Public Transportation

163 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo

Fair enough.  I've rode the POP lines here a zillion times, but I don't think I've ever actually been asked to provide proof.

Rev Pesky

What happens during one of these episodes is the bus is guarded at both doors while two of the police board the bus and demand proof of purchase. The bus is stopped for this and the passengers are prevented from leaving. Given that many of the transit police are wannabe cops, one can see the general attitude towards the transit police is not good.

 

NorthReport

Bird's nest catches fire, causing Expo Line SkyTrain shutdown and stranding tens of thousands of commuters

http://www.straight.com/news/456356/birds-nest-catches-fire-causing-expo...

jerrym

Stuck in the 1960s, Canada is the only G8 country that does not have high speed rail and one of only 4 G20 countries without high speed rail, despite the potential it offers for fast, efficient movement of people and freight that is lower in carbon dioxide emissions than our principal transportation modes, driving and flying.

Quote:

Canada falls even farther behind the rest of the G8 countries in high speed rail. Here is a summary of the facts.

Canada – None - The federal government has no plan for high speed rail and no money allocated. The latest current high speed rail studies done in Canada, (Windsor-Quebec City 2011 and Calgary – Edmonton 2009) have, like all previous others, been shelved and no action has been taken.

According to the Chief executive of VIA Rail Marc Laliberté, The fastest train that VIA RAIL runs has an average speed of about 115 kilometres an hour. VIA Rail in 2012 is cutting train service to the cities of Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, London, Toronto, Niagara Falls, Kitchener, Guelph, Sarnia and London. VIA is closing the railway station in Kitchener. VIA is also cutting 200 jobs.

The Federal Conservative government is cutting VIA Rail subsidies by $41 million in three years.

France – For 30 years, a world leader in high speed rail, France has operated trains with speeds ranging from 200-320 km/h, over 98 million passengers rode the high speed trains in 2008.

As of 2011 there are over 2,037km of high speed track exist with more lines planned. They have three more lines planned with train speeds of 300-350 km/h. Their safety record is impressive.

Germany – Another leader in high speed trains beginning in 1991, their ICE trains travel are certified to travel at 330 km/h. Average speeds are between 250-3oo km/h. High speed lines exist from Hanover-Würzburg, Stuttgart-Mannheim, Hanover-Berlin, Köln (Cologne)-Frankfurt and Nürnberg-Ingolstadt.

Two additional 300 km/h high speed lines at Nuremberg–Erfurt and Erfurt–Leipzig/Halle are expected to be completed within the next two years.

Italy – Italy’s high speed rail network is growing. The first high speed trains in Italy were in 1997. There now consists 7 government run high speed rail lines of approximately 1000 km.

Italy also has a private high speed rail company Nuovo Trasporto Viaggiatori (NTV) that started in 2011 using Alstom’s new AGV train. Train speeds average around 300km/hr.

Japan – Started in 1964, has an extensive HSR system throughout the country. The Japan Bullet trains are called (shinkansen). Their safety record is remarkable. On some lines, high speed trains run every three minutes. Even more amazing is their on time performance. The trains on average are within 6 seconds of their scheduled time. Japan’s high speed trains travel between 200-300 km/h approximately.

Six high speed lines operate in Japan with two more extensions currently planned. Total length of their high speed rail network is approximately 2,300 km.

Russia – Russia has three high speed rail lines Saint Petersburg-Moscow, Moscow – Nizhny Novgorod and Helsinki Finland to St. Petersburg. Train speeds are in the 200-250km/h range.

A future high speed rail line is planned to be built near the existing Helsinki to St. Petersburg on its on dedicated track. The current high speed rail line runs on existing mix freight passenger rail line with many level crossings.

United Kingdom – There are 4 rail lines that run intercity trains that fall barely under the category of high speed rail. These trains travel at a maximum of 201kph. (200 km/hr is considered the low end of the definition of high speed rail).

The only true high speed rail line in Britain –High Speed Rail 1 (part of what was called Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Paris/London) runs a mixture of 300 km/h (186 mph) Eurostar international services and 225 km/h (140 mph) Southeastern passenger services. In January 2012 a ₤33bn high speed rail plan has been approved by the government.

USA – The USA has the Acela Express which Amtrak runs in the Northeast Corridor which can get up to speeds from 120-217 km/h with a top speed of 240kph. Amtrak currently has recorded a high in passenger rider ship with over 31 million this past year. Amtrak has plans for high speed rail lines in its north-east corridor.

In 2008 President Obama announced requests for proposals for high speed rail funding. This has lead to a rail revival in the USA. It must be stated that the vast majority of proposals being approved for HSR funding has been to reduce congestion and incremental improvement in speed on existing mixed freight/passenger rail corridors has taken off in the USA.

California has been on the forefront in the USA for a new high speed rail corridor.

http://www.highspeedrailcanada.com/2012/11/g8-countries-high-speed-rail....

 

jerrym

The following research paper examines the role that high speed trains could play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Quote:

In this paper a life cycle perspective is used to analyse Europabanan, a proposed high-speed rail track in Sweden. The life cycle emissions reductions are found to be 550,000 tons of CO2-equivalents per annum by 2025/2030 with almost 60% of this coming from a shift from truck to rail freight and 40% from a shift from air and road travel to high-speed rail travel. In contexts similar to Sweden, it is thus an important issue whether a large increase is required in freight rail capacity anyway, since high-speed rail investments may not be justified for the passenger markets alone. The study also indicates that a substantial share of emissions due to construction of the new railway could be counterbalanced through the reduced need for building and maintaining roads and airports, and for manufacturing cars.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920910001689

 

jerrym

Dr. Anthony Perl,Professor of Urban Studies and Political Science at Simon Fraser University, and Tony Bosworth, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth, discuss the potenial of high speed rail, as well as its problems, below. 

