Alto High Speed Rail

[Dengler Avenue]

My only yet major concern with a YUL connection is, “How do we get from there to Gare Centrale”?
I’d think that there’s no more room to add tracks along the current rail corridor. Even if there is, Turcot interchange will be a bottleneck.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That is not how PPP projects work in Canada (or in most places). There is no indication on how the “execution phase” will be financed in any official documents. For the earlier phases, the federal government is directly paying or reimbursing all of the costs.

https://www.altotrain.ca/sites/defau...summary-en.pdf

There is quite a bit of variety in terms of how PPP projects are structured. Look at the REM for an example of how financing has been done on a very recent project in Canada. This paper outlines the various models that have been used internationally for high speed rail : https://www.researchgate.net/publica...RAIL_EXPANSION . It also talks about other possibilities such as land value capture and green bonds which involve private sources of money. To my knowledge, those are still under consideration as part of the financing package.

I get that the federal government is paying for the initial planning stages, but I've seen nothing indicating that would be the case for the actual construction and operation. There is indication that the private partner would be in charge of arranging the financing, which does not suggest that it is entirely government money. Have you actually seen anything saying that the federal government is paying all capital and operating costs?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

My only yet major concern with a YUL connection is, “How do we get from there to Gare Centrale”?
I’d think that there’s no more room to add tracks along the current rail corridor. Even if there is, Turcot interchange will be a bottleneck.

This is a good point, and the tracks that exist are quite low speed for long stretches.

I have the same concern with Tremblay. I haven't heard a good explanation of how they get a high speed rail corridor from there to the Greenbelt.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

There is no way Fallowfield is going to generate as much ridership as Dorval, with more population nearby, more business and industry and a major airport connection. I think that if you look at this objectively, it is a stretch to argue either that Ottawa has the population to warrant two stations, or that Fallowfield is a particularly good location for a second station. The current project scope does not include a second Ottawa station (or a third one - why not something in the east end as well?), and it will be very difficult to justify the cost and delay it represents.

Ottawa could arguably have two stations. But Fallowfield is just in a poor place for that second station. The majority of the population and commercial activity in the city that would generate demand for travel is located on the East-West axis in Ottawa. Tremblay does well being on the East-West highway and LRT that run through the town. Fallowfield is basically out of the way for all but Barrhaven and Riverside South residents. Even from Kanata (strong business demand), Tremblay is just as easy to access as Fallowfield.

I would argue that a second station in Kanata might be an easier sell than Fallowfield. Especially if it could be built close to the 417.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

If you are suggesting that overall ridership on VIA plus Alto is going to be lower, that doesn't make any sense to me. Alto is going to have hourly trains at a minimum and will make rail far more attractive. It won't be close.

Also not sure why VIA trains would stop in Kingston forcing a change to another change. I don't think that aspect of VIA operations would likely change from what you see today - through trains going from Montreal-Toronto and Toronto to Ottawa with 6-8 stops on the way. The majority of travellers will always be travelling through Kingston, not stopping there.

As for the advantages of locating a station in Fallowfield, I think you are overstating the convenience such a station provides. Perhaps it's good for your location, but it's not exactly convenient for most people outside the greenbelt. As was mentioned earlier, for the majority Tremblay is going to be closer or relatively equivalent, because it is a much more central location (and frankly already serves a good chunk of the south end suburbs inside the greenbelt quite well given its excellent car access).

There is no way Fallowfield is going to generate as much ridership as Dorval, with more population nearby, more business and industry and a major airport connection. I think that if you look at this objectively, it is a stretch to argue either that Ottawa has the population to warrant two stations, or that Fallowfield is a particularly good location for a second station. The current project scope does not include a second Ottawa station (or a third one - why not something in the east end as well?), and it will be very difficult to justify the cost and delay it represents.

My comments relate to the comment that Fallowfield passengers just use legacy service. Legacy service will change and I cannot imagine current frequency being maintained. Also, it will not be designed for long distance passengers. So a current 4h 30m trip on legacy trains may become 5hr 30 m or whatever. Legacy trains will be designed for the smaller cities on the lakeshore. My comments about Kingston are not about Alto but about updated legacy trains.

