VIA Rail

[allengeorge]

Ottawa on track for decision on high-frequency trains between Toronto and Quebec City in ‘coming months’

Transport Minister Marc Garneau says the $4- to $6-billion plan would allow for more frequent trains, shorter trip times and better on-time performance

www.theglobeandmail.com

A few days old

 

[kEiThZ]

Maybe I'm just a train nerd.

To me, 5 hrs spent on a train reading, working, and sleeping somehow feels a lot more enjoyable than 5 hrs spent jumping between checkin lines to airport security lines to airport lounge lines to pre-boarding lines (shuffling between AC's zone 1, 2, 3, 4....) to lining up to get seated to waiting for take off to preparing for landing to waiting to for a gate bridge to lining up to deplane to picking up your luggage on the carousel to waiting in line for another taxi at YUL. One thing I noticed when flying between YUL-YTZ/YYZ is that my Fitbit step counter shoots through the roof for the day because the number of times I had to get up, walk, wait, sit down, over and over again in a 4-5 hr window. I admit that YTZ-YUL or YYZ-YUL is a faster proposition, but it's a near hellish, seizure provoking experience even for frequent flyers with airline status.

I like the train too! That's why we're all here. But you can't let fandom colour analysis.

It's pretty obvious that getting Montreal bound business travelers would be a tougher sell for VIA, without them knocking off at least 15-30 mins from the rumoured HFR trip time. Hard to tell how much it would cost, but from what we know, I think they could do that for $1-2B more.

 

[robmausser]

40 minutes longer for a much more comfortable and productive trip is probably worth it. vs. the alternative.

Depends where you live as well of course. If Eglinton station has parking and is, say, 15 mins faster, it may often be faster to taxi/drive to Eglinton station from many parts of the GTA and go from there than go to YYZ or YTZ.

Then there is the alternative of driving as well, which is a straight 4-5 hours for Ottawa, depending where in the GTA you are coming from.

Absolutely, thats a huge factor.

Getting on a train downtown and just plunking your ass in a seat and ending up downtown again in a single ride is way worth an extra 40 minutes versus the complexity and risk of issues with 2-3 transfers and dealing with airport security.

 

[roger1818]

I like the train too! That's why we're all here. But you can't let fandom colour analysis.

It's pretty obvious that getting Montreal bound business travelers would be a tougher sell for VIA, without them knocking off at least 15-30 mins from the rumoured HFR trip time. Hard to tell how much it would cost, but from what we know, I think they could do that for $1-2B more.

I am not so sure that could be done for the amount extra you are suggesting. As you previously said, according to the EcoTrain study, the 200km/h diesel option cost $9.067B in 2009 dollars. If you were to follow the same route, but slow it down to 177 km/h, you will save on grade separations but most of the other costs will be close to the same. For the entire Windsor to Quebec City route, grade separations accounted for 21% of the cost, so if we assume the total savings for the TOM section would be 25%, you are still looking at $6.8B 2009 dollars without electrification. That is considerably more than the $3.3B estimated for the TOM section of HFR (after you subtract the $1.14B for the Montreal Quebec portion from the $4.4B total).

 

[kEiThZ]

I am not so sure that could be done for the amount extra you are suggesting.

See the previous discussions we've had in this thread. It's pretty obvious there's a few spots where bypasses can be built or straight corridors cut which would save a fair bit of time. Saving time on Ottawa-Montreal would admittedly be challenging. But I have zero doubts, they could cut 15-30 mins from the Toronto-Ottawa trip if given $1-2B more.

As you previously said, according to the EcoTrain study, the 200km/h diesel option cost $9.067B in 2009 dollars. If you were to follow the same route, but slow it down to 177 km/h, you will save on grade separations but most of the other costs will be close to the same.

The Lakeshore proposals have all been substantially more expensive because there's far more settlement along that corridor, with a lot more crossings, stops, etc. A lot more traffic, freight and passenger (near the GTA). Straightening track along the Lakeshore would be more expensive. Land acquisition more expensive. Etc. Building the HFR route as HSR would probably be 20-30% cheaper than any Lakeshore proposal. This difference is only getting higher with each year as more development happens along the Lakeshore. The Havelock route is shorter too....

