Where Would You Put A TGV Line In Southern Ontario?

[dunkalunk]

Your plan is definitely a good one. Mine is pretty much the same, though I'd build a bypass around the north side (or I suppose potentially the south side) of Guelph while serving the city with a spur line. The corridor through Guelph is very constricted and you'd pretty much have to do mass demolition or extensive tunnelling to get through it. It might not be worth the cost, but that's a judgement call and would require a lot more study. Your route by the U of G is a very interesting one! I like how it would be closer to that major trip generator and how there's a relatively small urban area it would have to cross. The issues would surround the Speed River crossing and the golf course, all of which are pretty picturesque areas. I don't think you'd be able to get away with anything other than tunnelling, and that would also require a pricey underground station. Again, a judgement call, but the vast majority of Guelph trips (i.e. to points east) could be served just as well by some dedicated trains that spurred off the HSL just east of the city. People travelling west could just ride to Kitchener and transfer there.

The idea with the tunnel alignment through Guelph is that trains running through the tunnel would be on a through routing between Kitchener and Pearson, bypassing Guelph. The way that Guelph developed around the rail line is unusual in that it is actually possible to tunnel a bypass through the middle of a city. The length of the tunnel portion would only need to 3.5 km if the line were go underground around the junction to surface just after

Even with its proximity to UofG, I don't really see the necessity of an underground station there. I basically see all trains which stop at Guelph doing so at the existing VIA station.

And I do agree some sort of guelph bypass will need to be built, as Guelph is the main bottleneck on the entire north mainline, in particular, at Kent Street where you can see what people are watching on tv from a 3km/h VIA train.

For Georgetown and other cities, generally when you look at other high speed lines--there's a lot of detail available on the California HSR website--they tend to bypass smaller cities. It just seems like it's both cheaper and less disruptive than running right through them, even if it makes the route very slightly longer.

It's all up to study, but I have a desire to keep most rail service on one expanded line in order to increase the amount of schedule flexibility.

The M&O sub is a line that was bought by VIA years ago for high speed rail. I think its main advantage is that it's relatively straight, it's currently unused (unlike the Alexandria Sub, which is also owned by VIA), and it's slightly more direct.

You're probably right here, although I just went with what I knew from the VIAfast proposal. The M&O sub is hard to deciper on Google Maps imagery, and I would have no idea what soil conditions in what areas would be appropriate for running high speed service. The ghost town of Lemieux was abandoned just 2 years before there was a landslide that destoyed the town, and there are many other Leda Clay deposits in this area of Ontario.

I definitely agree that a bypass to the south of Ottawa could be desirable, depending on how many trains are not stopping and how much time is added by passing through the Ottawa station. I'm not convinced that an Ottawa Airport station is that useful. In Europe, they've generally found that stations at secondary airports are kind of moot. Cologne and Lyon airport stations, despite the latter's architectural achievements, are quite lightly used. If somebody's going to take the train to the plane, they'll just go to Roissy airport where there's far more choice and generally lower prices. Many of the flights at Ottawa airport are to Toronto and Montreal anyway. Then again, you might be right. It's certainly a subject for further study.

The bypass through the airport would be more direct and would be able to accomodate true high speed curves. The current rail bridge over the Rideau River is only 1 track, and would be difficult to engineer an expansion. Also, the sharp bend in the track by Hurdman would also slow down through travel significantly. There is already a market that exists for direct service between Toronto and Montreal as seen in airline, train, and highway travel.

I imagine the Ottawa Airport acting as an auxilary airport for Montreal's Dorval and vice-versa. With codesharing, it would be possible for this airport pair to serve a larger number destinations collectively. But again, this will be subject to a study in response to an Ontario-Quebec HSR report that was supposed to be finished a year ago but has not yet been released.

 

[unimaginative2]

The idea with the tunnel alignment through Guelph is that trains running through the tunnel would be on a through routing between Kitchener and Pearson, bypassing Guelph. The way that Guelph developed around the rail line is unusual in that it is actually possible to tunnel a bypass through the middle of a city. The length of the tunnel portion would only need to 3.5 km if the line were go underground around the junction to surface just after

Even with its proximity to UofG, I don't really see the necessity of an underground station there. I basically see all trains which stop at Guelph doing so at the existing VIA station.

Hmm...well I think the only benefit to building the bypass through the city would be to serve the city from the main line. If you're going to bypass the station anyway, you may as well just go around the city to allow you to maintain 300km/h and avoid expensive tunnelling. On the other hand, if you're building a station in the city, your route has a lot of potential. A stop near the golf course would effectively serve both downtown and the university.

It's all up to study, but I have a desire to keep most rail service on one expanded line in order to increase the amount of schedule flexibility.

Well I think it's very important that the high-speed trains have their own tracks. Those tracks can share a corridor with other trains, but mixing the trains doesn't make much sense. Leaving aside all the FRA regulations, there's no benefit to mixing regional trains with high-speed trains on the same tracks. For the high-speed tracks, there's no real point to running through a city when you can just run around it with no significant time lost. In fact, it can even speed a line up since it's very difficult to maintain 300 km/h through an urban area.

You're probably right here, although I just went with what I knew from the VIAfast proposal. The M&O sub is hard to deciper on Google Maps imagery, and I would have no idea what soil conditions in what areas would be appropriate for running high speed service. The ghost town of Lemieux was abandoned just 2 years before there was a landslide that destoyed the town, and there are many other Leda Clay deposits in this area of Ontario.

I'm going by the 1994 study as well, in this case. There are a lot of variables and both are good routes.

