VIA Rail

[David Brake]

Not sure you got better alignment though....so the feds are kicking in some money over 3 years that is to apportioned to municipalities based on a ridership formula.

They just leaped past the provincial level and it's transportation implementation body (Metrolinx).......If Ontario was to say "wow, with all that federal money allocated to Ontario we can do "X" project in Toronto"...the feds would not allow it because some of that money has to be spent in York, Brampton, Mississauga, etc.

The province, who's job it is, has lost the co-coordinating/prioritizing pen as it relates using/matching these federal funds.

You make an interesting point here - I am not sure that it is the case since on the one hand they say in the budget document
"Funding under the program will be allocated to municipalities based on ridership" but on the other the figures they quote are province-wide not city-wide. Surely there will be a level of granularity below which they won't allocate directly? Does this mean that Burlington (for example) would need to put in a direct bid for money? I will check with the Ministry and see if I can get clarification...

 

[TOareaFan]

You make an interesting point here - I am not sure that it is the case since on the one hand they say in the budget document
"Funding under the program will be allocated to municipalities based on ridership" but on the other the figures they quote are province-wide not city-wide. Surely there will be a level of granularity below which they won't allocate directly? Does this mean that Burlington (for example) would need to put in a direct bid for money? I will check with the Ministry and see if I can get clarification...

Clarity there would be helpful...and, yes, there is a discrepancy between the words and the chart.....I suspect the chart was used because a chart showing the provincial destination of the funds was easier to use (ie less cumbersome) than breaking out each and every municipality.

 

[rbt]

You make an interesting point here - I am not sure that it is the case since on the one hand they say in the budget document
"Funding under the program will be allocated to municipalities based on ridership" but on the other the figures they quote are province-wide not city-wide. Surely there will be a level of granularity below which they won't allocate directly? Does this mean that Burlington (for example) would need to put in a direct bid for money? I will check with the Ministry and see if I can get clarification...

It's actually impossible (AFAIK) for the feds to give money directly to municipalities. From a federal law point of view, there is no such thing as a municipality; they're effectively departments of the provincial government.

So, they'll give the money to the province with a contract stating how it is to be spent and the province will be expected to pass it down to the respective transit agencies and is responsible for reporting back to the feds how/when it is spent. Since the cheque is to the province, the budget document outlined it that way.

If Tory and Trudeau got together and agreed to 50/50 split the cost of PROJECT X, which Wynne disagreed with, Wynne could veto it.

 

[mdrejhon]

Full circle -- I see good alignment.

Not perfect, and unrelated to words-versus-promises disconnect.
But better-than-usual realistic transit action is where it matters.

 

[steveintoronto]

You make an interesting point here - I am not sure that it is the case since on the one hand they say in the budget document
"Funding under the program will be allocated to municipalities based on ridership" but on the other the figures they quote are province-wide not city-wide. Surely there will be a level of granularity below which they won't allocate directly? Does this mean that Burlington (for example) would need to put in a direct bid for money? I will check with the Ministry and see if I can get clarification...

I read 50%/50% somewhere recently, which then allows Toronto Council to barter with the province, a la: "We'll put in 25%, and you match us, but we want the first leg of RER on Bramalea south to start as soon as possible, pre-electrification, and we want recognition of our share by having our decal and "SmartTrack" brand recognition on the vehicles."

I've discussed possible leased-in DMU choices in the Infrastructure forum, and will be detailing more in the near future. It *has* to start within the next four years so the Feds can be taken-up on their offer, and frankly, just to get the d@mn thing started already...

 

[MisterF]

The Oxford dictionary defines the word "corridor" as "A belt of land linking two other areas or following a road or river", which pretty much prescribes a linear form, but that is not the point. I was only replying to your remark that "[t]he US has 9 times our population, which means it has 9 times as many potential rail corridors as we do".

You're right, the dictionary definition of the word "corridor" isn't the point. I don't know why you posted it to be honest. So are you agreeing or disagreeing that the US has 9 times as many potential rail corridors as us? Since I was talking about the type of service Via is proposing, there are easily 9 routes in the US comparable to Toronto-Montreal that could justify medium speed, high frequency rail service.

Correct, but whereas I would count conventional rail systems (especially remote inter-regional or intra-urban Commuter rail networks) as a public responsibility, I have the expectation for HSR to be not only operationally profitable, but to recover the majority of its capital costs.

