VIA Rail

[canucklehead2]

The concept is basic and solid. Reuse the existing ROW and double track the line. This option was always the most sensible option to get rail up and running fast before we contemplate the Prairie Link project, which is certainly pricier but still long overdue for a corridor of 3 million plus!

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

The concept is basic and solid. Reuse the existing ROW and double track the line. This option was always the most sensible option to get rail up and running fast before we contemplate the Prairie Link project, which is certainly pricier but still long overdue for a corridor of 3 million plus!

Exactly: Reuse the existing ROW, double-track the line and somehow magically (without even electrifying it) shave more than a full hour from whatever travel time any train has ever achieved over that same alignment...

[Truenorth00]

HFR taking another step.

Government of Canada launches the next phase in the procurement process for High Frequency Rail

News release
March 9, 2022 Ottawa Transport Canada

High Frequency Rail will transform passenger rail service in Canada through the creation of a faster, more frequent, more accessible and more 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, along with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Annie Koutrakis, announced that the Government of Canada is launching a Request for Expressions of Interest seeking the advice and views from industry on the High Frequency Rail project through Buyandsell.gc.ca.

High Frequency Rail is the largest transportation infrastructure project that Canada has seen in decades. Recognizing the project’s size and scale, the Government of Canada is seeking world-class knowledge and private sector expertise for all aspects of the project.

The Request for Expressions of Interest marks a major step in supporting the procurement phase for the High Frequency Rail project. It is an opportunity to:

• communicate the Government of Canada’s plan for advancing the project;
• seek feedback from experienced private sector companies to help shape the High Frequency Rail project; and
• provide information to industry so interested parties can prepare for subsequent phases of the procurement process, including the Request for Qualifications and the Request for Proposal.

As the participation of Indigenous Peoples is essential to the success of High Frequency Rail, the Government of Canada will seek a private sector partner that prioritizes and values meaningful relationships with Indigenous Peoples. The Government of Canada will carefully consider the views of Indigenous Peoples throughout the project and encourage collaboration with Indigenous businesses.

VIA Rail and its employees are central to the success of High Frequency Rail and will continue to play a key role across Canada as our national passenger rail provider.

The High Frequency Rail service could be fully operational in the early 2030s. The Government is providing a High Frequency Rail Project website where Canadians can get information, track progress on the project and submit their views and questions.

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canad...ent-process-for-high-frequency-rail.html

[savevp]

RFP isn't until late-2024 but its a small step forward. A lot can go wrong between now and a 2030's launch date.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by savevp

RFP isn't until late-2024 but its a small step forward. A lot can go wrong between now and a 2030's launch date.

I wonder if skyrocketing gas prices might lead to this being sped up. Can it be sped up?

[savevp]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I wonder if skyrocketing gas prices might lead to this being sped up. Can it be sped up?

I'm sure where there's a will, there's a way. But given how long we've been hearing about HFR, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I wonder if skyrocketing gas prices might lead to this being sped up. Can it be sped up?

Higher gas prices are a double edged sword.

While it may entice more people onto the trains it will simultaneously cause fares to rise on those trains because VIA runs diesel trains and electrifying the network is probably decades away especially if they use 100% catenary.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Higher gas prices are a double edged sword.

While it may entice more people onto the trains it will simultaneously cause fares to rise on those trains because VIA runs diesel trains and electrifying the network is probably decades away especially if they use 100% catenary.

Any reason they couldn't just pay more for the line to be electrified at the same time? What's an extra billion or so added to this?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by savevp

RFP isn't until late-2024 but its a small step forward. A lot can go wrong between now and a 2030's launch date.

It's a terrible and unambitious timeline.

[Nouvellecosse]

Higher fuel prices will not "cause" fares to rise. It may influence a future decision to raise fares but as a subsidized public transit service the fares are not dictated by a requirement to make a profit or even cover all operating costs. Governments can decide to change the amount of subsidy they provide at any time.

Besides, even if it was a private service that still doesn't mean that fares "will" increase. Fuel costs are only one of the various expenses involved in operating trains which are far more efficient in terms of energy usage per passenger than cars. If higher fuel prices were to cause ridership to increase, the service could become even more efficient by allowing each train to be fuller thus offsetting the extra cost. Or the fact the new rolling stock being delivered might decrease fuel usage enough to make up the difference. Or company might make other changes to reduce costs or simply absorb a small decrease in margin if it believed that to have a long term benefit.

Either way, there's no direct mechanism that forces fuel price fluctuations to alter fare prices. And if the fares did increase, the cost of train travel is unlikely to increase by anywhere near the same magnitude or percentage as the cost of car travel since since fuel is a smaller part of overall cost.

