VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

With GO going to Kitchener, London has seen skyrocketing housing costs in the last 10 years. HSR that gets commuting to Toronto in an hour will only exacerbate that. So, yes, you save money moving from Toronto to London, but if you live in London and want to buy your first home, you are only seeing the price of a house rise.

And? That is how city's like London, Red Deer and Peterborough will benefit. They'll get wealthier residents who will also pump in money into the local economy. They don't just buy houses. They live in that community. The shop at local stores. Eat at local restaurants. Donate to local charities. And in due course open up satellite offices in these towns. This is how we lift up a lot of these towns that got deindustrialized in the 90s.

Also, since land commands less of a premium in smaller cities, the price increases don't work out as substantially as people think. This is already happening in London, Kingston, Belleville, Cobourg, etc. VIA even sells commuter passes (however inelegant) to cater to these travelers. You don't the locals voting in politicians opposed to any of this. Indeed, the Kingston hub would amp this up substantially. But you won't find any of the mayors in these communities opposed to the growth and new residents. Their primary concern is losing service.

Of course, we could always avoid building intercity rail, let these cities stagnate or even die while cramming more people into the large metros. How many people would vote for that?

 

[afransen]

With GO going to Kitchener, London has seen skyrocketing housing costs in the last 10 years. HSR that gets commuting to Toronto in an hour will only exacerbate that. So, yes, you save money moving from Toronto to London, but if you live in London and want to buy your first home, you are only seeing the price of a house rise.

I'm sure homeowners in those cities won't complain.

 

[Darwinkgo]

So, no?
I did not mean upgrade it to HFR/HSR. I mean putting a second or 3rd track down the whole way. What you are talking is upgrading the line.

It just wouldn’t be speed competitive with even the bus. For the amount of ridership you’d generate it just doesn’t make sense. With how far the cities are apart there is a speed sweet spot to minimize net cost and it is way above twinning the existing freight standard line. (The province looked at this in the 70s and VIA came to the same conclusion in the early 80s)

The prairie is just such good land for railway building the cost of doing major rebuilds isn’t much more than twinning.

This is why demanding hourly is silly. Hourly or half hourly during the morning and evening makes sense, but the rest of the time, if the trains cannot be filled, then they should not run so often. The bigger thing is to ensure 95% or better on time.

Probably why nothing has come from the HSR study. Regular rail, and maybe an HFR would make sense, but maybe the study came to the conclusion that HSR at hourly or better would not be feasible.

The studies show that regular rail, hfr rail don’t make sense in the context. It just isn’t fast enough. Once you start raising the speed the project gets more appealing as you can sell more of the capacity at the same cost (buying a 6 car set instead of a 8 or 10 car set doesn’t save much money in the context of a big project) and once you’re doing a brand new row going to 350 kph doesn’t cost much more than 200 kph.

Is there the demand for that big of a train that often?

If it is fast enough. Going fast enough opens up the second profit maximization point on the curve, where you both maximize demand and profit by keeping prices low. Around 60% induced demand if I remember reading the demand study from around a decade ago. As others have said a lot of demand gets induced in Red Deer - around 1/4 of the positive economic externality ends up in Red Deer.

The problem with this plan is that it would cause skyrocketing housing to happen. In general, Via should not be used for commuting. Each major city metro should have a commuter rail system in place that can be upscaled to HSR for other cities that could commute on it. 2 cities have something, one needs it..

Especially in a work from come 2, 3 days a week context, HSR will most certainly be used for a lot of commuting.

It is also useful for initial service into the stations so the trains don’t need to deadhead or be stored in the centre of urban areas.

 

[kEiThZ]

and once you’re doing a brand new row going to 350 kph doesn’t cost much more than 200 kph.

Yes and no. If I'm not mistaken, passenger ops is allowed up to 125 mph (or is it 110 mph?) without grade separation as long as there's strong protections at crossings. Saves the cost of grade separation.

