VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But the difference is that in Canada people expect to use infrastructure at below market rates. People expect roads to be free, public transit to be massively subsidized, utilities to be subsidized, recreational facilities to be free or subsidized.

Which is exactly what has lead to the stagnation in infrastructure development we've seen. The bank is at attempt to break that habit. Good on the government for trying. People should pay for what they use. And stop expecting the taxpayer to always pick up the full tab, each and every time.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If all of the highways in Ontario were tolled (as they are in many countries) they would have no problem finding investors in toll highways (and wouldn't need an infrastructure bank to get involved).

You want the federal government to toll a provincially owned asset?

Originally Posted by acottawa

This is a demand problem, not a supply problem and all of these convoluted intra-government money movement schemes are not going to solve that.

Plenty of pent up demand. We're seeing that with VIA's ridership increase despite the — service. We also know how much driving there is along these corridors. And let's not forget the nearly 100 flights a day in the Corridor.

But if you disagree, like I said, let's wait for more deals. There's no point having more circular discussions.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

LGV Sud Europe Atlantique is under construction and not yet operating a high speed service. The plan is to build a parallel high speed line.

Yes, as I said, the existing line handles TGV trains going 220 as well as slower regional trains. The new line will carry TGV trains going 300. The slower, older line has speeds not far off of the Ontario proposal.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Acela is 4 tracked most of the way so the Acela trains can go around commuter and regional trains. In places where they share tracks, the Acela trains do not go at high speed.

The part of the Acela service that goes 240 in Massachusetts and Rhode Island is mostly 2 tracks and also carries MBTA commuter trains. There's some triple tracking in those sections like at some of the commuter stations.

Another example is the Nuremberg-Munich line, which carries express trains at 300, regional express trains at 200, and regional trains at 140.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Berlin to Hanover only runs at high speed between Staaken and Oebisfelde, where again there is a high speed line runs parallel to the old line that is used for other services.

Yes, this is what I said.

Originally Posted by acottawa

To my knowledge, nobody is proposing building a parallel high speed line between Toronto and Kitchener (although scenario A has a few small segments of new track that could presumably be used for higher speeds than the shared track would allow).

I have also not seen any indication that GO is going to upgrade their fleet with high speed rolling stock (electrification does not necessarily mean high speed - most electric trains run at conventional speeds). There are no high speed commuter trains in North America, so it would have to be a custom order which would be extraordinarily complicated and expensive. GO trains often have standing passengers - not sure if a high speed service would even be allowed.

We won't know how much new track will be built until the environmental assessment is done. And of course GO Transit isn't ordering faster trains; the high speed proposal is hardly set in stone. Even after the EA is done there's no guarantee that it'll be built, especially if a new government is elected next year. GO would be foolish to order faster trains at this point.

But if the line goes ahead, there's nothing preventing GO from buying faster trains to take advantage of the better tracks. Or they could even go the Japanese route and use high speed trains to carry commuters. There are lots of options to carry commuters at higher speeds.

What exactly are you claiming, that the Ontario proposal is impossible? That the people designing it are unaware of this? Do you know better than them?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Plenty of pent up demand. We're seeing that with VIA's ridership increase despite the — service. We also know how much driving there is along these corridors. And let's not forget the nearly 100 flights a day in the Corridor.

It's actually more than that. Expedia shows 114 direct flights between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal tomorrow. That's not even counting the rest of the corridor.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

For one. Not all the pension plans are public pensions plan. We'll start with that. Next, pension plans have mandates on returns and capital preservation so they have to operate as any private investor would. So drop this nonsense about them being a "government department". They are not, no matter how much you call them that. The funds owe their fiduciary duties to the plan members. Not the government. Lastly, nobody is paying above market rates. What the government is paying, are market rates for borrowing at that level, usually some formula based on LIBOR.

Different pension plans operate in different ways. People keep talking here about the CPPIB.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8.3/FullText.html

The CPPIB is owned by the government "(2) The capital is divided into 10 shares having a par value of $10 each. The shares shall be issued to the Minister to be held on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada"

The directors are appointed by the Government "Each director shall be appointed by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister"

The directors have no fiduciary duty to the plan members. They are required to "to invest its assets with a view to achieving a maximum rate of return, without undue risk of loss, having regard to the factors that may affect the funding of the Canada Pension Plan and the ability of the Canada Pension Plan to meet its financial obligations on any given business day."

