The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The issue in Canada is that the natural first line for HSR would be nothing less than connecting Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. Unlike European countries, our major cities are not close.

Honestly I think the race for the first HSR line in Canada is between Toronto-Quebec city and Vancouver-Seattle.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

Honestly I think the race for the first HSR line in Canada is between Toronto-Quebec city and Vancouver-Seattle.

What about Calgary - Edmonton?

[jamincan]

One of the things that bug me about a lot of these transit-focused youtube channels/twitter accounts etc. is that they are almost always focused on the technological aspects of a particular project or proposal and typically ignore of underplay the political aspects of it. HFR is undoubtedly less ambitious than HSR and that may be its saving grace in that it requires far less political capital to implement and is a more incremental project. VIA is a 2nd-tier crown corporation. There is no way that even the most pared-down HSR proposal would ever get further than the drawing board.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by wave46

Also, you run the risk of 'perfect being the enemy of good'.

This line of thinking is how you end up with bootleg infrastructure projects that tout great benefits but struggle to actually achieve them. Take Trillium line in Ottawa for example. The last "upgrade" was supposed to achieve 8-minute frequencies, but couldn't even do better than 12 mins in reality, all because they thought they could cheap out and get the same benefits as systems with more extensive infrastructure.

Likewise, the more I look into the HFR project, the more I doubt the touted benefits. The proposed corridor via Perth and Peterborough is very curvilinear with tight curves. It seems to me it would require extensive upgrades and realignment to achieve the purported average speed of 120+km/h. Could it be done for a just a few billion? Doubt it. There's also the issue of sharing track with freight in Toronto, which could easily tag on an extra 15 mins to some trips. Even if we assume an average run time of 3.5 hours between Ottawa and Toronto is achieved, that's still only marginally better than run times for some of the existing trips.

Time and time again we decide to cheap out and end up paying for it down the road. We don't learn. HSR would be expensive, yes, but it would be quality infrastructure that would provide many more benefits over a longer period of time -- and that adds up.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

This line of thinking is how you end up with bootleg infrastructure projects that tout great benefits but struggle to actually achieve them. Take Trillium line in Ottawa for example. The last "upgrade" was supposed to achieve 8-minute frequencies, but couldn't even do better than 12 mins in reality, all because they thought they could cheap out and get the same benefits as systems with more extensive infrastructure.

Likewise, the more I look into the HFR project, the more I doubt the touted benefits. The proposed corridor via Perth and Peterborough is very curvilinear with tight curves. It seems to me it would require extensive upgrades and realignment to achieve the purported average speed of 120+km/h. Could it be done for a just a few billion? Doubt it. There's also the issue of sharing track with freight in Toronto, which could easily tag on an extra 15 mins to some trips. Even if we assume an average run time of 3.5 hours between Ottawa and Toronto is achieved, that's still only marginally better than run times for some of the existing trips.

Time and time again we decide to cheap out and end up paying for it down the road. We don't learn. HSR would be expensive, yes, but it would be quality infrastructure that would provide many more benefits over a longer period of time -- and that adds up.

It would definitely require extensive track upgrades considering much of the corridor has either tracks removed or in a semi-abandoned state, but that's why it's a multi-billion dollar project. However, the issue with the speed being limited by curves isn't as significant as you suggest because the curves for passenger rail can use significant super elevation (with the rail on the outer part of the curve is much higher than on the inner part). Keep in mind that this route would be for the sole use of passenger train so its engineering doesn't need to adhere to freight rail standards. I stumbled across a detailed discussion on the topic here where one of the commenters pointed this out and the original author did acknowledge that VIA's time estimates are feasible.

In terms of track sharing in town, on the Toronto end the part shared with freight would be a double-tracked section about 17.5km long which is a tiny portion of a multi-hundreds km journey. If the HFR service was hourly it would be easy to schedule around conflicts with freight since each train would only be on that section for about 10 minutes if traveling at 100km/h, and since there's only one level crossing at the inner part of the stretch, speeds could probably be higher. The current route into town shares tracks with the much more frequent Lakeshore East GO with double track section being almost twice that length, yet I've never heard this reported as a scheduling conflict. I think it's a non-issue personally. There's a big difference between sharing a route with slower trains for several hours vs several minutes.

[ssiguy]

HSR also has another problem..........social inequity.

