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

[gweed123]

Regarding the critical path, I do agree that it goes through the Missing Link. Expanding on that, a thought I had was potentially expanding the York Sub and using it for Toronto to Ottawa/Montreal Via trains. Basically, trains from both would use the Peterborough corridor, and a new connection between the Havelock Sub and the York Sub would be built in Markham.

This would mean that all Via trains would travel to Union via Pearson (and the Kitchener corridor). From an airport connection standpoint, this would mean that both Pearson and Trudeau would be passed by directly on the way to their respective city's downtowns. It would also avoid having to upgrade the Don Branch to handle Via, leaving it open for use by Metrolinx.

Yes, it would be a slightly longer trip distance-wise, but I figured the relative straightness of the York Sub could allow for higher speeds across northern Toronto/southern York Region. There would also be the potential for an HSR station at Yonge St for some trips.

 

[kEiThZ]

The HSR plan won't cost $20 Billion. Despite the BS the Liberals are peddling, realistically this thing will terminate at London. At 200 km/h speeds, that would have a capital cost of $4 Billion, if I'm recalling correctly.

Yep. You're right. From Collenette's final report. Table 3.1 page 44. Scenario B (250 kph), Toronto-London is $4.11 billion. It's Scenario A (300 kph) that is $15.1 billion.

So maybe it is doable by 2025. But with that 4-5 year EA, we'll see how motivated they are to get 'er done on time.

 

[crs1026]

Regarding the critical path, I do agree that it goes through the Missing Link. Expanding on that, a thought I had was potentially expanding the York Sub and using it for Toronto to Ottawa/Montreal Via trains. Basically, trains from both would use the Peterborough corridor, and a new connection between the Havelock Sub and the York Sub would be built in Markham.

This would mean that all Via trains would travel to Union via Pearson (and the Kitchener corridor). From an airport connection standpoint, this would mean that both Pearson and Trudeau would be passed by directly on the way to their respective city's downtowns. It would also avoid having to upgrade the Don Branch to handle Via, leaving it open for use by Metrolinx.

Yes, it would be a slightly longer trip distance-wise, but I figured the relative straightness of the York Sub could allow for higher speeds across northern Toronto/southern York Region. There would also be the potential for an HSR station at Yonge St for some trips.

I have debated this myself and wondered if the time saved is really worth the expense. It would demand a huge number of grade separations and a new bridge at the Humber, at least. And it gets us back into the issue of shoehorning VIA tracks onto a CN-owned corridor, that we may also want to shoehorn CP freight onto also. That's likely a six track wide corridor. Technically it's doable, but it gets back to the primary question of securing CN's sale of some portion of the existing right of way. Big bucks all round.

I totally agree that VIA must implement HFR in a way that allows customers to/from points east to reach Pearson without changing trains at Union. My conclusion is, VIA has to have a better run-through strategy for Toronto Union, and that may affect both the station design and VIA's conduct of operations. I have certainly ridden through trains that stopped at main termini en route (the stops in Naples, Rome, and Florence for through Italian trains comes to mind), but VIA's handling of boarding and unloading at Union doesn't fit that model. One has to allow people on the platform ahead of time, and there has to be a predictable model with supporting technology to tell people where their car will stop on the platform. High level platforms are needed. Can that be squeezed into Union?

And that means that either these trains continue on to London (not really that novel a concept, just as Boston trains can run all the way to Washington) or there has to be a layover yard somewhere. Deadheads back to the TMC would be awkward.

- Paul

 

[gweed123]

I have debated this myself and wondered if the time saved is really worth the expense. It would demand a huge number of grade separations and a new bridge at the Humber, at least. And it gets us back into the issue of shoehorning VIA tracks onto a CN-owned corridor, that we may also want to shoehorn CP freight onto also. That's likely a six track wide corridor. Technically it's doable, but it gets back to the primary question of securing CN's sale of some portion of the existing right of way. Big bucks all round.

