VIA Rail network developments

[Urban_Sky]

Re: Canadian

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yes, but do we really need a single train that runs all the way from Lake Ontario to the Pacific ocean?

I don't know, CN used to cover most of the route with local trains (mostly mixed passenger&freight trains, but whereas CN (and later VIA) have always offered long-distance night trains over the entire route, all local trains have already disappeared 30 years ago (most of them even 50 years ago), as this overview (the numbers indicate the number of trains per week) shows:

Compiled from: historic CN and VIA timetables (effective dates are shown)

Originally Posted by roger1818

As it is, to make the journey from coast to coast, you would need to make two other transfers. What is the harm in increasing the number of transfers if it provides better service to the communities along the way?

Indeed a coast-to-coast journey by rail requires changes in Toronto and Montreal. However, only hardcore rail fans would do that trip without spending at least one night in either city and the average international tourist would probably spend at least two nights in either city. By forcing passengers to spend nights in places like Sudbury (Capreol), Hornepayne, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Kamloops, you are adding multiple days to their itinary while removing the "land cruise" atmosphere which motivates passengers to spend multiple days and nights on board the train. In other words: converting the Canadian from its current format to a series of day-train routes would escalate the time commitment (think: vacation days) required for exploring and traversing Canada by rail, while diminishing the leisure/recreational value to a not less dramatic degree.

But it’s certainly not just the tourists which would loose out, it’s also those intercity markets you claim to serve better: a passenger travelling from Winnipeg to Edmonton is not served better by spending two full days in transit and having to pay a Hotel night in Saskatoon compared to a 23 hour train ride currently. Even worse, the 12 hours and forced hotel night would also be added to relatively short trips like Melville to Biggar (currently 7 hours).
I’d like to share this highly interesting article “Amtrak shouldn’t axe the national network”, which argued the following:

We need a national network
It’s important to keep Amtrak’s long-distance trains, even though they’re not profitable. A recent white paper from the National Association of Railroad Passengers elaborates on many points.
One major reason is that the long-distance trains and shorter ones fit together into a system. They’re not completely isolated.
The Southwest Chief might run over 2200 miles across the nation. But many riders are not going all the way from Los Angeles to Chicago. Some are only going between Los Angeles and Flagstaff. Others ride between Albuquerque and Trinidad. And Kansas City to Chicago is a very popular pair of stations on the route.
[The Brookings report] seems to think that 400 miles is where passenger rail stops being competitive. And that may be the case. But just because the train goes more than 400 miles doesn’t mean that the passenger has to.

The article points out that braking up a long-distance route at any point affects the vast majority of travellers (and introducing forced Hotel stays is not much less extreme than removing a supposedly “weak” link), as it demonstrates with the following figure:

Originally Posted by roger1818

The Canadian is a lovely train (I took it once and it was wonderful), but I am not convinced it service the western communities it travels through very well. I don't understand why you argue in one post that "nobody wants to arrive after 2am or depart before 5am" yet that is what the Canadian does for many communities and in this case, there is no other option for a daytime train.

Of course it doesn't serve those communities well, but I don't see how any schedule adhering to the countless constraints imposed by the current level of funding, frequencies, fleet, travel speeds and travel time predictability available, could serve any intercity market adequately. As for departing or arriving at ungodly times, passengers are much more forgiving for such timings if no other timings are available with any public mode – and most importantly: in the case of night trains on the Corridor, the demand for overnight travel is vastly outstripped by the demand for short-distance travel, whereas it is the opposite on the Canadian…

Originally Posted by roger1818

But it didn't turn a profit. Now, I don't have a problem subsidizing transportation services if it is for the better good, but the vast majority of those riding on the Canadian are foreign tourists. If a study can show that those tourists then turn around and spend enough money in Canada to make it worth the Canadian government subsidizing their vacation, then fine, but I somehow doubt that is true.

You still don’t seem to understand the less-than-subtle difference between a “subsidised product/service” and a “subsidised operation”: A subsidised product/service means that the revenues are not sufficient to offset the direct costs associated with its provision, whereas a “subsidised operation” means that the revenues are sufficient to offset the direct costs, but not the operation’s fixed costs. Or in other words: a subsidised product/service charges below its marginal cost, whereas a subsidised operation only charges below its average costs (which decrease with every additional unit demanded). The implication is significant, as every additional unit demanded increases the total deficit of a subsidised product/service, while it decreases that of a subsidised operation.

