VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

YEG is probably worse off than YOW on this front. It's literally on the way to Calgary and YYC. Any downtown rail station would be massively more convenient. Air-rail integration at YYC would reduce demand at YEG, most notably on YEG-YYC.



YOW is less convenient than Tremblay. And LRT at Tremblay, along with air-rail integration at Dorval would substantially change how Ottawa residents view flying through Dorval. It would definitely change both the number of flights and the mix at YOW.

With Stage 2, it doesn't look so inconvenient.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

With Stage 2, it doesn't look so inconvenient.

Two transfers to get to YOW from downtown. Probably a half hour ride. Tremblay is zero transfers and 15 mins from downtown.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Two transfers to get to YOW from downtown. Probably a half hour ride. Tremblay is zero transfers and 15 mins from downtown.

My point was that if you are already going to take transit, taking transit to the airport is not that much worse than taking it to the train station. You also assumed it was only downtown people that would use this.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My point was that if you are already going to take transit, taking transit to the airport is not that much worse than taking it to the train station. You also assumed it was only downtown people that would use this.

Transit is as bad as the number of transfers.

0 transfers is easy
1 transfer isn’t a big deal
2 transfers is annoying
3 transfers is a deal breaker for most.

It will between 2 to 3 transfers from almost anywhere in the city to the airport. The only exceptions is it will be 1 transfer for the very few who happen to live near the Trilium line or a bus route that goes to South Keys station. I don’t think anyone lives close enough to South Keys station to have a 0 transfer trip.

By comparison it will be 0 to 1 transfer to get to the train station from almost anywhere in the city. The primary exception will be those living south of the airport will have 2 transfers, unless they go to Fallowfield station instead. Some parts of the western suburbs might also have a second transfer outside of rush hour.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My point was that if you are already going to take transit, taking transit to the airport is not that much worse than taking it to the train station. You also assumed it was only downtown people that would use this.

Downtown is the most obvious point. But literally any point on the Confederation Line is zero transfer. In 2 years that would include a lot of Orleans.

Oh. And if you are along the Trillium Line? It's the same number of transfers to get to the airport as Tremblay. Though the trip would obviously be longer.

Tremblay is massively more convenient than the airport. Better transit. Closer to the core. Better road access. If they put in HFR, I expect every feeder route to YOW to downgauge substantially. Some like YOW-YUL might be eliminated.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Tremblay is massively more convenient than the airport. Better transit. Closer to the core. Better road access. If they put in HFR, I expect every feeder route to YOW to downgauge substantially. Some like YOW-YUL might be eliminated.

And so it should be, just as flights from YYZ to London, ON, Kitchener, Kingston and Windsor should be. They are just to close together to require flights. We have been subsidizing air for far too long. How come the federal government could in the past find money to build airports in the past but ignore any improvements to rail?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Rust never sleeps: High Level Bridge too weak for LRT, engineers say

Thanks... the article paints a pretty dire picture, but it's strange given that the High Level is still a major traffic route. How much worse could a LRT be than a steady string of vehicles going down the bridge 24/7?

Also interesting to read the accounts of how bad of a condition the bridge is in. If you ride The Canadian or any long distance train in this country, you will cross many bridges that basically look like the High Level, i.e. ones that are around the century mark and still get pounded by dozens and dozens of fully loaded freight trains a week. How are they all still standing?!

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are ignoring the fact that almost every tourist who takes VIA's land cruse will either board or deboard in Vancouver. Increasing the number of departures of the Canadian (or adding new routes) won't significantly affect the number of tourists taking it overall, they will just be spread out over more departures (The Canadian is the star attraction).

You are assuming that only tourists ride the Canadian. The majority of riders might be tourists now, but that is because the local population enroute does not use the train because of irrelevant frequency, poor scheduling, very low on time performance, poor routing and very slow scheduled speeds. All transcontinental service has a history of late arrivals, high maintenance costs and a schedule that doesn't work. Things have only gotten worse, not better and they will never change unless we are prepared to accept change and cancel the Canadian as we know it. Even Via Rail says it is unsustainable.

