Commuter Rail/Regional Rail in Canada

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by ue

Winnipeg I can't see commuter rail for, aside from to Lockport and Selkirk, but it really should get serious about LRT. I could also see a return of rail service up to Winnipeg Beach and Gimli, and other services out to St Anne and Steinbach. An improvement of the VIA line to Portage la Prairie and an expansion to Brandon would be good too (perhaps to eventually go all the way to Regina). A line to Stonewall and Stony Mountain and then up to Teulon would be nice and a line to Falcon Lake and Kenora would be really well used.

I mean we already have 6 railways that run in every direction I think commuter rail is feasible. Our suburbs are already apart of the city of Winnipeg so we don’t have to go as far as Portage or Brandon. Transcona and St. Norbert for example would be great commuter rail options and the equivalent to a suburb like Airdrie or Martensville. It’s not necessary to reach to the areas like Steinbach or Portage.

I’m genuinely curious is it more beneficial to use the lines you already have built and share with freight or is it better to build brand-new LRT lines? Surely a renovation of the existing infrastructure would be more financially feasible.

Or with the new Rail yards in Northwest Winnipeg repurpose all of our class-1 lines solely for commuter rail.

Although I agree with you that our current politicians would never implement this strategy for whatever reason so it won’t happen for decades if not ever.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I mean we already have 6 railways that run in every direction I think commuter rail is feasible. Our suburbs are already apart of the city of Winnipeg so we don’t have to go as far as Portage or Brandon. Transcona and St. Norbert for example would be great commuter rail options and the equivalent to a suburb like Airdrie or Martensville. It’s not necessary to reach to the areas like Steinbach or Portage.

I’m genuinely curious is it more beneficial to use the lines you already have built and share with freight or is it better to build brand-new LRT lines? Surely a renovation of the existing infrastructure would be more financially feasible.

Or with the new Rail yards in Northwest Winnipeg repurpose all of our class-1 lines solely for commuter rail.

Although I agree with you that our current politicians would never implement this strategy for whatever reason so it won’t happen for decades if not ever.

I wonder if CN/CP would play ball for a regular rail service on all of them? Using it for some sort of Subway/Metro service would really be useful.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I wonder if CN/CP would play ball for a regular rail service on all of them? Using it for some sort of Subway/Metro service would really be useful.

I agree and won’t it be beneficial for CN/CPR as well I mean more trains on the tracks is more economic activity. Hell if they really want it might as well give them a cut of the profits to ensure it stays well-kept.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I mean we already have 6 railways that run in every direction I think commuter rail is feasible. Our suburbs are already apart of the city of Winnipeg so we don’t have to go as far as Portage or Brandon. Transcona and St. Norbert for example would be great commuter rail options and the equivalent to a suburb like Airdrie or Martensville. It’s not necessary to reach to the areas like Steinbach or Portage.

This discussion is about commuter rail, most commonly (though not always) associated with inter-urban rail. Both areas within Winnipeg you mentioned as analogous to Airdrie and Warman in your post are entirely within the urban area of Winnipeg, and inside the municipality. Airdrie and Warman are both independent of their respective core municipality, making it a significantly different scenario.

What you would be proposing is mass transit (LRT, etc.). That's why - due to it being the only suburb that will be close enough for the foreseeable future - Chestermere will be the only suburban city connected to the CTrain. The others will eventually be connected by commuter rail, due to distance.

A train to Brandon (a 2 hour drive away) is a non sequitur for this thread topic. The only reason Banff (1 hour 15 min drive away) is part of our upcoming commuter line is because it's one of the biggest tourist destinations in the country and we're the only city within range. The reason it's still arguably qualifiable as commuter rail (rather than a tourist train) is because it will include Cochrane and Canmore (two very fast-growing suburban cities), along with airport express service to and from the core.

