VIA Rail

[crs1026]

That ship sailed when GO started going to Kitchener, Barrie and Hamilton with regular service. Heck, there's now limited service to Niagara Falls. Eventually Peterborough residents are going to start asking why they have to pay VIA fares when GO services other remote suburbs and exurbs. And the line would be valuable to provide some kind of GO service to northeast Scarborough and eastern Markham, branched off Stouffville.

It will be interesting to see how GO and ML cooperate on Niagara and especially on Kitchener. I take your point about Peterborough wanting the same amenities as other regional GO end points (translation: Commuter pricing and ticketing, regional fare structure, unreserved and abundant seating). I hope that a cooperative Regional style service emerges for these routes.

As to GO service, I agree it would be useful, but I would end it at the 407, partly because that's a good strategic transfer point and partly because that's where the line veers away from suburban Scarborough/Markham into two sensitive river sheds and a lot of greenbelt. That's an area that should not see development, even if there is frequent train service crossing through it.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Metrolinx's mandate doesn't extend to Ottawa, so I don't se them wanting to start GO service here (though I would like to see them take over the reginal commuter buses that extend beyond OC Transpo's territory).

Sorry if I was unclear. I was referring to who pays for ML capital investment. I'm not sure if the Wynne-Trudeau announcement of federal support to ML is still on the books, and I forget if it was targeted towards LSE or Stouffville. I expect it would be a sore point if QP sees itself spending money to assure VIA of capacity. I'm talking new capital investment rather than whatever ML charges VIA to use its lines as they exist today. QP is never shy when it feels Ottawa isn't paying enough.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

It may not be common, but it can happen that an old, established becomes trendy and the property values of that neighborhood skyrocket compared to the rest of the city/municipality. In that case, people who have lived there for a long time can see a significant increase in taxes. For those cases, I would like to see some type of property tax control (similar to rent control) that limits how much the assessed value of a home can rise while it is under the same owner (without significant upgrades to the house). Once the property is sold or a major renovation is done, it would be reassessed to its current market value. This is a completely different case than what is being discussed though, where the whole city sees an increase in property value.

The term you are looking for is gentrification. It has happened in many place within Toronto and it's suburbs.

Maybe in Sudbury you don't do much planning for growth, but here in Ottawa at least, city council does a lot of growth planning. It may not be the type of growth you like (sprawl vs. densification) but you can't say city council isn't planning for it.

One part of growth planning we are weak at though is with schools. The province is very reactive rather than proactive. They will wait until the existing schools are bursting at the seams before they will even consider a proposal to build a new school, which will take another 5 years to plan and construct (and even then they will wait a few years before approving it).

In Sudbury, there is no real demand for housing like down south. A house for $300k is a really nice house, possibly waterfront. What does $300k get down in the GTA? Not much. You can still find some decent properties in London for around $300k that are worth getting. That is what I am talking about.

I wish Ontario would create an Agricultural Land Reserve, like they have in BC to help protect valuable farm land.

I hope that never happens. It is one part of the problem that has caused the skyrocketing prices for land in the GVA. Having said that, the Green Belt in both Toronto and Ottawa was supposed to be a similar thing, and look at what has happened there.

That is not VIA's job. That is the job of local authorities.

So, you are saying that if you know that your project will cause bad things, you are not going to mitigate them somehow? Via could go to the city and tell them they need a solid growth plan before they get HSR extended to it. I'd think the city council would move heaven and earth to ensure the plan is great as they know what a HSR station would mean for the city.

First off, the "explosion" will not be as huge as you think. Yes, there will be more commuters from London. But the kind of folks who have jobs that will allow them to WFH substantially and pay enough to afford an HFR/HSR a few times a week is a rather small set. They are a big enough set to provide base ridership for such a service. But not such a large set that London's growth rate would explode. This is a far bigger issue for cities that haven't seen the same ex-urban growth, like Peterborough. For London, those Toronto yuppies are already coming. They just won't be clogging up the highways now.

