publicité
FrodoMTL
-
Compteur de contenus
86 -
Inscription
-
Dernière visite
Type de contenu
Profils
Forums
Calendrier
Galerie
Blogs
Messages posté(e)s par FrodoMTL
-
-
- C’est un message populaire.
- C’est un message populaire.
6 hours ago, SameGuy said:According to ARTM, tunnelling adds 6%…
I love how they think it’s “only” 6%. 6% of $36 billion is $2.2 billion. News flash for ARTM: Vancouver’s 20km Canada Line also cost $2.2 billion. That’s your 6% right there.
Another fun figure ARTM created in the report: having underground stations will “only” cost $100 million “more” per station than elevated ones. Which sounds “reasonable” on paper but is a crazy figure when you realize that CDPQ’s elevated stations cost in average $40 million per station. So in essence, ARTM inflated the per station cost by 350%, from $40 million to $140 million per station.
All of this makes ARTM seem like they are trying to fool the public and treat us like we don’t understand simple mathematics. I mean, who cares if the per station cost skyrockets by 350% from the previous version, or that 6% is roughly $2.2 billion in extra cost. Who cares cuz the QC government will pull cash out of the sky.
-
5
-
2
-
- C’est un message populaire.
- C’est un message populaire.
7 hours ago, acpnc said:https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/chroniques/2023-07-06/le-prix-de-l-immobilisme.php
Le prix de l’immobilisme
Le prix de l’immobilisme7–8 minutesFaudrait se brancher, en matière de transport collectif, au Québec.
Publié à 0h43Mis à jour à 5h00
Rappelez-vous le projet initial du REM de l’Est. Rappelez-vous la levée de boucliers. Tout ce que le Québec comptait d’experts nous mettait en garde contre cette catastrophe urbanistique annoncée. D’affreux pylônes soviétiques défigureraient le centre-ville. Le train léger cannibaliserait la clientèle de la ligne verte. Les résidants de l’Est auraient à endurer le bruit, les vibrations et l’horreur bétonnée dans leur propre cour.
Non, vraiment, ça ne passait pas. Le coupable avait été identifié : l’argent. La Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ Infra) avait développé le projet avec une seule idée en tête : il fallait que ça rapporte à ses actionnaires. C’était laid, c’était mal intégré au tissu urbain, mais c’était bon marché : « seulement » dix milliards de dollars. Une aubaine !
Face au vent d’opposition, le gouvernement du Québec n’avait pas eu le choix : en 2022, il avait demandé à un comité d’experts de retourner à la table à dessin. Sans la CDPQ Infra, cette fois. Sans cette idée de rentabiliser le projet à tout prix. Plutôt avec l’idée, révolutionnaire, de servir la population, en lui offrant le meilleur projet possible.
Le résultat, c’est cette nouvelle mouture, présentée cette semaine par l’Autorité régionale de transport métropolitain (ARTM). Un métro léger sur rail, entièrement souterrain, qui s’étirerait sur 34 kilomètres et compterait 21 stations, vers Rivière-des-Prairies, Laval et Charlemagne.
Un projet concret, socialement acceptable, approuvé par les hauts dirigeants du ministère des Transports, de la Ville de Montréal et de la Société de transport de Montréal. Cette fois, les élus locaux sont contents. Les résidants aussi. Bref, tout le monde trouve ça formidable… sauf pour la facture.
Ce train léger coûterait, tenez-vous bien, 36 milliards de dollars. Scandale !
On trouvait que le premier projet trop cheap, on trouve le second exorbitant…
Vrai que la proposition de l’ARTM semble démesurément chère. Certains commentateurs se sont même demandé, en lisant la manchette de La Presse de samedi1, si quelqu’un, quelque part, n’avait pas délibérément voulu tuer le projet dans l’œuf…
François Legault, en tout cas, soutient avoir été aussi surpris que vous et moi par ce chiffre pharaonique. « J’ai mal avalé ma gorgée de café quand j’ai lu ça », a-t-il confié mercredi. « Définitivement, les Québécois n’ont pas la capacité de payer un projet de 36 milliards. »
Le gouvernement n’a jamais demandé à l’ARTM de proposer un train entièrement souterrain, a indiqué le premier ministre. « On avait demandé qu’il y ait peut-être une petite partie qui soit souterraine. »
Cela dit, l’ARTM assure qu’enfouir les rails n’entraînerait qu’une hausse de 6 % des coûts. En fait, si la société publique en arrive à un chiffre aussi élevé, c’est surtout parce qu’elle tient compte de l’inflation, des pertes fiscales et de la couverture de risques, comme un séisme ou une surchauffe du marché immobilier. Ces prévisions, que la CDPQ Infra n’avait pas été tenue de faire dans son propre budget, ont plus que doublé la facture initiale, la faisant bondir de 17 à 36 milliards.
