High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto

[Euphoria]

I appreciate the public service that Via provides to remote communities. Not unlike Canada Post, the government has a country-building responsibility in keeping these services going, as long as we're not holding back the parts of the country that create the most wealth for the country. There is NO reason why more transit and transportation infrastructure are not being built in the part of the country where such operations could turn a profit, in the GTA and the GTA to Greater Montreal-Ottawa corridor. Okay, I understand incrementalism, but we need to see more increments. The GTA especially needs its own funding tools and freedoms. I think that's the point of Metrolinx, but change is coming far too slowly. Also yes, I stand corrected on the Polar Bear Express. It's the train to Cochrane (from where the PBE departs) that has been canned, which makes sense given that there are ample roads to Cochrane and ridership was low on the Northlander (including a $400.00 per passenger subsidy!). https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ander_train_to_make_its_last_run_sept_28.html

 

[TOareaFan]

transportation infrastructure are not being built in the part of the country where such operations could turn a profit, in the GTA and the GTA to Greater Montreal-Ottawa corridor.

Not opposed to more transit building in areas you mentioned.....but turning a profit seems a very unreasonable expectation....and is outside the scope of this thread which is discussing a train in a different area altogether.

 

[kEiThZ]

There are some real red herrings here.

NL villages? Really?

When it comes to the TKL line there's no small village slowing it down with useless stops. The only stops that could be argued are Stratford and St. Mary's.

The major problem with this corridor is not VIA actually. It's Queen's Park. VIA will happily put in an HFR extension in due course. It's Queen's Park that wants HSR there. But it doesn't seem like Queen's Park has actually budgeted anything for it. Put the blame where it should be.

If we're talking a 70 min trip with HSR. Then this shouldn't really be VIA. Make it a limited stop RER Express with GO. But then you'll notice that Queen's Park has yet to hard commit publicly on RER construction and electrification for this corridor. Just piecemeal projects.

 

[Euphoria]

Revenue is an extremely important consideration for Via, as upgrades such as station approaches in places like Guelph are pricey. Toronto-London HSR is part of a longer term inter-provincial and federal plan to build HSR in the Windsor-Quebec corridor. Some routes actually generate profit for Via, which allows the agency to offset losses on other routes. The GTA accounts for at least a third of the routing and generates the most revenue, but speed is determined in part by railway upgrades, in part by train set technology, and in part by quantity of station stops. Weighing cost-benefit for the upgrades needed and the number of stops along routes is the challenge for meeting the long-term goal HSR in this corridor. I agree that GO RER works as far as Guelph, Barrie, Bowmanville, and Hamilton. Beyond these distances we need Via, which will only be able to provide something approaching HSR in a passenger-only corridor with very few stops, for example K-W, London, Chatham, Windsor in the west; Kingston then Ottawa or Montreal in the east; and perhaps similar spacing eventually in the north. Servicing more places in between these stations is fine, but those routes likely won't ever bear the name HSR. The schedules will undoubtedly provide various routings, express HFR (HSR) and non-express HFR (a smaller improvement on what we already have).

 

[steveintoronto]

upgrades such as station approaches in places like Guelph are pricey.

I don't know what you mean about upgrades, and ostensibly you refer to the *western* approach to Guelph, but VIA does not now, or has ever owned that track or the station. The station is now owned by the City of Guelph, and the track and RoW by Metrolinx. VIA did pay for the new signalling system, as to why is a bit of a good question as they still can't get the number of slots through there that they wish.

As to the 'Go Slow' immediately west of the station, the cost of separating the grade crossings is even split between the City and the owner of the track, that being the Province.

Metrolinx buys 53-km track section, touts Kitchener GO upgrades
CBC News Posted: Sep 24, 2014 4:03 PM ET

Provincial transportation agency Metrolinx has purchased a 53-kilometre section of CN rail track from Kitchener to Georgetown, as well as land in Kitchener for a future layover facility.

The purchase is the next step towards building two-way, all-day GO train service between Kitchener and Toronto.