I can only think of three items which would count as direct costs when taking the Canadian and that is the payment processing fee at booking, the bag of toiletries provided to Sleeper passengers when checking into their cabins/berths and the food and beverages which is served to Sleeper passengers as part of complimentary meals and drinks. Assuming a credit card processing fee of 1.5% and product costs of $20 per toiletries bag or meal, the cost of my (unfortunately to this date: only) trip on the Canadian (I travelled with my wife Toronto-Vancouver in a Cabin for 2 with a layover of 48 hours in Jasper) would have been $484.92 (i.e, $242.46 per person, see table further below for more detailed calculations), considering that we were served 10 meals and my credit card was charged $2,944.99, and would equal a cost-recovery rate of 617.6% (or more than 6 times marginal costs)!

However, since you are so obsessed with average figures, let’s do the calculations again with the average operating cost per passenger, which was $1,102.12 in 2015, still a cost-recovery rate of 135.9% with $1,497.50 paid per person (and this already pays for a share of corporate overheads, such as my own salary). Or what about the per-passenger-mile cost? That comes out to $0.94 ($98,888,000 in costs divided by 105,215,556 passenger-miles) and translates into an operating cost of $2,608.11 (2775 miles * $0.94), which represents an individual cost-recovery rate of 57.4%.

This means that my trip generated for each of us a marginal profit of either $1,255.03 or $395.37 or a marginal deficit of $1,110.62, depending on whether only marginal costs are included or average costs based on per-passenger or per-passenger-mile costs. But is there really a deficit on a per-passenger-mile cost basis? Well, for international travellers the sales tax would represent an incremental tax revenue which would bring the deficit down to $915.94 and individual cost-recovery up to 64.9%. So when would my trip (had I been a foreign tourist) broken-even from a taxpayer perspective? If we assume a sales tax rate of 12% (i.e. the sales tax of BC) for all expenses the tourist has besides taking the Canadian (i.e. other transportation costs like flights, rental cars or transit, accommodation costs, restaurant costs, groceries, leisure activities or shopping), then we can determine the required amount of taxable spending by dividing the remaining deficit by 12% (granted, things like groceries are charged much less – if any – sales tax, but on the other side, consumption taxes are added on top of sales tax for other items, like alcohol and fuel). In our case, that would have required a taxable spending of $7,632.87 per person, which falls well short of the $2,345.75 my household book recalls as being what each of us spent during the trip and results in a cost-recovery rate of 75.7%.

Nevertheless, using the cost and revenue figures of the quarter (rather than the year we traveled, i.e. Q2-2015 instead of 2015) brings our operating cost down to $859.01 (if calculated on a per-passenger basis) and $1.997.05 (if calculated on a per-2775-passenger-miles basis), which represents an individual cost-recovery of 174.3% and 75.0%, respectively, for our trip. Correspondingly, a taxable spending of now only $2,540.67 would have brought the latter figure to 100%, which is only $194.92 more than the $2.345.75 each of us actually spent, thus representing a cost-recovery rate of 98.8% or a net subsidy of only $23.39. Which is why I consider my trip (a shoulder-season trip on the Canadian to Vancouver with a 2 nights spent in the Rockies, 3 nights in Vancouver and 4 nights on Vancouver Island) as a trip which was virtually cost-neutral to the taxpayer and that despite having secured deep discounts at one of VIA’s sleeper sales.

However, things have changed a lot in the last 3 years and especially when it concerns the financial performance of VIA Rail. So how would these numbers look for international tourists taking the Canadian this summer?
Unfortunately, the most recent financial figures we have for the Canadian are 2017 (for full year) and Q3-2018 (for a quarter). I therefore researched fares for the first date in Q3-2019 (i.e. the most popular travel season) where discounted fares were available for all classes (note that there are no discounted fares in Prestige Class, not even any discount for single vs. double occupancy):

