VIA Rail

[SashaLemon]

Because the ridership potential is as high as Toronto-Montreal. And a route to London will also connect KWC (one of the largest tech hubs in the country) and Pearson (the largest aviation hub in the country). You can do the math with the gravity model yourself to check.

Toronto-Montreal: 90
Toronto-London: 92

This is exactly my point about the ignorant fixation on Toronto-Montreal clouding all judgment about the potential on every other segment.

Yes, no other countries have high speed rail between their two largest metro areas...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Sud-Est

The idea is to build out the most obvious line FIRST.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes, no other countries have high speed rail between their two largest metro areas...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Sud-Est

The idea is to build out the most obvious line FIRST.

Okay? Other countries also toll their major highways, tax gasoline substantially more and fund rail at levels that Canadians can't even imagine. They also have nationalized rail systems where a single level of government can fund and build the whole thing. We don't do any of that. And that makes Toronto-Montreal a perpetually high risk project that never gets built. Because they can never close the business case. Why hold shorter, lower commitment projects like Ottawa-Montreal, Toronto-London and Montreal-Quebec City hostage?

Again, thanks for proving my point about the fixation on Toronto-Montreal at all cost.

 

[robmausser]

They do, actually, but they tend to miss the point that the CN route through Brantford has little or no potential for upping passenger service - for the same reason that the CN line to Montreal is a dead end for passenger improvements. ie - freight conflict.

Much as I lament for the likes of 1983ish service through Brantford, it ain't coming back.

But now that you've got me grumbling..... I would argue that the highway congestion on the 401/QEW in the western GTA and much of the way to London screams much louder than Toronto-Montreal demand. It may not be a moneymaking market-based opportunity, but Toronto-Kitchener-London rail pax is the solution to an enormous economic cost to Ontario's economy let alone many Ontarians' quality of life. For every dollar spent on passenger rail east of Toronto, we ought to spend two on the west side of the GTA.

Having a Provincial and a National operator tripping over each other (and waiting for the other to pick up the check) is not helping, either.

- Paul

I personally wanted HFR West along the GEXR sub instead of GO to London for this reason.

I wish VIA bought the GEXR and operated an HFR style service on dedicated tracks through K-Dub and to London.

GO is a more a local service, perhaps both could co-exist, but I don't have faith in GO to offer a fast service to Southwestern Ontario. Thats simply not their mandate.

 

[SashaLemon]

Okay? Other countries also toll their major highways, tax gasoline substantially more and fund rail at levels that Canadians can't even imagine. They also have nationalized rail systems where a single level of government can fund and build the whole thing. We don't do any of that. And that makes Toronto-Montreal a perpetually high risk project that never gets built. Because they can never close the business case. Why hold shorter, lower commitment projects like Ottawa-Montreal, Toronto-London and Montreal-Quebec City hostage?

Again, thanks for proving my point about the fixation on Toronto-Montreal at all cost.

I agree that we need to do all of those things. But you seem hell bent on basically building everything BUT the line between our biggest cities, which is strange.

 

[kEiThZ]

The real irony is that if Toronto-Kitchener-London, Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec had been built, building the Toronto-Ottawa piece to connect it all would be lower risk and easy to do.

 

[SashaLemon]

The real irony is that if Toronto-Kitchener-London, Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec had been built, building the Toronto-Ottawa piece to connect it all would be lower risk and easy to do.

Well in that case we will all die before we get any HSR built.

 

[kEiThZ]

I agree that we need to do all of those things. But you seem hell bent on basically building everything BUT the line between our biggest cities, which is strange.

Hardly. I'm just sick of the fixation on it. Especially when it drives discussion on bypassing Ottawa. Or when you hear Torontonians (and it's always Torontonians) argue that no investment is worthwhile unless it makes it easier for them to get drunk on Saint Catherine (a line you're toeing right here).

 

[kEiThZ]

Well in that case we will all die before we get any HSR built.

If you fixate on Toronto-Montreal HSR at all cost, you're going to be dead before you get HFR to Ottawa.

Toronto railfans need to understand the concept of, "Never let perfect be the enemy of good."

