VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You are correct that we have had decades of studies going back to the early 1970's all saying the demand is there but that the cost is too high. With HFR the cost will be less than HSR and most of the right of way already exists.

Again. This was first pitched to the Harper government. Towards the end of that government's term. They flubbed on it. The Liberals want credit and have basically done nothing. Why hasn't a full study been complete in the 3.5 years the Liberals were in power? So what next, 6 months before the next election, they'll announce they need to "update" their study? I am done being strung along.....

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Do we provide people with viable alternatives

No. And the public doesn't have it as a priority at election at all. What do you think will be discussed more this election? The SNC-Lavalin scandal or HFR?

Originally Posted by GoTrans

or do we say there is nothing we can do because no one will take the train, park their car, insulate their house or use a paper bag?

Nice thoughts aside, this is actually where we end up in reality. The public likes living in suburbs and driving everywhere. This is the sad truth.....

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The easy decision is going to lead us more quickly to an unsustainable planet. We have to make the hard decisions.

We don't make easy or hard decisions. We make worse decisions. We refuse to invest in rail while also protecting our aviation section while also making gas expensive, with the net result of some of the highest costs of inter-city travel anywhere in the developed world. This is the situation I am sick of living in.

One of the largest geographies in the world and we make it expensive to communicate (highly protected telecom sector) and very expensive to travel. Madness.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Liberals have to walk a fine line between improving the environment and maintaining economic prosperity.

We all know that Conservative plans lack any teeth.

At least with the Conservatives, I know what I am getting. The Liberals go out of their way to lie. What use are those supposedly credible Liberal plans if they have no real intention of meeting emissions targets?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics...rack-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

I am sick of paying to pretend. I will willing pay higher taxes for real results. I don't want to pay for virtue signalling.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At least the Liberals are making some moves, perhaps as a campaign gimmick, but we now have two big proposals, the other being the elimination of single use plastic.

Three and a half years in power. They only propose this months before an election. Tells you how important they think these issues are.

I am a firm believer that sound policy can deliver better environmental outcomes while bolstering the economy. But none of our major parties are unfortunately interested in sound policy. And some make it worse by pretending to care with half-measures and using these issues as political fodder.

[lrt's friend]

I am a firm believer that sound policy can deliver better environmental outcomes while bolstering the economy. But none of our major parties are unfortunately interested in sound policy. And some make it worse by pretending to care with half-measures and using these issues as political fodder.

This is the weakness of the democratic system. Policy revolves around the 4 year election cycle. This is more than a 4 year project so it is bound to be tangled up in this cycle. The risks to certain projects are heightened if there is a change of government. We could alternatively become a dictatorship but that does not guarantee sound policy either.

If we want something to happen, we need to collectively speak up. Not throw up our hands and give up. The VIA announcement was far from a repudiation of HFR. I have seen this sort of thing on small committees as well. I have seen people throw up their hands with least bit of opposition when persistence is needed to move a good idea forward. We need to be persistent and patient.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is more than a 4 year project so it is bound to be tangled up in this cycle.

This is even more than that. This is the first major upgrade to intercity rail in almost 50 years. The last time there was any serious attempt to move the system forward was with the Turbo Train. And even that was just a change in rolling stock, not an upgrade to the network or creating dedicated tracks. Outside of that attempt absolutely nothing has changed about intercity rail in that time, while car use and air travel exploded.

For all intensive purposes, building a modern intercity rail network means starting from scratch. New equipment. New routes. New dedicated lines. New markets. This isn't for the weak, especially when it has to compete with the car, air travel, and a new barrage of propaganda/hype about AVs, ride sharing, EVs, and other "gee whiz" tech that is trying to keep the car, and its associated lifestyles and ways of building cities, alive and kicking.

Relative to what intercity rail in the corridor could be, it is irrelevant at the moment. It isn't just about getting money to do some upgrades and expansion. It is about introducing modern rail travel to the masses. It is about something entirely new. That's the real barrier. The money is a small fraction of what is being spent on local transit projects, and politicians are a creature of the people, so if enough public support can be developed it makes election cycles less of a concern (they will always be a thing, but if local transit can transcend political parties, that means the same is technically possible for intercity rail).

