VIA Rail

[zahav]

Thanks for all the info on the customs process for trains to Toronto and Montreal, train logistics are not my area of knowledge. So Vancouver is the only one that has land, sea, air and train entry points, and a whole bunch of cities that have air/sea (Halifax, Montreal, Quebec City, Victoria, more?). I know Charlottetown receives cruise ships so I assume they have customs entry for that, but don't think they have international flights. Speaking of tourism and travel from America:

From Sea to Shining Sea: AAA Predicts 47.9 Million People Will Travel This July 4th
Car travel expected to set a new record despite the historically high gas prices
6/21/2022

ORLANDO, Fla. (Jun 21, 2022) – Summer travel is already in full swing and Independence Day will be no exception as AAA predicts 47.9 million people will travel 50 miles or more from home over the holiday weekend (June 30 – July 4). This is an increase of 3.7% over 2021, bringing travel volumes just shy of those seen in 2019. The biggest surprise – car travel – will set a new record despite historically high gas prices with 42 million people hitting the road. With crowded roads and busy airports, AAA wants to prepare travelers so they can have a stress-free July 4th celebration.

Top Destinations include Big Cities and International Favorites
AAA booking data reveals that big cities and international classics are top destinations this Independence Day. AAA data shows that bookings for air, car rentals, cruise, hotel, and tours are up 60% over last year for the top domestic Independence Day destinations and up 252% for international:

2022 Top Independence Day Destinations

U.S Destinations
Orlando, FL
Seattle, WA
New York, NY
Anaheim, CA
Anchorage, AK
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Las Vegas, NV
Honolulu, HI
Denver, CO
Chicago, IL

International Destinations
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Paris, France
London, England
Rome, Italy
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Dublin, Ireland
Calgary, AB, Canada
Punta Cana, Dominican Republic
Cancun, Mexico
Nassau, Bahamas

Very interesting to see Vancouver as the top spot for international travel for Americans measured in this study. And Calgary at #7. Not sure why the east was not represented, things are still wonky with travel so who knows at this point

Of course this isn't a formal border traffic measure, it's just a gauge based on AAA (which is heavily used and the numbers weren't pulled out of thin air). Here is their methodology:

Forecast Methodology:
In cooperation with AAA, S&P Global Market Intelligence, a world-leading provider of financial information and solutions, developed a unique methodology to forecast actual domestic travel volumes. The economic variables used to forecast travel for the current holiday are leveraged from S&P Global Market Intelligence’s proprietary databases. These data include macroeconomic drivers such as employment; output; household net worth; asset prices including stock indices; interest rates; housing market indicators and variables related to travel and tourism, including prices of gasoline, airline travel and hotel stays. AAA and S&P Global Market Intelligence have quantified holiday travel volumes going back to 2000.
Historical travel volume estimates come from DK SHIFFLET’s TRAVEL PERFORMANCE/Monitorsm. The PERFORMANCE/Monitorsm is a comprehensive study measuring the travel behavior of U.S. residents. DK SHIFFLET contacts over 50,000 U.S. households each month to obtain detailed travel data, resulting in the unique ability to estimate visitor volume and spending, identify trends, and forecast U.S. travel behavior —all after the trips have been taken.
The travel forecast is reported in person-trips. In particular, AAA and S&P Global Market Intelligence forecast the total U.S. holiday travel volume and expected mode of transportation. The travel forecast presented in this report was prepared the week of May 23, 2022.

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/06/from-se...illion-people-will-travel-this-july-4th/

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, right now, in a test, the hyper loop goes the same speed. Tell me how it is unrealistic. Do I think Canada will see one? No. But that does not change the viability of it. If some country wants to pay for it, it will get built.

Hyperloop is promising speeds of 700 mph, test tracks are slower than a Honda Civic. They have no plausible plan to reach those speeds. At best it is an expensive amusement park ride. Did you watch the video on the physics challenges?

Now maybe in decades or centuries new technologies might exist to overcome these challenges (higher temperature superconductors, a new power source that would justify the massive energy consumption, some sort of new material or alloy that would allow these tubes to actually be practical, etc). but these technologies do not exist (it would be like designing a rocketship in 1800, even if the design was theoretically possible, the materials and technology are well in the future).

[swimmer_spe]

Something I was thinking.

