[golodhendil]

Multiple types of transit meet at a single station mainly because of transfers. You still have to get from the endpoint to your final destination. For downtown stations that means local and regional transit (and pickups and taxis obviously). You even see this at Union, despite how disjointed GO, VIA, and TTC are from each other.

Multiple types and routes of transit can also meet at a station because it is where the destination is. Boston South Station, New York Penn and Grand Central are the hubs that they are, not so much (only) because passengers can change from regional rail to intercity rail (GCT isn't even connected to Amtrak; and of course there is a significant number of people who do transfer at the other two), but because they are within minutes of walking from some of the biggest financial, employment and entertainment centres of North America (or a short subway ride away, but RR-to-subway transfer wasn't the point of the current discussion), and that commuters getting off from Boston and NYC's vast regional/commuter rail networks use these stations as their destination and not as a transfer point (especially not onto Amtrak). Again, I am not debating potentialities or talking about what's the situation like at any other rail hubs around the world, I was fairly specifically referring to the actualities in the NEC where the vast majority of ridership of regional rail networks is towards the employment centres at each of the cities vs the comparatively much smaller ridership that continues onto intercity rail.

Well considering the first GO lines were built in lieu of expanded highways, I'd say the public has been just fine with reallocating resources. There has been little to no opposition to the recent money to improve VIA in the corridor, while past cutbacks were very controversial. Again, new rail lines are popular whenever they open. The GO line to Barrie is getting more riders than they expected, and there's a lot of public pressure to improve rail to cities like Kitchener and Hamilton. When it comes to high speed, we have concrete North American examples like California, where voters approved HSR funding in a referendum. In Canada, opnion polls have shown that voters in Canada not only support HSR but support paying for it. http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/HighSpeedRail.pdf

Those are all good things, but none of them really address the point. Of course people are happy when there's new service and unhappy when service is cut. What makes the difference is when people are finally concerned enough to act on their preferences with advocacy and their votes, because even a far-from-tepid level of support in opinion polls can amount to nothing being done to actually push the issue. And speaking of California, arguably the one place in the US outside the NEC that is most ready for HSR and for which the plans had been farthest along, the HSR proposition only passed by a 5% margin, dropping from the 10-20% margin from earlier opinion polls, and this was before it was realized that the technical studies were less extensive or thorough as would have been liked, and the costing "forgot" to take inflation into account. A successful example of HSR being pushed through by public advocacy, sure, but hardly the most encouraging one. This example also highlights why countries like Russia or China are largely uncomparable lessons for North America to learn, because this large amount of polling, lobbying, advocacy, politicking and voting needed for these things (and all the post-approval manoeuvering and recalibrations) obviously makes life a lot "harder" than simple decrees from the central government. None of these should detract rail advocates from doing what's needed or make them pessimistic, but one must still be realistic about the advocacy needed and the actual work to improve the passenger rail culture in the country / on the continent, because public opinion is fickle.

 

[saiho]

I'm going to comment here. The Taiwan High Speed Rail has financial problems for the same reason why subprime-financed housing has financial problems. The entire project was financed by a PPP, and sold to financial institutions at subprime (i.e. higher) interest rates. The stations outside of Taipei and Kaoshiung were built in the middle of nowhere to attract property development (e.g. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=25.012506,121.215334&spn=0.072259,0.129347&t=k&z=14) instead of leading into existing urban areas, which harmed usage. Over the entire period, the line was operationally profitable. The punitive interest rates on the debt used to build the line was what forced the government to bail out and seize the project. Lesson learned: don't finance large public projects with PPPs.

I understand that the most if not all the dept of the Taiwan HSR is caused by bad loans but in Canada, PPPs is the only way mega-projects like these will ever see the light of day.

 

[Second_in_pie]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it works now? "We can't afford to pay for it because the only way we're going to pay for it is in a way that we can't afford it!"

Circular logic ftw!

 

[saiho]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it works now? "We can't afford to pay for it because the only way we're going to pay for it is in a way that we can't afford it!"

Circular logic ftw!

not all PPP's are like Taiwan's, Taiwan's is just an example of poor planning and management, but many people on this board says that a Canadian HSR will make more money if you put more money into it eg. TGV style, which first timers like Canada and Taiwan can screw up, and if you screw up something this big your in trouble. Instead of doing this we should be making smaller, more economically and politically viable steps then upgrading later when the situation warrants it

 

[MisterF]

Perhaps it's an ageing good old boy's club which manages MTO, Transport Canada, planning departments, and so forth, who grew up seeing a boom in auto-dependent development and now can't understand anything else and are not open to new ideas thanks to their age. Everyone in Canada is fixated on a can't do attitude, and looking for reasons why we cannot embark on a particular endeavour. But hey, it's our loss.

