Comments on: Connecting Montréal to the American Rail Network

By: Matt Fisher

Matt Fisher — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:57:07 +0000

By the way, I should add that I believe both the route from Montreal to New York and the one from Montreal to Boston make sense. I've been wanting to go to New York for a long time, but have never gotten around to doing it. I have, however, been in Upstate NY myself. And in my earlier comment, if Prince Edward Island had kept the trains, they could have made the Confederation Bridge, which opened in 1997 (linking P.E.I. to Canada's mainland for the first time), a combined rail/road bridge.

By: Matt Fisher

Matt Fisher — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:34:47 +0000

That same sort of rail to trail initiative happened in Newfoundland and Labrador after the Newfoundland Railway was closed in 1988, when I was one year old. Thank you very much, Prime Minister Mulroney. This was also the same in Prince Edward Island, as well as some rail lines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (for example, Frederiction, NB, the province's capital, has no rail lines anymore, and neither does in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia, west of Halifax).

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:09:13 +0000

ultimately, any HSR or high-performance rail network will have to run through every congressional district to be fully realized. that’s what happened with the interstates, so not sure why we should expect the politics to be any different.

By: Froggie

Froggie — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:20:21 +0000

Adirondacker: not really. There’s some small mountain between Hoosic and Bennington, but the line between Bennington and Rutland runs in a valley (along with US Route 7) between the mountains.

I like the concept of an Albany-Montreal line that dips into western Vermont. Especially given that Vermont is pretty progressive when it comes to alternative transportation (for starters, they’re the ones mainly funding Amtrak’s Vermonter).

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:23:59 +0000

400,000 riders a year is nothing in HSR terms. In Japan the small intermediate cities generate 2-3 million riders a year each. The only reason the route through Maine was designated as an HSR route was to make Snowe and Collins happy.

Border inspections don’t have to take hours. Amtrak Cascades does border controls in Vancouver, with passengers boarding and alighting the train via a special fenced platform. This makes border control much more efficient, much like on US-Canada flights, where it takes 20 minutes rather than an hour.

By: Adirondacker

Adirondacker — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:15:58 +0000

You should spec out the “Montreal-NY route via Rutland”. That seems the best by a long shot. No current pasenger rail service, but the route Vermont is trying to reinstate runs Albany-Hoosic-North Bennington-Manchester-Rutland-Burlington-Essex Junction-St Albans-Swanton and the continuation would be Cantic and Montreal

There’s a lot of mountain between Hoosic and Rutland. The route between Albany and Whitehall is relatively flat. North of Whitehall or Rutland ….. there’s lots of mountains… No matter where they go there’s going to be lots of fill, viaduct and tunnel. If your goal s Montreal to NYC the cheapest route is probably through Saratoga Springs, Fort Edward ( Glens Falls ) and Whitehall.

By: F. Bruce Sleeper, Trainriderrs Northeast

F. Bruce Sleeper, Trainriderrs Northeast — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:11:13 +0000

Most of this discussion ignores the line from Boston through Portland (the Downeaster route), and then up to Montreal through Auburn, Bethel, and northern New Hampshire. That route has already been designated as a high speed rail corridor through to Auburn, Maine and is a natural extension of the ever successful Downeaster service. About 10 years ago, Maine’s DOT studied the route and concluded that it would generate about 400,000 passengers a year. Maine’s unique connections with Canada (Maine’s largest ethnic group are Franco-Americans who came from there) makes it a natural. One other item has not been mentioned and that is the time required for border inspections. Traveling at 110 miles per hour or more looks pretty good until you spend almost two hours or more hours sitting in an unmoving train waiting to cross the border.

By: Nathaanel Nerode

Nathaanel Nerode — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:50:32 +0000

Perhaps the easiest solution to overcoming the political imbalance between the two routes is to make Montreal-Albany and Boston-Albany one project: Montreal-Boston-Albany, allowing passengers to transfer at Albany to Boston, or, if demand was sufficient, to create through-service. That would reduce travel times to Boston from Montreal from 6h30 to something closer to 3.5 hours.

It wouldn’t have the power of three states, but New York and Massachusetts together should be sufficient, especially with the better strategic transportation argument on their side.

Actually, given that the best Albany-Montreal route is the one through Rutland and Burlington, it would have the support of three states: Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. Sorry, New Hampshire.

By: Nathaanel Nerode

Nathaanel Nerode — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:44:43 +0000

Slightly longer than the west of Lake Champlain line, but hits more population centers and the ROW has better geometry.

By: Christopher Parker

Christopher Parker — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:37:16 +0000

A New York – Albany – Montreal route should run via Rutland and Burlington, rather than up the pretty but curvy former D&H RR on the shore of Lake Champlain. The former Rutland Railroad route is straight and serves more population. It would be a better foundation for a 110mph or higher operation.

Here is the link to the study on Montreal – Boston “high speed” (110mph) service:
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/Planning/BostonRail.htm