VIA Rail

[crs1026]

Here's map that will be a bit more exact about Sharbot Lake. Pretty clear the Medical Center Road will have to be relocated. Two buildings within what would have been the old ROW. Not insurmountable, but not a slam dunk either, and certainly food for local political debate. PS: a fenced line would separate the town from the town beach.

Another informative map to browse may be Realtor.ca which indicates that there are a number of properties along the abandoned section with asking prices in the $369K - $450K range. Those folks, and others with similar property values, are not going to be happy about the change. (There's a cute former church in Mountain Grove, however, that is yours for just $79.9K.....a perfect train watching retreat some day, perhaps). This is where the elected reps may be happy today, but less happy when they get an earful from constituents.

This is not to say that opponents will win the legal battles, but litigation is a crapshoot, and sometimes odd things happen. I lived through an odd Supreme Court ruling that threw my employer into federal labour law, when both the employer and the unions had a mutual understanding that the provincial laws applied, and no one thought that the Court was being asked for that decision. It took years and an act of Parliament to unravel. So, while we may have our differing views on what the law says, we should assume little.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Just up at iPolitics: RE: HSR

[...]
iPolitics reached out to Ontario’s transportation ministry (MTO) on Tuesday to see whether the province had asked the Trudeau government for any funding for the $20-billion project, including for the environmental assessment, but was only told that work on the study remains in the “early planning stages.”

MTO spokesman Bob Nichols said the planning and environmental-assessment process for the high-speed line is “being expanded” to include all concepts for passenger-rail service along the London, Kitchener, Guelph, Pearson, and Toronto corridor. The expanded options include either upgrading existing rail corridors or creating new ones, he said.

“The results of this planning work will involve input from municipalities and many others, including rural and farming communities,” Nichols said in an emailed statement, adding that MTO will work closely with VIA Rail, Transport Canada, and other partners to “coordinate with existing services and optimize infrastructure needs.” [...]

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/12/18/for...-hasnt-asked-ottawa-for-high-speed-rail-cash/

Could Ontario be part of an HFR Consortium? "Consortium" has "Con" in it...The InfraBank might be opening some new accounts...

 

[Urban Sky]

I'm discussing a stand-alone segment (or two) of track work that would arguably allow something approaching HFR on the existing corridor.

Its not proposing, at this time, attempting to build a completely alternate proposal (that is to say a complete VIA owned section for the entire length of the existing routing.

But my proposal could play a role in a larger project, if so desired, over time.

[...] My proposal is limited scope investment where its comparatively easy and low cost to drive greater track speed and reliability; that's useful regardless of whether a secondary route is pursued or whether the same project is later made larger and more elaborate.

I thought exactly like you when I joined this Forum and wrote my first comment outside the High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto thread:

This means that in order to maintain any chance of seeing HSR in Canada within our lifetime, we should intensify the upgrades of the existing infrastructure until we finally reach the point where we are only left with those bottlenecks where it becomes more cost-efficient to build a new HSR line than upgrading and adjusting the existing alignments. You observed well that the only way to economically build HSR is to merge the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (TOM) and the more direct Toronto-Cornwall-Montreal (TCM) services, but [that requires offsetting] the time penalty from going via Ottawa (TOM) rather than Cornwall (TCM) which is currently exactly one hour[.]

As indicated by the Map above, I believe that the priorities for speeding up (and eventually merging) VIA Rail’s TOM and TCM services should be as follows:

[…] Given the short length (40km) and heavily urban character of Dorion-Montreal, I would primarily focus on Toronto-Gananoque [...]

The problem, however, is that the main constraint hindering the dramatic increase in passenger numbers to ever justify investments in any HSR ambitions is not travel time, it's frequency. This means that investments that ensure "greater track speed and reliability" will always be only limited in their effect, as unlike with travel times, an improvement on one segment does not automatically translate into an overall improvement of rail capacity: Note that cutting travel time by 10 minutes between A and B will also reduce overall travel time between A and C (via B) by that margin, whereas improving the capacity from 2 to 4 trains per hour between A and B does not improve the capacity for trains travelling from A via B to C if the capacity is limited to no more than 2 trains per hour between B and C and that limit is not increased at the same time.

