[Dan416]

A lot of people taking VIA connect with GO to continue to their final destinations. Last I checked, GO doesn’t serve Summerhill.

Let’s not accept a subpar solution. It has to be Union otherwise it’s DOA.

 

[Urban Sky]

I love the building and could see it repurposed for some transit use. But not this. You are speaking of a major terminus if used for HFR. I cannot see myself jumping on a VIa service from London, taking the subway to Summerhill to catch a train to Dorval…..And where, besides TTC subway and local TTC horse and buggy service, do other transit players connect.

Exactly, and I invite everyone who considers terminal stations anywhere else in Montreal or Toronto than at Gare Central or Union Station to look up to how many different types (let alone: lines) the new intercity rail stations of Osaka, Lyon and Kassel (feel free to suggest other successful examples for transplanting a downtown intercity rail hub to a less central location, but I‘m not aware of any) have and how relatively central they still are:

Osaka (Old station: Osaka [center of picture: South of the river], New Shinkansen Station: Shin-Osaka [Just north across the river from the old station, at the intersection of the orange, red and dark blue lines])

Lyon (old station: Lyon Perrache, new station: Lyon Part-Dieu)

Kassel (old station: Kassel Hauptbahnhof, new station: Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe)

There are major, major transportation cities ( London and Paris come to mind immediately) that have major rail (and associated road transit) terminals separated by distance. But they are all in the general core area and the scale of use is so very, very different.

Almost every major European cities had multiple rail termini competing for passengers (usually one for each railroad), but almost all of them acted fast enough to centralize their rail stations before ever-densifying and sprawling closed that window of opportunity. Those cities which didn’t get the memo in time were the unlucky exceptions we know too well today: Paris, London and Moscow…

For now Union is the destination.

Let’s not accept a subpar solution. It has to be Union otherwise it’s DOA.

Amen.

 

[nfitz]

LOL, 107-96 years ago and until what exactly opened?

I don't think moving Union station one block further east made much difference. The station has barely moved in 165 years. The west end of some of the current GO/VIA platforms cover much of the extent of the previous Union Station platforms. The UP Union Station platform is about where the old station building was.

The real issue was that CP just wasn't competitive with CN for service to Montreal, with their poor alignments with either going through Peterborough or the later Belleville subdivision. Which is why the much faster service on the CN tracks through Kingston dominated.

I love the building and could see it repurposed for some transit use. But not this. You are speaking of a major terminus if used for HFR. I cannot see myself jumping on a VIa service from London, taking the subway to Summerhill to catch a train to Dorval…..And where, besides TTC subway and local TTC horse and buggy service, do other transit players connect.

GO has been proposing running service out of Summerhill. You can even run a London service out of there, through Galt or Obico. Not ideal - but going back to the premise - surely it's an upgrade on Pickering, Guildwood, Agincourt, etc.

A lot of people taking VIA connect with GO to continue to their final destinations. Last I checked, GO doesn’t serve Summerhill.

GO serving Summerhill is still in the long-term transportation plans.

Let’s not accept a subpar solution. It has to be Union otherwise it’s DOA.

With HFR through Peterborough they are accepting a subpar solution. And if they can't get Montreal to Toronto significantly under 4 hours, it already is DOA.

 

[rdaner]

I wonder if a track along the 401 would work with a station at Yonge/NYCC. Just eliminate a lane each way. Could also stop by the airport!

 

[Urban Sky]

The real issue was that CP just wasn't competitive with CN for service to Montreal, with their poor alignments with either going through Peterborough or the later Belleville subdivision. Which is why the much faster service on the CN tracks through Kingston dominated.

Summerhill was always just a second-rate alternative to Union Station. Have a look at the 1923 timetable (i.e. smack in the middle of Summerhill’s short 17-year-long history) and I count 5 trains from Montreal, of which only a single one (a Montreal-Toronto-Hamilton night train) served Summerhill over Union:

GO has been proposing running service out of Summerhill.

No, they’ve studied whether avoiding the need to cross CP’s mainline by terminating at Summerhill rather than Union Station would create a slightly less unfavourable business case for creating a GO service to Peterborough…

You can even run a London service out of there, through Galt or Obico. Not ideal - but going back to the premise - surely it's an upgrade on Pickering, Guildwood, Agincourt, etc.

