High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto

[ssiguy2]

MrsNesbitt is right...........sometimes you need to destroy something to fix it.

The problem is that in terms of infrastructure in Canada we tend to just let things rot and fixing them usually means nothing more than a Royal Commission which is always due out after the next election. God knows the feds have ruined VIA by the recent cutbacks to service to SW Ontario yet still demanding the trains serve every little dump along the route making London to Toronto a painfully slow option.

Politics is always at work and there will be a lot of politics with this new line. Many will like the line but the screams from the smaller cities like Stratford or Oxford/Brant counties will be deafening. That matters because the vote Conservative federally and Harper controls the purse strings at VIA. With collapsing ridership on the current line east of London there will be major cutbacks. Also raises the point.........will this be part of VIA or will it be double fared for those coming from Windsor/Sarnia? Will it get a VIA subsidy? If the current line is effectively shut down {especially if GO is extended to Brantford which is inevitable} then how does one get from Oak/Bur/Nia/Ham/Brant/Wood to London or any part of South Western Ontario?

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Vegata, I'm a second year urban planning student, I'm well aware of the fact that it quickly fills up and how highway design and demand management works. It doesntnchange the fact that there is still 2x the amount of trips on that road. Sure, its congested just as before (240,000 is also the point at which a highway requires upgrading to a 12 lane setup, not the maximum, which is over 400,000), but it is also carrying twice as many people which means there's less people for the trains to take as a lot of trips can be served by the highway in a better fashion. Without the widening the congestion would require the HSR to be a more viable option.

My only contention with what you said is that the highway will flow freely for 15 years or more after widened. Was this sourced from the province or the MTO? A 12 lane set may have the capacity for 400,000 vehicles AADT, but it won't be flowing freely during the peak hour(s). The sections of the 401 that are at or near to 400,000 are all at least 15 lanes but as anyone who drives on it can attest to that has not prevent congestion from occurring during the peak hour(s). The section of the 401 between Whites Rd. & Liverpool seems comparable to the stretch we're talking about. It's 13 lanes wide, 7 eastbound with an AADT of 210,800(2010). I've witnessed over the last few years that the Eastbound traffic is heavily congested during the afternoon rush. I understand that there are other factors that can effect capacity other than the number of lanes and perhaps they play some role in the congestion seen at that particular point, though surely MTO takes these factors into consideration when designing and subsequently modifying the highway to reduce their impact. Overall it seems to me that the primary reason for that congestion is because that the highway is simply operating near its maximum capacity during the peak period. The situation will be similar for the stretch towards Milton, in that most people will be traveling out of Toronto during the afternoon rush. Hence how I came to the conclusion that based on the projected volumes within a relatively short period of time that stretch will be congestion during the peak hour. But anyways I'll stop here, I'll acknowledge that my assumptions may be incorrect and of course this matter really isn't so significant that it requires a prolonged discussion.

 

[mpd618]

There isn't just induced demand. There's also latent demand - e.g. people taking a different route that would prefer to take whichever stretch of the 401 if it were a bit less full. Induced demand takes years to work through changes in where people live, work, etc., but the latent demand can show up pretty quickly, I think.

 

[Urban Sky]

II: Toronto-London on existing Kitchener route is feasible in 97 minutes at 160 km/h

I actually don't think a lot of Kitchener people will take the route. The reality is that the route will be slowest between Kitchener and Union and if GO RER takes effect then the last stop between Brampton and Union maybe Malton. Considering the significant difference in price and the fact that driving is still a fairly fast option I don't think that portion will get a s much ridership as anticipated.

I agree with you that a HSR train from Toronto to Kitchener with Pearson Airport as only stop would not attract much ridership, especially given the fact that an average speed of 127 km/h (101 kilometers in 48 minutes) is hardly a justification for being called a "HSR service" and even less for being priced like one. Furthermore, if current demand can already justify two peak-time commuter trains in each peak direction with travel times of more than 2 hours, what makes you believe that demand would not multiply if travel time was decreased to 49% (61 minutes limited-stop Regional or "GO REX" service) or even 38% (48 minutes non-stop Express service)?

