Canadian Transit Thread II

[lrt's friend]

Anything beyond Calgary-Edmonton is 22nd century thinking.

But if we are considering the housing crisis, we need to spread our population growth beyond the top 8 Canadian cities, and improved transportation could drive this.

Meanwhile, will I even see Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal reliable fast rail service in my lifetime? I am starting to wonder.

[goodgrowth]

Ottawa-Montreal is probably the most obvious use-case in the country imo.

~150km between two large cities with decent intra-city transit use.

[LuluBobo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Some of you need to understand the relative demand difference. Because it drives investment decisions.

Let's use a rough gravity model:

Demand score = Pop1 x Pop2 / (Dist^2)

Pop is catchment population in thousands. I used the metro population from the 2021 census here, from Wikipedia. Dist is distance in kilometers, from Google Maps.

CalEd: 1482 x 1011 / 300^2 = 16.65

Montreal - Ville de Québec: 4292 x 839 / 277^2 = 46.93

Ottawa - Montreal: 1488 x 4292 / 199^2 = 161.27

Regina - Saskatoon: 249 x 318 / 263^2 = 1.15

You can see from this that Ottawa-Montreal has almost 10x the potential of Cal-Ed and at 60% of the distance should be cheaper to build. This kind of modeling should tell you why there's no economic sense building rail to places like Fort Mac and Medicine Hat or between Regina and Saskatoon. Buses would work though.

Your Calgary Edmonton numbers are off.

2021 census
Calgary = 1482
Edmonton = 1418

So it comes to a demand score of 23.35

[phone]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Anything beyond Calgary-Edmonton is 22nd century thinking.

But if we are considering the housing crisis, we need to spread our population growth beyond the top 8 Canadian cities, and improved transportation could drive this.

Meanwhile, will I even see Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal reliable fast rail service in my lifetime? I am starting to wonder.

Hey, the 22nd century is only (checks watch) 75.5 years away. Might as well start thinking about it, and make it a little easier for our grandchildren to get the gears in motion.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LuluBobo

Your Calgary Edmonton numbers are off.

2021 census
Calgary = 1482
Edmonton = 1418

So it comes to a demand score of 23.35

And still lower on the list than virtually any Corridor pair. Mostly though, my point is that Calgary-Edmonton is barely a marginal case. Ideas like Calgary-Lethbridge and Edmonton-Fort Mac are crazy. Same with ideas like Regina-Saskatoon. Those proposals would take several lifetimes to pay back (on cost-benefit) if they were ever built.

[ssiguy]

The rail to Ft.MacMurray, GP, MH, and even Jasper seem like non-starters and I don't know how they will ever be financially viable. Those were included for political reasons so rural Alberta doesn't feel left out in the cold. The line to Lethbridge does have potential as Lethbridge area has about 150,000 and will have 200,000 by any line is up and running. It's a major regional centre with decent sized university and college. Such a line would also serve the major commuter areas of Okotoks & High River.

The line between Edmonton & Calgary is very doable as both metro will be close to 2 million by the time the line is introduced and Red Deer area has about 160,000 as well as a major tourist draw of Sylvan Lake.

This main corridor also goes by Leduc & Airdrie which are very fast growing commuter cities and both airports are along the rail route. The route thru Calgary also loops around downtown and heads straight to Canmore/Banff and could have much increased service to Cochrane, a near 100% commuter city.

I would bet that none of these lines will be electrified as I think the province will want to show off it's hydrogen potential. Talgo, the Spanish rail giant, is currently working on a high-speed hydrogen train.

[Truenorth00]

Calgary to Lethbridge is marginal. Even at 200k in Lethbridge and 1.6M in Calgary. Better than Regina-Saskatoon though.

Calgary-Lethbridge in 2030: 1600 x 200 / 221^2 = 6.55.

[Metro-One]

I feel it’s so Canadian to say that metro areas near and over 100 000 shouldn’t have rail connections. Do they all new HSR? No, but basic rail service? Yes.

For a somewhat equal comparison, while I would argue that Canada’s urban rail networks are superior to Australia, Australia kills Canada when it comes to regional rail.

Don’t get started comparing Canada to anything in East Asia / Europe, including the northern low population density nations, they mop the floor with Canada.

Good on Alberta for this plan. Instead of saying why it can’t be done maybe we should support it and hope for other provinces to follow?

I know I’d love to see real passenger rail on Vancouver Island, to Whistler, and possibly even between Kamloops and the Okanagan, which all these regions would have if not in North America.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I feel it’s so Canadian to say that metro areas near and over 100 000 shouldn’t have rail connections. Do they all new HSR? No, but basic rail service? Yes.

For a somewhat equal comparison, while I would argue that Canada’s urban rail networks are superior to Australia, Australia kills Canada when it comes to regional rail.

