Where Would You Put A TGV Line In Southern Ontario?

[Dan416]

The main problem that I see arising with locating the main station adjacent to the Pearson terminal is the additional traffic congestion caused by drivers and GO buses needing to go out of their way enter the terminal area in order to park or drop off passengers. Terminal 1 is a bit out of the way for many potential passengers, and was one of the reasons the Square One-Pearson GO service was discontinued.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean here. I admit I didn't follow through the whole thread or even the whole post but this doesn't make sense to me.

Terminal 1 is the MAIN terminal at Pearson. How many passengers are there NOT using Terminal 1? Terminal 3 is just a quick LINK train away anyway.

 

[dunkalunk]

​

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean here. I admit I didn't follow through the whole thread or even the whole post but this doesn't make sense to me.

Terminal 1 is the MAIN terminal at Pearson. How many passengers are there NOT using Terminal 1? Terminal 3 is just a quick LINK train away anyway.

Long story short, not all passengers getting off at a Pearson Station would be flying out of Pearson.

Let me clairify, Pearson station would not just serve as an airport station, it would also act as a the High Speed Rail mobility hub for the entire north-central and western part of the GTA including places like Barrie and Richmond Hill. A station at the terminal would make sense if the majority of passengers getting off there would be transferring to an airplane, but if they are not, the transfer point is too far out of the way for the average transit user.

This situation is what I was referring to when I was talking about the cancellation of GO bus service between Pearson and Square One. Because Pearson is out of the way, not many people were using it.

Conversely, 401 GO buses (Or Mississauga busway buses) Would likely be stopping at Renforth anyways, so it would make sense to have a free transfer to an airport rapid transit line.



In addition to the lengthy transfer, people who would drive or get a ride to this HSR station would be funnelled into the existing airport ring road system, which is already busy enough with airport-related traffic. For those taking advantage of the long-term parking at Viscount, they would be required to transfer to the people anyways and travel 2 stops to reach the station proper.

A good model for Toronto Pearson to investigate as far as a connection to a HSR line would be the AirTrain Newark (Wiki) (Official), except Pearson's line would be double-terminaled at Malton and Renforth. Both airports handle roughly the same number of passengers annually.

@unimaginitive2, any nitpicks with me?

 

[dunkalunk]

This.

 

[reaperexpress]

There is also the cost factor of building a completely new electrified through heavy rail corridor through this area due to the number of grade separations that would be needed and properties acquired to maintain high-speed service along the branch. To contrast, the existing Georgetown line is almost dead straight and would only need slight curve adjustments.

I assume that all trains would be slowing down to stop at Pearson, so there is no need for high speed design. It would be a regional rail line, regardless of whether it's used by HSR.

A new through rail corridor to Pearson would also make the new Air-Rail spur completely obsolete, as the new through route would be more direct and faster. Although, now that I think about it, much of the spur could be re-used in an Eglinton LRT/Finch LRT connection.

Yeah, it would make the ARL spur obsolete, but that spur is slow, indirect, and low capacity anyway.

I'd say that Hamilton-Toronto and Kitchener-Toronto are both equally important potential high-speed corridors, but as far as a mainline goes I think the northern route beats it out. Hamilton's population centre would be a detour away from the mainline while KW's is not. Waterloo Region's population has just passed London's and is set to meet or pass Hamilton's. There are also less issues with crossing the escarpment with a northern route. Although, being from Waterloo Region, I could be a bit biased.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that neither corridor is a great candidate for HSR because most trips will be fairly short:

Hamilton-Toronto corridor to London: 120-180km
K-W to Toronto Union: 100km
K-W to Pearson: 80km
K-W to London: 80km
K-W to Guelph: 20km

I think HSR is more suited to trips to and from far away cities such as Windsor, London, Kingston and Montreal.

I expect the south route to have a fairly significant time advantage, though the north route does have Pearson Airport, which is a huge asset.

High-Speed rail corridors would still be capable of running local service. The Guelph Subdivision does not see all that much freight traffic and could definitely handle more passenger trains with double-tracking strategically in the short term and triple-tracking when HSR is built.

It's not as easy as it sounds. High speed trains need to be able to pass regional trains. Triple tracking would do this, but would require HSTs to switch tracks frequently, slowing down the "high speed" trains. For the segment shared with local traffic, the south route enough room for a proper quad-track layout with 200km/h express tracks for VIA, Amtrak and GO Express trains.

