VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would guess that Toronto-Kitchener-London has more riders/mile and riders/$capital than Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa. Mostly because ridership tends to be inversely proportional with distance in most places. TKL both captures trip generators (notably Pearson) and facilitates commuting substantially, with both Kitchener-London and Toronto-Kitchener.

I was thinking of a Toronto - Kingston - Ottawa. I do get what you mean though, but the more stops you put, the slower it is. Where would you think it would stop going to London?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

. Where would you think it would stop going to London?

The Ontario HSR proposal was:

Union-Pearson-Guelph-Kitchener-London

Personally, I think they would need another stop at Bloor at least. Possibly one at Mount Pleasant or Georgetown if there's enough commuters to Brampton.

I would love to see an updated study now that more is known about RER. And maybe even an assessment of an HFR type of concept that uses the current VIA routing but does it in maybe 1.5 hrs. Might be cheaper and more practical to turn the current corridor in an HFR type of corridor. Would turn Stratford and Saint Mary's into commuter towns for Kitchener and London.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Ontario HSR proposal was:

Union-Pearson-Guelph-Kitchener-London

Personally, I think they would need another stop at Bloor at least. Possibly one at Mount Pleasant or Georgetown if there's enough commuters to Brampton.

I would love to see an updated study now that more is known about RER. And maybe even an assessment of an HFR type of concept that uses the current VIA routing but does it in maybe 1.5 hrs. Might be cheaper and more practical to turn the current corridor in an HFR type of corridor. Would turn Stratford and Saint Mary's into commuter towns for Kitchener and London.

Their stop list makes some sense. Yours removes the idea of HSR, at last before you get to Kitchener. Let's say the design speed of the ROW was 500km/hr. let's say you were to pick a common HSR trainset that travels at 300km/hr. those extra stops would cause the train to constantly be either accelerating or decelerating between Union and Kitchener. That would make for a horrible experience, and likely loose ridership.

[Truenorth00]

It was mostly their conclusion too. Because there would be track and corridor sharing in the GTA that limits running speed. So, no, my idea is not that far from theirs.

The whole reason their 300 kph solution (Scenario A) got ruled out was because it basically required a subway from Union till half way to the airport to actually allow substantial speed. I don't even want to imagine what 500 kph would require.

I would bet money any future study will add Bloor. Assuming every traveler is going all the way to Union and forcing backtracks on slow subway for a lot of travellers, also defeats the purpose.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It was mostly their conclusion too. Because there would be track and corridor sharing in the GTA that limits running speed. So, no, my idea is not that far from theirs.

The whole reason their 300 kph solution (Scenario A) got ruled out was because it basically required a subway from Union till half way to the airport to actually allow substantial speed. I don't even want to imagine what 500 kph would require.

I would bet money any future study will add Bloor. Assuming every traveler is going all the way to Union and forcing backtracks on slow subway for a lot of travellers, also defeats the purpose.

With GO RER and UPX, I don't see why they would think that. Take the subway to Bloor, then take RER or UPX to Pearson, then HSR to your destination.

I wonder, would the subway be needed to go East?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I don't see a Union-Kitchener HSR being built. Even to London doesn't make sense.

London has 8 round trips a day in 2019
Ottawa has 20 round trips a day in 2019

Are those 8 trips the max they can run due to tracks or due to need?
We all know that if more trains could be added to Ottawa/Montreal, they would. As I see it, if any HSR is built in just Ontario, it would be to Ottawa. It isn't that they shouldn't build to London/Windsor, but, if they want to make the biggest dent in traffic, that would be where there is the need, and where there would be the best buy in with voters.

Based on Google satellite imagery it seems that most of the Kitchener route, everything between Georgetown and London except a short stretch through Kitchener, is single track. Not sure how much that constrains the scheduling though considering London is served by both the Kitchener and Lakeshore W routes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Based on Google satellite imagery it seems that most of the Kitchener route, everything between Georgetown and London except a short stretch through Kitchener, is single track. Not sure how much that constrains the scheduling though considering London is served by both the Kitchener and Lakeshore W routes.