The bypass through the airport would be more direct and would be able to accomodate true high speed curves. The current rail bridge over the Rideau River is only 1 track, and would be difficult to engineer an expansion. Also, the sharp bend in the track by Hurdman would also slow down through travel significantly. There is already a market that exists for direct service between Toronto and Montreal as seen in airline, train, and highway travel.

I imagine the Ottawa Airport acting as an auxilary airport for Montreal's Dorval and vice-versa. With codesharing, it would be possible for this airport pair to serve a larger number destinations collectively. But again, this will be subject to a study in response to an Ontario-Quebec HSR report that was supposed to be finished a year ago but has not yet been released.

I had previously thought that the existing route through Ottawa would be adequate, since most trains would be stopping anyway, but I'm inclined to agree with you that a bypass would be valuable. It's not just Hurdman, as you mentioned. There's a curve in Barrhaven that would really cut speeds.

I'm not sure that Trudeau airport really needs a reliever. I can imagine Ottawa residents continuing to fly from Ottawa to various destinations, Ottawa residents travelling by train to Trudeau (and Pearson) to fly to destinations that aren't available from Ottawa airport, and Montreal residents flying from Trudeau. I can't imagine anyone from Montreal taking the train to Ottawa to catch a flight to some place already served from Trudeau, and they'd be the market that an Ottawa Airport station woul dserve.

 

[dunkalunk]

Hmm...well I think the only benefit to building the bypass through the city would be to serve the city from the main line. If you're going to bypass the station anyway, you may as well just go around the city to allow you to maintain 300km/h and avoid expensive tunnelling. On the other hand, if you're building a station in the city, your route has a lot of potential. A stop near the golf course would effectively serve both downtown and the university.

I originally thought that a full bypass of Guelph would be beneficial as well, but there are some issues with both a North and South Bypass.

With the north bypass you'll run into routing issues with existing development around the Guelph Lake Conservation area, in addition to routing the conservation area itself. And further east, you'll have issues with the ravines by the Eramosa River or the existing track curves at Rockwood and Acton.

A southern bypass of Guelph would work if we were seeking to create a 401 or cross-country routing, however, if the line were to reconnect with the Guelph Sub, it would increase the route's length significantly to bypass the urban (built-up) area.

Once property expropriation and additional distance are taken into account, it may not be that much more expensive to create a direct route via a tunnel.

Also, a station in the tunnel would only add to the cost of that tunnel, and make services more complicated. Guelph is in the process of renovating its rail station and consolidating its bus terminal to a location adjacent to the station site. Unless the tunnel were to run pretty much directly beneath the existing rail corridor, then there would be the need to rebuild the entire thing. You're either stuck with service at 2 railway stations, or are forced to relocate everything to the new one on the HSR line.

I know its just ballpark, but what is the typical cost per KM for a double bored tunnel through sand?

Well I think it's very important that the high-speed trains have their own tracks. Those tracks can share a corridor with other trains, but mixing the trains doesn't make much sense. Leaving aside all the FRA regulations, there's no benefit to mixing regional trains with high-speed trains on the same tracks. For the high-speed tracks, there's no real point to running through a city when you can just run around it with no significant time lost. In fact, it can even speed a line up since it's very difficult to maintain 300 km/h through an urban area.

The High Speed rail line would have its own tracks and in some cases run in the same corridor just as you said. However, you would still need to combat FRA/TC regulations whenever a high-speed train needed to use a siding to stop at a station. I agree that there are certain instances where it makes sense to bypass a town that is on a sharp bend in the track, but where a straight, continuous right-of-way already exists, it also makes sense to take advantage of it.

The regulations in Canada/United states are based off of practices that are 80 years old and designed to protect freight operators at any cost. They are also designed to require vehicles that will be salvageable at high-speed collisions instead of just preventing collisions in the first place through centralized train control. If the same kinds of standards existed for roads, noone would be able to afford to use them because vehicles would be too heavy and require 3 people per vehicle to operate under law.

I'm going by the 1994 study as well, in this case. There are a lot of variables and both are good routes.

Just to clarify, the 1994 study and VIAfast proposal were two different proposals, but they both included a new section of track between Kingston and Smiths Falls and were both route through Ottawa.

I had previously thought that the existing route through Ottawa would be adequate, since most trains would be stopping anyway, but I'm inclined to agree with you that a bypass would be valuable. It's not just Hurdman, as you mentioned. There's a curve in Barrhaven that would really cut speeds.

Yeah, I originally thought, "Hey, why not just widen the curve through Barrhaven and destroy 20 suburban homes?". But then I realized, I only had that sentiment because I have bad memories from there. Advice: never live in Barrhaven, exurban hell at its finest .

Besides, if the rail bypasses Barrhaven, you'd be able to connect up the two halves with some roads and connector trails, not that it would ever happen, because people in Barrhaven like to drive twice the distance they should have to to get somewhere. I summation there is nothing to do in Barrhaven except drive to the big box complex and drink in your basement. /rant

I'm not sure that Trudeau airport really needs a reliever. I can imagine Ottawa residents continuing to fly from Ottawa to various destinations, Ottawa residents travelling by train to Trudeau (and Pearson) to fly to destinations that aren't available from Ottawa airport, and Montreal residents flying from Trudeau. I can't imagine anyone from Montreal taking the train to Ottawa to catch a flight to some place already served from Trudeau, and they'd be the market that an Ottawa Airport station woul dserve.

I'm not so sure if Dorval needs a reliever either, but if the rail line is going through Ottawa airport lands, then it makes sense to have a station there.

From looking at satellite imagery, the Greenbelt-Airport routing was the northernmost route which would be able to accommodate high speed rail curves without effecting the existing built-up area. The only other option for a true High-Speed bypass would be south of Manotick, at which point, it would probably be more worth it to use the CP mainline ROW and duplicate infrastructure.