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

[TheTigerMaster]

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

You'll have to wait for the next election season for the "we're now looking for private sector partners" announcement.

The following election will be the "we're initiating a RFP" announcements.

And the following election will be the "okay, I suppose we actually have to build this thing for reals now that you've fallen for our bs election promise six times" announcement.

(I clearly don't have any faith this will ever get off the ground. Nice to see Canada is still a leader in HSR study, though).

 

[steveintoronto]

HFR was always planned to go through Ottawa... But if (the Feds or Consortium) 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).

Dwell time for Crossrail in tunnel (Paddington, for instance) is 60 sec:

Stage 1 in 2017 sees the introduction of the new 145 km/h (90 mph) Class 345 Bombardier Aventra trains. The units are powered by 25kV AC...The specification is for 110 second headways with 60 second dwell times at Paddington and Liverpool Street, putting trains 50 seconds apart. Independent modelling showed that this can only be achieved using a moving block signalling system. It was considered that developing ETCS Level 3 in the timescales was too risky, whilst GSM-R is a 2G system that might not be sufficiently capable. Thus CBTC was chosen for the COS.

https://www.railengineer.uk/2016/01/08/signalling-crossrail/

These are high-platform trains, "The production run for this stage will consist of seven cars per train, each with three doors per side to help meet dwell times" so the 60 sec dwell time is achievable. HFR/HSR could easily do it in three minutes low platform w/o baggage handling.

Eurostar is two minutes:

...the time spent in stations while passengers get on and off is crucial. While we are messing about looking for a carriage we think we might get a seat on, dragging our huge-‐sized bags, luxury pushchairs and screaming children up and down the platform, the next train is catching up -‐ at 300km/h no less. So the standing time at the station (known as “dwell time”) has to be limited, in our case, to two minutes. ]
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache3IEynrRT3MJ:www.railway-technical.com/Infopaper%203%20High%20Speed%20Line%20Capacity%20v3.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=ubuntu

 

[MisterF]

While it's tempting to be cynical and think of this as just an election ploy, it's worth remembering that the original announcement in 2014 was based on nothing but a brief pre-feasibility study. Since then they have prepared a more in depth feasibility study, which was completed in December 2016. Two years sounds reasonable for something like that to get completed. This latest announcement is for the EA (not another feasibility study), which as far as I know has never been done for an HSR proposal in Canada. Of course, a completed EA doesn't mean that anything will be built.

In any case, it looks like they're recommending the 250 km/h option. The 300 km/h option is much more expensive and involves a tunnel under the University of Guelph and much of Brampton. It would be a longer route and be only 9 minutes faster to Windsor.

The recommended option leverages the RER upgrades that are already planned to Kitchener and ensuring that the line is designed for 250 km/h. From Kitchener to London a new line would be built next to an existing hydro corridor. Travel times would be 48 minutes to Kitchener, 1h 13 m to London, and 2h 4m to Windsor. They referenced the German HSR model to describe the plan since it serves smaller city centres and is based on existing infrastructure where possible. Presumably not every train would stop in Guelph and Chatham.

As far as feasibility goes, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) was positive only as far as London. The BCR for Toronto-London is 1.02 while for London-Windsor it's a pretty dismal 0.24. Maybe if they have the line connecting with Amtrak in Detroit it would improve the numbers but it's looking pretty tough to justify going past London.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Can someone convince me that this $19 Billion HSR is a good investment, when it'll apparently have fewer riders than the infamous Scarborough Subway? I really would like to support this proposal, but this is looking like a colossal waste of money to me. I can't reconcile spending that much money to transport so few people

 

[Urban Sky]

Can someone convince me that this $19 Billion HSR is a good investment, when it'll apparently have fewer riders than the infamous Scarborough Subway? I really would like to support this proposal, but this is looking like a colossal waste of money to me. I can't reconcile spending that much money to transport so few people

Even though I understand your point and partly share your scepticism, Passenger-miles (not: Passengers alone) or revenues (for Benefit-Cost ratios) would be the appropriate metrics to relate capital costs to, especially when one project is transit while the other one is intercity with much longer distance travelled and user charges paid per passenger...

 

[Eug]

Thanks guys for the clarifications on the planned routes.

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?

Well, I guess I'm not as optimistic as you are that Via will achieve Shinkansen type efficiencies. You've yourself suggested that not even the TTC is as quick as they are.

 

[TOareaFan]

I don't want to re-open the whole "should this stop in Brampton" discussion or not...but as a resident of the largest city in this corridor outside of Toronto....a city that has seen the Mayor and Premier keep trying to convince us we are part of this innovation corridor....it is a bit insulting that the only time Brampton is mentioned in this report is when they discuss whether to go with A or B and how the difference is spending billions to tunnel under Brampton. Heck, even a bunch of the maps they produce/use manage to omit the existence of the city at all....it seems the only maps Brampton appears on is where they use maps others have produced.

A fuller discussion of how they are going to get thru Brampton without limiting the number of GO/ReR trains that can do that would have been nice.

 

[crs1026]

Can someone convince me that this $19 Billion HSR is a good investment, when it'll apparently have fewer riders than the infamous Scarborough Subway? I really would like to support this proposal, but this is looking like a colossal waste of money to me. I can't reconcile spending that much money to transport so few people

Intercity transit will have different metrics and objectives than intra-city transit. Focus on modal share and relief of highway/air infrastructure. Look at how many end-to-end car-free trips are enabled. Look at how many passengers this adds to city transit at the end points. And active transport opportunity at the end points. Look at how this enables business development in outlying centers and how it improves connectivity between central business and social knowledge centres (health care being an example). Look at human productivity (one day for a business round trip that would have to be two days otherwise). Look at tourism.

