Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[kEiThZ]

Competitive a low bar in my opinion! We dont build HSR to be simply competitive.

Of course we do. Why else are we building HSR? Like I said earlier, if it's fast enough that the majority of travelers pick HSR over air travel what more is necessary? And more importantly what more is justifiable as investment. The number of people who will pay more to go 30 mins faster than 3:07 is a vanishingly small group. And would cost tens of billions to pull off.

 

[zang]

They are not wrong. However,most modern smart phones can make phone calls over wifi,and who knows how much better the cell networks will be in 15 years.

Have you used WiFi on a via rail train? I’m assuming it’s satellite-based, and it’s so bad I usually don’t even bother. I can’t imagine ALTO improving it that much.

 

[lenaitch]

I was on the full PBX on Friday. If that was throttled, then I am wondering what is open. On the return journey, in the dark, I doom scrolled for much of it. No worse than at home. Maybe I need to talk to my provider for better speeds.

I might have used the term improperly. They are not restricting speed but restricting the amount of data that any one sign-on can use. Don't ask me how they do that - I'm not a techy. A trainful of people downloading movies for several hours uses a lot of data (apparently the on-board system has an decent library to choose from). They've apparently been having some difficulty with it because somebody had figured out a work-around and passed it around Moosonee.

 

[micheal_can]

Have you used WiFi on a via rail train? I’m assuming it’s satellite-based, and it’s so bad I usually don’t even bother. I can’t imagine ALTO improving it that much.

I have, a few times. If that was what is on ALTO, I doubt it would be a non starter for travelers. It is no worse than internet while flying.

I might have used the term improperly. They are not restricting speed but restricting the amount of data that any one sign-on can use. Don't ask me how they do that - I'm not a techy. A trainful of people downloading movies for several hours uses a lot of data (apparently the on-board system has an decent library to choose from). They've apparently been having some difficulty with it because somebody had figured out a work-around and passed it around Moosonee.

Techy people will always find a way to override some sort of barrier. Regardless, for my doom scrolling, it was great. They do have a page that auto loads with links to various things, including movies, tv and games. I didn't use it, but I know others were. Someone said it was through Starlink. I'd imagine Via/ALTO could use that, unless they already do. Either way, no complaints from me.

 

[a2z]

Of course we do. Why else are we building HSR? Like I said earlier, if it's fast enough that the majority of travelers pick HSR over air travel what more is necessary? And more importantly what more is justifiable as investment. The number of people who will pay more to go 30 mins faster than 3:07 is a vanishingly small group. And would cost tens of billions to pull off.

I would agree with this. I guess the main proposition here is that important people with important business to conduct (if it's not important, then they wouldn't be travelling? so then the biggest risk to this project is that business travel gradually disappears in the next 15 years due to advances in technology?) are willing to pay a premium for the extra 1.5-2h of uninterrupted, "nearly-full" productivity that the process of flying will never be able to replicate, rather than the marginal time savings that might come about.

Which ensures that as long as HSR is able to consistently deliver this, no amount of price-cutting by airlines will sway the business people back there (whereas value-conscious consumers, where the gains of productivity will likely not apply, will be more than happy to switch between the two; I guess the impact of this could be that flights along this corridor become cheaper, but as airlines seek to gain back the "easy profits" from these routes that no longer exists - flights elsewhere across the country become more expensive?)

Frankfurt-Hamburg is 395km (as the crow flies), takes ~3:30-3:45 (i.e. definitely a less attractive offering than what is expected here), yet the only data I could find from 2000 suggested that even then, 48% of passenger movements were driven by high-speed rail (which decreased the share of flights from 10 to 4 percent, and roadway from 57 to 45)


On another note, maybe there is room here to replicate the Eurostar Snap model (note the very wide departure window!) that allows you to fill empty seats on short notice for those where affordability is essential, while not giving away unnecessary discounts to the business folks. (The cheapest fare from the same route & day if you were to book a specific train would be 98 GBP)

 

[kEiThZ]

Have you used WiFi on a via rail train? I’m assuming it’s satellite-based, and it’s so bad I usually don’t even bother. I can’t imagine ALTO improving it that much.

They use terrestrial Internet. If they get real satellite broadband like Starlink it would be different.