Ça me semble prudent, comme façon de procéder. Peut-être trop. Comme l’expliquait la mairesse de Montréal, Valérie Plante, « quand on fait des prévisions, on met la ceinture, les bretelles et le parachute. Il y a tout, là-dedans ». Au bout du compte, ça ne peut que donner un chiffre qui frappe l’imaginaire.
Au cours de la prochaine décennie, l’Ontario investira 70,5 milliards pour rajeunir et étendre son réseau de transport public. La région de Toronto aura notamment droit à « la plus grande expansion du métro dans l’histoire du Canada ».
Et le Québec, pendant ce temps-là ? Le Québec trouve que ça n’a pas de maudit bon sens, que ça coûte bien trop cher…
Ç’a été la même chose avec le métro de Montréal, remarquez. Bien des citoyens et des élus estimaient un tel projet trop coûteux. Mais quand les Torontois se sont offert un métro, en 1949, les Montréalais ont commencé à changer d’idée. Peu à peu, ils se sont mis à considérer « que la présence d’un métro dans leur ville [était] essentielle à la sauvegarde de son statut de grande ville canadienne », lit-on dans l’Encyclopédie canadienne2.
Peut-être en arriverons-nous à la même conclusion. Reste à espérer que, cette fois, ça ne prenne pas des années…
Parce qu’une chose est sûre : plus on attendra, plus les coûts exploseront. Depuis des décennies, le Québec a cette fâcheuse habitude de repousser les grands projets de transport collectif à plus tard. Quand on se compare à Toronto, aux grandes villes européennes, on se désole…
« Partout dans le monde, les projets de transport collectif se font en continu ; on a l’habitude de prévoir de nouvelles stations », a expliqué à La Presse Catherine Morency3, titulaire de la Chaire mobilité à Polytechnique Montréal. Au Québec, on ne fait pas ça. Alors, on présente des projets titanesques, dans l’espoir de rattraper le temps perdu. « Ça fait une grosse bouchée à prendre quand tu ne fais rien pendant longtemps. »
Bref, notre immobilisme nous coûte des milliards. Et nous coûtera encore plus cher, si on continue à tergiverser. Parce qu’on ne s’en sortira pas : il faudra désenclaver l’est de Montréal pour lui permettre de respirer – et, sans doute, de croître.
Peut-être faudra-t-il prendre de plus petites bouchées. Réaliser le projet par phases. Mais on ne pourra pas se permettre de le rejeter en bloc sous prétexte qu’il est trop coûteux ou pas assez rentable.
La rentabilité, ça ne se compte pas seulement en dollars.
Combien de millions d’heures perdues dans les embouteillages, combien de millions de tonnes de gaz à effet de serre répandues dans l’atmosphère avant qu’on se décide enfin à donner aux 600 000 résidants de l’est de la métropole un transport collectif digne de ce nom ?
The $70 billion bill for Toronto is also absurdly high. Let’s admit it: both cities in Canada have highly inflated transit budgets that are out of this world compared to other OECD developed countries. I used to work as a consultant for Metrolinx in Toronto and have seen first hand the amount of waste that public agency gets by: e.g. nearly $50 million just to implement a procurement software system ; e.g. nearly 2/3 of its staff are consultants or contractors that charge exorbitant hourly fees
With that said, even if it’s $70 billion, at least Toronto is getting a BUNCH of new and upgraded lines along with electrification of its GO RER system:
- Hurontario LRT
- Ontario Line Subway
- Eglinton Cross town (opening this year, hopefully?)
- Finch West LRT
- GO RER electrification and over 1000 km in track upgrades and station upgrades turning it soon into a Paris RER-style system, with 10-15 min frequencies
Is $70 billion expensive? Yes yes yes. But at least they are getting a ton of new and upgraded transit that will benefit the whole GTA region.
