[guavadelic]

What is "High Performance Rail"? I don't know, but the Coalition for Better Rail and the North Belleville Against Alto Community Group seem to think it's better than high speed rail, and they're hosting a Town Hall on Alternatives to Alto next Wednesday about it:

I was wondering where I saw that term before. Turns out it was something proposed by a group opposing the Toronto-London HSR project:

Look at other high speed rail options, say farmers​

An organization opposed to the province’s high speed rail plan believes it has a good alternative for the province – high performance rail.

High performance rail runs much faster than today’s passenger trains, but without the burden on farmland and rural communities of high speed rail.

Intercityrail.org, an organization of farmers, rail experts and concerned urban citizens put together three meetings on high speed rail recently along the London-Kitchener corridor where the trains would run. Concerned citizens packed the Tavistock Community Hall during the first of the meetings.

High performance rail is a good alternative, he says, running at speeds up to 175 km per hour, which is the point at which level crossings at roads can be maintained so communities and farms aren’t cut off from each other. It can also run on the existing lines. American rail is moving in the direction of faster trains than now, but not high speed rail, he said.

https://farmtario.com/news/look-at-other-high-speed-rail-options-say-farmers/

 

[lenaitch]

I was wondering where I saw that term before. Turns out it was something proposed by a group opposing the Toronto-London HSR project:





https://farmtario.com/news/look-at-other-high-speed-rail-options-say-farmers/

That would be Class 6 track as far as I know. I think they are deluding themselves if they think that is feasible entirely within existing rights-of-way. It also doesn't take into account the available space within the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal ROWs to accommodate at least 2 dedicated tracks, plus the current owners' views on electrification.

It would probably also kill any private farm crossings since I think they would have to be protected, and who's going to pay for that.

 

[micheal_can]

I want to know where all these people were when HFR was being talked about? The only real advocate was the CPC MP from Peterborough.

It's so transparent that they are only pitching "HPR" so that they don't sound like the absolute NIMBYs that they are. It's smart. But obviously selfish. Also, love how they throw all the property owners along the 401 under the proverbial bus with this idea.

That is a simple answer, there would have been no, or very little expropriation as they would have used the twisty abandoned Havelock Sub. It would not have been fast, just more frequent. So, really you would be dealing with those that use the abandoned line and the areas where new stations would be placed.

 

[nfitz]

That would be Class 6 track as far as I know.

I'd assume that anything following the 401 would be Class 5 - 160 km/hr. Or lower given the curves and elevation changes.

There is no class 6 in Canada, unless they promulgated something recently relating to Part II.A. As far as I know, Transport Canada, Alto, and other stakeholders are still having discussions - heck perhaps for at least a decade now? I'd guess they'd call it Class 6 ... but who knows if they'll follow the US nomenclature or numbers. Heck, if they use different numbers, they might want to deliberatly call it something else to not create confusion.

 

[lenaitch]

I'd assume that anything following the 401 would be Class 5 - 160 km/hr. Or lower given the curves and elevation changes.

There is no class 6 in Canada, unless they promulgated something recently relating to Part II.A. As far as I know, Transport Canada, Alto, and other stakeholders are still having discussions - heck perhaps for at least a decade now? I'd guess they'd call it Class 6 ... but who knows if they'll follow the US nomenclature or numbers. Heck, if they use different numbers, they might want to deliberatly call it something else to not create confusion.

I know, but the proponents mentioned above, talking about the "London-Kitchener corridor" seem to think there could be, with just a little tweaking.

I wish somebody would put a bullet in the idea of building any kind of dedicated rail in the 401 footprint.

 

[micheal_can]

I wish somebody would put a bullet in the idea of building any kind of dedicated rail in the 401 footprint.

The only realistic way to do that is to simply build the line. Once it is built, the voices will become quieter.

 

[Mrgeosim]

The only realistic way to do that is to simply build the line. Once it is built, the voices will become quieter.

I don't think blazing ahead with a project is the right way to get transit built and especially when we are talking about what is likely to cost a hundred billion dollars.

I personally think this rail line is a colossal waste of public money at a time when we need to be hyper-strategic with how we deploy capital expenditures. We have a persistent productivity crisis where each unit of labour is producing roughly 60% of what our American counterparts produce, the country is struggling with unaffordability across food and housing, and most importantly we are bracing for trade disruptions we have never experienced in our lifetime as CUSMA is on the chopping block.

Like many people on this forum, I want to see ambitious transit built, but I don't see how this transit line is going to return on its investment. It will likely be subsidized throughout the entirety of its life. That is fine if there is a greater payoff like dramatic net gains in productivity, similar to what we see when subways are subsidized, but this won't move even 5% of what Toronto's subway moves.

I struggle to be excited about this project and I hope that the government realizes how much better $100B can be spent to actually improve our lives.

*waiting for all the slings and arrows that will come my way

 

[kEiThZ]

I personally think this rail line is a colossal waste of public money

You started with a conclusion. And then made an opinion of what should happen:

I don't think blazing ahead with a project is the right way to get transit built and especially when we are talking about what is likely to cost a hundred billion dollars.

