High-Speed Rail (HSR) - Toronto/Pearson/Kitchener/London

[tomh009]

Are significantly more people travelling to and from TOR to MTL vs TOR/GTA out west to KWC and London?

There is a good argument that Oshawa -- TOR -- KW -- Lon solves daily commuter issues and makes london toronto daily commute viable if under 1.5hrs

You would be unlikely to get GO-level frequency from high-speed rail, at least for many years. So, GO would provide frequency--and if the tracks/crossings are improved, also much-improved speed, as the GO MP54 engines are already capable of 180 km/h top speed.

[Bytor]

Are significantly more people travelling to and from TOR to MTL vs TOR/GTA out west to KWC and London?

Yes, the traffic numbers on the 401 should show that to you. Also, more passengers get on Via at either Toronto or Montréal heading towards the other than get on GO in Kitchener.

There is a good argument that Oshawa -- TOR -- KW -- Lon solves daily commuter issues and makes london toronto daily commute viable if under 1.5hrs

On track that does not have too much of an incline or is too curved to limit acceleration, it generally takes 20 km to get up to 320km/h, but can easily take farther as the tracks inside the city are often rebuilt legacy tracks and are too curvy. So even though the Wynne Liberals had promised a Guelph HSR stop, that distance won't really allow more than 110 mph service. Also, that's the longest inter-station distance on the GO Kitchener line, with several pairs being less than 5 km apart. So any thoughts of HSR commuter service on the Kitchener Line are just not possible. Indeed even if you assume perfectly linear tracks between all stations, the max speed between all station pairs from Mount Pleasant to Union is less than 100 km/h. Real HSR service would only be LON→KIT→TOR and nothing in between.

It's far more reasonable for the express train that skips everything between Mount Pleasant and Union to be a regular 110 mph service. LON→KIT would benefit from having the tracks reconditioned for 110 mph too so stops could be made in St. Mary's, Stratford, New Hamburg, Saint Pauls, and Thorndale.

Given that HSR is more expensive to operate, 200 mph HSR service LON→KIT→TOR is going to be a premium service compared to 110 mph express service, so not really a commuter thing. The GO train from Kitchener costs $20 one way, so an HSR train would be in the $40-60 range, probably.

[greybird]

Remember that HSR isn't only an alternative to cars, trains and buses, but also to air travel. That changes the calculus quite a bit as far as demand for a service to Montreal.

[KevinL]

Somewhat concerningly, the new contractor that was supposed to take over GO operations effective today, OnXpress Transportation Partners, has had the transition delayed until October 4. No clear reasoning seems to be available.

[plam]

Remember that HSR isn't only an alternative to cars, trains and buses, but also to air travel. That changes the calculus quite a bit as far as demand for a service to Montreal.

Air Canada, and to a lesser extent WestJet and Porter, provide so much service on the Montreal-Toronto corridor. I think it must be like 10 times more than what VIA Rail provides right now. I do fly that route sometimes, and would really prefer not to.

[bravado]

When it comes to infrastructure like this, it’s also important to think of where we want trips to be created instead of replacing/reinforcing existing trips. I think we could induce a lot better demand with some smart choices that aren’t based on existing demand from congested highways.

[tomh009]

Remember that HSR isn't only an alternative to cars, trains and buses, but also to air travel. That changes the calculus quite a bit as far as demand for a service to Montreal.

Air Canada, and to a lesser extent WestJet and Porter, provide so much service on the Montreal-Toronto corridor. I think it must be like 10 times more than what VIA Rail provides right now. I do fly that route sometimes, and would really prefer not to.

I counted 34 direct flights from YYZ and YTZ to YUL, probably 150 seats on average, so that's roughly 5000 seats of capacity per day.

[danbrotherston]

Air Canada, and to a lesser extent WestJet and Porter, provide so much service on the Montreal-Toronto corridor. I think it must be like 10 times more than what VIA Rail provides right now. I do fly that route sometimes, and would really prefer not to.

I counted 34 direct flights from YYZ and YTZ to YUL, probably 150 seats on average, so that's roughly 5000 seats of capacity per day.

I think that’s more but not nearly 10x (more like 1.5x-2x) what via rail can carry. 

That said I think 150 is a low estimate unless many of those flights are embrarer or dash8 planes. Even small 737s seat more and the larger variants can seat around 200.

