Ontario Northland/Northern Ontario Transportation

[micheal_can]

So, what if they assumed that it would be 75% full and they set ticket prices such that at that rate, it is not subsidized? What if they only topped up if the ridership fell below 75%?

 

[MisterF]

I'll just start by restating this: The Northlander has no benefit worth subsidizing. It's slower, less reliable, and serves fewer communities than the alternative bus. Most of us are train nerds, but that's not something worth subsidizing.



Nobody from Barrie or Orillia would use it, because the rail line doesn't serve either of those cities. And even if you choose to ignore that, several buses a day will still generate a lot more ridership than a single train six times a week.



First of all, at 150 km and 18 interchanges, that "neighbourhood" is in another country.

And second, that's still not an insane cost per person - the 400 extension is used by tens of millions of people every year. The Northlander was used by around 36,000 people per year.



Except, for what feels like the hundredth time that I'm saying this, rail investments result in slower, less frequent service to fewer people. There's no way that a train in Northern Ontario can be any faster than bus service or attract more than a few hundred passengers per day. It's not the nineteenth century any more.

Ah, I had an extra zero in one of those numbers, my bad. For 150 km and 18 interchanges, that would put the cost at about $1.7 billion according to the numbers on highway69.ca. The expansion of Highway 11 from Huntsville to North Bay, with about 105 km and 17 interchanges, would have been $1.2 billion in today's money. And the extension of Highway 400 from Waubaushene to Parry Sound in the 2000s would have been a similar amount. Point being that highway expansion to Sudbury and North Bay has indeed cost us billions of dollars.

But you're missing my larger point. Yes, those highways make rail a hard sell. But still, highways aren't inherently better or more affordable than rail to these types of places. They're not more worthy of subsidies than rail. The speed and ridership of the Northlander when it was shut down is irrelevant. In the 80s and 90s if we had done what most countries do and put the money into protecting and improving rail rights of way and improving service, the line would now be faster, more frequent and better used. It would also be safer and potentially more reliable than any highway. Again, my point isn't that we should necessarily reinstate the Northlander as the deck is now stacked against it. My point is that building a highway isn't necessarily a better use of money than improving the trains.

Your quip about the 19th century shows just how out of touch we are in this country. Try telling that to transportation experts in Scotland or Russia or Australia or Sweden, which all have towns similar to North Bay that have trains but no four lane highway. Rail has absolutely nothing to do with the past, it's the backbone of modern transportation systems in virtually the entire world. That's true of areas that are low and high density, rich and poor, new and old, high car ownership and low, hot and cold. The fact our little corner of the world associates trains with the 19th century is part of the problem.

 

[amnesiajune]

The speed and ridership of the Northlander when it was shut down is irrelevant. In the 80s and 90s if we had done what most countries do and put the money into protecting and improving rail rights of way and improving service, the line would now be faster, more frequent and better used.

No country invested money in high speed rail to small towns no larger than four- and five-digit populations (or 150,000, because I know you'll point that out). When they have rail connections to those kinds of places, it's typically because a road connection isn't feasible, and it's always a painfully slow rail connection like Via Rail's Canadian or the Polar Bear Express.

 

[MisterF]

No country invested money in high speed rail to small towns no larger than four- and five-digit populations (or 150,000, because I know you'll point that out). When they have rail connections to those kinds of places, it's typically because a road connection isn't feasible, and it's always a painfully slow rail connection like Via Rail's Canadian or the Polar Bear Express.

Who said anything about high speed rail? I'm talking about conventional, medium speed trains. Like the train from Edinburgh to Inverness for example, which takes 3h22m to go 252 km. The train from Stockholm to Sundsvall covers 377 km in 3h31m. Just a couple examples, but there are many more like them that are significantly faster than either of the trains you mentioned. These places invest in highway expansion too of course, but they don't build expressways to towns with no rail service like we do.

 

[amnesiajune]

Who said anything about high speed rail? I'm talking about conventional, medium speed trains. Like the train from Edinburgh to Inverness for example, which takes 3h22m to go 252 km. The train from Stockholm to Sundsvall covers 377 km in 3h31m.

Those railways serve several cities the size of North Bay, and some actual tourist attractions. Other than North Bay, ONR wouldn't serve any place with more than 20,000 people, and wouldn't be of much use to tourists since they're generally going to places that are another long drive past the cities being served.

 

[ssiguy2]

^ Very true and the train is made even more undesirable by the fact that few people go on vacations themselves so every extra person is an extra fare on the train unlike the car where the transportation cost is the same if you are by yourself or with the whole family.