What we'll have to see is if they considered investment opportunities. Ie. This bypass save 10 mins but costs $100M. What does that do to passenger demand and fare premiums. I hope that analysis is eventually released. And we see what they could have done with additional capital. This is what a CAIV analysis (Cost as an Independent Variable) would tell us.

 

[kEiThZ]

.... the $3.3B estimated for the TOM section of HFR (after you subtract the $1.14B for the Montreal Quebec portion from the $4.4B total).

Just a note that $3B includes rolling stock. It's $2.1B for Toronto-Ottawa and $91.5M for Ottawa-Montreal. So $2.2B for TOM as per the Globe and Mail article some time back. That really seems unbelievably cheap (ballpark $3.67M/km for 600 km). Looks like they have some room to invest more. It's not even double track.

 

[robmausser]

I like the train too! That's why we're all here. But you can't let fandom colour analysis.

It's pretty obvious that getting Montreal bound business travelers would be a tougher sell for VIA, without them knocking off at least 15-30 mins from the rumoured HFR trip time. Hard to tell how much it would cost, but from what we know, I think they could do that for $1-2B more.

I really think we are focusing on trip length, but HFR has got it right, the REAL issue is reliability.

Out of the 20 trips to Montreal from Toronto ive taken, none have been on time. 5 of them were egregiously late.

These were for pleasure, but I know people who would swear to never take the train again after even one of these events where we were 2 hours late.

A businessperson? Forget about it.

 

[roger1818]

Just a note that $3B includes rolling stock.

Agreed, I included them because the EcoTrain study also included them.

It's $2.1B for Toronto-Ottawa and $91.5M for Ottawa-Montreal. So $2.2B for TOM as per the Globe and Mail article some time back. That really seems unbelievably cheap.

For what they are planning it sounds reasonable though. By following existing or former ROWs and not trying to straighten out curves that were put there for a reason, you save a lot of money.

 

[kEiThZ]

I really think we are focusing on trip length, but HFR has got it right, the REAL issue is reliability.

Out of the 20 trips to Montreal from Toronto ive taken, none have been on time. 5 of them were egregiously late.

These were for pleasure, but I know people who would swear to never take the train again after even one of these events where we were 2 hours late.

A businessperson? Forget about it.

Reliability does indeed suck. But for business travel, it's only the starting point of the discussion. It will help to improve consideration of rail. But a near 5 hr block time, I think is a tough sell to anybody not price sensitive, which really hurts VIA on revenue generation by hurting premiums. I don't think VIA needs High Speed Rail. But I think scheduled trips can't be longer than 4.5 hrs. And I think the closer you get to 4 hrs, the more competitive rail gets to air.

The retort would be that VIA only cares about driving pax. But if that's true, then why not add stops and make it a 6 hr trip? There's clearly a sweet spot in there. I think it's below 4.5 hrs, closer to 4 hrs. But I can accept that others see it differently.

There's also the political angle. And I agree with Paul. They spend $4.4B and Toronto-Montreal is still close to 5 hrs? It's going to be a PR disaster. The "but reliability" and "but frequency" arguments are going to be drowned out by people saying this is still a slow 5 hr ride. All those other benefits are far more sellable if the trip is a bit faster too. I'm honestly worried about how this might go down in the press when officially announced. Call me a concern troll if you must.

 

[kEiThZ]

Putting the travel time debate in a different context,. Consider a Torontonian driving to Quebec City for a weekend getaway. It's an 8 hr drive. HFR would make that a 7 hr train ride, assuming minimal transfer time in Montreal. So 1-2 hrs time savings at best on an 800 km trip. The fare would have to be really cheap to compete with the car on that.

 

[roger1818]

Putting the travel time debate in a different context,. Consider a Torontonian driving to Quebec City for a weekend getaway. It's an 8 hr drive. HFR would make that a 7 hr train ride, assuming minimal transfer time in Montreal. So 1-2 hrs time savings at best on an 800 km trip. The fare would have to be really cheap to compete with the car on that.

First of all, that 8 hours assumes no stops to pee, eat or drink (all of which you can do without stopping on the train). Secondly, if you assume that Torontonian is still using old 20th century technology and driving a gasoline car, that the car gets the Canadian average of 8.9 l/100km, and gas still only costs about $1 per litre, the cost of gas alone would be $142 for the round trip (not to mention the wear and tear on the vehicle). Not having the stress of driving and saving time would make paying more than that worthwhile.

