[All] Fwd: First Stage LRT to Cambridge Based on "Higher Collaboration" with CP
Robert Milligan
mill at continuum.org
Sat Jun 12 20:05:26 EDT 2010
FYI
R
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org>
> Date: June 12, 2010 2:50:47 AM GMT-04:00
> To: Chair Ken Seiling <sken at region.waterloo.on.ca>, Mayor Doug Craig
> <craigd at cambridge.ca>, CAO Mike Murray
> <mmike at region.waterloo.on.ca>, CAO Jim King <kingj at cambridge.ca>
> Cc: Graham Vincent <vgraham at region.waterloo.on.ca>, Nancy Button <bnancy at region.waterloo.on.ca
> >, Darshpreet Bhatti <bdarshpr at region.waterloo.on.ca>, Becky
> Schlenvogt <sbecky at region.waterloo.on.ca>
> Subject: First Stage LRT to Cambridge Based on "Higher
> Collaboration" with CP
>
> Ken, Doug, Mike & Jim,
>
> As you probably realize, I have been involved in the LRT project
> more than any other very knowledgeable citizen by at least a factor
> of 10. Uniquely, I have tried to bring to the project very much
> "outside-the-box" thinking to find and create new IDEAS to help the
> LRT become much more cost-effective -- including how the railways
> might be better involved.
>
> But as the Region well knows, communicating and collaborating with
> the railways has never been easy -- especially with CP. (Please
> check out CP President Fred Green's speech -- APPENDIX 5 in included
> article -- in which he appears to be charting a new course of
> "Higher Collaboration" with other railways and stakeholders such as
> federal, provincial and local governments.)
>
> But if the person trying to make contact with the railways is very
> non-standard -- not an official representing any organization, but
> the best interests of citizens and the environment
> -- then the challenge is even greater. However, my motto in
> everything is "If at first you don't succeed, then ... " -- so I
> have persisted.
>
> I had been aware for a few years that CP/Toyota trains had
> difficulty climbing the grade from approx. the entrance to
> Cambridge's Riverside Park up to Fountain St. near the Toyota plant.
>
> Also, being very involved professionally with technological/
> environmental hazards and attendant risk, I also couldn't overlook
> the obvious precarious position of CP's track along the river bank
> -- in the flood plain -- between their Speed R. bridge and their
> Eagle St. crossing.
>
> Increasingly very intense storms are being generated by our climate-
> change induced weather. Their raging flood waters -- because of the
> curve in the river -- would pound against the river bank that
> supports the CP track. One of these storms will be powerful enough
> to wash out that river bank, track and all!
>
> But, neither one of these issues represented a sufficiently grave
> problem requiring CP's immediate attention. However, this all
> changed recently.
>
> My breakthrough came when my research found a CP employee who was
> very sincerely concerned with averting a great tragedy if the sub-
> standard rail bridge across the Speed R. collapsed because the
> abnormally steep down-grade prevented a normally adequate train
> braking system to slow the train sufficiently.
>
> Just imagine this scenario in which a 4-engine CP train pulling 30+
> fully-loaded triple-decker Toyota rail cars is coming down one of
> the steepest grades in the CP rail network towards the Speed R.
> bridge. Under normal grade conditions, the CP train's braking system
> would be sufficient to slow it down to an acceptably slow speed to
> meet the safety requirements of such a bridge.
>
> But this bridge poses a unique risk situation. Firstly, it is
> curvilinear which means that a turning (or centrifugal) force will
> be exerted on a moving train. Secondly, the bridge is supported on
> round posts in the river which will -- mostly invisibly --
> deteriorate and weaken by water-enhanced rotting below the water
> surface and the wet river bed.
>
> The combination of the bridge's curvilinearness, and the very heavy
> weight and momentum of the 4 engines of the too-fast-for-the-
> conditions moving train, would generate a particularly powerful
> sideways-moving force towards the adjacent road bridge.
>
> Eventually (when?) a literal tipping point will be reached for the
> rail bridge supports. Then the next CP/Toyota train coming down the
> grade will cause the bridge to collapse sideways into the river and
> onto the adjacent road bridge!!
>
> And the Toyota rail cars with their downhill momentum -- and likely
> loss of steam/air brake pressure -- would continue to piles up at
> least on both bridges!!
>
> This could result in the death not only of the engineer, but also of
> drivers and pedestrians on the bridge!!
>
> And the economic consequences would also be very staggering for both
> CP and Toyota.
>
> CP's reputation as a safe and reliable railway would suffer greatly
> -- especially since they knew of the problem and didn't take timely
> action. And while an expensive temporary bridge is being built, CP/
> Toyota would have to rely on the grossly slow and inadequate track
> that connects Toyota to the CN mainline.
>
> Production at the Toyota plant would be slowed -- even to a
> standstill -- possibly for weeks at least. Likely Toyota would sue
> CP for their production and other losses generating more bad
> publicity for CP -- depressing further its reputation and share price.
>
> This fuller recognition in my mind of the tragic risk potential
> presented here for the Cambridge community, other travelers, CP and
> Toyota also created a need-- and opportunity -- to communicate with
> CP at a higher level if lower rank officials followed tradition and
> didn't communicate back.
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> The body of a recent letter to CP will help update the situation:
>
> "Thank you for the time and consideration that you and other CP
> officials are now giving to my concerns about the need to solve CP/
> Toyota's potential &/or actual problems in Cambridge's Eagle St. to
> Fountain St. section of track pertaining to: 1) Speed R. bridge
> safety, 2) grade climbing, and 3) river-bank track wipeout.
>
> This below email is a copy recently sent to Region of Waterloo Chair
> Ken Seiling and CAO Mike Murray P.Eng. about my latest IDEAS for
> advancing their LRT project (Rapid Transit Initiative) towards
> successful implementation.
>
> I have added to it, as APPENDIX 5, a copy of your President's (Fred
> Green) talk in Dec. 2006 in Montreal to the Canadian Railway Club.
> Hopefully his views here -- especially those about "Higher
> Collaboration" between all stakeholders including municipal
> governments -- have by now diffused throughout the organization
> through at least his "Execution Excellence" approach.
>
> I will be giving particular emphasis to overcoming the ill-founded
> resistance to CP crossing Riverside Park. As I am also an
> environmentalist who loves parks -- but sees environmental problems
> in a local to Global context (and takes economic realities into
> consideration) -- I am in a better position than most to be of
> assistance.
>
> Also, the fact that I have catalyzed the recognition and solution of
> numerous environmental
> health problems in Cambridge and the wider Region of Waterloo in
> cooperation with their respective Councils over more than 20 years,
> also adds to my potential effectIveness. (I have donated well over
> 3000 hours to this LRT project.)
>
> Hope this is useful in providing some potential context towards an
> optimal solution to CP's
> Cambridge problem to more securely serve Toyota."
>
> ***************************************************************************************************
>
> I certainly can understand why some Cambridge officials might be
> reluctant to cooperate with CP. They love Riverside Park and are a
> little pissed-off at CP for the whole Hespler Rd. crossing situation.
>
> In the latter, citizens have had to suffer such long waits while CP
> shunted trains across Hespler Road as part of their necessary
> switching yard practice. Just like the extreme case of big
> corporation BP showing -- now and historically -- great
> insensitivity to surrounding communities, CP seemed to behave
> similarly here. A court case initiated by the Region was required to
> resolve it.
