Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[dunkalunk]

Probably not ... and those raising questions of where you'd put high speed rail across the Niagara River are in some strange fantasy world - at least in our lifetimes.

Yeah, prednisone does that.
Regardless, I still have hope.

 

[urbanfan89]

There's already a rail bridge crossing the Niagara in Niagara Falls. There isn't a train bridge in Fort Erie. Plus if I'm not mistaken, the river is much wider in Fort Erie than in Niagara Falls.

A dinky, one track bridge which the Niagara Commission has threatened to close a few times is simply not fit for a high speed main line. Besides, there *is* a train bridge in Fort Erie which only freight trains use.

I think it makes sense to keep Niagara Falls as the crossing point. It makes it easier to potentially put a stop in Niagara Falls to cater to the tourists.

The trains can *always* branch off the main line to serve the Niagara Fall station.

Fort Erie is somewhat out of the way, and in terms of population really isn't worth it, especially since a crossing in Niagara Falls hits both Niagara Falls Canada and Niagara Falls NY, and can easily make its way south to Buffalo.

We need to design the system in order to be able to compete with air travel to NYC, so it will be better to build a new line parallel to the QEW and tunnel under the river to arrive at Buffalo. It simply makes no sense to require the train to waste time lumbering at <100km/h around Buffalo, especially since the potential market is very wide.

 

[jn_12]

Alright then.

 

[ShonTron]

The rail network in Buffalo isn't well suited to using the Fort Erie Bridge anyway, as the track turns immediately north to hit the belt line which sweeps behind Delaware Park and then comes south to connect with the east-west railways at the old Buffalo Central Terminal. The TH&B/CP Budd RDC used this route for its Toronto-Buffalo train, via Hamilton and Welland.

The Belt Line, still used by intercity freights, is certainly not suitable for high-speed running and there's the issue of freight conflicts in that constrained route.

 

[dunkalunk]

The New York Central line is dead straight for the most part and has wide curves that could easily be upgraded to a high speed corridor, except for a portion through Tonawanda which would cause considerable headaches.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

I thought it looked quite promising in the early 1980s before the Tories got into power, when there was serious planning going on. Even the 1989 revisitation seemed more promising. Everything since, including this, seems pretty superficial.

I wouldn't make too many decisions based on this. I personally know one engineer who started working on Montreal-Toronto high-speed rail when they graduated from engineering ... and revisited it many times during their career ... and they are turning 65 soon.

I would argue that things are different this time. To start with Canada has pursued high speed trains before. The Turbo Train was such an effort. But this was also undertaken at a time when both electric and diesel technologies were being pursued. Now we know which one proved tops, and unfortunately Canada bet on the wrong one. That they invested in a high speed technology that failed no doubt put the idea back several decades. Had the gone for an electric system at that time things might have turned out differently.

Of course they might not have either. After the Turbo Train came to an end Canadian cities continued to decline well into the 90's. The car was king and the fact that many city centers were filled with endless parking lots and unappealing streets is testament too this. Transit ridership declined. Highway construction was up. Basically there could not have been a more difficult environment for pursuing high speed rail.

Things have changed though. Just look at how much cities like Toronto and Montreal have changed just in the past 10 years. Even cities like Ottawa are now starting to see a change and migration back too the city centers. Transit ridership is back up. GO is expanding and proposing radical changes too how it provides services. AMT has also grown a lot and though it faces some expensive bottlenecks at the moment once those can be resolved it is also set to grow at a rapid rate. And now you are also seeing more politicians, both provincially and federally, supporting the idea, and putting the gears in motion. In short I would say that it is quite a bit different then it has been in a while, probably since the idea was first seriously explored in the 70s. That is just how I see it of course, and there is always the chance I could be wrong, but somehow I don't see that being the case.

One other comment I would add is that I also don't see any kind of Canada/US connections being explored until construction of HSR networks are well underway on both sides of the border. And given that there is far more benefit and reasons for Canada to pursue such connections, they also better be willing to cover more than just a geographical division of the cost. I do think they are worth pursuing but with the security requirements of the US and much more inward thinking policies I don't see these kinds of projects being high on their list, and in many jurisidictions may not even be discussed or considered at all.

 

[adma]

A dinky, one track bridge which the Niagara Commission has threatened to close a few times is simply not fit for a high speed main line. Besides, there *is* a train bridge in Fort Erie which only freight trains use.

We seem to forget that, technically, there are *two* bridges in NF: the Whirlpool Rapids, and the disused Michigan Central to the south--not that either is suited to the task.

Then again, for all we know, someone can be bold and replace Michigan Central with some kind of Calatrava/Millau-esque pyrotechnics. (How *might* one choose to bridge the Niagara Gorge in 2009?)

 

[MisterF]

I skimmed through the HSR report on highspeedrail.ca and it has some interesting numbers. In 1992 there were 99 million intercity person-trips by car in the Windsor-Quebec corridor, 4.1 million by air, 2.9 million by rail, and 2.6 million by bus.

