The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

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.

I think the main issue with building parallel tracks in the current corridor is that A) you lose the cost advantage of reusing an existing corridor, B) the existing corridor is much more heavily built up meaning there would need to be land appropriations / conflicts and many level crossings that would need to be removed for even entry-level HSR due to the legal speed limitations for level crossings. Both of these things are unwarranted because the new service is intended to be express service that doesn't even stop at most of the intermediate stations.

If we are ever to have true HSR, we wouldn't want to attempt it on the current route anyway since it wouldn't be serving the intermediate communities, so putting it in a built up area has no benefit. The whole purpose of HSR is to cover longer distances where there's plenty of opportunity to reach and maintain the top cruising speed. HSR rolling stock has a high top speed but not particularly fast acceleration so frequent stopping and starting makes the service impractical.

The only real advantage to having the express on the same corridor as local would be from electrification since paying to electrify one corridor could allow all trains to be electric. But there's comparatively not that many local services (currently ~ 10 trips per day per direction) so that wouldn't matter that much. I suppose they could also add more local services, but then there'd need to be a greater number of tracks to keep the slower local trains from hindering the express services. But that's something that could also be done now with the express service on a different corridor. I'm not that worried about electrification anyway. It's nice, but an express rail service with a fairly constant cruising speed and few stops is already highly efficient anyway even on diesel with modern, passenger-specific rolling stock. Electrification is most important on urban and suburban services with lots of stops.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

I never understand why people think rail planning can be done on the back of a napkin. You have any idea of the complexity and cost involved in your idea? There's no way that's cheaper that reviving the Havelock Corridor.

Also, all of these ideas assume substantial levels of cooperation from the freight rail operators. Given the history, this is just incredibly naive.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

VIA has data and detailed modeling on the price and schedule sensitivity of their passengers. If this forum wasn't so toxic, Urban_Sky would help explain.

They also know how much the current scheduling is hurting ridership. And one of their findings was that the time between departures was low hanging fruit. Hourly or better frequency dramatically changes how we think of train travel. Knowing that you'll never wait more than an hour for a train, will make the experience more like taking a GO train in Toronto. Might even have more discretionary travel. Just go to the train station and grab a ticket.

Certain sectors like Toronto-Ottawa, Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec City also become competitive with air, either beating door-to-door travel times or coming close enough to not make airfare worthwhile. The frequent schedule really helps here, given how frequent the airlines are on all these routes.

Will add too. Even though it's not a huge driver of ridership. With REM in Montreal, HFR has the potential for basic air-rail integration at Dorval, for a rather reasonable cost (just the REM one stop extension). And in a future phase at Pearson, building on the work GO is doing for RER.

[lrt's friend]

Why bother building HFR at all? Just think of Highway 401, the busiest highway in North America. For many, traffic conditions have become intimidating. HFR is not just trying to get ridership from the airlines but also car drivers. If we get the trip down to 3hr 30m between Ottawa and Toronto, it is faster than by car.

Why not use the Lakeshore route? As others have pointed out, the purpose of HFR is to provide an express service. To speed up service between the big cities, trains cannot be stopping at Kingston, Belleville, Oshawa etc. And if that is the case, what makes more sense, building a multi-track system through an already congested area, or through a sparse population area. How would we build such a track into Toronto via Lakeshore that already is handling so much freight and GO traffic? Where is there room for another rail line plus the many lane 401?

Why not just do Ottawa to Montreal to start? What does that really achieve when the most popular route is between Ottawa and Toronto and the biggest road problems are approaching Toronto. There was a reason why there were 10 trains per direction per day between Ottawa and Toronto. Any significant improvement in speed and reliability and frequency will drive ridership up.

How do we achieve 3x ridership without selling out every train? Just add more cars on each train. That is easy.

Won't the Lakeshore route benefit from HFR or HSR? Not necessarily. Local trains that stop frequently can never achieve the same speed that HFR or HSR are designed to achieve, so we are investing a lot in infrastructure (more than the northerly route), but we will never see the same speed benefits for those local trains.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

I would imagine if they could've added capacity by other means, such as adding more train cars or using double-decker cars, they would have done it already. I can't imagine new rolling stock having a big difference in capacity. So I think it's fair to assume that the added capacity they're talking about is coming from added departures. Tripling ridership would mean attracting an immense amount of travelers from other modes of transportation and that seems highly unlikely to me. I would love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think the main issue with building parallel tracks in the current corridor is that A) you lose the cost advantage of reusing an existing corridor, B) the existing corridor is much more heavily built up meaning there would need to be land appropriations / conflicts and many level crossings that would need to be removed for even entry-level HSR due to the legal speed limitations for level crossings. Both of these things are unwarranted because the new service is intended to be express service that doesn't even stop at most of the intermediate stations.

