kEiThZ
Superstar
Sometimes I wish they'd just update the VIA Fast proposal and push that through by splitting it with the provinces. That would do far more to achieve something in my lifetime.
|
|
|
- Thread starter isittimetomoveyet
- Start date
SlickFranky
Active Member
Some news of the most recent HSR study is finally trickling out...
High-speed train to Windsor won’t pay, says new study
October 14, 2011
Tess Kalinowski
High-speed rail on the Quebec City-to-Windsor corridor could raise between $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion a year once it’s fully operational. But the Windsor end of the line probably isn’t feasible, according to the latest findings in a long series of studies.
The report, obtained by The Star, was jointly commissioned to a consulting consortium called EcoTrain in February 2009 by the Ontario, Quebec and federal governments for about $3.5 million. Designed as an update on a 1995 study, it was issued on Jan. 14 and has yet to be publicly released.
“To date, the three governments have been reviewing the results of the report. Now that we have completed our review, Ontario, Quebec and Canada will identify mutually agreeable next steps which should include a report release date,” a spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation told The Star in an email Friday.
But one Toronto railroad expert says the governments are burying the report because of the prohibitive cost of building the rail line and the suggestion that smaller cities southwest of Toronto wouldn’t be viable stops.
Greg Gormick, a rail consultant and writer, says that cutting train service — VIA would be wiped out by a high-speed train — to small cities such as London amounts to “political dynamite.”
Only the Quebec City-to-Toronto corridor would be viable “from the point of view of the Canadian economy as a whole,” says the report.
This is the latest in a series of 17 such documents dating back to 1979, according to Gormick.
“It is further proof the time for study is over. We don’t need studies, we need plans. In 32 years, the only thing we’ve got to show is what VIA’s doing,” he said.
High-speed rail, which has been adopted throughout Europe and Asia, makes sense for Quebec and Ontario as the expense and time for regional flights continues to grow.
“Going ahead with an oil-based technology — cars — doesn’t make sense,” said Gormick.
According to the report, it would take about 15 years to build a railway between Quebec City and Toronto and cost between $19 billion and $21 billion. By 2031, the service could attract about 11 million passengers annually.
About 60 per cent of those riders would be people who otherwise drive and 24 per cent would be VIA and regional bus customers. The report contains a disclaimer saying its estimates on the impact on air travel would require further study because its airfare forecasts were wrong.
The trains that would travel at speeds of between 200 and 300 km/h, would offer considerable time savings, says the report. A VIA trip from Toronto to Montreal, which takes about five hours, could be shaved in half to between 3 ½ and 2 ½ hours. A trip from Toronto to Windsor, now four hours long, could be as short as 1 ½ hours.
The report also suggests there would be no need to connect downtown Toronto to the airport because of the Union Station-to-Pearson shuttle that Metrolinx is building and is set to open in 2015.
In other countries, high-speed rail has proved highly competitive against regional flyers, said Gormick.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Quebec Premier Jean Charest warned Canada should be investing in high-speed rail to keep pace with the U.S., which has plans to build more than a dozen corridors, including Boston to Montreal and New York to Buffalo.
The provincial politicians noted that Ottawa was discouraged by the high cost of building such a railway.
Hopefully us regular people get to see the full report soon. You know, the report that we payed for...
High-speed train to Windsor won’t pay, says new study
October 14, 2011
Tess Kalinowski
High-speed rail on the Quebec City-to-Windsor corridor could raise between $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion a year once it’s fully operational. But the Windsor end of the line probably isn’t feasible, according to the latest findings in a long series of studies.
The report, obtained by The Star, was jointly commissioned to a consulting consortium called EcoTrain in February 2009 by the Ontario, Quebec and federal governments for about $3.5 million. Designed as an update on a 1995 study, it was issued on Jan. 14 and has yet to be publicly released.
“To date, the three governments have been reviewing the results of the report. Now that we have completed our review, Ontario, Quebec and Canada will identify mutually agreeable next steps which should include a report release date,” a spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation told The Star in an email Friday.
But one Toronto railroad expert says the governments are burying the report because of the prohibitive cost of building the rail line and the suggestion that smaller cities southwest of Toronto wouldn’t be viable stops.
Greg Gormick, a rail consultant and writer, says that cutting train service — VIA would be wiped out by a high-speed train — to small cities such as London amounts to “political dynamite.”
Only the Quebec City-to-Toronto corridor would be viable “from the point of view of the Canadian economy as a whole,” says the report.
This is the latest in a series of 17 such documents dating back to 1979, according to Gormick.
“It is further proof the time for study is over. We don’t need studies, we need plans. In 32 years, the only thing we’ve got to show is what VIA’s doing,” he said.
