Alto High Speed Rail

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Maybe. But some basics still hold. They aren't going to deploying novel technology that has not been tried elsewhere. It's not OC Transpo after all.....

The consortium members have a ton of experience developing all kinds of infrastructure internationally. They aren't a bunch of Metrolinx bureaucrats setting prices. I will be highly surprised if they haven't already modeled this to within a tenth of a percent of what they can get. Heck, they even have an airline to give them some really accurate demand and yield data.

Yes experience counts for a lot but it looks like we will be getting the first true high speed rail in North America. Frankly world experiences elsewhere aren't worth much. They can still model what they can get and ridership and will have that as baseline for their ask I just still wonder if they are overly optimistic as you are. A more fundamental change is needed seeing the cost of car ownership and housing patterns change. We are now moving in the opposite direction. I wonder what the price is they can command. It's probably not even what the Acela commands even though it's not really high speed and shaves little off the bus. Philadephia to NYC might be $100-$200 for an hour journey. New York is more urbanized than Montreal though for sure and even Phildelphia has a better train network feeding the station both urban and suburban. Not even mentioning the two solitudes effect in Canada that makes less business and family connections between Montreal and Toronto and even Ottawa to a lesser extent.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes experience counts for a lot but it looks like we will be getting the first true high speed rail in North America. Frankly world experiences elsewhere aren't worth much. They can still model what they can get and ridership and will have that as baseline for their ask I just still wonder if they are overly optimistic as you are. A more fundamental change is needed seeing the cost of car ownership and housing patterns change. We are now moving in the opposite direction. I wonder what the price is they can command. It's probably not even what the Acela commands even though it's not really high speed and shaves little off the bus. Philadephia to NYC might be $100-$200 for an hour journey. New York is more urbanized than Montreal though for sure and even Phildelphia has a better train network feeding the station both urban and suburban. Not even mentioning the two solitudes effect in Canada that makes less business and family connections between Montreal and Toronto and even Ottawa to a lesser extent.

The price they can command is going to be related to alternatives that are available. The closest competitor for HSR is air, given that travel times will be relatively close once you take airport security and transfers into account. For business commuters, the train may be more appealing as it is generally more practical to work on a train. Airfares Toronto to Montreal are generally between $250 and $400 in normal circumstances. The train could reasonably charge something similar and be competitive with those solo travelers.

People who need a car where they are going will always be more likely to drive, but as for the others, the train would be a pretty appealing option for those who don't relish spending 5 1/2 to 6 hours on the 401. I think that is a significant chunk of current drivers. Yes, the car is going to beat the train on economics if you are 4 or 5 people travelling together, but for single travellers or couples, it starts to get pretty close, if not better when you look at the true cost of driving. You also have your captive audience of about 30% of the population who don't drive.

Personally I'm not too concerned about there being a market, even in the $200 range.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is unlikely they could model anything on the cost front at this point. There is no route, there is no design, there is no estimated travel time, there are no agreements with stakeholders, there is no decision from the government on what the subsidy will be.

There's a ton of modeling that can be done. From generalized models like gravity models and the Japanese time based demand models from their HSR to more detailed demand models which I would assume an outfit like Air Canada has. They would have decent modeling to even know where to invest.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes experience counts for a lot but it looks like we will be getting the first true high speed rail in North America. Frankly world experiences elsewhere aren't worth much. They can still model what they can get and ridership and will have that as baseline for their ask I just still wonder if they are overly optimistic as you are.

I am excited to see movement. We need better infrastructure. I am realistic on what we'll get. I am not one of those running around saying we'll get Japanese Shinkansens to the foot of Parliament Hill (you can see that in this thread). I think they will do the bare minimum to deliver. And I am okay with that. I also think the international experience matters substantially because quite frankly I wouldn't trust anybody in North America to actually deliver. The very fact that they aren't promising crazy travel times like 2.5 hrs has me optimistic. Indeed, I would prefer if they were less ambitious at launch (3.5 hrs Toronto-Montreal).

