VIA Rail

[sacred]

I try to be as positive as possible about the project when I discuss it. It would be a big quality of life improvement for a lot of people I know (and myself). I hope you all do the same!
Also, call your MPs and the Minister of Transport

 

[Allandale25]

Any discussion on HFR from him always characterizes the project as unambitious. His last video compared the project to a rail line being built in Ethiopia. This kind of talk only provides fodder to those who oppose the project. "Hey look. Even railfans think this is useless."

He'll caveat this by saying something is better than nothing. And I agree with that. But he seems to have no idea of the history of HSR developed elsewhere, or that lines can be improved progressively. Instead, he simply suggests anything less than the government committing to tens of billions in HSR is unambitious. This is ignorance. And when it comes from someone with a large platform, it should be called out.

Thanks. One part of the project that I certainly consider ambitious is the relaying of track that was ripped out in the 1960s and the proposed length in kilometres. I mean, in most of Europe and the US, how often does that happen? I realize this might be going a little off topic but was it the case that a lot of those HSR lines in Europe built new corridors or they upgraded existing ones? It's also an apples and oranges comparison for the level of ambition for VIA's HFR to Europe's HSR if people consider that HSR in Europe doesn't have to tangle with to major freight railways (I believe) and has had decades of a head start. Also, was there really a lot of privately owned land next to the line, multi-layer governments and approval processes in Ethiopia? That definitely seems like apples and oranges. Canada is huge and has major regional competition for investment.

 

[nfitz]

Imagine where we'd be if they had just built something like HFR instead of constantly pushing for HSR as minimum. If we built HFR instead of holding out for ViaFast two decades ago, we'd probably be talking about HSR upgrades today.

Would we? Cost is similar. And ViaFast was more incremental.

Perhaps if we'd built VIA Fast back then, we'd be in a position to add more track to increase frequency - instead of dropping a huge amount of money that will do little to improve travel times.

I'm not unconvinced that HFR won't hurt VIA, with longer travel times, unanticipated costs, overstated benefits.

 

[Urban Sky]

Thanks. One part of the project that I certainly consider ambitious is the relaying of track that was ripped out in the 1960s and the proposed length in kilometres. I mean, in most of Europe and the US, how often does that happen? I realize this might be going a little off topic but was it the case that a lot of those HSR lines in Europe built new corridors or they upgraded existing ones? It's also an apples and oranges comparison for the level of ambition for VIA's HFR to Europe's HSR if people consider that HSR in Europe doesn't have to tangle with to major freight railways (I believe) and has had decades of a head start. Also, was there really a lot of privately owned land next to the line, multi-layer governments and approval processes in Ethiopia? That definitely seems like apples and oranges. Canada is huge and has major regional competition for investment.

The ambition in HFR doesn’t lie in any of its infrastructure characteristics, but that it would be the first major investment in dedicated intercity passenger rail infrastructure in Canada since (I believe) the construction of Montreal’s Gare Centrale (opened 1943) and of the present-day VIA station in Ottawa (opened in 1965) - and I struggle to think of any dedicated intercity passenger rail lines having been built in this country during the last hundred years. Why certain people (who all supposedly want to see intercity passenger rail improve) insist that the first major dedicated passenger rail project in Canada also needs to rival major HSR nations in terms of network density is beyond me. Just take a look at the chart from the video on HSR in Spain which was posted recently here:

Source: Youtube (at 4:41)

Now consider that dividing a HSR network length of 580 km (i.e. Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto) by Canada’s population (37.1 million in 2018) yields a higher HSR network density (15.6 km per million inhabitants) than Italy (15.2 km). Add Montreal-Quebec for a network length of 850 km and we are at a HSR network density (22.9 km) higher than Germany (19.0 km). Now add Toronto-Windsor for a total network length of 1210 km and we are at a HSR network density (32.6 km) which is only exceeded by France (40.9 km) and Spain (64.3 km)!

[Update 04:30 (02/27)]
I woke up in the middle of the night and realized by some reactions that I was overly harsh and not entirely fair towards a fellow member in my final paragraphs. I don’t have the time and mental capacity to review my original comments right now and therefore decided to remove for now the entire reference before it causes more preventable upset or offence to anyone. In the meanwhile, please send me any comments you might have by private message. Thank you!

 

[roger1818]

I'm not unconvinced that HFR won't hurt VIA, with longer travel times, unanticipated costs, overstated benefits.

Longer travel times? Even if you ignore the projected travel times, VIA's route with by far the largest ridership (Ottawa-Toronto) will have a far more direct route, dropping from the current 446 km to an estimated 404 km. That is a reduction of 13%. Combine that with not having to compete with freight trains and you will end up with a significantly faster and more reliable service.

Why is this route so much more popular that second best Montreal-Toronto route? Part of it is significantly higher frequency of service and part of it is improved reliability from VIA owning about 1/3 of the track on the route, but a lot of it is a better synergy between the cities for VIA's target market. HFR will reinforce and grow much of their existing market base. HSR will be too expensive for a large portion of their existing market, thus it would have to look for a new riders to succeed.

