Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[kEiThZ]

If the land is valued at 2.5 billion, I would expect a reasonable - non-subsidized rent to work out to be around 120 million a year.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/air/airport-rent/fact/toronto.htm

Incidentally, that's less than Pearson pays right now.

It's a lot more than just emissions reductions. It's a major improvement in mobility for tens of millions of people. Spinoffs would be economic and in settlement patterns and even local transit use. Not to mention pollution around airports, where jet emissions are most concentrated. Incidentally I've heard estimates that emissions reductions would be a lot higher than 1%, but I don't have a source.

I was referring to the fact that aviation contributes 1-2% of total carbon emissions while cars and trucks contribute far, far more (in the order of 20-30%). My point was...does it make sense to spend 23 billion dollars to target the sector that generates 1% of carbon emissions when that money can be spent so much better elsewhere (ie local transit) to reduce emissions.

Why would intermediate stops be left out? Trains could stop at Cobourg or Belleville just as they do now. Express trains would obviously bypass those stations.

This again goes to the points I have made before. HSR everywhere else does not have anywhere close to the stop spacing that VIA currently does. Therefore HSR will not be serving several stops along the way...ie Port Hope, Trenton Jct, Napanee, Gananoque, etc. And if it does serve those routes with non-express trains, then those trains would likely be running a loss for VIA. In my experience as a regular VIA user, at least a good third to a half of passengers get on at a major city (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) and exit at the smaller stops along the way. I would not want to see service cut to these centres....and incidentally I could see that becoming a political issue if and HSR becomes a realistic proposal.

Where do you get the idea that this is a rush to imitate all things European? HSR has been studied extensively in the Canadian context for over 30 years. The agencies doing the studies (including governments) have expressed a high degree of confidence in their conclusions. A review of previous studies can be found here.

Studied extensively and not implemented for a number of reasons, namely our government does not wish to be involved in a project that would require immense capital outlays to sink a profitable business. It is instructive that out of all the studies posted on your link only one (the Lynx High speed rail system) said that it would be able to earn enough to return the original investment made by taxpayers....in 60 years. The rest all project an operating profit. That's like expecting Westjet to make a profit without having to pay the lease tab on its aircraft.

European systems do have stops outside downtown areas, as do proposed systems in North America.

I didn't mean stop spacing of nearly 30km like on the Eurostar. I meant something closer to what we have now, stations at Guildwood, Oshawa, etc. These stations make HSR more competitive with cars compared to planes by making rail more accessible outside of downtown.

Source?

Just a hunch. Given that Pearson alone makes $130 million, I am skeptical that any HSR could generate more revenue than the airports of Pearson, Trudeau, and macdonald-cartier including the rents they pay, the property taxes paid to local authorities and other taxes and fees that are generated. Many studies will show that HSR can generate an operating profit, but none have said that there's potential for governments to collect over $200 million in taxes and fees.

I've heard this before, and that VIA as a whole has a cost recovery of about 80%. I'd love to see a source for that info if you've got it though. If existing VIA operations in the Corridor make a profit, it would be pretty much impossible for HSR not to.

I'd agree that this is possible and more than likely that VIA makes a profit on the VDQ-Windsor corridor. The debate should be whether it's appropriate to spend 23 billion of the taxpayers dollars to merely improve the return slightly while simultaneously doing serious damage to the airlines operating in the corridor.

Anyway, it's tough to debate this now until we have the actually study on hand....if it turns out a lot less than 23 billion and service to smaller communities can be maintained I'd support it politically and with my travel dollars.

 

[afransen]

What about a joint-venture between GTAA, and the respective airport authorities of Ottawa and Montreal. They could own the infrastructure, and sell access to the tracks. It might be worth considering as a way to relieve capacity constraints once Pearson is built out, and is approaching capacity, as it is expected to in ~15 years.

I'm rather skeptical of the $23 billion figure. That is much more expensive than what the TGV cost, even for TGV built through mountainous terrain. I also doubt that land in France is cheaper to expropriate than in Ontario. Isn't there a ROW along the 401, for that matter?

 

[MisterF]

This again goes to the points I have made before. HSR everywhere else does not have anywhere close to the stop spacing that VIA currently does. Therefore HSR will not be serving several stops along the way...ie Port Hope, Trenton Jct, Napanee, Gananoque, etc. And if it does serve those routes with non-express trains, then those trains would likely be running a loss for VIA. In my experience as a regular VIA user, at least a good third to a half of passengers get on at a major city (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) and exit at the smaller stops along the way. I would not want to see service cut to these centres....and incidentally I could see that becoming a political issue if and HSR becomes a realistic proposal.

There's no reason that a conventional rail system couldn't operate as a feeder system to the HSR and be subsidized by HSR profits. The French rail system operates that way, as I'm sure is the case in most countries with HSR.

Studied extensively and not implemented for a number of reasons, namely our government does not wish to be involved in a project that would require immense capital outlays to sink a profitable business. It is instructive that out of all the studies posted on your link only one (the Lynx High speed rail system) said that it would be able to earn enough to return the original investment made by taxpayers....in 60 years. The rest all project an operating profit. That's like expecting Westjet to make a profit without having to pay the lease tab on its aircraft.

Actually no, the Quebec-Windsor High-Speed Rail Tripartite Feasibility Study concluded that "governments would more than recoup their investment within the first 30 years of operations." That's the same study that had a high degree of confidence in its findings. Personally I'd put more stock in a tri-partite government study than one by private companies (Lynx).

I didn't mean stop spacing of nearly 30km like on the Eurostar. I meant something closer to what we have now, stations at Guildwood, Oshawa, etc. These stations make HSR more competitive with cars compared to planes by making rail more accessible outside of downtown.

