Transportation Policy in Canada

[kEiThZ]

Expansion at the rate of 99km rail/49 stations in 15 years hasn't been done in Canada since half a century ago.

Ottawa is pretty close. 64 km and 43 stations in about 15 years of planning and construction. And its procurement is somewhat more traditional.

 

[lenaitch]

I don't think it's a huge deal. It's a lot more efficient for the rail company to transload. Let them. Customers who want siding service should pay for it.

Moreover, trucking is going to electrify far earlier than private cars, especially for last mile deliveries like this. So it might not be all that expensive to do this in the future.

Transloading might allow them to increase regional and national frequencies too. So there's that.

I can see urban, distribution-based trucking ('the last mile') being a fairly early adopter of electrification. Not so much long-haul, both from the same range-anxiety perspective of electric passenger vehicles but also the way a lot of the industry is structured. Companies that operate their own fleets and have yards a both ends, perhaps.

 

[kEiThZ]

I can see urban, distribution-based trucking ('the last mile') being a fairly early adopter of electrification. Not so much long-haul, both from the same range-anxiety perspective of electric passenger vehicles but also the way a lot of the industry is structured. Companies that operate their own fleets and have yards a both ends, perhaps.

Agreed. But the example given was 90km. Thats not an issue at all.

 

[crs1026]

^The whole issue of how we distribute goods in increasingly dense urban areas that are constraining vehicular movement in the interest of better quality of life is an interesting one, but it’s not where I was going.

The transload issue is more entwined with the loss of branch lines .... and, just as often, local switching service along busy main lines where track capacity is at a premium. Our railways excell at heavy volume, mainline operations and are increasingly resistant of loose-car shipments. Their model emphasises hubs and use of roads for “last mile”.

What strikes me is how they have been able to impose this unilaterally. Perhaps there have been studies, and various governments have concluded they can accept this model. I’m not so sure this is a plan, just a trend that suits the railways.

It doesn’t matter whether a truck is electric or otherwise - what matters is its axle loading, length and width, and how many trucks it takes to deliver one railcar of material.

There are plenty of small branch line operators, and contractors who do local switching. The existing regime is relatively supportive of these. I’m not sure I support customer-shedding, however....driving the business away, and then looking to the shortline to rebuild it, is not a good way to preserve service beyond the hubs.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

^^ I imagine one of the factors that customers will have to consider is the type of product and the amount of specialized/unique handling required. Bulk commodities like plastic pellets, petro products, etc. likely not so much. Transload sounds like the new term for freight sheds and LCL.

 

[Urban Sky]

I'd rather Metrolinx evolve over time and get better at planning and delivering regional transport with clear public oversight than to hand the keys over to OTPP or any other CDPQ like equivalent. The mess with CDPQ in Quebec is murky and possibly oversteps what should clearly be in the public domain. Transit planning should be done as transparently as possible. If the benefit of CDPQ is efficacy of delivery, then that can be learned. There are many examples of public regional transport agencies that are effective and interact well with government.

I'm a bit confused by whether "possibly oversteps what should clearly be in the public domain" means that things what should be in the private domain are in the public domain or vice versa, but to quote Anton Dubrau who wrote many excellent articles on the REM and "the mess with CDPQ in Quebec":

In 2015, the Government of Quebec passed a Bill to allow the creation of CDPQ Infra, a subsidiary of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) that engages in transit-related projects. An agreement between Quebec and the Caisse subsequently laid out the groundwork of the collaboration between the two entities.

This newfound model was proudly touted as a new form of PPP, a “public-public partnership”. But for the government, this whole thing comes down to an accounting sleight-of-hand: the government refuses to invest enough money in transit infrastructure, so if the Caisse takes responsibility for its construction, then these projects get taken off the government’s books. Any debt or deficit incurred belongs to the Caisse, not the government. Or, as the government puts it: “ce projet-là se ferait à l’extérieur de notre périmètre comptable”.