 

[2transpo]

The ambition in HFR doesn’t lie in any of its infrastructure characteristics, but that it would be the first major investment in dedicated intercity passenger rail infrastructure in Canada since (I believe) the construction of Montreal’s Gare Centrale (opened 1943) and of the present-day VIA station in Ottawa (opened in 1965) - and I struggle to think of any dedicated intercity passenger rail lines having been built in this country during the last hundred years. Why certain people (who all supposedly want to see intercity passenger rail improve) insist that the first major dedicated passenger rail project in Canada also needs to rival major HSR nations in terms of network density is beyond me. Just take a look at the map from the video on Spain which was posted recently here:
View attachment 302329
Source: Youtube (at 4:41)

Now consider that dividing a HSR network length of 580 km (i.e. Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto) by Canada’s population (37.1 million in 2018) yields a higher HSR network density (15.6 km per million inhabitants) than Italy (15.2 km). Add Montreal-Quebec for a network length of 850 km and we are at a HSR network density (22.9 km) higher than Germany (19.0 km). Now add Toronto-Windsor for a total network length of 1210 km and we are at a HSR network density (32.6 km) which is only exceeded by France (40.9 km) and Spain (64.3 km)!

Which of course brings me to @Reecemartin and I don’t know what I expected of the depth of his research and analysis after the cringeworthy experience of enduring a 9 minute video in which the name of the German ICE was incessantly mis-pronounced like the actual word for frozen water instead of an acronym (I’m pretty sure its Wikipedia entry features the name “Inter City Express” rather prominently, but I also don’t recall it being mentioned even once in his video). That said, I found it particularly hilarious that he slammed HFR simply for not satisfying the UIC definition of HSR, while citing countries like Britain, Denmark or Sweden as examples to follow, when according to the UIC’s own figures neither of these three countries has as much HSR network built, under construction or even in “long-term planning” than what he wants Canada to build now (i.e. a 850 km long HSR corridor from Toronto to Quebec):

Country	HSR lines in operation	... under construction	Planned	"Long-term plannning"	Total
United Kingdom	113 km	230 km	320 km	-	663 km
Sweden	-	11 km	150 km	589 km	750 km
Denmark	56 km	-	-	-	56 km

Source: UIC (2020)

And in true HSR-fanboy fashion, Spain is hailed as Europe’s leading rail nation rather than the living proof that you can simultaneously account for a unbelievable 32.3% of the European Union’s HSR network, 9.1% of its population and a pathetic 6.1% of its rail ridership, as despite all the HSR bonanza in Spain, people in the EU still travel on average 50% more by rail than those just in Spain (931 vs. 609 km in 2018). It would be comical, if you couldn’t apparently finance an entire professional Social Media presence with such lazy click-bait videos...

See now, I get where you are going with this post, but was there any possible way you could have talked about this without being rude and making accusations of clickbait and fanboyisms?

I assume the usual BNBR policy applies on UrbanToronto, right?

 

[Urban Sky]

See now, I get where you are going with this post, but was there any possible way you could have talked about this without being rude and making accusations of clickbait and fanboyisms?

I assume the usual BNBR policy applies on UrbanToronto, right?

Thank you very much, I truly appreciate your honest feedback and the answer to both of your questions is “Yes, of course!”, which is why I have removed the entire passage, so that it doesn’t cause more unnecessary offence or upset to anyone. I really have to go back to bed, but I will reflect on my original comments over this weekend...

Have a good night/morning!

 

[nfitz]

Longer travel times? Even if you ignore the projected travel times, VIA's route with by far the largest ridership (Ottawa-Toronto) will have a far more direct route, dropping from the current 446 km to an estimated 404 km.

I was referring to Montreal-Toronto. That VIA has could have higher ridership on the Ottawa-Toronto route, despite the greater demand (for all modes) from Montreal-Toronto says everything!

That being said, I haven't worked with VIA's travel demand model since the 1980s. Are there any recent documents with the demands and modal splits for the pairs?

Though that does raise a(n unlikely) prospect of building both. One for Peterborough-Ottawa service and the other for Kingston-Montreal service.

 

[Urban Sky]

That being said, I haven't worked with VIA's travel demand model since the 1980s. Are there any recent documents with the demands and modal splits for the pairs?

Ecotrain Study, Deliverable 7 (Demand Forecasting)

 

[roger1818]

I was referring to Montreal-Toronto. That VIA has could have higher ridership on the Ottawa-Toronto route, despite the greater demand (for all modes) from Montreal-Toronto says everything!

As I said, it tells me that there is better synergy for organ-destination travel between Ottawa-Toronto than there is for Montreal-Toronto for the type of person who uses VIA Rail.

