Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[TOareaFan]

I think you are taking the $10 out-of-context. The comment at the time was that the fair would be around $40. The current fare from Kitchener is about $15 with Presto ($16.60 cash).

The full quote was:

"For a lot of people it will be a $10, $20, $25 ride if they're doing it every day. If you're a frequent rider you pay a much lower fare, if you book early or in advance you get a lower fare and if you're an infrequent rider who rides it once or twice a month you're probably going to pay a higher than $40 fare. If you're going to use it to commute it will be very inexpensive. If you're someone who's living in London who's going to the airport at the last minute it will be more expensive. The average fare will be $40 a ride going from London to downtown Toronto"​

A monthly pass from Kitchener is currently $532.95, and a child is $322.00. So if you are doing it every day, 62 trips a month then the current Kitchener fare is $5 to $9 currently. If you are 40 trips a month and an adult it's $13.

So yes, fares from London (not accounting for how many decades of inflation will occur before it opens) could be $10, $20, $25 a ride if doing it every day. If an adult travels every weekday, $25 is quite imaginable. And then a child travelling every day then $10 is quite believable.

This doesn't mean that the walk-up fare one-time from London will be $10. They said $40.

I get all that.....but, again, if someone is going to be paying (assuming 62 trips a month) $9 for a two hour service....how does $10 for a 40 minute service work? No one in their right mind would pay $9 for a two hour trip if an extra dollar can buy them 1 hour 20 minutes of time back. Either the 2 hour service fare has to be dramatically cut....or the 2 hour service itself gets cut from the menu of transit options.

 

[mdrejhon]

I'll let other high speed advocates cover ridership-increase stuff, but if you've paid attention to high speed train introductions in Europe, even on routes that resemble Barcelona... Plenty of study material already out there over the years.

But that $22.50 inflation adjusted figure is still less than the current frequent user fare inflation adjusted.

Not necessarily. It might be more.

$22.50 is an example number. I don't know what inflation will be. You don't know either. Pick any number.

Also another monkey wrench in the calculations: Electrification has lower operating costs than diesel, so operators might clamp down the number and let it be cheaper by avoiding fare increases. Avoiding inflation-adjusted increases is tantamount to a fare decrease over time. By then, introducing high speed fares would represent an increase. That said, we don't know what GO plans.

Again, I don't know what happens between now and then. We even have to consider the potential of the new freeways and widenings that are being looked into over the next 30 years too. A new high speed train route can cost less than building a new freeway, for example, and there are many cases in Europe where a high speed train made a new freeway (and it tax costs) unnecessary.

But it's quite obvious about the point of the message: commuter-pricing

-> The number is just semantics at this stage if you do not miss the above point <-

 

[TOareaFan]

I'll let other high speed advocates cover ridership-increase stuff, but if you've paid attention to high speed train introductions in Europe, even on routes that resemble Barcelona...

Not necessarily. It might be more.

$22.50 is an example number. I don't know what inflation will be. You don't know either. Pick any number.

Inflation is constant no matter what rate you pick.....so if the $10 fare goes up by X%/year so does the current $13 (assuming 20 return trips a month....thanks nfitz) ...so no matter what inflation is, $10 goes to a lower number than $13....no?

 

[mdrejhon]

Right, but we're just agreeing on nitpicky details.
Still missing the point.

It's quite obvious about the point of the message: commuter-pricing

-> The number is just semantics at this stage if you do not miss the above point <-

Whatever the actual number is, it is priced for commuters.

 

[TOareaFan]

Right, but we're just agreeing on nitpicky details.
Still missing the point.

It's quite obvious about the point of the message: commuter-pricing

-> The number is just semantics at this stage if you do not miss the above point <-

Whatever the actual number is, it is priced for commuters.

Which one are you referring to? The $10 high speed commuter pricing or the $13 slow speed commuter pricing?

Nitpicky points? It may be dull and unfashionable...but the nitpicky points are the very elements of planning. Someone telling me I will be able to travel from KW to Toronto in 40 minutes for $10 sounds like they have thought that out....if you are actually saying "we and they don't know but lets build it and we can figure that stuff out later" .....i have a lot less confidence.

And I did not miss your point (bolding it and colouring not needed)....but you added it in after I started my reply.

 

[dowlingm]

"Electrification has lower operating costs than diesel" - as long as the electric train operator can keep control of maintenance and power costs.

In a decision that on the face of it defies good sense and reason until you find out the background, MARC is retiring its electric HHP8s and AEM7s in favour of MP36 and Charger diesels, meaning there will be MORE diesel exhaust in Washington Union Station than Amtrak (long distance), VRE and non-NEC MARC service already put there.

(MARC pay Amtrak to maintain their electric equipment and Amtrak are retiring their AEM7DCs/HHPs, but Amtrak also owns the overhead and charge MARC a significant sum for the power)

Similarly, it would seem like a no-brainer for MBTA to operate electrics on the Providence Line from Boston alongside the Amtrak Regionals and Acelas, but nope. It seems they don't want to either create their own electric yard or ask Amtrak to maintain electrics, and they would also be paying Amtrak rates for the power. This despite the fact that Back Bay Station has significant air quality issues which reducing even some diesel throughput would surely help!

