innsertnamehere
Superstar
a transfer in London would still be quick and easy, especially if trains run every 30 minutes. take a diesel train to London, transfer to the HSR.
The only reason we're seeing these theatrics is for their own political fortunes.
I don't see why this is such a bad thing. Yes, it's clearly political. The Liberals are staking their political future to a large extent on the promise of massive improvements to rail service in Southwestern Ontario and the GTHA (and $11B of hospital expansions, and funding IVF treatments, and higher minimum wages, and $4 raises for PSW, and higher wages for ECE workers, and creation of another state sponsored pension plan). If they take it into an election and stay in power, they will have a mandate to implement it - rather than do endless study.
I don't see why this is such a bad thing. Yes, it's clearly political. The Liberals are staking their political future to a large extent on the promise of massive improvements to rail service in Southwestern Ontario and the GTHA. If they take it into an election and stay in power, they will have a mandate to implement it - rather than do endless study.
Modal share of high speed rail is generally very high, in the 50-70% range from numbers I've seen. Even if this line gets less than that, it would easily be a significant percentage of a busy corridor. It wouldn't need anywhere near 100%.So, in your estimation, this line will take a number approaching 100% of the London - Toronto or KW - Toronto trips when built?
The last HSR study was incredibly flawed. It almost seemed designed to fail. Despite a higher population and better transit in each city, it somehow managed to predict lower ridership than the study that was done back in the 90s. It had a lot of assumptions and conclusions that would lower potential ridership and increase costs. Just to name a couple that I remember (I haven't looked at it since it came out), it didn't recommend serving Pearson and it assumed that every minor concession road would have an overpass... instead of just giving them dead ends like is routine with freeways.In the last HSR study, the Toronto-Windsor segment was expected to generate 2.3M riders and half the revenue Murray is talking about. There's no way on earth that the addition of KW, over and above the "GTA West" station on the other route, makes up for the differences here.
I think some of you are putting too much emphasis on details like the route on the map or the $40 price. The route is conceptual and will be finalized through the EA process. The price is preliminary and could include lower prices and higher prices. If it's airline style, there would be a whole range of prices like when you book a flight. By the way, $40 isn't far from what Greyhound charges and in some cases less.So we now can confirm that Glen Murray / Liberals do transit planning by drawing cool looking lines on Google maps.
From a cost perspective?? Following those alignments? Are you forgetting about grade requirements?I'm aware it's still ridiculously preliminary, but since we're criticizing alignment anyways, I thought it would be good to present some HSR alignments between Kitchener and London that actually made sense from a cost perspective.
Glen Murray
@Glen4ONT
Slides from my presentation today. All data and projections come from FCP’s Pre-Feasibility Study on High Speed Rail: http://twitdoc.com/2W7J
From a cost perspective?? Following those alignments? Are you forgetting about grade requirements?
The suggestion was that every other train on this combined service would continue on from Pearson to London.....would there not be an expectation of the UPE customers that the stop would be at Pearson rather than "near Pearson"?
Whatever....if the plan/thought is that every other train would be longer than the UPE trains then a new station at Pearson would have to be built for the combined services and that is going to impact that capital cost/outlay significantly.
This project is currently on life support.