Quote:

Dr. Anthony Perl

Any debate about the future of high-speed rail must consider where this mobility option fits into the 'big picture' of how transportation systems meet looming economic, energy and environmental challenges. In a world where 95% of motorized mobility is currently fueled by oil, high-speed rail offers a proven means of reducing dependence on this increasingly problematic energy source. ...

In our recent book Transport Revolutions, Richard Gilbert and I documented the economic, environmental and political dividends to be gained from replacing the internal combustion engines powering today's aircraft, cars, and motor vehicles with traction motors that can be powered by multiple energy sources delivered through the electric grid.

Since electricity is an energy carrier, it can be generated from a mix of sources that incorporate the growing share of geothermal, hydro, solar, and wind energy that will be produced in the years ahead. And because electric motors are three to four times more efficient than internal combustion engines, an immediate improvement will precede introducing renewable energy into transportation.

Grid-connected traction offers the only realistic option for significantly reducing oil use in transportation over the next 10 years.

If such a shift does not begin during this decade, the risk of a global economic collapse and/or geo-political conflict over the world's remaining oil reserves would become dangerously elevated. Making a significant dent in transportation's oil addiction within 10 years is sooner than fuel cells, biofuels, battery-electric vehicles and other alternative energy technologies will be ready to deliver change.

Biofuels that could power aircraft now cost hundreds of dollars per gallon to produce. Batteries that a big enough charge to power vehicles between cities are still too big and expensive to make electric cars and buses affordable.

But grid-connected electric trains have been operating at scale and across continents for over a century. And when the Japanese introduced modern high-speed trains through their Shinkansen, in 1964, the utility of electric trains was greatly extended.

Since the 1980s, countries across Asia and Europe have been building new high-speed rail infrastructure to deploy electric mobility between major cities up to 1,000 kilometers apart. For intercity trips between 200 and 1,000 kilometers, high-speed trains have proven their success in drawing passengers out of both cars and planes, as well as meeting new travel demand with a much lower carbon footprint than driving or flying could have done.

If we are serious about reducing oil's considerable risks to global prosperity and sustainability, we will not miss the opportunity offered by high-speed rail to decrease transportation's oil consumption sooner, rather than later.

Tony Bosworth 

Across the world governments are looking to high speed rail to provide fast, modern transport systems fit for the 21st century.

By the end of 2012 China is expected to have more high speed rail lines than the rest of the world combined, while President Obama aims to give 80 per cent of Americans access to fast rail travel within 25 years.

But if governments want high speed rail to spearhead the drive towards a cleaner transport system they must look further than simply providing faster trains. The UK is currently mulling over a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham, a city about 160 kilometers north-west of the capital. But according to official estimates, it's unlikely to lead to significant carbon dioxide cuts -- and may even increase climate-changing emissions.

So what's stopping high speed rail being a major part of a greener transport future in Britain?

First there's the electricity to power the trains. Over two thirds of the world's electricity comes from fossil fuels so until (or unless) power stations are weaned off fossil fuels, electric trains will still have a significant climate impact -- although rail travel is still better than flying or driving. Secondly, will high speed rail entice people off the roads and short-haul flights? ...

One of the main factors is cost. Despite soaring fuel prices, motoring and flying are still expected to be cheaper than high speed rail. If faster rail travel is to become a realistic alternative it must be affordable too.

The UK's high speed rail link is expected to cost a whopping $54 billion. But living as we do in cash-strapped times there's surely a strong case for investing some of that that money in less grandiose, but more effective, projects.

Perhaps some high speed rail money could be diverted to upgrade commuter and longer-distance services, making life easier and cheaper for ordinary passengers -- and making a bigger and fast contribution to cutting emissions.

High speed rail can play a major role in tackling climate change around the world -- if it's affordable, powered by clean energy and gets people out of their cars and off planes, we really will be speeding in the right direction.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/world/how-green-is-hsr/index.html

 

jerrym

This 2009 article discusses how, in December 1967, the government-owned Canadian National Railway set a world record in high speed rail with the Turbo, but successive Liberal and Con governments never followed up in a meaningful manner, leaving us stuck half a century behind all G8 and most G20 countries.

Quote:

The Turbo was capable of speeds approaching those of today’s fastest passenger trains. In December of 1967, a three-car Turbo set the world record for rail travel on a New Jersey test track, reaching 275 kilometres per hour. At that rate, the trip between downtown Toronto and downtown Montreal would have taken two hours — less than the time it takes to fly, once ground travel to and from the airports is factored in. ...

Japan’s legendary bullet trains now carry 410,000 people a day. France’s Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV), launched more than a decade after the Turbo, moves 268,000 passengers daily, at speeds exceeding 300 kilometres per hour. Altogether, high-speed trains dash across almost twenty nations. These include not only powerhouses such as Russia, China, and the United Kingdom, but Finland, Portugal, and Turkey. Many of these countries are spending stimulus funds to expand their networks.

New high-speed rail projects are in the works around the world. Argentina and South Africa are laying track; Iran and Brazil are laying plans; Morocco has landed partners. Saudi Arabia is building a line from Medina to Mecca, and may collaborate with neighbouring states to develop a 1,984-kilometre railway from Kuwait to Oman. There is talk the line could extend to Yemen, which would become the first nation served by high-speed rail but not a functional government.

Related LinkRead Monte Paulsen’s companion series at The Tyee, “Derailed: How BC’s Chance for High-Speed Rail Jumped the Tracks”Even the Americans are spending billions to extend high-speed rail beyond the Boston–Washington corridor. The stimulus bill passed by Congress in February includes $8 billion for new passenger rail projects. California is likely first in line for that money, with construction slated to begin in 2011 on a statewide high-speed network that promises to whisk passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours. Also fighting for a cut of the billions are Texas, with its T-Bone Line connecting Dallas to San Antonio and Houston; Florida, with a bullet train that would fly along the shores of the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico; and New York, seeking a link from the Big Apple through Albany to Toronto.

