VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Nobody has any numbers. If Via has them they won’t release them. Urban sky seems like a very passionate person but he is trying to build economic models with basic arithmetic and an excel spreadsheet without any economic analysis tools, models or datasets. It would be like trying to build a weather forecasting model on excel by averaging temperature for the previous three years.

This really downplays his analysis. His stuff here borders on professional analysis because:

1) He does this for a living.

2) He did graduate work on the subject.

This is all in his bio.

I don't see, you or anybody else providing the depth and insight he's providing here. To expect substantial detail beyond what he provided here is a little bit too much. He's not getting paid to post here. And I am fairly sure if any more detail was provided, he'd be breaking some confidentiality rules.

And lastly on this, slamming Excel? Really? I've worked out the trajectory for a lunar docking in an orbital mechanics course using Excel, incidentally, a close approximation of what happened in real life before the days of desktop computers. I'm genuinely curious what you do for a living, where a first cut estimate constantly requires such high fidelity that a spreadsheet can be dismissed simply on principle of being a spreadsheet.

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

That's done all the time with weather forecasts, Urban sky has a much better idea of the rail business than you do since he works at VIA. I'll take his word over yours any day.

Yup.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

My first job out of grad school was the transportation group at a central agency. I didn’t work on rail files, but that person was two cubes over, so I got a pretty good sense of how things work. I watched ViaFast die and see Via making the same mistakes all over again.

I am curious what mistakes you see. The way I see it, ViaFast died because of cost. Like every other HSR proposal.

Fundamentally, the problem we face in Canada, and the Corridor specifically, is that any useful first investment (just connecting Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal) is going to be huge. ViaFast made that jump that much bigger by throwing in Quebec City and Windsor and insisting on using the existing lakeshore corridor. So after spending billions, we wouldn't even be sure if CN could consistently facilitate the speeds that ViaFast was supposed to achieve. That plan was crap compared to HFR. It's entirely possible VIA would have spent the billions and then had a slow melt of service times back.

I think we're finally seeing a plan where VIA finally recognizes that it has to cut the cord from CN on lakeshore. And where (despite my personal feelings) they are following some sort of discipline to avoid scope creep. For example, sticking to 177 kph avoids a lot of grade separation and more expensive rolling stock.

I also think we're in a different era now. There's a confluence of factors that should help. Concerns over cutting carbon emissions. The need to tie these cities together economically is a bit stronger. The level of traffic between these cities is substantially higher. ViaFast was nearly two decades ago. Think of how much Ottawa, the GTA and Montreal have grown over that time period. The 416 was about 2 years old when ViaFast was announced in 2002.

Could it all fall apart? Absolutely. And VIA has been clear what this means. We're at a decision point, where this government or the next has to decide whether they want to see slow steady failure of VIA while they throw more and more subsidies at it, or whether they want to put in the capital to have rail service the rest of the world would consider normal. Good on VIA for making the choice stark and obvious.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

First, a lot of suburban/exurban Toronto does that. I did 2.5 hrs total just going from suburban Scarborough to Ryerson in undergrad. That was a trip entirely in the 416.

Yes, but that is Toronto. As I said before, the real-estate markets in Ottawa and Montreal are very different.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't think it's shitting on research, it's just fair questioning. Any questioning that's done on an internet forum is going to be incredibly tame compared to the questions asked by the people actually handing out the money. It's not up to us to come up with the numbers, as it's not us selling it.

The thing is, Urban_Sky has not been giving us a sneak peek at VIA's study, but has been trying to show that VIA is saying is justifiable by using publicly available data. If you look at his posts, he always references external, sources for his data, even for things we already know. I am sure that is to cover his butt and not appear to be leaking internal information. I am sure that VIA Rail's proposal will be much more thorough and will be backed up by independent studies, not public data.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Anyway, I don’t want to cause trouble. If you guys want this thread to be only people who support Via’s current management then that’s fine.

