VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Bread_Kaczynski

I like this idea of having Go and Exo take over the Corridor, but why not take it a step further and just let the private sector take over intercity rail entirely? I know that privitization can be problematic, but if there's a strong business case for HFR, I could easily see Brightline or another company do it faster better than VIA. Better yet, they wouldn't be subject to the same kinds of political pressures as VIA is now. And let's face it, if GO ever runs trains to Ottawa, it's going to have to deal with the same political landscape as VIA. A private company won't be held hostage by railfans butthurt over not getting the train stopping at their tin can. They'll also be incentivized to do things that maximize speed over nickel-and-diming the route. And they certainly won't run routes like The Canadian that just hemorrhage money.

The fact is, the most ambitious rail projects of recent years have been done by Brightline and Texas Central. HFR is VIA's last hope, and seeing as how they've been cutting routes since day one, I'd say it's rather unrealistic to expect they'll change their tune after 40 years. As people in this thread have pointed out, the political capital from improved intercity rail just isn't worth the investment.

TLDR: scrap VIA/sell it to Brightline so we can actually have a shot of rail worthy of a G7 country.

Because rail is a natural monopoly, a public utility and will almost certainly still require an operating subsidy (let alone the capital cost) once HFR is built. If the route truly had a positive business case, the private sector would already do it. There's a reason truly privately run railways are almost non existent.

[Bread_Kaczynski]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because rail is a natural monopoly, a public utility and will almost certainly still require an operating subsidy (let alone the capital cost) once HFR is built. If the route truly had a positive business case, the private sector would already do it. There's a reason truly privately run railways are almost non existent.

Brightline and Texas Central are both private companies. If it can be done in Florida, it can be done here too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why are you concerned about this not being on GO's radar when all you do is argue for rail routes which are not on VIA's radar?

Simple answer - because it is within their scope of business.

The scope of GO is to provide transit to the GTHA.
The scope of VIA is to provide passenger rail service to Canada.

GO operates buses and trains.
Via only operates trains.

Go is a commuter service.
Via is a intercity service.

It is like asking a dentist to do open heart surgery. They could be trained to potentially do it, but it is not their scope of practice.

The only wan the Ontario Government could do it, and it be even moderately successful, is if it were under the ONR file. That is an intercity service. It does not just serve the GTHA, or just the big cities.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Bread_Kaczynski

Brightline and Texas Central are both private companies. If it can be done in Florida, it can be done here too.

Texas Central does not exist as a railway. So one example.

We'll see how profitable Brightline is long term, and it would seem much of their business model is based on real estate rather than the actual transportation. I would not be surprised if the operation folds or is bailed out eventually.

As I said, if there is money to be made, there is little stopping a private company setting up, if there was money to be made it's there for the taking. Except we know that just from the get-go you need a $5B+ capital subsidy, and then there will be operating subsidies thereafter.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Texas Central does not exist as a railway. So one example.

We'll see how profitable Brightline is long term, and it would seem much of their business model is based on real estate rather than the actual transportation. I would not be surprised if the operation folds or is bailed out eventually.

As I said, if there is money to be made, there is little stopping a private company setting up, if there was money to be made it's there for the taking. Except we know that just from the get-go you need a $5B+ capital subsidy, and then there will be operating subsidies thereafter.

There are very few things the government does that turns a profit. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be doing them.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Simple answer - because it is within their scope of business.

The scope of GO is to provide transit to the GTHA.
The scope of VIA is to provide passenger rail service to Canada.

GO operates buses and trains.
Via only operates trains.

Go is a commuter service.
Via is a intercity service.

It is like asking a dentist to do open heart surgery. They could be trained to potentially do it, but it is not their scope of practice.

The only wan the Ontario Government could do it, and it be even moderately successful, is if it were under the ONR file. That is an intercity service. It does not just serve the GTHA, or just the big cities.

But the routes you want are not on VIAs radar, unless you have access to inside information that the public does not.

Besides, your distinctions are irrelevant. If Ontario wants better intercity transport, they can tell GO to do it, if they want. If the Federal Government wants VIA to do something different, like run buses, new routes or shut routes down, they can do that too.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There are very few things the government does that turns a profit. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be doing them.