Next, don't blame VIA, Queen's Park or the Feds for shit planning in London. Blame the locals. Just look at the war that is going on with SHIFT. I saw the same crap in Ottawa a decade and a half ago. Locals who are convinced that their medium sized metro is some small town that they grew up in, and unwilling to invest in transit. Ottawa was able to push through. How London deals with it, is entirely up to London. They can choose to invest in transit and densify to keep housing affordable and convenient. Or they can keep building the crap Mississauga style subdivisions they are building at virtually every edge of the city today. Their choice.

This isn't about blame. This is about mitigating the inevitable. Yes, housing costs will go up. However, the rate is what causes the problem. The clogged highways is what is the only think keeping the growth slow. Without a good solid plan, HSR could cause housing prices to become unaffordable. Growth is good, unafordable isn't.

And? I have relatives in Toronto who complain about the price of housing there. Should we stop building all infrastructure and trash our immigration policy because some people are unhappy?

Ironically, if we had built this infrastructure decades ago, we would have see far more even development in these satellite cities. London, Kitchener, etc. would have been larger. The GTA would have been smaller. Being larger would have also allowed those cities to offer better amenities and public services. And made them more competitive attracting investment and jobs.

You talk about housing costs in London. Ever asked those young relatives of yours how the job market is? There's a reason my wife sees so many folks she recognizes from London on the subway in Toronto.

I have about 10 cousins who live in London. All are gainfully employed. They all have different education from barely high school to some college. They all make a decent living. As far as they say, the job market is good, if you are willing to work. Some work in insurance. A couple work in manufacturing. Others work in the automotive sector, and a few are in the food service. One even works for a farm. I'd say they have had no issues. We keep talking that f I ever moved, I could get a decent job too. I am one of those weird people that like winter, and their winters are sad.

Additional sidings, if not double track, would be certainly be needed if they were to share the track, but that could be co-ordinated.

Would having all station on a siding be enough?
Maybe double track for the GO sections and then single with sidings for the rest might be enough.

London will never {thank God} become like Kitchener. Unlike KWC, London will never be a Toronto commuter town and GO rail to the city would be a supreme waste of money. It will never become part of the Toronto urban blob as it is simply too far. London, unlike KWC, is also a regional centre and arguably the province's 3rd most important city.

London's fast growth is not due to Toronto commuters but rather Toronto escapees. People who are fleeing Toronto's high prices, horrid traffic, and high pressure do not look to KW as it is simply to close and sort of negates the purpose. London is growing due to seniors cashing out, young people fleeing to a more affordable city, telecommuters who only have to make it into the city once or maximum twice a week, and those simply looking for a more relaxed and less rushed lifestyle. KW & Hamilton simply don't offer those amenities. Conversely London does not offer the affordable alternative for people who still work in Toronto full-time that those 2 cities offer.

Don't be so sure. I never thought Barrie or Kitchener would be connected with GO. It isn't too much of a stretch to see the extensions over time getting to London.

I have always been told that Via does not and will not operate a commuter rail system. If HSR is built, they will. Either that or they make the cost and timing so bad that it is HSR, but not useful for the commuter.

 

[Bordercollie]

The term you are looking for is gentrification. It has happened in many place within Toronto and it's suburbs.



In Sudbury, there is no real demand for housing like down south. A house for $300k is a really nice house, possibly waterfront. What does $300k get down in the GTA? Not much. You can still find some decent properties in London for around $300k that are worth getting. That is what I am talking about.



I hope that never happens. It is one part of the problem that has caused the skyrocketing prices for land in the GVA. Having said that, the Green Belt in both Toronto and Ottawa was supposed to be a similar thing, and look at what has happened there.



So, you are saying that if you know that your project will cause bad things, you are not going to mitigate them somehow? Via could go to the city and tell them they need a solid growth plan before they get HSR extended to it. I'd think the city council would move heaven and earth to ensure the plan is great as they know what a HSR station would mean for the city.



This isn't about blame. This is about mitigating the inevitable. Yes, housing costs will go up. However, the rate is what causes the problem. The clogged highways is what is the only think keeping the growth slow. Without a good solid plan, HSR could cause housing prices to become unaffordable. Growth is good, unafordable isn't.