I'm of mixed minds about whether to make this about the auto or not. The reality is, if it is not built, people will just get in their cars and drive. The 'modal' share impact is pretty much code for 'reduce reliance on the car'. Some people will cry "war on the car" but maybe it's time that this impact was felt outside the GTA.

And lastly, think about "seat-miles" as opposed to riders per hour.

I'm on limited internet at the moment, so haven't read the report, but those are some areas to analyse as opposed to what one woult look at for a city level Higher Order Transit proposal.

- Paul

 

[kps]

You'll have to wait for the next election season for the "we're now looking for private sector partners" announcement.

The following election will be the "we're initiating a RFP" announcements.

And the following election will be the "okay, I suppose we actually have to build this thing for reals now that you've fallen for our bs election promise six times" announcement.

(I clearly don't have any faith this will ever get off the ground. Nice to see Canada is still a leader in HSR study, though).

Maybe the Tories will build it, just to finally deprive the Liberals of their favourite reusable election promise.

 

[TOareaFan]

anyone remember how long the drive from Toronto to Pearson was shown at when they wanted to build a 25 minute train with public money? Cause now they want to build a 16 or 18 minute train the drive is down to 23 minutes.

 

[steveintoronto]

Beyond the fantastic premise for this project, the report actually makes good cases on financing....and not just for this project, which most likely will never see the light of day, but for many other transit projects the Province is hoping to build, including the Relief Line and in partnership with the Feds and Private Participation, The Missing Link.

Along with the emerging Infrastructure Bank, the dialog in this report examining other models (Crossrail comes up consistently) is going to be useful to the way the Province approaches many other projects. Crosslinx (Eglinton Crosstown) was the precursor, this goes one step more.

Consider the talk of "tunneling" under the airport, University of Guelph, and other places. That may be abstract...but if not, then tunneling under Toronto as part of the Relief Line (if not whole) and including HFR from Montreal via Ottawa becomes a lot closer. And not subway, but heavy rail in tunnel running through service onto GO RER corridors either end as Crossrail does in London, the example most quoted for reference in the report for a variety of reasons.

Of course, the report also defeats its own case by predicating its RoW over higher speed RER tracks. Then why not put the investment into RER to begin with, then consider expanding that to also host HSR later, if need be?

Almost all potential passengers from K/W east would be happy with an affordable one hour ride on RER rather than some pie-in-the-sky Münchhausen HSR that costs (contrary to the claims in the report of slightly higher fare) double that or more if it is to attract the Private Investor participation it claims is necessary?

The report is very valuable as a preliminary template for many transit projects....just not HSR as promoted in this case.

 

[TOareaFan]

https://twitter.com/moore_oliver/status/866337020075028481

 

[steveintoronto]

https://twitter.com/moore_oliver/status/866337020075028481

Most of that editorial was clumsy and poorly referenced. The Globe's Bill Curry has been writing many articles asking similar questions, but doing so in a referenced, nuanced way. It doesn't help that most people haven't the foggiest idea of what an Infrastructure Bank is. The name doesn't help, but the name has come from other nations doing exactly this for decades now, and very successfully. Canada is a late-comer to this. What else ain't new about how we govern and appropriate costs?

From that editorial:

[...]
There is at least one major infrastructure area where public money may have to be involved, but where a hands-off public subsidy, combined with a private sector drive for efficiency, could generate real benefits for governments, investors and the public. We’re talking about mass transit.

If public dollars were used to provide private developers with a small subsidy, but those private, profit-seeking developers were left to decide where to most profitably build transit lines, that would get politics out of transit. Which would be a very good thing, since it’s politics that has made such a mess of transit. For example, Toronto has too much transit infrastructure in low-traffic areas, and too little in high-demand neighbourhoods, with politicians promising (hello, Scarborough subway) to make things even more unbalanced. No profit-seeking business would operate this way.
[...]

Very good points, and I fully agree. I see the TTC and City of Toronto now pretty much dead in the water when it comes to building new large transit infrastructure, or any large public works projects. The funding just isn't there, and QP is getting tired of seeing money wasted on ridiculous schemes that always go wildly over-budget, and then need to be expanded at great expense in a decade or so. It's bad enough with their own bug-a-boos, but at least there's more accountability at that level, not to mention funding resources.

Ed continues:

But the bank, as currently structured, won’t be independent of the federal cabinet. It won’t be a truly arm’s-length investor, like the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. That means that its $35-billion risks becoming a slush fund for political priorities.

No-one would like it to be completely arm's-length more than the Fed Libs themselves.

Has this Ed writer not read the news? The Libs are getting flak from all sides, including the PCs who should know better. It's a balancing act, and the Libs would be pilloried if it was arm's length, and eviscerated if it wasn't. There's a term for this, some Ed writers might even have heard of it: "Working Compromise".

 

[jje1000]

Hold on- this was back in 2014- was this environmental assessment never completed?

Environmental assessment ordered for Ontario high-speed rail
Route would connect Windsor, London, Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...ordered-for-ontario-high-speed-rail-1.2861890

Well Glenn Murray did promise HSR within 10 years (from 2014) so there's still time to make it of course.

 

[dowlingm]

I don't understand the folks that want trains to cross the border. Why add a significant variable - the border - to operational reliability? Look how long Montreal Central's project to allow Adirondack to do border checks there is taking to complete.