Could daily intercity passenger rail service be revived across Western Canada?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You mean the politicians elected by the public? This thread is truly ironic given that the politicians most ready to cut VIA's budgets are usually from the provinces being discussed here.

Also, opportunity cost is a real thing. Ask Albertans, Saskatchewans and Manitobans if they want $100M per year invested in transit in their cities, or a once per day VIA train from end-to-end on the CP and CN tracks. We all know what they will say.

Originally Posted by foolworm

but what the penny-pinchers in Ottawa want.

There's penny pinching, and there's spending $600 a passenger. If the government chooses to spend $600 per rider on some worthless rural route, it's money that could have been spent to subsidize some other transit route at maybe a few dollars a ride, for a rider that is actually going to be productive to the economy rather than a constant drain. It's not 1870. Rail is to be used when there are thousands of people an hour taking a route, not thousands per year.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You mean the politicians elected by the public? This thread is truly ironic given that the politicians most ready to cut VIA's budgets are usually from the provinces being discussed here.

Also, opportunity cost is a real thing. Ask Albertans, Saskatchewans and Manitobans if they want $100M per year invested in transit in their cities, or a once per day VIA train from end-to-end on the CP and CN tracks. We all know what they will say.

Usually but not always. I suppose some day Via could devolve into a regional service that serves Eastern Canada exclusively, just as Greyhound has become.

As to opportunity costs, the question is only valid if a choice has to be made. In the same vein, I wonder what Ontarians / Quebeckers would say if they had to choose between electrification of Go / Exo networks and HFR.

Originally Posted by milomilo

There's penny pinching, and there's spending $600 a passenger. If the government chooses to spend $600 per rider on some worthless rural route, it's money that could have been spent to subsidize some other transit route at maybe a few dollars a ride, for a rider that is actually going to be productive to the economy rather than a constant drain. It's not 1870. Rail is to be used when there are thousands of people an hour taking a route, not thousands per year.

Which is why the Via network west of Ontario is mostly for scenic travel rather than any useful commuter traffic. Without huge reforms, having tourist revenue to partially cover operating expenses is the least-worst way to fulfill its service mandate.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Usually but not always. I suppose some day Via could devolve into a regional service that serves Eastern Canada exclusively, just as Greyhound has become.

As to opportunity costs, the question is only valid if a choice has to be made. In the same vein, I wonder what Ontarians / Quebeckers would say if they had to choose between electrification of Go / STM networks and HFR.

But both HFR and intensification of Montreal and Toronto's commuter networks have a credible business case so there should be no need to choose. Whereas swimmer_spe and gotrans' constant pushing for infrequent, long distance intercity lines clearly has no business case and should be immediately rejected. As a Calgarian that has no access to VIA, I fully support the federal government saying no to giving me the service that is being suggested. If the federal government is to spend infrastructure money on me, I want something that is actually useful. Either more LRT, some short distance heavy rail or, if we are too incompetent to figure those out, road upgrades.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Which is why the Via network west of Ontario is mostly for scenic travel rather than any useful commuter traffic. Without huge reforms, having tourist revenue to partially cover operating expenses is the least-worst way to fulfill its service mandate.

Or just don't do it. If it's a waste of money, it's a waste of money regardless of political priorities imposed on VIA. No point throwing money down the drain in an extremely misguided attempt at "fairness".

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But both HFR and intensification of Montreal and Toronto's commuter networks have a credible business case so there should be no need to choose. Whereas swimmer_spe and gotrans' constant pushing for infrequent, long distance intercity lines clearly has no business case and should be immediately rejected. As a Calgarian that has no access to VIA, I fully support the federal government saying no to giving me the service that is being suggested. If the federal government is to spend infrastructure money on me, I want something that is actually useful. Either more LRT, some short distance heavy rail or, if we are too incompetent to figure those out, road upgrades.