[Denscity]

Happy to see HSR from Vancouver through Seattle to Portland got another $120M US recently from Washington State.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's a terrible and unambitious timeline.

What I'm wondering is why they need to spend 2 years for a RFI. Back in 2019, the Canada Infrastructure Bank (remember them?) created a Joint Project Office and threw them $71 million in funding to explore the business case for HFR.

What have they been doing with that money in those 3 years? Shouldn't a lot of the RFI details be addressed already?

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Higher fuel prices will not "cause" fares to rise. It may influence a future decision to raise fares but as a subsidized public transit service the fares are not dictated by a requirement to make a profit or even cover all operating costs. Governments can decide to change the amount of subsidy they provide at any time.

Besides, even if it was a private service that still doesn't mean that fares "will" increase. Fuel costs are only one of the various expenses involved in operating trains which are far more efficient in terms of energy usage per passenger than cars. If higher fuel prices were to cause ridership to increase, the service could become even more efficient by allowing each train to be fuller thus offsetting the extra cost. Or the fact the new rolling stock being delivered might decrease fuel usage enough to make up the difference. Or company might make other changes to reduce costs or simply absorb a small decrease in margin if it believed that to have a long term benefit.

Either way, there's no direct mechanism that forces fuel price fluctuations to alter fare prices. And if the fares did increase, the cost of train travel is unlikely to increase by anywhere near the same magnitude or percentage as the cost of car travel since since fuel is a smaller part of overall cost.

All great points.

It's also relatively easy -- if the rolling stock is available -- to add a passenger car or two (and most trains I've taken between Toronto and Montreal or Ottawa seemed quite short; 5-6 cars at most, a few more on the shoulders of weekends). The locomotive would have to work harder and expend more fuel, but I'd think that's an incremental amount per additional passenger car up to a certain point.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

What I'm wondering is why they need to spend 2 years for a RFI. Back in 2019, the Canada Infrastructure Bank (remember them?) created a Joint Project Office and threw them $71 million in funding to explore the business case for HFR.

What have they been doing with that money in those 3 years? Shouldn't a lot of the RFI details be addressed already?

Exactly. I'd like to know. We should be at RFP stage already. Another 2.5 years for RFP close is fucking ridiculous.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly. I'd like to know. We should be at RFP stage already. Another 2.5 years for RFP close is fucking ridiculous.

Dragging one’s feet means it can quietly disappear past the next election campaign cycle if the government feels that the deficit is a bigger priority.

Like anything that has a very drawn out timeline unnecessarily, I am skeptical of it being a priority and more a PR exercise.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Dragging one’s feet means it can quietly disappear past the next election campaign cycle if the government feels that the deficit is a bigger priority.

Like anything that has a very drawn out timeline unnecessarily, I am skeptical of it being a priority and more a PR exercise.

I think that's exactly their intent. Costs aside, the Federal government doesn't manage the planning and implementation of interprovincial infrastructure projects over hundreds of kilometers like this, and they're getting cold feet and looking for a way to kick this can down the road until it gets forgotten.

Add to that the fact that Ottawa now has an equity stake in Air Canada and the chair of the CIB is also the CEO of YVR airport. That's not quite the conflict of interest of being the CEO of YYZ, YUL or YOW, but it's not helpful, either.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Dragging one’s feet means it can quietly disappear past the next election campaign cycle if the government feels that the deficit is a bigger priority.

Like anything that has a very drawn out timeline unnecessarily, I am skeptical of it being a priority and more a PR exercise.

Which really begs the question whether that is the best additional spending that the government should spend on. Maybe there are other projects within VIA that may not be higher frequency, or higher speed, but would better serve Canadians.

"We want to spend a billion dollars with VIA in an area of the country that the current government does not have much seats in. Where could we spend it?"

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Which really begs the question whether that is the best additional spending that the government should spend on. Maybe there are other projects within VIA that may not be higher frequency, or higher speed, but would better serve Canadians.

"We want to spend a billion dollars with VIA in an area of the country that the current government does not have much seats in. Where could we spend it?"

More like “We don’t want to spend a billion on something not many people care about in an age of hundred billion dollar deficits and 6% inflation”.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

More like “We don’t want to spend a billion on something not many people care about in an age of hundred billion dollar deficits and 6% inflation”.

That too. However, is there a politician out there that does not like spending taxpayer money for votes?

[Nouvellecosse]

We can speculate on political motives if we want, but they in no way bring the validity of the project into question. There's no other VIA project or proposal that I've heard that would better serve the public in terms of ROI by a significant margin.