Sorry for the long multi quote post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
And the status quo on the corridor is unsustainable, hence why VIA's last best shot is HFR. The Ontarian posters will be able to give more accurate information, but with HFR in place it should be reasonably time competitive with driving, and definitely better than a bus. Since it has dedicated lines, it will also be more consistently reliable.
HFR still won't be very competitive for business travel where the ticket cost is fairly unimportant. Which is absurd in a developed country considering we have two actually quite large cities reasonably close together with the capital in between. At this stage in our history, this shouldn't be the conversation we should be having, there should already be a high quality link between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, but it is what it is and VIA has to play the hand it has.
If the current service between Toronto and Montreal didn't exist, no one would look at the geography and say you should start with a low frequency, low speed, low quality service between them using busy freight trains, as you propose for Edmonton and Calgary. The business case for decent rail transit between Toronto and Montreal is easily justified by distance and population, the same as would be so (to a lesser extent) between Calgary and Edmonton. So the intermediate step of garbage rail service between these city pairs is unnecessary, and counterproductive.
|
If you think that Via, or the federal government is going to put in HFR to a place that has none, then you are more of a dreamer than I am.
What do you define as garbage rail?
It is clear that you think anything less than once every 15 minutes, at speeds less than 300 km/hr is garbage rail.
I would argue that garbage rail is anything that is slower than 100km/hr, with a frequency that does not match the ability to go to a city for the day and come back the same day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
This has been covered numerous times. There are segments of HFR where it is competitive with air.
Take Toronto-Ottawa at the projected 3:15 hrs. At best air is only faster downtown-to-downtown by an hour. If you're traveling from the Eastern GTA to Western Ottawa, like say a tech worker from Markham to Kanata, HFR would be faster than air or driving. I expect the number of companies willing to pay for airfare to save 1 hr on a trip to decline (only downtown to downtown). The only people flying will be same day return travelers where 2 hrs saved might be worth airfare.
HFR will also be faster than air on Quebec-Montreal at 2:10 hrs. Even with the new REM, there's no way to get from downtown Quebec City to downtown Montreal in 2:10 hrs, once you include pre-boarding times and travel to/from the airports.
There's one specific segment where HFR isn't competitive with air: Toronto-Montreal. At 4:45 hrs though, it's most certainly competitive with driving. Getting close to 5 hrs from downtown Toronto to downtown Montreal requires no traffic, no stops and some aggressive driving. The train would be a bit quicker and far less stressful. I expect Greyhound, Megabus and Coach Canada to take some hits from HFR too. A better schedule and faster trip times, means bus companies would have to offer significant discounts and many more departures to compete.
Also, all these HFR travel times can actually be improved through capital investment over time, making it more competitive.
|
Frequency does not equal speed. it equals number of trains a day. Assuming this will automatically be faster is a fallacy. Having said that, it can be faster if they can ensure the speed the train travels is maximized. This includes number of stations, acceleration and deceleration capabilities of the train, and overall track speed.
Another fallacy is the assumptions of downtown to downtown, or gate to gate. The ticket prints out your arrival and departure times. People then automatically assume that is how long their trip will take. They fail to take into getting to your actual destination, or leaving from your actual origin.
If times were close, and costs were close, Via might take more from flying. What Via really needs to do is to do a good PR campaign when the HFR is completed.
As we are learning in this pandemic, people are stupid. You may not be. I may not be, but in general, people are stupid and must be lead along at each step
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer
I wish VIA would also lean harder into some of the 'softer' advantages of rail travel. It can often feel as if they're doing their level best to make train travel feel like an airplane on wheels - boarding procedures, snack trolley up and down the aisle, stay seated during the whole trip. All they're missing is a message from the conductor and seat belts.
But train travel can offer a lot of things that planes, buses, and cars can't. Mainly, trains don't have the same space limitations. You could have lounges, meeting rooms, a play space, a café car, etc. Then, even if the train isn't the option that takes the least time, it can still be the best use of time. I don't think that VIA needs to have everything listed above, but I wish it'd do something to play to its mode's strengths.
|
THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^
Ironically, these soft things are why a daily along the rest of the routes would be successful.
