VIA Rail

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm always surprised that those who advocate for expanded VIA services think this argument will work.

I am always surprised to find some people who think that a mediocre service that doesn't even run daily, and is often behind schedule would be considered acceptable to the population that the service purportedly "serves."

Any operator who wants to abandon a service (but who is governed by a regulator) will first make the service so slow and unreliable that people will stop using it. The operator will then go to the regulator with "evidence" that the service is no longer relevant or useful. The prophesy thus becomes self fulfilling.

If on the other hand the operator chooses to make the service reliable and convenient, then this will draw ridership, and revenues will increase. As opposed to the other scenario above, a virtuous circle is created and a renaissance in rail travel occurs.

For example, if VIA created a 2-3x daily passenger service from Saint John to Moncton and on to Halifax, and it were reliable, I am willing to bet it would become popular over the course of several years. You just have to be willing to make the initial investment for the eventual payoff.

If you build it, they will come...………..

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If you build it, they will come...………...

I don’t think that is how it works. Trains make sense either where no other options exist (say get to moosonee) or for trips of a few hours. Infrastructure helps, but it isn’t a panacea. Europe has a well developed rail network, yet long distance trains (the ones that still exist) have a tiny market share.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t think that is how it works. Trains make sense either where no other options exist (say get to moosonee) or for trips of a few hours. Infrastructure helps, but it isn’t a panacea. Europe has a well developed rail network, yet long distance trains (the ones that still exist) have a tiny market share.

But it is still continent spanning and interconnected. If you want to take the train from Edinburgh to Rome, you still can. You just have to be willing to make connections in London, Paris and Milan along the way.

If I wanted to take the train to Vancouver, I still can too. I would just have to make connections in Montreal and Toronto. I'm fine with that.

Interconnectivity is the main word here. A national rail service has to serve the entire nation (or at least as much as is practicable).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But it is still continent spanning and interconnected. If you want to take the train from Edinburgh to Rome, you still can. You just have to be willing to make connections in London, Paris and Milan along the way.

If I wanted to take the train to Vancouver, I still can too. I would just have to make connections in Montreal and Toronto. I'm fine with that.

Interconnectivity is the main word here. A national rail service has to serve the entire nation (or at least as much as is practicable).

It’s interconnected by happenstance. It happens that there are enough city pairs where frequent train travel is practical to get from London to Rome (although you you would have to be pretty determined to avoid flying to spend thousands of dollars and several days on that train trip). You could also probably make that journey by ferry if you were so inclined.

If the geography were like Canada and and there were a few lightly populated cities with thousands of kilometres of very low population In between it is unlikely the EU or other public body would fund the service.

In fact the reason why Via ended up with used night trains is that a London-based network of night trains was no longer practical once airlines were deregulated.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am always surprised to find some people who think that a mediocre service that doesn't even run daily, and is often behind schedule would be considered acceptable to the population that the service purportedly "serves."

Any operator who wants to abandon a service (but who is governed by a regulator) will first make the service so slow and unreliable that people will stop using it. The operator will then go to the regulator with "evidence" that the service is no longer relevant or useful. The prophesy thus becomes self fulfilling.

If on the other hand the operator chooses to make the service reliable and convenient, then this will draw ridership, and revenues will increase. As opposed to the other scenario above, a virtuous circle is created and a renaissance in rail travel occurs.

For example, if VIA created a 2-3x daily passenger service from Saint John to Moncton and on to Halifax, and it were reliable, I am willing to bet it would become popular over the course of several years. You just have to be willing to make the initial investment for the eventual payoff.

If you build it, they will come...………..

Exactly this. You get out of these things what you put into them.

A service like that would be a boon to the Maritimes; living in St. John or Moncton looks a lot more appealing when on any given day you can connect to ~650k other people, or an international airport, and make it home that night. At that point we could start talking about the Maritimes supporting a major sports franchise, better cultural institutions, bigger concerts, and better retail.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How would it connect to the USA?

Hop on the Go...?

