I agree to Idea High Speed Rail along Windsor-Quebec corridor
Voting Disabled

392 votes

I disagree to Idea High Speed Rail along Windsor-Quebec corridor

Rank17

Idea#77

This idea is active.
Jobs & Economy »

High Speed Rail along Windsor-Quebec corridor

No more studies, we should immediately begin the construction of a high-speed railway in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Multiple studies have already demonstrated the viability of the project which could also be linked to the U.S. high speed rail network currently under construction. Moreover, the project would also have national benefits were the contract tendered to Bombardier and steel purchased from Ontario steelworkers. It would also create short term and long-term employment, and, if electrified, could also prove environmentally beneficial while reducing commuter times in Montreal, GTA, and Ottawa were the system also used for commuters during rush hour. Such a massive infrastructure investment may prove costly in the short-term, but in the long-term could prove to revitalize the entire province as the high-speed network continues to expand facilitating cross border tourism and trade.

Submitted by Jon 9 months ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Events

  1. The idea was posted
    9 months ago

Comments (47)

  1. DM

    Two thumbs up for high speed rail Windsor-Quebec.

    If we could have a passenger corridor passing through the cities, and a separate freight line (like a high-speed "highway" for merchandise and goods) without stops (or few stops), that would great (methink).

    But I suppose, until the provincial debt is under control, and with probable new safety regulations measures coming up after Lac Mégantic, Ottawa OC Transpo, the high speed train crash in Spain... I just have a hard time imagining that would really do this just right now. For me it's not a question of "should" or "could", it's a question of "when". Just a question of timing.

    9 months ago
    7 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. Jon Idea Submitter

    Patrick,

    I too would very much like to see the high speed rail line be used for both freight and passenger traffic.

    While this would certainly prove a costly initiative, if we consider the long term advantages (economic, traffic, jobs, innovation, environment), I think the only answer to the question of when is as soon as possible. It will always seem to expensive to build given short term constraints, but we must exercise leadership in such initiatives knowing that all infrastructure initiatives are costly but no less necessary.

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. DM

      I agree with "as soon as possible." I just do not agree with "now".

      Translated View Original
      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  3. btg

    only toronto to montreal will pay for itself... what the province does need to do is to buy up th eland and to preserve a corridor for a future high speed rail line, and as well, preserve or buy up other rail corridors that have been abandoned.

    9 months ago
    2 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  4. If Ontario and "southern" Ontario were appropriately represented in their respective federal and provincial legislatures, there would be a higher probability that high-speed rail in this corridor would occur. Or, if the median journey distance in the municipalities along the route were to decrease, through changes to zoning, development charges and property taxes, making it more profitable for builders to build upward rather than outward, to a sufficient extent that automobile ownership would no longer be deemed to be necessary.

    9 months ago
    3 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. Jon Idea Submitter

    Multiple studies have demonstrated the feasibility of the entire corridor.

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Those who pay for the studies would have a terms of reference which will ensure the desired results.

      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. DM

      Feasibility just means clustering Technically it is doable (on paper). It says nothing about strategic timing or sustainability.

      Translated View Original
      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. What about cost? GO parking lots are packed and it still cant pay for itself...the last thing we need is another money losing crown corporation like VIA. I love the idea of public transit but it is too costly and has a serious problem catching on with the general public. When the TTC stops hiking rates past 2% or inflation, whatever it is, then we will have a municipal public transit system that will be finally sustainable. As for longer trips on a not so congested corridor might be a harder idea to get financing...

      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  6. we should put user fee on all flights between rail corridor cities (ie. Windsor to Quebec City) to help provide a stable funding source to the rail corridor.

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. A good idea, but I can't help but think that intracity transport is much bigger priority than intercity right now.

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Why not both? the provincial government is already clearly focused on intercity transport currently.

      9 months ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. They are both poor, but I've spent 5 hours between Guelph, ON and Toronto twice in the past two weeks. It normally should take 1:40 or so... Intracity infrastructure (in Toronto) has a plan for development over the next 30 years that will see major improvements- we need a similar plan for intercity transportation.

