VIA Rail

[Rainforest]

Whenever someone says „legislation“ would fix the issue of operational priority, they are oblivious about the fact that they actually mean: „money“. Because you would need billions of taxpayer dollars to buy out CN (because you can’t override core principles of property rights and countless decades of legal precedents with simple „legislation“) and substitute the massive capital expenditure they pump into our national rail infrastructure every year (because why would they continue investing into assets they no longer control?)…

I may be wrong, but it is hard for me to believe that a relatively minor change in the operating rules is equivalent to buying out the whole rail network. There are many other cases where the government sets rules for the use of assets that otherwise remain in private hands.

For example, municipalities setting rules for the homeowners how high they can build, what they can/cannot rent out to tenants, or when they can/cannot evict those tenants. The house and the land remains private.

Or the government setting rules for businesses on how they must hire to ensure equality, the minimum required number of vacation days, and the minimum termination payments. The business remains private and operates as such.

 

[micheal_can]

So you want to reduce the number of fright trains to allow more passenger trains, but want to legislate that freight off of the highways as well? Is your plan to somehow reduce the amount of freight or are you proposing some other method of transporting it?

A better option might be to legislate pickup trucks and SUVs off of the highways.

Nowhere did I say reduce freight trains. However, there are other things hat could be change that would actually see more freight movements and more passenger service. The political climate isn't there.

I don't think you quite understand the power dynamics in this country.

I do, and that is why it hasn't happened. Most of Via's problems are solvable with the right legislation. If the political climate ever is right, the legislation will happen, till then Via will roll along as it has been.

Followed by one other word :

Litigation.

I agree that the power balance between host railways and VIA is off kilter, but let's not devolve into fantasy scenarios. It's a very complicated equation. For every action, there will be a reaction.

The bidders are explicitly being asked for higher speed proposals. Wait til we see the price tag for those bids. The reality of public sticker shock can't be ignored. When those proposals are tabled, very many voters may prefer not to have nice things.

- Paul

Most voters are not even going to know the costs. The average Canadian won't know what it is or what the price for it is. If the government of the day can spin it in a positive way, it will be received that way.

 

[crs1026]

I may be wrong, but it is hard for me to believe that a relatively minor change in the operating rules is equivalent to buying out the whole rail network. There are many other cases where the government sets rules for the use of assets that otherwise remain in private hands.

For example, municipalities setting rules for the homeowners how high they can build, what they can/cannot rent out to tenants, or when they can/cannot evict those tenants. The house and the land remains private.

Or the government setting rules for businesses on how they must hire to ensure equality, the minimum required number of vacation days, and the minimum termination payments. The business remains private and operates as such.

Well, if the change was minor it might not be as big a deal.

Your examples are good ones - it's not as if the municipalities set rules and everyone says "oh, ok" and abides by the rules. Look at how much effort goes into seeking exemptions from zoning - planners, lawyers, committees of adjustment, land tribunals, and very aggressive developers and homeowners big and small. And landlord-tenant bureaucracies. It's a whole system of law and precedent and policy. Not so minor. And, land owners are under no obligation to build if the deck isn't dealt to their liking.

Similarly, employment standards compliance is frequently a "catch-me-if-you-can-and-can-afford-to-litigate" propositon.

The "minor operating change" that would meet the needs of posters' proposals to optimise the existing CN Toronto-Montreal corridor amounts to telling CN, "your 15,000 foot land barges must clear the path of hourly VIA trains such that they continue to operate at top track speed wherever and whenever the two intersect".

The solution to that would require a huge capital investment. (We did start down that route - and didn't like the result.) And likely a reworking of the entire CN freight scheduling potentially with far reaching impacts on CN operations. It might also generate precedents that others would be eager to apply to other rail lines - hey, if they can make "minor" changes on the Kingston Sub, let's make equally "minor" changes in some other state or province....

I'm not saying adjustments cannot be made, but some of the adjustments we need do have significant impacts. I can appreciate why CN/CP and Ottawa are not eager to open that can of worms.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Well, if the change was minor it might not be as big a deal.