• Assuming a Cabin for 1 or a Cabin for 2 (the per-passenger price is exactly the same for both accommodation types, which represent the choice of the majority of Sleeper passengers) and deflating the fares by 10% (to simulate the simulate a more realistic price level for 2017), the deflated fare of $2,161.13 would have covered 856.2% of its direct costs, 193.6% of its per-passenger operating costs and 85.6% of its per-2775-passenger-miles costs. The latter increases to 96.8% if the sales tax is added, which means that a taxable spending of $676.94 is needed to become cost-neutral to the taxpayer.
• Projecting this trip onto Q3-2018 rather than 2017 and correspondingly deflating the fare by 5%, the deflated fare of $2,281.19 would have covered 897.3% of its direct costs, 270.4% of its per-passenger operating costs and 113.5% of its per-2775-passenger-miles costs. This means that taking the train in this scenario actually represents the same benefit (!) to the taxpayer as spending $4,739.53 on fully taxed goods and services in BC.
• Assuming a trip in Prestige class instead (projected onto 2017), the deflated fare of $5,410.44 would have covered 931.0% of direct costs (note that I have increased the assumed product price of the toiletry bag to $100 and doubled the meal costs to reflect that Prestige passengers receive presumably better handouts and also have alcoholic beverages included in their fare), 484.7% of its per-passenger operating costs and 214.4% of its per-2775-passenger-miles costs. This means that taking the train in this scenario actually represents the same benefit (!) to the taxpayer as spending $29,920.77 (!) on fully taxed goods and services in BC.
• Projecting this same trip in Prestige Class onto Q3-2018 rather than 2017, the deflated fare of $5,711.02 would have covered 975.1% of its direct costs, 677.0% of its per-passenger operating costs and 284.3% of its per-2775-passenger-miles costs. This means that taking the train in this scenario actually represents the same benefit (!) to the taxpayer as spending $37,037.12 on fully taxed goods and services in BC.

I hope that above figures become easier to follow with below tables:


Compiled from: VIA Rail’s Annual Reports 2015 and 2017 and Quarterly Reports Q2-2015 and Q3-2018.
I know that this is a far cry of “a study [which] can show that those tourists then turn around and spend enough money in Canada to make it worth the Canadian government subsidizing their vacation”, but it gives me enough confidence to tell you that you are probably wrong with doubting this…

Originally Posted by roger1818

It also has the second highest subsidy per passenger (behind only the Winnipeg-Churchill train) and the largest total subsidy ($41 million) of any route, for a train that I believe only ran three times a week at the time (it has since been cut to twice a week).

At the same time, the Canadian has the highest average fare of every route ($723.45 or five times the Ocean as the route with the second-highest fare and 11 times the Corridor) and second-largest revenue figure ($76 million), which might show you why it is meaningless to compare routes by their per-passenger or absolute figures…

Originally Posted by roger1818

Using back of the napkin math and the Sudbury-White River train as an example. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is about 1/10 the length of the Canadian. If VIA offered similar daytime services, the same 3 days a week, strung from Toronto to Vancouver, I would guess it would cost $36,160,000 to operate, generate $2,340,000 in revenue and thus require $33,820,000 in subsidies (less than the Canadian) and transport 63,520 people.

Hang on a second, the Sudbury-White River is the only VIA route operated with RDCs, which have much lower operating costs (fuel efficiency!) than locomotive-hauled trains. As VIA has only 3 more RDCs spare (ear-marked for Vancouver Island, but nobody there seems to be willing to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements for restoring service so far). This means that only one of your series of daytime-only trains can be operated with RDCs, while the others have to be locomotive-hauled.

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is fewer passengers than the Canadian, but most of those loses would be in foreign tourists (though many might still use it) and instead it would provide much better service to Canadians who live along the route. I would much rather see that type of service.

If you wanted to provide “better service to Canadians” (presumably those living in the prairies), you would fill the void left by the departure of Greyhound with intelligent public service agreements (PSAs), which create an extensive, coordinated, efficient and affordable (for riders and taxpayers alike) intercity bus network…

Originally Posted by roger1818

Now I admit my math is oversimplified, as some stretches would not do as well, but others would do much better.

Have a look at the current timetable of the Canadian and divide the travel time into segments which have less than 14 hours of travel time (10 hours if you want to avoid requiring 2 crews of locomotive engineers) and I will try to work some back-of-the-envelop calculations which give you a better idea of what kind of service you would receive and what kind of subsidy it might require (and how both compares to the Status Quo)...

