VIA Rail network developments

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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?

Sorry, 10 million is for the high speed service in SW Ontario, I haven't seen any passenger projections from Via. I don't think commuting will be a big focus for Via (except Peterborough).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

110 mph is the max speed for class 6 track in North America. To get a 2.5 hour trip, the train would have to travel at its maximum speed from the time it left Tremblay until the time it got to Union (no stops at any other stations, no curves in the track, no tunnels, no bridges, no unsignalized crossings).

I guess that is possible, but more likely it says that Via hasn't done much homework on its proposed route.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

110 mph is the max speed for class 6 track in North America. To get a 2.5 hour trip, the train would have to travel at its maximum speed from the time it left Tremblay until the time it got to Union (no stops at any other stations, no curves in the track, no tunnels, no bridges, no unsignalized crossings).

I guess that is possible, but more likely it says that Via hasn't done much homework on its proposed route.

It's about 420km using the northern route to go from Tremblay Station to Union Station. If we assume they lose 15 mins for enroute stops. That yields about about 116 mph. So not substantially off.

I do think they'll have to finagle a bit. And I think they'll come in at closer to 2.75-3 hrs. Also, I think the 2.5 hrs is a bit of a marketing pitch. I think that'll be for the express trains that don't make any stops between Union and Tremblay.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

110 mph is the max speed for class 6 track in North America. To get a 2.5 hour trip, the train would have to travel at its maximum speed from the time it left Tremblay until the time it got to Union (no stops at any other stations, no curves in the track, no tunnels, no bridges, no unsignalized crossings).

I guess that is possible, but more likely it says that Via hasn't done much homework on its proposed route.

VIA has requested trains that have a top speed of 200km/h, which would require class 7 track to acheive. Assuming the route is 400km long, an average speed of 160km/h is required. Given that it will mostly be new track, it is possible, but I agree it is a bit ambitious.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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!

Sounds like a Top Gear challenge.

It's easy to dismiss the 10 million riders estimate, but it's not so farfetched when you think about it. While Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal are obviously smaller than Paris and London, they're probably more closely linked to each other thanks to being in the same country. Flights between the three number in the hundreds per day. Not only that, but Ottawa is as closely linked to Toronto as Montreal is because Canadian provinces are almost like mini-nations in their own right. As you said, there's a lot of suppressed demand for travel between these three cities.

Originally Posted by acottawa

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.

We've been through this. Stations on HSR systems are much closer together than you think, sometimes 20 km apart or even less. This is true of France, Germany, China, Italy, etc. Commuters are an important part of all of them.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sorry, 10 million is for the high speed service in SW Ontario, I haven't seen any passenger projections from Via. I don't think commuting will be a big focus for Via (except Peterborough).

They're predicting corridor ridership of 9.9 million, which refers to Toronto to Quebec City.

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks

The HSR ridership to London is partly because of its speed but also because of how closely linked Kitchener and to a lesser extent London are to Toronto. There's a huge amount of commuter demand there. The province is trying to strengthen those links because the kind of high tech growth happening in Kitchener and Toronto is exactly what will be driving the economy in the future.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sorry, 10 million is for the high speed service in SW Ontario, I haven't seen any passenger projections from Via. I don't think commuting will be a big focus for Via (except Peterborough).

First off. 10.6 million by 2041. Imagine what the population of the GTA, KW and London will be in 24 years. Next, that ridership is perfectly normal for line of that length by European standards.

Read up on the TGV - Atlantique when they started in the early 80s. They went from 1.6 million in 1989 to just shy of 10.5 million in 1991:

http://uctc.berkeley.edu/research/papers/182.pdf

See page 6 on....

Ridership ramps up quick. But it takes a few years as people adjust to the availability of the service. People start looking at jobs that are that far out. Employers start considering employees from further away. College students work out that it might be cheaper to commute and live at home. Services adjust. It's no longer a big deal to go to Toronto for a medical consultation. Traveling from Pearson? Everybody is going to take the train. Etc.

In our case, I would argue there will be a crap load of induced demand, simply from there being a decent alternative, which simply has not existed to date. The GTA roads are just ridiculously congested. The train service is garbage today. Improve mobility and peoples horizons expand. For everything. Jobs, entertainment, services, etc.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Sounds like a Top Gear challenge.

