VIA Rail network developments

[acottawa]

I am not sure any of those projects make HSR more likely, in fact many of them will make HSR more difficult to implement (by filling corridors and stations with commuter trains).

I think it would take some drastic structural change to make talk of HSR politically or economically viable (ban on short-haul flights for example).

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not sure any of those projects make HSR more likely, in fact many of them will make HSR more difficult to implement (by filling corridors and stations with commuter trains).

I think it would take some drastic structural change to make talk of HSR politically or economically viable (ban on short-haul flights for example).

None of these problems require the rule book to be rewritten. Nothing is being attempted that hasn't already been done in Europe, or Japan, or other parts of the world. As more rail service is brought online, stations will get busier, new bottlenecks will emerge, success will bring about new problems. And when that happens, you come up with a new plan, expand, which brings about more success, wash, rinse, repeat.

A lot of the concerns people might have are know, and being addressed, or will be in the near future. Right now there is still a lot of groundwork yet to be laid, and just as rail service and networks look different than they did a decade ago, they will look even more different a decade from now. Take a look at Toronto. Yes, they have totally rebuilt the Georgetown corridor, which is an absolute necessity for increasing rail capacity. But the Lakeshore corridor east of Union is going to need that same treatment too. It will need a modernization that will allow it to accommodate all the GO service, and VIA, and who knows what other service. And in Montreal, a new tunnel is going to be needed through Mont Royal to properly accommodate commuter and passenger rail growth. And perhaps a revamp of that station. There is Union Station West, which will need to be planned to be part of a modern rail network. And grade separation projects. Electrification. Double tracking. And HFR.

If you sum up all the work that is being done (what I mentioned is just a fraction of it), what you are left with is the perfect opportunity to fill in the gap. HSR doesn't have to start out as a massive network wide plan. It doesn't have to be a plan that needs to modernize rail service from Central Station in Montreal up to the platforms of Union Station. It can focus on a single line, from roughly Oshawa to Vaudreuil-Dorion. It can focus on providing service to the most populous part of the corridor.

There is no need to ban short haul flights or be interventionist. The GTAA is the one pushing forward the Union Station West plan. It is helping to set the stage. Thats already a big shift in how traditionally resistant parties have viewed expanded rail and transit projects. Im not saying HSR is around the corner tomorrow. Slowly but surely though, more and more prerequisites for it are being checked off.

[acottawa]

I think you’re talking about aspirational or hoped for projects as if they are underway or completed.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think you’re talking about aspirational or hoped for projects as if they are underway or completed.

I know that some of what I talked about isn't underway, or seems aspirational. But the examples Im using aren't projects like the Ontario High Speed Rail service, or Moose, or past HSR studies. It is based on what GO/Metrolinx has already done, and the fact that what they plan is highly likely based on their track record. Things like electrification are being prepared for in current projects. They spent a decade doing un-sexy, but critical projects to get to this point. Their ambitions aren't pie in the sky, they are actually possible. The GTAA is an agency that could build Union Station West if it wanted to, and it seems that they do. Now VIA HFR is a fair question mark. But its on the one VIA plan in decades that the agency has stood behind for more than a month, and seems to be part of a bigger, modernization vision.

If you look at the growth of freeways in Canada, they have always grown out of the cities. Passenger rail doesn't seem to be much different. If smaller cities have strong transit networks, and larger cities have strong commuter rail infrastructure (or at least a strong central line), then you can start to fill in the gaps between with faster service through large scale construction of dedicated or high speed lines.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Isn't that what VIA will have after HFR (assuming they get funding electrify the line)? That is why I said it can be used as a stepping stone to HSR.

Hopefully the study the federal government asked VIA to perform will have looked at those options.

The one big advantage of the proposed plan is that they can pool the demand between Toronto-Ottawa, Toronto-Montreal, and Ottawa-Montreal. VIA has 10 trains a day from Toronto to Ottawa and 7 trains a day from Toronto to Montreal (plus 6 trains a day from Ottawa to Montreal), so assuming there is enough demand to support that, by using a route that is just as fast (if not faster) from Toronto to Montreal via Ottawa, they can have 17 trains a day.

