http://www.freep.com/story/news/2017...ine/335178001/
This is long overdue. We could use a similar rail connecting Detroit to Chicago in the same timeframe, but there's no chance of that happening in this political climate.
Printable View
http://www.freep.com/story/news/2017...ine/335178001/
This is long overdue. We could use a similar rail connecting Detroit to Chicago in the same timeframe, but there's no chance of that happening in this political climate.
It's been talked about for decades and might even make sense at some point but this will once again die before getting started when Wynne gets turfed out next year. I can't think of a worse Ontario premier in my lifetime - oh yeah I forgot about McGuinty, who she replaced.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...zJPuAjq_OMCmaQ
I wish this project all the luck and success they're having in California.:p
Seriously, though. As long as they aren't wasting my tax dollars, I don't care. And maybe, when California High Speed Rail is done and a raging success, they can extend it all the way to Toronto, with Detroit as a major hub.
And FYI, I just picked random dates in August on Travelocity. Round trip flights Detroit to Toronto are 1 hr & 10 minutes and under 300 dollars. A fine investment that high speed rail would be. It'll still take twice as long as flying, be more expensive, and require a heavy, permanent subsidy. Great planning! Oh, plus it won't have many riders. Unless it makes a lot of stops along the way. In which case it won't be high speed rail.
A counter-argument would be that tax dollars from everyone are used on roads, whether we use them or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
For example, a person who is pro-mass transit is paying tax dollars to subsidize people who need a fourth lane on I-75 in Oakland County because they want to live in Clarkston and work in Downtown Detroit.
A debate on whether a fourth lane of I-75 is needed would have some merit on both sides. A Windsor-Toronto high speed rail line would achieve very little in terms of transit at a very high and perpetual cost. It would however, for our grandchildren's generation, make the several people a day that buy that expensive ticket feel more European and awesome.
As has been pointed out by others, this is, at best, a considerable amount of time away from happening; and far from a given.
The timeline as announced is 2025 for Toronto-London, 2031 for Toronto-Windsor.
The Windsor portion, I think, will likely languish unless its being linked to something meaningful on the US side.
Massive investments are already required between Toronto-Kitchener for commuter rail [[GO Train), including electrification and corridor improvements. That is likely to happen as the 401 through this area is already badly congested and K-W is a burgeoning center of high-tech with a real need for casual, easy connectivity to Toronto.
The extension to London gets tougher to justify, as I don't see a London-Toronto commute being a thing anytime soon.
Windsor just won't generate the volumes to justify the cost in the forseeable future.
****
There is another reason for this investment and it was touched on referring to short-hop air travel between Detroit and Toronto.
Pearson airport in Toronto has unveiled ambitious plans to be a global airline hub, and needs to free up gates for international and long-haul flights.
As such they would like to severely curtail short-hop flights into/out of Pearson and envision HSR as an alternative to a second major airport in the GTA.
In so far as a new airport would be a multi-billion dollar investment, that could be considered an off-set in any HSR discussion.
That said, I still wouldn't plan on riding Toronto-Windsor HSR in the next decade and a half.
Have you ever ridden on HSR? In Europe, HSR tickets generally cost $50-$100 [[e.g. Madrid to Seville or Paris to Lyon). A shinkansen ride from Tokyo to Osaka is about $125. HSR in China costs as little as $9 [[Beijing to Tianjin).Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
For a lot of trips, HSR is easily time competitive overall with flying or has benefits that are well worth an extra hour. Rail stations often serve the actual city, so subtract the 30-45 minutes it takes to drive out to a remote suburban airport and/or get from that airport in to your destination. No security theater or need to show up as much as two hours early, so subtract 30-90 minutes and the loss of your personal dignity. Enjoy a smoother ride without turbulence or pressurization and generally with much more comfortable seating arrangements.
The FAA and airports are subsidized. Highways are subsidized. Not obvious to me why subsidized trains are unconscionable while the others are perfectly appropriate. Go Canada. But Windsor as an anchor point seems really weak - let's see it connect to Detroit proper [[and eventually Chicago).
Junjie, I have never ridden high speed rail. As for pricing, please be aware that the price to ride is extremely subsidized, and that ticket prices are set artificially very low by their operating governments to encourage the rail travel. The California Pretend High Speed Rail's supporters estimate that a one-way ticket between San Francisco and Los Angeles will cost $300 in today's dollars. That is not only a price that will encourage bus and plane travel as less expensive alternatives, but also one that makes it a very elite method of travel for a small number of very rich people.
