VIA Rail

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

And what are you basing your numbers on?

Quite simple: almost no week passes where I don't see at least one new news article about how much Northern Ontarians are missing a dependable passenger rail corridor and these get shared across all possible Social Media channels by a network of people from Northern Ontario and beyond. Conversely, the only times I see or hear anything about less-than-HSR passenger rail service between Edmonton and Calgary, it's the same two freaks from Ontario who lecture everyone (including actual Albertans!) about what Albertans actually need and should want right now...

I would prefer to at least have the results of an origin/destination survey. The problem is there is no real true data concerning rail ridership because there is no ridership.

I'm afraid that nobody (apart from swimmer_spe, obviously) seems to care about what you would prefer...

That alone does not mean there is no demand but the lack of accurate demand data is why I believe in starting limited service. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I am not talking HSR or even HFR to begin with.

Solutions are conceived by carefully defining a problem, pipe dreams are conceived by obsessing about supposedly desirable solutions...

PS: Never forget that Edmonton-Calgary is the only intercity corridor in this country which wasn't cancelled due to a cut in VIA's operating budget, but because the provincial government could not be bothered to pay more than a measly million Dollars to upgrade some level crossings...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

First just for clarity - do we even know if that map is official or just made up by someone?

Tweeted out by Transport Canada.

https://twitter.com/Transport_gc/sta...266219013?s=19

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thanks for that blog post, very interesting. I'm confused though - unless I am misunderstanding, to achieve 3 hours you'd need to upgrade that long section west of Perth?

You're not confused. That's exactly what it means. That whole stretch is currently very twisty and windy. And how much they straighten that out is going to determine how fast they get to Ottawa and Montreal.

Originally Posted by milomilo

So what's going on here? If it is impossible to get 3 hour timings without a substantial section of green field railway, is that what VIA are planning? If not, how are they claiming a 3 hour time? It's possible the guy is wrong, but it comes across as accurate.

I don't think he's wrong. Looking at the raised budget bracket and longer timelines, it's looking like the Joint Project Office came to the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I hate to say it but I think the grade crossings are an inevitable source of conflict either way. If they remain open, as soon as there's a major accident with loss of life there will be calls for speed reduction and grade separation. I can foresee emotions runnign high after such an event and the authorities giving into calls for a speed limit of say 100 km/h though any crossings. There are mitigation measures, however, such as barriers that physically stop outside intrusion but they're a lot more expensive. I think it would be worth it though.

For 125 mph/200 kph level crossings, we aren't talking about your standard barrier pole coming down. They will probably need 4 quadrant gates with presence detection. And they'll probably grade separate every location with substantial traffic crossing.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Ottawa-Montreal is bit disappointing as well. Though as I said a few days ago, the days of an Ottawa-Montreal drive in 2 hours flat are gone due to traffic volumes. For most people its 2h15 or 2h30 these days.

Yeah. Was really hoping for 1.5 hrs or less. It's starting to look like they traded investment on Ottawa-Montreal for the Ottawa bypass. That said, I'm still hoping to see decent frequencies and a REM connection at Dorval that would make accessing YUL easier.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

We also have a hyperloop plan with the same level of development (none). So don't count the chickens yet.

True. I would think $9B is a complete non-starter. So what's Kenney's angle here?

As much as I am a fan of the idea of building some service between Calgary and Edmonton, if there's a case for a $9B line between these two cities, the case for HSR between Ottawa and Montreal, with a larger combined population and shorter distance is even higher. Ditto, Montreal and Quebec City, which have the added bonus of unique cultural ties as the first and third largest francophone cities in the Americas.

[GreaterMontréal]

Trois-Rivières is a good location for people who live in the A-55 corridor. The city will become a transportation hub because it will bring people from all over central Quebec.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not sure what your argument is here. If the current 4 lane highway works fine (it does) to get people between cities in 3 hours, with buses available a little slower, and planes maybe a little faster, what does the money spent on rail actually give us? Unless it's faster than the current options, it's useless. In the coming decades capacity on highway 2 might get used up, but building more lanes would be cheaper than rail.

You stated the 8 lanes. I am trying to figure out where they are inAB.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The problem is not so much the TCH, but parking in Banff NP. I agree that the TCH is busy from time to time, but many other times of the day there is little traffic on it compared to traffic volumes on 4 lane highways in ON or QC. Many other locations in the park do not have access to the park transit. If you want to go to Yoho or Kootenay National Park you must drive. If you want to go hiking anywhere up the Icefields Parkway with the exception of the Athabasca Glacier you have to drive. If you want to go skiing at Kicking Horse in Golden, BC you can't take a bus from Calgary or Banff to Golden.