And this is what I didn't realise back in 2014: Even though upgrading the Toronto-Gananoque segment has nominally the highest priority, the effectiveness of such upgrades (in terms of train capacity) will remain limited unless the capacity issues at nodes like Brockville and Coteau are solved, which requires either upgrades into infrastructure which requires investments in segments which either represents a duplication of the existing infrastructure or where the capacity increase will become redundant once such bypasses are built (as requirement for HSR).

Another discussion about the Kingston Subdivision which misses the point is whether the ROW owned by CN is wide enough to accommodate one or two additional tracks, as this seems to be based on the assumption that these tracks would be for the exclusive by VIA - an expectation which goes contrary to what has happened with any publicly funded infrastructure upgrades on CN property, including the third track segments paid by the federal government through VIA. Therefore the question should rather be whether there is enough space outside the ROW owned by CN to build at least one additional track along the entire Kingston Subdivision (east of Pickering/Liverpool Junction).

In Pythonspeak: if any of the land has been conveyed to a non-railroad, then the right of way has been severed, and it is a dead railroad. It has not, for instance, been posted as a railbanked line. The CP M+O Sub, which was railbanked by a previous regime, has signs all along the route stating this. Havelock does not. While VIA has kindled a new idea, there is absolutely nothing placed on record over the years to imply that the Havelock line was officially railbanked. That's the kind of fact base that lawyers use to differentiate situations. #NorwegianBlue2.0

Note that even the fairly short additions of triple track on the Kingston Sub triggered a form of EA. See here and here. If these projects (short additions within 100 feet of centerline of an operating railway) needed an EA, the HFR project will need one also.

I'm not an expert on the structure of EA's, I mostly just know that they are necessary and in the public interest. (Digression - this is the sort of thing that a VIA Rail Canada Act might clarify authority and perhaps avoid the long way around)

[...]

I am not alleging any of these are showstoppers....although all it takes is one surprise about a rattlesnake colony or a bank swallow breeding area to bring a project back to the drawing board for a few months....or longer.

I have to admit that you convinced me to assume that HFR would probably trigger a full EA on the Havelock Sub (as mandated by federal or provincial laws). However, I'll leave it to you to extrapolate from the $4.5 million per-km costs and from the EAs you linked for the triple-tracking of the Kingston Sub within CN's ROW the likely cost of establishing a dedicated infrastructure along CN's ROW (just a quick reminder: it's approximately 250 km to bridge the gap between Pickering and Gananoque - and another 50 km to Brockville) and to compare it with the costs of choosing the Havelock Sub.

This is probably the thing that triggers my reservations most. I understand that the VIA plan is not HFR, and I support not going to HSR .....but.... Thirty years passes quickly. If this line becomes the backbone for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, it needs to be futureproofed to permit sensible upgrades over the years. When VIA says, we aren't aiming for High Speed, they are saying, this line has very little upside and is not scalable. That's not sensible.

I have to agree with other posters that VIA has chosen this route because it is the most doable under current budgets, regulatory regimes and public/poltitical attitudes. The reality that the line is unwanted by freight railroads makes its acquisition cheap and easy. We can debate relative construction costs (I accept VIA knows things we don't) but it's the old maxim - never buy the cheapest thing available on the market, it is never the cheapest over the longer term. The next most expensive option is not that much more costly, and it brings greater benefits.

If this line isn't scalable for the long term, just don't do it, at any price.

Let's imagine for one moment that VIA Rail's first Study for High-Speed Rail had included the current HFR proposal back in 1984 and compelled the federal government into funding it: Would you really argue that it was a waste of money because certain parts (east of Moose Creek and west of Smiths Falls) cannot be upgraded to HSR? Would you really argue that there is no price point at which the benefit of operating the new infrastructure over 30+ years might justify the construction costs, given that building a full-scale HSR project without any intermediary HFR stage would have resulted in slightly lower overall construction costs?

 

[steveintoronto]

I have to admit that you convinced me to assume that HFR would probably trigger a full EA on the Havelock Sub (as mandated by federal or provincial laws).

Inadvertently, you've put your finger on what I've been finding the last month or so trying to access the various pertaining acts:
Your link for reference:
Proposed Guide on Applying for Approval to Construct a Railway Line for Federally-Regulated Railway Companies

It's not yet Law. Which presents an interesting situation, and I'm going to copy this to someone who might find an answer on this, but be aware:

Disclaimer: In the event of a conflict between this guide and the Act, its regulations or any other act of Parliament, statutory requirements will prevail.

