[Second_in_pie]

That might be a good idea. Or perhaps one for politics alone, and another for actually how it'd be built (technology, routings, stations, etc.)

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

I don't think you can separate politics and routing given the stage its at and the fact that routing is highly political. Maybe its just my opinion but you could design a line for maximum speed and based purely on statistics and engineering but in the end it will be things like how it serves existing communities, or doesn't serve them, and potential economic impacts which will decide where it goes.

If the cities (Montreal and Toronto mainly, but to some extent Ottawa as well) can develop and improve passenger rail corridors within their respective metro areas though dedicated lines, signal upgrades leading to increased capacity, and electrification, that would be a huge catalyst for HSR. It would actually give HSR lines in between a place to connect to and start the whole process towards a much larger and more robust network.

I have a map I've been working on which I will upload in a day or two. It should do a good job showing what I think would be a pragmatic, but comprehensive plan including phasing of various parts of the project.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

I didnt see a thread for existing VIA Rail improvements so I thought I would add this here. Mods can move the post if there is a better place.

On my trip from Ottawa to Kingston I noticed a lot of work being done. Between Smiths Falls and Brockville there were two sections of siding being adding, both a few kilometres in length, and what looked like one or two other spots where sidings might be added too. I didnt see any work being done for the new Smiths Falls station but it looks like they are preparing to add some new track in that area so work on the new station might be starting soon.

At Brockville I had noticed they were doing work on added new track just west of the station a few months ago. It now looks like they are well underway to adding even more track for the section from Brockville to about 40 kilometres east. I am not sure if this will be one continuos length of track (this is what it seems like), or multiple sidings but there is quite a bit being done now.

I've also heard that improvements to the corridor between Ottawa's main station and Fallowfield could be coming. This would be along the lines of grade separations, double tracking, and increasing the radius of the final corner heading into the main station (which right now is super tight). This project is mixed in with plans/rumours/discussions about commuter rail so it will be interesting to see if it pans out in the near future.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

I will add this post too this thread because it doesn't really belong in a post on its own and does also relate to HSR in that it will affect the inner city line through Montreal.

As many know Montreal has also been working a plan for an Airport-Downtown rail link. The original plan (seen below) had the line spurring off east of Dorval station, coming into the airport in a station that also ran east-west, and then leaving by a rather short and tight cornered spur that would have brought it back to the mainline. It would have been used by VIA as well as the airport rail service.

Now, this plan has been changed. As you can see below the spur branches off west of Dorval station and heads North where it terminates at a station in the bottom of one of the new airport buildings.

So why is this interesting and relevant? To start with this plan excludes VIA trains from directly entering the station. That is not entirely the end of the world as the airport rail link will stop at Dorval station so that offers some benefit. But it is a change from what was a long standing plan to have all passenger rail traffic be able to serve the airport directly.

Less relevant but very interesting is the fact that the rail station has already been built at Dorval. Below is a picture of the shell as it nears the end of construction. It was built by the airport authority while new buildings were being constructed in anticipation of a rail link happening soon and to contribute a portion of the costs of the project through direct construction.

What is most relevant however is that this single airport rail link project (in a similar way to what happened in Toronto), has sparked a much larger debate about rail transit at large in Montreal. Right now the project is delayed, by about a year I think. One of the reasons is that there is renewed interest in using Windsor Station as a major transportation hub. Having the airport rail link terminate at Windsor Station instead of Central Station is a big part of that plan. However, there are many other groups (including ADM, the airport authority) that want it to end at Central Station which has created a great deal of discussion.

The second problem is that this rail-link will require dedicated passenger rail tracks from the airport into downtown. This will require some major construction and track works, which is where the bulk of the $600 million for the airport rail link will be spent. But, just like the Georgetown corridor, there are questions about whether others should be able to benefit from the new track between Dorval and Central Station (or Windsor perhaps) since it is a congested area. There are also those who want the same improvements for the line from Dorval east up to Saint Anne de Bellevue, allowing higher frequency, electrified service on the line (hmmm...sound familiar?)