In spite of this, I am still agreement with train service to Banff from Calgary but I think the Calgary Edmonton route is a higher priority.

http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrain...el/tramway.htm

Originally Posted by milomilo

And this describes the limitations of rail in general. It is only capable of replacing a small portion of trips (this number increases the more rail is built and the better public transit is).

However just replacing that small number of trips can have a disproportionate impact on other things. Traffic stays mostly the same until a road starts getting to capacity, then it quickly gets much worse. So taking a few cars off the road can have a big impact. And then you don't have that car clogging up Banff, taking up parking, aimlessly driving around Lake Louise etc.

With millions visiting just in the summer months, you need to get rid of more than just a "small number of cars".

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

LOL. No. Not even close.

TKL has a plan that was actually studied and has an EA currently underway, currently has VIA services on the route, a corridor that can be bought and repurposed by VIA, and ongoing provincial investment that will electrify a quarter of the line (Kitchener RER).

Calgary-Edmonton has an HSR (not HFR) high level study that was done a few years go. No EA underway. No corridor that can be easily repurposed. And no actual support from the provincial government.

And this is before we get into actual political return for any federal government proposing to build either proposal. If Alberta actually elects an NDP majority in 2023 and the federal Liberals are still in power, they might finally be able to do all the work the pre-requisite work that VIA and the CIB did for HFR for the last half decade.

Kitchener is still a long way from London, and even further away from Windsor or Sarnia. That would be like saying a plan is in place for Calgary to Banff and assuming that to Edmonton will be done too. We can be hopeful for both, but without a plan, they are currently a no go.

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

There is an article CTV London today to say that there is a second announcement coming and that west of toronto (kw/london) will not be left out of the Via improvements. What that means - I have no clue, but hopefully there will be some improvements.

https://london.ctvnews.ca/local-lead...ents-1.5500720

I'm genuinely curious what it will be.

Originally Posted by technomad

probably because most people from alberta posting about this have read the HSR studies and know that the EDM<>CAL link is about replacing air traffic, not personal vehicles.

and now with oil in the shitter, along with calgary's office market, the YYC runway shortage doesn't seem as dire or near as it once did.

the banff train at least gets the infrastructure started, and puts the idea of rail back into the local hive-mind. it will also go over well with the tourist crowd, many of whom come from rail rich areas like europe and asia.

Sadly, the hard times are a good thing for Via to expand.

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

haha...wait so this is...happening? It basically sounds like two major private companies have a MOU with the Government of Alberta to build HSR for $9B...

This is a great thing. I wonder what they define as high speed. I also wonder what it will actually reach.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

And what are you basing your numbers on? I would prefer to at least have the results of an origin/destination survey. The problem is there is no real true data concerning rail ridership because there is no ridership. That alone does not mean there is no demand but the lack of accurate demand data is why I believe in starting limited service. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I am not talking HSR or even HFR to begin with.

He bases his numbes on things he believes. Not worth engaging with him.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

True. I would think $9B is a complete non-starter. So what's Kenney's angle here?

As much as I am a fan of the idea of building some service between Calgary and Edmonton, if there's a case for a $9B line between these two cities, the case for HSR between Ottawa and Montreal, with a larger combined population and shorter distance is even higher. Ditto, Montreal and Quebec City, which have the added bonus of unique cultural ties as the first and third largest francophone cities in the Americas.

Same as with the Hyperloop thing, Kenney will fully support it with words in the moment, but also say only if it involves no public funding.

This is a board full of infrastructure nerds - we all know that infrastructure is worth far more than it is given credit for. When the CP line opened in the 1800s, no one was thinking of how it would still be incredibly valuable in 2021, or that it would have been highly important in generating a multi-trillion dollar economy, but it did. But the benefits are hard to measure and accrue over very long periods, so at the time of spend it just looks like a massive boondoggle (as the CP line definitely was).

But yeah, I agree. If you can make a positive business case for HSR in Alberta, there definitely is one for the Corridor.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You stated the 8 lanes. I am trying to figure out where they are inAB.

And you must be misunderstanding my posts. Maybe I'm terrible at communicating, but at this point it seems just as likely you're choosing to misunderstand.

