High Speed Rail (HSR)

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So they hired a foreign-based consultant, who may or may not have set foot in Canada .

The project lead is from Toronto, went to UofT, worked for Bombardier/UTDS, and was even chairperson of the City's cycling committee. I skimmed their resume and people on the team have done work for Transport Canada, VIA, and High Speed Rail in the UK and Brazil, plus lots of regional rail like Crossrail/Overground

Originally Posted by acottawa

As well, there are several things about this process that hint it didn't go through a normal transportation planning process, including the use of a British consultant (whose website http://www.firstclasspartnerships.com/ is currently defunct) whose main client appeared to be the Ontario government and the fact that the first thing anyone heard of this was in the budget (which at least in the federal government is often a sign the project comes from staffers and not the bureaucracy).

This is their website
http://www.fcpworld.net

client list

[1overcosc]

Reading through the reports it certainly did seem to be a very well done report with solid info, with the notable exception of not being able to have completely up to date info on the corridor... although we know the reason for that (consultant's deadline was too tight). The issue of building infrastructure along the segments of the Kitchener-Toronto ROW still owned by CN is missing from the redacted version, but judging by the placement of many of the redacted sentences I highly suspect it was the sentences on this exact topic that were redacted, perhaps because of privacy issues related to discussions with CN.

[eemy]

I noticed as well that he referred to crossing the 401 when he clearly meant Hwy 7/8. It just seems kind of sloppy to me.

[Innsertnamehere]

We sort of know what's going on with CN due to GO RER anyway, they are going to require a rail underpass for the freight trains to switch to the south side of the tracks while not interfering with GO trains.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

The project lead is from Toronto, went to UofT, worked for Bombardier/UTDS, and was even chairperson of the City's cycling committee. I skimmed their resume and people on the team have done work for Transport Canada, VIA, and High Speed Rail in the UK and Brazil, plus lots of regional rail like Crossrail/Overground



This is their website
http://www.fcpworld.net

client list

I don't know, it seems like there is a big discrepancy between the list of logos and the "news" section. The logo section suggestions they have consulted for a who's who of the global railway industry. The news section lists a whole lot of Government of Ontario work and some fairly minor projects in the UK (seconding a partner into some government office, etc) plus trying to broker a subway sale from the TTC to Nigeria. Maybe they're doing a lot of secret work they can't divulge on their website, but it doesn't seem like anybody but Ontario is hiring them for "feasibility" studies of multibillion dollar transportation projects. Possibly because other jurisdictions wouldn't consider something done in less than 2 months using google maps to be a feasibility study.

[1overcosc]

It was done in less than 2 months using Google Maps not because the consultant wanted to do it that way, but because the province forced him to work very quickly because they wanted numbers before the 2014 budget announcement.

In any event, once the EA is done, we'll have the full fleshed out ideas and numbers. I'm waiting till then pass judgement on the project.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It was done in less than 2 months using Google Maps not because the consultant wanted to do it that way, but because the province forced him to work very quickly because they wanted numbers before the 2014 budget announcement.

In any event, once the EA is done, we'll have the full fleshed out ideas and numbers. I'm waiting till then pass judgement on the project.

And that is a good way to make long-term transportation policy?

The problem is an EA is good at dealing with technical issues and environmental/social impacts, it is not a particularly effective means to analyse business models, which is the problem with this project. I have no doubt it is technically possible to build a high speed train line from London to Kitchener and mitigate the impacts on wetlands, etc. but I doubt that 7 million passengers are willing to pay an average of $43 - which is the type of analysis that would normally be included in a feasibility study, when they're not done in 2 months because some jackass wants to make an announcement.

[1overcosc]

Hmm... what's the current VIA ridership along the route? If its already something like 3-4 million then 7 million is quite a reasonable target. If its only 1 million... well, 7M would be quite the battle.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Hmm... what's the current VIA ridership along the route? If its already something like 3-4 million then 7 million is quite a reasonable target. If its only 1 million... well, 7M would be quite the battle.