The reason this is posted in the HSR thread is because this is having all sorts of ripple affects in the transportation debate. The debate about the importance of a second major station downtown is one of the most interesting and has lead to questions about the rail network on and off the island, electrification, inter-city service, etc. For HSR this is another important hurdle to overcome. If major cities (at the moment Toronto and Montreal, but to a small extent Ottawa as well) have developed high capacity, electrified inner city rail networks and have transportation hubs that will be able to take them into the future then HSR becomes a much more realistic proposition. For Montreal the hubs are particularly important because as those who have gone into Montreal by train know the downtown is 150 years of converging rail lines and a mess, to put it nicely.

It will be really interesting to see how this plays out. At the least it looks like the Dorion-Rigaud line from Central Station to Saint Anne de Bellevue (or maybe a bit further into Dorion) will be electrified and upgraded. The section from Dorval to Central Station will see the most benefit. I don't see the airport rail link serving Windosr Station (for a number of reasons I wont get into). But it could be the push that is needed to get planners to develop a serious and forward thinking plan for the downtown stations and rail network within the central core of the city which would have a pretty radical and positive effect on the city and the region.

And just for kicks, here is a promo video on the airport-downtown rail link.

[video]http://www.admtl.com/flashplayer/fr.html?fichier=AEROTRAIN_FINAL_ANG.mp4&largeur=711&hauteur=475[/video]

 

[GregWTravels]

Thanks for posting that overview. I was aware of the project, but hadn't seen the specific routing.

It is eerily similar to the discussions in Toronto, is it not?

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

It is eerily similar to the discussions in Toronto, is it not?

Both cities face the same problems really. They want rail connections with the airport, which makes sense. They also have a lot of existing rail infrastructure which more and more people are realizing could be modernization and used for high frequency regional rail. Modernization programs are not exactly cheap though. The smaller airport rail links are easier to sell because they are not as much money. But since the public is paying most of the tab for these projects anyways they are, rightfully so, demanding that improvments benefit all rail transit, not just the specialty services.

I think Montreal will get resolved the same way Toronto will; by upgrading the corridor properly, for all agencies to use, while still making sure airport rail services can operate efficiently. It won't happen tomorrow, but probably soon enough. All the debate and discussions and politiking can be painful to watch sometimes, especially to those who want to transit improved. But all the debate is leading to much better, well thought out plans and even delays of 5 years in the grand scheme of things are not that bad if the end result is drastically better.

 

[EnviroTO]

In my opinion Montreal has been making some serious mistakes. The first was rendering the CP station useless by terminating the tracks early for the construction of Bell Centre, and the second is making this a spur line rather than a through line. I see no difference between not having GO trains run through the airport and having GO trains terminate at Danforth, Exhibition, and Bloor stations while offering "elite" service to Union station besides the fact the GO services already exist. Rail service run by the TTC and GO should have access to the same destinations as any elite service. If the elite service wants to run express service with purpose built cars for luggage and greater comfort that makes sense, only as long as the GO rail option of all-stops commuter service exists.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

In my opinion Montreal has been making some serious mistakes. The first was rendering the CP station useless by terminating the tracks early for the construction of Bell Centre, and the second is making this a spur line rather than a through line. I see no difference between not having GO trains run through the airport and having GO trains terminate at Danforth, Exhibition, and Bloor stations while offering "elite" service to Union station besides the fact the GO services already exist. Rail service run by the TTC and GO should have access to the same destinations as any elite service. If the elite service wants to run express service with purpose built cars for luggage and greater comfort that makes sense, only as long as the GO rail option of all-stops commuter service exists.

