| NEWS | DATABASE | MAP | FORUM |  |  | SERVICES | UTPro | LOG IN | CITIES |
|
|
|
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
micheal_can
Senior Member
Something that has not been discussed about this line, but likely is something that should be expected - accessibility. Right now, very few stations are fully accessible.And sorry, a crank up lift is not accessible for 2025. Should we expect the platform height to be level with the door? Should we expect that the train car facilities will be accessible?
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I fear your sarcasm is a bit misplaced with a fellow commenter who might have to go through great pain to bring screenshots into a format which is readable to him and who therefore provided the outputs of his labour, to spare anyone with similar difficulties from going through the same hazzle. So, if that text dump did not provide any value to you, be happy that you don’t have to rely on the (as you correctly identified: unreliable) output of such tools.
Cheers!
Last edited:
Bojaxs
Senior Member
I hope whomever is responsible for construction on ALTO, lessons will have been learned from both California HSR and HS2 in England. At least HS2 is still progressing with construction and the government has committed to continue funding the project. Albeit, scaled down. California HSR on the other hand is a complete cluster f**k, and may never see the light of day.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
As I’m experiencing HSR route derangement syndrome and there is no new information to feed it, I went back to the 2022 Request for Proposals to see what it says about stations and routings. The priorities and principles include the following:
Another issue is maintaining “existing services” and the idea of “hubs” in Kingston and Drummondville. The RFP talks a lot about how these services will be transitioned to the new operator but there are notably no standards for frequency or journey time. Leaders at VIA have made rosy promises, but if it isn’t in the contract documents, we’re relying on good will to some extent. VIA has made these statements:
Parliamentarians did recognize the political importance of maintaining the existing service. No one is more aware of the fragility of social and political license for a project like this, or the potential culture war I posited a day or two ago if voters/passengers along the southern routes are penalized.
The report did not get into the details of the route, but was concerned with the location of the urban stations, specifically that if the station is not in the downtown core, the time spent getting there has to be counted as part of travel time. Of course, not everyone is travelling to and from the core. A good example is Ottawa. Currently it’s about 10 minutes extra getting to downtown. Some have (irrationally in my view) suggested routing HSR through the Ottawa airport, which on current transit would add an hour on transit and negate the speed gains. The current location is actually easier for many people travelling to Montreal than a downtown station would be, although for visitors to Ottawa that’s not the case. Probably Montreal is going to be the trickiest issue, especially for Quebec City trains. Whether or not to stop trains in suburban stations is also important. ALTO seems to be suggesting no stops in Scarborough, Fallowfield, or Dorval, and I think this is a mistake.
From the Report:
Recommendation 8
The Minister of Transport require VIA HFR-VIA TGF Inc. to provide, within a reasonable timeframe, an analysis of the impact a dedicated rail line will have on the use of the existing VIA rail service in the Toronto-Quebec City corridor. The report must look at the impact of ridership on the existing line after a new faster dedicated line is in operation, the viability of maintaining current services on the existing line both the number of trains and on time performance, and the possible impacts on freight traffic of continuing passenger rail service on the corridor and that this report be tabled in the House of Commons and referred to committee.
Recommendation 9
That VIA HFR-VIA TGF Inc. collaborate with provinces and municipalities to ensure seamless connectivity between the HFR service and local and regional transit systems, and that travel time between municipalities served by the HFR network be calculated from downtown-to-downtown, including transit connections as needed.
Recommendation 10
That the Government of Canada and VIA HFR-VIA TGF Inc. ensure that HFR does not result in a reduction of service to communities currently served by VIA Rail and that VIA's regional rail services be connected to the future HFR service wherever possible.
- Integration into city centres by using existing stations or new alternative stations and explore opportunities for transit-oriented neighbourhoods with potential development opportunities.
- Improve integration with other modes of transportation (regional and local public transit, non-Corridor services) and provide targeted connections such as to Jean Lesage International Airport in Quebec City and Montréal–Trudeau International Airport near Dorval.
- New tracks to allow for greater control over track infrastructure including opportunities to utilize existing rights-of-way (industrial corridor, road/rail or hydro).
