[Urban Sky]

It’s all a matter of perspective. At the time VIA with bleeding money like crazy and the cuts brought that under control. As a rail fan, I certainly would love to see trains from everywhere to everywhere, but that isn’t necessarily feasible with our sprawling nation and car dependent culture. Maybe the cuts went to deep, but given that VIA still exist today, it’s hard to argue that has been destroyed.

To underline this point, let's compare VIA in 1988 with VIA in 2019:

	VIA in 1988	VIA in 2019	Change	(in %)
Ridership	6,439,845	5,007,753	-1,432,092	-22.2%
Train mileage	20.56 million	11.52 million	-9.04 million	-44.0%
Revenues (nominal)	$223.19 million	$411.05 million	+$187.87 million	+84.6%
Costs (nominal)	$734.61 million	$687.55 million	-$47.06 million	-6.4%
Subsidy (nominal)	$511.93 million	$276.49 million	-$234.93 million	-45.9%
Cost-Recovery	31.5%	58.9%	+27.4 percentage-points	+90.1%
Revenues (2019 prices)	$427.80 million	$411.05 million	-$16.75 million	-3.9%
Costs (2019 prices)	$1,408.10 million	$687.55 million	-$720.55 million	-51.2%
Subsidy (2019 prices)	$980.30 million	$276.49 million	-$703.81	-71.8%
- per passenger	$152.22	$55.21	-$97.01	-63.7%
- per train-km	$47.68	$24.01	-$23.67	-49.6%

Compiled from: Transport Canada (1989) document, the Summary of VIA Rail's 2019-2023 Corporate Plan and (for train-km counts) official VIA Rail schedules

 

[kEiThZ]

So your preference is spend the money on roads instead and let passenger rail waste away in Canada?

Yep. Typical salty rail frenemy. They aren't railfans. They are just people who think anything less than their personal expectations (usually based on services in Asia and Europe which our governments will never support) has no value.

In your rant you are also ignoring Ottawa-Toronto,

As usual. Dudes who only take VIA from Toronto to Montreal for Bachelor Parties think Toronto-Montreal is the only relevant pair on the network.

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

The carbon price will not survive if there's no rebates. It's already on thin ice politically with the party most likely to form government after the next election. Redirecting revenue to personal quarterly rebates is the smartest thing this government ever did. It's what keeps the carbon price alive politically. Hard to argue that it's really much of a tax, if most of the money is rebated back. And it's a move that many other countries are looking at.

Watch a few campaign ads of the Conservative party and try to identify anything which would resonate with what you believe (hope) the electorate cares about…

Let's hope we're lucky enough that the large settlements demanded by corporate guarantees of carbon price, deters cancellation of the carbon pricing policy.

 

[crs1026]

Correct, and the DRZs (directional routing zones) were formed without any government intervention, formed merely from the realization that splitting traffic over parallel tracks by direction rather than company would result in a win-win-situation where both companies reduce cost (by requiring less sidings), while operating faster (no need for train meets).

With CN already owning a double-tracked ROW between Montreal, Toronto and London, it will be very difficult to compell it into any track-sharing agreement with CP…

It's worth delving into why coproduction might or might not help VIA in the corridor.

One scenario is having CP and CN share parts of the CP line for freight and thereby free up the CN line for VIA.
Another scenario is for CP to move on to parts of CN and VIA takes the CP line.
A third is true DRZ where one line is used for all trains in one direction and the other line for the other direction.

