E&N Railway (VIA Rail) discussion

[tedward]

Sorry Bernard but your cost-benefit analysis is short-sighted and ignores the reality of the money poured into the highway system 10, 20, 50 years ago. Those subsidies you burden the railway with are no more than the subsidies plowed into the road system for generations. Thanks to a lack of vision and Balkanized governance for a century we have a patchwork only reluctantly joined by roads.

The whole point of rail travel is to build a more sustainable future for the whole region by creating the kind of development that makes rail travel a viable option. We are not thinking boldly enough when it comes to the railroad. It is not about simply fixing what we have to make it work - although that is a reasonable short-term stop-gap.

For example your problems with the tracks coming through Esquimalt are, on the surface, valid but what if we started talking about bolder options like creating artificial tunnels and raising the roadways especially in the worst spots such as through the "valley" that is Wilson Road: construct a "tunnel", fill it the "valley" and voila an attractive increase to buildable land in the area.

As for crossing the bridge, I realized recently we are not going far enough. Why are we not demanding the rail terminus be at (or under) City Hall? That would connect commuters with the downtown bus system and make it much more attractive for commuters and casual riders.

These kind of projects were built by leaders with vision for a better future. I see nothing better in a future that forces more and more people to operate personal vehicles though a system of roads which cannot expand. Expanding bus service will only help to a point. What happens when we have doubled the number of buses (let alone increased the number of cars)? What do we do then? Oh, I see, then we will have to build some sort of rail system or perhaps we should create double-decker roads?

I think you are just delaying the inevitable. We have to find a way to move more people efficiently around the region and nothing you have presented suggests a better long-term alternative than well-designed rail.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by tedward

As for crossing the bridge, I realized recently we are not going far enough. Why are we not demanding the rail terminus be at (or under) City Hall?

I think the taxpayers would go for that, right after the sewage treatment issue is finished. Wait a minute, why not combine the sewer lines with a subway to cut costs?

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think the taxpayers would go for that, right after the sewage treatment issue is finished. Wait a minute, why not combine the sewer lines with a subway to cut costs?

If we had some form of rapid transit from McLoughlin Point to Hartland, we could take the sludge up by monorail.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by tedward

Sorry Bernard but your cost-benefit analysis is short-sighted and ignores the reality of the money poured into the highway system 10, 20, 50 years ago. Those subsidies you burden the railway with are no more than the subsidies plowed into the road system for generations. Thanks to a lack of vision and Balkanized governance for a century we have a patchwork only reluctantly joined by roads.

The issue is that the cost of operation is very high for rail on a per passenger trip basis. This money has to come from somewhere and the reality is that it would have to come from the existing transit budget. It is not the most effective use of finances

Originally Posted by tedward

The whole point of rail travel is to build a more sustainable future for the whole region by creating the kind of development that makes rail travel a viable option. We are not thinking boldly enough when it comes to the railroad. It is not about simply fixing what we have to make it work - although that is a reasonable short-term stop-gap.

Rail is not more sustainable than highways, both of them have pros and cons. Realistically we will see vehicles in the future all powered with electricity. Ultimately highways are more flexible and offer a wider range of uses making them a sustainable and reasonable option

Originally Posted by tedward

For example your problems with the tracks coming through Esquimalt are, on the surface, valid but what if we started talking about bolder options like creating artificial tunnels and raising the roadways especially in the worst spots such as through the "valley" that is Wilson Road: construct a "tunnel", fill it the "valley" and voila an attractive increase to buildable land in the area.

As for crossing the bridge, I realized recently we are not going far enough. Why are we not demanding the rail terminus be at (or under) City Hall? That would connect commuters with the downtown bus system and make it much more attractive for commuters and casual riders.

Interesting ideas, but unsustainable because we do not have the tax base to pay for it. To build something like that would cost us in the the billions for the E&N, you are better off with a whole new line without the impediments.

Originally Posted by tedward

These kind of projects were built by leaders with vision for a better future. I see nothing better in a future that forces more and more people to operate personal vehicles though a system of roads which cannot expand. Expanding bus service will only help to a point. What happens when we have doubled the number of buses (let alone increased the number of cars)? What do we do then? Oh, I see, then we will have to build some sort of rail system or perhaps we should create double-decker roads?

The population of the CRD is highly likely to pass 500,000 before the population starts to shrink. We are more than 60% of the way to our maximum population and we are still without an significant traffic problems. The Colwood crawl is not in the top 20 of traffic jam problems in BC.

As to the roads, they can still be increased in size, there is more than enough space to make Hwy#1 to Duncan three lane freeway all the way. The issue is all about the best use of the limited capital resources of government.

Originally Posted by tedward

I think you are just delaying the inevitable. We have to find a way to move more people efficiently around the region and nothing you have presented suggests a better long-term alternative than well-designed rail.

Buses are more flexible and much cheaper to operate, only between Downtown and UVic and Town and Country and UVic is there any potential that we may approach the limits of bus transit.

But meanwhile back to my main point, when looking at the latest evaluation of the E&N line, the economics are not there to support the line. For it to function someone has to make up that short fall in some manner. Until it can be shown where this money is going to come from, the issue is rather moot.

[renthefinn]

Let's just raise gas taxes in the region to pay for trains. Why steal from existing transit funding? If the idea is to get more people out of their cars.... agreed roads are flexible, but when people run a daily routine 5 days a week, roads are not the best solution, and buses pfffttt.... admitted i'm a little biased, just don't like riding buses... In addition, rail based transit in Vancouver has been encouraged to develop density, in many cases there wasn't enough density or ridership to justify it to begin with, what's different about Victoria, besides size? Victoria is fairly dense to begin with, get the municipalities on board for densifying around the stations, and it will pay out in the end.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by renthefinn

Let's just raise gas taxes in the region to pay for trains. Why steal from existing transit funding? If the idea is to get more people out of their cars.... agreed roads are flexible, but when people run a daily routine 5 days a week, roads are not the best solution, and buses pfffttt.... admitted i'm a little biased, just don't like riding buses... In addition, rail based transit in Vancouver has been encouraged to develop density, in many cases there wasn't enough density or ridership to justify it to begin with, what's different about Victoria, besides size? Victoria is fairly dense to begin with, get the municipalities on board for densifying around the stations, and it will pay out in the end.

The money needed for 7500 hours of annual rail based transit could buy you about 75,000 hours of bus based transit. This means more service to more neighbourhoods and would mean late night service could easily be operated.

No matter how you come up with the money for rail, it is still expensive and means you are getting much less benefit for the money you spend. Offering more buses would do more to reduce traffic congestion and would do more for the environment than going to rail based transit.

As to the idea of rail driving density, that data from the studies does not bear out that this will happen. There is a very slim co-relation between rail transit and development. Dense developments almost always come about because of the decisions of local government to go ahead and change the zoning of an area. If one looks at Metro Vancouver, for each area claimed for the SkyTrain, there are several more areas of dense development not connected to the SkyTrain at all.

The SkyTrain in Vancouver works well because it has followed areas of existing density or areas planned for more density. The ridership was already there for the lines. In many mid sized US cities in the last 20 years light rail has been a financial disaster because it has been attempted as a tool to reshape cities. The ridership has not been there and other services have had to been cut to pay for large debts and high operating costs.

Victoria Regional Transit moves about 68,000 people per day. The Canada Line moves about 120,000 people a day. Think about that difference there, the total transit use in Greater Victoria each day is not enough to match one SkyTrain line. We in Victoria are well above average in transit use, but our numbers are still so far away from the scale needed for rail based that it is simply too expensive to consider.

[Bingo]

Using rail for transit would be great if it were not for those annoying tracks getting in the way.

[jklymak]

Originally Posted by Bernard

The issue is that the cost of operation is very high for rail on a per passenger trip basis.

I somewhat agree with most of your points Bernard, but I don't understand this statement. If the train is full and the bus is full, how can it possibly be more expensive per passenger km to run a train? Maybe I don't understand the costs involved, but you must be including capital costs in that estimate.

[renthefinn]

Originally Posted by Bernard

As to the idea of rail driving density, that data from the studies does not bear out that this will happen. There is a very slim co-relation between rail transit and development. Dense developments almost always come about because of the decisions of local government to go ahead and change the zoning of an area. If one looks at Metro Vancouver, for each area claimed for the SkyTrain, there are several more areas of dense development not connected to the SkyTrain at all.

Don't think I can agree with you on this point "that data from the studies" curious what studies? Taking Vancouver's Millenium Line, and Portlands LRT/street cars into consideration, they have driven development, agreed that municipalities have to help encourage this with zoning. In addition many of the denser neighbourhoods in Vancouver are along traditional street car lines, and have been denser since they were developed, with the street car lines to encourage the growth. I also disagree with your claim that "There is a very slim co-relation between rail transit and development." unless you subscribe to Wendel Cox's pro-highway rhetoric. The correlation is evident.

[endayliner]

...recently invested a great deal of money on a new train-car barge dock on the mainland. I don't think they would do that if "rail were doomed."

Nor reactivate an old spur south of Courtenay to service a freight customer they lost to truck 20 some years ago.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by jklymak

I somewhat agree with most of your points Bernard, but I don't understand this statement. If the train is full and the bus is full, how can it possibly be more expensive per passenger km to run a train? Maybe I don't understand the costs involved, but you must be including capital costs in that estimate.

There are several reasons for this.

1)the Commuter service suggested only operates for a limited number of hours per week which means more capital investment and maintenance costs are amortized over fewer passengers

2) Economy of scale, we have a lot of buses and this reduces overall costs for each individual bus.

3) Buses are actually cheaper to operate than a train on a per passenger basis based on a full load. Note that Greyhound can operate a bus service without subsidy and make a profit and charge much less for a fare than the train can. In Europe the intercity bus services are cheaper to use and do not require subsidy.

[jklymak]

Originally Posted by Bernard

There are several reasons for this.

