VIA Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Uhmm Madrid-Barcelona is a 620 km line that was constructed in 2008 with a stop at Zaragoza. It operates at 300km which means it only takes about 2 and a half hours for Spaniards to traverse their two most important cities and another mid sized city. Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal distance would be approximately 600-650km long for comparison. I don’t think anyone in Spain would say the Madrid-Barcelona High speed rail was a mistake.

One more similar comparison is Madrid’s metro population is 6.7 million and Barcelona is 4.8 million so the populations of these two metros are very similar to Toronto and Montreal with the caveat of adding another 1.4 million residents within Ottawa for this service.

Slightly off topic but it’s weird that Canada always preaches it’s diversity and progressiveness towards globalization, yet we never implement other countries ideas regarding infrastructure or housing. Imagine How much better would our rail would be if we emulated Spain or our bike lanes if we emulated the Netherlands for example.

1) We can’t build as cheap as Spain can. I think Madrid-Barcelona was 9 billion Euros (even with a lot of corruption). Winter, wages and red tape make construction here very expensive.

2) Our population density is really low. The GTA is twice the size of metro Madrid for a similar population.

3) Spain has about 400% more tourists than Canada. Most of those are Americans in cars. Tourists are a big driver of high speed rail usage in Europe.

4). We don’t have a culture of intercity travel here. How often does your average Torontonian go to Ottawa or Montreal?

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by casper

No shortage of bike lanes in Vancouver or Victoria.

As for high speed rail there are only two logical areas. Vancouver to Seattle and the corridor in Ontario/Quebec. I would support building it so it can go as fast as possible without breaking the bank. I would suggest electrification should be the priority over speed at this point. In that regard with both Via and Go upgrades there is a significant network being built as we speek.

That is true Canada in general seems to be expanding their bike infrastructure at an unbelievable pace. Compare the bike lanes you’ve seen in your city from 10 years ago and it’s a shocking revelation.

Back to HSR Calgary to Edmonton is also more then viable imo.

Hot take: I think people would be surprised how viable this corridor would be if Saskatoon, Regina, and Winnipeg were added to make a prairie high speed rail network (but it would have to be Maglev otherwise it wouldn’t be competitive with flying.) Yes these cities don’t have the generally accepted population for HSR, but Canada per capita is richer then most European countries. I mean in Germany there’s an HSR line between Hanover-Wurzberg providing service to municipalities that have far lower populations then the 5 cities I’ve mentioned. Also, the cost to build high speed rail in the prairies would be significantly lower per km then an Quebec/Windsor corridor because it’s easier geography and has a lot less people in the rural areas so land acquisition costs would be quite cheaper. The two true challenge would be to connect the prairies with Vancouver and to connect Western Canada with the Quebec/Windsor corridor because of the Canadian Shield.

One underrated factor with high speed rail in general is that the airports would have the ability to have less domestic flights and replaced with more international flights making the city with HSR far more connected to the rest of the world.

Finally, I agree with your Vancouver-Seattle take, but I would even go a step further and start working with the United States for significant international high speed rail across both countries similar to the EU. Cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Minneapolis, and hell even Boston can serve as international routes because of their proximity to the border and major Canadian city. It could do a lot for the rust belt as well.

[casper]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

That is true Canada in general seems to be expanding their bike infrastructure at an unbelievable pace. Compare the bike lanes you’ve seen in your city from 10 years ago and it’s a shocking revelation.

Yes, on the west coast bike lanes are in fashion.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Back to HSR Calgary to Edmonton is also more then viable imo.

Yes. Both have significant populations at both ends of the route. The odd route extended into Banff from Calgary may make sense.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Hot take: I think people would be surprised how viable this corridor would be if Saskatoon, Regina, and Winnipeg were added to make a prairie high speed rail network (but it would have to be Maglev otherwise it wouldn’t be competitive with flying.) Yes these cities don’t have the generally accepted population for HSR, but Canada per capita is richer then most European countries. I mean in Germany there’s an HSR line between Hanover-Wurzberg providing service to municipalities that have far lower populations then the 5 cities I’ve mentioned. Also, the cost to build high speed rail in the prairies would be significantly lower per km then an Quebec/Windsor corridor because it’s easier geography and has a lot less people in the rural areas so land acquisition costs would be quite cheaper. The two true challenge would be to connect the prairies with Vancouver and to connect Western Canada with the Quebec/Windsor corridor because of the Canadian Shield.

