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

[kEiThZ]

Unfortunately it is a very much a black box in terms of what exactly is taking place behind the scenes.

And that black box is why I refuse to let them off the hook. I care about action not talk. For me, they had 4 years. They have not put together a financing plan. Or even started an EA. Don't try and tell me that they are serious about HFR or any intercity rail for that matter. This government can find $300 million for EV subsidies and couldn't budget a fifth of that to fully complete all studies and environmental assessments during their time in office.

Yes, part of the service could launch without the tunnel. But from an optics perspective, that Montreal-Quebec section is fairly key as it will result in the biggest time savings over the current service, and potentially be the section of the line that brings the biggest increase in customers, and elevates the potential success of the project that much more.

I think you are taking a shot in the dark here. If I recall correctly, Montreal-Quebec wasn't even included in the earliest iterations. And given the traffic on Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, Quebec-Montreal is irrelevant to viability.

VIA is not an organization on the cutting edge. That is about as polite as I can put that.

I don't blame VIA. I blame the government that refuses to properly resources a 100% publicly owned crown corporation.

Yes, it will get worse, which is why the problem can only be ignored for so long.

They can ignore it a lot longer than you think. At minimum, their cancellation of electrification is at least for this term. Best case scenario is a restart of electrification and RER planning in 2022. And given the complexity and lead times involved, best case scenario would be getting one line done by 2026. Reality may be well be closer to 2030.

If some people see electrification as being a 'grand' project, who am I to argue with that.

What I am referring to here is the more discretized nature of spending when it comes to actual electrification of lines. We go from simply spending x hundred million/yr on track, signalling and grade separation to actually needing to spend a billion or two at a time for each line. That means simply electrification of any line will be considered against other provincial priorities. This is why I say the best case scenario would be full RER by 2040.

Consider what happens if Ford gets re-elected.

 

[JohnnyRenton]

I think you are taking a shot in the dark here. If I recall correctly, Montreal-Quebec wasn't even included in the earliest iterations. And given the traffic on Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, Quebec-Montreal is irrelevant to viability.

Your right, I don't know all of the justifications behind their planning. But that route is an easy win for seeing substantial increases in customers. While the current train between the two cities does have very scenic views from it, its a pretty slow and rubbish, and often delayed, way to get between the two cities right now.

I don't blame VIA. I blame the government that refuses to properly resources a 100% publicly owned crown corporation.

The flip side is that VIA needs to show why rail travel is still relevant and should be better funded. I am not saying it is all VIA's fault. But when you think of VIA, you might think comfort, and drinking beer as you trundle through rural Ontario and Quebec, but a progressive, modern, 21st transportation company is not an image that comes to my mind (the new rolling stock being perhaps the only exception to that in recent memory).

They can ignore it a lot longer than you think. At minimum, their cancellation of electrification is at least for this term. Best case scenario is a restart of electrification and RER planning in 2022. And given the complexity and lead times involved, best case scenario would be getting one line done by 2026. Reality may be well be closer to 2030.

Yes, it is going to delay the project, which is a shame. But the public desire for transit and dealing with commute times is increasing with each passing year. This isn't the 90's where a government could come in, slash almost all transit funding, and just move on.

What I am referring to here is the more discretized nature of spending when it comes to actual electrification of lines. We go from simply spending x hundred million/yr on track, signalling and grade separation to actually needing to spend a billion or two at a time for each line. That means simply electrification of any line will be considered against other provincial priorities. This is why I say the best case scenario would be full RER by 2040.

Consider what happens if Ford gets re-elected.

And given the cost of many transit projects in the GTA, having to spend $2-3 billion on electrification in one shot is far less a barrier than it has been at any point in the past. In todays climate, it would probably elicit the same sort of reaction that the investment into the Georgetown corridor got.

Don't get me wrong, I think that RER being on hold is hugely disappointing. If there was one project across the GTA, perhaps even in all of Canada, that I wanted to see go forward, that was it. And yes, it can feel like things are moving super slow when it comes to transit. But reshaping a city and infrastructure away from cars and towards transit and active transportation, especially when so much of the city/region was built in the automobile age, is a massive project. I know a lot of people want to see that last piece of electrification fall into place for the GO network. But if you consider everything that they have done in the past 2 decades to get the network to where it is today, it is quite an achievement, especially when you consider the anti-transit environment they often operated in. The momentum is there, and it would take something pretty exceptional for it to disappear (even a Ford re-election might not doom electrification).

