VIA Rail

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Last I checked I haven't said we should have HFR between the cities, unless by HFR you think I mean once a day, and on time.

Last I checked, I didn't say anything about HFR or HSR. You are the one talking about how many trains a day Kingston gets because of being on the line between Toronto and Montreal. My point was the prairies don't have the equivalent city pairing in the first place for those intermediate stops you mention to happen. Winnipeg to Calgary is over twice the distance and a quarter of the population, or less. Even if Via managed to make a one a day train, someone would start a cheap airline to serve it in under 2 hours for less of a ticket price (or one of the existing air carriers would target Via themselves).

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have never suggested HSR or even HFR. Others do, because it is HSR or bust. Having a daily between the major cities would be an improvement.

It would only be an improvement based on the pointless criteria of "having a train to ride". Compared to the alternatives that money could be spent on, it would be objectively worse in every other way.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It would only be an improvement based on the pointless criteria of "having a train to ride". Compared to the alternatives that money could be spent on, it would be objectively worse in every other way.

How would having a daily on the prairies be worse than nothing?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How would having a daily on the prairies be worse than nothing?

A daily train is nothing, it's worthless. The number of people that the service would be useful to would be miniscule, yet it would cost a lot of money. That money could either be spent on something else entirely, or if you wish to improve transit would be better spent on buses, which would give the market something better than what a daily train would offer.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

A daily train is nothing, it's worthless. The number of people that the service would be useful to would be miniscule, yet it would cost a lot of money. That money could either be spent on something else entirely, or if you wish to improve transit would be better spent on buses, which would give the market something better than what a daily train would offer.

Do you feel that the only rail should be HSR? In other words, only if buses are extremely busy do we build HSR, or we don't have passenger rail where none is?

[Truenorth00]

Absent passenger rail priority, a low frequency, slow train is pretty useless. It's only there to fulfill very basic obligations. To that end, only one daily train across the Prairies is needed. No more. Don't even need Northern and Southern routes. Any funds between obligation should go to corridors where ridership is sufficient to support dedicated passenger rail lines.

[roger1818]

To help show the difference between population in the Eastern Corridor and the Prairies, I made a couple of maps showing the metropolitan areas for the Prairies and the Eastern Corridor. Both are shown at exactly the same scale. As you can see this isn't just about Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Quebec City. There are many other cities along the corridor (many of which are bigger than both Saskatoon and Regina), especially between Kingston and Windsor.





Legend:

large circle > 4 Million
large square |b| 1 & 1.5 Million
diamond |b| 700 & 850 thousand
small square |b| 100 & 600 thousand

Notes:

1. I picked those ranges as there were convenient gaps in city sizes there. The smallest range is a bit large, but if anything it favours the Prairies, as all of its cities in that range (Saskatoon, Regina, Lethbridge and Red Deer) are in the smaller half (i.e, less than 350 thousand).
2. I didn't include the census agglomerations as there are too many of them (especially in Ontario and Quebec).
3. I included both Red Deer and Chatham-Kent even though they aren't classified as CMAs, as they have populations greater than 100,000 (one of the conditions for a CMA).
4. For the corridor I filtered out all cities not along the existing or HFR route (ex. Sudbury, Barrie, and Sherbrooke), but I used all cities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The original map (showing both regions) can be found here. For fun I may add metropolitan areas in other regions/corridors later.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Absent passenger rail priority, a low frequency, slow train is pretty useless. It's only there to fulfill very basic obligations. To that end, only one daily train across the Prairies is needed. No more. Don't even need Northern and Southern routes. Any funds between obligation should go to corridors where ridership is sufficient to support dedicated passenger rail lines.

So, you are in agreement that the existing Canadian should be a daily?

Originally Posted by roger1818

To help show the difference between population in the Eastern Corridor and the Prairies, I made a couple of maps showing the metropolitan areas for the Prairies and the Eastern Corridor. Both are shown at exactly the same scale. As you can see this isn't just about Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Quebec City. There are many other cities along the corridor (many of which are bigger than both Saskatoon and Regina), especially between Kingston and Windsor.





Legend:

large circle > 4 Million
large square |b| 1 & 1.5 Million
diamond |b| 700 & 850 thousand
small square |b| 100 & 600 thousand

Notes:

1. I picked those ranges as there were convenient gaps in city sizes there. The smallest range is a bit large, but if anything it favours the Prairies, as all of its cities in that range (Saskatoon, Regina, Lethbridge and Red Deer) are in the smaller half (i.e, less than 350 thousand).
2. I didn't include the census agglomerations as there are too many of them (especially in Ontario and Quebec).
3. I included both Red Deer and Chatham-Kent even though they aren't classified as CMAs, as they have populations greater than 100,000 (one of the conditions for a CMA).
4. For the corridor I filtered out all cities not along the existing or HFR route (ex. Sudbury, Barrie, and Sherbrooke), but I used all cities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The original map (showing both regions) can be found here. For fun I may add metropolitan areas in other regions/corridors later.

