kEiThZ
Superstar
Yep. Some people just want to troll and get off on feeling smarter than the pros as long as they get to assert stuff without having to actually do work to back it up.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Yep. Some people just want to troll and get off on feeling smarter than the pros as long as they get to assert stuff without having to actually do work to back it up.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
You are right, nothing of that can happen when adding tracks into existing ROWs owned by private railroads, no wait:
Source: Auditor General of Canada (2016)
And, FYI, the Havelock Subdivision is an “existing alignment” (it doesn’t really matter if the tracks west of Havelock have been replaced by a cycling path - it’s not like you could reuse the worn-out tracks which are laid west of it) and the only new alignments which are necessitated by the maps which have been released so far is a maybe 4 km long bypass over flat fields, to link the Smiths Falls and Winchester Subdivisions just north of Smiths Falls...
He is still less than 60 days in office and probably won’t make any mentions which would fuel speculation or even act as spoilers for what may or may not not be included in the federal budget, which is usually released by the end of this month...
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
I didn't say it wouldn't be noticeable. I was disputing your ascertain that be a game changer (compared to 60 minute headways). In case you don't know, here is the definition from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
HFR will be a game changer. Upgrading HFR to 30 minute headways (whiteout any other significant changes) will not.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Just to recall what you originally wrote:
Since I haven’t seen you walk away of that statement, the rebuke is also about the wording “no significant benefit”, not just: “game changer” or not...
In any case, in terms of commutability and other inter-city interactions, going from hourly to all-day half-hourly service could be considered a game changer for city pairs like OTTW&MTRL or Peterborough&TRTO, just like It has been along GO Transit’s Lakeshore Corridor...
roger1818
Senior Member
kEiThZ
Superstar
Exactly the example I was thinking of. 30 min service takes HFR from intercity rail to ex-urban commuter service. A different business.
crs1026
Superstar
You are right, nothing of that can happen when adding tracks into existing ROWs owned by private railroads, no wait:
Source: Auditor General of Canada (2016)
This table should be taken in context. VIA’s plan (the middle collumn) was not wrong.... it simply failed in execution. To argue that the 2009 plan was not properly thought out would actually be quite an indictment of VIA’s planning. The A-G never siad it was a bad plan, they simply documented its failure.
The root cause of the failure was (partly) that VIa had never managed a project that big before and (mostly) that the relationship of VIA with CN, who executed the work, prevented any real accountability.
If there is no political will to correct that root cause, then indeed it’s a fantasy to suggest trying it again. But if one added a collumn laying out the parameters of HFR, and comparing those attributes and benefits to what the 2009 plan proposed, and then comparing relative price tags.....it would demonstrate why the laissez faire policy with respect to CN is costing the country big time.
- Paul
PS - At the time, that 2009 project felt like good news, or at least a glass half full. Now, the more I reflect on that 2009 failure, the more I realise how it cost us a decade in getting better rail service.
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
If it's any consolation.... The additional track greatly improved CN's operations along the Kingston Sub.
Of course, that was their plan all along.....
Dan
nfitz
Superstar
The government doesn't have (or need) $100 billion sitting around.
If you temporarily buy a $100 billion asset, you still own the asset, and you can use debt to finance it, without impacting the debt rating. Once you transfer the relatively small piece of rail you want to VIA, you then sell the asset. Say for $98 billion. If you time the market right, you maybe make a profit!
(and no, I don't think this would actually happen - finally introducing a Via Rail Act like Prime Minister Trudeau promised in the 1970s, which defines use priorities and allows the government to regulate the use of privately-owned track properly is the real solution)
If you'd have said that in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s, I'd agree with you. But surely you've noticed that in recent years - and very much so with the current PM, the government spends the weeks and months before the budget, giving everyone a head's up about anything noteworthy in the budget, to create maximum impact.
It hadn't actually crossed my mind until you said that ... but surely radio silence from this particular government, before the budget, is further evidence that nothing is going to be in the budget.
Last edited:
ssiguy2
Senior Member
The idea of an Ottawa bypass while people in SWO suffer from both poor and unreliable service and pathetically long travel times. Why should VIA's 3rd busiest station get so much largess of dubious returns while VIA's 4th busiest station {London} get's squat.
Added to this idea of putting the Mon/Ott/Tor should be given 100% priority over anything else is also very short sighted especially with Biden in the White House. It's very clear that Biden is a big supporter of far superior and extensive inter-city rail services and certainly one of the routes that will be given priority is Chicago-Detroit. An expansion of these corridor and potential crossing to Windsor would bring in a LOT of new travellers as Chicago to Quebec essentially becomes one long corridor.
Added to this idea of putting the Mon/Ott/Tor should be given 100% priority over anything else is also very short sighted especially with Biden in the White House. It's very clear that Biden is a big supporter of far superior and extensive inter-city rail services and certainly one of the routes that will be given priority is Chicago-Detroit. An expansion of these corridor and potential crossing to Windsor would bring in a LOT of new travellers as Chicago to Quebec essentially becomes one long corridor.
nfitz
Superstar
There certainly should be improvement to SW Ontario services. The lack of any service improvements to London, Kitchener, Brantford, or restoring Hamilton service is unfortunate, while pushing this HFR scheme for other cities. (gosh, they've been playing with running some Montreal/Ottawa services through to the new suburban station at Aldershot for years now. Why not try extending one of those to the Hamilton Hunter Street terminal and see what that would do).
kEiThZ
Superstar
Except this is a strawman of your construction. Nobody has ever opposed improving service to a London. I'm pretty sure every regular on here has both advocated for and expects the next phase to go to London.
A big part of why TOM is being pitched for HFR is because there's an unused rail corridor available. There's no such thing to get to London. VIA has to wait for Metrolinx to sort out everything west of Union before they can come up with a reasonable plan. There's also the question of the Pearson hub and how any extension to the West would plug in there.
Unless Biden is going to pay for rail from the border to Toronto, what the Americans want is irrelevant.
roger1818
Senior Member
Agreed! Stage 2 would almost certainly be an extension to London/Windsor (and Quebec if not included in Stage 1). Stage 3 would likely be improvements to the Lakeshore. Then there is also the Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton corridor, which could get inserted there somewhere. Further upgrades to increase capacity on the TOM corridor likely wouldn't happen until after all of those are done.
In this case, I think you are misinterpreting @ssiguy2. It isn't about what the Americans want (I don't think Biden cares all that much if the Chicago-Detroit corridor is extended to Toronto or not), but it is an opportunity for VIA to get access to some huge markets. As you said though, getting dedicated tracks to London will be a challenge. Reliably getting a train from Windsor to Detroit could also be a challenge.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I get what he's saying. I just don't agree that we should build all our plans around what the Yanks are doing.
For very little return. Detroit is not going to generate more ridership than say London or Kingston. Just a function of cross-border demand and how difficult it is to travel in American border cities without a car.
kEiThZ
Superstar
So no building any improvements anywhere unless we plan for improvements everywhere?