VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

In other words, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".

Yep. Some people just want to troll and get off on feeling smarter than the pros as long as they get to assert stuff without having to actually do work to back it up.

 

[Urban Sky]

It also has a chance of failing miserably, costing a lot more than anticipated (less of a problem if you are adding track along existing alignments), not delivering the optimistic run times, and accelerating the end of inter-provincial passenger rail in this country.

You are right, nothing of that can happen when adding tracks into existing ROWs owned by private railroads, no wait:

Source: Auditor General of Canada (2016)

And, FYI, the Havelock Subdivision is an “existing alignment” (it doesn’t really matter if the tracks west of Havelock have been replaced by a cycling path - it’s not like you could reuse the worn-out tracks which are laid west of it) and the only new alignments which are necessitated by the maps which have been released so far is a maybe 4 km long bypass over flat fields, to link the Smiths Falls and Winchester Subdivisions just north of Smiths Falls...

Has the current Minister of Transportation ever even mentioned this file?

He is still less than 60 days in office and probably won’t make any mentions which would fuel speculation or even act as spoilers for what may or may not not be included in the federal budget, which is usually released by the end of this month...

 

[roger1818]

Also, I don't get why you think going to 30 min headways isn't notable.

I didn't say it wouldn't be noticeable. I was disputing your ascertain that be a game changer (compared to 60 minute headways). In case you don't know, here is the definition from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

game changer​

noun

/ˈɡeɪm tʃeɪndʒə(r)/

/ˈɡeɪm tʃeɪndʒər/

• a person, an idea or an event that completely changes the way a situation develops
  • The advent of the digital camera proved to be a game changer in the photography industry.

HFR will be a game changer. Upgrading HFR to 30 minute headways (whiteout any other significant changes) will not.

 

[Urban Sky]

I didn't say it wouldn't be noticeable. I was disputing your ascertain that be a game changer (compared to 60 minute headways). In case you don't know, here is the definition from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:



HFR will be a game changer. Upgrading HFR to 30 minute headways (whiteout any other significant changes) will not.

Just to recall what you originally wrote:

In other words, this would only happen once when demand has increased to a point where HFR is exceeding its capacity and upgrades are needed anyway. The thing about intercity rail is once you have hourly service, increasing frequency beyond that doesn't provide significant benefit, so rather than having 30 minute service through Ottawa, it would make more sense to keep it at the (post HFR) hourly frequency and add hourly express trains from Montreal to Toronto.

Since I haven’t seen you walk away of that statement, the rebuke is also about the wording “no significant benefit”, not just: “game changer” or not...

In any case, in terms of commutability and other inter-city interactions, going from hourly to all-day half-hourly service could be considered a game changer for city pairs like OTTW&MTRL or Peterborough&TRTO, just like It has been along GO Transit’s Lakeshore Corridor...

 

[roger1818]

Just to recall what you originally wrote:


Since I haven’t seen you walk away of that statement, the rebuke is also about the wording “no significant benefit”, not just: “game changer” or not...

“no significant benefit” ≠ “no benefit”

 

[kEiThZ]

In any case, in terms of commutability and other inter-city interactions, going from hourly to all-day half-hourly service would be a game changer for city pairs like OTTW&MTRL or Peterborough&TRTO, just like It has been along GO Transit’s Lakeshore Corridor...

Exactly the example I was thinking of. 30 min service takes HFR from intercity rail to ex-urban commuter service. A different business.

 

[crs1026]

You are right, nothing of that can happen when adding tracks into existing ROWs owned by private railroads, no wait:

Source: Auditor General of Canada (2016)

This table should be taken in context. VIA’s plan (the middle collumn) was not wrong.... it simply failed in execution. To argue that the 2009 plan was not properly thought out would actually be quite an indictment of VIA’s planning. The A-G never siad it was a bad plan, they simply documented its failure.

The root cause of the failure was (partly) that VIa had never managed a project that big before and (mostly) that the relationship of VIA with CN, who executed the work, prevented any real accountability.

If there is no political will to correct that root cause, then indeed it’s a fantasy to suggest trying it again. But if one added a collumn laying out the parameters of HFR, and comparing those attributes and benefits to what the 2009 plan proposed, and then comparing relative price tags.....it would demonstrate why the laissez faire policy with respect to CN is costing the country big time.

- Paul

PS - At the time, that 2009 project felt like good news, or at least a glass half full. Now, the more I reflect on that 2009 failure, the more I realise how it cost us a decade in getting better rail service.

 

[smallspy]

This table should be taken in context. VIA’s plan (the middle collumn) was not wrong.... it simply failed in execution. To argue that the 2009 plan was not properly thought out would actually be quite an indictment of VIA’s planning. The A-G never siad it was a bad plan, they simply documented its failure.

The root cause of the failure was (partly) that VIa had never managed a project that big before and (mostly) that the relationship of VIA with CN, who executed the work, prevented any real accountability.

If there is no political will to correct that root cause, then indeed it’s a fantasy to suggest trying it again. But if one added a collumn laying out the parameters of HFR, and comparing those attributes and benefits to what the 2009 plan proposed, and then comparing relative price tags.....it would demonstrate why the laissez faire policy with respect to CN is costing the country big time.

- Paul

PS - At the time, that 2009 project felt like good news, or at least a glass half full. Now, the more I reflect on that 2009 failure, the more I realise how it cost us a decade in getting better rail service.

