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.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London
#31
What about passengers to Chicago? People do travel there, as demonstrated by YKF's connection.

It makes more sense to go through Windsor-Detroit because there are plans to replace the existing rail tunnel with another bore. Why dig another when you can just use one that's already going to be going spare?

And as someone who lived in downtown Windsor for nearly two years, it's not that bad. It's probably what downtown Kitchener was about ten years ago, and investment is coming. Don't dismiss the place just yet!
Reply
#32
(12-07-2014, 06:50 PM)willow Wrote: It's disappointing that the "Moving Ontario Forward" plan has the conceptual alignment bypassing Guelph entirely with a new line detouring to the south of the city.  This would kill any chance of later implementing a non-express stop without rebuilding the line through the city.  However this plan is from before Windsor was included, so maybe that conceptual alignment could be reconsidered.

I think building high-speed rail that by-passes Guelph is a much, much easier problem than making the corridor through Guelph suitable for high-speed rail. One thing I really like about the current project is that it limits its scope substantially, which gives it a much higher chance of actually getting built.
Reply
#33
(12-07-2014, 08:46 PM)DHLawrence Wrote: What about passengers to Chicago? People do travel there, as demonstrated by YKF's connection.

And as someone who lived in downtown Windsor for nearly two years, it's not that bad. It's probably what downtown Kitchener was about ten years ago, and investment is coming. Don't dismiss the place just yet!

Well the Americans have the ability to build this and won't. I can't see a new HSR line from Chicago to Detroit with the dream of connecting to Canada's fantasy line.

As for Windsor, I understand the 401 is 50-60 years old and we are just getting around to connecting it to the US interstate in Detroit, which happens to be our #1 trade crossing. I mean, if this isn't a priority for us...
_____________________________________
I used to be the mayor of sim city. I know what I am talking about.
Reply
#34
(12-08-2014, 06:31 AM)Drake Wrote: Well the Americans have the ability to build this and won't. I can't see a new HSR line from Chicago to Detroit with the dream of connecting to Canada's fantasy line.

If this were to happen in America it would have to be done privately, likely by BNSF. Still not something I'd bank money on.
Reply
#35
I think one reason that Guelph isn't considered an essential stop is that it will have frequent all-day service with GO which should allow for connections to HSR in Kitchener (hopefully timed). Ideally the Pearson stop will also include some sort of parking facility to allow people in the rest of the GTA an easier connection to HSR.
Reply
#36
I remain confused that the Province is talking about both enhanced GO service and HSR. Add in VIA and it seems like overkill to me.
Reply
#37
(12-08-2014, 08:33 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: If this were to happen in America it would have to be done privately, likely by BNSF. Still not something I'd bank money on.

Florida's privately held East Coast Railway is planning to launch high speed rail by 2017 so stranger things have happened.

(12-08-2014, 03:47 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I remain confused that the Province is talking about both enhanced GO service and HSR.  Add in VIA and it seems like overkill to me.

The provincial government has two goals:
1, more frequent rail service everywhere (including the Kitchener line)
2, faster rail service in some place (definitely electric, possibly HSR)

The federal government has one goal:
1, get out of passenger rail service*

*or at least keep the funding to such a minimal amount, that VIA is slowly forced to reduce service, which reduces ridership, which reduces service, etc.

Long-term, I could see VIA continuing to maintain long-distance routes, while GO/Metrolink provides regional service, similar to the current arrangement where VIA services runs express through most of Toronto while GO stops at every stop.
Reply
#38
(12-08-2014, 04:53 PM)nms Wrote: The federal government has one goal:
1, get out of passenger rail service*

*or at least keep the funding to such a minimal amount, that VIA is slowly forced to reduce service, which reduces ridership, which reduces service, etc.

Long-term, I could see VIA continuing to maintain long-distance routes, while GO/Metrolink provides regional service, similar to the current arrangement where VIA services runs express through most of Toronto while GO stops at every stop.

 That federal government goal is consistent across parties too.

The overwhelming majority of VIA's activities occur on the Montreal-Toronto corridor. The super long distance routes (Toronto-Vancouver and Montreal-Halifax) are not very popular.
Reply
#39
(12-08-2014, 03:47 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I remain confused that the Province is talking about both enhanced GO service and HSR.  Add in VIA and it seems like overkill to me.

VIA would clearly stop operating Windsor-London and London-Kitchener-Toronto; they could still run Sarnia-London-Hamilton-Toronto.
Reply
#40
(12-08-2014, 11:49 PM)KevinL Wrote:
(12-08-2014, 03:47 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I remain confused that the Province is talking about both enhanced GO service and HSR.  Add in VIA and it seems like overkill to me.

VIA would clearly stop operating Windsor-London and London-Kitchener-Toronto; they could still run Sarnia-London-Hamilton-Toronto.

Yeah. Seems to me that London-Kitchener-Toronto is on their "we have no money so we'll cut this service" list anyway.
Reply
#41
The 4 to 6 year EA kind of eats in to the promise of up and running in 10 years.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#42
The EA is likely 2 years, followed by property acquisition.
Reply
#43
The Minister was recently quoted as saying the EA would be a 6 year process.  Which is insane, but that's what was reported.

Edit:  Just checked and in fact he said a "4 to 6 year process".  Which is insane.
Reply
#44
I believe that environmental assessments have turned into a government racket not that different from the billion dollars wasted in e-health or the money doled out in Montreal to the mafia in construction contracts. For example, the city of Toronto spent and untold amount of money and many years on an EA for their subway line. Whatever damage the subway could make pales in comparison to the damage of not building the thing to begin with.

There are many ways in which consulting companies can help someone get elected and then be rewarded with a juicy EA or design study or marketing project and recover their investment in the candidate.
Reply
#45
I wish I could remember the post, but back on the WW board someone said, paraphrasing, "the latest HSR map look liked in was done in Google Earth." Well CBC is reporting that indeed that was the case. The consultant's report was done in 2 weeks and used Google maps/earth.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-...-1.2866591
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: KingandWeber, 2 Guest(s)