[micheal_can]

My point from the beginning was that the Northlander's return had an actual business case to support it, and any other proposed enhancements, particularly the ones exampled by @Northern Light in his post, should have the same scrutiny. Whether you or I think something does, or does not, have a business case, should be immaterial, they are no more than subjective opinions.

Which goes to why I participated in the conversation, but was not pushing for it.
My guess is those that were behind the return of the Northlander will try to the same with something like this and other routes that may have a similar business case.

 

[TerryJohnson]

Business cases are important but they tend to focus on current and easily foreseeable demand and cost:benefit of the project in isolation.
That's relatively effective for urban transit projects, but it has problems, especially at the regional or national level. Demographic and regional equity lenses are not applied; long-term strategic consequences are not captured; opportunity costs are not considered.
When we are talking about projects that would completely change the definition of "far" (on-vehicle time, perceived travel time, price, capacity, and schedule flexibility) past performance is not a guide to future results.
Most cities in Canada a quite isolated and will grow dramatically in the medium term if they're attached to a larger regional economy and labour market by fast and reliable public transport, but the first five to ten years of pump-priming looks bad on a business case and the land-use policies also have to be in place to make it work.
That once-per-day bus (due to driver shortages) to Sudbury won't be scratching the surface of demand for affordable and flexible travel, let alone moving the needle on the city's growth, and the $332 round trip fare on Air Canada won't either.
On Canada's current trajectory, we need to be picking projects that are going to distribute growth across the country.

 

[Urban Sky]

Business cases are important but they tend to focus on current and easily foreseeable demand and cost:benefit of the project in isolation.
That's relatively effective for urban transit projects, but it has problems, especially at the regional or national level. Demographic and regional equity lenses are not applied; long-term strategic consequences are not captured; opportunity costs are not considered.
When we are talking about projects that would completely change the definition of "far" (on-vehicle time, perceived travel time, price, capacity, and schedule flexibility) past performance is not a guide to future results.
Most cities in Canada a quite isolated and will grow dramatically in the medium term if they're attached to a larger regional economy and labour market by fast and reliable public transport, but the first five to ten years of pump-priming looks bad on a business case and the land-use policies also have to be in place to make it work.
That once-per-day bus (due to driver shortages) to Sudbury won't be scratching the surface of demand for affordable and flexible travel, let alone moving the needle on the city's growth, and the $332 round trip fare on Air Canada won't either.
On Canada's current trajectory, we need to be picking projects that are going to distribute growth across the country.

Exactly, and the governments should have seized the opportunity to introduce a national franchised intercity bus network when Greyhound announced its departure. However, any proposal involving passenger rail will face an upwards-tilted battle the moment someone starts wondering how much intercity bus services the same amount in operating subsidies could fund…

 

[micheal_can]

Exactly, and the governments should have seized the opportunity to introduce a national franchise intercity bus network when Greyhound announced its departure. However, any proposal involving passenger rail will face an upwards-tilted battle the moment someone starts wondering how much intercity bus services the same amount in operating subsidies could fund…

Sometimes, those types of voices should be ignored. You know the ones I mean. The ones who are anti everything and claim that taxation is theft.

However, the moderates, the ones that ask is there any current modes to get there and is there a population base that could support it - they should be listened to.

Take the return of the Northlander. People can argue that there isn't a need for rail since it has lots of bus service. I'd bet that if we wait 5 years after the Northlander returns, we will see a rise in passengers using the service over current numbers.

Remember, the gas tax is not enough to fully fund roads, yet most don't complain about new highways or widening existing highways. That is because we have become a car centric nation.

 

[lenaitch]

Business cases are important but they tend to focus on current and easily foreseeable demand and cost:benefit of the project in isolation.
That's relatively effective for urban transit projects, but it has problems, especially at the regional or national level. Demographic and regional equity lenses are not applied; long-term strategic consequences are not captured; opportunity costs are not considered.
When we are talking about projects that would completely change the definition of "far" (on-vehicle time, perceived travel time, price, capacity, and schedule flexibility) past performance is not a guide to future results.
Most cities in Canada a quite isolated and will grow dramatically in the medium term if they're attached to a larger regional economy and labour market by fast and reliable public transport, but the first five to ten years of pump-priming looks bad on a business case and the land-use policies also have to be in place to make it work.
That once-per-day bus (due to driver shortages) to Sudbury won't be scratching the surface of demand for affordable and flexible travel, let alone moving the needle on the city's growth, and the $332 round trip fare on Air Canada won't either.
On Canada's current trajectory, we need to be picking projects that are going to distribute growth across the country.

