High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto

[lrt's friend]

Is it possible to effectively have what amounts to local and express trains? At the 'local' stations, trains pull into a siding at the station and if necessary, wait briefly for an express train to pass through. All trains would run the entire line, so that local stations also have full connectivity. In other words, it is possible to go from Brampton to London on a local train.

 

[TOareaFan]

Is it possible to effectively have what amounts to local and express trains? At the 'local' stations, trains pull into a siding at the station and if necessary, wait briefly for an express train to pass through. All trains would run the entire line, so that local stations also have full connectivity. In other words, it is possible to go from Brampton to London on a local train.

I don't think there is any plan to extend GO to London....so the only trains connecting Brampton and London would be VIA....of course there is some speculation that the introduction of Ontario's HSR in the corridor would see the end of the limited VIA service currently in the corridor.

So, I guess, the Brampton to London traveller would take a "local" GO train to Guelph then switch to a HSR to London.

 

[crs1026]

So, I guess, the Brampton to London traveller would take a "local" GO train to Guelph then switch to a HSR to London.

Or backtrack to Malton/Pearson, which will almost certainly be a HSR stop.

I understand your concern about removing a stimulus to development in Brampton.

A prerequisite to the lost opportunity you anticipate is - to be a lost city center, Brampton needs to have an articulated vision and a connection from that strategy to HSR. No disrespect meant, but Brampton (and especially its mayor and Council) doesn't have its act together on its vision for a central core.

Which is not to say Brampton will decline. It is already heavily industrialised and has plenty of nice neighbourhoods. It is thriving, it just isn't developing a centre. When I look to Pickering-Ajax-Whitby, they are similar. One could make the same argument that VIA's choice of Oshawa disadvantages them, but no one seems to mind. Central Oshawa is dumpier than Queen and Main! And the extra travel to access VIA is accepted.

And, if HFR proceeds, the Durham HFR stop would be up the road in Brooklin.... or perhaps not at all. So far Oshawa appears to be fine with that.

Personally I agree with you, Brampton ought to aspire to building a city centre, it would be great to have that kind of development from MCC all the way north. And Brampton politicians ought to be fighting for an HSR stop to anchor that. But it's not a fault of HSR planning that this isn't happening. Brampton's worst enemy is itself.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

It is rarely 4 hours and only if you live at Union station and are visiting Overbrook.

This is correct and as per my last post, scheduled travel time has not decreased in previous years. However, what has decreased is the gap between the desired arrival time and the next-earlier arrival offered at the destination and between the desired departure time (for the return trip) and the next-following departure offered.

When seeing travel time as the time elapsed between actual departure and desired arrival on the way to your destination and between desired departure and actual arrival for the return trip, then filling these gaps with additional frequencies might have saved some passengers 2 hours per direction, thus more travel time saved as by building HSR and virtually zero infrastructure investment. Prioritising higher frequencies over higher speeds is therefore a much more cost-effective way to increase the utility of a passenger service offered and, very conveniently, builds the ridership you'll need to eventually justify HSR.

And people using non-HSR stations at Georgetown, Mount Pleasant, Brampton can have legitimate concerns that they wouldn't get the same level of service as other GO-RER lines and watch HSR trains whiz by because of capacity constraints.

Concerning this controversy, I would like to know if anyone is aware of any HSR route in the world, which links a multi-million metropolis with two cities of approx. half a million each (and approximately 100 and 200 km away from the metropolis), without making any stop at a similarly-sized city on its outskirts...?

Edit to add (as Steveintoronto would say):
As I've argued previously, the travel time penalty of stopping in Brampton is roughly 3 minutes, given that you can't travel at high speed through downtown Brampton.

There does not seem to be (forgive me if I have this wrong) consensus on whether the tracks going through downtown Brampton can be expanded beyond 3 (2 at present) and, if they can, how it is done.

I would even go one step back and skeptically ask how the third track can be inserted without moving the railway station (a listed heritage building):

 

[TOareaFan]

Or backtrack to Malton/Pearson, which will almost certainly be a HSR stop.

I understand your concern about removing a stimulus to development in Brampton.

A prerequisite to the lost opportunity you anticipate is - to be a lost city center, Brampton needs to have an articulated vision and a connection from that strategy to HSR. No disrespect meant, but Brampton (and especially its mayor and Council) doesn't have its act together on its vision for a central core.

Which is not to say Brampton will decline. It is already heavily industrialised and has plenty of nice neighbourhoods. It is thriving, it just isn't developing a centre. When I look to Pickering-Ajax-Whitby, they are similar. One could make the same argument that VIA's choice of Oshawa disadvantages them, but no one seems to mind. Central Oshawa is dumpier than Queen and Main! And the extra travel to access VIA is accepted.

And, if HFR proceeds, the Durham HFR stop would be up the road in Brooklin.... or perhaps not at all. So far Oshawa appears to be fine with that.