[Truenorth00]

@acottawa

That's CPPIB. One among several. What's your point in Cherry picking?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

What exactly are you claiming, that the Ontario proposal is impossible? That the people designing it are unaware of this? Do you know better than them?

Almost nothing is impossible if enough money is sunk into it, but possible and good idea are two different things.

This process has been highly-politicized from day one. The original analysis (on the eve of the last provincial election) was done by the Neptis Foundation, which is an anti-sprawl organization that has no rail experts on its staff and has never done any rail work outside of Ontario. The report was done so quickly that they didn't bother to get updated maps. The "special adviser" is a former politician whose report bases everything on one source (Steer Davies Gleave) and doesn't cite any sources or the basis for its analysis. Compare that to HS2 (for example) which had years of studies by different organizations (http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/high-speed-2). The special advisory concluded exactly what the government wanted it to conclude (which is usually a red flag) and conveniently delivered it before the upcoming provincial election (another red flag). Further, the analysis is pretty vague about who would use it, has no origin/destination analysis, no market research, etc.

But I think my biggest concern is that this — up all of the oxygen. Toronto has a huge transportation problems and has a pretty urgent wish list for new projects. The GTA is choking on its own sprawl and needs better regional transportation. Via services in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor are pretty lackluster and could use an upgrade. Smaller centres like Windsor, London, and Hamilton have no rapid transportation to speak of. A multi-billion dollar project that saves 20 minutes (compared to an upgraded GO line) on the trip between Kitchener and Toronto is of little value of the transportation options on either end are not very good. A multi-billion dollar link between Kitchener and London (low-density, car-dependent, decentralized cities that are a short drive from each other) is of limited value.

Kathleen Wynne has a political problem. The NDP holds 5 traditionally liberal ridings in SW ontario (London Fanshawe, London West, Waterloo, Windsor Tecumseh, Windsor West) and is within striking distance of London North Centre. With Fortress 905 in danger, Wynne desperately needs to make gains in SW Ontario. This project is mainly being driven by this political problem, not rational transportation planning.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Almost nothing is impossible if enough money is sunk into it, but possible and good idea are two different things.

This process has been highly-politicized from day one. The original analysis (on the eve of the last provincial election) was done by the Neptis Foundation, which is an anti-sprawl organization that has no rail experts on its staff and has never done any rail work outside of Ontario. The report was done so quickly that they didn't bother to get updated maps. The "special adviser" is a former politician whose report bases everything on one source (Steer Davies Gleave) and doesn't cite any sources or the basis for its analysis. Compare that to HS2 (for example) which had years of studies by different organizations (http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/high-speed-2). The special advisory concluded exactly what the government wanted it to conclude (which is usually a red flag) and conveniently delivered it before the upcoming provincial election (another red flag). Further, the analysis is pretty vague about who would use it, has no origin/destination analysis, no market research, etc.

But I think my biggest concern is that this — up all of the oxygen. Toronto has a huge transportation problems and has a pretty urgent wish list for new projects. The GTA is choking on its own sprawl and needs better regional transportation. Via services in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor are pretty lackluster and could use an upgrade. Smaller centres like Windsor, London, and Hamilton have no rapid transportation to speak of. A multi-billion dollar project that saves 20 minutes (compared to an upgraded GO line) on the trip between Kitchener and Toronto is of little value of the transportation options on either end are not very good. A multi-billion dollar link between Kitchener and London (low-density, car-dependent, decentralized cities that are a short drive from each other) is of limited value.

Kathleen Wynne has a political problem. The NDP holds 5 traditionally liberal ridings in SW ontario (London Fanshawe, London West, Waterloo, Windsor Tecumseh, Windsor West) and is within striking distance of London North Centre. With Fortress 905 in danger, Wynne desperately needs to make gains in SW Ontario. This project is mainly being driven by this political problem, not rational transportation planning.

Say what.. a politician is making decisions based on political considerations instead of rational policy! How astonishing! And in other equally astonishing news, scientists just discovered that the sky is blue.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Say what.. a politician is making decisions based on political considerations instead of rational policy! How astonishing! And in other equally astonishing news, scientists just discovered that the sky is blue.

I think there's a question of scale. This isn't a $10M or a $100M project, it will — up a lot of infrastructure money and fiscal capacity for decades to come.