The comparison of rail's subsidies to auto and aviation related subsidies is not an honest one. While roads and bridges are largely paid for by the government, the government isn't generally buying the cars we travel in and paying for most of the gas and repairs. In aviation, public investment is mostly in building and maintaining airports & security/air traffic control. Some rural airports receive subsidized service, though. But it is much cheaper to build and maintain air access to isolated areas than it is to build and maintain railroads.
I am on record on DY as being very pro-public transit. I wish the RTA would take over DDOT & SMART buses, the People Mover, build the BRT system, incorporate some light rail elements, and extend and better integrate service. BUT, in both the US and Canada [[and everywhere else in the world), money for transit is not unlimited. For the finite amount of money available, high speed rail takes up WAY TOO MUCH of the pie for its very limited utility. Better buses for half a million is much preferable to fancy trains for hundreds.
I live in a west-end GTA burb and can drive to Windsor in 3 hours. The 401 is wide open between London and Windsor. There is no need for high speed rail unless it was a direct route to Detroit and we all know with the current political climate that will not happen.
If somehow high speed rail could get many more people living in Southwestern Ontario and take the massive congestion pressure off of Toronto then it might make economic sense.
Have you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
I have multiple times. The Chunnel.
I am clueless on how you came up with "No security theatre"
When I was a passenger on the channel tunnel Eurostar there was a abundance of security. "Show up 2 hours early" worth of it actually, directly written on the tickets. It was my first experance with Israeli El Al level of security. Individual interviews for everyone separated from the group traveling. The works, everything at airports then more of it.
Then, walls and lots of barbed wire. I mean A LOT. Prison quality double fences protect those tracks. It is not exactly a picturesque view out the windows because of the fences.
There is a serous problem in the world with terrorism. High speed rail is just another very large attractive target. Blinders will not solve the problem.
No, that isn't true. I've been on Euro rail and other high speed rail lines in Europe multiple times. There is security for Euro rail but it is no where near as cumbersome as airport security [[also a frequent flyer here). In fact, I was just in London last week and passed under the Euro train tracks that go from London to Paris. It was no more secured than Amtrak tracks are here in the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
A HSR line could still serve a couple of purposes. It could make Pearson competitive to DTW for travelers on the Canadian side of the border who would otherwise use Metro. It could also eliminate the need for connector flights that both Air Canada and Delta run between YYZ and DTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
I have not been on any of the other European high speed rail trains. Regular passanger trains yes, High speed rail, No.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
This was my exact experience as a passanger on the Eurostar. "Passing under the tracks" is not exactly the same correct?
My trips where closer to the years after 9/11/01 than now. I would expect that someone who has actually rode the London to Paris Eurostar more recently would be more qualified to confirm.
Did they take the metal detectors away? Is the secure boarding area now gone? I would find it very hard to believe but I suppose it is possible.
Wikipedia seems to say what I experienced is still in place. See Security.
I throw it back at you Iheartthed. What you are saying is Not True.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostar
I can't speak to the chunnel crossing specifically, as I haven't take that route.
I can say, during my various times in Europe, I've never found any pre-boarding security on any continental high-speed lines. I took Eurostar Rome to Paris. Self-boarding. No checks. On-board customs at near various border crossings, no big deal.
Might have changed since I did it.
But any HSR operating solely inside Canada would be free of customs checks.
Anything crossing the border would likely become subject to pre-clearance during boarding as per recent treaties/legislation.
I would still expect it would be lesser in bother and time than airport travel, though perhaps not as much so as within Europe's Schengen Zone
401Don, HSR would take very few cars off the road in congested cities. Most of the cars are going locally anyway. When I hear people advocate California HSR to alleviate congestion I laugh out load. Local rail and bus projects take many cards off the roads, HSR does not.
