VIA Rail

[milomilo]

It's pretty hard to have a productive conversation if you don't accept that money exists, is important, and is limited. Otherwise we might as well be playing sim city. Investment in passenger rail must go to the places where the money will give the best return, and that definitely is not milk runs across the prairies.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

***

#2


You would need to provide me with a link if you want me to update the CMA/CA figures to reflect 1991 rather than 2016 data…

Are you telling me you do not know how to use Wikipedia? Step away from the computer. Go get a hammer. Smash computer till it is dust.

Look under the Federal census population hsitory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary#Demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton#Demographics

Under Historic populations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina...n#Demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon#Demographics

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

If we ignore any CMA/CAs west of Winnipeg, the CP route serves 136,717 people (i.e. Kenora and Thunder Bay combined) more than the CN route, which represents an increase by only 1.9%. Such a minuscule difference does not justify increasing the operating subsidy by an order-of-magnitude of 50% by rerouting a service.

1.9 here, 5 there. Eventually things add up. This is also looking not at growth either. What if those numbers were totaling 10 or even 15 percent higher today more than they currently have? Would that be enough? What is the threshold for it being enough?

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Similarly, if we ignore any CMA/CAs west of Winnipeg, the CP route serves 185,246 people more than the CN route, which represents an increase by only 3.5%. Again, such a minuscule difference does not justify running a costly overnight service in complete isolation of the rest of the network (thus denying it any synergies).

What is the threshold?

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Nobody cares about isolated subsidy figures of individual routes, when the objective is to minimize the overall subsidy need of the entire network. When weighing the CN route against the CP route, the politicians needed to consider the incremental effects of ditching one versus ditching the other and (whether for the right reasons or “wrong” ones) they went for what was unfortunately the obvious choice, given the objective they had chosen.

Well, then why not cut the ones in Quebec that have roads and that have high subsidies?
Could it be that Quebec has threatened to leave Canada, and the government wasn't going to risk the political capital?

Yes, it i about lowering the subsidy. But it is also where they can afford to lose the political capital.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

I don’t know why a self-declared rural rail advocate would be so dismissive of providing rail service to communities without road access, but the federal government’s responsibility for providing passenger rail services to remote communities is well documented:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/corporate-s...orts-1506.html

Therefore, let me ask you (all questions relate to the 1990 cuts):

• Was Montreal-Gaspé eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Montreal-Jonquiere eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Montreal-Senneterre-Cochrane eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Sudbury-White River eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Winnipeg-Churchill eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was The Pas-Lynn Lake eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was Jasper-Prince Rupert eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?
• Was any service which could have been considered to “not have access to a year-round, all weather road access link to the surface national transportation system” eliminated or cut to less than 3 times per week?

If the had cut the Montreal-Jonquiere and Montreal-Senneterre-Cochrane (which no longer goes to Cochrane), the 1995 referendum might have Canada looking very much different than today's one does. Western Alienation is a thing. This proves it. So, if the government wants to resolve that, an olive branch like restoring western services might be a good start.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Then why don’t you just accept that the price of routing the Canadian over CP east of Winnipeg would have been to fund a thrice-weekly overnight remote service between Winnipeg and Capreol, which would have been costly to operate, rather than making absurd claims, just to avoid admitting that you can’t defend your claims?

More than the RDC that is running? Couldn't they have used it? Yes, if they legally had to keep it, then it would add to it. However, the additional people served might be enough to make the overall subsidy lower.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Also, which minister seated in Hornepayne or Sioux Lookout would have intervened to make sure that the Canadian would be routed through his home town rater than Kenora and Thunder Bay? And why would he have lobbied against the Southern route, given that the Northern communities are in the same riding as the Southern communities, with the latter accounting for the overwhelming share of votes? I hope this just shows you how absurd your claims are...

I would love to see the fight between Thunder Bay and Hornepayne MPs.
Mind you, it would be funny to watch the Official Opposition argue with each other as all of those ridings were Liberal held in a PC government.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

If you refuse to accept my conclusions, even though you are unable to defend your own, then we will of course be never able to find agreement on this point.

