VIA Rail

[kingkam]

I suppose venting could be a way to release your frustrations, but a better way would be to research the thing you're frustrated about and identify ways you can contribute to the outcome you envision.

Passenger Rail service is not uniformly dying in Canada. Yes, long-distance VIA services have been on life-support since the late 70's, and many intercity routes are tenuous due to the awkward financial/commercial relationship between CN and VIA, but passenger rail has been experiencing incredible growth in Southern Ontario, primarily in the form of commuter rail, but also to a lesser extent in the Toronto-Ottawa VIA service.

The GO Expansion program is an absolutely enormous project that will bring frequent electrified service to the central portions of the GO network, and all-day express service to more distant destinations such as Kitchener, Niagara Falls and Barrie. This is not just talk, this has already been underway for a decade and the results are starting to show. I have been summarizing commuter rail schedules for the past 5 years, and between January 2015 and January 2020 the number of weekly GO train trips more than doubled from 1486 to 3472. In January 2015, only the Lakeshore lines had all-day service, with service every 30 minutes. By January 2020 there was all-day service on the Lakeshore Lines (every 15 minutes midday and every 30 minutes other times), UP Express (every 15 minutes), Kitchener line (every 60 minutes), Barrie Line (every 60 minutes) and Stouffville line (every 60 minutes). Every one of these service expansions was made possible thanks to railway expansions. Some have been huge projects, such as the Georgetown South project which completely grade-separated the Kitchener corridor east of Pearson airport and doubled the width of the infrastructure to support 4 tracks (widening to 8 tracks as the Milton and Barrie lines join in). While others have been comparatively modest, such as the projects to add double-track segments on the Barrie and Stouffville lines.

At the moment, the focus has been on introducing a base layer of local train service, so off-peak travel times have not really improved. But the next step will be to introduce some all-day regional train services, which will stop at fewer stations and achieve much higher average speeds than their corresponding local services. These services can cruise at 150 km/h, which is easily fast enough to provide very competitive travel times to destinations such as Niagara Falls and Kitchener. The only regional service which currently exists is the weekend Niagara train, though it only has 4 round trips per day and its travel times are severely limited by the 50 km/h speed limit through Hamilton and 105 km/h speed limit between Hamilton and Niagara. The next service to be introduced will be an all-day service to Hamilton (probably West Harbour), thanks to a track expansion project that Metrolinx and CN are undertaking in Hamilton. Next will be all-day hourly service to Kitchener, thanks to a Metrolinx track expansion project underway between Kitchener and Georgetown which will finally introduce passing sidings to allow bidirectional service.

As mentioned by others, VIA is hoping to revolutionize its business process through the HFR project, which would give them much more control over their own operations, and thereby vastly improve service frequency and reliability.

Of course the coronavirus pandemic has been a major setback to rail travel, and some of the changes are likely here to stay, such as the increase in telecommuting and associated reduction in peak-period commuter demand to and from office centres. The good news though is that GO's expansion program happens to already match up with the market segments which are comparatively unaffected, namely off-peak travel and longer-distance commuting.

The bottom line is that if you as a citizen want to maximize your impact on improving passenger rail in Canada, your best bet is to actively support railway improvement projects such as VIA's HFR, and Metrolinx's GO Expansion. These projects commonly face political opposition from residents near the railways, so it is important to also have political support from rail travellers and potential travellers to balance this out and reduce the chance of those projects being cancelled or watered down.

Good post. Thanks for the additional information.

The funny thing is I'm a Metrolinx employee for the past 10 years and it's super annoying how political transportation projects is in general, and how it just takes too long to get anywhere because of all the levels of government needed. I don't even see our service being electrified for another 10+ years. In Europe or Asia it would have been done in 1-3 years.

Something as simply as getting rid of underutilized bus routes where only 1 person a day uses can become a HUGE issue. It's annoying.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

My mistake. I thought it was part of their rebuilding efforts.

Interesting you say about capacity. Our existing lines between Toronto-Montreal are maxing out on capacity due to freight. Which is where the Havlock Sub comes in.



I feel the cuts in the late 80s, early 90s has done more than us citizens not riding it could have done. If the government were serious about not killing off Via, they should actively have a mandate for Via to connect all of Canada's major cities with reliable intercity rail. Take the money that they would be investing in saving the airlines from themselves, and put it to a public corporation, like Via. Alas, we all know that won't happen.

Which government would have subsidized VIA? The Mulroony PC's who were interested in cutting the deficit, divesting themselves of what crown corporations remained (requiring them to compete in an open market), and free trade? The Chretien Liberals who, also, were concerned with cutting the deficit? The Harper PC's who wished to give no one a handout? or the Trudeau Liberals? At no time was subsidizing VIA a priority in the public eye, and so bringing it up would have been a chore.

