VIA Rail

[MisterF]

^Attack and then play the victim. That's his MO.

There have been a lot of claims, often made with 100% certainty, that the abandoned CP line simply cannot be used for this kind of service and can't be realistically rebuilt for the $3-4 billion we're talking about. So for the first part of that, what specifically prevents trains from going 177 km/h on that right of way? The curve radii, the ROW width, the grades? What is required and what does this ROW have? I'm not an engineer so someone more informed than myself might be able to answer these questions.

The second question is the cost. According to the study done by Metrolinx, the Peterborough rail line would have cost $541 million to completely rebuild the track and bring it up to 80 mph (129 km/h) standard. Del Mastro's estimate was half that, but I think it's safe to assume that the Metrolinx numbers are just a tad more reliable. For 172 km of track, that ends up being about $3.1 million/km. Upgrading it to 177 km/h standard would obviously cost more, let's say $5 million/km. From Toronto to the CP line at Perth is about 320 km total that would have to be completely rebuilt. So assuming $5 million/km, that distance would cost around $1.6 billion. Add a billion to account for the difficulties of building in the Canadian Shield and another billion for electrification, we're getting pretty close to the numbers that Via is talking about. Seems pretty realistic to me, at least cost wise.

As for the NIMBYism, these groups are much easier dealt with along active railroads than in communities which have never seen a railroad anywhere near them...

I think NIMBYs would be a pretty big obstacle. They've got used to using the rail trail and would no doubt make a huge fuss about that being replaced with a train every half an hour.

 

[Urban Sky]

[...] I think NIMBYs would be a pretty big obstacle. They've got used to using the rail trail and would no doubt make a huge fuss about that being replaced with a train every half an hour.

Judging from Google Earth imagery, there would be more than enough space to simply realign the path next to the ROW (if that alignment was to be chosen). Also, adding flag stops for a few low-demand trains (Gananoque with its 1-2 trains daily comes in mind) could ensure that intermediary communities also enjoy the benefits and not only bear the the costs of such a project.

 

[mdrejhon]

Whats the cost breakdown, Montreal-side and Toronto-side?

Is most of the cost issue on the Toronto side -- aka can be focussed on the Peterborough sub?

Has Metrolinx ever done an EA through Peterborough? Can it be reused by VIA?

I prefer a Kingston routing, but I am rather curious how good Peterborough ends up theoretically getting on that budget, given the information provided. It very well may work out unexpectedly if what you are saying, is right... The grades were freight compatible, and EMUs can handle it even better. Kind of prefer a straigter ROW for HSR, but I see cost-wise why Peterborough is still on the table. Doesnt even need to be 177kph for much of it to be 2.5 hour to Ottawa.

 

[steveintoronto]

Excellent post Urban! Unfortunately, the site software has been buggy the last few days, and quoting you with the software is not working right now, but you make many *essential* points.

If I feel bad about anything, it's the incredibly good shape that the 'abandoned' RoW is in, and that's mostly due to volunteers building the multi-use trail. They *have* to be offered some accommodation in lieu of losing that trail. I've followed it intensely on Google satellite, and still pics. The vast majority appears to be in excellent shape for re-use. Whether or not your Transpo Act quote

No approval is needed to construct a railway line:
within the right-of-way of an existing railway line,

applies to the abandoned section or not might be an interesting legal debate, but it will certainly be easy to re-establish the claim if it isn't. Expropriation for Public Works is very common, you see this mostly now with highways, and as much as I think *individual land owners* should be treated better, the law simply states: (gist) "compensation in like". If you move a rail line two kilometers across private property, the landowner can be offered the old rail-bed if the soil or valuable state is matched to what is lost. In fact, Fitz has a point *by degree*: Some of those curves could and should be softened, or even re-aligned. No matter how much that is necessary, it will be magnitudes less than using CN's RoW, and infrastructure cost a fraction of running down by the lake.

It must be frustrating on your part to be privy to some inside information, and not able to divulge it. Let me state this: And you don't have to answer: I sense *immense* frustration from between your lines and the words of D-S in dealing with (mostly) CN, *even after massive investments* only to see hopes and aspirations dashed by always being relegated to being the underling. Part of the allure of the Peterborough route is that even one of the antagonists (CP) is actually bending over backwards to make it happen. Of course, they have ulterior motives, but that still makes them a team player. What a difference for VIA! You can now be master of your own fortune by running your own show without having to take the flak for delays and cancellations that weren't your fault (which is the vast majority of times). And you have allies and partners in Metrolinx and AMT who fully understand your needs, methods and procedures.

