On track for high speed

[Second_in_pie]

I would add an other service between the express and regional, just adding Kingston, because that would allow us to couple trains and split them between Ottawa and Montreal, providing faster service to Montreal.

I'm still undecided on that. I see 2 options: Run a Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route, or stop in Kingston and split the train. While the former would obviously be faster, I wonder if demand would make up for the higher cost on the latter.

Actually, if we are going to run super-local (Toronto-Pickering-Oshawa-Coburg...) service, then maybe that would be better served by buses, since few enough people would take it that it wouldn't be worth the track fees that CN and CP would charge VIA.

Strongly disagree. If real HSR trackage was to be built, it would have to be it's own trackage. Express and Regional would run on the same track, for the most part, while Local would run on some other upgraded track in the same corridor. I think that local spacing like that could have a big effect in the smaller towns/cities in Ontario and Quebec. But if an actual study shows that busses are for sure a better option, then I'll go with it.

 

[MisterF]

Perhaps because, like it or not, as fellow North American autocentric societies with a relatively low density we face challenges to rail transport more similar to those faced by Amtrak than most European countries? Of course, Europe-type service should be our ultimate goal, and I don't think it's impossible that one day we will have something that approach that level of service, but that day would probably be some time from now, and sometimes we just have to take things in small(er) steps.

Our cities are higher density than you think - Toronto and Montreal are quite a bit denser than most big American cities, with much higher transit ridership. Regional rail systems that would be feeders to HSR are undergoing constant expansion due to high demand. And the Windsor-Quebec corridor has the same population density as many European countries with highly developed rail systems. There's no need to take small steps.

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm still undecided on that. I see 2 options: Run a Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route, or stop in Kingston and split the train. While the former would obviously be faster, I wonder if demand would make up for the higher cost on the latter.

The cost would be lower if we join the trains and split them in Kingston. Running coupled trains is cheaper than running trains separately because it uses less gas (more aerodynamic), and requires fewer drivers.

Strongly disagree. If real HSR trackage was to be built, it would have to be it's own trackage. Express and Regional would run on the same track, for the most part, while Local would run on some other upgraded track in the same corridor. I think that local spacing like that could have a big effect in the smaller towns/cities in Ontario and Quebec. But if an actual study shows that busses are for sure a better option, then I'll go with it.

Yes there's absolutely no question that VIA would own the high speed tracks, but they would bypass all the smaller towns. Trains wanting to stop at smaller towns would have to use the old tracks. Actually, on second thought, I think that could work. Trains can go on the high speed line from Oshawa to Cobourg, run along the old line, stopping at Brighton, Trenton and Belleville, and get back on the high speed line to Kingston.

I don't have a strong opinion on technology one way or the other, trains would provide a superior service but buses are probably cheaper to run.

 

[dsantesteban]

By FAR the best service for Amtrak (in terms of ridership, revenue and market share) is the Northeast, where it has taken half the rail/air market

Ok. I meant outside of the Northeast Corridor.

The cause of problems for Acela also is not the local services (NER and all commuter services, etc) per se, but the lack of dedicated or bypass tracks throughout much of the section south of RI

Or in other words, THE PROBLEM WITH ACELA IS THE LOCAL SERVICES!!!!! The problem is that it doesn't have a dedicated high-speed track. That bogged down Acela, and it will bog down Via unless if they build a separate track, maintain it, and continue to pay CNR to use their tracks, which won't be very efficient.

I'm gonna keep saying this: LOCAL VIA RAIL SERVICE SUCKS!!! The reason why bus networks surpass Via by far outside of the (roughly) ten stations that we've mentioned is because bus service gets you from point A to point B. Rail service gets you from an extremely small selection of cities to Toronto. Even if you wanna go between two cities served by Via, you will probably have to change trains at some point, which is a problem because the schedules don't align at all (or at least not from what I've seen). Via can do much better by partnering with some bus companies, providing express service, and using these bus companies to complete your journey to wherever you may want to go and/or wherever you may be coming from. It'll open up railways to 800,000 people in the Niagara penninsula, 350,000 people in the pocket between Guelph and Brantford, 600,000 people living North of the Sarnia-London-Guelph line, and around 1,200,000 people living in Muskoka, Grey County, Simcoe County, the Kawarthas, and whatever it's called between Peterborough and Smith's Falls.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Due to the volcano in Iceland, many airports in Europe are closed. People are filling up their high-speed trains to get from one city to another.

