So you feel it is important for VIA to compromise operational costs in the long run to save on initial capital costs?
I think you have what I said backwards, but....If the three-sided option can't run in the black, it's a non-starter in current environment.
What I feel is, it's incumbent for Ottawa to put more money on the table, now, than the basic VIA HFR can justify within the CIB-bound constraints, in the interest of not confining HFR to the low-potential long term scenario. HFR should not become a stranded asset, which it will become if the next iteration requires a new route and another round of construction.
Ottawa doesn't feel that way, so my opinion won't buy a small coffee, but that doesn't mean Ottawa is taking the most far-sighted path through this.
I think you are underestimating the cost of a greenfield route between Portalnd and Kingston. The region is flooded with lakes and finding an affordable route would be challenging and would likely be filled with compromises.
I accept this point may be valid - but it cuts both ways. If 30 miles of new line is prohibitive, then so is any upgrading of the Havelock line, and so is any new HSR routing connecting the same points. It's 90 miles from Glen Tay to Havelock.... the amount of rock that will need to be blasted and moved just to ease curves would be of similar magnitude.
While I'm a little more optimistic about the base case for Havelock, having digested the curvature thing a little more, that line is wound around two many rock outcrops and alongside (or through) too many marshes. To get greater speed/time savings, one would have to straighten a fair bit of it. There is little option to straighten much of it, and certainly not at low cost.
The Top map is a bit friendlier south of Portland, although I agree it's no easy feat.
The earlier HSR studies did seem to express a preference for the CP route. It could be expropriated today, in close to move-in condition suitable for base HFR, for a price that's likely within the range of what VIA will pay to rehab the Havelock line. So even if we decide Kingston is not to be served, my pay-me-now, pay-me-later challenge to Havelock being "less costly" remains. Any incremental cost is effectively "buying futures" in HSR.
My guess is that they plan to have Phase 1B of the
Elevated Passenger Platforms plan, which will have wider platforms with escalators running in both directions (important since many passengers are carrying luggage). This will help speed up boarding and alighting process.
Even so, the time to debark arriving Ottawa passengers and then board departing Toronto/Montreal passengers will not be insignificant. Is any in-car cleaning and grooming required? Will outgoing passengers be held in the main concourse until the arriving passengers have left the platform?
I'm ena minimum 10 minute dwell in Ottawa, with 15 not unrealistic.
When we get to the point where separate Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto are not only feasible, but necessary to handle the passenger demand, an upgraded Havelock Sub (combined with an upgraded Winchester Sub) would make an excellent long distance, shared, dedicated freight ROW that could be given to CN and CP as part of a deal to obtain the CN's Kingston Sub and the eastern part of CP's Belleville Sub to provide a better route from Ottawa to the Kingston Sub (though it would bypass Kingston, so reginal service would still be needed).
I can't imagine any scenario where the Havelock returns to being a freight line. Grades, for one thing - VIA will not need to level the line, but the slack action would destroy today's 14,000 foot land barges. And, as above, the curves will not have been smoothed. Even VIA's use of the line is predicated on banking, which freight can't tolerate. I'm also not sure that VIA will rehab to the same weight capacities as freight would demand.
Any plan that assumes freight would be completely removed from one of the ROWs 24/7 would be a non-starter. A Havelock sub that has been upgraded to HFR standards would be significantly more valuable than it is today, especially if the freight railways retain access overnight to the passenger ROWs for local trains.
I agree that any scenario which constrains the freight throughput or velocity between the end points is unacceptable. It's a question of how much capacity there is today, and how long before it fills up, and who then pays to expand it. I'm not sure that the railways would object to a plan that monetizes some of their excess capacity today (beyond a prudent margin for growth). The case study for this is the west side of Montreal - regardless of scenario, all today's freight will fit on the existing trackage with enough room for all the passenger VIA intends to run, plus AMT.....provided we don't think of it as two separate two-track railways.
I am not arguing for bringing all the investment needed for HSR forward to today. That clearly won't sell. I am arguing for a solution that might run $1B-$2B more than HFR, that would offer more options and clear a bit more of the HSR path. The business case would not be that much less favourable.
- Paul
pedestrianobservations.com
