VIA Rail

[Adjei]

Article in this morning's Star calls HFR a mistake and suggests Garneau change directions to support HSR instead.

Amir Barnea: If Madrid and Barcelona can build a high-speed rail connection, why can’t Toronto and Montreal?

The distance is the same, the size of the cities is the same. The only difference is that Canada is 50 per cent wealthier, writes Amir Barnea.

www.thestar.com

Madrid and Barcelona had electrified rail between them before going to high speed rail. Stop dreaming of these useless schemes and get the basics done right.

 

[robmausser]

Article in this morning's Star calls HFR a mistake and suggests Garneau change directions to support HSR instead.

Amir Barnea: If Madrid and Barcelona can build a high-speed rail connection, why can’t Toronto and Montreal?

The distance is the same, the size of the cities is the same. The only difference is that Canada is 50 per cent wealthier, writes Amir Barnea.

www.thestar.com

Via Rail would gain ownership and offer higher frequency service, but that’s about it.

Bullshit, I love how reporters under-represent things to support their fallacious argument.

They literally said a paragraph before that CN is slowing down VIA trains.

They can't put the two and two together and realize that travel times will increase? Doesn't take a rocket surgeon...

Different sources speculate that the ride will be merely 19 minutes faster than the current 5-hour ride.

19 minutes faster than the 5 hour ride that you literally sentences before said was only on time 63% of the time?

If I am late 40% of the time, would you say that the time it takes me to get to my destination is the one that I said I would? NO.

It takes VIA more than 5 hours to get to Montreal from Toronto 40% of the time. Therefore, it really doesn't take 5 hours. It takes longer.

So its unfair to compare HFR to this pretend number.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It also ignores how it proposes to cut Toronto-Ottawa travel times by about 30%, as if Ottawa is some inconsequential centre with no value, or the improvements for Montreal-Ottawa and Quebec-Montreal.

It cherry picks the trip type that has the least benefit from the plan (while still being a significant benefit, as mentioned by others) and calls the plan a failure, ignoring the other trip kinds that see substantial improvements.

 

[robmausser]

It also ignores how it proposes to cut Toronto-Ottawa travel times by about 30%, as if Ottawa is some inconsequential center with no value, or the improvements for Montreal-Ottawa and Quebec-Montreal.

It cherry picks the trip type that has the least benefit from the plan (while still being a significant benefit, as mentioned by others) and calls the plan a failure, ignoring the other trip kinds that see substantial improvements.

It also ignores the fact that once this HFR is complete, electrification (if not done initially) and upgrade to HSR are all possible.

We cant put HSR on the CN alignment. They would never allow that.

HSR requires its own route. Oh look, we have one with this HFR thing!

(Mind you some portions will need to be straightened and grade crossings eliminated but thats cheaper than an entirely new route)

 

[cplchanb]

It also ignores the fact that once this HFR is complete, electrification (if not done initially) and upgrade to HSR are all possible.

We cant put HSR on the CN alignment. They would never allow that.

HSR requires its own route. Oh look, we have one with this HFR thing!

(Mind you some portions will need to be straightened and grade crossings eliminated but thats cheaper than an entirely new route)

One thing that did raise my eyebrow is what if we build the HFR route and give it to CN to trade for the current corridor. There was plenty of divisive debate on the merits of the HFR corridor, why cant we just build CN another rail at a cheaper cost and
fully take control with an established corridor to upgrade to higher speed standards? Ive mentioned it before but anything slower than 4hrs from Montreal to Toronto is a waste of time/money. Even if theres the potential to upgrade HFR to HSR, when will they take it? 10 yrs from now? 20? 40? Via is doing what typical crown corps here are doing. Lack of ambition past the minimums.

 

[tmlittle]

It also ignores how it proposes to cut Toronto-Ottawa travel times by about 30%, as if Ottawa is some inconsequential centre with no value, or the improvements for Montreal-Ottawa and Quebec-Montreal.

It cherry picks the trip type that has the least benefit from the plan (while still being a significant benefit, as mentioned by others) and calls the plan a failure, ignoring the other trip kinds that see substantial improvements.

Not to mention the places that will get service again due to HFR. The real advantage of HFR, in my opinion, is that it creates real possibility for VIA to have a network and not just slowly decline down to the London-Toronto-Montreal corridor. Instead of intensively serving a single corridor with every Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal train, you spread out the train frequency so the metropoles still get a higher level of service, but small towns get the train every few hours that is appropriate for their size.

 

[kEiThZ]

I love how reporters under-represent things to support their fallacious argument.

Doesn't take a rocket surgeon...

What's really sad is that this is not a reporter. It's an op-ed from a university professor.

 

[Urban Sky]

What's really sad is that this is not a reporter. It's an op-ed from a university professor.

Even worse: it’s a professor in finance at my very own Alma Mater:

Amir Barnea is an associate professor of finance at HEC Montréal.

One would think that he should have the time and interest to have a closer look at what a financial disaster HSR has been for the Spanish taxpayer:

I'm not sure you understood what a "Social Benefit-Cost Analysis" entails: whereas a financial benefit-cost analysis merely compares the financial outflows (i.e. costs) and inflows (i.e. revenues) of an organisation, a social benefit-cost analysis tries to assess all impacts (monetary and non-monetary) onto overall society (i.e. concerning all stakeholders of the project, not just the shareholders). In the case of public transit, this includes the impact of the investment in question on things like environment, economy or health. Therefore, a social benefit-cost analysis of intercity rail acknowledges that the investment may reduce the amount of CO2- or other greenhouse-emissions, lifetime wasted unproductively in congestion (instead of productively at work), lost economic output as consequence of accidents, healthcare spending (as result of lower greenhouse-emissions) compared to its potential riders using more polluting modes.