>
> But now the shoe is on the other foot. CP is asking for help from
> Cambridge (and the Region) to help prevent a potential tragedy as
> described above. Cambridge could seek "revenge" and make CP suffer
> the consequences. But many people could die if a viable solution is
> not found and accepted! Is not the high road a better direction for
> the citizens of Cambridge?
>
> And employees at Toyota would likely suffer financially from
> mandatory leave-of-absences during a possible production slow/shut
> down while a temporary rail bridge is being built.
>
> Or, anticipating such a potentially massive impairment of their
> production because of a very problematic and risky CP rail
> connection, Toyota might start to scale down its Cambridge plant and
> scale up its Woodstock plant!
>
> CP says that all the problems with its track between Eagle and
> Fountain streets can be best solved with a crossing of Riverside
> Park. But especially citizens of Cambridge -- and people such as
> myself from the larger Region -- who cherish public parks, need to
> ask, can it be done in a way so that in-the-net it also enhances the
> park?
>
> Some suggestions for starters towards this end might include a very
> unique rock garden of perennial flowers on both sides of the 45
> degree sloped rail earth-berm that would cross the park. Its unique
> beauty could attract people from far and wide perhaps as a mini-
> Bucthart Gardens in Victoria, http://www.butchartgardens.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
> .
>
> Also a miniature rideable children's train -- like one in a
> Peterborough park -- that could travel on rails mostly around the
> back part of Riverside Park but maybe also through a tunnel under
> the berm and through the evergreen "forest".
>
> CP and Toyota could also contribute by enhancing the children's
> playground and zoo.
>
> If the LRT also used the Park crossing via a second track, then no
> rail vehicle would cross and temporarily block the main park
> entrance. A pedestrian bridge attached to the rail bridges crossing
> Eagle St. and the river would give more convenient park access to
> the local community and others who arrived by the LRT.
>
> Another major reason that a CP Riverside Park crossing is needed
> would be to help facilitate the LRT coming to Cambridge in the first
> stage of the Region's Rapid Transit Initiative project -- instead of
> 2036 or never. (A better LRT system design will help with developing
> Cambridge traffic jams as will a highway 24 eastern by-pass road.)
>
> This Cambridge LRT outcome could be partly as a by-product of a
> public-private partnership between the Region and CP to build either
> a 1-track Park crossing (LRT has exclusive use during rush-hour
> periods) or a 2-track crossing (LRT has exclusive use of 1-track and
> the other during rush-hour periods).
>
> Because of this very major project's high cost, support funding from
> the Federal and Provincial Governments could be separate from the
> LRT project funding. Although, funds that would have been spent by
> the LRT project to build a 3-track bridge across the Speed R. could
> be allocated to the project.
>
> The arrangement with CP could include also their agreement on time-
> locked track sharing in which the LRT has exclusive use -- except
> between the hours of 12AM & 5AM -- of the section of track between
> the Kitchener CP/CN exchange yard near Courtland Ave. and approx.
> 200m. on the Cambridge side of the Grand R. bridge. Various specific
> new IDEAS could make this acceptable to CP.
>
> A time-locked track (bridges and underpasses) sharing with both CP
> and GEXR/CN -- and the staging of the introduction of the very
> expensive interconnected street Intensification Corridors -- would
> dramatically decrease the LRT's initial -- an overall --
> construction costs. This would make a Cambridge (Ridership Corridor)
> LRT along the existing rail right-of-way economically feasible.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> Earlier email to Regional Chair Ken Seiling & CAO Mike Murray:
>
> Let me make it perfectly clear that some problems alluded to are not
> necessarily official positions of organizations involved but every
> LRT-related IDEA that I represent is a well-founded suggestion.
> However, I am communicating about serious Regional problems --
> important to the future of both our citizens and businesses -- that
> have to be solved at least with an enhanced LRT system design made
> possible at least by much greater Region of Waterloo, City of
> Cambridge, CP & GEXR synergistic collaboration.
>
> A viable LRT includes an affordable and effective Cambridge LRT NOW
> and not in 2036!!! -- the actual not-officially-communicated target
> a Regional politician informed me of recently. We need Cambridge's
> LRT inclusion to at least boost K-W ridership (hence intensification
> effect), improve Regional unity and generally advance the Region.
>
> Overall, the LRT system design should give more emphasis to
> ridership. Then at least the Cambridge section LRT will have many
> more riders than current estimates that show insufficiency -- a
> passive projection based mostly on the current student & working
> poor riders. This would be because more middle class car drivers
> will be attracted to a much faster LRT -- an active projection based
> on intervention by better design.
>
> Since the previous email on May 28, "Attracting Scarce F&P
> Government Funds for our LRT+", I have informally made some progress
> with both GEXR and CP towards possible time-locked track-sharing.
> Integral to making very significant progress with both of them is
> assisting CP in implementing the best solution to their track
> (safety, grade climbing & river- track wipeout ) problems. This is
> very important to help secure Toyota's future in Cambridge by
> helping CP in turn secure safer and more functional rail access to
> the Cambridge plant -- and help avoid a possible very costly CP/
> Toyota rail disaster (waiting-to-happen) in the process!
>
> To this end I hope that some key Regional and Cambridge staff will
> be able to better use their intelligence so as to overcome their
> irrational fears of CP rail crossing the back part of Riverside
> Park-- even if done very tastefully and for very, very important
> reasons pertaining to human safety and preserving Toyota jobs at
> least!!
>
> So to repeat somewhat from the previous email, this is a slightly
> modified and enhanced draft of an expanded LRT article in which I
> use more new IDEAS to try to give the Provincial and Federal
> Governments more reasons -- beyond an enhanced LRT system design --
> why they should give us scarce funds for the Region's LRT project.
> To this end, I am doing very original thinking about this wider
> area's future -- and an LRT network's vital role -- which no other
> individuals are doing by themselves.
>
> I also again try to build on the shoulders of the Region's greatest
> visionary, UofW President David Johnston. (I hope that David stays
> in this area -- that he has helped shape so much --after his
> retirement and that he will play a continuing transformational
> visionary-leadership role.)
>
> And of course I'm very open to suggestions for changes, even major
> changes, in the IDEAS or manner of expression.
>
> ***************************************************************************************************
>
>
> Further updated version of LRT article (with most of the changes/
> enhancements in the bottom part -- see APPENDIX 5 here for Fred
> Green's speech):
>
>
> IDEAS to Enhance our LRT: Towards world-class pioneering sustainable
> innovation
>
> "In the next decade, the university is committed to building a
> better future for Canada and the world by championing innovation and
> collaboration to create solutions relevant to the needs of today and
> tomorrow." http://uwaterloo.ca/aboutuw/
>
>
> "(To get it right, we need) to think outside the traditional light
> rail box. ... . (NJ's River LINE is) not only an alternative to the
> automobile, but is also helping to re-energize the historic
> communities it links together." Al Fazio, US LRT executive and
> professor. (See APPENDIX 4)
>
>
> Regional Council and staff -- led by very successful long-serving
> Chair Ken Seiling -- should be commended for their very strong
> support of our truly important light rail transit (LRT) system
> design that has the potential to help give this area the smart
> infrastructure necessary for a future Knowledge Capital of Canada.
>
> Yes, this light rail transit LRT project is our most complex and
> expensive ($1B+) urban infrastructure challenge ever. Scarce tax
> money -- federal, provincial, and municipal -- will be invested. As
> well, Waterloo Region's reputation for leading-edge technological
> innovation will be influenced by the success -- or not -- of the
> LRT system design.