If you cannot see that it was not just about the subsidy, we will never agree. It is both subsidy and political.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Absolutely fascinating idea to abandon communities which have no other transportation links than the rail service you would have cut in 1990, just to increase the population served by the Canadian by a measly 1.2% (136,717 over 11,605,377)…^^

Well, they did have the RDC running where the Canadian did. They could have run it where the current one does.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

The reality is, it is a pointless argument as you insist on a conspiracy theory, regardless of how many times it gets debunked. If you want to discuss beliefs rather than facts, you might be happier in a religious forum…

Fact - it was to lower the subsidy.
Fact - It was done to lower the political damage.

If we both can agree to this, then the issue is done.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Of course we can change the future, but I’m not sure how you want to change it if you don’t even want to acknowledge the political, financial, economic and legal constraints of the past or present?

Leave the current service where it is. Add the Chinook and The Canadian service back. Start with those.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by jawagord

An article about the Canadian, how timely:

The Canadian, which in theory links Vancouver to Toronto. It has been shut down almost since the blockade began, and hardly anyone has noticed. It’s time we talk about this crazy thing.

What, you may ask, is the most ridiculous thing about The Canadian? Some might point to the astonishing level of subsidy: In 2018, the average corridor passenger enjoyed a subsidy of $32, or 17 cents per mile. The average passenger on The Canadian: $596, or 48 cents a mile, for a total of $49 million.

But never mind the price for a second; look what it’s buying. Fifty years ago, CN’s Super Continental was scheduled to take 67 hours. Today The Canadian, plying the same route and giving way to every freight train, is budgeted a mind-boggling 85 hours eastbound and 97 westbound.

VIA padded out the timetable in 2018 hoping to make the trip more “predictable,” after impudent passengers started complaining about being taken hostage for hours or days, thus ruining their onward travel plans. In 2017’s peak summer season, more than half of eastbound arrivals were at least eight hours late. The average westbound delay between November 2017 and March 2018 was 19 hours; the maximum was 43 hours!

The Canadian is eye-wateringly expensive. For the full one-way trip, a cabin for two will set you back $3,824, meals included. You can take a five-day mid-range Caribbean cruise for that, and that’s no coincidence: The Canadian is essentially a cruise ship on rails. It’s just that, well, Canadian taxpayers don’t subsidize cruise lines. Because that would be nuts.

At time of writing, Air Transat was offering one-way next-day tickets from Toronto to Vancouver for less than $400. With three days’ notice, Swoop will fly you from Hamilton to Abbotsford for $200. And you’ll still get there before The Canadian

Theoretically The Canadian might provide a useful link between intermediate cities like Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg — especially since there’s no bus service between the latter two cities.But it takes 13 hours overnight Mondays and Thursdays to get from Winnipeg to Saskatoon on the train, and 14 hours all day Mondays and Wednesdays to get back, and costs a minimum of $223 return — $574 if you want a berth. You can rent a car for less and drive it in eight-and-a-half hours, any time you want.

When the blockade lifts, let’s resolve to leave this stupid money-pit train parked where it is.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chr...nctional-train

The NP is a hard right wing news agency. It is like our Fox. So, it is no surprise they want it killed. As Urbansky has pointed out, some of the service is due to legal requirements to have it. Maybe the NP needs a lesson in that.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's pretty hard to have a productive conversation if you don't accept that money exists, is important, and is limited. Otherwise we might as well be playing sim city. Investment in passenger rail must go to the places where the money will give the best return, and that definitely is not milk runs across the prairies.

Well, why not cut the 2 routes in Quebec that all have roads to them? I mean, if there is a finite amount of money, then this cut must happen.

Or maybe things are not that simple.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, why not cut the 2 routes in Quebec that all have roads to them? I mean, if there is a finite amount of money, then this cut must happen.

Or maybe things are not that simple.

Whether or not those Quebec routes should be cut or not has zero implication on the feasibility of additional rail routes in the prairies or elsewhere, other than saving a minuscule amount of operating income.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Whether or not those Quebec routes should be cut or not has zero implication on the feasibility of additional rail routes in the prairies or elsewhere, other than saving a minuscule amount of operating income.

