[crs1026]

Very interesting - the Globe is saying that Pearson is actually advocating for some sort of HSR connected to the airport, to reduce the number of short haul flights so that they have more capacity as a long haul hub. That's a very important voice in the debate.

It's a bit unsettling to think - but "we need HSR to help air travel" may actually be more compelling than "we need HSR to reduce highway congestion and reduce emissions".... whatever works is fine by me.

Minor detail, but it also argues for HSR/HFR tracks on the CN bypass across the city.....merit in keeping eastbound travellers out of Union altogether, just as you don't have to go into Paris from CDG to catch at TGV to lots of places.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

Very interesting - the Globe is saying that Pearson is actually advocating for some sort of HSR connected to the airport, to reduce the number of short haul flights so that they have more capacity as a long haul hub. That's a very important voice in the debate

It makes sense. They have about 200 movements per day (landings/takeoffs), 15 to 20% of the total, used by Detroit, Windsor, London, Kingston, Ottawa, and Montreal.

Air Canada doesn't make much profit on short-haul flights and would be much happier with a 10% commission on an HSR ticket and another 100 slots for international flights.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's a bit unsettling to think - but "we need HSR to help air travel" may actually be more compelling than "we need HSR to reduce highway congestion and reduce emissions".... whatever works is fine by me.

There's a fair amount on-line about this, I just Googled for Heathrow's case to connect across the Channel, and there's studies on that and more, but this one is now so established, the term has a entry on Wikipedia:

Heathwick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heathwick is an informal name for a proposal to create a high-speed rail link between London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports, in effect to combine them into a single airport. Proponents argue this would balance their capacity and so reduce the need to add more runways to Heathrow, or more airports in the south-east of England.

History
A similar plan was first mooted in the 1990s, then by the British Chambers of Commerce in 2009. Consideration of it by the UK government began in October 2011, when it was dubbed 'Heathwick' by the UK press.

Proposal
The scheme envisages a 35-mile (56 km) high-speed rail route linking the two airports in 15 minutes, with trains travelling at a top speed of 180 miles per hour (290 km/h) parallel to the M25 and passengers passing through immigration or check-in only once. It is hoped that this streamlined immigration/check-in procedure would enable passengers arriving at one airport and departing on a connecting flight from the other to complete the transfer process within 75 minutes, thereby increasing its attractiveness as a viable alternative to changing flights at an overseas hub airport. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathwick

This topic is being discussed in the Pearson Airport Hub string.

Minor detail, but it also argues for HSR/HFR tracks on the CN bypass across the city.....merit in keeping eastbound travellers out of Union altogether, just as you don't have to go into Paris from CDG to catch at TGV to lots of places.

Now this is intriguing! I can't find reference to that in the link you posted, and I've perused others to see if I can find that reference. I do recall reading it, any further help in linking that most appreciated.

Until "HSR" is clarified, I default to "HFR"...or perhaps, just perhaps..."HFR+"...same trainsets, able to run flat out speed due to a purpose designed ROW. Stone two birds with one kill, it would make a lot of sense...*especially* if it was via the present CP Crosstown, in whole or in part, contingent, of course, on The Missing Link. It would be a run-through (or some would be) from Ottawa/Montreal, via....Pickering Airport. This would presume the O&Q becomes HFR of course.

 

[crs1026]

Now this is intriguing! I can't find reference to that in the link you posted, and I've perused others to see if I can find that reference. I do recall reading it, any further help in linking that most appreciated.

The direct bypass leg to YYZ from the east? That was my extrapolation. It has been discussed here before,

It drew disbelief here, but the article's validation of the premise that HxR could play a role in Kingston/Otawa/Montreal connections to Long distance flights from Pearson reminded me.

Direct trains from Pearson to points east would be better than a UPE connection to Union. One could simply run through Union in the same way that sone Corridor trains have run through to Aldershot, but a direct train would save time, and we are approaching the point where Union will be congested and an alternate route will protect its capacity.

Even two or three trains at key times (arrive YYZ evenings, when most overseas flights depart; depart YYZ late afternoons, when inbound overseas flight arrive) might do.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

The direct bypass leg to YYZ from the east? That was my extrapolation.

Love that HxR! It really allows some wiggleroom in promoting an as yet undefined degree of 'Higher Speed Rail'.

