Dan416
Senior Member
Goddamn airlines, halting progress for VIA. VIA could be so much better. It has so much potential.
|
|
|
VIA Rail: New Funding
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
rbt
Senior Member
Airlines have a point though. They're forced to build and maintain Canadian airports, as well as paying fairly heafty taxes on top of those fees. This is a Canadian only thing.
In the US, the $150M/year taxes that Pearson pays would be directed into airport infrastructure. That's a $300M/year disadvantage that Pearson has compared to say Buffalo or Chicago airports. It is also the sole reason why Pearson fees are so high.
I would like to see Via get a $20B loan (50 year, interest free) and be told to create a profitable, competitive, clean rail service in PARTS of Canada.
Clean lets the Feds take it out of the environment budget. VIA could build an electric service and invest heavily into wind farms and clean generation to power it.
They can also claim to have invested heavily in public transportation in a manner that is appropriate (inter-provincial).
In the US, the $150M/year taxes that Pearson pays would be directed into airport infrastructure. That's a $300M/year disadvantage that Pearson has compared to say Buffalo or Chicago airports. It is also the sole reason why Pearson fees are so high.
I would like to see Via get a $20B loan (50 year, interest free) and be told to create a profitable, competitive, clean rail service in PARTS of Canada.
Clean lets the Feds take it out of the environment budget. VIA could build an electric service and invest heavily into wind farms and clean generation to power it.
They can also claim to have invested heavily in public transportation in a manner that is appropriate (inter-provincial).
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 13,312
- Reaction score
- 12,135
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
VIA can do all of the above if there was a VIA Rail Canada Act. It does not have the power to take out loans or be all that innovative because the government has tight controls.
If VIA was given a looser leash, it could also partner with provincial governments that would help subsidize current or new services. In the US, many states support local Amtrak routes, such as Vermont, New York (the Empire Service and Maple Leaf, Montreal train), Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. California goes one step further and actually has Amtrak operate California's own rolling stock on routes dicated by the state.
Could you imagine Ontario getting interested in this and bankrolling 5-6 trains a day to Niagara Falls, or 8 trains a day to Kitchener, or 10 trains a day to London? Or a new service to Peterborough, but have VIA own and operate them? Quebec, even New Brunswick or Nova Scotia might get interested in more service as well. That's what happens in the more progressive of the US states.
If VIA was given a looser leash, it could also partner with provincial governments that would help subsidize current or new services. In the US, many states support local Amtrak routes, such as Vermont, New York (the Empire Service and Maple Leaf, Montreal train), Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. California goes one step further and actually has Amtrak operate California's own rolling stock on routes dicated by the state.
Could you imagine Ontario getting interested in this and bankrolling 5-6 trains a day to Niagara Falls, or 8 trains a day to Kitchener, or 10 trains a day to London? Or a new service to Peterborough, but have VIA own and operate them? Quebec, even New Brunswick or Nova Scotia might get interested in more service as well. That's what happens in the more progressive of the US states.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Don't I recall that there was a supreme court decision or something requiring VIA to change it's seat configurations to accommodate people with disabilities? If so this announcement could actually just be the government being forced to respond to said requirement with a little top up for system improvement rather than a new found interest in train infrastructure.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
The Renaissance cars were designed for channel tunnel service, so they are narrower than a typical railway coach. As a result, the aisle don't meet the minimum requirements under the law. I doubt this funding is specifically for that, but it may partially offset the unexpected cost of bringing the Rens up to code.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
You raise an interesting point, seantrans. Could GO sign a deal with VIA to operate their trains instead of CN/CP? It could be a big revenue source for VIA.
You're right that the Renaissance cars are too narrow, though it's because of the British network loading gauge, rather than the tunnel. There was indeed a court ruling. Many of the cars are also unfinished shells. This announcement appears to provide no money to complete them.
You're right that the Renaissance cars are too narrow, though it's because of the British network loading gauge, rather than the tunnel. There was indeed a court ruling. Many of the cars are also unfinished shells. This announcement appears to provide no money to complete them.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
There was a bidding process, not sure if VIA put in a bid, but they do perform the maintenance on West Coast Express, so it's doable.
Aside, I do support a Amtrak California kind of relationship between VIA and the Province. That's how I envision service to Niagara taking shape - as much as I like the GO train, I doubt I could last two hours in those seats.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 13,312
- Reaction score
- 12,135
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
GO doesn't operate its own trains, at least not yet. Unimaginative was suggesting that GO hire VIA to do it, which sounds like a great idea, at least for the parallel services - Lakeshore and Georgetown.