I have about 10 cousins who live in London. All are gainfully employed. They all have different education from barely high school to some college. They all make a decent living. As far as they say, the job market is good, if you are willing to work. Some work in insurance. A couple work in manufacturing. Others work in the automotive sector, and a few are in the food service. One even works for a farm. I'd say they have had no issues. We keep talking that f I ever moved, I could get a decent job too. I am one of those weird people that like winter, and their winters are sad.



Would having all station on a siding be enough?
Maybe double track for the GO sections and then single with sidings for the rest might be enough.



Don't be so sure. I never thought Barrie or Kitchener would be connected with GO. It isn't too much of a stretch to see the extensions over time getting to London.

I have always been told that Via does not and will not operate a commuter rail system. If HSR is built, they will. Either that or they make the cost and timing so bad that it is HSR, but not useful for the commuter.

Like it or not, they do from Oshawa, Oakville, Guelph, etc.

 

[micheal_can]

Like it or not, they do from Oshawa, Oakville, Guelph, etc.

I know it happens, but it is a higher cost, so it really doesn't happen much.

 

[Bordercollie]

I know it happens, but it is a higher cost, so it really doesn't happen much.

Time is money. If $20 gets you there 30 min faster, for some people it's worth it

 

[micheal_can]

Time is money. If $20 gets you there 30 min faster, for some people it's worth it

I know. I am not against Via running service that can be used as commuter service. I am against anyone running service that will be used as commuter service, without taking into account the sprawl that will follow it. So, HSR will be used as commuter service. That is why Via, if they run it, should be talking with the communities they will stop in to ensure the city is prepared for the sprawl that will follow.

 

[kEiThZ]

So, you are saying that if you know that your project will cause bad things, you are not going to mitigate them somehow? Via could go to the city and tell them they need a solid growth plan before they get HSR extended to it.

1) There's no HSR proposal from VIA to London. There's not even an HFR proposal from VIA to London. We're all speculating that VIA would pursue Toronto-Kitchener-London in a second phase. But that's easily half a decade or more off.

2) VIA has neither the ability nor role to assess impacts on housing from their infrastructure projects. All they can do is keep local municipal officials in the loop and let them determine the local impacts. From all that has come out, like say the Kingston hub from that city's mayor, they clearly do at least tell politicians in these cities and towns what they are planning years in advance.

3) All infrastructure that speeds up travel will bring in new residents. If local politicians don't know this or don't plan for this, that's on them. If suddenly aviation became cheaper and it was possible to commute by air from London, you would see the same impact. If we have self-driving cars in 10 years and special highways that allow 200 kph speeds, you'd see the same impact. It's up to local officials to stay aware of developments that impact their cities. You won't see Elon Musk briefing London City Councillors everytime he improve the autonomy of Teslas.

I'd think the city council would move heaven and earth to ensure the plan is great as they know what a HSR station would mean for the city.

They didn't do much for the Ontario HSR proposal. I don't expect different with the VIA HFR proposal when it eventually comes. London is a city filled with politicians who think public transport exists to move around students and retired people. Not a particular hit on London. Most smaller Ontario cities and towns have local politicians who think that way. So I wouldn't expect much.

Without a good solid plan, HSR could cause housing prices to become unaffordable. Growth is good, unafordable isn't.

HSR isn't going to make London suddenly cost the same as the GTA. It's still London. And it's still 200 km away. It also takes time for people with jobs and families to plan for and take advantage of such infrastructure. You won't suddenly see 50 000 lawyers, accountants and programmers move en masse from the GTA. What HSR or HFR might do is add to growth. Say an added 1% per year on top of existing growth trends. It will also grow the job market available to London professionals. Moving up won't have to mean moving out.

I have about 10 cousins who live in London. All are gainfully employed. They all have different education from barely high school to some college.

Good for your cousins. But that's not the type of people who usually leave these towns and cities. The folks my wife knows who left are all middle class professionals. Lawyers, doctors, accountants. One is a fashion designer. And another is a chef at a high end restaurant. If London was better connected and had a large base of upper income resident who could support more options (like a high end restaurant), more of those folks would still be in London. And that's the point. These are exactly the sort of people who would either stay in London or even move back, if the connectivity was better.

