The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by biguc

Too bad. That would really put Edmonton over, plus provide a nice base from which to extend further service.

Agreed, but it would have required tunneling most of the way under Whyte, which would be prohibitively expensive.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. This expropriation fantasy comes up all the time. Given that CN and CP are some of the largest freight railroads on the planet and substantially contributed to reducing emissions by keeping heavy freight off the roads, why would governments go out of their way to disrupt them?

All to avoid governments building passenger rail infrastructure that we should have been building all along?

One good reason would be to promote greater harmonization between road and rail transport, and increase the modal share of rail for local deliveries to reduce road wear.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Floppa

One good reason would be to promote greater harmonization between road and rail transport, and increase the modal share of rail for local deliveries to reduce road wear.

Most places don't ship enough locally to make that work. What I'd really want to see is the end of long haul trucking and JIT deliveries. The problem is most of the mainlines for CN and CP are single track and are at, or close to capacity.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Most places don't ship enough locally to make that work. What I'd really want to see is the end of long haul trucking and JIT deliveries. The problem is most of the mainlines for CN and CP are single track and are at, or close to capacity.

Long haul trucking can be shifted to rail with some effort. JIT isn't going away. Moving away from JIT means building substantial storage at every step along the supply chain. That's not happening.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Long haul trucking can be shifted to rail with some effort.

We don't have the rail capacity. The supply chain issues we are facing shows that.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

JIT isn't going away. Moving away from JIT means building substantial storage at every step along the supply chain. That's not happening.

I feel this is going to change in the next decades. The companies that can adapt the best to stopping these practices likely will see more loyalty. People hate the fact that they cannot get stuff. If one company in that sector can change, then more people will buy from them. It's basic supply and demand.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

We don't have the rail capacity. The supply chain issues we are facing shows that.

The freight rail operators will add capacity if they need to. The carbon tax is going to push freight to either move more by rail or electrify. Either way, a growing carbon tax makes the current long haul trucking model unsustainable by the end of the decade in Canada.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I feel this is going to change in the next decades. The companies that can adapt the best to stopping these practices likely will see more loyalty. People hate the fact that they cannot get stuff. If one company in that sector can change, then more people will buy from them. It's basic supply and demand.

Supply chains got disrupted less because of delivery than a loss of various component manufacturing capacity, like the microchip shortages hitting the auto sector. None of this is going to change substantially. You don't see Ford and GM rushing out to build entire semiconductor divisions. They will simply adjust how they contract for certain items in the future. Yes, we'll see a little more slack in the supply chain and more geographic diversification, so that not everything is made in China, and not all chips are made in Taiwan, etc. But beyond that? Not much.

The cost to reshore all that manufacturing, bring a whole bunch of supply chains in house and build massive stockpiles at every step of the way, is basically impossible.

This video of pears grown in Argentina, packed in Thailand and then sold in the US, provides a good example of why global supply chains work the way they do:

• Video Link

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The freight rail operators will add capacity if they need to. The carbon tax is going to push freight to either move more by rail or electrify. Either way, a growing carbon tax makes the current long haul trucking model unsustainable by the end of the decade in Canada.

Last I checked, neither freight carrier has begun to build double track anywhere to prepare for this.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Supply chains got disrupted less because of delivery than a loss of various component manufacturing capacity, like the microchip shortages hitting the auto sector. None of this is going to change substantially. You don't see Ford and GM rushing out to build entire semiconductor divisions. They will simply adjust how they contract for certain items in the future. Yes, we'll see a little more slack in the supply chain and more geographic diversification, so that not everything is made in China, and not all chips are made in Taiwan, etc. But beyond that? Not much.

The cost to reshore all that manufacturing, bring a whole bunch of supply chains in house and build massive stockpiles at every step of the way, is basically impossible.

This video of pears grown in Argentina, packed in Thailand and then sold in the US, provides a good example of why global supply chains work the way they do:

I know the mess we are in is multifaceted. I am looking in Canada for ways we can fix those issues. For example, shipping containers sitting at the docks waiting for a train to take it inland. If we can get more capacity to move them on those trains, then the dock stops being congested with traffic inland.

I have watched that video and others like it before. I knew that was how things worked long before this mess happened. I actually visited the GM truck plant in Oshawa back in the early 2000s and our tour guide told us how it worked. One of us(it might have been me) asked what would happen if the truck was late. Temporary shutdowns was what would be the result. That is what we are facing. I knew 20 years ago that JIT shipping is a bad idea overall. I am being proven right.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Harrison

Agreed, but it would have required tunneling most of the way under Whyte, which would be prohibitively expensive.

Why though? Whyte is really wide; there's plenty of room for tram lanes.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have watched that video and others like it before. I knew that was how things worked long before this mess happened. I actually visited the GM truck plant in Oshawa back in the early 2000s and our tour guide told us how it worked. One of us(it might have been me) asked what would happen if the truck was late. Temporary shutdowns was what would be the result. That is what we are facing. I knew 20 years ago that JIT shipping is a bad idea overall. I am being proven right.

