VIA Rail network developments

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I'm not saying we should halt HFR and do a Lakeshore route. HFR should go ahead, in whatever form it takes. It's a smart idea. No question about that. I also don't think that it should put an end to planning for an upgraded Lakeshore route. There is also value in that.

There's also no money for that. It's why VIA is pitching HFR.

Let's be clear what this plan is. It's the old VIAFast plan with Lakeshore running, grade separation and 200+ kph operation stripped out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViaFast

The cost has nearly doubled in 20 years, giving less than what was previously proposed for a higher price. But now you think waiting longer will improve the situation:

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I know I have a counter opinion to most people on this forum, and railfans and rail advocates in general, but I would rather wait for a project to be built, and be done right then invest in something compromised and rubbishy. I don't care about trains for trains sake. If building regional or intercity rail is the right solution for providing people with safe, fast, economical travel, great. If it isn't, bin the idea. Any investment should attract a whole new variety of people who wouldn't have considered the train before, or start to take the train regularly rather then once every 5 years when the weather is too terrible to drive or fly. At this point that might be my favorite aspect of HFR, simply seeing how the public responds to it and what exactly it does for ridership.

This is a pretty elitist and ignorant point of view. Nobody here is supporting building rail lines just for the sake of it. And it's truly some privileged and elitist nonsense to say that something shouldn't get built unless it meets some personal standard of yours. Irrespective of benefit to millions of others.

Your viewpoint is exactly as selfish as Lrt's friend and his arguments against the Confederation Line.

Governments don't spend billions of dollars based on the whims of JohnnyRenton at SSP Ottawa. They know exactly who benefits, who is being targeted and what the return is. Nailing down that information is the exact point of the $70 million study about to be undertaken by VIA.

[lrt's friend]

Your viewpoint is exactly as selfish as Lrt's friend and his arguments against the Confederation Line.

You might want to tone this down. I am not opposed to the Confederation Line. I have been wanting something better for the Trillium Line instead of maintaining the one track trial project for decades.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's also no money for that. It's why VIA is pitching HFR.

Let's be clear what this plan is. It's the old VIAFast plan with Lakeshore running, grade separation and 200+ kph operation stripped out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViaFast

The cost has nearly doubled in 20 years, giving less than what was previously proposed for a higher price. But now you think waiting longer will improve the situation:

Again, I didn't say that VIA should scrap HFR and cause an interminable wait for another project to come along. HFR is a good project. I've always supported it. Its pragmatic. Yeah maybe I have talked about some super ideal situation, like focusing on the Lakeshore corridor first. But that is a massive project and the only reason I bring up those situations is because the ultimate goal should be to aim for the very best that is possible and work through the compromises and realities that life brings.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is a pretty elitist and ignorant point of view. Nobody here is supporting building rail lines just for the sake of it. And it's truly some privileged and elitist nonsense to say that something shouldn't get built unless it meets some personal standard of yours. Irrespective of benefit to millions of others.

Your viewpoint is exactly as selfish as Lrt's friend and his arguments against the Confederation Line.

Governments don't spend billions of dollars based on the whims of JohnnyRenton at SSP Ottawa. They know exactly who benefits, who is being targeted and what the return is. Nailing down that information is the exact point of the $70 million study about to be undertaken by VIA.

Yes, that is me, Mr Elitist trying to force my whims on Canada like some autocrat.

If that is what you think about me, then hey, knock yourself out. I don't think anything that I say is going to change your opinion of me. Yes, I think that the strategies, plans, and general way of communicating that rail advocates employ to try to change peoples minds about the value of intercity rail is stale, and stuck in the past, because it has been the same, dogmatic messaging for decades. I think that Canada can do better when it comes to everything surrounding intercity rail, because whether it is transit, biking, or livable, affordable, urban communities, there are lots of examples of cities and regions that are actually making bold, modern changes being lead by bold, modern groups of people. I think that intercity rail should work towards serving more people, not less, and that there needs to be better accessibility and safety for customers, and people doing intercity travel in general (this issue can be seen most clearly, and tragically, in the northern communities and regions). And yes, I think that if the public isn't engaged in the future of intercity rail, even if its just possessing a fraction of the awareness that they have surrounding transit or highway projects or even nonsense like hyperloops, then maybe the problem isn't the public, but what is being proposed or presented to them. Personally, I want to know what people think because some of their responses and reasoning are absolutely fascinating.

So call me whatever you want for having those thoughts and perspectives. I stand by them.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You might want to tone this down.

I tend to agree. While I agree with Truenorth00 viewpoint (regarding HFR) in his post, I think calling people selfish is taking things a bit too far. People are entitled to different opinions and discussions should be kept civil (critique the viewpoint, not the person with it).

Getting back on topic. I am not promoting rail for the sake of rail. It is that I believe that HFR will solve two of VIA's biggest problems: frequency and reliability. Once those are fixed, we can then make gradual upgrades to further reduce travel time and extend the line. As the train gets a higher modal share, there will be more political pressure to make improvements.

Top speed is only one way to reduce travel time. While having a train with a top speed of over 300km/h might make it a big "show piece" for the media, what users actually care about is how long it takes to get from their origin to destination (home to hotel or whatever). Having to wait longer for a train that is faster, could result in a longer overall travel time.

One example of misleading people with top speed is the Acela Express. It is advertised to have a maximum speed of 150 mph (240 km/h), but only does so on 3 sections of track totalling 33.9 miles (55 km). In reality, its average speed (over the entire route from Washington to Boston) is 70.3 mph (113 km/h) ref. As a result, it takes between 6:38 and 6:50 to travel the 457 miles (735 km) including stops. To put that in perspective, that average speed is equivalent to a travel time of 4 hours and 42 minutes (without any stops) to travel the approximately 500 km between Montreal and Toronto.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Getting back on topic. I am not promoting rail for the sake of rail. It is that I believe that HFR will solve two of VIA's biggest problems: frequency and reliability. Once those are fixed, we can then make gradual upgrades to further reduce travel time and extend the line. As the train gets a higher modal share, there will be more political pressure to make improvements.

Top speed is only one way to reduce travel time. While having a train with a top speed of over 300km/h might make it a big "show piece" for the media, what users actually care about is how long it takes to get from their origin to destination (home to hotel or whatever). Having to wait longer for a train that is faster, could result in a longer overall travel time.

Your point about total travel (from door to door), is spot on. This is why something as simple as a new station can be just as effective at reducing travel time as increasing speeds.

Take the HFR line. If VIA put a station somewhere in the Markham area, and had some, not all, of the trains stopping before heading out into the countryside (just as some trains stop at Oshawa and Guildwood right now), you would actually get two travel time reductions. One from having a station closer to people in that part of the 905 and NE 416, and two, from having their time spent on the train shortened by not having to board at Eglinton (or Kennedy, or wherever they decide to put a suburban 416 station for the HFR route). Even if the train ride is only 10 minutes shorter, and the drive is 10 minutes shorter (and it could be much longer given GTA traffic), that is still an easy 20 minute savings. It also has the advantage of people being able to use a local, community station, which might seem inconsequential to many people here, but that comfort of being able to park at and depart from someplace familiar, close to home, and in your own community, is part of increasing the appeal of intercity rail.

I think the Ottawa to Toronto HFR line could be just as big a show piece as a 300km/h line would be. Its pragmatic and will make travel between those two cities faster, more reliable, and more convenient. It will show what effects investment in modernization could have on other lines, and that is exactly what people need to see. The only real criticism I have is that, at least according to the last information, it doesn't seem to take advantage of the lines ability to serve new communities and markets as well as it could. But I am also not going to get wound up over that because additional stops can always be added down the line with minimal effort, and the plans for HFR are still subject to change, as has been the case already. Just that one segment is all that is needed to set a new standard of travel.

On that note, it is time to get back to wrapping up my work and start my summer holiday. Enjoy the rest of your summer and stay safe people!

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Your point about total travel (from door to door), is spot on. This is why something as simple as a new station can be just as effective at reducing travel time as increasing speeds.

There will be a new station at Peterborough. And while new stations can definitely bring some more ridership, it will also increase the operating cost, because VIA will need to hire more staff at the new stations.

Once HFR is built, we can add new stations and even lines as ridership grows.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Again, I didn't say that VIA should scrap HFR and cause an interminable wait for another project to come along. HFR is a good project. I've always supported it. Its pragmatic. Yeah maybe I have talked about some super ideal situation, like focusing on the Lakeshore corridor first. But that is a massive project and the only reason I bring up those situations is because the ultimate goal should be to aim for the very best that is possible and work through the compromises and realities that life brings.

At minimum your posts come off as confusing. You keep saying you support HFR but then seem to trash the idea incessantly and argue that the only desirable project is service along the Lakeshore (consistently ignoring that VIA plans to provide this with the Kingston Hub). For someone who claims to support HFR, you certainly don't seem to post like you do. I'm not even sure you actually fully understand the HFR proposal. Looks more like you just want a reason to whine about Canadian rail and how we're not doing enough in the country.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

If that is what you think about me, then hey, knock yourself out. I don't think anything that I say is going to change your opinion of me. Yes, I think that the strategies, plans, and general way of communicating that rail advocates employ to try to change peoples minds about the value of intercity rail is stale, and stuck in the past, because it has been the same, dogmatic messaging for decades.

This is hilarious. You think a discussion on a forum constitutes broad advocacy by passenger rail advocates? I'm not sure you get what advocacy is.

Here's the reality. The vast majority of the public has no clue what HFR is. And won't until really understand the concept, even when it goes into service. All they'll know is that VIA sucked before and is better now. And that's not really unique to VIA or rail. That's broadly what happens with infrastructure in most of the world. We're here to simply discuss ideas and share opinions. Nobody is moving the needle here.

You also seem obsessed with the idea of infrastructure being grandiose gestures. As opposed to what it actually is in real life: a public service. Nobody is aiming for cultural change. That's not VIA's mandate. Their mandate is to provide rail service between cities. And they are aiming to do that a bit better. If you think they should be pushing cultural change, go talk to your MP about increasing their budget ten-fold.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is that I believe that HFR will solve two of VIA's biggest problems: frequency and reliability.

And financing. People keep ignoring the money bit. VIA is becoming a money pit because freight keeps making ops worse for VIA. This project is very much about restoring financial balance for VIA. That's why airy-fairy nonsense about changing the culture and providing service all over the place is dangerous nonsense. Pushing those visions will see VIA relegated to a Wikipedia history page in a decade, as scope creep kills HFR and then forestalls any further investment.

If anybody thinks I'm exaggerating, see the recent Globe and Mail article.

VIA needs to be laser focused and incredibly disciplined to execute on this. If they fail, it will probably be the end of VIA. Every investment they make on this project has to be viewed through the ROI lens. Not just the ridership lens. Ditching the Lakeshore for their trunk line and limiting the number of stations shows they are finally thinking and learning.

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Once HFR is built, we can add new stations and even lines as ridership grows.

Adding new stations means you reduce speed for every user down the line. I hope they are modelling every station being considered to consider both the effect on ridership (numbers of riders) and yield (revenue per seat mile) of adding that station vs. downstream effects. There's no point adding a station that gets you 10 000 riders, if you end up devaluing your average fare for 100 000 riders down the line. That station is supportable if it boosts yield since everybody else on the line wants to go there. This is how basic network planning works for transport companies everywhere.

Personally, beyond and East GTA station, I don't see the business case for any more. They could arguably stand to get rid of some (Casselman for example). Or move a few stations (Coteau to Dorion or Terrasse-Vaudreuil).

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Adding new stations means you reduce speed for every user down the line. I hope they are modelling every station being considered to consider both the effect on ridership (numbers of riders) and yield (revenue per seat mile) of adding that station vs. downstream effects. There's no point adding a station that gets you 10 000 riders, if you end up devaluing your average fare for 100 000 riders down the line. That station is supportable if it boosts yield since everybody else on the line wants to go there. This is how basic network planning works for transport companies everywhere.

It all comes down to the economics of adding that station. However, just because there is a station, doesn't mean every train will stop there. We can have a few express trains on the HFR route as well as stopping services. Furthermore, if HFR ends up bringing in a profit for VIA, they might well be incentivized to add a few more lines, so they wouldn't have to slow down their trains to serve the new stops.

Once people have a taste of reliable, frequent and moderately fast intercity rail travel, that will build momentum. Ridership can and will grow far beyond that 10 million, especially if we can extend HFR all the way to Windsor. By then, there may be a case to have more than one HFR line in this corridor.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

It all comes down to the economics of adding that station. However, just because there is a station, doesn't mean every train will stop there. We can have a few express trains on the HFR route as well as stopping services. Furthermore, if HFR ends up bringing in a profit for VIA, they might well be incentivized to add a few more lines, so they wouldn't have to slow down their trains to serve the new stops.

Once people have a taste of reliable, frequent and moderately fast intercity rail travel, that will build momentum. Ridership can and will grow far beyond that 10 million, especially if we can extend HFR all the way to Windsor. By then, there may be a case to have more than one HFR line in this corridor.

Agreed. During the ongoing study, there will be a lot of cost/benefit analysis. It is interesting that the Sharbot Lake and Tweed stations were deleted. I don't think there is justification for stations in such small towns but it also may point to possible study of a more streamlined route, which is something that I am hoping for.

In the very long-run, I hope that we see service all the way to Chicago via the Windsor-Detroit tunnel. Again, I can dream.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

. However, just because there is a station, doesn't mean every train will stop there. We can have a few express trains on the HFR route as well as stopping services. Furthermore, if HFR ends up bringing in a profit for VIA, they might well be incentivized to add a few more lines, so they wouldn't have to slow down their trains to serve the new stops.

I would argue that consistency is part of the HFR pitch. There's an implicit assumption that every train from Toronto to Ottawa will be 3:20 mins. Or that every train from Ottawa to Montreal will be 1:33 mins. There's also the assumption that every stop will see 15 trains.

I would argue that consistency is very important to higher yielding business travelers, in particular. Consistent service levels and reliable travel times mean you can plan rail trips with minimal effort. This is exactly what makes rail travel so successful in other parts of the world. Despite what some think, in Europe and Japan, their rail systems prioritize business travel over trash fare Tom. They do that because those business travelers usually produce the bulk of revenue and virtually all of the profits, with economy fares often not even paying their costs.

Once you start adding stations but changing service levels, that consistency will be gone. We'll be back to looking at schedules, picking different trains, etc. Not to mention the complications that come, from running express trains on a single track. I can't see VIA risking it. At least at launch. And it's why you will have not seen any suggestion in the last few years that HFR trains will have different stop patterns. And other than existing stations, they are sticking to additions that are firmly in urban catchment areas. Again, evidence that they are actually following proper business principles and not catering to political whims.

Take a hypothetical Markham station. It's a great suggestion because there's plenty of commercial activity, lots of residents and sufficient distance from the airport, to generate ridership. Have half the trains that stop there. And all of a sudden, the 2 hr gap between trains makes it worthwhile to simply fly to Ottawa. You'll fill the train....with lower yielding tourists. But the higher yielding business travelers will still be flying. And worse, trains stopping in Markham are now slower and you're losing marketshare on Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal.

Should be noted, this is not coming of thin air. There's actual mathematical models on market share as a function of travel time. In wikipedia, no less:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Market_shares

So every station added which increases travel time in anyway, costs you market share between the major metros. This is why they have to be careful. They need to have service that maximizes the take from business travelers. That in turn will create lots of seats for the rest of us. No different than airlines really.....

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Agreed. During the ongoing study, there will be a lot of cost/benefit analysis. It is interesting that the Sharbot Lake and Tweed stations were deleted. I don't think there is justification for stations in such small towns but it also may point to possible study of a more streamlined route, which is something that I am hoping for.

In the very long-run, I hope that we see service all the way to Chicago via the Windsor-Detroit tunnel. Again, I can dream.

Those stations were there for political reasons. Glad to see they were dropped.

As for expansion, it's all but guaranteed. All VIA has to do is execute decently. That's why it's really important that they avoid scope creep. This phase has to show both ridership and profit from year 1.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Take a hypothetical Markham station. It's a great suggestion because there's plenty of commercial activity, lots of residents and sufficient distance from the airport, to generate ridership. Have half the trains that stop there. And all of a sudden, the 2 hr gap between trains makes it worthwhile to simply fly to Ottawa. You'll fill the train....with lower yielding tourists. But the higher yielding business travelers will still be flying. And worse, trains stopping in Markham are now slower and you're losing marketshare on Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal.

Should be noted, this is not coming of thin air. There's actual mathematical models on market share as a function of travel time. In wikipedia, no less:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Market_shares

So every station added which increases travel time in anyway, costs you market share between the major metros. This is why they have to be careful. They need to have service that maximizes the take from business travelers. That in turn will create lots of seats for the rest of us. No different than airlines really.....

Yes, but the goal of HFR was never to win over flyers, but drivers. You already have 13x as many people driving as flying. People with that much time sensitivity would probably end up flying even with hourly trains.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

At minimum your posts come off as confusing. You keep saying you support HFR but then seem to trash the idea incessantly and argue that the only desirable project is service along the Lakeshore (consistently ignoring that VIA plans to provide this with the Kingston Hub). For someone who claims to support HFR, you certainly don't seem to post like you do. I'm not even sure you actually fully understand the HFR proposal. Looks more like you just want a reason to whine about Canadian rail and how we're not doing enough in the country.

What the heck, I'll bite while I wait for my flight...

It is possible to have multiple view points on the subject. Yes, I think that in an ideal world, where there is the full cadre of political will and public money to choose any passenger rail project, I think that investing in a dedicated passenger rail line on the Lakeshore corridor, and upgrading the line from Brockville to Ottawa as well, would be the best option. You would meaningfully increase speeds between Toronto to Ottawa, and Toronto to Montreal, to a degree where it would create a real shift of intercity travel away from cars and planes. And you could better serve the Lakeshore corridor cities where there is a real potential to increase ridership from those markets.

Now, just because that is my thought in an ideal situation, doesn't mean I actually think that is possible. I understand that the reality of Canadian culture is very different right now. Yes, public support for public transit has changed dramatically in the past decade to the point where tens of billions of dollars of projects can be underway at once and people from all political spectrums are largely behind that. I know that there is a first wave of support developing for proper bike infrastructure in Canadian cities, which is still in the early phases and has some way to go, but has already seen a sizable shift from even just 5 years ago. And I also know that there isn't even a first wave of support for intercity rail. It is basically in the same spot it has been for the past 40 years so I have/had no expectation that a project like Lakeshore corridor, or the proposed high speed corridor to London, are/were going to happen at the moment.

And, even though I think that better service on the Lakeshore corridor is critical, I think that it needs to be done right. No more investing money into CN's infrastructure (the odd siding here or there is fine as a stop gap, but anymore than that is wasteful, as we have seen). It needs it own corridor. Whether that is one that starts off at existing speeds and can upgraded over time, or its built at high speed from the start, or in multiple phases, doesn't matter. What matters is that the next time major investments are made in that corridor, its for proper, modern, dedicated infrastructure that allows VIA to operate its service without anymore conflicts.

Which leads me to HFR. Because of the realities above, I also know that HFR is the ideal start for modernization in the corridor. It is a chance for people, in particular in the population rich GTA, to see how much better intercity rail can be when you make the proper investments in it. It is also a piece of infrastructure which will still be valuable when the Lakeshore corridor is modernized, so it is a good investment in the long term flexibility of the rail network.

So it is possible for all those thoughts to coexist.

Now as far as your comment that I don't seem to understand what HFR is, I shouldn't respond, but I will. Its a passenger rail line that is another piece in a growing network of dedicated passenger rail corridors. It has characteristics about it that will allow more trains to operate between Toronto and Ottawa and from Ottawa to Montreal. It shouldn't be anything remarkable, but because its the first time an all new corridor is being built, just for passenger rail, its kind of a big deal. That's it. At the end of the day, that is the line in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is hilarious. You think a discussion on a forum constitutes broad advocacy by passenger rail advocates? I'm not sure you get what advocacy is.

Here's the reality. The vast majority of the public has no clue what HFR is. And won't until really understand the concept, even when it goes into service. All they'll know is that VIA sucked before and is better now. And that's not really unique to VIA or rail. That's broadly what happens with infrastructure in most of the world. We're here to simply discuss ideas and share opinions. Nobody is moving the needle here.

You also seem obsessed with the idea of infrastructure being grandiose gestures. As opposed to what it actually is in real life: a public service. Nobody is aiming for cultural change. That's not VIA's mandate. Their mandate is to provide rail service between cities. And they are aiming to do that a bit better. If you think they should be pushing cultural change, go talk to your MP about increasing their budget ten-fold.

I can admit that maybe when I'm bringing up points that are contrary to what a lot of other people think I need to take more time to make sure every thought and word is meticulously crafted. So that is on me. But you really seem to think very little of me. And after reading your post again to respond to the second part, I think I have nothing else to say.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Yes, but the goal of HFR was never to win over flyers, but drivers. You already have 13x as many people driving as flying. People with that much time sensitivity would probably end up flying even with hourly trains.

Despite what VIA says, their actual plans say something else. And their whole argument about being profitable very much says growing ridership isn't nearly as important as reducing subsidies.

Also, they have a ton of stations. Where exactly are they lacking? Most of the population in the corridor is within 25km of a station. Or about 20-30 mins driving time. The norm for station spacing with intercity trains is usually 50km, with outlying suburban stations being the exception.

Where exactly is a station needed other than the Eastern GTA?

[Truenorth00]

"... Needs its own corridor..."

I'll challenge Lakeshore service directly to make my point.

An area with 600 000 residents doesn't warrant billions in investment. Period. There's a reason you'll see VIA drop to about half a dozen trains in each direction out of Kingston after HFR. There's no ridership to support more.

It's one thing to provide service using existing lines there. But spending an amount that would provide HFR between Calgary and Edmonton to an area with less population than Hamilton would be some true fiscal malpractice. And would honestly justify the complaints that Westerners have about VIA being an Ontario/Quebec service than a national service.

If VIA happens to come upon a few billion for capital expansion after HFR, the priorities are pretty simple. HFR West to Windsor. And there's a whole list that they should invest in beyond that, before they could justify investing in Lakeshore expansion:

Calgary-Edmonton. The provincial government had identified an existing alignment similar to HFR.

Vancouver-Kelowna after that.

Heck, Halifax-Moncton-Fredricton has a better argument for investment than adding track along the Lakeshore.

[acottawa]

So the 600k residents on the lakeshore don’t need frequent service, but Via should spend big money on the the 300k in Windsor CMA and the 200k in the Kelowna CMA?

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Where exactly is a station needed other than the Eastern GTA?

I don't have the information to answer that question. All I'm saying is that I trust that VIA knows what they're doing, and that stations will be placed wherever there is financial incentive to do so.

I see no reason to not expand HFR west of Toronto or east of QC. Once you do that, you can interline on the TOM alignment, and then have branches go to Windsor, Niagara Falls, etc. And on those new alignments, it could very well make sense to put down another station near a major attraction. I don't know where, because I don't have the kind of data that VIA does.

All we can do right now is speculate. I'm hoping that eventually, rail will make a huge comeback. We might even restore passenger service to North Bay and beyond.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So the 600k residents on the lakeshore don’t need frequent service, but Via should spend big money on the the 300k in Windsor CMA and the 200k in the Kelowna CMA?

It all comes down to money at the end of the day.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So the 600k residents on the lakeshore don’t need frequent service, but Via should spend big money on the the 300k in Windsor CMA and the 200k in the Kelowna CMA?

Ever seen what's across from the river in Windsor? Or what's in between Vancouver and Kelowna?

And it's amazing how you ignore what's enroute between Toronto and Windsor. From the country's largest airport responsible for 6% of the province's GDP, to the 1.2 million (and growing) residents between Guelph, KWC and London.

Was it that hard to look at a map or was the cheapshot just too hard to resist?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

I don't have the information to answer that question. All I'm saying is that I trust that VIA knows what they're doing, and that stations will be placed wherever there is financial incentive to do so.

And I'm saying that people need to stop whining and understand why VIA is proposing stations at the locations they are and why this idea that they'll add more stations and run different services is fantasy. They're current proposal serves the vast majority of the population between Toronto and Quebec City with faster, more frequent and possibly cheaper service.

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

I see no reason to not expand HFR west of Toronto or east of QC.

Don't think anybody disputes the need to go West of Toronto. They just need to prove themselves on this phase. Ridership on Corridor East is higher. So if they fail here, Government appetite to go West will fade.

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Once you do that, you can interline on the TOM alignment, and then have branches go to Windsor, Niagara Falls, etc.

What happens in the Southwest is vastly dependent on Metrolinx plans. VIA and GO won't want to overlap much, except for hubs. So we could see locations like Niagara Falls dropped as GO increases services there. Heck, maybe the Southern Mainline moves to GO and all that's left is an HFR Corridor built on the Northern Mainline.

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

And on those new alignments, it could very well make sense to put down another station near a major attraction. I don't know where, because I don't have the kind of data that VIA does.

I know where: nowhere. VIA has tons of stations. There's really no need to add more. What they need to add is service.