Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa
There is also no point in having a discussion if we blindly accept projections either, particularly given how little information they have put out. They haven't even publicly identified their proposed routes through major urban centres yet. The cost estimates seem to assume limited major engineering interventions are necessary (tunnels, etc) and mostly what is needed is updated track, fencing, a few new stations, etc). The time estimates seem to suggest one of the highest ratios of average speed to top speed of any rail system in the world, which suggest major interventions are involved to keep the speed up in challenging geographic areas or urban areas. Maybe Via rail has an elegant solution to reconcile these to seemingly irreconcilable facts, but as they have released little information about this project it is hard to be certain of that.
|
I was skeptical until several posters at Urban Toronto went mile by mile along the proposed to look at the kind of turning radii needed and what kind of straightening is required to achieve the proposed speeds. Long story short, it's not as unbelievable as you'd think. Namely because there's a large stretch without any stops between Peterborough and Smiths Falls.
If amateur math can get into the ballpark, I would pros can do better. Do I expect the times will be exactly as pledged? No. But if they are anywhere close, the impact will be substantial.
On the meta topic, what's the point of having circular discussions on how more investment is needed, if we're simply going to decide that nothing is believable at all? That too about the largest intercity passenger rail investment ever. If this isn't believable, we can also write off analysis on any other project being advocated for here. It'll all be the same folks doing the same analysis (in this case outside engineers hired by VIA and the CIB).
Threaded Mode