And that *could be* a massive 'get out of jail free' reprieve.

Under the existing Act(s) (Transportation? et al) an EA has shown not to be necessary, albeit that's arguable too...

But here's the point, and websites have been a freakin' hassle to consult since everything is now 'tentative':

If the Libs *finally* make up their minds to kick this over to the InfraBank in the next few months, the "proposed" legislation won't apply!

Legally, TransportMin would be very wise to initiate the process. From what I can tell *at this point in time* Parliament itself won't need to be included. It can all be done by Order in Council.

That being said, @crs1026 mentioned a "VIA Act" a few pages back to which at the time I commented (gist) "the powers are already extant in the various pertinent acts"....but to just stop the naysayers in the tracks on this (Scheer is desperate for anything to ring warning bells) a *limited* "VIA Bill" (with sections added later) to get HFR on the books could only help expedite matters. It might also help the InfraBank in attracting investors who've had their participation further guaranteed by legal underwriting, as well as Government coffers for backstopping their investment.

Some claims above I might have to retract later, but I will dig on getting reference for them.

 

[micheal_can]

The Corridor sees 36 trains a day. How much more is needed for the needed frequency?

We could leave this route as is for decades and then focus on other routes to bring up the service to at least once a day each way. Saying that the ridership isn't there is a cop out. The ridership could be there, at least for the Canadian and Ocean, ridership could easily be gained if people on those routes knew they could get a ride each day. Mind you, that isn't where the population is, so we all know it won't be done.

 

[crs1026]

The problem, however, is that the main constraint hindering the dramatic increase in passenger numbers to ever justify investments in any HSR ambitions is not travel time, it's frequency.

I totally agree - frequency is "table stakes" for any improved rail service. I'm assuming that any/all of the proposals contemplates an hourly, all-day service plan.

I question, however, whether frequency is the only variable that matters. The comparison to the driving time will have a huge impact on ridership. If VIA can't beat the car door to door, they are starting from a deficit.

It was interesting reading the Hansard transcripts where VIA's CEO chose to claim that HFR is not HSR so will not steal air passengers. Certainly, VIa should be aspiring to do that. Doesn't matter if the math is exactly right, if the train time is close to air, many people will eschew the whole limo-security-boarding-overhead bin inconvenience for a relaxing train ride. So, again, speed has to rise, just not all the way to HSR.

VIA is a bit inconsistent in its claim (well, D-S keeps making this pitch, badly) that their market leans to intermediate points. If this is so, why build a line on a route that skips the biggest intermediate points, and does not enhance service to these. The Havelock looks more air competitive than local. If frequency is the goal, the intermediate points on the Kingston sub should be getting more trains, not less. I find D-S’s pitch a bit disingenuous.

Another discussion about the Kingston Subdivision which misses the point is whether the ROW owned by CN is wide enough to accommodate one or two additional tracks, as this seems to be based on the assumption that these tracks would be for the exclusive by VIA - an expectation which goes contrary to what has happened with any publicly funded infrastructure upgrades on CN property, including the third track segments paid by the federal government through VIA. Therefore the question should rather be whether there is enough space outside the ROW owned by CN to build at least one additional track along the entire Kingston Subdivision (east of Pickering/Liverpool Junction).

Fair enough, but what I found interesting after doing some math was how the third track segments on the Kingston are spaced just right for passing trains on an hourly HFR level service. A singletracked HFR on the Kingston is sufficient. If CN had its two tracks back, it might be satisfied. Maybe HFR only needs one more track. And, if CN did not have to share with Via, it might be happy to have exclusive use of some single track segments, as it does on the Halton and Strathroy main lines.... the advantage being their capitalisation would decrease.So building say six mile segments on the south side, for CN's exclusive use, might be sufficient for CN to lease the north main and the triple tracks to VIA. I'm just spitballing, but my point is, I am not arguing for a full two track addition all the way from Oshawa to Gananoque. Something less might be acceptable if CN had assurance that VIA was not going to block their freight.

