[sixrings]

It would be nice to know how many commenting here are for or against this project. It seemed many have been crying for this for years and now it is announced, most of it is about how it will fail, or not even get built.

I, for one do have my doubts, but remain hopeful it is build to HSR standards and is a success.
My definition of success is:
1) breaks even or makes a profit.
2) On time performance rivals air travel on the same routes.
3) frequent enough to cut the number of flights a day within the service area.
4) faster than driving and on par with flying.

1) I don’t know how it can break even if it’s a substantial investment to make and then people want ticket prices not to increase at all. I personally don’t find that realistic.

2. On time is the priority to me and I’m assuming this line not competing with freight would be relatively easy to manage.

3. Via runs pretty frequently and I’d assume this would be the same.

4 I personally consider a via train not held up by a freight train to be as fast as me driving. I also think the fact that union is easier to access and the train terminal in Ottawa easier to access than the airport. Plus I can show up minutes before a train departs. The plane is for sure faster. But you add in the security, the locations of the airports and the fact you have to be there early it’s not that much faster. That’s my personal opinion. As a result I don’t have much issue with the current line other than having to wait for freight trains.

I hope this line gets built. But I wouldn’t bet any real money on it. I’m super skeptical. Unless you’re talking about 25 years from now. That’s a whole different story.

 

[generalcanada]

There is a big difference between now and 10 or even 20 years ago. Look at all the talk about "nation building projects" from pipelines to nukes to even the home building projects lately.

You ask any person about these projects the answer almost always is "no matter the cost we need it" For good reason.

Now more than ever Spending $100 billion on the high side on a HSR to connect the biggest cities in Canada, People will support it now. As long as its managed properly. Hence the 5-year development timeline.

 

[sixrings]

There is a big difference between now and 10 or even 20 years ago. Look at all the talk about "nation building projects" from pipelines to nukes to even the home building projects lately.

You ask any person about these projects the answer almost always is "no matter the cost we need it" For good reason.

Now more than ever Spending $100 billion on the high side on a HSR to connect the biggest cities in Canada, People will support it now. As long as its managed properly. Hence the 5-year development timeline.

The pipeline is substantially different then the via project. We realize we might not have the trade partners so the pipeline needs to be built for economy purposes. The train does not need to be built. It would be nice. But needs a strong term.

In four years you will have a new president. The study won’t even be done. The appetite for this might be wildly different. And at some point we’re getting a PC government. Everyone here is trying to find ways how this is needed for the economy to convince themselves the PCs have to be on board. I have massive doubts.

 

[generalcanada]

The pipeline is substantially different then the via project. We realize we might not have the trade partners so the pipeline needs to be built for economy purposes. The train does not need to be built. It would be nice. But needs a strong term.

disagree, I think it is the same, even the studies show it, building the project is great for the economy, It boosts economies by a massive scale, improves lives by a massive margin.

Again, Ask anyone on the street, We NEED transit, we NEED projects like these to improve our economy

 

[sixrings]

disagree, I think it is the same, even the studies show it, building the project is great for the economy, It boosts economies by a massive scale, improves lives by a massive margin.

Again, Ask anyone on the street, We NEED transit, we NEED projects like these to improve our economy

I think when people say we need transit they more often mean I need to get around the city or from the suburb to the city. Even the country to the city. People do these trips every single day. On the other hand I take via once a month.

GO and local public transit is how I’d rather spend the money. I can handle a delay once a month. But the Golden Horseshoe, the economic epicentre of this country, is at complete gridlock costing us billions in productivity and countless impacts to our emotional and physical health.

Is it either or? People would say no. But there are always trade offs.

 

[micheal_can]

There is a big difference between now and 10 or even 20 years ago. Look at all the talk about "nation building projects" from pipelines to nukes to even the home building projects lately.

You ask any person about these projects the answer almost always is "no matter the cost we need it" For good reason.

Now more than ever Spending $100 billion on the high side on a HSR to connect the biggest cities in Canada, People will support it now. As long as its managed properly. Hence the 5-year development timeline.

If one of us were to list the top 10 things our country needs to invest in yesterday and then ask anyone else in the country how many of them they agree with,I am willing to bet that most people would agree with at least half. It is the semantics of the projects that gets us bogged down. Most 'fixes' will not be considered if the leader isn't around for the ribbon cutting ceremony. Without that ribbon being cut, they do not think they can win an election.And so, we get stuck in the vicious cycle of promises that never come true. If this gets built, I would argue this would be part Trudeau's legacy. He was the one who finally got it going. Just like how there is a lot of controversy over John A. MacDonald, but Confederation and the transcontinental railway is his legacy.

 

[kaptrice]

I did not intend to be rude, but I happily apologize if that's how I came across to you.

It's not Imbleau (or ALTO) which is stalling, it's the Liberals.