The vast majority who will use such lines are business people who don't pay for their trips regardless and at a minimum get a tax write-off.

Is it better to spend $20 billion on a single line that only thousands will use everyday for people of higher incomes or build hundreds of km of urban rapid transit that millions will use daily and most are working class or of lower incomes? Is this not akin to a government spending billions on a new and prestigious private university as opposed to spending that money on several under-funded public ones?

I am not saying that there isn't a need for faster and more reliable rail service in The Corridor and Edm/Cal but we shouldn't be building it just so we can say to our other G7 countries, 'look everybody we have HSR too'.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It would definitely require extensive track upgrades considering much of the corridor has either tracks removed or in a semi-abandoned state, but that's why it's a multi-billion dollar project. However, the issue with the speed being limited by curves isn't as significant as you suggest because the curves for passenger rail can use significant super elevation (with the rail on the outer part of the curve is much higher than on the inner part). Keep in mind that this route would be for the sole use of passenger train so its engineering doesn't need to adhere to freight rail standards. I stumbled across a detailed discussion on the topic here where one of the commenters pointed this out and the original author did acknowledge that VIA's time estimates are feasible.

In terms of track sharing in town, on the Toronto end the part shared with freight would be a double-tracked section about 17.5km long which is a tiny portion of a multi-hundreds km journey. If the HFR service was hourly it would be easy to schedule around conflicts with freight since each train would only be on that section for about 10 minutes if traveling at 100km/h, and since there's only one level crossing at the inner part of the stretch, speeds could probably be higher. The current route into town shares tracks with the much more frequent Lakeshore East GO with double track section being almost twice that length, yet I've never heard this reported as a scheduling conflict. I think it's a non-issue personally. There's a big difference between sharing a route with slower trains for several hours vs several minutes.

Yes, superelevation would help but that also means replacing a lot of track since there's a lot of curves. Also, most of the corridor is single-tracked and I presume that the estimated $4.4B cost of the project does not account for double-tracking most of it. So if it's going to be a system with passing track for bidirectional travel, timing has to be near impeccable to avoid delays and achieve the 3h15 run time. Once again, these types projects often assume these operating standards can be met on a consistent basis, only to discover that that isn't the case once things are up and running. There's a lot of room for things to go wrong and I'm betting they will. That's why I assumed an average operating time of 3.5hrs at best, instead of 3.25.

I'm doubtful they can achieve what they're promising for $4.4B, and at that cost I don't think a 30-60min time saving is really worth it anyways, especially since it won't even serve the lake Ontario communities.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by jamincan

One of the things that bug me about a lot of these transit-focused youtube channels/twitter accounts etc. is that they are almost always focused on the technological aspects of a particular project or proposal and typically ignore of underplay the political aspects of it. HFR is undoubtedly less ambitious than HSR and that may be its saving grace in that it requires far less political capital to implement and is a more incremental project. VIA is a 2nd-tier crown corporation. There is no way that even the most pared-down HSR proposal would ever get further than the drawing board.

Political becomes too pointed. Saying that HFR should be cancelled makes people think you are right wing, where as doing it makes people think you are a left wing. Everything done with taxpayer money is done with politics mixed in. They need their photo op. To dive into that might be a nightmare. However, why not start one up and do it.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

HSR also has another problem..........social inequity.

The vast majority who will use such lines are business people who don't pay for their trips regardless and at a minimum get a tax write-off.

Is it better to spend $20 billion on a single line that only thousands will use everyday for people of higher incomes or build hundreds of km of urban rapid transit that millions will use daily and most are working class or of lower incomes? Is this not akin to a government spending billions on a new and prestigious private university as opposed to spending that money on several under-funded public ones?

I am not saying that there isn't a need for faster and more reliable rail service in The Corridor and Edm/Cal but we shouldn't be building it just so we can say to our other G7 countries, 'look everybody we have HSR too'.

The issue I see is that there is so much need after decades of nothing that we now have the situation where if every city that has any RT was guarented that new lines would be built immediately after the ones under construction finish, we would be chasing this for decades. Right now, lines are being built in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. As well as the Mississauga LRT and the Winnipeg RT. That is most of the major cities all having lines under construction. We have shovel ready projects in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Cambridge, Brampton and Quebec City, of which when the stimulus package goes out, most if not all will be approved.

