VIA Rail

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Mister F

That would be way more expensive than continuing to run the train. Or even expanding it. Much more effective to retain and expand an existing piece of infrastructure than abandon it and build something new.

The portion between Cocagne and Bouctouche is supposed to happen but I don’t know what becomes of it now...

Well, I will pass the mic to New Brunswickers for this topic.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by someone123

The train currently only makes sense for people living in these areas. As a subsidy for Campbellton and Bathurst it is incredibly inefficient. We could probably fly them around whenever they wanted for less.

The distance between Montreal and Halifax is 800 km. The various routes that exist add a huge amount of extra distance on top. It's particularly egregious if you look at Fredericton-Montreal. 540 km apart over land, but 800 km by road. And the train route is even worse than this.

I don't think the Montreal-Halifax train is very useful and I don't think subsidizing tourist trains is a good use of public funds. If it were up to me I would cut it and overhaul the regulatory environment so that it is feasible for a private business or some kind of regional operator to run a passenger rail service. I think in this environment there would be passenger rail around the central part of the Maritimes, which has 1.5 million people in a small and easily-served area.

You can remove all the regulatory barriers you want, but it will still be highly unlikely private business will come in organically, because passenger rail is not a profit making endeavour. It has to be subsidised, and any time government money is spent, it has to be because it is in the public good.

If we are to have private businesses come in, my preferred model is basically the British one - pick routes to have rail transport, set service levels and have the private sector bid for a contract for x number of years. But this implies we live in a world where we care about rail, and if we cared we could just fund VIA.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Large regulatory barriers to entry.

The same issues have come up with inter-city bus transportation in Ontario. Some people mistakenly believe that there’s only one bus company between some cities (such as London-Toronto) because “if there was demand another company would also operate”, but in fact the Ministry of Transportation has secret deals with Greyhound that guarantees them a monopoly on various inter-city routes. I can’t start my own private bus company to compete with Greyhound between London and Toronto because of the monopoly deal Greyhound has with the MTO. My understanding is that similar deals exist in other provinces. Greyhound’s only competition in Southwestern Ontario is VIA, which they must compete with because the MTO has no jurisdiction over a federal Crown corporation.

The fact is our federal and provincial governments have never prioritized travel by anything other than private car. Less regulatory barriers would mean more bus, and possibly rail companies. The private sector is getting involved with rail in the United States (including proposed HSR to Vancouver), I’m sure there would be more private investment in inter-city bus and rail transportation if there were fewer barriers to entry and if this country let go of the rampant protectionism that we have. (The sad thing is, Greyhound isn’t even a Canadian company and yet our provincial governments fiercely protect a foreign company from competition. That, to me is even worse than the protectionism of Bell, Rogers, and Telus.)

While I won't defend the Canadian model of enforcing whatever transport monopoly is already in place, public transit is inherently more efficient if run as a monopoly. If two bus companies try to compete on the same route, everyone loses (unless there is massive demand). The better model would be for the government to decide a map of routes, decide service levels and the contract those services out. If the operator sucks, they lose the contract.

[milomilo]

[QUOTE=GoTrans;8775015]Would a train 2x per week as currently exists between Winnipeg and Edmonton not be more irrelevant? It is not the train that is irrelevant but the service and routing as currently operated. Get rid of the transcontinental service, it is not reliable and never will be reliable over such a long distance. Even tourists want some measure of reliability.

Fine if you want to get rid of the Transcontinental, but if you do that then that means getting rid of VIA rail service to Edmonton too, as the tourist market is the only reason that route exists.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

There is no direct line between Calgary and Saskatoon. CN has mothballed the line and diverts freights to Calgary via Edmonton instead of the direct route. The difference in population between Saskatoon and Regina is not that significant. Passengers from Calgary could transfer in Regina to go to Saskatoon. Passengers from Edmonton to Calgary could take a train to Saskatoon that continued on to Regina. If you added a Saskatoon to Winnipeg train via Regina you would have 2 trips a day between Regina and Saskatoon which compared to the current non-existent system would be a huge bonus. This would allow daily round trips to both cities with the benefit of carrying people originating in other markets such as Winnipeg and Edmonton.

Your idea of going directly to Saskatoon ignores most of the larger centres of population on the CP mainline between Calgary and Regina. This is like people who expect transit to give them door to door service without any transfers. You have to create a network with reliable transfers even if the frequencies are not particularly high. It can be done but it takes work, investment, appropriate equipment, routing and most importantly, long term funding.