Currently, there are 2 suspended routs - the Dayliner and the Gaspe. They were shut down due to track maintenance. The Hudson Bay also was shut down due to track maintenance. What if Via had a mandate that if track conditions were reduced to a certain level that it would be taken over by Via. This could prevent Via from having to shut down service due to a company's neglect.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Something I was thinking.

Currently, there are 2 suspended routs - the Dayliner and the Gaspe. They were shut down due to track maintenance. The Hudson Bay also was shut down due to track maintenance. What if Via had a mandate that if track conditions were reduced to a certain level that it would be taken over by Via. This could prevent Via from having to shut down service due to a company's neglect.

I believe both lines are owned by local foundations. I am sure they would be thrilled if Via wanted to take over the lines.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I believe both lines are owned by local foundations. I am sure they would be thrilled if Via wanted to take over the lines.

I thought the Gaspe one was CN, but you are correct on all accounts.

Having Via own those lines would see freight taking the siding to let the Via keep on time. I really don't see an issue with this. Is there an issue with this?

[J81]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I thought the Gaspe one was CN, but you are correct on all accounts.

Having Via own those lines would see freight taking the siding to let the Via keep on time. I really don't see an issue with this. Is there an issue with this?

Gaspe line is not CN. Its run by SCFG. There is very little service on the line and is a non issue if VIA were to ever run to Gaspe again.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I thought the Gaspe one was CN, but you are correct on all accounts.

Having Via own those lines would see freight taking the siding to let the Via keep on time. I really don't see an issue with this. Is there an issue with this?

Money

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Money

As in Via spending it?
I get that. There is no reason Via could not own the tracks and then contract out freight services. In fact, this could help the federal government with job creation as companies that need freight for their operations tend to have good paying jobs.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As in Via spending it?
I get that. There is no reason Via could not own the tracks and then contract out freight services. In fact, this could help the federal government with job creation as companies that need freight for their operations tend to have good paying jobs.

I would suspect freight services are extremely limited, both regions are well served by road and sea freight. If freight on the line were profitable they would not need community foundations.

The problem (as I understand it) is that both lines need significant infrastructure investment to be usable for passenger service. Via does not have those funds.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I would suspect freight services are extremely limited, both regions are well served by road and sea freight. If freight on the line were profitable they would not need community foundations.

The problem (as I understand it) is that both lines need significant infrastructure investment to be usable for passenger service. Via does not have those funds.

Those are 2 separate things.

Freight.
For the existing employers, what you said may be true. However, if something like a paper/pulp mill or a foundry were to be set up on the line, trucks would not be enough. I'll be honest, I haven't researched much on that line yet so I don't know what is along there in terms of industry and potential industry.

Infrastructure improvements.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-rail-repairs-sale-1.4823974
When the private line to Churchill was damaged, the federal government paid for the repairs. Except in extreme circumstances, instead of paying a private company, via could acquire the railway and then do the repairs.

Part of my desire for this is because I am tired of hearing our taxes being given to various companies. Having the money still spent, but done in such a way that best benefits the citizens of Canada, and the locale that it is spent is my bigger thought.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I would suspect freight services are extremely limited, both regions are well served by road and sea freight. If freight on the line were profitable they would not need community foundations.

The problem (as I understand it) is that both lines need significant infrastructure investment to be usable for passenger service. Via does not have those funds.

It's also low population. There's about 140k in Gaspé give or take. They aren't even concentrated in one urban centre. The level of ridership they would generate is ridiculously low, especially compared to the investment that would be required. They have road access. These places should be served by buses.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's also low population. There's about 140k in Gaspé give or take. They aren't even concentrated in one urban centre. The level of ridership they would generate is ridiculously low, especially compared to the investment that would be required. They have road access. These places should be served by buses.

Ah, yes, the "They should just take a bus" argument.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ah, yes, the "They should just take a bus" argument.

In a low population density area with a good road network and a poor rail network, "take the bus" is a logical approach. The old Victoria-Nanaimo train took 5 hours; the bus took 2.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

In a low population density area with a good road network and a poor rail network, "take the bus" is a logical approach. The old Victoria-Nanaimo train took 5 hours; the bus took 2.

Yes, because the bus is much better. While we are at it, why not cut all air routes that do not use the wide body airplanes? It would help Pearson get back on track.....

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Yes, because the bus is much better. While we are at it, why not cut all air routes that do not use the wide body airplanes? It would help Pearson get back on track.....