To make the comparison with roads, conventional rail is akin to local road systems and undivided rural roads and highways, while high speed rail is comparable to freeways. High speed rail is typically expected to make enough of a profit to cover the capital costs and subsidize slower local services. Freeways, on the other hand, aren't expected to cover their costs at all (except in large urban areas), let alone the costs of the rest of the road network. Just pointing out the double standard.

Zaragoza-Huesca is probably the most drastic example for a completely superfluous HSR line, as the 80 km long segment is only used by a daily round trip Madrid-Zaragoza-Huesca and a second on Fridays and Sundays (thus 2*9=18 trains per week), but I agree that Madrid-Barcelona recovering at least half of its capital costs (if the calculations made by Betancor and Llobet are anything near realistic) makes it a smaller financial disaster than the other three corridors, but what more suitable label would you suggest for having built over 2,000 km of HSR lines (i.e. quindrupling your HSR network) and yielded an increase in ridership which gets outpaced by population growth?

View attachment 70607


If I read the study correctly (I don't speak Spanish, even though I found it surprisingly similar to French and somewhat understandably), all calculations - financial and social - were based on a horizon of 50 years. I tried to provide the years of opening for the respective corridors, but I must admit that I'm not exactly sure what is exactly included and therefore removed these references in the table, while specifying that all figures refer to a 50-year horizon. For any questions regarding that study, I suggest to read and/or translate it yourself, as my Spanish does not allow me to understand the exact methodology. Nevertheless, a different team of Spanish researchers (Albalate et Bel, 2012, p. 102) has come to very similar conclusions:

View attachment 70603

You are right that the financial crisis was mostly caused by an unsustainable real estate boom, but the budget crisis was caused by unsustainable public funding in low-priority or outright superfluous infrastructure projects, leading to all these ghost airports, abandoned highways and grotesquely derused rail lines.

It's tough to disagree, which is why I said that there's a good case to be made that they're overextending the system. That doesn't mean that high speed rail isn't feasible in Spain, it just means that they're going a little crazy with it. The core Madrid-Barcelona route is still very much a success, and arguably a couple other routes.

Basically what Spain is doing with HSR is like if we built the core part of our HSR system (Toronto-Montreal and maybe to London) and then went on to extend it not only to Quebec City and Windsor, but also to North Bay, Niagara Falls, Sherbrooke, and across the Prairies.

Spain was able to build all that infrastructure as a result of the financial windfall of the real estate bubble. It was a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

I fully agree and this is exactly the merits of Higher-Speed Rail: Maximizing the speed by modernizing signalling systems and tracks while minimizing costs by avoiding any greenfield alignments or forced physical separation of freight and passenger operations. However, the two reasons this doesn't work in North America is the much higher frequency of level crossings requiring costly grade separations and the coincidence of vertical integration (infrastructure ownership plus operations) for freight and disintegration for passenger rail operations. This is the reason why VIA Rail pursues a conventional rail solution at its maximum possible speed (i.e. 110 mph)...

Agreed. The problem is that while the rest of the world has their rail systems under the ownership and control of the government, we allowed private companies to own and control ours. If we had kept ownership of the CN tracks it could be a different story.

 

[Urban Sky]

Candidate imperfection asides, and differing political choices respected, what is more important at this time is compatible transit policy between government levels -- this one and whoever gets elected next.
[..]
I am disappointed that VIA did not get their turn already, but it's still early. They may still get their chance once their proposal is more shovel-ready. Budgets, after all, are often overlapped, so next year could be a big boon for VIA once there's something much more shovel-ready for HFR.
[...]
So, patience! Things are so much better than the preceding 25 years -- and even for VIA.

Yes, I am not happy either about some elements (we differ probably), but, look at the whole picture!

I'm also going to play the government's advocate, as I believe that the budget's value for inter-city passenger rail passengers and services cannot be derived from the allocated funding figure alone. I'm quite active in my passenger rail advocacy on the Facebook page of Texas Central Railroad, a to-be-privately funded HSR project in Texas and have to almost daily respond to those anti-HSR trolls who shout that "TCR is only 1% funded!" by pointing out that the first funding stage is only about getting the study stage funded and that the second funding stage only starts once the study is out. VIA Rail has so far only commissioned some internal pre-studies and the government shows for this budget year sufficient support by explicitly funding the investment-grade studies required for HFR. The fact that VIA Rail itself is trusted with commissioning the studies and managing the project also shows a drastic change in government attitude, which still regarded VIA as part of the problem (and not the solution) as recently as 2012 (when Harper cut frequencies on the Ocean, the Canadian and to Sarnia and Niagara).

More study ???? [...]