Originally Posted by YOWetal

A more fundamental change is needed seeing the cost of car ownership and housing patterns change. We are now moving in the opposite direction. I wonder what the price is they can command. It's probably not even what the Acela commands even though it's not really high speed and shaves little off the bus. Philadephia to NYC might be $100-$200 for an hour journey. New York is more urbanized than Montreal though for sure and even Phildelphia has a better train network feeding the station both urban and suburban. Not even mentioning the two solitudes effect in Canada that makes less business and family connections between Montreal and Toronto and even Ottawa to a lesser extent.

Acela won the air/rail market share years ago. And it's not even that fast. It takes 3 hrs from New York to DC (360 km). And the Americans don't have our weather, our gas prices, or our high airfares. That's what makes me somewhat optimistic. We also have better transit systems with higher mode share proportional to population size than every city in the US not named New York. The very fact that VIA can load up trains between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal at the rates it charges today says there's plenty of room to grow ridership.

Also helps that unit costs actually go down with speed. So Alto will be substantially more efficient than VIA. Something like 12 trainsets will move more passengers between Toronto and Quebec City, with an hourly schedule, than the entire Corridor fleet today.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

The price they can command is going to be related to alternatives that are available. The closest competitor for HSR is air, given that travel times will be relatively close once you take airport security and transfers into account. For business commuters, the train may be more appealing as it is generally more practical to work on a train. Airfares Toronto to Montreal are generally between $250 and $400 in normal circumstances. The train could reasonably charge something similar and be competitive with those solo travelers.

People who need a car where they are going will always be more likely to drive, but as for the others, the train would be a pretty appealing option for those who don't relish spending 5 1/2 to 6 hours on the 401. I think that is a significant chunk of current drivers. Yes, the car is going to beat the train on economics if you are 4 or 5 people travelling together, but for single travellers or couples, it starts to get pretty close, if not better when you look at the true cost of driving. You also have your captive audience of about 30% of the population who don't drive.

Personally I'm not too concerned about there being a market, even in the $200 range.

Travel patterns will change too. I expect a lot more daytrips will be possible. Both for work and tourism in the future. A $200 train ticket isn't a huge lift if you're avoiding $200 in hotel bills.

Also, in both Toronto and Montreal, getting to the airport is actually a pain in the rear for half the city. HSR becomes immensely more convenient. Think of someone living in Pickering or Oshawa. Or Montreal East. Some of these people will drive today simply because the time savings from flying aren't enough to justify the spend. Think of a tech dude going from Markham to Kanata.

Agreed that anybody who needs to drive was never in contention anyway. Those people will always drive. And even in countries with HSR, those people drive.

Also, we forget how abnormally high our airfares are by developed country standards. It's insanely expensive to travel in Canada. And I suspect there's a ton of room between, "I have to drive because I can't afford anything else." and, "I have to buy full fare on Air Canada last minute so I can get to this meeting."

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Some of these people will drive today simply because the time savings from flying aren't enough to justify the spend. Think of a tech dude going from Markham to Kanata.

Interesting you brought up that destination pair. My company in Kanata had several of us do some traveling to Markham and by in large, we typically all took the train (and used Ubers once we got there). I once got a ride with a colleague who wanted to drive and regretted it, as it was over 8 hours wasted.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

The price they can command is going to be related to alternatives that are available. The closest competitor for HSR is air, given that travel times will be relatively close once you take airport security and transfers into account. For business commuters, the train may be more appealing as it is generally more practical to work on a train. Airfares Toronto to Montreal are generally between $250 and $400 in normal circumstances. The train could reasonably charge something similar and be competitive with those solo travelers.

People who need a car where they are going will always be more likely to drive, but as for the others, the train would be a pretty appealing option for those who don't relish spending 5 1/2 to 6 hours on the 401. I think that is a significant chunk of current drivers. Yes, the car is going to beat the train on economics if you are 4 or 5 people travelling together, but for single travellers or couples, it starts to get pretty close, if not better when you look at the true cost of driving. You also have your captive audience of about 30% of the population who don't drive.

Personally I'm not too concerned about there being a market, even in the $200 range.

There are very few flights between Ottawa and Montreal (5 I think) using very small planes. A business model based on stealing air passengers will not work very well here. They have to find a way to either induce demand or steal car passengers, both of which have very elastic demand and are very price sensitive.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a ton of modeling that can be done. From generalized models like gravity models and the Japanese time based demand models from their HSR to more detailed demand models which I would assume an outfit like Air Canada has. They would have decent modeling to even know where to invest.

