News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

"The province's plan in the 1970s was to build a 90-kilometre network of the unmanned trains throughout Toronto at a cost of $756 million. There was heavy opposition from advocates of a modern streetcar system."

Thank you, Steve Munro :rolleyes:
 
"The province's plan in the 1970s was to build a 90-kilometre network of the unmanned trains throughout Toronto at a cost of $756 million. There was heavy opposition from advocates of a modern streetcar system."

Thank you, Steve Munro :rolleyes:

No need to jump to blame. There were plenty of reasons the GO URBAN vapourware fell through and turned into the Scarborough RT:

The Province of Ontario, however, was looking for something far more high-tech. Back on November 22, 1972, the provincial government announced the development of its own Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS) concept. On May 1, 1973, it awarded a contract to Krauss Maffei A.G. of West Germany to design and build a demonstration system of magnetically levitated trains around the Canadian National Exhibition by 1975. The GO URBAN project went as far as building columns to support an elevated track, and there were plans for a connection to Union Station by 1977. However, the West German government withdrew its support and Krauss-Maffei could not continue with the proposal. The beginnings of the 2.5 mile demonstrator line were scrapped.

...the Province went it alone in designing the ICTS vehicle...

The trains no longer levitated over their tracks, but the 'linear induction' motors meant that the trains were pulled along using electromagnets inside the trucks. The province had its vehicle, now where could it be demonstrated? After a while, their eyes fell upon the Scarborough RT. Using their powers of "persuasion", the Province of Ontario in June 1981 convinced the borough of Scarborough and the TTC to change the design of the line, away from streetcars on private right-of-way, and more to the mini-subway that the ICTS technology represented. The province promised that, in changing the design midway through construction, the province would pay for all cost overruns associated with the line. As a result, the Scarborough RT opened two years late. Set to cost only $103 million in 1981, the price rose to $196 million in 1985. The City of Hamilton was also offered the technology, and their line would have opened first, but that city rejected the proposal on December 15, 1981.
 
Lose sovereignty? Are any European countries less sovereign from signing Schengen? I'd venture to say no.

All this talk of Canada losing sovereignty to sign a Schengen-like agreement is a bunch of bull and fuelled by petty anti-Americanism.

That's not quite fair. Schengen is a multilateral agreement involving a significant number of countries. By contrast, a Canada-U.S. agreement is bilateral, one of which two parties holds significantly more bargaining power than the other, and is therefore in a position to exert the kind of leverage that no party in a Schengen style deal could.
 
Interesting that the issue of preclearance is brought up at this time.

The Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou HSR proposal, which is currently being hotly debated in Hong Kong, is planning to use preclearance specifically based on Canada's model for US-bound passengers. The plan calls for passengers to go through both Hong Kong and mainland Chinese checkpoints at the terminal at Hong Kong.

Problem is that Hong Kong's Basic Law (the city's constitution) does not allow mainland Chinese officers to conduct business in Hong Kong (even though Hong Kong is part of China), so they would not be allowed to set up a checkpoint in the heart of Hong Kong. Without a clear answer on how preclearance is going to work, opponents of the HSR plan believe that this is a point that could bring down the entire proposal.
 
As of earlier this week it's been two years since they announced the study... but good news!

Decision time' for high-speed rail, industry says
Studied for decades; North America hailed as new frontier

Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service
Published: Tuesday, January 12, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2432017

OTTAWA - The rail industry is anticipating a busy winter in North America, propelled by billions of dollars in stimulus money for faster passenger trains from the Obama administration, and a major government-sponsored report about high-speed trains in Canada's most heavily populated region.

"It is high noon for high-speed rail," said Paul Langan, the founder of High Speed Rail Canada, a group that promotes faster and more efficient passenger rail service. "It's decision time. It's time to make a decision about the future."

In the United States, the government has announced at least $13-billion in funding that is scheduled to be awarded in the coming weeks to regions or rail corridors for upgrading their infrastructure and speeding up their trains in nearly a dozen regions, including routes that link to Vancouver, Windsor, Ont., Toronto and Montreal.

California already has a head start with a comprehensive plan co-ordinated by a state agency to build a high-speed train over the next decade that would link its major cities. Residents gave the plan an endorsement in 2008 by voting to approve almost $10-billion in public funding through the sale of bonds.

