[just east of the creek]

I am in Trois Rivières today - population about 145,000 people. Say 160,000 in the general vicinity. And they are pumped because they think they are getting the TGV.

So what about Kingston? Population about 140,000 plus more in the general area. And they are pumped (?) about getting the legacy VIA service, which will go into the dumpster of service cutbacks as soon as the HSR through Sharbot Lake opens.

This is so wrong. Of course it could all be in the current governments fevered imagination as well, which is probably closer to the truth.

 

[kEiThZ]

Kingston has rail service. Trois Rivieres doesn't. Also, Kingston would substantially benefit from air-rail integration at Dorval and possibly Pearson in the future. Also, we have to make choices. If going by Lakeshore cost billions more and adds years to the project, it's a tougher sell.

 

[nfitz]

Kingston has rail service. Trois-Rivieres doesn't.

Back when Trois-Rivieres used to have train service, I did take it - and was a frequent flier on the Kingston service. There was a huge demand at Kingston. The Trois-Rivieres service was deserted - and that's before there was an Autoroute all the way to Trois-Rivieres.! Looking back at old VIA schedules when there were 3 trains a day it was only about 110 minutes (161 km) from Montreal to Trois-Rivieres. And 90 minutes (130 km) from Quebec to Trois-Rivieres.

Though only 95 minutes from Trois-Riveres to the station at Metro Parc.

It should be a relatively fast service I thought along there, at least until it wends it's way into Montreal - but there's a couple of Metro stations en route.

What was the Quebec City to Montreal travel time?

 

[crs1026]

The answer is not to route the through HxR through Kingston, but to simply impose a more enforceable onus on CN to operate the present local service efficiently after the through business is shifted to a new line.

And to make sure VIA has a service plan that is planned with transparency and with adequate frequency and timings to preserve and grow the local business on that line. Toronto-Kingston does not need higher speeds than are available today, but frequency ought to be growable. This does not require as many trains as run today, so CN is getting some of its track back.... but the key point is to preserve enough to be marketable.

I have little faith that either will happen, but it's still a long ways away. If I lived in any Lakeshore community, I would be lobbying my local pols to pressure Ottawa on this point. If they snooze, they will lose.

- Paul

 

[just east of the creek]

Kingston has rail service. Trois Rivieres doesn't. Also, Kingston would substantially benefit from air-rail integration at Dorval and possibly Pearson in the future. Also, we have to make choices. If going by Lakeshore cost billions more and adds years to the project, it's a tougher sell.

Dorval is a long way from Kingston. How long will funding and service for the legacy line continue? and if you are spending billions, and you would, why are you ignoring existing population, potential population growth areas? Until there is costing, all of this talk is somewhat irrelevant. But building a line from Ottawa to Toronto that passes through nothing but endless cottage country (until you get to Peterborough - which should be a Regional GO service) makes no sense at all.

Having said all of that, and not to be personally argumentative, I recognize that there is a LOT of detail not known, that I am not a railway person and I do not have that knowledge, but I do believe that the Lakeshore Line should be Option A. Everything else should be Option B.

And why does Trois Rivières not have VIA service? It’s 90 minutes from Montreal. It’s seems a natural fit. But then I am not really impressed with Montreals EXO through my admittedly very limited use.

 

[kEiThZ]

Dorval is a long way from Kingston. How long will funding and service for the legacy line continue?

Indefinitely. The current service is reasonably cheap to operate. Would be even cheaper if the inter-metro traffic was moved to another line.

why are you ignoring existing population, potential population growth areas?

Because that existing population and development makes it prohibitively expensive to build there. This is exactly the problem. It's not a choice between Peterborough and Kingston. It's a choice between Peterborough and no improvement at all.

Nevertheless, the government has left it up to the bidders to propose their preferred routings. They are going to decide if the extra billions and years of effort to serve a Kingston is worthwhile. Unless the freight rail companies team up with a bidder, I don't see a Lakeshore routing being preferred by any bidder though.

 

[kEiThZ]

But building a line from Ottawa to Toronto that passes through nothing but endless cottage country (until you get to Peterborough - which should be a Regional GO service) makes no sense at all.