Originally Posted by roger1818

Now Combine that with service to other major cities that no longer do (like Calgary and Regina) and we could have something really interesting.

You can blame many things for these cities not having any passenger rail service, but certainly not the $41 million operational subsidy (representing $1 per Canadian) which was allocated to the Canadian in 2017…

[acottawa]

What portion of passengers actually take the train for its whole length? I would imagine there is massively higher demand for Edmonton-Vancouver than the whole route.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

What portion of passengers actually take the train for its whole length? I would imagine there is massively higher demand for Edmonton-Vancouver than the whole route.

Dividing the subsidy-per-passenger figure by the subsidy-per-passenger mile figure in the 2017 Annual Plan yields 1976 km ($392.84/$0.32=1228 miles) as average distance travelled, while dividing the passenger-mile figure by the passenger count in the Q3-2018 Quarterly Report yields 1875 km (44,277,000/38,000=1165 miles). Keep in mind that this is an average, which includes passengers travelling in Economy class, which might travel shorter distances than Sleeper passengers...

To compare, some distances:

• Toronto-Winnipeg: 1943 km
• Winnipeg-Vancouver: 2523 km
• Edmonton-Vancouver: 1245 km
• Toronto-Vancouver: 4466 km

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is a 35 minute improvement in travel time on the Montreal-Toronto route and an hour on the Ottawa-Toronto route (if Via’s estimates are accurate). I don’t think there is any precedent for time improvements of that magnitude leading to doubling of ridership.

You are looking at this wrong. It's not just trip time improvement. It's a massive upgrade in reliability, a boost in frequency and substantially more seats offered.

And those improvements altogether create a service offering that is near competitive with air on the Ottawa-Toronto market and an offering competitive with everything but air on the Montreal-Toronto market, all for prices that are about the same as rail today or better.

[CityTech]

I think frequency is the bigger one. Ridership on the Ottawa-Toronto line has increased dramatically since 2012 even though reliability and speed have both worsened.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is hard to see where a pension plan or other investor could see profit potential in HFR, with or without the CIB. Via simply can’t charge high enough fares to cover operating costs, capital costs plus profit for the investor. There are just too many transportation options in the corridor.

Those same pension plans have no issues investing in high capital rail projects elsewhere. And "too many options" hasn't stopped rail being profitable in busy corridors elsewhere.

I'd withhold judgement till we see more on the plan. And FWIW, the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor has a lot of similarities to some major European corridors. I think, for example, it's quite comparable to Barcelona-Madrid, one of the most successful (and profitable) high speed rail corridors in the world. Similar population levels. Similar distances. And working in favour of VIA, very expensive flights (unlike Europe). I think there's definitely opportunity here, for someone with experience and capital to build something like HFR. And that's where those pension plans may be interested.

The question of whether VIA can charge enough to cover capital and operating costs and generate enough profit is what those studies and business plan are all about. You may be right, and maybe the business case is terrible. And the pension plans don't want to touch this with a 10-ft pole. I'm just not sure, how you can judge this, based on what we know today. I don't think you or anybody else can definitively say that such a plan can or can't be profitable without some serious deep dive. HFR won't be anything like what VIA offers today. So the passenger numbers, average fare, etc. will all be different. I don't think superficial analysis like, "they'll only reduce cost $1 per passenger" is valid or useful at all.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I think frequency is the bigger one. Ridership on the Ottawa-Toronto line has increased dramatically since 2012 even though reliability and speed have both worsened.

There's always a temptation to see everything through the lens of the way things are at present. But I don't think you can straight-line approximate such things.

Major investment like this is always about attracting new passengers. In this case, it isn't just about shifting passengers from air and car to rail. But also about attracting new passengers to the fold.

VIA will be able to capture a ton of passengers from the bus market. And probably a decent chunk of Ottawa-Toronto air travel market. The real question is how much it can divert those who drive and how much new travel HFR can induce. Will more people travel between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal simply because there's a reasonably priced and reasonably timed option. That's the question.

I'd say yes. But there's also pessimists who might say no. Need some real polling data to answer this question more accurately.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You are looking at this wrong. It's not just trip time improvement. It's a massive upgrade in reliability, a boost in frequency and substantially more seats offered.

