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

[ytz]

If you built a dedicated line, Toronto through Peterborough as proposed but constructed it to 100 or 120 mph standards you would only lengthen the HS time by maybe 30 minutes.

But why would you do that when the level of effort is exactly the same whether the line runs at 100 mph or 200 mph? Same issues with expropriation. Same planning. Same consultations. Etc. The only cost differences are:

• Between 100 mph and 125 mph Transport Canada requires all intersections to be protected with 4 way gates.
• Over 125 mph TC requires all intersections to be grade separated. No interaction between road and rail traffic.

Costs are basically the same until 100 mph. Small jump in cost between 100 and 125 mph. Substantial jump in cost at 125 mph because of grade separation requirements, which is why if you're going above 125 mph, you might as well go well above 125 mph, which is exactly what Alto is planning. There's no huge difference in cost between 200 kph and 300 kph because they both require grade separation.

You also end up with a worthwhile Tourist venue and with the addition of VIA1 service meals and drinks you WILL get the business class to switch.

Those are two very different markets. Business customers care about getting somewhere fast (time sensitive). Tourists care about the view (experience sensitive). Leisure travelers care about cost (price sensitive). Given that business travellers are the highest margin, they are what pay for development. That's the market Alto is rightfully aiming at. I'm sure you're well aware of how with airlines the 10% of passengers at the front usually generate over 50% of revenues. Same deal. And just like airlines, the rest of us get the economy seats in between.

I see more plus in service than speed.

What you or I see is irrelevant. They aren't randomly designing these things. The consortium building this has SNCF. I'm sure the folks who build the TGV have some idea of what kind of market segments use rail and what they are willing to pay.

And I'm willing to bet they're building and running customer acquisition models that look at how many more customers they get for going a minute faster or by adding a stop at a different spot, or changing service frequencies, etc. And they are probably doing optimization between their demand and their cost models. Nobody is building multi-billion dollar projects based on feelings.

 

[YZT580]

But why would you do that when the level of effort is exactly the same whether the line runs at 100 mph or 200 mph? Same issues with expropriation. Same planning. Same consultations. Etc. The only cost differences are:

• Between 100 mph and 125 mph Transport Canada requires all intersections to be protected with 4 way gates.
• Over 125 mph TC requires all intersections to be grade separated. No interaction between road and rail traffic.

Costs are basically the same until 100 mph. Small jump in cost between 100 and 125 mph. Substantial jump in cost at 125 mph because of grade separation requirements, which is why if you're going above 125 mph, you might as well go well above 125 mph, which is exactly what Alto is planning. There's no huge difference in cost between 200 kph and 300 kph because they both require grade separation.



Those are two very different markets. Business customers care about getting somewhere fast (time sensitive). Tourists care about the view (experience sensitive). Leisure travelers care about cost (price sensitive). Given that business travellers are the highest margin, they are what pay for development. That's the market Alto is rightfully aiming at. I'm sure you're well aware of how with airlines the 10% of passengers at the front usually generate over 50% of revenues. Same deal. And just like airlines, the rest of us get the economy seats in between.



What you or I see is irrelevant. They aren't randomly designing these things. The consortium building this has SNCF. I'm sure the folks who build the TGV have some idea of what kind of market segments use rail and what they are willing to pay.

And I'm willing to bet they're building and running customer acquisition models that look at how many more customers they get for going a minute faster or by adding a stop at a different spot, or changing service frequencies, etc. And they are probably doing optimization between their demand and their cost models. Nobody is building multi-billion dollar projects based on feelings.

So your speed is 124. After living in the EU for a decade here is what I have observed from my own habits. I road the HS maybe two or three times a year. Almost all of my travels, two or three times a week, was on locals, commuters and slow speed stuff because I wasn't travelling from Amsterdam to Paris but Amsterdam to Knokke or Brussels to Dieppe or Brugge. If we had a decent local service than I would say go for the HS; but we don't and the government isn't considering the service it will provide the average Canadian but only the businessman and that is dead wrong. Your notion of a train with grades and segregated crossings etc. is cutting off all of Ontario to favour just a few. In the last five years I have driven to Peterborough a dozen times. Trenton and Belleville have seen my car maybe the same. I have friends in Marmora so I have been there. I haven't been past Kingston in 3 years and then it was on VIA1. I kept the same travel pattern even before retirement and I suspect as an average Canadian my travel distances are compatible with most others in my league. I love the train. I think it is a great way to travel. Electric or Diesel, whichever is the most cost effective AND reliable. But I don't live in Toronto and I don't travel to Ottawa. I go somewhere in-between and so do most people so I ask again; why are we pushing a tuxedo service for a priveleged few?

