VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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.

Because one bus every 2 hours is better than a slower, less reliable, more expensive train once a day.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because one bus every 2 hours is better than a slower, less reliable, more expensive train once a day.

You couldn't give an answer. Whether I like his number or not, I can respect it.

So, what is your number?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You couldn't give an answer. Whether I like his number or not, I can respect it.

So, what is your number?

That is a stupid request, I do not know a specific number and making one up does nothing for the argument. What truenorth said is a good guess, but still just a guess and the actual number it will entirely depend on the specifics of any route and would need extensive research, trialing and implementation. And, as always, for about the millionth time, what that number of buses is is irrelevant, as a bus will provide service that is better in every way than a daily rail service. You can't ignore this reality forever.

Though I did give you a number, my answer to when a new line should be added, my answer was "probably never". Unless new population centres massively develop in the prairies, then the major cities will remain just as separated as they are today, and rail will be a poor investment.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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.

I didn't say there should be no service below this level. Just no capital expenditure. It's not worthwhile. Even to spend on passing tracks. If all you can do is muster enough demand for one train per day then just have that service. It will still lose money. But it meets basic obligation. Anything more just makes the hole deeper. This is why I'm opposed to things like trains on both the northern and southern route.

A lot of these cities would benefit more from more frequent bus service than they would from a daily train service. And maybe VIA should run that. Like I've said earlier, they should be in the passenger transportation business. Not just the rail business.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You couldn't give an answer. Whether I like his number or not, I can respect it.

So, what is your number?

I have no idea if rail is justified in this context, but this line of questioning is ridiculous and is no more a refutation of milomilo's position than it is refutation of your own. If you want a specific number from milomilo, make a business case with supporting data for improved rail service first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I didn't say there should be no service below this level. Just no capital expenditure. It's not worthwhile. Even to spend on passing tracks. If all you can do is muster enough demand for one train per day then just have that service. It will still lose money. But it meets basic obligation. Anything more just makes the hole deeper. This is why I'm opposed to things like trains on both the northern and southern route.

A lot of these cities would benefit more from more frequent bus service than they would from a daily train service. And maybe VIA should run that. Like I've said earlier, they should be in the passenger transportation business. Not just the rail business.

I understand what you meant. It would be nice if Via was who the governments supported with the subsidies for public intercity transportation, not private companies. Then, once Via saw the need to put a train on a line, they could do it with proof that it will be a success.

Originally Posted by jamincan

I have no idea if rail is justified in this context, but this line of questioning is ridiculous and is no more a refutation of milomilo's position than it is refutation of your own. If you want a specific number from milomilo, make a business case with supporting data for improved rail service first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

I respect your statement. Some can't say that. Some want to just brush it off. At least when someone gives a number, I can see their thinking. We then can discuss further why they came up with that.

So, when I ask that number, I ask it to gauge whether you want to discuss the needs of a train, or whether you just want to brush off anything but HFR/HSR.

I am working on those numbers. For example, it is not that easy to get numbers for flights between city pairs. The air carriers don't want to give it up.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am working on those numbers. For example, it is not that easy to get numbers for flights between city pairs. The air carriers don't want to give it up.

Just look at direct flights. Calgary is a hub for both carriers. You should at least be able to do the Southern Route estimate.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Just look at direct flights. Calgary is a hub for both carriers. You should at least be able to do the Southern Route estimate.

I am working on the major city hubs. For example: Calgary-Edmonton, Calgary-Regina and Calgary-Winnipeg.
I don't want plane numbers. I want passenger numbers. I want to know about butts in the seat, not seats for butts.

Then I'll be getting information along the Corridor.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am working on the major city hubs. For example: Calgary-Edmonton, Calgary-Regina and Calgary-Winnipeg.
I don't want plane numbers. I want passenger numbers. I want to know about butts in the seat, not seats for butts.

Then I'll be getting information along the Corridor.

Airlines report their load factor. It would get you a reasonable estimate.

