VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

Hello,

I am from Skyrise Edmonton and I would like to give some of my own perspective on this issue. I think that the government already knows that people are using the train less and less in this country because not only are planes much faster, but people can drive on the highway at around the same speed in there own car for free (besides the cost of gas and 1 night motel stay), even though the drive could be over 5,500 kilometers from end to end. And the worst part is that it is more efficient to drive through the U.S as opposed to using our own highways.

What I'm trying to say is that Canada is a vast country, and people want to travel across it fast and efficiently, therefore people are only gonna want to travel by train if it is fast and efficient (and somewhat luxurious on one end). I think that High-Speed Rail would be an AMAZING investment in this country because it is not only much faster (trains can go upwards of 300 kph depending on the type on infrastructure), but people don't have to go through intensive security and a train can have more amenities, too. Finally, I think that the route should only stop at cities with at least a population of 70,000, and small towns could be serviced by smaller regular train networks.

All I'm saying is that this would be a great investment in the future of Canada and it's economy, and it's pretty frickin cool, is it not?

Ugggh. People are so ignorant in this country.

Why is it that any discussion of rail gets people thinking that it will be a national rail line? And why is it that people think that high speed rail will replace every airplane journey?

There will be no national high speed or even conventional speed rail. There’s no business case for it. What there is a business case for is Calgary-Edmonton (conventional rail) and the Quebec-Windsor corridor (conventional with high speed at least for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal). The rest of the country will never see passenger rail investment in our lifetime beyond whatever VIA can find in the couch cushions.

If we have to reduce emissions, and the new IPCC report says we only have about 10 years before some serious consequences kick in, rail projects where warranted have to be part of the solution. Don’t worry Alberta is going to get the memo once the futures market caps oil sales....

 

[crs1026]

You will never see a high speed train outside of the Corridor in Ontario/Quebec and possibly Edmonton to Calgary because while a train can go 300 kmh a plane can go 900kmh.

Exactly. A TGV from Calgary to Winnipeg would be a hugely sexy thing, but even at 200 mph it's just too far a trip to ever be marketable.... never mind that it's too expensive to build. Rather than ride, people will head to the airport, suck up all that inconvenience, and get there quickly.

Plus, the market share of journeys between city centers isn't that relevant. People are more often to need to travel from Edmonton to, say, Lethbridge. Once you eliminate all the little places from your network, again you drive people to other modes. There are airport shuttles to Calgary Airport from places like Lethbridge, even if the Alberta bus network sucks otherwise.

Realistically, outside of the corridor, pretty much everyone needs to own a car these days. Once you own that car, your transportation alternatives will mostly include using it. And very often, the car will appeal most for economic or other reasons.

In theory, a rail network could be rebuilt in the Maritimes, but we aren't talking HxR. But again, for that cost, one could create and operate a pretty convenient bus network. Canada doesn't seem interested in even that option.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

If we have to reduce emissions, and the new IPCC report says we only have about 10 years before some serious consequences kick in, rail projects where warranted have to be part of the solution. Don’t worry Alberta is going to get the memo once the futures market caps oil sales....

We have had reams of studies over the years..... were these just ahead of their time? Or, did they model the wrong variables and values and hence miss the most probable future state? Or, are people just not able to see objectively enough, and we have to wait until we get there before anyone will get on board?

As we watch our politicians fall all over themselves denying some pretty obvious realities, I wonder if it will just have to be too late. Hope my (as yet unborn) grandchildren live on high ground.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

We have had reams of studies over the years..... were these just ahead of their time? Or, did they model the wrong variables and values and hence miss the most probable future state? Or, are people just not able to see objectively enough, and we have to wait until we get there before anyone will get on board?

These points relate to the more basic question of "Why does Canada still not have High Speed Rail?", which I hear so often that I wrote an article about it (which, by the way, predates my current employment):

Two graphs which might explain why Canada still has no High-Speed Rail

 

[Platinum107]

@robmausser

You may be right about it crossing trough the mountains (although it is possible to build kilometers-long tunnels but it just costs a lot of money), but why not then make a connection on all the flat land each other province has? Plus plane tickets do cost quite a bit depending on where you are going?

 

[Urban Sky]

@robmausser

You may be right about it crossing trough the mountains (although it is possible to build kilometers-long tunnels but it just costs a lot of money), but why not then make a connection on all the flat land each other province has? Plus plane tickets do cost quite a bit depending on where you are going?