The section in question runs from Georgetown to Kitchener and is used by GO trains on the Kitchener line. CN Rail said in a release it sold the track for $76 million.

MPPDaieneVernile said the purchase allows the Metrolinx to make upgrades to the existing track and control operations.

"Along the track now, we are having to move aside when you have cargo moving along," she said at a Wednesday announcement at the Kitchener train station.

"Now that Metrolinx has acquired ... the track between here and Georgetown, it is going to be the passenger trains that take priority."

A section of the Kitchener line between Bramalea and Georgetown is still owned by CN, however.

Metrolinx couldn't say when additional track purchases, including the stretch between Georgetown and Bramalea would be made. The agency has committed to doubling current service frequency between Toronto and Kitchener by 2016.

It has also said it will bring all-day two-way GO service to the corridor, although there is still no firm date for when that might be implemented.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...section-touts-kitchener-go-upgrades-1.2776715

 

[Euphoria]

I suppose it doesn't matter whether GO (provincial), Metrolinx (provincial), or VIA (federal) owns the track. The proportion that each owns depends on how the province, feds, and municipalities choose to share passenger rail costs, which seems to vary depending on who's in any one level of government at any given time. What's important is that continuous passenger-only track is made available, whether by purchase or lease, for dedicated passenger routes. In fact, it wouldn't matter if it was privately owned and run, except that CN and CP aren't in the business of passenger rail. What matters is that passenger routes exist with appropriate station spacing, servicing of communities, and speeds that make us competitive with other major city-regions and inter-city regions. Richard Florida wanted to call our inter-city region Tor-Buf-Chester, but I think it's really K-W-Tor-Ott-Mont. The two most important intercity regions in the world are Osaka-Tokyo and Bos-Washington (incorporating New York and Philly). There are other majors in North America, especially in Texas and California. So if you're highly skilled in a high-demand field and have your pick of world regions, speed of movement will be a major consideration, among others, such as culture, recreation, variety of geography and density, access to high-speed broadband, proximity to centres of excellence in your field(s), higher learning institutions, air and water quality, wages, purchasing power and exchange rate of currency -- that sort of thing. Transportation is a huge factor.

 

[ssiguy2]

Yes BosNYWash is important as is The Corridor but what about connecting other important centres like Moosonee & Hearst or the ever congested Churchill to Thompson route? Should they be considered as well? Nunavut has 8,000 which is 6X larger than either Churchill or Moosonee with no roads or rail and a territorial capitol but you don't see them demanding a bridge from Baffin Island to Quebec.

Do all road/transit infrastructure have to make a profit or be extremely heavily used to the point of congestion in order to be built? Of course not. That however doesn't mean that money is no object. There has to be a balance between what is wanted/needed and whether it can be economically justified with the benefits it will return. Providing rail to these little isolated places at huge public expense is unjustifiable. Providing services to these little isolated places or providing services to other larger places where no one {except the local politicians looking for re-election} cares if the service lives or dies because no one takes it, is what is holding back HSR in The Corridor.

Governments cannot be all things to all people. Funds, in all things, are limited and therefore priorities must be set. Expecting all and the best public services in isolated locations or where the demand is not required is an affront to the taxpayer and a one-way ticket to insolvency.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes, revenue is important. But what's more important is difference between revenue and expenses, also known as profit or earnings.

The highest earnings were on the TOM corridor. It's why it was proposed first. TKL is a long ways off for VIA.

So either this becomes a GO line. Or there are hefty subsidies coming from Queen's Park to VIA to expedite this.

 

[Urban Sky]

As I have stated many times, I think VIA should be run like a business and not a government agency. There are no routes in Eastern or Western Canada that should continue to have service. There should be just 3 lines run by VIA...........Win/Lon/KW/Tor/King//Ott/Mon/QC and Win/Lon/Tor/Mon/QC. The only other route {s} should be Tor/Buf {which may require stop in Hamilton for the Win/QC run} and Mon/NY and even these aren't needed if Amtrak is allowed to travel thru to Tor/Mon. There is only one other route in the country that is viable outside of the main Corridor, Calgary/RD/Edmonton.

