The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Comparing the price of HSR to existing intercity travel prices is NOT a good way to go, because intercity travel prices in Canada are already insanely overpriced.

By your logic, if Loblaws randomly decides to raise the price of a litre of milk to $12, Sobeys charging $9 would be reasonable.

In Europe you can travel intercity distances of several hundred km for just a few euros.

Actually it’s a very good way to go, because this is what it will be directly competing with. Also note that this particular proposal is for a 320 km/h HSR and they’re saying a one way trip will take 90 minutes, so actually quite a bit less than the 2-2.5hrs Coldrsx mentioned. I’m sure this would be a “slow train” as well, one that stops at both airports and Red Deer. I’m sure there will be a lot of express trains that will skip at least a couple of those stops and have a travel time closer to 1 hr. The distance is just about exactly 300 kms, btw.

What makes the high speed so important for this route is that it makes day trips possible. If you’re driving it takes 3 hours there and 3 hours back, so 6 hours driving total on a busy highway. Not fun. With a 1 or even 1.5 hour trip, however, it would be easy to go up in the morning, spend a full day there, and take a late train back. All the studies have shown that ridership on this route will go up dramatically with increases in speed.

[Beedok]

Prices will (relative to inflation) go down with time as the technology becomes more common and maintenance gets cheaper.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Allan83

Actually it’s a very good way to go, because this is what it will be directly competing with. Also note that this particular proposal is for a 320 km/h HSR and they’re saying a one way trip will take 90 minutes, so actually quite a bit less than the 2-2.5hrs Coldrsx mentioned. I’m sure this would be a “slow train” as well, one that stops at both airports and Red Deer. I’m sure there will be a lot of express trains that will skip at least a couple of those stops and have a travel time closer to 1 hr. The distance is just about exactly 300 kms, btw.

What makes the high speed so important for this route is that it makes day trips possible. If you’re driving it takes 3 hours there and 3 hours back, so 6 hours driving total on a busy highway. Not fun. With a 1 or even 1.5 hour trip, however, it would be easy to go up in the morning, spend a full day there, and take a late train back. All the studies have shown that ridership on this route will go up dramatically with increases in speed.

I'm not talking about whether the price competes with existing intercity transit, I'm talking about whether the price is objectively good, and competes with the price of driving your own car. This is the severe flaw to having such an initiative built with private money, is that a private company will charge as much as they can get away with rather than charge a fair & reasonable price.

[Innsertnamehere]

why must it compete with driving? it is obviously a more premium service.. It would more so compete with air than driving.

[Chadillaccc]

If there's enough air traffic between the cities to have 18 Air Canada flights and 7 Westjet flights from Calgary to Edmonton on a weekday, with 18 Air Canada flights and 7 Westjet flights back from Edmonton all on the same day (for a grand total of 50 inter-city flights per day), all for at least $400 round trip... then yeah, I'm pretty sure HSR for $200/round trip taking 1/3 of the time can compete easily

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

why must it compete with driving? it is obviously a more premium service.. It would more so compete with air than driving.

Given that a large majority of people making the trip between Calgary & Edmonton are doing so by car, it makes sense to try and get people out of their cars. Nobody is going to switch from driving to HSR if it costs $100. If it costs $20, they will. Then ridership will get high enough that 4 trains an hour becomes feasible. That's where the real economic benefit begins--when you can just show up to the station whenever and get a train to your destination without ever worrying about schedules.

In European cities HSR often has more usage than highways because they charge reasonable rates.

Don't get me wrong, I get that a $100 fare will be able to compete and likely pay off construction costs, but I still firmly believe that the true benefits of HSR require being cost-competitive with driving.

Also, I really think that to help build a ridership base for HSR and as an interim measure before HSR, we should introduce conventional VIA service, like what they have in the Corridor, between Calgary and Edmonton. If VIA committed to it, they could have trains running that route by this Christmas.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Given that a large majority of people making the trip between Calgary & Edmonton are doing so by car, it makes sense to try and get people out of their cars. Nobody is going to switch from driving to HSR if it costs $100. If it costs $20, they will. Then ridership will get high enough that 4 trains an hour becomes feasible. That's where the real economic benefit begins--when you can just show up to the station whenever and get a train to your destination without ever worrying about schedules.

In European cities HSR often has more usage than highways because they charge reasonable rates.

Don't get me wrong, I get that a $100 fare will be able to compete and likely pay off construction costs, but I still firmly believe that the true benefits of HSR require being cost-competitive with driving.

Also, I really think that to help build a ridership base for HSR and as an interim measure before HSR, we should introduce conventional VIA service, like what they have in the Corridor, between Calgary and Edmonton. If VIA committed to it, they could have trains running that route by this Christmas.

15 minute frequency from from 9-to-5 would exceed current demand from air and road combined... Or we might be thinking about very short trains.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm not talking about whether the price competes with existing intercity transit, I'm talking about whether the price is objectively good, and competes with the price of driving your own car. This is the severe flaw to having such an initiative built with private money, is that a private company will charge as much as they can get away with rather than charge a fair & reasonable price.

