Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London
#91
(11-04-2015, 02:10 PM)ookpik Wrote: [With apologies to von Clausewitz, Patton, et al...] While we should all dream (and scheme Wink ) let's not jeopardize a good plan by the dream of a perfect plan.

I agree with the sentiment but it is way too early in the planning process to be settling for second best and start making compromises. More importantly, as I said before, once we expropriate the land and build high speed crossings (which are as necessary at 160Km/h as they are at 380km/h) then what's the point of settling for second best.

Marc Garneau as minister of transportation is also good news. Having been around NASA means that he won't flinch as easily at tens-of-billions-in-cost projects.
Reply


#92
(11-04-2015, 03:59 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Marc Garneau as minister of transportation is also good news. Having been around NASA means that he won't flinch as easily at tens-of-billions-in-cost projects.
Now that made me laugh (in a good way.)

But be careful. He may have even grander visions like MagLev trains Wink
Reply
#93
(11-04-2015, 04:28 PM)ookpik Wrote: But be careful. He may have even grander visions like MagLev trains Wink

Now, that would be a bridge too far Tongue
Reply
#94
(11-04-2015, 02:19 PM)SammyOES Wrote: Also, as someone originally from Southwestern Ontario - I question the commuter type demand for a London-Toronto train, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were demand for a daily trip.  I know a lot of people that would happily drive 45-60 minutes into London and then take the train into Toronto.  Even if getting to Pearson involved going into Union station and then taking the Pearson express - it would definitely be popular.

I should point out that Via Rail already runs 7 trains a day from London to Toronto, at about 2h15 except for the two departures through Kitchener, which take 3.5 hours.
Reply
#95
(11-04-2015, 02:19 PM)SammyOES Wrote: I question the commuter type demand for a London-Toronto train, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were demand for a daily trip.

We used to hear this all the time whenever people asked for GO service to Toronto. Today we have 20 runs in each way from the University, one bus run from Kitchener and two trains.

In fact, the way I heard it is that GO Transit higher ups were still insisting there was no demand and bus runs were started as a personal favour from the premier at the request of RIM execs. Service started tentatively at two runs in the morning and two in the afternoon and has grown continuously ever since: first more and more runs and then double deckers.



p.s. ... and even on the face of all this we just recently had our resident idiot (J.O). questioning in the pages of the Record if there would be enough demand for a fast train to Toronto from Waterloo.

p.p.s. demand for fast train service in Germany has exceeded all expectations over the many years it's been available. Demand continues to grow with ever more frequent runs of ever longer trains.
Reply
#96
(11-04-2015, 10:16 AM)ookpik Wrote: What's the demand for rail service between those two cities?

Isn’t the real question what is the demand for transportation between those two cities at various trip times?

A rail service that was faster and cheaper than the airplane would quickly take over the route especially if it had good connections to the respective airports. This might save billions in airport capital costs. Note that “faster” means less time between leaving the starting point and arriving at the destination, not the actual movement time. So all the security hassle at the airport counts against travel time, meaning that the train doesn’t have to be as fast as one might assume, especially for shorter trips.

Between these considerations, I think it’s not at all obvious that HSR cannot be justified. I still remain skeptical just because I have what I consider to be a healthy skepticism about anything that costs that much and which aligns so much with my preferences, but I think it’s clearly worth studying and should be rejected only on valid economic grounds.
Reply
#97
High speed or not so high speed ... here is what I see as fundamentals, and the key priorities for rail between Kitchener and Toronto:
  • Dedicated track
  • No level crossings
  • Reasonable frequency
Combine those three, and we would at the minimum have effective, quick service to downtown Toronto (and ideally also to Pearson).

Only after that would I worry about 160 km/h vs 300 km/h.  Especially since we're talking about only 100 km of distance.  For Toronto-Montreal high speed makes more of a difference, but it's still a shorter route than most of the shinkansen routes in Hapan.
Reply


#98
(11-04-2015, 11:35 PM)tomh009 Wrote: High speed or not so high speed ... here is what I see as fundamentals, and the key priorities for rail between Kitchener and Toronto:
  • Dedicated track
  • No level crossings
  • Reasonable frequency
Combine those three, and we would at the minimum have effective, quick service to downtown Toronto (and ideally also to Pearson).

Only after that would I worry about 160 km/h vs 300 km/h.

Worrying about it at the point at which corridors are being acquired and infrastructure is being built seems prudent. These aren't projects that you can undertake every 5 years - if it's being done, and a reasonable cost increment can make it substantially better, it's worth considering. I don't understand why everyone is so quick to write off proper high speed rail. The hard stuff is what you said - dedicated track and no level crossings; making it high speed on top of that is AFAIK not the expensive part.
Reply
#99
(11-04-2015, 11:56 PM)mpd618 Wrote: I don't understand why everyone is so quick to write off proper high speed rail.

Who's writing HSR off? All I said is that if modern rail, which is already much, much faster than than the current SLO or NO-GO Transit, is "good enough" to serve the distance between KW and Toronto.

I asked if anyone had numbers for the incremental cost between the gold solution and the platinum solution. If those numbers don't exist then I'll wait for them. But I won't make up my mind until I see some numbers and analysis.
Reply
(11-05-2015, 08:23 AM)ookpik Wrote:
(11-04-2015, 11:56 PM)mpd618 Wrote: I don't understand why everyone is so quick to write off proper high speed rail.

