Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor

[micheal_can]

No arguing that; I was just pointing out that saying a rail line between two points still exists by utilizing a completely different route that ultimately and circuitously connects them is a tad disingenuous

So, lets reconnect the line to Cochrane through R-N and Val D'or?

As to second point, I do not. As far as I'm concerned, Canadian exists primarily as a tourist service with a little bit of inter-city a remote service thrown in. Snaking a trans-continental service so it touches as many bases as possible would just degrade it even further. Now, I admit that, personally, if they shifted it back to the CP route in northern Ontario I would ride it in a heartbeat (to TBay and back).

Pax rail service to and between northern cities should be considered on their own merits, not dumped onto Canadian. I stand to be corrected, but when Canadian serviced Montreal, it operated as a section via the Ottawa Valley, which joined with its other section from Toronto in Sudbury.

On the same note, I'm not sure I see the benefit of extending already long routes, providing (and this is a significant caveat), lay-over times and connection are reasonable. Sure, as a tourist service, it might be a good marketing angle to be able to go coast-to-coast with one change, but there are better ways around that. If that is the end goal, why not a Halifax-Vancouver Canadian?

This is why emulating what is done on the Corridor makes sense. You cannot get a one seat ride between the ends.

FWIW, Maricopa is considered to effectively be Phoenix' Amtrak Station - with a shuttle bus offered by Amtrak to get people to downtown Phoenix from Maricopa. As such, in a very technical way you could argue that Phoenix is served by an Amtrak station. In a way its similar to the setup in San Francisco where the train stops in Oakland rather than San Francisco itself (although comparing Oakland with Maricopa is just plain hilarious). Still, even if the connection is really bad, there's a pretty big difference in quality between Phoenix and Calgary where Calgary literally has nothing.

This is why I am not arguing semantics.

 

[Urban Sky]

FWIW, Maricopa is considered to effectively be Phoenix' Amtrak Station - with a shuttle bus offered by Amtrak to get people to downtown Phoenix from Maricopa. As such, in a very technical way you could argue that Phoenix is served by an Amtrak station. In a way its similar to the setup in San Francisco where the train stops in Oakland rather than San Francisco itself (although comparing Oakland with Maricopa is just plain hilarious). Still, even if the connection is really bad, there's a pretty big difference in quality between Phoenix and Calgary where Calgary literally has nothing.

Quick reminder that even at Maricopa the service frequency is 3 trains per week, i.e. the same poor service levels which Edmonton receives during the summer month, but sure, if you compare Phoenix with Calgary, it has slightly better access to passenger rail services, just as Calgary has compared to Iceland and Iceland has compared to the Moon and the Moon has …

Anyways, this whole debate reminds me of the „Lonely Planet“ tourist guide writing about Frankfurt Hahn Airport (located more than 100 km West of actual Frankfurt) that „only cynics like Ryanair would argue that Frankfurt has a second airport“…

 

[micheal_can]

Quick reminder that even at Maricopa the service frequency is 3 trains per week, i.e. the same poor service levels which Edmonton receives during the summer month, but sure, if you compare Phoenix with Calgary, it has slightly better access to passenger rail services, just as Calgary has compared to Iceland and Iceland has compared to the Moon and the Moon has …

Anyways, this whole debate reminds me of the „Lonely Planet“ tourist guide writing about „Frankfurt Hahn Airport“ (some 120 km West of Frankfurt that „only cynics like Ryanair would argue that Frankfurt has a second airport“.

Can we give the 5th largest metro in Canada the same service as the 6th largest metro in Canada?

 

[Urban Sky]

Sure, if they both swap locations, since their respective locations are the main reason Edmonton retained service past 1990 and Calgary didn‘t…

 

[lenaitch]

In the Windsor - Quebec City Corridor,there is no one seat ticket from the 2 ends. There will be a transfer somewhere along the way. That is how all intercity rail service in Canada can be. We don't need land yachts. We need reliable intercity service that runs regularly enough to be useful.

And yet you argue for both Canadian and Ocean to be extended.

To argue that because somewhere has air service and bus service that it does not need rail service is a red herring. If anything, it is because they have those services that it could be argued that the right amount of rail service would do well.Something akin to the Northlander's returning service would make sense for most places.

There has to be an air of reasonableness. Knowing that passenger rail is subsidized with public money, how deep do the pockets need to be to create and maintain a reasonable rail service, one that a significant number of people would use. Is there (or could there be) a large enough market willing to sit for hours upon hours on a slow moving train from SSM to Toronto? Speed it up you say? Okay, into the public purse again. The government has already dropped several million to G&W just to keep the line operating a freight speed. What would it cost to bring it up to some reasonable passenger speed (on trackage it doesn't own)? What would fare have to be to keep the operating subsidies out of the stratosphere?