Windsor Station I don't think is much of a loss. Not that it can't serve some role, but Central Station is far more ideal. The biggest setback for Central Station is the tunnel under Mont-Royal which should be expanded and the fact that it is limited to electrified service only. But if Montreal does start to electrify its network this would start to become a non-issue. Obviously there is a lot of work that needs to be done between Dorval and Central Station which is where Windsor Station comes in handy until that section and the tunnel are properly upgraded.

I agree that the airport spurs are not ideal. But it is also a matter of trade offs. Do you try to push for investments of 100's of millions of dollars to build proper through stations at Trudeau and Pearson and risk having no rail link at all. Or do you spend money on upgrading large parts of the public corridor and then some money on an airport service only rail spur that can add a link much quicker? I agree that both the airports should have direct access for all services (along the lines of Schiphol or CDG or other European airports). But as long as too much isnt being spent on the spurs and the public isnt subsidizing the service itself then I dont mind if proper links arent built for a little longer yet (I would suspect that an HSR network would include such links).

 

[W. K. Lis]

Interesting article from www.investmentu.com:

Siemens’ High-Speed Rail: These “Cars†Get 700 Miles-Per-Gallon

by David Fessler, Energy and Infrastructure Expert
Friday, June 11, 2010: Issue #1279

America has a “waiting problem.â€

Think about the time you spend waiting in traffic jams… at the doctor/dentist’s office… at restaurants… at the gas station.

And how about the six months of your life spent waiting at traffic lights? Or the five years you’ll spend just waiting in lines at retail stores, the post office, DMV, etc. (Early buyers of Apple’s products likely spend far more.)

And according to Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy at the Reason Foundation, the average air traveler now spends two to three hours waiting at the airport. Granted, much of that is due to more rigorous security screening – time that is generally well spent – but air travel delays and traffic jams are only going to get worse, as more people take to the skies and roads.

In short, we wait an average of 45 to 62 minutes every single day. And that’s less time spent with family and friends, or doing other more productive, enjoyable activities.

Other countries have already recognized the problem and have addressed it for years. But the United States has failed miserably. So how can we improve our “waiting efficiency?†There’s a solution…

A Great Idea… Until Henry Ford Drove it Off the Rails

It’s called high-speed passenger rail.

I’ll get to the high-speed part in a moment. First, a quick overview of the U.S. rail service today.

Much of America’s freight still travels by rail. In fact, more than two billion tons plowed across the country in 2007 (the latest data available). It’s the transport mainstay for coal, lumber and other heavy industrial products and machinery.

Passenger rail service in the United States dates all the way back to 1830 when the “Best Friend of Charleston†– the first steam-powered train – traveled six miles with 141 passengers on board.

Boston, Baltimore and other major cities quickly established major railroads, due to the lack of river access to U.S. inland areas. And the idea of being able to travel, regardless of weather conditions – and at high speeds, too – was a big hit with most Americans.

As a result, passenger rail service soared…

• Even without government subsidies – which had disappeared by 1870 – rail travel jumped by 300% between 1896 and 1916.
• Until 1910, trains carried 95% of intercity passengers.
• U.S. rail travel hit its peak in 1920 when trains carried a total of 1.2 billion passengers.

But then Henry Ford came along and changed the playing field. When he introduced the mass-produced automobile in the following decade, rail travel fell by 18%.

And today?

700 Miles and a Tank of Gas Later…

Fast-forward to 2010…

You’d think that in today’s high-tech age, we could combine speed with efficiency and wouldn’t spend so long waiting. But that’s not the case. And with transportation, it’s an increasingly expensive wait for most Americans.

Take the average car, for instance. Fully loaded with five passengers, it gets about 100 passenger-miles-per-gallon (PMPG).

And according to the Department of Energy, the average passenger jet only gets about 36 PMPG. Of course, the trade-off there is speed.

But how about that speed/low-cost equation? Especially for regional travel? Europe and Asia already manage it. And we can here, too.

The answer lies in the method that squeezes out 700 PMPG.

