An extended thread of comments developed for the article about the Yonge Subway Extension and the Downtown Relief Line. Because this has now grown in the realm of major changes/additions to VIA’s service, I am moving all of these comments to their own thread.
May 12, 2017
Robert Wightman:
Steve Saines says
“And if that sounds too exotic for our provincial tastes, VIA is planning most of the HFR route taking the old O&Q alignment to Toronto from near Ottawa as being single track! They have full confidence that modern signalling and control techniques not only allow this, but the economics dictates doing it this way. Of course, being passenger only allows this to happen, although temporally separated night-time freight service is contemplated on that alignment.”
It will be a major miracle if VIA ever gets enough money out of the federal government to buy new passengers equipment let alone build this line through the Moose Pastures of Eastern Ontario. There are two reason why CP abandoned the route; grades and curves. The routing would also ignore the large population that lives along the 401 corridor near Lake Ontario.
VIA invested a lot of money, $500 million?, putting in a third track for much of the route and got nothing in return from CN for doing it. It is time for the federal Government to force CN to give better time slots and faster travel times to VIA for all the investment that they got out of them. CN seems to treat VIA and GO as an investment bank to which they do not need to make much in the way of repayment.
Steve Saines:
Robert writes:
It will be a major miracle if VIA ever gets enough money out of the federal government to buy new passengers equipment let alone build this line through the Moose Pastures of Eastern Ontario. There are two reason why CP abandoned the route; grades and curves. The routing would also ignore the large population that lives along the 401 corridor near Lake Ontario.
I’m not going to get into the routing, the presentation for HFR has articulated well by Desjardins-Siciliano and studied by both VIA and independent investors and their engineering staff. If investors are going to fund it, it’s because the business case is there and demonstrable.
Meantime funding for replacement rolling stock is coming entirely out of general coffers. It is to be “the property of the Government of Canada” … entirely. That’s been made very clear.
HFR is a completely different project and funding model. As a rough sketch of how the division of assets are to be presented is that the RoW is to be completely privately financed and owned (existing sections besides, VIA and CP) the rolling stock to be owned by the Government of Canada (whether this is appropriated along with the existing stock replacement is a separate question, most unlikely not, even though the replacement “trainsets” are to be unit sets with a loco either end and bi-modal power. One assumes same will be ordered for HFR, but funded separately. VIA still hasn’t decided which supplier to choose, even though that was to be announced months ago, or if they have, it’s not been announced. It’s not beyond impossible for an electric loco one end, diesel the other, it fits the RFQ as written, and could be considerably cheaper and lighter on the tracks. (Bi-modals are not only expensive, but heavy too, not something you want flying around curved track, which it will and will be able to handle quite well.
I’m sure I don’t have to point out the many European systems that already do this, many at “higher speed” than the projected 125 mph (200 kph) of the HFR.
Existing VIA corridor routes will still be serviced.
Nick L.:
Robert Wightman said: “There are two reason why CP abandoned the route; grades and curves.”
To be fair, CP did have a plan to rebuild the O&Q line about 100 years ago to fix those two problems. It’s just that he Great Depression and the building of CP’s “lakeshore line” (Belleville sub) killed that idea. The question is whether VIA is smart enough to use those plans as the start point for their high speed line rather than to start with the abandoned O&Q right of way.
Steve Saines:
May 13, 2017
Just looking under the Transportation Act for section and clauses that pertain to re-establishing the usage of a RoW. The reason VIA repeatedly mention ‘using an old RoW’ is because under the Act, IIRC “within 100 feet of the centre of the RoW” (gist) ‘the corridor can be re-used with no new EA necessary’ (which also applies to rebuilding bridges) and with many other attendant railway rights. In other words, it’s by far the easiest way to ‘get there from here’. Some of the sharpest curves can be softened and still comply with the terms of the Act, but I’m assured that many of those curves are not a problem for state of the art rolling stock, or the lack of stations to stop at. In fact the latter render express service that much more apt, only some trains will be locals and are welcomed with open arms by the locals.
