Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[MisterF]

@MisterF

Didn't want to derail the Pearson thread. We can have this discussion here.



This is phenomenal if it happens. But it's a big "if". And the airport and airlines can't not plan for expansion based on promise for not just HSR, but HSR that's competitive enough with air. As for transfer at Union, it needn't just be a transfer. Even a long stop at Union would put a dent in travel times. More realistically, it's possible that whoever is operating will either split service at Union (so that the TOM service and SW Ontario service terminate at Union) or that there will be no SW Ontario service and we'll get HSR just between TOM, in which case riders will be transferring to UPX. You are basing your assumptions on the absolute best case scenario. I'm a little more pessimistic.

Even if the London section never gets built, there's no reason that the Ottawa trains couldn't go to Pearson instead of terminating at Union. There's no reason to assume that a forced transfer to UPX would exist. There's a good chance that UPX as we know it wouldn't even exist once RER and an HSR system are operational. Even with a 10 minute stop at Union, a high speed train would still offer very competitive travel times to Pearson from the east.

I agree with you on the benefits. The disagreement arises on whether these benefits accrue from high speed rail or just solid rail service. Think of it like a Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis. That's essentially what the government will be evaluating between HSR and VIA Fast.

I sincerely believe that the Trudeau government will jump on the VIA Fast proposal. Beyond that? I have my doubts. The private sector can pitch in something. But th $19-21 billion from the last report, is beyond all but the richest of consortiums and that will require concessions that most governments might balk at.

I don't doubt that HSR is viable. Not arguing that it is. But convincing consortium and the feds to invest billions will require much more of a solid business case than what those studies did. And more to the point, those cases will have to prove that the jump in benefits from $4 to $20 billion in capex is worthwhile. VIA's own CEO has made the specific argument that you can get 80% of the benefit (and ridership) of HSR for 20% of the cost. It'll be interesting to see who can argue against that.

I'd rather get VIA Fast in my lifetime than HSR when I'm retired or dead. The London HSR plan will simply be rolled in to VIA's plans. It's just too difficult to have yet another agency in the mix, with yet another service, competing with other traffic on one corridor.

I think you may be misunderstanding me. You're framing the discussion as if I'm arguing against VIA Fast, or whatever plan is being worked on. I'm not. And nobody is proposing that a private consortium would pay the entire cost. The consortium proposed sharing the cost with the government. It's not about convincing the private consortium to invest billions, the consortium were the ones proposing it. Their study also argued for full HSR, not a VIA Fast type system. Of course the cheaper system is more likely. It would build ridership and give passenger rail a much bigger place in the minds of the public. Much like Sweden and the UK, we could build this kind of system and still plan for true high speed trains in the future.

 

[kEiThZ]

@MisterF

You are assuming that the HSR will be routed via the airport. What if, for example, the powers that be decide to continue on Lakeshore to Hamilton? At the speeds that HSR would operate, there's a case to be made to go Union-Hamilton-Kitchener-London. I wouldn't rule out anything until we know a definitive routing.

WRT private sector involvement. Colour me skeptical. They've proposed being involved. With government bearing most of the risks, most of the burden of financing, and the smallest share of profit. Who wouldn't want that deal? They could've gone whole hog and proposed mag-levs.

Believe me. I want HSR. I'm off to Spain in 2.5 days. And me and the wife will be jetting around on their HSRs to different cities during our honeymoon. I would love for nothing more than to have HSR here, such that, I could contemplate jetting off to Quebec City or Ottawa for an evening. HSR would absolutely change the economic dynamics in this country. Smaller centres like Kingston and London would become much more attractive. Businesses would effectively have a 500km catchment area when travelling that far takes just 2-3 hours.

But what makes me skeptical is that there appears to be no large constituency for spending $20 billion on an HSR system. More so when quite a few cities with VIA service today might lose them. VIA Fast seems to offer the most political bang for the buck. And as we've seen with the gas plants scandal, politicians spend money for seats in these parts. Not for effective infrastructure. With that in mind, I'd rather support something (VIA Fast as some sort of interim solution) that gets us HSR in 50 years, than wait 50 years with nothing till they build HSR.

 

[MisterF]

@MisterF

You are assuming that the HSR will be routed via the airport. What if, for example, the powers that be decide to continue on Lakeshore to Hamilton? At the speeds that HSR would operate, there's a case to be made to go Union-Hamilton-Kitchener-London. I wouldn't rule out anything until we know a definitive routing.

WRT private sector involvement. Colour me skeptical. They've proposed being involved. With government bearing most of the risks, most of the burden of financing, and the smallest share of profit. Who wouldn't want that deal? They could've gone whole hog and proposed mag-levs.

Believe me. I want HSR. I'm off to Spain in 2.5 days. And me and the wife will be jetting around on their HSRs to different cities during our honeymoon. I would love for nothing more than to have HSR here, such that, I could contemplate jetting off to Quebec City or Ottawa for an evening. HSR would absolutely change the economic dynamics in this country. Smaller centres like Kingston and London would become much more attractive. Businesses would effectively have a 500km catchment area when travelling that far takes just 2-3 hours.

But what makes me skeptical is that there appears to be no large constituency for spending $20 billion on an HSR system. More so when quite a few cities with VIA service today might lose them. VIA Fast seems to offer the most political bang for the buck. And as we've seen with the gas plants scandal, politicians spend money for seats in these parts. Not for effective infrastructure. With that in mind, I'd rather support something (VIA Fast as some sort of interim solution) that gets us HSR in 50 years, than wait 50 years with nothing till they build HSR.

