Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[Admiral Beez]

Okay. Let's cut taxes and see how business will work with crumbling infrastructure and an uneducated workforce.

So, you're suggesting tax increases to avoid crumbling infrastructure and an uneducated workforce?

 

[cacruden]

Okay. Let's cut taxes and see how business will work with crumbling infrastructure and an uneducated workforce.

Now you are being silly, there is a balance, but you really want to keep it to a minimum. What projects have the biggest bang for the buck. If crumbling infrastructure is a problem, they obviously have a higher priority than new infrastructure. There is always a cost/benefit to every project - I have no problem with capital costs - if it can be done for a reasonable pricetag (as long as operating costs are not subsidized) -- but if it gets too high - then maybe it is not worth it.

As far as uneducated workforce - with all that we have available - if you are not a moron - then you should be able to get a reasonable education. Mind you, we have a lot of stupid people that want to leave -- even high-school early. There are some simple (cheap) things that we are not doing that we should be doing.... like making sure that all textbooks are available as "open source" (cutting out the ridiculous prices for text books), having all material available online - were even if you don't have time to attend a university - you have access to learning material in an easy to access manner (leaving labs and exams to be done in person at an institution).

 

[waterloowarrior]

MP proposes high-speed rail for three cities

BY DAVID AKIN, CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
JANUARY 7, 2009 6:28 PM

OTTAWA — The MP who leads the non-partisan "rail caucus" in the House of Commons is pushing a new high-speed rail plan — a super-fast tri-city train link between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

"If you were to start a line that connected these three major centres, you would have a line that would be well-supported, would offer significant economic benefits, and, obviously, you'd have significant environmental benefit," said Dean Del Mastro, a Conservative MP from Peterborough, Ont.

Del Mastro said that, given the geography such a line would run through, the trains would probably be limited to speeds of about 240 kilometres an hour but that would still cut the rail ride between Ottawa and Toronto, which now takes a little more than four hours, down to about two hours.

It would trim the hour-and-forty-five minute trip between Ottawa and Montreal to around 40 minutes. An express between Montreal and Toronto could take travellers from downtown to downtown in about two-and-a-half hours. The fastest ride now takes about four-and-a-half hours.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest, at last fall's First Ministers Conference here, was trying to sell the federal government on the merits of a high-speed rail line from Quebec City to Windsor, Ont. using the corridor that runs along the shores of the St. Lawrence River and then Lake Ontario.

It's an idea that's been around for about two decades but various levels of government have balked at the multi-billion dollar price tag for such a service.

In most earlier formulations, such a high-speed line, which requires its own dedicated track, would service Quebec City, Montreal, Kingston, Ont., Toronto, London, Ont., and Windsor, Ont., but Ottawa would get left out of the picture.

Del Mastro believes that a less ambitious project that avoids the lakeshore right-of-way in favour of a sweeping curve north through Ottawa makes more economic sense.

"I think we're seeing around the world that rail works, that it makes sense," said Del Mastro. "It's a good way to flow goods and people."

Del Mastro said he and Transport Minister John Baird have not yet discussed the idea. Instead, Del Mastro hopes that those currently studying the viability of high-speed service in the Quebec-Windsor corridor consider his alternative. Last January, the federal government along with the governments of Ontario and Quebec agreed to jointly cover the costs of updating feasibility studies on high-speed service between Quebec and Windsor. Two earlier studies had been done in 1992 and again in 1995.

A spokesperson for VIA Rail said the company would not have any official comment on a Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto high-speed line until a feasibility study on future high speed services is completed.

"We are all waiting very impatiently for the results of these studies and then we will probably have more information," said Nadia Seraicco, a VIA Rail spokesperson.

Transport Canada was unable to say when those studies would be complete.

But documents obtained by Canwest News Service using access to information laws show that Del Mastro's idea is a plan that was being pushed last summer by VIA Rail's president, Donald Wright. Wright met with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on June 16 specifically to discuss a high-speed link between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.

Officials in Flaherty's office were not immediately available for comment.

Meanwhile, high-speed rail enthusiasts say they're getting impatient with yet more studies. They say it's time for governments to commit to the kind of high-speed rail lines that are now common in many countries in Europe and Asia.

