Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[micheal_can]

Because this is about getting people out of cars, not planes.

Why not both?

The goal of ALTO should be a pricing, schedule and speed that allows everyone who uses all existing modes to have another choice that could be better in some ways than the other. With the way airlines are going, they have become uncomfortable for all but the highest fares. So, would you rather be cramped for an hour or not cramped for 2-3 hours?

I'll be interesting to see the approach. HSR can take atvandage of demand elasticity when setting prices. They can undercut their competition and run more frequency. I couldn't pretend to articulate the demand elasticity formula, but there is an induced demand effect from both the price and frequency perspectives. At least in europe, which was the study I read.

This is interesting. The study I was reading only showed the split between Rail and Air. It places sub 600km trips at 75% or better in that context. I think Paris-Lyon was 95%. Cool to see numbers with Auto included.

The frequency will be key. So are the departure and arrival times. If they get those wrong, this could be a flop. This reminds me of the Northlander's return and how it is what northerners want. They want that ability to have the train be the hotel too. With ALTO, the wants is much different. Business professionals want to be able to do business and get home for dinner. Get the frequency, speed and timing down right and they can.

 

[picard102]

Why not both?

Sure, but one is certainly more likely and lower hanging fruit.

 

[StreetcarRider]

Interestingly, I don't see much feedback from the Toronto-Peterborough area

Deleted an earlier post that contained an error.

The Toronto to Peterborough area can usefully be considered in three parts, in my view:

• Urbanized GTA: presumably most people are cool with trains here, assuming Alto will use existing rights of way or tunnelling to get downtown (these assumptions could be wrong and then opposition might rise).
  
  
• Greenbelt & Oak Ridges Moraine: this part is massive. It turns out that there is opposition here. You basically can't get from Toronto to Peterborough without crossing these areas. One group has asked the federal government to "[c]onsider alternative connections through established infrastructure corridors between Toronto and Kingston" which basically means not creating a new corridor, or going through Peterborough, at all.
  
  
• Edge of the Greenbelt/Moraine to Peterborough: some opposition does exist (City of Kawartha Lakes, for example). But presumably many people in these areas are close enough to Peterborough to be potential users who don't want to the whole project cancelled. Of course, Peterborough itself is strongly supportive.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Deleted an earlier post that contained an error.

The Toronto to Peterborough area can usefully be considered in three parts, in my view:

• Greenbelt & Oak Ridges Moraine: this part is massive. It turns out that there is opposition here. You basically can't get from Toronto to Peterborough without crossing these areas. One group has asked the federal government to "[c]onsider alternative connections through established infrastructure corridors between Toronto and Kingston" which basically means not creating a new corridor, or going through Peterborough, at all.

Thing is there's already a relatively straight rail row there right now. The Havelock subdivision. Though this routing misses much of the population centres in Durham. A new N-S row would be needed to connect to either of the lakeshore row's

 

[urbancog]

Thing is there's already a relatively straight rail row there right now. The Havelock subdivision. Though this routing misses much of the population centres in Durham. A new N-S row would be needed to connect to either of the lakeshore row's

The STORM Coalition's objection seems very narrow minded to me. A railway right of way has a low impact on the environment. All materials placed are permeable, so there's little impact on hydrogeology, which is the entire justification for the area's protected status. The most significant material placed - the ballast - is a naturally occurring material, which will even filter the water before it enters the aquifer.

Contrast that with the environmental benefits that an effective Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal rail corridor will deliver, where low carbon electric energy replaces high per-passenger per-km GHG emissions from short distance flights (short flights are worse than long flights because there's less time in cruise mode, more in climb and descend) and gasoline-powered single-occupant vehicles.

 

[guavadelic]

The Globe with another Op-Ed about Alto. The columnist is promoting upgrades to the existing corridor as opposed to a new separate project:

It’s not clear that the Alto project will do this. It is being set up separate from Via Rail, not as a complement to it, and may even have separate stations. Nor is it certain that the new network will connect into existing urban transit systems.