Well, that's why I suggested the refocussing of Via's operations towards scenic rail to supplement its revenues. I can't help but think how Via's fortunes might have improved if they were able to build on the high-end rail tourism market instead of ceding it to companies like the Rocky Mountaineer and Royal Canadian Pacific. Even now, the section of the Canadian between Edmonton and Vancouver turns a profit during the summer months and helps subsidize the rest of the route.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Well, that's why I suggested the refocussing of Via's operations towards scenic rail to supplement its revenues. I can't help but think how Via's fortunes might have improved if they were able to build on the high-end rail tourism market instead of ceding it to companies like the Rocky Mountaineer and Royal Canadian Pacific. Even now, the section of the Canadian between Edmonton and Vancouver turns a profit during the summer months and helps subsidize the rest of the route.

They're still unprofitable though. If there's money to be made, let the private sector do it as they will always be better. If there's some other economic benefit to subsidizing trips to the tune of $600 or whatever, I'm all ears, but I've yet to hear it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Usually but not always. I suppose some day Via could devolve into a regional service that serves Eastern Canada exclusively, just as Greyhound has become.

I have long maintained that if other parts of the country wanted service, their provinces should simply offer to cover the subsidies, the way Amtrak operates services for various states in the US. Yet, it seems a lot of provinces aren't interested in any intercity rail service unless the feds pay for it entirely.

Originally Posted by foolworm

As to opportunity costs, the question is only valid if a choice has to be made. In the same vein, I wonder what Ontarians / Quebeckers would say if they had to choose between electrification of Go / Exo networks and HFR.

False choice. Unlike the rest of VIA's network, the core portions for which HFR has been proposed actually makes money. If that wasn't the case, then sure, they'd pick investment in local/regional rail networks.

Originally Posted by foolworm

Which is why the Via network west of Ontario is mostly for scenic travel rather than any useful commuter traffic. Without huge reforms, having tourist revenue to partially cover operating expenses is the least-worst way to fulfill its service mandate.

There is no amount of reform that can fix the geography and demographics. There's exactly one city pair that has a hope in hell of making some sort of service work beyond a once per day service. And that city pair has no easy set of tracks for VIA to work with.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by milomilo

They're still unprofitable though. If there's money to be made, let the private sector do it as they will always be better. If there's some other economic benefit to subsidizing trips to the tune of $600 or whatever, I'm all ears, but I've yet to hear it.

I suppose the question is -how- unprofitable. I actually wouldn't mind if Via was privatized and given a chance to prove itself like Air Canada / CN rail did.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There is no amount of reform that can fix the geography and demographics. There's exactly one city pair that has a hope in hell of making some sort of service work beyond a once per day service. And that city pair has no easy set of tracks for VIA to work with.

The CP track does exist for a Calgary-Banff corridor, although I imagine new track will have to be laid for any sort of decent service.

Jokes aside, I have given my opinions in separate posts.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by foolworm

I suppose the question is -how- unprofitable. I actually do wish that Via was privatized and given a chance to prove itself like Air Canada / CN rail was, but that's for Ottawa to decide.

If this ever happened, the day after any privatization, intercity rail service in Canada would be reduced to Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. If lucky, maybe out to London in the West and Quebec City in the East. There's no business case at all to run intercity rail service on a commercial basis in the rest of Canada.

You should ask cities like Winnipeg how privatizing Air Canada worked out for them.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If this ever happened, the day after any privatization, intercity rail service in Canada would be reduced to Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. If lucky, maybe out to London in the West and Quebec City in the East. There's no business case at all to run intercity rail service on a commercial basis in the rest of Canada.

You should ask cities like Winnipeg how privatizing Air Canada worked out for them.

True, and it's possible that even Corridor services will die a slow death as a privatized Via probably would not be able to raise the capital needed for major infrastructure projects. On the whole, I am not optimistic on the state of intercity transport in general for Western Canada as the coach, rail and air networks are shriveling up.

With regards to Air Canada, Winnipeg might not be thriving but at it is at least surviving. If nothing else, the ACC there guarantees a civilian industry presence of some sort.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by foolworm

With regards to Air Canada, Winnipeg might not be thriving but at it is at least surviving. If nothing else, the ACC there guarantees a civilian industry presence of some sort.

I was referring to Winnipeg losing the HQ of TCA, than its status as a minor hub and operating base, and eventually its servicing contracts.