A couple of points. Total driving costs are upwards of 35 cents/km, so if someone was driving by themselves the real cost would be more like a minimum of $100 each way, so the HSR would not only likely save money but it would be quicker and it would allow you to get some work done on route. Of course if you have two people in the car that cost would be cut in half, etc. You also have to consider how you’re going to get around after you get to the other city.
http://www.caa.ca/docs/eng/CAA_Driving_Costs_English.pdf

Point two. The $100 figure is more like an average price. The studies didn't try to predict what the fare structures would be, but in practice there will be first class fares and maybe second and third class fares as well. And there will also probably be reduced prices for kids, and maybe weekend specials, and other promotions. I believe the 2008 study found that about 10% of the traffic between the two cities is by air, believe it or not. There is quite a bit of business and government traffic between the two cities and a lot of these people will be traveling by themselves, and they will have the ability to pay a higher fare. First class on the train, with a roomy seat and a table, is probably an even more productive way to travel than by air. With air you have to mess around getting to and from the airports, and through security, while with the HSR you would be travel from city centre to city centre, so you leave your office and take a short hop to the train, then take your seat and get an hour’s worth of work done, and then you arrive in downtown Edmonton. For a lot of business and government people this option would pay for the first class ticket with room to spare. On the other end of the spectrum 3rd class would probably have small seats, no tables, and a vending machine for refreshments, but the tickets would be cheaper. Here’s the updated study btw.
http://vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/HighSpeedRailUpdateReport.pdf

I don’t think there is much interest in having the government put a lot of money into this, so I think it will have to be mostly privately funded. HSR will probably kill air travel between the two cities, and maybe Red Arrow’s service as well, but Greyhound will probably still be a bit cheaper, even if it does take 2-3 times longer, and some people will probably still choose to pocket the extra money. I think competition from Greyhound and cars will help to keep 3rd class fares down, however.

There are a lot of other possibilities that these studies didn’t get into as well. Freight, for example, wasn’t factored in at all.

[franktko]

The Evolution Of Montreal’s Buses

1910s: The OG Montreal Buses





1920s & 1930s: The Atwater Street Monster & The First Trolleybuses

Driven by Adolph himself!






1940s: The Golden Age of Trolleybuses







1950s & 1960s: Buses Own the Road





1970s & 1980s: Things Start Looking (mostly) Modern





The 1990s & 2000s: The STCUM Becomes the STM and Bio-Buses Roll on Out









Thanks to ScarletCoral on mtlurb for the link!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by VIce

15 minute frequency from from 9-to-5 would exceed current demand from air and road combined... Or we might be thinking about very short trains.

It's also still far lower frequencies than what other HSR systems run at with longer trains, the majority of which still require public funding. This makes me incredibly sceptical that this could be built without public money.

I think 'Alberta High-Speed Rail' need to reveal who these private investors are (if they even exist!) before they will be taken seriously.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Given that a large majority of people making the trip between Calgary & Edmonton are doing so by car, it makes sense to try and get people out of their cars. Nobody is going to switch from driving to HSR if it costs $100. If it costs $20, they will. Then ridership will get high enough that 4 trains an hour becomes feasible. That's where the real economic benefit begins--when you can just show up to the station whenever and get a train to your destination without ever worrying about schedules.

In European cities HSR often has more usage than highways because they charge reasonable rates.

Don't get me wrong, I get that a $100 fare will be able to compete and likely pay off construction costs, but I still firmly believe that the true benefits of HSR require being cost-competitive with driving.

Also, I really think that to help build a ridership base for HSR and as an interim measure before HSR, we should introduce conventional VIA service, like what they have in the Corridor, between Calgary and Edmonton. If VIA committed to it, they could have trains running that route by this Christmas.

You will only get people out of cars if the price of fuel or the taxes on fuel and road use are increased which is an unlikely scenario in Alberta. In Europe most the ridership increase in HSR is conversion from air to rail or conventional train to HSR. This would put the price of $100 in a range that would probably entice ridership.

You can't have conventional trains running on CP by Christmas due to an un-availability of equipment, new or used. CP would also have agree to even host the trains. Even though they are a common carrier, that does not necessarily apply to passenger service. Via Rail has little spare equipment to increase service. If the service were to operate at existing authorized speeds, it would not be viable. CP would probably want substantial investment to improve crossing protection even at current speeds. Additional sidings, possibly some double track, and selected grade separations would be required depending upon the speed you hope to achieve.

The Conservative federal government has absolutely no interest in having Via Rail succeed. This means all or most of the money for improvements and equipment would have to be funded by Alberta or private interests.

For these reasons your plan won't happen until all levels of government are committed to improving rail service.

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by franktko

The Evolution Of Montreal’s Buses
Driven by Adolph himself!


Thanks to ScarletCoral on mtlurb for the link!