[Dengler Avenue]

Kudos to Johnny Renton for putting so much thought into writing that paragraph. Yes, it’ll be heck of a revolution if people like me can be convinced to travel to Ottawa from GTA by train and leave our cars at home.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

This is even more than that. This is the first major upgrade to intercity rail in almost 50 years. The last time there was any serious attempt to move the system forward was with the Turbo Train. And even that was just a change in rolling stock, not an upgrade to the network or creating dedicated tracks. Outside of that attempt absolutely nothing has changed about intercity rail in that time, while car use and air travel exploded.

For all intensive purposes, building a modern intercity rail network means starting from scratch. New equipment. New routes. New dedicated lines. New markets. This isn't for the weak, especially when it has to compete with the car, air travel, and a new barrage of propaganda/hype about AVs, ride sharing, EVs, and other "gee whiz" tech that is trying to keep the car, and its associated lifestyles and ways of building cities, alive and kicking.

Relative to what intercity rail in the corridor could be, it is irrelevant at the moment. It isn't just about getting money to do some upgrades and expansion. It is about introducing modern rail travel to the masses. It is about something entirely new. That's the real barrier. The money is a small fraction of what is being spent on local transit projects, and politicians are a creature of the people, so if enough public support can be developed it makes election cycles less of a concern (they will always be a thing, but if local transit can transcend political parties, that means the same is technically possible for intercity rail).

Changes to transportation policy really developed without our full knowledge. We have spent tons of money on supporting the car culture, but that has been achieved because it is incremental spending. The challenge with rail is that we have to make a major initial expenditure to create a worthwhile usable system. This is no different from the Confederation Line. There is a major expenditure to build a minimum initial project. After that it becomes incremental spending, which becomes much easier to sell to the public.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Changes to transportation policy really developed without our full knowledge. We have spent tons of money on supporting the car culture, but that has been achieved because it is incremental spending. The challenge with rail is that we have to make a major initial expenditure to create a worthwhile usable system. This is no different from the Confederation Line. There is a major expenditure to build a minimum initial project. After that it becomes incremental spending, which becomes much easier to sell to the public.

We could have done incremental spending for the last 100 years to improve rail service. Here are a few examples;

1. Most road alignments have been changed numerous times since they were originally built while very few changes have been made to rail alignments resulting in track geometry that is not appropriate for higher speeds.

2. Almost 100% of most multilane highways across the country are fully grade separated while there are still numerous level rail crossings.

3. You can probably count on one hand the number of rail to rail grade separations in the whole country which add to delays of both freight and passenger trains.

4. We are currently building under utilized HOV lanes on many multi-lane highways to separate multi-passenger vehicles from trucks and non multi-passenger vehicles but we can't separate freight from passenger rail.

5. We talk about extending 4 lane highways through northern Ontario for billions of dollars and yet we have allowed the full double track CP mainline between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg to be converted into single track in order to improve operating ratios.

6. We have allowed the government to cancel passenger service only to allow the freight railways to abandon trackage on routes that once had multiple train frequencies each day between relatively large communities.

7. We operate many passenger trains on such a low frequency that they are of no use to the travelling public and then say not enough people take the train to increase frequency. These same trains do not provide service to larger communities which would make the service more cost effective.

8. When we do fund rail expansion such as the triple track on the CN mainline between Toronto and Montreal we do not reserve it for passenger trains so there is only benefit to the freight service and not the passenger service.

9. We have intercity passenger rail close to airports in Toronto and Montreal but no intercity train service to the airport so we have people flying short commuter routes to the airport instead of using the rail. Airports should be for flights of 2 hours or more.

