VIA Rail

[AlvinofDiaspar]

On the other hand, if we can see significant ridership improvement with HFR, and HFR is done with the expectation of, and does not preclude an eventual HSR upgrade - then perhaps it isn't such a bad thing. Hard to justify and sell the notion of spending umpteen billions if you can't even demonstrate that you can gain ridership and compete with other modes.

It's unfortunate, but that's the reality of the amount of inertia against passenger rail in North America. Demonstrate the improvements and then use it to sell the big sell.

AoD

 

[Urban Sky]

[...] 1 hr Ottawa-Montreal is a 50% improvement. [...]

I don't know where you got that figure from, but I would be more than surprised if VIA had promised a travel time of 60 minutes for a distance of 187 km with a maximum speed of 177 km/h...

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Listen to VIA's CEO on a CBC interview. He talked a lot about rail enabling smaller communities. If he means any of that, this Peterborough route would be a poor sell since there are more viable stops along the lakeshore. He also mentioned that students were a substantial market. Probably true for London and Kingston. That certainly means they can't skip those university towns.

This is a fundamental flaw with VIA. It has been focused on providing a relatively premium service to smaller and lower income markets. That's set up to fail. VIA needs to get out of the business of serving smaller communities, and have the provinces substitute it with their rail transportation services (e.g. GO Transit, WCE, AMT or something new where it doesn't exist). That creates jurisdictional transit: a federal premium express service serving larger cities of national importance, and a economical milk run service serving inter-regional interests.

 

[gweed123]

With regards to the HFR vs HSR debate, I just hope that the new rolling stock purchased is capable of hitting HSR speeds, even if it won't be actually running on HSR track. What I mean is that it could run HFR between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, but actually be a true HSR between Toronto and London, if that service ever gets built. I just don't want to see different services on what are basically the same line (though multiple routes), with little to no interoperability between them.

 

[crs1026]

There may be a few local stops that are questionable, but we don't need to set up a provincial milk run network to serve Strathroy, Wyoming, Ingersoll, St Mary's, Trenton Jct and Gananoque. VIA's current solution - only stop once or twice a day in these places - is sound and positions things for growing the ridership.

We do need to fill in gaps to recreate the "long range commuting" network that used to exist in CN days. GO is slowly filling these in, eg to Kitchener and Niagara, but the Kitchener GO train with its many stops is not really fulfilling this function.

Feeder bus routes might be desirable to serve some of these lower-ridership communities.

- Paul

 

[jcam]

This is a fundamental flaw with VIA. It has been focused on providing a relatively premium service to smaller and lower income markets. That's set up to fail. VIA needs to get out of the business of serving smaller communities, and have the provinces substitute it with their rail transportation services (e.g. GO Transit, WCE, AMT or something new where it doesn't exist). That creates jurisdictional transit: a federal premium express service serving larger cities of national importance, and a economical milk run service serving inter-regional interests.

I don't entirely disagree, but UPX was built on that premise and.......

 

[mdrejhon]

Ultimately, I think HFR for the TOM* corridor and the use of HSR for TKL** corridor, is the most sensible route to go during this generation's cycle.

The existence of HSR for TKL will eventually provide pressure to do incremental upgrades of HFR into HSR for the TOM corridor. This could be done by grade-separating and sections of new trackage, to eliminate the 177kph speed limit in certain sections incrementally. This can still eventually lead to a sub-2-hour Ottawa-Toronto commute and also bring Kingston into daily commuting distance of Ottawa/Toronto/Montreal, unlocking a lot of development potential for the subsequent generation.

TKL would be Ontario funded (directly to HSR), TOM would be Federal funded (HFR initially), and Montreal-Quebec would be Quebec funded. Over the next 50 years, this could be HSR from Windsor-to-Quebec running off HSR rail sections owned/funded by different parties. In Europe, Eurostar international high speed trains run off high speed trackage built and owned by different countries. The first one who starts HSR (I would guess it'd be Ontario) will be the trailblazer. As long as the UPX mentality isn't used for HSR...

*TOM = Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal
**TKL = Toronto-Kingston-London

 

[dowlingm]

There may be a few local stops that are questionable, but we don't need to set up a provincial milk run network to serve Strathroy, Wyoming, Ingersoll, St Mary's, Trenton Jct and Gananoque. VIA's current solution - only stop once or twice a day in these places - is sound and positions things for growing the ridership.

We do need to fill in gaps to recreate the "long range commuting" network that used to exist in CN days. GO is slowly filling these in, eg to Kitchener and Niagara, but the Kitchener GO train with its many stops is not really fulfilling this function.

Feeder bus routes might be desirable to serve some of these lower-ridership communities.

- Paul

Beyond a certain point there has to be provincial involvement if particular communities are deemed to "need" a service level above what their ridership would support, particularly where the proximity of the 401 puts other options in play, as opposed to something like flag stops on Canadian. Look at how it works in places like Michigan, Illinois, North Carolina, Missouri - partnership and co-branding with Amtrak not separate operations.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I don't entirely disagree, but UPX was built on that premise and.......

