Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I would assume this would fall under Via and Amtrak because:
1) it crosses international borders
2) it crosses more than 1 state line (potentially)

This project could stir massive funding elsewhere in Canada for HSR. It could be the kick this country needs for real passenger service funding.

VIA and Amtrak operate the Maple Leaf between New York and Toronto using Amtrak trains, but VIA crew in Canada and Amtrak crew in the US. That doesn't seem to work in the same way when the distance inside Canada is so short. It might be all Amtrak, like the Cascades, but I would assume it's going to have a significant private sector financing element and so would be a separate entity. Is there a reason why a train operated by 'Am-Can HSR' couldn't cross an international border and state lines?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lets say each of those take 5 years. There are about 6 more lines/extensions to be done. If each take 5 years, and this current one is on time, that easily takes us to the 2050s or later.

Regardless, I feel this will fall under Via and will see federal funding. Translink won't be spending anything on it.

Sounds about right, unless we get another 2-for-1 deal like Broadway and Langley Phase 1.

Doesn't matter whether or not TransLink's doing the spending: Victoria doesn't usually pay for that many transit projects at once, and if so, SkyTrain v. HSR is a pretty obvious choice. The feds are likely to do a QC-Windsor train before Cascadia.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

VIA and Amtrak operate the Maple Leaf between New York and Toronto using Amtrak trains, but VIA crew in Canada and Amtrak crew in the US. That doesn't seem to work in the same way when the distance inside Canada is so short. It might be all Amtrak, like the Cascades, but I would assume it's going to have a significant private sector financing element and so would be a separate entity. Is there a reason why a train operated by 'Am-Can HSR' couldn't cross an international border and state lines?

You need charters to legally operate trains in various locales. With the kind of red tape to do anything these days, it makes sense that it would not be run by a private entity. If it were just in the States, then it may be possible.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sounds about right, unless we get another 2-for-1 deal like Broadway and Langley Phase 1.

Doesn't matter whether or not TransLink's doing the spending: Victoria doesn't usually pay for that many transit projects at once, and if so, SkyTrain v. HSR is a pretty obvious choice. The feds are likely to do a QC-Windsor train before Cascadia.

If The US government and Amtrak said they would built to the Border, but Canada needs to chip in the rest, I could see this happening. It would then give the government a reason to reinvest in Via and could see lines along the Corridor, and possibly an Edmonton - Calgary HSR, like Albertans want.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You need charters to legally operate trains in various locales. With the kind of red tape to do anything these days, it makes sense that it would not be run by a private entity. If it were just in the States, then it may be possible.

Do CN and CP run trains into the US? If so, why couldn't a passenger rail company get a charter?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Do CN and CP run trains into the US? If so, why couldn't a passenger rail company get a charter?

Any company could potentially get a charter. The problem is whether they would see it as a profitable venture.It could also delay the opening of the line. It is not whether a company can, but whether a company sees the worth in it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If The US government and Amtrak said they would built to the Border, but Canada needs to chip in the rest, I could see this happening. It would then give the government a reason to reinvest in Via and could see lines along the Corridor, and possibly an Edmonton - Calgary HSR, like Albertans want.

You forgot the part where BC's nowhere near Ontario or Quebec and so doesn't ever get that much federal money at once.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Any company could potentially get a charter. The problem is whether they would see it as a profitable venture.It could also delay the opening of the line. It is not whether a company can, but whether a company sees the worth in it.

I don't think Amtrak have a magic bottomless purse either. The whole idea of a Cascades HSR will be based on a long-term business case and a huge public subsidy to get it going. There are examples around the world of private sector businesses (like Eurostar) operating trains that cross international borders. The more private financing might play a role, the more likely a multi-billion-dollar system might get built, so rather than delay it, it might speed it up. Probably not for several decades - see the California HSR (with no borders to cross) for reasons why.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You forgot the part where BC's nowhere near Ontario or Quebec and so doesn't ever get that much federal money at once.

