VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Interesting piece on the perpetual rail studies.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commenta...d-improve-train-service-now-opinion.html

Time to derail studies and improve train service now: Opinion
What Ontario really needs here is a consultant to tell the two levels of train-happy politicians — which don’t seem to talk to each other — that millions of public money being wasted on studies could be doing some good for the public right now.

Great article. He's right of course. But I'm not exactly what the solution is. The public doesn't penalize governments for not delivering on their promises. The many storm that formed in Kitchener and London over Deb Matthews admitting the Liberals weren't going to build the promised HSR, was the closest we got to public anger over rail under-investment. And that was quickly mollified by announcing that they were going to proceed with the EA.

Gormick blames governments. I blame the unsophisticated Canadian voter, who 9 times out of 10 doesn't care about infrastructure in general and cares even less about the terrible rail services in this country. It's actually kind of pathetic that VIA can't even get a real commitment for a $4 billion regular speed line. That says a lot about Canada.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Gormick blames governments. I blame the unsophisticated Canadian voter, who 9 times out of 10 doesn't care about infrastructure in general and cares even less about the terrible rail services in this country.

I don't know, intercity rail has a ridiculously small market share. The entire Via network doesn't carry many more passengers than the o-train.

I personally I like the train and tend to take it if it is a remotely feasible option, but I recognize I am a tiny minority in this regard.

I personally think that there is a nostalgia surrounding rail among the general public and even a willingness to fund more service than is really necessary but the problem is all the bull**** that surrounds rail projects. Proponents of projects claim lines will break even when they won't, or that the private sector will pay for them when they won't, or massively lowball cost estimates. This encourages politicians to treat rail projects like a joke and the public to lose interest.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't know, intercity rail has a ridiculously small market share. The entire Via network doesn't carry many more passengers than the o-train.

I personally I like the train and tend to take it if it is a remotely feasible option, but I recognize I am a tiny minority in this regard.

I personally think that there is a nostalgia surrounding rail among the general public and even a willingness to fund more service than is really necessary but the problem is all the bull**** that surrounds rail projects. Proponents of projects claim lines will break even when they won't, or that the private sector will pay for them when they won't, or massively lowball cost estimates. This encourages politicians to treat rail projects like a joke and the public to lose interest.

It's not a nostalgia thing. And suggestions like this piss me off.

Your post has me on the edge of despair. You participate in this forum and really don't understand the economic implications of higher speed rail and what that would do for regional economic integration along the Laurentian corridor? You don't get the implications on quality of life or relief Toronto would have if high speed rail allowed families to move to Kitchener, London, Peterborough or Belleville?

And that's aside from the utterly obvious fact that tackling transport emissions has to involve investment in rail if we are at all serious about climate change.

If folks in this forum, who are supposedly transit enthusiasts don't understand that, I guess I shouldn't hold much hope for the country.

[lrt's friend]

We just need to listen to the news. Europe is preparing to eliminate the internal combustion engine. North America cannot left behind as far as delivering alternative transportation or it will become uncompetitive. I expect we are going to see some big changes in transportation in the next few decades. With the limited range for electric cars, there is an opportunity for rail to fill in the gap and the future of rail will be using electric locomotives on popular routes.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not a nostalgia thing. And suggestions like this piss me off.

Your post has me on the edge of despair. You participate in this forum and really don't understand the economic implications of higher speed rail and what that would do for regional economic integration along the Laurentian corridor? You don't get the implications on quality of life or relief Toronto would have if high speed rail allowed families to move to Kitchener, London, Peterborough or Belleville?

And that's aside from the utterly obvious fact that tackling transport emissions has to involve investment in rail if we are at all serious about climate change.

If folks in this forum, who are supposedly transit enthusiasts don't understand that, I guess I shouldn't hold much hope for the country.

Intercity transportation emissions are a minuscule part of Canadian emissions (out of the 700 or so MTs of CO2 emissions Canada put out in 2015, passenger vehicles account for less than 80). The intercity share (as opposed to the commuting or getting around town) is a small fraction of that (the 401 has 19k vehicles per day at the Quebec border, compared to 223k in Durham region).

No, I don't see any advantage of trying to encourage Toronto sprawl to push out to Kitchener, Belleville, Peterborough or London. Sprawl is a problem, not a solution.

