VIA Rail

[crs1026]

Risk management, scope management, etc. always seem far too dependent on the skill of the PM rather than inherent to the organization. Cultural change is necessary.

Both TTC and ML have acknowledged that point to some degree. Both say they are building better project management organizations. I agree with you, effective project management is something that organizations only appreciate realistically after they have had something go bad. My own experience was in the Hydro sector, where there were plenty of notorious failures but also some unsung but justifiably proud success stories. External pressure to improve was slightly effective - there were plenty of firings and regime changes - but the real turning point was when the organization said to itself "we just have to do better" and recognized that project transparency was the only way that one could withstand the political gauntlet, and the proof had to be there.

On that scale, I would rank ML as "not there yet, wants good PM but still thinks that the right PR work can pull any embarassing booboos out of the fire" and VIA as "untested and naive about what project execution demands". So yes, the Bank may contribute positively. But I'm still hoping that these organizations get their internal act together. That's when the culture change sets in.

More to the point, what incentive is there for the government to build HSR (at a massive $20-30 billion for the whole QW corridor), to reduce ~200 movements a day. It would cost a fraction of that to make Pearson more efficient and gain some additional slot frequency.

Interesting comment.....the 200 slot statistic is when I actually began to think this might work. All HxR needs to suceed is to fill hourly trains going east and west from Toronto. If you take 200 airplane loads, even if only x% of those seats would switch to the right HxR connection, can you fill 2 coaches on each of 14 trains a day in each direction? Add in the passenger demand from existing VIA and some auto market switching to rail. That's a lot of seats, and the price point for the air travellers switching to rail is probably above the current rail revenue per seat. How much does a new runway cost vs x miles of HxR trackage?

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

Pearson saying there should be HSR for their benefit is interesting but inherently skews a much bigger project to their benefit and after their spaghetti junction of approach roads has resulted in no easy access to the airport.

What I'd like to know is which actual flights they think HSR will get rid of, and how many slots will realistically be freed up.

 

[steveintoronto]

Halifax mayor hopes transit funding announced in federal budget can be used for commuter rail
By: Zane Woodford Metro Published on Wed Mar 22 2017
[...]
On transit, the government said it’s willing to cover up to 40 per cent of the cost of new subways and light rail lines. Savage is hoping it will be flexible with that money and allow Halifax to use it for commuter rail instead – something he said Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi seems “very receptive” to.

That, too, depends on the province, which has been reluctant to get into transit funding in the past, though it did start giving Halifax $2 million annually for transit in recent years.

“Obviously when you talk about transformational projects, you’re going to need more than that, and that’s a conversation we’re going to have,” Savage said.[...]

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifa...mayor-mike-savage-on-2017-federal-budget.html

 

[Young Stats]

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifa...mayor-mike-savage-on-2017-federal-budget.html

Building a subway in Halifax will be overkill for sure. Commuter rail seems reasonable however, it terms of cost will it bankrupt Halifax?

 

[steveintoronto]

Building a subway in Halifax will be overkill for sure. Commuter rail seems reasonable however, it terms of cost will it bankrupt Halifax?

It has already passed a number of motions in Halifax Council:

Is Halifax ready for commuter rail? Man behind city's transportation plan on board
Rod MacPhail says the municipality needs bus-only lanes and commuter rail to reduce congestion
By Pam Berman, CBC News Posted: Dec 01, 2016 7:00 AM AT Last Updated: Dec 01, 2016 7:00 AM AT

The man in charge of creating a new transportation plan for Halifax says the municipality needs bus-only lanes and commuter rail in order to reduce congestion.

Rod MacPhail, a former transportation manager for Toronto, said Halifax's regional plan wants to see 10 per cent fewer drivers on the road over the next 15 years.

"The public has been clear: they would love to not have to drive if they had an alternative," he said.
[...]
Commuter rail
Planners believe the municipality may be able to take advantage of federal funding to get a commuter rail system up and running.

MacPhail said he believes Halifax is ready for it.

"I'm really, really hoping we can make commuter rail work."

The latest round of public feedback sessions will continue until Dec 8.

There will be more meetings in early spring. A final report with recommendations will be presented to regional council by the end of June 2017.