Why are these countries planning and building high-speed rail lines? Because they’re a kind of insurance policy for the twenty-first century. High-speed rail ensures that cities remain connected the next time the price of oil rises, and in the event that $150-a-barrel oil returns for good. Because it is so much more fuel efficient, high-speed rail is far, far greener than flying, and in a century of dwindling oil it’s also far more economically sustainable — a fact Saudi Arabia seems to grasp, but Canada does not.

Canada possesses both the expertise to build high-speed rail systems — Bombardier is a global leader — and the population to support them, along routes such as the Quebec City–Windsor and Calgary–Edmonton corridors. What it lacks is the political will to act. As a result, Canada is failing to leverage the recent wave of infrastructure spending, let alone nourish its legacy as a nation built on the spine of its railroad.

“We’re so far behind the rest of the world,” says railway activist Paul Langan, “it’s like we can’t even see their tail lights anymore.” ...

Canada’s political and business leaders during the ’70s responded to the unprofitability of rail travel by making matters worse. Rather than investing in separate tracks to allow for the kind of rapid rail that might have attracted new riders, CN, then a Crown corporation, sought to divest itself of all passenger operations. The decline of passenger service became an election issue in 1974, when Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals pledged to create a nationwide carrier similar to Amtrak in the US.

Soon after the Liberals returned to power, CN formed a new division with the bilingual name VIA. In 1976, the Trudeau government, which was hoping to consolidate VIA with the country’s other passenger services, promised to furnish the new carrier with a fleet of fast trains. These were of course never purchased, because it was the tracks, not the trains, that presented the real problem.

When VIA finally became a separate Crown corporation in 1978, the deal included stations, routes, and trains. Crucially, the nation’s tracks remained under CN’s control, which meant that the Turbo — and all other passenger lines — had to defer to the freight carrier’s schedule, further adding to high-speed rail’s woes. ...
In subsequent decades, passenger rail continued to languish. Even after CN was privatized in 1995, VIA had to pay to use the company’s tracks, its trains frequently forced to yield to freight cars. As a result, no passenger train in Canada has been capable of maintaining a schedule that can compete with air or even automotive travel.

In order to fully convey the unusual nature of this made-in-Ottawa relationship, perhaps an analogy is in order: Imagine how efficient automotive travel would be if the federal government owned and operated every passenger vehicle on the Trans-Canada Highway. Then suppose the government handed the Trans-Canada itself to a multinational trucking company, which subsequently decreed that passenger vehicles would have to pull off to the shoulder whenever a truck wished to pass.

As things stand, passenger trains must often come to a standstill on a siding not far from the site of the historic Turbo crash. Riders sit and watch as freight cars laden with everything imaginable — sometimes even meat — lumber past. ...

A Quebec City–Windsor line would pay for itself in three ways: First, even modest ridership projections indicate that passenger fares will cover operating costs, with enough left over to recoup the cost of building the railway within a few decades. Second, because the rail line would reduce congestion on the 401 and at airports, it would save millions of hours of passenger downtime, as well as sparing taxpayers the expense of further expanding highway and air infrastructure. And third, because high-speed trains use about one-third the energy of flying — and one-fifth that of driving — such a line would dramatically slash carbon use, just when caps and taxes designed to reduce carbon consumption start to take effect. ...

In 2004, however, a study conducted by the Van Horne Institute at the University of Calgary determined that a 300-kilometre line from Calgary to Edmonton would not only repay the system’s capital cost within thirty years, but would return as much as $6.1 billion in economic growth, provided the travel time was two hours or less. ...

Canadians were infatuated with airplanes and automobiles. Forty years later, the experts are seeing signs that air and auto travel are no longer sustainable, but Canadians have yet to fall back in love with passenger rail.

How could they? There’s nothing here to love. The Turbo has been all but erased from Canadian history.

http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2009.06--off-the-rails/3/

 

 

jerrym

There have been a number of proposed high speed rail lines in Canada. 

Quote:

Canada is the only G7 country that does not have high-speed rail.[1] In the press and popular discussion, there have been two routes frequently proposed as suitable for a high-speed rail corridor:

A possible international high-speed rail link between Montreal and Boston or New York City is often discussed by regional leaders, though little progress has been made.[2][3][4] On another international line between Vancouverand Seattle, work is in progress to improve the existing Amtrak Cascades service, though it will not reach speeds normally associated with high-speed rail.

On April 10, 2008, a new lobby group, High Speed Rail Canada,[5] was formed to promote and educate Canadians on the benefits of high-speed rail in Canada. All current and past Canadian high-speed rail studies are posted on their website. ...

The Pacific Northwest Corridor is one of ten high-speed rail corridors proposed by the United States federal government. If the 466-mile corridor were completed as proposed, 110-mph passenger trains would travel from Eugene, Oregon to Seattle, Washington in 2 hours and 30 minutes, and from Seattle to Vancouver, British Columbia in 2 hours and 50 minutes. ...

The Calgary–Edmonton Corridor is approximately 260 km long (about three hours by car), and is serviced by the Queen Elizabeth II Highway.

A study by the Van Horne Institute[7] concluded that "high speed rail would bring significant benefits to the Calgary–Edmonton corridor and Alberta as a whole". The report also stated that the project would "generate between $3.7 and $6.1 billion in quantifiable benefits". ...

The Quebec–Windsor Corridor is the most densely populated and heavily industrialized region of Canada. With over 18 million people, it contains approximately half of Canada's population, the national capital, and three of the five largest metropolitan areas in Canada (TorontoMontreal and Ottawa–Gatineau). It is already the focus of most Via Rail service. The area is currently served by several freeways, Via Rail, commuter and local transit, and several airports. This corridor population density is comparable to the Rhône River valley where the French TGV operates.

