Peterborough Commuter Rail

[Hipster Duck]

As a former Peterborian with friends and family still there, I think that the GO bus and the frequent Greyhound serve my needs perfectly. One gets me to the Oshawa GO station, which is perfect for regional commuting and if I really want to beat the rush hour traffic, while the other goes to downtown Toronto in 1h45 (sometimes 1h30 if the driver steps on it). No train will be competitive with that until major upgrades to the line are made.

Beyond harbouring a stigma against buses, I don't see why anyone would want to support a train to Peterborough at this time.

 

[MisterF]

With the multiple routes that were studied I'm surprised they didn't look at routing the line to the Lakeshore line in Oshawa. It could use the 407 east connector right of way. It would shorten the amount of rebuilt rail by at least 20 km and avoid the Agincourt Yard and Don Branch altogether. Would that make it cheaper? Who knows, but it would definitely have significantly higher ridership - nearly 12000 people drive between Durham Region and Peterborough every day, about 6000 in each direction. That's a lot higher than commuters to Toronto.

I'm a bit skeptical of the ridership projections. The Barrie and Niagara lines have significantly higher ridership than the forecasts, more than triple in the case of Niagara and double in the case of Barrie.

If you extended Lakeshore West or made a third contiguous corridor (Dundas-Brantford-Paris-Woodstock-Ingersoll-London), I would say a short new corridor Cambridge-Ayr-Paris would carry as much as GO Peterborough line would.

You mean a line from Waterloo Region to Brantford through Paris? No doubt that would get a lot of riders since it's a short line connecting two cities. There could be half a dozen new lines in that part of Ontario. The fact that you can't get from Kitchener to Hamilton by train is criminal.

Everything is a zero-sum game. Any infrastructure improvement comes out of each of our pockets. We are willing to only dip so deep into our pockets, so at the end of the day, one priority must suffer to accomidate another priority. The key is to balance the planning stage (low cost) of the next priority while building the current one (high cost). I see GO Peterborough as something to be build/funded for 2036-2040.

It's not a zero-sum game. On the contrary, the more transit and rail gets built, the more momentum it creates for more rail infrastructure. If we spent more on rail in this country the priority that would suffer would be other modes of transportation. To put it in perspective, France spends over 40% of its national transportation budget on rail. Canada spends 4%. If we could change our priorities enough to spend even 10%, projects like rail service to Peterborough wouldn't seem so farfetched.

 

[nrb]

With the multiple routes that were studied I'm surprised they didn't look at routing the line to the Lakeshore line in Oshawa. It could use the 407 east connector right of way. It would shorten the amount of rebuilt rail by at least 20 km and avoid the Agincourt Yard and Don Branch altogether. Would that make it cheaper? Who knows, but it would definitely have significantly higher ridership - nearly 12000 people drive between Durham Region and Peterborough every day, about 6000 in each direction. That's a lot higher than commuters to Toronto.

I'm a bit skeptical of the ridership projections. The Barrie and Niagara lines have significantly higher ridership than the forecasts, more than triple in the case of Niagara and double in the case of Barrie.


You mean a line from Waterloo Region to Brantford through Paris? No doubt that would get a lot of riders since it's a short line connecting two cities. There could be half a dozen new lines in that part of Ontario. The fact that you can't get from Kitchener to Hamilton by train is criminal.


It's not a zero-sum game. On the contrary, the more transit and rail gets built, the more momentum it creates for more rail infrastructure. If we spent more on rail in this country the priority that would suffer would be other modes of transportation. To put it in perspective, France spends over 40% of its national transportation budget on rail. Canada spends 4%. If we could change our priorities enough to spend even 10%, projects like rail service to Peterborough wouldn't seem so farfetched.

This route is also a freight line. It wouldn't be possible to route the freight traffic through the GO line. I assume it would also be incredibly expensive to build an entire new subsection instead of upgrading an existing one. Aquiring the land alone would be ridiculous.

 

[Mapleson]

I would love sustained federal funding of rail beyond the limited scope of VIA. However, GO/Metrolinx are provincially funded. Ontario last year spent 43% and is planning to spend 35.3% of transportation infrastructure spending on transit/Metrolinx. However, all transportation infrastructure spending is set for 30% of infrasturcture investment this year, fighting for tax dollars against health care, education, justice, environment, and debt payments. Transit infrastructure funding is 10% of all Ontario infrastructure.

I would love to raise taxes and pay off the national/provincial/municipal debt, create a wealth fund to pay for infrastructure expansion. I don't think enough people would agree to my tax reforms do so within our lifetime. Until then, we live in a beggar's world. The federal deficit right now is driven by legislated fixed transfer payment increases to proviences. That deal is set to expire in 2013 with the Conservatives looking to redress the taxation balance between the parties. In other words, they are planning to balance the national budget by downloading the tax burden to the proviences. That would leave three options: higher taxes, lower services/infrastructure investment, or higher debt.

We need to figure out on a fundamental level where we want Canada and the world to be in 50 and 100 years. Adjust taxes and immigration policy to fit the need.

