[Hipster Duck]

That American map doesn't make a lot of sense. There are some huge service gaps like New Orleans being a southern hub, while Houston isn't even connected to other Texas cities, and not being able to close the Pittsburgh-Cleveland gap. There's some obvious political motivations at play in that map, too, like the parallel high speed line in Michigan, rather than making Detroit a spur off the Toledo-Cleveland route.

 

[khris]

Before PM Harper we had many years of Liberals that did nothing regarding high speed rail for this country.

They didn't seem to have any interest in high speed rail. Ignatieff does apparently.
Although to be fair, a lot of people in Canada didn't have any interest in high speed rail until the past few years.

 

[nfitz]

They didn't seem to have any interest in high speed rail. Ignatieff does apparently.

Even though he pretty much dismissed the idea in a recent press conference?

 

[Whoaccio]

This is why HSR never gets built. Anybody can see that most of the routes on the Obama map are ridiculous overkill. Yes, HSR to Buffalo, I'm looking at you. It would be much more practical to take an incremental approach. So, at the moment, that would mean building a bona fide 300+ km/h HSR along the NEC, with periodic extensions or spurs as is warranted. In due course, maybe the California HSR.

 

[ShonTron]

In this context, HSR means anything over 90 MPH (FRA Standards) - in that context, most of the Windsor-Montreal corridor is "High Speed Rail."

Some of the lines on the map are already up to those standards - such as portions of the Chicago-Detroit Route, the Albany-New York tracks. So this does to me look like incremental improvements, but I totally agree about Dallas-Houston (and Houston-San Antonio) and Cleveland-Pittsburgh. (And how about Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo?)

 

[dunkalunk]

In this context, HSR means anything over 90 MPH (FRA Standards) - in that context, most of the Windsor-Montreal corridor is "High Speed Rail."

Some of the lines on the map are already up to those standards - such as portions of the Chicago-Detroit Route, the Albany-New York tracks. So this does to me look like incremental improvements, but I totally agree about Dallas-Houston (and Houston-San Antonio) and Cleveland-Pittsburgh. (And how about Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo?)

The Ohio Hub Network

High Speed rail needs to mean at least 250 km/h, electrified, and grade separated, or else we are just proposing pushing heavy diesel locomotives through the air on 50 year old track.

I agree that there needs to be an incremental approach to high speed rail. Here's a list of routes that I think should be upgraded and electrified by priority.

US
Acela
California
New York-Albany
Keystone
Northern New England (as far as Manchester)
Either Chicago-Toledo-Detroit or Chicago-Detroit
Albany-Buffalo-(Hamilton-Toronto)
Montreal-Albany or Boston

Canada
Toronto-Kingston
Toronto-Hamilton
Toronto-Kitchener
Montreal-Ottawa
Kingston-Montreal, Kingston-Ottawa
Montreal-Trois Rivieres-Quebec
Kitchener-London-Windsor-(Detroit-Chicago)
Hamilton-Niagara Falls-(Buffalo-Albany-New York, Boston)

 

[Automation Gallery]

Its a joke. Canada and the USA are falling so far behind in high speed rail to the rest of the modern world. We all need a reality check when we think that 90mph/145km is considered high speed rail.

 

[DavidJamesTO]

Obama: 'Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. This is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is happening right now, it's been happening for decades. The problem is, it's been happening elsewhere, not here.'

That says it all.

 

[khris]

Even though he pretty much dismissed the idea in a recent press conference?

I was only referring to the links posted earlier that suggested he is for it.

 

[howl]

For the Windsor-Quebec route (or at least the Toronto-Montreal route) - if you wanted to include Ottawa running a spur line up from the 401 corridor doesn't make a lot of sense. The straightest line between Toronto and Montreal is closer to Highway 7. On this more northerly alignment the rails can easily be diverted a little to hit Ottawa as a stop on that one line. At 250km/h Toronto to Ottawa would be 1.5 hours and then another half-as-hour to Montreal.

The "Highway 7" route would run a bit north or south of Highway 7 through sparsely populated farmland and across Canadian Shield, as opposed to the more heavily populated St.Lawrence Valley and it's prime farmland. A more northerly route would cut Kingston out of the picture but would add Peterborough as a potential stop, however I think the idea of high speed trains should be to connect the major centres, not the smaller cities in between.

The "Highway 7" route could easily be linked up to the 407 corridor east of Toronto. This wouldn't take the train downtown, but it would take it past a connection with the TTC subway at Vaughan City Centre, and potentially a future TTC subway connection at Yonge Street in Richmond Hill. Alternately, it could find some way through the City to Union Station, or Summerhill Station.

West of Toronto you run into the eternal question - Do you go south to Hamilton or north to KW? Again the more northerly route is probably easier but the southerly route gets you closer to the bigger population centres (assuming you want stop in one of them). Obviously rail works best when it takes you as close as possible to your ultimate destination, which is probably downtown, or to a convenient intermediate transit hub. The solution through the western GTA may be to run the HS rail out along the 407 corridor through Mississauga and then split the difference between Hamilton and Cambridge/KW. Then build a intercity rail line between the two with a common station somewhere in Flamborough. This would not only allow people in both Hamilton and KW to link to the HS rail, it would also allow travel between the centres.

