Alto High Speed Rail

[JM1]

As an Ottawa resident, I would love to be able to use Dorval via High Speed Train. Flying Dash 8's from Montreal to Ottawa to connect onto International flights is annoying and wasteful. I would rather have YOW get a few more international flights (Paris, London, Frankfurt) and be done with commuter flights. Then Montrealers could connect through Ottawa and Ottawans could connect through Montreal by train.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The REM model is actually great for getting a good project. They will focus on ridership instead of other silliness like making 3 stops in Gatineau or something that slows the whole thing down.

I don't think there's any likelihood of multiple stops within a small area. It would only be multiple stops within a very large, heavily populated area like the GTA or Greater Montreal where each stop would be at least 15-20km apart. Not something that has much affect on HSR journey times since it wouldn't reach HSR speeds until it gets out of town anyway.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ok, but a business traveller is not a commuter, particularly if they are on a train at 11 am (which was the post I was responding to). It is fairly well established that high speed trains cut into airline business at distances of a few hundred km. The challenge that high speed trains often have is attracting more price sensitive travellers.

The dude I was talking to was commuting. This was his regular Tuesday.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that a line can serve more than one market or that commutes must be 9-5.

Supercommuters being a major market for HSR is a known phenomenon. Most famously in Japan. The proportion will vary though by market. There's probably going to be a lot more supercommuters from Peterborough to Toronto than between Ottawa and Montreal. But whatever the portion, enabling a wider market for labour and services is great for us.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I'd venture Quebec gets a much bigger overall subsidy from Ottawa than Spain does from Brussels. But yes not on trains. And the point is tt will be a Federal project so the Lachute to Montreal subsidy will be paid by the feds.

Probably we end up with a model adapted from the REM. Though it will be more subsizided as a per km subsidy would have to be so huge for private money to pay for it all. Actually it would show how ridiculous the whole idea is but that's why it can't happen. And sure recovering the capital cost doesn't have to even paritally on the table as most of that is spent in Canada with huge multiplier effects and tax revenues.

The REM model is actually great for getting a good project. They will focus on ridership instead of other silliness like making 3 stops in Gatineau or something that slows the whole thing down.

I believe past studies have shown that HSR would be operationally profitable. Just not capable of returning the capital. Heck, Urban Sky has shown here before how VIA's Corridor East service is net profitable and subsidizes the rest of VIA. And given how much air fare is, there's definitely a market of people who have the budget to buy more expensive fares.

As for not recovering capital, we don't expect it for highways, unlike a lot of countries that average toll intercity highways. So really, it's the same model being applied to passenger rail.

Lastly on the REM model. It actually recovers capital and provides a net return to CDPQ (also a consortium member here). That's what the per rider subsidy goes to: Quebec pensions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think there's any likelihood of multiple stops within a small area. It would only be multiple stops within a very large, heavily populated area like the GTA or Greater Montreal where each stop would be at least 15-20km apart. Not something that has much affect on HSR journey times since it wouldn't reach HSR speeds until it gets out of town anyway.

Shoulder stations are entirely possible. Just depends on the market. For Ottawa, I think a place like Fallowfield is not out of the questions. Put in a Fallowfield and GTA East station and the tech folks going between Markham and Kanata will definitely provide more riders.

People are assuming that suburban stations are out based on a list of cities that Alto said they'd serve. I don't think that precludes suburban stations where ridership justification is strong. Also, the trains usually have to slow down in suburban areas anyway, so the time penalty for a suburban station is smaller. It's way more impactful to have a stop on the rural stretch where the train is running at 250 kph (or higher) than the suburban stretch where it's running 120 kph. Right now I think VIA doesn't even break 100 kph between Fallowfield and Tremblay.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JM1

As an Ottawa resident, I would love to be able to use Dorval via High Speed Train. Flying Dash 8's from Montreal to Ottawa to connect onto International flights is annoying and wasteful. I would rather have YOW get a few more international flights (Paris, London, Frankfurt) and be done with commuter flights. Then Montrealers could connect through Ottawa and Ottawans could connect through Montreal by train.

Even if they go through Dorval, I strongly suspect it will be to the train station and not the airport. I suspect, it's way too expensive to move the train off the corridor, into the airport and then back on the corridor. They'll need to extend the REM to Dorval or build people movers or some long movators.

Either way, I look forward to the cross shopping between YOW and YUL getting better for long haul.

[VANRIDERFAN]

There was a train station at Mirabel.

HSR between Calgary and Edmonton would be a great idea as well.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well not sure about the last point. If this is really going north of the Ottawa River its looks it will be a mostly Quebec line. With a few kilometers only built in Ontario. ...

If that were the case, it suggests that Phase II could be the Ottawa- Toronto section. Because politics.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

HSR between Calgary and Edmonton would be a great idea as well.