So yes incremental funding would have been a great asset in preserving the viability of the existing passenger that existed in the 1970's and 1980's. The problem is it needs to be consistent. It may be easier to fund incremental projects but you still have to have a commitment to the long term goal.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

HFR is the equivalent of painting lanes on a road. It will make things better for those currently using the train, but it will do nothing to attract new users for the most part (obviously the addition of new markets in Peterborough and Trois Rivieres, and the potentially sizable reduction in Quebec-Montreal travel time are the exception). The public doesn't care because it hasn't taken that leap needed to make people think differently about taking a train, in the way fully protected bike lanes makes people totally rethink what biking can be like.

The large reduction in Ottawa-Toronto travel time are also significant. I disagree with you. This is enough to really change behaviour for a lot of travellers, especially as local transit improves. The rail equivalent of painting bike lanes would be something like having longer trains, or dining cars.

[Gat-Train]

Great points from Go Trans.

I don't think people ever stop to think about how much suburban lifestyle is dependent on subsidies. It's not efficient to spread out all that infrastructure and tax base over such a large area, so the end result is inner cities subsidize all that sprawl. If we raised gas taxes and put tolls on major highways/bridges to the point that motorists would pay the full costs of road maintenance, I guarantee we'd see a massive exodus from the suburbs toward urban living.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

The large reduction in Ottawa-Toronto travel time are also significant. I disagree with you. This is enough to really change behaviour for a lot of travellers, especially as local transit improves. The rail equivalent of painting bike lanes would be something like having longer trains, or dining cars.

Agreed, and reliability will be a huge improvement. Right now small delays spiral into big delays as a result of freight schedules. If I had an option that reliably got me from (almost) downtown Ottawa to downtown Toronto in three hours, for say 60-70% of the cost of a plane ticket, I would be choosing that option almost every time, and definitely every time in the winter. The train is more comfortable and you can be more productive - it's those trips that end up taking 5 hours that really hurt their market.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Great points from Go Trans.

I don't think people ever stop to think about how much suburban lifestyle is dependent on subsidies. It's not efficient to spread out all that infrastructure and tax base over such a large area, so the end result is inner cities subsidize all that sprawl. If we raised gas taxes and put tolls on major highways/bridges to the point that motorists would pay the full costs of road maintenance, I guarantee we'd see a massive exodus from the suburbs toward urban living.

Suburbs are designed the way they are because land is much cheaper than in urban areas. We already charge enormous development fees to build infrastructure. If we just keep charging more, it just keeps driving up the cost of housing to everybody.

We could design suburbs with much less wasted land, if we developed them around transit. Better bike and pedestrian infrastructure would result in less need for massive parking lots and massive boulevards and wasteful cloverleafs. There also needs to more integration of retail and non-industrial business into the community, so more can walk or bike to shops and the office.

But we see a resistance to delivering transit to the suburbs to make better suburban design possible. That is a self-defeating way of thinking about things.

We have to face it that we cannot get most people to move into the city, because that would drive land costs to astronomical levels. This would in turn drive most people back to the suburbs.

Our goal should be more compact and better designed suburbs supported with better alternative transport infrastructure. To a small degree, we have succeeded in increasing the density of our suburbs compared to the 1950s and 1960s but we have a long way to go.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

The large reduction in Ottawa-Toronto travel time are also significant. I disagree with you. This is enough to really change behaviour for a lot of travellers, especially as local transit improves. The rail equivalent of painting bike lanes would be something like having longer trains, or dining cars.

I agree that there will be some benefits to HFR, and the decreased time between Ottawa and Toronto will shift some people from air or car to train. But it is still not a game changer. I would argue that most important benefits that HFR will bring are the seemingly smaller aspects of the plan. Building a modern rail infrastructure from Peterborough into Toronto will not only benefit VIA, but will also allow for better commuter specific services in that corridor. Having a station in Markham would bring VIA service a lot closer to that part of the 905, and even if it doesn't necessarily reduce the trip time to Montreal (Ottawa will see a decent time savings for them) the fact that they will have a station much closer by does actually increase convenience and reduce overall door to door time (and travelling by rail is a much better proposition when you have a station right by versus having to travel 30 or 40 minutes to one, and maybe even more depending on traffic).