The more useful number though would be Via’s market share on the prairie routes. How many people travelling Winnipeg to Edmonton choose the train.

[Truenorth00]

I don't think a slow train can capture much market share from air. Need to look at driving and bussing.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Airlines report their load factor. It would get you a reasonable estimate.

The more useful number though would be Via’s market share on the prairie routes. How many people travelling Winnipeg to Edmonton choose the train.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't think a slow train can capture much market share from air. Need to look at driving and bussing.

I am looking at all modes. Then I can then compare it to places in Canada with daily service and go from there. I won't make the numbers say what I need, but instead, show that there are similar numbers, or not. In other words, I will try to remove as much bias as I can.

I am a numbers person. I don't like weasel things. So, once I compile everything, I might find that the numbers are showing that it should stay status quo. If that is the case, I shall look at how to get those numbers to where I can get what I want. For instance, if we need 1 full bus an hour, for 12 hours a day, and we only have one bus a day, and that is it, I would then push for 2 buses a day. In other words, build demand, not build capacity that will not be filled.

[Djeffery]

Even if Air Canada and WestJet told you how many butts in seats for every one of those prairie flights for the last decade, I can't imagine how useful that info is to determine rail demand. I don't know that you can extrapolate that since x thousand people flew between a couple cities in a week, that any number of them would take a possibly slightly cheaper train that takes 7 times as long.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Even if Air Canada and WestJet told you how many butts in seats for every one of those prairie flights for the last decade, I can't imagine how useful that info is to determine rail demand. I don't know that you can extrapolate that since x thousand people flew between a couple cities in a week, that any number of them would take a possibly slightly cheaper train that takes 7 times as long.

Lets take Calgary-Edmonton and Toronto-Montreal.
Lets say that annually, C-E has 1/5th the ridership T-M has. Right now, there is a total of about 10 trains going between T-M, some through Ottawa. With the 1/5th ridership, one could say that corridor could support 1/5th the passenger rail service, or 2 trains a day.

Now, lets say that it has 1/20th the ridership, well then, it shows that there may not be enough ridership to support anything.

In short, it is not about twisting the numbers, but let the numbers stand on their own so that someone who sees it, can see that there is something reasonable there or not.

Doing Calgary-Winnipeg will be more challenging, but as I dive into this, I am looking for the low hanging fruit first.

In short, this won't be quick and easy, but I hope to keep it as unbiased as possible. I have no gain for something 3 provinces over gets.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lets take Calgary-Edmonton and Toronto-Montreal.
Lets say that annually, C-E has 1/5th the ridership T-M has. Right now, there is a total of about 10 trains going between T-M, some through Ottawa. With the 1/5th ridership, one could say that corridor could support 1/5th the passenger rail service, or 2 trains a day.

Now, lets say that it has 1/20th the ridership, well then, it shows that there may not be enough ridership to support anything.

In short, it is not about twisting the numbers, but let the numbers stand on their own so that someone who sees it, can see that there is something reasonable there or not.

Doing Calgary-Winnipeg will be more challenging, but as I dive into this, I am looking for the low hanging fruit first.

In short, this won't be quick and easy, but I hope to keep it as unbiased as possible. I have no gain for something 3 provinces over gets.

Calgary and Edmonton may well have sufficient population to support a train service, although since both cities are quite spread out it is unclear how efficient real world trips would be by train.

But the major difference is that Toronto-Montreal has had continuous passenger service for 150+ years. The track is all double or triple track (on the lakeshore route). The cost to operate the service is just Via”s subsidy.

I don’t know when rail last ran between Edmonton and Calgary, or the condition of the track, but it is likely major upgrades are needed. So the cost isn’t just the subsidy, but likely a major infrastructure upgrade, which is hard to justify if the demand is just for a train or two per day.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lets take Calgary-Edmonton and Toronto-Montreal.
Lets say that annually, C-E has 1/5th the ridership T-M has. Right now, there is a total of about 10 trains going between T-M, some through Ottawa. With the 1/5th ridership, one could say that corridor could support 1/5th the passenger rail service, or 2 trains a day.

