crs1026
Superstar
The VIaFAST number was imprecise and, (like most first proposal numbers), likely lowballed, absolutely. The best one can do is guesstimate the multiple to apply to bulk out that original estimate.
Development has driven land prices upwards, but for the amount of land needed, that won’t drive the cost of the entire project up by a factor of six, especially since every HxR proposal assumes shared or enlarged use of an existing rail corridors through the urbanised areas where land prices are highest. We aren’t expropriating a 400-series highway corridor here
I would think that the alignment chosen in open country would have a bigger impact. For instance, a single bridge at a river crossing would add $50M. Some of the larger valleys (Don, Ganaraska, Trent, Moira, Napanee, Ottawa) would be considerably more, which is why studies seem to presume sharing with CP/CN or avoid them altogether. HFR does particularly well in that regard (except maybe over the Don, or at Peterboro).
Count the number of rivers and creeks between the end points, and costs add up. This is as true to double track a presently single track line as it is to propose a brand new alignment. Blasting through solid rock isn’t cheap, either. Wetland routings will be especially constraining, not so much because fill is expensive as the route may have to be constrained or bells and whistles added to mitigate environmental concerns.
My own SWAG for escalating VIAFast would be a factor of 3, and I have absolutely nothing behind that statement to support it. I’m not arguing towards VIAFast, I’m just challenging the rhetoric. HFR may be the lower priced option, but we don’t have to rewrite the data to make the comparisons more dramatic than they might be.
- Paul
Last edited:
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/PNRXEDE5PJCTJJ33VKOIVCQLSE.jpg)
