Rail Transit (Passenger and Freight) in Ontario

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't disagree, but politicians aren't necessarily that forward thinking. I expect they would just let the private company go bankrupt, even if it costs the taxpayers more in the long run with increased highway infrastructure for all the extra trucks. Politicians are more concerned about expenses between now and the next election.

I agree. Monarchy FTW!

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

I agree. Monarchy FTW!

until the monarchy effs up

[wave46]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't disagree, but politicians aren't necessarily that forward thinking. I expect they would just let the private company go bankrupt, even if it costs the taxpayers more in the long run with increased highway infrastructure for all the extra trucks. Politicians are more concerned about expenses between now and the next election.

Forgive me, I'm somewhat confused.

Private rail company wants government funds (public tax dollars) to rehab private infrastructure. Government says 'no' and private rail company goes bust. Taxpayers pay nothing, because they didn't own anything to begin with.

Private trucking company picks up contracts. Hires more drivers (government gets $$$ from income taxes and diesel fuel taxes) puts slightly more wear and tear on roads. However, increased usage of roads justifies more investment (extension of 4-lanes from Sault) partially subsidized by increased tax revenue from more trucks/drivers.

The only arguments I can see are: safety and efficiency, but does one get $40 million of benefits?

[Dengler Avenue]

Hey, at the very least, Queen’s Park finally wakes up and goes hardball on Gennesee & Wyoming after the previous handout(s?).
Hence I asked MTO about taking over HCR’s ROW for a divided freeway (#96). As per government agency, I got a roundabout answer (#99).
Similarly, one wonders whether MTQ would have done anything with Route 185 from Rivière-du-Loup to Dégelis if the rail tracks through the area weren’t ripped up and converted to trails.

Ps: I actually never foresaw myself taking such a hardline anti-rail stance in scenarios like this.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

Forgive me, I'm somewhat confused.

Private rail company wants government funds (public tax dollars) to rehab private infrastructure. Government says 'no' and private rail company goes bust. Taxpayers pay nothing, because they didn't own anything to begin with.

Private trucking company picks up contracts. Hires more drivers (government gets $$$ from income taxes and diesel fuel taxes) puts slightly more wear and tear on roads. However, increased usage of roads justifies more investment (extension of 4-lanes from Sault) partially subsidized by increased tax revenue from more trucks/drivers.

The only arguments I can see are: safety and efficiency, but does one get $40 million of benefits?

Actually, here is the reality of that:

Private rail company leases line.

Private rail company needs money for improvements, but does not pay for them. Private rail company asks for a government handout.

Government says no. Private company shuts down.

Private trucking company takes over loads. Private trucking company costs more and is less convenient and has more loads.

Government funds public crown corporation to rehabilitate line. Public crown corporation begins service.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Actually, here is the reality of that:

Private rail company leases line.

Private rail company needs money for improvements, but does not pay for them. Private rail company asks for a government handout.

Government says no. Private company shuts down.

Private trucking company takes over loads. Private trucking company costs more and is less convenient and has more loads.

Government funds public crown corporation to rehabilitate line. Public crown corporation begins service.

Ok. But the government has to acquire the lease from the original holder - the CPR.

The Crown Corporation pays for the lease or buys the track. It provides subsidized service to the privately-owned companies that want stuff hauled, because the investment required to rehab the track won't pay off - hence why the private sector is begging for money in the first place.

So, there's a completely private solution (trucking) that pays for itself and requires nothing from government. Why bother getting government involved at all? Unless you want to subsidize Algoma Steel, Domtar and EACOM by lowering their costs of shipping, paid for by taxpayers?

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by wave46

Ok. But the government has to acquire the lease from the original holder - the CPR.

The Crown Corporation pays for the lease or buys the track. It provides subsidized service to the privately-owned companies that want stuff hauled, because the investment required to rehab the track won't pay off - hence why the private sector is begging for money in the first place.

So, there's a completely private solution (trucking) that pays for itself and requires nothing from government. Why bother getting government involved at all? Unless you want to subsidize Algoma Steel, Domtar and EACOM by lowering their costs of shipping, paid for by taxpayers?

Couldn't ONR just buy the HCR? Forgive me if this has been answered already.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Couldn't ONR just buy the HCR? Forgive me if this has been answered already.

It probably could. The owner would let it go for chump change, probably.

Whether it wants to is somewhat different.

It still requires a fair bit of capital injection for infrastructure, regardless.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by wave46

It probably could. The owner would let it go for chump change, probably.

Whether it wants to is somewhat different.

It still requires a fair bit of capital injection for infrastructure, regardless.

Track repair may create jobs.
Beyond that, I don't know.

The main thing is that swimmer_spe doesn't have to contend with too many trucks on his way to and back from work.

[Gat-Train]

If the liberals really wanted to cut carbon emissions, they would be investing heavily in rail infrastructure. Sadly, electric car rebates seems to get more votes.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

If the liberals really wanted to cut carbon emissions, they would be investing heavily in rail infrastructure.