I'm not sure what it is. Ridership by station (I know Amtrak keeps track of it, but don't know if VIA does) would be helpful as well.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Hmm... what's the current VIA ridership along the route? If its already something like 3-4 million then 7 million is quite a reasonable target. If its only 1 million... well, 7M would be quite the battle.

3--4M would seem a stretch, there is 1 fairly short train in the morning and evening (but a big chunk of that is Guelph related) in each direction. Maybe 300 thousand per year? GO runs a few trains a day, but a lot of that is Guelph related too. The EA on improving the GO line a few years ago I think predicted 5000 per weekday at the kitchener station, so that would be 1.something million.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Hmm... what's the current VIA ridership along the route? If its already something like 3-4 million then 7 million is quite a reasonable target. If its only 1 million... well, 7M would be quite the battle.

Small correction, it is 6 million (earlier news reports said 7)

To put things in perspective, the entire Via Rail network for the entire country carried 3.9 million passengers in 2013
http://www.viarail.ca/2013annualrepo...eport-2013.pdf

To put things in even more perspective, the Acela, the only operating HSR in North America carried 3.3 million passengers in 2013 (wikipedia).

So these consultants are predicting train travel between Toronto and two gatineau-sized sprawling cities would be almost 100% more train travel for the whole country and almost than 100% more than the high speed rail service between high-density megacities on the east coast of the US.

I'm sure what they did is took some percentage of existing car traffic and assumed it would change to train, without considering the geography or economy of southwestern ontario (because they were using google maps and didn't bother to talk to anyone).

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Small correction, it is 6 million (earlier news reports said 7)

To put things in perspective, the entire Via Rail network for the entire country carried 3.9 million passengers in 2013
http://www.viarail.ca/2013annualrepo...eport-2013.pdf

To put things in even more perspective, the Acela, the only operating HSR in North America carried 3.3 million passengers in 2013 (wikipedia).

So these consultants are predicting train travel between Toronto and two gatineau-sized sprawling cities would be almost 100% more train travel for the whole country and almost than 100% more than the high speed rail service between high-density megacities on the east coast of the US.

I'm sure what they did is took some percentage of existing car traffic and assumed it would change to train, without considering the geography or economy of southwestern ontario (because they were using google maps and didn't bother to talk to anyone).

I think you miss the point. I don't know about the consultants, but the provincial government is definitely considering the economy, specifically the Toronto-Waterloo tech corridor. That (and only that, I suspect) is what is driving this project.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I think you miss the point. I don't know about the consultants, but the provincial government is definitely considering the economy, specifically the Toronto-Waterloo tech corridor. That (and only that, I suspect) is what is driving this project.

Sorry, I meant economy as in how the economy in SW Ontario works. I.e. the KW tech sector (or any part of the KW economy) is not concentrated in downtown Kitchener (although there is a small hub), so the value of the HSR service the consultants are describing is of limited value to the tech sector (or the economy more broadly) compared to an improved GO train service or other transit options. For most people and businesses, the value of a 45 minute service (which the consultants say is possible) to Union Station is limited by the time it takes to get to downtown Kitchener, the loss of intermediate stops (Bloor, Eglinton, etc.) and the time it takes to get somewhere from Union station and most of the cost of this project is on the Kitchener to London leg, which isn't of particular importance to the economies of either city. As I said earlier (and you agreed) what the tech sector really wants is 2 way commuter service to that it can more easily hire people in the GTA, and GO is much more suitable for commuting than HSR because it can pick people up along the way (and costs less).

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Small correction, it is 6 million (earlier news reports said 7)

To put things in perspective, the entire Via Rail network for the entire country carried 3.9 million passengers in 2013
http://www.viarail.ca/2013annualrepo...eport-2013.pdf

To put things in even more perspective, the Acela, the only operating HSR in North America carried 3.3 million passengers in 2013 (wikipedia).

So these consultants are predicting train travel between Toronto and two gatineau-sized sprawling cities would be almost 100% more train travel for the whole country and almost than 100% more than the high speed rail service between high-density megacities on the east coast of the US.

