News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.6K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 331     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 897     0 

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

Yes they support it - especially to KWC. they promise all day GO service to KWC as well.

Their official stance, according to the CBC:

In releasing its southwestern Ontario platform Tuesday morning, the NDPs said they understand the need for "fast and reliable passenger rail service along a dedicated corridor through the southwest."

It noted the NDP will continue with the environmental assessments and said building "fast rail will only be successful if communities on the corridor are willing partners and see the benefits from these investments and that prime farmland is protected."

The NDP promised to focus on filling the gaps in intercity passenger services, which includes working with Metrolinx, Via Rail and urban transit.

In Kitchener at an announcement about the southwestern Ontario platform, Waterloo candidate Catherine Fife said Wynne was "doing some fearmongering" about the platform.

"On page 94 of the NDP fully costed, fully transparent platform, we say very clearly that the NDP has carried this budgetline forward for high-speed rail through the baseline program expense, which means that the NDP will continue to fund the progress," Fife said.

"We're going to be inclusive in the process of ensuring that high-speed rail actually happens and if you don't include the other communities across this entire rail system, they'll feel excluded and they'll fight that high-speed rail."
Click to expand...
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Has the NDP indicated at all that they support HSR? Particularly between Waterloo and Toronto (the only section that should be built, imo)
Click to expand...
Liberals Challenge NDP’s High Speed Rail Plan

BY: SQUARE STAFF 22 MAY 2018

(LONDON, ON) – High speed rail is a vital project for providing jobs and opportunities to the people of southwestern Ontario. The Ontario Liberals are committed to building it. The environmental assessment process for the project is underway and the Liberals committed $11 billion in their last budget for construction, with a commitment to start service on the first phase by 2025.

During her launch of the NDP’s southwest platform, Andrea Horwath reserved precisely zero words in her remarks for high speed rail, which is equal to the dollars the NDP has committed to building high speed rail.

“It’s a balanced plan that supports a growing economy and fosters the creation of really good jobs, and a plan that invests in child care, healthcare care, and seniors care; all those things that people need and are looking for,” Premier Kathleen Wynne said about high speed rail on May 15. “It’s exactly why the largest new investment in our most recent budget is more than $11 billion to build the first phase of high speed rail.”

A quick search of Horwath’s speech about highspeed rail at her southwest platform launch in London, also on May 15, turned up zero results.

Highspeed rail means connecting southwestern Ontario to Toronto in as little as 73 minutes. Providing new opportunities for businesses to create jobs and find the talent they need to grow.

Liberals have a plan to bring this project to southwestern Ontario. The NDP doesn’t.
Click to expand...
http://www.windsorsquare.ca/archives/2018/liberals-challenge-ndps-high-speed-rail-plan/115227

In all due respect, I take anything any of them say with a pinch of Windsor salt.
 
crs1026 said:
Meandering? It’s straight as an arrow in most places, and most curves are gentle. Way better alignment than what VIA faces on the Havelock Sub. The only really tight unfixable spot is St Marys itself, and that might have to be speed restricted anyways due to its ‘urban’ location.



The difference in trip time is small for that slightly shorter route.. To get to 250 km/h, you have to separate all those new grade crossings. The proposed line runs on a diagonal to the road grid, so that’s two crossngs per concession not one. The existing route actually has some grade separations already and it has a more elegant crossing of the road grid. So 175 km/hr on the existing route will be way cheaper to achieve than 250 km/h on the new route. Way cheaper.

Which is why we need to compare demand and price for the two scenarios. I’m not sure that the pure HSR option will prove superior in overall revenue generation, but if it costs double, is that a better return? Sure, at premium price, the faster system might generate the same revenue on a lower trip volume....but are we happy with that as a transportation design? We should be looking to maximise ridership first and revenue second. It’s UPE all over again..... the general transportation need (GTS) never got met while the boutique need got addressed.

BTW - My Windsor friends are actually starting to wake up to Toronto- London HSR and are grumbling about how all the money is being spent “inside the big bubble” and they are getting left out. Don’t write off Windsor in terms of either demand or politics. Again, I don’t see the need for the bizarre high end route that Collenette dreamed up..... just upgrade the existing route to 175 km/h, increase frequency, and see what that produces.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Simply upgrading the existing route to 175 km/h maximum isn't going to attract people to get out of their cars to ride it especially since the average speed would be comparable to taking the 401 in good traffic. The difference being the 401 doesn't stop in every small town or city along the way. It shouldn't be about building HFR or HSR. We need both. HFR for the milk runs and HSR to shuttle passengers heading to the major destinations faster. Sure it's expensive to do it but the returns are huge. And if the TGV Duplex is any indication, you can fit a lot of people into a high speed train.
 
Can we just stop with the "stopping in every small town" discussion....this HSR as currently designed bypasses the largest municipality West of Pearson that it passes through. There may be good reason why that is but it is safe to say that size of municipality is clearly not a determining factor in selecting where the stops will be.....so it should not be a factor in discussing same.
 
