VIA Rail network developments

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

So apparently VIA was willing to operate the proposed Halifax Regional Municipality commuter rail line that was shot down recently. The distance would have been comparable from Tremblay Station to Strandherd Drive.

It makes me wonder if we (Ottawa and Gatineau) could convince VIA to operate a commuter system of sorts in Ottawa...

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is very normal for the exact routing to not be defined prior to the Environmental Assessment (EA). It is true that constraints need to be made but there are only so many routes available for getting from Toronto to Agincourt, from Havelock to Smith Falls, and from Coteau to Montreal. Those kinds of decisions are best left to an EA. To make a final decision on the exact route prior to the EA would be putting the cart before the horse.

Don't believe me? Just look at the Kanata-LRT EA Study. It "identified and examined 13 LRT corridor options."

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Most of the projects that you describe are past the EA stage. You want the exact route before the EA is completed???

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Given that they are only undertaking a detailed route survey now and haven't started the EA, any map provided is tentative at best. And given the commercial sensitivities with potential private sector partners or property acquisitions, they'd have to make, putting very rough lines on a map would be downright irresponsible. This isn't anywhere in the same ballpark as building as an LRT or upgrading an existing GO line. If they don't provide details after their $70 million study (with the EA) is complete, I'd agree with you. Wait too early right now.

It is certainly an option to treat an EA as a feasibility study (although highly risky, that is how we ended up with the Chareli LRT plan), but I think the best practice for this sort of project is to start with a feasibility study. But then one has to wonder where the very specific cost estimates and time estimates came from. If they were based on some sort of average speed or average cost per km (basically pulled out of thin air), then the advantages being touted for this project are entirely speculative.

If that is the plan, it also begs the question why the EA hasn't been started yet

[Urban_Sky]

Double post, please refer to the next post, thank you!

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is certainly an option to treat an EA as a feasibility study (although highly risky, that is how we ended up with the Chareli LRT plan), but I think the best practice for this sort of project is to start with a feasibility study. But then one has to wonder where the very specific cost estimates and time estimates came from. If they were based on some sort of average speed or average cost per km (basically pulled out of thin air), then the advantages being touted for this project are entirely speculative.

What makes it so difficult for you to understand that just because you haven’t had the chance yet to see any detailed engineering studies, this doesn’t necessarily mean that don’t exist? This reminds me of Canada’s one-man-HSR-army Paul Langan, who recently told the media that the absence on information about whether VIA will implement any kind of PTC obviously means that it doesn’t.

VIA Rail has already commissioned (and received) multiple engineering studies (so has Transport Canada to review these studies) and the only thing speculative I can find about them is what price point the potential investors are willing to accept (which of course determines the travel times and passenger figures which can be achieved). The cost, travel time and passenger figures which have been published so far represent therefore a project scope which VIA considers realistic, but it will be the responsibility of the Joint Project Office (JPO) to work together with said potential investors to determine what project scope best suits their appetite...

If that is the plan, it also begs the question why the EA hasn't been started yet

Because the JPO hasn’t started its work yet and it’s pointless to start the formal EA process before you have a clear idea of what project scopes you can actually afford? Nevertheless, the engineering studies I’ve seen had extensive reports which I would describe as a pre-screening for an EA process...

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is certainly an option to treat an EA as a feasibility study (although highly risky, that is how we ended up with the Chareli LRT plan), but I think the best practice for this sort of project is to start with a feasibility study. But then one has to wonder where the very specific cost estimates and time estimates came from. If they were based on some sort of average speed or average cost per km (basically pulled out of thin air), then the advantages being touted for this project are entirely speculative.

What makes it so difficult for you to understand that just because you haven’t had the chance yet to see any detailed engineering studies, this doesn’t automatically mean that they don’t exist? This reminds me of Canada’s one-man-HSR-lobby Paul Langan, who recently dictated to the media that the absence on information about whether VIA will implement any kind of PTC would obviously mean that it won’t (in reality, this will depend on the preferences of the potential investors and Transport Canada as the responsible regulator).

VIA Rail has already commissioned (and received) multiple engineering studies (so has Transport Canada to review these studies) and the only thing speculative I can find about them is what price point the potential investors would be willing to accept (which of course determines the travel times and passenger figures which can be achieved). The cost, travel time and passenger figures which have been published so far represent therefore a project scope which VIA considers realistic, but it will be the responsibility of the Joint Project Office (JPO) to work together with said potential investors to determine what project scope best suits their appetite...