1)the Commuter service suggested only operates for a limited number of hours per week which means more capital investment and maintenance costs are amortized over fewer passengers

2) Economy of scale, we have a lot of buses and this reduces overall costs for each individual bus.

3) Buses are actually cheaper to operate than a train on a per passenger basis based on a full load. Note that Greyhound can operate a bus service without subsidy and make a profit and charge much less for a fare than the train can. In Europe the intercity bus services are cheaper to use and do not require subsidy.

Your points above really boil down to the fact that trains have more expensive capital costs. I really doubt that trains, per passenger km require more fuel or maintenance than busses. The real question is: are the capital costs of a train really much less worth subsidizing than the road system?

Having taken the train and the bus, I can tell you I'd pay a premium to take the train. And I suspect you would get more intercity trips on a train rather than from busses per infrastructure dollar invested. But that is just a a guess.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

So I was out for a little walk this afternoon and came upon the railway station. Now, I had never looked at it all that carefully, I know lots about the E&N.

But you know what, there is not a single sign on that thing that says it's a train station, or that a passenger train leaves from there daily. The extent of their window display is two schedule cards taped in the window, along with a poorly hand-written rate sheet.

Now, I know, it's a government operation, but how about a sign or two for the thousands of tourists that walk by every day? Outside could be a real good display talking about the day trips, some photos of it going over the trestle, maybe a cool map of the Island. I mean, it's quite awesome that you can take it to Chemainus, Nanaimo or even Qualicum, get off, tour around, and catch it back again. A GREAT little day trip for the tourists.

They get a F- in marketing, up there with the Coho terminal.

I went in to the station Saturday morning and brought up these points with the terminal person. She agreed, but said anything at all they put outside gets vandalized/graffiti-ed almost immediately. I still think they could do a big sign on the roof facing down Wharf.

[Bernard]

Train maintenance is much more expensive. Replacement parts are cheaper for a bus because they are mass produced, most trains that is simply not the case. The labour costs are lower because there more mechanics that know how to work on a bus than a train. Specifically for Greater Victoria, any rail transit we would have hear would be on such a small scale that the maintenance costs would be much higher because you would have so few units to work on.

Currently the cost for maintenance is about $21 per service hour.

As to fuel, as a cost this is about 10% of what is being spent by Greater Victoria Transit. While rising fuel costs make an impact on the system, it is not as big an issue as people would think. If fuel prices doubled, this would add $0.10 cost per passenger trip.

Are trains more fuel efficient? Trains suffer from operating with less than full loads and this quickly drives up the fuel needed per average passenger trip. The bus network has gained a lot of efficiency by operating buses of differing sizes and therefore reducing the cost per passenger for fuel for light loads, this is a flexibility a train can not do.

[Maverick]

Thought I would share this railway track rebuild,we should keep these guys in mind when it comes to repairing the E &N rail line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFE8nmKpmXY

[victorian fan]

• Video Link

[phx]

It seems inappropriate to run a commuter train from Nanaimo to Victoria. There shouldn't be people regularly commuting in from further out than Langford.

[Mike K.]

There shouldn't be people regularly commuting in from further out than Langford.

Due to the housing costs thousands of people are doing just that.

In that video the Island Corridor rep said 800 people working at the navy base (perhaps including naden?) live in the valley and commute into Victoria.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Originally Posted by Maverick

Thought I would share this railway track rebuild,we should keep these guys in mind when it comes to repairing the E &N rail line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFE8nmKpmXY

W-O-W!! Go Belgium! ...Or "go Austria"? (Infrabel is Belgian, right? But Plasser & Theurer is Austrian?)

Whatever, that's one impressive track-laying machine and clearly a smoothly working operation...

PS: Plasser & Theurer already has an office in Montreal... Just sayin'...

[phx]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Due to the housing costs thousands of people are doing just that.

For the price of a house in Shawnigan lake, you can get a townhouse in town. People live there by choice.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by phx

For the price of a house in Shawnigan lake, you can get a townhouse in town. People live there by choice.

If you can get a house for the price of a townhouse, why would you pick the townhouse?

[sebberry]

I hope the train reversal is a success. If the service fits the need, ridership should increase and then hopefuly more money will be provided to commuter rail/light rail for us, preferably before the bendy busses show up

[UrbanRail]

Originally Posted by Maverick

Thought I would share this railway track rebuild,we should keep these guys in mind when it comes to repairing the E &N rail line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFE8nmKpmXY

That is awesome Maverick, although it will be sometime before we get concrete ties.

[UrbanRail]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I hope the train reversal is a success. If the service fits the need, ridership should increase and then hopefuly more money will be provided to commuter rail/light rail for us, preferably before the bendy busses show up

It will be a success. Changing the service is more than just changing the train around, its about adding different trains to suit different needs. I agree with the ICF about making Nanaimo the hub for all rail services.

[sebberry]

It's been a long time since I rode the E and N. Is there enough room to twin the tracks?

Perhaps if train service remains on the new JSB they should plan for that? Or would that require too many people to work together?