director of the Railway Supply Institute, which represents companies that build and maintain rail lines, said the Obama administration faces a choice between spreading the $8 billion around the country or focusing on a few large-scale projects to serve as showcases for high-speed rail. He noted that France's storied TGV high-speed rail service began in 1981 with a single line, between Paris and Lyon.

"Everybody saw how great it was and how successful it was, and then other parts of France scrambled for high-speed rail," Simpson said. "Ray LaHood and the Department of Transportation has to decide: Is someone going to be king or are you going to spread it around? Do you pick the Midwest corridors? Do you pick the planning that's furthest along? That's the dilemma."

Last edited by Rusty Gull; Mar 12, 2009 at 3:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 4:32 AM
Jared's Avatar
Jared Jared is offline
senior something
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,058
You know, I've never really figured out the logic behind some of their HSR corridor designations. Why is it that Dallas-Little Rock is a HSR route, but Dallas-Houston isnt (and Houston-San Antonio for that matter, completing the socalled "Texas Triangle")?

Oh, and that map is just screaming to have a line run fromDetroit, connect with an extention from the one ending at Buffalo, and continue to Montreal (and Quebec City).
__________________
My Diagrams My Photos

I'm not the guy from Subway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 7:30 AM
KPELLY KPELLY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 137
Seems crazy to me too as you could make a Texas triangle or just houston ----> dallas. I had no idea Little Rock's metro had over 800 000 though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 2:13 PM
Spikester Spikester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vancouver - Coal Harbour
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared View Post
You know, I've never really figured out the logic behind some of their HSR corridor designations. Why is it that Dallas-Little Rock is a HSR route, but Dallas-Houston isnt (and Houston-San Antonio for that matter, completing the socalled "Texas Triangle")?
Strictly political. This allows the Texas congressional delegation to support the plan without risking the ire of Southwest Airlines, which makes a fortune from their DAL-HOU shuttle and has bitterly opposed various HSR initiatives in the Texas legislature for decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 6:04 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,682
Damn where's the Eugene to Sacramento stretch? Oh well, some day maybe I'll be able to take the train to SanFran in a day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2009, 6:35 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,557
Nobody lives between Eugene and San Fran. Lol.

I agree with what was said above, that map is screaming for a Detroit-Montreal HSR line. Detroit-London-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, with an extension to Quebec City would be amazing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2009, 10:49 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,709
More climb aboard Amtrak for cheaper travel

Quote:
More climb aboard Amtrak for cheaper travel

By Bill Sheets Herald Writer

The Everett Herald
updated 11:19 a.m. MT, Thurs., March. 12, 2009

LOCAL NEWS - EVERETT -- About a year ago, Charley Lane got tired of driving every day from Bellingham to his job in Everett.

He decided to try Amtrak, which sends two trains per day from Bellingham south as part of the Cascades run.

He hasn't commuted to his job at disAbility Resource Connection any other way since.

It takes him roughly 1 and 1/2 hours each way; the regular fare is $16 each way, but Lane gets a frequent rider discount.

"It's like four times cheaper than all the gas," he said.

Lane reflected a trend last year: Train ridership for both the Northwest and the nation set an all-time high.

More than 774,000 people rode the Amtrak Cascades route in 2008 compared with 676,777 in 2007 -- a 14 percent increase and an all-time high for the route. The route was established 15 years ago.

Amtrak Cascades runs four trains each way per day between Vancouver, B.C., and Eugene, Ore., with stops in Everett and Edmonds as well as Seattle and other cities. Ridership on the Empire Builder, which goes between Seattle and Chicago with stops in Edmonds and Everett, increased more than 8 percent in 2008 over 2007.

Nationwide, people took nearly 3 million more trips on Amtrak trains nationwide from October 2007 through September 2008 than in the previous year, an 11 percent increase and another record.

"We've had record ridership for the last five or six years," said Vernae Graham, a spokeswoman for Amtrak in Oakland, Calif.