Still, it would be interesting to see the breakdown of  mode share for that destination pair. I suspect driving is still dominant by an order of magnitude. There are also a lot of buses and those might also outnumber via.

[bravado]

There’s also just trips never taken… Toronto to Ottawa to Montreal might have many more potential trips that never happen because driving, flying, and taking the existing train is too annoying or costly.

If only local leadership could see the gains from growth instead of focusing on just managing what we have today…

[tomh009]

I counted 34 direct flights from YYZ and YTZ to YUL, probably 150 seats on average, so that's roughly 5000 seats of capacity per day.

I think that’s more but not nearly 10x (more like 1.5x-2x) what via rail can carry. 

That said I think 150 is a low estimate unless many of those flights are embrarer or dash8 planes. Even small 737s seat more and the larger variants can seat around 200.

Embraers and Q400s, lots of A220-300s, a few A319s, some 737-8s, and I saw one A321 and one A330. I would guess an average seat count of somewhere close to 150.

[danbrotherston]

I think that’s more but not nearly 10x (more like 1.5x-2x) what via rail can carry. 

That said I think 150 is a low estimate unless many of those flights are embrarer or dash8 planes. Even small 737s seat more and the larger variants can seat around 200.

Embraers and Q400s, lots of A220-300s, a few A319s, some 737-8s, and I saw one A321 and one A330. I would guess an average seat count of somewhere close to 150.

Fair enough, to me it’s kinda crazy to be flying such small aircraft on such a high demand route. But I’m not an airline CEO so they must have a good reason.  But this is why the claims of Pearson being full seem so silly. You could create 18 new runway slots simply by flying larger aircraft on two destinations.

[tomh009]

Embraers and Q400s, lots of A220-300s, a few A319s, some 737-8s, and I saw one A321 and one A330. I would guess an average seat count of somewhere close to 150.

Fair enough, to me it’s kinda crazy to be flying such small aircraft on such a high demand route. But I’m not an airline CEO so they must have a good reason.  But this is why the claims of Pearson being full seem so silly. You could create 18 new runway slots simply by flying larger aircraft on two destinations.

Passengers like frequency. Just like on GO trains. 😊 The A220s do have very good fuel efficiency, A319s not so much. 737-8 should be good, too. Embraers, A321 and A330 use older engine tech so not as good.

[danbrotherston]

Fair enough, to me it’s kinda crazy to be flying such small aircraft on such a high demand route. But I’m not an airline CEO so they must have a good reason.  But this is why the claims of Pearson being full seem so silly. You could create 18 new runway slots simply by flying larger aircraft on two destinations.

Passengers like frequency. Just like on GO trains. 😊 The A220s do have very good fuel efficiency, A319s not so much. 737-8 should be good, too. Embraers, A321 and A330 use older engine tech so not as good.

Yeah but that’s a lot of frequency for a multi-day trip. I don’t think it’s worth building a billion dollar airport to avoid going from a 60 to a 90 minute frequency off peak.

In any case, we should have a high speed train and then free up all 34 landing slots.

[tomh009]

In any case, we should have a high speed train and then free up all 34 landing slots.

Absolute yes to building a faster train (whatever speed).

Realistically even a non-stop maglev wouldn't eliminate all the air travel, though. People doing a flight connection in YYZ or YUL would still fly (switching between the two modes not so easy or quick) and for some people getting to the airport is much easier than reaching Union Station. But it would certainly be a significant positive impact.

[danbrotherston]

In any case, we should have a high speed train and then free up all 34 landing slots.

Absolute yes to building a faster train (whatever speed).

Realistically even a non-stop maglev wouldn't eliminate all the air travel, though. People doing a flight connection in YYZ or YUL would still fly (switching between the two modes not so easy or quick) and for some people getting to the airport is much easier than reaching Union Station. But it would certainly be a significant positive impact.

So you’ve used a vaguely passive sentence here. A quality fast transit connection wouldn’t by itself kill off flights in our current regulatory framework. But it would eliminate the practical need (any connecting air passengers can use the train connection) and if we really cared we could change the regulatory framework to encourage or enforce this.

And of course plenty of people will scream bloody murder about this idea. It’s a complete nonstarter in today’s political climate. But todays political climate is one where not only does HSR not exist but it practically cannot exist. We are speaking in hypotheticals here. In some of the places where HSR of this form does exist they have indeed eliminated competing flights through regulation.