By sticking to the lakeshore route, Ottawa becomes too much of a detour for that to work, so they can't get those high frequencies by pooling the demand.

There is a way they could get the best of both worlds on this front. If they built a new ROW between Smiths Falls and Kingston in a straight-ish line, it would cut about 40km off the distance between Toronto and Ottawa (that route could be roughly 90km long, compared to 130km from Kingston to Smiths Falls on the existing route through Brockville). Furthermore, they could build that new line as electric and to HSR standards, using the dual-mode option to have the trains operate at 200km/h there while sticking to 160km/h elsewhere. That would allow for a theoretical travel time of 2 hours and 24 minutes; let's say 2 hours 45 minutes in reality (accounting for some slow patches that might remain, stopping times, etc.). They could then get Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal to 4 hours and 15 minutes, which is still faster than all current Toronto-Montreal options.

The idea of a new ROW between Smiths Falls and Kingston has been studied before, IIRC. The HSR studies all called for one. I'm not sure how easy it would be though; I don't think there's any historical railway ROWs that go that way. There is a hydro corridor that goes from Smiths Falls to near Battersea they could use, then they'd have to expropriate some fields to get from Battersea to Kingston. I doubt it's a particularly cheap project, though.

Perhaps a "discount HFR" of sorts could be done by combining this Smiths Falls-Kingston route with a seperate project to double track the CP line between Trenton and Newcastle (where the CP and CN lines are basically right next to each other) and turn the CP line into a freight line for both CN & CP with the existing CN line being VIA only. If they managed to have the Smiths Falls-Kingston route merge in with the Smiths Falls-Ottawa route outside of the town of Smiths Falls (avoiding the CP railyard) this would allow Toronto-Ottawa service to operate completely free of freight interference from Union to Oshawa, again from Newcastle to Trenton, and again from Kingston to Ottawa, leaving fairly short segments between Trenton & Kingston and Newcastle & Oshawa as shared. The latter two could be 4-tracked in the future to achieve separation of passenger and freight.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by CityTech

There is a way they could get the best of both worlds on this front. If they built a new ROW between Smiths Falls and Kingston in a straight-ish line, it would cut about 40km off the distance between Toronto and Ottawa (that route could be roughly 90km long, compared to 130km from Kingston to Smiths Falls on the existing route through Brockville). Furthermore, they could build that new line as electric and to HSR standards, using the dual-mode option to have the trains operate at 200km/h there while sticking to 160km/h elsewhere. That would allow for a theoretical travel time of 2 hours and 24 minutes; let's say 2 hours 45 minutes in reality (accounting for some slow patches that might remain, stopping times, etc.). They could then get Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal to 4 hours and 15 minutes, which is still faster than all current Toronto-Montreal options.

The idea of a new ROW between Smiths Falls and Kingston has been studied before, IIRC. The HSR studies all called for one. I'm not sure how easy it would be though; I don't think there's any historical railway ROWs that go that way. There is a hydro corridor that goes from Smiths Falls to near Battersea they could use, then they'd have to expropriate some fields to get from Battersea to Kingston. I doubt it's a particularly cheap project, though.

I know the VIA Fast plan called for new track between Gananoque and Smiths Falls. I am not sure if other plans looked at Kingston and Smiths Falls, but that would be very expensive as greenfield routes are not cheap.

Perhaps a "discount HFR" of sorts could be done by combining this Smiths Falls-Kingston route with a seperate project to double track the CP line between Trenton and Newcastle (where the CP and CN lines are basically right next to each other) and turn the CP line into a freight line for both CN & CP with the existing CN line being VIA only. If they managed to have the Smiths Falls-Kingston route merge in with the Smiths Falls-Ottawa route outside of the town of Smiths Falls (avoiding the CP railyard) this would allow Toronto-Ottawa service to operate completely free of freight interference from Union to Oshawa, again from Newcastle to Trenton, and again from Kingston to Ottawa, leaving fairly short segments between Trenton & Kingston and Newcastle & Oshawa as shared. The latter two could be 4-tracked in the future to achieve separation of passenger and freight.