 

[MisterF]

This route is also a freight line. It wouldn't be possible to route the freight traffic through the GO line. I assume it would also be incredibly expensive to build an entire new subsection instead of upgrading an existing one. Aquiring the land alone would be ridiculous.

The freight trains would obviously keep using the existing CP line. Only passenger trains would use the new connector to the GO line. If it were built alongside the 407/401 connector, that would eliminate land acquisition on that part and reduce construction costs as well. It would only be 9 km or so of completely new right of way. The existing line isn't a simple upgrade - it's a complete replacement of the rails, ties, and ballast, upgrading the ditches and signaling, and realigning some of the curves (which involves land acquisition), not to mention the Agincourt Yard and Don Branch. That's why the cost is so high. Connecting to Lakeshore would maximize the investment.

 

[TOareaFan]

I think a page or so back it was pointed out that the province/feds had budgeted, what, $300 million for this line (some will/do argue if this is an appropriate spend for the passenger yields but lets assume it is) but that the new cost projection is $500 million.

Aside from the usual "cars off roads benefits of this line, one of the stated benefits is the commercial/industiral/business expansion that it will bring to the Peterborough area...so a benefit to Peterborough.

Isn't the funding solution the same as we now do with Hospitals in the provicnce? That is, once the higher levels of government approve a project and determine its cost they put it back to the local community and tell them to raise/commit "$X" to the project. So, if the people of the Peterborough area want this $500 million project and the higher levels of government say they will contribute $300 million then they should raise/commit the $200 million (I think someone else pointed out that the difference is really unallocated contingency so what they would really be doing is guaranteeing a cost overrun and they may not have to spend anything). Perhaps they could apply a fee/tax/toll on the new freight users they get to pay for it...or something like that.

Just an idea, and as transportation fights/competes for an allocation of Provincial/Federal funds with other needs such as healthcare, it may have to adopt similar funding ideas/structures.

 

[nrb]

The thing is the upgrades to the line aren't really going to increase freight usage. There are only about 4 companies that use the rail line and that is because the line comes right into the company grounds and they don't have to offload the containers from a station. I really don't think any other companies are going to utilize this line to get their goods to toronto when it's only a 1 1/2 hour transport truck drive. They would have to offload in peterborough to trucks anyway and it's just not efficient for the distance.

 

[TOareaFan]

The thing is the upgrades to the line aren't really going to increase freight usage. There are only about 4 companies that use the rail line and that is because the line comes right into the company grounds and they don't have to offload the containers from a station. I really don't think any other companies are going to utilize this line to get their goods to toronto when it's only a 1 1/2 hour transport truck drive. They would have to offload in peterborough to trucks anyway and it's just not efficient for the distance.

I am not suggesting it would.....but the section of the story in peterborough examiner (quoted below) says that the proponents from Peterborough do think it will. So my point is that if the Feds and Province think $300 million is a good number to invest in passenger rail to/from Peterborough but that local people see this as an opportunity to piggy-back on that investment and gain economic activitiy, they should pay for that out of the increased economic activity that they get.

Metrolinx doesn't factor in the other economic activity, such as freight and business activity, when it's determining the feasibility or viability of the commuter rail line project, Coun. Len Vass said.

"From what I'm hearing out there in the rumour mill is that Metrolinx, to some extent, thinks the world ends at the end of the GTA," he said.

The federal government has been the driver of the Peterborough-Toronto rail link and it needs to step up to the plate, Coun. Bob Hall said.

"I hope Mr. Del Mastro shows some leadership and finds some money in the federal budget to make it cost effective," he said. "It's a service that will expand the city of Peterborough. I think it will bring jobs and opportunities.

"It's one of those investments that you're investing for the long term... I think it's a 100-year investment."

 

[Mapleson]

If the people of Peterborough want to step-up for the funding shortfall, I'm all for this. However, just because you're thinking of this as a 100-year investment doesn't mean there aren't higher yielding 100-year investments that could be made. Standardizing localized investment thresholds means you can have both a better social yield and better public demand/adoption/usage because local demand is met by equalitable funding. Fund projects to your level of returned social value and any deficit is met by local funding.

They use such a comparitive system across the whole of the UK. Allowing the need for a $20,000 directional sign to compete against a $5 billion motorway expansion.

 

[TOareaFan]

If the people of Peterborough want to step-up for the funding shortfall, I'm all for this. However, just because you're thinking of this as a 100-year investment doesn't mean there aren't higher yielding 100-year investments that could be made. Standardizing localized investment thresholds means you can have both a better social yield and better public demand/adoption/usage because local demand is met by equalitable funding. Fund projects to your level of returned social value and any deficit is met by local funding.

They use such a comparitive system across the whole of the UK. Allowing the need for a $20,000 directional sign to compete against a $5 billion motorway expansion.

