News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.1K     0 

Changes nothing. Take up your definition on how CMAs are defined with Stats Can. It's no different than why Oshawa is not part of the GTA, for example.
Hey, I'm not the one using CMA's to defend anything. I'm just pointing out the problem with using the Quebec CMA, which is much larger in area than the adjacent Hamilton/KW one combined, with far less people.

And that there's nothing nearby to the east.
 
Just happens to magically connect the first (Toronto), second (Montreal), fourth (Ottawa-Gatineau) and seventh (Quebec City) largest Census Metropolitan Areas in the country. And as per the 2021 census, Quebec city is larger than every Ontario CMA West of Toronto.

Where you guys come up with this nonsense is beyond me.

I wonder what cities(not CMA) in ON are larger than QC
Mississauga,
Brampton,
Hamilton.
In CMAs,sure....

If we really want to say this is nation building....then the next phases shouldn't be in ON, as going off CMAs or city populations, the largest cities that are close would be in AB. And there is even a basic idea.

So, no, this is not about connecting the largest cities. But when you focus your view on the area in the country with the highest population you get blinded by other areas that want it too, and deserve it equally.
 
I have a hard time believing that Peterborough is so politically important to either the federal or provincial government that HSR must go through it. If it was that important, VIA would still be funded to run there and/or GO would service it.

It strikes me that the routing through Peterborough is an outfall from the original HFR project utilizing the abandoned ROW. It will likely need a lot of alteration for the high speeds but I think a good portion of it will remain useable. I also suspect that a lot of the adjacent land in the Kaladar-Sharbot Lake area is Crown owned. Jumping on existing CN or CPKC rights-of-way muddies ownership and assumes the alignments are suitable for the higher speeds. Pretty much any other southern Ontario route would mostly certainly have be on 100% expropriated land.

Peterborough is fortunate that a) it sits on a little used rail line that is suitable for HSR and b) it has a history of political advocacy towards being on a passenger train. It doesn't really contribute many seats to either provincial or federal representation, so really isn't a prize for the politics to go after.... but it is a "noise factor" - whereas Kingston for instance has no more seats, and possibly greater economic leverage.... but has been so well served by VIA that there isn't the same organized advocacy. (Until recently - it seems some pols in Kingston have finally woken up to the fact that Alto not only means they are being bypassed but their existing service is at risk).

We can trade statistics all day about population, economy, etc and whether City A is a better choice for routing than City B - but that's largely an academic discussion. No politician is going to step into a divisive winners-and-losers debate between cities on two alternate routes. The choice is largely determined by the availability of those former rail lines, and the only real routing debate west of Ottawa is how to bridge the curvy segments of the Peterborough route that aren't amenable to HSR.

I don't see how the economic and population figures for either Peterborough or Kingston move the needle for the HSR business case. What they need more is really good regional rail connections. Putting Peterborough on the HSR map is just an expedient as the train will be going there anyways and there has been a low-level political issue brewing for decades - low hanging fruit.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

some food for thought about HSR from Adam something.
basically, the difference of like 20kph is like 4 minutes.
The swiss intentionally slow trains so they can speed up to make up delays.
Maybe instead of targeting 300 you target 250 so you can make the time up if youre late?

We have more ground to cover than postage stamp sized European countries. Let's assume that 400 out of the 600 km Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal is running at full speed. The difference between 250 kph and 300 kph is 16 min. That's not insignificant to whether the HSR will be competitive with air travel door-to-door (which is the ultimate goal).

Also, they are designing for 300 kph and running at 250 kph. This gives them buffer. You start talking about "targeting" 250 kph and we'll get a design speed of 250 kph and end up running at 200 kph.

Lastly, costs don't linearly scale with speed when starting from scratch. There's a big step change at 201 kph because full segregation and grade separation is necessary beyond that speed. But the marginal cost of going from 250 kph to 300 kph or even 350 kph isn't likely to be higher than the gain in speed (relatively speaking).
 
Peterborough is fortunate that a) it sits on a little used rail line that is suitable for HSR and b) it has a history of political advocacy towards being on a passenger train. It doesn't really contribute many seats to either provincial or federal representation, so really isn't a prize for the politics to go after.... but it is a "noise factor" - whereas Kingston for instance has no more seats, and possibly greater economic leverage.... but has been so well served by VIA that there isn't the same organized advocacy. (Until recently - it seems some pols in Kingston have finally woken up to the fact that Alto not only means they are being bypassed but their existing service is at risk).

