VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

VIA High Frequency Rail: Details emerge

Very well researched and written.

David Thomas is a reporter who has covered government and society since graduating from Ottawa’s Carleton University with degrees in political science and journalism. He has written for National Geographic, Maclean’s, The Globe and Mail, The Gazette, and The Canadian Press news agency from postings in Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, and London, England. “Railroading has been a personal fascination since a childhood timed fortunately enough to witness the golden years of steam on the late-to-dieselize Canadian National and Canadian Pacific,” he says.

 

[aquateam]

Digging to find more technical detail on the CRRC passenger upper deck/freight lower, and tripped across this: (This applies as much to MOOSE as it does HFR and Brightline)

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/light-rail/work-starts-on-maryland-purple-line-ppp-project.html

Anyone claiming that public transit must always be government owned and run is not availed by the facts.

From the article:

The Purple Line is being built for Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Maryland Transit Administration (MTA).

So the situation is exactly like with the Eglinton crosstown: a private company is building/operating the line but it's still paid for and owned by a government agency.

 

[steveintoronto]

So the situation is exactly like with the Eglinton crosstown: a private company is building/operating the line but it's still paid for and owned by a government agency.

Not "exactly like", Crosstown is going to be operated by the TTC:

In 2016, the MTA selected the Purple Line Transit Partners, a consortium led by Fluor Enterprises, to design and build the Purple Line and to operate and maintain it for 36 years.[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Maryland)

It's much closer to the Crossrail model:

The entire Purple Line project is projected to cost $1.93 billion. Half of the money for construction costs — $962 million — is supposed to come from the federal government. The other half would come from the state.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...-in-maryland/2011/10/07/gIQAoJz3TL_story.html

Although in the Crossrail model, both TfL and the national Transport Ministry were equal partners who formed a corporation, of which they were both shareholders. The P3 definition is flexible.

The Purple line is not "run" by the governments, it is privately run, thus my claim: "Anyone claiming that public transit must always be government owned and run is not availed by the facts."

Australia, for instance, has many privately run transit orgs, but government owned infrastructure.

[...]
Our history
Keolis has a history stretching back more than 135 years. It is the world's largest tram network operator and has an annual turnover of 3.4 billion Euro. Keolis is established in 15 countries across the world and is a major rail operator in Europe and the USA, with more than 5700 kilometres currently under management.

In addition to rail their intermodal logistics expertise extends to the management of a bus and coach fleet of nearly 19,000 vehicles. These combined operations transport 2.5 billion passengers annually, with 54,400 employees worldwide, including over 30,000 drivers.

Downer EDI Rail operates 30 maintenance facilities, manufacturing centres and design centres throughout Australia. Downer EDI Rail and its parent company Downer EDI have considerable experience in managing transitions, including Pacific National, Freight Victoria and Australian Rail Track Corporation. Downer EDI Rail successfully managed the introduction of 35 Millennium train sets for RailCorp NSW, successfully transitioned 31 Urban Rail Train sets in Western Australia and has managed the Pacific National contract to maintain 320 locomotives using five maintenance depots in four states.

Keolis Downer came together with the express aim of becoming a public transport operator in Melbourne after the Victorian Government initiated an international public transport tender for the Melbourne Tram Franchise. [...]

http://www.yarratrams.com.au/about-us/who-we-are/

 

[aquateam]

Not "exactly like", Crosstown is going to be operated by the TTC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Maryland)

It's much closer to the Crossrail model:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...-in-maryland/2011/10/07/gIQAoJz3TL_story.html

Although in the Crossrail model, both TfL and the national Transport Ministry were equal partners who formed a corporation, of which they were both shareholders. The P3 definition is flexible.

Eglinton is privately maintained, and was originally going to be privately operated but that changed after some outcry.

The point is that nowhere in the world is there a transit line that pays for itself. And in North America it is almost impossible to recover operating costs, let alone capital costs, let alone make a profit. There is a reason that every private transit operator declared bankruptcy and had to be taken over by the government in the mid 20th century.

