Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor

[lenaitch]

In the long term it will be essential for the governments of Ontario and Canada to plan and execute good rail service to Cochrane District to facilitate the recolonization of New Ontario. There is enormous agricultural potential centred on the Great Clay belt near Lake Abitibi, enough to increase Ontario agricultural production by over 50% in the long term. We must plan for a major metropolitan area to be there, servicing the land, and serving as a link to Ottawa and Toronto. This requires significant investment in both passenger and freight rail, as well as identifying and protecting corridors for hydro and transportation.

Clay Belt municipalities have acres of farm land to promote

Cochrane District Agri-Food Assembly Project looks to expand agriculture in Cochrane District

www.northernontariobusiness.com

It may be a matter of perspective but I might use the word 'significant' rather than "enormous". The Canada Land Inventory classifies about 1/4 or Ontario's 16Mn acres in the two clay belts as arable. Drainage is a big problem along with a short growing season, although the latter is changing. They are growing crops up there now that were not possible 10 years ago.

For sure, more infrastructure and investment is needed. The amount of land under cultivation is growing; a lot of it by Mennonites mainly from K-W/Wellington area who have sold their land for big bucks. They are champions at wringing the most out of cheaper, Class 3 and 4 soils.

I'm not sure the presence of a "major metropolitan area" is either necessary or even conducive to a successful agricultural economy. Experience in the GTA would actually suggest otherwise.

 

[micheal_can]

Rather than perpetually daydreaming about passenger rail services across virtually unpopulated plaines, have you checked how many buses operate every week between Saskatoon and Winnipeg?

You can't get there from here....
The only thing I found is a daily between Regina and Saskatoon and on every Saturday between Regina and Winnipeg.
So, clearly more bus service should be looked into.

However, then there is the Calgary - Edmonton buses..... 4 a day.

I have always agreed on the C-E service. The buses show it may be possible. The rest, if there was money to be used. I don't think a daily Canadian would be warranted, but a daily between some cities may make sense if the funding was there.

 

[roger1818]

In my idealized world, the existing 2-3 times a week full length Canadian would be running as normal.The section between Winnipeg and Sudbury could have nothing more. But between , having a separate daily service that the timing works for the locals is how I mean by breaking it up. So, one is for tourism and should be priced as such, and the other is setup like the Corridor service.

You seem to have forgotten already that Edmonton, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg are all in different provinces, thus don’t have the synergy that cities in the same province would.

 

[micheal_can]

You seem to have forgotten already that Edmonton, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg are all in different provinces, thus don’t have the synergy that cities in the same province would.

You mean like Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal?
The real question is whether that lack of synergy is forced or accidental. In other words,was this done to keep them small or is this just the nature of the area. That then goes down the rabbit hole that is Western Alienation.

 

[roger1818]

You mean like Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal?

Exactly like Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. As I just said a few posts ago, Toronto-Ottawa is a more important city pair than Toronto-Montreal, despite Montreal being significantly larger than an Ottawa, because of the provincial boarder.

The real question is whether that lack of synergy is forced or accidental. In other words,was this done to keep them small or is this just the nature of the area. That then goes down the rabbit hole that is Western Alienation.

The lack of synergy is political. People tend to stay within their own province for many reasons (school, healthcare, work, friends, family, etc).

 

[lenaitch]

You mean like Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal?
The real question is whether that lack of synergy is forced or accidental. In other words,was this done to keep them small or is this just the nature of the area. That then goes down the rabbit hole that is Western Alienation.

Jeez; I hope you didn't pull anything making that leap.

 

[micheal_can]

Exactly like Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. As I just said a few posts ago, Toronto-Ottawa is a more important city pair than Toronto-Montreal, despite Montreal being significantly larger than an Ottawa, because of the provincial boarder.

The only reason Toronto - Ottawa are as important as they are is due to being the federal and provincial capitals.

The lack of synergy is political. People tend to stay within their own province for many reasons (school, healthcare, work, friends, family, etc).

This goes back to the 1990s Via cuts.
How much was cut from the Corridor? Did it really impact the area?
VS
How much was cut in Western Canada? Did it really impact the area?

This is not a tin foil hat conspiracy theory. It is clear where the cuts were done and where the party of the day had seats. They only way to disprove this is to get access to the various calculations of keeping various routes over other routes. The chart Urbansky has shared on the pre cuts subsidy shows that they did not cut the route that was the most subsidized. So, without that math to show it actually was the best routes to cut beyond that subsidy, it stinks of political.

