guavadelic
New Member
With Doug Ford wanting to make Niagara Falls even more of a tourist attraction (Vegas-North), we could be hearing of new transit projects. They're considering a new international airport, for example.
|
|
|
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
I wonder if it could be designed to hold of a negative decision until after the 2029 election
With your convincing argument about the difficulty in servicing Quebec City out of Central Station, I wonder what would make sense is running from Ottawa to Quebec City, with a stop at Dorval (meeting the REM), onto the CP track through CSL and stop at Canora in TMR to meet the REM again, and provide good connections to downtown. A stop at Parc station (maybe a stop at de la Concorde metro?) and then turn onto the Trois-Rivieres sub. With limited services terminating in Montreal just stopping in Dorval and Central. All trains stop in Dorval, and it be the main transfer point (probably would help if they had every 15-minute service on the Dorion EXO line).
Obviously it's flawed - but is it more flawed than trying to serve Quebec City via St. Henri, Ville St. Pierre, Lachine, the CN St. Laurent sub, and however you get it to the Trois-Riveries sub from there.
(another way to save 10 minutes is to go into Lucien l'Allier instead of Central - would be easier to serve Quebec City from there too).
Connecting to the ferris wheel with a monorail?
Last edited:
guavadelic
New Member
Any predictions regarding which bid the government picked?
PL1
Active Member
A new international airport near Niagara Falls seems foolish on its face. It would need to compete with Buffalo Niagara and Niagara Falls (US) airports which are not far, and Hamilton.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Cross-border services will only be convenient with the US if the border formalities can be exacuted at either the departure or arrival station and easy cases (NEXUS holders or US/Canadian citizens) can be prioritized to minimize the delays they experience. Same reason why the border facility for the Toronto-Chicago corridor should be in Detroit and not Windsor, because more people will travel from Detroit towards Toronto than from Windsor (much smaller) towards Chicago (much further), which would also allow to extend all four TRTO-WDON trains to Detroit Michigan Central, rather than extending just a single CHI-DET traint to Windsor.
A decision will be need to be made by the next government before the 2029 election about the fate of Phase 1, but thankfully that is the by-far shortest and cheapest segment (MTRL-OTTW), which also happens to be the one where the cost and travel time difference between true HSR and Higher-Speed (or even conventional speeds) is the least significant. Any decision regarding Phase 2 (OTTW-TRTO) can thankfully be deferred until beyond the 2029 election…
The three challenges of extending HxR from MTRL to QBEC are in that order:
1) Not inconvenience travellers from MTRL towards OTTW/TRTO.
2) To find a convenient way to transfer between QM and MOT trains.
3) To find a convenient downtown(-ish) station for QBEC-MTRL trains.
Challenge #1 prescribes the Status Quo (Terminus at Gare Centrale, Satellite station at Dorval Airport).
Challenge #2 prescribes Dorval as transfer station (as Gare Centrale would escalate trave times).
Challenge #3 leaves us with only two solutions: either extend QM trains beyond Dorval to Gare Centrale (which would not be time-competitive with transfering to the orange line at De La Concorde) or to have a “downtown” station at either Parc (which lacks rail links towards downtown), Canora (which lacks space for proper intercity rail station, especially one which acts as downtown station) or Namur (which would have an inconveniently long walk to the orange line).
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Yeah, that about sums it up. Though the space issue at Canora is relatively easily solved. It's surrounded by housing, so expropriation can solve that - would probably need less expropriation than many transportation projects.