And those improvements altogether create a service offering that is near competitive with air on the Ottawa-Toronto market and an offering competitive with everything but air on the Montreal-Toronto market, all for prices that are about the same as rail today or better.

I think you’re identifying the attributes you want the service to have and then assuming it will be like that. We don’t know anything about the pricing, we don’t know anything about the number of seats on offer. Whether the reliability increase is massive depends on what solutions are found in Toronto and Montreal and the extent to which the design of the line avoids conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians. It will get rid of the parking and waiting for a freight train delays, but those are mostly baked into the schedule.

But even if all of those things come true, I still don’t see this as nearly a big of game changer as you do. Via’s current niche (besides seniors, students and bureaucrats) is people travelling alone, who don’t need a car at the destination and whose destination is close to the city centre. That will still be the niche under HFR. It will still be cheaper to take the bus, or drive (particularly with passengers). It will still be faster to fly. It will still be more convenient to drive if you need a car at destination or are going to most of the suburbs.

I am sure it will attract more riders, but I don’t see precedent for ridership doubling.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think you’re identifying the attributes you want the service to have and then assuming it will be like that.

No. I am basing my points on what VIA has told us to date.

https://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks

VIA says 95% reliability. VIA says triple the number of trains per day in the corridor.

I will say that I am inferring about price. And mostly because I can't see them achieving the predicted 9.9 million by 2030 without some improvement in pricing. On this point, I actually see them maintaining or raising average fares while still offering cheaper fares. Being more competitive with air will certainly allow them to capture some higher revenue travelers. While offering more seats (owing to offer more trains) will let them offer some cheaper fares too.

Originally Posted by acottawa

But even if all of those things come true, I still don’t see this as nearly a big of game changer as you do.

If you can't see 10 million annual ridership in just the Corridor as a game changer, I don't know what to tell you.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Via’s current niche (besides seniors, students and bureaucrats) is people travelling alone, who don’t need a car at the destination and whose destination is close to the city centre. That will still be the niche under HFR.

You seem to really have an issue picturing anybody but single travelers taking the train. That's what this debate comes down to. All I can say, is that I've traveled enough to see how trains are used elsewhere in the world. And I don't see the situation as you do.

But either way, I don't see why the niche you describe is something so easily dismissed. That's the bulk of all travelers flying, bussing or taking a train today.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It will still be cheaper to take the bus, or drive (particularly with passengers).

Sure. But it won't be anywhere as fast. And that's where driving and the bus win today. They are just as fast and cheaper. With HFR, they'd only be cheaper. So there's a clear trade-off between time and cost.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It will still be faster to fly.

It will also be a lot more expensive. And at least with Toronto-Ottawa, the question becomes whether the amount spent is worth the time saved. 3 hrs saved on a roundtrip. Is that worth the extra $100? Would the extra time on the train be productive? There's a lot more to it than just faster = better.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It will still be more convenient to drive if you need a car at destination or are going to most of the suburbs.

Doesn't stop people from flying or bussing today.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am sure it will attract more riders, but I don’t see precedent for ridership doubling.

Overnight? No. Over a decade? I don't see the issue with it. There's a lot of latent demand in my opinion. And this is the region of the country that has steady population growth.

[lrt's friend]

There is nothing more fun than travelling in a group on a train. You can't say the same about group travel on a plane these days, and it is questionable about the fun in a car when someone has to be paying attention to the road and traffic. The 401 is perhaps the best advertisement for VIA rail.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is nothing more fun than travelling in a group on a train. You can't say the same about group travel on a plane these days, and it is questionable about the fun in a car when someone has to be paying attention to the road and traffic. The 401 is perhaps the best advertisement for VIA rail.

For a group of 4 adults to go to Toronto this weekend would cost $922. Driving is less than a hundred bucks in gas. Even if you rent a car and have to pay for downtown parking you are still way ahead driving. Yeah, some people are going to decide that that not dealing with the hassle of the 401 is worth more than $800, but I think that would be a minority opinion.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

For a group of 4 adults to go to Toronto this weekend would cost $922. Driving is less than a hundred bucks in gas. Even if you rent a car and have to pay for downtown parking you are still way ahead driving. Yeah, some people are going to decide that that not dealing with the hassle of the 401 is worth more than $800, but I think that would be a minority opinion.