There have been several proposals for a high-speed service, such as ViaFast, but no action has been taken so far. However, the former leader of the Liberal PartyStéphane Dion had said that he was in favour of developing a high-speed rail system as a way to fight climate change. ...

In an interview with CBC Radio on April 15, 2014, Ontario Minister of Transportation Glen Murray announced that high-speed rail will be constructed between LondonKitchener, and Toronto within 10 years.[26] Still in the planning stages, discussed stops included the downtown cores of these cities, and Terminal 2 of Pearson Airport. Costs will be covered within a proposed $29-billion transportation infrastructure plan, included in the yet to be passed 2014 provincial budget.[27] Further details were released by Murray in a speed April 30, 2014, in London Ontario.[28] The study, prepared by a London, England consultancy First Class Partnerships, considered range of options including continuing the existing service with LRC trains, incremental upgrading of the existing line with faster and more diesels, and construction of new sections of line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Canada

 

 

 

 

jerrym

Aside from the advantages of a shift to electric high speed trains mentioned below, this would also help shift our transportation system away from fossil fuels for transportation, thereby reducing carbon dixoxide emissions and global warming. The map below shows where the proposed high speed trains would run. 

Quote:

Canada

While other countries already have a separated high speed train network, Canada's Via Rail is still operating on CN and CP freight line tracks, often being second priority. Construction of reserved passenger rail tracks could dramatically improve the service of Via Rail. Just immagine: A trip in TGV Toronto-Montreal at 260km/h would take only about 2.5 hours!

Diesel powered trains in a country with cheap electric power!

Having an electric passenger train network might sound out of question because of the distances and electrification costs. But a part from the environmental benefits, there are two main advantages why Canada should consider to do this investment.

1. Domestic electric power: Electric power is produced locally at low cost. This makes train operation independent from raising fuel prices.

2. Cheaper mass market high-speed trains: As most high-speed trains in the rest of the world run on electric power, an electric network is needed to purchase these mass marked train sets.

 

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Cross-Canada high speed rail would eliminate the need for airplanes which are carbon hogs.

Every hour you fly in an airplane has the same carbon impact as driving for a year.

NorthReport

Absolutely.

Transit plebiscite points to need for direct election of regional representatives, says Bob Laurie

http://www.straight.com/news/466011/transit-plebiscite-points-need-direc...

jerrym

The following descriptions of the ten fastest high speed train systems as of 2013 show how far behind the rest of the world Canada is when it comes to high speed rail. 

Quote:
 

Shanghai Maglev

Shanghai Maglev

Shanghai Maglev tops the list with its maximum operational speed of 430km/h and average speed of 251kmph. The Maglev started commercial operations in April 2004.

It runs on the 30.5km Shanghai Maglev Line, which is the first commercially operated high-speed magnetic levitation line, extending from Longyang Road Station of Metro Line 2 and ending at Shanghai Pudong International Airport.

Shanghai Maglev is owned and operated by Shanghai Maglev Transportation Development Co. (SMTDC). The train was constructed by a joint venture of Siemens and ThyssenKrupp.

Related suppliers: Operation Control, Passenger Information Display and Entertainment

Harmony CRH 380A

Harmony CRH 380A

Harmony CRH 380A, with maximum operational speed of 380kmph, is currently the second fastest operating train in the world.

The electric multiple unit (EMU) set a record by speeding at 486.1kmph during its trial operation on the Shanghai-Hangzhou intercity high-speed railway in December 2010.

The CRH 380A was put into operation in October 2010. It operates from Beijing to Shanghai and provides daily service along Wuhan to Guangzhou route.

The vibration free train was constructed by CSR Qingdao Sifang Locomotive & Rolling Stock. Its high design speed is a result of research carried out at various Chinese universities.

AGV Italo

AGV Italo

AGV Italo is the first train in the AGV Series which entered into service in April 2012. It has a maximum operational speed of 360kmph.

The train broke a record speed of 574.8kmph in April 2007.

Considered to be the most modern train in Europe, AGV Italo was built by Alstom. The train currently runs on the Napoli - Roma - Firenze - Bologna - Milano corridor.

The train complies with the European TSI interoperability standard, which includes safety, reliability and availability, health, environmental protection and technical compatibility.

Related suppliers: Fire Safety, Detection and Suppression

Velaro E

Siemens Velaro E / AVS 103

Velaro E, designated as AVE S 103 in Spain, is the fastest series-production high-speed train in the world. It achieved a whopping speed of about 400kmph during its test trips in Spain.

The train possesses an operational speed of 350kmph.

The train was ordered by Spanish National Railways Renfe, and operates on the Barcelona-Madrid line. It was delivered in July 2005 and began operations in June 2007.

The design of the multiple-unit train was founded on the latest developments of the successful ICE 3 trainset designed for Deutsche Bahn.

Talgo 350

Talgo 350 (T350)

Talgo 350, which initially entered service with the name RENFE AVE Class 10, achieved a maximum speed of 365kmph during its trial run. The train has a maximum operational speed of 350kmph.

T350 was developed by Patentes Talgo (Tren Articulado Ligero Goicoechea Oriol) and manufactured by Patentes Talgo in collaboration with Bombardier Transportation.

Commonly known as El Pato (meaning The Duck in Spanish), the train has been operating on the Madrid-Zaragoza-Lleida section of the Madrid-Barcelona line in Spain since 2005. There are currently more than 46 operating trains of the series in the country.

Related suppliers: Rolling Stock and Infrastructure Testing and Certification

E5 Series Shinkansen Hayabusa trains

E5 Series Shinkansen Hayabusa

E5 Series Shinkansen Hayabusa trains, which entered service in March 2011, with an initial maximum speed of 300km now run on the Tohoku Shinkansen Line with a maximum operating speed of 320kmph.

