News   Jun 25, 2024
10 Storeys Proposed to Float Over Annex Heritage Building
 1.2K     1 
News   Jun 25, 2024
Madison's Alias Ascending with Height Bump into Downtown Skies
 957     0 
News   Jun 25, 2024
How Toronto Is Responding as the Fastest Growing City in North America
 1.6K     3 

VIA Rail

@cplchanb

One of the most interesting things to watch has been the reaction to the Infra Bank. Both the left and the right hate the idea. And I'm actually stunned that I have to explain to friends and strangers why it's a good plan. You get a ton of, "Why can't government just borrow and build more?"

Ugh. Because that strategy has been so successful for the last three decades? If this falls through, I'm seriously going to consider leaving this country. It'll be clear Canadians can't even take baby steps towards the future. And economic decline is all but sure to follow. Without this bank, all the stuff needed to be competitive in the 21st century, like HSR, smart energy grids and fibre networks aren't happening.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
I wish VIA would start up a summer motorcycle program. I'd love to have my motorcycle and myself transported to a distant Ontario rail stop, then I ride around for a couple of days and get back on the train for the return to TO. They do this elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Great Southern Railway (Australia) actually does this for the world famous Ghan and Indian Pacific routes: http://www.greatsouthernrail.com.au/fares-and-timetables/motorail. I want to drive across country but I have no interest in driving back and the auto train would be a nice complaint to the journey.

VIA rail should consider this for their summer trips once a week on the Ocean and Canadian routes for a trial run. The major issue I see is loading the cars. There's no way you could load at Union or Pacific Central Stations. So a suburban station like Bloomington GO could be helpful for VIA to load suburban cars and some travellers who don't want to make the trip downtown. Have sliding to load and be ready well before the train arrives. The locomotives break off, connect the auto train, connect back to the Canadian, and continue out west.
 
steveintoronto said:
Today's NatPost:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...-stop-politicking-support-infrastructure-bank
Click to expand...

Really happy to see VIA HFR mentioned. It would be a really exciting project, that has the potential to really improve the cultural and business links between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City. Fingers are crossed for electrification, but the number quoted in the article is $5.5 billion. This means $4 billion for tracks, $1.5 billion for a new fleet, and not the additional $2 billion for electrification (according to this). Despite wanting it to be electrified, I understand that $2 billion could be better spent on various other projects.

If this project is approved and the tracks to Peterborough are substantially upgraded, I wonder how long until we would see GO service to Peterborough, considering it has been previously studied. Or, I wonder if VIA wouldn't want GO competing on its tracks. Additionally, I really want to see how the project will be planned out within the GTA. How will it interact with CP on the Midtown Line? Will there be a Markham Station to serve York Region? Also, frequent trains on the Don Branch and through the Don Valley will be a surprise to many people. Overall, I am really hopeful for HFR.
 
alexanderglista said:
Or, I wonder if VIA wouldn't want GO competing on its tracks.
Click to expand...
The tracks won't be owned by VIA, but by a private consortium. VIA would be the prime tenant and operator. And would almost inevitably work *with* GO to allow interlining local service with HFR (mostly) going express from Peterborough into Toronto.

And now for the big question: Would those be GO trains, or these? (Note these are the property of SNCF, the national rail company, and completely operable on main-line 25kV AC lines)

SNCF orders tram-trains for Paris Line T4
Tram-train


A U 25500 between Bondy and Remise à Jorelle during the pre-inaugural trials. We can clearly see the train's ballasted tracks, which are unlike most tram rails. The line is a hybrid between a tramway and a train line.
Line 4 of the Île-de-France tramway was inaugurated on Saturday, 18 November 2006, and was free of charge the entire weekend. Its true commercial operation began the morning of 20 November 2006.

The T4 is the Île-de-France network's fourth line and France's first tram-train line.[5] It is the first of its kind to be operated by the SNCF. Unlike the other Île-de-France tramway lines, which are operated by the RATP, this line is operated by the SNCF, which may seem surprising. The SNCF left the ligne des Coteux (now T2), which was then in disrepair and highly unprofitable, to the RATP during the 1990s.

