Alto High Speed Rail

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Besides, with virtually everyone getting access to their own personal transportation, there was limited need to move people by train. Since cars provide cheaper, faster, and a more personalized trip experience, why would people take a train, unless it was the only option. (This is also where the argument that ‘cities used to have lots of trams but got rid of them’ comes into the picture. When there were few personal vehicles, mass transit was the primary option, so many took it. Once the luxury of private vehicles was available, then that became the preferred option. Thus, fewer trams were needed, and the flexibility of buses became a better option over large investments in expanding rail.)

Yet Edmonton and Calgary were among the first cities in NA to build modern LRT systems way back in the late 70s and early 80s respectively. This despite them being small cities at the time and being at the epicenter of the oil industry. And the systems were very successful with high ridership that carried a large percentage of downtown commuters.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

In Canada, with its vast distances, rail travel became mostly irrelevant. Why would anyone who needed to get to Vancouver from Toronto take days to do it on a train? Flying was a far more reasonable option. Anecdotally, my sister is planning a trip to Churchill. I suggested that she take the train, so she looked into it. Her response was swift: “It takes, like, 48 hours. That’s two days! I’m not going to waste that long sitting on a train. We’ll just fly.” For her, the journey is not part of the trip – it is just a necessary waste of time that should be minimized. Would she reconsider the train if it could get her there in only 5-½ hours? Not likely. That is still too long. The plane does the trip in 2-½ hours. Yup, there is also airport time to be added, but when she looks at the times, she, like most people, sees 2-½ hours verses 5-½ hours. The majority of people are going to choose flying over train – meaning fewer passengers for trains. This leads to a poor balance sheet for implementing High-Speed Rail (HSR). Huge costs for HSR, with little increased return.

Just because HSR isn't attractive on routes that are too far for HSR has nothing to do with routes that are an optimal distance for it. HSR works well for routes that are long enough to be a nuisance to drive but short enough that a fast train can be competitive with flying by eliminating the extra hassle that flying entails. It's only been on such routes that HSR has ever been seriously considered, both in Canada and abroad. Mainly the QC-Windsor corridor in Canada's case, which already has high ridership (over 90% of VIA's national total). Since many people already use it even with the current poor speeds and reliability so there's no concern that a much improved service won't be well used. If either of the routes you mentioned were approved for HSR, then that would be a very different story. That's the point where we'd need to look at ulterior political motives.

[Mikeed]

You guys use "scope creep" way to much.

Everything is ultimately about the political economy in the long run; and money is just a unit of time and energy. Capitalism is basically breaking down because EROEI has stopped growing which is why we are solidly in a manage decline state. Look around. Capitalism is just an energy system. We did globalization in the name of wage arbitrage in order to deal with declining EROEI and manage margins in that declining spread. See the combined works of Professor Mark Blyth, Professor Tim Di Muzio, John Ralston Saul- famously wrote a book about the end of globalization during the peak years (which we now know from retrospective), and Nate Hagens.

We got a big big big fucking problem in Canada. We are essentially the most indebted nation in the world, in a world where tomorrows dollar will buy less energy and less labour then yesterdays dollar, which breaks the whole idea of debt. And no the debt the debt to worry about is not really government debt- it's households that are completely tapped out because of what we did to housing having not heeded the warning of Japan's experience.

HSR is a productivity machine because it's an tool of managing surplus better. So that means, lets spend the money to go through the hard rock and make a straight line. Let's commit to full TBM and mined tunnels in our cities in order to get proper downtown stations.

We shouldn't worry about "scope creep" we need to worry about the Canada that was- the builder state- died a long time in the late 80s, and we need to relearn how to do proper mega projects. We have an awful track record of value engineering ourselves disasters in the form of the Confederation Line, Eglinton Crosstown and Line 5 to name a few.

We just watched in the last decade, really since the GFC to now, a new world order be born. And it's back to first principals. Once you understand first principals High Frequency Rail doesn't serve the political economy and this new world order, which is why it was an easy prediction to make it would be cancelled in favour of HSR. Prediction: Even a Conservative government is unlikely to mess with HSR.

Every gallon of jet fuel not burned moving Laurentian elites around the corridor is a gallon that can go to the real economy: mining, oil & gas, forestry, argifood, inter continental aviation. This only makes sense in a post Paris world where the structural differences between the Kyoto agreement and Paris are *big*.