I am not equating one to the other. But, why keep it when roads serve everyone along it? That money could go elsewhere.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not equating one to the other. But, why keep it when roads serve everyone along it?

Because if you would research things before forming your strong opinons, you would have realized that driving from Senneterre to La Tuque is a detour of 300 km (721 km by road vs. 420 km by rail) and takes almost 2 hours more (7:45 hours by road vs. 6:08 hours by rail) than taking the (already slow) train:

That money could go elsewhere.

No, the $11.6 million reported as operating deficit for these two remote services in VIA Rail's Annual Report 2018 would not go to fund passenger rail services anywhere else in the country. The line called (something like) "Operating subsidy for VIA Rail Canada" in the federal budget would simply be reduced by that amount and that's the end of the story. Arguing that certain places should loose their passenger rail service is the most counter-productive way to advance the idea of restoring passenger rail service to other parts of the country...

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Because if you would research things before forming your strong opinons, you would have realized that driving from Senneterre to La Tuque is a detour of 300 km (721 km by road vs. 420 km by rail) and takes almost 2 hours more (7:45 hours by road vs. 6:08 hours by rail) than taking the (already slow) train:




No, the $11.6 million reported as operating deficit for these two remote services in VIA Rail's Annual Report 2018 would not go to fund passenger rail services anywhere else in the country. The line called (something like) "Operating subsidy for VIA Rail Canada" in the federal budget would simply be reduced by that amount and that's the end of the story. Arguing that certain places should loose their passenger rail service is the most counter-productive way to advance the idea of restoring passenger rail service to other parts of the country...

These arguments have become nonsense. The fact is that the decision to reduce Via Rail's subsidy was both political and fiscal. The federal government even allowed CP to rip out the track in Carleton Place before the last Canadian could reach Montreal via the Ottawa Valley and Ottawa. That is because it wanted to get rid of as much of Via Rail as it could in one fell swoop. The federal government has failed the not only the west but also Ontario and Gaspe and the Maritimes by not investing in newer equipment that is more appropriate for some of the services that were cancelled and some that are still in existence.

The government has allowed the railways to abandon rail routes at will even when there is sufficient traffic to operate at a profit either jointly or singularly such as the Ottawa Valley and the line from Washago to Barrie via Orillia.

Via Rail is allowed or mandated to continue to operate routes where few people live even though there are alternative routes servicing larger populations centres. See the above example service down the east side of Lake Simcoe on CN vs retaining the line through Orillia and Barrie on the West side of Lake Simcoe. Another example is the route between Saskatoon and Edmonton the Canadian currently using. Why does it not service North Battleford and Lloydminster and Fort Saskatchewan? Why was service by the Ocean route cancelled to Levis which had direct access to the ferry across to Quebec City?
In all these cases there is road access to both routes but we route the train to the less dense routes in order for the government to say, see we told you no one rides the train.

It is valid to point out why is it that service to Jonquiere and Senneterre remains but there is no service on the southern prairies? There might be roads but there is no alternative bus service since both Greyhound and the provincial crown corporation, Saskatchewan Transport Company was cancelled. There are roads to both places. Why even mention about the distance between Senneterre and Jonquiere? Very few people would ever ride the train or drive this route anyhow.

We need to make Via Rail relative again to most Canadians and this includes those in the Maritimes, the West and Northern Ontario. There are certain costs that are part of being a country. If the federal government can fund 4 lane highways in a lot of the provinces, it can afford to invest in Via Rail equipment and operating costs.

Who cares what the population of the cities of western Canada were in the 1990's? It is the current population that is important and to say that they are not important enough to have passenger rail service at an absolute minimum of daily is nonsense.

Using spreadsheets that base everything on % of existing network routes is not practical because there is bridge traffic and frequent service attracts more ridership if there are reliable schedules as a product of the increase of trains from 3 to 10 daily on the Toronto-Ottawa route.

We have to be prepared to give up some of your central Canada ethos and think about the rest of the country. Not all western or maritime alienation is myth.

