The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It may be a large percentage increase but it isn't a large absolute number, especially compared to the total number of trips between the cities. So I don't agree with the idea that it would mean attracting "an immense amount of travellers" Not only are there people who didn't previously use rail because of the unreliability or slow travel times, but as TN said that's not the whole story. When you're offering service that wasn't previously available it means that you can do business with customers that previously would have been out of your reach. If there are customers who only want to travel at time D and you only offer trips at times A B or C, then those customers either won't make the trip or use another provider (latent demand). Offering service to those customers is one of the main advantages of HFR.

I'm not disputing that the HFR plan will result in a substantial ridership increase due to the increased market reach potential you mentioned. I'm simply doubtful that the proposed changes can actually achieve 3x the ridership. I'm not sure what their ridership forecast methodology is and we won't know until the study is publicly released. However, the best available data I can find that provides detailed ridership numbers for the Ottawa-Toronto route doesn't seem to support that claim. For instance, have a look at the chart below



The original 5 daily departures in 2009 had a total of about 260k passengers, 52k per departure. Monthly ridership went from about 260k to 400k between 2009 and 2016 by adding 4 more departures to the initial 5, a ridership increase of 54% for a service increase of 80%. So that equates to about 35k new monthly passengers per added departure. If we extrapolate that number to 18 new trips, we end up with a total of 1.03M, about 2.5x more passengers for 3x more departures. But that's assuming a constant rate of growth per departure. The law of diminishing returns suggests that number is more likely to decrease than increase with every new departure.

However, I acknowledge that that doesn't take other factors into consideration, such as better on-time performance and shorter run times. Those factors will likely add to ridership growth per added departure as well, but will they be enough to essentially result in a linear growth rate per unit? That's what I'm having troubles believing.

I think we have to remember that VIA is pushing the best case scenario of HFR's purported benefits, for obvious reasons. Even in the article you linked where the VIA CEO compares the cost and benefits of HFR to HSR, he claims $3B for 7 million passengers with HFR vs $10B for 10 million passengers with HSR. Firstly, $3B is obviously an egregious lowball. Secondly, for the Montreal-Toronto segment, the HSR study actually only estimated 5.7M passengers by 2031 for F200 (200kph diesel HSR) and 6.3M for E300 (300kph electric HSR).

So perhaps you can understand my skepticism when VIA is estimating higher Toronto-Montreal ridership with HFR than HSR.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hardly. But it gets a little ridiculous when people handwave just putting a rail line down the 401 without any consideration of what that means.

That was obviously a very basic example and I certainly wasn't advocating for a new corridor to be fully built along the 401. I'm pretty sure you knew that, though.

And of course I considered the implications of what I'm saying. Planning is my field of work. You said it yourself, rail services in Europe built out their HSR lines incrementally on existing routes. That's precisely the process I'm saying should've began decades ago, and it's what I'm still advocating for. Do I have to put together a whole EA or case study for that to be a legitimate topic of discussion on a skyscraper forum?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, given the history of CN and VIA, I really don't get the insistence on throwing good money after bad.

This is such a ridiculous take and you know it. VIA and CN's rocky relationship is purely a product of CN's monopoly on high-demand trackage and its obligation to prioritize its clients and investors over VIA. It's not like they purposely throw VIA under the bus for the kicks. What on earth would CN have to gain by impeding VIA in this regard? It would be mutually beneficial for both CN and VIA to each have their own dedicated track.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What is all this based on? The last study looking at the costs of HSR pegged 200 kph diesel service at $9B for just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. It was $11B for 300 kph electrified rail service. That was in 2009 dollars.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-servic...ail-service-quebec-city-windsor-corridor

With 12 years of inflation, that'd be $12B and $15B respectively. $12B is double what the federal government intends to spend on public transit nationwide between now, through 2025, just for a point of reference.