I got $832.

And this goes back to what I was saying. VIA can't price seats like this to get 10 million riders. The pricing you see here is a result of their revenue management system ramping up as they run out of seats to sell. Likewise airlines are showing > $1400 for 4 to depart on Friday and return on Sunday.

Once we get to the point where they have ≥ 15 departures a day in each direction, their revenue model will shift too. Lot more seats to fill. Prices will have to stay down.

[zzptichka]

I've been riding VIA to Toronto every couple of months in 2017-2018 and generally you can get a ticket for $50 adult/$25 child if you book 2-3 weeks in advance.
It might not be a cheap option for spontaneous family trips but if you plan in advance it's no different than the bus.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

I've been riding VIA to Toronto every couple of months in 2017-2018 and generally you can get a ticket for $50 adult/$25 child if you book 2-3 weeks in advance.
It might not be a cheap option for spontaneous family trips but if you plan in advance it's no different than the bus.

I was able to get round trip VIA tickets to Toronto for less than 50 bucks each way.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I was able to get round trip VIA tickets to Toronto for less than 50 bucks each way.

IIRC it's $45 on early morning departures/late night arrivals and $50 on all other trains.

[zzptichka]

There is some talk at city hall next week about trains:

Urban Forum Lecture Updates
Turbotrains, Jettrains and Beyond: High Speed Rail in Canada
Thursday, January 17, 2019 @ 7:00pm
Champlain Room, Ottawa City Hall, Heritage Building, Second Floor, 110 Laurier Ave. West
Speaker: Paul Langan Founder, High Speed Rail Canada

Mr. Langan started his advocacy career in Canadian passenger rail in 1991 when, trying to buy a CANRAIL pass at the railway station in Windsor Ontario, he was told by VIA Rail that Canadians could not buy the pass. After successfully fighting VIA Rail in federal court, VIA was forced to offer the pass to Canadians. This began Mr. Langan’s passion to improve passenger rail in Canada.

In 2008, Mr. Langan started the advocacy group High Speed Rail Canada to educate Canadians on high speed rail in Canada. It is acknowledged that High Speed Rail Canada is the single national resource on high speed rail information in Canada. Mr. Langan will provide an entertaining presentation and discussion on the past, present and future as it relates to the possibility of high speed rail in Canada.

Link to poster: http://urbanforum.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/High-Speed-Rail-UF-Poster_Final-1.pdf

[GoTrans]

Posting from CBC.ca/news

Via Rail expects decision on new Ontario-Quebec rail line this year

CBC News · Posted: Jan 08, 2019 8:40 AM ET | Last Updated: 3 hours ago

Via Rail wants to improve its service by building up a new rail line between Toronto and Quebec City. (Adrian Wyld/CP)
24 comments
Transport Canada is expected to approve or deny Via Rail's multi-billion-dollar proposal to flesh out a new rail line between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City by the end of the year.

A few years ago, Via Rail unveiled a $4-billion plan to increase service on the busy corridor not by letting trains go faster, but by building up a new passenger train line to the north of its current line, which it shares with freight trains.

"In southern Ontario, the current rail system along [Lake Ontario] travels in a high-traffic area, so the service has become unreliable and Via hasn't been able to expand service," said the University of Toronto's Matti Siemiatycki in an interview Monday on CBC Radio's Ontario Morning.


The federal government set aside $8 million in its 2018 budget to study the idea sometime between then and 2021, saying it would figure out its potential ridership and cost.

In an emailed statement Monday, Via Rail said it expects the government to finish its proposal and make its decision this year.

If approved, the new line would use Via Rail's new Siemens trains, which Via said would be bought at a pre-set price of up to $575 million under the deal signed last month.

A Transport Canada spokesperson said in an email it's "taking the time necessary to determine the best approach to delivering a safe, efficient and reliable intercity passenger rail service in Canada," without making the same end-of-year commitment.

Public partially in dark

The line would re-establish the train link between Toronto and Peterborough, Ont., that was cancelled in the 1990s.

Siemiatycki, an associate professor of geography and planning, said the information available doesn't let the public decide if any tax dollars invested to build tracks would be worth it.

