Via rail

[OldDartmouthMark]

This is sorta relevant to the topic...

Amherst pizza shop owner to breathe new life into 111-year-old train station - Via Rail station in town has been closed to passengers since 2012

[lrt's friend]

Yes, replace the Canadian which attracts thousands of tourists worldwide each year and spend the money on a train between Calgary and Edmonton that hasn't operated in decades. If this isn't the very point, why should a new service be added unless there is a clear business case? Obviously, the track will have to be improved at what cost to provide a competitive service? As far as I know, no business case has been presented so why would we even consider it until then?

This is very point on the corridor. A business case is being developed so if it proves reasonable to produce a positive economic outcome, then it seems to be a no brainer. If VIA can operate at a profit on the corridor service, it makes sense, doesn't it? As we have seen with Greyhound, private operators are not necessarily the answer.

While we are talking about urban rail stations, we should be considering best practices. Best practices suggest that inter-city trains should be located where the most people find it useful. We have to consider local residents as well as business and tourist travelers. As we move forward, and it becomes more important to provide easy accessibility, multi-modal stations become important. For intercity rail, a central station is most important to make it competitive with the airlines on short haul flights. Multi-modal stations are best located central to the city and not at a suburban location. A central location is where typically there is a natural confluence of public transit modes. This does not mean we shouldn't have suburban stations as well. In Montreal, one to the east and one to the west to provide accessibility to more local residents, but downtown is still the prime destination especially for visitors to the city.

If our central stations reach capacity, it tell us that the capacity of the station needs to be increased. We shouldn't be moving services to some reasonably remote location. Our plans should reflect that viable services should be maintained.

It seems to me that some plans are being under priced if we end up with choke points, whether at a station or elsewhere.

Regarding buses replacing trains, I don't understand this comment for very remote locations (poor or no road access) and when intercity buses have been scrapped west of Sudbury. How does it improve the situation when buses are not viable, so the next move is to remove another option?

[p_xavier]

All this talk about the Canadian, I booked myself another trip from Alexandria to Vancouver on March 2nd. There's a great sale on 1 person cabins.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

All this talk about the Canadian, I booked myself another trip from Alexandria to Vancouver on March 2nd. There's a great sale on 1 person cabins.

Lucky you! I am going at the end of April, but I can't do a last minute sale as it is part of bigger trip.

[ssiguy]

I still havenèt heard anybody answer my question.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I still havenèt heard anybody answer my question.

It's unfulfilling to have questions unanswered.

In that vein, how about responding to Urban_Sky's post?

[ssiguy]

I have answered it. I have plainly stated that all non-corridor services should be cancelled and only run by the private sector for tourists. I have no problem subsidizing transportation but VIA outside the Corridor is not a transportation service but rather a tourist cruise ship running on tracks and I don't feel like subsidizing a cruise ship.

Unlike UrbanSky, I do not put my priority on VIA but rather on the travelling public. It is the public that should be served as opposed to a an expensive government make-work project which is all the non-Corridor routes are as far as I'm concerned except if a valid business case can be used on a new service ie Calgary/Edmonton.. As I stated, use the average per-person subsidy on the Corridor and apply it nationwide. If the service is still viable then they can keep it or perhaps only run it during peak seasons. If not let a private company run the tourist service and let VIA replace those routes with faster, more reliable, much more frequent, and vastly cheaper inner-city buses.

This gets to one of the problems with VIA with it's 19th century mentality trying to work in a 21st century reality..............it is just a train service as opposed to what it should be, a transportation service.

[J81]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have answered it. I have plainly stated that all non-corridor services should be cancelled and only run by the private sector for tourists. I have no problem subsidizing transportation but VIA outside the Corridor is not a transportation service but rather a tourist cruise ship running on tracks and I don't feel like subsidizing a cruise ship.

Unlike UrbanSky, I do not put my priority on VIA but rather on the travelling public. It is the public that should be served as opposed to a an expensive government make-work project which is all the non-Corridor routes are as far as I'm concerned except if a valid business case can be used on a new service ie Calgary/Edmonton.. As I stated, use the average per-person subsidy on the Corridor and apply it nationwide. If the service is still viable then they can keep it or perhaps only run it during peak seasons. If not let a private company run the tourist service and let VIA replace those routes with faster, more reliable, much more frequent, and vastly cheaper inner-city buses.

This gets to one of the problems with VIA with it's 19th century mentality trying to work in a 21st century reality..............it is just a train service as opposed to what it should be, a transportation service.

