Transportation Policy in Canada

[kEiThZ]

France as well. It's not only Japan.

ECF ranks France on top with most sustainable parking policy in Europe | ECF

"France has the best off-street parking regulations in place when it comes to promoting sustainable mobility in Europe" found a report published by the European Cyclists’ Federation. Link to the 'Making Buildings fit for Sustainable Mobility' Report Link to the Executive Summary France belongs...

ecf.com

The article only mentions a national policy on parking for residences developed with state funding. Translating that to a whole national policy on parking is a stretch.

With Japan I was referring to their specific zoning system, which probably drives a lot of their parking rules.

 

[Urban Sky]

Just like the "Is there a at-station parking policy in Canada?" discussion originated in the wrong thread (VIA Rail instead of this one), I believe that the current discussion (creation/upgrade of cross-border VIA-Amtrak services) rather belongs into the VIA Rail thread than here (as there are no transport policy questions touched by that discussion).

Therefore, my question to @AlvinofDiaspar, would it be possible to move the following posts over to the VIA Rail thread (feel free to delete this post afterwards)?

• #16
• #17
• #20
• #21
• #22
• #23
• #24
• #25
• #26
• #27

Many thanks in advance and I should have already moved the discussion when I replied in comment #16...

 

[ec_traindriver]

What would be needed to start an overnight train? It would make air-travel-free weekend trips a possibility...

Overnight equipment, for one thing. The second thing would be pre-clearance facilities in Toronto (unless you really want to annoy your passengers by spending 2 hours in Niagara Falls for customs). Third, agreements with host railroads, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem in the US.

The entirety of the length of the Empire corridor from NYC to Niagara Falls, NY is 742km. Niagara Falls, ON to Toronto Union is 132km. That's under 900km and at hypothetical HSR speeds would be competitive with air travel.

The two HSR proposals for the Empire Services have already been trashed a few years ago on account of the tremendous costs involved (US$35+ billion for a 160 and a 220 mi/h proposals). AFAIK, the current choice is between "Alternative(s) 90A", "90B", and "110". Although slower than the HSR proposals, journey time would still be reduced by as much as 2 hours: 8 hr 8 min with "Alternative 90A", 7 hr 38 min with "Alternative 90B", 7 hr 22 min with "Alternative 110". Here is the report.

Does anyone really want to spend 12+ hours on a train when you could fly in 2 hours? There's no market for this.

As a locomotive engineer/train driver working also on international overnight trains, I beg to differ. Sure enough, you won't see the train capturing half the market, but an overnight service, done right, can attract many people, including long-range commuters. With an overnight alternative, you can leave on Friday evening, arrive at your destination early in the morning leaving the airport-stress at home, enjoy your time, board the sleeper again on Sunday evening and get back to your home/workplace early on Monday morning.

 

[afransen]

As a zoomer, I care about my carbon footprint-- many others in my generation would also prefer to take the train if it's a reasonable option (i.e. not 12 hours+).

Honestly, I think you'll see renewable-powered aircraft (hops from Toronto to NYC will be suitable for battery short haul aircraft) before you see HSR on that alignment. If we can't get HSR between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, Toronto to NYC or Chicago is pure fantasy.

 

[afransen]

If you've ever tried to get from La Guardia or Newark to midtown Manhattan you wouldn't be making that comparison in good faith.

Add an hour on either end then? Still doesn't require 30B in capital investment, money that could be far better used improving transit to the airport.

 

[ec_traindriver]

Honestly, I think you'll see renewable-powered aircraft (hops from Toronto to NYC will be suitable for battery short haul aircraft) before you see HSR on that alignment. If we can't get HSR between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, Toronto to NYC or Chicago is pure fantasy.

As if HSR were the only way to tackle transportation issues in the North American continent. Leaving aside ends-to-ends, which will remain the soft spot for air travel for quite a few more decades, and that can, in any case, be supported with overnight trains, how many people move between Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and NYC, and what's the current modal share? I bet car is still the major mean of transportation along that corridor, and that's where intercity trains should aim for. I don't think we will ever see a Toronto-New York train taking less than 9 hr 30 min, and I'm being optimistic about that journey time as well.

As per the renewable-powered aircraft claim, I don't exactly know how much power would be required for a plane to remain in the air for such long distances. Anyway, if it ain't nuclear powered (or with hydrogen generated as a byproduct of nuclear plants), then it can't be reasonably called clean or green.

 

[kEiThZ]

We have no control over what the Yanks build. I'd rather focus on HSR between Toronto and Montreal than Toronto and New York.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Just like the "Is there a at-station parking policy in Canada?" discussion originated in the wrong thread (VIA Rail instead of this one), I believe that the current discussion (creation/upgrade of cross-border VIA-Amtrak services) rather belongs into the VIA Rail thread than here (as there are no transport policy questions touched by that discussion).