As you can see in this analysis of four major HSR corridors in Spain, a social benefit-cost analysis can lead to significantly different results than a purely financial one, even though this does not change that some projects (even passenger rail ones) can simply not be justified by any standard (as a negative social BCR reveals that you would be doing more damage than good with that project):
View attachment 168869

Of all the 9 neighboring countries of Germany, only France and Belgium have a denser HSR network than Germany (33 and 18 vs. 13 mm of dedicated HSR lines per capita), whereas Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands have a less dense HSR network (11, 8 and 5 mm per capita) and Denmark, Poland, Czechia and Luxembourg have no HSR network at all:
View attachment 208970


You are right that Germany is quite an anomaly due to the division until 1990, which explains why connection from/to Berlin were significantly slower than those between the Western German metropolises of Hamburg, München, Köln and Frankfurt. However, its not just Germany's approach which is similar to VIAs HFR proposal: upgrading existing lines to increase capacity and only considering new infrastructure where capacity cannot be economically increased along the existing right-of-ways is the way how intercity networks developed all across Europe and progressively transitioned towards HSR.


You are also right that economic and industrial policies (and let's not forget: fostering national cohesion) played an important role in basically any HSR nation. However, the second big misconception of Canadians about HSR is that it is indispensable in making passenger rail a relevant mode, as a countries' relative length of its HSR network can only explain just over 10% of the variance in its rail ridership levels (note that France 2.5 times Germany's HSR network density, but only 13% more rail ridership, while Spain has almost 4 times Germany's HSR network density, but only half its rail ridership and Switzerland has slightly less than Germany's HSR network density, but more than twice its rail ridership):

View attachment 208973
Compiled from: European Commission Statistical Yearbook 2018 and UIC "High Speed Rail Lines in The World" (inclusion criteria: 250+ km/h)

One final remark about Canada: With approximately 59 km traveled by rail per capita, this figure still lies ahead of the HSR nation Turkey (55km)...

 

[kEiThZ]

Even worse: it’s a professor in finance at my very own Alma Mate

I caught that. But didn't want to be rude.....

 

[p_xavier]

I caught that. But didn't want to be rude.....

The worst professor one can get is one who loves his field; then no one can prove that person wrong even with facts. Sad really.

 

[lenaitch]

One thing that did raise my eyebrow is what if we build the HFR route and give it to CN to trade for the current corridor. There was plenty of divisive debate on the merits of the HFR corridor, why cant we just build CN another rail at a cheaper cost and
fully take control with an established corridor to upgrade to higher speed standards? Ive mentioned it before but anything slower than 4hrs from Montreal to Toronto is a waste of time/money. Even if theres the potential to upgrade HFR to HSR, when will they take it? 10 yrs from now? 20? 40? Via is doing what typical crown corps here are doing. Lack of ambition past the minimums.

The current HFR ROW is a CP branchline to Havelock - minor issue, but from Perth it is their mainline - bigger problem. Also, CN has a number of revenue customers along its current lakeshore ROW. They would become a tenant instead of owner but would still have to be accommodated. Also, the CN lakeshore ROW cuts through several urban areas which would not likely be stops but still require slower speeds.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The worst professor one can get is one who loves his field; then no one can prove that person wrong even with facts. Sad really.

So then almost every professor is the worst professor. Seems legit.

 

[Urban Sky]

The worst professor one can get is one who loves his field; then no one can prove that person wrong even with facts. Sad really.

Wrong, a passionate professor will be pleased if his views are challenged and will happily consider new viewpoints. The worst professors are those who believe that there is nothing they can learn from their students...

 

[ShonTron]

The current HFR ROW is a CP branchline to Havelock - minor issue, but from Perth it is their mainline - bigger problem. Also, CN has a number of revenue customers along its current lakeshore ROW. They would become a tenant instead of owner but would still have to be accommodated. Also, the CN lakeshore ROW cuts through several urban areas which would not likely be stops but still require slower speeds.

It'd make more sense to rebuild the original CP mainline through Peterborough (Havelock Sub) for CP's standards, with enough capacity to get a few passenger trains to Peterborough, and then take over the newer CP Mainline (Belleville Sub) for VIA's needs. CP doesn't have many local customers -- fewer than CN -- along the stretch.

It'd mean that VIA could use the Belleville Sub for Kingston/Brockville bound trains as far as a point east of Belleville, while avoiding CN's major yard there. The new station in Belleville would be closer to downtown too, and no further away than the existing stations in Port Hope and Cobourg.

 

[crs1026]

It'd make more sense to rebuild the original CP mainline through Peterborough (Havelock Sub) for CP's standards, with enough capacity to get a few passenger trains to Peterborough, and then take over the newer CP Mainline (Belleville Sub) for VIA's needs. CP doesn't have many local customers -- fewer than CN -- along the stretch.

There's a reason why the Belleville Sub exists..... about 1912, CP reviewed the Havelock Sub and realised it couldn't be upgraded to their standards. The Havelock is a hill and dale line, with too many grades and curves. It was easier to start over than to upgrade that line.

And those were the 1912ish standards.

Not much has changed in the last century. VIA feels it will meet their needs, and there may be merit to that....possibly passenger can handle the grades and curves better than 14,000 foot land barges. But CP would never agree to take back that route as their main line.

However, coproduction on one of the two Lakeshore lines is a no-brainer.

- Paul