These passenger train routes were begun at a time when trains were often the only way of getting around. There was no air service, few had cars, and the roads were awful. People used them less for long distance and mostly to go to the nearest town/city for shopping, entertainment, and work. That demographic no longer exists so why should the transport system?

 

[Northern Light]

Those railways serve several cities the size of North Bay, and some actual tourist attractions. Other than North Bay, ONR wouldn't serve any place with more than 20,000 people, and wouldn't be of much use to tourists since they're generally going to places that are another long drive past the cities being served.

May I suggest a series of distinctions.

First, lets separate ONR as most recently operated vs how a sensible passenger rail service would be.

Second, lets set aside the notion that this service has to be run as its own operation, when it could be run as a contract service by VIA (assuming provincial subsidy); or an inter-city version GO, the the former likely makes more sense in terms of sharing maintenance and overhead.

Third lets revisit the reasons for such a service, what it ought to connect.

While there may be some 'commuting' at the fringes; that is clearly not the primary or even secondary market of a service in Northern Ontario.

Likewise, I don't expect tourism on most runs, at most times of the year to be driving factor in load.

Rather, I would argue this service is in place to serve connections between smaller and mid-sized communities, to major centres, for purposes of accessing major hospitals and healthcare services, post-secondary institutions, and other services found only in larger centres; along w/secondary benefits for reverse tourism (Northerners visiting Toronto, and not wanting to pay for parking for a week); access to major airports, connecting families and so on.

This is a service to serve those that can't drive (elderly, teens etc.; those who can't afford a car; and those trips that would be more expensive or arduous by car, see Toronto parking costs, or leaving one's car at an airport for a week etc. As well as for those would simply enjoy a more comfortable and FASTER trip, even using entirely conventional rail equipment.

The logical connections are

North Bay - Toronto
Sudbury - Toronto
Kenora - Thunder Bay
Kenora - Winnipeg
Timmins - North Bay
Sault - Sudbury - North Bay
North Bay - Ottawa
Northern local - Kenora-Dryden-Hearst-Timmins

There is no reason most of these connections could not maintain running speeds of 150km p/h w/conventional rolling stock. Granted that investments in track would need to be made, but very few new grade separations.

The difference btw that speed and driving at 100km/ph is substantial in convenience and travel time.

As an example, Kenora-T-Bay drops from a 5hr plus trip by car, to just shy of 3.5 hours by train, assuming a similar routing as the highway. That's really quite beneficial.

****

The service as was most recently run was poorly planned, poorly scheduled, unreliable w/crap equipment, at sub-par speeds. It failed due to conscious choices, not inherent conditions.

The same issues exist for VIA's limited services in the north. One can't count on a train to get you to your appointment in Toronto if its routinely hours late.

****

The above said, i'm not an advocate for dolling out unlimited dollars for a rail-fan project.

What I am in favour of is a thoughtful, honest study, appraising what can be done at reasonable cost, laying the building blocks of a network, which can be built on over time.

 

[PinkLucy]

For the cost of subsidizing the train for everyone, you could book stretch limos for the handful of "old/frail/weak" passengers.

I lived in the north for a lot of years. The train was amazing. A couple of private companies tried offering stretch limo services with limited success.

 

[MisterF]

Those railways serve several cities the size of North Bay, and some actual tourist attractions. Other than North Bay, ONR wouldn't serve any place with more than 20,000 people, and wouldn't be of much use to tourists since they're generally going to places that are another long drive past the cities being served.

Those railways serve similar populations as the line that used to go to North Bay. The Inverness line only has significant population at the southern end of the route; the rest is mostly small communities and wilderness. If anything it's less consistently populated than the Highway 11 corridor in Ontario. Another example: the line from Oslo to Bergen goes through 400 km of essentially nothing. Even if these areas were significantly more populated, it doesn't matter because the fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of the world, small, remote cities are typically served by trains but not divided highways.

^ Very true and the train is made even more undesirable by the fact that few people go on vacations themselves so every extra person is an extra fare on the train unlike the car where the transportation cost is the same if you are by yourself or with the whole family.

These passenger train routes were begun at a time when trains were often the only way of getting around. There was no air service, few had cars, and the roads were awful. People used them less for long distance and mostly to go to the nearest town/city for shopping, entertainment, and work. That demographic no longer exists so why should the transport system?

