VIA Rail

[Coolibop]

Its good etiquette when replying to someone to use the reply button to quote the message (or part of the message) you are replying to.

Agreed when out of context. See what I did there?

I was asked a question and replied immediately with full context; it's the first bullet item in section 12 which I referenced - it relates to the airport decision (it has further context including HSR/HFR to the possible pickering airport). If you need assistance you can ask for further assistance (I won't bite)... Which brings me to my other point:

Is it really that difficult to state what the title of point 12 is, let alone: to realize that it has absolutely zero to do with VIA Rail as the topic of this thread?

Is this really conducive to an effective discussion for healthy discussion/participation on the UT forum?

Fwiw some councilors for the city of Pickering are pushing for a stop near Green river this upcoming council meeting. Given recent studies indicating no need for airport until beyond 2036 and the move to support reduction in greenhouse gas emissions....

I summarized the possible city of Pickering position (for convenience) on the HFR/HSR stop within/near the city, was asked for a source referencing the Green River HSR/HFR stop, and provided. If you find it hard to locate, ask and I can share.

Let's move on... If you wish to discuss this further I suggest direct message.

 

[nfitz]

Its good etiquette when replying to someone to use the reply button to quote the message (or part of the message) you are replying to. Alternatively, if replying to the last post in the thread, you can prefix your post with "^^^" (though you risk someone else posting something before your reply, breaking your reference).

I've been here for years, and I have no idea that ^^^ meant that. If anything, I'd have thought that ^ would be the post above, and ^^^ would be 3 posts above. Replying to the post directly above seems reasonable.

However, pasting the relevant text in, from the 175 page document, or at least the PDF page number - given the text is unsearchable. (it's in Section 12.1 on page 13 of the PDF).

BTW, what kind of hick-town puts the entire council agenda, supporting documents, and attachments in a single, unsearchable (they scanned it for frig's sake!) document? This isn't the 1990's.

 

[Coolibop]

what kind of hick-town

Not needed. You have no idea what you're talking about.

puts the entire council agenda, supporting documents, and attachments in a single, unsearchable (they scanned it for frig's sake!) document? This isn't the 1990's.

It's not scanned. It's a web pdf viewer. There are options at the top of the viewer to convert to plaintext which you can search in browser, or download the full pdf at the top.

Not the greatest I agree. Don't shoot the messenger please.

 

[Urban Sky]

However, pasting the relevant text in, from the 175 page document, or at least the PDF page number - given the text is unsearchable. (it's in Section 12.1 on page 13 of the PDF).

BTW, what kind of hick-town puts the entire council agenda, supporting documents, and attachments in a single, unsearchable (they scanned it for frig's sake!) document? This isn't the 1990's.

View attachment 458440

Thank you for going through the pain of searching the pertinent three lines of text in a 8 page long section in a 175 page document! I found clicking myself (on my phone) through to page 12 excruciating and that’s why I would never expect other people to go through the same pain just to save myself 5 seconds of my precious time…

 

[Coolibop]

All 2 pages (at the very beginning of section 12) are relevant as there were previous talks about airport connections to HSR/HFR, again as I stated in my first summary post.

If an airport was built a connection would make sense and what Pickering was thinking... The interesting thing is the new council may (again) change the city's official position on the airport (as I'm glad we're all now being well versed on)... Until 2036. Now they are just pursuing a stop and maybe rejecting the airport... Which I believe will be a hard sell.

 

[Urban Sky]

All 2 pages (at the very beginning of section 12) are relevant as there were previous talks about airport connections to HSR/HFR, again as I stated in my first summary post.

If an airport was built a connection would make sense and what Pickering was thinking... The interesting thing is the new council may (again) change the city's official position on the airport (as I'm glad we're all now being well versed on)... Until 2036. Now they are just pursuing a stop and maybe rejecting the airport... Which I believe will be a hard sell.

Agreed. Both paragraphs would have been the perfect introduction before pasting the link - together with page number reference and screenshot or quoted text.

Anyways, I think you understand now why we objected against your just-the-link-post and I have to correct myself as in that your post was indeed on-topic, even though it was not that easy to tell by just looking at the post and the link.

As you already said: let’s move on…!

 

[Coolibop]

That's OK. I blame @Allandale25 for asking me for a reference.

 

[Urban Sky]

That's OK. I blame @Allandale25 for asking me for a reference.

He’s anyways the worst offender on providing links without context/summary…

 

[Bordercollie]

Agreed when out of context. See what I did there?

I was asked a question and replied immediately with full context; it's the first bullet item in section 12 which I referenced - it relates to the airport decision (it has further context including HSR/HFR to the possible pickering airport). If you need assistance you can ask for further assistance (I won't bite)... Which brings me to my other point:

Is this really conducive to an effective discussion for healthy discussion/participation on the UT forum?

I summarized the possible city of Pickering position (for convenience) on the HFR/HSR stop within/near the city, was asked for a source referencing the Green River HSR/HFR stop, and provided. If you find it hard to locate, ask and I can share.

Let's move on... If you wish to discuss this further I suggest direct message.

Is the Pickering Airport really necessary when we have Billy Bishop, Waterloo, Hamilton and London?