"In 20 years, there has never been more potential for a high-speed rail project and for rail renewal," said Paul Langan, founder of the advocacy group High Speed Rail Canada. Langan's group has organized a symposium on high-speed rail projects in Canada to take place later this month in Kitchener, Ont. "There is no logical argument not to have high-speed. The question just boils down to the political or public will."

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

 

[toraerach]

Del Mastro believes that a less ambitious project that avoids the lakeshore right-of-way in favour of a sweeping curve north through Ottawa makes more economic sense.

I was surprised that Dean Del Mastro was supporting this until I realized that "a sweeping curve north" that "avoids the lakeshore" could get awful close to Peterborough.

 

[Voltz]

Yes, that was a real shocker to me as well

 

[MisterF]

In most earlier formulations, such a high-speed line, which requires its own dedicated track, would service Quebec City, Montreal, Kingston, Ont., Toronto, London, Ont., and Windsor, Ont., but Ottawa would get left out of the picture.

This isn't true. Most previous studies, including the 1995 study that the article mentions, propose a route going from Kingston to Montreal via Ottawa. It makes no sense not to include Ottawa.

I don't see Del Mastro getting anywhere by proposing a route through Peterborough, if that's what he's doing. While that route is about 30 km shorter than going through Kingston, it doesn't have the same population and the geography is more challenging. That could be why he says the speed would be limited to 240 km/h. Peterborough deserves rail service for sure, but HSR is a bit much.

It is good, however, that members of the government are openly supporting HSR. The fact that there's a non-partisan "rail caucus" is encouraging too. When was the last time we saw so much political support for HSR in this country?

Speaking of that ongoing HSR study, it was announced last January and was expected to last a year. Hopefully we'll hear something soon.

 

[khris]

It is really encouraging to hear a politician talking about high speed rail in Canada.
I do have some concern about going north to Ottawa from Toronto though. I would think that means a lot of trees would have to come down, versus a lakeshore routing.

 

[rbt]

Coincidentally, Via Rail started a new customer survey about their service this morning which, for me, was focused on the Toronto/Montreal trip (I use this corridor the most -- don't read too much into it).

It seemed to be focused around their competition (Air Canada, West Jet, Porter) for that corridor.

 

[ShonTron]

A route roughly following Highway 15 (though cutting the many corners that old highway takes) would be fine. 30 kilometres won't kill anyone if the trains go at least 250 km/h anyway. Kingston is an important stop as it would be a place for regional intercity trains, serving places like Cobourg, Belleville and Brockville would interchange, as well as the student and population there (which is higher than Peterborough).

As for Peterborough, it would be thrilling if the old CP Ontario and Quebec route could be relaid between Havelock and Glen Tay, and Peterborough on an eastern "north main line" that could be used for a few (perhaps 3 round trips) through passenger trains as well as an emergency/relief corridor for freight traffic. That, and an additional 2 trips to Toronto would be everything Peterborough should need.

Using the existing Ottawa rail corridors should be a relative piece of cake, as there aren't much in the way of freights anymore running through the city - they are all industrial branch lines. Of course, VIA also owns an abandoned rail corridor from Ottawa to Rigaud, Quebec. Some of the most important road rail crossings, including Autoroute 40 near Rigaud and Highway 417 near Vankleek Hill and again south of the 417/RR 174/Aviation interchange are still existant.

 

[jks]

Hmmm, a curve north?? Can't they leave peterbrorough out of anything?? It's such a small city. It would be very adequately serviced by GO trains. And does Del Mastro mean in his plan that to go to Montreal from Toronto, one would have to go through Ottawa??? That's just ridiculous. I'd rather have the original 'lakeshore' alignment. It gives the quickest route to Montreal, and the conditions are better making in less expensive through there AND it won't have to go at 240 km/h, but faster than that.

 

[urbanfan89]

My High Speed Rail proposal will maximize the amount of existing infrastructure being used to reduce costs, similar to France's TGVs:

Pegs: Stations served by HSR trains, can be either by local or express trains.