It's definitely an old boy's club at MTO - they're very rigid in their thinking. Their analysis of alternatives to new highways is a joke.

Multiple types and routes of transit can also meet at a station because it is where the destination is. Boston South Station, New York Penn and Grand Central are the hubs that they are, not so much (only) because passengers can change from regional rail to intercity rail (GCT isn't even connected to Amtrak; and of course there is a significant number of people who do transfer at the other two), but because they are within minutes of walking from some of the biggest financial, employment and entertainment centres of North America (or a short subway ride away, but RR-to-subway transfer wasn't the point of the current discussion), and that commuters getting off from Boston and NYC's vast regional/commuter rail networks use these stations as their destination and not as a transfer point (especially not onto Amtrak). Again, I am not debating potentialities or talking about what's the situation like at any other rail hubs around the world, I was fairly specifically referring to the actualities in the NEC where the vast majority of ridership of regional rail networks is towards the employment centres at each of the cities vs the comparatively much smaller ridership that continues onto intercity rail.

Okay, you've totally lost me on what you're trying to prove here. None of what you're saying refutes my point, which is a general one, not specific to the NEC. Downplay it as much as you want, but people do use regional connections to get where they're going and they are important to a good rail network.

Those are all good things, but none of them really address the point. Of course people are happy when there's new service and unhappy when service is cut. What makes the difference is when people are finally concerned enough to act on their preferences with advocacy and their votes, because even a far-from-tepid level of support in opinion polls can amount to nothing being done to actually push the issue. And speaking of California, arguably the one place in the US outside the NEC that is most ready for HSR and for which the plans had been farthest along, the HSR proposition only passed by a 5% margin, dropping from the 10-20% margin from earlier opinion polls, and this was before it was realized that the technical studies were less extensive or thorough as would have been liked, and the costing "forgot" to take inflation into account. A successful example of HSR being pushed through by public advocacy, sure, but hardly the most encouraging one. This example also highlights why countries like Russia or China are largely uncomparable lessons for North America to learn, because this large amount of polling, lobbying, advocacy, politicking and voting needed for these things (and all the post-approval manoeuvering and recalibrations) obviously makes life a lot "harder" than simple decrees from the central government. None of these should detract rail advocates from doing what's needed or make them pessimistic, but one must still be realistic about the advocacy needed and the actual work to improve the passenger rail culture in the country / on the continent, because public opinion is fickle.

And at the end of all this what matters is your second sentence: people are happy about new service. And it seems people are willing to pay for it even when they don't think it'll make a profit. The public is jaded though, and I don't think anyone quite believes it when politicians talk about large scale rail expansion. But smaller scale expansion such as new GO lines has been used as an election issue. Russia (I never even mentioned China so I don't know why you keep bringing it up) is comparable from a technical and viability standpoint, not necessarily from a "convincing the public" pov. California is much like France in the 80s - people doubt the viability of HSR because it's never been done before. But once it's running and successful it'll be an easier sell in other parts of the continent.

not all PPP's are like Taiwan's, Taiwan's is just an example of poor planning and management, but many people on this board says that a Canadian HSR will make more money if you put more money into it eg. TGV style, which first timers like Canada and Taiwan can screw up, and if you screw up something this big your in trouble. Instead of doing this we should be making smaller, more economically and politically viable steps then upgrading later when the situation warrants it

We might screw it up so we shouldn't even try. There you go urbanfan, the Canadian can't do attitude you were talking about.

 

[golodhendil]

Okay, you've totally lost me on what you're trying to prove here. None of what you're saying refutes my point, which is a general one, not specific to the NEC. Downplay it as much as you want, but people do use regional connections to get where they're going and they are important to a good rail network.

Then you should perhaps reread earlier posts to see how you first misinterpreted what I was saying and started taking statements out of context and bringing up irrelevant (to the context of discussion) points such that I have to keep correcting you. And of course I know regional and local rail is important - that's what I had been arguing for in the first half of the thread!

And at the end of all this what matters is your second sentence: people are happy about new service. And it seems people are willing to pay for it even when they don't think it'll make a profit. The public is jaded though, and I don't think anyone quite believes it when politicians talk about large scale rail expansion. But smaller scale expansion such as new GO lines has been used as an election issue. Russia (I never even mentioned China so I don't know why you keep bringing it up) is comparable from a technical and viability standpoint, not necessarily from a "convincing the public" pov.

And that is a very important point, one that basically kills comparability (at least on the level of "Because Russia can do it so can we"). And China is being brought up because the two are more similar to each other than either is to North America.

California is much like France in the 80s - people doubt the viability of HSR because it's never been done before. But once it's running and successful it'll be an easier sell in other parts of the continent.

TGV was only the second HSR system to be built at the time, and planning and construction started at the same time as / less than a decade after the Shinkansen went into service, so doubt is of course reasonable; California has half a century and a dozen systems to learn from.

