next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
I've just faxed you my e-mail to Paul Falvo that was supposed to be attached in "sust-mar". Hope that may give a bit of background to answer your questions. Detailed, reasoned, arguments are probably less critical than just an indication of grass roots perception or opinion.(e.g. more politics than science). 0. By environmental focus I mean that day passenger trains (dense seating) are 3 to 4 times more energy efficient and pollution free (e.g. C02) than autos or short-haul air. There are also factors such as land use, safety, noise as noted in the fax. 1. Yes. Halifax-Truro-New Glasgow-Antigonish-Strait-Sydney is the first priority. This route carried between 80 and 200 passengers per train depending on time of year, day of week etc. or 115,000 people in 1989, its last year of operation. This train would replace many auto trips. The second priority has more social significance as an overnight train linking Halifax and Montreal via the cities of Saint John, Fredericton, and Sherbrooke. These intermediate cities have NO rail passenger service at present. The train was well used when tri-weekly when cut in Dec. 1994 and has the political importance that it brings these 3 cities into the constituency for VIA. Some other routes could be added for more frequencies per day but we'll leave that for an improved political climate. 2. Yes we envision short-haul bus connections. Bus is also very energy efficient but trips over 2 hours tend to be tedious and cramped so people opt for cars especially if there aren't trains. Most cities and major towns lie on rail routes fortunately (Kentville, New Glasgow, Truro, Amherst, Antigonish, Pt.Hawkesbury, the Sydneys, Sussex, Miramichi, Bathurst, Campbellton etc.). Bridgewater, Yarmouth, Edmundston, Charlottetown, Summerside, Inverness etc. would need bus connections. 3. Public transportation is 50 to 100 times safer (deaths per km travelled) than automobile in any weather. With our standards of highway and airport snow clearance (expensive in itself) all public modes do fairly well in poor weather. There is a feeling of security in a train however - you don't expect to slide off a road or runway and crash! 4. As noted above day trains are 3 to 4 times more fuel efficient than cars in terms of seat-km. VIA trains have an average occupancy of 55-60% compared to 1.3 people in a 5 seat car. (Don't let anyone like Brian Mulroney tell you no one rides the train!). We cannot argue so much for fuel efficiency for long-distance overnight trains but more for comfort, security, tourism, sleep-the-miles-away convenience. Fuel efficiency holds on all day routes anywhere in the country of course and C02 production is proportional to fuel use. Electric trains could be considered non-polluting (depending on generating source) but except for high traffic freight routes (Toronto - Montreal or on mountain grades) the electric infrastructure is considered too expensive. I hope this is of some help. My personal opinion is that 5 personal grass-roots letters are worth more than 1 PhD thesis on the subject. Remember also yearnings to re-live the past days of rail or references to the history of Canada may put rail passenger into the class of the horse and buggy rather than the efficient future oriented systems of Europe or Japan that we should use as examples.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects