MisterF
Senior Member
Well then say what you mean. I don't know who that comment about idealogical purists is aimed at, but my position on proposals that are less ambitious than HSR has been very clear.
|
|
|
High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
muller877
Senior Member
From my count there are 49 new road crossings from KW to London (more or less dependent on the route). I understand that they expect the municipality to fund all of these crossings (or shut them down and add to emergency driving time). Assume it impacts 3 farms per crossing. So about 150 farmers will have direct land consequences.
However, many farmers own a farm a 1/2 mile down the road (you need 1000+ acres to be profitable and the original farm size is approx 120 acres). How are they going to get to it if there is no crossing and/or the bridge which is too small for their large farm implements?
And you can't flippantly state they can just trade it. Land is in scarce supply and each farmer has different nutrient management plans based on crops, organic, etc. There are also nutrient management rules were a a farmer with livestock must have a minimum amount of land to spread the waste. How are they going to get the waste to the other field? Will they have to reduce the size of their herd?
20+ years ago farming vehicles were much smaller and farms themselves were much smaller. When the gov't bought the land for the 407 and even further back for the 403 a lot of these were not as much of a concern. Now farming is big business and is needed for our food supply.
The good news is that we will have a premier who does have MPP's with rural representatives whichever way it goes. I hope they know and listen to the farmers concerns vs just those who live in the cities.
centralblue
New Member
Other than cost. Is there legislative or safety regulations that would prevent HSR using the existing rail corridors on a separate elevated track. It would seem to me that this would alleviate the level crossing problem and the height could be made sufficient for farm vehicles to cross under. Piers for the bents could be constructed with minimal disruption to existing freight traffic. Most of the construction could be done off site reducing costs. The pre fabricated cross pieces and decking with rails could be unloaded from train cars directly into place depending on freight traffic timing. once completed the HSR line is independent of the freight lines and any sidings or spurs. The only real complainants would potentially be residential properties backing onto the corridor having to content with the elevated track now looking into their backyards. Possibly a better overall solution for everyone. Just my 2 bobs worth.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The province will build some crossings. It's not like they are going to unilaterally cut off 49 crossings. think of it as constructing a freeway - they don't close all the crossings, the province pays for many to have bridges built. It'll be the same thing with HSR - some of the more minor crossings may close, but they will likely construct grade separations for most of them.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I have. But when it does fit your ideological mold, you label people as anti-transit or anti-rail or anti-HSR. That was pretty clear in other discussions we've had.
Your ability to ignore all context and resort to red herrings and strawman arguments is actually remarkable. "But what about Uzbekistan?"
lenaitch
Senior Member
Forced government rearranging of private ownership (not all farms are corporations)? Doesn't sound like a country I would want to live in.
I don't know the legislation but I would think rail traffic operating inside a wall of support columns would create a safety concern. Also, I would imagine HSR would not be compatible with following the curves and grades of existing corridors.
crs1026
Senior Member
I quite agree, but I trust that farmers are quite capable of sorting things out on their own. Farmer A says to Farmer B, look, you now have x acres on my side of the tracks, and I have y acres on your side of the tracks. What can we do about that? Maybe the Province pays for third party assessments or soil tests or expert advice or whatever to help ground these discussions towards a mutually workable solution. Some people will refuse to play, others will look for the opportunity. Maybe it solves enough problems to be constructive and mitigate enough of the pain. The key is for the province to look at how it can help, not get in the way or force solutions on people.
My gut says more often or not, the rail line would have to duck under grade so the farm equipment alignment has an unconstrained clearance. Lots of excavation. Water table and drainage issues galore.
Doable, but don’t underestimate the cost. I suspect the Collenette study assumed plain old inexpensive grade crossings. VIA’s HFR seemed to do this also. Contrast this with TGV, where there is a huge investment in barriers in any place where there is even a remote possibility of a vehicle (or a cow) reaching the tracks. SNCF simply does not experience the North American events you see on Youtube where a vehicle has somehow gotten onto the ROW somewhere. One of my concerns with the Collenette study is that they may have lowballed the grade separation cost to an extent that could completely invalidate the construction cost estimates.
Which is why I support doing the EA - just to see how well this is being studied.
- Paul
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Here's the Relocation and Crossing Act. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4/
Here's some background on the Act:
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/search/site/line construction relocation
Fro Grade Crossings (which differentiates HFR from HxR, HFR+ or HSR)
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/grade-crossings-handbook.html
Here's some background on the Act:
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/search/site/line construction relocation
Fro Grade Crossings (which differentiates HFR from HxR, HFR+ or HSR)
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/grade-crossings-handbook.html
crs1026
Senior Member
All good stuff, but so far all hypothetical in the Canadian context with respect to HxR.
I will bet a box of donuts that if anybody actually gets a HxR project to the starting line in Canada, Transport Canada’s response will be “Whoa......hang on a minute. We never considered actually doing this, and certainly not along (whatever) line. We’d better study this further. Give us some time to write some standards”
..... leading to a 2+ year delay while they revisit their navels.
Call me cynical, but have your Tim’s Card handy to bring me those donuts.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
^ The standards are all charted in the third link I provided. This is the Law as it now stands, and answers the question one poster made (I scanned to find it, I'm rushed right now and can't) as to what speed determines whether grade crossings are allowed or not, and how HFR won't require separated grade crossings. That's in the Acts and guidelines, and by reverse logic, limits the speed *per section* that HFR will operate at. Some sections can be totally grade separated, and those, track geometry permitting, will have a higher speed limit.
The procedure to utilize the Relocation and Crossing sections has been used many times, and lays out the costing as to three levels of government, and funding if applied for to the CTA.
What the Feds have to address, and almost immediately as it pertains to GO and others, is TC regs for couplers, etc. But that's a different argument than crossings.
The procedure to utilize the Relocation and Crossing sections has been used many times, and lays out the costing as to three levels of government, and funding if applied for to the CTA.
What the Feds have to address, and almost immediately as it pertains to GO and others, is TC regs for couplers, etc. But that's a different argument than crossings.
steveintoronto
Superstar
MisterF
Senior Member
The point I've been making is that anti-HSR is not the same thing as anti-rail or anti-transit. What you're accusing me of saying is wildly different from what I said. Your accusations are baseless.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The fact that you think somebody who is skeptical on HSR's practicality is anti-HSR proves my point. Thank you.
crs1026
Senior Member
I’m not able to find anything in that third document about railway track with a design speed above 95-100 mph. Am I missing something?
While the design of railway crossings below that top speed are very thoroughly laid out, I’m still not confident that TC has reached a level of comfort and specificity about higher train speeds that would let anyone implement a level crossing above that speed. Hence my belief that their response to an actual proposal will be “We will get back to you”.
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
I am thinking though that if anybody actually wants to move on HSR, they'll have to start talking to TC. It'll probably be a joint effort to define regs.