VIA Rail

[crs1026]

I don't think VIA's HFR and Ontarios HSR are antagonistic, but one would hope that Ontario and VIA communicate so that when VIA's HFR is upgraded to HSR in the future, its using compatible systems with the Ontario HSR track, so that a single VIA HSR train could do Quebec City to Windsor.

I don't think they are antagonistic on a professional level, but the dynamics of competing for funding and mandate is a slippery slope and can cause people to makr rhetorical arguments that have that effect. I suspect that the VIA CEO discovered the hard way how willing the media is to squeeze controversy out of a situation even if there isn't any. "All is well" stories don't sell papers !

VIA (and Ottawa) need to accept however that Ontario should not have to wait for Phase 3 or 4 of a VIA project to get HFR to London. If Ontario has the money, VIA should undertake the work on a 403b-like contract arrangement.

VIA needs enabling legislation anyways to be able to implement HFR. Haviing a 403b provision (for those who don't know - 403b is the clause in the Amtrak legislation that gives it the authority to contract with individual states to run state-funded trains) would let it provide service in Ontario and Quebec without asking Ottawa's permission.

While the VIA CEO has had a lot of success recently with his HFR proposal, I see no signs that this government is any more inclined than any past government to table such legislation. This makes me think that Garneau/Trudeau's support of passenger rail is paper thin.....since 1980, the acid test of government commitment to VIA is a VIA Rail Act, and this has never happened. Until we see this legislation, we should worry.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

VIA (and Ottawa) need to accept however that Ontario should not have to wait for Phase 3 or 4 of a VIA project to get HFR to London. If Ontario has the money, VIA should undertake the work on a 403b-like contract arrangement.

VIA needs enabling legislation anyways to be able to implement HFR. Haviing a 403b provision (for those who don't know - 403b is the clause in the Amtrak legislation that gives it the authority to contract with individual states to run state-funded trains) would let it provide service in Ontario and Quebec without asking Ottawa's permission.

My favourite part of the Ontario proposal was that VIA didn't seem to be involved in any way. VIA has a large number of limitations (spoken language requirements, union contracts, headquarters in Montreal, ...) that I wouldn't want to apply to an Ontario funded HSR. This is one of those times a 30+ year Design+Build+Operate+Maintain contract is highly applicable.

Allow VIA to sell tickets, the same as they do for GO and UPX. I'm not sure any deeper integration with VIA is necessary or even wanted. Changing trains isn't a big deal. Going from Spain to France (Barcelona to Paris for example) you change trains at Perpignan and have separate tickets for AVE and TGV; it's not a big deal and a good excuse to stretch your legs.

 

[MisterF]

VIA (and Ottawa) need to accept however that Ontario should not have to wait for Phase 3 or 4 of a VIA project to get HFR to London. If Ontario has the money, VIA should undertake the work on a 403b-like contract arrangement.

I don't think Via is expecting the London project to wait. It was announced before the Via HFR proposal, which isn't even government policy yet. The London project proceeding now doesn't affect Via at all.

My favourite part of the Ontario proposal was that VIA didn't seem to be involved in any way. VIA has a large number of limitations (spoken language requirements, union contracts, headquarters in Montreal, ...) that I wouldn't want to apply to an Ontario funded HSR. This is one of those times a 30+ year Design+Build+Operate+Maintain contract is highly applicable.

Allow VIA to sell tickets, the same as they do for GO and UPX. I'm not sure any deeper integration with VIA is necessary or even wanted. Changing trains isn't a big deal. Going from Spain to France (Barcelona to Paris for example) you change trains at Perpignan and have separate tickets for AVE and TGV; it's not a big deal and a good excuse to stretch your legs.

Spain and France are separate countries with separate rail systems, even with EU integration. Completely different situation from two agencies within not only the same country, but the same province. They should be as integrated as possible.

 

[mdrejhon]

My favourite part of the Ontario proposal was that VIA didn't seem to be involved in any way. VIA has a large number of limitations (spoken language requirements, union contracts, headquarters in Montreal, ...) that I wouldn't want to apply to an Ontario funded HSR. This is one of those times a 30+ year Design+Build+Operate+Maintain contract is highly applicable.

