VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

hmm i wonder if we'll ever have the political courage to do what india is doing and financing their construction from another country. Might be risky if the economy is bad but seeing their theirs is booming they can afford to risk it.
clearly our funding models has not worked as of late, maybe its time to think outside the box more....

Almost every major rail project in this nation has been financed abroad. CP was from the day it offered bonds, and it still is. Of course, one they start failing, then the happy taxpayer buys out the mess and proclaims it "National".

What I find astounding about that Japanese offer to India is the financing rate figure:

More than four-fifths of the project’s $19bn (£14.4bn) cost will be funded by a 0.1% interest-rate loan from Japan as part of a deepening economic relationship that both countries hope will act as a bulwark against Chinese influence in Asia.

Now there's got to be more to it than that, but let's just assume for a moment that CRRC make a deal to (the Minister of Transport? Whomever) to establish a company for, build a railway, and equip it with both electrical systems and rolling stock, all wholly owned by the same vertical company (as surely the Japanese are doing with India, Kawasaki, Hitachi or whomever), and offer it to be paid by term with an interest of "0.1% interest-rate"....Holy Moly! How could they so no? The Gov't can't even get a loan at that low a price! Even guaranteed.

There has to be more to this, and I'll dig on that. Perhaps a per-centage of the operating profit for x number of years or the like is also involved.

Edit to Add: Here's some more background on the Japanese/Indian railway deal. I got the major players right, still intrigued by the actual financing, and whether it's anything more than a 'loss-leader':

Japan’s government and its rail companies lobbied the U.S. for years to sell their bullet-train technology and found little success. Finally, there’s an international buyer: India.

The South Asian country is poised to become the first to import the iconic ‘Shinkansen’ bullet-train technology after Japan’s near-neighbor Taiwan, and that will be a highlight of India’s infrastructure upgrade program. The Japanese government has also agreed to fund most of the $17 billion needed for the project that will become part of Asia’s oldest railway network.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Japan’s Shinzo Abe formally kicked off a plan to build the 316-mile bullet train line -- roughly the distance between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Financing by Japan also means business farmed out to companies such as Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., Hitachi Ltd. and East Japan Railway Co. and an opportunity lost for China’s CRRC Corp Ltd. and European manufacturers including Alstom SA.

For Japan, which is locked in a strategic rivalry with China for commercial contracts abroad, the Indian project marks a hard-fought victory as companies including Siemens AG, Bombardier Inc., Alstom and, lately, CRRC compete in a global market projected by BCC Research to be worth about $133 billion by 2019. After building the world’s largest high-speed network since the start of the century, covering 80 percent of its major cities, China has been raising its profile.

“The competition between China and Japan, especially in the ASEAN region, has been fairly intense and in India, there will be more competition for other phases of the bullet train project,” said Jaideep Ghosh, partner and head of transport at consultancy KPMG. “Japan has a longer history of operating the system without any fatalities. Politics and strategic considerations do play a part, but finally it is a commercial decision.”
[...continues at length and well worth reading...]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rain-gives-164-year-old-indian-railway-a-jolt

From the Financial Times, and a different interest rate quoted, still incredibly cheap, plus the the terms:

[...]The link, to be financed in part with a Japanese loan at an annual interest rate of 0.5 per cent for up to 50 years, would cut the journey time between Mumbai and Ahmedabad in Mr Modi’s home state of Gujarat from almost eight hours to two hours. “It is likely to happen; it is likely to get signed,” said an Indian official, noting that Japanese negotiators had agreed to Indian demands including the low-cost financing package. Local media on Thursday said India’s cabinet had cleared the deal. [...]

Enter: "India close to $15bn high-speed rail deal with Japan
India close to $15bn high-speed rail deal with Japan" in to Google

 

[Dan416]

@aquateam
Driving in LA? That's a whole other level. I hate LA. Want to see the walk of Fame? Subway doesn't go to Hollywood. Want to use the subway? Frequency is crap. Was so bad that the staff at the hotel I stayed at didn't know about transit, when the hotel was literally next door to a station. Transit just seems impressive in these cities because for most Americans transit is something they either don't have, or have very little of. And most of the middle class thinks it's for poor people. That's literally how they view it. Car broken down? They'll get a ride before they take the bus.