You got it… high-speed trains. You can string their “cars†together and carry far more passengers than the average commercial jetliner. And these trains blast along at speeds of nearly 250 MPH.

So which company is behind this rapid rail transportation?

This Company Feels the Need… the Need for Speed

Take a quick jaunt around the globe and you’ll see this company’s trains in use all over the place…

• Spain has 26 high-speed rail trains that bridge the distance between Barcelona and Madrid.
• Russia a high-speed train link between Moscow and St. Petersburg. Eight trains are currently in service, with 54 more on order.
• The German railway system has just ordered 15 high-speed trains from this company.
• And the Chinese have taken delivery of 60 high-speed trains from this firm – with orders placed for over 100 more.

The company we’re talking about is Siemens AG (NYSE: SI) – the largest manufacturer of high-speed trains in the world.

Its Valero high-speed train technology is the world’s most successful. Siemens currently has 160 trains in operation and hundreds more on order.

And for speed-hungry America, it’s the perfect fit…

“All Aboard!â€

Siemens is pushing hard to get its Valero high-speed train technology widely adopted across the U.S. rail network. Interest is high, too. There are several high-speed rail projects in the works…

• California plans to spend $2 billion to build a 220 MPH high-speed rail system that would initially connect Anaheim to Los Angeles. Eventual expansion of the system would link Southern California with the San Francisco Bay Area.
• Florida is throwing $1.25 billion in to jump-start an 84-mile, high-speed rail line between Orlando and the Tampa area. Future expansions would eventually extend all the way to Miami.
• The Midwest has plans to link Chicago, St. Louis and Kansas City together. More than $2 billion is earmarked to upgrade existing rail lines, which would be able to support trains blasting along at up to 150 MPH.

Critics argue that few people will ride the high-speed rails. But frankly, that’s a myopic view. They’re not counting on expensive gasoline, because cheap gas is a thing of the past.

As if further proof were needed, U.S. politicians simply need to look around the world to see what other countries are investing in transportation and energy infrastructure.

They need to roll up their sleeves and get the same things going here.

And while you wait, you might want to hop onboard the Siemens train and pick up a few shares.

Good investing,

David Fessler

 

[to-enthusiast]

Star article from today:

Ontario and Quebec push for high-speed rail

 

[SlickFranky]

Ontario and Quebec push for high-speed rail
Rob Ferguson - Toronto Star

QUEBEC CITY—The federal government should get on board with a high-speed rail line linking Ontario and Quebec or risk being left in the dust by the Obama administration in the United States, the premiers of both provinces said Wednesday.

Emerging from a joint cabinet meeting, Dalton McGuinty and Jean Charest warned Canada could miss a golden opportunity on fast trains as the U.S. pushes to create 13 high-speed corridors, including Boston to Montreal and New York City to Buffalo.

“Let’s take a moment to appreciate the situation here,†said Charest, a former leader of the federal Progressive Conservatives.

“It would, after all, be ironic if we actually did more with the federal government of the United States than we did with the federal government of Canada on developing a fast train.â€

Ontario, Quebec and the federal government have partnered on $3-million feasibility study of high-speed rail due this fall. The effort is meant to update at least 16 previous studies or attempts to study a Quebec City to Windsor rail link since 1973.

So far, both premiers have noted the Harper government in Ottawa appears cool to the idea because of cost concerns, with industry observers saying the price tag of a high-speed rail corridor linking populous southern Ontario and Quebec is $24 billion if the estimates in a 1995 study are adjusted for inflation.

The benefits would include less crowded highways, less pollution, fewer greenhouse gases, more jobs and quicker travel times, proponents say, noting Europe and Japan have proven high-speed rail is economical with trains approaching speeds of 300 km/h between major cities, triple the speeds of most inter-city Canadian trains.

“If we build this line here, it’s more than just connecting 16 million Canadians together, strengthening our regional economy and better protecting our regional environment. It’s going to plug us in to a North American network of high-speed rail,†said McGuinty.