In theory this provides a sort of upgrade path. Build the line without grade separation or electrification, but design the corridor and its geometry for higher speed. Run at 110 mph till traffic is enough to justify the upgrade to 250+ kph fully electrified and grade separated HSR.

I don't actually think 300 kph is needed for anything but enabling commuting. And building something that expensive would drive up ticket prices.

Rough math:.

Distance 300 km from centre to centre.
Driving time: 3 hrs. (No traffic).
Flight time: 45 mins. 2 hrs from centre to centre with 45 mins pre-boarding. Probably closer to 2.5 hrs in reality, but let's be conservative.

Required average train speed: 300 km / 2 hrs = 150 kph.
Percentage of max speed: 70%
Required max speed: 150 kph / 70% = 214.28 kph

A train with a max speed of 110 mph, averaging 70% would do the trip in under 2.5 hrs. Plenty competitive with air and car. They should field the Greenfield corridor, lauch with regular diesel trains, and then either invest progressively or launch a large upgrade program in 20 years at fleet renewal time. Aiming for the best or even the most sensible solution doesn't get anything built in Canada. Build the solution with the most amount of capital you can get, even if profit or operating costs aren't optimized.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Yes and no. If I'm not mistaken, passenger ops is allowed up to 125 mph (or is it 110 mph?) without grade separation as long as there's strong protections at crossings. Saves the cost of grade separation.

In theory this provides a sort of upgrade path. Build the line without grade separation or electrification, but design the corridor and its geometry for higher speed. Run at 110 mph till traffic is enough to justify the upgrade to 250+ kph fully electrified and grade separated HSR.

I don't actually think 300 kph is needed for anything but enabling commuting. And building something that expensive would drive up ticket prices.

Rough math:.

Distance 300 km from centre to centre.
Driving time: 3 hrs. (No traffic).
Flight time: 45 mins. 2 hrs from centre to centre with 45 mins pre-boarding. Probably closer to 2.5 hrs in reality, but let's be conservative.

Required average train speed: 300 km / 2 hrs = 150 kph.
Percentage of max speed: 70%
Required max speed: 150 kph / 70% = 214.28 kph

A train with a max speed of 110 mph, averaging 70% would do the trip in under 2.5 hrs. Plenty competitive with air and car. They should field the Greenfield corridor, lauch with regular diesel trains, and then either invest progressively or launch a large upgrade program in 20 years at fleet renewal time. Aiming for the best or even the most sensible solution doesn't get anything built in Canada. Build the solution with the most amount of capital you can get, even if profit or operating costs aren't optimized.

In Alberta the government will just let you close minor roads if it doesn’t create major inconvenience or if you offer to buy out people that are mad about the minor inconvenience. The more major roads they would never allow a level crossing on anyways. I’m sure it make sense in some places to go incrementally but the economic modelling for Alberta has doing more investment up front to get more speed generating a positive return, so it doesn’t make sense to just do the incremental project. Flat soil that is mostly large farms that are used to competing land users on slivers of their land (oil and gas) and all that.

Building something fast doesn’t necessarily drive up ticket prices unless you want it to, because you reach a different point on your revenue curve which maximizes revenue through ridership maximization instead of fare maximization. And since whenis it a bad thing to commute? Going from onecity to another before and after a concert I’d bet would become common under a high speed scenario.

As for your 2.5 hour greenfield diesel scenario: why? They’d save barely any capital cost compared to a 2 hour scenario where they convinced someone to implement jet train.

 

[kEiThZ]

As for your 2.5 hour greenfield diesel scenario: why? They’d save barely any capital cost compared to a 2 hour scenario where they convinced someone to implement jet train.

The cost savings usually come from electrification and grade separation. Putting land together for a corridor is a whole other affair.

My concern usually with this stuff is that full HSR always gives governments sticker shock enough to avoid actually building something. So the best path is to offer the minimum viable solution (not the cheapest) that allows for future upgrades.

