VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

These comparisons are pointless unless you define where you are starting and ending. "Toronto" and "Montreal" are huge. Start in Scarborough and travel to the West Island. You can do it in 4.5 hrs at 120 kph with a break.

The relevant comparison here is Union station to Gare Centrale. I want to see someone do that consistently in 5.5 hrs across all weather and traffic conditions. You can manage less than 5 hrs in the dead of night. But if you touch shoulder traffic peaks or anything less than perfect weather, you'll be at 5.5 or more. More likely 6 hrs. If HFR does less than 5 hrs consistently it'll be better than driving and every bus service out there. At that point price and frequency become the only differentiators. Not travel time. The consistency of service is what will sell HFR. Less than 5 hrs with 98% on-time reliability and hourly service. There will be plenty who choose the train over the car. And a few even over the plane.

5 hrs for HFR means about 7 hrs door to door for most of the 416 and the Island using HFR and public transit. If they can shorten HFR to 4 hrs, that means door to door drops to 6 hrs. Making it competitive with the majority of car trip pairs between the entire 416 and the Island.

 

[kEiThZ]

The point for this discussion remains - even though the odd person.might actually achieve a faster drive between Toronto and Montreal, few people would plan a business meeting or pleasure date around that speed - partly because it’s not achievable reliably, and partly because the drive would leave the average motorist in need of recovery time anyways.

Spot on. Business travel and travel for important personal engagements is where consistency and reliability matter. As much or more than travel time in many cases.

I've done the 4-6 hr drive in a car full of colleagues for business trips. What ends up happening? We set aside a full day each way, just for travel. No business is getting done that day. That would very much change if HFR offered higher frequencies, a slightly shorter ride and cheaper fares. We'd probably take the train and get a local rental. We'd definitely schedule meetings at least till lunch on Friday. And maybe even in the afternoon on Monday. How you think about scheduling these things changes when there's reliability.

What's also missing in this conversation is the impact of population growth and urban sprawl on traffic. Two decades ago, I'd drive home from St. Jean to Scarborough in 5 hrs with some quick drive thru stops en route. Traffic was a lot lighter in the Eastern GTA and the South Shore and West Island. No way that drive can be done in less than 5 hrs today if leaving at the same time. Just imagine another decade of population growth in the 416, Durham and the West Island and South Shore. A regular Toronto-Montreal drive will be 6 hrs by default.

 

[dowlingm]

I don’t argue your point, but this is where the law could assist shared use of corridors with the underlying premise being that the new passenger service must not undercut the freight operator’s current or future operations.

There’s a big difference between “old VIA” turning up and saying, hey, we’d like to use your spare capacity to run a couple of Dayliners per day each way, and “new VIA” turning up with $1B in capital and saying, OK, what’s a fair split of the risks and the rewards, and how do we proceed?

Even the existing law does not really prevent that, but it has not really been tested and nobody wants to ask a question when they fear what the answer might be. I do think Canada could nudge that along without anyone being unjustly impacted.

Question would be how difficult it would be to impose conditions on railway companies which obligate them to admit or re-admit passenger service where now there is none. I would rather see a broader reform involving separating infrastructure management from railway undertakings (the European model) where the existing freight business is just a customer same as VIA would be. The question then becomes one of appropriate recompense - although that might end up being substantially more than what VIA is paying now.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Indeed I am....well, quite decent anyway, not sure I'd do well at gymkhana.

Pray tell, how does driving according to highway design, road conditions, and car design/capability ruin the roads exactly?

You know who actually ruins the roads?
Drivers who are spatially inept, not confident, have been trained by "defensive" driving schools of inability, aren't aware of their surroundings, don't know how to use their engine/transmission to drive and rely on a safety back stop aka brakes to do it for them, etc.

A closed freeway is designed for speed, a residential street is not and I'm afraid you're making seriously foolish assumptions about my driving.

I'm not one of those spatially inept wankers who drive 110kph on the highway and then continue at 90kph once off. Not least because I never drive at 110 on a highway.

Which reminds me, @crs1026, I don't see the point of cross-posting to a Vision Zero thread as highway driving has nothing to do with Vision Zero.
An urban road isn't the same as a closed freeway. Driving at 180kph on a closed freeway is perfectly legitimate (poorly trained Canadian drivers/pylons notwithstanding); driving, say 80kph on an urban road is not.

I'm perfectly fine moving at 40kph in town, thank you.


