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. Click here to get started.
High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London
05-19-2017, 10:30 PM
Not to mention that by not having a Guelph station, the system would be passing up the ridership from a population of well over 150,000 (with surrounding rural areas). That strikes me as counter-intuitive.
05-19-2017, 10:31 PM
05-19-2017, 10:35 PM
(05-19-2017, 10:31 PM)Markster Wrote:(05-19-2017, 10:28 PM)DHLawrence Wrote: Ottawa is an easy fix - stop there on the way to Montreal. I can't imagine it will be that big a detour at 250km/h.
12 minutes is too much? I’m having trouble imagining a scenario in which that can be a reasonable position, given the size of Ottawa.
05-19-2017, 10:41 PM
(05-19-2017, 10:35 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: 12 minutes is too much? I’m having trouble imagining a scenario in which that can be a reasonable position, given the size of Ottawa.
And yet, you can find people of that very position.
05-20-2017, 07:12 AM
I think what people miss is that they are thinking that HSR will accelerate like a slow, Diesel 13-car GO-train. The magic introduced first on the Shinkansen is to have high acceleration, so there is very little penalty in having additional stops.
Every time I ride the GO train (which is rare) I just sit there in agony it accelerates so slowly. The Shinkansen (and other HSR) often accelerate close to the same rates as metros.
So yes, keep Guelph.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
05-20-2017, 09:04 AM
Ottawa is the country's capital, with a population of almost 1.4 million in its CMA. Guelph's population is 130,000. They're very different cases.
That having been said, I can't see the case for skipping Guelph, either. Particularly if the train would go directly through the city, I can't see it being sensible to sacrifice that potential ridership and those potential VMT savings for a few minutes....
05-20-2017, 11:07 AM
(05-19-2017, 10:41 PM)Markster Wrote:(05-19-2017, 10:35 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: 12 minutes is too much? I’m having trouble imagining a scenario in which that can be a reasonable position, given the size of Ottawa.
It occurs to me they may be making fundamentally the same mistake as the “mall-to-mall” and “obviously it should just go up King St.” complainers in our town. Proper design isn’t just a matter of picking two endpoints and minimizing the time between them but instead finding a set of locations can be reasonably and usefully served by a line or set of lines. For HSR or LRT that means finding the appropriate intermediate destinations that are worth diverting the line from a shortest path. Diverting to Ottawa is similar to diverting our LRT to the University of Waterloo — both are high-traffic destinations that warrant a significant deviation from a shortest route.
05-20-2017, 11:36 AM
The high speed rail part of this annoucement doesn't really excite me. It's the improvements to the Kithener Line that will need to take place for High Speed Rail and will make AD2W GO possible that mostly excite me. It was a very wise move to keep it tied to the xisting corridor Metrolinx owns. Even if the next provincial government decides to can HSR, all of the work tht's currently being done as part of the EA is the same kind of work that will need to be done for AD2W, and some priority improvements (particularly through Guelph) can be given the go-ahead, even if electrificaition is perpetually delayed.
05-20-2017, 01:51 PM
(05-20-2017, 11:36 AM)dunkalunk Wrote: […] all of the work tht's currently being done as part of the EA is the same kind of work that will need to be done for AD2W, […]
As the folks on UT point out, no EA is required for improvements in an existing rail right of way, or for running up to 200 km/h — i.e. for AD2W between KW & Toronto at twice the current speed. This announcement is just kicking the can down the road past the election, again.
(05-20-2017, 01:51 PM)kps Wrote: This announcement is just kicking the can down the road past the election, again.
My understanding is this isn’t quite true. Let’s just say the government is, in fact and for real, committed to having HSR. What would they do, starting from right where we are now? They would need to run an EA, correct? And what are they doing? Starting an EA.
This isn’t to say that you aren’t correct, on another level — those of us who would like to see HSR shouldn’t get too excited just yet. But this isn’t just yet another Rick Mercer-style HSR study.
I suppose they could start improving the right-of-way. But even if they’re committed to HSR, the exact details of the route and so on could still be adjusted based on the EA results.
What I really would like to see movement on is improving the existing right of way to allow GO to run at (uncongested) 401 speed, at least 120km/h (except for areas near stations). I agree that they really ought to start on that without waiting around for the HSR report.
05-20-2017, 03:33 PM
I am getting tired of trying to explain to hyperloop evangelists why it isn't a viable technology governments should be considering in favour of high speed rail right now.
05-20-2017, 03:45 PM
(05-20-2017, 03:33 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: I am getting tired of trying to explain to hyperloop evangelists why it isn't a viable technology governments should be considering in favour of high speed rail right now.
This might help with arguments, if necessary: https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress...repreneur/
My new public Twitter: @KevinLMaps
05-21-2017, 03:46 AM
(05-20-2017, 01:51 PM)kps Wrote:(05-20-2017, 11:36 AM)dunkalunk Wrote: […] all of the work tht's currently being done as part of the EA is the same kind of work that will need to be done for AD2W, […]
You can make improvements to an existing corridor without an EA, you can't bulldoze half of Kent St without an EA.
05-21-2017, 10:29 AM
Looking at it on Street View, bulldozing the south side would be less invasive. Hope they can move a couple of them.
05-21-2017, 11:25 AM
(05-21-2017, 10:29 AM)DHLawrence Wrote: Looking at it on Street View, bulldozing the south side would be less invasive. Hope they can move a couple of them.
Yes, it looks like at most you might possibly have to take the five houses on the south side of Kent St. between Glasgow and Dublin. Everything else is accessible from other roads.
Also, not that much space should be needed — even if HSR runs through there, this particular bit in no way needs the full HSR treatment. That close to the station, trains will never go much faster than they do now — I mean, even if all the level crossings were closed and a 50m wide right-of-way cleared, maximum acceleration simply wouldn’t allow very fast trains in that area. I don’t even see a big issue with the crossings, although the ones at Dublin and at Glasgow are a bit strange so getting rid of them might be nice.
After reviewing the aerial photo again, I actually am not at all clear why people are so worried about this location. If it were further from the station I would understand — we can’t have numerous locations where trains have to crawl between stations where they should be flying. In fact, that is precisely the problem with the GO train now — two hours from Kitchener to Toronto is really very poor.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)