High Speed Rail

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Types, Presentations | Downloads: 56 | Comments: 0 | Views: 334
of 51
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

This study made available courtesy of HIGH SPEED RAIL CANADA – http://www.highspeedrailcanada.com

Summary: Concept
 Now 17 million intercity trips per year in Toronto – London
corridor, and demand keeps growing
 Today, travel is overwhelmingly by car, on 401
 Bus and rail each have only 3% - 5 %
 In corridors with similar population, density, car ownership
and incomes, High Speed Rail is commercially viable
 Has the time come to bring High Speed Rail to Ontario?

2

Contents






Summary
Route
Evaluation
Areas for further study
Supplemental Materials

3

Summary: Key Findings











Infrastructure cost would be about $2.5 billion
By 2025, it would attract about 6 million passengers per year
About three-quarters of passengers would be “diverted”, with 20,000 car trips taken off 401
each day
Fare revenues would repay most capital investment with a net cost to government of about
$500m .
Toronto - London fare would average $43
While High Speed Rail would directly serve only London and Kitchener, GO riders from
Guelph, and communities across south western Ontario would see benefits
“Worst Case” estimate of 100 homes to be acquired for construction (probably less)
Residents will be concerned about noise, vibration, and visual impacts along the rail corridor
through Brampton, Guelph, Kitchener, London, but none will be severe and all can be
mitigated
No serious environmental or engineering challenges have been identified, so the scheme
might be implemented in 8 years (3 - 4 years to plan and approve, then 3 - 4 years to build
and commission)

5

Summary: 2 main types of Services

“Intercity”
 2 trains per hour all day, 320 km/h +
electrified
 71 minutes from London, 48 minutes from
Kitchener
 Business and Economy Class
 Dynamic market pricing, but average fare
about $43
 Trains might eventually run through to
Peterborough, and perhaps Kingston,
Ottawa, Montréal and Québec City

8

“Regional”
 Hourly all day service to Kitchener, 2 per
hour from Guelph, Mt Pleasant, 4 per hour
from Georgetown, and all stations to
Union
 Additional trains in peaks and from
Georgetown as required to carry traffic
 Presto fares, integrated with other GO and
regional bus and rail services
 Trains might run through to Peterborough
Also DMU service for London – Stratford –
Kitchener route

Route Details










Toronto - Georgetown
Bramalea – Georgetown
Niagara Escarpment (Acton – Rockwood)
Guelph
Kitchener
Kitchener – London
London Centre
Services to Guelph, Stratford, Woodstock
Alternative: Toronto freight bypass

9

Route: Typical Kitchener – London section

18

Evaluation







Key assumptions
Do Minimum Base Case Definition
Capital costs
Operating costs
Traffic and Revenues
Benefits

24

Evaluation: Key Assumptions
Key Assumptions

Capital and Operating Costs



3%/year rail demand growth





1.6%/year incomes and wages growth



0.8%/year fares escalation (real)

Cost rates from 2011 Federal-Provincial “Ecotrain” Study,
subsequent VIA high speed rail study 2012-2013, and FCP
sources



5%/year discount rate (Metrolinx)





$14.32/hour value of time (Metrolinx)

Capital costs for new lines validated against reported
TGV-Est costs (formal audit by Réseau Ferré de France)



Operating cost estimates calibrated against GO and VIA
existing costs, and UK train operating companies



Rolling stock is assumed to be procured using a train
service agreement (wet lease); lease charges are included
with operating costs



Cost estimates are inclusive of contingency, which is not
added separately. Out-turn costs might be 25% higher or
lower.



Assume no real increases in diesel or electricity prices, or
motoring costs

Do Minimum Base Case
Assume implementation of GO Upgrade plan


Union – Kitchener track renewed and electrified



2 new tracks Bramalea (Halwest) to Georgetown



Single track Georgetown – Kitchener

See Excel Model for all assumptions and
detailed cost buildups section 17(1) applies to the 2 excel models in their entirety