 

[kEiThZ]

First of all, that 8 hours assumes no stops to pee, eat or drink (all of which you can do without stopping on the train). Secondly, if you assume that Torontonian is still using old 20th century technology and driving a gasoline car, that the car gets the Canadian average of 8.9 l/100km, and gas still only costs about $1 per litre, the cost of gas alone would be $142 for the round trip (not to mention the wear and tear on the vehicle). Not having the stress of driving and saving time would make paying more than that worthwhile.

Sure. But that's why I said 1-2 hrs in time savings. In reality, it's 7 hrs at the wheel and 1-2 hrs cumulatively in stops.

As for the cost of gas, two points. First, highway mileage is more efficient than average. And next, what's the likelihood that somebody is driving 800 km alone? Do the math for two people and an average of 7L/100 km. And it's less than$60/person roundtrip. Given that the revenue management model would guaranteedly drive fares higher than that, I doubt you'll see much conversion on routes like these. Indeed, what it looks like is that HFR is specifically designed to be competitive only in routes less than 400 km. Heck, even Ottawa-Quebec City at 3:43 looks like a tougher sell than just a 5 hr drive, for anybody not traveling alone.

I want VIA to succeed. And I want passenger rail in Canada to actually survive. I really worry that if HFR isn't wildly successful right from the get go, we'll see another 20 years of no investment. I would rather they put in the extra $1-2B to make this thing truly competitive with driving and flying in some cases than spend $4.4B and watch it largely be competitive on 3 specific segments (TO, OM, MQ).

 

[afransen]

I really think we are focusing on trip length, but HFR has got it right, the REAL issue is reliability.

Out of the 20 trips to Montreal from Toronto ive taken, none have been on time. 5 of them were egregiously late.

These were for pleasure, but I know people who would swear to never take the train again after even one of these events where we were 2 hours late.

A businessperson? Forget about it.

Not just trains. I was travelling for business YYZ to Ottawa (technically headed for Cornwall). My 7:15 flight didn't push back from the gate until 11:30 (they strung us along with "just another 30-60 minutes"). Never mind the emergency landing (put your coat on and brace against the seat in front of you) at Ottawa. I really regretted not renting a car and driving to Cornwall.

Not quite as bad as being forced to trek along the tracks to a road in February or other VIA horror stories but flying can be awful at times too.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Putting the travel time debate in a different context,. Consider a Torontonian driving to Quebec City for a weekend getaway. It's an 8 hr drive. HFR would make that a 7 hr train ride, assuming minimal transfer time in Montreal. So 1-2 hrs time savings at best on an 800 km trip. The fare would have to be really cheap to compete with the car on that.

Assuming you ain't leaving TO on a Friday afternoon or right before a long weekend and that Quebec doesn't slip in another highway maintenance/closure, that 8 hour drive could well turn into a 10 or 12 hr drive with stops and traffic on the 401 / Autoroute 40. But yes, I agree that for your pleasure travelers (esp those with families), driving is still going to be the preferred mode unless fares come down substantially (which I don't see happening even with HFR).

 

[kEiThZ]

Assuming you ain't leaving TO on a Friday afternoon or right before a long weekend and that Quebec doesn't slip in another highway maintenance/closure, that 8 hour drive could well turn into a 10 or 12 hr drive with stops and traffic on the 401 / Autoroute 40. But yes, I agree that for your pleasure travelers (esp those with families), driving is still going to be the preferred mode unless fares come down substantially (which I don't see happening even with HFR).

But this is exactly the market that YDS was claiming HFR was positioned to tackle. Maybe the fares will be really cheap.....

The way I look at it, this is an optimization problem between capital cost and ridership. Highest ridership with HSR. Lowest capital cost with some Lakeshore upgrades. The optimum is somewhere in the middle. The current proposal seems the bare minimum to make the Havelock route serviceable. But the optimum is probably at some higher investment point. The concern I (and some others) have is that government is driving to the cheapest proposal rather than letting VIA and the JPO drive to the optimum solution.