Can't we just make better utilization of what we already have? Those airports can't attract enough carriers today how will opening Pickering help that?

 

[nfitz]

Not the greatest I agree. Don't shoot the messenger please.

I don't think criticizing a hick-town is shooting the messenger. OCR it - really? 175 pages? It's beyond amateurish.

All 2 pages (at the very beginning of section 12) are relevant as there were previous talks about airport connections to HSR/HFR, again as I stated in my first summary post.

You could have at least said 12.1 - Section 12 is ALL the motions before council. Heck, I read through the entire Section 12, and missed the single sentence referring to HFR - and given how slow that website is at turning the page, I wasted way too much time.

Is the Pickering Airport really necessary when we have Billy Bishop, Waterloo, Hamilton and London?

I think this is a topic for the Pickering Airport thread - https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/pickering-airport-transport-canada-gtaa-proposed.4855/

 

[Urban Sky]

I was just about to make an argument on Groups.io and thought I'd share it here as well. When trying to approximate the relative market sizes for travel between Quebec & Montreal, Montreal & Ottawa/Toronto and Quebec & Ottawa/Toronto, the gravity model can provide some approximate answers:

As you can see, for every passenger travelling from Quebec City past Montreal, there would be 3 passenger travelling from Quebec City to Montreal, meaning that for 75% of passengers travelling from Quebec City, Montreal would be the destination rather than a waypoint en-route. Furthermore, for every passenger travelling from Quebec to Montreal and beyond, there are more than 5 passengers travelling from Montreal to Ottawa and beyond, meaning that 84% of all passengers who travel from/to/through Montreal, would travel between Montreal and Ottawa and beyond, only 12% would travel between Montreal and Quebec and only 4% would travel past Montreal.

This suggests clearly that both, Quebec-Montreal and Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto trains should serve downtown Montreal and that the market for Quebec-Ottawa/Toronto travel is so small that having trains bypassing downtown Montreal is hardly worth it.

On a side note, there are 2.4 passengers travelling from/to Ottawa for every passenger travelling past it (i.e. Quebec/Montreal-Toronto), which once again highlights the weak case for an Ottawa Bypass...

 

[Bordercollie]

I was just about to make an argument on Groups.io, but rather than uploading the graph to Imgur to then link it on Groups.io, I thought I'd just post it here.

Anyways, given the discussion as to whether Montreal should be served through a downtown station or can be served with a station further away (think: Parc/Canora/Namur), it helps to look at the gravity model:
View attachment 458465

As you can see, for every passenger travelling from Quebec City past Montreal, there would be 3 passenger travelling from Quebec City to Montreal, meaning that for 75% of passengers travelling from Quebec City, Montreal would be the destination rather than a waypoint en-route. Furthermore, for every passenger travelling from Quebec to Montreal and beyond, there are more than 5 passengers travelling from Montreal to Ottawa and beyond, meaning that 84% of all passengers who travel from/to/through Montreal, would travel between Montreal and Ottawa and beyond, only 12% would travel between Montreal and Quebec and only 4% would travel past Montreal.

This suggests clearly that both, Quebec-Montreal and Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto trains should serve downtown Montreal and that the market for Quebec-Ottawa/Toronto travel is so small that having trains bypassing downtown Montreal are hardly worth it.

On a side note, there are 2.4 passengers travelling from/to Ottawa for every passenger travelling past it (i.e. Quebec/Montreal-Toronto), which once again highlights the weak case for an Ottawa Bypass...

Train travels advantage is always the downtown market. From downtown to downtown. Otherwise you might as well fly.

Too bad we don't have a downtown Edmonton station anymore, or Kingston for that matter. But for Kingston there is a plan to make it a hub. So maybe they will build something on that barren land around the station.

There is also so much potential to build around Oshawa, Fallowfield and Guildwood.

 

[Allandale25]

That's OK. I blame @Allandale25 for asking me for a reference.

He’s anyways the worst offender on providing links without context/summary…

Guilty on both counts!

 

[kEiThZ]

Ford won Ontario by pushing big-ticket transit projects. A federal conservative party looking for a majority will need seats in urban Ontario and Quebec. If the winning bidder promises to kick enough money up to VIA to fully fund their other routes without government subsidy, Conservatives will likely be in favour of continuing the project.

The federal conservatives are not like their provincial counterparts. They are more like 90s Harrisites. I wouldn't bank on anything.

 

[kEiThZ]

Why can't the concervatives elect a moderate candidate? Why so fringe?

They had one: Erin O'Toole. Did you vote for him? Hoping that people vote for Liberal lite, didn't work out. So now they are going hard.

I don't see Pierre being a majority prime minister without policies friendly to urban Quebec and Ontario. I don't know if this proposal is the right policy, but they'll have to promise something fairly sizable.

Elections are won in the suburbs. NDP and Liberal voting urban Canada are irrelevant to the balance of power.

I'm no fan of PP, but when talking to him about HFR on my doorstep a few years ago (before COVID and him becoming party leader), he claimed to be supportive of investments that would reduce VIA's need for subsidies.

He's a populist pushing austerity. I know you want to believe the best of your MP, but his track record on supporting public spending doesn't inspire confidence.