If that sounds like a good idea, here’s what it means, according to the agreement between the Caisse and Québec:

This agreement also aims to minimize the impact on the Government’s debt and deficit in compliance with Canadian accounting rules. Thus, in order for the main objectives of this agreement to be reached, the portion of assets or of investments financed by Caisse in connection with any project must comply with the following criteria and, as such, the Government:

• must not exercise control over the assets of the project;
• must not assume any risks and derive any benefit inherent to the ownership of such assets;
• must not automatically become the owner of the project or benefit from an option to purchase at a preferential price;
• must not pay for the majority of the assets through its contributions;
• must never have the authority to direct the financial and administrative policies of Caisse.

“Who cares?” you might think. If the Caisse builds infrastructure, shouldn’t they own it and manage it outside of the Government’s purview?

Maybe, if they built a whole line from scratch, using their own money. Maybe even with the public paying for half the construction costs (i.e. billions), we could perhaps, after much consideration and some public planning, allow the Caisse to own the infrastructure.

But that’s not what they’re doing.

He paraphrases it much better in the comment section:

ant6n Says:
August 14th, 2016 at 13:02
@David
Privatization of operations is not the same thing as what is proposed here. If you privatize operations, you keep the infrastructure public, you keep (at least some) planning public, and you have a competitive bidding process to decide which private operator will run the services for some time. It involves a limited time contract, public control over infrastructure and planning, and you use the market to reduce operating costs.

The REM proposal is outright privatization of infrastructure and planning; with explicit loss of public control. And that without any competition, there’s no market here. We are creating a monopoly, and allowing a private construct to leverage formerly public infrastructure assets against us.

The most similar example we have is the privatization of CN, which set back transit in Montreal on the heavy rail network back by maybe 30 years. Oh and btw, it was also organized by Mr. Sabia.

 

[Northern Light]

In respect of @crs1026 thoughts on customer-shedding; I wonder how automation might change the economics in the scenario over the next decade+

If cars could de-couple on their own and shunt w/o manual intervention; and be properly organized so the cars to be dispersed are contiguous and always come off the end of the train; I'd think the issue of time consumption and labour cost might be near-moot.

I'm quite clear we're not there; nor are we doing to be next year or in the next 5; but that type of tech is in the offing.

Of course, if all the branch lines have been shed by then; that may moot the moot point!

******

Side note; I wonder about proper planning rules.

To keep branch lines/spurs (for freight) economic you need a fair number of customers or a couple of very large ones.

Yet we've (municipalities) allowed lots of non-industrial, non-freight dependent development to occupy spots that formerly had clients of said infra.

Perhaps that should be re-thought.

Self-storage and Strip plazas ought not to abut strategic infra when they have no use of such.

 

[lenaitch]

In respect of @crs1026 thoughts on customer-shedding; I wonder how automation might change the economics in the scenario over the next decade+

If cars could de-couple on their own and shunt w/o manual intervention; and be properly organized so the cars to be dispersed are contiguous and always come off the end of the train; I'd think the issue of time consumption and labour cost might be near-moot.

I'm quite clear we're not there; nor are we doing to be next year or in the next 5; but that type of tech is in the offing.

Of course, if all the branch lines have been shed by then; that may moot the moot point!

******

Side note; I wonder about proper planning rules.

To keep branch lines/spurs (for freight) economic you need a fair number of customers or a couple of very large ones.

Yet we've (municipalities) allowed lots of non-industrial, non-freight dependent development to occupy spots that formerly had clients of said infra.

Perhaps that should be re-thought.

Self-storage and Strip plazas ought not to abut strategic infra when they have no use of such.

I've not heard of such technology. Without motive power, gravity might allow a car to move into a siding but same gravity would preclude its self-removal.

About planning/zoning, with de-industrailization and off-shoring, it might simply be a matter of industries leaving in spite of what little municipalities can do about it. Holding land fallow in hopes of a future rail dependent/friendly buyer seems like poor tax-base management.

 

[Northern Light]

I've not heard of such technology. Without motive power, gravity might allow a car to move into a siding but same gravity would preclude its self-removal.