• Via Rail pitches cheaper commuter train for Halifax
• Halifax commuter rail system too expensive, says report
• Commuter rail open house held in Bedford

• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-commuter-rail-rod-macphail-1.3873320
  
  
  
  

 

[Young Stats]

10 % fewer drivers for the next 15 years! That's a huge expectation for Halifax

 

[MisterF]

@MisterF I took up the debate with you. And I stand by my point even now. Pearson is asking for HSR. Not HFR. And that's what it will take to really displace flights. HFR will see them reduce the size of the aircraft flying feeder services. It won't reduce frequencies and that's what Pearson wants.

Moreover, the recent HFR proposal skipped Kingston, was barely competitive with flying for Ottawa and not competitive with flying for Montreal. HFR to some of Southern Ontario, however, could certainly displace some flights. Just not as much Pearson imagines.

I was talking about actual high speed rail, not Via's current plan. HSR would take significant modal share from airlines on corridor routes, quite likely most of it. I don't think anyone is arguing that Via's current plan would be as effective in that respect. HSR to Montreal is still in pipe dream territory unfortunately, so conversations about how many slots at Pearson would be freed up by that line are strictly hypothetical. For now at least.

Distance is not the only cause of lengthened travel times....congestion contributes too.......if every train from the east headed for Pearson has to join the rail corridor which is already getting congested with the current services then you might really be looking a slower travel times.

A bypass wouldn't be as necessary as your example of Paris. Unlike the stations in Paris, Union is a through station and the tracks through it can act as a through mainline. Trains going along a bypass route might be slightly faster, but they'd still be going at conventional speeds. If a bypass is ever determined to be worth the cost, it will be after several other HSR projects are done.

More to the point, what incentive is there for the government to build HSR (at a massive $20-30 billion for the whole QW corridor), to reduce ~200 movements a day. It would cost a fraction of that to make Pearson more efficient and gain some additional slot frequency.

The way you set up efficiencies at Pearson (whatever that means) as an alternative to building HSR is disingenuous. The two are in no way comparable and the former has hardly any of the advantages of the latter. Reducing flight movements is only one reason among many to build HSR.

 

[kEiThZ]

Interesting comment.....the 200 slot statistic is when I actually began to think this might work.

200 slots per day only happens if you get HSR and Montreal to Pearson gets down to under 2.5 hrs. HFR will not cause a single airline to give up slots to Montreal. At best, with HFR to the West, London slots can be gained. Windsor is a stretch goal.

But most of the slots that need to be captured are to Ottawa, Montreal and Kingston. Kingston won't be on the planned HFR line. And Ottawa at nearly 3 hrs to Pearson (assuming via Union) is not competitive with air for feeder traffic. Ottawa may see slight reduction in frequencies and smaller aircraft. Montreal, however, at nearly 4 hrs on HFR, won't see a single reduction in slot count.

Rail fans need to understand how airlines plan networks. The flights from Ottawa and Montreal are feeding international flights. The airlines want to offer hourly frequencies so that business travelers aren't inconvenienced having to depart early for the airport or wasting times sitting around (and congesting) the hub. HSR with hourly frequencies works. HFR? Not so much.

HFR will do damage to Porter's business. Particularly to Ottawa. But it won't do enough to help Pearson cut slots.

 

[crs1026]

Rail fans need to understand how airlines plan networks. The flights from Ottawa and Montreal are feeding international flights. The airlines want to offer hourly frequencies so that business travelers aren't inconvenienced having to depart early for the airport or wasting times sitting around (and congesting) the hub. HSR with hourly frequencies works. HFR? Not so much.

HFR will do damage to Porter's business. Particularly to Ottawa. But it won't do enough to help Pearson cut slots.

It's the same dynamic as has been debated with HFR vs HSR all along. To break into the business air market, a rail based solution has to be high end HSR, which has the highest price tag. Unfortunately, that has the least poential to tap highway and local markets, because the number of stops is lowest and fare is highest, so the overall value proposition fails.

I wonder what the dollar value of a 20-slot reduction is, or if there is some break even point short of the whole 200 slots.
Non-business air travellers seem to be accepting all the inconveniences that airlines are throwing at them - seatroom, baggage fees, etc - in the interest of lower fares. Take these travellers (and seats) out of the local air market, leaving enough hourly flights to handle business and premium fare travellers, cut the air-rail fare accordingly - would liesure travellers choose an extra hour of travel time if there were a lower fare?

