Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[zang]

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

Games at the Air Canada Centre are often sold out too; it doesn't mean the prices aren't insanely high.

 

[Northern Light]

Predictable pricing and constant pricing are two completely different things.

Agreed.

There are certain days that we know will have much higher demand than others. The Friday before a long weekend, for example.

Also agreed.

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?

I think with respect, this is a false choice. There a mix of options (up to a point) that allow for greater capacity, including flexible train length design, some varied fixed lengths as well, and of course, more runs at peak times.

Yes, there are limits on the latter, in the current context, and I'm not suggesting guaranteeing that everyone can get a seat on their preferred train at 5 minutes notice. But there's some distance to cover between there and the current model.

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.

I'm waffling on the extent of a subsidy here. The corridor is profitable on an operating basis. It subsidizes the rest of VIA. Sure, we might have to reduce that margin and let the state fully subsidize non-market services, or perhaps we even allow a marginal subsidy on the service. But again, I'm not advocating an absolute right to board the 5pm departure on a Friday. Just suggesting that adding some additional capacity by whatever means to better meet peak demand is not an unreasonable able idea.

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.

You do know this reads as incredibly disrespectful right? I don't do that to you, please don't do that to me.

To be clear, here's how peak demand impacts supermarkets, significantly more square footage. More freezers, more fridges, those you can see up front and large ones in the back. This adds capital cost, electricity, and rent.

I can squeeze everything, every single distinct product you expect from 45,000ft supermarket into 15,000ft2 no problem if I'm sizing it for the crowd on Mondays.

That's because I need far fewer facings of product. Sundays demand that you see 10 straight Coke bottles, each 8 deep on the shelf; Mondays demand only 2. The same for any high-selling product in the store; in addition to requiring less shelf space, the store could have smaller aisles given lower crowds, could buy fewer carts and require less space to store them. Less parking, ahem. Parking lots are sized for peak demand. So are loading docks. Back-of-house storage could be 60% smaller based on Monday volumes.

Just imagine the cost of heating or air conditioning an extra 30,000ft2 ? Its done every week, cost of doing business.

So clearly, there would be a massive financial win for grocers in getting people to shop equally on every day of the week. Its not just one less cash register.

Now that we've clarified that, how do you feel about paying $5 for for 2lbs of Onions on the weekend, $3 weekdays after 5pm, and $2 for weekday daytimes?

 

[reaperexpress]

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

The travel demand on the specific peak travel weekends far exceeds the travel demand on a typical weekend.

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.

Yes, surplus capacity is good if we can afford it, the question is at what cost. This primarily has to do with the ratio of demand between peak and off-peak periods. The subway runs about 40% more frequently at rush hour than it does off-peak, but if we're looking at intercity travel, we may well need 300% more seats on a holiday long weekend than we need on a random Tuesday. On the subway we accept that for a couple hours per day we'll just squeeze people into crowded trains, but that's not a reasonable option on intercity trains. Once the seats are sold out, nobody else can ride the train.

 

[reaperexpress]

I think with respect, this is a false choice. There a mix of options (up to a point) that allow for greater capacity, including flexible train length design, some varied fixed lengths as well, and of course, more runs at peak times.

Yes, there are limits on the latter, in the current context, and I'm not suggesting guaranteeing that everyone can get a seat on their preferred train at 5 minutes notice. But there's some distance to cover between there and the current model.

Flexible train design and more runs at peak times both require trains to run them. And those trains need to be purchased and maintained. That's what I'm talking about.

I'm waffling on the extent of a subsidy here. The corridor is profitable on an operating basis. It subsidizes the rest of VIA. Sure, we might have to reduce that margin and let the state fully subsidize non-market services, or perhaps we even allow a marginal subsidy on the service. But again, I'm not advocating an absolute right to board the 5pm departure on a Friday. Just suggesting that adding some additional capacity by whatever means to better meet peak demand is not an unreasonable able idea.

Whether it's a "subsidy" or "less profit" is not really the question. The question is just what the best balance is between profit (or reduced subsidy) of the train operator and the benefit to the general public. I think we both agree that Via has been directed to err way too far in the direction of "maximizing profits" rather than providing a greater benefit to Canadians by transporting a larger number of people by train.

You do know this reads as incredibly disrespectful right? I don't do that to you, please don't do that to me.

To be clear, here's how peak demand impacts supermarkets, significantly more square footage. More freezers, more fridges, those you can see up front and large ones in the back. This adds capital cost, electricity, and rent.

No, I had no intention of being disrespectful, so I apologize for that. I was simply trying to illustrate that the cost of increasing the throughput of a grocery store is a much smaller proportion of the fixed operating costs than it is for a train. There is much less potential for a supermarket to vary prices by time of day when such a large portion of their expense is to acquire the food that they are going to sell.