There's also a question of continuity. A project based on a specific short-term political objective will not survive changes of government (or probably even a change of leader in the current government).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There's also a question of continuity. A project based on a specific short-term political objective will not survive changes of government (or probably even a change of leader in the current government).

.. or a change in political priorities for the current leader in the current government.. especially in this case, Wynne is almost scary in how much she changes her views based on what suits the day.

[Truenorth00]

These are two different developments that shouldn't necessarily get conflated. The TKL HSR proposal has an EA underway. And could be merged with VIA's line. But to date, we've not heard a peep that anyone is interested in picking up the baton and running with it. So to me, it's really not a concern until that happens.

It's pretty transparent what happened. Deb Matthews faced a backlash after the admitted that they misled voters in SW Ontario the last time about HSR. So they announced the EA as soon as Collenette was done his report. And they are hoping this buys this enough runway for the next election. Won't work in my opinion, because nobody beyond transit geeks cares about an announcement not delivering something.

More broadly on the issue though, I don't see why this is being painted as a "Toronto project". It's not. The primary beneficiaries are all outside the GTA. And unless we plan on leaving SW Ontario behind, they could suffer economically without such a connection. I would argue there's more economic benefit to inter-city rail than there is to even transit.

[kevinbottawa]

Separated rail crossings, truck tunnel, storm water tunnel, library, LRT. Where is all this money coming from?

Separated rail crossings in Barrhaven area would cost $430M

Jon WillingJON WILLING
More from Jon Willing
Published on: May 31, 2017 | Last Updated: May 31, 2017 6:34 PM EDT

It would cost $430 million to separate roads and railways at five locations in south Ottawa, according to a report published Wednesday.

The deadly crash between an OC Transpo double-decker bus and a Via Rail train on Sept. 18, 2013, in Barrhaven prompted a study by the City of Ottawa and Via on grade-separated crossings at Woodroffe Avenue, the southwest Transitway, Fallowfield Road, Merivale Road and Jockvale Road.

The result of the study is a proposed Barrhaven Safety Rail Program, which will be presented to council’s transportation committee next Wednesday.

The study confirmed that all five crossings should be separated.

Because of the soil conditions at Woodroffe Avenue, the Transitway and Fallowfield Road, the study recommends building overpasses at those locations. Underpasses would be appropriate for the Merivale Road and Jockvale Road crossings, the study says.

The $250,000 study, which was done by Parsons, recommends that the priority should be the Woodroffe Avenue, Transitway and Fallowfield Road crossings, followed by Merivale Road and finally Jockvale Road.

While Jockvale Road is last in the priority list, the city says there should be a plan for a multi-use pathway underpass in the “near term” because of the high number of pedestrians and cyclists at the location. The work could cost about $6 million.

“In order for these projects to fit within the city’s long-range financial plan and affordability model, partnership funding from the federal and provincial governments, and potentially Via Rail, will be required, and it is anticipated that projects will be phased in over time,” the report says.

Each of the five road-rail crossings would cost between $75 million and $145 million to add an underpass or overpass, the report says. Those estimates are very preliminary and don’t include related costs, such as OC Transpo detours, water service for impacted properties on private wells in the area of Merivale Road and other studies.

The city wants to get moving on environmental assessments in 2018 for Woodroffe Avenue, the Transitway, Fallowfield Road and the multi-use pathway at Jockvale Road, knowing that the federal and provincial governments are keen on funding transportation projects. The studies will be part of the city’s 2018 draft budget.

The city wants to leave it to Mayor Jim Watson, with advice from the ward councillors, to start funding discussions with the other levels of government and with Via.

The cost estimates by location are: Merivale Road, $75 million; Woodroffe Avenue and Transitway, $145 million; Fallowfield Road, $130 million; and, Jockvale Road, $80 million.

The city also plans to build an overpass above the tracks on Strandherd Drive as part of a road-widening project already in the transportation master plan.

The 2013 crash at the Transitway level rail crossing killed five bus passengers and the bus driver.

In 2015, the Transportation Safety Board released an investigative report recommending the city review the need for grade separation at the Woodroffe Avenue, Transitway and Fallowfield Road rail crossings. The city added the crossings at Merivale Road and Jockvale Road to its study with Via.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/separated-rail-crossings-in-barrhaven-area-would-cost-430m

[acottawa]

Maybe they should have announced High Speed rail to Sault Ste Marie.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

These are two different developments that shouldn't necessarily get conflated. The TKL HSR proposal has an EA underway. And could be merged with VIA's line. But to date, we've not heard a peep that anyone is interested in picking up the baton and running with it. So to me, it's really not a concern until that happens.

