A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
They certainly do! And the network on which they run is also a thing of beauty.
They certainly do! And the network on which they run is also a thing of beauty.
J
Junglab2002
Guest
Those crazy Europeans...
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
Except that it depends on what kind of road you are talking about. A city street can host a wide variety of vehicles, but when traffic barely exceeds 40 km/h, there are going to be fewer safety concerns. On the other hand, take a 400 series Highway. There is little argument that bikes and mopeds have no place whatsoever and the fact that there are very often proposals for truck only highways indicates that even a car/transport mix can at times be dangerous. It could also be argued that many streets could benefit from having bike only lnaes to keep cyclists and autos seperate and reducing many dangerous situations.
Same goes with rail lines. If the Weston Line (or Lakeshore line for that matter) were passenger only lines than maybe a case could be made for including light rail vehicles in the mix. But so long as they are shared with freight, I cant see transport Canada making any exemptions. I dont see why it should be such a big deal anyways. There are enough heavy alternatives that could do the same job as light rail vehicles that there really isnt a need to go through a long, drawn out process of having Transport Canada make a special exception.
M
MrOttawa
Guest
^ Good analogy.
The expense is not the rolling stock by the infrastructure upgrades that are always needed everytime you change a lines operating characteristics (rails, bridges, tunnels, signalling etc.)
The expense is not the rolling stock by the infrastructure upgrades that are always needed everytime you change a lines operating characteristics (rails, bridges, tunnels, signalling etc.)
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
That's exactly where the problem lies. You can make GO trains 20 cars long, micro manage track time, or add an extra track here and there, but these are just short term, ad hoc solutions.
Solutions that are going to have a long term, valueable impact, such as reconfiguration and dedicated tracks on the Lakeshore line and Weston line, electrification, buying and expediting land for new lanes, etc, is going to be expensive. And not only is it expensive, but it lacks political selling appeal. A new subway line is costly, but after you spend a billion dollars you have new stations, new trains, something very tangible. If you spend the same amount of money upgrading Lakeshore, there is no new product for photo-ops.
What I find most frustrating is that passenger rail could be a huge success if it were given the chance. While the past 50 years have essentially belonged to the automobile, rail travel is still a part of Canadian culture. VIA remains to be successful in the Quebec-Windsor corridor despite all its problems. AMT and GO continue to grow despite limitations. Companies such as Bombardier and CN do hold a certain amount of nationalist pride. Another thread on this forum has shown that cities and communities do desire and would like better rail access, and in some cases such as Masscouche in Quebec, have been successful in influencing decisions for rail expansion.
Returning to the comparison between highways though, passenger rail lacks the dedicated infrastructure it needs to be successful. Car and truck transport would never have exploded were it not for the freeway. No difference with rail. European rail systems are a good example of this. While higher densities do mean more service can be supported, it is the dedicated infrastructure nonetheless that makes it possible to offer such efficient and varied service.
In the short term, I don't see a lot happening in terms of large scale investment in rail travel though. There is still too much of a gap between the current situation and where it needs to stand for real progress to take place.
On one hand, there needs to be the political will to do so. High speed rail has been suggested a few times by the federal government and examined to a certain degree so the idea is not totally new. But its going to take a federal government alongside provincial governments with a willingness to actually put forward the money required and develop a plan for large scale investment. At best we have governments that want to dismantle VIA, which would not be a bad thing if it ment handing it over to provinces for example and not just gutting it wholesale.
On the other hand there also needs to be a strong expressed desire by a large number of citizens or groups. Its encouraging to see that Kitchener is speaking up about wanting better rail service. That is only one voice however and will no doubt be drowned out by the calls for more expressways for the time being. What needs to happen is for a coalition of forces to speak up and make these demands. When Barrie, Peterborough, Hamilton, Niagra Falls, Kitchener, community groups such as the Weston Coalition, and others, all speak with a single voice, then you will see action begun to be taken on the issue.
I'll end this rant by saying that in many ways, the Quebec-Windsor region is in a rather ideal position. You have a growing demand for rail service, denser, more urban development being constructed (which will be better suited for transit service) and rising oil prices. With all these, and other, factors put together, slowly you have an environment (physical and economic) being built that means passenger rail will become a much more viable option in the near future. But it is also happening at a rate slow enough that trends can be observed and thoughtful planning can be done (as opposed to being caught off guard and rushing to come up with quick solutions). It might be 10 or 15 years before we see large scale projects such as upgrading the Lakeshore line or dedicated tracks between Montreal and Toronto. Thats not entirely bad given the amount of work that would be invloved before shovels ever hit the ground (land aquisition, EA's, public consultation, financing, etc all take a fair amount of time and for large scale projects it is not uncommon for these processes to span over a decade). It might seem frustratingly slow at times, but at least the wheels are in motion for large changes to take place and to some degree, it is this period where plans and ideas are being created and proposed that is the most interesting.
Solutions that are going to have a long term, valueable impact, such as reconfiguration and dedicated tracks on the Lakeshore line and Weston line, electrification, buying and expediting land for new lanes, etc, is going to be expensive. And not only is it expensive, but it lacks political selling appeal. A new subway line is costly, but after you spend a billion dollars you have new stations, new trains, something very tangible. If you spend the same amount of money upgrading Lakeshore, there is no new product for photo-ops.
