VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That may only true in theory at the present time, or with a great deal of delays, like a two hour bus ride. I believe that Kitchener GO rail service is presently operating in peak hours and in the peak direction only. Not very useful to go to any event in downtown Toronto other than a 9 to 5 job. The problem with GO bus service is that it is considerably slower than a private car and is subject to all road congestion. There needs to be regular rail service that by-passes road congestion. Only then does it become a real option for most people.

GO RER will cure most of that.

In any event, the idea that we're building HFR or HSR to sprawl is rather specious. We build them to connect Metros together. Sprawl can be a side-effect for cities on the line. And that can and should be addressed by other policies.

With high speed rail in particular, what's commonly used to decide where to build is the number of flights between a city pair that's within about 600 km. And with that guideline, Barcelona-Madrid is most instructive:

http://www.ferropedia.es/mediawiki/index.php/Archivo:ET_B-M_cuota.jpg

It's a bit longer than Toronto-Montreal. And when they built the line, had almost as many flights as Toronto-Montreal today. With Ottawa along the way, we arguably have a better case for high speed rail than they did back then.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Interesting piece on the perpetual rail studies.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commenta...d-improve-train-service-now-opinion.html

Time to derail studies and improve train service now: Opinion
What Ontario really needs here is a consultant to tell the two levels of train-happy politicians — which don’t seem to talk to each other — that millions of public money being wasted on studies could be doing some good for the public right now.

Terrible article. He's wrong of course. Let's look at where he thinks the money should go...

Southwestern Ontario? Put the consulting fees into refurbishing a couple of GO trains for 160-km/h intercity service on the Toronto-Kitchener-London line as a joint federal/provincial venture.

Does he actually think that $15 million can pay for trains that go that fast on the line through Kitchener? The improvements needed to allow trains to go even 160 would cost billions, not $15 million. And any kind of meaningful improvement to service through Kitchener means solving the problem of part of the line being a CN mainline. The idea of any kind of train going 160 for that kind of price is pure fantasy, as is any kind of meaningful service improvement from "a couple" trains.

Whether HSR is a vote buying scheme or not, that $15 million is paying for an EA, which is needed for any major infrastructure project.

East of Toronto? Give VIA the money to piggyback on those Amtrak orders to quickly get us some decent trains that would reduce operating costs and cut the outrageously high VIA fares that keep Canadians off the rails.

The entire point of Via's HFR plan is to give it its own tracks where it won't have to stop and wait for freight trains. That's what causes Via's abysmal reliability and scattershot schedule. New trains on the existing line would do precisely nothing to solve these problems.

This Greg Gormick guy is just spreading ignorance about intercity rail in this country.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) Drive to Belleville station in 15 mins. Get on comfy train. Get off at Union 1.5 hrs later. Walk to office.

2) Get on TTC bus. Ride 30 mins. Get off at Scarborough Town Centre. Take the RT, which is rammed after Lawrence East. After 10 mins, get off at Kennedy and go down 3 levels to the subway. Ride the subway for 30 mins. Get off and change at Yonge and Bloor. Usually have to wait for several trains to go by before you get on at near crush-load.

The second commute is what my 64 year old mother does daily. The first is what the lawyers and accountants I meet on VIA's evening trains from Toronto do a few times a week. And they live out there because that lawyer's salary from Toronto let's them own nice houses on an acre of land in Belleville. High speed rail will make those commutes so much more shorter and pleasant. Instead of a 1.5 hr train ride, they'll be there in 45 mins to an hour.

This is a great example of why RER is so badly needed. People shouldn't be relying on buses and the subway to get from outer Scarborough to downtown. These kinds of commutes are right in the wheelhouse of regional transit. Your mother should be able to take a bus to the nearest GO station and get on a train that would arrive frequently all day and take her directly downtown. And fares across the GTA should be fully integrated so that the price difference between a regional train and a local train would be insignificant (which also means no flat fare on the subway). This is what most major cities have and what the province is (slowly) working towards.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Terrible article. ....Greg Gormick guy is just spreading ignorance about intercity rail in this country.