Moving all freight to CP's Belleville Subdivision between Trenton and Newcastle is a non-starter. The track goes through downtown Belleville with level crossings. When a train passes through, parts of town are cut off from the fire department and hospital ref. There has been a movement to ask CP to abandon the track and move their trains to the CN's Gananoque Subdivision, so there is no way they would accept even more and longer trains.

They might be more receptive to VIA using CP's track, as the trains are shorter, but they would have to slow right down when passing through town.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not sure any of those projects make HSR more likely, in fact many of them will make HSR more difficult to implement (by filling corridors and stations with commuter trains).

Do you really think there will be any commuter rail between Peterborough and Smiths Falls? That is about 1/3 of the route right there.

As lrt's friend said, HSR can be done incrementally and some parts could stay at conventional speeds.

I think it would take some drastic structural change to make talk of HSR politically or economically viable (ban on short-haul flights for example).

Who knows what the climate will be like 50 or 100 years from now.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I know that some of what I talked about isn't underway, or seems aspirational. But the examples Im using aren't projects like the Ontario High Speed Rail service, or Moose, or past HSR studies. It is based on what GO/Metrolinx has already done, and the fact that what they plan is highly likely based on their track record. Things like electrification are being prepared for in current projects. They spent a decade doing un-sexy, but critical projects to get to this point. Their ambitions aren't pie in the sky, they are actually possible. The GTAA is an agency that could build Union Station West if it wanted to, and it seems that they do. Now VIA HFR is a fair question mark. But its on the one VIA plan in decades that the agency has stood behind for more than a month, and seems to be part of a bigger, modernization vision.

If you look at the growth of freeways in Canada, they have always grown out of the cities. Passenger rail doesn't seem to be much different. If smaller cities have strong transit networks, and larger cities have strong commuter rail infrastructure (or at least a strong central line), then you can start to fill in the gaps between with faster service through large scale construction of dedicated or high speed lines.

Union Station West doesn’t help HSR, and is probably stuck in the idea phase, electrification has gone nowhere. I don’t think any of Metrolinx’s major projects over the last decade help any future HSR plan.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/projects_by_region.aspx

Also, most freeways did not grow out of cities in Ontario, in fact they tended to bypass or avoid cities (417 being the exception).

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Moving all freight to CP's Belleville Subdivision between Trenton and Newcastle is a non-starter. The track goes through downtown Belleville with level crossings. When a train passes through, parts of town are cut off from the fire department and hospital ref. There has been a movement to ask CP to abandon the track and move their trains to the CN's Gananoque Subdivision, so there is no way they would accept even more and longer trains.

I'm aware. That's why I suggested doing this between Trenton and Newcastle only (that does not include Belleville, FYI--Trenton is west of Belleville )

Between Trenton and Kingston (including Belleville) the solution for dedicated tracks would be to make the CN line 4 tracks, 2 for VIA and 2 for CN (CP sharing those as well through Belleville, to solve the downtown Belleville problem). This would be fairly easy to do between Kingston and Tyendinega but through the Belleville-Trenton region would be expensive as it would require replacing a lot of structures, and likely some home expropriation as well between Moira Street and Highway 62. For this reason, this is best left as a future project, with the much-easier Trenton-Newcastle segment done first, as that would make a big difference (that alone would remove freight interference from almost half of the Kingston-Toronto route). Although the need to eliminate the dangerous CP route through downtown Belleville could add to the political will to work on this section.

To me, the logical phasing of this entire plan would be:

As Phase 1:
a) Build the new route from Kingston to Smiths Falls.
b) Migrate CN tracks to the CP route (with double tracking of the CP route) between Trenton and Newcastle, allowing passenger-freight separation.