Quite the contrary to the naysayers, I think I see an entirely *fresh* way for VIA (or whatever Consortium comes out of this) to fulfill a pragmatic way to deliver reliable, affordable and frequent service. What mustn't be forgotten is the *plan* (albeit nothing in the proposal is etched in stone yet) for the track and infrastructure to be privately financed.

I suspect planning is a lot further along than the press has been party to. And D-S is the man to see this through. It's a refreshing change to be able to find direct quotes in this whole affair, and take them completely at face value. I can tell he's very carefully thinking this through...all the time knowing far more than he's letting on.

 

[steveintoronto]

All the quotes I'd saved for Urban are now showing from the "quote" option! I'll try for exact ones again later, but for MD for now:

Has Metrolinx ever done an EA through Peterborough? Can it be reused by VIA?

(Correction: I missed the "EA" and just saw report. Still digging)
Oddly, the Metrolinx/TC report does go through Peterborough, albeit I'm trying to figure out which route, as the 'swing-bridge' is out of operation, and the city looking to, or already purchase it and the approaches for more bike paths to connect other ones. I've been trying to find a good railmap of Peterborough, as a by-pass may exist (there's no shortage of old RoWs in Peterborough), but the Mx/TC study goes through Peterborough to just short of Havelock up a spur to Blue Mountain. *Service* however, is projected just to Peterborough proper.

"Can it be reused by VIA?" Absolutely. Bear in mind that electrification was not discussed at that time though. (I'm still trying to download Acroread for Linux 64 bit to quote and post maps)(bear with me, the two companion reports are extremely extensive and detailed, you'd be an excellent candidate to repost sections)

After all I read elsewhere, it would be extremely foolish to not go electric, at the very least, it would allow much steeper gradients to reduce curves and loops albeit if need be, the old alignments could also be kept for dragging freight. These don't occur until the abandoned sections, where from what I can tell, most of the infrastructure (especially bridges over water) is intact and usable. Some will have to be replaced, but it will be a pittance compared to building new along the CN Lakeshore alignment.

I think this study is going to be a prescient God-send for VIA and/or Consortium. The details for the Toronto end are shown in maps and paragraphs with alternatives already mapped out. And priced!

 

[steveintoronto]

From the Peterborough Commuter Line forum at this site:

Sure, if they can present a good business case.[...]
If the Peterborough line ran through other places east of Toronto, there might be a case. With the construction of 407 now extending east to the 115, car and bus travel to Toronto will be even more competitive in the future.

Well guess what?

 

[steveintoronto]

I think NIMBYs would be a pretty big obstacle. They've got used to using the rail trail and would no doubt make a huge fuss about that being replaced with a train every half an hour.

I'm really torn on this, multi-use trails are such incredibly 'quality added' lifestyle features. I'm enraptured by those pics to cycle them. However, the clawback of rail-trails for rail use again has happened in a number of jurisdictions. In the UK I know of a couple, and in the US, SMART (the doppleganger of UPX) has done it:

The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) commuter rail line and parallel pathway will stretch 70 miles between Cloverdale and Larkspur. This dual transportation system will connect 14 train stations and 10 cities across two counties, Sonoma and Marin.

Of the SMART Pathway’s planned 70 miles, 52 will be alongside the tracks; much of the remaining 18 miles will consist of on-road bikeways. Currently, about five miles of the off-road trail are on the ground already, including the Foss Creek Pathway, and about a third of the on-road sections are signed and striped. Another 24 miles of trail are anticipated to open in 2016. Not only is the route hoped to alleviate traffic congestion is the area, but it will also be a recreational amenity, offering views of Sonoma’s scenic vineyard countryside and Marin County's craggy terrain.

The trail's most unusual feature lies on its southern end: the Cal Park Hill Tunnel, a relic of Northwestern Pacific Railroad, which was active here in the early 1900s when northern California's towering redwoods were being harvested for lumber. More than 100 years later, the SMART rail line follows that same corridor, converting the tunnel for the modern day by adding a separated trail for bicyclists and pedestrians alongside the trains.