25

Evaluation: Traffic, Revenues, and Benefits


Traffic and revenues estimated from existing traffic using LOGIT model









7 Intercity zones (Inner/outer Toronto, Kitchener, London, plus Pearson)

Regional flows between Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton, and Malton to Toronto and
Pearson
LOGIT model used to estimate rail traffic growth due to improvement in rail service
Time savings to passengers, not captured through fares, estimated using Metrolinx standard
value of time
Road user benefits estimated at $5 per new rail rider diverted from road, on same basis as in
GO Upgrade Study. This may be a considerable under-estimated, given the length of journeys
and congestion on 401 that will be alleviated
Wider Economic Benefits (agglomeration benefits) assumed to be 1x transport benefits

26

Evaluation: Fares





Dynamic market pricing would be used to adjust fares in real time for Intercity Services. This will
maximize ridership and revenues, and ensure seats are always available for last minute travellers
Indicative fares are based on existing VIA fares, but Intercity peak fares 50% higher to reflect more
frequent and faster services. Average Intercity fare would be about $43 each way
No increase from current VIA off peak fares
Fares on GO Regional services are assumed to be as existing

27

Evaluation: Traffic assumptions, data and calibration
Base data

Model estimated to give:













Base demand levels estimated from
VIA data, coach service levels,
highway traffic – assumed 50% of
market captive to car
Fares, journey times from internet
Cities separated into areas close to
and far from stations – population
from government website
Airport catchment area and interlining
from Masterplan
Value of time as previous studies
Unit highway benefits from previous
studies

29



Current mode shares
Appropriate elasticities to fare and
time
Generation based on international
experience of proportion of demand
abstracted/generated

Model implemented to calculate
proportional increase in demand by mode
Revenue and economic benefits
calculated from the change in demand,
unit time savings and highway benefits

Evaluation: Options tested
Options defined in terms of
 Journey times
 Service frequency
 Hourly and half – hourly
 checked that it is adequate to carry demand
 Fares – assume 50% peak fare increase for 320 km/h and above, 10%
for 200 km/h; no increase on regional services
 Interchange for access to Pearson Airport
 No change assumed to car times or costs, or coach (although in reality
coach service frequency would likely reduce substantially or cease to
operate)

30

Evaluation: Other assumptions (all conservative)
 Air market between London and Toronto ignored, as assumed to
be mainly interlining passengers
 Ignored demand for journeys to or from points beyond London and
Toronto (eg, Windsor – Toronto, London – Montréal, Kitchener Cobourg) many of which already use rail
 No competitive response from coach assumed, although in reality
we consider they are more likely to withdraw than seek to
compete strongly on price – marginal capacity on HSR can be sold
cheaply with Advance Purchase tickets undermining coach market
 Highway costs and times assumed unchanged in future years, no
increase in gasoline prices or parking charges, no increase in
highway congestion

31

Areas for Further Study
 Optioneering to confirm alignment and impacts










Through Guelph, or around it?



Elevated or in cutting in Kitchener and London?



Evaluate alternative strategies to serve Pearson Airport



Public consultation

Validate capital and operating costs
Develop and test train plans
Detailed analysis of transport and wider economic benefits
Implementation and AFP structures
Options for VIA – GO relationship and Federal support
Prepare Environmental Assessment and begin procurement
33

1. FCP High Speed Rail Experience






Michael Schabas led the study team. Toronto-born, he has played leading roles developing
and operating intercity, regional and high speed passenger rail services and infrastructure in
the UK, Germany, and Australia. He was retained as special advisor to British Rail during
development of the high speed line between London and the Channel Tunnel. He is retained
to advise VIA Rail and the World Bank, among other clients.
Chris Stokes has 40 years experience developing regional and intercity passenger rail services,
mostly in the UK. He has developed business plans for numerous passenger rail investments,
ranging from incremental service upgrades and new stations to the $10 billion Thameslink
project. In the late 1980s, he was responsible for all network development in the London
region, and then held the same role nationally at the Strategic Rail Authority.
John Segal is probably Britain’s leading rail transport economist. He was business planning
manager for Eurostar, the London-Paris High Speed service, when it commenced service. As a
consultant, he has advised on numerous high speed, intercity and regional rail schemes and
operating franchises in the UK, France, and Australia. He led development of the Business
Case for High Speed 2, the London – Birmingham – Manchester line now under development

35

s.18(1)

s.18(1)

s.18(1)

