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

[innsertnamehere]

if the BCA and EA showed that the ridership wasn't there and that it would cost $30 billion instead of $3 billion, sure, they may cancel it. But they seemed pretty solid on building it if the detailed numbers didn't go way out of whack compared to the preliminary numbers.

Funding is supposed to come out of the transit infrastructure fund, and that thing isn't disappearing any time soon.

 

[muller877]

if the BCA and EA showed that the ridership wasn't there and that it would cost $30 billion instead of $3 billion, sure, they may cancel it. But they seemed pretty solid on building it if the detailed numbers didn't go way out of whack compared to the preliminary numbers.

Funding is supposed to come out of the transit infrastructure fund, and that thing isn't disappearing any time soon.

When the EA process starts I think rural Ontario will have the following questions to Queens Park:

1. Will the EA look at protecting plants and animals? There are deer, coyotes and bears (yes, even in SW Ontario) that need large tracks of land and will these tracks hinder their movement? How about protecting rivers and wetlands which have endangered fish/eels/mussels in them? How about tracks of forest (animals need interiors of forests which only start about 50 ft from the edge. If the railway goes in the middle of a forest it cuts out a swath of 100 ft of interior space)

2. Will Queens Park be as senstiive about expropriation as they are in Toronto? These are bigger plots of land but still someone's property and homes. In Toronto they will bore a tunnel (vs buy up houses and then cut and cover) which is far more costly (and even more so if you factor in the potential for the resale of the land).

3. Will Queens Park ensure that neighbours are not cut off from each other and build bridges over the tracks? And will they pay for the maintenance?

Basically, will there be a real EA or will it be Queens Park shoving it down the throats of rural Ontario (vs catering to NIMBY's in Toronto)?

What would Toronto have done if Queens Park would have expropriated all the lots north of Eglington from Allen to Black Creek and then did cut and cover? It would save a lot of money (net of condo resales) and increased density along an avenue. We would be up in arms and it would have taken years and plenty of legal challanges.

Why does the same thing not apply to rural Ontario? There will be lots of legal challanges and it may take 10+ years before a shovel hits the ground.

To avoid this time and cost I still beleive that creating HSR via Burlington/Brantford/Woodstock (and a seperate HSR line to Kitchener) will be a far cheaper alternative and will serve more people with no additional time to get from London to Toronto.

 

[innsertnamehere]

When the EA process starts I think rural Ontario will have the following questions to Queens Park:

1. Will the EA look at protecting plants and animals? There are deer, coyotes and bears (yes, even in SW Ontario) that need large tracks of land and will these tracks hinder their movement? How about protecting rivers and wetlands which have endangered fish/eels/mussels in them? How about tracks of forest (animals need interiors of forests which only start about 50 ft from the edge. If the railway goes in the middle of a forest it cuts out a swath of 100 ft of interior space)

2. Will Queens Park be as senstiive about expropriation as they are in Toronto? These are bigger plots of land but still someone's property and homes. In Toronto they will bore a tunnel (vs buy up houses and then cut and cover) which is far more costly (and even more so if you factor in the potential for the resale of the land).

3. Will Queens Park ensure that neighbours are not cut off from each other and build bridges over the tracks? And will they pay for the maintenance?

Basically, will there be a real EA or will it be Queens Park shoving it down the throats of rural Ontario (vs catering to NIMBY's in Toronto)?

What would Toronto have done if Queens Park would have expropriated all the lots north of Eglington from Allen to Black Creek and then did cut and cover? It would save a lot of money (net of condo resales) and increased density along an avenue. We would be up in arms and it would have taken years and plenty of legal challanges.

Why does the same thing not apply to rural Ontario? There will be lots of legal challanges and it may take 10+ years before a shovel hits the ground.

To avoid this time and cost I still beleive that creating HSR via Burlington/Brantford/Woodstock (and a seperate HSR line to Kitchener) will be a far cheaper alternative and will serve more people with no additional time to get from London to Toronto.

I presume the EA will be done at the same level that a new highway corridor is done at, which looks at all of that. MTO has been building highways for 90 years, it will be the same thing with tracks instead of asphalt now.

expropriation of rural lands is very different than existing urban neighborhoods and you know it. Losing a bit of farmland is different than kicking out an entire neighborhood.

the main aim of this line isn't london, although it is the terminus. The aim is connecting Pearson to Kitchener and London, not London to Toronto. London is only one point on the line.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

When the EA process starts I think rural Ontario will have the following questions to Queens Park:

1. Will the EA look at protecting plants and animals? There are deer, coyotes and bears (yes, even in SW Ontario) that need large tracks of land and will these tracks hinder their movement? How about protecting rivers and wetlands which have endangered fish/eels/mussels in them? How about tracks of forest (animals need interiors of forests which only start about 50 ft from the edge. If the railway goes in the middle of a forest it cuts out a swath of 100 ft of interior space)

2. Will Queens Park be as senstiive about expropriation as they are in Toronto? These are bigger plots of land but still someone's property and homes. In Toronto they will bore a tunnel (vs buy up houses and then cut and cover) which is far more costly (and even more so if you factor in the potential for the resale of the land).

