HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2008, 9:38 PM
Dirt_Devil's Avatar
Dirt_Devil Dirt_Devil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by craneSpotter View Post
What would this proposed line be - ~1000km? And service 13-14 million Canadians?
1,150 km and more than 15 million people
__________________
- La blonde dit: regarde Jean comme ces chevals sont beaux!

- Jean: Mais voyons ce ne sont pas des chevals, ce sont des chevaux

- La blonde: ahhh bon!...pourtant sa ressemblait a des chevals
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2008, 9:50 PM
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
SUSPENDED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 11,126
There are two things this country needs, and is decades over due for, a coast to coast thoroughfare highway and a coast to coast decent rail system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2008, 9:59 PM
Elmira Guy's Avatar
Elmira Guy Elmira Guy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 603
I'm all for it!

I lived for some time in the UK, and was amazed at their rail system. I was astounded when older people told me it was not as good as it once was.

I thoroughly believe that rail is an excellent way to address many transporation and environmental issues for this country, especially here in southern Ontario.

The HSR between Quebec City and Windsor would connect many of the major urban centres in the area (and the country).

It has my complete support.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2008, 10:14 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Because it's 2015.
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 37,110
I know! Why not put it through Northern Ontario and the Prairies? You know, the flat part of the country that people can't escape fast enough?
__________________
Toronto/Hamilton: November 2016 + other photos / my geofiction / random things / skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2008, 10:30 PM
Vaillant Vaillant is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montréal
Posts: 975
i take the plane every weeks between Toronto and Montréal if this project come true i will use the High speed train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 12:18 AM
DHLawrence DHLawrence is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridge, Ontario
Posts: 937
Travel time may not be faster, but you rarely have to show up at Union Station two hours before your flight to check in--that'll be a big time-saver already.

Stop studying and start building!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 12:28 AM
salvius's Avatar
salvius salvius is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHLawrence View Post
Travel time may not be faster, but you rarely have to show up at Union Station two hours before your flight to check in--that'll be a big time-saver already.
Of course. Europeans generally don't take the plane over train for short and medium distances. Windsor to Quebec is the rare place in the country where HSR could work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 12:31 AM
amor de cosmos amor de cosmos is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: lodged against an abutment
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
I know! Why not put it through Northern Ontario and the Prairies? You know, the flat part of the country that people can't escape fast enough?
yes, a supersonic rocket train inside a vaccum tube hurtling across the prairie is an excellent idea
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 12:37 AM
DHLawrence DHLawrence is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridge, Ontario
Posts: 937
Which will lead to the inevitable jokes about travellers wanting to spend as little time in the prairies as possible!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 12:51 AM
craneSpotter craneSpotter is offline
is watching.
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Victoria - Canada's Warmest CMA
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
There are two things this country needs, and is decades over due for, a coast to coast thoroughfare highway and a coast to coast decent rail system.
There are not enough passengers or interest to support a decent coast-to-coast rail system. That's more nostalgic thinking.

Rail can't compete with relatively cheap airfares over the long distances. Canada is just to vast a country east to west, with large spans of sparsely populated areas.

Ditto goes for the coast-to-coast freeway - too many sections of the TCH, particularly in the BC mountains, across the prairies and through northwestern Ontario have too little traffic (go through sparsely populated areas) to make it viable cost-wise. The stretches of the TCH that are multi-laned/Near-Freeway are near the population centers where it's warranted.

Most people going from the heavily populated areas in the east to the western cities do so by air - both to save time and expense.


For Canada, the Windsor-Montreal corridor is the only viable HSR route right now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 1:29 AM
DHLawrence DHLawrence is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridge, Ontario
Posts: 937
Coast to coast doesn't have to be a through system; Europe has precious few transcontinental runs that don't cater to tourists (the only 'Orient Express' left in regular service runs from Strasbourg to Vienna). Even if it were high speed from Winnipeg to Saskatoon/Regina to Edmonton/Calgary respectively would probably find some level of market support. Ontario-Winnipeg would be tough, and Calgary/Edmonton-Vancouver would only be feasible with a tunnel similar to the long-distance tunnels being dug in Switzerland right now; going over the Rockies would be impossible at 200 mph.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 1:35 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 7,943
Even being a Maritmer I support this