A better solution would certainly involve high-speed rail, but it might not be the fastest option on offer. Upgrades to existing infrastructure, as explored recently in this paper, could enable existing train to operate at much higher speeds than they do now. At their destinations, these trains would then connect into urban networks so that it is not only easy and fast for people to get between cities, but to also move within them.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...high-speed-rail-is-the-right-idea-done-wrong/

But his position seems at odds with a prior opinion of his published in the same paper a couple years ago:

Canada’s high-frequency rail project might make sense if you wanted to prepare the economy for the 20th century – but not if you wanted to future-proof it for this one. The proposed travel times and timetables are not enough to even bring rail travel in this country up to the standard other countries have had for decades.

The country needs high-speed rail, which involves faster trains, not just more frequent ones. It’s a badly needed idea that the federal government should not have abandoned.

Canada remains the only G7 country still without high-speed rail. Even the Americans, who already have half-decent fast and frequent rail options in the so-called Acela corridor between Boston and Washington, are experimenting with it.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...canadian-economy-badly-needs-high-speed-rail/

Make it make sense. A cynic might think these commentators don't want any improvement to passenger rail infrastructure in the corridor, with how they seem to be constantly moving the goal posts.

 

[Thaboss]

The Globe with another Op-Ed about Alto. The columnist is promoting upgrades to the existing corridor as opposed to a new separate project:

View attachment 732024


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...high-speed-rail-is-the-right-idea-done-wrong/

But his position seems at odds with a prior opinion of his published in the same paper a couple years ago:

View attachment 732025



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...canadian-economy-badly-needs-high-speed-rail/

Make it make sense. A cynic might think these commentators don't want any improvement to passenger rail infrastructure in the corridor, with how they seem to be constantly moving the goal posts.

Its not just that the OP contradicts himself, hes just plain wrong in his facts.

There's plenty of evidence that Alto seeks to integrate transit at least in the gta with the midtown line, the airport, and certainly downtown toronto.

Also, given the builders involved, i have a very hard time believing that alto won't connect to the REM in montreal...

For ottawa its almost certain that it'll connect to the o train.

What regional rail or transit connection does the author feel will definitely be missing ? I'd say montreals airport is one, Kingston the other. Certainly not ideal but hardly a death knell.

Ppl need to realize that Alto if built wont be done in 10 + years for phase 1, phase two will be 3 -4 years behind that. The # of regional transit expansion we should be seeing in each of its major connection nodes will doubtlessly take Alto into consideration and be built or under construction to enhance connection in that time. If not, shame of those provinces.

For what the author seems to dream about, he should really be talking about go electrification, REM expansion, HSR to london and windsor, a pearson transit hub, line 4 and 5 extension to pearson, in addition to ALTO.

Imagine landing in Pearson and having the choice of taking an electrified Go, Alto, or line 4 & 5 as needed.

 

[Thaboss]

Another globe mail pro HFR anti HSR story

Prof. Jacques Roy at HEC Montréal and his co-authors say a high-frequency train would use tracks reserved for passenger trains, but mainly within the existing railway rights-of-way, offering a faster and more reliable service than the current system. It wouldn’t reach record speeds, but the high-frequency train would serve more stops along the line at around half the cost of a high-speed train. It could also be built much faster, perhaps in five years.
Prof. Roy is skeptical of Alto’s claim that high-speed rail would cost only 20 to 30 per cent more than high-frequency rail. While he agrees the high-speed option would attract more business travellers, he casts doubt about Alto’s ridership claims, which are partly based on assumptions that population in the corridor will rise 30 per cent by 2041. Given that population growth now is almost flat in Quebec, he doesn’t see that happening.

In the story they compare speeds of HSR to HFR. Not sure how they figure the HFR average time.

