The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[SkahHigh]

REM construction contract will be awarded in mid-february. The rolling stock provider has been chosen but (I’m guessing) will not be revealed until then.

[ssiguy]

Northern Ontario only has 900k and it is very dispersed and in no way shape or form can support an exclusive train service. This is just the NDP looking for more support in it's sizeable NO seats. Absurd to even suggest the idea.

Canada already heavily subsides rail routes that should have been cancelled decades ago and where the service is needed in the Corridor service and infrastructure is lacking and the only other place in the counrty where rail service would be heavily used, the Ed/Cal corridor has no service at all.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Northern Ontario only has 900k and it is very dispersed and in no way shape or form can support an exclusive train service. This is just the NDP looking for more support in it's sizeable NO seats. Absurd to even suggest the idea.

Canada already heavily subsides rail routes that should have been cancelled decades ago and where the service is needed in the Corridor service and infrastructure is lacking and the only other place in the counrty where rail service would be heavily used, the Ed/Cal corridor has no service at all.

Are you saying that these trains wouldn't serve Toronto?

If we are judging the need for rail based on population, North Bay-Toronto wins over Edmonton-Calgary.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Northern Ontario only has 900k and it is very dispersed and in no way shape or form can support an exclusive train service. This is just the NDP looking for more support in it's sizeable NO seats. Absurd to even suggest the idea.

Canada already heavily subsides rail routes that should have been cancelled decades ago and where the service is needed in the Corridor service and infrastructure is lacking and the only other place in the counrty where rail service would be heavily used, the Ed/Cal corridor has no service at all.

First of all the re-introduction of the Northlander is primarily or fully a provincial funding issue and unless requested the federal government would probably not subsidize or invest in infrastructure owned by a provincial agency.

Secondly, 100's of millions of dollars have been spent building highway 11 as a four lane highway while virtually none has been spent on improving railway infrastructure belonging to Ontario Northland or rebuilding connections lost when CN abandoned the Newmarket sub between Barrie and Washago. Over the years the highway alignment, grades and bridges have been changed many times while the railway alignment is the same as when it was built 100 years ago.

Thirdly, the ONR competed against itself by operating a bus service parallel to the Northlander. Neither made money and both have been scaled back or completely cancelled.

Fourthly, the subsidy to the ONR is less in total and less per passenger mile than the support GO Transit receives. I guess not all taxpayers are created equal. Not only do northerners used the train to go south but southerners use it to go north.

You are correct that the federal government has not been spending adequate amounts on rail infrastructure and service, of which the Edmonton/Calgary route is only one of many routes that have been cancelled. But that is not a reason to say that the Northlander should not be re-introduced.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Fourthly, the subsidy to the ONR is less in total and less per passenger mile than the support GO Transit receives. I guess not all taxpayers are created equal. Not only do northerners used the train to go south but southerners use it to go north.

THIS!!!!!

What is good for the South should be good for the North.

[Mister F]

^It's not about south versus north. It's about the erroneous assumption that roads are feasible in sparsely populated regions while rail is only feasible in densely populated regions where roads are congested. So remote northern Ontario gets more road investment per capita while the traffic plagued south gets more rail investment per capita. As I said, it's an erroneous assumption but one that many Canadians believe for some reason.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

First of all the re-introduction of the Northlander is primarily or fully a provincial funding issue and unless requested the federal government would probably not subsidize or invest in infrastructure owned by a provincial agency.

Secondly, 100's of millions of dollars have been spent building highway 11 as a four lane highway while virtually none has been spent on improving railway infrastructure belonging to Ontario Northland or rebuilding connections lost when CN abandoned the Newmarket sub between Barrie and Washago. Over the years the highway alignment, grades and bridges have been changed many times while the railway alignment is the same as when it was built 100 years ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were billions actually. The Highway 400 extension to Sudbury will be into 10 figures when it's complete. Highways in remote regions also require huge subsidies to maintain, patrol and repair once they're open. Introducing train service connecting the larger cities across the north would be no less feasible than twinning Highway 17 across the north, which a lot of people on this site favour.

[Mister F]

And to expand on that point....

Originally Posted by Doady

You can see a lot of swastikas in Vietnam. It's not a big deal.

Better transportation to connect North Ontario is a good idea but maybe it would be better to focus on finish twinning Highway 11/17 first.

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Definitely!!! This should be a top priority of national interest. This thin strip needs to be better developed to better connect east and west Canada. Infrastructure investments are known to be a draw to people and development. Better connectivity would also be important from a defense point of view.

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

^Agreed. I come from Northern Ontario and have made the 9hrs trek up from Ottawa and Toronto several times. As soon as the highway drops to 2 lanes (1 in each direction) the drive becomes horrible.... traffic and lines forming due to 1 car going slow, no passing lanes for miles and miles and it just gets worst when you add weather and the thousands of transports that take this road everyday shipping goods from Eastern Canada to the west.

Would you guys be willing to spend $17 billion or so to twin the entire highway across northern Ontario?

