VIA Rail

[lead82]

So are you suggesting that VIA build brand new passenger-only railways at 160 km/h standards, then at some time in the future build a second passenger-only line for 300 km/h? I somehow feel like this is much more of a waste than simply building our new rural lines for 250-320 km/h in the first place.

Well no, what I'm suggesting is that VIA should focus on building ridership. VIA's ridership has stalled or is declining even though driving levels are higher and more people are living in Southern Ontario and Quebec. It means VIA is becoming less and less relevant as a travel mode. Before we invest in expensive HSR, we should first build up existing service by having more frequent trains running on the existing tracks. Look at the London-Toronto route, there are less than a handful of trains each day. If this was Sweden, there would be hourly or every other-hourly service between cities. The problem is that we need to re-think of VIA as just a train service and make it more like a core inter-city trunk with support from each town/city of easy public transit connections.

Take London for example, the station is in a central area, but the station still feels desolate. It doesn't feel like a busy intermodal hub. This is more of an urban planning/development issue where smaller towns should try to revitalize and urbanize their cores with a focus on the train station rather than building out and building those awful Smart-Centres which sucks all life out of small towns.

If we have to build new track, then by all means make it supportive of faster speeds such as 250-320km/hr.

 

[reaperexpress]

Well no, what I'm suggesting is that VIA should focus on building ridership. VIA's ridership has stalled or is declining even though driving levels are higher and more people are living in Southern Ontario and Quebec. It means VIA is becoming less and less relevant as a travel mode. Before we invest in expensive HSR, we should first build up existing service by having more frequent trains running on the existing tracks. Look at the London-Toronto route, there are less than a handful of trains each day. If this was Sweden, there would be hourly or every other-hourly service between cities. The problem is that we need to re-think of VIA as just a train service and make it more like a core inter-city trunk with support from each town/city of easy public transit connections.

Take London for example, the station is in a central area, but the station still feels desolate. It doesn't feel like a busy intermodal hub. This is more of an urban planning/development issue where smaller towns should try to revitalize and urbanize their cores with a focus on the train station rather than building out and building those awful Smart-Centres which sucks all life out of small towns.

If we have to build new track, then by all means make it supportive of faster speeds such as 250-320km/hr.

Ah I see that it was a bit of a misunderstanding then. I agree especially in relation to London. It has so much potential as Southwestern Ontario's railway hub, which would do marvels for the city's downtown.

I think where we're differing is the level to which High Speed Lines are the building blocks of frequent VIA service, and the level to which they are distracting from it. As I understand it, you're framing the decision as "upgrade the existing tracks, with new lines only where necessary", whereas I'm framing it as "analyze each segment to see whether the benefit to our frequent service would justify its cost". Because faster service means higher ridership, which results in the higher frequencies you are prioritizing.

 

[ShonTron]

Ah I see that it was a bit of a misunderstanding then. I agree especially in relation to London. It has so much potential as Southwestern Ontario's railway hub, which would do marvels for the city's downtown.

I think where we're differing is the level to which High Speed Lines are the building blocks of frequent VIA service, and the level to which they are distracting from it. As I understand it, you're framing the decision as "upgrade the existing tracks, with new lines only where necessary", whereas I'm framing it as "analyze each segment to see whether the benefit to our frequent service would justify its cost". Because faster service means higher ridership, which results in the higher frequencies you are prioritizing.

What I find really odd is that there isn't even a regular bus service between London and St. Thomas, about a 30 minute drive to the south. Until the 1950s, there were regular electric trains running between the two. Sometimes, you just really need a car because intercity bus services don't exist like they did even in the 1980s.

We can't even operate a decent intercity bus service in this province. Unless you're going from Toronto to Kingston, Montreal, Ottawa, Kitchener, London, Windsor, Niagara or Northeastern Ontario, or from Kitchener to Hamilton, buses are nearly useless unless you're in GO's service area (and even then, we need a Guelph-Hamilton service and a useful Kitchener-Guelph service).

 

[ShonTron]

Port Hope: Beautiful historic station building, but bit of stretch to say that's downtown. Your point stands though.

Port Hope is the oldest railway station in Canada in continous use. It's always been where it is because of the topography. It's actually not that much longer of a walk to its downtown than Brantford's station or Cobourg's. Belleville's station has been where it is since the 1850s as well, but it was built as it also served a yard that's still there. A streetcar used to connect it to downtown.

 

[TOareaFan]

Port Hope is the oldest railway station in Canada in continous use. It's always been where it is because of the topography. It's actually not that much longer of a walk to its downtown than Brantford's station or Cobourg's. Belleville's station has been where it is since the 1850s as well, but it was built as it also served a yard that's still there. A streetcar used to connect it to downtown.

Bit off topic but your post sparked a curiosity....how old is the Brampton VIA station....and, if you know, is it older than the old Brampton CP station that got moved?

