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

[steveintoronto]

OK, now I'm confused.

I have read it was $3 billion for a direct Toronto-Montreal link, or $4 billion if electrified. Ridership would be 7 million in 15 years.

I am now reading there is a plan for a $4 billion Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec link, or $6 billion if electrified, but with ridership at 10 million in less than 15 years.

I had assumed these were different, but are they actually the same thing? Or has a Toronto-Montreal dedicated plan been scrapped? If it does have to go through Ottawa, would there be an express train that bypasses the Ottawa stop, to shave 20+ minutes off the trip?

The cost estimate has increased. I meant to state $3.2B for RoW for Mont/Ott/Tor.

The cost: Via sets the price tag at $4 billion. This includes $2 billion for rail infrastructure, $1 billion for rolling stock and $1 billion to electrify the corridor.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ew-trains-frequent-service-to-woo-riders.html

VIA's website now states (and there was some confusion on this in the VIA string). The following includes Quebec City:

http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/HFR_Info_EN.pdf

Any and all figures are open to interpretation, but the RoW costs are considerably less for the Ottawa route than a lakeshore one, for varying reasons, not the least an extant RoW that needs no EA. Rolling stock of course, would also be much cheaper.

There's an unavoidable overlap with the VIA string at this point:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/via-rail.21060/page-157

So the minutia of costs might be better compared there, as the readers are more rail-oriented, and less political (in a relative sense!)

 

[steveintoronto]

To fit the text limit, I have to post this separately from above. It's the Parliament of Canada research publication on VIA and HSR: (truncated)

[...]
5 Some observations on VIA Rail's future
VIA Rail's current level of operational subsidies is only enough to maintain the present level of passenger rail service. Capital funding is intermittent and is used largely to repair and refurbish existing rolling stock and installations, not to significantly upgrade the passenger rail system.

Despite unpredictable government subsidies, VIA Rail has managed over the years to stabilize its annual ridership volume. It has also achieved some success in improving its operational efficiency and in managing its contractual obligations with CNR and CPR. These efforts, however, have not been enough to realize profitability.11 Commercial viability remains an elusive goal, and VIA Rail cannot expect to continue operations without federal government support.

VIA Rail's ability to run its business efficiently is severely constrained by the fact that it must share railroad tracks with the two national rail carriers and other regional rail carriers and does not have priority access to these tracks. Thus, VIA Rail cannot easily establish the frequency or routes that would best promote its own commercial interests. Increasing the frequency and speed of VIA Rail's passenger service on the existing rail infrastructure would also directly affect maintenance costs, track capacity and passenger safety for all the carriers using those tracks.

Even if VIA Rail could gain greater access to existing tracks or build its own separate rail network, questions still remain about the commercial potential of passenger rail service compared to alternative modes of transportation in Canada. According to a number of studies, passenger rail could potentially fit particular market niches, such as the Québec City–Windsor corridor, that have been found to have the best commercial growth potential for such services. These routes could even be competitive against short-haul regional airlines. However, the gap between potential and actual profitability remains wide and difficult to bridge.12

5.1 High-speed rail: panacea or pipe dream?
Current institutional and market constraints severely limit the growth prospects for passenger rail service in Canada. Since 1989, a number of studies have examined the viability and the growth potential of this service under a range of scenarios. Although the studies differ in approach and methodology, they concur on several points:13

• Under prevailing market conditions, passenger rail service is uneconomical and, without continued and substantial government support, will continue to decline.
• VIA Rail must negotiate with the mainline freight carriers to secure access and right-of-use of rail tracks. This situation raises questions about the suitability of passenger rail service using a railroad network that is principally dedicated to freight haulage. Should building a separate, dedicated track network for passenger rail service be considered?
• A limited number of routes exist with some potential for growth in passenger volume and revenue, mostly within the Québec City–Windsor corridor.
• VIA Rail's existing rolling stock and fixed installations are rapidly aging and will need to be replaced and/or upgraded.
   
• High-speed passenger rail provides the best potential for profitability and market growth but would require substantial investment in advanced technology and new equipment.
• High-speed rail options would require a dedicated track and electrification of the entire network, with few or no level crossings.
• Most, if not all, scenarios involving the adoption of high-speed rail would require continued government financial commitment, particularly in the form of underwriting the significant capital costs of the project.
• Some scenarios involve the federal government nationalizing fixed railroad installations and allowing a single, private carrier to provide passenger rail service competing against other modes of transportation.