Ummm yes it does. It removes the need to stop, while creating a shorter routing, allowing for service that would be competitive with air travel between the major metros.

I think you're not understanding the purpose of HxR. It's to improve service substantially between the major metros, such that highways and airports are relieved and travel emissions are reduced. Milk run trains don't do that.

Rail service in Canada has been held hostage by the demand to serve the lowest common denominator (rural areas and smaller cities) for far too long. This is a needed change.

 

[Allandale25]

I don't think of any of us following HFR closely there will be anything new in these remarks but just in case cc @crs1026 @smallspy @TerryJohnson @SaugeenJunction @Northern Light @reaperexpress

High Frequency Rail - Train à grande fréquence on LinkedIn: #destinationhfr

On April 25, 2023, Marc-Olivier Ranger addressed the Senate Standing Committee on VIA HFR’s progress to date. 👉 To read his remarks:…

www.linkedin.com

 

[kEiThZ]

Monday was close for the RFQ responses. Now we wait to find out who qualified in June. And for the RFP in the Fall.

 

[crs1026]

I think you're not understanding the purpose of HxR. It's to improve service substantially between the major metros, such that highways and airports are relieved and travel emissions are reduced. Milk run trains don't do that.

Rail service in Canada has been held hostage by the demand to serve the lowest common denominator (rural areas and smaller cities) for far too long. This is a needed change.

I totally buy the premise of building HxR as a “virtual airport” linking T-O-M and perhaps W-L-K- and -Q. Diluting that functionality with local stops or doubling with freight rail is not a good idea. The only issue is whether the price point ought to be air comparable or much lower to draw modal share from highways…. the air competitor pricing is being lowered by discount airlines anyways.

But I continue to believe the local/regional service is valid within Ontario/Quebec, where we are dealing with crowded highways and the prospect of population growth. Maybe Trenton Jct and Gananoque are a bit trivial, but planning rail service along the Lakeshore is desirable, perhaps as a provincial concern, although I would not undermine VIA as a common-denominator entity. Doesn’t mean I would argue for the same in other provinces where population and growth is lower.

If Ottawa does not see that as a federal mandate, then they owe it to the provinces to impose a more equitable balance between CN/CP and the provincial level passenger operators.

Also, I believe that Ottawa owes us transparency on their figures. The argument that higher land costs along the existing routes outweighs the cost of building thru the Canadian Shield needs to be proven one way or the other with proper data. We all have our own opinions but real numbers are lacking. We might be surprised, one way or the other.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I totally buy the premise of building HxR as a “virtual airport” linking T-O-M and perhaps W-L-K- and -Q. Diluting that functionality with local stops or doubling with freight rail is not a good idea. The only issue is whether the price point ought to be air comparable or much lower to draw modal share from highways…. the air competitor pricing is being lowered by discount airlines anyways.

Aviation is extremely expensive in Canada. Taxes and fees put a real floor on how much air fares can come down. It's actually much easier for HSR to compete on TOM than in most markets in Europe where aviation is not substantially taxed. This is why companies like Alstom keep lobbying for a more open project that lets them upgrade just enough to be competitive.

It's a valid question whether we should be diverting traffic. But ultimately that becomes a question of subsidy. Any moderately fast service (doesn't have to be full 300kph all the way) will be highly competitive with air travel. Especially if Billy Bishop is then killed.

Also, I believe that Ottawa owes us transparency on their figures. The argument that higher land costs along the existing routes outweighs the cost of building thru the Canadian Shield needs to be proven one way or the other with proper data. We all have our own opinions but real numbers are lacking. We might be surprised, one way or the other.

The good part here is the feds aren't the ones deciding on routing. The respondents are doing that. And they'll bid the business case that works for them.

People keep forgetting that this is now wide open as long as they meet the target service goals. There's actually nothing stopping a bidder from cutting a deal with the freight companies. They could cut a path from Peterborough back to the Lakeshore if they wanted to. I can't see a business case ever being made for that though.

Ultimately, it's just the numbers. The Lakeshore population between Oshawa and Montreal is maybe 1M. Having them hold the GTA catchment of 4M, the Ottawa catchment of 1M and the Montreal catchment of 2M hostage to that 1M is not exactly sensible.

