VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

Also, one of the biggest dissenting voices is Paul Langan

An obvious flake, he can be dismissed, but cynics like Matt Siemiatycki are much more rational.

That being said, a case can be made to 'tip the scales' with an 'infusion' from Federal coffers to push the pointer into the "deal" part of the scale. Some perspective is required on this though: *NO* passenger rail project is going to return a profit from the farebox without some sort of help in the name of offset savings like climate, cost of roadbuilding, etc, etc. With Brightline for instance, it's real estate and proximity of it to their stations. It's a 'loss-leader'.

HFR is an excellent project to 'sell' to the public. It is the best bet to at least approach recovery of direct costs.

 

[JohnnyRenton]

Latest CBC News article:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1082646333092253697

If HFR happens it will be the perfect project to really start to kick start modernization and rationalization of passenger rail in The Corridor. And based on gut feeling and the reaction to it in the media (and the minimal amount of negative reaction to it) I would put the odds in favour of it at around 75%,

There are two things VIA can do to that will allow it to make the service faster, more reliable, and more appealing. The first is to run on its own dedicated network of tracks. Most don't need to be full on, whiz bang, 300km/h lines. They just need to be their own, and allow trains to operate in that 160-200km/h zone a much as possible, without worrying about freight traffic. And they need to improve their reach and come up with better ways of directly serving areas like most all of the northern GTA, Gatineau, parts of the Montreal Region, and improving access in a number of locations (in other words, differentiating how the serve people home locations at the start of their trip, and their temporary home, their destination at the end of the trip). The second one will be able to happen over time as VIA increases frequency and has more trips that it can experiment with new services on, while not being at the expense of a particular place's existing service levels. And HFR, obviously, starts to address the first issue in a pretty big way.

Everyone knows that the one section of The Corridor that can justifiably have a full HSL built is the Lakeshore corridor from Montreal to Toronto. And it will also be the most expensive section, regardless of what standard a dedicated passenger track is built to. And it will take a lot of planning. Some parts of the line might just be able to run parallel to the CN line, such as from around Coteau to close to Brockville, where the geometries are relatively straight, the land relatively flat, and densities (urban and rural) are lower than other parts of the Lakeshore line. Other parts will need a new right of way, some might use part of the 401 right of way, while others might use an old abandoned railway right of way. Just the planning of it will take some time. And right now, all VIA is doing is throwing money away on CN infrastructure every time it tries to add capacity, or even just maintain the status quo on the Lakeshore corridor. HFR allows it increase capacity from Toronto to Ottawa without burdening the corridor, maybe even freeing up an extra spot (or 2 if they are super lucky), for Toronto to Montreal service. In any event, it gives VIA a reprieve. HFR will save them what is no doubt a substantial amount of money that they would otherwise have to spend on the Lakeshore corridor, without that money resulting in any of their own infrastructure.

By the time HFR has been built, VIA will have had enough time that it could come up with a plan for its own dedicated track in the Lakeshore corridor. I would find it surprising if the line was built all at once. Instead, I could see easier sections done first (like the Coteau to Brockville section mentioned above), while negotiations and planning continue for some of the more complicated ones. The plan doesn't need to be totally finalized by the time HFR is done, but the overall vision could be in place.

HFR is probably the first plan that has been proposed by VIA, or any agency or consortium, in the past 30 years, that is actually a good plan. It isn't a compromise plan. It doesn't mean HSR will never be built (it actually strengthens the case and need for HSR, in corridors where it makes sense). It is just a brilliantly, pragmatic plan. And I am not saying that because I have the "lets just support it so that we get something, anything built, or else we will get nothing and VIA will die" mentality. This is a win for almost everyone, is good value for money, will provide faster service, improve the limited rail infrastructure VIA currently owns, and increase the length of dedicated tracks it owns by 4 or 5 fold. HFR is something that everyone needs to get behind and support as vocally as possible.

I am really looking forward to hearing that announcement this year...

 

[SaugeenJunction]

If HFR happens it will be the perfect project to really start to kick start modernization and rationalization of passenger rail in The Corridor. And based on gut feeling and the reaction to it in the media (and the minimal amount of negative reaction to it) I would put the odds in favour of it at around 75%,

There are two things VIA can do to that will allow it to make the service faster, more reliable, and more appealing. The first is to run on its own dedicated network of tracks. Most don't need to be full on, whiz bang, 300km/h lines. They just need to be their own, and allow trains to operate in that 160-200km/h zone a much as possible, without worrying about freight traffic. And they need to improve their reach and come up with better ways of directly serving areas like most all of the northern GTA, Gatineau, parts of the Montreal Region, and improving access in a number of locations (in other words, differentiating how the serve people home locations at the start of their trip, and their temporary home, their destination at the end of the trip). The second one will be able to happen over time as VIA increases frequency and has more trips that it can experiment with new services on, while not being at the expense of a particular place's existing service levels. And HFR, obviously, starts to address the first issue in a pretty big way.

