Ontario Northland/Northern Ontario Transportation

[lenaitch]

So, somewhere like Thunder Bay becomes a hub for them.

If you mean the private contract partner, yes, I believe they are based out of Thunder Bay.

This idea of bringing back the Ontario Northland is lunacy. Just because some politicians {with their eyes on the next election} says "build it and they will come" doesn't make it so. Ontario, of all places, knows the dangers of letting politicians set transport policy.

SSM, NB, and most smaller centres in Northern Ontario have shrinking population and a meandering train won't make any difference. Even the 2 largest centres of Sudbury and TB are just holding their own. Why in God's name would someone take the train to Toronto when they could fly or drive on the greatly improved highway system? They are trying to get ridership from a population that no longer exists. There are precious few transport dollars as it is and the last place it should go is to ultra low ridership routes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "holding their own" but Sudbury is pretty stable and shows small year-over-year growth. You are correct that the others are flat or slightly shrinking over the past few years. The Hwy 69 corridor, while a work in progress, is far from completely greatly improved. While I accept your argument that the numbers supporting passenger rail might not be there, not all transportation needs in the north necessarily involve travel to the centre of the universe. While it is true that transportation dollars are limited, part of it is their - northern Ontario taxpayers - dollars. Taxpayers outside of the GTA are part of the pool that feeds the gazillions of dollars that go toward the TTC and ML.

 

[micheal_can]

Just like how Sudbury and North Bay have one terminal for intercity buses, the same can be done, if not already done for Thunder Bay.

If you mean the private contract partner, yes, I believe they are based out of Thunder Bay.



I'm not sure what you mean by "holding their own" but Sudbury is pretty stable and shows small year-over-year growth. You are correct that the others are flat or slightly shrinking over the past few years. The Hwy 69 corridor, while a work in progress, is far from completely greatly improved. While I accept your argument that the numbers supporting passenger rail might not be there, not all transportation needs in the north necessarily involve travel to the centre of the universe. While it is true that transportation dollars are limited, part of it is their - northern Ontario taxpayers - dollars. Taxpayers outside of the GTA are part of the pool that feeds the gazillions of dollars that go toward the TTC and ML.

This idea of bringing back the Ontario Northland is lunacy. Just because some politicians {with their eyes on the next election} says "build it and they will come" doesn't make it so. Ontario, of all places, knows the dangers of letting politicians set transport policy.

SSM, NB, and most smaller centres in Northern Ontario have shrinking population and a meandering train won't make any difference. Even the 2 largest centres of Sudbury and TB are just holding their own. Why in God's name would someone take the train to Toronto when they could fly or drive on the greatly improved highway system? They are trying to get ridership from a population that no longer exists. There are precious few transport dollars as it is and the last place it should go is to ultra low ridership routes.

How would you like to be transported when you are old/frail/weak? Picture someone coming to either Sudbury or Thunder Bay hospital for needed medical care. Would you rather be cramped on a bus, cramped on a plane, or have space on a train?

You cannot get there from here.... Many small communities are not served by bus. they are also not served by plane. However, they are on a major rail line and could be served by a train.

SSiguy2 does not seem to know much about Northern Ontario. Sort of like all those Toronto Politicians.

 

[nfitz]

SSiguy2 does not seem to know much about Northern Ontario. Sort of like all those Toronto Politicians.

Yeah ... that's it ...

 

[amnesiajune]

How would you like to be transported when you are old/frail/weak? Picture someone coming to either Sudbury or Thunder Bay hospital for needed medical care. Would you rather be cramped on a bus, cramped on a plane, or have space on a train?

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

 

[lenaitch]

Just like how Sudbury and North Bay have one terminal for intercity buses, the same can be done, if not already done for Thunder Bay.

One down side - at least in NB, I don't know about Sudbury, is that that the intercity bus terminal (also the former train station) is removed from the city transit hub (hub-based transit is fairly common in smaller cities) and neither is suitable to be both. I also don't know if a city bus route goes to the intercity terminal.

 

[micheal_can]

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

Sounds reasonable. When does the service start?

 

[micheal_can]

One down side - at least in NB, I don't know about Sudbury, is that that the intercity bus terminal (also the former train station) is removed from the city transit hub (hub-based transit is fairly common in smaller cities) and neither is suitable to be both. I also don't know if a city bus route goes to the intercity terminal.