I can squeeze everything, every single distinct product you expect from 45,000ft supermarket into 15,000ft2 no problem if I'm sizing it for the crowd on Mondays.

That's because I need far fewer facings of product. Sundays demand that you see 10 straight Coke bottles, each 8 deep on the shelf; Mondays demand only 2. The same for any high-selling product in the store; in addition to requiring less shelf space, the store could have smaller aisles given lower crowds, could buy fewer carts and require less space to store them. Less parking, ahem. Parking lots are sized for peak demand. So are loading docks. Back-of-house storage could be 60% smaller based on Monday volumes.

So clearly, there would be a massive financial win for grocers in getting people to shop equally on every day of the week. Its not just one less cash register.

My impression had been that the throughput of a supermarket is limited primarily by the throughput at the cash register. It is hardly ever the case that the aisles themselves get so crowded that it's problematic.

If the size of the store is really such a large portion of the price of a food item, then it is indeed a good question why supermarkets are not taking greater initiative to spread demand over time, beyond the aforementioned weekday Seniors' discounts.

Now that we've clarified that, how do you feel about paying $5 for for 2lbs of Onions on weekend, $3 weekdays after 5pm, and $2 for weekday daytimes?

If there really is such a large cost to providing larger stores as you described (2.5x the price during peak periods?), then yes I would be totally in favour of variable pricing at grocery stores, since it would allow supermarkets to reduce their construction/operating costs, enabling lower grocery prices for consumers. For simplicity it would probably be advertised as 30% off on weekdays after 5pm, 50% off on weekday daytimes, etc. Which is similar to how Nederlandse Spoorwegen implements its peak period pricing. During peak periods you just pay the "normal" price, which is quite expensive, but off-peak there are lots of ticket types available with a 40% discount.

Games at the Air Canada Centre are often sold out too; it doesn't mean the prices aren't insanely high.

If they sold out the game then by definition it means the price was reasonable, because people were willing to buy every single one of them.

 

[Northern Light]

No, I had no intention of being disrespectful, so I apologize for that.

Thank you, accepted.

....

My impression had been that the throughput of a supermarket is limited primarily by the throughput at the cash register. It is hardly ever the case that the aisles themselves get so crowded that it's problematic.

Definitely not the case. The space to add 2 extra checkout lanes, or even 10 is tiny. For self-checkouts its about 16ft2 each, so 160ft2 for 10. (includes space for customer and movement)

Full serve cashes take up about 3x the space. Any which way, its a very small portion of a 45,000ft2 store.

If there are such large costs associated with stocking as well, then it is indeed a good question why supermarkets are not taking greater initiative to spread demand over time, beyond the aforementioned weekday Seniors' discounts.

I haven't been in on every meeting needless to say, but my impression is that the feeling is there would be a mass customer revolt. How can you punish people for not buying groceries when they are at work?

If there really is such a large cost to providing larger stores as you described, then yes I would be totally in favour of variable pricing at grocery stores, since it would allow supermarkets to reduce their construction/operating costs, enabling lower grocery prices for consumers. For simplicity it would probably be advertised as 30% off on weekdays after 5pm, 50% off on weekday daytimes, etc. Which is similar to how Nederlandse Spoorwegen implements its peak period pricing. During peak periods you just pay the "normal" price, which is quite expensive, but off-peak there are lots of ticket types available with a 40% discount.

Fair take, but not one I would share. I favour this model, to a point, with cinemas as it results in accretive revenue getting customers to fill seats in off-peak times. Though the industry generally abandoned this model.

Attendance is way down since they did. The pricing model isn't the only factor in the that, but it is a substantial one. The key in that case though is that most cinema chains do build for peak demand, and then carry huge amounts of un-sold seating at other times. The previous pricing model didn't shift many people away from peak-demand, what it did was induce people to go to the movies or go more often to come out or come out more (seniors, those with low incomes, students etc.)

Price to demand shift is only fair and accepted if the alternate timing is seen as reasonable and fair by the customer.

 

[micheal_can]

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.

This is the big reason why no other trains can or should share track for any part of the line. That does mean a dedicated rail corridor and dedicated platforms. This makes a tunneled section under Union make more sense.

And if there is no other trains plugging up the line, they can control the frequency. Using the same length trains, 15 minute service could happen during peak times.

We do not know the frequency. We do not know the speeds. We do not know the equipment. We do not even know the route.

