VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Nope, never took economics. However, we have had MPs with economic degrees and that really did no good for Canada. A degree is not the same as understanding the real world applications. For example, some of the stupidest designed things have been designed by people with an engineering degree. Before you spout crap about your degree in economics ...

He was not boasting about his degree. He was trying to educate you on some basic economic principles. While I agree that having a degree doesn't give you wisdom or intelligence (there is a difference), having those who are uneducated believe they know more than those who are educated in the field is idiotic.

... I want you to look into the connection between the ring professional engineers wear and the Quebec Bridge.

The connection between the Iron Ring and the Quebec Bridge is actually a myth (I was told this during my Iron Ring ceremony, and if you don't believe me, check out Wikipedia).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why not be a bit more respectful? Urban Sky has been quite open about his profession, more than he has to, and I don't see why he should be asked to divulge more personal information to justify himself.

We are lucky to have someone that actually is an expert on the subject here. If you don't want to listen to me, fine, I'm just an interested amateur, but if someone actually works for the company and has written a thesis on the subject, that elevates them to someone who you should probably listen to.

I have been respectful.
I have not swore.
I have not been derogatory.
I have not insulted someone.

However,
I have been direct.
I have used evidence to show other reasons at play (Which some of you don't like)
I have shown evidence relating current things.

Once it is clear that someone does not want to hear all the facts, I feel I need to expose their ulterior motives or what is causing their biases. I fond out in a roads forum that one of those people works for the MTO. I now know talking to them is pointless and I just move on.

Originally Posted by milomilo

"No business case" would be something that has a BCR less than 1. Including associated economic benefits and avoided costs. A project like HFR or the Toronto DLR, Vancouver Broadway Skytrain etc will all require government money and ongoing subsidy, but they also will improve the economy of the areas they serve and mean you can avoid building roads, improve local air quality and thus health etc. So they are a good investment.

Whereas something like a Calgary - Winnipeg rail line will cost a significant amount of money. It requires investment in new trains, stations and any track upgrades required, then ongoing operating costs. And once you do that, you result in a service that will still be slower and less reliable than a bus. Since even you are not envisioning that this line will have enough demand to justify more than a train or two per day (a few hundred people?) then the economic benefits cannot possibly be large.

Low benefits/high cost = bad business case

Passenger rail is only good where the demand justifies it. Otherwise buses will provide much better service.

So, you are saying that something that could generate about the same revenue as an existing service, and cost the same as an existing service, but will require an initial high cost of acquiring rolling stock has a low Benefit-Cost Ratio, and as such should not be done?

We have fleshed out that the southern line ran at a lower deficit. So, if they kept the existing lines and had the money to run one more, you are saying that they shouldn't?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are you telling me you do not know how to use Wikipedia? Step away from the computer. Go get a hammer. Smash computer till it is dust.

Have some respect. The onus is on you to back your claims with proof. Urban_Sky does a great job of backing up his claims with public references for us to validate. You, not so much.

I don't know if you ever wrote a research paper, but you need to need to back your claims with references. If your list of references said "all my facts came from Wikipedia" without any specifics, your work would be quickly dismissed. I know it takes a bit more effort, but providing references to back up your claims will go a long way to making your argument stronger. Just putting the word "FACT" beside a statement doesn't make it true. Waving your hands doesn't do anything to convince anyone of anything.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

He was not boasting about his degree. He was trying to educate you on some basic economic principles. While I agree that having a degree doesn't give you wisdom or intelligence (there is a difference), having those who are uneducated believe they know more than those who are educated in the field is idiotic.

The connection between the Iron Ring and the Quebec Bridge is actually a myth (I was told this during my Iron Ring ceremony, and if you don't believe me, check out Wikipedia).

Thank you for educating me about the myth.

I do understand most of the basic principles of many things. So, when I want something, I go looking for things that fit those principle.

With the evidence shown here bu Urbansky, it shows me that there is a decent business case to reinstate the southern line. It shows that except for the intial cost of rolling stock, it would need less of a subsidy than the existing one.

