[Mr.Tang]

Things live in those water areas...

The selling point to these projects is actually less about funding billions of new dollars and more about streamlining regulatory red-tape that bogs things down. There will be $billions for this project at least, but what causes it to be 10x $billions is having to do a detailed process of every bog or stakeholder impacted. I have spent some time in this part of the country, and there are literally millions of ponds/bogs/streams. Can we not all accept a quantity likely in the 10's can be sacrificed for human progress? Please don't rebut with a People's Republic of China response - we need to thoughtfully recalibrate on what is an appropriate cost-benefit approach here (because we can't be California either).

 

[lenaitch]

The selling point to these projects is actually less about funding billions of new dollars and more about streamlining regulatory red-tape that bogs things down. There will be $billions for this project at least, but what causes it to be 10x $billions is having to do a detailed process of every bog or stakeholder impacted. I have spent some time in this part of the country, and there are literally millions of ponds/bogs/streams. Can we not all accept a quantity likely in the 10's can be sacrificed for human progress? Please don't rebut with a People's Republic of China response - we need to thoughtfully recalibrate on what is an appropriate cost-benefit approach here (because we can't be California either).

As a nation, we can, so long as the law allows it. Recent legislation is aimed at streamlining certain reviews and assessments, not toss them out the window.

People might object that every impact has to be assessed or that every stakeholder has to be consulted, until they are the one directly impacted and being ignored.

 

[urbanclient]

The selling point to these projects is actually less about funding billions of new dollars and more about streamlining regulatory red-tape that bogs things down. There will be $billions for this project at least, but what causes it to be 10x $billions is having to do a detailed process of every bog or stakeholder impacted. I have spent some time in this part of the country, and there are literally millions of ponds/bogs/streams. Can we not all accept a quantity likely in the 10's can be sacrificed for human progress? Please don't rebut with a People's Republic of China response - we need to thoughtfully recalibrate on what is an appropriate cost-benefit approach here (because we can't be California either).

The sensible way to avoid having to destroy every bog/stream entirely is to build on a continuous elevated guideway/viaducts as opposed to this:

Do the necessary environmental assessments (believe it or not, they do in fact do these in other jurisdictions including China), do whatever mitigation is needed, then move on. The progress of construction on the new high speed rail line should not be more than mildly delayed. However, in a worst case scenario, the powers that be will give too much credence to the EIA hippies which can derail the project. The EAs should be done without jeopardizing the established plan of putting the line on an elevated guideway. That is, assuming there is even money for the viaduct(s). If it's done at-grade level there is more risk of EAs and mitigation measures delaying the main project.

Here is an example of an EA necessitated mitigation measure:

Noise barrier protects birds from loud trains

Engineers and technicians working on the Shenzhen-Maoming Railway, an important transport link between the two coastal cities in Guangdong province, have finished construction of a fully enclosed noise barrier on a section running through an ecological scenic site.

www.chinadaily.com.cn

 

[micheal_can]

The sensible way to avoid having to destroy every bog/stream entirely is to build on a continuous elevated guideway/viaducts as opposed to this:
View attachment 681515Do the necessary environmental assessments (believe it or not, they do in fact do these in other jurisdictions including China), do whatever mitigation is needed, then move on. The progress of construction on the new high speed rail line should not be more than mildly delayed. However, in a worst case scenario, the powers that be will give too much credence to the EIA hippies which can derail the project. The EAs should be done without jeopardizing the established plan of putting the line on an elevated guideway. That is, assuming there is even money for the viaduct(s). If it's done at-grade level the risk of EAs and mitigation measures delaying the main project.

Here is an example of an EA necessitated mitigation measure:

Noise barrier protects birds from loud trains

Engineers and technicians working on the Shenzhen-Maoming Railway, an important transport link between the two coastal cities in Guangdong province, have finished construction of a fully enclosed noise barrier on a section running through an ecological scenic site.

www.chinadaily.com.cn

That picture did not load.
Can you show a picture of what you think should be built for the bogs?

 

[urbanclient]

As a nation, we can, so long as the law allows it. Recent legislation is aimed at streamlining certain reviews and assessments, not toss them out the window.

People might object that every impact has to be assessed or that every stakeholder has to be consulted, until they are the one directly impacted and being ignored.

I am sorry, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As is too often the case, NIMBYs, a very small but vocal contingent of unelected stakeholders manage to ruin good things for the large majority of everyone else. While ostensibly trying to protect the environment and the 'aesthetic' of local communities, highly environmentally friendly projects like electrified rail (which would reduce car traffic and emissions significantly) can get delayed, descoped and cancelled, like REM de L'Est. REM de L'Est would've impacted a uninspired stroad lined with offices downtown. Fully grade separated elevated metro on a miraculously cheap budget and fast timeline (like the REM) will now be replaced by a slow, winding tram built just before the heat death of the universe on a significantly more expensive budget.

If you live in Central Frontenac, population <5,000, in an area nearly 1,000 sqkm, and god forbid Alto wants to appropriate your private or municipality's land (most land is provincial Crown land) and create noise pollution so that 9,000+ people PER DAY on a high speed train can travel to and from Toronto to Ottawa and Montreal, in an environmentally friendly manner, then too bad, so sad!

 

[urbanclient]

That picture did not load.
Can you show a picture of what you think should be built for the bogs?