If that is the plan, it also begs the question why the EA hasn't been started yet

Because the JPO hasn’t started its work yet and it’s pointless to start the formal EA process before you have a clear idea of what project scopes you can actually afford? Nevertheless, the engineering studies I’ve seen had extensive reports which I would describe as a pre-screening for an EA process. Therefore, the EA process certainly won’t have to start from scratch...

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

What makes it so difficult for you to understand that just because you haven’t had the chance yet to see any detailed engineering studies, this doesn’t necessarily mean that don’t exist? This reminds me of Canada’s one-man-HSR-army Paul Langan, who recently told the media that the absence on information about whether VIA will implement any kind of PTC obviously means that it doesn’t.

VIA Rail has already commissioned (and received) multiple engineering studies (so has Transport Canada to review these studies) and the only thing speculative I can find about them is what price point the potential investors are willing to accept (which of course determines the travel times and passenger figures which can be achieved). The cost, travel time and passenger figures which have been published so far represent therefore a project scope which VIA considers realistic, but it will be the responsibility of the Joint Project Office (JPO) to work together with said potential investors to determine what project scope best suits their appetite...



Because the JPO hasn’t started its work yet and it’s pointless to start the formal EA process before you have a clear idea of what project scopes you can actually afford? Nevertheless, the engineering studies I’ve seen had extensive reports which I would describe as a pre-screening for an EA process...

There are two entirely different theories being proposed here.

1) Your theory that detailed engineering studies, route planning has all been done, and there is some unidentified need for this to be the most secretive transportation project in the free world (to the extent that even a simple map is apparently a state secret). No other public transportation company in Canada or Western World has this level of secrecy. In my view such secrecy is both unnecessary and undermines the project.

2) The theory presented by several others that detailed planning has not been done, and will not be done until the EA phase, which raises the concerns about where the time and cost estimates came from.

Frankly, I have no idea which hypothesis to believe, both I think are not aligned with best practices in the transportation sector.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There are two entirely different theories being proposed here.

1) Your theory that detailed engineering studies, route planning has all been done, and there is some unidentified need for this to be the most secretive transportation project in the free world (to the extent that even a simple map is apparently a state secret). No other public transportation company in Canada or Western World has this level of secrecy. In my view such secrecy is both unnecessary and undermines the project.

2) The theory presented by several others that detailed planning has not been done, and will not be done until the EA phase, which raises the concerns about where the time and cost estimates came from.

Frankly, I have no idea which hypothesis to believe, both I think are not aligned with best practices in the transportation sector.

Considering Urban_Sky works for VIA and apparently has seen the plans, so I would say his answers are more accurate.

As for why the secrecy, once again it’s best to deffer to Urban_Sky but we have put forward several theories which you have completely ignored.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Considering Urban_Sky works for VIA and apparently has seen the plans, so I would say his answers are more accurate.

As for why the secrecy, once again it’s best to deffer to Urban_Sky but we have put forward several theories which you have completely ignored.

I don't think people would accept that explanation on other threads. If someone claimed to work for RTG and told us not to worry everything was fine, I am sure people would not immediately agree to defer to their statements. The user in question has not identified his role within the organization, even in general terms or even really claimed to have seen any documents. Working for an organization (except maybe at a very senior level) does not usually give one access to all of the documents.

I am also not sure why what I am saying is so controversial. If you go on the Metrolinx website, there are all kinds of studies, details of future plans, etc. The same for Amtrak, the same for the same for provincial and state-level transportation agencies, same for agencies in Europe or Australia. You don't think it is odd that almost 6 years after Via announced this proposal, there are about 500 words and a few schematics on the website?

I don't think I have ignored the theories being put forward, I have noted that several of the theories being put forward identify additional problems.

- If Urban Sky is correct and all of the engineering is mostly done and there is some important (and also secret) reason for all of this secrecy, then I think it is fair to criticize Via's secrecy. You may recall I was also critical of the secrecy regarding the delays in the LRT opening. The secrecy creates a risk there will be unpleasant surprises for supporters, partners, MPs, which is why most public transportation agencies provide details on their plans.
-If, as you suggested earlier, details on the routing, etc. will not be addressed until the environmental assessment stage, then it raises the question of where the very specific cost estimates and very specific time estimates came from. To do a specific time estimate, or a specific cost estimate one would need to know both the exact routing (or very close to it) and exactly which upgrades are going to be made (how many grade separations are necessary, how much new track is needed, how many curves need to be straightened, etc).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The user in question has not identified his role within the organization, even in general terms or even really claimed to have seen any documents. Working for an organization (except maybe at a very senior level) does not usually give one access to all of the documents.

