[Northern Light]

Generalizing entire cities or countries as dystopian or permanently crowded also isn't conducive. I personally had a great time on Osaka metro, especially the cars on the Sakaisuji Line:

View attachment 670068

Osaka's (and Japan's) biggest problem right now is an overload of tourists, especially in Kyoto, but also in much of their transit infrastructure which, like most things in Japan, is stuck in the 1990s and seems reluctant to update or expand. The biggest difference between China and Japan is that the former is building infrastructure capable of handling large masses of people, up to and including Chinese New Year travellers. Almost everything is overbuilt to an obscene degree. Japan is the opposite, where the size built is the size and that's it. So when they double or whatever the number of tourists in an area it's overwhelming on top of already-busy lines for commuters. In Kyoto for example, near the temples, this bus line is so overwhelmed they cannot accept payment upon exiting of the bus, and riders have to exit the bus first and then pay on the curb after exiting, because paying on the bus would take too long.

View attachment 670069

Fair

Anyway, standing on transit is a part of the commute everywhere in the world and it is not exclusively a feature of Toronto, or Asia, or anywhere else. People stand on metros and this isn't groundbreaking. If you have trouble standing for long periods of time there are designated seats for you if you need them, and if you're inflexible on changing your commuting patterns to account for crowding that may prevent you from reaching those seats then i'm not sure what else can be done to accommodate you specifically. I frequently give up my seats for those who need them and I frequently see people offer them up, as well. If cars are overwhelmed (cattle car-ing, sic) then that's probably more an issue with the system's capacity, network, or frequency. Sometimes streetcars are very crowded when one hasn't arrived in a while; not specifically because there aren't enough seats.

I was a bit reflexive as I don't like being disrespected by people giving hot takes who then suggest the topic is closed immediately following their input.

That said, I stand by the gist which is that I'm not a utilitarian who thinks everything should be reduced to capacity or people-moving numbers. Many here have lamented the VE'ing of East Habour from grand station, to mostly open air 'box'.

Same idea. Is the new design 'good enough? Sure. It will serve purpose. But we all wanted something more, something attractive that we could feel proud of, and looking forward to using. A place that might have vibrant retail etc etc.

In the same vein, I want my transit to be attractive, and comfortable, in all modes, at all times.

You may differ, and that's fine, we'll just agree to disagree on this point.

Alto isn't going to be doing this as it will be paid fare with tickets so I hardly see how this is relevant to the conversation, anyway, other than using REM as a potentially stepping-off point, but given that it's a different format entirely I will remain more positive until we see something concrete.

I agree with the theory in your opening.......the point though was the involvement of the Caisse and their tendency to bid low, which they apparently did here, and then looking at their rather limited track record in transportation and considering whether or not it supports a position of confidence that they can deliver this project at or below lower end cost estimates.

My conclusion is that the evidence to date, though limited is damning in the other direction. Their track record is late and over budget.

So, while the format and technical specs are different, a culture of over promise and under deliver can apply to different technologies and service patterns.

 

[just east of the creek]

Me screams in Osaka Japan on the Midosuji Line where office worker is used to standing room only for hour+ commutes in the morning. Beijing Line 10 comes to mind as well - forget about sitting down, in the mornings it’ll take 15-20 min just to get onto a train that isn’t packed. Like, cmon. Scrapping at the bottom of the barrel to find fault with REM.

Back to Alto discussion.

And this is good? Or acceptable? We have watched clips for years of the 'packing' that occurs with cars on certain lines in Japan, but experiencing it in person is another level of reality entirely. Likewise China. REM has a long, long, long way to go to meet their advertised objectives. And we will see how that works out.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

And this is good? Or acceptable? We have watched clips for years of the 'packing' that occurs with cars on certain lines in Japan, but experiencing it in person is another level of reality entirely. Likewise China. REM has a long, long, long way to go to meet their advertised objectives. And we will see how that works out.

Indeed, I agree especially because 75% of the REM network isn’t even open yet! So yes, quite sometime before we see actual ridership results

 

[Urban Sky]

Indeed, I agree especially because 75% of the REM network isn’t even open yet! So yes, quite sometime before we see actual ridership results

The same applies to the people here who praise Brightline West for being so cheap to build when construction will continue for a few years…!

 

[StreetcarRider]

If Alto happens, and if it uses the Don valley in and out of downtown, then it would probably use the currently-abandoned right side of this ROW (the left side is currently active and used by GO, VIA and soon Ontario Northland again). Is there really enough room? Will it mean another years-long closure of the Don trail? (Photo is looking north from Dundas).

