Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[Fantomex]

Could this be what is in store for us:

"The new Bombardier ZEFIRO design concepts for travelling at speeds in excess of 300 kph, have been created by Bombardier's industrial design team in co-operation with Zagato, a world-renowned Italian industrial design house.

The new ZEFIRO designs are a worldwide breakthrough in terms of aerodynamics, aesthetics, functionality, interior comfort and future adaptability. These design concepts presented today by Bombardier mark the beginning of a new era in terms of very high-speed rail travel. Bombardier has developed concepts of design encompassing innovation, glamour, maximum passenger comfort, timelessness design and cost effectiveness.

"Very high-speed rail travel is the future mode of transport in many countries worldwide and Bombardier is the global leader in this exciting and dynamic field," commented André Navarri, President, Bombardier Transportation. "We combine our technical excellence with world class designs that together will change the perception of very high-speed rail travel for the future," added André Navarri.

With its participation in 95% of all very high-speed trains operating today in Europe, and also a leader in North America and Asia in high-speed trains, Bombardier has the technology and know-how available to fully design and manufacture very high-speed trains; from very high-speed bogies to bodyshells, pantographs and top-performance water-cooled IGBT propulsion systems."

For now, until we can get the power infrastructure built to support HSR and the structure to support maglev, we should be considering using Bombardier's off the shelf and already developed JetTrain as a gauge of how profitable and successful a high-speed link would be before we plunge into electric HSR and maglev.

There are 4 situations that make sense in Canada for HSR if you ask me.

1. Detroit-Windsor-Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal-Trois Riveires-Quebec City
2. Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton
3. Vancouver-Seattle
4. Toronto-Hamilton-Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Albany-New York

I would also add Toronto-Chicago as well.

 

[mpd618]

It was hidden away because after McGuinty and Charest made all these bold statements on how HSR would be the future for Ontario & Quebec the results were hardly favorable.

Cost-benefit analysis of this kind will show all infrastructure investment to be unfavourable, unless all costs are directly paid for by fares / tolls / ads / what-have-you. Relative to other infrastructure investments, high-speed rail between Toronto and Montreal would bring more benefits of various kinds besides revenue, and do so with an operational profit that would help partially cover the capital investment.

 

[spider]

I find that very hard to believe. The fastest scheduled GO trains - like the Express runs to Oshawa - still only average 80 km/h.

I was driving eastbound on the 401 last week between Toronto and Oshawa at about 115 KMH when a GO train overtook me and disappeared into the horizon in a minute or so, it had to be doing at least 130 KMH.

 

[rbt]

I was driving eastbound on the 401 last week between Toronto and Oshawa at about 115 KMH when a GO train overtook me and disappeared into the horizon in a minute or so, it had to be doing at least 130 KMH.

GO and VIA regularly run between 125km/h and 145km/h as a peak speed.

For FRA and Amtrak's purposes, 145km/h is considered a high-speed railway line, and is the target of many Amtrak projects in the United States.

I believe only the North East Corridor and California project (not federal) have a higher target.

 

[diminutive]

Cost-benefit analysis of this kind will show all infrastructure investment to be unfavourable, unless all costs are directly paid for by fares / tolls / ads / what-have-you. Relative to other infrastructure investments, high-speed rail between Toronto and Montreal would bring more benefits of various kinds besides revenue, and do so with an operational profit that would help partially cover the capital investment.

Huh? That's not true at all.

Most Metrolinx studies I see, like Lakeshore electrification, report positive NPVs.

It's hardly the case that no infrastructure projects can be justified through cost benefit analysis.

And no, relative to most infrastructure (let alone public) investments HSR clearly doesn't deliver many benefits. Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal each have laundry lists of infrastructure projects which would be relatively more beneficial. Since congestion within urban regions is far more severe than congestion between them, most government would prioritize that.

 

[diminutive]

I was driving eastbound on the 401 last week between Toronto and Oshawa at about 115 KMH when a GO train overtook me and disappeared into the horizon in a minute or so, it had to be doing at least 130 KMH.

