VIA Rail

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://rac.jmaponline.net/canadianrailatlas/

There you go.

I found it too. Thanks.

The path doesn’t seem too convoluted to me. The biggest deterrent though is that there seems to be no place to put a passenger rail station in the heart of downtown. Ending it at the airport won’t help. I’ve thought about running it on LRT tracks but that adds the issue of mixing light and heavy rail, the verdict of which we shall find out with the Mont Royal tunnel fiasco.

What you quoted from ssiguy only says the attitude of one Albertan, which is not necessarily reflective of everyone else. If it is, though, I think that proves milomilo’s point.

Freak, AB and SK seem so fixated on petro that passenger rail’s gonna be a hard sell anyway.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

There is more than one way to skin a cat. I never expected that southern Florida would build a modern 21st century high frequency intercity passenger rail line before southern Ontario, but here we are. The FEC didn’t build it because it was profitable, but because it was a real estate development vehicle. I think Metrolinx is pursuing a similar strategy in the GTA. I also don’t think that institutional investors will invest only in infrastructure that turns a conventional profit. How or when will Montreal’s REM system be profitable? I really think there’s a lot of avenues a passenger rail agency can explore to build better infrastructure and provide decent service, but VIA is not the way to do it.

The other reason I think VIA should be dismantled is because provinces have more of a sense of the regional transit needs. someone123’s example of Maritime bus operating a decent service because it is locally controlled rather than centrally controlled out of VIA’s hq in Montreal is a good one. Closer to me, Metrolinx bought the Kitchener line from a short line operator that didn’t even have signaling. VIA was running two tin can trains a day over this route for years until Metrolinx took it over, and began making incremental improvements to allow all-day two way service. It’s still a work in progress, but at least they’re up to 8 trains a day.

The mandate for running services to places like White River and Churchill should be given to the a Ministry of Northern Affairs or their provincial equivalents. Trains like the Canadian and Atlantic are land cruises for boomers and we shouldn’t be subsidizing them. There are markets within the routes of the Atlantic and the Canadian that are viable for locals, and those should be locally (or at least provincially) run.

Really interesting thread, just read through it... I'll point out that Brightline is also a tourist-oriented product, like VIA's Canadian, I'm not surprised it exists. (A better example of something that would be sad for us if it happens before ours would be the currently-studied Dallas-Houston HSR project.)

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by lio45

Really interesting thread, just read through it... I'll point out that Brightline is also a tourist-oriented product, like VIA's Canadian, I'm not surprised it exists. (A better example of something that would be sad for us if it happens before ours would be the currently-studied Dallas-Houston HSR project.)

Wow you actually plowed through every page. I don’t know why, but I guess lost easily when discussing rail transit in general. Highways? Not so much.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Well let’s start with the ones in Quebec first. If you are successful in axing those in Quebec, the rest is just a piece of cake.

My impression is that no one would notice... and if you want to be sure a majority is happy, fund some other projects instead (there are a few on the table in Mtl, and the Quebec City tramway)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I found it too. Thanks.

The path doesn’t seem too convoluted to me. The biggest deterrent though is that there seems to be no place to put a passenger rail station in the heart of downtown. Ending it at the airport won’t help. I’ve thought about running it on LRT tracks but that adds the issue of mixing light and heavy rail, the verdict of which we shall find out with the Mont Royal tunnel fiasco.

What you quoted from ssiguy only says the attitude of one Albertan, which is not necessarily reflective of everyone else. If it is, though, I think that proves milomilo’s point.

Freak, AB and SK seem so fixated on petro that passenger rail’s gonna be a hard sell anyway.

1) Since there is a Via station in Edmonton, and it is close to an LRT line, extend the LRT line to it, and you now are serving downtown. If it got busy enough, build a tunnel like Montreal to Downtown.

2) Sell someone on a train that might come once every few days, vs every day, or even multiple times a day. The reality is, right now, the train outside of the Corridor just isn't viable for most types of travel.