Allow VIA to sell tickets, the same as they do for GO and UPX. I'm not sure any deeper integration with VIA is necessary or even wanted. Changing trains isn't a big deal. Going from Spain to France (Barcelona to Paris for example) you change trains at Perpignan and have separate tickets for AVE and TGV; it's not a big deal and a good excuse to stretch your legs.

Or it can be like Eurostar and TGV. They share tracks in some parts of France. Eurostar goes through multiple countries, while TGV is mostly domestic.

Changing trains also works too, and most HFR trains will likely stop in Toronto, but VIA is a federal company with Canada-breadth operations. This situation VIA is a federal company that has a mandate to provide interprovincial operations. Presented already-built HFR-compatible passengers corridors, there is strong assumed political encouragement to provide service especially where economically feasible (A theoretical Metrolinx HSR corridor might very well be simultaneously compatible with VIA HFR, for example)

So we can't assume zero HFR trains will continue west of Toronto, if economics justify it. It likely won't be every single HFR train going into the Ontario HSR corridor, though.

In such a situation, there's no reason why VIA can't pay an Ontario entity (Metrolinx or another company operating HSR corridor) for slots to run a few HFR trains all the way to London.

In theory, if economically viable, VIA can buy 200-240kph capable trainsets to run on 177kph HFR if it allows them to access the TKL corridor at feasible rates charged by Metrolinx to VIA. It's just like Acela Express, a 240kph trainset not allowed to go 240kph on more than 90% of the track -- there are city pairs on 240kph Acela Express that has speed limits under VIA HFR 177kph.

It's unlikely Metrolinx will begin 15-minute-or-better headway HSR all day long, so there's plenty of space to squeeze VIA HFR/HSR trains between Metrolinx-operated HSR trains. France runs TGV with headways as small as 3 minutes!

VIA never said they won't be buying EMUs. If VIA ends up buying EMUs, in many cases it is not a terribly huge cost difference between 180kph-capable and 240kph-capable EMUs, in the light of a total project cost. So why not buy the 240kph, to keep the option of going faster later (e.g. incremental HSR upgrades, or entering the Ontario TKL HSR corridor) -- if by the time they were ready to procure the EMUs, that they saw HSR was approved on TKL already?

The timelines of HFR and HSR may end up overlapping, so if you run 240kph-capable EMUs at 177kph for a few years, that may end up cheaper than a premature fleet replacement. Not necessarily, they would need to do the math, of course. On the other hand, it now becomes politically easier to upgrade sections of track. You're probably running on brand new passenger track built to modern standards of high-frequency rail, not beat-up track, which if properly built, may actually pamper 240kph trains forced to initially go 100-177kph.

You know... the 177kph speed is often only because of grade crossings, a straight newbuild 177kph electrified corridor with compatible catenary (wear, resonances) can easily be built to 240kph compatible spec if you're building the corridor anyway -- if only if it weren't for those danged expensive-to-solve surface crossings. Sections of VIA's corridors are already straight enough for several 240kph sprints. But the megaexpense is the complete grade separation cost. So the amortization may actually end up manageable/comparable/maybe even better depending on what the HFR plan is and which type of trainset is planned... (As I earlier said, it is possible the math ends up that it takes only a sub-$1bn expense would be almost all it takes to make VIA HFR a more honest high speed train than Acela Express -- a very tiny section of 240kph sprint between Toronto-Ottawa is all you need to advertise "HSR")

It's meaningless to talk of excluding VIA trains on Ontario/Metrolinx/or separately operated HSR corridor, without knowing further details. If VIA chooses to buy EMU trainsets (And they might) capable of slotting between the Metrolinx HSR's, without interfering with HSR, then there's nothing stopping Metrolinx charing VIA for a train slot to London, and nothing stopping VIA from taking advantage of this. Perhaps it could just be a few trains a day going past Toronto.