It’s still early in the day for me, and the Transportation Act is huge, I can’t even remember if the sections I’m looking for to quote are in this Act, but I have tripped across this, completely relevant to The Missing Link, along with the sections quoted prior from the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act:
Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996, c. 10)
[…]
Running Rights and Joint Track Usage
Marginal note:Application by railway company138 (1) A railway company may apply to the Agency for the right to
(a) take possession of, use or occupy any land belonging to any other railway company;
(b) use the whole or any portion of the right-of-way, tracks, terminals, stations or station grounds of any other railway company; and
(c) run and operate its trains over and on any portion of the railway of any other railway company.
Marginal note:Application may be granted(2) The Agency may grant the right and may make any order and impose any conditions on either railway company respecting the exercise or restriction of the rights as appear just or desirable to the Agency, having regard to the public interest.
Marginal note:Compensation(3) The railway company shall pay compensation to the other railway company for the right granted and, if they do not agree on the compensation, the Agency may, by order, fix the amount to be paid.
Marginal note:Request for joint or common use of right-of-way
139 (1) The Governor in Council may
(a) on the application of a railway company, a municipal government or any other interested person, or on the Governor in Council’s own initiative, and
(b) after any investigation that the Governor in Council considers necessary,
request two or more railway companies to consider the joint or common use of a right-of-way if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that its joint or common use may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rail transport and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies.
Order in Council for joint or common use of right-of-way
(2) If the Governor in Council is satisfied that significant efficiencies and cost savings would result from joint or common use of the right-of-way by two or more railway companies and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies, the Governor in Council may make any order for the joint or common use of the right-of-way that the Governor in Council considers necessary.
Marginal note:Compensation(3) The Governor in Council may also, by order, fix the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the joint or common use of the right-of-way and any related work if the companies do not agree on the amount of that compensation.
[…]
I’ll continue looking for the section(s) relevant to old Rights of Way. What I can tell you from prior research is that the O&Q alignment is in public hands for almost its entirety save for two sections that BellTel hold for utility right of way. (fibre optic trunk) The Act that controls that ownership states that the original use must be honoured.
There’s also the bridge over the Trent in Peterborough, and since the RoW at that point is on Canada Parks Land (The Trent Waterway) dispensation to build a new bridge is covered under Historic Canals Regulations, SOR/93-220, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ACT. It also does not require an EA.
VIA has researched this thoroughly and have their business case tight on it. I’m waiting for coffee to kick in before digging any deeper on this. It is fascinating reading (when one is in the right frame of mind) and some of the powers still on the books are profound.
Steve Saines:
RE: “Softening curves” for a railway or re-establishing one on an old RoW:
(This has implications for the Bala Sub in the Don Valley )
Canada Transportation Act
S.C. 1996, c. 10
[…]
Railway Lines
Marginal note:No construction without Agency approval98 (1) A railway company shall not construct a railway line without the approval of the Agency.
[…]
Marginal note:Exception(3) No approval is needed for the construction of a railway line
(a) within the right of way of an existing railway line; or
(b) within 100 m of the centre line of an existing railway line for a distance of no more than 3 km.
[…]
May 14, 2017
Steve Saines:
Robert: As always, interesting info from you. My digging a year ago indicated the ‘abandoned’* portion of the O&Q went to local municipalities and counties. (*I use ‘abandoned’ euphemistically, as I can’t provide clear reference at this time, and the term has profound legal implications). Those local jurisdictions have consequently leased use to the Trans Canada Trail. But if CP still own the RoW not presently in rail use, it appears to make VIA’s (or more correctly, the private consortium which will own the RoW) case even more straightforward:
138 (1) A railway company may apply to the Agency for the right to
(a) take possession of, use or occupy any land belonging to any other railway company;
Note the word “occupy”!
Robert asks: What private investor engineering staffs have study the route? I have heard that VIA did a cursory study only. I have heard of no business case study having been made except for VIA’s cursory one.
I can’t give you a direct answer on that, but flip that over for a moment. If you were studying it (or a number of potential sizable investments) you’re not going to go public with it. What I can tell you from journalist sources is that D-S [Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, President and Chief Executive Officer of VIA] won’t give an interview at this time or even respond to any questions on the details of negotiations on the point. If I were him, I wouldn’t either. One only has to view the reader comments, let alone some of the wildly inaccurate articles in the press on this (some are excellent) and the Infrastructure Bank to realize the public forum is not where serious dialog is taking place. And thank God for that other than concern for Parliamentary discussion on the enabling legislation being bound into an omnibus of some 300 pages .