Currently the fastest in Japan, the train achieved a speed of about 400kmph during trials.

The train was manufactured by Kawasaki Heavy Industry (KHI) and Hitachi, while East Japan Railway Company (JR East) is the operator.

The train features full active suspension (FSA) system, which reduces the vibration of the moving bogies, and a 15m long nose which reduces the sound blast in tunnels.

Alstom-built Euroduplex

Alstom Euroduplex

Alstom-built Euroduplex is the third generation of TGV Duplex, which entered service in December 2011. The trains in the series are touted to be the only double-decker, interoperable high-speed trains capable of running on European networks at 320kmph.

The Euroduplex was initially introduced on the Rhine-Rhone LGV high-speed rail line. The train is capable of transporting 1,020 passengers (multiple units), compared to TGV Duplex which transports about 512 passengers.

Euroduplex trains are designed to operate on French, German, Swiss and Luxembourgish rail networks. They are equipped with traction systems adapted to different electric currents used across Europe.

Some of the trains in the series will also be capable of operating in Spain.

TGV Duplex

TGV Duplex

TGV Duplex was manufactured from 1996-2004. They are operated by SNCF and were manufactured by Alstom and Bombardier. The trains can reach maximum speeds of 300kmph to 320kmph.

TGV Duplex is Alstom's first third-generation double-decker/duplex train. It provides a seating space for 512 passengers in its upper and lower decks. The train is constructed of aluminum to reduce weight.

The trains in the TGV Duplex series mainly run on the TGV Méditerranée line between Paris and Marseille.

More than 450 TGV series trains are currently serving 230 destinations.

Elettro Treno Rapido 500 (ETR 500) Frecciarossa trains

ETR 500 Frecciarossa Trains

Elettro Treno Rapido 500 (ETR 500) Frecciarossa trains entered into service in 2008. The trains are designed for a maximum speed of 360kmph and currently run at 300kmph on high speed lines.

The Frecciarossa (Red Arrow) is a renovated version of the ETR 500. The renovated trains operate between Rome and Milan.

The cars are equipped with climate control and sound insulation, and feature ergonomic seats to provide maximum comfort.

The trains in the fleet are operated by Trenitalia and manufactured by TREno Veloce Italiano (TREVI), a consortium of Alstom, Bombardier and AnsaldoBreda.

THSR 700T

THSR 700T

The THSR 700T operates on the high-speed line between Taipei and Kaohsiung in Taiwan. The train entered into service with Taiwan High Speed Rail in January 2007.

It operates at a speed of 300kmph reducing the journey time between the two cities from four hours to just 90 minutes.

It was constructed by Kawasaki, Hitachi and Nippon Sharyo. Based on Kawasaki's 700 series Shinkansen trains, the 700T was the first Taiwanese rolling stock to import Japanese high speed rail technology.

The total investment for manufacturing the initial 30 trains in the series reached about NT$100bn ($3.4bn).

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature-top-ten-fastest-train...

 

jerrym

On April 20, 2015, a Japanese Maglev train broke the world high speed train record, hitting 603km/h (374mph). Canada falls even farther behind.

 

Quote:

A handout picture provided by the Central Japan Railway Co shows a maglev train speeding on an experimental track in Yamanashi Prefecture, central Japan, 21 April 2015

The test run was conducted on an experimental track in Yamanashi prefecture in central Japan

Japan has plans to build its high-speed maglev line from Tokyo to Nagoya and Osaka. The segment between Tokyo and Nagoya is expected to be ready by 2027 at a cost of 5.52 trillion yen ($46 billion), with Osaka being connected by 2045 at an overall project cost of $76 billion.

The next-gen train technology relies on magnetic power to float the cars above ground, eliminating the friction of steel tracks. The trains start off running on wheels until they’re going fast enough for the magnets to kick in and create lift.

Game Changer

In theory, maglev train technology could redefine city-to-city travel in dramatic ways. The 4,200-kilometer journey from New York to San Francisco, with no stops, could be covered in seven hours at this speed. A London-Paris journey via the Channel Tunnel, one of the most popular high-speed routes, would take 50 minutes, about one-third of the current time.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32391020

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo

"Is there a chance the track could bend??"

jerrym

One possible high speed train route in Canada has been proposed between Toronto and Windsor.

 

Quote:

Ontario has barely begun sketching out plans for a high-speed rail corridor, but China is already jumping at the chance to bring its technological prowess to Canada – even suggesting it would swap its rail know-how for natural resources.

China is eager to expand trade with Canada and improve its image, particularly following the backlash to the billions its state energy companies have invested in Canadian oil and gas. Now it has set its sights on Ontario, which is studying the viability of bullet trains as one of a raft of potential new transit projects.

High-speed rail in Canada would take many years to come to fruition – and may well never happen, given decades of failed attempts. China, however, is so eager to participate that its ambassador to Canada is already lobbying to be involved in building a 370-kilometre Toronto to Windsor corridor – potentially one of the largest infrastructure projects in Ontario’s history. ...

China’s pitch has piqued interest. Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca said Ontario, which has never built high-speed rail before, is happy to discuss China’s proposal. ...

The goal, he said, is to be able to start construction shortly after the assessment is finished.

That suggests involvement by potential bidders, including Chinese state-owned rail companies, is a nearer-term possibility – although Mr. Del Duca emphasized that it remains early days, and decisions have yet to be made on how design and construction will be managed.

China began a high-speed rail building spree in the 1990s, and now has a network of more than 11,000 kilometres of fast track – as much as the combined length of high-speed track in the rest of the world – and work is under way to nearly double that. ....