 

[crs1026]

Ultimately, it's just the numbers. The Lakeshore population between Oshawa and Montreal is maybe 1M. Having them hold the GTA catchment of 4M, the Ottawa catchment of 1M and the Montreal catchment of 2M hostage to that 1M is not exactly sensible.

Hostage, no. But a million people is a lot of trips. It’s fair to ask what investment and service level a million people can justify on their own, without being win-lose to that other catchment.

The fact is, there are two rail corridors along the Lakeshore. One of these can handle all the freight traffic that will ever be attainable, even on a 50-year or 100-year horizon. Allowing these two entities to spread the freight across both, in a way that impedes reasonable exploitation of passenger service, is just not rational nor good economics, and certainly not in the public interest.

If our public policy treats the independence of freight railways as sacred, the opportunity cost we are paying is huge, and much bigger than the option of putting the two into coproduction and reclaiming the second corridor for whatever passenger needs we choose to meet.

So I see the situation as sub-optimal…… but yeah HxR needs to sit outside of all that.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

Hostage, no. But a million people is a lot of trips. It’s fair to ask what investment and service level a million people can justify on their own, without being win-lose to that other catchment.

The fact is, there are two rail corridors along the Lakeshore. One of these can handle all the freight traffic that will ever be attainable, even on a 50-year or 100-year horizon. Allowing these two entities to spread the freight across both, in a way that impedes reasonable exploitation of passenger service, is just not rational nor good economics, and certainly not in the public interest.

If our public policy treats the independence of freight railways as sacred, the opportunity cost we are paying is huge, and much bigger than the option of putting the two into coproduction and reclaiming the second corridor for whatever passenger needs we choose to meet.

So I see the situation as sub-optimal…… but yeah HxR needs to sit outside of all that.

- Paul

They can build a shuttle from Kingston to the HFR station (bus).

 

[kEiThZ]

They can build a shuttle from Kingston to the HFR station (bus).

There's no point. That connection won't save enough (over departing from Kingston itself) to make it worthwhile. It's an hour to drive from Kingston to Sharbot Lake. With travel times from there, it would be a wash compared to what is there today. Also, if Kingston passengers get diverted to HxR, the business case for Lakeshore services as a whole gets seriously damaged.

Right now, travel times are;

Kingston-Toronto: 2.5 hrs
Kingston-Ottawa: 2.3 hrs
Kingston-Montreal: 2.75 hrs

Making the Kingston trains all stop milk runs might add 10-15 mins more (they already have some stops), but those are still relatively decent travel times. What's needed is better air-rail integration including the REM Extension at Dorval and extending Lakeshore service thru Union to terminate at Pearson. Being able to get to Dorval or Pearson in less than 3 hrs from Kingston or to Ottawa in closer to 2 hrs would be massively beneficial. Not just to Kingston. But for the entire Lakeshore.

 

[kEiThZ]

Hostage, no. But a million people is a lot of trips. It’s fair to ask what investment and service level a million people can justify on their own, without being win-lose to that other catchment.

Sure they are plenty of trips. But those trips aren't going away. People are pretending that we're shutting down Lakeshore. That's not in any of the documents we've seen. So really the discussion is about the marginal gain or loss arising from changes in services. And there's no way those million people can come close to the market potential of the big metros.

The fact is, there are two rail corridors along the Lakeshore. One of these can handle all the freight traffic that will ever be attainable, even on a 50-year or 100-year horizon. Allowing these two entities to spread the freight across both, in a way that impedes reasonable exploitation of passenger service, is just not rational nor good economics, and certainly not in the public interest.

If our public policy treats the independence of freight railways as sacred, the opportunity cost we are paying is huge, and much bigger than the option of putting the two into coproduction and reclaiming the second corridor for whatever passenger needs we choose to meet.

I agree to a point. But this is broader question of public policy and state interference in market making. Is it a discussion we should have? Absolutely. Is it a discussion we will have? Definitely not. And so then we do hold all further passenger rail investment in the Corridor hostage to our immaturity. I think that's probably a bad idea. This is a situation where we should not let perfect be the enemy of good.