I’ve got to deflect your question, and post this in lieu, since it was indirectly released into the public domain:
Dear colleagues,
I am very happy to inform you that yesterday the Government of Canada announced the appointment of Ms. Françoise Bertrand as Chairperson of the Board of Directors of VIA Rail Canada Inc., for a term of 5 years, effective April 12, 2017.
Ms. Bertrand is a recognized public policy executive. Through her distinguished career she has made important contributions to the advancement of Canadian society. She has been, amongst other roles, Dean at Université du Québec à Montreal (UQAM), President of Télé-Quebec (Quebec public television), Chairperson of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Chairperson of Quebecor and until recently, President of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of Quebec (FCCQ). Currently, she is a member of several profit and non-profit Boards of Directors.
Her many contributions have been recognized by her appointment as an Officer of the Order of Canada, a Chevalier de l’Ordre du Québec and a Chevalier de la Legion d’honneur (France). In 2015, her contribution to the development of Canadian public policy was recognized by the Public Policy Forum of Canada.
In light of the strategic projects we have been developing over the past three years, the appointment of someone with Ms. Bertrand’s extensive experience and credentials represents an important milestone for VIA Rail and gives us every reason to believe in a promising future.
In closing, we wish to recognize the exceptional contribution of Ms. Jane Mowat who ensured the interim governance of the corporation as Lead Director in addition to her role as Chairperson of the Finance & Audit Committee, which she will continue to hold. Ms. Mowat’s discipline, commitment and availability have been a great support to the entire organization. We thank her and we recognize her contribution to our current success.
See you soon,
YvesDS
That may appear as just a pleasant courtesy to VIA employees. The update to that is vastly more positive. VIA now has two locomotives of a very high tractive effort pulling in the same direction from Montreal to Ottawa, and now Toronto.
This is conjecture on my part, but I would not be surprised in the least if a whole new structure isn’t spawned out of VIA. And well it should…
Steve Saines:
Steve writes: I am amused at the “discovery” by VIA that “a lot of traffic … is not going from one end to the other”. This is also true of the Toronto-Guelph-Kitchener-London route, or at least was when it had decent service. The fetish by Queen’s Park for HSR to London is a triumph of technology (and consultants) over actual need. Plus ça change.
Most often, in relationship to seeing the term “HSR” in Canada, I immediately think “HySteRia”.
One of the first indications to me of how Münchhausen the Pearson Hub report is was seeing the term “HSR” being brandished.
But some clarification of the nebulous nature of the term is in order. From the UIC:
There is no single standard definition of high speed rail. The definitions vary according to the criteria used since high speed rail corresponds to a complex reality.
In any case, high speed is a combination of a lot of elements which constitute a whole “system”: infrastructure (new lines designed for speeds above 250 km/h and in some cases, upgraded existing lines for speeds up to 200 or even 220 km/h), rolling stock (special designed train sets), operating conditions and equipment, etc. In view of the fact that many high speed trains are also compatible with the conventional network, the term “high speed traffic” is also frequently understood to signify the movements of this type of train on conventional lines but at speeds lower than those permitted on the new high speed infrastructure.
If ‘reports’ would use “Higher Speed Rail” or “HFR”, the believability index would rise geometrically. In the event, there’s good reason for VIA’s spec’ing 125 mph for their latest trainset order. Above that, grade separation is mandated by TC, and as much as that is highly desirable at any speed for safety and efficiency, the costs spiral into the impractical.
Btw: A further point to ‘electric one end, diesel the other’ for VIA’s RFQ for trainsets: The RFQ also states (gist) ‘The quote shall be for the entire set and servicing’….the implication being that any company can put forward a quote compromising of multiple manufacturers’ products. This may drastically decrease the costs for dissimilar locos, the only requirement being that they are already in production, and proven in service.
One has to wonder if Wabtec couldn’t be part of that, and so servicing shared with GO Transit, at least in part?
Steve: I cannot help mentioning that the consultant behind the original HSR scheme that was floated in the last Liberal campaign platform was also involved in the SmartTrack debacle.
Steve Munro 
You’re being diplomatic in not mentioning who it is, and that’s to be respected. Some of his other writings and views are highly reputable, I find it puzzling how he got drawn into some of the issues he did.
