VIA Rail

[rbt]

In Toronto we'd obviously need Steeles done, and probably McNicoll too...

This is less obvious to me. Why would a low-speed (it'll run slower within city limits) relatively infrequent train require this?

Nobody will be horribly put out if traffic on Steeles needs to pause for 90 seconds every 30 minutes. I'd like to see the GradeX risk number for those crossings with VIAs plan. I expect they'd rank below the top 10 crossings in the GTA; that gives VIA a couple years to prove the business plan (or scale it back) before committing to major upgrades.

 

[steveintoronto]

Nobody will be horribly put out if traffic on Steeles needs to pause for 90 seconds every 30 minutes. I'd like to see the GradeX risk number for those crossings with VIAs plan before assuming it's required.

It's a good point, and it's been a few years since I cycled back into town along that stretch, but remember on successive trips in the past as to how little traffic is on Steeles most of the time. Ditto #7, but of course, this will all have to bear scrutiny. Actually 200 kph could be permitted even in Toronto, whether that's wise or not is another question. Even reduced to the speed that VIA presently does along the Lakeshore East line in Scarborough (160 kph IIRC) with level crossings would be acceptable until bridges built to allow full 200 kph.

The major point remains: Building bridges for any spots where it's indicated doesn't mean it's required by law, so HFR can push ahead with the knowledge that some or all of these indicated spots can be addressed later. TC might impose a lower speed limit across some, not a huge time penalty compared to fast running on most of the line.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I had to catch myself from getting discouraged from this by realizing that this is already extant RoW, and it's not going to interfere with HFR, but in fact better run-times later. The real 'take-away' from this is how it's based on a 'foregone conclusion' (my term) that HFR is imminent.

In the absence of a definitive announcement (and it may yet be a few months away) this is a very positive sign of it being imminent.

I think announcing VIA HFR would be a really good news story for the Feds. From a very rough count I did, the project would cross through *46* different ridings directly between Toronto and Quebec City (again, rough) and be in the catchment area of probably well over 100. This is a very good bang for your buck/$5.5 billion bucks. Also, it would be a great way to show infrastructure money is flowing. Transport Minister Marc Garneau loves VIA, and this seems to be a "everyone wins" project. I'd expect it to be rolling down the tracks sooner than later.

 

[steveintoronto]

I think announcing VIA HFR would be a really good news story for the Feds. From a very rough count I did, the project would cross through *46* different ridings directly between Toronto and Quebec City (again, rough) and be in the catchment area of probably well over 100. This is a very good bang for your buck/$5.5 billion bucks. Also, it would be a great way to show infrastructure money is flowing. Transport Minister Marc Garneau loves VIA, and this seems to be a "everyone wins" project. I'd expect it to be rolling down the tracks sooner than later.

I agree! I was just thinking about the bridges that don't *have to be built* but would be highly desirable, not the least due to TC perhaps permitting a higher speed than 200 kph through sections that are totally grade-separated. A good part of the Feds' eagerness to inject cash fluidity into the economy is 'shovel ready' projects and IIRC, bridges on or under an extant RoW don't need an EA. I'll double check that claim later. So there's multiple stimuli from doing this, even if many of the bridges aren't built until slightly later, it means, in effect, high-speed commuting to Peterborough is possible as well as HFR beyond, and that in itself is a massive benefit for Seaton Airport and communities from there to Peterbro in terms of development.

Just tracked down the "Report" we were discussing, not easy to find!

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

1.

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES UPDATE


ACS2017-TSD-PLN-0011
CITY WIDE

That the Transportation Committee recommend Council approve the updates to the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines as described in this report.

2.

BARRHAVEN AND MERIVALE ROAD RAIL GRADE SEPARATION STUDY AND BARRHAVEN RAIL SAFETY PROGRAM


ACS2017-TSD-PLN-0010
BARRHAVEN (3);
KNOXDALE-MERIVALE (9)
[...]
http://ottwatch.ca/meetings/TRC/6995

 

[steveintoronto]

As per EA waiver claim my post above:

In searching for the Transportation Act exemption, I tripped across this Ontario exemption that I never knew existed:

What types of projects are covered by the regulation?(2.1)
To whom does the regulation apply?
Public sector proponents can take advantage of the exemption in the Transit Projects Regulation.