They should start with having regular rail service. There's nothing stopping them from building that now. Going straight to HSR is nuts.

Also, what makes HSR expensive is the step change in costs at 125 mph/201 kph. That's the speed at which full grade separation is required. Basically every road crossing has to be closed or grade separated. How would that go down in cattle country without ending up with exceptional costs? Is the QE2 even fully grade separated and segregated from Calgary to Edmonton?

Calgary to Edmonton is ~300 km. A regular speed train (100mph/160 kph) with no grade separation could do it in less than 2.5 hrs today with several intermediate stops. And that would give them a corridor they could upgrade with grade separation and electrification over time. It would also test how much actual demand there is for rail travel there is.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They should start with having regular rail service. There's nothing stopping them from building that now. Going straight to HSR is nuts.

Also, what makes HSR expensive is the step change in costs at 125 mph/201 kph. That's the speed at which full grade separation is required. Basically every road crossing has to be closed or grade separated. How would that go down in cattle country without ending up with exceptional costs? Is the QE2 even fully grade separated and segregated from Calgary to Edmonton?

Calgary to Edmonton is ~300 km. A regular speed train (100mph/160 kph) with no grade separation could do it in less than 2.5 hrs today with several intermediate stops. And that would give them a corridor they could upgrade with grade separation and electrification over time. It would also test how much actual demand there is for rail travel there is.

I agree if they can either build an initial route that's straight enough for HSR. That might be fine for the flat prairies. Or if they could use an existing rail corridor and just save money by deferring electrification and grade separation since there wouldn't be as much opposition to using existing tracks compared to cutting a new corridor through people's land. But often the upgrade from conventional rail to HSR also requires straightening the alignment in which case it seems silly to go through the huge bother of land acquisition, NIMBY battles, court cases, etc. for the initial route only to have to repeat much of it again for the upgrade.

Of course, there's also a risk to using existing corridors in that freight operators can interfere with the train's operation making it slower and/or less reliable which might actually dampen enthusiasm for future rail projects since the concept of passenger rail could be tarnished in people's minds.

[Dengler Avenue]

Also the median of QEII (AB-2) in some area might not be wide enough to fit 2 tracks.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I believe past studies have shown that HSR would be operationally profitable. Just not capable of returning the capital. Heck, Urban Sky has shown here before how VIA's Corridor East service is net profitable and subsidizes the rest of VIA. And given how much air fare is, there's definitely a market of people who have the budget to buy more expensive fares.

As for not recovering capital, we don't expect it for highways, unlike a lot of countries that average toll intercity highways. So really, it's the same model being applied to passenger rail.

Lastly on the REM model. It actually recovers capital and provides a net return to CDPQ (also a consortium member here). That's what the per rider subsidy goes to: Quebec pensions.

Yes fair point on highways versus trains. Certainly there are people who travel Via business (though it's great value) and fly from Montreal and Ottawa to Toronto. I don't think there is a Montreal to Ottawa flight market though.

REM model has the profits going essentially to another public good yes. A private corporation even a foreign one a la 407 is also possible. While the 407 was government designed and the payment is really only about capital allocation and was made at the worst time possible the REM has a better structure. It had the consortium design the project and recieves a payment based on passengers not just get the payment. Thus they have kept costs low and avoided some YIMBY and NIMBY issues.

Everyone says of course there won't be lots of stops but I don't think that is a given. It isn't likely to be true high speed rail but even high speed rail can accelarte quickly. Kobe to Osaka is like a 12 minute ride and about as far as Laval is from downtown Montreal. Lachute is closer to 100km away. Buckingham in Gatineau will have an argument for a stop. Gatineau almost certain to get one.

As a frequent Via passenger I hope we can adopt European practices and not Via's weird Airport-like boarding which requires being there early to line up etc. The Eurostar actuallly has the same problem.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The dude I was talking to was commuting. This was his regular Tuesday.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that a line can serve more than one market or that commutes must be 9-5.

Supercommuters being a major market for HSR is a known phenomenon. Most famously in Japan. The proportion will vary though by market. There's probably going to be a lot more supercommuters from Peterborough to Toronto than between Ottawa and Montreal. But whatever the portion, enabling a wider market for labour and services is great for us.

You're using the word "commute" to refer to reoccurring work-related travel. That is not the definition of commuting. A commuter is

someone who regularly travels between work and home:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/commuter

Would a high speed rail train be used for reoccurring work-related travel (such as a Montreal lobbyist who regularly goes to Ottawa to lobby)? Almost certainly. In most cases such travel would be covered by an employer or be a tax write-off for a self employed person (such as a lawyer, lobbyist, real estate agent, etc) so cost is not usually the biggest concern.

Would a high speed train be used for "regular travel between work and home"? Maybe. As I said in my original post, it depends on how much the subsidy is. This type of travel has to come out of people's pockets and there are no tax write-offs, so cost is a significant consideration.

