[...] What analyses? VIA has spent millions of dollars over the decades analyzing various alignments - and I've never seen that one. [...]
[...]Why would have VIA have spent millions on engineering studies on the Montreal-Ottawa-Kingston-Toronto alignment, and not an Ottawa-Peterborough alignment if they were suddenly going to turn around and have service running in 3 years. [...]
[...]
Or the 1980 report -
https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=362675
Or the 1984 VIA report
Or the early 1980s detailed route studies by CANAC for VIA.
[...]
Not one of them discusses uses an alignment through Peterborough (unless there is a long-forgotten throwaway line noting that obviously one can't use that alignment).
Only because you are using a new acronym, and choosing to ignore 4 decades of old work proposing the same thing, but using a different acronym. [...]
Totally wrong. While the HFR acronym might well be new, many of those studies looked at various options, from the status quo, through to Maglev. This included high frequency options, even if not using that acronym. [...]
I really don’t know many people who actually bother to read all those studies, but how did you miss that VIA Rail has only commissioned a fraction of them, the most recent (publicly accessible) report of them in 2002, while VIA Rail (est. 1977) is 5-13 times older now than it was when it published the 1980 and 1984 reports you dug up? I've reviewed High Speed Rail Canada's excellent
HSR study archive and found the following 7 studies, of which only 3 have been commissioned by VIA Rail - dating from 1992, 1993 and 2002, thus 14-24 years ago during which freight traffic has dramatically increased and
VIA Rail has stopped to promote HSR as the most promising means of passenger rail renewal in the Corridor:
Also, you fail to understand that "High Frequency Rail" is not at all just a new name for the High Speed Rail systems we've been studying for the last 36 years: As
pretty much every article ever published about HFR has pointed out, the maximum speed of HFR will be 177 km/h (110 mph) and though typical headways of 30-60 minutes qualify most HSR systems as HFR, the inverse is not automatically true. VIA Rail's HFR proposal might seem only marginally slower than the 200 km/h design speed studied in some of the reports below, but any speed above 110 mph
requires costly grade separations at every single level crossing and the creation of a track class which does not currently exist in
Canadian railway regulations.
[...] However, recall there was someone from VIA who posted further up who dismissed the Peterborough fantasy. [...]
Since I'm not aware of any other VIA employees posting here: I am not authorized to speak on behalf of VIA Rail and I'm therefore not going to announce any details of HFR which have not already been published somewhere. All I can do is directing you to publicly available sources, from which you may draw whatever conclusions you want:
[...] VIA will invest primarily in its own rail infrastructure and continue to pursue strategic infrastructure acquisitions in the Corridor as part of its long-term vision. Investment in track infrastructure will support the addition of train frequencies and reduce operational hurdles impacting trip times and on-time performance. Investments in third party infrastructure will only be made when necessary, provided there are guarantees of expected benefits. As demonstrated in the recent past, however, these guarantees will be difficult to obtain as market conditions evolve and freight traffic continues to grow. This in turn supports the notion of continuing to evaluate the relevance of operating on a dedicated passenger rail infrastructure. [...]
Source:
VIA Rail (2015) Summary of the 2015-2019 Corporate Plan (pp. 2-3)
[...] As recently as the end of 2015, VIA purchased the Smith Falls to Brockville portion from CP, after investing some C$20 in tenant improvements over the years, including new passing tracks, curve realignments and centralized traffic control. CP retains its Smith Falls freight yard and running rights to connect with its Montreal-Toronto main line. That, perhaps, is a model for additional purchases of underutilized freight tracks between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. VIA anticipates acquiring a mixture of low-traffic freight lines and abandoned right-of-way. [...]
Source:
VIA’s Grand Vision - National Dream Redux (Railway Age, April 2016, p.22)
It would be cheaper and faster to build on the 18 miles of disused RoW between Smiths Falls and Portland than it would be to build on 182 miles of disused RoW between Glen Tay and Kennedy, yes. [...]
As Steve has already pointed out, the Toronto-Havelock section
is far from disused (though surely underused), meaning that only approx. 80 miles would need to be rebuilt (if that alignment was to be chosen) of a former ROW which is well preserved since it has been transformed into a path.
[...] Designing and building approximately 50 km of new line through the bush between Portland and Pittsburgh, ON would be eminently simpler than dealing with the NIMBY's and designing and building two new high level bridges over the Don Valley at Wynford Road and the Ontario Science Center. And a new high level crossing of the Trent in Peterboro.
- Paul
Two reasons why you would not have even started building your Gananoque cutoff by the time the Havelock subdivision could be rebuilt, upgraded and operational (again: if that alignment was to be chosen): you would have to undergo lengthy federal approval processes and environmental assessments, as that segment is longer than 32 km and not within any existing ROW, whereas even moderate realignments can be applied to the Havelock subdivision without triggering any of these requirements:
[...]
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.
[...]
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:
- once an environmental assessment has been conducted; and
- 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.
[...]
Source:
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/approval-construct-railway-line
As for the NIMBYism, these groups may be much easier to deal with along active railroads than in communities which have never seen a railroad anywhere near them...