While that is true, a government looking for votes may wish to throw some money to an area that might vote for it. What better photo op for a campaign than something like this to say that they are not forgotten?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't think Amtrak have a magic bottomless purse either. The whole idea of a Cascades HSR will be based on a long-term business case and a huge public subsidy to get it going. There are examples around the world of private sector businesses (like Eurostar) operating trains that cross international borders. The more private financing might play a role, the more likely a multi-billion-dollar system might get built, so rather than delay it, it might speed it up. Probably not for several decades - see the California HSR (with no borders to cross) for reasons why.

Comparing this to the one in California shows why this is going to be done by agencies already federally subsidized.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

While that is true, a government looking for votes may wish to throw some money to an area that might vote for it. What better photo op for a campaign than something like this to say that they are not forgotten?

The same area that already votes their way (Liberal/NDP) to begin with?

[scottN]

If we (BC, Canada) are only expected to pay for the HSR line capital costs from the border to Scott Road (about 1/6th of the total distance to Seattle, nevermind the continuation to Portland), then it's a steal.

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You need charters to legally operate trains in various locales. With the kind of red tape to do anything these days, it makes sense that it would not be run by a private entity. If it were just in the States, then it may be possible.

The Rocky Mountaineer (in pre-covid time) did extend some of their trains down to Seattle. Those trains did not use the Rocky Mountaineer station but instead Pacific Central so they could do customs/immigration clearance of passengers.

This train is not a normal Amtrak route. It is basically funded through some agreement between the Washington and Oregon departments of Transportation. They then contract Amtrak as the operator. I believe the trains are not even owned by Amtrak but the states.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Do CN and CP run trains into the US? If so, why couldn't a passenger rail company get a charter?

Yes. In fact both CN and CP are major owners of railway track in the US and stretch all the way down to and into Mexico.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You forgot the part where BC's nowhere near Ontario or Quebec and so doesn't ever get that much federal money at once.

The feds are very careful on this. When they create some program they usually want to divide the spend based on the population that province has. For transit they will go BC and say we have a pot of X dollars to spend in BC, what projects do you want to consider.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Comparing this to the one in California shows why this is going to be done by agencies already federally subsidized.

The California project has federal funding. The Cascadia Ultra High Speed Rail Study is led by WSDOT, and the most recent project report looked at the establishment of a formal Coordinating Entity to get the project moving and later once funding is secured, a Development Entity, similar to the California project. Amtrak are not mentioned once.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by casper

The feds are very careful on this. When they create some program they usually want to divide the spend based on the population that province has. For transit they will go BC and say we have a pot of X dollars to spend in BC, what projects do you want to consider.

Eeyup, and the SkyTrain network gets 90% of those dollars (and rightfully so).

[MistyMountain]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Those are some pretty big "ifs" - there's a good chance that 100% of service will be between Vancouver and Portland, in which case Surrey service would be filled by local-service trains coming and going from Bellingham. No-go on the Valley.

Also, the 2055 ridership estimate is 3.3 million riders a year: a pretty bad ridership-cost ratio when you realize the Canada Line does that every three weeks. A tunnel should get the green light, but not ahead of all the other projects we've got.

Hard to tell. Depends on what's left by then; without billions of federal or private sector funding, a downtown HSR tunnel should be somewhere between a West End and a Canada Line extension.

This is a meaningless comparison; regional public transit can't be compared to inter-city travel. New York City subway and commuter rail alone transported 4 billion people a year pre-COVID, compared to ~1 billion for air travel in the entire country. That doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in airports.

Of course a train between Vancouver and Seattle would have lower ridership that other local transit projects, but we're trying to replace cross border road and air travel, not daily commutes.

As I sketched out here you could use the HSR backbone to set up a regional rail network through Surrey, and then use existing rail corridors to go to White Rock, Abbotsford, Chilliwack and potentially Tsawwassen. There would be plenty of capacity to run both HSR trains and a regional rail train every 10-15 minutes. Once you have the $4.5B link from Surrey to Vancouver set up you can build that for ~$1B because you just need to add extra rail and station infrastructure.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by MistyMountain

This is a meaningless comparison; regional public transit can't be compared to inter-city travel. New York City subway and commuter rail alone transported 4 billion people a year pre-COVID, compared to ~1 billion for air travel in the entire country. That doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in airports.