I don't know much about how many Shinkansen commuters there are in Japan, but this thread indicates that many employers pay all or part of such fares. As I said, the size of the subsidy is a determining factor.
https://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comme..._commutes_how/

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They should start with having regular rail service. There's nothing stopping them from building that now. Going straight to HSR is nuts.

Agreed, the HSR take is aspirational.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, what makes HSR expensive is the step change in costs at 125 mph/201 kph. That's the speed at which full grade separation is required. Basically every road crossing has to be closed or grade separated. How would that go down in cattle country without ending up with exceptional costs? Is the QE2 even fully grade separated and segregated from Calgary to Edmonton?

If you've noticed on the TCH and other highways on the prairies, all you need is a large enough culvert for a cow or horse (atv) to pass under the highway. There'll be enough swales and low spots that this can be done with little extra cost. As for large equipment capable overpasses? Duty to consult also applies to landowners and municipalities, come to agreements on where the most advantageous over/underpass sites are and carry on.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Calgary to Edmonton is ~300 km. A regular speed train (100mph/160 kph) with no grade separation could do it in less than 2.5 hrs today with several intermediate stops. And that would give them a corridor they could upgrade with grade separation and electrification over time. It would also test how much actual demand there is for rail travel there is.

Agree.

[BGO]

For the ones who think they ll build it north of ottawa river, you are dreaming. The cost might be double compared to flat barely no obstacles south side. I d prefer to use that extra money to build the station in the old soon available downtown train station in front on the chateau

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Shoulder stations are entirely possible. Just depends on the market. For Ottawa, I think a place like Fallowfield is not out of the questions. Put in a Fallowfield and GTA East station and the tech folks going between Markham and Kanata will definitely provide more riders.

People are assuming that suburban stations are out based on a list of cities that Alto said they'd serve. I don't think that precludes suburban stations where ridership justification is strong. Also, the trains usually have to slow down in suburban areas anyway, so the time penalty for a suburban station is smaller. It's way more impactful to have a stop on the rural stretch where the train is running at 250 kph (or higher) than the suburban stretch where it's running 120 kph. Right now I think VIA doesn't even break 100 kph between Fallowfield and Tremblay.

I agree that they are listing cities not stations and a Fallowfield station is extremely likely.

Having said that, they need to find a way to decrease the travel time between Fallowfield and the main Ottawa station, as the current time will slow down the end to end travel time way too much. Some of that will come from faster acceleration, but they also need to mitigate some of the more severe speed restrictions.

[lrt's friend]

Are we preparing for a non-downtown station in Montreal and retention of legacy trains on the current route via Casselman, Alexandria and Dorval? After all, legacy trains will continue to run between Ottawa and Kingston, likely with continuing service along the lake shore

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

If you've noticed on the TCH and other highways on the prairies, all you need is a large enough culvert for a cow or horse (atv) to pass under the highway. There'll be enough swales and low spots that this can be done with little extra cost. As for large equipment capable overpasses? Duty to consult also applies to landowners and municipalities, come to agreements on where the most advantageous over/underpass sites are and carry on.

Correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding has been that there's always been opposition to closing roads in the Prairies due to the inconvenience to farmers. It was definitely a thing for the Southwestern Ontario against the Wynne proposed HSR. Even building culverts at every crossing is a cost.

Best path for them is to basically to build a regular speed line with only the urban/suburban portions fully grade separated. ie Calgary to Airdrie and Edmonton to Leduc. That's still a $5B+ project. But that gives them a pathway to get later federal support for more upgrades.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Are we preparing for a non-downtown station in Montreal and retention of legacy trains on the current route via Casselman, Alexandria and Dorval? After all, legacy trains will continue to run between Ottawa and Kingston, likely with continuing service along the lake shore

I don't think anybody has any idea on what the exact routing is. The announcement was ambiguous. We'll know more when the consultations start in Jan. I do think legacy service at Casselman and Alexandria is probably in danger. Unless they retain diesel service on that corridor. Mixed running would be challenging.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree that they are listing cities not stations and a Fallowfield station is extremely likely.

Having said that, they need to find a way to decrease the travel time between Fallowfield and the main Ottawa station, as the current time will slow down the end to end travel time way too much. Some of that will come from faster acceleration, but they also need to mitigate some of the more severe speed restrictions.

They'll have to invest in the suburban and exurban areas. That's where the biggest gains in travel time lie. Going from 80 kph to 120 kph over 40 km does as much as going from 200 kph to 300 kph over 100 km. I expect that corridor from Fallowfield to Tremblay to be substantially upgraded. That 17 mins could easily be cut to 10 mins or less. It's about 15 km and averages 53 kph today. Just need to run it at 90+ kph like GO trains in the GTA.