I met him once. At an Ottawa LRT public consult. It's great that there's somebody pushing for rail. But he does have that air about him that a lot of enthusiasts do: "these planners are idiots, me and google maps can do better."

Originally Posted by Mister F

This is a great example of why RER is so badly needed.

Indeed. I have long said that. The choice between subway and LRT was a false choice. What Scarborough really needs was GO RER that was fully integrated with TTC bus service. I thought at least Smart Track would go that way, by compelling Metrolinx to focus RER more for the 416. But it's turned into a bit of a flop. That said RER will do well in the 905 and actually get more people using transit long-haul. I think it'll have a larger impact that any LRT.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not a nostalgia thing. And suggestions like this piss me off.

Your post has me on the edge of despair. You participate in this forum and really don't understand the economic implications of higher speed rail and what that would do for regional economic integration along the Laurentian corridor? You don't get the implications on quality of life or relief Toronto would have if high speed rail allowed families to move to Kitchener, London, Peterborough or Belleville?

You might want to give yourself a consistency check. In the thread on Rural Commuter Rail, you wrote the opposite of above:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why exactly is giving "a shot in the arm to struggling valley towns" automatically taken to be good thing? What makes these towns any more special than say the small fishing towns and villages we let dry up in NFLD when the fisheries went under? Sprawl is expensive. And mostly, it's an expense borne by taxpayers. It's a valid question, I think, to ask, why sprawl shouldn't be discouraged.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Perhaps. But a subway does not enable an engineer from a Waterloo startup to pitch to financiers in Toronto and get back to Waterloo within an afternoon. And an LRT won't negate the need for an expensive flight from Toronto to Ottawa for a company to meet their government regulators.

It's almost like a successful economy needs both local transport and intercity solutions.

I still don't see any compelling case, a few companies would save a little money once in a while, a few rich guys could get downtown from their hobby farms a little easier, somebody making a business pitch would save 30 minutes.

There problem rail projects have is there are lots of intercity solutions for the routes we're talking about. If someone wants to go from Ottawa to Toronto, they can fly if they're in a rush (which is still faster than almost any rail solution), they can take the train if they're not in a rush, they can take take the bus if they're on a budget or they can drive if they need more flexibility in their itinerary or need their car at the other end of the trip.

I don't think HFR is a bad idea, but I think Via is going to get so mixed up with electrification, pressure to add unnecessary services on the lakeshore line, massively underestimating cost, massively overestimating revenue, being co-opted by the sprawl lobby that is going to turn into another vapourware project that will be studied to death and kicked around by politicians.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dado

You might want to give yourself a consistency check. In the thread on Rural Commuter Rail, you wrote the opposite of above:

I am perfectly consistent. Ottawa does not need to tolerate sprawl. We don't have average suburban homes costing a million dollars. When we get there, we can talk about sprawling out a bit.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I still don't see any compelling case, a few companies would save a little money once in a while, a few rich guys could get downtown from their hobby farms a little easier, somebody making a business pitch would save 30 minutes.

Without meaning offence, this is a very simplistic and naive view. 2.5 hrs from Ottawa to Toronto would basically kill Greyhoud service. It would probably kill a third to half of Air Canada and Westjet's Pearson bound business too. And that's without actual high speed rail.

When it comes to the GTA, this is not just a "few rich guys". The region is choking on traffic. And that's already costing billions annually in lost productivity. With another million residents forecast to live in the GTA in the next decade, I can't imagine the hell that will be the GTA if there isn't a substantial modal shift to rail. Now, I will concede that you may not need high speed rail per se. They could get by with solid full speed express GO service that skips a few stations and runs more consistently.

Originally Posted by acottawa

There problem rail projects have is there are lots of intercity solutions for the routes we're talking about. If someone wants to go from Ottawa to Toronto, they can fly if they're in a rush (which is still faster than almost any rail solution), they can take the train if they're not in a rush, they can take take the bus if they're on a budget or they can drive if they need more flexibility in their itinerary or need their car at the other end of the trip.

There's lots of solutions. But each one of them is simply terribly compromised. Going by air is expensive. Going by bus takes too long. And going by car is fatiguing. All three are more susceptible to winter weather too.

