HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2018, 3:14 PM
plangan107 plangan107 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6
VIA Rail and the High Frequency Rail Myth - 25% Reduced Trip Times

Will the Canadian government spend $4 billion resulting in the same trip times between Toronto and Montreal as in 1973?

One of the biggest unsubstantiated statements by VIA Rail is their proposed high frequency rail line will reduce trip times by 25%.

What data have VIA Rail released to show how this reduced travel time will be accomplished? The answer is simple. VIA Rail has not even released any data to the public to support that statement or even the exact routing of the line.

Current VIA trains tips between Toronto and Montreal is about 5hrs and 5hrs 17min on the main line.

Even if VIA Rail could obtain a 20% reduction in trip times it would result in travel times like we had in 1973 around 4hours.(and this percentage reduction would take a leap of faith).

Travelling along the old Ontario-Quebec (CP) Rail line has many level crossings, a winding route, travelling through small communities and the reduced speed to enter and leave Montreal and Toronto.

In 1973, the CN Turbo train took 3hrs 59min between the same two cities on the main line VIA Rail is now running on. Here is the CN Turbo Train video link to demonstrate this fact.

How can the government spend $4 billion where the result of spending that money will be train trip times that we had in 1973? VIA Rail's High Frequency Rail plan continues Canada's reputation as having one of the slowest, outdated, and inefficient passenger rail systems in the modern world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2018, 3:45 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,479
The HFR plan could certainly work, but it will probably need more than $4 billion. As you said, there's a lot of work the Toronto-Peterborough-Smiths Falls route needs to support 160km/h rail service; between Havelock and Perth the route doesn't even exist anymore, for one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2018, 11:44 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,865
Why has rail speed slowed so much? In 1973, CN was still operating passenger trains. There was an incentive for CN to move them fast. Since CN got out of the passenger business and the company became profit motivated, their priority has switched to moving freight on longer and longer trains to be more efficient. This limits slots available for VIA trains, and their speed is limited by slower longer freight traffic.

We do know the planned route via Ottawa, Smiths Falls and Peterborough. The CP route suggested is not being considered because it bypasses Ottawa and because passenger trains will still compete with freight traffic. CP is even less receptive to passenger trains than CN. The reason for the Ottawa route is to operate passenger trains on their own route without competing with slower freight trains. This alone will speed up trains. It is the only affordable route that can be made exclusive for passenger trains. The CN main line is just too crowded and would be horrendously expensive to develop exclusive passenger track, which CN may refuse if needed for increasing freight traffic.

What we had in 1973 is no longer possible. The best we can do is to return to those time levels by travelling via Ottawa. Much of the track near Ottawa is already VIA owned. In fact, all the track from Coteau Quebec to Ottawa and from Ottawa to Smiths Falls and to Brockville is all owned by VIA. Also VIA owns the old CPR right of way from Rigaud Quebec to Ottawa. Ottawa to Toronto service will be faster than was ever possible before, which is also the most popular VIA route (by far), now operating 10 trips per day each way.

The suggested trip times between Montreal and Toronto are at least as fast as current Ottawa-Toronto service, which has been experiencing unprecedented ridership growth in recent years. Similar trip speeds to Montreal should also create considerable ridership growth.

Last edited by lrt's friend; Jun 2, 2018 at 12:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2018, 2:22 AM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,903
I took the Turbo a lot during the 70s (while it was running). My father worked for CNR HQ in Montreal, and we had free access, and I had grandparents, aunts/uncles and cousins in Toronto.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 1:27 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Why has rail speed slowed so much?
Increased freight traffic. Even after Turbo was retired, VIA was able to maintain the 3:59 service (at least on paper) using LRCs for one train each way up until the early 2000's (I wish I still had one of the old schedules that showed it).

Quote:
In 1973, CN was still operating passenger trains. There was an incentive for CN to move them fast. Since CN got out of the passenger business and the company became profit motivated, their priority has switched to moving freight on longer and longer trains to be more efficient. This limits slots available for VIA trains, and their speed is limited by slower longer freight traffic.
Even more important was the privatization of CN. Back when it was a crown corporation, their obligation was to the pubic and giving VIA trains priority was easily achieved. Once privatized, their obligation was to the shareholders to maximize profitability, so for VIA to get priority, they would have to pay.

That is where Pierre Trudeau messed up big time. He wanted to create something like Amtrak in Canada, but when Amtrak was formed, one of the conditions for them to take over passenger service from a railroad was to receive priority on the tracks in perpetuity. Trudeau never gave VIA this right. Likely the assumption was that with CN being a Crown Corporation, they would always have priority on their tracks, and VIA had to beg and plead with CP to be able to take over their passenger service (likely a negotiating tactic on CP's part) so gave up that right. As a result, both CN and CP give Amtrak priority on their tracks in the US for free, but won't give VIA the same privileged.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 5:56 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,236
Now I can see why VIA wants dedicated tracks along Highway 7.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 7:06 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
The HFR plan could certainly work, but it will probably need more than $4 billion. As you said, there's a lot of work the Toronto-Peterborough-Smiths Falls route needs to support 160km/h rail service; between Havelock and Perth the route doesn't even exist anymore, for one.
It is probably cheaper and easier to build new Class 5 (or higher) track on an abandoned ROW than it is to upgrade existing track as it saves the cost of removing the old track and ties. It becomes even harder and more expensive if they need to keep the line open while the do it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:16 PM
GoTrans GoTrans is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 687
The following is an article from Northern Ontario Business.

Passenger rail revival plan rolling out this fall
Politicians on board with All Aboard Northern Ontario’s concept to restore north-south service 698
23 h by: Ian Ross

All Aboard Northern Ontario seeks to turn back the clock to bring passenger rail between Cochrane and Toronto back to the Ontario Northland with a new plan due out this fall.

A northeastern Ontario passenger rail advocacy group is tabling a plan this fall to lay the groundwork to restore a popular service that was cancelled by the provincial government in 2012.

With growing political support on their side, All Aboard Northern Ontario is proposing a conceptual plan to re-introduce service on the Ontario Northland Railway between Cochrane, North Bay and Toronto that could start as early as 2019 and increase in frequency by 2021.

“It’s really exciting to see that we’ve got the potential here for presenting something that makes sense,” said the group’s founder, Éric Boutilier.

The old Northlander name is being banished to history to be replaced with a revitalized service called the Northeast Lynx.

Boutilier said the proposal they’re putting forth is scalable based on the ridership numbers and the financial performance of each phase of the plan.

It’s a one-ticket integrated transportation solution that uses buses as a feeder system to bring passengers from outlying communities to the train and ties into the mass transit system in the Greater Toronto Area.

Crafted by rail consultant Greg Gormick, the report will detail the startup and annual operating costs, and identify the rolling stock and infrastructure requirements to make a credible case to convince the province to bring back the train.


“It’s basically answering the questions that I’ve been asking myself for the last few years,” said Boutilier. “What’s it going cost and what’s it going to take to bring it back?”

Funding for Gormick to write the report came from the Temiskaming Municipal Association and the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association.

Gormick scrolled through his extensive Rolodex of retired and active rail industry professionals who contributed their time and expertise, including former Amtrak president David Gunn, now living on Cape Breton.

“We’ve been able to draw on a million dollars’ worth of talent for free.”

He expects to publicly release the report in North Bay in late October or early November, but not before it’s peer-reviewed by rail industry experts.

“I want to make sure it’s bulletproof.” Gormick said his plan would still need a higher level of study. But he’s buoyed by the positive professional feedback he’s received, including from Ontario Northland management, “that this is doable.”

Should it be adopted by the province, and if the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and Ottawa can get CN Rail to play ball on access to a critical section of track, the All Aboard group is confident the service can be running as early as next summer.

Gormick isn’t talking about pricey high-speed rail but pragmatic high-performance rail that’s affordable, reliable and comfortable.

“It’s not a big bang approach. It can be rolled out over three years, and the advantage of that is it keeps initial costs down, and it allows you to gauge the market and the ridership and the revenue.”

The integrated approach of bus and train will be the Northern Ontario equivalent of GO Transit and Toronto Transit Commission, Gormick explained.

“If you look at the success of both of those systems, they’re multi-modal, and the key has been seamless transfers and connections. We’re looking at the same thing.”

Conceivably, the catchment area of the train can be broadened by tapping into transportation systems in the GTA and can tie into southwestern Ontario where Gormick has been working with Oxford County on a similar passenger rail strategy, the Southwest Lynx.

For the first phase, Gormick proposes making use of Ontario Northland and GO Transit locomotives and coaches before going to the used equipment market for the next steps.

He knows of a pool of more than 60 available coaches and café lounge cars sitting idle in U.S. yards that can be acquired at a reasonable cost and rebuilt at Ontario Northland’s refurbishment shops in North Bay.

The coaches are well-built, service-proven and have years of running life ahead of them. Locomotives can also be sourced the same way, he said.

Infrastructure-wise, Gormick said based on his inspection of track conditions north and south of North Bay, the line remains in remarkably good shape considering passenger service was discontinued six years ago. Trains could run at an acceptable and schedule-friendly 50 miles per hour.

Some work needs to be done to build new stations and reach agreements with the private owners of former Ontario Northland stations to lease a portion of those buildings and fix up the platforms.

Gormick isn’t ready to reveal the total price tag in the report due to a “wildcard” in CN Rail.

The service would need access to CN’s Bala Subdivision, a busy piece of track between Richmond Hill and Washago.

To tackle that challenge, he proposes stitching two sidings together to create 13 miles of double track, a cost estimated at $30 million. Gormick said he received no feedback yet from CN on his idea.

Should the Ford government approve a return of the service, Gormick said Ontario Northland would negotiate a train service agreement with CN, and, if necessary, additional political muscle could come from federal transportation minister Marc Garneau.

The All Aboard group is coming off a successful summer of meetings with staff of Transportation Minister John Yakabuski and Energy, Northern Development and Mines Minister Greg Rickford, as well as Timiskaming-Cochrane MPP John Vanthof and Timmins-James Bay MP Charlie Angus.

But the man squarely in the group’s corner is the one who controls the purse strings at Queen’s Park, Finance Minister Vic Fedeli, in whose riding the Ontario Northland is headquartered.

“Vic has reiterated to me on a number of occasions his commitment to get this done over his term,” said Boutilier.

“It’s a matter of providing the details on what specifically needs to be done to make sure the train gets back, and make sure that it’s a success.”

To Boutilier, restoring rail service to a market of 750,000 in central and northeastern creates sustainable communities, helps stem out-migration, offers a convenient segue to frequent Highway 11 closures and bad weather driving conditions, and caters to the travelling needs of seniors, the disabled, medical outpatients, and post-secondary students.

He has no doubt that people would flock to use the train if marketed properly and kept affordable, and based on the many stories posted on the All Aboard website from subscribers who shared their recollections on the impact of the 2012 cancellation of the train.

At the time, the province said the railway was financially unsustainable and that ridership had flat-lined. Passenger service between Cochrane and Moosonee remained uninterrupted.

Through a freedom of information request, Boutilier obtained government records indicating that between 2001 and 2012, the Northlander averaged 35,000 annual passenger trips, and trended upward to 39,500 in 2011; numbers deemed acceptable for the size of its market by a government consultant.

Should this template prove successful, the group said service could potentially be extended north to Kapuskasing and down the CP Rail corridor to serve communities between Sudbury and Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:24 PM
GoTrans GoTrans is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 687
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
The HFR plan could certainly work, but it will probably need more than $4 billion. As you said, there's a lot of work the Toronto-Peterborough-Smiths Falls route needs to support 160km/h rail service; between Havelock and Perth the route doesn't even exist anymore, for one.
The route certainly does exist, it is just that the trackage has been removed. At one point Unitel and then I believe later Bell Canada rented the right of way fibre optic cable that had been buried along the route. The fibre optic cable still exists so I presume the telecom company is leasing the ROW from the current owner.

Part of the route has been made into a a multi-use trail but Via could probably take the right of way back for its own use if it was actually sold.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2018, 10:03 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTrans View Post
The route certainly does exist, it is just that the trackage has been removed. At one point Unitel and then I believe later Bell Canada rented the right of way fibre optic cable that had been buried along the route. The fibre optic cable still exists so I presume the telecom company is leasing the ROW from the current owner.

Part of the route has been made into a a multi-use trail but Via could probably take the right of way back for its own use if it was actually sold.
If the federal government has to expropriate it and build a line from scratch then it doesn’t really offer any advantages.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2018, 2:26 AM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTrans View Post
Part of the route has been made into a a multi-use trail but Via could probably take the right of way back for its own use if it was actually sold.
The entire abandoned ROW from Havelock to Glen Tay has been converted to the Central Frontenac Trailway (part of the Trans Canada Trail). I am not sure who owns the ROW or under what conditions the trail was constructed, but the entire ROW is intact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
If the federal government has to expropriate it and build a line from scratch then it doesn’t really offer any advantages.
If the ROW had been sold off piecemeal to adjacent land owners, I would agree; however, it is still continuous, so purchase (or expropriation if necessary) will be easy. Some may not like losing the trail, but given how rural it is, I can't imagine it is heavily used. As a result, they aren't building the line from scratch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2018, 1:28 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post



If the ROW had been sold off piecemeal to adjacent land owners, I would agree; however, it is still continuous, so purchase (or expropriation if necessary) will be easy. Some may not like losing the trail, but given how rural it is, I can't imagine it is heavily used. As a result, they aren't building the line from scratch.
I wouldn’t necessarily assume there is continuous ownership. Many of these old branch lines were sold to individual adjacent landowners and snowmobile associations then assembled the necessary permissions to maintain a trail. The old K&P (same county) has this ownership structure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2018, 10:59 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I wouldn’t necessarily assume there is continuous ownership. Many of these old branch lines were sold to individual adjacent landowners and snowmobile associations then assembled the necessary permissions to maintain a trail. The old K&P (same county) has this ownership structure.
The trail is open year round (not just a snowmobile trail), so I would be surprised if it runs through people’s private property. If it is, the owners obviously aren’t using the land (except possibly for recreation purposes), so it shouldn’t be difficult to obtain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2018, 12:47 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
The trail is open year round (not just a snowmobile trail), so I would be surprised if it runs through people’s private property. If it is, the owners obviously aren’t using the land (except possibly for recreation purposes), so it shouldn’t be difficult to obtain.
I think you’re looking at it through an Ottawa lens. Elsewhere, particularly in rural areas, trails on private property are common (I have no idea in this case, maybe the whole thing is owned by the township).

I would think a high frequency railway would be a pain in the ass for local landowners and I would highly doubt they would be eager to turn over land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2018, 2:13 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I think you’re looking at it through an Ottawa lens. Elsewhere, particularly in rural areas, trails on private property are common (I have no idea in this case, maybe the whole thing is owned by the township).

I would think a high frequency railway would be a pain in the ass for local landowners and I would highly doubt they would be eager to turn over land.
Have you even looked at the ROW on a map? I made a rough drawing of it here. Most of it has brush on both sides and is likely through crown land. In some cases there are farms on one or both sides of the ROW. Where farms are on both sides, in most cases it looks like they are separate owners, so i can't see much objection (the cases where it might bisect someone's farm land it might be of more concern). There are a few cases where it goes through towns, and the local land owners would be more concerned, but that is a very small percentage of the ROW.

The other factor is the local townships seem on board with the idea, so they must not be too concerned about NIMBYs.

Last edited by roger1818; Oct 21, 2018 at 2:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2018, 3:38 PM
sonysnob sonysnob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,657
The biggest issue that I could see with returning trains to the Havelock subdivision is the fact that the current and former alignment pass through so many historic communities. There is a very real implication to placing high speed trains through these communities.

Really, almost every road crossing should be eliminated with a grade separation for example. Just off the top of my head, looking at both Highway 30 and Highway 41 just as an example, it would be difficult in either of those examples to place an overpass or underpass given the neighbourhood constraints. Same with Highway 12 through Myrtle Station.

That said though, I love the idea of returning rails to that corridor in principle. Even if it just appeals to the inner geek in me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2018, 5:17 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonysnob View Post
The biggest issue that I could see with returning trains to the Havelock subdivision is the fact that the current and former alignment pass through so many historic communities. There is a very real implication to placing high speed trains through these communities.
Which historic communities are you worried about? One of the advantages of this routing is there are so few compared to other ROWs. Along the abandoned ROW I only see the following:
  • Tweed,
  • Kaladar, and
  • Sharbot Lake

At Sharbot Lake and Tweed, the plan is to have stations there, so the trains will be slow.
At Kaladar, the line is relatively close to the highway, and very few (one?) places would be isolated by it.

Besides, we are talking about HFR not HSR, so the trains will only have a top speed somewhere between 160 and 200 km/h.

Quote:
Really, almost every road crossing should be eliminated with a grade separation for example. Just off the top of my head, looking at both Highway 30 and Highway 41 just as an example, it would be difficult in either of those examples to place an overpass or underpass given the neighbourhood constraints. Same with Highway 12 through Myrtle Station.
I am not sure why you think grade separation at ON-41 (or ON-12) will be so difficult. There is lots of room on either side of the highway to change the elevation of the future rails. ON-30 is more of an issue with the rail yard nearby, but it isn't impossible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2018, 5:58 PM
sonysnob sonysnob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
Which historic communities are you worried about? One of the advantages of this routing is there are so few compared to other ROWs. Along the abandoned ROW I only see the following:
  • Tweed,
  • Kaladar, and
  • Sharbot Lake

At Sharbot Lake and Tweed, the plan is to have stations there, so the trains will be slow.
At Kaladar, the line is relatively close to the highway, and very few (one?) places would be isolated by it.

Besides, we are talking about HFR not HSR, so the trains will only have a top speed somewhere between 160 and 200 km/h.



I am not sure why you think grade separation at ON-41 (or ON-12) will be so difficult. There is lots of room on either side of the highway to change the elevation of the future rails. ON-30 is more of an issue with the rail yard nearby, but it isn't impossible.
I don't think just adjusting the grade of the railway is nearly as practical a solution as you do.

Typically, the grade of the railway is pretty much fixed, ant it's the roadway that needs to be adjusted. Trains have a much harder time with grades than cars and trucks do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2018, 2:43 AM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonysnob View Post
I don't think just adjusting the grade of the railway is nearly as practical a solution as you do.

Typically, the grade of the railway is pretty much fixed, ant it's the roadway that needs to be adjusted. Trains have a much harder time with grades than cars and trucks do.
I agree that steel wheels on steel rails don't give trains as much traction and thus can't handle steep grades, but with lots of room on either side of the intersection, they can make the grade smaller by extending it over a larger length of track.

Looking again at ON-41, it seems as if it is on a steep grade to get down to ON-7 from where it crosses the old rail line. I don't see why it would be a problem to have it cut under the tracks. There is one driveway that might have issues with the new elevation of the road, but I don't see it being an insurmountable problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2018, 6:51 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by plangan107 View Post
Will the Canadian government spend $4 billion resulting in the same trip times between Toronto and Montreal as in 1973?

One of the biggest unsubstantiated statements by VIA Rail is their proposed high frequency rail line will reduce trip times by 25%.

What data have VIA Rail released to show how this reduced travel time will be accomplished? The answer is simple. VIA Rail has not even released any data to the public to support that statement or even the exact routing of the line.
They don't need any data. Common sense tells you that if you end up with your own track and are able to run at full speed (which is now apparently closer to 200 kph), you will have a lower average block time for your run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by plangan107 View Post
Current VIA trains tips between Toronto and Montreal is about 5hrs and 5hrs 17min on the main line.

Even if VIA Rail could obtain a 20% reduction in trip times it would result in travel times like we had in 1973 around 4hours.(and this percentage reduction would take a leap of faith).
And?

If VIA hits the 2.5 hrs pledged on Toronto-Ottawa, it would be competitive with air, given the location of the Ottawa airport and the double transfer required to get downtown, and the location of Pearson in GTA.

If VIA hits 4 hrs on Toronto-Montreal while maintaining the same fares, they will decimate the bus industry and actually get some people moving over from driving.

And if they get the 1hr and 20 mins between Ottawa and Montreal and hanve hourly frequencies? Ottawa-Montreal will become commutable.

Travel times from here:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle29638997/

Quote:
Originally Posted by plangan107 View Post
How can the government spend $4 billion where the result of spending that money will be train trip times that we had in 1973? VIA Rail's High Frequency Rail plan continues Canada's reputation as having one of the slowest, outdated, and inefficient passenger rail systems in the modern world.

We can spend $4-6 billion on high frequency rail or $12-15 billion on high speed rail. Nobody wants to spend $12-15 billion, so high frequency rail it is. If you can find a way to make the $6-10 billion additional cost that would be needed to upgrade from HFR to HSR, VIA will happily build HSR.

I'd love to hear your ideas. How do you plan on raising that?

Last edited by Truenorth00; Oct 24, 2018 at 10:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:41 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.