I know there are different camps in terms of what should be done, and thus what would be game changing or not. Personally, game changing is a direct, on site rail connection at Pearson that both VIA and GO can use. Its more stations, and more reliable service for stations in the 905, and on the North and South shores in the Montreal region (the suburbs exist, and contains a huge population that is being underserved). Its a dedicated corridor on the Lakeshore route that keeps service to existing towns, and perhaps even adds a few more. It's even putting a station in Kanata and having a few Montreal bound trains a day start and end their trip there.

Game changing is when someone in Kingston, or Perth, can get on a train, and get to Toronto, be it Union, Pearson, or an Eglinton station, in a single trip, and know with near certainly they will arrive faster than if they drove, at the time the schedule says. The network doesn't have to be super fast, it just needs to be reliable and flexible, and shouldn't require a super long car or transit trip just to get to the station.

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Great points from Go Trans.

I don't think people ever stop to think about how much suburban lifestyle is dependent on subsidies. It's not efficient to spread out all that infrastructure and tax base over such a large area, so the end result is inner cities subsidize all that sprawl. If we raised gas taxes and put tolls on major highways/bridges to the point that motorists would pay the full costs of road maintenance, I guarantee we'd see a massive exodus from the suburbs toward urban living.

You don't even need to put additional costs on suburban living. How many people would move from the suburbs to a more urban neighborhood right now, if they could actually afford it? Housing costs have skyrocketed in Toronto and Vancouver since the late 80's (the start of reurbanization in Canada) because of demand to live in those city centres to the point where it is unaffordable for the overwhelming majority of the population.

Urban regions also receive subsidies, in the form of new transit investment, and just as important, upgrading the unsexy infrastructure like water and sewer to accommodate higher densities of people. Yes, urban areas can provide services at a lower cost because of a higher population base, but to take further advantage of those cost savings, those parts of the city need massive investments in them.

If anything, some of the most cost effective gains to be made in terms of low cost city growth will be in the suburbs. Between the wasted spaces, and low value uses (like big box retail), there is a massive amount of land that can be redeveloped into higher density living and employment. Same is true of the massive arterial roads and corridors which can easily accommodate dedicated transit lines, and AAA, safe bike infrastructure. It also has the potential to result in more affordable housing than similar development in more urban areas because you don't have the higher cost of land.

This is why bringing modern intercity rail service to cities like Markham, Vaughan, Mississauga, and Brampton, are going to be game changing moments for VIA. Those 4 "suburbs" alone have 2.1 million people between. Mississauga has Pearson, which is now at the centre of the second most important economic area in Ontario (if not Canada). Their growth is only going to continue as well (and start to become increasingly urban). If you make rail service more convenient in places like those, you are going to radically change peoples perception and connection with rail travel.

[JohnnyRenton]

I would also add that part of the success of a modern intercity rail network is being shaped as we speak. A modernized GO train network, and Union Station, in themselves are going to allow many doors to be opened. Consider someone in Mississauga or Brampton that wants to go to Ottawa. Being able to get from those stations, to Union, with a short dwell time, and a quick trip out of the city to VIAs own line, suddenly makes rail travel from those two markets, at least in the case of a trip to Ottawa, a viable proposition. Those two cities alone have 1.4 million people, and unlocking the potential is equal parts the inner city rail network, as it is the intercity network.

The same is true of the Montreal region. Being able to utilize the REM network (which could be the direction other commuter lines take in the future) opens up new service possibilities there as well. This was acknowledge in the announcement of the study which will look at how the intercity network will be able to integrate and utilize these two regional systems. The importance of modernization of these two regional networks on VIA really cannot be understated.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I would also add that part of the success of a modern intercity rail network is being shaped as we speak. A modernized GO train network, and Union Station, in themselves are going to allow many doors to be opened. Consider someone in Mississauga or Brampton that wants to go to Ottawa. Being able to get from those stations, to Union, with a short dwell time, and a quick trip out of the city to VIAs own line, suddenly makes rail travel from those two markets, at least in the case of a trip to Ottawa, a viable proposition. Those two cities alone have 1.4 million people, and unlocking the potential is equal parts the inner city rail network, as it is the intercity network.