Inter-city rail makes more sense when the end points, points enroute, catchment areas, etc. have significant populations. Widely dispersed centres of small populations, less so. I realize that this argues against the Northlander, and many feel it will be a real money loser and doomed to failure. I'm glad it is coming back and hope it succeeds. Even though I am in its service area, I will likely never use it. I guess the one difference is a majority of the route is owned by the Ontario government, so at least in a sense the taxpayer is tossing money at itself.

 

[ARG1]

One thing I have been noticing is a growing "me" attitude towards any government funding. Too many people have the attitude that if they don't directly benefit from it, it is not worth spending money on. That is why two tier health services are popular, it gets "me" to the front of the line.

I'd bet that if a poll was done of all Ontarians who do not use GO and never will, and who never use public transit, and never will were asked if they would support cancelling GO and all subsides be returned in the form of a tax cut, I'd bet that result would be quite high, maybe even 100%. That does not mean it should be canceled and it does not mean we should listen to those people.

Well no duh. Believe it or not, if you ask someone to choose between getting money or supporting some thing they have no idea what it is or what its qualities are, they'll choose the former.

Hypothetically, if I came up to you and asked you whether you want $1000, or you want that money to be sent to the Oompa Loompa Squad, which option would you pick, given you have no context on what the Oompa Loompa Squad is, or what they do? You have never met the squad, you have never received any services from the squad, for all you know they could be an economic/money generating powerhouse, as much as it is a political circus that politicians/wealthy people use to launder money.

To argue that because somewhere has air service and bus service that it does not need rail service is a red herring. If anything, it is because they have those services that it could be argued that the right amount of rail service would do well.Something akin to the Northlander's returning service would make sense for most places.

Are you trying to imply that the people of this board questioning the efficacy of introducing rail to new cities is equivalent to rural people saying they want to defund the GO train because they don't benefit from it? If so that's a woefully dishonest way of framing the situation. Believe it or not, the people of this board actually do know what's at stake, and the economic benefits of what would be built, and fact of the matter is that in order for most of these lines to have any reasonable business case or economic benefit, a ton of money would have to be invested into rails, infrastructure, all for maybe 3 digit riders per week. For most of these places there simply isn't a reasonable business case for rail service given their populations - it has nothing to do with whether or not these services benefit us personally.

If I were to bring in personal biases into the mix, I would absolutely love returned rail service through the Ottawa Valley that paralleled Highway 60, travelling between Ottawa, Renfrew, and Huntsville. It would be a service I'd use quite frequently for various reasons. That being said despite how much I'd want such a service, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that its a good idea that would valuable for how much it would cost, especially since we don't have something as basic as a bus service running along that corridor, not to mention many of the locals would lose out on their precious rail trail.

 

[micheal_can]

Sure, if they both swap locations, since their respective locations are the main reason Edmonton retained service past 1990 and Calgary didn‘t…

So, then the 6th largest city would be without service.

 

[micheal_can]

And yet you argue for both Canadian and Ocean to be extended.

If they are to be kept, then why not?

There has to be an air of reasonableness. Knowing that passenger rail is subsidized with public money, how deep do the pockets need to be to create and maintain a reasonable rail service, one that a significant number of people would use. Is there (or could there be) a large enough market willing to sit for hours upon hours on a slow moving train from SSM to Toronto? Speed it up you say? Okay, into the public purse again. The government has already dropped several million to G&W just to keep the line operating a freight speed. What would it cost to bring it up to some reasonable passenger speed (on trackage it doesn't own)? What would fare have to be to keep the operating subsidies out of the stratosphere?

Ah yes,two tiered health care hidden in transportation.
It is interesting, we had a crown corporation that would take over failing shortlines and other lines that were failing and then make them useful. Along witht the Via cuts in the 1990s, it was privatized and because CN. Everything old is new.Just like young people are talking of getting a phone for their home that has a cord...

Inter-city rail makes more sense when the end points, points enroute, catchment areas, etc. have significant populations. Widely dispersed centres of small populations, less so. I realize that this argues against the Northlander, and many feel it will be a real money loser and doomed to failure. I'm glad it is coming back and hope it succeeds. Even though I am in its service area, I will likely never use it. I guess the one difference is a majority of the route is owned by the Ontario government, so at least in a sense the taxpayer is tossing money at itself.

Sounds like you are saying the tracks should be nationalized.

Well no duh. Believe it or not, if you ask someone to choose between getting money or supporting some thing they have no idea what it is or what its qualities are, they'll choose the former.

Hypothetically, if I came up to you and asked you whether you want $1000, or you want that money to be spent to the Oompa Loompa Squad, which option would you pick, given you have no context on what the Oompa Loompa Squad is, or what they do? You have never met the squad, you have never received any services from the squad, for all you know they could be an economic/money generating powerhouse, as much as it is a political circus that politicians/wealthy people use to launder money.

I am a horrible example, as so far, there is no spending the government has done in recent memory that I am against.

Are you trying to imply that the people of this board questioning the efficacy of introducing rail to new cities is equivalent to rural people saying they want to defund the GO train because they don't benefit from it? If so that's a woefully dishonest way of framing the situation. Believe it or not, the people of this board actually do know what's at stake, and the economic benefits of what would be built, and fact of the matter is that in order for most of these lines to have any reasonable business case or economic benefit, a ton of money would have to be invested into rails, infrastructure, all for maybe 3 digit riders per week. For most of these places there simply isn't a reasonable business case for rail service given their populations - it has nothing to do with whether or not these services benefit us personally.

The problem is, people think they know what is at stake, but when you point out things they do not agreewith dueto their biases and the fact they only lookat numbers, not situations, it becomes very difficult to take it in. That is why I stated that an attitude adjustment is needed if we want to fix the problem that this thread is talking about.

If I were to bring in personal biases into the mix, I would absolutely love returned rail service through the Ottawa Valley that paralleled Highway 60, travelling between Ottawa, Renfrew, and Huntsville. It would be a service I'd use quite frequently for various reasons. That being said despite how much I'd want such a service, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that its a good idea that would valuable for how much it would cost, especially since we don't have something as basic as a bus service running along that corridor, not to mention many of the locals would lose out on their precious rail trail.

You mean a car free way to access the largest and busiest provincial park in Ontario?

I love rail trails,but if it is to be displaced by passenger rail service, displace it.

 

[Urban Sky]

Sounds like you are saying the tracks should be nationalized.

Sounds like you have a remarkable talent for hearing only what you want to hear, regardless of how violently it clashes with what people are actually trying to tell you, but let me try to dumb this down for you: Most kids understand at some point that the amount their parents can withdraw at an ATM over a given period is limited and that they therefore can’t just accept every wish their kids express, regardless of how much they would love to. This realization in turn helps them later in understanding that just as with their parents, their governments can’t just give in to every single of their citizen‘s demands. I sometimes wonder whether you still have yet to make that same realization…

 

[micheal_can]

Sounds like you have a remarkable talent for hearing only what you want to hear, regardless of how much it clashes with what people are actually trying to tell you, but let me try to dumb this down for you: Most kids understand at some point that the amount their parents can withdraw at an ATM over a given period is limited and that they therefore can’t just accept every wish their kids express. This realization in turn helps them later in understanding that just as with their parents, their governments can’t just give in to every single of their citizen‘s demands. I sometimes wonder whether you still have yet to make that same realization…

For decades we have heard the phrase "tax cuts" from all politicians of all parties at all levels of government.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I am not sure what the comparison to Amtrak is for. If the US is the standard of intercity rail we are aiming for, we might as well give up now.

For decades we have heard the phrase "tax cuts" from all politicians of all parties at all levels of government.

What relevance does this have to anything? Rail funding must come from somewhere. We can talk in circles about HSR to Moose Factory all day and all night, but unless you want to sound like an idiot, there needs to be some reasonableness attached to whatever proposals you make.

Personally, I think that the Canadian should become a tourist train, and we drop the illusion that we care about Northern train service. Double Ontario Northland frequencies. The End.

 

[micheal_can]

I am not sure what the comparison to Amtrak is for. If the US is the standard of intercity rail we are aiming for, we might as well give up now.


What relevance does this have to anything? Rail funding must come from somewhere. We can talk in circles about HSR to Moose Factory all day and all night, but unless you want to sound like an idiot, there needs to be some reasonableness attached to whatever proposals you make.

Personally, I think that the Canadian should become a tourist train, and we drop the illusion that we care about Northern train service. Double Ontario Northland frequencies. The End.

When the politicians are promising tax cuts to get voted in, then it is no wonder service gets cut and the idea of resuming it becomes ridiculous to many.

 

[ARG1]

I am a horrible example, as so far, there is no spending the government has done in recent memory that I am against.

Sounds like you're someone who has a pretty in depth understanding of everything the government funds. Good job being 10x more politically aware than the majority of rural farm dwellers.