I am not going to reveal his exact identity (though he's been pretty open about it). Based on his resume, he's some kind of network or service planner. Certainly at a high enough level to get access to the documents we are discussing. I appreciate that he's sticking solely to publicly available information and still showing us how someone who is in that line of work might approach some of these issues (without giving away anything confidential or proprietary).

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am also not sure why what I am saying is so controversial. If you go on the Metrolinx website, there are all kinds of studies, details of future plans, etc. The same for Amtrak, the same for the same for provincial and state-level transportation agencies, same for agencies in Europe or Australia. You don't think it is odd that almost 6 years after Via announced this proposal, there are about 500 words and a few schematics on the website?

I don't think it's unusual at all. Public agencies released studies. They don't normally release every idea with a ROME that they study. Given that they only had a few million ($3 million I believe) in funding to study this, prior to the last budget, there's no way they have anything beyond a basic assessment of feasibility and some theorizing on routes and costs. Enough to justify a proper route survey and EA, but doubtful it's something that should be released to the public.

Originally Posted by acottawa

- If Urban Sky is correct and all of the engineering is mostly done

He never said the engineering is mostly done. If it was, they wouldn't need a $71 million study and project team. How would engineering be "mostly done" before they even have a full EA? You seem to be misinterpreting his posts. It's pretty clear to me that the only engineering they've done is enough to help scope the problem, get some data to steer the process and get the EA going.

Originally Posted by acottawa

You may recall I was also critical of the secrecy regarding the delays in the LRT opening. The secrecy creates a risk there will be unpleasant surprises for supporters, partners, MPs, which is why most public transportation agencies provide details on their plans.

Not close to the same thing. These analyses are to definitively determine whether this proposal should be built or not. And if it is to be built, the metrics to govern its success and how best to achieve them. That's a whole different issue that being secretive on a multi-billion dollar project that was already under construction. Again, if VIA decides to commit to billions without releasing a full business case and EA, then you'd have a valid complaint. At this point, however, you're holding them to a standard that's far higher than most other government agencies are held to.

Originally Posted by acottawa

-If, as you suggested earlier, details on the routing, etc. will not be addressed until the environmental assessment stage, then it raises the question of where the very specific cost estimates and very specific time estimates came from. To do a specific time estimate, or a specific cost estimate one would need to know both the exact routing (or very close to it) and exactly which upgrades are going to be made (how many grade separations are necessary, how much new track is needed, how many curves need to be straightened, etc).

You can have a ROME without doing a full EA. Doesn't mean they are high confidence figures reflecting detailed analysis that supports a business case.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think people would accept that explanation on other threads. If someone claimed to work for RTG and told us not to worry everything was fine, I am sure people would not immediately agree to defer to their statements. The user in question has not identified his role within the organization, even in general terms or even really claimed to have seen any documents. Working for an organization (except maybe at a very senior level) does not usually give one access to all of the documents.

I am also not sure why what I am saying is so controversial. If you go on the Metrolinx website, there are all kinds of studies, details of future plans, etc. The same for Amtrak, the same for the same for provincial and state-level transportation agencies, same for agencies in Europe or Australia. You don't think it is odd that almost 6 years after Via announced this proposal, there are about 500 words and a few schematics on the website?

I don't think I have ignored the theories being put forward, I have noted that several of the theories being put forward identify additional problems.

- If Urban Sky is correct and all of the engineering is mostly done and there is some important (and also secret) reason for all of this secrecy, then I think it is fair to criticize Via's secrecy. You may recall I was also critical of the secrecy regarding the delays in the LRT opening. The secrecy creates a risk there will be unpleasant surprises for supporters, partners, MPs, which is why most public transportation agencies provide details on their plans.
-If, as you suggested earlier, details on the routing, etc. will not be addressed until the environmental assessment stage, then it raises the question of where the very specific cost estimates and very specific time estimates came from. To do a specific time estimate, or a specific cost estimate one would need to know both the exact routing (or very close to it) and exactly which upgrades are going to be made (how many grade separations are necessary, how much new track is needed, how many curves need to be straightened, etc).

