The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Sad about Greyhound but not surprising. People and politicians will complain but they are not a government service. Their priority is to make money and these routes are unsustainable. I applaud Greyhound for giving the feds and provinces advanced warnings so they can make alternative arrangements and the fact that these routes have been unprofitably for a long time but they tried to make a go of it shows them as responsible corporate citizens knowing their service is essential for many communities but they aren`t a piggy bank so they now have no options.

This will certainly hurt as rail is not an option ANYWHERE in the West so expect air travel within regional centres to the main ones to skyrocket. Unless several new carrier are brought in to fill the void, air is now the only option.

This is almost good news for VIA. This could be the push to bring Intercity rail along thee southern edge of Canada. Something along the lines of Toronto-Sudbury - SSM - Thunder Bay - Winnipeg - Regina - Calgary - Vancouver.

The country can use 2 cross Canada passenger lines.

[milomilo]

More proof of what I've said many times - certain things have no place being in the hands of corporations, as their interests are in no way aligned with those of the citizens or country as a whole. Since there is no passenger rail in most of Canada, long distance buses are essentially infrastructure. The obvious body to step in and fill this gap would be VIA running buses, who could make a route map with both services on it and integrate ticketing.

[adam-machiavelli]

Originally Posted by milomilo

More proof of what I've said many times - certain things have no place being in the hands of corporations, as their interests are in no way aligned with those of the citizens or country as a whole. Since there is no passenger rail in most of Canada, long distance buses are essentially infrastructure. The obvious body to step in and fill this gap would be VIA running buses, who could make a route map with both services on it and integrate ticketing.

This is an excellent idea that I would support.

[Coldrsx]

I have to think that another operator might come into the market or expand.

[MalcolmTucker]

The amount of subsidy + fares, probably cheaper and better to have a service feeding regional airports than force a couple freight trains off the track to give time to a passenger service sadly.

[ssiguy]

VIA shouldn`t get involved in any long distance bus service. If the largest private sector bus carrier can`t make a go of it than neither can VIA. I think you will see secondary local carriers taking over some routes but the vast majority of riders will be left out in the cold.


I certainly can see small VIA connector routes to bring people to the nearest station such as St.Thomas to London or Leamington to Chatham but that`s it. The Vancouver-Toronto VIA run is basically just a tourist route and should be left to die. The only place in Western Canada where rail can be justified is the Calgary/Edmonton corridor which perversely doesn`t have any rail connection at all which exemplifies how political VIA is. Ouside of that corridor, the Western cities are simply too far apart to make train travel convinient or even affordable.


VIA is essentially just a Corridor service so make it such and ditch every route outside the Corridor. Take those saved millions on useless subsidies to the Atlantic and West and funnel them into Corridor.

[240glt]

At least in BC they have regional transit for many areas, so you can take BC transit from many very small towns to larger centres where there are more transportation options. For instance if you live in the Bulkley Valley in North-Central BC you can take a bus to either Smithers or Prince George. Losing the Greyhound will make it harder and more expensive to go longer distances. In BC, It'd be nice to see those regional systems congregate at nodes, and then run longer distance busses to the larger centres.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

VIA shouldn`t get involved in any long distance bus service. If the largest private sector bus carrier can`t make a go of it than neither can VIA. I think you will see secondary local carriers taking over some routes but the vast majority of riders will be left out in the cold.

Well that's kind of the point and why in most civilised countries there is far more government involvement in rail and other regional public transport. We don't let companies run local bus services (yes there might be private involvement, but they are on a tight leash), so why would regional/national be different?

The only motive Greyhound has is profit, which is fine, that's the sole purpose of a company. But there are greater reasons to have public transit, even if it doesn't make much business sense, which is why it makes more sense for it to be in regional hands. Obviously I don't think we should be building out railways to transport a few people a week, but there is a middle ground.

With Greyhound gone does that mean there is literally no alternative to the car or plane in most of Canada? That is utterly shameful for a first world country.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

I have to think that another operator might come into the market or expand.

That's what happened when Acadian stopped servicing the Maritimes. Bus experience has been declining for decades. I use to take the bus every month to New-Brunswick where there is no airport nearby. Then they cut the afternoon bus, which was the best timing for me, then removed direct routes and added transfers. Waiting 2 hours in the middle of the night at a Petro-Canada stop is not cool.

So I'd rather not travel than take the bus now. Plus fixed reservations and security searches by Greyhound made VIA the better alternative.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by nephersir7

REM design options















https://rem.info/en/consultation

I like the dark green colour of the Saint-Laurent. But what the heck's the deal with those giant bumpers on the ends of the cars?

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

I like the dark green colour of the Saint-Laurent. But what the heck's the deal with those giant bumpers on the ends of the cars?

These are the ''hitches'' that tie the pairs of cars together, to have reams of 4 cars.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

These are the ''hitches'' that tie the pairs of cars together, to have reams of 4 cars.

The LRVs used by Calgary / Edmonton don't have those. I wonder why.

[PBruge]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

The LRVs used by Calgary / Edmonton don't have those. I wonder why.

They don’t want to get hitched?

[ssiguy]

[QUOTE=milomilo;8245938

With Greyhound gone does that mean there is literally no alternative to the car or plane in most of Canada? That is utterly shameful for a first world country.[/QUOTE]

Of course, Canada is not like other 1st world countries. We are the second largest country on the planet with just 37 million and outside of The Corridor most distances between towns and cities make bus and rail inefficient and inconvenient. Only Australia can be compared to Canada and even that`s a stretch as they have far fewer major cities and the population isn`t nearly as widely spread out.