China is using its expertise in railways to project hard and soft power. Chinese rail companies have been active, and often successful, bidders for rail projects in Kenya, Nigeria, Argentina, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, working hand in glove with the Chinese government to secure deals.

On average, China builds high-speed track at a cost of $30-million (U.S.) a kilometre, which is “$20-million cheaper” than many other countries, said Wang Mengshu, a railway construction engineer at the Chinese Academy of Engineering, who advises the government on rail projects.

At such a price, the proposed Ontario line would cost $11.1-billion (Canadian), although that is a rough price tag for building track alone and does not include land acquisition or buying high-tech locomotives and cars. ...

Marc Laforge, a spokesman for Bombardier’s transportation division in Montreal, said it is impossible to put an accurate price tag on a high-speed rail project until all the costs are known.

“Until you get the project under your nose, we don’t put any credibility in that,” he said, referring to Mr. Wang’s $30-million-per-kilometre cost estimate. On China boasting its advantages over Bombardier, Mr. Laforge said: “We have been part of more than 90 per cent of all high-speed rail projects around the world and this is enough of a track record that it speaks for itself.”

He said Bombardier is watching what is happening in Ontario, but has not had any discussions with Ontario officials about getting involved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/china-eager-to-exchange-bullet...

 

NorthReport
Basement Dweller

Or maybe this is exactly what Christy Clark wanted.

Mr. Magoo

From what I've read in response to the outcome, it sounds like if the government had wanted -- inexplicably -- to "rig" a "NO" vote then they did so by keeping TransLink in charge.

Here in Toronto, if voters were given the option to endorse a sales tax for transit expansion that would be overseen by Rob and Doug Ford, we'd probably vote "NO" too.  And not because transit isn't important.

NorthReport

It's a provincial responsibility. Christy Clark needs to belly up to the bar and sort this out.

It will be a piece of cake - of course more money will be going into public transportation, or does she think all the people moving here have a car in their luggage when they arrive. Not that that would be an answer either.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

The only thing this 'No' vote does is give Translink and the BC government the social liscense to throw up their hands as existing service levels become icreasigly unable to meet increased demand on the transit system.

The BC Liberals are opposed to providing any more money to Translink from provincial coffers, so I doubt Translink will see any budget increase while the BC Liberals are in power. And defeating the BC Liberals in the next provincial election seems like a dim prospect, because if the 2013 election results are an indication, voters in the eastern half of the province are prepared to vote BC Liberal in 2017 because they support pipelines. Frown  

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The only thing this 'No' vote does is give Translink and the BC government the social liscense to throw up their hands as existing service levels become icreasigly unable to meet increased demand on the transit system.

Can't the electorate remind them that a new sales tax isn't the only possible way to finance new transit?

quizzical

they trying. they want translink management gone. dude at the top makes 300k a year. let's start there.

Basement Dweller

It's a mandate to do nothing for a few years, except cut service. If the Pattullo falls into the river, they might replace it.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It's a mandate to do nothing for a few years, except cut service.

Isn't it a mandate to NOT create a new sales tax to fund transit?

Basement Dweller

Yes, it's back to the drawing board, committees, public input, endless meetings, backroom deals and more committees. Maybe in a decade, shovels will be in the ground. All this time, Baterman can whip up the suburban anti-tax crowd.

Nothing will happen, except cutbacks.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
The only thing this 'No' vote does is give Translink and the BC government the social liscense to throw up their hands as existing service levels become icreasigly unable to meet increased demand on the transit system.

Can't the electorate remind them that a new sales tax isn't the only possible way to finance new transit?

Which of the other available funding options do you think could get passed in a referendum? Gas tax increase? Property tax increase? Vehicle tax levy? Road tolls? Parking tax? I'd argue that any of the above would fail a referendum.

The BC Liberals are committed to not giving any more funding to translink from provincial coffers, and voters in the eastern half of the province appear committed to re-electing the BC Liberals because the majority of these voters appear to support resource development at any cost.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

quizzical wrote:
they trying. they want translink management gone. dude at the top makes 300k a year. let's start there.
The Translink governance structure needs an overhaul, but to make that a condition of support for needed transit improvements is ultraleftist.

Basement Dweller wrote:

Yes, it's back to the drawing board, committees, public input, endless meetings, backroom deals and more committees. Maybe in a decade, shovels will be in the ground. All this time, Baterman can whip up the suburban anti-tax crowd.

Nothing will happen, except cutbacks.

The true anti-tax crowd, those who will vote against any new taxation, because they are against any and all tax increases, are only part of the problem. The other part of the problem is those who will vote against any new funding for transit because of Translink's governance structure, or because they disagree with the specific improvements being proposed.

I have one friend who was very vocal on facebook on the No side, because he wants ground-based light rail to UBC rather than a subway, doesn't want a new Patullo bridge to be tolled, doesn't want trees cut down along highway 10 to accommodate the Surrey light rail, and thinks the funding for transit improvements should come from provincial coffers. At the same time, he recognizes the need for transit improvements

His viewpoint is essentially ultraleftist becasue he's under the illusion that the current powers that be will allow any proposal that he would ever support to go ahead.

Sean in Ottawa

Property tax is one of the most offensive taxes.

First only real estate is taxed and not other property and real estate includes housing that is an overpriced essential service. I don't see an overpriced essential service as the ideal thing to base the support of an entire level of government.

I would prefer to see property taxes removed off all properties below the average value (would have to follow a formula that considers family size) and a municipal progressive income tax levied instead. A small wealth tax and a modest inheritance tax introduced that would exempt family homes up to a modest level. I don't have a problem either with a special licence sticker in cities for cars plated within reach of public transit with the funding going to make public transit free. There could be some flexibility for those needing a car for certain reasons (personal mobility or livelihood). Details can be designed to deal with most concerns but this is a more modern direction than the assumption that millions of cars a day must race to the centre of our cities on roads paid by the public with very little cost to the occupants.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Property tax is one of the most offensive taxes.
Sean, fyi, the referendum question asked voters if they support a 0.5% increase in the [b]sales[/b] tax to fund a specific list of transit improvements.

