New high-speed Canadian trains touted to match U.S. vision

[wahyinghung]

OTTAWA — A multibillion-dollar Canadian high-speed rail project could inject new life into the domestic steel industry and allow the country to keep pace with a "visionary" plan launched last month by U.S. President Barack Obama, railway industry and public transit advocates said on Tuesday.

"Obviously, President Obama has made it a priority and so we're certainly at risk of losing ground to them if we don't take a good hard look ourselves and make some decisions over the next few years," Cliff Mackay, president and chief executive officer of the Railway Association of Canada, said in an interview.

The Obama administration announced a multibillion-dollar plan in April that identified 10 possible regions to build new high-speed rail systems as part of its economic recovery plan. They include potential links to Canadian cities such as Vancouver and Montreal from Seattle and Boston, as well as links to U.S. cities such as Detroit and Buffalo in the Great Lakes region.

Mackay was among the first witnesses to appear at parliamentary hearings that began last week on the future of high-speed rail in Canada.

"Clearly, what we need is vision beyond the next six months and that's what's missing in Canada," said Paul Langan, the founder of the advocacy group High Speed Rail Canada. "This vision has never been seen before in North America . . . These people (in the U.S.) are behind rail."

MPs have described the hearings as a fact-finding mission to sort out the dreams of high-speed rail from the reality of Canada's geographical and political climate. The transport committee at the House of Commons is focusing its study on the feasibility of a faster train service or high-speed rail in the Quebec City-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton corridors.

"There is certainly great interest within our committee to determine, one, if it's viable, (and) two, if we can do it, and what the stakes and what the costs would be," said Merv Tweed, a Conservative MP from Manitoba who chairs the parliamentary committee.

The most recent study for high-speed rail in Ontario and Quebec from 1995 estimated the cost at about $18 billion over several years, while a 2004 Alberta study estimated a bullet train between Calgary and Edmonton could cost as high as $3.4 billion. Both proposals would speed up travel between cities while reducing traffic on roads and in airports.

Transport Canada officials said that a new study on Ontario and Quebec, sponsored jointly by the federal and provincial governments, should be completed by 2010 and offer an update on all of the impacts, consequences or benefits of various options on the table, including new possibilities available for use in a colder climate.

"There has been enormous evolution in high-speed rail technology in the past 15 years," Helena Borges, the director general of surface transportation policy at the department, told the committee last week. "There are lots more options today than there were back then."

The joint government study would also look at existing models in other countries to examine financing options, partnerships with the private sector and the impact on other modes of transportation, such as air travel.

But Mackay noted there could also be benefits in areas such as steel rail manufacturing, which used to take place in Canada 10 to 15 years ago before it moved offshore because of international competition and the lack of demand in North America.

"The construction of high-speed rail systems in Canada would require approximately $4 billion in track over a 10-year period," said Mackay. "That may be enough to turn the corner."

Mackay and Langan both said they were encouraged by the openness from the government and opposition MPs to explore the issue in detail.

Tweed added that the committee will also hear from groups and companies with a wide range of opinions and expertise on the issue in the coming weeks, such as engineering firm Bombardier and airline industry associations. The parliamentary committee is hoping to report its findings to the House of Commons before the summer begins, he said.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/hig...102/story.html

[roastpuff]

If they can get prices to get to the East Coast down from airline tickets I'm all for it.

[Gt-R R34]

I would love to take the train,

Hopefully we'll have something in Vancouver for this.

[JesseBlue]

you know it'll be only for the east coast...

[BNR32_Coupe]

Mods, please move this thread to the Vancouver Locomotive Chat.

[Ludepower]

Originally Posted by Gt-R R34

I would love to take the train,

Hopefully we'll have something in Vancouver for this.

Yea it's called the Skytrain.

I doubt a high speed rail system can compete against airlines...which are faster and relatively cheap.

[Anjew]

Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe

Mods, please move this thread to the Vancouver Locomotive Chat.

lolz

[tgill]

[Gt-R R34]

Originally Posted by Ludepower

Yea it's called the Skytrain.

I doubt a high speed rail system can compete against airlines...which are faster and relatively cheap.

Go to japan, take a ride on the Bullet train then say that again.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Gt-R R34

Go to japan, take a ride on the Bullet train then say that again.

Bullet Train: 210km/h
737: 800km/h

Yep, the bullet train has a plane beat.

That's not even considering planes pretty much take a DIRECT path to their destination, not having to worry about mountains, rivers, lakes, etc...

I'd rather spend $250 for a 5 hour flight to Ontario, than $100 for a 20 hour train ride.

[rsx]

Originally Posted by tgill

Oh thank god, they included Eugene, whew.

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by Great68

Bullet Train: 210km/h
737: 800km/h

Yep, the bullet train has a plane beat.

That's not even considering planes pretty much take a DIRECT path to their destination, not having to worry about mountains, rivers, lakes, etc...

I'd rather spend $250 for a 5 hour flight to Ontario, than $100 for a 20 hour train ride.

meh it would be a tradeoff, im sure people would do it once in a while, if they had the luxuries of classic trains that would be pretty pimp

isnt a train ride from coast to coast in Canada somthing like 8 grand at the moment?

[Blinky]

Wow.

Hasn't anyone though to compare the relative distances in Japan to many of the relative distances of possible Canadian routes?