Many of the commuter services in the Northeast corridor (and a few on the West Coast) have fare agreements with Amtrak as well. MARC, for example, doesn't run weekends, but allows MARC monthy holders to use Amtrak trains at select stations instead (which has frequent Regional service). Why am I thinking this way? Because with some more trains on the Kitchener-Toronto route, Brampton and Georgetown (and perhaps one more stop, either Malton or Bramalea could be added), instant weekend GO train service without GO trains. Between the Brampton-Toronto local crowd, and the Kitchener and Guelph markets, you could run 7-10 trains a day on weekend, and almost have hourly service, and have passenger loads to justify it.
Yeah, Niagara and Kitchener would be the first to markets I see for GO-VIA.
Many of the commuter services in the Northeast corridor (and a few on the West Coast) have fare agreements with Amtrak as well. MARC, for example, doesn't run weekends, but allows MARC monthy holders to use Amtrak trains at select stations instead (which has frequent Regional service). Why am I thinking this way? Because with some more trains on the Kitchener-Toronto route, Brampton and Georgetown (and perhaps one more stop, either Malton or Bramalea could be added), instant weekend GO train service without GO trains. Between the Brampton-Toronto local crowd, and the Kitchener and Guelph markets, you could run 7-10 trains a day on weekend, and almost have hourly service, and have passenger loads to justify it.
Yeah, Niagara and Kitchener would be the first to markets I see for GO-VIA.
MisterF
Senior Member
No higher frequencies, high speed rail, new destinations, exclusive passenger right of way, or electrification. Not too exciting. The other day I had a conversation with some friends from the Czech Republic and the UK about who had the worst train system. I mentioned that we had a city with over a million people that you couldn't get to by train. That ended the debate.
I agree with the last few posts. VIA's getting nothing from the feds. The provinces have to get involved.
I agree with the last few posts. VIA's getting nothing from the feds. The provinces have to get involved.
From the Toronto Star:
Canada's endless rerun of the National Dream
Oct 15, 2007 04:30 AM
GREG GORMICK
Either there's an election in the air or Prime Minister Stephen Harper's crew has actually caught the sustainable transportation fever – or both. Whatever the reason, the result was an announcement on Thursday of nearly $700 million in new funding for Canada's underfunded national rail passenger system, VIA Rail.
At the ceremony at Union Station, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon described trains as "a more humane way to travel." He and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty also highlighted some of the benefits of modern passenger trains: Lower energy consumption than cars and planes, reduced emissions and high levels of comfort, convenience, accessibility and safety.
They were correct on all counts. Although the details are sketchy pending negotiations with CN, the principal owner of the routes over which VIA operates in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor, it appears to be a logical and incredibly thrifty plan. These fresh funds will refurbish existing locomotives and cars, upgrade stations, eliminate a number of bottlenecks that have frequently resulted in CN freight trains getting priority over VIA and, ultimately, lead to travel time reductions and frequency increases throughout the corridor.
As a long-time proponent of improved passenger rail service, far be it from me to look this gift (iron) horse in the mouth. But my 30-plus years of rail and transit advocacy have taught me to not believe the politicians until the cheques are signed, the shovels are in the ground and the trains are on the tracks.
In 1974, the headlines screamed, "Trudeau promises millions for trains." Three years later, VIA was formed to relieve the freight railways of the passenger business and supposedly upgrade it. The millions did flow, but slowly. There was never enough to do what had been promised; highways and air facilities still got the bulk of our tax dollars. With aging equipment, VIA's costs rose and the government used that as a good reason to trash 20 per cent of the national system in 1981. They never delivered the new trains promised for daytime intercity service in the Atlantic provinces or across the Prairies.
Three years after that, Brian Mulroney's Tory team swept to victory and one of the planks in their campaign was a promise to "renew our National Dream" with new equipment for VIA. Once elected, the Mulroney team declared it too expensive and then hacked away half of VIA.
Only one politician ever made good on his vow to give Canadians the rail passenger option they favoured. Prime minister Jean Chr̩tien's transport minister, David Collenette Рan unabashed fan of the economic, environmental and social benefits of trains Рdid deliver some new rolling stock and secure cabinet approval for multi-year VIA funding. The corporation has been living on that belated investment far too long, thanks to the succeeding government of former bus line owner Paul Martin. He turned down a grander version of VIA's current plan and then a slimmer alternative.