That terminating trains at Summerhill sounds slightly more sane than doing the same at Pickering, Guildwood or Agincourt tells you little about Summerhill, but a lot about just how moronic using any of these locations as a downtown intercity rail station would be…

GO serving Summerhill is still in the long-term transportation plans.

Yes, but it would realistically only ever be seriously considered as a “Downtown Relief Line”, which allows to add additional trains along already served corridors without having to fight for an additional slot into Union. Summerhill is totally fine for providing some commuters with a more convenient downtown location, but only if you can still have frequent departures towards Union on every single station which such a “Summerhill” route would serve!

With HFR through Peterborough they are accepting a subpar solution. And if they can't get Montreal to Toronto significantly under 4 hours, it already is DOA.

Thankfully for anyone who’s money may have to pay for any HFR/HSR solution, the decision of what travel time is acceptable will be made by those who administer these funds and not by the demands of some railfans on internet forums, which seem oblivious or ignorant to the implications (to capital cost, construction timelines and political risks) of their demands…

 

[TossYourJacket]

I wonder if a track along the 401 would work with a station at Yonge/NYCC. Just eliminate a lane each way. Could also stop by the airport!

Tbh, I don't think telling potential tourists they need to sit on a 20 minute subway ride to downtown Toronto after getting off the train would be a huge success at generating ridership. Plus building subway stations has gotten insanely expensive. So either we spend most of $1B on a new station under the 401, or we're telling people they have to walk to Yonge and Sheppard to make a transfer to the subway. NYCC itself isn't enough of a destination unfortunately.

Truth is, there isn't, and likely never will be, a more convenient option for most users of VIA/HFR than Union.

 

[Ward8]

With HFR through Peterborough they are accepting a subpar solution. And if they can't get Montreal to Toronto significantly under 4 hours, it already is DOA.

Thankfully for anyone who’s money may have to pay for any HFR/HSR solution, the decision of what travel time is acceptable will be made by those who administer these funds and not by the demands of some railfans on internet forums, which seem oblivious or ignorant to the implications (to capital cost, construction timelines and political risks) of their demands…

I'm not sure I identify with either of these POVs. The HFR concepts would probably result in a much improved experience for Toronto to Montreal rail travellers, but it can't be denied that taking the travel time to the low 3hr mark would change this trip on a different order of magnitude. A 4.5hr trip, that is reliable, would be successful as a transit option while true high speed rail would likely be the type of success that eliminates all flights between Toronto and Montreal.

-From my own experience on the year: I took 4 trips to Montreal, one of those trips was by VIA, (it was delayed both directions by an hour and resulted in a 6+ hr trip, which is clearly unacceptable) I wont be taking it again any time soon.
-If a reasonably priced HFR existed in a 4.5 hr, Toronto - Peterborough - Ottawa - Montreal version, I probably would have chosen VIA for 3 out of 4 trips. (one of them required a car)
-If reasonably priced ~3hr HSR existed I would have also taken those 3 trips, but would have added 3-5 extra trips to Montreal. I would likely add more trips to other destinations due to the speed advantage over cars.

From my point of view, HFR would be good, but HSR would change my life through new economic opportunity, wildly better connection to my family, and all around increase in my general freedom.

My point of view is that they should spend whatever it takes for true HSR because there is such a significant upside. This is not a position I generally argue when it comes to the bloated budgets of major transit infrastructure projects.

 

[Urban Sky]

Nobody denies that having HSR would be more desirable than having “only” HFR. The question is whether the incremental benefits would outweigh the incremental billions in cost, years in planning and construction time and increase in project risks - and that question will be answered by those who are asked to pay for the ultimate pricetag of the project with the funds they are trusted with.

My personal prediction is: we won’t get anything close to what most people here would consider the desired end state during the first stage (i.e. the initial scope). The real risk is that the more ambitious we are in our demands for the initial stage, the higher are the chances that there won’t be a second stage where the new alignment would be upgraded or partially bypassed. In fact, insisting on extreme positions like “anything which is not significantly under 4 hours is unacceptable” invites those politicians who want neither HFR nor HSR to just say: “We would really love to build this, but HSR is too expensive and HFR is too slow to be worthwhile”…

 

[Ward8]

The question is whether the incremental benefits would outweigh the incremental billions in cost, years in planning and construction time and increase in project risks

I'm not sure I agree that the benefits are incremental. The two options are dramatically different. At a certain point there are diminishing returns, but the difference between 3hrs and 4.5hrs is monumental. That said, I'm sympathetic to the idea that an improved train system that exists is better than one that never gets built.