Via has the HFR that needs to be done. One would hope they also have some sort of return of passenger rail to the Calgary - Edmonton corridor. I highly doubt Canada will see HSR in my life time. While i may be needed, the optics of it politically just isn't there.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

HSR also has another problem..........social inequity.

The vast majority who will use such lines are business people who don't pay for their trips regardless and at a minimum get a tax write-off.

Is it better to spend $20 billion on a single line that only thousands will use everyday for people of higher incomes or build hundreds of km of urban rapid transit that millions will use daily and most are working class or of lower incomes? Is this not akin to a government spending billions on a new and prestigious private university as opposed to spending that money on several under-funded public ones?

I am not saying that there isn't a need for faster and more reliable rail service in The Corridor and Edm/Cal but we shouldn't be building it just so we can say to our other G7 countries, 'look everybody we have HSR too'.

If it were up to me I'd be scrapping the ridiculous highway 413 project and putting the funds towards HSR instead. I would never suggest funding HSR over necessary important public transit projects.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Yes, superelevation would help but that also means replacing a lot of track since there's a lot of curves. Also, most of the corridor is single-tracked and I presume that the estimated $4.4B cost of the project does not account for double-tracking most of it. So if it's going to be a system with passing track for bidirectional travel, timing has to be near impeccable to avoid delays and achieve the 3h15 run time. Once again, these types projects often assume these operating standards can be met on a consistent basis, only to discover that that isn't the case once things are up and running. There's a lot of room for things to go wrong and I'm betting they will. That's why I assumed an average operating time of 3.5hrs at best, instead of 3.25.

I'm doubtful they can achieve what they're promising for $4.4B, and at that cost I don't think a 30-60min time saving is really worth it anyways, especially since it won't even serve the lake Ontario communities.

The project is not solely about the time savings but as much or more about reliability and frequency/capacity (where the name HFR comes from in the first place). VIA can't really run any more trips than it currently does on the shared tracks due to being crowded out by freight so it doesn't offer near the scheduling options that people want. If it was solely a matter of saving the quoted time with the current limited services I'd agree with you that it wasn't worth it, any more than spending 3x more just to save double that time is worth it. But the proposal estimates that there would be 3x the ridership than with the current setup.

Regarding track replacement, if you explore the corridor on google maps you'll see that most of the track will already need to be repaired or replaced. For a large stretch the track has even been removed. That would already be factored into the cost and is not some unexpected new expense. If there was an alternate route that was in good condition but with fewer the freight conflicts would already be using it by simply buying access from the current owner. The fact that it's disused and in poor condition is kind of the feature rather than the bug because it means that freight carriers aren't using it are willing to sell it since they'd need to spend the billions if they wanted to do so.

In terms of "things going wrong" VIA has been operating trains for decades, including on many single track routes. They know the frequency and potential causes of problems and the vast majority of them are down to not owning or controlling the tracks. This is not a proposal created by amateurs speculating on the internet. Obviously you're free to "bet that things will go wrong" but this is just speculation without citing actual problems. You're probably right that there may be cost overruns since that's true with most major infrastructure projects, but that is just as likely to be true with HSR, especially considering that would be mostly from scratch and with a technology Canada is less experienced with.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The project is not solely about the time savings but as much or more about reliability and frequency/capacity (where the name HFR comes from in the first place). VIA can't really run any more trips than it currently does on the shared tracks due to being crowded out by freight so it doesn't offer near the scheduling options that people want. If it was solely a matter of saving the quoted time with the current limited services I'd agree with you that it wasn't worth it, any more than spending 3x more just to save double that time is worth it. But the proposal estimates that there would be 3x the ridership than with the current setup.

Regarding track replacement, if you explore the corridor on google maps you'll see that most of the track will already need to be repaired or replaced. For a large stretch the track has even been removed. That would already be factored into the cost and is not some unexpected new expense. If there was an alternate route that was in good condition but with fewer the freight conflicts would already be using it by simply buying access from the current owner. The fact that it's disused and in poor condition is kind of the feature rather than the bug because it means that freight carriers aren't using it are willing to sell it since they'd need to spend the billions if they wanted to do so.

