VIA Rail

[ssiguy]

All of our transportation network is subsidized one way or another and that's OK because transportation is a neccessity of a propsperous nation. VIA should receive a subsidy and so should their low ridership routes which is basically anywhere outside the Win/Lon/Tor/Ott/Mon/QC Corridor. There is, however, a limit to what is reasonable. The Corridor has a subsidy of about $35 per-person trip while outside the Corridor it averages over $500 a trip with none of them under $400...........that kind of variation in subsidy levels is grotesque.

This obsene subsidy level of non-Corridor routes is even more outrageous when you consider that nearly all of it's passengers are international tourists. Ottawa should not be in the business of subsidizing foreign tourists up to $500 per-trip.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

All of our transportation network is subsidized one way or another and that's OK because transportation is a neccessity of a propsperous nation. There is, however,
a limit to what is "reasonable".

VIA should receive a subsidy and so should their low ridership routes which is basically anywhere outside the Win/Lon/Tor/Ott/Mon/QC Corridor. There is, however, a limit to what is reasonable. The Corridor has a subsidy of about $35 per-person trip while outside the Corridor it averages over $500 a trip with none of them under $400...........that kind of variation in subsidy levels is grotesque.

This obsene subsidy level of non-Corridor routes is even more outrageous when you consider that nearly all of it's passengers are international tourists. Ottawa should not be in the business of subsidizing foreign tourists up to $500 per-trip.

If that tourist spends more than $500 in Canada though (and they probably will), then that money was not a waste.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

All of our transportation network is subsidized one way or another and that's OK because transportation is a neccessity of a propsperous nation. There is, however,
a limit to what is "reasonable".

VIA should receive a subsidy and so should their low ridership routes which is basically anywhere outside the Win/Lon/Tor/Ott/Mon/QC Corridor. There is, however, a limit to what is reasonable. The Corridor has a subsidy of about $35 per-person trip while outside the Corridor it averages over $500 a trip with none of them under $400...........that kind of variation in subsidy levels is grotesque.

This obsene subsidy level of non-Corridor routes is even more outrageous when you consider that nearly all of it's passengers are international tourists. Ottawa should not be in the business of subsidizing foreign tourists up to $500 per-trip.

Well, in order to get away from tourists, we need it to be reliable, predictable, and regular. All of those things are not what any other route can say they are. Fix that, and we no longer cater to the tourists.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, in order to get away from tourists, we need it to be reliable, predictable, and regular. All of those things are not what any other route can say they are. Fix that, and we no longer cater to the tourists.

What do you think the non-tourist ridership demand for a daily train from Saskatoon to Edmonton will be?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What do you think the non-tourist ridership demand for a daily train from Saskatoon to Edmonton will be?

Right now, I have no answer. I have not looked into the various modes of transportation to determine any numbers, yet.

However, those numbers are useless if we cannot keep the train on schedule.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If that tourist spends more than $500 in Canada though (and they probably will), then that money was not a waste.

And not all tourists are foreign.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Right now, I have no answer. I have not looked into the various modes of transportation to determine any numbers, yet.

However, those numbers are useless if we cannot keep the train on schedule.

Then how can you be so confident that spending money to run a train daily to cater for local traffic would be money well spent? The demand for such a low quality service, even if it was so heavily subsidized to be cheap is likely in the order of dozens of people a day.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Then how can you be so confident that spending money to run a train daily to cater for local traffic would be money well spent? The demand for such a low quality service, even if it was so heavily subsidized to be cheap is likely in the order of dozens of people a day.

The only party that has that information is Via when they ran both the Super Continental and the Canadian and an Edmonton to Lloydminster or North Battleford RDC. Via also has records of what the ridership is on the Canadian via Saskatoon. This makes it difficult for anyone promoting change to get the information to support a change. That being said if the Canadian was rerouted from Saskatoon to Edmonton via North Battleford, Lloydminster, Vegreville, Fort Saskatchewan ridership would increase because the cities/towns have more population than on the existing route via Wainwright.

If the train was rerouted via CP from Winnipeg to Regina and then on to Saskatoon it would service even more people. You could then use the data to determine if another frequency is warranted or if there is sufficient ridership to replace the train with either a Winnipeg - Regina - Saskatoon and a Regina - Saskatoon - Edmonton train via Lloydminster.