WHEREAS for $36 billion, we get what in Montreal? A buried light metro that goes to the east island and Laval, two of the least dense neighborhoods in the region covered with suburban housing, warehouses, and big box malls. A simple BRT or LRT like the one in Mississauga or York Region in Toronto should easily serve Montreal east, at a FRACTION of the cost. For perspective, the 20 KM, 19 station Hurontario LRT in Mississauga only cost $4 billion to design, build and finance. Why should Montreal East or Laval be any different than a similar suburb like Mississauga (which arguably has much bigger population).
Like for F sake, ARTM and Montreal politicians should be ashamed of this plan.
-
7
-
On 6/10/2021 at 3:56 PM, jesseps said:
Productivity in cars will go up in the next 10-15 years, when they become more autonomous and the CO2 per seat, will also go down because of manufactures switching to batteries.
Thankfully the train will still beat a car, because you can walk around and use the bathroom.
Planes CO2 per seat will go down, when they use alternative bio fuels, hydrogen (not before 2050) or even have big enough batteries to power the engines. As for wasting time at the airport, some people don't mind, they can expense drinks / lounge or even use it for business meetings.
As an Air Canada frequent flyer, I love using airport lounges. However, I find it a bit ludicrous that some people choose to spend 2, 3, 4, or more hours at an airport lounge, when their actual flight to Montreal is 1 hr. Let's be honest, very few people work or do "productive activities" in these executive lounges - most people go for the open bar in order to prepare themselves for the misery on the plane.
Also, VIA Rail's very reasonably priced Business Class also offers open bar onboard, a 3-course hot meal, WIFI, and a business class lounge in Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto. I remember the days pre-Covid when I would board a 3 pm train from TO Union station, order a glass of scotch onboard, enjoy my dinner at 5 pm while passing by country scenery and sunset, and finish off dinner with a glass of Cognac from the bar. It's a very relaxing way to travel.
-
2
-
-
The final design for the new Siemens fleet has been unveiled on May 26. Currently the first train set is sitting in Sacramento, California, and will be delivered to Montreal this summer to begin testing. Service on the new corridor fleet will commence in 2022.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, SameGuy said:
Right, but the fares for an electric train ride between the three should be much lower than the costs to drive, making it worth it for that “family of four” to make their way to a station (hopefully by REM or Subway or whatever). Examples I usually use are from car-crazy Italy (HerSR/HSR) where gas, tolls, and traffic make cars considerably less economical or convenient between most cities, and car-centric Australia (modern EMUs) where fares are very low and trains frequent enough that lines are always well-used.
But while we are throwing around hypotheticals, why should rail be targeting “leisure travellers like a family of four” and not every single potential traveller between the three main cities? Amtrak’s NEC should be used as our example and guide. Sure, people still drive between Boston and DC and points between, but NEC trains are always full. Imagine if gas and jet fuel in the States was at European prices? The taxes would pay for a couple of Infrastructure Weeks every year until folks simply gave up and started using mass transportation instead of Chevy Tahoes and Southwest Airlines!
3 points:
1. Australia has "modern EMUs" for intercity trains? Not that I'm aware of. In fact their intercity service is comparable in many ways to VIA Rail - underfunded, and in some cases even less frequency that VIA's corridor service. I believe you are referring to their intracity regional/commuter bilevels, which in this case is more comparable to GO Transit or EXO (and yes, far exceeds NA standards when it comes to commuter rail).
2. VIA's corridor service was already frequently sold out prior to the pandemic. In fact, demand already outstrips supply and seats available on Monday, Thurs, and Fridays. It's very comparable to NE Corridor with Amtrak.
3. Are TGV or German ICE fares "much" lower than driving? I'm not so sure.
When I was working in Germany, I frequently rode the Berlin-Munchen route, which has a similar length as Montreal to Toronto (580 km). Berlin to Munich was 4hr02 min on the fastest ICE "Sprinter" service. The cheapest, deep-discounted 2nd class ticket is currently priced at 163 EUR. For a family of 4, that's 652 EUR or almost $1000 CAD. Under what circumstance would this be competitive for a "family" with driving given the similar distance as Montreal and Toronto? If I had a van or SUV, and I'm already paying gas and insurance and all the annual maintenance costs, I'd choose my van/SUV for my family and 2 kids any day because of the sunk costs of vehicle ownership. HOWEVER, if I were traveling as on my own for work, it's the ICE HSR hands down. I'm not saying no family would ever ride the HSR, but it's just not that competitive economically for a family with kids if they already own a car.