It's pretty transparent what happened. Deb Matthews faced a backlash after the admitted that they misled voters in SW Ontario the last time about HSR. So they announced the EA as soon as Collenette was done his report. And they are hoping this buys this enough runway for the next election. Won't work in my opinion, because nobody beyond transit geeks cares about an announcement not delivering something.

More broadly on the issue though, I don't see why this is being painted as a "Toronto project". It's not. The primary beneficiaries are all outside the GTA. And unless we plan on leaving SW Ontario behind, they could suffer economically without such a connection. I would argue there's more economic benefit to inter-city rail than there is to even transit.

Unless your definition of GTA includes K-W, I'd say the benefits would be two way. Thousands of people living in the GTA commute to "Waterloo" for work already and the numbers are expected to increase. It's less about making sure that K-W is left behind than it is about nurturing the Waterloo-Toronto high tech corridor. Whether it's real or just provincial politics I guess we will find out in due course.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Almost nothing is impossible if enough money is sunk into it, but possible and good idea are two different things.

I could be wrong but it seems like you're implying that having high speed intercity trains on the same tracks as commuter trains would increase the costs over having them on separate tracks. This is not the case. The current plan was designed specifically to take advantage of improvements that are already happening in the corridor and thus reduce costs. Building a separate line for high speed trains would most likely cost more, not less.

Originally Posted by acottawa

This process has been highly-politicized from day one. The original analysis (on the eve of the last provincial election) was done by the Neptis Foundation, which is an anti-sprawl organization that has no rail experts on its staff and has never done any rail work outside of Ontario. The report was done so quickly that they didn't bother to get updated maps. The "special adviser" is a former politician whose report bases everything on one source (Steer Davies Gleave) and doesn't cite any sources or the basis for its analysis. Compare that to HS2 (for example) which had years of studies by different organizations (http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/high-speed-2). The special advisory concluded exactly what the government wanted it to conclude (which is usually a red flag) and conveniently delivered it before the upcoming provincial election (another red flag). Further, the analysis is pretty vague about who would use it, has no origin/destination analysis, no market research, etc.

I wouldn't say that it concluded what the government wanted at all. For example, the benefit-cost ratio for the Windsor-London section was a dismal 0.24. And the recommended speeds aren't as high as what was touted in 2014. Any HSR to Windsor would have to be justified on more shaky grounds than benefit-cost, like economic development and safety (much like freeway expansions to places like Sudbury). I don't know anything about Steer Davies Gleave, but a quick glance at their website shows that they do a wide variety of infrastructure projects all over the world. That includes lots of HSR work as well as local stuff like GO Transit electrification and LRT in Hamilton. Collenette also worked with MTO staff throughout the project. And while MTO and SDG are by no means infallible, they have a lot more knowledge of this kind of thing than you or me.

As for this being a political stunt, it could very well be but that doesn't change the fact that it's been the subject of steady work since it was initially announced. The current report was ordered in 2015 and finished in December. The EA will supposedly begin in the fall.

Originally Posted by acottawa

But I think my biggest concern is that this — up all of the oxygen. Toronto has a huge transportation problems and has a pretty urgent wish list for new projects. The GTA is choking on its own sprawl and needs better regional transportation. Via services in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor are pretty lackluster and could use an upgrade. Smaller centres like Windsor, London, and Hamilton have no rapid transportation to speak of. A multi-billion dollar project that saves 20 minutes (compared to an upgraded GO line) on the trip between Kitchener and Toronto is of little value of the transportation options on either end are not very good. A multi-billion dollar link between Kitchener and London (low-density, car-dependent, decentralized cities that are a short drive from each other) is of limited value.

My response to this would be that transportation funding isn't a zero sum game. There's no finite pot of cash (or oxygen, if you will) that gets doled out to the various transit projects. It's the opposite: money spent on local transit reinforces the need for intercity rail, and vice versa. One makes the other more likely, not less. The way this proposal builds on RER improvements already underway is an example of that. 20 years ago there was practically nothing being spent on transit, now there are projects all over the province. Transit infrastructure is simply a higher priority than it's been in a long time and it takes up a bigger chunk of budgets than it used to. And there's a lot of momentum to keep that going.