While ridership has dipped some since gas prices have dropped, boardings on the Cascades route were still higher in January and February than they were in the same period two years ago.

"The surprising thing I think is that it hasn't dropped off as much as you would think," said Jim Cusick, an Amtrak ticket agent in his hometown of Edmonds.

The biggest spike in ridership was last August, when 83,142 people rode somewhere on the Cascades route, compared with 61,023 in 2007 -- an increase of 36.2 percent.

Big jumps in ridership also were seen last year on Puget Sound area commuter trains and buses. The Sounder commuter rail has continued that trend into 2009, carrying 1,118 passengers between Everett and Seattle in January -- a 15 percent increase over January 2008.

Once people start riding the train, Cusick said, they like it and tend to stay, he said.

Lane likes to work on his laptop during his commute. That's something he couldn't do by driving.

The train "is a really convenient option," he said.

Amtrak has been popular among commuters for years on the East Coast, where big cities are closer together, Cusick said. Now, more people on the West Coast are discovering it as a commuting option as well, Graham said.

This is especially true on some of the California routes, between Sacramento and the Bay Area and between Los Angeles and San Diego, and it is starting to pick up in the Northwest, she said.

Many riders are using the train more for short leisure trips. Sisters Barbara Harris and Donna Ross of Wolf Point, Mont., recently rode Amtrak to Everett for the first time to visit their sister and their niece.

"It's cheaper than flying," said Harris, and about the same cost as driving, she figures.

Rail advocates believe even more people would ride the trains if they ran more frequently. It helps people to know they can catch the train almost anytime, without having to plan, said Bob Lawrence, 67, of Mill Creek. Lawrence is a member of All Aboard Washington, a rail advocacy group.

Lawrence was living in California in the 1970s when the state added money to the Amtrak pot to add trains between Los Angeles and San Diego, he said.

"Every time they put another train on, the ridership jumped," he said.


Currently, one of the trains going north on the Cascades route stops in Bellingham and does not go all the way to Vancouver. Amtrak and the state are working with officials in Vancouver to get the second train up there, Graham said.

Also a member of All Aboard Washington, Cusick changed careers from computer programming to take the position with Amtrak. His position was added last year because of increased ridership, he said.

Train advocates hope the increase can be parlayed into more trains.

"I think it's great that it's happening," Lawrence said.
source The Everett Herald
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2009, 10:53 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,709
West Coast Amtrak routes get $137.2 million

Quote:
West Coast Amtrak routes get $137.2 million

12:44 PM PDT on Saturday, March 21, 2009

Associated Press

Nat'l Park Service

PORTLAND, Ore. - Two West Coast Amtrak routes, the Coast Starlight and the Cascades, will get $137.2 million in federal funds from the Omnibus Spending Bill and a continuing resolutions measure that is intended to keep government going until a budget is passed.

Oregon Sen. Roy Wyden's office said Friday that the Starlight, which runs between Los Angeles and Seattle, will get $81.1 million and the Cascades, between Eugene and Vancouver, B.C., will get $56.1 million.

The Cascades is operated in partnership with the states of Oregon and Washington.
Source Associated Press

When will BC pony up the dough to get another train here? What's holding it back? Is it the Canadian government thinking that the East Coast should get a cross-border link before the West Coast?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2009, 2:42 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
Quote:
Second Amtrak Cascades passenger train added, at least for Olympics


By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun
March 31, 2009 5:02 PM

A second Amtrak Cascades passenger train will travel between Seattle and Vancouver during the 2010 Winter Games, but Canadian border officials are still balking at extending the service in the future.

Scott Witt, rail and marine director for the Washington state department of transportation, said details were still being finalized, but the B.C. government has authorized Amtrak to run a second daily train to and from Vancouver during the Olympic period.

The proposed Amtrak Cascades service would see a second train leaving Seattle in the afternoon and arriving in Vancouver at 10:45 p.m, with the return train to Seattle leaving Vancouver at about 7:30 a.m.