Uh, what? In what reality?

Where exactly do you think "Hollywood/Vine" and "Hollywood/Highland" stations are located? Hint: they're on Hollywood Blvd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood/Vine_station

As the name implies, Hollywood/Vine station lies below the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Street.[1] The central station of the three subway stops in Hollywood, it is within walking distance of many important landmarks including the Capitol Records Building. The Hollywood Walk of Fame is also upstairs, while the Pantages Theatre is across the street. Other attractions include CBS Columbia Square, the Frolic Room, Gower Gulch, the Sunset and Vine apartment complex, and the Hollywood Palladium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood/Highland_station

With its entrance on Hollywood Boulevard, the Hollywood/Highland Station is located in the center of the tourist area of Hollywood, near such tourist attractions as Dolby Theatre, Ripley's Believe It or Not! and the Hollywood Museum. As in New York City's Times Square, costumed characters on the sidewalk outside offer themselves for photos with tourists.

Sorry to be posting links link steveintoronto, but I cannot let factaully incorrect information stand.

 

[steveintoronto]

Sorry to be posting links link steveintoronto, but I cannot let factaully incorrect information stand.

There's been a stream of wildly incorrect statements, it got to the point I couldn't be bothered taking the time to answer each one, and just posted linked sources to refute the claims.

There is actually debate to be had as to what's working, what isn't working that well, and how Toronto, Ontario and Canada can do better.

As per LA's Metro, good discussion here:
http://la.streetsblog.org/2016/01/29/what-factors-are-causing-metros-declining-ridership-what-next/ Some of the reader comments are excellent in making further points to the article.

And VIA continues to do well for ridership in spite of ever-increasing delays. Any major investor looking at that would see great opportunity to do what the government is so far failing to do: Dedicated tracks.

• Ridership up 9.5%
• Passenger revenues up 15.7%

MONTRÉAL, Aug. 31, 2017 /CNW Telbec/ - VIA Rail Canada (VIA Rail) reports strong results during the second quarter of 2017, its 13th consecutive quarter of growth. Ridership increased by 9.5% compared to the same period in 2016 and passenger revenues rose by 15.7%. A total of 364 million kilometers were travelled over the quarter, up 9% from 2016.

"We are pleased to see that the pattern of growth continues. The summer schedule adjustment, which increased our capacity by 7% starting May 29, had substantially contributed to the 15.7% increase in passenger revenues over the quarter," said VIA Rail's President and CEO, Yves Desjardins-Siciliano. "Though success has almost become the norm after 13 consecutive quarters of growth, we are not resting on our laurels. We continue to put our passengers first and improve the customer experience to encourage more Canadians to take the train."

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/growth-continues-at-via-rail-q2-results-released-642392243.html

What some posters throwing rhubarbs just for the sake of it fail to understand or investigate is the cost to revenue ratio of VIA:

Library of Parliament Research Publications
VIA Rail Canada Inc. and the Future of Passenger Rail in Canada
[...]
4.4 Ridership revenues versus expenses
As shown in Figure 5, a notable disparity existed between expenses and ridership revenues in VIA Rail's first years of operation; after 1990, when VIA Rail underwent further restructuring, expenses contracted slowly while revenues gradually rose. While expenses clearly remain well above revenues generated, VIA Rail has had some success since the mid-1990s in containing costs through improved management of contractual agreements with CNR and CPR and better cost-control of its own operations.10 Over the last 20 years, annual expenses have fluctuated towards $500 million while passenger revenues have stabilized around $220 million, so the gap between expenses and revenues has been expanding over time.

Figure 5 – VIA Rail's Annual Ridership Revenues and Expenses, 1978–2014 (in constant 2002 dollars)

Source: VIA Rail Canada Inc., annual reports, 1978–2014.

5 Some observations on VIA Rail's future
VIA Rail's current level of operational subsidies is only enough to maintain the present level of passenger rail service. Capital funding is intermittent and is used largely to repair and refurbish existing rolling stock and installations, not to significantly upgrade the passenger rail system.

