News   Apr 26, 2024
 2.1K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 470     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 1.1K     1 

VIA Rail

More news on the nascent Infrastructure Bank:
(I normally have trepidations about posting in full, but in lieu of doing so, full accreditation and linking is provided. There's nothing really that can be edited out without losing crucial points)
Bill would allow Canada infrastructure bank to invest in cross-border projects

Jordan Press, The Canadian Press, published by CTV News
Published Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:15AM EDT
Last Updated Wednesday, April 19, 2017 12:18PM EDT

OTTAWA -- A new federal agency designed to fuse public and private dollars to help build infrastructure in Canada could end up building new roads and bridges south of the border -- so long as they connect to the Great White North.

The legislation for the Liberals' proposed infrastructure bank would allow the arm's-length organization to use public money to help bankroll or financially backstop projects that are "in Canada or partly in Canada."

The key for the government is that there has to be a financial benefit and a physical connection to the country, meaning Canadian dollars won't be building any infrastructure solely in the United States or anywhere overseas, and suggesting that the government is interested in funding projects like transmission lines and bridges that cross the border and have a revenue stream attached to them.

U.S. President Donald Trump's transition team mused about setting up an American infrastructure bank that would use various financing tools to lure private dollars towards the construction of public assets like new transit and transportation networks and the issue remains a topic of discussion in American political and academic circles.

Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi met high-level American officials on two separate visits to Washington, D.C., along with top officials at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, all of them keenly interested in how the Canadian bank will operate once it officially launches.

So too are observers and investors in Canada, many of whom still have questions about the bank's operations and whether the legislation as worded could put up roadblocks to the bank's success.

At the heart of the concerns is one of independence from political interference: Giving the government too much control over the bank's operations could end up scaring off investors who don't want short-term political opportunism meddling in long-term infrastructure projects. On the flip side, not enough political oversight could scare off cities and provinces who would be the ones to bring projects forward.

"We believe that the legislation to create the CIB strikes the right balance between creating an arms-length Crown corporation that would attract private capital to build more infrastructure across Canada and would ensure the agency is accountable to Parliament in its management of public funds," said Brook Simpson, a spokesman for Sohi.

The Liberals are infusing the bank with $35 billion in government funding, hoping that the money can leverage three or four times that much in private dollars to build infrastructure in Canada.

Last year, Finance Minister Bill Morneau's council of economic advisers envisioned a very specific decision-making process that would only allow government to step in if a project didn't have a revenue stream attached to it, wasn't in line with the government's growth strategy, or didn't have a private backer.

The overarching idea was to make the bank independent, so that it would be viewed as credible by capital markets and signal stability to private investors.

Private pension funds have pushed for months for the Liberals to make the new bank independent from government intervention. Now that the legislation is out, some are privately expressing concerns while others are taking a wait-and-see approach, knowing that more details about the bank's operations will come from a corporate plan set to be released later this year.

Government officials have been telling investors that the plan for the bank would be for the government to approve a project when it is submitted to the bank for review, meaning cabinet couldn't cancel a project later on in the process. Nor would there be any restrictions on where private backing could come from, easing concerns from some corners that only blocking foreign funds could see retaliation against domestic funds that invest overseas.

Benjamin Dachis, associate director of research at the C.D. Howe Institute, says investors could be scared away from working with the bank if they don't feel that there are strong firewalls to prevent political meddling in long-term projects.

"Private investors will be very skittish if they know that any individual decision is going to be subject to -- right until the actual project is completed -- that any infrastructure can just be scuttled by the government of the day," Dachis said.

"This legislation needs to strike that balance between democratic oversight, but institutional independence to make sure that projects that go ahead are the right ones and not just politically attractive ones in the short term."
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bill...-to-invest-in-cross-border-projects-1.3375092
 
But in fairness to VIA, how many people are commuting on Air Canada?

Look up Air Canada passes. People aren't commuting daily. But quite a few people commute weekly. The thing is to be competitive with airlines, you have to get basic stuff like this right.

When I was in Spain, I saw commuters who would use the business lounge. They are after all nice revenue generators for Renfe, so why would Renfe shut them out just because they aren't buying long-haul exclusively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
Given the pronouncement from the province on London, I wonder if there's room here for VIA to take up the project under HFR.
 
Given the pronouncement from the province on London, I wonder if there's room here for VIA to take up the project under HFR.

Down the road, possibly....but I doubt VIA would be able (or allowed) to go in a second direction while its first HFR pitch was up in the air.

VIA needs to be at the table for the GO Bypass discussion, because they are equally constrained by CN's position on that, and have an interest in securing capacity on the Kitchener line.

The bypass (so far) is a cash deal.....not an IB caper. Arguably some of the money recently committed by Ottawa towards RER is headed in this direction. So does not need to wait for the HFR business arrangements to be worked through.

If Ottawa (ie the Trudeau Liberals) wants to support Wynne in the next election, this could be a lever. There are still reasons to do this - the Pearson strategy, and to look evenhanded between London and KW.