Yes and as I've said repeatedly (like probably a dozen times), there's nothing inherently wrong with subsidies if they are good investments. This is why you are being accused of trolling, because you repeatedly argue in bad faith and ignore what others have written.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because rail is a natural monopoly, a public utility and will almost certainly still require an operating subsidy (let alone the capital cost) once HFR is built. If the route truly had a positive business case, the private sector would already do it. There's a reason truly privately run railways are almost non existent.

Originally Posted by Bread_Kaczynski

Brightline and Texas Central are both private companies. If it can be done in Florida, it can be done here too.

To be fair, both of them are getting government support. I think the bigger issue is risk. No consortium wants to build a project like this if they have to carry 100% of the construction risk.

I do think with the right contract, the private sector would absolutely take this on. Previous studies have shown that HSR between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal would at least be operationally profitable.
Possibly even profitable with capital costs. The question is whether this would turn out like the 407, a deal where everybody feels exploited.

Also, Brightline has done more than just build rail. They bought and are developing property around their stations to improve profitability of the project.

[Nouvellecosse]

The former VIA CEO has publicly stated that they were exploring P3 as an option for HFR funding and seemed to think there was a strong possibility that this could move the project forward with fewer taxpayer dollars. Whether or not they're still pursuing that and whether or not it would be successful is unclear.

• Video Link

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But the routes you want are not on VIAs radar, unless you have access to inside information that the public does not.

Besides, your distinctions are irrelevant. If Ontario wants better intercity transport, they can tell GO to do it, if they want. If the Federal Government wants VIA to do something different, like run buses, new routes or shut routes down, they can do that too.

Imagine having a coal company extracting oil. Yes they could do it, but having a company do it that has experience in doing it has a better chance of success.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes and as I've said repeatedly (like probably a dozen times), there's nothing inherently wrong with subsidies if they are good investments. This is why you are being accused of trolling, because you repeatedly argue in bad faith and ignore what others have written.

You, and others want Via to be profitable, and you and others also want GO to take over the Corridor.... I guess calling you and others out is trolling. I do the same to all whom double talk.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The former VIA CEO has publicly stated that they were exploring P3 as an option for HFR funding and seemed to think there was a strong possibility that this could move the project forward with fewer taxpayer dollars. Whether or not they're still pursuing that and whether or not it would be successful is unclear.

When the Joint Project Office was launched, the funding was stated to help derisk the project. I think they really want the private sector onboard. But I'm guessing the private sector don't want the terms being offered.

If I'm interested in this investment as an investor, not only would I want guarantees of access to networks and stations I want to serve, I would also want the high end of my cost overruns covered, I don't want the government to subsidize the airlines against me, and I don't want the government telling me which towns to serve since that constrains my business model. I imagine, MPs hearing this from institutional investors probably fell off their chairs!

[Bread_Kaczynski]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The former VIA CEO has publicly stated that they were exploring P3 as an option for HFR funding and seemed to think there was a strong possibility that this could move the project forward with fewer taxpayer dollars. Whether or not they're still pursuing that and whether or not it would be successful is unclear.

• Video Link

I mean P3 has never actually made things cheaper but you do you, VIA.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Bread_Kaczynski

I mean P3 has never actually made things cheaper but you do you, VIA.

It's not meant to make things cheaper. It's meant to free up capital for some other project.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The current GO train to Kitchener is 2 hrs from Union. RER might get Toronto-Kitchener closer to 1.5 hrs. Here's the travel times from the recommended 250 kph electrified option (Figure 3.4 from the report):



That's 48 mins from Toronto to Kitchener. And 73 mins from Toronto to London. I wouldn't call that similar to any GO service, current or future.



Waterloo has LRT and London has BRT. But that aside, what was recommended was also not a traditional HSR line. The 300 kph was ruled out. It was a 250 kph line that basically built on the planned GO RER work and then added a Stratford and St. Mary's bypass (Figure 3.2). That was really not that intense of an infrastructure development as was portrayed. The new corridor to be built was 62 km.