At such an early stage, I wouldn't assume that zero VIA HFR trains will head west of Toronto (when the TKL HSR era arrives), without knowing the HSR plans and HFR plans.

 

[crs1026]

My favourite part of the Ontario proposal was that VIA didn't seem to be involved in any way. VIA has a large number of limitations (spoken language requirements, union contracts, headquarters in Montreal, ...) that I wouldn't want to apply to an Ontario funded HSR. This is one of those times a 30+ year Design+Build+Operate+Maintain contract is highly applicable.

Well, there are also overlapping functions that GO doesn't touch today and there is no reason for them or a contractor to develop expertise when VIA is already on the job. E.g. food and beverage menu planning, kitchen and stores operation, on board service. Ticketing design and systems. Operations (VIA does manage the logistics when its Windsor-Toronto train is delayed and connections to east of Toronto trains are at risk). Baggage transfer. Scheduling. Two organizations writing different policies on fare refunds, proof of payment, etc. is a recipe for confusion and annoyance. It's exactly what was wrong with UPE developing its own systems that were different than GO's.

Allow VIA to sell tickets, the same as they do for GO and UPX. I'm not sure any deeper integration with VIA is necessary or even wanted. Changing trains isn't a big deal. Going from Spain to France (Barcelona to Paris for example) you change trains at Perpignan and have separate tickets for AVE and TGV; it's not a big deal and a good excuse to stretch your legs.

I wish I could say the same for the cattle-pen transfer at Chiasso on our Milan-Zurich journey. Some flavours of Italian Pendolino trainsets are embargoed in Switzerland as they were built to a lower fire safety standard. The transfer is not documented when you book your ticket, the train just stops and everyone has to cross the platform. The Swiss train had a different seating plan and the seat reservations that were mandatory on the Italian side were disregarded. Until then I thought that only Berlin had a Zoo Station.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

Will there be a Quebec pitch-in, like Ontario will likely fund (at least part) for the TKL segment?

The early genesis of Canadian corridor highspeed train service....even if it sensibly begins as HFR.

If you assume that all segments of HFR along the Quebec-Windsor Corridor are more or less badly needed, the question where funding and all necessary government approvals can be secured first becomes may become very important. The province of Ontario had teamed up with VIA, the first HFR segment might already be funded and benefit people in Southwestern Ontario at least 10 years earlier than the current HSR plans (if they ever materialize)...

I don't think VIA's HFR and Ontarios HSR are antagonistic, but one would hope that Ontario and VIA communicate so that when VIA's HFR is upgraded to HSR in the future, its using compatible systems with the Ontario HSR track, so that a single VIA HSR train could do Quebec City to Windsor. [...]

I don't see that much opportunities for making incompatible decisions as one of the few positive consequences of the extremely modest rate of passenger rail investments in North America has been a consensus on technology choices (on an admittedly low level, but still avoiding the mess like in Europe where Deutsche Bahn needed to invest 8.6 million Euros per trainset (i.e. C$12.4 million with current exchange rate) to make some of their existing ICE 3 trainsets fit for travel to France): 1435 mm gauge, 25kV/60 Hz electrification (as already installed on Amtrak's NEC and AMT's Deux-Montagnes line) and PTC as a train control system.

[...] It would really suck if one had to transfer at Toronto, kinda defeats the purpose of High Speed if you have to do a layover somewhere IMO. [...]

I don't think that changing trains in Toronto is a big deal. It's where most passengers are going anyway and, along with Montreal, will be the major hub of the system. The vast majority of trains going to Toronto would terminate here. [...]

[...] What many people don't realise is that the trainsets do in fact run through anyways. I have been aboard trains arriving in Toronto where there has been a PA announcement saying "If you are continuing on to Winsdor on train X, you don't need to alight at Toronto, this is the Windsor train". They seem to do this when the inbound train is late and they need to expedite the station pause. [...]