From the 2019 schedule, the Kitchener route only gets 2 Via trains a day.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I often think of you as well traveled. But then get some bizarre takes like this.

Do you really think every HSR station everywhere is designed to be in the middle of a city, serviced only by transit?

Here's an HSR station I used in Spain:

Santa Ana
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6CJQaA3sfYogRqjJ7

You'll notice there isn't much around. But it's designed to be fed by the highway. Complete with a large lot. I got there with a coach bus from Granada.

HSR in a lot of the world often builds a business case on a base level of longhaul ex-urban commuters. Usually white collar who only go in a few times a week and can afford the expensive fare. Depending on the time of day, you'll see more briefcases than suitcases or backpacks.



This really isn't a problem elsewhere. You can use farecards on long haul trains in a lot of places. Why would that be a problem on another service owned and run by Metrolinx or even specifically GO?

Hell, look at Japan and Tokyo. Most of their farecards are interoperable across all their transit services and most of their HSR services:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suica#Interoperation

It's almost laughable that somebody might think this is a barrier. Especially with open payments coming.

And reservations are not an issue. There can be carriages with assigned seating. Or you can even have electronic signage on the train itself that identifies which of the seats are reserved and which aren't. I've been on trains that had my last name listed on the electronic display in my assigned seat, with the seat next to me unreserved. This is more a matter of service concept and policy. It's a choice whether it will be run more like an intercity service or a higher end suburban rail service.



Yes, they would have to charge more. This might actually let GO monetize the value of their express services. Right now, you don't pay more for a faster trip. But presumably GO should be compensated for the passengers gain in productivity.

And if HSR was built, there would be rationalization. Maybe VIA leaves the route. Or regular GO service is limited to Mount Pleasant and everything beyond is a more expensive HSR express that is limited stop beyond Mount Pleasant.



They do run skip-stop express services now. The point is to go beyond that and actually make Kitchener daily commutable and make London a routine ex-urban commute.

That isn’t what they proposed. There were no park and ride stops, there were only stops in the “downtowns” of SW Ontario cities plus something near the airport.

If the objective is to encourage more commuting from Kitchener to Toronto they should put a station and large parking structure beside the freeway in Kitchener and run a few express trains in rush hour that are nonstop to Bloor.

Interestingly, Spain’s policy of using high speed rail to turn regional centres into bedroom communities with low ridership HSR lines has been widely criticized. Not sure why you would think that is a good strategy for Ontario.

https://voxeurop.eu/en/bullet-train-white-elephant/

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That isn’t what they proposed. There were no park and ride stops, there were only stops in the “downtowns” of SW Ontario cities plus something near the airport.

They are using existing GO stations. The same way those stations are accessed today, would be applicable to any HSR service.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If the objective is to encourage more commuting from Kitchener to Toronto they should put a station and large parking structure beside the freeway in Kitchener and run a few express trains in rush hour that are nonstop to Bloor.

Hundreds of millions on a rail spur to specifically avoid the downtown core of Kitchener?

Even GO realizes their current parking strategy is somewhere between a failure to a serious limit on growth. RER plans include no new parking. Access will be by transit or your own two feet. They're even starting to sell off the land to develop in some cases.

Also, commuting was one of many goals. The tech community in Waterloo wanted access to Pearson, as they are one of the few tech hubs in the would, more than an hour from an international air hub. And the airport authority at Pearson wanted a connection that wind let them cut flights to London and deploy those slots on other destinations.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Interestingly, Spain’s policy of using high speed rail to turn regional centres into bedroom communities with low ridership HSR lines has been widely criticized. Not sure why you would think that is a good strategy for Ontario.

https://voxeurop.eu/en/bullet-train-white-elephant/

We running off on all kinds of tangents now? I never suggested the Spanish strategy. You did. Literally in the paragraph above.