 

[Northern Light]

If Alto happens, and if it uses the Don valley in and out of downtown, then it would probably use the currently-abandoned right side of this ROW (the left side is currently active and used by GO, VIA and soon Ontario Northland again).

Correct.

Is there really enough room?

To rehab the existing track? Yes, no problem.

If you want to add a third track, you would need a retaining wall abutting Bayview.

Will it mean another years-long closure of the Don trail? (Photo is looking north from Dundas).

It should not.

 

[ProjectEnd]

If Alto happens, and if it uses the Don valley in and out of downtown, then it would probably use the currently-abandoned right side of this ROW (the left side is currently active and used by GO, VIA and soon Ontario Northland again). Is there really enough room? Will it mean another years-long closure of the Don trail? (Photo is looking north from Dundas).

Don't worry, it won't.

 

[just east of the creek]

Just out of curiosity, and maybe this has been covered or is not known and part of the project study, but are we assuming a double tracked line from end to end? or single tracked with long stretches of double track for passing purposes at speed? or will the west bound train have to wait at the Sharbot Lake Station waiting on the east bound? And i would expect that once we depart Union and cross whatever points we need to to access the DV line, the train would quickly accelerate to a higher speed, that would feature a 1 followed by a couple of digits (In kmh), and then gain a top speed once we exit the DV and whatever tighter turns and elevation climbs are met ( assuming the DV approach is the thing and Doug does not offer up his tunneling machines for a more 'direct ' route through Scarborough?)

I am still not sure this will ever be built, but the current political climate lends more weight to a political Yay (in some form) then a Nay. As long as we also continue to build rail capacity through the Rockies, port capacity at Van and Rupert, (Rupert is 6 days currently, Halifax 3 - 2 and less is good, 1 and less for containers), and the same primarily to Halifax. All of these projects will be larger infrastructure investments that will require government involvement at many levels to speed up the process.

 

[micheal_can]

Just out of curiosity, and maybe this has been covered or is not known and part of the project study, but are we assuming a double tracked line from end to end? or single tracked with long stretches of double track for passing purposes at speed? or will the west bound train have to wait at the Sharbot Lake Station waiting on the east bound? And i would expect that once we depart Union and cross whatever points we need to to access the DV line, the train would quickly accelerate to a higher speed, that would feature a 1 followed by a couple of digits (In kmh), and then gain a top speed once we exit the DV and whatever tighter turns and elevation climbs are met ( assuming the DV approach is the thing and Doug does not offer up his tunneling machines for a more 'direct ' route through Scarborough?)

I am still not sure this will ever be built, but the current political climate lends more weight to a political Yay (in some form) then a Nay. As long as we also continue to build rail capacity through the Rockies, port capacity at Van and Rupert, (Rupert is 6 days currently, Halifax 3 - 2 and less is good, 1 and less for containers), and the same primarily to Halifax. All of these projects will be larger infrastructure investments that will require government involvement at many levels to speed up the process.

The various news releases have stated double track. However, at this time, there has not been an official design plan to show that to be true.

 

[crs1026]

Just out of curiosity, and maybe this has been covered or is not known and part of the project study, but are we assuming a double tracked line from end to end? or single tracked with long stretches of double track for passing purposes at speed? or will the west bound train have to wait at the Sharbot Lake Station waiting on the east bound? And i would expect that once we depart Union and cross whatever points we need to to access the DV line, the train would quickly accelerate to a higher speed, that would feature a 1 followed by a couple of digits (In kmh), and then gain a top speed once we exit the DV and whatever tighter turns and elevation climbs are met ( assuming the DV approach is the thing and Doug does not offer up his tunneling machines for a more 'direct ' route through Scarborough?)

Nothing has been said officially. The original vanilla HFR was said to be a single track line - a quite reasonable design given its original premise - but as the concept morphed towards HSR it became less plausible to expect predominantly single track.

Stay tuned.

PS - Re the Don Branch - the obvious solution would be joint operation from Cherry Street up to the point where the ex-CP line diverges from the Bala Sub. ML does not use the line so intensely that the two could not share a double track line. Beyond that? Just bring your chequebook.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

PS - Re the Don Branch - the obvious solution would be joint operation from Cherry Street up to the point where the ex-CP line diverges from the Bala Sub. ML does not use the line so intensely that the two could not share a double track line. Beyond that? Just bring your chequebook.