“That’s the exciting dimension to this.â€

However, government insiders note that it would take at least five to eight years of environmental assessments before shovels could go in the ground to create a rail corridor for fast trains, and there are the challenges of expropriating properties, particularly in urban areas.

The Obama administration, which has a renewed push to ease dependence on fossil fuels following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, has earmarked $8 billion to get rolling on high-speed rail corridors—which President Obama himself has acknowledged will take decades longer and hundreds of billions of dollars to create.

Charest and McGuinty also used their meeting to push the federal Conservative government on another climate-related initiative: setting up a cap-and-trade system to limit harmful greenhouse gas emissions by major polluting industries.

The two premiers said they hope to have their own regional systems ready by January 2012, a deadline set by the Western Climate Initiative including other provinces and states such as British Columbia, Manitoba, California and Utah. The group represents 82 million people.

“We’re staying on that schedule. Whatever needs to be done,†said Charest, with McGuinty adding the federal government should keep an “open mind†about a cap-and-trade system.

The joint cabinet meeting was the third since 2008 between the country’s two most powerful provincial governments. McGuinty and Charest banded together that year to push the interests of central Canada amid concerns the Harper government was “missing in action†on environmental and economic issues for the region, which is home to two-thirds of the Canadian population.

The next meeting is set for a year from now in Toronto.

 

[kEiThZ]

Nothing is going to happen unless Ontario and Quebec are willing to actually go it without the feds. Regardless of who is in power, no federal government can commit 8-10 billion for a project that solely benefits Ontario and Quebec, largely serving cities that are just reviled in the rest of Canada (Ottawa and Toronto in particular). That's the political reality.

Yes, Queen's Park and Quebec keep trying to coerce the federal government into spending billions they don't have so that they don't get "left behind." That strategy does not leave me hopeful.

 

[nfitz]

Nothing is going to happen unless Ontario and Quebec are willing to actually go it without the feds. Regardless of who is in power, no federal government can commit 8-10 billion for a project that solely benefits Ontario and Quebec, largely serving cities that are just reviled in the rest of Canada (Ottawa and Toronto in particular). That's the political reality.

That's absurd. Benefitting soley Ontario and Quebec? That's almost 2/3 of Canadians. Of course the federal government would do something to benefit most Canadians. When the Trudeau government was working on this, they were also planning to build high-speed from Calgary to Edmonton under the same program ... then we are looking at benefitting almost 75% of Canadians.

I doubt the morons currently running the governemnt would do this ... they seem much more concerned about spend $billions on their little 3-day tea party. But it's hardy economically difficult; the spending is only about $1 billion a year. The government doesn't seem to have any problem buying $16-billion of new planes for the Canadian Armed Forces ... and they'll only last 30 years ...

 

[kEiThZ]

That's absurd. Benefitting soley Ontario and Quebec? That's almost 2/3 of Canadians. Of course the federal government would do something to benefit most Canadians. When the Trudeau government was working on this, they were also planning to build high-speed from Calgary to Edmonton under the same program ... then we are looking at benefitting almost 75% of Canadians.

You are acting like this is just the Conservatives. Aside from Trudeau, how far did Chretien and Martin really take HSR discussions in this county. And for all his talk, I can't see Iggy committing several billion either to HSR just like that either.

Actually, I don't even think the Conservatives might necessarily be opposed to the thing per se. The line would run through a lot of ridings where they could really boost their numbers. For all their talk, regardless of party colours, nothing makes MPs and Ministers happier than getting to cut ribbons. And cutting the ribbon on a $24 billion rail line, impacting 16 million people is not one, even the Conservatives would want to pass up.

The problem, however, for them and the Liberals when they eventually take over, is the rest of the country. Like it or not, such a project just would not be popular without concessions elsewhere. And that's what could make the whole thing very expensive. And this is reality. It's very rare for us, in Canada, to build infrastructure or programs this big that solely benefit one or two provinces.