Anyway, the train to Ottawa/Montréal is lovely and less stressful than the maze of idiot left laners who don't know what passing is, tired truckers, and speed traps.

Show me a highway built to a 180km/hr design guideline in ONT. And remember these design guidelines are usually maximums based on ideal clear conditions. Add in rain snow or reduced visibility and your speed goes down regardless of the speed design. Travelling at nearly twice the posted speed limit is simply unacceptable no mater highway or residential street.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Show me a highway built to a 180km/hr design guideline in ONT.

The entire 407, for one. Or is that just me? ?

And remember these design guidelines are usually maximums based on ideal clear conditions. Add in rain snow or reduced visibility and your speed goes down regardless of the speed design.

Of course! Always drive according to conditions.

Travelling at nearly twice the posted speed limit is simply unacceptable no mater highway

Pffft

The speed limit was lowered in the 70s for fuel savings, just to illustrate how arbitrary and bunk it is, especially considering speed limits in-town of up to 70(!)
Don't worry, the idiotic 50-over law has put a damper on my speeds...I'm not dealing with walking home from Sudbury.

or residential street.

Deffo is on a residential street. Thought I've made this clear.

Anyway, weren't we back to talking about trains and how great they are for getting around Southern Ontario not least because they're less stressful than having to drive around pylons on the highway system?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The entire 407, for one. Or is that just me? ?

Nope 120km/hr Link

The 36km section of Highway 407 reviewed is part of an overall 69km route. This section is expected to
be developed in three phases. For design purposes, it has been classified as a rural freeway divided
(RFD), with a mainline design speed of 120km/h. In the initial phase of its development, it is a controlled-
access freeway providing three continuous lanes in each direction. A number of interchanges are
provided with other freeways and major arterial roads on the surrounding street network.

Everything I have ever read has indicated a maximum design speed of 130 km/hr. NOT 180 km/hr and even if we allow a generous buffer of say 20% for straight clear portions and/or passing purposes, that's still NO FASTER than 150 km/hr. Driving above that speed is simply reckless.

Deffo is on a residential street. Thought I've made this clear.

Nice of you to make the distinction, many do not.

I will support anyone proposing to increase speed limits but I will not support someone who simply ignores the law because they think it's "bunk"[/QUOTE]

 

[Kraylin]

Ok can we stop the "measuring" and get back on topic?

 

[robmausser]

^I’m not going to wade into the driving thing, other than to observe that these days there’s a lot less social acceptance for pushing the envelope. Our highways are probably fine in good weather at 120, so perhaps they ought to be posted as such....but it’s likely that enforcement will remain around that speed.

The point for this discussion remains - even though the odd person.might actually achieve a faster drive between Toronto and Montreal, few people would plan a business meeting or pleasure date around that speed - partly because it’s not achievable reliably, and partly because the drive would leave the average motorist in need of recovery time anyways.

The comment that started this off was that a fairly slow train ride might be marketable. I’m still dubious, but there’s a zone where one can compete with driving without using the more leadfooted as the benchmark.

- Paul

Exactly.

Is it technically possible to make it from Toronto to Montreal in 4 hours? Yes.

Is that the average that most people would be doing it in? Absolutely not in a million years.

Outliers good data do not make.

A profitable VIA train has to be simply slightly better than the average time, and be more reliable than slippery winter roads/storms and traffic jams.

If you got on time performance to 95% and it still was the same average time as driving, people would take the train, because its a stable average. Driving is an unstable average, traffic and other issues can wildly change the travel time.

Right now VIA to Montreal is not that. Its unreliable due to slowdowns caused by freight (traffic) and old equipment.

Thats what HFR is all about, not making the train necessarily that much faster than driving, but making it a much more reliable and predictable way to travel.

If I can get on a train at 4pm on a thursday and know I will most likely be in Montreal at the expected time, I'd keep the car at home.

 

[kEiThZ]

The entire 407, for one. Or is that just me?

Just you. The normal design standards for freeways in most of North America are 110-130 kph.

Is it technically possible to make it from Toronto to Montreal in 4 hours? Yes.

Is that the average that most people would be doing it in? Absolutely not in a million years.

Outliers good data do not make.

Not just that. The outliers are going to be rarer and the average is going to get worse as population and economic growth, drive up traffic levels.

And even those outliers are seasonally limited in Canada, with at least 4 months of weather where you'd be hard pressed to drive even summer traffic speeds.