Looking at Wikipedia on the 2004 Van Horne Institute study. The choices previously offered were:

1) Upgrade CP and use 240 kph Jet Train for $2.5B.
2) Greenfield with 240 kph JetTrain for $3.7B.
3) Greenfield electrified with 300 kph HSR for $5B.

The article says option 1 was recommended. I'd argue for Option 2 but with regular diesel Siemens Charger sets like VIA is buying now. Gets a Greenfield corridor for 25% less than options 3. The ~$1 billion to electrify can be put in later.

The goal here should be to be get shovels in the ground. Since that study those cost estimates are easily up 50% from inflation. Could well be double, with increasing land values and other costs. Delaying has a cost to it. I would think my idea could be brought in for ~$5B in today's dollars.

 

[Urban Sky]

For city pairs that are 300 km or less, I absolutely would. With semi-hourly at peak as minimum. The only time bi-hourly might be tolerable is in the night. For example a departure at 2000h and then at 2200h.

I'm inclined to agree with you and my reference for a borderline-questionable HSR line is the segment between Fulda and Rohrbach (where ICEs and ICs from Frankfurt join) of the Hanover-Würzburg HSL, which now seems to have 19 trains per day and direction (i.e. 16 hourly departures plus 3 additional departures). And indeed, the ridership impact of going from service every two hours to hourly service equates 63% for a nominal travel time of 1 hour, but 11% for 6 hours:

See @Urban Sky 's post. It's what he explains about how travel time is perceived by travelers in regards to headways.

Let's take a scenario where service is hourly on the hour. I finish my meeting at 430pm. I can catch the 5pm train out. My wait time is only 30 min. In reality most of that might be spent getting to the station and pre-boarding. Now, let's say the service is bi-hourly and I missed the 4pm train. I will perceive a whole hour as wasted, while waiting for the 6pm train. This is particularly relevant if we're talking about a distance that can be driven in 3 hrs or flown in 45 mins.

Indeed, passengers look at the difference between the time they have to leave home and the time they need to arrive at their destination (or for the returning leg of a round-trip: between the time they want to leave the destination and the time they arrive back home) and place a similar (negative) value on involuntary waiting time at the destination as they place on the nominal travel time itself...

But there is no wayside power so they just left the train tied down idling all night? And the station is on the main line. Where did they WYE the train?

No idea about the wayside power, but I'd assume that the train (if non-push-pull) is wyed at the wye where I saw the trainset...

And? That is how city's like London, Red Deer and Peterborough will benefit. They'll get wealthier residents who will also pump in money into the local economy. They don't just buy houses. They live in that community. The shop at local stores. Eat at local restaurants. Donate to local charities. And in due course open up satellite offices in these towns. This is how we lift up a lot of these towns that got deindustrialized in the 90s.

Also, since land commands less of a premium in smaller cities, the price increases don't work out as substantially as people think. This is already happening in London, Kingston, Belleville, Cobourg, etc. VIA even sells commuter passes (however inelegant) to cater to these travelers. You don't the locals voting in politicians opposed to any of this. Indeed, the Kingston hub would amp this up substantially. But you won't find any of the mayors in these communities opposed to the growth and new residents. Their primary concern is losing service.

Of course, we could always avoid building intercity rail, let these cities stagnate or even die while cramming more people into the large metros. How many people would vote for that?

Exactly, HSR is a huge win for these cities as it allows them to draw in (or retain) residents and have them either commute (rather than move) to the high-paying jobs or even have the high-paying jobs move to them (Peterborough's elevator pitch could become something like: "Why pay for offices in Toronto and Ottawa if you could locate close to both in one single location?")

Yes and no. If I'm not mistaken, passenger ops is allowed up to 125 mph (or is it 110 mph?) without grade separation as long as there's strong protections at crossings. Saves the cost of grade separation.