Roads are much better now, mass car ownership is widespread, and air service is ubiquitous. But that doesn't stop the majority of the world from maintaining their rail transport systems and people from using them. We had the same passenger routes as everywhere else, it's just that we made a relatively recent decision to put most of our subsidies into driving. This attitude of trains being a relic of a bygone era doesn't reflect reality.

 

[Allandale25]

Recent article.

ONTARIO LIBERALS CONSIDER POSSIBLE RETURN OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE IN NORTH ACCORDING TO DRAFT STRATEGY

Don’t rule out a return of rail passenger service in the north under the Ontario Liberals. Although there’s no official announcement, the Liberals are developing a draft strategy to provide different forms of transportation in the north. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines told the Moose the strategy addresses northern needs and transportation and it includes rail. The draft strategy also includes road, air and marine. MNDM expects to release the final version of the transportation strategy in the near future.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You know it is election time when...

AoD

 

[Allandale25]

Apparently the NDP and PCs will bring back the Northerlander...

Article here.

NDP, PCs would bring back Northerlander

By PJ WILSON, The Nugget

Saturday, February 3, 2018 2:09:08 EST AM

Every time winter weather affects travel in northeastern Ontario, Coun. Mark King says people talk about bringing back passenger rail service.

But “we lost (the Northlander) train service a fair time ago,” King, of North Bay, said this week. “It’s not something people are talking about in general.

“What does happen is the discussion comes up when we get some bad weather.”

That’s been happening on an almost-regular basis this winter, as Highway 11 north of North Bay has been shut down on several occasions due to crashes or just generally bad driving conditions.

“The best possible alternative is rail service from Toronto to the North,” King said.

Northern Development and Mines Minister Michael Gravelle has all but ruled out a resumption of passenger train service such as was offered by Ontario Northland until 2012.

King asked Gravelle at the recent Rural Ontario Municipal Association meeting in Toronto about the possibility of reinstating the service, but “he basically said no, they are not going to reinstate it.”

Gravelle did, however, say the province will be “making an announcement in North Bay in respect to multimodal transportation.”

The province has been developing a draft strategy to provide different forms of transportation in the North in the wake of public consultations last year.

“We did indicate to the minister, we were asking for him to support the return of passenger train service,” King said.

“During our conversation I indicated to him that all the municipalities along the line passed resolutions supporting the return of passenger rail service.”

North Bay was the last municipality along the Cochrane to North Bay corridor to pass the resolution at a meeting Dec. 12 calling for the return of a passenger train.

Both the provincial Progressive Conservatives and the NDP have indicated they will reinstate the service if they form the new government after the June 7 provincial election.

King said Nipissing MPP Vic Fedeli “reaffirmed the PC caucus plan for rail traffic in Northern Ontario,” with an allocation of $30 million to provide for that.

“I said what we require is good service with good equipment, trains that don’t break down every day and that operate in 25-, 30-below weather,” King said.

Fedeli, he said, indicated there will be two new sets of trains purchased for the service.

“That’s perfect,” King said.

What is especially galling, King said, is that “literally the next week” after the Northlander passenger train was retired, work started on a rail service from Pearson International Airport to downtown Toronto.

“That point has always been crucial,” King said. “If (the province) can subsidize rail traffic in southern Ontario, they had better damned well provide service in Northern Ontario.”

At the December council meeting, King said the loss of passenger rail service “is a huge, huge drawback to this particular region,” pointing to GO Transit expansion projects and subsidies for riders using the Union Pearson Express as examples of the imbalance.

King said it's not only riders who are losing out, noting the province's “substantial” investments in passenger rail services in southern Ontario are also helping to drive overall economic development in host communities.

The Northern and Eastern Ontario Rail Network has been working for some time now to bring the issue of rail passenger service for the North to the attention of Queen’s Park and Parliament Hill.

Another grassroots organization – All Aboard Northern Ontario – led by North Bay resident Eric Boutilier, who was previously involved with the network, also is campaigning for the return of the Northlander train service.

Boutilier says he is working on a data-based proposal for the restoration of the service, which was cancelled in 2012.

The ministry has indicated its Northern Ontario Multimodal Transportation Strategy will be released early this year.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Of course they will. Just like they would have cancel the gas plants if they had the chance.

AoD

 

[Allandale25]

Recent article here with the agency's view of itself and how things are going.

 

[micheal_can]

Recent article here with the agency's view of itself and how things are going.

I feel their focus on expanding bus service east and west has been a long time coming. You cannot call yourself a Northern Ontario transport agency and only serve one sliver.