GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[turbanplanner]

You remove the heart, you kill the body. Expropriating a corridor that is central to a carrier's profitability would definitely impact on the price. Whether it is hundreds of billions or not is beyond me (the market capitalization of both RRs is about $150Bn total) but it would certainly be shockingly expensive.

It's true we don't have Constitutional protection of property rights, and corporations have limited access to the Charter, but anything that looks closer to State seizure than fair market value would, if nothing else, have financial implications for Canada on the world stage.

The question is what would the ridership be and would it justify the tens of billions?

 

[sixrings]

It's okay to bring that subject once in a while but not in every thread every few days. I am unhappy with my bus service. How will ii help anyone if I bring that up everyday on this board?

the way I look at it is that if enough people start talking about it then perhaps some people will actually start voting that way as well. If we don’t talk about it then it comes off as we are ok with the status quo. It took a whole bunch of talking until some politicians realized these are ways to get elected.

 

[DirectionNorth]

There, fixed that for ya.

European countries are desperately trying to get more freight onto trains. Are you suggesting we do the opposite?

That's exactly what we're talking about, and its a perfectly sensible idea.

Please describe how spending billions of dollars nationalizing a freight system that works fine is a sensible use of transit dollars.

It wouldn't require hundreds of billions to nationalize some corridor, that would buy you both freight carriers lock, stock and barrel.

It would still use billions of dollars. CP Rail has historically been accommodating of passenger services (though maybe not on the Milton corridor) and getting them to share tracks with CN might be harder than collaborating with them to get a GO-owned track. Until they cost that out, who knows?

Where do you get this stuff from? There are no 'special' laws protecting railways from nationalization in whole or in part.

Canada doesn't not have constitutional property rights in any event, which means that any rights that did exist in law could be repealed.

But for the record, no one is suggesting 'seizure' of the rails.

The government has plenty of means at its disposal, both carrot and stick to garner cooperation.

CN and CP have powerful lobbies. Moreover, expropriating a central corridor for CP's operations would be time consuming and expensive and anything less than that would be portrayed as "government taking away private property."

Just because we can, does not mean we should do it. Could that money be better spent on local transit service? (Hint: the answer is "yes it absolutely can.")

 

[Northern Light]

European countries are desperately trying to get more freight onto trains. Are you suggesting we do the opposite?

No. I am suggesting joint CP/CN operation of a single corridor parallel to Lake Ontario from just west of where the mainlines come in to Toronto from the west, thus freeing up one corridor to be passenger-priority. (not exclusive)

Please describe how spending billions of dollars nationalizing a freight system that works fine is a sensible use of transit dollars.

I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that:

a) We will spend no less than 12B on HFR/HSR as currently proposed, and likely more, on top of what a private proponent may spend as well; that the portion of this money being spent near existing corridors may be better spent 'incenting' improved utilization of existing infrastructure.

b) That this same idea above is already being mooted for west of Toronto to at least London and would presumably have a comparable pro-rated taxpayer-funded cost; and that money could potentially be directed more efficiently also.

c) I am very open to working out things w/CN and CP as I believe is very much possible and indeed (I might know to be more plausible than some here think); what I'm saying here is the government has the means by both carrot and stick to provide greater space to passenger rail on existing corridors, and that taking 'no' for an answer is an excuse for failure.

d) It would actually be in the longer term interest of both national carriers to get out of the track infrastructure ownership business, its a drag on their bottom line, and capital intensive, and if they were guaranteed access to either a non-profit joint venture track-owning company (which CN/CP did for decades with TTR (the Union Station Rail Corridor), without difficulty or crown entity; It would also create greater network flexibility and greater competition making it better for rail customers too, and in the process, boosting traffic volumes.

All that said, I'm content not to open that can of worms if CN/CP are cooperative and government ambitious and efficient. I'm simply prepared to support whatever is necessary to ensure such.

It would still use billions of dollars. CP Rail has historically been accommodating of passenger services (though maybe not on the Milton corridor) and getting them to share tracks with CN might be harder than collaborating with them to get a GO-owned track. Until they cost that out, who knows?

