[dunkalunk]

Basically, the way I see it, this report was designed to get buried. I'm not sure why they haven't gone with similar findings on the 1995 or VIAfast study. At the very least, building the Kingston-Montreal stretch (build to 300km/h standards) would be the most worthwhile as far as length of new infrastructure and speed potential.

 

[T.O.Fanatic]

Buses would gain passengers serving small towns that would lose rail service.

Now here is the problem. Why can't we do what Amtrak does with the Acela Express. Acela provides the HSR service to Boston, Providence, NYC etc, and the Northeast Regional train still connects these destinations to the smaller communities. A bus twice a day does not replace rail service, those people who lose their VIA station will simply choose to drive. We want our smaller cities to be pediestrian and transit friendly too, not just Toronto and Montreal.

 

[RedRocket191]

The northeast corridor houses three different kinds of service - Acela Express, Northeast Regional (aka regular Amtrak) and all-stop commuter rail - so there is no practical reason why higher speed trains cannot coexist with regular VIA and GO-style service on EXISTING corridor. However, if we're looking to build this high-speed line on a NEW corridor, the trains will not be able to make the same stops. However, building a new corridor does not require us to tear up the existing rails and stations. There is no reason why high speed rail means that communities like Ingersoll and Gananoque Junction will lose the service they have today (unless of course people drive to the big city stations instead of going to their local stations).

 

[borgo100]

Looks like we will have to wait another decade...
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/news/...nty-cools-on-high-speed-rail-link-with-quebec

 

[dunkalunk]

McGuinty says it's a bad time. When will it ever be a good time to spend $35 Billion? I think I can speak for most on this board by saying that we've studied this enough, let's just build something already. Maybe in phases, The Kingston-Montreal section would be a good start.

Even if we don't electrify the thing, with improved track we can still run diesel at 200km/h.

The only way to get things like this up and running is a piecemeal approach. GO transit buys up 8km of rail corridor, or a new rail overpass is constructed and noone bats an eye. You present someone with a price tag of $35 Billion and they get sticker shock.

 

[sixrings]

20 billion? apparently this can be profitable? i am a sceptic. how many trips would this really serve. can this thing compete with megabus pricing or it simply for business. the arl is already priced out of much of the public why would this be different. 20 billion could make a whole drl and electrify the go network. that is a substantial amount of people those two things would serve and congestion is already costing toronto billions. i just cant understand other then environmental reasons why this link is important. also if thats the only reason gridlock is polluting all of torontos air.

 

[drum118]

20 billion? apparently this can be profitable? i am a sceptic. how many trips would this really serve. can this thing compete with megabus pricing or it simply for business. the arl is already priced out of much of the public why would this be different. 20 billion could make a whole drl and electrify the go network. that is a substantial amount of people those two things would serve and congestion is already costing toronto billions. i just cant understand other then environmental reasons why this link is important. also if thats the only reason gridlock is polluting all of torontos air.

If you can get 2/3 trips a day out of train and crew, you are saving money. Crews would not have to layover at one costing $$ to do so and you are carrying twice the ridership in the same time frame as the current one.

By having faster service and turn around, you would only need 1/3-1/2 of the equipment needed to service the same number of trains that exist today and be able to offer more service. The workforce would be smaller also.

There is no reason why the existing line can not be upgraded to offer various types of service without going out and building a new corridor that will miss most of the major stops, unless you are running a point to point express service. You will need a lot of riders paying for that point to point service to pay for itself.

Study time is over and time to build, since we are 35 years behind the world on high speed and electrification.

I remember my first ride on the TVG and it was an unplan one. I was blown away at seeing trains passing us in the opposite direction every 5 minute on my way to Paris. I would say we were doing about 300km at the time and only saw a slight movement of the currant to say were where at high speed.

 

[sixrings]

If you can get 2/3 trips a day out of train and crew, you are saving money. Crews would not have to layover at one costing $$ to do so and you are carrying twice the ridership in the same time frame as the current one.

By having faster service and turn around, you would only need 1/3-1/2 of the equipment needed to service the same number of trains that exist today and be able to offer more service. The workforce would be smaller also.

There is no reason why the existing line can not be upgraded to offer various types of service without going out and building a new corridor that will miss most of the major stops, unless you are running a point to point express service. You will need a lot of riders paying for that point to point service to pay for itself.

Study time is over and time to build, since we are 35 years behind the world on high speed and electrification.

I remember my first ride on the TVG and it was an unplan one. I was blown away at seeing trains passing us in the opposite direction every 5 minute on my way to Paris. I would say we were doing about 300km at the time and only saw a slight movement of the currant to say were where at high speed.

all i know is that via prices sometimes are higher then porter. i love the train amd actually took one on our honeymoon but if the price isnt right km driving or megabussing it. k dont mind paying a premium but deffinately not air plane prices.

 

[agoraflaneur]

The 20B is for the entire line from Quebec to Windsor. Of course this cannot be profitable.

However, for 11B we can go from Toronto to Montreal with a nice Ottawa stop in between.

This actually would be profitable and could be faster than planes in many cases. 1.5H for the Toronto to Ottawa. Only 1H from Montreal to Ottawa, and 2.5H from Toronto to Montreal, downtown to downtown, with no going out to the airport.

The study says that TO-Ott-Mon is profitable. 11B should be spent to do it.

It isn't just environmental savings. The highways would need less investment, we would need to build fewer of them and maintain them less.