Don’t get started comparing Canada to anything in East Asia / Europe, including the northern low population density nations, they mop the floor with Canada.

Good on Alberta for this plan. Instead of saying why it can’t be done maybe we should support it and hope for other provinces to follow?

I know I’d love to see real passenger rail on Vancouver Island, to Whistler, and possibly even between Kamloops and the Okanagan, which all these regions would have if not in North America.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that rail to smaller places can't be done - just that it wouldn't be a good use of money in terms of the realized benefits. In regions where 100k populations are all connected to rail, the places are either closer together, they maintained legacy infrastructure from before highways and cars proliferated, or their rail isn't crowded out by freight operations. In the pre-auto dominant era, many roads were low quality or even unpaved while cars were less reliable and too expensive for the average person. So much smaller populations could warrant rail investment since all or most people used it. But maintaining or making incremental upgrades to legacy infrastructure is a lot different than building new. It would be nice if we had retained more legacy infrastructure over the years since many smaller places were connected.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Some of you need to understand the relative demand difference. Because it drives investment decisions.

Let's use a rough gravity model:

Demand score = Pop1 x Pop2 / (Dist^2)

Pop is catchment population in thousands. I used the metro population from the 2021 census here, from Wikipedia. Dist is distance in kilometers, from Google Maps.

CalEd: 1482 x 1011 / 300^2 = 16.65

Montreal - Ville de Québec: 4292 x 839 / 277^2 = 46.93

Ottawa - Montreal: 1488 x 4292 / 199^2 = 161.27

Regina - Saskatoon: 249 x 318 / 263^2 = 1.15

You can see from this that Ottawa-Montreal has almost 10x the potential of Cal-Ed and at 60% of the distance should be cheaper to build. This kind of modeling should tell you why there's no economic sense building rail to places like Fort Mac and Medicine Hat or between Regina and Saskatoon. Buses would work though.

Just for fun

Montreal - New York: 4292 x 20140 / 596^2 = 243.34

Toronto - New York: 6202 x 20140 / 757^2 = 217.98

Toronto - Detroit/Windsor: 6202 x 4787 / 372^2 = 214.54

Vancouver - Seattle: 2642 x 4018 / 230^2 = 200.67

Montreal - Boston: 4292 x 4941 / 495^2 = 87.6

Ottawa - Toronto: 1488 x 6202 / 403^2 = 56.8

It would be nice to get the US involved because it could open up at least a few more possibilities outside the corridor (and they could pour a shitton more money into these type of infrastructure projects then us). I’ll admit though adding NYC is cheating a little bit.

[Taeolas]

Sometimes it feels to me that planning regional rail (or rail systems in general) here are constantly chasing moving goal posts, all to come up with a reason not to do something.

Pretty much every place in Canada is still growing to some degree. Which means the population levels people compare with are constantly going up at different rates, but it also means that the land values along the routes will generally still be going up (maybe not the hinterland values, but the important land pieces that would carve the route into the important parts of the communities are constantly going up).

Basically it means it feels like everyone is constantly saying "We can't develop a rail link between X and Y because they are not at X00,000 people between them and it would cost Z00,000,000 million to do".

Then 10-20 years later when X and Y are often at those population numbers, the same arguments are being made because now the targets are all twice (or more) the size of the original targets.

It's pretty obvious that Canada is woefully underinvesting in non-road based transit travel on all levels, and it's something that should start changing; especially as more people are wanting "greener" choices asside from Car ownership.

Bus networks will get us a good way there, and it's something that does need improved upon. (Bus service in the Maritimes needs a lot of investment). But Rail transit is certainly something that needs to be worked on too.

It seems very telling that the 4th and 5th biggest cities in the country, separated only by a few hundred KMs, with a major city almost midway between them, can't seem to make a proper model to support a passenger rail link between them. (Well the business case can be made but there never seems to be the right push to get it done).

So if proposing a bigger multiphase plan that gets the core done finally, and also throws a few bones out to other communities to give them a hope for the future can do it, then all the more for the governments that pull it off. (Granted it's been proposed so often, we have become so jaded we likely won't believe it until the first trains are running regardless).

and for what it's worth, while many dream of HSR and other buzzwords, I think many advocates just want to see SOMETHING put in place so we get a proper skeleton of a passenger rail network forming, so it can start growing from there.

So yeah, while some of Alberta's plans are pie in the sky, at least it's something, and I'd love to see other provinces start on similar plans, even to just lay the groundwork so we can get a proper market up here and finally break the Chicken or the Egg cycle we're in. ("We don't have the market so we don't have the expertise to make the market so we won't make the market so there's no need to develop etc....)