> If we cared about emissions, $90B spent on local transit and EVs would do a lot more to reduce emissions. What $90B spent on HSR will do will substantially integrate the region economically and make it broadly more competitive. That's the motivation.

The 2nd part is only true in a world of "carbon budgeting" without the constraint of carbon budgeting the region is better integrated by the airports, supporting the aviation, and making car travel easier because that's how the upper middle class and above move around. And to be a real player in this world you are "upper middle class or above" hate to break it to you. That's the function of price in a labour market. I would tweak your vocabulary: it makes the region more productive not competitive. Those are two different things. One leads to the other. Increased productivity comes from using energy better, the real surplus hidden in the dollar. HSR really works on a civilizational scale in a way that compounds year over year, more then EV subsidies which is a tool of consumption not productivity. Japan and France are the real lessons in HSR & political economy.

TLDR: Build BOLD.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Not only that, but being an oil producing nation in no way requires us to be the ones to use the oil domestically. Using a bit less oil in the Ontario-Quebec corridor would have little to no negative effect on oil profits. We see the same thing in Norway where they produce a lot of oil and export most while being a global leader in electrified transportation with one of the highest uptakes of EVs on the planet. If we were a major oil consumption market at the global level like the US or China that might be different.

You're not considering that we use hydrocarbons to produce work and store that work in dollars. So yes, the fact hydrocarbons give vastly superior returns in calories does mean it matters that Canada basically is one of the oldest petro states and why we are considerably more wealthy per capita in less time then Scandinavia and most of Europe. Norway didn't really bounce back since the Black Death (1300s) till it discovered oil. True story. It *does matter* that you use the oil domestically. Only in the new world order does it matter less. Because we must collectively choose which sectors get the whip hand and which don't in terms of sectorial carbon budgeting.

Just some words for your consideration vis a vis HSR.

One might say we need to be worried about the Conservatives cancelling this project. I don't think so. I think, whether they have the vocabulary right or not, the CPC tends to understand first principals & the real economy better then the Liberals. I am not pro any party; Carney is a Red Tory.

TLDR 2: If we value engineer this we destroy the surplus harvesting potential and we get government debt (largely not that big of a deal when it builds real infrastructure) without building the machine that deleverages the body politic most efficiently. You better be budgeting in the cost of destroyed potential collective surplus and how that compounds across millions of users year over year: time is money. This is not about tourists. If you need a taxi - NO. Bad. Time and energy saved is the only unit of measurement we should really be worried about.

[Williamoforange]

Lots of words there

[Mikeed]

You are free to believe what you believe, but I did bring to the table the synthesis of some of the wisest people on the planet. Just highlighting the provided citations in the previous post if you want to go digging.

But I will admit it's very much next level and took 15 years of education and lots of consumption of news and lectures before it became so obvious what is happening in the world today. Which is why I'm on a streak of nearly perfect predictions since 2019.

Again, words for the consideration of the reader to do what they will with it. Heed a warning about value engineering. Engineer the best system because it's a machine, not a train. Already it seems like the wheels are in motion where they are two options on the table: the better surplus harvesting option (the northern route, the use of the old Ottawa station) and the value engineered option. My prediction is we will see the use of the northern route and the return of train service to the downtown station. I'm less sure about the the downtown station just because of the complexity of the depth, the existing Otrain tunnel, and the 400m platforms. That's an issue of geometry not scope screep. That's an issue of first principals: grades and math. Not scope.

Most of the HSR decisions have largely been made and it's a game about how to build support. Trickle drip information. Provide option 1 & 2 in consultations. But if they're hinting at the downtown station the math has already been checked.

It's exactly what we are seeing with the 2nd west coast pipeline. The Privy Council has almost certainly made up it's mind it's in the vital long term interest of the state and the politics is being managed as it marches forward slowly in the background. Another prediction since I'm throwing them out: the Frontier oil sands mine is probably coming back. How else are we going to feed this 2nd pipeline?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Lots of words there

Lol. Yep. And all of it to pivot from "it's the environment" to "it's the economy" with "it's late stage capitalism" and "I've been Nostradamus since 2019".

Also, went from "we must build it downtown" to "it won't be downtown, not because I was wrong, but geometry".

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Lol. Yep. And all of it to pivot from "it's the environment" to "it's the economy" with "it's late stage capitalism" and "I've been Nostradamus since 2019".