 

[kEiThZ]

Your right, I don't know all of the justifications behind their planning. But that route is an easy win for seeing substantial increases in customers. While the current train between the two cities does have very scenic views from it, its a pretty slow and rubbish, and often delayed, way to get between the two cities right now.

Increase in traffic? Sure. Substantial enough to delay the project, as per your original claim. Definitely not. There are > 40 flights daily between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, the better part of a dozen trains, probably a dozen buses, and tons of auto traffic. Quebec city traffic will literally be an order or magnitude or more lower. Given that HFR would almost make Toronto-Ottawa competitive with air and Ottawa-Montreal almost commutable, I would argue, Montreal-Quebec is irrelevant. Again, this just isn't even close to being a real excuse to delay work on HFR for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

The flip side is that VIA needs to show why rail travel is still relevant and should be better funded.

Can't do that without actual funds to invest and improve service. How do you "show" relevancy when your trains are falling apart and your schedule is crap because you don't get priority on the freight lines you share?

I actually want an answer here. What exactly do you think VIA Rail could do, within their current budget to "show why rail travel is still relevant and should be better funded."

I am not saying it is all VIA's fault.

I am saying it's not VIA's fault at all. I blame successive federal governments over the last few decades. The current one's neglect really isn't all that exceptional.

This isn't the 90's where a government could come in, slash almost all transit funding, and just move on.

And yet that's what Doug Ford just did. Voters don't care. They may whine about traffic. But it's not actually bad enough for them to be willing to pay higher taxes and congestion charges and property taxes to fund a better transit system. That's the reality of the situation.

Consider how ridiculously low Toronto's property taxes are. You will pay the same on a $700 000 house in Toronto as you would on a $300 000 condo in Ottawa. But they say they want to build "world class transit".....

And given the cost of many transit projects in the GTA, having to spend $2-3 billion on electrification in one shot is far less a barrier than it has been at any point in the past.

$2-3 billion for electrification? LOL. No. That would buy you one line.

GO has also done a more business case for expansion which includes electrification:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd..._BoardMtg_GO_Expansion_Full_Business_Case.PDF

$16.8 billion for conversion of which only $3.8 billion were system wide costs. Every line is at or above $2 Billion individually, with the exception of the Kitchener Line at $1.9 billion. And this is with service start in 2025-2030 with 2017 dollars. Take a guess at what costs will be if construction starts in 2025 even if system wide costs have been done piecemeal of the coming years.

So how is it going to go when GO has to announce subway level construction costs for every line. How much of the public will be onboard? The 416-905 fights for transit cash will get even more intense. And that's all in the best case scenario of shovels in the ground in 2025.

We aren't even yet back to our actual thread topic of building out to London....

 

[crs1026]

The flip side is that VIA needs to show why rail travel is still relevant and should be better funded. I am not saying it is all VIA's fault. But when you think of VIA, you might think comfort, and drinking beer as you trundle through rural Ontario and Quebec, but a progressive, modern, 21st transportation company is not an image that comes to my mind (the new rolling stock being perhaps the only exception to that in recent memory).

It may be an unscientific sample, but those I talk to (and I mean non-enthusiast folks, not UTers) consistently praise the on-board experience they receive on VIA. OBS is the one part of the equation that VIA has full control over, and they do it well. The less enjoyable parts of a VIA journey are generally someone else’s doing. I don’t think VIA’s image is as bad as you claim - the folks in my sample group have far worse things to say about air travel - but even if you are correct, I don’t think you can pin VIA’s shortcomings on its own performance. The paper cuts are everywhere.

The relevance of VIA in the Corridor is unquestionable....the market demand and the value proposition may not justify TGV level HSR but it justifies the better performing level of railway that VIA could become with reasonable investment and a legal framework that lets them control their operation.

It boggles my mind that at a time when Ottawa has its back to the wall to justify the carbon tax, it chooses not to invest in HFR. That would be a far more impactful use of the carbon tax revenue than the self serving credit that is being paid out to everyone at tax time. It’s as if the Liberals are admitting that they have no idea how to use tax revenue for greater good, except to buy votes with it.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

the market demand and the value proposition may not justify TGV level HSR

I honestly believe it does. The Quebec-Windsor corridor has European levels of population density. And air, bus and auto traffic between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal is very similar in context to Barcelona-Madrid, one of the most successful high speed rail lines in the world. Add in the fact that we have a crap climate which makes air, auto and bus travel less reliable for half the year, and sky high (pun intended) surcharges on aviation and you have a great case for HSR.