If a volcano erupts in North America caused the same sort of grounding, what alternatives are there? There are no high-speed trains that can really be used as an alternative. Buses or cars are the only option left.

 

[golodhendil]

Our cities are higher density than you think - Toronto and Montreal are quite a bit denser than most big American cities, with much higher transit ridership. Regional rail systems that would be feeders to HSR are undergoing constant expansion due to high demand. And the Windsor-Quebec corridor has the same population density as many European countries with highly developed rail systems. There's no need to take small steps.

I was not so much talking about the density of cities (which isn't really helpful in talking about the ease of developing a good, high-density and efficiency regional rail network), but the density of large settlements over the spread of land. I don't doubt that the QWC has comparable overall density as some whole European countries, but that's a rather useless measure; I would like to see how the corridor compares in terms of the density of, say, 50k or 100k cities, with other megalopolis regions like the NEC (which I'm pretty sure has higher, or for that matter even the overall density), or southeast England, or NW France - BeNeLux - Rhineland. Having 3 more-than-million cities spread over a 500 km distance with a few 50k towns in between is a very different type of situation than having that plus ten 500k towns spread over the same area.
Besides, the NEC has many more successful, efficient and high-density regional and commuter rail services than what even exists in the QWC today, so obviously, to "aim for Europe" we'll first have to "aim for the US (NEC)" and surpass that first.

Ok. I meant outside of the Northeast Corridor.

Outside the NEC, by far the most successful Amtrak routes are in California, so much so that they are actually building HSR there. The Wolverine isn't even the most successful Amtrak service in the Midwest (still up there among the best though, that's for sure).

Or in other words, THE PROBLEM WITH ACELA IS THE LOCAL SERVICES!!!!! The problem is that it doesn't have a dedicated high-speed track. That bogged down Acela, and it will bog down Via unless if they build a separate track, maintain it, and continue to pay CNR to use their tracks, which won't be very efficient.

And Acela is so bogged down that, despite being 50% more expensive and only about 15% faster than the Regional, the Acela still took about half as much ridership as the Regional and almost as much revenue? Bottomline is, both services are successful (and growing), and neither are anything near failure nor a "waste of money" (and certainly not the local services, which are generating lots of revenue). But for sure, I completely agree that having dedicated tracks is an essential part of getting truly successful HSR.

 

[MisterF]

I was not so much talking about the density of cities (which isn't really helpful in talking about the ease of developing a good, high-density and efficiency regional rail network), but the density of large settlements over the spread of land. I don't doubt that the QWC has comparable overall density as some whole European countries, but that's a rather useless measure; I would like to see how the corridor compares in terms of the density of, say, 50k or 100k cities, with other megalopolis regions like the NEC (which I'm pretty sure has higher, or for that matter even the overall density), or southeast England, or NW France - BeNeLux - Rhineland. Having 3 more-than-million cities spread over a 500 km distance with a few 50k towns in between is a very different type of situation than having that plus ten 500k towns spread over the same area.
Besides, the NEC has many more successful, efficient and high-density regional and commuter rail services than what even exists in the QWC today, so obviously, to "aim for Europe" we'll first have to "aim for the US (NEC)" and surpass that first.