Since the Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to private sector proponents, the Transit Projects Regulation does not apply to them.

The regulation only applies to dedicated facilities or services that are used exclusively for transit.

For example, a light rail transit line or busway that is separated completely from general vehicular traffic would be eligible for the exemption, but the widening of a road to accommodate buses or an High Occupancy Vehicle designation would not be eligible if single-occupancy cars also used the road.

In the latter case, the proponent of such a project would be required to fulfil Environmental Assessment Act requirements.

Under the regulation, all public transit projects are exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act. The regulation includes a project schedule (refer to Schedule 1 in the regulation) that lists the classes of projects that are exempt, subject to meeting the conditions specified in the regulation.

The regulation defines a transit project as, [...]

https://www.ontario.ca/page/guide-environmental-assessment-requirements-transit-projects

Whoa! Am I misreading that? It's getting late, and I'm tired, but I keep re-reading it, and I think I'm reading it right.

Here's the Federal exemption for railways: (this is not absolute, conditions apply, I was just reading some Superior Court judgments under the CEAA that went against CN, but with caveats that *appear* not to apply in this case)(it was deemed a "new" railway construction, not existing)

Exception

(3) No approval is needed for the construction of a railway line

• (a) within the right of way of an existing railway line; or
  
  
• (b) within 100 m of the centre line of an existing railway line for a distance of no more than 3 km.

[...]

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/FullText.html#h-51

I surmise that a bridge built over the affected road along the railway RoW, including the berm being contained within that RoW would be exempt. I'll search finer details tomorrow. A road underpass/overpass would unfortunately involve property outside of the railway RoW and need an EA.

 

[cplchanb]

With the advent of hsr in the west that kind of had me thinking. Is HFR even going to be profitable that will offset local flights?
For hsr there is more of a justification as it's quite a bit faster than total flight/airport time for some cases but for the Montreal Ottawa corridor it's still going to take 5 hours and the cost of the flight justifies the time saved for the most part.

Unless they can market HFR as being a good alternative to air travel, I'm not that sure if they can get the ridership over the long run to support multiple trips.

 

[crs1026]

GO/ML just did a whole grade crossing replacement strategy. Somewhere I have the report with their ranking criteria. I wonder how Steeles would score against the GO criteria. My gut says it would be scored as needing separation, even if the schedule could accept a slow order.

No private investor is going to put forward capital if the risks of litigation and adverse settlements and potential public reputational issues is too high. So I'm sure the safety issues will be carefully scrutinised if the Investment Bank part goes forward. The accident(s?) in Barrhaven have had reputational and public opinion impact way beyond just the number of casualties that ocurred - which is why this gets headlines so easily. Those crossings are arguably protected adequately relative to current standards. TC is not going to stick its neck out very far to defend that, however.

For the same reason, Be very cautious about sandhouse legal analysis around whether an EA is required by law. It will get one, just in case. There will be plenty of opponents (we transport nerds all favour HFR, but there are people who don't). Failing to do diligence would be a lovely legal challenge to the whole thing, would take longer and cost more..... and breed public opposition instead of support.

Lastly - one can't help but observe how much has already been invested in grade separating the Kingston Sub, far more than is needed for CN freight alone. Are we happy to see all that investment - fifty years' worth of taxpayer money - not valued? Getting good use out of that investment is a huge reason why the Havelock Sub idea is not the best option.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

For the same reason, Be very cautious about sandhouse legal analysis around whether an EA is required by law. It will get one, just in case.

The Transportation Act does in fact state the terms of how an infrastructure project is vetted for compliance on an existing RoW. It's just a bit too complex and interpreted by different court rulings to post a black and white treatise of it. Suffice to say VIA's and TC's legal department have looked at this at least superficially to allow D-S and VIA to promote their present choice of action. Keep in mind that the HFR proposal is for a *Privately Owned RoW*! The details of that are open to discussion, but it won't be *owned* by VIA, even though it will be custom fitted for them.