A TGV style line would get 12 million annual riders. 40% would be diverted from car traffic, 18% from air, 15% from conventional rail, 8% from buses, and 20% would be induced travel. Airlines were projected to lose 44% of their passengers. I suspect ridership projections will be quite a bit higher this time.

 

[Long Island Mike]

High Speed Rail in Ontario and Quebec..and crossing into the USA...

AS: Good post with good observations! I am all for HSR in the Ontario-Quebec Corridor and I will mention one of the problems with the mentioned United Aircraft Turbotrains that CN and Amtrak had was the short lifespan that they were designed for-just 10-15 years I recall reading.

I have mentioned that VIA should try to take title of the 335-mile Montreal-Toronto CN mainline if they could with freight using the CP line exclusively and upgraded to carry more traffic.

A new TGV-style line would be desirable via Ottawa over the current rail ROW
but a passenger-only rail line like most of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor would be needed to provide the level of service that would be necessary to compete with air or bus travel specifically.

As for crossing the border it would need to be made as streamlined as it possibly can instead of the hassles that both Customs give travelers today.
Making travel user-friendly like that in Europe would be a good goal but can the bureaucracies of both countries agree on how to handle things?

I would really like to see this become reality-as many here do.

- Comments by Long Island Mike -

 

[nfitz]

I would argue that things are different this time. To start with Canada has pursued high speed trains before. The Turbo Train was such an effort.

There was absolutely no plans for high speed rail when the Turbo train was built. It was simply a faster train, that could tilt around curves. The train operated no faster than the current equipment does. I never remember it doing the Montreal-Toronto run in under 4.5 hours, though I hear it used to be scheduled at 4 hours, similiar to what the current equipment does.

I think things ARE different now. Back in the early 1980s under Trudeau the federal government was very much behind high speed rail. That's never happened since, and there is very little interest by the current federal government. The Ontario/Quebec thing always breaks down when they realise that they are going to have to foot the $20-billion bill.

I doubt we'll see high-speed rail anytime soon.

 

[Cleisthenes]

HSR Facebook Advocacy

This group is adding members at a decent rate today. Looks like a reasonable group of interested individuals simply showing their support for HSR in Canada.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=61047792003

 

[Paul Langan]

High Speed Rail Canada Toronto Symposium Registration

Just a heads up, tomorrow morning Wed. March 11th at 8:00am the High Speed Rail Canada website will be updated and registration will begin for the April 25th Toronto symposium. We have a great list of speakers and a fanatastic venue for it. Its only $10.00 but you have to pre-register as there are only 160 seats in the auditorium. thanks Paul Langan, Founder High Speed Rail Canada http://highspeedrail.ca

 

[Paul Langan]

Turbo Train Schedule Clarification
Turbo Train schedule late 1973-4 - Original train numbers were Train 62 which left Toronto at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Montréal at 4:44 p.m. Train 63 left Montréal at 12:45 p.m. and arrived in Toronto at 4:44 p.m. (Both were daily trains.) The trip took 3 hours and 59 minutes downtown-to-downtown on trains 62 and 63,

According to the government and VIA the new $407 million spending will result in a reduction of 30 minutes off the Toronto-Montreal trains. This would have a few of the trains to a 4 hours. This merely brings VIA back to train speeds that existed 30 years ago...........

 

[nfitz]

According to the government and VIA the new $407 million spending will result in a reduction of 30 minutes off the Toronto-Montreal trains. This would have a few of the trains to a 4 hours. This merely brings VIA back to train speeds that existed 30 years ago...........

Several times over the last 20 years I've seen schedules that had a 3 hour, 59 minute travel time. But I don't ever recall seeing one where there were two trains in the same direction, on the same day that had 4 hours; the second best was typically at least 5 hours, and more often 5.5 hours. So if they have managed to get things so that there are several trains that are 4 hours, then that IS an improvement, particularly if they stop in Kingston, which don't think has been done in the last quarter-century. Can't say I recall 1972/1973 ... though 4-hours back then would be pretty good, wasn't that before they built the current Kingston station, and the by-pass? I remember using the old station, but I don't remember when they closed it.

 

[ssk]

(Not related to Canadian rail, but I didn't want to start a new topic)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/amtrak-joe-is-t.html

Vice President Biden, perhaps the nation’s most famous Amtrak passenger, announced today that Amtrak will receive $1.3 billion in stimulus money to expand passenger rail capacity.

At an event at Union Station this afternoon, Biden strongly defended the government subsidies that go to the nation’s rail system and said he was “tired of apologizing for help for Amtrak.”

“Every passenger rail service system in the world relies on subsidies. We subsidize our highways and airports more than we subsidize Amtrak. So let's get something straight here. Amtrak has not been at the trough. Amtrak has been left out. Amtrak has been left out much too long, in my humble opinion,” said Biden