[nfitz]

Not that many actually. And even fewer coming up.

That there's as many as currently flying Toronto to Montreal says a lot!

Nobody is saying HFR will kill travel.

Not travel in general - but you literally said that "A rail service that took 2 hrs to Ottawa and 3 hrs to Montreal would pretty much kill Porter." And my response that HSR wouldn't get all the traffic to Montreal was in response to Johnny's comment that "Once there's HSR between Toronto and New York City and between Toronto and Montreal, Porter would not be able to compete with that." My point is that even if someone finds the $100 billion to make a 3-hour trip to Montreal, then Billy Bishop

Meanwhile Northern said "Personally, I would love to see Billy Bishop gone." Sure sounds like some are talking about how to kill travel from Billy Bishop.

If the shorter HS2 in the UK is now costed at well over $100 billion, I don't know how you think that it's going to be costing less than that here.

 

[kEiThZ]

If the shorter HS2 in the UK is now costed at well over $100 billion, I don't know how you think that it's going to be costing less than that here.

Cause this is Canada and not the UK?

We literally have a consultant's report on what it would cost in Canada. Why would you use a British estimate? Especially one that goes through some expensive real estate.

My point is that even if someone finds the $100 billion to make a 3-hour trip to Montreal, then Billy Bishop

If we spent $100B, that would get us a Maglev to Montreal. And I would sincerely bet on the demise of Porter then.

The fundamental problem for Porter is how much they still depend on traffic to Ottawa and Montreal. Even a large reduction in that business would hurt. And could possibly be terminal. They really need to diversify their business.

 

[nfitz]

Cause this is Canada and not the UK?

We literally have a consultant's report on what it would cost in Canada. Why would you use a British estimate? Especially one that goes through some expensive real estate.

Because their estimates were similarly low when they were made in the same time period. Do you really expect to build HSR from Toronto to Montreal for the same price as a new LRT line? I didn't use the British estimate - I used a fraction of it. British HS2 is now costed at over $500 million per kilometre. If I used the same pricing it would be about $300 billion, not $100 billion!

Looking back to your claim that 2 hours to Ottawa (and 3 to Montreal) was on the low end of HSR - VIA estimated in the 1984 study that Montreal to Toronto with a 300 km/hr service the Ottawa to Toronto travel time was over 2 hours! I'm not sure why you claim that 300 km/hr was the low end of HSR! It isn't.

 

[kEiThZ]

Do you really expect to build HSR from Toronto to Montreal for the same price as a new LRT line?

Yes. Because not tunneling and going through the Boonies is cheap. I would expect that decade old Ecotrain estimate to be closer to be in $12-15B in 2020 dollars. So not the "same as a new LRT line". More like the same cost as all of RER.

Looking back to your claim that 2 hours to Ottawa (and 3 to Montreal) was on the low end of HSR - VIA estimated in the 1984 study that Montreal to Toronto with a 300 km/hr service the Ottawa to Toronto travel time was over 2 hours!

Routing matters. Those old studies used a Lakeshore routing. Longer distance. Follow the HFR corridor and skip Kingston. Now the distance is ~400 km. So getting that trip under 2 hrs shouldn't be that hard for an actual high speed system.

When I said low end of HSR I was replying to your statement that such performance would be "almost HSR". Nothing almost about it.....

But yes, low end would be something like 250 kph using the European norm where they consider 200 kph on existing lines and 250 kph on new lines the minimum for HSR.

 

[ADRM]

No sign of HSR between Toronto and Montreal for decades to come. At a distance of about 525 km, it's not not quite in the distance that makes trains beat out planes.

As for New York City - that's an 850-km run. That's well beyond where high-speed rail wins. I can't see this happening - ever. Even the more frequently discussed 600 km distance from Montreal to New York City is unlikely.

One possibility would be the 250 km from New York City to Albany. Another is the 200 km from Toronto to London. These are the kind of places we are more likely to see high speed.

I don't see any point in getting rid of a useful airport.

Couple interesting tidbits in here. I flew Porter from TO to NYC about once every 2-3 weeks for about a year -- my door-to-door record was just slightly over 4 hours, and it most often took between 4-5. Did some day trips too.

Frequent business travellers get their frequent routes down to something of a science; I think the attractiveness of HSR to NYC would really vary on how it's executed; it would have to be executed well to actually change the travel patterns, especially given the amount of business travel to and from NYC (and the relative price inelasticity that goes with that).

A few years back, I took HSR from Beijing to Shanghai -- which is 1,200+ km -- which was lovely, and I'm also recalling taking the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Kyoto -- only about 200km further than TO to NYC -- which is a very frequently-made business day trip. Took two hours and a train left every 2 mins; just incredible.

