On June 2, 2014, I appeared on Dale Goldhawk’s radio show talking about both the Murray High Speed Rail plan and the Tory “SmartTrack” scheme. A podcast of the show is available on Goldhawk’s site (running time about 34 minutes).
Even with half an hour, we couldn’t talk about everything including those pesky details that make superficially attractive projects run aground.
[Photo by Zoomer Radio]
Steve Munro 
That is fine, regardless, you would fix or replace the roof first (or if building new would close in first). I personally see HSR as being similar to part of the interior finishing of a house, whereas I see basic local transportation as the outer shell. Before you can make HSR worthwhile, you need a reasonable flow and distribution system at the terminus points. Toronto transit and basic traffic flow needs to be fixed, and HSR would benefit greatly from it, whereas transit will not gain dramatically from HSR.
I do believe that this should be part of Ontario’s travel system, however, as you say the system has been neglected for so long, we need to fix a lot, and this is only a very small part. I would place this on the list, below a Don Mills Subway, increasing GO frequency and building LRT. I would also be pushing hard to get the federal government to the table. The federal government will be required when this goes international or interprovincial.
The network for transit does not perforce require their involvement, although their financial help would be extremely useful. If we are talking strictly provincial money (which if only the province is at the table we are) I think HSR is beyond the scope. Michael’s vision and approach is laudable, but it needs to be approached with all important parties at the table, and London-Toronto makes the most sense as part of a larger route (say Chicago, Detroit, London, KW, Toronto). This would certainly require federal involvement.
In the London to Toronto distance, I think frequency is just as important, especially if the service can be kept to the approximately 2 hour trip time. Again a single or two car train running at 150+ kmh running hourly would be phenomenal, not as good as HSR, but much more doable, and would provide a basis on which to build.
The neglect for the transit/transportation system of Ontario runs deep enough that we now need to be sure to prioritize the issues, as we cannot realistically fix them all now.
The $2 billion/annum the provincial government has put on the table will not really catch up. To address things like HSR and other needs this would likely need to be more than double, and you would still be looking at decades. Spending $2 billion per annum of provincial money on transit infrastructure only in the GTHA would likely help transit, and would need to be sustained for a very long time.
If we spend very carefully, top it up with some federal and local money, if we do not build subway except where there is no choice, and accept that we will be doing only slightly better than keeping up.
I would say place it in an order of priority, figure out how much you can realistically spend every year, and look at where it lands. To suggest the province is going to find 4 or 5 billion per year, would mean it would require substantial cuts elsewhere, or at the least stopping growth in all other spending.
LikeLike
I wonder if the HSR proposal will be included in the budget when it is tabled again in 20 days (or so) when the Ontario Legislature returns post election.
Before that of course will be the inevitable Cabinet shuffle/reshuffle … so if there is a new Minister of Transport and/or a new Minister of Infrastructure will the HSR project still see the same level of enthusiasm and support?
Oh and I don’t think that this question was included in the discussion, but who would “own” the HSR (in terms of owning/leasing the different components like track and power systems and stations etc) and who would operate the HSR?
Would it be built by the government, owned by Metrolinx and operated by Bombardier (like GO Transit is now and presumably UPEx will be?)
Or would the HSR be a B-O-O-T turnkey project? Which companies would want to be involved in an RFP?
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
More tiresome hairsplitting and red herrings. There is no perfect order or list of projects. There is no perfect alignment of stakeholders which must all agree. That will never happen. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Anyone can take potshots. Very few can articulate a bold plan such as this.
Steve: Begging your pardon, but others, including me, have articulated “bold plans”. The question is always whether the plan’s primary function is to attract votes, or if it will really be a useful project to attract funding and make real improvement in the transportation network.
It is extremely easy to dismiss criticism of anything with that line about the perfect and the good, but it prejudges the relative merits.
LikeLike
With regards to Michael Schabas, he has the air of a fast talking gentleman who successfully sold Springfield a monorail even though Main St. is all cracked and broken. He talks a lot about how HSR is profitable, yet never answers how it integrates with our current transit modes, the costs of building HSR vs increasing bus service, and also neglects to mention the immense debt servicing costs that have bankrupted private HSR ventures (every single example that Michael points out has received government protection from bankruptcy). His answer to any transportation problem is: railways, railways, railways! There is also the matter where he could be a potential operator of said HSR and be in a conflict of interest regarding his consultation to the minister.
