[crs1026]

Now that the CIB has successfully scope-creeped the initial HFR proposal into one if the usual HSR proposals which arrive every decade or so, just to reliably fail whenever it comes to the question who would possibly pay for its pricetag, “High Frequency Rail” has indeed become a meaningless misnomer…

It may be a misnomer for what the vision has drifted to at the moment, but hold that thought..... the original HFR is a valid "flavour" and might still stand as the benchmark from which the more elaborate incremental ideas are measured.

And at least it deserves its own spot on the shelf of studies, it was a particularly well thought out proposal.... it may go down in history as the proposal that turned the tide in public and bureaucratic sentiment towards actually spending public money towards better passenger service in the Corridor.

- Paul

 

[generalcanada]

Counterpoint, Rebranding doesn't necessarily mean changing the actual plan.

GO RER rebranded to Go expansion because its simpler and makes more sense
Or alternatively rebranding to the bidders winning idea?
Remember even with the winning bidder this month, they still won't decide which one to go with. Thats a full 2 years from now.

 

[Urban Sky]

Counterpoint, Rebranding doesn't necessarily mean changing the actual plan.

Nobody is talking about rebranding as foreshadowing a change in strategy, but to acknowledge that the project has strayed away very far from its original idea…

 

[MisterF]

The name “High Frequency Rail” was chosen by VIA to highlight the entire rationale behind their project: that creating a game changer for intercity rail travel in the Corridor can capitalize on frequent intercity rail services as those operating every half-hour in Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands without having to design and build eyewateringly expensive dedicated HSR infrastructure over the next two decades.

Now that the CIB has successfully scope-creeped the initial HFR proposal into one if the usual HSR proposals which arrive every decade or so, just to reliably fail whenever it comes to the question who would possibly pay for its pricetag, “High Frequency Rail” has indeed become a meaningless misnomer…

Oh I'm fully aware of the rationale for the term "high frequency rail". I'm just saying that I view the name in the same way as "downtown relief line" for example. The finished line was never going to be referred to that way, it was just a working title during the planning phases of the project. And in Via's case, a title whose initial intention isn't really relevant anymore when, as you say, the scope started to creep.

 

[nfitz]

Blue22

 

[micheal_can]

Marin Imbleau, VIA HFR CEO, made an appearance at this week's Toronto Global Forum. He participated in a 'fireside' chat with the host where he outlined the basics of the proposed project. Not much in the way of new info, but continued to emphasize the importance of speed and journey time when it comes to this project. He also revealed that the project name is about to undergo a name change.

Discussion of the project's name change starts around the 4:35min mark.

Lets use a moniker for intercity rail that isn't used around the world so that we can appear to be different, yet not have to hit any benchmark already in place.

The funny part, the term rapid when used in regular mass transit is to describe the fastest way to move though out the area. So,one could argue it is not competing with air travel as that is the fastest within the market.

I'll re-type it in bold to see if I can make it clearer:

By the looks of images of the size of the trainsets, it seems CANADIAN is marketted just fine.

Besides, I doubt any marketting effort could over-ride a directive from the host railway. Maybe they could ignore TC rulings too because, you know, marketting.

... got it....

 

[chrisw]

He talks about a phased approach.

"Let's start with how to do it. Having a vision but having a plan for execution is just way better. So 1,000 km can't be one single project, we need to think about different projects. By doing a network, let's say 4 or 5 different projects, first yoou do it in one project, you maximize the economic benefit of the communities, you deploy the resources, you learn, and then you go to the second project. You apply the lessons learned and ensure you provide economic benefit instead of importing external resources. That's how I think we should be looking at this."

If it takes 5-6 years for approvals, stakeholder engagement, engineering, 6-7 years to get the first project done, maybe 10-12 years as a reasonable estimate for the first phase to complete.

"I know it's a long time, but we need to be patient on the long duration," but we need to be very impatient on the short-term deadline to start doing the development ASAP, don't delay just because it'll take a long time.

Some overall thoughts.

"I really believe it's going to be a significant investment, not an expense. If the cost will only increase, and the need will only increase, now is the time do it. So what young people are saying to our generation, we should have done it before so please make it a reality, do it as fast as possible and make it in a fashion that will really change how people commute for generations to come."