Not at all. I at least welcome open discussion with a variety of opinions. All I am saying is keep an open mind, do your best to understand other people's statements before rebutting them, and learn from your mistakes (we all make them) rather than rehashing old arguments that have been countered without rebuttal. I understand some posts are long and can be difficult to understand, but do your best and counter them line by line as best as you can. If you misunderstand something, that is fine.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yes, but that is Toronto. As I said before, the real-estate markets in Ottawa and Montreal are very different.

Linking Ottawa and Montreal is not about real estate. I don't know where people get this idea. It's about linking the economies and employment markets. A link that makes that commute reasonable will mean more opportunities for a skilled employee in Ottawa. And access to skilled employees for employers in Ottawa. This does not mean, by any stretch, that your average $60k per employee will be commuting to Montreal. The people commuting will mostly be well paid middle class professional who don't do that commute daily or take it up for a short time to service a client in either city. I dunno if any of you have actually traveled on high speed rail in Europe or Japan, but this kind of commuting is the baseload of a lot of HSR services elsewhere.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The thing is, Urban_Sky has not been giving us a sneak peek at VIA's study, but has been trying to show that VIA is saying is justifiable by using publicly available data. If you look at his posts, he always references external, sources for his data, even for things we already know. I am sure that is to cover his butt and not appear to be leaking internal information. I am sure that VIA Rail's proposal will be much more thorough and will be backed up by independent studies, not public data.

This is exactly what I've said. He's giving us a semi-professional opinion without actually using proprietary data or methods. We should appreciate that instead of slamming it as insufficient while not providing a substantiated, countervailing argument.

I actually do appreciate ac's skepticism. And I find it somewhat valuable as a sanity check. But I sympathize with someone who does this for a living, and takes the time to provide a reasonable and informed opinion only to be slammed by an amateur as insufficient and have their points summarily dismissed out of hand. Discussion forums are great for democratizing policy discussions. But it's also lead to the idea where everybody thinks they know it all because, "Hey, I read something online/wikipedia/etc." I see this same nonsense whenever I discuss something defence related like replacing our fighter fleet.

[CityTech]

^ Didn't we have a guy on SSP who commuted from Kingston to Ottawa in the way you just described?

I'd be curious to see how much of VIA's ridership is made up of these kinds.

[Hybrid247]

God, I hope this HFR proposal gets shut down. As some who frequently travels between Ottawa and Toronto/Waterloo, the supposed travel time improvements HFR will bring won't be nearly enough to make me want to take VIA. I'm sure it'll be the same for many others as well. Even with these proposed improvements, I'll still be able to get a plane ticket for the same price and save 5-6 hours of travel time on a round-trip. What incentive will I have to switch? I'm doubtful this will do much to improve ridership.

If we're going to build an entire new rail corridor, we may as well spend the extra money to make it HSR. Yes, I'm aware the cost will be significantly higher, but I'm sure it will be much more successful in the long run compared to HFR, which will justify the cost.

It's pretty embarrassing that our proposed "improvements" as one of the richest countries on earth are based on such dated technology (not even electrified!) when other countries have had multiple HSR lines for half a century. As Canadians, we talk a big one when it comes to environmental sustainability but won't even invest in a project that has potential to reduce GHG emissions significantly. Why do we Canadians claim to be so progressive yet remain so conservative in our actions? This project is a joke.

[Dengler Avenue]

I thought we’re just specifically looking at the Ottawa-Montréal corridor.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by CityTech

^ Didn't we have a guy on SSP who commuted from Kingston to Ottawa in the way you just described?

I'd be curious to see how much of VIA's ridership is made up of these kinds.

I'm not sure on SSP. But when I took the train often enough between Toronto and Ottawa, I would regularly see the same group of travelers commuting between Toronto to places like Coburg, Belleville and Kingston. The idea that it'd be unusual to have some professionals travel between Ottawa and Montreal regularly is rather bizarre to me. Make that trip after and easier than a car and you'll get enough people doing it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

God, I hope this HFR proposal gets shut down.

It doesn't work for you, so it should be shut down? Are you serious?

