VIA Rail

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

there will always be classist wealthy people who view VIA as more sophisticated

Gee, if I didn't know you better, I would think you were accusing me of being a classist snob!

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In terms of the incident you witnessed, are there any details indicating this was actually a bus passenger rather than someone who just happened to be in that vicinity? I can't speak for Moncton but in the HRM, busy areas such as downtown and transit hubs tend to have various people around, including the odd panhandler or homeless person, who aren't necessarily patrons of the closest business.

This is a fair point. Downtown Moncton has had a problem for some time with vagrants, hobos and panhandlers. They like to camp in an area not too far from the train station. Perhaps this gentleman was just passing by when he was being arrested, or perhaps he was annoying the bus passengers by panhandling. I have no idea.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I agree. The problem is, the only region that Via or, as it seems, anyone else cares about is the Corridor.



3 cities have built commuter rail. Of them, one has not been expanded from it's initial route, except for adding 1 more station. Yet they tout themselves as being about transit and being green.

Local transit is not what Via or regional rail is about. It is about serving a local area. Outside of that, you are screwed.

Let's say Ontario and Quebec focused on public transit in their own provinces. How would people commute between Gatineau and Ottawa? Your premise falls apart the minute you forget that we are a nation of movers. We don't all live within walking distance of our work. We also don't vacation in our own cities.

The other thing you miss is the tax base. Right now, places like AB are hurting due to the downturn in oil. They are laying off health care workers, even during the pandemic. So, to provide intercity transit isn't going to happen. The federal government, on the other hand, has the tax base to do this.

Another thing you missed? negotiating with CN/CP. Just imagine each province having to negotiate with them, as apposed to one negotiated agreement across the country.

Now, should the country's rail routes be split into regions? Yes. Make each major city a hub, and a place where trains terminate. They do it in the Corridor. There is not a thru service from Windsor to Quebec City. You have to transfer. So, why not do the same everywhere else. The Ocean, for instance, have it be cut in Moncton. Then, if service from Saint John is added, it is easier to connect to Halifax or Montreal. Do the same in Winnipeg. Then adding the southern route, or the lake route would be more seamless.

Instead, Via is running themselves so that they will only operate on their tracks.

Canadians built this country with the rail line. All Canadians should have access to reasonable rail service. HSR is a dead issue when we cannot even service ll our major cities with SSR. HFR is pitiful when we cannot even run NFR on time.

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.

[MonctonRad]

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.

But some people might still want to cross the entire country by rail. Your proposals eliminate this possibility, which could be a problem for people with aerophobia, or with certain medical problems, especially severe COPD or cardiac failure (unable to tolerate high altitude flight). There is no cross country bus service. What are these people to do???

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But some people might still want to cross the entire country by rail. Your proposals eliminate this possibility, which could be a problem for people with aerophobia, or with certain medical problems, especially severe COPD or cardiac failure (unable to tolerate high altitude flight). There is no cross country bus service. What are these people to do???

The question is value.

Is it a good value to provide a service so that every point is connected to every other point on a map, regardless of the economic cost? The cost of giving everybody everything isn't possible. Tradeoffs are necessary.

In general, I'm of the opinion that the hinterlands should be reasonably well-connected to the next nearest metropolitan centre (typically within province). The Canadian doesn't really do that. Something like Ontario Northland Bus Service or Maritime Bus does that much better.

It sucks for certain people, I completely admit. The marginal value of connecting the few use-cases via the Canadian would be better spent on other methods IMO.

[swimmer_spe]

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?

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?

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.

[Truenorth00]

What VIA wants is irrelevant. The Government of Canada pays the bills. And they aren't interested in expanding much outside the Corridor. It's amazing that you don't understand this basic concept after years of this discussion.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Gee, if I didn't know you better, I would think you were accusing me of being a classist snob!

Obviously I can't comment on your inner feelings or mindset because I know it can be hard to perfectly communicate one's ideas in a way conveys the exact intended meaning, especially between strangers in brief online posts. And of course people's feelings can be complex and even conflicting. So I try to take individual comments at face value rather than making assumption about a person's broader mindset. But yes, that specific post sounds classist.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But some people might still want to cross the entire country by rail. Your proposals eliminate this possibility, which could be a problem for people with aerophobia, or with certain medical problems, especially severe COPD or cardiac failure (unable to tolerate high altitude flight). There is no cross country bus service. What are these people to do???