It is ultimately the government/taxpayer who is funding any of these transit lines, no matter how convoluted the financing becomes. Involving private partners usually accomplishes three things: 1) shifts direct debt off the government books into contractual obligations; 2) circumvents unions for operating the new lines; or 3) makes the government look "leaner" and more "innovative," even if net costs are greater than if they did it themselves and cut out the middle men and their requirements for a fixed rate of return.

The Purple line is not "run" by the governments, it is privately run, thus my claim: "Anyone claiming that public transit must always be government owned and run is not availed by the facts."

Australia, for instance, has many privately run transit orgs, but government owned infrastructure.

http://www.yarratrams.com.au/about-us/who-we-are/

I never claimed transit services couldn't be privately operated. You wrote "Anyone claiming that public transit must always be government owned and run is not availed by the facts" and then gave an example of a publicly owned line.

 

[steveintoronto]

The point is that nowhere in the world is there a transit line that pays for itself.

Then I suggest you read back. That claim was made by Keithz, and I posted a list of many.

I never claimed transit services couldn't be privately operated. You wrote "Anyone claiming that public transit must always be government owned and run is not availed by the facts" and then gave an example of a publicly owned line.

I think best you read it again.

Meantime:

The Unique Genius of Hong Kong's Public Transportation System

The use of a clever financing system has enabled the territory to provide world-class service—without breaking the bank.

Take Hong Kong for example: The Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation, which manages the subway and bus systems on Hong Kong Island and, since 2006, in the northern part of Kowloon, is considered the gold standard for transit management worldwide. In 2012, the MTR produced revenue of 36 billion Hong Kong Dollars (about U.S $5 billion)—turning a profit of $2 billion in the process. Most impressively, the farebox recovery ratio (the percentage of operational costs covered by fares) for the system was 185 percent, the world's highest. Worldwide, these numbers are practically unheard of—the next highest urban ratio, Singapore, is a mere 125 percent.

In addition to Hong Kong, the MTR Corporation runs individual subway lines in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen in China, two lines in the London Underground, and the entire Melbourne and Stockholm systems. And in Hong Kong, the trains provide services unseen in many other systems around the world: stations have public computers, wheelchair and stroller accessibility (and the space within the train to store them), glass doors blocking the tracks, interoperable touch-and-go fare payment (which also works as a debit card in local retail), clear and sensible signage, and, on longer-distance subways, first-class cars for people who are willing to pay extra for a little leg space.

How can Hong Kong afford all of this? The answer is deceptively simple: “Value Capture.” [...]

https://www.theatlantic.com/china/a...ng-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/

Japan has a number of systems that show profit, they exist. And we have to learn from them. To bring this all back to the HFR proposal, it *can* and *will* break even if not show a profit. It just might not be owned by the Government of Canada though, albeit probably leased to VIA to operate.

Edit to Add: Further Googling shows transit investment being featured on many right of centre investment sites and blogs, but here's from the World Bank:

[...]Most metro systems around the world are unable to cover their operating costs with fare box revenues, let alone fund capital expenditures. According to data from international benchmarking programs CoMET and Nova, tariff revenues cover an average 75% of operating costs, while other commercial revenues provide about 15%, resulting in an operating deficit of 10%. Similarly, a back of the envelope exercise that we conducted for Latin American metro companies showed that these had an average operating deficit of 10% in 2012. When including capital expenditures, this deficit grew to 30%. There are of course examples of metro systems that do recoup their operating costs, such as Santiago de Chile and Hong Kong, but others like the Mexico City Metro only cover half of their operating expenses with fare revenues. We should all mind this funding gap as it is a significant impediment to maintaining service quality and addressing growing urban mobility needs.

Unfortunately, the underfunding of transit systems can become chronic as public budgets are under growing pressure and the most direct solutions for increasing revenues are hard to implement: increasing fares, for instance, has proved to be politically difficult and disproportionately affects the poor, who use public transport the most; and charging a price that fully covers the social cost of private vehicle usage (i.e., congestion charges) as a way to fund transit is also politically sensitive.