It is indeed quite interesting to drive a right hand drive in right hand traffic and then go back to left-hand traffic. More so, having to do this as a Canadian because the driver was shall we say "well lubricated".

It's such an awesome experience. You hit the border post and then drive right on to the train. When you exit on the other side, it's basically right off the train onto a freeway on-ramp. I believe the actual trip was something like half an hour. But the whole thing with loading and unloading was less than 2 hrs. You simply turn of the car and sit in there till you reach.

Originally Posted by Mister F

It's easy to dismiss the 10 million riders estimate, but it's not so farfetched when you think about it. While Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal are obviously smaller than Paris and London, they're probably more closely linked to each other thanks to being in the same country. Flights between the three number in the hundreds per day. Not only that, but Ottawa is as closely linked to Toronto as Montreal is because Canadian provinces are almost like mini-nations in their own right. As you said, there's a lot of suppressed demand for travel between these three cities.

Backgrounder says 7.2 million by 2023:

https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/Backgrounder_HFT_EN_FINAL.pdf

The 9.9 million forecast is by 2030:

http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/HFR_Info_EN.pdf


I was thinking 10 million was ambitious. Until I realized it was a 2030 forecast. Now I think they're lowballing it. I think they'll hit that target fairly easily. Especially since the higher frequency will actually let them lower ticket prices. Even today, we see that one of the biggest complaints for VIA is cost. And D-S says this should come down. Not to mention that all three cities are going through a transit renaissance where their train stations will be plugged into much better transit services acting as feeders to VIA. RER in Toronto, LRT in Ottawa, REM in Montreal will all make it easier to do these trips car-free from outside the core.

Also, by 2030, looking at the CMAs, the combined population of the three metros could be pushing 14 million from 12 million today. The GTA alone is supposed to see an extra million residents over the next decade. So we know the TOM corridor will be at least 13 million.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

VIA has requested trains that have a top speed of 200km/h, which would require class 7 track to acheive. Assuming the route is 400km long, an average speed of 160km/h is required. Given that it will mostly be new track, it is possible, but I agree it is a bit ambitious.

The corridor is around 420 km in length. Shorter than the Lakeshore route. So even at an average of 150 kph, we're talking 18 mins over the 2.5 hr pledged target. Even if they hit 3 hrs from downtown to downtown between Toronto and Ottawa, that's still tremendously competitive with the car and the bus and decently competitive with air travel (assuming you take Porter).

For Toronto-Montreal, it would work out to 4.25 hrs. Better than car or bus, downtown to downtown. Not time competitive with air. But definitely cheaper. And by today's standards, every train will be as fast as the express trains they run to Montreal today.

I also think there's huge ridership gains waiting in Ottawa-Montreal. They'll hit their target of 1hr 20 mins there. And that'll make the two cities commutable.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

VIA has requested trains that have a top speed of 200km/h, which would require class 7 track to acheive. Assuming the route is 400km long, an average speed of 160km/h is required. Given that it will mostly be new track, it is possible, but I agree it is a bit ambitious.

200 kph plus class 7 track would be classified as a high speed route, which is much more expensive proposition than the budget esimates.

The only 200 kph service in North America is the Acela Express, so you either have to wait until Amtrak is doing an order for new Acela trains or buy something custom (and custom as we've learned many times adds a lot of cost).

Also, class 7 track requires more grade separations, fencing, etc. which adds more money. And while Via would have to replace much of the infrastructure for any passenger service, most of the route is proposed to following existing or abandoned routes, so you're constrained in terms of curves, existing roads, towns, grades, etc.

This is why Via's steady stream of BS and impossibilities hurts its chances of getting anything done.

[lrt's friend]

Why would we poo poo ideas before they are even properly studied?

The alternative is the status quo. How does this move us forward? We would never build anything.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why would we poo poo ideas before they are even properly studied?

The alternative is the status quo. How does this move us forward? We would never build anything.

Because as the exaggerations, etc get unraveled nobody believes anything the proponents say and we end up with nothing. An honest proposal at the outset would have a better chance of succeeding over the long run.

