VIA Rail

[innsertnamehere]

Not sure I understand the obsession with a Lakeshore corridor HSR line.

The only station HSR would really capture on that alignment would be Kingston, and would be slightly more direct to Montreal, but it would introduce the need for a secondary corridor to connect Ottawa and would skip Peterborough, which wouldn't be all that much lower demand than Kingston would be.

You'd save 10 minutes on run times to Montreal and get marginally more ridership from a Kingston stop over Peterborough, but would be looking at a far more complex, expensive construction process.

Running through Peterborough and Ottawa creates a single line operating model, reduces infrastructure and land costs massively, all for a relatively small penalty.

Picking up places like Belleville and Cornwall may be nice for a local service, but an HSR model is going to see the vast majority of benefit through major centres connections. I just don't see the marginal improvements in local service being worth the billions in extra capital investment and extra long-term operating costs.

 

[lrt's friend]

Your reference to the Sunk Cost Fallacy reminded me of another issue - is HSR most readily compatible with the Alexandria Sub east of Ottawa ie is the (land-banked) M+O Sub route now off the table for good?

I don't have a view one way or the other - but it would be interesting to see whether either proponent looks at that segment.

- Paul

My understanding is that the M&O subdivision has been sold by VIA or will be sold. It is now off the table. I believe that it offers little potential benefit compared to existing VIA rail line that VIA has already invested significantly in track improvements.

 

[nfitz]

... specialist modelling and simulation softwares the entire industry uses (so that I no longer have to rely on my own Excel templates, as during my Bachelor and Master Thesis).

Well that takes all the fun out of it ...

 

[crs1026]

Sorry, but the Toronto focus of your argument does not
serve the overall interests of the greater corridor population. And that is the point of HFR/HSR. It is not a Toronto project.

I would not say it’s a Toronto problem, but it’s certainly an Ontario level problem.

I’m not proud of our interprovincial trains, the argument that the current situation is not world class and ought to be improved is very valid But - while our VIA corridor is not great, our highway transportation congestion in the GTA and all the way west to London is pretty close to the breaking point.

Insofar as Ottawa is quite happy to contribute to provincial rail, it is indeed one pot of capital and it’s quite reasonable for the province to say look, we’d rather you spend it here. Quebec clearly wants QC-Montreal HSR, irrespective of economics, and that’s their right. How bad does Ontario need it? It gets more needed every day, but it may not touch Ontarians as directly as their more frequent commute.

My argument may be a bit pedantic, and I’m happy to see Ottawa pursuing this project…. But….let’s do the math. The pure numbers may point differently. My point is that even HSR may be leaving us looking for more.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

PS - To put it another way, if the price rises from say $10B to $20B becauae of a desire for HSR, then I would argue there is greater benefit in terms of carbon and quality of life by spending $15B of that on H(whatever) and $5B on regional services between Kingston, London, and Niagara.

 

[reaperexpress]

I think there is no equivalency with the Calgary-Edmonton debate. There is an already established market for rail service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. That does not exist between Calgary and Edmonton. This is also a totally a within Alberta project. TOM is interprovincial and therefore is entirely a federal concern. So, Alberta chose to focus on local LRT. Does this apply to the TOM HFR/HSR debate? No. Ontario already has the choice to improve the London-Toronto rail line if they so choose. Are they between Kitchener and London? Going east, it becomes more complicated because it is the main CN and CP freight line to Montreal. This again becomes a federal issue as well affecting major private businesses, the freight railways. I think this goes nowhere, as has been demonstrated with past failed projects. Even if we found a way to work with CN or CP, there is a further barrier at Oshawa with GO Train service potentially delaying longer distance trains. I am sure it has already happened countless times.

Sorry, but the Toronto focus of your argument does not serve the overall interests of the greater corridor population. And that is the point of HFR/HSR. It is not a Toronto project.

I don't agree that the Corridor intercity trains are entirely a federal concern.

