Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[zang]

What about Via for Economy and business? For Via, IIRC it was about $75 and $150.

Because VIA loves variable pricing, the only time you can get relatively inexpensive tickets is booking way in advance. If one wanted to book a trip to Montreal for this coming Sunday the 22nd, you're looking at quite a major jump:

If our goal is to get people using the train over a plane, it's about time we follow the lead of countries like Japan where price is fixed based on distance, with a small surcharge for express.

If one were to book the Nozomi Shinkansen from Tokyo to Hiroshima on the same day (Sunday, 22nd), it would cost less (reserved seat JPY¥22,900 = CAD$202), goes about twice the distance, gets there faster and within it's first daily hour of operation, has more departures than VIA does the entire day.

 

[Mihairokov]

If one were to book the Nozomi Shinkansen from Tokyo to Hiroshima on the same day (Sunday, 22nd), it would cost less (reserved seat JPY¥22,900 = CAD$202), goes about twice the distance, gets there faster and within it's first daily hour of operation, has more departures than VIA does the entire day.

I have my Nozomi ticket in my phone case - 13,970JPY from Kyoto to Tokyo. The one thing about Japanese transit is that most of it makes logical sense.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Because VIA loves variable pricing, the only time you can get relatively inexpensive tickets is booking way in advance. If one wanted to book a trip to Montreal for this coming Sunday the 22nd, you're looking at quite a major jump: If our goal is to get people using the train over a plane, it's about time we follow the lead of countries like Japan where price is fixed based on distance, with a small surcharge for express.

Agreed. And it's a ridiculous increase as the date approaches. Here's the same trip on a Saturday in Jan 2027, for all of $55, or a quarter of your $219 price above.

A VIA ticket should be constant, same as a TTC fare. VIA is a crown corporation and should not be looking to game the system on pricing and demand.

 

[crs1026]

A VIA ticket should be constant, same as a TTC fare. VIA is a crown corporation and should not be looking to game the system on pricing and demand.

Demand management has been around in some form just about forever, and in its simplest form is not wrong headed. Using price to shape demand to match seat availability makes eminent sense and does lower cost overall. The reason GO and TTC avoid it is for practical reasons, not on principle.
If everybody demands the right to travel on the 17:00 Friday train, VIA has to supply a much bigger train, and the 16:00 and 18:00 trains run empty. At flat fares, the 13:00 train may have so little demand that it isn't worth running.
Using price to shift demand is at heart a very prudent move.
VIA may not be perfect, but I am confident that their pricing is not predatory so much as it is a very rational attempt to match demands to seats given a very constrained fleet size and the desire to deliver all-day service on the corridor.
The problem, as in other matters, is where the algorithm is complex and hidden, such that finding a best fare is indeed a game. Certainly air travel has moved to that point. Amtrak on the corridor charges a great deal more for at-the-moment tickets at key times.
The old CN Red-White-Blue model was a very simple and effective model that charged more on high travel days. It was transparent in the sense that the fare regime was set out well in advance and there were no hidden deals that one had to hunt for, or be watching at the right time.
Flat fares also deprive the operator of the opportunity to offer deep discount fares that benefit those for whom affordability is most critical. VIA does this on the Canadian, for instance, although it can be hard to keep up with seat sales. Generally this requires advance booking, and that's a reasonable tradeoff.
I agree that Alto needs to price in a responsible manner that is not predatory or revenue-greedy, and that may contrast to pricing in more commercial or profit hungry revenue extraction markets, but I would not throw out variable pricing altogether.

- Paul

- Paul

 

[zang]

Demand management has been around in some form just about forever, and in its simplest form is not wrong headed. Using price to shape demand to match seat availability makes eminent sense and does lower cost overall. The reason GO and TTC avoid it is for practical reasons, not on principle.

It's not just seat availability at play here. Fridays and Sundays are always priced higher, and unless that many people are booking train tickets nearly a year out, as are dates around holidays. It also seems the pricing already starts adjusting when there are only a few booked seats (and not say, at 80%).

If everybody demands the right to travel on the 17:00 Friday train, VIA has to supply a much bigger train, and the 16:00 and 18:00 trains run empty. At flat fares, the 13:00 train may have so little demand that it isn't worth running.

