Steel Rail Blues
- December 3, 2007 9:20 AM |
- By Quirks
By Bob McDonald, host of the CBC science radio program Quirks & Quarks.
The speed limit sign on the expressway said 100 kilometres per hour, my speedometer read 20. Once again last week I endured bumper-to-bumper traffic for hours at a time, trying to reach communities just outside Toronto that should have been a short commute. There were no accidents or snowstorms holding things up; this is the way it is every night. Road rage, pollution, a huge waste of time; when is this country going to return to its railroad heritage and begin moving people in clean, efficient, fast trains?
The big argument against high-speed trains in southern Ontario has been a lack of ridership to offset the large up-front cost of building a dedicated rail system.
Well, simply take a look at the urban sprawl and daily gridlock and you’ll see how that argument is wearing thin. The population is growing rapidly, forcing a lot of people to sit alone in a long line of slow moving vehicles that stretches all the way to the horizon.
It’s just plain silly.
There are several good reasons to change from rubber to rail. One of the big ones is the nature of the wheels themselves. Rubber tires are not round under the weight of a vehicle. They go a little flat on the bottom so they can grip the road and absorb some of the bumps. But this flexing and big footprint also produces a lot of friction, or rolling resistance, which the engine must constantly work against. Train wheels are made of hard steel and ride on hard steel rails. Because they don’t go flat on the bottom, the actual contact area between the wheel and the rail is incredibly small, about 30 times less than a rubber tire. So rolling resistance for a train is very low.
That’s how one engine can pull thousands of tons of cargo, or a lightweight electric train can run at aircraft speeds if the tracks are straight. Trains are the second most efficient form of transport. The only way to move more mass with less energy is by ship. This isn’t rocket science - it’s simple physics.
Southern Ontario is flat enough to build high-speed rail lines through existing corridors. If the trains were fast and frequent, there are lots of people who would be happy to make the trip to and from the city in minutes, instead of hours. Yet we continue to build more expressways, which instantly clog up before they’re even completed.
After wasting so many hours moving at the speed of a bicycle on what is supposed to be an expressway, my frustration was pushed even further when I finally got home and saw a television commercial showing an SUV speeding through city and country roads with no other vehicles in sight. What’s wrong with this picture?
- Bob McDonald
Categories
All News blogs
Most Commented
Most Recommended
Quirks and Quarks
Most Commented
Most Recommended
Recent Entries
- After Hadfield, who's the next Canadian in space?
- Canada's singing astronaut announced his retirement this week, leaving Jeremy Hansen and David Saint-Jacques to fill his space boots. But there is no date set for when the next Canadian will fly in space. Continue reading this post
- World Oceans Day sheds light on our blighted seas
- Cities around the world are celebrating our blue planet with World Oceans Day on June 8. Beach cleanups, festivals, lectures, art shows and many other activities will focus on the need to take better care of our most valuable resource. And the oceans desperately need our attention. Continue reading this post
- Young and old can learn a lot from each other
- Seniors and young people often have warped perceptions of each other. Kids think old people are slow and scary; seniors see youth as noisy and troublesome. But it is amazing what happens when you put the two groups together in meaningful and respectful ways. Continue reading this post
Comments (30)
Just another thing that Lyin Brian did for the country. Killed the railway which caused more trucks on our roads. Lets encourage more shipping also as a way to cut down on the killing fields which has become Ontario's hwys. Do you know how much freight fits in a ships hold? A thousand truck loads people...
We are still in the dark ages.....
Arguments against high speed inter-city rail service which are based on cost are generally misleading and not able to stand up to in-depth assessment.
About fifteen years ago the cost of building a high speed rail system from Quebec City to Windsor was estimated to be $5 billion dollars. It would have served Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, London and Windsor, with the potential to serve other key cities along the line as they grew. The technology was to be based on the French TGV trains which have been highly successful.
This proposal never got off the drawing board because of political interference and the very strong resistance of Air Canada. There was no vision to see that this was the smart way to go in order to avoid the problems we find ourselves facing today. Instead we have spent $10, $15, $20 billion in those fifteen years to expand and maintain freeways, we've built, rebuilt and expanded airports in Montreal and Toronto, as well as propped up a struggling airline industry.
Planes, trains and automobiles all have a place in a rational transportation network. Unfortunately, we gone so far beyond what is rational that now no one wants to 'lose face' by admitting the mistakes and getting on with correcting the situation.
Urban rail transit in Ottawa is heading in the same direction unfortunately.