Agree....and, as I pointed out, we already use this same formula here in Ontario for Hospitals.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I would love sustained federal funding of rail beyond the limited scope of VIA. However, GO/Metrolinx are provincially funded. Ontario last year spent 43% and is planning to spend 35.3% of transportation infrastructure spending on transit/Metrolinx. However, all transportation infrastructure spending is set for 30% of infrasturcture investment this year, fighting for tax dollars against health care, education, justice, environment, and debt payments. Transit infrastructure funding is 10% of all Ontario infrastructure.

I would love to raise taxes and pay off the national/provincial/municipal debt, create a wealth fund to pay for infrastructure expansion. I don't think enough people would agree to my tax reforms do so within our lifetime. Until then, we live in a beggar's world. The federal deficit right now is driven by legislated fixed transfer payment increases to proviences. That deal is set to expire in 2013 with the Conservatives looking to redress the taxation balance between the parties. In other words, they are planning to balance the national budget by downloading the tax burden to the proviences. That would leave three options: higher taxes, lower services/infrastructure investment, or higher debt.

We need to figure out on a fundamental level where we want Canada and the world to be in 50 and 100 years. Adjust taxes and immigration policy to fit the need.

I completely, totally 100% agree with this. We've just got so much potential, but aren't acting on it. With immigration, we could be a world power coming on the heels of the US or China within 50 years, with little drawbacks to your average Canadian. Any other country in the world would be hopping on this opportunity, but we're being stagnant in almost every way. Canada really needs to get up in there.

With just the sheer number of people wanting to come to Canada, Southern Ontario and Quebec could very, very easily have the kind of super-dense populations that allow for advanced rail networks in Europe. The biggest problem I see is getting people into small towns and rural areas instead of keeping them all in cities, but I believe it can be accomplished. Again, it's just a question of will. I think Canadians want it, but we don't realize that we do. Or we don't realize that we can do it.

 

[nfitz]

Even if this could be built for $300 million instead of $500 million. Wow, the numbers in the report are stunning.

The current (2006) number of trips in AM Peak from Peterborough to Toronto is only 410 people per day (Exhibit 4.15 - 230 to downtown, 180 to rest of GTA). This is forecast to grow to 780 in 2031. Transit currently gets only 80 of those trips.

If current travel is so low, why did our government waste so much money on even writing a report? I know it was the federal government pushing it. How completely fiscally irresponsible is this?

 

[valkoholic]

I'm wondering why this wasn't done as part of a more comprenhesive study regarding the use of CP's rail lines as part of the GO system. It seems like some of the improvements they identify would be useful for other services. For example, the CP line through downtown also runs through the middle of Durham (as opposed to the Peterborough line which seems to run through the middle of nowhere).

I think at some point we should debate an approach that treats all rail infrastucture in the GTA as a public asset. One agency would ensure the needs of CN, CP, and GO are met by, among other things:

- requiring the sharing of track by the freight carriers
- investing in the overall network rather than just GO. For example, if the CN line through north Toronto were upgraded and more intensively managed could it handle CP's traffic from it's mid-town Toronto line?

 

[nrb]

Even if this could be built for $300 million instead of $500 million. Wow, the numbers in the report are stunning.

The current (2006) number of trips in AM Peak from Peterborough to Toronto is only 410 people per day (Exhibit 4.15 - 230 to downtown, 180 to rest of GTA). This is forecast to grow to 780 in 2031. Transit currently gets only 80 of those trips.

If current travel is so low, why did our government waste so much money on even writing a report? I know it was the federal government pushing it. How completely fiscally irresponsible is this?

There are two reasons why it got so much traction. Peterborough is a swing riding and the MP used it as a campaign issue. And the rail line also goes through jim flaherty's riding. My take on this is everyone knew it wasn't feasible, but it made a lot of political sense.

 

[toraerach]

If current travel is so low, why did our government waste so much money on even writing a report? I know it was the federal government pushing it.

Because Peterborough is the swing riding.

I lived in Peterborough for five years (just until the end of April), and aside from the train I cannot think of a single thing Dean Del Mastro has done for the community (except for his crazy IMAX on Little Lake scheme). Seriously, aside from the train the only notable thing he's done is send out a ridiculous amount of misspelt flyers. Hopefully the good people of Peterborough will kick this awful MP out come next election now that his train plan has been derailed (pardon the pun).

Somewhat related to the train (in that the train could act as catalyst to suburbanizing Peterborough), I've heard that recently the City's jumped on the New Urbanist bandwagon and that these principles will be applied to the new community planned for (I believe) Chemong Rd. I'm a bit skeptical, as anything that's been built over the past 20 or so years has been anything but urban (not that much was built compared to GTA municipalities), but I'm hopeful.

It's hard to say where Peterborough will be 20 years from now. It's a strange little city filled with paradoxes, but it seems to work for the most part and remains probably one of the most vibrant cities of its size in the province. My musings as to why probably belong in a separate thread, but I would really hate to see it gutted and transformed into some exurban wasteland. No GO train service is good news for me with this in mind. They should invest that money into better local transit, a homeless shelter, or one of the 2000 other things Peterborough needs before a train.