News   Nov 27, 2024
 384     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
 567     0 
News   Nov 26, 2024
 1.4K     1 

VIA Rail

So as you can see, all HSR studies, even the Ecotrains one, projected that intercity rail can be profitable in Canada.
VIA's prime corridor is, as is Amtrak's NEC, profitable as it is. Improvements could only add to that.

Via Rail’s first-quarter profit triples after service cuts
MONTREAL
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...t-triples-after-service-cuts/article12260462/

Via Rail profit triples to $11M
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/via-rail-profit-triples-to-11m-1.1391346

The question isn't about whether the federal government is motivated to build HSR to relieve Pearson, it's whether the federal government is motivated to build HSR for a list of reasons that just got one item longer.
The Feds certainly weren't the ones espousing that as a policy, it was obviously Queen's Park, and the Pearson people had best pucker up and get their principles polished. Throwing around terms like "HSR" is counterproductive. I liked "HFR+" but Paul came up with something even better, and that's "HxR" (leaving the parameters open to anything at or between HFR and HSR).

Can it be profitable as an element of the Pearson Hub? Absolutely, the business case is already extant. It's the application of the principle that's still open to planning interpretation.

I think the Investment/Infrastructure Bank just might have a proposal along those lines in the works.
 
As I have said before, VIA should try to transform itself from a rail system to a transport system that encompasses both rail and buses..........rail for the primary corridors and buses for local connections.

Right now it s impossible for anyone, for example, to take the VIA from St.Thomas a city of 40,000. St.Thomas actually borders the city of London but there is no local or regional transit between the 2 so taking VIA requires a 20 km taxi fare to London VIA. Someone going from Sarnia station to Chatham a distance of just 80km requires taking the near non-existent train from Sarnia to London and then back to Chatham creating a 200km route and several hours longer than a car for such a short distance. The 40,000 in Leamington/Kingsville can't get to Windsor or anywhere else.

VIA should operate very few lines but increase those ridership numbers on those lines by having regional bus connectors which could also serve as viable commuter bus system. This also allows for convenient and time saving service by coordinating the buses with the VIA trains at the next major station. This would result in more frequent service on the train routes due to it opening up literally millions of new customers, provide far more frequent and cost effective service to smaller towns/cities, and in some circumstances provide viable commuter service. This could also mean little hick town stops could be closed as buses would provide service to the next major VIA station allowing for fewer stations and faster and more reliable train service.

Someone should be able to buy a VIA ticket in St.Thomas to get to Midland via VIA only service with none of this huge gap times, non-existent service, and endless line-ups and transfers. This is no different from a local transit system where you don't have to line up and buy a different ticket every time you go from the bus to the streetcar to the subway,

To be effective, transportation must be viewed as a system and not just a bunch of different lines.
 
Last edited:
The above also gets rid of the problem of having to take a bus {where it's optional} from another company to the nearby VIA train station which often can be blocks apart or even more.
 
that assertion is not explicitly supported by either piece linked above. The 1Q2013 results (to which these pieces refer) show an operating loss before subsidy of $89m, and the Corridor East is only reported by revenue and not net profit/loss.
http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/our-company/quarterly-reports/2013-first-quarter/mda
Half right, the NEC is reported by profit (or surplus) and is detailed and ostensibly debunked here:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-fra...the-northeast-corridor-really-profitable.aspx

I'm quite familiar with the debate. As with every mode of transit, one has to examine the real costs, and are highway costs included in a bus company's costs and subtracted from the ostensible profit margin?

But you are correct, an operating profit does not include the subsidy, hidden or otherwise, all depending on how it's shown on the ledger sheet.

To quote the linked discussion:
[...]So is Boardman right? Go to page APP-19. It shows Acela Express revenues of $450 million and after all direct and indirect expenses, a profit of $105 million, for a profit margin of 23 percent. Other NEC trains show a loss of $43 million on revenues of $470 million. Well, 23 percent is not the same as 40 percent. But as Boardman says, taken together, the NEC trains covered all their direct and indirect costs, with $61 million left over.