Most connections to international flights are booked with some terminal layover anyways. An hourly rail-air connection might take some slack out of that layover time, rather than just add overall travel time.

It might break even - but yeah, to cut a full 200 slots, you'd need the business travel solution.

- Paul

 

[Admiral Beez]

Building a subway in Halifax will be overkill for sure. Commuter rail seems reasonable however, it terms of cost will it bankrupt Halifax?

Let's hope they have the brains and courage to keep Bombardier out of the project.

What they need is a monorail.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Let's hope they have the brains and courage to keep Bombardier out of the project.

What they need is a monorail.

That will put them on the map for sure!

(8) MONORAIL (8)

 

[JGHali]

I hear those things are awfully loud.

 

[kEiThZ]

The way you set up efficiencies at Pearson (whatever that means) as an alternative to building HSR is disingenuous. The two are in no way comparable and the former has hardly any of the advantages of the latter. Reducing flight movements is only one reason among many to build HSR

I don't see what's disingenuous in my post. Airports and airlines are constantly managing throughput. Up the aircraft size and you can move the same amount of people through. And Pearson can certainly increase throughput. This is what I was referring to with regards to increasing efficiencies. Pearson can even stand to bump up slots with better airspace management (still a little disjointed in the Toronto Terminal Area).

You're right that reducing flight movements is only one reason among many to build HSR. But you are being disingenuous in ignoring the context of this current discussion and the main motivation behind Pearson supporting HSR.

I wonder what the dollar value of a 20-slot reduction is, or if there is some break even point short of the whole 200 slots.

People are acting like Pearson is Heathrow. It isn't. And the slots really aren't that valuable. Certainly not valuable enough to prompt a multi-billion dollar investment in rail only to offset a fraction of those slots. As @MisterF rightly pointed out, there are reasons to build HSR that go beyond improving slot availability at Pearson. But there's no business case that could ever be made where slot availability will be enough of an issue to drive HSR development. Indeed, there's an easier business case to develop a proper secondary GTA airport, either in Hamilton or Pickering, before HSR, if we're just looking at aviation constraints in the region. The case for HSR will always be the impact it has on tying economic regions together. Making the TOM triangle and the Golden Horseshoe truly one economic region.

 

[urbanfan89]

In China, the HSR network has been a real boon to the smaller cities (of 0.5 to 1 million), which have attracted investment from the overcrowded and overpriced megacities. That has been the real story. So a proper HSR in the Windsor Quebec corridor would be a huge boon to the smaller cities, not necessarily the GTA and Montreal.

Imagine Belleville, Cobourg, Chatham, and Cornwall each growing to the size of KWC/London, instead of the growth going to the GTA. And imagine the cost of building HSR instead of constantly widening all the 400 highways in the 905. Suddenly the business case for HSR becomes far more favourable.

 

[kEiThZ]

In China, the HSR network has been a real boon to the smaller cities (of 0.5 to 1 million), which have attracted investment from the overcrowded and overpriced megacities. That has been the real story. So a proper HSR in the Windsor Quebec corridor would be a huge boon to the smaller cities, not necessarily the GTA and Montreal.

Imagine Belleville, Cobourg, Chatham, and Cornwall each growing to the size of KWC/London, instead of the growth going to the GTA. And imagine the cost of building HSR instead of constantly widening all the 400 highways in the 905. Suddenly the business case for HSR becomes far more favourable.

The context in China is vastly different. The catchment population for any HSR in China is vastly more than the Quebec-Windsor corridor with a much shorter service distance. This makes the business case substantially better. Over here, we aren't talking about cities of even half a million. The entire Belleville area population is under 100k with the urban area being 50k. How many towns that size have HSR stops in China? Kingston is at about 160k. Only London is at 500k.

I do agree that they would all benefit from having HSR. The question is whether their benefits are sufficient to justify massive investments in HSR by government to benefit them. As the HFR case as shown, it's cheaper to build a separate corridor that doesn't serve Belleville, Cobourg or even Kingston. I imagine these savings would be even more substantial when talking about HSR.

And while highways are expensive to build, they are still far cheaper than HSR, since the vast majority of that expansion is in rural areas where land constraints don't practically exist. The 401 is still mostly two lanes in each direction for most of its length.

The only arguable case for HSR is to tie the major metros together. If the other smaller cities benefit incidentally that's great. But there will never be a business case that justifies building HSR to benefit them.