In that context, transit operators are increasingly looking at new ways to tap additional sources of commercial revenue and make up for funding shortfalls, often through agreements with the private sector. Although most examples are concentrated in developed countries, some metro systems in Latin America and the developing world are looking at ways to increase non-tariff revenues:
[...continues at length...]

http://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/mind-funding-gap-next-stop-making-some-extra-money

As I stated prior, HFR, MOOOSE, Brightline, and many other rail developments have been based on *Value Capture*. London's Metropolitan Line was based on it so much, that during the Thirties, the land to the north of London was termed "Metroland". The backers of the Metropolitan, both under the corporate name of the railway and off, bought up vast plots of land and developed it, and made it attainable by building the railway.

The Belt Line did same for Toronto, but unfortunately was eclipsed by streetcars and buses.

Transit can and does *pay for itself* in many ways. Direct farebox return ratio is merely one aspect to gauge cost, and highly misleading.

 

[cplchanb]

Then I suggest you read back. That claim was made by Keithz, and I posted a list of many.

I think best you read it again.

Meantime:

https://www.theatlantic.com/china/a...ng-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/

Japan has a number of systems that show profit, they exist. And we have to learn from them. To bring this all back to the HFR proposal, it *can* and *will* break even if not show a profit. It just might not be owned by the Government of Canada though, albeit probably leased to VIA to operate.

Edit to Add: Further Googling shows transit investment being featured on many right of centre investment sites and blogs, but here's from the World Bank:

http://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/mind-funding-gap-next-stop-making-some-extra-money

As I stated prior, HFR, MOOOSE, Brightline, and many other rail developments have been based on *Value Capture*. London's Metropolitan Line was based on it so much, that during the Thirties, the land to the north of London was termed "Metroland". The backers of the Metropolitan, both under the corporate name of the railway and off, bought up vast plots of land and developed it, and made it attainable by building the railway.

The Belt Line did same for Toronto, but unfortunately was eclipsed by streetcars and buses.

Transit can and does *pay for itself* in many ways. Direct farebox return ratio is merely one aspect to gauge cost, and highly misleading.

could it be that pride is getting in the way of finding the right people for the job? Ive always advocated that TTC/ML learn from what HK and Japan are doing since theyve been continuously proven to be a gold standard
when it comes to rail and transit, yet TTC always turns to Europe which is good, but not that good. I'm thinking that to a degree we as a N American society just cant stomach the fact that Asians are doing better than us in lesser time than weve ever done

 

[steveintoronto]

could it be that pride is getting in the way of finding the right people for the job? Ive always advocated that TTC/ML learn from what HK and Japan are doing since theyve been continuously proven to be a gold standard
when it comes to rail and transit, yet TTC always turns to Europe which is good, but not that good. I'm thinking that to a degree we as a N American society just cant stomach the fact that Asians are doing better than us in lesser time than weve ever done

Yes, as well as societal differences....and you've put your finger right on a point that's going to become far more sensitive as this moves forward:

Eastern investment in Cdn infrastructure, particularly rail and transit. If BBD was allowed to invest and make so much profit in China, how can we possibly now turn around, at a time of touting TPP and free-trade, and put up our hackles when CRRC or other Eastern consortiums invest where Western ones are too timid to tread?

HFR is so ripe for the pickings...and CRRC is so poised to pick the low-hanging fruit. Will they make an outright profit on HFR? Possibly not, but it will be a 'loss-leader' at worst for them as they crack open the Cdn market for their expertise and investment.

Canada has courted this investment. Will it be 'the wrong colour'? Time will tell...

 

[kEiThZ]

VIA High Frequency Rail: Details emerge

Read that yesterday. No actual new information sadly.

The point is that nowhere in the world is there a transit line that pays for itself. And in North America it is almost impossible to recover operating costs, let alone capital costs, let alone make a profit.

Exactly. The private sector can own, operate and manage transit and rail lines. Given the right business case. Cargo rail companies prove this everyday in North America. Passenger rail is rarely profitable in North America. Especially, if the cost of capital are taken into account. So any private sector investment into passenger rail will require tons of subsidies. At which point, the question becomes, why should the government not keep the profits for itself, to reduce the level of subsidy required? Build-Operate-Transfer? Sure. Build-Own-Operate? That seems far less likely.

It's notable that most of the "profitable" Asian rail companies have substantial real estate investments. That's not really a model that can work in North America. We don't have the urban density and government here isn't going to expropriate property just to help a rail company's business case.

