VIA Rail

[nfitz]

With the above in mind, HFR is still competitive with flying from Toronto to Ottawa, even without the HSL. However, there's no practical way to even get close to 4.5 hrs from Toronto to Montreal without the HSL or a bypass of Ottawa.

I'm not that concerned that HFR is going to negative for either Toronto to Ottawa or Ottawa to Montréal. It's the Toronto-Montreal service that concerns me - at least in terms of travel times and modal selection.

Since the article was published, the messaging around HFR has changed. The maximum speed is now described as 200 km/h instead of 177 km/h, and the budget has increased drastically. Both of these indicators suggest that the conceptual plan has been beefed up to include building some new higher-speed ROWs through the Shield rather than solely installing tracks along the meandering ROW which currently exists. This change would address the issues I described with the original plan.

High-speed through the shield! My gosh, I'd missed that speculation!

That could be a game-changer. At the same time - what's that kind of alignment going to look like - especially vertically. And how much more will that cost? It's not going to be cheap.

Another big question is how much the design and environmental assessment going to cost?

The EA for the existing alignment shouldn't be too complex. Most of the impacts are very old, and still there; doing the project might even improve things in spots.

But a Greenfield will require a much higher level of design to even start the assessment. And the EA process could result in fundamental changes that would significantly change the alignment. Which means the tender wouldn't be going out for years, perhaps many years.

I'd have though this could, if it's really using 100 km of new alignment, take near an extra decade.

 

[crs1026]

But a Greenfield will require a much higher level of design to even start the assessment. And the EA process could result in fundamental changes that would significantly change the alignment. Which means the tender wouldn't be going out for years, perhaps many years.

I'd have though this could, if it's really using 100 km of new alignment, take near an extra decade.

The reality seems to be that this thing will not be high speed in any execution sense, if it ever gets launched beyond the paperwork stage.

The cost escalation is worth watching in that the price of 100kms of new build in the shield may be equal to the cost of 200 kms of line in the easier terrain to the south, even considering land costs. If we have the time for a route selection and EA exercise, other route options might need to be reviewed as alternatives. I don’t have any particular route in mind, the studies offer many. But if we got VIA off the CN line even just Oshawa - Napanee, the improvement in time and reliability would be substantial, and regional needs would be met as well. Just saying.

If Ottawa is actually intent on something better than 177km/h, then the Shield probably wins, due to the lower grade separation costs.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not that concerned that HFR is going to negative for either Toronto to Ottawa or Ottawa to Montréal. It's the Toronto-Montreal service that concerns me - at least in terms of travel times and modal selection.

I can understand the concern but the fixation on Toronto-Montreal to the exclusion of everything else has always been ridiculous among Canadian railfans. Ottawa generates as much rail and air traffic to Toronto as Montreal. Yet, because Torontonians had the occasional bender on Saint Catherine in their 20s, this becomes the most important city pair. It's pretty ridiculous.

And if you use a gravity model with CMA populations, the best city pair by far? Ottawa-Montreal. Shows 80-90% more potential than Toronto-Ottawa. Adding Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal yields a route with a 140% more potential than Toronto-Montreal.

 

[crs1026]

I can understand the concern but the fixation on Toronto-Montreal to the exclusion of everything else has always been ridiculous among Canadian railfans. Ottawa generates as much rail and air traffic to Toronto as Montreal. Yet, because Torontonians had the occasional bender on Saint Catherine in their 20s, this becomes the most important city pair. It's pretty ridiculous.

And if you use a gravity model with CMA populations, the best city pair by far? Ottawa-Montreal. Shows 80-90% more potential than Toronto-Ottawa. Adding Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal yields a route with a 140% more potential than Toronto-Montreal.

Saint Catherine? pffft. It’s the dome bar on the Turbo we’re pining for lol

Seriously, the Montreal-Ottawa route is such a no-brainer, and relies mostly on improvements to an existing line, such that it should be a standalone project predicated as a simple upgrade to that existing service plan, and not bundled into HFR. There is no excuse for letting that project sit while Ottawa deliberates the other more complicated components of the proposal.