Also while your comparison to the airline industry (and the subsidies it receives) is reasonable. We have to remember that air travel does carry with it the issue of National identity that rail travel does not. Our goverments will protect a "Canadian" national airline much more than it will protect railway for reasons that should be clear.

 

[kEiThZ]

Interesting you say about capacity. Our existing lines between Toronto-Montreal are maxing out on capacity due to freight. Which is where the Havlock Sub comes in.

Now you're getting it.

HFR will provide a massive increase in passenger rail capacity between 3 of the 6 largest metros in the country.

And hopefully, just like the Japanese, Koreans and Europeans, as we start filling up the HFR trains, the case for upgrades (or a new line) to high speed rail standards will get better. I expect that 10 years after the line opens, it will be substantially upgraded to near HSR standards and competitive with air. All we'll need is 3-5 years of data to show how popular it is to start the discussion.

 

[roger1818]

Now you're getting it.

HFR will provide a massive increase in passenger rail capacity between 3 of the 6 largest metros in the country.

And hopefully, just like the Japanese, Koreans and Europeans, as we start filling up the HFR trains, the case for upgrades (or a new line) to high speed rail standards will get better. I expect that 10 years after the line opens, it will be substantially upgraded to near HSR standards and competitive with air. All we'll need is 3-5 years of data to show how popular it is to start the discussion.

In general I agree, though I am not sure about your 10 year timeframe. Time will tell.

 

[kEiThZ]

In general I agree, though I am not sure about your 10 year timeframe. Time will tell.

Once the line is running and if it turns out to be popular, it becomes much more political palatable to put together a package of upgrades that speeds up the line. Spend $2-4B more on some strategic upgrades and they'll probably be able to get Toronto-Montreal down to 4 hrs and Toronto-Ottawa down to 2.5 hrs. That would make Toronto-Ottawa fully competitive and Toronto-Montreal substantially competitive with air. And that's work that can be mostly complete within one term and win substantial plaudits for the party doing it.

All we need is for HFR to launch and for it to be more successful than the skeptical politicians think it will be. Catch them by surprise and it'll completely flip their political calculus on investing in intercity rail. If that happens and HFR is bringing in good money, the argument for upgrades and extensions becomes very easy. Some political party can simply spend a few billion to speed up the service and call it "high speed" even if it takes 4 hrs from Toronto to Montreal.

 

[micheal_can]

Which government would have subsidized VIA? The Mulroony PC's who were interested in cutting the deficit, divesting themselves of what crown corporations remained (requiring them to compete in an open market), and free trade? The Chretien Liberals who, also, were concerned with cutting the deficit? The Harper PC's who wished to give no one a handout? or the Trudeau Liberals? At no time was subsidizing VIA a priority in the public eye, and so bringing it up would have been a chore.

Also while your comparison to the airline industry (and the subsidies it receives) is reasonable. We have to remember that air travel does carry with it the issue of National identity that rail travel does not. Our goverments will protect a "Canadian" national airline much more than it will protect railway for reasons that should be clear.

The bigger issue is that politicians while tout cutting taxes as being a good thing, but the never admit to cutting services. They also have no problem propping up industries that look good to prop uo; auto manufacturing, oil, shipping, mining, and airlines, but heaven forbid they also spend the needed money to keep Via, or the military relevant. I served in the RCN on ships that were 50 years old. That is insane when they throw money at an airline who uses mainly new jets.

Maybe the government needs to write into law that in the event of any bailout/subsidy/loan/grant that a private corporation gets, their shareholders loose all bonuses and all of the top executives must take a 50% pay cut. In other words, make it hurt them to take it, but it is there if they really are desperate.

Now you're getting it.

HFR will provide a massive increase in passenger rail capacity between 3 of the 6 largest metros in the country.

And hopefully, just like the Japanese, Koreans and Europeans, as we start filling up the HFR trains, the case for upgrades (or a new line) to high speed rail standards will get better. I expect that 10 years after the line opens, it will be substantially upgraded to near HSR standards and competitive with air. All we'll need is 3-5 years of data to show how popular it is to start the discussion.

I have always gotten it. I just think the government needs to push the freight operators harder. They may own the lines, but we Canadians paid for them.

 

[roger1818]

I have always gotten it. I just think the government needs to push the freight operators harder.

Is it good for the economy (or environment) to reduce the amount of freight shipped by rail (and increase the amount shipped by truck)?

 

[jayme2016]

Once the line is running and if it turns out to be popular, it becomes much more political palatable to put together a package of upgrades that speeds up the line. Spend $2-4B more on some strategic upgrades and they'll probably be able to get Toronto-Montreal down to 4 hrs and Toronto-Ottawa down to 2.5 hrs. That would make Toronto-Ottawa fully competitive and Toronto-Montreal substantially competitive with air. And that's work that can be mostly complete within one term and win substantial plaudits for the party doing it.

