It's surely a lovely little town full of interesting things, but alas one that most of us will never visit because we don't want to fire up the car to drive to a smaller city six hours north.
Alas, we are Chicoutimi to the northeast megalopolis, which is the most important place in the world.
Though only 600 clicks down the road, travel between New York and Montreal is currently painful.
One must strap in and drive a tedious and arduous six hours. It's long and tiring. You've got to figure out how to get by the border guard, not run out of gas, not slide off a mountainside in a storm, not fall asleep at the wheel, and so forth.
The alternative? An 11-hour train ride that stops at the border for over an hour and every small town along the way.
The obvious solution? Build a high speed rail line between Montreal and New York.
Now would be a great time to do it, as money has been allocated in the States for just that thing in the 2009 stimulus package.
Connecting Montreal to New York by high speed rail would generate something like 500,000 - 700,000 trips a year, which would be great for tourism, it get us out of our bubble and put us in the megalopolis loop and put us on the map for cities that haven't heard of us since we lost the Expos.
A Montreal - Big Apple HSR link would be our Chunnel.
It would be massively transformative and would do us limitless good.
Once built, the idea of not having it would seem pathetically barbaric.
The proposed route involves three sections. The southernmost section is New York City - Albany and it's already equipped with some pretty high-standard railway lines and further improvements could easily be greenlighted by American authorities.
The issue is what happens between Albany and the border, ie: the Albany-to-Rouses Point section.
There's insuffiicient critical mass for the Yanks to justify building high speed rail through that part of the country and that's quite a distance. (Although the Americans could probably be convinced to extend HSR from NYC to say, Saratoga, still a signigicant town beyond Albany).
The third section from Montreal to the border would be easy and relatively cheap to do.
So the issue would be to somehow get that tricky Albany-Rouses Point section built and that's the dealbreaker right now.
Here's what I propose: we drop our conservative naysaying and take some of the cash we put aside for needlessly grandiose projects like the new Champlain Bridge and or the Turcot rebuild, both of those local road structures could be patched up and repaired for much less.
We then tell the USA that we'd be willing to put up maybe a billion or two to build that section of the railway (perhaps even with our own workers) if they'd in turn commit to buying trains from Bombardier once it's built.
We would then be able to get to New York in something like four hours rather than the almost 12 hours it currently takes.
And of course New York will likely be hooking up soon enough with other sections of the heavily-populated east coast via fast train, so travelling from Montreal to Washington or Philadelphia would be an easy and fast task.
The MTL to NYC high speed train idea would be brilliant as would a Quebec City-MTL-TO high speed train. Unfortunately the powers at be in Ottawa and perhaps at the provincial level as well over the past 25 years have displayed a total lack of grand vision. Canada is the only country in the Western world without a high speed system. Even Russia has a great system between Moscow and St. Petersburg (when not getting blown up by terrorists), and we put along with 1950's technology. Hell, there were trains in Europe 60 years ago faster than our VIA trains. Since Bombardier makes many of the high speed trains for China, Europe and the NYC to Washington DC route, I always wondered why they never pressured/lobbied our governments to initiate high speed development. It will not happen under helmet haired Harper who would rather allocate 545-100 billion for fighter jets. Robert
ReplyDeleteNever under-estimated sheer force of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThe mentioned H S T would be lovely-if only people were more so.
Although I like the idea of being able to easily get to NY for the weekend, I'm not so crazy about trainloads of New Yorkers being deposited downtown. Not sure they would come anyway. What exactly does Montreal have to offer someone who lives in NY City?
ReplyDeleteI think a high speed link to Toronto would be better for the city.
Maybe that would give the government enough momentum to build that HSR to Mirabel.
ReplyDeleteSuch dreams are not new, of course.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of running high speed trains from Quebec City to Toronto seemed closer to reality when the the Turbo Train was placed in service in the late 60s, but technical difficulties and harsh winter conditions eventually brought it to a grinding halt. But even with today's latest rail technology, resurgent threats of Quebec separatism have surely given politicians pause on both sides of the border as well. Smart money avoids uncertainty.
High speed inter-urban railway proposals had been envisioned within the U.S. itself for over 100 years before they finally became reality to the still-limited degree they are today, but political wranglings and the inevitable trend toward automobile ownership pretty much changed American priorities once the General Motors "Futurama" pavilion at the 1939 New York World's Fair cleverly outlined a nationwide network of interstate highways, thus setting the trend toward individual mobility. Passenger railways lost their lustre and never really recovered afterwards.
Then there have been the expected differences in opinion and policy between Canada and the U.S. over past mega-projects such as the St. Lawrence Seaway which began as far back as the 1930s. It was only in when Canada seriously planned to go it alone that the U.S. finally agreed to join in and the seaway was completed in 1959. And who can forget the Trans-Canada Pipeline controversy with all of the indecision whether or not to take a short-cut through the U.S. or strictly through Canadian territory?
Today, as we all know, the U.S. continues to stall on the latest Albert-Texas pipeline plan, although it looks as if it will finally come to fruition.
