VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Quick little note on HS1. I did a little digging into some of the investors VIA was in talks with for HFR, one of which was the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (OTPP). It turns out they jointly purchased HS1 about 10 years ago with OMERS Worldwide. Had no idea. So rail investment would very much align with their portfolio. Question is, are they bullish enough on HFR to invest in it.

The rub is that they like buying infrastructure. Not so much building it. That's a lot more risk.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

A few things about this. The 7 million riders was touted for the T-O-M section of corridor, which serves a population of about 12-13M. So that's roughly 18-19% of the UK's population, not quite 1/4. However, that actually doesn't have much to do with my reasoning to doubt the 7M figure.

If you've followed the HFR proposal over the years, you'd notice that much of the purported benefits and costs have significantly changed. Back when VIA was touting 7M riders, they were also touting a Tor-Ott run time of 2.5 hours (!!!) and project cost of $2.5B for just the infrastructure (excluding rolling stock and electrification). If 2.5 hours was actually the possible run-time, then 7 million riders would be far more believable. However, they've since changed the purported run-time to "as low as 3.25 hours" and increased the cost to $4B for just the infrastructure. Not to mention they seem to have dropped the 7M ridership figure for T-O-M and are now touting 9.9M for the entire corridor by 2030.

When you consider that and the rate of service and ridership growth over the years (that I broke down in my earlier post), I think my skepticism is warranted.

I don't get the skepticism. Revision of estimates was likely as they did more study and refined the proposal.

Using the gravity model of ridership, 7 million riders is a pretty reasonable estimate. Also not unfathomable given existing demand for services. Pre-Covid was doing a decent job filling every new train they added. And that's with current travel times, prices and schedules. HFR will boost frequencies, get travel times down (how much is debatable), and could help get prices down (higher asset utilization should engender some savings). Add in population growth in the major metros and the traffic that goes with that, and it's really not hard to imagine 7 million by 2030. Especially as the intercity commuter market grows as well. And that is a major source of business for most major rail lines in other countries.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

HFR may indeed change the public, and hence political, climate to encourage a more robust passenger rail service but only if results in SIGNIFICANTLY faster travel times.

If the travel times drop from 25% to 40% on every route then the public's perception will change for the better. Conversely, if all it does is offer more trains with just better reliability but no meaningful decrease in travel times then any potential further government money for improved rail service will be seen as nothing more than throwing good money after bad.

These kinds of takes always come from people who don't actually use VIA or have much experience with intercity trains elsewhere.

All the complaints I see are always from a handful of Torontonians who have only ever taken VIA to Montreal and Ottawa a handful of times. No experience with using VIA for work travel or intercity commuting, which is a substantial part of intercity rail (regular or high speed) everywhere. The opinions of commuters from Peterborough and Ottawa or travel managers are way more relevant. And it was good to see that the surveys VIA put out were focused at gauging interest in this domain.

There will be a boost in ridership. The increases in speed, frequency and coverage alone guarantee that. And that will in due course boost political support for further investment. Both in the Corridor and elsewhere.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't get the skepticism. Revision of estimates was likely as they did more study and refined the proposal.

Using the gravity model of ridership, 7 million riders is a pretty reasonable estimate. Also not unfathomable given existing demand for services. Pre-Covid was doing a decent job filling every new train they added. And that's with current travel times, prices and schedules. HFR will boost frequencies, get travel times down (how much is debatable), and could help get prices down (higher asset utilization should engender some savings). Add in population growth in the major metros and the traffic that goes with that, and it's really not hard to imagine 7 million by 2030. Especially as the intercity commuter market grows as well. And that is a major source of business for most major rail lines in other countries.

Not criticizing the revised estimates. That's to be expected as a proposal is refined, as you said. It's the fact that the 7M estimate was tied to the time performance metric that has since been substantially reduced. Time is a key variable in the gravity model. If the estimated run time is reduced, then the estimated trip generation and attraction should decrease as well, unless another variable such as price was reduced to offset that loss.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't think anybody "likes it". But some of us see it as the path of least resistance. I really think that once HFR enters service, the public discussion and political support for intercity rail will change substantially. This is what has happened elsewhere with large rail projects.

Upgrades also become much easier. Increasing speeds on one segment (say Ottawa-Montreal) can be done in a single government term and mostly for less than what the baseline HFR will cost. I think we'll see the HFR corridor achieve HSR capability inside of 15 years after the launch of service.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

HFR may indeed change the public, and hence political, climate to encourage a more robust passenger rail service but only if results in SIGNIFICANTLY faster travel times.

If the travel times drop from 25% to 40% on every route then the public's perception will change for the better. Conversely, if all it does is offer more trains with just better reliability but no meaningful decrease in travel times then any potential further government money for improved rail service will be seen as nothing more than throwing good money after bad.