I'm sure what they did is took some percentage of existing car traffic and assumed it would change to train, without considering the geography or economy of southwestern ontario (because they were using google maps and didn't bother to talk to anyone).

I would think a Toronto to SW Ontario HSR route would carry about one-quarter the ridership (at the most) of a Toronto to Montreal via Ottawa route, with most of the ridership from London to Toronto.

Ridership on the Windsor-London leg would likely be very low initially unless extended farther (that would be outside of the Ontario government's scope), since Windsor is not exactly intertwined much with Toronto economically (much closer ties to Detroit and even Chicago). I question the value of such a line at this stage as a result, other than protecting a ROW (including a cross-border ROW).

Would it be possible for the Ontario and Quebec governments to run a Toronto-Montreal HSR with no direct federal involvement?

[Aylmer]

No, interprovincial and international transportation is of federal competence. All the bridges and even OC Transpo and STO fall under their jurisdiction. So Ottawa-Montreal will have to wait for a more, um, supportive government.

A Toronto-Ottawa stretch would be technically possible without the feds, but I doubt Ontario would put down the money without a guarantee that the line would be able to access Montreal's market.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sorry, I meant economy as in how the economy in SW Ontario works. I.e. the KW tech sector (or any part of the KW economy) is not concentrated in downtown Kitchener (although there is a small hub), so the value of the HSR service the consultants are describing is of limited value to the tech sector (or the economy more broadly) compared to an improved GO train service or other transit options. For most people and businesses, the value of a 45 minute service (which the consultants say is possible) to Union Station is limited by the time it takes to get to downtown Kitchener, the loss of intermediate stops (Bloor, Eglinton, etc.) and the time it takes to get somewhere from Union station and most of the cost of this project is on the Kitchener to London leg, which isn't of particular importance to the economies of either city. As I said earlier (and you agreed) what the tech sector really wants is 2 way commuter service to that it can more easily hire people in the GTA, and GO is much more suitable for commuting than HSR because it can pick people up along the way (and costs less).

Two way all day GO is also coming. It's not like the province picked HSR over it.

One thing that could be part of the business case--although I have yet to see any official evidence that it is--is the reduced highway cost. Because of the dramatic increase in KW-GTA traffic in recent years, the 401 is starting to get overloaded. Right now it's 6 lanes from the western fringe of the GTA to K-W. The MTO has plans on the books to widen that to 10 lanes to accommodate the traffic. That would be a very expensive project given the sheer distance. HSR may justify cutting that back to 8 lanes or scrapping the widening project altogether, which could help offset costs.

I think what makes this business case so hard to do is that there isn't an example of HSR service in the North American context to go by. I suspect irregardless of numbers, getting private sector investors on board is going to be difficult for this reason alone.

90% of VIA's riders are in the QC-Windsor corridor, so if VIA's nationwide ridership is 3.9M, then its QC-Windsor ridership is 3.5M. London-KW-Toronto traffic could be roughly 1M based on that.

I imagine HSR would probably kill London-Toronto air service if there was integration with the airlines at the Pearson stop (ie: getting London-Pearson tickets through the airline's booking engine with checked luggage being transferred for you at the Pearson stop), and probably kill coach service too. I would say that if the combined sum of London-KW-Toronto VIA, coach, and air service is already at 5M or greater, 6M is a realistic assumption.

I think the purpose of the London extension is an economic stimulus; cutting down travel time from downtown London to downtown Toronto will help London's economy. Enough to justify the project cost? Questionable. I don't know much about London, but I know that if Kingston had a downtown HSR station linking to Toronto, holy shit would that a giant boon to the city's economy.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Ridership on the Windsor-London leg would likely be very low initially unless extended farther (that would be outside of the Ontario government's scope), since Windsor is not exactly intertwined much with Toronto economically (much closer ties to Detroit and even Chicago). I question the value of such a line at this stage as a result, other than protecting a ROW (including a cross-border ROW).