I suspect your extrapolation will see a fair amount of discussion in the media. 'All roads lead to Union' can't be the mantra anymore, which is a lot of what the 'hub' concept is about. Meantime the UPX can still be the link for those wishing to travel through on GO.

Edit to Add: REM, touted to be one of the first 'test-cases' for the 'Canada Investment/Infrastructure Bank' is facing a legal challenge. This could have a lot of bearing on whether the Feds partially fund this or not, and it appears that this wouldn't pass the necessary business-case criteria of the Bank:

(Translated into English, some nuances may be distorted)
The REM project challenged before the Court
Coalition calls for cancellation of Quebec-Caisse de dépôt agreement
24 March 2017 | Jeanne Corriveau | News about the environment

Québec must put a brake on the Caisse de depot et placement du Québec and submit the project to a new evaluation, a coalition of organizations and citizens will appeal to the Superior Court Friday to try To block the project, learned Le Devoir .

The Montreal Climate Coalition, a group of organizations fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and five citizens, intend to send an introductory request to suspend the work of the EMN on Friday morning, Of a new consultation by the Office of Public Hearings on the Environment (BAPE).

Applicants, including the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) support, believe that the project that was the subject of a study by the BAPE last fall was incomplete, which tainted the process . They also point out that the BAPE was very critical. In its report published in January, the organization refused to give a favorable opinion, considering that too much important information was lacking.

Incomplete information

As a result, the proponent has failed to provide complete information on the impacts of EMN on GHGs, the protection of natural environments and the risks of urban sprawl, the request states. Citizens were not informed of the effects of the project on pricing of the public transit system in the Montréal region and the capacity of other transportation services, such as the Agence métropolitaine de transport (AMT), To maintain and develop its services, it is argued.

" When it comes to fundamental rights such as protection of the environment, when there is consultation, it must be a real consultation " Explains Ricardo Hrtschan, the lawyer on file.

The motion concerns the Government of Quebec, represented by Prime Minister Philippe Couillard and Minister of Sustainable Development and the Environment David Heurtel, who promoted a " Project of purely private electric power heavily subsidized by public funds "He said.

Evolving Project

The motion also refers to the notice of admissibility made by the office of Minister Heurtel with respect to the impact study produced by CDPQ Infra, whereas several other departments would have concluded that this study was inadmissible Or its incompleteness.

The project involves not only significant environmental risks, but also financial risks, it is stressed. And the project continued to evolve after the BAPE study, notes Hrtschan. Earlier this week, CDPQ Infra announced that the frequency of trains would be increased and that the cost of the project now exceeded 6 billion.

The applicants also requested that the agreement between the Gouvernement du Québec and the Caisse de dépôt be null and void. " We see that there was a renunciation of the sovereignty of the National Assembly " Says Mr. Hrtschan. He recalled that as soon as the BAPE report was published, Prime Minister Couillard stated that the project would go ahead " no matter the cost " . " We see that the decision is made in advance Said the lawyer.

In 2008, the Superior Court dismissed environmental groups seeking to have the government decrees authorizing the extension of Highway 25 declared illegal. Judge Pierre Béliveau considered that the essential elements had been addressed, but in the case of the REM , The BAPE itself has indicated that important information was missing, notes Ricardo Hrtschan.

http://www.ledevoir.com/environneme...resse-a-la-cour-pour-bloquer-le-projet-du-rem

Here's Global's copy:

March 24, 2017 5:57 pm
Electric train network faces first legal challenge
http://globalnews.ca/news/3333735/electric-train-network-faces-first-legal-challenge/

Video and audio transcript linked at url above.

 

[steveintoronto]

March 31, 2017 10:30 ET

Governments of Canada and Halifax Regional Municipality support public transit infrastructure



DARTMOUTH, NOVA SCOTIA--(Marketwired - March 31, 2017) -[...]

http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...ort-public-transit-infrastructure-2206844.htm

No mention of VIA running the Halifax commuter op yet, but there's more to come...

 

[dowlingm]

Aspiring to high speed rail is great but I still can't go from Toronto to London, work in our office and leave London again between 1630 and 1830 (see weekday schedule below). I know VIA has made some improvements to train frequency east of Toronto but closing these 3.5-4.5 hour gaps is critical to growing momentum for better service, especially to reassure travellers that missing a train or having a train cancelled wouldn't lead to a REALLY long total wait - the kind of reassurance that is being offered to shorter-haul passengers on services like UPX or RER.