The rest want in too!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

It is valid to point out why is it that service to Jonquiere and Senneterre remains but there is no service on the southern prairies? There might be roads but there is no alternative bus service since both Greyhound and the provincial crown corporation, Saskatchewan Transport Company was cancelled. There are roads to both places. Why even mention about the distance between Senneterre and Jonquiere? Very few people would ever ride the train or drive this route anyhow.

It's a valid point to raise, but now that it has been explained a thousand times why milk run rail lines through the prairies are a really bad idea, the point loses validity completely.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's a valid point to raise, but now that it has been explained a thousand times why milk run rail lines through the prairies are a really bad idea, the point loses validity completely.

Neither Calgary to Winnipeg or Calgary to Edmonton is not exactly a milk run railway. The line itself is not milk run, it is main line CPR. The population is not milk run either. Try telling that to the residents of the prairies. This is what central Canadians, and I am one don't get but I have lived in both the west and central Canada.

Why no service has never been explained is because it can't be. You cannot in any way justify the existence of other Via Rail services but not this one. All you have to do is have reasonable departure times, a reliable and realistic schedule, appropriate rolling stock and realistic government regulation with some teeth to it. Effort is still required, but it can still be done. It is time that the rest get in.

[milomilo]

I live in Calgary, and I want rail where it makes sense. And that will only be in close proximity to Calgary.

"All you have to do" for what you want, like a Calgary - Winnipeg line, is spend billions upon billions of dollars, all for demand that won't fill frequent trains, and thus would be better spent on other things. This has been explained so many times, and you and swimmer are essentially trolling at this point because you won't engage in good faith discussion.

[Dengler Avenue]

I don’t think these two are trolls. Consider them as advocating it from a... uh... nationalistic/patriotic/nation-building point of view?

Then again, bringing money in is also a way to build the nation.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Nope, never took economics. However, we have had MPs with economic degrees and that really did no good for Canada. A degree is not the same as understanding the real world applications. For example, some of the stupidest designed things have been designed by people with an engineering degree. Before you spout crap about your degree in economics I want you to look into the connection between the ring professional engineers wear and the Quebec Bridge.



Do we subsidize the air travel industry - yes.
Do we subsidize roads - yes
do we subsidize passenger service? - yes

All I am suggesting is we subsidize it more initially to get other, new services. Kinda like a new airport (Pickering) or new highways/wider highways

No we don’t! Fuel taxes alone are greater than the amount spent on roads and add in another $10 billion per year in new vehicles sales taxes and the only transportation mode fully paying its way is the private ICE passenger vehicle.

Currently, the federal and provincial governments collect $16.2 billion in gasoline and motive fuel taxes. As the GST/HST is applied to prices including the fuel tax, add on another $1.6 billion for the tax on tax. Carbon levies would also total $4 billion at $30 per CO2 tonne on fuel (including the GST/HST interactions).

Overall, if all vehicles convert to electric, federal and provincial governments would collect $22 billion less in 2019 revenue. Road transportation expenditures total roughly $20 billion in 2019.

This obviously begs the question: who will pay for roads, highways and bridges? The answer in the past is for provincial governments to levy fuel excise taxes on gasoline and motive fuels to cover transportation costs. Since vehicles cause damage to roads and highways, the fuel tax has arguably been a benefit tax to help pay for these costs — the more one drives, the more one pays.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...in-our-budgets

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's pretty hard to have a productive conversation if you don't accept that money exists, is important, and is limited. Otherwise we might as well be playing sim city. Investment in passenger rail must go to the places where the money will give the best return, and that definitely is not milk runs across the prairies.

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's a valid point to raise, but now that it has been explained a thousand times why milk run rail lines through the prairies are a really bad idea, the point loses validity completely.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I live in Calgary, and I want rail where it makes sense. And that will only be in close proximity to Calgary.

"All you have to do" for what you want, like a Calgary - Winnipeg line, is spend billions upon billions of dollars, all for demand that won't fill frequent trains, and thus would be better spent on other things. This has been explained so many times, and you and swimmer are essentially trolling at this point because you won't engage in good faith discussion.