- Paul
 
Given the pronouncement from the province on London, I wonder if there's room here for VIA to take up the project under HFR.

The entire project should have been a co-operation between the Ontario government and VIA. Theres no reason to have two services. This is something that states do with Amtrak in the USA, but its not something we do here in Canada for some reason.
 
The entire project should have been a co-operation between the Ontario government and VIA. Theres no reason to have two services. This is something that states do with Amtrak in the USA, but its not something we do here in Canada for some reason.
It may yet be. As for VIA being 'permitted' to run HFR to London, since they already have allotted slots and Transport Canada status, why would HFR be blocked, and not regular VIA service? Btw: Freight is still hosted on the NEC, but the freight rail operators complain of....wait for it..."very high access charges". Oh the pain...

For the Missing Link, since it is considered a Metrolinx competence (at least at this point, that may change) VIA's status over ML owned/administrated lines wouldn't change, unless, of course, HFR, not just the RoW, also becomes part private. That isn't the present plan, however, as D-S has made it clear many times that the routes not already in public ownership would be privately held, with passenger rail having highest status.

[...][If Via had a dedicated track to use in the busy corridor between Toronto and Montreal, Desjardins-Siciliano estimates the railway could increase its annual passenger load on the route from 2.1 million currently to 6.8 million within 15 years of construction using what he calls “high-frequency rail.”][...]
http://business.financialpost.com/n...ail-not-the-right-solution-for-canada-via-ceo
 
Last edited:
The entire project should have been a co-operation between the Ontario government and VIA. Theres no reason to have two services. This is something that states do with Amtrak in the USA, but its not something we do here in Canada for some reason.
Legislation like Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) mandates States to get involved in rail planning (obviously the enthusiasm varies). This from the DoT explainer:
Enhanced State Involvement

PRIIA tasks States with establishing or designating a State rail transportation authority that will develop Statewide rail plans to set policy involving freight and passenger rail transportation within their boundaries, establish priorities and implementation strategies to enhance rail service in the public interest, and serve as the basis for Federal and State rail investments within the State [§303]. State rail plans are to address a broad spectrum of issues, including an inventory of the existing rail transportation system, rail services and facilities within the State. They must also include an explanation of the State’s passenger rail service objectives, an analysis of rail’s transportation, economic, and environmental impacts in the State, and a long-range investment program for current and future freight and passenger infrastructure in the State. The plans are to be coordinated with other State transportation planning programs and clarify long-term service and investment needs and requirements. US DOT is to establish minimum standards for the preparation and periodic revision of State rail plans.

State-Supported Routes

The Amtrak Board of Directors, in consultation with US DOT, the governors of each relevant State, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, or entities representing those officials, is required to develop and implement a single, nationwide standardized methodology for establishing and allocating the operating and capital costs of providing intercity rail passenger service among the States and Amtrak for the trains operated on designated high-speed rail corridors (outside the Northeast Corridor), short-distance corridors, or routes of not more than 750 miles, and services operated at the request of a State, a regional or local authority or another person [§209].
 
This HFR is absurd unless it comes with much higher speeds, a reduction in travel time of at least 40%, and a near 100% reliability. People in London already need a reduction in VIA times by 20% just to make it competitive with the Greyhound.

Why should the people of SWO be even remotely impressed by spending billions of dollars to bring back VIA speeds they had in the 1970's? Unless the train can make it to London in under 1 hour 15 minutes and Windsor in 2.5 hours then it's not worth it and will entice few to get on board. The MINIMUM international standard of HSR designation is still just a cruising speed 200 km/hr...........that can be done by diesel as Britain has been doing for 40 years.
 
This HFR is absurd unless it comes with much higher speeds, a reduction in travel time of at least 40%, and a near 100% reliability. [...]

Why should the people of SWO be even remotely impressed by spending billions of dollars to bring back VIA speeds they had in the 1970's? Unless the train can make it to London in under 1 hour 15 minutes and Windsor in 2.5 hours then it's not worth it and will entice few to get on board. The MINIMUM international standard of HSR designation is still just a cruising speed 200 km/hr...........that can be done by diesel as Britain has been doing for 40 years.
Don't ask me why I still bother debunking your romanticization of the 1970s and your tirades of unsubstantiated and largely incorrect claims. Travel times on the Southern Mainline (TRTO-LNDN-WDON) are virtually unchanged compared to the 1970s and on the Northern Mainline travel times are even five minutes shorter east of Kitchener (TRTO-KITC) than they were back then. The only routes in Southwestern Ontario where travel times have increased significantly since the 1970s are TRTO-KITC-LNDN and TRTO-SARN (i.e. those relations which are slowed down by the poor track conditions between Kitchener and London and/or the rerouting of TRTO-SARN trains via the Northern rather than the faster and shorter Southern Mainline). Curiously, travel times between Toronto and Ottawa were almost two hours longer than today and the number of trains offered per weekday were 3 rather than today's 9:

Average scheduled travel times on the main routes in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor:
UT-VIA-20170420 - Average Travel Times.jpg

Compiled with data obtained from: Official VIA schedules

Concerning average scheduled train speeds, these are already close to what you can reach by car without violating applicable speed limits for the Southern Mainline and above that on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle:

Average scheduled travel speeds on the main routes in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor:
UT-VIA-20170420 - Average Speeds.jpg

Compiled with data obtained from: Official VIA schedules

If you are looking for the "golden" times where passenger trains were so much faster than today, you should be looking at 1986-2004 rather than the 1970s.


