VIA Rail

[crs1026]

^It’s a bit like watching people looking the other way in a restaurant when the check arrives, waiting to see if a colleague will offer to cover it. Let’s hope the Feds see it as their role, and offer money.

Having said that, VIA is not really free to “pitch” proposals, or even prepare a proposal on request. Most “feasibility studies” come from consultants, not necessarily with the same depth of operational and fiscal credibility. Other than BC, Ontario and Quebec, few provinces would have the expertise to negotiate by themselves in an informed way with the host railways. The whole positioning seems to devolve into paralysis as mandates are debated and reasons “why not” are generated.

If the will were there, the funding amounts might not look so impossible.

Ottawa recently announced a funding stream for transit, and has contributed capital funding to GO and to VIa. One would think that medium distance intercity rail might find a niche in the funding universe - not huge dollar amounts, just acceptance as part of the funding universe. That might lead to competing proposals and some more uniform yardstick for discussing which routes might justify funding and which are nonstarters.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Ottawa recently announced a funding stream for transit

The bulk of which is two elections out. Right now I'm just hoping HFR survives this election.

 

[Urban Sky]

This is what me and @crs1026 keep saying.

That said, I question how motivated the provinces are to do anything. Our Western provinces didn't even want to keep Greyhound alive. Ontario was willing to shut down the Northlander than pay VIA to run it. And we're talking about finding tens of millions in a provincial budget of hundreds of billions. Everyone looks at the feds and VIA. Nobody is asking why the provinces don't step up.

The main motivation for demanding VIA to expand service by replacing struggling bus services indeed seems to be to offload the financial obligation to fund transportation to the “rest of the country” (i.e. the federal taxpayer). For a mode (rail) which costs almost ten times the per-scheduled-km subsidy compared to the mode (bus) it is often replacing (often accompanied by the need for costly enabling infrastructure investments), this is not a healthy proposition...

 

[kEiThZ]

The main motivation for demanding VIA to expand service by replacing struggling bus services indeed seems to be to offload the financial obligation to fund transportation to the “rest of the country” (i.e. the federal taxpayer). For a mode (rail) which costs almost ten times the per-scheduled-km subsidy compared to the mode (bus) it is often replacing (often accompanied by the need for costly enabling infrastructure investments), this is not a healthy proposition...

To be clear, I'm not at all in favour of VIA taking on all kinds of new responsibilities on its limited shoestring budget. More a question of whether and where VIA can bring its tremendous experience to bear.

I think there are regional routes where VIA would do well as an operator, if appropriately compensated by the provincial authorities.

 

[Urban Sky]

To be clear, I'm not at all in favour of VIA taking on all kinds of new responsibilities on its limited shoestring budget. More a question of whether and where VIA can bring its tremendous experience to bear.

I think there are regional routes where VIA would do well as an operator, if appropriately compensated by the provincial authorities.

My point was that in the United States, when individual States call for new Amtrak services, it’s because they are prepared to pay for better transportation options for their citizens, whereas in Canada, local politicians and “social media users” from the individual provinces call for new VIA services to rid themselves from which would conveniently transfer the financial obligation to run bus services along the corridor in question to a higher and less erratic level of government*. I struggle to imagine any politician on Vancouver Island would demand restoration of the Malahat service if the province would have to contribute more to its operating deficit than what saving the failing bus service would cost. The reflex (as with the demise with Greyhound all across Western Canada) is: “Ottawa, help us, our regional bus services are failing! Please pay millions to restore VIA service, so that we can avoid paying hundred-thousands to preserve our bus services!”...

* Edit (2021/02/26): Precision added, to specify that this observation concerns local politicians and activism, not the provincial governments themselves, as discussed later in this thread.

 

[micheal_can]

Those are configurations. It's not like they are fixed or that trains are being bought specifically to operate that way forever. There different configurations are meant to give VIA flexibility matching demand on a given segment. For example, the short configs are going to be really useful out of the Kingston hub and for Corridor West. They'll be able to keep up frequencies by using shorter trains.



That requires funding, especially for a lot of the regional rail proposals. Lest we forget that VIA Rail is a $700M agency that takes in about ~$300M in subsidies. This is absolute peanuts. There's transit agencies that get more in subsidies than VIA's entire budget. The TTC, for example, is verging on nearly $800M in operating subsidies. Metrolinx takes in almost $150M annually. Just for comparison, Norway has an annual rail budget of nearly US$3B. The operating subsidy for operations and maintenance and passenger service is over double VIA's entire budget. Norway has fewer people than the GTA and is smaller than Newfoundland or the Yukon.

So there's literally no way to add new services unless the feds and provinces up the subsidy or if savings can be found elsewhere (possible with HFR).

I guess I should ave said that if more funding becomes available. Or, if HFR frees up more funding.

If you were to allow municipalities and provinces to contribute then it would make it easier to expand services. Like Amtrak California or MDOT.

I know EXO does this. The question is, what if an intermediate station looses the local funding, do they simply close the station?

This is what me and @crs1026 keep saying.