 

[ShonTron]

The Brampton VIA station was built by the Grand Trunk in 1907 and replaced a smaller 1850s standard-plan GTR station. Georgetown's original 1850s GTR station still stands, but was expanded around 1900.

The CP Station was built first, replacing a wooden station built by the Credit Valley Railway, in 1902 and expanded in 1912.
http://www.brampton.ca/EN/Business/planning-development/projects-studies/Pages/CPRStation.aspx

 

[goreckm]

I think that one other thing that is missing from this conversation, is how we are going to entice people to take the train. Adding frequency is great, but, if the ridership does not change, then it will be an easy target for governments to cut again. Taking the train needs to be the preferred choice by consumers, so that governments won't touch the funding. (Same reason why no-one would dare decrease frequency on the Toronto subway, for example).

From what I've observed (un-scientifically of course), there are two types of travelers that VIA has lost almost completely, and will need to target to start increasing demand substantially. My examples are also based on thinking about the Toronto-Montreal route, but could be applied more generally.

1) Price-conscious. VIA is seen as the more expensive option (at least, vs. bus, it's primary competitor). This has an effect that people won't even look at the website since they 'know' VIA is more expensive. I remember when I was in university and we were planning a trip to Montreal, everyone immediately started comparing bus prices and schedules, no mention of VIA except from me. It's as if people forgot that we have inter-city rail services in this country. The people in this category will usually not care about extra amenities (wi-fi, comfort, etc), they just want to get from point A to B. The solution here, of course, is to subsidize the prices of the tickets and drive them lower. In the long term, it should pay off with more regular consumers. Targeting students should be priority #1. Hook them early.

2) Speed and comfort focused. These are either business travelers, sub-urbanites, or the people that live in downtown, but still drive everywhere. (My best friend has lived in downtown for 2 years, has taken the TTC only a handful of times. Drive's to the Sobey's which is 500m away. I am amazed by how many people that live downtown are actually like this). For these people, there are currently only two options for getting between Toronto and Montreal, drive, or fly. The only way to get them on a train, is to make sure that it's competitive time-wise, and this is where HSR comes in. I asked my friend what would be the cut-off time where he would consider taking a train to Montreal (he does this trip every 1-2 months to see family). His reply was 2 hours or less. The reason: it would be faster than travelling by plane (given the extra time needed at the airport), and it would be a big improvement in time savings over driving, which takes slightly less than 4 hours, but is door to door.


The bottom line is, at least, from how I see it, we won't get a resurgence of rail until both these types of commuters (although, more importantly, those in category #2) are incentivized enough to travel by train. Small improvements in speed and frequency will not have any effect on getting them out of their buses/cars/planes. Rail is not declining for those reasons, but because it isn't the "best" option for most people, when viewed through various lenses. Currently, it just occupies a niche, which is disappearing, and the only way to break out of it is something radical.

 

[1overcosc]

Well no, what I'm suggesting is that VIA should focus on building ridership. VIA's ridership has stalled or is declining even though driving levels are higher and more people are living in Southern Ontario and Quebec. It means VIA is becoming less and less relevant as a travel mode. Before we invest in expensive HSR, we should first build up existing service by having more frequent trains running on the existing tracks. Look at the London-Toronto route, there are less than a handful of trains each day. If this was Sweden, there would be hourly or every other-hourly service between cities. The problem is that we need to re-think of VIA as just a train service and make it more like a core inter-city trunk with support from each town/city of easy public transit connections. .

Check again. VIA ridership on the Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa route increased by 38% in 2013. Number of trains per week up from 64 in 2011 to 96 today.

 

[1overcosc]

1) Price-conscious. VIA is seen as the more expensive option (at least, vs. bus, it's primary competitor). This has an effect that people won't even look at the website since they 'know' VIA is more expensive. I remember when I was in university and we were planning a trip to Montreal, everyone immediately started comparing bus prices and schedules, no mention of VIA except from me. It's as if people forgot that we have inter-city rail services in this country. The people in this category will usually not care about extra amenities (wi-fi, comfort, etc), they just want to get from point A to B. The solution here, of course, is to subsidize the prices of the tickets and drive them lower. In the long term, it should pay off with more regular consumers. Targeting students should be priority #1. Hook them early.

Prices have gone down in the past few years. They've shifted to a YM model instead of the old price-per-km model. Under this new model, fares for less popular trips are sold at a new discounted price to drive away demand for more popular trips which are sold at the old regular price. This allows more total bookings, meaning more total revenue despite less average revenue per passenger. This system gets pretty sophisticated. One thing I've been able to verify they do, is related to Kingston service. There are some trips where Kingston->Toronto demand is very high--for example the trips that are timed well for the end of classes at Queen's on Fridays. For these trips, VIA will cut fares for Ottawa->Kingston bookings, and then cut fares for Ottawa->Toronto bookings on the trips before and after that trip. As as a result, trains that have a high demand from Kingston, will be filled with more people getting off at Kingston too, thus freeing up from for additional Toronto->Kingston bookings. Clever.