All we need is for HFR to launch and for it to be more successful than the skeptical politicians think it will be. Catch them by surprise and it'll completely flip their political calculus on investing in intercity rail. If that happens and HFR is bringing in good money, the argument for upgrades and extensions becomes very easy. Some political party can simply spend a few billion to speed up the service and call it "high speed" even if it takes 4 hrs from Toronto to Montreal.

If they can get it down to 2.5 hours that would be a game changer.

 

[micheal_can]

Is it good for the economy (or environment) to reduce the amount of freight shipped by rail (and increase the amount shipped by truck)?

Reducing the freight is not the goal. The goal is that both coexist and keep their schedules. That means that double tracking the mainlines should be a priority. If double track is not enough, then add more. In short, expand both freight and passenger rail.

Probably not. But is it good for the economy to cede so much control to CP and CN rather than have a regulator manage freight and passenger traffic demand correctly as in Network Rail and similar types of models abroad?

^^^^^ This!^^^^^

 

[Darwinkgo]

They should probably start the planning for an HFR extension to the West and maybe do a serious study of HFR type service for Calgary-Edmonton.

The province has already done it, and so did VIA in the 80s. Every time they do an analysis it is found to be more economical to go straight to HSR. Incremental options aren't possible. The cheapest upgrade requires an entire rebuild of the CPR to two tracks with frequent high speed crossovers with many grade separations. Once you're spending that much, the operational profit the operator makes from going to true HSR on a brand new corridor pays for more than the differential capital cost. In a low interest rate environment, it is likely the project would be freestanding or nearly so - it would pay for itself.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Reducing the freight is not the goal. The goal is that both coexist and keep their schedules. That means that double tracking the mainlines should be a priority. If double track is not enough, then add more. In short, expand both freight and passenger rail.

Expanding freight capacity had a Harper era program in the west - the Pacific Gateway. Funding the non-rail elements of rail de-bottlenecking projects to increase throughput. I suspect in the next 20 years the government will run into a wall with CN and CP - they will both need major network upgrades, but the only way to add capacity will be extensive double and triple tracking that the railroads themselves can't afford since it will add a lot more capacity than the freight railroads can use. So there will be additional capacity for passenger rail! Whether capacity is needed over northern Ontario though, I am not so sure.

 

[micheal_can]

Expanding freight capacity had a Harper era program in the west - the Pacific Gateway. Funding the non-rail elements of rail de-bottlenecking projects to increase throughput. I suspect in the next 20 years the government will run into a wall with CN and CP - they will both need major network upgrades, but the only way to add capacity will be extensive double and triple tracking that the railroads themselves can't afford since it will add a lot more capacity than the freight railroads can use. So there will be additional capacity for passenger rail! Whether capacity is needed over northern Ontario though, I am not so sure.

My biggest concern is BC. The Fraser Valley and the spiral Tunnels aren't easily double tracked. Here in ON, it would be ideal if all routes that are served by freight and passenger could be expanded to permit all traffic to remain on time.

 

[kEiThZ]

If they can get it down to 2.5 hours that would be a game changer.

It would be a gamechanger. So would the price tag. That's high speed rail and a decade ago that was going to cost $12 billion. Probably closer to $15 billion today.

I'll be happy if by 2035, they can have cumulatively spent $7-8 billion on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal portion. That would get Toronto-Montreal to 4 hrs.

 

[roger1818]

It would be a gamechanger. So would the price tag. That's high speed rail and a decade ago that was going to cost $12 billion. Probably closer to $15 billion today.

I'll be happy if by 2035, they can have cumulatively spent $7-8 billion on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal portion. That would get Toronto-Montreal to 4 hrs.

The one thing people forget is that ticket prices increase with speed. The mantra "faster than flying, cheaper than driving" sounds great, but it is a myth. I would rather see VIA take thousands of cars off of the road than a dozen flights out of the air.

 

[kEiThZ]

That is insane when they throw money at an airline who uses mainly new jets.

You haven't a clue. Aviation isn't subsidized in Canada. In fact, it's a huge moneymaker for the federal government. Hundreds of millions annually in ground rent from the largest airports. Fuel taxes for more general revenue. And navigation fees, security charges and airport improvement fees so that the whole system pays for itself. This is why the Feds don't care about intercity rail. Why move passengers from a sector that gets them revenue to one that requires subsidies?

I have always gotten it. I just think the government needs to push the freight operators harder. They may own the lines, but we Canadians paid for them

And "we Canadians" were fully compensated with the sale of those assets. You can't sell something and retroactively impose obligations. Imagine selling your car to a friend and then insisting that he let you use it every Friday at exactly 7pm, after you have cashed his cheque.

Also, our freight operators are incredible. They carry more freight by rail than all the European freight rail operators combined. Canada has the fifth largest freight rail network (by tonne-km carried) in the world. The only countries ahead of us are China, Russia, India and the US. That's something we should be proud of, as Canadians.