Personally I agree with you, Brampton ought to aspire to building a city centre, it would be great to have that kind of development from MCC all the way north. And Brampton politicians ought to be fighting for an HSR stop to anchor that. But it's not a fault of HSR planning that this isn't happening. Brampton's worst enemy is itself.

- Paul

Brampton has had horrible leadership and QP representation.....but this is not on them....,from day one Murray’s back of envelope “plan” excluded Brampton and it was made clear that that would not be changing. HSR (if built) was always bypassing Brampton......and most people on this site supported that......which is ok but people need to accept that HSR bypassing Brampton will impact it negatively.

Your East End analogy is not a very strong one. Oshawa was, historically, the “capital “ of Durham and always was the VIA/inter-city station for the region.....also, HSR is being planned/touted as an economic driver to connect the city’s in the high-tech corridor.....city’s on it will be seen as places to be by the job generators....being bypassed is a clear signal of places to avoid.

 

[TOareaFan]

This is correct and as per my last post, scheduled travel time has not decreased in previous years. However, what has decreased is the gap between the desired arrival time and the next-earlier arrival offered at the destination and between the desired departure time (for the return trip) and the next-following departure offered.

When seeing travel time as the time elapsed between actual departure and desired arrival on the way to your destination and between desired departure and actual arrival for the return trip, then filling these gaps with additional frequencies might have saved some passengers 2 hours per direction, thus more travel time saved as by building HSR and virtually zero infrastructure investment. Prioritising higher frequencies over higher speeds is therefore a much more cost-effective way to increase the utility of a passenger service offered and, very conveniently, builds the ridership you'll need to eventually justify HSR.

All true.....but the point I was making was that for a lot of people the car still has a far superior trip time.

I live northwest of Toronto. I make the drive to Ottawa in 4.5 to 5 hours. (Door to door to a hotel I have stayed in a few times).....Google says I should be able to do it in 4:20 but I find it is between 4:30 and 5.

Sure, the VIA is, what, 4:07.....but I still have to get to Union somehow and then when the train gets to Ottawa I still have to get DT to my hotel.

I love trains.....and there are lots of reasons to pick trains but time competitiveness is not one.

 

[lrt's friend]

All true.....but the point I was making was that for a lot of people the car still has a far superior trip time.

I live northwest of Toronto. I make the drive to Ottawa in 4.5 to 5 hours. (Door to door to a hotel I have stayed in a few times).....Google says I should be able to do it in 4:20 but I find it is between 4:30 and 5.

Sure, the VIA is, what, 4:07.....but I still have to get to Union somehow and then when the train gets to Ottawa I still have to get DT to my hotel.

I love trains.....and there are lots of reasons to pick trains but time competitiveness is not one.

Well, by December you won't have to worry about getting to your downtown hotel in Ottawa. It will be about a 10 minute metro ride to your downtown hotel from the VIA station.

As we build up our rail network, both urban and intercity, it will be easier to make an entire trip (to more locations) by rail and it will become more time competitive. It will become easier to get yourself to Union Station because urban rail lines will come closer to your home and frequency will give you more reliable connections. Each improvement, makes rail possible for more people.

Nevertheless, the Toronto-Ottawa route wasn't designed to serve you. It is designed for those who are living in more central locations. Mind you, I live in suburban Ottawa, and the train is my first choice if I am heading to downtown Toronto. I have even recommended to someone living in rural eastern Ontario to take VIA and UPX for a flight out of Pearson, rather than the stress of driving the 401 and paying for parking. The 401 has become a parking lot of trucks in recent years.

I don't entirely believe the frequency argument. People do not make day trips between Ottawa and Toronto. Intercity rail trips will almost always be preplanned and the rider will naturally work around a schedule. This will be different between London and Toronto where day trips will be easily possible. Their other factors at play on the Ottawa-Toronto route. I believe the drive between the two cities has simply become a pain in the neck especially when your destination is downtown Toronto, where you may be charged $50 a day to park your car at a hotel.

In saying all of this, if the VIA HFR proposal delivers faster travel times as promised, it will make rail even more attractive. When you add on an HSR connection that connects to Guelph, Kitchener/Waterloo and London, it makes these locations also viable as a rail trip, whereas today, I can only drive.

 

[crs1026]

I don't entirely believe the frequency argument. People do not make day trips between Ottawa and Toronto.

They don’t? I did that many times in a previous job - early train to Ottawa, worked on the train, afternoon in meetings, in winter we would even bring our skates in hopes of a quick skate on the Canal before grabbing a taxi to the train station. Long day and very late getting home, sure....but no driving in winter, and the limo ride crosstown from Pearson feels like a tiring backtrack too.

Intercity rail trips will almost always be preplanned and the rider will naturally work around a schedule.

For liesure travel, perhaps. But too few choices of departure times causes potential customers to look around for options that fit their needs better, and that experience causes people to discard the train as an option next time. Hourly service means there is always an option, and a Plan B also if you run late. Business travellers won’t wait around for a train two hours later. Frequency sells.