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

As some who frequently travels between Ottawa and Toronto/Waterloo, the supposed travel time improvements HFR will bring won't be nearly enough to make me want to take VIA. I'm sure it'll be the same for many others as well. Even with these proposed improvements, I'll still be able to get a plane ticket for the same price and save 5-6 hours of travel time on a round-trip. What incentive will I have to switch? I'm doubtful this will do much to improve ridership.

I don't see what's stopping you from flying if HFR comes into being. Also, don't see how you'd save 5-6 hrs over flying. With 2 hrs to Kitchener GO from Union, a 1 hr changeover and 3.5 hr trip time to Union, an Ottawa-Waterloo trip with HFR would be about 6.5 hrs. What airline are you taking that gets you from Ottawa to Waterloo in 30 mins (6 hrs saved according to you)? And how do I sign on to this supersonic private jet service you use?

Also, where are you getting the cost information for such a service from?

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

If we're going to build an entire new rail corridor, we may as well spend the extra money to make it HSR. Yes, I'm aware the cost will be significantly higher...

Then you're also aware that we'd have this conversation for decades and nobody is willing to plonk down the tens of billions it would take to build this.

Bird in hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

It's pretty embarrassing that our proposed "improvements" as one of the richest countries on earth are based on such dated technology (not even electrified!) when other countries have had multiple HSR lines for half a century.

Other countries have voters willing to pay the taxes to support the construction and maintenance of such infrastructure. Canada does not. HFR is an attempt to at least build some of that political support by showing Canadians what decent rail service looks like.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

As Canadians, we talk a big one when it comes to environmental sustainability but won't even invest in a project that has potential to reduce GHG emissions significantly. Why do we Canadians claim to be so progressive yet remain so conservative in our actions? This project is a joke.

It's unfortunately the best this country can do. And most of us would rather have something that meets our basic needs than nothing.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Linking Ottawa and Montreal is not about real estate. I don't know where people get this idea. It's about linking the economies and employment markets. A link that makes that commute reasonable will mean more opportunities for a skilled employee in Ottawa. And access to skilled employees for employers in Ottawa. This does not mean, by any stretch, that your average $60k per employee will be commuting to Montreal. The people commuting will mostly be well paid middle class professional who don't do that commute daily or take it up for a short time to service a client in either city.

That wasn't my interpretation when you said:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) Ottawa-Montreal will become an exurban commute over time so this becomes effectively suburban rail service.

Business travellers doing occasional day trips is not commuting in my books. I guess using the definition of "Travel some distance between one's home and place of work on a regular basis." could be used as you define it if the person does this a couple days a week, but I am not convinced that there will enough doing that on a regular enough basis to make it a significant portion of the travellers.

I dunno if any of you have actually traveled on high speed rail in Europe or Japan, but this kind of commuting is the baseload of a lot of HSR services elsewhere.

Europe yes. I did see a lot of business travellers, but didn't really notice any that seemed to me to be what I would call commuters. Then again I tend avoid trains during rush hour when on vacation.

This is exactly what I've said. He's giving us a semi-professional opinion without actually using proprietary data or methods. We should appreciate that instead of slamming it as insufficient while not providing a substantiated, countervailing argument.

You will notice I wasn't replying to you. I was trying to say it using different words in hopes of getting through to people since you seemed to be failing.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It doesn't work for you, so it should be shut down? Are you serious?

You took the words out of my mouth.

Then you're also aware that we'd have this conversation for decades and nobody is willing to plonk down the tens of billions it would take to build this.

Bird in hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.

Exactly! There is also nothing preventing VIA from upgrading HFR to HSR at a later date. Take baby steps. It is this attitude of wanting everything now at any cost that is casing consumer debt to be so high.

I would also like Hybrid247 (or anyone else for that matter) to name one democratic country that went from infrequent, unreliable rail service to HSR. To my knowledge (and I am willing to be corrected) they started with frequent, reliable, intercity service. Even Amtrak's Acela Express service was an upgrade from their Metroliners.