This is unfortunately how infrastructure projects are initiated in democratic countries. I refer to Spain for an overview over the consequences of building infrastructure without any financial and economic assessment or business case development.

[...] The thing about this budget is, there is little or no room for Ottawa to go looking for more money to spend in the next couple of years if other good project ideas turn up. [...]

You are missing the novelty about HFR and this is that its construction can be funded without any government funds as long as VIA finally receives the green light to borrow the necessary funds against its own assets. Such a government decision has no effect on its budget and can therefore be made independently from budget cycles...

[...] I interpret this funding to mean there is no plan to get a VIA project going. We can file this study when it arrives, next to all the others over the years.

- Paul

If they were serious this would have been a 1-year study. Three years? Paul is right. This is can kicking.

There's nothing stopping them from accelerating the study and getting it done in 18 months. But they've picked 3 years for a reason. And I suspect it has to do with them putting off investment in VIA. [...]

I'd rather interpret this that there is no plan currently to fund HFR with public (federal taxpayer) money. I see the three year period as the time frame the government gives to VIA to study and fund its HFR proposal with private investors, mostly Canadian pension funds who already own significant parts of European prime HSR infrastructure, such as High Speed One and Eurostar. The reason why the Ecotrain study (as the most recentbread of HSR studies) got filed after they were published was that they were answering the wrong question with "what is the most cost-effective way to build a French-style HSR line between Quebec and Windsor" and the answer that it would still cost at least $10 billion in construction costs, which would never fully be recovered didn't really appeal to the Conservative Harper government at that time. Now imagine how much more difficult it will be for the Trudeau government to dismiss the results of the forthcoming HFR studies if VIA simply asks to be allowed to have the private sector finance the infrastructure for them, which would allow them to free the federal government of its operational subsidies (currently $300 million annually with rising tendency due to deteriorating on-time-performance and trip times driving operational costs while revenues decline, amplified by the incapability to offer reasonable any adequate frequency on CN's infrastructure). Budget 2017 will therefore be the moment of truth for the Trudeau government and I don't see how the government could obstruct HFR if the private investors still want to go ahead with it.

We build the separate passenger rail right of way in sections, capable of carrying HSR over time. Our speeds will improve for any train set. Once it's electrified with high speed train sets, it's done. That might take time, but we can start, and build in accordance with funding levels.

As I've said before, VIA's priority is to overcome the shortcomings of the Kingston subdivision and of its lack of access to it. In accordance with its mandate, HSR plays no role in any of its planning horizons and its overall objective in finding the most cost-effective way for significantly increasing the relevance (and economic viability) of its Corridor services within the next 5 years, which is incompatible with your hopes of laying the physical foundation on which HSR can later be built. Nevertheless, this does not at all bury any HSR visions, as it creates the passenger infrastructure on which frequencies can be progressively increased until the point where the capacity limits of conventional rail are reached, which has been the starting point for HSR construction in all HSR nations (spare Spain)...

[...] I will bet money that electrification is out. And that just before the next election, you'll see Bombardier get a contract for new rolling stock. So, best case scenario? Diesel HFR by 2022.

We're going to rack up an additional $100 billion of federal debt by the end of Trudeau's first feed at the trough and we don't even get the promise of HFR, let alone HSR? Pathetic.

Exaggerated expectations, through which what would be the by far most significant milestone in passenger rail renewal since basically WWII is described as a disappointing "best case scenario" is part of the reason why we've only seen cuts and service deterioration in the history of VIA: Instead of welcoming any step which goes in the right direction, we lament that it is "too little, too late" or simply not the Big Bang (i.e. HSR on the entire Quebec-Windsor Corridor, fully funded and to be built and completed within the next 5 years) we were hoping for...

I mentioned the funding for more study in the story I just put up and pointed people to this thread. It certainly doesn't bode well for a 2019 completion which the CEO was suggesting could be possible.

It is in the nature of any investment plan that you assume that the project gets funded and approved as soon as would be possible. However, even 2022 would be at least 10 years earlier than when what European experiences suggest to be the earliest day to see HSR implemented on the entire Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto route if such a project was to be approved by the federal government today...

HSR is a wealth generator because it enhances productivity, which boosts tax revenues to pay for more social benefits.

This is not the question, but a project which is not financeable, is politically unfeasible, regardless of how beneficial it would be...

All transit is political....that's how we roll

I'm inclined to say that this forum is the right place to discuss whether the government is investing enough (or too much) into the transportation sector and addresses the most urgent funding needs, but I don't think that this is the place for purely political discussions, such as whether the government balances the conflicting goals of budget balancing and investing into future prosperity correctly (or not)...

