FrodoMTL

I overall agree with that assessment. If HFR is green-lighted by the federal budget in 2021, we will likely have to wait for another decade or more to see true HSR service between TO and MTL (HSR meaning 300 kph or higher). At the same time, depending on the final recommendations made by the HFR Joint Project Committee (to be released later in April or May), HFR could still become a "higher speed" project (averaging 200 kph). That puts it on par with similar intercity services currently offered in the UK, Germany, etc. Also, let's be honest: the HSR / TGV project has been delayed for decades already. Politicians and activist groups have been pushing for HSR / TGV for decades, and the only thing we now have are tens of thousands of pages of "HSR / TGV Studies" done by consultants.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/the-mayors-high-frequency-rail-service-from-quebec-city-to-toronto-is-a-sustainable-economic-recovery-project/wcm/b1556d52-fa7b-42e1-9f20-251bf094846e/amp/ The mayors of Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City have come out to unanimously endorse VIA Rail's HFR project in the upcoming April 19 Federal Budget.

Wow. Yes, let's stop and complain about a major urban rapid transit project that will undoubtedly benefit millions every year so your suburban IGA + giant parking lot + A&W + gas station could get built this year. Priorities people. Priorities.

We already have a publicly-owned operator - VIA Rail - I don't understand why this needs to be "outsourced" to a foreign third party and add another layer of complexity. Also, a bit more background on the Texas Central HSR proposal: the Texas state gov't has been trying to attract private companies to build an "HSR" since 2012 for the last 9 years, and it's still nowhere near construction due to: 1) lack of funding commitment from Texas state legislature due to lack of public appetite for HSR 2) the HSR proponent hasn't secured any permits to plan or build along the route https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-bullet-train-permits/ https://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/15/private-firm-planning-bullet-trains-texas-2020/

The main competitor for VIA Rail in the corridor service is not drivers. There will always be drivers on the 401. The main competition is with the airlines - Porter, Air Canada Express, Air Transat, and Westjet - which collectively operate over 60+ flights between Toronto (YUL/YTZ) and YUL pre-covid on a daily basis, while charging twice as much on average as a VIA Rail ticket. Even if VIA Rail manages to capture an additional 10-20% from this market alone, it'll be a win for HFR. As for driving, there will ALWAYS be drivers traveling on the 401 between TO and MTL. You won't change with a TGV/HSR. Even in France/Germany/China - where HSR services are well established - you still have millions of single occupancy drivers per year commuting between the major cities. Nothing is going to beat the convenience/flexibility of driving, especially if you are traveling with kids or a small family. With HSR/TGV, that's not going to change - in fact you'll end up with even less intermediary stations between TO and Montreal, effectively cutting off service to everyone living in the giant suburbs and smaller towns between MTL and Toronto. No one currently living in Brampton, Ajax, or Peterborough traveling east to Quebec is going to drive for 1-2 hours west to downtown Toronto and take a TGV. That doesn't make sense when they could just simply get in their car and head east without turning back. Lastly, I want to say that I support both HFR AND HSR. I think both are needed in the immediate and long term. Whatever the ultimate choice is on the April 19th federal budget, I only have 1 wish: just get it built. Stop debating, just do it.

We all realize it's a "sad state of affairs". For decades already. I just don't see how continuously screaming about "HSR/TGV or Nothing" is going to get you any better results. And that's exactly why getting the current HFR plan approved during the April 19 federal budget is so important for passenger rail in this country, because it is the most feasible, concrete, and fundable passenger rail expansion plan that we have seen in decades. Having a successful high frequency intercity rail service (at "higher speed") is critical when you are trying to get buy-in from the public to fund HSR down the road. I'd much rather that we improve our immediate service levels on the corridor - track straightening, grade separation, electrification, level-platform boarding, upgrade station facilities, modern European EMU rolling stock capable of 200-250 kph and hourly or even semi-hourly departures (by owning all tracks from Windsor to QC). There's no "ribbons to cut" for the HFR, because it's not one project but a collection of many different projects like the GO RER in Toronto, but at the end of the day, it'll vastly improve the overall passenger experience on the corridor.

While you may be fine holding your breath for another 50 years for your elusive golden goose TGV/HSR, the rest of us are a little less "perfectionist" and think a proper HFR between Windsor and QC is perfectly adequate to serve this market. Enjoy having "nothing" then, if that is what you truly prefer.