[wave46]

I think we know where everyone stands on VIA's optimal future, but where does everyone think the future actually holds for VIA, given the state of Canada in 2020?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by wave46

I think we know where everyone stands on VIA's optimal future, but where does everyone think the future actually holds for VIA, given the state of Canada in 2020?

I am not optimistic about national interurban passenger rail in the short term, but given the climate crisis, and what will be happening in the future with personal automotive transportation, and at least short to intermediate air travel, we should do everything in our power to preserve our rail network for the eventual renaissance of passenger rail as the preferred mode of intercity travel (at least for distances less than 1200-1500 km).

And I still think that whatever rial service we have in the future has to be at least nationally interconnected (if not transcontinental).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Hop on the Go...?

It does not cross the border.

Originally Posted by wave46

I think we know where everyone stands on VIA's optimal future, but where does everyone think the future actually holds for VIA, given the state of Canada in 2020?

I see one of 2 things.
1) The rest of the network outside the Corridor looses even more frequency.
2) The government uses this as a stimulus package. Building new rail cars and hiring more staff would stimulate the economy.

I hate to admit it, but 1 seems more likely.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am not optimistic about national interurban passenger rail in the short term, but given the climate crisis, and what will be happening in the future with personal automotive transportation, and at least short to intermediate air travel, we should do everything in our power to preserve our rail network for the eventual renaissance of passenger rail as the preferred mode of intercity travel (at least for distances less than 1200-1500 km).

And I still think that whatever rial service we have in the future has to be at least nationally interconnected (if not transcontinental).

1500km almost gets me to the MB border..... the 5 major cities of Northern ON are less than 1500km from the next nearest one.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I repeat - Montreal to Toronto is not Canada. If your vision of VIA is to serve the corridor and nothing else, then it is no longer a national passenger rail carrier, and the feds have no business operating the service. Sell the whole damned thing off...………

If you want to maintain VIA, then let it fulfill it's entire mandate, from coast to coast, and fund it appropriately. Also look at route expansion and give passenger trains priority on the trackage.

In other words, make VIA relevant again.

If you build it, they will come...………...

OK, but the solution to this is not a transcontinental train that is practically useless to 99%+ of the population. The better response is for VIA to build something in those provinces that would be useful to enough people that the service has some economic and political justification. Something like a Calgary - Edmonton train.

The Canadian gets in the way of that goal, while providing almost nothing of value.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If you build it, they will come...………..

Only if the thing you are building is useful. The Canadian is not useful.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But it is still continent spanning and interconnected. If you want to take the train from Edinburgh to Rome, you still can. You just have to be willing to make connections in London, Paris and Milan along the way.

If I wanted to take the train to Vancouver, I still can too. I would just have to make connections in Montreal and Toronto. I'm fine with that.

Interconnectivity is the main word here. A national rail service has to serve the entire nation (or at least as much as is practicable).

I think the hub and spoke system that you and swimmer advocate for seems like a good modernizing option. That way you could use smaller, more efficient trains, perhaps with DMUs and have more appealing scheduling. However, I suspect that for there to be sufficient frequency and reliability there would need to be significant upgrades in track including double tracking and sidings to allow co-existence with freight. And when you're talking about major capital investment you always have a cost-benefit proposition in terms of the best way to spend it. There are some cases in which rail is simply not going to be the most appropriate mode for a route and I don't think we should be dogmatic in pretending that it always will be.

Regional transit should be thought of similarly as urban transit that just happens to serve different areas and distances. You should provide as many people as possible the best service possible with the given funds, but using rail for every route isn't always going to achieve that. Transit experts such as Jarrett Walker often warn against fixating on mode rather than on basic service details such as frequency, speed, geographic coverage, and price (both to users and providers). He tends to recommend setting the goals for these things first and letting that drive decisions about mode rather than deciding on mode first and letting that determine the other characteristics. In other words, decide what speed and frequency of service you want, what areas you want to serve, and how much the provider and consumers are willing/able to pay, and then decide what mode can best achieve that.