3) The government is going to run more diesel trains? That means more oil, right? Which means possibly more oil production? It is all in how you phrase it.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

1) Since there is a Via station in Edmonton, and it is close to an LRT line, extend the LRT line to it, and you now are serving downtown. If it got busy enough, build a tunnel like Montreal to Downtown.

2) Sell someone on a train that might come once every few days, vs every day, or even multiple times a day. The reality is, right now, the train outside of the Corridor just isn't viable for most types of travel.

3) The government is going to run more diesel trains? That means more oil, right? Which means possibly more oil production? It is all in how you phrase it.

1) I just looked it up: The station’s by Yellowhead Highway, which is slated to become a full-fledged freeway. It’s so far from downtown and so transit-hostile. Seriously, just like Vancouver - Seattle HFR, downtown or bust.

2) What does the first sentence mean?? I’m not familiar with Northern-Ontarian slangs. Anyway, times like this, I’m like, “Damn it, why the hell is Canada so sparsely populated, making transit planning unduly difficult...”

3) Sure...?

On a digressive note: I know someone who’d driven from Waterloo to Montreal in 3 hours. Don’t give people ideas. (Edit: Never mind too late.)
I’ve been contemplating getting an account with Urban Toronto for quite some time now.

[GreaterMontréal]

How or when will Montreal’s REM system be profitable?

The REM's main reason for its construction was to replace bus transit (more than 1,000 daily) that had downtown Montreal as their final destination. Transit by bus had reached maximum capacity and no real increase would have been possible without rail transit.

Don't forget that the South Shore link on the Samuel de Champlain bridge is the most important stretch of the whole project, not the Mont-Royal tunnel.

The REM or any other transit project that can bring people downtown, in the core of a city or into industrial areas, will be profitable for its users. The costs associated with road congestion in Greater Montreal have doubled in ten years to about 4.2 billion in 2018.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I didn't make it up....

OK, you just used another post as an authoritative source. Of all the limited information out there, none of them support the claim that the northern route was chosen for political reasons. The claim is made up.

And besides, if only one route was to be chosen, then one route has to be cut regardless.

And further still... none of that matters. What is important is what is the best use of funds going forward, and you have not addressed the relevant points I made. Why would you prefer VIA wasted money on rail routes when buses would be cheaper, faster, more reliable and more frequent? Why would you prioritise a milk run from Calgary to to Regina over a Calgary - Edmonton route?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

1) Since there is a Via station in Edmonton, and it is close to an LRT line, extend the LRT line to it, and you now are serving downtown. If it got busy enough, build a tunnel like Montreal to Downtown.

Just look at where that station is. It would take half an hour just to get from the south of Edmonton to that station, on top of the 3+ hours from Calgary the train would take without its own infrastructure. And that's best case, without any delays. Seeing as a bus would be faster, and gets you downtown, why not just use that?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

The REM's main reason for its construction was to replace bus transit (more than 1,000 daily) that had downtown Montreal as their final destination. Transit by bus had reached maximum capacity and no real increase would have been possible without rail transit.

Don't forget that the South Shore link on the Samuel de Champlain bridge is the most important stretch of the whole project, not the Mont-Royal tunnel.

The REM or any other transit project that can bring people downtown, in the core of a city or into industrial areas, will be profitable for its users. The costs associated with road congestion in Greater Montreal have doubled in ten years to about 4.2 billion in 2018.

What I meant is that the REM will never be profitable in the traditional sense of the word. That is, revenue from ticket sales will never cover the cost of construction and operations and generate a surplus. It makes money for its institutional investors in other ways.

This is true for almost all transportation projects almost everywhere. If short term profitability was the only thing determining if transportation infrastructure were built, almost no transportation infrastructure of any kind would be built anywhere.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Just look at where that station is. It would take half an hour just to get from the south of Edmonton to that station, on top of the 3+ hours from Calgary the train would take without its own infrastructure. And that's best case, without any delays. Seeing as a bus would be faster, and gets you downtown, why not just use that?

In U.K., which one’s faster: the passenger rail, or the bus?

Personally I’m indifferent to which one is being run between Calgary and Edmonton, but the point is this: If the train’s slower than the bus, something is wrong, seriously wrong.