Like many people on this forum, I want to see ambitious transit built

No you don't. Why lie? This is the height of infrastructure ambitions in this country's history. You shoot it down before a single detailed map has been released. That says everything about you.

I struggle to be excited about this project

We get it.

Now kindly buzz off. This forum is for people who actually support getting infrastructure built. Not NIMBYs, BANANAs and CAVEs.

 

[picard102]

I don't think blazing ahead with a project is the right way to get transit built and especially when we are talking about what is likely to cost a hundred billion dollars.

That's exactly what we should be doing for all transit infrastructure. Decades of sitting on our hands has created a crisis. It's time to push forward on a project and get it done in a timely fashion. Scrap public consultations, scrap input from MP's. Build a crown corp that has the power to get it done without interference, and let them rip through it with experts.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don't think blazing ahead with a project is the right way to get transit built and especially when we are talking about what is likely to cost a hundred billion dollars.

I personally think this rail line is a colossal waste of public money at a time when we need to be hyper-strategic with how we deploy capital expenditures. We have a persistent productivity crisis where each unit of labour is producing roughly 60% of what our American counterparts produce, the country is struggling with unaffordability across food and housing, and most importantly we are bracing for trade disruptions we have never experienced in our lifetime as CUSMA is on the chopping block.

Like many people on this forum, I want to see ambitious transit built, but I don't see how this transit line is going to return on its investment. It will likely be subsidized throughout the entirety of its life. That is fine if there is a greater payoff like dramatic net gains in productivity, similar to what we see when subways are subsidized, but this won't move even 5% of what Toronto's subway moves.

I struggle to be excited about this project and I hope that the government realizes how much better $100B can be spent to actually improve our lives.

*waiting for all the slings and arrows that will come my way

Again the problem with ALTO, (and most of the past HSR plans for the last few decades) is that the plan isn't ambitious enough, not that it's too ambitious. There should be multiple lines through the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, multiple stops in major cities (Toronto , Ottawa, Montreal) serving not just the downtown core but also other locations.

 

[crs1026]

That's exactly what we should be doing for all transit infrastructure. Decades of sitting on our hands has created a crisis. It's time to push forward on a project and get it done in a timely fashion. Scrap public consultations, scrap input from MP's. Build a crown corp that has the power to get it done without interference, and let them rip through it with experts.

I agree that we have been wasting time, but I would not knee jerk. Ask us about the old Ontario Hydro. Ask us about Metrolinx. We don’t want monoliths with deep pockets calling the shots.
There is value in beating the bushes and bringing all the counter arguments and opposers out in the open. Let those arguments come forward and test whether they actually have weight.
The consultation process for Alto is pretty effective, it’s just a decade (or three) behind what was needed. We are paying the price for that, but the price includes taking the time for a wholesome debate. No government has accomplished that until now.
I agree with you about curbing MP’s. Three hundred MP’s on the bottom of the ocean, etc.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

That's exactly what we should be doing for all transit infrastructure. Decades of sitting on our hands has created a crisis. It's time to push forward on a project and get it done in a timely fashion. Scrap public consultations, scrap input from MP's. Build a crown corp that has the power to get it done without interference, and let them rip through it with experts.

Alto is actually showing how to move fast. See how quickly the route is out after the consultations? They have the route ready to go. Consultations was to find any unforeseen showstoppers.

They haven't officially published the route. But the fact that they have an estimate of how many properties are impacted, means they have an exact route they have been working from.

 

[crs1026]

You are mistaking obstructionism for reason. @Mrgeosim isn't interested in reasonable and informed criticism. He thinks the price tag is too big and wants endless debate till the project hopefully (from his perspective) dies. Many of us see through this and are f'ing tired of this kind of obstructionism.

As am I, but the solution is to give the opposition the opportunity to present their views, and then let them fail to carry the day.

I’m well aware that some of the opposition wants to win, and will keep fighting and getting in the way to their last breath ( we have people who are still arguing to bring back rail lines that were torn up in the eighties… and we have people who just want government to go away but complain if their concession road isn’t plowed promptly after a blizzard…).

The worst thing we can do to that opposition is to give them grounds to win. In this country, they will easily win if consultation doesn’t happen.

Putting up with some silly ideas voiced now is a lot better than a decade of constitutional litigation once they are told, no.

- Paul

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

I'm not a troll. I am pointing out that you are engaging in the very behaviour you accuse me of. You claim to be the reasonable person but everything you wrote is objectively fallacious. I put forward good-faith criticisms of a proposed project based on our current economic environment, ongoing trade negotiations, and the questionable business case of the project. Any reasonable person would read my comments as a reasonable contrarian position. You are not one of those people.

Our current (and future) environment makes it essential to create transportation alternatives that do not depend on jet fuel.

 

[picard102]

Our current (and future) environment makes it essential to create transportation alternatives that do not depend on jet fuel.

Not only that, large infrastructure projects are a great way to provide jobs and stimulate the economy in times of economic downturn.

the questionable business case of the project.

What's questionable about building a high speed transit mode, on the busiest and most economically important corridor in the country?