On track for high speed

[golodhendil]

So the new trains are running on existing tracks and existing commuter trains were cancelled to make way for them. It also disrupts communities. The author is arguing that if they're going to build HSR, do it right. He's arguing for more rail, not less, and it seems that's what the people throwing rocks want too.

The people wants more rail (I don't know who on this thread has been suggesting more rail is not good), but more importantly the people wants more rail done in a way that actually consults and respects them (to many of them HSR, especially the way it's priced, is not what they need). Hence why the Russian way of getting HSR is largely unsuitable for us to learn from, from the way the projects are conceived and planned to how they are sold to the people (if at all) or implemented.

 

[nfitz]

I've heard that VIA owns another rail ROW between Ottawa and Montreal but I don't know if that's true.

VIA owns the Alexandria sub from Coteau to new Ottawa, which they bought from CN in around 1998; this is what they operate on now.

They also bought the M&O subdivision from Rigaud to near Ottawa from CP in 1986; this hasn't been used since 1986, and the track has been remvoed.

 

[saiho]

So the first step should be re-branding the Q-W corridor VIAfast, marketing it as HSR (even though it's slow), and measuring it's profitability separate from the barely relevant 'network' being run in the rest of the country? Very ambitious plan.

Firstly rebranding the service does help, in a place such as Canada where HSR is making its first debut.
Secondly Acella has better HSR infrastructure than The Corridor, how about upgrading that to the level the NEC has achieved. Sounds like a semi-ambitious first step to me.
Thirdly our HSR has to at least break even financially. I don't want the provincial or federal or even municipal governments to be using money digging themselves a hole and burying themselves 6 feet under in debt; Just cause a bunch of HSR fans (my self included) are jumping the gun after watching too many TGV and Shinkansen vids and saw how much HSR China is building per second. Which they then decided everything in a Canadian HSR should run like they do in Japan, and built as fast and big as China's. Yet we live in Canada which is much different compared China and Japan. Where that money can be better spent on more important projects like improving healthcare or maybe a DRL. Does that sound familiar???
Fourthly Ambitious plans go nowhere around here, we as rail-fans can sit here in this little bubble all we want and flaunt about how ambitious our plans for HSR are and it will NEVER get built. You know why? because, as much as I hate it, the final say is all up the politicians in the end. so start small, get things done.

 

[Hipster Duck]

As I said to Shon in the Turbo thread, we actually have regressed in terms of high speed rail service in the corridor over the past 40 years. In 1968, when Toronto was less than half its current size and Montreal at least 1/3 smaller, there were at least two trains that traveled between the two cities in 3 hours and 49 minutes. It's 4 hours and 30 minutes today and that's just one train a day. Usually when we say "we've set the clock back 40 years", we mean it disparagingly, but in this case it would actually be desirable!

 

[saiho]

As I said to Shon in the Turbo thread, we actually have regressed in terms of high speed rail service in the corridor over the past 40 years. In 1968, when Toronto was less than half its current size and Montreal at least 1/3 smaller, there were at least two trains that traveled between the two cities in 3 hours and 49 minutes. It's 4 hours and 30 minutes today and that's just one train a day. Usually when we say "we've set the clock back 40 years", we mean it disparagingly, but in this case it would actually be desirable!

many things regressed in north america because of the car. LA used to have one of the largest electric interurban streetcar network in the world, look what it is now? the only city that survived the tram shut down is Toronto and a handful of other systems. On the other hand some cities upgraded the congested parts of there tram network into rapid transit such as Philly, New York and Boston, which in those cities's subways and surface to subway LRTs paralleled the congested tram line.

 

[golodhendil]

many things regressed in north america because of the car. LA used to have one of the largest electric interurban streetcar network in the world, look what it is now? the only city that survived the tram shut down is Toronto and a handful of other systems. On the other hand some cities upgraded the congested parts of there tram network into rapid transit such as Philly, New York and Boston, which in those cities's subways and surface to subway LRTs paralleled the congested tram line.

