News   Jul 12, 2024
 803     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 731     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 307     0 

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

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!

The two countries, to me, show that it really is a combination of size of population and density. Spain is very much denser than us so even with only a marginally higher population their density supports this sort of rail.

India, while still denser than us, I bet can get by on sheer number of people...ie the market share of rail does not really have to be that huge to get enough ridership to warrant the investment.

I will say, that having the guy who wants you to hire him to build your HSR at a cost of $33B offer to do the feasibility study at his cost pretty much guarantees that the feasibility study comes out positive!

As I said in my first response to the Indian HSR, I am by no means an expert on India but when you have a city at one end of a line that is 11 million people and is a seat of government and a city at the other end that is 9 million people and is an industrial/commercial hub/centre it does not take a lot of knowledge to "guess" that there would be pretty good usage of that line......regardless of what kind of populations/densities are in between.

We simply don't have anywhere near those sort of numbers.
 
Any idiot can see the population/area in Canada is absurdly low, but almost every major city is laid out in a convenient line from coast to coast. The Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-QC corridor alone has 18 million people, and you only need a single line to reach them all. It's the most absurdly obvious route for a HSR line that you could think of, considering the geography, population and the distance (not worth flying).
 
Any idiot can see the population/area in Canada is absurdly low, but almost every major city is laid out in a convenient line from coast to coast. The Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-QC corridor alone has 18 million people, and you only need a single line to reach them all. It's the most absurdly obvious route for a HSR line that you could think of, considering the geography, population and the distance (not worth flying).

Considering how many studies have been conducted on it (and I presume they took into consideration the geography, population and the distance) and have not shown it to be feasible without large subsidies.....perhaps it is not as absurdly obvious as you might think.
 
didn't the more recent report state that Toronto-Montreal made financial sense? its the two secondary legs of Windsor-Toronto (skipping Kitchener as I previously said) and Montreal - Quebec City that fall off the viability side of things. The Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal line makes sense IIRC.
 
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)?
Yes, they have all shown that it's viable and would make a profit. They've also shown that the capital costs would be recouped through operating profits.

The most recent study showed less optimistic numbers but it was riddled with flaws, the most obvious of which is skipping Pearson.

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).
The population density of Canada is irrelevant - nobody's proposing a bullet train to Yellowknife. Canada's population is extremely concentrated while Spain's is much more evenly spread. The density of the Windsor-Quebec corridor is nearly identical to the density of Spain, higher still in southern Ontario. And even the most ambitious HSR proposal here is a fraction of Spain's system.
 
The most recent study showed less optimistic numbers but it was riddled with flaws, the most obvious of which is skipping Pearson.
Indeed, high-speed rail could potentially connect Toronto Pearson, Toronto Union Station, Ottawa Macdonald–Cartier, Ottawa Tremblay, Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and Montreal Gare Centrale. It has ridiculous potential to make money.
 
Indeed, high-speed rail could potentially connect Toronto Pearson, Toronto Union Station, Ottawa Macdonald–Cartier, Ottawa Tremblay, Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and Montreal Gare Centrale. It has ridiculous potential to make money.

I find that things with ridiculous potential to make money get built....and most often don't need to wait for governments to build them.
 
I find that things with ridiculous potential to make money get built....and most often don't need to wait for governments to build them.
To be blunt, your findings are wrong. Even the most profitable HSR lines (or highways or airports for that matter) don't tend to get built until the government takes the lead.
 
To be blunt, your findings are wrong. Even the most profitable HSR lines (or highways or airports for that matter) don't tend to get built until the government takes the lead.

If there are HSR lines that are actually profitable (truly profitable) then that must mean there are other impediments that prevent the private sector from just doing it on their own (like rules and regulations)....capitalism, like nature, abhors a vacuum....if there was a profitable service not being offered and there were no rules and regs preventing it then someone would have built it.

In fact, with western (including Canadian) governments always looking for new sources of revenue.....if HSR was truly profitable then I can't see government not jumping at the chance. I suspect they are not truly profitable.
 
Also for energy efficiency and more speed it's best to go with that French TGV design. No locomotive, one long articulated tube with less wheels, small engines on each compartment, etc.
 
Building transportation corridors isn't a feasible task for the private sector when they would have to negotiate with thousands of individual landowners who hold the power to make the whole project infeasible. Even the privately built sections of the 407 were still built on land that was acquired by the province.

