Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[rbt]

There are a lot of problems with Via, which is why I would not have them run the railway - which is what I would expect to be part of the RFP process. First, cross country passenger rail should be scrapped, second - the federal government should not take the lead -it should be provincial since only Quebec, and mostly Ontario will benefit. In fact, it should be part of the proposal to elimate the federal subsidies of the railway.

The Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal routes are not subsidized. In fact, the profits from those routes are used to fund, in part, VIA operations elsewhere.

I don't disagree that it should be an Ontario/Quebec partnership, but you should anticipate VIA subsidies increasing if they no longer operate those routes.

 

[nfitz]

I believe Metrolinx is funding the electrification of the entire Lakeshore line. It is also one of their top priorities.

Metrolinx has proposed this in a draft document that is expected to be finalized in the next few months. But that's a few years from construction starting, let alone operations starting. I'm merely pointing out it isn't the first commuter upgrade in line; there's the current upgrades to the Lakeshore line, which were partially funded by the Chretien government back in 2003, and are nearing completion, and several other infrastructure projects currently underway to increase capacity.

 

[kEiThZ]

Keithz, Jn12 -

Both of you seem to know quite a bit about air travel in Canada. I hear of late that Pearson contributes roughly 2/3rds of Canada's airport fees despite only making up 1/3rd of passenger volume. Is it true that federal fees on Pearson are disproportionate to federal fees on, say, Trudeau or Vancouver? How are airport fees even calculated?

Pearson does generate 2/3rd of the revenue. It is based on a progressive income tax scale:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2005/05-h098e.htm#bg

-scroll to the bottom of the page. Note that Canada is the only country in the developed world to charge rents to its airports.

And here's how much the GTAA pitches in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/air/airport-rent/fact/toronto.htm

Ihttp://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.a...rvices\ChargesAndAdmin\Calculator\default.xml

That's the nav can fee calculator for enroute service fees to operators.

I guess a good question is whether similar fees would be expected from HSR travel?

There is no way that an HSR will generate any where close to the revenue that all three levels of government would get from those pax flying instead.

I'm very surprised that an additional railway improvement tax isn't included in ticket purchases on VIA. Considering a ridership of roughly 5 million, a $2 fee per ticket could go a long way towards improving some smaller aspects of the system. Imagine if it was more along the lines of what we see at airports? Obviously the higher ticket price would deter some people from buying tickets but let's just say it didn't... $10 improvement fees would do some amazing work.

Because rail has to compete with the road which is 'free' any further charges would merely encourage driving just like all those further charges which discourage flying.

 

[unimaginative2]

While the rate being charged might be excessive, I don't really see what's so wrong with the principle of charging the airport authority rent. Somebody mentioned in another thread that the property was appraised as being worth $2.5 billion. Presumably the feds are making payments in-lieu of taxes on that, so it hardly seems fair to give the land away to the airport authority for free.

 

[kEiThZ]

While the rate being charged might be excessive, I don't really see what's so wrong with the principle of charging the airport authority rent. Somebody mentioned in another thread that the property was appraised as being worth $2.5 billion. Presumably the feds are making payments in-lieu of taxes on that, so it hardly seems fair to give the land away to the airport authority for free.

Actually, that's not the case for the independent airport authorities which pay property taxes themselves. However, payments in-lieu of taxes also applies to rail stations, so the argument could be made for rail to be charging user fees as well.

 

[cacruden]

While the rate being charged might be excessive, I don't really see what's so wrong with the principle of charging the airport authority rent. Somebody mentioned in another thread that the property was appraised as being worth $2.5 billion. Presumably the feds are making payments in-lieu of taxes on that, so it hardly seems fair to give the land away to the airport authority for free.

If the land is valued at 2.5 billion, I would expect a reasonable - non-subsidized rent to work out to be around 120 million a year.

 

[dowlingm]

I think the priority, with all due respect to the folks in Windsor, should be the London-Quebec routes. Only when that work is finalised should London-Windsor be improved. I would say London-Ottawa/Montreal but I know at least something about how politics works.

My priority: do that stuff that WON'T cost a ton of money, in a similar fashion to the work done and underway on Ottawa-Montreal.

First off, adding track on the London-Kitchener-Guelph-Georgetown line both to increase speeds on a slow service and decreasing waits for clear track but also to provide more capacity when VIA trains on the southern route have to divert because CN went scattering containers again and VIA trains arrive two hours late.

While doing that, add side platforms on all VIA stations with just one (and I think that is being done in some spots east of Toronto under the money the Tories gave in the last Parliament) and work on removing track speed restrictions before trying to increase the line maximum speed.

Lastly, I would look at an eastbound early train ex Kingston to serve Ottawa and Montreal just as there is one serving Toronto. It's pathetic how late the first eastbound train leaves Kingston.

 

[cacruden]

I think the priority, with all due respect to the folks in Windsor, should be the London-Quebec routes.