It is that type of intercity service that VIA is trying to create with HFR. Once we have that, we can take the next step and upgrade to HSR.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

God, I hope this HFR proposal gets shut down. As some who frequently travels between Ottawa and Toronto/Waterloo, the supposed travel time improvements HFR will bring won't be nearly enough to make me want to take VIA. I'm sure it'll be the same for many others as well. Even with these proposed improvements, I'll still be able to get a plane ticket for the same price and save 5-6 hours of travel time on a round-trip. What incentive will I have to switch? I'm doubtful this will do much to improve ridership.

If we're going to build an entire new rail corridor, we may as well spend the extra money to make it HSR. Yes, I'm aware the cost will be significantly higher, but I'm sure it will be much more successful in the long run compared to HFR, which will justify the cost.

It's pretty embarrassing that our proposed "improvements" as one of the richest countries on earth are based on such dated technology (not even electrified!) when other countries have had multiple HSR lines for half a century. As Canadians, we talk a big one when it comes to environmental sustainability but won't even invest in a project that has potential to reduce GHG emissions significantly. Why do we Canadians claim to be so progressive yet remain so conservative in our actions? This project is a joke.

Freight trains are the bottleneck for passenger trains. Going straight to HSR will cost to much in one bite, and funders don't want to take that financial risk all in one go.

VIA needs to solve the bottleneck first, hence the proposed Northern route. And they're selling the idea of HFR in order to get track funded (small bit by small bit if they have to), where they're not slowed by freight.

If they don't get track that's separated from freight, they will go towards the path of the dodo bird. People wouldn't want that, as it decreases choice.

Currently in the winter, a round-trip between Ottawa & Toronto can be had within 2-3 weeks for ~$100. It's not bad for people travelling on their own. If VIA can get better economies of scale (e.g. by not having to play second fiddle to freight), then perhaps the price can be just as reasonable during the summer, or even just lower overall.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It doesn't work for you, so it should be shut down? Are you serious?

First, my apologies - I was just voicing my disappointment and frustration without substantiating my position.

As for your question, no, it's because $4 billion is an enormous cost for the marginal improvements HFR will bring, IMO. I'd rather that money be spent on HSR, built in piecemeal fashion, like between Toronto-Pearson-Waterloo to begin with and expand from there. Also, I believe this project will preclude HSR from becoming a reality for many more decades to come. That's perhaps the biggest reason I don't want it built.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't see what's stopping you from flying if HFR comes into being. Also, don't see how you'd save 5-6 hrs over flying. With 2 hrs to Kitchener GO from Union, a 1 hr changeover and 3.5 hr trip time to Union, an Ottawa-Waterloo trip with HFR would be about 6.5 hrs. What airline are you taking that gets you from Ottawa to Waterloo in 30 mins (6 hrs saved according to you)? And how do I sign on to this supersonic private jet service you use?

The 5-6 hours savings was a ballpark figure, and was in reference to Toronto-Ottawa round-trip times. I never fly to Kitchener, I take either GO rail or bus from Toronto. That segment of the trip would only be shortened by GO RER/"Missing Link", HFR won't affect it under the current plan if I'm not mistaken.

YTZ-YOW is about 50-55 minutes gate to gate. With security (no bag check), it's about 1h30, so 3h round-trip. TOR-OTT HFR will apparently be about 3h45 one way, 6h30 round-trip. So I stand corrected, 3h30 time savings by flying.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, where are you getting the cost information for such a service from?

First hand experience. Anytime I travel back home to Ottawa, I compare VIA prices with flying prices, and I almost always end up flying because it costs about the same as rail (~$250 round trip), which is ridiculous. VIA hasn't said if HFR prices will differ, but I'm certain prices will go up if anything.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Then you're also aware that we'd have this conversation for decades and nobody is willing to plonk down the tens of billions it would take to build this.

That's your opinion. Mine is that there's still a chance someone will commit to building HSR in stages. I think there's no chance of that happening if HFR gets built, at least not for the next several decades.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Other countries have voters willing to pay the taxes to support the construction and maintenance of such infrastructure. Canada does not. HFR is an attempt to at least build some of that political support by showing Canadians what decent rail service looks like.

