Bordercollie
Senior Member
To Trenton yes. Not to London.Are you seriously comparing little Ganonoque and Trenton to London?
To Trenton yes. Not to London.Are you seriously comparing little Ganonoque and Trenton to London?
No, they haven't: All the studies you refer to have been commissioned by the MTQ and the MTO and conducted by professional engineering firms, plus an unsolicited proposal from SNCF. The only thing VIA ever studied was VIAFast, which covered the entire Quebec-Windsor Corridor and featured exactly the kind of 200 km/h fuel-operated train service you keep demanding for Toronto-London here...That VIA is "studying" HFR West means nothing. They have been studying HSR for 40 years and we know how far that has gotten them.
The only thing which speaks volumes is your complete ignorance of any facts, regardless of how often you get soundly and profoundly debunked: Montreal-Quebec wasn't part of the initial project scope either, but business leaders, political leaders and newspapers in Quwbec City and Trois-Rivières lobbied hard to get their cities included into the plan, whereas their peers in Southwestern Ontario condemned VIA for proposing any intercity passenger rail initiative at the same time as the Wynne government's ill-fated HSR project in Southwestern Ontario...They should not be studying London extension because it should have been part of the original proposal and well before QC. The fact that it is not in the CURRENT HFR plan speaks volumes about how little they seem to care.
Sure, as long as Londoners don't mind transferring to a GO train in Georgetown to continue their journey to Toronto...Yes it would need new/twinning track and overpasses but that is true of the entire Tor/QC route and on a passenger carried analysis, London would be the cheapest portion to build.
Londoners have every reason to be pissed, but their political leaders should be the target of their criticisms, not their co-signers...I don't think you people realize just how pissed off the people and Mayors of Windsor and London are over this plan and they have the right to be.
Your posts reinforce what everyone already knew: that one just has to have read any four subsequent posts of yours to recognize every single word you write.VIA's HFR proposal just reinforces what everyone already knew........this is first and foremost a political document and a transportation plan a distant second.
What you are referring to is an Amtrak service which operated overnight between New York City and Niagara Falls, NY, where it connected with VIA #92 (from NIAG to TRTO) and VIA #95 (from TRTO to NIAG), presumably by having the passengers transfer and clearing customs by foot.
According to VIA's 1994-04-24 schedule, the overnight service was inaugurated on June 17, 1994, and departed NYC as #65 on Fridays and Saturdays, arriving in and returning from Niagara Falls the next day (i.e. as #62 on Saturdays and Sundays):
That VIA is "studying" HFR West means nothing. They have been studying HSR for 40 years and we know how far that has gotten them.
They should not be studying London extension because it should have been part of the original proposal and well before QC. The fact that it is not in the CURRENT HFR plan speaks volumes about how little they seem to care. Yes it would need new/twinning track and overpasses but that is true of the entire Tor/QC route and on a passenger carried analysis, London would be the cheapest portion to build. I don't think you people realize just how pissed off the people and Mayors of Windsor and London are over this plan and they have the right to be.
VIA's HFR proposal just reinforces what everyone already knew........this is first and foremost a political document and a transportation plan a distant second.
How many times does this have to be covered? There's no really economical way to go West of Union, as there is going East. They even found a lightly used freight corridor from Montreal to Quebec City that they could use. And this is all compounded by the fact that any westward extension has to serve Pearson. They can't have the largest passenger rail project in history skip the largest airport in the country. And that has to be done in conjunction with the air-rail hub that Pearson intends to build.
Given these realities, there is no politician or bureaucrat who would ever have picked going West before going East. Between Pearson's hub and the need to either acquire or build a whole new corridor, the Union-Pearson-Kitchener-London extension will cost as much as all of HFR from Toronto to Quebec City. It has to be a distinct phase.
Not sure it's been covered that much. And I'm not sure why it's dismissed at all, given that there's plans for the longer Montreal-Quebec corridor, that has lower population. And as crs1026 points out, the approaches into Montreal from the east (heck, from anywhere other than south shore) are horrific.How many times does this have to be covered? There's no really economical way to go West of Union, as there is going East. They even found a lightly used freight corridor from Montreal to Quebec City that they could use.
Not sure it's been covered that much.
For one thing, Quebec-Montreal is 180 miles where Toronto-London is 119. Second, the Toronto-Pearson leg is roughed in while the approach to Montreal is messy and needs re construction along CP and CN trackage.
If there's no intention to terminate at Gare Centrale, or if VIA is simply willing to live with a break in service, it really is not all that complicated a project. It starts to look just like the TOM portions of HFR. Actually, less complex.And I'm not sure why it's dismissed at all, given that there's plans for the longer Montreal-Quebec corridor, that has lower population. And as crs1026 points out, the approaches into Montreal from the east (heck, from anywhere other than south shore) are horrific.
A true hub at Pearson is still a decade or more away, true, but I’m not convinced that a free bus shuttle from Malton to Pearson is not viable as a stopgap - Logan in Boston has such a shuttle, for example.
When I talk about London service I am not talking about the route via Kitchener but rather Aldershot which is far more direct.
If there's no intention to terminate at Gare Centrale, or if VIA is simply willing to live with a break in service, it really is not all that complicated a project. It starts to look just like the TOM portions of HFR. Actually, less complex.
I don't, personally, see this happening with shuttle buses. The entire point of the Pearson hub, as per the GTAA, is to drastically cut car trips to the airport. To that end, they want to co-locate a departure and check-in hall at the rail hub. This means, not just HFR, but GO Kitchener eventually re-routed through the hub. I fully expect that the Pearson Hub, HFR West and GO Kitchener upgrades will be rolled into one large CIB package sometime this decade.
I am not sure a transit hub that’s so far from the terminal will reduce the desire to connect by car.
It has also been pointed out that a refurbished north mainline, while slightly longer in distance, could see travel times comparable with the southern alignment via Aldershot/Brantford. It's also quite apparent that the appetite for a southern alignment isn't so much about directness of travel than some insecurity/competitiveness around the prospect of Kitchener benefitting from HFR. This isn't a zero sum game.When I talk about London service I am not talking about the route via Kitchener but rather Aldershot which is far more direct.
I am not sure a transit hub that’s so far from the terminal will reduce the desire to connect by car.