And we aren't even discussing the rest of the Corridor or VIA. Just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. In 2009, the cost for the whole Corridor was $19B for 200 kph diesel service and $21B for 300 kph electrified service. That'd be in the $24-28B ballpark today.

Anybody who is advocating for HSR but can't give you a realistic financing idea is engaging in fantasy. At least HFR gives VIA a corridor to build on that might in a decade get us something approaching Acela service in the US today.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm advocating for a phased approach in the existing corridor between Ottawa and Toronto. That means I would rather see that ~$5B go towards building a shorter segment of dedicated rail along the existing lakeshore corridor as a first step in an eventual full build-out. That's how many other HSR lines were developed and I don't see why we can't achieve it, in due time.

Why? Because the new Havelock-Perth HFR corridor will basically ensure that lakeshore communities will be completely bypassed and will be stuck with disruptive and inconsistent rail service indefinitely. A hub in Kingston won't change the fact that trains will still be at the mercy of CN throughout that whole corridor. Those communities will become an afterthought. Have you considered what that means for those communities?

Transportation infrastructure is more than just a tool to get from point A to B in the most efficient way possible; it's also a tool to facilitate growth, development and access to opportunities. Cities like Kingston and Belleville could benefit greatly from HSR (even with 200kph HSR) and attract much-needed growth and investment. The only such community that can benefit from the HFR proposal is Peterborough, which can honestly be just as easily achieved with a future GO service.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They are getting a hub in Kingston. With service that starts from and is optimized for the Lakeshore communities. That's a whole lot better than being an afterthought on the current service between the major metros. Don't take my word for it. Here's the mayor of Kingston who supports a hub in his city:

https://mayorpaterson.com/via-rail-upgrades-kingston-service-the-making-of-a-regional-hub/

There is no way to run a good service for anybody as long as all service is dependent on CN along the Lakeshore. Frequencies and trip times aren't competitive enough for the big metros. And the schedule is pretty useless for anybody who isn't a student or retiree along the Lakeshore. Hubbing in Kingston makes it possible for anybody along the Lakeshore to have an ex-urban service to the major metros.

When you take a closer look at Kingston proposal, it becomes evident that the term "optimize" means fuck all. Unless I'm missing something, I really don't see how the Kingston hub will have any kind of meaningful service improvements over existing service just because a hub is there. Same infrastructure, similar service, minimal change.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I would never suggest funding HSR over necessary important public transit projects.

Every city would say their public transit project is important, no matter how many lines they already have. We should have rail infrastructure projects focused on passenger rail improvements across the country where they make sense such as Vancouver - Seattle, Edmonton - Calgary, Regina - Saskatoon, Halifax - Moncton - St John, Toronto - London - Windsor - Detroit and of course the main corridor.

We should not let existing rail infrastructure be used exclusively for urban transit at the expense of intercity rail such as the Mount Royal tunnel in Montreal.

We should also cancel the Pickering airport project once and for all and put that money towards rail projects that increase the speed and the frequency of service. We should not have flights between Toronto and London, Windsor, Kingston, and possibly Ottawa. We should reroute passenger service to the airports in Edmonton ( Leduc ) and Halifax.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

That was obviously a very basic example and I certainly wasn't advocating for a new corridor to be fully built along the 401. I'm pretty sure you knew that, though.

And of course I considered the implications of what I'm saying. Planning is my field of work. You said it yourself, rail services in Europe built out their HSR lines incrementally on existing routes. That's precisely the process I'm saying should've began decades ago, and it's what I'm still advocating for. Do I have to put together a whole EA or case study for that to be a legitimate topic of discussion on a skyscraper forum?

Let's start with the fact that you're making quite the assumption on the upgradability of the Lakeshore Corridor, willingness of the existing owner to cooperate and the costs that follow from all those complications.