I would agree with this. I guess the main proposition here is that important people with important business to conduct (if it's not important, then they wouldn't be travelling? so then the biggest risk to this project is that business travel gradually disappears in the next 15 years due to advances in technology?) are willing to pay a premium for the extra 1.5-2h of uninterrupted, "nearly-full" productivity that the process of flying will never be able to replicate, rather than the marginal time savings that might come about.

See all the back to office mandates. There's no risk of business travel disappearing anytime soon. And where trains are reasonable some employers actually mandate them. I'm military. Our federal government travel portal shows carbon emissions per trip. And if I take VIA in lieu of air travel, I can take VIA 1. It's a very popular option for Corridor travel.

And it's not just productive time onboard. The process of air travel is annoying. The ending up outside downtown can be annoying. The poor onboard amenities (cramped seats and bathroom) can be annoying. Having to show up half an hour before a flight is annoying. All of that adds up. It's not worth the few minutes faster for air travel.

And it's not clear that air travel is always faster either. Let's say you live near a GO station. Unless you live in Mississauga or Brampton, you can get to Union in the same amount of time it takes to drive to Pearson or Billy Bishop. It's easy to get to Union and change to Alto. Especially after GO Expansion. Heck, if there's a GTA East station, air travel will never beat Alto for anybody east of Yonge. This is why I said speed is less relevant than station placement.

 

[zang]

They use terrestrial Internet. If they get real satellite broadband like Starlink it would be different.

Microwave-based, or standard mobile technology? Either way, my experience is that my own phone has more consistent signal and bandwidth along the corridor..

 

[crs1026]

And it's not clear that air travel is always faster either. Let's say you live near a GO station. Unless you live in Mississauga or Brampton, you can get to Union in the same amount of time it takes to drive to Pearson or Billy Bishop. It's easy to get to Union and change to Alto. Especially after GO Expansion. Heck, if there's a GTA East station, air travel will never beat Alto for anybody east of Yonge. This is why I said speed is less relevant than station placement.

In support of this - here’s Pearson at this moment…easily 2,000 business travellers enduring the waiting and added taxi time while planes are de-iced. This is in the portion of the takeoff governed by the “please ensure that all electronic devices are stowed snd your seatback remains in the upright position”.

We drove all the way from Pickering for this ??? Even if it’s accounted for in the flight schedule, it’s excruciating.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

Have you used WiFi on a via rail train? I’m assuming it’s satellite-based, and it’s so bad I usually don’t even bother. I can’t imagine ALTO improving it that much.

It's cell-based, and the service on the Siemens trains is actually quite decent. The legacy system on the old trains isn't so great, especially around Brockville and Cornwall.

Dan

 

[kEiThZ]

Frankfurt-Hamburg is 395km (as the crow flies), takes ~3:30-3:45 (i.e. definitely a less attractive offering than what is expected here), yet the only data I could find from 2000 suggested that even then, 48% of passenger movements were driven by high-speed rail (which decreased the share of flights from 10 to 4 percent, and roadway from 57 to 45)

Goes back to what I've been saying. There's a concept in economics called Revealed Preferences. What people actually pay for shows you what they truly value. And we routinely see that people don't value speed as much as they say they do. They are usually balancing some combination of travel time, convenience, comfort and price. So a train slightly slower than air travel but much faster (and more reliable) than driving will attract a ton of ridership as long as it's cheaper than air travel.

Also, should be noted that Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal is actually about 600 km. Maybe closer to 650km depending on routing. Doing that in anywhere close to 3hrs in a country with our climate (lots of Torontonians forget what winter is like in Eastern Ontario and Quebec) is actually quite impressive.

On another note, maybe there is room here to replicate the Eurostar Snap model (note the very wide departure window!) that allows you to fill empty seats on short notice for those where affordability is essential, while not giving away unnecessary discounts to the business folks. (The cheapest fare from the same route & day if you were to book a specific train would be 98 GBP)

Will all depend on how much capacity they offer. The more they offer, the less sensitive to departure time their yield management system becomes. It would be nice eventually to have some kind of standard base fare where you can travel without planning at all. Just buy a ticket on the app or from a machine at the station and tap at the platform gate.

 

[kEiThZ]

In support of this - here’s Pearson at this moment…easily 2,000 business travellers enduring the waiting and added taxi time while planes are de-iced. This is in the portion of the takeoff governed by the “please ensure that all electronic devices are stowed and your seatback remains in the upright position”.

We drove all the way from Pickering for this ??? Even if it’s accounted for in the flight schedule, it’s excruciating.