SMART commuter rail service is expected to begin by late 2016 with trains running every 30 minutes during peak weekday hours. Mid-day and weekend service will also be offered. The train cars will have room for bikes, allowing passengers to combine riding the trail and the train for recreation and commuting.

http://www.traillink.com/project/smart-pathway.aspx

The old LMS bikepath between Bath and Bristol UK has also been re-used like this. Truly, I'm torn on this, but if an effort is made to share the RoW, with the added plus to many older folks that they can 'cycle as far as they can, then hop on a train home'...I think the positive side can be seen from it. In the event, that section of the Trans-Canada Trail connects to a lot of other undeveloped tracks that could be developed into something much more usable.

Considering the cost of the project, offsetting some of the losses by developing others for a modest sum of money would go a long way to satisfying most NIMBYs. Some can never be satisfied, but that's life. "Train out and ride back" is one of my favourite challenges, or the opposite. What's been resonating to me is Urban's quote:

No approval is needed to construct a railway line:

• within the right-of-way of an existing railway line, or
• within 100 metres of the centre line of an existing railway line for a distance of no more than three kilometres.

That actually allows quite a latitude in many locations to skew the track off the centre of the RoW sufficient to allow a parallel cycle path. Will there be a cost to erecting a fence? Doubtless, but again, in lieu of the magnitudes higher costs of the infrastructure itself, I'm sure public relations can be maximized by that being provided in the budget. On the outside, btw, from reading the Transportation Act earlier, it is the municipality that must pay to erect track-side fences. As to bothered neighbours...that will be minimized by the trains being electric, and ostensibly, since the track is dedicated and temporally separated from freight, European type lighter-weight units. Definitely EMUs of some description. Property values will go *up*! There will be more winners than losers.

Edit to Add:

MD's question (gist) "Has there been an EA done on this (O&Q) line, and can VIA use it?" and Urban's quote of the Transportation Act becomes more crucial the more I delve on this. As Urban points out, re-using an *existing* RoW makes the whole exercise incredibly simpler and faster. Looking at this in reverse, it's no mistake that D-S keeps emphasizing this, it's key to doing it in the time-frame he mentions. Whether an "abandoned" line can be considered "existing" is a point I'll dig on later.

Consider this:

Approval to construct a railway line
Who does this apply to?
If a federal railway company intends to construct a railway line, it must file an application with the Agency under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act for approval. This includes main lines, branch lines, yard tracks, sidings, spurs or other track auxiliary to a railway line.

No approval is needed to construct a railway line:

• within the right-of-way of an existing railway line, or
• within 100 metres of the centre line of an existing railway line for a distance of no more than three kilometres.

How does the process work?
The Agency may grant the approval if it considers that the location of the line is reasonable, taking into consideration:

1. the requirements for railway operations and services; and
2. the interests of localities that will be affected by the line.

The railway company is responsible for demonstrating to the Agency that the requirements of section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act are met.

Interests of localities
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) came into force on July 6, 2012, replacing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and removing the requirement for an environmental assessment for certain railway line construction projects.

Following the legislative changes, railway companies were consulted regarding the Agency's proposed approach to applications under section 98 of the CTA, resulting in an understanding that railway companies remain responsible for demonstrating to the Agency that the requirements of that provision are met, whether an environmental assessment is required or not.

The Agency adopted the following approach, indicating that railway companies will:

• undertake consultations with the localities with a view to developing collaborative measures to address the relevant issues raised;
• consult with municipalities, adjacent landowners and Aboriginal groups, when and as applicable;
• provide information to allow an adequate understanding of the project and to ensure that consultations are meaningful;
• provide the Agency with a detailed account of these consultations and any agreements put in place to address objections that may have been raised; and
• identify issues where no agreement was reached and that must be dealt with by the Agency.

Construction projects subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency may initiate an environmental assessment pursuant to CEAA 2012.

The Agency can only then proceed with approval under Section 98:

1. once an environmental assessment has been conducted; and
2. if it has been determined that the project will not cause significant adverse environmental effects.

For more information, see the Overview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment 2012.

The Regulations Designating Physical Activities set out which projects are subject to an environmental assessment under CEAA 2012, including:

• railway projects in a wildlife area or migratory bird sanctuary;
• railway lines longer than 32 km;
• railway yards with seven or more yard tracks or a total of 20 km or more;
• railway lines designed for trains that have an average speed of 200 km/h;
• international or interprovincial bridges or tunnels.