 

[dunkalunk]

I assume that all trains would be slowing down to stop at Pearson, so there is no need for high speed design. It would be a regional rail line, regardless of whether it's used by HSR.

Yeah, it would make the ARL spur obsolete, but that spur is slow, indirect, and low capacity anyway.

Off topic rebuttal: Why bother building the airport rail spur in the first place?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that neither corridor is a great candidate for HSR because most trips will be fairly short:

Hamilton-Toronto corridor to London: 120-180km
K-W to Toronto Union: 100km
K-W to Pearson: 80km
K-W to London: 80km
K-W to Guelph: 20km

I think HSR is more suited to trips to and from far away cities such as Windsor, London, Kingston and Montreal.

I expect the south route to have a fairly significant time advantage, though the north route does have Pearson Airport, which is a huge asset.

One of my main reasons for supporting the northern route over the was the increased population or the northern corridor. In 20 years, Waterloo-Wellington is expected to balloon to about one million people. Those kind of numbers, and Waterloo Region's status as a centre for innovation and knowledge would necessitate a better kind of rail connection and express service to both Pearson and Toronto. Although I have to admit, this is just a preference, and I am probably susceptible to regional bias. On the other hand, the most recent public report in 1994 on a full high speed rail line called for the route to go through Waterloo Region, so that should say a bit there.

It's not as easy as it sounds. High speed trains need to be able to pass regional trains. Triple tracking would do this, but would require HSTs to switch tracks frequently, slowing down the "high speed" trains. For the segment shared with local traffic, the south route enough room for a proper quad-track layout with 200km/h express tracks for VIA, Amtrak and GO Express trains.

The only real choke points on the existing northern mainline is through downtown Guelph and Brampton. Of course, it is always possible to bypass the existing line via the 407 corridor. Apart from that, most of the Guelph Subdivision is dead straight, and has the room to accommodate quad-tracking if necessary, even through Downtown Kitchener. I believe the new station at Victoria and King in Kitchener is going to be designed with HSR in mind and will be built to accommodate 4 tracks through it, in addition to the adjacent King Street overpass.

 

[reaperexpress]

Off topic rebuttal: Why bother building the airport rail spur in the first place?

The spur is already designed and ready to go, and although it is poorly designed it will still be at least 10 years before any replacement is built. It will be useful in the meantime.

One of my main reasons for supporting the northern route over the was the increased population or the northern corridor. In 20 years, Waterloo-Wellington is expected to balloon to about one million people. Those kind of numbers, and Waterloo Region's status as a centre for innovation and knowledge would necessitate a better kind of rail connection and express service to both Pearson and Toronto. Although I have to admit, this is just a preference, and I am probably susceptible to regional bias. On the other hand, the most recent public report in 1994 on a full high speed rail line called for the route to go through Waterloo Region, so that should say a bit there.

From Waterloo to Pearson or Toronto, there is no difference between HSR and an upgraded intercity rail service, because there is no opportunity for speeds over 200km/h. Most electric passenger locomotives are capable of 200km/h, so if we electrify the corridor we'd get the same results anyway.

The only real choke points on the existing northern mainline is through downtown Guelph and Brampton. Of course, it is always possible to bypass the existing line via the 407 corridor. Apart from that, most of the Guelph Subdivision is dead straight, and has the room to accommodate quad-tracking if necessary, even through Downtown Kitchener. I believe the new station at Victoria and King in Kitchener is going to be designed with HSR in mind and will be built to accommodate 4 tracks through it, in addition to the adjacent King Street overpass.

Brampton and Guelph are precisely my concern. I guess the 407 is a potential alternative, but that drives up costs again.

 

[Electrify]

I was on the VIA train coming back from Montreal today, and using the GPS app on my phone I could see that we were generally cruising between 155 and 165 km/h. At one point, it even recorded a top speed of 180 km/h, but I am thinking that was a false reading.

 

[dunkalunk]

The spur is already designed and ready to go, and although it is poorly designed it will still be at least 10 years before any replacement is built. It will be useful in the meantime.