Yes, I agree. While people like to cite examples like Spanish HSR (very impressive I agree for such a small country) or Deutsche Bahn's ICE, they forget that the vast majority of successful intercity rail service in Europe and Asia are operated by "higher speed" services (~150 - 200 kph), which form the backbone of any successful intercity passenger rail network. Even the often cited Chinese HSR didn't just appear out of nowhere. Before China inaugurated its first true HSR service between Beijing and Tianjin in 2008, the system operated a vast network of high frequency but lower speed intercity network and overnight sleeper services. Even today in 2020, over 60% of China's rail passengers are still serviced by lower-speed (sub 200 kph) regional trains or overnight sleeper trains, because fares are on average 50-70% less than on HSR routes. The same can be said for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor between Boston and DC, which offers 2 distinct services (Northeast Regional and Acela, where NE Regional is still the backbone of the service). These international experiences should teach us 2 things: Before jumping to HSR/TGV, one needs a reliable network of high frequency, "higher speed" rail and ridership (the public needs to buy into an existing affordable and reliable high frequency service before introducing HSR). Even after the inauguration of HSR, one still needs a lower-speed local service that compliments the HSR service, such as the Amtrak Northeast Regional, Deutsche Bahn's IC service, or China Rail's D-, Z-, K-, or T-Trains which all operate between 120 - 200 kph (far below HSR standards). That is what VIA Rail's current Corridor and HFR services are intended for, before the future upgrade to true HSR.

Nothing is getting derailed, and HFR is still the only intercity rail project (the Canada Infrastructure Bank already invested $70 million into project planning). Cabinet Minister Champagne came out yesterday to clarify: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1783540/train-grande-frequence-vitesse-quebec-toronto-gouvernement-budget These news articles from JDM / TVA are nothing but sensationalist journalism.

I feel like many posters on this thread ignore the political reality and cost feasibility of building high speed rail (HSR) in the current environment. For years, VIA Rail and some advocacy groups like HSR Canada have called for HSR, but where did that get us? What results did that approach achieve, other than empty commitments from different politicians? In 2018, in a desperate attempt to get re-elected, Ontario's former premier Kathleen Wynne even announced an "$11 billion high speed rail connecting Toronto with London, Ontario" and "service by 2025". All of these grand calls for HSR resulted in absolutely nothing, except a series of studies and millions spend on consultants. I'm extremely wary of any governments calling for shining new projects like HSR/TGV (like Coulliard's Montreal to Quebec City Hyperloop plan) because they almost certainly amount to nothing except empty election promises. Advocacy groups like High Speed Rail for Canada have been pushing for 2 decades for HSR, and what results did they actually achieve with that strategy? We all realize what we "want", but wanting something is very different from actually getting it done with the resources and political realities that we live in. Therefore, I propose that we get out of this mentality of "High Speed Rail/TGV or Nothing", for the very reason that that logic has achieved absolutely zero results in the last 4 decades when it comes to intercity rail in Canada. VIA Rail's High Frequency Rail (HFR) is probably the most realistic and achievable attempt as of date when it comes to the future of intercity passenger rail in this country, because: The government and the Canada Infrastructure Bank have already invested $70 million into a Joint Project Office into a detailed planning for HFR The Joint Project Office has already submitted its official recommendation to Ottawa in January 2021, and this decision will be made in the upcoming federal budget on April 19, including full funding of the project HFR seeks to build dedicated, VIA-owned tracks between QC and Windsor, including a number of track upgrades to increase speed up to 200-220 kph on certain segments HFR seeks to offer minimum hourly service between Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa. TO-MTL will be cut down to 4 hr - 4 hr 30 min, while TO-Ottawa will be cut down to 3 hr 15 min. This will absolutely put it in competitive range with airlines, when you account for things like airport security, wait times, airline weather delays, travel to and from airports, not to mention much better passenger comfort and lower prices on rail (airfare between YTZ and YUL averages $600 round trip, almost double the price of round trip tickets for VIA Rail business class) HFR is essentially marketed as "phase 1" to prove that intercity rail can be successful in Canada, with dedicated tracks, electrification, and new rolling stock. Phase 2 will most certainly be upgrades and speed increases to true high speed rail above 250 kph. For the record, pre-Covid, I used to travel twice a week between Montreal and Toronto for work (flown over 50 segments between YUL-YTZ in 2019). I've flown on Air Canada, Porter, and VIA Rail many many times, and VIA Rail is by far the most comfortable option while also allowing me to work productively or relax on a train ride (not to mention that both my Montreal and Toronto corporate offices are just 10 minute walks to each train station). You just can't do that when flying or driving due to the stress. Lastly, for those still hoping for some miracle HSR to be proposed in the April 19 federal budget, no, it won't happen, and it's not necessarily a bad thing: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1783540/train-grande-frequence-vitesse-quebec-toronto-gouvernement-budget As a former infrastructure funding consultant to both VIA Rail and Air Canada, I find it crazy that certain members of the public/media seem bent on abandoning a good (not perfect) high frequency rail plan (that has a very high chance of federal funding this year and construction start later this year), and instead wanting to chase their golden goose HSR/TGV that gets brought up every 4-5 years whenever an election is about to come.

