Quebec-Windsor Corridor

[crs1026]

Now there's a can o' worms that hasn't been tapped in a while.

I’m assuming that the relaxed schedule and expanded consultation and development process has resolved that - the curvy and intrusive Sharbot Lake routing only mattered when VIA was proposing the most minimalist construction envelope and trying to have the project done by, um, about now.
The proposed bypass of that stretch makes much more sense, and now that there is a willingness to take longer and spend more,. I am betting that all the proponents go that way for both the “basic” and “high end” proposals. But I could be wrong.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

The proposed bypass of that stretch makes much more sense, and now that there is a willingness to take longer and spend more,. I am betting that all the proponents go that way for both the “basic” and “high end” proposals. But I could be wrong.

Have we seen the two proposed HFR alignments from each of the three bidders? I'd assume they've all bypassed that problematic section(s) differently for both scenarios - resulting in six proposed bypasses.

Though how much did the RFP specify the route alignment? For all I know, someone could have proposed Lakeshore or a greenfield.

 

[crs1026]

Have we seen the two proposed HFR alignments from each of the three bidders? I'd assume they've all bypassed that problematic section(s) differently for both scenarios - resulting in six proposed bypasses.

Though how much did the RFP specify the route alignment? For all I know, someone could have proposed Lakeshore or a greenfield.

All the RFP specified was Peterborough. Even there, one can't assume that requires downtown past the old CP station. The proponents can pick their own routes.

The Sharbot Lake bypass alignment was put forward by people in the town, iirc. It made sense in terms of topography and plans to widen Highway 7, but even there, no guarantee that it's what any of the proposals will select. We have to wait and see.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

I’m assuming that the relaxed schedule and expanded consultation and development process has resolved that - the curvy and intrusive Sharbot Lake routing only mattered when VIA was proposing the most minimalist construction envelope and trying to have the project done by, um, about now.
The proposed bypass of that stretch makes much more sense, and now that there is a willingness to take longer and spend more,. I am betting that all the proponents go that way for both the “basic” and “high end” proposals. But I could be wrong.

- Paul

I was thinking more of the comment about running HFR/HSR along the lakeshore corridor.

 

[roger1818]

And then you could end the charade of running any form of HSR through Sharbot Lake to Peterborough, and route it along the existing population bases of the VIA Lakeshore Line

Because the perfect place to run high speed trains that don’t stop, is through density populated neighbourhoods, where you maximize the number of crossings that need to be grade separated.

 

[Urban Sky]

Because the perfect place to run high speed trains that don’t stop, is through density populated neighbourhoods, where you maximize the number of crossings that need to be grade separated.

Thank you, this is exactly the issue:
Commuter Rail depends on corridors of frequent population centers (approx. every 5-10 km) and the main cost driver is corridor length.
Conventional Intercity Rail depends on corridors of semi-frequent population centers (approx. every 20-50 km) and the main challenge is to balance the number of O-Ds served with travel time (as both increase with the number of stops made by each train).
High Speed Rail depends on very few, very large population centers and the main cost driver is having to plough through urban areas (requiring expensive grade separations and property acquisitions).

Once we acknowledge the above, it becomes clear that Peterborough being the only noteworthy population center between Ottawa (Barrhaven) and Toronto (Locust Hill) makes the Peterborough corridor ideal for High Speed Rail and the Lakeshore ideal for conventional intercity rail service. It’s essential to understand that the same near-complete lack of urban areas along the Peterborough which strongly favours HSR makes it a horrible choice for commuter rail, just like the string of small or mid-sized cities along the Lakeshore strongly favours conventional intercity rail but escalates the construction costs for HSR and undermines the viability of conventional intercity rail, as all these cities will frenetically lobby for having HSR trains stop for them, which will canibalize the ridership for the conventional intercity rail services.

The two main pillars (and, honestly, the brilliance) of the HFR proposal is to operate fast express trains and slow intercity trains separate from each other and to route Montreal-Toronto express travellers through Ottawa (thus merging all express travel into a single M-O-T service). Routing express trains via the Lakeshore would expose the HFR project to exactly the kind of Express-vs-Local-markets conflicts which it was designed to avoid or even solve…

 

[6ixGod]

The Amtrak plan only entails having their trains stop at Windsor and then have passengers switch to VIA trains headed to Toronto. The frequency likely won't be more than a couple trains a day. That wouldn't be enough to discourage GO/Metrolinx if they were considering expanding in that direction.

Well that is just silly.

 

[CapitalSeven]

All the RFP specified was Peterborough. Even there, one can't assume that requires downtown past the old CP station. The proponents can pick their own routes.

The Sharbot Lake bypass alignment was put forward by people in the town, iirc. It made sense in terms of topography and plans to widen Highway 7, but even there, no guarantee that it's what any of the proposals will select. We have to wait and see.

- Paul

The people of Sharbot Lake wanted a long bypass north of Hwy 7, but I think there is a more official route involving a sort of causeway at the south end of the town. The northern route has some very uneven terrain (I've driven past it several times) and the cost would be in the billions territory.

 

[Urban Sky]

Well that is just silly.