To impose any of these between Windsor and Quebec - In all of these, Ottawa would have to work through
- the lengthy and likely litigation-necessary exercise to define the compensation to each railway to let VIA "buy in" ie taking assets away from private owners - to date, coproduction only involves the railways "sharing" assets between themselves
- the need for the two railways to sort out a mutually-beneficial operating plan for both through trains and service to online customers
- the need to ensure competitive equity (ie preserve or compensate for any competitive advantages that either railway has today)
- the question of how well that new plan actually meets VIA's needs or enables improvements
- the cost of civil works to connect the two lines, and add any yard and passing tracks required
- the cost of moving any VIA stations
- the cost of moving or replacing existing yards
- the need to preserve ling-term freight capacity for future growth

While there is currently a huge oversupply of freight capacity in this corridor (which intellectually one thinks ViA ought to be able to leverage), given all the above headaches, finding a new corridor for VIA is simpler and faster. It's being pragmatic.

I have to nitpick with @DirectionNorth's comment that there will never be another new rail corridor along the Lakeshore. These things do happen in other countries, but with extreme cost, excruciating slowness and huge cumbersome public consultation processes. It's a good thing for Canada that for now, Ottawa can sidestep all of that by leveraging the cheap undeveloped real estate in the Shield. Where new lines are being built through denser areas (Recent Examples include UK, Belgium, Italy and of course the older TGV Spain etc) the rationale that overcomes the public and political opposition has been is, the existing lines are tapped out and not building would have unacceptable impacts. Canada can't make that argument there yet. But I continue to believe that Ontario and Quebec should be building added rail capacity into municipal zoning and urban plans.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I have to nitpick with @DirectionNorth's comment that there will never be another new rail corridor along the Lakeshore. These things do happen in other countries, but with extreme cost, excruciating slowness and huge cumbersome public consultation processes. It's a good thing for Canada that for now, Ottawa can sidestep all of that by leveraging the cheap undeveloped real estate in the Shield. Where new lines are being built through denser areas (Recent Examples include UK, Belgium, Italy and of course the older TGV Spain etc) the rationale that overcomes the public and political opposition has been is, the existing lines are tapped out and not building would have unacceptable impacts. Canada can't make that argument there yet. But I continue to believe that Ontario and Quebec should be building added rail capacity into municipal zoning and urban plans.

I never understand the constant comparison to other countries. Has this ever convinced a single politician or policymaking body in Canada or the US? We operate in a different reality. Our policies and lobbying should be tailored to the reality we have, not the one we wish we lived in.

Honestly, sometimes I despair reading this site. It's probably the most informed and interested group of citizens on public transport and yet instead of focusing on the art of the possible, a good chunk of energy is wasted on wish casting, ideal solutions or doomerism.

I would actually take HFR that is slower than today's service over no rail investment. Why? Because I see it as a building point and a cultural marker that we might have turned a corner on intercity rail investment. Far easier to improve a dedicated passenger rail corridor later than beg CN for few more slots.

 

[crs1026]

I never understand the constant comparison to other countries. Has this ever convinced a single politician or policymaking body in Canada or the US? We operate in a different reality. Our policies and lobbying should be tailored to the reality we have, not the one we wish we lived in.

I think you are being a bit harsh here. Who said "we ought to do this because country X did it"?

It's interesting that each of the three HFR proponents have foreign or international railway participants - Keolis (SNCF), Renfe, and DB. Are you suggesting that none of their expertise and past practice will find its way into the proposals? So we can ignore it all?

There are legitimate reasons to study - and be informed by - what goes on elsewhere.

In particular, since a lot of discussion here involves the concept of public ownership intruding on privately owned rail infrastructure, the experience elsewhere may present cautionary tales as well as things that did work.

I agree that some people get overly fixated with "railcar x from country y" fetishes, but at an aspirational or system level, we have a lot to learn from others. And, the people who point to other countries' systems bein better do generally have valid points - our current system leaves lots of room for improvement.

Honestly, sometimes I despair reading this site. It's probably the most informed and interested group of citizens on public transport and yet instead of focusing on the art of the possible, a good chunk of energy is wasted on wish casting, ideal solutions or doomerism.

And I don't understand how disagreeing with a point requires alleging a whole bunch of broad faux-pas' ? One person's doomsaying is another person's critical thinking or risk assessment. You don't have to agree, but stick to the merits of the point made. Leave the ad-hominem to certain politicians.