The number of claims coming from Mr. D-S is pretty mind-boggling. The train line is supposed to:

• Be one of the most well-used intercity trains in the world, attracting as many passengers as London-Paris, Boston-New York-Washington, and 500% more than the current via service with a 25% improvement in time.
  
• Be so cheap that it will lure people out of their cars, off buses, etc.
  
• Despite being so cheap, be one of the few train services in the world that covers its operating budget.
  
• Despite being so cheap and covering its operating budget, attract private investors, so also cover much of its capital budget out of its bus-competitive fare structure.
  
• Be conventional speed service (with conventional speed cost estimates) but use high-speed rolling stock and tracks (with no additional cost), and travel close to its top speed for the entire journey.

Almost any objective can be achieved if enough money is thrown at an issue, but when budgets are limited trade-offs are required. If Via misleads people (and the Government) about those trade-offs it is a recipe for failure.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Because as the exaggerations, etc get unraveled nobody believes anything the proponents say and we end up with nothing. An honest proposal at the outset would have a better chance of succeeding over the long run.

The number of claims coming from Mr. D-S is pretty mind-boggling. The train line is supposed to:

• Be one of the most well-used intercity trains in the world, attracting as many passengers as London-Paris, Boston-New York-Washington, and 500% more than the current via service with a 25% improvement in time.
  
• Be so cheap that it will lure people out of their cars, off buses, etc.
  
• Despite being so cheap, be one of the few train services in the world that covers its operating budget.
  
• Despite being so cheap and covering its operating budget, attract private investors, so also cover much of its capital budget out of its bus-competitive fare structure.
  
• Be conventional speed service (with conventional speed cost estimates) but use high-speed rolling stock and tracks (with no additional cost), and travel close to its top speed for the entire journey.

Almost any objective can be achieved if enough money is thrown at an issue, but when budgets are limited trade-offs are required. If Via misleads people (and the Government) about those trade-offs it is a recipe for failure.

Neither the government nor an investment bank will put any money into the project until a business case is presented.

There is definitely a market for this kind of service. Only proper study will determine whether it is a wise investment.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

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.

It should also be noted that VIA already has a much higher market share than Greyhound/Coach Canada; VIA accounts for around 5% of travel in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle compared to about 2% for intercity bus services. The bus companies have a business model that allows them to survive on lower market share, so I wouldn't be too worried about them.

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.

One curiosity of the GTA sprawl is that there's a deadzone of sorts in the northeast. Moving northeast from the 416, the urban area stops pretty abruptly past Markham/north Pickering and then it's pretty much empty all the way to Peterborough. I believe the protections for the proposed Pickering Airport are ultimately the cause.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

One curiosity of the GTA sprawl is that there's a deadzone of sorts in the northeast. Moving northeast from the 416, the urban area stops pretty abruptly past Markham/north Pickering and then it's pretty much empty all the way to Peterborough. I believe the protections for the proposed Pickering Airport are ultimately the cause.

The airport lands and rouge park have been a fairly effective barrier to sprawl in that direction so far.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

[*]Be one of the most well-used intercity trains in the world, attracting as many passengers as London-Paris, Boston-New York-Washington, and 500% more than the current via service with a 25% improvement in time.

We've gone over this. If you're simply going to just ignore past discussion, it's pointless. Nobody wants to engage in circular discussion. I just showed you that London-Paris is at over 20 million pax. VIA is projecting 7.2 million at launch in 2023. And 9.9 million by 2030. It's not D-S that is being deceiving here.

Originally Posted by acottawa

[*]Be so cheap that it will lure people out of their cars, off buses, etc.

Trains are fairly cheap elsewhere. And they do quite well attracting single driving travellers. Why would this case be any different? Their unit costs will go down dramatically with HFR as capacity rises several fold. That will have prices comping down.

And you're forgetting what carbon taxes are going to to d the price of gas over the next decade.

Originally Posted by acottawa

[*]Despite being so cheap, be one of the few train services in the world that covers its operating budget.

Like most well traveled regional routes elsewhere in the world.