[ue]

The topic of this thread is commuter rail and regional rail. To me, the two are different. Commuter rail functions largely for commuters in suburbs too far to service by normal mass transit. Places like Airdrie, Fort Saskatchewan, Milton, Langley, etc. Regional rail connects to a wider 'region' that is part of a metro areas hinterland, although not necessarily part of the metro area itself. Places like Banff, Gimli, Niagara Falls, Mont Tremblant, etc.

Anyway, yeah, Winnipeg has a lot of rail lines. I could maybe see a commuter rail to Transcona, but that's about it, and honestly it's close enough that it'd be better served by a full functioning LRT line that runs along or adjacent to Regent, stopping at Kildonan Place before heading downtown either via Elmwood or St Boniface. While not as cheap as repurposing existing ROWs, Winnipeg has plenty of room for LRT down its countless stroads. And would function better than commuter rail as an urban transit than locating stations out in no mans land along rail lines. I mean, you already see this problem with the Blue Line, which has a terrible routing along light industry, poor connectivity to nearby dense areas, and that annoying dog leg. Lockport and Selkirk I can see a commuter rail service too, and perhaps St Anne and Steinbach. I would also argue Headingley could have commuter rail, but given it makes much more sense to run an LRT down Portage to Unicity, a short commuter line to Headingley from there doesn't make sense. A line to Niverville and maybe Oak Bluff I could also see being feasible.

Winnipeg would also benefit from a wider regional network that introduces (or re-introduces) regular rail service to Gimli, Winnipeg Beach, Kenora, Falcon Lake, Beausejour, Lac du Bonnet, St Agathe, and Morris, with enhanced service to Portage la Prairie.

For Edmonton, commuter rail to Stony Plain and Spruce Grove as well as Fort Saskatchewan would make sense. A broader regional network with trains out to Camrose, down to Wetaskiwin, east to Elk Island and Vegreville, and west to Wabamun (probably as a seasonal service) could be feasible.

In Calgary, commuter rail to Okotoks, Cochrane, Airdrie, Crossfield, and potentially Strathmore, Langdon, and High River would be good. I agree that Chestermere is close enough in to be serviced by BRT/LRT. A wider regional system with Calgary as a hub could go out to Canmore and Banff, Drumheller, Sundre, Olds and Didsbury, Turner Valley, and Bragg Creek, and perhaps out to Nanton I think would have some level of demand.

[Al Ski]

To me it's ridiculous that we have such crap transit in Canada.

I lived in Berlin where people would bitch because they only had 30 minute service to the extreme ends of the city - at 4 am, and that they only had 1 or 2 hour service to the small towns surrounding - at that same hour. To them that was a disaster and they would complain about DB non stop.

And all those little cities around Berlin aren't just sprawlburgs, they're distinct cities with their own tram networks.

Can you imagine a city in Canada with a population of 60,000 and a 5 line tram network and frequent trips to the nearby metropolis on electric trains?

Of course not.

Here, we have nothing at all. NOTHING. And yet we consider ourselves a First World country?

We have half-million or more cities with NOTHING!

And even our major cities have crap transit.

It's an absolute disgrace and quite frankly embarrassing

[Nouvellecosse]

We don't have any major cities in Canada with crap transit. We just don't have any major cities that are finalists for world's best transit which Berlin is in the running for.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

We don't have any major cities in Canada with crap transit. We just don't have any major cities that are finalists for world's best transit which Berlin is in the running for.

Agreed. I mean, despite their huge integrated S-bahn, U-bahn and regional rail networks, German cities barely perform better than Canadian cities for transit mode share.

These are state-level statistics, but Hamburg and Berlin are effectively city states. Hamburg's mode share (22%; see p. 13) and Berlin's (25%) are comparable to the Montreal CMA (22.3%) and the Toronto CMA (24.3%). The city of Montreal and the city of Toronto - comparable in population to the states of Hamburg and Berlin, respectively, have higher transit mode share still.

The Germans have a much higher % of walking and cycling, but with walking that's more a function of city form. Canada has a long way to go, but we are changing the forms of our cities toward making people able to walk to work faster than pretty much any Western country.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You have one of the largest bases in Canada. You would only need about 30km of new track on the old ROW. I'd say it should be worth it.

Even if you build the new track there's no guarantee of ridership. Just because a CFB is geographically large doesn't mean they'll all be using the train to get to-and-from places.

Just because it's 'only 30km' doesn't change the fact that the ridership base isn't there.

Without even mentioning this, any new train project in NB has to go up against a multibillion dollar oil company that wants to ensure that people drive cars and visit their gas stations. Any attempt at trains will be shot down in local media which is also owned by that multibillion dollar oil company. It's always going to be an uphill battle.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ue

The topic of this thread is commuter rail and regional rail. To me, the two are different. Commuter rail functions largely for commuters in suburbs too far to service by normal mass transit. Places like Airdrie, Fort Saskatchewan, Milton, Langley, etc. Regional rail connects to a wider 'region' that is part of a metro areas hinterland, although not necessarily part of the metro area itself. Places like Banff, Gimli, Niagara Falls, Mont Tremblant, etc.

Very true. However, there is a point that the commuter rail lines extend far enough that they start to look like something more akin to regional rail. Going to Niagara Falls, Barrie, Kitchener and soon London with GO is more like a regional rail.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

We don't have any major cities in Canada with crap transit. We just don't have any major cities that are finalists for world's best transit which Berlin is in the running for.

Travel a bit and you start to see that Canada's major metros are not as good as you may think. Yes, there are lots of bus routes snaking through the subdivisions, but higher order transit is severely lacking. Of the top 0, Quebec City and Hamilton still don't have some sort of real RT network.

Originally Posted by JHikka

Even if you build the new track there's no guarantee of ridership. Just because a CFB is geographically large doesn't mean they'll all be using the train to get to-and-from places.

Just because it's 'only 30km' doesn't change the fact that the ridership base isn't there.

Without even mentioning this, any new train project in NB has to go up against a multibillion dollar oil company that wants to ensure that people drive cars and visit their gas stations. Any attempt at trains will be shot down in local media which is also owned by that multibillion dollar oil company. It's always going to be an uphill battle.

There isn't much between Moncton and Saint John, and at a distance of ~130km one could make the same argument. If a regional rail project were to happen, starting with Halifax - Moncton - Saint John makes sense as the tracks are there. Once it is running, adding 30km of new track on old ROW for the total extension of ~ 100km does make sense.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There isn't much between Moncton and Saint John, and at a distance of ~130km one could make the same argument.

Sure, but unlike the Moncton-Fredericton route the Moncton-Saint John route at least has towns and villages along the way for quick, easy stops if required. It would also hit commuter Saint John in the valley.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If a regional rail project were to happen, starting with Halifax - Moncton - Saint John makes sense as the tracks are there. Once it is running, adding 30km of new track on old ROW for the total extension of ~ 100km does make sense.

It doesn't because the ridership isn't there, and that's if you can get the rail built. We're going around in circles.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Sure, but unlike the Moncton-Fredericton route the Moncton-Saint John route at least has towns and villages along the way for quick, easy stops if required. It would also hit commuter Saint John in the valley.

Precisely.

There really isn't anything between Freddy and Moncton (or Freddy and Saint John for that matter).

The route between SJ and Moncton on the other hand goes up the Kennebecasis Valley, transitioning into the Petitcodiac Valley, and there are a number of towns and villages along the way.

A regional rail route from SJ to Halifax via Moncton would have the following stops along the way:

Saint John, Rothesay, Hampton, Sussex, Petitcodiac, Moncton, Sackville, Amherst, Springhill, Truro, Enfield, Bedford, Halifax.

It would serve a whole string of population centres.

[GreaterMontréal]

Montreal has bet everything on the REM instead of expanding the commuter train network.

The EXO lines will still exists but the REM will become the de facto regional transit. Commuter rail is not bad but it encourages urban sprawl.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Travel a bit and you start to see that Canada's major metros are not as good as you may think. Yes, there are lots of bus routes snaking through the subdivisions, but higher order transit is severely lacking. Of the top 0, Quebec City and Hamilton still don't have some sort of real RT network.

I didn't say how good I think they are other than that they aren't crap and that they're not the world's best. There's a huge gap between those two extremes which is where you'll find the majority of the world's cities.

You do raise an important issue though, which is that many people seem to falsely judge the quality of a regions's entire transit system based solely on the size of the rail network. Not that the size of the rail network isn't important. I do want all major cities across the country to expand their rail coverage and I think it would be pretty tough to be a world leader in transit without a good sized rail network just as it would also be pretty tough for a large city to have decent transit without any rail at all. But most of Canada's major cities including the 6 largest do have rail networks that are good quality and frequent even if they could stand to be larger. Plus it's still just one component meaning that a city not having a large rail network for the city's size doesn't automatically make the overall system "crap". That's overly simplistic to the point of being silly.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

We don't have any major cities in Canada with crap transit. We just don't have any major cities that are finalists for world's best transit which Berlin is in the running for.

I agree but this thread is about regional rail and I find sometimes that gets mixed in with transit when it's really something different.

Vancouver has good transit but if you want to travel around the region it can be painful. People exchange stories about 6 hour delays and how many times they've been rear ended on the bridges or Highway 1 or who got stranded by what summer snow storm on some mountain pass. The "user experience" is much much worse than it would be in Western Europe where these trips would be done on trains including places like Switzerland which have the same kind of challenges as we do here.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree but this thread is about regional rail and I find sometimes that gets mixed in with transit when it's really something different.

Vancouver has good transit but if you want to travel around the region it can be incredibly painful. My friends all exchange stories about 6 hour delays and how many times they've been rear ended on the bridges or Highway 1 or who got stranded by what summer snow storm on some mountain pass. The "user experience" is much much worse than it would be in Western Europe where these trips would be done on trains including places like Switzerland which have the same kind of challenges as we do here.

For sure. Regional is probably our biggest weakness.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree but this thread is about regional rail and I find sometimes that gets mixed in with transit when it's really something different.

Vancouver has good transit but if you want to travel around the region it can be painful. People exchange stories about 6 hour delays and how many times they've been rear ended on the bridges or Highway 1 or who got stranded by what summer snow storm on some mountain pass. The "user experience" is much much worse than it would be in Western Europe where these trips would be done on trains including places like Switzerland which have the same kind of challenges as we do here.

Highway 1 between Surrey and Abbotsford is awful, at least east of 216th St it's still the same 4-lane highway it has been since the early 1960s. It's congested at all times of day. But there is also substantial opposition to widening it.

I think there should be a combination of a dedicated passenger railway along the highway, along with the addition of HOV lanes.

[ue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Very true. However, there is a point that the commuter rail lines extend far enough that they start to look like something more akin to regional rail. Going to Niagara Falls, Barrie, Kitchener and soon London with GO is more like a regional rail.

Agreed. GO began as Toronto's commuter rail network but it is increasingly becoming more of a regional rail system for the Golden Horseshoe and, more broadly, Southern Ontario. Especially with more frequencies and all-day service.

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree but this thread is about regional rail and I find sometimes that gets mixed in with transit when it's really something different.

Vancouver has good transit but if you want to travel around the region it can be painful. People exchange stories about 6 hour delays and how many times they've been rear ended on the bridges or Highway 1 or who got stranded by what summer snow storm on some mountain pass. The "user experience" is much much worse than it would be in Western Europe where these trips would be done on trains including places like Switzerland which have the same kind of challenges as we do here.

Totally. I'd argue that the only city in Canada where it is somewhat decent to get to areas in the hinterland without a vehicle is Toronto. And even then, nobody is really going to Algonquin Park by bus, even though options exist which are more expensive than driving. But at least nearby cities are relatively well connected, as well as Niagara Falls and Gananoque (to the Thousand Islands). By extension, Hamilton also has ok access to hinterlands, largely due to using the same infrastructure as Toronto.

Vancouver is one that really shocks me, considering how popular and (by driving) accessible the stunning natural geography is, literally at the doorstep of the metropolitan area. Whistler is decently connected, at least, but somewhere like Golden Ears and Harrison Hot Springs is basically pointless to get to without a car. It's weird too because a lot of people in Vancouver don't drive.

For Montreal, Mont Tremblant is available by transit but takes a lot longer. Places like Magog and Mount Orford you need a car. Again, surprising as many Montrealers don't drive.

While Banff and Canmore do have bus service (and Banff National Park has a public transit system), it could be better. I think the passenger rail will be a game-changer in that regard, though. That being said, areas like Drumheller don't have any non-vehicular access to Calgary, which is kind of shocking.

Edmonton experimented with bus service to Elk Island, but I don't think it's running anymore. There is the VIA train to Jasper but once you're there you still need a car. Again, a missed opportunity.

Winnipeg used to have rail service to Winnipeg Beach and Grand Beach and now they (along with all the other beach communities on Lake Winnipeg) are inaccessible without a car or bike. Birds Hill is at least looking to get bus service. There is an overpriced bus into Kenora but it really isn't something people use.

Does Ottawa at least have decent transit access to Gatineau Park? That city is always a bit of a grey area for me.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Montreal has bet everything on the REM instead of expanding the commuter train network.

The EXO lines will still exists but the REM will become the de facto regional transit. Commuter rail is not bad but it encourages urban sprawl.

I'd say it is a good bet. I do hope Expo doesn't get forgotten at the sake of REM.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I didn't say how good I think they are other than that they aren't crap and that they're not the world's best. There's a huge gap between those two extremes which is where you'll find the majority of the world's cities.

You do raise an important issue though, which is that many people seem to falsely judge the quality of a regions's entire transit system based solely on the size of the rail network. Not that the size of the rail network isn't important. I do want all major cities across the country to expand their rail coverage and I think it would be pretty tough to be a world leader in transit without a good sized rail network just as it would also be pretty tough for a large city to have decent transit without any rail at all. But most of Canada's major cities including the 6 largest do have rail networks that are good quality and frequent even if they could stand to be larger. Plus it's still just one component meaning that a city not having a large rail network for the city's size doesn't automatically make the overall system "crap". That's overly simplistic to the point of being silly.

When I think of cities in Canada that have good transit, and that have good rail transit, ironically, one falls short, but not for an obvious reason.
Vancouver looses the competition.
The regions around Montreal and Toronto have good Commuter rail and they are in the process of some sort of RER.
Ottawa is expanding quick enough that within the next 10 years, the region will have good transit. The LRT will reach the suburbs, which should ease commuting. Calgary and Edmonton are expanding their network too. Calgary may even have a commuter rail system within the next 5-10 years.
Vancouver is only interested in expanding their Skytrain, which may seem like a good idea, but soon it will become overused like Yonge is experiencing. The WCE is a forgotten thing that hasn't seen anything for 25 years.

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree but this thread is about regional rail and I find sometimes that gets mixed in with transit when it's really something different.

Vancouver has good transit but if you want to travel around the region it can be painful. People exchange stories about 6 hour delays and how many times they've been rear ended on the bridges or Highway 1 or who got stranded by what summer snow storm on some mountain pass. The "user experience" is much much worse than it would be in Western Europe where these trips would be done on trains including places like Switzerland which have the same kind of challenges as we do here.

Don't even talk about adding to the WCE. It's like swearing in front of someone's grandmother.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by ue

For Montreal, Mont Tremblant is available by transit but takes a lot longer. Places like Magog and Mount Orford you need a car. Again, surprising as many Montrealers don't drive.

Most people in Montréal have a car or they often rent with Commuauto. There is about 1 car per household on the Island of Montréal. Many students don't have a car but they are not the type of customers targeted in Tremblant or in the Eastern Townships.