 

[reaperexpress]

not all PPP's are like Taiwan's, Taiwan's is just an example of poor planning and management, but many people on this board says that a Canadian HSR will make more money if you put more money into it eg. TGV style, which first timers like Canada and Taiwan can screw up, and if you screw up something this big your in trouble. Instead of doing this we should be making smaller, more economically and politically viable steps then upgrading later when the situation warrants it

The entire network doesn't need to be brand new high speed lines, so there are plenty of opportunities for incremental improvement. For example, VIA owns the tracks to Ottawa in both directions, so we could ban freight traffic and upgrade the tracks and signalling for high speed.

You've been pushing an Acela-like service due to cost effectiveness, but that's not a new idea. Canada tried that with the Turbotrain and later with the LRC. Both were state of the art trains capable of high speeds, but the services failed because they were unable to reliably achieve high average speeds due to interaction with freight trains. How would it be any better this time?

And I'm not even convinced that it's more cost effective to run high speed on the existing corridor. It is very expensive to maintain track that has smooth enough for high speed travel, yet durable enough for freight. Having separate passenger tracks allows for banking around corners to reflect the speed of the trains. Running on mixed tracks would require tilting trains which cost more to buy and maintain. And then there's the obvious fact that separate tracks allow for higher speed and therefore higher ridership.

 

[MisterF]

Then you should perhaps reread earlier posts to see how you first misinterpreted what I was saying and started taking statements out of context and bringing up irrelevant (to the context of discussion) points such that I have to keep correcting you. And of course I know regional and local rail is important - that's what I had been arguing for in the first half of the thread!

You're bringing up China and criticising me for bringing up irrelevant information? lol! All I've been saying is that local and regional transit are important. You've been downplaying at least on while trying to polarize the argument by making it seem like I think transit is "the most crucial factor" and "the be-all-end-all for viability". How about we just agree that transit is important and leave it at that?

And that is a very important point, one that basically kills comparability (at least on the level of "Because Russia can do it so can we"). And China is being brought up because the two are more similar to each other than either is to North America.

Take off the blinders. We can't completely ignore lessons from Russia just because their government is more heavy handed than ours. Here's a thought - maybe the Russian government doesn't have to sell it as much because the public wants it. And agian, regardless of public opinion, it's a valid comparison from a viability standpoint.

TGV was only the second HSR system to be built at the time, and planning and construction started at the same time as / less than a decade after the Shinkansen went into service, so doubt is of course reasonable; California has half a century and a dozen systems to learn from.

Average joe voter in California isn't exactly well informed about HSR. One of the most common arguments against it is that it would never work in North America. The French were making the same arguments in the 70s and 80s. And just as the success of the TGV made HSR popular across Europe, if the California HSR succeeds it'll be a much easier sell in North America.

 

[GregWTravels]

The VIA Fast proposal pointed out that there are two major routes in the Q-W corridor, one owned by CP and one owned by CN. The proposal suggested segregating traffic by giving one of the routes over to a freight and one to passenger rail. Apparently they consulted CP and CN and they were amenable to the solution (though the proposal I read didn't mention what CN and CP got in return for sharing the freight tracks). I believe between Toronto and Montreal, freight was going to go on the CN Kingston subdivision, and passenger rail would shift to the CP Belleville sub, though some traffic would have to go on the Kingston sub to get between Belleville and Gananoque to serve Kingston.

Bringing out the Via Fast proposal and getting it implemented would provide a decent interim step between current service and a true HS implementation.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I could agree with a general increase in service, but it needs to happen. 240 km/h Toronto-Quebec in 10 years. 160 km/h Toronto-Windsor and Sarnia in 15 years, and 320 Toronto-Quebec in 25 years.

 

[nfitz]

I could agree with a general increase in service, but it needs to happen. 240 km/h Toronto-Quebec in 10 years. 160 km/h Toronto-Windsor and Sarnia in 15 years, and 320 Toronto-Quebec in 25 years.

I remember 30 years ago the Trudeau government was talking about 240 km/hr Windsor to Quebec and Calgary to Edmonton in less than 10 years. Call me a cynic, but I don't really expect much to happen in the next 25 years.

 

[golodhendil]

You're bringing up China and criticising me for bringing up irrelevant information? lol! All I've been saying is that local and regional transit are important. You've been downplaying at least on while trying to polarize the argument by making it seem like I think transit is "the most crucial factor" and "the be-all-end-all for viability". How about we just agree that transit is important and leave it at that?

The mentioning of China was peripheral to my point; you made paragraphs and posts focused on those info. And no, I am not downplaying anything, I am stating facts about how things are different in different contexts and how blanket statements are usually false. But sure, I am all for leaving it at that.