This isn't analysis that anyone would take seriously. The Corridor has plenty of stations en route. At least enough that VIA thinks a hub is supportable in Kingston. They think they can run 15 HFR trains (with longer trainsets) per day in each direction and have a Lakeshore hub. The Corridor is also the busiest aviation market in the country. Pre-Covid there were 200 flights a day. Nearly half of that just between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. The 401 is also the busiest freeway in the country.

The closest context for Calgary-Edmonton is probably Ottawa-Montreal. Montreal's still bigger than Calgary. And those two cities are closer, which would drive traffic between them. But Ottawa-Montreal or Quebec City-Montreal is the analogous demand scenario you face.

You could also just read the 2008 High Speed Rail study which did market analysis.

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

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Now, lets say that it has 1/20th the ridership, well then, it shows that there may not be enough ridership to support anything.

In short, it is not about twisting the numbers, but let the numbers stand on their own so that someone who sees it, can see that there is something reasonable there or not.

Doing Calgary-Winnipeg will be more challenging, but as I dive into this, I am looking for the low hanging fruit first.

In short, this won't be quick and easy, but I hope to keep it as unbiased as possible. I have no gain for something 3 provinces over gets.

Anybody using ratios to calculate demand isn't really providing unbiased information. And nobody is going to take that seriously. Demand studies for multi-billion dollar projects aren't just done on the back of a napkin.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am looking at all modes.

That is exactly what you need to do to start. While the bus is the closest alternative to a train, you can't say you need X number of buses before a train becomes viable as there are other factors.

Then I can then compare it to places in Canada with daily service and go from there.

What routes in Canada have daily service? The only one I can think of is Toronto/Hamilton/Niagara Falls (and on to New York), but I gather GO has since added their own daily train along the route as well. Besides, it isn't a very valid comparison as Niagara Falls is world famous tourist destination.

A better option might be to look at the modal share rail has on the different routes, and come up with a model (using distance, service frequency, travel patterns, availability of other options etc) that seems to somewhat accurately simulate those results. You can then calculate how many passengers you can expect to take the train and determine if that is enough to be viable.

If I had to guess, I would say a daily train in the parries would be able to capture no more than 1% of the total travel demand along the route*. I would also guess you need an average of about 100 passengers per train (about 1.5 cars) to make the train viable. If my assumptions are correct, you would need about 10,000 people travelling along the route (by all modes) per day, to make a daily train viable. Assuming my assumptions are correct (please feel free to prove me wrong), and with an estimation of about 2.5 million people living along the Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary corridor, that means you would need 0.4% (1 in 250) of the population to travel between those destinations every day or 2.8% (1 in 35.7) every week.

* In 2015, 5% of travel between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal was by train (87% by car and 6% by plane) ref. Given the correlation between modal share and frequency of service, I can't imagine a daily train getting more than 1% of modal share, and that is probably an over estimate (it would probably be less than 0.5%), assuming there are other viable modes of travel (obviously places with no other mode of transport available would have a much higher modal share).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The closest context for Calgary-Edmonton is probably Ottawa-Montreal. Montreal's still bigger than Calgary. And those two cities are closer, which would drive traffic between them. But Ottawa-Montreal or Quebec City-Montreal is the analogous demand scenario you face.

Of the two, I would say Quebec City--Trois-Rivières--Montreal is a closer context. The distances are closer to the same, there is a small city in the middle (with mostly farmland everywhere else). It is also service within the same province between the largest city and the provincial capital. It is true Montreal is significantly bigger than Calgary, but Edmonton is significantly bigger than Quebec City, which helps balance things out a bit (though not perfectly).

The biggest difference is Montreal has frequent service to Ottawa and Toronto to allow for viable connections. I do think that service between Calgary and Edmonton is worthy of consideration.

You could also just read the 2008 High Speed Rail study which did market analysis.