After all, there's no reason why a national rail operator can only operate rail just like there's no reason that an agency operating an urban subway/metro can only operate rail. They're usually called transit agencies because they provide general transportation rather than transportation using one specific mode. GO has both buses, and trains. The TTC has buses, trains, streetcars, and accessibility transit vans. Just imagine if every route, including the least used, had to be some type of rail. In fact, that's kind of what happened with the whole Rob Ford obsession with subways, wanting subway service even in areas where the cost was prohibitive relative to the potential ridership.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by wave46

I think we know where everyone stands on VIA's optimal future, but where does everyone think the future actually holds for VIA, given the state of Canada in 2020?

If HFR gets built and is successful, then the future should be more optimistic. If VIA continues the status quo of garbage service for all, then there is little hope. Service will get worse and worse, the equipment older and older and there will be less and less support in the population to preserve the service just because it was so nice in the 50s.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Only if the thing you are building is useful. The Canadian is not useful.

OK then. Replace it with a Toronto-Winnipeg service, and services from Winnipeg-Calgary and Winnipeg-Edmonton. Throw in Calgary-Edmonton service and lines from both Edmonton and Calgary to Vancouver.

My cross country trip therefore would change from Moncton-Montreal-Toronto-Vancouver to Moncton-Montreal-Toronto-Winnipeg-Calgary-Vancouver, a bit more of a nuisance, but still tolerable.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

OK then. Replace it with a Toronto-Winnipeg service, and services from Winnipeg-Calgary and Winnipeg-Edmonton. Throw in Calgary-Edmonton service and lines from both Edmonton and Calgary to Vancouver.

My cross country trip therefore would change from Moncton-Montreal-Toronto-Vancouver to Moncton-Montreal-Toronto-Winnipeg-Calgary-Vancouver, a bit more of a nuisance, but still tolerable.

That doesn't solve the problem that those segments probably won't stand on their own merits. The number of riders that are going to choose a 20 hour Winnipeg to Calgary train will be miniscule, thus the frequency will be low, investment in equipment and line upgrades will be non existent and hence the service would be even less attractive. It's a waste of money that takes away funds from where it actually would be useful.

Rail is unsuited for very long distance routes covering low population density areas, and the longer we insist VIA prioritizes these routes over the routes where rail does make sense, the sooner VIA's impending doom becomes. If we wish VIA to live on, then it needs to focus on routes where it can provide good service. VIA appears to be well aware of this, thankfully, and are focusing all the equipment upgrades on the corridor, promoting HFR, and doing the bare minimum elsewhere, as anything more than that is just money down the drain.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That doesn't solve the problem that those segments probably won't stand on their own merits. The number of riders that are going to choose a 20 hour Winnipeg to Calgary train will be miniscule, thus the frequency will be low, investment in equipment and line upgrades will be non existent and hence the service would be even less attractive. It's a waste of money that takes away funds from where it actually would be useful.

Rail is unsuited for very long distance routes covering low population density areas, and the longer we insist VIA prioritizes these routes over the routes where rail does make sense, the sooner VIA's impending doom becomes. If we wish VIA to live on, then it needs to focus on routes where it can provide good service. VIA appears to be well aware of this, thankfully, and are focusing all the equipment upgrades on the corridor, promoting HFR, and doing the bare minimum elsewhere, as anything more than that is just money down the drain.

Well, your vision of a VIA service limited to the Toronto-Montreal corridor, and my vision of an interconnected national transcontinental service are completely incompatible with one another. It appears that I am not going to convince you, nor are you going to convince me.

The solution therefore is to disband VIA and let Ontario and Quebec manage the rail service in central Canada. Meanwhile the west will be left with no bus and no passenger rail. At least the Maritimes has a functional intercity bus service.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If you build it, they will come...………..

Will they? Let's take your argument to its ultimate conclusion.

