[sixrings]

Trump forcing car companies to rebuild factories in the states and to build half a dozen nuclear plants to power said factory is a giant waste of money in the name of national pride.

Building a HSR as a giant F U to the states as an example of national pride is equally dumb idea.

I don’t know if it was said in sarcasm but I’m eternally disappointed with Canadians whom think they’re better than Americans yet gave rob a red carpet to city hall followed up by three Doug majority governments and a very real chance of a Pierre government come fall. We can be just as shameful but because of our population size we are less arrogant. If we had the same size and economy I fear we would be no different.

 

[nfitz]

Yet, the multi-billion contract is only for planning and project development, not any construction, which will need to be decided in 5+ years, i.e., by the 46th or 47th parliament…

I believe someone mentioned that previously.

My point wasn't that it's happening. My point is that the government isn't being serious.

Probably, but escalating the scope of the project still seems to be a means in itself, as it allows them to delay making actual capital funding decisions and to make hard choices which might disappoint multiple ridings (especially those east of Montreal)…

Perhaps - but the reason they are doing this is because the option of HFR wasn't working economically because of the long travel times.

Which justifies everything I have been saying here for years (and you were wrong about ). It what was possibly the most obvious and time-wasting stupid plan that ever has come up. Even VIA-Fast was better. We could have saved a year or two if they'd have done the sensible and obvious thing, and start with HFR. On the other hand, perhaps they needed to prove that it wasn't going to work before the federal mindset could shift.

That‘s why they draw a straight line from Peterborough to Vaudreuil, except for the Smiths Falls to De Beaujeu segment via Ottawa, which is already owned by VIA, because allowing actual decisions to be made or different options to be publicly discussed might risk upsetting some marginal seats…

Perhaps. Or because there's still many options for what's now mostly a greenfield alignment - which can now easily avoid messing up Sharbot Lake.

I was completely and absolutely opposed to HFR. Now that they are doing what I've been saying they should do for decades, I can get on board (heck, they seem to have gone even more aggressive in Montreal than I'd have gone! Which is good!)

Hopefully this doesn't get watered down to some white elephant during the study, with the shift to less money up front, and long-term operational subsidies.

 

[Urban Sky]

I was completely and absolutely opposed to HFR. Now that they are doing what I've been saying they should do for decades, I can get on board (heck, they seem to have gone even more aggressive in Montreal than I'd have gone! Which is good!)

The problem you seem to struggle understanding is that the reason why they are constantly increasing the project scope (and thus price tag) is not because they are committed to build the HSR you believe we would have already deserved decades ago: it is because that buys them time in which they can pretend they are actually willing to spend that much money when there is no indication so far that anyone wants to commit any significant part of the eyewatering price tag we have arrived at.

It‘s basically a bluff in which the stakes are constantly raised and they just hope that everyone else will fold before they have to put their cards on the table. Unfortunately, the only thing which can stop this theatre is the liberal government getting ousted in Ottawa and that would unfortunately be a horrible timing when the country needs to unite and confront Trump…

 

[MisterF]

It's a Hail Mary proposal from the Liberals to try to hold on to power. I see no especial reason to take it seriously.

HFR was first proposed a decade ago and Alto is an evolution of that plan. It's anything but a Hail Mary.

Equity. Some people don’t drive.

More than that, HSR or even quality conventional rail gets people who own cars to drive less and take the train more. A big part of the business case is passengers who would otherwise drive. And people who otherwise wouldn't travel at all.

 

[micheal_can]

Admitting you’re skeptical but then saying you’re trying to be optimistic. This is my point. It’s something you want so you’re trying to be optimistic. I use this train frequently. Half the trains are empty. Meanwhile flixbus is constantly sold out at half the price. Everyone is talking about cheap subsidized rides. So spend 80 billion building then more billions subsidizing tickets. That makes sense to people because they use or would like to use rail. But it’s an unrealistic and unsustainable model.

The same buses that are stuck in the congestion to get out of the city?

The point that I believe has sunk into all parties is - the current sharing of VIA with CN in the Corridor is not working and likely not fixable.

So, all parties will have to grapple with the question of VIA's future - perhaps only when it comes to budget time, if not at election time.

This does not mean that HSR or even HFR will be embraced - I could see a negotiation where Ottawa says to CN, "What will X $B buy us?", and some revisiting of the 2008 project being considered, albeit with new ground rules and more informed pricing. Cn's position might well be, "we don't want VIA on our tracks, period" - which would push towards the idea of a "new" routing, likely reclaiming the Havelock line with some improvements or new segments.