If it's any consolation.... The additional track greatly improved CN's operations along the Kingston Sub.

Of course, that was their plan all along.....

Dan

 

[nfitz]

If the government has $100 billion sitting around, they might as well build HSR Toronto - Oshawa - Peterborough - Belleville - Kingston - Ottawa and be done with it

The government doesn't have (or need) $100 billion sitting around.

If you temporarily buy a $100 billion asset, you still own the asset, and you can use debt to finance it, without impacting the debt rating. Once you transfer the relatively small piece of rail you want to VIA, you then sell the asset. Say for $98 billion. If you time the market right, you maybe make a profit!

(and no, I don't think this would actually happen - finally introducing a Via Rail Act like Prime Minister Trudeau promised in the 1970s, which defines use priorities and allows the government to regulate the use of privately-owned track properly is the real solution)

He is still less than 60 days in office and probably won’t make any mentions which would fuel speculation or even act as spoilers for what may or may not not be included in the federal budget, which is usually released by the end of this month...

If you'd have said that in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s, I'd agree with you. But surely you've noticed that in recent years - and very much so with the current PM, the government spends the weeks and months before the budget, giving everyone a head's up about anything noteworthy in the budget, to create maximum impact.

It hadn't actually crossed my mind until you said that ... but surely radio silence from this particular government, before the budget, is further evidence that nothing is going to be in the budget.

 

[ssiguy2]

The idea of an Ottawa bypass while people in SWO suffer from both poor and unreliable service and pathetically long travel times. Why should VIA's 3rd busiest station get so much largess of dubious returns while VIA's 4th busiest station {London} get's squat.

Added to this idea of putting the Mon/Ott/Tor should be given 100% priority over anything else is also very short sighted especially with Biden in the White House. It's very clear that Biden is a big supporter of far superior and extensive inter-city rail services and certainly one of the routes that will be given priority is Chicago-Detroit. An expansion of these corridor and potential crossing to Windsor would bring in a LOT of new travellers as Chicago to Quebec essentially becomes one long corridor.

 

[nfitz]

There certainly should be improvement to SW Ontario services. The lack of any service improvements to London, Kitchener, Brantford, or restoring Hamilton service is unfortunate, while pushing this HFR scheme for other cities. (gosh, they've been playing with running some Montreal/Ottawa services through to the new suburban station at Aldershot for years now. Why not try extending one of those to the Hamilton Hunter Street terminal and see what that would do).

 

[kEiThZ]

The idea of an Ottawa bypass while people in SWO suffer from both poor and unreliable service and pathetically long travel times. Why should VIA's 3rd busiest station get so much largess of dubious returns while VIA's 4th busiest station {London} get's squat.

Except this is a strawman of your construction. Nobody has ever opposed improving service to a London. I'm pretty sure every regular on here has both advocated for and expects the next phase to go to London.

A big part of why TOM is being pitched for HFR is because there's an unused rail corridor available. There's no such thing to get to London. VIA has to wait for Metrolinx to sort out everything west of Union before they can come up with a reasonable plan. There's also the question of the Pearson hub and how any extension to the West would plug in there.

Added to this idea of putting the Mon/Ott/Tor should be given 100% priority over anything else is also very short sighted especially with Biden in the White House. It's very clear that Biden is a big supporter of far superior and extensive inter-city rail services and certainly one of the routes that will be given priority is Chicago-Detroit. An expansion of these corridor and potential crossing to Windsor would bring in a LOT of new travellers as Chicago to Quebec essentially becomes one long corridor.

Unless Biden is going to pay for rail from the border to Toronto, what the Americans want is irrelevant.

 

[roger1818]

Except this is a strawman of your construction. Nobody has ever opposed improving service to a London. I'm pretty sure every regular on here has both advocated for and expects the next phase to go to London.

Agreed! Stage 2 would almost certainly be an extension to London/Windsor (and Quebec if not included in Stage 1). Stage 3 would likely be improvements to the Lakeshore. Then there is also the Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton corridor, which could get inserted there somewhere. Further upgrades to increase capacity on the TOM corridor likely wouldn't happen until after all of those are done.

Unless Biden is going to pay for rail from the border to Toronto, what the Americans want is irrelevant.

In this case, I think you are misinterpreting @ssiguy2. It isn't about what the Americans want (I don't think Biden cares all that much if the Chicago-Detroit corridor is extended to Toronto or not), but it is an opportunity for VIA to get access to some huge markets. As you said though, getting dedicated tracks to London will be a challenge. Reliably getting a train from Windsor to Detroit could also be a challenge.

 

[kEiThZ]

In this case, I think you are misinterpreting @ssiguy2. It isn't about what the Americans want (I don't think Biden cares all that much if the Chicago-Detroit corridor is extended to Toronto or not), but it is an opportunity for VIA to get access to some huge markets.

I get what he's saying. I just don't agree that we should build all our plans around what the Yanks are doing.

Reliably getting a train from Windsor to Detroit could also be a challenge.

For very little return. Detroit is not going to generate more ridership than say London or Kingston. Just a function of cross-border demand and how difficult it is to travel in American border cities without a car.

 

[kEiThZ]

The lack of any service improvements to London, Kitchener, Brantford, or restoring Hamilton service is unfortunate, while pushing this HFR scheme for other cities.

So no building any improvements anywhere unless we plan for improvements everywhere?