Frankly, I cannot see any U.S. government investing in such an expensive high-speed railway into Canada before it connects up all of its own major cities first--if that ever happens--and given our boom and bust economies, who knows when conditions could ever be perfect again for such an international linkup?
For one thing, the fact that so much commerce can now be conducted over the internet reduces the need for business travel. Would there really be enough tourist traffic to justify the expense? Not to forget that clearing customs will still be a necessity requiring delays.
It is entirely possible, however, that by the end of this century some sort of mag-lev network of the kind currently operating in China will be in place between major North American cities. Perhaps we will have mastered inexpensive and reliable solar-power or perhaps nuclear fusion to drive such networks, but surely by then solar-powered automobiles will have completely replaced battery-driven vehicles. Internal combustion engines will be on display in museums, gawked at by school-children--as are steam locomotives today.
Such a project would be an endless money sinkhole, would enrichen the mob like never before, and would take 80 years to complete.
ReplyDelete"needlessly grandiose projects like the new Champlain Bridge and or the Turcot rebuild, both of those local road structures could be patched up and repaired for much less."
I'm guessing you haven't you used or looked at these structures recently?
How about reviving the Montreal-Utica (NY) monorail discussion?
ReplyDeletehttp://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19661208&id=KJUtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4p8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5305,1721042
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19660602&id=1qgtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uJ8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6917,240132
And reactions from the other end of the line:
http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper4/Amsterdam%20NY%20Daily%20Democrat%20and%20Recorder/Amsterdam%20NY%20Daily%20Democrat%20and%20Recorder%201966%20Nov-Dec%20Grayscale/Amsterdam%20NY%20Daily%20Democrat%20and%20Recorder%201966%20Nov-Dec%20Grayscale%20-%200283.pdf
And front-page news in Utica:
http://www.fultonhistory.com/Process%20small/Newspapers/Utica%20NY%20Daily%20Press/Utica%20NY%20Daily%20Press%201966%20pdf/Utica%20NY%20Daily%20Press%201966%20-%201590.pdf
I would be happy if, like on the West Coast, customs officials boarded the train and checked ID while in transit.
ReplyDelete-Kevin
As Urban Legend points out, when the U.S. Government started financing the Interstate Highway system 90% to the states' 10% contribution, passenger train travel took a nose dive. This was in spite of the fact most trains of the late 1940s and 1950s were some of the fastest and most luxurious of their day. Most people wanted the individual freedom of a car.
ReplyDeleteBefore Interstate 87 was finished to the Canadian border in the 1960s, a trip to New York was a long tedious drive on the old Highway 9 and its variants until you got to Albany and south where the New York State Thruway was already finished.
The fastest trains were on the Delaware and Hudson Railroad via Plattsburgh and Whitehall. The trains would connect with New York Central trains in either Troy or Albany for the last leg of their trip to New York City. They did the trip in approximately nine hours and almost faster than by car. Customs and immigration inspections were done while the trains were travelling between Rouses Point and Montreal.
You had plenty of other choices to New York City by train. As late as the early 1950s, you could still take a day or night train on the Rutland Railroad via Burlington, Vermont. You could also take a New York Central Railroad local that went by way of Utica, New York. There was also the day and night trains by way of Essex Junction, Montpelier and Springfield, jointly operated by CN, the Central Vermont, Boston & Maine, New York, New Haven & Hartford and Pennsylvania Railroads.
They were all gradually discontinued until by 1971 only the Delaware & Hudson was left. When Amtrak was created by the U.S. Government in 1971 to take over a skeleton system of passenger trains from the railroads, Montreal lost its New York train. Most government officials hoped the remaining passenger trains would quietly fade away. They didn't.
A gas crisis, overcrowded highways and airports made people take a second look. Amtrak reinstated a Montreal - New York overnight train in 1972 on the Vermont route.
In 1974, the day train on the D&H was reinstated. The Vermont train however is gone again, truncated at St. Albans because Amtrak could't agree with CN on costs to run its short portion through Canada to Central Station.
The day train today is hampered by a route built in the late 19th century along the cliffs of Lake Champlain - beautiful but slow. Customs and immigration inspections are done the same as for cars - the train sits at the border while everyone's documents and luggage are inspected.
There is hope though. Several New York and Vermont politicians are trying to get customs and immigration procedures to be done at Central Station instead of holding the train at the border (often for up to two hours) so the trip time could be shortened. There are also ongoing talks to once again have the train now terminating at St. Albans to continue to Montreal.
But a high speed line to New York? Although I would love one, I have my doubts. There is more of a need for a dedicatd high speed line to Toronto and not much is happening there besides agonizingly incremental improvements.
Canada tried 45 years ago to have high speed rail. Alas, it was nixed by the canadian inferiority complex that wanted to imitate the americans and their air service that is now nearly bankrupt and costs billions of taxpayers dollars to be kept afloat.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Montréal_New-York high speed rail, the problem north of Albany is the mountains; it would be very expensive to build a brand-new high-speed rail line through the Adirondacks.
It is likely that the best bet for a high speed line would be to (alas) pass through Toronto, or, more reasonably, through Boston.
