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

[Haljackey]

Via lobbying against high-speed rail system that would halve travel time from London to Toronto

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/04/15/via-angling-for-own-track-rails-against-high-speed

 

[mdrejhon]

Via lobbying against high-speed rail system that would halve travel time from London to Toronto

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/04/15/via-angling-for-own-track-rails-against-high-speed

Ideally VIA needs to market HFR as a path towards HSR not against.

But, in the light of Ontario TKL HSR, a high speed GO train would definitely eat into VIA revenues. They all need to go to the table and discuss this at length on thr "HSR marketing" topic, to the theoreticals of running possible 240kph capable HFR trainsets faster on TKL (240kph) than on TOM (177kph). Basically, Ontario HSR offers VIA an HFR extension to London. All depends on timing of construction for each leg. They can share!

 

[TOareaFan]

I think I kinda agree with VIA here....if the goal is to compete with cars/buses then frequency pick up is more important than speed pick up.....both are important but the F is more important than the speed.

It is interesting that he is opposing the Ontario proposal when (AFAIK) VIA does not have one for that T(B)KL corridor...but in general idea VIA has it right in terms of F v S.

 

[crs1026]

We don't know for a fact that the Toronto-London proposal is True High Speed Rail. So far we have only heard this term used by politicians, and they are happy to use the term very loosely.

VIA doth protest too much. Their complaint boils down to - Ontario may draw attention to how badly neglected VIA has been, and how even now VIA is having to limit its aspirations to a low quality product between Toronto and Montreal. No one should blame Ontario for doing what Ottawa has always refused to do.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

I commented on this same article in the VIA thread. It's a fluff piece to make sure the author gets a paycheque end of the week. Absolutely nothing original in it, like the flurry of fluff pieces this week, it's all based on previous *actual* interviews or statements, and other orgs new stories.

The danger of articles like this is that they *detract* from the real issues, not add to it. I suspect D-S might now feel forced to show some of his hand just to shut the tawdry press hounds up.

We don't know for a fact that the Toronto-London proposal is True High Speed Rail. So far we have only heard this term used by politicians, and they are happy to use the term very loosely.

Exactly right. I love the author's "Matthews couldn’t be reached Friday to respond to Via’s plans."
LOL! Who could blame her? Plus all that sentence could mean is that he couldn't even call her, let alone her refusing to respond.

 

[kEiThZ]

The article says VIA is asking the government to reject calls for HSR. I'd like to see more on this.

 

[MisterF]

I've never read anything from Via about them opposing the Kitchener-London high speed project. I think Steve is right - this is just a fluff piece from the London Free Press based on old interviews meant to drum up controversy and sell papers. The London HSR will make rail a lot more relevant to a lot of people who don't even think about trains today. Even if they don't run the service, Via will still likely benefit from it. This is a non-story.

 

[kEiThZ]

The article states, "Via said this week it will ask the federal governm"ent to reject calls for high-speed rail and instead embrace what Via wants — its own dedicated track between Toronto and Montreal that would not be high-speed or extend immediately to London."

Seems like new information to me. VIA could well be lobbying to make sure federal funds are first put towards its TOM HFR plan than the provincial TKL proposal.

 

[Urban Sky]

The article states, "Via said this week it will ask the federal governm"ent to reject calls for high-speed rail and instead embrace what Via wants — its own dedicated track between Toronto and Montreal that would not be high-speed or extend immediately to London."

Seems like new information to me. VIA could well be lobbying to make sure federal funds are first put towards its TOM HFR plan than the provincial TKL proposal.

No, the article simply fails to present the available information in any factual and accurate manner, as highlighted in the response Terence Johnson has posted to my Question to Paul Langan whether he agrees with how the article quotes him and his "High Speed Rail Canada" club:

I was in Ottawa at the event on Thursday. YDS has been quoted out of context and was not slamming the province. On the contrary, it is abundantly clear that VIA Rail has a good working relationship with the Ontario team and both are working together to identify synergies between the two projects.