The main problem is not that rail service can't be improved. It is that the federal government provides funding for all sorts of transportation projects in Canada, even outside of its area of jurisdiction but ignores adequate funding to Via or rail in general. The government loves to draw lines on a map and say that they fund service across the county when in reality it really only has subpar service in the corridor. Cities are creatures of the provincial governments and as such the federal government should be funding its own areas of responsibility before funding provincial areas such as roads and transit to buy votes. If the federal government had provided funding years ago to improve rail infrastructure we probably would not be in the current situation.

What is your aim? To improve public transit, or to arbitrarily give some cities a poor rail service? You complain about the government drawing lines on a map, but that is all you are doing, picking the cities on rail lines and deciding they should have a skeleton rail service that is completely useless.

What I am saying is that if we are to spend money, then it should get the most bang for buck, and I really don't see how this priority could be argued with. I want the reliable service you ask for, but short of spending gazillions and waiting for 20 years, that cannot be provided by train for most places in Canada.

[J81]

Originally Posted by someone123

The train currently only makes sense for people living in these areas. As a subsidy for Campbellton and Bathurst it is incredibly inefficient. We could probably fly them around whenever they wanted for less.

The distance between Montreal and Halifax is 800 km. The various routes that exist add a huge amount of extra distance on top. It's particularly egregious if you look at Fredericton-Montreal. 540 km apart over land, but 800 km by road. And the train route is even worse than this.

I don't think the Montreal-Halifax train is very useful and I don't think subsidizing tourist trains is a good use of public funds. If it were up to me I would cut it and overhaul the regulatory environment so that it is feasible for a private business or some kind of regional operator to run a passenger rail service. I think in this environment there would be passenger rail around the central part of the Maritimes, which has 1.5 million people in a small and easily-served area.

Im sorry but theres some funny stuff in that post. You want to fly people from northern NB and eastern QC whenever they want instead of running the train? You cant be serious. Bathurst airport has such great connections! Same with Mont Joli! Believe it or not the train is often sold out in the summer. 3 times i tried to book a ticket to Moncton and couldnt. I only made it on once. What that train needs is feeder traffic. It has always needed that. The problem is the government neutered VIA in the 90s and took away the feeder lines.

I dont know why you call it a tourist train? It provides a service to the largest communities along its route. When the train ran 6 days a week people could make day trips for appointments. The government again neutered it and it cant be done anymore. The government is directly responsible for the condition that service is in.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You can remove all the regulatory barriers you want, but it will still be highly unlikely private business will come in organically, because passenger rail is not a profit making endeavour. It has to be subsidised, and any time government money is spent, it has to be because it is in the public good.

If we are to have private businesses come in, my preferred model is basically the British one - pick routes to have rail transport, set service levels and have the private sector bid for a contract for x number of years. But this implies we live in a world where we care about rail, and if we cared we could just fund VIA.

The British model comes closer to working because the government owns the trackage and sets the price for both freight and rail operators and controls the access to the track and the day to day dispatching.

When you have private companies such as CN & CP you will not have control of the tracks and improvements paid for by the government are seen as subsidies to private corporations and their shareholders. So you have a choice of controlling track access through negotiated agreements and enforced government regulations or nationalizing the trackage. The later is highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by milomilo

While I won't defend the Canadian model of enforcing whatever transport monopoly is already in place, public transit is inherently more efficient if run as a monopoly. If two bus companies try to compete on the same route, everyone loses (unless there is massive demand). The better model would be for the government to decide a map of routes, decide service levels and the contract those services out. If the operator sucks, they lose the contract.

Prior to deregulation of the trucking industry in 1988 companies held operating authorities for specific routes. If you wanted to expand into a different company's territory you had to apply to the transport board for permission on the grounds that the existing company was providing poor service at unreasonable prices. Similarily bus companies had authorities only for certain routes. The provinces never truly allowed for open competition or for free entry and exit to the market. Each province had or has its own hybrid. As a result the service has been abandoned in many parts of the country. Trying to run a passenger train service in the same manner is doomed to fail. Because railways are federally regulated it makes more sense to have the passenger rail service continue in the same framework.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by J81

Im sorry but theres some funny stuff in that post. You want to fly people from northern NB and eastern QC whenever they want instead of running the train? You cant be serious. Bathurst airport has such great connections! Same with Mont Joli! Believe it or not the train is often sold out in the summer. 3 times i tried to book a ticket to Moncton and couldnt. I only made it on once. What that train needs is feeder traffic. It has always needed that. The problem is the government neutered VIA in the 90s and took away the feeder lines.