The point of HFR is not to compete with driving per se. For those who live in the suburbs with 2 SUVs, big McMansion, and 2 kids and a dog, driving will ALWAYS trump any sort of bus, train, or transit for short to medium length trips. It's the theory of sunk costs - you've already put up tens of thousands towards your car, insurance, maintenance, etc. - so you'll always be compelled to use it to the maximum extent even when there are equivalent alternatives. I used to take VIA corridor service between MTL and Toronto Union almost every 2 weeks for work, and can tell you on many days the train was easily sold out. VIA HFR's biggest proposition is to make TO-Ottawa and TO-MTL more attractive than air travel. There were well over 50+ flights between YUL, YYZ, and YTZ everyday precovid, many of them priced 2-3 times higher than even VIA's business class. If VIA HFR is able to even capture just 10-20% of additional TO-MTL air traffic, that's already a huge win. VIA HFR aims to deliver TO-MTL under 4.5 hrs, TO-Ottawa under 3 hrs, and most of all - hourly service and guaranteed arrival times with dedicated tracks and ability to upgrade to HSR in the future. If I could travel from my office in downtown TO to downtown MTL in 4.5 hrs, that already beats air travel because I could work, relax, sleep, eat / drink, and watch 2 netflix movies uninterrupted during those 4.5 hrs, vs. flying: - 20 to 60 min to Uber to YYZ or YTZ (from downtown TO office, vs. a 10 min walk to Union station) - 20 to 30 min to pass thru security - 45 to 90 min waiting at airport lounge (assuming no delays or cancellations, which happen often at YTZ airport) - 15 min lining up to board plane - 30 min for plane to taxi/take off (assuming there's no de-icing or random delays) - 60 min inflight - 15 min to taxi to gate - 15 min to get off plane, get taxi - 35-50 min taxi to downtown MTL Flying may be marginally faster, but it's a lot of "hurry up and wait" and you end up wasting half your day going through the hoops and end up totally exhausted by the time you land. I'm sure everyone who frequently flies short distances between MTL-NYC, MTL-TO, MTL-BOS can relate to the above. And yes, I agree that driving between cities should incur additional costs. E.g. tolls on the 401 like in Asia or Europe.

VIA Rail has released photos of the new Siemens corridor fleet, and they look great! It looks like 2-3 train sets are already completed and are currently in testing in California. Anticipate a big unveil party later this year in Montreal 😀

Safe to say Ville-de-Mont-Royal got a substantial upgrade with over what they had before with Exo. The enclosed/heated platforms alone make the whole thing worth it.

Speaking for people in my neighborhood - Outremont / Edouard Montpetit, REM-A will most definitely help a lot of folks here get around: - Our commute times to downtown offices will be cut down drastically, from 40-50+ min (1-2 metro transfers) to a mere 10-20 min going to downtown with REM-A. This will benefit a lot of folks living along the Blue Line between Snowdon and Jean-Talon. - My commute to the airport will drastically cut down. Before it was a minimum 1 hr 30 min on the 747 + metro transfers, now it's a single ride to the airport terminal. I travel a lot for work pre-covid, and so do thousands of airport workers who will benefit from this everyday. I understand you are saying that is that CDPQ primarily intended this to be a development-driven project and not as a public transit project. That's true and I don't disagree. At the same time, it will most definitely make getting around MTL a lot faster and more pleasant for many. These two facts don't have to be mutually exclusive. Referencing the article in the previous post, I think the real "crux" of the problem with these requests from local municipalities is that there is a lack of holistic coordination among local municipalities and transit agencies, to both plan for and invest for the long term along with sufficient funding mechanisms for these projects. When I say "plan for the future" I meant proposing big picture region-wide plans like the GO Regional Express Rail expansion by Metrolinx in the GTA (which consists of 12 sub rail projects upgrading all of its commuter lines in every GTA municipality including electrification, EMU rollingstock, and upgrades to 50+ stations), not piece-meal plans like "we want to add a bike lane next to ABC station or we want to rename XYZ station". That's not transport planning. That's called squeezing in your pet projects and asking others to pay for them so you can claim this as your accomplishment in the next local election. We all know that's been a glaring void in Greater Montreal transit planning, which ARTM was supposed to fill. CDPQ simply filled that void with REM-A with 1) a shovel-ready project 2) a large sum of startup capital to get things going. Is it the best solution? No. But it's a lot more than what ARTM and the local political leaders are offering.