I am wondering if HFR is enough to shut everyone up about the Corridor so that Via can work on other routes. The problem is, unless it is frequent HSR, I doubt Via will do anything outside of the Corridor. We are operating equipment from the 1950s outside of the Corridor.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am wondering if HFR is enough to shut everyone up about the Corridor so that Via can work on other routes. The problem is, unless it is frequent HSR, I doubt Via will do anything outside of the Corridor. We are operating equipment from the 1950s outside of the Corridor.

I hope the opposite - that once HFR is built people keep talking about it, like it, and want to keep improving it. Incrementally upgrading HFR does not in any way diminish the business case for rail lines in other areas of the country. If Alberta wants a rail line and wants federal funds, all they have to do is ask.

Fingers crossed, HFR will be a success and a case study. Once the line is built, additional upgrades will not be contraversial, like how GO upgrades just plod along in the background.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I hope the opposite - that once HFR is built people keep talking about it, like it, and want to keep improving it. Incrementally upgrading HFR does not in any way diminish the business case for rail lines in other areas of the country. If Alberta wants a rail line and wants federal funds, all they have to do is ask.

I don't think it is zero sum, but with the way the railways and VIA are structured it's hard for regional projects to happen. This is true of most centralized national stuff. Put the decision-makers in Toronto or Montreal and the stuff in Calgary seems really difficult and never quite gets on the radar. The railways are worse than usual because they are private sector national monopolies and VIA is a kind of supplicant.

If the railway network were run semi-sensibly and it were possible for different services to bid for schedules I think there would be Calgary-Edmonton trains already. But because it's sort of viewed as a federal thing and is reliant on a mix of CP/CN/VIA, it is hard for an individual project like that to cut through the bureaucratic morass.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am wondering if HFR is enough to shut everyone up about the Corridor so that Via can work on other routes. The problem is, unless it is frequent HSR, I doubt Via will do anything outside of the Corridor. We are operating equipment from the 1950s outside of the Corridor.

HFR only covers Corridor East. There's still Corridor West.

But one positive is that once you have one decent line, the business case for every connecting line gets better. This has been the experience elsewhere. If Corridor East and West happen, the case for investments in the Ocean, the Northlander and even the Seneterre and Joncquiere trains will get a lot better. Maybe not the Canadian. But these regional trains become a lot more appealing when connecting to HFR that will them actually go another 400 km in a travel day.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

HFR only covers Corridor East. There's still Corridor West.

But one positive is that once you have one decent line, the business case for every connecting line gets better. This has been the experience elsewhere. If Corridor East and West happen, the case for investments in the Ocean, the Northlander and even the Seneterre and Joncquiere trains will get a lot better. Maybe not the Canadian. But these regional trains become a lot more appealing when connecting to HFR that will them actually go another 400 km in a travel day.

First off, Northlander was/will be a provincial line, not within Via.

Why would only the Montreal routes benefit? Why not the Canadian?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

First off, Northlander was/will be a provincial line, not within Via.

And?

Doesn't mean it won't benefit. Like I said connecting routes benefit because the network gets effectively expanded.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why would only the Montreal routes benefit? Why not the Canadian?

The network effect just isn't the same for a week-long train that will only ever depart once a day max. Sure some pax will take HFR to connect to the Canadian. But the effect is very different compared to regional trains, where 3 hrs on HFR expands the effective catchment substantially.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And?

Doesn't mean it won't benefit. Like I said connecting routes benefit because the network gets effectively expanded.

Sounded like you were assuming it was a Via route.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The network effect just isn't the same for a week-long train that will only ever depart once a day max. Sure some pax will take HFR to connect to the Canadian. But the effect is very different compared to regional trains, where 3 hrs on HFR expands the effective catchment substantially.

The other trains you mentioned will also depart once a day max. Not sure how the Canadian would be the odd one out. Also, the length of travel is about 4 days, not a week.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Sounded like you were assuming it was a Via route.

Nope. A network can have trains from more than one operator. That said, I kinda wish VIA would takeover the route to art least North Bay. But that's between the feds and Queen's Park to figure out.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The other trains you mentioned will also depart once a day max.

Indeed. Hopefully, the boost from HFR can get them going beyond daily. Even if it's not the entire route.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Not sure how the Canadian would be the odd one out. Also, the length of travel is about 4 days, not a week.

The lift from HFR won't be substantial. You might take a 10 hr train ride more often, with improved service, better connections, etc. But demand for a multi-day journey isn't likely to change much.

[Truenorth00]

There's a mathematician and railnerd who does a good job of explaining how network effects can boost ridership on connecting lines. He does it in the context of high speed rail. But the models with for regular speed rail. Just need different constants.