Despite unpredictable government subsidies, VIA Rail has managed over the years to stabilize its annual ridership volume. It has also achieved some success in improving its operational efficiency and in managing its contractual obligations with CNR and CPR. These efforts, however, have not been enough to realize profitability.11 Commercial viability remains an elusive goal, and VIA Rail cannot expect to continue operations without federal government support.

VIA Rail's ability to run its business efficiently is severely constrained by the fact that it must share railroad tracks with the two national rail carriers and other regional rail carriers and does not have priority access to these tracks. Thus, VIA Rail cannot easily establish the frequency or routes that would best promote its own commercial interests. Increasing the frequency and speed of VIA Rail's passenger service on the existing rail infrastructure would also directly affect maintenance costs, track capacity and passenger safety for all the carriers using those tracks.

Even if VIA Rail could gain greater access to existing tracks or build its own separate rail network, questions still remain about the commercial potential of passenger rail service compared to alternative modes of transportation in Canada. According to a number of studies, passenger rail could potentially fit particular market niches, such as the Québec City–Windsor corridor, that have been found to have the best commercial growth potential for such services. These routes could even be competitive against short-haul regional airlines. However, the gap between potential and actual profitability remains wide and difficult to bridge.12
[...]

https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2015-55-e.html?cat=business#a11

If VIA was a private corporation, aspects of it would be a prime takeover target. I'm confident that the Havelock Route is being eyed right now.

 

[nfitz]

Driving in LA? That's a whole other level. I hate LA.

I didn't find driving in LA that bad or difficult at all. The streets all seem extra wide, so city driving was a breeze. And the expressways were certainly busy and crowded - but I didn't find any worse than Toronto - heck, perhaps even better in places. It certainly didn't live up to it's reputation.

I've certainly seen far worse. Bangkok rush hour comes to mind ...

 

[crs1026]

LA freeways are damn efficient, but driving them takes far more planning, discipline, and concentration than Toronto drivers are capable of. Some of the arterial roads, however, can be very frustrating.
The thing that saves LA is that the density is so low. You need a car to get around, but things are so dispersed (and freeways so available) that you seldom get congestion. You just hit a lot of red lights along your 20-mile drive to the grocery store, or wherever ;-)

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

LA freeways are damn efficient, but driving them takes far more planning, discipline, and concentration than Toronto drivers are capable of.

In LA's tangle of freeways, I personally didn't find it hard as a GPS user. All I did was activate my $5-per-day unlimited roaming feature of my Canadian phone plan, and then used GPS liberally. Told me which lane to stay in to be on the correct freeway forks, etc.

Maybe I overshoot an offramp once per vacation, but I do that in Toronto on unfamiliar routes too, and GPS auto-reroute works equally well in Toronto and LA.

LA freeways are damn efficient, but driving them takes far more planning, discipline, and concentration than Toronto drivers are capable of. Some of the arterial roads, however, can be very frustrating.
The thing that saves LA is that the density is so low. You need a car to get around, but things are so dispersed (and freeways so available) that you seldom get congestion. You just hit a lot of red lights along your 20-mile drive to the grocery store, or wherever ;-)

- Paul

I have rented a car numerous times in LA area, and I can concur. Peak period can be hell, but outside peak, the freeways are pleasant driving in beautiful sunny weather, tactile freeway separators, well maintained concrete that never get salt, and often enjoyable scenery in many parts.

That said, I have gone without a car in LA area too, and that's not as fun unless you're in a narrow-leash area. No wonder it is extremely difficult to pull people out of their cars and take transit instead. (like that hotel employee who's totally unaware of a direct pleasant subway connection to Hollywood!). Hollywood is easy to reach by subway from downtown LA, just have your app installed & your $5 "ROAM LIKE HOME" plan (Rogers or Bell) for total smartphone wayfinding freedom with your favourite app. Frequency (~10min peak, ~15-20min offpeak) sucks compared to Toronto TTC but certainly more pleasant than a drive for that one.

But if I want to reach Skydive Perris right smack in middle in the triangle between Los Angeles, San Diego and Palm Springs -- forget it, I'm renting a car. Although, Perris recently got commuter train service but it takes 2 hours to go from Perris Downtown to LA Downtown for only 3 peak period trains (4:47am, 5:16am and 5:52:am) -- it's "Kitchener-Toronto" early, and car rentals are so cheap there (comparatively speaking, if you book right and bring your own insurance coverage) -- transit is still so inconvenient except in the narrow regions.