I guess it's a good thing then that it's CDPQi (and not the ARTM) that's investing in/building/operating this project. Also, if you want something added, pay for it. The sky's the limit if these local politicians can find the money.

I think M. Marsan meant to say it's disgusting because the Caisse hasn't spent millions on studies with him and the architectural firms that he represents. And of course it's a profitability issue: profitability for CDPQ AND the architecture firms who stand to make millions by inserting themselves into countless "urban planning" studies. As for cities around the world where elevated rail are successful... is this a joke statement or has M. Marsan been cooped up at home for too long? Vancouver, Dubai, Singapore, Seoul, Berlin, etc. etc.

ARTM reminds me of Metrolinx in Toronto, which was created in 2006 in Ontario to manage all public transport-related investments and operations in the Greater Toronto Area. Initially, Metrolinx was only responsible for fare integration (with the introduction of PRESTO which was a disaster in the beginning but now finally stable after a decade of work), and in 2009 Metrolinx took over GO Transit (commuter rail, bus, etc.). Just like ARTM, Metrolinx's mandate was to act as an "independent" crown entity that invests, plans, and operates region-wide transit. And just like ARTM, Metrolinx was never the "independent" entity it was meant to be from day 1, because all of its funding were at the mercy of the provincial government. At some point, the political interference became so extreme that Metrolinx made specific design decisions to the GO RER project, at the request of then Ontario Minister of Transport Steven Del Duca (who specifically pushed Metrolinx to build additional stations in his own electoral riding...). Later, Metrolinx's other projects like the Hamilton LRT project got cancelled as soon as Doug Ford came to power in 2018, and miraculously earlier this year the Hamilton LRT got revived again because Ford changed his mind. So, in the end, Metrolinx, like ARTM, basically became a political pawn of which government is in power.

I'm curious, hoping some could help answer: 1. What assets are "given" or handed to CDPQi for free for REM-B? For REM-A, it was obvious as it had to take over existing rail corridors, but you could also argue that by doing that the government (and the public) all ended up paying less upfront (vs. asking Infra to build new rail corridors for REM-A from scratch). It'd be interesting to do an actual cost benefit analysis on this. 2. Does the government get any future surplus revenue generated from operation of REM and surrounding property development fees. For example, the present value of future net-new municipal property taxes from the new TODs, condos, office towers around REM stations would surely go to the government (which could be a very large figure). Curious to know the exact breakdown on future revenue sharing especially from indirect sources of revenue such as development fees, rent, etc.

In many U.S. cities, the newer LRT/Streetcar projects are less transportation, and more used as "urban revitalization" projects that cities fund in order to attract real estate developers along the streetcar routes, with their primary purpose being to "revitalize" (aka gentrify) their downtown areas - e.g. Detroit Q Line, Atlanta/DC Streetcars, etc. - they serve no functional purpose as a viable transportation tool (since many of them operate as a downtown "circulator" with one-way service). As far as I know, projects like the above would never fly in Canadian cities. Even a "private" investor like CDPQi would never propose something as ludicrous as the DC Streetcar or Detroit QLine. Seattle's LRT lines are actually not too bad compared to the other newer streetcar lines in the U.S., but noticeably worse than Canadian counterparts like Calgary LRT or Toronto TTC Streetcar network which get far far higher ridership. Detroit QLine:

I agree overall with your sentiment. Only differing point is that IMHO, when it comes to mass transit, it shouldn't be a crime to have a "profit motive". Specifically, I don't mean that transit operators should focus solely on generating surplus net income like a private corporation. But rather giving transit operators (whether they be STM, Exo, ARTM, or CDPQi) the freedom to create systems that incentivize future transit expansions, reward high quality customer service, and reward good management practices, that allow them to respond faster and more flexibly to future changes in transportation needs. And if there needs to be money involved to incentivize the above behaviours, then so be it. Transit agencies can't forever remain the clunky bureaucratic organizations that they used to be that survive solely on the whims of political leaders.