But since our wonderful Confederation involves such intense jealousies than any federal government investing in a corridor with over a third of the country's population might lose an election, we have to settle for HFR. What's truly sad here is that we never even got that.

It boggles my mind that at a time when Ottawa has its back to the wall to justify the carbon tax, it chooses not to invest in HFR.

This right here is one of my biggest complaints about this government. Aviation emissions are absolutely terrible for the environment. It was a dead easy win to justify major intercity rail investment, as a priority, in the busiest aviation, auto, bus and passenger rail corridor in the country. But instead, we gotta be equitable and build some hockey rinks on the prairies and sewage plants in the Maritimes. I might honestly rather have the Conservatives in power, just to conserve future debt/fiscal capacity for a government that is serious about transformation.

It’s as if the Liberals are admitting that they have no idea how to use tax revenue for greater good, except to buy votes with it.

Ironically, the carbon tax is coming to be seen as another wealth transfer tax precisely because it is one with these income based rebates. The Liberals were never serious about fighting climate change. They just wanted another excuse to cut cheques. What good does a rebate do if the infrastructure isn't there to actually allow you to reduce your carbon footprint?

 

[crs1026]

But since our wonderful confederation involves such intense jealousies than any government investing a corridor with over a third of the country's population might lose an election, we have to settle for HFR. What's truly sad here is that we never even got that.

What’s tragic is that there are viable solutions to that equity issue. VIA has put forward some pretty modest and affordable ideas for improvements to regional service in the Maritimes. Get on with those, and I don't think folks in the East would demand dollar for dollar parity when they hear about HFR for Ontario-Quebec. There are abandoned rights of way between Edmonton and Calgary also, and they are better lines for HFR than the Havelock Sub. I would not be opposed to HFR West, and one could make a case for it having end points in Lethbridge and Fort Saskatchewan to maximise demand. Nobody enjoys flying between Edmonton and Calgary!

Ironically, the carbon tax is coming to be seen as another wealth transfer tax precisely because it is one with these income based rebates.

I swear, the carbon tax (which is a fundamentally sensible response to global warming, imho) is playing out as proving the case for having the smallest possible government. It’s just too big a source of revenue to be put in the hands of our politicians, who are proving that they don’t have the maturity to manage large sums of money. My centrist/progressive leanings are really taking a hit.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

$2-3 billion for electrification? LOL. No. That would buy you one line.

GO has also done a more business case for expansion which includes electrification:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd..._BoardMtg_GO_Expansion_Full_Business_Case.PDF

The large majority of that is for track capacity to run 15 minute frequencies + express service; not for electrification. Running diesel service with those frequencies would also be around $11B for the track work.

Ditch the express component (all trains make all stops) and that $11B trackwork piece is reduced quite a bit (2/3 tracks instead of 3/4/5).

If it's a straight conversion, with only a minor change in service provided (allowed for by improved acceleration) then it's closer to $3B + fleet.

Wait long enough and that $3B drops as bridges get upgraded/rebuilt for other reasons.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ditch the express component

And then it's no longer regional express rail. It's just more slow, cramped commutes. That should do a lot to convince people to ditch their cars! /s

How many people do you think will switch if we simply add more 2 hr train rides from Kitchener?

Wait long enough and that $3B drops as bridges get upgraded/rebuilt for other reasons.

First, if you wait long enough, it's not $3B anymore. Next, if you wait till the end of service life, then this discussion is moot. @JohnnyRenton was suggesting they are slowly building capacity. If they wait for 30 years to replace a bridge, they aren't building capacity at a pace that is really relevant to the public.

And on topic, how do you serve London if you don't spend to build capacity on a corridor to London?

 

[rbt]

First, if you wait long enough, it's not $3B anymore. Next, if you wait till the end of service life, then this discussion is moot.

What I want is rarely what happens. What Ford wants is more relevant, and a few pieces of trackwork here and there is still useful but not the effort I was hoping for.

The downtown condo boom, driven by a poor commute experience, certainly isn't going to go away anytime soon.