 

[micheal_can]

1) There's no HSR proposal from VIA to London. There's not even an HFR proposal from VIA to London. We're all speculating that VIA would pursue Toronto-Kitchener-London in a second phase. But that's easily half a decade or more off.

2) VIA has neither the ability nor role to assess impacts on housing from their infrastructure projects. All they can do is keep local municipal officials in the loop and let them determine the local impacts. From all that has come out, like say the Kingston hub from that city's mayor, they clearly do at least tell politicians in these cities and towns what they are planning years in advance.

3) All infrastructure that speeds up travel will bring in new residents. If local politicians don't know this or don't plan for this, that's on them. If suddenly aviation became cheaper and it was possible to commute by air from London, you would see the same impact. If we have self-driving cars in 10 years and special highways that allow 200 kph speeds, you'd see the same impact. It's up to local officials to stay aware of developments that impact their cities. You won't see Elon Musk briefing London City Councillors everytime he improve the autonomy of Teslas.

1) I know that, but when talking about it, we should also talk about doing it right. Ignoring the sprawl that will happen means we aren't doing it right.

2) That is what I am talking about. Others were thinking that I meant that they would bypass the city. No, I just mean good conversations about planning for the increase in passenger service.

3) Those won't have the same impact as a HSR will. Besides, those are private entities. Via is still public.

They didn't do much for the Ontario HSR proposal. I don't expect different with the VIA HFR proposal when it eventually comes. London is a city filled with politicians who think public transport exists to move around students and retired people. Not a particular hit on London. Most smaller Ontario cities and towns have local politicians who think that way. So I wouldn't expect much.

I know that. However, I'll bet that if HSR or GO were to be extended, those politicians would need to start thinking about it.

HSR isn't going to make London suddenly cost the same as the GTA. It's still London. And it's still 200 km away. It also takes time for people with jobs and families to plan for and take advantage of such infrastructure. You won't suddenly see 50 000 lawyers, accountants and programmers move en masse from the GTA. What HSR or HFR might do is add to growth. Say an added 1% per year on top of existing growth trends. It will also grow the job market available to London professionals. Moving up won't have to mean moving out.

Distance is not the key here, travel time is. That is why places like Hamilton, Kitchener, Barrie and Oshawa all are becoming bedroom communities for Toronto.

1% is fine. We were seeing closer to 10%-20% in Toronto and some parts of the GTA. That is not sustainable. When the bubble pops, which it might be doing, things will get bad and stay bad for a while. Let's learn from that and prevent other cities going through that.

Good for your cousins. But that's not the type of people who usually leave these towns and cities. The folks my wife knows who left are all middle class professionals. Lawyers, doctors, accountants. One is a fashion designer. And another is a chef at a high end restaurant. If London was better connected and had a large base of upper income resident who could support more options (like a high end restaurant), more of those folks would still be in London. And that's the point. These are exactly the sort of people who would either stay in London or even move back, if the connectivity was better.

Notice how I never said exactly what they do, just their education and sector. At least 4 of my cousins make 6 figures, and could easily do their work in Toronto. They choose not to because of how good London is for them. Toronto is not the be all and end all.

 

[Urban Sky]

1) There's no HSR proposal from VIA to London. There's not even an HFR proposal from VIA to London. We're all speculating that VIA would pursue Toronto-Kitchener-London in a second phase. But that's easily half a decade or more off.

As fascinating as the discussion about the interplay between HSR development and the housing market and other social issues might be to certain posters here, it indeed hardly touches the topic of this thread, so can we please move it to a more relevant thread?

I would suggest the following one:

High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto

 

[kEiThZ]

I know that, but when talking about it, we should also talk about doing it right. Ignoring the sprawl that will happen means we aren't doing it right.

Start a thread for transit induced sprawl. Because this really isn't the place to "talk about doing it right". What happens locally with increased growth is a local problem. It's not a provincial or national concern. Nobody is going to stop building infrastructure because somebody is worried that people might actually use that infrastructure to move to their town.