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2...gh-speed-rail/

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

A few things about this. The 7 million riders was touted for the T-O-M section of corridor, which serves a population of about 12-13M. So that's roughly 18-19% of the UK's population, not quite 1/4. However, that actually doesn't have much to do with my reasoning to doubt the 7M figure.

My concern isn't that you doubted the projection, but rather than you seem (or at least seemed) to reject it. I did notice that your reasoning didn't seem to consider the comparison that I raised, and my intention was to point out that perhaps it should. It shows that there are examples of conventional speed services attracting (greater than) that level of ridership despite the claims from some that it's impossible since only full HSR can compete effectively with airlines. The UK may have 5 times the population of Canada's corridor but we can compare the WCML specifically. While the UK is served by multiple frequent mainline rail corridors (East and West Coast Mainlines, Great Western Mainline, Midland Mainline, et al) the WCML being the most important mainline connecting major metro areas containing about 30 million (but is not the only route connecting most of them). That make the WCML a corridor of about 2.3x the population. So an equivalent percapita ridership would be about 16 million (37/2.3). The UK has ~31% lower auto ownership rates, but also much cheaper flights. Even if we ignore the air aspect and grant that Canada would have 31% lower rail usage percapita due to automobile prevalence, the 16 million would drop to 11 million. Sure the WCML has had frequent service for longer so would have more time to build up patronage and shape travel patterns, so we can drop the ridership by another third. But even after lowering the projected ridership to adjust for all those factors, the resulting number is still so implausibly high that it warrants a "fat chance?"

Fact is, Canada may be a laggard in terms of offering public transportation services, but when reasonable services are offered, we don't fall behind in terms of using them.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

If you've followed the HFR proposal over the years, you'd notice that much of the purported benefits and costs have significantly changed. Back when VIA was touting 7M riders, they were also touting a Tor-Ott run time of 2.5 hours (!!!) and project cost of $2.5B for just the infrastructure (excluding rolling stock and electrification). If 2.5 hours was actually the possible run-time, then 7 million riders would be far more believable. However, they've since changed the purported run-time to "as low as 3.25 hours" and increased the cost to $4B for just the infrastructure. Not to mention they seem to have dropped the 7M ridership figure for T-O-M and are now touting 9.9M for the entire corridor by 2030.

When you consider that and the rate of service and ridership growth over the years (that I broke down in my earlier post), I think my skepticism is warranted.

I think that skepticism is great, but skepticism represents neutrality, ie you don't know whether or not to believe an assertion until you receive more evidence. It responds to the assertion of "A equals B" with "how do you know?" However, the response of "no it doesn't" is not skepticism, but rather it's own counter assertion. I think it would be great to see the details in the VIA ridership projections, but until then I think true skepticism (neutrality) is warranted. I don't wish to say that the projected number is accurate or inaccurate, but rather that it isn't implausible and therefore doesn't warrant rejection.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

My concern isn't that you doubted the projection, but rather than you seem (or at least seemed) to reject it. I did notice that your reasoning didn't seem to consider the comparison that I raised, and my intention was to point out that perhaps it should. It shows that there are examples of conventional speed services attracting (greater than) that level of ridership despite the claims from some that it's impossible since only full HSR can compete effectively with airlines. The UK may have 5 times the population of Canada's corridor but we can compare the WCML specifically. While the UK is served by multiple frequent mainline rail corridors (East and West Coast Mainlines, Great Western Mainline, Midland Mainline, et al) the WCML being the most important mainline connecting major metro areas containing about 30 million (but is not the only route connecting most of them). That make the WCML a corridor of about 2.3x the population. So an equivalent percapita ridership would be about 16 million (37/2.3). The UK has ~31% lower auto ownership rates, but also much cheaper flights. Even if we ignore the air aspect and grant that Canada would have 31% lower rail usage percapita due to automobile prevalence, the 16 million would drop to 11 million. Sure the WCML has had frequent service for longer so would have more time to build up patronage and shape travel patterns, so we can drop the ridership by another third. But even after lowering the projected ridership to adjust for all those factors, the resulting number is still so implausibly high that it warrants a "fat chance?"

Fact is, Canada may be a laggard in terms of offering public transportation services, but when reasonable services are offered, we don't fall behind in terms of using them.



I think that skepticism is great, but skepticism represents neutrality, ie you don't know whether or not to believe an assertion until you receive more evidence. It responds to the assertion of "A equals B" with "how do you know?" However, the response of "no it doesn't" is not skepticism, but rather it's own counter assertion. I think it would be great to see the details in the VIA ridership projections, but until then I think true skepticism (neutrality) is warranted. I don't wish to say that the projected number is accurate or inaccurate, but rather that it isn't implausible and therefore doesn't warrant rejection.

