VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Cost is the biggest enemy for most travellers, not time. More trains and more seats means lower fares and more options for travellers. Get fares on par with Greyhound and Bob's your uncle.

There's no single factor. It's very much dependent on each operating segment and each travel market.

Business travelers are time sensitive. Whereas tourists are price sensitive. And sensitive means a sliding scale and a consideration of return.

Toronto-Ottawa is supposed to be 3:15 hrs with HFR as per the G&M article. If true that would make a Union Station to Rideau Centre trip about 3.5 hrs. Traveling with Porter would make the same trip 2.5 hrs. There will be plenty of business travelers who say the hour saved is not worth the extra in air fare. But somebody coming up for a same day meeting is probably flying, because 2 hrs lost in a day is substantial. That is what sensitivity is. And since VIA can attract stone air travelers, they won't have to drop prices on this segment as substantially as they would Toronto-Montreal.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

HFR wont send ridership skyrocketing, nor does it have to.

They are projecting 9.9 million riders by 2030 for HFR. In their previous infographic I believe.

VIA's total ridership in 2018 was 4.74 million. Corridor ridership for 2018 (including Southwestern Ontario) was 4.5 Million.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/vi...a-fourth-consecutive-year-844878189.html

I'm not sure how you define "skyrocket", but a 220% increase in a decade fits my bill.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They are projecting 9.9 million riders by 2030 for HFR. In their previous infographic I believe.

VIA's total ridership in 2018 was 4.74 million. Corridor ridership for 2018 (including Southwestern Ontario) was 4.5 Million.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/vi...a-fourth-consecutive-year-844878189.html

I'm not sure how you define "skyrocket", but a 220% increase in a decade fits my bill.

Up until 2016 growth was pretty stagnant in the corridor. In fact in between 2011 and 2014 ridership in the corridor declined (It was 3.778 million in 2011, hit a low of 3.56 in 2014, and then almost got back to its 2011 numbers with 3.73 in 2016). In 2017 passengers increased by 11.1% and by 9.3% in 2018. This year growth is around 5% so far, which would put 2019 at about 4.75 million passengers in the corridor if that rate is sustained.

And that is happening with the network remaining status quo. And if trains are being sold out, then the question is how much more growth could they tap into just by adding more coaches to the most popular runs? Options for that might be limited now, but once the new fleet starts to arrive, you could increase seating capacity without any schedule adjustments.

Could you could sustain even 5% growth a year with the status quo network, but with longer trains for another decade? Probably not. But if that growth rate was sustained for 5 years, you would have an annual ridership of 6 million by the end of 2024.

9.9 million by 2030 might seem like a lot, but how much of that gain are they projecting to come from a new Montreal-Trois-Rivieres-Quebec service? Where would their projection stand if that segment isn't built? And what would be the increase in passengers if the status quo remained, just with newer and longer trains in the mix?

I know there are a lot of variables at play. And it is hard to really gauge current trends when there is not a more comprehensive breakdown of exactly what trips and what trains are generating the growth. But if annual passenger traffic is at 6 million by the time HFR opens (a 5 year timeline for that seems realistic), and they have to reforecast ridership projections based on Q-M not being part of the project, then the increase in ridership that could be attributed to HFR is going to be far less dramatic then how its impact is being sold as today. HFR will still have value, for what it is. But it wont be the game changer, from a ridership perspective.

Edit: Another way to put it is that HFR's value is as a proof of concept. Maybe its overall impact on corridor ridership might not be mind bending. But its impact on the Toronto-Ottawa corridor could potentially be dramatic. And if that is the case, you end up with real world proof of the value of investing in dedicated corridors, in the backyard of many millions of GTA residents. HFR is not a solution for Montreal-Toronto and the Lakeshore corridor. But if ridership in the Ottawa-Toronto corridor sharply increases, and it ultimately increases passenger satisfaction and the publics attitude about intercity rail, then it does make it a lot easier to sell real solutions for the Lakeshore corridor, and other destinations in the corridor for that matter.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Who knows what the obstacle is, but the proposal seems pretty ridiculous. $1.14B on Montreal-Quebec City. While they spend just $91 million for Ottawa-Montreal and $2.1B for Toronto-Ottawa. Montreal-Quebec City also had 18 trains per day while all Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal gets 15 trains per day.

I find it hard to believe that the ridership would justify that much service and that level of demand.