Agreed. As someone who is a subject matter expert - albeit in something that is pretty niche - I can explain in great detail for hours why exactly things in that field work in the way that they do and the history of decision making that brought us to this point. That doesn't mean it's the only way things can be done, much less the best. It's very easy to get trapped in the cycle of explaining away the mechanics of things without stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.

[savevp]

Looks like the Bolton GO Line might be moving forward. This would be a big help to Woodbridge and the massive industrial areas of western Vaughan, plus an express link from the northwestern suburbs of Toronto.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by niwell

Agreed. As someone who is a subject matter expert - albeit in something that is pretty niche - I can explain in great detail for hours why exactly things in that field work in the way that they do and the history of decision making that brought us to this point. That doesn't mean it's the only way things can be done, much less the best. It's very easy to get trapped in the cycle of explaining away the mechanics of things without stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.

Define "the best" way of doing something. JIT traded redundancy, resiliency and robustness in the supply chain for cost savings. This is what most companies considered to the "the best" way to do business. It's easy for you or swimmer_spe or anybody else to say JIT was a bad idea. But nobody here is answering to shareholders or watching competitors cut costs.

And this is why JIT is not going away anytime soon. It might be substantially modified. But there's not too many companies that are going to go back to the 1960s way of doing things. Heck, most businesses don't even have the ability to reshore or bring supply chains in-house if they wanted to. And just developing those capabilities would take years or even decades in some cases. Never mistake what you think should happen for reality.

As for railways not having double track, not sure what the relevance is. They've figured out how to ship more volume and higher value with less track. They'll keep doing that and only add track when absolutely necessary. Indeed, an energy transition that reduces commodity shipments of coal, oil, etc creates room on the system, to move over JIT shipping from long haul trucks. The only reason freight rail operators don't ship more JIT stuff today is because they like long trains (instead of frequent trains) and we don't have more warehouses hooked up to rail spurs (see Switzerland where this is now mandated nationally). Eventually the carbon tax and improved rail automation capabilities will force a tipping point.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Define "the best" way of doing something. JIT traded redundancy, resiliency and robustness in the supply chain for cost savings. This is what most companies considered to the "the best" way to do business. It's easy for you or swimmer_spe or anybody else to say JIT was a bad idea. But nobody here is answering to shareholders or watching competitors cut costs.

And this is why JIT is not going away anytime soon. It might be substantially modified. But there's not too many companies that are going to go back to the 1960s way of doing things. Heck, most businesses don't even have the ability to reshore or bring supply chains in-house if they wanted to. And just developing those capabilities would take years or even decades in some cases. Never mistake what you think should happen for reality.

I mean this is precisely what I'm talking about. The assumption that if something isn't really working well anymore we go back to the previous version that also didn't work well is a weird one. It's not an overnight process but I think we may start to see some shifts, though to what I'm not sure exactly. And yeah, this is something that could take decades.

At the end of the day I'm just wary of technical explanations of why things have to work in exactly the way they do because *obviously* it's the best way. Because I do a lot of that for a living and can see that it's not always the case, even when things do work perfectly fine (in which case there's no reason to change, but the point still stands).

[Truenorth00]

I would argue that we are moving from single variable (cost) optimization to multivariable optimization. Resiliency and robustness are now also going to be considered. That doesn't mean, however, that we go back to 1960s slow supply chains and large warehouses, as some imagine.

On topic, this also means that freight companies aren't going to radically change the way they do business anytime soon either.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by savevp

Looks like the Bolton GO Line might be moving forward. This would be a big help to Woodbridge and the massive industrial areas of western Vaughan, plus an express link from the northwestern suburbs of Toronto.

That would be the most logical new rail line in the GO network, but there's nothing about this in the official Metrolinx news releases. In fact, there's a Toronto Star article from just a few months ago that mentions that this line is omitted from the 2051 transportation master plan. I'm not sure how official this announcement is.

The line is CP's main line to the rest of Canada. If GO were to run services, they'd probably have to build a second track and then only have rush hour services.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

. I'm not sure how official this announcement is.

.

It's very strange, I actually caught wind of this from a Facebook post by the City of Vaughan's official account. There's also a news release on Caledon's website, but can't find anything from Metrolinx.

[Innsertnamehere]

It's likely the PCs lining up to angle for election promises - expect a bunch of funding announcements this spring closer to the election. Election budgets are always chock-full of goodies.

[Base]

Originally Posted by Harrison

Agreed, but it would have required tunneling most of the way under Whyte, which would be prohibitively expensive.

