The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I'm still surprised to see the CAQ as the most transit friendly government that QC has ever had. With financing of the Gatineau and Québec streetcars, plus many other Montréal projects, things are looking positive.

They aren't anti-transit but they are hardly transit-friendly. They only care about transit that benefits their supporters. It's pretty crude electoral politics.

If they really cared about transit they would support fundamental projects like the Montreal metro's pink line, which would serve some of the densest areas of the city that still lack rapid transit, while also relieving severe congestion on the orange line. But they are opposed to it because it doesn't benefit any of their voters. Instead they support a tramway to the east end of Montreal, which is fantastic, except it not-so-coincidentally serves the only two Montreal ridings that voted for the CAQ.

It would be a nice to have a government that cares about transit as a fundamental priority rather than as a trinket.

Still, I'm happy to see the CAQ government support the Gatineau light rail project. I wonder if it will help boost growth on the Quebec side of the river. Whenever I visit Ottawa I'm always amazed at how few people from the Ontario side ever venture across the border, except maybe to holiday destinations like Chelsea and Wakefield.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

They aren't anti-transit but they are hardly transit-friendly. They only care about transit that benefits their supporters. It's pretty crude electoral politics.

That's better than all the other governments for the past decades that were thinking transit for all, by building nothing.

[someone123]

Commuter rail in Halifax has been shelved: https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/busine...ouncillor-still-holding-out-hope-324307/

All of the council meetings were in-camera and councillors had to sign a non-disclosure agreement before negotiations began with CN. It's hard to tell what happened but some councillors have suggested that CN wouldn't make any guarantees about sharing track.

This history and politics of this are sad.

Up until the 90's or so, this was a route used by dayliners and commuter rail that served the suburbs and rural areas around the province. Now it has one passenger train, the VIA train to Montreal.

A few months ago the federal Liberals including the local Liberal MP were saying that Halifax's container terminal was bad for livability in the area, and this was why they chose not to invest federal dollars there while they were investing in every other major container port in the country. Now, closer to the election, they are contributing funds to expand the port and improve rail access. Presumably this will include re-laying track that CN tore up and sold off or relocated to the US a decade ago.

This railway line was originally built by the public Nova Scotia Railway starting in around 1853. CN now has a monopoly on all rail lines around the Halifax area. CN's share price has gone up around 20x over the past couple decades and its biggest shareholder is Bill Gates. So I guess we can be happy that this situation is working for somebody.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ What is implied there is the city cannot get track access for free or very cheap. And without that a not incredibly viable project is even less viable.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ What is implied there is the city cannot get track access for free or very cheap. And without that a not incredibly viable project is even less viable.

Maybe. We don't know what CN's demands were.

Either way, this should be considered an unacceptable way to operate this type of infrastructure. The line itself should never have become privately controlled and there should be transparency around pricing and scheduling. It should never have been subject to corporate pillaging either.

There is also a double standard at play here. The commuter rail project was always judged by its direct cost recovery ratio. But the direct cost recovery of most provincial highways is 0%.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by someone123

There is also a double standard at play here. The commuter rail project was always judged by its direct cost recovery ratio. But the direct cost recovery of most provincial highways is 0%.

That's a weak way of looking at it.

The vast majority of us expect our taxes to be used to maintain and build roads.

Simple solution would be to have people check boxes on their various tax forms indicating if they want their portion directed to either Roads, rail, or bike lanes. Funding for construction and maintenance would come from these pools.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

The vast majority of us expect our taxes to be used to maintain and build roads.

You should expect your taxes to be used to maintain railways too because they are used for that.

Like I said, the federal government just announced $90M or so which will in part go to expand railway infrastructure around the line that might have had commuter rail. Nobody cried foul about this not paying for itself through shipping fees.

Likewise there are some road projects nearby that are being publicly funded and will have no user fees.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ What is implied there is the city cannot get track access for free or very cheap. And without that a not incredibly viable project is even less viable.

Commuter rail in Calgary relies on CP playing ball too, and I see no reason why they would without utterly gouging us.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

That's a weak way of looking at it.

The vast majority of us expect our taxes to be used to maintain and build roads.

Simple solution would be to have people check boxes on their various tax forms indicating if they want their portion directed to either Roads, rail, or bike lanes. Funding for construction and maintenance would come from these pools.

Simple? That sounds incredible complicated, to the point it would be unworkable.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Commuter rail in Calgary relies on CP playing ball too, and I see no reason why they would without utterly gouging us.

Is it gouging if the alternative use is making the railroad a similar $ amount.