Great Post. Very cool to see the different era's of buses. Calgary has had a lot of similar buses over the years.

On a side note I never knew Adolph lived in Montreal.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You will only get people out of cars if the price of fuel or the taxes on fuel and road use are increased which is an unlikely scenario in Alberta. In Europe most the ridership increase in HSR is conversion from air to rail or conventional train to HSR. This would put the price of $100 in a range that would probably entice ridership.

You can't have conventional trains running on CP by Christmas due to an un-availability of equipment, new or used. CP would also have agree to even host the trains. Even though they are a common carrier, that does not necessarily apply to passenger service. Via Rail has little spare equipment to increase service. If the service were to operate at existing authorized speeds, it would not be viable. CP would probably want substantial investment to improve crossing protection even at current speeds. Additional sidings, possibly some double track, and selected grade separations would be required depending upon the speed you hope to achieve.

The Conservative federal government has absolutely no interest in having Via Rail succeed. This means all or most of the money for improvements and equipment would have to be funded by Alberta or private interests.

For these reasons your plan won't happen until all levels of government are committed to improving rail service.

That's what I meant. If the political will is there, conventional VIA service CGY-EDM could be introduced much faster than HSR could be with political will. I concede maybe not this Christmas but definitely long before HSR could be finished.

Ottawa-Montreal rail service which has comparable travel times to a car, is single-tracked with just two passing sidings, and virtually no grade separation. Conventional VIA service does not need much in the way of infrastructure.

I firmly believe that conventional VIA needs to be established in CGY-EDM before HSR can be looked at. We'll never have predicable ridership data without it. Furthermore CGY-EDM desperately needs rail transit, and I'm not sure it can wait the 10-15 years that HSR will take to finish (I know the article said 2020 but let's be real, that's not happening).

Corridor service in ON & QC works very well despite the relatively slow speeds. CGY-EDM could definitely support a similar service given how big the cities are and how (relatively) close together they are.

[caltrane74]

How come the new buses don't have the drivers standing next to them in their Hugo Boss suits?

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I firmly believe that conventional VIA needs to be established in CGY-EDM before HSR can be looked at. We'll never have predicable ridership data without it. Furthermore CGY-EDM desperately needs rail transit, and I'm not sure it can wait the 10-15 years that HSR will take to finish (I know the article said 2020 but let's be real, that's not happening).

You will not have predictable ridership data even with a regular rail line, because ridership is a product of the type of service you offer.

Ridership in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor on VIA is also low, compared to the actual ridership that could be attracted, if service operated more frequently, and ticket prices were not so expensive.

My friend from Kitchener almost never uses public transit to come into Toronto, despite wanting to. Why does he not use it? One the schedules are too constraining. But the biggest reason is ticket prices are so expensive, it is just way cheaper to take the car.

[ssiguy]

Those were great Montreal bus pics franktko, thanks.


As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, about half of the HSR trains would also stop at Red Deer and I think would get a lot of traffic at that stop. Not only does Red Deer have 100,000 but is growing very quickly and in the centre of a major urban area. Within 20 km of downtown Red Deer there are 150,000.

[eemy]

I'm trying to figure out why a bus needed four axles. Was it made out of depleted uranium?

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

That's what I meant. If the political will is there, conventional VIA service CGY-EDM could be introduced much faster than HSR could be with political will. I concede maybe not this Christmas but definitely long before HSR could be finished.

Ottawa-Montreal rail service which has comparable travel times to a car, is single-tracked with just two passing sidings, and virtually no grade separation. Conventional VIA service does not need much in the way of infrastructure.

I firmly believe that conventional VIA needs to be established in CGY-EDM before HSR can be looked at. We'll never have predicable ridership data without it. Furthermore CGY-EDM desperately needs rail transit, and I'm not sure it can wait the 10-15 years that HSR will take to finish (I know the article said 2020 but let's be real, that's not happening).

Corridor service in ON & QC works very well despite the relatively slow speeds. CGY-EDM could definitely support a similar service given how big the cities are and how (relatively) close together they are.

There is very little demand for slow rail service between the two cites. If the train isn't as fast or faster than flying, or significantly faster than driving or taking the bus, then people won't switch to the train. The studies have shown that time savings is a major factor on this route. See the figure on the bottom of page 10:
http://vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/HighSpeedRailUpdateReport.pdf

Ridership projections more than double as you go from 200kph to 320kph, and they increase by almost 50% again when you go to 480 kph, which is the maglev option that’s not currently being discussed.

[Aylmer]

I'm curious as to whether the survey took ticket prices into account. If someone asked me if I'd take a 480 km/h train for the same price as a 200 km/h one, the choice would be obvious. Less so if I was paying thrice the price for twice the speed.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'm trying to figure out why a bus needed four axles. Was it made out of depleted uranium?

I imagine it was a tire load limit issue and not an axle load limit. A modern commercial tire is a pretty technology-packed device compared to what they were rolling on pre-war.