[CDL.TO]

It's a freakin' study, for goodness sakes! Not even a EA! Why would you limit the scope of a study unless you have some sort of axe to grind? Heck, you could even state that the study must provide plans and analysis for both options and leave it for the politicians to decide afterwards.

 

[RedRocket191]

It's a freakin' study, for goodness sakes! Not even a EA! Why would you limit the scope of a study unless you have some sort of axe to grind? Heck, you could even state that the study must provide plans and analysis for both options and leave it for the politicians to decide afterwards.

Mystery solved

 

[EnviroTO]

Ok, a frequent drive I make is about 125km door to door. On a very good day (no traffic), I can do it in about 95 minutes. That averages to about 78 km/h. That's under ideal conditions, not rush hour.

Your door opens onto a freeway? The average freeway speed has nothing to do with door to door. If I calculate average train speeds door to door I would have to pick a home address likely located nowhere near Union Station and reduce the average speed on the train even further.

 

[Ahab]

While I like the idea of a HSR link, I just don't think that it will attract a lot of people who are now making the trip by either driving or flying.

I do the Toronto - Montreal trip a handful of times each year. When traveling with my family, time is not a consideration so driving makes the most sense as it's cheap and you have the use of a car when there. When traveling for work, I opt for Porter. It's fast and their service is excellent. Even if the new train were to make the trip in two hours and twenty minutes and cost the same as Porter (which I doubt could be done), it's still too long.

The HSR link would seem to only appeal to those who travel by train now so I don't see much of a business case for it.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^You would be surprised by the demographic of the people who ride HSR in Europe. Walk down the length of an ICE or TGV and you will encounter hordes of middle class families with small children, foreign tourists, business people, elderly couples, students...pretty much the entire spectrum of society travels on high speed rail.

I see some of your points, though. A lot of North America is built for the car so that once you get to your destination, you may be stranded without one. We should probably encourage car share companies to allow their members access to cars in cities all across NA and then have convenient lots right by the HSR stations. A rail ticket should also allow you access to the public transit system on either end of your journey, so that you can travel more easily to where you want to go.

 

[ShonTron]

^You would be surprised by the demographic of the people who ride HSR in Europe. Walk down the length of an ICE or TGV and you will encounter hordes of middle class families with small children, foreign tourists, business people, elderly couples, students...pretty much the entire spectrum of society travels on high speed rail.

The one place in North America which really has this feel as well is the Northeast Corridor. The same demographic you describe was also in Acela "Business Class" - families, seniors, students, tourists. It's also very common for businesspeople and even politicans (not Senators, but Congressmen, staffers, etc) to use Amtrak over flying for New York-Washington trips and intermediate points. I guess it helps that New York is at one end (where the taxi ride to LGA, JFK or EWR is a hassle) and that the four biggest cities - Boston, NY, Philly and DC, have excellent metro connections at their stations.

 

[rbt]

It's a freakin' study, for goodness sakes! Not even a EA! Why would you limit the scope of a study unless you have some sort of axe to grind?

Cost containment.

You wouldn't want them to investigate a vacuumed tube with a maglev system inside.

The study will be done by a 3rd party whose interest will be in maximizing the revenue from said study. That means limits need to be in the contract. No point in studying things that obviously will not be considered for implementation.

 

[MisterF]

I see some of your points, though. A lot of North America is built for the car so that once you get to your destination, you may be stranded without one. We should probably encourage car share companies to allow their members access to cars in cities all across NA and then have convenient lots right by the HSR stations. A rail ticket should also allow you access to the public transit system on either end of your journey, so that you can travel more easily to where you want to go.

That's why it's so important to have good transit in the cities served by HSR. This study is timed really well, after MoveOntario2020 was announced. Connecting hub airports is important too. In Europe high speed rail has largely replaced connecting flights on a lot of routes. If someone from Ottawa wants to fly out of Pearson they'd take the train instead of a short flight.

 

[ShonTron]

It's a freakin' study, for goodness sakes! Not even a EA! Why would you limit the scope of a study unless you have some sort of axe to grind? Heck, you could even state that the study must provide plans and analysis for both options and leave it for the politicians to decide afterwards.

No kidding. I missed this point earlier.

A study should look at all reasonable rail options, from Acela-style to TGV style or a combo option that would use both existing and new tracks. I would leave out Maglevs, monorails, etc.

Even with Acela, it should be noted that the NEC doesn't have long freight trains in the way (while there are some local freights, they aren't long distance CN-style trains, most of the other trains are commuter) and the track owned mostly by Amtrak (the rest owned by State commuter rail services) who can call all the shots. Can we even expect this on the CN-controlled Quebec-Windsor route, even if electrified and upgraded?

This is why there needs to be significant upgrades no matter what - new tracks in their own rights of way in sections, even if we go to 150 MPH (225 km/h) speeds (the top speed currently is 100 MPH, though CN's freights and slow orders and station stops interfere often). Might as well make any new tracks up to TGV standards and upgrade the line incrementally, yet properly. The slower FRA-complaint trainsets can be used even if the whole line is upgraded or we lose the whole stupidity about FRA compliance, for regional trains or converted for the use of GO, AMT or elsewhere.