If we are ever to have true HSR, we wouldn't want to attempt it on the current route anyway since it wouldn't be serving the intermediate communities, so putting it in a built up area has no benefit. The whole purpose of HSR is to cover longer distances where there's plenty of opportunity to reach and maintain the top cruising speed. HSR rolling stock has a high top speed but not particularly fast acceleration so frequent stopping and starting makes the service impractical.

The only real advantage to having the express on the same corridor as local would be from electrification since paying to electrify one corridor could allow all trains to be electric. But there's comparatively not that many local services (currently ~ 10 trips per day per direction) so that wouldn't matter that much. I suppose they could also add more local services, but then there'd need to be a greater number of tracks to keep the slower local trains from hindering the express services. But that's something that could also be done now with the express service on a different corridor. I'm not that worried about electrification anyway. It's nice, but an express rail service with a fairly constant cruising speed and few stops is already highly efficient anyway even on diesel with modern, passenger-specific rolling stock. Electrification is most important on urban and suburban services with lots of stops.

If HSR was implemented in the existing lakeshore corridor, I would imagine it would only have stops in Kingston and Belleville at most. You make some good points regarding the express service aspect, though. There's definitely a trade-off there. Adding more stops would slow down the overall run time, but it would also increase accessibility for those communities that don't have as many transportation alternatives as Ottawa or Toronto. With the advent of increased telecommuting since covid, more families are looking for more affordable homes in smaller cities, and making cities like Kingston and Belleville more practically accessible would help redistribute some growth and opportunities to those communities. Just my 2 cents.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by casper

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

Seattle?...which province is that in again?...

Montreal-Ottawa makes the most sense to me as the first place to trial HSR in Canada as they are the closest in proximity to each other out of all the large independent cities.

The economics of HSR is already pretty dubious. At least with Montreal-Ottawa you'd probably only throw $10B out the window instead of $50B+...

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Seattle?...which province is that in again?...

Montreal-Ottawa makes the most sense to me as the first place to trial HSR in Canada as they are the closest in proximity to each other out of all the large independent cities.

The economics of HSR is already pretty dubious. At least with Montreal-Ottawa you'd probably only throw $10B out the window instead of $50B+...

Plus, if it turns out successful, maybe OC Transpo will finally consider proper connexion between Confederation Line and VIA.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Seattle?...which province is that in again?...

Montreal-Ottawa makes the most sense to me as the first place to trial HSR in Canada as they are the closest in proximity to each other out of all the large independent cities.

The economics of HSR is already pretty dubious. At least with Montreal-Ottawa you'd probably only throw $10B out the window instead of $50B+...

Ballpark $10M/km for 200 km. It's probably in the $2-3B range.

In the more realistic realm, they could probably get the trip to under 1:15 hrs for about $1B using the corridor they own.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Plus, if it turns out successful, maybe OC Transpo will finally consider proper connexion between Confederation Line and VIA.

I don't get this. What's wrong with the station at Tremblay today?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I would imagine if they could've added capacity by other means, such as adding more train cars or using double-decker cars, they would have done it already. I can't imagine new rolling stock having a big difference in capacity. So I think it's fair to assume that the added capacity they're talking about is coming from added departures. Tripling ridership would mean attracting an immense amount of travelers from other modes of transportation and that seems highly unlikely to me. I would love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.

It may be a large percentage increase but it isn't a large absolute number, especially compared to the total number of trips between the cities. So I don't agree with the idea that it would mean attracting "an immense amount of travellers" Not only are there people who didn't previously use rail because of the unreliability or slow travel times, but as TN said that's not the whole story. When you're offering service that wasn't previously available it means that you can do business with customers that previously would have been out of your reach. If there are customers who only want to travel at time D and you only offer trips at times A B or C, then those customers either won't make the trip or use another provider (latent demand). Offering service to those customers is one of the main advantages of HFR.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I never understand why people think rail planning can be done on the back of a napkin.