Who's writing HSR off? All I said is that if modern rail, which is already much, much faster than than the current SLO or NO-GO Transit, is "good enough" to serve the distance between KW and Toronto.

I asked if anyone had numbers for the incremental cost between the gold solution and the platinum solution. If those numbers don't exist then I'll wait for them. But I won't make up my mind until I see some numbers and analysis.

Right.  And if there is infrastructure funding enough for "gold" but not enough for "platinum", the choice would be clear, at least for me.

"Proper HSR" might take us to downtown Toronto in 30-35 minutes, assuming stops in Guelph and at Pearson.  Maybe it's 45 minutes for the "gold" version (even GO with dedicated track and no level crossings should be less than an hour).  I suspect that for most people the difference would not be significant.  (The higher speeds are more relevant on longer routes with fewer stops, though.)
Reply
(11-05-2015, 09:44 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Right.  And if there is infrastructure funding enough for "gold" but not enough for "platinum", the choice would be clear, at least for me.

"Proper HSR" might take us to downtown Toronto in 30-35 minutes, assuming stops in Guelph and at Pearson.  Maybe it's 45 minutes for the "gold" version (even GO with dedicated track and no level crossings should be less than an hour).  I suspect that for most people the difference would not be significant.  (The higher speeds are more relevant on longer routes with fewer stops, though.)

It wouldn't make much difference for KW-Toronto but it would for Detroit-Quebec City, which is where we are going with this. Moreover, whatever decision we make would likely not be upgraded in decades. Are we prepared to forego HSR until 2050?

Also have we lost the capacity as a nation to dream big? This seems to me like Avro arrow all over. We have a window of opportunity, the demand seems to be there, all that it requires is the capacity of people to dream big and reach for the stars.

Think of the population centers we would connect: Windsor/Detroit, London, KW, Guelph, GTA, Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec City. About half the population of Canada lives along this corridor.
Reply
(11-05-2015, 11:00 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: It wouldn't make much difference for KW-Toronto but it would for Detroit-Quebec City, which is where we are going with this. Moreover, whatever decision we make would likely not be upgraded in decades. Are we prepared to forego HSR until 2050?
Two different needs here. Our region needs a viable "fast" rail infrastructure that serves commuters and general passengers (including users of YYZ) far more than we need "high speed" service to Detroit or Montreal. The current 2+ hours on SLO Transit, even if trains ran hourly, is laughable. It's also embarrassing for a G-7 country and a region with pretensions of becoming Silicon Valley North. This requirement needs to get satisfied ASAP. Even 10 years is too long.


Quote:Also have we lost the capacity as a nation to dream big? This seems to me like Avro arrow all over. We have a window of opportunity, the demand seems to be there, all that it requires is the capacity of people to dream big and reach for the stars.
Oh come on. This isn't another Arrow fiasco(*). There's nothing wrong with dreaming big providing we have the economic wherewithall to follow through. Until we can see some solid cost and projected demand numbers to compare "fast" with HSR then dreaming big could result either in paralysis (no decision gets made so we get no expanded rail service at all) or a nightmare (the project begins but either runs into snags or actual ridership is far less than projected.) Consider how long (in decades!) it took to get a decent rail connection between YYZ and Union. And when it finally came about ridership was way below expectations because so few people could afford the fares. Is that what we want to happen with HSR?

Again, I don't see anyone here rejecting HSR out of hand. We'd all prefer it over slower options providing it's demonstrably the better choice. We all want to see some realistic cost numbers, construction schedules and usage projections between the two options so we can reach informed opinions. As far as can tell that sort of information isn't available yet.

(*) Perhaps the Turbo Train is an even better example of big dreams that turned into nightmares, deservedly or not.
Reply
Oh please, do tell, how the Turbo was a "nightmare". Go on, I'm listening. Dodgy
Reply


(11-05-2015, 11:44 AM)ookpik Wrote: Oh come on. This isn't another Arrow fiasco(*). There's nothing wrong with dreaming big providing we have the economic wherewithall to follow through.

You are aware that the Dief cancelled the Avro Arrow because of "economic" considerations? He couldn't stomach the ramp up cost of several billions (in today's dollars) to get us to a dominant position in aviation. France on the other hand had no problem subsidizing Dassault and Airbus until they became profitable.
Reply
(11-05-2015, 11:44 AM)ookpik Wrote: Two different needs here. Our region needs a viable "fast" rail infrastructure that serves commuters and general passengers (including users of YYZ) far more than we need "high speed" service to Detroit or Montreal. The current 2+ hours on SLO Transit, even if trains ran hourly, is laughable. It's also embarrassing for a G-7 country and a region with pretensions of becoming Silicon Valley North. This requirement needs to get satisfied ASAP. Even 10 years is too long.

Can anyone here offer a realistic estimate of what the Kitchener-Toronto travel time could be with GO assuming no level crossings and a dedicated track?  Maybe with fewer stops (an express service similar to the Lakeshore line).  The MP40 should have a top speed of 175 km/h but I don't know how realistic that is with the car sets that GO uses.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links