The reason VIA traffic has fallen from London is due to the cutbacks in service and VIA trains stopping at every little place on the route making it painfully slow. The traffic from London will be higher than anticipated for these reasons.

As for VIA Rail services west of Toronto being (particularly) painfully slow, I think that there are five different factors which determine or constrain travel times and that you don't blame the right one:

• speed limit of rolling stock: 160 km/h (or even 200 km/h in the case of the LRC coaches) would only matter if the track geometry and its condition would allow higher speeds.
  
• acceleration and deceleration capabilities of rolling stock: These are higher with modern DMUs (and especially EMUs) compared to locomotive-hauled coaches, but can be expected to not have a huge negative impact unless stops are as frequent as on commuter rail services.
  
• track geometry/alignment: I argue that a 160 km/h fast one-stop Toronto-Kitchener-London (TKL) Express train could cover the 195.6 kilometers on the existing alignment in less than half (1:36 vs 3:24 hours) of the current minimum travel time for VIA Rail's service on the same route and still half an hour faster than the current minimum travel time (2:07 hours) for the shorter and faster Toronto-Brantford-London (TBL) route:
  
  
  
  
• number and frequency of stops: If I simulate travel times with the speed limits I have attached to this post, a modern multiple units train set could make all current stops (Malton, Brampton, Georgetown, Guelph, Kitchener, Stratford and St Marys) in 1:52 instead of the current 3:24 hours, therefore increasing average speed from 54 to 105 km/h. If I wanted to account for the lower acceleration/deceleration capabilities of VIA Rail's existing rolling stock I could add 1 minute per stop and still end up at exactly 2 hours (i.e. still at least 7 minutes faster than TBL is currently). The number of stops only matters when service speed is high and/or stops are excessively frequent (such as with commuter rail services and especially with the S-Bahnen in Germany which have already been mentioned earlier in this thread). Therefore, this leaves only one factor:
  
• track conditions: As you can see above, I assume that the current TKL is mostly capable of speeds of 160 km/h (I've only included the simulation for 200 km/h to highlight the minimal marginal effect of increased speed) and almost entirely capable of speeds of 120 km/h. Maybe you'll better understand why I would primarily focus on track conditions in order to increase VIA Rail's embarrassing travel speeds on the TKL route, if I tell you that I simulated on Excel that a modern EMU could replicate the current travel times of 3:24 hours (including all current stops) - without ever exceeding 66 km/h (i.e. 41% of the current rolling stock’s maximum allowable speed).

London is close enough to make HSR a viable alternative yet no so close that it would have to compete with GO RER. Also HSR from London would be far quicker for Londoners going to Union than it will be for Kitchener. The real time savings on the route will come from Kitchener to London not Kitchener to Toronto.

You might remember from my previous (first) post that what I am proposing is nothing else than a GO RER Kitchener-Toronto (plus 1 or 2 peak-time non-stop VIA Express services) with travel times which are only 8-14 minutes longer (56-62 minutes, GO RER) or even exactly the same (48 minutes, VIA Express) than what the Provincial government claims as their target travel times with HSR. You are absolutely right, that the only city which would benefit from the liberal's HSR plans (compared to simply upgrading the existing Toronto-Kitchener[-London] line) is London and I therefore challenge you to name me one city in the world with a population of less than half a million for which there has ever been built a 180+ kilometer long HSR link.