I am not talking frequent or high speeds. I am talking about a daily between those cities.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, you are in agreement that the existing Canadian should be a daily?

Yes. And I've said that before.

I works argue against any further investment in cross-country service. If I were Albertan, I would be arguing damn hard for the Trudeau government to immediately launch a $70M Joint Project Office for a Lethbridge-Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton High Frequency Rail line.

[swimmer_spe]

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I am not suggesting a high speed train outside of the Corridor. I am not even suggesting frequent service.
I am suggesting a daily service on all routes.
I am suggesting 2 routes return - Calgary-Edmonton, and the old southern Canadian route.

If this was all that returned, then we would have a decent service outside of the Corridor. Then, add more frequency as demand grows.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I am not suggesting a high speed train outside of the Corridor. I am not even suggesting frequent service.
I am suggesting a daily service on all routes.
I am suggesting 2 routes return - Calgary-Edmonton, and the old southern Canadian route.

If this was all that returned, then we would have a decent service outside of the Corridor. Then, add more frequency as demand grows.

I understand you fully, and I disagree strongly. A daily service is worthless and should not be implemented. If the Canadian did not exist, there would be no point creating it. It only exists because it exists.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Do you feel that the only rail should be HSR? In other words, only if buses are extremely busy do we build HSR, or we don't have passenger rail where none is?

Not exactly. The reality is when we start with the rail network we have in Western Canada, it would take a huge amount of investment (billions) to implement a service that would be good enough that significant numbers of people would build it, and at that level would still likely be excessive capacity for the initial ridership. At any investment below that bare minimum, buses would provide a service that was better in every way than a train, for less money.

And another point I've made before that bares repeating - why should cities that happen to be near a rail line be the only places that get this poor public transit option? Public transit should be allocated by need, not where some ancient rail companies built lines. Using buses would allow efficient allocation to where the demand actually is.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I understand you fully, and I disagree strongly. A daily service is worthless and should not be implemented. If the Canadian did not exist, there would be no point creating it. It only exists because it exists.



Not exactly. The reality is when we start with the rail network we have in Western Canada, it would take a huge amount of investment (billions) to implement a service that would be good enough that significant numbers of people would build it, and at that level would still likely be excessive capacity for the initial ridership. At any investment below that bare minimum, buses would provide a service that was better in every way than a train, for less money.

And another point I've made before that bares repeating - why should cities that happen to be near a rail line be the only places that get this poor public transit option? Public transit should be allocated by need, not where some ancient rail companies built lines. Using buses would allow efficient allocation to where the demand actually is.

So, when is the tipping point of adding a new line?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, when is the tipping point of adding a new line?

Never maybe. When the demand for intercity transit and its economic benefit is high enough that it justifies the cost of building it. There is practically zero economic benefit to running a train between Winnipeg and Regina, the number of users would be miniscule and those users would also be poor so aren't going to be producing much economic activity through that trip. The roads aren't busy enough that displacing some users would negate the need for road upgrades either.

Calgary Edmonton and Tor-Mon are different. Building proper passenger rail could mean fewer road upgrades. If it is cheap and fast, or even just fast, then it will mean more workers transiting between those cities, and unlike the passengers on the milk run train, the riders on the fast train will be of high economic value.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Never maybe. When the demand for intercity transit and its economic benefit is high enough that it justifies the cost of building it. There is practically zero economic benefit to running a train between Winnipeg and Regina, the number of users would be miniscule and those users would also be poor so aren't going to be producing much economic activity through that trip. The roads aren't busy enough that displacing some users would negate the need for road upgrades either.

Calgary Edmonton and Tor-Mon are different. Building proper passenger rail could mean fewer road upgrades. If it is cheap and fast, or even just fast, then it will mean more workers transiting between those cities, and unlike the passengers on the milk run train, the riders on the fast train will be of high economic value.

Are you a politician? Your answers are so weak and non committal.

Using the Calgary-Winnipeg route. How many buses a day need to run between it to show a need for rail?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are you a politician? Your answers are so weak and non committal.

Using the Calgary-Winnipeg route. How many buses a day need to run between it to show a need for rail?

