Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
The investment might be the same, or less even, but the benefit will be far less, so the business case will be weak.
|
I agree it would be weaker, but I don't think it would be weak. Here are the respective
CMA or CA populations:
Montreal (Laval, Longueuil) 4,098,927
Quebec City (Lévis) 800,296
Trois-Rivières 156,042
Calgary 1,392,609
Edmonton 1,321,426
Red Deer 100,418
While Montreal is about three times the size of Calgary, Edmonton is more than 1 1/2 times the size of Qutebec City to make up for it. Trois-Rivières and Red Deer are both significantly smaller but will contribute to the demand, especially because of the shorter distances.
The big problem is station infrastructure. Both Montreal and Quebec still have stations that are actively being used. Calgary's no longer has an active station, and Edmonton's is in the north end of the city, and not appropriate for intercity use, so they would have to build a new, south station (possibly use
Strathcona Station?). Neither Trois-Rivières nor Red Deer have active train stations, so they are equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
That's not to say I don't think an extensive passenger rail network in Alberta could be viable, but it would take many years to develop given we are starting at virtually nothing. If anyone is going to build passenger rail in Alberta, I would hope they look at the whole province and find a line with the very best business case and build that first. If it's a success, we can build more, but if it's a failure then we never will, so it is critical that the business case is good.
|
What other destinations do you think could have sufficient demand for rail service? Lethbridge is only slightly larger than Red Deer and hardly justifiable as a destination. They might be able to run trains to Banff and Lake Louise, but demand would be very seasonal and hard to justify.
Buses would be a better option, and having those integrated with a rail service could create some synergy to drive demand for both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
Most people riding through on The Canadian don't care if the train is late, it's basically a land cruise for fun as opposed to a transportation system that people rely on.
|
Yes and no. It is true that their schedules aren't as tight and if the train is late, they get to enjoy more time on board, but they may have reservations that would need to be adjusted, which can be difficult from the train when it is in remote regions with no cellular service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
The handful of people who still ride it as a local train (e.g. Melville-Saskatoon) are used to this shortcoming and are generally well prepared when it comes to checking to see if the train is on time.
|
They might be used to it, but I am sure they don't like it and would much prefer a more reliable service. Only those who are totally dependant on the service would put up with these serious shortcomings. Almost everyone else would find an alternate mode of transportation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
You chop up The Canadian into a bunch of small segments and you lose nearly all the big spending tourists, and gain a small handful of people who start buying cheap tickets to ride from Wainwright to Edmonton. Doesn't add up.
|
If done right you wouldn't loose the tourists. As you said, the tourists aren't in a rush, and most would love to be able to spend more time in cities along the way. The current schedule doesn't allow that. VIA could work with tour operators to allow seamless connections. For example, porters could give the luggage to the tour operator so that it arrives in the passenger's hotel room and is later put back on the train. This would then help stimulate the local economies of the transfer cities, as currently most just stay on the train. Those who do get off, don't venture very far afield and don't have many opportunities to spend money.
Some legs, like Toronto-Winnipeg would likely need to retain overnight service, but others (like Winnipeg-Saskatoon and Saskatoon-Edmonton) could run as daytime trains, which are considerably cheaper to operate. Those operational savings would easily offset the additional cost of hotels for tourists.
One option (westbound) would be:
Day 1&2 - Toronto-Winnipeg,
Overnight in Winnipeg
Day 3 - Winnipeg-Saskatoon
Overnight in Saskatoon
Day 4 Saskatoon-Edmonton
Overnight in Edmonton
Day 5&6 Edmonton-Vancouver*
*Edmonton-Vancouver could also be split, but daylight service is already offered by the Rocky Mountaineer, and they might complain about a VIA competing with them with subsidized service.
The total trip would be two days longer, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. There could also be options for longer stays in the cities by having more frequent daytime service in the prairies.