There's already a dedicated passenger line right next to the highway, belonging to Metrolinx. Surely it would be easier to have Via trains use those tracks (with any necessary modifications) than to build tracks in a highway ROW that was never designed for them.
It was precisely my suggestion that a dedicated VIA track be built adjacent to the existing GO Sub. The choice then exists to use the land immediately to the north or the south of said sub. Most (but not all) of the available space to the south is within the CN ROW. Those portions that are MTO and/or Metrolinx could be used for GO, or the CN portion could if they would sell it for a reasonable price.
The lands to the north of the GO sub are exclusively MTO and/or Metrolinx.
I suggested this portion of the corridor because its one I was aware of the GO sub being there, and the MTO ROW being there, and there being no level crossings already. This makes it a relatively easier stretch to do vs some other areas where land acquisition would be required or other complications would make the project more expensive.
The suggestion is not to use the paved portion of the ROW but rather the owned land to the south of it.
Done in conjunction with GO"s expansion of track in the LSE corridor (so going to 5 tracks from Stouffville junction, to Union and 4 tracks from that junction to Durham, would result in a VIA exclusive track from Union to Whitby.
That's enough to be of value and allow higher speeds, greater frequency and reliability (up to a point).
Piggybacked with the GO/Metrolinx project the cost could be shared and would be much more reasonable than as a stand-alone project.
GO's LSE upgrades will eliminate most remaining grade crossings of the LSE, leaving a only a small investment to finish the job to create a critical-mass gain.
*****
It seems likely to me that this has already been attempted. And it also seems likely that there's no way that CN would give up control of any of their ROW on their mainline. They don't get anything out of it.
My proposal doesn't depend on CN, at this stage (though it might in the future if one is contemplating areas east of Whitby).
CN being on-side might make the proposal somewhat easier in certain spots, and its worth having the discussion, but nothing more.
CN may (or may not) be persuaded, but the key is to offer a reasonable purchase price for portions of their ROW where this would make sense. in which case they get both the cash, and VIA out of their way at the same time.
Alternatively or in conjunction with such a price, one might consider offering overnight running rights (paid) but reasonable which would expand CN's capacity at VIA's upfront cost.
In any event, my limited-scope, near-term proposal does not require their cooperation.
The Peterborough route, by contrast, is almost all either abandoned by CP or sparsely used track in poor condition. An arrangement where the freight operator gives up control over this section in exchange for a rebuilt line would greatly benefit the freight company.
This is true.
But my concern here is that it is a sizable investment, not that much cheaper than upgrading the Kingston sub; and it is not upgradable to HSR, at least not at a remotely reasonable or similar cost to the investment along Lakeshore.
It also only improves trip time at the margins, which I have identified as key concern for me. I appreciate other users may identify other concerns more at issue to them.
But for me, the travel times are currently and would remain unacceptably long.
The alternative of strategic investments along the Lake route would not achieve much better in the near term; but have much better long-term potential, rolled out in increments over time.
It Ptbo can be delivered without sacrificing the future path to HSR, then by all means lets go for it, if the price is right.
I'm simply sceptical that we are subbing a great idea delivered over time for a mediocre one delivered more quickly.
