VIA Rail

[SamStar]

Do they? AFAIK, the contract was that there needed to be an upgrade path for electrification. IIRC (and please prove me wrong if you have evidence to the contrary), Siemens plan was that should electrification be necessary, the Chargers could be replaced with electric locomotives.

One charger at one end and one electric locomotive at the other end?
Probably the best solution considering that electrification will take a long time and will be partial. In addition, bi-mode electric/diesel locomotives tend to be more expensive than their non bi-mode counterparts, at least based on the cost AMT had to pay to buy them from Bombardier.

 

[Frank_Lee]

Yeah of course. The negative externalities of cars really drops like a rock once its electric. Certainly will have to figure out a new way to fund operations, maintenance and renewal. Plus will always have the demand problem where the incremental user puts way more costs on other road users than the benefits they recieve (the economics of congestion).

It will take some time for language to adjust around how urbanites talk about cars. It will be sorta like over last decade as people's rhetoric shifted away from oil crisis/end of suburbia.

For VIA it is about pure geometry! One VIA train = so many cars off the road. HFR = not building an incremental lane each way on the 401/416/417. HFR = less urban congestion, etc.

Even with electric cars there are still substantial externalities in terms of air pollution (from tire and break wear) and the public health costs. Whether or not the technology embedded in new cars substantially improves pedestrian and other road user safety is something that remains to be seen. Gregory Shill at the University of Iowa's Law School has done a ton of work on this in the American context, but a lot carries over to Canada.

 

[roger1818]

^ Just out of curiosity, who is Paul? Does he have any rail industry experience? Is he retired and has lots of time on his hands?

A quick Google found Paul Langan's LinkedIn profile. I'll let you judge his credentials.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-langan-80102127

 

[Darwinkgo]

Even with electric cars there are still substantial externalities in terms of air pollution (from tire and break wear) and the public health costs. Whether or not the technology embedded in new cars substantially improves pedestrian and other road user safety is something that remains to be seen. Gregory Shill at the University of Iowa's Law School has done a ton of work on this in the American context, but a lot carries over to Canada.

It is quite easy in comparison to convince people burning oil probably isn't the best thing. The public health arguments though - they are so diffuse imo to be meaningless to most - basically the urbanist version of chiropracty - a 15 minute city will solve all your ills! Bascially the urbanist equivalent of 'eat your vegetables'.

 

[Northern Light]

^ Just out of curiosity, who is Paul?

The Mark Brooks of High Speed Rail!

 

[SFO-YYZ]

A quick Google found Paul Langan's LinkedIn profile. I'll let you judge his credentials.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-langan-80102127

For someone who claims to be the "social media guru / spokesperson" for Canadian HSR, he has whopping 71 connections on LinkedIn. Even my 64 year old mama can do better than that

If this is the representative of the future of intercity rail in Canada, god help us all.

 

[MisterF]

I wonder if these enhancements are even covered by the JPO/EA work. I'm betting not, just because it's added scope and cost ,when the intent is lowest possible initial cost. I'm hopeful that the initial envelope will fund sufficient sidings, but as noted above even sidings are not cheap.Let's hope that the initial product hasn't been value-engineered too far.

And, while everything seems rosy on the surface, I have to wonder what pass-the-hat discussions happen between ML and VIA. One should not expect VIA to build a second track for ML, any more than one should expect VIA to have free use of all ML's expanded corridors without chipping in for the capital cost of those. I'm sure the CIB would be asking pointed questions about who is paying for what.

- Paul

I just don't see why GO trains would ever go to Peterborough when Via will already have hourly trains. We don't need a second agency to run a commuter focused service. Via already caters to commuters in certain areas, so it's more than capable of serving both commuters and intercity passengers. Even more so in a corridor that it controls. GO makes sense for a city like Kitchener because it's significantly bigger and doesn't have good Via service. Peterborough, OTOH, will have some of the best Via service in the Corridor.

But just for the sake of the argument, if GO trains serve Peterborough I assume that both GO and Via would be controlled by the same scheduling. Extra sidings or double tracking would make sense when the frequency of both gets high enough. One track for each agency is a very silo mentality and wouldn't be very efficient.

Even with electric cars there are still substantial externalities in terms of air pollution (from tire and break wear) and the public health costs. Whether or not the technology embedded in new cars substantially improves pedestrian and other road user safety is something that remains to be seen. Gregory Shill at the University of Iowa's Law School has done a ton of work on this in the American context, but a lot carries over to Canada.

Even if AVs largely eliminate accidents, planning around cars still has health costs. Car oriented communities are one of the causes of the obesity epidemic.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I'm still fairly convinced that the moment GO requires substantial new track for Peterborough they would be better served by accessing Peterboroough by extending Lakeshore on new alignment parrallel to hwy 115.

 

[crs1026]

I just don't see why GO trains would ever go to Peterborough when Via will already have hourly trains. We don't need a second agency to run a commuter focused service. Via already caters to commuters in certain areas, so it's more than capable of serving both commuters and intercity passengers. Even more so in a corridor that it controls. GO makes sense for a city like Kitchener because it's significantly bigger and doesn't have good Via service. Peterborough, OTOH, will have some of the best Via service in the Corridor.

But just for the sake of the argument, if GO trains serve Peterborough I assume that both GO and Via would be controlled by the same scheduling. Extra sidings or double tracking would make sense when the frequency of both gets high enough. One track for each agency is a very silo mentality and wouldn't be very efficient.

Peterborough is similar to Kitchener in that there may be sticker shock at HFR fares, and there may be calls for GO service with its lower fare structure and (if you believe ML) fare integration to other transit operators.

