Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
Providing only daily rail service is about as good as doing nothing (actually, it's worse), the market for that service will be tiny. It will be too inconvenient for most people, unreliable, slower than a bus and expensive to run so will need subsidy to keep ticket prices low. The only people served would be the less well off, and they would be better served by buses, which would be faster, more frequent and more reliable. If it wasn't for the Canadian's tourist customers, we likely wouldn't run the northern route either.
Providing a super crappy rail service to western cities isn't going to solve western alienation, all it will do is worsen VIA's financial situation. If there is to be spending by VIA in the west, the only place that makes sense is Calgary - Edmonton, then build out from there. But that could, and perhaps should, be done by Alberta, if the people gave a crap about it, which they don't.
|
You do know that the Corridor was crappy? You do know that over time, the need was seen and it has been improved upon over the decades?
Nothing will solve Western Alienation, but things like this could lower it, even slightly. By arguing it, you are effectively doing what they complain about them, being ignored. Quit ignoring them. Put it in, see if it is used. I'll bet it will be used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
On the list of issues triggering western alienation, the lack of passenger rail service would have to be somewhere around page 20.
|
Go out west... if you are from Ontario or Quebec, you have no understanding of what they complain about, but as an Ontarian, I lived out there for a few years. the Government of Canada barely exists as an entity out there. Putting something, like another Via service out there would make the Canada brand exist there more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
Right. I do not understand why spending billions on a route with no current service and unknown market potential would be priority, versus spending that money on routes with growing ridership, and known pent up demand. It seems to be a no-brainer.
If HFR is truly successful, which means that it generates a profit, then other routes can be explored. However, even then, the next priority will almost certainly be southwestern Ontario with a potential Amtrak connection to Detroit and Chicago. This connects far more population than any western connection can possibly achieve.
I am not against studying a Calgary-Edmonton connection but we need to prove that the HFR model is successful first. Canada does not have the financial resources to be building dedicated passenger rail lines all over the country.
There continues to be pressure from the Conservative movement to cut taxes which limits what infrastructure that can be built.
|
HFR is not what I am suggesting, nor would be be a good idea out there anyways. HFR makes sense on routes that are well used and have too much traffic on the line.
Why do we build new highways? Why do we build new transit routes? Because they don't exist and there is no ridership. I'll bet a study could be done, and most likely could show that there could be a demand for service. Just like how they show a demand exists for an LRT or subway where none is.