Why don't we show Canadians what amazing rail service looks like instead, by building HSR in sections?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's unfortunately the best this country can do. And most of us would rather have something that meets our basic needs than nothing.

I refuse to believe it's the best we can do. And if it really is the best we can do as the 10th largest economy, we're a joke.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Exactly! There is also nothing preventing VIA from upgrading HFR to HSR at a later date. Take baby steps. It is this attitude of wanting everything now at any cost that is casing consumer debt to be so high.

Why build a new service and a customer base only to have to shut it down for years to upgrade it to HSR? Wouldn't it be better to just build HSR in sections to begin with, kind of like confederation line?

Originally Posted by roger1818

I would also like Hybrid247 (or anyone else for that matter) to name one democratic country that went from infrequent, unreliable rail service to HSR. To my knowledge (and I am willing to be corrected) they started with frequent, reliable, intercity service. Even Amtrak's Acela Express service was an upgrade from their Metroliners.

It is that type of intercity service that VIA is trying to create with HFR. Once we have that, we can take the next step and upgrade to HSR.

Isn't Acela right below the HSR threshold of 250 k/h? HFR top speed is much less than that. I wouldn't be as bothered by the HFR proposal if it was closer to 250 k/h top speed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That wasn't my interpretation when you said:

...
Business travellers doing occasional day trips is not commuting in my books. I guess using the definition of "Travel some distance between one's home and place of work on a regular basis." could be used as you define it if the person does this a couple days a week, but I am not convinced that there will enough doing that on a regular enough basis to make it a significant portion of the travellers.

It depends on how you want to see it.

I read that something like 40-60% of the customer base of most HSR lines are passholders. Those are regular travelers in some form. Daily, weekly, etc. Unfortunately, struggling to find that source.

There's a book here that covers the situation in Spain:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Cn...%20HSR&f=false

Key takeway here is that there are two kinds of business travelers. The professional traveler who is going for a meeting or professional event. That person is usually willing to put up with several hours of travel. And the commuter. The commuter usually has a smaller threshold for max travel time. In essence what HSR or Higher Speed Rail does is expand the geographical circumference that commuter can travel. At 1.5 hrs, Ottawa-Montreal is largely going to be for those infrequent who do the trip once or twice a week. Like VIA's commuters from Kingston or London to Toronto. That's an exurban commute. Exurban commuters are very rarely daily. Usually a max of 2-3 days a week. But if Ottawa-Montreal gets down to less than 1 hr, than basically anyone who lives within 10-15 mins of Tremblay could commute to Montreal daily with 1.5 hr trip. The salary would have to be worth the fare. But I think you'd have enough at that point to fill hourly trains between the two cities.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Europe yes. I did see a lot of business travellers, but didn't really notice any that seemed to me to be what I would call commuters. Then again I tend avoid trains during rush hour when on vacation.

Travel at rush. You'll lots of people in suits with nothing but a briefacase or lunch pail. Japan is even more extreme where HSR has turned a massive chunk of the country into Tokyo exurbs.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

As for your question, no, it's because $4 billion is an enormous cost for the marginal improvements HFR will bring, IMO.

I don't consider 40% reduction in travel times and > 300% increase in ridership to be marginal. But maybe my understanding of the word "marginal" is different.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I'd rather that money be spent on HSR, built in piecemeal fashion, like between Toronto-Pearson-Waterloo to begin with and expand from there.

That corridor is the responsibility of the province, not the feds. You should be asking GO to build a high speed commuter line. Not VIA.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Also, I believe this project will preclude HSR from becoming a reality for many more decades to come. That's perhaps the biggest reason I don't want it built.