Why limit your comparison to the most densely populated parts of Europe? It's the less dense countries, the ones with identical density to the W-C corridor, that have the most developed HSR systems: France and Spain. Southern Ontario has 95 people per sq km (southern Quebec is similar) compared to 91 in Spain and 115 in France. True, they have higher overall populations than the W-C corridor but they're also building much bigger HSR systems than we ever would. Less dense countries like Scotland and Ireland don't have HSR but they still have rail systems that put ours to shame; small towns and cities have service that we write off as infeasible. And of course, the the US Northeast corridor is more densely populated than any of these places. So no, we don't have to aim for the NEC before aiming for Europe.

The density of cities matters because HSR ridership will be higher if the cities have good local transit to feed it. The better the transit networks, the easier it is to get to HSR stations.

 

[golodhendil]

Why limit your comparison to the most densely populated parts of Europe? It's the less dense countries, the ones with identical density to the W-C corridor, that have the most developed HSR systems: France and Spain. Southern Ontario has 95 people per sq km (southern Quebec is similar) compared to 91 in Spain and 115 in France. True, they have higher overall populations than the W-C corridor but they're also building much bigger HSR systems than we ever would. Less dense countries like Scotland and Ireland don't have HSR but they still have rail systems that put ours to shame; small towns and cities have service that we write off as infeasible. And of course, the the US Northeast corridor is more densely populated than any of these places. So no, we don't have to aim for the NEC before aiming for Europe.

The density of cities matters because HSR ridership will be higher if the cities have good local transit to feed it. The better the transit networks, the easier it is to get to HSR stations.

Again, looking at overall density over a large geographic spread is a rather pointless comparison. The French and Spanish populations are not spread evenly over the whole country (neither, for that matter, is southern Ontario's, though the area is much smaller), and neither is HSR built into the sparsely populated Massif Central or Extremadura for example, but is instead concentrated into the regions and corridors where population is also concentrated. It's also arguable which HSR system is "most developed"; length of dedicated tracks is not necessarily the best measure, especially given the larger distances that the French and Spanish systems have to traverse and their particular approach to HSR, and by whichever measure, the German system is also arguably one of the best developed. And again, density of cities do not matter much in this case, because many of the towns and cities served are small enough that, as long as the station is well situated within the city, local feeder transit is unlikely to be the most crucial factor (regional rail connection is a whole another matter); besides, many of the stations on certain HSR networks, esp. France, are pretty far removed from the actual urban areas and must be served by highway and feeder buses from the cities anyway.

Finally, my argument was that Canada's social culture (autocentric), history (relatively new) and mode of development (large, concentrated cities separated by relatively large distances covered by sparsely populated suburbs) is more similar to the US, even the NEC, than to much of Europe (no, spreading metro NYC's 20 million population over the entire NEC area increases the overall density but doesn't mean it's necessarily more "densely populated"). That is why the US situation will likely be our midway stop towards a more European network, and part of why our railway network now sucks compared even to less densely populated European countries.

 

[MisterF]

Again, looking at overall density over a large geographic spread is a rather pointless comparison. The French and Spanish populations are not spread evenly over the whole country (neither, for that matter, is southern Ontario's, though the area is much smaller), and neither is HSR built into the sparsely populated Massif Central or Extremadura for example, but is instead concentrated into the regions and corridors where population is also concentrated. It's also arguable which HSR system is "most developed"; length of dedicated tracks is not necessarily the best measure, especially given the larger distances that the French and Spanish systems have to traverse and their particular approach to HSR, and by whichever measure, the German system is also arguably one of the best developed. And again, density of cities do not matter much in this case, because many of the towns and cities served are small enough that, as long as the station is well situated within the city, local feeder transit is unlikely to be the most crucial factor (regional rail connection is a whole another matter); besides, many of the stations on certain HSR networks, esp. France, are pretty far removed from the actual urban areas and must be served by highway and feeder buses from the cities anyway.

The density of entire countries matters when HSR is being built across the entire country. Take a look at a map. The AVE line to Lisbon, which is under construction, goes right through the middle of Extremadura. And Massif Central may not have TGV lines but they go all around it. Transit and urban density do matter in the case of Toronto or Montreal where the main stations will be downtown and the main way to get there will be by transit. The stations on the edge of towns and cities in France are served by massive parking lots, as I'm sure they will be in Canada.