I totally agree that VIA must implement HFR in a way that allows customers to/from points east to reach Pearson without changing trains at Union. My conclusion is, VIA has to have a better run-through strategy for Toronto Union, and that may affect both the station design and VIA's conduct of operations. I have certainly ridden through trains that stopped at main termini en route (the stops in Naples, Rome, and Florence for through Italian trains comes to mind), but VIA's handling of boarding and unloading at Union doesn't fit that model. One has to allow people on the platform ahead of time, and there has to be a predictable model with supporting technology to tell people where their car will stop on the platform. High level platforms are needed. Can that be squeezed into Union?

And that means that either these trains continue on to London (not really that novel a concept, just as Boston trains can run all the way to Washington) or there has to be a layover yard somewhere. Deadheads back to the TMC would be awkward.

- Paul

My thought process is that if a deal involving CP is reached for the Missing Link, that upgrades to the York Sub will be required anyway. Two for CN, two for CP, and either one or two for Via. Rebuild the required over/underpasses in one shot. I see the expense as justified when you consider the amount of money that would be required to add tracks to either Lakeshore East (to handle Via HFR & GO RER) or the Don Branch & North Toronto Sub (to separate from CP freight).

If the entire corridor is being rebuilt with Via in mind instead of shoehorning them in later, it may result in fewer conflicts. It would also be more palatable to nearby residents to accept the corridor expansion if it means they get a new Via station out of it.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Do you have numbers for Ottawa commuters from Pembroke, Cornwall and Brockville? Having lived and worked in Ottawa, I would bet money that none of those cities could support more than 3-5 buses in each direction per day. Let alone commuter rail. Read up on Moose Rail. A private intuitive for commuter rail in Ottawa. They can't find capital. For good reason.

I don't. I honestly don't know why Moose Rail isn't getting support, it's a great idea.

 

[crs1026]

If the entire corridor is being rebuilt with Via in mind instead of shoehorning them in later, it may result in fewer conflicts. It would also be more palatable to nearby residents to accept the corridor expansion if it means they get a new Via station out of it.

It's certainly true that the incremental cost of building four track wide grade separations is not double the cost of a two track grade separation. So yes, this should as minimum be 'roughed in' to the bypass along with potential CP tracks.

Local stops to appease residents ? That's a slippery slope. #WestonNimbysvsUPE I have always felt there should be a crosstown GO service up there, but even the 407 busway doesnt seem to be a prority.

I can see a real fight about where to put the station(s)....HFR can't stop everywhere. But perhaps one station around Unionville with good bus connections to the 407 and to Unionville RER might be functional.

- Paul

 

[gweed123]

It's certainly true that the incremental cost of building four track wide grade separations is not double the cost of a two track grade separation. So yes, this should as minimum be 'roughed in' to the bypass along with potential CP tracks.

Local stops to appease residents ? That's a slippery slope. #WestonNimbysvsUPE I have always felt there should be a crosstown GO service up there, but even the 407 busway doesnt seem to be a prority.

I can see a real fight about where to put the station(s)....HFR can't stop everywhere. But perhaps one station around Unionville with good bus connections to the 407 and to Unionville RER might be functional.

- Paul

Very true. There will likely be a NIMBY fight with that corridor either way though, especially if it's freight only. And I was thinking a station at Yonge would be most appropriate, given that it would right on the subway extension, with a station already planned for Clark.

 

[steveintoronto]

Excellent discussion, but a huge factor has been overlooked:

Regarding the critical path, I do agree that it goes through the Missing Link.

Yes, it would be a slightly longer trip distance-wise, but I figured the relative straightness of the York Sub could allow for higher speeds across northern Toronto/southern York Region. There would also be the potential for an HSR station at Yonge St for some trips.

I have debated this myself and wondered if the time saved is really worth the expense. It would demand a huge number of grade separations and a new bridge at the Humber, at least. And it gets us back into the issue of shoehorning VIA tracks onto a CN-owned corridor, that we may also want to shoehorn CP freight onto also.

