PL1
Active Member
*Chef's kiss*
|
|
|
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
guavadelic
Active Member
I'm glad previous generations were ambitious and forward-thinking enough to build things like the St. Lawrence Seaway that contribute a good chunk to our GDP. We could never build something like that nowadays.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
TVO had a really well-informed panel about the HFR-morphed-into-HSR project:
My two only criticisms would be directed Dr. Haider:
- Fully-allocated costs (“$60 per passenger subsidy on the Corridor”) are meaningless when making decisions about expanding service. VIA’s operating subsidy has *decreased* 10% while its train mileage increased by 10% between 2014 and 2018, which demonstrates that marginal revenues exceed marginal revenues.
- The stop in Ottawa has a negligible negative travel time impact on passengers, but a massively positive impact on the viability of Toronto-Montreal Express trains, as he is massively underestimating the importance of the demand on the TO and OM sides of the TOM triangle.
chrisw
Active Member
Hahaha, 'Interesting' to hear the points from Dr. Haider. I guess they needed a hater for the project. 
I knew you'd get triggered when he mentioned "Well, first thing is, why am I being taken to Ottawa if I want to go to Montreal" as if that invalidates the proposal.
He also highlights the importance of investments in Regional Rail instead. Ontario is already investing a lot with Go Expansion, federal government will continue to fund public transit infrastructure. I think it also makes sense to have a 25 year plan for high speed intercity rail. Best time to start is now.
He also quotes the 2 million VIA Rail ridership figures between Ottawa and Toronto. Also, that HSR will have little impact on car mode share. Even a 3x ridership increase will still be a small percentage.
I knew you'd get triggered when he mentioned "Well, first thing is, why am I being taken to Ottawa if I want to go to Montreal" as if that invalidates the proposal.
He also highlights the importance of investments in Regional Rail instead. Ontario is already investing a lot with Go Expansion, federal government will continue to fund public transit infrastructure. I think it also makes sense to have a 25 year plan for high speed intercity rail. Best time to start is now.
He also quotes the 2 million VIA Rail ridership figures between Ottawa and Toronto. Also, that HSR will have little impact on car mode share. Even a 3x ridership increase will still be a small percentage.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
People who prefer a HFR over an HSR solution are not “haters”, but people concerned about how expensive it would be and how long it would take until HSR would have any significant impact on how passengers travel in the Corridor. California is still in the process of building itself a monument about the perils of over-ambition and impatience - and we would be better of if we learnt their lesson rather than blindly replicating it…Hahaha, 'Interesting' to hear the points from Dr. Haider. I guess they needed a hater for the project.
Northern Light
Superstar
In listening to Dr. Haider, I didn't not come away with the impression of his being pro-HFR; I came away with the impression of someone with very little interest in investing in inter-city rail at all.
He clearly identified a preference for investing in regional rail.
I also think he very clearly understated the potential ridership of both HFR and HSR; On the latter, it may well be the price point may not make it the most attractive investment; but if you're underselling the potential achievement irrespective of the financial return (or loss), I'm not sure that I feel his was a fair, impartial or well considered position.
His repeated statements about cutting Ottawa, which you highlight suggest a poorly informed person on this file. That isn't a knock on Dr. Haider's over-all knowledge or ability, but simply to suggest this particular file is not one on which he came across as well informed.
I'll confess to having a problem with this example. The problem is there are multiple HSR projects all over the world, in developed and developing countries whose costs per km are substantially lower, and whose cost overruns are less substantial relative to budget.
Certainly, the California project has had its problems; and we ought to be mindful of those. But I would argue the problems are not a function of HSR as an idea, but rather the way in which the project has been planned (including its route), and Buy America requirements which precluded SNCF's involvement, among others.
On top of which, they of course face issues w/earthquake mitigation and multiple, significant Mountain Pass tunnels.
I will concede though that the most recent HSR project I'm aware of in Germany more than doubled its initial cost estimate, and HS2 in the UK is tracking poorly as well.
****
None of that is to definitively state the case for HSR, or suggest the project as proposed to date ought not be subject to tough critiques; it should
I'm not personally convinced on the way this project has evolved, but I remain persuaded of the theoretical virtue, if done well.
I remain of the view, that Ottawa-Montreal should have been a phase 1 project. It has the greatest potential ROI and the easiest to construct alignment. I also remain of the view that Montreal-QC has no real business being part of this project for the foreseeable future.
The Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal segments (potentially, but not necessarily one and the same), strike me as requiring more detailed, and evidence-based discussion as to the costs and trade-offs.
