News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.4K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 399     0 

Metrolinx: Other Items (catch all)

Don't know if Canada will follow the U.S.A. on changing it regulations on trains, but the U.S. Finally Legalizes Modern, European-Style Train Cars

See link.

Rail fans, rejoice. Federal rules no longer bar U.S. passenger rail systems from using modern, lightweight train cars.

This week, the Federal Railroad Administration finalized new safety rules [PDF] that bring American standards more in line with those used in Europe — changes that will save American commuter rail operators money and passengers time. Under the new rules, old, heavy trains can now be replaced with lighter, sleeker, more-modern models.

Meeting the Federal Railroad Administration’s onerous and antiquated safety rules has been a big problem for passenger rail operators that use the Federal Railway System (commuter rail and inter-city rail, like Amtrak). The U.S. doesn’t have a very large domestic train car market, so importing train cars from Europe and Asia is often the cheapest and lowest-risk option.

But FRA rules had required significant design changes. Most important, American train cars had to be built to withstand 800,000 pounds of frontal impact. Former Amtrak CEO David Gunn complained U.S. trains had to be designed like “high-velocity bank vaults.” Rather than just bulk up, European and Asian trains instead are designed to absorb impacts and avoid collisions in the first place. And they have better safety records.

In the past, transit agencies and Amtrak had to order trains from European or Asian suppliers and then modify the cars to meet American standards — which often caused big problems. Philadelphia’s SEPTA system, for example, had to return 120 brand new rail cars thanks to an engineering defect in 2016.

The new rules will help minimize those problems.

“The modifications that will be necessary to adapt European designs will be very minimal,” said Sandy Johnston, a Boston-based transportation planner and writer of the blog Interant Urbanist. “Every time something has to be modified it introduces additional expense and complication.”

American trains will now be more energy efficient and cheaper thanks to the changes, added Johnson. They will also be more likely to have features that prevent overcrowding, like open gangways.

A small wonky group of urbanist writers and policy experts like Stephen Smith and Marc Scribner have called for the reforms since the early part of the decade. The regulation has been slowly making its way through the federal regulatory process since 2013, and received a final push during the waning days of the Obama Administration. Now it is official.
Click to expand...

Could be savings if Canada allows for more lighter weight train cars.
 
rbt said:
From the material they chose to quote, it doesn't look like anything new.

www.netnewsledger.com/2018/11/26/minister-of-transport-announces-transit-plans-for-ontario/
Click to expand...

That unhappy moment when the PC's discover that infrastructure is a long-term proposition, and you can't act like every initiative is something you conceived and brought forward yourself, and you can't just magically stop the train on progress that happened before your term.

Ford will declare himself the hero who brought transit to Richmond Hill, but at best he will tolerate DRL while pretending he doesn't know where it came from.

- Paul
 
rbt said:
From the material they chose to quote, it doesn't look like anything new.

www.netnewsledger.com/2018/11/26/minister-of-transport-announces-transit-plans-for-ontario/
Click to expand...

Depends how you look at "anything new." Mimico was announced a while ago but if they're going to start planning/ranking ALL Metrolinx projects based on a "market-driven" developer model, that's an interesting new thing. (Good spin: Leveraging undeveloped GO assets! Bad spin: Building public transit only where private developers see a profit in it.)
 
What does this mean "Allowing developers to build above transit stations"??

Does this mean where current stations are over the track or beside it?? If its over the tracks, long over due and only can be done on lines own by Metrolinx or have the permission of CN/CP to do it. Needs to have strong safety measure in place and provision for more tracks if there is room for them.

By building over the track, it gets rid of the 100' clearance for setback of residential buildings and nothing new doing so since its done else where. It will allow more development for the station. It will allow to reduce parking requirement, with parking underground.

What being proposed now is selling the farm to get something, while not generating a profit at the same time.
 
crs1026 said:
That unhappy moment when the PC's discover that infrastructure is a long-term proposition, and you can't act like every initiative is something you conceived and brought forward yourself, and you can't just magically stop the train on progress that happened before your term.

Ford will declare himself the hero who brought transit to Richmond Hill, but at best he will tolerate DRL while pretending he doesn't know where it came from.

- Paul
Click to expand...

A new gov't taking credit for previous successes doesn't seem a surprise. The part I find odd is Verster acting like 'market-driven' approaches are a fresh concept being seized upon. It comes across as patronizing and sucking-up, particularly since Metrolinx wrote the book on TOD, leveraging assets, and working with private developers. That is, on paper in their Mobility Hub stuff circa 2010. But considering after ten years they have very little success stories in this department, he should probably lay it a bit thinner with the gratulatory epithets. Or at least save the celebration for when shovels hit the ground at Mimico.
 
Why not build the parking garages over the tracks and then use the area around the stations for more appropriate development.... eg commercial that would both anchor the station as a useful place in the community and benefit commuters doing before and after commute errands?

- Paul
 
 
Last edited:
These townhalls are such bs and a waste of time. They do not provide any more information that can be found on their website. What is the point? Just replace the townhall with as sign that says "Find your answers at www.metrolinx.com"
 
^ It's a way to engage customers who don't normally visit the website to find information or for people who don't visit the UT Transportation and Infrastructure forum each day and make over 1,000 posts. And yes, I've actually found sometimes that additional insight or information is provided than just the Metrolinx website.
 
Last edited:
Allandale25 said:
^ It's a way to engage customers who don't normally visit the website to find information or for people who don't visit the UT Transportation and Infrastructure forum each day and make over 1,000 posts. And yes, I've actually found sometimes that additional insight or information is provided than just the Metrolinx website.
Click to expand...

I've had some great and technical questions answered before from Metrolinx's Q & A sessions. I personally believe it is a great initiative.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
How did number 8 make the cut it's not as if Metrolinx has any say over the use of road salt anywhere other then there own bus terminals?
Click to expand...

They'll probably note that they are rebuilding station platforms to including heating elements to melt the snow and ice which negates salt.
 
drum118 said:
What does this mean "Allowing developers to build above transit stations"??
.....
What being proposed now is selling the farm to get something, while not generating a profit at the same time.
Click to expand...

You can either pay the capital dollars to build a station and a rental building with the goal of earning rent. Or sell the land in exchange for you not having to build a station. But not both.

Governments are horrible at being a landlord. They build white elephants, can't manage them properly and can't earn a profit. So the former is a no-go unless they can get their act together. So by default it's the later.

I'm excited that they will use this for the DRL, RER and other projects. The stations are a huge capex and by letting a private developer help fund them it really decreases the cost. And builds transit friendly communities at the same time. The only detractors are the NIMBY's who want high order transit near their bungalow's (i.e. Crosstown).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top