Originally Posted by acottawa

[*]Despite being so cheap and covering its operating budget, attract private investors, so also cover much of its capital budget out of its bus-competitive fare structure.

This is might agree with you on. They are proposing low double digit returns on HFR. It'll be interesting what the CIB says.

Originally Posted by acottawa

[*]Be conventional speed service (with conventional speed cost estimates) but use high-speed rolling stock and tracks (with no additional cost), and travel close to its top speed for the entire journey.

We don't really know what they are going to use other than what was asked for in the RFI. They could very well be buying trains capable of 200k because they think there might be stretches of 200kph track. Nothing says the whole corridor has to be conventional speed or high speed. Or heck, they just maybe pricing what's out there. T

Originally Posted by acottawa

Almost any objective can be achieved if enough money is thrown at an issue, but when budgets are limited trade-offs are required. If Via misleads people (and the Government) about those trade-offs it is a recipe for failure.

You are really assuming they are misleading people. Somehow I doubt the folks at the CIB or analysts at their potential investment shops are incompetent and won't push back if they think VIA's numbers are junk.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We've gone over this. If you're simply going to just ignore past discussion, it's pointless. Nobody wants to engage in circular discussion. I just showed you that London-Paris is at over 20 million pax. VIA is projecting 7.2 million at launch in 2023. And 9.9 million by 2030. It's not D-S that is being deceiving here.

You're counting the people that drive as train passengers, which might be technically true because they drive up to the tunnel entrance and then drive off on the other side. If there was a road tunnel they would not get on a train at all. The number of people who are willing to take the service that runs between the city centres is 10 million (which is what Via has on offer, they do not offer a car carrier service). So Via is saying their service can match this despite having a metro population served by the train that is less than half the size, and without having the extent of regional transit and rail networks to feed into the service.

10 million is also the entire ridership of Penn Station that includes all Amtrak services our of New York (high speed, regional, commuter long distance) for one of the largest cities in the world.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Trains are fairly cheap elsewhere. And they do quite well attracting single driving travellers. Why would this case be any different? Their unit costs will go down dramatically with HFR as capacity rises several fold. That will have prices comping down.

It's been my experience that train prices vary wildly from place to place, so I'm not sure how you could possibly draw a generalization like that. You have stated that this service would be comparable with a bus, which is about $50 for a short notice trip from Ottawa to Toronto. There are not many places you can get a short notice train ticket for a 400 km trip for $50.

A short notice trip from Rome to Bologna costs between $62 and $77.
A short notice trip from London to Liverpool costs $200.
A short notice trip from Paris to Lyon (slightly farther) costs $127

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And you're forgetting what carbon taxes are going to to d the price of gas over the next decade.

Another $5 maybe, assuming someone doesn't have a hybrid.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Like most well traveled regional routes elsewhere in the world.

If railway routes are so profitable, why does every country pour huge amounts into subsidies.

Country Subsidy in billions of Euros
Germany 17.0
France 13.2
Italy 7.6
Spain 5.1
UK 4.4
Switzerland 4.3
Belgium 2.8
Netherlands 2.5

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You are really assuming they are misleading people. Somehow I doubt the folks at the CIB or analysts at their potential investment shops are incompetent and won't push back if they think VIA's numbers are junk.

They're certainly keeping the details out of public hands. Information on the proposal is coming from tweets from public meetings or speeches from the president. They have put no detail whatsoever on the website other than a few unsubstantiated claims.

The CIB doesn't exist yet. The legislation was only approved a few weeks ago. One of my neighbours is on the evaluation team in the public service. I certainly wouldn't describe him as a transportation expert. It is noticeably not being put in the hands of experts for evaluation.

The closest thing we have to detailed analysis in the public domain is the feasibility study for a potential GO service to Peterborough (using the route Via is proposing to use).

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/studies/Peterborough_Rail_Study.pdf

It certainly identifies a number of challenges and significant costs and this is only for one segment. To my knowledge the Via proposal has not been subject to nearly as much scrutiny or detailed analysis.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You're counting the people that drive as train passengers, which might be technically true because they drive up to the tunnel entrance and then drive off on the other side.