3. Will Queens Park ensure that neighbours are not cut off from each other and build bridges over the tracks? And will they pay for the maintenance?

Basically, will there be a real EA or will it be Queens Park shoving it down the throats of rural Ontario (vs catering to NIMBY's in Toronto)?

What would Toronto have done if Queens Park would have expropriated all the lots north of Eglington from Allen to Black Creek and then did cut and cover? It would save a lot of money (net of condo resales) and increased density along an avenue. We would be up in arms and it would have taken years and plenty of legal challanges.

Why does the same thing not apply to rural Ontario? There will be lots of legal challanges and it may take 10+ years before a shovel hits the ground.

To avoid this time and cost I still beleive that creating HSR via Burlington/Brantford/Woodstock (and a seperate HSR line to Kitchener) will be a far cheaper alternative and will serve more people with no additional time to get from London to Toronto.

Aren't tracks through rural areas usually handled through easements rather than property purchase/expropriation.

 

[ksun]

While we still dream about a high speed train in Canada's richest region, India seems to be on the way of actually building one before Canada does.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-25/will-china-build-indias-first-high-speed-rail

 

[TOareaFan]

While we still dream about a high speed train in Canada's richest region, India seems to be on the way of actually building one before Canada does.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-25/will-china-build-indias-first-high-speed-rail

I would imagine that population along that line (making the leap that population leads to ridership that leads to viability of the line) exceeds what can be expected in "Canada's richest region" (not an expert on India but Chennai has a population of 9 million or so and is only the 3rd largest city in India).....there is, likely, also a very big time saving in taking a 300km train over other modes of transportation between those two cities that combined (without doing any research on the cities in between that may feed this line) have a population of over 20 million.......but, sure, we could just add India to the countries that are superior to us (using the Ksun index as a guide )

 

[ksun]

I would imagine that population along that line (making the leap that population leads to ridership that leads to viability of the line) exceeds what can be expected in "Canada's richest region" (not an expert on India but Chennai has a population of 9 million or so and is only the 3rd largest city in India).....there is, likely, also a very big time saving in taking a 300km train over other modes of transportation between those two cities that combined (without doing any research on the cities in between that may feed this line) have a population of over 20 million.......but, sure, we could just add India to the countries that are superior to us (using the Ksun index as a guide )

I am fine with low population as a reason, which makes perfect sense. But then aren't we talking about constructing one in this thread assuming the population justifies the construction? If not, what's the point of the discussion?

By the way, Spain's population is only 30% more than Canada. Take a look at their HSR system.

 

[TOareaFan]

I am fine with low population as a reason, which makes perfect sense. But then aren't we talking about constructing one in this thread assuming the population justifies the construction? If not, what's the point of the discussion?

The discussion arose out of the surprise announcements about this line/service made by the former Minister of Transportation prior to the last election. Still a lot of details that no one knows....and in my experience that sort of low detail announcement leads to a lot of discussion.

By the way, Spain's population is only 30% more than Canada. Take a look at their HSR system.

Population is one thing (and as I ate my dinner last night was the easiest one to think of when I was reading your latest "even in 'X' they are building transit better and faster than us" post) but other factors like how widely spread that population is (density) and historic and present use of trains over other forms of transportation (cars, planes, etc) factor in when deciding if there is a viable HSR (or any type of train) service.

There have been many (many) studies on HSR in Ontario/Canada.....have any of them concluded the service would be viable (ie. attract enough riders at a high enough price to not need fairly large annual subsidies)?

 

[ksun]

There have been many (many) studies on HSR in Ontario/Canada.....have any of them concluded the service would be viable (ie. attract enough riders at a high enough price to not need fairly large annual subsidies)?

Agreed. This is why although I like the idea of having a HSR (instead of the slow moving VIA which feels so 1970s), I don't think a HSR will happen any time soon (next 30 years), and all the discussion will turn out to be meaningless.