There are no 8 lane highways outside of the major urban areas. I said if we get to the point where there is a 6-8 lane highway then we might be able to justify rail. This would be from a fairly simple cost benefit analysis - would it be cheaper to add capacity in the form of roads or rail? There are other benefits of course, but they are less in a place that has a much smaller population than the corridor and no existing passenger rail to build off and assist with network effects.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Same as with the Hyperloop thing, Kenney will fully support it with words in the moment, but also say only if it involves no public funding.

IIRC, Alberta already committed to pay for demolition of any abandoned structures for the experimental track. I'd call that a public funding commitment, albeit for a far-future budget rather than one of his.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

And you must be misunderstanding my posts. Maybe I'm terrible at communicating, but at this point it seems just as likely you're choosing to misunderstand.

There are no 8 lane highways outside of the major urban areas. I said if we get to the point where there is a 6-8 lane highway then we might be able to justify rail. This would be from a fairly simple cost benefit analysis - would it be cheaper to add capacity in the form of roads or rail? There are other benefits of course, but they are less in a place that has a much smaller population than the corridor and no existing passenger rail to build off and assist with network effects.

I am not choosing to misunderstand anyone. I actually am choosing to ask questions to better understand everyone. So, it might be that you are terrible at communicating. Or, that we both need to work on better communication.

In the 1970s, the section through Toronto was widened from 4 lanes to 6. It is now 18 lanes in some parts. We are still playing catch up. Maybe AB could learn a thing or 2 from ON and get things going before the need actually exists so that it can grow and keep widening highways down. But, maybe I am misunderstanding that you want congestion.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Quite simple: almost no week passes where I don't see at least one new news article about how much Northern Ontarians are missing a dependable passenger rail corridor and these get shared across all possible Social Media channels by a network of people from Northern Ontario and beyond. Conversely, the only times I see or hear anything about less-than-HSR passenger rail service between Edmonton and Calgary, it's the same two freaks from Ontario who lecture everyone (including actual Albertans!) about what Albertans actually need and should want right now...

I am not lecturing anybody. I have to say that the breath of fresh air and decorum that you originally brought to this page has evaporated. In actual fact I live in AB 6 months a year and in ON 6 months a year and I used to be a full time resident of AB and at other times ON so I think I know the landscape of AB fairly well and certainly better than you.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I'm afraid that nobody (apart from swimmer_spe, obviously) seems to care about what you would prefer...

You seem to have the biggest problem with restructuring routes in the prairies. Keep in mind that Via in its most recent annual report said that the Canadian is not viable in its current form due to delays from freight trains on CN. You have unwilling to consider the options using secondary lines with little or no freight interference and routings that serve higher population centres. Clearly transcontinental service is a lost cause which you do not want to admit.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Solutions are conceived by carefully defining a problem, pipe dreams are conceived by obsessing about supposedly desirable solutions...

PS: Never forget that Edmonton-Calgary is the only intercity corridor in this country which wasn't cancelled due to a cut in VIA's operating budget, but because the provincial government could not be bothered to pay more than a measly million Dollars to upgrade some level crossings...

I agree but it is not only the provincial AB government that was irresponsible but also the federal government. The federal government usually funds a portion of most grade separation projects even though they benefit both roads and railways. Keep in mind during the same time period, the federal government contributed millions of dollars to 4 lane much of the Yellowhead highway in AB and SK. So your funding partner is to blame just as much as the AB government. Even if a portion of that money had been used to support the federal government's area of responsibility the crossing issue in AB would have been reduced rather than spending all of it on highways which are a provincial responsibility.

Via never tried to close crossings and neither did it ever try to even upgrade crossings. In all the time that has passed since it was cancelled has Via ever tried to re-introduce rail service, partially out both levels of government, especially under conservative rule due to not wanting to be seen as running roughshod over private commercial interests. Stop thinking that all the cuts to Via were made based on cost decisions and not related at all to political decisions. The Canadian now runs on CN tracks and not on CP tracks from Winnipeg to Vancouver solely because Don Mazankowski was from AB. We got to this situation because of history.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You seem to have the biggest problem with restructuring routes in the prairies. Keep in mind that Via in its most recent annual report said that the Canadian is not viable in its current form due to delays from freight trains on CN. You have unwilling to consider the options using secondary lines with little or no freight interference and routings that serve higher population centres. Clearly transcontinental service is a lost cause which you do not want to admit.

Or maybe their actual work experience tells them how hard it is to split routes.