Toronto-Peterborough commuter rail link to be studied
Via Rail's $4B plan for Quebec-Ontario route opts for 'frequency' over speed
"It's not clear the number of riders this new line would attract would outweigh the heavy costs," he said.

"We need to see the [government] studies, they cost millions of dollars. They need to be released publicly so the debate isn't based on dreams but really based on technical evidence and weighed against other alternatives."

The money could potentially be better spent expanding local public transportation in these communities or being dedicated to the regional GO Transit network in the Toronto area, he said.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

Thx, GoTrans, for posting the CBC article.
One comment on the content..... and as per lrt's friend from the Rural Commuter Rail thread #2226...

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to distinguish intercity rail from commuter rail from urban rail. They all have different purposes and equipment and fares are structured to meet their specific markets.

VIA's HFR is mainly directed to the intercity market. Seats must be available for longer distance travellers. People who are commuters will only fill those seats for a part of the trip and there is a great likelihood that those seats will be empty for the remainder of a trip.

If you go to VIA's website, you will find that the fare for Ottawa-Toronto is the same as Brockville-Toronto. The reason being that the seat purchased for Brockville-Toronto will likely be empty for Ottawa-Brockville.

It is not likely that VIA can efficiently serve commuters using the same trains that are for intercity purposes.

It is for this reason that a separate service geared to commuters is needed. The amenities on those trains will be designed for commuters. For example, there will likely be no food service even to purchase on commuter trains. Fares will be structured for shorter trips and the overall economics is to maximize train capacity at a certain point on the route, instead of maximizing the capacity from the starting point.

IE: that UofT assistant prof is mixing the different types of rail, and concentrating on the local TO viewpoint, (IMHO, not untypically for centre-of-the-universe). He does justifiably take umbrage at the lack of info and details of the VIA plan, but there is no need to mix intercity .vs. commuter to the extent that he does, both implicitly and explicitly.

VIA is pushing a plan for inter-city at high frequency, and co-incidentally also with greater speed (not HSR, but it could help lead there) and greater reliability. That involves only a few intermediate stops at locations potentially worthwhile. Where to draw that line is always a matter of debate. Ottawa - almost certainly. Peterborough - most probably (is it on the proposed route ?). One or two others - maybe, maybe not. Any more than that - I think not. This is, after all, inter-city, and not commuter. Different markets.

The revised and renewed Lakeshore - St.Lawrence service hubbed at Kingston looks to be more a LONG-distance commuter service, more in the assistant prof's baliwick. He should concentrate there.

IMHO.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

Thx, GoTrans, for posting the CBC article.
One comment on the content..... and as per lrt's friend from the Rural Commuter Rail thread #2226...


IE: that UofT assistant prof is mixing the different types of rail, and concentrating on the local TO viewpoint, (IMHO, not untypically for centre-of-the-universe). He does justifiably take umbrage at the lack of info and details of the VIA plan, but there is no need to mix intercity .vs. commuter to the extent that he does, both implicitly and explicitly.

VIA is pushing a plan for inter-city at high frequency, and co-incidentally also with greater speed (not HSR, but it could help lead there) and greater reliability. That involves only a few intermediate stops at locations potentially worthwhile. Where to draw that line is always a matter of debate. Ottawa - almost certainly. Peterborough - most probably (is it on the proposed route ?). One or two others - maybe, maybe not. Any more than that - I think not. This is, after all, inter-city, and not commuter. Different markets.

The revised and renewed Lakeshore - St.Lawrence service hubbed at Kingston looks to be more a LONG-distance commuter service, more in the assistant prof's baliwick. He should concentrate there.

IMHO.

I agree with you about the UofT prof promoting an urban centred approach that only commuter service is worthy of being funded by the federal government. We need inter-city surface transit just as much as urban and suburban transit. Intercity surface transit is a virtual wasteland in this country, especially outside the Windsor-Quebec Corridor. There are other areas that need either some service or improved service such as Calgary-Edmonton, and St John,NB to Moncton,NB to Halifax,NS.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

There is some talk at city hall next week about trains:

Lanagan is a tool. An ideological purist who argues against projects like HFR because HSR is the only acceptable solution to him. With "friends" like him, rail in Canada doesn't need enemies.

Guys like him like to pretend that moralizing and lecturing the public will magically result in politicians plopping down tens of billions for high speed rail.