I totally agree that VIA must implement HFR in a way that allows customers to/from points east to reach Pearson without changing trains at Union.

VIA has to have a better run-through strategy for Toronto Union

And that means that either these trains continue on to London

The MidTown Corridor! And alternate trains going to Union and terminating/or run-through either to Pearson or London.

The ones that use MidTown stop at Summerhill, if not Spadina too, and then on to the Weston Corridor and northwest. Whether a transfer is in order to get to Pearson or a direct connection is another variable option, along with some terminating at Pearson. Until a loop off of the Georgetown Corridor and under the airport and back on again is built, this will remain a problematic choice.

MidTown, of course, is predicated on CP being part of the Missing Link, and for all the bluster otherwise of the "Just CN One" it's going to be all or nothing. CN and CP. It has to be...

Even if we banter on the details, the common denominator is understanding that The Missing Link is the key to it all.

The Midtown corridor refers to three new GO Transit services in Metrolinx's regional transportation plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, The Big Move. The first is a Crosstown line from Dundas Street to the former Canadian Pacific North Toronto and Leaside stations in Toronto. The second and third segments would extend east from North Toronto and/or Union Station: the Seaton line to Seaton, and the Locust Hill line to Locust Hill.[1]

GO Transit has contemplated a Midtown corridor since the 1980s as a contingency plan once capacity at Union Station became constrained, making North Toronto an alternate station for Downtown Toronto. The major barrier to these plans, however, is the fact that the Midtown corridor is composed of existing rail lines owned and actively used by Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) as its main freight line between Ottawa, Montreal, London and Windsor. CP has been reluctant to provide capacity to GO Transit on its tracks, and the Milton line (which runs along CP tracks to the west) only came after considerable negotiations, and an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars.[2]

All three lines in the corridor were listed under the 15-year plan of The Big Move upon its publication in 2008.[1] However the Havelock line was moved to the 25-year plan on February 14, 2013, because of "very modest ridership potential and significant infrastructure and operational challenges related to the Agincourt rail yards."[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_corridor

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2106.shtml

 

[crs1026]

I hadn't overlooked that line, and certainly if the Bypass happens and CP vacates the North Toronto line, some form of passenger transportation will eventually move in.

It seems unlikely, however, that VIA would make use of two lines (Union and North Toronto) so close together.

The question would be whether in some future configuration, VIA at North Toronto would be more attractive than being at Union. Personally, I can't see that being as marketable, even though there would certainly be viable connections to both the Oakville line (via the Canpa Sub) and the Weston Sub (by turning the corner at Osler, as CP does today).

North Toronto makes more sense as DRL relief than as a VIA alternative. Whereas, the York/Halton makes sense as a second routing choice that stays out of the Central City at all. I would see its value in interleaving trains with the Union-bound trains to/from the east. Certainly, there are enough air travellers making international connections who would fill a train or three in the AM and PM, as a cheaper alternative to a connecting flight.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

All that said, it means nothing in this conversation.......my point was just in response to someone who said our debt service costs were declining....they are not.

I suppose that's a function of the timescale one chooses to look at. Peak to peak, (so basically mid 90's through to today to the projected peak in 2020) and the trend line is down quite a bit as %age of revenue.

If you choose a time frame from trough to peak (like ~2006 through today) then it is indeed up a smidgen.

 

[TOareaFan]

I suppose that's a function of the timescale one chooses to look at. Peak to peak, (so basically early 90's through to today to the projected peak in 2020) and the trend line is down quite a bit as %age of revenue.

If you choose a time frame from trough to peak (like ~2006 through today) then it is indeed up a smidgen.

I wasn't picking a time frame....someone said it is going down....and the budget says it will be over $12B a year....our debt service costs are rising...even in a low rate environment....because we are increasing our borrowings.

 

[steveintoronto]

certainly if the Bypass happens and CP vacates the North Toronto line, some form of passenger transportation will eventually move in.