- Paul

 

[lrt's friend]

They don’t? I did that many times in a previous job - early train to Ottawa, worked on the train, afternoon in meetings, in winter we would even bring our skates in hopes of a quick skate on the Canal before grabbing a taxi to the train station. Long day and very late getting home, sure....but no driving in winter, and the limo ride crosstown from Pearson feels like a tiring backtrack too.



For liesure travel, perhaps. But too few choices of departure times causes potential customers to look around for options that fit their needs better, and that experience causes people to discard the train as an option next time. Hourly service means there is always an option, and a Plan B also if you run late. Business travellers won’t wait around for a train two hours later. Frequency sells.

- Paul

Agreed. Frequency does sell. Likewise, and we have seen it when the Conservatives forced VIA cutbacks in southwestern Ontario, that cutting frequency drives customers away.

 

[TOareaFan]

I would even go one step back and skeptically ask how the third track can be inserted without moving the railway station (a listed heritage building):
View attachment 154112

The commonly accepted plan to add the 3rd track was always that some surface parking in the main ("north") lot would be sacrificed and the main building would be moved back away from the tracks further into the parking lot.

Of course, that is likely further complicated now that the Province/City/Ryerson-Sheridan have picked that North lot as the site of their new campus and (from various published media reports) none of that north lot is available anymore as it is all going to be Ryerson Campus lands.

So, how you fit a 3rd track through downtown Brampton is very much up in the air again....some suggested in the past that you might just be able to squeeze a 3rd track on the south side...hugging Railroad Street and squeeing past the office building over the bus terminal.......even if that were/is possible, there is definitely not room there for a 4th track.....without significant demolition taking place.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Just to further add background to the above in case others are new (hi @lrt's friend) and haven't seen this before, the north side alignment was indicated on the HMLRT Sheet 19 drawing (exact date unknown but maybe late 2013/early 2014), but an October 2014 study for GO Transit (which was once publicly accessible) suggested the third track (first general reference here) should go on the south side so that it would continue the existing third track that's on the south side on either ends of the Brampton Station area. So there were concepts floating around but nothing formally accepted in the sense an EA provided an outcome.

The rationale for the south side is that this would allow the track remain more "straight" (quote shown in below linked image), which I read into as assisting track speeds among other benefits. Would this put it close to the office building on the south side? Yes. Would it impact Railroad Street? Yes. The report did note it would be complex but necessary. Detailed references in sequence here, and then here. A map of the existing track plan was shown here (east of the Brampton Station) and here (Brampton Station and the west side), and I added the third track in this image on the south side to visualize what the above linked to text noted.

There were other vague references in Metrolinx board meeting presentations to an EA started for additional track between Georgetown and Bramalea (here in March 2015 and here from June 2015) but no noted progress since or anything officially accepted in public. I would imagine the focus shifted to the bypass discussions. We, as the public and transit users, would love to see more detail and action of course on this topic. I'm sure Brampton City Council and staff would as well.

 

[jje1000]

An additional councillor from SW Ontario using the "#whyhsr" hashtag.

Interesting that they're not against HSR per say, but more so the proposed routing. To be the devil's advocate, some of the options (i.e. expanding VIA and GO service) might in fact be more realistic and affordable than an entirely new HSR line.

The current Environmental Assessment must be either stopped or expanded to include other options. If the EA continues as-is, the Terms of Reference will be created that will protect the route along the Hydro corridor and no private building permits will be issued thereby limiting productivity and growth of the local agricultural industry. Even if the project is eventually turned down by the current government, the land will still be protected and a future government can decide to build High Speed Rail and use the results of the restricted Environmental Assessment as-is, without further studies or consultation.

The current government must look at all the options. Some are:

• Use the existing right of ways (CN North to Stratford & CN South from Brantford) and expand VIA Rail and Go Service
• Use the 401 transportation corridor.
• Oxford County has produced a report using High-Performance Transportation as an option to connect communities http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/Your-Gov...mance-Transportation-for-Southwestern-Ontario

http://intercityrail.org/wordpress/

 

[KevinT]

To be the devil's advocate, some of the options (i.e. expanding VIA and GO service) might in fact be more realistic and affordable than an entirely new HSR line.

http://intercityrail.org/wordpress/

And complete non-starters if CP/CN follows their typical behaviour of not allowing any more trains. I took a quick look at some of that Oxford report, it seems to have been created by delusional people that think just because a freight line appears unused most of the time that you can put lots of passenger trains on it. 9 times out 10 you can't because big business.

 

[Allandale25]

 

[Allandale25]

TVO column just posted:

Are the Tories going to take a second look at high-speed rail?
ANALYSIS: Rural communities in southwestern Ontario want the PCs to rethink a plan to build high-speed rail between Toronto and Windsor. A recent FOI disclosure may lay the groundwork for that, writes John Michael McGrath