Okay, let's ignore Toronto for the moment because of the clusterf**k that is the post-9/11 CBP and concentrate on Chicago. Generally, average rail speeds including a fair number of intermediate stops are around 80% of the maximum sustained speed, so if Detroit-Chicago rail could achieve sustained speeds of 125 mph, the route could average 100 mph, which would result in travel times of 3 hours from Pontiac or Troy to Chicago, or maybe 2:45 from Detroit. "Big deal", I hear you say, "Metro to O' Hare is 1:15."Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
But consider that Troy or Detroit are a lot more central to a lot more people than is Romulus. I live in Bloomfield Township and allow 45 minutes to drive to Metro. With allowance for airport security and arriving at the gate in time to board when I can find overhead space and not have to gate-check my bag, I figure I have to leave the house 2:30 before my flight time to be on the safe side. Then at the Chicago end I'm at O' Hare and have an hour taxi or subway ride to get to the loop. Result is total travel time of 4:45. By contrast, I can get to Troy, park, and get on the train in a half hour or less, and Chicago Union Station to pretty much anywhere in the loop is under a half hour, and my total travel time is around 4 hours, and I would really rather spend three hours on a train with lots of legroom than 1:15 crammed into today's planes. I'd also pay for whatever is available on the cafe car than have to eat Delta's free pretzels yet again.
So yes, I really would prefer semi-high-speed rail to air, once we're comparing apples to apples.
This would be nice if we had a HSR from Detroit to Ann Arbor to Chicago. Then this would be nice. But I don't really see the huge deal if it's just Detroit to Toronto. Maybe in 50 years and I'm an old, old man, I'll look back and say this is nice.
I was implying it might get more people living in the Kitchener-London-Windsor corridor if somehow businesses could locate and therefore residents and immigrants could be encouraged to live there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
HSR works very well in Western Europe, but would almost certainly fail around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Western Europe has low incomes, extremely expensive gas, very expensive tolled roads, much worse air pollution, high densities and centralized cities.
In Michigan [[or Ontario) HSR makes little sense. if you're headed from Paris to Lyon, yeah, HSR makes tons of sense.
Rail isn't competing with air, it's competing with roads. The Detroit-Chicago market is mostly auto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don K
If you're traveling to Chicago, it's generally much cheaper and faster to drive. Train service is slow, unreliable and expensive.
In the U.S., high capacity train service really only makes sense in the Northeast Corridor, where you have extreme congestion and highly centralized, transit oriented cities.
Every Chunnel ticket I can find online says "20 minutes".Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
http://www.kb4.com/images/London/ChunnelTicket.gif
Eurostar isn't a "normal" European train. Obviously the UK isn't Schengen [[heck, now they aren't even Europe, really).
And "check in" isn't "show up". For U.S. airports you are required to be "checked in" 30 minutes prior to scheduled departure, which is about the same as Eurostar.
Trains work very well within the Schengen zone, but I don't see the relevance here in the U.S./Canada [[again, excepting the unique conditions in the Northeast Corridor).
Never encountered pre-boarding security on high-speed rail in Europe. That's why it's better to fly into Frankfurt from Detroit then just take the train to anywhere in Germany as opposed to taking another flight.
Well, yeah, you were probably traveling in Schengen zone. The 26 Schengen states have open travel, more or less.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkd
I've ridden HSR in Spain and China [[both well after 9/11, the 2004 Madrid bombings, and the 7/7 London attacks) and never encountered anything like that, so obviously we have had different experiences. In both places I went through a metal detector and bag x-ray, like in the good old days at US airports, and in China the only real constraint on showing up is the fact that they cut off ticket sales about 15 minutes before departure. Certainly there were no huge crowds waiting to get through the security lines [[wait, aren't we trying to avoid providing easy targets for the terrorists??), no ridiculous body scanners, no TSA hassling you to rip apart your bag or throw away your bottle of Coke, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
[Edit: I got a little worked up, sorry. Suffice to say I'd prefer to see the "low-security" HSR I've experienced implemented in Canada or the US rather than airport-style security.]