My understanding is that most people who voted 'No' did so because they don't trust Translink to spend the extra money on the improvements specified (as opposed to management compensation, transit police, and the ever delayed electronic farecard sytem). This despite the fact that the extra money would have been put in a special fund earmarked specifically for the transit improvements specified in the mayors transit plan. And the fund could only be spent by the Mayors Council (which must approve all of the Translink Board's spending decisions in the first place). The Translink board would have had no access to any of the new money. The new money could not have been spent on any of Translink's money sinkholes.

Talk about an uninformed public who made up their minds without properly informing themselves.

Sean in Ottawa

Left Turn wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Property tax is one of the most offensive taxes.
Sean, fyi, the referendum question asked voters if they support a 0.5% increase in the [b]sales[/b] tax to fund a specific list of transit improvements.

My understanding is that most people who voted 'No' did so because they don't trust Translink to spend the extra money on the improvements specified (as opposed to management compensation, transit police, and the ever delayed electronic farecard sytem). This despite the fact that the extra money would have been put in a special fund earmarked specifically for the transit improvements specified in the mayors transit plan. And the fund could only be spent by the Mayors Council (which must approve all of the Translink Board's spending decisions in the first place). The Translink board would have had no access to any of the new money. The new money could not have been spent on any of Translink's money sinkholes.

Talk about an uninformed public who made up their minds without properly informing themselves.

FYI posts 69 and 126 both brought property taxes into this thread and I was responding to them.

NorthReport

How stupid can we be?

Read this and weep as Brown is absolutely correct.

That little fool me once, etc doesn't work with Christy Clark.

The great TransLink railroad job

Why Christy Clark couldn't be happier about the outcome of the transit referendum

by Martyn Brown on July 6th, 2015 at 2:31 PMSHARED 56  4

  • null
  • For Premier Christy Clark, the transit referendum was win-win.

 

http://www.straight.com/news/483896/martyn-brown-great-translink-railroa...

 

NorthReport

Secrets of Failure: Why the Transit Referendum Crashed

Experts say it was doomed by design, and a politically crafty premier.

One day after the transit referendum result killed an unprecedented consensus among regional mayors on a 10-year transportation plan, a BC Liberal party's communications officer fired off an email to party supporters, praising Premier Christy Clark's government for holding the vote.

Jillian Stead wrote that some party members will be pleased that 62 per cent of voters rejected the $7.5-billion transit expansion strategy while others will be disappointed. "But as BC Liberal supporters, we should all be pleased that our government delivered on our platform commitment to give voters their say."

The party line had a somewhat disingenuous tone given that many BC Liberal supporters believed that Clark's election promise to hold the referendum was folly.

Her email drew an angry response from Michael Geller, the well-known urban planner and media commentator, who called Stead's rationale "utter nonsense."

"While I have been a Liberal supporter for my entire life in B.C., I am not at all pleased that the 'Liberals delivered on their campaign promise,'" replied Geller.

"Quite the contrary. For you to send out this message is like rubbing salt in the wounds. What were you thinking? I am sure I am not alone in feeling a total level of disgust with this email message."


http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/07/06/Crashed-Van-Transit-Referendum/

 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:

But while Clark was abrogating her responsibility to make tough decisions for the long-term health of the region, the referendum question was predictably defeated, placing critical transit expansion and Metro Vancouver's livable region growth strategy in peril.

The Clark government, said Moscrop, downloaded onto voters the "unenviable role of political self-representation: a job for which few of us are equipped when it comes to long-term, highly-technical issues."

This should be cross-posted into the Greece thread.

Evidently abrogating tough decisions and letting the people decide complicated issues is AWESOME.  But only in Greece.  It's a lesson, to the world, about how real democracy works.  But only in Greece.

Slumberjack

Quote:
The Clark government, said Moscrop, downloaded onto voters the "unenviable role of political self-representation: a job for which few of us are equipped when it comes to long-term, highly-technical issues."

It's a positively Weberian, neo-Kantian twist on things isn't it?  Since reality is incomprehensible, only rational order can make sense of it.

Mr. Magoo

If the Yes side had won with 60%, who here thinks the Yes supporters would, in hindsight, be criticizing or trying to invalidate the referendum on the grounds that probably that 60% voted yes because they didn't unnerstand the question?

It's seeming more and more like the referendum question was really "do you or don't you trust TransLink with even more of your money"?

Basement Dweller

It has nothing to do with understanding the question. Where is that from?

Nobody expected the YES vote to win, so I'm not sure what the reaction would be. Shock maybe.

We never, ever, vote YES for anything in BC. Look it up. It is in our nature.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It has nothing to do with understanding the question. Where is that from?

Are you asking me? 

Personally, I also don't think that being unable to understand the question was a significant factor.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..me neither. it was all about the model i thought when i first heard. people don't want the trans link model. now though they have to fight for something else.

Basement Dweller

Sadly, the model will not change in any significant way while the BC Liberals are in power. Who knows if even an NDP government would change it. So where does that leave us?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..as always there is applying pressure. the vote doen't mean the govs don't have responsiblility for improving transit. no matter how they try to hide behind the vote they have obligations. recently across canada and toronto brought together many groups. this is how to increass the presure i suspect. and at the same time offer up a different model.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:
If the Yes side had won with 60%, who here thinks the Yes supporters would, in hindsight, be criticizing or trying to invalidate the referendum on the grounds that probably that 60% voted yes because they didn't unnerstand the question?

It's seeming more and more like the referendum question was really "do you or don't you trust TransLink with even more of your money"?