One of the many cathartic results of The Missing Link (full version, CP +CN)

It seems unlikely, however, that VIA would make use of two lines (Union and North Toronto) so close together.

I agree, save for the airport option from the east. It's a bit of a conundrum, as the Union Station connection is essential for HFR meeting other VIA and GO connections, at the same time as Union is saturating, another topic in itself (some argue the limitation is signalling and control, not available slots). And then whether HFR is going to be 'through-running' further west or not.

The question would be whether in some future configuration, VIA at North Toronto would be more attractive than being at Union. Personally, I can't see that being as marketable, even though there would certainly be viable connections to both the Oakville line (via the Canpa Sub) and the Weston Sub (by turning the corner at Osler, as CP does today).

That Canpa Sub is a wild-card. You wouldn't think it was anything more than a convenient way to shuttle stock around...and it's easy to get 'creative' thinking what it could be used for by GO, but GO seem fixated on it. They have more in mind than just shifting stock...it's curious.

North Toronto makes more sense as DRL relief than as a VIA alternative.

I agree! Save for the HFR airport run avoiding Union.

the York/Halton makes sense as a second routing choice that stays out of the Central City at all. I would see its value in interleaving trains with the Union-bound trains to/from the east.

If Midtown is deemed not usable by HFR (and there has been talk of Summerhill being a terminal, but then how do you connect at Union?) then the freight avoiding line looks sensible. What is beyond argument is to plan for passenger rail along that alignment, whether the track is laid initially or not. At some point, that alignment will be used for passenger, and assuage the locals at the same time, as mentioned by Gweed and yourself prior. York is the only sticky jurisdiction still on CP also using that alignment. Odd, as they have no compunctions about the 407 and 400 series north/south alignments, but I digress. That bypass went through open fields 50 years ago when built, who allowed proximity of residential development near it?

there are enough air travellers making international connections who would fill a train or three in the AM and PM, as a cheaper alternative to a connecting flight.

Yeah...a lot of what we're posing in conjecture for 'direct airport service' would have to be borne out by surveys. Another huge complication is the recurrent 'expecting one trip all the way' mentality...adversity to changing trains, as if that wasn't the case, it would be incredibly simple to run an airport service across either the freight bypass or the Midtown alignment, and done by Metrolinx, and HFR terminating at Union, or through-running west as another leg of HFR.

Hopefully others can weigh the possibilities/probabilities of this?

 

[steveintoronto]

Very true. There will likely be a NIMBY fight with that corridor either way though, especially if it's freight only. And I was thinking a station at Yonge would be most appropriate, given that it would right on the subway extension, with a station already planned for Clark.

There's a bit of a problem using the subway to complete a trip off of HFR, and this would pertain to using Summerhill as well to access Union: It's like taking the Concorde to fly to a destination, only to have a rickshaw take you the last fraction of the trip. First off, I can't see anyone taking the subway downtown from north of Steeles to begin with, but I appear to be 'the odd one out' on that. Surveys of potential HFR or HSR passengers might show same, or the opposite, but when heavy rail is already extant to downtown, it seems crazy not to use that means. This is not unlike AMT and VIA being banned from using the Mont Royale Tunnel by REM, and both those carriers' passengers having to take REM to connect them to downtown Montreal or to connect at Central Station to other VIA or AMT trains.

My thought process is that if a deal involving CP is reached for the Missing Link, that upgrades to the York Sub will be required anyway. Two for CN, two for CP, and either one or two for Via. Rebuild the required over/underpasses in one shot. I see the expense as justified when you consider the amount of money that would be required to add tracks to either Lakeshore East (to handle Via HFR & GO RER) or the Don Branch & North Toronto Sub (to separate from CP freight).

If the entire corridor is being rebuilt with Via in mind instead of shoehorning them in later, it may result in fewer conflicts. It would also be more palatable to nearby residents to accept the corridor expansion if it means they get a new Via station out of it.