Canadians prefer cars compared with the Spanish, but planes? Air travel in Canada is prohibitively expensive, far more so than in most part of Europe. Just bought a return ticket between Barcelona and Lisbon for $130. Try that in Canada between Toronto and Montreal - not even enough to cover the "taxes and fuel surcharges" part of the fare.

 

[TOareaFan]

Agreed. This is why although I like the idea of having a HSR (instead of the slow moving VIA which feels so 1970s), I don't think a HSR will happen any time soon (next 30 years), and all the discussion will turn out to be meaningless.

If you agree the economics, here, are sketchy at best....one has to wonder why the continual pointing out of places doing it even though we are not? Or am I (and others) reading too much into those posts?

Canadians prefer cars compared with the Spanish, but planes? Air travel in Canada is prohibitively expensive, far more so than in most part of Europe. Just bought a return ticket between Barcelona and Lisbon for $130. Try that in Canada between Toronto and Montreal - not even enough to cover the "taxes and fuel surcharges" part of the fare.

Not sure you can mix in whether we like to fly with what it costs to fly....even using that route you mention...no you can't do it for $130....but that does not stop thousands of people from doing it on a daily basis.

 

[gweed123]

I presume the EA will be done at the same level that a new highway corridor is done at, which looks at all of that. MTO has been building highways for 90 years, it will be the same thing with tracks instead of asphalt now.

expropriation of rural lands is very different than existing urban neighborhoods and you know it. Losing a bit of farmland is different than kicking out an entire neighborhood.

the main aim of this line isn't london, although it is the terminus. The aim is connecting Pearson to Kitchener and London, not London to Toronto. London is only one point on the line.

Rural expropriations are generally easier, especially in farm lands, because the corridor that can be expropriated can be midway between the two concession roads, which are 2kms apart. That way, you're expropriating the back X number of metres from each farm property. When you look at much of the 401 through Scarborough (Victoria Park to Markham Rd), it's pretty much exactly midway between Ellesmere and Sheppard. Much of the 400 is the same way, where it's midway between Jane and Weston.

Running a rail corridor through the back end of farm lots wouldn't affect too many homes, since the farm houses are usually closer to the road. It also simplifies over and underpasses, because you don't have a parallel road to deal with, only a perpendicular one.

If you're cutting diagonal to the grid though, then you may have a problem. That makes things a lot more complicated.

 

[innsertnamehere]

If you agree the economics, here, are sketchy at best....one has to wonder why the continual pointing out of places doing it even though we are not? Or am I (and others) reading too much into those posts?



Not sure you can mix in whether we like to fly with what it costs to fly....even using that route you mention...no you can't do it for $130....but that does not stop thousands of people from doing it on a daily basis.

previous economic studies looked at the alignment through oakville, not kitchener, which I think is throwing off the economics behind it. Missing Pearson and Kitchener is pretty big in terms of ridership drivers.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Toronto - Montreal corridor is seeing a similar modal shift that the US North-East is seeing (if maybe a little bit less pronounced), where modal share of rail compared to air has jumped from 30 to 80% in the last decade.


The thing I am most interested in seeing with this project is whether or not it manages to kill off the local airports, their already low pax is going to drop even further with this project.

 

[TOareaFan]

previous economic studies looked at the alignment through oakville, not kitchener, which I think is throwing off the economics behind it. Missing Pearson and Kitchener is pretty big in terms of ridership drivers.

Pearson, perhaps, but isn't the population you hit adding Kitchener just offset with the population you lose on the other route?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Toronto - Montreal corridor is seeing a similar modal shift that the US North-East is seeing (if maybe a little bit less pronounced), where modal share of rail compared to air has jumped from 30 to 80% in the last decade.

Those are stunning numbers....where'd they come from? Have airports closed because of this....I mean the converse must be true that air has fallen by the same numbers.

 

[innsertnamehere]

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014...ke-the-train-than-a-plane-in-2-charts/383158/

VIA rail has been posting something crazy like 30% annual ridership growth in their corridor as well, so I have a feeling something similar is happening here. Airports aren't going to have closed due to this, the airports the planes would have been flying out of are large enough. Whats more likely is that flights have been cut.

 

[nfitz]

By the way, Spain's population is only 30% more than Canada. Take a look at their HSR system.

It's not population of the country that's the issue. It's population density. Their population may be 30% larger, but our size is 2000% larger. (we have an area of about 10 million km² while they have an area of about 500,000 km²).

Ditto for India, they have a (2011) population of 1.2 billion, about 3600% larger than our 2011 population of 33 million. And yet our country is 3 times bigger than theirs! It's no wonder that they can justify high-speed rail before we can!