News   May 06, 2024
Amexon Nominated for BILD Green Builder of the Year for Residences at Central Park
 279     1 
News   May 06, 2024
Four High-Rises and Public Park Proposed South of Whitby GO
 835     0 
News   May 06, 2024
News Roundup for May 6, 2024
 616     1 

VIA Rail

As per "privatizing"...there is a case to be made for this, but not for VIA in it's entirety. VIA, in its nebulous mandate, serves at least two roles, one of them to service areas of the nation that would otherwise be 'disconnected', and to act as a provider of corridor service for select areas of the nation, the obvious example being London-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City. (Some claim the Maritimes, but I digress).

THAT portion of VIA could, and maybe should, be run as a separate entity from the money losing lines. And this then entices private enterprise to participate in "VIA Corridor" for the investment it so badly needs. I don't think anyone disagrees that this aspect of VIA is badly underfunded.

Desjardin-Siciliano would be the first to agree, it's not just HFR, but the Corridor altogether that needs fresh blood, vitality and funding. It can and would make a 'surplus' if remaining on gov't books, or a 'profit' if run off the books as a corporation, but it needs infusion of cash.

And since there's no sign of the present regime in Ottawa forthcoming on that, the least they can do is to re-organize VIA, and allow The Corridor to 'open shop'. And that 'storefront' should be in the Infrastructure Bank.
 
steveintoronto said:
As per "privatizing"...there is a case to be made for this, but not for VIA in it's entirety. VIA, in its nebulous mandate, serves at least two roles, one of them to service areas of the nation that would otherwise be 'disconnected', and to act as a provider of corridor service for select areas of the nation, the obvious example being London-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City. (Some claim the Maritimes, but I digress).

THAT portion of VIA could, and maybe should, be run as a separate entity from the money losing lines. And this then entices private enterprise to participate in "VIA Corridor" for the investment it so badly needs. I don't think anyone disagrees that this aspect of VIA is badly underfunded.

Desjardin-Siciliano would be the first to agree, it's not just HFR, but the Corridor altogether that needs fresh blood, vitality and funding. It can and would make a 'surplus' if remaining on gov't books, or a 'profit' if run off the books as a corporation, but it needs infusion of cash.

And since there's no sign of the present regime in Ottawa forthcoming on that, the least they can do is to re-organize VIA, and allow The Corridor to 'open shop'. And that 'storefront' should be in the Infrastructure Bank.
Click to expand...
That's a good argument. they should look to splitting up via into geographical entities as the needs of the corridor is far different from the west.
 
cplchanb said:
That's a good argument. they should look to splitting up via into geographical entities as the needs of the corridor is far different from the west.
Click to expand...
AND! Just as we're seeing with fragmentation of Amtrak in the US, and Vermont putting emphasis on their agreement with Quebec....*regional private entities* even with public participation, and cross-border, are one of the more likely future models. And this includes Metrolinx, STM, VIA Corridor and others forming 'alliances' if not 'consortiums' to oversee and fund such entities.

VIA can't continue to be all things to all parts of the nation. It's time for adolescents to branch out and form profitable entities where possible. And the rest continue to exist at the behest of Parliament's largesse.
 
I am sure that if the long distance and corridor services could be easily disentangled, that would already have happened. As with Amtrak, both lines of business benefit from sharing corporate overheads and facilities. Even creating a virtual separation for purposes of accounting and analysis creates reams of mugs’ games and one-hand, other hand arguments.
Personally, I am happy to see both business lines continued. The long distance subsidy is just not that big an item in the national budget, and VIA has done a very creditable job of its on board hospitality efforts. I would rather support this effort than kill it on pure financial merit, especially given its spin off benefits in tourism and regional development. (Has anyone ever done an all-in analysis of the impact of killing the Canadian? I have never seen one. There are enough rail doubters in Ottawa that if the net benefit weren’t there, we would have seen that study. Maybe it exists, and the numbers support continuing it)
As to intercityservice in the west, forget it. The freight railways do not have the capacity and never will. The marginal impact of running the Canadian is as good as it will ever get.
- Paul
 
Vermont, in particular Burlington, have always had strong links with Quebec. Burlington is a progressive urban area of 200,000 people, in a state of only 600,000 - and very remote from any other significant US population centre except 30,000 or so across Lake Champlain in Plattsburgh New York. However, it's only about 70 km (45-minute drive) to the Quebec Border. And then only another 70 km from the Autoroute 30 ring-road around Montreal.

I've done the drive in about 90 minutes, including customs, to downtown Montreal, when traffic is good. In comparison, it's a 3-hour drive to Boston, or a 3-hour drive to Albany (it shouldn't be, but there's not even a good highway on the east side of Lake Champlain/Hudson River).

Gosh, I haven't driven it in a while - I see they've extended Autoroute 35 further towards Burlington - but there's still a 17 km gap!
 