Not sure what kind of planning you do for a living, but I'm fairly sure you'd make way less assumptions professionally. I'm always amazed that people think rebuilding the Lakeshore Corridor to accomodate 50 mph freight trains and 110 mph passenger trains is going to somehow be cheaper than a dedicated corridor for passengers. Especially, if the eventual goal is HSR at 125+mph.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

This is such a ridiculous take and you know it. VIA and CN's rocky relationship is purely a product of CN's monopoly on high-demand trackage and its obligation to prioritize its clients and investors over VIA. It's not like they purposely throw VIA under the bus for the kicks. What on earth would CN have to gain by impeding VIA in this regard? It would be mutually beneficial for both CN and VIA to each have their own dedicated track.

I didn't say CN was being malicious. They just have goals that are very incongruent with higher frequency and higher speed passenger traffic on that corridor. It's time to recognize reality and move on.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm advocating for a phased approach in the existing corridor between Ottawa and Toronto. That means I would rather see that ~$5B go towards building a shorter segment of dedicated rail along the existing lakeshore corridor as a first step in an eventual full build-out. That's how many other HSR lines were developed and I don't see why we can't achieve it, in due time.

Those other HSR lines didn't have mile long freight trains operating in them at 50 mph.

As for costs, the Kingston Subdivision project started out as a $21 million small upgrade plan, that was raised to a $251M plan for 160 km of triple track and ended up delivering 70 km of triple track for $318.5M. After all that spending on time performance went from 82% to 65% and ridership dropped 17%.

https://www.transportaction.ca/national-...-special-examination-report-on-via-rail/

Freight traffic isn't lower than in 2009. So why should a different outcome be expected for any major investment today?

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Why? Because the new Havelock-Perth HFR corridor will basically ensure that lakeshore communities will be completely bypassed and will be stuck with disruptive and inconsistent rail service indefinitely. A hub in Kingston won't change the fact that trains will still be at the mercy of CN throughout that whole corridor. Those communities will become an afterthought. Have you considered what that means for those communities?

Transportation infrastructure is more than just a tool to get from point A to B in the most efficient way possible; it's also a tool to facilitate growth, development and access to opportunities. Cities like Kingston and Belleville could benefit greatly from HSR (even with 200kph HSR) and attract much-needed growth and investment. The only such community that can benefit from the HFR proposal is Peterborough, which can honestly be just as easily achieved with a future GO service.



When you take a closer look at Kingston proposal, it becomes evident that the term "optimize" means fuck all. Unless I'm missing something, I really don't see how the Kingston hub will have any kind of meaningful service improvements over existing service just because a hub is there. Same infrastructure, similar service, minimal change.

Here's a simple question. Why should half a million people hold services for 7 million people hostage? That's really what it comes down to.

There is no way to substantially improve service between the large metros while using the Lakeshore. And using the Lakeshore means that VIA is forced into the balancing act today where they decide which trains will skip which en route stations so they can keep their average speeds up. Having service start in Kingston and be timed for ex-urban commuting to Toronto and Ottawa or catching a flight out of Dorval will stops at every station en route is a definite improvement from today. Shorter trains might also enable better deployment of sidings and engender a bit more cooperation from CN.

There is an alternative to all of the above. The default option: build nothing. Because if HFR isn't happening, no government is going to spend money on the Lakeshore Corridor after the Kingston Sub fiasco.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

We should also cancel the Pickering airport project once and for all and put that money towards rail projects that increase the speed and the frequency of service. We should not have flights between Toronto and London, Windsor, Kingston, and possibly Ottawa. We should reroute passenger service to the airports in Edmonton ( Leduc ) and Halifax.

That should have been part of the bailout deal between the Fed's and airlines: refund passengers who want a refund (maybe for flights booked before April 1 2020, because if you booked after, what were they thinking), but also drasticly cut or eliminate local flights between cities served by HFR when completed.

Other countries have made similar deals with their airlines.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Other countries have made similar deals with their airlines.

Other countries have HSR with air-rail integration. The French government required the elimination of flights to any destination within a 2 hr train ride of Paris Charles de Gaulle. Since, it is HSR, that covers a lot of ground.