The same is true of the Montreal region. Being able to utilize the REM network (which could be the direction other commuter lines take in the future) opens up new service possibilities there as well. This was acknowledge in the announcement of the study which will look at how the intercity network will be able to integrate and utilize these two regional systems. The importance of modernization of these two regional networks on VIA really cannot be understated.

There is something else that needs to be covered to make local transit, and GO interact with VIA HFR well, and that is a few key suburban stations. Place a one or two well connected VIA stations in the suburbs. A real killer is to make people from the suburbs to go all the way to downtown to reach VIA and then back track more or less the same direction. We need to create a few intermodal transit hubs in the suburbs of each major city that connect both to traditional VIA but also VIA HFR.

In Ottawa, we have already done this with our two VIA stations that are both well connected to local transit.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is something else that needs to be covered to make local transit, and GO interact with VIA HFR well, and that is a few key suburban stations. Place a one or two well connected VIA stations in the suburbs. A real killer is to make people from the suburbs to go all the way to downtown to reach VIA and then back track more or less the same direction. We need to create a few intermodal transit hubs in the suburbs of each major city that connect both to traditional VIA but also VIA HFR.

In Ottawa, we have already done this with our two VIA stations that are both well connected to local transit.

There is a trade-off with too many suburban stations, as they impact travel time. You would't want more than one suburban station on each line.

Most suburban residents are always going to need to travel a distance to get to the train. The main stations tend to be the most central and much better connected to local transit, so they should always get the most departures, and some express trains.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is something else that needs to be covered to make local transit, and GO interact with VIA HFR well, and that is a few key suburban stations. Place a one or two well connected VIA stations in the suburbs. A real killer is to make people from the suburbs to go all the way to downtown to reach VIA and then back track more or less the same direction. We need to create a few intermodal transit hubs in the suburbs of each major city that connect both to traditional VIA but also VIA HFR.

In Ottawa, we have already done this with our two VIA stations that are both well connected to local transit.

I would go one step further and say in addition to electing key suburban stations, there should also be a selection of secondary stations. As trains become more frequent it opens up the opportunity to program stops in new suburban areas. The obvious example would be a Markham station on the new Toronto-Ottawa alignment. Or, in a scenario where there is more capacity along the Lakeshore, you could simply keep the number of trains serving Oshawa and Guildwood the same, and instead add some service to Ajax (the create a closer station for the Pickering-Ajax, Whitby area), or look at Eglinton station as a stop (which will be served by the crosstown line). It might even make sense to have Eglinton become the primary east Toronto stop and Guildwood fall into a secondary position. For the west end of Toronto there are just as many opportunities, if not more if/when a station at Pearson is built.

It is worth pointing out that though a lot of those ideas are most certainly a decade out, there is no reason they cannot be promoted going forward. Having a vision matters. Talking about future service in Ajax might not get tens of thousands of people shouting with excitement for the future of intercity rail. But it will attract attention. And especially in that case, it is something that doesn't even need a price tag. There is a GO station there right now, so you start with something tangible right from the get go.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by phil235

There is a trade-off with too many suburban stations, as they impact travel time. You would't want more than one suburban station on each line.

Most suburban residents are always going to need to travel a distance to get to the train. The main stations tend to be the most central and much better connected to local transit, so they should always get the most departures, and some express trains.

Trains don't have to stop at every station. You can add other suburban stations as service levels increase so that inbound and outbound trains still stop at just one suburban station, but there is an alternating selection of exactly which one they stop at. (And yes, that wouldn't work today as service levels are not increasing enough, but with HFR you open up that possibility along some sections of that route).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

This is even more than that. This is the first major upgrade to intercity rail in almost 50 years. The last time there was any serious attempt to move the system forward was with the Turbo Train. And even that was just a change in rolling stock, not an upgrade to the network or creating dedicated tracks. Outside of that attempt absolutely nothing has changed about intercity rail in that time, while car use and air travel exploded.

