[sjc]

By this measure it's cheaper to drive to Montreal.

Assuming that your final destination isn't the train station, having a car once you arrive in Montreal is very helpful. On the other hand, if your destination is the Queen Elizabeth hotel, then the train is a good option.

 

[jwill]

These economic comparisons ignore the productivity factor of taking the train. All the time on the train can be productive working time, and time is very valuable to the business types who travel frequently between montreal and toronto. HSR might still take more time than flying, and be more expensive, but it will actually consume less useful time. There's about 30 minutes of wasted time taking HSR, and more like 90 when flying, at best. An extra hour is worth the extra cost to a lot of business travelers. And obviously there are other intangibles like comfort, service, simplicity of buying tickets, etc.

 

[kEiThZ]

These economic comparisons ignore the productivity factor of taking the train. All the time on the train can be productive working time, and time is very valuable to the business types who travel frequently between montreal and toronto. HSR might still take more time than flying, and be more expensive, but it will actually consume less useful time. There's about 30 minutes of wasted time taking HSR, and more like 90 when flying, at best. An extra hour is worth the extra cost to a lot of business travelers. And obviously there are other intangibles like comfort, service, simplicity of buying tickets, etc.

Unfortunately, none of that is enough to compel governments pay $20 billion to build the thing. I think the smart thing to do at this point is to push the VIAFast proposal so that we at least get a reasonable standard of rail service over today.

 

[MisterF]

The full report is posted on highspeedrail.ca. Some highlights:

The corridor would take 14 years to design and build. The recommended route doesn’t go through Mirabel or Pearson. West of Toronto it goes along the lakeshore to Hamilton. Toronto and Montreal would have 2 suburban stations each, Toronto’s would be in the Oshawa and Hamilton areas. The route would largely be next to existing rail corridors. Downtown to downtown travel times would be competitive with flying - Ottawa in 1h50m and Montreal in 2h47m.

The entire corridor would get 11.1 million passengers in 2031 and make $1.3 billion. The Quebec-Toronto part that’s considered viable would generate 80% of the riders and 85% of the revenues. Total cost would be $21 billion ($16 billion for the Toronto-Quebec portion). Annual operating costs for the whole corridor would be $520 million, for an operating profit of $780 million. The Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal section is by far the best performer financially.

60% of ridership would come from people now driving, 27% from VIA Rail, and 10% from air. Buses would gain passengers serving small towns that would lose rail service. Airlines would lose 36% of their passengers.

The wholly public scenario would be more favourable financially because the private sector requires a higher rate of return. The financial analysis includes indirect benefits, the biggest of which is public safety.

Some gripes I have with the report:

-For some reason the trip to Montreal takes half an hour longer than in the previous study. It doesn't look like they planned for express trains, a pretty big oversight.
-The consultants didn’t have the right airfare information. The consultants believe that using the right information would have changed ridership and revenue for the better. Apparently the government didn't want them to update their figures.
-While the previous study said that “substantial ridership” would be generated from people going to airports, the current study completely ignores ridership from airports, connecting flights, and codesharing. It recommends no direct connections to airports. Very shortsighted, imo - serving Pearson would be basically free since the ARL is being built anyway, but instead they're forcing a transfer at Union.
-The study assumes that every grade crossing would be replaced with overpasses and no roads would be closed. That's about 100 unnecessary overpasses on minor roads. Assuming each one costs, say, $10 million, that's a billion bucks right there.
-Modal share would be 9%, pretty low by HSR standards. Airlines were said to lose 36% of their passengers, while in similar corridors around the world airlines have lost a lot more than that.
-Little if any thought given to connections to the proposed US high speed rail system, or even just connections to Detroit and Buffalo. Windsor is treated as an island.

Probably for some of the reasons above, ridership is actually lower than the 1995 study despite some pretty major population growth. Looks like the deck is stacked against HSR right from the get go.

 

[kEiThZ]

I actually think it makes sense in some ways to prefer Hamilton to Pearson. Hamilton would be a bigger draw than Pearson. And as was detailed before, domestic traffic at Pearson is dropping. International traffic at Pearson is rising. Unless the goal is to get Ottawa and Montreal residents to fly through Toronto or to get some Vancouverite to terminate in Toronto and take the train to Montreal this connection does not make sense. The two suburban stations and Union station itself will draw enough passengers away from Pearson. They are more conveniently located for most of the GTA's population than Pearson. Combined with check-in times for airlines, and you can bet most folks will be taking the train anyway.