Have a look at the red dotted line in the graph below:

Source: article I wrote on LinkedIn (and just linked in my last post, just above yours')

That is the per-capita HSR length if the full Quebec-Windsor Corridor was built as a HSR line. Now imagine where that line would be if you would build 3600 km (Toronto-Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary-Edmonton) rather than 1200 km (Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto-Windsor) of HSR lines. Maybe this will help you understand how monumental and disproportionate the task is for which you call so casually...

 

[robmausser]

Exactly. A TGV from Calgary to Winnipeg would be a hugely sexy thing, but even at 200 mph it's just too far a trip to ever be marketable.... never mind that it's too expensive to build. Rather than ride, people will head to the airport, suck up all that inconvenience, and get there quickly.

The inconvenience relief that high speed rail used to offer is no longer the case anymore I am afraid.

In Europe this year I had to go through what was basically the TSA, body scanner, luggage scanner, big lines, baggage inspection, drug swab, body pat down, just to ride the Eurostar.

It was just as inconvenient as the airport.

 

[DSC]

The inconvenience relief that high speed rail used to offer is no longer the case anymore I am afraid.

In Europe this year I had to go through what was basically the TSA, body scanner, luggage scanner, big lines, baggage inspection, drug swab, body pat down, just to ride the Eurostar.

It was just as inconvenient as the airport.

But train stations are normally in the centre of cities so are normally easier to get to/from.

 

[micheal_can]

These points relate to the more basic question of "Why does Canada still not have High Speed Rail?", which I hear so often that I wrote an article about it (which, by the way, predates my current employment):

Two graphs which might explain why Canada still has no High-Speed Rail

The second graph hammers why most of Canada will not have HSR. However, that does not mean we cannot increase routes and frequency.

 

[MisterF]

Realistically, outside of the corridor, pretty much everyone needs to own a car these days. Once you own that car, your transportation alternatives will mostly include using it. And very often, the car will appeal most for economic or other reasons.

While I agree with the rest of your post, high car ownership doesn't necessarily make a big difference. Italy, for example, has higher car ownership than Canada (yes I know, driving costs are lower here). And most passengers on Via Rail and GO Transit have cars as well. Car owners will be happy to take other modes of transport if it makes sense. We just haven't given drivers a compelling alternative.

Either way I can't see it happening without seriously upgraded conventional speed rail first to build ridership. Via's HFR and GO RER are needed if any high speed system is ever to be built.

Have a look at the red dotted line in the graph below:

Source: article I wrote on LinkedIn (and just linked in my last post, just above yours')

That is the per-capita HSR length if the full Quebec-Windsor Corridor was built as a HSR line. Now imagine where that line would be if you would build 3600 km (Toronto-Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary-Edmonton) rather than 1200 km (Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto-Windsor) of HSR lines. Maybe this will help you understand how monumental and disproportionate the task is for which you call so casually...

This is why I'm skeptical of HSR going west of London or east of Montreal. Take away those sections and you get rid of 40% of the route right there. Then Canada's per capita HSR length would be right in line with the rest of the world.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is why I'm skeptical of HSR going west of London or east of Montreal. Take away those sections and you get rid of 40% of the route right there. Then Canada's per capita HSR length would be right in line with the rest of the world.

Exactly.

Heck, I don't even think we need a 100% all or nothing approach for even the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor. Just a path and plan for upgradability as investment allows it.

The largest paybacks for speed, ironically, come from regions where it would facilitate commuting. Toronto-Kitchener, Ottawa-Montreal, Montreal-Quebec City. If the rest were built as a corridor that even could sustain 100 mph, the outcome would be quite decent if the costs and schedules were decent.

Imagine for a second, VIA built a conventional (~100 mph) from Toronto to Ottawa and had high speed (>200 kph) from Ottawa to Montreal. If you could get to Montreal in < 4 hrs, and < 3 hrs to Ottawa, for the same price as the Greyhound today, that alone would start a substantial shift from driving and a bit from flying. And that shift would grow with every $10-100 million spent to grade separate a crossing. Every year the service gets better as the government allocates funds for upgrades. And maybe over a decade, Toronto-Ottawa starts to look like high speed rail. Toronto-Ottawa at 2 hrs and Toronto-Montreal at 3 hrs.

 

[dowlingm]

This is why I'm skeptical of HSR going west of London or east of Montreal. Take away those sections and you get rid of 40% of the route right there. Then Canada's per capita HSR length would be right in line with the rest of the world.

politically impossible to exclude Montreal-Quebec if federally funded.

 

[MisterF]

politically impossible to exclude Montreal-Quebec if federally funded.

Why? Montreal is the important city in Quebec, both politically and economically. Maybe Quebec City could be some future phase, like Bordeaux in France for example, but that would be decades away.