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

A sold out service does mean they have room to raise prices. However, this could be more of the issue of frequency or train length. This is where 7 car trains or even longer set up for those times they do sell out would be good. This is where choosing the right train length for ALTO is key. You want to full, but you do not want it sold out. Sold out means there are potential ridership loss.

 

[Urban Sky]

Friendly reminder that this is the ALTO and not the VIA Rail thread, but I once was greeted at Paris Gare de l‘Est on a Friday afternoon by a sign announcing that every single TGV train departing towards Strasbourg, Metz, Luxembourg and basically any major city served from that station was completely sold out - for the next three days. Judging by the reactions (or lack thereof) of the passengers, this seems to be nothing extraordinary.

I don‘t know for people here, but I much rather have the option to shell out $300 for a one-way ticket to Toronto during demand peaks than to have no option to travel by train at all…

 

[zang]

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.

Let me ask you this then; knowing that VIA has been doing this for years, how's it working out for them? Are they closer to being sustainable? Outside of boosting from the feds, have they gained resources to put more trains on the track, let alone buy land and build track to get themselves away from scrambling for scraps from CPKC/CN?

Right now, they lose millions every year just compensating riders for their own delays and failures as well as the failure of the federal government to do anything about the complete surrender of our rail lines to corporate interests.

VIA is broken. ALTO likely wouldn't be an entirely separate entity if it weren't. Hell, we'd probably have had HSR under the VIA brand for more than a decade by now if it weren't dysfunctional.

Other countries show that regular rail can be frequent, relatively inexpensive and sustainable. I'm tired of hearing "Canada's different" when it comes to anything transit-related, especially when we are talking about a route going between the 4th and 8th largest cities on the continent.

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 doesn't go both ways though. It only goes up with variable pricing. Yes, VIA does offer "Discount Tuesdays", but there are almost always restrictions on them for the corridor, or there are "discounts" (like $15 off) short-notice seats that have already been jacked up by $30+.

As opposed to flying?

As opposed to driving/taking the bus? The fact of the matter is, rail travel is the most cost-efficient method of mass travel. It's far more efficient per passenger than buses and cars (even running on diesel), and far cheaper elsewhere in the world than it is here. And yet, it's more often than not cheaper to take a bus or a car. Why?

Yes, sometimes even taking a plane can be cheaper, and those costs include various taxes, fees and surcharges, on top of a giant fuel bill.

 

[smallspy]

Let me ask you this then; knowing that VIA has been doing this for years, how's it working out for them? Are they closer to being sustainable?

Are they closer than they were 20 or even 10 years ago?

You can look at the numbers yourself, they're in the public domain. But the general answer is "yes, they are".

Are they close to being totally self-sustainable? Of course not. And there are dozens of reasons why this is the case. Some of them are self-inflicted, sure. But a lot are not.

Outside of boosting from the feds, have they gained resources to put more trains on the track, let alone buy land and build track to get themselves away from scrambling for scraps from CPKC/CN?

I'm not sure what angle you seem to be trying to go here, other than arguing that they should be getting a higher subsidy.

Which, to be honest, I don't think you would have anyone here argue against.

Right now, they lose millions every year just compensating riders for their own delays and failures as well as the failure of the federal government to do anything about the complete surrender of our rail lines to corporate interests.

Sure. And what, exactly, does that have to do with their pricing structure?

Unless you're suggesting that if they charged a TTC fare so that they would be paying out less in refunds......

VIA is broken. ALTO likely wouldn't be an entirely separate entity if it weren't. Hell, we'd probably have had HSR under the VIA brand for more than a decade by now if it weren't dysfunctional.

No one is debating that VIA is broken. They don't own the majority of the track that they run on, so they are not able to keep on time, and they can't run more trains because of the track owners are preventing them from doing so.

But it's also why we've had to get to the point of building an all-new corridor just for passenger service.

Or did you not realize that?

Other countries show that regular rail can be frequent, relatively inexpensive and sustainable. I'm tired of hearing "Canada's different" when it comes to anything transit-related, especially when we are talking about a route going between the 4th and 8th largest cities on the continent.

Please name one that operates in the same regulatory and operational environment as currently exists in North America.

I"ll wait.

It doesn't go both ways though. It only goes up with variable pricing. Yes, VIA does offer "Discount Tuesdays", but there are almost always restrictions on them for the corridor, or there are "discounts" (like $15 off) short-notice seats that have already been jacked up by $30+.

Just because you've never seen it happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

It does.

As opposed to driving/taking the bus? The fact of the matter is, rail travel is the most cost-efficient method of mass travel. It's far more efficient per passenger than buses and cars (even running on diesel), and far cheaper elsewhere in the world than it is here. And yet, it's more often than not cheaper to take a bus or a car. Why?