- Paul

Yep. People forget how freaking long it takes to get to Pearson from the east end. And most of the time, it's a drive. Not transit. From Scarborough, I would honestly rather drive to Peterborough to catch an Alto going East than drive to Pearson for a flight. Of course, GO to Union will help too.

PS. One angle nobody is talking about is how HSR and a possible Peterborough Airport station could make Peterborough the second GTA airport.

 

[urbanclient]

Yep. People forget how freaking long it takes to get to Pearson from the east end. And most of the time, it's a drive. Not transit. From Scarborough, I would honestly rather drive to Peterborough to catch an Alto going East than drive to Pearson for a flight. Of course, GO to Union will help too.

PS. One angle nobody is talking about is how HSR and a possible Peterborough Airport station could make Peterborough the second GTA airport.

The more convenient Pickering Airport is dead. I can't see Peterborough being the second GTA airport when it's farther for vast majority of GTA residents than Hamilton's airport, which is barely used to begin with. More people live west of Toronto than east.

Minister of Transport announces the Pickering Lands will not be used for a future airport site

Today, the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, the Honourable Anita Anand, announced that the Pickering Lands will not be used for a future airport site. The Government of Canada intends to transfer the high conservation value lands to Parks Canada.

www.canada.ca

 

[kEiThZ]

The more convenient Pickering Airport is dead. I can't see Peterborough being the second GTA airport when it's farther for vast majority of GTA residents than Hamilton's airport, which is barely used to begin with. More people live west of Toronto than east.

Minister of Transport announces the Pickering Lands will not be used for a future airport site

Today, the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, the Honourable Anita Anand, announced that the Pickering Lands will not be used for a future airport site. The Government of Canada intends to transfer the high conservation value lands to Parks Canada.

www.canada.ca

Hamilton you have to drive to. If they build this Alto station at the Peterborough airport that becomes a gamechanger on air-rail integration. I think that has more potential than Hamilton at that point. It won't be substantially different from taking UPE to Pearson. It's just 20 more minutes on the train. Admittedly a big if on station placement. But given that Peterborough council itself is pushing for the station at the airport, maybe....

To be clear. I would love to see Peterborough develop their downtown. But if they are going to have a suburban station.....

 

[urbanclient]

Hamilton you have to drive to. If they build this Alto station at the Peterborough airport that becomes a gamechanger on air-rail integration. I think that has more potential than Hamilton at that point. It won't be substantially different from taking UPE to Pearson. It's just 20 more minutes on the train. Admittedly a big if on station placement. But given that Peterborough council itself is pushing for the station at the airport, maybe....

But like you said, Alto will cost more than Via, and it already costs $25 to go from Union to Aldershot (~60 km), and $40 for Union to Brantford (~100 km) booking two weeks in advance. I highly doubt ~130 km from Toronto's Alto station, where ever it may be, will be cheaper than these two current Via prices. And if people have to book months in advance like an airline just to save $3-4 off ~$25, $40, than that's an even bigger turnoff (try booking these two itineraries on Via). A well received rail airport link would have more like GO's distance pricing scheme. Furthermore, I think the general consensus is that they want to avoid having lots of people get off at smaller intermediate stops, because that would lead to suboptimal load factors going to Ottawa and Montreal. I think this secondary GTA airport is as wishful thinking as 500 km in 2 hours while averaging 250 km/h à la @micheal_can. The economics for Alto, Via, and the train rider just don't make sense.

 

[micheal_can]

But like you said, Alto will cost more than Via, and it already costs $25 to go from Union to Aldershot (~60 km), and $40 for Union to Brantford (~100 km) booking two weeks in advance. I highly doubt ~130 km from Toronto's Alto station, where ever it may be, will be cheaper than these two current Via prices. And if people have to book months in advance like an airline just to get reasonable prices, than that's a big turnoff. A well received rail airport link would have more like GO's distance pricing scheme. Furthermore, I think the general consensus is that they want to avoid having lots of people get off at smaller intermediate stops, because that would lead to suboptimal load factors going to Ottawa and Montreal. I think this secondary GTA airport is as wishful thinking as 500 km in 2 hours while averaging 250 km/h à la @micheal_can. The economics for Alto, Via, and the train rider just don't make sense.

It may be wishful thinking that the high speed service is maintained for the entire route except for stations. Does not mean it cannot be done. Once they release the plans, we can see what they are doing. It is just like how we all can agree that the route will not follow the exact and entirety of the Havelock Sub.