Another issue is maintaining “existing services” and the idea of “hubs” in Kingston and Drummondville. The RFP talks a lot about how these services will be transitioned to the new operator but there are notably no standards for frequency or journey time. Leaders at VIA have made rosy promises, but if it isn’t in the contract documents, we’re relying on good will to some extent. VIA has made these statements:
- August 2021: HFR will allow to transform cities we already serve, like Drummondville and Kingston, into regional transportation hubs and to offer communities along the Toronto-Kingston-Montreal-Drummondville-Quebec City route better schedules and tailored services.
- December 2021: Not only will our HFR project have a new dedicated track in the Corridor, we will also continue to operate on our existing route. Kingston and Drummondville will become regional transportation hubs to provide better schedules and services tailored to communities.
Parliamentarians did recognize the political importance of maintaining the existing service. No one is more aware of the fragility of social and political license for a project like this, or the potential culture war I posited a day or two ago if voters/passengers along the southern routes are penalized.
The report did not get into the details of the route, but was concerned with the location of the urban stations, specifically that if the station is not in the downtown core, the time spent getting there has to be counted as part of travel time. Of course, not everyone is travelling to and from the core. A good example is Ottawa. Currently it’s about 10 minutes extra getting to downtown. Some have (irrationally in my view) suggested routing HSR through the Ottawa airport, which on current transit would add an hour on transit and negate the speed gains. The current location is actually easier for many people travelling to Montreal than a downtown station would be, although for visitors to Ottawa that’s not the case. Probably Montreal is going to be the trickiest issue, especially for Quebec City trains. Whether or not to stop trains in suburban stations is also important. ALTO seems to be suggesting no stops in Scarborough, Fallowfield, or Dorval, and I think this is a mistake.
From the Report:
Recommendation 8
The Minister of Transport require VIA HFR-VIA TGF Inc. to provide, within a reasonable timeframe, an analysis of the impact a dedicated rail line will have on the use of the existing VIA rail service in the Toronto-Quebec City corridor. The report must look at the impact of ridership on the existing line after a new faster dedicated line is in operation, the viability of maintaining current services on the existing line both the number of trains and on time performance, and the possible impacts on freight traffic of continuing passenger rail service on the corridor and that this report be tabled in the House of Commons and referred to committee.
Recommendation 9
That VIA HFR-VIA TGF Inc. collaborate with provinces and municipalities to ensure seamless connectivity between the HFR service and local and regional transit systems, and that travel time between municipalities served by the HFR network be calculated from downtown-to-downtown, including transit connections as needed.
Recommendation 10
That the Government of Canada and VIA HFR-VIA TGF Inc. ensure that HFR does not result in a reduction of service to communities currently served by VIA Rail and that VIA's regional rail services be connected to the future HFR service wherever possible.
lenaitch
Senior Member
That RFP was for HFR. The design requirements for high speed rail will change a lot of the requirements.
The proponents might have been mandated to look at utility corridors but that doesn't make them suitable. Utility or industrial rail corridors in urban areas, perhaps.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
The main rationale for HFR was to build something which makes a real difference within a decade, while avoiding the issues which delayed HS2 and CAHSR by decades and multiplied their pricetags. ALTO seems determined (and thus doomed) to repeat the same mistakes, which is deeply troubling. I was counting on the Conservatives to abort the procurement with the freakshow which Cadence has assembled and to remove all the scope creep and incompetence or indecision we’ve seen so far, which is the only reason I would miss a PP government if he’s really going to loose his lead in the polls…
generalcanada
Senior Member
Counterpoint, 5 years of development and environmental studies before starting construction is a good thing. Look at CAHSR. just finished environmental approvals like within the last year.
Though this project is guilty of scope creep, only to a point. That is what this 5 year phase is for. to prevent scope creep during the project.
crs1026
Superstar
It would be a great thing - if the project vision were well defined and had discipline. Clearly Ottawa has no underlying vision or underlying technical proficiency, and has allowed the proponents to offer so many alternatives - because there is insufficient depth in the bureaucracy and the parliament to know what is needed, what is affordable, what is manageable. Clearly this procurement has become window-shopping, not investmant planning or system design.
A favourite adage: When you don’t have a destination in mind, any road will get you there.
Scope creep Is bad enough, but indecision and shifting goalposts is something worse.
- Paul
crs1026
Superstar
Ps - while California HSR may have become a disaster, I do see it reaching a successful opening. It has simply come too far, and now has too much work done, to walk away from.