I don't know about Regina to Saskatoon. It is not a difficult drive. Local air service is provided by a 19 seater commuter aircraft operator. Perhaps start with regular rail service.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

One underrated factor with high speed rail in general is that the airports would have the ability to have less domestic flights and replaced with more international flights making the city with HSR far more connected to the rest of the world.

There are good arguments to be made about the environmental benefits of rail over air. I don't think there is a strong argument to be made that foreign air travel is limited due to the high amount of domestic flights. None of our airports are that constrained at this time.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Finally, I agree with your Vancouver-Seattle take, but I would even go a step further and start working with the United States for significant international high speed rail across both countries similar to the EU. Cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Minneapolis, and hell even Boston can serve as international routes because of their proximity to the border and major Canadian city. It could do a lot for the rust belt as well.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by acottawa

1) We can’t build as cheap as Spain can. I think Madrid-Barcelona was 9 billion Euros (even with a lot of corruption). Winter, wages and red tape make construction here very expensive.

2) Our population density is really low. The GTA is twice the size of metro Madrid for a similar population.

3) Spain has about 400% more tourists than Canada. Most of those are Americans in cars. Tourists are a big driver of high speed rail usage in Europe.

4). We don’t have a culture of intercity travel here. How often does your average Torontonian go to Ottawa or Montreal?

You make good points and I don’t really have a strong argument for point #3 because that’s entirely correct (although HSR infrastructure always increases tourism regardless of location). I’ll tackle the other points.

1) yes it would be quite a bit more expensive to build, but Canada is much wealthier then Spain and gets a lot more revenue from taxes and exports then Spain. We also don’t have nearly as bad of a corruption problem as you mentioned. If we keep saying that High Speed Rail will be too expensive to build then it’s only going to cost more unless automation can develop to a level where robots and machines can install rail lines. We also have to consider that their would be tens of thousands of jobs created for Canadians if such a massive project were to occur.

2) That is also a fair point, but the GTA is interconnected well enough with the Go Network that if an HSR was built in Union Station or somewhere else in DT Toronto, most GTA residents would have good access to the station. Montreal would have similar connectedness if the REM is built out to its full proposal.

4) Most Torontonians from what I see rarely travel because a lot of them are house poor. Seriously though I think the culture of intercity travel doesn’t exist because of the vast distances between cities in Canada and the cost to actually travel between cities in Canada. Airlines charge a stupid amount of money to travel anywhere in the country, and gas prices make intercity travel very unfeasible. HSR would make intercity travel cheaper and induce demand for this type of travel across the country.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The difference between high speed and conventional speed is not just grade separation, it is curves, track, railbed signalling, incline, tunnel size, etc. A lot of these things can’t be readily refitted later on. It is a huge sunk cost. If it is just a few percent of straightening would get the line up to 70-80% HSR then the line should be build as HSR from the start, they can always leave some of the more expensive parts for a future phase.

Again though. These things are not binary, in most cases, as you suggest. Different standards enable different classes of track at different speeds. So the question is one of return and value engineering. For the most part, the most expensive element will always be getting a straight right-of-way itself. Things like railbed (which would require renewal over time anyway) pales in comparison to having a ROW that isn't straight enough to allow higher speeds.

As to why not just build full HSR if we have 70-80% performance with HFR? It's because that getting that last 20-30% is disproportionately expensive. Ergo, poor return. After all, what matters at the end of the day is average speed, not the speed of a given segment per se. So investment decisions should normally be based on what achieves a higher average speed. In many cases, it would be better to get from 80 kph to 160 kph than to go from 177 kph to 210 kph. The capital involved is also likely to be similar or lower going from 80 kph to 160 kph than 177 kph to 210 kph as capital intensive requirements (like full grade separation) kick in at higher speed thresholds.

Originally Posted by acottawa

1) We can’t build as cheap as Spain can. I think Madrid-Barcelona was 9 billion Euros (even with a lot of corruption). Winter, wages and red tape make construction here very expensive.