Studies of the feasibility of a high-speed rail network in Canada have found that, while such a network would be technically feasible and desirable on a number of fronts (e.g., it would provide some environmental and economic benefits), it would not realize a high enough return on capital outlay to attract private-sector investors to finance the entire project. For this initiative to proceed, large financial commitments would have to be secured from the federal government, including the underwriting of part of the capital costs associated with the development and building of new and advanced rolling stock and fixed facilities.14

In February 2009, the federal government, together with the governments of Ontario and Quebec, awarded a $3-million contract to the EcoTrain consortium to update a 1995 study on the feasibility of high-speed rail in the Québec City–Windsor corridor.15 The 1995 study (which was sponsored by the same three governments) had concluded that a high-speed rail link would be possible and desirable, but not without public investment amounting to 75% of total project costs.16 Released to the public in November 2011, the report for the updated study estimated the total development costs of the high-speed rail project at between $18.9 billion and $21.3 billion in 2009 dollars, depending on the locomotive technology used (i.e., diesel versus electric). It also found that, while the completed project could cover all operating costs, participating governments would have to contribute significantly to the development costs and receive no financial return on their investment.17 According to press reports, the Minister of Transport has said, "In these fiscal circumstances, a new project of this scope is not a priority for our government."18

6 Recent developments
Given that the federal government does not consider high-speed passenger rail a practical option or as a feasible solution to improve passenger rail service, VIA Rail has recently taken the initiative to explore another approach. VIA Rail is promoting the notion of high-frequency rail (HFR) rather than high-speed rail (HSR) through the acquisition and building of a rail network dedicated to passenger rail service only. A dedicated track for passenger rail service would resolve the rail traffic congestion issues associated with sharing the network with freight rail carriers.19

A passenger rail dedicated track would also allow VIA Rail more latitude to increase frequency of service; improve the availability and convenience of rail service to all Canadians and thus add ridership volume; generate more passenger revenue; reduce reliance on government subsidies; and improve the percentage of trains running on schedule.

VIA Rail's HFR strategy would require the acquisition of existing trackage from freight railways and the rehabilitation or rebuilding of existing rights-of-way found within the Toronto–Ottawa–Montréal segment of the Québec City–Windsor corridor. Unlike the HSR option, which would require the construction of an entirely new and dedicated high-speed rail network infrastructure and necessitate substantial investment in new and untried technology and equipment, the HFR option offers merely to expand and rehabilitate the existing rail network for passenger rail service using existing technology and operating at conventional speeds. The HFR strategy proposed by VIA Rail is considerably less costly than the proposed HSR schemes, with lower execution risk and quicker implementation to market.

According to VIA Rail, the HFR project would cost $3 billion in capital costs, two thirds of which would be for the acquisition and rehabilitation of trackage and signalling infrastructure. The Toronto–Ottawa–Montréal dedicated segment was selected for having the best potential to achieve profitability, and over the years VIA Rail would slowly expand passenger rail service to a greater number of communities across Canada. The dedicated rail network would include VIA Rail's intercity passenger rail services and regional and metropolitan commuter rail services such as MetroLinx (Greater Toronto region) and the Agence métropolitaine de transport (Greater Montréal region).

With a dedicated track, VIA Rail hopes that doubling the frequency of passenger rail service would increase ridership almost fourfold, thus increasing revenues and reducing reliance on federal government subsidies. To further reduce the burden on the Canadian taxpayer, VIA Rail is seeking to secure private financing to implement the project.20

VIA Rail intends to submit its HFR proposal to federal cabinet either by the end of 2015 or early 2016. If the proposal is approved, VIA Rail would implement the initiative in four to seven years.21

[...]

https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/ResearchPublications/2015-55-e.html

 

[dowlingm]

Fool me once... https://twitter.com/jm_mcgrath/status/865573104059203586

 

[crs1026]

The wonderful thing about EA's is they can pose alternatives and then shoot them down.

250 kmph on a mixed use track? That figure may adjust itself over time.

This may well be the start of some improvements and may well become politically unstoppable, given community reaction along the line. If nothing else, the consultations will flush out the local reactions and municipal druthers.