We could spend tens of billions building new alignments and wiring them or we could take a big pile of cash down to California and order a whack of 125mph Brightliner-spec trainsets to completely replace the Quebec-Windsor fleet and spend the change on PTC and infrastructure reliability improvements. It wouldn't be sexy but it could deliver real improvement, some of it very quickly deliverable.

Even if the trainsets couldn't use their top speed for now, it would ensure that all Corridor services on 100mph rail could actually operate at that speed, while the next phase would be figuring out how to create opportunities for higher-speed track.

 

[MisterF]

Very interesting - the Globe is saying that Pearson is actually advocating for some sort of HSR connected to the airport, to reduce the number of short haul flights so that they have more capacity as a long haul hub. That's a very important voice in the debate.

It's a bit unsettling to think - but "we need HSR to help air travel" may actually be more compelling than "we need HSR to reduce highway congestion and reduce emissions".... whatever works is fine by me.

Minor detail, but it also argues for HSR/HFR tracks on the CN bypass across the city.....merit in keeping eastbound travellers out of Union altogether, just as you don't have to go into Paris from CDG to catch at TGV to lots of places.

- Paul

I recall about a year ago I made the case that HSR could play a key role in reducing our reliance on airports, at least for short haul flights. It turned into a rather in depth debate, with some members adamant that it would make no difference. Now Pearson is calling for the same thing, which makes perfect sense to me. If airport authorities are in favour of HSR it sure does help its case. Hopefully the Ontario government's HSR plan and Via Rail's dedicated tracks plan are still in the works behind the scenes.

I can't see a Toronto bypass happening anytime soon. It wouldn't come until after the trunk route connecting the major corridor cities is complete. For trains from the east, going through Union doesn't add much distance compared to a by-pass and, depending on the bypass route, could even be shorter. Definitely a low priority.

 

[jcam]

I look forward to your furthering that in more discussion. It's an odd thing, this will actually *relieve* a lot of politicos from have to say "No" politically, because it isn't a political decision, it's a business based one. And if someone disagrees with that, then put it in writing for a review if deemed appropriate by the investment board.

I've recently been spending most of my consulting work related to best practices for transit and government agencies for governance and management of capital projects. Business case analyses, asset management, stage gate processes, risk management and project classifications are all things you'll be hearing sprinkled more in more into capital project reporting, and therefore political discourse and media reporting, for transit projects in the GTHA.

 

[kEiThZ]

@MisterF I took up the debate with you. And I stand by my point even now. Pearson is asking for HSR. Not HFR. And that's what it will take to really displace flights. HFR will see them reduce the size of the aircraft flying feeder services. It won't reduce frequencies and that's what Pearson wants.

Moreover, the recent HFR proposal skipped Kingston, was barely competitive with flying for Ottawa and not competitive with flying for Montreal. HFR to some of Southern Ontario, however, could certainly displace some flights. Just not as much Pearson imagines.

 

[TOareaFan]

I recall about a year ago I made the case that HSR could play a key role in reducing our reliance on airports, at least for short haul flights. It turned into a rather in depth debate, with some members adamant that it would make no difference. Now Pearson is calling for the same thing, which makes perfect sense to me. If airport authorities are in favour of HSR it sure does help its case. Hopefully the Ontario government's HSR plan and Via Rail's dedicated tracks plan are still in the works behind the scenes.

I can't see a Toronto bypass happening anytime soon. It wouldn't come until after the trunk route connecting the major corridor cities is complete. For trains from the east, going through Union doesn't add much distance compared to a by-pass and, depending on the bypass route, could even be shorter. Definitely a low priority.

Distance is not the only cause of lengthened travel times....congestion contributes too.......if every train from the east headed for Pearson has to join the rail corridor which is already getting congested with the current services then you might really be looking a slower travel times.

 

[crs1026]

I've recently been spending most of my consulting work related to best practices for transit and government agencies for governance and management of capital projects. Business case analyses, asset management, stage gate processes, risk management and project classifications are all things you'll be hearing sprinkled more in more into capital project reporting, and therefore political discourse and media reporting, for transit projects in the GTHA.