The economic benefits of higher speed rail are highly debatable. There is certainly no consensus or clear pattern.
http://www.economist.com/news/business/2...ce-rising-competition-problems-down-line

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We just need to listen to the news. Europe is preparing to eliminate the internal combustion engine. North America cannot left behind as far as delivering alternative transportation or it will become uncompetitive. I expect we are going to see some big changes in transportation in the next few decades. With the limited range for electric cars, there is an opportunity for rail to fill in the gap and the future of rail will be using electric locomotives on popular routes.

Further progress on electric cars (better range, power and batteries) and possibility of fusion reactors producing bountiful clean cheap electricity actually present a risk to railway development. We could be back to guiltless car driving in a couple of decades from now. Sunday drives, anyone?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't know, intercity rail has a ridiculously small market share. The entire Via network doesn't carry many more passengers than the o-train.

That isn't as bad as it sounds. You can't compare commuter services to intercity services. The average person goes to work/school far more often than they travel to another city. A better comparison is with other modes of transport that service the same destinations. Despite its limitations, on the Ottawa-Toronto corridor, VIA does pretty well (compared to the bus and airplane) but there certainly is lots of room for improvement.

I personally I like the train and tend to take it if it is a remotely feasible option, but I recognize I am a tiny minority in this regard.

With improved service that will change. For large groups/families travelling together and for those who's destination isn't downtown, it is difficult for the train to compete, but there are many who would use a frequent, reliable train service.

I personally think that there is a nostalgia surrounding rail among the general public and even a willingness to fund more service than is really necessary but the problem is all the bull**** that surrounds rail projects. Proponents of projects claim lines will break even when they won't, or that the private sector will pay for them when they won't, or massively lowball cost estimates. This encourages politicians to treat rail projects like a joke and the public to lose interest.

I think what you are trying to say is that because of the nostalgia surrounding trains in the general public, the politicians get distracted by the nostalgic routes that have little hope of being successful and sprinkle money across the board instead of targeting the routes that can be successful.

I agree that it is unlikely for passenger rail to be profitable but automotive transport isn't profitable either. Even the airlines struggle with profitability.

[lrt's friend]

With improved service that will change. For large groups/families travelling together and for those who's destination isn't downtown, it is difficult for the train to compete, but there are many who would use a frequent, reliable train service.

I think as urban rail networks expand, more people will be willing to use intercity trains even if their destination is not downtown. This will be a gradual process and will require a change of mindset.

When I went to San Francisco the last time, I used public transit almost exclusively and that included a side trip to the Sonoma valley when I used both regional and local transit to get me to my hotel in the valley. It required a bit of patience but it got me right to the front door of my hotel in the valley.

When more of our trips can conveniently be accomplished with public transit, people will occasionally accept a little inconvenience. There is a tipping point when life without a car (or using cars only for certain kinds of trips) becomes practical for more people.

To accomplish this, efficient rail networks need to be the back bone.

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not a nostalgia thing. And suggestions like this piss me off.

Your post has me on the edge of despair. You participate in this forum and really don't understand the economic implications of higher speed rail and what that would do for regional economic integration along the Laurentian corridor? You don't get the implications on quality of life or relief Toronto would have if high speed rail allowed families to move to Kitchener, London, Peterborough or Belleville?

And that's aside from the utterly obvious fact that tackling transport emissions has to involve investment in rail if we are at all serious about climate change.

If folks in this forum, who are supposedly transit enthusiasts don't understand that, I guess I shouldn't hold much hope for the country.

Are you implying that someone's quality of life will improve if they can have the pleasure of commuting from Belleville to Toronto?? That sounds like the worst imaginable thing. Even commuting from Pickering on the Go train sounds to me like hell.

Urban sprawl is not to be encouraged.

Now, high speed rail from Quebec City to Windsor is a good idea. For trade, for business travel, for tourism, but not for commuting.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That isn't as bad as it sounds. You can't compare commuter services to intercity services. The average person goes to work/school far more often than they travel to another city.

That's the problem. Spending significant money to save an hour or two off of a trip most people only take a few times a year (if at all) or to switch mode on a rare trip doesn't yield much net benefit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Are you implying that someone's quality of life will improve if they can have the pleasure of commuting from Belleville to Toronto?? That sounds like the worst imaginable thing. Even commuting from Pickering on the Go train sounds to me like hell.

Urban sprawl is not to be encouraged.

Now, high speed rail from Quebec City to Windsor is a good idea. For trade, for business travel, for tourism, but not for commuting.

Economics often drive people to live far from the city as well as lifestyle.

I have not done it obviously, but I see an hour commute from Pickering on a GO Train as being better than an hour commute from Scarborough on local buses and subways with a couple of transfers in the mix.

