News   May 31, 2024
Ever-Changing Skyline
 60     0 
News   May 30, 2024
Nine Tower Development Proposed beside Bowmanville GO
 2.2K     1 
News   May 30, 2024
Wellington Market Brings a Culinary Mosaic to The Well
 1.6K     2 

VIA Rail

kEiThZ said:
The context in China is vastly different. The catchment population for any HSR in China is vastly more than the Quebec-Windsor corridor with a much shorter service distance. This makes the business case substantially better. Over here, we aren't talking about cities of even half a million. The entire Belleville area population is under 100k with the urban area being 50k. How many towns that size have HSR stops in China? Kingston is at about 160k. Only London is at 500k.

I do agree that they would all benefit from having HSR. The question is whether their benefits are sufficient to justify massive investments in HSR by government to benefit them. As the HFR case as shown, it's cheaper to build a separate corridor that doesn't serve Belleville, Cobourg or even Kingston. I imagine these savings would be even more substantial when talking about HSR.

And while highways are expensive to build, they are still far cheaper than HSR, since the vast majority of that expansion is in rural areas where land constraints don't practically exist. The 401 is still mostly two lanes in each direction for most of its length.

The only arguable case for HSR is to tie the major metros together. If the other smaller cities benefit incidentally that's great. But there will be a business case that justifies building HSR to benefit them.
Click to expand...

In the case of China, China Railway has taken on massive debt to build the HSR rail system, and many of the lines still don't earn enough to cover costs. The Chinese government sees HSR less so as a purely money-making investment, and more as a long-term national investment that can be subsidized in the mean time by the sheer size of the Chinese economy.

In the case of Canada, we'll need to be more economical in choosing where our HSR lines go- and if HFR might be a better choice for the near future.
 
jje1000 said:
In the case of China, China Railway has taken on massive debt to build the HSR rail system, and many of the lines still don't earn enough to cover costs. The Chinese government sees HSR less so as a purely money-making investment, and more as a long-term national investment that can be subsidized in the mean time by the sheer size of the Chinese economy.

In the case of Canada, we'll need to be more economical in choosing where our HSR lines go- and if HFR might be a better choice for the near future.
Click to expand...
Granted, in China there's also the misallocation of resources. New commuter rail lines are tunnelled underneath miles of farmland because the government intends to flip them to developers for a massive profit, before even existing urban areas have adequate infrastructure. New RER-style railways are built on overhead viaducts through miles of farmland, and in some cases are designed for speeds of 300 km/h. Even for China's future potential, this is still not an effective use of finite resources.

But my underlying point remains - the GTA will grow to ~ 9 million by 2037. Either the extra 2.5 million will be accommodated through more sprawl in the 905, which will require endlessly widening the 400 highways in the GTA, or we can accommodate at least 1 million of them in smaller cities across southern Ontario, like a string of pearls tied together by a modern railway (whatever it may be). And what about the positive social and political impact that will happen by mentally reducing the distance between the GTA and the rest of the province?

So even if HSR/HFR is not economically profitable, we should consider the very positive externalities that will be incurred.
 
To begin with, the aim should be to accommodate them in the GTA or even better, in the 416. Spreading those residents out is pointless if there are no jobs for them.

Next, nobody is looking for profit from rail. Passenger rail will never be profitable in Canada. What's being sought is a proposal which minimizes government subsidy.
 
kEiThZ said:
To begin with, the aim should be to accommodate them in the GTA or even better, in the 416. Spreading those residents out is pointless if there are no jobs for them.

Next, nobody is looking for profit from rail. Passenger rail will never be profitable in Canada. What's being sought is a proposal which minimizes government subsidy.
Click to expand...
A railway network would be an excellent incentive for employers hoping to expand into the GTA to look beyond the 416/inner 905 areas. We already have startups clustering in KW which are now begging for all day GO service ASAP, as a prelude to future HSR. There's no reason why startups (or other future employers) *must* base themselves either in KW or south of Bloor and pay higher rents, other than the lack of convenient transit forcing their hands. So a proper RER/GO/VIA/HSR system would give startups freedom to base themselves in Hamilton, Guelph, London, or many other places without compromising their connections. It would, effectively, create enclaves of the GTA economy across southern Ontario, and especially in the stagnating industrial towns. This would also have positive social and political effects, as the GTA will no longer be viewed in Woodstock or Brantford as a distant foreign land whose voters can impose their will on them, but rather as an integral part of the local community.

So while we need a system which most effectively uses government subsidies, the balance sheet should not be the only factor considered. Otherwise, why do anything? The externalities need to be considered as well.
 
urbanfan89 said:
A railway network would be an excellent incentive for employers hoping to expand into the GTA to look beyond the 416/inner 905 areas.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Companies build offices where business is done. They aren't going to move offices to outlying areas. They'll just expect employees to commute to their central location. HSR in Europe and Japan has brought 150km commutes, not commercial relocation.

I agree that it would be good for the regional economy. But it's not going to turn those outlying cities into commercial centres. What it will do is turn places like London and Peterborough into more effective ex-urbs and possibly even regular suburbs of Toronto.

urbanfan89 said:
So while we need a system which most effectively uses government subsidies, the balance sheet should not be the only factor considered.
Click to expand...

