High Speed Train Coming?-split from boosting Canada’s military spending"

[ytz]

I would start Calgary to Edmonton. HSR between those two cities is a no brainer; you should be able to finish work, take a 30 minute ride to Calgary, have dinner, watch the Oilers destroy the Flames, take a 30 minute ride to Edmonton, and go to sleep in your own bed.

The best indicator of demand used in a lot of transport planning is the gravity model. Multiply the catchment population of the stations and divide by the square of the distance between the stations. Add it up for every station pair on a corridor and you get an estimate of demand. This model makes sense because the larger cities are and the closer they are, the more their populations interact.

Do this and you'll quickly find that the best city pair in the country is Ottawa-Montreal. Two large metros that could be commutable if there was high speed rail. The second stretch is probably Toronto-Kitchener-London. Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa after that, especially if it's adding on to Ottawa-Montreal and/or Toronto-Kitchener-London. Calgary-Edmonton probably competes with Montreal-Trois Rivières-Quebec City for 4th place.

Also, Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton in 30 mins for 300 km is impossible. Best case scenario is 1 hr from downtown Calgary to downtown Edmonton with en route stops at Red Deer and both major airports. The biggest beneficiary here would actually be Red Deer which would be 20-25 mins from each major airport and 30-40 mins to each major metro downtown. If this ever announced, I would expect Red Deer's growth to go bonkers.

 

[MilEME09]

Also, Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton in 30 mins for 300 km is impossible. Best case scenario is 1 hr from downtown Calgary to downtown Edmonton with en route stops at Red Deer and both major airports. The biggest beneficiary here would actually be Red Deer which would be 20-25 mins from each major airport and 30-40 mins to each major metro downtown. If this ever announced, I would expect Red Deer's growth to go bonkers.

People being able to live in red deer and work in calgary or edmonton? you bet, especially if the HSR was protected from the elements so winter wouldn't disrupt. There is a huge potential demand for it, especially as part of a larger network to connect Jasper and Banff via traditional rail to the major cities for tourism. there could be added benefits for the CAF as well in time saved in movement via HSR is you dont need to drag all your kit with you.

 

[FSTO]

If they had done MTL to OTT back in the early 70’s…….I wonder where we’d be today.

UAC TurboTrain - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[daftandbarmy]

People who like to compare us to Europe forget (in addition to some geographic and density issues) that they moved to high-speed passenger service from a foundation of reliable high frequency express rail service . The original proposal for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal was for high frequency service on its own trackage; meaning scheduling reliability. That then morphed into HSR in typical Canadian scope creep resulting in a price tag that is eye-watering.

And the road systems of Europe, Germany's autobahns notwithstanding, are right out of the middle ages, literally, so improved rail was a good way to improve transportation reliability for huge populations (and industry) located in dense concentrations at a lower cost and with fewer political hassles.

 

[dapaterson]

Edmonton Calgary first provides evidence of a government that cares about things outside the Quebec City / Windsor corridor.

Never underestimate the value of political goodwill.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Edmonton Calgary first provides evidence of a government that cares about things outside the Quebec City / Windsor corridor.

Never underestimate the value of political goodwill.

There is that.

 

[MilEME09]

Edmonton Calgary first provides evidence of a government that cares about things outside the Quebec City / Windsor corridor.

Never underestimate the value of political goodwill.

Which the AB gov is working on....slowly....feds will likely add 1/3 of the cost, or more but its all going at a snails pace

 

[ytz]

Edmonton Calgary first provides evidence of a government that cares about things outside the Quebec City / Windsor corridor.

Never underestimate the value of political goodwill.

Agree on political value. But that does come with a price. The Corridor from London to Montreal is populated enough that any HSR line would be operationally profitable, even if it can't pay back the capital cost. VIA actually breaks even on these portions of the Corridor today with the mediocre services they offer now. This would not be the case for Calgary-Edmonton. Not initially. And probably not for a decade or more.

Also, building it first? Close to impossible.

Mostly because the background work that has been for Alto in Ontario-Quebec has never been done in Alberta. It's good that the provincial government is finally moving on this. It's the start to actually move to a project that can be bid.

 

[ytz]

There's a lot of discussion in here about how many cars would get taken off. That's not how HSR works.

There's two kinds of travelers:

1) Time sensitive. These are the people who are flying today. And half the time these people aren't even paying their own fare. Work is usually paying. What matters to this group is door-to-door travel times when you include transit time to the airport, pre-boarding time, transit time from the airport, etc. This group may even consider same day roundtrips for a meeting. Most HSR systems elsewhere have grabbed huge marketshare with these groups. In some countries, enough to hurt the national career. See Italy as an example.

2) Fare sensitive. This is the group that drives. They are looking at total cost. And that calculation even looks at the cost of a rental on the other side. Highly unlikely this group will take HSR. They won't even take a train or bus now. Most people in this group will only ever look at the cost of gas. Cost of the car, insurance, consumables like tires, etc are sunk costs.