And when that budgeting process receives submissions from GTAA and Trudeau asking for additions to air terminals or runways......government may be eager to find cheaper alternatives to airport expansion.

The point being all parties may be willing to spend something, but far less than the HSR envelope. The vanilla HFR envelope in particular may look a lot more attractive than at present....people are still in dream big mode.

- Paul

I see this alignment as a big F U to CN. If CN were open to capacity improvements, or to on time improvements, why would then not be approaching Via and the federal government?

The problem I have with this is the list of reasons we need to do this is seemingly endless on this thread.

Family in another city
Environment reasons
Business reasons
If we had HSR we could live in Peterborough and work in Toronto for a third of the cost but by commuting for a handful of dollars each way. Long way of saying housing.
Equity. Some people don’t drive.
We don’t need to expand air ports so we would save money there.

It really is endless. However the loss of production in Toronto by congestion is billions annually. So people use that as a reason to advocate that it’s best to spend countless money on subways, go trains, bike lanes and all the other things they want. Yet that’s not how things work. It gets us to move and do things but not to the extent we want them or as fast as we want them. If it did we would have had go 2.0, transit city would have been fully built and places like Mississauga would have a subway by now.

The biggest reason to do this is in 15 years when it opens the 401will be congested much further east than it is now. I feel that after the next Federal election, Ford is going to push for a deal to build west towards London to ease that congestion. I regularly go to London and recently have found taking the 407 from the 400 all the way to the QEW/403is much better, How long till even that way gets plugged up?

I don't think that an expensive toy for the southern part of Central Canada is going to do much for "national" pride.

That is why I am expecting that funding for the AB HSR between Banff and Edmonton will be part of the LPC platform. Then it could be argued as nation building.

 

[micheal_can]

Yet, the multi-billion contract is only for planning and project development, not any construction, which will need to be decided in 5+ years, i.e., by the 46th or 47th parliament…

Marginally less insincere than Wynne‘s election stunt which only showed signs of activity in the final months of a provincial election? Probably, but escalating the scope of the project still seems to be a means in itself, as it allows them to delay making actual capital funding decisions and to make hard choices which might disappoint multiple ridings (especially those east of Montreal)…

That‘s why they draw a straight line from Peterborough to Vaudreuil, except for the Smiths Falls to De Beaujeu segment via Ottawa, which is already owned by VIA, because allowing actual decisions to be made or different options to be publicly discussed might risk upsetting some marginal seats…

Look at their images they released. It basically is a straight line. The next few years will be spent figuring out where the ROW will actually vs what exists now.

The problem you are not understanding is that the reason why they are constantly increasing the project scope (and thus price tag) is not because they are committed to build the HSR you believe we would have already deserved decades ago: it is because that buys them time in which they can pretend they are actually willing to spend that much money when there is no indication so far that anyone wants to commit any significant part of the eyewatering price tag we have arrived at.

It‘s basically a bluff in which the stakes are constantly raised and they just hope that everyone else will fold before they have to put their cards on the table. Unfortunately, the only thing which can stop this theatre is the liberal government getting ousted in Ottawa and that would unfortunately be a horrible timing when the country needs to unite and confront Trump…

The California HSR project is taking about 15 years and is about the same length. We are not China which ignores OSHA and environmental regulations. Realistically, 15 years from announcement to opening day is what should be expected.Now if we hit a deep recession/depression and a make work project is needed, maybe this could be sped up. I don't see how though. Can you give an example of another 1000km HSR line built at once in the world besides China that was faster?

 

[nfitz]

The problem you seem to struggle understanding is that the reason why they are constantly increasing the project scope (and thus price tag) is not because they are committed to build the HSR you believe we would have already deserved decades ago: it is because that buys them time in which they can pretend they are actually willing to spend that much money when there is no indication so far that anyone wants to commit any significant part of the eyewatering price tag we have arrived at.

It‘s basically a bluff in which the stakes are constantly raised and they just hope that everyone else will fold before they have to put their cards on the table. Unfortunately, the only thing which can stop this theatre is the liberal government getting ousted in Ottawa and that would unfortunately be a horrible timing when the country needs to unite and confront Trump…

Why do you resort to being rude when challenged in a discussion? You may be well be right that it's a stalling tactic (though that doesn't seem to be what Imbleau is saying).