      9 months ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  8. Jon Idea Submitter

    gregoliver,

    High Speed rail can service both intracity and intercity as well as providing needed connections to airports and other transportation hubs.

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. DM

      Intracity and Interciy, Airports, Transportation Hubs: I agree. Purpose When We (Eventually) get to the design stage, it Will Be significant to strike a good balance in the number of stops. Connecting too many things to the road Will it slow down. A good balance Will Be required - Especially if we open the door to intracity. High speed intracity stops shoulds be Few and well spaced in between. High-speed train Is not a city trolley or subway or city bus or taxi. Going 40 km / h and stopping 10 times before (finally) getting out of a city completely Call Would defeat the whole issue. Maybe at some (later) developed in the future, the high-speed network Could be expanded with additional "everyday commuting" lines, connecting suburbs and downtown - but this is Clearly not for now.

      Translated View Original
      9 months ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  9. Considering Canada is the ONLY G8 nation without high speed rail, this is a must for us. Right now however, the Province is focusing on inner-city and regional transit (which is in desperate need of improvement). If a shared funding model like the Federal Government pays 1/3, Ontario pays 1/3, and Quebec pays 1/3 was agreed on, this project could (hopefully) see the light of day.

    9 months ago
    4 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. This country has minimal passenger rail service. Implement a comprehensive rail service policy before jumping on the TGV bandwagon.

      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  10. Jon Idea Submitter

    Absolutely, a shared funding strategy would be absolutely necessary to construct such a massive project.

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  11. RY

    The GTA and Hamilton are going to be one large city in twenty years. Linking them to Montreal will mean our two biggest cities are less than two hours away from the nation’s capitol. What better project could we have for our country’s 150th anniversary in 2017? In purely political terms, Quebec separation would be much harder once Montreal is more closely connected to the rest of Canada.

    Easing road congestion will cut shipping costs for goods and help improve the economy.

    The Windsor to Quebec City bullet train was priced at $20 billion dollars, which is much less than the $36 billion dollar the F-35s will cost Canadians. Which of two will save more lives, the less expensive high speed rail or the more expensive F-35s?

    9 months ago
    2 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  12. Jon Idea Submitter

    RY,

    For the cost of 20 G-20's we could buy a high speed rail network. Makes it sound a lot more feasible from this perspective I think.

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  13. the 401 stretch between London and Toronto is the most travelled highway (by volume) in the world. It can definitely support state-of-the-art rail infrastructure. Our transportation infrastructure is so poor that it is crippling our ability to move goods and people along this stretch. This will boost Ontario's economy and (with wifi on the train) will improve our productivity as a province as a whole.

    Please make this a reality.

    Reference:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_401

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  14. First of all, this is a federal issue, not provincial. It is also a pipe dream. We have already spent millions on various studies when what we really need is decent rail service to rural communities. Put money back into the Ontario Northland that was actually being used by people to get to medical appointments and treatment in Northern Ontario. I will oppose any move to implement high-speed trains until we have a comprehensive service for all Ontario and Canada. Go Transit needs trains moving in both direction throughout the day between Barrie and Toronto including a late-night train. Congestion is a problem that will not be solved by high-speed trains.

    The money needed to implement a high-speed train from scratch in this corridor would be better spend serving communities that have been abandoned by rail service.

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  15. Jon Idea Submitter

    Mark,

    How is this a purely federal issue? Sure, such a project will need federal and municipal cooperation, but it is by no means purely a federal issue. Second, it is not a pipe dream, seems like every other G-8 country and many G-20 countries can afford to build one. Sounds like you really oppose high-speed rail because it wont reach your community. But this project can still benefit you by reducing traffic congestion and reducing the cost of transportation even in your area. Opposing a project because it doesn't serve your region lacks vision.

