VIA Rail network developments

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

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.

Fair enough, although your list seems rather arbitrary. Those upgrades to Line 1 are ongoing, RER is funded and under construction, and the DRL is being designed. Stalling on high speed rail isn't going to speed any of these up.

Originally Posted by acottawa

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.

Stations 300-500 km apart is not a more typical application of high speed rail. Everywhere from France to Germany to Italy the stations are typically closer together than that. In the HSR thread in the Canada section Beedok and the Chemist gave examples of HSR lines in China and Japan with stations similarly close together. Not every train has to stop at every station. Your idealized station spacing is fiction.

And where is this 20 minute time savings coming from? The trip from Kitchener to downtown Toronto would take 48 minutes compared to over 2 hours today.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Fair enough, although your list seems rather arbitrary. Those upgrades to Line 1 are ongoing, RER is funded and under construction, and the DRL is being designed. Stalling on high speed rail isn't going to speed any of these up.


Stations 300-500 km apart is not a more typical application of high speed rail. Everywhere from France to Germany to Italy the stations are typically closer together than that. In the HSR thread in the Canada section Beedok and the Chemist gave examples of HSR lines in China and Japan with stations similarly close together. Not every train has to stop at every station. Your idealized station spacing is fiction.

And where is this 20 minute time savings coming from? The trip from Kitchener to downtown Toronto would take 48 minutes compared to over 2 hours today.

It will be fastest mode of transportation available.

Station spacing needs to balance speed with maximizing possible ridership. There is no sense in having no intermediate stations if by adding few stations, you double ridership.

[electricron]

The 300 - 500 km HSR line recommendations is for termination stations, not intermediate stations. In both Europe and Japan, you can't ride a HSR train longer than 500 km. To travel further, you'll have to transfer trains; Get off a Eurostar and get on a TGV or ICE).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Fair enough, although your list seems rather arbitrary. Those upgrades to Line 1 are ongoing, RER is funded and under construction, and the DRL is being designed. Stalling on high speed rail isn't going to speed any of these up.

These are projects necessary to take pressure off of union station. Line 1 upgrades will take another decade, RER is nowhere near implementation and the Relief Line is in the planning stage (and the province doesn't want to fund it).

This can't just be a project for rail fanboys to Instagram and it can't just be a project for people who want to go from downtown Kitchener to downtown Toronto (which is a tiny number of people). Real people have to to be convinced to abandon their cars, which they are not going to do if they have to spend an hour on Grand River Transit or deal with Toronto's current transit situation.

Originally Posted by Mister F

Stations 300-500 km apart is not a more typical application of high speed rail. Everywhere from France to Germany to Italy the stations are typically closer together than that. In the HSR thread in the Canada section Beedok and the Chemist gave examples of HSR lines in China and Japan with stations similarly close together. Not every train has to stop at every station. Your idealized station spacing is fiction.

But in this case the close-in station (Kitchener) is the principle destination of the route and the largest destination on the route. They did not build LGV Est to primarily serve Reims (which is still 50% further than Kitchener). They built LGV East to serve destinations further East, and Reims happened to benefit. I'm clearly not communicating very well, but there is a difference between a close-in small city that the odd trains may call on and the largest destination on the line.

Originally Posted by Mister F

And where is this 20 minute time savings coming from? The trip from Kitchener to downtown Toronto would take 48 minutes compared to over 2 hours today.

Which is why GO RER is strongly needed. The collennete report estimates GO RER trip will take 72 minutes and Scenario B (the recommended scenario) would take 48 minutes. I would think the former could be shortened if there were express services that called on fewer stations.

[lrt's friend]

What is the difference between A and B?

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What is the difference between A and B?

Scenario A: Electrified HSR service operating primarily on a dedicated right-of-way and capable of achieving a top speed of 300 km/h.
Scenario B: Electrified HSR service capable of achieving a top speed of 250 km/h operating on a combination of mixed conventional and dedicated railway.

B is the preferred scenario from cost/benefit perspective.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

Scenario A: Electrified HSR service operating primarily on a dedicated right-of-way and capable of achieving a top speed of 300 km/h.
Scenario B: Electrified HSR service capable of achieving a top speed of 250 km/h operating on a combination of mixed conventional and dedicated railway.

B is the preferred scenario from cost/benefit perspective.

Interesting how there is no travel time difference between Guelph and London in either Scenario A or B. B is just 7 minutes slower in each case based on trips originating in Toronto.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

These are projects necessary to take pressure off of union station. Line 1 upgrades will take another decade, RER is nowhere near implementation and the Relief Line is in the planning stage (and the province doesn't want to fund it).