Have you regularly driven from Toronto to Ottawa? I have. It's what convinced me that the corridor really needs rail. I eventually switched to taking the train. And I'm actually glad that VIA's CEO has realized that HFR is more sustainable and more accessible to the average middle class customer than HSR.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think HFR is a bad idea, but I think Via is going to get so mixed up with electrification, pressure to add unnecessary services on the lakeshore line, massively underestimating cost, massively overestimating revenue, being co-opted by the sprawl lobby that is going to turn into another vapourware project that will be studied to death and kicked around by politicians.

We'll see. This is the closest we've come to substantial progress on this corridor. I remain cautiously optimistic that the CIB will actually guide them to something executable. And you're packing in several assumptions....

First off electrification is not necessary. I think their business case determines that. But I also think electrification is being driven by several considerations including the government's concern over emissions to ongoing electrification work in the GTA and Montreal. Not to mention the huge favour that electrification would do for Ontario by soaking up some excess electricity production for rail (a motivation for GO RER too).

And as for sprawl I don't see it. There's no where really to stop on the route they are taking. It's actually a blessing in disguise. That's why the only stops we see are Peterborough, Tweed, Sharbot Lake and Smiths Falls between the GTA and Ottawa. Other than Peterborough, I guess those three towns could sprawl out a bit. But I don't think any of them will become huge any time soon. If Peterborough takes in even another 100 000 residents, I don't think anybody is really going to be complaining. Had they gone along the Lakeshore, you really would have seen more sprawl. In essence, HFR would have become an extension of GO RER.

The Lakeshore is an interesting one. We'll see what happens. I think they'll pitch some form of DMU service. But we'll see. Maybe all they want to do is run the stock they have into the ground for now.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am perfectly consistent. Ottawa does not need to tolerate sprawl. We don't have average suburban homes costing a million dollars. When we get there, we can talk about sprawling out a bit.

There's no real danger of Moose, even if successful, causing anything in the way of sprawl anyway since most of these towns are declining (and the ones that are growing - Carleton Place, Kemptville and Rockland - are not on existing tracks but are on major highways). At most it would stabilize them, which is hardly a bad thing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dado

There's no real danger of Moose, even if successful, causing anything in the way of sprawl anyway since most of these towns are declining (and the ones that are growing - Carleton Place, Kemptville and Rockland - are not on existing tracks but are on major highways). At most it would stabilize them, which is hardly a bad thing.

Because the GO Train has been so successful at preventing sprawl in the GTA?

Once there are stations there the subdivisions will follow. And that has to be true or Moose wouldn't have a viable business plan.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Without meaning offence, this is a very simplistic and naive view.

No offence taken. I have been called worse.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

2.5 hrs from Ottawa to Toronto would basically kill Greyhoud service. It would probably kill a third to half of Air Canada and Westjet's Pearson bound business too. And that's without actual high speed rail.

Who is talking about 2.5 hours from Ottawa to Toronto? The President of Via says this is supposed to have a 110kph average speed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/via-rail-quebec-ontario-1.3537019

That would be 3.5ish hours (which would vary depending on the number of stops a particular train makes), which is at least an hour more than the door-to-door flight time.

Whether or not it kills Greyhound depends on the cost and the advance purchase requirement. If they charge greyhound-like fares and let people walk on the next train it might kill greyhound, but I haven't see an indication that is the planned business model. It is certainly not how Via operates now.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

When it comes to the GTA, this is not just a "few rich guys". The region is choking on traffic. And that's already costing billions annually in lost productivity. With another million residents forecast to live in the GTA in the next decade, I can't imagine the hell that will be the GTA if there isn't a substantial modal shift to rail. Now, I will concede that you may not need high speed rail per se. They could get by with solid full speed express GO service that skips a few stations and runs more consistently.

I certainly agree that the GTA needs better transit. I think RER is a good step in this regard, as is the Relief Line and I hope they both get built. I don't think that trying to push the boundaries of the GTA out another 100km is a solution.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's lots of solutions. But each one of them is simply terribly compromised. Going by air is expensive. Going by bus takes too long. And going by car is fatiguing. All three are more susceptible to winter weather too.