That wasn't the question, but Jordan Bateman and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation falsely asserted that it was; and the mainstream media didn't question Bateman's assertion.

Thus many voters were led to believe Jordan Bateman's lie, and it's thus no surprise that the referendum lost.

Mr. Magoo

So TransLink wouldn't have been involved?

Or else how was that a lie? 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..includes:  Map of cities with free public transport

Let's get free

Combating climate change and peak oil with free public transport

We are standing at a crossroad: in order to reduce our oil dependency and to make our cities climate smart, we have to change our ways of getting around. It is a fact that the future is on track, and with free public transport everyone can come along for the ride.

So far, the local transport sector has been sadly neglected in the climate debate. Even though the inflation in car traffic is one of our biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions and unnecessary oil use, few cities have any serious plans to radically decrease their car traffic.

With just a marginal tax-raise (in Stockholm, capital of Sweden, all commuters who earns less than 5000 Euros a month would benefit from this), the public transport system could be made free at the point of entry. This would lead to a decline in car-traffic and a surge in the demand for public transportation, which in turn would stimulate a much needed capacity and comfort increase in the public transport system....

Mr. Magoo

Perhaps.  But I've always had doubts that those people who would spend $10 a trip to drive were rejecting public tranportation because it's $3 a trip.  Maybe -- maybe -- dropping that to $0 a trip is going to win them over, but I think it might not be the worst idea to actually ask those who choose not to use public tranportation why they choose not to use public transportation.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..why more folks don't use the bus is complex. but we regulate all kinds of things. perhaps we can regulate cars in line with our human need to suvive on the earth.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Perhaps.  But I've always had doubts that those people who would spend $10 a trip to drive were rejecting public tranportation because it's $3 a trip.  Maybe -- maybe -- dropping that to $0 a trip is going to win them over, but I think it might not be the worst idea to actually ask those who choose not to use public tranportation why they choose not to use public transportation.

It would help because most car owners are not going to give up their cars and if they already have one. I used to live off island and picking up groceries and my daughter from daycare and camping and just general getting around in Chateauguay all needed a car. The nearest metro charged for rides but also for parking. Those would be added expenses on top of car ownership. I had free parking at work so my only expense was the gas. Traffic was still enough of a hassle that I would have gladly switched to public transit to get to work but not with all the added expenses.

While it would be nice to curtail all private vehicle use it is extreme and unnecessary. Cities, where most of us live, is where it is the most problamatic with stop and go traffic, lots of idling and driving around to find a parking space.

In Montreal there are some horrible snowstorms that would encourage car owners to walk to the closest metro rather than digging the car out. It would reduce the impedus for young people to buy a car, fewer are buying cars already. It would become even more of a luxury item if public transport within cities were free.

It wouldn't help in a city like Chateauguay because the bus service very limited but Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal would definitely benefit.

It would justify tolls on highways entering the city centre with a personal vehicle.

The money used to collect fares would no longer be an expense and there would be significant health savings through reduced air pollution in cities.

P.S.

It would be a significant help in meeting climate change targets.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Description of Cost - US City of 1 Million US Dollar Amount

[1]Percent Reduction

[2]Amount saved by free transit

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from their facebook page

We tested the "Fare free public buses in Avesta

In 2012 Avesta introduced fare free public transport (buses) within the municipality. The purpose was to increase travelling by public transport and to lower the car emissions. We also wanted to make it easier to travel by public transport.

After an initial trial period we made a detailed evaluation. The results were a great success – the travels by public transport had increased by 80% and the car emissions had been reduced by 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. In addition, several other positive side effects were noted as a result of the trial.

Avesta municipality decided that public transport by bus should continue to be fare free into the future."

And we took part the Avesta conference on fare free public transport.

eta:

..and here is a link to that conference

Documents - FFPT Conference

Here you will find presentations, reference material and other documents before and after the FFPT conference in Avesta 17-18 September.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture
lagatta

There is no reason on earty Châteauguay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teauguay couldn't have a proper public transport system. It is a very old town, which has suffered postwar sprawl like many other places, but it would certainly be possible to rehabilitate it and make car use absolutely superfluous for the purposes Pondering lists.

Yes, it is necessary to get rid of most private cars in places like Châteauguay. We aren't talking the Lower North Shore where Boom Boom lived (where getting a road was a positive step for the inhabitants) or some other remote region. Carcentric development in urban areas is planetary death. It is an example that reinforces the need for free public transport and higher surcharges connected to private vehicle use. I think there could be some kind of tax exemption for people in socially useful, atypical employment (emergency doctor, rural vet, and obviously farmers, and other work vehicles) or for people where there are no less environmentally destructive choices possible (rural and especially remote regions).

I really don't think most people "get" how important this is. Indeed, as the free public transport campaign says, the beginning of the end of autosprawl, a cancer that has metastatized since the Second World War.

I'm glad babblers continue to plug away at this. This evening was at a ghost bike ceremony for a young man who was killed by a driver who opened his car door without looking as he was arriving home, very close to my place. An elderly, but fit, pedestrian was killed by a turning truck nearby two years ago when she and a friend were walking to Jean-Talon Market, as they often did, to shop for groceries but doubtless also to have a coffee and people-watch. The fight for safe walking and cycling provisions is unthinkable without also prioritising public transport. They are facets of an alternative transport model.

We must CURTAIL http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/curtail the use of private passenger cars. That does not mean zero cars, it means far fewer, with far more restrictions. Moreover, we must address the mobility needs of people who cannot drive, due to health or financial reasons, outside major urban centres and their suburbs. I can add a micro political ad here, in saying that this is something Québec solidaire has been proposing; it is part of our party programme.

Note: my blogging ideas are my own, I'm a founding member of Québec solidaire, but not a "Québec solidaire blogger"!

Pages