Again, CN/CP ran joint-ownership track for years in the TTR (Union Station Rail Corridor); you might also be too young to remember, but in fact CN/CP proposed a full merger in eastern Canada back when.

CN, CP talk 'coproduction' in eastern Canada (April 1997) - RailPrime | ProgressiveRailroading

www.progressiverailroading.com

CN and CP have powerful lobbies. Moreover, expropriating a central corridor for CP's operations would be time consuming and expensive and anything less than that would be portrayed as "government taking away private property."

Again, not my first choice, simply an option, one I don't think will prove necessary..........for 'reasons'.

Just because we can, does not mean we should do it.

That's always true.

Could that money be better spent on local transit service? (Hint: the answer is "yes it absolutely can.")

I think we're disagreeing on what pot of money is needed to achieve what possible outcome.

You seem to think I'm advocating something I'm not. What I was doing is defending those putting forward such an option from a complete misrepresentation of what is or is not possible or useful.

 

[Northern Light]

You remove the heart, you kill the body. Expropriating a corridor that is central to a carrier's profitability would definitely impact on the price. Whether it is hundreds of billions or not is beyond me (the market capitalization of both RRs is about $150Bn total) but it would certainly be shockingly expensive.

It's true we don't have Constitutional protection of property rights, and corporations have limited access to the Charter, but anything that looks closer to State seizure than fair market value would, if nothing else, have financial implications for Canada on the world stage.

I've endeavoured to clarify my point in responding to @DirectionNorth above.

 

[T3G]

There, fixed that for ya.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not some law which prevents us from doing this?

I don't recall the details of it, it was an age that I remember reading this. At any rate, the fact that our rail is not nationalized is a great embarrassment.

Edit: that's what I get for replying before reading the discussion below lol ignore me

 

[lenaitch]

I've endeavoured to clarify my point in responding to @DirectionNorth above.

Yup, you did, thanks.

I couldn't open the link but I don't know if co-production is the same as co-ownership. They do operate combined services in the Fraser Valley and the Parry Sound -Sudbury corridor, but I don't think ownership is impacted; it's just common directional running using both ROWs. I recall they talked about some kind of co-production in the Ottawa Valley, allowing one ROW to be abandoned, but it didn't go anywhere. TTR is rather unique and I'm not sure could be repeated today.

 

[Willybru21]

I remember seeing a post here a while back where someone said MX doesn't want to potentially get blocked in court. would this be worth the cost even, it would be at least tens of billions is my guess.

You'd have to pay for the value of the rails, and whatever income they're getting. On top of that I feel CN or CP would really drag their feet on other projects out of spite.

And what benefit would you get? Off peak service nobody would use? I'm on the lakeshore line after work several times a week, and I see maybe 3 people per coach across 100 trips.
I don't see milton or kitchener getting much more use than lakeshore

Are you joking? Off peak trips on GO are very popular, and has become a bigger ridership demographic post-COVID.

 

[Northern Light]

I couldn't open the link but I don't know if co-production is the same as co-ownership. They do operate combined services in the Fraser Valley and the Parry Sound -Sudbury corridor, but I don't think ownership is impacted; it's just common directional running using both ROWs. I recall they talked about some kind of co-production in the Ottawa Valley, allowing one ROW to be abandoned, but it didn't go anywhere. TTR is rather unique and I'm not sure could be repeated today.

The Ottawa Valley situation is discussed here: https://www.canadianrailwayobservations.com/2011/April11/Apr11 Web/canrail.pdf (I think this link should work for ya) (starts on p.59 - centre top)

****

The situation serving the Port of Vancouver is discussed here:

https://www.producer.com/news/cn-cp-cooperate-on-tracks/

So far I can't find a good link (open) to the late 90's proposal.

 

[Undead]

It's a great shame that we can't do what most European countries do and take ownership of the tracks and give priority to passenger rail over freight. The fact that a private freight company can hold so many people hostage on a corridor that only runs like 8 trains a day is embarrassing.