But, nobody is making "demands" here. If a 5pm train is full, there will be those who take earlier or later trains, not stomp their feet until they get their way. As well, to my knowledge, (outside of the devil's bargains made with CPKC/CN) there's nothing stopping VIA from scheduling trains in clusters around peak travel times (say, 16:40, 17:00, 17:20) or adding a couple of cars to trainsets.

Using price to shift demand is at heart a very prudent move.
VIA may not be perfect, but I am confident that their pricing is not predatory so much as it is a very rational attempt to match demands to seats given a very constrained fleet size and the desire to deliver all-day service on the corridor.

Speaking from experience, their variable pricing has indeed stopped our family of three from travelling to make a last minute (if you consider 12 days notice "last minute") visit to family in Montreal, and almost considering car rental to make the trip.

It is ridiculous that they intentionally price themselves out of contention (a trip for three to Montreal and back should not have to clock in at nearly $900).

Flat fares also deprive the operator of the opportunity to offer deep discount fares that benefit those for whom affordability is most critical.

Or those get subsidy from government, spreading the cost over millions, rather than spreading the cost over the couple of hundred riding the same train.

VIA does this on the Canadian, for instance, although it can be hard to keep up with seat sales. Generally this requires advance booking, and that's a reasonable tradeoff.

The Canadian is primarily a tourist train. Japan Rail offers deep discounts to non-Japanese tourists as well (See; JR Rail Pass). It's a bit of a different ballgame in comparison to the corridor.

 

[micheal_can]

It's not just seat availability at play here. Fridays and Sundays are always priced higher, and unless that many people are booking train tickets nearly a year out, as are dates around holidays. It also seems the pricing already starts adjusting when there are only a few booked seats (and not say, at 80%).

Having different pricing based on departure times can make sense. However, having that price go up due to demand is not a good thing. Having seat sales or discounts on not full trains also makes sense.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

I have my Nozomi ticket in my phone case - 13,970JPY from Kyoto to Tokyo. The one thing about Japanese transit is that most of it makes logical sense.

It would appear their price model is pretty consistent as I paid the exact same fare for Tokyo to Kyoto back in October. And only ¥550 (~$5 CAD) more for Osaka to Tokyo.

 

[zang]

It would appear their price model is pretty consistent as I paid the exact same fare for Tokyo to Kyoto back in October. And only ¥550 (~$5 CAD) more for Osaka to Tokyo.

By law it's all based on distance. A slight surcharge for reserved seating (good luck getting a fuji-side seat on that leg), but I don't believe that's any more than about ¥1000. And if you're on a JR Rail Pass, there's an upcharge for taking the Nozomi; presumably because it's a super-express and crosses JR borders.

 

[smallspy]

It's not just seat availability at play here. Fridays and Sundays are always priced higher, and unless that many people are booking train tickets nearly a year out, as are dates around holidays. It also seems the pricing already starts adjusting when there are only a few booked seats (and not say, at 80%).

That's the other side of demand management - historical trend monitoring.

Fridays and Sundays are historically the busiest days of the week for VIA, so trips on those days are priced higher. Much as Paul's example above may shift travel patterns to an earlier or later trip, in this case they may cause a trip to be moved up a day or postponed by a day.

But, nobody is making "demands" here. If a 5pm train is full, there will be those who take earlier or later trains, not stomp their feet until they get their way. As well, to my knowledge, (outside of the devil's bargains made with CPKC/CN) there's nothing stopping VIA from scheduling trains in clusters around peak travel times (say, 16:40, 17:00, 17:20) or adding a couple of cars to trainsets.

There's more than one definition of demand.

You're thinking about the context of a single person making a request. They're thinking of it from a standpoint of supply and demand - how many seats they can provide, and how many butts can fill them.

Speaking from experience, their variable pricing has indeed stopped our family of three from travelling to make a last minute (if you consider 12 days notice "last minute") visit to family in Montreal, and almost considering car rental to make the trip.

It can absolutely have an effect, yes.

But by that same token, I've traveled to Ottawa in VIA1 for less than $80 in the past year on only 3 days notice. It goes both ways.