But that doesn't change the fact that HFR was unfeasible, where it did nothing to reduce travel times (and thus increase demand); heck for some segments it significantly increased travel times over what's achievable with the current alignment. It's blatantly obvious that no speed increase and restoring reliability is not going to increase demand any more than previously; all they get is from natural population growth.

If HSR is also infeasible economically (as it well may be) then the alternate is not HFR but VIA Fast and US-like legislation for the railways to make VIA first priority (and a big stick to beat CN with).

HFR was first proposed a decade ago and Alto is an evolution of that plan. It's anything but a Hail Mary.

A decade ago? VIA started this under Trudeau in the 1970s.

 

[MisterF]

A decade ago? VIA started this under Trudeau in the 1970s.

Yes, a decade ago. Previous concepts and proposals go back further obviously, but HFR specifically was only proposed publicly around 2015 IIRC.

 

[nfitz]

Yes, a decade ago. Previous concepts and proposals go back further obviously, but HFR specifically was only proposed publicly around 2015 IIRC.

HFR is dead. They've switched back to HST thank god. Had they started there a decade ago, instead of having been hoodwinked into the HFR folly by an incompetent (but profitable) consultant, we'd be further ahead now.

 

[micheal_can]

Why do you resort to being rude when challenged in a discussion? You may be well be right that it's a stalling tactic (though that doesn't seem to be what Imbleau is saying).

That is his MO.

But that doesn't change the fact that HFR was unfeasible, where it did nothing to reduce travel times (and thus increase demand); heck for some segments it significantly increased travel times over what's achievable with the current alignment. It's blatantly obvious that no speed increase and restoring reliability is not going to increase demand any more than previously; all they get is from natural population growth.

HFR had its merits.Trains running at 150 km/hr without having to yield for freight trains would have improved the timing of the service, making it more reliable.

If HSR is also infeasible economically (as it well may be) then the alternate is not HFR but VIA Fast and US-like legislation for the railways to make VIA first priority (and a big stick to beat CN with).

This may be the case today. In 15 years that may not be the case. The governments of the last... well, since Via has been created in 1977, had no desire to give Via the rights to the rail it needs to be successful. We cannot blame one party since it has been bounced back and forth between LPC/PC/CPC. So,it is the way we do things in Canada. The best thing that can happen is we let this proceed and let it succeed or fail on its own merits.

A decade ago? VIA started this under Trudeau in the 1970s.

The Turbo train started operating in 1968. The LRCs (what does the R stand for?) were 1980. For context, TGV started in 1980 and the Shinkansen started in 1969. So, we have been trying to do high speed for as long as high speed has been a thing.

 

[Urban Sky]

Why do you resort to being rude when challenged in a discussion?

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

You may be well be right that it's a stalling tactic (though that doesn't seem to be what Imbleau is saying).

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

But that doesn't change the fact that HFR was unfeasible, where it did nothing to reduce travel times (and thus increase demand); heck for some segments it significantly increased travel times over what's achievable with the current alignment. It's blatantly obvious that no speed increase and restoring reliability is not going to increase demand any more than previously; all they get is from natural population growth.

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%)

Yes, a decade ago. Previous concepts and proposals go back further obviously, but HFR specifically was only proposed publicly around 2015 IIRC.

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:

HFR is dead. They've switched back to HST thank god. Had they started there a decade ago, instead of having been hoodwinked into the HFR folly by an incompetent (but profitable) consultant, we'd be further ahead now.

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:

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...

 

[sixrings]

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

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 in less 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...

I think it makes a lot of sense that the government which proposes is needs a decade to actually announce studying it.

It also makes sense that instead of doing something at the height of your powers you would wait till you were in the weakest position to say you’re doing something.

Surely they were just busy with other things in that last decade. That’s the probable answer.

 

[MisterF]

HFR is dead. They've switched back to HST thank god. Had they started there a decade ago, instead of having been hoodwinked into the HFR folly by an incompetent (but profitable) consultant, we'd be further ahead now.

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

In any case, whatever you think of HFR and the current plan, the fact remains that Alto has its roots in HFR and evolved from it. And there have been plenty of hints for several years that they were headed in the direction of high speed. So I stand by my earlier statement that it's not a hail Mary.

 

[Urban Sky]

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

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.

In any case, whatever you think of HFR and the current plan, the fact remains that Alto has its roots in HFR and evolved from it. And there have been plenty of hints for several years that they were headed in the direction of high speed. So I stand by my earlier statement that it's not a hail Mary.

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…

 

[micheal_can]

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.