 

[steveintoronto]

Mister F writes:
[The problem is that while the rest of the world has their rail systems under the ownership and control of the government]

Both you and others make some excellent points, the debate is fertile and necessary, but your claim on Government ownership of "rail systems" for the "rest of the world" is neither correct or helpful to the debate. Some of the most successful high-speed rail systems are *privately owned*!

Whether I agree with the gist of your point or not is irrelevant (I largely agree) but it is essential to get this point correct, because I cringe every time I hear how "we should follow others" in pouring huge amounts of money in a network that serves major urban centres, and little in-between. Compared to Japan, Europe or even the US Northeast Corridor *the density to justify massive taxpayer investment* just does not exist. It's a conundrum, to be sure, because massive amounts of taxpayer money goes into highways, but it does not logically follow that the same must happen with rail...*unless a compelling case can be made*. And that case? It doesn't have to be definitive, because it's secondary to the *already extant past compelling case* of the need of that taxpayer investment in *urban* rail infrastructure.

How can anyone possibly feel they are expounding a rational investment case for electrifying and grade-separating a twin (at least) RoW for three hundred miles when it's already nigh impossible to get it done for thirty miles in a corridor already begging for it?

Give your collective heads a shake, folks! Let's aim at a bull's eye we can hit rather than one that will surely be missed...and more than pays its way in allayed costs from road transport.

As for the US, debate still continues on the retrospective wisdom of the Acela program. That's for various reasons, not the least the neutering of TGV technology by doubling the weight in the name of safety...the same as is happening right now on Ontario's proposed RER rolling stock.

And as for the most successful high-speed train operation in the world?
[The Japan Railways Group, more commonly known as JR Group (JRグループ Jeiāru Gurūpu?), consists of seven for-profit companies that took over most of the assets and operations of the government-owned Japanese National Railways on April 1, 1987. Most of the liability of the JNR was assumed by the JNR Settlement Corporation.

The JR Group lies at the heart of Japan's railway network, operating a large proportion of intercity rail service (including the Shinkansen high-speed rail lines) and commuter rail service. Despite JR East, JR Central and JR West now having full private ownership, Japanese people often talk about "private railways" as if none of JR Group (nor third sector former JR lines) is part of them, since they are successors of "national railways" i.e. JNR. Maps almost always denoted JR and private railways differently, as does JR itself.[1] ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railways_Group

A more apt question is why this has worked so well in Japan, and been a disaster in the UK? Whatever, France is now not planning any more TGVs, for a variety of reasons, the major one being cost.

With limited budgetary resources being offered by this present Liberal Federal Gov't, spend that money wisely, use it as *seed* investment to spur more worthwhile investment later. And stop with this manic dream of turning the privately owned CN main-line into some boyhood fantasy. The money *is not there* to do it. Or the market.

Edit to Add:
Urban writes:
[You are missing the novelty about HFR and this is that it's construction can be funded without any government funds as long as VIA finally receives the green light to borrow the necessary funds against its own assets. Such a government decision has no effect on its budget and can therefore be made independently from budget cycles]

I agree on the few million the Libs have budgeted to commission further study. Whether or not the answer is still Multi-Billion Dollar Question or not is worth the few million. I suspect no, but unless studied, we'll never know.

The Chunnel was private, went bankrupt, and had to be bailed out. Reasonable history here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel

Just because a project is deemed desirable doesn't automatically make it a business success.

 

[mdrejhon]

VIA Rail has so far only commissioned some internal pre-studies and the government shows for this budget year sufficient support by explicitly funding the investment-grade studies required for HFR. The fact that VIA Rail itself is trusted with commissioning the studies and managing the project also shows a drastic change in government attitude, which still regarded VIA as part of the problem (and not the solution) as recently as 2012 (when Harper cut frequencies on the Ocean, the Canadian and to Sarnia and Niagara)

This, this, this!

The HFR funding cycle may yet come later.

This attitude change is fairly drastic already, the onus is on the government is to keep up by funding it not too long after the study is done.

Perhaps it may be right that HFR gets privately funded to eliminate the VIA operational deficit, as long as there was an arrangement that works very well.