Have you regularly driven from Toronto to Ottawa? I have. It's what convinced me that the corridor really needs rail. I eventually switched to taking the train. And I'm actually glad that VIA's CEO has realized that HFR is more sustainable and more accessible to the average middle class customer than HSR.

I have, most of my family lives in the GTA or SW Ontario, I have made the trip many times by car, train, plane and bus.

Certainly the hour or so HFR would save when I take the train would be great, but if I'm really in a rush I am still going to fly, if I want to make an intermediate stop, want to have a car when I get to the GTA or need to go places outside central Toronto I'm still going to drive.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And as for sprawl I don't see it. There's no where really to stop on the route they are taking. It's actually a blessing in disguise. That's why the only stops we see are Peterborough, Tweed, Sharbot Lake and Smiths Falls between the GTA and Ottawa. Other than Peterborough, I guess those three towns could sprawl out a bit. But I don't think any of them will become huge any time soon. If Peterborough takes in even another 100 000 residents, I don't think anybody is really going to be complaining. Had they gone along the Lakeshore, you really would have seen more sprawl. In essence, HFR would have become an extension of GO RER.

Certainly it will encourage sprawl in Peterborough (at least if most of the trains stop there). I also expect there will be pressure for an intermediate stop before Peterborough which will encourage more sprawl.

[roger1818]

We are getting off the rails here. The discussion of Moose and its plans have little to with the topic of "VIA Rail network developments." I don't even see VIA contributing significantly to Urban sprawl.

Getting back on topic:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Without meaning offence, this is a very simplistic and naive view. 2.5 hrs from Ottawa to Toronto would basically kill Greyhoud service.

That really depends on pricing. The trend of racing to the bottom has shown that people are more concerned about money than they are about comfort and speed.

It would probably kill a third to half of Air Canada and Westjet's Pearson bound business too. And that's without actual high speed rail.

I think it would have a larger impact on Porter than it would on AC and WS.

And I'm actually glad that VIA's CEO has realized that HFR is more sustainable and more accessible to the average middle class customer than HSR.

I agree. It is more about the frequency than it is about the speed (though speed is still somewhat important). VIA has finally discovered that when you double the frequency of service you more than double the number of riders. Having said that, for intercity travel, hourly service is about the sweet spot for maximum ridership gains.

For years now VIA has been cutting frequency but proportionally, they have been loosing more riders than the number of trains cut, spawning another round of service cuts.

First off electrification is not necessary. I think their business case determines that. But I also think electrification is being driven by several considerations including the government's concern over emissions to ongoing electrification work in the GTA and Montreal. Not to mention the huge favour that electrification would do for Ontario by soaking up some excess electricity production for rail (a motivation for GO RER too).

I agree that full electrification from day 1 is not necessary. We should be keeping our mind open to future electrification though. The "locomotives" (including DMUs if that is the decision) VIA buys today will have to last for 30 years and the energy landscape will likely look very different in 2050. The Ontario government has committed to electrify the lines used by GO, which will likely include the Havelock subdivision to Peterborough and their portion of the Lakeshore line (including future extensions). Dual mode locomotives could use that infrastructure. We may also start to see electrification in Montreal. VIA could then gradually electrify its track in priority of cost/benefit. The Smiths Falls Subdivision might one of their first priorities as it could be seeing both HFR trains and some trains from the Lakeshore route.

The Lakeshore is an interesting one. We'll see what happens. I think they'll pitch some form of DMU service. But we'll see. Maybe all they want to do is run the stock they have into the ground for now.

I think we will see double dipping of sorts. They will plan to replace all of their corridor equipment now, but continue to use the LRCs that have been "replaced" to increase capacity. Once they get close to the end of their life, they will ask to replace them for a second time, once again threatening service cuts if they aren't. At that point, DMUs might be on the table, but for now I beleive it will be conventional trains.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Who is talking about 2.5 hours from Ottawa to Toronto?

