[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Certainly interesting. It does remind me of a saying I once heard: "Statistics are like bikinis. What they show is interesting but what they hide is crucial.

Good thing I am comfortable in a speedo.

Originally Posted by roger1818

They are also physically close to each other. Intercity service doesn't serve individual cities but pairs of cities. According to a 1991 VIA timetable (the schedules may have changed, but routes haven't changed):

• Montreal-Ottawa: 187 km
• Montreal-Toronto: 539 km
• Ottawa-Toronto: 446 km

Fine. Then lets see the run between Sudbury and Toronto get to less than 5 hours. Its only 400km. It should not take EIGHT hours.

Toronto to Winnipeg: 2,026km
Winnipeg to Edmonton: 1,303km
Edmonton to Vancouver: 1,154Km

You notice that I never "padded" any numbers? That is because I know that it will not be a simple double, but it be a lot more than it has been.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It also has the highest population density and those stations are close to 3 of Canada's 5 largest cities, so they have a place to go to/from.

The Top 6 cities in Canada has rail... oh, wait, no, it does not.
Toronto
Montreal
Vancouver
Calgary
Ottawa
Edmonton are the top cities.

5 are served by intercity rail. 3 are served by service that is multiple times a day. The ones that are served by regular daily service also has the highest ridership. Maybe it is a fluke, or maybe it is because people in larger cities tend to use public transportation more.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Kingston is closer to 3 hours from Toronto (2:45 without traffic to be precise), so it isn't as close as you imply. It does hit well above its population though, in part because of Queens University, and in part because it is on a route that connects Toronto with both Montreal and Ottawa, so it has very frequent service (if you count arrivals and departures separately, it is one of VIA's busiest stations).

London has a population of close to half a million, and is the 11th largest city in Canada (ahead of Halifax, Regina and Saskatoon) so when combined with its proximity to Toronto, its high ridership is to be expected.

But that high? That did surprise me.

Originally Posted by roger1818

If GO were to extend to London, it would be primarily for those travelling to places west of Toronto. It would also most likey be using the northern route (via Kitchener). VIA (before COVID) only had 2 trains a day on that route. The other 5 trains a day between Toronto and London used the shorter, southern route (via Brantford), so the two really wouldn't be competing with each other.

If the province could give Brantford GO service and give London GO service, all at once, and it be shorter route, why not? My only thought would be how packed the train would be after Aldershot.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The train to Churchill is operated as an essential service, as there are no roads, so the train is the only alternative to flying.

I know. All the other ones have some sort of road service. That almost seems counter productive.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Smiths Falls does suffer from infrequent service and HFR should improve things, but I can't see it being a significant transfer station. Ottawa and Montreal will have direct service to Kingston and it is a large detour to go to Kingston via Smiths Falls from points west. That just leaves those coming from Alexandria and Castleman.

I partially agree. It all depends on the frequency and ease of access to the rest of the network.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You can't just assume that double the frequency will result in double the ridership. While this can be true for typical intercity service, the vast majority of those taking the Canadian are tourists using it as a Land Cruise. That type of traveller are taking it for the experience and will happily adjust their plans to catch the train on a different day. This is very different from the typical intercity train traveller who is comparing the train's schedule to taking a car, bus or airplane.

As for Moncton and Halifax, they are less of a land cruise and more transportation based, so increasing frequency would help that more. The thing your stats are saying is are those people travelling to/from Montreal or Quebec or are they travelling withing the maritime. If the latter, the proposed new service with RDCs will help, otherwise, VIA would have to increase frequency to Montreal to have much of an effect.

How can you argue one route is less of one thing and more of another? Do you have the data for it hidden in your thong?

The Regional routes that have been suggested would make these numbers go up. Places like Saint John and Halifax using these routes would see higher ridership. They are within similar distance as Toronto and Montreal

Originally Posted by roger1818

All of VIA's routes offer round trip service, so that is nothing new that will change anything. Sure you are forcing people to alight and board a new train where previously they just stayed on the train would increase foot traffic in the station, but it results in the same number of passenger overall.

So, is that what makes Toronto so busy is those thru passengers? Would those numbers drop by half if that's the case?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Once again, you are assuming that offering new destinations will increase the number of people who will take the land cruse. Some might choose to do both routes, but for many, you will be dividing the passengers between two routes, resulting in the same number of passengers but more trains to operate.

That is normally how any transportation company works. Same as buses or air travel. More routes = more people.

Originally Posted by roger1818

How so? You just waved your magic wand and doubled the number of predicted passengers with no justification.

Think of people within a few hours of the major cities. If they knew there was daily service passing by that goes to those major cities, a weekend trip to the city would be a normal event. That would make those numbers go up. That is how convenience works.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Before it was cancelled, there were only 2 trains a day weekdays, and 1 train on weekends, so I wouldn't call 4 trains "really horrible." Its all a mater of perspective.

Also, I don't think you can use the number of those taking the land cruse from Vancouver to Edmonton (because they only wanted to see the Rockys) as any type of indication as to how many would want to travel between Edmonton and Calgary. Those are totally different markets with totally different demands.

Do you have those ridership numbers?

Originally Posted by roger1818

No, you are just going to steal land cruse passengers from the northern route. Sure you might see a very slight increase in passenger count overall (maybe 5% if you are lucky), but you will have double the operating costs, so the Canadian would go from close to breaking even (on purely operational costs) to operating at a significant loss.

So, why not shut down the less scenic route? Oh, right, political reasons.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The math might be basic, but your assumptions that led to the math are flawed. Sure its easy to double numbers, but you have yet to provide an argument that the numbers would double.

Well, now you are not reading things. I did not actually just double trains. Technically, In order to properly double it, we would need 8 days. 3x2 is 6, but there is one more day each week. Your math and understanding a calendar is weak.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Numbers don't lie, but incorrect assumptions do. If we ran 10 trains a day to Churchill, MB (up from the 3 trains a week) would the number of passengers at the station jump from 494 to 7904 (16 times, leaving some room for error)? Of course not! The math didn't lie, but the assumption that doubling the number of trains will always double the number of passengers did. In your case, the flaw in the assumption may not be so blatant, but it still affects the result.

Silliness is strong on this. I could understand you saying that doubling it would not see double the ridership, but 10 times a day?

Ah, well, the math is weak with you.