Until we improve some of these reasons we will never achieve increased ridership. That does not mean that we should not try, but we must put the idea of a transcontinental train being of any practical use. Tourists will still ride trains even if they have to switch trains. Think of Eurail travel in Europe and how few long distance trains there are and how many people ride them in spite of having to change trains. Obviously they have a much higher frequency than here but even at a lower frequency with better OTP, routing and scheduling we can make it work. This is what is required to capture more riders in order to make a viable intercity system.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

And so it should be, just as flights from YYZ to London, ON, Kitchener, Kingston and Windsor should be. They are just to close together to require flights. We have been subsidizing air for far too long. How come the federal government could in the past find money to build airports in the past but ignore any improvements to rail?

The airports pay rent. Hundreds of millions annually. The whole aviation sector pays numerous fees. Canada is not the US, where governments actually put in billions into airports. This is not the case here. Which is partly why governments in Canada, are so reluctant to fund a competing rail line. They would be subsidizing a competitor to a profitable revenue generating business.

Note that I fully agree that we should be substantially reducing short-haul flying. Just think it's not helpful when people don't understand that talking points from the US don't apply in Canada.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You are assuming that only tourists ride the Canadian. The majority of riders might be tourists now, but that is because the local population enroute does not use the train because of irrelevant frequency, poor scheduling, very low on time performance, poor routing and very slow scheduled speeds. All transcontinental service has a history of late arrivals, high maintenance costs and a schedule that doesn't work. Things have only gotten worse, not better and they will never change unless we are prepared to accept change and cancel the Canadian as we know it. Even Via Rail says it is unsustainable...............

The current schedule is so infrequent and the train so slow that it discourages ridership. The train averages 26 mph compared with 50 mph for Amtrak's daily Empire Builder. That train has about 5 or 6 times the ridership despite not serving any major cities from west of the Twin Cities to Spokane, in comparison The Canadian serves Edmonton, which has well over 1 million population. Why can they do it and we can't? And what is meant by unsustainable? Is it that the train receives a subsidy? In 2014 it was about $55 million. I'm sure that hasn't increased much. Perhaps non-Canadian residents should pay a premium. Heck, they take the train to experience one of the world's great railway journeys, not to go from Melville to Saskatoon. I'm sure a 25% premium would not discourage them. Maybe it's time too to remove some of the additional discounts. Why should former railway employees get an additional discount? They have excellent pensions! It's like giving civil servants cheaper admission to the museums.

The national museums also receive significant subsidy, as they are unsustainable they should be closed, and the upkeep at national historic sites such as Louisburg or Fort Henry in Kingston is quite expensive so close them too. Subsidies are also given to all municipal transit systems from their respective provinces. Shut 'em down. People can buy a car. Maybe the whole country is unsustainable. If the Canadian is ever pulled from the West then it's time to re-evaluate the purpose of keeping this country together.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The airports pay rent. Hundreds of millions annually. The whole aviation sector pays numerous fees. Canada is not the US, where governments actually put in billions into airports. This is not the case here. Which is partly why governments in Canada, are so reluctant to fund a competing rail line. They would be subsidizing a competitor to a profitable revenue generating business.

Note that I fully agree that we should be substantially reducing short-haul flying. Just think it's not helpful when people don't understand that talking points from the US don't apply in Canada.

Canadians also kinda pay a pseudo carbon tax on flying through market protectionism.

Even if a meaningful carbon price was put on domestic aviation, it doesn't automatically follow that these ultra long distance rail routes become viable. They are such a poor option for most city pairs in Canada that some other way would be found - airlines could use synthetic or biofuel, or pay for carbon capture. Or people would drive, or take buses, which would be faster.

The place where rail would make sense to replace flying is the corridor of course. And of course, that is why it's the one route being focused on.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Your math is off. You need the per trip, so, 4,289/6 = 715
715x 67 = 47,893 with 400 trains.