The only high-speed rail corridors that would probably make sense in Canada would be GTA/Ottawa/Montreal and MAYBE Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary.

Not to mention the fact that high speed rail in Canada would have lower ridership numbers than in Japan.

[hk20000]

Originally Posted by Great68

Bullet Train: 210km/h
737: 800km/h

Yep, the bullet train has a plane beat.

That's not even considering planes pretty much take a DIRECT path to their destination, not having to worry about mountains, rivers, lakes, etc...

I'd rather spend $250 for a 5 hour flight to Ontario, than $100 for a 20 hour train ride.

Like he said, go fucking take a train ride in Japan and come back to talk. Also a modern bullet train takes it up to 320km/h. Also even when it's the same distance the plane makes a longer route because it has to climb significant height and come back down.

Selling point of bullet train in Japan: With check-in and airport trafficking included, the train always beat your plane.

Sure East - West coast won't work but look at the map above those distance are ideal with trains.

and then the GTRRRRRR beats them all.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by hk20000

Like he said, go fucking take a train ride in Japan and come back to talk.

I did.

Bullet train from Tokyo to Hiroshima.

Then flew back to Tokyo.

5 hours on train.

1.5 hours on plane.

The plane was faster.

Jackass.

[misteranswer]

I saw on TV a sort of race before, trip from one destination in NYC to another destination in DC, plane vs train. The plane won by about 15 minutes. Main advantage of the train was less security and the train picks you up downtown so the commute was much less.

[Ludepower]

Originally Posted by hk20000

Like he said, go fucking take a train ride in Japan and come back to talk.

Way to go comparing japan's land mass and population vs Canada's....dumbass.

Im all for alternative public transit..but show me the hard numbers and I'll be a believer in it.

[scheng924]

good step forward.. if prices are cheap... a lot of people will enjoy the views and such..

[slammer111]

Originally Posted by Great68

I did.

Bullet train from Tokyo to Hiroshima.

Then flew back to Tokyo.

5 hours on train.

1.5 hours on plane.

The plane was faster.

Jackass.

Did you factor in lineups, security, check-in, waiting for luggage, etc?

[achiam]

Originally Posted by Great68

Bullet Train: 210km/h
737: 800km/h

Yep, the bullet train has a plane beat.

That's not even considering planes pretty much take a DIRECT path to their destination, not having to worry about mountains, rivers, lakes, etc...

I'd rather spend $250 for a 5 hour flight to Ontario, than $100 for a 20 hour train ride.

There are other factors involved.
For Europe, flying is often cheaper but taking a train is much more convenient in terms of time - you have much less of a hassle to get to an airport (usually located in fringes of major cities), the time taken at the airport (much much quicker to get on a train), and also much higher comfort.

The Eurostar from London to Paris is usually about $50 each way, and I can make it to the station in minutes, versus taking an hour trip to get to the airport. The train also dumps me smack in the center of Paris 2 hours later.

This is obviously a more ideal example, but the same goes for many major cities anywhere in the world - train stations (assuming the city still has major rail corridors), allows arrival right in the middle whereas airports are at the fringes owing to the need for a larger plot of land.

Considering the route, the mountains/lakes problem is only of note if the route goes over the Rockies, which will make a bullet train impossible - in France or Japan, both the TGV and Shinkansen routes are on flat open terrain - perfect for Vancouver going south, or Edmonton-Calgary, and especially in the East Coast.

I for one give it a thumbs up.

[achiam]

Originally Posted by slammer111

Did you factor in lineups, security, check-in, waiting for luggage, etc?

No need to call anyone a jackass over this. That's really immature considering this is a transportation discussion.

Again:

Time to get to airport = 1 hour and a bit
Getting through customs/luggage at airport = 1 hour and a bit

x2 = 4 hours

Flight from London to Paris (or between any other major world city in Europe) is about 1.5 hours.

Everyone knows the plane will be faster, but factoring other things, it balances out.

[68style]

I was saying years ago they should reconstitute the National Railway and put high-speed trains in across Canada... the impact on local economies for each city would be enormous... there's a mental blockage against taking planes for many people (be it fear or just thinking taking a plane somewhere is too much trouble --> which it is thanks to all the redundancies at airports) that doesn't exist for a train.

I went on the ICE train in Germany... thing hit 390km/h stready and I'm sure it could hit more, they just restricted it... I'm sure a lot of people would opt for a scenic 12hr train trip to Toronto over a 5-6.5hr flight (depending on the type of plane when you factor in getting yourself to the airport, getting your tickets, checking in, going through security, waiting, getting delayed by problems (pretty much guaranteed with Air Canada) and then doing the whole flight thing with recirc air and shit.... I know I would, but I'm also scared of flying to a certain extent lol

[hk20000]

anything south of a 4 hour ride you are better off with a train. That's the rule of the thumb. From Vancouver to Eugene at 320km/h is well under that.

So no a plane is not faster consider that.

[roastpuff]

It's definitely more comfortable than flying in coach... at least you can get up, walk around, get some food at the food car, look out the windows at something besides clouds. No being stuck in your seat because it's just too cramped and difficult to get out and walk around!

[TekDragon]

One thing that no one has brought up yet: Amount of pollution of a train vs airplane. Rail is still extremely economical fuel wise when compared to airplanes and other modes of transportation.