Nevertheless, the fact that I suggest to focus on (a 160 km/h) upgrade of the existing Toronto-Kitchener line, does not mean that I think London should be ignored. However, Toronto-Kitchener is only just over half the distance of Toronto-Kitchener-London and allows (unlike Toronto-London, even with HSR) travel times of under one hour for Kitchener as well as for every single intermediary stop, which I think is close to the border of what most people would be willing to commute with a train on a daily. Therefore, any upgrade should start with Toronto-Kitchener as a first step which can (and should) be later extended beyond Kitchener, similar to what I suggest below (compare with Table A2 in my previous post):

Once again: Please let me know if you get lost somewhere in the tables...


Related posts:
I: 48 minutes for Toronto-Kitchener is feasible with existing alignment at 160 km/h!
III: Toronto-London in 93 minutes at 160 km/h on existing Brantford route
IV: Liberals' 23 minutes promisse for HSR Kitchener-London is unrealistic!
V: Toronto-Kitchener-London vs Toronto-Burlington-London
VI: Comparison of acceleration and deceleration values from various sources

 

[muller877]

Very interesting tables. A HSR (express) with 1 intermediary stop will end up in London in 1:40. A current VIA train currently ends up in London in 2:10 (wth 4 intermediary stops...Woostock, Brantford, Aldershot, Oakville).

Would it be more cost-effective to rebuild limited sections of Aldershot to London versus building a whole new line from Kitichener to London? And how much quicker would a high-speed rail be going via Aldershot versus Kitchener?

Where are the bottlenecks in this service and are they more or less than via Kitchener?

 

[innsertnamehere]

HSR will reach London in1:18. 160km/h rail on the Kitchener corridor will make it in 1:40.

 

[ssiguy2]

I think a much improved line using the current corridor will do the trick. The reality is that the route is basically a straight line and one stop at Hamilton would serve more people than a stop at Kitchener and would offer connections to Niagara. The only real advantage I see of the Kitchener corridor is the stop at Pearson which admittedly is a big draw.

I think a far faster, London express would do the trick but probably more importantly it would have a far better chance of actually getting built. It would also allow for a significant upgrade to the extension to Windsor again using the current corridor without needing a transfer at London. They could even run half the trains from London as non-stop without even a stop in Hamilton making the London to Toronto trip even faster and doable in 75 minutes.

Upgrading the current line and new faster rolling stock would be much faster to implement and cheaper. The stop at Pearson would be missed but there are already London to Pearson express buses and by the time you make the transfer at Malton to Pearson and then the transfer from the People Mover to the main terminal, a bus would be just as fast going right to the main terminal.

 

[BMO]

I think a much improved line using the current corridor will do the trick. The reality is that the route is basically a straight line and one stop at Hamilton would serve more people than a stop at Kitchener and would offer connections to Niagara. The only real advantage I see of the Kitchener corridor is the stop at Pearson which admittedly is a big draw.

I think a far faster, London express would do the trick but probably more importantly it would have a far better chance of actually getting built. It would also allow for a significant upgrade to the extension to Windsor again using the current corridor without needing a transfer at London. They could even run half the trains from London as non-stop without even a stop in Hamilton making the London to Toronto trip even faster and doable in 75 minutes.

Upgrading the current line and new faster rolling stock would be much faster to implement and cheaper. The stop at Pearson would be missed but there are already London to Pearson express buses and by the time you make the transfer at Malton to Pearson and then the transfer from the People Mover to the main terminal, a bus would be just as fast going right to the main terminal.

The line is about more than just serving the most people. A lot of tech companies out in Waterloo Region are demanding some form of higher order transit between it and Toronto before they devote resources to building offices there, or even keeping existing ones. I can't speak to the demand, etc but I would have to imagine there are a number of people that commute from WR to London and vice-versa, and it's likely higher than London-Hamilton/ Hamilton-London which would mean a London-Toronto train via Hamilton is really just serving that London-Toronto trip primarily which I doubt there's enough demand for.