9B Euros ain't that cheap actually. That's over CA$12B. Looking at these examples, actually does show the cost of putting these investments off. The costs keep going up. Not in the least because potential ROWs often get developed over.

Originally Posted by acottawa

2) Our population density is really low. The GTA is twice the size of metro Madrid for a similar population.

HSR catchment works closer to how an airport catchment works than a traditional train station. To that end, GO RER putting a massive chunk of the GTA's population within 30-40 mins of Union would provide a catchment of 5-7 million over the coming decade. With some lines (like Lakeshore) already at a decent frequency and speed, there's probably already 2-3 million within relatively easy reach of Union.

Originally Posted by acottawa

3) Spain has about 400% more tourists than Canada. Most of those are Americans in cars. Tourists are a big driver of high speed rail usage in Europe.

In my experience in Spain, the majority of riders aren't foreign tourists. I don't think there's a system anywhere that builds its business case on foreign tourists. The reduction in flights on Madrid-Barcelona, Milan-Rome, Paris-Lyon, etc should tell you where the bulk of high value ridership comes from at minimum. It's usually business travelers. Of course, once you have the service, the marginal cost of servicing additional riders is rather small.

Originally Posted by acottawa

4). We don’t have a culture of intercity travel here. How often does your average Torontonian go to Ottawa or Montreal?

The options suck. The costs suck. I wonder why nobody travels between our major cities.....This is like saying Babushka buying the only brand of bread at the Soviet grocery store must be happy with the situation, because she shops there every week.

I would bet money that this supposed lack of culture of intercity travel, would end almost overnight if more convenient travel became possible. We've seen the effect in literally every other jurisdiction that built up such infrastructure.

[Nouvellecosse]

In terms of urban area population density, I'm not sure now relevant that is since you can just have 2-3 HSR stations across a sprawling metro area rather than a single central station like you'd have in a densely centralized city. We already do with with regular intercity since VIA has stops at Dorval near Trudeau airport and Guildwood in Scarborough, and HFR is proposed with a stop at Eglinton on many route maps I've seen.

Sure it adds a few minutes to the trip time to/from the central stations but that's nothing compared to the time many people save by reducing the last mile problem. And the outer stations can be the base for people arriving by car as well since there can be large parking facilities and car rentals like at an airport. And speaking or airports, HSR is probably more advantageous compared to flying because of the option for intermediate stops. Not only can the train get people to the city centre, but it can distribute people with stops across the metro area whereas with an airport that isn't possible. People across huge metro areas like LA are forced to travel long distances on often congested roads to get to that one point.

[acottawa]

In most cases it is binary. The line (including the fully new segments) will be built to whatever specs are chosen by the government. If the government chooses 160 kph then the curves, inclines, tunnels, track bed, track, signals, will all be built to that spec. Unless the government specifies (and pays for) future proofing then it won’t be done.

There is no requirement that “high speed rail” travels at high speed for most of the route. The Acela only goes at top speed for the Rhode Island segment. The TGV has an average speed of 103 kph. I took a high speed train in Korea last year that really only reached top speed between two Olympic venues. All that is needed to brand a service as high speed rail some high speed rolling stock and at least one segment where it can get up to top speed.

Since HFR is no longer a low cost proposal, the difference in price between HFR and a minimalist HSR is quite low, it would be silly not to pay the little extra for a much more marketable system.

This reminds me of when Ottawa build 99 percent of the infrastructure for a metro and then ran overpriced, underperforming trams on it.

[Truenorth00]

We most certainly would have multiple stations for any HSR built. And most systems seem to be built that way elsewhere, usually with suburban and airport stations.

I just wanted to point out that there's a real flaw in thinking of HSR catchment like traditional rail station catchment. The speed of HSR means that riders routinely treat HSR like flying. They are willing to drive an hour to an HSR station just like they are willing to drive an hour to the airport. The catchment for any HSR station in the GTA will not be anything like today's VIA rail stations.