As Phase 2:
a) Quadruple-track the segment between Kingston and Tyendinega, allowing passenger-freight separation.
b) Double track the VIA-only segment between Smiths Falls and Ottawa, increasing capacity (avoiding the need for passing sidings that slow trains down).
c) Quadruple-track the short segment from Newcastle to Oshawa, allowing passenger-freight separation.

As Phase 3:
a) Quadruple-track the segment through Belleville-Trenton, allowing passenger-freight separation.

In 3 phases, complete separation of passenger & freight could be achieved between Toronto and Ottawa. Completing the first and second phases would deliver a lot of incremental improvements, meaning each phase could be funded as the money comes.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As lrt's friend said, HSR can be done incrementally and some parts could stay at conventional speeds.



Who knows what the climate will be like 50 or 100 years from now.

That can only be done if the HSR trains can operate on conventional track, which is a lot easier to do if your rail network was destroyed in WW2 and rebuilt to (then) modern standards than it is if most of your rail network predates WW1, as it does here.

If HFR is fully built out and fully electrified then it would be possible to run HSR trains along that line at conventional speeds and theoretically possible to build new HSR segments incrementally, but that is a lot of ifs.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by CityTech

To me, the logical phasing of this entire plan would be:

As Phase 1:
a) Build the new route from Kingston to Smiths Falls.
b) Migrate CN tracks to the CP route (with double tracking of the CP route) between Trenton and Newcastle, allowing passenger-freight separation.

As Phase 2:
a) Quadruple-track the segment between Kingston and Tyendinega, allowing passenger-freight separation.
b) Double track the VIA-only segment between Smiths Falls and Ottawa, increasing capacity (avoiding the need for passing sidings that slow trains down).
c) Quadruple-track the short segment from Newcastle to Oshawa, allowing passenger-freight separation.

As Phase 3:
a) Quadruple-track the segment through Belleville-Trenton, allowing passenger-freight separation.

In 3 phases, complete separation of passenger & freight could be achieved between Toronto and Ottawa. Completing the first and second phases would deliver a lot of incremental improvements, meaning each phase could be funded as the money comes.

Holy crap, a feasible plan.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I'm aware. That's why I suggested doing this between Trenton and Newcastle only (that does not include Belleville, FYI--Trenton is west of Belleville )

Between Trenton and Kingston (including Belleville) the solution for dedicated tracks would be to make the CN line 4 tracks, 2 for VIA and 2 for CN (CP sharing those as well through Belleville, to solve the downtown Belleville problem). This would be fairly easy to do between Kingston and Tyendinega but through the Belleville-Trenton region would be expensive as it would require replacing a lot of structures, and likely some home expropriation as well between Moira Street and Highway 62. For this reason, this is best left as a future project, with the much-easier Trenton-Newcastle segment done first, as that would make a big difference (that alone would remove freight interference from almost half of the Kingston-Toronto route). Although the need to eliminate the dangerous CP route through downtown Belleville could add to the political will to work on this section.

To me, the logical phasing of this entire plan would be:

As Phase 1:
a) Build the new route from Kingston to Smiths Falls.
b) Migrate CN tracks to the CP route (with double tracking of the CP route) between Trenton and Newcastle, allowing passenger-freight separation.

As Phase 2:
a) Quadruple-track the segment between Kingston and Tyendinega, allowing passenger-freight separation.
b) Double track the VIA-only segment between Smiths Falls and Ottawa, increasing capacity (avoiding the need for passing sidings that slow trains down).
c) Quadruple-track the short segment from Newcastle to Oshawa, allowing passenger-freight separation.

As Phase 3:
a) Quadruple-track the segment through Belleville-Trenton, allowing passenger-freight separation.

In 3 phases, complete separation of passenger & freight could be achieved between Toronto and Ottawa. Completing the first and second phases would deliver a lot of incremental improvements, meaning each phase could be funded as the money comes.