Thick line: Newly built line, on new ROW
Thin line: Existing line, upgraded to speed and electrification

Dark Red: 350 km/h
Red: 300 km/h
Orange: 250 km/h
Yellow: 200 km/h
Blue: Regular railway line with HSR trains running on them

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U....559163,-77.156982&spn=6.919858,16.831055&z=7

 

[MisterF]

Hmmm, a curve north?? Can't they leave peterbrorough out of anything?? It's such a small city. It would be very adequately serviced by GO trains. And does Del Mastro mean in his plan that to go to Montreal from Toronto, one would have to go through Ottawa??? That's just ridiculous. I'd rather have the original 'lakeshore' alignment. It gives the quickest route to Montreal, and the conditions are better making in less expensive through there AND it won't have to go at 240 km/h, but faster than that.

There is no original Lakeshore alignment. Previous studies have proposed going from Kingston to Ottawa to Montreal. That alignment maximizes ridership and revenue. Bypassing a city of over a million people to make the trip to Montreal slightly shorter makes no sense.

 

[Whoaccio]

Long-term value, not make-work

From Monday's Globe and Mail

January 12, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

As Canadian governments prepare to invest large sums of public money in infrastructure to help stimulate a troubled economy, it is essential that they choose projects that will be of value long after the recession is over.

Make-work projects make no long-term sense; the aim should be to seize on the opportunity – particularly at a time when building costs are low – to make overdue investments to boost productivity, improve the quality of life and make the country more environmentally responsible.

That being the case, it was encouraging to hear a member of the Conservative caucus arguing last week for one of Canada's most pressing infrastructure needs: a modern passenger rail system.

What Peterborough MP Dean Del Mastro is proposing may be too ambitious for launch in the foreseeable future. A high-speed rail link between Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa – which would cut the travel time between Canada's largest city and its national capital in half – is an intriguing prospect.

But years of planning would be required before any shovels were in the ground, so it would not provide the short-term job creation that is expected to be a requirement of any new stimulus spending.

That does not mean it should be discounted – Canada remains the only G-8 country without high-speed rail service – but only that advocates of improved rail service should also turn some of their focus to immediate upgrades.

Those potential upgrades are in no short supply. Forget about high-speed trains; there is effectively no express service between Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, making the rail an impractical option for those who don't have the time to stop in Kingston, Cobourg and Smiths Falls along the way.

Meanwhile, it is not an option at all for those who wish to travel to or from Calgary, which does not register on Via Rail's map. It is embarrassing that since the Dayliner made its final run in 1985, there has been no train service between Calgary and Edmonton – the two largest cities in Canada's most economically dynamic province.

Railway passengers who wish to travel to Calgary are now absurdly told to go Edmonton, which is 276 kilometres away, and make their own way from there.

While the prospects for high-speed rail are being studied, there are less glamorous ways of simultaneously improving service and creating jobs. Notably, additional tracks could be laid down on major routes to provide express service and to eliminate delays caused by passenger trains sharing tracks with those carrying freight.

The procurement of new trains and upgrade of well-aged existing ones would further boost Canadian industry, provided most of the production was domestic. And of course, there is the matter of adding a now non-existent passenger service in Alberta's busiest corridor.

The notion of a non-partisan “rail caucus,†of which Mr. Del Mastro is the leader, sounds rather quaint. But even if it is overreaching slightly, its priorities are well in line with Canada's present and long-term needs.

And Paul Wells' thinkings

Am I happy that Dean Del Mastro wants high-speed rail for the Montreal-Toronto corridor (with a thoughtful little detour to Ottawa?) Absolutely. Am I really, really surprised because all along, I took Del Mastro for a gallumphing jamook without a policy bone in his body? Oh yeah, you bet. Words cannot express. So how to square the proposal and its source? Two ways, it seems to me:

* Dean Del Mastro has depths to him that none of us could have suspected. Mea culpa, Dean!
* (or) he is operating on remote control from the PMO. He has become a human trial balloon. Float, Dean, float!
* (or) It’s a profoundly dumb idea, and only Dean and I could ever love it. (I had to anticipate that one, because you have to know it’s coming in the comments below.)

(Incidentally, here’s your soundtrack for this post. Click on the little speaker icons and you’ll get some rail-appropriate tunage.)