My answers were weak? I gave you precise reasoning, but your response was simply to dismiss it with no reasoning of your own. I don't feel inclined to answer your question until you give my post a reasonable response.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not talking frequent or high speeds. I am talking about a daily between those cities.

I realize you aren't talking HSR or HFR, but you keep comparing service in the west to the eastern corridor.

[QUOTE=swimmer_spe;9028505]Explain why Kingston has such high usage, yet, is smaller than the top 5 cities of the prairies. It is so high because it is connected to larger cities. A train between Calgary-Regina-Wnnipeg would be stopping at Moose Jaw, Swift Current, and Portage La Prairie, among others. Those citizens now have another way to get to the major cities./QUOTE]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Now, if only that could be done outside of the Corridor too. The 5 major prairie provinces are close enough that Corridor speeds could make them more appealing to people going between them. Sadly, the train has to yield to slower freight.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Which is why we might be in the rebirth of traveling by train. Instead of thinking it has to compete with air, why not look at it as "can this be done in a day". That is why the Corridor works well, it can be traveled end to end in a day.

And that is only going back 3 days.

The train works well in the Eastern Corridor because a large number of people live there. If you add up the population of the CMAs I showed along the eastern corridor, you get over 16 million people, which works out to 46% of Canada's total population. That is almost half of the nation's population in a narrow, 1,100km strip.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Never maybe. When the demand for intercity transit and its economic benefit is high enough that it justifies the cost of building it. There is practically zero economic benefit to running a train between Winnipeg and Regina, the number of users would be miniscule and those users would also be poor so aren't going to be producing much economic activity through that trip. The roads aren't busy enough that displacing some users would negate the need for road upgrades either.

Calgary Edmonton and Tor-Mon are different. Building proper passenger rail could mean fewer road upgrades. If it is cheap and fast, or even just fast, then it will mean more workers transiting between those cities, and unlike the passengers on the milk run train, the riders on the fast train will be of high economic value.

Originally Posted by milomilo

My answers were weak? I gave you precise reasoning, but your response was simply to dismiss it with no reasoning of your own. I don't feel inclined to answer your question until you give my post a reasonable response.

Costs keep going up. So, again, how many buses full of riders is enough?
Why not shut down all intercity rail in Canada? None of it breaks even. So, why should we be expanding it? It has a similar economic benefit as anywhere else. It is just shorter.

We are expanding it because it has grown from a few, to a few more, to a lot, to now what it is at. even with HFR, it will not be profitable.

Lets use that elsewhere. Lets start with daily service to all major cities with rail. That does mean the southern route as well as connecting between Calgary and Edmonton.

Via was shutdown for some time along the Corridor due to the blockades. Did it cause an economical catastrophe? No. So, there are no needs for any rail anywhere.

So, when should the prairie provinces benefit from the taxes they pay to the federal government?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I realize you aren't talking HSR or HFR, but you keep comparing service in the west to the eastern corridor.

And that is only going back 3 days.

The train works well in the Eastern Corridor because a large number of people live there. If you add up the population of the CMAs I showed along the eastern corridor, you get over 16 million people, which works out to 46% of Canada's total population. That is almost half of the nation's population in a narrow, 1,100km strip.

That is why I am not suggesting more than a daily service. Outside of Toronto-Montreal, more than daily isn't needed much.

I know that on the prairies, the distances aren't close. I know the populations aren't large.

This does also come back to giving people something for their taxes they pay.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Costs keep going up. So, again, how many buses full of riders is enough?

I'll quantify it. If you can't fill the equivalent of two buses per hour (equal to 1.5 rail cars) for 80% of the route, no capital for construction should be spent. Limit service to a daily. Long haul bussing and driving can do the rest. If you can't fill 100 seats for 80% of the trip, your costs will be really high. Fare recovery ratio will be poor. And the whole service will become a giant moneypit. This is why I argue that there shouldn't be two parallel routes across the Prairies. Just one route.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'll quantify it. If you can't fill the equivalent of two buses per hour (equal to 1.5 rail cars) for 80% of the route, no capital for construction should be spent. Limit service to a daily. Long haul bussing and driving can do the rest. If you can't fill 100 seats for 80% of the trip, your costs will be really high. Fare recovery ratio will be poor. And the whole service will become a giant moneypit. This is why I argue that there shouldn't be two parallel routes across the Prairies. Just one route.

Thank you for a number.

I figured on a much shorter train than the 20+ cars you suggest. Why not a single engine with 3-5 cars once a day? That would be 4-8 buses a day.

This is also why they should make a smaller Canadian and run that.