High-speed rail, which has been adopted throughout Europe and Asia, makes sense for Quebec and Ontario as the expense and time for regional flights continues to grow.
“Going ahead with an oil-based technology — cars — doesn’t make sense,” said Gormick.
According to the report, it would take about 15 years to build a railway between Quebec City and Toronto and cost between $19 billion and $21 billion. By 2031, the service could attract about 11 million passengers annually.
About 60 per cent of those riders would be people who otherwise drive and 24 per cent would be VIA and regional bus customers. The report contains a disclaimer saying its estimates on the impact on air travel would require further study because its airfare forecasts were wrong.
The trains that would travel at speeds of between 200 and 300 km/h, would offer considerable time savings, says the report. A VIA trip from Toronto to Montreal, which takes about five hours, could be shaved in half to between 3 ½ and 2 ½ hours. A trip from Toronto to Windsor, now four hours long, could be as short as 1 ½ hours.
The report also suggests there would be no need to connect downtown Toronto to the airport because of the Union Station-to-Pearson shuttle that Metrolinx is building and is set to open in 2015.
In other countries, high-speed rail has proved highly competitive against regional flyers, said Gormick.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Quebec Premier Jean Charest warned Canada should be investing in high-speed rail to keep pace with the U.S., which has plans to build more than a dozen corridors, including Boston to Montreal and New York to Buffalo.
The provincial politicians noted that Ottawa was discouraged by the high cost of building such a railway.
Hopefully us regular people get to see the full report soon. You know, the report that we payed for...
Marko
Active Member
Extending to Windsor may be more ideal than practical, but I would think that extending from Toronto towards at least Hamilton makes more sense. This stretch has to be at least as feasible as the Montreal to Quebec City leg, otherwise Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal is all that is really necessary. If the NYC to Buffalo line ever gets built, then perhaps connecting to that makes sense at some point later on.
The Chinese have apparently licensed the Maglev technology from Siemens and are said to be able to produce for a whole lot less cost. Maybe if they prove this out with a line or two of their own, it can be considered for bids if the TO-QC line ever does actually become a reality.
I know it works, but I've never been particularly comfortable with the idea of high speed rail with at-grade crossings. A separate, elevated track means it will move unimpeded or impede other transportation, is easier to route, and would be safer all around. I'm leaving for China again this week and riding the Maglev is always a treat.
The Chinese have apparently licensed the Maglev technology from Siemens and are said to be able to produce for a whole lot less cost. Maybe if they prove this out with a line or two of their own, it can be considered for bids if the TO-QC line ever does actually become a reality.
I know it works, but I've never been particularly comfortable with the idea of high speed rail with at-grade crossings. A separate, elevated track means it will move unimpeded or impede other transportation, is easier to route, and would be safer all around. I'm leaving for China again this week and riding the Maglev is always a treat.
Last edited:
MisterF
Senior Member
^I'm not aware of any proper high speed line that has at grade crossings. Anything much faster than VIA would need grade separation AFAIK.
Looking forward to the full report coming out. If Windsor is treated as the end of the line I'm not really surprised that it's not considered feasible. That's a lot of track to build for a metro of less than 350,000. To make Windsor work you'd have to include Detroit and link to the Midwest HSR proposal.
Looking forward to the full report coming out. If Windsor is treated as the end of the line I'm not really surprised that it's not considered feasible. That's a lot of track to build for a metro of less than 350,000. To make Windsor work you'd have to include Detroit and link to the Midwest HSR proposal.
Hamilton would definitely work and Niagara probably would too, especially if the line connects to Buffalo. Even the painfully slow GO line to Niagara Falls gets 2-3 times more ridership than they were expecting. I don't think the study looked at that corridor though. I'm surprised that going as far as London wasn't considered feasible. That part of Southern Ontario is the most densely populated part of Canada, even though it consists of a bunch of smallish cities and no big ones. Maybe seriously upgraded conventional rail is a better option.
Hopefully they'd have the HSR trains go directly to Pearson for a seamless connection instead of making people transfer at Union. It's not like it would cost anything - that line is being electrified eventually anyway. The HSR trains could even replace the diesel Metrolinx trains altogether.
Interesting. Something tells me they underestimated the air travel impacts.
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
So it isn't even close to profitable?
$1.2B in revenue subtract unknown operating expenses and you get 50 years to pay off the capital investment?
I have no problem with government taking a hit on something like this but with a 15 year build period we would need buyin from all sides of the spectrum or risk it being cancelled pretty early in the process to save $10B ($9B having been disappeared).
jwill
Active Member
The infrastructure may not extend to Windsor, Hamilton, etc. but the trains surely can run that far on the existing tracks (albeit at lower speeds). Thats the point of HSR. Much of the track in SW Ontario is dead straight, and would require only some grade separations and maintenance work to support a decent service.
