[Frank_Lee]

Meanwhile in Alberta/Dreamland: https://www.masstransitmag.com/alt-...-of-its-ultrahighspeed-transportation-project

I should say that I do think government investment in R&D for new transportation technologies is useful and should be done. But these kinds of proposals invariably detract from practical solutions to transportation problems. The two biggest problems with new transit by orders of magnitude are getting the right of way and controlling construction costs, and somehow that never breaks through to the powers that be or the general public (at least in North America).

 

[reaperexpress]

LOL. The next time someone asks me “Why is it that Canada is so far behind in building better passenger trains?” My answer should be “because Canadian journalists always do such a poor job of writing about it”.

Speaking about rail passenger improvements as a “National Project” is a good example. Province A may have an immediate need and an application that makes sense, but Province B may not.

- Paul

Wait ... Canada has provinces other than Ontario and Québec?

 

[nfitz]

Wait ... Canada has provinces other than Ontario and Québec?

Yeah, they added a few after the first 75 years or so ...

I do wonder how anything other than regional services (Corridor, Calgary-Edmonton, Regina-Saskatoon, Fredricton-Moncton-Halifax (year, I know there's no tracks to Fredricton). Maybe even Vancouver-Kelowna one day with the way their population is growing - though hard to imagine how that would be very fast, given the geography.

 

[Bordercollie]

Yeah, they added a few after the first 75 years or so ...

I do wonder how anything other than regional services (Corridor, Calgary-Edmonton, Regina-Saskatoon, Fredricton-Moncton-Halifax (year, I know there's no tracks to Fredricton). Maybe even Vancouver-Kelowna one day with the way their population is growing - though hard to imagine how that would be very fast, given the geography.

In other countries they have high speed between cities that are close and then not so high speed trains in the rest. And then commuter and intercity trains in-between.

We are missing those layers.

 

[roger1818]

In other countries they have high speed between cities that are close and then not so high speed trains in the rest. And then commuter and intercity trains in-between.

We are missing those layers.

That is what I have been saying for years. While high speed rail gets all the attention, it is only one piece of the puzzle. Conventional speed, intercity trains are the backbone that HSR trains rely on. Without that backbone, it would be difficult for HSR to be successful.

 

[Bordercollie]

That is what I have been saying for years. While high speed rail gets all the attention, it is only one piece of the puzzle. Conventional speed, intercity trains are the backbone that HSR trains rely on. Without that backbone, it would be difficult for HSR to be successful.

You could build a simple station with a lit platform and a kiosk with a small shelter for commuter rail. This could be used for places that don't warrant intercity trains.

You would need to build passing tracks somewhere likely at bigger stations. This is where commuter trains would dwell to allow express trains to pass.

However a bus would be cheaper and more effective. Also bus service between HSR and the Kingston Sub in some places would also help ridership

 

[roger1818]

I stumbled across this video from last November. He lists the Top 10 stations in North America that could be the backbone for High Speed Rail by using a gravity model to generate a gravity score and then multiplies it by a factor that indicates its competitiveness to driving or flying.

He gave Toronto an honorable mention (10:48) as it didn't quite make the top 10, but as he says, it was negatively effected by its CMA not including either Hamilton or Oshawa. Interestingly, if you look at the map at 11:08, both Toronto-Detroit and Toronto-NYC outperform Toronto-Montreal (with scores of 4.9, 3.5 and 2.1 respectively). Granted one of the flaws with a gravity model is it ignores synergy between the city pairs (he alludes to that issue when talking about how Atlanta didn't make the cut (12:03)).

Regardless, it is an interesting watch.

He also did a "High Speed Rail vs. Air vs. Car: Canada Edition! Toronto to Montreal" video in October which assumes there is Toronto-Montreal High Speed Rail. This doesn't attempt to measure demand, but instead is more of a foot race to see which would be fastest.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Something fun. There is a Twitter account dedicated to fake train paint schemes, thought you would all appreciate this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1548668925386190849

 

[lenaitch]

^^ Well done, though.

 

[kEiThZ]

He gave Toronto an honorable mention (10:48) as it didn't quite make the top 10, but as he says, it was negatively effected by its CMA not including either Hamilton or Oshawa. Interestingly, if you look at the map at 11:08, both Toronto-Detroit and Toronto-NYC outperform Toronto-Montreal (with scores of 4.9, 3.5 and 2.1 respectively). Granted one of the flaws with a gravity model is it ignores synergy between the city pairs (he alludes to that issue when talking about how Atlanta didn't make the cut (12:03)).

I like his stuff and I do subscribe to his channel. That said, I am skeptical that the gravity model can cleanly be applied across international borders. For one, as pointed out there, both countries calculate metro area populations differently. Next, there's obviously a lot less friction on domestic travel than international travel. This is most obvious looking at flights. Has Toronto-NYC or Toronto-Detroit ever had more passenger traffic than Toronto-Montreal or even Toronto-Ottawa? Also, geography has an impact here. Diverting around Lake Ontario makes getting to NYC by rail a lot tougher than usual straight line distances between many city pairs.

