News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 661     4 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 575     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 823     0 

Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

Northern Light said:
Customs is an absurd issue, which could be resolved via pre-clearance and reduced to a 30-min pre-board, with little or no wait at the border....but don't hold your breath waiting for that.
Click to expand...

When I took it they brought all of the passengers off the train, then the train went away for a while (30 minutes), then it came back. Is it possible they were using the x-ray scanners normally used for freight on it? Certainly an unique customs experience.

For the individuals crossing, I had very few questions (despite going for 5 months as a young individual). They just reminded me I couldn't work and sent me through. I typically got more questions when going to New York for a weekend.
 
dunkalunk said:
I would think that the price of a ticket would be enough to discourage most long-distance commuting, although people still do commute long distances regardless of the cost to their own time, money, and sanity.

It should be assumed that any high speed infrastructure would also be running some variety of moderately priced local and regional service along much of or at least part of its route, this is how most every other HSR system in the world runs. Its this additional local service that will help enormously with community building in the smaller cities, with proximity to the corridor. (coburg, port hope, chatam, gananoque, ect.)
Click to expand...
This should be obvious. But when you're adding a very fast regional and local service to smaller cities and towns, you're going to have to make a plan for the regional economy to best use that new service. Of course, you can do that once you've started HSR construction, but it'd need to happen.
And I believe that the TGV in France has turned into a semi-commuter system for people living in cities around Paris. Compare a $10 Go train ticket from places within the GTA to what may be a $40 ticket from someplace like Trenton.

Automation Gallery said:
Strange that they will not include Rochester and Syracuse in their plans..Metro Rochester with a population of 1.1 million and the 6th most livable city in the USA.. Metro Syracuse has a population of 735.000 people and is rated the fourth best place in the USA to raise a family. Believe me these two towns will not go down without a fight to get HSR
Click to expand...
Oh, I was just leaving out Rochester and Syracuse because they're on the way. Obviously they're in the plans, and are also stops on the current route.

And yes, the current "HSR" plans in the US are currently nothing like real HSR (except for the NW corridor.) But, it's still an improvement and raises the possibility of better improvements for the future. By law, Amtrak trains can't go faster than 90 km/h, except on the NW Corridor. Increasing that to about 150 km/h makes it competitive with car, which increases the demand and raises the possibility of more improvements in the near future. Not that Canada has to wait for the US in the Quebec-Windsor corridor.
 
Second_in_pie said:
By law, Amtrak trains can't go faster than 90 km/h, except on the NW Corridor.
Click to expand...

That's not true. In the North-East corridor trains currently run at up to 241km/h, so I assume that was a typo and you meant NE Corridor.

The rail speed limit I think you're referring to states that trains traveling above 79mph (126km/h) require advanced safety systems (cab signalling, ATC, etc.).

The lowest speed limit in the US is 59mph (96km/h), but that's for lines without block signals at all. All main lines have at least block signals so that's irrelevant to the discussion here.
 
gweed123 said:
My thinking was that it would be a relatively inexpensive spur line, and would also service inter-regional trips if it was extended to Buffalo. But you're right, it's not within the corridor itself. I would imagine though that similar spurs would be built to K-W, and possibly Barrie.

EDIT: Also, who's to say that GO couldn't run some sort of high speed service using those new tracks? Hamilton to downtown TO in 20 minutes is a pretty attractive proposition.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that we need a new tunnel under Welland Canal to get regular GO trains to Niagara Falls. It's estimated at $1 billion.
 
gweed123 said:
I was not aware that the current infrastructure would be unable to accomodate the increased load. Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

The canal operators decided they couldn't give the train guaranteed time slots. I.e. ships were more important.

The existing infrastructure would be sufficient if trains got priority.
 
rbt said:
The canal operators decided they couldn't give the train guaranteed time slots. I.e. ships were more important.

The existing infrastructure would be sufficient if trains got priority.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Why don't they build a rail bridge instead? Yes, it would need to be high enough for ships to pass underneath it, but I'm pretty sure it would cost less than a $1B tunnel. Chances are, it would also be an interesting piece of engineering to look at.
 
gweed123 said:
I was not aware that the current infrastructure would be unable to accomodate the increased load. Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

Actually, I just looked it up, and there does seem to be an existing, little-used tunnel in Welland. The problem is that GO wants trains to go through St. Catharines rather than Welland.

A high-speed route that didn't care about St. Catharines might be able to go through Welland.
 
gweed123 said:
Fair enough. Why don't they build a rail bridge instead? Yes, it would need to be high enough for ships to pass underneath it, but I'm pretty sure it would cost less than a $1B tunnel. Chances are, it would also be an interesting piece of engineering to look at.
Click to expand...

IIRC, a bridge was considered. It had to clear something substantial like 30 or 45 meters which made the bridge several km long.

Wouldn't be surprised if the cost dropped substantially for either option if LakeShore was electrified as the slope could be 5 degrees instead of 2.
 
gweed123 said:
Fantastic news from the Obama administration today: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/08/biden.rail.network/index.html?hpt=T2

$53 billion over the next 6 years. Now THAT'S how you build a transit system! None of this 25 years stuff. Pump a shitload of money into it, and get 'er done quickly.
Click to expand...

If you put it into perspective, that is the same as the Federal Government announcing it is spending $5 or 6 billion in passenger rail across the country. Not that it wouldn't be helpful, but, in terms of making drastic changes, its not going to radically modernize it.

Consider VIA which has or will be completing $1 billion worth of projects or exclusively in the corridor in a 5 year period. It has helped, and will make some differences, but even if it spend another couple million it would not bring it up European HSR standards.....not even close. Good for growing ridership and it will be a worthwhile investment, but a long, long way from being an investment in true HSR.
 
Don't break out the champagne yet. $53 million distributed between three or four projects won't amount to a whole lot--not to mention that many of the 'high speed' projects are going to bring railway lines up to speeds that VIA goes now.
 
DHLawrence85 said:
Don't break out the champagne yet. $53 million distributed between three or four projects won't amount to a whole lot--not to mention that many of the 'high speed' projects are going to bring railway lines up to speeds that VIA goes now.
Click to expand...

It's $53 billion, not $53 million.

And yes, it may have a hard time passing through the House, but we'll see.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top