General railway discussions

[crs1026]

The difference is population and economic impact. Simple as that. What's peak traffic in Tillsonburg? 10 mins at Tim's every morning? On the other hand traffic in the GTA is costing the provincial and national economy billions annually. It's hours of delay caused to millions of residents daily.

Also, I've long been an advocate of forcing the 905 to pony up for better transit. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we subsidize their car dependency, to the point that thia kind of urban planning is apparently now depopulating Mississauga. Extending the 905 subsidy model another 100 km out is only making the black hole of waste bigger. Tillsonburg's issues with car dependency aren't going to be fixed with them seeing a few GO trains per day. But the cost to the taxpayer will be massive.

The tipping point for me is when Regional roads are proposed for widening to four lanes….. at that point, one has to ask what traffic volumes are being experienced and what might transit do to offset the need for new construction. Once roads get widened, the ease of driving takes control of the mindset. And there needs to be an equaliser between the ease with which road money gets spend and the knee jerk miserliness when transit spending is proposed.

- Paul

 

[T3G]

Tillsonburg's issues with car dependency aren't going to be fixed with them seeing a few GO trains per day. But the cost to the taxpayer will be massive.

And I never said that it should be GO trains that should run to them. But a community cannot be viable without some form of transit service to the outside world, so it's either that or we have to subsidize GO or some other form of regional buses running at a usable frequency (considering the cuts that have been made to GO services such as the 20 over the last few years, I don't expect this to ever occur). It's the exact same principle as the 905: without functional transit service, these communities become nothing but black holes where life goes to die.

 

[DirectionNorth]

If we write off our rural communities as car-dependent, they'll always be car-dependent. I don't think we need to run trains to those places, that's ridiculous. A rural bus service needs to be established first.

But leaving these rail corridors to rot is not really going to help us. It may seem like there is no demand, but especially in the outer 905, we are starting to regret abandoning corridors (like Barrie to Orillia, and probably to Collingwood in the near-future). It always comes down to cost-benefit. Running rail service today is inane and doesn't pass that test. Retaining the corridors, often for cheap, can save us money down the road, if we decide to use those corridors to run BRT or LRT or GO or whatever. And if we decide that it's a bad idea, there is always the option to sell later ...

 

[crs1026]

And I never said that it should be GO trains that should run to them. But a community cannot be viable without some form of transit service to the outside world, so it's either that or we have to subsidize GO or some other form of regional buses running at a usable frequency (considering the cuts that have been made to GO services such as the 20 over the last few years, I don't expect this to ever occur). It's the exact same principle as the 905: without functional transit service, these communities become nothing but black holes where life goes to die.

I think we are all in rabid agreement that small towns need much better public transit.

But I think you are a bit hyperbolic about towns “dying” from lack of transit. The Highway 3 communities along the north shore of Lake Erie are a good case study. They are holding industry and jobs fairly well, at least for industries that are served by trucking. Their industrial base is improved by having rail service, but on a branch line basis. (Remember that the two ”air line” rail routes were originally built to connect Buffalo and Detroit for overhead traffic…. so losing the mainline function was never really impactful, these routes never really served to connect passengers to major Ontario communities)

The population that cannot drive is clearly disadvantaged, and this is a major reason to build transit. But again, there is already an “underground industry” providing rides to seniors for some basic needs. It simply doesn’t reach the scale or visibility of a public transit network, but people get by.

While reliance on the automobile is harming our cities, and needs urgent interventions, I’m not sure that can be said for rural areas. Even bus infrastructure will have a hard enough time impacting habits and building market share. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but expectations about scale and market share need to be kept in check .

- Paul.

 

[T3G]

I think we are all in rabid agreement that small towns need much better public transit.

But I think you are a bit hyperbolic about towns “dying” from lack of transit. The Highway 3 communities along the north shore of Lake Erie are a good case study. They are holding industry and jobs fairly well, at least for industries that are served by trucking. Their industrial base is improved by having rail service, but on a branch line basis. (Remember that the two ”air line” rail routes were originally built to connect Buffalo and Detroit for overhead traffic…. so losing the mainline function was never really impactful, these routes never really served to connect passengers to major Ontario communities)

The population that cannot drive is clearly disadvantaged, and this is a major reason to build transit. But again, there is already an “underground industry” providing rides to seniors for some basic needs. It simply doesn’t reach the scale or visibility of a public transit network, but people get by.

While reliance on the automobile is harming our cities, and needs urgent interventions, I’m not sure that can be said for rural areas. Even bus infrastructure will have a hard enough time impacting habits and building market share. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but expectations about scale and market share need to be kept in check .

- Paul.