I’m reading the above link now to not repeat too much here. We do have fresh information emerging, and rapidly.
Many thanks for moving this string here, it allows for more detailed discussion. I was just reviewing the Brightline rolling-stock re prior points with Robert on ‘dissimilar mode book-ends’, but even further to that, that Siemens are building their own coaches in California, and they are. I know that VIA is looking very favourably at the Brightline sets, but the conundrum for “bi-modal power” persists. Siemens ACS-64 *appears* to be a match to the Charger, albeit twice the power.
As Robert states, that power mis-match is problematic even when in a combined locomotive.
Which brings in the problem of dragging that weight at ‘the end of the pendulum’. As much as VIA claim to want to run “full unit trainsets”, and top and tail is done in many instances in the world, one has to wonder how practicable this would be on a serpentine RoW @ 200 kph?
Any thoughts on that by Steve and/or Robert most welcome. I know adding on and dropping off locos within a run is problematic, but the time lost doing so might pay off in being more nimble for the rest of the run. Btw: The power to weight ratio of the Brightline trains for what is almost flat terrain is astounding for the four car consist initially planned.
The locos and mode are something I hope to discuss further, but for now, Siemens’ coaches alone set a precedent:
No matter who gets the VIA new trainset(s) order, this sets a precedent to beat for the coaches.
I’ve studiously avoided mentioning BBD…
LikeLike
If we look 15-20 years into the future where we should have self-driving autonomous cars, I cannot see any logic in the existence of running VIA rail. Any proposed project will take a least 10 years to revenue. Today, VIA rail is not an economical solution for more than an individual and that is stretching it too. If it was either of cheaper or faster I could see some basis for keeping the service but with the current situation, sell off the assets when you can at a decent price.
Steve: Some of us are less than impressed with claims made for self-driving cars. Don’t forget there was a time when airplanes were going to put trains out of business. In Europe and some other parts of the world, railways are thriving because they are better.
LikeLike
Just digging further to find if the Brightline is going to be running their locomotive each end simultaneously in a distributed power fashion. (My use of the term “top and tail” prior is misleading, as would be “push-pull” in this context ) This would be a hybrid of both.
Can’t find a definitive answer from Siemens or Brightline (technical description is scarce), but since typically electric-only locos are lighter than diesel, even the latter being half the traction power for same loco size, it would answer VIA doing HFR on an electrified route with diesel one end, electric the other, and not have a negative consequence to maximum running speed:
Although not definitive reference, this claim indicates the do-ability of asymmetric push-pull for VIA present replacement and future HFR, and ostensibly the flexibility of ordering the set with one diesel loco only until electrification becomes available, and using retired/retiring F40s to run as Amtrak have done, as driving trailers with the prime mover and traction motors removed until such time as ordering the electric-only or bi-modal locos is apt.
LikeLike
Concerning the Canadian context (and most of the American outside the North Eastern corridor), I doubt there is much of any viable intercity rail transit. As VIA does not serve a public transit function, what is the primary function? Today, I feel it only serves as a Canadian nostalgia tourism service. I do prefer to take trains and feel they are a superior method of transportation but Via Rail/Amtrak do not make economic sense in the North American context. Having taken public transit and trains on five continents, I have seen that trains makes sense in Asia and Europe, but not much more than that.
LikeLike
Even in the US, passenger rail is back! And that very much includes commuter rail. I Googled to get a reference article, and there were literally hundreds of them, so I picked one of the first hits to make the point:
All we have to do in Toronto/Ontario/Canada is play the cards right, and we’ll win.
LikeLike
@Steve Saines:
A locomotive at each end of a high speed train is common in Europe. It provides collision protection to the coaches and FRA regulations forbid leading a train with an occupied cab car at speeds over 125 mph. They also forbid seats facing the cab end at speed under 125 because of the new Collision Energy Management, CEM, rules. They have to all face the locomotive end or be in quads. Don’t ask why quads are acceptable.
The Brightline locomotives are 4400 hp but the Head End Power is also taken from that total which is about 90 hp per car. They have more than enough power for one locomotive to haul the four coaches and idling locomotive at designed speed. The coaches have 2 + 1 seating as they are aimed at a higher class of passenger.