I highly suspect that Windsor-London is simply securing a ROW.

It may be part of some sort of plot to get the Americans to route Chicago-New York HSR through Canada (which would be slightly shorter than a route though the USA) to help cover the costs of our own HSR.

[Kitchissippi]

Super pipe dream. I know some people hate the prospect of having the train station even farther from downtown, but I think HSR should be well integrated into the airport for it to be truly competitive with air travel. Also if all Toronto-Montreal runs were to be routed through Ottawa, there should be a streamlined bypass that makes a stop really brief and allows the train to re-accelerate quicker. Maybe XDS should only be used for trips that terminate in Ottawa and integrate regional and intercity buses. A bypass would also free up the station and some of the rails in the city for urban/suburban and regional lines.

[Aylmer]

I disagree. I think that the benefits of having a train station close(r) to town far outweighs the added few minutes. And we have to remember that it would only be a few minutes: VIA owns the tracks to the train station and I believe is the exclusive user. The tracks are relatively straight and are planned to become completely grade-separated once the at-grade crossings in Barrhaven are rebuilt. What that means is that trains can travel at high speeds all the way to the station, unlike in many of the French towns which have suburban HSR stations to bypass congested and curvy inner-city rails.

That's not to say that everything is perfect:
- As I said, the tracks need to be grade-separated in places like Barrhaven
- The tracks need to be double-tracked, maybe even triple-tracked if we plan for a possible regional O-Train network.

But that said, I think we could build these improvements five fold for the price of building a greenfield alignment and an airport tunnel and a new station. It is true that that new station would shave 5km off of the 550-some-km Toronto-Montreal route (0.9% shorter), but that only translates to about 3 or 4 minutes over a 200-minute trip.
On the other hand, that would probably add AT LEAST 10 minutes to all the Ottawa passengers. One of the great advantages of rail over air travel is that you DON'T need to make your way all the way out to an airport. If anything, we should be thinking of bringing the train station CLOSER to downtown so that it can better provide something which airplanes never can - a downtown-to-downtown connection.


So the way I see it, it would be much more expensive, take longer to get to, but not provide any noticeable time savings for people travelling from Montreal to Toronto.




EDIT:
I've actually been toying with a fanciful idea for the last few days - what if we were to demolish emptying DND buildings and turn it into an underground rail terminus? It'd be only 300m from downtown (across the Canal and through Confederation Park), 300m from Rideau Station (either through the Rideau Centre or via a new underground connection), 300m from the ridership-rich university and directly adjacent to the Conference Centre. The tracks could run under the Nicolas Expressway, like they're planning on doing for the Ottawa River Parkway. (perhaps a little deeper so as not to sever the pedestrian connections under the road)



Pros:
- A station downtown is a condicio sine quad non for a regional O-Train system to the suburbs and beyond. Having people transfer at Tremblay is non only cumbersome, it'd put significant strain on the Confederation Line as entire trains of people from Barrhaven or Stittsville would try to fit into already-filled LRT trains of people from Orleans and the East End at the same time.
- It would literally be a stone's throw from the Conference Centre. I can imagine that having it so conveniently located would make it a much more competitive alternative to Toronto or Montreal for events that aim to attract people from both cities.
- It would be an incredible entrance to Ottawa: you'd exit right onto the Canal with arguably the best view of Parliament instead of in a an industrial park on the wrong side of a freeway two kilometers out of where you want to go.
- If we demolish DND, it would be relatively easy to build an underground station by just digging down and covering the hole with a building/buildings. I'd imagine that you might even be able to offset some of the construction cost by building some towers of prime real-estate above.

Cons:
- It would probably cost somewhere close to $1B
- It wouldn't be smack-damn in the middle of town
- It would require trains to either back out of the station (if there's only on cab) or reverse directions (which they'd actually be able to do with the new 50/50 seating arrangement).

[lrt's friend]

I don't see any possibility of O-Train service on VIA Rail track or parallel track unless we use a heavy rail train. If we use a heavy rail train, then double tracking is all that is needed.