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

[Allandale25]

Local Councillor along the route asking for pictures and stories on the impacts of HSR. Recent post: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1775494745821911&id=671218429582887

 

[BurlOak]

Local Councillor along the route asking for pictures and stories on the impacts of HSR. Recent post: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1775494745821911&id=671218429582887

Two questions I see are:

1. Why HSR, if slightly slower and more frequent trains would cost a lot less, and wouldn't close numerous cross roads?
2. Why is this HSR proposed to be in the Hydro Corridor, but when any transit in Toronto is proposed in a hydro corridor, they always says that hydro companies won't allow this?

 

[holographic plastic]

I think ultimately Ontario just needs to bite the bullet and at least start to build a high speed rail network. This is a chance for a first time opportunity in Canada, and I think it's something that should definitely be getting more support. Slower more frequent trains would work in some places, but why settle for that when you could go full force towards HSP?

 

[Urban Sky]

I think ultimately Ontario just needs to bite the bullet and at least start to build a high speed rail network. This is a chance for a first time opportunity in Canada, and I think it's something that should definitely be getting more support. Slower more frequent trains would work in some places, but why settle for that when you could go full force towards HSP?

In this country of 37 million people, the intercity rail market only counts a mere 4.4 million trips per year, which means that statistically, every Canadian uses an intercity train less than once every 8 (!) years, meaning that the actual percentage of Canadians using intercity rail in any given year is somewhere in the single digits (considering that some passengers travelled more than once in the same year or were non-residents like international tourists) or most probably even lower than that. Why would any government invest an amount equal to several percentage points of its GDP into such a niche market?

Even when including commuter rail, Canada's per-capita rail ridership is a small fraction of what European countries had when they started to introduce HSR (one single ride on the UP Express from Union to Pearson Airport is already enough to put you above the average mileage travelled by your fellow citizens on any passenger train):

Note: Table was first posted in Post #3064 of the VIA Rail thread and shows the population figures and rail ridership for the "base year" indicated. For sources, please visit the original post.

 

[holographic plastic]

In this country of 37 million people, the intercity rail market only counts a mere 4.4 million trips per year, which means that statistically, every Canadian uses an intercity train less than once every 8 (!) years, meaning that the actual percentage of Canadians using intercity rail in any given year is somewhere in the single digits (considering that some passengers travelled more than once in the same year or were non-residents like international tourists) or most probably even lower than that. Why would any government invest an amount equal to several percentage points of its GDP into such a niche market?

Even when including commuter rail, Canada's per-capita rail ridership is a small fraction of what European countries had when they started to introduce HSR (one single ride on the UP Express from Union to Pearson Airport is already enough to put you above the average mileage travelled by your fellow citizens on any passenger train):

Note: Table was first posted in Post #3064 of the VIA Rail thread and shows the population figures and rail ridership for the "base year" indicated. For sources, please visit the original post.

The ridership is so low because Canada's passenger rail infrastructure is pitiful compared to those other countries, and as it stands trains aren't seen as a viable transportation option simply because of the lack of proper infrastructure and poor service. Obviously less people ride trains in Canada if the service is nowhere near t the same level as some of these European countries.

 

[kEiThZ]

In this country of 37 million people, the intercity rail market only counts a mere 4.4 million trips per year, which means that statistically, every Canadian uses an intercity train less than once every 8 (!) years, meaning that the actual percentage of Canadians using intercity rail in any given year is somewhere in the single digits (considering that some passengers travelled more than once in the same year or were non-residents like international tourists) or most probably even lower than that. Why would any government invest an amount equal to several percentage points of its GDP into such a niche market?

Even when including commuter rail, Canada's per-capita rail ridership is a small fraction of what European countries had when they started to introduce HSR (one single ride on the UP Express from Union to Pearson Airport is already enough to put you above the average mileage travelled by your fellow citizens on any passenger train):

Note: Table was first posted in Post #3064 of the VIA Rail thread and shows the population figures and rail ridership for the "base year" indicated. For sources, please visit the original post.

I sincerely appreciate your viewpoint Johannes. But you know the context is different here. Why compare to 37 million? HSR it not viable for most of Canada. It would be viable in the corridor we are talking about here. And between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

I appreciate VIA's strategy for HFR for TOM only because we don't have an alternative. But let's not pretend that's not a big compromise.

 

[ssiguy2]

In Europe, rail is a way of life.

Realistically the Canadian population is only 20 million............the Windsor-Quebec Corridor. In the rest of Canada, VIA ia a non-entity and even more so in Western Canada. You could close down VIA in the West and no one would ever notice.

 

[kEiThZ]

In Europe, rail is a way of life.

Realistically the Canadian population is only 20 million............the Windsor-Quebec Corridor. In the rest of Canada, VIA ia a non-entity and even more so in Western Canada. You could close down VIA in the West and no one would ever notice.

It's not even the whole Corridor that is truly relevant. The CMAs of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal add up to about 10.4 million. Add in KWC and Guelph and you're at about 11 million. This is a great target for HSR. Even if service to Lakeshore cities must be sacrificed. And realistically, that's the sacrifice that would have to be made. HSR for those 11 million people would come to about $25 billion at minimum. Admittedly a large sum. But recoverable.