And if they don't have real estate plays? Density compensates. High speed trains in Asia move as many riders on each longhaul HSR train as we do on a GO train. That is a business case that we won't have available in Canada for the foreseeable future.

This is the main reason I don't see the Chinese or Japanese consortiums applying for anything more than building the actual rail corridor and trains. For their business case to work (for financing), they'd need our government to take unprecedented actions. Subsidized expropriations to bolster the investor's business case. Zoning and regional development directed to help them. Etc. These aren't things that our governments have shown themselves capable of, to date.

 

[kEiThZ]

could it be that pride is getting in the way of finding the right people for the job? Ive always advocated that TTC/ML learn from what HK and Japan are doing since theyve been continuously proven to be a gold standard
when it comes to rail and transit, yet TTC always turns to Europe which is good, but not that good. I'm thinking that to a degree we as a N American society just cant stomach the fact that Asians are doing better than us in lesser time than weve ever done

Quite frankly. This is unsubstantiated bullshit. We turn to Europe on many issues, because the European model is quite simply more applicable to us. Similar legal frameworks. Similar cultural ideas. Etc. We can get North Americans to understand urbanization (the foundation for a lot of rail ideas) through a European context.

If you ask the average North American what they think of Asia and whether they want Asian cities, they'll recoil in horror. They don't want tiny cramped apartments and unimaginable (to them) density.

We live in a culture where housing is still discussed only in terms of the detached single family home. Housing prices are reported by that metric. Planning is largely driven by that metric. And our politics and economics are tied to the affordability of single family homes.

We can work on getting people to think like Asians after we get them to at least accept urbanity approaching that of Europe. Having visited 9 of 10 provinces in my military career, I'll say, this alone is a very, very tall order in Canada. We live in a country where people will commute a total of 3 hrs a day just to get a patch of grass that they only see on weekends. And you think they'll want to emulate Asia?

 

[steveintoronto]

It's notable that most of the "profitable" Asian rail companies have substantial real estate investments. That's not really a model that can work in North America. We don't have the urban density and government here isn't going to expropriate property just to help a rail company's business case.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...eographicus_-_LongIsland-railroadmap-1891.jpg


"Expropriate?" None of any major Cdn city's development was based on expropriation. (Edit: Halifax and Ottawa, via the NCC, excepted) It's based on zoning, both municipal and provincial. As for "that's not a model that can work here in North America"...it already has, many times. LIRR ring a bell? Many of Chicago's and Chicagoland rail and interurbans were based on it. And Toronto's Beltline.

We live in a culture where housing is still discussed only in terms of the detached single family home. Housing prices are reported by that metric. Planning is largely driven by that metric. And our politics and economics are tied to the affordability of single family homes.

Really?

Canada and Australia, with their massive land size, are considerably more urban than the US and many European nations. And the "detached market" is all but beyond the reach of the largest Cdn city urban dwellers. Ever wonder why condos are such a hot commodity?

[...]When Canadians think "highrise nation," we tend to look elsewhere, and imagine the density of Singapore, New York City or Hong Kong. Yet, Toronto's downtown St. James Town neighbourhood has a density of 63,765 people per square kilometre, compared with Hong Kong's densest district, Kwun Tong, at 57,250. And even on the outskirts of Toronto, a strip of 19 rental highrises at the north end of Etobicoke's Kipling Ave. that we've come to know well in our project holds just over 35,000 people per square kilometre. You'd never feel it driving by.[...]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ar...24697531/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

And yet on the other hand, density, contrary to the claims of Keithz and his proclamations in the MOOSE string, *even for Ottawa* are also spilling into the burbs or surrounding municipalities. From one of my favourite Globe reporters on the Infra Bank and VIA:

Bill Curry
April 14, 2017 February 8, 2017
Canada's largest cities are expanding fastest on the fringes in spite of government efforts to contain growth and encourage density.

The first wave of results from Statistics Canada's 2016 census shows the country's urbanization trend continues, but big cities are experiencing significant internal population shifts as some suburbs boom and others wane.

Statistics Canada calls the trend an "urban spread," as the overall move toward urbanization continues nationwide, but with faster growth in the suburbs. Some cities, including Toronto and Vancouver, have also seen big increases in the number of people living in the downtown core.