The SNCF's policy was to concentrate on heavy fluxes of passengers and thus on heavy rail transit. The success of tramway networks and the increasing popularity of peri-urban transportation made the SNCF change its focus.

There are no plans to extend the line to Noisy-le-Sec. This would allow passengers to reach this multimodal hub and connect with the T1, the RER E (both the Tournan and Chelles-Gournay branches), the Tangentielle Nord, and a fortiori toward Paris.

The RATP's expansion of the T2 from Puteaux to La Défense on existing roadbeds contributed to the enormous success of that line. Despite this, the ability to operate with a 25 kV catenary is needed to reach the Noisy-le-Sec depot. The trains' dual-current abilities (25 kV / 750 V) are not used, since the entire line is powered in 25 kV.

The line is used by fifteen tram-train cars, which run on the right[9] as mandated by the Code of Conduct.[10] It takes nineteen minutes to travel the eight-kilometre line. As stated in its regulations, the cars and stations are carefully analyzed to make them easily accessible for the disabled. [...]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Île-de-France_tramway_Line_4

And the latest tram-train set?
Alstom Citadis, a variant of which the Spirit is, which Metrolinx just ordered a tranche of:
ALSTOM confirmed on January 5 that French National Railways (SNCF) has placed a €75m order on behalf of Ile-de-France transport authority STIF for 15 Citadis Dualis tram-trains for the €270m extension of Paris Line T4 from Gargan to Montfermeil.

The 100km/h vehicles will be assembled at Alstom's Valenciennes plant in northern France and deliveries will begin in October 2017. The fleet will enter service in 2019. The order is part of a framework contract which was signed by Alstom, SNCF, the French regions in 2007.

The expansion of Line T4 involves constructing a 6.5km branch off the initial Bondy - Aulnay-sous-Bois section from a junction at Gargan. The branch will have 11 stations, including an interchange with the future Grand Paris Express metro Line 16 at Clichy-Montfermeil. Daily ridership is forecast to be around 37,000, and around 30% of journeys will be through trips from Line 16.

As part of the project the existing section of Line T4, which opened in 2006, will be upgraded and adapted for the new tram-trains.
Click to expand...
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/light-rail/sncf-orders-tram-trains-for-paris-line-t4.html
 
i think they are making a big mistake with not taking the opportunity to electrify....fossil fuel propulsion for a mainline is really obsolete...only N america still relies on diesel for their core passenger services. All other developed countries have switched to electric and the benefits that result. admittedly im not sure if their current electrical infrastructure can support such a conversion, but they need to do it asap or face falling even farther behind the rest of the world
 
kEiThZ said:
Ugh. Because that strategy has been so successful for the last three decades? If this falls through, I'm seriously going to consider leaving this country. It'll be clear Canadians can't even take baby steps towards the future. And economic decline is all but sure to follow. Without this bank, all the stuff needed to be competitive in the 21st century, like HSR, smart energy grids and fibre networks aren't happening.
Click to expand...

True, but the list of "more sensible" countries that you might want to move to might be pretty short. The countries that do infrastructure well don't do other things well. Or, their taxation regime is even harsher. Canada is still pretty high on the list of livable countries.... infrastructure policy aside.

cplchanb said:
i think they are making a big mistake with not taking the opportunity to electrify....fossil fuel propulsion for a mainline is really obsolete...only N america still relies on diesel for their core passenger services. All other developed countries have switched to electric and the benefits that result. admittedly im not sure if their current electrical infrastructure can support such a conversion, but they need to do it asap or face falling even farther behind the rest of the world
Click to expand...

If the Bank works, this is exactly why we need it. Instead of rationales proposed by politicians - which are short sighted and narrowly focussed to be 'sexy' to some constituency - the value proposition of a project is based on its economic value (captured as revenue) over the longer haul.