I didn't say that I wanted to pay to fly people from Bathurst to Quebec or wherever they are going. My point is that when you put it that way it sounds ridiculous and I am not sure the current train we have is a more cost-effective way of accomplishing the same goal. It's definitely worse in terms of travel time. The subsidy for the route is in the tens of millions per year if I remember correctly.

How come Bathurst and Mont Joli get a train but Saint John and Fredericton don't?

I dont know why you call it a tourist train? It provides a service to the largest communities along its route. When the train ran 6 days a week people could make day trips for appointments. The government again neutered it and it cant be done anymore. The government is directly responsible for the condition that service is in.

I call it a tourist train because it's useless to everyone except people who don't care how long it takes and how much it costs. You seem to agree with me here. A train that runs a few days a week can't be relied on for much else, even along the part of the route where it's somewhat competitive speed-wise with travel by bus or car.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by someone123

I didn't say that I wanted to pay to fly people from Bathurst to Quebec or wherever they are going. My point is that when you put it that way it sounds ridiculous and I am not sure the current train we have is a more cost-effective way of accomplishing the same goal. It's definitely worse in terms of travel time. The subsidy for the route is in the tens of millions per year if I remember correctly.

How come Bathurst and Mont Joli get a train but Saint John and Fredericton don't?



I call it a tourist train because it's useless to everyone except people who don't care how long it takes and how much it costs. You seem to agree with me here. A train that runs a few days a week can't be relied on for much else, even along the part of the route where it's somewhat competitive speed-wise with travel by bus or car.

It is only useless because Via at the direction of the government made it useless. Let's call a spade a spade. Quit protecting the elected MP's both government and non-government, Transport Canada bureaucrats for not doing anything to make it better.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by someone123

I call it a tourist train because it's useless to everyone except people who don't care how long it takes and how much it costs. You seem to agree with me here. A train that runs a few days a week can't be relied on for much else, even along the part of the route where it's somewhat competitive speed-wise with travel by bus or car.

Then fix the situation by making the train daily in both directions, and shifting the route to the CNR mainline between Moncton and Riviere-du-Loup, thus making the trip from Halifax to Montreal a relatively decent 12 hours.

As for Miramichi, Bathurst and Campbellton, run a dayliner along this route. VIA wants to do this anyway.

If Mont Joli and Amqui have their knickers in a knot, well there is a train to Gaspe anyway. Just have that train service these communities.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by someone123

I didn't say that I wanted to pay to fly people from Bathurst to Quebec or wherever they are going. My point is that when you put it that way it sounds ridiculous and I am not sure the current train we have is a more cost-effective way of accomplishing the same goal. It's definitely worse in terms of travel time. The subsidy for the route is in the tens of millions per year if I remember correctly.

Not everybody is travelling the full length of the route. A train is not like an airplane with an origin and a destination, it has many origins and many destinations on each route. Just like connecting passengers at airports, if you have good on time performance and decent frequency you will get more connecting rail passengers.

Originally Posted by someone123

How come Bathurst and Mont Joli get a train but Saint John and Fredericton don't?

Good question, but that doesn't mean that the Maritimes shouldn't get a train that connects them to Central Canada and the Corridor.

Originally Posted by someone123

I call it a tourist train because it's useless to everyone except people who don't care how long it takes and how much it costs. You seem to agree with me here. A train that runs a few days a week can't be relied on for much else, even along the part of the route where it's somewhat competitive speed-wise with travel by bus or car.

A train that runs that infrequently and slowly obviously needs to be improved. This is where some of the infrastructure dollars should be spent. Can you imagine the complaints if the highway speed limit was allowed to deteriorate from a posted speed of 70 mph to 30mph as what has happened between Miramichi and Moncton? At higher speeds you also have faster equipment turn around. You can't grow the traffic if you cut back on the frequency. In the 1980's there were only 3 trains/day between Ottawa and Toronto. Now there are 10 and the traffic keeps on growing. When you cut the frequency you do not spread the weekly traffic to the remaining 3 trains. What ever % of the trips you cancel, you lose a greater % of riders.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Not everybody is travelling the full length of the route. A train is not like an airplane with an origin and a destination, it has many origins and many destinations on each route. Just like connecting passengers at airports, if you have good on time performance and decent frequency you will get more connecting rail passengers.