That said, this is a separate question of whether or not HFR should be (partially) privately funded. It could be (or not be) P3 construction contract instead, or other ways that involves private help other than capital investment as proposed. It could still easily be federally operated/subsidized at roughly break-even or a lower operating loss than today thanks to the massive increase in people moved. Profit on these transportation initiatives would be a bonus rather than an expected outcome (like was for UPX). The study will need to frame this potential outcome in a way that is sellable to the electorate (Including upgrade path to HSR later this century). After all, we are the only G8 without any high speed rail service -- France is left with less profitable city pairs left to build TGV on, while we have literally no high speed between any of our city pairs.

Still in my opinion, a HFR win regardless of public or private funding, assuming it also delays the need to add an extra lane to the 401 for its full length of HFR. Increasing traffic on tracks can move quite a lot of people too, increase fare box recovery ratio and with larger number of lower fares (like those $29 $34 $39 Toronto-Montreal fares I've gotten during VIA sales, but far more often) that helps fill the seats to the point -- these are price numbers where it begins to be more cost effective for two people to take the train than drive (gas, parking, etc). VIA has these low fare numbers much more commonly now, during Tuesday sales (Visiting website on Tuesday for an advance booking four to eight weeks in advance) and that is how they fill a bunch of seats. I see more people on the VIA trains again nowadays and I think there's a big market for HFR assuming these fare numbers are still available (in bigger quantities) during sales. Being faster than car while cheaper than car (if you get a VIA fare sale for one or two), while using the same existing trains. The Tuesday Sale low fares doesn't seem to be hurting their fare box much since the added trains and better train-fill ratios are making up for the lower VIA fares. The last minute business market would still pay full price and all, and there'll still be the business class seats (Formerly VIA 1). With HFR, they could add bigger numbers of longer trains running all day long, and break even much better, even if not privately funded.

Either way, it's economically apples and oranges compared to many other VIA routes -- it is not going to be the incredible subsidy per passenger that Canadian Train gets.

Overall, in moving more people in our Corridor at less taxpayer cost per person than full Toronto-to-Montreal 401 widening -- we are coming to the point where HFR still makes a lot of sense (And probably more sense than HSR for now) given the big transit expansions occuring in all HFR connected cities.

We need to see the study to see what the recommendations are, and I agree it was probably WAY too early for even the most VIA-hung-ho VIA-happy government to give major funding increases to VIA that still yet needs to do the HFR study.

 

[Urban Sky]

[...] I don't know why you posted it to be honest. So are you agreeing or disagreeing that the US has 9 times as many potential rail corridors as us? Since I was talking about the type of service Via is proposing, there are easily 9 routes in the US comparable to Toronto-Montreal that could justify medium speed, high frequency rail service. [...]

Okay, we were apparently talking about different things, as I was talking about HSR corridors in particular, while you were talking about rail corridors in general. The number of such corridors is of course somewhat dependent on population figures, but much more on the geographical distribution of urban agglomerations.

[...] To make the comparison with roads, conventional rail is akin to local road systems and undivided rural roads and highways, while high speed rail is comparable to freeways. High speed rail is typically expected to make enough of a profit to cover the capital costs and subsidize slower local services. Freeways, on the other hand, aren't expected to cover their costs at all (except in large urban areas), let alone the costs of the rest of the road network. Just pointing out the double standard. [...]

This double standard has been acknowledged by the recent CTA review, but I don't think it really applies to HSR, as the equivalent to a freeway is a multiple-tracked rail line which has been upgraded for 95-110 mph to simultaneously serve the needs of passenger and freight rail. The only reason the Kingston subdivision does not serve as such an example lies in the lack of nondiscriminatory access. HSR, on the other hand, has too much of a capital cost premium to be justifiable as a public responsibility or essential infrastructure, especially if its riders don't repay the majority of its construction costs, as they do for none of the four major HSR corridors in Spain...

[...] Spain was able to build all that infrastructure as a result of the financial windfall of the real estate bubble. It was a symptom of the problem, not the cause. [...]

It was a symptom of the real estate bubble, but one of the causes for the fiscal bubble...

[...] Agreed. The problem is that while the rest of the world has their rail systems under the ownership and control of the government, we allowed private companies to own and control ours. If we had kept ownership of the CN tracks it could be a different story.

Both you and others make some excellent points, the debate is fertile and necessary, but your claim on Government ownership of "rail systems" for the "rest of the world" is neither correct or helpful to the debate. Some of the most successful high-speed rail systems are *privately owned*! [...]

You are both only partially correct: passenger rail systems thrive, where either the network is a state-controlled regulated monopoly (e.g. France or the UK) or the state monopolist is regulated to ensure discrimination-free access of competitors to its infrastructure (e.g. Germany or Switzerland). Passenger rail does not thrive anywhere where the infrastructure is owned by a completely unregulated oligopoly of freight railways, as is present in Canada and most parts of the United States.