The new figures released Wednesday will be closely analyzed by governments at all levels. The federal government is preparing a national housing strategy with provinces and municipalities in response to public concern over the high costs of housing, particularly in Canada's largest cities. Ottawa is also finalizing its formula for transferring billions in infrastructure funding to municipalities, and the funding is expected to be based primarily on population data and transit ridership. Municipalities already receive federal gas-tax transfers that are based on population.

Provinces, meanwhile, are facing pressure from developers and the real-estate industry to ease up on zoning restrictions like Southern Ontario's Greenbelt that are aimed at curtailing urban sprawl.

The population shifts within cities will influence decisions over where municipalities should focus spending on services like libraries, policing, roads and public transit.

More than one-third of all Canadians, 35.5 per cent, live in the three largest census metropolitan areas of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. That's up slightly from 35.3 per cent in 2011. The five fastest-growing cities – Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Lethbridge – are all in Alberta or Saskatchewan.[...]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...33949353/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Article is replete with Statcan graphs and links.

Keithz' views couldn't make @cplchanb 's point any better. Canada on deNile.

 

[aquateam]

Then I suggest you read back. That claim was made by Keithz, and I posted a list of many.

I think best you read it again.

I'm going to let that sit there so the irony can be appreciated.

Meantime:

https://www.theatlantic.com/china/a...ng-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/

Japan has a number of systems that show profit, they exist. And we have to learn from them. To bring this all back to the HFR proposal, it *can* and *will* break even if not show a profit. It just might not be owned by the Government of Canada though, albeit probably leased to VIA to operate.

So in island city-states with world-record population densities, punitive automobile ownership costs, non-existant land use restrictions, and a government grant of monopoly + land, it is possible for a transit system to exist without (explicit) subsidy.

But this isn't directly applicable to North America, which continues to suburbanize, where transit mode-share is non-existant outside of large cities and stagnant within, transit ridership is declining, and Hong Kong levels of density are legally impossible.

As I stated prior, HFR, MOOOSE, Brightline, and many other rail developments have been based on *Value Capture*. London's Metropolitan Line was based on it so much, that during the Thirties, the land to the north of London was termed "Metroland". The backers of the Metropolitan, both under the corporate name of the railway and off, bought up vast plots of land and developed it, and made it attainable by building the railway.

The Belt Line did same for Toronto, but unfortunately was eclipsed by streetcars and buses.

Transit can and does *pay for itself* in many ways. Direct farebox return ratio is merely one aspect to gauge cost, and highly misleading.

Yes, historically, that's how railroads and street railroads made money, through real estate speculation. But all those examples are before they had competition from cars. The only modern example you list, the Brightline, has very shaky financials.

Don't get me wrong, I want transit to succeed. But we should stop with any Polyanna-like belief that a public benefit will materialize if only we allow the private sector to unleash itself on our abandoned railway ROWs.

 

[steveintoronto]

Rather than argue endlessly, let me address this:

Don't get me wrong, I want transit to succeed. But we should stop with any Polyanna-like belief that a public benefit will materialize if only we allow the private sector to unleash itself on our abandoned railway ROWs.

All fine and good, I'd be the first to hope for various levels of government to 'get religion'.

But where's the government money? Over to you...(Perhaps you've missed the memo on the IB's hope for Cdn pension fund participation?) So far, they're not biting. Others will. Others avid for expansion into North America's passenger market.

As for Brightline, you confuse the extension financing with the section already built.

West Palm Beach —

Construction on the 24-story residential tower rising next to Brightline’s station in downtown West Palm Beach has reached its top elevation, marking a new milestone for the project, which is slated to open next year and is designed to appeal to commuters looking for easy access to the company’s soon-to-launch passenger trains.

Brightline’s parent company, Florida East Coast Industries, on Thursday celebrated the “topping out” of the Park-Line apartment tower, a ceremonial event to commemorate the end of its vertical construction.

The 290-unit building is located just west of the Brightline station, and within walking distance of both Clematis Street and CityPlace. Its proximity to the train tracks also gives tenants a direct link to Brightline’s trains, which are expected to begin service between West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami in the coming months. [...]