MICHAEL SCHABAS
+44 7973 241 214 / M CHAEL SCHABAS@FCPWORLD NET
F RST CLASS PARTNERSH PS
28 GRAND AVENUE LONDON
UN TED K NGDOM N10 3BB
WWW FCPWORLD NET

March 18, 2014
Iain Myrans
Cc: Jill Hughes; Eric Yerro
Toronto Kitchener London High Speed Rail – Community and Environmental Impacts
1

Summary

You asked me to elaborate on the comment that “up to 100 homes” might need to be
acquired to build the TKL HSR. As you know the initial study was done in a very short time
frame, and the 100 homes was a rough estimate, really just of the magnitude of likely impacts.
I’ve taken a couple more days and think I can give a better answer now, without overstating
or seriously understating the challenges.
Normally I would walk or drive the entire route. I’ve been involved in route selection three
times "for real”, and many times for schemes that have not happened. Vancouver Skytrain,
London Jubilee Line Extension, and UK Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Google Earth does make it
much easier to look at alternative routes, but with the caveat that not everything is marked,
and some of the imagery is five years old and will not show recent developments. However,
my conclusion is that overall, this looks to be an unusually easy route for a high-speed rail
line, about as easy as you can get, in fact, both in terms of construction, and community and
environmental impacts.
Less than 25 homes and farm buildings will need to be demolished, but 150 – 200 fields will
be severed, requiring farmers to make longer trips to their fields (or they can rent fields to
each other). About 50 small and medium sized businesses will be displaced, mostly in
downtown Kitchener, but these can be compensated and relocated at a modest cost. No
schools, hospitals, religious buildings, parks, burial grounds, protected wetlands, or similarly
sensitive sites have been identified. The line (unavoidably) crosses the Niagara Escarpment,
which is a World Biosphere Reserve, but the actual crossing of the escarpment is an existing
quarry that can be remediated, and much of the route over the escarpment can be in cutting,
thereby minimizing visual and noise impacts. The line will also cross a few small river bottoms,
including the Speed River south of Guelph, and the Nith River south of New Hamburg, and
there will be concerns about wetland habitats that will be affected.
The rest of this note looks at the impacts on each section of the line.
2

Toronto Union Station to Malton

Intercity trains will use the existing GO/CN line to Georgetown and Acton. We understand the
line is all being rebuilt from Union almost to Malton for UP Express, with two passenger tracks
for GO Regionals and UP Express, a total of 8 trains per hour. We also assume Little or
PAGE 1 / 11
RS CLASS PAR NERSH PS L M ED
Registered in England and Wales Number 2897318
VA Number 747 0522 38

nothing more is required to allow use by 2 Intercity trains each hour, although probably they
won’t be able to go over 160 km/h.
We might need some passing sidings at stations so the Intercity trains can pass the Regional
trains. There should be space to build these within the existing rail corridor.
An additional station might be required for interchange with a shuttle to Pearson Airport.
There seems to be plenty of space for this alongside Woodbine Race Track. There may be a
joint development opportunity here - the racetrack might build a hotel/convention centre
connected to the airport and the high speed railway. This could also be an “edge of town”
station for people driving from points north and east who will switch to the train to go to
London.
No significant impacts on this section
3

Malton to Georgetown

Intercity trains will use the existing GO/CN line. The line is dead straight from Halwest
Junction to Georgetown, but shared with CN's main line to Sarnia and Chicago with heavy
traffic including double stack trains.
s.18(1)

then the line through Bramalea, Brampton,
Mount Pleasant and Georgetown needs to be widened to four tracks. It is already three tracks
most of the way to Mount Pleasant, and four tracking can be done, it seems, entirely within
the existing rail corridor, which is 40 metres wide (although part of it is used for hydro lines).

Figure 1 The line through Bramalea is surrounded entirely by industrial uses

In Bramalea the land alongside the railway has been developed as industrial, but in Brampton
and west through Mount Pleasant it is residential. There may be some concerns about
additional noise and vibration from local residents, but it is, after all, the CN main line and it
has been here since 1856.
PAGE 2 / 11

Figure 2 The through Brampton and Mount Pleasant is wide and straight. Although the surrounding area
is residential, additional noise and vibration should be relatively minor

Georgetown may be a problem, because the line is only two track, and is in a fairly deep
cutting with houses on either side. To widen the line may require retaining walls, and building
these without closing the CN main line may require taking slices off about 20 residential back
gardens. There is probably no need to actually take the houses, which will still have gardens,
and get most or all of the land back, but after two years of construction and without their trees.