Fair enough, but there are methods to project future growth in way that can survive critical scrutiny. They may not be perfect, but beat the heck out 'town x deserves it'.

I'm not sure I get the concept of regional equity, except in the sense that they should be treated fairly with respect to their needs. If you only give one of your dogs a treat, the other perceives unfairness. If you give them both treats but one piece is larger than the other, they won't care; they will perceive they are treated fairly.

 

[Urban Sky]

Sometimes, those types of voices should be ignored. You know the ones I mean. The ones who are anti everything and claim that taxation is theft.

However, the moderates, the ones that ask is there any current modes to get there and is there a population base that could support it - they should be listened to.

Take the return of the Northlander. People can argue that there isn't a need for rail since it has lots of bus service. I'd bet that if we wait 5 years after the Northlander returns, we will see a rise in passengers using the service over current numbers.

The return of the Northlander is relatively uncontroversial exactly because most people are not aware about what kind of massive expansion of the Ontario Northland intercity bus network the same amount of subsidy would fund.

I’m not saying that restoring the Northlander is a mistake, but that investing in rural-but-not-remote rail services is just still a very low-value-for-money solution compared to the gummi-tired mass transport alternative…

 

[micheal_can]

The return of the Northlander is relatively uncontroversial exactly because most people are not aware about what kind of massive expansion of the Ontario Northland intercity bus network the same amount of subsidy would fund.

I’m not saying that restoring the Northlander is a mistake, but that investing in rural-but-not-remote rail services is just still a very low-value-for-money solution compared to the gummi-tired mass transport alternative…

Then why shoot down expansion of Via, or even another ONR run route in ON?

 

[Urban Sky]

Then why shoot down expansion of Via, or even another ONR run route in ON?

I enthusiastically welcome HFR and any other expansions of passenger rail services wherever they are commercially viable and provide Canadians with reliable service. As an environmentally-conscious citizen and taxpayer, however, I expect that transportation policy makers carefully weigh the financial/economic/societal/environmential benefits against the respective costs and make decisions which ensure a high value-for-money by considering various different options and alternatives…

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

I’m not saying that restoring the Northlander is a mistake

Why not? If you won't, I will. The amount being invested in this is eye watering. We need better bus and transportation services, and if an expensive vanity project which duplicates existing services while providing a worse service is being built, it becomes a barrier to the actual improvement of transport for the people who need it most. In that case, it deserves to be fought.

 

[Urban Sky]

Why not? If you won't, I will. The amount being invested in this is eye watering. We need better bus and transportation services, and if an expensive vanity project which duplicates existing services while providing a worse service is being built, it becomes a barrier to the actual improvement of transport for the people who need it most. In that case, it deserves to be fought.

As a railfan, I’m very much looking forward to the restoration of the Northlander, but if I was an Ontarian taxpayer, I would certainly strongly agree with you.

I haven’t really read the documents released for the Northlander, but what was the projected pricetag (capital cost and annual operating costs) again?

 

[Urban Sky]

Looked it up myself: More than half-a-billion in capital costs and with $1 in Economic or Financial benefits for every $3-4 invested. Abysmal!

Spoiler

And look how incredibly convenient once-daily schedules are:

Spoiler

[/spoiler[

https://ontarionorthland.ca/sites/default/files/corporate-document-files/UIBCen.pdf

Boy, am I glad that it’s not my tax dollars which are wasted on this…

 

[micheal_can]

Looked it up myself: More than half-a-billion in capital costs and with $1 in Economic or Financial benefits for every $3-4 invested. Abysmal!

Spoiler

And look how incredibly convenient once-daily schedules are:

Spoiler

View attachment 510054[/spoiler[

https://ontarionorthland.ca/sites/default/files/corporate-document-files/UIBCen.pdf

Boy, am I glad that it’s not my tax dollars which are wasted on this…

You are confusing me on this.
Actually,you are confusing me on a lot of rail things. I will ask some questions to hopefully clear things up.
1) Are you a fan of expansion of intercity rail outside of the QC-W corridor?
2) Are you a fan of daily service outside of the Corridor?
3) Are you still a fan of all of this even if there is a projected high subsidy, such as the Northlander?
4) If yes to all 3, why do you fight with me?