Everyone knows that the one section of The Corridor that can justifiably have a full HSL built is the Lakeshore corridor from Montreal to Toronto. And it will also be the most expensive section, regardless of what standard a dedicated passenger track is built to. And it will take a lot of planning. Some parts of the line might just be able to run parallel to the CN line, such as from around Coteau to close to Brockville, where the geometries are relatively straight, the land relatively flat, and densities (urban and rural) are lower than other parts of the Lakeshore line. Other parts will need a new right of way, some might use part of the 401 right of way, while others might use an old abandoned railway right of way. Just the planning of it will take some time. And right now, all VIA is doing is throwing money away on CN infrastructure every time it tries to add capacity, or even just maintain the status quo on the Lakeshore corridor. HFR allows it increase capacity from Toronto to Ottawa without burdening the corridor, maybe even freeing up an extra spot (or 2 if they are super lucky), for Toronto to Montreal service. In any event, it gives VIA a reprieve. HFR will save them what is no doubt a substantial amount of money that they would otherwise have to spend on the Lakeshore corridor, without that money resulting in any of their own infrastructure.

By the time HFR has been built, VIA will have had enough time that it could come up with a plan for its own dedicated track in the Lakeshore corridor. I would find it surprising if the line was built all at once. Instead, I could see easier sections done first (like the Coteau to Brockville section mentioned above), while negotiations and planning continue for some of the more complicated ones. The plan doesn't need to be totally finalized by the time HFR is done, but the overall vision could be in place.

HFR is probably the first plan that has been proposed by VIA, or any agency or consortium, in the past 30 years, that is actually a good plan. It isn't a compromise plan. It doesn't mean HSR will never be built (it actually strengthens the case and need for HSR, in corridors where it makes sense). It is just a brilliantly, pragmatic plan. And I am not saying that because I have the "lets just support it so that we get something, anything built, or else we will get nothing and VIA will die" mentality. This is a win for almost everyone, is good value for money, will provide faster service, improve the limited rail infrastructure VIA currently owns, and increase the length of dedicated tracks it owns by 4 or 5 fold. HFR is something that everyone needs to get behind and support as vocally as possible.

I am really looking forward to hearing that announcement this year...

Very well said. For your average Joe, the biggest benefits of HFR will be that trains will run on time as scheduled, something that matters to people, and despite not being HSR, it will still cut travel time by roughly a quarter.

As @JasonParis said, JT needs a legacy project, and this would be a great one, and it would be a legacy in contrast to PET's massive cuts to VIA. One thing politically is that VIA is seen as a very "Eastern" service by people in the West. For VIA to thrive politically in the long term, there needs to be relevance for people in Western Canada too. A Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton version of HFR would also be a relatively low-cost (building track in the Prairies is cheap because flatness) way to really emphasize the "Canada" part of VIA Rail Canada.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I would love for HFR Phase 2 to be Calgary-Edmonton.

 

[robmausser]

If HFR happens it will be the perfect project to really start to kick start modernization and rationalization of passenger rail in The Corridor. And based on gut feeling and the reaction to it in the media (and the minimal amount of negative reaction to it) I would put the odds in favour of it at around 75%,

There are two things VIA can do to that will allow it to make the service faster, more reliable, and more appealing. The first is to run on its own dedicated network of tracks. Most don't need to be full on, whiz bang, 300km/h lines. They just need to be their own, and allow trains to operate in that 160-200km/h zone a much as possible, without worrying about freight traffic. And they need to improve their reach and come up with better ways of directly serving areas like most all of the northern GTA, Gatineau, parts of the Montreal Region, and improving access in a number of locations (in other words, differentiating how the serve people home locations at the start of their trip, and their temporary home, their destination at the end of the trip). The second one will be able to happen over time as VIA increases frequency and has more trips that it can experiment with new services on, while not being at the expense of a particular place's existing service levels. And HFR, obviously, starts to address the first issue in a pretty big way.