While it might not be helpful for anyone in the Maritimes its a great idea. The only way it could help here is if you cant take an airplane and have to take either the car of the "Ocean" to Quebec City where you could transfer over but well I've never had that happen to me before
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 2:24 AM
Rumors's Avatar
Rumors Rumors is offline
Bonjour/Hi.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: French Canada.
Posts: 1,074
Yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 2:38 AM
kitchener-lrt's Avatar
kitchener-lrt kitchener-lrt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kitchener
Posts: 698
People are putting way too much emphasis on cost. Sure it's 25 billion dollars.
If the line was built 10 years ago, it would've costed 19 billion dollars (The Record).
For those who say that we should build it in 20-30 years, it's gonna cost billions more then, than it will now.
__________________
Toronto FC Supporter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 3:11 AM
Ruckus's Avatar
Ruckus Ruckus is offline
working stiff
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Woodlawn Cemetery
Posts: 2,583
Money well spent, lets get it done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 3:26 AM
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
SUSPENDED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 11,126
Quote:
Ditto goes for the coast-to-coast freeway - too many sections of the TCH, particularly in the BC mountains, across the prairies and through northwestern Ontario have too little traffic (go through sparsely populated areas) to make it viable cost-wise. The stretches of the TCH that are multi-laned/Near-Freeway are near the population centers where it's warranted.
haha, that is a joke, have you ever driven the number 1? It is packed with commercial traffic year round and in the summer immense tourist traffic as well, there is no section in BC that should be a divided highway, why do you think we have the coquihalla (a 4 lane divided highway 300km long crossing the coast mountains), do you call that sparsely used? Why do you think the BC provincial government put in the park bridge near golden and is planning to build the 4 lane 3km long tunnel in the same area? Once the Golden to the Albertan Border section is done (4 lane 100km hour speed limit with interchanges in urban areas) they need to expand the rest of the TCH in BC from Golden to Kamloops. Why do you think BC was just rated the most dangerous in canada for highway travel? Because we have too many 2 lane twisting roads that have heavy traffic that need to be upgraded. The same goes for the prairies too, i have never driven any part of the TCH that should not be 4 lanes and divided where possible. There is a lot of traffic between Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Kelowna and Kamloops.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 3:26 AM
Deez's Avatar
Deez Deez is offline
you know my steez
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto/Ottawa
Posts: 1,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
also perhaps eliminate need for Pickering Airport? that saves a couple of billion right there
Amen. That project is the bane of my existence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 4:44 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Because it's 2015.
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 37,110
NWO might not have the traffic to warrant upgraded highway, but when you consider how unsafe it is, something has to be done. At least divide it.
__________________
Toronto/Hamilton: November 2016 + other photos / my geofiction / random things / skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 5:00 AM
Jared's Avatar
Jared Jared is offline
senior something
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
I'm all for it right up until we get to the price tag. If the government is in charge of building any high speed rail link between any cities, it's bound to go way over budget. Even if it does come in at $25 billion...that's still $25 BILLION dollars. What in the world would make this so expensive ? Yes, nothing about it is cheap , I understand that but how much could special trains, track, property, and stations possibly cost ?

$25 billion bucks is a lot of money. I would go so far as to call it an excessive amount of cash for what we'd get. It's still slower than a plane so what exactly does $25 billion buy that we need even for convenience sake ?

Yeah, I can hear it all already "You're being negative" , "Why does it always come down to money for some people", and all the usual stuff from the folks who don't care about the cash if something is shiny enough. None of that will actually answer the questions I'm posing though so please, tell me what makes this a good way to spend that much cash. Make-work project ? Is it so "green" that it actually removes pollution from the air ? (Actually , I already know how some people are going to answer that so let me head you off at the pass. If the same people riding this high-speed link took the "regular" train right now for environmental reasons , we wouldn't "need" a high speed line anyway. They don't take the train today because it's faster and cheaper to take a plane or drive themselves. Being "green" takes a back seat to economics and convenience just like it always does)

Sorry guys but somebody has to ask these questions or we just end up with an echo chamber full of nodding heads.
Looking at the cost alone isnt really useful. A proper cost analysis would consist of the following:

"What are the costs and benefits of each of the following:"

a) High Speed Rail
b) Upgraded Highways and Airports
c) Doing Nothing

a) and b) both result in capital costs, obviously, but lessen economic inefficiency caused by gridlock. The real question is, if HSR is not built, how much money worth of roads and airports will need to be built in order to accomodate all that travel? And how do you account for costs such as extra cars and planes contributing to people developing asthma (i.e. health care costs)?

c) has no capital cost, but it costs you in economic productivity, and lifestyle in general.