That said, I question how motivated the provinces are to do anything. Our Western provinces didn't even want to keep Greyhound alive. Ontario was willing to shut down the Northlander than pay VIA to run it. And we're talking about finding tens of millions in a provincial budget of hundreds of billions. Everyone looks at the feds and VIA. Nobody is asking why the provinces don't step up.

Greyhound is a private company. ONR has always been under the wrong ministry. With the move to the MTO, it can actually be utilized for for what it is, a transportation agency.

^It’s a bit like watching people looking the other way in a restaurant when the check arrives, waiting to see if a colleague will offer to cover it. Let’s hope the Feds see it as their role, and offer money.

Having said that, VIA is not really free to “pitch” proposals, or even prepare a proposal on request. Most “feasibility studies” come from consultants, not necessarily with the same depth of operational and fiscal credibility. Other than BC, Ontario and Quebec, few provinces would have the expertise to negotiate by themselves in an informed way with the host railways. The whole positioning seems to devolve into paralysis as mandates are debated and reasons “why not” are generated.

If the will were there, the funding amounts might not look so impossible.

Ottawa recently announced a funding stream for transit, and has contributed capital funding to GO and to VIa. One would think that medium distance intercity rail might find a niche in the funding universe - not huge dollar amounts, just acceptance as part of the funding universe. That might lead to competing proposals and some more uniform yardstick for discussing which routes might justify funding and which are nonstarters.

- Paul

I doubt anything outside of HFR will get funded from this stimulus package.

The bulk of which is two elections out. Right now I'm just hoping HFR survives this election.

Depends on a lot of things. The Liberals and Conservatives do not have enough of a lead for an election. HFR will be in the next election along with all the other transit things.

 

[nfitz]

Why make a bigger mess? ONR owns the line north of North Bay. CN owns the line south of North Bay. That means that Via still needs to negotiate the line, where as ONR only needs to negotiate with CN.

Surely VIA has more experience negotiating with CN than Ontario Northland. Though a VIA Rail act would (finally) make that easier.

 

[Bordercollie]

Surely VIA has more experience negotiating with CN than Ontario Northland. Though a VIA Rail act would (finally) make that easier.

Why do you say that? During the protests last year on the Kingston SUB CN used ONR to get trains from A-B. Also ONR and CN interchange cars with each other on a daily basis. So this is a two way relationship.

 

[crs1026]

My point was that in the United States, when individual States call for new Amtrak services, it’s because they are prepared to pay for better transportation options for their citizens, whereas in Canada, individual provinces call for new VIA services to rid themselves from the financial obligation to run bus services along the corridor in question. I struggle to imagine any politician on Vancouver Island would demand restoration of the Malahat service if the province would have to contribute more to its operating deficit than what saving the failing bus service would cost. The reflex (as with the demise with Greyhound all across Western Canada) is: “Ottawa, help us, our regional bus services are failing! Please pay millions to restore VIA service, so that we can avoid paying hundred-thousands to preserve our bus services!”...

I’m with you in spirit, but the reality is that all political parties at the federal level welcome the opportunity to spend money on provincial matters on everything under the sun.... so long as the funding is released on political lines as a matter of buying votes.
What I would argue for is not to spit into the wind by opposing this, (it’s a fantasy to think this can be overcome in our system) but rather finding more transparent and objective methods for doling out the gravy so there is greater discipline and more attention to measuring the value obtained.
That’s why I mentioned the recent transit funding announcement.... Ottawa has always funded municipal transit, but only in fits and starts and tied to the election cycle. Might as well admit that this item is part of the federal cash flow and build it into the budgets as a well structured program that can be scrutinised for equity and value created.
If I were king for a day, I would execute a Mike Harris style downloading of federal programs, to align revenue to where money is spent. IMhO Canada overtaxes at the federal level and then passes the money back to the provinces as a political exercise, and not as an income redistribution exercise or a valid social programs exercise. The provinces would have much more ability to fund what they need if the contribution to federal coffers were reduced.
But I’m not King, and I’m enough of a realist to accept that I’m a minority of one, so instead I am quite willing to see the provinces line up to ask Ottawa to fund regional passenger trains. If province A declines, the money will just get spent in province b... hoprfully on rail not on highways. That’s what our federal system is all about.... provinces competing to get their own money back.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Surely VIA has more experience negotiating with CN than Ontario Northland. Though a VIA Rail act would (finally) make that easier.

I would rate the two agencies equally in their relationship with CN. The differentiators would be the depth of pockets when CN quotes a price. Neither agency could find the funding as things stand today.

