VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As I pointed out, it only serves marginally more people (at least today).

In 1991
Calgary 710,795
Edmonton 616,741

Regina 179,178
Saskatoon 186,058

Southern route 889,973
Northern Route 802,799

The northern route in just 2 of their major cities has 87,174 LESS people. This is a FACT

Originally Posted by roger1818

How much local support would there actually be? Most conservatives don't care about trains and are more concerned about fiscal responsibility.

You are right, most don't. However, those that are moderates that gave Trudeau the majority out there might. Do you think the Conservatives want to loose those votes and potentially those seats?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Because the vast majority of those riding the Canadian are tourists. On the corridor, the vast majority are using it as a form of transportation. There is some wisdom in focusing on your largest customer base to keep them happy and grow the base.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Okay. You were comparing it to the eastern corridor, which has multiple trains a day, so I tried to do an apples to apples comparison.

As I said before:VIA does operate a daily train from Toronto to Niagara. It isn't a great comparison, as it is only 130km, but it is the best I can find on the current schedule. The populations are as follows:

• Toronto - 5,928,040
• St. Catharines–Niagara - 406,074

(I ignored Hamilton as it is so close and has GO service).

That is a total population of 6,334,114. If you compare that to the 1,014,970 I previously showed for Winnipeg-Regina, Toronto-Niagara has 6 times the population. According to Urban_Sky's earlier post, the average pax-load on the Toronto-Niagara route is 70. If we divide that by 6, we would get an average pax-load of only 12.

I realize this isn't a great comparison because of the differences in distances, but you also have to realize that Niagara Falls is a major, international, tourist destination and Toronto is a major, international transportation hub, which neither Winnipeg or Regina are, so that will add to the demand.

Well, now GO does too. In fact the services are the same between Hamilton and Niagara Falls as far as stations.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not suggesting they need to be profitable, but in places where the bus is a greener, cheaper, and faster option, the arguments for rail service don't make sense. To make rail the greener, cheaper, and faster option, you need a lot of passengers.

Cheaper is the same argument for profitable.

I suspect that frequency and delays are the reason that the longer route. I have talked about how a friend who wants to use the train to visit me cannot as the Canadain is lined up not to meet any inbound VIA trains in Toronto.

Also, a line that got canceled; the Northlander had no Sunday service. It ran 6 days a week. This means that using it on the weekends was not possible.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree. But you have yet to provide what those other considerations are in the case of a Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary rail corridor.

Population is and was higher.
There was less of a deficit on the southern line.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are cherry picking Urban_Sky's figures. You need to look at the big picture. On its own operated at a slightly lower deficit, but when combined with added costs to the Skeena that would result from cancellation of the northern route, overall, cancelling the southern route saved VIA Rail more money.

Added costs? Like what? A train that does not meet others? Well, the Sudbury -White River train that goes by my house does not connect with any other train, even though the Canadian does go within 10km of the route.

You like to cherry pick too.