I think the railroads should be forced to lease capacity to public operators at a rate set by a regulator, that is a power I think the regulator currently lacks. But I wouldn't be surprised if all of us are surprised at the incredible cost of displacing cargo to move people actually is.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I think the railroads should be forced to lease capacity to public operators at a rate set by a regulator, that is a power I think the regulator currently lacks. But I wouldn't be surprised if all of us are surprised at the incredible cost of displacing cargo to move people actually is.

Again this is possible but not the only possible explanation, and we don't know the real costs because the information is not public.

Let's assume the public operator is willing to pay ~$0 to use the tracks and the cost to the railway company is ~$0 (some light wear and tear on infrastructure that would otherwise be unused). In such a scenario it would make sense to have the commuter rail service from a public benefit perspective, but there would be no incentive for the railway company to cooperate. To them it is just an annoyance. Well, except from the fees they charge the governments studying the issue (CN charged the city something like $500,000 to share data before failing to reach an agreement).

I have a feeling that if the "Halifax model" of municipal timidity, remote corporate ownership, and federal government indifference were how it worked in Toronto or Montreal, those cities wouldn't have commuter rail either. The relevant authorities would just say it's not viable due to vague unspecified reasons and they can't talk about it because they are under an NDA.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Is it gouging if the alternative use is making the railroad a similar $ amount.



I think the railroads should be forced to lease capacity to public operators at a rate set by a regulator, that is a power I think the regulator currently lacks. But I wouldn't be surprised if all of us are surprised at the incredible cost of displacing cargo to move people actually is.

The railway is continuing to profit off an investment Canada made a hundred or so years ago. But yeah, I would usually say there is no such thing as 'gouging', only a company doing what it is required to do, make as much money as possible.

But that means we have to be realistic with building commuter rail in Calgary (or Halifax, or elsewhere). And not set ourselves up for being screwed over further in the future. If we have to pay CP to build and operate the tracks, with them potentially using them when they feel like it, is it worth it? I doubt our municipal or provincial governments will think so, it just isn't worth the effort when we could just add another lane to the highways and kick the problem a decade or so down the road.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But that means we have to be realistic with building commuter rail in Calgary (or Halifax, or elsewhere). And not set ourselves up for being screwed over further in the future. If we have to pay CP to build and operate the tracks, with them potentially using them when they feel like it, is it worth it? I doubt our municipal or provincial governments will think so, it just isn't worth the effort when we could just add another lane to the highways and kick the problem a decade or so down the road.

The problem in Halifax specifically is that it's challenging to add road capacity in the area that is served by this rail corridor. The roadway is wedged between the rail corridor and steep hills or rocky cliffs.

There is also a plan to expand a nearby highway which doesn't quite serve this area. The planned budget years ago was over $1B for that corridor while commuter rail would cost maybe 10% or less and would probably carry more than 10% of the traffic. Yet without knowing these details many people assume that commuter rail is the fanciful solution while road building is practical. It's not clear which option has the better cost-benefit ratio.

Sometimes it's difficult or impossible to develop new right of ways for any kind of transportation. In those situations, maintaining public access to the public corridors that already exist is very important, even if there's no immediate obvious use for them. This infrastructure can be useful for centuries and shouldn't be scrapped because of short-term economic concerns like what happened in the 90's.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The railway is continuing to profit off an investment Canada made a hundred or so years ago.

That fact, actually, is part of what infuriates me about Halifax's situation. The control (and to be fair, the expense of maintaining) of this essential infrastructure was given away such that now it can't be used in a way that would benefit the people whose forebears had created and paid for it all those years ago. Specifically, the south end rail cut in Halifax was a government project that took many years and much government money to build, and now Halifax can't even use it to serve its own citizens for commuter rail. Meanwhile, private companies have free reign to use it to create profit.

I use the term "maintain" loosely, as a number of years ago CN decided to rip up one of two sets of rails (which commuter rail would have been able to use) along this route as an alternative to spending money to keep them in usable order.

Maybe we could call it some kind of commuter capacity "genocide" and get traction with the feds to wrestle the rail infrastructure back from the company...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

That's a weak way of looking at it.

The vast majority of us expect our taxes to be used to maintain and build roads.

Simple solution would be to have people check boxes on their various tax forms indicating if they want their portion directed to either Roads, rail, or bike lanes. Funding for construction and maintenance would come from these pools.