You made the statement that the business end pays for the service and you are correct. That is corrected with the dedicated line. If you run the HS through OW your travel time to Montreal reverts back to current system speed on the Lakeshore. (stop in PQ, stop in OW plus slow speeds on both the approach and departure end).

 

[ytz]

If we had a decent local service than I would say go for the HS; but we don't and the government isn't considering the service it will provide the average Canadian but only the businessman and that is dead wrong.

If there's no business travel, there's no business case. Simple as that. Exactly how outside of a handful of tourist destinations, airline schedules run almost entirely on the demands of corporate clients and business travellers. It isn't tourists filling up the hourly flights between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

Your notion of a train with grades and segregated crossings etc. is cutting off all of Ontario to favour just a few.

How is a train that is grade separated "cutting off all of Ontario"? This is pure hyperbole. The train doesn't even run across the majority of Ontario. And the only reason this thing is so insanely expensive, is because they will be putting overpasses or underpasses every 10 km at $80-100 million each. That's what makes grade separation expensive. If they told all of rural Eastern Ontario to take a hike, they could probably save $20B minimum.

That is corrected with the dedicated line. If you run the HS through OW your travel time to Montreal reverts back to current system speed on the Lakeshore. (stop in PQ, stop in OW plus slow speeds on both the approach and departure end).

No business traveller is going to take a 4-5 hr train. What you are suggesting is exactly what the HFR proposal was that preceded Alto. As they did the detailed study the cost estimate went up to $12B and the travel time from Toronto to Ottawa only came down to 4 hrs and 5 hrs for Toronto-Montreal. Spending $12B, a decade of construction, and all the fights they are going through right now for expropriation to end up with a line that is barely 1 hr faster? Not worthwhile. That's exactly why the government decided they might as well go big.

By the way, the type of service you suggest exists in Florida: Brightline. It's a train that runs from Miami to Orlando at 100 - 125 mph. You should look up how many crashes they have and how many of their operators have PTSD. Still think not grade separating is a good idea?

Killer Train: Brightline death toll surpasses 180, but safeguards are still lacking

Brightline trains have killed 182 people, significantly more than publicly known, an investigation by WLRN and the Miami Herald has found.

www.wlrn.org

 

[ytz]

I go somewhere in-between and so do most people so I ask again;

VIA's ridership stats say otherwise. These are the top 6 stations quickly pulled from Google.

Rank Station Approx. Annual Riders (2023-2024)
1 Toronto Union ~2.5+ Million
2 Montreal Central ~1.3+ Million
3 Ottawa ~800,000+
4 Quebec City (Gare du Palais) ~300,000+
5 Kingston ~250,000+
6 London (Ontario) ~220,000+

You may think you're typical. But you're actually not a typical VIA customer. When you consider that VIA had 4.1M total riders, it really looks like the vast majority of VIA's ridership is actually between these top few stations.

Moving the large proportion of inter-metro traffic that you see above to a dedicated line allows VIA to transform into something that better serves Lakeshore residents. Instead of trains being scheduled around the best departure and arrival for Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, they could hub in Kingston and use services that get Lakeshore residents into Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal at times which work for commuting, medical appointments, etc. And indeed, this is what was proposed by VIA itself during the HFR consultations. And supported by the mayor of Kingston at the time.

Source:

Proposed VIA Rail Expansion in Eastern Ontario – Mayor Bryan Paterson

 

[ytz]

After living in the EU for a decade

I would think you would understand this.

Toronto-Ottawa-Montréal is about the same distance and population as Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona. That's one of the most successful high speed rail lines anywhere. And Spain doesn't have our winters or our insane airfares.

The questionable part here is Montreal-Quebec City. This is arguably tacked on due to politics.

 

[YZT580]

VIA's ridership stats say otherwise. These are the top 6 stations quickly pulled from Google.