This would complement the current train, which now leaves Seattle at 7:45 a.m. and arrives in Vancouver at 11:35 a.m., with the return trip leaving Vancouver at 5:45 p.m. and arriving in Seattle at 10:05 p.m.

Witt said the new service is approved to start a few weeks before the Olympics. But the Americans are hoping to convince the B.C. government to allow it to start the service as early as June so it can market the route and boost ridership numbers before the Games begin.

It also wants to keep it running once the Olympics are over, Witt said, adding he expects the number of passengers to be about the same for both trains.

In 2008, 31,009 people headed south on the Amtrak Cascades train, while 35,136 came north to Vancouver.

“Our stand is that looking at the economic benefits up there it makes sense,” Witt said.

The U.S. has been in negotiations with the B.C. government and customs officials for about nine months to get the train running.

The main hurdle is the Canada Border Services Agency, which wants to be compensated for having to bring in extra customs officials to provide border clearance in the evening.

Amtrak doesn’t pay anything extra now to run the current service because the train arrives during business hours in Vancouver. Witt said CBSA wants $535,000 a year to handle the second train.

“That’s the crux of the issue here,” Witt said, adding that Amtrak wouldn’t have to pay an extra fee to run the trains during the Olympics.

CBSA spokeswoman Faith St. John agreed that money was the main stumbling block, noting that border services has to figure out how it will handle additional incoming traffic from the U.S.

She said discussions were continuing with Amtrak and the Washington transportation department about extending the service.

“We are in discussions with them so as long as we’re talking there’s a good chance,” she said.

She wouldn’t comment on whether concessions had been made allow the train to run during the Olympics.

B.C. transportation ministry officials would not confirm the plans.

In March 2007, B.C. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon promised to provide funding to upgrade the tracks, saying that in the first full year of operation, a second Amtrak passenger train was expected to bring about 50,000 travellers a year to Vancouver, injecting an estimated $13.9 million into B.C.’s economy.

ksinoski@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/2...131/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2009, 4:32 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,557
It boggles the mind why border officials refuse to allow a permanent 2nd train. I really don't see ANY downsides, apart from a little more work from border officials.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2009, 5:53 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,222
How is screening train passengers any harder than screening bus passengers and the thousands and thousands of cars that go through each day. Oh the joys of a completely @$$wipe backwards Canadian government!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2009, 6:07 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,709
I wouldn't have believed this, except that it was posted March 31st, 2009... not April 1st.

It's ridiculous, really.

I mean. This will be a train originating in VANCOUVER, meaning MOST of the people on this train will be Canadians.

It's FAR easier to check a hundred passengers than 100 passengers and their cars.

After all, what they REALLY care about is making sure you don't bring back more than 1.5L of wine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2009, 6:48 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,170
Quote:
The main hurdle is the Canada Border Services Agency, which wants to be compensated for having to bring in extra customs officials to provide border clearance in the evening.

Amtrak doesn’t pay anything extra now to run the current service because the train arrives during business hours in Vancouver. Witt said CBSA wants $535,000 a year to handle the second train.
Sounds like they need to bring extra staff in at night for a short period just for this train - meaning that they probably have to be paid for a full 4 hour shift under union rules (?) or it would be overtime if existing staff stay longer (?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2009, 7:08 PM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is offline
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 996
i can not see how the "extra staff" could cost anywhere near $535,000

lets say average $65,000 including remittances (?), that over 8 staff members working full time for one extra train coming in and leaving.

bogus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2009, 9:28 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,709
And why should Amtrak pay the cost? Staggering shifts would also work. An Afternoon shift that overlaps, for example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2009, 7:24 AM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,709
An Open letter in Ottawa

Came across this interesting letter:

Quote:
Published on Wednesday, April 01, 2009

OPEN LETTER
April 1, 2009

Hon. Peter Van Loan
Minister of Public Safety
House of Commons, Ottawa
K1A 0A6

Hon. John Baird
Minister of Transport
House of Commons
Ottawa K1A0A6

Subject: Cost recovery for Amtrak and free screening for airlines

John J. Bakker, President Transport 2000 BC has long been attempting to bring some light on the problem of delay in approval of a second Amtrak from Seattle and beyond to Vancouver, B.C.
Transport 2000 Canada in Ottawa has received information through the Access to Information process indicating dilatory treatment (two years to respond) by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) of requests from Amtrak for arrangements to clear international passengers. When the CBSA responded it demanded $1,500 per train/day for work that on March 31 the border agency announced will be done for free for six airports!