There is actually a very practical reason which may force to connect through London-Kitchener-Toronto and Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal trains and it is the same reason why several trains are cycled through from Windsor/Sarnia-London to Ottawa/Montreal and that is that this minimizes the platform usage at Union Station. It remains a fact that it can hardly be expanded beyond 16 platform tracks (which is tracks 1-14 plus UPX plus track 16 after track 15 is converted into a platform) and a train stopping for 15 minutes or less to drop passengers and pick up new ones takes less platform time than I train terminating and idling for 30-60 minutes before returning the way it came. I guess that Metrolinx has yet to convince them of such minor operational issues...

[...] Although, another option would be for VIA to do their own HFR and then HSR on the Dundas Subdivision to the south, however I don't see a business case for 2 competing high speed corridors in Southern Ontario, there just isn't the density. [...]

Dundas subdivision shares all of the disadvantages of the Kingston subdivision (owned by a freight railroad which has little incentive to let passenger operations interfere with their very dense freight operations), but lacks its advantage of serving the relevant population centres. Since the congestion issues and barriers to electrification on the short Halwest-Silver segment might one day be solved by the "missing link", I don't see any reason why anyone would have a preference for going via Brantford instead of Brampton-Guelph-Kitchener. And indeed, investing into two parallel dedicated passenger rail corridors would hardly be financeable, even in a province which seems determined to invest billions into a HSR link, which would have a massive cost premium over a project equivalent to HFR and yield limited additional benefits...

[...] While the VIA CEO has had a lot of success recently with his HFR proposal, I see no signs that this government is any more inclined than any past government to table such legislation. This makes me think that Garneau/Trudeau's support of passenger rail is paper thin.....since 1980, the acid test of government commitment to VIA is a VIA Rail Act, and this has never happened. Until we see this legislation, we should worry.

- Paul

In the case that the forthcoming studies on the HFR proposal show highly desirable outcomes (increased connectivity, reduced environmental footprint and increased economical activity not at last through reduced road and passenger/freight rail capacity shortages), it might not be as easy to pull the plug out of this project than it was after the previous studies, given the current government's pro-investment rhetoric and the fact that this project won't require the multi-billion federal funds its predecessors relied on...

My favourite part of the Ontario proposal was that VIA didn't seem to be involved in any way. VIA has a large number of limitations (spoken language requirements, union contracts, headquarters in Montreal, ...) that I wouldn't want to apply to an Ontario funded HSR. This is one of those times a 30+ year Design+Build+Operate+Maintain contract is highly applicable. Allow VIA to sell tickets, the same as they do for GO and UPX. I'm not sure any deeper integration with VIA is necessary or even wanted. [...]

I don't see how spoken language requirements are such an issue in a province where all signs and communications by Metrolinx and other transit agencies are already bilingual. I know this notion is less accepted in anglophone cities, but the ease of accommodating visitors speaking other languages than whichever is the language spoken by locals is one of the defining characters of a world metropolis, which both, Toronto claims to be (for questions on the self-defeating effect of embracing linguistic intolerance, refer to Montreal towards the end of the last century). I'm also curious to see how far Metrolinx' "provide rail and bus transit to Commuters in the GTHA" can be stretched to cover "high-speed inter-city rail services throughout the province" (and even inter-provincially, if I recall some demands here correctly), while VIA's mandate already covers such inter-city operations...

[...] Changing trains isn't a big deal. Going from Spain to France (Barcelona to Paris for example) you change trains at Perpignan and have separate tickets for AVE and TGV; it's not a big deal and a good excuse to stretch your legs.

You seem to have witnessed cross-border rail travel between France and Spain only during a short transition period and to not correctly recall the details: First of all, France's trains and Spain's HSR trains operate on standard gauge (1435 mm), while Spain's conventional trains operate on Iberian (broad) gauge (1668 mm). This meant that passengers had to either change trains in Cerbère (northbound) or Portbou (southbound) or to travel with one of the few trains which had adaptable wheels. Spain's standard-gauge HSR network reached Barcelona in 2008, while France opened the Perpignan-Figueres cross-border link in 2010. This allowed TGV passengers to travel from France to Figueres (not Perpignan!), where they would have to transfer to a (broad-gauge!) conventional Spanish train (not AVE!), which would bring them to Barcelona. This situation only lasted for three years, as the gap between the Spanish and the French HSR networks was finally closed in 2013 and TGV trains started to operate from Paris beyond Figueres to Barcelona while AVE trains started to operate between Madrid-Barcelona and Marseille/Lyon/Toulouse.