It is ridiculous that they intentionally price themselves out of contention (a trip for three to Montreal and back should not have to clock in at nearly $900).

As opposed to flying?

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

It's not just seat availability at play here. Fridays and Sundays are always priced higher, and unless that many people are booking train tickets nearly a year out, as are dates around holidays. It also seems the pricing already starts adjusting when there are only a few booked seats (and not say, at 80%).

We know which days will be busiest, so it makes sense to price those higher from the moment tickets go on sale, rather than selling the first few tickets at $55 but the last few tickets at $230. Maybe busy days should start around $75 and rise to $125.

But, nobody is making "demands" here. If a 5pm train is full, there will be those who take earlier or later trains, not stomp their feet until they get their way. As well, to my knowledge, (outside of the devil's bargains made with CPKC/CN) there's nothing stopping VIA from scheduling trains in clusters around peak travel times (say, 16:40, 17:00, 17:20) or adding a couple of cars to trainsets.

Rail capacity is what stops Via from scheduling trains at extremely high frequencies around peak travel times. Especially in Toronto where the railways are owned by GO Transit, and it's their peak travel time as well.

In the afternoon peak period at Union Station Via currently has eastbound departures at:
15:23 Via 66 to Montreal
15:38 Via 46 to Ottawa
16:38 Via 646 to Ottawa
17:08 Via 68 to Montreal
17:38 Via 54 to Ottawa
18:08 Via 668 to Montreal
18:38 Via 48 to Ottawa.

That's 2 trains per hour, which is about as much as GO Transit can realistically let them operate while also operating 6 trains per hour to Whitby/Oshawa and 2 trains per hour to Stouffville on the same pair of tracks.

Increasing peak frequency is very expensive since it requires building track capacity that will sit unused for the rest of the day. It's far better to disperse demand to enable moderate frequencies over a longer time period rather than super high frequencies for an hour and low frequency the rest of the day.

Speaking from experience, their variable pricing has indeed stopped our family of three from travelling to make a last minute (if you consider 12 days notice "last minute") visit to family in Montreal, and almost considering car rental to make the trip.

It is ridiculous that they intentionally price themselves out of contention (a trip for three to Montreal and back should not have to clock in at nearly $900).

Indeed, Via's pricing is ridiculous. Part of that is that their pricing system is excessively volatile, but a large part is simply the amount of seat capacity they have available. Either they turn people away using high ticket prices or they turn people away because the train is sold out. Given those choices it's logical they choose the option where they get more revenue.

Or those get subsidy from government, spreading the cost over millions, rather than spreading the cost over the couple of hundred riding the same train.

Yes, this is exactly what should be happening. To be more specific, the Government should be purchasing a larger fleet so Via can run longer trains, and thereby have enough capacity to satisfy demand with tickets at a lower price point. Especially on routes like Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal, we could definitely fill 10-car trains if we maintained the $55-75 pricepoint for a larger proportion of tickets. We know this because there is an entire industry of private bus companies operating dozens of buses per day whose only advantage over Via Rail is that they're cheaper.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not going to get lost in the weeds on this one.....

But I will say, on balance, I disagree with variable pricing as a model.

I'll just have fun and compare to an industry I know well, grocery.

Peak shopping day is Sunday, currently, followed by Saturday on a full-day basis, and Friday for part-period (Friday evenings often do better trade than comparable period on a Saturday.

Anyone want to pay a $50 surcharge for shopping on Sunday?

Oddly, the industry has never considered it. Ahem. Turns out you jut vary staffing levels and the number of re-stocks based on volume and you largely maintain sufficient plant to meet peak demand with the understanding that lines will be slightly longer.

The technical arguments have their merits, but from a consumer perspective, consistent, predictable pricing has a lot of value.

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm not going to get lost in the weeds on this one.....

But I will say, on balance, I disagree with variable pricing as a model.

I'll just have fun and compare to an industry I know well, grocery.

Peak shopping day is Sunday, currently, followed by Saturday on a full-day basis, and Friday for part-period (Friday evenings often do better trade than comparable period on a Saturday.

Anyone want to pay a $50 surcharge for shopping on Sunday?