ONR Bus does sometimes serve the City bus hub. However, there are city buses that will get you to the main hub. They finally amalgamated the Greyhound and ONR bus hubs into one.

 

[mind_the_gap]

One down side - at least in NB, I don't know about Sudbury, is that that the intercity bus terminal (also the former train station) is removed from the city transit hub (hub-based transit is fairly common in smaller cities) and neither is suitable to be both. I also don't know if a city bus route goes to the intercity terminal.

Same situation in Sudbury. The ON terminal there is rather pathetic. Unlike NB though, there is a city bus stop right beside the station for a pretty frequent route (the 002 Second Avenue bus), or you can walk ten minutes on the gravel shoulder of the road for another bus (401 Barry Downe), but signage is definitely lacking.

The sad reality with Sudbury is that the downtown transit terminal is ideally located for intercity buses, but it is very congested, and can't accommodate much more than it already does (specifically weekdays). It doesn't help riders either that ON buses coming from Toronto stop there, but southbound buses don't. Also, the Sudbury ON terminal is located in the north end, which isn't convenient for those in the south. Hence the request stop at Four Corners.

Why they can't simply have stops along the street (either Cedar or Elm), I don't understand.

Just from my experiences from living in Sudbury, I found the whole transit situation there very backwards. The Toronto-bound ON stop at Four Corners doesn't even have a bus shelter (or signage), for example.

 

[ShonTron]

One down side - at least in NB, I don't know about Sudbury, is that that the intercity bus terminal (also the former train station) is removed from the city transit hub (hub-based transit is fairly common in smaller cities) and neither is suitable to be both. I also don't know if a city bus route goes to the intercity terminal.

North Bay isn't too bad, actually. The bus terminal (which was once an intermodal station, with the train platform) has direct access with Northgate Mall, which has a food court, and North Bay Transit service. But the downside is that is only as good as the mall's opening hours.

It could be worse: after Brad Wall axed the STC bus system in Saskatchewan, Greyhound now stops at Regina Airport (which has no transit service) and a Husky truck stop on the outskirts of Saskatoon. In Edmonton, Greyhound moved from downtown to the VIA station, which also has no ETS transit service.

 

[ssiguy2]

Just like how Sudbury and North Bay have one terminal for intercity buses, the same can be done, if not already done for Thunder Bay.




You cannot get there from here.... Many small communities are not served by bus. they are also not served by plane. However, they are on a major rail line and could be served by a train.

SSiguy2 does not seem to know much about Northern Ontario. Sort of like all those Toronto Politicians.

So what you are saying is that routes that can't even support a bus service should get train service? If a route can't afford to even fill a bus with passengers then how the hell will it fill a train? Isn't that like saying we can't fill up a public school so we should have a university? If people choose to live in very isolated locations that's their business but they can't expect the same level of essential services enjoyed in more populace areas like transportation.

As for not knowing Northern Ontario, well I am no expert but I have driven thru it and been on a bus threw it so am familiar. No they should not get train service as I don't even think any areas of the country should have train service all year except The Corridor and Calgary-Edmonton which doesn't have any connection at all. I can perhaps see Maritime service in the summer.

Small wonder Canada has such a lousy rail service, we spend good money after bad on routes with abysmal ridership and little on the routes that actually make sense.

 

[lenaitch]

Why they can't simply have stops along the street (either Cedar or Elm), I don't understand.

It may have something to do with the terms of their operating licence (revenue stops in an area served by a transit service). I don't know. It could possibly amended but I don't know the ins-and-outs of such things. For a time I drove for an out-of-town Pearson airport van service. We were prevented by our provincial licence from dropping off within our area of service (county) or picking up outside of our county.

So what you are saying is that routes that can't even support a bus service should get train service? If a route can't afford to even fill a bus with passengers then how the hell will it fill a train? Isn't that like saying we can't fill up a public school so we should have a university? If people choose to live in very isolated locations that's their business but they can't expect the same level of essential services enjoyed in more populace areas like transportation.

As for not knowing Northern Ontario, well I am no expert but I have driven thru it and been on a bus threw it so am familiar. No they should not get train service as I don't even think any areas of the country should have train service all year except The Corridor and Calgary-Edmonton which doesn't have any connection at all. I can perhaps see Maritime service in the summer.

Small wonder Canada has such a lousy rail service, we spend good money after bad on routes with abysmal ridership and little on the routes that actually make sense.