This is pure ignorance. First, no country has ever built high speed rail without regular rail service prior. Next, we've spent decades talking about building high speed rail but haven't gotten shovels in the ground. I fail to see the logic in arguing that avoiding building rail (what we've been doing for decades) is going to make high speed rail possible.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The 5-6 hours savings was a ballpark figure, and was in reference to Toronto-Ottawa round-trip times. I never fly to Kitchener, I take either GO rail or bus from Toronto. That segment of the trip would only be shortened by GO RER/"Missing Link", HFR won't affect it under the current plan if I'm not mistaken.

If you're flying into Toronto and then taking GO to Kitchener, then the only portion of the trip that matter is Toronto-Ottawa. HFR would be 3.75 hrs. A flight would be 2.25 hrs. Downtown-to-Downtown. So flying is only saving you 3 hrs roundtrip over HFR. I'd say spending $4 billion to get Toronto-Ottawa down to 3.5 hrs is worthwhile. HSR would be closer to $12 billion to get Toronto-Ottawa to get that trip down to less that 2 hrs. That's some marginal return right there. A 300% increase in cost to cut 43% in travel time over HFR.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

YTZ-YOW is about 50-55 minutes gate to gate. With security (no bag check), it's about 1h30, so 3h round-trip. TOR-OTT HFR will apparently be about 3h45 one way, 6h30 round-trip. So I stand corrected, 3h30 time savings by flying.

For a substantial increase in cost and non-productive time.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

First hand experience. Anytime I travel back home to Ottawa, I compare VIA prices with flying prices, and I almost always end up flying because it costs about the same as rail (~$250 round trip), which is ridiculous. VIA hasn't said if HFR prices will differ, but I'm certain prices will go up if anything.

We've been through this in spades in the last few pages. Prices should go down because asset utilization goes up. The same set of employees and trains is now 40% more productive. That drives down unit costs allowing them to lower prices.

Also, VIA is always cheaper 2-3 weeks in advance. I'm guessing you're looking up same week fares? I used to travel about once a month from Ottawa to Toronto a few years ago. VIA was only slightly more expensive than the bus when booked in advance.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

That's your opinion. Mine is that there's still a chance someone will commit to building HSR in stages. I think there's no chance of that happening if HFR gets built, at least not for the next several decades.

It's not my opinion. It's reality. We've had decades of nobody investing in High Speed Rail. Why would this suddenly change when we decide not to build something? Not building something and not committing to high speed rail is the Canadian status quo. Hence the Rick Mercer joke about Canadians being leaders in HSR studies:

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Why don't we show Canadians what amazing rail service looks like instead, by building HSR in sections?

Find somebody to fund HSR and you can have that demonstration project. It's not happened for decades. Hence, VIA is now taking a different (and more reasonable in my opinion) tact.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I refuse to believe it's the best we can do. And if it really is the best we can do as the 10th largest economy, we're a joke.

We are a joke. Get used to it. We're an economy that's largely built on resource extraction and real estate. Our best and brightest routinely leave. It's been that way for years.

The only way to change any of that is to stop hoping that Canadians will see the light and stop thinking actual development is pie-in-the-sky fairytales. HFR is training wheels for a Canadian public that refuses to even sit on the bike of rail travel. You aren't going to convince them that riding bikes is fun by insisting that their first ride should be down the steepest hill in the hood with no training wheels.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Why build a new service and a customer base only to have to shut it down for years to upgrade it to HSR?

Where are you getting your info? Why the heck would HFR be shut down to build HSR?

Either a parallel HSR gets built. Or portions of the HFR corridor get slowly upgraded (can be done without shutdowns) to increase speed.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Wouldn't it be better to just build HSR in sections to begin with, kind of like confederation line?

There's just no political support for that. If there was, the newly elected Conservative government wouldn't have backburnered the Toronto-Kitchener-London HSR.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Isn't Acela right below the HSR threshold of 250 k/h? HFR top speed is much less than that. I wouldn't be as bothered by the HFR proposal if it was closer to 250 k/h top speed.

First, the definition of high speed rail varies. Older lines have 200 kph as their definition. 250 kph is applied to newer lines.