Correct. And step change costs money. Lots of money. Which our spineless politicians balk at (or quite simply see the opportunity cost vs. spending that in their ridings). This is why every time the bill arrives we see governments do whatever they can to shelve the project. The easiest way is to announces another study.

Look at HSR. There was VIAFast in the 80s/90s. When that bill came, politicians forgot about it for a decade or two, until McGuinty announcing the EcoTrain study. Wynne promised High Speed Rail. She had the Collenette study for Toronto-Kitchener-London-Windsor. When that price tag came back, they quietly forgot about it all until inquiries started around the election and they promptly announced they would do the EA.

Even more mundane projects. They Wynne government got back Metrolinx's electrification report on GO, saw the $12 billion price tag and decided to run off with the Hydrogen Rail study rather than committing to electrification.

So what are your predictions for what happens when the study comes back and says VIA underestimate the cost? Most cursory estimates already say just Toronto-Peterborough would be $1 billion. So $4 billion from Toronto to Quebec City is already looking unrealistic....

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Relative to what intercity rail in the corridor could be, it is irrelevant at the moment. It isn't just about getting money to do some upgrades and expansion. It is about introducing modern rail travel to the masses. It is about something entirely new. That's the real barrier. The money is a small fraction of what is being spent on local transit projects,

I don't know where you get that idea. VIA's own $4-6 billion estimate is not small. That would be one of the most expensive public transport projects ever undertaken in Canada. And it's quite likely that a more realistic cost will have this in this in the $8-12 billion rivaling GO RER. At which point, every politician will be thinking of what their share of that could do to win him/her votes in their riding (works out to $24 million per Member of Parliament).

And finance is just the first hurdle. Lakeshore communities are going to be arguing against HFR if they think they are losing service. And there could be farmers against HFR if they perceive land impacts, just like those who campaigned against the Ontario HSR plan in Oxford County.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

...but if local transit can transcend political parties, that means the same is technically possible for intercity rail).

But local transit doesn't transcend political parties. Look at the subway vs. LRT debate in Toronto. Or the debate on Ontario HSR with the conservatives backed by farmers opposed to HSR and Liberals feigning some consideration of HSR.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Changes to transportation policy really developed without our full knowledge.

Ummm no. They happened in full public view. The public is just disinterested. Go to any public consultation for transit or other infrastructure project. You very rarely see average citizens. Often a usual set of cranks and activists.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

This is no different from the Confederation Line. There is a major expenditure to build a minimum initial project. After that it becomes incremental spending, which becomes much easier to sell to the public.

This is a strange comparison to make. Just because it's rail doesn't mean that the Confederation Line is contextually similar to HFR. Not even close. So many more communities involved. So many more dollars. So many more decision makers. Imagine every problem the Confederation Line had multiplied.

And while there was a broad consensus on building transit and a decent consensus on the Confederation Line's East-West routing and tunneling (going by O'Brien's election at the time), there's no such consensus on HFR. There's a lot of communities who may be opposed to this along the proposed route. There's many who will argue against the cost, especially if the refined estimate grows substantially (as should be expected). Heck, I've seen public transit proponents argue against HFR with the argument that the same money spent on local transit in cities along the Corridor delivers higher ridership than HFR.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

We could have done incremental spending for the last 100 years to improve rail service. Here are a few examples;

1. ...9....

Your observations are spot on.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

So yes incremental funding would have been a great asset in preserving the viability of the existing passenger that existed in the 1970's and 1980's. The problem is it needs to be consistent. It may be easier to fund incremental projects but you still have to have a commitment to the long term goal.

All of Europe's HSR networks were built with incremental spending. A few billion for a short line here or an extension there. And there are places where that would absolutely work, like Ottawa-Montreal.

I look at Ottawa-Montreal as one of the more severely mismanaged corridors. Here we have what amounts to almost an ideal situation for intercity rail. Two cities less than 200 km apart, with strong cultural ties, a rail line that goes through mostly rural areas, with a stop outside a major international airport. Incremental investment here with progressive straightening and grade separation would have eventually made this corridor commutable and made access to Dorval from Ottawa easy. Instead a handful of VIA trains per day is supposed to suffice and nobody in Ottawa or Montreal really cares to complain because everyone is just used to driving between these cities.