Though, HD said average speed. The schedules express Oshawa-Union runs seem to take 50minutes, which works out to around 60 kph.

 

[pman]

Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec put together look a lot more like Europe than California.

Why should we use scarce resources to subsidise highways (more expensive and inefficient) instead?

I should have been more explicit and said that the Windsor - Quebec corridor doesn't have the population density of either western Europe or California, and high-speed rail does depend on population density to be cost effective. California as a whole has almost twice the population of Quebec and Ontario combined, and the proposed distance of high-speed rail between SF and LA is about 100 miles shorter than Montreal-Toronto. The combined population of LA and SF easily outstrips that of Toronto plus Montreal.

I do agree we shouldn't use scarce resources to subsidize highways either, but I would suggest the better solution is to toll the 400 series roads to make drivers pay the full cost, and use the resulting funds to address GTHA public transit needs. High-speed rail between Toronto and Montreal can't begin to match the benefit to cost ratio of a serious expansion of the GO system, or construction of a full DRL.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I wonder if Detroit-Montreal HSR would work. We already know that toronto-Montreal HSR would work, but I wonder if extending it across the border to the US would work as well, to create a 3 city line.

 

[Komiksulo]

I wonder if Detroit-Montreal HSR would work. We already know that toronto-Montreal HSR would work, but I wonder if extending it across the border to the US would work as well, to create a 3 city line.

The logical western end point to such a line would be not Detroit, but Chicago.

 

[diminutive]

I wonder if Detroit-Montreal HSR would work. We already know that toronto-Montreal HSR would work, but I wonder if extending it across the border to the US would work as well, to create a 3 city line.

Just to put things in perspective, AC has 5 Toronto-Detroit flights a day, mostly using really small planes. If every seat was full it would mean about 100 people per day, or 1/10th of a typical HSR train. It's a really small market.

 

[nfitz]

Just to put things in perspective, AC has 5 Toronto-Detroit flights a day, mostly using really small planes. If every seat was full it would mean about 100 people per day, or 1/10th of a typical HSR train. It's a really small market.

Indeed. I'm not sure where people think this high-speed demand is west of Toronto ... at best west of London, but even then I'd think you'd build high-speed from Toronto to Ottawa/Montreal, and then run through at a lower speed to London and Aldershot.

 

[MisterF]

It was hidden away because after McGuinty and Charest made all these bold statements on how HSR would be the future for Ontario & Quebec the results were hardly favorable.

Every study that's ever been done has been favourable, even the very flawed most recent one, which made some pretty shortsighted assumptions that limited potential ridership and inflated cost.

Europe has an enormous number of short haul flights though, and high speed rail has trouble competing on anything above 2-3 hours. Thanks to low cost airlines like Ryanair and Easyjet short haul European flights are very cheap (even "full price" airlines like Air France are not that expensive for flights within Europe).

Similarly in Japan and China airlines retain significant market share against high speed rail. The air route between Fukuoka and Tokyo is one of the busiest air routes in the world, with several flights an hour operated by large aircraft such as Boeing 777, even though it competes with Shinkansen (it is about a 5 hour train ride).

In Canada the Toronto island airport makes it very difficult for high speed rail to compete against air. Very few cities have an airport that close to downtown.

That 2-3 hour window is exactly where the sweet spot is for rail, and lines of that length dominate market share in most of the routes where they've been built in Europe. The Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle falls right into that sweet spot - it's the perfect length for HSR. And while it might not compete with the busiest air routes in Asia, it's no slouch with well over 100 daily flights. It would be very difficult for the airlines to compete with HSR, island airport or not.

I was driving eastbound on the 401 last week between Toronto and Oshawa at about 115 KMH when a GO train overtook me and disappeared into the horizon in a minute or so, it had to be doing at least 130 KMH.

They do go that fast in some areas, especially on the purpose built sections. The average speed for the overall line is slower though. VIA trains go as fast as 160.

