VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The BCR is calculated for each project. It's in the report for each project.



Build whatever solution results in BCR ≥ 1, preferably the option with the highest BCR. If BCR ≥ 1 is not possible, there's no business case for that project. Move on to studying non-rail options.

Can you point to how the BCR is done, and what it is?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Can you point to how the BCR is done, and what it is?

Open one of the reports and read.

They basically asses all the socioeconomic benefits and any direct net revenue over a given time period (say 20-30 years) and compare that to capital and operating costs over the same period.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Open one of the reports and read.

They basically asses all the socioeconomic benefits and any direct net revenue over a given time period (say 20-30 years) and compare that to capital and operating costs over the same period.

I am not digging to prove you wrong. If it is so ironclad, you would point it out so that we all can see how clear it is.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not digging to prove you wrong. If it is so ironclad, you would point it out so that we all can see how clear it is.

Not sure what your point is here. It's a decision-making process and rubric that allows for informed decision-making focused on ensuring that total benefit exceeds cost. If you think there's a better way to decide which projects are worth investing in, go for it. I, for one, like the BCR system because it gives taxpayers confidence that money isn't being wasted.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not sure what your point is here. It's a decision-making process and rubric that allows for informed decision-making focused on ensuring that total benefit exceeds cost. If you think there's a better way to decide which projects are worth investing in, go for it. I, for one, like the BCR system because it gives taxpayers confidence that money isn't being wasted.

You have yet to even say what the BCR stands for. You have not explained how it works except about something about the number 1.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You have yet to even say what the BCR stands for.

I assumed most people could click a link.

BCR = Benefit Cost Ratio

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You have not explained how it works except about something about the number 1.

I explained it right here:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They basically asses all the socioeconomic benefits and any direct net revenue over a given time period (say 20-30 years) and compare that to capital and operating costs over the same period.

You can read more here:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regional..._analyses.aspx

Many governmental organizations use such analysis. I'm using Metrolinx because they have the best known ones for transit in Canada.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I assumed most people could click a link.

BCR = Benefit Cost Ratio



I explained it right here:

You said that only after being prompted to.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You can read more here:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regional..._analyses.aspx

Many governmental organizations use such analysis. I'm using Metrolinx because they have the best known ones for transit in Canada.

Still doesn't tell me how to actually calculate that. the more convoluted it is, the less I trust it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Still doesn't tell me how to actually calculate that. the more convoluted it is, the less I trust it.

Governments don't investment in multi-billion dollar projects with napkin maths. Imagine that.

Also, what is difficult to understand about this:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They basically asses all the socioeconomic benefits and any direct net revenue over a given time period (say 20-30 years) and compare that to capital and operating costs over the same period.

If you need smaller words, I'll try here.

1) Pick a relevant timeframe. For most infrastructure, it's the time before capital renewal, usually 20-30 yrs.

2) Add up all socioeconomic benefits. Income from jobs created. Economic benefits through higher productivity. Costs saved to the environment, or other infrastructure (like reduced road wear), etc.

3) Add net revenue (fares, ancillary sales, ads minus operating expenses.

4) Calculate all costs over the relevant time period. Add up the capital costs to build with operating costs over the time period. Pro-rate renewal costs if necessary.

5) BCR = (Step 2 + Step 3) / Step 4. If BCR > 1, then benefits exceed the costs and the project has net socioeconomic value. If BCR < 1, benefits are lower than the costs, and the government can decide if they want to proceed for some other reason, knowing full well the economic case is poor.