I would only accept your proposal if Via actually owned the trackage and the right of way so that CN could not use it for freights. The triple track that the prior conservative government paid for has not resulted in any increase in speed or reliability. It has just been used by CN to handle more and more freight traffic. We need to prevent this from happening if more passenger trains are to be routed on the CN route. The amount of new trackage required would probably be about the same as rebuilding the Peterborough to Smiths Falls route.

All of the phases ignore access to Central Station. Much of the line through downtown Montreal is only double track. This needs to be widened and a possible route change to access Central Station.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Holy crap, a feasible plan.

I think so. The cost would certainly be in the billions but I can't see the Peterborough-Perth route being substantially cheaper; if it is cheaper I can't see the difference being much more than a billion or two. Even if it is a billion or two more expensive to do my proposed Lakeshore plan, the Lakeshore plan would still be better, IMO, because:
a) It can be done incrementally with incremental benefits as each part is built (as opposed to the Peterborough plan, where the entire route has to be built at once to get any benefit)
b) The route will ultimately serve a much larger population and demand base (you've got hundreds of thousands living in places like Cobourg, Port Hope, Belleville, and Kingston--plus Kingston generates a lot more intercity travel demand than would be expected for a city of its size because of the universities).

Furthermore, if a full HSR was ever to be built for express Toronto-Ottawa traffic, this route would still have a lot of value for local services; whereas a Highway 7 route would be nearly devoid of demand if an HSR alternative existed.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I would only accept your proposal if Via actually owned the trackage and the right of way so that CN could not use it for freights. The triple track that the prior conservative government paid for has not resulted in any increase in speed or reliability. It has just been used by CN to handle more and more freight traffic. We need to prevent this from happening if more passenger trains are to be routed on the CN route. The amount of new trackage required would probably be about the same as rebuilding the Peterborough to Smiths Falls route.

All of the phases ignore access to Central Station. Much of the line through downtown Montreal is only double track. This needs to be widened and a possible route change to access Central Station.

Agreed. In all those segments I would quadruple track VIA would be the owner of its two tracks.

As for Montreal, I don't know nearly as much about the state of things; I stuck to Ottawa-Toronto for my idea as that's what I know better. I also think that Ottawa-Toronto has proven itself to be a corridor worthy of significant investment, as even with all the challenges the existing service has, ridership is still growing between the two cities, which to me proves that there is untapped demand that HFR could unlock. Whereas with Ottawa-Montreal, new trips added to the schedules have had to be withdrawn due to insufficient demand, so it's more of a risk to put money there.

[lrt's friend]

I think the logic of moving HFR to the Peterborough route gives VIA full control of the corridor. Adding track on the Lakeshore Route will be extremely expensive and it is unlikely that CN will be willing to give even partial control of the corridor over to VIA. This may jeopardize CN's long-term freight plans. I assume that the Montreal-Toronto corridor is one of the busiest freight routes in the country and therefore any suggestion to restrict freight movements on either the CP or CN routes is unlikely to be considered acceptable by either railway. I also assume that there are freight customers on this route, so re-routing freight to the Peterborough route may also be unacceptable to the railways.

VIA is taking the easiest and least risky approach to improving passenger rail between Montreal and Toronto by proposing the Peterborough route. No freight conflicts means that they can plan the line to move the trains at the maximum speed possible. I am sure that they will also build in an upgrade strategy for additional double tracking and grade separations. It is the quiet parts of this right of way that may present the first possibility of HSR rather than congested areas near the big cities. Further upgrades will be next to impossible on either the existing CN or CP routes, and remember that the CP route by-passes Kingston. Even considering the old CN route from Smith's Falls via Jones Falls went to Napanee and not Kingston and anything through Battersea would face extremely difficult terrain.