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

That has some very interesting data. Looking at Exhibit 2.1 on pg.13, the total annual, passenger trips on the Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton corridor was 9,839,000 (in 2006). It isn't clear if those are round trip or one way, so lets assume one-way and divide by 2, for 4,919,500. Then divide that by 365 for a daily total of 13,478.

It says the bus has 3% modal share. If you assume 4 trains a day could at least match that, you get 404 passengers a day or 101 per train, which, in my mind, is enough to be viable.

I suspect that if it is done right, so that it is reliable and time competitive to driving, it could get more than 3% of the market share, which will make it even more successful.

If it isn't reliable and time competitive to driving, it would be lucky to get 1% of the market, and thus it wouldn't be feasible.

The problem with HSR is it costs so much that the fare ends up being close to flying. With the airlines only having 6% of the market share, you are fighting toe to toe for the scraps with private companies, and end up pricing out the vast majority of your potential market. You only need to make it fast, reliable and affordable enough to be competitive with those who are currently driving to open up a huge potential market, and you don't have the political issues of competing with private companies and there is no price war to be had. Once you have a large ridership base and thus a large base of support, you can then start to look at HSR. Adding HSR where you don't have good service to begin with will never get any traction.

[Truenorth00]

I'm not suggesting HSR for Calgary-Edmonton. Demand doesn't justify it. I think the concept of HFR works there. Just fast enough to avoid grade separation requirements in most places. Done right, that should be a 2 hr trip downtown to downtown. And probably under $3 billion. It would definitely steal a fair bit from the airlines, buses and driving. And would probably develop a solid commuter market out of Red Deer. It's an idea that could get thousands of riders per day. Probably negative return on the capital costs. But would be operationally profitable. And net benefit on externalities.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by roger1818

What routes in Canada have daily service? The only one I can think of is Toronto/Hamilton/Niagara Falls (and on to New York), but I gather GO has since added their own daily train along the route as well. Besides, it isn't a very valid comparison as Niagara Falls is world famous tourist destination.

I forgot about the train from Sarnia to London (and on to Toronto). I actually had previously done this analysis of that train (they say there are 3 signs of getting old, 1 is you loose your memory and I can't remember the other 2 ):

Originally Posted by roger1818

A good comparison is probably Sarnia as it has daily service to Toronto (via London). Sarnia is quite small (Canada's 43rd largest city with a population of 96 thousand and falling); however, it is only 290km from Toronto. Moreover, it is only 95km from London, which already has frequent service to Toronto, so the incremental cost of extending the train from London to Sarnia is small.

Despite daily service and close proximity to Canada's largest city, the "Total passengers at stations (boarding and deboarding)" on the extension are:

SARNIA: 19,490
WYOMING: 1,650
STRATHROY: 2,361
Total: 23,501

With daily, bidirectional service, we can divide the total by 730 (365x2) and get an average of 32 passengers per train. That is less than half the capacity of an LRC coach (68 seats).

Granted every situation is different, but that should give you an idea of what demand would be like for daily service from those living "within a few hours" of major cities. Other Canadian cities are much smaller than Toronto, and there are only a few places with populations similar to Sarnia.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm not suggesting HSR for Calgary-Edmonton. Demand doesn't justify it.

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you were. My reference was that the study was for HSR.

I think the concept of HFR works there. Just fast enough to avoid grade separation requirements in most places. Done right, that should be a 2 hr trip downtown to downtown. And probably under $3 billion. It would definitely steal a fair bit from the airlines, buses and driving. And would probably develop a solid commuter market out of Red Deer. It's an idea that could get thousands of riders per day. Probably negative return on the capital costs. But would be operationally profitable. And net benefit on externalities.

I agree. Even if they could match the 2.5 hour travel time (to South Edmonton) of the service prior to 1990 with 4 daily departures (instead of 2 on weekdays and 1 on weekends) and keep the reliability high, it could work and give something to build upon.

Getting to downtown Edmonton could be an issue though.