News   Nov 29, 2024
Feds Match $758 Million Investments for New Line 2 Subway Trains
 745     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Looking Back on a Year of Construction at Amexon's Central Park
 302     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
33-Storey St Catharines Tower Would Retain Masonic Temple
 621     1 

VIA Rail

MisterF said:
"the document favors an improved version of the TGF over the first version of the project and a TGV" caught my eye too. Maybe they determined that for a bit more money they can rebuild certain sections of the line to higher speed standard while keeping the more challenging sections slower. Could it be that this has taken so long because they saw an opportunity to take the original HFR concept and improve on it?
Click to expand...

It's certainly possible that the powers-that-be are mulling fast-forwarding to include some of the future investment that was considered but deferred to a HFR "Phase 2". Perhaps the government has seen its way to increase the total envelope beyond what the CIB can justify on the basis of initial business risk, in the interest of a more saleable product. If so, then good on them - an even better end product would be a good thing.

Since 90% of so-called "leaks" are deliberate political ploys to pre-soak ideas with the public, I'm quick to consider the conspiracy theory side of this. But that's too much speculation, and nothing gained by going there.

It's very hard to convince myself that this is government moving forward to a simple 'yes' on VIA's proposal. But I'm not hearing a simple 'no' either.... it may well just be the inevitable political reckoning getting played out. Time will tell.

- Paul
 
^ It would also be nice while they were at HFR/HSR or whatever they were doing if they could pass a VIA Rail Act instead of it existing as just an Order in Council (I believe). It might not make that big of of a difference, but Amtrak has its own Act.
 
MisterF said:
"the document favors an improved version of the TGF over the first version of the project and a TGV" caught my eye too. Maybe they determined that for a bit more money they can rebuild certain sections of the line to higher speed standard while keeping the more challenging sections slower. Could it be that this has taken so long because they saw an opportunity to take the original HFR concept and improve on it?
Click to expand...

I hope.

I've long said that upgrading the Ottawa-Coteau portion has real benefits. If they could get Ottawa-Montreal down to 1:15 hrs, it can becomes a more unified corridor/conurbation akin to Kitchener-Toronto.

The way I see it, they can get Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal to 4 hrs with Toronto-Peterborough at 1 hr and Ottawa-Montreal at 1:15 hrs. That creates two ex-urban commuting markets, while making Toronto-Ottawa competitive with air at under 3 hrs, and absolutely competitive with driving for Toronto-Montreal.

If I had to just wag it, I'd argue that a 75% increase in the $2B previously budgeted for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal would probably be enough. Works out to ballpark $6M/km. Add in a billion for rolling stock and $1.5B for Montreal-Quebec, and we're looking at $6B projected. That is expensive, but not high enough to be objectionable to Liberal MPs who want something for their own riding. Or voters elsewhere in the country (especially if the announce the Toronto-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton studies at the same time).
 
^ For some reason I thought it was $6B for the Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal portion, and $8B if electrified.
 
Sabia knows that money is being made with private tracks and lower operating costs. HSR makes sense since it reduces operating costs by nearly half for the trip due to speed and will probably have higher priced tickets. So even with a triple the price HSR project, you can make it work with more efficient operating costs. He basically applies the REM to VIA Rail (if it's still VIA that would run the service). People are too attached to infrastructure costs. He is definitely not.
 
p_xavier said:
Sabia knows that money is being made with private tracks and lower operating costs. HSR makes sense since it reduces operating costs by nearly half for the trip due to speed and will probably have higher priced tickets. So even with a triple the price HSR project, you can make it work with more efficient operating costs. He basically applies the REM to VIA Rail (if it's still VIA that would run the service). People are too attached to infrastructure costs. He is definitely not.
Click to expand...
It is possible. The JPO should have at least costed that as well as a screen.
 
I would argue that HFR has better ROI, both economically and politically. The $200-300 tickets for HSR would substantially limit the customer base. Not to mention the backlash from spending that much in just Ontario and Quebec and still ending up with high fares, and skipping Ottawa as Sabia apparently wants.

There is probably a sweet spot between the original HFR proposal and HSR, where some portions are upgraded, such that the overall design allows for a travel time which draws the most passengers at a still reasonable fare, with paths to upgrade in the future. And if article is true, it is possible that the JPO has recommended something like this.
 
kEiThZ said:
Not to mention the backlash from spending that much in just Ontario and Quebec and still ending up with high fares.
Click to expand...
But it could be less public money as subsidy even with spending more. We don't know. In Alberta it would be less. With the geology of Ontario - I doubt it would be less.

But you can also see the case: maybe you up your subsidy from $2 billion to $4 billion, but that ups spending from $6 billion to $18 billion. Which option do you choose?
 
2transpo said:
www.journaldemontreal.com

Le TGV Montréal-Québec en voie de dérailler?

Des tractations en haut lieu à Ottawa pourraient compromettre le projet de train rapide entre Montréal et Québec.
www.journaldemontreal.com www.journaldemontreal.com



This means HFR is all but dead. RIP. Is everyone ready for another 5 years of studies?
Click to expand...
IDK how you conclude that from reading the article. Literally everyone interviewed or quoted supported HFR.

The article really says is that the new infrastructure minister, McKenna, privately supports building a highspeed railway between Montreal and Toronto despite publicly endorsing the VIA HFR plan. However, It also says that the HFR plan was submitted to the government. This seems like really good news for HFR and suggests that the announcement is either being delayed until the budget or they are still deciding on a specific option if the JPO planned several. The only new information from the article is that there are some backroom LPC discussions about HSR. The extra stuff about HSR seems to just be pulled from Langan to give context to the backroom talk.

What I am confused about though is that it seems that despite the subtitle, there is no information about Sabia/infrabank having changed their positions. However, this could likely just be attributed to being a JDM article.....
 
Last edited:
It doesn't sound like anything is going to be announced soon. Are we any further ahead than in 1983 when it was hoped there'd be an announcement before the 1984 election?
 
To me the article reads that the report refined the HFR proposal to be HSR for Toronto-Montreal and HFR for Montreal - Quebec.

I mean they were already planning 200km/h electrified service - is it hard to believe that they decided a better return came from upping that to 250-300km/h, as they basically need a new construction corridor anyway?

the HFR scheme under via was never fleshed out properly as far as I know, it was very back of the napkin. And costs were way lowballed given the amount of infrastructure needed.

HFRs problem as proposed by VIA was also always that it delivered still terrible travel times for Toronto-Montreal. I mean trains were doing it in 4hrs in the 70’s and 80’s but you are proposing to spend $5b and give use a travel time of 4:45?!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top