What I find most frustrating is that passenger rail could be a huge success if it were given the chance. While the past 50 years have essentially belonged to the automobile, rail travel is still a part of Canadian culture. VIA remains to be successful in the Quebec-Windsor corridor despite all its problems. AMT and GO continue to grow despite limitations. Companies such as Bombardier and CN do hold a certain amount of nationalist pride. Another thread on this forum has shown that cities and communities do desire and would like better rail access, and in some cases such as Masscouche in Quebec, have been successful in influencing decisions for rail expansion.
Returning to the comparison between highways though, passenger rail lacks the dedicated infrastructure it needs to be successful. Car and truck transport would never have exploded were it not for the freeway. No difference with rail. European rail systems are a good example of this. While higher densities do mean more service can be supported, it is the dedicated infrastructure nonetheless that makes it possible to offer such efficient and varied service.
In the short term, I don't see a lot happening in terms of large scale investment in rail travel though. There is still too much of a gap between the current situation and where it needs to stand for real progress to take place.
On one hand, there needs to be the political will to do so. High speed rail has been suggested a few times by the federal government and examined to a certain degree so the idea is not totally new. But its going to take a federal government alongside provincial governments with a willingness to actually put forward the money required and develop a plan for large scale investment. At best we have governments that want to dismantle VIA, which would not be a bad thing if it ment handing it over to provinces for example and not just gutting it wholesale.
On the other hand there also needs to be a strong expressed desire by a large number of citizens or groups. Its encouraging to see that Kitchener is speaking up about wanting better rail service. That is only one voice however and will no doubt be drowned out by the calls for more expressways for the time being. What needs to happen is for a coalition of forces to speak up and make these demands. When Barrie, Peterborough, Hamilton, Niagra Falls, Kitchener, community groups such as the Weston Coalition, and others, all speak with a single voice, then you will see action begun to be taken on the issue.
I'll end this rant by saying that in many ways, the Quebec-Windsor region is in a rather ideal position. You have a growing demand for rail service, denser, more urban development being constructed (which will be better suited for transit service) and rising oil prices. With all these, and other, factors put together, slowly you have an environment (physical and economic) being built that means passenger rail will become a much more viable option in the near future. But it is also happening at a rate slow enough that trends can be observed and thoughtful planning can be done (as opposed to being caught off guard and rushing to come up with quick solutions). It might be 10 or 15 years before we see large scale projects such as upgrading the Lakeshore line or dedicated tracks between Montreal and Toronto. Thats not entirely bad given the amount of work that would be invloved before shovels ever hit the ground (land aquisition, EA's, public consultation, financing, etc all take a fair amount of time and for large scale projects it is not uncommon for these processes to span over a decade). It might seem frustratingly slow at times, but at least the wheels are in motion for large changes to take place and to some degree, it is this period where plans and ideas are being created and proposed that is the most interesting.
G
GregWTravels
Guest
Last Thursday, I spent 2 1/2 hours sitting on the tarmac of Newark Liberty Airport waiting for my hour long flight between Newark and Toronto to take off. We were delayed because of thunderstorms in between Toronto and Newark. Due to the weather, greater spacing was required between planes, and so all the planes scheduled between the New York area and places to the north-west were delayed.
I was speaking with an ex-Air Canada pilot on the weekend, and he said that the system, especially in the north-east USA and Ontario/Quebec area was basically close to it's limit. There was no more space to add planes into. More airports (as discussed in the GTAA thread) can allivate gate crowding and takeoff slots on the ground, but can't help getting more planes in the limited air corridors that exist today. There is talk of a more flexible situation to move away from the current "air highway" system to open up more routes, but there's limits to that to.
Eventually my flight from Newark to Toronto was cancelled, and I had to wait until Friday morning to get out. With no delays, New York area to Toronto is 4 hours when you consider the time it takes from downtown New York to the airport, time to clear security, plane loading time, taxiing, the flight, and all same the stuff on the other end in Toronto. A high speed train, averaging 250 km/h from New York to Toronto via Albany and Buffalo would take a little under 4 hours. Which means it's a very viable option, if someone would build the infrastructure.
Montreal-Toronto is in an even better position. A train averaging 250 km/h could complete the trip in a little over 2 hours. That's much better than flying time, considering the trip to the airport and security clearance. Montreal-New York (2 1/2 hours) and Montreal-Boston (2 hours) would be very good options too.
Greg
I was speaking with an ex-Air Canada pilot on the weekend, and he said that the system, especially in the north-east USA and Ontario/Quebec area was basically close to it's limit. There was no more space to add planes into. More airports (as discussed in the GTAA thread) can allivate gate crowding and takeoff slots on the ground, but can't help getting more planes in the limited air corridors that exist today. There is talk of a more flexible situation to move away from the current "air highway" system to open up more routes, but there's limits to that to.