Also, went from "we must build it downtown" to "it won't be downtown, not because I was wrong, but geometry".

You confuse nuance with certainty. You can't be truly certain about anything, but I made a very specific systemic argument with measured nuance. The economy and the environment exist on the same medium. That's it that's all.

Some people will find what I wrote very interesting. Some won't understand what I'm getting at. That's fine. So it goes.

It's obvious if you know how the sausage is made, if the old train station is in play post Senate relocation, then the basic napkin math has been done. The basic feasibility has already been done for it to bubble up as a "oh we could do this" at the national news level. I do systemic analysis.

Keep in mind: GDP as a measurement of "success" tells you if you spend 3x the value of your car at the auto mechanics you're doing great! Meaningless in the wrong context. So worrying about "scope creep" and pointing to the UK and California is not actually understanding imo what are we actually doing here, who wins and who loses, and why those projects went off the rails. For one: California had the option to hire the team we hired, and went the all American green field we will figure it out from 0 let's build our own team from people who have never built HSR. If we are already hiring the A team, we can afford to spend on the actual "forever" infrastructure spine especially if we understand the prime function of the machine we are building, and the power of compounding gains across millions of riders years on year for a century +.

Edit: the signals are getting clearer that one could say the risk of a serious, serious, energy crisis is becoming more and more probable. I now consider it inevitable, broadly. And I'm living my life as such. "Nothing stops this train" walter white (punny)

[Truenorth00]

What is the conspiracy going to be when Alto does the most predictable thing possible for a major project and picks the low risk, lowest impact option?

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What is the conspiracy going to be when Alto does the most predictable thing possible for a major project and picks the low risk, lowest impact option?

Why do you think my analysis is conspiratorial, specifically?

Please also summarize what you describe as this predictable option, specifically.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

Why do you think my analysis is conspiratorial, specifically?

Please also summarize what you describe as this predictable option, specifically.

Dude. You think you're the smartest guy in the room and have special insight about a coming energy crisis which nobody else sees. I can guess what your YouTube feed is like.

And for what the predictable option is? It's the lowest risk and lowest cost option that does the job. And practically everybody who attended an open house had said they are open to other ideas but right now are heavily looking at Tremblay itself or something in that vicinity. It's probably going to take an extraordinarily good business case to move them to Union. And so far I haven't heard anything really good.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Dude. You think you're the smartest guy in the room and have special insight about a coming energy crisis which nobody else sees. I can guess what your YouTube feed is like.

And for what the predictable option is? It's the lowest risk and lowest cost option that does the job. And practically everybody who attended an open house had said they are open to other ideas but right now are heavily looking at Tremblay itself or something in that vicinity. It's probably going to take an extraordinarily good business case to move them to Union. And so far I haven't heard anything really good.

You're inferring a lot from a single systemic analysis which offers a different lens at looking at such a megaproject, a lens that is pretty common when understanding the TGV/Shinkansen projects (energy first and surplus/productivity generation).

Just for the record you believe the lowest cost metric will win on all sections I guess, cause that's what I was asking. So no downtown station in Ottawa, no northern straight line (southern route wins), what about tunnelling to Union in Toronto? What about the new under Mount Royal? Those are not the cheapest options in those sectors.

Let's see what happens. I also don't believe public consultations affect engineering and business case decisions much. They're more about finding the landmines so you can start defusing them early.
Also, lots of people are pointing out the coming energy crisis. Look around. The United States just took over a state in the explicit stated goal of energy dominance. That's one data point among many. Thinking about the future is a game of rolling probabilities. Why is the world rearming so aggressively? Why have I heard whispers from people who shouldn't be talking about stuff. That's another question about probabilities. Russia and Ukraine don't explain all of it. Interesting era we live in.

But I don't want to get off topic. That's it; that's all. lol

[phil235]

Originally Posted by urbanforest

This dude is literally just sharing a thought they had. Why are you condemning civil discourse?

It was a joke. Read his post - he says like 3 times that he isn't pushing for a downtown station.