As I already explained in 2014, 2016, 2017 and 2019, the speed limit for level crossings in North America is 110 mph, which in the case of the FRA may be stretched to 125 mph (if "impenetrable barriers" are installed), whereas Transport Canada's Grade Crossing Regulations bizarrely treat the construction of a level crossing for a speed beyond 110 mph as some kind of criminal offense ("A person must not construct a grade crossing if ... the railway design speed on the line of railway is more than 177 km/h (110 mph)"):

Mostly agreed, except that in terms of construction costs (and thus economic and political feasibility) a design speed of 160 km/h and 200 km/h are orders of magnitudes apart: Up to 177 km/h (110 mph), level crossings are generally possible, whereas FRA regulations require "impenetrable barriers" for all level crossings in the 178-200 km/h (111-125 mph) band, while (as I already posted in in July and December) Transport Canada's Grade Crossing Regulations already explicitly prohibit the construction of any level crossing beyond 177 km/h (110 mph).

Note: repost from #2,807
Source: FRA (2011, p.20)

If you refer to above table, the dilemma is as follows:

• Everything until 177 km/h (110 mph, Tiers 0/IA/IB) is relatively straightforward,
• Level crossings: whereas TC regulations outright ban them beyond 177 km/h (110 mph), FRA regulations allow a work-around in the 178-200 km/h (111-125 mph) band (Tier IC), but the necessary investments into "impenetrable barriers" under FRA regulations will become useless the moment you upgrade beyond 200 km/h (125 mph).
• Corridor-sharing with freight is still allowed beyond 200 km/h (125 mph), but only until 240 km/h (150 mph, Tier II), so moving beyond that speed requires a dedicated HSR Corridor which again renders prior investment useless.
• Track alignment: according to the Ecotrain Study, 200 km/h requires a minimum radius of 2,500 meters (2,000 meters with tilting trains), whereas 300 km/h requires a minimum radius of 6,000 meters. Investments in less generous track realignments therefore risks becoming useless when design speed is increased towards 300 km/h.

For all above reasons, investing in any infrastructure to reach speeds beyond 177 km/h only makes sense if you make sure that the investment is HSR-ready, i.e. compatible with a later upgrade to 300 km/h. For exactly that reason, I would strongly object upgrading any rail segments beyond 177 km/h, unless they overlap with Ecotrain's E-300 alignment and as far as I see that is only the case for parts of the Trois-Rivières Subdivision, Montreal-De Beujeu, Casselman West-Ottawa-Smiths Falls North and Port Hope West-Toronto.

As for your 2.5 hour greenfield diesel scenario: why? They’d save barely any capital cost compared to a 2 hour scenario where they convinced someone to implement jet train.

The general consensus in the rail industry is that Diesel technology becomes highly uneconomic for speeds beyond 160 km/h (100 mph), which means that HFR is already pushing the limits. As for using any kind of jet turbine, a colleague of mine explained to me that the maintenance of such an engine is proportional to the number of shifts between gears, which put their application in rail vehicles (with their frequent changes between acceleration and deceleration) at a spectacular cost disadvantage compared to the plane (which is basically full throttle at take-off, full reverse after landing and coasting inbetween)...

 

[micheal_can]

And? That is how city's like London, Red Deer and Peterborough will benefit. They'll get wealthier residents who will also pump in money into the local economy. They don't just buy houses. They live in that community. The shop at local stores. Eat at local restaurants. Donate to local charities. And in due course open up satellite offices in these towns. This is how we lift up a lot of these towns that got deindustrialized in the 90s.

Also, since land commands less of a premium in smaller cities, the price increases don't work out as substantially as people think. This is already happening in London, Kingston, Belleville, Cobourg, etc. VIA even sells commuter passes (however inelegant) to cater to these travelers. You don't the locals voting in politicians opposed to any of this. Indeed, the Kingston hub would amp this up substantially. But you won't find any of the mayors in these communities opposed to the growth and new residents. Their primary concern is losing service.

Of course, we could always avoid building intercity rail, let these cities stagnate or even die while cramming more people into the large metros. How many people would vote for that?