 

[mdrejhon]

Which one are you referring to? The $10 high speed commuter pricing or the $13 slow speed commuter pricing?

I never said slow speed would be more expensive than high speed. If you disagree, please quote the misinterpreted sentence directly, and I will clarify that specific sentence.

My point is high speed trains, these days, are primarily targeted at commuters, and would receive commuter pricing. Airline-fare prices aren't daily commuter prices, nor is VIA train prices either.

nfitz' quote is spot on, though need inflation adjustment.

 

[TOareaFan]

I never said slow speed would be more expensive than high speed. If you disagree, please quote the misinterpreted sentence directly, and I will clarify that specific sentence.

It wasn't clear when you said (and bolded and underlined and put in red) "commuter" which you were talking about ....so I was asking for clarity.

No you did not say it...but it is clear that in defending (in today's $) $10 commuter fares on this high speed line you think they will be lower than slow speed commuter lines (which are about $13/ride today...assuming 40 trips a month...which considering the distance is probably at the outer edge of the number of times anyone would make the trip).....so taking inflation out of it (ie. if this service was operating today) why would a 40 minute ride cost less than a 2 hour ride between the same destinations? Or, alternatively if you prefer, why would we keep the two hour service around when no one would use it given the price/speed disparity?

My point is high speed trains, these days, are primarily targeted at commuters, and would receive commuter pricing. Airline-fare prices aren't daily commuter prices, nor is VIA train prices either.

since no one is flying between KW and Toronto....and no one brought flight or VIA into this discussion.....I guess we all agree that there is no need to compare those to this proposed service.

 

[crs1026]

"Electrification has lower operating costs than diesel" - as long as the electric train operator can keep control of maintenance and power costs.

I don't know why MARC is doing what it's doing - but, what may be more relevant is - when you consider how far Ontario is trying to stretch the budget envelope - one has to wonder just what the relative cost would be of an electrified line versus 125 mph diesel, as an interim (15-20 year) step to "ultimate" HSR.

The Brits have done amazingly well with their diesel HST's - and they are still in excellent shape after 30 years. There is nothing un-marketable about a 125 mph service. The time savings and added revenue potential of 186 mph TGV versus 125 mph HST between Southern Ontario cities is likely not that great.

If I had a choice between Ontario selling Hydro One to build a TGV quality line Toronto-Windsor on a new alignment, versus keeping Hydro One and building a 125 mph diesel powered service on the existing Guelph-Kitchener-Stratford line....I'd select the latter.

- Paul

 

[Bojaxs]

You're all aware Ontario has the highest electricity rates in North America, right?
http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/02/26/ontarios_big_industries_plead_for_lower_hydro_rates.html
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hydro-rate-increase-1.3298396

The cost of running an electric HSR will be expensive, and the cost will be passed down onto the riders. Riding HSR in Ontaro will be so expensive it won't be competitive with other forms of transit (porter airlines, megabus). Plus Ontario doesn't have the population density between Windsor - Toronto to support an electric HSR.

 

[mpd618]

The cost of running an electric HSR will be expensive, and the cost will be passed down onto the riders. Riding HSR in Ontaro will be so expensive it won't be competitive with other forms of transit (porter airlines, megabus). Plus Ontario doesn't have the population density between Windsor - Toronto to support an electric HSR.

None of your claims in this quote is true.

 

[Bojaxs]

None of your claims in this quote is true.

Lol! Okay.

 

[rbt]

You're all aware Ontario has the highest electricity rates in North America, right?.

Highest commercial rates. Our residential rates (which happen to be nearly the exact same as the commercial rates) were closer to the middle of the pack when those articles were written.

Nearly every of the 50 states heavily subsidizes electricity rates used for business purposes. Fun fact, you can register your house as an in-home business in parts of California and get nearly 75% off electricity rates.

 

[crs1026]

The cost of running an electric HSR will be expensive, and the cost will be passed down onto the riders. Riding HSR in Ontaro will be so expensive it won't be competitive with other forms of transit (porter airlines, megabus). Plus Ontario doesn't have the population density between Windsor - Toronto to support an electric HSR.

I doubt that any of us have good data on the comparative cost of x gallons of diesel fuel vs y megawatts of electrons (all at Ontario prices)... or even the of maintaining internal combustion machines versus copper wire ..over the next 25 years.

What we do know is that electrification will require a billion dollars (maybe two, maybe three) of extra up-front capital, in a province whose debt load is already arguably perilous. (It may be federal money, but it will be raised in Ontario)

We do know that a fast rail service that cuts congestion and lowers travel time to some new quantum of convenience has value, whereas the status quo (congested highways, air travel security constraints, supposed low-budget airlines with a list of extra charges) is not sustainable. Some form of HSR is absolutely essential in Ontario.

The question is - what kind. My point would be, we are shopping on a limited budget. It would be easy to look for the 'Lexus' solution, but we can only afford the Toyota. For now, good has to be good enough.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

What we do know is that electrification will require a billion dollars (maybe two, maybe three) of extra up-front capital, in a province whose debt load is already arguably perilous. (It may be federal money, but it will be raised in Ontario)

As it relates to debt load....what does that bold part mean?