The question now is whether this federal government is serious about giving Canadians a credible and sustainable alternative to car and air travel. Or are they once again taunting this hardworking, underfed iron horse with yet more feed that will be whipped away after an election?
If the Tories opt for the latter route, they're making a big mistake. Trains have much untapped potential in getting our economic and environmental houses in order.
That's being proved daily around the world, where every major country – including China and India – is investing at an unprecedented level in better and faster rail passenger service. Even the anti-public-enterprise government of George Bush is loaded with pro-rail politicians who keep rescuing Amtrak from the White House's chopping block.
The potential for rail transportation is better understood by the Canadian public now than ever before. Opinion polls confirm they want a national system of trains that will make it possible to leave the car at home and avoid the nightmare of so-called modern air travel whenever possible. Leaving Canadians standing on the platform by reneging on a promise like this one won't make them happy voters the next time around.
So, let's hope Flaherty is sincere when he says his government is dedicated to "improving and expanding VIA."
It couldn't be a more timely or logical commitment. He'll find it pays off in every way – including at the ballot box.
Canada's endless rerun of the National Dream
Oct 15, 2007 04:30 AM
GREG GORMICK
Either there's an election in the air or Prime Minister Stephen Harper's crew has actually caught the sustainable transportation fever – or both. Whatever the reason, the result was an announcement on Thursday of nearly $700 million in new funding for Canada's underfunded national rail passenger system, VIA Rail.
At the ceremony at Union Station, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon described trains as "a more humane way to travel." He and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty also highlighted some of the benefits of modern passenger trains: Lower energy consumption than cars and planes, reduced emissions and high levels of comfort, convenience, accessibility and safety.
They were correct on all counts. Although the details are sketchy pending negotiations with CN, the principal owner of the routes over which VIA operates in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor, it appears to be a logical and incredibly thrifty plan. These fresh funds will refurbish existing locomotives and cars, upgrade stations, eliminate a number of bottlenecks that have frequently resulted in CN freight trains getting priority over VIA and, ultimately, lead to travel time reductions and frequency increases throughout the corridor.
As a long-time proponent of improved passenger rail service, far be it from me to look this gift (iron) horse in the mouth. But my 30-plus years of rail and transit advocacy have taught me to not believe the politicians until the cheques are signed, the shovels are in the ground and the trains are on the tracks.
In 1974, the headlines screamed, "Trudeau promises millions for trains." Three years later, VIA was formed to relieve the freight railways of the passenger business and supposedly upgrade it. The millions did flow, but slowly. There was never enough to do what had been promised; highways and air facilities still got the bulk of our tax dollars. With aging equipment, VIA's costs rose and the government used that as a good reason to trash 20 per cent of the national system in 1981. They never delivered the new trains promised for daytime intercity service in the Atlantic provinces or across the Prairies.
Three years after that, Brian Mulroney's Tory team swept to victory and one of the planks in their campaign was a promise to "renew our National Dream" with new equipment for VIA. Once elected, the Mulroney team declared it too expensive and then hacked away half of VIA.
Only one politician ever made good on his vow to give Canadians the rail passenger option they favoured. Prime minister Jean Chr̩tien's transport minister, David Collenette Рan unabashed fan of the economic, environmental and social benefits of trains Рdid deliver some new rolling stock and secure cabinet approval for multi-year VIA funding. The corporation has been living on that belated investment far too long, thanks to the succeeding government of former bus line owner Paul Martin. He turned down a grander version of VIA's current plan and then a slimmer alternative.
The question now is whether this federal government is serious about giving Canadians a credible and sustainable alternative to car and air travel. Or are they once again taunting this hardworking, underfed iron horse with yet more feed that will be whipped away after an election?
If the Tories opt for the latter route, they're making a big mistake. Trains have much untapped potential in getting our economic and environmental houses in order.
That's being proved daily around the world, where every major country – including China and India – is investing at an unprecedented level in better and faster rail passenger service. Even the anti-public-enterprise government of George Bush is loaded with pro-rail politicians who keep rescuing Amtrak from the White House's chopping block.
The potential for rail transportation is better understood by the Canadian public now than ever before. Opinion polls confirm they want a national system of trains that will make it possible to leave the car at home and avoid the nightmare of so-called modern air travel whenever possible. Leaving Canadians standing on the platform by reneging on a promise like this one won't make them happy voters the next time around.
So, let's hope Flaherty is sincere when he says his government is dedicated to "improving and expanding VIA."