[...] How can anyone possibly feel they are expounding a rational investment case for electrifying and grade-separating a twin (at least) RoW for three hundred miles when it's already nigh impossible to get it done for thirty miles in a corridor already begging for it? [...]

You are drawing the right conclusions from how and when HSR was introduced in any HSR nation (except Spain): invest and expand conventional rail until the existing rail corridors cannot be expanded further and a new dedicated line has to be build. That's when those countries said "if we have to build a new line anyways, let's make sure it suits our future needs". Similarly, Japan is the only country to build a competitive Maglev line, because their Osaka-Tokyo HSR line has reached its capacity limits with up to 11 trains per hour and they now have exactly the same reasoning.

[...] Give your collective heads a shake, folks! Let's aim at a bull's eye we can hit rather than one that will surely be missed...and more than pays its way in allayed costs from road transport. [...]

The vast majority of costs caused by road users are those imposed through congestion on other users and through congestion-related noise and air emissions imposed on those people unlucky enough to live next to congested roads. As this problem does not relate directly to the area where cars drive (which could be addressed through local differences in fuel taxes) or the size of cars people drive (which could be addressed through weight-dependent registration taxes), it can only be addressed through road user charges, which encourage people to use the road at 5am or 8pm instead of 8am or 5pm. As I said before, this has also been a recommendation of the recent CTA review.

[...] With limited budgetary resources being offered by this present Liberal Federal Gov't, spend that money wisely, use it as *seed* investment to spur more worthwhile investment later. And stop with this manic dream of turning the privately owned CN main-line into some boyhood fantasy. The money *is not there* to do it. Or the market. [...]

You are right and the federal governments (Harper and Trudeau) have not shown any sign that they would consider the expropriation of CN, which would be the pre-requisite for having any commercially viable passenger rail service over them, and this is also the reason why VIA tries to avoid any further investments into third-party infrastructure (as explained on page 4 of their 2015-2019 Corporate Plan).

[...] I agree on the few million the Libs have budgeted to commission further study. Whether or not the answer is still Multi-Billion Dollar Question or not is worth the few million. I suspect no, but unless studied, we'll never know. [...]

You are right that we won't know until we have studied and I also would much rather see private than public money invested on HFR, so that the scarce public resources can be focused on the unprofitable, but essential parts of the network. However, I think that it would nevertheless be a worthwhile public investment if VIA's claims were to be confirmed that investing $3 billion of capital funds will eliminate eliminate its operational deficit of currently $300 million within 10 years...

 

[MisterF]

Whether I agree with the gist of your point or not is irrelevant (I largely agree) but it is essential to get this point correct, because I cringe every time I hear how "we should follow others" in pouring huge amounts of money in a network that serves major urban centres, and little in-between. Compared to Japan, Europe or even the US Northeast Corridor *the density to justify massive taxpayer investment* just does not exist.

The Windsor-Quebec corridor has the same or higher density than several European countries, two of which have HSR and all of which have vastly superior rail services - better even than than Via's high frequency plan. That just goes to show that Via's current plan is quite modest in the grand scheme of things. The density does exist.

It was a symptom of the real estate bubble, but one of the causes for the fiscal bubble...

Without the revenues from the real estate bubble the massive infrastructure spending wouldn't have happened. It was an effect, not the cause.

You are both only partially correct: passenger rail systems thrive, where either the network is a state-controlled regulated monopoly (e.g. France or the UK) or the state monopolist is regulated to ensure discrimination-free access of competitors to its infrastructure (e.g. Germany or Switzerland). Passenger rail does not thrive anywhere where the infrastructure is owned by a completely unregulated oligopoly of freight railways, as is present in Canada and most parts of the United States.

Agreed. Unfortunately the way our railways are currently regulated the only way to make Via thrive is to give it its own dedicated tracks.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Windsor-Quebec corridor has the same or higher density than several European countries, two of which have HSR and all of which have vastly superior rail services - better even than than Via's high frequency plan. That just goes to show that Via's current plan is quite modest in the grand scheme of things. The density does exist.

Can you name those two nations? And pardon me for playing devil's advocate here...but if that's the case, why have all previous private and private partnerships failed, and what is different now?

Note that you wrote "HSR". Perhaps the term means something different to North Ams, and the context is hazy in this instance. I stand behind a position I've often stated: If there's no market for intra-urban high-speed, how can there be for inter-urban?