On average, it costs $10 million per kilometer, plus an additional $8 to $12 million per interchange to build a four-lane highway in Northern Ontario.
http://highway69.ca/highway69/eng/faq.asp

It couldn't possibly cost that much to establish a daily rail service connecting all the larger cities in the north. And it probably wouldn't cost more to run that service than it would cost to maintain 1700+ extra kilometres of 4 lane highway.

[Mikemike]

Make highways 11 and 17 a one-way couplet.������

[Doady]

Highway 11 to North Bay is fine. Or what they have done or are doing with Highway 17 around Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie. The twinned Trans Canada Highway in the Prairies is also not full freeway. No one said twinned Highway 11/17 needs to be 400 series including full grade separated interchanges.

Better connect Northern Ontario with rest of Ontario and Canada, and Western Canada with Eastern Canada. Reduce the accidents on these highways. It's not just a matter of economic opportunities and national unity, but also of public safety.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Doady

Highway 11 to North Bay is fine. Or what they have done or are doing with Highway 17 around Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie. The twinned Trans Canada Highway in the Prairies is also not full freeway. No one said twinned Highway 11/17 needs to be 400 series including full grade separated interchanges.

Better connect Northern Ontario with rest of Ontario and Canada, and Western Canada with Eastern Canada. Reduce the accidents on these highways. It's not just a matter of economic opportunities and national unity, but also of public safety.

Read my post again. I didn't say anything about a full freeway. My $17 billion guess is with zero interchanges ($10 million/km, 1700+ km). Four lane highways across such vast, rugged, sparsely populated regions are mostly nonexistent for a reason. Cheaper improvements like 2+1 highways are more common. So is passenger rail.

Rail service across the north would be just as good for the economy and national unity and better for safety than a four lane highway. Plus it would make use of mostly existing infrastructure. If safety is the goal, doubling down (literally) on the most dangerous form of transportation seems like an odd choice to make.

[lrt's friend]

trains need to more competitive as far as speed is concerned or don't expect much ridership.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

trains need to more competitive as far as speed is concerned or don't expect much ridership.

would argue that speed is not the most major factor. A train running frequent enough and a schedule that is adhered to is much better.

[ssiguy]

For the life of me I don't understand this fascination with having rail lines running to every little place in the country.

These passenger lines were built a century ago when rail was a necessity. Most people didn't take the rail line to get just to Toronto or Montreal but rather to get to the nearest decent sized city for shopping or entertainment. They were small town connection to civilization. They were built before the car and now the car has completely replaced them. The demand for these smaller passenger lines is long since dead so let them die. For those VERY few in these smaller centres don't have a car then they already have alternatives called buses and planes.

Good infrastructure investments are not just about building but also where things should be built in the first place. Like any government program there is only so much money to go around so that means setting priorities. If you only have so many people then you only get so much infrastructure. If the people of Northern Ontario {or any other smaller centres for that matter} REALLY want a rail line then simply give them the choice...........for the money the area is allocated, do you want it spent on the Northlander or improving and expanding the highways? If you simply asked that question this debate would be over before it started.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

REM construction contract will be awarded in mid-february. The rolling stock provider has been chosen but (I’m guessing) will not be revealed until then.

Is your take that the ~$6 billion on hand won't be enough to build the REM in its proposed form, and that CDPQi are stalling while they consider getting more funding or cutting part of the plan, or just that it's a neck and neck between 2 consortia? I hope it's the latter.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

For the life of me I don't understand this fascination with having rail lines running to every little place in the country.

I could use the same logic to say "for the life of me I don't understand this fascination with having 4 lane highways running to every little place in the country". 4 lane highways across vast, rugged, sparsely populated expanses like northern Ontario are practically nonexistent. Rail, on the other hand, serves these kinds of areas more often. Cheaper highway improvements like 2+1 lane highways are common as well. Maybe if we set our sights on something a bit less extravagant it would actually get done.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

These passenger lines were built a century ago when rail was a necessity. Most people didn't take the rail line to get just to Toronto or Montreal but rather to get to the nearest decent sized city for shopping or entertainment. They were small town connection to civilization. They were built before the car and now the car has completely replaced them. The demand for these smaller passenger lines is long since dead so let them die. For those VERY few in these smaller centres don't have a car then they already have alternatives called buses and planes.

Good infrastructure investments are not just about building but also where things should be built in the first place. Like any government program there is only so much money to go around so that means setting priorities. If you only have so many people then you only get so much infrastructure. If the people of Northern Ontario {or any other smaller centres for that matter} REALLY want a rail line then simply give them the choice...........for the money the area is allocated, do you want it spent on the Northlander or improving and expanding the highways? If you simply asked that question this debate would be over before it started.

Spending ~$17 billion on a 4 lane highway across a region with 780,000 people is not a good infrastructure investment. Like you said, there's only so much money to go around. And if you want to talk priorities, in a region where people are so spread out, getting more out of existing infrastructure should be a higher priority than building all new.

