VIA Rail network developments

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Why was the freight track less congested 30 years ago? The manufacturing sector was much bigger then. Is it just oil?

The goods that were manufactured domestically are now imported. Either way they need to be transported to their market. If anything, the lower prices by having goods manufactured in "low cost regions" has increased consumption, thus increasing the amount of goods being transported. The longer distance to transport imported goods also increases the viability of transporting by rail compared to locally produced goods.

Also, don't forget automotive sales. While 2020 was a bad year (for obviously reasons) and the previous few years have seen a roll off in demand, the long term trend has been upwards. Regardless of where they are made, cars are frequently transported by rail.

Canada New Motor Vehicle Sales 1990-2019 with Trendline

courtesy Trading Economics

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Is there an updated version of that graphic? I haven't found one.

I don't think there's an updated version of that graphic specifically, but the HFR website says the following:

The dedicated tracks would allow VIA Rail to have control over frequencies, speeds, and traffic priorities. 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.

3.25hrs for OTT-TOR seems like the fastest possible travel time according to their estimates, and I wouldn't be surprised if the final product averages closer 3.5hrs.

Edit: this is the most recent graphic I could find, which only mentions a 1/4 reduction in travel times.


https://slchamber.ca/local-chambers-support-high-frequency-rail-continues-gain-traction/

[Truenorth00]

Given the budget announcement, I guess it's not happening for a while. They have some weird half billion commitment for more supporting work for over the next half decade.

[TransitZilla]

There's a section in the budget about HFR:

Next Step Towards High Frequency Rail in the Toronto-Quebec City Corridor

High frequency rail has the potential to transform passenger rail service in the Toronto-Quebec City corridor, offering faster, more reliable service, and helping to encourage the shift to rail from more polluting modes of transportation.

In 2019, the Government of Canada established a Joint Project Office to explore VIA Rail Canada’s high frequency rail project. This effort is critical to making this project a reality for Canadians.

>To continue this work, Budget 2021 proposes to provide $4.4 million in 2021-22 to Transport Canada and VIA Rail Canada to support their work with the Joint Project Office in order to advance due diligence and to de-risk the project.

>In addition, Budget 2021 proposes to provide $491.2 million over six years, starting in 2021-22, to VIA Rail Canada for infrastructure investments that would support the overall success of the high frequency rail project. These investments will help reduce bottlenecks, improve fluidity and connectivity, and allow VIA to take an important step towards high frequency rail in the corridor.

https://www.budget.gc.ca/2021/report-rapport/p2-en.html#chap6

[Hybrid247]

Wow. Perhaps it's the pessimist in me, but I'm getting a bad feeling they're going to give it the HSR treatment of studying it to death.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Wow. Perhaps it's the pessimist in me, but I'm getting a bad feeling they're going to give it the HSR treatment of studying it to death.

Catherine McKenna is on Twitter sobbing this as "investing in HFR".

The generous interpretation is the the CIB is funding this so it doesn't need an exclusive line in the budget yet.

The pessimistic interpretation is that they are yet again stalling. And I agree with this.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Catherine McKenna is on Twitter sobbing this as "investing in HFR".

The generous interpretation is the the CIB is funding this so it doesn't need an exclusive line in the budget yet.

The pessimistic interpretation is that they are yet again stalling. And I agree with this.

Talk about "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!" Just pull the trigger already, or is there push back from the airline lobby?
Just on the less stress side of the house taking the train from Ottawa to Toronto is so much more relaxing than all that hassle taking a plane.

[roger1818]

I posted this on Urban Toronto:

Originally Posted by roger1818

The only thing I can think is that risks that were outlined in the study (any good engineering study will outline the risks) were considered too great to blindly proceed, since they don't want to create a white elephant. I expect the biggest risk is the cost of acquiring the land and other required assets. You can estimate how much it will cost, but until you have a signed purchase agreement in hand, you just don't know for sure, and with the way real estate prices have been going crazy, that poses a significant risk. The swing bridge could be another such risk as until a replacement has been designed, you don't really know how much it will cost.

Like many others on here, I am disappointed that HFR wasn't fully backed or detailed, but the government giving VIA money to "de-risk the project" and "for infrastructure investments" is better than not funding it at all. The only money in a budget that you can truly count on is the money for the upcoming year since next year's budget will override whatever was estimated in the current budget. Those future authorizations do give VIA permission to start making deals though, as there is a promise of money. If those deals go well, we may see more money in future budgets. If they don't, the money could go away.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The generous interpretation is the the CIB is funding this so it doesn't need an exclusive line in the budget yet.

I hope that's the case. It would seem that they would make sure to take credit for CIB investments, but maybe it's not part of the budget process because some of the investment is supposed to be private?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

I hope that's the case. It would seem that they would make sure to take credit for CIB investments, but maybe it's not part of the budget process because some of the investment is supposed to be private?

The simplest explanation is usually the best. And the simple answer is with the half billion they put in for what they describe as works to make HFR successful, they've effectively put off any real commitment to HFR in any form for half a decade.