I have personal experience with an HSR station that is almost entirely built to be accessed by driving. Check out Antequera-Santa Ana in Spain:

https://goo.gl/maps/PULPLT1bCsoZeByu9

Till recent extensions that was the closest HSR station from Granada to get to Cordoba and onward to the main Barcelona-Madrid-Seville corridor. Look at the station. Look at it surroundings. You won't see a lot of population density in its vicinity. Served almost entirely by intercity buses, transit buses, drop offs and park n ride.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Since HFR is no longer a low cost proposal, the difference in price between HFR and a minimalist HSR is quite low, it would be silly not to pay the little extra for a much more marketable system.

I don't think it's anywhere as close as you think.

If you look at the previous studies, going from 200 kph diesel to 300 kph electric was about 20-25%. The bulk of that additional spending was for the electrification required for 300 kph service. However, past studies assumed that 200 kph service itself requires grade separation. An unelectrified, non-grade separated (mostly) service would be substantially cheaper than a 200 kph service.

Of course, if HFR is now getting defined as 200 kph electrified with substantial grade separation, I'd agree that it is kind of pointless to be at 80%. But I'd argue, we should avoid scope creep and go back to DJS' original idea of an unelectrified, mostly at-grade line that can be up and running before the end of the decade and re-purpose current rolling stock. It gets service up quicker. It is within a politically sellable capital envelope. And it preserves the ROW for whatever future intentions we may have.

Originally Posted by acottawa

This reminds me of when Ottawa build 99 percent of the infrastructure for a metro and then ran overpriced, underperforming trams on it.

Not quite the same. Ottawa spent just as much as a light metro would cost. Possibly more actually (smaller station box with REM and SkyTrain). Nobody is suggesting building HFR for 99% of the cost of HSR. But the original DJS proposal, even with more accurate engineering, should come in at 50% of any HSR proposal or less. Scope creep like electrification and starting to push 200 kph (instead of 177 kph) driving grade separation requirements, is what is pushing costs into HSR territory.

[Truenorth00]

By the way, the Request for Expressions of Interest document is here:

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2022...ABES.PROD.PW__NB.B003.E81058.ATTA001.PDF [PDF Warning]

Video presentation here:

https://vimeo.com/698759941/819a62ebea

Effectively Corridor services, including HFR, are being split off into a new entity that will be run by a private sector operator, but owned by VIA.

It's going to be really interesting. VIA without the Corridor will be a very different entity. Without the Corridor, the subsidy numbers are going to look worse (especially per pax-km).

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Then there would probably be quite low speeds going through Peterborough. Again, I would look at the West side of Guelph as an example.

• Video Link

Funny example, because Metrolinx just recently finished improvements on that section of track with the limit increasing from 10mph when that video was filmed to 45mph now. Presumably similar improvements could be made in Peterborough.

https://blog.metrolinx.com/2021/12/16/lo...h-go-train-speed-increases-in-new-video/

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

By the way, the Request for Expressions of Interest document is here:

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2022...ABES.PROD.PW__NB.B003.E81058.ATTA001.PDF [PDF Warning]

Video presentation here:

https://vimeo.com/698759941/819a62ebea

Effectively Corridor services, including HFR, are being split off into a new entity that will be run by a private sector operator, but owned by VIA.

It's going to be really interesting. VIA without the Corridor will be a very different entity. Without the Corridor, the subsidy numbers are going to look worse (especially per pax-km).

This is either a nail in the coffin for Via or a renaissance of routes outside the Corridor. CN was a crown corporation that is now a private company. It kinda makes sense that Via would see that happen too.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is either a nail in the coffin for Via or a renaissance of routes outside the Corridor.

Everybody who complained that VIA focused too much on the Corridor is about to get their wish. Once the Corridor is split out, what's left will have tiny passenger numbers and require huge subsidies. And almost none of it will be for the "Centre of the universe". So either the rest of the country will rally to support those services or they'll see cuts.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Everybody who complained that VIA focused too much on the Corridor is about to get their wish. Once the Corridor is split out, what's left will have tiny passenger numbers and require huge subsidies. And almost none of it will be for the "Centre of the universe". So either the rest of the country will rally to support those services or they'll see cuts.

I am one of the many (or few) that wanted Via to focus more on the rest of Canada. The removal of the Corridor from Via was not what I expected. However, maybe this will be a good move for Via.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am one of the many (or few) that wanted Via to focus more on the rest of Canada. The removal of the Corridor from Via was not what I expected. However, maybe this will be a good move for Via.