 

[roger1818]

I like his stuff and I do subscribe to his channel. That said, I am skeptical that the gravity model can cleanly be applied across international borders. For one, as pointed out there, both countries calculate metro area populations differently. Next, there's obviously a lot less friction on domestic travel than international travel. This is most obvious looking at flights. Has Toronto-NYC or Toronto-Detroit ever had more passenger traffic than Toronto-Montreal or even Toronto-Ottawa? Also, geography has an impact here. Diverting around Lake Ontario makes getting to NYC by rail a lot tougher than usual straight line distances between many city pairs.

I do tend to agree. His explanation was that driving and flying will suffer similar issues when crossing the boarder as a train will, but that ignores there is just less demand when you have to cross a boarder. That is where synergy can have an effect. Even provincial/state boarders can have an effect on synergy as there are a lot of reasons people will want to travel within their jurisdiction (medical appointments or government business).

Regarding NYC-Toronto, It wasn't clear but it appears that he did some extra compensation for getting around Lake Ontario and didn't just use average a straight line over the lake with the driving distance.

Better than a gravity model is an actual demand analysis which will tell how many people actually travel between those city pairs, but that is obviously more difficult to do. Regardless, it does put things in perspective when people talk about building HSR in Canada. I would love to see a similar analysis done for Europe, to see how their demographics compare.

 

[kEiThZ]

Another important factor, and I keep harping on this, is cost and weather. It is cheaper to drive or fly in the US. And they don't have it as bad on the roads, as winter driving here. I would argue that Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal could well see demand numbers approaching something like New York-Boston because of these differences.

 

[roger1818]

Another important factor, and I keep harping on this, is cost and weather. It is cheaper to drive or fly in the US. And they don't have it as bad on the roads, as winter driving here. I would argue that Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal could well see demand numbers approaching something like New York-Boston because of these differences.

That is a valid point. I will also add that there is also a common myth that HSR is as cheap as driving while as fast as flying (I know you didn't say HSR, but I thought I would say it anyway). In reality, HSR tends to be only marginally cheaper than flying, so those on a budget may still end up driving if there aren't any other options. In Europe, those on a budget will tend to take conventional intercity trains as they are cheaper. Even in the NE Corridor, the Acela gets all the attention, but there is also frequent and affordable Northeast Regional service.

 

[kEiThZ]

will also add that there is also a common myth that HSR is as cheap as driving while as fast as flying (I know you didn't say HSR, but I thought I would say it anyway). In reality, HSR tends to be only marginally cheaper than flying,...

To a point. This is a function of demand and yield models. They charge those prices because the market will bear it. They also have better regular trains as alternative. And they tend to charge tolls for their highways. We have none of that. Which is why we're probably going to have trains that are cheaper than flying. Acela is cheaper than flying, for example.

Also, Europe is slowly moving towards a kind of hybrid system. Slightly slower service with much lower fares:

New France and Spain low-cost Ouigo train routes announced

SNCF is also starting new slower - but cheaper - pink trains. We look at how French train prices compare to Europe

www.connexionfrance.com

In our case, I don't think HSR is feasible charging close to airfares. Not only are airfares really high in Canada. But also there's no way to make a business case without stealing from driving. So fares close to flying would kill the business case.

 

[roger1818]

To a point. This is a function of demand and yield models. They charge those prices because the market will bear it. They also have better regular trains as alternative. And they tend to charge tolls for their highways. We have none of that. Which is why we're probably going to have trains that are cheaper than flying.

That really depends on how much political will there is to subsidize HSR. The airlines will fight against a subsidized rail service that is both faster and cheaper than their offerings.

Acela is cheaper than flying, for example.

That really depends on your origin-destination pair. According to this NY Times article in 2019 (just before COVID), while the Acela is cheaper than flying for New York City to Washington, for both Boston to New York City and Boston to Washington, flying is cheaper than the Acela (and for the latter, flying is even cheaper than Northeast Regional).

Also, Europe is slowly moving towards a kind of hybrid system. Slightly slower service with much lower fares:

New France and Spain low-cost Ouigo train routes announced

SNCF is also starting new slower - but cheaper - pink trains. We look at how French train prices compare to Europe

www.connexionfrance.com

Certainly it is optimal if you can thread the needle between cost and speed, so that you can they can attract both drivers and flyers.

In our case, I don't think HSR is feasible charging close to airfares. Not only are airfares really high in Canada. But also there's no way to make a business case without stealing from driving. So fares close to flying would kill the business case.

Given that Porter offers flights from Ottawa-Toronto starting at $133 (one way), I am not sure if HSR would easily be able to deeply discount that. I agree that they need to steal from driving, but you don't need HSR to do that. Frequent, reliable, and affordable, rail service that is time competitive to driving (like HFR) will do that quite well. Further increases in speed will increase costs (both NRE and reoccurring), which needs to be covered by either increased ridership or increased fares. Given the small percentage of those flying within the corridor, the potential to increase ridership is small, so most of it will have to come from increased fares, which will deter some of those those who would otherwise drive.