 

[crs1026]

From my point of view, HFR would be good, but HSR would change my life through new economic opportunity, wildly better connection to my family, and all around increase in my general freedom.

My point of view is that they should spend whatever it takes for true HSR because there is such a significant upside. This is not a position I generally argue when it comes to the bloated budgets of major transit infrastructure projects.

To my mind, the time to consider HSR is when Pearson and Trudeau ramps are full and Ottawa has to consider expanding airports. The capital cost of HSR compared to the capital cost of runways and terminals is likely to swing in favour of HSR, and the carbon benefits will help. A decision which is a simple either-or analysis of airport construction versus HSR is easy to sell.

In the shorter term, HFR can justify itself by attracting people away from auto and perhaps some air travellers, especially if there is a price differential.

I see a huge risk that HSR would be priced higher, and while it might succeed as the alternative to air travel, the existing VIA ridership and the potential auto market would remain untouched. That's not as effective a solution for Ontario-Quebec. Whatever we build has to impact highway use and needs to retain (and grow) the demand that VIA meets today.

I suspect there are multiple slices to the market analysis, and our respective anecdotes may not be granular enough to dissect these accurately. For instance, HFR can easily attract east GTA travellers away from air because the trip across town to Pearson is inconvenient compared to boarding in Durham Region somewhere. But air travellers from west of Pearson may find the time differential favours air because it's easier to reach Pearson (or Waterloo) (or Hamilton). One probably needs to segregate various catchment areas with different access to Union and to Pearson.

Similarly, anyone in North Central Toronto will find Summerhill more attractive, but that catchment area will have limits. Anyone wanting to connect to GO Regional will prefer Union. And, I would not open Summerhill as a VIA terminus until GO actually builds local service from that location - passengers won't choose to go there on the prospect of a regional connection at a future date.

Hopefully we see real data when the proponents make their bids.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

I love the building and could see it repurposed for some transit use. But not this. You are speaking of a major terminus if used for HFR. I cannot see myself jumping on a VIa service from London, taking the subway to Summerhill to catch a train to Dorval…..And where, besides TTC subway and local TTC horse and buggy service, do other transit players connect.

There are major, major transportation cities ( London and Paris come to mind immediately) that have major rail (and associated road transit) terminals separated by distance. But they are all in the general core area and the scale of use is so very, very different.

For now Union is the destination.

What is this was a thru section from east to west on the Corridor? If HFR becomes as successful as many hope, having some trains go here and some go to Union could work. I do agree that no one is going to want to use the subway to connect to 2 different intercity lines.

 

[MisterF]

If they ever build the midtown Corridor, the Toronto North station would likely fit the bill.

This is a solution in search of a problem. The existing route to Union is just as fast as a route to Summerhill would be, and it's getting upgraded and electrified. It's more central, more connected to existing transit routes, and a vastly bigger hub than Summerhill could ever be. There are no problems that this would solve.

 

[micheal_can]

This is a solution in search of a problem. The existing route to Union is just as fast as a route to Summerhill would be, and it's getting upgraded and electrified. It's more central, more connected to existing transit routes, and a vastly bigger hub than Summerhill could ever be. There are no problems that this would solve.

What would you say if we had 2WAD GO and HFR for the entire Corridor? There will come a point that the existing Union Station infrastructure cannot support it. At that point having a second main terminal would be a good idea before we start digging tunnels for more platforms.

 

[Urban Sky]

Friendly reminder that every time someone engages the troll, the troll wins…

 

[MisterF]

What would you say if we had 2WAD GO and HFR for the entire Corridor? There will come a point that the existing Union Station infrastructure cannot support it. At that point having a second main terminal would be a good idea before we start digging tunnels for more platforms.

There's no scenario in the foreseeable future when Summerhill will have more transit or be a bigger hub than Union. It makes no sense for HFR to leave Union for Summerhill, whether GO ever serves the latter or not.