I would actually take HFR that is slower than today's service over no rail investment. Why? Because I see it as a building point and a cultural marker that we might have turned a corner on intercity rail investment. Far easier to improve a dedicated passenger rail corridor later than beg CN for few more slots.

I do think we have passed the tipping point on that, in the sense that the original HfR proposal in 2015 was geared to lowest-cost but recognized that there might be an incremental phase II for things that showed positive ROI. The current government has upscaled that. In effect Phase II elements proved to be no-brainers so were folded into an iterated proposal.

There is certainly risk that the political wish-list will add too many costly enhancements and the price by bid selection will have risen beyond what the public or the next government can accept, but the competitive proposal process may mitigate that . And some of those one-time Phase II enhancements are pretty prudent improvements - the weak points made about vanilla HFR were not off base, it's a matter of finding a safe point in a grey zone of justifying price versus what is delivered. We can debate those without falling off the general premise.

As for speed, certainly some will ride at lowest speed, but the question is, can adding modest speed gains add ridership in sufficient numbers that justify the incremental cost? Speed is fundamentally marketable, within limits, and unduly long travel time is fundamentally a market disincentive. ( As the Kitchener-Stratford-London case study has shown). I'm in no way suggesting HSR, but let's not kill the sell by accepting an unnecessarily low quality product.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Fair points, and if you travel the Windsor-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec corridor, what exists today is useful. But other areas of the country have been neglected where an investment might have turned things around. Fredericton to Montreal or Halifax, for example. Or Calgary to Edmonton. Every provincial capital less Victoria and St. John’s should have a passenger rail connection to other towns within its region.

When you can lose political capital,you pick the places you can stand to lose it. These cuts were done during the height of 'Reganonomics' with the massive tax cuts to the rich in hopes it will all trickle down. Maybe if a government could grow a pair and start taxing the rich instead of shaking their hands, we might actually have good services. I doubt that will happen any time soon.

Yes, the public intercity transportation networks of these areas have indeed been neglected, but the appropriate means of transportation would have been the bus. The federal and provincial governments were given a golden opportunity when Greyhound finally left the market to set up a franchise system, where the federal government defines and funds a national network and the provinces chip in to supplement it with additional regional routes, but everyone cried crocodile tears while firmly sitting on their hands…

Your solution is to take the bus. If that is the solution, why are cities building LRTs
The other thing to think about is when it comes to public transit, a bus is seen as being for "poor people".

The carbon price will not survive if there's no rebates. It's already on thin ice politically with the party most likely to form government after the next election. Redirecting revenue to personal quarterly rebates is the smartest thing this government ever did. It's what keeps the carbon price alive politically. Hard to argue that it's really much of a tax, if most of the money is rebated back. And it's a move that many other countries are looking at.

If I understand it correctly, not all of it is given back in a rebate. Some is kept for green projects. That portion is what I mean.

 

[Urban Sky]

Your solution is to take the bus. If that is the solution, why are cities building LRTs

Because the capacity provided by buses are not sufficient on the main corridors within metropolitan cores? I know this is an extremely foreign concept for you, but different mobility problems call for different solutions...

The other thing to think about is when it comes to public transit, a bus is seen as being for "poor people".

That tells you more about the current state of the bus networks in this country than the individual strengths of properly planned urban, regional or inter-regional bus services. To provide a famous quote from a former mayor of Bogota: "A developed country is not one where poor people drive a car, but where rich people take public transport."

 

[kEiThZ]

If I understand it correctly, not all of it is given back in a rebate. Some is kept for green projects. That portion is what I mean.

You understanding is a bit off. All carbon tax collected in a given province is rebated in that province. It's not a national fund. And 90% is directly rebated to taxpayers. 10% is set aside for grants to public organizations and community groups to help them cut emissions. This is things like putting solar panels on rec centres and elementary schools. And again, the point is to build support by having the public see that there are improvements directly in their community. Thankfully, legislation ensures that this won't be turned into some random good idea slush fund.