2 hrs on HFR wouldn't cover much.
It'dd be possible to eliminate Ottawa-Montreal flights. And maybe flights to London if they can extend HFR westward. And those might happen without any pressure on the airlines.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

We should also cancel the Pickering airport project once and for all and put that money towards rail projects that increase the speed and the frequency of service.

There's no Pickering Airport project. There's a bunch of land they hold and lease out. They don't spend anything on this. Every 20-30 years, they do a study that tells them the airport will be needed in 20 years.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

We should not have flights between Toronto and London, Windsor, Kingston, and possibly Ottawa. We should reroute passenger service to the airports in Edmonton ( Leduc ) and Halifax.

That's tens of billions in HSR. I'm all for it. But I doubt most Canadians share that enthusiasm.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Other countries have HSR with air-rail integration. The French government required the elimination of flights to any destination within a 2 hr train ride of Paris Charles de Gaulle. Since, it is HSR, that covers a lot of ground.

2 hrs on HFR wouldn't cover much.
It'dd be possible to eliminate Ottawa-Montreal flights. And maybe flights to London if they can extend HFR westward. And those might happen without any pressure on the airlines.

Since our intern-city rail system won't be as good as France, we can ask for a reduction rather than a full elimination.

Both Toronto and Montreal will have good rapid transit links between their central VIA stations and their airport. Could get even better in Montreal if the REM is extended from the airport to the Dorval VIA station.

In Ottawa, the airport won't be well connected with the VIA station (3 trains), but it doesn't matter because Ottawans are the ones who travel to Toronto and Montreal to catch a flight, not the other way around.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Since our intern-city rail system won't be as good as France, we can ask for a reduction rather than a full elimination.

Reduction based on what?

Toronto-Montreal is apparently 4:45 hrs. That not competitive with air travel at all.

Toronto-Ottawa at 3:15 hrs is marginally competitive with air. But wouldn't be competitive with feeder services to Pearson. So there will be a substantial reduction in service by Porter. But Air Canada and WestJet would probably make modest schedule cuts and downgauge substantially.

Ottawa-Dorval can be cut if airlines play ball. But it's really doubtful that AC wants to create a separate operation for just one short route, they operate with a handful of trips per day. Other airlines can be tempted to create a feeder operation. But that can't even begin to be discussed without a concurrent REM extension to Dorval.

Lastly, Montreal-Quebec. Doesn't terminate downtown. Doesn't connect to the airport. Maybe it can displace enough flying to push airlines to downgauge.

We need to understand that for what we're planning on building, it won't be very competitive with air. But can reduce demand for air travel at the margins. For example, if the trip is not a same day return, saving 1-2 hrs with air travel might not be worth the airfare. The bigger draw will hopefully come from drivers who might decide the train is more worthwhile if it's just 1-2 occupants in the car.

And of course, this is all speculation. We still don't even have official approval for HFR. And no guarantee it might survive an election and change of government.

[Reecemartin]

Montreal's REM seems set to expand one again! We break down this new line in our latest video, and how impressive Montreal's transit expansion has become: https://youtu.be/iEiPl-EdHYc

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Let's start with the fact that you're making quite the assumption on the upgradability of the Lakeshore Corridor, willingness of the existing owner to cooperate and the costs that follow from all those complications.

I'm going off of the Ecotrain study, which estimated it could be done for $9B (2009$).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not sure what kind of planning you do for a living, but I'm fairly sure you'd make way less assumptions professionally. I'm always amazed that people think rebuilding the Lakeshore Corridor to accomodate 50 mph freight trains and 110 mph passenger trains is going to somehow be cheaper than a dedicated corridor for passengers. Especially, if the eventual goal is HSR at 125+mph.