I wonder what the costs and ridership would look like for a London-Kitchener-Toronto leg?

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I wonder what the costs and ridership would look like for a London-Kitchener-Toronto leg?

Cost wise it actually keeps decreasing for VIA as time goes on with more GO investments taking place (two new tunnels under the 401/409 started construction last week). It is almost at the point where VIA would only have to be concerned with the Kitchener to London leg, infrastructure wise.

How much it would increase ridership overall in the corridor is hard to tell unless you knew exactly how many passengers were on that route today. But if you upgraded the existing London to Kitchener corridor for consistent, or near as makes no difference, 160km/h travel, and with a fully upgraded GO corridor all the way to Kitchener, I would be surprised if ridership didn't double as a result on the London-Kitchener-Toronto route. Throw a proper station at Pearson into the mix, and it might even triple.

[Innsertnamehere]

GO is already upgrading existing track from Kitchener to Toronto to 90mph track as we speak, with plans to double track it.

Once GOs upgrades are in, it would be a pretty no brainer cheap job for VIA to upgrade to London and bring frequent hourly service that way. I’m not really sure how much faster than the existing service it would be though, current trains make it in about 2:15 via Brantford, and 3:30 via Kitchener.. I struggle to believe London-Toronto via Kitchener with 90-110mph track could achieve much better than a 2 hour travel time.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

GO is already upgrading existing track from Kitchener to Toronto to 90mph track as we speak, with plans to double track it.

Once GOs upgrades are in, it would be a pretty no brainer cheap job for VIA to upgrade to London and bring frequent hourly service that way. I’m not really sure how much faster than the existing service it would be though, current trains make it in about 2:15 via Brantford, and 3:30 via Kitchener.. I struggle to believe London-Toronto via Kitchener with 90-110mph track could achieve much better than a 2 hour travel time.

The advantage to the London-Toronto via Kitchener would really come if there was a proper station at Pearson. That would greatly increase the value of that route. Plus K-W is around 350,000 people and is a bit of a destination in its own right. For a super fast trip from Toronto to London an upgraded route via Brantford would be the best choice. But the corridor VIA would need to upgrade would be a bit longer. Having an upgraded Lakeshore West line should help that routing out a bit as well (not a lot, but still something).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Up until 2016 growth was pretty stagnant in the corridor. In fact in between 2011 and 2014 ridership in the corridor declined (It was 3.778 million in 2011, hit a low of 3.56 in 2014, and then almost got back to its 2011 numbers with 3.73 in 2016). In 2017 passengers increased by 11.1% and by 9.3% in 2018. This year growth is around 5% so far, which would put 2019 at about 4.75 million passengers in the corridor if that rate is sustained.

And that is happening with the network remaining status quo. And if trains are being sold out, then the question is how much more growth could they tap into just by adding more coaches to the most popular runs? Options for that might be limited now, but once the new fleet starts to arrive, you could increase seating capacity without any schedule adjustments.

Could you could sustain even 5% growth a year with the status quo network, but with longer trains for another decade? Probably not. But if that growth rate was sustained for 5 years, you would have an annual ridership of 6 million by the end of 2024.

Growth that consistently outpace regional population growth and economic growth would be pretty remarkable if sustained. Implying either growth in marketshare for VIA or the creation of new markets. Unlikely to see 5% sustained in my opinion for that long. Especially since VIA is fundamentally capped by how much it can increase service while operating on CN's tracks.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

9.9 million by 2030 might seem like a lot,

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

But it wont be the game changer, from a ridership perspective.

You seem to be mixing up numbers. Which is why that growth is not remarkable to you. 4.5 million is the current ridership for the ENTIRE CORRIDOR. That's East (Toronto-Quebec City) and West (Toronto-Windsor). 9.9 million on just HFR, which doesn't encompass all of Corridor East (since Lakeshore would now be a separate service) is remarkable. This would imply that VIA's total Corridor ridership would be 12-13 million with HFR. I don't get how someone can say that's not a "game changer".