If it were true that high speed rail eats into money available for local transit, then countries with high speed rail would have poor local transit. But that's not the case at all - the correlation goes the other way.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Unless your definition of GTA includes K-W, I'd say the benefits would be two way. Thousands of people living in the GTA commute to "Waterloo" for work already and the numbers are expected to increase. It's less about making sure that K-W is left behind than it is about nurturing the Waterloo-Toronto high tech corridor. Whether it's real or just provincial politics I guess we will find out in due course.

There are far more people commuting from KW to Toronto than the other way. But the HSR isn't about commuting per se. The biggest benefit to KW will be faster access to Pearson and Toronto's downtown core. So yes, KW, like London benefits more than Toronto, which in turn, is not to say that Toronto doesn't benefit at all. Everyone wins when infrastructure is improved.

When I was talking about supporting SW Ontario, it wasn't about KW. I had London in mind. I think prospects for London are poor with a solid rail connection. Doesn't have to be high speed. Just a bit faster and more reliable than VIA today.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There are far more people commuting from KW to Toronto than the other way. But the HSR isn't about commuting per se. The biggest benefit to KW will be faster access to Pearson and Toronto's downtown core. So yes, KW, like London benefits more than Toronto, which in turn, is not to say that Toronto doesn't benefit at all. Everyone wins when infrastructure is improved.

When I was talking about supporting SW Ontario, it wasn't about KW. I had London in mind. I think prospects for London are poor with a solid rail connection. Doesn't have to be high speed. Just a bit faster and more reliable than VIA today.

Yes, that is why the Waterloo high tech sector has been the biggest proponent of the idea. The last figures I recall, from a number of years ago, were that 15,000 people a day were going from the Region to Toronto, with 9,000 going from Toronto to the Region.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which is exactly what has lead to the stagnation in infrastructure development we've seen. The bank is at attempt to break that habit. Good on the government for trying. People should pay for what they use. And stop expecting the taxpayer to always pick up the full tab, each and every time.

Ok, that's an interesting opinion, but implementing it would be a a political decision that has nothing to do with the infrastructure bank. John Tory couldn't even get the provincial government to approve modest tolls on a city-owned highway

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You want the federal government to toll a provincially owned asset?

No, I'm providing an example of a scenario where it would be easier to charge more for the train and therefore where it would be more likely that the train could be run on a break-even basis. If the competition for the train is a $30-40 tank of gas and a free highway it will be hard to have fares that will pay for the thing (and attract real private investment).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I could be wrong but it seems like you're implying that having high speed intercity trains on the same tracks as commuter trains would increase the costs over having them on separate tracks. This is not the case. The current plan was designed specifically to take advantage of improvements that are already happening in the corridor and thus reduce costs. Building a separate line for high speed trains would most likely cost more, not less.

I certainly wasn't trying to say that, I'm sorry if I did not communicate clearly. I'm saying that if a high speed train wants to run at high speeds it has to be on separate tracks. Since there is no plan to do so (except in a few spots in Scenario A) then there are only marginal speed benefits compared to RER, which, in my view, does not justify the cost/complication of implementing a parallel service that is less integrated into the regional transportation system (park and rides, TTC lines, etc)

Originally Posted by Mister F

I wouldn't say that it concluded what the government wanted at all.

It recommended building a Toronto-London line almost immediately and a line to Windsor in 2031. It didn't look at other alternatives that did not have the term "High Speed Rail" in front of them (Via improvements, further enhancements to RER, improving local transit to create more potential demand for future high speed rail).

Originally Posted by Mister F

As for this being a political stunt, it could very well be but that doesn't change the fact that it's been the subject of steady work since it was initially announced. The current report was ordered in 2015 and finished in December. The EA will supposedly begin in the fall.

Yes, lots of studies timed to coincide with election cycles.

Originally Posted by Mister F

If it were true that high speed rail eats into money available for local transit, then countries with high speed rail would have poor local transit. But that's not the case at all - the correlation goes the other way.

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, but certainly France did not start building high speed rail until after they built RER and there was an extensive metro system in Paris proper. Germany did not start building high speed rail until there were extensive U-bahn and S-Bahn network in its major cities. Italy spent an enormous amount of money on high speed rail, which sucked up almost all of the country's infrastructure spending in the 90s and 00s and infrastructure in much of the country is terrible (including for local transportation).