We can trade statistics all day about population, economy, etc and whether City A is a better choice for routing than City B - but that's largely an academic discussion. No politician is going to step into a divisive winners-and-losers debate between cities on two alternate routes. The choice is largely determined by the availability of those former rail lines, and the only real routing debate west of Ottawa is how to bridge the curvy segments of the Peterborough route that aren't amenable to HSR.

I don't see how the economic and population figures for either Peterborough or Kingston move the needle for the HSR business case. What they need more is really good regional rail connections. Putting Peterborough on the HSR map is just an expedient as the train will be going there anyways and there has been a low-level political issue brewing for decades - low hanging fruit.

- Paul

The only reason Peterborough is getting service is because it is en route to Ottawa and there's no practical way to convert the Lakeshore corridors to HSR. It's simple as that. If Peterborough were 50 km North or South from where it is, they probably wouldn't be getting service.
 
Moving the tracks will involve rebuilding all of that structure underneath them.

I missed this piece and was only thinking of electrification restrictions. Yes, changing where the trains run would obviously have a significant impact on support requirements.
 
You must not know what a CMA is, when you list Mississauga and Brampton. Or you're being intentionally misleading. Can never tell with you.

This is why you get blocked.

Educate yourself:

I do, and notice how I said City and in brackets I said not CMA? Both are different. The CMA usually covers more than one city. However, unless that CMAis well connected, CMAs don't mean much with transit. For a good example, lets take QC and their CMA vs Toronto's CMA.One of those are much easier to not need a car to get to their future ALTO Station.
 
I'm just pointing out the problem with using the Quebec CMA, which is much larger in area than the adjacent Hamilton/KW one combined, with far less people.

It's not a "problem" unless you insist on making it one. Namely in this case you don't like how Stats Can has a larger area for the CMA of Quebec City. But if you know anything about how they define CMAs, you know it's based on the activity between those communities. That's why Toronto's CMA is over 5900 km2.
 
This is straying into questions that we don’t need to worry about for a long time, but what do you guys think? How could HSR in SWO coexist or work around GO and freight?

I won't repeat all that has been discussed here before - but you might read up on the Collenette report, not because it's spectacular but because it's the most recent discussion of HSR west of Toronto.

Collenette did propose various HSR routings west from Toronto. Mostly what he achieved was
- sticker shock for government
- NIMBY reaction from communities that might have been affected
- YIMBY reaction from communities that were left off the map.

The sticker shock is largely because punching a HSR route through the fairly dense urban fabrics of Southern Ontario will mean buying a lot of land that is already heavily developed. Punching routes into cities along the way is political dynamite, even if people want HSR. There isn't the kind of political will or demand that, say Britain has - and it's not like HS2 has gone off without opposition!

For the same reasons as Peterborough vs Kingston, I would argue that there is only one viable choice for better rail in SW Ontario, and that's Kitchener-Stratford, because that's the existing rail line that the freight railways need and care about the least. But that makes "losers" out of Hamilton-Brantford-Woodstock.

I will repeat my previous comment - Alto/HSR is the second most important transportation project in Ontario. The most important project needed is improved Regional Rail especially west of Toronto. Ottawa is promising to spend $50B beginning in 4-8 years when what Ontario needs is $2-3B spent immediately. The priority placed on Alto without putting the other project first is wrongheaded.

And I will repeat my other previous comment - the way to get there is by freight coproduction and rerouting of freight traffic to clear space on existing lines. That's a political 'bridge too far' that isn't going to happen, but it's by far the cheapest and most logical.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
I do, and notice how I said City and in brackets I said not CMA? Both are different. The CMA usually covers more than one city. However, unless that CMAis well connected, CMAs don't mean much with transit. For a good example, lets take QC and their CMA vs Toronto's CMA.One of those are much easier to not need a car to get to their future ALTO Station.

Why should an HSR builder care how people get to the station more than the number of people who can actually use the station?
 
And I will repeat my other previous comment - the way to get there is by freight coproduction and rerouting of freight traffic to clear space on existing lines. That's a political 'bridge too far' that isn't going to happen, but it's by far the cheapest and most logical.

- Paul
What we need really is a re-nationalization of railroads here in Canada so we can improve ALL of the routes passenger rail uses.
 
Why should an HSR builder care how people get to the station more than the number of people who can actually use the station?
The same reason Airports care about how people get to the airport. You want the most amount of people to chose it over any other way.
 
What we need really is a re-nationalization of railroads here in Canada so we can improve ALL of the routes passenger rail uses.
That won't happen in Canada. Even in my most extreme fantastical worlds, there is no way that would work. Canada is much too larger, worth a vast network with companies that are too dependent on that not happening that no government hopeful would ever speak of that.
 

Back
Top