Certainly, I support the expansion of transit in LA area. But Toronto is way ahead of them, however. Even TTC subway frequencies at 2.5 min headways during peak pretty much beats NYC/Washingon DC/Chicago/LA headways, and we're spending lots on a CBTC system that allows us to safely ram the TTC subway through with barely seconds above ~1.5 min headways. Pretty much nothing on this side of the pond -- not even New York City -- in North America achieves that subway headways at peak, and even GO RER 15-min will run more often than LA subway offpeak. LA has its work cut out ahead of them -- Even if they literally spend $100B solely on transit expansion, that still won't make much of a dent for a very long time, on a mode-share percentage basis.

 

[kEiThZ]

Sure they have fewer highways but they still have divided expressways connecting most of the major cities in the southeast. Driving is a major part of their culture. They did give us Mad Max after all. We have higher population density in the W-C corridor and within the cities themselves. There's more potential than you let on.

You seem to have completely ignored the points in my subsequent posts:

Sure they have lots of highways in Australia. They don't have as many highways through their urban cores though. Nor do they have tons of parking. And that's before we talk about the cost of parking in the city centre in any Australian metro.

Make it expensive or inconvenient to drive, and you'll get people taking the train even if car ownership is high.

There's no ignoring the context in Australia. Driving into city centres is both more expensive and less convenient than it is in the GTA. That tends to drive rail usage.

And you're putting words in my mouth. Where did I suggest we didn't have the density for rail compared to Australia?

Autonomous cars will make driving easier but they might not improve congestion.

I never once said that autonomous cars would reduce congestion. Putting words in my mouth. Again. I actually think it will make it worse. However, I specifically said:

That said, what we're talking about doesn't require full autonomy. Studies on Teslas show their driving aids (like autopilot) reduce fatigue. And I fear that maybe enough to get suburbanization going again. 100km bumper to bumper is stressful. But what if the car handled the braking and am you had to do was steer? You might just put up with it.

My point was that autonomous operation, including less than full autonomy reduces fatigue, which may encourage people to put up with longer drives (absent any other disincentives).

An autonomous car won't be able to make an intercity trip of hundreds of kilometres as quickly as a train.

Did I say it would?

How about, from now, before responding you actually read my posts and don't put words in my mouth? Reading is really not that hard.

Where exactly do you think "Hollywood/Vine" and "Hollywood/Highland" stations are located? Hint: they're on Hollywood Blvd.

Bad information from the concierge I guess? Told him I wanted to go to the Hollywood sign and wanted to do it by subway from the station next door. Said it wasn't possible. And having the wife and kids with me, I'm really not rushing to get on a wikipedia dispute.

LA freeways are damn efficient, but driving them takes far more planning, discipline, and concentration than Toronto drivers are capable of. Some of the arterial roads, however, can be very frustrating.

Nothing can prepare you for the LA freeways as a tourist. Had to take the I-405. The US DOT lists that highway as one of the widest in the US. 14 lanes. I saw someone swerve to make an exit across 5 lanes. That's not even possible anywhere in Toronto.

hmm i wonder if we'll ever have the political courage to do what india is doing and financing their construction from another country. Might be risky if the economy is bad but seeing their theirs is booming they can afford to risk it.
clearly our funding models has not worked as of late, maybe its time to think outside the box more....

More of this nonsense again. Once and for all. There is absolutely nothing stopping any foreign investor from coming here and building a rail line. Foreign investment is absolutely welcome in Canada. What the government won't do is change the laws just to facilitate foreign infrastructure investment. If they want to invest, they can do so under the current legal framework. Indeed, we do have foreign companies that routinely win on all sorts of infrastructure projects including for public transit.

The largest complaints some of the foreigners seem to have are about our environmental review processes, and the right to bring in foreign workers (particularly important to the Chinese). What explanation do you suggest we provide to Canadians on why foreign companies should be allowed to skirt environmental laws and be allowed to import cheap foreign labour displacing Canadian workers?

The only thing stopping most foreign investors, aside from the above is the business case. If the Japanese want to build us a "free" railway, I'm all for it:

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...narendra-modi-shinzo-abe-japan-india-4844198/

Somehow though I doubt we can offer them the same business case as a rail line between India's most populated metro (nearly 19 million) and 5th largest metro (over 6 million). There's a reason the Japanese can build HSR in India and make a profit. Where they can't do so in Canada. Or they'd be here offering a deal to VIA right now. They have no issues bidding for American HSR projects:

https://gizmodo.com/why-japan-s-bullet-train-will-finally-bring-high-speed-1707615418

So once again, let's drop the nonsense about foreigners being somehow stopped from investing in rail projects in Canada. There aren't significant barriers to their investment. They just don't seem to have a business case that incentivizes them to do so. And that's not going to change any time soon. That said, I expect both the Japanese and Chinese, along with the French and Germans (via Bombardier I guess) will bid for VIA's HFR when that eventually goes to tender. They'll just be submitting conventional construction bids, instead of offering financing and/or taking up equity stakes.

 

[nfitz]

In LA's tangle of freeways, I personally didn't find it hard as a GPS user. All I did was activate my $5-per-day unlimited roaming feature of my Canadian phone plan, and then used GPS liberally. Told me which lane to stay in to be on the correct freeway forks, etc.

Worked find with a road map as well. It's not a difficult layout really.

 

[tayser]

Also with Australia. Regional rail works because they have an even higher proportion of their population in one corner of the country. Most of Australia's population is in the corner between Brisbane and Adelaide. Admittedly, a large area. But it's basically the only area that they have to focus rail resources on. Kudos to them for investing more in rail than we do though.

While the overwhelming majority of people live south of the 'Brisbane Line' (a line from about 100km north of Brisbane to 100km north of Adelaide, drawn during WW2 as the last-line-of-defence line should any AXIS power be stupid enough to land anywhere north/west of that line - in the never-never), that area has enormous gaps in rail transport. And even road transport - only Melbourne & Sydney have a proper dual-carriageway, mostly-limited access road. Sydney-Brisbane should be 'complete' in that sense in a few years, but things are only just starting on Melbourne-Adelaide (it's as far as Ararat now).

If you're travelling from one end of that corridor (Adelaide) to the other (Brisbane) you're not going to even have a direct road route - it takes you from South Australia deep into central New South Wales and then up to Queensland. There's zero direct rail that way either - Aviation is king in Australia for this reason.

For instance, regular inter-capital rail services only exist between Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane (2 x daily MEL-SYD, 1 x daily SYD-BNE), there's a 3 x weekly inter-capital between Melbourne and Adelaide and a couple of trains a day on NSW's slow regional network between Sydney & Canberra, but that's it. Aviation or 10+ hour drives are how people move between state capitals.

The regional networks also vary state-by-state in terms of speed and level of service.

Each of the state capitals, excluding Adelaide, has a network of other regional cities not far off

SEQ - South East Queensland has Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast to the North and South of Brisbane.... both of these are connected by Brisbane's standard rail network in some shape or form.

Newcastle to the north, Wollongong to the south of Sydney - both on Sydney's standard network.

Geelong to the south-west, Ballarat to the west, Bendigo to the north-west and the La Trobe valley (Moe, Morwell, Traralgon) to the east of Melbourne - they're on the regional V/Line network which operates independently of Melbourne's rail network.

SEQ's rail network is pretty good with ok speeds (~100kph) and good frequencies.

Sydney basin network is ok but not the best speeds thanks to geography (some stretches of 100-130kph capable bits of track but the regional routes and extremely windy/curvy limiting high speeds). Very good level of service however.

NSW also has a network like VLine in Victoria which connects towns and cities beyond the big three but speed is still fairly limited speed-wise. It is far more extensive (as NSW is so much bigger than Vic)

All regional lines between those four cities mentioned above in Victoria have track which is limited to 160kph - up until the edges of suburbia. La Trobe Valley battles with Metro services for 60km inside Melbourne, the other three cities to the West have - more or less - dedicated track right into central Melbourne with 160kph line speeds existing on the Geelong line to a point about 15km from central Melbourne (speeds vary from 80kpm to 130kph thereafter).

