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

[crs1026]

^The E+N was a charming tourist experience, but I question if it really performed much of a transportation function.in the last decade or two of its existence. Maintaining that much infrastructure just for that experience doesn’t make much economic sense. Turning it into a transit line has always struck me as a bit contrived, as it doesn’t really run where commuters need to travel.
I’m glad that the experience touched enough people to leave behind such a determined group of supporters, but if there were any economic viability, some investors would have come forward by now.

- Paul

 

[Johnny Au]

Vancouver Island is arguably the most challenging non-rural area in Canada to serve with meaningful public transport options. Thanks to its extremely unfortunate demography (Victoria accounts for more than half of its population) and geography (Vancouver-Victoria would be a buzzing corridor if it wasn’t for that stupid water inbetween)...

If there weren't any water between Vancouver and Victoria, the latter would be in Washington state.

It was the Salish Sea (including the Strait of Georgia between Vancouver and Victoria) that convinced the boundary commission to give the entirety of Vancouver Island to Canada.

 

[dowlingm]

In general there is less passenger rail outside the corridor because the potential ridership is just not there (low population density). I like passenger trains very much but they (like subways) really do not (or cannot) be everywhere.

In general, perhaps. But Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton have lots of people. There can be discussion about why services like this cannot be, yet other far more fragile and costly routes can remain "in the national interest"

 

[DSC]

In general, perhaps. But Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton have lots of people. There can be discussion about why services like this cannot be, yet other far more fragile and costly routes can remain "in the national interest"

Edmonton & Calgary are linked by a bus route - it does not run that often and, on the couple of times I have use it, it has not been well patronised. Maybe most residents in Alberta have cars and thus prefer to drive? (Or never go to the other City?)

 

[trebello]

Vancouver Island is arguably the most challenging non-rural area in Canada to serve with meaningful public transport options

It's also challenging to serve with cars and trucks. Almost anywhere else in the country I couldn't see preserving a corridor like the E&N for anything other than a bike path making much sense, but in the case of southern Vancouver Island, there is Victoria (relatively dense and rapidly growing) with completely constrained highway capacity coming into it from the rest of Vancouver Island (which is also growing rapidly). There aren't a lot of options available for serving trips between Nanaimo and Victoria as these cities grow (busses will suffice for now, but eventually will just be stuck on the Malahat with everyone else). Even highway 1 between Langford and Victoria is likely maxed out at the number of lanes that can be built given its location. One of the many reasons this fight won't seem to go away.

 

[TRONto]

It's also challenging to serve with cars and trucks. Almost anywhere else in the country I couldn't see preserving a corridor like the E&N for anything other than a bike path making much sense, but in the case of southern Vancouver Island, there is Victoria (relatively dense and rapidly growing) with completely constrained highway capacity coming into it from the rest of Vancouver Island (which is also growing rapidly). There aren't a lot of options available for serving trips between Nanaimo and Victoria as these cities grow (busses will suffice for now, but eventually will just be stuck on the Malahat with everyone else). Even highway 1 between Langford and Victoria is likely maxed out at the number of lanes that can be built given its location. One of the many reasons this fight won't seem to go away.

I think bike path is a great option considering how many cyclings are on the island. I thought it was fantastic you could cycle from downtown Victoria to the airport IIRC.

 

[trebello]

I think bike path is a great option considering how many cyclings are on the island. I thought it was fantastic you could cycle from downtown Victoria to the airport IIRC.

Victoria does have great bike paths (mostly on old railways) and a lot of cyclists. Most of the E&N corridor through Greater Victoria already has a bike path beside it (with a few gaps that are supposed to be filled soon). Further up the island there is a parallel pathway as well (part of the Trans-Canada Trail), but it sometimes deviates from the rail-grade and so is quite steep. Between Langford and Victoria there isn't really a trade-off between bike path and rail service as both can (and mostly do) exist in the corridor.

The Chemanis Valley Courier opinion piece linked by @2transpo suggests that the corridor is useless for rail, but the actual report doesn't make a recommendation either way. The current thinking of the government seems to be "decide later". The options evaluated in the report even extend to double-stacking highway 1 through a provincial park, so there really isn't a lot of space for new highway corridors. I think the government will continue on the least controversial path of just doing nothing with the rail corridor and expanding bus lanes in the near-term at least.

 

[dowlingm]

Island Corridor Rail worst performing option for transit | Chemainus Valley Courier

ICF commitment not in sync with South Island Transportation Strategy

www.google.ca

Why reviving the E&N is a bad idea. It is pretty much the most useless rail corridor in Canada.

This applies to the OBRY too.