A gravity model designed for France, which is the world’s largest tourist destination, where car ownership is relatively low, and high speed stations have elaborate feeder networks, is not going to be particularly applicable to Canada.

Japan built their models based on a mountain of existing data, they weren’t built in the 1950s a decade before a high speed train was ever built.

A viable model requires data.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There are very few flights between Ottawa and Montreal (5 I think) using very small planes. A business model based on stealing air passengers will not work very well here. They have to find a way to either induce demand or steal car passengers, both of which have very elastic demand and are very price sensitive.

Yeah, I was talking about Toronto to Montreal.

The only people who fly Ottawa to Montreal are connecting passengers. With an airport station HSR. Luke steal those, it as you say, there aren’t too many other of them.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a ton of modeling that can be done. From generalized models like gravity models and the Japanese time based demand models from their HSR to more detailed demand models which I would assume an outfit like Air Canada has. They would have decent modeling to even know where to invest.

I am excited to see movement. We need better infrastructure. I am realistic on what we'll get. I am not one of those running around saying we'll get Japanese Shinkansens to the foot of Parliament Hill (you can see that in this thread). I think they will do the bare minimum to deliver. And I am okay with that. I also think the international experience matters substantially because quite frankly I wouldn't trust anybody in North America to actually deliver. The very fact that they aren't promising crazy travel times like 2.5 hrs has me optimistic. Indeed, I would prefer if they were less ambitious at launch (3.5 hrs Toronto-Montreal).

Acela won the air/rail market share years ago. And it's not even that fast. It takes 3 hrs from New York to DC (360 km). And the Americans don't have our weather, our gas prices, or our high airfares. That's what makes me somewhat optimistic. We also have better transit systems with higher mode share proportional to population size than every city in the US not named New York. The very fact that VIA can load up trains between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal at the rates it charges today says there's plenty of room to grow ridership.

Also helps that unit costs actually go down with speed. So Alto will be substantially more efficient than VIA. Something like 12 trainsets will move more passengers between Toronto and Quebec City, with an hourly schedule, than the entire Corridor fleet today.

Lots of good points for Toronto to Montreal. I think the demand on that route is really a fraction of even Philadelphia to DC. Montreal and Quebec are in their own world. But right now unless I misread their announcment we are talking about Montreal to Ottawa with a later someday phase expanding Ottawa to Toronto and presumedly Quebec to Montreal at the same time.

I think a truly high speed train would be a game changer and is a much better investment than shoving carbon underground abatiing methane or the economic cost of strangling our oil production. The cost per ton of carbon saved will be astronomical but will have huge benefits in other ways for sure.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A gravity model designed for France, which is the world’s largest tourist destination, where car ownership is relatively low, and high speed stations have elaborate feeder networks, is not going to be particularly applicable to Canada.

You should at least Google stuff before posting. Gravity models are taught to undergraduate planning and civil engineering students who use it to determine everything from the road capacity between two towns to commuter rail capacity to aviation capacity between regions. This isn't since exotic knowledge only available to Europeans.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Japan built their models based on a mountain of existing data, they weren’t built in the 1950s a decade before a high speed train was ever built.

I'm referring to the modeling that Japan did after their HSR was built. They figured out distinct patterns for mode share between air and rail. And their unique touch was figuring it out based on time saved rather than distance.

Originally Posted by acottawa

A viable model requires data.

You keep assuming they don't have any data at all or that nothing they have applies to Canada. That sounds less like a problem they are likely to have and more like one that you are really hoping they have.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Lots of good points for Toronto to Montreal. I think the demand on that route is really a fraction of even Philadelphia to DC. Montreal and Quebec are in their own world. But right now unless I misread their announcment we are talking about Montreal to Ottawa with a later someday phase expanding Ottawa to Toronto and presumedly Quebec to Montreal at the same time.

Not sure why you're baselining everything to the Northeast Corridor comparison. There's less populated places where HSR works too. This is like the folks who think HSR shouldn't be built anywhere but China. But with some American twist. If it's half as successful as Madrid-Barcelona or Rome-Milan, two corridors roughly comparable on distance and population, we'll have done alright.