 

[kEiThZ]

What I want is rarely what happens. What Ford wants is more relevant, and a few pieces of trackwork here and there is still useful but not the effort I was hoping for.

The downtown condo boom, driven by a poor commute experience, certainly isn't going to go away anytime soon

Indeed. And my point is that Ford is not interested in any serious investment in GO at the moment. At least not to the level needed to stave off serious deterioration in commutes in the coming years. Or anything to facilitate intercity travel to places like London.

 

[robmausser]

What I want is rarely what happens. What Ford wants is more relevant, and a few pieces of trackwork here and there is still useful but not the effort I was hoping for.

The downtown condo boom, driven by a poor commute experience, certainly isn't going to go away anytime soon.

It seems like the Ford government is going for immediate results with GO. Not "what is the best investment" but "what will make the biggest immediate impact that will get us re-elected in 4 years"

 

[muller877]

It seems like the Ford government is going for immediate results with GO. Not "what is the best investment" but "what will make the biggest immediate impact that will get us re-elected in 4 years"

If some of these proposals were done by Wynne many would be jumping up and down with joy (even though they would announced 10 times and never actually happen). We have proposals from Ford and i'm hopeful that he will follow through on them including:

- Transit Oriented Development - The Liberals had an Oakville proposal languishing for years before it was buried in a cabinet somewhere. We already have a Mimico and Woodbine approved. I'm assuming lots more to come.
- Coffee shops in GO stations. If it creates convenience for customers and revenue for GO, why not?
- GO Rail Expansion - they are continuing with the same approach as the Liberals for now.

The only hesitation they have is on electrification/hydrogen. It seems like they want a private proposal. But i'm not hopeful that it will be cost effective (and hence pared down). But the Liberals would have done the same...or kept on studying it until 2024.

Seems like they are moving forward...not in the exact same direction as the Liberals...but forward with GO growth.

 

[kEiThZ]

The only hesitation they have is on electrification/hydrogen.

The same hesitation the Liberals had. $12 billion is a huge ask. So they too tried to run hydrogen trains up the flagpole. Seems like they are all waiting and hoping hydrogen helps them cut cost, along with avoiding having to announce a massive expenditure on what will seem like it's being spent on one city.

Seems like they are moving forward...not in the exact same direction as the Liberals...but forward with GO growth.

I am really curious to the limits of this strategy. There's only so much they can do without the missing link and electrification.

 

[robmausser]

If some of these proposals were done by Wynne many would be jumping up and down with joy (even though they would announced 10 times and never actually happen). We have proposals from Ford and i'm hopeful that he will follow through on them including:

- Transit Oriented Development - The Liberals had an Oakville proposal languishing for years before it was buried in a cabinet somewhere. We already have a Mimico and Woodbine approved. I'm assuming lots more to come.
- Coffee shops in GO stations. If it creates convenience for customers and revenue for GO, why not?
- GO Rail Expansion - they are continuing with the same approach as the Liberals for now.

The only hesitation they have is on electrification/hydrogen. It seems like they want a private proposal. But i'm not hopeful that it will be cost effective (and hence pared down). But the Liberals would have done the same...or kept on studying it until 2024.

Seems like they are moving forward...not in the exact same direction as the Liberals...but forward with GO growth.

Honestly I dont mind a slow advancement towards RER. Double track and get as much service possible with the existing system now; AD2W hourly and weekend on Barrie, Stoufville, Kitchener using the bilevels. Then think about electrification/new stations/rolling stock.

 

[crs1026]

Seems like they are moving forward...not in the exact same direction as the Liberals...but forward with GO growth.

I'm not praising the Liberals, as they weaseled on many promises, but they did bring several track expansion projects to the procurement stage that seem to have died there since the election. Track expansion (including signals in that) is the only part of the GO budget that represents growth.

The only track expansion that has survived the election is
Kennedy - Unionville (two contracts let by the Liberals and well under way by the election)
Strachan - Malton (various bits and pieces, and the 401-409 tunnel).

The Davenport Diamond appears to have some slight forward movement. The Guelph Sub is getting some TLC this year.

That's rather limited growth. We really don't know exactly what the Liberals could have actually afforded - their promise list was ridiculously long, but perhaps they would have awarded more of the outstanding RFP's, and sooner, had they returned to office.

So, I don't see Ford "moving forward" with GO expansion..... he's just coasting. One does not detect any sense of urgency.

- Paul