Everyone knows that the one section of The Corridor that can justifiably have a full HSL built is the Lakeshore corridor from Montreal to Toronto. And it will also be the most expensive section, regardless of what standard a dedicated passenger track is built to. And it will take a lot of planning. Some parts of the line might just be able to run parallel to the CN line, such as from around Coteau to close to Brockville, where the geometries are relatively straight, the land relatively flat, and densities (urban and rural) are lower than other parts of the Lakeshore line. Other parts will need a new right of way, some might use part of the 401 right of way, while others might use an old abandoned railway right of way. Just the planning of it will take some time. And right now, all VIA is doing is throwing money away on CN infrastructure every time it tries to add capacity, or even just maintain the status quo on the Lakeshore corridor. HFR allows it increase capacity from Toronto to Ottawa without burdening the corridor, maybe even freeing up an extra spot (or 2 if they are super lucky), for Toronto to Montreal service. In any event, it gives VIA a reprieve. HFR will save them what is no doubt a substantial amount of money that they would otherwise have to spend on the Lakeshore corridor, without that money resulting in any of their own infrastructure.

By the time HFR has been built, VIA will have had enough time that it could come up with a plan for its own dedicated track in the Lakeshore corridor. I would find it surprising if the line was built all at once. Instead, I could see easier sections done first (like the Coteau to Brockville section mentioned above), while negotiations and planning continue for some of the more complicated ones. The plan doesn't need to be totally finalized by the time HFR is done, but the overall vision could be in place.

HFR is probably the first plan that has been proposed by VIA, or any agency or consortium, in the past 30 years, that is actually a good plan. It isn't a compromise plan. It doesn't mean HSR will never be built (it actually strengthens the case and need for HSR, in corridors where it makes sense). It is just a brilliantly, pragmatic plan. And I am not saying that because I have the "lets just support it so that we get something, anything built, or else we will get nothing and VIA will die" mentality. This is a win for almost everyone, is good value for money, will provide faster service, improve the limited rail infrastructure VIA currently owns, and increase the length of dedicated tracks it owns by 4 or 5 fold. HFR is something that everyone needs to get behind and support as vocally as possible.

I am really looking forward to hearing that announcement this year...

Yes exactly. The HFR route should be built, even if HSR or HFR on the lakeshore route gets built.

Its a more direct route to Ottawa, and we should be expanding transit options along the corridor.

HFR will not only allow for quick access to Ottawa -> Montreal, but it will also free up the existing corridor route. Half the VIA trains on the CN corridor are Toronto -> Ottawa.

Remove those trains and now you have less traffic for Toronto -> Montreal through Kingston.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes exactly. The HFR route should be built, even if HSR or HFR on the lakeshore route gets built.

Its a more direct route to Ottawa, and we should be expanding transit options along the corridor.

HFR will not only allow for quick access to Ottawa -> Montreal, but it will also free up the existing corridor route. Half the VIA trains on the CN corridor are Toronto -> Ottawa.

Remove those trains and now you have less traffic for Toronto -> Montreal through Kingston.

If that gave us more Tor-Mtrl express runs (extremely limited stop) that would be a worthy thing.

 

[crs1026]

One nitpick to @JohnnyRenton's comments - the Brockville-Coteau segment, while construction-friendly, is likely the worst segment to pick for any upgrade. During HFR's lifetime, direct Lakeshore service Toronto-Montreal will be time-preferable over the Ottawa route (provided CN retains its current speed limits) so it is needed in the network. But in the longer term we are unlikely to see HSR on that route, as at full HSR speeds we aren't likely to have separate Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto routes.... one HSR alignment (via Ottawa) is all there will ever be.... well, until 2060 or beyond. Keeping status quo Brockville-Coteau is sufficient until HSR arrives, and (for local business) beyond that.

The place to begin roughing in HSR is as @UrbanSky noted: Smiths Falls to Ottawa to Casselman (the latter leg assumes that the railbanked M+O Sub is off the table as the eventual HSR routing). The place to then extend is east of Casselman, to get Ottawa-Montreal to HSR performance first as a demonstration. The Toronto-Montreal service will have to remain diesel until an HSR route is built end-to-end, as the non-HSR segments are shared with freight....but the diesel trains can divert to the incremental future HSR alignment as it is built. That implies building from one end to minimise the number of temporary junctions.... but all that investment has to wait until HFR proves the case.