Here's the fully priced ticket for the above route on Deutsche Bahn:
Lastly, what prompted me to use DB's Berlin-Munich service via train (vs. driving or flying) wasn't so much the speed (it's at minimum 4 hrs on the fastest HSR Sprinter service, and mostly 4.5 - 5 hrs if you get delayed, so really not that fast for a distance of 580 km). It was the frequency and predictability service (every hour minimum, sometimes even every 30 min). I could just show up at Berlin Central HBF anytime and hop on train to Munich. Also, great connectivity with local transit such as S-Bahn and U-Bahn and the intercity rail stations, which is critical to the success of any intercity rail service.
-
2
-
-
The logic that HFR is not going to be competitive with automobiles is ridiculous. It's never meant to compete with cars. People will always drive, because it's much more economical for leisure travelers like a family with 3 kids who live in Brossard or Mississauga. Even in countries with sufficient HSR/TGV, you still have plenty of auto-traffic from leisure travelers.
The primary competition for rail has always been air traffic between Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal. Before Covid, YYZ/YTZ and YUL operated 50-70 flights per day between Air Transat, West Jet, Air Canada, and Porter - averaging $400-800 for a round trip ticket. That is a crazy amount of air traffic between just 3 cities at exorbitant fares. HFR's goal should ALWAYS be to target the air segment first - coupled with federal regulations that incentivize the move to intercity rail (e.g. additional taxes and airport fees on short haul flights between YYZ/YTZ and YUL).
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, SameGuy said:
It is indeed a step forward into the early aughts, but we honestly need more than that. If they’re going to spend the $5-10 billion to build or repurpose dedicated ROW, why not spend the extra $5-10 billion on electrification between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal and get simpler, proven, electric-only train sets at a fraction of the dual-modes’ cost and complexity? The savings in fleet costs, financing, fuel, and maintenance would take very little time to offset the electrification costs.
FWIW, I agree that true HSR is a non-starter for this country in the real world. It’s nice to fantasize about kickstarting the economy with a $50+ billion investment in HSR but it’s silly.
The baseline cost for HFR is quoted at $4 billion. Electrification should bring that up to $6 billion. Of course, none of this is fully costed until the detailed design is completed by the Joint Projects Office and CIB. I think what VIA's strategy is to break down HFR into phases, with $4 billion as the baseline phase and add-ons like electrification and other track/grade separation/station enhancements as additional pieces that could be brought on for later phases once the main HFR project is signed off. It's typical project planning strategy in public sector, to break up a large project into multi-phases so they are more "digistable" to the accountants, politicians, and bean counters in Ottawa. From a project management stand point, it's also much easier/faster to process and approve change orders (e.g. add on electrification or add new stations or add new grade separations, etc.) once the main contract is signed and underway. I've been on several large scale projects with Toronto-based transit agencies - the change orders always tend to be larger than the original contract size.
-
1
-
-
- C’est un message populaire.
- C’est un message populaire.
6 minutes ago, crosbyshow said:Exact , c'est en plein ce que je dis.
Des fois j'ai l'impression à lire les chialeux du Rem aérien que René Levesque et Notre-Dame sont les Champs Elysée.
C'est lette raide
I've even heard RL being compared to Park Avenue in NYC... or the "5th Avenue of Montreal"...🤣
Let's be honest, René Levesque as it currently stands can't even compare to University Avenue in Toronto, which is a pretty low standard for urban boulevards (which also happens to feature a 6-8 lane urban highway right in the middle of downtown Toronto):
- City of Toronto, University Avenue
-
5
-
1
-
23 hours ago, SameGuy said:
Honestly, my biggest issue is still how they went about the renewal of the corridor fleet, foregoing any future-proofing by ordering the diesel push-pull Charger/Venture sets. Siemens has no proof-of-concept dual-mode units running; IMO VIA should’ve postponed a fleet choice until an HFR decision was finalized, giving time to RFP for dual-modes or even a turnkey all-electric buildout.
1. Fleet-Renewal project was approved in 2017-18 budget, hence well before the announcement of HFR
2. As part of the current Siemens order, VIA has the contractual option to order 22 additional dual-mode train sets based on the charger model (similar to Amtrak and NY Metro-North Rail Charger Dual-Mode orders).