It doesn't seem consistent to expect Alberta to foot the entire bill for a hypothetical Calgary-Edmonton HSR but expect Ontario and Quebec to get HSR at no cost.

More reasonably the two projects would both be built with a mix of provincial and federal funding. Indeed including more active provincial involvement in the Corridor could help get more movement on the project. Nobody outside of Ontario or Québec cares about the project, but I suspect that the vast majority of voters in Ontario and Quebec would.

In the US, the federal government only funds the operations of long distance trains. Intercity Amtrak services are funded by the states themselves, even when a route crosses a state line. Rail upgrade projects for those services also tend to be led by the states, with support from federal grants.

 

[Northern Light]

Just to add some clarity on the discussions above:

1) The correct comparison to the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor in the U.S. is the Northeast corridor.

2) The Northeast Corridor is profitable on a day to day operational basis; just as the T.O.M. corridor is here. So subsidy for operation isn't really relevant.

3) The U.S. federal government does provide vast capital subsidy to N.E.C.; the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) just handed out another 9 Billion USD this past December.

* Now it is worth saying that there is State capital funding as well, for some of the projects in the NEC, notably the Gateway tunnel project from NYC to Newark which will be 25% funded by the the two states in question
with the Feds picking up the other 12B USD.

On the operating side, the books look like this: (2019)

One has to say that State subsidy is not all that large.

Here's a look, again from 2019, at the breakdown for State-Supported Route:

To be clear, I favour the additional or provincial-funding on the operating side to VIA to support supplementary services of interest to the province that can be more cost effectively provided by VIA than a provincial operator.

But I think we do need to pick apart the capital/operating distinction. We can also see above that state subsidy rates vary by route, not merely in total, but on per passenger and per track mile basis.

We also need to be mindful that the NEC does not operate its HSR-Lite service on a separate corridor, and that the NEC continues to support freight operations along much of its length.

Its all rather complex. Most of you above know everything I'm posting here, and I wouldn't mean to imply otherwise, I just think its important for many of the readers here to get a slightly clearer picture.

 

[lrt's friend]

I would not say it’s a Toronto problem, but it’s certainly an Ontario level problem.

I’m not proud of our interprovincial trains, the argument that the current situation is not world class and ought to be improved is very valid But - while our VIA corridor is not great, our highway transportation congestion in the GTA and all the way west to London is pretty close to the breaking point.

Insofar as Ottawa is quite happy to contribute to provincial rail, it is indeed one pot of capital and it’s quite reasonable for the province to say look, we’d rather you spend it here. Quebec clearly wants QC-Montreal HSR, irrespective of economics, and that’s their right. How bad does Ontario need it? It gets more needed every day, but it may not touch Ontarians as directly as their more frequent commute.

My argument may be a bit pedantic, and I’m happy to see Ottawa pursuing this project…. But….let’s do the math. The pure numbers may point differently. My point is that even HSR may be leaving us looking for more.

- Paul

There is a further problem here.

Unless the Ontario government wishes to chip in a share of costs of a more regional service, why should it get priority? We all know how political it gets regarding service to London. Conservatives cancelled prior Liberal plans, which I know, were half hearted at best anyways. We also know that neither Niagara service nor London service will be upgraded unless the track is substantially improved. Who pays?

The TOM project is fully federal with Quebec added because of federal politics. There will be no provincial financial commitment likely, so why would the provinces get much say, other than through the federal political prism. The whole concept is that the service will be profitable, and therefore making VIA more self sufficient, also a federal commitment. Any regional service to London, Kingston and Niagara will almost certainly have to be subsidized by the province, especially if upgraded. There is already agreement that the Lakeshore route will be improved by the feds as a concession to existing service. Niagara has already been taken over by the province, and London will either have to be partially funded by the province or will have to wait until HFR Stage 2 that includes Windsor and potentially a connection via Amtrak to Detroit and Chicago. Again, an international connections pushes this towards the federal government.