Is it a good idea for these people to be undertaking long trips with these severe medical conditions?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There seem to be a disproportionate number of crazies who do their intercity travel on the bus. While it is not uncommon to hear of incidents involving bus passengers, you rarely hear of any criminality on the train. Train travel is just so much more sophisticated and relaxing compared to the bus. You don't usually have to worry about your seatmate trying to stab you on the train.

I will echo nouvelleecosse when they say that, with my many hours having taken Acadien, Atlantic, and Greyhound buses, I never once feared for my safety or my life when riding an intercity bus. Yeah, bus passengers are probably thriftier (which is the nicest way I can put it), but it's not as if buses are lined with criminals and those of ill-repute. People who are taking these buses have to take them because they're going somewhere.

As they also pointed out, unless you saw the person physically removed from the bus i'm going to assume it was just someone panhandling at the station which is fairly common. It's difficult to paint the entire bus-riding community based off of one situation you saw at a station one time.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But some people might still want to cross the entire country by rail.

I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for the people who can take weeks off their lives to travel across Canada by train for the adventure or the vacation. If they want to see this country they can drive it, and leave train travel to people who actually need it for work or general life.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But some people might still want to cross the entire country by rail. Your proposals eliminate this possibility, which could be a problem for people with aerophobia, or with certain medical problems, especially severe COPD or cardiac failure (unable to tolerate high altitude flight). There is no cross country bus service. What are these people to do???

There's all sorts of things people can't do for all sorts of reasons. There isn't enough money in the world that every single person can have every single desire catered for. If what you describe really was important, then it would probably be cheaper to deploy an on demand helicopter or limo service than build a country wide rail service to everywhere these people needed to go.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I will echo nouvelleecosse when they say that, with my many hours having taken Acadien, Atlantic, and Greyhound buses, I never once feared for my safety or my life when riding an intercity bus. Yeah, bus passengers are probably thriftier (which is the nicest way I can put it), but it's not as if buses are lined with criminals and those of ill-repute. People who are taking these buses have to take them because they're going somewhere.

It was not my intent to impugn the bus riding public in general, however one does hear stories about occasional dangerous situations on intercity busses from time to time (from beheadings on down), and this tends to colour ones perceptions.

I have some experience with taking the bus from time to time (although not recently), and also with intercity rail travel (my father used to work with CNR and we had a legacy pass when I was younger). I still prefer rail travel, and I still think it could be a viable option if properly prioritized (WRT freight), and with convenient scheduling. It is safer and more comfortable than intercity bus, and preferable in almost every way. The federal government however has made the choice to prioritize air and road infrastructure over passenger rail, and seem intent to allow the passenger rail service to die by neglect. I find this sad.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What isn't true?

I didn't say it wasn't true, I said that what you said could be true and still not justify country wide VIA.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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.

Yes, shorter routes are more viable. That's basically what we've been saying the whole time, you don't need to cover the whole country just to serve the few routes that do make sense. Rail is best suited to journeys below a few hours, with large population centres or lots of destinations in between. That rules out every route in the prairies that involves Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Regina. They're too small and/or far apart and there's nothing in between them.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What VIA wants is irrelevant. The Government of Canada pays the bills. And they aren't interested in expanding much outside the Corridor. It's amazing that you don't understand this basic concept after years of this discussion.

And neither are the provincial governments (BC, AB, SK and MB) very interested in passenger rail either, and they reflect what the population desires. We, as people interested enough to be on a skyscraper forum, can be sad about that but what we want is necessarily reflective of the whole population.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Is it a good idea for these people to be undertaking long trips with these severe medical conditions?

The issue is high altitude hypoxemia due to decreased cabin pressure on passenger jets. These patients can do well with ground travel, but can suffer severe and potentially life threatening hypoxemia at 30,000 ft. You are just pushing them over the tipping point by decreasing partial oxygen pressure in an airplane cabin.

There should still be a ground based public transport option for cross country travel, aside from private cars.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The federal government however has made the choice to prioritize air and road infrastructure over passenger rail, and seem intent to allow the passenger rail service to die by neglect. I find this sad.

Is this a cause or an effect, though? I guess both, but I don't think a massive funding boost will really change the decline of passenger rail outside of the Corridor.