Nah it's definitely a stronger way of looking at it than yours. There's a reason we have representative democracy rather than direct democracy and that is because the average citizen doesn't have the knowledge on which to base these decisions or the time/inclination to give the proper level of consideration. A decision needs to be based not just on what people like or think sounds good at that moment but also on what is affordable in both the present and long term and how each decision will relate to other aspects of society over time. If anything, the bigger problem is with politicians focusing too myopically on the election cycle by making decisions that will get them votes in the short term rather than planning for the future. Good leaders are suppose to actually... lead.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That fact, actually, is part of what infuriates me about Halifax's situation. The control (and to be fair, the expense of maintaining) of this essential infrastructure was given away such that now it can't be used in a way that would benefit the people whose forebears had created and paid for it all those years ago. Specifically, the south end rail cut in Halifax was a government project that took many years and much government money to build, and now Halifax can't even use it to serve its own citizens for commuter rail. Meanwhile, private companies have free reign to use it to create profit.

I use the term "maintain" loosely, as a number of years ago CN decided to rip up one of two sets of rails (which commuter rail would have been able to use) along this route as an alternative to spending money to keep them in usable order.

Maybe we could call it some kind of commuter capacity "genocide" and get traction with the feds to wrestle the rail infrastructure back from the company...

If we call it genocide the file will definitely be ignored for the foreseeable future!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by someone123

Again this is possible but not the only possible explanation, and we don't know the real costs because the information is not public.

Let's assume the public operator is willing to pay ~$0 to use the tracks and the cost to the railway company is ~$0 (some light wear and tear on infrastructure that would otherwise be unused). In such a scenario it would make sense to have the commuter rail service from a public benefit perspective, but there would be no incentive for the railway company to cooperate. To them it is just an annoyance. Well, except from the fees they charge the governments studying the issue (CN charged the city something like $500,000 to share data before failing to reach an agreement).

I have a feeling that if the "Halifax model" of municipal timidity, remote corporate ownership, and federal government indifference were how it worked in Toronto or Montreal, those cities wouldn't have commuter rail either. The relevant authorities would just say it's not viable due to vague unspecified reasons and they can't talk about it because they are under an NDA.

Yeah, it's certainly easier for us to expand our roads than Halifax's situation.

How much room is in the cut, would you be able to run a completely isolated parallel railway? Not saying that is any more politically feasible, because CN, but IMO any solution that involves having the railway company own and operate the track is not worth doing. Sure, it might allow some form of rail transport in the short term, but the railco will always treat the city rail like an unwanted guest, and if the new line does become successful, expanding it in the future will be hampered.

This is a situation that requires the federal government to decide that the railway companies are too powerful and need to be cut down a notch (or ten). But there is zero political will to even begin to think about doing that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

They aren't anti-transit but they are hardly transit-friendly. They only care about transit that benefits their supporters. It's pretty crude electoral politics.

If they really cared about transit they would support fundamental projects like the Montreal metro's pink line, which would serve some of the densest areas of the city that still lack rapid transit, while also relieving severe congestion on the orange line. But they are opposed to it because it doesn't benefit any of their voters. Instead they support a tramway to the east end of Montreal, which is fantastic, except it not-so-coincidentally serves the only two Montreal ridings that voted for the CAQ.

It would be a nice to have a government that cares about transit as a fundamental priority rather than as a trinket.

Still, I'm happy to see the CAQ government support the Gatineau light rail project. I wonder if it will help boost growth on the Quebec side of the river. Whenever I visit Ottawa I'm always amazed at how few people from the Ontario side ever venture across the border, except maybe to holiday destinations like Chelsea and Wakefield.

That is a very downtown Montreal point of view.

I do not think it is fair to dismiss their efforts just because they said no to the pink line.
They are bringing rapid transit to dense parts of Montreal that have zero rapid transit, and to other cities as well.

It is not unreasonable to beef things up from zero before you make expensive tweaks in areas already served.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If we call it genocide the file will definitely be ignored for the foreseeable future!

Are you kidding? Our Prime Minister has already accepted misuse of the word for other circumstances.

But... of course I was joking. We should not use that word.

[J.OT13]

I agree that the Québec City project has way to many stations. This is supposed to be the region's trunk line. We need to distance the stations enough to achieve a decent speed. Looks like Gatineau will do the same mistake with their west line and Ottawa is planning a ridiculous amount of stations in Kanata and Barrhaven.

Here in Ottawa, the new guestimate of Confederation Line's opening is September. They've at least given us a few milestone dates so that we may follow the progress: all trains should be fixed by July 7th and handover to the City after the 12 day trial period (simulating regular service with no passengers) should be on the second or third week of August. The City then needs 4 weeks to get ready for launch.