Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_Sky
[i]
ROW-sharing does not necessarily require track-sharing. Track-sharing is inevitable on the Kingston Subdivision, even after partially triple-tracking, but different situations may allow different solutions.
The easiest way to exclude any interference between passenger and freight operations is called "temporal separation". For someone who obsesses about the Metrolinx Study so much, it speaks volumes that you conveniently over-read the following section (p.19):
|
Temporal sharing might work on the Havelock sub (where I think the main customer is Quaker Oats), but it is hard to see how it would work on the mainline track through Toronto, Montreal and between Glen Tay and Smith Falls.
But if ROW of way sharing is possible why is this project even necessary? Why not ROW share the CP mainline (which provides a much more direct route and a much larger population) or even the CN mainline?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_Sky
[i]
I still don't understand how you can criticize VIA for not releasing all its pre-feasibility studies it did to proof it's concept and to approach potential private investors, while being totally fine with the CDPQ developing its REM project in complete secrecy until it basically only required the province's final approval...
|
Because CDP released the information as soon as the project was announced. They didn't spend 5 years making outlandish public claims with nothing in the public record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_Sky
[i]
This will be a singular exception from my not-sharing-any-non-public-information policy: all travel time, capital cost and ridership estimates VIA published were based on external engineering studies and not derived from any "rule-of-thumbs". They therefore don't represent VIA's opinions, but the informed opinions of companies which are specialized and reputed to provide such estimates...
Mistakes might have been done in the past (even though I struggle to see how the cost explosion of the triple-tracking project on the Kingston Sub could have been avoided with the arrangement of CN conducting/contracting all the work and billing VIA afterwards), but we won't know how realistic the estimates released by VIA so far are until the JPT (or the federal government) publishes its own studies...
|
Ok, then my main questions would be:
Why can't Via release its external engineering studies the way CDP, Metrolinx, Amtrak, and other public transportation companies do?
Why are these external engineering companies producing such drastically results. Between the external engineering companies that informed Via's 2015 statements and the external engineering studies the Globe obtained in 2019 the cost went up by 50% and travel times increased by almost an hour. Obviously one expects inflation and margins of errors, but this is way beyond that.
Threaded Mode