What I will add neutral to the debate is that the Toronto to Guelph Radial Interurban Express back in the twenties made it in less time from central Guelph to the Junction than the GO train does today to Bloor station. I think we're going to have to define "high speed rail".
The European definition:
[...]
b) High Speed lines shall comprise:

• Specially built High Speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h,
• Specially upgraded High Speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h,
• Specially upgraded High Speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case.
• [...]

We have deliberately used the word "definition" in the plural because there is no single standard definition of high speed rail (nor even a standard usage of the term: sometimes it is called "high speed" and sometimes "very high speed"). The definitions vary according to the criteria used since high speed rail corresponds to a complex reality. ]
[...]
http://www.uic.org/highspeed

So what criteria are you using for this comparison F?

 

[steveintoronto]

Urban writes:
[a state-controlled regulated monopoly (e.g. France or the UK)]
I'll detail more on the other points later, but this claim is a huge gaffe, as EU Directives dictated the break-up of state monopolies in transport years back.

[Birth of France's first private passenger transport rail operator
Veolia Transdev and Trenitalia announce the birth of Thello, France's first private passenger transport rail operator and, from 11 December next, the opening of the first Paris-Milan-Venice night links from only 35 euros.

"Take the train in new company", that's the slogan developed by Thello, the new rail company created by the partnership signed on 19 January this year between Veolia Transdev and Trenitalia. Courtesy of a comfortable, economical and passenger-friendly solution, Thello offers a real alternative to the existing offers.][...]
http://www.transdev.com/en/media/press-releases/birth-first-private-passenger.htm

And France *is* served *mostly* in passenger rail by SNCF, (freight is quite another story) but here's how complicated it gets dealing with your second case, the UK...which is *anything but* "monopolistic". Quite the contrary...and costing more in operating subsidies than it ever did when it was a monopoly! (BR)
[Meet the French train giant invading UK rail
The Englishman running French rail giant Keolis's UK business suggests a train operator owned by the British taxpayer should have a chance to bid for franchises - but it will lose every time as long as there is a level playing field]
[...]
Opponents of privatisation have long complained of commercial rail operators creaming “fat profits” from Britain’s railways. Last month, the campaign gathered speed after Ed Miliband confirmed that a Labour government would allow a state-owned train operator to compete with the private sector for multi-billion pound rail contracts.
[...]
The re-nationalisation debate has heated up as the Government prepares to return the only remaining state-run franchise - the East Coast Main Line - back to private hands. Under current plans, Directly Operated Railways, which is owned by the UK taxpayer and currently runs the East Coast line, will next year return to its original purpose of being an operator of last resort. That is to say it will step in only if something goes wrong with another operator - as it was forced to do in 2009, when National Express handed back the keys to the East Coast line.

Keolis is one of three private rail companies that has been short-listed to take over the London-to-Scotland East Coast line from March 2015. It has submitted a joint bid with Eurostar, which has the same majority owner as Keolis: SNCF, France’s state-owned railway.

Although Gordon is keen to point out that SNCF isn’t Keolis’s only shareholder – it owns 70pc of the group – it is one of several companies, along with Abellio of the Netherlands and German-owned Arriva, that supporters of Miliband’s plans use to prove their argument that foreign taxpayers are able to reap profits from Britain’s railways at the expense of UK taxpayers.][...]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-the-French-train-giant-invading-UK-rail.html

Here is the EU Directive background enabling...*dictating* the above to be possible:
[The First Railway Directive 91/440/EC (with amendments, also called the "First Railway Package") is European Union Directive that sets out an EU law framework and requirements for railways in the EU to allow open access operations on railway lines by companies other than those that own the rail infrastructure. The legislation was further extended by further directives to include cross border transit of freight.

The subsequent directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC which built upon the initial legislation are collectively known as the First Railway Package.[1] In September 2010 the process of merging the directives into a single piece of legislation was begun; with the addition of modifications to strengthen the regulatory framework.[2] The Second Railway Package and the Third Railway Package aimed to push integration further.][...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Railway_Directive

Here's a discussion as to France's intransigence to the legislation: (From the US, btw!)
http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=econhp

So this brings us back to my asking F as to "what criteria" is he using for comparison of Cdn to European models? Even the US, as discussion has noted, looks at the NE Corridor in different eyes (especially in retrospect, there were massive blunders, and it may not have been repeated today for all it has cost) than the present discussion on the "Quebec C to Windsor Corridor, or segments thereof". I smell big trouble on this, and MD (from memory) proffered UPX as to how these things can go drastically wrong.