My gut says it would be scored as needing separation, even if the schedule could accept a slow order.

TC might in fact demand it. This is a point I didn't want to delve into last night, and still not today, I'm taking lunch, as what TC dictate and what court decisions might rule don't necessarily align. TC have been found at fault in some really bone-headed moves. Any private or further government investment into this proposal will of course examine all those details.

Lastly - one can't help but observe how much has already been invested in grade separating the Kingston Sub, far more than is needed for CN freight alone. Are we happy to see all that investment - fifty years' worth of taxpayer money - not valued? Getting good use out of that investment is a huge reason why the Havelock Sub idea is not the best option.

Nothing will be lost at all. VIA has made it very clear on numerous occasions that service will continue on that corridor, but why spend taxpayer money dumping further investment into it when a much better return per investment can be had by VIA having 'a place of her own'?

There's some valid arguments to be made against the O&Q alignment, that's not one of them.

Edit to Add: *Nothing!!!* is stopping CP or CN from approaching VIA with an offer that matches or betters what VIA is now entertaining for HFR.

How long does VIA need to be abused before realizing she has better alternatives than the present one?

 

[steveintoronto]

Just up:
Transportation committee OKs pricey proposed rail safety program for Barrhaven
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ey-proposed-rail-safety-program-for-barrhaven

Will discuss implications later, but absolutely no sign this is anything to do with HFR. It's the mention of HFR and increased frequency of interactions that's the relevant point to HFR. HFR or not, this would have happened anyway.

 

[robmausser]

T

Nothing will be lost at all. VIA has made it very clear on numerous occasions that service will continue on that corridor, but why spend taxpayer money dumping further investment into it when a much better return per investment can be had by VIA having 'a place of her own'?

How long does VIA need to be abused before realizing she has better alternatives than the present one?

This exactly.

VIA already upgraded the line it takes with taxpayer money for sidings for CN to use so that VIA could pass the freight trains.

So what did CN do? They lengthened their freights so they wouldn't fit on the sidings, forcing VIA to stop and use the sidings and let the freight trains pass.

If you want to talk about wasted taxpayer money, the current CN owned line is already a great example:

A crown corp sold off as a private enterprise now, with no interest in passenger rail, and manipulating the situation of taxpayer bought sidings with the intent to speed up VIA but now lets CN run more freight unabated by passenger rail.

VIA needs to get off the CN line.

 

[MisterF]

Lastly - one can't help but observe how much has already been invested in grade separating the Kingston Sub, far more than is needed for CN freight alone. Are we happy to see all that investment - fifty years' worth of taxpayer money - not valued? Getting good use out of that investment is a huge reason why the Havelock Sub idea is not the best option.

- Paul

This exactly.

VIA already upgraded the line it takes with taxpayer money for sidings for CN to use so that VIA could pass the freight trains.

So what did CN do? They lengthened their freights so they wouldn't fit on the sidings, forcing VIA to stop and use the sidings and let the freight trains pass.

If you want to talk about wasted taxpayer money, the current CN owned line is already a great example:

A crown corp sold off as a private enterprise now, with no interest in passenger rail, and manipulating the situation of taxpayer bought sidings with the intent to speed up VIA but now lets CN run more freight unabated by passenger rail.

VIA needs to get off the CN line.

If HFR gets built Via trains would still use the CN mainline to serve the cities along it. There would be two lines going east from Toronto: one owned by Via that would primarily serve Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal and another owned by CN that would primarily serve the smaller towns and cities not on Via's dedicated corridor.

Trains on the CN line would presumably still have scheduling problems thanks to the freight trains, but at least the major intercity traffic would be free of freight interference.

 

[smallspy]

VIA already upgraded the line it takes with taxpayer money for sidings for CN to use so that VIA could pass the freight trains.

