VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Nobody is asking for the same dollar amount of infrastructure or rolling stock purchasing across the country. They are asking for some equity in funding of transportation options. Why can we find money for GO Transit and Hwy 413 but not the Northlander and this is in the same province?

The answer is, and has always been - politics.

Liberals don't win in the west for various reasons. One of them is the western alienation that is talked about. The further you get from the capital, the worst your services are. That is the same for the provinces, and for the country as a whole. This is because politicians focus on where the people live the most, and more or less give them anything they want while ignoring the outlying areas. Pick a service that a capital has. When outside of there want something even close to it, we are told no. Take basic water service. What would happen if Ottawa's water was boil only? How many federal ridings does Ottawa have? Ho many FN communities have a boil water advisory? How many ridings would that be?

Fact is, asking for something is always met with a no, and then not until the capitol has the best.

So, yes, it is all political.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Nobody is asking for the same dollar amount of infrastructure or rolling stock purchasing across the country. They are asking for some equity in funding of transportation options.

This ignores the reality that budgets are not unlimited and there's opportunity cost to all spending. Both, across government and in a given department or domain. You are also ignoring return on investment. The hundreds of million it might take to start and subsidize some Prairie services, may be better off, for example, helping to launch a Calgary-Edmonton service.

With transit services, it's pretty routine to focus investment on the highest ridership corridors first, before moving down the list. But some people seem to be offended by VIA following the same philosophy.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Why can we find money for GO Transit and Hwy 413 but not the Northlander and this is in the same province?

A relative lack of economic and political return. While, I strongly support and advocate for investment in the Northlander, it's pretty obvious that the demand is so little, that effect on the province is all but negligible. This is not the case with GO, where not expanding it, would have a material impact on economic growth and productivity in the GGH. Impacts which would eventually have consequences for any government in power.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How do you know what the demand is or could be? What metrics are you using? What studies have you done?

Basic population numbers and the gravity model would be enough. The route can't support private bus service. That alone is the tell that any rail route would need substantial subsidies. Not that I'm opposed to investing on the route. I am just challenging the idea that these services are some low cost/low effort projects with no opportunity costs.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Something people forget is that the Northlander was full most of the time for the last year, if not longer.

Full doesn't mean much. You could run one train a month on any route in Canada, for free, and sell out every seat. I'm being facetious, but I'm sure you get the point.

[Truenorth00]

Please move the discussion on foreign affairs and military equipment to the foreign affairs thread.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Via can learn from GO. They could slowly get rid of level crossings on their lines. They could slowly electrify sections of their lines. They could slowly acquire more subdivisions for HFR. We don't need the fanfare. We need change.

There is nothing incremental about having to acquire a bimodal fleet, just to operate electrical on 5% or 10% of your train’s journey…

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Please move the discussion on foreign affairs and military equipment to the foreign affairs thread.

Done.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Basic population numbers and the gravity model would be enough. The route can't support private bus service. That alone is the tell that any rail route would need substantial subsidies. Not that I'm opposed to investing on the route. I am just challenging the idea that these services are some low cost/low effort projects with no opportunity costs.

Full doesn't mean much. You could run one train a month on any route in Canada, for free, and sell out every seat. I'm being facetious, but I'm sure you get the point.

If we want to grow the north, we need to put some basic investments into it. Having a GHTA geocentric conglomeration is not the best way to have growth. Distributed growth throughout the province is a better way to go. When you have distributed growth you need some "transit" services between communities and link them to major centres.

FYI, the Northlander for most of its existence had service 6 days a week from Timmins with 2 frequencies/wk between North Bay and Toronto for a good portion of its lifespan. "Full" does mean a lot. If it is full once a week then there is no reason for not having additional frequencies. Nobody is or has been giving away services for free. The major complaint with Via's pricing is that it is too expensive but the ONR's pricing was a little more reasonable. So in response to your comments, I do not get your point.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

If we want to grow the north, we need to put some basic investments into it. Having a GHTA geocentric conglomeration is not the best way to have growth. Distributed growth throughout the province is a better way to go. When you have distributed growth you need some "transit" services between communities and link them to major centres.

He already said he was in favour of investing in the corridor. Some of us just think the needs of current populations should get greater priority than potential future populations, and that larger populations need more infrastructure spending than smaller ones. Particularly when it comes to "mass" transportation whose success is closely related to population size/density.