We'll likely end up with a mixed fleet in HFR, and that's okay for this transitional period. Anyway, super excited to see the new (more streamlined) Siemens fleet arriving in Montreal this summer!
-
1
-
-
Both VIA and Metrolinx in Toronto have recently completed their hydrogen rail studies (spent $7 million on the study). Metrolinx explicitly stated in Feb 2021 that they will not be considering hydrogen rolling stock because:
1) lack of large scale deployment at the moment, esp in North American market, therefore significantly increasing risk during deployment (and cost of ongoing maintenance when no other major North America rail agency has plans for Hydrail).
2) need for extensive infrastructure rebuild to support hydro trains
This is actually good news for VIA, because it'll force VIA, Metrolinx, and (hopefully Exo) into a unified electrification approach. Metrolinx owns over 500 km+ of passengers in and around Toronto, and Metrolinx is on a very aggressive electrification program, which will be additional incentive for VIA to electrify HFR to some degree within the same timeline.
-
On 2021-05-10 at 11:02 AM, samal90 said:
Le TGF est une demi-mesure qui ne va RIEN faire pour convaincre plus de gens a prendre le train. Ca va prendre quand meme presque 5h pour faire Montreal-Toronto.
Il faut un TGV de 300km/h. Mtl-Toronto en 2 heures max. Et montreal-Ottawa en 45min. La les gens ne prendront plus leurs voiture ou l'avion. Ca devient finalement interessant..et 100% electrique.
Several points:
1. HFR will deliver average speed of 177-200 kph (the new Siemens rolling stock coming later in the summer is capable of operational speeds of 200 kph). That is already comparable to most European intercity rail in the especially in the UK and Germany. And yes, HFR is capable of full electrification along the QC-TO corridor.
2. HFR will cut down travel between MTL and TO to 4 hr to 4:15 hr (currently it is 5:05 - 5:40 hrs and frequently delayed due to CN freight blocks), or time saving of 25% from current travel time and deliver 95% on-time performance
3. HFR will cut down travel between TO and OTT to 3:15 hr, putting it in direct competition with air travel. This is time reduction by over 30% from the current 4:45 hr TO-OTT service.
I'm sorry, but that elusive "TGV" just won't happen for the foreseeable future. People on here need to stop screaming about something that just isn't happening and get a grip on the reality of the situation. The April Federal Budget 2021 was very, very clear about this point in terms of allocation of funding for the HFR project, and the Federal Transport Minister Omar Alghabra specifically stated during the post-budget interview on April 29, 2021:
"Yes, so let me be very clear [on HFR] and say that the groundwork has been worked on for the last couple of years, our government has established a joint office between the CIB, Transport Canada and VIA Rail on studying this concept, and they've done a lot of excellent work on preparing the groundwork for this... We're going to start doing the engineering work, we're going to start doing the profile work, and it's going to roll out as quickly as possible...I'm looking forward to VIA's High Frequency Rail hitting the ground running as quickly as possible."
New Siemens rolling stock coming this summer 2021:
-
3
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, mtlfan said:
Absolument.
Un joint venture CDPQ Infra/Teachers.
Aucun besoin de réinventer la roue ici. On fait soumissionner Alstom/SNCF, Siemens et les Japonais, pour un ''kit'' tout fait, de la même manière que CDPQ infra a pris le ''kit'' Metropolis pour le REM. C'est ce que Texas Central a fait avec son shinkhansen en construction entre Houston et Dallas.
Le modèle fait ses preuves. Ce qui prend 30 ans en mode traditionnel pour ne produire que des piles d'études passe d'un plan à la réalité en quelques années en confiant le mandat à ces fonds.
I wonder where you got the impression that the Houston-Dallas HSR is "under construction" already.
https://dallas.culturemap.com/news/city-life/04-15-21-high-speed-train-lawsuit/
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-bullet-train-permits/
Currently, there are 20+ law suits pending from local counties and towns against the rail developer. At the heart of the issue: lack of EA, lack of permits to build, lack of connectivity with local transport and transit planning (a lot of the station locations and route are driven by real estate developers), and lack of compatibility between the Houston-Dallas HSR and the national Amtrak (public) rail network, and most importantly lack of local support.
Texas HSR is already 9 years delayed (announced in 2012) and nowhere near funding, let alone construction.