We already know the general route that will be followed. The whole point of the current study is to identify the specifics of that route. It is not as if we are going to make major deviations from that route. This is not a new greenfield rail line where we are discussing a broad range of alternative routes. We also don't want land speculators involved pushing the cost up substantially. Let the process complete itself, so there is a recommendation. At that point, it will be made public and there can be a discussion.

I don't know why you need to know about curve straightening and grade separations at this point. Let the experts do their jobs. We don't need information that might be reversed next week or next month as a result of further study. This just gets people worked up for nothing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is certainly an option to treat an EA as a feasibility study (although highly risky, that is how we ended up with the Chareli LRT plan), but I think the best practice for this sort of project is to start with a feasibility study.

There seems to be confusion here on what constitutes a feasibility study. A $3 million study that looks at a corridor, does some Google Maps routing survey and defines a potential market and builds a very rough business case and ROME is not enough to justify billions in capital spending. It is, however, enough to say, "The idea has some merit and warrants serious investment to study." That is where VIA is at today.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of saying the City should release the studies, concept papers and memos they wrote internally prior to even including the LRT in the TMP. You can ATIP that information. But I don't know of any government agency that routinely releases all kinds of internally commissioned work for no specific reason.

Originally Posted by acottawa

But then one has to wonder where the very specific cost estimates and time estimates came from. If they were based on some sort of average speed or average cost per km (basically pulled out of thin air), then the advantages being touted for this project are entirely speculative.

If you have a rough idea of possible routes, concept of operations/service, etc. you can come up with average speeds, costs, potential ridership, etc. You don't need detailed engineering estimates for that. It's what network and business planners do regularly.

How accurate such a speculative estimate will be, is an entirely different question. And one that can only be answered after some very detailed study. I would not be surprised to see timings and speeds change by 25% and costs go up by 50% after the detailed study is complete. And I am going to guess that is partly why they have started culling information from their website until they have more definitive data to present. Expectation management.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If that is the plan, it also begs the question why the EA hasn't been started yet

Because no government funded the EA prior to this. This has been one of my many frustrations. HFR's early conceptual definition started under Harper. The Trudeau Liberals could and should have funded this $70 million study years ago, not mere months before an election. Instead they gave VIA a few million for more conceptual work and then did nothing for years. Par for the course in Canada these days where all we do is talk and never actually get around to building much.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There are two entirely different theories being proposed here.

1) Your theory that detailed engineering studies, route planning has all been done, and there is some unidentified need for this to be the most secretive transportation project in the free world (to the extent that even a simple map is apparently a state secret). No other public transportation company in Canada or Western World has this level of secrecy. In my view such secrecy is both unnecessary and undermines the project.

I’m not sure whether Quebec is part of the “free world” or Canada in your personal mental map, but it certainly is part of the “Western World” and having seen a large-scale infrastructure project, which will be entirely paid by the taxpayer (either through capital funds towards the “public” half of construction costs or as subsidies to the “private” investor) and was basically politically approved before the public even learnt about its existence (on April 22, 2016) and is already in full construction, just over 3 years later, I find it insulting that you claim that a project which is still pitched towards potential investors and has been first announced more than half a decade ago would be “without precedent”.

I can’t really tell whether the dosage of information which has been made available to the public so far is helping or undermining the project, but I believe that the fact that almost every single city along the new HFR and the old legacy route has declared their support of the project, while Paul Langan’s desparate attempts of stirring up local resistance keeps falling on deaf ears, suggests that the key stakeholder already have a pretty good idea of what to expect...

2) The theory presented by several others that detailed planning has not been done, and will not be done until the EA phase, which raises the concerns about where the time and cost estimates came from.

Well, as presumably the only person in this discussion who has seen and read any engineering studies about HFR, I can assure you that all claims made by VIA in terms of construction cost, travel time and ridership of HFR are based on what reputed engineering firms have determined to be realistic. However, whether this constitutes “detailed planning” mostly depends on what your personal definition of that term is...

Frankly, I have no idea which hypothesis to believe, both I think are not aligned with best practices in the transportation sector.