Again, we massively subsidize highways and auto-oriented development as a general development policy in the US. I'd prefer balancing that with more HSR and urban development [[which are linked, as Bham's posts indictate - HSR is only as strong as the city and its transit network). As to ticket prices: the US has a severe problem with the cost of infrastructure. It is striking that nowhere else in the world are prices even remotely close to $300/ticket. We badly need to figure out how this process goes so wrong and correct it, because virtually every other country manages to do similar projects for much less money.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
But the government does pay billions for the mortgage interest deduction to encourage people to buy single family homes in less dense areas rather than renting in cities. It provides hundreds of billions each year to "stabilize" the middle east, an area of the world that would be the geostrategic equivalent of Latin America if our cars didn't run on oil. All of this is part of the subsidy to auto-dependency in the US, even if you bought your own car.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
Yes, I know you're generally very pro-transit. Maybe you're right about priorities, and it's a debate worth having [[for the Canadians, anyway). Obviously my preference would be to expand the fraction of resources going to all forms of transit, including HSR. I see HSR and transit as mutually reinforcing/dependent and part of the same network.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
Density is a red herring when it comes to arguing against HSR in the US. For example, Florida [[353 people/sqmi) has a higher density than France [[295), and in the midwest Pennsylvania [[284) and Ohio [[281) are very close behind. The density of people in Michigan south of Muskegon / Flint / Port Huron that might be served by a Chicago - Toronto line is plenty high [[458). The distances are also comparable: Paris to Lyon is longer than Toronto to Detroit and about the same as Detroit to Chicago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
On the other hand, you're absolutely right about fuel prices and centralized cities.
Density, by itself, isn't particularly useful, but weighted density is useful, and France has much higher weighted density than somewhere like Florida. And France is centered around a singular dominant transit-oriented metro. The Northeast Corridor works for HSR because it's centered around NYC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Somewhere like Florida could, in theory, work for HSR, but not the way Floridians currently live. With $10 gas, lower incomes, highways all super-high tolled, more air quality problems, yeah. If people actually lived in walkable, transit oriented cities, yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Each city has its own unique circumstances.
In the case of Fl and looking at Tampa to Orlando to Daytona Beach
Then from Miami to Orlando to Jacksonville.
Granted maybe residents in their daily life would not pack the cars,but what you are underestimating is the tourist aspect.Which Fl does get a couple here and there.
So you book a flight and accommodations staying at Disney [[the rat) You could then jump on the train to Tampa and visit bush gardens,the casino,ybor city and have a hand rolled cigar and bourbon then jump on the street car to go downtown to the aquarium or cruise ships.
After all of that you could jump back on and go to Daytona beach and catch the sunset over the water.
Lots more to it but you get the jist of it.
Sports fans would no longer have to spend two hours stuck on the freeway behind a moron on a cell phone going 50 in a 90 mph zone.
Lots of international tourism dollars.
I have Philippine friends that fly from Fl to Detroit then transfer for the flight to the Philippines sitting for hours in the airport waiting.
You realize how much money that is left on the table when you do not provide options? There are many international flights that depart from Detroit.
No problems supporting billions for a bridge and surrounding infrastructure that increases traffic and smog, but talk about rail to move people and goods efficiently is kinda like talking about implementing a clothingless society.
Saying I am not going to support something that I am not going to use is short of understanding that the resulting financial impacts effects everybody.
Have you seen a population density map of Florida? Here's one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Attachment 33431
There are some obvious routes for rail there, along very densely populated corridors.
As someone with lot of family who has retired in Florida I can tell you driving long distances loses its appeal for many people when they get old. Especially in Florida traffic. Diving around South Florida is nerve-wracking. I have family who kept moving North up the East coast of Florida to get away from it. Others who do their best never to venture South of Palm Beach. If they had better rail options maybe they would. I think high speed rail would make sense for a lot of Floridians, and like Richard said, tourists too.
And walkable cities, it would encourage that. I shouldn't have to tell you dense development clusters along popular transit lines. That would be just as true in Florida as everywhere else it's built.
There is however one big problem with the high speed rail proposal in Florida. The tracks they'd use on the East coast run along the coast, right through the middle of many of the cities and towns. A lot of people there are opposed to it because they're afraid of increased noise and disruption from high speed train traffic. They have a point but it seems to me far overblown.
So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
I shared this on another thread, but it's just as relevant here.
The True Costs of Driving
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-costs/412237/
“Car owners don’t come close to covering the price of maintaining the roads they use.”
“The amount that road users pay through gas taxes now accounts for less than half of what’s spent to maintain and expand the road system. The resulting shortfall is made up from other sources of tax revenue at the state and local levels, generated by drivers and non-drivers alike. This subsidizing of car ownership costs the typical household about $1,100 per year—over and above the costs of gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees.”
Attachment 33433
Roads in 2007 cost us more than $600 Billion annually than we collected in taxes and fees to pay for them! That was 10 years ago. And you can see the trend.