- PUl

 

[kEiThZ]

Saint Catherine? pffft. It’s the dome bar on the Turbo we’re pining for lol

Ha! I'm just old enough to get this reference.

Seriously, the Montreal-Ottawa route is such a no-brainer, and relies mostly on improvements to an existing line, such that it should be a standalone project predicated as a simple upgrade to that existing service plan, and not bundled into HFR. There is no excuse for letting that project sit while Ottawa deliberates the other more complicated components of the proposal.

Yep. It's pretty ridiculous how much higher the potential is. There is literally no pair with higher potential in Canada. I did rough gravity model math by multiplying the CMA populations in thousands and then dividing by the square of the Google Maps driving distance between the stations. The scores:

1) Ottawa-Montreal: 167
2) Toronto-Montreal: 90
3) Toronto-Ottawa: 50

But I suspect that these figures don't account for cultural compatibility. Montreal is slowly becoming more French over time. Toronto is becoming a more diverse Anglo city. I suspect that Toronto-Ottawa is always going to outperform its score and Toronto-Montreal underperform its score for cultural reasons.

 

[Urban Sky]

Yep. It's pretty ridiculous how much higher the potential is. There is literally no pair with higher potential in Canada. I did rough gravity model math by multiplying the CMA populations in thousands and then dividing by the square of the Google Maps driving distance between the stations. The scores:

1) Ottawa-Montreal: 167
2) Toronto-Montreal: 90
3) Toronto-Ottawa: 50

But I suspect that these figures don't account for cultural compatibility. Montreal is slowly becoming more French over time. Toronto is becoming a more diverse Anglo city. I suspect that Toronto-Ottawa is always going to outperform its score and Toronto-Montreal underperform its score for cultural reasons.

The gravity model tends to understate travel volumes from/to/between capital cities, which is yet another reason to believe that the narrow focus of rail fans on Toronto-Montreal misstates the relative importance of the two other primary markets (i.e. Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal)…

 

[crs1026]

But I suspect that these figures don't account for cultural compatibility. Montreal is slowly becoming more French over time. Toronto is becoming a more diverse Anglo city. I suspect that Toronto-Ottawa is always going to outperform its score and Toronto-Montreal underperform its score for cultural reasons.

There may be fewer friends and family connections between the two cities, but there are still plenty of businesses with work in both places. Lots of students choosing McGill or UofT over their home town. And intense tourist interest, driven in part by that very cultural difference. So there is plenty of reason to have good rail service between the cities.

There’s a not that subtle difference between “letting the service slip” or “sacrificing Montreal-Toronto business” versus just not achieving the same level of improvement that is being made elsewhere. I don’t see HfR making the Toronto-Montreal service worse, it simply isn’t being seized as the priority opportunity for upping the game. Most of the HSR proposals envisioned only one line connecting Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, so this routing shift is inevitable….the potential for a separate direct route that doesn’t include the sidestep through Ottawa is a long ways away, if ever.

So long as we aren’t going backwards, I’m content.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

The gravity model tends to understate travel volumes from/to/between capital cities, which is yet another reason to believe that the narrow focus of rail fans on Toronto-Montreal misstates the relative importance of the two other primary markets (i.e. Toronto-Ottawa and Ottawa-Montreal)…

Yep. The commercial centre being tied to the political centre of the country is going to generate disproportionate traffic.

There’s a not that subtle difference between “letting the service slip” or “sacrificing Montreal-Toronto business” versus just not achieving the same level of improvement that is being made elsewhere. I don’t see HfR making the Toronto-Montreal service worse, it simply isn’t being seized as the priority opportunity for upping the game. Most of the HSR proposals envisioned only one line connecting Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, so this routing shift is inevitable….the potential for a separate direct route that doesn’t include the sidestep through Ottawa is a long ways away, if ever.

I despise the obsession with Toronto-Montreal. And those who obsess are routinely willing to not just toss aside Ottawa, but also willing to disregard all investment unless it benefits Toronto-Montreal. HFR would absolutely be worthwhile even if didn't reduce average Toronto-Montreal travel time by a single minute. The gravity model shows this.