I can't see electrification being part of a "traditional" government-funded megaproject, because it's an avoidable cost in the short term. Pitched to the taxpayer, it looks like an extravagance. But we know the long term value is there. The Bank may enable it.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Canada is still pretty high on the list of livable countries.... infrastructure policy aside.
Click to expand...

That livability will tank if something isn't done about infrastructure. The GTA is going to add another million residents in the next 10-15 years. Think about what that's going to be like without substantial investment in transit and transport infrastructure. What happens to air fares as Pearson airport gets more crowded and starts prioritizing international travel? And what does that mean in turn for intra-national and intra-provincial connectivity? Like I said, I think if this bank fails, it's an indication that Canada will be a laggard in the next decade....beyond whatever is already forecast (with the prognostication that 40-50% of recent GDP growth came from real estate).

Personally, don't mind a job in California. At least the Americans make up for their lack of infrastructure with better pay. In Canada, you get a lower wage and and a currency worth 30% less. And the crappier weather only makes the lack of infrastructure even more impactful. I've got a few years left in my military career. We're already starting to discuss this as a family and weigh the pros and cons. How this infrastructure bank goes is actually weighing into my decision.
 
crs1026 said:
True, but the list of "more sensible" countries that you might want to move to might be pretty short. The countries that do infrastructure well don't do other things well. Or, their taxation regime is even harsher. Canada is still pretty high on the list of livable countries.... infrastructure policy aside.



If the Bank works, this is exactly why we need it. Instead of rationales proposed by politicians - which are short sighted and narrowly focussed to be 'sexy' to some constituency - the value proposition of a project is based on its economic value (captured as revenue) over the longer haul.

I can't see electrification being part of a "traditional" government-funded megaproject, because it's an avoidable cost in the short term. Pitched to the taxpayer, it looks like an extravagance. But we know the long term value is there. The Bank may enable it.

- Paul
Click to expand...

hindsight speaking i really wished canada did this bank thing back in the 60s. if you look at norway they have almost a trillion dollars saved, free from political interference.
what is the current balance saved in this bank currently btw? i havent been reading much about it lately but who controls where the money goes?
 
cplchanb said:
hindsight speaking i really wished canada did this bank thing back in the 60s. if you look at norway they have almost a trillion dollars saved, free from political interference.
what is the current balance saved in this bank currently btw? i havent been reading much about it lately but who controls where the money goes?
Click to expand...

I am not sure the bank is going to survive an election if they don't get some quick wins in. Having it earlier would have just seen far more resistance when our infrastructure gap was smaller. Other countries have gone further down the privatization route than Canada has. And as a result have been able to unleash capital to invest more. That's never a popular view though.

For example, the 407. Government could never have set tolls as high as the private operator. But those high tolls are set at a point which maximizes traffic flow and minimizes damage to the road surface, guaranteeing maximum profit. Were that highway in provincial hands, there would have been incredible pressure to have low tolls to the point where people would treat it like a regular highway, not an express toll highway. The result would be congestion they'd be paying for and less profit for the government. The only question in my mind is whether government got good value for the sale.
 
kEiThZ said:
For example, the 407. Government could never have set tolls as high as the private operator.
Click to expand...

Similar for Chicago with parking. They sold off the rights to all on-street parking to a company that promptly tripled the rates (on average) in changing to a pricing model that targets 1 to 2 empty spots per block. Government couldn't raise rates without massive complaints; now it's out of their hands.

By all accounts, finding a parking space isn't nearly as challenging now; but you might pay $4/hour.


The ideal solution in these cases would probably be an independent not-for-profit (like GTAA) to implement a commercial pricing system but keep profits in house through an annual donation to TTC or street rebuilds or something..
 
@rbt

Examples abound. There's a few cases where privatization doesn't make sense. And I'd argue that's where government has a natural monopoly. Like the utilites. But even here, I don't see how government doesn't get into trouble when consumers expect the government to interfere with the rate setting mechanism to the detriment of the long term health of the infrastructure. Ontario Hydro is a great example.

I, for one, hope they can get construction on the HFR proposal well under way before the next election. 2019 isn't that far off given the process. And if by chance Bernier wins, the bank is toast and all its proposed projects with it.
 