For example, the Eglinton Crosstown and Scarborough Subway both has BCRs below 1 (substantially too). But the Ontario Line has a BCR of 1.05. Similarly, you can see with Ontario HSR, they looked at two speed options and whether to go from Toronto to London, or continue to Windsor. The only option with an HSR above 1 was 250 kph from Toronto to London (Table 3.5):

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pub...hapter-3.shtml

BCR is the only fair way to really evaluate the relative merits of different projects in different parts of the country. How do we know if a subway in Toronto provides a better return than an LRT in Calgary or BRT in Winnipeg? By comparing BCRs. Moreover, if BCR is well above 1, it also tells us that the infrastructure will be popular and have a much more immediate material benefit. As such, the higher the BCR, the higher the priority should be.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Still doesn't tell me how to actually calculate that. the more convoluted it is, the less I trust it.

I can't say with other agencies, but with Metrolinx the methodology changes from contractor to contractor, which means they cannot be directly compared from one project to the next without sizable error bars.

Generally, Metrolinx tries to include both direct and indirect benefits. Direct (fare revenue or cost savings from no-change service) and indirect like income tax revenue (both economic and from construction employment). Indirect revenue may include green house gas reductions too though applying a dollar value to that changes with the government in power.

Even more generally, accounting principals like discounting use a rate which is basically picked from thin-air and is linear because it makes the math easy; this is a global problem.

In short, you're right to be skeptical of any Metrolinx Business Case result. Worse, is even whey they predict a 10% return ($1B in cost, $100M in benefit), Ontario may build it anyway. Politics is king at Metrolinx where decision making is concerned.

[Truenorth00]

Meh. Metrolinx ain't perfect. And a lot of the flaws in their analysis come from over reliance on contractors. But they certainly are a hell of a lot better than what was there before (no regional authority). And if you want to give up using evidence based business cases, we can go right back to projects being decided exclusively by politics. Don't elect the right guy and you get nothing. See how that works out.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. I can't see anything with worse service actually yielding a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) above 1. And this is hardly an onerous standard. It's what Metrolinx uses.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regional..._analyses.aspx

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You have yet to even say what the BCR stands for. You have not explained how it works except about something about the number 1.

In fairness, it does seem that he stated what the acronym stands for earlier. It's basically the same concept employed in a variety of fields to help weigh the factors in a complex decision. It's basically the same thing we discussed earlier in the thread and is particularly useful for an agency tasked with providing public services rather than making a profit since it can be harder to quantify the value provided by a particular expenditure when said value isn't in the form of direct monetary return. It generally just involves assigning an imputed value to non-profitable goals. Sometimes it can be pretty straight forward such as when measuring direct economic multipliers. Other times there's an element of subjectivity such as weighing quality of life aspects. It isn't that there's no way there can be errors, it's just that it's the best and most rigorous process we've got (when done correctly).

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Or, we need to have people demand service for all, not just where it is profitable. Otherwise, GO is down to 2 lines.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I haven't seen anyone here say service should only exist where it's "profitable." Most of the people who are skeptical of your proposed service expansion (including me) feel service should be maintained and expanded to where it has the greatest net benefit (benefits relative to expenditure). Greatest net benefit does not necessarily equal profitable. Benefits can take a variety of forms generally relating to either reduction in pollution and/or other environmental damage, improvements to quality of life, or stimulative effects to the economy. I would be very surprised if any of the GO lines had a lower net positive benefit than your proposed routes given their role in reducing congestion and taking significant numbers of cars off the road. But if a cost/benefit analysis proved me wrong, then so be it.

I disagree w/ ssi guy in the case of Churchill which isn't accessible by road meaning the railroad provides huge benefits in the form of transporting goods such as food at a lower cost than would be possible by air. I suspect that would make for pretty high net benefits even given the cost if we consider the alternatives such as abandoning the town, doing everything by air, or building an expensive road.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by rbt

I can't say with other agencies, but with Metrolinx the methodology changes from contractor to contractor, which means they cannot be directly compared from one project to the next without sizable error bars.

Generally, Metrolinx tries to include both direct and indirect benefits. Direct (fare revenue or cost savings from no-change service) and indirect like income tax revenue (both economic and from construction employment). Indirect revenue may include green house gas reductions too though applying a dollar value to that changes with the government in power.