At some point, a city gets to a size and you cannot contain sprawl.

We are seeing formerly moribund communities just outside the city boundaries suddenly growing by leaps and bounds. The more we try to control sprawl in the urban area, the more we are encouraging spill over into the boundary communities. You can never totally contain sprawl in a growing city.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Economics often drive people to live far from the city as well as lifestyle.

I have not done it obviously, but I see an hour commute from Pickering on a GO Train as being better than an hour commute from Scarborough on local buses and subways with a couple of transfers in the mix.

At some point, a city gets to a size and you cannot contain sprawl.

We are seeing formerly moribund communities just outside the city boundaries suddenly growing by leaps and bounds. The more we try to control sprawl in the urban area, the more we are encouraging spill over into the boundary communities. You can never totally contain sprawl in a growing city.

I agree that containing sprawl is very difficult, but I don't think that is a good reason to pour gasoline on the fire.

KW, Peterborough, London and Belleville are largely self-contained communities: most people live, work, shop and entertain themselves within the city. This is good for the vibrancy of the community and good for the well-being of families in the community. Commuting to Toronto is obviously logistically possible and some people do it, some for personal reasons, some for economic reasons, but the fact that some people commute (to me anyway) is not a good reason for the government to spend large amounts of money to encourage more of it.

And the thing is, if these cities become established as dormitory communities for Toronto then the sprawl will spread to the next tranche of communities, with even worse commutes. We have seen this happening in California, where people seeking affordable housing are going to the Inland Empire.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I agree that containing sprawl is very difficult, but I don't think that is a good reason to pour gasoline on the fire.

KW, Peterborough, London and Belleville are largely self-contained communities: most people live, work, shop and entertain themselves within the city. This is good for the vibrancy of the community and good for the well-being of families in the community. Commuting to Toronto is obviously logistically possible and some people do it, some for personal reasons, some for economic reasons, but the fact that some people commute (to me anyway) is not a good reason for the government to spend large amounts of money to encourage more of it.

And the thing is, if these cities become established as dormitory communities for Toronto then the sprawl will spread to the next tranche of communities, with even worse commutes. We have seen this happening in California, where people seeking affordable housing are going to the Inland Empire.

I know what you are saying but creating gridlock is not a good way to enforce personal mobility and minimize sprawl. On the contrary, the more congested cities become, the more people cannot enjoy events that are taking place. It goes both ways. Events such as Oktoberfest in KW become difficult to access from Toronto as is a Blue Jays game from KW. Allowing people to move around improves the quality of life. Holding people prisoners to congestion does not. The solution is mass transit and not building more highways. We have a choice, it is one or the other and this applies to Ottawa as well.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Intercity transportation emissions are a minuscule part of Canadian emissions (out of the 700 or so MTs of CO2 emissions Canada put out in 2015, passenger vehicles account for less than 80). The intercity share (as opposed to the commuting or getting around town) is a small fraction of that (the 401 has 19k vehicles per day at the Quebec border, compared to 223k in Durham region).

You do know that people take airplanes to travel a lot between cities right? And air travel has per km emissions that are an order of magnitude higher:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-transport-type

Forget high speed rail. Just full speed conventional rail like VIA's HFR should do enough to drastically cut aviation emissions. Simply put, if really wish to make a dent in transport emissions, rail has to be part of the solution. Both for intercity transport and locally for transit.

Originally Posted by acottawa

No, I don't see any advantage of trying to encourage Toronto sprawl to push out to Kitchener, Belleville, Peterborough or London. Sprawl is a problem, not a solution.

Quite frankly, in the GTA, there's no option. Either they make these smaller centres viable through solid rail connections and we develop a network of decent small towns, or we watch the GTA becoming a larger sprawling mess while actually having many people move to these places and drive anyway.

BTW. The GO Train already goes to Kitchener.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The economic benefits of higher speed rail are highly debatable. There is certainly no consensus or clear pattern.
http://www.economist.com/news/business/2...ce-rising-competition-problems-down-line

Did you read the article you posted? The biggest complaint was a lack of competition on the high speed lines themselves. Not a complaint about the concept of high speed rail.

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Are you implying that someone's quality of life will improve if they can have the pleasure of commuting from Belleville to Toronto?? That sounds like the worst imaginable thing. Even commuting from Pickering on the Go train sounds to me like hell.

You don't have to ask me. Just ask the people who buy commuter passes on VIA today. And yes, I'd argue their quality of life is better.