Let's use Sudbury, where I am, and Toronto to compare this.
Nope, not faster than bus, driving, or flying.
Nope, not cheaper than bus, driving or flying.
But,
It is less intrusive than flying.
It is less stressful than driving.
And, it is more comfortable than a bus.
Soft advantages are kind of like soft skills on a resume. When looking at all the options, they do play an important part of what mode is best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN
Ottawa to Toronto:
Air - Get to airport an hour early, line up for check in, line up to go through security, get to departure lounge, line up to get on the plane, pack yourself into a seat and pray that some obese person is not sitting with you, wait to depart the gate, take off, pay some money to get internet, sit in cramped seat, land, wait to get off the plane, wait to get your bags, wait for cab, cab fights traffic to get downtown.
Train - Get to station 10 to 15 minutes prior to departure, get on train, sit in roomy seat with lots of leg room and no issue if the person sitting beside you is large, internet immediately, you can use your phone to call, walk about if required, arrive at Union Station downtown, grab bag and go, if you're lucky your place to go is within walking distance.
HFR will just make this mode of transport more enjoyable than flying.
|
How will HFR do that that current Via does not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa
I partially agree with you, but you can’t easily arrive 10 minutes before your train, you have to line up for the baggage police and have 7 via employees ask you your final destination. A domestic flight boards faster than a train does.
Also, most elements of airline check in are automated now.
|
Boards, as from check in to sitting down? Or from outside the airport/station to sitting down? Even domestic flights, you still need to pass through security. I'd bet that if you did door to seat for both modes, the train is faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad
The principle advantage of rail over air for short to intermediate distance travel, is that you can get directly from city centre to city centre. That, and the reduced need to get to the station well ahead of time to clear security.
These two facts alone can lop off 2-3 hours from your trip.
|
Along the Corridor, Ottawa is not downtown. Even with HFR there are no plans of that changing. So, you still have another 10 minutes to get there.
The security issue is the real advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
I agree. I have long argued that there's a few things VIA could do to really seal the deal.
1) Boarding process. It's fine at the non-downtown stations. Elsewhere, it's just ridiculous with the line up in advance. Put turnstyles before the platforms, let me scan my ticket and walk on. Like the rest of the developed world.
2) Catering. I get they don't want a cafe car. But they really could do a better job with onboard catering. Especially with an effort to showcase Canadian cuisine and regional recipes. It's sort of a ho hum Cara foods entree in VIA One and a sandwich in economy. They could do better here.
3) Seatback entertainment. This one is more debatable, with more people having their own devices these days. But WiFi is still spotty on the Corridor. Letting folks just watch regular TV or pre-recorded options isn't a bad idea. Heck, another avenue to promote Canadiana. And it's a great pacifier for families traveling with kids.
4) Family travel. VIA's sum of family travel benefits is the groups of four seats which face each other. No onboard kids area as is increasingly common elsewhere. Or cabins/pods. Check out how the Swiss do this:
4) Facilitate business travel. The VIA 1 lounges at the stations are so-so. The food options are poor. And the lounges themselves don't exist outside of downtown stations. This makes no sense when a lot of business travel will come from suburban stations with HFR. They should have also considered options like onboard meeting spaces with the new fleet. A 2-3 hr trip is a great opportunity to prep for and pre-brief a meeting. Check out what the Italians offer onboard for meetings:
Most of what you say is true. But....I will caution that if HFR actually becomes a more regular, relied on and popular mode of transport as planned, we're likely to see airport style security either at station entrances of platforms. But it should still be far easier to manage and with far less pre-boarding hassle than an airplane with only 1-2 doors to board.
|
1) would work well if the platform is exclusively used for Via. Someone can correct me, but I think GO sometimes uses the platform.
2) This would push the price up. Now your cost competitiveness goes away. I would argue that if you expect Canadian route style of food, then you need to ride the Canadian. That is why no stations have fine dining in them.
3) One thing that should be improved is wifi/cell coverage. If this route is going to be that busy, there is no reason the major carriers couldn't add more towers. It would also have the side effect of improving coverage fort he local residents.
4) Again, this will increase the costs. However, it might be worth it to have cabins or pods.
