Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[DonValleyRainbow]

Pardon my Toronto-centric lack of knowledge on this topic. But where are we in terms of HSR? Is an EA underway, or has the whole thing been shelved? Awhile back I found myself reading the London Free Press, and it seemed to me the city is fairly gung ho on the whole thing. But I believe since that time they put forward a BRT plan, which could be more of a near-term goal for them.

As well, part of me thinks that HSR has now become a wholly Prov project (when really it should be predominantly Fed). But because the Prov is on thin ice as it is, Trudeau and the Fed Liberals don't want to be seen alongside or siding with their Prov counterpart too much. So I don't envision a good fate for HSR in this decade (but hopefully I'm wrong).

Well there are two HSR projects, IMO, that are on the books.

The first is between Toronto and Quebec. The latest feasibility study was completed in 2011, and has provided positive numbers that show it is feasible. But nothing has been done since, other than the president of VIA Rail mulling about funding dedicated tracks through private investment. That's not a bad idea, but it would have to be all or nothing; either VIA Rail can work out a private investment arrangement that provides significant royalties to said investors, or the federal government just needs to step up and get an EA underway, provide the funds and get shovels in the ground.

The second is London to Toronto via KW. This project is problematic, at best. The study and announcement was spearheaded by Glen Murray, then Minister of Transportation. The proposed alignment does not follow what was proposed in the 2011 Feasibility Study. And the feasibility of this new alignment is questionable, at best. I'm of the opinion that if you are going to start HSR sooner than later, you work with your existing corridors and make incremental improvements, which simultaneously grows your ridership base. It also avoids a Sim City approach where you would have to expropriate significant amount of land and destroy a bunch of homes; you already have ROWs that penetrate city centres.

That alone makes Murray's proposal quite difficult to carry out; it creates a completely new ROW in the middle of nowhere, and requires navigation through existing urban built form. That will take years of negotiation and logistics, and make people angry. And I also think the premier recognized that, and hence shuffled him out of the transport portfolio. I haven't heard anything about concrete progress since. MTO just posted a job ad for a newly created Rail Coordination and Advisory Branch, and while it is focused on RER, the ad states the successful candidate will "support the Ministry's rail initiatives including high speed rail and rail safety." So maybe something will be done, maybe not.

 

[MisterF]

Well there are two HSR projects, IMO, that are on the books.

The first is between Toronto and Quebec. The latest feasibility study was completed in 2011, and has provided positive numbers that show it is feasible. But nothing has been done since, other than the president of VIA Rail mulling about funding dedicated tracks through private investment. That's not a bad idea, but it would have to be all or nothing; either VIA Rail can work out a private investment arrangement that provides significant royalties to said investors, or the federal government just needs to step up and get an EA underway, provide the funds and get shovels in the ground.

The second is London to Toronto via KW. This project is problematic, at best. The study and announcement was spearheaded by Glen Murray, then Minister of Transportation. The proposed alignment does not follow what was proposed in the 2011 Feasibility Study. And the feasibility of this new alignment is questionable, at best. I'm of the opinion that if you are going to start HSR sooner than later, you work with your existing corridors and make incremental improvements, which simultaneously grows your ridership base. It also avoids a Sim City approach where you would have to expropriate significant amount of land and destroy a bunch of homes; you already have ROWs that penetrate city centres.

That alone makes Murray's proposal quite difficult to carry out; it creates a completely new ROW in the middle of nowhere, and requires navigation through existing urban built form. That will take years of negotiation and logistics, and make people angry. And I also think the premier recognized that, and hence shuffled him out of the transport portfolio. I haven't heard anything about concrete progress since. MTO just posted a job ad for a newly created Rail Coordination and Advisory Branch, and while it is focused on RER, the ad states the successful candidate will "support the Ministry's rail initiatives including high speed rail and rail safety." So maybe something will be done, maybe not.

Your criticisms of the London section could be made of the Ottawa-Montreal section as well, or any HSR project for that matter. Most HSR lines are built on completely new rights of way where necessary, and on existing rights of way where it makes sense to, including through city centres. There's nothing about the London HSR proposal that suggests it would be any different. But the EA hasn't been completed yet so alignments are purely speculation at this point.

Serving Kitchener and Pearson is what makes this line possible, IMO. If anything Kitchener will be the main destination on this line. The 2011 study dismissed a Pearson-Kitchener alignment on the thin justification that the Union-Pearson Express exists. Actually the whole study was quite shortsighted and made several strange assumptions. Better to look at the previous study from the mid 1990s, which proposed serving Pearson and Kitchener.

As for incremental improvements, those are happening regardless. The line is being electrified as a key piece of the RER system and all day service as far as Mount Pleasant starts next week.

Apparently there are 17 million annual intercity trips between London and Toronto, 3-5% of which are done by rail. That's a ridiculously low percentage in such a densely populated region, but I suspect it's that low in most of the Windsor-Quebec corridor. HSR would raise that number significantly. As for progress, the EA was only announced in December. These things don't happen overnight.