I think the proposed strategy to build on mostly existing rail lines (except for the London-Kitchener bit) and using existing stations is just fine. I have even suggested above, the should see if an HFR type of proposal based on upgrading the current VIA Corridor would be cheaper.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They are using existing GO stations. The same way those stations are accessed today, would be applicable to any HSR service.

The current service is 3 trains per day (which is new, it used to be two). Surely even the most diehard rail fanboy can see the difference between three trains per day and two parallel hourly (or something close to hourly) services.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hundreds of millions on a rail spur to specifically avoid the downtown core of Kitchener?

There is no need for a spur. A large station/parking facility could go here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4657202,...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

(the track is on the other side of the field, the freeway is adjacent).

BTW, I don't think this is a good idea, but I think it would be the logical thing to do if the objective (as you have identified) is to boost Kitchener commuting to Toronto.



GO is cheap, flexible, doesn't require advance booking, and supports many options for accessing the stations, getting a station relatively close to your origin and destination.

The HSR project (as it was proposed) is the opposite, it is a niche service that really only makes sense for downtown-to-downtown or downtown-YYZ trips in smallish, low-density cities that don't have well-developed downtowns and poor transit options to feed downtown stations.

SW Ontario is not the Raadstad. Instead of silly vanity projects for fanboys the focus should be on improving GO and building up local transit and density to create future conditions for such a service to make sense.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The current service is 3 trains per day (which is new, it used to be two). Surely even the most diehard rail fanboy can see the difference between three trains per day and two parallel hourly (or something close to hourly) services.

If you advocate for improving GO, which I'd argue should also have at least hourly service, you have the same issue. Either you use the same city centre stations that you argue are insufficient for the increased service or you create additional stations outside the city centre thus reinforcing the current built form and auto-centrism of those cities rather than working toward increasing city-centre density and local transit service. So how does having it remain a GO service solve anything?

Originally Posted by acottawa

SW Ontario is not the Raadstad. Instead of silly vanity projects for fanboys the focus should be on improving GO and building up local transit and density to create future conditions for such a service to make sense.

Trying to build up local transit service and density prior to the HSR service being implemented has the same problem as offering the HSR service first, just in the opposite direction. If these small cities lack the notable downtown destinations that would induce people to use local transit or locate near the city centre, the local transit service won't be used - especially if GO builds additional stations with large parking facilities on the outskirts. The best way of doing things would be to implement both at once. An HSR service that would act as an important city-centre destination while simultaneously increasing local transit service to get people there. Without such coordination you either have an HSR service that people don't use because it's hard to get to it, or local transit that people don't use because there's nothing for them to get to (that they can't get to more easily with cars).

[hipster duck]

On the subject of Toronto-Kitchener-London, Metrolinx recently released a preliminary design business case for what to do at Silver Junction - the interlocking where CN's Halton sub (CN's main line) intersects with the Metrolinx-owned Kitchener line in Georgetown.

The CN-owned mainline portion between Silver Jct and Bramalea, and Silver Jct, in particular, is the main bottleneck preventing decent service to Kitchener and beyond.

As you can see from the ES on pages 1-3, the "middle" option of having an enhanced surface crossing at Silver Junction allows for GO to run 2 way all day service (I think at hourly frequencies to Kitchener) with a travel time of 98 minutes. It's in line with the existing budget, but it doesn't leave any space for improvements of any kind, and would require precise train meets.

For an additional $200 million, they could build a flyover (option 3), that would allow for more frequent, faster service. Metrolinx seems to suggest that it may not be worth it because it only allows for marginal travel time improvements (90 minutes to Kitchener instead of 98), and because they may not be anticipating anything beyond an hourly service, let alone service past Kitchener. But I think it's pretty clear that this grade separation unlocks things like TKL HFR, or even space for HSR in the future, as well as much more frequent service to Kitchener than just an hourly milk run.

Securing that extra $200 million to ensure the grade separation is built seems like it would be a prudent investment. I think VIA is AWOL on anything in Southwestern Ontario, but it would be a good project to lobby the Feds for.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The current service is 3 trains per day (which is new, it used to be two). Surely even the most diehard rail fanboy can see the difference between three trains per day and two parallel hourly (or something close to hourly) services.