I'm also not sure why density matters. It's not like HSR goes through exclusively urban areas in elsewhere in the world. It's intercity rail. More to the point, between Kitchener, London, Toronto and Pearson airport, we know there's substantial amount of travel between these points. Enough that the investment was going to at least generate a positive benefits case ratio (Table 3.5).



Except that it wasn't "10s of billions". This portrayal came from looking at the most expensive options for the entire proposal. 300 kph train till Windsor. The direct capital cost (without contingency) of the recommended 250 kph electrified Toronto-London segment was $4110M in 2021$ (Table 3.1). This was the investment required over and above investments made for GO RER. Including a 50% contingency and various sundry like soft costs their estimate was $8B in 2014$ (Table 3.4).

Report: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/high-speed-rail-in-ontario-final-report/

Preliminary routing assessment: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publica...io-high-speed-rail-feasibility-study.pdf

You're illustrating my point really well though. It's incredible how easy it is to spin a large capital project as wasteful. This was arguably one of the most conservative intercity rail projects ever proposed. Not a km of new corridor between Toronto and Kitchener. HSR only had to pay for 60 km of electrification and a bit of grade separation beyond Mount Pleasant and additional track to bypass stations en route. The only new corridor was the 62 km Kitchener-London corridor that runs roughly parallel to a 6-lane 401 that is routinely packed and the province has considered expanding. When something like this can be spun as wasteful, I really wonder how much hope there is for any HSR proposal that requires hundreds of kms of new corridor.

They were being very dicey about the capital cost. While they gave an estimate of $4B (including a greenfield line from London to Kitchener, rolling stock and electrification) they then proceed to list "uplifted" capital costs in the 10s of billions.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publica...-in-ontario-final-report/chapter-3.shtml

They also never really explain how the logistics of the proposed system are supposed to work. As you point out, they are expecting to share track with commuter rail, freight and sometimes UP from the West end of Kitchener all the way to Union Station. That is not how HSR works in most places, where HSR trains need dedicated track, usually fully grade separated. When high speed trains run in mixed traffic with level crossings they usually operate at conventional speeds. Has MTO discovered some new system that would dramatically decrease the cost of HSR around the world? If they have they should tell people.

Have you ever taken Ion? It is both slow and infrequent and would not be considered rapid transit anywhere else. Not sure what London is planning but can't imagine it would be very rapid.

Density is a rough approximation for the number of people that can reasonably get to a downtown station in a reasonable amount of time. High speed rail works best if there is a significant concentration of population and economic activity in the central part of the city. That is not true of Guelph, Waterloo Region, London or Windsor (I have never been to Chatham, but I assume the same situation). Waterloo Region has a reasonably high population (about 500k), but it is 30 km from the south end of Cambridge to the north end of Waterloo (in Toronto terms, that is the distance from the lakeshore to the north end of Richmond Hill).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They were being very dicey about the capital cost. While they gave an estimate of $4B (including a greenfield line from London to Kitchener, rolling stock and electrification) they then proceed to list "uplifted" capital costs in the 10s of billions.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publica...-in-ontario-final-report/chapter-3.shtml

It was $11.48B in 2021$ including a 66% contingency and all soft costs. That's not close to a realistic estimate. Especially for a post RER buildout. Gotta keep in mind that this study itself was done when RER wasn't quite defined and nobody knew how far Kitchener RER would extend.

Originally Posted by acottawa

They also never really explain how the logistics of the proposed system are supposed to work. As you point out, they are expecting to share track with commuter rail, freight and sometimes UP from the West end of Kitchener all the way to Union Station. That is not how HSR works in most places, where HSR trains need dedicated track, usually fully grade separated. When high speed trains run in mixed traffic with level crossings they usually operate at conventional speeds. Has MTO discovered some new system that would dramatically decrease the cost of HSR around the world? If they have they should tell people.

They included mixed running on the RER portion. Their gains come from limiting the number of stops and using passing tracks.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Have you ever taken Ion? It is both slow and infrequent and would not be considered rapid transit anywhere else. Not sure what London is planning but can't imagine it would be very rapid.