Compare these two commutes:

1) Drive to Belleville station in 15 mins. Get on comfy train. Get off at Union 1.5 hrs later. Walk to office.

2) Get on TTC bus. Ride 30 mins. Get off at Scarborough Town Centre. Take the RT, which is rammed after Lawrence East. After 10 mins, get off at Kennedy and go down 3 levels to the subway. Ride the subway for 30 mins. Get off and change at Yonge and Bloor. Usually have to wait for several trains to go by before you get on at near crush-load.

The second commute is what my 64 year old mother does daily. The first is what the lawyers and accountants I meet on VIA's evening trains from Toronto do a few times a week. And they live out there because that lawyer's salary from Toronto let's them own nice houses on an acre of land in Belleville. High speed rail will make those commutes so much more shorter and pleasant. Instead of a 1.5 hr train ride, they'll be there in 45 mins to an hour.

High speed rail commutes are not usually regular working class folks. By definition, these commutes tend to expensive. So what you see are well paid professionals, most of whom don't have to do the commute daily. They are banking on getting more for their dollar living in a smaller town than in a suburb of the big city.

And it's not just Toronto. What you'll see are commutes up and down the line. You'll see tech workers from Waterloo living in London. You'll see healthcare workers from London, living in Windsor. Etc.

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Urban sprawl is not to be encouraged.

Unless something gives with development in places like the GTA. This is inevitable. People cannot afford to buy homes there any more. And they aren't willing to work long hours at professional jobs to end up in condos....especially not Toronto's shoebox condos.

Even companies are starting to realize this. See the rat race that is San Francisco where two six figures incomes won't get you a decent home. Google now realizes this is a huge threat to their ability to recruit talent. Their solution? Building an 8 million square foot campus right in the heart of San Jose specifically because it is beside a rail hub and terminus station for high speed rail:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/12/go...plans-swell-reach-8-million-square-feet/

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/23/go...uare-foot-downtown-san-jose-tech-campus/

They are acknowledging that the housing situation is ridiculous for their employees and they want them to be able to live further out and commute in comfortably.

If we were talking about Ottawa, you'd be right. We still have tons of room inside the Greenbelt. In Toronto, families are getting priced out of the 416 and now starting to watch the 905 get less affordable.

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Now, high speed rail from Quebec City to Windsor is a good idea. For trade, for business travel, for tourism, but not for commuting.

Do you think that only tourist and business travellers take high speed rail? You must never have been to Europe or Japan. Commutes make up a huge based of revenue for high speed rail lines. Those rail lines make it easy for everyone to travel. Not just tourist and businesspersons. Just as it is easy for a tourist to go from Montreal to Quebec City in an hour, it will now be possible for a commuter to regularly commute from Quebec City to Montreal for work. I recall a train ride I took in Spain. Cordoba to Seville (145km). There were more well dressed commuters than tourists on that train (take at around 5pm).

In Ottawa's case, a better rail connection means that Ottawa and Gatineau would be plugged into Montreal. HFR is pledging to reduce this trip to little over an hour. I think you'll see more and more commuting between Ottawa and Montreal as this takes hold.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Economics often drive people to live far from the city as well as lifestyle.

I have not done it obviously, but I see an hour commute from Pickering on a GO Train as being better than an hour commute from Scarborough on local buses and subways with a couple of transfers in the mix.

At some point, a city gets to a size and you cannot contain sprawl.

We are seeing formerly moribund communities just outside the city boundaries suddenly growing by leaps and bounds. The more we try to control sprawl in the urban area, the more we are encouraging spill over into the boundary communities. You can never totally contain sprawl in a growing city.

People who haven't done these commutes regularly don't realize it. The TTC is hell compared to the GO. The transfers alone drive people nuts. It's why the Scarborough Subway has become such a big deal. People hate that transfer at Kennedy that much.

And you're right about sprawl. Just watch Barrie. So they can't build on the Greenbelt? Fine, they skipped the greenbelt and went to Barrie. And now the 400 takes 2 hrs at rush to get from Toronto to Barrie.

People are going to do live out there whether you like it or not. The only question is how they travel. Do we have cities choking on traffic or do we facilitate their mobility by rail.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Compare these two commutes:

1) Drive to Belleville station in 15 mins. Get on comfy train. Get off at Union 1.5 hrs later. Walk to office.

2) Get on TTC bus. Ride 30 mins. Get off at Scarborough Town Centre. Take the RT, which is rammed after Lawrence East. After 10 mins, get off at Kennedy and go down 3 levels to the subway. Ride the subway for 30 mins. Get off and change at Yonge and Bloor. Usually have to wait for several trains to go by before you get on at near crush-load.