Ultimately the City of Victoria turned its back on heavy rail when they declined to include it in the bridge renewal. Now the line is severed. While I have pored over maps and pictures of the relevant areas over the years, it seems to me that the key local market didn't feel it was worth chipping in for. Maybe a light rail service between Esquimalt and the city would work, but other than that...

 

[trebello]

Ultimately the City of Victoria turned its back on heavy rail when they declined to include it in the bridge renewal. Now the line is severed. While I have pored over maps and pictures of the relevant areas over the years, it seems to me that the key local market didn't feel it was worth chipping in for. Maybe a light rail service between Esquimalt and the city would work, but other than that...

Ya the loss of the bridge across the harbour is too bad, but it actually means the track only ends 300 metres west of its previous terminus; most of downtown Victoria is still within a 5-15 minute walk of the current end of track. Some studies done prior to the removal of the bridge recommended a terminus on the west side of the harbour to avoid delays caused by the bridge needing to open to let ships under. They also built the new car/pedestrian bridge so that rail could be added back if it was ever needed (although I seriously doubt this will ever happen)

 

[micheal_can]

I feel most of us long for the days before the 1990s cuts, where it was possible to get from one major city to any other major city without waiting days for the next train, if any are running at all. I do wonder had Via not been cut, would we see more usage?

 

[just east of the creek]

I feel most of us long for the days before the 1990s cuts, where it was possible to get from one major city to any other major city without waiting days for the next train, if any are running at all. I do wonder had Via not been cut, would we see more usage?

I would answer that not without investment in infrastructure commensurate with that of air and road to support speed and quality of experience. That could apply to bus as well. And that might not have been enough. Personal transport choices I.e. the car, made more accessible, convenient and pleasurable with the investments in roads, have doomed most intercity bus transport and in many places, some air services have struggled.

There is a place for rail, but not everywhere. Or not everywhere without continuing government ( we the people…) support. Speed, convenience, population densities, and a high quality experience will have to be part of the equation of success.

 

[smallspy]

I feel most of us long for the days before the 1990s cuts, where it was possible to get from one major city to any other major city without waiting days for the next train, if any are running at all. I do wonder had Via not been cut, would we see more usage?

You realize that many places within the Corridor have far better service now than they did in 1990, right?

Considering the trade-offs, no, the rose-coloured-glasses of the 1990s is not what I'd rather have.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

I would answer that not without investment in infrastructure commensurate with that of air and road to support speed and quality of experience. That could apply to bus as well. And that might not have been enough. Personal transport choices I.e. the car, made more accessible, convenient and pleasurable with the investments in roads, have doomed most intercity bus transport and in many places, some air services have struggled.

There is a place for rail, but not everywhere. Or not everywhere without continuing government ( we the people…) support. Speed, convenience, population densities, and a high quality experience will have to be part of the equation of success.

As we are trying to transition to a world that uses less personal cars, having a robust passenger rail system would have been a key option.

You realize that many places within the Corridor have far better service now than they did in 1990, right?

Considering the trade-offs, no, the rose-coloured-glasses of the 1990s is not what I'd rather have.

Dan

So, they gutted everywhere except the Corridor? And we wonder why there is a crisis with federalism in this country.
Those improvements should not be at the expense of lack of service elsewhere.

 

[nfitz]

You realize that many places within the Corridor have far better service now than they did in 1990, right?

Some routes that were relatively well served have a few more trains. Others have less. But the more has never really impacted my travel plans.

At the same time, you could still get from Montreal to Toronto in 4.5 hours in 1990.

As far as Corridor, they should have never cut the service in 1990.

 

[Urban Sky]

As we are trying to transition to a world that uses less personal cars, having a robust passenger rail system would have been a key option.


So, they gutted everywhere except the Corridor? And we wonder why there is a crisis with federalism in this country.
Those improvements should not be at the expense of lack of service elsewhere.

There were cuts in the Corridor during the 1990 cuts: I‘d have to look up the exact frequencies, but the Chavalier (M-T) night train was cut as well as the 4th TRTO-OTTW frequencies. And entire routes were cancelled with MTRL-TRIV-QBEC, MTRL-SHRB and TRTO-Havelock.

Since 1990, the only cut in non-Corridor frequencies were the 2012 budget cuts which reduced the Ocean from 6 to 3tpw and the Canadian from 3 to 2tpw (outside the summer peak). All other service reductions/withdrawals were due to infrastructure issues: Senneterre-Cochrane, the „Atlantic“, the „Bras d‘Or“, Pukatawgan-Lynn Lake, Victoria-Courtenay and Montreal-Gaspé…