Even more generally, accounting principals like discounting use a rate which is basically picked from thin-air and is linear because it makes the math easy; this is a global problem.

In short, you're right to be skeptical of any Metrolinx Business Case result. Worse, is even whey they predict a 10% return ($1B in cost, $100M in benefit), Ontario may build it anyway. Politics is king at Metrolinx where decision making is concerned.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Meh. Metrolinx ain't perfect. And a lot of the flaws in their analysis come from over reliance on contractors. But they certainly are a hell of a lot better than what was there before (no regional authority). And if you want to give up using evidence based business cases, we can go right back to projects being decided exclusively by politics. Don't elect the right guy and you get nothing. See how that works out.

I am skeptical of the ones from Metrolinx as part of their plan takes in TOD. TOD isn't going to happen for any Via line.

Take Peterborough, within 1 km of the station, are we expecting that within 20-30 years that it will become very dense? However, the new LRT lines and the OL, one could expect within 20 years some good TOD. Should we be expecting TOD around the Bloomington GO station? I doubt that too.

An even better example is that the Metrolinx methodology is likely being applied to the return of the Northlander. I doubt the small towns along the way will see much growth from it's return. Even North Bay and Timmins likely won't see any growth outside of the normal growth that is already expected. Maybe we should use that metric and apply it to Via's expansion. Metrolinx is not in the business of intercity rail, but ONTC is.

As I have hammered on before, Via is political. Let' be fair, all transportation that is funded by a government is always going to be political.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In fairness, it does seem that he stated what the acronym stands for earlier.

And in the very next post, swimmer quoted the post with what BCR stands for in a reply. I was going to say that, but I thought "no, he must mean something else other than what the acronym actually stands for".

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

And in the very next post, swimmer quoted the post with what BCR stands for in a reply. I was going to say that, but I thought "no, he must mean something else other than what the acronym actually stands for".

That was after he did say what it stood for. We tend to use acronyms willy nilly and just expect everyone to know.

[swimmer_spe]

So, let's say you only care about one thing this election - Via rail. Let's say nothing else matters to you. Am I right that so far, none has really had anything on it?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, let's say you only care about one thing this election - Via rail. Let's say nothing else matters to you. Am I right that so far, none has really had anything on it?

I not sure the Liberals offering to RFP HFR in the Fall is nothing. Though their platform isn't out yet. So we'll see what else is there. The CPC have literally nothing in their platform, I did a word scan and read the infrastructure sections. The NDP commit to HFR, the Northlander and an intercity bus system.

[go_leafs_go02]

Well, starting today, the majority of the Pre-COVID 19 schedules along the Windsor - Quebec Corridor are back.

Between Windsor & Toronto, 100% of the old schedule is running again. 4 roundtrips per day, plus an extra round trip between London and Toronto.

https://www.viarail.ca/en/plan-your-trip/service-status

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I not sure the Liberals offering to RFP HFR in the Fall is nothing. Though their platform isn't out yet. So we'll see what else is there. The CPC have literally nothing in their platform, I did a word scan and read the infrastructure sections. The NDP commit to HFR, the Northlander and an intercity bus system.

So, one has nothing in their platform. Another has no platform, and one has what has already been announced?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, one has nothing in their platform. Another has no platform, and one has what has already been announced?

I'm not sure how you equate an unreleased platform with "no platform". You going to update your post when they release their platform in a few days?

Other than that, the choice has always been obvious. Risk cuts with the CPC or vote for a party that might actually bring current plans to fruition.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm not sure how you equate an unreleased platform with "no platform". You going to update your post when they release their platform in a few days?

Other than that, the choice has always been obvious. Risk cuts with the CPC or vote for a party that might actually bring current plans to fruition.

On the day I vote, they may have a platform released that details all sorts of stuff. My question isn't on that day, but today. So, today they have yet to release the information as to whether they have anything or not.