The 3.3M$ study will be well worth it even if the answer is "no"....which is probable in my estimation. It's not that it isn't a worthwhile endeavour, it's a great concept, but reality dictates much greater necessities elsewhere.

 

[Euphoria]

The "greater necessities elsewhere" is constantly applied to justify why we can't do anything well. My prediction is that after 10 years we have nothing to show for Trudeau's tax and spending spree except a couple of stubways, some GO electrification, and yet another VIA study that tells us what we already know. So much pomp, so few results. If Morneau is arguing that Federal expenditures are intended to grow the economy and improve productivity, I'd like to know, in transportation, what they are. We would've gotten that measly 3 billion from any of the parties, so if we're not doing any bold, new investments in infrastructure, let's not pretend that we are. I'd love to hear proposals from private companies and see government get out of the way, because we're not seeing much under the current ownership and regulatory model. Multiple privately owned subway lines were built in NYC under a city authority. I know the argument will always be made that the private sector will build the profitable lines and leave the unprofitable ones to government, but we're a more urban country now, and surely the are ways of requiring private companies to do their share, just like we require condo developers to build privately owned parks for the public.

 

[steveintoronto]

The "greater necessities elsewhere" is constantly applied to justify why we can't do anything well.

We certainly wouldn't have gotten that from the Conservatives, Euphoria, quite the opposite. The Cons tried their best to kill VIA. Let's not mix up what can be achieved with a couple of Billion though, by comparing massively dissimilar size of projects. For urban areas, that money can make a radical difference, albeit it's still hazy as to what will go where.

Back to the "high speed rail" discussion though as per Windsor/Quebec Corridor:
[...][Sebastien Sherman, senior managing director for the Americas at Borealis Infrastructure, pointed out on Tuesday’s panel that high-speed rail plans “need a degree of population density,” more common in Asia and Europe than in a more sparsely populated country such as Canada. Borealis is an arm of the OMERS pension fund that owns 50 per cent of HS1 Ltd., the U.K.’s high-speed line that runs through the Chunnel. He noted that any high-speed project comes with its construction risks, demand risks, regulatory risks and political risks.][...]
http://business.financialpost.com/n...ail-not-the-right-solution-for-canada-via-ceo

The present VIA CEO makes a much more pragmatic case:
[...][...the head of Canada’s dominant passenger rail service, Via Rail Canada, says high-speed rail is a tremendously expensive proposition, and it makes little sense to invest in it until the serious existing congestion problems on Canadian railways is solved.

“Back in 2012, there was a report published that pegged the cost of high-speed rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal at $10 billion, and for $10 billion it would get you 10-million customers,” said Via CEO Yves Desjardins-Siciliano. Simply providing dedicated passenger lines at conventional speed, he said, “will cost $3 billion for seven million (passengers), so it’s a third of the cost for two-thirds of the benefit.”][...]

And note that many of the posters are talking 'HFR':
[...][Yves Desjardins-Siciliano is instead pushing the new Liberal government to fund a $4-billion project to create a dedicated regular-speed passenger rail corridor between Toronto and Montreal, which he says would speed up and increase the frequency of service.

“Back in 2012, there was a report published that pegged the cost of high-speed rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal at $10 billion, and for $10 billion it would get you 10 million customers,” he said, as quoted at the Financial Post.


But the dedicated passenger corridor would cost $3 billion ($4 billion if the track is electrified) and attract an estimated 7 million passengers, “so it’s a third of the cost for two-thirds of the benefit,” Desjardins-Siciliano says.

It isn’t the first time the CEO of Canada’s Crown corporation passenger rail service has said high-speed rail is wrong for Canada. He has argued previously that half of VIA’s customers travel to and from points outside large cities, so a high speed rail network between Toronto and Montreal wouldn’t be of use to them. And “going at 300 kilometres an hour (for shorter trips) does not warrant the investment,” he said, as quoted at the Windsor Star.

VIA says a dedicated rail track would allow its trains to travel at a "higher conventional speed" of 177 km/h, up from 100 km.h today.][...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/1...rail-yves-desjardins-siciliano_n_8473342.html

I think some, by advocating for HSR, are aiming far too high and have no hope of hitting a target. We'll see what comes out of the study, but for the couple of Billion on the table for urban transit, what you propose is self-fulfilling defeat. That quantity of money can have a large multiplier effect when Toronto (big breath) approaches the province to match funds to get at least RER Weston off the never-ending drawing board, and into reality. A good part of it is already extant.