 

[muller877]

The line is about more than just serving the most people. A lot of tech companies out in Waterloo Region are demanding some form of higher order transit between it and Toronto before they devote resources to building offices there, or even keeping existing ones. I can't speak to the demand, etc but I would have to imagine there are a number of people that commute from WR to London and vice-versa, and it's likely higher than London-Hamilton/ Hamilton-London which would mean a London-Toronto train via Hamilton is really just serving that London-Toronto trip primarily which I doubt there's enough demand for.

What I am wondering is not to cancel the Waterloo HSR....it's to keep that but CANCEL the Waterloo to London. Instead, have a large track upgrade from Toronto to London via Hamilton. The benefits I can immediatly see are:
- cost. An expansion of track is cheaper than a whole new ROW (at least IMO...I hope someone who is more knowledgable can provide some insight)
- Increased Usage. The new ROW will not go through any city/town and hence no stops from Kitchener to London (other then commuter parking lots) which does not help demand. The existing ROW will go through Brantford, Woodstock, etc which will allow for increased service to these cities (yes, they are legally cities)
- Lakeshore West service. By integtating higher speed service into Lakeshore West it creates the infrastructure for commuter service out to St Catherines. Say a 6 car EMU comes in from St Catherines and another 6 car one comes from Brantford or Woostock each with intermediary stops. At Altershot they join and then go express into Union. This maximizes capacity at Union and gives these communities commuter train access.

 

[TOareaFan]

How necessary is the HSR to KW anyway?

If we understand the current thinking on RER correctly, KW will have electric trains every 15 minutes stopping only until Mt Pleasant and then proceeding express to Union. Doesn't that cut the commute time a lot from what it is now? Does that not serve the two way traffic we are told there is between Toronto and KW? How many people are there doing this that would not be served by RER? Is that number enough to justify another service?

 

[ehlow]

How necessary is the HSR to KW anyway?

If we understand the current thinking on RER correctly, KW will have electric trains every 15 minutes stopping only until Mt Pleasant and then proceeding express to Union. Doesn't that cut the commute time a lot from what it is now? Does that not serve the two way traffic we are told there is between Toronto and KW? How many people are there doing this that would not be served by RER? Is that number enough to justify another service?

Yes, I'd like them to focus on continuing to incrementally add service, add & upgrade tracks, reducing travel time. At least get hourly service both ways going first.

 

[innsertnamehere]

THats the plan, 5-6 years for AD2W, 10 for HSR.

 

[ehlow]

THats the plan, 5-6 years for AD2W, 10 for HSR.

Great. Hopefully at the December Metrolinx Board Meeting there will be a timeline of incremental improvements and the public is kept informed of progress being made.

 

[TOareaFan]

THats the plan, 5-6 years for AD2W, 10 for HSR.

You have obviously seen more recent "plans" than I have.....the last I heard from the province both had the "within 10 years" tag applied.

 

[reaperexpress]

How necessary is the HSR to KW anyway?

If we understand the current thinking on RER correctly, KW will have electric trains every 15 minutes stopping only until Mt Pleasant and then proceeding express to Union. Doesn't that cut the commute time a lot from what it is now? Does that not serve the two way traffic we are told there is between Toronto and KW? How many people are there doing this that would not be served by RER? Is that number enough to justify another service?

I think/hope that in the end, the ideas of RER and HSR will merge into one, likely when the government gets a good look at their respective pricetags. The end result would be to upgrade the line to speeds of up to 110 mph(177 km/h).

I'd also like to see GO change its thinking away from the "everyone wants to go to Union" mentality that they've always had. The sectional-express stopping pattern (all-stops to Mt. P, non-stop to Union) works well for people heading to Union, but the absence of other stops in the GTA makes it very inconvenient for countless other trips, and making all stops beyond Mount Pleasant makes non-GTA trips unnecessarily slow.

A more region-friendly stopping pattern would be limited-express, making roughly the same stops as VIA currently, plus a connection to Pearson. VIA, in turn, could move away from Regional Rail toward Intercity Rail (i.e HSR), dropping the stop in Georgetown as well as possibly Guelph and/or Brampton.