Lol why is this always your answer to people who disagree with you? I guess we should just shut down the forum, folks. Chief engineer Truenorth says our napkin ideas won't fly.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You have any idea of the complexity and cost involved in your idea? There's no way that's cheaper that reviving the Havelock Corridor.

Never said it was cheaper, so I don't know where you got that idea from. My whole point was that the added benefits of HSR are worth the added costs, imo, especially in the long run. Transportation planning isn't always about the cheapest option or picking the low hanging fruit.

And, like I said, I would like to see service improvements for the lakehore communities as well, not just Ottawa-Toronto, and that's part of my reasoning for my aforementioned corridor preference.

[lrt's friend]

And, like I said, I would like to see service improvements for the lakehore communities as well, not just Ottawa-Toronto, and that's part of my reasoning for my aforementioned corridor preference.

Is that not possible? At the present time, there are limits on service to Lakeshore communities because of the need to speed up long distance trains. Not every train stops at every Lakeshore station. By separating express and local trains, it may be possible to deliver better service to almost everybody. Trying to run both local and express trains on the Lakeshore line will end up being much more expensive and at some point there needs to be a cost/benefit analysis. At some point, we need to prioritize the 10M market that is Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa versus the 0.5 M between Cornwall and Oshawa.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Lol why is this always your answer to people who disagree with you? I guess we should just shut down the forum, folks. Chief engineer Truenorth says our napkin ideas won't fly.

Hardly. But it gets a little ridiculous when people handwave just putting a rail line down the 401 without any consideration of what that means.

Also, given the history of CN and VIA, I really don't get the insistence on throwing good money after bad.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Never said it was cheaper, so I don't know where you got that idea from. My whole point was that the added benefits of HSR are worth the added costs, imo, especially in the long run. Transportation planning isn't always about the cheapest option or picking the low hanging fruit.

What is all this based on? The last study looking at the costs of HSR pegged 200 kph diesel service at $9B for just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. It was $11B for 300 kph electrified rail service. That was in 2009 dollars.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-servic...ail-service-quebec-city-windsor-corridor

With 12 years of inflation, that'd be $12B and $15B respectively. $12B is double what the federal government intends to spend on public transit nationwide between now, through 2025, just for a point of reference.

And we aren't even discussing the rest of the Corridor or VIA. Just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. In 2009, the cost for the whole Corridor was $19B for 200 kph diesel service and $21B for 300 kph electrified service. That'd be in the $24-28B ballpark today.

Anybody who is advocating for HSR but can't give you a realistic financing idea is engaging in fantasy. At least HFR gives VIA a corridor to build on that might in a decade get us something approaching Acela service in the US today.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

And, like I said, I would like to see service improvements for the lakehore communities as well, not just Ottawa-Toronto, and that's part of my reasoning for my aforementioned corridor preference.

They are getting a hub in Kingston. With service that starts from and is optimized for the Lakeshore communities. That's a whole lot better than being an afterthought on the current service between the major metros. Don't take my word for it. Here's the mayor of Kingston who supports a hub in his city:

https://mayorpaterson.com/via-rail-upgrades-kingston-service-the-making-of-a-regional-hub/

There is no way to run a good service for anybody as long as all service is dependent on CN along the Lakeshore. Frequencies and trip times aren't competitive enough for the big metros. And the schedule is pretty useless for anybody who isn't a student or retiree along the Lakeshore. Hubbing in Kingston makes it possible for anybody along the Lakeshore to have an ex-urban service to the major metros.

[casper]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Seattle?...which province is that in again?...

Montreal-Ottawa makes the most sense to me as the first place to trial HSR in Canada as they are the closest in proximity to each other out of all the large independent cities.

The economics of HSR is already pretty dubious. At least with Montreal-Ottawa you'd probably only throw $10B out the window instead of $50B+...

Amtrak is considering high speed along the line with some financial support from Washington State and Oregon. BC has participated in some of the studies. Canada contribution would be relatively small stretch to the boarder.

More likely that what Via is proposing.

[J.OT13]

I'd love HSR as much as the next guy, but that's never going to happen in our lifetimes, unfortunately. Even HFR has been an uncertainty ever since it was proposed.

HFR will bring loads of benefits to the Corridor and compete with airlines. Sure, if we're purely looking at trip times, HFR is slower, but we have to look at security checks at airports, waiting for your baggage at the carrousel and the trip downtown, as well as cost associated with that. With HFR, it's door to door (or in the case of Ottawa, across the street, if you will). When that's considered, HFR might have an edge over flying.

