TGV - Liaison Montréal - New-York

[monctezuma]

Montréal en anglais, c'est MTR ? Je croyais que le MTL était bon autant en anglais qu'en français...

[Cyrus]

MTR? Je n'ai jamais entendu ca de ma vie...

[jesseps]

Gulf to spend $100 bln on rail

 

The six oil and gas producers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) seek to create a similar model to Europe's high-speed rail system, with plans to extend the estimated 1,940 kilometre network even to Yemen in the South of the Arabian peninsula and link it by 2017.

 

(Courtesy of iol.co.za)

 

They plan on doing a high speed rail network in 6 years. Yet it is going to take the US / Canada 49 plus years.

[Cyrus]

Gulf to spend $100 bln on rail

 

 

 

(Courtesy of iol.co.za)

 

They plan on doing a high speed rail network in 6 years. Yet it is going to take the US / Canada 49 plus years.

 

They have more money than things to spend money on, we have the exact opposite

[jesseps]

Quebec’s point men charged with advocating a high-speed link from Montreal to Boston and New York City stopped short of declaring victory after Tuesday’s announcement of Washington’s plan for a six-year, $53-billion (U.S.) rail network.

 

But Raymond Chrétien and John Parisella called the infrastructure plan “big news,” “a strong commitment,” and “a legacy event” akin to the interstate system in the 1950s and 1960s and the moon-landing program.

 

Parisella, Quebec’s delegate-general in New York City, said from Washington, D.C., that in spite of a tough fight ahead in Congress over the plan, “the big news today is that the government has a six-year plan, not just throwing money at some undefined thing.”

 

At meetings with Department of Transport officials yesterday, Parisella said the encouraging thing was that “the view that Montreal should be included in a high-speed corridor was not just our view, but theirs as well.”

 

“Clearly, Montreal is on their radar screen as a destination from Boston and New York.”

 

Talks have progressed to the point of whether passengers could pre-clear customs at Montreal’s Central Station to avoid the hour-and-a-half wait at the border on the Adirondack, which takes 11 hours to cover the 570 kilometres.

 

In an interview from New Zealand, Chrétien, formerly Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., said that “for me, this is a significant announcement, an indication of a strong commitment.”

 

Chrétien, who was charged by Quebec Transport Minister Julie Boulet to promote a fast rail link in New York and New England between Montreal and Boston and New York City, said he was particularly pleased by President Barack Obama’s recent state of the union speech in which he singled out the necessity to rebuild the U.S. rail system, including high-speed corridors.

 

But Chrétien agreed that the political battle over the plan will be rough.

 

“It will be very interesting to see the collision course between the plans and the hard financial situation of most states. Most of them are facing huge deficits, and that remains the biggest stumbling block.”

 

The immediate test, said Chrétien, is the Florida project placed under review by newly-elected governor Rick Scott.

 

“Bombardier (Inc.), Alstom (SA) and Siemens (AG) are all there. But to me, I think the real test is the northeast corridor. It’s vastly populated with many more points to link up.”

 

He said that “a series of important events are to come” concerning the Montreal link, including a meeting of transportation secretaries of several states and a March meeting Chrétien has planned with Vermont officials to discuss reviving the Vermonter train that calls in Montreal.

 

“Everything is moving along – slowly – but now we’re dealing with concrete plans. The states will have to get their acts together.”

 

Bombardier Transportation’s U.S. spokesperson Maryanne Roberts said from Washington that “any investment in rail is great for Bombardier. So this is good news.”

 

Bombardier builds a variety of rail systems, from subways to high-speed, which puts the company in a good bidding position – especially since the Acela, the only higher-speed system in the U.S., is a success and was built by Bombardier.

 

Roberts said that the plan to spend $4 billion to improve the U.S. rail infrastucture first could also benefit her firm, which offers signalling and other services.

 

Parisella also conceded that a rocky road faces the ambitious plan, “but I think it’s going to happen. Not overnight, but it will stand in the U.S. – maybe in 20 years.”

 

That may seem a long time, he admitted, but noted that the interstate system announced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s was not completed until after his death in the 1970s.

 

“That’s what a president does – and this is President Obama’s legacy event.”

 

(Courtesy of The Montreal Gazette)

[LindbergMTL]

Dans le contexte actuel de grandes batailles épiques sur les coupures budgétaires à venir, la seule chose qui peut sauver le TGV chez l'oncle Sam c'est la perception que cette infrastructure sera un stimulant.

[Habsfan]

I'll probably be dead by the time this things sees the light of day!

[jesseps]

I'll probably be dead by the time this things sees the light of day!

 

That is quite possible, the GOP will pretty much fight this. I might never even see this either. What is funny, if the US did not go to war with Iraq. This might have been completed already.

[pedepy]

Je sais pas comment les reseaux se batissent en Asie ou en Europe, mais chaque fois que j'entends parler de TGV je pense au vieux probleme de la construction des lignes de metro souterraines par des compagnies privees. Quand New York avait un reseau operer presque entierement par le prive, aucune d'entre elle ne semblait vouloir etre la premiere a risquer l'investissement couteux de creuser la sol pour y faire circuler ses trains, meme si cet investissement pouvait s'averer tres fructueux. En gros, le prix a payer pour implanter l'infrastructure semblait trop eleve pour de l'argent prive. Ca semble etre un peu le meme probleme avec un reseau de TGV; qu'on soit pour ou contre le principe qu'un gouvernement se charge de regler la note pour construction d'infrastructures, il y a juste des investissements que le prive ne fera jamais. Alors si les americains veulent leur reseau a grande vitesse, ce sera aux frais des contribuables, que les republicains soient d'accord ou pas. Ce n'est pas une question de "principe", c'est une question de logique.

[Vaillant]

I'll probably be dead by the time this things sees the light of day!

 

are you that old???