Eventually my flight from Newark to Toronto was cancelled, and I had to wait until Friday morning to get out. With no delays, New York area to Toronto is 4 hours when you consider the time it takes from downtown New York to the airport, time to clear security, plane loading time, taxiing, the flight, and all same the stuff on the other end in Toronto. A high speed train, averaging 250 km/h from New York to Toronto via Albany and Buffalo would take a little under 4 hours. Which means it's a very viable option, if someone would build the infrastructure.
Montreal-Toronto is in an even better position. A train averaging 250 km/h could complete the trip in a little over 2 hours. That's much better than flying time, considering the trip to the airport and security clearance. Montreal-New York (2 1/2 hours) and Montreal-Boston (2 hours) would be very good options too.
Greg
G
ganjavih
Guest
Ah, to dream. That would be incredible but there doesn't seem to be any will to make it happen. Too screwball European, I guess.
S
spmarshall
Guest
The other corridor that is viable is Toronto-Detroit-Chicago along with Toronto-Montreal, Montreal-New York. A south shore line along Lake Erie could do New-York-Buffalo-Cleveland-Chicago/Detroit. If you think about it, the Northeast/Great Lakes region has major city spacing not that different to parts of Europe.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
If you consider just the Quebec-Windsor corridor the potential is there. You have Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa/Gatineau, and Quebec in an almost linear corridor that would stretch about 800km or so (depending on routing). Even at 200 km/h there are 4 major centers that could be contained on a route taking no more than 5 hours to complete from start to finish. Add in connections to Pearson and Dorval and there are two more high traffic points that it could easily serve.
In addition you have all the secondary centers that are within the corridor. Windsor, London, Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph, Niagara Falls, a number of suburban stations in the GTA (outside of normal commuter service), Kingston, Trois-Riviere, Levis, etc. All contained in a corridor that is roughly 1200 km long.
The big hurdle (enourmous hurdle really) is getting governments (and perhaps private enterprise) to invest in the infrastructure needed for such a network. Given that it would not be unreasonable to assume that roughly 20 million people will live in this corridor in 20 years time I would imagine that a proper network would have no problems being successful.
In addition you have all the secondary centers that are within the corridor. Windsor, London, Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph, Niagara Falls, a number of suburban stations in the GTA (outside of normal commuter service), Kingston, Trois-Riviere, Levis, etc. All contained in a corridor that is roughly 1200 km long.
The big hurdle (enourmous hurdle really) is getting governments (and perhaps private enterprise) to invest in the infrastructure needed for such a network. Given that it would not be unreasonable to assume that roughly 20 million people will live in this corridor in 20 years time I would imagine that a proper network would have no problems being successful.
J
Junglab2002
Guest
Ah, and here at last, we come full circle to the real rationale for the ARL to begin with - a link between Union and Pearson given a high speed rail line on the Quesbec-Windsor corridor.
If you all remember, both of these projects were Collonette's babies, and originally, were conceived of as being a package deal. It was only when Martin cancelled the high speed train project that the ARL became a stand-alone affair.
This, more than anything, is the reason why a local-service option makes so much sense now, and the original ARL proposal is so out of favour.
If you all remember, both of these projects were Collonette's babies, and originally, were conceived of as being a package deal. It was only when Martin cancelled the high speed train project that the ARL became a stand-alone affair.
This, more than anything, is the reason why a local-service option makes so much sense now, and the original ARL proposal is so out of favour.
C
cacruden
Guest
Which by the time of Blue22's service -- will be $20 (at current rate). It's getting close 
S
spmarshall
Guest
Oh yeah, what a loaded question this poll was, by making it an either/or.
The unofficial word is that Blue 22 is dead. Thankfully.
The unofficial word is that Blue 22 is dead. Thankfully.
U
unimaginative2
Guest
How can it be thankfully? The blue22 project was the biggest win-win project in Toronto transit. If it were to be successful, Toronto would have an excellent high-speed rail connection between its downtown and airport, like every other major world city that purports to be transit-friendly. If it failed, we would be left with the track infrastructure to support S-Bahn level GO service decades before we would otherwise.
S
spmarshall
Guest
LOL! Tell that to the people of Weston. They'll run you out of town on a rail.
OK, we might have S-Bahn worthy infrastructure, but would the cabbageheads at GO provide S-Bahn worthy service? Maybe at gunpoint.
Could you qualify this? A high-speed rail connection - very few cities have what Blue 22 is proposing for its well-heeled tiny clientele - cities like New York, Chicago, and many others don't have a one-stop wonder serving downtown and the airport at a super premium price.
U
unimaginative2
Guest
First of all, I have talked to several current and former Weston residents, and they're all supportive of the plan. It seems strange that you take the word of a vocal minority at face value in Weston but not on St. Clair.
They certainly won't if the infrastructure isn't there. I'd find it hard to believe that even they wouldn't make use of a brand new triple-tracked, grade-separated line for at least Lakeshore-style all-day service. We're getting federal and private money to pay for a huge improvement to a line with tremendous potential for ridership growth. This is certainly what I'd call a unique opportunity.
New York is planning just such a service from downtown Manhattan to JFK. Chicago is hardly known as a transit-friendly city on a world scale. Just about every major European airport is planning one.