That is a very true thing and something that makes train travel better for the industry. Planes need to be full or they loose money. A half full plan is a canceled plane. A half full train may be full in parts of the route.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Good question, but that doesn't mean that the Maritimes shouldn't get a train that connects them to Central Canada and the Corridor.

You cannot get to Fredericton by rail. However, why not get The Gull reinstated? That is a train that used to go between Halifax and Boston, through Saint John. It would give the connection needed. If it were timed right, it could connect in Moncton to the Ocean.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

A train that runs that infrequently and slowly obviously needs to be improved. This is where some of the infrastructure dollars should be spent. Can you imagine the complaints if the highway speed limit was allowed to deteriorate from a posted speed of 70 mph to 30mph as what has happened between Miramichi and Moncton? At higher speeds you also have faster equipment turn around. You can't grow the traffic if you cut back on the frequency. In the 1980's there were only 3 trains/day between Ottawa and Toronto. Now there are 10 and the traffic keeps on growing. When you cut the frequency you do not spread the weekly traffic to the remaining 3 trains. What ever % of the trips you cancel, you lose a greater % of riders.

So, how do we change this?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by milomilo

QUOTE=milomilo;8775959]Fine if you want to get rid of the Transcontinental, but if you do that then that means getting rid of VIA rail service to Edmonton too, as the tourist market is the only reason that route exists.

How does improving service from 2x per week to daily mean that you are getting rid of service to Edmonton? To all those people that say the Canadian only exists for tourist services I say bunk. My question is that if someone who lives in Edmonton wants to take the train to Winnipeg or Toronto to visit friends or family and enjoy the scenery, when are they a regular passenger and when are they a tourist? Tourists are just another form of passenger riding the same train as the person who is going from Edson to Edmonton. Are tourists only foreigners coming to see Canada. While riding a train is an experience, the real tourist experience is in the real world experiencing natural and urban settings, not the inside of a train car. What has happened is we have ignored all the people who only want to go part way and mis categorize a lot of the people who are going most of the way.

I don't want to get rid of service. I want to increase service and change it so it is more reliable, convenient, faster, change routing to service larger centres of population and has a value to the taxpayer.



QUOTE=milomilo;8775959]What is your aim? To improve public transit, or to arbitrarily give some cities a poor rail service? You complain about the government drawing lines on a map, but that is all you are doing, picking the cities on rail lines and deciding they should have a skeleton rail service that is completely useless.[/QUOTE]

Having service that is 2x per week or none at all is completely useless. Obviously the status quo is useless. When I lived out west, or have gone out west to vacation I cannot even use the train because the current service is either useless or non-existent. Supporting the status quo is useless. It is time to change. Prior to 1990 there was service, it was just unreliable, and used old equipment but at least there was some service. Now we just use older refurbished equipment and have basically no service.

QUOTE=milomilo;8775959]What I am saying is that if we are to spend money, then it should get the most bang for buck, and I really don't see how this priority could be argued with. I want the reliable service you ask for, but short of spending gazillions and waiting for 20 years, that cannot be provided by train for most places in Canada.[/QUOTE]

Nobody is suggesting HSR all across Canada which would cost billions. What we are suggesting is instead of running 1 long train a few days a week, run shorter trains servicing in addition to Edmonton to Winnipeg in some format also servicing Calgary to Winnipeg. We do not have to wait 20 years to do this. Are you part of the political elite who flies everywhere and thinks that if we can study and plan for rail services for the next 20 years then everybody will forget about it? At this point in time, especially given the state of the planet we have to start taking action immediately. We have infrastructure that already exists, but needs to be improved or expanded all across this country. This is but a small step.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

How does improving service from 2x per week to daily mean that you are getting rid of service to Edmonton? To all those people that say the Canadian only exists for tourist services I say bunk. My question is that if someone who lives in Edmonton wants to take the train to Winnipeg or Toronto to visit friends or family and enjoy the scenery, when are they a regular passenger and when are they a tourist? Tourists are just another form of passenger riding the same train as the person who is going from Edson to Edmonton. Are tourists only foreigners coming to see Canada. While riding a train is an experience, the real tourist experience is in the real world experiencing natural and urban settings, not the inside of a train car. What has happened is we have ignored all the people who only want to go part way and mis categorize a lot of the people who are going most of the way.