As an Ottawa resident, I wish to point out that the feeling here is that we might as well be on the shores of Hudson's Bay for all the attention we get from Queens Park. We got short changed on our LRT projects, big time from the province and it just seems that Toronto elite just does not care. The appearance being that feds will bail Ottawa as a city out. That does not get intercity rail built into Ottawa.

If you want your regional rail plan, where is Doug Ford in promoting and planning this concept. Unless the province pushes the idea, and has a good business case, there can be no federal funding. Just like in Alberta, the province has no serious plan for Calgary - Edmonton HSR and until it does, there will be no federal funding going towards that project either.

 

[crs1026]

[QUOTE="lrt's friend, post: 1985225, member: 8058"
As an Ottawa resident, I wish to point out that the feeling here is that we might as well be on the shores of Hudson's Bay for all the attention we get from Queens Park. We got short changed on our LRT projects, big time from the province and it just seems that Toronto elite just does not care. The appearance being that feds will bail Ottawa as a city out. That does not get intercity rail built into Ottawa.
[/QUOTE]

You can add Kitchener-Waterloo, Brampton, Mississauga, and Hamilton to the not federally funded and not even as eagerly funded by Ontario LRT list. However Trudeau did give Ontario funding for RER, er GO Expansion... and Minister Alghabra muddied the water by promising support to Milton GO and Southern Ontario rail service. It's a very mixed up arrangement, I'm not sure that there will ever be a clean bright line between intercity and regional rail. Too many interdependencies and many synergies. Presumably that's why Ottawa included the local services in the tender package. So, let's give the local piece its due.

And, while there is a need to accommodate Quebec, any such largesse iopens the door to Ontario to ask for its needs also. The pretense that this is being run by a bank as an investment opportunity went out the door when the Quebec segment was added.

If you want your regional rail plan, where is Doug Ford in promoting and planning this concept. Unless the province pushes the idea, and has a good business case, there can be no federal funding. Just like in Alberta, the province has no serious plan for Calgary - Edmonton HSR and until it does, there will be no federal funding going towards that project either.

I agree, there should be Provincial involvement and part funding. Ford came through with GO funding and Toronto subway funding, but made feeble attempts re Niagara and London. No reason Ontario can't pony up appropriately..

I have this naive old idea that the federal and provincial players need to get in a room and work out the division of labour and work together. Even if they don't, we have the choice of looking at this in ways they don't. Treating the two pieces as silos is not helpful even if there are two different types of trains on two different types of track on two different routes.

So, I say again.... if Ottawa comes up with $20B to accommodate high end intercity rail, we need to ask if that is the best way to deploy that envelope to advantage. Not that different from arguing for building two LRTs instead of one subway. The regional solution doesn't require all that many billions out of that envelope.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

Just to add some clarity on the discussions above:

1) The correct comparison to the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor in the U.S. is the Northeast corridor.

2) The Northeast Corridor is profitable on a day to day operational basis; just as the T.O.M. corridor is here. So subsidy for operation isn't really relevant.

3) The U.S. federal government does provide vast capital subsidy to N.E.C.; the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) just handed out another 9 Billion USD this past December.

* Now it is worth saying that there is State capital funding as well, for some of the projects in the NEC, notably the Gateway tunnel project from NYC to Newark which will be 25% funded by the the two states in question
with the Feds picking up the other 12B USD.

On the operating side, the books look like this: (2019)

View attachment 502512

One has to say that State subsidy is not all that large.

Here's a look, again from 2019, at the breakdown for State-Supported Route:

View attachment 502516

To be clear, I favour the additional or provincial-funding on the operating side to VIA to support supplementary services of interest to the province that can be more cost effectively provided by VIA than a provincial operator.

But I think we do need to pick apart the capital/operating distinction. We can also see above that state subsidy rates vary by route, not merely in total, but on per passenger and per track mile basis.

We also need to be mindful that the NEC does not operate its HSR-Lite service on a separate corridor, and that the NEC continues to support freight operations along much of its length.