[...]
Safety requirements
Authority to construct a railway line under the Act does not relieve the parties of their obligations under the Railway Safety Act. Learn more about rail safety requirements.


Related pages

• Railway Line Construction: A Resource Tool

• https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/approval-construct-railway-line

I'm sure this is being researched by legal teams already. This might turn out to be a contentious situation if it is determined an EA isn't required under Federal law. If the Consortium that builds the track is federally incorporated, and VIA's legal aspect covered under changes to the Transportation and/or Railway Act, it might be a God-send for Metrolinx.

 

[nfitz]

I don't think I am suspected of being a fan of Steve's at times overly provocative and sarcastic undertones after derailing a different discussion over them, but remind me again: who exactly is claiming to be bullied and who do you accuse of the admittedly immature behavior of responding with personal attacks rather than fact-based arguments?

I'm surprised you need a reminder, but I've accused Steve of name-calling and bullying. I might have been stubborn after his comments, but I've not resorted to that.

I have to say I'm surprised that Peterborough to Ottawa would be considered. I just don't think the alignment is there. My gosh, Kingston is going to freak.

From the Peterborough Commuter Line forum at this site:

Well guess what?

That was a discussion about commuter service on existing track from Toronto to Peterborough. It's the Peterborough (or at least Havelock) to Ottawa section I've been saying won't see rail service.

And also note I said IF the line ran through other communities east of Toronto. It doesn't. There's little point building a commuter service (other than perhaps a couple of trains a day) much past the proposed Pickering airport site. Not without some major growth. Maybe in 50 to 100 years ...

 

[nfitz]

I've never said that there shouldn't be a commuter service to Seaton on that line, with the occasional train out to Peterborough. You seem to ignore my comments on that thread that there isn't the population east of Seaton to support it, or the comments that the existing GO service from Peterborough to Oshawa GO to Union is probably just as fast, and can handle the demand (though if there is already a GO service in place to Seaton, I'd assume it would be a pretty quick trip from Peterborough on a GO Bus along the 115 and new 407).

That doesn't change an iota my comments about service from Peterborough to Ottawa, where I'm not even sure that VIA could buy the current alignment (though I guess they can expropriate it). Though US's recent comments carry a different weight.

 

[steveintoronto]

A note to readers, in the cause of diplomacy, I erased my single line post quoted by nfitz right after posting it. In the event, Fritz has already changed what he posted and I quoted.

I'm not even sure that VIA could buy the current alignment

It's been discussed at length, Fitz. It's completely irrelevant to the nature of proposed uses. CP is bending over backwards to see it used and improved, which satisfies their needs as well as others. They even offer to run the freight at night. In the event, they will gladly sell it with the proviso of overhead freight rights.

Edit to Add: Finally got a lead on ownership (at least at the time of this being published) of at least part of the 'abandoned RoW' through Tweed:

the
abandoned
portion
of
C.P
. Rail's
Havelock
Sub
(the
Ontario
&
Quebec
Railway)
between
Glen
Tay
(Perth)
and
Tweed,
Ontario.
The
right-of
-
way,
abandoned
in
1974
and
owned
by
Bell
Canada
IS
maintained
for
service
vehicles
and
therefore
permits
travel
by
van
or
truck.

Apologies for lack of formatting, still w/o a full PDF reader.
http://www.exporail.org/can_rail/Canadian Rail_no391_1986.pdf (March-April 1986)

So it's established that some of the RoW was sold. Interestingly, being a regulated utility, (under the Ont Public Utilities Act) Bell may have to share that RoW! Bell may have gone on to sell the corridor to the county with provisos of access. Interesting legal situation.

 

[crs1026]

Would anyone care to put a price estimate on what it will take to install a passenger-speed ROW through this part of Peterborough? And deal wih all the level crossings?

Failing that, would anyone care to suggest a route for a bypass around the south end of town? And how much would that cost?

And presumably your suggestions would be consistent with how you'd manage things in Guelph?

- Paul

Postscript: Now consider the claim that this thing will be shovel-ready within three years. Can you imagine approaching the citizens of Peterborough - who have heard not one word of this proposal - and telling them you have to get started right away because time's a-wasting?