Figure 3 Georgetown. The line is in narrow cutting, and some houses just east of Main Street may lose
their back gardens during construction

It may also be necessary to rebuild a couple of road bridges, which don’t seem to have room
for 4 track underneath them. s.18(1)
Even with four tracking, the speed of Intercity trains will probably be limited to something
below 200 km/h on the Malton - Georgetown section. The time penalty of about 4 minutes will
cost about $200m NPV in lost revenues. There are two reasons. First, there will need to be
switches for freight trains at least through Bramalea. s. 18
Second, the (railway) power lines will need to be very high, to allow CN to run
its double stack trains. s. 18
4

Georgetown to Acton

Intercity trains will use the line that GO is negotiating to purchase from CN. s. 17

This train can use the same tracks as GO and the Intercity services, as
long as there are no curves or gradients.

PAGE 3 / 11

The line from Georgetown to Acton is dead straight and can be widened to two tracks, and
bridges built to eliminate the three road crossings. Three level crossings will need to be
replaced with road overpasses. One, at Limehouse, may affect a couple of nearby houses.

Figure 4 Limehouse, between Georgetown and the escarpment. Note the auto scrapyard to the right.

5

Acton – Kitchener

The existing line through Acton has two sharp curves as it climbs the Niagara Escarpment,
with a third curve in Rockwood. There are then more curves and level crossings as it runs
through the middle of Guelph, virtually down the middle of a residential street. While it would
be possible to build a bypass around Acton and Rockwood, and to improve the line through
Guelph, I am now pretty sure it will be cheaper and easier to build a completely new line for
the Intercity trains, around the south of Guelph. The existing line would remain for use by
Regonal (GO) trains and freight.
The new line, 41 km long, can be built with 5km or larger curve radii, so trains can go 300
km/h around Guelph, shaving valuable minutes. The line cuts through the Niagara
Escarpment, a “World Biosphere Reserve” but it does so at an existing quarry, so arguably it
will be an opportunity to improve the environment. The new cutting can be fairly short as high
speed trains can climb 5% gradients, much like cars do.

PAGE 4 / 11

Figure 5 Climbing the escarpment - the ground rises 40 metres from right to left. The railway will run
across a gravel pit on a new embankment, then into a cutting on the high ground.

For the eastern 25 km, the new line runs through agricultural and “recreational” land, with a lot
of hobby farms. By wiggling the line a bit, it does seem possible to miss every house, and
even every swimming hole. Much of the new Acton - Kitchener line can probably be in cutting.
This is the Niagara Escarpment, so drainage should not be a serious problem. Excavated
rock will be re-used on the Kitchener - London section. Putting the line in cutting will make it
less obtrusive, reducing noise impacts, and simplifying road crossings (overpasses). Even so,
some owners may not want to stay if a high speed railway runs past their country place, but
there is no requirement to take any of them. s. 18
British Rail
tried this: it had the effect of destabilising the property market and may have caused more
harm than good. There do not seem to be any parks, wetlands, historic buildings, First Nation
lands, or cemeteries that would be affected by the new line.

Figure 6 Typical section across the Niagara escarpment, with the new railway threaded between farms
and hobby farms. Much of this section can probably be in cutting, reducing visual and noise impacts.

The western 15 km of the new line, from the southern outskirts of Guelph to the point it rejoins the existing line east of Kitchener, runs though open farmland, crossing the Speed River
but avoiding the Bird Sanctuary.
It seems possible to avoid all buildings but perhaps 50 fields will be severed. Farmers will
have longer trips to their fields, or they will swap, sell, or rent fields to each other.