For transit and intercity transport, the government has other dedicated funding. It should increase those budgets to build what it believes are priorities. As for example, is being done, with transit bus fleet electrification.

 

[micheal_can]

You understanding is a bit off. All carbon tax collected in a given province is rebated in that province. It's not a national fund. And 90% is directly rebated to taxpayers. 10% is set aside for grants to public organizations and community groups to help them cut emissions. This is things like putting solar panels on rec centres and elementary schools. And again, the point is to build support by having the public see that there are improvements directly in their community. Thankfully, legislation ensures that this won't be turned into some random good idea slush fund.

For transit and intercity transport, the government has other dedicated funding. It should increase those budgets to build what it believes are priorities. As for example, is being done, with transit bus fleet electrification.

Thank you for helping me understand that.

That 10% could be put into the transit budget to increase Via service in that province in key places that it could expand and potentially be successful.

 

[Urban Sky]

Thank you for helping me understand that.

That 10% could be put into the transit budget to increase Via service in that province in key places that it could expand and potentially be successful.

Sure, but these 10% can only be spent once and there are many competing priorities, of which increased VIA service is only a small (though disproportionately expensive) one…

 

[roger1818]

Your solution is to take the bus. If that is the solution, why are cities building LRTs
The other thing to think about is when it comes to public transit, a bus is seen as being for "poor people".

One only needs to look at what has happened in Ottawa to see the flaw in your argument. Transit ridership today is significantly lower with the O-Train (admitadly not actually LRT) running than it was before, when we had BRT. Granted, there are other factors like most sillycivil servants still only going into the office 2-3 days a week, and some reliability issues with the train.

Many in Ottawa reminisce about the one seat bus ride from their suburban home to downtown. Much of that nostalgia is misguided through, as they have forgotten the congestion from having hundreds of buses lined up downtown (trains provide significantly more capacity than buses). Much of that nostalgia is similar to the reminiscing of the past, ineffective, intercity rail service in Canada.

The point is that good bus service can be very popular.

 

[micheal_can]

One only needs to look at what has happened in Ottawa to see the flaw in your argument. Transit ridership today is significantly lower with the O-Train (admitadly not actually LRT) running than it was before, when we had BRT. Granted, there are other factors like most sillycivil servants still only going into the office 2-3 days a week, and some reliability issues with the train.

Many in Ottawa reminisce about the one seat bus ride from their suburban home to downtown. Much of that nostalgia is misguided through, as they have forgotten the congestion from having hundreds of buses lined up downtown (trains provide significantly more capacity than buses). Much of that nostalgia is similar to the reminiscing of the past, ineffective, intercity rail service in Canada.

The point is that good bus service can be very popular.

Canada does not have good intercity bus service.

The Confed line is bad due to the problems it has had.Imagine if every few weeks the new Venture trains broke down. How quickly would the idea of HFR die?

 

[roger1818]

Canada does not have good intercity bus service.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean it can't have good intercity bus service.

The Confed line is bad due to the problems it has had.Imagine if every few weeks the new Venture trains broke down. How quickly would the idea of HFR die?

The media likes to exaggerate the problems with the Confederation Line. Yes there have been some significant issues, but I would argue that is only a small factor in why ridership has dropped so much. The reality is, many riders preferred the bus, so your argument that `when it comes to public transit, a bus is seen as being for "poor people" ' isn't necessarily true.

 

[kEiThZ]

The reality is, many riders preferred the bus, so your argument that `when it comes to public transit, a bus is seen as being for "poor people" ' isn't necessarily true.

More to the point, we can't afford or justify billions just to resolve a problem of public perception or image.

Moreover, I don't think that viewpoint just applies to the bus. People who hold the view that "the bus is for poor people" tend to apply that view to all public transport. Not just the bus on their street.