If the Lakeshore route will continue to bear through Montreal-Toronto business during HFR's lifetime, we need assurance that getting the Ottawa trains off that line will preserve current speed capability and improve operability (ie reduced conflict with freight). Some additional track might still be required to assure that. I'm a bit focussed on Belleville because it will remain a freight yard, and the lack of a third track west of the yard means eastward freights often tie up on the main line waiting for a clear track. That reduces VIA's path to one track between Moira and Trenton Jct. A third track west of Moira, and/or crossovers closer in than Trenton Jct, would mitigate that. Similarly, extending the York Sub east from Pickering Jct would help CN keep freight out of VIA's way....the section between Liverpool and Pickering Jct used to be used as a passing track for freight, but it's too short these days - so again, freights block one a main track east of Pickering Jct whenever a westbound freight is waiting for an opposing train to come east off the York Sub. A bridge over Duffins Creek would be required there. CN might insist on some additional third track segments somewhere as well. And, Kingston station will have to be upgraded with one or more layover tracks to enable the proposed early-late trains in all directions.

Lastly, I wonder whether VIA's BCA for HFR also addresses cost and revenue for the Lakeshore route - is the projection of capital cost, ridership, and revenue bundled for both? Or is the Lakeshore route left out of the VIA BCA, or, what assumptions does it make about a share of the through Toronto-Montreal traffic using HFR and not the Lakeshore route? My continuing fear is, the HFR business model has to deliver profitability across both routes, or Ottawa will not accept the proposal. Clearly, there will be no appetite for subsidy of the Lakeshore route once the HFR investment is on the books. I sure hope that the TC reports reach the public domain so so we know the numbers.

- Paul

 

[JohnnyRenton]

One nitpick to @JohnnyRenton's comments - the Brockville-Coteau segment, while construction-friendly, is likely the worst segment to pick for any upgrade. During HFR's lifetime, direct Lakeshore service Toronto-Montreal will be time-preferable over the Ottawa route (provided CN retains its current speed limits) so it is needed in the network. But in the longer term we are unlikely to see HSR on that route, as at full HSR speeds we aren't likely to have separate Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto routes.... one HSR alignment (via Ottawa) is all there will ever be.... well, until 2060 or beyond. Keeping status quo Brockville-Coteau is sufficient until HSR arrives, and (for local business) beyond that.

The place to begin roughing in HSR is as @UrbanSky noted: Smiths Falls to Ottawa to Casselman (the latter leg assumes that the railbanked M+O Sub is off the table as the eventual HSR routing). The place to then extend is east of Casselman, to get Ottawa-Montreal to HSR performance first as a demonstration. The Toronto-Montreal service will have to remain diesel until an HSR route is built end-to-end, as the non-HSR segments are shared with freight....but the diesel trains can divert to the incremental future HSR alignment as it is built. That implies building from one end to minimise the number of temporary junctions.... but all that investment has to wait until HFR proves the case.

If the Lakeshore route will continue to bear through Montreal-Toronto business during HFR's lifetime, we need assurance that getting the Ottawa trains off that line will preserve current speed capability and improve operability (ie reduced conflict with freight). Some additional track might still be required to assure that. I'm a bit focussed on Belleville because it will remain a freight yard, and the lack of a third track west of the yard means eastward freights often tie up on the main line waiting for a clear track. That reduces VIA's path to one track between Moira and Trenton Jct. A third track west of Moira, and/or crossovers closer in than Trenton Jct, would mitigate that. Similarly, extending the York Sub east from Pickering Jct would help CN keep freight out of VIA's way....the section between Liverpool and Pickering Jct used to be used as a passing track for freight, but it's too short these days - so again, freights block one a main track east of Pickering Jct whenever a westbound freight is waiting for an opposing train to come east off the York Sub. A bridge over Duffins Creek would be required there. CN might insist on some additional third track segments somewhere as well. And, Kingston station will have to be upgraded with one or more layover tracks to enable the proposed early-late trains in all directions.

Lastly, I wonder whether VIA's BCA for HFR also addresses cost and revenue for the Lakeshore route - is the projection of capital cost, ridership, and revenue bundled for both? Or is the Lakeshore route left out of the VIA BCA, or, what assumptions does it make about a share of the through Toronto-Montreal traffic using HFR and not the Lakeshore route? My continuing fear is, the HFR business model has to deliver profitability across both routes, or Ottawa will not accept the proposal. Clearly, there will be no appetite for subsidy of the Lakeshore route once the HFR investment is on the books. I sure hope that the TC reports reach the public domain so so we know the numbers.