Source: Discussion on "High Speed Rail Canada" Facebook group

 

[crs1026]

I still don't believe there is a true HSR line coming to London anytime soon. The Province doesn't have the money for it, and as we've discussed here, a Higher-speed service would be sufficient to do the job.

It seems that the competition for infrastructure funds may be devolving into a technology debate when the true issue at stake is which project is funded first. That's unfortunate as it incents the two levels of government to bash each others' plans, when the real question is how to fund and what's a logical staging to advance both.

It also seems that VIA is sensitive to how the Ontario proposal has potential to strip VIA of its franchise on the Kitchener route, and potentially compete with its Brantford route offerings. That's nice to see, but clearly VIA doesn't have the funding to put its money where its heart is. Again, I'm disappointed to see VIA trying to undermine the Ontario proposal on technical grounds instead of putting forward a case on how it could do the Kitchener job for Ontario, and how joint ventures on rolling stock etc could benefit both.

Seems we are lurching towards win-lose arguments where win-win is needed. On a political level, neither project is a slam dunk sell with the public. The last thing we need is VIA and Metrolinx actually tainting the public's view of their own projects. They are hostages of each other, and need to present a united front.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I think "High Speed Rail" when used by politicians will be used in the loosest sense of the term. To the general public anything a decent bit faster than today would be HSR, after all. So the politicians can get away with it.

 

[MisterF]

I still don't believe there is a true HSR line coming to London anytime soon. The Province doesn't have the money for it, and as we've discussed here, a Higher-speed service would be sufficient to do the job.

It seems that the competition for infrastructure funds may be devolving into a technology debate when the true issue at stake is which project is funded first. That's unfortunate as it incents the two levels of government to bash each others' plans, when the real question is how to fund and what's a logical staging to advance both.

It also seems that VIA is sensitive to how the Ontario proposal has potential to strip VIA of its franchise on the Kitchener route, and potentially compete with its Brantford route offerings. That's nice to see, but clearly VIA doesn't have the funding to put its money where its heart is. Again, I'm disappointed to see VIA trying to undermine the Ontario proposal on technical grounds instead of putting forward a case on how it could do the Kitchener job for Ontario, and how joint ventures on rolling stock etc could benefit both.

Seems we are lurching towards win-lose arguments where win-win is needed. On a political level, neither project is a slam dunk sell with the public. The last thing we need is VIA and Metrolinx actually tainting the public's view of their own projects. They are hostages of each other, and need to present a united front.

- Paul

Again, Via isn't trying to undermine the London proposal as Urban Sky's post makes clear. That was just the writer for the London Free Press trying to drum up controversy.

As for the likelihood of HSR to London, I think it comes down to whether a new line between Kitchener and London is built. The rest is largely an upgrade of an existing route.

 

[kEiThZ]

As for the likelihood of HSR to London

Ohhh, I think we can bet safely that it won't be HSR in the true definition of the term as Johannes' previous math has shown. It will be a lot better than what's there today though. And that's eminently supportable.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Guelph high-speed rail stop hinges on major upgrades at level crossings
Guelph Mercury - http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-s...-hinges-on-major-upgrades-at-level-crossings/

Looks like Guelph isn't ruled out from the HSR plan just yet.

 

[steveintoronto]

Guelph high-speed rail stop hinges on major upgrades at level crossings
Guelph Mercury - http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-s...-hinges-on-major-upgrades-at-level-crossings/

Looks like Guelph isn't ruled out from the HSR plan just yet.

Yeah, I saw that up at the Merc (well, what's left of it, it's the Tribune actually) and Guelph can't come even close to affording the costs to do the necessary grade separations even if it's just a share of the overall costs. Guelph is hemorrhaging commercial tax base while the needed tax increases for other mundane matters are an election issue. Guelph is a city of two tails. The downtown community would go ballistic if their lives are turned upside down for something they themselves don't really want. They can't even run a bus system due to cutbacks to save taxes:

CTV Kitchener
Published Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:50AM EST

Guelph councillors met long into the night on Wednesday, but weren’t able to hammer out a final budget to guide the city through 2016.