Furthermore, local transit projects take a long time to deliver in Ontario. The Liberals have been in power since 2003 and have not cut a single ribbon on a major transit project (and could well lose the election next year without having done so) so even if local transit projects are done in parallel the transit options for high speed rail customers will eat into any time savings.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I certainly wasn't trying to say that, I'm sorry if I did not communicate clearly. I'm saying that if a high speed train wants to run at high speeds it has to be on separate tracks. Since there is no plan to do so (except in a few spots in Scenario A) then there are only marginal speed benefits compared to RER, which, in my view, does not justify the cost/complication of implementing a parallel service that is less integrated into the regional transportation system (park and rides, TTC lines, etc)



I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, but certainly France did not start building high speed rail until after they built RER and there was an extensive metro system in Paris proper. Germany did not start building high speed rail until there were extensive U-bahn and S-Bahn network in its major cities. Italy spent an enormous amount of money on high speed rail, which sucked up almost all of the country's infrastructure spending in the 90s and 00s and infrastructure in much of the country is terrible (including for local transportation).

Furthermore, local transit projects take a long time to deliver in Ontario. The Liberals have been in power since 2003 and have not cut a single ribbon on a major transit project (and could well lose the election next year without having done so) so even if local transit projects are done in parallel the transit options for high speed rail customers will eat into any time savings.

As I've shown you, high speed trains don't have to be on separate tracks. Other 300 km/h lines share tracks with trains going as slow as 140. This line is proposed at 250 so the requirements for separation would presumably be less stringent. The EA will sort out where passing tracks are needed to support the appropriate level of service.

You're right that there's no hard and fast rule for metro and regional networks to be built out first. Belgium built its high speed network before the Brussels RER, which is still not finished. In these countries local transit expansion has continued with while HSR has been built. As for Ontario, RER already has $13 billion committed to it. The Vaughan extension and Eglinton line are under construction and other lines are funded (with the important absence of the DRL, at least for now). The LRT in Kitchener-Waterloo is almost finished, Ottawa's LRT is under construction and planning​ is underway on London's BRT. Where's​ the point where you're satisfied? We've been saying "not now" for decades. The time to go ahead is now.

What evidence do you have that an MTO intercity rail project will delay Metrolinx transit projects?

Yes, lots of studies timed to coincide with election cycles.

In what way? The feasibility study was ordered less than halfway through their term and completed over a year before the next election. An EA isn't a study, it's the first step in designing the line.

It recommended building a Toronto-London line almost immediately and a line to Windsor in 2031. It didn't look at other alternatives that did not have the term "High Speed Rail" in front of them (Via improvements, further enhancements to RER, improving local transit to create more potential demand for future high speed rail).

See, now you're forcing me to defend a report that has plenty to criticize because your criticisms aren't reasonable. I agree that the recommendation to build the Windsor section is questionable but I see no issue with phase 1. The report was ordered specifically to determine the feasibility of HSR, so of course other conventional options weren't looked at.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Where's​ the point where you're satisfied? We've been saying "not now" for decades. The time to go ahead is now.

At the very least
Upgrades to line 1 (former YUS) need to be finished so that there aren't so many shutdowns and less congestion.

The Relief line need to be finished to take pressure off of Line 1 and Union Station.

Substantial progress needs to be made on RER so that people whose destination is the suburbs might consider the train comparable (or better than driving).

Preferably
Significant improvements in transit in KW and London (yes, the one streetcar line they're building in KW is nice but it isn't going to be a game changer moving people around the city)


Even if one accepts the premise that saving 20 minutes on the Kitchener-Toronto trip justifies billions of dollars in expenditure (which I don't) that 20 minute savings is of little value if downtown Toronto is a congested mess, and public transit is one subway line that frequently has problems.

In a more typical application of HSR (say cities 300-500 km apart) it doesn't matter because the savings of the overall trip of several hours justify additional backtracking or time on public transit, but when the savings are only 20 minutes (and less if your closest GO stop is not serviced by HSR) then you're going to have trouble finding permutations and combinations of origins and destinations where there would be time savings.

[DEWLine]

Such devices as shown in that Brightline video from a couple of years back would be helpful for accessibility.