In terms of "things going wrong" VIA has been operating trains for decades, including on many single track routes. They know the frequency and potential causes of problems and the vast majority of them are down to not owning or controlling the tracks. This is not a proposal created by amateurs speculating on the internet. Obviously you're free to "bet that things will go wrong" but this is just speculation without citing actual problems. You're probably right that there may be cost overruns since that's true with most major infrastructure projects, but that is just as likely to be true with HSR, especially considering that would be mostly from scratch and with a technology Canada is less experienced with.

One thing I hope is they don't give up those current slots the minute the HFR Route opens. Even if they shrink the train size, by keeping those slots, they have room to grown.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What about Calgary - Edmonton?

That's getting Hyperloop, obviously.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

One thing I hope is they don't give up those current slots the minute the HFR Route opens. Even if they shrink the train size, by keeping those slots, they have room to grown.

They'll still be running local service on the current corridor with trains running from Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal to Kingston rather than the entire route. Kingston council endorsed the proposal since the service will be as good or better with them being the new hub.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jamincan

One of the things that bug me about a lot of these transit-focused youtube channels/twitter accounts etc. is that they are almost always focused on the technological aspects of a particular project or proposal and typically ignore of underplay the political aspects of it. HFR is undoubtedly less ambitious than HSR and that may be its saving grace in that it requires far less political capital to implement and is a more incremental project. VIA is a 2nd-tier crown corporation. There is no way that even the most pared-down HSR proposal would ever get further than the drawing board.

Well put. I'm sick of the whining that we see about HFR being a waste or redundant because it's not HSR. These people seem to think that if they whine enough, governments will suddenly have an epiphany and build HSR. They don't seem to understand that the choice is between HFR and no HFR. With the latter option, possibly including the demise of VIA itself.

Also, the history of high speed rail elsewhere is rarely about the speed itself. In a lot of cases, they had something closer to HFR and then chose to upgrade to HSR because they needed the capacity. This kind of work was also incremental. They upgraded a section here. Or a line there. We don't seem to want to to give VIA the annual funding to allow incremental work. And that's a limitation too.

[Truenorth00]

If HFR gets built (given political realities that's a big if), so much opportunity is created for upgrades.

Consider, for example, spending a billion or two to upgrade Ottawa-Montreal to HSR standards. It would make those cities commutable while improving travel times from Toronto to Montreal. Just one example of the types of incremental upgrades that can be pursued if HFR is built.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The project is not solely about the time savings but as much or more about reliability and frequency/capacity (where the name HFR comes from in the first place). VIA can't really run any more trips than it currently does on the shared tracks due to being crowded out by freight so it doesn't offer near the scheduling options that people want. If it was solely a matter of saving the quoted time with the current limited services I'd agree with you that it wasn't worth it, any more than spending 3x more just to save double that time is worth it. But the proposal estimates that there would be 3x the ridership than with the current setup.

Hold up. 3x more ridership? I know they said they can add up to 3x more departures, but I've not heard of 3x ridership. Firstly, even if they added 3x more departures, which I doubt they would for a while, 3x more ridership would mean they assume they can sellout ALL the added capacity. Fat chance. I'd really love to see the methodology on that estimate.

HSR might cost 3x more, but it would be for far more than just incredible time savings. Once you get to sub-2hr trips between in Ottawa and Toronto, you're then directly competing with airlines. The HFR upgrade won't be so dramatically different from today's service that'll it manage to divert a significant share of airline and vehicular traffic. HSR would be able to attract a lot more riders than HFR ever could. All in all HSR would undoubtedly achieve substantially higher ridership than HFR and would provide many more intangible benefits. Added dependability and capacity over VIA's existing service would be nice, but not for $4.4B (probably more by the time a contract is signed).

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In terms of "things going wrong" VIA has been operating trains for decades, including on many single track routes. They know the frequency and potential causes of problems and the vast majority of them are down to not owning or controlling the tracks. This is not a proposal created by amateurs speculating on the internet. Obviously you're free to "bet that things will go wrong" but this is just speculation without citing actual problems. You're probably right that there may be cost overruns since that's true with most major infrastructure projects, but that is just as likely to be true with HSR, especially considering that would be mostly from scratch and with a technology Canada is less experienced with.