The UPX was too premium and not enough express from the start. And now they're converting it into something that will compete with an existing milk run, and not recover its costs until years in the future. I don't want to open that can of worms on this thread, I'm just saying I don't think it's a fair parallel to draw, Metrolinx and the province have shown much contempt and incompetency on that file.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

There may be a few local stops that are questionable, but we don't need to set up a provincial milk run network to serve Strathroy, Wyoming, Ingersoll, St Mary's, Trenton Jct and Gananoque. VIA's current solution - only stop once or twice a day in these places - is sound and positions things for growing the ridership.

Not sure I agree, looking at this from an efficient business perspective.

An efficient business ensures that it operates where marginal costs equal marginal benefits. To equate this to what we're talking about here, think of serving a smaller intermediate community (e.g. Strathroy, Wyoming, Ingersoll, St Mary's etc.) as a cost; the time spent accelerating/decelerating and dwelling at the station is extra trip time, extra time that may make the service unattractive to someone commuting between two major cities (and therefore is lost revenue i.e. an opportunity cost). The benefit of serving a smaller intermediate community is that you gain additional revenue from picking up additional passengers.

Remember that the opportunity cost for one lost passenger between two major points is greater than the additional revenue from gaining an additional passenger at an intermediate stop. So in essence, you would need to pick up more than one passenger at the intermediate station for every passenger lost at a major station.

Now I'm not arguing whether the marginal revenue at any particular station is worth the opportunity cost. But cumulatively, I'm willing to bet that there are collections of intermediate stations between Windsor, London, K-W, and Aldershot, as well as Oshawa, Kingston/Belleville, Ottawa and Montreal where it doesn't make economical sense. Same goes for other parts of the existing VIA network where this parallel can be reasonably drawn.

I'm also arguing this against the backdrop of operating costs. I think we can agree that VIA, in the way it currently does business, has greater operating costs per passenger per kilometre than a provincial service (bi-lingual compensation, on-board amenities like food, employees per passenger). So a rhetorical question: is it more economically sustainable to operate a milk run with a higher cost premium service, or a lower cost provincial service?

This is not a blanket argument for all parts of Canada, but it is an argument for low-hanging fruit; markets that are denser and with established rail corridors and no provincial service (e.g. southwestern Ontario).

 

[crs1026]

I'm also arguing this against the backdrop of operating costs. I think we can agree that VIA, in the way it currently does business, has greater operating costs per passenger per kilometre than a provincial service (bi-lingual compensation, on-board amenities like food, employees per passenger). So a rhetorical question: is it more economically sustainable to operate a milk run with a higher cost premium service, or a lower cost provincial service?

This is not a blanket argument for all parts of Canada, but it is an argument for low-hanging fruit; markets that are denser and with established rail corridors and no provincial service (e.g. southwestern Ontario).

I think the right answer is to have some of both approaches.

I can't see a lot of upside to VIA continuing to stop its one daily Sarnia train in Wyoming. But I certainly can't see the Province adding its own train to fill in that gap, even if it makes VIA's Sarnia business more marketable. Similarly, serving Kitchener with more frequent trains that stop every seven miles or so over their trip to Toronto is just wrong.

I made reference to the traditional commuter markets because that is where we most need to offload VIA with stopping services. VIA has preserved some of its London-Toronto commuting business, but shed both Niagara and Stratford. Those trains always ran full. There is good business along the Lakeshore East as far as Belleville or so. It makes little sense to use Toronto-Ottawa/Montreal trains to capture this market, because that means empty seats for the rest of the trip eastwards.....very poor utilization.

I very much support doing so through a 403b style provision - where VIA runs trains under contract to the Province to serve markets that it wouldn't otherwise find sustainable - rather than growing a new Provincial agency, or spreading the GO mandate across the province.

I suspect VIA is loath to incur political backlash by cancelling service to Gananoque, Trenton Jct, etc. We may need the goodwill from some of these places. But I agree, the best path forward isn't to impair VIA's ability to serve larger markets better. That's why I would put forward alternatives - such as feeder bus lines - so the change doesn't come across as abandoning these communities.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

This is a fundamental flaw with VIA. It has been focused on providing a relatively premium service to smaller and lower income markets. That's set up to fail. VIA needs to get out of the business of serving smaller communities, and have the provinces substitute it with their rail transportation services (e.g. GO Transit, WCE, AMT or something new where it doesn't exist). That creates jurisdictional transit: a federal premium express service serving larger cities of national importance, and a economical milk run service serving inter-regional interests.

VIA has a mandate to serve rural communities. And they have a mandate to maximize cost recovery. That's their bind. Realistically though, without major new resources, it'll be hard to do what you propose. Imagine GO having to setup a commuter network in Kingston and London. Not going to happen anytime soon. Nor will GO extend sufficiently past Durham to matter. And if GO did, the required subsidies would be massive compared to VIA.