Be glad that PC didn’t kill RER then.

Sadly, electric car rebates seems to get more votes.

Not every place has (restorable) rail tracks. Nowadays, I do think that density places a role. Where it isn’t yet dense enough to justify passenger rail, the rail line should only be used to transport goods for the time being.

It really goes without saying that, in places where public transit isn’t great, as long as you’re able, you need to know how to drive.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Be glad that PC didn’t kill RER then.

Not every place has (restorable) rail tracks. Nowadays, I do think that density places a role. Where it isn’t yet dense enough to justify passenger rail, the rail line should only be used to transport goods for the time being.

Name me one major city that doesn't.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Name me one major city that doesn't.

Pembroke
Technically I can even say Renfrew and Arnprior because they’re basically exurbs of Ottawa by this point. To restore the tracks, one will need to first stop Renfrew County from totally converting that into a rail trail. I don’t know how far in the county is with the project.
I had OVR through Upper Ottawa Valley in mind when I made that comment.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Pembroke
Technically I can even say Renfrew and Arnprior because they’re basically exurbs of Ottawa by this point. To restore the tracks, one will need to first stop Renfrew County from totally converting that into a rail trail. I don’t know how far in the county is with the project.
I had OVR through Upper Ottawa Valley in mind when I made that comment.

I figured you would go there...

A rail trail is a government placeholder for the abandoned ROW so that in the future, if it were to be needed, it could be reactivated.

So, in short, while the rails are not there, much of the ROW is still there and could be returned in relatively short time.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I figured you would go there...

A rail trail is a government placeholder for the abandoned ROW so that in the future, if it were to be needed, it could be reactivated.

So, in short, while the rails are not there, much of the ROW is still there and could be returned in relatively short time.

I just found this:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...217925&page=99 #1970
See? It’s not that easy.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Ps: What does your profile picture mean? xD

LOL. It is a rendition of a character in the Mr. Men series of children's books (by Roger Hargreaves) that I feel some affinity with.

Originally Posted by wave46

Forgive me, I'm somewhat confused.

Private rail company wants government funds (public tax dollars) to rehab private infrastructure. Government says 'no' and private rail company goes bust. Taxpayers pay nothing, because they didn't own anything to begin with.

Private trucking company picks up contracts. Hires more drivers (government gets $$$ from income taxes and diesel fuel taxes) puts slightly more wear and tear on roads. However, increased usage of roads justifies more investment (extension of 4-lanes from Sault) partially subsidized by increased tax revenue from more trucks/drivers.

The only arguments I can see are: safety and efficiency, but does one get $40 million of benefits?

I think you are underestimating the taxpayer cost of adding an estimated 40,000 trucks to Ontario’s highways. There is not only the wear and tear, but the cost of widening of the highways as well. As I said in post #87, the effect isn't limited to the highway between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, but will spill over onto other Ontario highways, as once the cargo is on trucks, it would likely just have the truck continue to its final destination rather than transfer to a train in Sudbury.

There is also a significant carbon cost. Trains (even diesel ones) emit significantly less carbon than trucks when transporting the same amount of cargo. As this Popular Science article says, in the USA "trucks move 29 percent of the freight ton-miles, but are responsible for 77 percent of the sector’s emissions" and "rail moves 40 percent of freight as measured in ton-miles but is responsible for only 8 percent of freight transportation carbon emissions." That is 2.6 times as much cargo for about a tenth of the carbon emissions.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I just found this:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...217925&page=99 #1970
See? It’s not that easy.

I meant the construction. The whining always exists with all improvements.

[Dengler Avenue]

https://globalnews.ca/news/7474393/m...rail-terminal/
drama time...
Done wrong, this issue can be politicized...

[roger1818]

People often talk about how much better European Railways are than North American ones, and from a passenger perspective that is true. However, from a freight perspective it couldn't be further from the truth. I found an article titled, Why is Europe so absurdly backward compared to the U.S. in rail freight transport that I found interesting.

One could easily argue that the carbon reductions from transporting freight by rail vs. truck are much more significant than the carbon reductions from transporting people by train vs. car (or likely even airplane). That is not to say we should abandon attempts to increase passenger rail usage where it makes sense, but it shouldn't come at the cost of rail freight transport.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

People often talk about how much better European Railways are than North American ones, and from a passenger perspective that is true. However, from a freight perspective it couldn't be further from the truth. I found an article titled, Why is Europe so absurdly backward compared to the U.S. in rail freight transport that I found interesting.

One could easily argue that the carbon reductions from transporting freight by rail vs. truck are much more significant than the carbon reductions from transporting people by train vs. car (or likely even airplane). That is not to say we should abandon attempts to increase passenger rail usage where it makes sense, but it shouldn't come at the cost of rail freight transport.

To save a buck, CP ripped up double track. So, the issue isn't the way we transport things, it is how we do it.