 

[EnviroTO]

If the economy in Ontario and Quebec takes a real hit a REAL high-speed project could be just what the doctor ordered, especially for Windsor and Chatham. I would think the high-speed route which makes the most sense is Windsor, Chatham, London, Kitchener, Pearson, Union, Pickering Lands (to serve the fields there... no plans to build anything there of course), Peterborough, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal. Regular VIA service could run on the route which has already decent speeds Sarnia, Strathroy, London, Ingersol, Woodstock, Brantford, Aldershot, Oakville, Toronto, Oshawa, Cobourg, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville, Cornwall, Montreal. Speed improvements should be made to run regular VIA service Niagara Falls, St.Catherines, Grimsby, Hamilton, Aldershot, Oakville, Toronto. Lastly Ontario Northland service should be contracted out to VIA and speeds increased rather than running it with a different brand and crappier rolling stock.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

^I think what you are saying basically makes sense. Toronto (including a proper station at Pearson) to Montreal should be the first section done at HSR standards since they are the two major centres. Once that is done (and it wont be a short project), or near done, then adding Ottawa into the network (basically along the same path as is currently used) and Quebec would be the next two segments. There is also good reason to delay Ottawa a few years since a proper network will require a downtown station and dealing the mess that will come from the NCC, a mentally retarded city council and possibly another set of provincial and municipal governments on the other side of the river should make for a totally ridiculous and headache enducing mess far more childish and moronic than the current transit debate in the city.

Outside of those centres I dont think HSR at 300km/h standards is really necessary (though a line to Kitchener-Waterloo should be done to the highest possible standards). Lines to places such as London, Windsor, Sarnia, south shore of the St. Lawrence in Quebec, etc, could probably be more than sufficient as long as the they were capable of 200km/h and dedicated to ensure efficient and uninterupted train scheduling.

I think a lot about the political climate is different this time around. And considering the last proposal was a public money for private profit scam I would rather the extra wait then what had been proposed in the past. So long as it is done right from the very start (and in this case I believe that it should be all or nothing and that just something is not good enough) then I can be patient and wait a little longer.

Edit: I would also argue that under no circumstances should service to smaller cities and centers, such as Belleville, Trenton, or Brockville to name a few, should be reduced and if anything a proper network should enhance the ability to effectively and economically serve these places. The cost would be minimal when the total network costs are considered and these cities could see benefits comensorate to those that cities such as Toronto or Montreal would see.

 

[nfitz]

^I think what you are saying basically makes sense. Toronto (including a proper station at Pearson) to Montreal should be the first section done at HSR standards since they are the two major centres. Once that is done (and it wont be a short project), or near done, then adding Ottawa into the network...

As virtually every alignment considered since 1977 has been Montreal to Toronto via Ottawa (because it only adds a few kilometres to the route), then surely the first leg would and should be Montreal to Ottawa, and then Toronto to Ottawa. This would result in the earliest revenue stream. If the thing is a massive success, then perhaps an Ottawa by-pass could be constructed at a later date to shave a few more minutes off Montreal to Toronto expresses.

 

[afransen]

Would there be an Ottawa bypass? I imagine travelling through Ottawa proper would eat up a lot of time since the train could not travel at speed.

 

[unimaginative2]

If the train served the current station, it wouldn't be needed. If it ran to a downtown station, perhaps in a combo tunnel with the light rail route, you'd want to electrify and upgrade the existing line to shave a few minutes off the trip for minimal cost.

As an alternative, one of the studies suggested operating along the CP route on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River, using the existing O-Train route. The station was to be in Hull, though it could just as easily have been in Lebreton Flats. The advantages would be a low-cost route much closer to Downtown Ottawa, direct access to Mirabel (a plus at the time) and Laval, and the political benefit of evening out the mileage in the two provinces. With Mirabel gone, the route on the Ontario side makes much more sense since it serves Dorval and VIA owns not one but two rail corridors (the second being the abandoned but preserved old M&O which is the most ideal). You'd have to work out the Ottawa station problem, though. The current station might be okay, as it really isn't that far from downtown, has good transit access, and is a striking building. I'd still rather a tunnel and a renovated Union Station.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

^Which illustrates well the point that I was going to make that there have never really been any formal plans in terms of routing. HSR has never made it into any substantial stages of planning and much of what has been said in terms of routes and other plans was often subject to political whims (such as a route that would have included Mirabel) or just people expressing their preferences. It seems fair to say that when actual planning of an HSR network takes place most of what has been said or done in the past will be totally irrelevant as economic and demographic changes will mean it is being planned in a somewhat different environment than in the late 80's and early 90's. Not too mention that the wishes of politicians and transit geeks, the only group up to very recently that has ever really cared about the idea, will probably find that real planning will yield results that often are not what they had dreamed up in their heads.

I only hope that this idea, once it gets going, gets out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of planners, engineers, and those who are properly trained to design an HSR network, as quickly as possible. Watching transit issues in the hands of politicians is like watching a car wreck in slow motion and it would be nice not to see the same fate fall on HSR that has plagued most issues surrounding transit in all parts of the country over the last 5 years in particular.