The Government of Canada spends tens of billions of dollars building dedicated cross-Canada passenger rail corridors. How many pax do you think would legitimately be diverted from air and car travel? Will there suddenly be a drop in pax from Vancouver to Toronto or Winnipeg to Calgary for the airlines?

There are regions where your argument might work. And they are all corridors under 1000 km. Quebec-Windsor, Calgary-Edmonton, Moncton-Halifax. But outside of that, beating the frequency and travel times of airplanes or the cost and flexibility of cars is very difficult. No matter how much money taxpayers throw at it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The solution therefore is to disband VIA and let Ontario and Quebec manage the rail service in central Canada. Meanwhile the west will be left with no bus and no passenger rail. At least the Maritimes has a functional intercity bus service.

I don't see why that means VIA should be disbanded, even if there were no VIA service in some provinces (or territories, should we send trains up there!?). If there is some issue of "fairness", then that doesn't make much sense, it's not efficient to divide public spending on any part of the budget equally between all the provinces, they all have different needs and will get less of some things and more of others. Should I be angry at the lack of naval infrastructure in Alberta? After all, I'm paying for it.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't see why that means VIA should be disbanded, even if there were no VIA service in some provinces (or territories, should we send trains up there!?). If there is some issue of "fairness", then that doesn't make much sense, it's not efficient to divide public spending on any part of the budget equally between all the provinces, they all have different needs and will get less of some things and more of others. Should I be angry at the lack of naval infrastructure in Alberta? After all, I'm paying for it.

The spending on utilities (and I consider passenger rail service a utility) should be relatively equitable nationwide. I concede however that corridor services have priority.

There may be naval infrastructure in Halifax and NB may have CFB Gagetown, but Alberta has CFB Cold Lake and CFB Wainwright (a pretty large army training base). I would call that a wash.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by biguc

A service like that would be a boon to the Maritimes; living in St. John or Moncton looks a lot more appealing when on any given day you can connect to ~650k other people, or an international airport, and make it home that night. At that point we could start talking about the Maritimes supporting a major sports franchise, better cultural institutions, bigger concerts, and better retail.

I'm skeptical that the mere existence of an expanded VIA network and frequency would result in things like better concerts and sporting events. The VIA network connecting, as you used, Saint John and Moncton wouldn't cut down on the time it takes to otherwise drive, and would likely take longer given presumed stops along the way. Once you're in either Moncton or Saint John you'd need a car to get around, anyway, unless you're planning on spending your entire trip in either Uptown SJ or, gasp, Downtown Moncton. These places don't have ridesharing services like Uber.

Unless VIA was able to cut down travel times between these centres, or until auto traffic becomes so intense that train travel becomes easier, or until these centres naturally grow and develop enough to offer services just for train travellers, I can't see VIA having the boon-impact you predict. Again, i'm a huge train fan and think VIA service between SJ and Moncton would do well, but I don't think it would be amazing right off the bat. If anything should be considered in the Maritimes it should be increased frequency between a simple Moncton and Halifax line connecting to both LeBlanc and Stanfield, then potentially lengthening to Saint John if demand warrants.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, your vision of a VIA service limited to the Toronto-Montreal corridor, and my vision of an interconnected national transcontinental service are completely incompatible with one another. It appears that I am not going to convince you, nor are you going to convince me.

The solution therefore is to disband VIA and let Ontario and Quebec manage the rail service in central Canada. Meanwhile the west will be left with no bus and no passenger rail. At least the Maritimes has a functional intercity bus service.

Nouvellecosse has the right idea IMO.

I think VIA has to come to a point where they view themselves as an interprovincial transit service that uses a combination of rail and bus, including private operators Maritime Bus, Orleans Express, Ontario Northland and Rider Express.

It would focus on a land-based transit system that serves long-distance transit as a public good. It wouldn't have the government competing with private operators for the same passenger. It would help overcome the barriers and limitations of a patchwork of independent operations.

Would it work? Maybe, but I don't see the long-term future of VIA as bright given the fiscal problems of governments today. You can only defer capital spending so long before you're in a position of serious commitment or abandonment.