While some passenger lobby groups say better rail service can reduce the headaches of airport security and pollution from vehicles and planes, a Canadian industry association says the anticipated investments would also create opportunities for such other sectors as construction, manufacturing and steel.

"I think you can be reasonably optimistic that there's a new emerging market here that didn't exist here in North America up until now," said Cliff Mackay, president of the Railway Association of Canada, which represents rail companies and engineering firms.

"If you look at it in that context, and you look at the industrial capacity and the expertise in Canada in these sorts of systems, we're pretty well-positioned and we shouldn't miss this opportunity and I think government needs to think about that as part of their overall strategy."

High-speed rail projects have been discussed for decades in the central Canada corridor that links Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Windsor, as well as the in Calgary-Edmonton corridor in Alberta. Both the federal Liberals and Bloc Quebecois have confirmed that a high-speed rail strategy will be part of their next electoral platform, while the government of Stephen Harper has announced nearly $1-billion in rail infrastructure improvements since 2007.

Some Conservative MPs and senators have openly touted the merits of high-speed rail, but the government has not taken a stance on whether it would support a Quebec City-Windsor project that is once again being studied by the provincial and federal governments.

The final draft of the report on the corridor is due next month, after which time the federal government, Quebec and Ontario are expected to "develop a joint strategy," said briefing notes prepared for Ontario's deputy minister of transportation on May 20, 2009, obtained under Freedom of Information legislation. "It is anticipated that the study will be released to the public along with the preferred strategy."

The study updates the numbers from a report completed in 1995 that estimated a high-speed train on a dedicated track in central Canada would cost about $2-billion to complete over a 10-year period.

the 1993 study was recently posted on highspeedrail.ca
http://www.mediafire.com/?ghodymtvgxw

the 2002 VIAFast study was also recently posted
http://www.mediafire.com/?ijz0t2mon5z
 
Study number.......?

Preparing all these reports that go nowhere has to keep quite a few people employed here in Ontario, ne c'est pas?
 
Should we stop doing business with Cuba because the US says so?

Of course not....but if a US administration came to power and said...."Canada you are free to deal with Cuba. We don't and we have chosen not to deal with countries that do"...we should not complain either.
 
Of course not....but if a US administration came to power and said...."Canada you are free to deal with Cuba. We don't and we have chosen not to deal with countries that do"...we should not complain either.

But it is the fact that the US has a foreign policy which at times acts in a dictatorial fashion toward other countries that we should be forging closer ties to Europe and the international community instead of the US so that our being a country can mean having our own policies and opinions. Partnering closely with a country that has no qualms using strong arm tactics to force countries to give in to its demands means the US election in which we have no vote means more to Canada that our own election. Heaven forbid the US Republicans decide that its trade tactics work so well that it decides to tie trade to law harmonization (e.g. family law, gun law, drug law, etc). A partnership with the US is often simply doing whatever the US says. That isn't a partnership like the EU has in place. By keeping the border crossing in place we at least allow ourselves to make some decisions on our own rather than simply adopting US policy which is not going to change for lowly Canadians.
 
Last edited:
Okaaye...back to HSR.

It is possible for the same train to serve the US and Canadian destinations along the Niagara peninsula.

Just have all the US-bound passengers get precleared or sit in designated cars that are locked until they reach Buffalo. Another option would be to have a DHS inspector in that car and allow entry but not exit at Canadian stations. This would allow someone from Hamilton or St. Catharines to get on a Buffalo-bound train.
 
I think the ideal thing would be to have HSR services run Toronto-Detroit, and Toronto-Buffalo with only a single station in the US which handles US Customs and Canadian Customs Pre-Clearance. In Detroit this set up is perfect with a restoration of the old train station in Detroit and having the platforms furthest from the station dedicated to Canadian arrivals and departures and secured by fencing. In Buffalo it would make sense to build a tunnel from Fort Erie to Buffalo which comes out at the station which would serve both Empire Service HSR and the Lake Erie shoreline services connecting Buffalo to Cleveland and set things up similar to Detroit. This would give us two routes: Toronto - Pearson - Kitchener - London - Chatham - Windsor - Detroit, and Toronto - Hamilton (James) - St.Catharines - Niagara - Buffalo. I wouldn't bother putting in a station at Fort Erie for HSR due to the small market size and because it is less than 100km from Niagara and Buffalo.
 

Back
Top