Finally, my argument was that Canada's social culture (autocentric), history (relatively new) and mode of development (large, concentrated cities separated by relatively large distances covered by sparsely populated suburbs) is more similar to the US, even the NEC, than to much of Europe (no, spreading metro NYC's 20 million population over the entire NEC area increases the overall density but doesn't mean it's necessarily more "densely populated"). That is why the US situation will likely be our midway stop towards a more European network, and part of why our railway network now sucks compared even to less densely populated European countries.

Again, look at a map. The W-C corridor is no more defined by cities separated by large distances than France or Spain, or many other countries with superior rail networks. Madrid and Barcelona are almost exactly the same distance apart as Toronto and Montreal, and the only significant city between them is Zaragoza, which is smaller than Ottawa. The original TGV line to Lyon isn't much shorter and there's nothing between it and Paris but towns the size of Belleville. As for the US northeast corridor, it's the exact opposite of what you think. Boston, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington are all much closer together than the European cities I just mentioned - that area is more densely populated.

Even if the areas were settled the way you think they are, I don't see any evidence that large cities that are relatively far apart are worse served by HSR than medium sized cities closer together.

 

[golodhendil]

First, I need to clarify and deconflate the two issues. For an HSR line connecting a handful of highly populated cities along a relatively short linear corridor, it’s certainly doable and I completely agree our Corridor is ready for it. For building a regional network (of conventional or HSR), distance between urban areas matters. My original sentiment about American (NE)-level being an intermediate step was voiced regarding building a regional network and maintaining local service. Canada needs both; we have (basically) neither.

The AVE line to Lisbon, which is under construction, goes right through the middle of Extremadura. And Massif Central may not have TGV lines but they go all around it.

I stand corrected about the Lisbon line. But more on this below.

The stations on the edge of towns and cities in France are served by massive parking lots, as I'm sure they will be in Canada.

Exactly. Hence why (very) high urban density and local feeder transit is not the be-all-end-all for the viability of a regional rail network (or even HSR lines), and why I said it shouldn’t be the top consideration in this discussion (of course it doesn’t mean it “doesn’t matter”).

The density of entire countries matters when HSR is being built across the entire country.

No, it doesn't. The density along the corridors matters (in many cases; or it could even matter in the opposite way, with low density areas being easier to raze straight lines across), the size of the end markets matters (in most cases), but the density of the entire country doesn't matter, especially not the number obtained by dividing the country's population over its area.

Take a look at a map.

Again, look at a map. The W-C corridor is no more defined by cities separated by large distances than France or Spain, or many other countries with superior rail networks. Madrid and Barcelona are almost exactly the same distance apart as Toronto and Montreal, and the only significant city between them is Zaragoza, which is smaller than Ottawa. The original TGV line to Lyon isn't much shorter and there's nothing between it and Paris but towns the size of Belleville.

Sure, let’s look at maps:

(higher res: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/wd...sity_Grids/Population_Density_2000_Europe.pdf)

(higher res: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/wd...ids/Population_Density_2000_United_States.pdf)

(higher res: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/wd...ids/Population_Density_2000_North_America.pdf)

Use the higher res pdf to see the details at the same scale, and compare these to the rail line maps I posted earlier. For Paris-Lyon, see the “web” of density that radiates out of Paris and the dots of high density, which were specifically avoided during the LGV’s construction (same as a lot of the subsequent lines) to achieve straighter and faster alignments, and that’s doable largely because those areas are already served by the existing network of regional and long distance rail. And “why limit your comparison” to this one section, and not look at where the rest of the TGV network is: the north, and the Lyon-Marseilles corridor, where population is concentrated. Again, the situation is less relevant for France because many of the LGVs only have a handful of stops and largely avoid urban areas, because they can, and chose to.

