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

[innsertnamehere]

The cost shouldn't be looked at purely as Toronto-Chicago, but rather Chicago-Detroit, Detroit-Toronto, London-Detroit, Ann Arbour-Detroit, Windsor-Toronto, Etc., etc., etc.

The full corridor would be Chicago-Toronto, which sure, may be pushing the feasible length of train journey, but the benefits would acrue mostly on the shorter mid-corridor trips.

Unlike a theoretical Toronto-NYC train, Toronto-Chicago covers much simpler terrain and conveniently has another metro of 4,000,000 in the middle to help drive ridership.

If Windsor HSR ever happens, you could probably get a nice corridor service with only a little bit of upgrading on the US side and a timed transfer from HSR to a diesel train in Detroit. 5 hours from Chicago to Detroit, then a little over 2 from Windsor to Toronto.. that would be a competitive trip.

 

[TOareaFan]

If by capital expenditures you mean a new tunnel, I agree with you. That's a huge cost, way beyond what the revenue would provide payback for. I was thinking more that the ridership potential, and hence the operating cost, is probably in the same order of magnitude as New York-Toronto, and if that holds its own, then why not Toronto-Chicago. As noted, much of the track is already as good or better than the New York route, and there are further improvements coming.

The big uncertainty is whether use of the existing Windsor-Detroit tunnel is out of the question. And can the border crossing be improved - this is what more than anything killed the former service.

- Paul

I would have to do more studying but I think that having one of the top tourist attractions in the world in between the two endpoints on the Toronto - New York route might make some sort of difference....I don't know. I also don't know if it really is "holding its own" or if it is being subsidized on one/both sides of the border. I really don't know.

 

[MisterF]

I would have to do more studying but I think that having one of the top tourist attractions in the world in between the two endpoints on the Toronto - New York route might make some sort of difference....I don't know. I also don't know if it really is "holding its own" or if it is being subsidized on one/both sides of the border. I really don't know.

I can't imagine a lot of long distance train trips from Toronto to New York. While it's the same distance as Toronto to Montreal as the crow flies (~500 km in both cases), it's a much less direct rail route with the trip taking 13 long hours. That makes it a lot harder to compete with flying. While the whole route is ripe for upgrading for more local focused travel, as an end to end rail corridor it's tough to make relevant.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Im shocked there isnt already one...

Amtrak cut it due to low ridership, also, VIA is insanely expensive when compared to Amtrak.

I have been preferring to ride the train if price and speed competitive to car.

But it depends on the comfort and time.

As a reference point, I tried the train from Montreal to New York City, a slightly shorter distance (600km vs 800km) - cost me only $69 one way but was very slow.

If price to Chicago is under $100 and manages the newly upgraded US rail speed of 125kph then that is still cheaper than gas for solo car travel while still marginally beating a drive.

Price for two will be slightly more expensive than car but still cheaper than flying. Just make it marginally faster than a nonstop drive (offpeak with no food stops) and the train begins to win preference consistently for a 2 person drive, given the savings over airfare.

If the time is roughly competitive to driving and I am just touristing within downtown or transit-easy areas, I'll check trains.

With a possible lightly improved 150-200kph corridor to KW and even just upgrade existing corridor to London (no bypass), the train time begin to actually slightly beat time of driving if it's a single seat ride. Given the US side is being upgraded to 125mph in sections - almost twice the freeway speed in sections.

Realistically (In the past, when I briefly lived in Riverdale area of Toronto before permanently moving to Hamilton), the drive is already almost 10 hours for me because of food stops, and one gridlock section, anyway - given my Chicago drive usually starts on a Friday early afternoon to beat Toronto rush, but I can't beat rush in all sections of the route.

The business case will be justifiable eventually (a matter of time) -- if it can be reduced to a 7 hour train ride or faster while sub-$100. That does not even require HSR or much geography changes to get that fast.

Detroit -- Chicago is arguably a commuter corridor nowadays in the way that Toronto--Montreal is a commuter corridor. I'm surprised all the Michigan services are not being electrified given the fact that Amtrak owns much of the track. It would be really nice to see electrified higher speed rail between Toronto, Waterloo, Port Huron and Chicago, as well as Toronto, London, Detroit, Chicago. Oh well, it's just a pipe dream.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It is exactly a pipe dream - but its a relatively tantalizing one since the path for it happening isn't actually super complicated.

 

[Isotack]

Proposed by the desperate Ontario Liberal party in hopes of baiting for a few London seats from the NDP...lol NOBODY is going to London...let alone on a high speed train

 

[syn]

Proposed by the desperate Ontario Liberal party in hopes of baiting for a few London seats from the NDP...lol NOBODY is going to London...let alone on a high speed train

Plenty of people are going to London - and staying. As Toronto house prices increase, places like London are becoming de-facto suburbs.

Hopefully this project isn't derailed by the new government - IMO it's important for the growth of the region.