I would be happy with a consistent 100 mph track speed from Silver to Windsor, and enough passing track capacity to make that meaningful.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

It may not be an hour delay, but it would be a 30+ minute delay or over 3 hours total trip time, which would make it rather uninteresting for those traveling between Toronto to Montreal, when a much cheaper solution for a dedicated direct line from Toronto to Montreal would only take 3.5 hours.

Remember, high speed trains need time to ramp up speed and then slow down. Multiple stops make high speed trains much less high speed.

.

At the present time, over 200 of the 335 miles of track between Montreal and Toronto are good for 100 mph. In theory, a non stop train linking the two cities ought to be much faster than it is. But those freights get in the way, and VIA makes stops. If VIA can get the track speed on the Coteau- Ottawa leg to 125 mph - equal to what Amtrak does today with Amfleet - the difference attributable to the longer route is overcome.

- Paul

 

[jje1000]

I think we can all agree that this is another pre-election goodie dangled in front of the populace.

Anyways, interestingly enough on page 44, it notes that the cheaper, more realistic 250 km/h option is pegged at slightly over $4 billion from Toronto to London (and the same option with contingencies built in comes in at $10-11 billion). I doubt the London to Windsor stretch will ever be built unless a possible connection to Detroit is made.

This high speed rail will likely never pay for itself, but will be a massive boon towards the communities it manages to connect to Toronto, I think.

 

[jje1000]

Interesting note regarding sprawl in towns potentially connected by the HSR:

Some argue that HSR has a tendency to exacerbate sprawl by allowing more people to commute to the hub city, which just increases challenges faced by regional centres that were supposed to benefit from quicker connectivity. For example, there has been some doubt in the U.K. that the planned HS2 between London and Birmingham will turn Birmingham, the U.K.’s second-largest city, into a bedroom community rather than an independent commercial hub. However, an assessment of the German ICE model has shown that an HSR connection in smaller communities can actually directly contribute to strong economic growth.

Limburg and Montabaur, two small German towns with populations of approximately 34,000 and 13,000, are 20 kilometres apart along the German ICE track that runs from Cologne to Frankfurt, two major hub cities with populations of around 1 million and 700,000 respectively.

In partnership with other levels of government, local planning authorities in both Limburg and Montabaur were able to negotiate an HSR stop when the ICE line was being planned and to provide land for development. The HSR station at Montabaur was built outside the city centre, a short distance from a highway connecting Cologne and Frankfurt. Commuters were attracted by low residential land values and proactive zoning of private land. Development in the area surrounding the station started occurring as the station and HSR line were being developed and accelerated after operations began.

The station also spurred the development of business and retail centres. Since the station opened, approximately 50 enterprises with 1,000 jobs have located in Montabaur. A study of the spatial impacts of HSR found that the Montabaur’s GDP and employment grew by 2.7% more than other comparable communities, and concluded that HSR had a tangible and permanent impact on thetown’s growth.

The key lesson from this example is that the implementation of any HSR system should be coupled with an alignment of regional transportation and of economic and urban planning policies. In cases where HSR has generated economic benefits, it has been coupled with efforts to connect stations to transit linkages and other first-mile/last-mile connections.

So basically if a masterplan and development guidelines are in place beforehand, we should be fine.

 

[cplchanb]

imo as soon as the "existing track" blurb got mentioned that already is a huge red flag. HSR is many times faster than a freight train and given that our wonderful CN has had zero high speed rail experience, not to mention a bias towards their own traffic, this can only spell trouble. I would imagine that there will be either many delays when their freight traffic impedes on travel or those zones will have a severe speed limitation. Either way they cant rely on existing track. they need to have dedicated tracks for the entire line. On another note, should this line be built are they going to build another few platforms for HSR only? It would be a tremendous waste of opportunity and a humiliation if we are just adding a raised section to the existing shed.

 

[jje1000]

I think it boils down to the freight operator's willingness or ability to adapt to mixed operations + additional track in problem areas.

They state in the study that ICE, Amtrack Acela and TGV (?) operate in mixed traffic. The Brightline rail line in Florida proves that if a rail operator is willing to, it can make it happen.

