Comments on: Stopping the Wrong Project Before it Happens

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:49:53 +0000

The Boston-Montreal bit on the map is New Hampshire and Vermont trying to hog federal funds. The Quebecois want NY-Montreal.

The federal focus in Canada is on performing more and more studies about connecting Montreal and Toronto, but in Montreal they have a separate effort to connect Montreal to NYC. Toronto-Montreal cements Toronto’s status as the leading city and Montreal’s as the second city; Montreal-NYC gives the ribbon cutters of Montreal something to brag about independently.

By: aw

aw — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:36:04 +0000

Montreal is still quite a long way from the end of the NYC-Albany route. In addition, NYC-Buffalo includes all of the NYC-Albany route, so it makes sense that it would have lower ridership end to end.

Montreal as a destination helps to fluff up the Albany-Springfield MA corridor, while Toronto as a destination helps Chicago-Cleveland-Buffalo. Which would NY state prefer to have happen?

By: John W

John W — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:48:31 +0000

It could also have something to do with likely border formalities. For HSR, both Vancouver and Montreal would be linked to the US border without intermediate stops. In the case of Toronto, there’d be a number of stops before the border (though then again, there’s no reason HSR trains would have to stop at intermediate stops). It might also be that a line from Toronto to the US border would be a branch line from the main Corridor route, whereas the sole purpose of the lines running south from Vancouver and Montreal would be to link to destinations in the US.

@Alon – not sure how Canadian political attitudes would factor in to the FRA’s decisions. In any event, the focus in Canada is much more about connecting Canadian cities to each other. The Montreal-US link keeps getting mooted while study after study goes nowhere on upgrading the Corridor service. There’s also some of the chip on the shoulder thing but the main reason for Montreal would be economic – increasing tourism and trade with Boston and NYC, which is a huge population. And some historical reasons as well – after all, they spent a load of money on the Victoria Bridge in the mid-19th century to link to Portland, ME.

By: Akiva

Akiva — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:23:02 +0000

In response to why Toronto isnt included, could be because Montreal is at the end of the popular Nyc-Albany route as opposed to Toronto is at th end of the less-used Nyc-Buffalo route

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:20:57 +0000

It’s 100% lack of political concern – connecting Toronto to New York is easier than connecting Montreal, as would be confirmed by looking at a topographic map. The reason Montreal is so gung ho about HSR to New York is that it lost its financial base once Toronto became larger, and is trying to use a megaproject to get back. Toronto doesn’t care, because there’s no prestige for it in an HSR connection.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:31:52 +0000

Nobody rides AMTRAK to or from DTW now, they have six trains a day and have had them for decades.

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/MICHIGAN10.pdf

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:38:40 +0000

Does anyone know why Toronto is not linked in to the FRA system, while Montreal and Vancouver are? The Cascadia route and Montreal-Albany or Montreal-Boston may provide more direct connections to major US cities, but Toronto is much larger than Montreal and Vancouver. In fact, Toronto is the 4th largest urban area in North America, and yet still somehow falls off the map.

The Province of Quebec has been proactively working with their American partners to get the connection to Montreal. Is the Province of Ontario waiting for HSR to Buffalo or up to Montreal to connect to the system? Why are they not working proactively like Quebec? Is there a technical issue I’m missing, or is this just a case of lack of political leadership?

By: Brandon

Brandon — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:16:39 +0000

Ive been of the opinion for a long time that the California HSR should build the Sacramento to San Francisco route first. Its the only route with real proven ridership, presently one of the top lines in the country. If you could get there in 1/3 to 1/2 the time, it wouldnt make sense to drive. It would change everything. The SF to LA route on the other hand will have a tough time competing with shuttle flights, though i sure as hell would ride it.

By: Ocean Railroader

Ocean Railroader — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 02:33:18 +0000

I think at this point any new high speed rail line will have to follow one of the older rail beds that where closed down or rail lines owned by fright railroads do to the fact that clearing a new path would be impossible with all the studies that would have to be done and everyone owning a lawyer or getting mad at the rail line in general.

In China their goverment draws a line on a map and no mater who or what is in the way they go right though it.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:33:54 +0000

I’m with Yonah on this one. Bostonians might believe they are at the Hub of the Universe, but but a hub focused on NYC makes more sense and more connections…

Boston and Montreal would be better served by each getting a 180mph route to Albany (an L shaped route…with service onward to ROC, NYC and PHL) than trying to build a Delta-shaped route at 110mph.