I have to admit that you convinced me to assume that HFR would probably trigger a full EA on the Havelock Sub (as mandated by federal or provincial laws). However, I'll leave it to you to extrapolate from the $4.5 million per-km costs and from the EAs you linked for the triple-tracking of the Kingston Sub within CN's ROW the likely cost of establishing a dedicated infrastructure along CN's ROW (just a quick reminder: it's approximately 250 km to bridge the gap between Pickering and Gananoque - and another 50 km to Brockville) and to compare it with the costs of choosing the Havelock Sub.

Two things. First, re cost - I think all involved agreed that the VIA triple tracking was badly managed, so it's not a valid benchmark of what added track costs. We may just have to agree to disagree on whether reactivating a mile of the Havelock costs more or less than adding a mile of triple track to the Kingston, and/or more or less than a mile of new construction at Gananoque. Given the Kingston row is in generally favourable terrain and the Havelock is not, I'm still suspicious that the Havelock route is as much of an engineer's headache to rebuild.

Second, re EA - what I believe is that there *should* be an EA of the reactiviation of the Havelock, because of the potential issues and impacts that I outlined. I believe the law agrees, but I’m not a lawyer. If VIA did indeed have an exemption through federal law, that's a loophole to the overall spirit of Canadian environmental law and past jurisprudence. Even if I am partisan towards rail projects, and impatient for a new line, I would not want to see VIA blow by environmental diligence any more than I would want VIA to be exempt from building codes. Nor should VIA cut corners compared to say 407 or 417 highway extensions.

My challenge of others' amateur legal analysis is because, the moral case for EA is so strong that if VIA tried to bully their way past this step, a court might well side with the principle of the law, regardless of the written law. And, as noted, there will be groups who argue for this step, perhaps for their own personal self interest, but doubtless with the support of others who want the environment defended. Wouldn't be the first such ruling a Canadian court has made.

Let's imagine for one moment that VIA Rail's first Study for High-Speed Rail had included the current HFR proposal back in 1984 and compelled the federal government into funding it: Would you really argue that it was a waste of money because certain parts (east of Moose Creek and west of Smiths Falls) cannot be upgraded to HSR? Would you really argue that there is no price point at which the benefit of operating the new infrastructure over 30+ years might justify the construction costs, given that building a full-scale HSR project without any intermediary HFR stage would have resulted in slightly lower overall construction costs?

If Ottawa had built a high speed line thirty years ago, with a couple 50 mph sections through difficult topography, I would be delighted. It would have delivered a lot of value. But take a lesson from how Ottawa service looked pre 1990. There was rapido quality track to Brockville, but then a slowpoke segment from there to Ottawa. It demanded better.

I have less concern for VIA saying it will rebuild the Havelock in a way that eliminates the barriers. That might take 10-20 miles of rerouted line. But that added cost might tip the comparison with Kingston. The Havelock plan just seems too much like Ren Car 2.0.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Second, re EA - what I believe is that there *should* be an EA of the reactiviation of the Havelock, because of the potential issues and impacts that I outlined. I believe the law agrees, but if VIA did indeed have an exemption through federal law, that's a loophole to the overall spirit of Canadian environmental law and past jurisprudence. Even if I am partisan towards rail projects, and impatient for a new line, I would not want to see VIA blow by environmental diligence any more than I would want VIA to be exempt from building codes. Nor should VIA cut corners compared to say 407 or 417 highway extensions.

All other aspects raised besides, aspects of this would require an EA, just not the whole route. New bridges where there weren't ones prior, for instance. And it would all conform to existing law.

But there's a huge precedent the Feds have bungled into when it comes to *moral principles*: Pipelines.

I would not want to see VIA blow by environmental diligence any more than I would want VIA to be exempt from building codes.

The irony is profound. Rightly or wrongly, the Feds have not only facilitated sustaining the exact opposite of what they claim to wish in terms of environmental stewardship, they wish to increase it:
Liberals to buy Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5B to ensure expansion
Canadian public could also incur millions to construct expansion project with estimated price tag of $7.4B

The 'environmental protection' moral argument has already been set...they will overturn court rulings and local wishes...HFR is an absolute pussycat in comparison.

The Havelock plan just seems too much like Ren Car 2.0.

Ultimately it will be a Market decision, and if those that hold property and ability to build massive bridges (Port Hope and Trenton to name just two), infrastructure and myriads of smaller bridges due to the density of existing roads, and have the time and budget to fund that, all the more power to them. There's a very good reason the Havelock Route has been chosen.