In places with HSR systems what you'll see is fluidity between the two groups. The exec who takes HSR for his weekly meeting in a city 300 km away, will still drive the family to the cottage in a van on the weekend. Meanwhile, some fare sensitive can get picked up occasionally when they realize they can do an out and back trip without staying in a hotel. And a lot of companies who do pay mileage will start choosing to simply buy rail passes if they can avoid overnight hotels or get extra productivity out of that employee. Do you really want an employee who makes $50/hr wasting 6 hrs on a trip between Calgary and Edmonton?

 

[Furniture]

There's a lot of discussion in here about how many cars would get taken off. That's not how HSR works.

I was about to make a similar point.

HSR doesn't take the Napanee-Kingston cars off the road or the Brighton-Belleville cars, but it does reduce the Ottawa-Toronto cars, as well as provide an alternative to the YOW-YYZ travellers.

The current VIA service makes a trip to Toronto from Ottawa a toss-up between driving and train, HSR/HFR would make it an obvious train win, just like it is to Montreal from Ottawa now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

People being able to live in red deer and work in calgary or edmonton? you bet, especially if the HSR was protected from the elements so winter wouldn't disrupt. There is a huge potential demand for it, especially as part of a larger network to connect Jasper and Banff via traditional rail to the major cities for tourism. there could be added benefits for the CAF as well in time saved in movement via HSR is you dont need to drag all your kit with you.

All estimates that follow are rough.

Red Deer is half way between Edmonton and Calgary; distance from there to either city is 150km.

Choosing from nearer the low end of per-km HSR costs, assume $25M / km, so $3,750M for one leg (dual tracked) leaving aside the more expensive complications (particularly, crossings).

The population of Red Deer is somewhere above 1M. About 2/3 of the population in AB is working age, so say 675,000 people in Red Deer. Assume you could get 5% of them to work in Calgary, so 33,750.

$3,750M cost / 33,750 people is $110,000 per person.

All my numbers are favourable to the case for HSR (low cost, many users), and it's already too much money to be spending to give someone a jammy commute. Obviously there will be other users, but equally obviously 150km is too far for any other means to serve whenever the HSR is out. And all of this is without considering operating costs.

A 48-week working years means 240 round trips. If we were willing to charge a typical French cost per passenger km (in the vicinity of $0.15 USD) on a fare, that would be about $60 CAD, so $14,000 per year.

I remain skeptical.

 

[ytz]

All estimates that follow are rough.

Red Deer is half way between Edmonton and Calgary; distance from there to either city is 150km.

Choosing from nearer the low end of per-km HSR costs, assume $25M / km, so $3,750M for one leg (dual tracked) leaving aside the more expensive complications (particularly, crossings).

The population of Red Deer is somewhere above 1M. About 2/3 of the population in AB is working age, so say 675,000 people in Red Deer. Assume you could get 5% of them to work in Calgary, so 33,750.

$3,750M cost / 33,750 people is $110,000 per person.

All my numbers are favourable to the case for HSR (low cost, many users), and it's already too much money to be spending to give someone a jammy commute. Obviously there will be other users, but equally obviously 150km is too far for any other means to serve whenever the HSR is out. And all of this is without considering operating costs.

A 48-week working years means 240 round trips. If we were willing to charge a typical French cost per passenger km (in the vicinity of $0.15 USD) on a fare, that would be about $60 CAD, so $14,000 per year.

I remain skeptical.

Not sure what the point of this is. The business case for Calgary-Edmonton isn't built on Red Deer-Calgary commuters.

Also, Red Deer's last census population was about 100k. Not sure where you are getting a million from. Even Calgary and Edmonton aren't the huge metros Canadians imagine they are. They are around 1.5M. For comparison, a single Toronto suburb (Mississauga) is about half the size at 700k.

Finally, as mentioned above, Calgary-Edmonton is unlikely to breakeven operationally. Everybody already knows this. If this is done, it'll be to give Alberta (and the cities en route) an economic boost. Kinda like how roads don't pay for themselves, but are a net economic benefit.

 

[ytz]

WestJet and Porter should be the most concerned about HSR.

 

[RangerRay]

And the road systems of Europe, Germany's autobahns notwithstanding, are right out of the middle ages, literally, so improved rail was a good way to improve transportation reliability for huge populations (and industry) located in dense concentrations at a lower cost and with fewer political hassles.

As someone currently driving on that medieval road system, I can agree with that description. It also doesn’t help that Google Maps can’t tell the difference between a motorway, a national highway, and a single lane goat track with a speed limit of 80 that I can’t possibly drive safely at that speed.

 

[tomydoom]

As someone currently driving on that medieval road system, I can agree with that description. It also doesn’t help that Google Maps can’t tell the difference between a motorway, a national highway, and a single lane goat track with a speed limit of 80 that I can’t possibly drive safely at that speed.

Sounds like my experience in Ireland.

 

[ytz]

As someone currently driving on that medieval road system, I can agree with that description. It also doesn’t help that Google Maps can’t tell the difference between a motorway, a national highway, and a single lane goat track with a speed limit of 80 that I can’t possibly drive safely at that speed.

Europe is a big place. Where exactly are you driving?