 

[roger1818]

Jeez; I hope you didn't pull anything making that leap.

Count the number of trains a day between the cities. Montreal might be a popular destination for Batchelor parties, but there isn’t much reason for people in Montreal to go to Toronto, unless it’s business related or they happen to have moved there from Toronto. Ottawa and Toronto being each other’s national and provincial capitals also result in political travel.

There might be slightly more flights, but most people flying to YYZ are connecting to another destination (and Porter uses YTZ as a hub).

 

[roger1818]

The only reason Toronto - Ottawa are as important as they are is due to being the federal and provincial capitals.

While that is one factor, it certainly isn't the only one. Besides, while the national capital angle is unique to Ottawa, every province has a provincial capital which helps increase intra-provincial travel. Also, students are much more likely to travel to a school within their own province. Since a large percentage of students at that school are from within their province, most of their friends will be from within their province, and they will want to visit them. As a result there is a good chance they will marry someone from within their own province and will want to live close to the parents on at least one side (and visit the parents on the other). When they have health issues that can't be dealt with in their own city, they will most likely travel to a hospital within their own province.

Sure some may do these things in other provinces (I changed provinces to be with my wife) and when on vacation people often go further afield, but more often than not these are true.

This goes back to the 1990s Via cuts.
How much was cut from the Corridor? Did it really impact the area?
VS
How much was cut in Western Canada? Did it really impact the area?

This is not a tin foil hat conspiracy theory. It is clear where the cuts were done and where the party of the day had seats. They only way to disprove this is to get access to the various calculations of keeping various routes over other routes. The chart Urbansky has shared on the pre cuts subsidy shows that they did not cut the route that was the most subsidized. So, without that math to show it actually was the best routes to cut beyond that subsidy, it stinks of political.

You really beleive that in an age when the vast majority of people were traveling by car, having better interprovincial train service would have have had any significant effect on inter-provincial travel? If they wanted to go to another province, they would have driven (or flown) there.

 

[micheal_can]

While that is one factor, it certainly isn't the only one. Besides, while the national capital angle is unique to Ottawa, every province has a provincial capital which helps increase intra-provincial travel. Also, students are much more likely to travel to a school within their own province. Since a large percentage of students at that school are from within their province, most of their friends will be from within their province, and they will want to visit them. As a result there is a good chance they will marry someone from within their own province and will want to live close to the parents on at least one side (and visit the parents on the other). When they have health issues that can't be dealt with in their own city, they will most likely travel to a hospital within their own province.

Sure some may do these things in other provinces (I changed provinces to be with my wife) and when on vacation people often go further afield, but more often than not these are true.

Students tend not to be affluent, so a bus or train is all they can afford.

You really beleive that in an age when the vast majority of people were traveling by car, having better interprovincial train service would have have had any significant effect on inter-provincial travel? If they wanted to go to another province, they would have driven (or flown) there.

Canada and the USA cut a lot of service because of bustitution and making them irrelevant. And then they made the case to cut them all together. Had these cuts not been made, when the green movement started, more people would have better options than a bus, flying or driving.

 

[Urban Sky]

The only reason Toronto - Ottawa are as important as they are is due to being the federal and provincial capitals.

Our troll from Sudbury has apparently never heard that Toronto is the by-far largest city in this country and also its economic centre. It's apparently difficult to keep track of things which you can't see from the top of the Inco Superstack...

This goes back to the 1990s Via cuts.
How much was cut from the Corridor? Did it really impact the area?
VS
How much was cut in Western Canada? Did it really impact the area?

We all know by now that our troll from Sudbury never let's facts get into the way of his favourite narratives, but just a quick reminder that there were also three cities within the Quebec-Windsor Corridor which were severely affected by the 1990 cuts:

1. Sherbrooke (with a CMA population of 227k today, ranking it 19th in the country - just behind Saskatoon and Regina - and 3rd in Quebec): lost its daily commuter train and saw its long-haul service reduced from daily to 3 departures per week (and subsequently eliminated less than 5 years later).
2. Trois-Rivières (with a CMA population of 161k today, ranking it 28th in the country - barely smaller than Sudbury - and 5th in Quebec): lost all its passenger rail service.
3. Peterborough (with a CMA population of 129k today, ranking it 32nd in the country - just behind Saint John - and 14th in Ontario): lost all its passenger rail service.