For arguments in favour of high-speed rail, read my definitive opus on the subject, written from the rolling French countryside. I should note that when that column ran, readers responded with the sound of crickets chirping, which is what I usually get when I turn all policy-wonk. But I did get a thoughtful email from a Senior Figure in the Harper crew, playfully contesting some of my assertions (hammering a TGV line through the Rockies: uh, not gonna happen) but not dismissing the idea outright. Based on this admittedly reed-thin shred of evidence, I now suspect Del Mastro’s little sortie did not catch a lot of people in Langevin by surprise. Indeed, here was a Shadowy Eminence in that very edifice yesterday, briefing reporters on the need for jumbo infrastructure outlays in the (oddly Martinesquely-dubbed) Most Important Budget Ever.

A few thoughts, then.

* None of this is a guarantee that anything will happen on the high-speed-rail front. I have very high regard for somewhere between one and three of these men, but I think it’s safe to say that any project whose main public champions are Dean Del Mastro, Dalton McGuinty and Jean Charest is not, yet, precisely a juggernaut.
* high-speed rail has its virtues (see the definitive opus, op. cit.), but it’s a terrible way to provide “fiscal stimulus†to salve a recession. I hope this is obvious. The planning, approval, and procurement pipeline would be very long indeed, probably more than a decade, so if anyone ever does try to sell such a project as some kind of stimulus, please laugh and throw things. If high-speed rail is defensible, it’s as an incrementally greener way to move human traffic through our densest population corridor, as a productivity boost, but not as a Response to the Crisis.
* Incidentally, if you want a nifty stimulus, all you tax cut/spending program people should look for some kind of truce. Here’s one. If the problem with tax cuts is that there is no guarantee they’ll be spent, and the problem with spending is that it procures no cost-of-living benefit on ordinary consumers, then why not find a guaranteed-spending program that reduces consumers’ bills? Send armies of work crews into homes to install the sort of energy-saving features we all know are available but that few of us have bothered to install. You get an immediate pop in skilled-labour employment. And consumers benefit with lower heating bills, indefinitely. That wasn’t so hard.

So to sum up: High-speed rail cannot help Canada through the current economic unpleasantness. But I believe longstanding arguments in its favour still hold. It is entirely possible that Del Mastro has become a bold free thinker. With best wishes to him for the new year, I hope he hasn’t.

 

[dunkalunk]

I've been working on my own map for a while and let's say urbanfan89 inspired me to finish it. Here's what I envision a high speed rail network looking like in to corridor.

Some notable things to note:
-This system utilizes pre-existing rail and highway corridors to minimize property purchase costs. Some exceptions include a straight line from Kitchener to London, a new rail corridor from Breslau (east Kitchener) to Cootes Paradise via Morriston and a new rail connection from Kingston to Smiths Falls through the Rideau Lakes region through about 50k of Canadian Shield.

-Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal route chosen over an entirely lakeshore route. This route is only 45km longer than the southern route and it would be foolish to leave out such a large customer base (~1.2M). And a route through Peterborough, while shorter has almost no population base, and building through the Canadian sheild can get very expensive very quickly.

-Toronto-Kitchener route goes through Brampton and Georgetown with a bypass around Guelph. Upgrading current rail infrastructure will help keep property purchase costs down and simplify issues with the Escarpment. The line would serve and larger population base. And finally, it will electrify the entire Georgetown GO line. The Guelph Bypass is still necessary to help keep maintain faster speeds.

-A line connecting Kitchener and Hamilton along the Highway 6 corridor was added. This will make trips from Kitchener and Guelph to Hamilton, Niagara, and New York easier, releiveing pressure on Highway 6. It also helps to relieve pressure on the southern CN mainline, which would be difficult to upgrade through Dundas.

-Another HSR rail line runs from Toronto to Hamilton to Niagara. It's an obvious choice due the the number of people who live in this corridor. The Hamilton station is located in Downtown, yet reconnects to the lakeshore line via the Red Hill Valley Parkway. (I'm not sure if this is actually practically possible, Google's imagery is outdated)

-Border Pre-Clearance facilities will be placed at Hamilton for Trains bound for Niagara-Buffalo-NYC and at London for Trains bound for Windsor-Detroit-Chicago. This will help keep schedules and streamline border crossings.

*Quebec regular rail routes omitted, for now.

Link to Map

 

[khris]

It would be really nice to see a stop in Mississauga, either as close to the City Centre as possible or near the airport.