If VIA didn't have the MPs getting in their way and created a truly viable train system then the Corridor would have much better and faster service than it does now. The rest of the VIA system bleeds red ink and it's The Corridor passengers who have to subsidize those services. If VIA were sold to a private company with regulations on fares and service {like Hydro} it would take the politics out of rail service.

Rail in the 18th century was designed originally to help get rural/small town people into the cities but unfortunately VIA is still using that concept in the 21st century. Today it is the rural/small town/cities that NEVER use rail but rather people going from just one big city to another. Rural areas already have a highly subsidized transportation network, they are called roads. EVERYBODY in small towns/rural has a car and wouldn't live there if they didn't.

By trying to serve everyone with passable service, VIA ends up serving no one well. VIA needs 21st century technology but also a 21st century business plan if it is to remain relevant or viable. If it is unable to do this due to political influence then it should be sold to the highest bidder.

Having chosen to work in the public sector, I am aware that my job (and the jobs of my colleagues) depends on the decisions of the government, which has to justify the use of every single tax dollar. I will therefore try to respond to you on the same level of argument you did, which is the perspective of a taxpayer.

You seem to base your argument on a few assumptions I will try to verify one by one.

Assumption #1: All Canadians have already access to a form of subsidized surface transport: public roads.

As described in VIA's Annual Report 2015 (p.2), "VIA Rail provides passenger service in several rural and remote regions of Canada. Mandated by the Government of Canada to meet essential transportation needs, these trains serve many communities where alternative, year-round transportation is limited or unavailable". It can be indeed argued whether building public roads would be cheaper, but at least in the case of Churchill, continuing a highly subsidies passenger service might still be cheaper than building the missing 300 km of public roads north of Gillam for an arctic port hosting a population of 800 people. You may have also forgotten the role passenger rail played in developing this country. The promise of linking this country together by rail was the very argument which allowed for the creation of this country (not to mention that aboriginal Canadians are disproportionally dependent on this kind of essential services). How exactly could in your view be the $1.18 subsidy per Canadian (see table posted for Assumption #3) associated with maintaining this promise to those remote communities which have not already lost their passenger rail services through line closures by their hosting freight railroads be better used?

Assumption #2: Transcontinental passenger rail services don't provide much value to the country.

Again, as noted in VIA's Annual Report 2015 (p.2), in "Western and Eastern Canada, VIA Rail’s trains attract travellers from around the world and support Canada’s tourism industry". Believe it or not: Tourism is one of Canada's largest industries, accounting for 1.9% of its GDP and thus more than Telecommunications, mining and quarrying, food manufacturing or the manufacturing of vehicles/parts and it is much more labour-intensive as a service industry. One of the customer groups most affluent and eager in spending their money are pensioners and retirees. This customer group has the time it needs to explore this country's unique nature, but generally lacks the health and eagerness to travel longer distances with a rental car or by bus, making the rail their preferred choice of travel - just like most international tourists are already used to from their respective home countries. A private rail tour operator already exists in Canada, but if international tourists had to rely on that one operator in the Rocky Mountains only, they would be unlikely to also visit Eastern and Atlantic Canada or (as the "coast-to-coast" experience becomes unviable) Canada at all. Again, at a cost of $2.33 per Canadian ($1.31 if only looking at the Canadian, thus ignoring the Ocean), would you really slash an annual investment of $84 million into a transportation network which is important for an industry which accounts for close to $17 billion of spending in Canada?

Assumption #3: Corridor passengers subsidize VIA Rail passengers in the rest of the country.