Clearly, you don't know anyone trying t get into a house for the first time. Otherwise, you would understand that this isn't all good. Why should another city get expensive so someone from Toronto can buy a house?

I'm sure homeowners in those cities won't complain.

When their taxes go up because of a higher assessment, they won't be so happy.

It just wouldn’t be speed competitive with even the bus. For the amount of ridership you’d generate it just doesn’t make sense. With how far the cities are apart there is a speed sweet spot to minimize net cost and it is way above twinning the existing freight standard line. (The province looked at this in the 70s and VIA came to the same conclusion in the early 80s)

The prairie is just such good land for railway building the cost of doing major rebuilds isn’t much more than twinning.



The studies show that regular rail, hfr rail don’t make sense in the context. It just isn’t fast enough. Once you start raising the speed the project gets more appealing as you can sell more of the capacity at the same cost (buying a 6 car set instead of a 8 or 10 car set doesn’t save much money in the context of a big project) and once you’re doing a brand new row going to 350 kph doesn’t cost much more than 200 kph.

Then it sounds like it is not going to be done for a long time.

If it is fast enough. Going fast enough opens up the second profit maximization point on the curve, where you both maximize demand and profit by keeping prices low. Around 60% induced demand if I remember reading the demand study from around a decade ago. As others have said a lot of demand gets induced in Red Deer - around 1/4 of the positive economic externality ends up in Red Deer.


Especially in a work from come 2, 3 days a week context, HSR will most certainly be used for a lot of commuting.

It is also useful for initial service into the stations so the trains don’t need to deadhead or be stored in the centre of urban areas.

With Red Deer about 1 hr from each other, even at upgraded tracks, but not HSR, it would still benefit the corridor. If anything it could build it up slower so that property doesn't skyrocket.

Yes and no. If I'm not mistaken, passenger ops is allowed up to 125 mph (or is it 110 mph?) without grade separation as long as there's strong protections at crossings. Saves the cost of grade separation.

In theory this provides a sort of upgrade path. Build the line without grade separation or electrification, but design the corridor and its geometry for higher speed. Run at 110 mph till traffic is enough to justify the upgrade to 250+ kph fully electrified and grade separated HSR.

I don't actually think 300 kph is needed for anything but enabling commuting. And building something that expensive would drive up ticket prices.

Rough math:.

Distance 300 km from centre to centre.
Driving time: 3 hrs. (No traffic).
Flight time: 45 mins. 2 hrs from centre to centre with 45 mins pre-boarding. Probably closer to 2.5 hrs in reality, but let's be conservative.

Required average train speed: 300 km / 2 hrs = 150 kph.
Percentage of max speed: 70%
Required max speed: 150 kph / 70% = 214.28 kph

A train with a max speed of 110 mph, averaging 70% would do the trip in under 2.5 hrs. Plenty competitive with air and car. They should field the Greenfield corridor, lauch with regular diesel trains, and then either invest progressively or launch a large upgrade program in 20 years at fleet renewal time. Aiming for the best or even the most sensible solution doesn't get anything built in Canada. Build the solution with the most amount of capital you can get, even if profit or operating costs aren't optimized.

Could that be done by adding a second/3rd track to CP's line?

 

[Urban Sky]

Clearly, you don't know anyone trying t get into a house for the first time. Otherwise, you would understand that this isn't all good. Why should another city get expensive so someone from Toronto can buy a house?



When their taxes go up because of a higher assessment, they won't be so happy.

I guess that's why certain participants in this discussion choose to live in Sudbury, where they are thankfully shielded from any infrastructure investments which might drive up property values...^^

 

[robmausser]

. As for using any kind of jet turbine, a colleague of mine explained to me that the maintenance of such an engine is proportional to the number of shifts between gears, which put their application in rail vehicles (with their frequent changes between acceleration and deceleration) at a spectacular cost disadvantage compared to the plane (which is basically full throttle at take-off, full reverse after landing and coasting inbetween)...