In the same way that Maslow's hierarchy of needs places some needs at a higher importance than others while saying they're all important and desirable, some of us feel that as long as infrastructure funds are limited, some investments should occur before others. The only type of transportation infrastructure I generally don't think should be expanded at all would be urban freeways and excessively wide arterials since they're extremely expensive and inefficient.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Basic population numbers and the gravity model would be enough. The route can't support private bus service. That alone is the tell that any rail route would need substantial subsidies. Not that I'm opposed to investing on the route. I am just challenging the idea that these services are some low cost/low effort projects with no opportunity costs.

Full doesn't mean much. You could run one train a month on any route in Canada, for free, and sell out every seat. I'm being facetious, but I'm sure you get the point.

I don't get your point. A 3 car train, running 6 days a week was close to full most days for over a year. Those people were paying for their seat. So, how does this apply to your imaginary world where the train was full of people who didn't pay for their ticket?

Private bus? ONR Bus has been running that route for decades. It has several departures daily.

So, please state your studies that have been done to show that this train would be a failure.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

If we want to grow the north, we need to put some basic investments into it. Having a GHTA geocentric conglomeration is not the best way to have growth. Distributed growth throughout the province is a better way to go. When you have distributed growth you need some "transit" services between communities and link them to major centres.

FYI, the Northlander for most of its existence had service 6 days a week from Timmins with 2 frequencies/wk between North Bay and Toronto for a good portion of its lifespan. "Full" does mean a lot. If it is full once a week then there is no reason for not having additional frequencies. Nobody is or has been giving away services for free. The major complaint with Via's pricing is that it is too expensive but the ONR's pricing was a little more reasonable. So in response to your comments, I do not get your point.

He does this elsewhere. I'm getting used to his antics.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

He already said he was in favour of investing in the corridor. Some of us just think the needs of current populations should get greater priority than potential future populations, and that larger populations need more infrastructure spending than smaller ones. Particularly when it comes to "mass" transportation whose success is closely related to population size/density.

In the same way that Maslow's hierarchy of needs places some needs at a higher importance than others while saying they're all important and desirable, some of us feel that as long as infrastructure funds are limited, some investments should occur before others. The only type of transportation infrastructure I generally don't think should be expanded at all would be urban freeways and excessively wide arterials since they're extremely expensive and inefficient.

I am all for investing in the cities. Problem is, we only invest in the high riding areas and ignore the areas that generate the majority of the wealth.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Improve them to what end? To improve a corridor there has to be a plan of service, capacity at the terminii and on connecting corridors, etc. With no new trains (till next year), no capacity increases in the approach to Montreal, and no new demand for train slots, what exactly would be gained by laying down random track?

It wouldn't be random track. The objective would be faster and more reliable service on the Ottawa-Toronto and Ottawa-Montreal routes (as well as the Montreal-Toronto routes they route through Ottawa). Most of the route is single tracked and delays were fairly common waiting for an oncoming via train, there are several at-grade crossings with major transportation infrastructure that slows down the trains. Both segments have average speeds about a third of the LRC top speeds, which is quite low by industry standards.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't think VIA was lowballing estimates, so much as the lack of experience and internal resources, along with bias, will always drive lower estimates. Also, I don't get how 1 and 2 "were never true". Yes, they require investment. That amount pales in comparison to what would be required in both capital expenditure and rent along the Lakeshore. And that's if the freight rails would even allow VIA priority on their tracks (which we all know is highly unlikely).

It was obvious from the very beginning that Via's estimates were far below even what simple rail projects cost in Canada, let alone the significant infrastructure needed for this project.

I don't think we know the answer to that question because no alternatives were seriously considered.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hardly. All that was required, was a trip time that was better than today's average for Toronto-Montreal (over 5 hrs on schedule, closer to 5.5 hrs with delays) and a substantial boost in reliability that brought trip times closer to the scheduled times. They seem to have been pressured into pursuing a far more ambitious trip time for Toronto-Montreal and this forces a large capital upgrade to the corridor and/or a bypass of Ottawa, effectively breaking the service concept and negating the concept of launching with the minimum viable service.

It wasn't politically viable to tell people in Montreal the Government was going to spend over $10 billion and improve travel times by a few minutes.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

If we want to grow the north, we need to put some basic investments into it.

Who is "we"? And how much do "we want to grow the north"? I ask this, because there's absolutely no provincial or federal policy on growing the population of Northern Ontario. Nor does there seem to be some unique provincial consensus that you seem to be implying here.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Having a GHTA geocentric conglomeration is not the best way to have growth. Distributed growth throughout the province is a better way to go. When you have distributed growth you need some "transit" services between communities and link them to major centres.