 

[steveintoronto]

[GO RER and ultimately HSR services will require a significant increase in the capacity and efficiency of the Kitchener corridor and will only be possible if the majority of freight traffic bypasses it or is removed, allowing it to become a predominantly passenger corridor. The government’s preferred option is to build a freight bypass in return for Metrolinx assuming ownership of the portion of the Kitchener line currently owned by CN. This proposed solution has been termed “rail rationalization.”

On June 14, 2016, the Province announced an agreement-in-principle with CN that began technical analysis and planning for the construction of a new freight line. When built, the bypass will separate the majority of freight and passenger services, allowing CN to shift its traffic between Georgetown and Bramalea to the new freight line, as there is insufficient space in the corridor to provide for both freight and passenger services. Once it is complete, Metrolinx will own the entire Kitchener corridor and have sufficient flexibility to meet its GO RER commitments. HSR will also be able to successfully operate on the corridor once the majority of freight traffic is removed.]
– pdf pg 26 Final Report

And that is the dynamite necessary to blast out the basement before building the dream in the sky.

Where is the dialog on The Missing Link?

 

[dowlingm]

I think it boils down to the freight operator's willingness or ability to adapt to mixed operations + additional track in problem areas.

They state in the study that ICE, Amtrack Acela and TGV (?) operate in mixed traffic. The Brightline rail line in Florida proves that if a rail operator is willing to, it can make it happen.

Setting aside the regulatory/track ownership position in Europe which makes comparisons tricky (not to mention the commitment to and investment in ERTMS), while there are some limited freight movements on parts of the NEC, that is vastly different to primarily freight track getting high speed operations over significant parts of its length. Even for less ambitious projects like NY Empire Corridor, CSX is demanding not only dedicated track on its ROWs but that such tracks have wider separation than normal from their tracks.

Brightline is at an encouraging phase - trainsets in testing, stations going up, but it is a real estate play in addition to a transportation one, and the funding for it is still somewhat shaky. There's a railroad.net thread where some financially interested posters keep track of how the bond process is going.

The thing that bothers me is that if Ontario insists on SW Ont HSR being separate from VIA and operated by P3, that has potentially serious consequences for VIA even if the damn thing isn't built. VIA are trying to get a fleet replacement done and are presumably giving the government based on projections of the Corridor market, the one which incurs the least losses in the VIA system.

Being stuck with the existing route/arrangements Toronto-Aldershot-London-Windsor in competition with Toronto-YYZ-KW-London-Windsor would be deeply damaging to its market share, especially of business traffic. I think there would be a good case for VIA to say to Ontario, "we are not taking your scraps. If you want into SW Ontario, we're getting out of Sarnia, out of St Mary's, maybe even out of Windsor and London."

There is of course an alternative - stop listening to Collenette, talk to the Feds about a federal-provincial agreement on expanding intra-provincial rail using VIA as operator. Strengthen the Corridor backbone, rather than undermine it.

One other point - what is public enthusiasm for putting a HSR under Pearson at massive taxpayer cost going to be like if Trudeau sells off the airport to the private sector?

 

[steveintoronto]

The thing that bothers me is that if Ontario insists on SW Ont HSR being separate from VIA and operated by P3, that has potentially serious consequences for VIA even if the damn thing isn't built. VIA are trying to get a fleet replacement done and are presumably giving the government based on projections of the Corridor market, the one which incurs the least losses in the VIA system.

You make a number of excellent points, all that deserve to be discussed further, but this one especially so.

This really is a wild-card, that could go either way (I'm leaning to this report forcing a couple of issues long before even considering building it, not the least The Missing Link) and one only hopes that Collenette gave his federal associates a heads-up long before this was released. (Parts were already dated November of last year)

VIA Head Office must be reeling over some of the implications of this. But again, that could fall either way. I think this might just force some nebulous concepts to have to gel and be considered in the near future. One of those, as mentioned in the VIA thread, is getting Transport Canada to modernize. Garrneau has been in the shadows on a lot of this...and one has to wonder why? Obviously Morneau has been front and centre federally. Of course, there may be a lot more going on behind the scenes than the press is privy or even motivated to report.

Just Googled to find anything recent on this, and the latest is almost a year old:

Transport Minister Marc Garneau says Via train could be the answer to SWO travel

By Hank Daniszewski, The London Free Press

Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:04:03 EDT PM

Federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau appeared to lean toward Via Rail’s dedicated rail plan over a provincially-backed high-speed train corridor through Southwestern Ontario when he attended an event in London Wednesday.