That is what I am talking about.

Nope. You simply assumed (as you always do) that nobody else has a clue and that VIA just shows up with a construction crew and starts randomly building billion dollar rail infrastructure without telling anyone.

Those won't have the same impact as a HSR will.

I would bet money that if we had self-driving cars capable of high speed driving, or cheap commutes with electric airplanes, the impact would be substantially more than any rail infrastructure. Indeed, lots of planners are actually freaking out about the potential impacts of full autonomy electric vehicles. And that concern is actually part of why you're see cities (not in Canada of course....we aren't that forward thinking) push to severely restrict car use. They want to get ahead of cars becoming even cheaper and easier to operate.

Besides, those are private entities. Via is still public.

Doesn't make a difference. No entity is responsible for what happens in your local community but your local politicians. Those entities can (and do) share their plans. And warn about the need to plan for downstream impacts. But it's up to local communities to assess what those impacts will be and how they will handle them.

I'll bet that if HSR or GO were to be extended, those politicians would need to start thinking about it.

Again. They didn't show much interest when the Ontario HSR proposed. They didn't change any of their official plans. They didn't talk about how they might fix that decrepit area near the current station. Nothing. And since then, they've actually ditched the LRT proposal. So don't expect that warnings might make a difference.

On the other hand, I expect substantially different reactions from places like Kingston and Peterborough. They've been gearing up to take advantage of anything VIA does. It's clear they've been engaging VIA and are vocal about more and better service.

Like anything else you always have the A and C students in any pack.

Distance is not the key here, travel time is.

No. Cost is key. That travel time will come at a substantial cost. Which is why this won't be the average professional from Toronto moving.

Notice how I never said exactly what they do, just their education

You didn't have to same much. "Some college" doesn't usually lead to the types of middle class professions we were discussing.

At least 4 of my cousins make 6 figures, and could easily do their work in Toronto.

Nobody ever said you can't make 6 figures living in London. Your cousins could do their work in Toronto. But they don't NEED to do their work in Toronto. That's the difference.

What you can't do in London is climb the ladder at a top law or accounting or tech firm. Can't be a Bay St. trader from London. Not a lot of jobs in advertising, finance, environmental consulting. Etc. There are jobs that will never exist in London. And levels in certain professions that will never exist in London, even if the professions themselves are practised in London. This isn't a hit on London. This is just reality that certain opportunities comes with size. Just like at a certain level in the corporate world, Canada itself is too small, and people might have to move to the US or Europe to further their careers.

Toronto is not the be all and end all.

Nobody ever said it was.

 

[kEiThZ]

As fascinating as the discussion about the interplay between HSR development and the housing market and other social issues might be to certain posters here, it indeed hardly touches the topic of this thread, so can we please move it to a more relevant thread?

I would suggest the following one:

High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto

He can create a thread on transit induced sprawl if he wants.

The assertion that we need to consider and VIA is responsible for all second and third order effects of their rail line is patently ridiculous. Goes well with the fantasy world where VIA isn't telling municipal officials a thing while planning or building infrastructure. Does anyone seriously believe that if a $3B HFR West was planned, VIA's CEO wouldn't be having a few chats with the mayor of every city on that route? This is just the usual from a certain poster who believes that everyone else is incompetent and only he can see the issues....

I have actually long argued against transit induced sprawl. See the MOOSE Rail Thread. But it's a real stretch to think HFR and HSR would induce anywhere near the kind of growth that GO service does.

 

[micheal_can]

He can create a thread on transit induced sprawl if he wants.

Naw. I'll just move on from it.

Lets be realistic, HSR is decades away.

 

[ssiguy2]

^^ I agree. I don't think Canada will see any true HSR in any of our life times. The political will simply isn't there and CN & CP have huge political sway in Ottawa. Service in The Corridor will certainly improve but again that says precious little as it couldn't get much worse.

 

[Urban Sky]

Moving back to the question of whether or not trains 650 gets wyed (before returning as 651/655):

But there is no wayside power so they just left the train tied down idling all night? And the station is on the main line. Where did they WYE the train?

