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

[micheal_can]

Since you apparently don’t bother to read posts before responding to them, let me remind you of the context in which you responded with your military-spending-reference:
View attachment 507517
If you don’t have the mental capacity to follow a conversation, then just don’t participate!

I am showing that we are ok with somethings in the government not being profitable, but not others. So, as long as that remains, nothing will change.

So,instead of telling us why 30 years ago things were cut, why not say what would need to change?

 

[Urban Sky]

I am showing that we are ok with somethings in the government not being profitable, but not others. So, as long as that remains, nothing will change.

So,instead of telling us why 30 years ago things were cut, why not say what would need to change?

Again: if you seem to struggle to maintain a coherent discussion, then why do you feel compelled to participate here?

 

[Northern Light]

What do I mean?

Like I have said multiple endless times,

There, fixed that for ya.

if we are to have any meaningful passenger rail service outside of the Corridor, the attitudes surrounding funding needs to change. It really is that simple. Till then, death by a million cuts shall continue till it is seen as irrelevant enough to cut it complete.

Michael; with all due respect; your basic intent/desire to see more and better rail service is supported by many, as is your desire to see rural areas served by better transportation links.

But when you endlessly repeat the same arguments/ideas/questions, to largely the same audience of people, even if the arguments were more credible people would grow weary and irritated.

However, many of your positions frankly lack an understanding of what is fiscally, politically or technically viable. Which once was tolerated, because you were once new; but you've been given those answers time and again; and people don't want to hear the same thing from anyone over and over.

We got it, we understand your desire. We know what you want. Its still not happening.

There is a path to progress; but it does not align with vast expansions of rail service to remote areas, along non-owned tracks, on routes which are not time competitive to car or bus, and which the cost of making competitive is prohibitive.

It lies in:

a) Building bus networks and hubs as both a short and medium term solution. First you need riders and demand, and the fastest way to get that is a comprehensive bus network, which can be delivered, literally in months with a few vehicles and operators, as opposed to rail, where simply ordering new rolling stock would have an 18 month lag time, very optimistically.

b) Limited and strategic expansion of rail, to areas that are outlying from major urban centres, or where small improvements in frequency and utility can be achieved on existing routes at relatively low cost.

There may be longer term opportunities for other rail network expansion, IF demand were high, if some of these areas grew, and if there were coincident benefits (for instance for the mainline freight carriers).

But those things aren't months or years away, they're a decade or more from even serious planning and two or more from construction in the select cases where they make sense.

You do your cause more harm that good by haranguing those who sympathize with you; and by wasting time trying to tell people who frankly know a good deal more than you about this how to handle it.

Shift your focus to the do-able; ask those with knowledge for their assistance in crafting an intelligent ask of your MP or MPP as the case may be. Then you might see some of what you want before your 90th birthday; it ain't happening any other way.

 

[micheal_can]

There, fixed that for ya.



Michael; with all due respect; your basic intent/desire to see more and better rail service is supported by many, as is your desire to see rural areas served by better transportation links.

But when you endlessly repeat the same arguments/ideas/questions, to largely the same audience of people, even if the arguments were more credible people would grow weary and irritated.

However, many of your positions frankly lack an understanding of what is fiscally, politically or technically viable. Which once was tolerated, because you were once new; but you've been given those answers time and again; and people don't want to hear the same thing from anyone over and over.

We got it, we understand your desire. We know what you want. Its still not happening.

There is a path to progress; but it does not align with vast expansions of rail service to remote areas, along non-owned tracks, on routes which are not time competitive to car or bus, and which the cost of making competitive is prohibitive.

It lies in:

a) Building bus networks and hubs as both a short and medium term solution. First you need riders and demand, and the fastest way to get that is a comprehensive bus network, which can be delivered, literally in months with a few vehicles and operators, as opposed to rail, where simply ordering new rolling stock would have an 18 month lag time, very optimistically.

b) Limited and strategic expansion of rail, to areas that are outlying from major urban centres, or where small improvements in frequency and utility can be achieved on existing routes at relatively low cost.

There may be longer term opportunities for other rail network expansion, IF demand were high, if some of these areas grew, and if there were coincident benefits (for instance for the mainline freight carriers).

But those things aren't months or years away, they're a decade or more from even serious planning and two or more from construction in the select cases where they make sense.

You do your cause more harm that good by haranguing those who sympathize with you; and by wasting time trying to tell people who frankly know a good deal more than you about this how to handle it.

Shift your focus to the do-able; ask those with knowledge for their assistance in crafting an intelligent ask of your MP or MPP as the case may be. Then you might see some of what you want before your 90th birthday; it ain't happening any other way.

I am for bus service. I am for expanded bus service.

I am asking what is needed to expand outside of the Corridor more rail service. For instance, the Canadian used to be 3x a week, now it is 2x a week. So, what is needed to move it back to 3x a week?