Skepticism is not neutrality. Via has promised a system with unusually low per km costs, an unusually high average speed as a percentage of max speed, an unusually high ridership increase projection for a relatively small increase in speed, and implied that it will be profitable so that investors will pay for a significant portion (a rarity in the passenger rail business).

On top of this Via has released little of its background work/analysis, has not actually released a detailed route map and doesn’t seem to have spent much on geotechnical studies, design, business modelling, etc.

Maybe Via has invented the equivalent of railway Moneyball and has figured out a totally new business model unused elsewhere, but they have not given us any reason to believe that.

[Truenorth00]

Resusing an old rail corridor, with a more direct routing and limiting stops should lead to lower construction costs and higher average speed.

Also, it's not some small drop in travel times. In quite a few segments, the trip time would be marginally competitive with air. That should draw plenty of ridership. There is only one segment where the change isn't substantial (Toronto-Montreal) and even that segment will faster than any other option but air today.

I realize some of the public servants in Ottawa are nervous about losing their AC elite status when the mandates come through for Toronto and Montreal trips to go by HFR. But might want to put that energy towards making HFR better.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think it is zero sum, but with the way the railways and VIA are structured it's hard for regional projects to happen. This is true of most centralized national stuff. Put the decision-makers in Toronto or Montreal and the stuff in Calgary seems really difficult and never quite gets on the radar. The railways are worse than usual because they are private sector national monopolies and VIA is a kind of supplicant.

If the railway network were run semi-sensibly and it were possible for different services to bid for schedules I think there would be Calgary-Edmonton trains already. But because it's sort of viewed as a federal thing and is reliant on a mix of CP/CN/VIA, it is hard for an individual project like that to cut through the bureaucratic morass.

I agree that it would be preferable to have our railways managed better - regulated access to shared lines by independent operators. But I've accepted that's not likely to ever happen and any public lines will have to go on mostly new track.

When it comes to lines west of Ontario though, they really don't need VIA and it's unreasonable to blame them. It just isn't much of a political priority. If Kenney had run on a platform that included a serious commitment to passenger rail in Alberta, I don't think it would be too hard for him to get buy in and funds from the federal level. But the government, representative of the population, does not care too much. We are building trains, it's just they happen to be LRTs where most of the population lives.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by milomilo

We are building trains, it's just they happen to be LRTs where most of the population lives.

On a value spectrum, billions spent on cities' transit systems will probably deliver more benefit than billions spent on VIA.

[acottawa]

For the 99.999% of public servants who don’t fly to Toronto every other week I don’t think it is an issue. Most public servants prefer the train anyway, it justifies another 2 nights in a hotel in Toronto and a bunch of per diems.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Resusing an old rail corridor, with a more direct routing and limiting stops should lead to lower construction costs and higher average speed.

Also, it's not some small drop in travel times. In quite a few segments, the trip time would be marginally competitive with air. That should draw plenty of ridership. There is only one segment where the change isn't substantial (Toronto-Montreal) and even that segment will faster than any other option but air today.

I realize some of the public servants in Ottawa are nervous about losing their AC elite status when the mandates come through for Toronto and Montreal trips to go by HFR. But might want to put that energy towards making HFR better.

I did several trips from Ottawa to Toronto and Montreal on Gov of Canada business. Auto upgrade to business class on the train, no security to speak of, show up 10 minutes before the train (Fallowfield) arrives. Immediate WiFi a nice meal, plenty of room to stretch out or walk around and arriving in downtown Toronto or Montreal at pretty much the same time as flying the plane. What is not to love about this, and HFR would only make this an even better option!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Skepticism is not neutrality. Via has promised a system with unusually low per km costs, an unusually high average speed as a percentage of max speed, an unusually high ridership increase projection for a relatively small increase in speed, and implied that it will be profitable so that investors will pay for a significant portion (a rarity in the passenger rail business).

On top of this Via has released little of its background work/analysis, has not actually released a detailed route map and doesn’t seem to have spent much on geotechnical studies, design, business modelling, etc.

Maybe Via has invented the equivalent of railway Moneyball and has figured out a totally new business model unused elsewhere, but they have not given us any reason to believe that.

I think those points of skepticism you make are fair and I remember comparing HFR to similar British routes and confirming that HFR's journey time estimates are optimistic compared to something like the ECML. I also agree that the chance of this being profitable are slim. Railways rarely operate at a profit (otherwise why isn't the private sector building them?).

That said though, I don't care about that and just want it to be built. It's a virtual guarantee the line will be overbudget, be protested, have some controversy, NIMBY opposition, Conservatives saying it's both too much and not enough etc. But then it will be built and everyone will forget all that and think it's great.