Absolutely! This is the same rationale as stating (gist) "If you're going to do The Missing Link, do it completely with CP, or don't do it at all". Pretty much every eventuality must be planned, if not built initially on this, so it cost a fraction more up front, but renders incredible savings later. That's why it is a prime candidate for the Infrastructure Bank, as it could/should be built as a PPP consortium with CP and CN having the option to be part of the consortium. Union stations in many parts of the world, especially North Am have done this in the past. TTR is a prime example.

 

[Urban Sky]

As for building it, it's clear from the report that the case only exists for the 250 kph line and only till London. Of course the next question is where is the sensitivity analysis? What if they go to 200 kph or 160kph for HFR? What's the business case for that?

Considering that the Business Case puts the Benefit-Cost Ratio for Toronto-London at 0.36-0.38 for Scenario A (@300 km/h) and 1.02-1.09 for Scenario B (@250 km/h), simple extrapolation would suggest...

The HSR plan won't cost $20 Billion. Despite the BS the Liberals are peddling, realistically this thing will terminate at London. At 200 km/h speeds, that would have a capital cost of $4 Billion, if I'm recalling correctly.

200 km/h is Higher-Speed Rail: A much more cost-effective and faster-to-implement alternative to HSR, with HFR being one such alternative proposal.

Scenario A (250 km/h)
To Windsor: $20 Billion
To London: $15 Billion

Scenario B (200 km/h)
To Windsor: $7.5 Billion
To London: $4 Billion

Note that these figures don't include contingency

The alleged plan is to complete HSR to London by 2025, and to Windsor by 2031. Realistically, the overwhelming likelihood that this government will only be in power to see it built to London (if even that). Scenario B (200 km/h) is most likely to be chosen, as it provides nearly all the benefit of Scenario A at a substantially lower cost. Building Scenario B to London will cost $4 Billion.

Are we referring to different studies or how come that the study I read refers to 300 and 250 km/h as the respective design speeds of Ontario HSR?

"The two HSR scenarios have been developed to frame the boundary of what HSR is and what the Business Case could be based on di ering maximum speeds, as follows:

• Scenario A: HSR designed for 300km/h along the corridor

• Scenario B: HSR designed 250km/h electrified alignment with increased use of existing right of way/corridors"

(SDG, November 2016, p.40)

 

[44 North]

I wonder why we don't see the Prov and VIA work together, or vice versa. If there's funds to be had (I doubt there will be) I think the two should work alongside each other. Personally I'm not a supporter of HSR, rather HFR, line upgrades to existing rail, and expansions of both GO and Via. Say, upgrades to London via both KW and Brantford, but also GO to Brantford; new GO/VIA corridor to Pboro for system expansion and general network redundancy; and something up Orangeville ways. The growth outside the GTHA is happening so I think it'd be wise to plan for servicing today. In other words I don't think it'd be a good idea to go for some proprietary HSR system.

 

[MisterF]

I still don't think that Via's HFR plan is necessarily at odds with the province's HSR plan. Everything I've read from Desjardins-Siciliano against high speed rail is specifically talking about the Toronto-Montreal corridor, not Toronto-London. Sensationalist newspaper articles are trying to set up a Via vs HSR angle but I've yet to see any substance to that. I don't think that either party is shortsighted enough to not work together.

Yep. You're right. From Collenette's final report. Table 3.1 page 44. Scenario B (250 kph), Toronto-London is $4.11 billion. It's Scenario A (300 kph) that is $15.1 billion.

So maybe it is doable by 2025. But with that 4-5 year EA, we'll see how motivated they are to get 'er done on time.

Upgrading the GO corridor to Kitchener to 250 km/h isn't all that outlandish when the line is being upgraded and electrified anyway. That's the part of the project that makes the most sense and is the most likely. I could see it surviving a change in government. The section to London is more of a toss-up and could easily be cancelled. The Windsor extension is a a pipe dream.