 

[Urban Sky]

I expect the first phase to only entail Montreal-Ottawa with some preliminary preparations for Toronto-Peterborough. Peterborough-Ottawa will be the real test for the next government whether they are serious and the hard truth that Montreal-Quebec City is no longer economically viable won’t get acknowledged until the next half of the century…

 

[micheal_can]

I expect the first phase to only entail Montreal-Ottawa with some preliminary preparations for Toronto-Peterborough. Peterborough-Ottawa will be the real test for the next government whether they are serious and the hard truth that Montreal-Quebec City is no longer economically viable won’t get acknowledged until the next half of the century…

2 for 2 in agreeing with you.
Lets use the Ottawa - Montreal section as a demonstration of the vision. Whether it be the speeds or the frequency, or the rolling stock, or any other number of upgrades, lets see it there. It is a lot easier to sell a big project if the voters see what it will be line.

As far as QC-Mon, maybe they activate the northern route as a regular route. I count 7 QC - M trains each way. (Please correct me if I am reading the schedule wrong.) Adding another 7 trains, but going along the Trois-Rivieres Sub would likely be great for the end to end riders. It would also be good for those along it as it would bring new service along a route and it can then allow the ridership to show the demand for more than this. Maybe 7 along each route is all that is needed for the next few decades.

 

[guavadelic]

I expect the first phase to only entail Montreal-Ottawa with some preliminary preparations for Toronto-Peterborough. Peterborough-Ottawa will be the real test for the next government whether they are serious and the hard truth that Montreal-Quebec City is no longer economically viable won’t get acknowledged until the next half of the century…

When you say Montreal-Quebec is no longer economically viable is this in regards to an HSR segment? Or just any dedicated electrified rail corridor? If its the latter, would be surprising that there wouldnt be enough demand to make a link between Quebec City (with a metro population of 800,000+) and Montreal viable.

 

[Urban Sky]

When you say Montreal-Quebec is no longer economically viable is this in regards to an HSR segment? Or just any dedicated electrified rail corridor? If its the latter, would be surprising that there wouldnt be enough demand to make a link between Quebec City (with a metro population of 800,000+) and Montreal viable.

That statement is in regards to the impossibility to obtain competitive travel times which would justify the expense of finding a fast enough path from Laval to downtown Montreal now that the obvious solution has been violently removed from the heavy rail network…

 

[micheal_can]

That statement is in regards to the impossibility to obtain competitive travel times which would justify the expense of finding a fast enough path from Laval to downtown Montreal now that the obvious solution has been violently removed from the heavy rail network…

If you speak of the Mount Royal Tunnel, if the expectation is to go up to the St Laurent sub, wouldn't it make sense that as part of the funding envelope, a new tunnel would be included?

 

[kaptrice]

If you speak of the Mount Royal Tunnel, if the expectation is to go up to the St Laurent sub, wouldn't it make sense that as part of the funding envelope, a new tunnel would be included?

A new tunnel, say, from the Gare Centrale to the Gare Parc, would be a very expensive undertaking, well over a billion and perhaps into plural billions of dollars. It's hard to justify that for the demand for the ~1 million or so persons of Trois-Rivières and Québec.
Entering from the south side as today adds a mere 15km, but today it is limited by having to traverse the Taschereau yard. If it were possible to proceed at a relatively high speed from Sauvé onward the impact would not be quite as bad. Yes, the capacity is limited from having to turn trains from all directions at the Gare Centrale, but there will not be huge volume on Quebec-Montreal.

New connections would of course be hugely useful for other things. A new Mont-Royal tunnel could be the basis for a sort of Exo RER; the visionary idea of converting the A. Ville-Marie & R. Notre-Dame to rail is also there. The former idea seems extremely unlikely to materialise and the latter carries a chance of null. A higher-speed around-the-mountain route wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. We'll see what the winning consortium proposes.

 

[kaptrice]

Lets use a moniker for intercity rail that isn't used around the world so that we can appear to be different, yet not have to hit any benchmark already in place.

The funny part, the term rapid when used in regular mass transit is to describe the fastest way to move though out the area. So,one could argue it is not competing with air travel as that is the fastest within the market.


... got it....

Don't forget that Metrolinx has also coined their own usage of "rapid rail" in reference to the high-frequency, high-capacity commuter/suburban lines on which the RER project was based. That usage is elaborated on at length in the full business case.
To be honest, I found it a pretty nice idea. In many English-speaking North American circles the common definitions for commuter rail and regional rail clash with those used in many places elsewhere.

 

[nfitz]

That statement is in regards to the impossibility to obtain competitive travel times which would justify the expense of finding a fast enough path from Laval to downtown Montreal now that the obvious solution has been violently removed from the heavy rail network…

It is mind blowing that the (is it CTA or Transport Canada) signed off on the abandonment of that track.