My point was why bother building something just to replace it in 10-20 years? Or more precisely, what's the point of abandoning a peice of infrastucture that was only used for 10 years? There is a market for an air-rail spur in both local and express configurations, otherwise they wouldn't be building it. If they weren't building it, I'd be less opposed to relocating the Georgetown Line to run through the airport, but they are and its best to get as much out of built infrastructure as we can.

Also, who is to say that the demand for airports is going to increase in the next 20 years? I have yet to read the full report, but my guess is that the projections don't take the effects of peak oil on air travel into effect and assume minimal intercity rail improvements over the next 50 years. If anything, demand for air travel will stabilize if not decrease, even with population growth (Unless of course algal biodiesel in combination with advanced photovoltaics, and breeder reactors is the magic pill we've all been hoping for).

There is also no reason to assume that all trains would need to stop at Pearson, various permutations of stops can exist along the same corridor with effective scheduling. Remember it is a high speed rail corridor, not all stops would need to be fixed into the system, but could be put anywhere. Think about it like an expressway, just because there is an exit every 10km, doesn't mean you need to get off every 10 km. Some vehicles will travel the entire length and never stop, others will only make short trips.

The high-speed dedicated nature of this corridor makes all of these kinds of trips possible on the same corridor as long as passing tracks and sidings for stations are built and there is effective scheduling.

From Waterloo to Pearson or Toronto, there is no difference between HSR and an upgraded intercity rail service, because there is no opportunity for speeds over 200km/h. Most electric passenger locomotives are capable of 200km/h, so if we electrify the corridor we'd get the same results anyway.

There is no reason why some of the curves couldn't be widened and express services run. I'm not too sure about how fast trains can accelerate, but I'm sure there are sections outside of Guelph on the existing alignment and on diversions that would be able to handle service much faster than 200km/h.

Brampton and Guelph are precisely my concern. I guess the 407 is a potential alternative, but that drives up costs again.

Agreed. A 407/401 routing is not ideal.

 

[unimaginative2]

Okay! Comments:


I admit to the same bias as dunkalunk, but I do think that Kitchener-Waterloo has enormous potential as a high-speed rail destination. A lot of people claim that it really only works on longer trips, but many of the busiest and most lucrative high-speed routes in Europe are basically commuter routes. There are a lot of potential routes like that in Ontario.

It is absolutely essential that the high-speed railway have its own dedicated pair of tracks. There's absolutely no point in trying to have it share with regional trains or other trains. It will just drive up your costs and drive down your capacity and reliability for both in the long run. Sure, run them in parallel for as long as you want, but they need to be run separately. If we're going to build high-speed rail, it should be 300 km/h. Why build it half-assed? Our tracks are basically a write-off as it is and they would have to be rebuilt from scratch anyway.

There is also no reason to assume that all trains would need to stop at Pearson, various permutations of stops can exist along the same corridor with effective scheduling. Remember it is a high speed rail corridor, not all stops would need to be fixed into the system, but could be put anywhere. Think about it like an expressway, just because there is an exit every 10km, doesn't mean you need to get off every 10 km. Some vehicles will travel the entire length and never stop, others will only make short trips.

The high-speed dedicated nature of this corridor makes all of these kinds of trips possible on the same corridor as long as passing tracks and sidings for stations are built and there is effective scheduling.

Very, very good observation.

As for Pearson, I think there's a strong case to be made for both a station connected by a people mover and a station right at the terminal. Dunkalunk really seems to see the potential to create a hub for that whole part of the GTA. We're not familiar with hub-and-spoke transit that much in Toronto where everything's on a grid, but it's used a lot and very successfully in other places. Pearson could be a hub for Brampton, Mississauga, and Oakville. It would connect to Etobicoke by the Eglinton rapid transit and buses, to Mississauga centre perhaps by a busway or people mover, and to Brampton by the regional rail line. It has a lot of potential particularly since it's already such a huge destination. Malton station, by contrast, is pretty much in the middle of nowhere. It would just be an interchange for the sake of an interchange, and those tend to work less well. A people mover connection also has proven to dramatically reduce transfers between rail and air. That has been seen clearly in Europe, and it's why they're going to such lengths to build underground stations right at the terminals all over the continent. On the other hand, dunkalunk is right that it would add to existing congestion in the airport and would be difficult for buses to get to. Obviously parking would be much more expensive for rail passengers. It's definitely not an easy call either way.

The Pearson station wouldn't have to be built to high-speed standards because any non-stopping trains would just continue on a high-speed line in the existing corridor.