Given that I have yet to see you change any of your views regardless of the amount and quality of information, facts or arguments you have been provided with here (or to see you provide anything constructive to the discussions here), I would be seriously shocked if you would suddenly stop filling every single information gap you have with the most negative assumptions or hypotheses...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

So apparently VIA was willing to operate the proposed Halifax Regional Municipality commuter rail line that was shot down recently. The distance would have been comparable from Tremblay Station to Strandherd Drive.

It makes me wonder if we (Ottawa and Gatineau) could convince VIA to operate a commuter system of sorts in Ottawa...

I honestly don't get why VIA is even pitching that HRM commuter line. They should not be involved in intra-city transit. But it's a valid question, if they are doing it for Halifax, whether they would consider it for Ottawa. That said, how much demand is there really for commuters to go from Fallowfield to Tremblay?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I honestly don't get why VIA is even pitching that HRM commuter line. They should not be involved in intra-city transit. But it's a valid question, if they are doing it for Halifax, whether they would consider it for Ottawa.

The situation in Halifax is a bit different than Ottawa. I am not sure how much freight traffic there is, but for passenger rail there are only 3 trains a week each way. Adding commuter service would better utilize the track and add a revenue stream to pay for track and station maintenance. Also, Halifax still has a downtown station, which helps a lot.

In Ottawa, there are 10 trains a day on weekdays so the track is already well used. Without double tracking the line, adding commuter service would disrupt their existing trains. I expect HFR would require double track between Ottawa and Smiths Falls, as they will more than double the number of trains along that route (when you combine the HFR trains with the local trains to Kingston).

That said, how much demand is there really for commuters to go from Fallowfield to Tremblay?

A commuter train would likely have more stops than that. Without a downtown station, it would still require a transfer to the Confederation Line though.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Where did you see that? It might be the eventual goal. But their current plans are barely firm. And there have been articles showing that the Montreal-Quebec City route is dragging down numbers for the whole corridor. I wouldn't be surprised if that portion gets "deferred".

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I honestly don't get why VIA is even pitching that HRM commuter line. They should not be involved in intra-city transit. But it's a valid question, if they are doing it for Halifax, whether they would consider it for Ottawa. That said, how much demand is there really for commuters to go from Fallowfield to Tremblay?

I don't know, but I would like to find out. Sadly, we no longer have a downtown train station. That would be eminently useful for several commuter rail lines on existing track.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Sadly, we no longer have a downtown train station. That would be eminently useful for several commuter rail lines on existing track.

More than just useful; it is crucial. If it wasn't apparent before, it should be obvious now that we can't dump hundreds of passengers all at once at an O-Train station several kilometres out of town. With a downtown train station, some people can walk (or take a bus) to their destination and those who do transfer to the O-Train are boarding a train that has already started to alight some of its passengers.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The situation in Halifax is a bit different than Ottawa. I am not sure how much freight traffic there is, but for passenger rail there are only 3 trains a week each way. Adding commuter service would better utilize the track and add a revenue stream to pay for track and station maintenance. Also, Halifax still has a downtown station, which helps a lot.

This line in Halifax was used for commuter rail route for many years and also serves a bunch of suburban areas like Rockingham, Bedford, and Fall River that first grew up around the rail line (and have since become much larger) then continues on to the main transportation corridor in the Maritimes (up to Truro then on to Moncton). It passes by 3 universities and the region's primary shopping mall then goes into downtown. It has no urban at-grade crossings. It's about the nicest ROW you could imagine sitting around in this way in the region.

They could make it better by extending the route farther into downtown, but that's not a necessary first step. There are also 2 routes they could use going into downtown; there's a second potential ROW coming from the north.

I'm not really familiar with the railway routes in Ottawa aside from knowing the main station isn't downtown. Then again, isn't it on the subway now?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The situation in Halifax is a bit different than Ottawa. I am not sure how much freight traffic there is, but for passenger rail there are only 3 trains a week each way. Adding commuter service would better utilize the track and add a revenue stream to pay for track and station maintenance. Also, Halifax still has a downtown station, which helps a lot.

In Ottawa, there are 10 trains a day on weekdays so the track is already well used. Without double tracking the line, adding commuter service would disrupt their existing trains. I expect HFR would require double track between Ottawa and Smiths Falls, as they will more than double the number of trains along that route (when you combine the HFR trains with the local trains to Kingston).





A commuter train would likely have more stops than that. Without a downtown station, it would still require a transfer to the Confederation Line though.