Additionally, HFR offers far more scheduling flexibility, with trains every hour.

There's also the cost benefit of HFR vs flights. HFR blows airlines out of the water on this one.

HFR not only provides major improvements to travel between four of Canada's eight largest cities, it also improves the lakeshore route significantly.

I am curious how they will handle lost infrastructure like the Mount Royal tunnel. That's a major wild card in my mind's eye.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't get this. What's wrong with the station at Tremblay today?

Lots of complaints about the supposed lack of connectivity between Tremblay station and the VIA Rail. Not enough weather protection, no climate controlled tunnel between the two, that kind of stuff.

Honestly, I don't see the issue. It's a 100 meter walk. Mostly covered between the artsy canopy at the O-Train station and the roof of the VIA station.

Even if there was a tunnel, it could only connect with the eastbound platform and would require an additional trip up or down a level at the VIA station.

In Vancouver, acknowledging that a. VIA ridership is far lower and b. it's not freezing 4 months of the year, it's a similar situation as Ottawa. Just outside the traditional downtown. It's a little more than 100 meters walk between VIA and the SkyTrain. Crossing a street. No coverage whatsoever between the two points. Through a park full of bird crap, passing a homeless camp at the base of the Main-Science Centre station.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Lots of complaints about the supposed lack of connectivity between Tremblay station and the VIA Rail. Not enough weather protection, no climate controlled tunnel between the two, that kind of stuff.

Honestly, I don't see the issue. It's a 100 meter walk. Mostly covered between the artsy canopy at the O-Train station and the roof of the VIA station.

Honestly, if it's really a priority, they could put in a heated sidewalk in front of the station and some kind of canopy.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ballpark $10M/km for 200 km. It's probably in the $2-3B range.

$10M/km for HSR is way under what it costs in Europe and US. We'll likely be above both knowing Canada.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

$10M/km for HSR is way under what it costs in Europe and US. We'll likely be above both knowing Canada.

Really depends on what we define as HSR. To me, if they twin the existing track and eliminate grade crossings, they could probably do that for $10-20M per km. And that would get them to at least 200 kph running speeds.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

That's getting Hyperloop, obviously.

You mean hyperbole, right?

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

Is that with maintaining the existing slots?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I never understand why people think rail planning can be done on the back of a napkin. You have any idea of the complexity and cost involved in your idea? There's no way that's cheaper that reviving the Havelock Corridor.

Also, all of these ideas assume substantial levels of cooperation from the freight rail operators. Given the history, this is just incredibly naive.

Cheap is not always good. Anyone who works anywhere knows this.

The Havelock corridor for a HFR between Toronto and Ottawa. However, speed is not there. Right now, much of the route sees Via traveling at 90mph if they have all clear signals. The same won't be the case with the new route. It has already been proven that there are too many curves to maintain 90 mph.

Now, if the goal was a HFR that is able to maintain similar speeds as the existing routes, than the Havelock route would not be the cheapest.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't reactivate it. Just means it is not the best route.

Remember kiddos cheap =/= good

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

VIA has data and detailed modeling on the price and schedule sensitivity of their passengers. If this forum wasn't so toxic, Urban_Sky would help explain.

It is the other way around. He provides data. You point out how it proves the exact opposite of what he is trying to show. He then goes into a long rant.
I find my life is simpler since hiding him here and on UT.

[MalcolmTucker]

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'.

This all depends on how much subsidy is needed. What you want to avoid is a transfer upwards in the income decile. You have to have a pretty big transfer along the way given the top 10% of income tax payers pay 54% of income taxes.

[ssiguy]

Politics also comes into play.

Just look at this conversation. HSR & HFR seem to only be discussed in the Tor/Ott/Mon realm. The reality is that per km , the SWO route has the lowest operating subsidy because it gets high ridership on a much shorter route. However, this wouldn't include the Golden Triangle and hence is not a political consideration.

Also because our rail system is so politically influenced, every little town and city along the route will want their own station and the politicians who represent those ridings {despite the fact that most have probably never even boarded a train} will clamour to get those stops taking the speed advantage out of any proposal.

In Italy the HSR network flies by cities of 200k + people because it doesn't want to take the high speed out of HSR. Those services are provided by local connections and then if those passengers require longer trips they transfer on to the HSR at only key locations. In Canada we won't get this and our HSR will still be a milk run.