 

[KevinT]

Proposed by the desperate Ontario Liberal party in hopes of baiting for a few London seats from the NDP...lol NOBODY is going to London...let alone on a high speed train

True high speed trains are merely a nice to have, but a dedicated passenger corridor that can be electrified and properly scheduled is a MUST. If HSR is the sizzle used to sell that steak then so be it.

 

[BurlOak]

True high speed trains are merely a nice to have, but a dedicated passenger corridor that can be electrified and properly scheduled is a MUST. If HSR is the sizzle used to sell that steak then so be it.

What if HSR is the overpriced proposal that kills a more reasonable solution. Not all extreme proposals result in compromise - sometimes they result in the entire idea being killed.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

The President of VIA has said a few times that he would like VIA's High Frequency Rail project extended south to London and Windsor. Considering VIA could get trains up to 177km/h without grade separations everywhere (as per Transport Canada), and that the first phase from Toronto to Quebec City is pegged at $4 billion, an extension to London could be the more economical option. Also, with rumours that VIA wants to buy the Kitchener-London line from CN (who is ending their lease with their short line operator there in November), it could get up and running much faster than HSR.

 

[innsertnamehere]

If anything VIA has more legs on a Quebec-Montreal first phase leg than on Toronto-Windsor.

Though I agree, HFR from Windsor to QC would be ideal.

 

[KevinT]

What if HSR is the overpriced proposal that kills a more reasonable solution. Not all extreme proposals result in compromise - sometimes they result in the entire idea being killed.

Fair point, but isn't all of life just a life-sized version of the "What If?" game? I doubt any large project (under consideration or 'successfully' executed) has every gone perfectly. There are always compromises and would'as/should'as/could'as to be found when looking back.

 

[crs1026]

Fair point, but isn't all of life just a life-sized version of the "What If?" game? I doubt any large project (under consideration or 'successfully' executed) has every gone perfectly. There are always compromises and would'as/should'as/could'as to be found when looking back.

It's a challenge to find the point where you propose the maximum possible change without stepping into the zone where the public rejects the idea as too far out. In this country, the term 'HSR' has a widespread view as 'fantasy thinking' or impracticality and lavish overexpenditure. We transportation geeks may disagree, but we are a minority.

And in fact, when our politicians have trotted out the HSR brand, it has been in hopes of enticing the electorate with something sexy and self-aggrandising, with a pretty insincere and patently pie-in-the-sky waxing of poetry, paid for with our own tax money. People see through that.

The only way this is going to get off the ground in this province, with its current demographic and political reality, is if the government simply refers to the project as "Better train service" and/or (if the bypass is to be pursued) "A new rail line from Kitchener to London". They then need to articulate the business case, eg why the Stratford line is not an acceptable route, and what the impact will be on highway congestion, without branding and puffery. They can find some bland term like "SW Ontario Rail Performance Project" to describe the thing, which may read word-for-word as HSR. But only we transit geeks need know that.

- Paul

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

This idea that HSR is about climate change is pure crap. This is the similar argument that somehow urban transit is going to reduce emissions which also has proven to be crap. The very MOST they can hope for is a small decline in the growth of those emissions and even that is really pushing it. To say it`s about climate change might make for good politics and keep David Suzuki and friends happy but it has no basis in reality.

Any VERY temporary reduction in auto traffic between any 2 areas whether they be local with urban transit or regional with HSR rail simply creates temporarily smaller reductions in traffic. Of course that in turn results in those highways quickly filling up again as people flock to these temporary reduction traffic roads and within months you are back to square 1. It`s called induced demand.

This is not about reducing emissions but rather giving people realistic alternatives to driving. The Corridor is growing at nearly 300,000 a year and no amount of HSR is going to result in reduction of auto use. If rail is backed up by the climate change agenda then HSR is the kind of project that should be the very LAST thing to get built. It won`t make a hoot of difference with our polluting trucks and long distance highway driving results in far fewer emissions per km drove than urban stop and start car use.

In addition, if we really cared about reducing trips completed by automobile, the multiple billions of dollars that HSR would cost to serve very few people, could be much better spent in investing in rapid transit and commuter rail in our urban areas that will serve many many many many many times more people.

 

[jje1000]

The President of VIA has said a few times that he would like VIA's High Frequency Rail project extended south to London and Windsor. Considering VIA could get trains up to 177km/h without grade separations everywhere (as per Transport Canada), and that the first phase from Toronto to Quebec City is pegged at $4 billion, an extension to London could be the more economical option. Also, with rumours that VIA wants to buy the Kitchener-London line from CN (who is ending their lease with their short line operator there in November), it could get up and running much faster than HSR.

Could be interesting- would there be overlap between GO and VIA service?

Or could GO act as the local, slower system (serving Guelph, Waterloo, etc.) while VIA serves as the express (direct to Waterloo and beyond)? Lots of opportunities there, which probably makes the lack of progress all the more painful.