VIA Rail

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is where knowing more about the equipment and less about the fuel would help you understand that if the train is full, it actually is. Gas Turbines are horribly inefficient and the fuel burns at a hotter temperature, which causes more emissions.

Want to know something more crazy? From Thunder Bay to Montreal, a train would use more fuel and put out more emissions than a ship in the Great Lakes.

In short, slow does not equal inefficient.

So, there's one ill-funded organization trying to provide:
- A semblance of realistic inter-city train service (The Corridor) in a limited portion of the country.
- A bunch of cross-country train "service" that has the conflicting demands of serving isolated places, tourism and a viable transport option for people.
- Serving isolated places with no other mode of transport.

Perhaps then we should have passenger ships instead of trains for those isolated communities?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

The train isn't full. That's where the inefficiency is fuel-wise for many VIA routes. The amount of energy expended per passenger over the course of the trip goes up hugely if the train is underutilized. It's like flying a jumbo jet with few passengers.

Slow doesn't mean inefficient, no. Efficiency is a total cost perspective. Shipping stuff by train might be more inefficient per ton than a boat, but the costs of transshipment (unless you're only shipping from Montreal to Thunder Bay) add to logistical costs.

Grain is shipped between Thunder Bay and Montreal by ship, usually. It then is loaded on another ship to go overseas.

As far as Via's efficiency, it doesn't need to be full. There would be some calculations needed, but at a certain point, it then has enough to be more efficient. It's kind of like profitability. Full is ideal, but usually not necessary.

Originally Posted by wave46

Pretty much.

Given what the cost of the Rocky Mountaineer is (go have fun on their website!) it doesn't really bode well for any of VIA's other lines.

Paying thousands for the scenic tour of the Prairies is a hard sale.

Like I mentioned in my post before, VIA's trying to be everything to everybody and is nothing to nobody. It needs a real mandate and commitment from its owner to follow through on its mandate. Given that it falls down near the bottom of things government needs to care about, I expect nothing will change until something forces change.

Rocky Mountaineer does not do one way or even round trip. It does tours. So, even if I wanted to go Vancouver - Calgary, you actually don't have the option of round trip. Another thing, they only travel during the day, and the fare you pay includes hotel and shuttle services. Some of their lower priced ones are not bad of a price.

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Perhaps then we should have passenger ships instead of trains for those isolated communities?

You mean like the CP steamship lines? Nowhere that Via serves is along big water for ships.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree. There's no need for this to be VIA though, this could easily built by the provinces if the population wanted it, but they don't - not strongly enough to vote for parties that would implement it at least.

And while a network of lines between smaller and larger centres may be a great goal, it's not what you would start with when we have zero useful passenger rail in most of western Canada (the Canadian isn't useful). Your initial line would have to be the single line that is both economically feasible on its own merits and is politically desirable. In the prairies, the only place I can see this being a reality is either commuter rail around Calgary and maybe Edmonton, a passenger train to Banff and/or YYC, or a fastish train between Calgary and Edmonton.

Maybe there's some potential around Winnipeg, but the cities in SK and MB will be better off focusing on public transit in their boundaries rather than outside.

Why not VIA though?

There are a few advantages.

1. Interprovincial cooperation:

Canadian provinces suck at cooperating. We agree that good regional networks are best, but we know that Canada's regions aren't contained in provinces. The Lower Mainland-Edmonton-Calgary triangle is a region comparable to Austria, but is divided by a border between two provinces with a recently mercurial relationship.

Even in Europe, where they already have great rail networks, the various national rail agencies tend to give other countries' trains low priority as soon as they cross the border. Ottawa and Gatineau can't even get it together to put a tram line over a bridge. BC and Alberta love fighting over pipelines. Given the precedent provinces have set, I don't see provincial railways coordinating to build interprovincial rail lines when there's an opportunity for a dick measuring contest.

2. Power

Railways are serious business--rail-thin empires in their own right. CN and CP also aren't above dick measuring contests, and it's hard to blame them when they so often win. A dinky, upstart provincial railway company that's likely to get cut down the second a government even thinks austerity--long before it's had a chance to prove its worth--won't stand a chance negotiating with CN and CP. And they'll have to when establishing service.