No, what’s silly is the status quo, which makes travelling by rail from Toronto to Chicago all but unviable. If you will have to get off the train anyways to clear customs, might as well change trains at that point…

 

[Northern Light]

But I think with Amtrak announcing the return of the Chicago-Detroit-Toronto train (at some point), GO just gave up on the idea.

Metrolinx neither prioritized London, nor did it abandon it on account of Amtrak.

The service was launched prematurely for political reasons and axed due to a short-term capital project, and a further political choice not to expend the $$ necessary in the short term to make the London service viable (remember that was a Ford campaign promise).

Mx just carries the government's water.

 

[Northern Light]

The Amtrak plan only entails having their trains stop at Windsor and then have passengers switch to VIA trains headed to Toronto. The frequency likely won't be more than a couple trains a day. That wouldn't be enough to discourage GO/Metrolinx if they were considering expanding in that direction.

For UT"ers not up to date on the plan:

Source:

Chicago-Toronto train service to return by 2027

The business case for a cross-border passenger rail connection was submitted by Amtrak and VIA Rail late October, and the mayors of Detroit and Windsor have both sent letters of support to Transport Canada.

www.transportaction.ca

Current to Nov' 23

 

[roger1818]

This whole discussion about the O-Train VIA Rail Station name could also apply to Montreal's Metro. For someone trying to get to Gare Central using STM's official PDF Metro Map. The only indication that you need to use Boneventure Station is a tiny icon, similar to OC Transpo's map, though OC Transpo's map uses the VIA logo instead of a generic train logo, since VIA is the only railway that serves Ottawa Station.

Then there is the whole thing about wayfinding. In Ottawa it is pretty obvoius how to get between the train station and the O-Train staiton. In Montreal, it is a very poorly signed maze between the two stations.

 

[Urban Sky]

This whole discussion about the O-Train VIA Rail Station name could also apply to Montreal's Metro. For someone trying to get to Gare Central using STM's official PDF Metro Map. The only indication that you need to use Boneventure Station is a tiny icon, similar to OC Transpo's map, though OC Transpo's map uses the VIA logo instead of a generic train logo, since VIA is the only railway that serves Ottawa Station.

Then there is the whole thing about wayfinding. In Ottawa it is pretty obvoius how to get between the train station and the O-Train staiton. In Montreal, it is a very poorly signed maze between the two stations.

I agree that the wayfinding leaves much to be desired, but naming “Bonaventure” after Gare Centrale reminds me of the Lonely Planet guide describing Frankfurt-Hahn Airport with the following kind words:

Only cynics like Ryanair would argue that there is a second airport in Frankfurt.

The problem with Bonaventure station is that it ignores Gare Centrale in its location (making McGill station for many passengers - myself included - the more convenient access point as it is on the green line and barely further than Bonaventure), whereas the problem with Ottawa’s “Tremblay” station is that it ignores Ottawa (VIA) Station in its name. Only one of these two issues can be changed in the short- or medium-run…

 

[roger1818]

No, what’s silly is the status quo, which makes travelling by rail from Toronto to Chicago all but unviable. If you will have to get off the train anyways to clear customs, might as well change trains at that point…

To be fair, the "silly" part is having the transfer in Windsor. Detroit is a far more significant destination, so having to transfer just to travel 1 stop on the Wolverine doesn't make sense. Michigan Central needs to be upgraded anyway, so why not add the customs facilities there. One of the Wolverine trains would still need to be detoured to Michigan Central (though it would make sense to detour them all and create a new regional train to Pontiac, possibly extending it to either Flint or Grand Rapids), but all of the VIA trains to Windsor could be extended to Detroit.

As discussed before, the issues with this idea are:

1. Convincing the federal government that they should fund a VIA Rail extension into the USA.
2. The agreement to use the CPKC tunnel is with Amtrak not VIA.

 

[Urban Sky]

To be fair, the "silly" part is having the transfer in Windsor. Detroit is a far more significant destination, so having to transfer just to travel 1 stop on the Wolverine doesn't make sense. Michigan Central needs to be upgraded anyway, so why not add the customs facilities there. One of the Wolverine trains would still need to be detoured to Michigan Central (though it would make sense to detour them all and create a new regional train to Pontiac, possibly extending it to either Flint or Grand Rapids), but all of the VIA trains to Windsor could be extended to Detroit.

As discussed before, the issues with this idea are:

1. Convincing the federal government that they should fund a VIA Rail extension into the USA.
2. The agreement to use the CPKC tunnel is with Amtrak not VIA.

I agree that the immigrations checks should be at Michigan Central, but the customs facility in Windsor should work as a stop-gap which might cut a full decade from the timeline to restore cross-border rail service.

As for 2.), this is not a constraint, as a VIA train can always formally become an Amtrak train before entering the tunnel segment, just like Amtrak’s Maple Leaf formally becomes a VIA train when operating on Canadian soil, thus obviating the need for Amtrak to negotiate with CN or Metrolinx for track access. Amtrak would still hold the contract with the tunnel owners and then ask VIA to operate the trains jn the negotiated slots. Happens all the time across the entire transportation industry…