VIA wants eventually to electrify their Moose Pasture route if it ever gets built but realize that there are sections where it may need to operate on CN or CP tracks and they do not want any electric overhead on their lines. Their plan to enter Toronto is to use CP from Agincourt to Leaside and then come down the old CP line in the Don Valley that Metrolinx bought. I don’t know if they have got CP’s permission to use their track yet. They also have the problem that REM in Montreal may not allow their entry through the Deux Montagnes tunnel.
Outside of New York and Chicago the average commuter train has only 3 coaches and its ridership is not growing. Toronto with its 12 car GO trains is an anomaly.
In Washington DC Virginia Railway Express Commuter trains carry under 18,000 per day while the Maryland Area Rail Commuter service carries just over 40,000 per day but some of that goes to Baltimore. Commuter rail in the US, with a few exceptions, is not making a big impact.
The question that I ask about the appointment of Ms. Françoise Bertrand as Chairperson of the Board of Directors of VIA Rail Canada Inc., for a term of 5 years, effective April 12, 2017 is like the appointment of YDS by Harper, are political appointments. I would like to know what their qualifications are for running a railway. If you really believe that private business will build and operate this line at a profit you are delusional. If it gets built it will be by the new infrastructure bank with lots of government guarantees to support the private investors’ profits and make money for the hanger-on consultants and hardware suppliers. If it gets built it will run with Bombardier equipment because the governments have too much invested in it to let some other company share the rewards.
Yes I am a cynic. I have been watching this scene for too long.
LikeLike
lol…I think we all are, but I am optimistic. Let me research answers to your points later, (and edit them better before posting) but I have to quickly post these links, as Steve appears to be right on rail ridership increasing markedly:
Trump’s election could throw a wrench in a number of plans, but NYC, for instance, is bulling ahead on rail plans. Will itemize and condense more later.
LikeLike
The Brightline trains are expected to grow to up 10 cars per train, so the two Charger locomotives — one on each end — will be useful in that context. The rolling stock is derived from the service-proven push-pull Railjets that Siemens has built for the Austrian and Czech railways. While the European trainsets have cab cars, construction of North American equivalents would have been extremely difficult due to the high buff load requirements contained in the Federal Railroad Administration’s revised safety standards.
LikeLike
@ Steven Saines:
All but one of your comments are about Light Rail except for the Sounder Commuter rail. From Wikipedia it says that their trains vary from 2 to 7 cars. They run 4 trains between Everett and Seattle southbound in the morning and 4 northbound in the afternoon, not exactly high levels of service. From Lakewood in the south there at 7 trains each direction to Seattle with an extra 4 from Tacoma to Seattle, better than the from Everett.
From Sound Transit’s first quarter report, Sound Commuter ridership is up 0.8% year over year. Mar 2017 is up 3.9% over March 2016 but year over year is not that great.
I never made any comment about Light Rail ridership, which is growing everywhere, just commuter rail while most of your comments are about Light Rail. Let’s compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges please.
LikeLike
Greg: Pleasure to make your acquaintance.
But a clear precedent on this is already established by Amtrak:
Even though I’ve asked a number times, VIA (indirectly) has no answer to “was there a winner chosen from the competition last year in Montreal”?
Which indicates the field is still open. The inference had been for ‘bi-modals’ as book-ends (whether top and tail or both running is another question) and add to that the possibility of ‘diesel one end, electric the other’…it would allow a bid, say for example, the Charger one end and four coaches with a ‘Cabbage’ at the other end until electrification becomes extant, at which time VIA could decide to select the model and best choice to complement the Charger the other end.
I’ve since realized that by using a ‘Cabbage’, the emergency redundancy of primary motive back-up is lost. In fact, make it *not* a ‘Cabbage’ but a still functioning F40 that will only have a max drive rating of 90 mph (perhaps 95), but irreplaceable in terms of Charger failure. Ditto for HEP.
I’m looking at being frugal to maximize flexibility for VIA’s getting the best new ‘kit’, leaving forward options open, and utilizing the older loco stock in the best way possible to do it.
Electrifying HFR is not cast in stone, it’s a ‘value added’ option, one that makes incredible sense (for some $1.5B more IIRC), but like Robert, I’m a partial cynic (he claims to be full-time) but budgets have a habit of being strangled, and VIA needs these new sets, for replacement of present stock let alone HFR, which would be budgeted separately.