Also, in Europe, the busiest HSR are between major cities, that are just as connected by proper expressways as our own cities. The difference? Tolls. They are usually high enough that a single occupant roadtrip isn't going to be cheaper than regular (non-HSR) rail.

But like, if you're going to argue that there's no proper expressways between Paris and Amsterdam or Barcelona and Madrid, be prepared for Europeans to (justifiably) laugh at your ignorance.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not sure what the point of this is. The business case for Calgary-Edmonton isn't built on Red Deer-Calgary commuters.

Making a point about actually doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations instead of jumping to possible benefits.

Also, Red Deer's last census population was about 100k.

Correct, a mistake on my part while I was thinking in terms of "millions". So adjust the numbers. $1.1M per worker.

Everybody already knows this.

"Everybody" isn't actually everybody. Plenty of people talk about these ideas qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Much of the discussion of HSR in Canada is solutions looking for problems - enthusiasts who think it's a neat idea without ever seeing a number, or people who know it would be a convenience and comfort for themselves. Except for a very small number of projects which really might pay for themselves, HSR is like building a stadium or a performing arts theatre - a benefit, inevitably subsidized, to a small fraction of the population consisting of people who neither need nor deserve subsidy.

Kinda like how roads don't pay for themselves, but are a net economic benefit.

"Pay for itself" usually means "generates enough economic benefit to pay for itself" by boosting productivity. Some roads do pay for themselves, which is the case for most resource access roads and wherever there are no other sufficient alternatives. Some do not. Most of the commuter rail and HSR proposals I've seen promise to be something that would not, mainly because enough alternatives already exist. Everything that doesn't pay for itself is a net drain. Everything that goes into a major project ought to be considered in terms of what the other reasonable uses of the resources might be.

 

[ytz]

"Pay for itself" usually means "generates enough economic benefit to pay for itself" by boosting productivity. Some roads do pay for themselves, which is the case for most resource access roads and wherever there are no other sufficient alternatives. Some do not. Most of the commuter rail and HSR proposals I've seen promise to be something that would not, mainly because enough alternatives already exist. Everything that doesn't pay for itself is a net drain. Everything that goes into a major project ought to be considered in terms of what the other reasonable uses of the resources might be.

If we're going down this path, most roads don't pay for themselves. There's literally no justification for anything above gravel roads outside of core urban areas. Not even most suburban residential streets can justify having paved roads. Their taxes don't actually cover lifecycle costs (leading to the growth ponzi scheme).

The justification for rail projects are avoided infrastructure costs. A single GO train carries 1000 commuters. And one of those shows up every 15-30 mins on each of half a dozen lines. How many lanes of traffic, at what cost, would it take to replace that capacity with the 1.5 occupancy commuter car? Not to mention parking spaces, which cost $100k each in places like Toronto. Likewise, for HSR, the biggest avoided costs is airport expansion. Short haul flights take up slots at busy airports for very little utility.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Sounds like my experience in Ireland.

You're supposed to just let the donkey pull the cart home for you after the pub shuts

 

[Brad Sallows]

If we're going down this path, most roads don't pay for themselves. There's literally no justification for anything above gravel roads outside of core urban areas. Not even most suburban residential streets can justify having paved roads. Their taxes don't actually cover lifecycle costs (leading to the growth ponzi scheme).

Where there is no road and people need a road, there will be a road. The bush is full of tracks to attest to this. So we often make the most basic concession and have an engineered road. We pave them for comfort, to increase safe speeds and thus traffic capacity, because it indirectly benefits total wealth accumulation by reducing wear on vehicles, and because it mitigates the cost of dealing with health problems resulting from dust and from poor conditions that contribute to accidents that put people in hospitals. That list is not exhaustive.

These continuing attempts by some interlocutors to turn the discussion on its head with "whatabout roads" overlook that fundamental point - the roads are usually the first, necessary, piece. However, once there is already at least one way to get from A to B, the question that has to be answered is, "Do we need more, or is more a nice-to-have that should pay for itself so we can instead use finite public revenues for other things?"

The justification for rail projects are avoided infrastructure costs. A single GO train carries 1000 commuters. And one of those shows up every 15-30 mins on each of half a dozen lines. How many lanes of traffic, at what cost, would it take to replace that capacity with the 1.5 occupancy commuter car? Not to mention parking spaces, which cost $100k each in places like Toronto. Likewise, for HSR, the biggest avoided costs is airport expansion. Short haul flights take up slots at busy airports for very little utility.

I'm confident there are routes for which the trade-off (ie. reduced vehicle traffic) is a net gain, and that there are routes which could be run profitably. That doesn't detract from the subsidy problem. If a route doesn't pay for itself directly or indirectly and as a consequence is subsidized by government, those who pays taxes are losing out on other things that might be provided at public expense in order to provide a benefit for a particular group of users, who, as I've written, don't need a helping hand. Almost all governments are in deficit and in debt; the ones forbidden to run deficits are hiking taxes at rates above most compensation increases. There isn't much latitude for projects that don't, from 30,000 feet, pay their costs.