Why would it be prohibitive? I guess I just mean would it be more expensive to tunnel here than elsewhere? I have always thought this would be a great and strong candidate area for a underground line with it being central and dense.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by niwell

Agreed. As someone who is a subject matter expert - albeit in something that is pretty niche - I can explain in great detail for hours why exactly things in that field work in the way that they do and the history of decision making that brought us to this point. That doesn't mean it's the only way things can be done, much less the best. It's very easy to get trapped in the cycle of explaining away the mechanics of things without stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.

If you are looking at it from a cost savings, itis the best.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Define "the best" way of doing something. JIT traded redundancy, resiliency and robustness in the supply chain for cost savings. This is what most companies considered to the "the best" way to do business. It's easy for you or swimmer_spe or anybody else to say JIT was a bad idea. But nobody here is answering to shareholders or watching competitors cut costs.

And this is why JIT is not going away anytime soon. It might be substantially modified. But there's not too many companies that are going to go back to the 1960s way of doing things. Heck, most businesses don't even have the ability to reshore or bring supply chains in-house if they wanted to. And just developing those capabilities would take years or even decades in some cases. Never mistake what you think should happen for reality.

As for railways not having double track, not sure what the relevance is. They've figured out how to ship more volume and higher value with less track. They'll keep doing that and only add track when absolutely necessary. Indeed, an energy transition that reduces commodity shipments of coal, oil, etc creates room on the system, to move over JIT shipping from long haul trucks. The only reason freight rail operators don't ship more JIT stuff today is because they like long trains (instead of frequent trains) and we don't have more warehouses hooked up to rail spurs (see Switzerland where this is now mandated nationally). Eventually the carbon tax and improved rail automation capabilities will force a tipping point.

Depends on what your goal of it is.If you can save the warehouse costs and make the shipping method as the warehouse, you can save millions.

Originally Posted by niwell

I mean this is precisely what I'm talking about. The assumption that if something isn't really working well anymore we go back to the previous version that also didn't work well is a weird one. It's not an overnight process but I think we may start to see some shifts, though to what I'm not sure exactly. And yeah, this is something that could take decades.

At the end of the day I'm just wary of technical explanations of why things have to work in exactly the way they do because *obviously* it's the best way. Because I do a lot of that for a living and can see that it's not always the case, even when things do work perfectly fine (in which case there's no reason to change, but the point still stands).

My thinking is some companies will begin holding more stock to absorb these kinds of things better. Toyota was the first car manufacturer to go to JIT shipping. This gave them a competitive edge. The first company that moves away from this may be the one that has the next competitive edge.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would argue that we are moving from single variable (cost) optimization to multivariable optimization. Resiliency and robustness are now also going to be considered. That doesn't mean, however, that we go back to 1960s slow supply chains and large warehouses, as some imagine.

On topic, this also means that freight companies aren't going to radically change the way they do business anytime soon either.

The movement of goods is only increasing. Add to that the additional potential for rail transit, such as the new Bolton Line, I'd expect that the rail companies will be crunching the numbers for adding more rail infrastructure.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

It's likely the PCs lining up to angle for election promises - expect a bunch of funding announcements this spring closer to the election. Election budgets are always chock-full of goodies.

Anything within a year of an election tends to be more about getting elected, and less about it being a good thing. I doubt the line will be online before the election.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Base

Why would it be prohibitive? I guess I just mean would it be more expensive to tunnel here than elsewhere? I have always thought this would be a great and strong candidate area for a underground line with it being central and dense.

Originally Posted by biguc

Why though? Whyte is really wide; there's plenty of room for tram lanes.

I agree. An LRT down Whyte (perhaps connecting with the Valley Line across 87th Ave to the west) is absolutely crucial for a complete transit system for Edmonton. Probably not unlike a subway down Broadway to UBC in Vancouver and the DRL in Toronto is a no-brainer. Unfortunately the city wants to chase suburban riders who won't give up their car except for a commute to school or work.

Tunneling under Whyte would make the most sense, and yeah, it would be expensive, but Edmonton did just build a ring road, is currently in the process of finalizing the biggest LRT expansion in the city's history, and was progressive in the past by previously building a tunnel through Downtown Edmonton. Obviously costs have gone up since the '70s and '80s when that happened, but I don't think it's entirely implausible for a subway down Whyte.

If we want to build comprehensive transit systems that don't make taking the bus or train a second rate option vis-a-vis cars, then we're going to have to spend money to make it happen.

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by biguc

Why though? Whyte is really wide; there's plenty of room for tram lanes.

Surface rail wouldn't work well here because Whyte is the only E-W arterial road linking 114 Street and 99 Street that is between Saskatchewan Drive and 63 Avenue, a distance of 2.6 km. It needs the capacity for traffic right now, but that could change if CPR closes their Strathcona Yard, which would allow another E-W corridor to be constructed, which would allow traffic to be diverted from Whyte.

I'd love to see Whyte only have two lanes of traffic plus a tram, but it does need the four lanes right now unfortunately