Except that's not how you did it in your original post (you divided 400 by 6 to get the 67). I'm not going to stress over it though as if your corrected math is actually right, it makes my point even stronger.

The Majority of he Corridor users are not likely land yacht riders. They may be people who are visiting one place or another for vacation, but the train is not the sole reason for traveling. A better comparison might be London or Kingston as they are similar cities and if rail was restored pre 1990s cuts, Saskatoon could see a train from Regina. Interesting thing, Toronto's population and ridership are about the same, so it might be possible that the number wouldn't be far off.

I agree that "The Majority of he Corridor users are not likely land yacht riders." That is my whole point. You can't assume that having 67 times as many trains out of Vancouver will result in 67 times as many yacht riders.

Now, let's say Saskatoon had a daily from Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg. That is 6 trains a day, 7 days a week. Or 42 trains a week.
715x42 = 30,030

Even a daily Canadian would double the amount to around 10,000.

But how much would those trains cost to operate and would the increased ridership come close to covering those costs?

Don't forget, trains can easily stop at stations along the way and not everyone travels from end to end. What makes the corridor work is the number of cities and large towns within a short distance of each other at which a large number of people can get on or off.

I haven't ridden it yet, but I assume it takes most sidings and doesn't go as fast as the C-E would could do.

What makes you think that the rated speed of CP's mainline would be lower than that of a branch line?

As far as downtown Edmonton, what about an underground line going through downtown to the existing Via station?

What existing tunnel could VIA use? Sure a tunnel could be dug at great expense, but I would count that as a significant upgrade. My point is that running trains on existing track without any significant upgrades would create an undesirable product.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

Thanks... the article paints a pretty dire picture, but it's strange given that the High Level is still a major traffic route. How much worse could a LRT be than a steady string of vehicles going down the bridge 24/7?

Also interesting to read the accounts of how bad of a condition the bridge is in. If you ride The Canadian or any long distance train in this country, you will cross many bridges that basically look like the High Level, i.e. ones that are around the century mark and still get pounded by dozens and dozens of fully loaded freight trains a week. How are they all still standing?!

Interesting question. I have no data, but I feel like the freight operators do not impose on themselves the same standards that public ones would - it's just dollars and cents for them and if a freight train derails it's infinitely better than if one carrying people does.

One piece of evidence for this - in the 2013 floods a bridge carrying a train full of chemicals began sinking over the Bow River. It was mentioned at the time that the bridge did not have its foundations in bedrock, which all the public bridges did have. Of course, the bridge is still there and it's true that all the CN/CP bridges in the city look old and crappy. It's amazing in fact just how little visible investment in infrastructure they make - if we ran public infrastructure the same way I bet we'd see stuff pushed to its limits much more.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

this is where making the cost of short haul fights skyrocket will work. The problem is we have become fixated on convenience at a low cost. 100 years ago, there were planes. Even 40 years ago, there were planes. It is only in the last 20 years that flying has been cheap enough for the masses. Flying used to be for the rich. The problem is, flying is horribly expensive for ghgs. Let's get rid of the idea of buying carbon credits and require the real costs to be paid. Make the cheapest fare between toronto and ottawa, and other cities that rough distance be very expensive.

1%

That is the percentage of Canada's emissions caused by domestic aviation (international another 2%). Source. So even if you replaced every flight with electric rail run on 100% renewables, it would only reduce Canada's emissions by 1%. Rail replacing aviation does not matter towards our climate goals.

And that is before considering that the flights could be made carbon neutral, or people could take electric buses or drive.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The national museums also receive significant subsidy, as they are unsustainable they should be closed, and the upkeep at national historic sites such as Louisburg or Fort Henry in Kingston is quite expensive so close them too. Subsidies are also given to all municipal transit systems from their respective provinces. Shut 'em down. People can buy a car. Maybe the whole country is unsustainable. If the Canadian is ever pulled from the West then it's time to re-evaluate the purpose of keeping this country together.