Of course a train between Vancouver and Seattle would have lower ridership that other local transit projects, but we're trying to replace cross border road and air travel, not daily commutes.

As I sketched out here you could use the HSR backbone to set up a regional rail network through Surrey, and then use existing rail corridors to go to White Rock, Abbotsford, Chilliwack and potentially Tsawwassen. There would be plenty of capacity to run both HSR trains and a regional rail train every 10-15 minutes. Once you have the $4.5B link from Surrey to Vancouver set up you can build that for ~$1B because you just need to add extra rail and station infrastructure.

No plan survives contact with the finance department. Airports are critical infrastructure, yes, but YVR and many others are also self-funding; we don't even know if the HSR would break even during operations.

GO in Ontario is expanding at the ballpark cost of $90m/km, and it's over 90km from Tsawwassen to Chilliwack. That's a whole lot more than $1b.

Are municipal rail and regional rail an apples and oranges comparison? Yes. Are the provincial accountants likely to see it that way? No.
Is Victoria likely to spend $4.5 billion on 9,000 tourists/day ahead of 150,000 Canadian commuters/day? No.
Is Victoria likely to spend another $8+ billion on even less ridership out to the Valley? No.
Is the operator of the HSR likely to even allow non-HSR trains to use their ROW? Probably not.

One more time: BC's already run the numbers and determined that a simple high-frequency bus network in the Valley would actually get more riders than a train. So they'll likely do that instead and revisit rail in another thirty years.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Are municipal rail and regional rail an apples and oranges comparison? Yes. Are the provincial accountants likely to see it that way? No.
Is Victoria likely to spend $4.5 billion on 9,000 tourists/day ahead of 150,000 Canadian commuters/day? No.
Is Victoria likely to spend another $8+ billion on even less ridership out to the Valley? No.
Is the operator of the HSR likely to even allow non-HSR trains to use their ROW? Probably not.

Exactly (esp that last one - some people on here assume it'll be a shared ROW)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The California project has federal funding. The Cascadia Ultra High Speed Rail Study is led by WSDOT, and the most recent project report looked at the establishment of a formal Coordinating Entity to get the project moving and later once funding is secured, a Development Entity, similar to the California project. Amtrak are not mentioned once.

It is a federal funded project, but they must ensure it receives no subsidy when operating. That is not how Via or Amtrak work.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is a federal funded project, but they must ensure it receives no subsidy when operating. That is not how Via or Amtrak work.

The reason that the California project must ensure ridership revenues are sufficient to cover the operations and maintenance costs of the program is to comply with Proposition 1A, which authorized the bonds that funded part of the state's contribution to the costs.

That doesn't apply (yet) to Cascadia because the sources of funding haven't been identified, and certainly not confirmed. (Neither have the costs - $24 to $42 billion at last estimate). The project may never have to be revenue neutral, but it may be a requirement of funding, just as it is in California - the latest report from WSDOT (linked above) indicates the intention of trying to operate the system at least at break-even. It certainly doesn't say anything about who might operate any future service.

The existing service is irrelevant - Amtrak Cascades runs on freight company tracks and was subsidized by Washington (and Oregon) by over a third of the $50m operating costs in 2018. Oregon and Washington also paid for most of the train sets (although it's temporarily running with old Amtrak trains while new ones are being built in California).

If it's ever built, the new service will run on its own tracks, have its own train sets, and its own corporation owning the operation. Amtrak could be the operator, but so could an entirely separate company and unlike on the East Coast, Amtrak don't seem to have been involved in the west coast high speed rail at all - it's all WSDOT led.

I have no idea why you're obsessed with suggesting Amtrak are the most likely to have a role, but up to now they haven't had one and there's absolutely no reason why state and federal funds (likely to be the main sources of funding at least for the initial construction) shouldn't support an independent operation.