So anybody arguing that we don't need better rail service on the Corridor is certainly not thinking of that. I would bet money that a decade from now, the average summer trip time from the 416 to the Island will be closer to 6 hrs, moving to 7 hrs in the winter.

 

[micheal_can]

Exactly.

Is it technically possible to make it from Toronto to Montreal in 4 hours? Yes.

Is that the average that most people would be doing it in? Absolutely not in a million years.

Outliers good data do not make.

A profitable VIA train has to be simply slightly better than the average time, and be more reliable than slippery winter roads/storms and traffic jams.

If you got on time performance to 95% and it still was the same average time as driving, people would take the train, because its a stable average. Driving is an unstable average, traffic and other issues can wildly change the travel time.

Right now VIA to Montreal is not that. Its unreliable due to slowdowns caused by freight (traffic) and old equipment.

Thats what HFR is all about, not making the train necessarily that much faster than driving, but making it a much more reliable and predictable way to travel.

If I can get on a train at 4pm on a thursday and know I will most likely be in Montreal at the expected time, I'd keep the car at home.

Honestly, if the Corridor was left as is and they started adding service elsewhere, there would be no negative impacts on ridership. I wonder though, Toronto-Montreal, from the time you arrive at the station or airport, till you step out the station or airport, I wonder which is faster. I am thinking that they are close to the same due to the added security on planes.

Question would be how difficult it would be to impose conditions on railway companies which obligate them to admit or re-admit passenger service where now there is none. I would rather see a broader reform involving separating infrastructure management from railway undertakings (the European model) where the existing freight business is just a customer same as VIA would be. The question then becomes one of appropriate recompense - although that might end up being substantially more than what VIA is paying now.

It would take an Act of Parliament. Literally, the government could enact legislation that could force them to allow passenger service, and dictate frequency and on time requirements.

 

[crs1026]

It would take an Act of Parliament. Literally, the government could enact legislation that could force them to allow passenger service, and dictate frequency and on time requirements.

There is already legislation on this, and VIA has used it successfully in at least one limited case. One would not want to use it on an entire route, perhaps, because there would be so many sub-arguments about each yard and siding where freight activity might be impacted.
I would be more inclined to negotiate some general principles for sharing the line, and work out all those logistical and operational issues directly. One might just offer a lump sum or a signing bonus. One thing that the freight railways are good at: suppose one offered CP a lump sum to implement Calgary-Edmonton HFR. CP would be likely to see if they could run the service for x% of the lump sum, and retain the remainder as pure profit. That kind of pragmatism might be win-win, if the lump sum fit into the business case parameters.
- Paul

 

[robmausser]

Honestly, if the Corridor was left as is and they started adding service elsewhere, there would be no negative impacts on ridership. I wonder though, Toronto-Montreal, from the time you arrive at the station or airport, till you step out the station or airport, I wonder which is faster. I am thinking that they are close to the same due to the added security on planes.

Depends where you are starting from/ending up and if you take Porter.

From downtown, Porter to Montreal is faster than the current train.

From downtown to Pearson and then Dorval to downtown montreal (using public transit, Uber doesnt count), the 5h train train is slightly faster.

REM might make the plane faster however.

 

[micheal_can]

There is already legislation on this, and VIA has used it successfully in at least one limited case. One would not want to use it on an entire route, perhaps, because there would be so many sub-arguments about each yard and siding where freight activity might be impacted.
I would be more inclined to negotiate some general principles for sharing the line, and work out all those logistical and operational issues directly. One might just offer a lump sum or a signing bonus. One thing that the freight railways are good at: suppose one offered CP a lump sum to implement Calgary-Edmonton HFR. CP would be likely to see if they could run the service for x% of the lump sum, and retain the remainder as pure profit. That kind of pragmatism might be win-win, if the lump sum fit into the business case parameters.
- Paul

What is the legislation?

We have been trying to act in good faith and just negotiate. I feel it would be more productive to demand on time performance be as close to 100% as possible.

 

[crs1026]

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-10.4/page-29.html#h-56206

What is the legislation?

We have been trying to act in good faith and just negotiate. I feel it would be more productive to demand on time performance be as close to 100% as possible.

See this award, which deals with.Section 152 of the CTA

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-10.4/page-29.html#h-56206

See this award, which deals with.Section 152 of the CTA

- Paul

Now, let's see more of this, where VIa can run more trains on other routes. Is there a Subdivision that cannot hold the capacity for 2 more trains, one going in either direction?