Bypassing Guelph wouldn't be difficult at all. Just swing around a bit to the north and you're fine. The 1994 study proposed a big bypass of London swinging around the south, though I wouldn't support that as I think London should have a downtown station. Believe it or not, the people carrying out the study at the time met with officials from the City of London who told them that they believed downtown was "inappropriate" for a high-speed rail station. Brampton's a little more challenging, but I think that a line could be pushed through the city quite feasibly. Look at what they're doing through any number of cities in the California High Speed Rail project. A station stop there is more up for question. I'd argue that it doesn't make much sense, since the city is quite decentralized and any area of the city would only be 15 minutes or so from a Pearson Hub station by regional rail.

It would make more sense to get the freights away from that corridor and onto a new route, potentially along Highway 407, since they're much more tolerant of that corridor's curves.

 

[dunkalunk]

My idea is not to actually create a hub at Pearson, but to decentralize that hub. When I said "mobility hub", I was actually referring to something that Metrolinx coined to describe a location where two or more higher-order transit lines meet (although Pearson does and will continue to act as a hub where various transit agencies' routes converge for the foreseeable future). See here for more information about what a mobility hub is. (Not exactly sure why they have a post-makeover picture of Downtown Kitchener here, but eh.)

A network of mobility hubs is more akin to a lattice than a hub and spoke-style system, and I would much rather have a grid of routes than be forced to transfer at some arbitrary point. And if I do have to transfer at an arbitrary point, at least I'd like the route to be direct. To me, Pearson is just as much of an arbitrary point as Malton.

The idea was to decentralize the Pearson node to Renforth and Malton gateway stations in order to improve overall network resiliency and decrease unnecessary run time on vehicles.

If you make the visual style of the twin gateway hubs at Malton and Renforth very similar to that of Pearson's Terminal 1, include baggage-checking and wayfinding services, put some airport staff in there, and buy trains with level boarding that makes it very easy to roll luggage on and off the platform at Malton, you can probably trick a lot of people into thinking that they have entered the Airport when they actually haven't. Disney does a lot of this type of thing when they design their queues, they make waiting in line part of the entertainment. You may think I'm a bit out to lunch here, but this actually is in reference to something.

Now I'm not saying we should turn the people mover into an amusement park ride (even though that would be totally awesome ), but when the alternative to arriving at Pearson is driving on a semi-congested freeway, or getting on a GO bus, it's prudent to put in that little bit extra into a people mover to make it a better passenger and customer experience.

Remember, the Air-Rail link would still exist for trips inbound/outbound from Toronto Union, and with a potential for frequent service on this route (both express and local), it would still be well used, even if it would require a transfer at Union for some.


I guess in the end, my main opposition to running a HSR line through the airport to Terminal 1 is the cost;

The western leg is straightforward enough, as it is pretty much a straight jog across airport grounds to Terminal 1 with one grade crossing. However, connecting the eastern leg back to the Georgetown Corridor would be a challenge to engineer with the hydro corridor, Mimico Creek, 2 highway crossings, and a birdsnest of highway ramps coming off the 409. I just don't see the point of spending that much money on something when a reasonable alternative is feasible at 1/6th the cost, and when a through route would make a previous Union-Pearson link solution obsolete.

 

[reaperexpress]

I admit to the same bias as dunkalunk, but I do think that Kitchener-Waterloo has enormous potential as a high-speed rail destination. A lot of people claim that it really only works on longer trips, but many of the busiest and most lucrative high-speed routes in Europe are basically commuter routes. There are a lot of potential routes like that in Ontario.

By the way, I'm subject to that bias too, but I likely won't be living in Waterloo by the time anything notable gets built.

It is absolutely essential that the high-speed railway have its own dedicated pair of tracks. There's absolutely no point in trying to have it share with regional trains or other trains. It will just drive up your costs and drive down your capacity and reliability for both in the long run. Sure, run them in parallel for as long as you want, but they need to be run separately. If we're going to build high-speed rail, it should be 300 km/h. Why build it half-assed? Our tracks are basically a write-off as it is and they would have to be rebuilt from scratch anyway.