Distributed growth doesn't necessarily imply that the best place to invest in infrastructure to facilitate growth is Northern Ontario. Arguably the best place to invest is areas close to current population centres and that are already along existing transportation corridors. This would mean growing Peterborough, Kitchener, London, Kingston, Windsor, etc.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

FYI, the Northlander for most of its existence had service 6 days a week from Timmins with 2 frequencies/wk between North Bay and Toronto for a good portion of its lifespan. "Full" does mean a lot. If it is full once a week then there is no reason for not having additional frequencies. Nobody is or has been giving away services for free. The major complaint with Via's pricing is that it is too expensive but the ONR's pricing was a little more reasonable. So in response to your comments, I do not get your point.

2 full trains a week from Toronto is just not that much.

I have looked at the business case from Ontario Northland. Absolute best case scenario? 111 000 riders. And that's with double daily service along the entire corridor. In 2041. That's about 304 riders per day. Pretty much any local bus route in a major city exceeds that. And to achieve the above ridership? Up to $115M in capital and over half a billion in O&M. So hardly the cheap and easy idea that you assert it is.

And that's just ridership and costs. Read the rest of the business case. To make the economic case work, they had to assume an evaluation of 60 years (double what is required of GO, VIA, etc.) and vehicle fuel consumption of 10.8L/100km (imagine this as vehicles are getting more efficient and going electric). And with all those absolutely generous assumptions, they end up with a Benefits-Cost Ratio of 0.74 in the best case. Their bottom end is at 0.23.

I see this as no different that building the $12B Transmountain pipeline expansion: an economically nonsensical but politically necessary project to make some constituency that feels hard done by (beyond all logic) happy. And like I support TMX, I support putting in the bare minimum into the Northlander. But I am not going to argue that this is prudent investment, when their own math shows that they could achieve the same effect by air dropping $100 bills over North Bay or simply hosting a tourism event where they set the money on fire.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It wouldn't be random track. The objective would be faster and more reliable service on the Ottawa-Toronto and Ottawa-Montreal routes (as well as the Montreal-Toronto routes they route through Ottawa). Most of the route is single tracked and delays were fairly common waiting for an oncoming via train, there are several at-grade crossings with major transportation infrastructure that slows down the trains. Both segments have average speeds about a third of the LRC top speeds, which is quite low by industry standards.

This corridor connects to the freight corridors though. So unless there's more capacity on the freight corridors, all investment does is shift where your train ends up waiting.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It was obvious from the very beginning that Via's estimates were far below even what simple rail projects cost in Canada, let alone the significant infrastructure needed for this project.

I think it's likely they assumed conditions of the corridor, better than they were. But really, it's not that unusual to have estimates rise as they are refined. If they come out with a $6-12B price tag for a higher speed service just a few years after the Ecotrain study said $10B for HSR from Toronto to Montreal, they'd have been laughed away. I think it's been proper for them to somewhat band this and be more clear on the range of estimates as options evolve.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think we know the answer to that question because no alternatives were seriously considered.

What other alternative is there? Seriously. Every other past proposal is HSR. And there's no real way to simply take over existing rail infrastructure owned by the freight cos.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It wasn't politically viable to tell people in Montreal the Government was going to spend over $10 billion and improve travel times by a few minutes.

It would be far less than $10B if they were building a corridor that only saves a few mins. It's gotten up to the $10-12B range, exactly because of the political pressure you bring up. And indeed, this is part of the problem in Canada. Instead of getting shovels in the ground with a $6B project they can build on in the years to come, VIA might end up spending another half decade in engineering on a $10B plan that is constantly at risk. Other jurisdictions are far smarter on "Bird in hand is worth two in the bush."

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

He already said he was in favour of investing in the corridor. Some of us just think the needs of current populations should get greater priority than potential future populations, and that larger populations need more infrastructure spending than smaller ones. Particularly when it comes to "mass" transportation whose success is closely related to population size/density.

In the same way that Maslow's hierarchy of needs places some needs at a higher importance than others while saying they're all important and desirable, some of us feel that as long as infrastructure funds are limited, some investments should occur before others. The only type of transportation infrastructure I generally don't think should be expanded at all would be urban freeways and excessively wide arterials since they're extremely expensive and inefficient.

Exactly.

I don't oppose investing in services to Northern Ontario. Basic public infrastructure is a social good. But some of the folks here act like this is some cheap no-brainer that the government is going out of their way to ignore. These projects are expensive and offer very little return. In a world where money doesn't grow on trees, governments have to prioritize.