Having a Winnipeg - Regina - Calgary train should be a no brainer. The only reason reason why the Canadian was transferred from CP to CN tracks was because Don Mazonkowski was the Minister of Transport for the PC's. The population is much greater along the CP and Trans-Canada Highway than along Highway 16 or via the CN line.

Since the do nothing option does not appear to be working or what people want we should be examining all possibilities.

[ssiguy]

What should be done is to increase frequencies exponentially on The Canadian between Edmonton & Winnipeg and bring back the Calgary -Winnipeg route. Instead of 3 trains a week, there should be 4 trains a day leaving and arriving at Winnipeg and their destinations should be split in 2.....two to Edmonton and two to Calgary. This would make the system a viable for one for the travelling public and should be done for a 2 year trial basis.

The caveat? The trains would only recive a subsidy of $50 per-rider instead of the $500 currently. This at least brings it down to subsidy that is much closeer to The Corridor which is still 30% lower at $35. If this means that the fares for the trips will have to rise significantly to cover the added costs then so be it. If the trains are not viable at such a price, Westerners will have shown that frequencies & service are not the issue but rather that they just don't want/need/aren't willing to pay for train service.............use it or lose it.

If the trains see significant ridership increases that make the service viable at the $50 subsidy then keep the trains and everyone is a winner, taxpayers, tourists, and the travelling public. If however the trains are not viable then they should cancel the entire routes for good and VIA can legitimately say that you had your chance and you blew it.

The same thing should be done for every non-Corridor route in the country and then we will found out who really wants and is willing to pay for good train service and those that just say we need it but never take it...……...put up or shut up.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The only party that has that information is Via when they ran both the Super Continental and the Canadian and an Edmonton to Lloydminster or North Battleford RDC. Via also has records of what the ridership is on the Canadian via Saskatoon. This makes it difficult for anyone promoting change to get the information to support a change. That being said if the Canadian was rerouted from Saskatoon to Edmonton via North Battleford, Lloydminster, Vegreville, Fort Saskatchewan ridership would increase because the cities/towns have more population than on the existing route via Wainwright.

If the train was rerouted via CP from Winnipeg to Regina and then on to Saskatoon it would service even more people. You could then use the data to determine if another frequency is warranted or if there is sufficient ridership to replace the train with either a Winnipeg - Regina - Saskatoon and a Regina - Saskatoon - Edmonton train via Lloydminster.

Having a Winnipeg - Regina - Calgary train should be a no brainer. The only reason reason why the Canadian was transferred from CP to CN tracks was because Don Mazonkowski was the Minister of Transport for the PC's. The population is much greater along the CP and Trans-Canada Highway than along Highway 16 or via the CN line.

Since the do nothing option does not appear to be working or what people want we should be examining all possibilities.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What should be done is to increase frequencies exponentially on The Canadian between Edmonton & Winnipeg and bring back the Calgary -Winnipeg route. Instead of 3 trains a week, there should be 4 trains a day leaving and arriving at Winnipeg and their destinations should be split in 2.....two to Edmonton and two to Calgary. This would make the system a viable for one for the travelling public and should be done for a 2 year trial basis.

The caveat? The trains would only recive a subsidy of $50 per-rider instead of the $500 currently. This at least brings it down to subsidy that is much closeer to The Corridor which is still 30% lower at $35. If this means that the fares for the trips will have to rise significantly to cover the added costs then so be it. If the trains are not viable at such a price, Westerners will have shown that frequencies & service are not the issue but rather that they just don't want/need/aren't willing to pay for train service.............use it or lose it.

If the trains see significant ridership increases that make the service viable at the $50 subsidy then keep the trains and everyone is a winner, taxpayers, tourists, and the travelling public. If however the trains are not viable then they should cancel the entire routes for good and VIA can legitimately say that you had your chance and you blew it.

The same thing should be done for every non-Corridor route in the country and then we will found out who really wants and is willing to pay for good train service and those that just say we need it but never take it...……...put up or shut up.

I like the idea, but it still doesn't fix one important thing - punctuality. If it cannot arrive on time, it will not be used. That is one reason the Corridor works, it stays reasonably on time. This needs to happen to the line or it will fail.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I like the idea, but it still doesn't fix one important thing - punctuality. If it cannot arrive on time, it will not be used. That is one reason the Corridor works, it stays reasonably on time. This needs to happen to the line or it will fail.