I realize nothing outside the Corridor will happen till Via replaces the long distance Fleet. I feel that is at least a decade away from completion, if not longer.

 

[micheal_can]

I had hoped this thread would not be about the status quo, but about how we can move forward with bringing more meaningful service outside of the Corridor.
If that is not what this thread is for, please let me know and I will stop.
If it is, then stop trying to shut me down with nonsense.

 

[Northern Light]

If it is, then stop trying to shut me down with nonsense.

You know, I was actually in the process of answering your question about The Canadian insofar as it had the hint of realism about it, even if its the wrong thing to advocate for, for your area's needs.

But I deleted that answer because of the above.

Rudeness will not be rewarded.

You are not entitled to anyone's time or answers, not mine, not anyone else's and for rudeness, you get none. Too bad about that.

 

[micheal_can]

You know, I was actually in the process of answering your question about The Canadian insofar as it had the hint of realism about it, even if its the wrong thing to advocate for, for your area's needs.

But I deleted that answer because of the above.

Rudeness will not be rewarded.

You are not entitled to anyone's time or answers, not mine, not anyone else's and for rudeness, you get none. Too bad about that.

Fair enough.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

I don't know why this is a debate. Passenger rail in Canada should not exist outside the corridor. There isn't the slightest justification for it given the aforementioned issues of lack of density.

The fact that groups like Transport Action Canada and the Island Corridor Foundation continue to advocate for passenger rail is a product of misguided nostalgia. Given the extensive buildout of highways, motor coaches offer a vastly superior alternative to passenger rail in most respects. This issue has been studied and documented in the Northern Policy Institute's "The Thin Case for Passenger Rail in Ontario’s Northern Regions".

For the money you would spend to bring back these routes, you could run more than 10 times the bus service at a fraction of the cost. It is for this reason that I am hoping to have the return of the Northlander cancelled. There is no reasonable case to bring it back. It should never have existed in the first place.

The same is true for the Canadian, the Ocean and the Skeena. Once the HEP and renaissance equipment is retired, those services should be withdrawn. They serve no purpose and going through the large scale capital expenditure of procuring new specialised equipment would be a baffling decision. The Ocean and the Skeena are entirely paralleled by highways which can host motor coaches and for longer distances can be substituted by airlines which are more carbon efficient due to the heavy weight and low occupancy of long distance trains. For any isolated portions on routes like the Canadian, hi-railer busses can run the rails in the old time slot of the train to provide necessary service at vastly more cost-effective subsidies.

You could even argue that certain portions of the Corridor such as the infrequent and slow runs through Stratford and Sarnia should be withdrawn entirely and replaced with faster and more frequent motor coaches.

The reality is that if you are someone who wants to advocate for the provision of public transport that serves the needs of communities, is convenient and efficient, yet still pushing for passenger rail, you need to rethink your priorities. If that is the case, I question whether you actually care about transport or rather just like trains.

 

[micheal_can]

Over on the Via thread, everyone was talking about extensions to Sherbroooke for EXO/Via. Minute I added something it became an attack on only me. The conversation ceased when I posted the below.

Unless I am wrong, Via has not released any information on any expansions of any service except for the HFR/HSR Havelock Subdivision.

 

[Urban Sky]

Over on the Via thread, everyone was talking about extensions to Sherbroooke for EXO/Via. Minute I added something it became an attack on only me. The conversation ceased when I posted the below.

Maybe if you made some genuine efforts to respond to the points which were raised rather than just exploiting every improbable occasion to dump the same kind of posts on us, people would feel more compelled to respond to your questions?

As the saying in German goes: “the same way you shout into the forest, it will shout back at you…”

 

[micheal_can]

Maybe if you made some genuine efforts to respond to the points which were raised rather than just exploiting every improbable occasion to dump the same kind of posts on us, people would feel more compelled to respond to your questions?

As the saying in German goes: “the same way you shout into the forest, it will shout back at you…”

You assume I am not genuine.

 

[lenaitch]

You assume I am not genuine.

I, for one, believe you are genuine.

 

[micheal_can]

I, for one, believe you are genuine.

I wish others could believe, and could also have a meaningful conversation about it. However, that is not the world we live in. We live in a world of echo chambers. When someone disrupts those echos, they are the bad guy.

It is good to know history. But it is also good to know the context of that history. For instance, if your riding would be affected, you would do what you could to prevent that, All cuts in the government are political. Yes, they are done for a real reason, but how and where is the political part.

But, times have changed. This is not the 1990s. The political landscape has changed. So,instead of hammering on the past, and the reasons it was cut, why not look to the future. Why not discuss what is the reason that a train is coming back within the next decade? Why not look at what it will bring to the area.

Again, if I am not following the spirit of this thread,then I will stop posting. But, if someone else isn't following the spirit of this thread, they need to check them selves.