Maybe after GO RER and improvements along the Barrie line, Queen's Park should consider building up a proper corridor to North Bay that allows for hourly service. This would allow North Bay to become a proper bus hub with hourly service along the Trans Canada and up to Timmins. But this kind of plan is easily 30-40 years in the making.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Who is "we"? And how much do "we want to grow the north"? I ask this, because there's absolutely no provincial or federal policy on growing the population of Northern Ontario. Nor does there seem to be some unique provincial consensus that you seem to be implying here.

Fednor.
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
Both of these have existed for decades. The T&NO was specifically built to open up the north. You really need to learn some history. And if you don't know what T&NO stands for and what it is then you really need to stop commenting and learn about its history.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Distributed growth doesn't necessarily imply that the best place to invest in infrastructure to facilitate growth is Northern Ontario. Arguably the best place to invest is areas close to current population centres and that are already along existing transportation corridors. This would mean growing Peterborough, Kitchener, London, Kingston, Windsor, etc.

People have been leaving the large cities and flocking to smaller cities.North Bay has been one of the places cited that people are moving to. So why not prime those places for people to be able to move to?
https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/m...2020-1.5254394

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

2 full trains a week from Toronto is just not that much.

I have looked at the business case from Ontario Northland. Absolute best case scenario? 111 000 riders. And that's with double daily service along the entire corridor. In 2041. That's about 304 riders per day. Pretty much any local bus route in a major city exceeds that. And to achieve the above ridership? Up to $115M in capital and over half a billion in O&M. So hardly the cheap and easy idea that you assert it is.

And that's just ridership and costs. Read the rest of the business case. To make the economic case work, they had to assume an evaluation of 60 years (double what is required of GO, VIA, etc.) and vehicle fuel consumption of 10.8L/100km (imagine this as vehicles are getting more efficient and going electric). And with all those absolutely generous assumptions, they end up with a Benefits-Cost Ratio of 0.74 in the best case. Their bottom end is at 0.23.

I see this as no different that building the $12B Transmountain pipeline expansion: an economically nonsensical but politically necessary project to make some constituency that feels hard done by (beyond all logic) happy. And like I support TMX, I support putting in the bare minimum into the Northlander. But I am not going to argue that this is prudent investment, when their own math shows that they could achieve the same effect by air dropping $100 bills over North Bay or simply hosting a tourism event where they set the money on fire.

2 full trains? When did it run 2 trains a week. It ran 6 trains a week and most times it was full. So, that is 6, not 2.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly.

I don't oppose investing in services to Northern Ontario. Basic public infrastructure is a social good. But some of the folks here act like this is some cheap no-brainer that the government is going out of their way to ignore. These projects are expensive and offer very little return. In a world where money doesn't grow on trees, governments have to prioritize.

Maybe after GO RER and improvements along the Barrie line, Queen's Park should consider building up a proper corridor to North Bay that allows for hourly service. This would allow North Bay to become a proper bus hub with hourly service along the Trans Canada and up to Timmins. But this kind of plan is easily 30-40 years in the making.

Northern ON doesn't need hourly service. Daily is good enough for most people.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Fednor.
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
Both of these have existed for decades. The T&NO was specifically built to open up the north. You really need to learn some history. And if you don't know what T&NO stands for and what it is then you really need to stop commenting and learn about its history.

Before being snide, you should look up Fednor's mandate. It's not what you think it is. And if you actually had experience in federal procurement, you'd have real experience meeting with them and know that they don't give a damn about population growth.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

2 full trains? When did it run 2 trains a week. It ran 6 trains a week and most times it was full. So, that is 6, not 2.

I am going off what GoTrans said. You can correct him.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

People have been leaving the large cities and flocking to smaller cities.North Bay has been one of the places cited that people are moving to. So why not prime those places for people to be able to move to?
https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/m...2020-1.5254394

And yet, Ontario Northland's own estimate shows a remarkably light ridership demand, for the capital required, with extremely generous assumptions. Maybe you should send them your detailed economic case and explain to them why they are wrong.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Northern ON doesn't need hourly service. Daily is good enough for most people.

And it looks like they'll get daily. My suggestion was contingent on developments after the Barrie line is upgraded and only up till North Bay, with the goal to service communities up till North Bay. It's not a suggestion meant to benefit Northern Ontario exclusively.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Before being snide, you should look up Fednor's mandate. It's not what you think it is. And if you actually had experience in federal procurement, you'd have real experience meeting with them and know that they don't give a damn about population growth.

You're being overly pedantic. This is how Fednor describes itself:

Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario (FedNor) is the Government of Canada's economic development organization for Northern Ontario. Through its programs and services, and through its financial support of projects that lead to job creation and economic growth, FedNor works with businesses and community partners to build a stronger Northern Ontario.