With regards to John Tory’s plan, his plan would be better served if his plan was actually mixed in with the Union-Pearson express. The U-P express extended East to Kennedy or Sheppard would be a viable for many people because it operates at 15 min frequencies that make waiting for it not all that bad. As someone living in Scarborough, what is making me avoid using GO transit as the DRL is that it runs so infrequently considering the high fare they charge and that I would have to pay a separate fare to get on the TTC afterwards. Also, the way Tory runs the route would make it challenging for Metrolinx to run peak commuter services to the 905 if it runs at 15 min frequencies all day.
LikeLike
More cheap smears. HSR is hardly a monorail. Why don’t you call out this poster, Steve?
Steve: You seem to be unaware that the “monorail” reference is to a segment on “The Simpsons” which is itself a gloss on “The Music Man” in which an itinerant band instrument salesman has the solution for all that ails poor River City.
The issue here is that HSR is being oversold, and in a way like many other similar schemes both in Toronto and around the world. The “monorail” tag is entirely appropriate.
LikeLike
Not to mention that Main St. (in Toronto) is cracked and broken due to the winter damage to the concrete along the streetcar tracks.
LikeLike
The question I think comes down more to priority, and I believe that most of the people here share that view one way or another. It will save fewer people fewer hours per dollar spent, than will improved GO, or LRT spending that needs to be done. The province will struggle to find ways to push through the other issues surrounding basic transit in Toronto, which is at least as broken. Basic, reasonably express service DMU from London to Toronto via KW, running on tracks that had merely been maintained could likely be around 2 hours. Save the billions in capital for where it will have the biggest impact, build the projects that will do the most to improve linkage first.
It is not a question of perfect project, but rather this is not the best one on the menu, and we cannot actually stomach the entire menu tonight. Of course as we work our way down, it may well become the next best project.
Even as someone who would likely directly benefit from this project, I am more interested in seeing the Scarborough LRTs, the Don Mills subway, the Finch West LRT etc, even though I would have to go out of my way in order to ride them. This entirely because I believe that the projects that will address the fundamental problems in Toronto will unlock a lot more income and wealth creation and thereby help the provincial economy and tax base. These projects will likely pay for themselves more quickly in terms social benefit and in returns to provincial coffers than will the HSR. So like the monorail, it is pretty and cool, and not a good use of exceedingly limited resources (and I am someone who regularly travels this corridor).
LikeLike
There would be no reason for my objection if the reference was not understood. The pop culture lecture was entirely unnecessary. The comparison remains unfair as HSR is a proven technology serving millions around the world, not an amusement park ride. And no song and dance was performed. Rather, plenty of expert information was given.
But it’s all in good fun, isn’t it? So you wouldn’t possibly object to my mentioning that an image of The Great & Powerful Oz sometimes forms in the mind’s eye when reading your postings. And the flying monkey brigade marches chanting in my imagination when reading the “negatory, no sir-eee, none of this newfangled HSR for me” posts of so many minionesque posters.
The main proponent was re-elected. So there’s hope.
Will you be a good enough sport to post this? Breath will not be held.
LikeLike
I do not believe the objection that Steve had with regards to it not being a well-proven technology, or a “song and dance”, although this is in essence what every political announcement is, that requires money not actually in the budget. I know I object to HSR, not because I do not believe that HSR is a valid technology in Southern Ontario. I would point out to you: the proponent in question also has a large number of other projects he supports. He is not blessed with a large enough budget to make them all happen in short order. They have discussed 15 billion for the Greater Toronto, and another 14 for the rest of the province. I suspect when all money required for this project are factored in, land acquisition, new stations, new rail, electrification of the entire line, you are looking at something more than 50 million a kilometer.
If the line were extended to Windsor (as suggested) it would mean basically all of that $15 billion being expended on this one project. Does the province not have other more pressing needs? If we are talking about taking some of the money from the GTHA, that would be insane, as the needs there are very well understood.