People in London already need a reduction in VIA times by 20% just to make it competitive with the Greyhound.
Have a look at the Greyhound schedule below and then tell me how competitive it is for commuters traveling from London to Toronto in the morning:

UT-VIA-20170420 - Greyhound schedule LNDN-TRTO.jpg

Compiled with data obtained from: Greyhound Extranet
 

Attachments

  • UT-VIA-20170420 - Average Speeds.jpg
    UT-VIA-20170420 - Average Speeds.jpg
    379.5 KB · Views: 305
  • UT-VIA-20170420 - Average Travel Times.jpg
    UT-VIA-20170420 - Average Travel Times.jpg
    494.7 KB · Views: 322
  • UT-VIA-20170420 - Greyhound schedule LNDN-TRTO.jpg
    UT-VIA-20170420 - Greyhound schedule LNDN-TRTO.jpg
    247.6 KB · Views: 329
Last edited:
The entire project should have been a co-operation between the Ontario government and VIA. Theres no reason to have two services. This is something that states do with Amtrak in the USA, but its not something we do here in Canada for some reason.

The reason why not is simple.... the provinces would like this, and use it well, and passenger rail would succeed. And that would look bad for all the bureaucrats in Ottawa who have been trying hard for decades to kill VIA once and for all.
No, I'm not being cynical - this is where it's at.
- Paul
 
This HFR is absurd unless it comes with much higher speeds, a reduction in travel time of at least 40%, and a near 100% reliability. People in London already need a reduction in VIA times by 20% just to make it competitive with the Greyhound.

Why should the people of SWO be even remotely impressed by spending billions of dollars to bring back VIA speeds they had in the 1970's? Unless the train can make it to London in under 1 hour 15 minutes and Windsor in 2.5 hours then it's not worth it and will entice few to get on board. The MINIMUM international standard of HSR designation is still just a cruising speed 200 km/hr...........that can be done by diesel as Britain has been doing for 40 years.

You don't even need to look at British rail, the top speed of the equipment VIA already uses right now (LRC car + GE Genesis) is 166km/h.

Not quite 200 km/h but still much faster than what they do now.

The limitations are track quality, signalling, grade crossings and most importantly, freight getting in the way.

Get rid of all that and you could do Toronto to London (express no stops) in an hour and a half using the existing fleet.
 
This HFR is absurd unless it comes with much higher speeds, a reduction in travel time of at least 40%, and a near 100% reliability. People in London already need a reduction in VIA times by 20% just to make it competitive with the Greyhound.

Why should the people of SWO be even remotely impressed by spending billions of dollars to bring back VIA speeds they had in the 1970's? Unless the train can make it to London in under 1 hour 15 minutes and Windsor in 2.5 hours then it's not worth it and will entice few to get on board. The MINIMUM international standard of HSR designation is still just a cruising speed 200 km/hr...........that can be done by diesel as Britain has been doing for 40 years.

I won't repeat Urban Sky's other obvious criticism. I'll only point this out. This train is needed, not for today, but for a decade and a half from now when the GTA has a million more residents. At that point, the bus will be taking a lot longer to reach downtown Toronto or the airport. It's already 2.5 hrs to the airport and at least 3 hrs to downtown. And those are good days with no traffic. So a train that takes 1 hr to Pearson and 1.5 hrs to the core is a substantial improvement over driving today. And a massive improvement over the traffic conditions that will persist in a decade.

Moreover, frequency is an issue. If you know there's a train every hour, that's far more manageable in most people's minds than having to look up a VIA schedule all the time because you don't know which trains they operate when. HFR will fix this.

Going from 90 mins to 75 mins as you suggested, is an added bonus. But in 2025 when traffic is worse than today, and that 3 hr drive is looking like 4 hrs, lots of people will be wishing for even a 90 minute train.
 
The reason why not is simple.... the provinces would like this, and use it well, and passenger rail would succeed. And that would look bad for all the bureaucrats in Ottawa who have been trying hard for decades to kill VIA once and for all.
No, I'm not being cynical - this is where it's at.
- Paul

Why do you think they've been trying to kill VIA? I think they want to get out of certain businesses for sure. Kill it? Not so sure about that. But I honestly thinks this might actually be a debate we need to have. If we're going to do rail, we have to do it right. Mediocrity really helps nobody.
 
the top speed of the equipment VIA already uses right now (LRC car + GE Genesis) is 166km/h.

Not quite 200 km/h but still much faster than what they do now
Amtrak gets 176km/h out of P42DCs where track/signals permit. Not sure what the LRCs can do now tilt is disabled/removed - TC might want some new testing done first.
 

Back
Top