Not sure if we're talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about building dedicated rail along the lakeshore corridor. Of course, without conducting an EA, we can't know what the most optimal ROW would be and the full implications. Unfortunately, we never got far enough to even conduct an EA and that's probably because the ecotrain study was conducted after a long period of government fiscal austerity and followed by a major global recession. The political appetite for HSR was inexistent back then, but it's grown a bit over recent years, as evidenced by the previous Ontario government's pursuit of Toronto-London HSR.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I didn't say CN was being malicious. They just have goals that are very incongruent with higher frequency and higher speed passenger traffic on that corridor. It's time to recognize reality and move on.

If the dedicated rail does not interfere with CN operations, I don't see why they would care.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Those other HSR lines didn't have mile long freight trains operating in them at 50 mph.

As for costs, the Kingston Subdivision project started out as a $21 million small upgrade plan, that was raised to a $251M plan for 160 km of triple track and ended up delivering 70 km of triple track for $318.5M. After all that spending on time performance went from 82% to 65% and ridership dropped 17%.

https://www.transportaction.ca/national-...-special-examination-report-on-via-rail/

Freight traffic isn't lower than in 2009. So why should a different outcome be expected for any major investment today?

The end goal should be complete or near-complete separation from freight rail. That obviously can't be done in one shot unless we throw $10-$15B at the project. So perhaps focus on building dedicated rail along the most problematic sections to start and go from there in a phased approach. $5B would be able to accomplish a hell of a lot more than $320M. Once again, only an EA would be able to tell us the most optimal approach in accomplishing that.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Here's a simple question. Why should half a million people hold services for 7 million people hostage? That's really what it comes down to.

There is no way to substantially improve service between the large metros while using the Lakeshore. And using the Lakeshore means that VIA is forced into the balancing act today where they decide which trains will skip which en route stations so they can keep their average speeds up. Having service start in Kingston and be timed for ex-urban commuting to Toronto and Ottawa or catching a flight out of Dorval will stops at every station en route is a definite improvement from today. Shorter trains might also enable better deployment of sidings and engender a bit more cooperation from CN.

There is an alternative to all of the above. The default option: build nothing. Because if HFR isn't happening, no government is going to spend money on the Lakeshore Corridor after the Kingston Sub fiasco.

I'm not buying that the proposed Kingston changes under the HFR plan are going to make any meaningful difference. All it ensures is that Kingston and lakeshore communities will have a similar type of service as today with limited alternatives compared to bigger markets, especially with Greyhound folding.

Building a dedicated rail corridor along the lakeshore corridor would be more expensive and take longer, but at least the end product would benefit the big markets and smaller markets alike. The ecotrain report suggested it could be done for about $10-$15B in today's dollars, depending on the specific mode selection, so I have no reason to believe it's impossible, as you're suggesting.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Not sure if we're talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about building dedicated rail along the lakeshore corridor. Of course, without conducting an EA, we can't know what the most optimal ROW would be and the full implications. Unfortunately, we never got far enough to even conduct an EA and that's probably because the ecotrain study was conducted after a long period of government fiscal austerity and followed by a major global recession. The political appetite for HSR was inexistent back then, but it's grown a bit over recent years, as evidenced by the previous Ontario government's pursuit of Toronto-London HSR.

Are we talking about the proposal that the Liberals didn't even bother starting an EA on until they got called out in the run up to an election? Has the Ford government even continued the EA?

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

If the dedicated rail does not interfere with CN operations, I don't see why they would care.

Because things like construction of grade separation and overhead catenary in the RoW does impact them.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The end goal should be complete or near-complete separation from freight rail. That obviously can't be done in one shot unless we throw $10-$15B at the project. So perhaps focus on building dedicated rail along the most problematic sections to start and go from there in a phased approach. $5B would be able to accomplish a hell of a lot more than $320M. Once again, only an EA would be able to tell us the most optimal approach in accomplishing that.