I think the govt is eventually going to need to answer HSR vs HFR debate because consistently ppl are making dubious claims about cost and speed of expanding VIA corridor and besides that, I'm not even sure it is actually possible to do

 

[AJhyett]

Another globe mail pro HFR anti HSR story



In the story they compare speeds of HSR to HFR. Not sure how they figure the HFR average time.

I think the govt is eventually going to need to answer HSR vs HFR debate because consistently ppl are making dubious claims about cost and speed of expanding VIA corridor and besides that, I'm not even sure it is actually possible to do

Alto is not properly analysing the true cost of HSR based on the world-wide HSR reference class. turns out that HSR is not only determined by Engineering Complexity it is also a function of Community Friction . Community Friction(bottom up) and Project Governance(top down) are a colinear factos that represent how the project is delivered within its socio-economic/democratic setting. Delivering a project in China is not the same as deliveinring the same project in the UK, US or Canada. Based a bivariate statisical model based on 20 HSR projects (worldwide refernce class) the central cost for ALTO HST is calculated as CAD$143B. Alto's mid point estimate(75B) is just below the lower 2.5percentile and has an equal chance of being accurate as CAD$264 at the upper 2.5percentile.

See the anlysis here:

Community Friction – Citizen Research

citizenresearch.ca

Intersted in comments.

Being honest, was this what you guys kind of expected knowing what usually happens to these projects? Did you believe ALTO's guess?

It would be refreshing if the people on the forum shared the research on which their responses are based. Hard data and math encouraged.

 

[micheal_can]

Alto is not properly analysing the true cost of HSR based on the world-wide HSR reference class. turns out that HSR is not only determined by Engineering Complexity it is also a function of Community Friction . Community Friction(bottom up) and Project Governance(top down) are a colinear factos that represent how the project is delivered within its socio-economic/democratic setting. Delivering a project in China is not the same as deliveinring the same project in the UK, US or Canada. Based a bivariate statisical model based on 20 HSR projects (worldwide refernce class) the central cost for ALTO HST is calculated as CAD$143B. Alto's mid point estimate(75B) is just below the lower 2.5percentile and has an equal chance of being accurate as CAD$264 at the upper 2.5percentile.

See the anlysis here:

Community Friction – Citizen Research

citizenresearch.ca

Intersted in comments.

Being honest, was this what you guys kind of expected knowing what usually happens to these projects? Did you believe ALTO's guess?

It would be refreshing if the people on the forum shared the research on which their responses are based. Hard data and math encouraged.

I knew there would be push back. I didn't expect as much, but that is partly due to the southern option was included. I am not surprised about the push from the 401 corridor pushing for something there instead.

 

[StreetcarRider]

Alto is not properly analysing the true cost of HSR based on the world-wide HSR reference class. turns out that HSR is not only determined by Engineering Complexity it is also a function of Community Friction . Community Friction(bottom up) and Project Governance(top down) are a colinear factos that represent how the project is delivered within its socio-economic/democratic setting. Delivering a project in China is not the same as deliveinring the same project in the UK, US or Canada. Based a bivariate statisical model based on 20 HSR projects (worldwide refernce class) the central cost for ALTO HST is calculated as CAD$143B. Alto's mid point estimate(75B) is just below the lower 2.5percentile and has an equal chance of being accurate as CAD$264 at the upper 2.5percentile.

See the anlysis here:

Community Friction – Citizen Research

citizenresearch.ca

Intersted in comments.

Being honest, was this what you guys kind of expected knowing what usually happens to these projects? Did you believe ALTO's guess?

It would be refreshing if the people on the forum shared the research on which their responses are based. Hard data and math encouraged.