Technically, the Corridor is not being removed from VIA. The plan calls for all Corridor services, including HFR, to move to a new wholly owned subsidiary of VIA. This unit will be run by the private sector partner. However, the separation of Corridor services from the rest means that the lower subsidies to the Corridor (or even possible operating profit) will not be there to lower the subsidy average. The rest of VIA is going to be shown as highly subsidized. Be careful what you wish for, as they say....

Personally, I think this is the only way we end up with an honest and rational discussion about rail services in the country. And also end the ridiculous underinvestment on a corridor which accounts for 60% of the country's population and GDP.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Technically, the Corridor is not being removed from VIA. The plan calls for all Corridor services, including HFR, to move to a new wholly owned subsidiary of VIA. This unit will be run by the private sector partner. However, the separation of Corridor services from the rest means that the lower subsidies to the Corridor (or even possible operating profit) will not be there to lower the subsidy average. The rest of VIA is going to be shown as highly subsidized. Be careful what you wish for, as they say....

Personally, I think this is the only way we end up with an honest and rational discussion about rail services in the country. And also end the ridiculous underinvestment on a corridor which accounts for 60% of the country's population and GDP.

Well considering that in the 90s the canceled a route with a lower subsidy and kept one with a higher subsidy....

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Technically, the Corridor is not being removed from VIA. The plan calls for all Corridor services, including HFR, to move to a new wholly owned subsidiary of VIA. This unit will be run by the private sector partner.

I think this is probably good news. The Feds can jerk VIA around since it's an orphaned crown corporation without a real mandate, but they can't afford to do this to a major multinational corporation that signs an agreement unless they want to poison the procurement well.

If anything as these PPPs go, the Feds will probably be the ones who are taken to the cleaners. I'm okay with that because, as a taxpayer, I don't mind being on the hook for better intercity rail service, even if it's at a diminishing marginal return on investment. The status quo is that we keep running VIA's Corridor Services through a hapless crown corporation that can't actually improve anything, and we desperately need some improvement.

[Truenorth00]

^ I actually sort of agree. But I'm less optimistic about the non-Corridor services which will now be shown as horrendously expensive.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think this is probably good news. The Feds can jerk VIA around since it's an orphaned crown corporation without a real mandate, but they can't afford to do this to a major multinational corporation that signs an agreement unless they want to poison the procurement well.

If anything as these PPPs go, the Feds will probably be the ones who are taken to the cleaners. I'm okay with that because, as a taxpayer, I don't mind being on the hook for better intercity rail service, even if it's at a diminishing marginal return on investment. The status quo is that we keep running VIA's Corridor Services through a hapless crown corporation that can't actually improve anything, and we desperately need some improvement.

You mean like the 407?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

^ I actually sort of agree. But I'm less optimistic about the non-Corridor services which will now be shown as horrendously expensive.

Which may mean they will look at how to grow ridership. You know, if every car is full, they can show how little it costs to subsidize it.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You mean like the 407?

The 407 is great. It provides a speedy bypass of the GTA from Peterborough to Hamilton. It's the best-engineered highway in Canada, bar none.

People shit on it because it's expensive and run by a private company and the government got fleeced, but its price reflects the true cost of driving and the price the market is willing to pay to drive around the GTA free of congestion. Want to get from Markham to Hamilton in less than an hour at rush hour? You can. Previously, this would've been impossible.

This is a bit of an oversimplification, but if the government wouldn't have built the 407 as a toll highway with the goal of eventual sale to the private sector, it wouldn't have been built at all. We would still be mired in congestion on the 401 and public transit wouldn't be any better.

This VIA news is the same. Maybe the government will turn over way too much to a private sector partner for too little money in return, but we'll probably get much closer to decent intercity rail service than we would have under VIA, a crown corporation that exists in political limbo and has been the bastard stepchild of no less than 6 different governments of all political stripes for 45 years.

Which may mean they will look at how to grow ridership. You know, if every car is full, they can show how little it costs to subsidize it.

I'm pretty sure that the non-Corridor services, particularly the Northern services, are heavily subsidized, and that the accountants know how to calculate this beyond anecdotally observing how many bums are in seats.