One of the big reasons for this is that Ottawa and Toronto are in the same province. For example, provincial government workers are much more likely to do intra-provincial travel than inter-provincial travel and students are more likely to attend a university in their own province than in another province. Ottawa, as the nation's capital, similarly creates demand that doesn't apply to Montreal-Toronto. .

You can't use the number of flights as an indicator of potential demand, as many are connecting to another destination.

 

[nfitz]

You can't use the number of flights as an indicator of potential demand, as many are connecting to another destination.

Flights? The modal shift leaned towards cars the last time I looked at the data (I haven't digested the EcoTrain study yet). And in-depth origin-destination studies includes factors such as trip-purpose, age, demographics, etc. What I kept thinking they should add to the model is language - as the stuff I saw always seemed to have more troubles with stuff like Quebec City to Toronto and even Quebec City to Ottawa, where the models suggested that demand should be higher than it was.

The biggest oddity I recall was the Belleville - Jonquiere data. Which I guess was military (personal or camp followers I don't know) between CFB Trenton and CFB Bagotville.

 

[kEiThZ]

I was referring to Montreal-Toronto. That VIA has could have higher ridership on the Ottawa-Toronto route, despite the greater demand (for all modes) from Montreal-Toronto says everything!

It also speaks to how ridiculously fixated a lot of folks are. To the extent that they think that nothing else but Toronto-Montreal matters. HFR substantially improves Toronto-Ottawa, Montreal-Ottawa and Montreal-Quebec. One could argue that it improves Ottawa and Toronto to Quebec City too. The only routing that benefits less is Toronto-Montreal. It's rather myopic to dismiss HFR on those grounds.

 

[KevinT]

I try to be as positive as possible about the project when I discuss it. It would be a big quality of life improvement for a lot of people I know (and myself). I hope you all do the same!
Also, call your MPs and the Minister of Transport

Every time the Liberals call me to ask for money I bring up HFR, and invariably the person on the phone hasn't heard of it but asks me a few questions while taking notes to pass up the chain. I don't imagine it goes anywhere, but it feels good to at least tell them that it's something I care about.

 

[roger1818]

Flights? The modal shift leaned towards cars the last time I looked at the data (I haven't digested the EcoTrain study yet). And in-depth origin-destination studies includes factors such as trip-purpose, age, demographics, etc. What I kept thinking they should add to the model is language - as the stuff I saw always seemed to have more troubles with stuff like Quebec City to Toronto and even Quebec City to Ottawa, where the models suggested that demand should be higher than it was.

The biggest oddity I recall was the Belleville - Jonquiere data. Which I guess was military (personal or camp followers I don't know) between CFB Trenton and CFB Bagotville.

I agree with you that the the vast majority of those traveling along the TOM corridor do so by car. I only brought up flights proactively counter the argument that there are more Toronto-Montreal flights than Toronto-Ottawa flights so demand must be higher, I also haven't had a close look at the EchoTrain study, but I do know that a few years after it, VIA started to boost the frequency of service on the Ottawa-Montreal corridor.

Though that does raise a(n unlikely) prospect of building both. One for Peterborough-Ottawa service and the other for Kingston-Montreal service.

As completely different routes, I can't see that ever happening, but if you look at the shortest practical route between Toronto and Montreal (while skirting around Lake Ontario or the St. Laurence river), plus connections to Ottawa and Kingston, you get something like this:

Overlaying that with the HFR options and track VIA owns, you get this:

As you can see, other than the diversion to Ottawa, the route isn't that far off of the shortest practical route.

Eventually, if/when demand gets to the point where they can decouple the Toronto-Montreal trains from the Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal trains (without loosing frequency), they could build a shortcut. This would allow most of the track to be shared. This would not be desirable from day 1 though, as coupling the three routes creates a huge boost in frequency (the F in HFR).

 

[sacred]

I agree with you that the the vast majority of those traveling along the TOM corridor do so by car. I only brought up flights proactively counter the argument that there are more Toronto-Montreal flights than Toronto-Ottawa flights so demand must be higher, I also haven't had a close look at the EchoTrain study, but I do know that a few years after it, VIA started to boost the frequency of service on the Ottawa-Montreal corridor.



As completely different routes, I can't see that ever happening, but if you look at the shortest practical route between Toronto and Montreal (while skirting around Lake Ontario or the St. Laurence river), plus connections to Ottawa and Kingston, you get something like this:
View attachment 302610

Overlaying that with the HFR options and track VIA owns, you get this:
View attachment 302611

As you can see, other than the diversion to Ottawa, the route isn't that far off of the shortest practical route.

Eventually, if/when demand gets to the point where they can decouple the Toronto-Montreal trains from the Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal trains (without loosing frequency), they could build a shortcut. This would allow most of the track to be shared. This would not be desirable from day 1 though, as coupling the three routes creates a huge boost in frequency (the F in HFR).

Yeah, the Winchester Sub can be the shortcut east of Smiths Falls. I think it was discussed in this thread at some point last year.