The public is being served by these services you hastily wish to cut. Thats the point of having them. Canada exists outside the corridor and Calgary to Edmonton. Most of the communities along these routes have no other transportation alternatives. Its your kind of attitude toward transportation that has gotten this country into the situation it finds itself in currently.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by J81

The public is being served by these services you hastily wish to cut. Thats the point of having them. Canada exists outside the corridor and Calgary to Edmonton. Most of the communities along these routes have no other transportation alternatives. Its your kind of attitude toward transportation that has gotten this country into the situation it finds itself in currently.

I think the question is: Would the money VIA receives in subsidy be better spent on a broader transportation network? Certainly, those communities on the VIA's current routes will be affected, but would a more comprehensive bus system for the Prairies better serve the region overall as opposed to the single train line with infrequent service, for instance?

VIA does have a mandate to serve isolated communities, yes. That's not going to change simply because providing an alternative method will cost way more than the current setup. Example: A road to Churchill, MB would be expensive - much moreso than the current VIA service.

IMO: VIA has to expand its mandate beyond trains. A train is a wonderful device for moving large groups of people between relatively close points (say, <700-800km). It is an inefficient way to move small groups of people and people between very distant points.

So, VIA should act as a coordinator between the disparate private/public bus operators and aim to help fill in the gaps in our national transportation network. Yes, rail will be an element of this. But rail shouldn't be the only solution.

[J81]

Originally Posted by wave46

I think the question is: Would the money VIA receives in subsidy be better spent on a broader transportation network? Certainly, those communities on the VIA's current routes will be affected, but would a more comprehensive bus system for the Prairies better serve the region overall as opposed to the single train line with infrequent service, for instance?

VIA does have a mandate to serve isolated communities, yes. That's not going to change simply because providing an alternative method will cost way more than the current setup. Example: A road to Churchill, MB would be expensive - much moreso than the current VIA service.

IMO: VIA has to expand its mandate beyond trains. A train is a wonderful device for moving large groups of people between relatively close points (say, <700-800km). It is an inefficient way to move small groups of people and people between very distant points.

So, VIA should act as a coordinator between the disparate private/public bus operators and aim to help fill in the gaps in our national transportation network. Yes, rail will be an element of this. But rail shouldn't be the only solution.

I agree! Buses should be used to supplement the existing train service. Being able to connect from one mode of transportation to another seamlessly should be a priority. Its already happening in the maritimes. The busses are timed to meet the trains. It works well. Thats the way it always worked when trains plied those routes. The regional services all converged on Moncton before the ocean and Atlantic departed so people could connect and move around the region by rail. The schedules were changed and people could make those connections anymore so they stopped using it. The government then had a reason to cut the service. Funny how that works eh. Anyway. If my point is, if you make a service attractive and easy then it will be used.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by J81

I agree! Buses should be used to supplement the existing train service. Being able to connect from one mode of transportation to another seamlessly should be a priority. Its already happening in the maritimes. The busses are timed to meet the trains. It works well. Thats the way it always worked when trains plied those routes. The regional services all converged on Moncton before the ocean and Atlantic departed so people could connect and move around the region by rail. The schedules were changed and people could make those connections anymore so they stopped using it. The government then had a reason to cut the service. Funny how that works eh. Anyway. If my point is, if you make a service attractive and easy then it will be used.

In GTA, sometimes Go Buses hold for connection from trains.* In other words, if the train arrives late, the bus won't leave but wait.

* The converse is generally not true though.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have answered it. I have plainly stated that all non-corridor services should be cancelled and only run by the private sector for tourists. I have no problem subsidizing transportation but VIA outside the Corridor is not a transportation service but rather a tourist cruise ship running on tracks and I don't feel like subsidizing a cruise ship.

Unlike UrbanSky, I do not put my priority on VIA but rather on the travelling public. It is the public that should be served as opposed to a an expensive government make-work project which is all the non-Corridor routes are as far as I'm concerned except if a valid business case can be used on a new service ie Calgary/Edmonton.. As I stated, use the average per-person subsidy on the Corridor and apply it nationwide. If the service is still viable then they can keep it or perhaps only run it during peak seasons. If not let a private company run the tourist service and let VIA replace those routes with faster, more reliable, much more frequent, and vastly cheaper inner-city buses.

This gets to one of the problems with VIA with it's 19th century mentality trying to work in a 21st century reality..............it is just a train service as opposed to what it should be, a transportation service.

Service cut in Western Canada means zero possibility of a Calgary-Edmonton route at any point in the future. It will then be up to the Alberta government or a private operator to get it going.