I was struck by the number of posts I have seen on social media and in other forums over the past day who took the budget announcement to signify that GO service to Peterborough is imminent. That's likely on the strength of believing that the business case and lobbying that began back in Shining Waters days is alive and well and made an impact on the JPO and CIB and Ottawa bureaucrats. I highly doubt that this is the case. Peterborough will benefit from HFR, but HFR is not about bringing regional rail to Peterborough.

I expect the pols in Peterborough will be quite happy enough with HFR. The people who want GO are the developers and land owners further west who would love to develop the greenbelt. GO commuter stations along the line would promote that. That's still the reason why Peterborough should never, ever have a GO service to Toronto.

- Paul

 

[afransen]

Yeah of course. The negative externalities of cars really drops like a rock once its electric. Certainly will have to figure out a new way to fund operations, maintenance and renewal. Plus will always have the demand problem where the incremental user puts way more costs on other road users than the benefits they recieve (the economics of congestion).

It will take some time for language to adjust around how urbanites talk about cars. It will be sorta like over last decade as people's rhetoric shifted away from oil crisis/end of suburbia.

For VIA it is about pure geometry! One VIA train = so many cars off the road. HFR = not building an incremental lane each way on the 401/416/417. HFR = less urban congestion, etc.

The fact that they emit GHGs and local pollutants aren't the only problem with cars. EVs are less offensive, but not something to be embraced in cities. The infrastructure required and social habits created by cars is not desirable.

The whole oil crisis/Jeff Rubin "End of Growth" stuff was always on the face of it nonsense. He was arguing that container shipping was going to end and global trade would dry up. Nevermind that it takes less fuel/energy to float something from China to North America than the train or truck to move it around on the continent. It was always completely economically illiterate doom-mongering.

 

[MisterF]

Peterborough is similar to Kitchener in that there may be sticker shock at HFR fares, and there may be calls for GO service with its lower fare structure and (if you believe ML) fare integration to other transit operators.

Via isn't that much more expensive than GO. A Via commuter pass to Oshawa is $254 for 20 trips. The equivalent on GO is $206 with Presto. On a corridor that Via owns and operates it might even be able to match a GO fare. It could offer a whole range of price points and service types that it can't on the Kitchener line today.

We have a tendency to think of GO, Via, and the TTC doing different things that have little in common because that's what we're used to. But that will become less and less true if RER and HFR get built out. Take the Barrie line for example. When it gets fully expanded and fares are integrated it has the potential to carry everything from intercity trains to local transit and everything in between. Who knows, maybe at some point in the future GO will start running express trains with reserved seats to Barrie or Collingwood. At the same time, you could take the same line to do a quick subway style trip from Bloor to Caledonia. You don't need to bring in other transit agencies to meet those diverse needs.

 

[reaperexpress]

Via isn't that much more expensive than GO. A Via commuter pass to Oshawa is $254 for 20 trips. The equivalent on GO is $206 with Presto. On a corridor that Via owns and operates it might even be able to match a GO fare. It could offer a whole range of price points and service types that it can't on the Kitchener line today.

We have a tendency to think of GO, Via, and the TTC doing different things that have little in common because that's what we're used to. But that will become less and less true if RER and HFR get built out. Take the Barrie line for example. When it gets fully expanded and fares are integrated it has the potential to carry everything from intercity trains to local transit and everything in between. Who knows, maybe at some point in the future GO will start running express trains with reserved seats to Barrie or Collingwood. At the same time, you could take the same line to do a quick subway style trip from Bloor to Caledonia. You don't need to bring in other transit agencies to meet those diverse needs.

For longer trips the difference gets even slimmer.

20 trips Toronto - Kitchener:
GO: $326.40 on Presto
VIA: $294.00 + 13% tax = $332.22

20 trips Toronto - Guelph
GO: $271.80 on Presto
VIA: $267.00 + 13% tax = $301.71

The only reason VIA is more expensive in many cases is that they get charged sales tax while GO doesn't.

We really need to get rid of the sales tax on train and bus tickets - it is wasteful to be taxing VIA while they receive an annual operating subsidy. It is also counterproductive to be taxing Ontario Northland and bus operators licenced by the Ontario Highway Traffic Board (Greyhound, Coach Canada, Casper Bus, Hammond Bus etc) when they're priving a valuable public service that provides a net benefit to the government and citizens. And they're all constantly perpetually struggling to break even.

 

[lenaitch]

For longer trips the difference gets even slimmer.

20 trips Toronto - Kitchener:
GO: $326.40 on Presto
VIA: $294.00 + 13% tax = $332.22

20 trips Toronto - Guelph
GO: $271.80 on Presto
VIA: $267.00 + 13% tax = $301.71

The only reason VIA is more expensive in many cases is that they get charged sales tax while GO doesn't.

We really need to get rid of the sales tax on train and bus tickets - it is wasteful to be taxing VIA while they receive an annual operating subsidy. It is also counterproductive to be taxing Ontario Northland and bus operators licenced by the Ontario Highway Traffic Board (Greyhound, Coach Canada, Casper Bus, Hammond Bus etc) when they're priving a valuable public service that provides a net benefit to the government and citizens. And they're all constantly perpetually struggling to break even.

But where does that logic start and stop? It does raise an interesting point of the treatment between 'transit' and 'transit-like'.

 

[roger1818]

But where does that logic start and stop? It does raise an interesting point of the treatment between 'transit' and 'transit-like'.

Agreed. For example, Prestige class tickets on The Canadian probably shouldn't be tax free. Maybe economy class tickets on intercity buses and trains should be tax free, but not premium class tickets.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I wonder why VIA continues to offer commuter passes to some stations like Grimsby and St Catharines.. Those stations are only served by the Maple Leaf right now, and have been for years, which operates on an essentially unusable service pattern. Why even offer it? I would be surprised if they saw even a single customer buying the pass.