It couldn't be a more timely or logical commitment. He'll find it pays off in every way – including at the ballot box.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Some of the worst examples of transport deficiency include the fact that cities in the hundreds of thousands that sit virtually next to one another have no connection to each other by rail, bus, or anything other than a car.
Try going from Guelph to Kitchener, a distance of 20km, by anything except for about 4 Greyhound buses per day. Brantford to Cambridge (24km) has nothing. The worst: the 80km from KW (pop. 450k) to Hamilton (pop. 600k) is only connected by 5 or 6 Greyhound buses that take over an hour-and-a-half to travel.
In Europe, these cities would be connected by high speed rail. Hell, in the US, while transit is backward, these cities would at least have a freeway or two running between them facilitating some intercity bus service. In Ontario we have two-lane roads between these major population centres, and all the plans to make improvements to rail, roads...whatever...is mired in hopeless EAs and political squabbling. Forgive the hyperbole, but when it comes to some vital transportation links we are competing with the likes of Pakistan and the Ivory Coast.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 13,312
- Reaction score
- 12,135
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Nitpicking somewhat, it's not Greyhound (it's Coach Canada), it's 8 weekday buses a day, and it is an hour-and-a-half. I've rode that bus, and you're right, it's sloooow, passing through (and stopping at) every little town along the way, and the slow way through Dundas.
Schedule
The K-W/Guelph and Hamilton/Brantford connections are terrible. I would have like to see the Grand River Railway last, as it had hourly electric service from Galt to Waterloo, and somewhat less frequent service from Galt to Brantford, back until 1955! Had the tracks been kept (I'd choose the old CN line though) it would make a great rail diesel short-haul service between Hamilton, Cambridge and Kitchener/Guelph.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Early in the 20th century, excess railway lines thwarted the sponsorship of airline routes by government. One reason why Canada arrived late with respect to passenger travel and airmail routes.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Via train late? You're not alone
Internal reports suggest crumbling infrastructure to blame as passengers late in almost one of every four trips
DEAN BEEBY
Canadian Press
October 20, 2007 at 11:41 AM EDT
OTTAWA — If your Via Rail train rolled into the station late this summer, you weren't alone.
Internal reports from the Crown corporation show that crumbling infrastructure has conspired against train schedules across Canada this year, delivering passengers late in almost one of every four trips.
The situation deteriorated over the late spring and summer, partly because Via's geriatric F-40 locomotives keep breaking down.
"Via equipment failure caused delay minutes (to) increase by approximately 60 per cent from 2006 to 2007," says the September report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty poses on a Via Rail train on the platform at Union Station after announcing a funding increase for the Crown corporation October 11.
Nationally, about 23 per cent of Canada's passenger trains ran late in the May-to-July tourist period, well over Via Rail's target of 10 per cent.
The late-train problem has gotten worse in every part of the country, including the heavily travelled corridor between Quebec City and Windsor, with four of every five Via Rail customers.
For the eastern service between Montreal and Halifax, trains were late more than 60 per cent of the time in July, largely because of ``major locomotive failures."
And for the western service between Toronto and Vancouver, on-time performance was abysmal as well.
"The average West delay severity remains extremely poor," says the report, prepared for a recent meeting of the board of directors.
"Western Services trains arrived in Vancouver and Toronto in May, June and July 2007 an average of two hours and 42 minutes late, which represents a sizable increase over the average delay a year ago."
But the worst service in the country appears to be along the stretch between Winnipeg and the Hudson Bay port of Churchill, Man.
In July, 10 of the 26 Via trains scheduled along the route never arrived at all. Those that did make it to their destination were four hours late on average.
Via Rail, which receives an annual federal subsidy of $170-million for its 4.1 million passengers, is not always responsible for train delays. The agency largely operates on track owned by other railways, such as CN Rail, and its passenger trains must sometimes stand down to let freight trains pass.
Freight-train derailments, track-improvement work and speed restrictions along tracks that are prone to buckling in summer heat have all caused disruptions in the schedule.
The report notes in particular that Via Rail has a "worsening relationship" with the Hudson Bay Railway or HBR, a subsidiary of Denver-based Omnitrax, which owns the track between The Pas and Churchill. Closures because of defects in the tracks, and derailments of HBR freight trains, help account for many of the late and non-arrivals.
About 4,700 passengers were also hit by delays last summer caused by native protesters blocking rail lines in Ontario.
But Via Rail's own F-40 locomotives - 20-year-old workhorses of the system - are responsible for many of the delays. The corporation's 54 F-40s, representing more than 70 per cent of the fleet, are at the end of their useful life.