Rank Station Approx. Annual Riders (2023-2024)
1 Toronto Union ~2.5+ Million
2 Montreal Central ~1.3+ Million
3 Ottawa ~800,000+
4 Quebec City (Gare du Palais) ~300,000+
5 Kingston ~250,000+
6 London (Ontario) ~220,000+

You may think you're typical. But you're actually not a typical VIA customer. When you consider that VIA had 4.1M total riders, it really looks like the vast majority of VIA's ridership is actually between these top few stations.

Moving the large proportion of inter-metro traffic that you see above to a dedicated line allows VIA to transform into something that better serves Lakeshore residents. Instead of trains being scheduled around the best departure and arrival for Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, they could hub in Kingston and use services that get Lakeshore residents into Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal at times which work for commuting, medical appointments, etc. And indeed, this is what was proposed by VIA itself during the HFR consultations. And supported by the mayor of Kingston at the time.

Source:

Proposed VIA Rail Expansion in Eastern Ontario – Mayor Bryan Paterson

it has to be that way. The damn thing doesn't stop anywhere else. That is a stupid argument. Of course Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal will have the greatest numbers since they are the biggest places. But that doesn't mean that Brighton and Cobourg, or Trenton and Morrisburg don't deserve service for their 2 or 3 as well. If there was a stop in Perth there would soon be Ottawa workers commuting provided they scheduled the trains correctly. And business travellers will take an extra hour if it means they arrive refreshed for their meetings. It is the unreliability that causes them to fly. And the current tracks are restricted in speed by CN so they can't make time. Your attitude is the same as Carneys. Cater to the money and screw the rest of the province. In fact, that is what you implied.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If business riders are "paying for it" why is it being built with my taxes?

Even more so, taxes from Northern Ontario westward?

 

[Altair]

it has to be that way. The damn thing doesn't stop anywhere else. That is a stupid argument. Of course Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal will have the greatest numbers since they are the biggest places. But that doesn't mean that Brighton and Cobourg, or Trenton and Morrisburg don't deserve service for their 2 or 3 as well. If there was a stop in Perth there would soon be Ottawa workers commuting provided they scheduled the trains correctly. And business travellers will take an extra hour if it means they arrive refreshed for their meetings. It is the unreliability that causes them to fly. And the current tracks are restricted in speed by CN so they can't make time. Your attitude is the same as Carneys. Cater to the money and screw the rest of the province. In fact, that is what you implied.

Considering that HSR is being built to turn air travellers to rail travellers, having stops in Perth or Trenton is like advocating for internal airports being built in Trenton or Perth.

It's wildly inefficient to have people flying from Montreal to Toronto, or Toronto to Ottawa. Rail makes more sense. But rail only makes more sense if it's more efficient than air travel.

What you're advocating for is a Frankenstein monster of a system that is slower than air travel and more expensive than driving.

HSR will displace a lot of the short hop flights currently taking place, which is where the efficiencies kick in.

 

[Altair]

If business riders are "paying for it" why is it being built with my taxes?

Even more so, taxes from Northern Ontario westward?

Because that's how all transportation infrastructure is built? Roads, airports, ports, bridges, ferries...all for the most part built using public funds.

Its not like Air Canada built Toronto Pearson.

Once this is built and people where 50 percent of the Canadian lives and works (consider it the tax dollars of 50 percent of the Canadian population and GDP, not yours, if it makes you feel better) can hop on a train instead of the hassle of booking a flight, the effects will be tangible.

Most every other advanced economic knows rail is more efficient, it's long past time we catch up.

As for the cost, 40-45 percent of the Canadian GDP is between Windsor and Quebec City, god forbid we build infrastructure for that percentage of 2.4 trillion in economic activity.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If business riders are "paying for it" why is it being built with my taxes?

Even more so, taxes from Northern Ontario westward?

I feel your pain. Im not even in Ont, but I will help pay for this.

I really don't care though. At least this would actually be for Canadians.

I get more upset about my tax dollars that get spent on social spending outside of Canada and "foreign aid".

 

[ytz]

Considering that HSR is being built to turn air travellers to rail travellers, having stops in Perth or Trenton is like advocating for internal airports being built in Trenton or Perth.

It's wildly inefficient to have people flying from Montreal to Toronto, or Toronto to Ottawa. Rail makes more sense.

We should make every second flight between Toronto and Montreal stop in Belleville. And every third flight between Ottawa and Toronto land in Coburg to pick up 3 people. Same logic here.