The current service is irrelevant. Metrolinx is working towards Two Way All Day service (2WAD) service to Kitchener:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/greaterregion/projects/kitchener-go-expansion.aspx

Presumably that will be at least hourly. So the question becomes, whether it's better to simply build on this and serve Guelph and beyond only with hourly or semi-hourly HSR service and reserve regular RER service till Mount Pleasant or even Georgetown. That way there are too many stops in the 416/905 and the service can become local beyond Guelph, with all-stop in the 519.

Originally Posted by acottawa

BTW, I don't think this is a good idea, but I think it would be the logical thing to do if the objective (as you have identified) is to boost Kitchener commuting to Toronto.

As mentioned earlier, this is only one of several objectives. Metrolinx also has specific mandates to improve transit access to their services. Having a car dependent station on the outskirts would work against that goal. To that end, they are also build a transit hub replacing the current station:

https://www.engagewr.ca/king-victoria-transit-hub

• Video Link

Originally Posted by acottawa

GO is cheap, flexible, doesn't require advance booking, and supports many options for accessing the stations, getting a station relatively close to your origin and destination.

The HSR project (as it was proposed) is the opposite, it is a niche service that really only makes sense for downtown-to-downtown or downtown-YYZ trips in smallish, low-density cities that don't have well-developed downtowns and poor transit options to feed downtown stations.

SW Ontario is not the Raadstad. Instead of silly vanity projects for fanboys the focus should be on improving GO and building up local transit and density to create future conditions for such a service to make sense.

You always seem to get quite worked up and resort to name calling when others don't concede.

Let's be clear what this project was. It was an effort to combine a number of goals. Eliminating air traffic between London and Pearson. Improving airport access for KWC. Making both Toronto-Kitchener and Kitchener-London more commutable. And making access from Southwestern Ontario to Toronto more reasonable as the roads increasingly get clogged up and travel times keep rising. An important goal for a region that has seen job losses and deindustrialization in the last two decades, and has industries (insurance sector in London, tech in Waterloo) that could use better access to Toronto's Financial District.

You seem to be fixated on one goal or the other at the exclusion of the rest and then resort to calling those who disagree "fanboys". Most people who follows this thread would find that bizarre, given how skeptical I am of projects and ideas that don't actually show substantial ridership potential.

If the project wasn't sustainable the BCR wouldn't be over 1. And Metrolinx has gone ahead with projects that have a BCR less than one. If we're going to argue that this is a "silly vanity project", there's plenty ahead of that line. Including some questionable in investments Ottawa that I am guessing you'd never offer up for the chopping block.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

On the subject of Toronto-Kitchener-London, Metrolinx recently released a preliminary design business case for what to do at Silver Junction - the interlocking where CN's Halton sub (CN's main line) intersects with the Metrolinx-owned Kitchener line in Georgetown.

The CN-owned mainline portion between Silver Jct and Bramalea, and Silver Jct, in particular, is the main bottleneck preventing decent service to Kitchener and beyond.

As you can see from the ES on pages 1-3, the "middle" option of having an enhanced surface crossing at Silver Junction allows for GO to run 2 way all day service (I think at hourly frequencies to Kitchener) with a travel time of 98 minutes. It's in line with the existing budget, but it doesn't leave any space for improvements of any kind, and would require precise train meets.

For an additional $200 million, they could build a flyover (option 3), that would allow for more frequent, faster service. Metrolinx seems to suggest that it may not be worth it because it only allows for marginal travel time improvements (90 minutes to Kitchener instead of 98), and because they may not be anticipating anything beyond an hourly service, let alone service past Kitchener. But I think it's pretty clear that this grade separation unlocks things like TKL HFR, or even space for HSR in the future, as well as much more frequent service to Kitchener than just an hourly milk run.