If we want to improve passenger rail on the Toronto - Montreal corridor, the Peterborough route is likely the best way to go. Don't forget that VIA has no intention of abandoning service on the Lakeshore route. In fact, it will focus on local service. That means that intermediate stations such as at Bellelville and Port Hope may actually see more trains actually stopping there. There is an opportunity for win, win, win.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I'm aware. That's why I suggested doing this between Trenton and Newcastle only (that does not include Belleville, FYI--Trenton is west of Belleville )

Between Trenton and Kingston (including Belleville) the solution for dedicated tracks would be to make the CN line 4 tracks, 2 for VIA and 2 for CN (CP sharing those as well through Belleville, to solve the downtown Belleville problem). This would be fairly easy to do between Kingston and Tyendinega but through the Belleville-Trenton region would be expensive as it would require replacing a lot of structures, and likely some home expropriation as well between Moira Street and Highway 62. For this reason, this is best left as a future project, with the much-easier Trenton-Newcastle segment done first, as that would make a big difference (that alone would remove freight interference from almost half of the Kingston-Toronto route). Although the need to eliminate the dangerous CP route through downtown Belleville could add to the political will to work on this section.

To me, the logical phasing of this entire plan would be:

As Phase 1:
a) Build the new route from Kingston to Smiths Falls.
b) Migrate CN tracks to the CP route (with double tracking of the CP route) between Trenton and Newcastle, allowing passenger-freight separation.

As Phase 2:
a) Quadruple-track the segment between Kingston and Tyendinega, allowing passenger-freight separation.
b) Double track the VIA-only segment between Smiths Falls and Ottawa, increasing capacity (avoiding the need for passing sidings that slow trains down).
c) Quadruple-track the short segment from Newcastle to Oshawa, allowing passenger-freight separation.

As Phase 3:
a) Quadruple-track the segment through Belleville-Trenton, allowing passenger-freight separation.

In 3 phases, complete separation of passenger & freight could be achieved between Toronto and Ottawa. Completing the first and second phases would deliver a lot of incremental improvements, meaning each phase could be funded as the money comes.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Holy crap, a feasible plan.

No way that is a feasible plan financially. Would be substantially more expensive than HFR. And that's even assuming the rail companies actually wanna play ball here.

Here's the fundamental problem. The vast majority of passengers are travelling between the GTA, Ottawa and Montreal. Add to this reality the fact that developing the Lakeshore rail corridors is both expensive and leaves VIA at the mercy of CN. It's simply not a tenable solution.

VIA is absolutely right to push for a new and fully independent corridor that it can build on. They can add grade separations, modify the curves, etc. to slowly build up stretches of higher speed. Something that would be increasingly challenging along the Lakeshore. They can even electrify in the future, another issue where freight and passenger interests don't align.

Lastly, splitting Lakeshore service and hubbing in Kingston is eminently sensible. This way a passenger traveling from Kingston to Montreal is not dependent on a train from Toronto and its delays. They could also work on deploying DMUs in this corridor to offer more frequency when the route is split.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As lrt's friend said, HSR can be done incrementally and some parts could stay at conventional speeds.

I've argued before that the biggest bang for the buck comes from investing on the route between Ottawa and Montreal. VIA says HFR will be over 1.5 hrs.



Chopping off time on this stretch makes Ottawa-Montreal more commutable while shortening the Toronto-Montreal trip. Not every bit of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor needs to be full 300 kph HSR to achieve reasonable travel times. Incremental growth can be done. Chopping 20 mins off Ottawa-Montreal would make it near high speed. But that would make Ottawa-Montreal very commutable while getting Toronto-Montreal to under 4.5 hrs (barely).

Originally Posted by roger1818

Who knows what the climate will be like 50 or 100 years from now.

If we haven't figured out intercity rail in 50 years, we'll be suffering economically and environmentally. The funny part about all these discussions is how much people completely ignore the elephant in the room: carbon pricing.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Union Station West doesn’t help HSR,

What? It absolutely does. The GTAA is looking to bring passengers to Pearson by rail (preferably HSR) so they can cut slots to smaller cities.