The Canadian Shield route comes with likely lower acquisition costs, and is likely preferable in total track miles to an alternate alignment or alignments.
Alternatively, it poses far more constructability challenges, and serves a smaller population on route with considerably lower secondary regional travel demand.
Last edited:
dowlingm
Senior Member
I agree - but because they managed to increase frequency rather than a quantum leap in speed. The thing most in the way of it really breaking out is figuring out how to push more trains east of Alexandria, either via the CP route or paying CN for improvements at Coteau.
As for Montreal-Quebec, the problem is a QC headquartered crown corp in a province where infrastructure is very much seen as an instrument of political success or failure. Whether previous decisions taken (forestalling Urban Sky here) make these new projects difficult or impractical is deemed a problem for federal tax dollars to solve.
But the low mid-route catchment is the point, isn’t it? Nobody worries that Porter doesn’t land at Peterborough on the way to Ottawa (although clearly HSR will, but Ptbo is significantly bigger than other potential stops). I know I grimaced when the initial announcement mentioned placating central Ontario mayors with a stop near Tweed. To my mind that section is exactly where the line should deviate from the historical route dipping toward Tweed and Sharbot Lake, instead staying just north of Highway 7.
crs1026
Superstar
Dr Haider offered a lot of valid insights, but his whole analysis was based in assumption that the automobile and the airplane will remain the dominant modes of travel, and he overlooked any elastcity in that demand, as well as oerlooking the cost of scaling those modes as population and demand rise.
Also, the discussion seemed to assume that air travellers are rooted in that mode. My own impression is that people are coming to hate flying, and an attractive alternative could dislodge a lot of demand for air travel very quickly
I am skeptical of the argument that "broader" variables should factor in the business case and decision..... it's fine to use these in post-hoc academic study, but any such analyses seldom produce reliable hard predictive measures, and are easily shifted by rhetoric. It's a proven fact, however, that commerce emerges along the most convenient transportation routes (which is why the country first developed along waterways, and only then along roads and rail corridors....and now along air routes). So a certain amount of BIATWC is valid.
- Paul
Also, the discussion seemed to assume that air travellers are rooted in that mode. My own impression is that people are coming to hate flying, and an attractive alternative could dislodge a lot of demand for air travel very quickly
I am skeptical of the argument that "broader" variables should factor in the business case and decision..... it's fine to use these in post-hoc academic study, but any such analyses seldom produce reliable hard predictive measures, and are easily shifted by rhetoric. It's a proven fact, however, that commerce emerges along the most convenient transportation routes (which is why the country first developed along waterways, and only then along roads and rail corridors....and now along air routes). So a certain amount of BIATWC is valid.
- Paul
Northern Light
Superstar
Just for anyone who gets lost in the acronyms...............BIATWC "Build It and They Will Come"
Urban Sky
Senior Member
You might also come across “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) and - my favorite - “BANANA” (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone)…
micheal_can
Senior Member
When was the last time the USA did a transportation better? Maybe the Space Shuttle, but 2 of them went boom. So, using California HSR as the pillar of what we should think HSR will be is not going to go anywhere. The QC-W Corridor badly needs HSR, and it ain't getting cheaper to build.
Contra
Senior Member
Acela has been pretty successful...
guavadelic
Active Member
Related to Air Canada's involvement in one of the bids for VIA HxR:
European airlines have been utilizing this air-rail strategy for some time and Air Canada's recent rail embrace seems like a reaction to this.
For AC's strategy to pay off on this corridor though, would require direct heavy-rail connections at the major airports. I think the Cadence group being selected would significantly increase the chances of a new intermodal Transit Hub at Pearson.
https://www.travelweek.ca/news/air-...al-travel-connections-across-europe-and-asia/
European airlines have been utilizing this air-rail strategy for some time and Air Canada's recent rail embrace seems like a reaction to this.
For AC's strategy to pay off on this corridor though, would require direct heavy-rail connections at the major airports. I think the Cadence group being selected would significantly increase the chances of a new intermodal Transit Hub at Pearson.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
Apart from Peterborough folk, who is it that will be riding HSR to Pearson catch a flight? It's actually the current routes between Kingston and London that would benefit from a stop at the airport. Dorval is another question.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I would assume that YYZ offers more airline choice and direct flights than YUL (let alone: YOW), which could justifyfor Ottawa passengers spending 2 hours more in the train than heading to Dorval. Besides, many international companies have their HQs or offices in close proximity of Pearson Airport…