>
> But. analysis of the current LRT system design indicates some
> serious, yet advantageously surmountable, track-routing and other
> flaws. These flaws would not only affect the attainment of the
> project's principal goals of high middle-class ridership and high
> urban-core intensification but also greatly inflate the cost.
>
> With so much at stake, the LRT system design's cost-effectiveness
> needs to be optimized -- reducing its risk in the process. This can
> be largely achieved if the LRT system design is enhanced at least by
> proven rail transportation IDEAS. But more, the design must meet the
> very high "Waterloo benchmarks" for innovation and collaboration
> set by the University of Waterloo and our hi-tech businesses.
>
> Such IDEAS will be found, created and used to great advantage only
> if politicians and staff are willing and able to "think outside the
> traditional light rail box".
>
> But the Region's current approach to the LRT system design is just
> the opposite. Despite our World crises demanding very innovative
> World class design -- especially in all large projects -- their
> approach remains the conventional "stovepipe" where past LRT designs
> are repeated despite the uniqueness of our urban transportation
> infrastructure.
>
>
> Goal achievement problems
>
> At the foundation of the Region's proposed LRT system design are the
> two principal goals. High middle-class ridership reduces car use
> thereby decreasing traffic congestion. High urban-core
> intensification helps lessen urban sprawl. It would be catalyzed by
> the LRT and new bylaws. Such intensification efforts are strongly
> supported by Provincial Places to Grow policies.
>
> Outside LRT experts and Regional staff say that these interrelated
> goals should be balanced, that is given a similar weighting. But
> such intended goal balancing is not achieved in the current LRT
> system design nor is goal balancing alone sufficient for project
> design success.
>
> In fact, for optimal cost-effectiveness the goals should
> "collaborate" to their greater mutual benefit, i.e. be synergistic
> where 1+1=3+. And a synergistic "collaboration" of the LRT goals of
> high ridership and high intensification can also be much better
> achieved by "thinking outside the traditional light rail box".
>
> The reality of the current LRT system design -- specifically its
> track-route design -- is that it will cause the project's goals to
> "fight" each other in parts of the routing -- the intensification
> corridors. That is, as the LRT necessarily passes through an
> intensification corridor, the average speed (ridership's key factor)
> would be counteracted by a greater frequency of stops
> (intensification's key factor).
>
> In the Region's intensification corridor design, they were forced to
> cut back on the frequency of stops
> so that speed did not suffer too much. This makes their
> intensification corridor design sub-optimal compared to what could
> be possible!
>
> Relative to a rail right-of-way -- despite dedicated LRT lanes and
> traffic light control -- an optimally designed LRT road
> intensification corridor will always have a significantly slower
> average speed because of: the close proximity of other vehicles and
> many pedestrians, the many intersections, greater accident
> proneness, and the higher frequency of stops necessary for optimal
> intensification.
>
> Further, because an LRT traveling on a road intensification corridor
> will have a slower average speed and be limited in LRT vehicle
> length, it will have much less ridership capacity than LRT vehicles
> operating on a rail right-of-way.
>
> As a result, LRT road intensification corridors -- and roads used
> mainly as LRT route-connectors like Frederick St. -- will create
> speed and capacity bottlenecks. This would occur because the current
> LRT route-design forces the LRT vehicles to use these road
> corridors -- an enhanced approach to LRT routing is needed.
>
>
> Ridership Corridors to the Rescue
>
> Why spend as much as $billions on an LRT system design likely to be
> disappointing? And can the key track-route design problems -- not
> yet recognized by the conventional-thinking experts -- be solved?
> Can the potential of our unique transportation infrastructure be
> better adapted to and utilized? But first, let's look at things
> from a different perspective using an analogy from physics,
> specifically electrical circuits.
>
> The Region's LRT track-route design might be called a "series" (vs.
> "parallel") type because all vehicles travel along basically the
> same routing. This is analogous to an electrical circuit where
> electrons travel through "devices" that can be in series or in
> parallel -- or both.
>
> Two minor exceptions occur where the two tracks on a road are split
> onto two "parallel" roads. This happens in the downtowns of
> Kitchener and Waterloo where the preferred roads have sufficient
> road capacity for only one track.
>
> Eureka! The current LRT track-route design partially uses the rail
> right-of-way and in a "series" manner. So let's use this concept
> more fully. "Why not" extend the "parallel" road idea to the whole
> rail right-of-way that essentially runs in a "parallel" -- and often
> concurrent -- manner to the current LRT track-route design?
>
> This new "parallel" rail right-of-way corridor would overlay the
> current track-route design. It would run from a new Northfield
> terminal to the Ainslie Terminal. To describe its intent, let's call
> it the Ridership Corridor and interconnect it intermittently to the
> "parallel" intensification corridors.
>
> With such a ridership corridor the bottlenecks on the
> intensification (and connection) road corridors can be by-passed by
> LRT vehicles that have picked up riders traveling a longer distance.
> Also, stop frequency on the intensification corridors can now be
> optimized because lost time can be recovered upon switching onto the
> faster Ridership Corridor -- and this time-saving means better
> intensification.
>
> Let's use the King Street South LRT intensification corridor as a
> specific example. How could the relevant section of the rail right-
> of-way routing (part of the Ridership Corridor) be configured so
> that it would be both "parallel" to and interconnect with this
> intensification corridor?
>
> First, use the Iron Horse Trail from Caroline Street to the CN
> mainline -- there are many US precedents for converting trails into
> rail/trails with at least a separating fence. Two tracks would be
> used except possibly between Caroline and John Streets. A station at
> Union Blvd. would attract riders from Sun Life and help intensify
> Belmont St, (so designated by Kitchener).
>
> Second, build a CN mainline underpass -- at a 45 degree angle -- so
> that the 2 LRT tracks can extend along the south-side of the CN
> mainline right-of-way to a new multimodal HUB between Joseph and
> King Streets. This new section of the LRT routing at least would
> make a very expensive and problematic (toxins, flooding, etc.) 2-
> track LRT tunnel/station under King St. and the CN mainline no
> longer necessary.
>
> The King Street South LRT intensification corridor and the proposed
> "parallel" rail right-of-way would
> interconnect on Caroline at Allen St. and the Kitchener HUB. The
> Kings South intensification corridor would connect initially to the
> HUB by simply crossing CN's mainline and spur line at a 45 degree
> angle towards the west. If needed in the future, the HUB connection
> could be made from the west part of Wellington St. via a CN track
> overpass/station.
>
> And now possibly, if the current HUB property (King-Victoria-
> Duke-'CN line') were released , then combined with the adjacent
> Breithaupt St. properties, we could have a potentially new UofW
> Kitchener Research and Technology Park!
>
> This is but one side-benefit that could result indirectly from the
> new IDEA of an interconnected Ridership Corridor. But let's explore
> more of the ridership corridor's potential.
>
> Just imagine an LRT vehicle traveling on the ridership corridor that
> significantly "shrinks" trip time by the combined effect of its
> higher speed and capacity, its rapid acceleration and braking, its
> just-in-time bus connections and better bus routing, its less
> frequent stations and shorter end-to-end route, its mostly double
> tracks and its off-road "protection" from accident delays.
>
> Mostly it would be very similar to NJ's successful River LINE but be
> electrified. (See enclosed photo &
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_nj002.htm)
>
> The ridership corridor would also be the "success engine" that
> battles traffic congestion by attracting many middle class people
> out of their cars. This will help clean our air and make driving a
> more enjoyable experience for those who must use their cars. Our
> quality of life will be enhanced so that businesses and universities
> prosper more.