Your examples are good ones - it's not as if the municipalities set rules and everyone says "oh, ok" and abides by the rules. Look at how much effort goes into seeking exemptions from zoning - planners, lawyers, committees of adjustment, land tribunals, and very aggressive developers and homeowners big and small. And landlord-tenant bureaucracies. It's a whole system of law and precedent and policy. Not so minor. And, land owners are under no obligation to build if the deck isn't dealt to their liking.

Similarly, employment standards compliance is frequently a catch-me-if-you-can propositon.

The "minor operating change" that would meet the needs of posters' proposals to optimise the existing CN Toronto-Montreal corridor amounts to telling CN, "your 15,000 foot land barges must clear the path of hourly VIA trains such that they continue to operate at top track speed wherever and whenever the two intersect".

The solution to that would require a huge capital investment. (We did start down that route - and didn't like the result.) And likely a reworking of the entire CN freight scheduling potentially with far reaching impacts on CN operations. It might also generate precedents that others would be eager to apply to other rail lines - hey, if they can make "minor" changes on the Kingston Sub, let's make equally "minor" changes in some other state or province....

I'm not saying adjustments cannot be made, but some of the adjustments we need do have significant impacts.

- Paul

I often like your allusions Paul, but I think this is a bit of a stretch.

The vast majority of large employers do comply with Employment Standards; and virtually every redevelopment of any size complies with the process for gaining permission; and it should be noted, there is no tribunal comparable to the OLT in many jurisdictions and no inherent need for it here in Ontario either.

***

In respect of rail, the U.S. as pro-capitalism an economy as there is, at least at scale manages to mandate Amtrak first policies.

CN and CP are perfectly capable of directional running/co-production on their mainlines in southern Ontario and Quebec and delivering lots of new passenger rail capacity in the process, with yes, some further capital investment but nothing obscene.

Its a political choice, pure and simple.

Now, if you ask me if I think any Federal government has demonstrated the requisite spine, or seems likely to in the near term, I would wholeheartedly agree the answer is 'no'.

I'm all for an argument to advocate for that which has a reasonable chance of success; but its not unreasonable to note that there are better options.

 

[roger1818]

why are we fixated with the idea that only CN can own track on the corridor and we must use theirs? why cant we also build track

Huh? That is exactly what HFR (which you seem opposed to) is about. Its original name was the Dedicated Tracks program.

and why are we so afraid of investing in future infrastructure beyond the bare minimum?

The fear is that the plan become too expensive and the politicians deciding to cancel it, like they have every other time HSR has been proposed in this country. Some say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Maybe you are too young to remember all of the other HSR proposals that went nowhere (according to this link, there have been 26 Ontario-Quebec HSR studies since 1970).

I don't know about you, but I would rather see some improvement to VIA Rail than spend the next century dreaming about how it should be improved and criticizing any improvements that don't meet some arbitrary, high standard.

besides arent we proposing an exclusive RoW for vast sections of HFR?

So why do you think people are opposed to VIA having their own RoW?

can they not design their own corridor for HSR? if costs are a concern just look at the cool billion that we just threw away to ukraine without even batting an eyelash.

The key is public support. Part of the problem is that half of Canadians live outside the Windsor-Quebec corridor, and resent money being spent inside Ontario and Quebec. Even among those who do, they don't care about trains. Then you get groups (like the airlines) that will see their business model hurt by HSR and will throw massive amounts of money campaigning against HSR (notice that one of the HSR studies I linked to was by "Air Canada/CP Rail" around the same time as momentum was building for HSR in the early 90's).

I am not opposed to HSR, but am tired of all the hot air on the subject and see HFR as the an opportunity to actually see the yard sticks move down the field. Keeping the football analogy, I see fighting for HSR now is like its 3rd and inches (CFL of course) and rather than doing a quarterback sneak to get a 1st down, you decide to throw up a Hail Mary and risk turning the ball over on downs.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I enjoyed my weekend trip to Quebec City on VIA. Last year we did a VIA trip to Montreal with the kids and stayed at the Hotel Bonaventure, located above the train station, with a roof top pool.

So, where else is there worth traveling to from Toronto on VIA for a weekend getaway? Not Ottawa, I lived there for four years and am done with the capital. I don't want to rent a car when I get there. Is there anything worth seeing in London?

I'm thinking of taking Amtrak to NY.

 

[roger1818]

In respect of rail, the U.S. as pro-capitalism an economy as there is, at least at scale manages to mandate Amtrak first policies.

Amtrak was formed for completely different reasons than VIA Rail. In the USA, passenger transport was loosing the railroads money, and they were begging the government to relieve them of the responsibility to transport passengers. The government agreed (and formed Amtrak) on the condition that Amtrak was given priority on their RoWs.

In Canada, there were only two main railways. CN was a crown corporation, thus didn't have the obligation to make money and CP received funding from the government to operate passenger trains. As a result there wasn't the same desperation as in the USA. Trudeau Sr. saw the formation of Amtrak in the US and wanted the same thing for Canada, so he split off the passenger services from CN and formed VIA Rail. VIA quickly realized that to be competitive, they needed better integration with CP's passenger services and offered to take them over. While CP was happy to let them go, they had the upper hand in the negotiations.

Later, when VIA's service was scaled back, it was decided to keep most of the routes on CN"s track, in part because it was still a crown corporation, so negotiations for track rights was much easier. The big problem was when Mulroney decided to sell CN, he didn't put a clause that CN must continue to give VIA priority (I don't know if this was an oversite or intentional as it might have reduced the money the government would raise from the sale). While it is theoretically possible to turn back time and pass legislation to give VIA priority, there would certainly be political (and possibly legal) consequences.

The other thing to note, is while legally Amtrak trains have priority, that priority is frequently ignored by the railways without any consequences.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Amtrak to NY is painful at the border -it's scheduled to spend something like 2 hours clearing customs. The scheduled travel time from Toronto to Buffalo is over 4hrs, which you can usually drive in ~2.

If you want to take Amtrak into the US, just drive to Buffalo and get on there. You can skip the ridiculous customs wait. Buffalo Depew to NYC is as low as an 8-hr trip to NYC, compared to 13hrs from Toronto.

 

[Urban Sky]

Nowhere did I say reduce freight trains. However, there are other things hat could be change that would actually see more freight movements and more passenger service. The political climate isn't there.

Of course you haven’t said that. You never bother to acknowledge the inevitable consequences of any of your outlandish demands…

I do, and that is why it hasn't happened. Most of Via's problems are solvable with the right legislation. If the political climate ever is right, the legislation will happen, till then Via will roll along as it has been.

If you did, you would be able to move on and phrase demands which actually stand a remote chance given the political reality…

Most voters are not even going to know the costs. The average Canadian won't know what it is or what the price for it is. If the government of the day can spin it in a positive way, it will be received that way.

Since your brain seems to work best with single words: Opposition. Media.
In a refreshingly calming testament of Google‘s inability to target me with relevant ads (I care too much about the livlihood of my children and future grandchildren to ever consider voting Conservative, even if I one day become a Citizen and thus eligible to vote), I‘ve been shown an ad from Pierre Pollievre and it suggests that he has reason to believe that a shockingly high proportion of voters in this country cares about little more than jobs, low taxes and easy access to affordable property. It‘s not difficult to imagine how he would explain to its electorate the consequences of any attempt to impose operational priority for passenger trains onto CN: „Canadians will pay through their nose for these Socialist dreams through higher taxes, higher interest rates and less jobs!“

 

[cplchanb]

Huh? That is exactly what HFR (which you seem opposed to) is about. Its original name was the Dedicated Tracks program.



The fear is that the plan become too expensive and the politicians deciding to cancel it, like they have every other time HSR has been proposed in this country. Some say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Maybe you are too young to remember all of the other HSR proposals that went nowhere (according to this link, there have been 26 Ontario-Quebec HSR studies since 1970).

I don't know about you, but I would rather see some improvement to VIA Rail than spend the next century dreaming about how it should be improved and criticizing any improvements that don't meet some arbitrary, high standard.



So why do you think people are opposed to VIA having their own RoW?



The key is public support. Part of the problem is that half of Canadians live outside the Windsor-Quebec corridor, and resent money being spent inside Ontario and Quebec. Even among those who do, they don't care about trains. Then you get groups (like the airlines) that will see their business model hurt by HSR and will throw massive amounts of money campaigning against HSR (notice that one of the HSR studies I linked to was by "Air Canada/CP Rail" around the same time as momentum was building for HSR in the early 90's).

I am not opposed to HSR, but am tired of all the hot air on the subject and see HFR as the an opportunity to actually see the yard sticks move down the field. Keeping the football analogy, I see fighting for HSR now is like its 3rd and inches (CFL of course) and rather than doing a quarterback sneak to get a 1st down, you decide to throw up a Hail Mary and risk turning the ball over on downs.

all your rebuttals are a clear indicator of nimbyism and passing the buck because its politically inconvenient to invest in future infrastructure. that is the shortfall of canadian society. we have all these lofty ideas but when it comes to paying for it we get sticker shock. we also would rather sit on ancient obsolete infrastructure and continue to scrape every last inch of it just enough to keep it afloat than to recognise that 20 years from now it would be at a point of collapse. everything is always retroactive and hardly ever proactive and even still it we would rather spend our tax dollars doing endless studies over charades business cases that arent even that accurate anyways.

then again the feds did say they will decouple HFR and the corridor from via. we'll see what that turns out to be

I rest my case on this.

 

[Urban Sky]

The other thing to note, is while legally Amtrak trains have priority, that priority is frequently ignored by the railways without any consequences.

Exactly! It‘s imperative to understand that passenger rail fans in the US complain just as much about the evil host freight railroads as we do on this side of the border and if you look at the scorecards which Amtrak gives to its host railroads, take a guess who is among the most uncooperative railroads?

Add to that that Amtrak has been trying unsuccessfully for many years to restore a measly daily rail service between New Orleans and Orlando (which was disrupted by Hurricane Cathrina) despite multiple lawsuits against CSX and of course that Amtrak has to put up with none of this on the single Corridor where they operate something which remotely resembles European-style intercity services, as the NEC is under full public control in its entirety:

 

[rbt]

So, where else is there worth traveling to from Toronto on VIA for a weekend getaway? Not Ottawa, I lived there for four years and am done with the capital. I don't want to rent a car when I get there. Is there anything worth seeing in London?

I've visited Detroit a few times through Via Rail; there's an over-abundance of interesting architecture downtown. The hop across the border on Windsor public transit is fairly easy but the distance might make it more of a long-weekend thing.

Stratford can also be interesting if you're into theatre though the limited number of train trips makes it more challenging (Friday evening departure, Sunday late-morning return).

London isn't very tourist oriented. It does have a good number of fire flies and a very dark night-time forest at Westminster Ponds. The tree trunk tour is also fairly unique. Both are a fair walk from the VIA station.

 

[crs1026]

CN and CP are perfectly capable of directional running/co-production on their mainlines in southern Ontario and Quebec and delivering lots of new passenger rail capacity in the process, with yes, some further capital investment but nothing obscene.

Its a political choice, pure and simple.

Now, if you ask me if I think any Federal government has demonstrated the requisite spine, or seems likely to in the near term, I would wholeheartedly agree the answer is 'no'.

I think we agree that changes which would be fundamentally reasonable and respectful of the shareholder are theoretically possible if the mood were there. Personally, I think those changes are essential and long overdue notwithstanding the desire to put T-O-M on its own right of way. There will never be a fully segregated passenger system - VIA will always be a tenant in some critical places.

One reality-based question is, can the changes that have been raised and discussed here in this forum be justified and demonstrated in a way that voters and legislators see as compelling and urgent. Are they even really needed?

A second line of question would the necessary changes stand a chance of being imposed legislatively, without CN or CP seeing reason to oppose them in the courts - and would the courts support whatever legislation is imposed within our broader and unchangeable constitutional framework. And even with the Canadian courts agreeing, how would broader stakeholders react if Ottawa held the feet of two internationally-integrated rail systems with huge non-Canadian institutional investor and customer bases to a Canadian fire?

A third question would be - have we protected the effectiveness of the freight infrastructure, and are we appropriating capacity that might be best left alone in the interest of futureproofing? Some of the railways' resistance may just be talk, but we can't afford to impair the freight network in ways that are real.

While we grumble about what VIA's present lot in life isn't, the current schedule frequency between Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto is pretty darn good. It's the reliability and velocity we don't like. The point being - this was a freely negotiated agreement. When we say that "CN and CP are screwing VIA" that really isn't true, it's more like "this is the best we can offer you at the price you choose to pay". Some of that stance may be denial or antipathy, but some of it is business-sensible risk avoidance, and some of it is trying to take advantage.

We also have to recognize that there is already legislation that enables VIA to seek arbitration if it wants the railways to do something. That option is very seldom pursued.... which means we aren't confident that the arbitrator would be supportive. The old adage - don't ask a court a question unless you are willing to live with what the answer might be.

My own view is that there may be global levers Ottawa can threaten to pull, but it leads to a nuclear tension pretty quickly. But the better strategy might be to look at what specific demands the three proponents outline for CN/CP (and ML, who are just as hostile a landlord) and what the response to those is. And if those asks are reasonable, look at levers to compel the railways to comply.

- Paul

 

[Admiral Beez]

The big problem was when Mulroney decided to sell CN, he didn't put a clause that CN must continue to give VIA priority (I don't know if this was an oversite or intentional as it might have reduced the money the government would raise from the sale). While it is theoretically possible to turn back time and pass legislation to give VIA priority, there would certainly be political (and possibly legal) consequences.

Mulroney was the destroyer of much of VIA. His government was the fork in the road, invest and expand VIA or divest and shrink it into a corridor service.

 

[micheal_can]

I think we agree that changes which would be fundamentally reasonable and respectful of the shareholder are theoretically possible if the mood were there. Personally, I think those changes are essential and long overdue notwithstanding the desire to put T-O-M on its own right of way. There will never be a fully segregated passenger system - VIA will always be a tenant in some critical places.

One reality-based question is, can the changes that have been raised and discussed here in this forum be justified and demonstrated in a way that voters and legislators see as compelling and urgent. Are they even really needed?

A second line of question would the necessary changes stand a chance of being imposed legislatively, without CN or CP seeing reason to oppose them in the courts - and would the courts support whatever legislation is imposed within our broader and unchangeable constitutional framework. And even with the Canadian courts agreeing, how would broader stakeholders react if Ottawa held the feet of two internationally-integrated rail systems with huge non-Canadian institutional investor and customer bases to a Canadian fire?

A third question would be - have we protected the effectiveness of the freight infrastructure, and are we appropriating capacity that might be best left alone in the interest of futureproofing? Some of the railways' resistance may just be talk, but we can't afford to impair the freight network in ways that are real.

While we grumble about what VIA's present lot in life isn't, the current schedule frequency between Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto is pretty darn good. It's the reliability and velocity we don't like. The point being - this was a freely negotiated agreement. When we say that "CN and CP are screwing VIA" that really isn't true, it's more like "this is the best we can offer you at the price you choose to pay". Some of that stance may be denial or antipathy, but some of it is business-sensible risk avoidance, and some of it is trying to take advantage.

We also have to recognize that there is already legislation that enables VIA to seek arbitration if it wants the railways to do something. That option is very seldom pursued.... which means we aren't confident that the arbitrator would be supportive. The old adage - don't ask a court a question unless you are willing to live with what the answer might be.

My own view is that there may be global levers Ottawa can threaten to pull, but it leads to a nuclear tension pretty quickly. But the better strategy might be to look at what specific demands the three proponents outline for CN/CP (and ML, who are just as hostile a landlord) and what the response to those is. And if those asks are reasonable, look at levers to compel the railways to comply.

- Paul

The best angle the government could use would be a climate change solution. Using the funds from the carbon tax as a way to fund Via could be palatable to voters. Using that carbon tax money to subsidize rail expansion to make passenger service better elsewhere can be a way to get companies like CN and CP on board.

Remember, much of Via is nothing but politics. So, to fix it, it needs to have the politics surrounding it change.