This article does: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol...ng-quebec-ontario-route/article29638997/

It says:

Toronto-Ottawa

Current trip: 4:01

Dedicated tracks: 2:30

Ottawa-Montreal

Current trip: 1:50

Dedicated tracks: 1:20

Toronto-Montreal

Current trip: 4:42

Dedicated tracks: 3:45

Certainly it will encourage sprawl in Peterborough (at least if most of the trains stop there). I also expect there will be pressure for an intermediate stop before Peterborough which will encourage more sprawl.

Maybe a Scarborough stop, but there isn't much else between.

[Mister F]

Those of you concerned about sprawl, what's your proposed solution? Leaving the rail system the inadequate mess that it currently is? Rail transit and sprawl aren't inherently linked. Sprawl can be controlled with or without better rail access. If better rail automatically generated more sprawl, Europe and Asia would have the sprawliest cities on the planet. They have rail systems far better than even our most ambitious plans and they have a lot less sprawl. Clearly the two aren't as linked as some of you think.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Indeed. I have long said that. The choice between subway and LRT was a false choice. What Scarborough really needs was GO RER that was fully integrated with TTC bus service. I thought at least Smart Track would go that way, by compelling Metrolinx to focus RER more for the 416. But it's turned into a bit of a flop. That said RER will do well in the 905 and actually get more people using transit long-haul. I think it'll have a larger impact that any LRT.

As long as the province has a backbone and insists on an integrated fare system throughout the GTA, I think RER will have a bigger impact than any other transit project other than the DRL. Those two projects will improve mobility around the region in a big way

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In any event, the idea that we're building HFR or HSR to sprawl is rather specious. We build them to connect Metros together. Sprawl can be a side-effect for cities on the line. And that can and should be addressed by other policies.

Agreed. Sprawl and rail improvements don't have to be connected if strong growth policies are in place. That said, there's nothing wrong with more growth in Kitchener, Peterborough, Barrie, etc. if the infrastructure is there to support it and there's a plan to manage that growth. All of those cities are part of the Places to Grow plan.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Those of you concerned about sprawl, what's your proposed solution? Leaving the rail system the inadequate mess that it currently is? Rail transit and sprawl aren't inherently linked. Sprawl can be controlled with or without better rail access. If better rail automatically generated more sprawl, Europe and Asia would have the sprawliest cities on the planet. They have rail systems far better than even our most ambitious plans and they have a lot less sprawl. Clearly the two aren't as linked as some of you think.

Rail transit because a driver of sprawl when lines are proposed outside of the current metropolitan area that would be convenient for commuting or sufficiently subsidized enough to encourage commuting and/or greater sprawl.

Examples include the high speed rail lines proposed for London and Kitchener, the HFR proposal to Peterborough and Truenorth's proposal for a high speed line to Belleville.

European countries tend to be more aggressive in constraining sprawl (by making it very difficult to develop in the countryside for example). They also don't tend to build commuter-targeted rail services like this. New commuter lines (e.g. crossrail) tend to service existing/established suburbs and high speed services tend not to have close-in stations (for example, the HS2 service proposed for the UK has no planned stations between central london and Birmingham, which is about 200 km from London.

As I said in an earlier post I think the best solution is to charge the actual cost for delivering all transportation services (road, rail and transit) which would force people into a more sensible cost-benefit decision.

I don't think this is politically possible, so as an interim measure I would suggest a policy of "Don't make it worse by building commuter-focused railways outside of the established metropolitan area."

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Who is talking about 2.5 hours from Ottawa to Toronto?

VIA is. See the youtube video also attached to this link from a presentation by Desjardins-Siciliano.

http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/10/via-torpedoed-regional-rail/#viasnew

Originally Posted by acottawa

The President of Via says this is supposed to have a 110kph average speed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/via-rail-quebec-ontario-1.3537019

For the entire service. Some parts (like Toronto-Ottawa) maybe faster. Also, last I read, they were talking about 110 mph, not kph. I can see where the CBC reporter might have thought that D-S misspoke.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Whether or not it kills Greyhound depends on the cost and the advance purchase requirement.

This is exactly the point. Watch any interview with D-S. He specifically makes the point that HSR has not served the middle class and families well because of cost. He wants this project to be cost competitive to specifically capture modal share. He's also stated they want to capture modal share from drivers.