If you thought the Davenport Diamond outreach was badly managed, this would be even better. The Hastings Fire Department wouldn't have to buy any supplies for this year's Canada Day fireworks display (it's one of the best in Ontario, in my opinion).

 

[steveintoronto]

And presumably your suggestions would be consistent with how you'd manage things in Guelph?

Presuming that comment is aimed at me, your comparison is very poor, by many metrics. Guelph isn't petitioning to get rail service, she already has it, and a reminder yet again: This *isn't* "High Speed". And Peterborough is *very* flat. The topographical comparison couldn't be more different unless it involved mountains. As to construction...compare that to along the Lakeshore. And if need be, yes a by-pass could be done around Peterborough. Where's the problem? And bridges will have to be built, grade separation in other spots. No matter how you stack it, it's a heck of a lot easier, cheaper, faster to complete and devoid of complicating *freight overlords* than doing it along the Lakeshore.

No-one is claiming this is going to be a 'piece of cake'...but it appears some would prefer this to be a lot more difficult than this option.

Can you imagine approaching the citizens of Peterborough - who have heard not one word of this proposal - and telling them you have to get started right away because time's a-wasting?

And along the Lakeshore, that won't be the case? It'll be that *squared*!

In the event "shovel ready in three years" means something entirely different than what you claim. It means *ready to start building* in three years after all the legalities are met. Three years Paul. What do you suggest as an alternative? Somewhere no construction will take place?

If you thought the Davenport Diamond outreach was badly managed, this would be even better. The Hastings Fire Department wouldn't have to buy any supplies for this year's Canada Day fireworks display (it's one of the best in Ontario, in my opinion).

You used the comparison to Guelph, and a number of bridges have been built under the rail line there in recent years. No problem. People prefer that for obvious reasons. One is planned to go in on Silver Creek, albeit the city's planning is askew and it's delayed due to other reasons. Right now, that crossing is blocked off. As to "Davenport" there's absolutely no comparison. The reason for the swing-bridge was for river/canal traffic that is long gone. It is now a *pleasure craft* waterway. A level grade bridge can go in there. Take a look at the other bridges in Peterborough to get a perspective:
http://historicbridges.org/b_a_county.php?county=Peterborough County, Ontario

Bridges across the Trent waterway and associated rivers have long ago been barely high enough to clear your head when standing on a pleasure craft.

 

[nfitz]

It's been discussed at length, Fitz. It's completely irrelevant to the nature of proposed uses. CP is bending over backwards to see it used and improved, which satisfies their needs as well as others. They even offer to run the freight at night. In the event, they will gladly sell it with the proviso of overhead freight rights.

I'm simply referring to the section of abandoned track between Peterborough and Ottawa that CP cut passenger service on in the 1960s (? or earlier?) - heck, they abandoned Glen Tay to Tweed 45 years ago!

I have no doubt that VIA could restore rail service to Peterborough very quickly with a slow RDC if they wanted to.

I just can't see how Peterborough to Ottawa is doable in 3 years. I'd have thought the environmental assessment process necessary for what is essentially a new rail line (having had no tracks for almost half a century) alone would have taken that long - or longer. And that's ignoring the curvature issues I've already opined on.

 

[steveintoronto]

I just can't see how Peterborough to Ottawa is doable in 3 years.

Who has claimed that? What is so difficult for some readers to understand what "shovel ready in three years" means?

I bite my lip....

 

[TOareaFan]

I just can't see how Peterborough to Ottawa is doable in 3 years.

Who has claimed that? What is so difficult for some readers to understand what "shovel ready in three years" means?

I bite my lip....

Maybe no one claimed that (perhaps they did, I don't know....too many threads/links/back and forth insults to check through) but certainly when the head of Via Rail says they are planning having the HFR running in 3 years....and someone suggests that that service will/should/could run through Peterborough to Ottawa....those of us as more casual observers (well, me for instance) certainly got the impression you and others are suggesting that the Peterborough to Ottawa corridor could be ready in 3 years.

Since you love links......Via said shovel ready in spring of 2017 and service operating in 2019 here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-along-quebec-ontario-route/article29638997/

Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, president and CEO of Via Rail, said that’s no reason to delay the project, adding that the expanded service could be in place by the fall of 2019.