By the way, London-Toronto scores on par with Toronto-Montreal. Even a smidge higher depending on numbers used. And yet, I never see Toronto railfans obsess over that segment.

 

[nfitz]

But I suspect that these figures don't account for cultural compatibility. Montreal is slowly becoming more French over time. Toronto is becoming a more diverse Anglo city. I suspect that Toronto-Ottawa is always going to outperform its score and Toronto-Montreal underperform its score for cultural reasons.

Yes!

In a proper transport demand model, the calibration should handle much of that; but it's not good in projections if the demographic mix is shifting, and that effects demand.

In a past life I advocated adding a mother language variable to the classic model. But alas, I'm not sure anyone has ever done it.

 

[SashaLemon]

We don't have to argue about which pair is better or whatever. We need the fastest possible route between the three, period. (And not Quebec City)

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes!

In a proper transport demand model, the calibration should handle much of that; but it's not good in projections if the demographic mix is shifting, and that effects demand.

In a past life I advocated adding a mother language variable to the classic model. But alas, I'm not sure anyone has ever done it.

I suspect Montreal-Quebec City would have as much or more ridership than Toronto-Montreal.

 

[kEiThZ]

We don't have to argue about which pair is better or whatever. We need the fastest possible route between the three, period. (And not Quebec City)

You say this. But every single f*****g discussion on intercity rail in Canada always ends up talking about Toronto-Montreal HSR. It's never Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. It's never Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City. It's always a ridiculous fixation on Toronto-Montreal. And a lot of it is driven by Torontonians. I've never heard Montrealers obsess that much about getting to Toronto quickly.

Also, it's easy to say, "we need the fastest route". In reality, money doesn't grow on trees. And choices have to be made on where to invest for the greatest return. As such, ridership potential between city pairs is highly relevant.

 

[SashaLemon]

You say this. But every single f*****g discussion on intercity rail in Canada always ends up talking about Toronto-Montreal HSR. It's never Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. It's never Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City. It's always a ridiculous fixation on Toronto-Montreal. And a lot of it is driven by Torontonians. I've never heard Montrealers obsess that much about getting to Toronto quickly.

Also, it's easy to say, "we need the fastest route". In reality, money doesn't grow on trees. And choices have to be made on where to invest for the greatest return. As such, ridership potential between city pairs is highly relevant.

I just said Ottawa. Which makes sense, because it's in the middle. Money doesn't grow on trees, so why are we building HSR to a city of 500k and no high order rapid transit, rather then focusing on the GTA (6 Million), Montreal Metro (4 Million), and the NCR (1.3 Million), all of which have high order rapid transit connected to their main railway stations.

 

[kEiThZ]

Money doesn't grow on trees, so why are we building HSR to a city of 500k

Because the ridership potential is as high as Toronto-Montreal. And a route to London will also connect KWC (one of the largest tech hubs in the country) and Pearson (the largest aviation hub in the country). You can do the math with the gravity model yourself to check.

Toronto-Montreal: 90
Toronto-London: 92

This is exactly my point about the ignorant fixation on Toronto-Montreal clouding all judgment about the potential on every other segment.

 

[crs1026]

By the way, London-Toronto scores on par with Toronto-Montreal. Even a smidge higher depending on numbers used. And yet, I never see Toronto railfans obsess over that segment.

They do, actually, but they tend to miss the point that the CN route through Brantford has little or no potential for upping passenger service - for the same reason that the CN line to Montreal is a dead end for passenger improvements. ie - freight conflict.

Much as I lament for the likes of 1983ish service through Brantford, it ain't coming back.

But now that you've got me grumbling..... I would argue that the highway congestion on the 401/QEW in the western GTA and much of the way to London screams much louder than Toronto-Montreal demand. It may not be a moneymaking market-based opportunity, but Toronto-Kitchener-London rail pax is the solution to an enormous economic cost to Ontario's economy let alone many Ontarians' quality of life. For every dollar spent on passenger rail east of Toronto, we ought to spend two on the west side of the GTA.

Having a Provincial and a National operator tripping over each other (and waiting for the other to pick up the check) is not helping, either.

- Paul