If it had been shown it was loosing more than the existing one, then I would agree that it isn't a good idea.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Have some respect. The onus is on you to back your claims with proof. Urban_Sky does a great job of backing up his claims with public references for us to validate. You, not so much.

I don't know if you ever wrote a research paper, but you need to need to back your claims with references. If your list of references said "all my facts came from Wikipedia" without any specifics, your work would be quickly dismissed. I know it takes a bit more effort, but providing references to back up your claims will go a long way to making your argument stronger. Just putting the word "FACT" beside a statement doesn't make it true. Waving your hands doesn't do anything to convince anyone of anything.

I have yet to do a research paper. Maybe I should do one on reinstating lines of VIA.

Urbansky posted something that I used and he didn't like.

So, no, I do not just use Wikipedia.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I do understand most of the basic principles of many things. So, when I want something, I go looking for things that fit those principle.

Have you ever asked yourself what the most basic difference between an educated and an uneducated person is? The educated person is aware of (and acknowledges in discussions) the limits of his knowledge and understanding. Education is not about knowing things - it’s about becoming aware of what you don’t know...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Have you ever asked yourself what the most basic difference between an educated and an uneducated person is? The educated person is aware of (and acknowledges in discussions) the limits of his knowledge and understanding. Education is not about knowing things - it’s about becoming aware what you don’t know...

I have met educated people who do things that in the real world don't work.

I have shown using your own information that there is a valid reason to bring things back.

I know, educated people hate when intelligent people use their own information against them.

So.... I am done with the past reasons for VIA cutting service.

By your own account, the southern Canadian was loosing less money than the existing Canadian line.

As far as I can tell, the only hurdle is the high cost of rolling stock for the line if the government wanted to bring it back and did not want to subsidize it more than any other line.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, you are saying that something that could generate about the same revenue as an existing service, and cost the same as an existing service, but will require an initial high cost of acquiring rolling stock has a low Benefit-Cost Ratio, and as such should not be done?

We have fleshed out that the southern line ran at a lower deficit. So, if they kept the existing lines and had the money to run one more, you are saying that they shouldn't?

I don't car about the reasons the southern route was scrapped, and I don't care much about the northern route either. Neither are worth much from a public transit perspective to people in the prairies, but it has been explained by Urban Sky why the northern route was the one kept as the bare minimum.

The existence of both of those lines in the past has little relevance to what should be built going forward. If the Canadian is to be kept for various reasons, fine, keep it. But any other line we build should be one where the demand for public transit is highest, not where a passenger railway historically ran.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't car about the reasons the southern route was scrapped, and I don't care much about the northern route either. Neither are worth much from a public transit perspective to people in the prairies, but it has been explained by Urban Sky why the northern route was the one kept as the bare minimum.

The existence of both of those lines in the past has little relevance to what should be built going forward. If the Canadian is to be kept for various reasons, fine, keep it. But any other line we build should be one where the demand for public transit is highest, not where a passenger railway historically ran.

And this is why you and will never agree.

I can respect that.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

With the evidence shown here bu Urbansky, it shows me that there is a decent business case to reinstate the southern line. It shows that except for the intial cost of rolling stock, it would need less of a subsidy than the existing one.

Even if that was true, and it was explained to you that it isn't, that would still only justify having one of the routes. The revenue wouldn't double if you ran both lines. So if you used the southern route, then Edmonton, Jasper, Saskatoon etc wouldn't have VIA.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

And this is why you and will never agree.

I can respect that.

Why, what do you fundamentally disagree with?

Do you disagree with the statement "new passenger rail lines should be built where demand is highest, rather than where passenger rail lines have run historically"?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have been respectful.

I disagree (see my previous post)

I have not swore.

True

I have not been derogatory.

I disagree (see my previous post)

I have not insulted someone.

I disagree (see my previous post)

However,
I have been direct.

Agreed, nothing wrong with that.