Lastly, monorails are simply not a solution. If they were so good, they would be all over the place, but they suffer from a very bad problem.
the main problem not mentioned in this discussion is that high-speed trains in Europe are much lighter in weight and have always been even before the TGV type dedicated tracks. The train system safety measures rely more on accurate communications/signaling systems, where in North America the standards ask for massively heavy locomotives and train cars as a protection in accidents. High speed trains like airplanes, gain their speed versus their power ratio by focusing on weight reduction. Something North American culture is not know to be its forte. So even if some existing tracks could allow new high speed designs (maybe not TGV level) they would not be allowed to go maximum speed. And winter weather is another story... Robert
ReplyDeleteThere are many factors why we don't have very high-speed trains (over 125 mph).
ReplyDeleteThe first is probably that passenger services in North America were for the most part provided by "for profit" private companies right up until 1971 in the United States and 1978 in Canada. Even the then Government-owned CN was mandated to operate like a private company, which they are today.
In Europe, most of the railways were state-owned especially after World War II. After the war, most European countries decided to finance the rebuilding of their devastated lines into efficient transportation links. Most European countries looked upon the total costs of providing fast rail transportation as ultimately more cost-effective than highways or airports.
In North America, we chose to build highways and airports with our tax dollars. North American railroads took note and decided not to invest in what they saw as a money-losing business. Research and development in new passenger train technology essentially ended while the Europeans and others went in the opposite direction.
With the exception of a very limited areas, North America is also far less densely populated than almost anywhere in Europe and that was yet another reason.
North American railroads concentrated on freight. Until tariff deregulation in the U.S. they almost lost that market too except for bulk commodities. Railroad cars kept getting heavier for the same reason as trucks — to carry more at less cost. European freight cars are puny by comparison.
Weight of trains is only a factor in the sense that North Americans can’t buy “off the shelf” European or Japanese passenger trains. As our passenger trains have to share the tracks with heavy freight trains, much higher collision survivability standards here mean much heavier passenger trains. That means we have to design ours from the ground up making for a longer time before a train design goes from the drawing board to regular service. It also costs a lot more because you are not buying a standard design but developing a whole new one.
That’s also why over the years we’ve ended up with hurried designs of everything from GM’s Aerotrain of the 1950s to United Aircraft’s Turbo Train of the 1960s to Dofasco/MLW’s LRC (Light Rapid Comfortable) of the 1970s. None of them worked well enough and they were expensive to maintain and operate. Even the LRC cars used today by VIA in the Quebec City — Windsor corridor are used simply as ordinary passenger cars pulled by a regular locomotive instead of the original “high speed” (and not “very high speed”) locomotive.
Yes the Europeans and Japanese concentrate on making sure their trains don’t collide in the first place instead of building equipment to survive a collision. But installing that kind of technology is easier when you have a relatively short route with frequent passenger service and little freight service or freight service that is restricted to certain hours. Automatic train stop technology is slowly being introduced to North America but it will be a long and expensive process on a network with relatively very few passenger trains.
Until we start building dedicated passenger rail lines with no level crossings, very high speed trains (over 125 mph) are just not feasible in North America. (Even in the Northeast “high speed” corridor from Boston to Washington, trains barely hit 125 mph on short stretches). Various governments also have to step in with funding. Even a small percentage of what is spent on roads and highways would make a huge difference. Even as an enthusiastic proponent, I’m not betting on it happening.
After my skepticism near the end of my last comment, some may say "but what about California?"
ReplyDeleteYes Californians have agreed to build a "very high speed" route connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles. The project is still very much in the planning stages and there are huge hurdles still ahead. Some of the route will require extensive property expropriations and environmental studies.
I'll believe it when they actually start laying track for a dedicated 125 mph plus passenger route and not a temporary "we'll upgrade it in the future for 125 mph plus service" route.
@JM - That is well explained and elucidates the differences between here and Europe. Unfortunately it is accurate I believe, which means seeing 125+ high-speed trains will not be anytime soon. It makes sense the BOS-NY-WASH (Boston-Washington DC) corridor can potentially support the Acela train. It certainly has a population equaling some areas of Europe and more than Paris-Lyons or Marseille which the TGV serves both around 400-600 miles apart. Robert
ReplyDeleteMonorails have apparently not been dismissed as an alternative means of public transport. See:
ReplyDeletehttp://au.news.yahoo.com/video/national/watch/bca7a118-2c5a-381b-8bee-c9b804f38fdc/monorail-suggested-as-traffic-solution/
Although the Seattle monorail has come in for some considerable political debate in recent years, it is still popular.
Vancouver's SkyTrain--although not strictly the traditional-type monorail--is ideal for their mild west coast climate.
Anyone in need of a good belly-laugh regarding the ill-fated Mirabel high-speed rail proposal should read this archive (with map) from the Gazette of March 27, 1974, page 1:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19740327&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
Today in 2014 we are STILL waiting for the Montreal-Dorval Airport rail line talked about since the 1960s.
Perhaps in some alternate universe?