Plus, do you believe gas prices are going down? Current airfare prices are unlikely to stay where they are in the future, so that rail would compete even better.

I would say it would likely be business travelers who would be the mainstay, but it would be great for tourists and downtowners as well as others looking to save some time and increase comfort on their trip.

Last point: http://www.wnem.com/story/16041416/...rail-plan-moving-forward#.TsRtXpRzFUQ.blogger

Chicago is building a line to Detroit, which could in the future make a Windsor line feasible, since, you know, there is a metropolis of 5.5 million people on the other side of the river!!!

 

[andrewpmk]

The 20B is for the entire line from Quebec to Windsor. Of course this cannot be profitable.

However, for 11B we can go from Toronto to Montreal with a nice Ottawa stop in between.

This actually would be profitable and could be faster than planes in many cases. 1.5H for the Toronto to Ottawa. Only 1H from Montreal to Ottawa, and 2.5H from Toronto to Montreal, downtown to downtown, with no going out to the airport.

The study says that TO-Ott-Mon is profitable. 11B should be spent to do it.

It isn't just environmental savings. The highways would need less investment, we would need to build fewer of them and maintain them less.

Plus, do you believe gas prices are going down? Current airfare prices are unlikely to stay where they are in the future, so that rail would compete even better.

I would say it would likely be business travelers who would be the mainstay, but it would be great for tourists and downtowners as well as others looking to save some time and increase comfort on their trip.

Last point: http://www.wnem.com/story/16041416/...rail-plan-moving-forward#.TsRtXpRzFUQ.blogger

Chicago is building a line to Detroit, which could in the future make a Windsor line feasible, since, you know, there is a metropolis of 5.5 million people on the other side of the river!!!

I severely doubt that a 300km/h Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal high speed rail could be built for 11 billion dollars. The UK High Speed 2 from London to Birmingham is projected to cost 15.8 to 17.4 billion pounds for a much shorter distance. In particular, Union Station capacity expansion would become a necessity, this would probably consume 5 billion dollars by itself though GO service would benefit enormously from this.

 

[rbt]

I severely doubt that a 300km/h Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal high speed rail could be built for 11 billion dollars.

The land was quoted at about $1.5B for the TOM link. The actual electrified railway track was only about $2B (mostly flat land so no large bridges or tunnels were required). The majority of the cost is bridges for existing roads that cannot be closed.


It's entirely possible that the London to Birmingham has a lot more roads that cross the route requiring bridging; or old railway bridges that need replacement/upgrades.

Union Station capacity expansion would become a necessity, this would probably consume 5 billion dollars by itself though GO service would benefit enormously from this.

I don't think Union Station capacity is a big deal with a few changes to VIA procedures and high-floor platforms to eliminate the issues of elderly climbing the train steps with baggage.

With 30 minute frequencies (huge capacity boost from today) the actual number of additional travellers is equal to a single GO train per hour.

 

[Voltz]

The estimated cost for the Toronto Ottawa Montreal section does not seem to be all that bad when compared to how much is being spent on the Eglinton LRT. Assuming of course, that the estimate is realistic. The cost would also be split among three governments.

And as I recall the study assumed that all crossings would be bridged? If so then there are likely a few dozen that could just be closed instead for some significant savings. Off the top of my head I can think of a half dozen or so in the east end of the Toronto area alone that do not need to remain open.

 

[44 North]

For the Toronto-Windsor/Detroit corridor, a cost-effective technology proposal could be studied. Perhaps this:

 

[TOareaFan]

The 20B is for the entire line from Quebec to Windsor. Of course this cannot be profitable.

However, for 11B we can go from Toronto to Montreal with a nice Ottawa stop in between.

This actually would be profitable and could be faster than planes in many cases. 1.5H for the Toronto to Ottawa. Only 1H from Montreal to Ottawa, and 2.5H from Toronto to Montreal, downtown to downtown, with no going out to the airport.

The study says that TO-Ott-Mon is profitable. 11B should be spent to do it.

I haven't seen the study but the Post article linked above does not say the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal leg would be profitable. It says it would be lucrative.

The study, which was leaked in late October, found that a line running along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor wouldn’t be profitable. However a Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto line at a cost of either $9.1-billion or $11-billion — depending on if it ran at 200 kilometres per hour or 300 km/h — would be lucrative.

So, to anyone that has read the report....what does "lucrative" mean? and, if it means profitable, is that on an operational basis (ie does it mean the anticipated ridership/fares would cover operating costs) or is it on a return on investment basis (ie. does it generate sufficient revenue such that the revenues not only cover operating costs but also offers some return on the $9 - $11B of investment).

 

[reaperexpress]

The 20B is for the entire line from Quebec to Windsor. Of course this cannot be profitable.

However, for 11B we can go from Toronto to Montreal with a nice Ottawa stop in between.

Does the 11B figure assume that GO and AMT have already electrified their segments?

If it doesn't, then the cost of HSR could be knocked down by a fair margin, based on the costs of the GO and AMT projects that are going ahead regardless.

The GO and AMT segments don't make up a very large portion of the T-M route, but they would probably have a significant impact on the overall costs of electrification. GO will be taking responsibility for electrifying the USRC - a massive undertaking, as well as the electrifying route from there to the VIA TMC, which is also helpful. Urban electrification is also much more expensive than rural electrification, presumably because construction needs more impact mitigation and there are generally more nearby objects needing grounding.

As a side note: It's interesting that GO chose to only electrify the lines are also shared with VIA services.