In fact, only 3 (MTRL, QBEC and DRMV) of Quebec's 6 CMA's (the unlucky one's are Sherbrooke, Saguenay and Trois-Rivières, respectively the 3rd, 4th and 5th largest CMAs in Quebec) have at-least daily passenger rail service, which according to our troll from Sudbury is the threshold of civilization.

This is not a tin foil hat conspiracy theory. It is clear where the cuts were done and where the party of the day had seats. They only way to disprove this is to get access to the various calculations of keeping various routes over other routes. The chart Urbansky has shared on the pre cuts subsidy shows that they did not cut the route that was the most subsidized. So, without that math to show it actually was the best routes to cut beyond that subsidy, it stinks of political.

Finally, the favourite conspiracy theory of our allegedly-not-tin-foil-hat-wearing troll from Sudbury, which just can't get over the fact that the federal government cut VIA to reduce its overall subsidy need and that keeping the CP route over the CN route would have increased VIA's subsidy need by approximately $7 million (or $16 million in today's prices), as I've already explained in this same thread two months ago:

1. The rationale provided publicly by the federal government for the 1990 cuts was to minimize VIA's overall deficit.
2. Both, the Super-Continental and the Canadian had a similar subsidy per train-km (actually, the one of the Super-Continental was slightly lower (!): $27.27 vs. $29.23 in 1988).
3. With both routes Toronto-Winnipeg-Vancouver virtually the same length (4360 km via CP and 4466 km via CN), the subsidy need of choosing either route would have been basically the same.
4. However, if the CP route had been chosen over the CN route west of Winnipeg, the Skeena would have needed to be extended to Kamloops, which would have increased the subsidy need of that service by maybe $1.4 million ($3.0 million in 2023 prices). Choosing the CN route west of Winnipeg was therefore the obvious choice, given the stated rationale of minimizing VIA's overall deficit.
5. Similarly, if the CP route had been chosen over the CN route east of Winnipeg, VIA could have only eliminated the RDC service to White River instead of the Winnipeg-Capreol service, which would have increased VIA's subsidy need by $5.8 million ($12.8 million in 2023 prices). Choosing the CN route east of Winnipeg was therefore the obvious choice, given the stated rationale of minimizing VIA's overall deficit.
6. Therefore, keeping the CP line and ditching the CN line would have increased VIA's deficit by approximately $7.2 million ($15.9 million in 2023 prices) annually, which would have directly conflicted with the desired policy outcome.

***

In the end, maybe it's time for us to reflect on how much of our attention the troll from Sudbury actually deserves and whether we want to continue to jump over every stick he's holding us...?

Have a good night everyone!

 

[micheal_can]

, but just a quick reminder that there were also three cities within the Quebec-Windsor Corridor which were severely affected by the 1990 cuts:

1. Sherbrooke (with a CMA population of 227k today, ranking it 19th in the country - just behind Saskatoon and Regina - and 3rd in Quebec): lost its daily commuter train and saw its long-haul service reduced from daily to 3 departures per week (and subsequently eliminated less than 5 years later).
2. Trois-Rivières (with a CMA population of 161k today, ranking it 28th in the country - barely smaller than Sudbury - and 5th in Quebec): lost all its passenger rail service.
3. Peterborough (with a CMA population of 129k today, ranking it 32nd in the country - just behind Saint John - and 14th in Ontario): lost all its passenger rail service.

In fact, only 3 (MTRL, QBEC and DRMV) of Quebec's 6 CMA's (the unlucky one's are Sherbrooke, Saguenay and Trois-Rivières, respectively the 3rd, 4th and 5th largest CMAs in Quebec) have at-least daily passenger rail service, which according to our troll from Sudbury is the threshold of civilization.

5th largest Canadian metro is not connected by passenger rail. In 1996,it had a population of 768,082 Quick math says that one city that sees no hope of having a passenger rail line, is worse than 2 of those 3 that if the full HFR is rolled out,will not only see passenger rail return, but at a high frequency, and even possibly HSR.