I would like to see this built, and would like to be around for it, and yes sir if done properly, the link will actually work, and may even pay for itself given time. However, properly linked means it actually has access to enough of Toronto, KW and London. That it is accessible to those coming from beyond this areas (notably the areas west of London). This will require much improved transit and traffic flow in Toronto (because if you are taking a 30 km taxi ride in heavy stop and go traffic you may as well drive). Daily local commutes need to take precedence, and destinations in Toronto cannot be seen as only the airport and downtown. I would like to see HSR after Transit City + other GTHA and KW region LRTs and BRTs are built and operating. Also after GO has been improved.
Steve: A fundamental problem I have is that the study supporting the HSR proposal is secret, and all we have seen is a glossy brochure with exactly one page of projected costs and a map. Even the published information shows a long term loss for the line on a capital+operating basis. It would pay back some capital costs over the years, but would still be in net deficit after a few decades. The Net Present Value is minus $555-million.
This is based on estimates of ridership and average fare that have not been subject to review. The proposal specifically does not talk about total capital costs or revenues, only a “net present value” and “benefit cost ratio (with wider benefits)”. None of the underlying costs, revenues or ridership numbers have been published. As I have said before with respect to “benefit” studies, you cannot “spend” soft benefits such as reduced traffic on the 401, and you certainly cannot use them to pay down debt.
The presentation claims that 20,000 car trips would be taken off the 401 each day representing 3/4 of the total trips on the HSR. That implies about 26,500 daily rides. Given that there would only be 56 trips/day, that requires an average load of about 475 passengers per trip, both ways, every day, from dawn until mid-evening. Self evidently, demand is not uniformly distributed in time or direction, and that’s a lot of passengers per train. To put this in context, the entire GO rail system carries an average of 760 passengers per trip, but most of the trips are organized around peak travel patterns, and the trains are capable of carrying 2,000 riders each. As any GO rider knows, those peak trips are well used while off-peak trips are not, and this brings the average load down well below the theoretical capacity of the service. The average will only fall with the move to two-way all-day service on more corridors.
Then there is the matter of fares. Glen Murray has talked of fares as low as $10, considerably below what GO now charges regular customers to get to Kitchener, about $13 for a Presto user taking 20 round trips per month. Michael Schabas, the proposal’s author, has talked of fares up to $150 for last minute, peak period bookings.
The proposal even misrepresents the potential improvement in travel time claiming that London-Toronto trips with renewal of existing infrastructure would take over 3 hours when VIA actually operates trains today that take about 2. The problem lies in the presumption that all trains would travel via the north corridor through Kitchener rather than the southern corridor via Oakville. This also relates to the projected demand between nodes on the line and on the stations HSR would not serve such as Guelph (except by a transfer to a presumed frequent GO service in Kitchener).
There are far too many dubious claims and far too little convincing data to support the HSR proposal. Couple this with a claim that the background study contains “commercially confidential” information, and you have all the hallmarks of someone who is trying to bamboozle voters.
It’s a monorail.
LikeLike
Except that if you build it without taking into consideration local transit, it can become an amusement park ride. Hint: designing it so that virtually all users have to drive to it means that it will be empty for most of the day rather than a proper relief line for the 401.
Also, I was wondering what was the source of that deep booming voice, fire and smoke when I bike across the viaduct on my way downtown.
Steve: I may overlook the viaduct from my apartment, but try to keep my Wizard of Oz routine under control.
LikeLike
I have to admit some of the claims (most irritating to me was the 3 hours, as I have used the 2:10 train on a few occasions) were silly. However, I have tried to keep away from the basics of the very political announcement, and ask myself basic questions in terms of viability and reasonableness. I cannot say that I can say the idea is outrageous, but have a very hard time imagining it fitting inside the first $29 billion the province should spend, even if all details were provided and looked really good.
I do not see how this project adds real value when congestion will slowly kill growth in the GTHA if not properly addressed. The province needs to get on with a short list of best projects, and I do not see this on a short list. I would really like to see the minister actually put his ministries projects in a rank ordered table, with a budget on each, and then a total at the bottom. I would dare say that even with local governments participating the $29 billion will be fully consumed long before this project has an EA done if they were honestly done on the basis of either social or economic gain.