Listen up guys, as you can see, I’m not the only one who is getting increasingly annoyed by how certain claims are repeated again and again, regardless of how many times they are getting debunked and without any serious attempt of presenting compelling arguments to defend these claims or without at least acknowledging the arguments which have been presented to either back these claims or to debunk the claims of other posters.

Therefore, if you want to continue to have me discuss with you, I suggest you follow these simple rules:

1. This is an open discussion board and everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but if you happen to disagree with my claims, then please either prepare some compelling arguments (preferably backed up with relevant data) or if not, maybe consider keeping your opinion for yourself.
2. Since I am always prepared to back up my claims and arguments whenever I’m challenged (or to concede that they have been debunked by more valid and compelling arguments), I expect you to do the same and that means that if you disagree with my claims and arguments, the onus is on you to make a compelling case that I am wrong.
3. Don’t bother me with bullshit arguments, like “maybe the federal government would have suddenly decided to cancel this particular mandatory VIA service during the 1990 cuts, even though it has never done this before 1990 or afterwards”. If someone or something has been acting consistently for many years, there is no reason to question that this behaviour might suddenly change. Otherwise, we could find ourselves having to discuss whether we can be sure that the sun will still rise tomorrow morning.

Or to put it in simpler terms:

1. If you happen to disagree with my claims or arguments, either prepare some compelling arguments to challenge me or keep your disagreement for yourself.
2. If you happen to disagree with my claims or arguments, don’t expect me to prove you wrong, try your best to prove me wrong.
3. If I happen to challenge your claims and arguments, don’t bother me with absurd circumstances under which your claim or argument might still be valid.

I’m fully aware that above “rules” can only be guidelines or suggestions since I am neither an admin nor a moderator in this forum and you are of course free to complain to any staff member if you are unhappy about how I deal with fellow members which don’t give me the feeling that they engage in a “good faith discussion”. That said, I believe that I have given you two examples recently for that one does not need admin rights to discourage contributors who have been testing my patience far too long or far too much, but I’m optimistic I won’t have to get that confrontational again. Therefore, please don’t be afraid of challenging me and I won’t be shy in letting you know when you cross my limits.

Please understand that as much as I see myself as an ambassador for my employer and enjoy debating with (and learning from!) you guys here, I am neither paid to participate here nor do my family duties give me the time or energy to engage in ever-circling arguments. Also, please consider that as someone who is easily identifiable with full name and employer with two simple clicks (onto my User name and then “visit Urban Sky’s homepage”), I can’t allow myself to get so frustrated that I might start becoming verbally aggressive.

I hope that I somehow managed to clearly express my concerns without intimidating anyone. Please consider sending me a PM if you have any questions regarding this post. I also welcome any attempts to reformulate my suggestions so that they could become a general guideline for the discussions here…

Thank you all and have a good night, everybody,

Urban Sky

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Because if you would research things before forming your strong opinons, you would have realized that driving from Senneterre to La Tuque is a detour of 300 km (721 km by road vs. 420 km by rail) and takes almost 2 hours more (7:45 hours by road vs. 6:08 hours by rail) than taking the (already slow) train:


No, the $11.6 million reported as operating deficit for these two remote services in VIA Rail's Annual Report 2018 would not go to fund passenger rail services anywhere else in the country. The line called (something like) "Operating subsidy for VIA Rail Canada" in the federal budget would simply be reduced by that amount and that's the end of the story. Arguing that certain places should loose their passenger rail service is the most counter-productive way to advance the idea of restoring passenger rail service to other parts of the country...

So, I meant that the money could be put back into the government coffers. I think it would equate to around $1 tax cut per taxpayer.

https://www.google.com/maps?client=f..._AUoAnoECA0QBA

I did not say it would be easier or better, but roads do connect them. You can drive it in almost half the time. Sounds like the prairies.