A very brief look on page 9 of VIA's Annual Report 2015 would have shown you that, in fact, all of VIA Rail's service groups are recovering less than the operating costs, with the taxpayer paying between $0.50 (Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto) and $17.33 (Sudbury-White River) for every Dollar of revenue. Even though there might be certain trains and route or passenger segments which may be profitable, on the grand scheme of things non-users subsidize users (through their tax money) rather than users of one area subsidizing another area (through their fare payments). Note also that the Canadian actually recovered more of its costs in 2015 than Southwestern Ontario (52.1% vs 51.2%, or 46.5% if Niagara is excluded). Do you really want to convince the federal government that we should only keep rail services where they are profitable?

Compiled from: VIA Rail Annual Reports from 2015, 2014 and 2013 plus population figures from Wikipedia
Note: CRR=Cost-Recovery Rate (i.e. revenues divided by costs)

[Post continues]

 

[Urban Sky]

[Post continued]

Assumption #4: Central Canadians receive less service than what would be proportional to their population.

Collectively, Ontario and Quebec account for 61.5% of the people living in Canada and while accounting for a slightly smaller share of VIA Rail stations/flagstops served (56.5%), they account for 80.6% of all departures offered by VIA. Without Quebec, Ontario accounts for 38.5% of national population, 29.6% of VIA stations/stops and 54.3% of all scheduled departures. The only jurisdiction with more departures per capita is Manitoba (because of the Winnipeg-Churchill train and its dozens of flagstops: total VIA Rail service to Manitobans is a total of three train services, all of which run only 2-3 times per week). Assuming my numbers are right, would you still argue that Ontario and Quebec receive disproportionally few VIA services compared to other Canadian jurisdictions?

Compiled from: VIA Rail timetable (effective 2016/10/31) plus population figures from Wikipedia

Assumption #5: Taxpayer money from Central Canada are diverted to pay for passenger rail services elsewhere in the country.

In order to approximate the value of the subsidy the provinces receive for the VIA Rail services, we have to allocate the subsidy (i.e. revenue shortfall) of the various services by the number of departures offered in the respective province's territory. The first thing you will see in the table below is that Ontario's share of the Corridor service's shortfall would be 84.4% ($127.0M/$150.4M), which only looks unbelievable until you realize that only 9 (QBEC, SFOY, CHNY, DRMV, SHYA, SLAM, MTRL, DORV and COTO) of the (if I count correctly) 48 Corridor stations lie in Quebec's territory. This puts Ontario's share of VIA Rail's operating subsidy at $155.3 million, of which Corridor services account for a whopping 81.7% ($127.0M/$155.3M):

Compiled from: VIA's Annual Report 2015 (p.9) and VIA Rail timetable (effective 2016/10/31)

To approximate the provinces' respective share of VIA Rail's operating budget, we have to somehow distribute the federal subsidy to the provinces. I thought in my naivety that StatsCan must provide somewhere the origin of the tax revenues collected by the federal government, but I only managed to obtain a table with the Federal Government Revenues Collected from the provinces - in a blog article from 2012 and using data from 2009. This analysis suggests that Ontario's contribution to the federal budget is with 39.7% slightly higher than its share of population (38.5%), compared to Quebec where its contribution is slightly smaller than its share in Canada's population (18.5% vs. 23.0%) - which I believe to be realistic. The following calculation suggests that Ontario received VIA Rail services which cost the federal government $155.3 million, while contributing only $111.0 million (or 71.5% of the associated operating deficit). Interestingly, Ontario's net subsidy equals almost exactly Alberta's and Saskatchewan's combined overpayment (both equal approximately $45M), which comes down to $3.19 per Ontarian or 22 (!) times the equivalent figure in Quebec ($0.15):

Compiled from: VIA's Annual Report 2015 (p.9), VIA Rail timetable (effective 2016/10/31) and Thoughtundermined.com

Assuming my approximations are appropriate, do you still believe that Ontarians' contributions for VIA services are diverted to other regions in Canada?

Assumption #6: Ontarian taxpayers would save money if VIA was shrunk to only its Corridor operations.