roger1818
Senior Member
Probably a bad idea, but one option would be to have TOM trains terminate at Gare Central and then have OMQ trains that bypass Gare Central. Obviously this would be far from optimal for those traveling between downtown Montreal and Quebec, as it would require a transfer. South shore MQ trains would terminate at Gare Central though.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
No, the problem would be passengers travelling from Ottawa to Montreal (nobody cares about the inconveniences imposed on passengers from/to Quebec City, at this point!). The thing I can see though is that early morning trains (i.e., those too early to originate in Toronto) would operate OMQ via Dorval-Gare Centrale-Laval (and the opposite in the evening)…
SashaLemon
Active Member
I am hoping for the CDPQ, given how well they are doing with the REM. Also France has the best HSR in Europe imo so SNCF would also be cool.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
The measure should not be how well the CDPQ is doing with the REM, but how well it fits into the overall transit development strategy and that’s where the REM’s record of cripling any prospects of frequent regional rail towards Laval and of frequent intercity rail towards Quebec City…
The question is whether you want to benchmark yourself against HSR network length or overall rail ridership:
Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study
Hmmmm. Not ideal. But it does align HFR construction timeline with Ontario HSR construction timeline. Opportunities to tweak out potential commonalities. Budget is done, let's look for silver linings.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I notice China is not on that list.The measure should not be how well the CDPQ is doing with the REM, but how well it fits into the overall transit development strategy and that’s where the REM’s record of cripling any prospects of frequent regional rail towards Laval and of frequent intercity rail towards Quebec City…
The question is whether you want to benchmark yourself against HSR network length or overall rail ridership:
View attachment 608171View attachment 608172
Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study
Hmmmm. Not ideal. But it does align HFR construction timeline with Ontario HSR construction timeline. Opportunities to tweak out potential commonalities. Budget is done, let's look for silver linings.urbantoronto.ca
If I were choosing the benchmark, it would be based on 2 things.
1) overall speed
2) Daily frequency
The 2 are both important if we are going to make it a success. I feel there are 3 legs that should be built. T-O-M, T-L-W and T-B. Other places like C-E would be good too, but, as we are talking about the Corridor, it isn't that relevant. So, length is irrelevant to me. How long it takes to get there and how often does it run is key to me. A simple race from drop off at the station to pickup at the station, using the HSR should be competitive with flying both in how long it takes and how often you can do it.
SashaLemon
Active Member
Okay well even based on the metric of per capita ridership France is still ahead of Germany (Deutsche Bahn) and way ahead of Spain (Renfe). I mean it was more of an opinion then a facts driven argument but it still stands. I don't see SBB or OBB in any of these consortia.The measure should not be how well the CDPQ is doing with the REM, but how well it fits into the overall transit development strategy and that’s where the REM’s record of cripling any prospects of frequent regional rail towards Laval and of frequent intercity rail towards Quebec City…
The question is whether you want to benchmark yourself against HSR network length or overall rail ridership:
View attachment 608171View attachment 608172
Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study
Hmmmm. Not ideal. But it does align HFR construction timeline with Ontario HSR construction timeline. Opportunities to tweak out potential commonalities. Budget is done, let's look for silver linings.
I mean given it is CDPQ and AtkinsRealis it is pretty much a given that it will be selected.guavadelic
New Member
Far from a given, the SNC Lavalin Affair was arguably Trudeau's lowest point as Prime Minister. The optics of Trudeau awarding the construction of Canada's biggest infrastructure project in 70 years to a company he was found to have committed ethics violations in favour of would overshadow the entire project. I doubt the Liberal Cabinet would want those front-page headlines and publicity in the run-up to an election.Okay well even based on the metric of per capita ridership France is still ahead of Germany (Deutsche Bahn) and way ahead of Spain (Renfe). I mean it was more of an opinion then a facts driven argument but it still stands. I don't see SBB or OBB in any of these consortia.
urbancog
Active Member
That's the same AtkinsRealis (formerly SNC-Lavalin) that managed construction of the Ottawa Confederation Line and Crosstown LRT! They did acquire new transportation engineering talent when the bought-out Atkins but their performance in resolving the on-going challenges of these two projects doesn't inspire confidence.
Just because a company is HQ'd in Montreal doesn't mean the LPC needs to select them.
Just because a company is HQ'd in Montreal doesn't mean the LPC needs to select them.
p_xavier
Active Member
Haven't seen this in anglo media yet?
www.lapresse.ca
Costs would be higher from 120 billions. 200 billions to get to Windsor.
TGV Québec-Toronto | La facture sera plus salée que prévu
Le train à grande vitesse (TGV) souhaité par le gouvernement Trudeau entre Québec et Toronto coûtera plus de 100 milliards, selon les informations de La Presse. Et cette facture salée pourrait friser les 200 milliards si des prolongements s’ajoutent en cours de route.
www.lapresse.ca
Costs would be higher from 120 billions. 200 billions to get to Windsor.