Do Roads Pay for Themselves?
Setting the Record Straight on Transportation Funding
http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/28b773b9f18cdb23da3e48a8d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf
This has been exactly my experience too. I've taken high speed rail throughout Spain, France, and the Chunnel to London. And regular speed trains [[though still probably faster than ours) in Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Never did security cause more than a few minutes delay. I'll grant that I haven't taken the Chunnel in many years and that train now has more need for security than the others, so things may have changed, but when I rode it it was not an inconvenience at all. Quite the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
European trains are so incredibly convenient because not only do they take you directly from city center to city center in a peaceful and dignified manner, you can usually show up just minutes before the train leaves and still catch it. And if you miss it you can usually just hop on the next one. Most times it won't be more than an hour later.
Meanwhile, I've never been frisked so thoroughly as once when I flew out of Amsterdam. My wife was subjected to a similarly invasive search last October when we flew out of Detroit to New York. To be safe you have to arrive at the airport at least an hour and a half before your flight is due to depart -- for a domestic flight.
Last thing I'll say on this topic for now. Growing up in Detroit both Toronto and Chicago were places we went for big city culture. We took the train to Toronto once. It wasn't bad. I had my first Canada Dry ginger ale in the cafe car. It had a pull tab. Strange what you remember.
Today I've left Detroit but my parents still live there. They still go to Chicago often to visit family. They rarely get to Toronto any more but they still go to Stratford every year. They drive.
Once a few years ago they decided to take the train to Chicago. The family they visit in Chicago has cars and they live within a nice weather walk of the L. Having another car there is an inconvenience. Unfortunately, my parents' experience with the train was so bad they never repeated it. It was so darn slow. If it weren't so slow they'd definitely always take it.
High speed rail would be a huge benefit to them. Both from Detroit to Chicago and Detroit to Toronto. If the route to Toronto passed through or offered a transfer to Stratford much better still.
We have an aging population in the US. According to the Population Reference Bureau the number of Americans aged 65 and older is projected to more than double from 46 million today to over 98 million by 2060, and the 65-and-older age group's share of the total population will rise to nearly 24 percent from 15 percent. High speed rail would be a major convenience for many americans, and perhaps especially to them.
Fact Sheet: Aging in the United States
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Medi...act-sheet.aspx
Clearing up one point:
I have never been the slightest bit put out or inconvenienced by lines, barriers, bag searches or early arrival. If an earlier post implied that was an issue for me, it was not intended. I was just stating an experience that I had, again things change, sounds like the early arrival time allowance has. When I run into these situations, I chalk it up to what has to be attempted to make women and children safer. Security work is not a job that I would want and always have empathy for people that take those tasks. Nothing is perfect and mistakes get made, but I am not one to think that my time or inconvenience is worth more than other people's lives. Security will be an added cost that is only going to rise for the foreseeable future, unfortunately.
I have been a passenger on this train line and other HSR lines in Europe multiple times. Security has never been anywhere near as complicated as airport security.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
I take the Eurostar regularly, check in does mean show up. There is no comparison to air travel. It's very fast to go through security and pre-boarding customs. Then the train from London is about 2 hours and you exit the train right in central Paris, from both city centers you can take trains to get anywhere. Meanwhile in Detroit, the People Mover 2.0 moves so slow that you can walk faster! Americans are clueless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Yes, we all know that PT sucks in Detroit and is fantastic in Paris. What this has to do with anything or why it means "Americans are clueless" is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by casscorridor
My brother took the train to Chicago 2 weeks ago to attend a wedding. The trip over there was fine but coming back there was a delay of almost two hours due to a signal problem crossing a bridge. He wasn't too happy about that, don't know if he'll take the train again.
So, the Ontario budget came down today.
It includes 11B for the High Speed Rail project, Phase I.
[[that's Toronto-London).
Will it happen? Maybe. But the current provincial government is a wee bit unpopular.
They announced a ton of new deficit-financed goodies today, this one included.
How much depends on their reelection [[a dubious, but not impossible prospect) remains to be seen.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windso...dsor-1.4597729
You can take Via Rail from Windsor to Toronto in just a little over 4 hours. The Windsor station is convenient and parking isn't a problem. Plus, you don't have to let Barney Fife grope you before you get on board like at the airport. No need to spend billions on high-speed rail just to save two hours. IMHO.