>
>
> "Success Engine" for Intensification also
>
> In addition, the ridership corridor would be a "Success Engine" for
> intensification in two ways.
>
> Firstly, its own less frequent stations would help the area around
> them intensify. Important new areas that would be intensified would
> be Belmont St. (Union Blvd. Station), Queen St (Queen St. Station)
> and the Dundas-Beverly area (Beverly St. Station).
>
> Secondly, it would help make intensification corridors more
> successful. The aura of the LRT system's great ridership success
> will create demand for working and living space in the
> intensification corridor. And the ridership corridor's much lower
> average trip time will greatly contribute towards decreasing trip
> times for riders starting in an intensification corridor.
>
> And as previously stated, the intensification corridors could now be
> designed with the optimal frequency of stops for intensification
> purposes.
>
> Our stage one intensification corridor would be K-W's King Street
> South, The example of its success would soon inspire developers and
> governments to commit to other designated intensification corridors
> such as Duke-Charles-Ottawa Streets and Hespler Road.
>
> And as riders travel along an intensification corridor, their LRT
> vehicle would use one track -- like the Portland Streetcar known
> around the World for very successful intensification. But unlike it,
> our LRT vehicle would move in both directions made possible by 2-
> track passing at some stops -- with the assistance of Intelligent
> Transportation System technology. (See Case Study: Portland
> Streetcar, http://metro-cincinnati.info/?page_id=982)
>
> And with only one track being necessary -- because of the high-
> capacity Ridership Corridor carrying most of the riders -- an LRT
> intensification corridor could now be extended up King North Street
> past WLU and eventually to Conestoga Mall.
>
> When it comes to cost savings most people don't realize how much
> more it costs to put 2 tracks along a road as compared to 1 track on
> a road or 2 tracks along a rail right-of-way.
>
> And one-track-only along a road gives more flexibility in avoiding
> underground utilities. Also there would be less use of roads and
> more of rail right-of-ways -- at least in the initial stages. Both
> of these possibilities at least mean less use and/or a more time-
> dispersed use of the $100 budgeted to move underground and above
> ground utilities!
>
> Also, just think how much it costs to build a station-tunnel under
> the CN line ($30M+) or a 2-track highway 7&8 underpass or a 2-track
> bridge over the Grand River or a 3-track bridge over the Speed
> River. And there are also 2-track bridges over numerous creeks. With
> track sharing, all of these massive expenditures can be avoided with
> a few much smaller cost exceptions.
>
> But optimal track sharing requires pioneering new relationships with
> the railways.
>
>
>
> Synergistic Collaboration with CP and GEXR
>
> For the cost of the ridership corridor to be sufficiently affordable
> -- in these very tough economic times for both the public and
> private sectors -- various new forms of synergistic collaboration
> with CP/Toyota and GEXR/CN will have to be created. These new
> relationships would likely centre mostly around mutual financial and
> performance advantages.
>
> At present, discussions with CP/Toyota seem to need a stronger
> common interest to advance further. Such a common interest could
> centre around CP's need for an optimal solution to potentially very
> serious problems caused by the extreme track grade between Eagle and
> Fountain Streets. The nature of these problems relates to track
> safety, train delay and even long Toyota plant closures.
>
> Of the three possible solutions considered by CP, the best appears
> to involve the crossing of the City of Cambridge's Riverside Park.
> But to obtain the various necessary approvals, they would likely
> need a public partner such as the Region via its LRT project. Likely
> they would need some funding from the Provincial and Federal
> governments -- and the Region as a junior partner.
>
> The two higher levels of government might justify significant
> funding for a few reasons: 1) to help keep Canada's most innovative
> area -- Waterloo Region -- economically strong by helping avoid the
> possibility of Toyota shifting significant production to Woodstock;
> 2) to indirectly help defray a large amount of the costs of LRT use
> of parts of the rail right-of-way achieved by CP in return at least
> agreeing to limit their use of the spur line from the Courtland
> exchange yard to approx. .5km south from the Grand River bridge to
> the hours of 1:00 AM to 5:00AM.
>
> The Region could invest at least the cost of building a 3-track
> bridge across the Speed River at the current site. They would find
> the existing CP bridge sufficient if the previous IDEAS suggested
> for bridges are used by the Region. If the Region also uses the
> Ridership Corridor IDEA, then they could make arrangements with CP
> to use the new 'Riverside Park crossover'/'Speed River bridge'/etc.
> during the rush hour periods to save time.
>
> And this could be a way that indirect Provincial and Federal funding
> could assist the realization of the RTI project.
>
> GEXR is a part of Rail America and is renting CN track in this
> general area -- and the Region's Elmira spur line. While they are
> somewhat open to collaborating with the Region on time-locked track
> sharing on part of their rented track, specifics need to be worked
> out. If we could present them with a Grand Plan type IDEA that could
> help improve the efficiency and extent of their operations, then
> they would likely be very interested in collaborating to a much
> greater degree.
>
> Such a plan might take the form of GEXR being able to use all of the
> Region's "faster-moving" track at night so as to interconnect GEXR's
> track in Cambridge with that in Kitchener. Perhaps they would then
> be able to exchange rail cars at CP's own Sportsworld Drive rail
> yard.
>
> A possible GO-Transit SW described in the section by the same name
> below could greatly extend even more GEXR's night service on fast
> track.
>
> Such IDEAS would are a possible basis for viable synergistic
> collaborations with the railways -- in effect, very strong mutually
> advantageous public/private partnerships! But there is another
> potential public/private partnership that especially the Federal
> government would appreciate.
>
>
> Structuring the LRT system design to attract Bombardier
>
> The Ridership Corridor IDEA will create an LRT system design where
> an LRT train on the rail right-of-way plays the major role and an
> LRT streetcar less so. Yet the goal of intensification will be
> better and
> less expensively realized.
>
> But now the suggested LRT system design is structured to attract big
> rail players such as Bombardier. It is they who operate the GO-
> Trains. But more relevant, Bombardier is the key player in New
> Jersey Transit's (analogous to GO-Transit) River LINE Perhaps we
> can at least emulate their "Unique Rail" approach as they describe it:
> "The equipment, the operating plan, the public-private partnership
> that built and operates the system and other aspects of the River
> LINE represent new and innovative approaches to rail transit
> service. Combining them all in one package geared to provide the
> most service at the best price in an area that was previously
> transit deficient makes the whole project close to revolutionary.
> The unconventional River LINE offers a number of interesting
> attributes:
>
> *a turnkey design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) approach to
> construction and on-going operation by a consortium of suppliers,
> including Bombardier Transportation which now operates and maintains
> the system;
> ...........................................................................................................................................................;
> *new-build line segments that combine dedicated LRT median running
> and streetcar- like operation in mixed traffic;
> *time-shared use with Conrail freight trains for much of the route;
> and
> *an inventive combination of advanced rail traffic control,
> automatic train stop signaling, and temporal separation that yields
> maximum safety and track availability for passengers and freight
> alike." http://www.masstransitmag.com/print/Mass-Transit/Unique-Rail/1$2192)
>
> This seems to be the type of public/private venture that the Feds
> would like to see. But a new IDEA for a bigger LRT and night
> freight network -- possibly involving GO-Transit -- could increase
> further the attractiveness for Bombardier to become involved in such
> a manner.
>
>
> GO-Transit SW (South West) ?