This is why a Winnipeg-Brandon-Regina-Saskatoon route makes sense. Most of the freight originating west of Moose Jaw and destined to the US on CP has turned SE at Pasqua just east of Moose Jaw towards North Portal. This puts less volume on the mainline between there and Winnipeg. You have quality track with CTC which should allow for adherence to schedules. The line between Regina and Saskatoon is underused so there is lots of capacity if though the quality is currently low. Between Saskatoon and Edmonton via Lloydminster there are only about 6 freights a day (3 each way) on quality but unsignalled track. This means that service between Winnipeg and Edmonton could be quite fast and reliable.

On the CN mainline there is still a shortage of double track sections and a lower population along the route to allow better on time performance and ridership. The CP mainline west of Moose Jaw to Calgary is busy and at times trains occupy the mainline while blocks of cars are added to trains. This would adversely affect passenger train performance but could be rectified with selected improvements.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If that tourist spends more than $500 in Canada though (and they probably will), then that money was not a waste.

This isn't the right way to look at it. A better framing is whether they would spend more than $500 extra beyond what they would have spent without the subsidy. And even that's not right because the people getting the > $500 are not the same ones paying.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This obsene subsidy level of non-Corridor routes is even more outrageous when you consider that nearly all of it's passengers are international tourists. Ottawa should not be in the business of subsidizing foreign tourists up to $500 per-trip.

Yes although it's been established that while Canada has long distance routes that sort of go near most populated areas, they don't serve the major areas in a useful way aside from in parts of Ontario and Quebec. This is no doubt related to why the subsidy is so large.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

This isn't the right way to look at it. A better framing is whether they would spend more than $500 extra beyond what they would have spent without the subsidy. And even that's not right because the people getting the > $500 are not the same ones paying.

I think what he means is that the famous train trip is why many of them are here to begin with so there otherwise wouldn't even be a "what they would have spent without the subsidy". I'd say there's some merit to the argument considering the multi-day time frame these long trips require is as long as people's whole vacations when you include the travel time to/from.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What should be done is to increase frequencies exponentially on The Canadian between Edmonton & Winnipeg and bring back the Calgary -Winnipeg route. Instead of 3 trains a week, there should be 4 trains a day leaving and arriving at Winnipeg and their destinations should be split in 2.....two to Edmonton and two to Calgary. This would make the system a viable for one for the travelling public and should be done for a 2 year trial basis.

The caveat? The trains would only recive a subsidy of $50 per-rider instead of the $500 currently. This at least brings it down to subsidy that is much closeer to The Corridor which is still 30% lower at $35. If this means that the fares for the trips will have to rise significantly to cover the added costs then so be it. If the trains are not viable at such a price, Westerners will have shown that frequencies & service are not the issue but rather that they just don't want/need/aren't willing to pay for train service.............use it or lose it.

If the trains see significant ridership increases that make the service viable at the $50 subsidy then keep the trains and everyone is a winner, taxpayers, tourists, and the travelling public. If however the trains are not viable then they should cancel the entire routes for good and VIA can legitimately say that you had your chance and you blew it.

The same thing should be done for every non-Corridor route in the country and then we will found out who really wants and is willing to pay for good train service and those that just say we need it but never take it...……...put up or shut up.

The only problem with this is unless Via is funded properly and given legal priority running rights over freight we will still be stuck with unreliable service , even if it is frequent. If the scheduling, quality of equipment, speed, frequency, priority and on time performance is not improved no one will ride it even if you threaten the public. the government and railways have many ways to make sure it doesn't work.

[ssiguy]

While reliability is certainly a valid concern, if the West is waiting for CN & CP to give up their lines for VIA, then we might as well shut the whole damn thing down right now and call it a day. If The Corridor can't even get control over it's rail routes then all other routes never will.

I still say such a trial proposal would do a lot of good and by running both the Western lines would give VIA the ability to make informed decisions based upon real financial and economics and not political gain. All routes in the country outside The Corridor should be offered far higher frequencies on a $50 per-ride subsidy for 2 years and then let the chips fall where they may. It really is time for people to either put up or shut up and if the routes are not viable then VIA should close them down and the bitching populace can legitimately be told that they had their chance and they blew it.