Oddly, the industry has never considered it. Ahem. Turns out you jut vary staffing levels and the number of re-stocks based on volume and you largely maintain sufficient plant to meet peak demand with the understanding that lines will be slightly longer.

The technical arguments have their merits, but from a consumer perspective, consistent, predictable pricing has a lot of value.

Predictable pricing and constant pricing are two completely different things. There are certain days that we know will have much higher demand than others. The Friday before a long weekend, for example. Should we purchase twice as many trains so we can run double-length trains that weekend and leave those trains sitting idle the other 300+ days per year? Or should we raise the price of tickets on those days to encourage those who have other options to travel on other days? Certainly the constant price would be nice, but the question is whether it's so nice that it justifies the massive additional subsidy that would be required to achieve it.

Buying a cash register that only gets used a couple hours per day is a lot less wasteful than buying a train that only gets used a few days per year.

The best balance between cost-recovery and consumer satisfaction is probably a pre-set range of fare types, with each departure designated in advance as a 'peak', or 'off-peak' based on estimated demand. This model would also retain some increase in price as you approach the departure date, since the Escape fares would presumably sell out first.

 

[crs1026]

Indeed, Via's pricing is ridiculous. Part of that is that their pricing system is excessively volatile, but a large part is simply the amount of seat capacity they have available. Either they turn people away using high ticket prices or they turn people away because the train is sold out. Given those choices it's logical they choose the option where they get more revenue.

Exactly. The inadequacy of their fleet size exacerbates the whole thing. I do hope Alto can do better at sizing its fleet. And I would hope for a more transparent model. Just because it's now possible to run a very complex algorithm does not mean that is a good thing to do.

To repeat myself, the CN R-W-B model wasn't a bad compromise. I don't even have a problem with a standing schedule note that the 17:00 train requires a premium fare. It's the randomness and variability over time of what one finds when browsing VIA's fares looking for the cheaper options that is over the top.

Peak shopping day is Sunday, currently, followed by Saturday on a full-day basis, and Friday for part-period (Friday evenings often do better trade than comparable period on a Saturday.

Anyone want to pay a $50 surcharge for shopping on Sunday?

Oddly, the industry has never considered it. Ahem. Turns out you jut vary staffing levels and the number of re-stocks based on volume and you largely maintain sufficient plant to meet peak demand with the understanding that lines will be slightly longer.

This is a poor comparison imho unless we are describing a state where the store shelves are absolutely empty. For the most part, crowded weekend supermarkets are a bit inconvenient but do not represent a hard stop on buying groceries. A full train is a harder stop.

And actually retail does offer things like certain-weekday-only seniors' discounts. These are fillers for low-traffic days.

- Paul

PS - to repeat my earlier point, so far the price point of Alto seems to likely be based on full cost recovery plus return. Moving to a peoples' train, one low fare reality probably blows that premise out of the water whether demand management is applied, or not. Let's not try to walk both sides of this when the business case for Alto is revealed.

 

[zang]

Predictable pricing and constant pricing are two completely different things. There are certain days that we know will have much higher demand than others. The Friday before a long weekend, for example. Should we purchase twice as many trains so we can run double-length trains that weekend and leave those trains sitting idle the other 300+ days per year? Or should we raise the price of tickets on those days to encourage those who have other options to travel on other days? Certainly the constant price would be nice, but the question is whether it's so nice that it justifies the massive additional subsidy that would be required to achieve it.

Buying a cash register that only gets used a couple hours per day is a lot less wasteful than buying a train that only gets used a few days per year.

I'm not sure it'd only be a few days a year. Weekends would certainly benefit from it.

Besides, scaling it down to public transit, should we not have Davisville yard sitting full of trains midday and evenings because they aren't needed all day long?

Having surplus capacity is good, even though it has costs. Anyone complaining about the speed of Toronto's recent snow removal would likely agree that having a surplus is better than only having what's needed 95% of the time.

I'll note that having more trains also potentially extends the life of the fleet; parts from retired vehicles and less overall wear and tear if vehicle usage is balanced.

 

[nfitz]

I find it hard to complain too much about the pricing when they are sold out.