Well, for me, it was articles like the following, about Cadence's bid for Alto, and the proven ability of CPDQ Infra to deliver both good modern transit and an attractive financial package (the REM):

• "Winning Toronto-Quebec City high-speed rail bid was so low officials feared it was impossible, documents reveal: Feds triple-checked bid from group that includes AtkinsRéalis and Air Canada to make sure the massive project will get done"
  
  

  Winning Toronto-Quebec City high-speed rail bid was so low officials feared it was impossible, documents reveal - The Logic

  Feds triple-checked bid from group that includes AtkinsRéalis and Air Canada to make sure the massive project will get done

  thelogic.co
  
  
• "Montreal’s New Rail Line Is the Future: Canada has forgotten how to build fast, cheap transit. A new megaproject has the fix."
  
  https://macleans.ca/society/montreals-new-rail-line-is-the-future/
  
  
• "How Montreal Built a Blueprint for Bargain Rapid Transit: At $139 million per mile, the REM is far less costly than similar recent projects. Cities with ballooning transit budgets can learn from its approach."
  
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-30/how-montreal-s-new-rapid-transit-line-saved-millions-per-mile

Bill C-15 is an example of measures to keep time and costs down in a project that would inevitably involve expropriation. It is similar to, but represents an improvement on, the legislative support the province of Quebec provided to facilitate the REM, and which was part of the success of that project on time and cost These are all trade-offs - if everybody wants the Cadillac process on expropriations then any major project will take longer and be more expensive.

In my experience, "citizen research" is what people show up with to oppose proven technologies being built nearby, like wind farms. Unless I'm mistaken, the citizenresearch.ca site doesn't have an "about us" page, which makes me skeptical of its quality as an authoritative source about the details of the Alto project.

 

[AJhyett]

ALTO High speed rail citizen research

Independent research for the communities ALTO would affect Contact us: info@altohsrcitizenresearch.ca

altohsrcitizenresearch.ca

 

[urbanclient]

Being honest, was this what you guys kind of expected knowing what usually happens to these projects? Did you believe ALTO's guess?

It would be refreshing if the people on the forum shared the research on which their responses are based. Hard data and math encouraged.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you or Citizen Research to provide the hard data, since they're the ones making the (counter) claim in the first place. $28 billion or 15 to 54 billion for a 401 corridor? Are they assuming sharing tracks with freight (which means awful frequencies and punctuality) or are they just underestimating expropriation costs for the 401 corridor?

I'll add onto this with some math I did the other day; in short, 180 km at most out of ~600 km from Toronto to Montreal needs to be 300 km/h capable to reach the targeted 3:07 travel time. Similar story for Montreal to Quebec, only a small portion of the route needs to be top speed capable.

All 8 of these apply to HPR alternative to some degree, #1 and 3 is grasping at straws and highly subjective, they haven't chosen the corridor yet, and the methodology is sure to be transparent once they actually choose said corridor #2 would apply to 401 corridor as well, #4 makes no sense? The alternative is lack of expanded/expedited expropriation powers, which would no doubt result in slower expropriation process, so how was legislating faster expropriation a bad thing? (I don't even remember the name of the logical fallacy here):

Alto is not going to pick the southern corridor. So this disingenuously weakens Alto's case already. I think Alto will cost $100 billion spread over 20 years. $142 billion over 20 years for a southern corridor isn't completely unexpected. Secondly, the HPR cost prediction seems way too low, how easily do Citizens Research think it will be to force CN to give up the Kingston Sub? And expropriation would cost way more for the 401 corridor. The most glaring problem with the HPR estimate is that they don't even mention how much the Kingston Sub would cost, or how much expropriation would cost along the 401 corridor. Freight diversion i.e. new lines and expropriation would be necessary for 200 km/h.

And the most glaring problem to me on the Alto estimate is that they seem to think virtually all 1,000 km needs to be 300 km/h capable, when in reality, most of Alto only has to be 200 km/h capable or less, based on its current travel time targets.

----------

Without freight diversion? Are these people that ignorant? Entertaining the notion of running 200 km/h service on freight lines.

These 3 PDFs barely mention the Kingston Subdivision, and don't mention how much said Subdivision and land expropriation is supposed to cost for the HPR alternative: