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

[just east of the creek]

Outside of the congestion charge zone. It's night and day once you go inside. They struggle with the politics of expanding it. There are simple solutions to implement though, if there's political will.

And one advantage of doing it, is that buses move very quickly inside the congestion zone; and virtually park outside of it.

I would 100% concur re London. And when busses move and you combine that with subway and streetcar, you have a system vastly superior then one person/one car. But you need Doug Ford to stop clowning around in these periphery issues - beer, liquor, license plates etc and demonstrate a higher level of political leadership.

 

[micheal_can]

LView attachment 579765

Video here:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6445383

Seems that we may see the LDR last.

My thinking is if the contract is signed before the drop of the writ there is a chance the LDS will last the next election.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

As it has been said, this discussion is slightly off topic, but I will reply to a previous post here and further discussion can perhaps move to the VIA thread.

A 12-car bilevel train has close to 2,000 seats. That’s more than the combined ridership for any month during which this experiment lasted:
View attachment 579068

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6894985

There have been multiple issues from which this service suffered:

• Slow travel speeds over the GEXR Guelp Sub
• The long distance and travel time (especially from Toronto)
• The low frequency (once per day)

However, the biggest issue was that with only a single frequency, you have to offer commuter-friendly arrival and departure times wherever people work and it’s just impossible to simultaneously hit Kitchener, Guelph, Brampton and Toronto at the right spot, especially if the latter is almost 4 hours away…


Why? People can transfer fine if the connection times are reasonable and the number of people who want to travel from, say, London to Kingston is dwarfed by those travelling from/to Toronto. You may want to search the “VIA Rail” thread for “gravity model” to get some idea of how various O-D demand potentials compare with each other…

You seem to be assuming that the Ontarian government is just waiting for VIA to leave SWO, so that they can run their own intercity trains to Lomdon, Sarnia and Windsor. Nobody is stopping them from offering these services themselves or for paying VIA to expand these services. But as again the failed GO-to-London experiment showed, GO can only be successful where it has sufficient infrastructure access to reasonably fast, frequent and reliable slots.

VIA’s Siemens order had an option for the procurement of 16 additional trainsets, but there was no point in exercising it as long as nobody knows whether and how HxR will be built:

If HxR doesn’t get built, you won’t have any slots to deploy these extra trains and if HSR get’s built, you will already have a surplus of trains as HSR services would require their own, dedicated and much faster fleet. Activating the option only makes sense if you build HFR as the 177-200 km/h fast scenario as which it was originally envisioned, but that doesn’t really sound like what you are hoping for, so what exactly is your problem here?


Sure, let’s kill off something which has both funding and a sizeable ridership/revenue base and replace it with something which has neither! That’s @micheal_can thinking in a nutshell:

I think this sums up my argument as succinctly as possible:

'I can’t wait to defund the CBC': Pierre Poilievre doubles down on plan to axe CBC after board approves bonuses

Pierre Poilievre has renewed his pledge to "defund the CBC" after the board of directors for CBC and Radio-Canada has approved bonuses.

torontosun.com

When you have the PM in waiting committing to dismantle a public institution more important and prominent than VIA, how can anyone claim VIA will survive? That is just pure cope.

Really, I think my argument can be best summed up as this: If you are going to make all passengers transfer at Union, which is not an unreasonable practice, there is no point in having the same organisation running those services.

The reality is that intercity rail within the borders of Ontario should be solely Ontario's responsibility and free from federal interference. When you have a level of government who's priorities swing so violently from election cycle to election cycle, why involve it at all in the process?

In Ontario, passenger rail is popular to a fault. Every party wants to expand GO, and improve it. Even a rural passenger service that has no right to exist in a sane world (the Northlander) is being restored to chase votes. I would rather have the provincial government tackling intercity passenger rail in Ontario because it has proven that it can handle it in a stable, consistent way. It also shows in that wherever GO and VIA have gone into competition (Kitchener and Niagara), GO has consistently demolished VIA.

This isn't to say that every service should be an all stops commuter train with no seat pitch. In fact if GO/Metrolinx were to take on this responsibility, it should develop a parallel fleet with express intercity services, but it would be vastly more capable of acquiring right of ways, providing capital investment and operating the service where there is demand than VIA does now.

Perhaps when PP defunds VIA and starts building housing in Gare du Palais like he did with the CBC headquarters, there will be several intercity train sets available for purchase by Metrolinx.

 

[micheal_can]

As it has been said, this discussion is slightly off topic, but I will reply to a previous post here and further discussion can perhaps move to the VIA thread.

I think this sums up my argument as succinctly as possible:

'I can’t wait to defund the CBC': Pierre Poilievre doubles down on plan to axe CBC after board approves bonuses

Pierre Poilievre has renewed his pledge to "defund the CBC" after the board of directors for CBC and Radio-Canada has approved bonuses.

torontosun.com

When you have the PM in waiting committing to dismantle a public institution more important and prominent than VIA, how can anyone claim VIA will survive? That is just pure cope.

Really, I think my argument can be best summed up as this: If you are going to make all passengers transfer at Union, which is not an unreasonable practice, there is no point in having the same organisation running those services.

The reality is that intercity rail within the borders of Ontario should be solely Ontario's responsibility and free from federal interference. When you have a level of government who's priorities swing so violently from election cycle to election cycle, why involve it at all in the process?

In Ontario, passenger rail is popular to a fault. Every party wants to expand GO, and improve it. Even a rural passenger service that has no right to exist in a sane world (the Northlander) is being restored to chase votes. I would rather have the provincial government tackling intercity passenger rail in Ontario because it has proven that it can handle it in a stable, consistent way. It also shows in that wherever GO and VIA have gone into competition (Kitchener and Niagara), GO has consistently demolished VIA.

This isn't to say that every service should be an all stops commuter train with no seat pitch. In fact if GO/Metrolinx were to take on this responsibility, it should develop a parallel fleet with express intercity services, but it would be vastly more capable of acquiring right of ways, providing capital investment and operating the service where there is demand than VIA does now.

Perhaps when PP defunds VIA and starts building housing in Gare du Palais like he did with the CBC headquarters, there will be several intercity train sets available for purchase by Metrolinx.

GO is really good at one thing - commuter rail. Look across the country, or even throughout North America, GO does the best among all of the commuter rail services out there. Parts of LIRR are good as they run 24/7, Other than that, GO is top of the list or close to the top when it comes to commuter rail.

Metrolinx does well at funding transit projects. Whether it be things like the iON or the various LRT and subway extensions in the GTA, they do well there.

What both of them don't at all is intercity rail. TBH, that is not a defect, but more of a feature of those organizations. That does not need to change either.

Ontario Northland pr the ONTC (Ontario Northland Transportation Commission) which is a provincial crown corporation can do intercity well. They have a large maintenance facility in North Bay that is capable of maintaining and refurbishing rail cars and engines. They have a federal license so that they can cross provincial borders. And it has existed since 1902, providing transportation options including rail, bus, and air throughout that period. So, if Via is folded along the Corridor,my thinking is that everything West of Montreal on the Corridor is folded into the ONTC.

If the Canadian is also folded, then this would be a great opportunity to revamp it and run 1 service along the current route between Toronto and Winnipeg and run a second route connecting SSM and Thunder Bay to Winnipeg and Toronto.

Whomever is Premier after PP gets in, they have an opportunity to either fix it, or let it disappear.

 

[Urban Sky]

Some people here don’t seem to have the faintest grasp of fiscally conservative policies. The key demands regarding CBC are summarized in the article as follows:

“We the undersigned call on the Liberal government to defund the CBC,” the petition reads. “Whereas the CBC undercuts private sector and independent media and competes for advertising space while receiving more than $1 billion in direct taxpayer subsidies. And whereas the CBC mostly provides opinions and coverage that are widely available in a free and competitive media marketplace. Therefore, be it resolved that we call on this Liberal government to defund the CBC to save taxpayer dollars and ensure a free and competitive press in the Canadian media landscape.”

With the only segments of VIA’s operations which can be said to directly compete with the private sector (Corridor services, which compete against AirCanada, Porter, Megabus, Flixbus and the like) currently undergoing privatization, how could the above be possibly rephrased to apply to VIA’s situation?

What remains of VIA after the Corridor is gone?

• The Ocean: interprovincial bus service has yet to resume at the QC-NB border. VIA is competitive neither by price, nor by time or frequency against Air Canada.
• The Canadian: transcontinental bus service is virtually inexistant (e.g., one single departure per week[!]). VIA is competitive neither by price, nor by time or frequency against any airline.
• Remote services: their entire raison-d’être is that there are very limited alternative transport services.

But of course, as long as you don’t even make the most rudimentary effort to understand the political priorities of your political opponents (e.g., by actually bothering to read the articles you post), it’s easy to get scared about what they might be up to once they regain control over the government.

The entire paranoia about PP hating and going to destroy VIA falls together once you grasp that CBC is not targeted because it is a public service, but because it competes against readily available private alternatives (which simply don’t exist for post-HxR VIA)…

 

[crs1026]

I see nothing in the 2023 Annual Report that would suggest that VIA's operations would be more efficient by severing them at either Toronto or Ottawa/Montreal, or by shedding services that operate in a single province in the corridor..
I can't imagine any benefit to the presence of two separate branding, ticketing, or passenger interfaces at any of the three main hubs (T, O, M) where one might propose severing VIA into two separate provincial operations.
I can't imagine any benefit to requiring two separate sets of operations maintenance or OBS support infrastructure at either of those termini, either. (neither GO nor EXO can service Siemens intercity equipment, either, so replacing with GO or EXO stock would strand the investment to date)
And, as noted, it has been a long time since I have heard any serious anti-VIA animus expressed in the CPC, quite unlike wrt the CBC where there is a continuing axe ground in some quarters over having a "state" media and cultural institution.
Transportation infrastructure is far removed from that debate.

There is some validity to the premise that decisions might flow faster if the Provinces didn't have to grapple with Ottawa and federal pols.... but be careful what you ask for. Neither province is in a position to ante up the additional funding that might be needed to run two parallel rail systems, and neither province has legal control of some very important aspects of the operation.... ie rules for tenancy on freight railways. Better to have Ottawa inside the tent, as the old saying goes.

- Paul

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

Some people here don’t seem to have the faintest grasp of fiscally conservative policies. The key demands regarding CBC are summarized in the article as follows:

With the only segments of VIA’s operations which can be said to directly compete with the private sector (Corridor services, which compete against AirCanada, Porter, Megabus, Flixbus and the like) currently undergoing privatization, how could the above be possibly rephrased to apply to VIA’s situation?

What remains of VIA after the Corridor is gone?

• The Ocean: interprovincial bus service has yet to resume at the QC-NB border. VIA is competitive neither by price, nor by time or frequency against Air Canada.
• The Canadian: transcontinental bus service is virtually inexistant (e.g., one single departure per week[!]). VIA is competitive neither by price, nor by time or frequency against any airline.
• Remote services: their entire raison-d’être is that there are very limited alternative transport services.

But of course, as long as you don’t even make the most rudimentary effort to understand the political priorities of your political opponents (e.g., by actually bothering to read the articles you post), it’s easy to get scared about what they might be up to once they regain control over the government.

The entire paranoia about PP hating and going to destroy VIA falls together once you grasp that CBC is not targeted because it is a public service, but because it competes against readily available private alternatives (which simply don’t exist for post-HxR VIA)…

I have read the article, which is why I found it relevant to this discussion. The whole "private competition" thing is very clearly a smokescreen. The current CPC is very anti-public institutions, and anti-crown corporation. The petition is also filled to the brim with platitudes about fiscal responsibility. And it's not as if austerity ideology follows any sort of coherent logical stance. The remote services could easily be cut in the same way the Sault - Hearst train was cut (and if we're being honest, if that train doesn't exist, the Senneterre train should definitely not exist either).

But operating under the assumption that VIA survives the next government, which is a likely but not certain possibility, it certainly will not be empowered or given the resources required to for it to fill the role we need it to fill. The portion of VIA to be "privatised" will still be owned by VIA and requires massive capital investment and that certainly isn't "fiscally conservative" because it's rail and it's in Ontario and Quebec. It also doesn't help that HxR is a mess of a project with no coherent scope or timeline.

It really boils down to this: Why should I as an Ontarian accept that my province be deprived of necessary investment in transport infrastructure because of a national government elected to serve the interests of the western provinces and rural voters that view the urban majority with contempt? When it comes to transit and passenger rail, only the province has a record that can be trusted to deliver what is needed.

To be honest, I feel no paranoia and would welcome VIA's demise since it would likely be a catalyst for the provincialisation of intercity rail.

 

[micheal_can]

I have read the article, which is why I found it relevant to this discussion. The whole "private competition" thing is very clearly a smokescreen. The current CPC is very anti-public institutions, and anti-crown corporation. The petition is also filled to the brim with platitudes about fiscal responsibility. And it's not as if austerity ideology follows any sort of coherent logical stance. The remote services could easily be cut in the same way the Sault - Hearst train was cut (and if we're being honest, if that train doesn't exist, the Senneterre train should definitely not exist either).

But operating under the assumption that VIA survives the next government, which is a likely but not certain possibility, it certainly will not be empowered or given the resources required to for it to fill the role we need it to fill. The portion of VIA to be "privatised" will still be owned by VIA and requires massive capital investment and that certainly isn't "fiscally conservative" because it's rail and it's in Ontario and Quebec. It also doesn't help that HxR is a mess of a project with no coherent scope or timeline.

It really boils down to this: Why should I as an Ontarian accept that my province be deprived of necessary investment in transport infrastructure because of a national government elected to serve the interests of the western provinces and rural voters that view the urban majority with contempt? When it comes to transit and passenger rail, only the province has a record that can be trusted to deliver what is needed.

To be honest, I feel no paranoia and would welcome VIA's demise since it would likely be a catalyst for the provincialisation of intercity rail.

With the mess of the LCBO right now,I do not see Ford taking on the Corridor routes.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

With the mess of the LCBO right now,I do not see Ford taking on the Corridor routes.

On the one hand, I can understand that view, but when put against the backdrop of the Northlander, and GO Expansion, he would take it on in a heartbeat. The whole "we're getting Ontario families moving" shtick would be the kind of photo-op he would love to help boost him in the polls. It would probably be pretty cheap to take on the existing slots and routes that VIA uses. The other advantage would be that the Guelph Subdivision could be fully purchased and integrated into the corridor rather than being an infrequent, slow branch. Perhaps the opportunity could be taken to fully remove freight off the line and have it claim the role as the main intercity passenger line to SWO from the Dundas Subdivision.

 

[micheal_can]

On the one hand, I can understand that view, but when put against the backdrop of the Northlander, and GO Expansion, he would take it on in a heartbeat. The whole "we're getting Ontario families moving" shtick would be the kind of photo-op he would love to help boost him in the polls. It would probably be pretty cheap to take on the existing slots and routes that VIA uses. The other advantage would be that the Guelph Subdivision could be fully purchased and integrated into the corridor rather than being an infrequent, slow branch. Perhaps the opportunity could be taken to fully remove freight off the line and have it claim the role as the main intercity passenger line to SWO from the Dundas Subdivision.

I can see your point. Maybe he would.

 

[Urban Sky]

Regarding the idea of a “Provincialization of intercity rail” (assuming that any province could possibly be tempted into taking over the finacial responsibility for VIA services), here is a list of VIA’s current routes and the respective provinces they serve:

Corridor services:

• QBEC-MTRL: QC
• MTRL-OTTW: QC, ON
• MTRL-TRTO: QC, ON
• OTTW-TRTO: ON
• TRTO-LNDN/SARN/WDON: ON
• Maple Leaf: ON, NY

Non-Corridor services:

• Ocean: NS, NB, QC
• MTRL-JONQ/SENN: QC
• Canadian: ON, MB, SK, AB, BC
• SUDB-WHTR: ON
• WNPG-CHUR: MB, SK
• JASP-PRUP: AB, BC

How many different provincial railways would we need to operate such a network? And what would we do with the interprovincial services (i.e., the overwhelming majority of VIA services) or where intraprovincial services overlap with interprovincial ones (e.g., TRTO-OTTW with TRTO-OTTW or soon: Chaleur with the Ocean)?

If Ontario wants to have better VIA service, they can always give VIA money to do so (as they did in the early 1990s with trains 82/83) or just expand their own provincial services. Same goes for buying the western end of the Guelph Sub and making it faster than the Dundas route, so that VIA can focus its TRTO-LNDN/WDON/SARN services on that route.

Oh, and let’s not forget over all that hysteria about prospective fiscally conservative governments that the only federal government which has invested substantial amounts into VIA’s Corridor infrastructure (partial triple-tracking of the Kingston Sub) and non-Corrdior fleet (creation of Prestige Class) was the one led by … *drumroll* … Stephen Harper.

 

[dowlingm]

How much did buying the Chatham, Alexandria and Brockville subdivisions cost, and which government came up with the $ for that? (I looked but couldn’t discern it from the search results)

 

[Urban Sky]

How much did buying the Chatham, Alexandria and Brockville subdivisions cost, and which government came up with the $ for that? (I looked but couldn’t discern it from the search results)

I have no idea (though the year of acquisition will tell you which government paid for it), but a transfer of ownership does not by itself constitute an investment in infrastructure…

 

[dowlingm]

I have no idea (though the year of acquisition will tell you which government paid for it), but a transfer of ownership does not by itself constitute an investment in infrastructure…

But what if some or all the track would be abandoned otherwise?

 

[lenaitch]

It really boils down to this: Why should I as an Ontarian accept that my province be deprived of necessary investment in transport infrastructure because of a national government elected to serve the interests of the western provinces and rural voters that view the urban majority with contempt? When it comes to transit and passenger rail, only the province has a record that can be trusted to deliver what is needed.

No national government will get to power without winning central Canada, regardless of who's interests they are alleging to serve.

"Ontarians" are rural voters as well.