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/busi...rtment-tower-tops-out/wOq9wSfqxy7L74gDiE2BrI/

See:
All Aboard’s Brightline won’t start until track upgrades finished
http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/busi...rack-upgrades-finshed/kZR8dN73q9mqGXJvDf4GwM/

Edit to Add:
Speaking of "irony" aquateam (and your inability to to parse what "and" means), for someone who appears well left of centre, you rather missed the raging NIMBYism behind a lot of the angst directed at Brightline.

From the link you posted:
[This research was supported by funding from the CARE FL]
Have you any idea who they are and who is financing them? (Avid Trumpites perhaps?)(There's a direct connection to a Senator who is one of Trump's blind followers, I won't bother getting into this, already been detailed in this string, he is suspected of corruption, amongst other things)

Our Ultimate Objective: Halting rail expansion.
Why oppose the currently proposed rail expansion?

Because we believe, based on facts and a commonsense understanding of the reality of life with trains – and waterways, causeways, draw bridges and other infrastructures that define day-to-day life in South Florida — that continued rail expansion will have a significant and negative impact on our communities. When we refer to “our communities” we mean that expansively – more than 10 million people live in and around the areas currently targeted for rail expansion.

If you’d like to reach us directly, or join us in support, please click here. [...]

http://www.saveourfl.com/

"more than 10 million people live in and around the areas currently targeted for rail expansion." lol...oh the irony...so ironic it's staining their shorts...

 

[kEiThZ]

So in island city-states with world-record population densities, punitive automobile ownership costs, non-existant land use restrictions, and a government grant of monopoly + land, it is possible for a transit system to exist without (explicit) subsidy.

Exactly. People don't get how extreme these laws are. I have Singaporean colleagues I am working with at the moment. I was shocked to learn that a Honda Civic comes to about US$100 000 after the 10 year operating permit, vehicle purchase taxes, plate taxes, etc. Similarly, the Danish colleagues I had 10 years ago were telling me that the car I had at the time (Lexus IS) would attract a 200% tax based on the engine size. This is large part of what sustains demand for rail transport in the developed countries of Asia. Along with density the average Canadian could never conceive of, and property ownership that has often been facilitated by government policy.

To suggest that any of this could be applied in Canada is patently ridiculous. Canadians aren't flocking to move to dense areas, they only do so under the duress of high property prices. As well, all our density is centred around existing urban areas. To make the property model work for an operator, they need to have a large enough area to develop and own around a station. That's simply not possible in our existing urban areas. And nobody flocks to the boonies to set up shop or live in a dense area.

But this isn't directly applicable to North America, which continues to suburbanize, where transit mode-share is non-existant outside of large cities and stagnant within, transit ridership is declining, and Hong Kong levels of density are legally impossible.

Even worse. Rail is actually an enabler of suburbanization in Canada. Think of how dense the GTA would have to be without GO Transit. It's funny to talk about trains and Asia as a model and then look at what we have here. Our suburban rail stations are surrounded by gigantic lots. And the further out they go, the larger the lots. Yet, people think rail will deliver density in the ex-urbs.

It's one of the reasons, I hope Moose fails in Ottawa. The city there has had intense debates on whether LRT should be extended outside the greenbelt. They've only done so to areas with high transit ridership. If Moose succeeds, it will undermine the entire urban planning framework of Ottawa. Now if Moose had a plan promoting densification, I'd be looking to invest....

Thanfully, with Moose, looking at Potvin's posts on SSP Ottawa, it's becoming pretty obvious, that he doesn't have much beyond trying to harass city and provincial officials. They've poked holes in Moose's business case. And if a forum can do that, I can only imagine the questions potential investors must be asking. I doubt their efforts have been fruitful. Ottawa is moving towards putting shovels in the ground for Stage 2 LRT, using the Capital Railway that Moose needs. And we not seen a single public hint that they are planning to incorporate capacity for Moose in anyway.

Yes, historically, that's how railroads and street railroads made money, through real estate speculation. But all those examples are before they had competition from cars.

And before there was any concept of regional planning either. You can't just build a town anywhere you want these days. That era has passed.