The GTHA can more than claim its half with projects that would fall between the: urgently needed 5-10 years ago and needed now but not will not be finished for 5-10 years. This without even addressing the projects that will be needed before there is any reasonable hope of completion.
From my vague recollection I seem to remember reading the older TTC plans that were available when I was in University (1980s) that discussed the need for a Eglinton transitway, and a high order transit link from the BDL to the core. The basics of a Don Mills subway go back to the 1960s. Granted some of these plans were visionary, however they are also 30 ++ years old. Both the Eglinton transitway and a Yonge-Bloor bypass should have been built prior to the early 1990s recession. HSR is a vision that may justify itself in 20 years, but we have many projects that more than justified themselves 20 years ago, and that need has only grown.
LikeLike
I wish people would stop denigrating monorails. There is plenty of example of a successful one. It opened in 1903 in Wuppertal Germany and is still running.
The reason this one works well when all the modern ones are fancy toys is that it hangs under a track instead of being mounted on and around it. This allows it to use switches that are closer to railway switches in design and speed of operation instead of requiring a large piece of concrete guide way to be rolled into and out of position. It also runs through the town suspended over a river which means there is actually a reason for using a monorail. A standard elevated railway would have worked but this was designed before there were many of them in existence. Monorails, properly designed and located, have a place as a transit tool. The only problem is no one has built a proper one in over 110 years. I have ridden this line and it is a useful, functional part of the transit network and not an amusement park toy.
Steve: But that guideway is not the light, airy (dare I say “flimsy”?) structure people who try to flog monorails for rapid transit projects like to show us. Also, imagine if someone proposed today building such a structure over, say, the Don River.
LikeLike
Astonishing that a ballyhooed transit maven evidently cannot distinguish between monorail and HSR!
Steve: Listen you dumb ass (much stronger words really should go here), I know perfectly well what the difference is between HSR and a monorail. The latter term is used by me as a stand-in for every oversold piece of crap transit (and any other technology) proposal floated by people who care more about buying votes than about building a transit network we really need. I have been watching this sort of transit marketing since the 1970s, and Ontario is the worse off for following this sort of blind alley to the exclusion of building what we needed when we had the money to afford it. Lots of announcements, but almost no real progress.
But maybe Ontario doesn’t deserve HSR. Maybe we don’t deserve those Gehry-designed towers that David Mirvish is trying to get the go-ahead for either. A hundred identical glass box towers can go up no problem. But when someone proposes something really remarkable, everyone’s got a (negative) opinion. That’s what we seem to be about. Nothing too bold for us, thanks. Don’t stand out. Keep your head down. Good thing our forefathers weren’t so small-minded when they gave us the TTC in the fifties or the transcontinental railway generations before that. Maybe we don’t even deserve that now.
Steve: You are aware, I hope, that the Gehry towers have been redesigned and, in my opinion, much improved.
It is easy to attack anyone who says “but …” as a naysayer, someone with no vision, but that’s rather like treating those who oppose any proposal as “the enemy”, someone who can be ignored.
LikeLike
Put over the Don River would be a wonderful idea as it would provide express service while the Swan Boats would provide local service> I am certain that with new high strength carbon fibre constructions the guide way could be less intrusive. Think about it with Clear Aluminum that was used for the whale tanks on Star Trek; it would be invisible.
LikeLike
What Ontario deserves, especially Toronto, is a fighting chance to get to and from work in less than 80-120 minutes a day. It is remarkably more important that people be able to get home, without having tremendous increases in stress. Toronto is looking in the next couple of decades at facing a trip to work daily that is like the current train trip to London. How about rather than saving say 15-20k people an 30-60 minutes, saving 5-10 times that number the almost the same amount of time on a daily. The HSR may be worthwhile once real transit is in place, whereas, transit in all of Toronto is essential to allow Toronto to keep from choking off regional growth. If we have the money to do one, it must be radical transit improvement first, in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
LikeLike