Ive wondered lately if the noble battery will make a comeback for jet powered trains.

Jet engines are only efficient at very high RPM's, infact they often can only operate at high rpms. Which would be a huge waste when slowing down and stopping a train, you have to keep the jet engine running at high speed and waste a lot of fuel for nothing.

However, that turbine engine could be used to recharge batteries when the train is slowing/stopped at stations, and the power stored and used for later, much like a hybrid car. So very little of the energy is wasted.

 

[Darwinkgo]

The cost savings usually come from electrification and grade separation. Putting land together for a corridor is a whole other affair.

My concern usually with this stuff is that full HSR always gives governments sticker shock enough to avoid actually building something. So the best path is to offer the minimum viable solution (not the cheapest) that allows for future upgrades.

Looking at Wikipedia on the 2004 Van Horne Institute study. The choices previously offered were:

1) Upgrade CP and use 240 kph Jet Train for $2.5B.
2) Greenfield with 240 kph JetTrain for $3.7B.
3) Greenfield electrified with 300 kph HSR for $5B.

The article says option 1 was recommended. I'd argue for Option 2 but with regular diesel Siemens Charger sets like VIA is buying now. Gets a Greenfield corridor for 25% less than options 3. The ~$1 billion to electrify can be put in later.

The goal here should be to be get shovels in the ground. Since that study those cost estimates are easily up 50% from inflation. Could well be double, with increasing land values and other costs. Delaying has a cost to it. I would think my idea could be brought in for ~$5B in today's dollars.

Oh. As long as it is greenfield that’s fine. It is trying to make CPR incremental that is a problem.

 

[Urban Sky]

Ive wondered lately if the noble battery will make a comeback for jet powered trains.

Jet engines are only efficient at very high RPM's, infact they often can only operate at high rpms. Which would be a huge waste when slowing down and stopping a train, you have to keep the jet engine running at high speed and waste a lot of fuel for nothing.

However, that turbine engine could be used to recharge batteries when the train is slowing/stopped at stations, and the power stored and used for later, much like a hybrid car. So very little of the energy is wasted.

I've never thought of that, but that still raises the question of how much such high-RPM engines like being constantly exposed to vibration and shocks or whether the interaction between vehicle and guideway causes excessive wear and tear...

 

[kEiThZ]

Clearly, you don't know anyone trying t get into a house for the first time. Otherwise, you would understand that this isn't all good. Why should another city get expensive so someone from Toronto can buy a house?

.
I know plenty of folks trying to get into the housing market. And it isn't easy, regardless of where you live. But their struggles shouldn't be an excuse to stop all development.

Can't have it both ways. Can't whine about the lack of infrastructure and then when it's built, start whining that people are actually using it.

Or would you prefer we build no infrastructure at all? Because literally any improved connection to a larger city will see people moving and taking advantage of the infrastructure.

I'm not opposed to bypassing communities that care more about gentrification than infrastructure. Folks in London don't want HSR, because it will drive up property prices? No issues. Don't build HSR to London, or route around them. They should just know that once they make that decision, it's irreversible.

When their taxes go up because of a higher assessment, they won't be so happy.

That's not how property taxes work.

 

[micheal_can]

Ive wondered lately if the noble battery will make a comeback for jet powered trains.

Jet engines are only efficient at very high RPM's, infact they often can only operate at high rpms. Which would be a huge waste when slowing down and stopping a train, you have to keep the jet engine running at high speed and waste a lot of fuel for nothing.

However, that turbine engine could be used to recharge batteries when the train is slowing/stopped at stations, and the power stored and used for later, much like a hybrid car. So very little of the energy is wasted.

A similarly kw rated diesel engine is more fuel efficient than a gas turbine.. If you want even better efficiency? Steam... Pound for pound of fuel, a steam system running a generator would be the best.
Remember, all modern trains are electrically driven, so, we need to think of the generation of the electricity.