Professor Bakker, Professor-Emeritus Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, says: “The Canadian Government objects to the thickening of our border with the United States, and rightly so. What used to be the longest undefended border in the world is becoming a barrier to Free Trade and to the movement of people who want to cross for legitimate purposes. But do we practice what we preach?

The State of Washington and Amtrak are willing to finance the extension of the second Amtrak train from Bellingham to Vancouver. This proposal was enthusiastically endorsed by the British Columbia Government, B.C. Tourism and the Vancouver Olympics Committee. The BC Government contributed $3 million to provide for an additional siding north of White Rock and this job was completed in April 2008. All was set to link Vancouver with Seattle and Portland going south in the morning and coming back late in the evening.

Yet there is no second train.

The Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) wants $ 1,500 per day or $547,500 per year to serve this train. When the first train started operating in 1994 there was no charge. After all Canada did not have to subsidise this service. Apparently the offices of CBSA are only open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and there would be nobody around at 11:40 p.m. when the second train arrives. So CBSA calls this a new facility and wants to be reimbursed.

No where else is an additional plane or bus or car called a new facility, but a train appears to be a different matter. Needless to say Amtrak refuses to pay.

Washington State has studied the impact of the first train. American passengers coming to Canada spend money on hotels, meals and transportation, as well as on goods and services they buy. The second train is expected to generate US$18 million visitor expenditures, which means about U $765,000 revenue in GST for the Federal Government. So the Federal Government makes a profit even if we assume the dollar at par.

The trains on the West coast in the US continue to have increased ridership. Total Northwest Corridor ridership was 847,563 in 2008 up 15.4% over 2007. Seattle is well served by trains from all directions, which maybe one of the reasons cruise ships are moving their terminal from Vancouver to Seattle.

Amtrak, thanks to Vice-President Joe Biden, is getting $1.3 billion in improving infrastructure. Washington State hopes to get some of these funds to build a third track between Seattle and Portland so as to speed up the Cascades services.

So why is the Canadian Government being so obstinate in requiring extra fees? ... If it works for trains, why not for planes, buses and passenger cars?

As to how to solve the processing of passengers from the US late at night: The actual border crossing is very close to the Peach Arch. There is CSBA post there manned 24 hours, 7 days a week. Take a van with officers to Blaine, join the train, process passengers and get off again at White Rock.

Any inadmissible passengers can be promptly returned to the US. There are rumours that CSBA wants to have all passengers on all trains entering Canada get off and have passport and luggage inspection at the border. It was easier to cross the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.

What we need is real political leadership from you the responsible Ministers. The CBSA in its zeal to balance its own budget should be told that in an economic crisis, we should welcome tourists to visit Canada and not to make it an obstacle course. We need a kind of stimulus package for tourism, and this package could make a profit for Canada.

Yours very truly

Harry Gow
Founding President
Transport 2000 Canada

For more information

Harry Gow
<hwgow@sympatico.ca>

David Jeanes
<david@jeanes.ca>
President
Transport 2000 Canada
(613) 594-3290

John Bakker
President
Transport 2000 BC
<jaapbakker@telus.net>

source
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2009, 4:10 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 11,614
I am not quite sure where to post this but i was driving through Abbotsford on the #1 a few days ago and there was a huge billboard set up promoting interurban rail to the Valley. I thought that was kind of interesting. Has there been any movements at all with connecting the Valley with a commuter rail or inter urban?
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2009, 5:15 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,945
they have lots of billboards up out there about it - not sure who put them up but I was surprised to see them
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:07 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.