I have used evidence to show other reasons at play (Which some of you don't like)
I have shown evidence relating current things.

What evidence? You rarely (if ever) back any of your statements up with references. People on here aren't objecting to you having a different opinion, or even being proven wrong, but you haven't provided a convincing argument.

Once it is clear that someone does not want to hear all the facts, I feel I need to expose their ulterior motives or what is causing their biases. I fond out in a roads forum that one of those people works for the MTO. I now know talking to them is pointless and I just move on.

We want to hear all the facts. It just that you haven't provided any (at least none that are relevant).

Who cares if there was train service between two cities 30 years ago. Just because two cities are a certain distance apart doesn't mean that there is a huge demand for travel between the tow of them. How many cars, buses, or planes travel between those two cities?

So, you are saying that something that could generate about the same revenue as an existing service, and cost the same as an existing service, but will require an initial high cost of acquiring rolling stock has a low Benefit-Cost Ratio, and as such should not be done?

Existing services are there to meet VIA's mandate to operate "Canada’s national passenger rail service, providing intercity and long-haul services as well as regional and essential remote rail transportation" (see post #468). The question of if a route should be operated can be determined by answering yes to one of the following three questions:

1. Is it needed to meet Canada's constitutional requirement of connecting the provinces by rail?
2. Is it needed to connect communities that do not have year round road access? or
3. Is the route at least somewhat commercially viable?

Adding a southern prairies route would be a no to all three. Now maybe we can debate if some existing services are necessary under that, but their existence doesn't prove the need for services elsewhere.

We have fleshed out that the southern line ran at a lower deficit. So, if they kept the existing lines and had the money to run one more, you are saying that they shouldn't?

We need to reduce our GHG emissions, not increase them. Adding passenger rail on routes that won't be well used will increase GHG emissions (see the following snip from a post showing how high the carbon footprint of trains outside of the corridor are).

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Compiled from: VIA Rail Annual Report 2018 and previous tables
Note: Click here for a high-resolution version of above table.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Even if that was true, and it was explained to you that it isn't, that would still only justify having one of the routes. The revenue wouldn't double if you ran both lines. So if you used the southern route, then Edmonton, Jasper, Saskatoon etc wouldn't have VIA.

So, you are telling people along the southern route drive hundreds of km just to take the train? Do you have evidence of that?

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why, what do you fundamentally disagree with?

Do you disagree with the statement "new passenger rail lines should be built where demand is highest, rather than where passenger rail lines have run historically"?

How do you show demand is there when nothing exists there? If I were writing a report, I would look at all modes of transportation and see what they compare to a place that does and does not have rail.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, you are telling people along the southern route drive hundreds of km just to take the train? Do you have evidence of that?

The evidence is the posts by Urban Sky. My understanding is that running one route is the bare minimum VIA has to do to meet all their obligations. Running both routes would just cost more than any additional revenue it brings in, as you're unlikely to significantly increase the amount of tourist traffic. So you can only run one.

And no, I'm not telling people to drive to take the train. I'm saying don't build low ridership lines, and I wouldn't think scrapping the northern route also would be the end of the world.

What is the purpose of expanding VIA? Is it to give people who live in certain places theoretical access to "a train", or is it to improve transit access in an economical way, and improve other outcomes?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How do you show demand is there when nothing exists there? If I were writing a report, I would look at all modes of transportation and see what they compare to a place that does and does not have rail.

You didn't answer my question. I'll be polite and answer yours:

One easy way to test demand is to set up a bus line, which could be done in a matter of months. If there is only enough demand to fill up a few buses a day, then you know there's no point setting up a train line which would cost millions (billions, more likely) to provide a service as fast and reliable as a bus. And if it turns out there's massive demand, then that's great justification to build rail.

Alternatively, there's plenty of market research and modelling that would be done by the likes of VIA to figure out where demand would be. Some of it pretty obvious - a place where there are metros of ~8, 1.5 and 4 million within 500km is likely to generate more demand than two cities of 1.5 million 300km apart, which is more likely still to generate demand than an area with cities of 1.5, 0.25 and 0.7 million spread over 1200km.