I live in between Tremblay and Fallowfield but closer to Tremblay. I would never suggest a third station. Tremblay serves the east end reasonably well. This is not a personal desire but more about geography. Tremblay does not serve west and southwest Ottawa particularly well and that is why the second station was built in the first place. Of course, Tremblay is the more popular because of better access to downtown, but west end Ottawa is growing and crossing to the east end is getting worse every day

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is doubtful, I would ever use HSR if I have to go all the way downtown to reach HSR, whereas I use legacy much slower legacy VIA service. Why? It takes an hour to reach downtown by OC. There will be no parking option. Taxi-Uber will be around $50 each way. So we speed up train service while making access much worse.

You're proving exactly why you shouldn't be listened to on this topic.

You would pass up an overall travel time that is substantially faster door-to-door because of a longer transit ride?

Even with an an hour long transit ride to Tremblay, you would get to downtown Toronto in faster time than say flying through Pearson. It will certainly be substantially faster than the 4-5 hr it takes to get to Toronto Union today from Fallowfield.

[urbanforest]

I visited the open house on Wednesday evening, a few things that stood out to me:

1. They estimate that taking a more southern route between Peterborough and Ottawa would add 8 minutes to the trip. Pros of this would include easier topography to build in, with a downside being more private property.
2. They are looking at three options to enter downtown Toronto: the Lakeshore corridor that is currently used by VIA, the GO line from Stouffville, or the line from Richmond Hill. Lakeshore seems like the obvious option but it is apparently extremely crowded already.
3. They are becoming slightly more ambitious and confident as things progress (their words, not mine); I noticed they have adjusted their language around speed from being presented as "up to 300km/hr" to "300km/hr or more". This is good. They seem to recognize that the track/alignment they choose will be forever, but trains will improve and be replaced over time.
4. They expect, based on modelling of the Canadian context and the experience of international HSR systems, that ridership will come from a large portion of current air travel between destinations, a portion of existing car trips, and a considerable number of brand new travellers, who do not currently travel between these destinations. (they project ridership of 24 million annually by 2055)
5. There will likely be express trains that do not stop in some cities.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Tremblay does not serve west and southwest Ottawa particularly well and that is why the second station was built in the first place.

Go on Google Maps and do some comparison on driving times. Tremblay and Fallowfield are about the same from Kanata. They are even close on scheduled transit time. Might even be faster to Tremblay after Stage 2. Fallowfield is really only substantially advantageous for a minority of residents in Barrhaven and Riverside South.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Of course, Tremblay is the more popular because of better access to downtown, but west end Ottawa is growing and crossing to the east end is getting worse every day

This is how scope creep happens. Alto should not be fixing Ottawa's local problems. That's for Ottawa ratepayers to do. They should and will build stations that are in their interest, as in generate enough net gains in ridership to be worth the cost and travel time penalty overall.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by mxg308

Here me out on this farfetched idea: what if YUL shut down because of its constraints to grow beyond its current footprint and YOW became the new airport to serve both Montreal and Ottawa? HSR being at YOW would then make even more sense. I realize this idea is insane.

If YUL is shut down due to "its constraints to grow beyond its current footprint," YOW would never be considered as its replacement. It would be far more likely for YMX to be revitalized. Using the proposed route, it would be likely be easy for Alto to add a stop at YMX. Who knows, that might even be a secret part of the plan. The original plan for YMX was to have HSR between it and downtown Montreal, after all.

[urbanforest]

Some separate thoughts on Union vs. Tremblay:

• Folks right now are arguing that Union is all the way downtown, far from anyone in the suburbs, but this argument ignores everyone who lives on the Quebec side of the river, for whom Union would be more accessible than Tremblay (or Fallowfield, god forbid.)
• I used a mapping system called Smappen that looks at travel time to a destination, and population within that catchment area, and it showed 473,000 people live within a 15 minute drive of Union, including a large chunk of Gatineau and all of Hull, and 404,000 people live within a 15 minute drive of Tremblay. This gap narrows at a 30 minute drive, with roughly 1.2 million people in reach of both stations.
• Alto plans to make use of elevated tracks, like the REM, which could be a pretty ideal solution to access Union. Someone on reddit made a fun 3D video demonstrating what this could look like: https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comm..._ottawa_union/
• A downside of Union would be that the train would have to go into the spur, and then 'back' out, forcing the conductor to run down the platform to the other end of the train, and making it so that anyone who got on at Toronto facing forwards, would now be facing backwards. I'm not sure how this is handled in other countries.
• If Hurdman could be developed into a dense neighbourhood, with a pedestrian bridge across the Rideau at Clegg, and if Trainyards could somehow be rebuilt as a neighbourhood, I would feel a lot better about Tremblay as Ottawa's station.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Dorval has a case with air-rail integration. The current numbers are reflective of the poor integration. It's not practical to travel by rail to Dorval to catch a flight from anywhere but Eastern Ontario and even then it takes hours. HSR would theoretically make Dorval a 45 min ride from Tremblay. That make its practical as an actual YOW alternative for a lot of Ottawa resident. If there are thru tickets sold, theoretically, HSR could also mean a Quebec City-Dorval trip in well under two hours on one seat. All the people who take connecting flights from Ottawa and Quebec City today could be moved to rail in this scenario.

I personally can't see Laval having better ridership than Dorval.

When it comes to the comparison though Fallowfield is substantially below Windsor. Closer to Oshawa. And most importantly, Fallowfield is about a seventh of Tremblay. That difference is large enough that it's not clear at all that Fallowfield functions as anything but a station for Barrhaven in reality. Doesn't seem to act like an actual reliever station for the city.

Extending the REM to Dorval VIA would have made a massive difference. If HSR does build a station at Droval, then that REM extension is essential (unless they straight up build the HSR station under YUL). In any case, Dorval is not even being considered right now.

In any case, I'm hoping YOW ramps up international flights so that the residents of Ottawa-Gatineau can stop relying on YUL.

But yes, I agree Dorval would make more sense than Laval.

Originally Posted by urbanforest

I visited the open house on Wednesday evening, a few things that stood out to me:

1. They estimate that taking a more southern route between Peterborough and Ottawa would add 8 minutes to the trip. Pros of this would include easier topography to build in, with a downside being more private property.
2. They are looking at three options to enter downtown Toronto: the Lakeshore corridor that is currently used by VIA, the GO line from Stouffville, or the line from Richmond Hill. Lakeshore seems like the obvious option but it is apparently extremely crowded already.
3. They are becoming slightly more ambitious and confident as things progress (their words, not mine); I noticed they have adjusted their language around speed from being presented as "up to 300km/hr" to "300km/hr or more". This is good. They seem to recognize that the track/alignment they choose will be forever, but trains will improve and be replaced over time.
4. They expect, based on modelling of the Canadian context and the experience of international HSR systems, that ridership will come from a large portion of current air travel between destinations, a portion of existing car trips, and a considerable number of brand new travellers, who do not currently travel between these destinations. (they project ridership of 24 million annually by 2055)
5. There will likely be express trains that do not stop in some cities.

Thanks for laying out a few things you were able to gather at the Open House. Glad we're getting confirmation that we will have express trains. Peterborough, Laval and Trois-Rivière really don't need a 30 minute train.

Originally Posted by urbanforest

Some separate thoughts on Union vs. Tremblay:

• Folks right now are arguing that Union is all the way downtown, far from anyone in the suburbs, but this argument ignores everyone who lives on the Quebec side of the river, for whom Union would be more accessible than Tremblay (or Fallowfield, god forbid.)
• I used a mapping system called Smappen that looks at travel time to a destination, and population within that catchment area, and it showed 473,000 people live within a 15 minute drive of Union, including a large chunk of Gatineau and all of Hull, and 404,000 people live within a 15 minute drive of Tremblay. This gap narrows at a 30 minute drive, with roughly 1.2 million people in reach of both stations.
• Alto plans to make use of elevated tracks, like the REM, which could be a pretty ideal solution to access Union. Someone on reddit made a fun 3D video demonstrating what this could look like: https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comm..._ottawa_union/
• A downside of Union would be that the train would have to go into the spur, and then 'back' out, forcing the conductor to run down the platform to the other end of the train, and making it so that anyone who got on at Toronto facing forwards, would now be facing backwards. I'm not sure how this is handled in other countries.
• If Hurdman could be developed into a dense neighbourhood, with a pedestrian bridge across the Rideau at Clegg, and if Trainyards could somehow be rebuilt as a neighbourhood, I would feel a lot better about Tremblay as Ottawa's station.

