Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
The real numbers are likely not publicly available, but if you consider it is about a 5 hour train ride, the chart shows that it should be about a 25% rail-air market %.
|
Those are good numbers. I'll be seeing if that is the case. I don't like those wiggle words (would, could, should, might, etc) I like firm things, like: are, can, will, does, etc. Then there is no argument, as it is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
Where "it is not needed?" As a tax payer, I would want the government to not spend any money anywhere it is unnecessary to spend it.
|
Which is why we will never see it across the country. Between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal makes sense. Any more than that would need to be provincially funded, but as we can see, all provinces are broke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
The big problem with a Montreal-Halifax HSR would be the routing. Since both the Bay of Fundy and the State of Maine are in the way, the route jumps from about 800km by air to over 1200km by land. That means, regardless of everything else, the train needs to be 50% faster than normal to be equally competitive to air (as others have said, HFR primarily competes with cars, HSR primarily competes with airplanes)
|
Yes, and that is why it won't happen. Mind you, 1200km at 300 km/hr is 4 hours, which isn't that bad. A flight is about 1.5-2 hrs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
I knew you would say that. The thing is, have a look at their CMA populations: - Sudbury 164,689
- SSM 78,159
- Thunder Bay 121,621
Hardly what I would call large metropolises that would significantly influence ridership.
|
I merely put them there as they are the 3 largest cities between Barrie and Winnipeg. They are also a decent distance from each other that traveling between them would improve, which may cause them to grow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
They are a bit better, but still small: - Saskatoon 295,095
- Regina 236,481
|
One is a provincial capital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
First of all Abbotsford (my home town) is an exurb of Vancouver (only about 70km away) so it is too close for HSR to be of any benefit.
As for Kelowna and Kamloops, they are not in line with each other, so you would have to pick one (I think you tried to imply that by your use of "or" but I wanted to make that clear).
The biggest problem is the mountains. HSR needs straight, reasonably level track. Curves require the train to slow down, as do steep grades. It isn't impossible to resolve but it is extraordinarily expensive (you would need to tunnel most of the way).
|
I did mean one or the other, depending on alignment. You might even be able to connect them both as tunnels through the mountains would be the only way to do it. Look around the world and that is how it is done. Mind you, yes, it would be expensive. Remember, I did say Trillions. I am not naive to the costs.
There is a plan to connect Kitchener to Toronto with a HSR. It is just over 100km. I would expect if there are any major cities about 100km away, they would get a station. Chilliwack is about that distance, so maybe moving it there.
However, I am someone who knows that none of this will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
And the best way to get to HSR there is stepping stones. Lets get dedicated tracks with trains that can run at the higher end of conventional speeds.
The second corridor would be Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton. A similar approach should be taken, but there are additional challenges, since they don't have an existing service to build off of and there aren't other large population bases nearby that can help feed the line (like Quebec City and London).
|
You really need to get out more.
Look at highways that used to be 2 lanes and were twinned. There are many sections that had to be bypassed due to the twisted nature o the road. The HFR corridor is twisted enough that get to an average speed of HSR (300km/hr or higher) would be more of a challenge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
If you do that, how do people cross the track? There are cases where they could detour to an alternate crossing, but that isn't always feasible.
|
I know. But that is what I am getting at. The cases that could be detour, do that. It might be enough on it's own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
He argues for the mode of travel that makes the most economic sense. Towns that have no roads to connect them to the rest of the country rely on rail service. Everywhere else, a decision needs to be made as to which mode of travel makes the most sense both economically and environmentally.
|
Which does not really show. Get rid of all the government money to the small airports, then service them with a reliable, regular train, and the next thing you would know, it would be well used, which would make them economically and environmentally smart.
Pearson is getting close to a crunch and there are groups of people trying to get the government to pay for a new airport in Pickering. If they got rid of the planes coming from places that fly in those little turbo prop planes, then Pearson would be fine.
"but how would those places get to the airport?!?" Well, most of those places are served by rail lines. have regular, reliable passenger service, and have a Union West station that people can still use to get to the airport.... Oh, wait, that has been suggested.
This is not as simple as a subsidy or not.