The results are better if you call up the March 2011 “Monthly Performance Report,” covering the first seven months of fiscal 2011. The Acela Express enjoys a profit margin of 31 percent, the rest of the NEC breaks even (almost), and the corridor as a whole is $71 million to the good. So while Amtrak’s boss exaggerates the Acela’s profit margin a tad, he’s correct in the larger sense. Give Joe a passing grade of B.[...]
 
Just had a 'what-if' moment, and I freely admit this would be better posed in the GO strings, but it could have huge impact on VIA and other national rail issues. Plus this forum hosts more pragmatically driven posters (the political ideology is pronounced in the GO strings).

What if: Bruce McCuaig has left as CEO of GO for the Investment Bank as an advisor. This is notable to rail infrastructure, obviously.

But what if: The plan is to take Metrolinx PPP? (Public Private Partnership) and McCuaig's move is being driven as much by QP as it is by the Feds?

Maybe this thought will strike me as ridiculous later, but at this moment, the scenario fits...especially at a time when QP is starting to say "no" to Toronto for endlessly repeated requests for financing. QP's answer will be very simple and convenient: "Submit it to the Investment Bank". And by extension....and this could get very interesting, a different division of the same consortium shell would own the new HFR RoW, and thus integration into GO's operations by VIA would be far more seamless and efficient, even though VIA would run their operating division separately from GO.

Hmmmmm....comments welcome.
 
And yet everything you post says the opposite.

I want a Lamborghini for Christmas. Just because I am realistic about the prospects of getting one, doesn't mean that I don't like Lamborghinis and wouldn't be happy to get one.

You, on the other hand, think a fleet of Lamborghinis will solve every problem your hood has. And how dare anyone question the likelihood that we might not all get Lambos and that we'll still have traffic on main street if we all have Lambos.

You've constantly criticized VIA's HFR plans as insufficient. I think it's our only shot of getting rail improvements in our life time. HSR is no good to me if it happens 30 years from now.
 
Last edited:
As I have said before, VIA should try to transform itself from a rail system to a transport system that encompasses both rail and buses..........rail for the primary corridors and buses for local connections.

Is this even possible with bus falling into provincial and municipal jurisdictions? When I lived in Ottawa I always thought it was ridiculous that the Ottawa Bus Terminal was located at a ridiculous spot downtown. It wasn't on the Transitway. Long term parking was crap. Meanwhile, the VIA station was on the Transitway. Had loads of parking and was already being used as a bus stop for private buses (like airline shuttles to Montreal).

You're right. This is exactly as should it be. Even if VIA doesn't run the buses, I should be able to get off at a stop and have bus services available there and coordinated with train timings.

It will be interesting to see how HFR changes things. For example, Greyhound as a monopoly on Ottawa bus routes. Still ~$50 a ticket. And since the travel time difference is only 1 hr and Greyhounds start or terminate near transit in Toronto, there's a good market for Greyhound. Greyhound may face massive loss of market share if HFR is priced right. But only if the price is right. Today, VIA charges anywhere from 10% to 100% more for what amounts to a 20% time savings at best (sometimes slower than the bus). My worry about private financing in this venture is that it forces up ticket prices. Ideally, HFR should be killing most long haul bussing in the corridor with the bus operators largely operating spokes at rail terminals.
 
But what if: The plan is to take Metrolinx PPP? (Public Private Partnership) and McCuaig's move is being driven as much by QP as it is by the Feds?
.

My reaction - it was a lovely afternoon for sitting on the deck and enjoying a couple glasses of a nice Pelee Pinot Noir. I stopped at two, but others may have drained the bottle.

There is no evidence that QP ie Wynne feels ML is out of control and needs a dose of financial structure. Quite the opposite - QP is happy to let ML throw money at things. It gives the Premier and Minister plenty of photo ops. ML has too much money, I agree, and they are badly organized and are not getting best value for money - but why would Wynne et al draw attention to that? In politics you have to manufacture the crisis before you impose the rescue.

And, QP has no shame about financing transit from the public purse.