As for the idea of diverting connecting pax to rail, that was always going to be flaky anyway. You might get some of these (if they are conveniently located near rail stations in Ottawa and Montreal). But for any real impact there would have to be a whole reorder of international flights, away from Ottawa and Montreal, to Pearson. I don't see that happening.

WRT grade-separating every road. It's a study. They have to make some assumptions. I think its reasonable to assume that most communities would be pissed if you shut their roads to run high speed trains through their towns between the big cities that don't even stop there. It's a political reality like it or not. This would come on top of a likely loss of nearby rail services, because let's face it, VIA in its current form isn't going to survive once Corridor rail service is up. I don't buy the whole argument about express and non-express services. Places like Cobourg, Port Hope, Gananoque, Napanee, Trenton and Belleville could all be losing service. After all, these places might not have enough pax to sustain more than one milk run per day. With that in mind, keeping that HSR out of sight and unintrusive as much as possible is probably a good idea.

Overall, I see the conclusion as favouring F200 rather than E300+. I think there might be a case to be made for F200 now and then maybe electrification later. And I still think it's not cost that will kill this thing but politics. No stops between Oshawa and Kingston? There's no way that will hold up.

 

[kEiThZ]

9% modal share does seem low...especially for the revenue they are projecting. If prices really are that low in 2031, I daresay they've underestimated modal share by a factor of 5-10!

 

[kEiThZ]

To me it always looks like the problem is squabbling. $21 billion over 14 years isn't much. Even setting aside federal aversion to such a huge expenditure, the two provinces could easily committ to such a project on their own. We're talking maybe up to $1 billion a year in expenditure at a maximum for each province, at the height of the project. And a lot, lot less (<$100 million each?) in earlier years when design work is being done. However, sadly, Ontario and Quebec don't seem willing to undertake any inter-provincial initiative without federal involvement.

I say the provinces should get the ball rolling and threaten to kill Via rail in the process. When it becomes apparent that VIA could be killed by an HSR (with subsequent knock on effects on the rest of Canada), the feds will quickly get on board. Sadly, I don't think McGuinty and Charest (maybe) are the types of leaders with balls big enough to toss those kind of grenades at the feds.

 

[dunkalunk]

If they are going to put a station at Hamilton and not extend it past there, then why not put it at Hamilton James instead of Aldershot?

 

[kEiThZ]

If they are going to put a station at Hamilton and not extend it past there, then why not put it at Hamilton James instead of Aldershot?

I think that's TBD. This was just a very general study to lay down some economics.

 

[Northern Light]

While I remain supportive of high speed rail.

I think the way in which this study was handled, and the other political realities of the day, suggest a large-scale commitment is unlikely to be forthcoming in the next year or two....

That being the case, I think the onus is on those of us who support a more viable inter-city rail service in the corridor, (more frequent, faster etc.) to push for the projects that will deliver that, along with higher ridership, in and set the stage for an HSR choice a few years from now.

I would suggest that a plan similar to VIA Fast, even the recent investments + what's being done for GO Georgetown, show the way.

Universal grade separation in the Oshawa to Hamilton section of the corridor.

Triple Track the Guildwood area of Scarborough.

Quad-Track Stouffville Jct to Aldershot.

And make similar improvements at the Montreal end of the line.

That's the first $2B of any HSR project; and when done, it would clear the way, along with more powerful locos and higher approved track-speeds, for 200km/ph service, travel times of 3 Hours even from Toronto to Montreal, double the number of runs, (hourly departures all day) and that will help build the case for HSR in the medium term.

 

[kEiThZ]

Northern Light,

Fully concur. I have always said VIA Fast is probably the best way to go. It offers the best bang for the buck and would really help build the case for HSR.

It's also politically supportable and could be completed in a single term by governments, with improvements being passed on as the work is completed in stages.

Also...is the Guildwood area already triple tracked?

 

[Northern Light]

Also...is the Guildwood area already triple tracked?

The station is; but nearby there is still a 2-track section remaining.

The EA for changing that should get underway soon, I think, but I don't recall the exact timeline.