Last edited:
The subject of private capital participation in VIA has already been raised:
upload_2018-10-11_18-45-12.png

https://m.viarail.ca/sites/all/file...ny/corporate-plan/CorporatePlan_2017_2021.pdf

ERIC ATKINS
JACQUELINE NELSONINSTITUTIONAL INVESTMENT
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 29, 2016UPDATED MAY 16, 2018
The head of Via Rail welcomes a federal report he says gives new weight to the plan to build a dedicated passenger train corridor between Quebec City and Windsor, Ont.

The wide-ranging review of the country's transportation regime, which touched on everything from grain shipping to airport security, calls for increased use of "private-sector approaches" for the federally owned passenger rail service, and support for Via Rail's push to buy and build its own network in the most densely populated part of Canada.

"We see it as validation of the strategy we have developed over the last two years," Via Rail chief executive officer Yves Desjardins-Siciliano said of the Canadian Transportation Act review tabled in Parliament last week.


In his bid to build a Via-only rail corridor in the Quebec-Windsor route, Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano has been pitching the venture to private investors. Via Rail would buy the tracks and boost the number of daily trains to 18 from five or six. The better service and reliability would allow Via to compete with cars, and let the Crown Corporation post a profit in the region, Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano said by phone.

Estimates for the project, which would need to be approved by the federal government, range from $3-billion for a network that would run with traditional diesel-powered trains to $4-billion for electrified tracks.
[...]
Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano said private-sector investment could come in two forms: as a public-private partnership (P3), in which investors take on the costs and risks of construction, or in an equity investment, a form that is favoured by pension funds.

"We've been talking to Canada's public pension plans over the last 18 months and we've qualified their interest to consider both the P3 formula or the equity formula. They would favour the equity formula because they are large pension funds and they prefer equity returns. They have confirmed their interest to consider such an investment if the government allows Via to go forward with solicitation," Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano said.

The country's largest pension plans have been increasing their infrastructure investments in recent years, drawn to predictable cash flows of various assets around the world. Global competition for shipping ports, toll roads and bridges has increased as a result. Pension-fund executives say they are drawn to infrastructure projects with scale, or that can become platforms for future investments. They like high barriers to entry, a clear view of the regulatory landscape and stable returns. Some like to invest in building and developing the assets, taking on construction risk. Others prefer to acquire existing assets.


Some pension plans already have experience investing in the rail sector. Borealis Infrastructure, a division of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, and the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan invested in high-speed rail in Britain in 2010, for example. Borealis is also the majority owner of the Detroit River Tunnel Partnership, a rail tunnel linking Detroit and Windsor. But the pension-plan's executive have stated that OMERS prefers to invest in "brownfield" projects, meaning assets that have already been built.
[...]
Click to expand...
Transport review calls for private-sector involvement in Via Rail
Spin that as you may, it's not just about HFR, it's a broader vision, but still *Corridor*!

And to do it, VIA has to be granted the status of a Corporation, unless some incredibly complex ledger maneuvers are performed, and ones that would discourage external investment.
[...]
The movement of goods and people, whether they are workers, students, tourists or seniors, is essential to a growing economy, but each year traffic congestion costs our economy an estimated 8 billion3. By increasing public and private investments in dedicated passenger rail lines and high frequency service, VIA would reduce commuter gridlock in the busiest corridors. Investments in VIA Rail and its infrastructure would also create more options to connect to other transportation modes like light and shortline rail. It would increase connectivity to other, smaller and more remote communities and enable trains to run faster and more frequently. Ridership and tourism would increase, and manufacturing, engineering and construction jobs would be created. Dedicating lines for passenger rail would also ease the movement of freight traffic. The current model of sharing track is no longer practical for either party, due to significant increases in freight being moved across Canada over the past decades. If freight traffic continues to increase as expected, VIA service will become less efficient and less profitable. However, dedicate passenger lines would allow VIA to control the frequency and reliability of its trains and attract more customers.
[...]
Click to expand...
Improve the Financial Viability of VIA Rail - Canadian Chamber of ...

www.chamber.ca/download.aspx?t=0&pid=2832d2dd-b09f-e611-92eb...

Again, since there's *still no movement* on HFR and the Infrastructure Bank, isn't it past time for the Feds to act on what report after report has stated prior?

It's time to marry off the Corridor if the Feds won't finance it sufficiently. Whether the present structure/status of VIA would allow it to participate in a limited company holding/partnership is a good question. The present situation can't be allowed to keep dragging on like this.