If that concern were out there, and we missed it - the last thing one would do is 'promote' the CEO who oversaw the financial indiscretions and set them up to guide the recovery. You would fire the guy (the court of public opinion demands public floggings) and then introduce a knight on a white horse to turn things around.

Whether one likes McQuaig or not, I suspect he won the job on the merits of his credentials. If his roots in Ontario transit bodes well for Ontario project proposals, great..... but I can't see a clever conspiracy in this. Ottawa doesn't have depth in understanding transit, he has a background in that, and he has worked amicably on Liberal agendas. Good fit.

More likely he has found a safe landing spot before Brown arrives to fire up the fan. That's reading the tea leaves, not QP pulling strings. Brown may push for financial rigour, but it's too late for Wynne to propose that.

- Paul
 
There shouldn't be any need for (direct) government incentives to move to satellite cities. And besides, our economy today is much more fragmented, with more jobs created by smaller businesses. This makes specific incentives less and less effective. We wouldn't be creating bedroom communities - we'd be bringing the GTA into stagnating industrial towns. For instance, a startup could be based in Brantford, paying a fraction of the rent in Liberty Village. Their staff could make site visits, negotiate with partners, and attend networking events in the GTA within an hour thanks to faster VIA/GO service (Brantford is unlikely to ever get HSR, but you get the gist). Compared to the Bay Area's horrendous housing costs and congestion, it makes the Greater Golden Horseshoe much more competitive.

The thing is, a startup is still not going to move Brantford, unless it was actually started there. It's the nature of startups. HSR/RER/etc will do nothing to bring business to those towns. What those rail improvement do though, is make longer commutes possible. If I could live in Belleville and work in Toronto, of course I would. Cheaper housing. On a Toronto paycheque. Places like London, Belleville and Peterborough would boom from the influx of middle class professionals. And in time of course, that revitalization might actually lead to more home-grown industry. I've argued that this is exactly why London needs HSR to Toronto. But I think its deceptive to sell HSR as some magic economic bullet. And the risk in doing that, is that when HSR inevitably fails to deliver to over-expectations, the public will become cynical.

As for competing with the Bay Area, ha ha! That's all I can say as somebody who is living 2 hrs outside the Bay Area for the next two years. The Bay Area is competitive not because of its transport infrastructure (which is horrendous as you said), but because of the entire ecosystem which enables technical entrepreneurship. We don't have that in Canada. I know, because I was part of startup that won a competition at MARS only to watch it wither cause we just couldn't get funding unless we offered to move the company to the Bay Area. But that's a whole other discussion....
 
There is no evidence that QP ie Wynne feels ML is out of control and needs a dose of financial structure. Quite the opposite - QP is happy to let ML throw money at things.
But that's exactly the point. It has to end. Ontario is virtually tapped fiscally. So how do you continue providing for the insatiable masses with empty coffers? Continue borrowing? Or put expenditure off the ledgers by involving private finance?

Think Ontario Hydro.Many other nations are decades ahead of Canada in selling off assets to build new ones. And their standard of living and GDP per capita is higher.

And the Feds are not in that much better shape, but are in a much better one in terms of underwriting debt, and getting the best credit terms possible because of it. Canada has an admitted 'Infrastructure Deficit' compared to other developed nations at this time, and thus Canadian Pension and other Funds are investing vasts amounts of money oversees. I trust this is accepted and understood?

The funding model has to move towards *user pay* much more, as Canadians are tight with their money. Nowhere makes that case more than Toronto. They want the world in transit infrastructure spending, and yet refuse to pay for it.