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Edit: Another way to put it is that HFR's value is as a proof of concept. Maybe its overall impact on corridor ridership might not be mind bending. But its impact on the Toronto-Ottawa corridor could potentially be dramatic. And if that is the case, you end up with real world proof of the value of investing in dedicated corridors, in the backyard of many millions of GTA residents. HFR is not a solution for Montreal-Toronto and the Lakeshore corridor. But if ridership in the Ottawa-Toronto corridor sharply increases, and it ultimately increases passenger satisfaction and the publics attitude about intercity rail, then it does make it a lot easier to sell real solutions for the Lakeshore corridor, and other destinations in the corridor for that matter.

I get your desire to have a novel take on a discussion board. But HFR is more than some "proof of concept". Nobody spends $4+ billion on a proof of concept.

This is the major investment that would happen for intercity rail in Canada, for our generation. Hopefully, it builds into further investment. Starting with extensions into Southwestern Ontario. And hopefully, it sets an example that allows other major corridors to proceed (Calgary-Edmonton, Vancouver-Kelowna). But those will be a long time out.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I wonder what the costs and ridership would look like for a London-Kitchener-Toronto leg?

Can get a rough idea with the HSR study that David Collenette did for the Wynne government.

They had $4.1 billion for the 250 kph scenario. That was to follow GO's RER. And would get Toronto-London to 1:13 hrs. Ridership was estimated at 10.6 million by 2041.

If I had to WAG it, I would say probably substantially less than a billion to build HFR to London with a ~2 hr trip time. And probably at least 70% riderhip of HSR. It's probably pretty analogous to Montreal-Trois Rivieres-Quebec City. Probably much cheaper since there is already rail service this way and an existing corridor.

I would bet money on this being the next phase, as soon as the first phase goes into service. Especially with the massive Pearson rail hub also in the works. The projects would all line up nicely for completion in the second half of the next decade.

[acottawa]

There is no reasonably-direct ROW. The existing railway takes a fairly circuitous route. The consultants hired by the previous government just drew a straight line on a map, with no regard for expropriation, grade separations or geographic features.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Growth that consistently outpace regional population growth and economic growth would be pretty remarkable if sustained. Implying either growth in marketshare for VIA or the creation of new markets. Unlikely to see 5% sustained in my opinion for that long. Especially since VIA is fundamentally capped by how much it can increase service while operating on CN's tracks.

And your right that there definitely is a limit on growth while the network infrastructure situation remains status quo.

But, that doesn't change the fact that all of sudden, in 2016, ridership suddenly increased, in a pretty substantial way, after decades of stagnation or decline. Why did that happen? What changed? From what I have seen, VIA didn't make any substantial changes. There were tiny upgrades here and there to tracks. There was no new equipment, though I guess many coaches had been renovated. There were some new stations in Belleville, Cobourg and Brockville in the past few years. Maybe the sum of all the small changes is what made the difference? Was the growth only on some routes, or was it network wide? Or is it something totally unrelated to VIA, like people hitting the tipping point of dealing with driving and the cost of parking when they go to Toronto and opting for the train instead?

I bring up all those questions because something obviously happened to change consumer preferences and without knowing exactly why that happened it is hard to know if this is a short term trend, a larger cultural trend, or something that VIA could leverage to get way more growth out of the existing network conditions? It isn't a substitute for modernization, but it is fascinating in its own way.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You seem to be mixing up numbers. Which is why that growth is not remarkable to you. 4.5 million is the current ridership for the ENTIRE CORRIDOR. That's East (Toronto-Quebec City) and West (Toronto-Windsor). 9.9 million on just HFR, which doesn't encompass all of Corridor East (since Lakeshore would now be a separate service) is remarkable. This would imply that VIA's total Corridor ridership would be 12-13 million with HFR. I don't get how someone can say that's not a "game changer".

Just for reference, here is the infographic that I saw that quoted the 9.9 million figure.



The way I interpret that is that it is 9.9 million for all service in the corridor. If there a revised infographic that specifies 9.9 for HFR only, fair enough, and yes that would make ridership gains higher. That would also lead to the question of how much of that ridership is simply going to be passengers shifting over from existing routes, to new services on the HFR line.

This is why talking about numbers is hugely challenging. There is no breakdown of numbers beyond these lump sump figures. Based on numbers I have access to at this moment in time I do take a slightly skeptical view of how much ridership will actually increase (especially if there is no Montreal-Quebec north shore segment). But better data could prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I get your desire to have a novel take on a discussion board. But HFR is more than some "proof of concept". Nobody spends $4+ billion on a proof of concept.