The target travel times for HFR were 4:30 hours for TRTO-MTRL and 3:15 hours for TRTO-OTTW, which implies a travel time of 1:15 hours for OTTW-MTRL. This represents travel time savings of between 6.6% and 38.5% compared to June 2019 as the last pre-Covid schedule (today's scheduled travel times are even quite a bit slower):

	TRTO-MTRL	TRTO-OTTW	OTTW-MTRL
Target travel times for HFR	4:30	3:15	1:15
Fastest scheduled travel time (June 2019, i.e., pre-Covid)	4:49	4:05	1:50
Implied travel time saving by HFR	0:19 (-6.6%)	0:50 (-20.4%)	0:35 (-31.8%)
Average scheduled travel time (June 2019, i.e., pre-Covid)	5:04	4:28	2:02
Implied travel time saving by HFR	0:34 (-11.2%)	1:13 (-27.2%)	0:47 (-38.5%)

YDS was appointed VIA Rail's CEO in May 2014 and the earliest article I've seen hinting at HFR is the following article, which is dated on December 4, 2014:

Via Rail eyeing private capital to build its own dedicated rail lines

Via Rail Canada hopes to reduce congestion by building its own network of dedicated tracks, and the passenger rail service wants to enlist the help of private equit…

financialpost.com

Personally, the first time I heard about „High Frequency Rail“ was at the speech YDS gave to the „Montreal Canadian Club“ in February 2015, which is referenced on page 3 of the First Quarterly Report of 2015, even though I was never able to locate the video it mentions:
View attachment 633905

HFR was conceived during a Conservative (Harper) government, when it was universally understood that any project investing in VIA Rail would need a price tag which is as low as possible, which is why the notion of "Conventional Rail" was pushed to its extreme (e.g., until the maximum speed limit still allowing level crossings, which is 110 mph / 177 km/h). Granted, a window for massive government-led investments opened with Justin Trudeau replacing Harper in November 2015, but a full decade of uninterrupted reign is apparently not enough time for a Liberal government to formulate a project scope which actually fits into anything which doesn't far exceed the initial development speeds of already existing HSR networks on this planet.

I know I haven't updated this chart in a decade, but have a look at the pace with which European and Asian HSR networks developed in the first years after opening the same segment:

View attachment 633859

The official timeline suggests that Canada's HSR network density would increase from 4.5 mm Phase 1 (180 km divided by 40.1 million people) to 14.5 mm for Phase 2 (580 km) and 21.4 mm for Phase 3 (860 km) in a span of 5 years. That's decidedly more ambitious than what these other countries achieved, as you can see by the red dashed line I've added above.

But of course, if you genuinely believe that the lack of ambition (rather than its obverabundance) was what doomed all previous intercity passenger rail initiatives in this country, then the perceived chances of this $80+ billion project must approach the inevitable...

Taiwan jumped to 15mm/person right in one go, and Morocco is doing so in the space of about 10 years. Also, the population of the country will probably be some 45-46 million or more by opening year.

 

[kaptrice]

Pretty much. Happily insults everyone and calls pretty much every professional in the industry „incompetent“ (especially my former colleagues at VIA and my current profession as a „consultant“), while rather reluctant to reveale not much evidence of actual subject matter expertise when criticizing others. And still cries wolve whenever he gets pushback.

To be fair, even though ALTO has evolved from VIA‘s HFR proposal of 2014/15, which in return was heavily ibfluenced by the VIAFast proposal from 2002, it has by now morphed into something even more ambitious than the Ecotrain‘s E300 scenario.

HFR started as an explicit counter-proposal to avoid the overambition (both in scale and in scope) which of previous HSR studies which far exceeded the capital cost pricetag which potential investors (public and private alike) were able and willing to stomach. Compared to that, ALTO is Ecotrain on steroids…

It seems a little apples-to-oranges to compare a 2-million dollar feasibility study and a 4-billion dollar contract for the development phase of progressive DFBOM. There are multiple ways of looking at it. One is that high-speed rail plans are Icarian folly that have ruined a modest spendthrift proposal. Another is that the HFR wasn't that workable, for whatever reasons, political, financial, business-case-related.

 

[micheal_can]

Taiwan jumped to 15mm/person right in one go, and Morocco is doing so in the space of about 10 years. Also, the population of the country will probably be some 45-46 million or more by opening year.

If we can solve our housing crisis, that number could jump even higher.

 

[micheal_can]

It seems a little apples-to-oranges to compare a 2-million dollar feasibility study and a 4-billion dollar contract for the development phase of progressive DFBOM. There are multiple ways of looking at it. One is that high-speed rail plans are Icarian folly that have ruined a modest spendthrift proposal. Another is that the HFR wasn't that workable, for whatever reasons, political, financial, business-case-related.

HFR was a way to 'shut them up' about the issues along the Corridor. HSR is the answer to most of the real issues. When you are struggling in the polls, you do what will be the cheapest answer, not the best answer. When you have no plans of running for office again, and the polls look favourable, you do what you think is the best answer and let the next government figure it out.