 

[TOareaFan]

As for incremental improvements, those are happening regardless. The line is being electrified as a key piece of the RER system and all day service as far as Mount Pleasant starts next week.

No it does not

 

[ssiguy2]

I'm surprised that VIA even carries 3% of London/Toronto traffic.

Although they will be increasing frequency in the Lon/Tor/Win corridor soon, it won't make too much difference. The speed of the trains is ridiculously slow. This is why so many Londoners prefer the bus over VIA......faster and cheaper.

For the SW the only positive about the Kitchener route is Pearson. I would still just improve the line they have via Aldershot. 200km/hr diesel trains from Win/Lon/Tor with perhaps every second or third train stopping at Aldershot if needed. VIA should worry about HSR over the very long term but in the mean time get high speed diesel trains with priority over freight to serve the entire Corridor.

 

[MisterF]

No it does not

According to multiple news articles it is - 14 new daily trains between Union and Mount Pleasant. Unless that's changed.

I'm surprised that VIA even carries 3% of London/Toronto traffic.

Although they will be increasing frequency in the Lon/Tor/Win corridor soon, it won't make too much difference. The speed of the trains is ridiculously slow. This is why so many Londoners prefer the bus over VIA......faster and cheaper.

For the SW the only positive about the Kitchener route is Pearson. I would still just improve the line they have via Aldershot. 200km/hr diesel trains from Win/Lon/Tor with perhaps every second or third train stopping at Aldershot if needed. VIA should worry about HSR over the very long term but in the mean time get high speed diesel trains with priority over freight to serve the entire Corridor.

Unfortunately it's not as simple as just getting priority over freight. CN will never give up priority. If VIA is to ever run reliable service without its trains waiting on sidings for freights to lumber by, it needs its own corridors. And when new corridors are being built, it becomes easier to justify building them to a high speed standard.

 

[nfitz]

According to multiple news articles it is - 14 new daily trains between Union and Mount Pleasant. Unless that's changed.

Eight of which existed prior to the recent construction, and have existed since about 2002. Essentially the old late morning and early afternoon service has been restored, but is hourly now and not about every 2 hours like it used to be; and they've extended the service 2 more stations to Mount Plesasant from Bramalea.

But there's no reverse peak service, pre-AM rush service, early evening service, or late evening service. It's not even close to all-day service.

If you were to try and use it to commute to Brampton, you'd only be successful if you were working a 6-hour day; as the first westbound train arrives at about 9:30 AM, and the last eastbound departs at about 4 pm. (and the last two eastbound departures miss all the stations in Toronto except Union).

 

[howl]

According to multiple news articles it is - 14 new daily trains between Union and Mount Pleasant. Unless that's changed.


Unfortunately it's not as simple as just getting priority over freight. CN will never give up priority. If VIA is to ever run reliable service without its trains waiting on sidings for freights to lumber by, it needs its own corridors. And when new corridors are being built, it becomes easier to justify building them to a high speed standard.

It might be easier to reconfigure the existing passenger and freight lines that go through the centre of the cities to handle HSR; and build a completely new rail network that doesn't go through the centre of the cities for freight. 150 years ago industrial areas were in the centre of the cities, now they are out on the edges. It doesn't make sense to keep running freight trains through city centres.

 

[gweed123]

Let's not forget that the upgrades of the LSE and LSW corridors to support RER are also capable of supporting HSR, though granted not at full HSR speeds. Things like electrification, removing at-grade crossings, and dedicated RER tracks will help. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the LSE and LSW corridors are configured for 4 track service, with GO RER local using the outer two tracks and GO RER Express and VIA using the inner two. An exception to this configuration would be part of LSE where GO has two dedicated tracks that are separate from VIA/CN tracks.

But yes, the reality is that most HSR requires new corridors, unless the built form of the existing trackage is flat enough, straight enough, and has a sufficient number of tracks to support a service like HSR. That situation isn't unique to the London-Kitchener-Toronto corridor. In fact, the Kitchener-Brampton section is in need of an upgrade to straighten and widen the corridor anyway. That would benefit both HSR and GO, if done properly.

 

[44 North]

Let's not forget that the upgrades of the LSE and LSW corridors to support RER are also capable of supporting HSR, though granted not at full HSR speeds. Things like electrification, removing at-grade crossings, and dedicated RER tracks will help. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the LSE and LSW corridors are configured for 4 track service, with GO RER local using the outer two tracks and GO RER Express and VIA using the inner two. An exception to this configuration would be part of LSE where GO has two dedicated tracks that are separate from VIA/CN tracks.

But yes, the reality is that most HSR requires new corridors, unless the built form of the existing trackage is flat enough, straight enough, and has a sufficient number of tracks to support a service like HSR. That situation isn't unique to the London-Kitchener-Toronto corridor. In fact, the Kitchener-Brampton section is in need of an upgrade to straighten and widen the corridor anyway. That would benefit both HSR and GO, if done properly.