Buses cannot serve areas with no roads.

Privatizing the Canadian means there is no incentive to allow for connectivity. The service would also be priced only for the well off. Remember, students were invited to explore Canada on VIA coach class in 2017. Coach class would be eliminated by a private operator.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Service cut in Western Canada means zero possibility of a Calgary-Edmonton route at any point in the future. It will then be up to the Alberta government or a private operator to get it going.

Buses cannot serve areas with no roads.

Privatizing the Canadian means there is no incentive to allow for connectivity. The service would also be priced only for the well off. Remember, students were invited to explore Canada on VIA coach class in 2017. Coach class would be eliminated by a private operator.

I'm curious what sections of the route of the Canadian made the most profit.

Is the section from Toronto-Sudbury or Toronto-Sioux Lookout popular? Or even Toronto-Winnipeg?

I could see Winnipeg-Edmonton or Edmonton-Vancouver being quite popular with tourists. This section seems to offer better 'local' service as well as it stops in Saskatoon and smaller towns in the Prairies.

The Toronto-Winnipeg section pretty much travels through hinterland the whole time. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded from living here, but someone once compared travelling through Northern Ontario to deep-space travel without cryogenics.

Or does the business case fall apart once the Canadian is truncated?

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

It seems that nobody talks about monorail between the two cities anymore.

Like SkyTrain? Or when you say monorail, like medium capacity rail transit?


No one does monorail anymore its just Disneyland stuff.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by LilZebra

Like SkyTrain? Or when you say monorail, like medium capacity rail transit?


No one does monorail anymore its just Disneyland stuff.

I guess it’s sort of like skytrain, except physically inverted.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by wave46

Is the section from Toronto-Sudbury or Toronto-Sioux Lookout popular? Or even Toronto-Winnipeg?

The Toronto-Winnipeg section pretty much travels through hinterland the whole time. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded from living here, but someone once compared travelling through Northern Ontario to deep-space travel without cryogenics.

I have rode the Canadian 3x (2000, 2001, 2003).


The view of the Canadian Shield region is magical. You cannot get that view from the sky (2006), flying fast between Winnipeg and Toronto.


It's just not the same.


So what if it's a tourist train?


But yes, I would like to see the Calgary service reinstated from Winnipeg. That was Mulroney's fault they cancelled it in 1986 / 1991, can't remember now it's been 30+ years.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by LilZebra

I have rode the Canadian 3x (2000, 2001, 2003)


But yes, I would like to see the Calgary service reinstated from Winnipeg. That was Mulroney's fault they cancelled it in 1986 / 1991, can't remember now it's been 30+ years.

I remember it well and it was 100% pure politics. The ONLY reason they used the northern route as opposed to Regina/Calgary was because the Minister of Transportation at the time was Don Mazankowski and he was the MP from, you guessed it, Edmonton.

Now the VIA 'transportation service' serves Edmonton with the next largest centre of Hinton which is the 28th largest town in the province. Towards Saskatoon the biggest town served between Edm/Sask is the mighty metropolis of Wainright at #47. All other major centres in Alberta be damned...………..Wainwrite needs it rail station. Of course calling it a station is a stretch because the station is actually closed, the train requires a minimum of 24 hour advanced notice for a stop and 48 hours is recommended, and the 'service' only meanders by 3X a week. God help you if you are in Edmonton and miss your train back to your favored metropolis.

As opposed to this, VIA could serve dozens of other communities, millions of more people, provide faster and more reliable service, come by at least once a day even on the remote routes, and, due to the same Corridor subsidy, be sizably cheaper to boot. Which service would you rather have?

[esquire]

^ I was under the impression that at the time of the 1990 cuts, CN was generally more sympathetic to having passenger trains (they were still a crown corporation at the time) while CP was more inclined to no longer have to deal with them on their network. I think there were only a few routes that ran on CP tracks after those cuts: Victoria-Courtenay, Sudbury-White River, Calgary-Vancouver (Rocky Mountaineer), Montreal-Halifax via Saint John, and then maybe a few minor segments on other routes. The vast majority of Via service was, and still is, on CN trackage. I don't think Via service was really that huge of a political plum for Edmonton... it represents what, maybe 20 or so jobs?

[ssiguy]

It wasn't due to CN or CP nor the probably jobs but the politics. Closing a route thru your city, regardless of whether it makes sense or not, is a no-win scenario so the travelling public be damned when a politicians seat is at risk. It was 100% politics.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It was 100% politics.

Your right. He would have received all sorts of angry telegraphs from passenger train supporters.