Because that's how all transportation infrastructure is built? Roads, airports, ports, bridges, ferries...all for the most part built using public funds.

Its not like Air Canada built Toronto Pearson.

It's amazing how this only applies to rail. Pearson would need literal billions for its 6th runway and was asking for $5 billion minimum for its transport hub. No outcry about "muh tax dollars" for that. Doug Ford wants to spend $100B on a tunnel under the 401 that has a literal fraction of the economic benefit and capacity of Alto. That would be mostly tax dollars and he's tried to get the feds onboard. Where's the "muh tax dollars" crowd?

In any event, literally every country who has built HSR has gone through these exact same debates. And then as soon as it's built? Critics get amnesia. And then those same politicians even start running on building extensions. If this this is actually built, in a decade, Poilievre will be arguing that the Liberals are incompetent because they didn't extend it to Halifax.

I feel your pain. Im not even in Ont, but I will help pay for this.

I don't live in Alberta. But I sipported TMX even at $30B because it was good for their economy and when they do well, we do well as a country. Same idea. I know you get this. Many here seem to forget though.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don't live in Alberta. But I sipported TMX even at $30B because it was good for their economy and when they do well, we do well as a country. Same idea. I know you get this. Many here seem to forget though.

I'm agnostic about it.

And I generally wont ever side with expropriation or confiscations.

But Ontario... Have at'er.

 

[Maxman1]

Doug Ford wants to spend $100B on a tunnel under the 401 that has a literal fraction of the economic benefit and capacity of Alto. That would be mostly tax dollars and he's tried to get the feds onboard. Where's the "muh tax dollars" crowd?

Kind of a bad example. There has been a lot of pushback and criticism for that idea.

 

[Altair]

We should make every second flight between Toronto and Montreal stop in Belleville. And every third flight between Ottawa and Toronto land in Coburg to pick up 3 people. Same logic here.

It's the problem of people have grown accustomed to VIA. Stop everywhere, go real slow. That's the standard people have grown to expect in Canada.

Let's be clear. VIA rail is a embarrassment.

HSR is not being built to be VIA rail premium. ALTO is being built to compete with all the short hop flights where most of people's time is being spent going through airports at the edge of town and trying to get to city centers.

But that's so anathema to how things have always been done so naturally it's going to take some time and steadfast leadership to get this built.

It's amazing how this only applies to rail. Pearson would need literal billions for its 6th runway and was asking for $5 billion minimum for its transport hub. No outcry about "muh tax dollars" for that. Doug Ford wants to spend $100B on a tunnel under the 401 that has a literal fraction of the economic benefit and capacity of Alto. That would be mostly tax dollars and he's tried to get the feds onboard. Where's the "muh tax dollars" crowd?

The 100b dollar tunnel is by far one of the dumber infrastructure projects I've ever heard of. But you're right, no outcry.

HSR is taking flak because it's a very public project run by the feds replacing a very broken service that already exists in some capacity. So naturally....critics.

In any event, literally every country who has built HSR has gone through these exact same debates. And then as soon as it's built? Critics get amnesia. And then those same politicians even start running on building extensions. If this this is actually built, in a decade, Poilievre will be arguing that the Liberals are incompetent because they didn't extend it to Halifax.

I guarantee Alberta will want something between Edmonton and Calgary if Alto is successful. And you know what? Good. That would be a logical next step.

I don't live in Alberta. But I sipported TMX even at $30B because it was good for their economy and when they do well, we do well as a country. Same idea. I know you get this. Many here seem to forget though.

Funny thing about the pipeline crowd is they seem to support pipelines going through others people's land whether the people want it or not, but when it comes to rail, it's called expropriation or confiscations.

Maybe it has to do with those being asked to give up their land...

 

[Furniture]

In any event, literally every country who has built HSR has gone through these exact same debates. And then as soon as it's built? Critics get amnesia.

I have an example of infrastructure building in Canada that followed the same pattern, the Confederation Bridge.

Before the "Link" was built people talked about how it would be too expensive, kill jobs, and would never be a proper replacement for the ferries. It's been 29 years since the bridge opened, and oddly enough none of the predicted issues came to pass, and apart from a few bitter ex Marine Atlantic employees, you won't find a single Islander that was against it...

 

[YZT580]

We should make every second flight between Toronto and Montreal stop in Belleville. And every third flight between Ottawa and Toronto land in Coburg to pick up 3 people. Same logic here.