High Speed Rail from Quebec City to
Windsor makes perfect sense. You do
not even have to build new tracks.
Current tracks can be upgraded to an
average speed of 120 miles/hour. Cost roougly $ 2 billion. Chicken feed compared to many other useless
programs. Many studies have been made, but so far nobody had the will
to push this through. It's sad that
the country is run by mindless
bureaucrats instead of visionaries.
Although Bob's point about the need to move towards a highspeed rail system, what is not discussed nor considered when discussions about highspeed train occurs is the cost of changing the infrastructure that is our rail corridors.
Europe or the UK specifically have had highspeed for a while one of the major reasons it is a success that for the majority rail lines do not cross roads or highways, they either go under or over. This means the train never has to slow down to deal with crossings. Our rail system was designed for a large country, Canada. It never had to consider road crossings just due to distances etc. But now that technology allows for highspeed our infrastructure is not designed to support highspeed, the cost of converting will be very prohibitive.
Bob McDonald must have been sniffing the exhaust fumes from the traffic jam he endured to not notice the green and white GO trains travelling between him and the lake and this service is losing money as people will not pay teh going rate to use it but rely in government grants, aka taxpayer money, to run. Now Mr. McDonald wants to spend more taxpayer money on a pie in the sky operation to run superfast trains that no one will pay the actual cost price to run. If these trains were wanted and actually profitable, would not CN, CP or some other railway company have already built it? People do not want to ride trains. Will a train leave at my schedule? Will a train take me to my office door? The solution is not to build a system that will loose money but instead encourage business to move to the people rather than move the people to the business. If too many people go to work into a city, why not move the business to outside the city, then the commute will be less, less cars on teh road, less miles travelled to work, less pollution, happier workers; we all benefit. This is already happening in Toronto where jobs are leaving Toronto to go to the suburbs. Also, in my area of expertise, software technology, many of my fellow workers consider the job location when looking for an employer. Many of my fellow workers do not want to work in Toronto. I personally have refused a job offer for Downtown Toronto which paid more, but not enough to pay for the inconvienience of public transit. Just give me my car which leaves when I want to leave, takes me from door to door and gives me a ride with comfort away from close proximity from others.
For moving people, I think the bicycle is probably the most efficient form of transportation.
Well said. Each of the times I was in Germany, I was impressed by the speedy, reliable network or clean, well-appointed and quiet electric commuter and regional trains.
They go everywhere (almost) and connect to each other and the rest of the public transit systems. The various levels of government here need to get off their collective behinds and put some serious cash into upgrading all the public transit infrastructure so that commuters have a good reason to get out of their cars. In Ontario, the GO Train system needs a major overhaul and a switch to clean and quiet and faster electric trains. (Since much of it runs along the Lake Ontario shoreline, they could even install their own network of wind turbines to feed their grid!)
Absolutely correct. The same could be said about how we ship goods across the country. In stead of having two shipping containers on one flat bed rail car, we need to widen the tracks and have four containers on one car.
We could even use trains to move people and their cars across the country, simply drive you car onto the bed or into the rail car, go sit in a comfortable seat and you and your car arrive at your destination without falling asleep at the wheel or stopping for gas.
To rebuild and expand the entire rail system will be a daunting task, but it was just as daunting and necessary as when we first built it.
Let's reinvest in rail to have more efficient travel and to compete for ridership against flying.
Perhaps the problem which brings about the need for rail commuting is the whole concept that "growth" is good for us!
Clearly, it isn't. Homo sapiens are becomming (have become?) a blight on nature? We seem to think that "having dominion" over nature(as suggested in the Bible and other historical tombs) gives us the right to destory other species and their habitats. Suggest we continue to so at our peril.
China, amoung others, has obviosely made some mistakes with population planning (too many males), but at least it is trying!
Blah-Blah, Yadda-Yadda. Writers come up with this idea about rail transit about once every 2 years or so. When you spent $50.000.00 on a vehicle, you need to justify it in order to legitimize the outlay. A vehicle is not like a house, where you may recoup all of your investment (less the interest), but more likely, your $50,000.00 is worth $5000.00 in less than ten years, especially in Onterrible, where the roads are salted especially to ruin vehicles. The North-American (Yes, Canadian, and Americans) love affair with the Car will NEVER wane. There is a better chance of getting everybody to exchange their underwear daily, than get them into commuter trains. Best of luck, it will never happen. It does, however, get the writer a paycheque, and does make for interesting reading.