Of course people would say that they want a 4 lane highway across the north. But they'd also say that they want to stop paying taxes and win the lottery. That doesn't mean they get to have that. That being said, I bet that most people in Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie or Thunder Bay would say that they want rail service if you asked them.

I'm just using the idea of a daily passenger train as an example of what could be done for cheaper than what's being suggested here. I can't say if something like that is a good idea or not. Maybe it isn't. But I think it's safe to say that a 4 lane highway across that distance would be more expensive. And it would undoubtedly be less safe.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

For the life of me I don't understand this fascination with having rail lines running to every little place in the country.

These passenger lines were built a century ago when rail was a necessity. Most people didn't take the rail line to get just to Toronto or Montreal but rather to get to the nearest decent sized city for shopping or entertainment. They were small town connection to civilization. They were built before the car and now the car has completely replaced them. The demand for these smaller passenger lines is long since dead so let them die. For those VERY few in these smaller centres don't have a car then they already have alternatives called buses and planes.

Good infrastructure investments are not just about building but also where things should be built in the first place. Like any government program there is only so much money to go around so that means setting priorities. If you only have so many people then you only get so much infrastructure. If the people of Northern Ontario {or any other smaller centres for that matter} REALLY want a rail line then simply give them the choice...........for the money the area is allocated, do you want it spent on the Northlander or improving and expanding the highways? If you simply asked that question this debate would be over before it started.

I don't understand the fascination with sidewalks, or roads, or airports. I mean, they are all antiquated modes of ways of getting around.

Think of how ridiculous that sounds.

Rail can move a large number of people various distances at a reasonable speed, and can be done at a reasonable price.

In Canada, All except 4 capital cites are/were connected by rail. To be able to use rail instead of other modes means efficiently using fuel and other things.

Rail does not slow down in bad weather.

Rail does not slow down for highway congestion.

Rail does not have as low amounts of baggage.

Rail usually does not have as rigorous requirements for non checked baggage.

What is bad about rail?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I could use the same logic to say "for the life of me I don't understand this fascination with having 4 lane highways running to every little place in the country". 4 lane highways across vast, rugged, sparsely populated expanses like northern Ontario are practically nonexistent. Rail, on the other hand, serves these kinds of areas more often. Cheaper highway improvements like 2+1 lane highways are common as well. Maybe if we set our sights on something a bit less extravagant it would actually get done.


Spending ~$17 billion on a 4 lane highway across a region with 780,000 people is not a good infrastructure investment. Like you said, there's only so much money to go around. And if you want to talk priorities, in a region where people are so spread out, getting more out of existing infrastructure should be a higher priority than building all new.

Of course people would say that they want a 4 lane highway across the north. But they'd also say that they want to stop paying taxes and win the lottery. That doesn't mean they get to have that. That being said, I bet that most people in Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie or Thunder Bay would say that they want rail service if you asked them.

I'm just using the idea of a daily passenger train as an example of what could be done for cheaper than what's being suggested here. I can't say if something like that is a good idea or not. Maybe it isn't. But I think it's safe to say that a 4 lane highway across that distance would be more expensive. And it would undoubtedly be less safe.

The talk here of a 4-lane highway across Northern Ontario falls squarely into the "if we had infinite money" category. Aside from some strategic areas where there's no alternate route (say, between Nipigon and Thunder Bay), there's no real demand or requirement for that kind of infrastructure. I think the feds briefly looked at the idea in the early 2000s and dismissed it. I've driven most of those highways. They don't have the volume of traffic to merit a 4-lane divided highway.

Passenger rail to the north could be relatively cheaply implemented. The ONR already has the rail infrastructure and still likely has the coaches. Would it be profitable? No, likely not. The catch is that between Cochrane and Toronto, the route is effectively split between motor coaches and rail. Also, a number of important Northern cities are left out (Timmins, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay), so this pretty much only benefits people on the Highway 11 corridor. The fragmentation of the market along with the relatively small population corridor Ontario Northland serves with rail are big hindrances. Ontario Northland's bus system is more comprehensive.

I guess a network could be implemented by purchasing from other railways, but I'm not sure who owns what rail (and what shape it is in).

Driving is more dangerous, but more convenient. I'd imagine that most of the travel between north and south is done by road. Flying is more expensive (though not terribly so - flights between Timmins and Toronto are between $90-100 more than a bus) but much quicker.

My money is that nothing changes. There will be no 4-lane highway, nor a renewed passenger train.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Is your take that the ~$6 billion on hand won't be enough to build the REM in its proposed form, and that CDPQi are stalling while they consider getting more funding or cutting part of the plan, or just that it's a neck and neck between 2 consortia? I hope it's the latter.

My take is that there will be cost overrun. And they're trying to reduce the pricetag until then when the contract is awarded.

[FFX-ME]

The route doesn't need to be doubled but it should be converted to a proper super-2 with an increased speed limit.

[J.OT13]

Downtown Ottawa bus map showing subway.



No doubt the bus routes will keep changing, but the subway should be reality within a year.