About planning/zoning, with de-industrailization and off-shoring, it might simply be a matter of industries leaving in spite of what little municipalities can do about it. Holding land fallow in hopes of a future rail dependent/friendly buyer seems like poor tax-base management.

On the tech, I'm thinking of self-driving cars; those that already have auto-park on them. The ability to rig all cars or a lead-car for a given shipper that needs only sufficient motive power for a small, short, movement, guided by track; seems within reach to me.

Battery power should be sufficient, no motor required.

But perhaps I'm over-reaching.

*****

I take your point on land-use; my challenge is once the site's utility in relation to rail is lost you can set a chain of events in motion.

One has to be careful not to consider the tax assessment question in isolation.

But you're quite right it should be a consideration.

 

[lenaitch]

On the tech, I'm thinking of self-driving cars; those that already have auto-park on them. The ability to rig all cars or a lead-car for a given shipper that needs only sufficient motive power for a small, short, movement, guided by track; seems within reach to me.

Battery power should be sufficient, no motor required.

But perhaps I'm over-reaching.

*****

I take your point on land-use; my challenge is once the site's utility in relation to rail is lost you can set a chain of events in motion.

One has to be careful not to consider the tax assessment question in isolation.

But you're quite right it should be a consideration.

Well, the battery has to power something. I'll let the RR folks comment on things like the tech and power required, rolling stock cost and the complexity of integrating change across rolling stock that is North American-wide standard.

 

[Northern Light]

Well, the battery has to power something. I'll let the RR folks comment on things like the tech and power required, rolling stock cost and the complexity of integrating change across rolling stock that is North American-wide standard.

As I said, perhaps an overreach.

 

[crs1026]

I've not heard of such technology. Without motive power, gravity might allow a car to move into a siding but same gravity would preclude its self-removal.

About planning/zoning, with de-industrailization and off-shoring, it might simply be a matter of industries leaving in spite of what little municipalities can do about it. Holding land fallow in hopes of a future rail dependent/friendly buyer seems like poor tax-base management.

I don't have a dream technology to offer, but the assembly and disassembly of cars consisting of individual shipments is where the inefficiencies creep in, and that needs to be addressed. The challenge is how to make a change when so many shipments cross the entire continent - the industry is saddled with a need for universal solutions. The existing couplers and the existing air brake systems are particularly difficult technologies to automate or replace. (But the advances in batteries might offer solutions some day)

There's a minimum threshold in cars/mile of track/year that any branchline will have to reach to generate enough revenue to support itself. Municipalities vary in their willingness to underwrite the infrastructure - some do (Waterloo, Guelph), some don't (Orangeville). If they don't see the value, that's their choice....However, municipalities and railways need to not work at cross purposes here. If the municipality is trying to build rail service, and the railway doesn't want to run a local train to serve that municipality, there's a disconnect.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

Canada is the only OECD country without a national transportation policy and it shows. Ottawa has helped fund many projects but't the provinces that decide where the money goes.

That has got to change and our climate emergency is going force it too. A Canad's as zero emissions target will only be reached if our entire transportation system is completely de-carbonised and that requires a very strong arm from Ottawa which they are not use to using. The magnitude of the change in our transportation sector will truly be massive to meet our targets and a whole slew of piecemeal projects but parochial provincial governments will not suffice.

 

[kEiThZ]

Nature of our Confederation. I don't imagine any of this will change.

And if we ever did have a national transportation strategy, I guarantee you that it would be an absolute barebones document that covers a handful of critical ports and corridors and federal assistance. That's it. They won't infringe on the provinces.

 

[lenaitch]

Nature of our Confederation. I don't imagine any of this will change.

And if we ever did have a national transportation strategy, I guarantee you that it would be an absolute barebones document that covers a handful of critical ports and corridors and federal assistance. That's it. They won't infringe on the provinces.

Or by writing big cheques, AKA healthcare - also primarily a provincial responsibility. Even at that, some provinces still have a history of 'give us the money and go away'.