It's amazing how this only applies to rail. Pearson would need literal billions for its 6th runway and was asking for $5 billion minimum for its transport hub. No outcry about "muh tax dollars" for that. Doug Ford wants to spend $100B on a tunnel under the 401 that has a literal fraction of the economic benefit and capacity of Alto. That would be mostly tax dollars and he's tried to get the feds onboard. Where's the "muh tax dollars" crowd?

In any event, literally every country who has built HSR has gone through these exact same debates. And then as soon as it's built? Critics get amnesia. And then those same politicians even start running on building extensions. If this this is actually built, in a decade, Poilievre will be arguing that the Liberals are incompetent because they didn't extend it to Halifax.



I don't live in Alberta. But I sipported TMX even at $30B because it was good for their economy and when they do well, we do well as a country. Same idea. I know you get this. Many here seem to forget though.

Everyone of the countries that built HSR already had, and maintained a slower intercity network of trains. We don't have that. I am not opposed to HSR but only after the local needs are accommodated. There are very few flight routes in Europe that have been replaced by HSR with French pairs being a notable exception. But no matter, if Ottawa so desires, the train will be built and the vast majority of Canadians will never be riders. No more argument, little people in your world don't count

 

[Altair]

Everyone of the countries that built HSR already had, and maintained a slower intercity network of trains. We don't have that.

If VIA service is to be improved, that's a conversation that should be had. But it shouldn't come at the expense of what Alto is meant to do.

I am not opposed to HSR but only after the local needs are accommodated.

That's the most effective way to prevent anything from ever being built. Give any project enough time between inception and completion and some politician will find a way to cancel it.

We don't even need to conjure up some hypothetical politician, we already have Pierre Poilievre on record saying it.

There are very few flight routes in Europe that have been replaced by HSR with French pairs being a notable exception.

I guarantee that even with Alto and HSR there will still be flights between Montreal and Ottawa,Montreal and Toronto, Toronto and Ottawa.

What we won't be seeing is the frequency. Instead of 10-15 flights between these cities we may see 4 or 5.

You won't see cancelled routes. It's why you don't see cancelled routes in Europe either. But what you don't see is the flight between these nearby cities every 2 hours. I actually have the flight radar app, and it's not unusual to see back to back flights Ottawa to Toronto. This is not efficient.

But no matter, if Ottawa so desires, the train will be built and the vast majority of Canadians will never be riders. No more argument, little people in your world don't count

The vast majority of Canadians don't use the vast majority of infrastructure built in Canada.

If we want to talk about giving every Canadian the infrastructure they and their communities deserve, that's definitely a conversation that I think should be had, especially with 1.5 percent of GDP needing to be spent on "defense" infrastructure per year.

But shoehorning ALTO into that conversation is not the solution.

 

[ytz]

Everyone of the countries that built HSR already had, and maintained a slower intercity network of trains. We don't have that.

What exactly are VIA's Corridor services then?

 

[ytz]

I have an example of infrastructure building in Canada that followed the same pattern, the Confederation Bridge.

Before the "Link" was built people talked about how it would be too expensive, kill jobs, and would never be a proper replacement for the ferries. It's been 29 years since the bridge opened, and oddly enough none of the predicted issues came to pass, and apart from a few bitter ex Marine Atlantic employees, you won't find a single Islander that was against it...

Canadians have a weird "Can't do" attitude. No matter what it is, there's always somebody ready with an excuse for why it can't be done or won't succeed.

 

[Furniture]

Everyone of the countries that built HSR already had, and maintained a slower intercity network of trains. We don't have that. I am not opposed to HSR but only after the local needs are accommodated. There are very few flight routes in Europe that have been replaced by HSR with French pairs being a notable exception. But no matter, if Ottawa so desires, the train will be built and the vast majority of Canadians will never be riders. No more argument, little people in your world don't count

We do have a slower network of trains, it's called VIA. It stops at a lot of towns and cities, and used to stop at more of them when travel by car was more difficult and less reliable.

It's not the government that killed the smaller rail routes, it was customers who chose the more convenient options of just driving... Particularly when visiting other smaller towns and cities where parking and traffic aren't major issues. Your examples of travelling to places like Peterborough and Trenton are perfect examples of places where upon arrival, you still need a car to do anything in the town.