Also, they are not sequencing construction fully sequentially. The whole line is getting built at the same time. What they are sequencing is the start of construction of each segment. Their CEO has explained this in interviews. Ottawa-Montreal starts in 2029. He's hoping that another segment starts 2 yrs later and then another other 2 yrs after that. Given that he thinks construction takes at least 7 yrs per segment that means in year 5 the whole line will be under construction. And in 2040, theatrically the whole line should be done.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, they are not sequencing construction fully sequentially. The whole line is getting built at the same time. What they are sequencing is the start of construction of each segment. Their CEO has explained this in interviews. Ottawa-Montreal starts in 2029. He's hoping that another segment starts 2 yrs later and then another other 2 yrs after that. Given that he thinks construction takes at least 7 yrs per segment that means in year 5 the whole line will be under construction. And in 2040, theatrically the whole line should be done.

I hadn't seen reporting on this but that is a very different outcome.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not sure why you're baselining everything to the Northeast Corridor comparison. There's less populated places where HSR works too. This is like the folks who think HSR shouldn't be built anywhere but China. But with some American twist. If it's half as successful as Madrid-Barcelona or Rome-Milan, two corridors roughly comparable on distance and population, we'll have done alright.

Well Spain and Italy might as well be different planets. People live in apartments, without cars or with cars not well suited to highway driving. Gas costs nearly twice as much so even the more efficient car will still make that trip expensive. Meanwhile you can easily get a metro to your final destination in the vast majority of cases. If you have ever taken the bus in the coridor you will see how many people get off in Laval or Scarbourough or Suburban Gatineau.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well Spain and Italy might as well be different planets. People live in apartments, without cars or with cars not well suited to highway driving. Gas costs nearly twice as much so even the more efficient car will still make that trip expensive. Meanwhile you can easily get a metro to your final destination in the vast majority of cases. If you have ever taken the bus in the coridor you will see how many people get off in Laval or Scarbourough or Suburban Gatineau.

I'm not sure the "different planets" argument is very compelling. Yes, there are some differences, but they are outweighed by the similarities in the markets. Also, there are differences like weather that will push more people to the train in Canada.

As for the number of people who get off at suburban stations, I've used the train more than buses. It is true that the number of people getting off at Dorval and Guildwood is significant, but it is still a small minority of the overall passengers. The downtown stations are multiple times busier than the suburban ones.

Same comment on demand - I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of travel between the cities. The current slow and largely unreliable trains are generally full, and carry 2.7 million passengers a year. There are +/- 20 flights a day in each direction, plus many more buses. The modeling shows HSR going up to just under 10 million per year, which seems entirely realistic.

The studies estimate average ticket prices for HSR to be $109.00, which compares favourably to current Via prices and very favourably to air. This is a service that people will use.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There are very few flights between Ottawa and Montreal (5 I think) using very small planes. A business model based on stealing air passengers will not work very well here. They have to find a way to either induce demand or steal car passengers, both of which have very elastic demand and are very price sensitive.

Last time I connected in YUL, the flight from YOW was not a small plane. I suspect it was repositioning, but it was surprisingly full.

For Ottawa-Montreal OD travel, I suspect there are many who would pay a premium to fly if it saved time over driving, but the fixed time cost of security travel time to/from the airport take more time than driving the entire way. I've mentioned this before, but my sister (who lives in Vancouver) once was at a conference in Montreal one week and then in Ottawa the next. She took the train between cities, but a colleague decided to fly (I suspect she didn't know any better). They both left at the same time, and my sister was checking into her hotel in Ottawa by the time her colleague was boarding her flight.

The point is, there are a large number of people who would pay a premium for a fast, frequent, reliable train, regardless of how they travel today.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well Spain and Italy might as well be different planets. People live in apartments, without cars or with cars not well suited to highway driving. Gas costs nearly twice as much so even the more efficient car will still make that trip expensive. Meanwhile you can easily get a metro to your final destination in the vast majority of cases. If you have ever taken the bus in the coridor you will see how many people get off in Laval or Scarbourough or Suburban Gatineau.

