VIA Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

My concern isn't that you doubted the projection, but rather than you seem (or at least seemed) to reject it. I did notice that your reasoning didn't seem to consider the comparison that I raised, and my intention was to point out that perhaps it should. It shows that there are examples of conventional speed services attracting (greater than) that level of ridership despite the claims from some that it's impossible since only full HSR can compete effectively with airlines. The UK may have 5 times the population of Canada's corridor but we can compare the WCML specifically. While the UK is served by multiple frequent mainline rail corridors (East and West Coast Mainlines, Great Western Mainline, Midland Mainline, et al) the WCML being the most important mainline connecting major metro areas containing about 30 million (but is not the only route connecting most of them). That make the WCML a corridor of about 2.3x the population. So an equivalent percapita ridership would be about 16 million (37/2.3). The UK has ~31% lower auto ownership rates, but also much cheaper flights. Even if we ignore the air aspect and grant that Canada would have 31% lower rail usage percapita due to automobile prevalence, the 16 million would drop to 11 million. Sure the WCML has had frequent service for longer so would have more time to build up patronage and shape travel patterns, so we can drop the ridership by another third. But even after lowering the projected ridership to adjust for all those factors, the resulting number is still so implausibly high that it warrants a "fat chance?"

Fact is, Canada may be a laggard in terms of offering public transportation services, but when reasonable services are offered, we don't fall behind in terms of using them.



I think that skepticism is great, but skepticism represents neutrality, ie you don't know whether or not to believe an assertion until you receive more evidence. It responds to the assertion of "A equals B" with "how do you know?" However, the response of "no it doesn't" is not skepticism, but rather it's own counter assertion. I think it would be great to see the details in the VIA ridership projections, but until then I think true skepticism (neutrality) is warranted. I don't wish to say that the projected number is accurate or inaccurate, but rather that it isn't implausible and therefore doesn't warrant rejection.

Skepticism is not neutrality. Via has promised a system with unusually low per km costs, an unusually high average speed as a percentage of max speed, an unusually high ridership increase projection for a relatively small increase in speed, and implied that it will be profitable so that investors will pay for a significant portion (a rarity in the passenger rail business).

On top of this Via has released little of its background work/analysis, has not actually released a detailed route map and doesn’t seem to have spent much on geotechnical studies, design, business modelling, etc.

Maybe Via has invented the equivalent of railway Moneyball and has figured out a totally new business model unused elsewhere, but they have not given us any reason to believe that.