Its all rather complex. Most of you above know everything I'm posting here, and I wouldn't mean to imply otherwise, I just think its important for many of the readers here to get a slightly clearer picture.

That's a good point regarding the profitability which means we can ignore the operating costs.

But my example also applies to capital costs. The US states tend to take ownership of the rail upgrade projects, like the State of Virginia's massive project to upgrade tracks south of Washington DC. Note that the project is designed to improve Amtrak service just as much as Virginia Rail Express service, unlike GO projects which only include the bare minimum provision for Via.

Or how about the fact that the State of Michigan purchased and is upgrading the railway from Kalamazoo to Dearborn, purely for use by Amtrak's Wolverine (Chicago-Detroit) service.

It was the Illinois Department of Transportation who recently upgraded the line from Chicago to St Louis for 110 mph Amtrak operations.

And there are more state-led projects in California, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont, Maine, etc.

To be clear, these projects all receive a solid chunk of federal funding, but it's the state which takes political ownership of the project. Which makes them care more about Amtrak operations in general, in contrast to Metrolinx who does not give a flying f*** about how much delay they cause Via trains through their track layouts, schedule design or dispatching.

Many rail advocates recommend that we nationalize rail ownership and separate rail infrastructure organizations from train operating companies (TOC), to enable fair competition between the latter.

But in Ontario we have already done that: the Province already owns the vast majority of trackage in the GO network, with Metrolinx operating as an infrastructure owner, and GO, UP and VIA acting as Train Operating Companies. The only issue is that we need to convince Metrolinx to actually act as an impartial rail owner whose mandate is to serve all TOCs, not just the ones they own themselves.

 

[lenaitch]

Many rail advocates recommend that we nationalize rail ownership and separate rail infrastructure organizations from train operating companies (TOC), to enable fair competition between the latter.

But in Ontario we have already done that: the Province already owns the vast majority of trackage in the GO network, with Metrolinx operating as an infrastructure owner, and GO, UP and VIA acting as Train Operating Companies. The only issue is that we need to convince Metrolinx to actually act as an impartial rail owner whose mandate is to serve all TOCs, not just the ones they own themselves.

But only in the GTA, not the corridor beyond. Besides, I don't think having a tenant TOC being a division of the landlord owner is what the advocates would be aiming for.

 

[reaperexpress]

But only in the GTA, not the corridor beyond. Besides, I don't think having a tenant TOC being a division of the landlord owner is what the advocates would be aiming for.

They are advocating for the EU model, and nearly all of the biggest TOCs in the EU are majority or fully owned by a national government, who also owns the rail infrastructure agency for their country.

 

[dowlingm]

We all have our pet greenfield routings (mine is a route NE from Kingston to replace Brockville-Smiths Falls, along Hwy 15 then joining the hydro corridor to Smiths Falls) but when one looks at the infra in the Ottawa area one wonders how much additional and near term service and speed could be done by adding double track/passing loops and grade separations there. There is no greedy railroad baron to pay off, just the will to make it happen. There isn’t even the Ellwood Diamond (junction with O-Train) to consider any more.

 

[crs1026]

We all have our pet greenfield routings (mine is a route NE from Kingston to replace Brockville-Smiths Falls, along Hwy 15 then joining the hydro corridor to Smiths Falls) but when one looks at the infra in the Ottawa area one wonders how much additional and near term service and speed could be done by adding double track/passing loops and grade separations there. There is no greedy railroad baron to pay off, just the will to make it happen. There isn’t even the Ellwood Diamond (junction with O-Train) to consider any more.

Very true. The approach into Ottawa is far slower than it could be. I don't understand why it hasn't been upgraded, even knowing that HSomething will happen in a few years doesn't override that potential for short term improvement.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

Very true. The approach into Ottawa is far slower than it could be. I don't understand why it hasn't been upgraded, even knowing that HSomething will happen in a few years doesn't override that potential for short term improvement.

- Paul

If the idea is “why should we pay when HSR magic beans will” I will be very cross.