Peter states "People do not want to ride trains." Michael says the same, in a perhaps more entertaining way.
I can't entirely disagree with them, based on the trains and service we have to chose from today. Nobody is suggesting the status quo is acceptable.
It will require real vision by urban planners, politicians and the public to seek different solutions. Without it, we will never get out of the rut we have 'driven' into. The fact is that the current transportation infrastructure is bankrupting us. Policies and mindsets have to be changed. Peter's point about distributing the work centres away from city cores is valid. But even if this is done, people will still need to travel for business or personal reasons.
As I said previously, cost should not be the primary concern. This is a 'penny wise, pound foolish' approach. Don't spend $5 billion today when you can spend double or triple that tomorrow? Let's look at the big picture over the next 30-50 years. I'd bet the costs of putting in place hi-speed rail services, integrated with effective convenient urban light rail and buses, will look very favourable.
Where should the money come from? Stop spending billions on freeways and airports. Change crippling government regulations that make private investment in rail and urban transportation totally unattractive. The money will be there.
Above all, stop accepting the status quo.
Peter, I’m trying to remain respectful, but your arguments against passenger rail are all hogwash.
First error, “passenger rail is a waste of taxpayer’s money”. Answer, yes, no country has been able to make money running passenger trains, no not even in Europe or Japan. However, do you think the highways make money? The US Interstate Commerce Commission did a study in the late 70’s that a single 18-wheeler does over 10000 times more damage to highway pavement then a typical passenger car. I’m not making this figure up. Who do you think subsidizes this? That’s right, you and me! The trucking companies pay way more in taxes than we do, but not 10000x more, so the taxpayers pick up the tab. Airlines? They are subsidized to the hilt too and would not be able to pay all costs if forced. Rather than destroy the trucking and airline companies, we the taxpayers prop up these industries. Environmental concerns aside, these are transportation forms which are cost inefficient in many applications, though they do have their places. Trucks should be used exclusively in short-haul shipments, while airplanes in long-haul trans-ocean passenger service only. In all medium to long-haul land application, trains and should be used on land for both freight and passenger services. Ships for all trans-ocean freight.
That was all the long answer to your error-ridden statement that passenger rail is a waste of money …the short answer is ALL forms of public transport are wastes of money, so why are passenger trains forced to pay their way? Lets use the right technology for each application and SAVE tax dollars. As a bonus it helps the environment too.
Second mistake, “the solution is not to build a system that will loose money but instead encourage business to move to the people”. Hello, do you honestly believe the private sector is cost efficient? They got us into the present inefficient system we have here in North America. I had a friend who worked in the IT department at a large international beverage producer who told me how they once trashed hundreds of perfectly good Pentium-II PCs that became obsolete. Rather than sell them, or better yet give them away to third world nations, they put them in the landfill. Why? They determined that it was more cost effective for them to trash the PCs, rather that waste payroll dollars on employees working to recycle them. This is one small example of the private sector cost efficiency you claim. Neo-Cons dispute it, but the truth is the big government is required to direct the nation to better the existence of everyone’s lives. Leaving it to industry results is simple cases of passing the buck, whatever makes the most money for executives and shareholders, with no one answerable to the general public. The solution is a balanced approach between government legislating and directing according to the needs of society, working in tandem with business leaders, Japan being an excellent example of this. By the way Japan is a world leader in passenger rail.
Third mistake, “if too many people go to work into a city, why not move the business to outside the city?” You mean the suburbs, right? You do realize that all the corporate leaders live there? I don’t think they will be too willing to change zoning bylaws as you suggest. Remember they have all the money too, so good luck there.
Final error, “Just give me my car which leaves when I want to leave, takes me from door to door and gives me a ride with comfort away from close proximity from others.” Hey I like the convenience of my car too, and I don’t wish to seem hypocritical, but I realize it is not cost efficient and extremely harsh on the environment. If we had a decent public transit system in the city I live in, I would honestly switch my daily commute for a bus seat. I am hopeful of new technologies helping our society off our oil addiction to keep the convenience of a personal car, but if this doesn’t happen we need to change things, and soon. I am an optimist, I honestly believe global warming is not a severe as many say, and that Carbon Dioxide levels could double and have little impact on the environment. Problem is that we in the western world account for only 10% of the world population, yet account for over 90% of the pollution. China, India and Brazil are all rapidly industrializing, and collectively make up over 60% of the world population. They all have televisions and know how we live, they want our lifestyles, and we have no right to tell them they can’t. Problem is the carbon emissions once they industrialize to our levels will sextuple worldwide. Still being optimistic, I don’t think the world can survive that. We need to find alternate green technologies, or learn to use buses and bicycles quick!