No idea about the wayside power, but I'd assume that the train (if non-push-pull) is wyed at the wye where I saw the trainset...

I was reminded in the meanwhile that VIA faced capacity issues on train 651 during the summer of 2017, which I had reported here:

Trains 650/651/655 already operate between Kingston and Toronto exclusively and this is what happens whenever the fourth (!) car is unavailable:
Tweet 1: "@VIA_Rail what's up with the shortened 651 train? One car short and people have to stand on the way in to TO."
Tweet 2: "@VIA_Rail 651 train absolutely needs another car on Monday mornings."
Tweet 3: "Hey Via, any news on where the fourth car went off 651 this morning? I know it's 70 yr old technology, but it was there last week"
Tweet 4: "@VIA_Rail Great stuffed Morning. End of long weekend and Via takes a car off 651. Make for a way too cozy trip. Just nutty planning!!"
Tweet 5: "@VIA_Rail please put an extra car on the 651 on a Monday morning. Tickets are sold out tomorrow and commuters need to be in work before 9am"

Back then, train 650 and 651/655 was a captive consist formed by one locomotive and 4 Economy coaches*, which was wyed after arrival in Kingston. However, due to some equipment availability issues (the Canada 150 Youth Pass madness on the Canadian certainly didn't help), the 4th coach was unavailable on a few trips, which caused major dissatisfaction amongst its users.

*Edit: actually, the first coach was a Business car, but deployed as an Economy car.

Later that year, VIA introduced the 10th frequency between Toronto and Ottawa with trains 53 and 54. Since 54 took the 17:40 slot, train 650 instead became a new evening departure. This later departure time of train 650 (19:35) allowed to have 651 cycle with train 40 (later: 42) and 47 with 650 (thanks to push-pull operations), thus freeing up the additional trainset required for increasing service between Toronto and Ottawa and adding Business Class service to trains 650 and 651, while obviating the need to wye trains in Kingston:

October 30, 2017
MORE DEPARTURES BETWEEN TORONTO AND OTTAWA

Toronto, October 30, 2017 - Starting November 5, VIA Rail will be offering 20 weekday departures between Toronto and Ottawa thanks tothe addition of a 10th round-trip, giving Canadians even more options for their travel. As well, a new evening departure from Toronto to Kingston will be added, along with additional stops in Trenton Junction and Guildwood.
“For the third time in three years, new departures will be added between Toronto and Ottawa, allowing more passengers to make the sensible choice to leave their cars at home. With each added frequency, VIA Rail sees a significant increase in ridership. On this popular segment, the number of travellers has increased by 40% since 2014. With this addition, we will be able to serve more Canadians, help reduce the carbon footprint of their journeys, and improve our financial performance,” said VIA Rail President and Chief Executive Officer Yves Desjardins-Siciliano.

NEW DAILY DEPARTURES

Toronto-Ottawa

Train #	Toronto Departure	Stops	Ottawa Arrival
54 From Monday to Friday	17:40	Guildwood, Oshawa, Port Hope, Cobourg, Trenton Jonction, Belleville, Napanee, Kingston and Fallowfield	22:07
42 Saturday and Sunday	12:20	Oshawa, Kingston and Fallowfield	16:33

Ottawa-Toronto

Train #	Ottawa Departure	Stops	Toronto Arrival
53 From Monday to Sunday	11:40	Fallowfield, Kingston, Belleville and Oshawa	16:03

TORONTO–KINGSTON
As of November 5, travellers departing from Toronto heading to Kingston will have more options for their travel, with a new round-trip departure between Toronto, Kingston and Ottawa, as well as a new evening departure from Toronto to Kingston.
Also new: VIA Rail will offer Business class service on trains Nos. 650 and 651 between Toronto and Kingston. Passengers can therefore enjoy access to Business lounges in Toronto and Kingston, superior comfort, delicious menu options* and priority access to ticket and check-in counters.
[...]
* Full meal service is offered on almost all routes. On short distances, such as between Toronto and Port Hope, Toronto and Cobourg, Oshawa and Belleville, as well as between Cobourg and Kingston, snacks and complimentary beverages are available.