Better to have a project under construction that can be upgraded or extended later, than to hold out for the perfect solution. Imagine, for example, arguing against building the Eglinton Crosstown because it won't go from UTSC to the airport on Day One.

 

[SashaLemon]

I have never argued for direct Toronto to Montreal. Even though that would be faster. I have always argued for Ottawa.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have never argued for direct Toronto to Montreal. Even though that would be faster. I have always argued for Ottawa.

That's you. There's a lot of people cheering on a bypass. Even in this thread. Heck, there's people who insist on building on current Lakeshore services. Effectively the same idea.

 

[robmausser]

If you fixate on Toronto-Montreal HSR at all cost, you're going to be dead before you get HFR to Ottawa.

Toronto railfans need to understand the concept of, "Never let perfect be the enemy of good."

Better to have a project under construction that can be upgraded or extended later, than to hold out for the perfect solution. Imagine, for example, arguing against building the Eglinton Crosstown because it won't go from UTSC to the airport on Day One.

This was my opinion on electrification of HFR.

Everyone was happy about the feds commitment to electrification out the gate.

Personally, I see it as a way to kick the can further down the road.

I understand that adding electrification while there is already service running on the rails is more difficult, but the latter risks the ability to cancel the entire project. It would not be the first time. Getting some kind of work started ASAP is what is needed in government to ensure a project actually happens.

 

[kEiThZ]

@robmausser

I 100% share your opinion on electrification. 2 years and $2B to a project is a great way to imperil the entire project. I've worked on multi billion dollar projects in my career. I have an intimate understanding of the risk of scope creep. Especially with political risk. And it's clear that HFR is in deep trouble here.

They could have built HFR and launched service with the new Siemens fleet. It could have been done in 5-7 years. Now we won't even have a contract award before 2025. And that is assuming the Liberals survive till then. After that, there's a 2 year design phase (easy time to cancel) and in the best case scenario we're not riding anything till 2032. All that for marginal gains over HFR, which could have been upgraded towards anyway. Absolutely ridiculous.

And everytime I argue that electrification is a risk and waste this early, I'll get some railfan saying I don't care about climate change (I had graduate level course work on climate change, cleantech and national security).

 

[Urban Sky]

Yes, no other countries have high speed rail between their two largest metro areas...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Sud-Est

The idea is to build out the most obvious line FIRST.

Perfect, let’s trust the undeniable wisdom of the French masters of the universe:

Did the first line (LGV Sud-Est) skip the national capital? No, it didn‘t!

Did it bypass a city of more than one million people? No, that only happened with the Lyon Bypass in 1994 (i.e. 13 years after the LGV Sud-Est opened - and many more years after HFR-style service was launched between Paris and Lyon)!

So what is the most obvious corridor, if not Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal?

 

[SashaLemon]

Perfect, let’s trust the undeniable wisdom of the French masters of the universe:

Did the first line (LGV Sud-Est) skip the national capital? No, it didn‘t!

Did it bypass a city of more than one million people? No, that only happened with the Lyon Bypass in 1994 (i.e. 13 years after the LGV Sud-Est opened - and many more years after HFR-style service was launched between Paris and Lyon)!

So what is the most obvious corridor, if not Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal?

What are you SAYING? Am I a crazy person? I keep saying focus on Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal!

 

[nfitz]

Yep. The commercial centre being tied to the political centre of the country is going to generate disproportionate traffic.

What's the current demand for the two pairs and the modal split?

Aircraft movements at the respective airports are much smaller for Ottawa than either Pearson or Trudeau.

QUOTE="kEiThZ, post: 1847174, member: 2511"]I despise the obsession with Toronto-Montreal. And those who obsess are routinely willing to not just toss aside Ottawa, but also willing to disregard all investment unless it benefits Toronto-Montreal.[/QUOTE]Is anyone here in that description? I've no problem is HFR is built to entirely benefit Ottawa. It's trying to use it to provide frequent faster service to Montréal that's the issue.

There was a lot of Toronto-London discussion before the province terminated that. All that's left is service to Ottawa and Montréal. And it's only one that's failing.