VIA Rail

[rbt]

Can someone seriously explain why it costs over DOUBLE just to get 50km/h.?!?!

Bypasses around built up areas; lots of bypasses. The full report went into it in some detail.

seem like the report has been shaped to suit a 250km/h recommendation.

Agreed. There were numerous hybrid options ignored which would allow 300km/h on sections with the same routing as teh 250km/h.

HOWEVER, this is NOT an EA. It's a business case which has the sole purpose of showing an EA is worth funding. That was achieved by showing at least one possible option was worth the price. The EA will consider a lot more combinations of options (briefly, at least).

 

[cplchanb]

Bypasses around built up areas; lots of bypasses. The full report went into it in some detail.
Why are there so many bypasses necessary? is it required for 50km/m increases in speed?
Seems like this is an apples to oranges comparison. You dont see JR altering the route to fit a N700 vs a Series 0

 

[Urban Sky]

Can someone seriously explain why it costs over DOUBLE just to get 50km/h.?!?! surely the infrastructure for HSR isnt that much different when speeds are already past 250....it would seem like the report has been shaped to suit a 250km/h recommendation.

Bypasses around built up areas; lots of bypasses.

You may find a second explanation just below:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/pdfs/preliminary-business-case-hsr.pdf (pp.50+51)

 

[rbt]

Seems like this is an apples to oranges comparison.

Obviously. That's the entire point of a business case; show the worst case and the best case to see if funding an EA is worth while doing.

An EA considers each section individually and combines pieces for the best overall solution.

If anything, Metrolinx should hide the business case step from the public except when an EA will not be pursued (show why an EA wasn't funded; not why one is being funded). Far too many in the public get confused about them.

 

[cplchanb]

You may find a second explanation just below:
View attachment 116888

View attachment 116889
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/pdfs/preliminary-business-case-hsr.pdf (pp.50+51)

whats the rationale behind tunnelling so much for the 300km/h option? Surely it doesnt require that much more track to slow down an additional 50km/h

 

[rbt]

whats the rationale behind tunnelling so much for the 300km/h option? Surely it doesnt require that much more track to slow down an additional 50km/h

There isn't one. The rationale is to show things can get out of hand cost wise if you push too much BUT a profit can be made if done on the cheaper side.

That's all it shows. An EA is worth doing but be careful of a minefield of expensive upgrades that kill the profit.

 

[cplchanb]

Obviously. That's the entire point of a business case; show the worst case and the best case to see if funding an EA is worth while doing.

An EA considers each section individually and combines pieces for the best overall solution.

If anything, Metrolinx should hide the business case step from the public except when an EA will not be pursued (show why an EA wasn't funded; not why one is being funded). Far too many in the public get confused about them.

well if anything it just shows the public how they make their decisions to what goes to EA or not. 300kmh vs 250km/h has has more to do with equipment and power generation rather than track as suggested by there. In fact they should make these more readily available. At least then they will be held accountable for their "business cases"

 

[cplchanb]

There isn't one. The rationale is to show things can get out of hand cost wise if you push too much BUT a profit can be made if done on the cheaper side.

That's all it shows. An EA is worth doing but be careful of a minefield of expensive upgrades that kill the profit.

So now they will make the election promise of a 250km/h hsr based on this "business case" and shut down the latter because it costs twice as much, which in reality would probably be around 10% but with more benefits long term.

 

[rbt]

So now they will make the election promise of a 250km/h hsr based on this "business case" and shut down the latter because it costs twice as much, which in reality would probably be around 10% but with more benefits long term.

You might want to track down the terms of the EA before jumping to yet more conclusions.

 

[cplchanb]

You might want to track down the terms of the EA before jumping to yet more conclusions.

forgive me for being a cynic, but Ive had enough of election promises and flip flops based on "business cases" and successive govts wanting to save costs....

 

[rbt]

forgive me for being a cynic, .

I forgive you for being a cynic; I encourage it. Cynics read documents to find out real answers rather than listening to white-washed promises and assuming the best result based on that.

Right now you're fear mongering.

Here's the full report:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/pdfs/preliminary-business-case-hsr.pdf

Note, one of those expensive tunnel components is a connection at Pearson Airports new proposed transit oriented terminal; which the airlines are very interested in (international flights make them big money, domestic not so much). That seems likely to occur even in a 250km/h implementation. Bits and pieces from each will be in the recommended solution.


Politicians may/may not follow through on it BUT staff aren't doing anything different than has been done for nearly every other major transit project out there including Ottawa's LRT and Spadina extension which politicians upsized rather than downsizing. You can't judge final political results solely based on the cheapest option in staff reports.

 

[cplchanb]

I forgive you for being a cynic; I encourage it. Cynics read documents to find out real answers rather than listening to white-washed promises.

Right now you're fear mongering.

Well, time will tell what will happen. I wont be surprised that when/if the official announcement to start the project comes, the transportation minister will flash to this document and make reference
on how vital it was to their decision, despite the flaws.
anyways this is getting OT like the arctic defence tangent from yesterday.

The real question should be how to get Via's HFR thing rolling

 

[crs1026]

Collenette commented that the Grand River crossing would be environmentally tricky. That took me back to the original EA for GO Kitchener. I had never really read all the fine print. It does describe that crossing as having environmental issues.

Doing that, I stumbled upon a study by UMA that I hadn't read before assessing what might be needed to upgrade the KW line as it existed in 2006 to enable better VIA service, at a nominal three trains each way per day. While it has been overtaken by some of the upgrading that has happened, it's interesting to see what it lists as being needed and the base conditions that were laid down in 2006.... eg the GO construction to Mt Pleasant was predicated on peak service only, no 2-way off peak service.

The BCA route for the higher speed option, which goes down to St Thomas and then along a less than intact abandoned roadbed, still seems odd. That particular alignment is one that I would have least predicted would be of interest. After digesting the report's comments about the environment, I realised that this route keeps HSR out of the Thames River valley altogether west of London. I wonder what environmental issues that avoids. It may also avoid First Nations treaty issues. Those environmental issues may come back to bite the lower cost option if it takes the "default" route. On a "new" route, it may be no cheaper to build to the lower standard.

So yeah, those business cases are illustrative, but not definitive.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not that anyone is not interested in upping Canada's presence or assertion of sovereignty over its Arctic regions.

It's that Churchill is a lousy place to do that from. Anything that you need to supply from Churchill, you can supply better by boat from the Maritimes, or by road from Tuktoyaktuk. You aren't going to send a ship 2500 kms south to Churchill to refuel.

The Northern presence is an imperative for the country, but offering Churchill in that context is just inventing a phony raison d'etre for Churchill. And not a very productive or affordable one at that.

- Paul

When we talk about the "north", we're really talking about the Northwest Passage and the Arctic archipelago beyond that. Churchill isn't close to those places. It's pointless as a base. The military already has several useless bases that are sustained for economic reasons. There is no real institutional resistance to adding more of these and efforts to close some of the worse ones. To make things worse, these useless bases are often remote with real hits to quality of life also severely impacting retention and even recruiting. Churchill would amp these negatives up to 11.

 

[kEiThZ]

You may find a second explanation just below:

I get the other components. But can anyone explain why electrification costs are higher for the 300 kph scenario?