People prefer cars and airplanes if they have the money. They'll deal with buses because they're cheaper and more flexible. Bus service is more flexible because the road network is far more expansive than the rail network. The green argument only works if the train is well-used, as passenger rail in Canada is diesel-powered. Empty trains are inefficient.

They'll take the train if it is convenient but the optimal use case for the train is either high frequency (regional express rail to suburbs, which is kind of a different kettle of fish to VIA) or less frequency but more convenient (e.g. the Corridor).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What VIA wants is irrelevant. The Government of Canada pays the bills. And they aren't interested in expanding much outside the Corridor. It's amazing that you don't understand this basic concept after years of this discussion.

I understand it. I have understood it for a while now. The first point, would be when I learned that the southern route was better at fare return, but it was axed.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Is it a good idea for these people to be undertaking long trips with these severe medical conditions?

Canadians have the right to live where ever they choose under the Charter of Rights. If someone with enough money wanted to, they could push a Supreme Court ruling that cutting Via goes against their rights.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I didn't say it wasn't true, I said that what you said could be true and still not justify country wide VIA.

I misunderstood that.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes, shorter routes are more viable. That's basically what we've been saying the whole time, you don't need to cover the whole country just to serve the few routes that do make sense. Rail is best suited to journeys below a few hours, with large population centres or lots of destinations in between. That rules out every route in the prairies that involves Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Regina. They're too small and/or far apart and there's nothing in between them.

But what about those people in between who are going to those major centres for medical, business, shopping or vacation?

Originally Posted by milomilo

And neither are the provincial governments (BC, AB, SK and MB) very interested in passenger rail either, and they reflect what the population desires. We, as people interested enough to be on a skyscraper forum, can be sad about that but what we want is necessarily reflective of the whole population.

It isn't interest, it is funding. They allocate the money where they think is good for politics.

Originally Posted by wave46

Is this a cause or an effect, though? I guess both, but I don't think a massive funding boost will really change the decline of passenger rail outside of the Corridor.

People prefer cars and airplanes if they have the money. They'll deal with buses because they're cheaper and more flexible. Bus service is more flexible because the road network is far more expansive than the rail network. The green argument only works if the train is well-used, as passenger rail in Canada is diesel-powered. Empty trains are inefficient.

They'll take the train if it is convenient but the optimal use case for the train is either high frequency (regional express rail to suburbs, which is kind of a different kettle of fish to VIA) or less frequency but more convenient (e.g. the Corridor).

It is a catch 22. Show me that there is a need on a route that currently has no service. The assumption is that because there is no service, there is no need. If that were the case, why do we buy new things when they didn't exist?

I still feel that chopping the western route in Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg and run at least once a day too each of these places would have the demand. Maybe not a historic 1950s era 10+ car train, but a 3-5 car train, possibly modern, would be successful.

If a federal party wants to win, they only need the votes along the Corridor. So, where are they going to invest?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

But what about those people in between who are going to those major centres for medical, business, shopping or vacation?

It's not the government's job to provide a 300 ton train to carry people door to door for every journey someone could possibly make.

If the government is to provide public transit, then supply should be suitable for the demand such that it is cheap and reasonably frequent. Buses. Why the fixation on heavy rail? Answer; because you don't actually care about transportation, you care about trains.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's not the government's job to provide a 300 ton train to carry people door to door for every journey someone could possibly make.

If the government is to provide public transit, then supply should be suitable for the demand such that it is cheap and reasonably frequent. Buses. Why the fixation on heavy rail? Answer; because you don't actually care about transportation, you care about trains.

Some would argue that the job of the government is to provide the needed services of all the citizens.

My fixation on a daily train to major cities has to do with one word that can stop cars, trucks, buses and planes....

W-I-N-T-E-R

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My fixation on a daily train to major cities has to do with one word that can stop cars, trucks, buses and planes....

W-I-N-T-E-R

+1.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Some would argue that the job of the government is to provide the needed services of all the citizens.

Some may argue that. They're wrong.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My fixation on a daily train to major cities has to do with one word that can stop cars, trucks, buses and planes....

W-I-N-T-E-R

That's a cop out. Trains in Canada are, if anything, less reliable than other forms of transportation and that ignores the reality that on a low demand route buses will provide service that is better in every way.

And you're going to have to come around to the fact that the number of people who are going to take a daily 12 hour train ride from Winnipeg to Calgary is going to measured in single or double digits, if that.