[casper]

Originally Posted by milomilo

They're still unprofitable though. If there's money to be made, let the private sector do it as they will always be better. If there's some other economic benefit to subsidizing trips to the tune of $600 or whatever, I'm all ears, but I've yet to hear it.

If we look at history. The Rocky Mountainer was created out of the ashes for Via Rail. Via rail shutdown the branch from Winnipeg through Regina, Calgary to Vancouver. A provide company purchased the rolling stock and started to do a tourist oriented service. The key difference is no overnight service. You overnight in a hotel. The hotel are bundled with the rail into a package.

Why can't Via rail find a way of driving down operating costs and increasing revenue.

At a start they should make a deal with the Rocky Mountaineer to add an extra Via rail car that can be sold at a discount relative to the tourist pricing to provide transportation options instead of tour options.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I was referring to Winnipeg losing the HQ of TCA, than its status as a minor hub and operating base, and eventually its servicing contracts.

It's symptomatic of Winnipeg's decline, but that's another thread for another time.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I have long maintained that if other parts of the country wanted service, their provinces should simply offer to cover the subsidies, the way Amtrak operates services for various states in the US. Yet, it seems a lot of provinces aren't interested in any intercity rail service unless the feds pay for it entirely.

That is not done right now. Ontario and Quebec do not pay anything to Via to keep them.

I actually do agree that the provinces should put money towards via. And if you want a station in your town, you pay for the station. But, what about the stops in unincorporated areas?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is not done right now. Ontario and Quebec do not pay anything to Via to keep them.

Ontario and Quebec actually have some services that are profitable. The subsidy level per rider isn't high. Ontario and Quebec paying for subsidies would end service elsewhere pretty quick. Nobody else is interested in subsidizing riders at several hundred dollars a pop.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

They're still unprofitable though. If there's money to be made, let the private sector do it as they will always be better. If there's some other economic benefit to subsidizing trips to the tune of $600 or whatever, I'm all ears, but I've yet to hear it.

That $600 number was bugging me.....

You are saying that per passenger, it costs about 10 cents per km? I wonder what the subsidy per passenger per km is on the Corridor. If it is higher, or close, then the argument against subsidies is a red herring.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Which is why the Via network west of Ontario is mostly for scenic travel rather than any useful commuter traffic. Without huge reforms, having tourist revenue to partially cover operating expenses is the least-worst way to fulfill its service mandate.

Build a network for intercity travel and the tourists will take it too. The tourist traffic does not disappear because schedules and frequencies are convenient for intercity travellers. We would benefit more if tourists got off the train and explored sights enroute rather than just sit on the train for 4 days.

[milomilo]

Federal study will look at feasibility of train linking Calgary airport, downtown and Banff

I've always found this the most interesting and appealing rail proposal out of Calgary. Commuter rail to Airdrie would barely get any ridership to fill a few one way trains and is uninspiring, HSR to Edmonton is too expensive and controversial especially for with a provincial government as backwards and small minded as ours.

But a train from the airport to Banff ticks a lot of boxes. It shouldn't be tooooo expensive (though probably still much more expensive than some have claimed), it serves a number of different in both directions purposes - commuting, tourism, leisure travel, and it's actually an interesting idea that most people would probably agree with.

Just a study though of course and I'd bet money that nothing comes of it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Federal study will look at feasibility of train linking Calgary airport, downtown and Banff

I've always found this the most interesting and appealing rail proposal out of Calgary. Commuter rail to Airdrie would barely get any ridership to fill a few one way trains and is uninspiring, HSR to Edmonton is too expensive and controversial especially for with a provincial government as backwards and small minded as ours.

But a train from the airport to Banff ticks a lot of boxes. It shouldn't be tooooo expensive (though probably still much more expensive than some have claimed), it serves a number of different in both directions purposes - commuting, tourism, leisure travel, and it's actually an interesting idea that most people would probably agree with.

Just a study though of course and I'd bet money that nothing comes of it.

Maybe it should be extended to Edmonton.....

[esquire]

It's great news, but at the same time the logistics are curious given that it would presumably involve the CP main line, which is a busy freight route that (I'm assuming) can't easily be expanded west of Cochrane.