Securing that extra $200 million to ensure the grade separation is built seems like it would be a prudent investment. I think VIA is AWOL on anything in Southwestern Ontario, but it would be a good project to lobby the Feds for.

This is exactly the kind of problem that arises from a lack of integration. And why I think VIA is increasingly useless and an obstacle in the Corridor. I'll bet Metrolinx would see this a lot differently if their mandate was intercity service in SWO and they had to think about trains going past Kitchener. I don't blame VIA for not speaking up. Their mandate doesn't let them do that. But examples do show how the Corridor might be better off managed by a single local agency.

[ssiguy]

I still think one of the biggest hurdles will come from the group that was traditionally the most supportive of better rail in Canada..............environmentalists.

If VIA plans on running NOT running it's standard diesel trains, regardless of their pollution tier engines, then they are looking at complete electrification with an entirely new fleet which is going to cost a small fortune.

Can you imagine in 20 years when it eventually gets built and everyone is driving zero-emissions vehicles, VIA trying to convince everyone to take their polluting trains? I can see it now.........."take VIA and help destroy the planet". That's not exactly a winning proposition.

Before VIA does anything it should get a REAL plan on how it intends to de-carbonize it's entire national fleet.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I still think one of the biggest hurdles will come from the group that was traditionally the most supportive of better rail in Canada..............environmentalists.

If VIA plans on running standard diesel trains, regardless of their pollution tier engines, then they are looking at complete electrification which is going to cost a small fortune.

Can you imagine in 20 years when it eventually gets built and everyone is driving zero-emissions vehicles, VIA trying to convince everyone to take their polluting trains? I can see it now.........."take VIA and help destroy the planet". That's not exactly a winning proposition.

Before VIA does anything it should get a REAL plan on how it intends to de-carbonize it's entire national fleet.

Without an actual service people want to use, VIA will decarbonize by not running trains at all.

CN and CP will have issues with electric infrastructure on their networks.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I still think one of the biggest hurdles will come from the group that was traditionally the most supportive of better rail in Canada..............environmentalists.

If VIA plans on running NOT running it's standard diesel trains, regardless of their pollution tier engines, then they are looking at complete electrification with an entirely new fleet which is going to cost a small fortune.

Can you imagine in 20 years when it eventually gets built and everyone is driving zero-emissions vehicles, VIA trying to convince everyone to take their polluting trains? I can see it now.........."take VIA and help destroy the planet". That's not exactly a winning proposition.

Before VIA does anything it should get a REAL plan on how it intends to de-carbonize it's entire national fleet.

If you can run wires to the train that carry the same voltage and amperage that the traction motors use, then it is easy enough. Maybe what Via does is for the Corridor, they electrify it first and move the newer, better diesels to the other routes.

[Truenorth00]

VIA's emissions are a fraction of a percent of Canada's emissions. No environmentalist cares about them today. And no environmentalist will care about them in 20 years either. Do you see Greta Thunberg out there complaining about diesel trains? No. She does have plenty to say about flying though.

Moreover, the technology to decarbonize just isn't mature.
Battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell trains are all being used only for commuter and suburban rail services. There's no real long haul operations. And none that have been around long enough to see how the equipment fairs.


In 20 years, VIA will have more options, and hopefully a substantial portion of their Corridor emissions will be cut through electrification of the GO network and the Havelock/HFR route. It will also be a great time to start planning the replacement of the Siemens fleet.

[milomilo]

I'm more worried about "environmentalists" blocking rail projects because a few trees are cut down or something like that, like they are doing vs HS2 in the UK. It's GOP level ignorance and hypocrisy and makes me incredibly angry and cynical about any activist's intentions, because they are all cut from the same cloth.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm more worried about "environmentalists" blocking rail projects because a few trees are cut down or something like that, like they are doing vs HS2 in the UK. It's GOP level ignorance and hypocrisy and makes me incredibly angry and cynical about any activist's intentions, because they are all cut from the same cloth.

The good thing is, the places where HFR or HSR will be built are places that don't have old growth forests. That seems to be the big one now.