News   Aug 23, 2024
The RIV Bumped to 37 Storeys in Exchange for Community Benefits
 1.3K     0 
News   Aug 23, 2024
252 Church Tops Off with 'Piano Key' Cladding
 2.2K     4 
News   Aug 23, 2024
News Roundup for August 23, 2024
 562     0 

S-bahns (electric suburban rail)

Re: S-bahns

I'd be careful with the pro-roads stance. You might be driven out of here either by a barrage of evidence proving roads do not solve gridlock, or a chorus of laughter.

That said, strategic road infrastructure changes - such as poor road design (ie 401 through 427 and Dixon Road that was partially fixed 1-2 years ago), may help. Same with HOT - High Occupancy Tolling lanes.

I favour buses, light rail, subways and regional rail. Also the redesignation of existing infrastructure (not widening disguised with HOV-lane greenwash) for HOVs, buses, and on a local level, bicycles.
 
Re: S-bahns

You might be driven out of here either by a barrage of evidence proving roads do not solve gridlock, or a chorus of laughter.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that improving public transit is better at relieving gridlock that more roads?
 
Re: S-bahns

If you look at gridlock on any road near a highway interchange during rush hour, you might think maybe highways are the problem rather the solution.
 
Re: S-bahns

in toronto's case a lot of subway/light rail is needed though and fast, a blanket covering the city because buses really suck. i know other pretty large cities have worse systems, but we're supposed to be ahead of the curve here
 
Re: S-bahns

Is there any evidence that improving public transit is better at relieving gridlock that more roads?
Click to expand...
No, but it does provide a way of bypassing the gridlock, which more roads can't do.
 
Re: S-bahns

A document that is relevant to this discussion, even if somewhat boring too read is Bill C-11: Transportation Amendment Act.

www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?List=ls&Query=4690&Session=14&Language=e#background

Of particular interest is this section

Clause 39 amends section 145 so that a railway company offering to sell or transfer a railway line in the discontinuance process must offer it to the federal and provincial governments, urban transit authorities (as defined in the proposed definition in section 87), and municipal governments through whose territory the line passes. The amendment results in urban transit authorities being included in the sequence of mandatory offers of railway lines to public authorities in the circumstances set out in that section.
Click to expand...

...and...

Proposed section 146.2 requires railway companies to prepare and keep up to date a list of their “sidings and spurs†(line segments) in metropolitan areas that they plan to dismantle. A railway company must publish the list on its Internet site and notify specified parties of any change within 10 days. A railway company must not take any steps to dismantle a siding or spur until at least 12 months have elapsed since the siding or spur was added to the list. Prior to dismantling a siding or spur, a railway must offer them to governments and urban transit authorities for not more than their net salvage value. The process parallels the process in amended sections 145 and 146 whereby railway lines are offered to governments and urban transit authorities.
Click to expand...

In short, it is a protection of the status quo, ensuring that railway right of ways that are slowly being abandoned can easily be bought up by government agencies for the use of public transit. Over time it should also allow GO to take full possession over a number of lines, a critical part of any current strategy it must employ if it wants to be able to build a regional rail network in the future.

Certainly not legislation that is going to lead to the real fundamental changes needed, but, it is a positive step nonetheless.
 
Re: S-bahns

What we need is legislation to take over lines currently owned by CN and CP. Let the freight schedule itself around passenger traffic, as it should be.
 
Re: S-bahns

^ I don't think so. On the main lines the freight keeps running 24 hours a day so if GO or the government want access to those lines they are going to need to pay or provide an alternative. Those lines were paid for by the railway company... it makes no sense to me that they should be screwed by the government which didn't have the foresight to hold public transportation corridors in reserve. The only way I can see CP giving up its tracks through Toronto is the government giving them money to build a GTA by-pass.
 
Re: S-bahns

I agree with Enviro on this point. When it comes time that various levels of governments decide to tackle the issue they are going to have to work with freight companies and develop a plan that is fair to them as well. Fixing decades of bad policy towards passenger rail by flipping the tables and doing the same to freight companies instead is a bad idea, pure and simple.

There are a number of solutions too the problem that would be in the interest of both freight and passenger rail and would work wonderfully at putting most issues too rest. Of course whether governments and business interests can be mature enough and hold their arrogance in check long enough to discuss it rationally is another question. But I am sure in time two amicable parties will find themselves at the table and there will be a good chance of of most of the issues being dealt with in a fair way. Until then, things will carry on as usual by and large.
 