Therefore, my question to @AlvinofDiaspar, would it be possible to move the following posts over to the VIA Rail thread (feel free to delete this post afterwards)?

• #16
• #17
• #20
• #21
• #22
• #23
• #24
• #25
• #26
• #27

Many thanks in advance and I should have already moved the discussion when I replied in comment #16...

Done.

MoD

 

[Urban Sky]

Just a quick reminder that the purpose of this thread is to discuss Transport Policy questions, i.e. everything which relates to or requires changes in the laws which govern the transportation sector. Please refer to my opening posts for an extensive (but certainly not exhaustive) list of transport policy questions.

Done.

MoD

Thank you, @AlvinofDiaspar! Could we do the same for posts #19 to #25 (i.e. everything between my last post and your post), as they are a continuation of discussing HSR between Toronto and New York?

 

[crs1026]

(Decisions, decisions.... with two new threads, I’m in a quandry where to post this...probably belongs here as I’m more concerned with the “policy” and regulation than with the technology per se.....but if I’m wrong someone can redirect...

Over the holidays a guy, whose employer is a rail customer, was telling me that they were getting a sell from a certain railway to relinquish their service-to-the-siding in favour of a transload at a main yard in Toronto.

The obvious motive is allowing the railway to effectively get out of local service altogether, as it’s costly and probably represents a drag on ROI. Plus, local service ties up track and time, getting in the way of through freight.

The railway was of course suggesting the transload would be cheaper - which begs the question of who bears the cost of putting bulk trucks on congested GTA highways ?

The “local” routing I was told about was fairly long....over 90 kms. That’s a lot of trucking.

Without knowing any fine details, at face value this is an example of where the railways in Canada may be allowed to over-earn. Investment income is nice, but the normal expectation of a utility is seldom a first-rate ROI. When one looks at the railways’ taking profit while downgrading service, and passing impacts to the public...maybe the railways are not working hard enough for their money.

I hold railway stock, and I like the dividends....but.....maybe the duty to serve should have more weight, in favour of customers who may represent low but positive ROI.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

 

[afransen]

(Decisions, decisions.... with two new threads, I’m in a quandry where to post this...probably belongs here as I’m more concerned with the “policy” and regulation than with the technology per se.....but if I’m wrong someone can redirect...

Over the holidays a guy, whose employer is a rail customer, was telling me that they were getting a sell from a certain railway to relinquish their service-to-the-siding in favour of a transload at a main yard in Toronto.

The obvious motive is allowing the railway to effectively get out of local service altogether, as it’s costly and probably represents a drag on ROI. Plus, local service ties up track and time, getting in the way of through freight.

The railway was of course suggesting the transload would be cheaper - which begs the question of who bears the cost of putting bulk trucks on congested GTA highways ?

The “local” routing I was told about was fairly long....over 90 kms. That’s a lot of trucking.

Without knowing any fine details, at face value this is an example of where the railways in Canada may be allowed to over-earn. Investment income is nice, but the normal expectation of a utility is seldom a first-rate ROI. When one looks at the railways’ taking profit while downgrading service, and passing impacts to the public...maybe the railways are not working hard enough for their money.

I hold railway stock, and I like the dividends....but.....maybe the duty to serve should have more weight, in favour of customers who may represent low but positive ROI.

- Paul

Sounds like a job for road tolls!

 

[kEiThZ]

If anything, it would be cool if Ontario copies the arrangement Quebec has with the CDPQ.

This was the intention of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. But they have not really funded much big stuff that was uniquely launched by them.

 

[NoahB]

This was the intention of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. But they have not really funded much big stuff that was uniquely launched by them.

The Infra Bank was all about receiving proposals with completed studies and business cases, etc. As you said, they don't launch them, and notably don't study and propose them like CDPQ does. The study, proposal, finance part is the one I wish would be copied.

While private firms will prioritize ROI, that usually means putting stations where people would use it, where there is the potential for secondary money streams (TOD charges), and building it in the most cost-effective/efficient way possible.

Transit will be built faster(the sooner you open, the sooner the ROI starts), and it would prevent Kirby GO station situations under this model. But you probably will end up with wider station spacing. (stations being the most expensive portion) as well as minimal future-proofing on each new line.

I would take a spaghetti worth of new medium capacity lines over one/two ultra-high-capacity lines.

 

[NoahB]

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 more clearly 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.

That would be the best-case scenario. But that doesn't seem to be the direction things are headed.

Unless Metolinx can become legally and completely separate from the provincial government, they will keep doing things like the Kirby Station debacle, prioritizing regional travel over local travel, and pretending the TTC does not exist.

Quebec kept relaunching it's regional transit department until they just gave up and gave it to the CDPQ. Now they might have one of the most expansive networks in North America within 15 years of starting. Expansion at the rate of 99km rail/49 stations in 15 years hasn't been done in Canada since half a century ago.