I mean Air Canada is basically cutting a whole pile of lower demand regional routes right now to do exactly this. And thanks to an emerging pilot shortage and high fuel costs, airlines are starting to permanently replace regional flights with buses in the US. We're going to see the same in Canada soon.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/11/109211751...g-planes-with-buses-on-some-short-routes

Should be noted too, with aviation, the passengers are paying for the infrastructure (airport improvement fee) and the vehicle and operation (with their fares). They aren't getting much of a public subsidy. I think the taxpayer has a right to ask for value if we're going to subsidize public transportation. It should be providing frequency and operate at a reasonable cost. Not just use a particular mode for the sake of fandom.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Those are 2 separate things.

Freight.
For the existing employers, what you said may be true. However, if something like a paper/pulp mill or a foundry were to be set up on the line, trucks would not be enough. I'll be honest, I haven't researched much on that line yet so I don't know what is along there in terms of industry and potential industry.

Infrastructure improvements.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-rail-repairs-sale-1.4823974
When the private line to Churchill was damaged, the federal government paid for the repairs. Except in extreme circumstances, instead of paying a private company, via could acquire the railway and then do the repairs.

Part of my desire for this is because I am tired of hearing our taxes being given to various companies. Having the money still spent, but done in such a way that best benefits the citizens of Canada, and the locale that it is spent is my bigger thought.

In Churchill there is no road network; the train is the only transportation option (this is why the Ontario government spends a lot of money to run a train to Moosonee). It is also useful for certain exporters.

If there is a proponent for a government investment for a new industry then it should certainly be considered. However, even if a heavy industrial user wanted to come to the area, it is unclear why a line that went parallel to the coast (rather than perpendicular to it) would be useful. Usually such users want to get to a port.

[Truenorth00]

^ Yep. Publicly subsidized rail service makes sense when there's no road option to run buses, or for highly populated corridors where buses are impractical. Doesn't make much sense here.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I mean Air Canada is basically cutting a whole pile of lower demand regional routes right now to do exactly this. And thanks to an emerging pilot shortage and high fuel costs, airlines are starting to permanently replace regional flights with buses in the US. We're going to see the same in Canada soon.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/11/109211751...g-planes-with-buses-on-some-short-routes

Should be noted too, with aviation, the passengers are paying for the infrastructure (airport improvement fee) and the vehicle and operation (with their fares). They aren't getting much of a public subsidy. I think the taxpayer has a right to ask for value if we're going to subsidize public transportation. It should be providing frequency and operate at a reasonable cost. Not just use a particular mode for the sake of fandom.

So, who pays for the infrastructure that the bus is on?

Originally Posted by acottawa

In Churchill there is no road network; the train is the only transportation option (this is why the Ontario government spends a lot of money to run a train to Moosonee). It is also useful for certain exporters.

If there is a proponent for a government investment for a new industry then it should certainly be considered. However, even if a heavy industrial user wanted to come to the area, it is unclear why a line that went parallel to the coast (rather than perpendicular to it) would be useful. Usually such users want to get to a port.

What is easier, a new line through virgin forests and hills, or an old line maintained?

The road network makes sense if you want to ignore how heavy vehicles tend to do more damage to road surfaces. Besides, if a railway is going to be run at a loss and the company will always want government money, why not get rid of the company and just use the government to do it?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, who pays for the infrastructure that the bus is on?

Provincial taxpayers. In all but the most remote areas they will make that investment anyway, regardless of whether there is a railway.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What is easier, a new line through virgin forests and hills, or an old line maintained?

If your objective is to get heavy industry to locate on Vancouver Island or the Gaspé then the most direct route to a port. If a steel plant opens in Nanaimo it has no reason to ship steel by rail to Victoria (at least not in any quantity that would justify the line). It would locate near the port or where it could get a direct route to the port.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The road network makes sense if you want to ignore how heavy vehicles tend to do more damage to road surfaces. Besides, if a railway is going to be run at a loss and the company will always want government money, why not get rid of the company and just use the government to do it?

Have you ever been to either of these locations? It is not like there are rows of heavy trucks travelling between Nanaimo and Victoria. It mostly seems to be deliveries for stores, etc., which would travel by truck even if there was a better railway.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Provincial taxpayers. In all but the most remote areas they will make that investment anyway, regardless of whether there is a railway.

Exactly. If the choice was build a new road or renew existing rail line, it would be a no-brainer to fix up the track. In this case, the provincial government will always maintain that road and the money spent on two could be used to deliver much higher frequency bus service.