The market in the sights of HFR is mostly between large larger urban centres, and cities like Kingston realize that. Kingston will remain connected. The present VIA paths will remain on the Lakeshore lines, plus more connecting north to HFR.

 

[Northern Light]

I thought exactly like you when I joined this Forum and wrote my first comment outside the High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto thread:


The problem, however, is that the main constraint hindering the dramatic increase in passenger numbers to ever justify investments in any HSR ambitions is not travel time, it's frequency.

Perhaps this is so. However, it certainly doesn't apply to me; nor to anyone I know. Six or more departures a day offers plenty of options to get to Ottawa or Montreal.

I don't view such a trip as pure impulse, but something I would contemplate for at least a day, and decide that a particular concert or event or romantic weekend justifies the time and expense of a trip.

The comparative convenience of hourly vs bi-hourly service is not a deal-changer to me.

The time elapsed from the moment I decide to buy a ticket (for a plane, or a train) or grab my car and drive to the moment I arrive at my hotel is key.

For me the notion of a six-hour or even five-hour trip, 'trapped' on the train lacks any appeal at all. No amount of first-class service offsets that. I enjoy reading, but I could get through 2 books in that time.

It may be necessary to tolerate such travel times when flying to Europe, but not when traveling to Montreal.

If I must endure six hours, I would much rather have the option, of stopping in Prince Edward County and dining at a lovely restaurant, and taking some time on a beach, before continuing my trip, even if it meant 7 or 8 hours total.

It breaks up the boredom and resolves another issue which is a sore back from sitting in the same position for hours on end.

I do travel that way, sometimes by train, sometimes by other modes.

But I would tell you with some confidence that I would travel more, and almost exclusively by rail to Montreal if the trip time were 3.5 hours or less.

Something that should be achievable with 200km/ph rolling stock/horsepower that runs mostly express.

Were the travel time dropped further, by HSR, I'd expect my trip frequency to increase by a factor of two, at least.

The assumption being travel times at or under 3 hours.

Perhaps others are more motivated by the magic of showing up at Union without having to read a schedule.

My reasons for (or against) travel, or a given mode, have far more to do with comfort and the minimization of wasted time.

Understanding that HSR is not currently on the table, I still lean to investments which will create the shortest travel time, and which are most compatible with an HSR future.

And this is what I didn't realise back in 2014: Even though upgrading the Toronto-Gananoque segment has nominally the highest priority, the effectiveness of such upgrades (in terms of train capacity) will remain limited unless the capacity issues at nodes like Brockville and Coteau are solved, which requires either upgrades into infrastructure which requires investments in segments which either represents a duplication of the existing infrastructure or where the capacity increase will become redundant once such bypasses are built (as requirement for HSR).

I have identified the need for investment to resolve Coteau in my previous posts. Be that in-situ or with a by-pass.

I was unaware Brockville was a comparable problem but would support the same.

Another discussion about the Kingston Subdivision which misses the point is whether the ROW owned by CN is wide enough to accommodate one or two additional tracks, as this seems to be based on the assumption that these tracks would be for the exclusive by VIA - an expectation which goes contrary to what has happened with any publicly funded infrastructure upgrades on CN property, including the third track segments paid by the federal government through VIA. Therefore the question should rather be whether there is enough space outside the ROW owned by CN to build at least one additional track along the entire Kingston Subdivision (east of Pickering/Liverpool Junction).
?

I presumed that the new tracks would, wherever possible, be located on non-CN land, utlilzing the MTO ROW for the 401.

Where this is not practical, any investment would be conditional on VIA's exclusive use of the new track during a 6am-12am window, with freight running rights permitted overnight, though they would pay VIA per use.

I would certainly concur that counting on CN's goodwill would be a worthless idea.

 

[MisterF]

I presumed that the new tracks would, wherever possible, be located on non-CN land, utlilzing the MTO ROW for the 401.

Why do you think that building a rail line along a highway right of way that was never designed for rail, with grades, interchanges and overpasses that leave no room for train tracks, would be a better option than rebuilding an old rail line? It wouldn't be as easy or cheap as you think. There's a reason that rail lines aren't typically located within highway rights of way.

 

[steveintoronto]

Why do you think that building a rail line along a highway right of way that was never designed for rail, with grades, interchanges and overpasses that leave no room for train tracks, would be a better option than rebuilding an old rail line? It wouldn't be as easy or cheap as you think. There's a reason that rail lines aren't typically located within highway rights of way.