Could you post your Smappen map tool on this thread: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=258675

I agree that Union would be a far better option for Gatineau residents with good connections to the STO bus routes and future tramway. There's no way the STO will serve Tremblay, forcing Gatineau residents to transfer to the O-Train (which is not a major inconvenience, but an annoyance nonetheless).

I assume trains will have seats configured like the O-Train rolling stock, with front and back facing seats. Trains will linger at stations more than long enough for the conductor to walk to the cab at the other end, or, like the O-Train, you can get another conductor waiting at the other end of the platform to take the first conductor's place.

If Tremblay is chosen, I absolutely want investments to make it a true hub with intercity buses, VIA, HSR and potentially commuter rail along with a wholesale redevelopment of the lands directly adjacent to Tremblay to make it look and feel like a downtown, along with movement at Hurdman.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If Tremblay is chosen, I absolutely want investments to make it a true hub with intercity buses, VIA, HSR and potentially commuter rail along with a wholesale redevelopment of the lands directly adjacent to Tremblay to make it look and feel like a downtown, along with movement at Hurdman.

Yes, thanks urbanforest - very interesting details and the video was a bit of an eye-opener. I do question the double-stacked rail running along the canal, as i believe it would be far more of a barrier and far uglier than the video suggests. The REM may be efficient, but it sure is ugly and not very integrated into the urban fabric in the raised sections. That said, it does demonstrate how short the run into Union could be.

As for Tremblay, I think it can either be a big transit hub or urban, but it can't really be both. If HSR goes there, you can expect to see big parking structures being built and a significant expansion of the station itself. Add in proper intercity bus facilities, and that is a lot of new pavement. Then take the fact that it is right beside the 417 and I can't see it ever getting a downtown feel.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

As for Tremblay, I think it can either be a big transit hub or urban, but it can't really be both. If HSR goes there, you can expect to see big parking structures being built and a significant expansion of the station itself. Add in proper intercity bus facilities, and that is a lot of new pavement. Then take the fact that it is right beside the 417 and I can't see it ever getting a downtown feel.

You're probably right. You could build hotels and offices in the existing parking lots + the proposal for the Pickering/Belfast block. Would be nice to build a mini Lansdowne in the baseball stadium parking (not that it would have anything to do with HSR). Ultimately, you can't get a full Downtown.

Parking could be relegated to south of the tracks on Terminal Avenue as part of a new pedestrian bridge or tunnel (possibly a car tunnel to get from Tremblay to that parking). That multi level parking could be be enough to accommodate the needs of the office tower in order to redevelop the surface lots.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by phil235

Also not sure why VIA trains would stop in Kingston forcing a change to another change. I don't think that aspect of VIA operations would likely change from what you see today - through trains going from Montreal-Toronto and Toronto to Ottawa with 6-8 stops on the way. The majority of travellers will always be travelling through Kingston, not stopping there.

Has VIA dropped the Kingston hub plan in response the Alto HSR? The most recent plan that I'm aware of which was presented as part of the previous HFR proposal for the Havelock sub was for Kingston to be the central terminus for legacy services. It was mainly to allow service to be more reliable since the main cause of delays is from getting stuck behind slower moving freight. Imagine a VIA train is going all the way from Montreal to Toronto via the current lakeshore route and it gets stuck behind a freight train at say, Brockville. That delay would affect people all the way between there and Toronto and cause the train to lose much more time than if it were just going as far as Kington.