(Those areas of course being Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, Calgary-Edmonton and Calgary-Regina-Winnipeg)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I disagree (see my previous post)

Being point blank is not disrespectful. Pointing out how your argument is not fully accuarate is not disrespectful.

Originally Posted by roger1818

True

Originally Posted by roger1818

I disagree (see my previous post)

Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude.

I have not been like that.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I disagree (see my previous post)

Stating facts and asking what your bias is, or where you work at is not insulting.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed, nothing wrong with that.

But yet you think I am insulting and derogatory.

Originally Posted by roger1818

What evidence? You rarely (if ever) back any of your statements up with references. People on here aren't objecting to you having a different opinion, or even being proven wrong, but you haven't provided a convincing argument.

Well, for starters, I use history. Who was an MP where.
Then I use information provided by others, such as those graphs.
Then I go digging. When I unearth something, I reveal the source.

Generally, if someone will not be convinced, no information provided will change their mind. Nothing I have stated shows there would be no subsidy required. I have stated that the subsidy would exist.

Originally Posted by roger1818

We want to hear all the facts. It just that you haven't provided any (at least none that are relevant).

Who cares if there was train service between two cities 30 years ago. Just because two cities are a certain distance apart doesn't mean that there is a huge demand for travel between the tow of them. How many cars, buses, or planes travel between those two cities?

And just because they felt they had to cut one to save money does not mean they should have, or that it was the best one to cut.

Now, decades later, with the loss of the greyhound service and the desire to go green, it might be worth the subsidy.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Existing services are there to meet VIA's mandate to operate "Canada’s national passenger rail service, providing intercity and long-haul services as well as regional and essential remote rail transportation" (see post #468). The question of if a route should be operated can be determined by answering yes to one of the following three questions:

1. Is it needed to meet Canada's constitutional requirement of connecting the provinces by rail?
2. Is it needed to connect communities that do not have year round road access? or
3. Is the route at least somewhat commercially viable?

Adding a southern prairies route would be a no to all three. Now maybe we can debate if some existing services are necessary under that, but their existence doesn't prove the need for services elsewhere.

No to the first 2. I am not even going to try to argue, as they are all connected.

The 3rd is not necessarily as cut and dry. It all depends on the exact definitions of the government's idea of being commercially viable. Realize that it is not just about money, but also political capital to spend. Ignoring that is part of the issue.

One thing that seems to plague VIA is the on time. No matter how far you are going or when you go, if you can be 12 or more hours late, that is going to make you look elsewhere. If the Southern route was put in and plagued by it being late as much, then it would be just as bad when it comes to ridership.

Just imagine the first train leaving Toronto to Montreal is late leaving by 12 hours. Would it last?

Originally Posted by roger1818

We need to reduce our GHG emissions, not increase them. Adding passenger rail on routes that won't be well used will increase GHG emissions (see the following snip from a post showing how high the carbon footprint of trains outside of the corridor are).

I agree. It is not just about having it running, but having the train full for most if not all of the route. It starts with a schedule that works and stays on schedule for the entire route.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The evidence is the posts by Urban Sky. My understanding is that running one route is the bare minimum VIA has to do to meet all their obligations. Running both routes would just cost more than any additional revenue it brings in, as you're unlikely to significantly increase the amount of tourist traffic. So you can only run one.

And no, I'm not telling people to drive to take the train. I'm saying don't build low ridership lines, and I wouldn't think scrapping the northern route also would be the end of the world.

What is the purpose of expanding VIA? Is it to give people who live in certain places theoretical access to "a train", or is it to improve transit access in an economical way, and improve other outcomes?

I know that the single route is all they have to do. But does it mean they cannot do more? My answer is: providing that it meets the existing requirements.