- Paul

Let me just clarify one of my points. I do agree that from Smiths Falls to around Coteau, there is an opportunity with HFR to turn it into a demonstration section for the kind of speeds that are possible when a line is built to HSL standards. We don't know the full details for what they are going to do with this stretch. Will it be fully grade separated? Will they adjust geometry for future HSR trains? Even if they built the line to the HSL standards, and then added electrification and HSR trains later, that would be a brilliant strategy on their part.

I also agree that the Lakeshore route is ultimately the most important route in the corridor. It should start to be modernized (the building of a dedicated, HSL line) pretty much as soon as HFR is completed. Ultimately, I don't care what sections they start with. They should start with whatever ones they are able to plan and design in the years HFR is being built. The most important factor for that line is that it also retains local service. If you want to gain the support of the public you should build a service that Canadians will use, and while connecting the major centres will generate a large volume of the traffic, Canada is also small towns and cities, and those links matter. This is going to be challenging as it will require a plan that balances cost, speed, and local access to stations. But that is also why VIA should be doing HFR first, so that it can still start its modernization campaign, while taking the time do the Lakeshore corridor right.

 

[robmausser]

If that gave us more Tor-Mtrl express runs (extremely limited stop) that would be a worthy thing.

Bring back the 3:59!!

 

[ShonTron]

One nitpick to @JohnnyRenton's comments - the Brockville-Coteau segment, while construction-friendly, is likely the worst segment to pick for any upgrade. During HFR's lifetime, direct Lakeshore service Toronto-Montreal will be time-preferable over the Ottawa route (provided CN retains its current speed limits) so it is needed in the network. But in the longer term we are unlikely to see HSR on that route, as at full HSR speeds we aren't likely to have separate Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto routes.... one HSR alignment (via Ottawa) is all there will ever be.... well, until 2060 or beyond. Keeping status quo Brockville-Coteau is sufficient until HSR arrives, and (for local business) beyond that.

The place to begin roughing in HSR is as @UrbanSky noted: Smiths Falls to Ottawa to Casselman (the latter leg assumes that the railbanked M+O Sub is off the table as the eventual HSR routing). The place to then extend is east of Casselman, to get Ottawa-Montreal to HSR performance first as a demonstration. The Toronto-Montreal service will have to remain diesel until an HSR route is built end-to-end, as the non-HSR segments are shared with freight....but the diesel trains can divert to the incremental future HSR alignment as it is built. That implies building from one end to minimise the number of temporary junctions.... but all that investment has to wait until HFR proves the case.

If the Lakeshore route will continue to bear through Montreal-Toronto business during HFR's lifetime, we need assurance that getting the Ottawa trains off that line will preserve current speed capability and improve operability (ie reduced conflict with freight). Some additional track might still be required to assure that. I'm a bit focussed on Belleville because it will remain a freight yard, and the lack of a third track west of the yard means eastward freights often tie up on the main line waiting for a clear track. That reduces VIA's path to one track between Moira and Trenton Jct. A third track west of Moira, and/or crossovers closer in than Trenton Jct, would mitigate that. Similarly, extending the York Sub east from Pickering Jct would help CN keep freight out of VIA's way....the section between Liverpool and Pickering Jct used to be used as a passing track for freight, but it's too short these days - so again, freights block one a main track east of Pickering Jct whenever a westbound freight is waiting for an opposing train to come east off the York Sub. A bridge over Duffins Creek would be required there. CN might insist on some additional third track segments somewhere as well. And, Kingston station will have to be upgraded with one or more layover tracks to enable the proposed early-late trains in all directions.

Lastly, I wonder whether VIA's BCA for HFR also addresses cost and revenue for the Lakeshore route - is the projection of capital cost, ridership, and revenue bundled for both? Or is the Lakeshore route left out of the VIA BCA, or, what assumptions does it make about a share of the through Toronto-Montreal traffic using HFR and not the Lakeshore route? My continuing fear is, the HFR business model has to deliver profitability across both routes, or Ottawa will not accept the proposal. Clearly, there will be no appetite for subsidy of the Lakeshore route once the HFR investment is on the books. I sure hope that the TC reports reach the public domain so so we know the numbers.

- Paul

Kingston Station should be upgraded no matter what - it will need pocket tracks to store and turn-around VIA trains as there will be a need for Kingston-Ottawa local service along with continued Toronto-Montreal service via Belleville and Cornwall. I'd like an upgraded Kingston Station to also accommodate intercity buses, and allow Kingston Transit to provide direct service to Queen's and Downtown from a single intercity terminal - this would then probably have enough people going through to support a coffee shop.