>
> Guelph wants a passenger rail connection to Cambridge. GO-Transit --
> stated as part of MTO's new highway 24 project -- would like to have
> at least a Brantford to Cambridge rail connection. If the Region's
> LRT system design was able to integrate with the expressed potential
> plans of Guelph and GO-Transit, then the value to the Province of
> the LRT project would be further increased.
>
> Joined with the Region's LRT network, this could take the form of a
> GO-Transit SW (South West) -- or called the Grand River Line --
> based on LRT. To date, GO-Transit -- unlike New Jersey Transit --
> has not incorporated LRT as part of its rail passenger network
> despite their heavy rail passenger vehicles being more expensive to
> operate and purchase.
>
> Or course, GO-Transit cannot take advantage of the benefits of LRT
> on the main lines as safety
> regulations in Canada -- unlike Europe -- prohibit it. But on the
> infrequently used heavy rail spur lines,
> time-locked track sharing is more realistic. The GEXR/CN spur rail
> line from Guelph to Cambridge is infrequently used -- and it
> continues through Cambridge (Hespler) until the future Hespler Road
> rail 2-track underpass.
>
> Instead of a rail line constructed as part of a very controversial
> proposed new highway 24, one of the two -- or a combination --
> existing rail corridors from Cambridge(Galt) to Brantford could be
> used. One is now a trail along the Grand River -- a rail/trail is
> possible. The other -- after following highway 24 for approx. 7 km.
> from the Cambridge's Ainslie Terminal, turns left , eventually
> following parallel to highway 24 about 4 km. inland.
>
> If such a new fast LRT track were constructed, then GEXR's could
> have an opportunity to further expand its potential night freight
> operation to Brantford. This future possibility would add to the
> anticipated advantages to GEXR of synergistically collaborating on
> track sharing with the Region's LRT system.
>
> Such a GO-Transit SW LRT line would connect Brantford primarily with
> the GO-Train in Guelph. A future connection to the GO-Train in
> Hamilton would likely be desirable from GO-Transit's viewpoint..
>
> As the advantages of using the LRT become more universally
> recognized for very cost-efficient inter-city travel -- particularly
> between the smaller cities outside the GTA -- then the Province and
> GO-Transit will start to explore their use on mainline CP & CN rail
> corridors to, for example, interconnect with Woodstock and Stratford.
>
> Here, most likely a separate LRT track would be built on one side of
> the mainline corridor. Much less likely, advances in Intelligent
> Transportation System technology may make safe 24-hour LRT multi-
> modal track sharing possible.
>
> Surviving sustainably in a very complex World at least means that
> collaborative dreams and vision must drive our innovation in our
> interrelated businesses, governments and communities. Today we must
> all be so driven -- or our species will die off!
>
>
>
> Persuading governments by a Grand Vision for our area's future
>
> If the Region of Waterloo hopes to get funding from the Governments
> of Ontario and Canada despite these very tough economic times and
> the competition from other major centres like Toronto, then -- as
> both these governments might expect from the most innovative area in
> Canada -- we will have to expand the project to become part of a
> more complex future-thinking venture. And it must be extraordinarily
> innovative!
>
> This Grand Vision could include the vision of University of Waterloo
> President David Johnston -- this area as the Knowledge Capital of
> Canada by 2010. He set 10 goals to achieve this. And influenced by
> Richard Florida's writing's on the creative class, ”Johnston said
> ''this area welcomes new people and new IDEAS".
>
> Johnston implies that a Knowledge Capital is based largely on new
> creative IDEAS. "And as we move beyond 2010", he says, "each and
> every one of (us has) to do (our) part to see our performance
> improve and our goals continue to be achieved".
>
> Very important for the further success of the Knowledge Capital
> venture -- or any other large public project -- is this Region's
> "barn raising" tradition wherein he says "we work collaboratively to
> (potentially) accomplish what any one individual cannot." Such
> collaboration would be be synergistic if successful.
>
> One of David's 10 goals is Smart Infrastructure -- which includes
> Smart Transit. The "Waterloo benchmark" IDEAS suggested to help
> enhance the Region's LRT system design towards greater cost-
> effectiveness would help create a World-class Sustainable Innovation
> that is Smart Transit.
>
> Some hi-tech community leaders want to amalgamate the cities of
> Waterloo and Kitchener. Their prime motivation is so that the new
> city -- likely Waterloo because the name has greater value in the
> World -- can have a "bigger World splash".
>
> Certainly being big enough to be noticed on the World stage is very
> important for university and business success. But to follow the
> example of the University of Waterloo who has extended its campus to
> Stratford -- and WLU to Brantford -- "why not" extend the Region of
> Waterloo to a more inclusive Greater Waterloo District (like
> Toronto's GTA and Vancouver's GVRD)?
>
> Our Greater Waterloo District could include Cambridge, Guelph,
> Stratford, Woodstock, Brantford and
> (where applicable) their associated Counties. And especially if this
> also becomes our broader Knowledge
> Capitla of Canada focus, then -- as we rapidly develop -- what a
> World splash we will create!
>
> More, we will also have an expanding Grand River Line (or GO-Transit
> SW) to sustainably and
> efficiently connect us. And Jim Balsillie would have a perfect area
> for his new NHL team, the Waterloo
> Innovators.
>
> The resulting smart LRT infrastructure would be an essential
> support as we create a wonderful Knowledge and Innovation exemplar
> to the World -- where collaboration and sustainability are
> championed -- of which all Canadians can be proud! Now the
> Provincial and Federal governments would see our enhanced LRT system
> design proposal as part of a Grand Plan in harmony with our highest
> innovative aspirations.
>
> Then our higher level politicians can better justify to the people
> of Ontario and Canada why this area -- potentially a Greater
> Waterloo District -- would merit scarce government financial
> resources for our LRT project.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Milligan is a member of Transport Action Ontario (formerly
> Transport 2000). He has a BSc in math-physics. a Graduate Diploma in
> Education and has completed many other courses including ones in
> industrial engineering, operations research and environmental
> health. He was a high school teacher, business systems analyst and
> environmental health analyst. Much of his time in retirement is now
> given freely to public projects, especially those with significant
> environmental and health features.
>
>
>
>
> The River LINE operates on the same rails as Conrail via a temporal
> separation. While River LINE vehicles are on the tracks, Conrail is
> not allowed on and vice versa.
> (See http://www.masstransitmag.com/print/Mass-Transit/Unique-Rail/1$2192)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Newer GTW version
> of above Stadler LRT
>
>
>
> New construction along the route of the Portland Streetcar (Photo:
> Brad Thomas / CincyStreetcar Blog)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (Case Study: Portland Streetcar, http://metro-cincinnati.info/?page_id=982)
>
>
>
> Note: Pictures can be better arranged with better software.
>
>
>
> APPENDIX
>
> 1. SUGGESTED RIDERSHIP CORRIDOR
> The "train" LRT rail right-of-way corridor could extend from a new
> park-and-go terminal at Northfield Dr. to the existing Ainslie St.
> Terminal. It would be composed of the following sections: Waterloo
> spur line -- Caroline Street -- Iron Horse Trail (rail/trail) --
> north side of main CN line (via new 45 degree underpass) -- King/
> Joseph multi-modal HUB -- CN/CP spur line south to other side
> (~500m) of Grand R. -- bypass of CP/Toyota switching yard to
> Fountain St. -- parallel to CP track to Dolph St. AND CP line
> crossing Riverside Park and Speed R (new) to Dolph St. (rush hours
> only) -- CN line to Hespler Rd. -- existing Grand Trunk corridor
> (via CP line underpass) -- Mill Creek Trail (rail/trail) --
> Wellington St. The only extraordinary costs would for the 45 degree
> CN underpass and for a minority share of the costs of the Riverside
> Park (berm) and Speed River (bridge) crossing.