"Regular overhauls and scheduled maintenance no longer ensure reliability nor keep maintenance costs under control," says an internal analysis.
A spokesman acknowledged the F-40s have been a continuing headache.
"Despite concerted efforts to control those factors for which Via has direct responsibility, the reliability of Via's locomotive fleet ... has increasingly been a significant cause of delays," said Malcolm Andrews from company headquarters in Montreal.
Earlier this month, the federal government announced $516-million in capital funding over the next five years, much of which will go to rebuild the F-40s from the ground up, giving them 15 to 20 more years' of service. Tracks and other infrastructure will also be improved.
Quebec and Manitoba have also announced plans to improve rail infrastructure in their provinces, which will help improve on-time performance, Mr. Andrews said.
Internal reports suggest crumbling infrastructure to blame as passengers late in almost one of every four trips
DEAN BEEBY
Canadian Press
October 20, 2007 at 11:41 AM EDT
OTTAWA — If your Via Rail train rolled into the station late this summer, you weren't alone.
Internal reports from the Crown corporation show that crumbling infrastructure has conspired against train schedules across Canada this year, delivering passengers late in almost one of every four trips.
The situation deteriorated over the late spring and summer, partly because Via's geriatric F-40 locomotives keep breaking down.
"Via equipment failure caused delay minutes (to) increase by approximately 60 per cent from 2006 to 2007," says the September report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty poses on a Via Rail train on the platform at Union Station after announcing a funding increase for the Crown corporation October 11.
Nationally, about 23 per cent of Canada's passenger trains ran late in the May-to-July tourist period, well over Via Rail's target of 10 per cent.
The late-train problem has gotten worse in every part of the country, including the heavily travelled corridor between Quebec City and Windsor, with four of every five Via Rail customers.
For the eastern service between Montreal and Halifax, trains were late more than 60 per cent of the time in July, largely because of ``major locomotive failures."
And for the western service between Toronto and Vancouver, on-time performance was abysmal as well.
"The average West delay severity remains extremely poor," says the report, prepared for a recent meeting of the board of directors.
"Western Services trains arrived in Vancouver and Toronto in May, June and July 2007 an average of two hours and 42 minutes late, which represents a sizable increase over the average delay a year ago."
But the worst service in the country appears to be along the stretch between Winnipeg and the Hudson Bay port of Churchill, Man.
In July, 10 of the 26 Via trains scheduled along the route never arrived at all. Those that did make it to their destination were four hours late on average.
Via Rail, which receives an annual federal subsidy of $170-million for its 4.1 million passengers, is not always responsible for train delays. The agency largely operates on track owned by other railways, such as CN Rail, and its passenger trains must sometimes stand down to let freight trains pass.
Freight-train derailments, track-improvement work and speed restrictions along tracks that are prone to buckling in summer heat have all caused disruptions in the schedule.
The report notes in particular that Via Rail has a "worsening relationship" with the Hudson Bay Railway or HBR, a subsidiary of Denver-based Omnitrax, which owns the track between The Pas and Churchill. Closures because of defects in the tracks, and derailments of HBR freight trains, help account for many of the late and non-arrivals.
About 4,700 passengers were also hit by delays last summer caused by native protesters blocking rail lines in Ontario.
But Via Rail's own F-40 locomotives - 20-year-old workhorses of the system - are responsible for many of the delays. The corporation's 54 F-40s, representing more than 70 per cent of the fleet, are at the end of their useful life.
"Regular overhauls and scheduled maintenance no longer ensure reliability nor keep maintenance costs under control," says an internal analysis.
A spokesman acknowledged the F-40s have been a continuing headache.
"Despite concerted efforts to control those factors for which Via has direct responsibility, the reliability of Via's locomotive fleet ... has increasingly been a significant cause of delays," said Malcolm Andrews from company headquarters in Montreal.
Earlier this month, the federal government announced $516-million in capital funding over the next five years, much of which will go to rebuild the F-40s from the ground up, giving them 15 to 20 more years' of service. Tracks and other infrastructure will also be improved.
Quebec and Manitoba have also announced plans to improve rail infrastructure in their provinces, which will help improve on-time performance, Mr. Andrews said.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 13,312
- Reaction score
- 12,135
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Would you believe it? VIA's already spending some of the money announced by the Conservatives - to rebuild its older locomotives.
Montreal firm signs Via train deal
Montreal firm signs Via train deal
Full article