You could make the same criticism of any private-public partnership. In any case, the Kitchener route isn't an assumption, it's what all but one of the feasibility studies have recommended. It's also the route that's undergoing an environmental assessment at the moment, and that makes it farther along than any previous effort.

I don't doubt that HSR is viable. Not arguing that it is. But convincing consortium and the feds to invest billions will require much more of a solid business case than what those studies did. And more to the point, those cases will have to prove that the jump in benefits from $4 to $20 billion in capex is worthwhile. VIA's own CEO has made the specific argument that you can get 80% of the benefit (and ridership) of HSR for 20% of the cost. It'll be interesting to see who can argue against that.

Your cost comparison is incorrect. The $20 billion for HSR is for the entire 1100 km route from Windsor to Quebec City, while the $4 billion VIA Rail plan is for Montreal to Toronto only. Furthermore, that cost could be higher than necessary, since the 2010 study inflated costs with odd assumptions, like every side road having an overpass rather than just being closed. Estimates of the Montreal-Toronto section of a TGV style system vary, but VIA puts the cost at $9 billion. So a more fair comparison would be $4 billion for the VIA proposal (3h30m Toronto-Montreal) compared to $9 billion for full HSR (2h20m Toronto-Montreal). So a bit more than double the cost to make it an hour and 10 minutes faster. How much of each would be privately funded remains to be seen. If the VIA proposal gets built their plan is to gradually upgrade it to full 300 km/h HSR over time. While I fully agree that the VIA plan is much more likely to get built, the difference in cost isn't as stark as you think. And either one is worthy of support.

 

[muller877]

....Furthermore, that cost could be higher than necessary, since the 2010 study inflated costs with odd assumptions, like every side road having an overpass rather than just being closed. ....

There are a few side roads that can be closed. However, the tracks are near Hwy 401 or 2. These are the main arteries through these communities and the road system is designed for traffic to be directed towards them. If the roads dead end right before the tracks, a secondary highway would have to be created to avoid added travel time for both residents and emergency vehicles.

 

[yin_yang]

what's the point of HSR when we will have autonomous cars in a few years? plus ontario doesn't really have major traffic issues. seems like a waste of money...but then again so are many other things, and we do have a LOT of money nowadays...

 

[crs1026]

what's the point of HSR when we will have autonomous cars in a few years? plus ontario doesn't really have major traffic issues. seems like a waste of money...but then again so are many other things, and we do have a LOT of money nowadays...

Autonomous cars will not unclog the 401. Speaking of wasting money, just keep adding new highways and runways. We are overdue for improved rail service in Ontario. That doesn't imply TGV quality HSR right away - incremental improvements that lead to that level will give us more in the short to medium term.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

There are a few side roads that can be closed. However, the tracks are near Hwy 401 or 2. These are the main arteries through these communities and the road system is designed for traffic to be directed towards them. If the roads dead end right before the tracks, a secondary highway would have to be created to avoid added travel time for both residents and emergency vehicles.

There are many side roads that could be dead-ended at the rail line like they routinely do for freeways. Like this. There's no need for extra roads in the majority of cases, it's still easily accessible by emergency vehicles and no different from countless other concession roads that have dead ends.

 

[yin_yang]

Autonomous cars will not unclog the 401. Speaking of wasting money, just keep adding new highways and runways. We are overdue for improved rail service in Ontario. That doesn't imply TGV quality HSR right away - incremental improvements that lead to that level will give us more in the short to medium term.

- Paul

ok. the 401 automatically unclogs every night thought. it's basically empty. plus we have viarail service which seems to be more than enough. i have never heard anyone complain about traffic on viarail or on the 401. well, people complain of course...but they are spoiled or have never been to china or other places with real traffic jams. traffic flow here is amazing!

 

[crs1026]

Toronto-London moves OK most of the time, but is solid, from 0600 til late evening. We don't need to wait for gridlock to shift more of that traffic off the road. Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal is a pretty long drive and an inefficient flight....two hours of airport commute and wait for an hour flight. Again, we don't have to wait for people to complain to give them a better option. Look at what we will invest in roads or airports otherwise, and it's just good use of resources.

- Paul

 

[yin_yang]

they just expanded the 401 there to three lanes each way. i actually have a traffic cam app and look at it all the time. so much room and it's not solid at all. in fact there is more than enough room for everyone all the time. and nobody likes complainers so people who complain are generally either swept aside or ignored.

 

[jamincan]

It is regularly a standstill through Cambridge (currently being expanded) and Milton.

 

[yin_yang]

only during rush hour and no train will fix that.

 

[crs1026]

The data certainly suggests that there is, and will continue to be, congestion:

http://www.gta-west.com/pdf/7-30-09/GTA West Travel Demand Backgrounder-v1 - Chp 3 & 4 red.pdf

- Paul

 

[yin_yang]

of course there will he. it's not as bad as the maps make it out to be though. and HSR won't make it better. ever.

 

[crs1026]

Sorry, you're going to have to do better, As Monty Python would say, I came here for an argument.

Do you have any traffic count data or analysis that point to the current roads being able to handle current or future traffic volume.? Do you have any facts or analysis suggesting that rail service would not offset the need to construct even one pair of additional lanes between Toronto and Kitchener? How does the cost of said better rail service compare to the cost of adding that pair of lanes to the current highway? Are you in favour of adding all the lanes needed to meet projected volume?

- Paul