Nothing is simple when it comes to upgrading legacy infrastructure. The "everything in a kit" is just a marketing terminology. Wait till you announce the project and the law suits start coming in.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Enalung said:
C'est précisément ce que je leur reproche le plus et c'est sur ce sujet que se concentrent la majorité de mes commentaires sur le site de consultation. J'aurai pu faire la suggestion de mettre ça en tunnel, mais au final, je me suis dis qu'il y aurait certainement quelqu'un qui le ferait éventuellement. J'ai donc ressorti les photos du métro de Tokyo, Minato City.
Ça, c'est la photo que j'ai mis sur le site de consultation. En réduisant le nombre de voies de circulation et en verdissant en dessous et sur les cotés, ça rendrait déjà René Lévesque pas mal plus agréable que la pseudo autoroute qu'on a présentement. Remarquez à quel point il est haut. Ça dégage l'espace visuel au niveau du sol. Ce que j'aime également de ce métro, c'est le choix de couleur, blanc et un gris-bleu très pâle. Ça fait très propre, et les couleurs pâles donne l'impression que c'est plus lumineux que ça ne l'est réellement. La réaction est assez bonne.
Je suis assez surpris du peu de commentaires qu'ils ont récolté. Je n'ai pas osé commenter qu'il y a plus de 240 pages de discussion sur MTURB si ils veulent des opinions et des idées...BUT, what if there is an earthquake one day and the whole structure collapses! Oh the horror!
-
Maybe missing something here, but I honestly fail to see how the Mexico crash has anything to do with REM and Montreal's situation. Maybe let's cut the fear mongering and sensationalism a bit?
-
3
-
-
20 hours ago, Enalung said:
Which is why you start by building what you can. The section between Montreal and Ottawa does not belong to CN. After that's done, the population will have a chance to get a taste of HSR. You then use that to ratchet up the pressure on CN and CP, putting them exactly where they don't want to be, front and center of a public debate. That's how you get this done.
You make it sound so easy. Unfortunately, I highly doubt they'll start with a test track "HSR" between Montreal and Ottawa. The funding is already approved for HFR and CIB has poured in $70 million into detailed EA and planning for the past 2 years. The feds will be shooting themselves in the foot if they scrap HFR at this time and return to the drawing table. Once again, that's the present reality of the political system we must work under.
Even worse, let's assume the hypothetical situation that the MTL-OTT HSR does get built in the next few years, and it ends up losing tens of millions every year (not to mention much higher passenger fares commanded by HSR services) due to lower than forecast ridership? Once again, whoever makes these decisions will get crucified by the media for building a "white elephant" tourist train that is not affordable to the public. Think Union-Pearson Express train opened by the Ontario Liberals in 2015 - great concept, great service, but completely unaffordable and out of touch with the traveling public and later ended up costing millions in operating subsidies every year. I remember in 2015 the local Toronto media even started a "daily ridership count meter" to show case the abysmal ridership of UPX - it was a PR disaster. This later became an election issue that brought down that government.
There are so many angles with large scale infrastructure planning that one needs to consider - if you were the policy maker/decision maker, would you put your career and head on the line for that? As "armchair experts", it's easy for us to judge and comment and criticize.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Enalung said:
I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on that point. Even if it's not being discontinued, and even if CN does own the track, there's nothing stopping VIA from building it's own track right besides. A large part of that right of way is large enough to do so. I would also ask, has VIA explored the possibility of making deals with CN such as building diversions around cities for CN where needed so that they can own the track going through the city and the local train station? That question is particularly pertinent on the west side of Toronto as a single piece of track of about 20km along highway 407 is all that is needed to enable the rerouting of all merchandise track along a more northern route to liberate a new route for public transit and eventual HSR.
I understand that those negotiations aren't easy, but from an outsider's point of view, it really feels like the route chosen by VIA is the proverbial path of least resistance and calling it good enough. If there's one thing that I've learned in life, it's that the most interesting and amazing things aren't the easy things. As you pointed out in your last post, the track does not need to be entirely built in one single go. A series of small incremental changes could make a huge difference. Montreal Ottawa is a third of the distance. That on it's own would already be a rather good start.