Second, as Urban Sky has explained, HFR aims to be at 177 kph or 110 mph. This is the maximum speed at which expensive grade separations are not mandated. That's either 89% or 70% of HSR depending on which definition you use. I'd say that's more that reasonable for a project that will come in at a third (estimated) to half (my worst case) the price of an HSR plan. And in all likelihood, the remaining billions can be spent over time to slowly increase the speed on some portions of the corridor.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

As for your question, no, it's because $4 billion is an enormous cost for the marginal improvements HFR will bring, IMO. I'd rather that money be spent on HSR, built in piecemeal fashion, like between Toronto-Pearson-Waterloo to begin with and expand from there. Also, I believe this project will preclude HSR from becoming a reality for many more decades to come. That's perhaps the biggest reason I don't want it built.

There are really only two routes that HSR can be justifiably built (at this moment in time). The first is the section from Toronto, via Pearson to Waterloo and then to London. I suggest you ask Uncle Dougy why he pushed that project to the wayside.

The other route is Toronto to Montreal via the Lakeshore corridor. As I have stated here before, planning out an HSR route on that corridor will take at least 5 years, as it will be a hugely complicated project that uses existing railway, and maybe even highway right of ways, and creates all new one. Parts of it have a decent number of people living in homes, on properties, that will ultimately have to be moved, or the line built to accommodate in some cases.

HFR doesn't stop HSR from being built. In fact by the time HFR is completed, the plans for the first HSR route will only just be completed. HFR also serves as a demonstration project, showing the public how much better rail service can be when it has its own dedicated tracks, and can actually keep schedules. HFR actually increases the odds of HSR being built.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I refuse to believe it's the best we can do. And if it really is the best we can do as the 10th largest economy, we're a joke.

We might be the tenth largest economy, but that is spread out over a massive land mass. Even if you just focus on The Corridor, it only contains just over 18 million people, which is a fraction of France (67 million), Germany (82 million), Spain 46 (million), England (54 million), and Japan (126 million). Those pre-eminent HSR countries all had a massive rail system in place before HSR. And they pursued HSR because it was a practical solution for building the additional capacity they needed on over crowded corridors.

In Canada, it has only been until fairly recently that agencies like GO have been able to justify the cost of purchasing, and operating, dedicated rail lines for passenger rail service, versus running on tracks owned and used by freight companies, and suffering all the inconveniences that come with that.

Cities in the corridor needed to grow in order for better rail to become possible. They needed to become more urban. They needed better transit. They needed more people. They needed to be a viable, rational choice to suburbia. I wouldn't call it a joke. I would call it pragmatic. And once HFR is built, and once VIA pushes forward with other ways of better serving travellers (by reaching to under served suburban markets, in particular), then HSR becomes a much, much easier sell to the public.

Edit: And just in case you think I support HFR because it will provide some benefit to me personally, it doesn't. The two routes I primarily take are Ottawa-Kingston and Kingston-Toronto. The route to Ottawa may see 5 or 10 minutes of savings (mostly dependent on whether I get off at Fallowfield or Tremblay, the latter which I haven't used in about 5 years), and there might be less delays on those trips due to some traffic shifting to the new line. But it doesn't fix the often over crowded Kingston station situation. It doesn't fix the rubbishy location of Ottawa's "Central" station. It doesn't make my trips significantly faster. Despite that, I still think that HFR is a brilliant plan.

[Truenorth00]

The Toronto-Kitchener-London line is a flawed proposal in some ways. It barely got a positive benefits ratio. And I suspect a lot of that has to do with going to London. It has a precursor multi-billion dollar requirement: GO RER. People really should read Collenette's study.

So the choice politicians face is spend billions on such a tiny portion (say Toronto-Kitchener) that it's inconsequential to most people and expensive. Or spend several times more and do Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, the only corridor that has repeatedly returned a sound business case for High Speed Rail. But nobody is going to want to commit to what is assuredly > $15 billion and at least a decade to complete optimistically. So many more votes to be had spending that money other ways.