On the other hand, if we can see significant ridership improvement with HFR, and HFR is done with the expectation of, and does not preclude an eventual HSR upgrade - then perhaps it isn't such a bad thing. Hard to justify and sell the notion of spending umpteen billions if you can't even demonstrate that you can gain ridership and compete with other modes.

It's unfortunate, but that's the reality of the amount of inertia against passenger rail in North America. Demonstrate the improvements and then use it to sell the big sell.

AoD

I doubt that HFR is really all that upgradeable to HSR. We're talking about using a current corridor for a lot of it, with some grade separation and possibly electrification. HSR would require a whole new corridor for the most part. But this HFR proposal is definitely supportable.

I don't know where you got that figure from, but I would be more than surprised if VIA had promised a travel time of 60 minutes for a distance of 187 km with a maximum speed of 177 km/h...

I don't know where I heard it, but i thought part of the proposal is to get Ottawa-Montreal to circa one hour with stops at Alexandria and Dorval. Even if they get it to 1 hr 15, that's a huge improvement over the 2 hrs today.

Ultimately, I think HFR for the TOM* corridor and the use of HSR for TKL** corridor, is the most sensible route to go during this generation's cycle.

The existence of HSR for TKL will eventually provide pressure to do incremental upgrades of HFR into HSR for the TOM corridor. This could be done by grade-separating and sections of new trackage, to eliminate the 177kph speed limit in certain sections incrementally. This can still eventually lead to a sub-2-hour Ottawa-Toronto commute and also bring Kingston into daily commuting distance of Ottawa/Toronto/Montreal, unlocking a lot of development potential for the subsequent generation.

TKL would be Ontario funded (directly to HSR), TOM would be Federal funded (HFR initially), and Montreal-Quebec would be Quebec funded. Over the next 50 years, this could be HSR from Windsor-to-Quebec running off HSR rail sections owned/funded by different parties. In Europe, Eurostar international high speed trains run off high speed trackage built and owned by different countries. The first one who starts HSR (I would guess it'd be Ontario) will be the trailblazer. As long as the UPX mentality isn't used for HSR...

*TOM = Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal
**TKL = Toronto-Kingston-London

I'm curious how this gets implemented. A big part of the sell for any new development would be through trains at Union running to Pearson at least. But if electrification is on the table, then we have an opportunity for through service with the same trains, with just higher running speeds on the TKL sector.

I suspect VIA is loath to incur political backlash by cancelling service to Gananoque, Trenton Jct, etc.

Not necessarily. HFR or HSR. Nobody will complain about losing Trenton if there is a regular stop at Belleville. And nobody will complain about losing Port Hope if there's a regular stop at Coburg. Ditto St. Mary's and Stratford. One can be cut. Gananoque is not an issue with Kingston 30km away. There are stops that be rationalized this way all along the corridor. And if this is really a sensitive concern, have VIA (or the town itself) run shuttle buses to those towns timed to arrive at the stations with the trains.

I don't think it's a political liability to lose a few stops with faster service, if there's a reasonable support plan (shuttle buses) in place. That's more supportable than running through Peterborough and skipping Coburg, Belleville and Kingston entirely.

 

[ShonTron]

If we're going to cut passenger stops on VIA's network, there needs to be a decent bus service to replace it. In many places now, like Sarnia, Strathroy, even Port Hope, and Cobourg which has dozens of Greyhound and Megabus trips going by on the 401, VIA is it.

As long as Greyhound and Coach Canada cut service back, GO or VIA is the only option for many communities. Even more, like St. Thomas (pop 30,000, only 15 minutes from London) is completely cut off.

If we're going to ask VIA to cut local stops, the province needs to step up and work to getting short-distance intercity buses back on the road. Even get private operators to run them, but guarantee any losses.

 

[kEiThZ]

@ShonTron

I would suggest the towns run shuttles and maybe the province subsidizes it. It's impractical to have VIA stopping everywhere. That simply slows VIA down and makes it less financially viable. Alternatively, have VIA run the shuttles, coded as VIA services. I saw this in Spain. Went to train station, found out my "train" was a coach bus that took me to an HSR station.

For places like Sarnia, I would argue, they'd be better off with GO setting up a bus hub in London and running hourly service, than by trying to serve them with a handful of VIA trains per day.

 

[Cobra]

@ShonTron

I would suggest the towns run shuttles and maybe the province subsidizes it. It's impractical to have VIA stopping everywhere. That simply slows VIA down and makes it less financially viable. Alternatively, have VIA run the shuttles, coded as VIA services. I saw this in Spain. Went to train station, found out my "train" was a coach bus that took me to an HSR station.

For places like Sarnia, I would argue, they'd be better off with GO setting up a bus hub in London and running hourly service, than by trying to serve them with a handful of VIA trains per day.

That's exactly what should happen. The future HSR stations should become major transit hubs with all the major transit routes converging to it. Via can't service everywhere.