The Paris area has several TGV stations, at least from maps I've seen. An upgraded GO Transit would be an important feeder to GTA high speed rail stations. The Tri-partite study had stations in the east and west ends of the GTA. And of course there would still be the conventional system. Really, all the rail systems would likely start to blend together in what they do.

I too look forward to the study. I'm sure we'll be debating a lot more when it comes out!

 

[cacruden]

There's no reason that a conventional rail system couldn't operate as a feeder system to the HSR and be subsidized by HSR profits. The French rail system operates that way, as I'm sure is the case in most countries with HSR.

I would be hesitant to "subsidize" money losers with money winners. If the operations cannot pay for itself, then maybe the train is not the most economical solution.... we always have buses to rail option for feeding the system (again I would prefer premium bus option be available - a.k.a Japan).

 

[Whoaccio]

This isn't really suited to Ontario-Quebec HSR per se, but why don't we move more container freight by boat? Granted, we couldn't fit the Emma Maersk through the St. Lawrence, but we should be able to use seaway-compatible freighters to carry containers from hub ports in Nova Scotia, NY/NJ or Montreal. As I understand it, freighters are the most fuel effecient way to transporting goods. It could free up rail space Tor-Mtl by moving containers on to lakers.

 

[urbanfan89]

^^ But is trucking freight to, say, Hamilton, loading it onto vessels, sailing at 30 km/h down the lakes and rivers to Montreal or Halifax, unloading, trans-shipping, and then loading onto ocean vessels time competitive with freight trains which run at two or three times the speed?

They can always nationalize the infrastructure (keeping the actual freight operations private), dedicate the CP mainline to freight trains, and then dedicate the CN rail line to passenger trains.

 

[urbanfan89]

I would be hesitant to "subsidize" money losers with money winners.

We already do so. The 401 from a microeconomic perspective is extremely profitable, while many back country roads see almost no traffic and cost a lot to maintain.

If the operations cannot pay for itself, then maybe the train is not the most economical solution....

The Network Effect makes it necessary to subsidize money losing branch lines, because they feed the profitable main lines. After all no one is calling for Highway 9 west of Orangeville to be shut down.

we always have buses to rail option for feeding the system (again I would prefer premium bus option be available - a.k.a Japan).

Japan has a world-class rail system that reaches small towns, and which is profitable enough to float on the stock market.

 

[cacruden]

We already do so. The 401 from a microeconomic perspective is extremely profitable, while many back country roads see almost no traffic and cost a lot to maintain.


The Network Effect makes it necessary to subsidize money losing branch lines, because they feed the profitable main lines. After all no one is calling for Highway 9 west of Orangeville to be shut down.


Japan has a world-class rail system that reaches small towns, and which is profitable enough to float on the stock market.

Highways are different, because they can be used as feeder lines for the rail backbone as well. Why build a second money looser to parallel another money looser, one can be for necessity, the other is just waste.

 

[Whoaccio]

^^ But is trucking freight to, say, Hamilton, loading it onto vessels, sailing at 30 km/h down the lakes and rivers to Montreal or Halifax, unloading, trans-shipping, and then loading onto ocean vessels time competitive with freight trains which run at two or three times the speed?

The honest answer is I don't know. I am just surprised it has never really been looked at. I know 40% of the EU's freight is transported by short sea shipping, whether that is due to competitive advantage or government policy I don't know. Apparently there are plans to build a container terminal in Oswego, NY, but I don't know much about it. I imagine it would be cost competitive with freight rail, but time sensitive cargo would be shipped like they are today (freight shipping by rail is not very speedy) by trucks. When it comes to bulk shipping, like 50 TEUs of Nikes & BluRays though, I imagine cost concerns trump travel time.

 

[cacruden]

Japan has a world-class rail system that reaches small towns, and which is profitable enough to float on the stock market.

Japan has subsidized their high-speed rail network to the tune of 250Billion dollars (if I remember right). That is half of Canada's entire national debt. Japan's debt/GDP is around 150% and rising.

 

[MisterF]

Highways are different, because they can be used as feeder lines for the rail backbone as well. Why build a second money looser to parallel another money looser, one can be for necessity, the other is just waste.

It's spelled loser. Sorry, pet peeve

Given the many advantages that even conventional rail has over driving, I don't think it's too much to ask to have one or two rail lines serving the same territory as literally thousands of roads that see little traffic.

As an aside, we'd probably spend a lot less on rural roads (and have more to spend on rail) if we didn't allow people to have houses and businesses scattered all over the countryside. Most European countries don't allow that kind of thing at all. Their countryside feels more rural than ours for the most part. Their towns are healthier too, and they're all served by regular transit. It's a much better use of resources.

 

[jeicow]

why don't we move more container freight by boat? It could free up rail space Tor-Mtl by moving containers on to lakers.

I would think the fact that the Montreal-Lake Ontario section has to close between late-December to mid-March (and subsequently, close the entire network) makes investing in seaway going cargo vessels a poor decision.

 

[Whoaccio]

I would think the fact that the Montreal-Lake Ontario section has to close between late-December to mid-March (and subsequently, close the entire network) makes investing in seaway going cargo vessels a poor decision.

Ohh yea... haha. Knew there had to be some reason, just forgot about the whole "winter" thing.

 

[jeicow]

Ohh yea... haha. Knew there had to be some reason, just forgot about the whole "winter" thing.

I always find it ironic that a big part of solving global warming....is global warming

 

[afransen]

Improve intermodal freight service, and you would see a lot of traffic taken off of highways. From what I understand, this is mainly a result of capacity issues not allowing freight movements to follow a fixed schedule with an emphasis on short lead times.