Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46
For a comparison I did some shopping online for trips from Winnipeg to Edmonton.
For December 14th (the first day Canadian service resumes out West), the prices for 1350km journey come out to:
Airfare: $126 on Westjet (2h 14min). Admittedly, regular fares look to be around $240.
Bus: not possible.
Driving: depends if you own your own car and the mileage it gets. I didn't bother figuring out rental costs. Google says about ~13hrs by road. With a reasonably fuel efficient car that you own, you'd probably spend less than $100 in gasoline.
Rail: $99.75 with a time of 1 day, 20 minutes.
Even valuing my time at minimum wage and assuming worst-case airfare, the savings in cost aren't worth the brutal timeline.
|
So, if you do not own a vehicle, and do not have a drivers license, you have ore than 1 option?
I wonder, Calgary to Winnipeg, is there a bus?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46
Yes, because even if it only flew every second day, you'd be in Vancouver in 5-6 hours from one's departure, instead of the 4 days it took your counterpart on VIA. At those distances, even high-speed rail doesn't work. Regular rail is not even realistic for most.
The economics of running a train don't even look that much better than utilization of an airplane at that point, because you need several crews, food for passengers, etc. etc. for a several day journey. It's the same reason why very few people take an ocean liner across the Atlantic today, or why cross-country bus services died.
There's a reason why there's an optimal modes of transportation for given distances and population densities. People overwhelmingly take a mode of transport that fits the distance traveled and the density of the area they are in. Europe is lined with motorways and has tons of flights, despite their train networks.
|
Lets continue your thinking. Lets say that between Vancouver and Toronto, there are no other places that are serviced. Does that still make sense? Let's say only one of each major city in each province west of Toronto is flown in and out of, would that still be good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
Some of what you say could be true, but it still doesn't justify a country wide
connected rail network. The rail should be built where it will be useful, not purely to satisfy an arbitrary desire to connect dots on a map.
|
What isn't true?
Everyone looks at the extremes of the long routes. I'd bet that most getting on at Windsor aren't going to Quebec City. The Ocean, might have most who get on in Montreal going to Halifax, but I don't have those numbers to back it up.
For the Canadian, I would bet that most that are getting on in Vancouver are not getting off in Toronto and vica versa. So, those city pairs are irrelevant. A better comparison might be Winnipeg - Saskatoon, ow Edmonton - Saskatoon. They are closer, so driving is reasonable. This also means the train is more reasonable.
The other thing not calculated into the comparison of flying and the train is the hassle. Via does not have the same restrictions on goods you can take.
Again, all of this points to why the Corridor's success could be duplicated along the other routes, if Via wanted to. Break up the line. Have at least 1 train a day. Get rid of amenities not needed. Stop being a tourist driven route.