HFR has a fighting chance because if started today, portions of it might even come online next term. All of it will be done by the term after. And it benefits substantially more people than say Toronto-Kitchener. If reasonably successful, the case to extend west of Toronto will be strong and is all but guaranteed.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Also, I believe this project will preclude HSR from becoming a reality for many more decades to come. That's perhaps the biggest reason I don't want it built.

That's funny because my fear of sticking with an all or nothing HSR approach will likely result in no corridor improvements from happening "for many more decades to come."

YTZ-YOW is about 50-55 minutes gate to gate. With security (no bag check), it's about 1h30, so 3h round-trip. TOR-OTT HFR will apparently be about 3h45 one way, 6h30 round-trip. So I stand corrected, 3h30 time savings by flying.

I think arriving at the airport 30 minutes prior to departure is cutting things a bit close. True if you don't have any bags to check the recommended 90 minutes is overkill, but if it were me, I would say something closer to 60 minutes in advance is more realistic.

First hand experience. Anytime I travel back home to Ottawa, I compare VIA prices with flying prices, and I almost always end up flying because it costs about the same as rail (~$250 round trip), which is ridiculous. VIA hasn't said if HFR prices will differ, but I'm certain prices will go up if anything.

For last minute travel, that might be the case. I just got my weekly Tuesday email this morning from VIA saying that tickets from Ottawa to Toronto start at $45 (each way) if booked today for travel between January 19 and January 25. After tax, that will be just over $100 round trip.

That's your opinion. Mine is that there's still a chance someone will commit to building HSR in stages. I think there's no chance of that happening if HFR gets built, at least not for the next several decades.

A chance? Sure there is a chance that the government would commit to HSR, but it certainly isn't probable. My question is what happens if it doesn't happen? With VIA sharing CN's tracks, and freight traffic on the rise, service is getting less reliable every year.

Why don't we show Canadians what amazing rail service looks like instead, by building HSR in sections?

It is much easier to build HSR in sections if you already own the corridor than on a new one. For example

I refuse to believe it's the best we can do. And if it really is the best we can do as the 10th largest economy, we're a joke.

Why does it have to be either the best or nothing? The go big or go home attitude is the real joke as it has most people going home. Is that what you want for VIA Rail? For it to "go home" and have us end up with no passenger rail? How much of a joke would we be then?

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Why build a new service and a customer base only to have to shut it down for years to upgrade it to HSR? Wouldn't it be better to just build HSR in sections to begin with, kind of like confederation line?

As others have said, there is no need to shut down the line to upgrade to HSR. The changes and upgrades can either be done during normal maintenance windows (typically overnight) or by building a bypass track (like was done when the city built the underpass on Greenbank in Barrhaven. They didn't shut down the line to build this.

Before (2011):

© 2018 City of Ottawa © 2018 Teranet

During (2015?):

© 2019 Google Map Data © 2018 Google

After (2017):

© 2018 City of Ottawa © 2018 Teranet

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Toronto-Kitchener-London line is a flawed proposal in some ways. It barely got a positive benefits ratio. And I suspect a lot of that has to do with going to London. It has a precursor multi-billion dollar requirement: GO RER. People really should read Collenette's study.

I would agree that the "out of the gate plan", which is less a specific plan and more of a statement of need, is far from perfect. This section of the network is also somewhat unique and complicated. You have half the line (roughly) which needs to serve Pearson (some people will disagree about this need, but I would argue it has to), along with Brampton, Guelph, and K-W with both VIA and GO service, and then the rest for VIA service. You need to construct a line that serves HSR needs, and commuter needs. It has to be through a heavily populated part of the province (not just in the cities, but even the countryside is developed and populated). It is also a vital link in helping provide faster, more reliable service to the Windsor and Sarnia routes.

A modernized line will need to be built one day. And it might not recover as much of its costs as other lines, in part because GO will capture a portion of the new market that emerges, and because it doesn't have the same population levels as Toronto to Montreal Lakeshore corridor. But it will be a critical part of the network. And with all the technical details and challenges they need to work out, along with securing land, they should be planning now because I might take as much as a decade to get a full plan in place.