Even HFR won't "stop at every small town". And HFR, all things considered, will only be a shade less speed than HSR, and a hell of a lot faster than driving. Even GO train to Kitchener now, which is very slow, beats driving.
 
steveintoronto said:
Even HFR won't "stop at every small town". And HFR, all things considered, will only be a shade less speed than HSR, and a hell of a lot faster than driving. Even GO train to Kitchener now, which is very slow, beats driving.
Click to expand...
For rail travels, like air travels, you need to factor in the time to and from the stations, while car travel can do door to door. Also cost is another consideration. Rail may make sense for single drivers, but for a car full of 4 passengers car travel is a lot cheaper.
 
The NDP would kill themselves in London and Windsor if it were to stop at KW and the original proposal was based on London which was to see London to Union in 70 minutes. Throughout the years of endless HSR studies in Canada, there has NEVER been a proposal that went west of Toronto and didn`t have London as a station but several didn`t include KW but rather the southern Aldershot routing. London is also the SW regional centre while KW is just a very local one and increasingly seen as just another Toronto suburb.
 
A number of comments have focused of cost and travel time as factors that would deter people from using HFR. Speaking only for myself, I’d incorporate a couple of other factors in my modal decision. First, reliability. Driving times in the GTA are pretty variable due to accidents, peak volumes, construction induced lane restrictions and inclement weather. I’d happily spend more to avoid the unpredictability of driving. Second, train is a better use of time. You can work or read.
 
pman said:
A number of comments have focused of cost and travel time as factors that would deter people from using HFR. Speaking only for myself, I’d incorporate a couple of other factors in my modal decision. First, reliability. Driving times in the GTA are pretty variable due to accidents, peak volumes, construction induced lane restrictions and inclement weather. I’d happily spend more to avoid the unpredictability of driving. Second, train is a better use of time. You can work or read.
Click to expand...
Do you consider TTC subway as reliable?
 
HFR is only as good as the quality of the track it runs on. Hourly trains from Kitchener to Union that still take over 2 hours one way aren’t of much use when you can drive the same trip in less than that at most times of day.
 
crs1026 said:
Meandering? It’s straight as an arrow in most places, and most curves are gentle. Way better alignment than what VIA faces on the Havelock Sub. The only really tight unfixable spot is St Marys itself, and that might have to be speed restricted anyways due to its ‘urban’ location.



The difference in trip time is small for that slightly shorter route.. To get to 250 km/h, you have to separate all those new grade crossings. The proposed line runs on a diagonal to the road grid, so that’s two crossngs per concession not one. The existing route actually has some grade separations already and it has a more elegant crossing of the road grid. So 175 km/hr on the existing route will be way cheaper to achieve than 250 km/h on the new route. Way cheaper.

Which is why we need to compare demand and price for the two scenarios. I’m not sure that the pure HSR option will prove superior in overall revenue generation, but if it costs double, is that a better return? Sure, at premium price, the faster system might generate the same revenue on a lower trip volume....but are we happy with that as a transportation design? We should be looking to maximise ridership first and revenue second. It’s UPE all over again..... the general transportation need (GTS) never got met while the boutique need got addressed.

BTW - My Windsor friends are actually starting to wake up to Toronto- London HSR and are grumbling about how all the money is being spent “inside the big bubble” and they are getting left out. Don’t write off Windsor in terms of either demand or politics. Again, I don’t see the need for the bizarre high end route that Collenette dreamed up..... just upgrade the existing route to 175 km/h, increase frequency, and see what that produces.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Conventional speed improvements to London are a worthy investment to be sure; it would be interesting if travel times on the north mainline could be made competitive with the south mainline for a reasonable cost. Presumably it would be more reliable too if they get control of the whole route from freight operators. If conventional improvements are all that we get then I agree, the existing alignment should be used. But that doesn't mean that high speed rail isn't a good idea as well. And a high speed rail line would absolutely need a new alignment.

Yes, meandering. Compared to the direct route that HSR would take between the two cities the existing route is significantly longer - ~94 km compared to ~82 km is a difference of 14%; the difference in travel times would be a lot more because of the speed difference. There's nothing bizarre about the planned HSR alignment. It's not something that Collenette dreamed up; the idea goes at least as far back as the exhaustive feasibility study done in 1995. A new alignment was recommended by that report as well. In fact, that report included much more new track than the current plan, going all the way from London to near Pearson Airport. The current plan, by contrast, makes much more use of existing rights of way. It's quite conservative in its use of brand new alignments compared to most HSR projects.

As for your friends in Windsor, I don't know what they're grumbling about if they're getting a high speed rail line that is in no way economically justified. Sometimes people who grumble have expectations that are frankly unreasonable. I'm not the one writing off Windsor. The 2016 report concluded that the benefit-cost ratio for the Windsor portion would be starkly negative. The 1995 study came to a similar conclusion. Your friends may not like it but facts are facts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top