Specifically the spoiler I uncovered, Are you saying the schedule is good, or was it a tongue in cheek response?[/spoiler]

 

[Urban Sky]

It’s not very businesslike to spend many millions of dollars to double track a line that does not need double tracking.

This ties directly to the point that I have made that @Urban Sky is at odds with : CN simply does not need double track throughout its Montreal-Toronto main line. Some amount of the existing double track exists only because CN is astute enough not to pull up track that is used for current VIA service. If that VIA service is shifted to a new VIA line, you can be sure that CN will reduce its capitalisation and its own operating expenses by taking some sections of double track out of service, retaining only as much as it feels it needs. The Kingston Sub may then look more like the Winchester or York or Halton - some double segments, but some single track segments. That’s a pretty obvious improvement to the balance sheet.

Since we will need to settle this at some point, CN demanded partial triple-planning at a time (2007-2009) when VIA operated 12 frequencies per day along the Lakeshore (5tpd to Ottawa, 6tpd to Montreal and 1tpd to Kingston):

Source: 2016 OAG Report (p.18)

When HFR was still a VIA project, VIA communicated its intention to run the same 12 frequencies per day as it did between 1996 and 2012:

https://twitter.com/x/status/890579315255123968

Why would the same frequency which was considered by CN 15 years ago as the upper limit with only two tracks now be too little to justify keeping the second track and maintaining it to Track Class 5?

 

[Urban Sky]

You are confusing me on this.
Actually,you are confusing me on a lot of rail things. I will ask some questions to hopefully clear things up.
1) Are you a fan of expansion of intercity rail outside of the QC-W corridor?
2) Are you a fan of daily service outside of the Corridor?
3) Are you still a fan of all of this even if there is a projected high subsidy, such as the Northlander?
4) If yes to all 3, why do you fight with me?

1) Yes, wherever such a service would be commercially viable (which pretty much limits us to Edmonton-Calgary-Banff).
2) Yes, wherever such a service would be commercially viable (which pretty much limits us to Edmonton-Calgary-Banff).
3) Yes, wherever such a service would be commercially viable (which pretty much limits us to Edmonton-Calgary-Banff).
4) This is obviously an alien concept to you, but you can be a railfan without believing and insisting that at-least daily service with your preferred and beloved mode of transportation is the right answer to every single mobility problem in this country and therefore ought to serve every single hamlet in any of the ten provinces...

Specifically the spoiler I uncovered, Are you saying the schedule is good, or was it a tongue in cheek response?[/spoiler]

I only put the spoilers because I realized how massive screenshots from my phone appear when viewed in a non-mobile browser and I wanted to avoid that people have to scroll ages through that otherwise very short post. And, yes, I was of course sarcastic and this is what I keep telling you: daily frequencies are crap, because they can only accommodate a fraction of the demand which would in principle be willing to take the train, if it matched their time constraints. You need at least 2 (better: 3) trains per day to become somewhat relevant and that's just utopic outside the Q-W or the EDMO-Calgary-Banff corridors...

 

[micheal_can]

I only put the spoiler because I realized how massive screenshots from my phone appear when viewed in a non-mobile browser and I wanted to avoid that people have to scroll ages through that otherwise very short post. And, yes, I was of course sarcastic and this is what I keep telling you: daily frequencies are crap, because they can only accommodate a fraction of the demand which would in principle be willing to take the train, if it matched their time constraints. You need at least 2 (better: 3) trains per day to become somewhat relevant and that's just utopic outside the Q-W or the EDMO-Calgary-Banff corridors...

For major cities that have million(s) or even hundreds of thousands of population, a frequency that is only daily would be an abysmal failure. However, for smaller places where the total population along the line is less than 100,000, a single daily train gong both ways and is on time can be successful, providing the arrival in the destination is good for the ridership. Since the destination is Toronto, getting in at 1055am and leaving at 630pm, for most people needing to do business in the city, it can cut down on the hotel stays.

I would love to see multiple times a day, but I also need to ask whether it would actually change anything. Maybe twice a day, 12 hours apart is the most this line should ever see, regardless of how flush with cash the province ever gets.