Do you think that the Midtown corridor might be a better alternative than USRC (provided that a freight bypass is in place to free-up the Midtown)? Because of its awkward location, and potential for Nimbyism, it seems it's not that great for RT or RER. But a less frequent service like HSR may be something that could work.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Do you think that the Midtown corridor might be a better alternative than USRC (provided that a freight bypass is in place to free-up the Midtown)? Because of its awkward location, and potential for Nimbyism, it seems it's not that great for RT or RER. But a less frequent service like HSR may be something that could work.

Less frequent but greater disturbance vs more frequent but lessor disturbance. HSR trains whooshing by at 200+ KM/hr or commuter rail at 50 to 100 KM/hr?

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Your criticisms of the London section could be made of the Ottawa-Montreal section as well, or any HSR project for that matter. Most HSR lines are built on completely new rights of way where necessary, and on existing rights of way where it makes sense to, including through city centres. There's nothing about the London HSR proposal that suggests it would be any different.

There is the aforementioned feasibility study, which has determined that the Toronto-Montreal section will operate at a net benefit, when you establish a new ROW. The London-Toronto sections would not, and that was with using at least half existing ROW. Making a new ROW makes more sense if the analysis shows there is enough demand for the train in the first place.

 

[crs1026]

Do you think that the Midtown corridor might be a better alternative than USRC (provided that a freight bypass is in place to free-up the Midtown)? Because of its awkward location, and potential for Nimbyism, it seems it's not that great for RT or RER. But a less frequent service like HSR may be something that could work.

Anything on that corridor has to be a "niche" transportation product. As you note, that corridor doesn't add a lot to the existing network of subway and RER lines - adds riders to, rather than relieves, the Yonge and Spadina subway lines, is pretty redundant to the Bloor subway. The lack of connectivity to all the other routes that converge on the Union Station "hub" is a real problem. My vote would be to not put HSR here, because so many HSR riders would want to make use of these connecting routes. I believe Metrolinx did a study that seemed to indicate that there may be viable solutions to add platforms or new terminals down near Union (albeit at a fair cost).

The one use that I can get behind for the North Toronto line would be a second UPX/RER route, branching off the Weston line at West Toronto, crossing the city with a small number of key stops, and then continuing eastwards into Durham Region - perhaps terminating at the Pickering airport site (which I would then argue doesn't need to be built!) That might tap a ridership to the north of (and not attracted to) the existing LSE/Union UPX option. Assuming HST would stop at Malton, it could "relieve" services that connect at Union.

That might be a "light" enough use to mitigate the environmental impact. Getting freight off that corridor is a desirable thing in itself. There may be a case for doing a bypass just to save money on RER upgrades to the Halton and Galt Subs, without inventing a purpose for the North Toronto line. It could simply become Toronto's version of New York's High Line pedestrian trail.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Let's not forget that the upgrades of the LSE and LSW corridors to support RER are also capable of supporting HSR, though granted not at full HSR speeds. Things like electrification, removing at-grade crossings, and dedicated RER tracks will help. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the LSE and LSW corridors are configured for 4 track service, with GO RER local using the outer two tracks and GO RER Express and VIA using the inner two. An exception to this configuration would be part of LSE where GO has two dedicated tracks that are separate from VIA/CN tracks.

The LSW corridor with existing speed limits, can support much faster service, if optimized.

Recently, a special event GO train (a very late West Harbour express train during PanAm, that caught up to be almost on time) -- made it from Union to Burlington in a mere 30 minutes. The train exceeded 140kph regularly, and sutained 120-145kph through several concurrent stations (Track speed limit was 90mph/145kph in several sections).

 

[nfitz]

The LSW corridor with existing speed limits, can support much faster service, if optimized.

Recently, a special event GO train (a very late West Harbour express train during PanAm, that caught up to be almost on time) -- made it from Union to Burlington in a mere 30 minutes. The train exceeded 140kph regularly, and sutained 120-145kph through several concurrent stations (Track speed limit was 90mph/145kph in several sections).

That sounds about right. Looking at the 1988 timetable before Aldershot station was built, VIA Rail had 7 trains from Union to Burlington, and they did as quick as 34 minutes, including a stop in Oakville; currently they a couple of trains that do Aldershot in 38 minutes stopping at Oakville. And that's the departure time from Burlington/Aldershot, not the arrival time!

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Do you think that the Midtown corridor might be a better alternative than USRC (provided that a freight bypass is in place to free-up the Midtown)? Because of its awkward location, and potential for Nimbyism, it seems it's not that great for RT or RER. But a less frequent service like HSR may be something that could work.

Having HSR arrive anywhere other than Union Station does not make a whole lot of sense to me. It is the great hub, the jewel in downtown Toronto, and closest to the financial core. Furthermore, it has an existing concourse. I don't see the rationale for converting either Summerhill or Dupont into something that can handle HSR passengers, from a financial or logistical perspective.