So, why after being canceled is the Northlander coming back? Why are they willing to build a new station in Timmins? Why are they buying new equipment instead of refurbishing what they have? How can this be a plan for adding better service to existing Via service?

 

[Urban Sky]

I wish others could believe, and could also have a meaningful conversation about it. However, that is not the world we live in. We live in a world of echo chambers. When someone disrupts those echos, they are the bad guy.

It is good to know history. But it is also good to know the context of that history. For instance, if your riding would be affected, you would do what you could to prevent that, All cuts in the government are political. Yes, they are done for a real reason, but how and where is the political part.

But, times have changed. This is not the 1990s. The political landscape has changed. So,instead of hammering on the past, and the reasons it was cut, why not look to the future. Why not discuss what is the reason that a train is coming back within the next decade? Why not look at what it will bring to the area.

Again, if I am not following the spirit of this thread,then I will stop posting. But, if someone else isn't following the spirit of this thread, they need to check them selves.

So, why after being canceled is the Northlander coming back? Why are they willing to build a new station in Timmins? Why are they buying new equipment instead of refurbishing what they have? How can this be a plan for adding better service to existing Via service?

Stop self-pittying yourself and start acknowledging what is actually said rather than drowning us with your ever-same talking points! If you want to be part of a constructive and meaningful discussion, you will need to finally start to attentively read (and make sure to understand!) what is actually said before writing and sending your posts.

However, if that’s too much to ask from you - and it’s evident that you severely struggle with that for whatever reason - then maybe forums are not the right medium for you. As an honest advice, I would try out Twitter…

 

[Northern Light]

I wish others could believe, and could also have a meaningful conversation about it.

As @Urban Sky notes above, this requires you to read, and think on, what is being said by others.

Many of us have tried to engage you in a meaningful conversation only to be shot down by you hitting reply without having understood what you are replying to.

You conflate discussions of cost and practicality with those of preference and politics; they are not the same.

However, that is not the world we live in. We live in a world of echo chambers. When someone disrupts those echos, they are the bad guy.

UT and this thread are not echo chambers, there are a 1/2 dozen posters here of whom neither you nor I are a part who can rightly claim some measure of expertise in train operations, scheduling, subsidies, revenues, track geometry, signalling limitations, track capacity/speed and more.

I am moderately knowledgeable about much, but not all of the above, having read more expert opinions than my own, but understand the limits of my knowledge.

I am, however, more expert than most here on the politics and inner workers of the senior bureaucracy and those who lobby it. which is my principle contribution in this thread.

It is no disrespect to you, Michael to say you are not as knowledgeable as our rail-expert members in their respective spheres of knowledge, nor are you as knowledgable as I on the political side.

No one is asserting that you aren't 'genuine'.

But rather that you don't listen, and that you wrongly approach this discussion as if your understanding is comparable to the most knowledgeable here, when it is not.

It is good to know history. But it is also good to know the context of that history. For instance, if your riding would be affected, you would do what you could to prevent that, All cuts in the government are political. Yes, they are done for a real reason, but how and where is the political part.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with a discussion about what is viable in the future.

That's what people have shared with you; that certain things are not viable, at the very least in the near to mid-term and in some cases, as far into the future as the mind's eye can imagine.

Why not discuss what is the reason that a train is coming back within the next decade?

Because its not coming, in most cases. Its not a matter of people being 'opposed to it' or dwelling on the past.

They are accurately telling you...........'this ain't happening' and they/we know what we're talking about.

Why not look at what it will bring to the area.

Because the expenditure you seek in capital / operating for most of your ideas is simply too great to justify any reasonably foreseeable return/benefit.

Again, if I am not following the spirit of this thread,then I will stop posting.

This would probably be wise.

But, if someone else isn't following the spirit of this thread, they need to check them selves.

Throwing stones in a thread or on a forum at the very people with whom you would like to chat is not productive.

So, why after being canceled is the Northlander coming back? Why are they willing to build a new station in Timmins? Why are they buying new equipment instead of refurbishing what they have?

Restoring the Northlander is a political decision, one could debate the relative merits of it, but it does have some semblance of a case. The track already exists, the cut was relatively recent, the restoration cost isn't that high (though some would say too high, relative to benefit).

Your other asks are in various measures, mostly less justifiable and more expensive with less of a political constituency to justify them.

How can this be a plan for adding better service to existing Via service?

This is not a plan for better VIA service anywhere.

Could there be better VIA service in or to Northern Ontario in the next decade, yes, actually, that's plausible, but not generally in the way you have sought.

Regardless, any such improvement will not ;likely be a dedicated Toronto-Sudbury run, nor will it be generally be uber-frequent or fast.

It will happen, if/where there are sufficient drivers to make it a viable consideration, and which motivate the public and MP/MPPs to get behind it.