 

[toraerach]

The "Highway 7" route would run a bit north or south of Highway 7 through sparsely populated farmland and across Canadian Shield, as opposed to the more heavily populated St.Lawrence Valley and it's prime farmland. A more northerly route would cut Kingston out of the picture but would add Peterborough as a potential stop, however I think the idea of high speed trains should be to connect the major centres, not the smaller cities in between.

The problem there would be the terrain around Peterborough. The area is very hilly and there are many lakes. It's very beautiful, but building a rail line through it would be much more expensive than building it closer to Lake Ontario/the St. Lawrence. I would love to see HSR shoot through my city, but a Peterborough alignment doesn't really make sense (unless you're Dean Del Mastro looking for votes). Besides, I don't even think there's a rail corridor between Peterborough and Ottawa. Expropriations are expensive, and they really do not go over well in the rural parts of this county.

 

[kEiThZ]

Trading Peterborough for Kingston would be an absolutely terrible decision. There has to be a stop in Kingston for the HSR to succeed. There is no way it'll get funding otherwise, imho. Having a stop in Kingston, allows passengers for all the surrounding communities, even up to an hours drive away access to the rail line. Peterborough on the other hand has no real population base other than the city itself.

The direct distance issue is no where that big a deal. At speeds of 250 kph, the distance being added by a northerly turn after a waterfront alignment, would probably only add about 20 mins to the trip to Ottawa. The trip from Ottawa to Montreal, of course, would face no change in travel time.

 

[dunkalunk]

Oh Dean Del Mastro... I can understand wanting to build a rail spur from Oshawa to connect his constituents properly to the GO network, but for a conservative, he doesn't seem to know much about the relative cost/benefit analysis. A line through Peterborough would likely be one of the routes rejected by any EA due to the terrain difficulties. A Lakeshore route would also serve 5 times the population between Oshawa and Kingston.

Somewhat highlight what he has to say at the upcoming symposium in Toronto, I imagine it will be quite similar to what he said at the Kitchener one.

Peterborough and Ottawa are connected by rail, albeit not in a straight line. The CP line runs through this area. the line would then switch to the existing, serviced CN line through Barrhaven just north of Smiths Falls. The CP line through Peterborough will never be able to carry trains above 200km/h without extensive straightening of the ROW which can get incredibly expensive through the Canadian Shield.

I don't know why we can't serve both Hamilton and Kitchener with High speed rail. The Hamilton route would hug the lakeshore in the CN ROW and run to Niagara Falls or Fort Erie. The Kitchener line would be the main East-West line eventually continuing on to London and Windsor either by following the CN (GEXR) North Mainline ROW, or in an entirely new ROW.

 

[MisterF]

A route going from Kingston to Ottawa to Montreal wouldn't add much distance or time versus going along the St. Lawrence.

Trading Peterborough for Kingston would be an absolutely terrible decision. There has to be a stop in Kingston for the HSR to succeed. There is no way it'll get funding otherwise, imho. Having a stop in Kingston, allows passengers for all the surrounding communities, even up to an hours drive away access to the rail line. Peterborough on the other hand has no real population base other than the city itself.

To be fair, neither does Kingston. The population density surrounding both cities is pretty much the same. While Kingston is larger, Peterborough is surrounded mainly by farmland while Kingston has a lot more Canadian Shield nearby. Kingston being a good stop for HSR has more to do with location than population - it's halfway between Montreal and Toronto. For Peterborough, it's close enough to Toronto to make conventional rail ideal (with upgraded tracks from what currently exist of course).

 

[EnviroTO]

Personally I think it would make sense for both Peterborough and Kingston to have stops.

Windsor - Chatham - London - Kitchener - Pearson - Toronto - (possible future airport) - Peterborough - Kingston - Ottawa - Mirabel - Montreal - Trois Rivieres - Quebec City.

This would space stations (excluding the airports) about 100km apart.

West of Kitchener there isn't much trouble finding direct routes. East of Kitchener it would make sense for the line to pass south of Guelph and then follow the hydro corridor near the 407 to Pearson. On the east side the quickest route to north Pickering would be the CP Don Belleville from Union to Leaside, a fly-under to move the tracks to the north side of the corridor and follow the corridor with some grade separation at the Scarborough yard to the future airport site. From Peterborough the route could pass near Hastings and Napanee. From Kingston the route could be much more direct than it is now passing Battersea to get to connect to the existing corridor just north of Smith Falls. From Ottawa the route could pass near Bourget and Vankleek Hill crossing the river mid-way between Hawkesbury and the Quebec border, passing south of Lachute before reaching Mirabel. From Mirabel the route could head directly south connecting to the existing rail corridor that heads through the Mont Royal tunnel. From Montreal the route could cross the river and head north in the Autoroute 30 corridor until north of Sainte-Julie and then head directly to Nicolet crossing under the river north of there to connect with the rail line into Trois-Rivieres. From there the route would stay on the north shore and run through Quebec's airport before connecting to the existing line just east of the airport at L'Ancienne-Lorette and following it into Quebec's station via Vanier and Limoilou.

With this routing I would propose that regular VIA corridor services run on a Sarnia - London - Brantford - Oakville - Toronto - Oshawa - Belleville - Kingson - Montreal - Sherbrooke routing as well as a Niagara - Oakville - Toronto - Richmond Hill - Gravenhurst - Bracebridge - Huntsville - North Bay - Sturgeon Falls - Sudbury routing as a joint operation between ONR and VIA.