The second commute is what my 64 year old mother does daily. The first is what the lawyers and accountants I meet on VIA's evening trains from Toronto do a few times a week. And they live out there because that lawyer's salary from Toronto let's them own nice houses on an acre of land in Belleville. High speed rail will make those commutes so much more shorter and pleasant. Instead of a 1.5 hr train ride, they'll be there in 45 mins to an hour.

If there are many billions to be spent on transportation, I would rather the money went to improve you mother's commute than some hobby farmer lawyer.

Besides, if they build the high speed commuter train to Belleville, all of those farms will get bought up by developers, turned into cookie-cutter suburbs, then the hobby farmers will move east and they will still have a 90 minute commute.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If there are many billions to be spent on transportation, I would rather the money went to improve you mother's commute than some hobby farmer lawyer.

Besides, if they build the high speed commuter train to Belleville, all of those farms will get bought up by developers, turned into cookie-cutter suburbs, then the hobby farmers will move east and they will still have a 90 minute commute.

Perhaps. But a subway does not enable an engineer from a Waterloo startup to pitch to financiers in Toronto and get back to Waterloo within an afternoon. And an LRT won't negate the need for an expensive flight from Toronto to Ottawa for a company to meet their government regulators.

It's almost like a successful economy needs both local transport and intercity solutions.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I know what you are saying but creating gridlock is not a good way to enforce personal mobility and minimize sprawl. On the contrary, the more congested cities become, the more people cannot enjoy events that are taking place. It goes both ways. Events such as Oktoberfest in KW become difficult to access from Toronto as is a Blue Jays game from KW. Allowing people to move around improves the quality of life. Holding people prisoners to congestion does not. The solution is mass transit and not building more highways. We have a choice, it is one or the other and this applies to Ottawa as well.

Sprawl doesn't just happen, sprawl follows infrastructure. Hardly anyone commuted from places like Kempville before they built the 416, hardly anyone commuted from places like Smiths Falls until they widened the 417 and 7.

They ideal solution would be to charge actual costs for transportation infrastructure, but as long as we provide roads for free, massively subsidize rail and massively subsidize transit we encourage people to sprawl.

Oktoberfest and Blue Jays games are infrequent activities, spending billions to get people to infrequent activities somewhat faster makes very little sense.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sprawl doesn't just happen, sprawl follows infrastructure. Hardly anyone commuted from places like Kempville before they built the 416, hardly anyone commuted from places like Smiths Falls until they widened the 417 and 7.

They ideal solution would be to charge actual costs for transportation infrastructure, but as long as we provide roads for free, massively subsidize rail and massively subsidize transit we encourage people to sprawl.

Oktoberfest and Blue Jays games are infrequent activities, spending billions to get people to infrequent activities somewhat faster makes very little sense.

You don't need HFR to get to a Jays game from Kitchener. GO can do that today.

HFR first and foremost is meant to tie the metros together. Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal will all be far more accessible to each other. However, towns along those routes will definitely benefit and grow. Just like towns along highways have grown. We don't forestall highway construction because, "Oh noooess. Rockland might become a growing suburb." Similarly, it's stupid to curtail building rail between Toronto and Ottawa because Smiths Falls becomes more commutable. You deal with that problem through appropriate policy. As you said, the best would be cost.

I would love to see a congestion charge in Ottawa. One zone inside the greenbelt. And another inside the core.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You don't need HFR to get to a Jays game from Kitchener. GO can do that today.

HFR first and foremost is meant to tie the metros together. Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal will all be far more accessible to each other. However, towns along those routes will definitely benefit and grow. Just like towns along highways have grown. We don't forestall highway construction because, "Oh noooess. Rockland might become a growing suburb." Similarly, it's stupid to curtail building rail between Toronto and Ottawa because Smiths Falls becomes more commutable. You deal with that problem through appropriate policy. As you said, the best would be cost.

I would love to see a congestion charge in Ottawa. One zone inside the greenbelt. And another inside the core.

That may only true in theory at the present time, or with a great deal of delays, like a two hour bus ride. I believe that Kitchener GO rail service is presently operating in peak hours and in the peak direction only. Not very useful to go to any event in downtown Toronto other than a 9 to 5 job. The problem with GO bus service is that it is considerably slower than a private car and is subject to all road congestion. There needs to be regular rail service that by-passes road congestion. Only then does it become a real option for most people.