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Just for fun

Montreal - New York: 4292 x 20140 / 596^2 = 243.34

Toronto - New York: 6202 x 20140 / 757^2 = 217.98

Toronto - Detroit/Windsor: 6202 x 4787 / 372^2 = 214.54

Vancouver - Seattle: 2642 x 4018 / 230^2 = 200.67

Montreal - Boston: 4292 x 4941 / 495^2 = 87.6

Ottawa - Toronto: 1488 x 6202 / 403^2 = 56.8

It would be nice to get the US involved because it could open up at least a few more possibilities outside the corridor (and they could pour a shitton more money into these type of infrastructure projects then us). I’ll admit though adding NYC is cheating a little bit.

These models tend to break down with cross-border travel because there's a lot of friction crossing the border. You can see this with air traffic. Theoretically, Toronto-NYC should have nearly as Toronto-Montreal. But you don't really see that.

Also, the Corridor is particularly efficient, but it adds a whole bunch of valuable city pairs together. Toronto-Ottawa, Toronto-Montreal, Ottawa-Montreal, Montreal-Quebec City, Ottawa-Quebec City and Toronto-Quebec City. There's almost an equally good case for Toronto-Kitchener-London-Windsor.

[phone]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think anyone is suggesting that rail to smaller places can't be done - just that it wouldn't be a good use of money in terms of the realized benefits. In regions where 100k populations are all connected to rail, the places are either closer together, they maintained legacy infrastructure from before highways and cars proliferated, or their rail isn't crowded out by freight operations. In the pre-auto dominant era, many roads were low quality or even unpaved while cars were less reliable and too expensive for the average person. So much smaller populations could warrant rail investment since all or most people used it. But maintaining or making incremental upgrades to legacy infrastructure is a lot different than building new. It would be nice if we had retained more legacy infrastructure over the years since many smaller places were connected.

Right on. That's one thing about passenger rail proposals on the prairies - obviously the population density doesn't begin to rival the Quebec-Windsor corridor in any location, but there is a lot of existing underutilized rail infrastructure that could be adapted for passenger use relatively cheaply. This isn't a case where X million dollars would need to be spent per new km of track because the rail is already there. Look at a map of rail infrastructure in Sask - there are more KM of rail in Saskatchewan than any other province (real km, not per capita) and most of the non mainline track doesn't get a whole lot of traffic, relatively speaking. VIA trains are constantly held up by freight because they share the CN mainline, but this wouldn't be as significant of a problem for regional services, and could be overcome more cheaply with a few well-placed passing sidings.

All this to say that the startup capital costs are not nearly as high as what's been assumed based on having to construct new infrastructure. If trackage between existing small and medium market cities can be used for passenger services without being constantly hamstrung by freight traffic it makes a much more compelling business case, and an easier pill to swallow for taxpayers if the point is to provide reliable intercity public transit rather than to turn a profit in year one (or ten).

Of course it would be cheaper to run buses, and frankly it makes a lot of sense to do so, but I really can't stand this lethargic perspective where any region-building idea with any ambition outside the Corridor and Lower Mainland gets mowed over like tall poppies.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by phone

Right on. That's one thing about passenger rail proposals on the prairies - obviously the population density doesn't begin to rival the Quebec-Windsor corridor in any location, but there is a lot of existing underutilized rail infrastructure that could be adapted for passenger use relatively cheaply. This isn't a case where X million dollars would need to be spent per new km of track because the rail is already there. Look at a map of rail infrastructure in Sask - there are more KM of rail in Saskatchewan than any other province (real km, not per capita) and most of the non mainline track doesn't get a whole lot of traffic, relatively speaking. VIA trains are constantly held up by freight because they share the CN mainline, but this wouldn't be as significant of a problem for regional services, and could be overcome more cheaply with a few well-placed passing sidings.

All this to say that the startup capital costs are not nearly as high as what's been assumed based on having to construct new infrastructure. If trackage between existing small and medium market cities can be used for passenger services without being constantly hamstrung by freight traffic it makes a much more compelling business case, and an easier pill to swallow for taxpayers if the point is to provide reliable intercity public transit rather than to turn a profit in year one (or ten).

Of course it would be cheaper to run buses, and frankly it makes a lot of sense to do so, but I really can't stand this lethargic perspective where any region-building idea with any ambition outside the Corridor and Lower Mainland gets mowed over like tall poppies.

Take a look at this small SW corner of MB and all the abandoned rail lines and stations. All of the track has been pulled but the remnants of the ROW is still there.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...3587281438&z=9

[Truenorth00]

RoW acquisition cost is one part of it. Track installation is still not cheap. Especially since it's being built to accommodate more frequent passenger (smoother and higher speed) service. Simply doing track rejuvenation for transit can be $1M/km. So yes, it would still be millions per km. Maybe not $10M/km if there's an existing RoW in talks decent shape.