The only modern example you list, the Brightline, has very shaky financials.

Even Brightline had to rely on government loans to launch. You will never find a fully privately funded passenger rail operator in North America.

Don't get me wrong, I want transit to succeed. But we should stop with any Polyanna-like belief that a public benefit will materialize if only we allow the private sector to unleash itself on our abandoned railway ROWs.

This is exactly where I'm at. I would love to have the Chinese or Japanese or Germans or French, or whoever, come along and build infrastructure. But I don't believe they have a business case that works for them. They've even said so (complaining that our processes are slow, etc.). I take them at their word. And I'm not sure what's changed that they will actually make the business case work for them. Just imagine for example, how long, what cost, and what effort it would take a private company to put together a rail corridor for even 100 km, let alone the entire rail corridor for HFR. Unless our laws change, I can't see any company finding this to be a worthwhile activity.

Unless, they are planning to upend regional planning like Moose is, I am even okay with a private operator coming along and even taking over an abandoned ROW. But we're not seeing private operators rush to do this. And I would presume, because the business case is terrible.

 

[crs1026]

I can't imagine North America ever fully embracing the dense urban model that we see elsewhere. Our "hinterlands" are too large and too much of our population and economy is based there. One can argue in theory that one could transition say Fort McMurray to a denser footprint but let's face it - it won't happen, and why should it?
What will happen is there will be a more polarised duality - urban and rural models, one dense, one not; one nonauto but one auto dependent. But many people will want a foot in both camps. So, while we may live urban and use transit to get around our cities, which may exclude cars, many urbanites will still want to own a vehicle and make use of it when they want to get out of the city.
What this will lead to is a more complicated market reality. A greater proportion of travellers going from Toronto to Montreal will have a car available and will consider using it, compared to the "Asian" model that was cited where the travellers don't own cars and therefore that alternative is moot.
Which leads me to, we need to reconcile our own travel habits rather than pointing to Europe and Asia and saying "we should be like them".
That means, the challenge for VIA is to develop a service that is more compelling to enough drivers to fill enough trains to generate a return, or at least to justify building rail rather than adding more highways.
- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Brightline isn't just moving ahead on inter-city, it's moving into commuter rail too:

Tri-Rail expansion along Miami coast is halted for now over who would run the train

By Douglas Hanks
dhanks@miamiherald.com
August 30, 2017 6:30 AM

A state agency has halted a study needed for Tri-Rail to launch a northeast commuter line running between Miami and Aventura as local officials await a decision on who would run the trains.

The long-sought “Northeast” commuter route would run on tracks being installed for the Brightline railway that’s slated to launch service between West Palm Beach and Miami by the end of 2017. Miami-Dade had planned to subsidize Tri-Rail operating on the same tracks but serving more local stops, including Aventura and North Miami Beach.

That strategy ran into trouble recently when Brightline, a for-profit company, told Miami-Dade it might want to operate the commuter line itself, said Alice Bravo, the county’s transportation director.

She has been negotiating with Brightline and its corporate parent, Florida East Coast Industries, about how much the company would charge for Tri-Rail to use the passenger tracks installed to launch a passenger railway that’s eventually supposed to link Miami with Orlando.

Those talks have halted now that Brightline said it wants time to consider whether it would rather collect government funds for operating the commuter line to Aventura, and leave Tri-Rail out of the equation, Bravo said.


“It’s going to happen,” Bravo said of the Northeast rail line. “It’s just a matter of how.”

In a statement Wednesday, Brightline made no commitments beyond talking to Miami-Dade. “Brightline is 100 percent focused on launching express passenger rail service this year,” the company said. “We will reengage with the county to discuss this transit corridor once our system is fully operational.”
[...]
While Tri-Rail was the original plan for the Northeast, Bravo said there could be advantages to giving Brightline more time to consider just running a commuter service itself.

“Brightline offering the commuter stops — that would be a great outcome,” she said.

The Miami Central Station of Brightline is nearing final construction in some areas of the ongoing project in downtown Miami. The rail system is scheduled to start train service between WPB and Fort Lauderdale later this summer. The FTL-Miami leg is scheduled to launch in the fall.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article170116992.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article165970157.html

Edit to Add: Here's more background on the study that Aquateam linked, and how it's driven by highly politicized NIMBYs and Trump radicals congealed in CARE FL.

We see tinges of this knee-jerking in some posters in this and other strings. They're desperate to begrudge any progress on rail options:

March 27, 2017
10:28 am

Two of Florida’s biggest newspapers, the Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel, published editorials over the weekend blasting a bill proposed by State Sen. Debbie Mayfield (R-Vero Beach) that would effectively derail express rail passenger service from Miami to Orlando.

Also jumping in the fight — Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, who penned a letter to the legislature expressing his “strong opposition” to the bill. Tampa could benefit from a later phase of the project, which would (extend) Bright Express Rail to the Gulf side.

The Orlando Sentinel helpfully breaks down Mayfield’s bill, which targets All Aboard Florida’s Brightline service:

The sponsor of the Senate bill, Republican Debbie Mayfield of Vero Beach, has insisted it is not aimed specifically at All Aboard Florida. Yet as she presented her bill at a committee hearing this month, she reportedly referred at least twice to “All Aboard Florida” before correcting herself to say “any high-speed rail company.”

Mayfield and the sponsors of the House counterpart, Republicans MaryLynn Magar of Tequesta and Erin Grall of Vero Beach, represent districts on Florida’s Treasure Coast. Public sentiment there runs against the trains, which will traverse the region without making any stops. Local governments on the Treasure Coast have waged a lengthy legal battle, bankrolled by millions of taxpayer dollars, against All Aboard Florida. So far, they haven’t been able to stop it.

Now, the bill’s sponsors appear to be spearheading the obstruction. Their legislation would drape a heavy new layer of state regulatory mandates on “high-speed rail,” defined as traveling “in excess of 80 miles per hour on or after July 1, 2017.” Brightline trains are expected to travel at 79 mph between Miami and West Palm Beach, but exceed the bill’s speed limit on the extension to Orlando. Quelle coincidence.

Beating back these claims, the Orlando Sentinel points out that All Aboard Florida is installing and paying for “the latest train safety features” and for upgrades and improvements at rail crossings.

Agreeing with the Orlando Sentinel, the Sun Sentinel wrote:

From what we know about the big picture, All Aboard Florida has gone above and beyond in doing what it said it would do. And since railroads have always been regulated by the feds, we don’t see a compelling case for tough new state regulations.

While Mayfield’s bill has some things to like, we believe it could derail an exciting new chapter in transportation. We encourage its defeat.

The legislation was passed out of a Senate Committee and is expected to be heard in the House this week. These editorials come on the heels of a motion from the Miami-Dade City Council unanimously calling for the legislation’s defeat.

http://ntknetwork.com/two-major-florida-papers-blast-obstructionist-bill-targeting-brightline/

More about Brightline here:

Brightline by the Numbers: 11 things to know

• Antonio Fins

August 10, 2017 Uncategorized.

Brightline has not said when it will begin regular passenger service, or how much fares will cost. But here are a slew of stats about the much-anticipated rail service.

• Five trains. Four are here. The fifth, Brightline Red, is expected around the end of the month.
• Each train has two locomotives and four passenger coaches – seating approximately 240 guests.
• The trains are built in the U.S. with the help of more than 40 suppliers in more than 20 states.
• 16 weekday round trips.

The Brightline “Green” train in downtown West Palm Beach on Thursday, July 13, 2017. (Lannis Waters / The Palm Beach Post)

• At the inception of service, Brightline will run 3 trains on regular daily duty, have one in reserve and one in maintenance.
• A total of 473 parking spots in West Palm Beach, 670 in Fort Lauderdale.
• 5 Brightline “teammates” on each train, including engineer, train manager and guest attendants.
• 42,000 – number of Operation Lifesaver safety fliers that were sent to School District of Palm Beach county families living along Florida East Coast Railway tracks.
• 900 jobs created by project in Palm Beach County.
• An app. The company says it will make an app available a week to 10 days before train service starts to facilitate ticket purchases.
• $300 million: Brightline’s total economic impact in Palm Beach County.

http://malled.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2017/08/10/brightline-by-the-numbers-11-things-to-know/

Some people just hate progress...