It's true that what I write doesn't necessarily have to be true for 100% of rural towns, especially if they have industry and jobs. But not every town has economic opportunities for people who live there, and not everyone is able to work in factories or farming, which seem to form the bulk share of job opportunities in such tows.

There is no easy solution to the problem. But saying that the people who live in these towns made the choice to live there, and should therefore deal with their lack of infrastructure, is not constructive and does nothing to improve the lives of anyone.

 

[kEiThZ]

But saying that the people who live in these towns made the choice to live there, and should therefore deal with their lack of infrastructure, is not constructive and does nothing to improve the lives of anyone.

Tough. There are abandoned towns all over this country. No town is owed survival.

It's not that I'm opposed to rural transit investment. I specifically said above I'd like to see more regional bus service. I am opposed to investing in wasteful projects built for the sake of vanity. Which is what many of these rural rail proposals are.

I also think the idea that hourly train service is going to cure what ails many of these smaller towns is patently ridiculous. Especially when many of their residents are expressly anti-urban.

 

[Urban Sky]

There is no easy solution to the problem. But saying that the people who live in these towns made the choice to live there, and should therefore deal with their lack of infrastructure, is not constructive and does nothing to improve the lives of anyone.

There is a lack of transit operating funding in places like Tilsonburg, not of transport infrastructure! There is no point investing any amount of taxpayer money into securing a rail corridor which doesn’t go where these people want to travel, if all they need are more buses to run on streets which already exist…

 

[kEiThZ]

I find in many of these discussions that railfans don't understand what passenger rail is for. Mostly because the typical Canadian railfan only gets good intercity rail service on vacation in Europe and Asia, they assume those systems were built for speed. They don't seem to understand that those systems were built for volume. Speed is a product of necessity, to enable more volume. As such, trains to podunk towns that won't generate the volume of demand will be useless.

 

[crs1026]

I find in many of these discussions that railfans don't understand what passenger rail is for. Mostly because the typical Canadian railfan only gets good intercity rail service on vacation in Europe and Asia, they assume those systems were built for speed. They don't seem to understand that those systems were built for volume. Speed is a product of necessity, to enable more volume. As such, trains to podunk towns that won't generate the volume of demand will be useless.

And there is a romantic attachment to the traditional old services in this country, especially the branch line RDC's, which many seem to think can and should be reinstated through some magical reversal of time.

Even if that magic wand were available, those services delivered something different than what we need going forward, and would not be worth the investment. We need something different,

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Honestly, when I hear people wax lyrically about getting some once or twice daily service, I wonder if they are retired with all the time in the world. Anybody who is working and has things to do (even in a small town) needs frequency. And the only way to do that in most places is buses. Rail is usually incidental for most of these places, stopping en route between two bigger cities.

 

[lenaitch]

Well, it just wouldn't be a Canadian discussion without one area tussling with another (east-west, rural urban).

We are pretty much all free to live where and how we please, and every place has costs and benefits, so making that the crux of an argument isn't particularly helpful. Neither is waxing historic for the days when rail spiderwebbed southern Ontario. Sure, they all had some degree of passenger service, particularly when that, or horse or vessel was the only way to get around, but those lines weren't made profitable by passengers, and didn't fail solely for lack of them. I guess it's easy now to get mad a politicians who failed to preserve the Port Whitby Port Perry Railway - in 1941. What were those idiots thinking!!??!!

In all of the talk of passenger trains running between here and there, I'm wondering if anybody has asked the people 'here' or 'there' what their needs are and what there are willing to pay for.

 

[kEiThZ]

In all of the talk of passenger trains running between here and there, I'm wondering if anybody has asked the people 'here' or 'there' what their needs are and what there are willing to pay for.

In my experience most towns won't turn down a train connection. But ask them to pay subsidies or even capital funding for station renos and crickets....

Lots of these folks want big city services without big city taxes or density.

 

[lenaitch]

In my experience most towns won't turn down a train connection. But ask them to pay subsidies or even capital funding for station renos and crickets....

Lots of these folks want big city services without big city taxes or density.

Actually, I'm not sure I totally agree with the last sentence. Much of the talk about rail to Tillsonburg, or Collingwood, or Picton seems to come from planners, futurists, urbanists and transportation aficionados. I don't follow the local news all that closely but I'm not aware of the residents of Collingwood pounding the tables at council demanding commuter rail.

 

[kEiThZ]

I was referring to the railfans. I have no doubt that most of the locals would not want any of these services if they have to pay anything for them.

 

[lenaitch]

I was referring to the railfans. I have no doubt that most of the locals would not want any of these services if they have to pay anything for them.

That might be a little rough. People - anywhere - are more willing to pay for services they need and will use. Transit is little different that water or sewage.