The problem with using Lakeshore is that it will become all or nothing. You can't mix traffic and run fast. And if separation isn't possible the marginal return of speed on $$$ spent dries up very quickly.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I'm not buying that the proposed Kingston changes under the HFR plan are going to make any meaningful difference. All it ensures is that Kingston and lakeshore communities will have a similar type of service as today with limited alternatives compared to bigger markets, especially with Greyhound folding.

I think they'll have better service than today. But that aside, again you haven't explained why all inter-metro service improvements should be held hostage to their needs. Find me another country which would think like this about high speed rail. It's the equivalent of suggesting that air service between Toronto and Ottawa be held hostage to the needs of Belleville.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Building a dedicated rail corridor along the lakeshore corridor would be more expensive and take longer, but at least the end product would benefit the big markets and smaller markets alike. The ecotrain report suggested it could be done for about $10-$15B in today's dollars, depending on the specific mode selection, so I have no reason to believe it's impossible, as you're suggesting.

Cool. Any idea where we can get the extra $5-10B to build HSR?

I don't support HFR because I think it's some amazing idea. I support it because it's literally the only realistic idea to improve rail service in the Corridor. And if it doesn't get built, I fear that deterioration of on time performance caused by growing freight traffic, could put VIA into a death spiral.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Montreal's REM seems set to expand one again! We break down this new line in our latest video, and how impressive Montreal's transit expansion has become: https://youtu.be/iEiPl-EdHYc

Great news for Montreal. It really is leaving Toronto in the dust on the transit file these days.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Are we talking about the proposal that the Liberals didn't even bother starting an EA on until they got called out in the run up to an election? Has the Ford government even continued the EA?

Pursuing the EA hinged on re-election, and we all know how that went. If not for the whole power plant scandal, maybe they would've managed to retain power, but that's a moot point now. Instead, we now we have a government ready to commit billions to a highway that will essentially provide a redundant service to the 407. Where could that money be better spent, I wonder..

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Because things like construction of grade separation and overhead catenary in the RoW does impact them.

We've got grade separation happening all over the GTA. Some small headaches should be expected, but there are methods for grade separation to happen with minimal disturbance.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The problem with using Lakeshore is that it will become all or nothing. You can't mix traffic and run fast. And if separation isn't possible the marginal return of speed on $$$ spent dries up very quickly.

Dedicated rail for higher speed service, like Acela or TGV-type HSR, with 1 or 2 intermediate stops between Ottawa and Toronto that act as intermodal hubs. VIA trains can continue to use CN tracks for smaller communities, which will provide short-haul connections to HSR. Also, perhaps VIA can explore the possibility of running a bus-shuttle service from small communities to the nearest HSR stations, given the service gap left behind by Greyhound.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think they'll have better service than today. But that aside, again you haven't explained why all inter-metro service improvements should be held hostage to their needs. Find me another country which would think like this about high speed rail. It's the equivalent of suggesting that air service between Toronto and Ottawa be held hostage to the needs of Belleville.

Firstly, many other countries don't have the problem we do with the freight rail monopoly. So it'd be hard to find a situation analogous to ours. Secondly, without piggybacking the infrastructure investments for improved inter-metro service, there is absolutely zero chance there will be better service for lakeshore communities in the future. Zero. The longer and more expensive alternative along the lakeshore may not yield the same inter-metro benefits in the short term as HFR, but the final product in the long term is one that can provide similar or better benefits for both the big metros and smaller cities alike.

Short term sacrifice, long term gain.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Cool. Any idea where we can get the extra $5-10B to build HSR?

This really comes down to political will. If the will is there, the funds will be found. Like I said, look at how the Ontario government is planning to spend billions on a new redundant highway. It's a matter of priorities, not a lack of funds.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't support HFR because I think it's some amazing idea. I support it because it's literally the only realistic idea to improve rail service in the Corridor. And if it doesn't get built, I fear that deterioration of on time performance caused by growing freight traffic, could put VIA into a death spiral.