See, you are not wanting VIA to follow it's mandate. I am. I want the line to fit into their requirements. That means it must meet one of the 3. We have already shown that it does not meet 2 of them. The real question is whether it can fit into the last one. You are Urbansky say no. I say, maybe. Again, it goes back to how much is too much of a subsidy. Unless you are a politician, you cannot answer that. And neither can I.

Originally Posted by milomilo

You didn't answer my question. I'll be polite and answer yours:

One easy way to test demand is to set up a bus line, which could be done in a matter of months. If there is only enough demand to fill up a few buses a day, then you know there's no point setting up a train line which would cost millions (billions, more likely) to provide a service as fast and reliable as a bus. And if it turns out there's massive demand, then that's great justification to build rail.

Alternatively, there's plenty of market research and modelling that would be done by the likes of VIA to figure out where demand would be. Some of it pretty obvious - a place where there are metros of ~8, 1.5 and 4 million within 500km is likely to generate more demand than two cities of 1.5 million 300km apart, which is more likely still to generate demand than an area with cities of 1.5, 0.25 and 0.7 million spread over 1200km.

(Those areas of course being Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, Calgary-Edmonton and Calgary-Regina-Winnipeg)

car =/= bus =/= plane =/= train
A busy highway does not mean a busy bus, train or plane.

The federal government had subsidized Greyhound. Once that was stopped, they left.

I know the prairies are not going to have Corridor service. I am not suggesting that. I don't think I have ever suggested that kind of frequency, even on the old Chinook line. There are at least 7 each way to Montreal from Toronto. I am suggesting about 4. Others talk like if there isn't one every hour it will fail. I say if there isn't one that is able to stick to the schedule, it will fail.

[swimmer_spe]

Right now I have too many irons in the fire, but in about 6 months, I am going to start on my own to come up with a real report on it. Something I can take to my MP to bring to Parliament to go forward. My desire will be that is shows it would be no worse than any existing lines, and that it wouldn't draw passengers from other existing rail routes.

Even though you may think I am not listening, I am. I al listening to every argument against it more than any argument for it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Have you ever asked yourself what the most basic difference between an educated and an uneducated person is? The educated person is aware of (and acknowledges in discussions) the limits of his knowledge and understanding. Education is not about knowing things - it’s about becoming aware of what you don’t know...

Please keep posting here. And block the trolls if they stress you out. Not worth the time and the rest of us absolutely value your contribution.

I sometimes end up in forums where I try to relate things from my professional experience. Only to get attacked and drowned out by some loud know-it-all. Ignore it. Know that there's plenty here and at UT who absolutely appreciate your contribution.

[Truenorth00]

There's no money to build out more low ridership routes. And your MP doesn't want to lobby for it unless your riding is directly on the line. This is why rail hasn't gotten much political traction.

HFR is the only real attempt at building a train service that would be considered normal intercity service elsewhere. It's the first attempt to show Canadians that trains can actually be useful and fully integrated into their transportation plans. If it fails, there's a high likelihood a lot of VIA goes with it in the long run. People are getting all worked about trains on the Prairies when we don't even know if VIA will survive and there's still no shovels in the ground for HFR. Cart before horse.

You want train service on the Prairies? You better convince your MP to push for HFR and to do everything possible to make sure it's a success.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no money to build out more low ridership routes. And your MP doesn't want to lobby for it unless your riding is directly on the line. This is why rail hasn't gotten much political traction.

HFR is the only real attempt at building a train service that would be considered normal intercity service elsewhere. It's the first attempt to show Canadians that trains can actually be useful and fully integrated into their transportation plans. If it fails, there's a high likelihood a lot of VIA goes with it in the long run. People are getting all worked about trains on the Prairies when we don't even know if VIA will survive and there's still no shovels in the ground for HFR. Cart before horse.

You want train service on the Prairies? You better convince your MP to push for HFR and to do everything possible to make sure it's a success.

Good thing my riding is on the line. So, he could argue for it.

HFR makes sense where there is the demand already. I am not against it, but i would ask whether you would be for turning the Canadian into a HFR? I don't.