Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Words you never thought you'd see together

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, January 7, 2009 11:24pm - 17 Comments

Dean Del Mastro. Ideas man.

(This constituent will probably remain unimpressed. Something to do with this.)

Tags:

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.canadianrosebud.blogspot.com dan in van

    Me thinks Del Maestro needs to first work on inventing something to cut the calories of a Big Mac in half…

    But if high-speed rail is coming to Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, wouldn’t a line that included Hamilton-Windsor-Detroit be the next logical conclusion?

    And if the big bags of oil money (and CON mps, too) can’t get HSR to Edmonton-Red Deer-Calgary, we shouldn’t expect Whistler-Vancouver-Seattle-Portland anytime soon, right?

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    dan in van: I don’t think there is all that much traffic between Toronto and Detroit itself.

    Dean likes this route to Ott/Mtl because his riding is along the way.

    • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

      According to Wiki, the two Detroit-Windsor crossings are the busiest border checkpoints between US/Canada but I don’t know where all the Canadians are starting their journey from tho. A significant part of the traffic is commercial vehicles but high-speed trains wouldn’t really help with that.

  • Scott M.

    You can see he’s trying to shape it so that the rail goes “cross country”, ie. through Peterborough.

    Really, I don’t care who champions the project. We need high-speed rail now.

    And, despite the fact I would love and use a Peterborough stop, it should go along the lakefront.

  • Ian

    Two words I don’t ever expect to see together: “Wherry” and “objectivity”.

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    This is a complete waste of time and money if the trains only take passengers and not freight. Are people really clamoring for high-speed rail or is it just the pols looking for ways to decrease their travel times?

    Surely there are more useful projects to spend tens of billions $$$ on.

    • Scott M.

      Currently jwl there are half-hourly flights between all three cities when you take into account Air Canada and Westjet. Those flights are crammed. So yes, there’s demand.

      Hi-Speed rail that allows people to travel from downtown to downtown instead of suburbs to suburbs in about the same time a flight takes (when you consider travel to the airport and check-in time) will be highly successful. And it will do it with a good deal more comfort and a lot less impact to the environment.

      It will, however, devastate Air Canada. Which is, actually, a concern.

      • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

        So demand is being met by private companies already? Don’t see why government needs to get involved than.

        • Ti-Guy

          Neoliberal orthodoxy is so easy. Just invoke it every time for any and all situations.

          If more people realised just how much more pleasant it is to take the train from Toronto to Montreal in about the same time, they’d stop flying and driving. In any case, they’ll soon have no choice, except to stop travelling entirely.

          • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

            Not as easy as the pie in the sky thinking of the left where they decide what project they like today and then expect society to re-order itself to fit around the proposed changes.

        • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

          The problem is that moving into the future, Pearson is growing more congested. Rather than building a second airport in Pickering, it makes more sense to shift some of the very local traffic (which chews through a lot of resources in terms of runways, etc.) to rail.

          Also, the communities along the route gain access to major international airports without having to drive for half a day or take expensive flights from regional airports.

    • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

      jwl, if you mean on the same actual train, that is almost certainly against transport safety regulations.

      As far as getting more freight on rails, what’s needed is improved ‘regular speed’ rail. Freight doesn’t need to travel at 280 kph or whatever. What it needs is uncongested rail corridors that it can travel at a reasonably fast cruising speed (in the 100 – 150 kph range) as well as more numerous and more efficient intermodal (rail to truck) facilities.

    • Dot

      It seems to me, jwl , you or otherswere on this high speed freight theme some time ago. Rather than me dismissing the idea the idea completely, what freight, praytell, would you suggest gets shipped on high speed rails? Give us some concrete examples, please.

      • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

        Since I know the auto industry, I specifically think of moving auto parts but I also often drive on highway 401 and a large part of the traffic is trucks moving a variety of goods between US/Canada. Many manufacturers have just-in-time delivery systems and high speed rail would make our firms much more efficient.

        But the line would have to end in Detroit, not Windsor.

        • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

          jwl: I don’t think high speed freight would help much in door-to-door speed (at least for a similar cost). It could help to reduce variability in door-to-door time (by buffering containers at rail ports that can then be delivered the final leg to a very precise window), which would be suitable for just-in-time. It wouldn’t decrease inventory in transit though, I think.

          I think it also has the potential to seriously reduce costs, especially as diesel prices increase.

  • Ti-Guy

    This is great idea. We need to start preparing for the end of private cars, which will happen, sooner or later and not just for environmental reasons. The happy motoring culture has been a disaster for modern life.

  • Clarence Seunarine

    I’m a big fan of high-speed rail but when it comes to Dean Del Mastro – what a chooch(oo)!

Previous

Next

From Macleans