As big as CN is, they look pretty modest compared to Deutsche Bahn or SNCF. Now, it's obviously not realistic that Via will suddenly swell to that kind of profile, but a beefed-up national rail company with a mandate to run trains is far better positioned to get the concessions it needs from the freight carriers.

3.

Western Canada doesn't know what it's doing.

Toronto and Montreal have established regional/commuter rail systems. They should be bigger and better, and they're heading in that direction. Good for them.

Vancouver seems to have forgotten that this stratum of service exists. They're deeply committed to a one-size-fits-all transit approach, and that size is Skytrain.

That's fine for connecting suburban cities, but it's come at the expense of service to the rest of the Lower Mainland. It's nothing short of embarrassing that you can't take a regular train into Vancouver from Abottsford or Tsawwassen.

Edmonton and Calgary are committed to their own brands of chimeric suburban trains. They're about the size where they should be thinking beyond the sprawl, and look at connecting satellite towns with commuter rail. It would be very easy to start picking off towns like Airdrie and Leduc with rail service, until the two lines connect and there's coherent service between the cities.

For all the sense in this kind of service existing in these places, it doesn't. If Translink/BC/Edmonton/Calgary transit don't want to and don't know how to implement it, why not have a national rail company capable of stepping into the vacuum? It's not a radical idea--it's exactly what functioning national railways do in many countries.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by biguc

That's fine for connecting suburban cities, but it's come at the expense of service to the rest of the Lower Mainland. It's nothing short of embarrassing that you can't take a regular train into Vancouver from Abottsford or Tsawwassen.

Is it even possible to run a reasonably direct train between Vancouver and Tsawwassen?

Originally Posted by biguc

For all the sense in this kind of service existing in these places, it doesn't. If Translink/BC/Edmonton/Calgary transit don't want to and don't know how to implement it, why not have a national rail company capable of stepping into the vacuum? It's not a radical idea--it's exactly what functioning national railways do in many countries.

My understanding is that by under the constitution, railways do not have federal jurisdiction unless they are declared to be of national interest. I think the federal government trying to declare national interest in commuter rail would be fought in the courts as major affront to provincial sovereignty.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by biguc

Why not VIA though?

There are a few advantages.

1. Interprovincial cooperation:

Canadian provinces suck at cooperating. We agree that good regional networks are best, but we know that Canada's regions aren't contained in provinces. The Lower Mainland-Edmonton-Calgary triangle is a region comparable to Austria, but is divided by a border between two provinces with a recently mercurial relationship.

Even in Europe, where they already have great rail networks, the various national rail agencies tend to give other countries' trains low priority as soon as they cross the border. Ottawa and Gatineau can't even get it together to put a tram line over a bridge. BC and Alberta love fighting over pipelines. Given the precedent provinces have set, I don't see provincial railways coordinating to build interprovincial rail lines when there's an opportunity for a dick measuring contest.

2. Power

Railways are serious business--rail-thin empires in their own right. CN and CP also aren't above dick measuring contests, and it's hard to blame them when they so often win. A dinky, upstart provincial railway company that's likely to get cut down the second a government even thinks austerity--long before it's had a chance to prove its worth--won't stand a chance negotiating with CN and CP. And they'll have to when establishing service.

As big as CN is, they look pretty modest compared to Deutsche Bahn or SNCF. Now, it's obviously not realistic that Via will suddenly swell to that kind of profile, but a beefed-up national rail company with a mandate to run trains is far better positioned to get the concessions it needs from the freight carriers.

3.

Western Canada doesn't know what it's doing.

Toronto and Montreal have established regional/commuter rail systems. They should be bigger and better, and they're heading in that direction. Good for them.

Vancouver seems to have forgotten that this stratum of service exists. They're deeply committed to a one-size-fits-all transit approach, and that size is Skytrain.

That's fine for connecting suburban cities, but it's come at the expense of service to the rest of the Lower Mainland. It's nothing short of embarrassing that you can't take a regular train into Vancouver from Abottsford or Tsawwassen.