And having the route segments separated would also allow more scheduling flexibility. For instance, imagine how early a train would have to leave Montreal in order for it to get someone from Coburg to Toronto for an 8am appointment. And also, it allows them to be better scheduled around freight since one could leave Kingston right before a freight train passed while it might be impossible not to get stuck behind it at some point if the VIA train was going the entire way. So to me that makes sense for local (conventional speed) VIA service to operate that way regardless of which corridor is chosen for the HSR.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Has VIA dropped the Kingston hub plan in response the Alto HSR? The most recent plan that I'm aware of which was presented as part of the previous HFR proposal for the Havelock sub was for Kingston to be the central terminus for legacy services. It was mainly to allow service to be more reliable since the main cause of delays is from getting stuck behind slower moving freight. Imagine a VIA train is going all the way from Montreal to Toronto via the current lakeshore route and it gets stuck behind a freight train at say, Brockville. That delay would affect people all the way between there and Toronto and cause the train to lose much more time than if it were just going as far as Kington.

And having the route segments separated would also allow more scheduling flexibility. For instance, imagine how early a train would have to leave Montreal in order for it to get someone from Coburg to Toronto for an 8am appointment. And also, it allows them to be better scheduled around freight since one could leave Kingston right before a freight train passed while it might be impossible not to get stuck behind it at some point if the VIA train was going the entire way. So to me that makes sense for local (conventional speed) VIA service to operate that way regardless of which corridor is chosen for the HSR.

Thanks. No - I haven't seen that they dropped that plan, so maybe it is still intact. The rationale makes sense overall, though it does introduce complications for people going from Toronto to Brockville or Montreal to Belleville. For them, the service would be quite a bit worse if there are no through trains. But your right, the shift to HSR wouldn't really impact the logic of that plan.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

There is quite a bit of variety in terms of how PPP projects are structured. Look at the REM for an example of how financing has been done on a very recent project in Canada. This paper outlines the various models that have been used internationally for high speed rail : https://www.researchgate.net/publica...RAIL_EXPANSION . It also talks about other possibilities such as land value capture and green bonds which involve private sources of money. To my knowledge, those are still under consideration as part of the financing package.

I get that the federal government is paying for the initial planning stages, but I've seen nothing indicating that would be the case for the actual construction and operation. There is indication that the private partner would be in charge of arranging the financing, which does not suggest that it is entirely government money. Have you actually seen anything saying that the federal government is paying all capital and operating costs?

There is no other way to pay for a project of this scale without the Feds footing nearly all of the bill. REM is still all public money even if they have played with the accounting a bit. I am sure there will be some REM style accounting tricks (CDPQ is a partner in the consortium) and some private capital, for example some sort of development deal around some stations, but this will be a rounding error in a 50-100B project. With a very small number of exceptions, HSR projects around the world are nearly entirely public funding.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by urbanforest

Some separate thoughts on Union vs. Tremblay:

• Folks right now are arguing that Union is all the way downtown, far from anyone in the suburbs, but this argument ignores everyone who lives on the Quebec side of the river, for whom Union would be more accessible than Tremblay (or Fallowfield, god forbid.)
• I used a mapping system called Smappen that looks at travel time to a destination, and population within that catchment area, and it showed 473,000 people live within a 15 minute drive of Union, including a large chunk of Gatineau and all of Hull, and 404,000 people live within a 15 minute drive of Tremblay. This gap narrows at a 30 minute drive, with roughly 1.2 million people in reach of both stations.
• Alto plans to make use of elevated tracks, like the REM, which could be a pretty ideal solution to access Union. Someone on reddit made a fun 3D video demonstrating what this could look like: https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comm..._ottawa_union/
• A downside of Union would be that the train would have to go into the spur, and then 'back' out, forcing the conductor to run down the platform to the other end of the train, and making it so that anyone who got on at Toronto facing forwards, would now be facing backwards. I'm not sure how this is handled in other countries.
• If Hurdman could be developed into a dense neighbourhood, with a pedestrian bridge across the Rideau at Clegg, and if Trainyards could somehow be rebuilt as a neighbourhood, I would feel a lot better about Tremblay as Ottawa's station.

What is Smappen’s methodology? Does it use traffic data from google to calculate travel times or just measure distances and assume there is no traffic?