HFR isn't a bad idea for VIA. As long as there's a path to upgrade that allows them to add speed every year by removing some level crossings or straightening out some segments. But when you're talking about making regional commutes possible, speeds usually have to hit at least 200 kph to be viable.

 

[crs1026]

The more I read about climate change, the more I am convinced that we are approaching a crisis point where we get desperate about ditching auto travel. The key consideration to me at that point is not trip time alone - we can get to auto equal without high end HSR - but how many start end points we can create for public transit to maximise the auto trips avoided.
To me that argues for not putting all our capital into HSR, but holding some money back to extend the ‘network’ out wherever possible.
My bet is that today’s carbon tax debate will go by the wayside as it’s small potatoes to what we will see eventually. The investment to get off carbon will pale to what today’s carbon tax formula would provide.
It’s not about whether HSR can pay for itself, its more about how we stretch our investment beyond the backbone. To me that says do the network first and keep the enhancement to the main line modest.
- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Almost a third of Canada's population is within about two hour's drive of the westernmost tip of Lake Ontario.

Not just Toronto and metro-area municipalities -- this area catches all cities inside the circle that encompasses London, Niagara Falls, Oshawa, Barrie.

The density justifies massive rail upgrades in this specific region of Canada. HFR, HSR, RER, you name it.

 

[kEiThZ]

The more I read about climate change, the more I am convinced that we are approaching a crisis point where we get desperate about ditching auto travel. The key consideration to me at that point is not trip time alone - we can get to auto equal without high end HSR - but how many start end points we can create for public transit to maximise the auto trips avoided.
To me that argues for not putting all our capital into HSR, but holding some money back to extend the ‘network’ out wherever possible.
My bet is that today’s carbon tax debate will go by the wayside as it’s small potatoes to what we will see eventually. The investment to get off carbon will pale to what today’s carbon tax formula would provide.
It’s not about whether HSR can pay for itself, its more about how we stretch our investment beyond the backbone. To me that says do the network first and keep the enhancement to the main line modest.
- Paul

I am with you on this. All that said. Let's be honest. Canadians don't give a damn about climate change. They say they do. But their actions say otherwise. And we really should stop pretending that Canadians care in the slightest.

We live in some of the largest homes in the world (third largest actually), in one of the coldest countries in the world, with cites that are highly suburbanized. We are some of the most carnivorous populations anywhere, with a lot of that being the most carbon-intensive form of it (red meat). And our exports come from a highly carbon intensive energy sector that supplies carbon emission to other countries.

There's no hope any of that will change in our lifetimes. So the appeal for anything to do with infrastructure has to be convenience and economic benefit.

 

[narduch]

I am with you on this. All that said. Let's be honest. Canadians don't give a damn about climate change. They say they do. But their actions say otherwise. And we really should stop pretending that Canadians care in the slightest.

We live in some of the largest homes in the world (third largest actually), in one of the coldest countries in the world, with cites that are highly suburbanized. We are some of the most carnivorous populations anywhere, with a lot of that being the most carbon-intensive form of it (red meat). And our exports come from a highly carbon intensive energy sector that supplies carbon emission to other countries.

There's no hope any of that will change in our lifetimes. So the appeal for anything to do with infrastructure has to be convenience and economic benefit.

Don't forget the winter vacations to a Carribean all-inclusive.

But hey let's not build on the Greenbelt.

 

[mdrejhon]

Although HFR is cheaper, I'm not opposed to HSR -- for the core segment (e.g. London through Montreal)

Whatever is politically easiest to get built quickest with maximal benefits.

 

[kEiThZ]

Here's an article with the Sankey diagrams for Canada' energy and emissions flows:

http://www.cesarnet.ca/blog/it-s-carbon-stupid-visualizing-canada-s-carbon-flows

You'll see how large a part oil exports play. And perversely because that portion is so large, it makes Canadians stupid on tackling emissions. The left incessantly attacks the oil sector ignoring the carbon intensive lifestyles of the average Canadian. And the right argues that all those other emissions (like Canada's emissions as a whole) are negligible. So they are irrelevant.

I voted for Trudeau thinking he really understood the relationship between our infrastructure and emissions. Instead, even with this supposedly environmentally friendly government, their first priority was social spending. And most of that infrastructure was not aimed at infrastructure that would reduce emissions. It's cemented my belief that Canadians really don't care about climate change, despite what they say.

So if we are to sell HSR, HFR, etc. we'll have to argue on grounds other than environmental considerations. The pitch for the TKL HSR, should be economic revitalization of London, strengthening KWC as a tech hub and allowing relief on the GTA for those seeking housing. The pitch for HFR on the TOM corridor should be, relief from high airfares, poor driving conditions in the winter, and reliable, regular service.

 

[kEiThZ]

Don't forget the winter vacations to a Carribean all-inclusive.

But hey let's not build on the Greenbelt.

The Greenbelt was a perfectly reasonable idea. It's allowing development to skip over the Greenbelt that made a farce out of what would have been good policy.