 

[JohnnyRenton]

Kingston Station should be upgraded no matter what - it will need pocket tracks to store and turn-around VIA trains as there will be a need for Kingston-Ottawa local service along with continued Toronto-Montreal service via Belleville and Cornwall. I'd like an upgraded Kingston Station to also accommodate intercity buses, and allow Kingston Transit to provide direct service to Queen's and Downtown from a single intercity terminal - this would then probably have enough people going through to support a coffee shop.

I couldn't agree more. It is the VIA station I have used the most and it is almost always packed with people. And since there are no longer any redeeming qualities about the station since they renovated it, and plenty of free space, they could build an entirely new one without disrupting any of the operations. Perhaps VIA is a bit hesitant about doing anything until they know the exact plans for a modernized Lakeshore corridor. Not that I think that they would abandon that location. More just having a better understand of exactly where there lines versus the freight lines will run. It is busy enough that it could be justifiably be a bit of a flagship station for a modernized VIA.

 

[crs1026]

^One would think that the Kingston VIA station would be a good location for some intensive development - not just some layover tracks and a bigger depot and the bus platforms, but some commercial or other development that would anchor the location in the community. However.... looks like the land around the station is zoned as an Environmentally Protected Area. See here.

I don't know the rationale, or whether this could be modified, but at face value it appears the current station is likely to remain a bit remote.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Calgary/Edmonton may be a politically viable plan, but it must be separate from Eastern HFR. Separate investors and business case must be established.

I hope we see a Calgary-Edmonton HFR some day. But..... Right now, if Trudeau were to announce that project, he would likely get a revolution, as if he doesn't have enough already. It would be seen by Albertans as an off-the-wall bit of trivia that sidesteps the province's more major issue of the future of the oil industry and the need to get product to market.

D-S has done a good job of getting a pitch through Ottawa that may actually work for Ontario-Quebec. I may not like every thing about the proposal, but I have to admit that the pitch may succeed where nothing else has, and the project could lead to changed perceptions of passenger rail that could pave the way for better things.

Perhaps some day Albertans will look to the east and demand an equal quality rail network. Timing is everything.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

^One would think that the Kingston VIA station would be a good location for some intensive development - not just some layover tracks and a bigger depot and the bus platforms, but some commercial or other development that would anchor the location in the community. However.... looks like the land around the station is zoned as an Environmentally Protected Area. See here.

I don't know the rationale, or whether this could be modified, but at face value it appears the current station is likely to remain a bit remote.

They literally built the new Kingston station in a middle of a swamp! While landfilling into the swamp to build the station and parking was considered acceptable in the 1970s when they built the new station, there is little they can do today.

Kingston Station should be upgraded no matter what - it will need pocket tracks to store and turn-around VIA trains as there will be a need for Kingston-Ottawa local service along with continued Toronto-Montreal service via Belleville and Cornwall.

I don't think there'd be any more trains than there is now - in fact, I think there'd be a lot less trains - more similar to the kind of service they had in the 1980s and 1990s. The current 17 trains a weekday to Toronto (and 9 a day to Ottawa) surely won't last HFR. There's track just east of the station that they can use for turning trains. Where do they keep 650/651 at night - perhaps just to the east?

 

[JohnnyRenton]

^One would think that the Kingston VIA station would be a good location for some intensive development - not just some layover tracks and a bigger depot and the bus platforms, but some commercial or other development that would anchor the location in the community. However.... looks like the land around the station is zoned as an Environmentally Protected Area. See here.

I don't know the rationale, or whether this could be modified, but at face value it appears the current station is likely to remain a bit remote.

- Paul

View attachment 170366

25 years ago the Kingston station was basically at the fringes of the city. Since then, the city has grown in a way that it is probably the most central location to the city and surrounding areas. It is weirdly remote, and there will never be much around it. But if you move the station further west, you make the trip longer for anyone going to or from the station to Queens or other functions downtown. If you move it east, it is further from the Bayridge/Cataraqui/Amherstview areas, into an area that is going to be less remote, but hardly urban, and not likely to become that either.

I lived in the Kingston area for a majority of the years when I was growing up, so I have gone back often to visit family. I have spent many, many hours waiting for delayed trains and I often cursed that it was in the middle of nowhere, and there was nowhere I could buy a beer or coffee while I waited. And I have wondered over and over if there is a better spot for a train station in Kingston. Without spending huge amounts of money to bring it closer to downtown, which wouldn't make sense for a region with around 130,000, there isn't anywhere else you could put the station that would be better. I think VIA should stay in that spot, and just embrace its remoteness.