In the decreasing order of speed, we should have airplanes, trains, then automobiles.

My point? Assuming that this corridor sees a huge amount of traffic, Via should acquire the appropriate ROW, upgrade them to support HFR. Have we not all discussed and debated this one to death?

As for Calgary - Regina - Winnipeg, it’s just that someone needs to step in. Greyhound has pulled out. I don’t know if the other ones that have taken over the routes can survive. If not, and if rail transit isn’t a thing, those that need to travel between without a car will be looking for walk or bike for a week...

It makes money for its institutional investors in other ways.

How? I’m curious.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

In U.K., which one’s faster: the passenger rail, or the bus?

Rail, for the most part (obviously there will be situations where that's not the case). But for comparison, in the same distance where there are 3 million people between Edmonton and Calgary, the densest population in the prairies, there are probably 30 million people in the UK between London and Manchester, and the passenger rail network was never abandoned. Starting from scratch is always going to be harder as those usage patterns have to re-develop.

I want to be clear, I'm not against rail, quite the opposite. But the funds absolutely must be prioritised to the routes with the highest benefits to cost, and that 100% will not be milk runs to Swift Current. I also think we should have more government interest in regional transport, but that will almost certainly be best served by buses in most situations in the Prairies. Yes, Greyhound pulled out but that shows what was obvious, relying on a monopoly private company to supply a public good is not a good idea.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

What I meant is that the REM will never be profitable in the traditional sense of the word. ... It makes money for its institutional investors in other ways.

CDPQ is going to charge between $0.72/km to $0.55/km per passenger (rate decreases if ridership beats expectations). Government (ARTM) will get a bill of $21.60 for a single persons one-way 30km commute from Deux-Montagnes to downtown. That will be directly profitable for CDPQ, no "other ways" required.

What the end customer pays government is up to the government; CDPQ doesn't care if it's free as their customer is ARTM, not the rider.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

...
I want to be clear, I'm not against rail, quite the opposite. But the funds absolutely must be prioritised to the routes with the highest benefits to cost, and that 100% will not be milk runs to Swift Current. I also think we should have more government interest in regional transport, but that will almost certainly be best served by buses in most situations in the Prairies. Yes, Greyhound pulled out but that shows what was obvious, relying on a monopoly private company to supply a public good is not a good idea.

Sounds like we mostly agree then. I'm not against rail either and I'd like to see it across the country but I just don't think providing coverage to places where it's likely to be less successful should come ahead of investments for places where it will be more highly utilized. It's basically just another example of the ridership vs coverage debate but for intercity rather than urban service.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Sounds like we mostly agree then. I'm not against rail either and I'd like to see it across the country but I just don't think providing coverage to places where it's likely to be less successful should come ahead of investments for places where it will be more highly utilized. It's basically just another example of the ridership vs coverage debate but for intercity rather than urban service.

Yep, and that the hard truth of the matter is that resources are limited. If the federal government was throwing tens of billions at VIA, then maybe it would make sense to restart marginal routes. But in a world where money is scarce, the world we live in, it cannot be afforded. If VIA drops the ball on HFR, it may be decades, if ever before they get another shot. They must be given the best chance of success.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by milomilo

OK, you just used another post as an authoritative source. Of all the limited information out there, none of them support the claim that the northern route was chosen for political reasons. The claim is made up.

And besides, if only one route was to be chosen, then one route has to be cut regardless.

And further still... none of that matters. What is important is what is the best use of funds going forward, and you have not addressed the relevant points I made. Why would you prefer VIA wasted money on rail routes when buses would be cheaper, faster, more reliable and more frequent? Why would you prioritise a milk run from Calgary to to Regina over a Calgary - Edmonton route?

True. I can easily see the Saskatoon-Edmonton pair being considered slightly more important than the Calgary-Regina pair, from an apolitical unbiased POV.

[Apey]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

1) I just looked it up: The station’s by Yellowhead Highway, which is slated to become a full-fledged freeway. It’s so far from downtown and so transit-hostile. Seriously, just like Vancouver - Seattle HFR, downtown or bust.