My experience is from the aviation side. But airlines try hard not to open new bases. And I assume that splitting routes means opening a new base. Probably in Winnipeg. The result is probably making the Canadian into a larger money pit than it already is.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I agree but it is not only the provincial AB government that was irresponsible but also the federal government. The federal government usually funds a portion of most grade separation projects even though they benefit both roads and railways. Keep in mind during the same time period, the federal government contributed millions of dollars to 4 lane much of the Yellowhead highway in AB and SK. So your funding partner is to blame just as much as the AB government. Even if a portion of that money had been used to support the federal government's area of responsibility the crossing issue in AB would have been reduced rather than spending all of it on highways which are a provincial responsibility.

Via never tried to close crossings and neither did it ever try to even upgrade crossings. In all the time that has passed since it was cancelled has Via ever tried to re-introduce rail service, partially out both levels of government, especially under conservative rule due to not wanting to be seen as running roughshod over private commercial interests. Stop thinking that all the cuts to Via were made based on cost decisions and not related at all to political decisions. The Canadian now runs on CN tracks and not on CP tracks from Winnipeg to Vancouver solely because Don Mazankowski was from AB. We got to this situation because of history.

That ancient history is not why Alberta doesn't have rail today. These circular arguments over shit that happened 30-40 years ago is irrelevant today. The reality is that if anybody in Alberta was genuinely concerned about intercity rail service, we would have seen a multi-year campaign and lobbying of different federal governments to get service started. And it would have actually been a provincial priority at or over items (like say pipelines). When was the last time Jason Kenney mentioned intercity passenger rail? What about Notley or Redford? They also seem more interested in shipping oil by rail than people. Honestly, this is almost starting to look like everything else from Alberta: Don't actually invest in infrastructure or fight for it and then blame the feds knowing that your gullible citizens will buy it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Or maybe their actual work experience tells them how hard it is to split routes.

My experience is from the aviation side. But airlines try hard not to open new bases. And I assume that splitting routes means opening a new base. Probably in Winnipeg. The result is probably making the Canadian into a larger money pit than it already is.

That ancient history is not why Alberta doesn't have rail today. These circular arguments over shit that happened 30-40 years ago is irrelevant today. The reality is that if anybody in Alberta was genuinely concerned about intercity rail service, we would have seen a multi-year campaign and lobbying of different federal governments to get service started. And it would have actually been a provincial priority at or over items (like say pipelines). When was the last time Jason Kenney mentioned intercity passenger rail? What about Notley or Redford? They also seem more interested in shipping oil by rail than people. Honestly, this is almost starting to look like everything else from Alberta: Don't actually invest in infrastructure or fight for it and then blame the feds knowing that your gullible citizens will buy it.

I feel like I have to stand up for Alberta here. What was so wrong with the decisions made? The rail service was trash and without building a separate right of way, it would only have become more trash - trying to improve it would be money down the drain. There were buses available on the much faster road which provided better service. So scrapping it really doesn't seem unwise, in the same way we should scrap the Canadian - it is pointless.

As much as it offends some people on this board, the lack of passenger rail in Alberta is just fine for the residents. Even if a Calgary - Edmonton train existed, it would account for probably less than a percent of journeys made annually. Its significance is overstated.

And the government did invest money on rail transport in Alberta, only it did so on rail transport that actually was used by its residents. Calgary and Edmonton both have significant light rail systems, with Calgary's in particular being very successful.

And the rest of the infrastructure is fine - there are complaints to be made wherever you live but the roads are generally fit for purpose, as is our electrical grid and we have excellent airports. I don't see where Alberta is badly underinvesting in infrastructure.

I say this as someone who would fully support raising taxes and building a a railway from Calgary to Banff and Edmonton. But let's keep things in perspective.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I feel like I have to stand up for Alberta here. What was so wrong with the decisions made?

Nothing was wrong with the decisions made. Albertan governments made the decisions that they thought were in their interests. And their voters rewarded them for it. Which is why it is now ridiculous to blame the feds for lack of rail service between Calgary and Edmonton.

There's this weird tendency among railfans to blame the feds for all their issues. Apparently they want the feds to overrule provincial infrastructure priorities. For any of this stuff there has to be a base level of provincial support. Even if the feds are bringing the dollars.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nothing was wrong with the decisions made. Albertan governments made the decisions that they thought were in their interests. And their voters rewarded them for it. Which is why it is now ridiculous to blame the feds for lack of rail service between Calgary and Edmonton.

There's this weird tendency among railfans to blame the feds for all their issues. Apparently they want the feds to overrule provincial infrastructure priorities. For any of this stuff there has to be a base level of provincial support. Even if the feds are bringing the dollars.

Albertans might blame the federal government for a lot of things. But they are not blaming the feds for the lack of rail service. They mostly don't care, and if they do care about rail I don't think they are really interested in it being VIA who provides it.

