quicksilver
Active Member
I think if you bring Chicago into the scenario, and have the Chicago-New York trains run without a Canadian stop (or Canadian customs hassles), a high speed Northeast network makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
U.S. Congresswoman calls for high-speed rail linking Manhattan to Canadian cities
- Thread starter M II A II R II K
- Start date
ssiguy2
Senior Member
While I do agree that HSR certainly helps relieve our airport traffic and offers a great alternative, I still don't think it's money well spent.
The trouble is that is IS an either/or scenario. HSR is expensive, very expensive and considering the limited number of people it serves then it's not worth it. I am not against the idea of HSR per se but I simply think that the billions spent on it to cater to a few thousand passengers a day would be far better spent on serving millions a day on transit. If it is spent on transit it also serves everyone as opposed to the business class or people who have money to travel. I certianly agree that The Corridor needs improved and faster trains but building a new system from sratch just limits the precious dollars available for urban rapid transit.
The trouble is that is IS an either/or scenario. HSR is expensive, very expensive and considering the limited number of people it serves then it's not worth it. I am not against the idea of HSR per se but I simply think that the billions spent on it to cater to a few thousand passengers a day would be far better spent on serving millions a day on transit. If it is spent on transit it also serves everyone as opposed to the business class or people who have money to travel. I certianly agree that The Corridor needs improved and faster trains but building a new system from sratch just limits the precious dollars available for urban rapid transit.
Jaye101
Active Member
Why not just extend Acela HSR that already connects Boston, Philly, NYC, DC and Baltimore up to Montreal, and from there onto Ottawa and Toronto. Then from New York directly to Toronto via a bypass of Boston, Montreal, and Ottawa that would connect to an existing Toronto bound HSR line in South-Eastern Ontario. The next phase can be a connection to Chicago via Windsor and Detroit, followed by a direct New York to Chicago train via Pittsburgh and Cleveland.
CDL.TO
Moderator
What do you mean by "just"?
Memph
Active Member
I don't think it makes sense to build HSR so that Toronto can be connected to mid-sized cities like Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Windsor or Kingston. I suspect most trips between these cities is done by car, so I think if you just improve the VIA corridors so that they're maybe a bit faster than driving, that's good enough.
Toronto-Montreal HSR via Ottawa could make sense, although I still think it would mostly serve business trips. A lot of people still drive between those cities if they're just visitors or tourists. I still don't think it would have to be especially high speed, making the trip in 3-4 hours would be a pretty big deal already.
As for New York-Toronto or New York-Montreal, I suppose that's a possibility, especially since there are other significant cities in between. I don't think there would be a lot of people from Toronto going to upstate New York, but there could be a fair bit going the other way, as well as between upstate NY and NYC. Since Toronto is quite close to Buffalo, if the Americans decide it's wortwhile building HSR from NYC to Buffalo, they might as well extend it to Toronto with stops in Hamilton and Niagara Falls. I also think that it's unlikely a Chicago-NYC line would be built through SW Ontario before one via Philly, Pittsburg and Cleveland.
PS: Kitchener is not a bedroom community of Toronto, more like a satellite city.
Toronto-Montreal HSR via Ottawa could make sense, although I still think it would mostly serve business trips. A lot of people still drive between those cities if they're just visitors or tourists. I still don't think it would have to be especially high speed, making the trip in 3-4 hours would be a pretty big deal already.
As for New York-Toronto or New York-Montreal, I suppose that's a possibility, especially since there are other significant cities in between. I don't think there would be a lot of people from Toronto going to upstate New York, but there could be a fair bit going the other way, as well as between upstate NY and NYC. Since Toronto is quite close to Buffalo, if the Americans decide it's wortwhile building HSR from NYC to Buffalo, they might as well extend it to Toronto with stops in Hamilton and Niagara Falls. I also think that it's unlikely a Chicago-NYC line would be built through SW Ontario before one via Philly, Pittsburg and Cleveland.
PS: Kitchener is not a bedroom community of Toronto, more like a satellite city.
BMO
Senior Member
Completely agree, not to mention that most people commuting to and from KW probably couldn't afford to pay HSR prices for their commutes nor would the time savings really be THAT much of a benefit. I mean if they could improve the exisitng corridor to make the commute <1:30hrs that would be good enough.
drum118
Superstar
After spending time in Europe this summer riding HSR lines, I would think twice if I wanted to do some of those trips again.
Unless you have the line down to the last foot, most of these HRS lines were normal lines over all. Sure we hit 200 or 300 km/hr at times, but not for the full run.
Even if you were in first class, luggage was a real issue trying to find space for it.
If you don't have a seat reservation, trying to find a seat becomes an issue to the point you are blocking the aisle for riders who have a seat.
I know a few of my trips, there were only a few of us in the first class coaches, let a long the rest of the train.
Unless you are offering service every 2 hours or less on various lines, going to be hard to compete with the airlines.
Fare is the killer on a number of lines I rode and the reason for low ridership.
If KW line was upgraded to 150 km/hr with fare staying the same as today, ridership will jump.