Take off the blinders. We can't completely ignore lessons from Russia just because their government is more heavy handed than ours. Here's a thought - maybe the Russian government doesn't have to sell it as much because the public wants it. And agian, regardless of public opinion, it's a valid comparison from a viability standpoint.

In countries where governments don't consult with the people nearly as extensively and where plans and policies are less open to public scrutiny, even whether something is truly viable is questionable. If the Russian public is so in love with HSR that the government didn't have to sell it as much, they won't be literally throwing rocks and firing shots at passing trains.

 

[saiho]

The entire network doesn't need to be brand new high speed lines, so there are plenty of opportunities for incremental improvement. For example, VIA owns the tracks to Ottawa in both directions, so we could ban freight traffic and upgrade the tracks and signalling for high speed.

ya, like that will fly. Lets kill the freight traffic cash-cow and spend more money by building another expressway for the extra trucks the ban created.

You've been pushing an Acela-like service due to cost effectiveness, but that's not a new idea. Canada tried that with the Turbotrain and later with the LRC. Both were state of the art trains capable of high speeds, but the services failed because they were unable to reliably achieve high average speeds due to interaction with freight trains. How would it be any better this time?

and yet the Acela makes a profit... and it is in America, which is actually worth comparing to based on the similar society, norms, and infrastructure of intercity travel, unlike Europe. so it is a sound first step, It might sound strange but we have to ask our what did the Americans do with Acela right, that we in Canada did with the turbo train and LRC wrong.

it could be:
too much or not coordinated freight trains (I agree it probably was the main problem)
track quality
lack of electrification
not enough people residing in the service area
lack of good urban transit in the cities it serves
signaling (faster trains bigger blocks needed)

Maybe in the near future we can be better than the Americans in HSR by upgrading it to improve service and speeds instead of just leaving it alone... AND THEN we can shoot for an TGV like service.

And I'm not even convinced that it's more cost effective to run high speed on the existing corridor.

and yet for some reason Acela makes a profit, sounds like a good first step.

And then there's the obvious fact that separate tracks allow for higher speed and therefore higher ridership.

and yet there is the obvious fact that two more sets of track costs more to maintain and higher ridership doesn't necessarily mean the project and service will run in the black.

 

[SlickFranky]

and yet for some reason Acela makes a profit, sounds like a good first step.

So the first step should be re-branding the Q-W corridor VIAfast, marketing it as HSR (even though it's slow), and measuring it's profitability separate from the barely relevant 'network' being run in the rest of the country? Very ambitious plan.

 

[MisterF]

In countries where governments don't consult with the people nearly as extensively and where plans and policies are less open to public scrutiny, even whether something is truly viable is questionable. If the Russian public is so in love with HSR that the government didn't have to sell it as much, they won't be literally throwing rocks and firing shots at passing trains.

So the new trains are running on existing tracks and existing commuter trains were cancelled to make way for them. It also disrupts communities. The author is arguing that if they're going to build HSR, do it right. He's arguing for more rail, not less, and it seems that's what the people throwing rocks want too.

ya, like that will fly. Lets kill the freight traffic cash-cow and spend more money by building another expressway for the extra trucks the ban created.

I have to agree, we can't just kick freight off VIA owned track. VIA can make more improvements than it could on CN-owned track, but for true high speed it would need to either widen the right of way to create separate tracks (like the CN/GO setup in Durham) or create a new corridor. I've heard that VIA owns another rail ROW between Ottawa and Montreal but I don't know if that's true.

The VIA Fast proposal pointed out that there are two major routes in the Q-W corridor, one owned by CP and one owned by CN. The proposal suggested segregating traffic by giving one of the routes over to a freight and one to passenger rail. Apparently they consulted CP and CN and they were amenable to the solution (though the proposal I read didn't mention what CN and CP got in return for sharing the freight tracks). I believe between Toronto and Montreal, freight was going to go on the CN Kingston subdivision, and passenger rail would shift to the CP Belleville sub, though some traffic would have to go on the Kingston sub to get between Belleville and Gananoque to serve Kingston.

Bringing out the Via Fast proposal and getting it implemented would provide a decent interim step between current service and a true HS implementation.

This would be a good step we could implement now and not have to wait for studies and a long design process. Between Oshawa and Belleville the tracks are largely parallel so if CN and CP are favourable we should have done it a long time ago. CN and CP would actually benefit - something tells me they'd rather share with each other than with VIA. Some drawbacks: the government would have to build new sidings to access customers that use the CP tracks now. And east of Belleville the CP line goes north and avoids Kingston, Brockville, and Cornwall. So CN tracks would still have to be used. Another limitation is that both lines go through dozens of towns and have hundreds of grade crossings, so speeds wouldn't be all that much faster (see the Russian example). The real benefit would be reliability.

The corridor from London to Windsor could be treated the same way, but the CP line in that area is very straight and goes through almost no communities. It has potential for real high speed.