I'm not saying they're amateurs, nor that their estimate of a 3h15 run time is impossible -- it probably is, theoretically -- but I don't even think they believe they'll be able to achieve that consistently. Notice the wording in how they market the purported time savings:

For example, trains could travel at speeds of up to 177 kilometres per hour (or 110 miles per hour), reducing travel times from Ottawa to Toronto to as low as 3 hours and 15 minutes from current travel times of approximately 4 hours and 30 minutes.

https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects-infrastructure/high-frequency-rail

3h15 seems like the absolute max run time they can achieve, theoretically. I think it's fair to assume that won't be the case for the average run time, and that 3h30 is probably a fair guess for what the actual average run time would be. They're obviously trying hard to sell this to both the public and the feds, so it's only natural that they market it under the best case scenario.

As for my "bet that things will go wrong"... Sure, it's not based on a full-on technical analysis, but I've seen it happen with enough projects that try to cut corners and go with the absolute minimum infrastructure, which seems to be the case here. Hence my comparison to the Trillium line project. [/QUOTE]

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, the history of high speed rail elsewhere is rarely about the speed itself. In a lot of cases, they had something closer to HFR and then chose to upgrade to HSR because they needed the capacity. This kind of work was also incremental. They upgraded a section here. Or a line there. We don't seem to want to to give VIA the annual funding to allow incremental work. And that's a limitation too.

Okay so why not incrementally upgrade the existing corridor by building new sections of track to HSR standard. At least then you can get time savings for those sections and incrementally upgrade other sections. No one is saying HSR has to be built in one shot.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Okay so why not incrementally upgrade the existing corridor by building new sections of track to HSR standard.

Because VIA doesn't own most of the current Corridor. And not only is CN not interested in cost-sharing, they are actively opposed to things like overhead catenary systems.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

At least then you can get time savings for those sections and incrementally upgrade other sections. No one is saying HSR has to be built in one shot.

Doing a partial HSR upgrade still has to be done in context of a larger system. Building just an Ottawa-Montreal line right now, with no way for riders from west of Ottawa to benefit, would probably prevent the business case from closing. On the other hand, build HFR, and the amount of ridership using that track goes up substantially.

It also becomes easier to do much smaller upgrades. Like straightening or removing all grade crossings on a stretch, as budgets allow.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Because VIA doesn't own most of the current Corridor. And not only is CN not interested in cost-sharing, they are actively opposed to things like overhead catenary systems.

I mean building a parallel dedicated corridor with new tracks and overhead catenary adjacent to the CN corridor. In places where space might not permit, perhaps build adjacent to the 401.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Doing a partial HSR upgrade still has to be done in context of a larger system. Building just an Ottawa-Montreal line right now, with no way for riders from west of Ottawa to benefit, would probably prevent the business case from closing. On the other hand, build HFR, and the amount of ridership using that track goes up substantially.

It also becomes easier to do much smaller upgrades. Like straightening or removing all grade crossings on a stretch, as budgets allow.

I agree the greater context is important and that smaller upgrades can be done incrementally, but I would much rather see that done along the current lakeshore corridor than in the middle of nowhere.

Say VIA builds short segments of 200+kph rail along the Ottawa-Kingston-Toronto corridor, like between Belleville and Kingston for example, and purchases Acela-type trains. Time savings and reliability can be incrementally achieved without subjecting those communities to crap service indefinitely, which the HFR proposal would do.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Hold up. 3x more ridership? I know they said they can add up to 3x more departures, but I've not heard of 3x ridership. Firstly, even if they added 3x more departures, which I doubt they would for a while, 3x more ridership would mean they assume they can sellout ALL the added capacity. Fat chance. I'd really love to see the methodology on that estimate.

I'm referring to the statements made by the VIA CEO when VIA first proposed the plan.

"But the dedicated passenger corridor would cost $3 billion ($4 billion if the track is electrified) and attract an estimated 7 million passengers, “so it’s a third of the cost for two-thirds of the benefit,” Desjardins-Siciliano says."
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/04...yves-desjardins-siciliano_n_8473342.html

I'm not sure what was included in VIA's ridership estimates, but I'm also not sure of the methodology behind your "fat chance" claim. Your assertion that, "3x more ridership would mean they assume they can sellout ALL the added capacity" doesn't sound very accurate to me because it seems to assume that each future trip would have the same capacity as each current trip. Yet I'm not sure we even know the exact capacity of the future rolling stock. Promotional images from Siemens seems to show three railcars and locomotive which allows a very rough estimate, but it isn't clear if this is even the final configuration.