The YM model is the smartest thing VIA has ever done.

They certainly are targeting students these days. You see ads appealing to students all the time, and they have a bunch of discount options. Students have access to unlimited semester passes, "6Paks" (a program where students get a substantial discount on 6 ticket fares in exchange for having to pay for all 6 of them upfront at that discounted price), discount cards, etc. VIA marketing in general is more out there these days, have you not seen the VIA ads everywhere on the internet, TV, radio, etc? I certainly get bombarded by them all the time.

 

[dowlingm]

Saying "let's build 320km/h alignments on the off chance we use it one day" is iffy, since the curve tolerances of such lines will force going through rather than around/over/under difficult obstacles. That will mean a big spend and a low return for FRA tier 1 speed use.

 

[reaperexpress]

Saying "let's build 320km/h alignments on the off chance we use it one day" is iffy, since the curve tolerances of such lines will force going through rather than around/over/under difficult obstacles. That will mean a big spend and a low return for FRA tier 1 speed use.

Indeed it would be iffy if we built it on the "off chance" of full speed use. But if we build it as the first phase of an HSR implementation then it's much less tentative. Having a first segment already built makes the rest of the line more palatable anyway. A case in point is the amount of push that has existed to finish the Sheppard subway ever since it opened.

Some examples of similar implementations are the California HSR segment currently under construction, to be used at 110-125 mph until electrification is completed. The subway level of the Prince Edward Viaduct was also unused for 48 years until the opening of the Bloor Subway in 1966, but it still saved an enormous amount of money overall.

 

[nfitz]

Some examples of similar implementations are the California HSR segment currently under construction, to be used at 110-125 mph until electrification is completed. The subway level of the Prince Edward Viaduct was also unused for 48 years until the opening of the Bloor Subway in 1966, but it still saved an enormous amount of money overall.

Given the future value of a project 48 years in the future is virtually zero, then surely sitting 48 years until used is a complete waste of money. There's many other examples of stuff built that was never used. Your talk about the Prince Edward Viaduct, but you don't mention that only the span over the Don River got used this way. We also spent money on making the other span over the Rosedale Valley able to carry subway, and it still sits there almost 100 years later unused. Was this a good use of our tax money?

What about that piece of Gardiner Expressway left hanging at Leslie Street, that was never used, and eventually demolished. Was this a good use of money? There's numerous other examples around the world. There's a few highway bridges in Montreal that were never used until 40+ years after they were constructed, and had to be structurally rehabilitated before being used.

Building something we may never need or use is fiscally irresponsible. Best to spend the money on something else we need now.

 

[mdrejhon]

We're not talking about the rails and electricification itself -- one can wait on that -- we are talking about alignments. Depending on your goal horizon, planning for a higher speed alignment than necessary can be prudent long term planning if it's just farmland and the city hasn't expanded to take it yet (more difficult expropriation)... And even improves safety and capacity significantly (full right of way, visibility of trains down the curve, less stress on rails at curves). This has been going on for over 100 years, so we have some HSR-ready alignments today even on 100-year-old corridors, such as rural straight track through farmland. If you're building a new rail route, and expropriating anyway, then planning for a HSR alignment makes a lot of sense, even if HSR is not planned.

There are other factors involved.

 

[ssiguy2]

Speed is critical.

In London it's faster to take the Greyhound to Toronto than it is to take VIA.

Improvements to the current line, higher speed trains {even diesels} and non-stop service could take Londoners to Toronto in an hour and Windsorites in just 2. People will not see the bother of taking a train when it's just as fast to drive. Time is precious and is a commodity that people are willing to pay for. This is why so many people fly out of Billy Bishop to relatively short distance destinations. How many here would still take Porter to Montreal if all of a sudden the plane now landed at Kingston, then Ottawa, and then to Montreal meaning it was no faster than taking the train or driving? .............nobody.

People in rural areas and in small towns/cities don't take the train so it's pointless and counter productive to slow the trips of thousands for a couple dozen people. those people can take the bus or are out of luck. They will bitch up a storm but the reality is that 95% of the people who bitch will never have taken the damn train. Canada doesn't need more milk runs but rather fast connections between major cities and in Canada that means Win/Lon/Kit/Ham/Nia/Tor/Kin/Ott/Mon/TR/QC and Cal/Edm and that's it. Everyone else is out of luck except for connections to Amtrak like Vancouver to Seattle.

This is no different from where we place international airports. Where they make sense built them and if they don't then too bad then you are going to have to figure out a way to get to the nearest one but the government should not be subsidizing you for your choice to live in a small town/city or rural area.

 

[EnviroTO]

In London it's faster to take the Greyhound to Toronto than it is to take VIA.

It is effectively the same amount of time on the bus as it is on the train and the train serves more customers by stopping at additional stops. You will not decrease travel time on the bus and the bus is less comfortable and less reliable. I take the train to London a couple of times a year and avoid the bus.