By that logic, an alternative argument could be made that people living in high density areas shouldn't expect public funds to enhance their service. Multiple billions of public funds from outside of the GTA are being directed towards public transit. And I don't think anybody has suggested that the buses aren't sufficiently used.

 

[MisterF]

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

To be fair, you could use that same argument about the cost of subsidizing the 400 extension to Sudbury. Any argument against rail spending in remote areas could be used against highway spending too.

By that logic, an alternative argument could be made that people living in high density areas shouldn't expect public funds to enhance their service. Multiple billions of public funds from outside of the GTA are being directed towards public transit. And I don't think anybody has suggested that the buses aren't sufficiently used.

Actually the logic would do the opposite of what you think. Since high density areas are more efficient in terms of government services, energy use, infrastructure, etc., using that same logic would mean that people living in high density areas should be rewarded with increased levels of spending. You seem to be under the erroneous belief that rural areas are subsidizing the GTA when the reality is the opposite. The GTA generates far more wealth than gets spent within it. Yes, areas outside the GTA are paying for urban public transit, but the GTA pays for spending in rural areas to a greater extent. That's the whole reason cities have always existed: they're efficient and they generate enormous amounts of wealth.

 

[amnesiajune]

To be fair, you could use that same argument about the cost of subsidizing the 400 extension to Sudbury. Any argument against rail spending in remote areas could be used against highway spending too.

The difference is that (1) lots of people actually use the highway, (2) the highway doesn't cost hundreds of dollars for each person who uses it, and (3) there isn't a drastically cheaper and arguably better alternative to the highway.

If there wasn't an alternative to rail we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nobody's proposing to cancel the Polar Bear Express. But the Northlander does have an alternative - the bus is faster, much more cost-effective, serves more communities, and is more reliable than the train service. The train has absolutely no benefit worth subsidizing (especially at a cost of hundreds of dollars per passenger).

 

[MisterF]

The difference is that (1) lots of people actually use the highway, (2) the highway doesn't cost hundreds of dollars for each person who uses it, and (3) there isn't a drastically cheaper and arguably better alternative to the highway.

If there wasn't an alternative to rail we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nobody's proposing to cancel the Polar Bear Express. But the Northlander does have an alternative - the bus is faster, much more cost-effective, serves more communities, and is more reliable than the train service. The train has absolutely no benefit worth subsidizing (especially at a cost of hundreds of dollars per passenger).

1) If the rail line got anywhere near the investment and subsidies that the highways get it lots of people would use it too. When we spend billions on highways and next to nothing on rail of course ridership is going to suffer.
2) Are you sure? The Highway 400 extension from Parry Sound to Sudbury costs an average of $10 million/km plus $8-12 million per interchange. That adds up to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 billion, plus whatever they spent on Highway 11. Maintenance of northern freeways isn't cheap either.
3) The alternative to rail is those two highways, which are in no way drastically cheaper than rail. Frequent, reasonably fast trains serving North Bay and Sudbury would likely have been cheaper than a freeway and an expressway built to near-freeway standards. It's too late now and any rail project will perform poorly because driving is now so convenient. But in general, any argument against a rail investment can be used against a similar highway investment.

 

[amnesiajune]

1) If the rail line got anywhere near the investment and subsidies that the highways get it lots of people would use it too. When we spend billions on highways and next to nothing on rail of course ridership is going to suffer.
2) Are you sure? The Highway 400 extension from Parry Sound to Sudbury costs an average of $10 million/km plus $8-12 million per interchange. That adds up to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 billion, plus whatever they spent on Highway 11. Maintenance of northern freeways isn't cheap either.
3) The alternative to rail is those two highways, which are in no way drastically cheaper than rail. Frequent, reasonably fast trains serving North Bay and Sudbury would likely have been cheaper than a freeway and an expressway built to near-freeway standards. It's too late now and any rail project will perform poorly because driving is now so convenient. But in general, any argument against a rail investment can be used against a similar highway investment.

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.

If the rail line got anywhere near the investment and subsidies that the highways get it lots of people would use it too. When we spend billions on highways and next to nothing on rail of course ridership is going to suffer.

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.

Are you sure? The Highway 400 extension from Parry Sound to Sudbury costs an average of $10 million/km plus $8-12 million per interchange. That adds up to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 billion, plus whatever they spent on Highway 11. Maintenance of northern freeways isn't cheap either.

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.

But in general, any argument against a rail investment can be used against a similar highway investment.

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.