At first sight, Ontarians would see their contributions decline from $113,0 to $60.7 millions and Quebeckers from $52.6 to $28.3 million - a decrease of 46.3% in both cases. This would mean that Ontarians would pay less than half of the $127.0 million worth of service they receive, so clearly they would be the big winner of this scenario, right?
Actually, not, because at that point VIA would basically be an Ontarian passenger rail service, which partly serves Quebec. With 8 out of 10 provinces left without any VIA services, it will hardly be justifiable to have them finance 41.8 % (($150.4M-$59.7M-$27.8M)/$150.4M) of such a service which exclusively serves urban Central Canada. The move towards a financing model in which all provinces compensate the federal budget for the deficits of the services they receive would be inevitable, as only Ontario would be hurt ($4.86 per capita), while all other provinces would gain (between $9.40 per capita in Newfoundland and Labrador and still $0.52 in Quebec):

Compiled from: VIA's Annual Report 2015 (p.9), VIA Rail timetable (effective 2016/10/31) and Thoughtundermined.com

Do you still think that as an Ontarian taxpayer you would be better off without VIA’s transcontinental and remote services?


Concluding remarks
I can’t stress enough that I’m not trying to make any argument whether the current service levels and funding arrangements for VIA Rail are the most cost-efficient and effective way of operating passenger rail in Canada. My main point is simply that VIA Rail is a symbol of federal cooperation (and arguably the most significant symbol which remains from the confederation, which marks its 150th anniversary this year) and that breaking this symbol by cutting it down from a national network serving 8 of 10 provinces to a regional network serving the metropolitan areas of 2 provinces in Central Canada (maybe eventually also one single corridor in Western Canada) would most likely lead to a situation where Ontario would have to pay approximately $16 million (see last table) more for worse service and this does not even account for VIA Rail's overheads (for instance: to pay for my salary, provided that I would still be needed), which would then be spread over less services, thus deteriorating the financial performance of the remaining services and thus increase its operating deficit and thus the contributions by the funding provinces. VIA Rail’s cuts (especially those in January 1990) brought an abrupt end to passenger rail services in many regions all over the country. Within the remaining (current) network, Ontario is placed with arguably the best service, even if some people in this forum appear to not perceive it this way…


Disclaimer
All calculations are approximative and should neither been taken as unconditionally correct nor linked with my employment. Also: all data used is readily publicly available and I believe that everyone here could reproduce my calculations with the references I provided.

 

[wolfewood]

That was beautiful.

 

[ssiguy2]

I very much appreciate the info you provided but no matter which way you slice it you have 85% of the entire network pulling in just 7% of the riders. I would ditch the entire Niagara route and possibly Sarnia as well. The info in terms of subsidies for SWO includes Sarnia which has much lower ridership than the core area of Tor/Lon/Win which also has far greater potential for growth due to Detroit and hence connections thru all of the US via Amtrak.

These subsidies to these very few riders outside the QC/Win corridor could be directed straight to The Corridor allowing them to bring in new track, new and faster trains, and superior service. The number of stops in the non-Corridor is irrelevant because no one uses them anyway. As far as provinces paying money to the feds and so should get a similar amount in VIA subsidies, that ignores reality. How much does Quebec and Ontario receive in tax breaks that the Alberta Oil Sands do? Newfoundland and PEI nor any of the Territories have any rail but they still have to pay a portion of the service thru their funds sent to Ottawa. Regional federal support for different industries and sectors should be used where they are most effective not where it is politically palatable for our MPs. I bet every single Western province would far rather have those VIA subsidies directed to their highways than to a rail service that few take and even fewer care about.

I don't think you realize just how irrelevant VIA is to anyone outside the Corridor. It NEVER crosses anyone's mind to even consider taking it for any distance. If VIA was to cancel all services in Western Canada, barring some noise from our politicians trying to make political points {although certainly have never nor would ever degrade themselves to even contemplate taking VIA}, 99% of the population wouldn't even notice and even fewer care.