Philly and Boston started replacing their busiest streetcar corridors with streetcar subways more than a century ago, long before the rise of the automobile and the widespread destruction of streetcars, and both systems were complete in their present form by mid-century. Only SF sunk their streetcars during the auto era, and had been / is still actively building streetcar subways (along with Seattle and, to a much lesser extent, Newark and Pittsburgh) .

 

[saiho]

Philly and Boston started replacing their busiest streetcar corridors with streetcar subways more than a century ago, long before the rise of the automobile and the widespread destruction of streetcars, and both systems were complete in their present form by mid-century. Only SF sunk their streetcars during the auto era, and had been / is still actively building streetcar subways (along with Seattle and, to a much lesser extent, Newark and Pittsburgh) .

yes I know and that is why New York has better transit because they managed replace most of the tram network with heavy rail and most of the heavy rail lines still managed exist as we see now.

 

[MisterF]

The people wants more rail (I don't know who on this thread has been suggesting more rail is not good), but more importantly the people wants more rail done in a way that actually consults and respects them (to many of them HSR, especially the way it's priced, is not what they need). Hence why the Russian way of getting HSR is largely unsuitable for us to learn from, from the way the projects are conceived and planned to how they are sold to the people (if at all) or implemented.

Yes of course they want it properly implemented. Like I said before, my point has never been specific to HSR. But if Russia has better rail service than us, it absolutely is an example we can learn from. As for HSR, you can learn from another country even if the culture is different and even if it's a lesson of what not to do.

 

[nfitz]

In 1968, when Toronto was less than half its current size and Montreal at least 1/3 smaller, there were at least two trains that traveled between the two cities in 3 hours and 49 minutes. It's 4 hours and 30 minutes today and that's just one train a day. Usually when we say "we've set the clock back 40 years", we mean it disparagingly, but in this case it would actually be desirable!

Briefly, in 1968 perhaps; but what was the on-time performance. But what about 1970; 1972, 1976, 1980, etc. 4:30 has pretty much been the norm most of the time for the expresses.

 

[Haljackey]

The HST is here... Now that the government has some extra spending money, where's my high speed rail?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Really, really oddly enough, I think that many Canadiens would be willing to pay extra taxes for nice things like extra government services or transit. I see it almost as the government telling people they want less taxes, combined with an American media influence. Canadians, to me, seem to be willing to move over from capitalism to more of a socialist perspective, more similar to that in Europe. Does anyone agree with me?

And I doubt that it'd calm the anti-HST crowd to say that the money was going into HSR

 

[The Mad Navigator]

Really, really oddly enough, I think that many Canadiens would be willing to pay extra taxes for nice things like extra government services or transit. I see it almost as the government telling people they want less taxes, combined with an American media influence. Canadians, to me, seem to be willing to move over from capitalism to more of a socialist perspective, more similar to that in Europe. Does anyone agree with me?

And I doubt that it'd calm the anti-HST crowd to say that the money was going into HSR

I agree with you, but only for Residents within Toronto and the GTA.... Rural areas, no way!

 

[Haljackey]

I agree with you, but only for Residents within Toronto and the GTA.... Rural areas, no way!

Actually I think the rural communities would be ok with this because HSR would improve the country/region's overall character and reputation. They would just have to travel to the nearest city to use it.

Besides, over 80% of Canadians live in cities, so it's always been difficult for the rural communities to have their voices heard, which can be both a good and bad thing.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

Actually I think the rural communities would be ok with this because HSR would improve the country/region's overall character and reputation. They would just have to travel to the nearest city to use it.

Besides, over 80% of Canadians live in cities, so it's always been difficult for the rural communities to have their voices heard, which can be both a good and bad thing.

They would be ok with it if they didn't have to pay extra for it by means of taxation. Most rural communities support conservatives, so I don't see how you would get farmers or those in small towns to support HSR. At least that's the idea I get from people who live out there....