Re: S-bahns

How about this for a GTA bypass:

The CP mainline meets the CN freight bypass near the zoo. Connect the CP with the CN York Sub, and run both CN and CP trains along that. It would not be much of a diversion for CP trains to the Agincourt Yard (not much more than CN to MacMillan). Then at Halwest (between Malton and Bramalea), extend the freight bypass along the 407/hydro ROW along the Brampton-Mississauga boundary and have both CN and CP use this. Connect to CP's Galt Sub at the Milton/Mississauga border, and connect CN back up at Milton.

Immediately, we would have the following benefits:
- CP North Toronto cleared of most freights. CP through Mississauga cleared of most freights. Immediate possibility of regional rail from Malvern to Meadowvale. (Milton would do with current GO service levels, might be able to squeeze a few more trains, buses from Meadowvale or Lisgar).
- CN through Brampton cleared, apart from industrial turns and GEXR runs. Immediate regional rail. Downtown Brampton free from the dozens of daily freights.
- CN has shorter route to Western Ontario and Buffalo. CP has shorter route from Agincourt to CP MacTier to Sudbury, CP Galt to London/Detroit.
-More room along CN York/Halton and CP Galt for freight trains and fewer disruptions than though Midtown Toronto or Downtown Brampton.

Then GO could take over CN Weston (with local CN turns and VIA trains), CP North Toronto/Galt (with local freight service).

Who needs expropriation?

Also remember that most railways built in the 1800s did so with lots of subsides. CP made a bigger killing off of the land grants than it did with a railway monopoly (which it was granted, that no railway could directly compete in the Praries). The smaller lines got bonuses as bribes for running through certain towns and townships.
 
I came across this rather interesting comment in the just released Moving Ottawa report about mixing freight and commuter rail with light rail (such as the Bombardier Talent).

"The Task Force’s recommendation to use existing rail corridors necessitates track sharing between passenger and freight trains. Task Force consultations with Transport Canada railway safety officials were fruitful and indicate that there should be no regulatory impediment to mixing freight and light rail passenger trains."

It continues to say

"The Transport Canada Rail Safety Branch now takes the position that different combinations may be permitted as long as they are demonstrably safe. This performance-based criterion replaces former rigid divisions between types of operations. Transport Canada staff have familiarized themselves with European railway safety practices. This means that the federal regulator becomes a guarantor of a safe railway rather than a watchdog for a pure North American safety model. This in turn opens up more options for Ottawa light rail, potentially allowing mixed operations of various combinations of freight, intercity and commuter passenger trains and light rail."

And near the end of the report they also state

"The City should also take advantage of the Government of Canada’s Railway Safety Act review. The federal government has stuck a panel that will consult a wide range of stakeholders, including the public, railway companies and their industry associations, railway company employees and their unions, railway customers (e.g., travellers and shippers) and their associations, the provinces and territories, municipalities, aboriginal and environmental groups, and federal government departments and agencies. Individuals and groups will be invited to present their views at meetings across Canada."

Edit: I kept amending this post so I thought I would clean it up a little. Essentialy what this all means is that the problem of mixing light rail and commuter and freight traffic is becoming a non-issue. Transport Canada is starting to adopt new policies and so if a transit operator wants to operate a Talent or Triebwagen in with the typical diesel train sets than it will be able to once a safety assessment has been completed, or if one is allready done, then there shouldn't be much they will have to do. So one of key issues that was holding back the creation of more flexible passenger rail networks should no longer be a major issue and will allow regional rail systems to more seriously be explored.

There is also the Railway Safety Act Review. Essentialy this deals with all issues relating to rail safety but it will also allow public comment on issues like the one I mentioned above. Public Consultations are still on going and there will be one held in Toronto on August 10th, 2007 at the Royal York starting at 9:30am. Written submissions due by July 26th, 2007.

Here is the link to the Consultation Guidance Document. For those who have commented and raised concerns about the issue of modern, passenger rail regulations and standards that will allow proper systems to be developed, this is the perfect opportunity to have your thoughts heard. This is certainly one of the most important steps towards modernizing passenger rail and if you want to see it happen, then I would urge you to take a bit of time and make your opinion known.
 
An 'S-Bahn' system that has been created from scratch (well - upgrading of existing corridors):

perth.png


Others here, here and here.
 
I might be wrong, but I think that GO was only going to buy the Talents once the Ottawa LRT was rolling but since that plan died I'm guessing we won't be seeing them coming any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top