Now, Greyhound may exist and just get cheaper. That's not a bad thing for us. Hopefully, HFR pushes down air fares too.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is certainly not how Via operates now.

They will most certainly have to change how they operate. And they will. The expansion in capacity is massive. So revenue management will have to change with that too.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I certainly agree that the GTA needs better transit. I think RER is a good step in this regard, as is the Relief Line and I hope they both get built. I don't think that trying to push the boundaries of the GTA out another 100km is a solution.

The primary motivation for HSR has always been to better tie tech in Kitchener-Waterloo and Southwestern ontario into the GTA. I don't think the primary motivation is to expand sprawl. Though, the rest of us do understand that this is sort of inevitable.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have, most of my family lives in the GTA or SW Ontario, I have made the trip many times by car, train, plane and bus.

Certainly the hour or so HFR would save when I take the train would be great, but if I'm really in a rush I am still going to fly, if I want to make an intermediate stop, want to have a car when I get to the GTA or need to go places outside central Toronto I'm still going to drive.

It's 2.5 hrs till Union station. Which means the east end of the GTA is 2 hrs. You could be anywhere east of Yonge in less than 3 hrs from Ottawa. And anywhere in the western GTA in less than 4 hrs. Flying will not be competitive for the Eastern GTA. And barely competitive for downtown core and Western GTA. It's really going to be debatable whether saving 1 hr by air is worth the extra $$$ and the security theater at airports.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Certainly it will encourage sprawl in Peterborough (at least if most of the trains stop there). I also expect there will be pressure for an intermediate stop before Peterborough which will encourage more sprawl.

There has to be an intermediate stop somewhere in Scarborough or north Pickering. Otherwise service to the Eastern GTA will be pretty poor. Nobody wants to go all the way to Union and then backtrack 1-1.5 hrs by transit to Scarborough or Markham or Durham. Guildwood station fills this function today. They have Eglinton on the map. But that's too far into Scarborough to be an effective GTA East station in my opinion.

As for sprawl in Peterborough. Small price to pay for the massive boost in service, imho. And if the province really cares about sprawl, they can always slap a greenbelt around the city. But with GO buses already providing service from Peterborough and hints of GO Rail service post-RER, I think things were already heading in this direction.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Examples include the high speed rail lines proposed for London and Kitchener, the HFR proposal to Peterborough and Truenorth's proposal for a high speed line to Belleville.

Eh what?? I never proposed high speed service to Belleville. I said DMU service. Which, given CN rail, would be as slow and unreliable as today. I'd also argue that VIA coule actually ditch the Lakeshore entirely. But for some reason they are persisting with a service proposal so I think there will be DMU service.

Originally Posted by acottawa

European countries tend to be more aggressive in constraining sprawl (by making it very difficult to develop in the countryside for example).

True.

Originally Posted by acottawa

They also don't tend to build commuter-targeted rail services like this.

Not true. Most of their HSR services in Europe offer all kinds of discounts to commuters. And commuters form a rather large base of their customers. Though, I doubt it's the majority anywhere (except maybe Japan...). If Southern Ontario got HSR, I expect the proportion of commuters on that HSR to be about the same as Europe. Indeed, with GO at Kitchener, the bulk of commuters will be on the RER, not HSR.

Originally Posted by acottawa

New commuter lines (e.g. crossrail) tend to service existing/established suburbs and high speed services tend not to have close-in stations (for example, the HS2 service proposed for the UK has no planned stations between central london and Birmingham, which is about 200 km from London.

I have a feeling that'll change, starting with a staiton at Heathrow. And that is rather atypical. Look at other systems in Europe which all have suburban stations, if only to provide a drop off point for anybody traveling in.

I am not too worried about suburban commuters using this. Nobody is going to bother when the train is hourly and the cost is higher, compared to the cheaper and more frequent RER.

Originally Posted by acottawa

As I said in an earlier post I think the best solution is to charge the actual cost for delivering all transportation services (road, rail and transit) which would force people into a more sensible cost-benefit decision.