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. DM

      I think Mark's the point stands. Northern Ontario (and other parts of Canada) are Often ignored and neglected. I think it's significant Abebooks web respect this very valid feedback about Northern Ontario. It's a different (and valid) piece of leadership and vision. If high-speed train is to have a go, it will not be by dividing Ontarians gold regions. Will it need everyone on board. Trying to spear things will not work. It May alienate precious medium for high-speed. I think Mark really saying here Is not That he wants "high-speed" (he just said "decent") rail to reach Northern communities (or reach His own personal community Wherever it is, Northern, rural, or whatever) so much have high speed framing the major investment issue into a question of getting the right order of Priorities and setting the timing right. I think Mark is really not at all against the idea and principle of high-speed train, he just wants to sour populous That the Windsor-Quebec corridor Does icts lazily turn back on the challenges of smaller communities by Focusing on Itself make. Perhaps Mark I guess might be right: the high speed project just might double or triple icts support base if icts promoters tied it to some kind of national transport development / investment strategy has some Where Would Be Amount of money set aside to match funds for development of rail in rural / Northern Canada. In other words: make it a Project That Will matter to everyone, like "high speed anymore." Once gets icts Canada (federal, provincial, municipal) debt under control, a national rail / transportation strategy might Become the next generational game changer. More or less our national release of "going to Mars."

      Translated View Original
      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. I totally agree that its important to ensure there is a transit strategy for all of Ontario. Its also important to ensure that transit infrastructure is built based in a financially sustainable way. The more density an area has, the more economically feasible rail (and high speed rail) becomes. So for an area like Barrie, Metrolinx already has all day, frequent service to Barrie in their 5 year plan (the "Big Move") because the density supports it. For other smaller areas, maybe less frequent GO train service is appropriate (ex Niagara Falls, Kitchener-Waterloo etc). For other smaller urban centres or rural areas GO buses (and/or Ontario Northland) are appropriate. Further still, the most economical (and time efficient way) to serve remote Northern communities might be best served by air. At any rate,definitely there needs to be a strategy to link areas outside of the Windsor - Quebec corridor using GO trains / GO buses / Ontario Northland to any potential high-speed rail hubs, so that the rail system has enough volume being fed into it to make it feasible. It would also have the benefit of increasing economic activity between the GTHA and northern Ontario (and give Northerners better access to medical facilities etc) ...

      9 months ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. DM, more attention is directed toward northern Ontario than what one would expect given its population due to being overrepresented in the provincial and federal legislatures. The territories and six least populous provinces similarly receive more attention from the federal government due to being overrepresented.

      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  16. In order for intercity transport to work, it definitely needs to be supported by intra-city transport (but that doesn't mean subways alone, there are a lot of other intracity transport methods that are cost effective - bus only lanes, BRTs, LRTs, increased GO frequency etc...

    Definitely there needs to be a coordinated plan - where intracity and intercity hubs connect together so that it is seamless (like Europe, Asia, South America)

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  17. Jon Idea Submitter

    Rishi,

    Absolutely, I think Ontarian's are ready for a more comprehensive and integrated approach for seamless public transportation.

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  18. I think Ontarians want a comprehensive and integrated approach to transit. What I think Ontarians don't understand is that the short term pain in terms of extra taxes, user fees will lead to long term gain such as better quality of life, increased property values and increased economic opportunities. Hopefully Kathleen Wynne can make the case convincingly ..

    9 months ago
    3 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  19. Forget the rail and steel. Go straight to maglev. should work well in the snow! 450km hour!

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  20. Toronto - Montreal is a no brainer and the project should have been underway 20 years ago.

    A quick looks shows these flights:

    Air Canada 18 a day,

    Porter 16 per day

    Westjet 10 per day

    It would be more economical and environmentally friendly to have a lot of these people on a train.

    And more convenient for passengers.

    And also saves on transportation from/to the airports as the train can go downtown to downtown.

    There should be at most one stop at Kingston,

    and an express train early morning and late afternoon,

    making a day trip to Montreal/Toronto a possibility for business travellers.

    9 months ago
    2 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  21. In addition to high-speed rail along the Windsor-Quebec corridor, we need credible, multi-directional commuter rail between key communities, such as the technology supercluster developing between Waterloo Region-Guelph-Toronto. Tech workers need to be able to move quickly between these communities, including inbound to Waterloo Region from the GTA in the morning, and not exclusively the other way around. Efficient rail service (ie. under one hour instead of the current two) is essential to building this tech supercluster, which can rival Silicon Valley given the right conditions.