Although the physical rails are not suitable for high speeds, southern Ontario is blessed with some excellent rail alignments as dunkalunk and I have pointed out. The Oakville Subdivision, Grimsby Subdivision and parts of the Guelph and Weston Subdivisions are remarkably straight. With some curve realignment and grade separation, they could easily permit speeds in excess of 200km/h. It's easy to demand 300km/h service, but the fact is that we're not going to build a totally new ROW through large built up areas.

High speed trains have to share corridors with regional, commuter and intercity trains in the GTA. I'm arguing that a high speed train is not fundamentally different from an electric intercity train. Obviously HSR shouldn't share tracks with commuter trains stopping every few kilometers, but there's no point in separating the HSR from the Via and Amtrak trains using the corridor, since they would only be marginally slower.

Bypassing Guelph wouldn't be difficult at all. Just swing around a bit to the north and you're fine. The 1994 study proposed a big bypass of London swinging around the south, though I wouldn't support that as I think London should have a downtown station. Believe it or not, the people carrying out the study at the time met with officials from the City of London who told them that they believed downtown was "inappropriate" for a high-speed rail station. Brampton's a little more challenging, but I think that a line could be pushed through the city quite feasibly. Look at what they're doing through any number of cities in the California High Speed Rail project. A station stop there is more up for question. I'd argue that it doesn't make much sense, since the city is quite decentralized and any area of the city would only be 15 minutes or so from a Pearson Hub station by regional rail.

What I love about the idea of having frequent regional rail to the cities in the corridor is that it would create a lively transportation hub in their downtowns. Increasing service to downtown London and Guelph, would really make their downtowns more lively and vibrant. Downtown London currently looks like downtown Toronto 15 years ago: parking lots everywhere. Or as anyone on the skyscraper threads would say: tons of potential!

I'm just worried that bypassing Guelph, Brampton and the other cities would reduce the importance of their rail stations, encouraging more decentralized sprawl. I would prefer dense centralized growth to occur in all the cities in the corridor, rather than the creation a massive Waterloo Region blob, partly because it makes it a lot easier for people to access the rail lines.

In other words, I'd rather we copied the Rhine-Ruhr region or the Netherlands, rather than copying California.

 

[dunkalunk]

No reason why we can't have your cake and eat it too. On the US' Northeast corridor, they are capable of running Local, Regional, Commuter, Express, and Limited services all on the same sets of tracks.

 

[unimaginative2]

Yeah, but that's not real high speed. It's slow, unreliable, infrequent and generally problematic. That's why they're talking about spending $100 billion to build a dedicated corridor. The California example (as well as some European ones) shows that you can build high speed tracks in the same corridor as regular trains, but they must be separately operated.

I completely agree with reaperexpress' points about downtowns. That's why I'm not wild about the typical Waterloo Region solution of placating everybody, including Cambridge, by putting the station down by Sportsworld. Building the London station on a bypass halfway to St. Thomas is insane.

I agree that we should serve Guelph and other Southwestern Ontario cities on the French model: their own dedicated trains to Toronto. Brampton is well-served by any station at or near Pearson.

 

[unimaginative2]

In keeping with what others have done, I'll post my own ideas. I've thought about this a lot, but I still don't quite have it all decided definitely in my mind.

