VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

By the numbers, if a train was full, it would seem that it is more eco friendly. The challenge is to make sure the train is as full as possible for as much of the route as possible.

Electrified trains are so energy efficient that they could be half full all the way and still have lower per pax-km emissions than a car with 2-3 pax. The numbers get tighter if comparing to a diesel train.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is something that saddens me. As far as I know, no where in Canada is there any true multi modal station. Ironically, North Bay ON did go for that, just to see their passenger service cease.

And, then of course the fact that no major rail station exists near an airport quashes that.

There's largely no point in building rail stations at airports in Canada until we fix our transit networks to airports. Most of our major cities are only really getting transit rail connections in the last decade. Montreal is still not there, until REM opens.

And building intercity rail to them is rather pointless unless you build an entire rail service that can actually feed the airport. HFR can do that at Dorval with a short REM extension and possibly at Pearson if through service can be achieved at Union and some kind of extended people move at Malton. But those are still 5-10 years away.

In the interim, I just wish we'd do a better job at combining rail and bus travel. Even if VIA and Greyhound compete, no reason they can't all terminate at the same building in a lot of towns/cities.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's largely no point in building rail stations at airports in Canada until we fix our transit networks to airports. Most of our major cities are only really getting transit rail connections in the last decade. Montreal is still not there, until REM opens.

And building intercity rail to them is rather pointless unless you build an entire rail service that can actually feed the airport. HFR can do that at Dorval with a short REM extension and possibly at Pearson if through service can be achieved at Union and some kind of extended people move at Malton. But those are still 5-10 years away.

In the interim, I just wish we'd do a better job at combining rail and bus travel. Even if VIA and Greyhound compete, no reason they can't all terminate at the same building in a lot of towns/cities.

I agree that all major cities should have a combined terminal that has Via, intercity bus and higher order transit.

Maybe we start with the largest cities Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.
Toronto needs to move it's main bus terminal.
Montreal is a mess, but maybe the REM might resolve that.
And don't get me started on Vancouver.

Again, something the ONR did right was build the North Bay station with a full bus terminal.

I wonder when we will see something like this elsewhere?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

By the numbers, if a train was full, it would seem that it is more eco friendly. The challenge is to make sure the train is as full as possible for as much of the route as possible.



This is something that saddens me. As far as I know, no where in Canada is there any true multi modal station. Ironically, North Bay ON did go for that, just to see their passenger service cease.

And, then of course the fact that no major rail station exists near an airport quashes that.

Trains are more eco friendly. But not by that much, it's much less than an order of magnitude than planes or cars, only more like 2x.

As far as I can tell, rail only currently makes up less than 1% of the passenger kms of transport in Canada (link). Cars and trucks make up 19% emissions in Canada (link). So even if we increased passenger rail kms by 10x (a huge number), and those journeys were carbon free (they aren't), then the actual impact on Canada's CO2 emissions would be negligible. But the cost would be large, and I would be confident there are cheaper ways to reduce our emissions.

Which is why we need a country wide, significant, carbon tax!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Trains are more eco friendly. But not by that much, it's much less than an order of magnitude than planes or cars, only more like 2x.

As far as I can tell, rail only currently makes up less than 1% of the passenger kms of transport in Canada (link). Cars and trucks make up 19% emissions in Canada (link). So even if we increased passenger rail kms by 10x (a huge number), and those journeys were carbon free (they aren't), then the actual impact on Canada's CO2 emissions would be negligible. But the cost would be large, and I would be confident there are cheaper ways to reduce our emissions.

Which is why we need a country wide, significant, carbon tax!

A westerner who actually agrees with the Carbon Tax?

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I agree that all major cities should have a combined terminal that has Via, intercity bus and higher order transit.

Maybe we start with the largest cities Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.
Toronto needs to move it's main bus terminal.
Montreal is a mess, but maybe the REM might resolve that.
And don't get me started on Vancouver.

Again, something the ONR did right was build the North Bay station with a full bus terminal.

I wonder when we will see something like this elsewhere?

Vancouver's VIA station also had Greyhound before they left Western Canada and still have bus and skytrain service.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

A westerner who actually agrees with the Carbon Tax?

@milomilo is usually the unique one out~

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Vancouver's VIA station also had Greyhound before they left Western Canada and still have bus and skytrain service.

I did not know that. about Greyhound served there.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

@milomilo is usually the unique one out~

I like to think so!

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

A westerner who actually agrees with the Carbon Tax?

I don't base my opinions on what Canadian conservative politicians have decided is a good thing to be opposed to, I base my opinions on sound reasoning. Since I want climate change to be slowed, and I want this to cost me the least amount of money possible, the way to go is carbon pricing.

Once/if we put in a carbon tax that is high enough to have a meaningful effect and doesn't have large exceptions (like inter provincial air travel), then the climate change argument for more rail is effectively eliminated, as the cost of everything was already built into VIA and its competitor modes of travel. At that point, we only need to look at the business case for rail, which makes the argument simpler.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I did not know that. about Greyhound served there.

I actually used that back in the day when I moved to Calgary. The station was quite convenient but I was confused as to why I had to go through a crappy version of airport screening to take a bus.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I like to think so!

I don't base my opinions on what Canadian conservative politicians have decided is a good thing to be opposed to, I base my opinions on sound reasoning. Since I want climate change to be slowed, and I want this to cost me the least amount of money possible, the way to go is carbon pricing.

Once/if we put in a carbon tax that is high enough to have a meaningful effect and doesn't have large exceptions (like inter provincial air travel), then the climate change argument for more rail is effectively eliminated, as the cost of everything was already built into VIA and its competitor modes of travel. At that point, we only need to look at the business case for rail, which makes the argument simpler.

I like the idea that something that emits more pollutants, you pay more for it. This may mean a small car is cheaper than a similarly priced truck. Ironically, I own both, for 2 very different reasons.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I actually used that back in the day when I moved to Calgary. The station was quite convenient but I was confused as to why I had to go through a crappy version of airport screening to take a bus.

I wonder if that kind of station could be implemented in our bigger cities. For example, the major stations of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa all have their major bus terminals combined with their train stations.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I like the idea that something that emits more pollutants, you pay more for it. This may mean a small car is cheaper than a similarly priced truck. Ironically, I own both, for 2 very different reasons.

It should be built into the price of gas. The planet doesn't care if you drive a doubly full efficient car twice the distance as a car with half the fuel efficiency half the distance, it only cares about the CO2 produced, which is equal.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It should be built into the price of gas. The planet doesn't care if you drive a doubly full efficient car twice the distance as a car with half the fuel efficiency half the distance, it only cares about the CO2 produced, which is equal.

That is the difference between the manufacturing emissions and the transportation emissions. In theory, everything has an emissions cost, so, yes, everything should have a carbon tax based on it's emissions.

That would mean that purchasing a new train would have a carbon tax as well as the ticket you pay for would have a carbon tax on it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is the difference between the manufacturing emissions and the transportation emissions. In theory, everything has an emissions cost, so, yes, everything should have a carbon tax based on it's emissions.

That would mean that purchasing a new train would have a carbon tax as well as the ticket you pay for would have a carbon tax on it.

That is correct. Of course, imports are hard to calculate, but for a car built in Canada it should cost more if it used more energy to produce or that electricity came from fossil fuels. In theory. Our carbon pricing is far from perfect.

What is good about carbon pricing is it allows businesses and consumers to find the best option for the environment. While it may seem "obvious" for voters and politicians what the best thing to invest money in is, to reduce GHGs, this often isn't aligned with what actually is the most cost effective way of reducing Canada's carbon emissions.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is the difference between the manufacturing emissions and the transportation emissions. In theory, everything has an emissions cost, so, yes, everything should have a carbon tax based on it's emissions.

That would mean that purchasing a new train would have a carbon tax as well as the ticket you pay for would have a carbon tax on it.

Tax, tax, and more tax - it's like a Liberal wet dream!!!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Tax, tax, and more tax - it's like a Liberal wet dream!!!

So, how does the government pay for anything. Newsflash, even the most conservative governments still introduced new taxes.

Now, what we do with the money is important.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Tax, tax, and more tax - it's like a Liberal wet dream!!!

Or an economist's that accepts climate change is happening and wants to do something about it.

Would you have a problem if the total tax take remained the same, but was just rebalanced such that more was based on the amount of carbon emissions one produces?

[Truenorth00]

As they plan for HFR (and I see more chatter about this as a stimulus project now), I hope they become aggressive and push for communities to integrate bus services at VIA stations. Intermodality should be the default. It's bullshit that Ottawa's plan for moving intercity buses to Tremblay was stopped. VIA should make increased services very much contingent on a plan to achieve intermodality at VIA stations.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

As they plan for HFR (and I see more chatter about this as a stimulus project now), I hope they become aggressive and push for communities to integrate bus services at VIA stations. Intermodality should be the default. It's bullshit that Ottawa's plan for moving intercity buses to Tremblay was stopped. VIA should make increased services very much contingent on a plan to achieve intermodality at VIA stations.

This makes sense. Not only from a job creation stimulus package, but also from a network expansion.

One other project I think will get the stimulus package treatment could be the Dayliner. All it needs is to be rehabilitated. The line is not running, but the rails are still there. The ties are what needs to be replaced badly, as well as some bridge rehabilitation

As far as Via shovel ready projects, those are the only ones I can think of.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This makes sense. Not only from a job creation stimulus package, but also from a network expansion.

One other project I think will get the stimulus package treatment could be the Dayliner. All it needs is to be rehabilitated. The line is not running, but the rails are still there. The ties are what needs to be replaced badly, as well as some bridge rehabilitation

As far as Via shovel ready projects, those are the only ones I can think of.

The point of shovel ready projects is to build infrastructure and create jobs in the process. Not to incur more long term liabilities without substantial strategic gain.

I expect the vast majority of shovel ready projects to be municipal infrastructure projects that were deferred and then some medium horizon projects like HFR that have strategic benefit to the economy (in the long run) while creating some employment. There's already comments to this effect:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...down-stimulus/

Tough sell to pitch projects that don't have any study behind them and with the end result that government will have to throw tens or hundreds of millions in new operating subsidies after the project is done.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

One other project I think will get the stimulus package treatment could be the Dayliner. All it needs is to be rehabilitated. The line is not running, but the rails are still there. The ties are what needs to be replaced badly, as well as some bridge rehabilitation

By "The Dayliner" I assume you mean the Victoria–Courtenay train (aka the Malahat or E&N)? One issue is it will no longer be possible to have a station in downtown Victoria. The tracks were removed and the station was demolished when the Johnson Street Bridge was replaced in 2018. You could still have a station across the narrows in Victoria West, but you would need to find a new location for and build a new station.

Victoria Station Before & After

Image capture: Jun 2009 © 2020 Google


Image capture: May 2018 © 2020 Google