As a side-note, I think GO did similar with their F7 units years back being driving trailers with HEP to supply the latter in lieu of the GPs lacking it.
It would be wonderful if the Powers That Be in Transport and Parliament allowed for complete Brightline type sets, but frugality where it doesn’t impact performance is always a good way to make a case for funding, not to mention forward compatibility and later flexibility.
Steve: As a general note, could I encourage commenters, especially Mr. Saines, to be a little less verbose in conducting discussions by extensively quoting material that is not exactly from yesterday’s news. It makes the thread very long, and requires readers to figure out whether a statement made in 2011 is still valid for a discussion in 2017.
LikeLike
The selection of a builder for a new VIA corridor fleet has not been made. VIA received about 20 expressions of interest and that field was narrowed down to nine they consider qualified.
While this process was grinding along, certain VIA flacks were rushing around trying to get Transport Action and other advocacy groups to lobby the feds for the inclusion of the required $1.25 billion in the 2017 federal budget without success. It appears the car building community has been burned so many times by VIA on previous requests for equipment proposals that no one is willing to spend the time and money required for a detailed bid without a reasonable assurance this isn’t another stroll down a blind alley. Hence, they wanted to see a budget earmark — which they didn’t get.
Just to make matters even screwier, the corporation also bid on 12 former VIA Budd RDCs that Trinity Rail Express in Dallas-Fort Worth was looking to unload. These were supposedly for additional service frequencies in Southwestern Ontario and new Campbellton-Moncton and Moncton-Halifax trains, all of which VIA promised two years ago. Alas, VIA was outbid by a solar energy firm in Vermont that has visions of launching a commuter service connecting Burlington, Montpelier and St. Albans.
In short, VIA’s current equipment initiatives are turning into yet another cock-up that only illustrates the ineptitude of its current management team. But I’m sure the new chairperson’s vast experience at the CRTC and the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation will fix that problem in no time.
LikeLike
That Light Rail is growing while your claim of commuter isn’t makes a good point…for Light Rail, which provides regular service, as GO RER is scheduled to do.
From governing.com:
Steve: I would argue that GO RER is not the same as an LRT line, at least for comparators, for various reasons notably stop spacing and fare structure.
LikeLike
Parliament not granting funding is a huge factor. VIA have received only $1.6B over seventeen years for capital investment.
LikeLike
To be honest, the whole VIA Rail HFR plan sounded pretty shady to me. Why would private money be willing to fund $2bn in new track but not be willing to pay for the new locomotives and carriages that will run on that track? How is it that building the rail line is profitable, but the service that runs on top of that rail line not be profitable? Why should the government pay for the rail cars and leave all the profit of owning the track to private businesses? If the VIA Rail HFR business plan is so good, why shouldn’t the government pay for the track and let private money pay for the new train cars and let private business profit from running the service, like they do in England?
And although a regular-speed dedicated track might make more economic sense for VIA Rail, I think true high speed rail might make more economic sense for the country. True HSR might not be as profitable as regular speed track, but bringing Montreal and Toronto closer together could potentially make a Toronto-Montreal economic mega-region that can compete with the London megaregion, the Rhine-Ruhr megaregion, the New York-Boston-Washington megaregion, or the future San Francisco-Los Angeles megaregion. It’s potentially transformative for the country. Big urban mega-centres are going to dominate the future global economies. Although the GTA is big, it might not be big enough. Adding Montreal to the GTA will help ensure that Canada can compete against other megaregions in attracting the best international talent and the most international money.
LikeLike
Perhaps because the model has been used successfully many times in the past?
From Railway-Technology.com:
LikeLike
Thank you! Self-driving cars are now being touted as a magic solution for everything (from traffic accidents to traffic congestion to public transit to global warming to, I don’t know, peace on earth) and no one has yet even demonstrated a self-driving car that can reliably handle winter conditions, let alone anything else. Not to mention the huge regulatory and legal hurdles (starting with the “if a self-driving car kills a pedestrian, who is responsible” question).
The “self-driving cars will eliminate the need for public transit” drivel comes mostly out of the States, and is, I’d say, the reflection of an ingrained anti-public transit (and anti-public anything) attitude. Sure, there might be some small towns where cheap self-driving cars (if they ever arrive) will eliminate the need for that town’s 3 bus lines. In large cities, a congested highway of self-driving cars is still congested and still carrying much less people than a high-capacity rail line – and while fully autonomous cars are still a pipedream, driverless subway trains are yesterday’s news.