Population growth typically goes hand in hand with job creation and economic growth.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jamincan

You're being overly pedantic. This is how Fednor describes itself:
....
Population growth typically goes hand in hand with job creation and economic growth.

And yet if you interact with them, nobody from these economic development agencies will ever talk about facilitating population growth. Fednor is one of seven regional economic agencies. . And none of them ever talk about population growth. When they say their goal is to get job creation and economic growth, that is mostly to ensure these areas don't deindustrialize further. There's no real mandate to massively develop any of these areas. It's not like Fednor is mandated with settling a given number of residents in Northern Ontario annually.

On topic, these agencies have even less to do with infrastructure plans for their regions. Their only job to get a cut of federal contracts for the region and where possible, promote private sector investment. It's not like you'll ever see a report from Fednor arguing for investment in the Northlander.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Population growth typically goes hand in hand with job creation and economic growth.

Relative figures like GDP per person or productivity are generally considered to be much more relevant to measure economic growth as a KPI than absolute figures like nominal GDP…

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Before being snide, you should look up Fednor's mandate. It's not what you think it is. And if you actually had experience in federal procurement, you'd have real experience meeting with them and know that they don't give a damn about population growth.

I noticed how you did not mention provincial ministry that I mentioned that the ONTC was under.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am going off what GoTrans said. You can correct him.

I don't recall even him saying 2 trains a week. And if he did, then even a quick search would show that the train ran 6 days a week each way. It did not run on Sundays.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And yet, Ontario Northland's own estimate shows a remarkably light ridership demand, for the capital required, with extremely generous assumptions. Maybe you should send them your detailed economic case and explain to them why they are wrong.

Maybe they should have looked at their historical ridership.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And it looks like they'll get daily. My suggestion was contingent on developments after the Barrie line is upgraded and only up till North Bay, with the goal to service communities up till North Bay. It's not a suggestion meant to benefit Northern Ontario exclusively.

You cannot get there from here. The Barrie line no longer connects with the Newmarket Sub north of Washago. So, why does the Barrie line need to be upgraded?

Originally Posted by jamincan

You're being overly pedantic. This is how Fednor describes itself:

Population growth typically goes hand in hand with job creation and economic growth.

Pedantic is a nice way of saying that he has no idea what he is talking about.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And yet if you interact with them, nobody from these economic development agencies will ever talk about facilitating population growth. Fednor is one of seven regional economic agencies. . And none of them ever talk about population growth. When they say their goal is to get job creation and economic growth, that is mostly to ensure these areas don't deindustrialize further. There's no real mandate to massively develop any of these areas. It's not like Fednor is mandated with settling a given number of residents in Northern Ontario annually.

On topic, these agencies have even less to do with infrastructure plans for their regions. Their only job to get a cut of federal contracts for the region and where possible, promote private sector investment. It's not like you'll ever see a report from Fednor arguing for investment in the Northlander.

Fednor is the bank. You make a case and they cut you a check. Not the other way around.

What about the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Who is "we"? And how much do "we want to grow the north"? I ask this, because there's absolutely no provincial or federal policy on growing the population of Northern Ontario. Nor does there seem to be some unique provincial consensus that you seem to be implying here.

that is part of the problem. Just because there is no attempt to distribute population it doesn't make it right that we should destroy the moraines around the GTA with urban sprawl.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Distributed growth doesn't necessarily imply that the best place to invest in infrastructure to facilitate growth is Northern Ontario. Arguably the best place to invest is areas close to current population centres and that are already along existing transportation corridors. This would mean growing Peterborough, Kitchener, London, Kingston, Windsor, etc.

I agree in part with you, but why leave out North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay? Why not move the so called head office of the Ministry of Natural Resources from Peterborough to one of these cities? What do people in the south know about the north other than it is a great place to fish, hunt and cottage?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

2 full trains a week from Toronto is just not that much.

If you had looked at some previous schedules you would see that I am talking about at least 6/week service each way, not weekly. It was your claim that all the trains were full and the ridership was free.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I see this as no different that building the $12B Transmountain pipeline expansion: an economically nonsensical but politically necessary project to make some constituency that feels hard done by (beyond all logic) happy. And like I support TMX, I support putting in the bare minimum into the Northlander. But I am not going to argue that this is prudent investment, when their own math shows that they could achieve the same effect by air dropping $100 bills over North Bay or simply hosting a tourism event where they set the money on fire.

The Trans Mountain is not uneconomical, it is economical to the oil industry and Alberta even though it is not environmentally friendly.