Originally Posted by acottawa

and is probably stuck in the idea phase,

Do you call an RFP and award for design work to be the idea phase?

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/gt...at-toronto-pearson-to-hok-672963123.html

The GTAA has indicated it has the funds and may well finance the hub on their own..

Originally Posted by acottawa

electrification has gone nowhere.

Again, depends on persepective. Electrification was never going to happen without all the enabling works required to have a mostly grade-separated high capacity suburban rail network. And Metrolinx has been building that for the better part of the last decade. The actual electrification bit is the last part and its stalled for now. But it's the least challenging bit and could easily be pulled off by a future government in one term.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t think any of Metrolinx’s major projects over the last decade help any future HSR plan.

Disagree. The capacity building and all those grade separations absolutely help. There's no way to have any quality intercity rail service without it. HSR or HFR.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

No way that is a feasible plan financially. Would be substantially more expensive than HFR. And that's even assuming the rail companies actually wanna play ball here.

Here's the fundamental problem. The vast majority of passengers are travelling between the GTA, Ottawa and Montreal. Add to this reality the fact that developing the Lakeshore rail corridors is both expensive and leaves VIA at the mercy of CN. It's simply not a tenable solution.

VIA is absolutely right to push for a new and fully independent corridor that it can build on. They can add grade separations, modify the curves, etc. to slowly build up stretches of higher speed. Something that would be increasingly challenging along the Lakeshore. They can even electrify in the future, another issue where freight and passenger interests don't align.

Lastly, splitting Lakeshore service and hubbing in Kingston is eminently sensible. This way a passenger traveling from Kingston to Montreal is not dependent on a train from Toronto and its delays. They could also work on deploying DMUs in this corridor to offer more frequency when the route is split.

The Peterborough plan breaks every rule of getting infrastructure actually built. It inconveniences a half dozen ridings for the benefit of one riding and a few small villages along highway 7. It cannot be separated into more manageable phases. It offers no interim benefit while construction is underway. Citytech’s proposal addresses these roadblocks.

In addition, even if political support is received, Via’s cost and time estimates are way off from other rail projects, so there is an extremely high likelihood that even if it gets political approval it would be stillborn when the tenders come back (or maybe Via went to the Joseph Potvin Academy of Cost Estimation).

This proposal has been kicking around for years. The Tories have shown no interest, the Liberals have been ragging the puck for almost 4 years. You’re of the belief that Via passengers in Ottawa are a politically or economically important group. I believe that is a mistaken assumption.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What? It absolutely does. The GTAA is looking to bring passengers to Pearson by rail (preferably HSR) so they can cut slots to smaller cities.

When have they ever said that? They want the hub to bring more passengers to the airport, not to have fewer passengers at the airport. Also, there is no way somebody from Ottawa is going to spend 3 plus hours on a train to catch a flight at Pearson.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Do you call an RFP and award for design work to be the idea phase?

That is pretty much the definition of the idea phase. "Hey, lets get some renders we can show the government."

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Again, depends on persepective. Electrification was never going to happen without all the enabling works required to have a mostly grade-separated high capacity suburban rail network. And Metrolinx has been building that for the better part of the last decade. The actual electrification bit is the last part and its stalled for now. But it's the least challenging bit and could easily be pulled off by a future government in one term.

Well, my perspective is that the electrification study was completed in 2010, it is now 2018 and not one meter of track has been electrified. Even Wynne's spending spree in the last year of the mandate got no electrification underway.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Disagree. The capacity building and all those grade separations absolutely help. There's no way to have any quality intercity rail service without it. HSR or HFR.

As far as I know none of those grade separations have been on track that could be conceivably used for any high speed rail.

[J.OT13]

I should know this and I'm sure I could find this online, but I'm asking anyway. Is there a possibility the HFR will be electrified? The increased speed (attracting riders out of planes and cars) and an electric power supply would go far in improving the environment.