That may change before 2025. But that's more hope than facts at the moment.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The simplest explanation is usually the best. And the simple answer is with the half billion they put in for what they describe as works to make HFR successful, they've effectively put off any real commitment to HFR in any form for half a decade.

That may change before 2025. But that's more hope than facts at the moment.

I fear you are correct. It's disappointing that they would punt an obvious infrastructure project for that long during a time when those types of investments make so much sense.

[Truenorth00]

Wanna know what's really disappointing?

The didn't even commit to the Dorval REM extension that could be useful to VIA travelers regardless of future HFR or HSR plans.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Wanna know what's really disappointing?

The didn't even commit to the Dorval REM extension that could be useful to VIA travelers regardless of future HFR or HSR plans.

Yeah, that gap is mind-boggling.

[On Edge]

Originally Posted by phil235

I fear you are correct. It's disappointing that they would punt an obvious infrastructure project for that long during a time when those types of investments make so much sense.

So much for reducing carbon footprints. Let's keep driving those distances in SUVs and taking carbon-heavy flights.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by On Edge

So much for reducing carbon footprints. Let's keep driving those distances in SUVs and taking carbon-heavy flights.

Seriously. It really is a no-brainer. And Ottawa was set to benefit substantially. So it's beyond disappointing.

But there's several cabinet ministers who are insinuating that HFR is still being built. So I'm a little confused. Don't want to get my hopes up.

Transport Minister (Omar Alghabra)

https://twitter.com/OmarAlghabra/status/1384541459668520962?s=19

Infrastructure Minister (Catherine McKenna

https://twitter.com/cathmckenna/status/1384255952690446338?s=19

[acottawa]

I still don’t understand the secrecy. Why can’t there be a tgf-hfr.gc.ca website where they upload whatever studies and reports they have commissioned?

I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if they had just followed usual best practices for public transportation projects rather than all of this pointless secrecy. We would have had a public feasibility study about 5 years ago.

[acottawa]

To me there are two likely options. Either the studies conducted do not match Via’s claims (cost, speed, ridership, financial viability) and it isn’t feasible as currently conceived, or the compromises necessary to make it feasible, such as not using Gare Centrale or Union Station, or bypassing Peterborough, are politically unpalatable.

[c_speed3108]

I think the big clue will come in figuring out what the 500 million is getting spent on. They seemed to indicate it was something in the present corridor that would also be useful for the HFR. That means it is likely stuff in the Montreal-Ottawa-Smith Falls area.

My suspicion is that they are afraid of bottlenecks not making this quick enough. Even the current VIA equipment does decently speed wise until you slow it down everywhere for yards, built-up areas, and other trains passing. frankly I find on Ottawa-Toronto I am waiting on other VIA trains more than I am waiting on freight. I could see more passing tracks or perhaps something around some of the yards.

There was some stuff in budget about the port area in Montreal (as well as the port area in Vancouver) The Vancouver one specified passenger and freight. The Montreal one pointed more to freight but never know.

In the HFR project the Montreal-Toronto argument is the weakest. The Ottawa-Toronto argument is quite strong. That might be an area they are trying to fix.

They are definitely pushing to make this work, rather than just saying forget it.

[Richard Eade]

It sounds to me as if the reports from previous studies haven’t quite passed the ‘sniff-test’. Therefore, there is $4.4M being given to Value Engineer the entire concept. That is, the idea of frequent, slightly faster, service, that attracts riders away from cars (and, to a lesser extent, planes) seems to be one that the Feds like. However, the plan, as presented by VIA, has not been deemed as realistic. Either there is a Federal view that the routing is not possible; that the cost is going to far exceed the prediction; or HFR will not attract the anticipated ridership. Because the Feds do like the idea, however, they are encouraging VIA to re-think some elements of their proposal.

In the meantime, however, the Feds have suggested that they might give VIA about $80M a year to help with, relatively, minor changes that could increase the reliability of current VIA service. This money could be put towards grade-separating intersections, for example. Hopefully, this money will be spent on projects that contribute to the final HFR goal – so projects centered around Ottawa. Extending a siding between Toronto and Smith Falls could be a throw-away, if the HFR route through Peterborough is ultimately chosen.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me there are two likely options. Either the studies conducted do not match Via’s claims (cost, speed, ridership, financial viability) and it isn’t feasible as currently conceived, or the compromises necessary to make it feasible, such as not using Gare Centrale or Union Station, or bypassing Peterborough, are politically unpalatable.

You forgot the most obvious option. They don't want to drive up the cost of the plan by informing those they are negotiating deals with to see how important this deal is comparted to other options. When negotiating a deal, you don't start the negotiation by telling the seller what the maximum price you are willing to pay is.

For example, to get between De Beaujeu and Vaudreuil-Dorion Quebec, VIA has 2 options:

1. As they currently do, and cross the CPR Winchester Sub to CN's Kingston Sub and run parallel to it to Vaudreuil-Dorion
2. run parallel to CPR's Winchester Sub to Vaudreuil-Dorion.

The studies likely estimate how much each option will cost. Giving that information to CN and CP will allow them to know how much to inflate their price to get the maximum amount of money from VIA.


Snipped from the Canadian Rail Atlas