This is a very important point. We don't need a central bank to be the source of oversight and rigour for all infrastructure projects. The techniques and practices are available, anyone can apply them. The private sector does no better at applying them than the public sector, overall. A central bank helps package the whole funding and risk management in a way that makes things politically palatable, but this is not a 'silver bullet'. Individual agencies such as ML and TTC need to import and apply these competencies rather than have an adversarial relationship with the Bank.

I don't really feel any better thinking that VIA or Metrolinx will have to apply methodologies or submit due diligence data to satisfy analysts or auditors from the Infrastructure Bank in confidence that they are managing well. I would prefer that all that due diligence is done transparently so that the general public can see it too. There are risks - it's so easy for the political opposition and the media to seize individual deficiencies, remove the context, and snipe or sensationalise - but it builds a healthier and more adult culture around the whole thing.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

This is a very important point. - Paul

Agreed on many points, disagree by degree on others, but here's the bottom line, this vector of discussion is essential whether it's specific to The Bank (infra/invest) or generally. Where I think we'll all agree is the *political* interference in the process purely for political gain is where all best intentions go off the rails. That's the default strength of a third tier of oversight: If it's not an established business case, factors of humanity besides, then it won't be funded *by The Bank*!

As a rough and very imperfect analogy, Canada's housing market has (arguably) been much more stable than other Anglo models, and in theory, at least, a lot of that is down to the CMHC, conditional mortgage insurance (esp low down payment sectors) ....and the *legislated independent certified insurers* (not held by the same corporate entity as the lender) and the generally stable and affordable market that has resulted. (Without doubt, GTHA and Van are outliers to this grouping).

I think jcam can detail and explain this far better than I, but this discussion must ensue. It's still relevant to this string, as VIA's HFR depends on it.

Edit to Add: This is far from the only case, but an excellent example of it just days old:

Transportation minister won't say if he pushed for GO station in his riding
https://www.thestar.com › News › GTA
4 days ago - Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca said a GO Transit stop that is ... a new station in Vaughan at Kirby Rd., despite a government analysis ...
You visited this page on 31/03/17.

And of course, SSE. Tory is in for a fall, one he might not get up from, and his cover stories in Planning are falling apart by testimonials telling the truth. And the ultimate 'judge' that will swing public opinion?

An independent investor-based panel drawing on reports and studies. And as taxpayers, we are shareholders.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't really feel any better thinking that VIA or Metrolinx will have to apply methodologies or submit due diligence data to satisfy analysts or auditors from the Infrastructure Bank in confidence that they are managing well.

Personally, I'm all for it. I think VIA (and a whole host of other government agencies) could use a little more rigour in their management. And if they are doing these analyses as a matter of course, then the extra paperwork to submit to the bank won't be burdensome.

I've worked major procurement in Ottawa on the military side. And seen how the sausage was made so to speak. And even political interference aside (which admittedly there is far too much of), government could stand to improve their management practices. Though, tremendous strides have been made with pushing quals like PMCD to improve broad knowledge, application is sometimes lacking in practice. Risk management, scope management, etc. always seem far too dependent on the skill of the PM rather than inherent to the organization. Cultural change is necessary. And given that DND is the largest and broadly most skilled bureaucracy in Ottawa at procurement, I can only imagine the state of orgs like VIA which do multi-billion dollar projects once every 3 decades.

But again this is all contingent on the bank actually moving forward and VIA's HFR being a contender. The hiring of Bruce McQuaig is a sign the bank is moving forward. But we still don't know what the project screening criteria is for the bank. If their mandate is mostly public transit, VIA might be SOL. I don't want to get my hopes up yet! Far too easy to get disappointed in this country.

 

[kEiThZ]

Distance is not the only cause of lengthened travel times....congestion contributes too.......if every train from the east headed for Pearson has to join the rail corridor which is already getting congested with the current services then you might really be looking a slower travel times.

More to the point, what incentive is there for the government to build HSR (at a massive $20-30 billion for the whole QW corridor), to reduce ~200 movements a day. It would cost a fraction of that to make Pearson more efficient and gain some additional slot frequency.

I'd love to see HSR in Canada. I really would. But I'm a realist on this. The Canadian taxpayer simply cannot envision that kind of investment.