There's definitely a failure of government here to set smaller more realisable objectives and to take a lead to resolve some of the road blocks.Most of the above have been explored by VIA Rail during multiple rounds of negotiations with CN in the past 2 decades. It isn't a simple matter of "building its own track beside CN tracks" - any HFR/HSR along the existing Lakeshore route will require extensive dedicated ROW negotiations with CN, no mixed traffic to guarantee high frequency, full grade separation along the entire route due to Lakeshore route's many local crossings, station upgrades to build high platforms and electrification along the entire route (already deal breaker for CN's freight operations), all of which have a large material impact on CN's current freight infrastructure that they are not willing to risk. CN knows they have a complete hold over VIA Rail and the federal government along the current Lakeshore route, and they'll ask for an arm and leg and maybe some more before they are willing to even talk - which puts VIA Rail at an extreme disadvantage before any negotiation even starts. Metrolinx from Toronto has learned this the hard way - they realized 10 years ago that the only way to deliver "RER-style" high frequency service and achieve electrification in the GTA is to build their own tracks and routes separate from freight operators.
As for HSR, a host of consultants were hired by successive federal and provincial governments to "study" HSR along that route, the latest being the one commissioned by Ontario Ministry of Transportation in 2018 (committed $15 million to build business case for HSR, which ended up nowhere). As a country, we have gone down the HSR/TGV rabbit hole more than enough times, each time with its own grand pronouncements from various local or federal politicians + a host of consultants, each time ending up nowhere.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Decel said:
And THIS is the low-hanging fruit. If we can have a HSR/HFR train for MTL-To. with travel time of say 2.5h, people will jump on that since it will be competitive to planes/bus and possibly car.
Once again, I feel like a broken record when saying this, but I and most other supporters of HFR are also completely supportive of HFR/TGV! The question in this country is not the why or what - we all know what and why we need to build better passenger rail and better public transit. The question for the past 5 decades - ever since nationalization of VIA Rail - has always been "how" - how do we feasibly get there with the limited resources and political constraints that we live under. Especially given the unprecedented federal and provincial deficit and debt levels caused by the pandemic, how politically feasible is it to spend another $20-30 billion (will likely be much higher) between Toronto and Montreal when every level of government is facing a fiscal crunch. I think any respectable politician who proposes something as big and flashy as a $30 billion-price tagged HSR would face certain political suicide and risk getting crucified by the media as "tone deaf" in the midst of a public health crisis. That's why in the April federal budget, even the HFR was tucked under a discreet spending line with the federal government only pitching $400 million and the rest being managed behind the scenes by the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the JPO - they don't want to draw attention to any big ticket "flashy" infrastructure spends during this time and that's the only way to get it passed in parliament. That's the reality of the system that we must all work within.
17 hours ago, SameGuy said:Not disagreeing with you at all; my point was in reference to the idea above my post, suggesting the through-trains between Ontario and Quebec City could stop outside downtown Montreal — 20 km away in Dorval — before continuing north through the CSL rail yards, bypassing downtown altogether.
I agree. HFR/HSR doesn't have to be a Toronto-Quebec City route. It could be broken into different segments, of which OTT-TO and OTT-MTL are the most likely and lowest hanging fruits to hit (I can't believe there are still Air Canada flights between Ottawa and Montreal airports...).
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, SameGuy said:
I thought the whole argument in favour of spending $5-10-15 billion on improving trains is the idea that they are downtown-to-downtown quicker than by air? Funnelling VIA pax to REM for a further 25+ trip to downtown and making people from the rest of the island schlep out to Dorval just to get to Québec City simply isn't worth it for the maybe 50 people a day who need to get between Ontario and Québec City (skipping Montreal).
Define quicker than air.
Air is easily 4-5-6 hrs between YUL and YYZ on any given day, because you need to factor in traffic to airport, security, checkin, waiting in lines for everything, boarding, airplane taxiing, waiting to take off, waiting to taxi to gate, deboarding, and driving from airport to home/office. And that doesn't even factor in the frequent delays we see in the YUL to YTZ/YYZ route, not to mention the physical and mental stress the whole process causes for air travelers. I flew over 50 segments between YUL-YTZ/YYZ in 2019 pre-covid for work. Even a 4 hour hour train ride between Toronto and Montreal already puts it on competitive playing field to air.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Enalung said:
The problem that I have with that statement is that a large portion of rail operators world wide run blended services with through running tracks at stations in between major cities. Quite often, the track on which the HSR runs is also the track on which the slower more local trains run. Hence, by putting the track so far away from the lakeshore, all of those cities are being denied the opportunity of being provided with better local service. I am strongly against the route chosen by VIA for that reason.