Part of the funding needed would undoubtedly go to adding capacity on the part of the route that runs on CN’s transcontinental line. That’s where the proposal becomes more than a simple negotiation. CN has valid interests in that line that have to be respected, but as substantial public money would be involved, there ought to be some objective test of whatever it might seek as a solution. VIA might be better able to navigate that discussion under present conditions, as it regularly faces that with both CP and CN . It’s an area where I feel legislation is needed to provide a more level playing field, but now I’m back in thread # 3.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

I’m with you in spirit, but the reality is that all political parties at the federal level welcome the opportunity to spend money on provincial matters on everything under the sun.... so long as the funding is released on political lines as a matter of buying votes.
What I would argue for is not to spit into the wind by opposing this, (it’s a fantasy to think this can be overcome in our system) but rather finding more transparent and objective methods for doling out the gravy so there is greater discipline and more attention to measuring the value obtained.
That’s why I mentioned the recent transit funding announcement.... Ottawa has always funded municipal transit, but only in fits and starts and tied to the election cycle. Might as well admit that this item is part of the federal cash flow and build it into the budgets as a well structured program that can be scrutinised for equity and value created.
If I were king for a day, I would execute a Mike Harris style downloading of federal programs, to align revenue to where money is spent. IMhO Canada overtaxes at the federal level and then passes the money back to the provinces as a political exercise, and not as an income redistribution exercise or a valid social programs exercise. The provinces would have much more ability to fund what they need if the contribution to federal coffers were reduced.
But I’m not King, and I’m enough of a realist to accept that I’m a minority of one, so instead I am quite willing to see the provinces line up to ask Ottawa to fund regional passenger trains. If province A declines, the money will just get spent in province b... hoprfully on rail not on highways. That’s what our federal system is all about.... provinces competing to get their own money back.

- Paul

One also has to remember that Canada and the USA have very different constitutions. As this paper says, "In Canada, the intent, clearly reflected in the Constitution of 1867, was for the central government to predominate," where as in USA, "the constitutional plan was one of states' rights." Interestingly, both countries (through judicial interpretation) have drifted towards the other, though both still lean towards their original constitutional intent. We can't assume that just because they do things one way south of the boarder, the same thing will work well here.

 

[crs1026]

One also has to remember that Canada and the USA have very different constitutions. As this paper says, "In Canada, the intent, clearly reflected in the Constitution of 1867, was for the central government to predominate," where as in USA, "the constitutional plan was one of states' rights." Interestingly, both countries (through judicial interpretation) have drifted towards the other, though both still lean towards their original constitutional intent. We can't assume that just because they do things one way south of the boarder, the same thing will work well here.

The non-sequitur in passenger rail space is when the governance is structured as a "predominantly central" proposition, but when a specific possible route is mentioned the knee-jerk federal response is "that's a provincial responsibility". If things are managed (and funded) in a predominantly central manner, one would expect that Ottawa would respond with sensitivity and concern to requests from the provinces, a "maybe can do, let's look at it" attitude at least.

As much as it may grate with @Urban Sky, how that plays out in public space is people (like UT participants, for example) asking "Why doesn't VIA do X?". If it's not VIA's problem, it certainly ought to be someone in Ottawa's mandate to accept and respond to such questions. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that anyone in Ottawa actually cares. VIA's mandate becomes non-negotiable, and therefore tunnel vision. Unfortunately, VIA becomes the only visible target, and VIA's life becomes that much more difficult. That dynamic really needs to change.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

Upthread and elsewhere @Urban Sky raised the utility of bus-train connections, passenger expectations about buses holding for delayed trains and vice versa. At the moment VIA connections with bus operators are, as I understand it, a convenience marketing arrangement but the Amtrak Thruway system gives a glimpse of what an extensive and more formalized arrangement could look like but with the continuance of the bus operator's own corporate and branding identity, since they would use the same drivers and vehicles for other routes.

It is accepted that, like direct provincial support of rail service existing and expanded, there would likely need to be some changes in thinking in Ottawa, if not legislative underpinning, to see a move towards this model. Given the battering the private bus sector has taken nationwide in the last 36 months or so, there might be some appetite for cooperation rather than competition.

The one thing that such arrangements have going for them in the 2020s is the expansion of trainset tracking and motorcoach tracking. This allows dispatchers on both sides of the arrangements to estimate the degree of impact to the service and in turn alert passengers with firm bookings, without relying on the other operator to provide initial notification of the issue.

*edit to correct link to Urban Sky to the right username

 

[micheal_can]

Upthread and elsewhere @Urban Sky raised the utility of bus-train connections, passenger expectations about buses holding for delayed trains and vice versa. At the moment VIA connections with bus operators are, as I understand it, a convenience marketing arrangement but the Amtrak Thruway system gives a glimpse of what an extensive and more formalized arrangement could look like but with the continuance of the bus operator's own corporate and branding identity, since they would use the same drivers and vehicles for other routes.

It is accepted that, like direct provincial support of rail service existing and expanded, there would likely need to be some changes in thinking in Ottawa, if not legislative underpinning, to see a move towards this model. Given the battering the private bus sector has taken nationwide in the last 36 months or so, there might be some appetite for cooperation rather than competition.

The one thing that such arrangements have going for them in the 2020s is the expansion of trainset tracking and motorcoach tracking. This allows dispatchers on both sides of the arrangements to estimate the degree of impact to the service and in turn alert passengers with firm bookings, without relying on the other operator to provide initial notification of the issue.

*edit to correct link to Urban Sky to the right username

While I like the idea of a Via bus line; of which they used to have, It could be used as a tool to close existing Via service that under performs.

 

[robmausser]

While I like the idea of a Via bus line; of which they used to have, It could be used as a tool to close existing Via service that under performs.

A provision could be written such that Via could only run bus service to compliment existing rail lines, not replace them.