By the way, letting private enterprise find a solution without government (ie democratic) direction is a recipe for failure. Hope you see that now. Support passenger rail – saves money, saves the environment. Simple!
I have been looking at a job at the same company as my wife. She currently takes the GO train and loves it. If I got the job, I would love to take the train too. Here's the problem. Cost of 2 people per month for train passes: $360. Cost of parking and gas to drive: $200. You can argue that once you calculate the cost of the car, mileage, etc, that it equals out, but those are not incremental costs; we would pay them regardless. So me taking the train would add more than $150 to our monthly budget. Ouch.
Well spoken, Bob. Both commuter and middle distance passenger rail services are in the Dark Ages in this country. Living in Barrie, I am pleased that GO trains are finally returning to this city on December 17, but I can't help but feel that the service won't be adequate. There will be no all day service and no service on weekends. Most other GO train service is skeletal with the exceptaion of teh Lakeshore line.
High speed rail in the Quebec-Windsor corridor is long over due. The present service offered by VIA is too slow and infrequent. VIA is underfunded and its trains run on CN and CP lines that give prioity to freight over people.
Thanks for helping to keep this issue before the public.
It took about 30 years for Toyota to challenge the #1 automaker in North America.
I think there was a kind of inertia that was overcome by patience and persistance.
Why are those ugly little Smart cars selling so well? They are not cheap but there is a demand. Wait a few years.
The TTC subway system moves a lot of people and I'll bet it almost breaks even because it's in a concentrated market.
European trains do well because fuel is expensive, cars are expensive and Europe has ten times our population but not ten times our number of passenger trains.
I think passenger rail companies might have to be subsidized but the overall economy benefits.
If there could be rail lines dedicated to passengers the riders would see auto traffic on the highways moving backwards.
If the federal and provincial government are unwilling to take a leap of faith and work with patience and persistance to solve a problem that anyone can see is only going to get worse, then wait a few years.
But in their defence, WE are the government, and the money will have to come out of our pockets.
I am trying to answer the question "Why is passenger rail travel in Canada such a disgrace compared to many other industrialized nations and how can this be changed?". Thanks to the comments I have been reading on this blog I am finding some answers!
Taking public transport to the airport from Stratford is a challenge -hauling luggage up steps onto an out of date VIA train, wheeling it through an ugly Union Station (in dire need of renovation)and onto a bus (service is good but not when compared to other cities with direct rapid transit to airport). And that is just to get to what could be normally considered the starting point of a trip!
Scarce train times often mean an overnight hotel stay in TO. The alternative of taking car or airporter can be fraught with difficulties as road closures in this snowbelt have meant a missed flight for me.
Yes the above is anecdotal but definitely one of reasons why Canadians don't take trains. Look at those who do - the young and the old who don't have or don't want to drive the car.
Compare that to Europe where all ages and income groups use fast, excellent service. When a restored station such as St Pancras in London can boast the longest champagne bar in the world and a high speed train to Paris, we can certainly be envious and worthy of our label "the colonies".
Add concerns re climate change and Canadian consumption of energy per capita among the highest in the world and I think the question I asked at the beginning is worth the effort of answering.
Build the dream and people in our populated corridors will use it. Why can't Canada be a leader in this field rather than a loser?
Eminently sensible, as usual.
Peter in Toronto is a perfect example of the "me" generation that is a major problem with getting people to use public transit - they just plain won't, no matter how good it is. They would rather waste hours of time and litres of gas to be in "their" SUV on "their" schedule.
Governments at all levels must start to look past the next election, and tell the urban masses "No more expressways", and put the resources into clean, efficient and RAPID transit. Of course there will be those who phone the talk shows to complain about their tax dollars being spent on something they won't use; so what - it'll take their mind off the traffic jam they are stuck in.
We will never get the service we want from the government until we take back control of the MPs we elect from private enterprise. We'll never do that if only half of us or fewer vote in general elections.
And we'll have to educate an awful lot of people who are myopic about the realities of life. It is impossible to compare the 'cost' of an automobile with public transport, and ridiculous to even try. Mankind does have 'dominion' over animal, vegetable and mineral existence by virtue of our ability to 'think.' But 'dominion' implies 'responsibility' and we fall woefully short in that department, polluting our water and our air, ignoring the signs of impending disaster until it is too late to avoid, pursuing the last penny of profit regardless of consequence, and on and on.