Either way, I don’t think drive time is the main problem with the Senate, it is the lack of space for all of the amenities the station needs such as pickup and drop off zones, taxi waiting areas, parking, and space for commercial activity. It is sandwiched between the canal and Rideau Centre so there is no room for expansion and in a nightmare area for underground infrastructure (metres from the sink hole from LRT construction). It is also a needless waste of money with limited benefit.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by urbanforest

Some separate thoughts on Union vs. Tremblay:

• Folks right now are arguing that Union is all the way downtown, far from anyone in the suburbs, but this argument ignores everyone who lives on the Quebec side of the river, for whom Union would be more accessible than Tremblay (or Fallowfield, god forbid.)
• I used a mapping system called Smappen that looks at travel time to a destination, and population within that catchment area, and it showed 473,000 people live within a 15 minute drive of Union, including a large chunk of Gatineau and all of Hull, and 404,000 people live within a 15 minute drive of Tremblay. This gap narrows at a 30 minute drive, with roughly 1.2 million people in reach of both stations.
• Alto plans to make use of elevated tracks, like the REM, which could be a pretty ideal solution to access Union. Someone on reddit made a fun 3D video demonstrating what this could look like: https://www.reddit.com/r/ottawa/comm..._ottawa_union/
• A downside of Union would be that the train would have to go into the spur, and then 'back' out, forcing the conductor to run down the platform to the other end of the train, and making it so that anyone who got on at Toronto facing forwards, would now be facing backwards. I'm not sure how this is handled in other countries.
• If Hurdman could be developed into a dense neighbourhood, with a pedestrian bridge across the Rideau at Clegg, and if Trainyards could somehow be rebuilt as a neighbourhood, I would feel a lot better about Tremblay as Ottawa's station.

Not sure how relevant a 15 min driving distance is for an HSR station. In the rest of the world HSR stations are routinely located in suburbs that are a much longer drive out of town. Often treated like airports. The 30 min radius is more reflective of catchment area and as you note they converge.

But also selection is multi-factoral. It's not just driving distance. It's what infrastructure can be developed at the location. It's what other services can be combined there. It's how station selection impacts the overall service. It's the cost. All of those things have to be traded off. And depending on weighting one factor maybe more important than others.

Tremblay seems obvious to me because it's got room and access. They can build giant long term garages there. They can build an intercity bus terminal. It can integrate with whatever legacy VIA services are there. They've got transit integration and road access. It's a plan that requires no expensive grade separation. And didn't substantially impact downstream services. If you're going to build only one station, it probably should be Tremblay.

I think if Union is selected, they would need to consider Fallowfield too as a suburban reliever where they can put parking structures, bus terminals, etc. All of that adding cost and risk.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Extending the REM to Dorval VIA would have made a massive difference. If HSR does build a station at Droval, then that REM extension is essential (unless they straight up build the HSR station under YUL). In any case, Dorval is not even being considered right now.

In any case, I'm hoping YOW ramps up international flights so that the residents of Ottawa-Gatineau can stop relying on YUL.

But yes, I agree Dorval would make more sense than Laval.

YOW will never be able to compete with the selection at YUL because of the difference in demand. Worse, there will always be a premium for YOW flights because they can.

[Richard Eade]

I went to the ALTO open house on Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2026, and I’ve taken some time to think about High-Speed Rail (HSR) and what ALTO is planning. Here are my impressions and musings:

The possible routes being considered are already fairly laid down – but displayed as ‘fuzzy’ to reduce the possibility of ‘gouging’ from property sales (Although I think that the Feds have a clause in the Major Projects legislation to prevent that.) Other route options have already been dismissed (for unknown reasons) and additional alternatives are not being accepted. There is definitely fine-tuning to be done in specific areas, but what we see is what we will be getting.

I had the feeling that the southern route between Toronto and Ottawa was the preferred one – mostly because there was potential for adding another stop later. (Not a spoken comment, but having additional population clusters is being viewed as a ‘plus’ – even though there is no stated intention of serving them.) The northern route would be slightly faster, but it would pass through more remote areas – so less future potential – and longer ‘help’ timing if something went wrong, I was told. I suspect that ALTO will have land rights around the track, so the southern routing gives it more potential revenue from future development. [I imagine that this will be similar to Federally owned airport land. The land can be developed by the airport authority – or ALTO, in this case – to generate income.]