But for the bulk of the Corridor, unfortunately, incremental spending is not going to achieve much at this point. We should have been doing it all along in partnership with the freight operators and we would have ended up with a Corridor that was straighter, with more grade separation, and possibly dedicated passenger tracks. But today, the cost to achieve that on the Toronto-Ottawa stretch is probably going to be more than building a new line. Development has probably encroached sufficiently that it would be challenging to straighten out CN's corridors and provide dedicated passenger tracks.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I would go one step further and say in addition to electing key suburban stations, there should also be a selection of secondary stations. As trains become more frequent it opens up the opportunity to program stops in new suburban areas.

This is scope creep that would kill the service. Sure, first it will start with not every train stopping there. But then you'll have the local mayor, council, MP and MPP arguing that it's "unfair" that every train doesn't stop there. The best way to avoid this is not to build stops that VIA isn't willing to service substantially. And/or impose a strong standard up front. "Potential all-stop station locations must have a population of — within yy km."

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

The obvious example would be a Markham station on the new Toronto-Ottawa alignment.

They don't have a Markham station at the moment. But I expect that to change in any detailed study when it becomes clear that Eglinton is far too west and south for most of the Eastern GTA.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Or, in a scenario where there is more capacity along the Lakeshore, you could simply keep the number of trains serving Oshawa and Guildwood the same, and instead add some service to Ajax (the create a closer station for the Pickering-Ajax, Whitby area), or look at Eglinton station as a stop (which will be served by the crosstown line). It might even make sense to have Eglinton become the primary east Toronto stop and Guildwood fall into a secondary position.

You are confusing Eglinton GO station with the HFR Eglinton stop. Given the need to go down the Uxbridge sub, the HFR station will likely be at TTC/GO Kennedy station where Eglinton crosses the track.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Talking about future service in Ajax might not get tens of thousands of people shouting with excitement for the future of intercity rail....But it will attract attention. And especially in that case, it is something that doesn't even need a price tag. There is a GO station there right now, so you start with something tangible right from the get go.

Ajax to Oshawa is 15 km. When stations start be spaced like that, intercity rail fails. There's no reason for Ajax to have its own VIA station. What is needed is better local connectivity from Ajax to Oshawa which is coming. The Lakeshore line is getting 15 min two-way all day GO service.

Keep in mind that Kingston to Union becomes an independent service after HFR. And that should be prioritized to serve Kingston, Belleville, Cobourg, etc. Degrading their service to give stops to places like Ajax which will have good GO service is just a terrible idea. It won't be all that difficult for someone from Ajax to access Oshawa VIA with the services they will have in the coming years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

The large reduction in Ottawa-Toronto travel time are also significant. I disagree with you.

Thank you. The biggest beneficiary from HFR is Ottawa. Almost competitive with air for Toronto (especially if you have to fly through Pearson for some reason). And competitive with car and bus to Montreal. Our VIA station is substantially better located than our airport. This along with the fact that Ottawa is being served directly from Toronto is huge. I predict the demise or at least substantial downsizing of Greyhound in Ottawa if HFR happens.

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

This is enough to really change behaviour for a lot of travellers, especially as local transit improves. The rail equivalent of painting bike lanes would be something like having longer trains, or dining cars.

It's nice that Tremblay station is on the Confederation Line. But its sheer location means HFR would be valuable even if there was no LRT line there. It was well served with the Transitway and its a short drive/cab ride from the core.

The reliability and frequency gains are also more valuable that people realize. Even if Ottawa-Toronto was 4 hrs, the service would still sell if the trains were on time and the schedule was hourly. The increase in seats offered and timings means you could go to the station and buy a ticket on the spot for a more reasonable rate (like elsewhere in the world). Heck, in theory, they could make it tap on/off with Presto! But today, the schedule is a hodge-podge and on-time performance —, so the train becomes an unreliable luxury for those who have time and money to spare effectively.