High Speed Rail in Canada

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We're talking about a 60 meter wide corridor. I don't see how a rail line through it will have a significant impact.

60m? Why do they need a ROW that wide? That's 2/3rds the length of a football field!

A 60m corridor could certainly impact on the profitability of a small family farm..........

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

60m? Why do they need a ROW that wide? That's 2/3rds the length of a football field!

A 60m corridor could certainly impact on the profitability of a small family farm..........

I'm assuming double tracked with a service road, maybe an MUP and spare space for future expansion.

That 60 meters may also minimize farther encroachment on farm operations during construction.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm assuming double tracked with a service road, maybe an MUP and spare space for future expansion.

That 60 meters may also minimize farther encroachment on farm operations during construction.

One would hope they would let the farmer use the majority of the excess ROW for his crops until it is needed for future expansion.

Canada has a limited supply of high quality agricultural land. It would be a shame to see it being eaten up for no good reason.

I support HSR, but, we should only take as much land as is necessary.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

One would hope they would let the farmer use the majority of the excess ROW for his crops until it is needed for future expansion.

Canada has a limited supply of high quality agricultural land. It would be a shame to see it being eaten up for no good reason.

I support HSR, but, we should only take as much land as is necessary.

Wouldn't oppose that. Could even let them use the excess for free.

Overall though, HSR is far less impactful to agricultural land then suburbanization.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Wouldn't oppose that. Could even let them use the excess for free.

Overall though, HSR is far less impactful to agricultural land then suburbanization.

Of course. As I've long said, we should only be using as much land as reasonably needed for residential development as well. Obviously no one who supports efficient land usage in infrastructure development to avoid wasting precious farm land wouldn't want to see far more land wasted to provided empty buffer spaces around buildings. Especially to waste resources on growing turf grass. And certainly not just for paved space to store transportation equipment on.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

60m? Why do they need a ROW that wide? That's 2/3rds the length of a football field!

A 60m corridor could certainly impact on the profitability of a small family farm..........

The 401 maintains a 300 ft (> 90m) wide right-of-way through most of Eastern Ontario.

Typical HSR RoWs in rural Europe are 30-40m. However, that doesn't always include access roads, electrification, etc. Alto says 60m includes all this:



It's probably padding a bit and will refined over time. And will have cut outs in different spots. I strongly suspect they are also planning for 3-4 tracks from the start, even if that's not what is being delivered at launch.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The 401 maintains a 300 ft (> 90m) wide right-of-way through most of Eastern Ontario.

Typical HSR RoWs in rural Europe are 30-40m. However, that doesn't always include access roads, electrification, etc. Alto says 60m includes all this:

It's probably padding a bit and will refined over time. And will have cut outs in different spots. I strongly suspect they are also planning for 3-4 tracks from the start, even if that's not what is being delivered at launch.

Thanks for posting. This is helpful. I really hope the access road ends up being an multi-use pathway for cyclists and pedestrians that happens to also be the access road when needed.

A good portion of the route is probably (very likely) an existing rail to trail that will be turned back to rail, so maintaining and enhancing that will help win some support, or at least preventing the loss of support.

[Dengler Avenue]

I also wonder if the access road is wide enough for at least 1 farming vehicle in case that farmers want to access severed fields. (Being able to fit 2 farming vehicles, side by side, with some space in between, may be a bit ambitious.)
For those who think that 60 m is a lot, compared to the ROW that MTO uses for its freeways (90+ m), it really ain’t much.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I also wonder if the access road is wide enough for at least 1 farming vehicle in case that farmers want to access severed fields. (Being able to fit 2 farming vehicles, side by side, with some space in between, may be a bit ambitious.)
For those who think that 60 m is a lot, compared to the ROW that MTO uses for its freeways (90+ m), it really ain’t much.

That's a good point. Anything to win the good will of farmers impacted.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I also wonder if the access road is wide enough for at least 1 farming vehicle in case that farmers want to access severed fields. (Being able to fit 2 farming vehicles, side by side, with some space in between, may be a bit ambitious.)
For those who think that 60 m is a lot, compared to the ROW that MTO uses for its freeways (90+ m), it really ain’t much.

Farms along this route are small and the equipment needs are pretty modest. Most planting and tillage equipment fold into a width well within the size of typical side road.

None of the equipment here is anywhere near the size of the behemoths on the Prairies, so I think Alto can easily accommodate the farmers who need to get over or under the tracks!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm assuming double tracked with a service road, maybe an MUP and spare space for future expansion.

That 60 meters may also minimize farther encroachment on farm operations during construction.

Perhaps, but wouldn't the concern be more about the physical division of farms, whatever the width of the ROW?

[Coldrsx]

HSR or maybe just SR, but either way.

Full steam ahead on passenger rail

Alberta’s government is investing $15 million to advance passenger rail planning and begin implementing recommendations from Alberta’s Passenger Rail Master Plan.

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=96298F6610E76-B723-B992-DD4737976F6AABC5

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

HSR or maybe just SR, but either way.

Full steam ahead on passenger rail

Alberta’s government is investing $15 million to advance passenger rail planning and begin implementing recommendations from Alberta’s Passenger Rail Master Plan.

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=96298F6610E76-B723-B992-DD4737976F6AABC5

Smith has been a disaster on most files, but if she can get some rail projects off the ground, she'll at least leave with one good legacy.

[Coldrsx]

[harls]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Farms along this route are small and the equipment needs are pretty modest. Most planting and tillage equipment fold into a width well within the size of typical side road.

None of the equipment here is anywhere near the size of the behemoths on the Prairies, so I think Alto can easily accommodate the farmers who need to get over or under the tracks!

Yeah, I'd like to see Alto accommodate this unit!

[ssiguy]

It's going to be interesting to see how Ottawa will justify paying for the Corridor HSR and yet expecting Alberta to pay for it's. Are Ontario and Quebec being asked to put in some of their own money on a per-km basis thru their respective provinces?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It's going to be interesting to see how Ottawa will justify paying for the Corridor HSR and yet expecting Alberta to pay for it's. Are Ontario and Quebec being asked to put in some of their own money on a per-km basis thru their respective provinces?

What's to justify? Nothing obliges the Alberta project to move forward until Ottawa is willing to pay. Just a matter of priorities, no?

[Nouvellecosse]

If Ottawa did deny funding and someone were to ask for a justification, the fed could simply point to the popularity of the current VIA corridor service which has over 90% of the intercity rail ridership in the country. That is a proof of concept that the Alberta corridor simply doesn't have since there isn't yet a service that exists.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If Ottawa did deny funding and someone were to ask for a justification, the fed could simply point to the popularity of the current VIA corridor service which has over 90% of the intercity rail ridership in the country. That is a proof of concept that the Alberta corridor simply doesn't have since there isn't yet a service that exists.

Ottawa would just need to toss in some money to do an engineering study.

If "real money" were need to actually build something, Ottawa should ask for an equity state in the proposal proportional to its contribution. Lets not forget Ottawa owns 100% of Via rail and its high speed subsidiary.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by harls

Yeah, I'd like to see Alto accommodate this unit!

I recognize that golf ball on the tee!!😀