Yes, the railways connected our great country which we needed in the 19th century but not for the 21st. The public outside The Corridor has moved well beyond passenger rail to far more viable and faster modes of transit using air, cars, and even the buses
which are infinitely faster than any of the few VIA routes they could take. The people outside The Corridor have embraced our new transportation reality but not our mandarins in Ottawa. If tourism is effected than VIA could provide summer-only travel to some routes where they can be justified.

For 99% of the population outside The Corridor, VIA might as well already have shut down because it wouldn't make a hoot of difference to them and they could triple the frequency and it still wouldn't matter.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I don't think you realize just how irrelevant VIA is to anyone outside the Corridor. It NEVER crosses anyone's mind to even consider taking it for any distance. If VIA was to cancel all services in Western Canada, barring some noise from our politicians trying to make political points {although certainly have never nor would ever degrade themselves to even contemplate taking VIA}, 99% of the population wouldn't even notice and even fewer care.

Yes, the railways connected our great country which we needed in the 19th century but not for the 21st. The public outside The Corridor has moved well beyond passenger rail to far more viable and faster modes of transit using air, cars, and even the buses
which are infinitely faster than any of the few VIA routes they could take. The people outside The Corridor have embraced our new transportation reality but not our mandarins in Ottawa. If tourism is effected than VIA could provide summer-only travel to some routes where they can be justified.

For 99% of the population outside The Corridor, VIA might as well already have shut down because it wouldn't make a hoot of difference to them and they could triple the frequency and it still wouldn't matter.

As someone who has ridden various corridor routes, as well as VIA's Skeena from Prince George to Jasper, and the Canadian from Washago to Savant Lake, I can very confidently say that the idea of no one caring about other services besides the corridor ones is simply untrue and inaccurate. The Canadian provides remote communities with transportation for those who don't have cars. When I was on the Canadian, there was a visibly high number of aboriginal people, as well as "locals" traveling to see family etc. On the Skeena, one couldn't ignore the amount of tourists that the train brought for both Prince George and Jasper.

Look at Vancouver Island, which lost VIA service and has been fighting to get it back. Recently, Japer and Banff were exploring studying restoring service to the towns from Calgary for tourism, a huge economic driver. Gaspé has wanted their tracks rehabilitated for a long time. Sarnia has pushed so hard for better service that VIA has been testing RDC for use on the route. Halifax and VIA are currently negotiating for VIA to run a commuter rail service. Churchill also wants more VIA trains for the remote community. I'm sure I'm missing more examples, but Canada, coast to coast clearly values its VIA service and wants more of it.

 

[kEiThZ]

Aside from the subsidy discussion, one thing I see routinely in Southern Ontario is the complete lack of vision for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and outlying region as a whole. No citizen sees themselves living in a megaregion. No politician sees their municipality as part of a megaregion. And the provincial and federal politicians seem borderline hostile to the concept.

Meanwhile, this is happening in China:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshe...s-a-new-36-billion-railway-plan/#4f3a3d713285

The TKL would be a far easier sell if we started to view the entire region as one cohesive entity. At that point, this line becomes an important connector, like any other GO line. Instead, this is being seen as a long-distance line, and so VIA starts to enter the discussion.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Aside from the subsidy discussion, one thing I see routinely in Southern Ontario is the complete lack of vision for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and outlying region as a whole. No citizen sees themselves living in a megaregion. No politician sees their municipality as part of a megaregion. And the provincial and federal politicians seem borderline hostile to the concept.

Meanwhile, this is happening in China:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshe...s-a-new-36-billion-railway-plan/#4f3a3d713285

The TKL would be a far easier sell if we started to view the entire region as one cohesive entity. At that point, this line becomes an important connector, like any other GO line. Instead, this is being seen as a long-distance line, and so VIA starts to enter the discussion.

I agree with so much here. We have to stop being so provincial about the way we look at the province. For all intensive purposes, this light green area should work to be more connected and cohesive. I made this map in literally two minuets, so forgive me if its rough. The area in light green is a very interconnected region in terms of employment, innovation, education, movement of goods and people, and population density. We need a unified transport system, or at least a better connected one to move people within it. Wonder how much of the nation's GDP is generated here.