The situation is similar for Spain, and even there you see that the rail lines largely follow the "density threads" among cities (except for that one section between Madrid and Zaragoza which you emphasized):

But Spain is an even more unusual case, which goes to show what enough political will, money and a very different social culture can do.

As for the US northeast corridor, it's the exact opposite of what you think. Boston, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington are all much closer together than the European cities I just mentioned - that area is more densely populated.

I don’t need to think, I know what the distances and densities are like; I go up and down the corridor every couple of months and just did it again last week. Looking at the density maps, it’s clear the density spread is comparable to northern France or Italy, and obviously pales compared to Germany, BeNeLux or much of England, where the rail network is arguably the densest and most developed. Hence the nature of the “steps”. For kicks, compare all these areas to the QWC.

I don't see any evidence that large cities that are relatively far apart are worse served by HSR than medium sized cities closer together.

It doesn’t mean they will be worse served, it means it will just be that much harder politically and economically in the North American mindset to get the lines built. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be built, nor that it’s not worth building, nor that it wouldn’t be successful if built.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Those maps do show a lot, golodhendil. You can't see the corridor very clearly in that, but you can vaguely see how it compares with the NE Corridor. And for the same length, there's about half the amount of people in the Quebec-Windsor corridor than is in BosWash, but that number's growing in leaps and bounds.

The situation is similar for Spain, and even there you see that the rail lines largely follow the "density threads" among cities (except for that one section between Madrid and Zaragoza which you emphasized):

But Spain is an even more unusual case, which goes to show what enough political will, money and a very different social culture can do.

I think that with all the complaining about how "Canada is much different than other countries in terms of politics," Spain is actually very similar. At least in terms of the political divisions throughout the country, it's huge. Yet they still manage to work together and get great infrastructure for the entire country. There's nothing there that Canada can't do, it's just that infamous idea that we can't do any. I think people would be amazed at what this country could do if we pulled our heads out of the gutter.

I don’t need to think, I know what the distances and densities are like; I go up and down the corridor every couple of months and just did it again last week. Looking at the density maps, it’s clear the density spread is comparable to northern France or Italy, and obviously pales compared to Germany, BeNeLux or much of England, where the rail network is arguably the densest and most developed. Hence the nature of the “stepsâ€. For kicks, compare all these areas to the QWC.

It doesn’t mean they will be worse served, it means it will just be that much harder politically and economically in the North American mindset to get the lines built. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be built, nor that it’s not worth building, nor that it wouldn’t be successful if built.

Again, comparing the NE corridor with Quebec-Windsor: Northeast has around 55 million people. Quebec-Windsor has about 20 million. Northeast is around 800 km, Quebec-Windsor is about 1100 km. Toronto-Montreal alone is about 13 million in 500 km. Paris-Lyon is about 23 million in 400 km, but considering 7 million of the edge Paris-Lyon has on is all in Paris, I think the two are actually quite comparable.

The big sell I'd put on the Q-W corridor is for future growth. Again, Canada has so much potential in it. You could integrate HSR into the growth of Southern Quebec+Ontario, and then you'd have a lot more to dictate how the region develops. If you don't want all the growth going into Toronto and Montreal, a regional HSR service (combined, of course, with gov't initiatives,) would boost the economy of smaller towns and cities and breathe life into them.

That said, Toronto-Montreal is definitely already HSR potential. Easily.

 

[golodhendil]

Those maps do show a lot, golodhendil. You can't see the corridor very clearly in that, but you can vaguely see how it compares with the NE Corridor.

Use the pdfs, they are much higher res and you can zoom in to a good scale.

I think that with all the complaining about how "Canada is much different than other countries in terms of politics," Spain is actually very similar. At least in terms of the political divisions throughout the country, it's huge. Yet they still manage to work together and get great infrastructure for the entire country. There's nothing there that Canada can't do, it's just that infamous idea that we can't do any. I think people would be amazed at what this country could do if we pulled our heads out of the gutter.