This is the major investment that would happen for intercity rail in Canada, for our generation. Hopefully, it builds into further investment. Starting with extensions into Southwestern Ontario. And hopefully, it sets an example that allows other major corridors to proceed (Calgary-Edmonton, Vancouver-Kelowna). But those will be a long time out.

If the full HFR project gets built then yes I would agree that it becomes something larger than just a proof of concept.

What are the odds that is going to happen though? The situation in Montreal with Mont-Royal tunnel and REM is a total mess and dealing with it properly probably wont be cheap, so that hot mess is putting that segment in jeopardy. We know from the Globe and Mail article that only $91 million is planned for the Ottawa-Montreal segment. Maybe that is enough to double track a good portion of it, which would help reliability, but that isn't going to allow for speeds to increase and knock down travel time to an even marginally newsworthy amount. That kind of investment isn't going to radically change travel on that corridor. It will allow for more trains, but increased frequency isn't a big show piece, and if there is no M-Q segment, will that affect the number of trains that end up running between Ottawa and Montreal?

At this point, the only part of the HFR route that seems likely be built/upgraded soon, and that is going to actually make waves with the public is the Ottawa-Toronto segment. Not just for decreasing travel time between Ottawa and Toronto, but also for bringing service to Peterborough.

That is why I say HFR is a proof of concept. The project that is likely to be built out of the gate is really about showing what happens to ridership between Ottawa and Toronto when you decrease travel times, and increase frequency and reliability, along with what happens when you start serving new markets, like Peterborough.

And yes it is a different take than other people have. But it also isn't just for the sake of being different. Proof of concept is how you gain support. Though the difference in less dramatic, it was the seeing the first section of HSL between Paris and Lyon in action that really got the public on board to continue investing in HSR. In some ways it could benefit additional HFR/HSR investment in the future if it is a smaller, proof of concept project, versus the full scale HFR. Not because the Montreal-Quebec section isn't worthwhile (it is), but for the reason that there is one section with one desired outcome to focus on, and for the public to see and get behind, or even just pay attention to in the first place. Its straightforward and simple and thats often a strength when trying to sell something versus overly complicated messaging. Yes, this is a bit of spin as I could likely come up with reasons why doing the full HFR project is the right choice, if that happened. But if the scale of the project is reduced, why not see it for what it is, and really roll with that?

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

And your right that there definitely is a limit on growth while the network infrastructure situation remains status quo.

But, that doesn't change the fact that all of sudden, in 2016, ridership suddenly increased, in a pretty substantial way, after decades of stagnation or decline. Why did that happen? What changed? From what I have seen, VIA didn't make any substantial changes. There were tiny upgrades here and there to tracks. There was no new equipment, though I guess many coaches had been renovated. There were some new stations in Belleville, Cobourg and Brockville in the past few years. Maybe the sum of all the small changes is what made the difference? Was the growth only on some routes, or was it network wide? Or is it something totally unrelated to VIA, like people hitting the tipping point of dealing with driving and the cost of parking when they go to Toronto and opting for the train instead?

I bring up all those questions because something obviously happened to change consumer preferences and without knowing exactly why that happened it is hard to know if this is a short term trend, a larger cultural trend, or something that VIA could leverage to get way more growth out of the existing network conditions? It isn't a substitute for modernization, but it is fascinating in its own way.



Just for reference, here is the infographic that I saw that quoted the 9.9 million figure.



The way I interpret that is that it is 9.9 million for all service in the corridor. If there a revised infographic that specifies 9.9 for HFR only, fair enough, and yes that would make ridership gains higher. That would also lead to the question of how much of that ridership is simply going to be passengers shifting over from existing routes, to new services on the HFR line.

This is why talking about numbers is hugely challenging. There is no breakdown of numbers beyond these lump sump figures. Based on numbers I have access to at this moment in time I do take a slightly skeptical view of how much ridership will actually increase (especially if there is no Montreal-Quebec north shore segment). But better data could prove me wrong.



If the full HFR project gets built then yes I would agree that it becomes something larger than just a proof of concept.