I think this is too boldly stated. A significant volume of goods travel by rail. If we like our Amazon trinkets delivered fast and cheap, I'd be very careful about disrupting fright rail. And of course there's the potential side effect of displacing goods from rail onto trucks, a rather ironic unintended consequence.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that:

a) We will spend no less than 12B on HFR/HSR as currently proposed, and likely more, on top of what a private proponent may spend as well; that the portion of this money being spent near existing corridors may be better spent 'incenting' improved utilization of existing infrastructure.

b) That this same idea above is already being mooted for west of Toronto to at least London and would presumably have a comparable pro-rated taxpayer-funded cost; and that money could potentially be directed more efficiently also.

The NML or SML? Most proposals I see use the Guelph Sub, which is not a mainline and whose acquisition would be far less disruptive (according to CN/CP - could we call it CNP? Sounds catchy!) to the freight cos.

c) I am very open to working out things w/CN and CP as I believe is very much possible and indeed (I might know to be more plausible than some here think); what I'm saying here is the government has the means by both carrot and stick to provide greater space to passenger rail on existing corridors, and that taking 'no' for an answer is an excuse for failure.

It could very well be that they don't have the money to go to CNP. Even if they all agree to every demanded immediately, surely CP would be compensated for their rail line, which would surely run into the billions.

d) It is would actually be in the longer term interest of both national carriers to get out of the track infrastructure ownership business, its a drag on their bottom line, and capital intensive, and if they were guaranteed access to either a non-profit joint venture track-owning company (which CN/CP did for decades with TTR (the Union Station Rail Corridor), without difficulty or crown entity; It would also create greater network flexibility and greater competition making it better for rail customers too, and in the process, boosting traffic volumes.

I do agree that this is a superior model for rail transport, but I do not think CNP would be in agreement. Competition is taboo in this country.

All that said, I'm content not to open that can of worms if CN/CP are cooperative and government ambitious and efficient. I'm simply prepared to support whatever is necessary to ensure such.

CP Rail has allowed GO to build their own tracks on LSE. I'm not going to pretend that I know whether there's room on Milton, but my guess is that if it's feasible, they will.

If you force CP onto the York Sub, both operators lose flexibility in when they can run their trains. Unless you built more tracks, but then you're paying for multiple corridors to get the price of one ...

Again, CN/CP ran joint-ownership track for years in the TTR (Union Station Rail Corridor); you might also be too young to remember, but in fact CN/CP proposed a full merger in eastern Canada back when.

CN, CP talk 'coproduction' in eastern Canada (April 1997) - RailPrime | ProgressiveRailroading

www.progressiverailroading.com

I am indeed too young.

I think the days of CNP merger talk are over, especially now that CP and Kansas Southern have merged.

Again, not my first choice, simply an option, one I don't think will prove necessary..........for 'reasons'.

I think we're disagreeing on what pot of money is needed to achieve what possible outcome.

I know how ops/capex works ... it's just so frustrating seeing billions in funding for capital while we cut corners and budgets for local transit service. Penny wise, pound foolish.

 

[Deadpool X]

I think this is too boldly stated. A significant volume of goods travel by rail. If we like our Amazon trinkets delivered fast and cheap, I'd be very careful about disrupting fright rail. And of course there's the potential side effect of displacing goods from rail onto trucks, a rather ironic unintended consequence.

This is something I would call fright rail.

 

[turbanplanner]

Are you joking? Off peak trips on GO are very popular, and has become a bigger ridership demographic post-COVID.

I see more people now vs 2019, but like I said, the frequency is every 30 mins so you'd hopefully have a lot of riders, but I see maybe 4 people per coach when I go

 

[ARG1]

I see more people now vs 2019, but like I said, the frequency is every 30 mins so you'd hopefully have a lot of riders, but I see maybe 4 people per coach when I go

I'd ride the Barrie Line train at like Noon in 2020, and half the seats in each car were full. I don't necessarily recommend using anecdotes as concrete facts.

 

[turbanplanner]

I'd ride the Barrie Line train at like Noon in 2020, and half the seats in each car were full. I don't necessarily recommend using anecdotes as concrete facts.

My example was about the lakeshore west line. Also the trains in 2020 were 6 cars for the barrie line