As an example of the costs associated with doing it that way, one only has to look at the projected price of the 'Missing Link':
$5.3B for 18 kilometres alone.

The greatest factor going for the Havelock route is exactly the one most berate it for: Lack of density. The extant discontinued RoW from Smith Falls to Peterborough remains a massive plus unmatched.

As to CN and CP (gist) 'wishing to block every move on this', they're on record at a CTA hearing on applicability of local bylaws and provincial jurisdiction (as that relates to remediating discontinued RoWs) as stating:

CN and CP have also argued that the by-laws are invalid because they remove their ability to use the discontinued lines for a railway purpose. It is well settled in law that a province may not impair the "status and essential powers" of a federally-incorporated company. Thus, if a province enacts a law which is within its legislative competence, but which would have the effect of impairing the status or essential powers of a federal company, the law will be held inapplicable to any federal company. In the case at hand, it could be accepted that even if railway operations cease, the rail infrastructure and right of way remain part of the federal jurisdiction and, therefore, subject to federal law.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/445-r-2000

The CTA have ruled many times on the matter of discontinued RoWs and ultimate authority remaining with the Feds for eventual reuse if certain conditions are met. The Province of Ontario also protects these RoWs now for utility, transport and recreational use, albeit leasing for other use, even as part of a private land plot is allowed, but of course, easement for the original purpose is retained.

I discussed the Bell Tel 'acquisition' of a section of the Havelock RoW in posts prior. Just tripped across a letter to the then Ont Government Minister on the matter:

http://tiffanyweb.bmts.com/~opera/707CitizenLettertoGovernmentAffairs.pdf

In the event, Bell has obligations under the Public Utilities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.52 to share and if need be, move their use to accommodate the original Federal land use, but I digress.

The point is that the RoW remains in "Government ownership". And that's a massive factor that favours the Havelock route like no other for Smith Falls to Peterborough, and extant rail lines connecting that are either VIA's or would be acquired by VIA (or an entity acting in their interest) for the rest of it.

The use of the word "railroad" as opposed to "railway" would raise a few eyebrows in Cdn legal circles...

 

[Northern Light]

Why do you think that building a rail line along a highway right of way that was never designed for rail, with grades, interchanges and overpasses that leave no room for train tracks, would be a better option than rebuilding an old rail line? It wouldn't be as easy or cheap as you think. There's a reason that rail lines aren't typically located within highway rights of way.

I really do wish, and I am asking very nicely, that people refrain from commenting on my posts unless you A) read them carefully, B) place them in the appropriate context (read the posts that led up to it) and C) Don't ascribe to me things I did not say.

This thread has become a place for making me testy as this is not the first time, I am seeing people imagine things that are not contained in my posts, or inferences drawn from said posts that would not be, if the the posts were correctly contextualized.

I realize no one wants to read back umpteen pages, but reading back one or two, for something you think is worth replying to, I don't think is a big ask.

I apologize if I'm expressing myself poorly here, but I am really frustrated but what appears to be rather lazy replying to things I haven't said. Mister F is usually a great poster, but he's the third poster in this this thread to misrepresent what I've said. I think I have a track record here of expressing myself with a fairly high degree of specificity......

Perhaps, I'm off my game.............

***

Now, to be clear, at no point did I say placing a railway track into a Highway Right of Way was easy.

Nor did I in fact suggest that building new track along the the entire Kingston Sub was do-able in the near term, let alone easier than the Ptbo alternative.

Nor did I suggest all of that would be in an MTO row; though i anticipate some sections would be, when and if we get to that project.

To imply that I suggested otherwise is a gross misread of my comments.

The references to the Kingston sub clearly show my preference to place some new track, along a portion of said sub, as near-term project, irrespective of whether the Ptbo alternative is pursued.

The section I specifically referenced, in the Pickering to Whitby section of the route (in a previous post) has no grade challenges and limited need to rebuild over passes (a few , but not many) .

I was also noting in reply to another post, that IF any track were built in CN's ROW I would insist that it be VIA owned if VIA pays for it. Not the same as suggesting that either all or no track would be built within said corridor.

I value the reduced travel time this could bring, in conjunction with other select investments, and the cost for this portion of the route would be fairly modest (there are sections where this would not be true).