[Kitchissippi]

Here's a thought for Montreal and how YUL might be included. The Parc Subdivision looks like a strong contender for getting HSR into the city, and if it was extended with a roughly 8 km tunnel through the Plateau that would pass through to Gare Centrale under Réné-Levesque, the HSR platforms could be perpendicular beneath the current ones. This underground station would be right around Dorchester Square, and it would be amazing if they could strike a deal with the old SunLife Building to partially function as a station entrance. Serendipitously, Montreal's main tourist information centre is actually on Dorchester Square From there is could connect to the existing tracks towards the airport and with a short spur and tunnel, right into the terminal

If this tunnel could be shared with EXO, it would shorten the St-Jerome line instead of going around the mountain and consolidate the West Island-Hudson line all at Gare Centrale.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

^ Conspiracist reach.

If we cared about emissions, $90B spent on local transit and EVs would do a lot more to reduce emissions. What $90B spent on HSR will do will substantially integrate the region economically and make it broadly more competitive. That's the motivation.

Yes but it is part of an argument that we need to give people car free choices and then we can push people out of cars. Even EVs are very carbon intensive though most of that is outside of Canada. But yes integration is key. A more central station does probably do that better though the second node possible at Tremblay is also an opportunity. Regardless there will need to be lots of tunnelling or above ground grade seperated overpasses if it's going to be high speed. Above ground is cheaper for sure and would exclude a downtown route.

All that said of course you are right and Ottawa will get the short straw and the project will go with the simpler option here.

[skyscraperaccount]

As a potential local user a HSR stop that most convieniently integrates with existting local transit, especially in our winters, works best in my mind. Trembley is better suited to connect to LRT (already there steps away) and has the space for cars to park and do pick ups/drops offs. During rush hours for cars it is easier to get to than driving into the downtown core. On a personal use case, being in the West end that may not get LRT, taking a cab or driving to Tremblay is a lot more convenient (especially in rush hours) than having to navigate to downtown. If LRT is used by short hopping to Moodie, getting off at RC to schlep to Union seems less convenient than getting off at Tremblay with HSR at my door step (more on that bit of LRT ride later)

For visitors, stepping out of Tremblay and immediately haveing access to LRT (not minimum 300m away), or easy access to rental/uber cars not stuck in traffic would seem better to me that being dropped at Union.

As someone that travels a fair bit to EU and Asia, and never rents cars and rarely takes rideshare, it is much more pleasant to change from long range mode to local mode transport without having to walk much, even if that option means a slightly longer time to get where I'm going vs having to walk a bunch (deep station up, 300m walk, deep station down for RC) to connect to local. Its also very much less confusing when you're visiting a place you've never been to just walk out of a train station and immediately have LRT/cab/bus option right in front of you.

It would be nice to have the Feds take some of that 'saved' Union station budget Alto money and accelerate helping Ottawa fix its Tremblay to downtown LRT problem that is going to hang over our system forever and getting an LRT in Gatineau off its ass and integrated into our system.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes but it is part of an argument that we need to give people car free choices and then we can push people out of cars.

There's no push here. We're not going to be tolling highways. The biggest beneficiary here are people who fly. If the consultations are close to accurate, staff at Alto are saying they want enough capacity (seat-kms) to allow for fares that are on par or lower than VIA. This is huge for people who fly regularly. Won't save any money for anybody who doesn't drive sole though. More options are always good though. The mere presence of HSR will force down air and bus fares.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

But yes integration is key. A more central station does probably do that better though the second node possible at Tremblay is also an opportunity. Regardless there will need to be lots of tunnelling or above ground grade separated overpasses if it's going to be high speed. Above ground is cheaper for sure and would exclude a downtown route.

The whole line has to be segregated and substantially grade separated. Which is exactly why they won't be spending billions unnecessarily or building such in locations with high geotechnical risk (like a place literally called "Sandy Hill").

Originally Posted by YOWetal

All that said of course you are right and Ottawa will get the short straw and the project will go with the simpler option here.

Only in Ottawa do beneficiaries of a $60-90B project complain about getting stiffed because they get a terminus 5 km from the centre of downtown.

[BGO]

Connaught building would make a great downtown station, better than union.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by BGO

Connaught building would make a great downtown station, better than union.

How so?

[Kitchissippi]

People keep on confusing a station building with the actual train station where the trains were actually stationed. Union Station is long gone. Trying to revive that building is like hoping more people would become religious again just to save a church building. I have a suspicion they brought it up only to get people engaged.

[J.OT13]

That's a great visual Kitchissippi. Very helpful.

A modern train station would probably need to be at least twice as long, which brings you under DND. That alone would be a huge impediment. As much as I would love to see Union return, I highly doubt it will happen.