This can't just be a project for rail fanboys to Instagram and it can't just be a project for people who want to go from downtown Kitchener to downtown Toronto (which is a tiny number of people). Real people have to to be convinced to abandon their cars, which they are not going to do if they have to spend an hour on Grand River Transit or deal with Toronto's current transit situation.



But in this case the close-in station (Kitchener) is the principle destination of the route and the largest destination on the route. They did not build LGV Est to primarily serve Reims (which is still 50% further than Kitchener). They built LGV East to serve destinations further East, and Reims happened to benefit. I'm clearly not communicating very well, but there is a difference between a close-in small city that the odd trains may call on and the largest destination on the line.



Which is why GO RER is strongly needed. The collennete report estimates GO RER trip will take 72 minutes and Scenario B (the recommended scenario) would take 48 minutes. I would think the former could be shortened if there were express services that called on fewer stations.

So the difference will be 24 minutes to Kitchener compared to RER alone, which is a third faster. Whether or not a 33% reduction to Kitchener is worth it is debatable but the time savings to London are significantly higher.

RER is under construction. It's a gradual upgrade on all lines and the next service upgrade will be the introduction of midday and evening trains on the Stouffville line later this month. Double tracking is happening in phases along with lots of grade separations and and signal upgrades. Service will be significantly upgraded by the time HSR might be in operation. The claim that the province doesn't want to fund the DRL is speculative at best. But as I said before, HSR would increase the chance of a project like that happening, not decrease it. We all want these transit projects built but saying they need to happen before HSR is arbitrary and counterproductive. Continually putting off HSR because you think project x, y, and z should come first just ensures that it will never happen.

As for your point about Kitchener being the principal destination being a reason not to build HSR, you're really grasping at straws. There are HSR lines that are shorter than the distance from Toronto to Kitchener or London. Every problem you bring up has been dealt with in other places.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Whether or not a 33% reduction to Kitchener is worth it is debatable

At least we agree on something.

Originally Posted by Mister F

RER is under construction. It's a gradual upgrade on all lines and the next service upgrade will be the introduction of midday and evening trains on the Stouffville line later this month. Double tracking is happening in phases along with lots of grade separations and and signal upgrades. Service will be significantly upgraded by the time HSR might be in operation.

Yes construction projects are underway, but touted objective of RER (15 or 30 minute all day service on key lines) is nowhere near implementation, nor is electrification (which is supposed to speed up service).

This (and the other transportation project I mentioned) are vital for any sort of high speed service (whether this project tor something else) to make any dent in car ridership (which is the apparent objective of the project).

While there has been some progress in recent years (notably google), downtown Kitchener has none of Waterloo Region's major employers (which are mostly in Waterloo or the 401 corridor) and few residents. London is similar (although it has more employers). Nobody is going to notice a 24 minute savings compared to GO or a 26 minute savings compared to driving (47 for London) if they have to deal with lousy local transit, or have to drive/park downtown or uber/cab to get a train.

In many ways, the HSR is actually worse than RER because it cuts off numerous access points to the regional transportation system (park and ride facilities, many GO Bus routes, several rapid transit routes) leading to higher door-to-door travel times. Not to mention, in most implementations high speed services cost more and require advance purchase, which could further disadvantage it compared to GO.

Originally Posted by Mister F

As for your point about Kitchener being the principal destination being a reason not to build HSR, you're really grasping at straws. There are HSR lines that are shorter than the distance from Toronto to Kitchener or London. Every problem you bring up has been dealt with in other places.

Name one example where the two largest cities serviced by a high speed rail line are less than 100 km apart and this is intended to be the longer-term situation (i.e. not a phase under construction).

Rome and Milan are 600 km apart, New York and Washington are 350km apart, Tokyo and Osaka are 500 km apart, Madrid and Barcelona are 600 km apart, Paris and Lyon are 450 km apart, LA and SF are 600 km apart. London and Birmingham are 200 km apart.

In these cases, the time savings was (or will be) measured in hours, so extra public transportation time was still worth it. On Toronto-Windsor the proposed savings are pretty significant, but it is hard to see that route having a lot of ridership.

[lrt's friend]

There needs to be a total mindset change with the introduction of GO RER and HSR. Rail stations must become better interconnected with local transit. In fact HSR stations should become intermodal hubs for that city. There should be local rail, BRT and local bus routes all connecting to those stations. HSR demand will drive this and the success of HSR will depend on connectivity. We have to remember that ridership is going to grow greatly compared to slow service that exists today. Also, for long distance riders on a broader network, a quick cab or Uber connection is far better than having to drive or rent a car today.

We have to look at this as the beginning of something much bigger, which will allow our dependence of automobiles to be reduced gradually. This is why we need to do a much better job of connecting our major tourist attractions to our local and intercity transit networks as well.