 

[sixrings]

If we can solve our housing crisis, that number could jump even higher.

I thought this was the solution to the housing crisis. People living in Peterborough and working everyday in Toronto for a $10 fare.

 

[micheal_can]

I thought this was the solution to the housing crisis. People living in Peterborough and working everyday in Toronto for a $10 fare.

Sure, if they only allow builder basic homes and double the population. The solution to our housing crisis is building low cost housing.

 

[MisterF]

In four years you will have a new president.

That's a bold assumption.

 

[nfitz]

Pretty confrontational post for someone who complains about others being rude.

There's a different with commenting about anonymous out-of-town consultants (in Quebec none-the-less - from Charbonneau era) and members who are actually here and present. It's obviously not a personal attack or relating to anyone here. My understanding is this now proven to be untenable HFR did not originate from the engineering staff inside of VIA.

I do ask the two of you though not to make personal attacks. Attack my profession absolutely. Most engineers couldn't, and shouldn't, ever create an aesthetically pleasing design for example.

Pretty much. Happily insults everyone and calls pretty much every professional in the industry „incompetent“ (especially my former colleagues at VIA and my current profession as a „consultant“), while rather reluctant to reveale not much evidence of actual subject matter expertise when criticizing others. And still cries wolve whenever he gets pushback.]And yet it turns out I was right about HFR not being viable - at least on what was virtually greenfield.

I've insulted no one here. I've made no personal comments (unlike others). I too am a consulting engineer - so I don't know how pointing out poor consulting engineering from other frigging provinces, let alone cities, is at all rude, or impacts other members. What I refer to is long before (as far as I know) UrbanSky ever was a consultant. Long before he ever came to Toronto. And probably before he even joined VIA. And from the era where there was entire government commission into just how corrupt the consulting engineering industry was in Montreal.

We have thread after thread here, where people are trashing TTC, Metrolinx, and the various consultants/consortiums. And no one says that is rude or personal - despite the presence here of such employees (which are sometimes the ones doing the trashing!). So why there should be special protection for people somewhere else, who wouldn't here, I don't know.

To be fair, even though ALTO has evolved from VIA‘s HFR proposal of 2014/15, which in return was heavily ibfluenced by the VIAFast proposal from 2002, it has by now morphed into something even more ambitious than the Ecotrain‘s E300 scenario.

Because it should have been quite clear in 2014, using the transport demand model that VIA had in the 1980s, that the demand for those kind of travel times, at the prices necessary to avoid subsidization, wasn't going ever create the ridership that would fill frequent trains.

A second-year engineering student should have been able to figure that out, with VIAs own models. Assuming they weren't lost. Heck I think I've seen UrbanSky making negative comments about the REM LRT and also about CTC blocking VIA from using the Mount Royal Tunnel - I'm not sure how that is any different.

HFR started as an explicit counter-proposal to avoid the overambition (both in scale and in scope) which of previous HSR studies which far exceeded the capital cost pricetag which potential investors (public and private alike) were able and willing to stomach. Compared to that, ALTO is Ecotrain on steroids…

HFR was going to cost far more, with little (if any) travel time improvements over VIA Fast. It was the solution, combined with legislative improvements and cabinet regulations for the CTC. HFR was already bloated beyond what VIA Fast was.

I did not intend to be rude, but I happily apologize if that's how I came across to you.

Thank you. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted it - but I didn't think words like "you seem to struggle understanding" is neutral

It's not Imbleau (or ALTO) which is stalling, it's the Liberals.

Absolutely - I 100% agree. My main point though, is that they didn't come up with the whole idea, just before the election, as a gimmick. I suspect they optimized the timing of the announcement and project award to maximize the impact in the election.

 

[nfitz]

The target travel times for HFR were 4:30 hours for TRTO-MTRL and 3:15 hours for TRTO-OTTW, which implies a travel time of 1:15 hours for OTTW-MTRL. This represents travel time savings of between 6.6% and 38.5% compared to June 2019 as the last pre-Covid schedule (today's scheduled travel times are even quite a bit slower):

How does that compare with the much cheaper VIA Fast. Or even the 3:59 time that VIA historically could achieve for TRTO-MTRL?

... a full decade of uninterrupted reign is apparently not enough time for a Liberal government to formulate a project scope which actually fits into anything which doesn't far exceed the initial development speeds of already existing HSR networks on this planet.

Existing maybe - but compare to British Rail - which hasn't been called that since last century. And yet were still called British Rail a long-time after their initial development of HSR started! Good grief, Churchill was still around when they started looking at 250 km/hr trains. Good grief, it's already been 20 years since the Atkins Realis report came out the HSR plan for service in 125 minutes from London to Edinburgh!

I know I haven't updated this chart in a decade, but have a look at the pace with which European and Asian HSR networks developed in the first years after opening the same segment:

I note that the UK needs to be added.