This is hyperbole. The Canadian is already worthless, it is not the single thing holding the country together. I wished we'd scrapped it long ago so this nonsensical conversation was dead and buried, and we could be looking at routes that actually make sense to put rail in.

[MolsonExport]

shut down the highways too. Next to none are viable without subsidies. All schools and hospitals should be shuttered. And all those other industries that benefit from government contracts and subsidies.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

shut down the highways too. Next to none are viable without subsidies. All schools and hospitals should be shuttered. And all those other industries that benefit from government contracts and subsidies.

Subsidies are OK, but you need a positive return from it, which we definitely get from things like hospitals and schools. With something like an LRT it carries so many people at peak times, it means you don't have to upgrade roads, along with other benefits.

What is constantly being talked about in this thread though, over and over and over again, is using the most expensive mode of transportation to provide services to minimally populated areas that happen to be on an existing railway, at such low frequencies that it wouldn't be useful. That is a waste of money that could be used subsidising something that actually would be worthwhile.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by esquire

Thanks... the article paints a pretty dire picture, but it's strange given that the High Level is still a major traffic route. How much worse could a LRT be than a steady string of vehicles going down the bridge 24/7?

I haven't seen the actual engineering report, so I can't say for sure, but I suspect that it could have supported the LRT if they removed the cars from the bridge. It just couldn't support both and building a new LRT bridge was cheaper than building a new car bridge.

Also interesting to read the accounts of how bad of a condition the bridge is in. If you ride The Canadian or any long distance train in this country, you will cross many bridges that basically look like the High Level, i.e. ones that are around the century mark and still get pounded by dozens and dozens of fully loaded freight trains a week. How are they all still standing?!

This can be answered in two words: "proactive maintenance"

Don't forget that the bridge has 2 levels. The lower level is used by cars and the upper level was used by trains. I suspect that when the city took over ownership of the bridge in 19, they reduced the maintanance of the upper level to only prevent it from collapsing on the lower level and not worry about supporting the weight of trains. Reversing the damage done by that reduced maintenance would be expensive. The railways will have maintained their bridges to ensure they can support trains.

Having said all that, bridges don't last forever and at some point the maintenance costs on many of these bridges will become too high to be sustainable and they will need to be replaced.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You are assuming that only tourists ride the Canadian.

No. If you actually read my post, you would see that I am assuming that the vast majority (not all) of those who ride the Canadian are tourists. That is why I switched the analysis to Regina, as it is an unlikely destination for tourists and will better reflect the non-tourist ridership on the Canadian.

The majority of riders might be tourists now, but that is because the local population enroute does not use the train because of irrelevant frequency, poor scheduling, very low on time performance, poor routing and very slow scheduled speeds. All transcontinental service has a history of late arrivals, high maintenance costs and a schedule that doesn't work. Things have only gotten worse, not better and they will never change unless we are prepared to accept change and cancel the Canadian as we know it. Even Via Rail says it is unsustainable.

Until we improve some of these reasons we will never achieve increased ridership. That does not mean that we should not try, but we must put the idea of a transcontinental train being of any practical use. Tourists will still ride trains even if they have to switch trains. Think of Eurail travel in Europe and how few long distance trains there are and how many people ride them in spite of having to change trains. Obviously they have a much higher frequency than here but even at a lower frequency with better OTP, routing and scheduling we can make it work. This is what is required to capture more riders in order to make a viable intercity system.

Certainly the frequency and reliability of the Canadian has an effect on the local ridership, but I would argue that the low population density and long distances between cities is a much larger factor.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is hyperbole. The Canadian is already worthless, it is not the single thing holding the country together. I wished we'd scrapped it long ago so this nonsensical conversation was dead and buried, and we could be looking at routes that actually make sense to put rail in.

Yes, that was deliberately used for emphasis. I don't believe any of those things. There are some expenditures that are necessary for the public interest alone. My point is that many things are subsidized, transportation, arts and culture, remote communities, etc.