I am really wondering how they phase this thing and who pays for what. GO owns the tracks in Toronto. VIA owns the Ottawa-Montreal corridor. I can't see GO transferring their corridors to the bank's consortium. So the investors just get loan repayments? Or do they ownership of rail corridors?
 
kEiThZ said:
I am really wondering how they phase this thing and who pays for what. GO owns the tracks in Toronto. VIA owns the Ottawa-Montreal corridor. I can't see GO transferring their corridors to the bank's consortium. So the investors just get loan repayments? Or do they ownership of rail corridors?
Click to expand...

In terms of ownership:
  • Metrolinx owns the Union Station Rail Corridor (won't require new ownership)
  • Metrolinx owns the Richmond Hill Line (won't require new ownership)
  • Metrolinx owns the Don Branch (most likely will be sold to consortium, or running right will be given)
  • CP owns the Mid Toronto Line (most likely a new track will be laid besides existing ones, but let's debate this here)
  • CP owns the Havelock Sub (to Havelock via Peterborough) (CP will most likely sell this and lease back track time)
  • VIA owns Smiths Falls - Ottawa - (almost to) Montreal
  • I have no idea for Montreal to Quebec City
From what we've heard so far, Toronto to Quebec City is Phase 1, with VIA looking at Toronto-Windsor for Phase 2, however this second phase may change if high speed rail is implemented.
 
alexanderglista said:
In terms of ownership:
  • Metrolinx owns the Union Station Rail Corridor (won't require new ownership)
  • Metrolinx owns the Richmond Hill Line (won't require new ownership)
  • Metrolinx owns the Don Branch (most likely will be sold to consortium, or running right will be given)
  • CP owns the Mid Toronto Line (most likely a new track will be laid besides existing ones, but let's debate this here)
  • CP owns the Havelock Sub (to Havelock via Peterborough) (CP will most likely sell this and lease back track time)
  • VIA owns Smiths Falls - Ottawa - (almost to) Montreal
  • I have no idea for Montreal to Quebec City
From what we've heard so far, Toronto to Quebec City is Phase 1, with VIA looking at Toronto-Windsor for Phase 2, however this second phase may change if high speed rail is implemented.
Click to expand...
Be aware of this in the Transportation Act:

[...]
Running Rights and Joint Track Usage
Marginal note:Application by railway company
  • 138 (1) A railway company may apply to the Agency for the right to
    • (a) take possession of, use or occupy any land belonging to any other railway company;

    • (b) use the whole or any portion of the right-of-way, tracks, terminals, stations or station grounds of any other railway company; and

    • (c) run and operate its trains over and on any portion of the railway of any other railway company.
    [...]
  • Application may be granted
    (2) The Agency may grant the right and may make any order and impose any conditions on either railway company respecting the exercise or restriction of the rights as appear just or desirable to the Agency, having regard to the public interest.
    • Marginal note:Compensation
      (3) The railway company shall pay compensation to the other railway company for the right granted and, if they do not agree on the compensation, the Agency may, by order, fix the amount to be paid.
    Marginal note:Request for joint or common use of right-of-way
    • 139 (1) The Governor in Council may
      • (a) on the application of a railway company, a municipal government or any other interested person, or on the Governor in Council’s own initiative, and

      • (b) after any investigation that the Governor in Council considers necessary,
      request two or more railway companies to consider the joint or common use of a right-of-way if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that its joint or common use may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rail transport and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies.

    • Marginal note:Order in Council for joint or common use of right-of-way
      (2) If the Governor in Council is satisfied that significant efficiencies and cost savings would result from joint or common use of the right-of-way by two or more railway companies and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies, the Governor in Council may make any order for the joint or common use of the right-of-way that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

    • Marginal note:Compensation
      (3) The Governor in Council may also, by order, fix the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the joint or common use of the right-of-way and any related work if the companies do not agree on the amount of that compensation.
      [...]

  • http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-20.html
The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act states similar.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top