Addendum: The term "Corporation" is misleading with the present use of it by VIA, it is one, but in a limited sense:
VIA Rail Canada became a Crown Corporation in 1978, and was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act . VIA Rail Canada does not have its own enabling legislation. VIA Rail Canada is a Schedule III, Part I Crown Corporation, is appropriation-dependent, and is not an Agent of Her Majesty.
Click to expand...
2017 Info Source | VIA Rail - VIA Rail Canada

https://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/access-to-information/info-source

That status is going to have to be put at arm's length to be a truly workable P3 model for the Corridor, apart from the rest of VIA.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-11_18-45-12.png
    upload_2018-10-11_18-45-12.png
    73.2 KB · Views: 402
Last edited:
Here's to hoping the latest new on climate change lights a fire under the government's ass to do something on HFR.

It's increasingly clear that the whole tax first and let it work itself out approach is really not going down well with half the provinces in open revolt on the carbon pricing plan. The feds are going to have to lead with some greening investments. I am hoping for HFR with GO and AMT full electrification as a sort of 5-10 year packaged deal worked out with Ontario and Quebec.
 
I still feel the Canadian needs to be split in 4 and add a 5th route: Vancouver - Winnipeg CP, Vancouver Winnipeg CN, Winnipeg - Toronto CN, Winnipeg-Toronto CP/ACR/HCR. And then add Calgary-Edmonton. Then, east of Ontario, rail transportation becomes usable.
 
micheal_can said:
I still feel the Canadian needs to be split in 4 and add a 5th route: Vancouver - Winnipeg CP, Vancouver Winnipeg CN, Winnipeg - Toronto CN, Winnipeg-Toronto CP/ACR/HCR. And then add Calgary-Edmonton. Then, east of Ontario, rail transportation becomes usable.
Click to expand...
May I ask you with what frequencies, fleet, funding, mandate and passengers you want VIA to operate these expansions to the Canadian's current routes? Also not sure how this is supposed to improve rail transportation "east of Ontario"...
 
Urban Sky said:
May I ask you with what frequencies, fleet, funding, mandate and passengers you want VIA to operate these expansions to the Canadian's current routes? Also not sure how this is supposed to improve rail transportation "east of Ontario"...
Click to expand...

Once a day if not more, otherwise it still is just a tourist line.

By splitting it at Winnipeg, it allows it to stay on schedule better.
 
Hello,

I am from Skyrise Edmonton and I would like to give some of my own perspective on this issue. I think that the government already knows that people are using the train less and less in this country because not only are planes much faster, but people can drive on the highway at around the same speed in there own car for free (besides the cost of gas and 1 night motel stay), even though the drive could be over 5,500 kilometers from end to end. And the worst part is that it is more efficient to drive through the U.S as opposed to using our own highways.

What I'm trying to say is that Canada is a vast country, and people want to travel across it fast and efficiently, therefore people are only gonna want to travel by train if it is fast and efficient (and somewhat luxurious on one end). I think that High-Speed Rail would be an AMAZING investment in this country because it is not only much faster (trains can go upwards of 300 kph depending on the type on infrastructure), but people don't have to go through intensive security and a train can have more amenities, too. Finally, I think that the route should only stop at cities with at least a population of 70,000, and small towns could be serviced by smaller regular train networks.

All I'm saying is that this would be a great investment in the future of Canada and it's economy, and it's pretty frickin cool, is it not? ;)
 
Platinum107 said:
Hello,

I am from Skyrise Edmonton and I would like to give some of my own perspective on this issue. I think that the government already knows that people are using the train less and less in this country because not only are planes much faster, but people can drive on the highway at around the same speed in there own car for free (besides the cost of gas and 1 night motel stay), even though the drive could be over 5,500 kilometers from end to end. And the worst part is that it is more efficient to drive through the U.S as opposed to using our own highways.

What I'm trying to say is that Canada is a vast country, and people want to travel across it fast and efficiently, therefore people are only gonna want to travel by train if it is fast and efficient (and somewhat luxurious on one end). I think that High-Speed Rail would be an AMAZING investment in this country because it is not only much faster (trains can go upwards of 300 kph depending on the type on infrastructure), but people don't have to go through intensive security and a train can have more amenities, too. Finally, I think that the route should only stop at cities with at least a population of 70,000, and small towns could be serviced by smaller regular train networks.

All I'm saying is that this would be a great investment in the future of Canada and it's economy, and it's pretty frickin cool, is it not? ;)
Click to expand...

You will never see a high speed train outside of the Corridor in Ontario/Quebec and possibly Edmonton to Calgary because while a train can go 300 kmh a plane can go 900kmh.

Plus a plane doesnt have to wind through the rocky mountains.
 
robmausser said:
You will never see a high speed train outside of the Corridor in Ontario/Quebec and possibly Edmonton to Calgary because while a train can go 300 kmh a plane can go 900kmh.

Plus a plane doesnt have to wind through the rocky mountains.
Click to expand...

If thee train went both ways at least once a day AND ran on time, not 12 hours late, people would use it.

Just imagine if the Corridor service was always 12 hours late and only ran once every 2 days in a direction.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top