Edmonton and Calgary are committed to their own brands of chimeric suburban trains. They're about the size where they should be thinking beyond the sprawl, and look at connecting satellite towns with commuter rail. It would be very easy to start picking off towns like Airdrie and Leduc with rail service, until the two lines connect and there's coherent service between the cities.

For all the sense in this kind of service existing in these places, it doesn't. If Translink/BC/Edmonton/Calgary transit don't want to and don't know how to implement it, why not have a national rail company capable of stepping into the vacuum? It's not a radical idea--it's exactly what functioning national railways do in many countries.

Good points.

I'll throw in my couple of cents on them.

1. The provinces focus on their heartlands. Their population centres (aside from Ottawa-Gatineau, the red-headed stepchild of both Ontario and Quebec) are far from provincial borders, generally. So, why should a provincial government give a hoot about something that is far away? The feds have a greater view of the country as a whole, which it should as a federal government.

2. CN/CP won't bend to a province because provincial governments don't regulate rail transport. The feds do. Playing nice with your regulator makes everybody happy. CN and CP know this, so if a more assertive federal government was to actually care, it probably wouldn't get much resistance from improving VIA's performance. CN and CP could tell a province to go pound sand because what's a province going to do to them? Cry to the feds?

3. Western Canada isn't really one thing. It's two things with different mindsets, separated by mountains. The mindset is more alike between Manitoba/Sask/Alberta than Alberta and BC. Unless there's an in-province demand for that sort of thing (like Montreal/Toronto), it's an uphill battle. That's just for regional express rail. I can't imagine the uphill battle for interprovincial rail. Again, the feds have the bigger picture here.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is where knowing more about the equipment and less about the fuel would help you understand that if the train is full, it actually is. Gas Turbines are horribly inefficient and the fuel burns at a hotter temperature, which causes more emissions.

Want to know something more crazy? From Thunder Bay to Montreal, a train would use more fuel and put out more emissions than a ship in the Great Lakes.

In short, slow does not equal inefficient.

A typical Canadian car is 6 bedrooms and 4 roomettes. Maybe 20 people? With service cars you have 2 1970s locomotives pulling 16 cars. How much diesel fuel does it take to pull those steel cars 5000km? With the actual passenger capacity of one jet.

[MonctonRad]

Well, let's call a spade a spade (speaking metaphorically, and in a non racialized context).

Most of the anti-VIA posters on here are urbanists (not surprising since this is SSP), and thus primarily interested in commuter rail and intercity travel in the densest corridor in the country. The rest of Canada can just pound sand.

To these urbanists, the only REAL Canada is the Windsor- Quebec City corridor (and Vancouver), and, since they have no real interest in seeing what Kapuskasing actually looks like, it serves their purposes to dump all federal subsidies into the country's airports rather than the rail system. The rest of Canada is after all "flyover country" - easily dismissed, and, if you never see it, you can pretend it doesn't exist...........

[Truenorth00]

@MonctonRad

That's a bit of a strawman argument. Quite a few of us would love more funding to have expanded services. But it's pretty clear that governments of different stripes always seen to find so many other priorities for spending before VIA. And now we're reaching the point where the service that carries the bulk of VIA's passengers is under threat.

The question isn't whether some of us here would support a train to Kapuskasing. It's whether VIA's sole shareholder would be willing to put in the capital and up the cap on annual losses to do so.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, let's call a spade a spade (speaking metaphorically, and in a non racialized context).

Most of the anti-VIA posters on here are urbanists (not surprising since this is SSP), and thus primarily interested in commuter rail and intercity travel in the densest corridor in the country. The rest of Canada can just pound sand.

To these urbanists, the only REAL Canada is the Windsor- Quebec City corridor (and Vancouver), and, since they have no real interest in seeing what Kapuskasing actually looks like, it serves their purposes to dump all federal subsidies into the country's airports rather than the rail system. The rest of Canada is after all "flyover country" - easily dismissed, and, if you never see it, you can pretend it doesn't exist...........

I guess I'm the anti-VIA crowd and have lived in Kap, so I don't know where I fall on that particular Venn diagram. FWIW, the Canadian doesn't go to Kap, so I doubt it would get much love there.