I understand that, and I'm not saying it's overall a bad plan. It would be beneficial without a doubt. I just have a problem with the aforementioned long term implications for the lakeshore communities. There's basically no path forward for them under this plan.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Pursuing the EA hinged on re-election, and we all know how that went. If not for the whole power plant scandal, maybe they would've managed to retain power, but that's a moot point now. Instead, we now we have a government ready to commit billions to a highway that will essentially provide a redundant service to the 407. Where could that money be better spent, I wonder..

My point here is that the political consensus on HSR in Ontario, is not nearly as universal as you suggested. And even the Liberals who put forward the plan, basically made a suggestion in one election and then sat on it till they got called out. All they basically got done was a basic scoping study in all their years in power.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

We've got grade separation happening all over the GTA. Some small headaches should be expected, but there are methods for grade separation to happen with minimal disturbance.

The thing is you, VIA and me don't get to judge this. Unless, we're willing to expropriate, it's CN (and/or CP) who get to judge this. And I am going to guess, that HFR is being pursued because the freight cos probably gave them a ridiculous price for cooperation (or something that would have ended up in the ballpark of expropriation).

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Dedicated rail for higher speed service, like Acela or TGV-type HSR, with 1 or 2 intermediate stops between Ottawa and Toronto that act as intermodal hubs. VIA trains can continue to use CN tracks for smaller communities, which will provide short-haul connections to HSR. Also, perhaps VIA can explore the possibility of running a bus-shuttle service from small communities to the nearest HSR stations, given the service gap left behind by Greyhound.

This all sounds great. And I absolutely agree with VIA running bus shuttles. But again, who is going to pay for any of this? Even HFR is being pitched on the idea that it's going to be sufficiently profitable that VIA won't need subsidies for Corridor East. If that's having a tough time, just imagine a plan that requires VIA's subsidies to increase dramatically.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Firstly, many other countries don't have the problem we do with the freight rail monopoly. So it'd be hard to find a situation analogous to ours. Secondly, without piggybacking the infrastructure investments for improved inter-metro service, there is absolutely zero chance there will be better service for lakeshore communities in the future. Zero. The longer and more expensive alternative along the lakeshore may not yield the same inter-metro benefits in the short term as HFR, but the final product in the long term is one that can provide similar or better benefits for both the big metros and smaller cities alike.

Short term sacrifice, long term gain.

There's no such tradeoff here. If you insist that all improvement be restricted solely to higher speed rail on Lakeshore and funding never comes, you're actually taking on both short term and long term losses.

You seem to be approaching this as a bit of a static situation where investment can be poured on at anytime. I don't see that. There's development happening along the Lakeshore. And GO is expanding as well. Every year that goes by, building the 40-50m RoW that would be required for this gets more and more expensive, and further and further out of reach. We're already at the point that the Ecotrain study would be at least $12B for a diesel 200kph train. Just imagine what the numbers will be with another decade of inaction coupled with more development along that corridor. And along with that inaction, you also get a smaller and smaller proportion of residents who don't use VIA and see it as anachronistic. Eventually, they won't care if VIA is scrapped or privatized at all.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

This really comes down to political will. If the will is there, the funds will be found. Like I said, look at how the Ontario government is planning to spend billions on a new redundant highway. It's a matter of priorities, not a lack of funds.

And the political will just isn't there.

Every federal government basically looks at the $12B it would take to build HSR for just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and starts dreaming of the votes they could buy in most of Canada by spending that on transit projects. Every provincial government looks at intercity rail as the responsibility of the federal government. So Queen's Park most certainly isn't interested in paying for a TOM HSR line. You can hope that this will change in our lifetimes. But, I'm looking to ride improved service on the Corridor, before I leave this world....