As of 11:30 p.m., councillors were looking at a proposed property tax increase of 3.32 per cent, even though some of them had been hoping for a number below two per cent.

A number of items had been agreed upon, including increasing Guelph Transit cash fares to $3.25 – instead of the $4 that had been proposed – and cutting the frequency of buses during peak hours and in the summertime.

According to the head of the union representing Guelph Transit drivers, the service cuts will result in the loss of more than 20 jobs – and likely won’t be popular with their ridership, either.

“To ask somebody to pay more money for less service is going to be troublesome for a lot of passengers,” Andrew Cleary, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1189, told CTV News.
[...]

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/guelph-to-raise-bus-fares-cut-service-as-budget-talks-continue-1.2694966

Guelph has an infuriating sense of self-importance that just isn't real. They've poisoned relations with the surrounding County of Wellington, and refuse to consider being part of a regional level of governance, so their services are much higher cost than surrounding communities and Waterloo Region.

Not to mention:

Apr 21, 2016
Guelph still part of innovation corridor, says mayor
City still involved in Toronto to Waterloo branding initiative

By Doug Hallett
Mayor Cam Guthrie wasn’t invited to join the mayors of Waterloo Region cities and Toronto in a trip to California earlier this month, but he says Guelph’s place in the “innovation corridor” between Toronto and Waterloo Region shouldn’t be doubted.

“We weren’t included in that one,” he said of the trip to visit high-tech businesses in San Francisco and Los Angeles, which included Waterloo mayor Dave Jaworsky, Kitchener mayor Berry Vrbanovic, Cambridge mayor Doug Craig and Toronto mayor John Tory.

However, “that does not mean in any way that there’s not advocacy work going on behind the scenes that I am part of,” Guthrie said in an interview Tuesday.

For example, he said, he has been consistently at the table for discussions about improving GO train service between Toronto and Kitchener through Guelph. Those pushing for two-way, all-day GO trains in this part of Ontario have argued it would enhance the innovation corridor that’s being promoted as a Canadian answer to California’s Silicon Valley.

There will be a lot more opportunities for the mayors, including Guthrie, to advocate as a group, he said.

Guthrie said different parts of the Toronto-Waterloo innovation corridor have different strengths.

“Just naturally in Guelph we leans towards” innovation in the areas of “agri-tech, clean tech and civic tech,” he said, explaining civic tech as “businesses working on government innovation.”

Guelph is “just positioned differently in the overarching theme of that corridor,” he said.

The California trip happened during the first week in April. The following week saw Guthrie travel to Ottawa for a meeting of the Large Urban Mayors’ Caucus of Ontario, which he said involved “back to back meetings with many ministers” in the federal cabinet.

A lot of those discussions revolved around funding for municipalities that is going to become available as part of the federal government’s infrastructure spending plans, and Guthrie came away with valuable information on getting ready to apply for such funding, he said.

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/6508812-guelph-still-part-of-innovation-corridor-says-mayor/

To quote some of the locals in my efforts to define life in Guelph: "Guelph's not a town, let alone a city. It's a village."

And to add insult to injury on the existing rail-line:
http://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/SilvercreekParkwayClassEA_finalReport.pdf

VIA has just finished installing CTC signalling right at the Silvercreek alignment. Someone's not talking to someone else. A by-pass around Guelph is still the most viable option.

Reader response just up at the Merc/Tribune:

By David | MAY 25, 2016 09:58 AM
Unless this project somehow adds to GO Train infrastructure, it is wasted money. Guelph is in dire need of regular and convenient commuter train service into Union Station in Toronto, not a high speed regional train. Currently, only two weekday GO trains leave Guelph for Union Station (6:13am and 7:34am) and return (ridiculously at 4:50pm and 5:50pm). There are no trains on weekends and GO bus service takes two and a half hours! The Province, Metrolinx and especially the City of Guelph should fight to double the number of GO Trains before spending a penny on this comparatively unnecessary project.

Let me paraphrase:
"Bread, not circuses".