That said, I'm also skeptical about the potential for profitable HSR in Ontario.
 
Building transportation corridors isn't a feasible task for the private sector when they would have to negotiate with thousands of individual landowners who hold the power to make the whole project infeasible. Even the privately built sections of the 407 were still built on land that was acquired by the province.

That said, I'm also skeptical about the potential for profitable HSR in Ontario.

HSR should not be built until we have a proper regional rail network, frequent VIA service for inter-city trips. Before building luxury and expensive HSR we need a train culture such that it is seamless to travel by train. Right now that only applies to the big cities. In the smaller towns, the train stations are not front and centre and do not have good transit connections. Look at any European city and their train station is the focal point of the town with a large square and becomes a large gathering place. Our train stations are usually near highways or surrounded by parking lots.

It's similar to the subway vs. LRT discussion. There won't be much demand in HSR without the train culture first. For example, if we can build dedicated track for VIA, we could get the Toronto-Montreal trip down to 3.5 hrs without HSR. That would be a lot cheaper and allow us to serve a lot more people.
 
There won't be much demand in HSR without the train culture first. For example, if we can build dedicated track for VIA, we could get the Toronto-Montreal trip down to 3.5 hrs without HSR. That would be a lot cheaper and allow us to serve a lot more people.
I think HSR will arrive in a phased manner within the lifetime of this generation growing up. Ten years is too optimistic, but I think we'll have a very profitable HSR business model for the London route by the 2030s (the early part the decade is only a single election cycle's of delay past 10 years). So I get the feeling that it will happen within a couple decades, possibly sooner, but two decades seem to be a good goal.

- GOTrain network becomes a true public transit supplement -- the GO RER initiative with frequent single decker electricified trains, planned extra infill stations, planned better integration with TTC, planned fare integration.
- SmartTrack is complete (Smarttrack is actually a GO RER in disguise), UP Express is complete
- Union station revitalization complete (3x GO concourse size)
- Electricification of lines through Union
- Interchange stations

By then, we have the train culture already necessary for enthusiasm about a high speed train. If dedicated high speed ROW is too pricy, we could at least go for a cheaper, simpler Acela Express style system which runs over existing electricified lines (already built for the rest of the GO network) and extend those to London, etc. This still gets London to Toronto quickly enough for tomorrow's daily commuters, fills the trains. I would prefer a dedicated ROW, they chose the London-to-Toronto route because it's a shorter route than Toronto-Ottawa (which I really want to see happen!). In one optimistic point of view, the expensive UP Express actually is a shrewd move to trojan-horse electricification (SmartTrack + UP Express + GO RER can use the same electrified ROW), as an initial phase of electrification on the Kitchener HSR route -- and tomorrow's 200-250kph HSR-lite "express train" to London could run over this existing electrified GO RER ROW all the way to Kitchener, and new ROWs can be gradually expropriated as a phased approach to a faster 350kph HSR. Kitchener commuters would catch the slow GO Trains, or pay more for a HSR train to commute to Toronto. The HSR is very complementary to GO RER, and electricification to Kitchener is part of GO RER, which conveniently electricifies half of the HSR route for a different reason! The money spent on HSR is actually not just HSR money but GO RER money so the same dollar can literally be spent on both for the gradual ROW improvements for faster GO RER and the HSR. I'd suspect that with 65 million people a year on GO Transit, and room in tomorrow's Union revitalization to increase that by 2-3x, there's enough population throughput to theoretically make a rare HSR profit (Metrolinx already being an agency with good farebox revenue coverage of operating costs (>80%) compared to lot of other transit agencies), or at least make it a viable business case that increases taxpayer return along the corridor that more than makes up for minor operating losses if it's not profitable.

That said, if all stars aligns (three levels of governments along the whole ROW) it could even happen in a ten year timeline. At least an Acela Express style 'speedup' before a dedicated ROW happens -- but I think a dedicated 350kph-capable ROW would be better (but that's the a luxury option). That said, we now have MANY reasons to begin electricifying now (SmartTrack, UP Express, GO RER, Union revitalization) and the same infrastructure can be adapted to support all those, so the seeds of tomorrow's train culture is starting to be planted for a profitable 2030s HSR.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top