MisterF
Senior Member
The 1995 study anticipated an operating ratio (expenses as a percentage of revenue) of 40% at first, and 29% by 2025. For the updated study let's say that ratio is 35% - at $1.2 billion in revenue that works out to $780 million in profit. If that's year one and profits go up from there, it would probably take 20-25 years to pay for the capital costs.
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Agreed. Apart from the slow part between Hamilton and London, there is little need for new infrastructure. Upgrading existing infrastructure through double tracking (and quad-track for the Oakville sub), electrification and grade separation could get us some pretty kick-ass results. The line between Windsor and London is almost dead straight anyway, so with grade separation, there would be little limiting trains' top speed. If the Acela can get up to 150mph on a 30km straight stretch, we should be able to get to 186mph on a 90km straight stretch. Or why not 190mph? With China out of the game, that would give us the second fastest fastest train service in the world, narrowly beating out South Korea (189.5mph)
We can go a long way simply with infrastructure upgrades. For instance, why does VIA average only 40km/h between London and St. Mary's even though the line is dead straight?
I'm not convinced that HSR is the best option for southern Ontario. Don't get me wrong, I think faster is better and there is some opportunity for 300km/h speeds, such as between Windsor and London. However, HSR focuses on longer-distance travel, whereas travel in southwestern Ontario tends to be relatively short town-to-town trips. Skipping cities such as Chatham, Guelph or Brampton might do well for average speed, but it won't do much for maximizing demand. I think we should be aiming for regional service with 300km/h segments, rather than HSR with some local stops.
Another thought: A Pearson Airport station would generate tons of demand, especially on the Toronto-Kitchener-London corridor. Was that included in the study?
Last edited:
k10ery
Senior Member
I somehow doubt that many people would be willing to pay $200 for a 1-way trip from Toronto to Montreal, even if it is faster than existing train/bus/car. HSR trains tend to be longer than the current VIA trains, correct? More people per train = more revenue per train. I would hope that prices would remain around the same as what they are today (well, today's prices + appropriate inflation).
k10ery
Senior Member
Well $200 is what Acela and Eurostar e.g. would typically charge for a similar 3 hour journey. But you're right. Air fares are pretty low now thanks to Porter, so it might be hard to make HSR work in the Toronto-Montreal corridor.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Hard to say. A Eurostar ticket from London to Paris (350km straight line, 2:25h trip) costs about $110CAD, and an Acela ticket between New York and Boston (350km straight line, 3:45h trip) costs $100USD. For reference, Toronto-Montreal is 500km, Toronto-Ottawa is 350km and Ottawa-Montreal is 170km. The Eurostar would be more expensive than VIA HSR because has to pay off the costs of extreme engineering projects such as HS1 and the Channel Tunnel, while the Acela is priced higher as a premium service to complement the core Northeast Regional. I expect that there are a fair number of people who take NR between Acela stops to save some money. That would not be desirable for us when we are building new high-capacity infrastructure to serve that demand.
I assume that the optimal price range would be a tiny bit above a typical airfare. Given the advantages of HSR vs the plane (faster end-to-end, less hassle, more reliable, safer, more comfortable, more environmentally friendly), the HSR could probably put airlines out of business in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal markets. IIRC from the previous report on HSR, that was a reasonable number of people, and demand will increase due to urban growth, intensification around rail stations due to improved service, and culture changes (stop the plane being default intercity choice).
If the price is too high, you lose much of the market to modes such as cars and buses. Without initial subsidization, I don't know whether the HSR will make it to profitability. Trains' main economic advantage is that they can carry huge numbers of people at low cost per passenger. Running infrequent or short trains loses this advantage, and the cost per passenger would be so high that the service would never take off.
PS.
This doesn't help my case, but I notice that the Acela's average velocity is only 93km/h, slower than VIA 66.
Last edited:
k10ery
Senior Member
Nowadays for short haul flights, about 50% of the air fare is taxes. This changes the economics of HSR a lot compared to what you said.
Normally it makes sense for government to build infrastructure if it can compete with the private sector and still cover costs. But in this case if HSR takes passengers away from the airlines, then government is cannibalizing its own tax revenue just as much as airline profits.
So, the right cost-benefit rule in this case is, could they charge the *pre-tax* airfare plus a little extra and still cover costs? The answer to that must be no, I think. (It would be interesting to see if the study makes this point. If not, take away the consultant's economics degree.)
k10ery
Senior Member
For the record, I checked online this morning and for 2-week advance purchase, NY-DC was USD190 on Acela Express, and London-Paris was GBP115 on Eurostar. If your fares are right, I think I need to find myself a better travel agent!
Admiral Beez
Superstar
No thanks. I don't think Canada has China's appetite for accepting train crashes.