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  22. No need for high speed rail. A consortuim of governments including Ontario would just have to buy the London-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal lines. That's it.

    If VIA or some other carrier had the right of way to travel on the corridor as is without any upgrade in rail or rolling stock it would take less than 3 hours to get Toronto to Montreal, which is about the same as Rapid air if you consider the downtown to downtown trip.

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. It is about 550 km from Toronto to Montreal

      Three hours makes an average speed of 183 kph

      Can current trains and rails support this?

      Seriously I am asking, because I don't know.

      In any case this is barely enough to be competitive with air.

      By air it is a bit over an hour, plus add an hour for early arrival at airport for security etc, transfer to downdown at either end maybe 1 hour max. Three hours is competitive but not seen as much better. At 300 kph you could do the trip in about 2 hours. This would be very competitive with air travel.

      Especially with free wifi and the ability to use your cell phone.

      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  23. Jon Idea Submitter

    Tim,

    Where high speed rail could connect both downtown cores, even if it took 5 hours it could be competitive with flying (getting to airport, checking in over an hour early, flight time, arrival delays, getting baggage, getting transportation, travelling to downtown core). Also, their are a lot of people who just plain prefer the train for numerous reasons. If I had the option between getting to Montreal by air to my destination in say 5 hours, or 6 hours by train, no question I'd take the train to avoid the dehydration and hassles of flight. Add wifi and the use of cell phone etc to it and their are huge incentives to prefer rail to flight. It's more environmental too. Oh, and it is possible to get a high speed train to travel as fast as 350 mph safely with existing technology.

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. I have to disagree on a couple of points here,

      based on business travel:

      1) Total time door to door Toronto to Montreal downtown is

      about 3 hours, if you have no baggage to check. Maybe 3.5

      2) I spent months travelling back and forth to Montreal,

      leaving Monday morning and returning Friday nights.

      As a consultant with billable time, a 5 hour train trip

      does not work, as it is pretty much a full day of lost time.

      I did investigate the sleeper option Sunday night, but still

      had the return trip to consider.

      3) for someone going for meeting, 5 hours each way is not really

      reasonable, the day is just too long.

      You said 350 mph...did you mean 350 kph?

      But if true, even at 300 kph, that is a different story.

      This would end up at least as fast than flying

      (if it was express) and less hassle, and usable time during trip.

      I'm sure this would be used my many, many people

      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    1. Forget rail and steel. Go straight to Maglev!

      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  24. Jon Idea Submitter

    Tim,

    Sorry, you're right, I did mean 350 KPH. And thanks for your comments, I'm clearly not as familiar with the exact commute times as you are. Nevertheless, I believe their is a market for this project and every study performed confirms this belief. Cooker, I don't think anyone objects to the maglev option.

    9 months ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  25. I just returned from Scotland, where the rail system allowed me and my family to travel quickly, cheaply, and in comfort from within the Glasgow/Stirling/Edinburgh triangle. Coming home was like going back to the dark ages: no way to travel in the suburbs except by car.

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  26. I totally agree with cooker Maglev but it would create two systems one for GO and one for Via the first step would be getting both on the same track.The best thing would be to eliminate all level crossings first this is doable now

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  27. The Ottawa region with its population of over one million should on the path of that corridor.

    9 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Jon Idea Submitter

      Absolutely, I believe the proposed route has always included Ottawa. But this is an important point to make.

      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Jon Idea Submitter

      Absolutely, I believe the proposed route has always included Ottawa. But this is an important point to make.

      9 months ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  28. High speed rail is attainable in the very near future.Although there are a few problems that have to be fixed first.Nobody wants to hear this though.

    High speed rail depends on speed and level crossings slow them down the track bed will have to be sloped in the curves.passenger and freight must be separated and the rail or governments do not want to do any of this.

    Therefore we can only have mediocre passenger speeds

    8 months ago
    0 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Jon Idea Submitter

      glennkitchen,

      You seem to be assuming we are relying on existing rail infrastructure for high speed transit. We aren't.

      8 months ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  29. I cannot agree with this more. It would be the National Railway project for our generation.

    7 months ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed