[ARG1]

One word...
Winter.
Every winter, a snowstorm happens and highways get closed. Most of the time, the rail can still do track speed. Ironicaly, we have been doing a poorer and poorer job of snow removal in the last few decades. Maybe if plows were out more and they had more plows, the highways could stay open.

Ah yes, Winter, because rail lines totally don't run into the same problem during the winter affecting their reliability and requiring closures. That definitely does not happen. This is before we mention the fact that these towns aren't exactly 15m communities, in many cases you're still going to have to drive down to the train station, and let me tell you those small local regional roads are way less likely to be snow maintained than the big provincial highways.

For the highway 60 corridor... I would suggest an LRT running between all the trailheads and campsites. Make it free for all who are camping. You would open the parking lots open up more. All of this is beyond a fantasy and I know it. Had the rail of the OAPS not been torn upinthe 1860s, it would be more of a realistic fantasy.

Uh... ok excuse me whilst I completely ignore this one.

I am not suggesting raising taxes. Well, I guess I kind of am.Had taxes been left as is since back in the 1980s, we could pay for what we have. It wasn't until the politicians began promising tax cuts that we started to go into, and stay into deficits.Now a days, they not only promise to cut your taxes, but also to increase spending. that increased spending money has to come from somewhere.

Oh yes, tax cuts were invented in the 1980s, and not totally something thats been a core part of our political system for several centuries.

This is before we bring up how tax rates are a cyclical thing, and to suggest that the 1980s was somehow the peak of taxes is a bit silly. A quick google search shows that in 2001 the average family tax rate was higher than in the 1980s, and only went down in the late 2000s thanks to the Harper Administration.

So no, I don't think we'd be able to pay for a HIGHWAY 60 LRT if we had 1980s tax rates. Even if your assumption was correct and taxes were way higher back then, I'm fairly confident when I say we'd be spending it on literally anything else.

 

[micheal_can]

Of all the ludicrous reasons I‘ve heard for funding rail services until the last corner of this country, „we need trains because we are too incapable to properly organize our snow removal operations!“ must be the most ridiculous! Send your snow removal planners to Quebec have them watch the snow operations here (the only kind of logistics we excel at!) and report back to us once your roads are cleared year-round, just like they are in the rest if this country…

There was a storm that saw11,144, and 17 north of SSM all closed - at the same time.

Again, attitudes need to change if we want meaningful passenger rail services outside of the Windsor - Quebec City Corridor.

 

[micheal_can]

Ah yes, Winter, because rail lines totally don't run into the same problem during the winter affecting their reliability and requiring closures. That definitely does not happen. This is before we mention the fact that these towns aren't exactly 15m communities, in many cases you're still going to have to drive down to the train station, and let me tell you those small local regional roads are way less likely to be snow maintained than the big provincial highways.

I am guessing you have never been at the local Canadian Tire and seeing a line of sleds at the pumps..... Last year a storm hit and Ineeded something. Cannot remember what, but with my road not plowed, and a foot of snow on it, I fired up my sled and went into town. I think it was from the grocery store. I wasn't the only sled in the parking lot. The CP mainline which runs close to that grocery store was running at track speed.

Uh... ok excuse me whilst I completely ignore this one.

... no insult taken. Hence why it is beyond a fantasy.

Oh yes, tax cuts were invented in the 1980s, and not totally something thats been a core part of our political system for several centuries.

This is before we bring up how tax rates are a cyclical thing, and to suggest that the 1980s was somehow the peak of taxes is a bit silly. A quick google search shows that in 2001 the average family tax rate was higher than in the 1980s, and only went down in the late 2000s thanks to the Harper Administration.

So no, I don't think we'd be able to pay for a HIGHWAY 60 LRT if we had 1980s tax rates. Even if your assumption was correct and taxes were way higher back then, I'm fairly confident when I say we'd be spending it on literally anything else.

Harper cut taxes,and then cut veterans benefits. See...tax cut means something else was cut.

As far as spending it on an LRT, you would likely be correct. Maybe vision care, or dental care, or something else would be covered or much cheaper for everyone. But, if we left taxation as it was, we might still have passenger rail service to the 5th largest metro in Canada.

 

[Urban Sky]

There was a storm that saw11,144, and 17 north of SSM all closed - at the same time.

What do you want the federal taxpayers to do? Build tracks along every single highway and run hourly passenger trains, just because you Sudbury folks never adapted to the climate you live in? Just move virtually anywhere else if you can‘t deal with the snow you get or learn how it‘s done correctly. But find yourself a „winter services“ or „climate“ thread if you just want to whine about how overwhelmed you are with the climate you live in…

 

[micheal_can]

What do you want the federal taxpayers to do? Build tracks along every single highway and run hourly passenger trains,

No. I have never said that. Ever.

I have said, all trains should be daily each way.
I have said all major cities that have a rail line to them should be connected.

just because you Sudbury folks never adapted to the climate you live in? Just move virtually anywhere else if you can‘t deal with snow or learn how it‘s done correctly. But find yourself a „winter services“ or „climate“ thread if you just want to whine about how overwhelmed you are with the climate you live in…

I have adapted.... 4x4, winter tires, and a sled.

 

[Urban Sky]

No. I have never said that. Ever.

I have said, all trains should be daily each way.
I have said all major cities that have a rail line to them should be connected.

You said that you need trains because your roads keep getting covered in snow. I say: how is this a transportation and not a logistical issue? Make sure your region learns how to clear snow from its road rather than crying for trains…

I have adapted.... 4x4, winter tires, and a sled.

Great, now get out with your 4x4 next time the road is closed and help them open it again! If snow removal services are as deficient as you imply, there should be a great business opportunity waiting for you!

 

[micheal_can]

You said that you need trains because your roads keep getting covered in snow. I say: how is this a transportation and not a logistical issue? Make sure your region learns how to clear snow from its road rather than crying for trains…

Well, if I want to get to Toronto,I cannot on my sled. Not legal.

Great, now get out with your 4x4 next time the road is closed and help them open it again! If snow removal services are as deficient as you imply, there should be a great business opportunity for you!

Sure... not legal to do that....

See, if you could fathom changing your attitude, you would see that most of whatI really want is realistic. Yes, I do have some rediculous fantasy things,like the LRT in Algonquin, but most of what I say is reasonable.

 

[DirectionNorth]

When the politicians are promising tax cuts to get voted in, then it is no wonder service gets cut and the idea of resuming it becomes ridiculous to many.

If there is an existing service that does not justify its cost, it should be cut. It’s not about restoring service to places that “deserve” (whatever that means) it - it’s about spending money wisely, because the cuts have happened and you can’t change the past.

Thank you... I think. I wish I didn't understand it. Then I could agree that the government is stealing from me.

One word...
Winter.
Every winter, a snowstorm happens and highways get closed. Most of the time, the rail can still do track speed. Ironicaly, we have been doing a poorer and poorer job of snow removal in the last few decades. Maybe if plows were out more and they had more plows, the highways could stay open.

Right. You want trains for a once-a-year scenario. You could plow all the roads of Ontario for years for the cost of a dedicated Sudbury - Toronto line.

For the highway 60 corridor... I would suggest an LRT running between all the trailheads and campsites. Make it free for all who are camping. You would open the parking lots open up more. All of this is beyond a fantasy and I know it. Had the rail of the OAPS not been torn upinthe 1860s, it would be more of a realistic fantasy.

An LRT for a park. Right, and you think your ideas are reasonable.

Run a shuttle service on 10 minute headways with hourly connections to Toronto and Ottawa. Infinitely more practical (and environmentally friendly!) than whatever you are proposing.

I am not suggesting raising taxes. Well, I guess I kind of am. Had taxes been left as is since back in the 1980s, we could pay for what we have. It wasn't until the politicians began promising tax cuts that we started to go into, and stay into deficits.Now a days, they not only promise to cut your taxes, but also to increase spending. that increased spending money has to come from somewhere.

No tax rate can change the fundamental proposition of transit, which is to move lots of people efficiently and quickly. If the ridership is low, the train’s not worth it, and it doesn’t matter if the tax rate is 10% or 100%.

There was a storm that saw11,144, and 17 north of SSM all closed - at the same time.

Again, attitudes need to change if we want meaningful passenger rail services outside of the Windsor - Quebec City Corridor.

Sure. I support light DMUs or EMUs on a dedicated single track line with passing loops in regional corridors - Calgary/Edmonton and St. John/Moncton/Halifax especially, but the ridership proposition of giant shuttles across the country isn’t there.

I also have the ability to recognize that said regional service is a fantasy given the state of intercity rail in Canada, and that some projects (Corridor services) take precedence for their high ridership.

I am guessing you have never been at the local Canadian Tire and seeing a line of sleds at the pumps..... Last year a storm hit and Ineeded something. Cannot remember what, but with my road not plowed, and a foot of snow on it, I fired up my sled and went into town. I think it was from the grocery store. I wasn't the only sled in the parking lot. The CP mainline which runs close to that grocery store was running at track speed.

Huh?

See, if you could fathom changing your attitude, you would see that most of whatI really want is realistic. Yes, I do have some rediculous fantasy things,like the LRT in Algonquin, but most of what I say is reasonable.

Anything is realistic if you have enough money. /sigh

 

[Urban Sky]

Well, if I want to get to Toronto,I cannot on my sled. Not legal.

Then move out of that little icy black hole which hasn‘t figured out how to run wonter operations.

Sure... not legal to do that....

There are professionals or contractors who are paid to do that. Become one of them and show them how it‘s done correctly!

See, if you could fathom changing your attitude, you would see that most of whatI really want is realistic. Yes, I do have some rediculous fantasy things,like the LRT in Algonquin, but most of what I say is reasonable.

Look, if you were receptive to any amount of reasoning, you wouldn‘t have gotten banned on Skyscraperpage because you keep derailing every single discussion with your outlandish and often off-topic demands. Sure, the problem could also be every single other person you are arguing with, but maybe one day you‘ll finally start considering that the attitude which keeps getting you in such situations is your very own…

 

[micheal_can]

If there is an existing service that does not justify its cost, it should be cut. It’s not about restoring service to places that “deserve” (whatever that means) it - it’s about spending money wisely, because the cuts have happened and you can’t change the past.

Honestly, Using that metric, most,if not all passenger service in Canada, including the commuter service and even the subways/metro all are subsidized. So, using your logic, someone can make a case to close them.

Service outside the Corridor has been cut into irrelevance, not the other way around.

Right. You want trains for a once-a-year scenario. You could plow all the roads of Ontario for years for the cost of a dedicated Sudbury - Toronto line.

No. Iwant to be able to take a train to Toronto for a long weekend, and actually make it within that time. When rail service is discussed, people mention city pairs. They usually mention 300-500km range of where rail is feasible.

An LRT for a park. Right, and you think your ideas are reasonable.


Run a shuttle service on 10 minute headways with hourly connections to Toronto and Ottawa. Infinitely more practical (and environmentally friendly!) than whatever you are proposing

I am not proposing that. I merely showed a crazy idea if money and resources were unlimited.

No tax rate can change the fundamental proposition of transit, which is to move lots of people efficiently and quickly. If the ridership is low, the train’s not worth it, and it doesn’t matter if the tax rate is 10% or 100%.

Death by a thousand cuts.

Sure. I support light DMUs or EMUs on a dedicated single track line with passing loops in regional corridors - Calgary/Edmonton and St. John/Moncton/Halifax especially, but the ridership proposition of giant shuttles across the country isn’t there.


I also have the ability to recognize that said regional service is a fantasy given the state of intercity rail in Canada, and that some projects (Corridor services) take precedence for their high ridership.

Why not something like the Siemens 3 car trains that meet the crash worthiness? No need for new track.

Huh?

Exactly.

Anything is realistic if you have enough money. /sigh

Some are more than others.

Than move out of that little icy black hole which hasn‘t figured out how to run wonter operations.

It is across Canada. I like Canada too much to leave.

There are professionals or contractors who are paid to do that. Become one of them and show them how it‘s done correctly!

Yes, and they are doing it as cheaply as possible to turn as high a profit as possible. I would not last the dayas they don't want to hear that in order to melt the ice and snow, you must put down something. "If the thingy ain't spinning, you ain't melting."

Look, if you were receptive to any amount of reasoning, you wouldn‘t have gotten banned on Skyscraperpage because you keep derailing every single discussion with your outlandish and often off-topic demands. Sure, the problem could also be every single other person you are arguing with, but maybe one day you‘ll finally start considering that the attitude which keeps getting you in such situations is your very own…

Well, then in due time, I guess I'll be banned here.

This thread was supposed to be about discussing the lack of meaningful passenger rail outside of the Corridor.I have pointed out many reasons we have that. I know it will be status quo for at least the next decade, if not the rest of the century, but if you don't want to hear the reasons, don't ask.

 

[IRT_BMT_IND]

The big corridor cuts in 1990 were the trains on the CN back mainline (Guelph sub through KW and Stratford, and then Strathroy sub to Sarnia), which went from 5 to 3 trains a day (1 of these 3 turned in London too I think), and Niagara, which went from, IIRC 4 trains to 2. Metrolinx has effectively fully reversed these cuts in Niagara, and partially in K/W. Stratford and Sarnia (and even KW on the weekend) are the two large-ish cities in the corridor that have substantially worse service than pre-1990.

If the Canadian had remained a daily service on the CP route it would have been a lot more useful for actual transportation in Northern Ontario and the Prairies. Even if all the other 1990 cuts had otherwise gone through, VIA would still be seen as a more relevant "national" service in this scenario IMO.

 

[Urban Sky]

If the Canadian had remained a daily service on the CP route it would have been a lot more useful for actual transportation in Northern Ontario and the Prairies. Even if all the other 1990 cuts had otherwise gone through, VIA would still be seen as a more relevant "national" service in this scenario IMO.

Once you start to imagine how a VIA network without transcontinental service on the CN route would have looked like, it becomes obvious why the conspiracy theories Canadian railfans will drown you with the moment you mention that the Canadian no longer takes the CP route have very little merit.

If you allow me to dump a post I posted on Amtrak Unlimited recently:

***

Now, to understand why the government chose to axe the CP route and keep the CN route, I suggest to consider the context of these cuts, as summarized by Tom Box on Groups.io:

Once we've established that the overarching objective stated by the government of that time was to minimize VIA's deficit, we know how to compare the two corridors. Granted, both corridors are virtually the same distance, so operating the same train over the same distance will cost roughly the same amount and generate similar deficits. Therefore, we need to consider the network effects of choosing either route:

Choosing the CN route allowed to have the Skeena connect with the Canadian in Jasper (with initially very good connections in all directions!) and to get rid of the Capreol-Winnipeg service (which generated a direct loss of $6.7 million in 1988).

Conversely, choosing the CP route would have required an extension of the Skeena to Kamloops and to keep the Capreol-Winnipeg service, while getting rid of the Sudbury-White River service (which generated a much lower direct loss of $943,000 in 1988).

The above suggests that choosing the CN route over the CP route might have saved the federal government C$7.2 million in annual subsidies ($1.4 million* West of Winnipeg and $5.8 million East of Winnipeg), which translates to almost C$16 million today (or some US$12 million).

Despite all the conspiracy theories Canadian railfans will all too happily share, once we accept that the federal government wanted to reduce VIA's burden on its taxpayers while still maintaining some minimal service (as outlined in the legislation I quoted above), I find it impossible to argue that they ought to have kept the CP route and axed the CN route instead...

*calculation:
Deficit for Prince Rupert - Prince George - Jasper - Edmonton (1540 km): $6.6 million in 1988
Deficit assumed for Prince Rupert - Prince George - Jasper (1160 km): $5.0 million ($6.6 million / 1540 km * 1160 km)
Deficit assumed for Prince Rupert - Prince George - Kamloops (maybe 1490 km): $6.4 million ($6.6 million / 1540 km * 1490 km)
Incremental assumed deficit for choosing Kamloops as end point over Jasper: $1.4 million ($6.4 million - $5.0 million)

 

[lenaitch]

Well, if I want to get to Toronto,I cannot on my sled. Not legal.

Actually, you can, just stay off provincial highways.

... no insult taken. Hence why it is beyond a fantasy.

And perhaps this is the problem with many of us trying to understand your position. You toss out all sorts of proposals and, when challenged, retreat into 'it's just fantasy'.

 

[micheal_can]

And perhaps this is the problem with many of us trying to understand your position. You toss out all sorts of proposals and, when challenged, retreat into 'it's just fantasy'.

My real proposals are:
1) All existing service retained, but a frequency of daily as a minimum.
2) Reverse all cuts that still have rails.

Anything beyond that is just me dreaming in a world of infinite money and infinite resources.

 

[Urban Sky]

My real proposals are:
1) All existing service retained, but a frequency of daily as a minimum.
2) Reverse all cuts that still have rails.

Anything beyond that is just me dreaming in a world of infinite money and infinite resources.

Yet you are unable to articulate any rationale why we shouldn’t rather invest the amount what that would cost into our intercity bus networks instead, where it would create so much more bang for the buck, as you could run ten times as much service and thus serve so many more people so much better. That‘s why all your proposals, even those which sound completely reasonable to you, are mere fantasies on which all your admirable passion is wasted without achieving anything for your region about which you evidently care so much. It‘s a bit tragic, but it‘s the life you choose: wasting your leisure time arguing with strangers about things which are impossible to attain - just because you are too inflexible and stubborn to consider anything else than trains as acceptable in any context…