2) What does the first sentence mean?? I’m not familiar with Northern-Ontarian slangs. Anyway, times like this, I’m like, “Damn it, why the hell is Canada so sparsely populated, making transit planning unduly difficult...”

3) Sure...?

On a digressive note: I know someone who’d driven from Waterloo to Montreal in 3 hours. Don’t give people ideas. (Edit: Never mind too late.)
I’ve been contemplating getting an account with Urban Toronto for quite some time now.

In regards to point two, coming from the States. I feel this is my point of view being the last part of dang it why is Canada so sparsely populated, that transit has to sit on the back burner?

Like lio45 said interesting thread to read!

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://rac.jmaponline.net/canadianrailatlas/

There you go.

All those secondary highways in Prairies used to have a railroad running alongside them. Most of the RoW are still more or less existing, except all the bridges are now gone.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

OK, you just used another post as an authoritative source. Of all the limited information out there, none of them support the claim that the northern route was chosen for political reasons. The claim is made up.

And besides, if only one route was to be chosen, then one route has to be cut regardless.

And further still... none of that matters. What is important is what is the best use of funds going forward, and you have not addressed the relevant points I made. Why would you prefer VIA wasted money on rail routes when buses would be cheaper, faster, more reliable and more frequent? Why would you prioritise a milk run from Calgary to to Regina over a Calgary - Edmonton route?

Part of being on a forum is participating in a discussion. Part of the participation is using other's information to validate yourself.

One did have to be cut, but was it the right one? We will never know.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

1) I just looked it up: The station’s by Yellowhead Highway, which is slated to become a full-fledged freeway. It’s so far from downtown and so transit-hostile. Seriously, just like Vancouver - Seattle HFR, downtown or bust.

2) What does the first sentence mean?? I’m not familiar with Northern-Ontarian slangs. Anyway, times like this, I’m like, “Damn it, why the hell is Canada so sparsely populated, making transit planning unduly difficult...”

3) Sure...?

On a digressive note: I know someone who’d driven from Waterloo to Montreal in 3 hours. Don’t give people ideas. (Edit: Never mind too late.)
I’ve been contemplating getting an account with Urban Toronto for quite some time now.

My dad one time did North Bay to London in under 4 hours... Back in the late 80s, in a Chev Cavalier wagon.

1) Do you mean just like most airports? The Edmonton Via Station is 3 km from the NAIT station on the LRT. If the Via station was busier than once every few days, the city might see a reason to connect it to the LRT.

2) Sell you on something is to make you want it. You can sell someone on a daily service easier than a service that comes once every few days.

3) You can sell people anything with the right phrases.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Just look at where that station is. It would take half an hour just to get from the south of Edmonton to that station, on top of the 3+ hours from Calgary the train would take without its own infrastructure. And that's best case, without any delays. Seeing as a bus would be faster, and gets you downtown, why not just use that?

Untill you hit congestion, and then the train and the LRT would be faster.

Originally Posted by melissasandever

In regards to point two, coming from the States. I feel this is my point of view being the last part of dang it why is Canada so sparsely populated, that transit has to sit on the back burner?

Like lio45 said interesting thread to read!

That is due to many factors. The problem really is, we base the success of transit on pure ridership based on world wide metrics. If we based it on moving people efficiently, and moving people out of their cars, we might have a much better system. Instead We have congested roads and congested transit.This is why when someone ignores the fact that the 4th largest city has no intercity rail to it from anywhere, I am not surprised.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Part of being on a forum is participating in a discussion. Part of the participation is using other's information to validate yourself.

One did have to be cut, but was it the right one? We will never know.

But as I said, this doesn't actually matter. Neither route would be viable if it were not for the desire to keep the Canadian. What is important is what we do going forward.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Untill you hit congestion, and then the train and the LRT would be faster.

Highly unlikely, Highway 2 is not very congested for the most part and the hypothetical train would be more likely to hit congestion (be stuck waiting for a CP rail train). And it won't be going 110km/h either. Plus, you'd have to completely change the plans that Edmonton has for their LRT to make this work.