PAGE 5 / 11

6

Kitchener

The existing rail corridor will be rebuilt, with two passenger tracks and one freight line. This
can be done mostly in the existing rail corridor, which is about 30 metres wide.
6.1

Kitchener - East

On the east side of Kitchener, the line runs through industrial areas. One new overpass
needs to be built, on the east edge of town. No significant impacts are identified here.
6.2

Kitchener – Centre

Through the centre of Kitchener, there are six level crossings. With 2 Intercity trains and 2 GO
trains in the peak hours, each way, plus perhaps an hourly service to Stratford, there will be 9
or 10 trains per hour, so probably all of the level crossing need to be eliminated. The solution
is further complicated by the need to fit in a station here, which needs to be reasonably level.
There is one existing overpass, at Margaret Street, at the east end of the city centre and the
highpoint in the area, about 5 metres higher than the land 1 km east or west.
Current plans are to build an underpass at King Street, which will be shared with the LRT.
King Street is 900 metres west of Margaret Street. If this underpass is built, it will then be very
difficult ever to grade separate the intermediate 4 street, Waterloo, Duke, Weber, and Ahrens.
This seems a mistake, even if high speed rail was never to come to town.

Figure 7 Kitchener City Centre.

Probably the solution is to drop the railway into cutting, so that it runs under all the streets.
The King Street crossing can then remain on the surface. This should be cheaper than
building 7 overpasses, and avoid creating a barrier through the middle of the city. The station
would then also be below grade. Parts of it could be open air, and parts could be built over.
About 5 hectares (12 acres) will need to be acquired to build the station, with at least three
platforms, ideally four, for Intercity and GO trains, probably 350 metres in length to allow for
future train lengthening. There will also need to be one platform for the diesel service we
assume runs from Kitchener via Stratford to London and Sarnia, but this can be a “bay
platform” at the end of the station. Probably the station will need three city blocks, between
Victoria Street and Breithaupt Street which run parallel to the rail way on the north and south
sides. There seems plenty of “soft” land on either side of the railway, which is mostly surface
PAGE 6 / 11

car parks with some low rise strip development. It should not be hard to buy this, but probably
20 or so small and medium size businesses will be displaced. It will create an excellent
development site.

Figure 8 Possible site for Kitchener Railway Station

Construction might require some disruption to the existing GO and VIA services, although it
should be possible to maintain GO services throughout the construction period. It may be
prohibitively expensive to maintain rail freight services, however. The train from Goderich
could be routed via London, with local customers served using intermodal trucks during the
construction period.
There will also need to be a parking garage, for people who drive to the station to catch the
train to Toronto or London, or perhaps in future Ottawa (which will someday only be 3 hours
away by rail). There is a bit more freedom as to where this is located, but ideally it is
immediate east of the station with access off the Conestoga Parkway.
6.3

Kitchener - West

The west side of Kitchener is residential, with the railway in a wide corridor. There are two
level crossings which should be eliminated, and for each of these two or three houses that
would be affected and might need to be acquired.

PAGE 7 / 11

Figure 9 Kitchener East Side

6.4

Kitchener Western Exit

The Intercity trains can run along the existing corridor out the west side of Kitchener, to a
point where the line curves sharply north to go around New Hamburg. The new line to London
would branch off here, to cross 401 and head for London. One possible route would cross
under Snyders Road, in cutting, just east of the Sikh Temple on Snyders Road (the temple is
on high ground). One barn would need to be demolished. The railway would then cross over
401, which is lower here, just east of the County Road 12 interchange.
7

London Approach and City Centre

The choice of route between Kitchener and London is first driven first by the choice of entry
points into London and Kitchener. We assume the “Sikh Temple” fixes the Kitchener end. At
the London end, there are two possible entry routes. One route is in from the northeast, using
the Stratford - London railway line. The alternative is to use the CN main line, which comes
into London from the east. Both routes are pretty straight, allowing trains to run about 160
km/h into the city. The two routes actually join together about 4km from the city centre, where
there are several further curves that will limit speeds probably to 80 km/h or less.
7.1

London northern approach

The railway from Stratford and St Marys has an excellent alignment into London, with one one
quite gently curve, but also has some problems.
The railway corridor is narrow, only 20m wide.
There are many level crossings that would need to be grade separated. The cheapest
solution would be to build the railway on an elevated line, which can probably be done within
the existing corridor, but there would be noise and visual impacts on adjacent homes and
commercial development. Building road overbridges would cause more disruption, because of
the ramps to the bridges. Dropping the line in cutting might be possible, but could be
substantially more expensive.
There are also some freight sidings and a connection between the CN and CP line, which
make the solution a bit more complicated. There is a sharp curve 4km from the city centre,
meaning trains will need to run slowly, for a longer distance, perhaps adding 5 minutes to the
journey time.
This route deserves further study but seems less attractive than the Eastern Approach.
PAGE 8 / 11