I also see that there will be a need for both HSR with very few stops and local trains with more stops. It is all part of a better integrated network that is so common in Europe. All of this is why Europe is moving much faster ahead on the use of electric cars. Basically for that short trip for the groceries or other items that you can't carry on transit, while longer trips, you use rail or planes. Commuting is also much more by public transit whether by bus or rail.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by acottawa

While there has been some progress in recent years (notably google), downtown Kitchener has none of Waterloo Region's major employers (which are mostly in Waterloo or the 401 corridor) and few residents.

To be fair though, many of Waterloo's major employers (Manulife, Blackberry, Open Text, UW, Laurier, Waterloo Tech Park) are located along or near the ION LRT line, which will be open long before any RER or HSR/HFR reaches Kitchener. Plus, the current VIA/GO train station is being integrated into a downtown transit hub with LRT and bus routes.

Originally Posted by acottawa

In many ways, the HSR is actually worse than RER because it cuts off numerous access points to the regional transportation system (park and ride facilities, many GO Bus routes, several rapid transit routes) leading to higher door-to-door travel times. Not to mention, in most implementations high speed services cost more and require advance purchase, which could further disadvantage it compared to GO.

In these cases, the time savings was (or will be) measured in hours, so extra public transportation time was still worth it. On Toronto-Windsor the proposed savings are pretty significant, but it is hard to see that route having a lot of ridership.

I agree with this. HSR on its own is a good idea in principle, but how it is executed will go a long way in determining how successful it can be. If it offers only modest improvements over the already-planned electrified GO RER, it would seem pointless to duplicate that same service. Volume from outside the GO coverage zone (i.e, London/Windsor to Kitchener) may not warrant having a stop in Kitchener on the HSR line if demand from Toronto can be satisfied by GO RER.

[Truenorth00]

HSR doesn't happen in the West without GO RER first. Let's be honest. The Liberals got out their election ploy. If and when RER is up an running, that's when we can have serious discussions about HSR. And at that point, it'll be about London, not Kitchener.

[lrt's friend]

Here is the latest information on VIA Rail. It is clear that what is limiting VIA growth is the constraints of sharing track with the freight rail companies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bty5eWfYlek

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Here is the latest information on VIA Rail. It is clear that what is limiting VIA growth is the constraints of sharing track with the freight rail companies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bty5eWfYlek

Hence the Dedicated Tracks project.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

At least we agree on something.



Yes construction projects are underway, but touted objective of RER (15 or 30 minute all day service on key lines) is nowhere near implementation, nor is electrification (which is supposed to speed up service).

This (and the other transportation project I mentioned) are vital for any sort of high speed service (whether this project tor something else) to make any dent in car ridership (which is the apparent objective of the project).

While there has been some progress in recent years (notably google), downtown Kitchener has none of Waterloo Region's major employers (which are mostly in Waterloo or the 401 corridor) and few residents. London is similar (although it has more employers). Nobody is going to notice a 24 minute savings compared to GO or a 26 minute savings compared to driving (47 for London) if they have to deal with lousy local transit, or have to drive/park downtown or uber/cab to get a train.

Name one example where the two largest cities serviced by a high speed rail line are less than 100 km apart and this is intended to be the longer-term situation (i.e. not a phase under construction).

Rome and Milan are 600 km apart, New York and Washington are 350km apart, Tokyo and Osaka are 500 km apart, Madrid and Barcelona are 600 km apart, Paris and Lyon are 450 km apart, LA and SF are 600 km apart. London and Birmingham are 200 km apart.

In these cases, the time savings was (or will be) measured in hours, so extra public transportation time was still worth it. On Toronto-Windsor the proposed savings are pretty significant, but it is hard to see that route having a lot of ridership.

There are HSR sections that are in the 100 km range, especially of the 250 km/h variety. I know what you're going to say, they're small sections of larger systems. But the London-Toronto line is no different. If it's actually built, there's no way that the route through Ottawa and Montreal is going to be left to 160 km/h trains forever. The Kitchener HSR is moving forward in part because it's relatively small and affordable and the province can do it without relying on other governments. It's starter HSR if you will. The more ambitious project to Montreal will come later.

But your whole argument is kind of a red herring because while I agree that Kitchener will probably have the highest ridership, London won't be much lower. It will have a significant number of riders in and of itself. Kitchener won't be the dominant city between them, it'll be more of a 1a and 1b situation. So it would be very similar to several lines in Germany for example. Or the relatively short lines in northwestern Spain.

As for RER, I still don't get what the problem is. Since HSR is being planned to leverage RER investments, the latter has to be complete for the former to be possible. The two will go hand in hand and HSR could actually speed up RER completion. But none of that changes the fact that RER isn't a prerequisite to HSR. Montreal doesn't have RER and it's obviously a focus of most HSR proposals. Brussels doesn't either and it's had high speed trains for 20 years. And studies showed that HSR is feasible in Canada decades before RER was ever proposed. Delaying one project in the hopes that another will be finished faster accomplishes nothing.