You can drive to Vancouver in 2 days, yet do the trip by train in 4 days
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/toron...49.2827291!3e0

So, lets get rid of them all. (sarcasm)

Originally Posted by GoTrans

These arguments have become nonsense. The fact is that the decision to reduce Via Rail's subsidy was both political and fiscal. The federal government even allowed CP to rip out the track in Carleton Place before the last Canadian could reach Montreal via the Ottawa Valley and Ottawa. That is because it wanted to get rid of as much of Via Rail as it could in one fell swoop. The federal government has failed the not only the west but also Ontario and Gaspe and the Maritimes by not investing in newer equipment that is more appropriate for some of the services that were cancelled and some that are still in existence.

The government has allowed the railways to abandon rail routes at will even when there is sufficient traffic to operate at a profit either jointly or singularly such as the Ottawa Valley and the line from Washago to Barrie via Orillia.

Via Rail is allowed or mandated to continue to operate routes where few people live even though there are alternative routes servicing larger populations centres. See the above example service down the east side of Lake Simcoe on CN vs retaining the line through Orillia and Barrie on the West side of Lake Simcoe. Another example is the route between Saskatoon and Edmonton the Canadian currently using. Why does it not service North Battleford and Lloydminster and Fort Saskatchewan? Why was service by the Ocean route cancelled to Levis which had direct access to the ferry across to Quebec City?
In all these cases there is road access to both routes but we route the train to the less dense routes in order for the government to say, see we told you no one rides the train.

It is valid to point out why is it that service to Jonquiere and Senneterre remains but there is no service on the southern prairies? There might be roads but there is no alternative bus service since both Greyhound and the provincial crown corporation, Saskatchewan Transport Company was cancelled. There are roads to both places. Why even mention about the distance between Senneterre and Jonquiere? Very few people would ever ride the train or drive this route anyhow.

We need to make Via Rail relative again to most Canadians and this includes those in the Maritimes, the West and Northern Ontario. There are certain costs that are part of being a country. If the federal government can fund 4 lane highways in a lot of the provinces, it can afford to invest in Via Rail equipment and operating costs.

Who cares what the population of the cities of western Canada were in the 1990's? It is the current population that is important and to say that they are not important enough to have passenger rail service at an absolute minimum of daily is nonsense.

Using spreadsheets that base everything on % of existing network routes is not practical because there is bridge traffic and frequent service attracts more ridership if there are reliable schedules as a product of the increase of trains from 3 to 10 daily on the Toronto-Ottawa route.

We have to be prepared to give up some of your central Canada ethos and think about the rest of the country. Not all western or maritime alienation is myth.

The rest want in too!

I'll bet if it returned, the southern route would gain as much traffic that the current route has, maybe even more.

And, the Chinook route would fill up providing it ran enough times a day, and it had a schedule that people could plan by.

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Neither Calgary to Winnipeg or Calgary to Edmonton is not exactly a milk run railway. The line itself is not milk run, it is main line CPR. The population is not milk run either. Try telling that to the residents of the prairies. This is what central Canadians, and I am one don't get but I have lived in both the west and central Canada.

Why no service has never been explained is because it can't be. You cannot in any way justify the existence of other Via Rail services but not this one. All you have to do is have reasonable departure times, a reliable and realistic schedule, appropriate rolling stock and realistic government regulation with some teeth to it. Effort is still required, but it can still be done. It is time that the rest get in.

It was to save some money for the government. Whether it be PCs or Conservatives, their goal is to get more money back into the people who vote for them..

Originally Posted by milomilo

I live in Calgary, and I want rail where it makes sense. And that will only be in close proximity to Calgary.

"All you have to do" for what you want, like a Calgary - Winnipeg line, is spend billions upon billions of dollars, all for demand that won't fill frequent trains, and thus would be better spent on other things. This has been explained so many times, and you and swimmer are essentially trolling at this point because you won't engage in good faith discussion.

Not trolling. I genuinely want more rail across Canada.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I don’t think these two are trolls. Consider them as advocating it from a... uh... nationalistic/patriotic/nation-building point of view?

Then again, bringing money in is also a way to build the nation.

All of those and an environmental reason too. If we can fill the trains then it is better for the environment than driving or flying.

If we compared a Toronto-Montreal trip by car, plane, bus and VIA we would find that plane is the fastest, but VIA would be the most environmentally friendly.

Originally Posted by jawagord

No we don’t! Fuel taxes alone are greater than the amount spent on roads and add in another $10 billion per year in new vehicles sales taxes and the only transportation mode fully paying its way is the private ICE passenger vehicle.

Currently, the federal and provincial governments collect $16.2 billion in gasoline and motive fuel taxes. As the GST/HST is applied to prices including the fuel tax, add on another $1.6 billion for the tax on tax. Carbon levies would also total $4 billion at $30 per CO2 tonne on fuel (including the GST/HST interactions).

Overall, if all vehicles convert to electric, federal and provincial governments would collect $22 billion less in 2019 revenue. Road transportation expenditures total roughly $20 billion in 2019.

This obviously begs the question: who will pay for roads, highways and bridges? The answer in the past is for provincial governments to levy fuel excise taxes on gasoline and motive fuels to cover transportation costs. Since vehicles cause damage to roads and highways, the fuel tax has arguably been a benefit tax to help pay for these costs — the more one drives, the more one pays.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...in-our-budgets

So, maybe we need to admit that some travel methods need to be there and need to be paid for through subsidies. This includes rail through the major cities in the prairies.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Listen up guys, as you can see, I’m not the only one who is getting increasingly annoyed by how certain claims are repeated again and again, regardless of how many times they are getting debunked and without any serious attempt of presenting compelling arguments to defend these claims or without at least acknowledging the arguments which have been presented to either back these claims or to debunk the claims of other posters.

Therefore, if you want to continue to have me discuss with you, I suggest you follow these simple rules:

1. This is an open discussion board and everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but if you happen to disagree with my claims, then please either prepare some compelling arguments (preferably backed up with relevant data) or if not, maybe consider keeping your opinion for yourself.
2. Since I am always prepared to back up my claims and arguments whenever I’m challenged (or to concede that they have been debunked by more valid and compelling arguments), I expect you to do the same and that means that if you disagree with my claims and arguments, the onus is on you to make a compelling case that I am wrong.
3. Don’t bother me with bullshit arguments, like “maybe the federal government would have suddenly decided to cancel this particular mandatory VIA service during the 1990 cuts, even though it has never done this before 1990 or afterwards”. If someone or something has been acting consistently for many years, there is no reason to question that this behaviour might suddenly change. Otherwise, we could find ourselves having to discuss whether we can be sure that the sun will still rise tomorrow morning.

Or to put it in simpler terms:

1. If you happen to disagree with my claims or arguments, either prepare some compelling arguments to challenge me or keep your disagreement for yourself.
2. If you happen to disagree with my claims or arguments, don’t expect me to prove you wrong, try your best to prove me wrong.
3. If I happen to challenge your claims and arguments, don’t bother me with absurd circumstances under which your claim or argument might still be valid.

I’m fully aware that above “rules” can only be guidelines or suggestions since I am neither an admin nor a moderator in this forum and you are of course free to complain to any staff member if you are unhappy about how I deal with fellow members which don’t give me the feeling that they engage in a “good faith discussion”. That said, I believe that I have given you two examples recently for that one does not need admin rights to discourage contributors who have been testing my patience far too long or far too much, but I’m optimistic I won’t have to get that confrontational again. Therefore, please don’t be afraid of challenging me and I won’t be shy in letting you know when you cross my limits.

Please understand that as much as I see myself as an ambassador for my employer and enjoy debating with (and learning from!) you guys here, I am neither paid to participate here nor do my family duties give me the time or energy to engage in ever-circling arguments. Also, please consider that as someone who is easily identifiable with full name and employer with two simple clicks (onto my User name and then “visit Urban Sky’s homepage”), I can’t allow myself to get so frustrated that I might start becoming verbally aggressive.

I hope that I somehow managed to clearly express my concerns without intimidating anyone. Please consider sending me a PM if you have any questions regarding this post. I also welcome any attempts to reformulate my suggestions so that they could become a general guideline for the discussions here…

Thank you all and have a good night, everybody,

Urban Sky

Not only have I been poking holes in some of your claims, yet you brush them off.