7.2

London Eastern Approach

This would follow the CN corridor in from the east. The route would be about 2km longer, but
overall journey times may be very similar as the route into London is straighter with no sharp
curve until London railway station. The line is partly in cutting, and road bridges have
replaced most level crossings. The corridor is mostly 30 metres wide, and there seems to be
enough space for two passenger tracks to provided alongside the CN freight lines, all the way
into London City Centre. There are no freight sidings on the north side.
7.3

London City Centre

Both the Northern and Eastern approaches join together at Egerton street, about 2km from
the city centre. There are five level crossings, and freight track connections on both sides of
the line. The passenger line can run along the north side of the railway corridor, into London
station, which is on a low embankment. There seems to be plenty of space on the north side
of the rail line, east of the existing station, to build a new station, although this is probably not
absolutely necessary. The land between the railway and York Street is mostly surface car
parking, except for a large office building occupied by the Ontario Government. Fortunately, it
is set back from the railway. As in Kitchener, the station could be an attractive development
site.
The whole area is lot more spread out that central Kitchener, which makes it easier to find
solutions, but there are also many more trains, 2 intercities to and from Toronto, smaller trains
to Windsor, Sarnia, and via Brantford, as well as all the CN main line freights. s.18(1)

PAGE 9 / 11

Figure 10 London City Centre

Figure 11 London Station Site. The existing station is to the left

Overpass bridges can be built for Egerton and Rectory Streets, but the won’t be cheap.
There is already an overpass for Adelaide Street, and an underpass at Wellington Street.
Probably there is no solution for the intermediate three crossings, at Colbourne, Maitland and
William Streets. They might be closed, or perhaps low-clearance car and pedestrian
underpasses provided. If the level crossings remain, they will have a small effect on allowable
train speeds, although trains will be slowing anyway to stop in London.
8

Kitchener to London

The line could be built dead-straight from the outskirts of Kitchener to the outskirts of London.
This would allow trains to run at 400 km/h or, in future, maybe even faster. It would also leave
the least room for arguments, but would have significant impacts. Depending on the line that
is chosen, 50 to 200 houses might need to be demolished.
However, curves of 5km radius or more have little or no effect on train speeds up to 300 km/h.
I have looked at several possible routes from the “Sikh Temple” on the west edge of
Kitchener to the CN entry on the east side of London.

PAGE 10 / 11

I have found one route that takes less than 10 houses and barns. Much of the line follows
alongside Hydro lines, which run dead straight from New Hamburg to Kitchener.

Figure 12 Typical section between London and Kitchener

With more work, it may be possible to miss all the houses and barns, but it gets tricky
because as you wiggle the line to miss one home, you get closer to others that might
otherwise be quite far from the railway.
This is mostly rolling terrain; some sections can be in cutting but generally the line will need to
be on a low raised embankment for drainage and snow reasons. In most cases, road
crossings will be overbridges.
Although few farm houses will be taken, more than 100 fields will be “severed”, cut diagonally
by the railway. There will be a road crossing about every km, and farmers regularly rent fields
to each other, s. 18
MTO will have experience from this I guess
building highways (is 416 the most recent?).
Substantial amounts of rock will be needed - this can be brought by rail from quarries and
trucked from railheads on the CN line, 10 to 20 km south of the new line.
9

Other facilities

The railway will need a depot to store and maintain the high-speed trains, and also for track
maintenance equipment. Probably, this will be located in London where most trains will spend
the night. There seem to be many possible sites, not too far from the railway line. One
possibility is to use the former Electro-Motive plant, which built diesel engines until it closed a
few years ago.
There will also need to be electrical power feed-in stations. There seem plenty of sites for
these, alongside the railway, where it is also near hydro switching stations.
Yours sincerely,

Michael Schabas
Partner, FCP
PAGE 11 / 11

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close