This picture was supposed to show what no-to-do for the bogs and streams. Filling in the these natural wetlands and waterways would likely be a bad idea, both environmentally and logistically/economically in the long-run.

Instead, the line should be built on viaducts so to avoid the bogs and streams as much as possible (albeit at a higher initial cost, but lower maintenance costs):

Both these pictures are from France by the way.

 

[Urban Sky]

This picture was supposed to show what no-to-do for the bogs and streams. Filling in the these natural wetlands and waterways would likely be a bad idea, both environmentally and logistically/economically in the long-run.
View attachment 681529

Instead, the line should be built on viaducts so to avoid the bogs and streams as much as possible (albeit at a higher initial cost, but lower maintenance costs):

View attachment 681531

If your aim is to calm down (rather than fire up) the NIMBYs, I‘m not sure I would show them the lower photo as an illustration of the project…

 

[urbanclient]

If your aim is to calm down (rather than fire up) the NIMBYs, I‘m not sure I would show them the lower photo as an illustration of the project…

The comparison was not addressed to NIMBYs at all. My earlier point was that the government should not be valuing the opinions of unelected retired folks who would mope about the colours of the leaves changing from now compared to "back in [their] day".

The environmental impact and noise from an at-grade level line would likely be higher. There is need to mitigate wildlife excursions, so you would have to put up unsightly barriers that would separate wildlife communities which would force further mitigation through purpose-built wildlife crossings. That is all not to mention pedestrian and vehicle crossings needed when the line intersects roads through populated communities.

 

[micheal_can]

The comparison was not addressed to NIMBYs at all. My earlier point was that the government should not be valuing the opinions of unelected retired folks who would mope about the colours of the leaves changing from now compared to "back in [their] day".

The environmental impact and noise from an at-grade level line would likely be higher. There is need to mitigate wildlife excursions, so you would have to put up unsightly barriers that would separate wildlife communities which would force further mitigation through purpose-built wildlife crossings. That is all not to mention pedestrian and vehicle crossings needed when the line intersects roads through populated communities.

Not sure about HSR trains, but when a freight train hits a moose,they just scrape off whats left of it on the front. No real damage,and no derailment. Barriers can block migration patterns. So, the best mitigation might be wildlife overpasses. So, instead of blasting a deep cut into a hill, tunnel through some of it to keep a natural bridge for wildlife to use.

 

[urbanclient]

Not sure about HSR trains, but when a freight train hits a moose,they just scrape off whats left of it on the front. No real damage,and no derailment. Barriers can block migration patterns. So, the best mitigation might be wildlife overpasses. So, instead of blasting a deep cut into a hill, tunnel through some of it to keep a natural bridge for wildlife to use.

That's a fair point. The one North American project comparable is California HSR: https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/green-p...ility-report/sustainability-report-chapter-5/

They have viaducts over wetlands and waterways.

 

[innsertnamehere]

That's a fair point. The one North American project comparable is California HSR: https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/green-p...ility-report/sustainability-report-chapter-5/

They have viaducts over wetlands and waterways.

MTO has done wildlife crossings on their Highway 69 twinning project:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[Northern Light]

MTO has done wildlife crossings on their Highway 69 twinning project:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Interesting.......... I just measured that one....its ~30M wide. That's well below the expert recommended minimum of 50m. Large mammal in particular (moose, bear) are not keen on narrow crossings; crossings are more than twice as prevalent on wider crossings.

 

[micheal_can]

MTO has done wildlife crossings on their Highway 69 twinning project:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

I know that one very well, and something like that would make sense

Interesting.......... I just measured that one....its ~30M wide. That's well below the expert recommended minimum of 50m. Large mammal in particular (moose, bear) are not keen on narrow crossings; crossings are more than twice as prevalent on wider crossings.

Hopefully they build them wide enough for the animals of the area.

 

[lenaitch]

The comparison was not addressed to NIMBYs at all. My earlier point was that the government should not be valuing the opinions of unelected retired folks who would mope about the colours of the leaves changing from now compared to "back in [their] day".

The environmental impact and noise from an at-grade level line would likely be higher. There is need to mitigate wildlife excursions, so you would have to put up unsightly barriers that would separate wildlife communities which would force further mitigation through purpose-built wildlife crossings. That is all not to mention pedestrian and vehicle crossings needed when the line intersects roads through populated communities.

The urban-rural card and the generational card in a couple of posts. Well done. Perhaps they could get even higher speeds by simply bulldozing right through the hearts of Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. Greater good, you know.

I suggest the environmental damage that would be caused to a wetland by the heavy equipment necessary to drive foundations for an elevation guideway would be far greater than creating an at-grade causeway.

 

[urbanclient]

The urban-rural card and the generational card in a couple of posts. Well done. Perhaps they could get even higher speeds by simply bulldozing right through the hearts of Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. Greater good, you know.

I suggest the environmental damage that would be caused to a wetland by the heavy equipment necessary to drive foundations for an elevation guideway would be far greater than creating an at-grade causeway.

Lack of budget should be the only excuse for a "causeway" cutting through wetlands and waterlogged ground. In any case, whether it's a causeway on reclaimed land or a taller viaduct, a relatively deep concrete foundation would be necessary because laying ballast to tamped down soil or aggregate in such a wet environment would not even work in the medium-run. Hence why modern HSR systems tend to use viaducts and bridges over waterways and wetlands. https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/green-p...ility-report/sustainability-report-chapter-5/