 

[nfitz]

It remains a fact that it can't be expanded beyond 16 platform tracks (which is tracks 1-14 plus UPX plus track 16 after track 15 is converted into a platform) and a train stopping for 15 minutes or less to drop passengers and pick up new ones takes less platform time than I train terminating and idling for 30-60 minutes before returning the way it came.

Though Metrolinx is still studying two plans to add extra platforms.

One is extending some of the platforms in the north, to allow 2 GO trains to use it simultaneously from each direction.

The other is adding underground platforms between Yonge Street and Bay Street, underneath the tracks and teamway.

 

[steveintoronto]

While the VIA CEO has had a lot of success recently with his HFR proposal, I see no signs that this government is any more inclined than any past government to table such legislation.

As much as I want to have faith...Paul is absolutely right. Am I getting impatient? Yes, and so are a lot of others. The longer it takes to see something believable in motion, the more one says to themselves "I've been down this route before...it's a dead end". I'm waiting for something tangible from Queen's Park on the Weston Corridor, and I'm waiting on The Hill for at least something to make the disposable rag sheet articles stop. They're grasping at straws because there's a vacuum. Globe and Star have been good, but we need more...like: "Our Federal and Provincial Ministers of Transportation are forming a joint committee to pool resources and challenge the private sector to make proposals". What in &%^* can they lose by doing that? We realize it's going to take time, but dammit, let's see some sign of action, not just weasel words. If it means the loss of one agency for the other, fine, if that's the most effective solution. I still see a Provincial/Federal/Private consortium being best, like TTR is to Union, where both the major users (initially, CN, CP) owned it, but ran it as an independent business, as a common access railway. That model is still an excellent one. This 'Consortium' can then lease out to GO/VIA/AMT/Fred's Excellent Ontario Rail Tour Express, or whomever.

My perception is that since all segments of HFR along the Quebec-Windsor Corridor are badly needed, the order of construction is only determined by where funding and all necessary government approvals can be secured first. If the province of Ontario had teamed up with VIA, the first HFR segment would probably already be funded and benefit people in Southwestern Ontario at least 10 years earlier than the current HSR plans (if they ever materialize)...

Bingo! And this *gross governmental bungling* has to stop! It would be *so easy* to throw the plebes something to chew on, *many* other nations have done this. Canada's "North Am" excuse doesn't cut-it. The US, as Paul points out, is way ahead, albeit in all fairness, their legislation and tightness of federation is much more binding than ours. And since the Canadian Railway and Transportation Acts have to be changed anyway...*make an announcement* that it is on the table. And what has to change on behalf of promoting all forms of better passenger rail.

To take some of the other posters comments even further: If we (as a nation) *don't pool resources* better, the future of meaningful passenger rail is doomed. As D-S stated (paraphrased) "We were better offer decades ago".

 

[crs1026]

My perception is that since all segments of HFR along the Quebec-Windsor Corridor are badly needed, the order of construction is only determined by where funding and all necessary government approvals can be secured first. If the province of Ontario had teamed up with VIA, the first HFR segment would probably already be funded and benefit people in Southwestern Ontario at least 10 years earlier than the current HSR plans (if they ever materialize)...

It's true that Ontario only got in the game recently. Wynne has probably forgotten her election promise, but Ontario has made some steps by appointing a HSR Office. We haven't seen any product from this office so it's hard to defend it. However, Ottawa has done such a good job of filleting service to London on both routes that I would not give VIA the higher ground on this. Ontario is only stepping up to fill Ottawa's longstanding neglect.

Assuming that the forthcoming studies on the HFR proposal will show highly desirable outcomes (increased connectivity, reduced environmental footprint and increased economical activity not at last through reduced road and passenger/freight rail capacity shortages, I don't see how the federal government can pull the plug out of this project, given their pro-investment rhetoric and the fact that this project won't require the multi-billion federal funds its predecessors relied on...