Originally Posted by acottawa

In many ways, the HSR is actually worse than RER because it cuts off numerous access points to the regional transportation system (park and ride facilities, many GO Bus routes, several rapid transit routes) leading to higher door-to-door travel times. Not to mention, in most implementations high speed services cost more and require advance purchase, which could further disadvantage it compared to GO.

What exactly do you mean by this? What service will be cut off by HSR? If you're not near a high speed station you can still get on a regional train at a GO station. And GO trains will be much more frequent and faster than they are now. What situation will be worse under the proposed system?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

What exactly do you mean by this? What service will be cut off by HSR? If you're not near a high speed station you can still get on a regional train at a GO station. And GO trains will be much more frequent and faster than they are now. What situation will be worse under the proposed system?

GO interfaces with various park and ride lots along the line (so it doesn't matter as much if local transit isn't particularly good yet) and has several transfer points with the TTC (notably at Eglinton and Bloor, but also with various suburban services in Brampton).

In contrast, HSR offers a downtown to downtown service (plus the airport) which makes driving/parking more difficult/expensive and therefore creates more reliance on public transit (which I have already discussed) and requires passengers to double back (from Union Station) or transfer to GO to get to the Bloor, Eglinton, and suburban services.

[lrt's friend]

The implementation of HSR requires a rethink of local transit. HSR stations need to be local transit hubs. There also needs to be local trains (RER) in order to serve more local stations in order to avoid 'doubling back'. The thing is that RER will also be a significant improvement over the status quo, so a combination of the two will deliver a service that will address many needs that HSR alone cannot.

Regardless, this is going to be a substantial improvement. I looked at current GO services and a bus departure from Guelph at 3:15 p.m. does not arrive at Union Station until around 6:30 p.m. This is not competitive. Whether HSR or GO RER stops in Guelph, it will be a substantial improvement compared buses running in regular traffic.

Because of increasing congestion and the population density on the Toronto-London corridor and the relatively short distance, this makes sense to be the first HSR implementation in Canada. The Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor is longer, less dense throughout so a High Frequency Train also makes more sense with the idea that some day, HSR could be implemented on a gradual basis as certain sections of the track are upgraded to that standard with the required elimination of level crossings.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Horus

To be fair though, many of Waterloo's major employers (Manulife, Blackberry, Open Text, UW, Laurier, Waterloo Tech Park) are located along or near the ION LRT line, which will be open long before any RER or HSR/HFR reaches Kitchener. Plus, the current VIA/GO train station is being integrated into a downtown transit hub with LRT and bus routes.

Not sure how rapid the ion line will be. The official estimate is 46 minutes to connect the two malls (13 km apart) on either end of the line (http://rapidtransit.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/projectinformation/frequentlyaskedquestions.asp#dd). This is exactly the same amount of time the current bus takes, and compares to about a 12 minute drive.

I.e., if someone at Manulife has to walk 15 minutes to get to an Ion station, wait an average of 7.5 minutes to get a streetcar, spend 20 minutes getting to downtown Kitchener, they could have already been on the outskirts of Toronto before they have even boarded their high speed train.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not sure how rapid the ion line will be. The official estimate is 46 minutes to connect the two malls (13 km apart) on either end of the line (http://rapidtransit.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/projectinformation/frequentlyaskedquestions.asp#dd). This is exactly the same amount of time the current bus takes, and compares to about a 12 minute drive.

I.e., if someone at Manulife has to walk 15 minutes to get to an Ion station, wait an average of 7.5 minutes to get a streetcar, spend 20 minutes getting to downtown Kitchener, they could have already been on the outskirts of Toronto before they have even boarded their high speed train.

Hopefully, with the introduction of HSR, the transit system will be redesigned in order to provide more efficient service into the HSR station. In other words, more direct routes to the HSR station. This will make using HSR more attractive and with fewer delays. If ION's ridership grows, you would expect that frequency will also be improved over time.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Hopefully, with the introduction of HSR, the transit system will be redesigned in order to provide more efficient service into the HSR station. In other words, more direct routes to the HSR station. This will make using HSR more attractive and with fewer delays. If ION's ridership grows, you would expect that frequency will also be improved over time.

Frequency may improve, but significant travel time improvements are unlikely. The majority of the ION system consists of on-street tracks.

The priorities in Waterloo region are extending LRT to Cambridge (i.e. away from the transit hub), and getting more direct east-west bus lines that feed into ION. There isn't much prospect that those priorities will improve travel times for trips integrated with HSR (with the possible exception of an express bus route down Victoria St.).