Then again, I'm also a taxpayer too.

Which is why I was actually not very distressed about the cancellation of the Northlander train that ran parallel to Ontario Northland's bus service up Highway 11 from Toronto-Cochrane.

Before (train and bus):
Ontario Northland Map - 2009

That money that duplicated the same service was pumped into extending Ontario Northland's bus service throughout the northern areas of the province. More people have access to a safe, reliable transportation option today.

After (bus only):
Ontario Northland Map - 2020

What is VIA's mandate? That is what the government should be deciding. I'm more in favour of a transportation system that benefits more people as a public good as opposed to a subsidized tourist train. I'm one voice of many, though.

[esquire]

I don't know about Monctonrad's line of reasoning here... I live in Winnipeg and I am generally predisposed to train travel. But if Winnipeg went back to 1986 levels of VIA service with multiple daily eastbound and westbound trains I'm not sure many people would really care. If anything highway travel is better than it used to be then (better roads, more comfortable/reliable cars) and air travel is probably cheaper and more accessible than it was back then. To me it just makes sense to allocate passenger rail resources to the parts of the country most likely to actually use the trains.

I can appreciate that the sentiment may be a bit different in Atlantic Canada which is better suited to train travel than Western Canada is, though.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Is it even possible to run a reasonably direct train between Vancouver and Tsawwassen?

A Tsawwassen train using existing ROW out of built up areas would have to go to Surrey, skirt west around it one way or another to Delta, then down. It's not direct as the crow flies but it's not indirect. It's about 60km.

Originally Posted by jamincan

My understanding is that by under the constitution, railways do not have federal jurisdiction unless they are declared to be of national interest. I think the federal government trying to declare national interest in commuter rail would be fought in the courts as major affront to provincial sovereignty.

I mean, wah? Does any province want to bite the hand that feeds so bad they'd actually die on that hill? The federal government has been dangling more and more transportation funding in front of municipalities and provinces for decades now and they're too disorganized and cash-strapped to take the ball and run with it. If a national rail company is able to freelance a win for cities and provinces, that's only good. It would take a pretty small-minded provincial government to complain (opportunity for a dick measuring contest notwithstanding).

For the sake of argument, though, I'm talking about building regional rail systems (which aren't exactly commuter rail systems as you understand them, but are useful as commuter rail) as building blocks of a national rail strategy. I'm pushing interprovincial rail systems pretty hard here. That's exactly what the federal government is for.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, let's call a spade a spade (speaking metaphorically, and in a non racialized context).

Most of the anti-VIA posters on here are urbanists (not surprising since this is SSP), and thus primarily interested in commuter rail and intercity travel in the densest corridor in the country. The rest of Canada can just pound sand.

To these urbanists, the only REAL Canada is the Windsor- Quebec City corridor (and Vancouver), and, since they have no real interest in seeing what Kapuskasing actually looks like, it serves their purposes to dump all federal subsidies into the country's airports rather than the rail system. The rest of Canada is after all "flyover country" - easily dismissed, and, if you never see it, you can pretend it doesn't exist...........

I'm in favour of overall better rail transportation, I just think that in the big picture that's best accomplished by making better regional connections that will foster a rail culture and make existing service more viable by extension. If overall service was good, and taking the train was a regular part of people's lives, you wouldn't see the fervour to kill The Canadian, even in its not-so-useful present form.

Someone mentioned replacing the Canadian with a few trains that would leave at reasonable times. That's a good idea.

And, for the record, while I'm talking a lot about the Lower Mainland, it's only because it's low-hanging fruit, and the lack of service there is a black eye. The Maritimes is also a region that should have good intercity rail service, and is well set up to support it. There should be a trains at least every morning and evening between each of Halifax, Moncton, St. John, and Fredericton, with stops in towns/at airports along the way.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, let's call a spade a spade (speaking metaphorically, and in a non racialized context).

Most of the anti-VIA posters on here are urbanists (not surprising since this is SSP), and thus primarily interested in commuter rail and intercity travel in the densest corridor in the country. The rest of Canada can just pound sand.