Speaking to the London Chamber of Commerce, Garneau said improvements to passenger rail service could come with a Via Rail plan to create a dedicated passenger rail track corridor in southern Ontario. Under the plan, Via would take over lines now used for freight traffic.

In an interview, Garneau said Via’s plan would allow for more frequent service, no interference from freight traffic and higher speeds than conventional trains, though well below the 200- to 300-km/h clip of high-speed rail.

“That’s the essence of the Via proposal and that’s what we are looking at seriously and if that is a workable solution, that will address the issue,” said Garneau.

The Via plan faces competition from a proposal for a high-speed rail corridor through southern Ontario. The province has appointed former federal cabinet minister David Collenette to head a study on the high-speed trains.

Asked whether he considered the Via plan more feasible, Garneau framed the high-speed train corridor as a provincial initiative that Ottawa would look at “with great interest.”

In answer to an audience question, Garneau cautioned that even the Via plan would need more study: “You need to do your homework. You need to make sure you are not overestimating how many people are going to take the train.”

Earlier this week, London West MP Kate Young, Garneau’s parliamentary assistant, announced a $2.55-million investment in improving the London and Sarnia Via stations. [...]

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/09/14/t...high-speed-train-through-southwestern-ontario

 

[mdrejhon]

Anyways, interestingly enough on page 44, it notes that the cheaper, more realistic 250 km/h option is pegged at slightly over $4 billion from Toronto to London (and the same option with contingencies built in comes in at $10-11 billion). I doubt the London to Windsor stretch will ever be built unless a possible connection to Detroit is made.

Ante it up and throw in Chicago too.

 

[kEiThZ]

The key question here is how and who will pay for this? They have no plan at all other than doing an EA.

 

[mdrejhon]

OK, now I'm confused.

I have read it was $3 billion for a direct Toronto-Montreal link, or $4 billion if electrified. Ridership would be 7 million in 15 years.

I am now reading there is a plan for a $4 billion Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec link, or $6 billion if electrified, but with ridership at 10 million in less than 15 years.

I had assumed these were different, but are they actually the same thing? Or has a Toronto-Montreal dedicated plan been scrapped? If it does have to go through Ottawa, would there be an express train that bypasses the Ottawa stop, to shave 20+ minutes off the trip?

HFR was always planned to go through Ottawa.

Also, 20min+? Europe and Japan manages to dwell some intercity trains for less than 3 minutes, depending on the route. With EMU accel/deccel, the intercity stop delay on their HFR equivalents (not HSR) is less than 5 minutes. EMU accelerates fast like a subway train. Assuming HFR uses new level-boarding EMUs, and they build that level boarding platform in Ottawa (as planned), they can dramatically reduce the impact of an Ottawa stop to less than 5 mins (30sec brake, 2.5min dwell, 2min accelerate to freeway speed).

But even so, they probably won't be making that segment of rail all the way to >120kph spec, due to the sharp rail curves near Ottawa station anyway. Which makes Ottawa stop a little less impact to speed, since the Ottawa stop is located next to a sharp curve. It is one of the sharpest curve on the entire Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route. Due to mandatory braking, they can probably dwell 4min and still only impact Toronto-Montreal schedule by 5minutes compared to not stopping at all.

Heck, you braked to almost a stop for one of the sharpest curves on the route, why not at least briefly dwell at Ottawa? Near zero-impact dwell, in that case, as it is a brake-anyway.

They may make some trains express to Montreal, though. But if Ottawa funds HFR, they won't do it without at least stopping most of them in Ottawa, even for a short dwell. (4min is much longer than many TGV and Shinkansen dwells. TGV/Shinkansen train doors often open for less than 2 minutes, which is sometimes briefer than TTC Union, and far shorter than GO trains at Union).

When a route gets upgraded in this style (electrified, EMU, level boarding, high frequency, and some kind of a higher speed), dwells are often also made much briefer. And they are apparently going to do all those elements.

So....20 min dwells for HFR. Are you kidding?

VIA would need their brains checked if they plan a 20min HFR dwell when 3 minutes will do on fully-owned tracks with no schedule padding needed for freight contention.