>
>
> 2. Why Cambridge & a Berm/Bridge Crossing of Riverside Pk., Speed
> R., Eagle St., ... ?
>
> If an LRT is going to be built in the Region, certainly it is unfair
> to not have Cambridge
> connected from the beginning with all its attendant benefits for
> Cambridge. But even the K-W part of the LRT will suffer. That is, by
> not including Cambridge fewer people will use the K-W section
> because the BRT "feeder" in Cambridge will by its nature (buses have
> a stigma, etc.) attract fewer people.
>
> Also, the current LRT system design was primarily intended to
> intensify (according to Ken & Carl) with ridership a poor second. I
> am certainly not against intensification when roads are ready and
> once we are more certain that it can work by an initial "proving"
> intensification corridor (K-W's King West/ South)
>
> My enhanced design proposal puts a much greater emphasis on
> ridership. This is especially important because if ridership is very
> low in relation to cost, then the LRT will be given a failure stigma
> and be less persuasive with intensifying developers.
>
> But as we prosper, traffic problems will worsen. The LRT can help
> greatly IF it is designed to attract the middle class out of their
> cars (now it is mostly students and the working poor). Primarily
> that means a much shorter travel time than the current road-dominant
> design permits. And the only way to achieve much lower travel times
> is to have a fast "ridership" corridor along the existing rail right-
> of-way -- with interconnected intensification corridors as needed.
>
> However, there is a major problem with using the rail right-of-way
> -- that of obtaining good cooperation from the railways, especially
> CP. You know well the difficulties the Region had with CP over the
> Hespler Rd. overpass. But now CP has a problem themselves -- a
> Toyota affecting problem of potentially great magnitude, But it is
> also a potential problem for Cambridge and the Region.
>
> A CP employee told me that the Eagle to Fountain grade is among the
> worst in their rail net work, especially since curvature is
> equivalent to grade. Yes they do have a problem going up the grade
> which I have known for some time -- occasionally they can't make it
> to the top of the grade! But I didn't know that they had a much
> worse type of problem going down -- a very serious safety problem!
> Yes their brakes are adequate for normal grades but this grade is
> not normal. As a result, they often find themselves going too fast
> as they cross the curvilinear Speed River bridge, a bridge of
> questionable adequacy!
>
> Just imagine what might happen to current production &/or future
> expansion at the Toyota plant if a rail tragedy occurred because the
> the bridge collapsed -- especially when the new Woodstock facility
> is likely capable of significant expansion!
>
> And this potential problem must be further underlined by the
> potential loss on life including the engineeer and many on the
> adjacent road bridge as the rail cars coming down the grade pile-up!
>
> But more, an increasing likely large storm could cause a raging
> Speed River -- as it curves around the river bend going in the
> direction of that section of rail line (in the floodplain adjacent
> to the river) between the bridge and the Eagle St. crossing -- to
> wipe out that section of track!
>
> With all these actual and potential problems, it is no wonder that
> CP wants a solution. And their preferred solution is a crossing of
> Riverside Park, the Speed River, Eagle St., Westminster St., Laurel
> St., ... .
>
> But, to make this crossing they would need the cooperation/approval
> of Cambridge, the Region, GRCA, etc. Obviously -- because of Toyota
> at least -- it is Cambridge's advantage to cooperate. However,
> government (F & P +) money would be needed. Also existing laws may
> require direct government participation in the project to help deal
> with existing laws, regulations, policies, etc. (a public/private
> partnership?).
>
> For example, the Region could use the money it would otherwise spend
> on a 3-track bridge across the Speed R. and put that towards its
> junior partnership share in the "Park Crossing & Bridge" P/P joint
> venture. But in return the Region could require from CP at least: 1)
> exclusive use of the CP spur line (from Courtland Ave, to approx.
> 200m. from the Grand River Bridge on the Cambridge side) between the
> hours of 5:00 AM and 1:00 AM: 2) exclusive use of the "Park Crossing
> & Bridge" during rush-hour periods.
>
> This is called synergistic collaboration where all parties involved
> (Cambridge, Region, CP, Toyota, Prov,, Feds, -- even GEXR) directly
> and indirectly benefit in ways not otherwise possible.
>
> And this is but one IDEA that is part of an enhanced LRT system
> design for a much more successful LRT that includes Cambridge from
> the get-go -- and so that the K-W section has greater ridership and
> thereby greater intensification!
>
>
> 3. Hamilton & Wireless systems using battery or fuel cells
>
> So much money could be saved on the need for 3 copper wire systems
> (catenary + 2 stray current wires) if we were more forwardly
> innovative in our thinking as they are in Hamilton, viz.
>
> "Hamilton itself is planning for two LRT lines, which should be
> among the first generation to be built. These lines should be built
> in Hamilton using the most competitive and advanced technology
> available (e.g. wireless systems using battery or fuel cells)."
> http://hamiltonlightrail.com/article/coc_resolution_light_rail_transit_made_in_hamilton/
>
>
> They did it with Storage battery cars way back in " ...
>
> the 1920's and 1930's (when) three Canadian mainline railways,
> Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and
> Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway operated storage battery
> cars on several lines. In most of these cases service never
> approached interurban levels, nor were they considered separate from
> the railways' steam-hauled services. The largest user, the CNR, had
> retired all its storage battery cars by 1942. (Photo: CN Images of
> Canada: Canada Science and Technology Museum)"
> Locally, such a passenger rail vehicle was run by the CPR from Galt
> to Hamilton, Ontario -- a trip of 55km/34.4mi.
> http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/alltime/other-modes.html
>
> That such an IDEA is feasible NOW for our LRT is suggested by the
> proven Proterra nano-battery driven electric bus (http://green.autoblog.com/2009/05/06/proterra-electric-bus-gets-over-20-mpge-in-tests/
> ):
>
> "The Pennsylvania Transportation Institute at Penn State just had
> the chance to put the Proterra electric bus through some fuel
> economy tests in Altoona, PA and it was there that the Altairnano-
> powered people mover generated some head-turning miles per gallon
> equivalent (MPGe) numbers. After going through three different duty
> cycles, the worst result returned was 17.55 MPGe, while the best was
> 29.23 MPGe, earned during the "commuter" phase which featured just
> one stop and speeds of up to 40 mph. The "central business district"
> phase which included 7 stops per mile and speeds of up to 20 mph
> gave an impressive result of 21.35 MPGe. The performance is even
> more amazing when you consider that the tests were performed at a
> gross vehicle weight of 36,680 lbs which simulated a full complement
> of 38 seated passengers, another 34 standing and, of course, a driver.
>
> How does that compare with buses in service today? According to
> Proterra president Jeff Granato, "The test validated that Proterra's
> 35-foot transit bus achieves up to 400 percent better performance
> than today's conventional diesel or competitor's hybrid transit
> buses." The results, combined with the ability to conveniently fast-
> charge the battery, make for a bus that's efficient, effective and,
> at the street level at least, emissions free. Hit the jump for a
> video of some battery bus riding action and a press release with
> more details."