I have also stated that I do favour HSR in the long term ( knowing it is not currently on the table) and that I would like to see investments prioritized that facilitate this.

While I don't necessarily oppose the Ptbo routing, I have identified that I won't take more trips by train in this corridor unless travel time drops substantially. I am not persuaded the Ptbo route will achieve this, or is likely to in the future.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. It means it doesn't work for me, where the goal is a faster trip time. Its perfectly fine for local service along said corridor or for redundancy, whether or not that is worth the $$ I will leave to others.

Because I favour one set of investments does not mean I automatically oppose another, nor does it mean I am comparing their construction costs in all various conceivable forms.

I appreciate how passionate some of you are about one option over the other.

I happen to believe in nuance and in evidence-based policy.

I also appear to have a different set of preferences that some of you who seem to enjoy sitting on trains or planes or buses, where I view them as a means to get from A to B as quickly and comfortably as possible.

Everyone is entitled to their own preferences, but not to re-write my posts, or infer things from them not in evidence.

Further, kindly show me the respect, I think I've earned as a poster here. I have a track record of thinking before I post, and considering the facts carefully. I don't post on a whim; unless its a snarky architecture critique! LOL

 

[steveintoronto]

While I don't necessarily oppose the Ptbo routing, I have identified that I won't take more trips by train in this corridor unless travel time drops substantially. I am not persuaded the Ptbo route will achieve this, or is likely to in the future.

Perhaps this is so. However, it certainly doesn't apply to me; nor to anyone I know. Six or more departures a day offers plenty of options to get to Ottawa or Montreal.

For me the notion of a six-hour or even five-hour trip, 'trapped' on the train lacks any appeal at all. No amount of first-class service offsets that. I enjoy reading, but I could get through 2 books in that time.

It may be necessary to tolerate such travel times when flying to Europe, but not when traveling to Montreal.

If I must endure six hours, I would much rather have the option, of stopping in Prince Edward County and dining at a lovely restaurant, and taking some time on a beach, before continuing my trip, even if it meant 7 or 8 hours total.

But I would tell you with some confidence that I would travel more, and almost exclusively by rail to Montreal if the trip time were 3.5 hours or less.

I apologize if I'm expressing myself poorly here, but I am really frustrated but what appears to be rather lazy replying to things I haven't said. Mister F is usually a great poster, but he's the third poster in this this thread to misrepresent what I've said. I think I have a track record here of expressing myself with a fairly high degree of specificity......

In all absolute and due respect, @MisterF is responding *directly* to what you wrote.

There is only one *doable* option at this time to approach "3.5 hours" travel time TO to Mont. And it isn't by putting tracks along MTO property. It's just not in the cards, and even if it was, I don't know about you, but I'd be dead by the time such could be realized. You are asking for HSR.

It ain't gonna happen in the foreseeable future. What posters like @MisterF, myself and others are looking for is the most affordable, doable, *likely to attract investment* option. Even VIA themselves have made it crystal clear that this is dependent on "Private Investment", and ostensibly that would involve the InfraBank, albeit I remain a cynic as to whether that would/will prove to be the best option. Private Enterprise might thumb their noses at the IB and do it completely by themselves, without the likes of BBD snivelling at being left out if someone like Siemens does join a consortium contingent on sole sourcing of their own equipment.
VIA Rail looks to private investment for $3-billion dedicated track plan

I'm re-reading your posts yet again, and you came in sideways on the HFR discussion, which is why I asked you for clarification some days back in the string.

I just can't see a business case for what you're extolling. HFR isn't to compete with air travel. It's to compete with *car travel*, albeit Toronto to Ottawa with the right kind of trains (tilting) could actually beat door-to-door air travel. But that's not the focus of HFR.

 

[crs1026]

Perhaps others are more motivated by the magic of showing up at Union without having to read a schedule.

My reasons for (or against) travel, or a given mode, have far more to do with comfort and the minimization of wasted time.

Agreed. The thing is....the need for hourly departures is not that people will show up randomly on impulse, but rather that individual travel needs and plans may be specific to an hour or less. The trip may be booked well in advance.