The genius of HFR is that for once VIA's leadership recognized the political limitations of constantly begging for HSR funding and decided they could get an improvement plan that could be pulled off with very little government funding. Let's not forget the original pitch was to try and get large institutional investors. Those kinds of investors tend not to like messy plans that involve lots of stakeholders (like say freight operators owning and using the same corridor). Even now, we aren't looking at a $4B grant from the feds to VIA. It's a $4B loan from the CIB to build this.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I understand that, and I'm not saying it's overall a bad plan. It would be beneficial without a doubt. I just have a problem with the aforementioned long term implications for the lakeshore communities. There's basically no path forward for them under this plan.

I really don't get this obsession. If they service that stops at all the stations en route and is better timed than today (because of a different origin), why is that not enough? This is more than what most of Canada gets today. And it's a lot more than they'll get if VIA goes under, which is a threat that a lot of people seem to strangely discount despite having watched Greyhound fail.

Moreover, this concern is not reflected by the politicians in those communities, who like the idea of a service tailored to them. So we're now at the point, where you have to ignore the preferences of their own elected officials. This is just bizarre to me.

[GoTrans]

One of the easiest ways to increase capacity on the Lakeshore line is to re-instate the Ottawa Valley line between Coteau and Sudbury using a combination of former CN and CP right of ways. It is true that the lines were marginal when they were abandoned by the railways, but if the same density was consolidated onto one line it would be sustainable. There is however less incentive for CP to do this because they have a lower volume of freight headed to/from Montreal.

Various posts have claimed that the CN freights travel at 50 mph. That maybe true when they are traveling, but they often consume track time going nowhere waiting for access to yards or to cross tracks where there are no flyovers or to replace crews that have timed out. Even if passenger trains were reinstated between Montreal/Ottawa to Sudbury and to Rouyn-Noranda or Val D'Or there would never be more than a maximum of 2 each way per day leaving the rest of the track capacity for freight. This means freight trains could take a more direct route, travel faster and cause less interference for passenger trains on both the Lakeshore, the Ottawa Valley and the Toronto - Sudbury/Capreol routes.

The cost of doing this is primarily the cost of relaying the ties, rail and replacing the signalling system. The cost would pale in comparison to upgrading the Lakeshore. While train service on the Lakeshore would not be in the realm HSR speeds, it would be faster and more reliable than the current situation.

[Truenorth00]

How willing are the freight cos to move their trains off their current corridor?

There seems to be lots of assumptions here of pliant freight cos who will do whatever VIA wants, including substantially rejigging their entire operation.

I look at how all this worked out on the Missing Link and I can't say I'm as optimistic as folks here that the freight cos will happily cooperate.

[Truenorth00]

Source: https://mayorpaterson.com/proposed-via-rail-expansion-in-eastern-ontario/

This is from the mayor of Kingston, about his discussion with VIA on what future service would look like out of the Kingston hub. So I'm curious, how much more service do people think they need?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How willing are the freight cos to move their trains off their current corridor?

There seems to be lots of assumptions here of pliant freight cos who will do whatever VIA wants, including substantially rejigging their entire operation.

I look at how all this worked out on the Missing Link and I can't say I'm as optimistic as folks here that the freight cos will happily cooperate.

In general the freight companies do virtually nothing that Via wants. That is the problem. We need legislation like Amtrak has in the US that gives Via priority over freights, at least on paper. The feds need to commit money to Via to improve access with dedicated tracks to stations in Montreal, Toronto, Sudbury, Winnipeg and Saskatoon.
You are correct that CN and CP may not cooperate with respect to the Ottawa Valley line. If CN and CP are truly committed to reducing GHG then this proposal makes more sense because the distance is much shorter than the Lakeshore route. The feds may have to use a bit of muscle to get them to do this, but it should be a win win for everybody.
Both railways get reduced crew costs, fuel costs, faster service and the fixed costs are shared. The big benefit is that CN would not have a total blockade by the Mohawks that shuts down the Lakeshore route every couple of years.

I

[MalcolmTucker]

The feds just passed an order slowing down freight trains with over a certain number of LPG, oil, or oil product cars. So yeah, things aren't getting faster on the congested freight lines anytime soon.