Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
I haven't seen anyone here say service should only exist where it's "profitable." Most of the people who are skeptical of your proposed service expansion (including me) feel service should be maintained and expanded to where it has the greatest net benefit (benefits relative to expenditure). Greatest net benefit does not necessarily equal profitable. Benefits can take a variety of forms generally relating to either reduction in pollution and/or other environmental damage, improvements to quality of life, or stimulative effects to the economy. I would be very surprised if any of the GO lines had a lower net positive benefit than your proposed routes given their role in reducing congestion and taking significant numbers of cars off the road. But if a cost/benefit analysis proved me wrong, then so be it.
I disagree w/ ssi guy in the case of Churchill which isn't accessible by road meaning the railroad provides huge benefits in the form of transporting goods such as food at a lower cost than would be possible by air. I suspect that would make for pretty high net benefits even given the cost if we consider the alternatives such as abandoning the town, doing everything by air, or building an expensive road.
|
Hence why I am suggesting the southern route and a connection between Edmonton and Calgary. Both of those has the greatest chance of adding not only routes to Via, but also add meaningful ridership.