- Paul

That would seriously slow down HSR service. We shall see when the plans finally get released.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

I'm on a bit of a comeback towards the idea that passenger rail should fully be a provincial responsibility. This is really the sticking point for me though:

Favorables à 56 % | « Montée spectaculaire » du souverainisme chez les jeunes

Les chiffres rappellent ceux de l’époque du deuxième référendum. Dans une « montée spectaculaire » du souverainisme qui se poursuit chez la jeune génération, 56 % des 18 à 34 ans sont maintenant favorables à l’indépendance du Québec.

www.lapresse.ca

Support for independence in Quebec has been consistently increasing and the latest polling has it just about over the line, with a majority of young voters supporting it. The next government of Quebec will be the PQ and they will be holding a referendum. It looks inevitable that Quebec will no longer be a part of Canada by 2030.

I don't really see ALTO as a "national building" project when the part of the "nation" it serves no longer wants to be part of Canada. Why spend billions as a country on something like this when soon much of your investment will be on the other side of an international border which will not only reduce service demand, but will at best create a horrendously messy situation over which government owes for development and construction?

This project is a much harder sell as a federal responsibility when the country is facing a three-fronted assault on its very existence from the USA, Alberta, and Quebec.

Ontario could very easily build their own high speed or higher speed connection between Toronto and Ottawa, then westward in phases towards Windsor with incremental improvements. I fail to see why Quebec should remain an integral part of the project in light of this consistent polling trend.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I'm on a bit of a comeback towards the idea that passenger rail should fully be a provincial responsibility. This is really the sticking point for me though:

Favorables à 56 % | « Montée spectaculaire » du souverainisme chez les jeunes

Les chiffres rappellent ceux de l’époque du deuxième référendum. Dans une « montée spectaculaire » du souverainisme qui se poursuit chez la jeune génération, 56 % des 18 à 34 ans sont maintenant favorables à l’indépendance du Québec.

www.lapresse.ca

Support for independence in Quebec has been consistently increasing and the latest polling has it just about over the line, with a majority of young voters supporting it. The next government of Quebec will be the PQ and they will be holding a referendum. It looks inevitable that Quebec will no longer be a part of Canada by 2030.

I don't really see ALTO as a "national building" project when the part of the "nation" it serves no longer wants to be part of Canada. Why spend billions as a country on something like this when soon much of your investment will be on the other side of an international border which will not only reduce service demand, but will at best create a horrendously messy situation over which government owes for development and construction?

This project is a much harder sell as a federal responsibility when the country is facing a three-fronted assault on its very existence from the USA, Alberta, and Quebec.

Ontario could very easily build their own high speed or higher speed connection between Toronto and Ottawa, then westward in phases towards Windsor with incremental improvements. I fail to see why Quebec should remain an integral part of the project in light of this consistent polling trend.

That's an awfully bold statement for a poll which shows a 12-point lead to staying in Canada.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

That's an awfully bold statement for a poll which shows a 12-point lead to staying in Canada.

This is a razor-thin margin when you consider that there has been no campaign and you only need less than a 7 point swing to get it over the line. Given the demographics, the number of federalist will continue to decline indefinitely.

In the coming campaign, the Government of Quebec will support independence, and there will be intense foreign interference from the United States and Russia to prime Canada for Balkanisation and annexation. Federalists have no momentum.

In my opinion, it's now prudent to start disentangling Canada's relationship with Quebec now before entering into major projects like ALTO to save pain later.

 

[crs1026]

I don't really see ALTO as a "national building" project when the part of the "nation" it serves no longer wants to be part of Canada. Why spend billions as a country on something like this when soon much of your investment will be on the other side of an international border which will not only reduce service demand, but will at best create a horrendously messy situation over which government owes for development and construction?

Ontario could very easily build their own high speed or higher speed connection between Toronto and Ottawa, then westward in phases towards Windsor with incremental improvements. I fail to see why Quebec should remain an integral part of the project in light of this consistent polling trend.

If you consider the number of passengers who cross the Ontario-Quebec border by rail, and if you look at that as part of a modal share for the combined rail/highway/airport network - and a solution to the need to expand air capacity between T-O-M-Q - the case for higher level coordination between provinces is pretty compelling.

Certainly, Ontario can manage its regional transportation issues without any federal oversight. Quebec likely can also. (The question is whether the current regulatory environment really allows them to do that, without having one hand tied behind their back. The change that is needed is federal legislation, particularly with regard to tenant operations on freight railways.)

I would not drag Quebec nationalism or American expansionism into this discussion. It doesn't really matter whether the two regional entities are provinces to the same federal structure, or two nations resolving their mutual interests (as we see in Europe). There is a need for agreeing on standardisation and interoperability to support the broader T-O-M-Q component..... unless you see separation as leading to a decline in transportation between the two "provinces". I would predict that the need for inter"provincial" transportation to remain strong and to grow.

"Nation Building" is just a political slogan, but whether Alto fits that moniker or not, something has to tie the twain together.

- Paul