The problem is, people think they know what is at stake, but when you point out things they do not agreewith dueto their biases and the fact they only lookat numbers, not situations, it becomes very difficult to take it in. That is why I stated that an attitude adjustment is needed if we want to fix the problem that this thread is talking about.

Ok then please highlight a realistic situation that happens often enough for billions of dollars of rail funding to be justified. The only one I could possibly think of is young adults needing to move out to get to uni, and needing some cheap way to go back home mid-semester without having their parents pick them up, or renting a car. Even then, you can easily just run some coach busses to these rural areas and it will be just as effective whilst also being infinitely cheaper (and yes, I'm a huge advocate for expanding Ontario Northland Bus service to far more areas throughout Northern Ontario).

Keep in mind, you have to demonstrate why we need rail specifically to run to these areas, and why a bus isn't good enough.

You mean a car free way to access the largest and busiest provincial park in Ontario?

Oh I'd love a car free way to access the largest and busiest provincial park in Ontario... in so far as you provide a way to actually get around said provincial park.

The Section of Highway 60 running through Algonquin is around 55km or so, with trails and viewpoints being dispersed all along that stretch. Unless you're about to propose a shuttle bus system that runs at 15m headways most of the day up and down Highway 60, even a once daily train service through there is as good as useless for most use cases.

When the politicians are promising tax cuts to get voted in, then it is no wonder service gets cut and the idea of resuming it becomes ridiculous to many.

I love how you shout "Tax Cuts" as if its some kind of proof that we have the money to fund this stuff. Yes you can always raise taxes and build/run trains anywhere you want, however you need to provide a good justification to spend billions of dollars on a train line that runs once a day, and at best will be used by double digits of people.

 

[micheal_can]

Sounds like you're someone who has a pretty in depth understanding of everything the government funds. Good job being 10x more politically aware than the majority of rural farm dwellers.

Thank you... I think. I wish I didn't understand it. Then I could agree that the government is stealing from me.

Ok then please highlight a realistic situation that happens often enough for billions of dollars of rail funding to be justified. The only one I could possibly think of is young adults needing to move out to get to uni, and needing some cheap way to go back home mid-semester without having their parents pick them up, or renting a car. Even then, you can easily just run some coach busses to these rural areas and it will be just as effective whilst also being infinitely cheaper (and yes, I'm a huge advocate for expanding Ontario Northland Bus service to far more areas throughout Northern Ontario).

Keep in mind, you have to demonstrate why we need rail specifically to run to these areas, and why a bus isn't good enough.

One word...
Winter.
Every winter, a snowstorm happens and highways get closed. Most of the time, the rail can still do track speed. Ironicaly, we have been doing a poorer and poorer job of snow removal in the last few decades. Maybe if plows were out more and they had more plows, the highways could stay open.

Oh I'd love a car free way to access the largest and busiest provincial park in Ontario... in so far as you provide a way to actually get around said provincial park.

The Section of Highway 60 running through Algonquin is around 55km or so, with trails and viewpoints being dispersed all along that stretch. Unless you're about to propose a shuttle bus system that runs at 15m headways most of the day up and down Highway 60, even a once daily train service through there is as good as useless for most use cases.

For the highway 60 corridor... I would suggest an LRT running between all the trailheads and campsites. Make it free for all who are camping. You would open the parking lots open up more. All of this is beyond a fantasy and I know it. Had the rail of the OAPS not been torn upinthe 1860s, it would be more of a realistic fantasy.

I love how you shout "Tax Cuts" as if its some kind of proof that we have the money to fund this stuff. Yes you can always raise taxes and build/run trains anywhere you want, however you need to provide a good justification to spend billions of dollars on a train line that runs once a day, and at best will be used by double digits of people.

I am not suggesting raising taxes. Well, I guess I kind of am.Had taxes been left as is since back in the 1980s, we could pay for what we have. It wasn't until the politicians began promising tax cuts that we started to go into, and stay into deficits.Now a days, they not only promise to cut your taxes, but also to increase spending. that increased spending money has to come from somewhere.

 

[Urban Sky]

One word...
Winter.
Every winter, a snowstorm happens and highways get closed. Most of the time, the rail can still do track speed. Ironicaly, we have been doing a poorer and poorer job of snow removal in the last few decades. Maybe if plows were out more and they had more plows, the highways could stay open.

Of all the ludicrous reasons I‘ve heard for funding rail services until the last corner of this country, „we need trains because we are too incapable to properly organize our snow removal operations!“ must be the most ridiculous! Send your snow removal planners to Quebec have them watch the snow operations here (the only kind of logistics we excel at!) and report back to us once your roads are cleared year-round, just like they are in the rest of this country…