 

[k10ery]

Some gripes I have with the report:
-The consultants didn’t have the right airfare information. The consultants believe that using the right information would have changed ridership and revenue for the better. Apparently the government didn't want them to update their figures.
-While the previous study said that “substantial ridership†would be generated from people going to airports, the current study completely ignores ridership from airports, connecting flights, and codesharing. It recommends no direct connections to airports...
-Modal share would be 9%, pretty low by HSR standards. Airlines were said to lose 36% of their passengers, while in similar corridors around the world airlines have lost a lot more than that.

9% modal share does seem low...especially for the revenue they are projecting. If prices really are that low in 2031, I daresay they've underestimated modal share by a factor of 5-10!

Looking at the report, I believe the revenue estimate is not what they think HSR would charge, but the revenue that HSR would TAKE AWAY from airline and bus companies. That is actually the right thing to calculate for the cost-benefit analysis - what people would save if HSR was built.

This would explain why the revenue estimate is low, especially if they used the pre-tax air fare as the benchmark.

Maybe they do not say this outright, because taking passengers away from private companies is a very politically sensitive thing. This might also explain why the predicted modal share is so low.

 

[reaperexpress]

Many of the current projects from GO and AMT would make HSR more affordable, such as expanding rail capacity and swallowing the big upfront costs of getting the electrification ball rolling. Both agencies are planning to use electrification systems that are compatible with the North American/Japanese HSR standard of 25kv 60Hz AC, so the HSR project would only have to deal with the sections beyond the commuter rail coverage areas.

I expect the cost-benefit ratio for HSR is only going to get better over time.

 

[MisterF]

I actually think it makes sense in some ways to prefer Hamilton to Pearson. Hamilton would be a bigger draw than Pearson. And as was detailed before, domestic traffic at Pearson is dropping. International traffic at Pearson is rising. Unless the goal is to get Ottawa and Montreal residents to fly through Toronto or to get some Vancouverite to terminate in Toronto and take the train to Montreal this connection does not make sense. The two suburban stations and Union station itself will draw enough passengers away from Pearson. They are more conveniently located for most of the GTA's population than Pearson. Combined with check-in times for airlines, and you can bet most folks will be taking the train anyway.

As for the idea of diverting connecting pax to rail, that was always going to be flaky anyway. You might get some of these (if they are conveniently located near rail stations in Ottawa and Montreal). But for any real impact there would have to be a whole reorder of international flights, away from Ottawa and Montreal, to Pearson. I don't see that happening.

People in Ottawa, and to a lesser extent Montreal, already do fly through Pearson. Pearson has far more international flights than either airport. If people can get on a train in Ottawa and be at Pearson in two hours, it'll be a popular option. As far as implementing that I'm not too concerned. The infrastructure is already getting built for the ARL so it would be easy to run HSR trains direct to Pearson with a stop at Union. Same thing with Hamilton, the GO line is being electrified anyway. What concerns me is that despite international experience of integrated transport hubs at airports, and the ease with which it could be implemented at Pearson, the possibility is thoroughly dismissed. That impacts the projected passenger numbers and revenues, and the likelyhood of anything getting built.

WRT grade-separating every road. It's a study. They have to make some assumptions. I think its reasonable to assume that most communities would be pissed if you shut their roads to run high speed trains through their towns between the big cities that don't even stop there. It's a political reality like it or not. This would come on top of a likely loss of nearby rail services, because let's face it, VIA in its current form isn't going to survive once Corridor rail service is up. I don't buy the whole argument about express and non-express services. Places like Cobourg, Port Hope, Gananoque, Napanee, Trenton and Belleville could all be losing service. After all, these places might not have enough pax to sustain more than one milk run per day. With that in mind, keeping that HSR out of sight and unintrusive as much as possible is probably a good idea.

I don't mean closing roads through communities - a train that goes 300 km/h isn't going to go through communities, it's going to go around them. What I mean is unimportant country roads, the kind that routinely gets closed when a new freeway gets built. The previous study assumed 100 of these roads would be closed throughout the corridor, but for some reason the current study assumes a grade separation at every one. 100 overpasses are a huge waste of money for 100 gravel country roads.

9% modal share does seem low...especially for the revenue they are projecting. If prices really are that low in 2031, I daresay they've underestimated modal share by a factor of 5-10!

Yup, definitely underestimated. The fact that predicted ridership is actually lower than it was in 1995 makes me wonder about their methodology. It's almost as if they deliberately lowballed the ridership and highballed the cost.