Windsor-Toronto in 2 hours?

[maverick1]

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.

[401don]

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

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I wish this project all the luck and success they're having in California.

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.

[Scottathew]

Seriously, though. As long as they aren't wasting my tax dollars, I don't care.

A counter-argument would be that tax dollars from everyone are used on roads, whether we use them or not.

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.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

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.

[Canadian Visitor]

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.

[Junjie]

I wish this project all the luck and success they're having in California.

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.

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).

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).

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

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.

[401don]

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.

[ABetterDetroit]

Have you ever ridden on HSR?

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.

Have you?

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.

[iheartthed]

Have you?

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.

[iheartthed]

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.

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.

[ABetterDetroit]

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.

I have not been on any of the other European high speed rail trains. Regular passanger trains yes, High speed rail, No.

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

[Canadian Visitor]

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

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

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.

[Don K]

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.

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."

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.

[mikeg19]

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.

[401don]

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.

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.

[Bham1982]

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).

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).

HSR works very well in Western Europe, but would almost certainly fail around here.

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.

[Bham1982]

So yes, I really would prefer semi-high-speed rail to air, once we're comparing apples to apples.

Rail isn't competing with air, it's competing with roads. The Detroit-Chicago market is mostly auto.

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.

[Scottathew]

"Show up 2 hours early" worth of it actually, directly written on the tickets.

Every Chunnel ticket I can find online says "20 minutes".

[Bham1982]

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).

[mkd]

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.

[Bham1982]

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.

[Junjie]

Have you?

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.

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.

[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.]