Now I'm the conspiracy theorist. I agree that once there are serious investors, it will be hard to kill the thing outright. But will Ottawa accept what that would mean in terms of governance? The investors would have to be satisfied with the competence and independence of VIA's Board. The Ministry or Cabinet would no longer have the ability to discreetly steer things from behind a screen of Ministerial privilege...as has been the case for the last 35 years. This is asking a bureaucracy with a deep seated hostility towards passenger rail to give up their power and their policy making mandate. This is why a VIA Rail Act has never happened - no one wants VIA to have control of its destiny, it might succeed.

The other part of this is how to preserve and nurture the tangential bits of the current corridor operation. Some of these may never be profitable.....are we saying the HFR will only run profitable routes? If a marginal route - Sarnia may be an example - is worth retaining, can Ontario or Ottawa provide a subsidy? Does the HFR venture have a legal obligation to provide such service? What compensation do the investors get for this?

A VIA Rail Act is the acid test of the government's commitment to this.

To abuse Beyonce, if you like HFR then you gotta put a statute on it.

I don't see how spoken language requirements are such an issue in a province where all signs and communications by Metrolinx and other transit agencies are already bilingual.

Agreed. VIA already operates to Windsor on a dual language basis, and it doesn't seem to affect things at all.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

I don't see how spoken language requirements are such an issue in a province where all signs and communications by Metrolinx and other transit agencies are already bilingual.

This is one of VIAs largest cost drivers for many routes outside Quebec. When all customer facing staff need to be fluently bilingual, it really reduces your talent pool and LKT has no strong need for fluent French speaking attendants on the train. Getting out from under federal "feel-good" rules would be strongly beneficial to London service actually running a profit instead of requiring a subsidy.

Metrolinx barely has a bilingual sign guy let alone train conductors, fare inspectors, ticket agents, etc. There is a huge difference between hiring 1 or 2 people to write copy, and paying to have everybody customer facing bilingual.

 

[Urban Sky]

This is one of VIAs largest cost drivers for many routes outside Quebec. [...]

May I ask you politely on what knowledge or information about our cost structure you base this claim on?

[OT] Also, I don't understand why some people struggle so much to accept that this country has two official languages. I have to admit at this point that I'm ashamed about my own level of proficiency in French, given that I work for a federal employer and have a Québecoise financée (even though I could go the easy road and say that French is only my third language after German and English). For me as an expatriated European, bilingualism is one of the defining characteristics of Canadian culture and - even for many Ontarians I've met - one of the most important differences between Canada and the United States... [/OT]

 

[mdrejhon]

Given the talk of a "VIA Rail Act", this is a really good question...

...Any other recent precedents elsewhere in the western world for slightly releasing tight control of state-owned passenger railways/companies, into slightly more private hands (even if they're pension funds for government-paid workers of all kinds) after a period of decades?

-- Partially, like for specific corridors
-- A "Higher Speed Rail Amendment to VIA Rail Act" scenario? (e.g. trainset specs and HSR compatibility, performance requirements, percentage of corridor, etc before VIA is allowed to let private investment touch a specific city pair). This might force the budget to go up a bit, like $4.5bn to meet the "minimum conditions required" to unlock a specific corridor away from standard provisions built into VIA Rail Act.
-- Etc?

This could, in theory, be some potentially new uniform rules applied Canada-wide that unlocks exemptions to status quo. But if investors are only willing to invest in TOM corridors, then that's okay to begin with, as long as the rule was fair in attracting investment and TOM might be the only one that made economic sense today. And later in the future, TKL enhancements and Calgary-Edmonton, perhaps.

It would be popular along the electorate; the public now geninely feels they're getting high speed rail service, while VIA gets to deploy only a very slightly enhanced version of HFR (That outperforms Acela Express!). Political win-win?

Goverments have granted exceptions for extenuatingly huge benefits -- like some US cities giving blanket red-tape-free access to installing Google Fiber -- or for high speed rail corridors elsewhere in the world.