People here are ascribing to HFR far more than what the government and VIA itself is stating are their goals, which is to put VIA on a sustainable path in the long term with increased ridership. It's simply wishful thinking to insist that the federal government should be considering Toronto's commuters to be served by a nationally funded rail project. Not going to happen. That's not their mandate.
 
Last edited:
urbanfan89 said:
A railway network would be an excellent incentive for employers hoping to expand into the GTA to look beyond the 416/inner 905 areas. We already have startups clustering in KW which are now begging for all day GO service ASAP, as a prelude to future HSR. There's no reason why startups (or other future employers) *must* base themselves either in KW or south of Bloor and pay higher rents, other than the lack of convenient transit forcing their hands. So a proper RER/GO/VIA/HSR system would give startups freedom to base themselves in Hamilton, Guelph, London, or many other places without compromising their connections. It would, effectively, create enclaves of the GTA economy across southern Ontario, and especially in the stagnating industrial towns. This would also have positive social and political effects, as the GTA will no longer be viewed in Woodstock or Brantford as a distant foreign land whose voters can impose their will on them, but rather as an integral part of the local community.

So while we need a system which most effectively uses government subsidies, the balance sheet should not be the only factor considered. Otherwise, why do anything? The externalities need to be considered as well.
Click to expand...

If you look at London UK's attempt in the 70's/80's to do this you will see it as a total failure. They gave tax incentives for commercial to move to former market towns with good transit connections. Once the tax credits dried up the employers packed up and left. Either back to London or offshored their work. 15 story office towers were vacant for 10+ years and only recently have they been converted into condo's for workers living in London.

And there are positives and negatives in creating additional bedroom communities. Socially do we want that or do we want unique clusters with their own culture?
 
muller877 said:
If you look at London UK's attempt in the 70's/80's to do this you will see it as a total failure. They gave tax incentives for commercial to move to former market towns with good transit connections. Once the tax credits dried up the employers packed up and left. Either back to London or offshored their work. 15 story office towers were vacant for 10+ years and only recently have they been converted into condo's for workers living in London.

And there are positives and negatives in creating additional bedroom communities. Socially do we want that or do we want unique clusters with their own culture?
Click to expand...
This is the "Innovation" mantra that concerns me with Morneau's latest budget update. My analogy is that it's like thinking that investing in dance studios is going to make more people dance. Dancing will happen or not on its own volition. There's a place for Gov't to invest, like transportation infrastructure, but not to purposely choose 'winners and losers'. That's almost always a recipe for disaster.

In the UK's case, as muller points out, it's termed "Enterprise Zones":
Enter into Google: (It will get you an FT article without a pay-wall)
Opinion divided on success of enterprise zones
 
Last edited:
alexanderglista said:
HELL YES! Still a long way to go, but good progress.
Click to expand...
Not that much new in there, but an excellent heads-up. I suspect that was a feed to them.

This is an odd comment:
"Details of VIA’s vision for a fast and frequent (but not high-speed) passenger schedule using a new fleet of trains powered by Quebec’s abundant and self-renewing hydro electricity was first revealed by this magazine in its April 2016 print and digital edition. "

They may have the story crossed with a possible parallel one of the ex O&E RoW hosting an electrical xmssn corridor from Quebec. I'd discussed this some months back, and how it would be synergetic for feeding the catenary, as well as locales along the way, instead of the other way around: local supplies feeding the catenary.

Very interesting that story should show before the mass media does. Might be something pending in the news next few days.
 
Reread the article. So they submitted in December and the government didn't announce the IB launch in the budget?

That says a lot.

In any event, will have to see if and when it happens.
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
Reread the article. So they submitted in December and the government didn't announce the IB launch in the budget?

That says a lot.
Click to expand...
The launch was announced last year. That says even more.

November 1, 2016 4:34 pm
Updated: November 1, 2016 7:06 pm
Liberals announce Canada infrastructure bank: what is it and how does it work?

Finance Minister Bill Morneau rose in the House of Commons Tuesday to deliver his fall economic update – kind of a mini-budget – and announced the formal steps towards creating a Canada infrastructure bank to help fund major construction projects across the country.

Morneau said the Liberals will kick in $35-billion and hope to attract private sector dollars at a ratio of $4 to $5 in private funding for every $1 of federal money.

“I’m happy to announce the government of Canada is establishing a new Canada infrastructure bank through which at least $35-billion will flow to help us undertake transformative projects that might not get built,” Morneau said. “This bank will allow us to create thousands of jobs, get more projects built.”

Craig Alexander, chief economist at the Conference Board of Canada, said the infrastructure bank would allow different levels of government to borrow money at a cheaper rate.

“What the government is proposing is setting up an institution whereby other levels of government that are doing infrastructure programs can basically borrow, but borrow at the federal government rate,” said Alexander. “The idea here is to reduce the cost of borrowing so larger infrastructure projects can get done.”

Alexander said part of the goal of an infrastructure bank is to attract investment of foreign dollars into the Canadian economy.

“Being a small economy means there is only so much savings in Canada that can be used for projects,” he said. “One of the ways to get more projects done in Canada is to convince foreign savings to be deployed inside Canada. That is precisely why you would entertain the idea of an infrastructure bank.”

The proposed infrastructure bank would likely launch in 2017 and would operate at arm’s length from government and would compile a list of priority infrastructure projects from across the country.
[...]
Click to expand...
http://globalnews.ca/news/3039197/l...ructure-bank-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work/

As I stated prior, there's a pending announcement giving more details later this month.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top