Priority should be the cities with the largest populations (ankor cities), Montreal - Toronto, outside that - that should be an option for future expansion. If that can operate without any subsidies - then you can start planning for phase II based on actual data.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I think the priority, with all due respect to the folks in Windsor, should be the London-Quebec routes. Only when that work is finalised should London-Windsor be improved. I would say London-Ottawa/Montreal but I know at least something about how politics works.

I disagree Windsor is needed to service the border,there are 4-6 million people living on the other side of the river that just might travel by fast rail to Toronto.Remember tourism is still essential for Torontos economy.

By linking Windsor you are also linking to Amtrak. Chicago-Detriot.

Hardly any politics here.Its a no brainer when you mention Windsor you are looking for potential customers from Detriot and beyond.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Priority should be the cities with the largest populations (ankor cities), Montreal - Toronto, outside that - that should be an option for future expansion. If that can operate without any subsidies - then you can start planning for phase II based on actual data.

The way i see it.The population of Metro Montreal 3,635,571,000 Metro Toronto 5,555,912.000 Metro Windsor 323,342/Metro Detroit 4,467,592,000

What makes rail any diffrent from planes,any time a new route is inaugurated they always mention population radius around the destination city.

 

[cacruden]

I am not saying it doesn't have potential, although less than it's total size because the border is a big deterrence right now (passports, etc.). I am saying that if they do the project - break it up into phases, if the business plan is working as expected (or better) - then expand. In the mean time, maybe we can work with the Obama administration to see if we can open up the border a little more - or make it easier for citizens to travel back and forth.

 

[MisterF]

There's many in line before that one. Electrication of the Lakeshore line is still in the planning stage, and is unfunded. GO has a website that documents the many projects that are actually in the construction phase - http://www.gotransit.com/gotrip/index.asp

The highlight being the third track on the Lakeshore line. Union to Eglinton and Burlington to Bayview is now operation, with Port Credit to Oakville to be completed next summer. There have been reports that this will lead to an increase in frequency of all-day service on the Lakeshore line from 1 train per hour (TPH) to 2 TPH next fall - which is a start. Transport for London doesn't count lines as High Frequency until they get to 4 TPH.

All I said was that the first in line for electrification is the line to Hamilton. I didn't say electrification would come before the projects you mentioned, which are all positive of course.

Exactly. And this is my question. Is it worthwhile to use tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to wipe out a profitable private commercial aviation industry for the 1% of emissions it generates while ignoring the thousands of cars traveling down the 401/416 between the three cities. That's why I think it'd be far more cost-effective merely to upgrade the line and keep the fares low - while trying to attract folks who drive currently.

It's a lot more than just emissions reductions. It's a major improvement in mobility for tens of millions of people. Spinoffs would be economic and in settlement patterns and even local transit use. Not to mention pollution around airports, where jet emissions are most concentrated. Incidentally I've heard estimates that emissions reductions would be a lot higher than 1%, but I don't have a source.

+1. That's exactly what I want to see. Moreover, if we start leaving out intermediate stops, what do folks think will happen with all those potential HSR customers. For example, if we leave out Cobourg or Belleville, how sure are the HSR planners that folks would drive over an hour to the nearest HSR station (Oshawa or Kingston)?

Why would intermediate stops be left out? Trains could stop at Cobourg or Belleville just as they do now. Express trains would obviously bypass those stations.

This is ultimately what is worrying me here. In the rush to immitate all things European we might be screwing up the things we do well (freight by rail). HSR might be needed, but its effectiveness needs to be thoroughly studied in the Canadian context (not US or European operating environments).

Where do you get the idea that this is a rush to imitate all things European? HSR has been studied extensively in the Canadian context for over 30 years. The agencies doing the studies (including governments) have expressed a high degree of confidence in their conclusions. A review of previous studies can be found here.

[/quote]More stops outside of the downtown areas?[/QUOTE]
European systems do have stops outside downtown areas, as do proposed systems in North America.

There is no way that an HSR will generate any where close to the revenue that all three levels of government would get from those pax flying instead.

Source?

The Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal routes are not subsidized. In fact, the profits from those routes are used to fund, in part, VIA operations elsewhere.

I've heard this before, and that VIA as a whole has a cost recovery of about 80%. I'd love to see a source for that info if you've got it though. If existing VIA operations in the Corridor make a profit, it would be pretty much impossible for HSR not to.

 

[nfitz]

All I said was that the first in line for electrification is the line to Hamilton. I didn't say electrification would come before the projects you mentioned, which are all positive of course.

Ah. Yes you did say that. I parsed "is electrificiation for" rather than "for electrificiation is" ... which completely changes the meaning. Sorry!

 

[Automation Gallery]

) - In the mean time, maybe we can work with the Obama administration to see if we can open up the border a little more - or make it easier for citizens to travel back and forth.

I know that Canada and the United States dont work like the Euro Zone but then again nowadays with the proper documents most individuals have no problem entering either country easily.

 

[Dan416]

I really think Toronto-Montreal should be the priority. Those are the big two cities of Canada. And I'd rather an HSR line skip over Ottawa unless we have a new route that doesn't lose too much time traveling through Ottawa.