All true, and very good points. But I had some fun this afternoon and quickly did up a "future map" of what commuter rail may likely look like in Ottawa at some point. The red, blue, and green lines can certainly be done 'quickly' in the sense that the rails are there (at least to Kanata North). Orange would have to be built from scratch and integrated into the future Cumberland Transitway, but could also then facilitate a cross-town line.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't know why you need to know about curve straightening and grade separations at this point. Let the experts do their jobs. We don't need information that might be reversed next week or next month as a result of further study. This just gets people worked up for nothing.

Because this proposal was accompanied by very specific cost and time estimates.

Via did not say: "There is an underused railway and railtrail running through Eastern Ontario that we think might be a basis for a new train service. We did a rough order of magnitude estimate, but we don't know what it would cost, or how long it would take, but we would like some money for a detailed feasibility study to find out."

Instead the president of Via rail went around making very specific estimates for how much it would cost, how long it would take, how many riders it would attract and also predicted that it would attract private sector investment. Those are some pretty big claims to make based on a rough order of magnitude estimate.

The biggest expenditures in a modern rail project are not the track, it is the grade separations (look at the $430M estimate to grade separate the Barrhaven crossings), geological interventions, etc. The higher the speed estimates, the more such interventions are necessary. When Via rail last served Peterborough, the train took three hours. When Metrolinx studied a go extension a decade ago, they estimated it it would cost $1.5B to get two hour service to Peterborough (which would not be fast enough for Via's time estimates). The project is all for not if trains have to weave their way through the CP yard and mainline to get to Union Station.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There seems to be confusion here on what constitutes a feasibility study. A $3 million study that looks at a corridor, does some Google Maps routing survey and defines a potential market and builds a very rough business case and ROME is not enough to justify billions in capital spending. It is, however, enough to say, "The idea has some merit and warrants serious investment to study." That is where VIA is at today.

What you're asking for is the equivalent of saying the City should release the studies, concept papers and memos they wrote internally prior to even including the LRT in the TMP. You can ATIP that information. But I don't know of any government agency that routinely releases all kinds of internally commissioned work for no specific reason.



If you have a rough idea of possible routes, concept of operations/service, etc. you can come up with average speeds, costs, potential ridership, etc. You don't need detailed engineering estimates for that. It's what network and business planners do regularly.

How accurate such a speculative estimate will be, is an entirely different question. And one that can only be answered after some very detailed study. I would not be surprised to see timings and speeds change by 25% and costs go up by 50% after the detailed study is complete. And I am going to guess that is partly why they have started culling information from their website until they have more definitive data to present. Expectation management.



Because no government funded the EA prior to this. This has been one of my many frustrations. HFR's early conceptual definition started under Harper. The Trudeau Liberals could and should have funded this $70 million study years ago, not mere months before an election. Instead they gave VIA a few million for more conceptual work and then did nothing for years. Par for the course in Canada these days where all we do is talk and never actually get around to building much.

Look at it this way. If you're right, and Via's estimates regarding cost, ridership, private sector investment and time are basically sound (within a reasonable margin of error) then this thing will probably get built in a few years, I'm just some crank on the internet and you're going to be riding a shiny new train through the wilderness.

If my suspicions are, and these estimates are not well grounded in empirical data and proper modelling (and cannot be scrutinized by the media or outside experts because of the secrecy) then Via will probably have wasted a decade before this all unravels (a decade when there were otherwise massive amounts of money available for infrastructure).

I was at a senior political-level meeting when Via Fast was effectively killed (I was junior-something nobody note-taker). That project too was shrouded in pointless secrecy and the politicians were taken aback when they saw the actual numbers. I fear Via is making the same mistake again.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I’m not sure whether Quebec is part of the “free world” or Canada in your personal mental map, but it certainly is part of the “Western World” and having seen a large-scale infrastructure project, which will be entirely paid by the taxpayer (either through capital funds towards the “public” half of construction costs or as subsidies to the “private” investor) and was basically politically approved before the public even learnt about its existence (on April 22, 2016) and is already in full construction, just over 3 years later, I find it insulting that you claim that a project which is still pitched towards potential investors and has been first announced more than half a decade ago would be “without precedent”.

I don't know the history of updates at CdD, but they currently have dozens of documents related to the project online, including all sorts detail.

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/fr/documentation