There are pages on this, I've posted only the first seven Google hits:

Crisis and Opportunity: Time for a National Infrastructure Plan for ...
canada2020.ca/crisis-opportunity-time-national-infrastructure-plan-canada/
Oct 1, 2014 - It will then review current estimates of the size of Canada's infrastructure deficit, followed by an examination of how the federal government's ...
Government alone can't fix Canada's infrastructure deficit - The Globe ...
www.theglobeandmail.com › Opinion
Dec 5, 2014 - Canada's current infrastructure deficit is estimated to be somewhere ... Canada's life and health insurance companies can offer a solution: We ...
To fix Canada's infrastructure, billions are just drops in the bucket - CBC
www.cbc.ca/news/.../canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3206550
Aug 27, 2015 - Over the years, governments at all levels have been reluctant to take on debt and to run deficits in order to put money into projects that ...
InfrastructureStrengthening public infrastructure - FCM - Infrastructure
www.fcm.ca › Issues
Feb 3, 2017 - Across Canada, local governments own nearly 60 per cent of public infrastructure. They've consistently shown that they can get shovels in the ...
Understanding Canada's Municipal Infrastructure Deficit - CNW
www.newswire.ca/.../understanding-canadas-municipal-infrastructure-deficit-5348039...
"Canada's massive municipal infrastructure deficit is undermining the prosperity and competitiveness of the nation," said AMO President Reycraft. Responding to ...
The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card
canadianinfrastructure.ca/en/index.html
Municipal infrastructure gets people and goods moving, provides safe drinking water, handles our waste, creates spaces for sport and recreation, and helps ...
Long Overdue: Assessing the State of Canada's Infrastructure Deficit ...
https://ppgreview.ca/.../long-overdue-assessing-the-state-of-canadas-infrastructure-def...
Feb 6, 2017 - Most recently, the Trudeau government proposed a 120 billion dollar plan to respond to Canada's infrastructure deficit. While the plan appears ...
 
It's quite rational to suggest that Ontario ought to seek funds from the IB, yes. It may well happen with time.

But I can't see how this could be retrofitted onto any of ML's current projects. Nor do I think Mr McQuaig is going to Ottawa as the result of an agenda to that end.

QP has promised quite a raft of things including electrification, RER, and LRT lines. QP has promised to fund these. QP has already articulated a business case for these. It is nice that Ottawa is offering after the fact to chip in funding from Infrastructure program spending, but it's another thing to have to go back and adjust the business case for them. What if they don't meet the rate of return or other criteria that the IB sets out? That would offer the Opposition huge opportunity to snipe.

As new projects hit the table, yes the IB may assist. Perhaps the RL or the Yonge subway extension might be packageable in this way. But other projects have left the station.

- Paul
 
QP has promised quite a raft of things including electrification, RER, and LRT lines.
Indeed, this short quote is quite telling. as it's becoming a mantra:
"The mayor has called a doubling of gas tax revenues inadequate compensation and demanded provincial Liberals boost help for Toronto.

Wynne’s ministers have fired back with long lists of past spending on the provincial capital plus future commitments including regional electric rail."
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...up-pressure-on-wynne-for-budget-billions.html

Note what's not being mentioned as well as what is. It's outside the remit of this string, but I think subways *per-se* are in for a rough ride, for funding that is. Back to that point shortly.

QP has promised to fund these. QP has already articulated a business case for these.
That's right! And QP will stick to those. And is starting to be far more emphatic about it. It's getting easier for them to say "NO". (And realistically, they don't have much choice, the penny jar is almost empty)

What if they don't meet the rate of return or other criteria that the IB sets out? That would offer the Opposition huge opportunity to snipe.
Two sides to the coin on that one. It gives them *cover* to say "NO" unless they have a political interest that outweighs the weak business case, in which case it will, as now, come out of general coffers.

As new projects hit the table, yes the IB may assist. Perhaps the RL or the Yonge subway extension might be packageable in this way
Exactly those last two...except, as per comments prior, *if they can't make a good business case" it doesn't get funded by the Bnak. And that's exactly as it should be. Like yourself, I think of ML, and I think of temples to the Gods of Queen's Park. Not the tracks or the rolling stock, but the *stations*. The term 'opulence' comes to mind. I don't see subways being built, but something much more substantial, and part of the 'greater trainset': RER. Satisfy the commuter need and build something expandable for the future. Investors think much more long-term than politicos, in all but a few rare cases. All Tory and Wynne see is an election coming.

Here's a contrast:
Wednesday, April 05, 2017
Calgary, Edmonton adopt low-floor approach
The two pioneering Canadian LRT cities, Calgary and Edmonton, located in the western province of Alberta, are both planning a major shift in their design and operating philosophies.