Has AMT / Exo come up with their own plan for modernization? Similar to Metrolinx's GO RER / GO Expansion plan released in 2015 and is now underway in Toronto? I'd be all for spending $ 10 billion + on upgrading the existing commuter network up to RER standards, but I have yet to see any credible / comprehensively regional proposal being put forth by ARTM or Exo, that are fully costed and shovel ready. So far the most notable project taken by ARTM is regional fare integration (ongoing). Oh and the Chrono transit app which basically replicates what Google Maps and Transit apps do already. When the bureaucrats at ARTM / Exo manage to get their acts together and actually take a leadership role on regional transport planning and execution , I'd be the first one onboard. Metrolinx in Toronto has had a myriad of issues like political interference, but at least they've put forth very solid business cases since 2015 for 12 major projects that fall under the GO RER expansion project, including electrification which will be starting next year: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/GO_Expansion_FBC_ExecSummary.pdf http://www.metrolinx.com/en/greaterregion/projects/go-expansion.aspx

If we are to go with a combo of bus / tram + REM-B, I think it should be the other way round: - REM-B serving downtown core and parts of the eastern areas surrounding downtown (whether elevated or not) - Augmented by one or multiple tramways / BRT branches further out to the east and northeast of the island where there is much lower population density It's kind of illogical to serve the densest areas of downtown with a lower level transit mode (tram / bus) and the least dense areas in the suburbs with REM ... it should be other way round. I'm not against tramways in downtown areas, but before tramways, we should have proper "bones" in place such as high capacity rapid transit in the form of REM-A / REM-B / Metro. After that, tramways can then serve to connect those rapid transit routes with more local stops. This is one problem faced by Toronto - in that they have a fantastic high quality streetcar system serving the core but terrible subway / rapid transit coverage. Streetcars work great in local routes but they are terrible for slightly longer journeys (e.g. ideal if you want to jump on streetcar from Spadina Chinatown to Union Station ~15 min; terrible if you want to travel from downtown Toronto to Park Lawn or western Toronto, which could turn into an 1 hr+ streetcar journey). Lastly, there's got to be a better solution if the only reason we are replacing REM on RL with a tramway is aesthetics ... At the end of the day, this isn't a public art project. This is a public transport project and the priority is to get people from points A to point B in the most efficient way possible. Aesthetics is important, but it shouldn't supersede the primary purpose of a transit network.

Because CDPQ has explicitly stated since the announcement of REM in 2016 that their mandate is to implement REM (fully automated) rapid transit solutions. They are not in the business of building other modes of public transit (trams, BRTs, streetcars, etc) - and to be fair, that is the STM's job. On the topic of tramway vs. elevated rail/rapid transit, please take a look at Toronto's current Eglinton Crosstown project, as well as Toronto's Spadina and St. Clair LRT lines - both of which have their own ROWs but suffer from service inconsistencies and speed restrictions due to lack of grade separation, especially in dense urban environments like RL (see 510 St. Clair streetcar). Usually, 1 accident on the line (pedestrian hit by a streetcar / a driver accidentally drives onto the track, etc.) will paralyze the whole 510 line. All of that increases the TTC's operating costs (LRT drivers, daily accidents and delays, due to lack of grade separation). Another example is Ottawa's O-Train Line 1, which was originally planned as a "tramway" but eventually went with full grade separation (a good decision that will allow them to operate at much higher speeds and capacity). At the end of the day, it's a decision between: do we want a tramway that serves local transit needs (with lower operating speed/frequency and more local station stops) vs. a rapid transit system that is more geared towards regional transit needs at much higher operating speeds and frequencies. To be clear, I'm not against tramways or LRTs - I love taking trams and think a tramway in areas like the Old Port or Griffintown would be extremely beneficial to serve their local transit needs.

Because Ottawa's Confederation Line (soon to be "Line 1" as they construct and open lines 2, 3, and 4 in the next few years) was originally designed to be an at-grade line with street crossings, much like a traditional tramway. However, when the design was finally converted to full grade separation, they had already placed the orders for Alstom Citadis LRVs and could not back out of it. Hence, you have this weird combination of a metro-like infrastructure but operated with LRT-style vehicles (not uncommon in many of the new U.S. LRT systems like Seattle). The positive news is that Ottawa Line 1 at least achieves full grade separation, which is not something the Toronto Line 5 Eglinton LRT will get even with $12 billion + sunk into that project... Just shows the importance of making the "right" decision from the start, because these things could have decades of downstream impact on the future usability of the system. And yes, I'm glad REM-A went with 1) full grade separation 2) full automation 3) metro-style rollingstock.