Two hour alternatives may sound reasonable, but.....If I have business in Toronto and the meeting ends at 14:30 on the last day, a 15::00 train is more appealing than a 16:00 train with a 90 minute wait beforehand. This is equally true for tourists - if I check out of my hotel at 9:30, I don't want to wait around til 11:00 for a train that I could catch at 10:00.

The premise that frequency will make the service marketable given a wide range of timing needs is sound.

Understanding that HSR is not currently on the table, I still lean to investments which will create the shortest travel time, and which are most compatible with an HSR future.

Agreed. That's my Ren Car analogy. Or - It's like a PC with 4GB of RAM.... in its day, it was slick. But as apps get larger, if you can't add RAM, it's junk.

Peterboro will be a nice platform for hourly service with good end to end timing. But, to get to half hourly? More sidings needed, likely double track - in terrain where the second track would be hugely expensive. More speed? Nope. The only scalability will be train length, and eventually that will reach a maximum.

I would certainly concur that counting on CN's goodwill would be a worthless idea.

I can't mount a solid argument against this based on CN's behaviour to date.....except.... if true, this has to cut both ways to the debate

If we concede that CN does not want any passenger rail along its line, we have to assume that once VIA has its own line, CN will oppose retention of local service on its own tracks more vigourously. I do suspect CN secretly sees win-win in retaining full double track all the way ..... I *know* there are execs at CN who would argue for taking some rail out of service if VIA weren't in the picture. At the very least, CN will expect the local service to cover the current increment in fixed costs and added capital cost attributable to full double track. At present, local service only covers part of that cost as the through trains are allocated a share. Can the local service (which no longer receives revenue from the through passenger load that has moved to the new line) cover its own avoidable cost, plus these added fixed costs, and now do so without subsidy? (I expect Ottawa will withdraw subsidy of the route, that's part of the HFR pitch). Will the Peterboro route cross subsidise the Lakeshore local service? Can't see that happening if private money is involved.

I have to think that if someone approached CN and said, "OK we are about to spend $2B on rebuilding the Peterboro line. How about if we spend $1B adding to your line, and give you the other $1B as a pure license fee?" - CN might not sign off, but they would certainly not say "piss off".... and it would draw out a counter offer that might be grounds for serious negotiation.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

The way I see it as a customer, there are several problems with VIA, of which frequency is the least of my concerns.

1) Cost. People can argue that driving isn't cost competitive after you consider amortization per km and maintenance costs, blah, blah. But outside of business travelers, no marginal user jumping in their car is thinking of anything but gas costs. Alternatively, the public transport competitor is Greyhound. Against these, VIA isn't competitive.

2) Trip times. VIA is barely competitive with the bus. And in certain cases, the bus even beats VIA. For me, from north Scarborough to Ottawa, a Greyhound from STC is actually competitive with a VIA from Guildwood. Driving? No contest. VIA isn't competitive door-to-door.

3) Consistency. This is where VIA really falls short for regular users. On time performance sucks. At some points, I was basically planning for my train to be an hour late.

Frequency won't fix any of this. But HFR will help improve consistency and the higher asset utilizations should get costs to a level competitive with buses today. So I can see where D-S is going with this. It's basically VIA taking the regular rail service model to the limit. It's a pretty logical idea and a sound strategy to build on for future rail development.

 

[micheal_can]

The way I see it as a customer, there are several problems with VIA, of which frequency is the least of my concerns.

1) Cost. People can argue that driving isn't cost competitive after you consider amortization per km and maintenance costs, blah, blah. But outside of business travelers, no marginal user jumping in their car is thinking of anything but gas costs. Alternatively, the public transport competitor is Greyhound. Against these, VIA isn't competitive.

2) Trip times. VIA is barely competitive with the bus. And in certain cases, the bus even beats VIA. For me, from north Scarborough to Ottawa, a Greyhound from STC is actually competitive with a VIA from Guildwood. Driving? No contest. VIA isn't competitive door-to-door.

3) Consistency. This is where VIA really falls short for regular users. On time performance sucks. At some points, I was basically planning for my train to be an hour late.

Frequency won't fix any of this. But HFR will help improve consistency and the higher asset utilizations should get costs to a level competitive with buses today. So I can see where D-S is going with this. It's basically VIA taking the regular rail service model to the limit. It's a pretty logical idea and a sound strategy to build on for future rail development.

The most important to me is the 3rd one. If I cannot count on the train to be reasonably on time, why would I take it?