To these urbanists, the only REAL Canada is the Windsor- Quebec City corridor (and Vancouver), and, since they have no real interest in seeing what Kapuskasing actually looks like, it serves their purposes to dump all federal subsidies into the country's airports rather than the rail system. The rest of Canada is after all "flyover country" - easily dismissed, and, if you never see it, you can pretend it doesn't exist...........

I don't know if it can be that generalized. I do think that with the fact that many people are moving out of their apartments and condos for the smaller places that you can own a house for under a million and have more than a postage stamp for a yard, things will change. I think that air travel will still be popular for the longer distances, but for places that can be driven in a few hours, a demand of a train may start to appear. This is known as a demographic shift.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

@MonctonRad

That's a bit of a strawman argument. Quite a few of us would love more funding to have expanded services. But it's pretty clear that governments of different stripes always seen to find so many other priorities for spending before VIA. And now we're reaching the point where the service that carries the bulk of VIA's passengers is under threat.

The question isn't whether some of us here would support a train to Kapuskasing. It's whether VIA's sole shareholder would be willing to put in the capital and up the cap on annual losses to do so.

Via's sole shareholder is the 36+ million Canadians. Even that kid that got a chocolate bar is a tax payer. With roughly half of the population outside the Corridor, half of the shareholders are not getting a return on investment that they should.

Originally Posted by wave46

I guess I'm the anti-VIA crowd and have lived in Kap, so I don't know where I fall on that particular Venn diagram. FWIW, the Canadian doesn't go to Kap, so I doubt it would get much love there.

Then again, I'm also a taxpayer too.

Which is why I was actually not very distressed about the cancellation of the Northlander train that ran parallel to Ontario Northland's bus service up Highway 11 from Toronto-Cochrane.

Before (train and bus):
Ontario Northland Map - 2009

That money that duplicated the same service was pumped into extending Ontario Northland's bus service throughout the northern areas of the province. More people have access to a safe, reliable transportation option today.

After (bus only):
Ontario Northland Map - 2020

What is VIA's mandate? That is what the government should be deciding. I'm more in favour of a transportation system that benefits more people as a public good as opposed to a subsidized tourist train. I'm one voice of many, though.

Well, go back about 30 years and there was a Via run service called The Northland. It did go to Kap.

The money that is going to expanded bus service did not come from the cancellation of the Northlander, but from the cancellation of the Greyhound subsidy.

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't know about Monctonrad's line of reasoning here... I live in Winnipeg and I am generally predisposed to train travel. But if Winnipeg went back to 1986 levels of VIA service with multiple daily eastbound and westbound trains I'm not sure many people would really care. If anything highway travel is better than it used to be then (better roads, more comfortable/reliable cars) and air travel is probably cheaper and more accessible than it was back then. To me it just makes sense to allocate passenger rail resources to the parts of the country most likely to actually use the trains.

I can appreciate that the sentiment may be a bit different in Atlantic Canada which is better suited to train travel than Western Canada is, though.

It is interesting how you list all thing things that would make train travel a negative out west, but don't look back to the Corridor.
It is faster to fly - even after HFR is put in.
Highways are good as well.
But, there are multiple trains that are well used.

Why does it work? Why can that not be brought to the west?

If I were thinking of multiple dailies, I would be thinking one a day on the CN and CP routes going both ways in and out. That is 4 departures/arrivals a day.

Originally Posted by biguc

I'm in favour of overall better rail transportation, I just think that in the big picture that's best accomplished by making better regional connections that will foster a rail culture and make existing service more viable by extension. If overall service was good, and taking the train was a regular part of people's lives, you wouldn't see the fervour to kill The Canadian, even in its not-so-useful present form.

Someone mentioned replacing the Canadian with a few trains that would leave at reasonable times. That's a good idea.

And, for the record, while I'm talking a lot about the Lower Mainland, it's only because it's low-hanging fruit, and the lack of service there is a black eye. The Maritimes is also a region that should have good intercity rail service, and is well set up to support it. There should be a trains at least every morning and evening between each of Halifax, Moncton, St. John, and Fredericton, with stops in towns/at airports along the way.

Between Via and CN, they have worked very hard to make the Canadian irrelevant. Somehow that should be changed.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, let's call a spade a spade (speaking metaphorically, and in a non racialized context).