As for the environmental thing, it doesnt really matter whether people care or not. As long as people take the train instead of the plane, the environment will benefit; their motivations for taking the train are irrelevant. The train would conceivably be faster than an airplane in terms of door-to-door travel time (since you dont need to show up 2 hours early to catch a train), so you get to a point where it's more convinient to take a train.

----------------------

In terms of building it, I think it would make most sense to start with a Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route (obviously the busiest section), and then gradually extend it from each end, until it reaches Windor and Quebec City.
__________________
My Diagrams My Photos

I'm not the guy from Subway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2008, 5:06 AM
craneSpotter craneSpotter is offline
is watching.
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Victoria - Canada's Warmest CMA
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
haha, that is a joke, have you ever driven the number 1? It is packed with commercial traffic year round and in the summer immense tourist traffic as well, there is no section in BC that should be a divided highway, why do you think we have the coquihalla (a 4 lane divided highway 300km long crossing the coast mountains), do you call that sparsely used? Why do you think the BC provincial government put in the park bridge near golden and is planning to build the 4 lane 3km long tunnel in the same area? Once the Golden to the Albertan Border section is done (4 lane 100km hour speed limit with interchanges in urban areas) they need to expand the rest of the TCH in BC from Golden to Kamloops. Why do you think BC was just rated the most dangerous in canada for highway travel? Because we have too many 2 lane twisting roads that have heavy traffic that need to be upgraded. The same goes for the prairies too, i have never driven any part of the TCH that should not be 4 lanes and divided where possible. There is a lot of traffic between Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Kelowna and Kamloops.
Yup. Drove it last summer. The #1 TCH east of Kamloops that is that is.

I was generally talking about the #1 TCH, across Canada. Not just BC.
The Coq. is the #5 Yellowhead and was necessary to connect two large BC population regions. The LM and Okanagan are governed by the same body...

Who rated BC the most dangerous in Canada for highway travel? The Saskatchewan flatland drivers club? We have a higher accident rate? BC is more challanging to drive through than most areas, with all the mountains and all.

But, lets talk about the TCH #1 and BC.

Fact is, there isn't much for population in BC along the TCH #1 east of Salmon Arm. Immense tourist traffic? Not really. Highway 1 TCH east of Salmon Arm has a peak of 9,000-10,000 cars a day EW in July/Aug going down to 5,000 or less a day in the spring/fall then down to 2,500 cars a day in winter. With a AADT number of ~4500/day (seasonal).

A 300km freeway between Salmon arm and Yoho? For whom? Upgrades to take dangerous curve areas out and ease the more congested areas with additional passing lanes - sure. Like the kicking horse project. But a high-speed 4 lane divided freeway isn't required yet.

For BC consider these two highways:

Route 1 (TCH) Malahat Pass (Vancouver Island) - has a peak of 29,000 vehicles a day peak dropping to 17,000 on off-peak days (not seasonal). For an AADT number of 22,000/day. That is about 5 times the traffic of the TCH #1 route east of Salmon Arm.

Route 97 (Okanagan) - South of Kelowna - Peak traffic of 22,000 vehicles/day summer down to 10,000 vehicles a day winter season For an AADT number of 16,009 . That is about 4 times the AADT of the TCH #1 east of Salmon Arm!

Have you driven these routes? So, with federal/provincial infrastructure funds and being the BC Transport minister, which highway - #1 TCH Salmon Arm to Yoho; TCH #1 north of Victoria or #97 Okanagan - would you upgrade to a 4-lane divided freeway first?

Oh, FYI, the Ministry of Transportation did a study on Route #1 TCH north of Victoria in 2007 and concluded that it would not reach capacity for another 18 years mentioned people should just slow down and drive to traffic conditions if needed

So I fail to see how could they could determine that the TCH east of Golden was in critical need of upgrades and they should spend hundreds of millions and ignore the Island Highways and Okanagan Valley highway 97. Where 1.5 million British Columbians' actually live and use the highways everyday!

Then there's BC routes 99, 14 & 4.

I do like the kinging horse bridge - just wish the money was spent on the Island where it would be used more often


Sorry for getting off topic. Rant over. Back to HSR
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:01 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.