So what did CN do? They lengthened their freights so they wouldn't fit on the sidings, forcing VIA to stop and use the sidings and let the freight trains pass.

Uhhh.....

That's not even remotely close to what actually happened.

First off, there are no virtually no sidings capable of being used as you suggest on the Kingston Sub.

Second, what VIA did was canvas CN as to locations where an additional mainline track would be beneficial. (Of course, what they didn't tell VIA was that those sections of track would be beneficial to the freights, not to VIA.)

Third, a several of those sections of third track are approaching or over 10 miles long. To suggest that CN is running trains longer than that is ludicrous.

Fourth, CN has been running long trains for far longer than this project was ever envisioned - since at least the mid-2000s. In fact, CN was chastised by Transport Canada for the length of their trains in 2013 or 2014, to the point of putting a temporary edict restricting all freights to less than 8000 feet if not equipped with distributed power. CN has since changed its operating practices, and most longer trains are now running with DPU to prevent the kinds of problems that they used to have.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Allandale25]

Uhhh.....

That's not even remotely close to what actually happened.

First off, there are no virtually no sidings capable of being used as you suggest on the Kingston Sub.

Second, what VIA did was canvas CN as to locations where an additional mainline track would be beneficial. (Of course, what they didn't tell VIA was that those sections of track would be beneficial to the freights, not to VIA.)

Third, a several of those sections of third track are approaching or over 10 miles long. To suggest that CN is running trains longer than that is ludicrous.

Fourth, CN has been running long trains for far longer than this project was ever envisioned - since at least the mid-2000s. In fact, CN was chastised by Transport Canada for the length of their trains in 2013 or 2014, to the point of putting a temporary edict restricting all freights to less than 8000 feet if not equipped with distributed power. CN has since changed its operating practices, and most longer trains are now running with DPU to prevent the kinds of problems that they used to have.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

So, overall, was the track VIA added helpful to the service levels today? Or would more third tracking be needed to make more of a difference?

 

[Urban Sky]

So, overall, was the track VIA added helpful to the service levels today? Or would more third tracking be needed to make more of a difference?

The following two documents might help you form your own opinion regarding this question:

2016 OAG Special Examination Report

(p.18)

VIA Rail Summary of the 2016-2020 Corporate Plan

"[...] Investment in VIA Rail’s infrastructure has demonstrated significantly better returns for VIA Rail, the shareholder and the travelling public, than investments in host railway infrastructure. VIA Rail will invest primarily in its own track for additional frequencies or reliability, and will identify and pursue strategic infrastructure acquisitions in the Corridor. Third-party infrastructure investments will be considered only when necessary and when there is a contractual guarantee of clear, tangible and substantial benefits. [...]" (p.35)

 

[steveintoronto]

There would be two lines going east from Toronto: one owned by Via that would primarily serve Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal

Thumbs up from me, but have to correct a detail, since a lot of controversy and misunderstanding revolves around this point:"one owned by Via ". The plan is for that to be privately owned, as to the nature of that ownership remains unknown, but ostensibly mostly pension and/or investment funds (e.g. Black Rock). This would be built as VIA being the prime user, and with seniority of choice of available slots. The probability of other users is high, albeit with catenary, freight would be unstacked and most likely premium express with a high tractive ratio for the grades on the many overpasses added. Ostensibly VIA would share with or appropriate slots to Metrolinx, and operate on a complementary basis. This would assist HFR being non-stop save for major interchanges over the length ML would serve. There is a possibility that the Province would wish for a share of ownership to have a voice for ML on the board. Ditto for the Feds, that's conjecture of course, but a reasonable possibility. It might satisfy the clamour for 'HSR' in a more rational form. Once completely grade separated, it could indeed be run at HSR speed in sections.

In effect, VIA would operate as if they owned it by being the prime user/senior resident tenant. Whether freight is temporally separated or not remains to be seen.

From VIA Auditor report linked above ( http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/fil.../2016_OAG_Special_Exam_VIARail_Canada_ENG.pdf ) pdf pg. 34: