micheal_can
Senior Member
I know they don't today. I am thinking more along the lines that if they were building a new airport that they would.
My misunderstanding was the buses in the Maritimes.
|
|
|
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
I know they don't today. I am thinking more along the lines that if they were building a new airport that they would.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Under that logic, since the Northlander will be a 'new' train, the ONR should provide bus service in all the communities in its catchment area. I'm curious if there is any country, anywhere, where long distance transportation providers; rail, air, marine, road, etc. offer door-to-door service under a single banner.
micheal_can
Senior Member
ONR Bus?
I am not talking about a local stop type service. I am talking a shuttle service between the 2 stations.
Thaboss
Active Member
Good article. Read the whole thing and its reference to dutch HSR failure scare the crap out of me because the dutch are 10x better at planning than we are and even they failed at building HSR.
The good, bad and awful of the Alto high speed rail project, and how to fix the flaws and concerns surrounding it
I’ll start off by saying that even with all the criticism and foul language I’m about to hurl at Alto, I am actually in favour of moving forward with high speed rail.open.substack.com
That being said. I agree with much of what was said. Buuuut.. I reeeeaaally disagree with the suggestion that more rural stations are needed. Like reaaaally disagree.
lenaitch
Senior Member
And maybe ONR will provide a bus service from Hearst/Kap to feed the train if they see a business case and can afford it (it won't be part of the Northlander funding).
What "2 stations"? I've lost track. I still wouldn't support it (for what that is worth). Providing high-speed inter-city rail shouldn't be complicated or burdened with being responsible for all the last mile issues. Airlines or airports don't; ferries don't. Heck, even inter-city bus doesn't.
smallspy
Senior Member
There are no plans to build another airport in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal anytime soon.
Perhaps you should limit yourself to the fantasy maps section of the forum?
Maybe you should do some reading before sharing another of your "misunderstandings".
Historically, ONR didn't even offer that. They operated a bus line, a train line, and for a while an airline - all competing with each other.
The issue with the dutch was with the trains themselves, not the corridor. Just because they got sold a bill of goods rather than an actual train does not mean that they got the corridor wrong. In fact, it's been used every day since it opened by Thalys/Eurostar.
And I totally disagree with the idea that we need fewer rural stations. As has been said over and over and over again, not every train need to stop at every station. They may very well be quite some benefit to having 2 or 3 trains a day stop in a place like Tweed, for instance.
Dan
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
And ferries as well (along with refurb shops, Ontera, etc.)
Dan416
Senior Member
I get that Union might be difficult to accommodate without tunnelling or elevation or whatever. But if it were up to me, I'd still use Union, and I'd even be okay with using Union with no dedicated platforms while they do the work needed to Union to build something better. I see no reason to have to wait for a massive construction project at Union to be able to use Union. I don't think East Harbour or Exhibition or any other alternate near-downtown, never mind anything out of downtown, will work.
I would even sacrifice UP Express's platform for Alto if necessary.
As much construction as Union has had, I don't think it's going to be done any time soon. For better or worse, it is indeed the hub of regional trains in Toronto.
I would even sacrifice UP Express's platform for Alto if necessary.
As much construction as Union has had, I don't think it's going to be done any time soon. For better or worse, it is indeed the hub of regional trains in Toronto.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
There's frankly no reason for High Speed Rail to go high speeds within urban areas considering the train needs to slow down to serve the destination regardless. I don't know why an alternate station location in the GTA is even under consideration. Electrify the corridor, implement the concept of doubling platform size though the Union train shed, and start through-running GO lines (Kitchener-Stouffville, Milton-Richmond Hill, etc), there's more than enough capacity at the station itself.
crs1026
Superstar
Well, there is slow and there is slow. I think most people assume that for the approach to the station, say the last 20-30 kms, speed would be closer to 150 km/h than 300 km/h. That is quite common in other places, high speed trains do not necessaarily screech to a halt from 300 km/hr in the final trainlength. However, it is imperative that "moderately fast" speeds be retained for that zone, and the trains reach and maintain that speed. Having a lengthy crawl out from the urban center undermines the entire proposition.
An example of what's undersirable is that curve at the bottom of the Don (if the Don route is chosen) or a slow curve near Agincourt. The other example of what's undesirable is Alto trains lining up behind a stopping GO or EXO train for the last lap into a terminal. (As we are already seeing ML do to VIA today)
Because there is no certainty that Union will have capacity over the full planning period for the line. We need to look well out into the future and build for an end state, not what can suffice in the next few years. There is clearly a likelihood that ML will run many more trains than today. Squeeing Alto into the current terminal, and then running out of platform slots, is not a good idea especially if we can construct today to avoid disruption or more expensive construction later.
We are not yet privy to whatever conversations Alto and ML may have had on this topic. I would like to think that ML is saying "sure, we can handle it" - but my suspicion is, they aren't. And they likely have compelling data on throughput which we don't have. ML may be eager to help, but the data may tell them to draw a line in the sand..
- Paul
guavadelic
Active Member
Former ML CEO Phil Verster said they were working with the Feds to accomodate VIA HFR at Union. Maybe he was paying lip service, who knows...
https://www.transportaction.ca/regi...ill-be-accommodated-at-toronto-union-station/
dowlingm
Senior Member
The way CPDQi was supposed to accommodate VIA service under Mont Royal?
smallspy
Senior Member
Yes, but.....
They were and are not running the ferries in the same corridor that they were running the other modes, and as competition to them.
Dan
TwoWheelPoli
Active Member
Yeah, having more stations defeats the purpose of high-speed rail. The lack of airport connections for Montréal is a bummer, though having one at Pearson will be needed should a western extension towards Windsor be done.
micheal_can
Senior Member
This was in reference to if there were a station that was 'close' to Kingston. An express bus between the Via station and the ALTO station could be operated by the consortium and it might be enough to placate some of the complaints. I am not talking a multi stop transit service. I am talking a bus that has 2 stops and they are the termini for the service.