It should be the most cost-efficient.

That doesn't mean that it's the most effective - especially when hamstrung operationally, like VIA has been.

Yes, sometimes even taking a plane can be cheaper, and those costs include various taxes, fees and surcharges, on top of a giant fuel bill.

Cool. So you understand that there is a level playing field.

But why aren't you complaining that they use demand pricing then?

Dan

 

[Ward8]

But why aren't you complaining that they use demand pricing then?

I mean, most people complain about nearly every aspect of air travel. It's a broadly terrible experience that is only offset by the fact that you can travel across the country in one day.

Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to import the worst aspects of air travel into the train experience. Dynamic pricing is awful for the customer but it's only about 5th on the list of reasons why I don't take VIA when travelling to Montreal.

All that said, the question of whether or not it's a good idea for VIA to implement dynamic pricing, given their significant limitations, issues and mandates, doesn't have a clear cut answer.

The question of Alto implementing dynamic is very clear cut to me. Alto should follow the best systems in the world and use distance based fares. They can respond to demand by adding capacity, and part of their competitiveness comes from increasing the total number of trips between the major cities. I can only speak for myself, but if the ticket is at all reasonable, it will make me visit my family in Montreal much more often. Unpredictable fares will have a depressive effect on ridership.

 

[zang]

I'm not sure what angle you seem to be trying to go here, other than arguing that they should be getting a higher subsidy.

Which, to be honest, I don't think you would have anyone here argue against.

Well, I think you would indeed find those here who feel subsidy is a bad word.

Aside from that, yes, they should be getting more subsidy. Our current government seems to believe austerity is the better path with a 15% cut mandate.

Sure. And what, exactly, does that have to do with their pricing structure?

Every corridor trip late by over an hour gets a 50% compensation. For the record, I racked up three of these last year alone. Between myself and a handful of other family members, we're up in the double digits.

So, in order to fund these compensations and lacking additional subsidy (and now, a 15% cut), there's incentive to raise prices.

Unless you're suggesting that if they charged a TTC fare so that they would be paying out less in refunds......

The federal government both owns VIA and regulates rail. It's been more than happy to sit back and let CN/CPKC continue to control what VIA Rail can do in this country.

No one is debating that VIA is broken. They don't own the majority of the track that they run on, so they are not able to keep on time, and they can't run more trains because of the track owners are preventing them from doing so.

But it's also why we've had to get to the point of building an all-new corridor just for passenger service.

But only for HSR. We'll ultimately have two "classes" of rail; one subject to freight companies, one not. So those heading to Port Hope, Cornwall, etc. will continue to suffer delays. Somehow, Ontario was able to legislate priority for GO, but…

Please name one that operates in the same regulatory and operational environment as currently exists in North America.

I"ll wait.

Again, who dictates those regulations and who owns VIA?

Just because you've never seen it happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It does.

Please, show me variable pricing (not discount code) fare that goes any lower than $55 from Toronto-Montreal.

It should be the most cost-efficient. That doesn't mean that it's the most effective - especially when hamstrung operationally, like VIA has been.

See above as to who's allowing the hamstringing to continue.

Continuing to score own goals for decades is ridiculous, don't you think?

Cool. So you understand that there is a level playing field.

But why aren't you complaining that they use demand pricing then?

Because this isn't an airline thread?

 

[APTA-2048]

Somehow, Ontario was able to legislate priority for GO, but…

They actually did this by straight up buying the tracks. Elsewhere, you will see the impact of them not owning the tracks.

 

[micheal_can]

It doesn't go both ways though. It only goes up with variable pricing. Yes, VIA does offer "Discount Tuesdays", but there are almost always restrictions on them for the corridor, or there are "discounts" (like $15 off) short-notice seats that have already been jacked up by $30+.

Every time I have used Via in the last decade,I have always booked on Discount Tuesday. I also use my military discount, so that makes it each cheaper. Never had an issue with booking the Corridor.

 

[zang]

Every time I have used Via in the last decade,I have always booked on Discount Tuesday. I also use my military discount, so that makes it each cheaper. Never had an issue with booking the Corridor.

Often corridor discounts are limited to certain trains. The T&Cs are on the website and generally unavailable after Tuesday, but the emails still contain evidence. From the last two Discount Tuesday emails:

 

[micheal_can]

Often corridor discounts are limited to certain trains. The T&Cs are on the website and generally unavailable after Tuesday, but the emails still contain evidence. From the last two Discount Tuesday emails:View attachment 716792View attachment 716793

I have never run into that. Maybe I just get lucky. Or, it might be that I am just paying the discounted rate for Military and Veterans.