LikeLike
There are so many holes in VIA’s high-frequency rail proposal that it resembles a block of Swiss cheese. The clear indicator that this is just another back-of-the-cocktail-napkin dream scheme is VIA’s assertion that it will be so wildly profitable that it will wipe out the need for an operating subsidy to sustain the current VIA corridor services, which would continue to be operated in parallel with the new Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route. Sure. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn plus some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell you.
LikeLike
I think the way to think about self-driving cars is as a cheaper uber. If they can make it cheap enough, it can compete with public transit on pricing. In that case, people won’t take public transit just because it’s cheaper than owning and driving a car, or because parking is a pain at their destination. The question then becomes whether public transit can be faster than uber, in which case people will continue to use it. I think on some routes it is – if you happen to live next to the subway and your destination is also on the subway, it’s probably faster to take the subway rather than take an uber. Likewise GO is probably faster than driving downtown, at least at rush hour. Further, if use of self-driving cars are that cheap, it will probably actually increase the number of cars on the road, making traffic worse, and consequently making some public transit routes more attractive by comparison. Still, I think bus service will become relatively less attractive, since buses suffer from the same traffic issues as self-driving cars, so if their pricing advantage disappears, then I don’t think many people will take them. Self-driving cars could actually increase GO ridership by making it easier for people in the suburbs to get to their closest station.
LikeLike
Here’s what VIA has stated:
Steve: And you believe everything you read in inhouse company documents?
What isn’t put in caveat is that HFR would allow the reduction of some of the other corridor services to raise the bottom line operating cost. Details are still being discussed.
Meantime, BBD’s and the Caisse’ fortunes continue to be tested.
And at least one well-connected journo calls the REM’s problematic application for funding from the Feds a “dry run” for the Infrastructure Bank, while promoting HFR’s.
LikeLike
Could you please try to get your condensations correct this time, on topic and current. Your comment about Amtrak’s growth is from 2001 to 2013 with a reference to 2002 to 2013. This is over 4 years out of date. Your comment about Sound Transit’s commuter rail growth was from 2015 to 2016 and not from Q1 2016 to Q1 2017 which is much less. It looks like you are cherry picking your points to build your case. You then use the increase in LRT ridership as a justification for statements like this:
What the hell do you mean by this. GO RER IS NOT LRT. What part of that do you not understand. Instead of Googling all sorts of disjointed facts and making crazy statements about them, why don’t you do a rational analysis of your ideas before flying off the handle with half baked ideas.
Amtrak used old F40s to make cabbage cars on longer distance rail lines and not High or Higher Speed Rail. They served a purpose when they were built but they would not be used on faster service lines because they would ride like crap at high speeds, probably pound the crap out of the rail and there is a reason why the new passenger lines don’t have baggage cars; it is because they are labour intensive and slow down operations at through stations.
Your quote from Railway-Technology.com is from the opening of the Chanel Tunnel and refers to items from 1996 to 2002. This is another example of cherry picking points. The Chanel Tunnel question is NOT relevant to VIA’s rail service in the Quebec City to Windsor corridor or the the Montreal – Ottawa – Toronto triangle.
Your comment from Governing.com about Metro North service growing on weekends with improved service is for one of the two area in the US that has heavier commuter service than Toronto, New York and Chicago. To use them to prove a point about commuter rail service in general is useless because they, like Toronto, are outliers from a statistical point of view. They are not the rule bur are the exception that proves the rule.
So, before you go Googling any more useless articles and report on them ask yourself these questions;
1) Are they current?
2) Are they relevant to the situation in Ontario and/or Canada
3) Do you really know what they are talking about.
Your points started off sounding okay but as get more into your arguments quoting all sorts of source off the internet you start to sound like a wild eyed rail fab foamer. If you want to be taken seriously then channel back your arguments to things that are relevant and keep them short and on topic.
Steve: As a more general note, I am finding this entire discussion miles away from the nominal purpose of this site, and endless quotations picked from other sources do not constitute “debate”. They are also annoying to edit. I am on the verge of cutting off Mr. Saines who initially appeared as a responsible commentator, but is outwearing his welcome.
LikeLike