Many people, including on this forum, seem to have this notion that we should keep the rails running just for the sake of nostalgia which is a good chunk of the reason that VIA provides an inferior service to begin with.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The only problem with this is unless Via is funded properly and given legal priority running rights over freight we will still be stuck with unreliable service , even if it is frequent. If the scheduling, quality of equipment, speed, frequency, priority and on time performance is not improved no one will ride it even if you threaten the public. the government and railways have many ways to make sure it doesn't work.

If I were to fix one thing, it would be the on time problem. If it is scheduled to be in Vancouver at 0800, then it better be there by then. Again, change this to GO Train and ask what would happen if they were late.

[ssiguy]

What really ticks me off about this whole conversation, is that this conversation proceeds from a false asumptiion................that people want better rail service. I think that assumption is true in The Corridor but outside of it, no so much. If it was put to a national vote outside The Corridor and the question was whether you want to see the same losy VIA rail service continue at a $500 subsidy or would you rather have that subsidy used for other local/provincial transportation needs, I'm willing to bet most people would prefer the latter.

I know in BC where VIA is no more than an illusion, people would FAR rather have that subsidy go towards reducing the BC Ferry fares. In Alberta, I bet most would rather have that subsidy diverted to getting rail back where it's needed........the Ed/RD/Ca corridor. Manitoban and Sask would probably rather use that subsidy for better bus connections, and Atlantic Canadians would probably prefer using their portion to get rid of/reduce their tolled roads and bridges. Go ask the people of Moncton or PEI whether they would rather have The Ocean or a toll-free Confederation or ask Haligonians if they would rather have The Ocean or a free McKay & MacDonald bridges and I bet we wouldn't even be having this conversation about what to do with VIA service in The Maritimes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While reliability is certainly a valid concern, if the West is waiting for CN & CP to give up their lines for VIA, then we might as well shut the whole damn thing down right now and call it a day. If The Corridor can't even get control over it's rail routes then all other routes never will.

I still say such a trial proposal would do a lot of good and by running both the Western lines would give VIA the ability to make informed decisions based upon real financial and economics and not political gain. All routes in the country outside The Corridor should be offered far higher frequencies on a $50 per-ride subsidy for 2 years and then let the chips fall where they may. It really is time for people to either put up or shut up and if the routes are not viable then VIA should close them down and the bitching populace can legitimately be told that they had their chance and they blew it.

Many people, including on this forum, seem to have this notion that we should keep the rails running just for the sake of nostalgia which is a good chunk of the reason that VIA provides an inferior service to begin with.

You cannot do this without the rolling stock. It is pointless to do a 2 year trial when spending many, many millions on additional rolling stock and then if it fails, what are we going to do with all those trains?

This has to be better planned out so that it is not going to fail.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What really ticks me off about this whole conversation, is that this conversation proceeds from a false asumptiion................that people want better rail service. I think that assumption is true in The Corridor but outside of it, no so much. If it was put to a national vote outside The Corridor and the question was whether you want to see the same losy VIA rail service continue at a $500 subsidy or would you rather have that subsidy used for other local/provincial transportation needs, I'm willing to bet most people would prefer the latter.

I know in BC where VIA is no more than an illusion, people would FAR rather have that subsidy go towards reducing the BC Ferry fares. In Alberta, I bet most would rather have that subsidy diverted to getting rail back where it's needed........the Ed/RD/Ca corridor. Manitoban and Sask would probably rather use that subsidy for better bus connections, and Atlantic Canadians would probably prefer using their portion to get rid of/reduce their tolled roads and bridges. Go ask the people of Moncton or PEI whether they would rather have The Ocean or a toll-free Confederation or ask Haligonians if they would rather have The Ocean or a free McKay & MacDonald bridges and I bet we wouldn't even be having this conversation about what to do with VIA service in The Maritimes.

A $500 subsidy on passengers between Vancouver and Toronto is not really so different from a $50 subsidy on passengers between Calgary and Edmonton. You have to consider the distance. A better view of this is % fare recovery. The Canadian's fare recovery is not much different from the corridor routes. It is already comparable or better than most public transit systems in Canada.