Like I said, you seem to want to pretend that Canada is so unique that nothing will work here. Europe has more transit usage. But the idea that everybody lives in apartments without cars is some insanely ignorant take. It's like you think all of Europe is just a series of old towns that you saw when you got off your cruise ship. They have less car ownership than us. And more multi-unit housing. That doesn't mean no car ownership at all. They also have things that make driving and flying favourable. They don't have our winters. Their highways are usually better maintained than ours. And flights are dirt cheap compared to Canada. Indeed, flights don't charge VAT in Europe but trains do. And yet, HSR has managed to bankrupt airlines there.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of travel between the cities. The current slow and largely unreliable trains are generally full, and carry 2.7 million passengers a year. There are +/- 20 flights a day in each direction, plus many more buses. The modeling shows HSR going up to just under 10 million per year, which seems entirely realistic.

The studies estimate average ticket prices for HSR to be $109.00, which compares favourably to current Via prices and very favourably to air. This is a service that people will use.

Yep. The rumoured half hourly service would completely change the way we think about intercity travel. HSR will make intercity travel as convenient as using the GO train in the GTA or Exo in Montreal. And when it's that convenient people will use it.

[Dengler Avenue]

^ A frequency of every 10~20 minutes during rush hour will be even better.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

^ A frequency of every 10~20 minutes during rush hour will be even better.

True, but the law of diminishing returns starts to apply. The longer the travel time, the more time you are willing to wait for a train, so while a train every 10~20 minutes could make a more noticeable difference on the Ottawa-Montreal trip, it wouldn't be as significant on a Toronto-Ottawa or Toronto-Montreal trip.

[c_speed3108]

The Alto open house locations are interesting. I suspect there is some big route clues here. Brownsburg-Chatham (this points to an Ottawa River crossing closer to Ottawa than the current Via one), Vankleek Hill (but nothing like Cassleman), Perth (but no Smith Falls)

https://www.altotrain.ca/en/public-c...ion/open-house

Event Dates and Locations

Québec
−
January 21-22 – Montréal : Y des femmes de Montréal

January 28 – Laval : Sheraton Laval Hôtel

January 29 – Brownsburg-Chatham : Salle du centre communautaire Louis-Renaud

February 3 – Terrebonne : Impéria Hôtel & Suites Terrebonne

February 5 – Saint-Eustache : Impéria & Suites à Saint-Eustache

February 11 – Québec : Hôtel Hilton Québec

February 12 – Québec : Université Laval - Pavillon Alphonse-Desjardins

February 18 – Trois-Rivières : Hôtel Delta Trois-Rivières – Centre des congrès

February 19 – Berthierville : Centre communautaire de Berthierville

February 25 – Cap-Santé : Maison des Générations

March 11 – Gatineau : Maison du Citoyen (City Hall), agora Gille-Rocheleau room


Ontario
−
January 21-22 – Ottawa: Bayview Yards

January 29 – Vankleek Hill: Vankleek Hill Community Centre

February 4-5 – Toronto - Downtown and Scarborough: St. Lawrence Market North

February 10 – Scarborough: Scarborough Civic Centre

February 11 – Markham: Victoria Square Community Centre

February 12 – Pickering Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex

February 26 – Peterborough: McDonnel Street Community Centre

March 4 – Perth: Perth Lions Club

March 5 – Madoc: Madoc Township Recreation Centre

March 25 – Stirling: Stirling and District Lions Club

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

The Alto open house locations are interesting. I suspect there is some big route clues here. Brownsburg-Chatham (this points to an Ottawa River crossing closer to Ottawa than the current Via one), Vankleek Hill (but nothing like Cassleman), Perth (but no Smith Falls)

https://www.altotrain.ca/en/public-c...ion/open-house

Event Dates and Locations

Québec
−
. . . .

January 29 – Brownsburg-Chatham : Salle du centre communautaire Louis-Renaud

February 3 – Terrebonne : Impéria Hôtel & Suites Terrebonne

February 5 – Saint-Eustache : Impéria & Suites à Saint-Eustache

. . .

March 11 – Gatineau : Maison du Citoyen (City Hall), agora Gille-Rocheleau room


Ontario
−
January 21-22 – Ottawa: Bayview Yards

January 29 – Vankleek Hill: Vankleek Hill Community Centre

. . . .b

Starts to sound a lot like the existing PRT corridor through Van Kleek Hill, then between Chute-a-Blondeau or Pointe Fortune. North approach into Montreal. If you take those meeting locations as areas impacted by the routing.