I asked specifically the threshold of population needed, and you did not answer it. You just say it isn't enough.

I pointed out the political stuff that you want to ignore. Everything in this world happens for political reason. You want to ignore this.

Either you are a hard line conservative or or a big wig at VIA and want more money in your pocket.

I have stated what I am, time for you to fess up. What is your connection to VIA ad the government?

[lrt's friend]

We cannot cut our way to better rail service.

Remote service exists because locations exist on those lines with no road access, or roads that are not maintained, ie logging roads.

I believe roads do connect Calgary and Edmonton. If we want rail service between prairie cities, let's see the business case. Oh, there is none.

If we want rail service returned, that is the first step. Clearly, there is no political will to even pay for a study.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot cut our way to better rail service.

Remote service exists because locations exist on those lines with no road access, or roads that are not maintained, ie logging roads.

I believe roads do connect Calgary and Edmonton. If we want rail service between prairie cities, let's see the business case. Oh, there is none.

If we want rail service returned, that is the first step. Clearly, there is no political will to even pay for a study.

Define no business case. If you are looking for a no subsidy provided business case, then you are right. If you are looking for a case that says that it would be at no higher than any other existing service, then there is a case for it.

The bigger issue is the political will. Mind you, with no MPs in AB and SK for the liberals, they could use it to show they care about there.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Not only have I been poking holes in some of your claims, yet you brush them off.

I asked specifically the threshold of population needed, and you did not answer it. You just say it isn't enough.

I pointed out the political stuff that you want to ignore. Everything in this world happens for political reason. You want to ignore this.

Either you are a hard line conservative or or a big wig at VIA and want more money in your pocket.

I have stated what I am, time for you to fess up. What is your connection to VIA ad the government?

Why not be a bit more respectful? Urban Sky has been quite open about his profession, more than he has to, and I don't see why he should be asked to divulge more personal information to justify himself.

We are lucky to have someone that actually is an expert on the subject here. If you don't want to listen to me, fine, I'm just an interested amateur, but if someone actually works for the company and has written a thesis on the subject, that elevates them to someone who you should probably listen to.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Define no business case. If you are looking for a no subsidy provided business case, then you are right. If you are looking for a case that says that it would be at no higher than any other existing service, then there is a case for it.

The bigger issue is the political will. Mind you, with no MPs in AB and SK for the liberals, they could use it to show they care about there.

"No business case" would be something that has a BCR less than 1. Including associated economic benefits and avoided costs. A project like HFR or the Toronto DLR, Vancouver Broadway Skytrain etc will all require government money and ongoing subsidy, but they also will improve the economy of the areas they serve and mean you can avoid building roads, improve local air quality and thus health etc. So they are a good investment.

Whereas something like a Calgary - Winnipeg rail line will cost a significant amount of money. It requires investment in new trains, stations and any track upgrades required, then ongoing operating costs. And once you do that, you result in a service that will still be slower and less reliable than a bus. Since even you are not envisioning that this line will have enough demand to justify more than a train or two per day (a few hundred people?) then the economic benefits cannot possibly be large.

Low benefits/high cost = bad business case

Passenger rail is only good where the demand justifies it. Otherwise buses will provide much better service.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot cut our way to better rail service.

Remote service exists because locations exist on those lines with no road access, or roads that are not maintained, ie logging roads.

I believe roads do connect Calgary and Edmonton. If we want rail service between prairie cities, let's see the business case. Oh, there is none.

If we want rail service returned, that is the first step. Clearly, there is no political will to even pay for a study.

There has been some work. From a different time though when Alberta had a future:

https://www.alberta.ca/high-speed-rail.aspx

Also, more recently:

Calgary-Bow Valley Mass Transit Feasibility Study

My opinion is, I don't care so much about which project gets built, but we should build some passenger rail connecting to Calgary. Well, I do care, it should be the line with most bang for buck. Once one line is built, the business case for anything else connected to it or using the same infrastructure becomes way better.