Instead of spending millions of dollars improving the internal combustion engine and even more on extracting the fuel necessary for it to operate, we should be looking for a clean source of cheap energy and a simple way to use it. Rail instead of rubber is just one way to do exactly that.
Why do we have 'just in time' deliveries of auto parts? Because private enterprise can save a few cents on assembly and shift the cost of delivery onto the public purse. There is always the Law of Conservation of Energy to deal with one way or another. If you don't pay to enter, you will have to pay to get out.
And day by day, Global Warming is fast approaching, with new alarms going off all over the world and being ignored by our politicians. All you have to do is call up a few pictures on your computer, the arctic, the glaciers, the oceans, even the Great Lakes, and you can see the evidence that they ignore to our peril and subscribe to "aspirational" goals instead of seeking real solutions.
After several years of making the daily drive, two years ago my wife and I began to take the GO Train from Brampton to work in downtown Toronto. It is much more expensive for the two of us to use the Go Train.
The extra years we'll gain by avoiding the stress of Toronto's rush-hour/s highways are probably worth it.
While we do find the train commute far more pleasant than driving, and prefer to use GO; our challenge has been on days when we need to go in early, work on weekends, or work late. It is on these days that we must drive because service doesn't meet our needs. While I can't speak for others, I can only imagine that many of our fellow commuters would use the transit services if they were more frequent, reliable, and conveniently (locale) accessed.
Some of the writers have said they would never switch, and this is fair enough since they they do know themselves best. I do know, and admit this is anecdotal, that I have spoken to very large numbers of people about our switch from car to train; the near universal response (except from those lucky souls who live in the downtown area and enjoy the TTC) has been that they would love to use GO if only it were more convenient to their life.
I do take humour in all of the comments (I just read the entire comment section). We either can not understand why trains are not being used or we can not understand how stupid our ancestors have been. We have just realized in the last couple of years the the earth is warming up and oil is running out. We base this knowledge on what, 100 yrs(approx) of weather and energy history?? The world is some 8 billion yrs (approx)old. How can truely appropriate decisions be made in an ever changing world?? You have to do what all other animals in time have done - adapt with time!!!! All forms of transportation ARE necessary under certain circumstances. Now, to get a consenses is next to impossible. The first thing we all need to do is to come up with a mutually agreeable method of determining what is best in a certain situation then decree that as law. Now you are imposing wills on other people not a democracy. Now you have a never ending story !! By the way, the world is bigger than Toronto
Every time I go to Tokyo I am amazed and impressed and saddened all at once: the trains, the schedules, the amount of people moved each day there and the lack of trains, the never-on-time, and amount of people in cars (often single person)here. What is wrong with us?
If there is a will, there is a way. We just lack the will, or perhaps, even the interest in having a will in the first place to move beyond our complacency.
OK, let's keep pushing for change. Nice trains are a joy to ride. Nothing like watching a landscape go smoothly by (because of the steel rails), with a snack cart coming down the aisle, a book on the lap, a little snooze...
I agree totally with Bob's agrument BUT I also think the same argument can be put forth for moving freight ( instead of thousands of huge transport trucks on major highway corridors.)
I have to commute to Toronto once a week, and I don't have a car. My choices are Greyhound and Via.
Greyhound is relatively cheap, and a bus leaves for Toronto every 30 minutes. Those are all the complements I have for Greyhound. They treat you like cargo. There is not enough room for my legs and I get terrible back pain by the end of the trip. If the driver speaks to you, it is to bitch about something. Got a problem getting your ticket? All you get is a, "Why are you telling me your woes?" look. The stations smell like urine and look worse.
On the other hand, Via costs twice as much, and there is only one train per day in each direction that I can catch. The trains are antiquated, but they are still far, far more comfortable. One can open a laptop in the seats, unlike on the bus, and what's more there's someplace to plug it in. If you are late to get a ticket and you are nice about it, they can sort it all out on the train en route. They say "please" and bring me coffee.
I really don't need that level of service, I would prefer to take to Go (which does not make it this far) but I've never regretted choosing the train. I just wish there were more of them.
>The fastest traffic is the slowest driver in front of you!!!!