Edmonton, Alberta’s capital, opened its first line in 1978; Calgary followed three years later.

Both systems, from the outset, adopted high-platform boarding. Edmonton’s stations have been somewhat simple and utilitarian, for the most part, apart from those in the subway section, while Calgary’s have tended to be elaborate and expensive.

Edmonton has about three miles of subway, extending from the northwest fringe of downtown to the University of Alberta, south of the center city. This approach was quite costly, and hindered significant extension of the line for a number of years. To this day, Edmonton Transit operates one long line from the northeast to the southern sector, with a short, recently opened branch to the northwest.

Calgary, from the outset, took a different approach to contain costs, utilizing a transit mall instead of a subway in the downtown, and generally limiting tunnels to short sections. Since 1981, Calgary’s system has grown extensively, culminating in two lines that serve the northwest, northeast, western, and southern sections of the city. The system has grown from its original 8 miles to just over 37 miles.

Siemens LRVs have been the car of choice in both cities, with newer models ordered as the original models pass their 30th anniversaries.

Both cities have recently decided, since low-floor operations can be implemented at significantly lower cost, to pursue this approach on two completely new lines. These will be completely separate operations from the existing high-floor lines, although transfer will be possible. That said, both Calgary Transit and Edmonton Transit have extensions to the existing high-platform routes on the drawing boards, for future construction.

Another advantage of low-floor LRT is that it can be situated on local streets, on reserved track, with less obtrusive stations more acceptable to local residents. [...]
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...t-low-floor-approach.html?channel=&Itemid=487

Lessons there for Toronto, not the least stations. Credit to the Albertans on this. I think this kind of *sensibility* is missing from Toronto of late. Sure some of the early stations were like washrooms with the tiles and dim lighting, but they worked and worked well for years. I call that a good return on investment, and so would most investors. Good business cases make for sensible expenditure.

It's early in the game still to guess just what the I-Bank will do or not, I wonder what McCuaig can do with that mention of "HSR" in the Pearson Hub? I don't expect any rabbits out of a hat, but I do hope for a *funded* vision to at least expand the Metrolinx sphere, and in a sensible way.

Who knows? McCuaig might be glad to be out from under politicians' pointy fingers? I'd rather the beady eyed stare of an accountant than a politico wanting you to spin a lie.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, a startup is still not going to move Brantford, unless it was actually started there. It's the nature of startups. HSR/RER/etc will do nothing to bring business to those towns. What those rail improvement do though, is make longer commutes possible. If I could live in Belleville and work in Toronto, of course I would. Cheaper housing. On a Toronto paycheque. Places like London, Belleville and Peterborough would boom from the influx of middle class professionals. And in time of course, that revitalization might actually lead to more home-grown industry. I've argued that this is exactly why London needs HSR to Toronto. But I think its deceptive to sell HSR as some magic economic bullet. And the risk in doing that, is that when HSR inevitably fails to deliver to over-expectations, the public will become cynical.
I agree, and that's why any HSR initiative should be incremental in execution: upgrade lines to allow 160-200 km/h average speeds, more sidings, straighten curves, and then when even these lines become saturated by competing with freight trains, the case for a greenfield HSR line becomes much easier to sell. By that time, real estate speculators in these satellite cities will have cast their votes anyway. Maybe they can be called upon to chip in.

As for competing with the Bay Area, ha ha! That's all I can say as somebody who is living 2 hrs outside the Bay Area for the next two years. The Bay Area is competitive not because of its transport infrastructure (which is horrendous as you said), but because of the entire ecosystem which enables technical entrepreneurship. We don't have that in Canada. I know, because I was part of startup that won a competition at MARS only to watch it wither cause we just couldn't get funding unless we offered to move the company to the Bay Area. But that's a whole other discussion....
If my own startup gets off the ground I'll soon by joining the legions of people trekking between Toronto, KW, and London. I'll try to overcome the lack of angel investors by starting small and building up. The Canadian way.
 

Back
Top