Demographics of Calgary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Finally, the favourite conspiracy theory of our allegedly-not-tin-foil-hat-wearing troll from Sudbury, which just can't get over the fact that the federal government cut VIA to reduce its overall subsidy need and that keeping the CP route over the CN route would have increased VIA's subsidy need by approximately $7 million (or $16 million in today's prices), as I've already explained in this same thread two months ago:

1. The rationale provided publicly by the federal government for the 1990 cuts was to minimize VIA's overall deficit.
2. Both, the Super-Continental and the Canadian had a similar subsidy per train-km (actually, the one of the Super-Continental was slightly lower (!): $27.27 vs. $29.23 in 1988).
3. With both routes Toronto-Winnipeg-Vancouver virtually the same length (4360 km via CP and 4466 km via CN), the subsidy need of choosing either route would have been basically the same.
4. However, if the CP route had been chosen over the CN route west of Winnipeg, the Skeena would have needed to be extended to Kamloops, which would have increased the subsidy need of that service by maybe $1.4 million ($3.0 million in 2023 prices). Choosing the CN route west of Winnipeg was therefore the obvious choice, given the stated rationale of minimizing VIA's overall deficit.
5. Similarly, if the CP route had been chosen over the CN route east of Winnipeg, VIA could have only eliminated the RDC service to White River instead of the Winnipeg-Capreol service, which would have increased VIA's subsidy need by $5.8 million ($12.8 million in 2023 prices). Choosing the CN route east of Winnipeg was therefore the obvious choice, given the stated rationale of minimizing VIA's overall deficit.
6. Therefore, keeping the CP line and ditching the CN line would have increased VIA's deficit by approximately $7.2 million ($15.9 million in 2023 prices) annually, which would have directly conflicted with the desired policy outcome.

So, you posted something inaccurate in another forum? You put up one a few years ago that showed differently.

 

[roger1818]

5th largest Canadian metro is not connected by passenger rail. In 1996,it had a population of 768,082 Quick math says that one city that sees no hope of having a passenger rail line, is worse than 2 of those 3 that if the full HFR is rolled out,will not only see passenger rail return, but at a high frequency, and even possibly HSR.

Demographics of Calgary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Size of the city is only half the story. The other half is what cities are nearby for the train to travel to. In the case of Calgary, the only nearby city is Edmonton and the Alberta government requested the train between those two cities be cancelled in the mid to late 80s.

So, you posted something inaccurate in another forum? You put up one a few years ago that showed differently.

No. If it’s the post, I’m thinking of the problem was you had trouble understanding the difference between revenue and profit (or loss in this case).

If you sell a glass of lemonade for $1 and it cost you $2 to make it and you sell a glass of beer for $2 and it cost you $4 to make it, which one is losing you more money? The one you sold for $1 the one you sold for $2?

 

[micheal_can]

Size of the city is only half the story. The other half is what cities are nearby for the train to travel to. In the case of Calgary, the only nearby city is Edmonton and the Alberta government requested the train between those two cities be cancelled in the mid to late 80s.

If the province isn't paying for it, why would they say what to cancel?

No. If it’s the post, I’m thinking of the problem was you had trouble understanding the difference between revenue and profit (or loss in this case).


If you sell a glass of lemonade for $1 and it cost you $2 to make it and you sell a glass of beer for $2 and it cost you $4 to make it, which one is losing you more money? The one you sold for $1 the one you sold for $2?

No, he very clearly said it was a lower subsidy to run the CP route. He has always been a thorn to me. I try to be respectful. I ask things that he does not like someone asking. I have sometimes ignored him, and sometimes just scroll on by.

 

[crs1026]

The CP/CN decision was a point in time that may not matter any more and I don’t see why it is always revisited. It was a cost minimization exercise not a marketing exercise. There were differences in costs for employee severance and pension obligations, both one time and ongoing. CP had more employees of pensionable age who could go straight to retirement where abandoning CN would have led to higher ongoing job security costs.
To make a change today is a whole new ball game - again potentially dislodging workers home bases and creating issues for the physical plant and operating side of CP, plus stations etc
No one would argue that there is no potential to sell tickets on the Banff-Calgary-Regina route over Jasper-Edmonton-Saskatoon, but the barriers to moving the route are nothing to do with 1990. They stand on their own. Safe to say, the startup costs of that move would sink the economics of the Canadian even if the end Ridership were as good or greater.

- Paul