Somebody had to go first, and make all the big mistakes so others can learn from them…. And California certainly has done that. The biggest folly was doing so in a 400+ mile route instead of a smaller “test” enterprise.
The lesson learned for Canada is - start small and walk before we run. To my mid that would be best accomplished between Ottawa and Montreal.
- Paul
Somebody had to go first, and make all the big mistakes so others can learn from them…. And California certainly has done that. The biggest folly was doing so in a 400+ mile route instead of a smaller “test” enterprise.
The lesson learned for Canada is - start small and walk before we run. To my mid that would be best accomplished between Ottawa and Montreal.
- Paul
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Exactly, @crs1026: the project is 10 years old and we still haven’t had the “what can we actually afford?” discussion. Everyone seems to assume that the private investor’s coffers are in infinite supply and that they would finance at least 50% of the capital cost, even if that share would exceed $40 billion. I have heard rumours that it might be a much lower share and I don’t see any public appetite to fund the majority of this project, especially if the public investment represents multiple percentage points of GDP.
I’m anxiously waiting for the moment where someone shouts that the emperor is naked…
I’m anxiously waiting for the moment where someone shouts that the emperor is naked…
Last edited:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Oh, and let’s not forget what a freakshow “Cadence” is:
- The investor which a) escalated ALTO’s pricetag by at least $10 billion through sheer incompetence and arrogance, despite clear and very pertinent warnings, b) designed a Light Metro scheme which has proven inadequate in terms of compatibility and capacity even before the first passenger has travelled through the Mont-Royal tunnel, c) obliterated any existing strategic network planning in the Greater Montreal Area and d) doomed its newer projects through its hybris and unwillingness to engage honestly and transparently with individual stakeholders and communities.
- The engineering firm which a) totally screwed up the first LRT/Subway line of our capital city, after inexplicably winning the contract despite yielding the by far worst score in the technical asseent, b) is so famous for political scandals that it needed to shed its toxic brand through a rebranding.
- Canada’s near-monopolistic and worst airline, which has the most to lose by ALTO, can siphon commercially sensitive and valuable data while ensuring that ALTO gets designed so that it is the most beneficial to them and the most harmful to its direct competitors (while being absolutely indifferent if the project stalls or even fails).
Last edited:
Thaboss
New Member
Exactly.
It would be "relatively easy" from a political perspective to justify connecting the two cities and given that the REM and Otrain will be completing their extentions within 3 years. Building intercity rail that ppl will use as proof of concept makes total sense.
Personally I would do ottawa - montreal then Calgary - Edmonton (maybe consider doing both at the same time) before moving to do toronto - ottawa.
Hopfully by then quebec to montreal will be forgotten and toronto - windsor is something the prov. And feds will be interested in funding.
generalcanada
Senior Member
a few things from an optimist.
The cost can be $100 billion for all we care, people will support it.
The cost of the ontario like is closer to 30 billion, do you see people complaining?
Sure the effectiveness in p3 bond financing is questionable, but unlike other p3 projects they dont have a financer yet, nor do they need only 1. especially with the 3 phases. 30 billion is definitely servicable by major banks
the REM and mount royal tunnel is a problem for future-proofing, but so is the ontario line joint corridor, just because theres a problem, does not mean its insurmountable.
SNC's transit project management while not good can be improved as seen with their nuclear projects which are very well run. Remember we arent starting construction till 2031.
There are others who are more optimistic about AC's role in this. So am I, Would they benefit? maybe, would they be exclusive? definitely no. Its just a linked train ticket instead of direct flights like Europe does
Again coming from an optimist, I dont think the problems are so large that we need to start from scratch. Lets give it time. Worst case scenario we say no the pricetag is too much and we spent $4 billion on full environmental approvals to continue with and deploy quick projects with later.
generalcanada
Senior Member
Article from the national observer today: https://archive.is/ydcEi
Pretty much what ive been saying. HS2 is/has failed because the lack of complete super-detailed studies. You can draw a straight line on a map, but you gotta got meter by meter to get a complete picture.
While changes on the project will always be a thing, you need more time to really settle a complete plan before starting construction
Pretty much what ive been saying. HS2 is/has failed because the lack of complete super-detailed studies. You can draw a straight line on a map, but you gotta got meter by meter to get a complete picture.
While changes on the project will always be a thing, you need more time to really settle a complete plan before starting construction
Last edited:
