News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
Ward8 said:
I just returned from a trip to Japan with a renewed sense of just how important a quality intercity rail system is and how much freedom we lack here in Canada. I'm very discouraged coming back. I don't fully understand what the prvitzation means for VIA, but I can say wholeheartedly that train travel is not nearly a high enough priority. Between the frecciarosa, the eurostar, and now the Shinkansen, I'm now firmly radicalized as someone who thinks the government should write a blank cheque to modernize travel in this country. The way we travel between our two biggest cities should be viewed by the government, as, and I'm not being hyperbolas, a national emergency.
Click to expand...

Don't think it's a national emergency by any conventional definition. It is an important missing piece of infrastructure though.

And I absolutely share your frustration that develops after travel. One of the most interesting things for me to see, is military colleagues posted in Europe or Asia on exchange or even just long exercises or courses of a few months. They come home redpilled about transit and good transport infrastructure, and completely disappointed in the state of affairs of infrastructure at home. These are people who have probably never thought of rail infrastructure in their lives. The experience changes them. But unfortunately most Canadians will never have that. And plenty who do travel treat Europe and Asia as some kind of theme park with excuses of, "It'll never work here."

Ward8 said:
I would also say improving VIA is such a politically expedient project. From a climate perspective but also from a nation building perspective. If I'm advising the liberals I'm telling them to go to Edmonton and announce that there is going to be a major investment in Alberta and 60 minute travel between cities for half the price of your gas money. Some goes for Ontario/Quebec. They've got a federalism problem and this seems like such a no brainer to me.
Click to expand...

The fundamental problem in Canada is that we somehow reached a national consensus that the federal government doesn't build big infrastructure anymore. So our federal government has been reduced to mostly cutting cheques. Either directly (with the Liberals) or indirectly though tax cuts (with the Conservatives). Neither major party really seems very interested in leading major infrastructure projects.
 
There are several advantages of having this new line not being under the control of VIA:

1} If there is private money on the line, that means the damn thing will actually come in on-time and on-budget as any overrun costs would be born by the private company so you don't end up with a money pit that doesn't get built ala California HSR.

2} The company will be free from political influence so that the route and stations will not be determined by who's swing riding they go thru but rather which route and stops can be financially justified. This means they will use the fastest {and hence most direct} route ie London to Toronto via the southern route and not thru Kitchener and they won't be stopping at every little outpost along the way to satisfy the local MP taking the high-speed out of HSR. That will mean a direct route with stations only at Windsor/London/Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal/Quebec. They could perhaps run every 3rd train to include more local stations ie Chatham, Peterborough, and Trois Rivieres but only if it makes financial sense.

3} The company could buy some of the current CP/CN track to bring down costs and greatly reduce construction times but it would be far more politically palatable than Ottawa having to wave a huge cheque in front of large corporations that already make money hand-over-fist.

4} The private sector will still have to put up billions of it's own money and hence will make sure that any contract is iron clad and a legal document with very potent penalties if Ottawa wants to back out. This means that any future governments {ie Conservative} that may want to cancel the project would be forfeiting untold billions which would be political suicide meaning the project would be completed regardless of the party in power.
 
Last edited:
cplchanb said:
More like we don't want to rock the car and freight rail industry
Click to expand...

I doubt the average Canadian tourist in Europe or Asia is thinking of freight rail operations in Canada. They just seem to think good public transport over there is some cultural thing, as opposed to just good public services.
 
ssiguy2 said:
The company will be free from political influence so that the route and stations will not be determined by who's swing riding they go thru but rather which route and stops can be financially justified.
Click to expand...

The government isn't going to be handing a blank cheque of $12B to some private company and letting them build whatever the want. There will plenty of terms and conditions imposed. The idea that they'll get to pick which stations to serve is laughable.

ssiguy2 said:
If there is private money on the line, that means the damn thing will actually come in on-time and on-budget as any overrun costs would be born by the private company so you don't end up with a money pit that doesn't get built ala California HSR.
Click to expand...

California HSR uses private sector management for their design-build and construction management. They have still had issues. And those issues aren't really about who is building the project, so much as how it was conceived and run. A privately built line anywhere would have the same problems if they had bizarre conditions and politics imposed on CalHSR.

ssiguy2 said:
The company could buy some of the current CP/CN track to bring down costs and greatly reduce construction times
Click to expand...

CN and CP are highly motivated to play nice with a government owned VIA who is managed by their regulator. Highly unlikely they see a profit maximizing rail operator the same way. They will demand a premium for any access and drive hard bargains on any sale.

ssiguy2 said:
The private sector will still have to put up billions of it's own money and hence will make sure that any contract is iron clad and a legal document with very potent penalties if Ottawa wants to back out.
Click to expand...

Government procurement rules do not allow for any such contract to be signed. And the government can legislate itself out of a contract if it has to. The big infrastructure developers all know this and they plan accordingly.
 
kEiThZ said:
The government isn't going to be handing a blank cheque of $12B to some private company and letting them build whatever the want. There will plenty of terms and conditions imposed. The idea that they'll get to pick which stations to serve is laughable.



California HSR uses private sector management for their design-build and construction management. They have still had issues. And those issues aren't really about who is building the project, so much as how it was conceived and run. A privately built line anywhere would have the same problems if they had bizarre conditions and politics imposed on CalHSR.



CN and CP are highly motivated to play nice with a government owned VIA who is managed by their regulator. Highly unlikely they see a profit maximizing rail operator the same way. They will demand a premium for any access and drive hard bargains on any sale.



Government procurement rules do not allow for any such contract to be signed. And the government can legislate itself out of a contract if it has to. The big infrastructure developers all know this and they plan accordingly.
Click to expand...
FEC and Brightline situation makes me think freight rail being part of things might actually lead to a better outcome . . .
 
kEiThZ said:
. The idea that they'll get to pick which stations to serve is laughable.
Click to expand...

For the most part I agree, and it’s mostly a non-issue - I can’t imagine any proponent deciding to skip service to a source of substantial revenue.

However, I’m a bit suspicious about the language in the RFEOI implying the proponent will control the local services, where there may be a temptation to cut things. Suppose, for instance, the Kingston hub began with 6 trains a day but (perhaps with ‘encouragement’ from the landlord railroad) the proponent decided that four trains was sufficient. What process would the public or the affected municipalities follow to oppose the change?

There is hardly any recourse today - as anemic services on some corridors demonstrates - but this needs to be improved, not left to contract language. It is at least partly a legitimate political decision.

- Paul
 
I expect the eventual project will lay out some guaranteed service requirements for the services being taken over.

Personally, I think Lakeshore services should be rationalized. As it stands, you have cities like Belleville which get a ton of trains and then places like Trenton which get maybe 2-3 trains in each direction. Lakeshore down to 6-8 trains in each direction (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) to/from Kingston, better timed and stopping at all cities is a substantially better offering than having 10 trains a day today all timed for convenience of departure at Union and stopping at a random selection of cities. It would actually enable travel to places other than the major cities themselves.
 
In addition to the Northlander news today (see that thread), there is this for VIA Rail:

www.canada.ca

Minister of Transport announces the establishment of the VIA Rail subsidiary to support High Frequency Rail and appoints three founding members to its Board of Directors

High Frequency Rail will transform passenger rail service in Canada through the creation of a faster, more frequent, accessible, and sustainable rail service among the major centres of Québec City, Trois-Rivières, Montréal, Ottawa, Peterborough, and Toronto.
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca

Minister of Transport announces the establishment of the VIA Rail subsidiary to support High Frequency Rail and appoints three founding members to its Board of Directors​

From: Transport Canada

News release​

December 15, 2022
Ottawa, Ontario
Transport Canada

High Frequency Rail will transform passenger rail service in Canada through the creation of a faster, more frequent, accessible, and sustainable rail service among the major centres of Québec City, Trois-Rivières, Montréal, Ottawa, Peterborough, and Toronto.

Today, the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Omar Alghabra, announced key milestones for the High Frequency Rail project: the establishment of VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc. (VIA HFR) to manage the development of the new High Frequency Rail project and the appointments of the first three Directors of the Board.

VIA Rail Inc. has incorporated VIA HFR as a new, wholly owned subsidiary and has appointed three founding directors to its Board of Directors: Robert Prichard, Marie-José Nadeau, and Robert Fonberg. Mr. Prichard will serve as Chair and Ms. Nadeau will serve as Vice Chair.

These three founding directors bring a formidable combination of strategic leadership skills and experience from the private and public sectors, with the capability of building a Crown corporation subsidiary able to deliver on an historic transformation of passenger rail service in Canada. They will immediately focus on the recruitment and selection of VIA HFR’s Chief Executive Officer (currently underway) and the recruitment of additional directors to complete the seven-person board.

VIA HFR will operate at arms-length from VIA Rail and will act as a dedicated project office for the High Frequency Rail project. In the near term, the Government of Canada is leading a procurement process to select a private developer partner for the project. Once this partner is selected, VIA HFR will work with the partner to design and develop the new High Frequency Rail project, in close coordination with VIA Rail.

Quotes​

“The incorporation of VIA HFR and its role as a dedicated Project Development Office is an important step in the realization of High Frequency Rail in Canada. I thank VIA Rail for its role in creating VIA HFR and its continued support for the project, and I am pleased that Messrs. Prichard and Fonberg and Ms. Nadeau have agreed to serve as the founding members of the Board of Directors. VIA HFR is now well-positioned to lead the biggest Canadian infrastructure project of the century.”
The Honourable Omar Alghabra
Minister of Transport
Click to expand...

Quick facts​

  • VIA HFR will report to Parliament directly through the Minister of Transport.
  • The head office for VIA HFR will be located in Montréal, with another office in Toronto.
  • Recruitment for the CEO of VIA HFR is underway (more information is available here)
  • Ongoing collaboration between the Government of Canada, VIA Rail, VIA HFR, and the private developer partner is the best approach to promoting innovation, designing better service for travellers, improving risk management, and ultimately delivering a world-class High Frequency Rail system for Canadians.
  • High Frequency Rail could transform intercity passenger rail in the Toronto to Québec City corridor through a variety of project outcomes, including, but not limited to:
    • Shortening average journey times between major cities;
    • Providing more frequent departures between major cities;
    • Offering more reliable and improved on-time performance;
    • Adding new services to Peterborough and Trois- Rivières; and
    • Providing a greener rail system and cleaner travel option using electrified technology.
  • Budget 2022 provided Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada with $396.8 million over two years, starting in 2022-23, to continue advancing key project activities and undertake the procurement phase of the project.
  • The next steps in the High Frequency Rail procurement process include:
    • Request for Qualifications: January 2023
    • Request for Proposals: Late spring 2023

Associated links​

Click to expand...
 
I would imagine that there is a benefit to showing that there is a business which services business trips, intercity travel, and some commutes, and a different business that serves long haul tourists and remote communities because each has completely different goals and economics. VIA Corridor (HFR) trains would have standard fleet, standard marketing, standard success metrics that weight frequency, lowest possible economy fares, business class service, and speed completely differently to VIA Canada trains which would have a non-standard fleet (Canadian vs Atlantic vs Hudson Bay vs White River/Sennetre/Prince Rupert/Gaspe/Jonquiere), and specialized marketing and goals. There would be a desire to show VIA HFR is breaking even or close to it (there probably isn't nationwide support for VIA HFR since Ontario and Quebec are the sole beneficiaries), and to have the other trains which cross the country to be separate from VIA HFR so that politicians that would cut funding to VIA are making a national decision vs a regional one.
 
It seems like a good sign they are actually starting to staff VIA HFR, including creating a board of directors, and one of them is the prior President and CEO of Metrolinx. Unlike prior paper based exercises suggesting major VIA Rail improvements, this is starting to look like an actual plan that will actually happen.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top