[Bordercollie]

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.



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).



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.



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.

View attachment 416790

Flying is only if you are traveling from Toronto to Ottawa Montreal. It's no use to travel from. Oshawa to Smith Falls for example.

The train serves more than just Toronto to Montreal/Ottawa.

 

[crs1026]

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).

A friend had told me quite the reverse.... they had tried to book a spur-of-the-moment trip to NYC from Massachusetts and were horrified by the Amtrak "spot market" yield management fare. That observation, and the above video and discussion sent me running to see what the truth was at this exact moment in time....if I had to leave now, what would the comparison look like?

Obviously, this is a random comparison that may change greatly by time of day..... and especially if advance booking is feasible. make of it what you like.

One has to assume that any Canadian project would implement some sort of demand/yield management model. But I would observe that both airlines and rail will try to gather both the must-leave-today market and the book-ahead-to-get-lowest fare segments. The comparisons may be all over the map depending on how that works out.

With respect to subsidies to airlines... pardon my lack of knowledge.... while the major airports have been set up to be freestanding financially, how much accumulated debt was written off when that was done? Is Ottawa sitting on a pile of past airport construction debt that they have to amortize? While VIA has had capital infusions over its lifetime, I have to think that the subsidy picture might be different if that continued debt servicing were included in the picture.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

Flying is only if you are traveling from Toronto to Ottawa Montreal. It's no use to travel from. Oshawa to Smith Falls for example.

The train serves more than just Toronto to Montreal/Ottawa.

HSR won't stop at the small stations en route as that would slow down the train too much. It might stop at a suburban station as it leaves the city (like Oshawa), but it will then be express until the next major city. It is the regional trains that will serve those smaller stations.

 

[roger1818]

A friend had told me quite the reverse.... they had tried to book a spur-of-the-moment trip to NYC from Massachusetts and were horrified by the Amtrak "spot market" yield management fare. That observation, and the above video and discussion sent me running to see what the truth was at this exact moment in time....if I had to leave now, what would the comparison look like?View attachment 416806View attachment 416807 Obviously, this is a random comparison that may change greatly by time of day..... and especially if advance booking is feasible. make of it what you like.

One has to assume that any Canadian project would implement some sort of demand/yield management model. But I would observe that both airlines and rail will try to gather both the must-leave-today market and the book-ahead-to-get-lowest fare segments. The comparisons may be all over the map depending on how that works out.

Last minute fares are dependant on demand and can certainly be all over the place. That is when it is difficult to compete with the cost of driving (assuming yow own a car and don't need to rent one).

With respect to subsidies to airlines... pardon my lack of knowledge.... while the major airports have been set up to be freestanding financially, how much accumulated debt was written off when that was done? Is Ottawa sitting on a pile of past airport construction debt that they have to amortize? While VIA has had capital infusions over its lifetime, I have to think that the subsidy picture might be different if that continued debt servicing were included in the picture.

- Paul

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that the airlines were subsidized. I was trying to say that HSR would likely need to be subsidized and the airlines would oppose such a subsidy if it directly competed with their offerings in both time and price.

 

[MisterF]

High speed rail tends to make a profit when it's done right. It's conventional speed rail and highways that widely need to be subsidized.

 

[nfitz]

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.

They can't - unless they are given a much bigger subsidy per ride than the government is currently paying. And that's why I expect this plan won't happen - because I doubt that the federal government is willing to ante up that kind of money for operations.

Which is why regulatory improvements and capital expenditures of the existing route, with no extra subsidy, is the path they should be taking.

To seriously challenge airlines, at least between Montreal and Toronto, they need closer to 3-hour journey times - rather than 4 hours that can be achieved now (with some regulatory changes).

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

Does that include all taxes and fees?

In any event, my point was that, our airfares are high by global standards. So charging close to that for any rail service would kill the business case. I'm not even sure a Maglev service would make that work.

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.

I've never suggested HSR is essential. My usual argument on here is to build HFR in a manner that is upgradeable so that investments can be made to boost speeds concomitant with demand and capital availability.

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.

As @Urban Sky has pointed out before there is a step change in cost above 177/201kph, wherever full grade separation is required. So it essentially it is a constrained optimization problem. Build in such way that future upgrades possible. But stay below the threshold where substantial grade separation is needed (to avoid significant cost escalation).

I've long argued they need to set target travel times and engineer a solution towards that and let the cost fall out from there. For example, 4.5 hrs from Union to Gare Centrale via Tremblay, would beat driving and be marginally competitive with flying, for a capital cost that can price tickets very reasonably.

 

[kEiThZ]

To seriously challenge airlines, at least between Montreal and Toronto, they need closer to 3-hour journey times - rather than 4 hours that can be achieved now (with some regulatory changes).

They might not be able to challenge the airlines on Toronto-Montreal. But an HFR running through Ottawa certainly can challenge the airlines on Toronto-Ottawa and the few puddle jumpers on Ottawa-Montreal. Though, admittedly some of these flights might just be retained to feed the long haul network. Cutting demand in Toronto-Ottawa isn't actually a small matter. There's a ton of flights between Porter, Air Canada and WestJet from the Island and Pearson to Ottawa. If Union-Tremblay is anywhere under 3.5 hrs, Porter will definitely suffer.