 

[nfitz]

I would expect that decade old Ecotrain estimate to be closer to be in $12-15B in 2020 dollars. So not the "same as a new LRT line". More like the same cost as all of RER.

It was $11 billion in 2009 dollars according to your link. Typically one uses 4% inflation for construction pricing - that alone gets it to $18 billion in 2021 dollars. And as they've found in the UK, the initial pricing estimates were crap. I'm not sure this even included rolling stock.

Routing matters. Those old studies used a Lakeshore routing. Longer distance. Follow the HFR corridor and skip Kingston. Now the distance is ~400 km. So getting that trip under 2 hrs shouldn't be that hard for an actual high speed system

However the terrrain gets more difficult as you move away from the lake. You'll start needing tunnels for that kind of speed - that corridor is hard to handle at even 200 km/hr.

... and I'm also recalling taking the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Kyoto -- only about 200km further than TO to NYC -- which is a very frequently-made business day trip. Took two hours and a train left every 2 mins; just incredible.

Hang on ... Tokyo to Kyoto is about 460 km - similar to Toronto to Ottawa.

Toronto to New York City is about 850 km (assuming one connects into the proposed New York to Albany high-speed train). Hard to imagine that ever being much better than 4 hours, without building massive tunnel under the lake and the Pennsylvania mountains!

 

[ADRM]

Hang on ... Tokyo to Kyoto is about 460 km - similar to Toronto to Ottawa.

Ah yep, meant 200km less (not further), measured in straight line distance rather than adhering to existing corridors.

 

[kEiThZ]

It was $11 billion in 2009 dollars according to your link. Typically one uses 4% inflation for construction pricing - that alone gets it to $18 billion in 2021 dollars. And as they've found in the UK, the initial pricing estimates were crap. I'm not sure this even included rolling stock.

Even then. A far cry from your $50B claim. Also, rolling stock isn't that expensive. Maybe $1B at worst.

As for HS2, here's what makes it uniquely expensive:

HS2: Six reasons why the rail route is so expensive

The controversial high-speed rail project could potentially cost as much as £106bn.

www.bbc.co.uk

There are other developed countries where HSR has been built for cheaper.

However the terrrain gets more difficult as you move away from the lake. You'll start needing tunnels for that kind of speed - that corridor is hard to handle at even 200 km/hr.

Difficult terrain doesn't automatically mean tunneling. Though it does mean more expensive construction. But that probably still works out cheaper than dealing with both a longer route and more expensive real estate along the Lakeshore.

 

[nfitz]

Even then. A far cry from your $50B claim.

I thought I claimed $100 billion.

If the predicted cost of the 540-km HS2 went in 10 years, from only $54 to $62 billion to $295 billion, I have a hard time seeing how the similarly-lengthed Toronto-Montreal HSR isn't also going to see significant escalation.

 

[kEiThZ]

I thought I claimed $100 billion.

If the predicted cost of the 540-km HS2 went, in only 10 years, from only $54 to $62 billion to $295 billion, I have a hard time seeing how the similarly-lengthed Toronto-Montreal HSR isn't also going to see significant escalation.

If your only basis of reference is HS2, you will indeed have a hard time understanding how any other high speed rail project could be cheaper.

 

[nfitz]

If your only basis of reference is HS2, you will indeed have a hard time understanding how any other high speed rail project could be cheaper.

I've been insisting it will be cheaper. $295 billion over there, could be $100 billion here. Perhaps even $50 billion if they single track it and cut corners like the VIA 1984 proposal . But not the $12-15 billion for 300 km/hr service that you suggest!

Billy Bishop will surely be serving us for decades to come!

 

[afransen]

Tunnels are kind of a last resort for HSR. More likely to see embankments, trenches or viaducts.

 

[kEiThZ]

But not the $12-15 billion for 300 km/hr service that you suggest!

Based entirely from your worldview that all HSR will be as expensive as HS2......

Billy Bishop will surely be serving us for decades to come!

No disagreements there. You'll see that I have long maintained that there's no justification to shut down YTZ without substantial development of alternatives. Including high speed rail to Ottawa and Montreal, and the Pearson Transit Hub (vastly improving accessibility for most in the region). But if those things come to pass, nobody is really going to miss Billy Bishop very much.

 

[nfitz]

Based entirely from your worldview that all HSR will be as expensive as HS2......

I keep saying, I don't think it will cost close to $300 billion. I think it will be a lot less than the $300 billion that HS2 is costing, but a lot more than the $12 billion that you think is the lower end of the cost.

 

[kEiThZ]

I keep saying, I don't think it will cost close to $300 billion. I think it will be a lot less than the $300 billion that HS2 is costing, but a lot more than the $12 billion that you think is the lower end of the cost.

It's probably more than $12B. But won't be anywhere close to the $100M/km that you think it would cost. I think $30-50M/km is far more likely.