Batteries would help smoothen out the curve to prevent spikes in power generation and fuel consumption, but, not as much as picking the best thing to generate power.

And if you are wondering, yes, a small nuclear reactor could be used too. The crash worthiness is the issue.

.
I know plenty of folks trying to get into the housing market. And it isn't easy, regardless of where you live. But their struggles shouldn't be an excuse to stop all development.

Can't have it both ways. Can't whine about the lack of infrastructure and then when it's built, start whining that people are actually using it.

Or would you prefer we build no infrastructure at all? Because literally any improved connection to a larger city will see people moving and taking advantage of the infrastructure.

I'm not opposed to bypassing communities that care more about gentrification than infrastructure. Folks in London don't want HSR, because it will drive up property prices? No issues. Don't build HSR to London, or route around them. They should just know that once they make that decision, it's irreversible.

Toronto and Vancouver are unaffordable. What is the mortgage payment for $1 million over 25 years? What is the income needed so that it is no more than 44% of your income?
We do not want more areas getting that high. It irks me that people look at their home, not as a place to live, but as an investment. Yes, prices will rise,, but not crazily. Or at least they shouldn't. I sold a home for almost double of what I paid for it. Some of that value is the covid pricing. Most of it were the renos I did to it. The sad thing is, had I tried to buy a house now, on my own,w ithout my wife's income, I would not find something in my price range... and I make a good living on my own.

I am not saying HSR should not go to London. I am saying that it should not go to London if the goal is to make it a bedroom community of Toronto. If that is your goal, you should also be building HSR to Midland, Gravenhurst, and Owen Sound, as they are all about the same distance as London is.

Let's build HSR to improve transportation, not to cater to commuters.

That's not how property taxes work.

Correct me if I am wrong.

MPAC does an assessment of your house value. Part of that is based on the potential sale price of it. That is then sent to the local municipality. They then use it to apply the calculated tax rate. So, if in your area, more houses sell for higher prices, you will see that assessment go up, which then will raise your property taxes.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am not saying HSR should not go to London. I am saying that it should not go to London if the goal is to make it a bedroom community of Toronto.

Let's build HSR to improve transportation, not to cater to commuters.

You cannot divorce infrastructure from its impacts. Rail is no different on this front than building a highway. If HSR was built to London, it wouldn't be built to service commuters. But there's no way to stop commuters from using it. And without at least some element of commuting there's definitely no business case. There's no HSR in the world that does not rely on a long distance commuter base to provide base demand.

So it really does come down to whether you want HSR with all the second order effects that rapid rail transportation brings, or no HSR. Cities should be given the choice. But no wavering. It's expensive to build HSR through a city with no station there. If London wants cheap housing, they can be bypassed with any rail corridor routed direct to Windsor. Or better yet, terminate in Kitchener, where people actually want improved rail service. And Londoners can live with that decision for the decades to come.

That said, my wife's from London. And I've not heard a single one of her relatives or friends say anything but that they would love a better connection to Toronto and better local transit service.

MPAC does an assessment of your house value. Part of that is based on the potential sale price of it. That is then sent to the local municipality. They then use it to apply the calculated tax rate. So, if in your area, more houses sell for higher prices, you will see that assessment go up, which then will raise your property taxes.

That's how assessment works. But not how property taxes work.

Cities set a budget and then adjust the mill rate which allocates the tax levy against the assessed value. You don't pay a percentage of the assessed value. You pay the mill rate. Therefore, a rising home value won't increase your taxes, unless your home value is rising at a much faster rate than the rest of your community. If every single house in a city gains 10% in value, there will be no change in property taxes unless the city wants to raise more revenue. If your house goes up 10% while the rest of the city sees no gain, than your taxes will go up 10%.

As places like London and Peterborough and Cobourg turn into larger bedroom communities, they will see some appreciation. But that lift will be broad, across the whole community. There won't be substantial tax increases for anyone, except maybe in the trendiest of neighbourhoods.