I should have been more explicit and said that the Windsor - Quebec corridor doesn't have the population density of either western Europe or California, and high-speed rail does depend on population density to be cost effective. California as a whole has almost twice the population of Quebec and Ontario combined, and the proposed distance of high-speed rail between SF and LA is about 100 miles shorter than Montreal-Toronto. The combined population of LA and SF easily outstrips that of Toronto plus Montreal.

The Windsor-Quebec corridor has a similar population density as several European countries with HSR, like France and Spain. It has a higher density than places like Scotland and Ireland (which both put our rail network to shame) and the Sydney-Melbourne corridor in Australia. We could support a much larger rail system than we have, both conventional and high speed. We've just chosen not to.

 

[RC8]

I should have been more explicit and said that the Windsor - Quebec corridor doesn't have the population density of either western Europe or California, and high-speed rail does depend on population density to be cost effective. California as a whole has almost twice the population of Quebec and Ontario combined, and the proposed distance of high-speed rail between SF and LA is about 100 miles shorter than Montreal-Toronto. The combined population of LA and SF easily outstrips that of Toronto plus Montreal.

I do agree we shouldn't use scarce resources to subsidize highways either, but I would suggest the better solution is to toll the 400 series roads to make drivers pay the full cost, and use the resulting funds to address GTHA public transit needs. High-speed rail between Toronto and Montreal can't begin to match the benefit to cost ratio of a serious expansion of the GO system, or construction of a full DRL.

The Toronto-Quebec City corridor probably has a higher or equivalent population density to the LA - San Francisco corridor in California. I believe your impression that this is not the case is incorrect.

By tolling drivers we wouldn't be reducing the amount of time the trip takes, though.

I agree we should expand GO and I agree we should get a DRL, but echoing other members, we could have all these things if we wanted to. This is all fiscally responsible.

 

[gweed123]

Drove to Laval from Ottawa today (road trip with some friends), and decided to take Highway 50 for part of it. Of course, Highway 50 goes right past Mirabel, and it got me thinking. I figured this may be worth discussing here:

Would it be worth it to route the future Quebec City-Windsor HSR line, or more specifically the Ottawa-Montreal HSR line, through Mirabel and then down into Montreal? The land on the Ontario side of the river between Ottawa and the Quebec border is flat as can be, so I figured a new alignment than would then cross the Ottawa River just east of Hawkesbury, hit Mirabel, and then take the originally-conceived HSR alignment into downtown Montreal.

Even with the recent expansions to Trudeau, my understanding is that it's still under a bit of a capacity crunch. And given the prime real estate that it occupies, 10+ years down the road it may be worth re-evaluating whether or not keeping Mirabel shuttered (at least for passenger traffic), and keeping Trudeau open is really the best option. Heck, selling off the massive chunk of land that Trudeau sits on could probably fund a pretty decent percentage of the HSR project!

Of course, HSR on its own could cut down on the number of Montreal-Toronto and Montreal-Ottawa flights required, rendering the capacity crunch at Trudeau moot, seeing as how those 2 routes are amongst the busiest at the airport.

 

[ssiguy2]

High speed electric train service is, thankfully, a non-starter.

The monsterous amounts of money spent on the infrastructure to move a few thousand a day is an obscene waste considering the million per day that would be carried if those funds went into urban transit. In terms of emissions reductions HSR is one on the worstinvestment a country can make. Cars today have quite low emissions but is thew sitting and idyling in traffic that does all the harm as HSR does nothing to relieve that. Once cars get onto free flwoing freeways their per km emissions drop off dramatically as opposed to the stop and start of urban commuting.

Many politicians love the idea of HSR because it makes for great ribbon cutting but little else and jobs robs the precious few funds from urban transit. Certainly maybe using the faster more modern trains and improving the rail corridor itself is a good use of funds but outside that it simply doesn't make sense from a financial or enviornmental point of view.

What I always find amusing is that the overwhelming majority of people who would use such a line would be Tor/Mon travellers. A new HSR rail corridor would take a less direct route to Ottawa and then have to make a stop..............tens of billions spent and getting from Montreal to Toronto will hardly be any faster than it is today.