The Lakeshore route is not being discontinued just because there is HFR. It will still maintain present service levels to service all the local towns. That won't change.
Further, the reason why Lakeshore route isn't chosen is because of decades of disputes with the infrastructure owner of the lakeshore route - CN. It's not because VIA doesn't want to invest in the lakeshore route - it's because it's a vital infrastructure that CN is not willing to let go control of. Any further investment into the lakeshore route will entrench VIA even more at the mercy of freight track owner CN.
Hence the whole point of HFR - to build and OWN track that is 100% dedicated to passenger rail between QC and TO.
-
48 minutes ago, go_habs_go said:
Belles photos merci! On a side note, in a few years we are going to wonder how anyone in the right mind could choose that neon green puke color lol! At least it will stand out.
No one, except you maybe? lol.
-
11 hours ago, Doctor D said:
Language is everything and essential to negotiating meaning, and yes, people are passionate about such things; isn't what this forum is supposed to be about?
I think most would agree that the primary purpose of this forum is to discuss how best to design/plan, build, and operate urban transit, specifically the current REM projects underway. You can discuss your preferred language and words and branding all you want, but let's first all agree on one thing: there needs to be actual good transit infrastructure in place first BEFORE we start debating about how to call them. Not the other way round.
Starting tomorrow, we could even start calling Detroit's People Mover the "Metropolitan Express Network" (REM) but that's not going to change the fact that Detroit has god awful transit. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fundamental nature of the pig.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Enalung said:
I strongly disagree.
As I mentioned earlier, the term metro has very specific characteristics associated with it, so it's quite precise. Skytrain is an even more precise term then any of the previous since it refers specifically to the Vancouver transit network. Light rail sounds like a term that refers to a specific technology, but in reality, it's a very imprecise term that is used as a catch all for anything that isn't quite a tram, a metro or train. Light rail often has characteristics of all 3. Rapid Transit definitely feels like a marketing term since it could mean just about anything. The expression express train is definitely more then just marketing since it implies a direct journey from point A to point B without stopping at the intermediate stops in between. We were discussing earlier the notion that a metro isn't necessarily underground. Translating "Metro de Montréal" to Montreal Subway is accurate because a subway is defined as being underground, typically electrified railway.Okay man. I had no idea some people can be so passionate about this stuff. Good for you for being so passionate about a niche topic.
Once again, to 99.9% of users of transit, who cares as long as it's good quality transit? Of course the term "metro" is not confined to subway systems. Half the systems in Asia are called "metros" even though many of them run above or elevated lines.
QuoteThis is what I really hate about our modern world. We've denatured so many words for the sake of marketing and political arguments that the meaning of those words ends up getting lost.
The art of language manipulation and marketing have existed since the dawn of human society. This really isn't a "modern world" phenomenon. Chillax.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Why are we even talking about this...
Metro, subway, light rail, rapid transit, express train, skytrain - these are just for branding purposes. As long as it delivers frequent and rapid service with good fare integration, the average rider could care less.
-
3
-
-
Update on HFR from the April 19 federal budget: https://globalnews.ca/news/7773308/federal-budget-money-next-steps-high-frequency-rail-project-peterborough/
2 key updates:
QuoteThe budget proposes to provide $491.2 million over six years, starting in 2021-22, to VIA Rail for infrastructure investments that would support the overall success of the HFR project.
QuoteVIA Rail and Transport Canada will receive another $4.4 million in 2021-22 to continue their work with the Joint Project Office
$4.4 million will be provisioned for the remainder of 2021 to complete the existing $70 million planning and pre-procurement assessment process as part of the joint project office between VIA Rail, Canada Infrastructure Bank, and the 2 engineering firms contracted by the JPO (AECOM and Arup).
$491.2 million is approximately 10% of the total HFR cost, which will likely kickoff detailed design and preliminary track upgrades, grade separation, and prep work on certain segments starting in 2021-22.
The rest of the funding will very likely come from Canada Infrastructure Bank + federal government at a later announcement.
Announcement by Federal Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna on April 19:
-
1
-
Le RIEN de l'Est (Ex-REM de l'Est)
dans Transports en commun
Posté(e)
Okay aside from venting, a more serious question: do you guys know how we can get engaged to voice our concerns? Like writing to MPs? Writing to city councillors? What’s the most direct way to get involved?
I feel like this project got killed because of NIMBYs who are good at shouting. We should do the same.