I don't want to get rid of service. I want to increase service and change it so it is more reliable, convenient, faster, change routing to service larger centres of population and has a value to the taxpayer.



QUOTE=milomilo;8775959]What is your aim? To improve public transit, or to arbitrarily give some cities a poor rail service? You complain about the government drawing lines on a map, but that is all you are doing, picking the cities on rail lines and deciding they should have a skeleton rail service that is completely useless.

Having service that is 2x per week or none at all is completely useless. Obviously the status quo is useless. When I lived out west, or have gone out west to vacation I cannot even use the train because the current service is either useless or non-existent. Supporting the status quo is useless. It is time to change. Prior to 1990 there was service, it was just unreliable, and used old equipment but at least there was some service. Now we just use older refurbished equipment and have basically no service.

QUOTE=milomilo;8775959]What I am saying is that if we are to spend money, then it should get the most bang for buck, and I really don't see how this priority could be argued with. I want the reliable service you ask for, but short of spending gazillions and waiting for 20 years, that cannot be provided by train for most places in Canada.[/QUOTE]

Nobody is suggesting HSR all across Canada which would cost billions. What we are suggesting is instead of running 1 long train a few days a week, run shorter trains servicing in addition to Edmonton to Winnipeg in some format also servicing Calgary to Winnipeg. We do not have to wait 20 years to do this. Are you part of the political elite who flies everywhere and thinks that if we can study and plan for rail services for the next 20 years then everybody will forget about it? At this point in time, especially given the state of the planet we have to start taking action immediately. We have infrastructure that already exists, but needs to be improved or expanded all across this country. This is but a small step.[/QUOTE]

Just imagine suggesting we will only run a train between Windsor and Quebec City. We will only run trains that are full and run the full length.

Kinda silly, isn't it.

In fact, you cannot get on in Windsor or Sarnia and take a thru train to Montreal without transferring to another train in Toronto. Winnipeg would be a great place to chop lines. So would Edmonton and Calgary. However, I'd still keep the Canadian running a few times a week supplemented with daily trains from those other points.

[ssiguy]

The Canadian should be ditched as well as every small line like in Quebec, Churchill, and Price Rupert. The Corridor is responsible for a staggering 95% of all VIA's ridership and that won't change no matter how much some may want it to.

These useless lines are tourist-only ones and I don't feel like subsidizing tourists to the rate of $5000 per-ride. Westerners would be far better served cancelling the Canadian in the winter altogether and instead using those subsidies to triple service in the summer.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The Canadian should be ditched as well as every small line like in Quebec, Churchill, and Price Rupert. The Corridor is responsible for a staggering 95% of all VIA's ridership and that won't change no matter how much some may want it to.

These useless lines are tourist-only ones and I don't feel like subsidizing tourists to the rate of $5000 per-ride. Westerners would be far better served cancelling the Canadian in the winter altogether and instead using those subsidies to triple service in the summer.

Did you know that the GO train is subsidized? Maybe we should shut them down too?

What is needed is to figure out how to fill the train. Just imagine they ran a GO train such that it could never keep to a schedule. How long until that route lost money? How long till people would talk of cancelling it due to the high subsidy? Or, we could fix the problems. The first one is an on time issue. The second is the frequency. The third is the speed.

[Dengler Avenue]

Unreliable Go Trains also have serious political implications.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Unreliable Go Trains also have serious political implications.

So should unreliable Via. The problem is, most people are unaware of Via compared to people aware of GO.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So should unreliable Via. The problem is, most people are unaware of Via compared to people aware of GO.

Then we need to think of strategies to populate Northern Ontario and Interior B.C. It won’t come easy.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Then we need to think of strategies to populate Northern Ontario and Interior B.C. It won’t come easy.

Or, we need to have people demand service for all, not just where it is profitable. Otherwise, GO is down to 2 lines.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Or, we need to have people demand service for all, not just where it is profitable. Otherwise, GO is down to 2 lines.

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.

[swimmer_spe]

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.