Second 4) Maybe those pods could be used not just for families, but business people as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
In the case of the corridor, it's not saving you 2-3 hrs. Billy Bishop is a 15 min cab ride from Union Station in Toronto. The Union Pearson Express will get you from Union Station to Pearson Airport in 25 mins. And in both Ottawa and Montreal, the airport is about 20-30 mins from downtown depending on traffic or mode of transport. So the airport access savings on these trips are closer to 40-60 mins. But combine this with the 30-60 mins saved on pre-boarding and it adds up.
If VIA was given the capital to somehow shave off another 1 hr on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal sector, we'd probably see the end of Porter and a notable hit to Air Canada and Westjet. Don't even need High Speed Rail.
|
The problem is the new HFR between Toronto and Ottawa. it is very twisted and goes through small towns, and has level crossings, and.... In short, shaving that hour is going to be very costly. Not impossible, but maybe not worth it either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
Yep, I hastily did not even consider the intermediate stop.
A semi decent passenger rail link between Calgary and Edmonton with new infrastructure would be time competitive with air taking into consideration what you say. But the suggestion of a low capital expenditure, low quality initial route using existing infrastructure would not be, and it wouldn't be faster than driving either or even a bus, and couldn't be cheaper without large subsidy.
|
And you are talking in the billions, if not trillions. The land acquisition alone is billions. That does not even include the political capital needed to do that. Right now, just imagine the uproar from Alberta if the federal government were to try this? Which is why taking an existing line and upgrading it makes more sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer
I don't see why transcontinental and regional services are necessarily incompatible. It's not like VIA would re-assign sleeper cars to service daytime regional services or anything.
I actually see them benefiting each other. If VIA were to establish some daytime routes and invest in infrastructure to support them (like extra tracks to not be delayed by freight and more conveniently-located stations), then a transcontinental service can also use that same infrastructure to run faster and more reliably.
These newly faster and more reliable transcontinental routes would also provide additional service to western cities, essentially operating as a night train for routes too long to effectively be serviced during the day (like Winnipeg to Calgary or Edmonton, or Calgary to Vancouver). The Canadian would likely still only be kept afloat thanks to the higher-tier, all-inclusive tourism tickets. But at little additional marginal operating cost, a new lower-tier, no-frills sleeper at a lower price might be added on, appealing to the non-tourist, intra-prairie market. Someone going on a ski trip in Banff from Winnipeg probably wouldn't spend 15 hours on daytime services, but they could be convinced to take a berth on a train leaving after work and arriving in the morning. But for those transportation-first, reasonably-priced tickets to be affordable for westerners, you need to leverage the higher-priced tourism-first Prestige and Sleeper Plus tickets going from Toronto to Vancouver.
TLDR; Intercity services can justify infrastructure to benefit intercontinental services. Better intercontinental services can provide additional services to Western cities.
|
This is the kind of thinking that I am of. It is also why a daily service is needed. To know that every day you can leave makes vacationing with the train easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamincan
I think it's even simpler than what benefits the most people. No VIA routes currently operate without a subsidy, which is the main reason that it has hobbled along the way it has. The corridor routes are the ones that are closest to being self-supporting through fares. VIA's opportunity is to invest in improvements in the corridor so that those routes start generating revenue that is not tied to government subsidies. That revenue can than be invested back into other parts of VIA's network, potentially even putting it in a position where it can make larger investments to add service at a level that would make it more economically viable than the bulk of its non-corridor routes. A Calgary-Edmonton route being the obvious one, but others have also been raised.
HFR is a pragmatic approach for VIA in that the amount of funding they require for the project is relatively little, while the benefits to its bottom line are high. HSR is likely to be derailed for political reasons. More distributed improvements are likely not enough to have any part of its network operate in the black and therefore making it less reliant on subsidies.
|
This is my hope, however, the government might just simply cut that extra money and use it elsewhere. Ideally, the government and Via should look at what it would take to make the Canadian and Ocean routes have no subsidy. I would bet it would be a combination of frequency, speed, and pricing that would be needed.
Again,s or for the long post, but there are some great discussion points.
Prev
Linear Mode