Also, with a lots Prairie rail corridors, a major issue is the number is crossings. Just building adding protection to each one will average out to hundreds of thousands per km, if not more.

[phone]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

RoW acquisition cost is one part of it. Track installation is still not cheap. Especially since it's being built to accommodate more frequent passenger (smoother and higher speed) service. Simply doing track rejuvenation for transit can be $1M/km. So yes, it would still be millions per km. Maybe not $10M/km if there's an existing RoW in talks decent shape.

Also, with a lots Prairie rail corridors, a major issue is the number is crossings. Just building adding protection to each one will average out to hundreds of thousands per km, if not more.

So then a Saskatoon-Regina passenger rail link goes from $3 billion to $300 million (1 million * 260 km + $40 million allowance). That's cheaper than the underutilized Regina bypass.

[ssiguy]

Passenger rail in Canada has become such a political minefield nationally, that any improvements outside the Corridor are a non-starter according to Ottawa. VIA has been mandated to serve every outpost in the nation and hence not being able to focus it's attention and infrastructure where the real need is.

This is why you can get from Edmonton to Prince Rupert via train but not from Edmonton to Calgary. This is why you can get from Winnipeg to Churchill but not Sherbrooke to Montreal. Our train service is based upon an 19th century demand in a 21st century world and then surprised it has become useless outside of the Corridor and even there then are many major centres that have no rail service at all.

The reality is that our small towns and rural areas require one to have a car. NOBODY either stays nor moves to such areas without a car..........it's a complete necessity and nothing is going to change that. It's akin to a young person wanting to go to university/college and then moving to Wawa and wondering why they can't pursue their studies.

Canada should forget trying to serve these non-existent rural towns with rail service and instead move towards serving as connectors between our major centres where they are within that Goldilocks Zone of between 100 to 400 km where buses are too uncomfortable and at the whim of traffic and air travel is really no faster due to having to get to the airport and spend at least 90 minutes waiting for your flight and being too costly to boot.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phone

So then a Saskatoon-Regina passenger rail link goes from $3 billion to $300 million (1 million * 260 km + $40 million allowance). That's cheaper than the underutilized Regina bypass.

1) Any link like that is far more likely to be in the billions than hundreds of millions. These railbeds really were not designed to not have passenger trains operating at 100 mph or higher on them.

2) I don't know what TC rules are. But I assume every single crossing at 100 mph probably requires some kind of barrier. Not just flashing lights. And that's a lot of crossings at $100k a piece minimum.

3) Makes no sense to build a Regina-Saskatoon link that bypasses Moose Jaw. It adds 40 km (~15%) to the corridor but captures the fourth largest community in SK. Could literally turn Moose Jaw into a real suburb.

So the question then becomes, if you're going to have to spend thousands per resident to construct this rail link, is there more bang for buck with buses?

[thewave46]

I am mostly curious how Canada's population dynamic progresses through the 21st century before I get too far into the weeds of rail transit links between Prairie cities.

Do Saskatoon and Regina follow the population trajectory of Calgary and Edmonton?

Do Calgary and Edmonton follow the trajectory of Toronto and Montreal?

Reserving the corridors and staring some sort of regional express system does seem like a no-brainer in the case of Calgary and Edmonton. GO Transit had a late-1960s birthdate when the Greater Toronto Area was much smaller. Similarly, the C-Train and ETS were ahead of their time and serve those cities well today.

[ssiguy]

Remember that the lack of rail between Cal/RD/Edm is NOT the fault of Alberta but Ottawa. It is Ottawa that told VIA to cancel the route and the reason why the lousy Western Canadian service goes thru Edmonton as opposed to the far less isolated Calgary is due to Mulroney. The ONLY reason that the line goes via Edmonton is that the Cabinet Minister responsible for VIA when the cuts were being made was Don Mazankowski, who just happened to be from Edmonton and didn't want to put his re-election in jeopardy and to hell with the travelling public.

This is, although some of it a bit far fetched, a very good plan and I'm surprised it came from Smith but credit where it's due. That said, this expansion should get money from Ottawa just as the Corridor route will and if it doesn't it would be a gross inequity and further flame the fuels of Western alienation and with good reason.

This is forward thinking and personally I think has a better chance of getting built than any HSR in The Corridor. This is due to it being Alberta. This is very much due to Alberta's "Can Do" mentality............when they say they are going to build something they do it and don't study everything to death. Once environmental and community consultations were a good idea but now they have morphed into a huge industry and the longer they can be stretched out to obscene timetables, the better it is for both the companies that do them and the politicians. Some of these reviews take so long that the prices eventually double and the projects are put on hold. The politicians love it as they can make grand announcements knowing that they won't have to pay for them.............environmental reviews have become a politician's best friend.