This is pure fantasy. Will never happen in North America. It doesn't even happen in places with substantially more privatized transport infrastructure.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think this is politically possible, so as an interim measure I would suggest a policy of "Don't make it worse by building commuter-focused railways outside of the established metropolitan area."

This is really a strawman that you have come up with. Building HSR to London via Kitchener, is not meant to focus on commuters. That some commuters will use it doesn't make it a commuter focused service any more than the commuters using VIA from Belleville make VIA a commuter focused service.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is really a strawman that you have come up with. Building HSR to London via Kitchener, is not meant to focus on commuters. That some commuters will use it doesn't make it a commuter focused service any more than the commuters using VIA from Belleville make VIA a commuter focused service.

They're projecting 10 million passengers, which is about the number of passengers that travel between London and Paris (the two largest cities in Europe) on the Eurostar. Unless they are outright lying, there is no way to reach that kind of traffic between cities of that size without it being mostly commuters.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They're projecting 10 million passengers, which is about the number of passengers that travel between London and Paris (the two largest cities in Europe) on the Eurostar. Unless they are outright lying, there is no way to reach that kind of traffic between cities of that size without it being mostly commuters.

Or they simply believe they will capture a large modal share. I fail to see where all these commuter numbers will come from given the alignment they are proposing.

10 million pax is 27 000 per day. Given the amount of buses, trains, and planes between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City (also included in the plan) and the total driving likely occurring between these places. I don't find this number far-fetched at all. Agressively optimistic? Sure. But definitely not an amount that pre-supposes lots of commuters. Don't forget, we're talking about a train line that will service catchment areas totalling at least 25% of Canada's population.

Current numbers also don't account for the friction that is there with inter-city travel today. It's either expensive, tiring, or long, or a combination there of. So how much demand is being suppressed today? I am sure VIA has looked at that. How much demand can be induced? If it's 2.5 hrs from Toronto-Ottawa and relatively cheap, it's entirely possible to get more people doing day trips. 2.5 hrs from Ottawa to Quebec City for $50. You wouldn't take a few more day trips that way? Heck, I foresee a lot more school trips happening. "Remember kids, next Friday we'll be going to Ottawa to visit Parliament. You have to be at the train station by 8am."

HFR will effectively move all these cities closer together. The interaction between them is bound to increase tremendously. Ask yourself this. If the total travel time to see your family in the GTA was reduced to 3.5 hrs each way and the cost was about as much as a greyhound ticket today, would you head out there more often?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They're projecting 10 million passengers, which is about the number of passengers that travel between London and Paris (the two largest cities in Europe) on the Eurostar. Unless they are outright lying, there is no way to reach that kind of traffic between cities of that size without it being mostly commuters.

Also...the Eurostar would get a lot more pax if it wasn't bloody expensive. You know what a lot of regular joes do? Drive to Folkestone and take the Eurotunnel to Calais (a high speed rail service that carries your vehicle):

https://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/home/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel_Shuttle

10.7 million travelling on Eurotunnel Shuttles alone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Passenger_traffic_volumes

And that's aside from the Eurostar (another 10 million).

Once you include their numbers, you'll get a different perspective on how many people actually use the Chunnel. And none of this, of course, counts the ferries. Using Eurostar numbers alone is very, very misleading.

If you ever get the chance, you should try it with a buddy. Different experience driving in one side and then getting off driving on the other side of the road in France!

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I have a feeling that'll change, starting with a staiton at Heathrow. And that is rather atypical. Look at other systems in Europe which all have suburban stations, if only to provide a drop off point for anybody traveling in.

In France the closest TGV stations to Paris (besides the airport) are Tours, Le Mans, Lille and Lyon, which are not really equivalent to places like Kitchener and Guelph in terms of distance.

In Italy the closest stations to Rome are Florence (250 km away) and Naples (200 km away).

In Germany they tend to have one station in the suburbs (e.g. Berlin Spandau) to connect to the S-Bahn, and then the next stop is more than 200 km (Brunswick, Hanover, etc).

There are exceptions of course, particularly in areas where the administrative units are very small and major cities are very close together, but certainly commuting is not a focus.