The people complaining most vociferously about lack of rail service in Alberta (at least on this forum) are people who do not live here. So please don't let them taint your views of this province.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The Canadian now runs on CN tracks and not on CP tracks from Winnipeg to Vancouver solely because Don Mazankowski was from AB. We got to this situation because of history.

No, no, no, no.... It is because the line that got canceled was making too much money and the thought of keeping another service not connected to another (ahem, Sudbury-White River) was unfathomable. To say that it was political goes against everything the sky wants to believe. heaven forbid his employer was ever controlled by politics.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That ancient history is not why Alberta doesn't have rail today. These circular arguments over shit that happened 30-40 years ago is irrelevant today. The reality is that if anybody in Alberta was genuinely concerned about intercity rail service, we would have seen a multi-year campaign and lobbying of different federal governments to get service started. And it would have actually been a provincial priority at or over items (like say pipelines). When was the last time Jason Kenney mentioned intercity passenger rail? What about Notley or Redford? They also seem more interested in shipping oil by rail than people. Honestly, this is almost starting to look like everything else from Alberta: Don't actually invest in infrastructure or fight for it and then blame the feds knowing that your gullible citizens will buy it.

If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. The fact that Albertans don't care about rail speaks loudly about how successful the governments of the time were in making it irrelevant.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Albertans might blame the federal government for a lot of things. But they are not blaming the feds for the lack of rail service. They mostly don't care, and if they do care about rail I don't think they are really interested in it being VIA who provides it.

The people complaining most vociferously about lack of rail service in Alberta (at least on this forum) are people who do not live here. So please don't let them taint your views of this province.

I'll agree with that. I am still confused why if it is irrelevant, why it is either HSR or nothing? Is it because a whole lot of money is needed to be spent to make a fast, but potentially empty train?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'll agree with that. I am still confused why if it is irrelevant, why it is either HSR or nothing? Is it because a whole lot of money is needed to be spent to make a fast, but potentially empty train?

Nobody says it's HSR or nothing. But it has to be better than existing transport modes to be competitive. Something that is as slow as the bus and more expensive ain't going to work. And in a highly auto centric place (both Calgary and Edmonton have transit usage that is lower than similarly sized Ottawa), you're going to have to equal or beat the car to succeed. And offer that service at a reasonable price.

This should all become clear when this HSR consortium finishes their analysis and releases their market survey.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'll agree with that. I am still confused why if it is irrelevant, why it is either HSR or nothing? Is it because a whole lot of money is needed to be spent to make a fast, but potentially empty train?

I don't know if it has to be by the numbers HSR (~250km/h), although it probably does IMO. But a rail project between Calgary and Edmonton has to be of decent quality from the start for the reason I have stated a million times. Unless it is faster than, at a minimum, a bus, and ideally faster than a car or plane, and of a reasonable frequency, then there is no reason for anyone to use it as there are better options. And if no one uses it, then it's a waste of money. There is no incrementalism possible here.

To be decent quality, we're talking a journey time of <2.5 hours. That's about 120km/h. But to achieve that with good reliability you are going to need a dedicated ROW, and you're going to have to build a new and expensive station in Edmonton regardless. Since this new build line goes across prairie nothingness, it will be easy to make it go fast, and the faster you go the more passengers you get. That's why the studies always end up saying HSR beats slower rail.

[Truenorth00]

For context, HFR is being designed to average 130 kph between Toronto and Ottawa. It's using existing track and restoring corridors. And that still costs $3-4B. That's probably the minimum performance to be competitive in Calgary-Edmonton.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

For context, HFR is being designed to average 130 kph between Toronto and Ottawa. It's using existing track and restoring corridors. And that still costs $3-4B. That's probably the minimum performance to be competitive in Calgary-Edmonton.

There is no empty railway to buy and use though between Calgary and Edmonton. You could maybe add tracks to CP's line, but it would probably be a wiser investment to take $5B of cash and light it on fire.

And there really is no easy option for a station in Edmonton that doesn't suck.

[technomad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

There is no empty railway to buy and use though between Calgary and Edmonton. You could maybe add tracks to CP's line, but it would probably be a wiser investment to take $5B of cash and light it on fire.

And there really is no easy option for a station in Edmonton that doesn't suck.

it's definitely not as easy a viaducting over the CP tracks to tower centre, but most of a decent rail ROW to central Edmonton still exists.
the last couple of miles will be pricey tho... tunnel, bridge or maybe even both?