Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
Thanks for your support.
It never ceases to amaze me how conversion of the Transitway to rail is trivialized and the disruption for so many more thousands of passengers is hardly mentioned by those same people who harp on about the shut down of the O-Train for 3 years when it was always regarded as a 'temporary' demonstration line. It was as if all the affected passengers were going to left high and dry, when a temporary bus service was going to fill in the gap.
I have heard so many silly arguments from this so-called group of rail experts making outrageous claims of where trains can run and how easy it is to implement. We can double the number of O-Trains crossing active rail lines. No problem, eventhough it was difficult to get permission to run the current number of trains. Sure, it will be easy to double the number of trains. I bet!
|
Yes, it is. We didn't worry about crossing roads downtown or in Riverside South, but somehow crossing low-use rail lines is a problem? If anything, your comment shows how ignorant you are of how rail operates. Please head down to the nearest road-rail crossing and watch how long it takes for a VIA train to pass and note how long the lights/gates are on for (you might want to consult the schedules first though). Then go to a traffic light and note how long those cycles are. The results might surprise you. If we can deal with the latter we can manage the former.
As for permission, considering that David Collenette, the former federal transport minister, headed the Mayor's Task Force and even had the temerity to consult - yes, I know this is shocking in Ottawa - the director of the Rail Safety Branch at Transport Canada, I'm sure it can all be done. In fact, here's a quote from page 74 of the report, which I trust you read, right, rather than just dismissing it out of hand?:
"A delegation from the Task Force met with senior Transport Canada railway safety officials to present an overview of its recommendations and start a dialogue on safety-related issues. The most fundamental question the Task Force asked related to mixing passenger and commercial rail traffic. The Task Force’s recommendation to use existing rail corridors necessitates track sharing between passenger and freight trains. In the past, this
has proved a stumbling block. Consultations with Transport Canada railway
safety officials were fruitful and indicate that there should be no regulatory
impediment to mixing freight and passenger trains."
Damn it, eh? They thought about that one. Amazing what happens when you actually, you know, consult. Guess that bit of FUD is out the window now.
Quote:
|
Conversion of the Transitways to rail is a breeze. Even buses, could continue to run on the Transitway while rail is being laid. Come on! The Transitway will be realligned, stations redesigned, the roadbed dug up and electrical service added. Once conversion begins, there will be no buses on the Transitway.
|
If the "shut-it-down" mentality triumphs, you're right, there won't be buses during conversion. But that doesn't mean it has to be that way. There are ways around that problem. The overhead electrics can be put in prior to conversion, or even after if we use dual-mode vehicles like Alstom's Citadis. I know - "it can't be done!" - except railway electrification occurs ever
Quote:
|
Then there was the long list of problems with the N-S LRT route, yet we had detailed engineering designs and a fixed price construction contract. It doesn't sound like those problems are so serious, otherwise why would multinational companies sign a contract to build it. There always seems to be a double standard. A sharp turn going into Hull from the Prince of Wales bridge is just fine, thank you very much, yet much more gentle curves running through Riverside South are considered unacceptable. This is supposed to be modern light rail, not trudging 19th century steam trains.
|
You've lost me. The curve from the Prince of Wales Bridge into Hull IS gentle. It kind of has to be. It is, after all, a curve on a railway. It's light rail that can turn sharper curves. That's what allows it to head down city streets if need be. At any rate, it's the City that insisted on a sharp curve at Bayview (between the bridges for the eastbound track) rather than making use of the pre-existing gentle railway curve next to the City Centre complex, which the NCC conveniently put up for sale just as it was needed but for some reason the City didn't buy. You'll find that the N-S LRT curve at Bayview is much sharper than the one coming off the north end of the Prince of Wales Bridge. I think the criticism of the curves in Riverside South was that they existed at all considering that there was nothing much there and no obvious need for them. My guess is they were planned to increase the amount of developable land near stations since a curvy route increases frontage along the line. That might be forgiveable if it was mainly commercial/employment zones with a view to increasing reverse commuting, but it wasn't: it was mainly medium-density residential. Acting as a neighbourhood transit service is not exactly the purpose of multi-hundred million dollar rapid transit line. Of course, that's the nub of it: it was never intended to be such; it was just promoted that way. The "real" rapid transit service was to remain as BRT.
Prev
Linear Mode