Station locations are pretty much set for Montreal (Gare Centrale) and Toronto (Union Station) – but they are going through the show anyway. For Ottawa, there is a strong leaning towards Ottawa Station, on Tremblay. The specific tunnel routing into those larger stations remains to be finalized. [In Ottawa, a mostly segregated surface route already exists, and the RoW is likely wide enough to add additional tracks. This would be the least expensive option.]

There has not been much thought of anything but moving passengers. That is, any luggage will need to fit into the limited space provided within the cars – just like in Europe – so get used to limits on bag size. This is likely tied to not considering connections to airports, where more people would be hauling larger pieces of luggage. This also extends to having very limited space for bicycles and larger items. And, despite aiming to be a sub-hourly service, the idea of Just In Time (JIT) supply has not occurred to them. (i.e., If I need a part from Toronto fast, can someone there put it onto a train and I’ll pick it up at the station here? Such a service would be an additional revenue stream – just ask the airlines – and it could take trucks off the road – GHG-emission reduction – while improving delivery speed.) There is no current plan to have a ‘baggage car’ so that extra luggage, bikes, bulky items, and parcels could be transported. Nor is there any consideration of an overnight freight train. [Anecdote: An Amtrack train I took had a baggage car. Luggage was dropped at the ‘Baggage Desk’ upon arrival. It was put into the baggage car by staff, and unloaded at the destination. As a passenger, I was unencumbered getting to/from my seat – which made boarding and alighting much faster – and my bag was waiting on the platform among a line of bags. It was a service that made me happier, and made the station dwell time shorter.]

Some I talked to were not keen on the Laval node – specifically that all trains to and from Montreal would need to pass through Laval Station. But it seems that that configuration is, for some reason, already decided.

Stations in Toronto and Montreal will be dead-end stations. This means that all of the HS trains will need to be ‘Push-Me-Pull-You’ trains, with a cab at each end. This will limit train length to fixed proportions – and means no freight car option. We will likely be getting short (8/9-car sets, about 200 metres in length). With the described frequency, long trains will not be needed.

The prices will need to be low enough that they draw in customers who would otherwise drive or take a bus. The flight cost between Montreal and Ottawa is so out-of-line, that it in a different league. The VIA Rail price might enter into the discussion, and pulling customers from VIA Rail will likely reduce VIA Rail service to bare minimum milk-runs. Typical prices and travel times for mid-day of mid-next-week are: VIA Rail = $62, 2h4; TourExpress bus = $35, 2h; drive = $15, 2h; Air Canada Jazz = $808, 0h52 + airport time. So, I expect that a Montreal to Ottawa ticket will run about $45-50. This likely means that the trains will be outfitted as higher density vehicles, similar to the OUIGO, in France to minimize the cost per passenger. There will be no way that the train will be price competitive with driving (unless there are high parking fees at the destination), especially if there is more than one person in the car. Marketing to drivers will need to be on speed and being productive.

Speed will be important, but seems to be a secondary issue, as far as I can tell. It seems as if it is perfectly acceptable to travel from, say, Ottawa Station to a station in Laval; then turn and follow a tunnel to Gare Centrale, in downtown Montreal. So, 10-15 minutes slowly leaving Ottawa; 6 minutes accelerating to speed + 30 minutes at speed to Laval + 6 minutes decelerating + 10 minutes at Laval Station + 10-15 minutes of slower travel in the tunnel to Gare Centrale; for a trip time of about 60 minutes. The time that is being advertised, but it could be faster. The same will be true when the southern route is officially selected, between Toronto and Ottawa. The straighter, northern, route would be faster, but it seems to be being downplayed as “more challenging to build because it runs across Canadian Shield – which is rock and swamps – in more remote areas.”

Second, fairly close, stations in a metropolitan are not unheard of. The trains heading to Roma Termini, from the north, stop at Roma Tiburtina, too, and it is only about 5 kilometres before Roma Termini. Laval is about 13 kilometres from Gare Centrale. {meaning that there will likely be a tunnel that is almost 13 kilometres in length. (So about $1.3B, based on 2 X 13-km bores of 7.5-m @ $50M/km of tunnel.)