Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13
I didn't know that, thanks.
I feel that's a very inefficient route. Imagine how much time would be saved if they by-passed Ottawa for the TO-MTL trip. It would have been fine if it were high speed rail, but it's not good enough for high frequency.
This could be a huge legacy project for the government, instead you have VIA Rail trying to find a project that balances improved service with cost effectiveness, which results in something better than what we have but still miles away from what it needs to be. And it's still not guaranteed.
The Feds should have stepped up and drafted a plan for a proper electric high-speed rail to serve the busiest rail corridor which would have resulted in huge gains for the environment by taking cars off the highways (resulting in a traffic reduction) and planes out of the sky.
I suspect that the airlines are probably to blame. They are probably lobbying the Feds hard to prevent any sort of rail service improvements.
Here's the HFR map from 2011.
http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/10/via-t...regional-rail/ |
As much fun as it is to picture a full HSR network from Quebec City to Windsor, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Proposals like the one above are not how Canadians approach transportation infrastructure. And I don't mean that in a negative way either. And to explain why, before getting back to VIA rail, I am going to deviate for a moment.
If you look across Canada probably the biggest transportation project that is underway is the twinning of Highway 1 from Kamloops to the Alberta border. I could go back much further in history and talk about the evolution of the Trans Canada Highway since the 1960's, but this one section will serve the purpose.
For those that don't know, in the early 2000's most of this section of highway, which is 440km in length (337 under provincial control, and 103 under Parks Canada control) was a 2 lane highway, save the odd urban section, and areas with passing lanes. Upgrading it to 4 lanes is a massive, multi decade long project. Some sections are somewhat straightforward, and others, such as the final phase of the Kicking Horse Pass, will cost $110 million/km over a 4 km section.
The reason I bring this up is because having just come back from a Winnipeg to Vancouver, and back, road trip, and having driven the Trans Canada on the way back, I have been reflecting on the changes I have seen in just 5 years, and the plan itself. While there are some sections that will have grade separated interchanges, many (for local roads with limited traffic but still require access to the highway), will be at grade, protected intersections. When it comes to the towns along the way, the highway will still go through them, with traffic lights and all, albeit with a better attention to detail for accommodating local and thru traffic. There are likely to be only a limited number of tunnels, if any, being constructed.
Some observers might think this is them cheaping out. That instead of building a freeway through the Rockies, Canada has once again failed to think big. But in fact, I would say the exact opposite.
The plan for the Kamloops to Alberta section is a brilliantly programatic and Canadian plan. By not using tunnels. By not spending hundreds of millions trying to bypass towns along the way. By saving money using protected, at grade intersections where traffic volumes using them might only be a few dozen vehicles an hour, they can balance increasing the speed and safety of highway, without spending many billions extra. It also maintains easy access to the highway for local towns and communities. And it allows drivers to still enjoy a staggeringly beautiful drive (if you have never driven through the Rockies in the winter, either via the Trans Canada, or Highway 3, I would strongly recommend you do it).
Now, how does this relate to VIA?
There have been several failings of previous HSR plans. To start with, they don't take smaller towns and cities into consideration. They don't even appear on maps. They bypass them like they are nothing. Or they propose stations outside the city limits, and assume people will be okay driving further to get to a rail station.
Two, they are big and grand and assume an all or nothing approach. This isn't something Canadians have ever really done. You could very easily argue that upgrading Highway 1 from Kamloops to Alberta is such an important project that it should all be done as quickly as possible. But instead, it is being doing over time, in a way that bring incremental benefits, consults communities, and considers the full impact of design decisions. Yes, there is an overall grand plan, but it isn't necessary for it to happen all at once.
Three, they make incorrect assumptions that speed is everything. Sure, the fact that a train can go 300km/h faster will make a trip quicker (if you are going to one of the few places to actually see the service). But trips are door to door. Someone in Barrhaven looking to go to Toronto now saves just under an hour of travel time by using Fallowfield since they don't have to drive out to Tremblay Station, and they don't have to backtrack to their starting point on the first leg of the trip. All that time savings just from a $5 million station being built near them.
In short, the HSR plans haven't been pragmatic or Canadian in their approach.
And that is why HFR is actually a great start to better passenger rail service. It doesn't exclude building a dedicated passenger rail line in the Lakeshore corridor. It actually helps that possibility by combing several projects (upgrading Smiths Falls to Ottawa to Coteau(ish), and service to Peterborough), will filling in a gap between Smiths Falls to Peterborough to provide a new route for service to Ottawa. It means they don't have to spend money on CN infrastructure to try to increase, or even just maintain existing Lakeshore service. It is a precursor for more ambitious investments in passenger rail.
Upgrading the Lakeshore corridor (meaning building a dedicated passenger line from Montreal to Toronto), is going to be a project that is basically equivalent to the Highway 1 upgrade in BC. Some sections will be straightforward, where there is flat terrain, low populations, and existing corridors with straight geometry. Others will be very challenging, such as Belleville to Oshawa where the terrain is hilly, and where it is very well inhabited, both in the cities along the way and the countryside. It will need to be done in phases. And it will have to take into consideration how to serve those smaller towns and cities along the way.
Canadians seem to be, for the most part, pretty neutral about trains. Most don't really love or hate them, and if there was a project that made taking them more convenient, and makes smart economic sense in terms of travel cost versus a car or plane, you could easily get support for it. And while airlines might not like the idea of HSR taking away some short haul traffic, their ability to hold back rail expansion is not particularly strong. The GTAA has more power to push rail expansion forward, and we have seen how much their view of that has changed in just a couple years.
The problem isn't that people don't get what people have envisioned. It's that the past plans proposed don't get what people actually want. HFR is getting decent support overall. And if someone is able to propose a good, Canadian, plan for the Lakeshore corridor in the next 5 or 10 years, I am sure it would have no problem moving forward.
Prev
Linear Mode