Unless you have the line down to the last foot, most of these HRS lines were normal lines over all. Sure we hit 200 or 300 km/hr at times, but not for the full run.
Even if you were in first class, luggage was a real issue trying to find space for it.
If you don't have a seat reservation, trying to find a seat becomes an issue to the point you are blocking the aisle for riders who have a seat.
I know a few of my trips, there were only a few of us in the first class coaches, let a long the rest of the train.
Unless you are offering service every 2 hours or less on various lines, going to be hard to compete with the airlines.
Fare is the killer on a number of lines I rode and the reason for low ridership.
If KW line was upgraded to 150 km/hr with fare staying the same as today, ridership will jump.
Dan416
Senior Member
I think if you bring Chicago into the scenario, and have the Chicago-New York trains run without a Canadian stop (or Canadian customs hassles), a high speed Northeast network makes a lot of sense.
It's actually surprising how many major cities you see in this graphic: Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Boston, New York.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
and that is why it is viable to build HSR.
dowlingm
Senior Member
It's 900km from Boston to Richmond VA. In that stretch is Providence, NYC, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington.
900km gets you Quebec City to Aldershot via Montreal and Ottawa through the Highway 7 region. Not even as far as London, still less Windsor. It also gets you a lot less people.
I'm with drum118 - for christs sake we are running passenger rail on a shoestring with single track line between Montreal, Ottawa and Brockville. There are yawning gaps in the schedule between places like London and Toronto on what is supposedly a backbone intercity route. Where the hell is HSR coming from, really? And as for cross border service, it's just not feasible to get rail times down to something competitive with air travel until such time as a better arrangement is devised at Niagara which doesn't take hours - plus there's the Welland Canal.
The part of the network which seems to be successful is Ottawa-Montreal because in transit nothing succeeds like frequency. This should be extended to the corridor between Brockville and London using better allocation of existing stock (i.e. not sending 95mph locomotives into rural northern Quebec). If we want to be ambitious, improve Montreal-Ottawa to electric double track class 7 or 8 and see what 200km/h or better does not just to rpad but also to the YOW-YUL shuttle. Then let's see where we go from there.
900km gets you Quebec City to Aldershot via Montreal and Ottawa through the Highway 7 region. Not even as far as London, still less Windsor. It also gets you a lot less people.
I'm with drum118 - for christs sake we are running passenger rail on a shoestring with single track line between Montreal, Ottawa and Brockville. There are yawning gaps in the schedule between places like London and Toronto on what is supposedly a backbone intercity route. Where the hell is HSR coming from, really? And as for cross border service, it's just not feasible to get rail times down to something competitive with air travel until such time as a better arrangement is devised at Niagara which doesn't take hours - plus there's the Welland Canal.
The part of the network which seems to be successful is Ottawa-Montreal because in transit nothing succeeds like frequency. This should be extended to the corridor between Brockville and London using better allocation of existing stock (i.e. not sending 95mph locomotives into rural northern Quebec). If we want to be ambitious, improve Montreal-Ottawa to electric double track class 7 or 8 and see what 200km/h or better does not just to rpad but also to the YOW-YUL shuttle. Then let's see where we go from there.
jamincan
Active Member
I actually agree that the greatest potential is between Ottawa and Montreal. The cities are already quite close, VIA owns most of the tracks between the cities, and any improvements on the corridor would make it significantly more attractive than other modes of transportation without needing to upgrade extensive amounts of track. The space between the two is also relatively sparsely populated, making any corridor improvements easier and the very low levels of freight traffic on those tracks may allow a good portion of it to remain single-tracked subject to regulations. An average speed of 200 km/h between the two cities would drop the travel time to under an hour. Already a lot of people travel between the two cities, but with the distance being compressed so much by HSR, I expect there would be a large increase as well.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
A 2 or 3 hour trip from toronto to Montreal would increase travel as well, as people would be more willing to head to the opposite city for one night stays, and recreational travel.
dowlingm
Senior Member
It would but then you have the busy Toronto approaches plus VIA owns none of the trackage to my knowledge. Ottawa-Montreal is shorter, would be finished quicker, plus it links VIA HQ in MTL with its prinicipal funder in OTT.
Memph
Active Member
Paris to Bordeaux is about the same distance as Toronto to Montreal. That TGV trip costs a bit more than $100 and takes 3-3.5 hours. Driving from Toronto Montreal would be around 6 hours and about $40-$50 for gas if your car is not too big. However, I go to Montreal a few times a year with my family (4 people in a car) to visit my grandparents and other relatives, that means it would still be about $40-50 by car but $400-450 by train, and since neither my family or grandparents live right downtown, you could add 1-1.5 hours for getting to the train station, arriving a bit early to make sure we don't miss the train, and getting from Montreal's train station to our grandparents. It's easy to see that for us, taking HSR from Toronto to Montreal would make no sense whatsoever.
So basically, Toronto to Montreal HSR would be good for people travelling alone from core to core, and who are willing to pay $50 to save a couple hours of time and the hassle of driving, or people who don't have a car.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
It competes with air travel, and would be good for direct tourism, not visiting families in the suburbs.