What are the odds that is going to happen though? The situation in Montreal with Mont-Royal tunnel and REM is a total mess and dealing with it properly probably wont be cheap, so that hot mess is putting that segment in jeopardy. We know from the Globe and Mail article that only $91 million is planned for the Ottawa-Montreal segment. Maybe that is enough to double track a good portion of it, which would help reliability, but that isn't going to allow for speeds to increase and knock down travel time to an even marginally newsworthy amount. That kind of investment isn't going to radically change travel on that corridor. It will allow for more trains, but increased frequency isn't a big show piece, and if there is no M-Q segment, will that affect the number of trains that end up running between Ottawa and Montreal?

At this point, the only part of the HFR route that seems likely be built/upgraded soon, and that is going to actually make waves with the public is the Ottawa-Toronto segment. Not just for decreasing travel time between Ottawa and Toronto, but also for bringing service to Peterborough.

That is why I say HFR is a proof of concept. The project that is likely to be built out of the gate is really about showing what happens to ridership between Ottawa and Toronto when you decrease travel times, and increase frequency and reliability, along with what happens when you start serving new markets, like Peterborough.

And yes it is a different take than other people have. But it also isn't just for the sake of being different. Proof of concept is how you gain support. Though the difference in less dramatic, it was the seeing the first section of HSL between Paris and Lyon in action that really got the public on board to continue investing in HSR. In some ways it could benefit additional HFR/HSR investment in the future if it is a smaller, proof of concept project, versus the full scale HFR. Not because the Montreal-Quebec section isn't worthwhile (it is), but for the reason that there is one section with one desired outcome to focus on, and for the public to see and get behind, or even just pay attention to in the first place. Its straightforward and simple and thats often a strength when trying to sell something versus overly complicated messaging. Yes, this is a bit of spin as I could likely come up with reasons why doing the full HFR project is the right choice, if that happened. But if the scale of the project is reduced, why not see it for what it is, and really roll with that?

HFR between Ottawa and Toronto is not a proof of concept there is consistent growing demand for that route and VIA needs to find a way to increase capacity for more growth. HFR for Ottawa and Toronto is the only thing that will do that.

[acottawa]

Pretty tepid support from the globe editorial board.

“If the Infrastructure Bank can jump-start a big private rail investment with a small amount of public seed money, then Canadians should support that. Otherwise, this train should remain in the station.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/...n-travel-and-how-much-it-could-cost-you/

Basically proposing calling Via’s bluff, which probably makes sense.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

HFR between Ottawa and Toronto is not a proof of concept there is consistent growing demand for that route and VIA needs to find a way to increase capacity for more growth. HFR for Ottawa and Toronto is the only thing that will do that.

Yes, HFR is needed to take ridership growth to the next level on the Ottawa to Toronto route. But that is the case for every other VIA route in the corridor as well. There might well be ways they can take advantage of the surge in growth that has recently happened, and squeeze a bit more out of the status quo. But every route needs modernization for its true potential to be reached.

Is HFR some brand new technology that is going to be displayed for the first time? No. But the Ottawa to Toronto HFR route would be the first major route on VIA's network to completely run on its own tracks, or on GO's dedicated passenger rail tracks, from end, to end. And while it wont be faster than flying, it will also be the first to have a significant enough time savings over driving (anywhere from 1 - 1.5 hours, depending on traffic in the GTA) to bend some people towards rail who hadn't considered it before. To people on forums like this, HFR is old hat. To most Ontarians the idea of investing real money to modernize passenger rail and change the nature of how VIA is able to operate, is a new concept.

If you don't like the term proof of concept, then you could call it a pilot project, or passenger rail disruption experiment, or some other marketing label. How you to refer to it doesn't really matter. At its core, the Ottawa to Toronto route is going to be VIA's showpiece. A testing ground. The route where you can change peoples views, and perspectives on using trains for intercity travel and a chance to bring in all new demographics of people. The chance to show what proper investment in intercity passenger rail can do. Whether that was the intention, or whether VIA even wants it to be the case, the future of intercity rail in Canada rests on that route. It is not as though they will close down shop if it fails, but if it does, it is going to seriously halt future progress. If it is successful, then it is really going to open up some doors.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Yes, HFR is needed to take ridership growth to the next level on the Ottawa to Toronto route. But that is the case for every other VIA route in the corridor as well. There might well be ways they can take advantage of the surge in growth that has recently happened, and squeeze a bit more out of the status quo. But every route needs modernization for its true potential to be reached.

Is HFR some brand new technology that is going to be displayed for the first time? No. But the Ottawa to Toronto HFR route would be the first major route on VIA's network to completely run on its own tracks, or on GO's dedicated passenger rail tracks, from end, to end. And while it wont be faster than flying, it will also be the first to have a significant enough time savings over driving (anywhere from 1 - 1.5 hours, depending on traffic in the GTA) to bend some people towards rail who hadn't considered it before. To people on forums like this, HFR is old hat. To most Ontarians the idea of investing real money to modernize passenger rail and change the nature of how VIA is able to operate, is a new concept.

If you don't like the term proof of concept, then you could call it a pilot project, or passenger rail disruption experiment, or some other marketing label. How you to refer to it doesn't really matter. At its core, the Ottawa to Toronto route is going to be VIA's showpiece. A testing ground. The route where you can change peoples views, and perspectives on using trains for intercity travel and a chance to bring in all new demographics of people. The chance to show what proper investment in intercity passenger rail can do. Whether that was the intention, or whether VIA even wants it to be the case, the future of intercity rail in Canada rests on that route. It is not as though they will close down shop if it fails, but if it does, it is going to seriously halt future progress. If it is successful, then it is really going to open up some doors.

I've taken the train from Ottawa to Toronto and to Montreal several times now. It is so much more relaxing and convenient than flying or driving. You show up at the station 10 minutes before the train leaves. No security, no extra baggage fees, no seatbelts. Train drops you off downtown (except in Ottawa ) which is perfect if you're going to a concert or sporting event.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Is HFR some brand new technology that is going to be displayed for the first time? No. But the Ottawa to Toronto HFR route would be the first major route on VIA's network to completely run on its own tracks, or on GO's dedicated passenger rail tracks, from end, to end. And while it wont be faster than flying, it will also be the first to have a significant enough time savings over driving (anywhere from 1 - 1.5 hours, depending on traffic in the GTA) to bend some people towards rail who hadn't considered it before. To people on forums like this, HFR is old hat. To most Ontarians the idea of investing real money to modernize passenger rail and change the nature of how VIA is able to operate, is a new concept.

Even assuming CP agrees to sell the Havelock Sub, Via would not own any of the track it needs in Toronto or Montreal. The Havelock sub ends in Agincourt, and the only route from there is the CP mainline (which they won’t share with GO beyond limited trains to Milton). Same with Montreal, where everything from Coteau to the start of the QG tracks is owned by other companies.

[zzptichka]

Can someone explain me why VIA makes people line up inside for boarding at major train stations? Why not let people walk up to the train like at all minor stations, and you know, all other places around the world?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Pretty tepid support from the globe editorial board.

“If the Infrastructure Bank can jump-start a big private rail investment with a small amount of public seed money, then Canadians should support that. Otherwise, this train should remain in the station.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/...n-travel-and-how-much-it-could-cost-you/

Basically proposing calling Via’s bluff, which probably makes sense.

Got to love how the author of the editorial was too afraid to put his/her name on it. Journalism at its best.

Not relevant to the topic at hand, but one statement in the editorial that isn't quite true was:

And yet Ottawa and Via Rail, the Crown corporation formed in 1977 after Canadian Pacific and Canadian National begged off of the money-losing passenger business, can’t quite shake the romance of train travel out of their heads.

At the time, At the time CN was a crown corporation and was receiving funding for passenger rail services (CN wasn't privatized until 1995). VIA was initially created as a political decision by Pierre Trudeau to who wanted to imitate Amtrak.

As for CP, they weren't (at least publicly) eager to get rid of their passenger services and VIA had to coerce them to give them up. This may have been a ploy to allow them to negotiate a better deal (which they certainly did).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Got to love how the author of the editorial was too afraid to put his/her name on it. Journalism at its best.

.

Editorials are always unsigned, in every newspaper, everywhere.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Even assuming CP agrees to sell the Havelock Sub, Via would not own any of the track it needs in Toronto or Montreal. The Havelock sub ends in Agincourt, and the only route from there is the CP mainline (which they won’t share with GO beyond limited trains to Milton). Same with Montreal, where everything from Coteau to the start of the QG tracks is owned by other companies.

In the urban areas, you enter into agreements with the freight companies that passenger trains be given priority with a number of rail upgrades being offered in return to minimize interference with freight.

The problems that we have had in the past is that we were asking the freight companies for slots on the entire route. That is clearly not been working, but on short urban sections, I am sure something can be arranged.