I never said the view is correct. I agree they should spend on HSR. However, the political reality is what it is. It is very difficult to get the ball rolling without the provinces committing themselves first. If the two provincial governments pledged to go ahead without the feds, I think you'd quickly see the feds change tune. Heck, if Queen's park alone said they were going to build a Toronto-Ottawa link, you'd see movement. But right now, it's a terrible Mexican stand-off. They are all hoping to see who commits first. The feds really don't want to initiate a program that would have every other province demanding their "fair share" of "HSR money". But if the provinces moved first, the feds would have no choice. Even Harper would not pass up the chance to cut the ribbon on the first HSR. I'll bet money on that.

That's why I'd argue that instead of just bitching at the Feds ad nauseam, Queen's Park should make a move. Quebec would match. Then the feds would have to come to the table.

I doubt the morons currently running the governemnt would do this ... they seem much more concerned about spend $billions on their little 3-day tea party. But it's hardy economically difficult; the spending is only about $1 billion a year. The government doesn't seem to have any problem buying $16-billion of new planes for the Canadian Armed Forces ... and they'll only last 30 years ...

Oh that popular Canadian canard that all our fiscal challenges would be solved if only we cut back further on the military. The $16 billion worth of planes comes because the the previous three governments barely spent anything on the Air Force. Our Search and Rescue planes are now pretty close to literally falling out of the sky. We are buying spares from mothballed fleets from countries in Africa. The Hercules transport fleets is one of the oldest in the world. So old in fact, that they've become engineering case studies, because nobody knew such fleets could be kept in service that long. Most of the Herc Fleet and some of the fighter fleet was purchased when Trudeau was still in office. The Maritime Patrol fleet was from the Mulroney era. The Search and Rescue fleet is from the Pearson era.

And after all that, did you know that Air Canada doesn't keep its planes around more than 20-25 years? And they certainly don't fly them like the Air Force does or operate out of as austere environments. That the CF keeps planes around for 40-50 years (30 years is the target and 5-10 years beyond maximum design life of 20-25 years) is a credit to how much they can stretch a dollar. The CF keeps planes longer around, in some cases, longer than the TTC keeps subway cars.

I'd have no issues with attitudes like this, if people were willing to take it to its logical conclusion. How about we get rid of the CF completely. Who cares about sovereignty, emergency preparedness, national security, etc. after all? You could save on buying $350 million strategic airlifters, $ 100 million fighters, and $80 million maritime patrol aircraft if you don't care about maintaining Arctic sovereignty, watching our coastlines, or having the airlift capacity to respond to a major disaster inside Canada. Next time there's an ice storm in Quebec, a flood in Manitoba or an earthquake in BC, we'll just send the guys by road and forget about giving them imagery, overhead command n control, etc. Heck, let's contract out responsibility for our sovereignty to the US. Next time the Russians send a bomber over the pole, just the let the USAF handle it. Why have an Air Force, when the Americans would be more than happy to get carte blanche with our airspace. You'd be in for that right?

And we should also forego the over $16 billion we get in economic benefits, from our government insisting that every dollar spent buying a foreign made platform is spent by the winning contractor in some form or another (with extra points for building our industrial base) in Canada. Do you really think our aerospace, defence and electronics sectors got this large on their own?

 

[nfitz]

The point is, that if we can afford $16-billion for fighter jets every 30 years (it seems like only yesterday there was all the cost for the F18s), not to mention all the other hardware ... tanks, warships, helicopters, ice-breakers, etc.) then we can afford $10-billion for high speed rail. Heck, France can do it, and they spend more on the military than we do!

I'm not sure what set off all the Jingoism here ... I never suggested that they shouldn't be spending the money (though perhaps they should actually tender the thing, instead of sole-sourcing it ... given how corrupt we have seen Conservative ministers are on spending issues lately ...)