I don't see why you would discount them. Are they not paying passengers on the train. They could take the ferry, which is cheaper.

Originally Posted by acottawa

10 million is also the entire ridership of Penn Station that includes all Amtrak services our of New York (high speed, regional, commuter long distance) for one of the largest cities in the world.

I actually don't see how this is a complaint. First, VIA is saying 7 million at launch. And next that is distributed over an entire line with 3 of the 5 biggest metros in Canada. That ridership over the whole line is equal to a large node on Amtrak is probably about right given scale.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It's been my experience that train prices vary wildly from place to place, so I'm not sure how you could possibly draw a generalization like that. You have stated that this service would be comparable with a bus, which is about $50 for a short notice trip from Ottawa to Toronto.

It's not me stating that. I believe D-S has said it somewhere. That they want to competitive with bus and driving. And given the massive increase in seats offered for marginal increase in operating costs, I don't think it's an off-the-wall suggestion. Of course, he may be fudging where you have to buy 2 weeks in advance to get a $50 fare.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If railway routes are so profitable, why does every country pour huge amounts into subsidies.

Because not every route is profitable? The Europeans are at the point where they are now building HSR stations in places with under 100 000 residents. And they are offering services sometimes as frequently as every 15-30 mins.

Yet, I have not heard of a route between major metros being unprofitable anywhere. Let alone one between three of the largest metros in a country.

Originally Posted by acottawa

They're certainly keeping the details out of public hands. Information on the proposal is coming from tweets from public meetings or speeches from the president. They have put no detail whatsoever on the website other than a few unsubstantiated claims.

This is a fair criticism. They should be a bit more transparent on their analysis.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The CIB doesn't exist yet. The legislation was only approved a few weeks ago.

And they're already staffing up and have a Chair. Sure, they aren't funding yet. But they will be. And at that point I think you'll start seeing a lot more in-depth work.

Originally Posted by acottawa

One of my neighbours is on the evaluation team in the public service. I certainly wouldn't describe him as a transportation expert. It is noticeably not being put in the hands of experts for evaluation.

You don't need transportation experts per se. Contract out analysis. Read the reports that come in. In any event, I think the most relevant oversight here will come from the pension plans that will fund this thing. They want a return. They aren't going to be throwing down billions if VIA doesn't have a business case. So I am waiting to see what they say. I am cautiously optimistic till then. You can, of course, be pessimistic then too.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The closest thing we have to detailed analysis in the public domain is the feasibility study for a potential GO service to Peterborough (using the route Via is proposing to use).

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/studies/Peterborough_Rail_Study.pdf

It certainly identifies a number of challenges and significant costs and this is only for one segment. To my knowledge the Via proposal has not been subject to nearly as much scrutiny or detailed analysis.

I don't see how this counts as a comparable business case at all. Should we just ignore the millions who want to travel between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal and just see what Toronto-Peterborough tells us? And let's just assume that all construction is as expensive as urban and suburban routes? Somehow I doubt that's true.

And yes, their proposal needs more scrutiny. Presumably, once the bank is up and running they will commission some in-depth analysis of the proposal, over and above the recent work that VIA has done (which isn't public yet).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't see why you would discount them. Are they not paying passengers on the train. They could take the ferry, which is cheaper.

If the geography of eastern ontario was such that you had to load your car onto a train or take a ferry to get across it I would believe Via could get 10 million passengers on its train/car ferry service.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't see how this counts as a comparable business case at all. Should we just ignore the millions who want to travel between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal and just see what Toronto-Peterborough tells us? And let's just assume that all construction is as expensive as urban and suburban routes? Somehow I doubt that's true.

It is an example of the level of detail in the analysis and cost estimates that would be normally done for a major project such as this (which Via is either keeping secret or has not done).

Before the study, people like you kept saying how easy a Peterborough GO train would be, how there is an existing line, etc. After more detailed study (and costing) was available enthusiasm waned.

Also, you have to wonder if the necessary upgrades to Peterborough (expecting much slower speeds and lower frequencies than HSR) had capital costs of 900M to 1.5 billion, one has to wonder where Via is getting its cost estimates from for a project 4x longer that requires a significant greenfield construction project.