>What we need is better regulations, enforcemant and tougher driver' test when it come to getting a liscense. What I meant are: people with motion or car sickness shouldn't drive, old people if they can drive the same speed as the rest of the traffic is find. Alot of girls or women need to pratice their timing for joinning the traffic; it helps if they give a shit about math and sciences.
>We need a regulation that fine people who drive slow if the don't pull over and let the rest of the traffic to go thru.
Mulroney killed the trains for the big 3 automakers. Everyone knew it at the time. Some people wanted that. But that, and the oil company consolidation of fuel distribution and retailing are major historical factors in the current automotive dominance. It was decided to make cars the cheapest way to get around. Good for the big 3, auto industry, and "the economy", whatever that arbitrary set of numbers actually represents.
Rail is too cost efficient for moving people; it's quite easy to argue against it by mentioning "competition". People will acquiesce to expensive, selfish, and individual transport choices every time. They are raised from birth to desire a shiny automobile, and have the message reinforced dozens of times a day.
Public rail is just too easy a target for government bashers, whether it was Mulroney or whoever wants your vote. Argue that it takes away money for roads, or that tolls will appear, and suddenly no one will implement something that is sensible and that most people want. Just wait for it in the GTA. Most people want this, but because large businesses won't be able to control it and profit from it, it "won't have political traction". Large businesses profit very well from the current setup, and will do everything they can to prevent any public plan from getting started.
Furthermore, until fuel is actually expensive (it's relatively cheap here) no impetus will ever exist for public rail. Rail isn't cheap and won't be preferred unless driving is more expensive (see other posts). The environmental argument will disappear very quickly if economic conditions become less favourable; please refer to the early 1990s. The environment disappears from the public agenda like a mirage when times get a little tough.
If getting around by car is the least expensive method, that's what people will do. The GTA efforts to fund public transport are being done in a vacuum. Studies about traffic impact and environmental impact are insufficient long-term justfications for real changes in thinking, and while they are well-meant, are no match for large public relations campaigns supporting individual transportation.
Car pooling, Van pools for congestion relief and tax breaks for Car pooling, Van pools for congestion relief and tax breaks for
How to get Air Canada and Rail Canada to work together to optimize moving people and freight? Rather than fighting for/over subsidizes from tax payers.
1) Once you factor in time to and from airports, security and whatnot, it is only maybe 30 minutes faster for me to go from downtown Toronto to downtown Montreal by plane versus train. So the trains don't have to get much faster to be qualitatively superior mode of transport between Canada's two biggest cities. I imagine the same would apply to Calgary/Edmonton and Quebec/Montreal too.
2) GO's difficulties lie in the network being entirely focused on the downtown Toronto hub at Union Station. There's no good way to go from Brampton to Markham say, by GO. Also, except for the lakeshore line, GO doesn't run trains both ways in the morning. I work in Brampton, live downtown Toronto and there is no train that way in the morning and no train from Brampton to Toronto in the evening. It was designed and built for the people in the suburbs who work downtown.
3) Those who will drive cars no matter what and hint they don't want any public money spent on rail programs should realize they will benefit enormously from increased rail usage: less cars on the road will make their driving faster and actually more efficient (you don't get great fuel economy idling in heavy traffic!).
4) While we're at it, let's talk about more subways too. Montreal is the only city in Canada that has a good to great transit system. Toronto's subways are far too limited. Calgary was smart about 7th ave, but needs to do more. Vancouver's rail is pretty limited too, but hopefully that will improve with the Olympics.
5) Those in remote areas that will see no obvious benefit from solving "big city" problems in Toronto or Montreal will still benefit too - every bit of Greenhouse gas we can reduce through smart transit policy is less we have to clamp down on big industry, particularly oil. If you live remotely, your job probably relies on resource economy and eventually you'll have to take some hit, but getting more cars of the road will soften the blow.
Unfortunaly politicians at all levels think the answer to transportation is more pavement. Here is BC Fraser Valley we have 3 lanes each way which leads to Vancouver .. so grid lock to grid lock. We have been pushing for many years to get a light rail, low cost connection with the Sky Train (which is high cost low volume movers) built by our subsidized Bombadier. To move from high emission cars and trucks to low emission light rail does not appeal to luxury class Politicians. Mr Campbell gives big time lip service to Green but very limited vision or action.
How efficient is rail? A car holding perhaps 50 people will weigh as many and more tons that need to be accelerated at every stop. The equivalent of a dedicated roadway could be achieved on the highway by limiting access just enough to optimize flow. Limiting access to prevent merger congestion is in place at strategic points already.