 

[Bordercollie]

Does that include all taxes and fees?

In any event, my point was that, our airfares are high by global standards. So charging close to that for any rail service would kill the business case. I'm not even sure a Maglev service would make that work.



I've never suggested HSR is essential. My usual argument on here is to build HFR in a manner that is upgradeable so that investments can be made to boost speeds concomitant with demand and capital availability.



As @Urban Sky has pointed out before there is a step change in cost above 177/201kph, wherever full grade separation is required. So it essentially it is a constrained optimization problem. Build in such way that future upgrades possible. But stay below the threshold where substantial grade separation is needed (to avoid significant cost escalation).

I've long argued they need to set target travel times and engineer a solution towards that and let the cost fall out from there. For example, 4.5 hrs from Union to Gare Centrale via Tremblay, would beat driving and be marginally competitive with flying, for a capital cost that can price tickets very reasonably.

Sustained 100MPH running without freight delays is so much better than what we have now.

 

[Urban Sky]

Sustained 100MPH running without freight delays is so much better than what we have now.

Amem.

If we now could just forget that Montreal-Toronto ever was (barely) possible at 3h59…

 

[kEiThZ]

I find rail advocates will often vastly overestimate how long flying takes. Especially for frequent travelers who are familiar with the airport, at least for their regular trips. On the flip side, the cost of flying and willingness to switch are vastly underestimated. I don't think you need a 3 hr downtown to downtown rail trip to replace a 3 hr downtown to downtown air trip. Doesn't need to be a 1:1 replacement. Demand for a 3.5 hr service would still be substantial. And probably still be decent till at least 4 hrs. Fares would be a major driver of demand past 3.5 hrs. It's not about travel time at that point.

 

[Bordercollie]

I find rail advocates will often vastly overestimate how long flying takes. Especially for frequent travelers who are familiar with the airport, at least for their regular trips. On the flip side, the cost of flying and willingness to switch are vastly underestimated. I don't think you need a 3 hr downtown to downtown rail trip to replace a 3 hr downtown to downtown air trip. Doesn't need to be a 1:1 replacement. Demand for a 3.5 hr service would still be substantial. And probably still be decent till at least 4 hrs. Fares would be a major driver of demand past 3.5 hrs. It's not about travel time at that point.

I think it needs to be competitive with driving. If anyone knows traffic on the 401 between Toronto and Montreal/Ottawa just getting out of downtown can take an hour and and then to get to Oshawa, through Kingston. Assuming that there is no construction or accidents on the way.

It's hard to predict how long it will take.

 

[nfitz]

If we now could just forget that Montreal-Toronto ever was (barely) possible at 3h59…

Forget the truth? It even arrived early on occasion . Sure, late too ... but 4:10 is far better than before.

The only reason to forget it, is to cover up political promises that it will be faster with "HFR".

It could be run today with changes to the regulatory environment - more frequently than it was run historically!

I think it needs to be competitive with driving. If anyone knows traffic on the 401 between Toronto and Montreal/Ottawa just getting out of downtown can take an hour and and then to get to Oshawa, through Kingston. Assuming that there is no construction or accidents on the way.

True. Though the one thing that rail always suffers from is the last mile solution. I frequently drive from Toronto to near Joliette. Sure, rail to Montreal works well. Getting to Joliette is more of a challenge, requiring metros and buses. And then how does one get around when one gets there?

The cost of driving is less than a car rental. The ease of car rentals too isn't there. The one in Union station is gone. I think there's still one at Central Station. But what about other stops ... it's take a taxi from places like Kingston - which doesn't even have decent transit service (do you still have to hike through the swamp to Highway 2?).

 

[LemonCondo]

I really really really hope VIA builds HFR right in the first place so that future upgrades won't cost as much as the original project in the first place (aka: won't happen). Decent geometry, electrification... start building something good so that when I am old I might be able to take a world class train in this country.

 

[nfitz]

I really really really hope VIA builds HFR right in the first place so that future upgrades won't cost as much as the original project in the first place (aka: won't happen). Decent geometry, electrification... start building something good so that when I am old I might be able to take a world class train in this country.

I think we can guarantee that's not on the table. I don't mean to be facetious, but I don't think that the budget is there to do anything more than use the existing alignments, with the most simple of changes.

In Toronto we now know that they've sacrificed a very good, straight, dedicated alignment up the Don Valley in favour of running between every 15-minute GO Trains on the Stouffville line, and building a new curve just north of Agincourt station to the CP line - presumably grade separated. I guess that saves them the cost of upgrading the viaduct over the Don, and a grade separation with the CP mainline. But now they have to share with slow GO trains running every 15-minutes off-peak? And I'm only assuming they are going to grade-separate the curve. On the other hand it does create the opportunity for VIA/TTC/GO transfers at various subway stations, like Agincourt, Kennedy, and even Danforth. (I'd think East Harbour is too close to Union to be considered).

In Montreal they are going to still have to suffer that long detour from St. Henri into Central Station - twice if they are going all the way to Central station!

Though these two pieces are just a small portion of the line, it's going to be tough to do either Dorval to Central or Union to Agincourt in under 20 minutes. So there's 40 minutes of the 4-hour travel time gone already - about 17%!