Generally agreed. Though the difference is not so much just in the politics, but eg, the extra funding from the EU that Spain gets.

 

[MisterF]

Exactly. Hence why (very) high urban density and local feeder transit is not the be-all-end-all for the viability of a regional rail network (or even HSR lines), and why I said it shouldn’t be the top consideration in this discussion (of course it doesn’t mean it “doesn’t matter”).

I didn't say it should be the top consideration, but it is important. Suburban park and ride stations are only one piece of the puzzle. Urban transit-oriented stations are just as important, especially in major cities.

No, it doesn't. The density along the corridors matters (in many cases; or it could even matter in the opposite way, with low density areas being easier to raze straight lines across), the size of the end markets matters (in most cases), but the density of the entire country doesn't matter, especially not the number obtained by dividing the country's population over its area.

Actually it's more than just the end markets that matters, it's the smaller satellite cities too. An important, if unexpected, part of the HSR market is commuters. Higher national or regional density tends to mean more satellite cities, which means more riders. So in that sense it does matter.

The maps you showed prove my point. Spain is basically the same as the WC corridor while France is slightly denser. I'm not limiting my comparison to Paris-Lyon or Madrid-Barcelona, but they're good examples because one has an uncanny resemblance to Toronto-Montreal, and the other is the first TGV line in France and is very successful. Another good example is the Moscow-St. Petersburg corridor, which is pretty long and sparse but already has 250 km/h trains and a TGV style line is planned.

I don’t need to think, I know what the distances and densities are like; I go up and down the corridor every couple of months and just did it again last week. Looking at the density maps, it’s clear the density spread is comparable to northern France or Italy, and obviously pales compared to Germany, BeNeLux or much of England, where the rail network is arguably the densest and most developed. Hence the nature of the “steps”. For kicks, compare all these areas to the QWC.

If you go up and down that corridor then you know that there are 7 or so major cities, each with a population in the millions, in an 800 km corridor. There's nothing like that in France or Spain. Germany or England yes, but there's nowhere in France that has so many major cities so close together in one corridor.

 

[golodhendil]

Actually it's more than just the end markets that matters, it's the smaller satellite cities too. An important, if unexpected, part of the HSR market is commuters. Higher national or regional density tends to mean more satellite cities, which means more riders. So in that sense it does matter.

Which is what I have been saying all along about the importance of the abundance of small/medium-sized settlements along the corridor.

If you go up and down that corridor then you know that there are 7 or so major cities, each with a population in the millions, in an 800 km corridor. There's nothing like that in France or Spain. Germany or England yes, but there's nowhere in France that has so many major cities so close together in one corridor.

Five. You would have to strain the definition of a metro area to give Providence or Hartford even one million. Besides, my point was all along that having the population spread among many smaller settlement could be better for good railway networks (eg, France). And my other point was that Canada QWC -> US NEC -> Europe (England, BeNeLux, Germany, Italy, eastern France).

 

[MisterF]

Which is what I have been saying all along about the importance of the abundance of small/medium-sized settlements along the corridor.

...which there are no more of in several European HSR corridors than here.

Five. You would have to strain the definition of a metro area to give Providence or Hartford even one million. Besides, my point was all along that having the population spread among many smaller settlement could be better for good railway networks (eg, France). And my other point was that Canada QWC -> US NEC -> Europe (England, BeNeLux, Germany, Italy, eastern France).

Seven. Hartford MSA, 2000 census: 1,148,618. Providence MSA: 1,582,997. Both have grown since. And again, there's nowhere in France with that many big cities so close together. And I'm sure you're aware that many smaller settlements go along with those big cities in the NEC.

And my point all along was that there's no monolithic "Europe" that's somehow beyond our reach. There are parts of Europe that are > the NEC, and some that are < NEC and even QWC. There's no reason we can't have a rail network comparable to many European countries (Scotland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia) without taking "smaller steps". This country doesn't think big enough.