 

[MisterF]

You seem to have completely ignored the points in my subsequent posts:





There's no ignoring the context in Australia. Driving into city centres is both more expensive and less convenient than it is in the GTA. That tends to drive rail usage.

And you're putting words in my mouth. Where did I suggest we didn't have the density for rail compared to Australia?



I never once said that autonomous cars would reduce congestion. Putting words in my mouth. Again. I actually think it will make it worse. However, I specifically said:



My point was that autonomous operation, including less than full autonomy reduces fatigue, which may encourage people to put up with longer drives (absent any other disincentives).



Did I say it would?

How about, from now, before responding you actually read my posts and don't put words in my mouth? Reading is really not that hard.

I humbly suggest that you get over yourself. My post wasn't a point-by-point rebuttal of everything that you wrote, it was a general response to the idea that Canada could never have regional rail networks as extensive as Australia's, especially around major cities. A simple but important distinction.

The argument seems to be that Australia is more friendly to rail transportation than Canada, specifically for regional services surrounding large cities. But the evidence doesn't support that. Yes, driving to the Sydney or Melbourne CBDs is more expensive thanks to road tolls and high parking prices. But freeway capacity into downtown Sydney is similar to that of downtown Toronto, with 4-6 lane freeways coming in from two directions. In Melbourne it's significantly higher, with freeways from four directions into the city centre, each with at least 8 lanes. The urban densities of Australian cities are lower than Canadian cities, and southeast Australia is less densely populated than southern Ontario/Quebec. Transit modal share is higher in Canadian cities than in similar sized Australian cities, sometimes significantly so. Gas prices seem to be similar in the two countries and gas taxes are slightly higher in Australia. And while I've been skeptical of the effect of car ownership on rail ridership, Australia has higher car ownership. At worst I'd say a comparison between the two countries would be a wash.

Australia's regional rail networks do have more riders than GO is projecting. But that's because even with full buildout of RER it still won't be as expansive as the Sydney and Melbourne systems, with less of the system having frequent service, less electrification, and fewer lines overall. And of course Toronto and Montreal are more oriented towards subway systems, as limited as Toronto's is. That being said, if GO continues to expand, especially in areas not served by subway, all experience shows that ridership would follow.

 

[TOareaFan]

Bad information from the concierge I guess? Told him I wanted to go to the Hollywood sign and wanted to do it by subway from the station next door. Said it wasn't possible. And having the wife and kids with me, I'm really not rushing to get on a wikipedia dispute.

Not sure that the concierge gave you bad information at all.......while it is true that there is rapid transit to Hollywood (3 stations) and that Hollywood and Vine is a bit of a main station.....if your question was how to get to the Hollywood sign by subway, I also would have told you that you can't.......the Hollywood sign is up a hill about 4 miles from the intersection of Hollywood and Vine.

EDIT: just went and google mapped it.....here is road directions:

Here is the transit directions: "Sorry, we could not calculate transit directions from"Hollywood Blvd & Vine St, Los Angeles, CA 90028, USA" to"Hollywood Sign, Los Angeles, CA 90068, USA"

 

[Dan416]

Indeed asking for directions to the Hollywood Walk of Fame versus the Hollywood sign would result in completely different answers. Big difference that wasn't in the original post.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Interesting article that discusses the prospect of seeing passenger service connecting Windsor and Detroit, and beyond. Still a long way off however.

Moroun looks to bring passenger trains back to landmark Detroit station
Windsor Star - September 20th, 2017

 

[robmausser]

Interesting article that discusses the prospect of seeing passenger service connecting Windsor and Detroit, and beyond. Still a long way off however.

Moroun looks to bring passenger trains back to landmark Detroit station
Windsor Star - September 20th, 2017

"The current rail tunnel is used extensively for freight by CP Railway and is not available for passenger use."

Honestly screw CPR. I realize they are a private organization but they are the blight of passenger rail in Canada.

Yeah they are here to make a profit but I'm sure they get zero government subsides and tax breaks from the feds *rolls eyes*

 

[mdrejhon]

If HSR reaches Windsor eventually, this could become a very serious conversation in 2050 for high-speed Toronto-Chicago service.