YDS has a golden opportunity, but all showstoppers needs to be cleared for HxR trains to roll.

 

[rbt]

May I ask you politely on what knowledge or information about our cost structure you base this claim on?

Informal, unofficial and non-recorded discussions with former staff of the Minister of Transportation. Obviously the premium increases with distance from a large group of bilingual speakers; it's apparently very challenging on the west coast.

More directly, see Air Canada Rouge versus West Jet payrolls for flight attendants; bilingual staff on every Air Canada aircraft are one of the few differences. West Jet has french speaking staff on flights where some customers are also french speaking.

Also, I don't understand why some people struggle so much to accept that this country has two official languages.

I have no issues with there being 2 official languages. It's important that every Canadian can read the Hansard, listen to debates, read a ballot, and take part.

I'm not at all sure why bilingualism needs to apply to an Ontario funded train route which will have far more Cantonese only speaking passengers than French only. If anything, the line should probably have bilingual staff who speak English and Cantonese.

The last thing we need is for an Ontario funded HSR line to be sending millions per year to Quebec to meet requirements that are completely unnecessary for the passengers being carried. I can assure you my rural Quebec family members have the same opinion on English services being offered in their towns when nobody in town is English only; government waste for a feel-good policy with no local benefit both ways you slice it.

 

[steveintoronto]

Without getting into the argument, as a Brit with Residency status, I can state that more Brits speak French as a % of the population than Anglo Cdns do. And Brits are hardly considered to be 'Cosmopolitan'. One could debate the proficiency of that percentage, but none-the-less:
[As a government agency operating under the principles of the French Language Services Act (FLSA), Metrolinx and its operating divisions (GO Transit, PRESTO, UP Express) are committed to providing services in French in designated areas of the province. We are working to ensure the availability and accessibility of quality services in French system-wide.

Metrolinx's French Language Services Implementation Plan provides details on the many initiatives Metrolinx has undertaken to comply with the FLSA.

Highlights of the FLS Plan include:

• Printed train and bus schedules in bilingual format.
• Easy access to customer information such as fares, news, bulletins, etc., in French via Metrolinx and its divisions' websites.
• Access to information in French posted on dynamic and static station and terminal signage.
• Use of social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook) in English and French to communicate and interact with the public and stakeholders.
• Access to information in French at stations and terminals. For more information, please contact GO Transit’s Customer Care at 416-869-3200 (Toronto area), toll-free 1-888-GET-ON-GO (438-6646) or 1-800-387-3652 (TTY only).]

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/frenchlanguageservices/default.aspx

As for VIA:
[...][VIA Rail is also committed to promoting linguistic duality throughout minority French and English-speaking communities across Canada. In concrete terms, the Corporation seeks to support initiatives that promote either official language within a minority setting. For example, VIA Rail is currently sponsoring the production of the Franco-Manitoban program “Viens voir ici!”, which highlights Francophone communities outside ofQuebec, acrossCanada.]
- See more at: http://www.viaevolution.ca/2012/09/...-commitment-at-via-rail/#sthash.EgetDTjn.dpuf
French proficiency is not required unless the region is designated of sufficient need. Ditto English in predominantly French speaking areas unless designated a sufficient minority.

Where's the problem folks? Quoi?

 

[steveintoronto]

I didn't realize Desjardins-Siciliano has such a qualified background...not as CEO of VIA as much as to head a consortium of public/private rail investment:
[Yves Desjardins-Siciliano was appointed President and CEO of VIA Rail in May, 2014. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano was the Corporation's Chief Corporate & Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary. He has over 30 years’ experience in legal, regulatory and government relations, business and corporate development, marketing communications and finance. Past President of the Canadian Bar Association, Quebec Division, Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano was also Chief of Staff to the federal Minister of Labour and Minister of State for Transport from 1989 to 1991.]
- See more at: http://www.viaevolution.ca/2012/09/...-commitment-at-via-rail/#sthash.EgetDTjn.dpuf