I know this will hurt some people and small towns but Greyhound cannot be expected to spend good money after bad on a service people don't patronize and if a bus service can't be justified than God knows you could never justify rail. As noted earlier, BC Transit has an excellent rural connector system in the their local services so people in the smaller centers can get to the larger towns/cities for medical, education, shopping etc opportunities. That`s great for local needs but Ottawa should stay 100% out of the long distance travel system except in the only place it can be justified...…..The Corridor.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by PBruge

They don’t want to get hitched?

I'm not talking about the central coupler which Calgary's LRVs also have (they typically operate in 3 or 4 car trains), I'm talking about the two bumpers on either side of the coupler which LRVs don't have.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Of course, Canada is not like other 1st world countries. We are the second largest country on the planet with just 37 million and outside of The Corridor most distances between towns and cities make bus and rail inefficient and inconvenient. Only Australia can be compared to Canada and even that`s a stretch as they have far fewer major cities and the population isn`t nearly as widely spread out.

It may be spread out, but there are lots of areas of moderate to high density. Even Alberta would be plenty dense enough to have a decent passenger rail network if it was a European country. The problem is, when the prairies actually started getting decent population the car was already here and so roads were the primary method of passenger transport, so it is now much harder to replace. Whereas European countries, and Australia, developed their cities in a time where rail was the king of passenger transport. So the network developed and was never lost.

Eastern Canada has no excuse though (and coincidentally is the only area with a semblance of a network). They should now have much stronger networks than they have.

I agree with not serving isolated villages. But Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg? Those aren't villages yet have almost no form of travel between them that isn't a car or plane. That is indefensible.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It may be spread out, but there are lots of areas of moderate to high density. Even Alberta would be plenty dense enough to have a decent passenger rail network if it was a European country. The problem is, when the prairies actually started getting decent population the car was already here and so roads were the primary method of passenger transport, so it is now much harder to replace. Whereas European countries, and Australia, developed their cities in a time where rail was the king of passenger transport. So the network developed and was never lost.

Eastern Canada has no excuse though (and coincidentally is the only area with a semblance of a network). They should now have much stronger networks than they have.

I agree with not serving isolated villages. But Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg? Those aren't villages yet have almost no form of travel between them that isn't a car or plane. That is indefensible.

I totally agree.

And even with a 40% decline in ridership, there will still be 1,000,000 riders who will lose an inexpensive transportation option. This is a significant loss for a country of only 37,000,000 people.

It is also not good enough to offer a provincially operated alternative since it will never offer service across a provincial boundary. So we end up with a bunch bus service islands with no way to get from point a to b if it happens to be in another province.

I am also totally opposed to eliminating passenger rail service outside the corridor routes. Even though some of these routes are mainly designed for tourists, these rail trips are world renowned. Why would we eliminate a major attraction to world wide tourists who spend money in our cities as well.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

VIA shouldn`t get involved in any long distance bus service. If the largest private sector bus carrier can`t make a go of it than neither can VIA. I think you will see secondary local carriers taking over some routes but the vast majority of riders will be left out in the cold.


I certainly can see small VIA connector routes to bring people to the nearest station such as St.Thomas to London or Leamington to Chatham but that`s it. The Vancouver-Toronto VIA run is basically just a tourist route and should be left to die. The only place in Western Canada where rail can be justified is the Calgary/Edmonton corridor which perversely doesn`t have any rail connection at all which exemplifies how political VIA is. Ouside of that corridor, the Western cities are simply too far apart to make train travel convinient or even affordable.


VIA is essentially just a Corridor service so make it such and ditch every route outside the Corridor. Take those saved millions on useless subsidies to the Atlantic and West and funnel them into Corridor.

A total mistake. Canada should not become a totally backward country. Even in the USA, there will soon be a renaissance in rail service, where passenger rail service was in even worse shape than in Canada. Within about 10 years, very Conservative Florida will have a state wide and privately operated passenger rail network. Canada and Canadian investors are too timid to do the same.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The amount of subsidy + fares, probably cheaper and better to have a service feeding regional airports than force a couple freight trains off the track to give time to a passenger service sadly.

Interesting how routes like Toronto-Montreal are still subsidized, and have the largest budget shortfalls. Many people believe that those core routes turn a profit that subsidizes all of the others.

For those who don't know, some of these routes are strangely contorted for political reasons (mainly to serve particular rural areas). The Montreal-Halifax train follows a very indirect route. It takes just under 12 hours to drive between those cities (already on an indirect highway) and the train takes over 22 hours! It is also late a lot. I took it once and I think it was more like 24 hours in each direction. In some sense it's not a Montreal-Halifax train, it's a train to serve small communities along the route with limited transportation options.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by someone123

Interesting how routes like Toronto-Montreal are still subsidized, and have the largest budget shortfalls. Many people believe that those core routes turn a profit that subsidizes all of the others.

For those who don't know, some of these routes are strangely contorted for political reasons (mainly to serve particular rural areas). The Montreal-Halifax train follows a very indirect route. It takes just under 12 hours to drive between those cities (already on an indirect highway) and the train takes over 22 hours! It is also late a lot. I took it once and I think it was more like 24 hours in each direction. In some sense it's not a Montreal-Halifax train, it's a train to serve small communities along the route with limited transportation options.

You can't compare the comfort of a private train cabin with a bus seat where the passenger next to you might wet himself any minute.

I absolutely loathe taking the bus now and I only see my old parents in NB once a year since going to Beijing is shorter and at least you have alcohol on a plane.