• The line would start at a new station near the CP rail tunnel, as close to Wyandotte as possible. An extension into Detroit would be possible, though it would presumably require an FRA exemption and electrification, though the latter could perhaps be avoided it if were locomotive hauled. It wouldn't be very difficult to do to a restored Michigan Central Station (I wish!) but it would be a longer haul up to the Amshack in New Centre. Despite being two huge cities within a reasonable driving distance, the market between Toronto and Detroit isn't huge. It might still be worthwhile as a lot of people from places like London travel to Detroit and as an economic development measure for Detroit.
• As proposed in the 1994 study, the high-speed line would take over the existing CP corridor with freights shifted to the CASO from London through St. Thomas. Chatham could potentially get a station, either right downtown or on a bypass, to Chatham's preference. The London station would be in the centre of the city at the existing VIA site that's well-located, spacious, and has good intermodal connections. A corridor for a bypass around the south of the city would be protected in case the line were ever extended west to Chicago and non-stop services were required.
• From London, the line would follow a new corridor, cross-country to Kitchener, where a station would be located on the proposed new site at King and Victoria where the Korean grocery/Tin Roof donuts used to be. Connections would be available to regional trains and trains to Stratford. The latter could even be served by direct trains, if demand warranted, though track upgrades and electrification.
• The line would continue east along the Guelph Sub before swinging north to bypass Guelph. Trains serving Guelph would divert to the existing, upgraded route. The high-speed line would then roughly follow the existing rail corridor east to Brampton, with a bypass of Georgetown. CN's main freight line would be shifted into the 407 corridor. A station in Brampton is optional, since the Pearson station would serve as a hub for that part of the GTA.
• All trains stopping at Pearson would divert into a new station shared with regional trains adjacent to T1. There, they would connect to rapid transit services to Mississauga, regional trains to Brampton, buses, and the Eglinton line. I recognize the potential congestion issues but I think the benefit to the tens of thousands of people destined for the airport outweigh any costs. It would also be difficult to persuade airlines to give up their regional services and code-share on trains if the rail connection required a cumbersome people mover ride. I'm open to be persuaded of the benefits of the people mover connection, but I feel like the decentralized hub approach is common in Toronto and its unnecessary connections really add to travel times. If we were in Europe, we'd already have a people mover/rapid transit/monorail/something to Mississauga City Centre from the airport.
• The Weston corridor will be preposterously wide, which is good for us since it means 2 tracks can be rebuilt and re-purposed for high-speed rail. A pair of tracks is more than sufficient for regional trains. Look at how much they cram through the RER, various S-Bahns, Tokyo-area rail lines, etc. Toronto's station would be at Union.
• East of Toronto, the line would follow the 1994 study recommended route. A station at Pickering or Oshawa is a possibility. I'd also include a parkway station between Port Hope and Cobourg, as it would have real potential to attract large numbers of commuters. At Cobourg, the line would shift to an alignment around 10km north of the 401. That does cause some issues at Kingston, where the station would be a bit distant from the city. Then again, the current station is hardly right downtown. Express buses should cover the distance quite quickly.
• East of Kingston, the line would follow a roughly straight line north-east to Smith's Falls. From there, it would follow the existing VIA-owned corridor to Ottawa. The Ottawa station is a tough one. I'd love nothing more than to revive the wonderful old station that's now the Government Convention Centre. It would be quite an ambitious project, though, and would have to be done almost entirely with a tunnelled loop. The existing VIA station is also a beautiful building and it will be connected to downtown by the new rapid transit line. That's probably a reasonable compromise.
• East of Ottawa, it would follow the old M&O line that's now owned by VIA. A by-pass of Hudson would apparently be needed and I'd want to try to build a dedicated high-speed corridor as far into Montreal as possible. Trains stopping at Trudeau airport would divert into the existing station cavern at the terminal building. The Montreal terminal would be Central Station. Its approach tracks would have to be rebuilt a bit to get speeds up. VIA trains really crawl through Griffintown.
• Trains continuing east would pass through the Mount Royal tunnel before shifting over to the CP corridor either from underground near station (as the AMT proposes) or further north in Saint-Laurent, a route that might shockingly cost the destruction of a Home Depot. A station in Laval could be built either at the 1994 recommended site, near the 440 and Boulevard des Laurentides, or at the Concorde metro station, which I prefer. The latter still has decent highway access, though it would obviously sacrifice a bit of the parking.
• Either way, the line would swing east and roughly follow the old CP north shore corridor, although leaving it frequently to straighten out curves. A by-pass of Trois-Rivières to the north would be built, while stopping services would use the lovely old CP station.
• Finally, the line would terminate at the Gare du Palais in Quebec City. No airport station is required since the city isn't that big, Palais is very accessible, and most people going to the airport would be travelling on routes served by the train anyway.

The line would be built to 300+ km/h standards and would aim to replace air services as much as possible in the corridor. Air Canada and other airlines would be asked to participate and code-share on routes within the corridor. That's why the good and direct connections at Trudeau and Pearson are very important.

The routes themselves would follow roughly the French model with a bit borrowed from Japan. As many points as possible would get non-stop or near-non-stop trains to the major centres. Stopping services, potentially on slightly less expensive rolling stock, would be included between Kingston and Toronto to serve destinations like Oshawa, Northumberland and Quinte.

Good connections would be available to the routes that Enviro discussed while the Toronto-Niagara corridor would be electrified and upgraded for 200 km/h operation if possible to allow high speed trains from the east to continue onto it.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

 

[Dan416]

Is there a map for that?