>
>
>
> 4. Designing New Light Rail: Taking Engineering Beyond Vanilla
>
> "As light rail transit (LRT) systems mature and expand, outlying
> passengers are faced with
> increasingly longer trip times to reach the urban core. Providing
> service to these customers
> by conventional means can be disproportionately expensive for the
> transit carrier in terms of
> operating and capital expense. Innovative operational practices to
> expedite train movements,
> however, are often confounded by current LRT design and deployment
> methods. This is partly
> attributable to design methods that follow a “stovepipe” approach to
> individual engineering
> disciplines and components, rather than directing focus on
> optimizing railway functionality and
> flexibility as a comprehensive entity. It is also attributable, in
> part, to a failure to address the
> ultimate potential of a railway at the definition/developmental
> stage and to subsequently
> articulate and document the operational requirements that are
> necessary to support the stated
> mission.
>
> This paper provides a survey of the critical engineering “systems”
> that comprise a light
> electrified passenger railway, and suggests those that are most
> significant in affecting innovative
> operational practices. It illustrates the model relationship between
> operations and systems design
> by a case study based on the first implementation of express service
> on a modern LRT system."
> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/11_01_Fazio.pdf
>
>
> 5. CP President Advocates "Higher Collaboration" with All
> Stakeholders Including Local
> Governments
>
> Fred Green addresses the Canadian Railway Club
>
> December 6, 2006
> Montreal, PQ
>
> “Taking Action to Strengthen Canada’s Transportation System and
> Trade Gateways”
>
> Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs.
>
> It's wonderful to be back in Montreal again.
>
> And it's always a great pleasure to be with friends, colleagues and
> fellow railroaders.
>
> Organizations like the Canadian Railway Club provide us an
> opportunity to build relationships, share experiences and advance
> our great industry. The Club has been fulfilling this role for
> almost 105 years, and I wish the Club at least another century of
> success.
>
> Today I'd like to update you on what my Company is doing and how we
> are doing it.
>
> Perhaps, more importantly, I also want to share my thoughts about
> the need for urgency for Canadians to work together with vision and
> purpose to create the "efficient and secure transportation networks
> and gateways" that are vital to Canada's economic productivity and
> competitiveness – both for today and for future generations.
>
> And finally, I'd like to raise a serious and current issue about
> public policy making that we should all be concerned about.
>
> First, a quick update about CPR.
>
> In 2005, CPR established a vision for its future. That vision is to
> be the safest, most fluid railway in North America. We believe that
> with our 16,000 employees focusing on this, we will deliver benefits
> to all our stakeholders, including customers, communities, investors
> and governments.
>
> We are bringing our vision to life through "Execution Excellence"
> and through it we're transforming the railway into a highly
> efficient business.
>
> Through Execution Excellence we are building a strong performance
> culture — and producing significantly improved results.
>
> We have sharply improved our overall efficiency with positive
> results in terms of train speed, car miles per day, and terminal
> dwell, to name a few.
>
> On the safety front, personal injury rates improved 20% this year.
> FRA train accidents have been reduced this year by 49%. In fact,
> CPR leads all North American Class 1 railroads in train operations
> safety. Our commitment to safety never wavers and being first in
> this space is personally very important to me.
>
> Finally, we're delivering on our financial commitments in 2006 in
> all areas – revenues; cost reductions; and earnings per share.
>
> Our people are engaged and their productivity continues to improve
> as we see Execution Excellence in every job that we do. You might
> be interested to know that two-thirds of our Canadian employees are
> shareholders.
>
> To get to where we are today, we've also made significant financial
> investments for the future and challenged old paradigms:
>
> · we've expanded key corridors;
>
> · purchased new locomotives and rail cars; and
>
> · put extra effort into operational cooperation with our
> competitors and other players in the transportation supply chain to
> improve efficiencies.
>
> Last year, we started and completed a $180-million expansion of our
> Western Corridor between the Prairies and Vancouver.
>
> This investment has been great news for our customers. This is our
> busiest stretch of track, and we've improved fluidity on this
> strategic corridor and increased rail capacity by between 13 and 15%.
>
> Changes and improvements are happening across our network, including
> the Montreal Terminal.
>
> Earlier this year, we completed the sale of the Outremont Yard to
> the Université de Montréal. We're proud to see this historic piece
> of railway property being used for the good of the community and
> future generations.
>
> This sale, along with the earlier sale of the Glen Yard for a new
> hospital, triggered a reorganization of our Montreal Terminal.
>
> With our Lachine Intermodal Terminal nearing capacity and with
> growing intermodal traffic coming from Europe and Asia, we're now
> planning a new intermodal facility on a large property we acquired
> earlier this year at Les Cèdres in Vaudreuil-Soulanges. The site
> will be larger than 500 acres.
>
> Strategically located in proximity to three major roads – highways
> 20, 40 and the upcoming bypass-highway 30 – this new facility will
> become a key part of CPR's freight transportation and distribution
> network in eastern Canada.
>
> We're currently completing the design and planning aspects of this
> project and will soon submit it for approval. We're working closely
> with municipal and government authorities and other interested
> parties so that we can better respond to any local priorities and
> concerns.
>
> This investment is part of a long-term plan to expand our facilities
> to meet growing domestic and international demand for the
> transportation of manufactured products.
>
> To further increase rail capacity and improve efficiency on our
> network, we've also sought out opportunities for greater cooperation
> at the operations level with our rail competitors and other players
> in the supply chain.
>
> Over the past several years, CPR has formed co-production
> arrangements with Canadian and U.S. railroads across North America.
>
> Here in Quebec, shippers are benefiting from the revival of the
> Delaware & Hudson Railway – our line in New York and Pennsylvania.
>
> With leadership from our AVP Guido DeCiccio, we restructured the D&H
> in 2004 and rationalized its operations, entering into a series of
> cooperative arrangements involving both CN and Norfolk Southern.
>
> This means shorter, more direct routes for goods flowing between
> Quebec and your important trading partners in the eastern U.S. This
> has been good for the D&H and for our customers.
>
> Collaboration can also take many other forms.
>
> For example, recently CPR along with CN have developed, and are now
> offering, a proactive "commercial dispute resolution" model that we
> hope will deliver a better, more timely and efficient outcome for
> all parties – shippers, the government and ourselves.
>
> The new process offers mediation and arbitration for most rate and
> service matters, deals with the application of ancillary charges,
> and proposes a Canada Transportation Agency review on the level of
> ancillary and supplemental charges.
>
> It is illustrative of our philosophy at CPR, one that's based upon
> positive relations with customers and other stakeholders.
>
> These and other initiatives are making a significant difference to
> my Company, to shippers, to the railway industry and for the whole
> transportation supply chain.
>
> I have seen the power of getting our team focused on a common vision
> and I have already seen some of the benefits that can be realized
> when a common vision is shared and acted upon by multiple parties.
>
> This has strengthened my belief that a "common vision" is needed to
> quickly improve the efficiency of Canada's transportation system and
> trade gateways so that Canada can boost its economic productivity
> and global competitiveness.
>
>
>
> With such a vision, we will see a higher level of collaboration
> between the federal, provincial and local governments as well as
> between business and governments.
>
> And so it should come as no surprise that when it comes to improving
> and expanding Canada's transportation system and gateways, I believe
> it's time for action by all of us.
>
> We need action because our infrastructure is not as efficient and
> secure as it needs to be in this day and age.
>
> We need action because our national transportation network has
> neither the quality nor capacity to ensure we can capitalize on the
> economic growth opportunities we see coming in the next five, 10, or
> 20 years.