Density is a rough approximation for the number of people that can reasonably get to a downtown station in a reasonable amount of time. High speed rail works best if there is a significant concentration of population and economic activity in the central part of the city. That is not true of Guelph, Waterloo Region, London or Windsor (I have never been to Chatham, but I assume the same situation). Waterloo Region has a reasonably high population (about 500k), but it is 30 km from the south end of Cambridge to the north end of Waterloo (in Toronto terms, that is the distance from the lakeshore to the north end of Richmond Hill).

This is an absurd argument. If you accept this, then RER should be scrapped too. A train that takes even longer has even less of a case. And heck, nobody should be taking a GO train from Kitchener right now at all. After all, it's nearly 2 hrs long and as you say Ion only adds to the trip.

It helps to think of this a bit less like some traditional intercity service and more like a really fast, express GO train. It makes a lot more sense when you approach it from that angle.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It was $11.48B in 2021$ including a 66% contingency and all soft costs. That's not close to a realistic estimate. Especially for a post RER buildout. Gotta keep in mind that this study itself was done when RER wasn't quite defined and nobody knew how far Kitchener RER would extend.



They included mixed running on the RER portion. Their gains come from limiting the number of stops and using passing tracks.




This is an absurd argument. If you accept this, then RER should be scrapped too. A train that takes even longer has even less of a case. And heck, nobody should be taking a GO train from Kitchener right now at all. After all, it's nearly 2 hrs long and as you say Ion only adds to the trip.

It helps to think of this a bit less like some traditional intercity service and more like a really fast, express GO train. It makes a lot more sense when you approach it from that angle.

GO has a completely different business model. Most stops are attached to large parking lots, which compensates for the low-density, car centric communities they are located. RER includes plans for large parking facilities in stations on either side of Kitchener. With no such parking facilities the HSR would be dependent on local transit (which is very student oriented in many of these cities) or Uber to get to downtown stations. GO also let’s you tap a presto and walk on. An HSR (which presumably can’t have standing passengers) needs a ticketing system, which is less convenient for relatively short trips. You also presumably have to charge more. This is why GO took market share from Via despite having a longer travel time and being less comfortable.

If there is a demand for express commuter trains, then GO can run express services without setting up a parallel system.

[Nouvellecosse]

For the Kitchener-Union segment, a limited stop GO express service with a cruising speed of 160-177km/h would do a lot to make the trip more appealing. I'd say for that distance of around 100km, HSR is not really worth the cost. If your cruising speed is 160km/h and only have a couple quick stops delaying the trip no more than say 20-25 minutes, your average speed would still be about 100km/h which would be competitive with driving on the highway without congestion. At those distances, the number and duration of intermediate stops is going to be an equal or greater factor in journey time. The real benefits would mostly come in the 150-500km HSR sweet spot so it would depend on how much of the patronage they expect to come from beyond Kitchener.

But of course if we want the extra speed to improve the longer journeys then there's no reason it can't improve shorter ones as well. If HSR was created as far as London, GO RER could buy faster rolling stock to provide the "local" service including stops outside of city centres while the HSR would bypass most stops other than Kitchener itself and maybe Guelph. This would give some people the option of premium express service if they wanted it without expecting the HSR service to be all things to all people. Sure that would result in lower ridership for the HSR service, but I'd argue that the important thing is the total ridership on the corridor rather than the ridership of individual services. The upgrade for GO would certainly make its service more attractive. I imagine it being similar to the MARC Penn Line that runs at 200km/h between DC and Baltimore, sharing a route with Acela Express.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

GO has a completely different business model. Most stops are attached to large parking lots, which compensates for the low-density, car centric communities they are located. RER includes plans for large parking facilities in stations on either side of Kitchener. With no such parking facilities the HSR would be dependent on local transit (which is very student oriented in many of these cities) or Uber to get to downtown stations.

I often think of you as well traveled. But then get some bizarre takes like this.

Do you really think every HSR station everywhere is designed to be in the middle of a city, serviced only by transit?

Here's an HSR station I used in Spain:

Santa Ana
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6CJQaA3sfYogRqjJ7

You'll notice there isn't much around. But it's designed to be fed by the highway. Complete with a large lot. I got there with a coach bus from Granada.

