That’s my point. Kingston can’t be the next California, because VIA has no quasi-403b authority to negotiate with Ontario to maintain service. VIA moves to the Havelock line, Transport Canada and CN say “guess you’re done with Kingston, eh?”, and VIA has no authority to say “piss off, we’re talking to Ontario about what they need”. Sure, VIA can withdraw, and GO can start at square zero to convince CN to accept local trains..... that’s passive aggressive transport policy.
The question I have is why can't Metrolinx start negotiating today to take over from VIA? The situation we have comes down to the fact that we have a this peculiar situation in Canada where the provinces largely ignore their responsibility to provide intercity rail. You don't need specific authorities to transfer a service. That may speak to leverage and price. But it does not at all speak to intent. And there's no intent to provide intercity rail for the most part. What's particularly bizarre is that we don't think the same way in Canada about ferries. Just rail.
Absolutely none of the TGV lines resulted in reduction of local service on the parallel legacy lines that TGV overtook. Similarly in Italy. Check out service to Beaune, France, or Avignon. I would suggest that no other jurisdiction has implemented HxR in that manner.
They also didn't have a government bean counter who made their HSR projects contingent on reducing subsequent subsidies.
6-10 is fine. my question is.....what enforceable instrument assures us that the frequency will stay at that level? Ask London, Chatham, Stratford, Niagara Falls or Sarnia about how that works.
Right. There's no guarantee. You willing to see HFR fail on the insistence that a guarantee (heretofore not provided to any other city) be given to the Lakeshore communities before HFR launches?
Moreover, if I were in any of those communities, I would be asking why Kingston gets more service than my town? Ridership really is the only fair way to apportion a service that is inherently dependent on taxpayer subsidy. Any other scheme is effectively the government deciding which community to subsidize more. Such subsidies can be hidden while providing other services. When the cover falls, the justification to keep up the subsidy ends.
One of those non-sequiturs that I referred to is, HFR is grounded on the idea that frequency (moreso than speed) is what sells tickets. So why does secondary service work differently?
ROI. Simple as that. Given that CN owns this line, there will be costs associated with running more trains. And given that ridership will be limited, every train added will have a diminishing (even a negative) return. In a world where those escalating costs are picked up by federal or provincial taxpayers, a higher level of service can be provided. Absent that dream world, their choice is between less service and no service.
Should Ontario contribute? Absolutely. But we can’t replace today’s network with a quasi-air facility that only serves places on the air grid....Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec aren’t enough, even if the business case is grounded in replacing hourly flights with hourly trains that offer a reasonable alternative considering price, trip time, and amenities.
Yes we can. And if we care at all about addressing issues like climate change we must.
I am curious what you think the priority should be if it isn't to reduce those aviation emissions, reduce pressure on existing airports and reduce some driving between those major metros.
I wonder also how Drummondville and Sherbrooke would fare once HFR runs through Trois Rivieres. Are they locked out of the network?
Sure, I have trouble justifying continued service to Casselman and Moose Creek once HFR is implemented. But there are medium sized places that ought to be served.
Again, why should this be VIA's problem? Why is this not ARTM's problem?
Recall former VIA CEO YD-S’s reaction when Ontario first floated its HSR Toronto-Windsor proposal. For a time, it gained ground faster than VIA’s HFR plan. YD-S was apopleptic, and for good reason. It turned out that Kathleen Wynne was blowing smoke, with neither the money nor the political momentum to do more than have Collenette do his “study”. But, for a time it looked like Ontario had the motivation and the money, while VIA was being obstructed by a hostile federal bureaucracy and neglected by an apathetic cabinet, and could do nothing but sit on the sidelines and breathe Ontario’s dust. None of that could be called good federal-provincial integrated planning.
"Apopleptic"? I didn't see that. Did he not like a competing proposal? Sure. Who would? Especially since it was yet another HSR proposal and provided the Ontario government another excuse to duck out of discussing intercity travel. Looks like he was proven right in the end too.
From my perspective, you seem much too ready to give Queen's Park a pass on everything and blame VIA and the feds. I don't see it like that. And Ontario HSR should help explain why. Good "federal-provincial integrated planning" should have involved Queen's Park talking to VIA, asking what they were working on and how the effort could be integrated and coordinated. Not simply announcing an HSR on their own with no due regard to timeline, funding strategy,etc. Turns out, Wynne was not interested in building HSR, just proposing it as a campaign prop/stunt. I would bet money that YDS saw this coming a mile away and so couldn't hide his annoyance. The most I'd say he should be accused of is being undiplomatic.
ps. In case anyone thinks I have something against Kingston.... I actually think it's a great town with a ton of promise. It's just that I think we've come to a decision point where VIA has to make tough choices, and I believe they should put inter-metro service first. If and when VIA gets on stable financial footing, I'd love to see VIA grow. Not just in Eastern Ontario but in other similar corridors.