>
> This network has a major impact on our nation's economy, our
> nation's productivity and competitiveness, and our nation's
> reputation abroad.
>
> This network is critical to our nation's economic future.
>
> How efficiently it's working today and what happens to it in the
> future affects the lives of all Canadians.
>
> It can have a very positive impact – enabling Canada's economy.
>
> It can also have a negative impact – putting the brakes on Canada's
> economic growth.
>
> The good news is that we're at last seeing a promising degree of
> consensus about our transportation system – between federal,
> provincial and local governments and the transportation modes.
>
> The recently announced Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor initiative
> is one example, and CPR plans to be a leading player in making it a
> reality.
>
> Similar initiatives are being discussed in eastern Canada.
>
> For example, various levels of government, representatives of the
> transportation modes – rail, trucking, air, shipping, and the Port
> of Montreal – and other stakeholders are looking at a St. Lawrence-
> Great Lakes initiative to develop a common vision and investment
> plan for this critical North American trade corridor.
>
> CPR plays an important role in this corridor, serving the Port of
> Montreal gateway and moving imports from Europe destined for the
> U.S. Midwest across our Montreal-Chicago rail corridor.
>
> The great partnership between CPR, led here in Montreal by our
> General Manager International Claudio Minello, and the Montreal Port
> Authority, led by the one and only Dominic Taddeo, provides ocean
> going shippers with a cost effective and reliable service and we're
> delighted that the Port of Montreal continues to grow. The success
> of this partnership has resulted in long-term strategic partnerships
> with both shipping lines and terminal operators.
>
> So, we support this new central gateway initiative and we plan to
> play a strong role in moving it forward.
>
> All these discussions and policy pronouncements are positive
> developments, but it's far too early to declare victory.
>
> We need – urgently – to turn planning into action.
>
> We need to accelerate work on the major capacity infrastructure
> projects, making the vision of interconnected supply chains a reality.
>
> We must do this by simplifying and streamlining our "review and
> approval" processes so that we speed decision making and
> implementation while at the same time addressing the interests of
> all stakeholders.
>
> I would like to see a day where the Port of Vancouver doesn't have
> to wait over four years – as they just have – to receive provincial
> and federal regulatory approval to build Berth 3 at Deltaport.
>
> I would like to see a day where Quebec's shortline railways don't
> have to wait two years – as they just have – for the province and
> the Feds to agree on how to distribute the $100-million railway
> assistance program that will help Quebec's shortlines modernize
> their infrastructure.
>
> I would like to see a day where it doesn't take half a decade – as
> it has so far –to discuss a solution to the Windsor-Detroit border
> crossing crisis. And we still see no agreement on improving this
> crucially important gateway that supports and enables over 25% of
> the trade between Canada and the United States.
>
> Speeding the 'time-to-market' for major infrastructure investments
> should be a priority for government and all of us. They clearly
> understand how such investments would improve Canada's reputation as
> a trading partner and, equally important, I think they now
> understand how the existing slow and cumbersome approval processes
> is seriously harming our reputation overseas.
>
> Now to my last topic:
>
> While there is slowly emerging good news on infrastructure, sadly
> there is action quickly occurring on another topic that will – in my
> view – tarnish our country's reputation.
>
> This story is so amazing I just have to speak out.
>
> Bill C-257, which is now in committee, effectively bans all
> replacement workers from performing the duties of an employee who is
> on strike or locked out. It would apply to all federally regulated
> employers in the fields of transportation, telecommunications,
> banking and emergency services.
>
> If passed, Bill C-257 would create a situation where labour disputes
> would repeatedly bring the transcontinental flows of freight and the
> movement of commuter and intercity rail passengers to a halt.
>
> The threat to Canada's economy from this Bill is significant. It is
> not in the nation's social or economic interest.
>
> Unfortunately, and quite amazingly, the Parliamentary Committee
> responsible has decided to limit hearings on Bill C-257. Neither CP
> nor CN were granted even one minute to present the extraordinary
> risks to Canada's economy, yet a number of individual unions were
> afforded time before the committee!
>
> It is unconscionable that the committee would spend only a few hours
> considering this dangerous Bill, which will undo the delicate
> balance previously achieved after three years of tripartite research
> and analysis.
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, this fatally flawed public policy process
> mixed with short run political gamesmanship should be a priority
> concern for every Canadian.
>
> I encourage you all to pay attention to this dangerous bill.
>
> Canada's transportation system and gateways are the lifeblood of our
> economy.
>
> For the good of Canadian business and the Canadian economy, we must
> ensure that the whole transportation supply chain is healthy,
> robust, modern, integrated and working at maximum efficiency.
>
> The demands for infrastructure capital are enormous. Investors will
> run for the hills if this flawed legislation is rammed through.
>
> As CP and CN provide the crews for commuter rail, this legislation
> will also impact hundreds of thousands of commuters.
>
> Montreal's AMT has seen ridership levels increase steadily since
> 1996, going from a two commuter line network to five lines now,
> serving Greater Montreal. This is a great success story and it's
> part of Montreal's economic growth story.
>
> There is huge untapped potential for passenger rail to address our
> urban mobility issues.
>
> By increasing our use of rail transportation, we can take more cars
> and trucks off our increasingly clogged and overused highways and
> city streets and improve the environment.
>
> This legislation threatens our commuter success story.
>
> We have many decisions to make and many options to choose from that
> will allow us to improve and expand Canada's transportation system
> and trade gateways.
>
> Whether it's gateway initiatives along the St. Lawrence, in southern
> Ontario and at Windsor, or at Vancouver; whether it's public-private
> partnerships; or whether it's collaboration between governments and
> within the transportation sector itself – we're past the point of
> discussion and consultation.
>
> It's time to turn our vision of "an efficient, integrated
> transportation and trade gateway system" into a reality.
>
> Canada wants to be competitive, just like many other countries.
>
> Good companies, good people and good governments understand the need
> to be competitive.
>
> But great companies, great people and great governments have higher
> aspirations.
>
> They want to have a competitive advantage. That's what I want for
> my Company – that should be our aspiration for our country.
>
> We can achieve our vision of an efficient, integrated transportation
> and trade gateway system.
>
> We require wise public policy, collaboration between governments and
> private companies and, most importantly, we must increase speed of
> actions.
>
> The 125th anniversary of CPR's incorporation this year is a reminder
> of what we have achieved as a nation through that collaboration.
>
> CPR was born because the government of the day had a vision to unite
> the country.
>
> It's hard to imagine CPR would have ever been built if Sir John A.
> Macdonald had been working on the next two-year plan, or if CPR's
> founders were thinking no further ahead than the next financial
> quarter.
>
> They had to make some big bets on the country.
>
> They needed bold vision and a plan of execution excellence.
>
> And they needed to collaborate to realize that vision.
>
> The Canada we live in today was built on bold visions and good
> public policy process.
>
> I would like to see us again have the boldness to say 'this is how
> we want our transportation system, ports and gateways to be 10, 25,
> 50 years from now' – and then have the conviction to follow through
> – with urgency!
>
> The time to make it happen is now.
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your kind attention.
> Je vous remercie de votre attention.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100612/63c1a4d8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1166486943621_unique3.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36051 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100612/63c1a4d8/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Arriva_EMU_Niederlande_jpg_68x49_crop_q95.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2751 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100612/63c1a4d8/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: streetcar_pdx_construction-300x210.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 30233 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100612/63c1a4d8/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CN005535-t.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100612/63c1a4d8/attachment-0003.jpg>
More information about the All
mailing list