HSR in a lot of the world often builds a business case on a base level of longhaul ex-urban commuters. Usually white collar who only go in a few times a week and can afford the expensive fare. Depending on the time of day, you'll see more briefcases than suitcases or backpacks.

Originally Posted by acottawa

GO also let’s you tap a presto and walk on. An HSR (which presumably can’t have standing passengers) needs a ticketing system, which is less convenient for relatively short trips.

This really isn't a problem elsewhere. You can use farecards on long haul trains in a lot of places. Why would that be a problem on another service owned and run by Metrolinx or even specifically GO?

Hell, look at Japan and Tokyo. Most of their farecards are interoperable across all their transit services and most of their HSR services:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suica#Interoperation

It's almost laughable that somebody might think this is a barrier. Especially with open payments coming.

And reservations are not an issue. There can be carriages with assigned seating. Or you can even have electronic signage on the train itself that identifies which of the seats are reserved and which aren't. I've been on trains that had my last name listed on the electronic display in my assigned seat, with the seat next to me unreserved. This is more a matter of service concept and policy. It's a choice whether it will be run more like an intercity service or a higher end suburban rail service.

Originally Posted by acottawa

You also presumably have to charge more. This is why GO took market share from Via despite having a longer travel time and being less comfortable.

Yes, they would have to charge more. This might actually let GO monetize the value of their express services. Right now, you don't pay more for a faster trip. But presumably GO should be compensated for the passengers gain in productivity.

And if HSR was built, there would be rationalization. Maybe VIA leaves the route. Or regular GO service is limited to Mount Pleasant and everything beyond is a more expensive HSR express that is limited stop beyond Mount Pleasant.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If there is a demand for express commuter trains, then GO can run express services without setting up a parallel system.

They do run skip-stop express services now. The point is to go beyond that and actually make Kitchener daily commutable and make London a routine ex-urban commute.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

For the Kitchener-Union segment, a limited stop GO express service with a cruising speed of 160-177km/h would do a lot to make the trip more appealing. I'd say for that distance of around 100km, HSR is not really worth the cost. If your cruising speed is 160km/h and only have a couple quick stops delaying the trip no more than say 20-25 minutes, your average speed would still be about 100km/h which would be competitive with driving on the highway without congestion. At those distances, the number and duration of intermediate stops is going to be an equal or greater factor in journey time. The real benefits would mostly come in the 150-500km HSR sweet spot so it would depend on how much of the patronage they expect to come from beyond Kitchener.

But of course if we want the extra speed to improve the longer journeys then there's no reason it can't improve shorter ones as well. If HSR was created as far as London, GO RER could buy faster rolling stock to provide the "local" service including stops outside of city centres while the HSR would bypass most stops other than Kitchener itself and maybe Guelph. This would give some people the option of premium express service if they wanted it without expecting the HSR service to be all things to all people. Sure that would result in lower ridership for the HSR service, but I'd argue that the important thing is the total ridership on the corridor rather than the ridership of individual services. The upgrade for GO would certainly make its service more attractive. I imagine it being similar to the MARC Penn Line that runs at 200km/h between DC and Baltimore, sharing a route with Acela Express.

I don't see a Union-Kitchener HSR being built. Even to London doesn't make sense.

London has 8 round trips a day in 2019
Ottawa has 20 round trips a day in 2019

Are those 8 trips the max they can run due to tracks or due to need?
We all know that if more trains could be added to Ottawa/Montreal, they would. As I see it, if any HSR is built in just Ontario, it would be to Ottawa. It isn't that they shouldn't build to London/Windsor, but, if they want to make the biggest dent in traffic, that would be where there is the need, and where there would be the best buy in with voters.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As I see it, if any HSR is built in just Ontario, it would be to Ottawa. It isn't that they shouldn't build to London/Windsor, but, if they want to make the biggest dent in traffic, that would be where there is the need, and where there would be the best buy in with voters.

I would guess that Toronto-Kitchener-London has more riders/mile and riders/$capital than Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa. Mostly because ridership tends to be inversely proportional with distance in most places. TKL both captures trip generators (notably Pearson) and facilitates commuting substantially, with both Kitchener-London and Toronto-Kitchener.