Realistically if we ever do get HSR, even to Montreal, it'll probably be the result of incremental upgrades like Via HFR that go well beyond the area to be served by high speed trains. Quebec City would get enhanced, electrified service even if it's not high speed.

If we insist on all or nothing we'll continue to get nothing.

 

[Urban Sky]

So, that line is profitable by 0.5M?

Maybe a quote from the article will make it easier to understand:
"OTTAWA — Via Rail estimates it lost almost $1.7 million in revenue in the seven months after the tracks to Churchill washed out in the spring of 2017.

Documents obtained through a freedom-of-information request show the Crown corporation believes it also saved $1.2 million by not running the full route from June to December 2017, making the net loss $500,000."
This suggests that costs would have been $1.2 million higher and revenues $1.7 million higher. Having a brief look at page 9 in VIA's Annual Report 2017, this suggest that had the washout not happened, the costs, revenues and deficit for 2017 would have been:

• Costs: $19.0 million instead of $17.8 million (i.e. 7% higher)
• Revenues: $3.3 million instead of $1.6 million (i.e. 104% higher)
• Deficit: $15.7 miliion instead of $16.2 million (i.e. 3% lower)
• Cost recovery: 17.5% instead of 9.1% (i.e. 8.4%-points higher)

While I agree with the rest of your post, high car ownership doesn't necessarily make a big difference. Italy, for example, has higher car ownership than Canada (yes I know, driving costs are lower here). And most passengers on Via Rail and GO Transit have cars as well. Car owners will be happy to take other modes of transport if it makes sense. We just haven't given drivers a compelling alternative.

The difference is existing rail ridership: The average Canadian travels 57 km (2.08 billion passenger-km divided by 36.29 million people), while the average Italian travels 862 km per year (52.2 billion passenger-km divided by 60.589 million people) or 15 times as far as Canadians...

Either way I can't see it happening without seriously upgraded conventional speed rail first to build ridership. Via's HFR and GO RER are needed if any high speed system is ever to be built.

Exactly, existing ridership is needed to justify significant investments! I was lucky enough this week to listen to a speech given by a senior planner of the UK's High Speed 2 project, and he confirmed what I keep saying here and elsewhere: that the major justification for HSR is not to build ridership or to increase travel speeds, it's to increase capacity as the existing infrastructure is increasingly overwhelmed with the demand and can't be economically upgraded further. That's the case on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and the East Coast Main Line (ECML), but certainly not here in Canada...

This is why I'm skeptical of HSR going west of London or east of Montreal. Take away those sections and you get rid of 40% of the route right there. Then Canada's per capita HSR length would be right in line with the rest of the world.

MOTL still represents 21 mm per capita (a level France only reached 12 years after opening the first HSR segment), compared to now 33.3 mm per capita for QMOTLW (i.e. the full Quebec-Windsor corridor). First segments more in line with Europe would be MO and TL (both representing 5 mm per capita)...

The inconvenience relief that high speed rail used to offer is no longer the case anymore I am afraid.

In Europe this year I had to go through what was basically the TSA, body scanner, luggage scanner, big lines, baggage inspection, drug swab, body pat down, just to ride the Eurostar.

It was just as inconvenient as the airport.

To be fair, the Eurostar is an extreme example when it comes to safety checks (due to its vulnerability inside the Eurotunnel). To the best of my knowledge, only Spain (and maybe Russia, but I'm not sure) has any airport-style security checks elsewhere in Europe, while in most countries, you can hop on HSR trains without even having your ticket checked...

The largest paybacks for speed, ironically, come from regions where it would facilitate commuting. Toronto-Kitchener, Ottawa-Montreal, Montreal-Quebec City. If the rest were built as a corridor that even could sustain 100 mph, the outcome would be quite decent if the costs and schedules were decent.

Amen.

If we insist on all or nothing we'll continue to get nothing.

This was exactly the point I wanted to make with my article!

 

[rbt]

To be fair, the Eurostar is an extreme example when it comes to safety checks (due to its vulnerability inside the Eurotunnel). To the best of my knowledge, only Spain (and maybe Russia, but I'm not sure) has any airport-style security checks elsewhere in Europe, while in most countries, you can hop on HSR trains without even having your ticket checked...

Russia scans luggage to enter the station and you cannot board the train without going through the station. That said, Sheremetyevo Airport has roving checkpoints which can be setup in nearly any hallway and scans all passengers luggage for both directions. It's also common for stores/malls to have metal detectors in their entrance way.

China also has airport like security for most of it's HSR stations.

Based on that HSR expansion chart, it would appear the newer the HSR network, the more likely it is to have airport like security.

IIRC, Boston Amtrak has metal detectors and an armed guard for the first class waiting area.