Most of the anti-VIA posters on here are urbanists (not surprising since this is SSP), and thus primarily interested in commuter rail and intercity travel in the densest corridor in the country. The rest of Canada can just pound sand.

To these urbanists, the only REAL Canada is the Windsor- Quebec City corridor (and Vancouver), and, since they have no real interest in seeing what Kapuskasing actually looks like, it serves their purposes to dump all federal subsidies into the country's airports rather than the rail system. The rest of Canada is after all "flyover country" - easily dismissed, and, if you never see it, you can pretend it doesn't exist...........

It's simple, really. Put trains where there are going to be people actually riding them. The Corridor offers the best ROI. And that's important, because if we want to ever have train service that isn't shitty, the first step is making it really good in one part of the country. Can't really do that when VIA loses money on the Canadian.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

It's simple, really. Put trains where there are going to be people actually riding them. The Corridor offers the best ROI. And that's important, because if we want to ever have train service that isn't shitty, the first step is making it really good in one part of the country. Can't really do that when VIA loses money on the Canadian.

Name me another federal government thing that is only focused on one small area of the country, and is expected to pay for itself.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Name me another federal government thing that is only focused on one small area of the country, and is expected to pay for itself.

Marine Atlantic?

The Confederation Bridge?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

It's simple, really. Put trains where there are going to be people actually riding them. The Corridor offers the best ROI. And that's important, because if we want to ever have train service that isn't shitty, the first step is making it really good in one part of the country. Can't really do that when VIA loses money on the Canadian.

And more to the point, if you start with poor ROI, you make a juicy fat target for austerity proponents. I can't even imagine how fast a VIA that loses say a billion dollars would be shuttered by a Conservative government. VIA's approach with HFR to make the Corridor neutral on the balance sheet. It lets them cascade improvements we annual funds are freed up, without creating a fat target. Hopefully, the Ocean follows HFR.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by wave46

Marine Atlantic?

The Confederation Bridge?

Most airports too.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

It's simple, really. Put trains where there are going to be people actually riding them. The Corridor offers the best ROI. And that's important, because if we want to ever have train service that isn't shitty, the first step is making it really good in one part of the country.

Canada is large enough that I don't think this is really true. There could be great rail service from Toronto to Montreal while other routes get ignored. Perhaps HSR on that corridor would even need more specialized equipment that is less likely to be usable along other rail corridors.

What I still can't get past is this notion that other developed parts of Canada are "served" by VIA (e.g. trip demand within BC is served by the Canadian which goes up to Edmonton via Kamloops then onward 2x per week) and the poor ridership demonstrates that they cannot support trains. The schedules on most routes render them useless and the routes themselves are often chosen for political reasons or to serve remote towns that wouldn't otherwise have public transport. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with milk runs serving remote towns if that's the goal but let's not pretend that ridership on the milk run trains departing at weird times twice per week tell us what demand for inter-city travel or travel through main corridors is like.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

Marine Atlantic?

The Confederation Bridge?

I did not think of these. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Most airports too.

And now many of them are crying for bailouts. Maybe they should be forced to close if they cannot afford to stay open.

Originally Posted by someone123

Canada is large enough that I don't think this is really true. There could be great rail service from Toronto to Montreal while other routes get ignored. Perhaps HSR on that corridor would even need more specialized equipment that is less likely to be usable along other rail corridors.

What I still can't get past is this notion that other developed parts of Canada are "served" by VIA (e.g. trip demand within BC is served by the Canadian which goes up to Edmonton via Kamloops then onward 2x per week) and the poor ridership demonstrates that they cannot support trains. The schedules on most routes render them useless and the routes themselves are often chosen for political reasons or to serve remote towns that wouldn't otherwise have public transport. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with milk runs serving remote towns if that's the goal but let's not pretend that ridership on the milk run trains departing at weird times twice per week tell us what demand for inter-city travel or travel through main corridors is like.

That is why I feel each major city should get treated as a hub. That would mean that in general, no thru trains. Maybe 1 a week, on the tourist run. The rest, terminate at the next major city.