kEiThZ
Superstar
Like I said, Parliament bears responsibility. VIA should be pitching some of this though. I've never even heard of interest from them.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Like I said, Parliament bears responsibility. VIA should be pitching some of this though. I've never even heard of interest from them.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
If we need to subsidize routes, why not have Ottawa hire CP/CN to add passenger cars to their freight trains? This is what's done in Alaska and Russia, where mixed use trains are common. This leaves VIA to run the profitable routes.
Here's a mixed CN/VIA train to a native reservation, IIRC.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Well, having tanked up on Hortons'coffee this morning, Ontario Transport Minister's second announcement of today is the proposed Ontario Cycling Network .... a good idea until one notes that both of the potential former rail lines that VIA might want for Ottawa-Toronto HFR are enshrined as bicycle paths.
So much for that .....sorry, Peterboro!
- Paul
Attachments
Last edited:
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I know that VIA is suppose to follow the dictates of Ottawa but that is no justification for the head of VIA or the board to come clean with the truth about passenger rail in 21st century Canada. Their job is {suppose to be} creating a viable passenger rail service for Canada and not for be a mouthpiece for the government of the day.
Fritter
Active Member
That's Metrolinx's job.
SamStar
New Member
It might be pushing it a bit, but are both projects mutually exclusive ? Isn't there space for both a train track and a bike path ?
crs1026
Superstar
I think they are mutually exclusive, in the sense that a) the railway will require the full width of the right of way, the bridge crossings, etc and b) who wants to cycle next to a busy railway track, when the predecessor was such a quiet ride through the wilderness?
My most sober take on the whole thing is that VIA must have known all along that the right of way had been passed to a bike trail association, and it would have acknowledged already that there would be a duty to make the bike trail whole in some way if it took back the railway line. I just find it typical of Del Duca that he made a pronouncement without fleshing out the fine print. Maybe that's my perverse take on things, or maybe it was a true staff oversight - but I'm enjoying the mental disconnect.
- Paul
Last edited:
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
It makes sense that they are including this as part of the cycling network since the pathways already exist and part of the corridor is also part of the Trans-Canada Trail . I believe CP still owns most of the corridor along Highway 7.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
kEiThZ
Superstar
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...dence-of-infrastructure-bank/article34694708/
Interesting....
And this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...nfrastructure-bank-clear-billions-in-backlogs
Making me feel a tad more optimistic. Especially that requirement that projects be focused on greenfield investment. The government holding a subordinate equity stake. That's interesting too. Maybe I'm right about them creating a holding company for the tracks! Or maybe they make a holding company for the whole Corridor with other private investors.
Interesting....
And this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...nfrastructure-bank-clear-billions-in-backlogs
Making me feel a tad more optimistic. Especially that requirement that projects be focused on greenfield investment. The government holding a subordinate equity stake. That's interesting too. Maybe I'm right about them creating a holding company for the tracks! Or maybe they make a holding company for the whole Corridor with other private investors.
crs1026
Superstar
The part about government being such a minority player - perhaps providing as little as one sixth of a project's funding - seems a bit unrealistic. At a 15-85 split, a project would have to deliver a return almost to the same degree as a fully private venture, and the investor's risk of 'losing it all' should the project fail is pretty much the same as a fully private venture. Sure, that lets government spread its $35B the farthest - I just wonder whether investors will bite, and whether it puts the profitability bar too high. 33-67 or 40-60 may be more typical.
In HFR's case, it may be a matter of what is funded, rather than how much. For instance, private investors may be happy to fund the terminals, because the real estate can be redeveloped if the trains don't generate a return. (Lucien Allier / Windsor Station being an example). But investorrs will not fund land acquisition around Kaladar, because the liquidation potential for moose pasture is zero. Track materials have scrap/resale value, but culverts don't. Assembling the land (with EA, nimby and indigenous relations demands) is high risk for private investors, but building on it is something more in their skills set. So - it may be a tailor made deal that has no precedent on how one would package some other type of infrastructure.
It's certainly a different exercise than just justifying the project and then funding from the public purse. Whether it's faster and easier, I'm not sure, but you do what you have to do.
- Paul
In HFR's case, it may be a matter of what is funded, rather than how much. For instance, private investors may be happy to fund the terminals, because the real estate can be redeveloped if the trains don't generate a return. (Lucien Allier / Windsor Station being an example). But investorrs will not fund land acquisition around Kaladar, because the liquidation potential for moose pasture is zero. Track materials have scrap/resale value, but culverts don't. Assembling the land (with EA, nimby and indigenous relations demands) is high risk for private investors, but building on it is something more in their skills set. So - it may be a tailor made deal that has no precedent on how one would package some other type of infrastructure.
It's certainly a different exercise than just justifying the project and then funding from the public purse. Whether it's faster and easier, I'm not sure, but you do what you have to do.
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
Some light analysis here:
http://www.deallawwire.com/2017/04/...medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
I wonder what the ROI has to be for players like CPP IB, Teachers, etc. to jump in.
A solid point actually. Look at place Ottawa. So much commercial development potential around the station. London and Kingston to lesser extents. If HFR is as reliable as flying, with hourly schedules, satellite offices become much more feasible.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I sincerely hope that if VIA goes through with HFR, they consider double deckers with separate boarding like this:
Business class really needs to be redone if HFR happens. Business class demand will skyrocket. For example, for those of us in government and military, we are allowed to book business class on VIA, but not airlines. Nobody bothers because the travel time for most events makes train travel unfeasible and often uneconomical. Especially when you consider per diems, and lost productivity. With HFR? Ottawa-Toronto government/corporate will all move to rail. And probably a good chunk of Montreal-Toronto.
Business class really needs to be redone if HFR happens. Business class demand will skyrocket. For example, for those of us in government and military, we are allowed to book business class on VIA, but not airlines. Nobody bothers because the travel time for most events makes train travel unfeasible and often uneconomical. Especially when you consider per diems, and lost productivity. With HFR? Ottawa-Toronto government/corporate will all move to rail. And probably a good chunk of Montreal-Toronto.
crs1026
Superstar
Business demand is already very strong on VIA. VIA markets it well and delivers it well. I was just on line trying to book Toronto-Montreal for late September.....found some runs where Business class is already sold out. If you book ahead the price can be very reasonable, too.
If VIA had more equipment, I suspect we would see more cars configured as business class. It's an area VIA gets right. So, yes.... it's a major market for HFR.
- Paul
nfitz
Superstar
Recall though, that the VIA Rail train service between Calgary and Edmonton, was pushing 5 hours or so using the CP tracks (not sure when service on the CN tracks ended, but it was about 8 hours). How many trains a day ... 1? 2? When VIA Rail replaced this with their codeshared bus service, suddenly VIA had up to 8 uses a day, and 3-hour service. You just can't compete with bus, unless you have a completely new alignment. Offhand, I don't recall how long the Regina-Saskatoon VIA trains took, but the VIA codeshared bus service was about 4.5 hours compared to about 6 hours on the older CN service in the 1950s. I wonder if there is a 1984 VIA timetable around somewhere, from just before the Conservatives cut both services.
History shows they couldn't - at least on existing tracxk.
Amtrack is successful at this because of massive subsidization. Look at the long-distance fares - they are shockingly low compared to VIA. There's huge subsidy of the trans-continental lines there, compared to here; despite most of their ridership being shorter and more urban services.
If only we lived in the socialist mecca south of us, that subsidizes passenger transportation - both local and intercity, so much. Not just for rail, but for air.