VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

Why is that? In fact it is one of the highest. My take is that if it is within a reasonable distance of a major centre, and if air travel exists between the 2 locals, a regular passenger service rail route might work.

This is a poor definition given that air service to a lot of communities consists of oversized puddle jumpers in Canada. And given that passenger rail service would have to operate with freight, there's limited attraction to air passengers to switch. A far better gauge is how much bus service and car traffic there is between the two terminal cities and all the points in between.

I always go back tot he fact that there is not a thru train from Windsor to Quebec City. You need to transfer at least once to get the whole way.

A thru train would be a poor idea. It would result in cascading delays, massively hurting one-time performance. Thru trains only make sense where VIA can control the tracks. If HFR goes westward, they'll probably consider thru service.

For the Canadian and the Ocean, they could have smaller parts to it. For instance, one between Sudbury and Toronto. Even the Ocean would be better if it had a Moncton to Halifax run as well. This is where the underserved comes in.If course it is debatable. Much of what we discuss on forums is debatable.

This starts getting into regional services that are outside VIA's mandate and well outside the affordability envelope of VIA. This is why I said, for such ideas, the provinces have to step up with funding. Even just offering to cover operational costs would go a long way to at least convince the feds to par for some equipment. In the US, the states pay for rolling stock and cover the the operating costs of the state corridors Amtrak runs. Our issue in Canada is that far too many provinces don't want to lift a finger for intercity transport and mostly just pin it all on one national rail service with an absolutely miniscule budget.

 

[micheal_can]

This is a poor definition given that air service to a lot of communities consists of oversized puddle jumpers in Canada. And given that passenger rail service would have to operate with freight, there's limited attraction to air passengers to switch. A far better gauge is how much bus service and car traffic there is between the two terminal cities and all the points in between.

I would think the places I mentioned would have enough for a single daily Short Charger set. Passenger air ha to deal with bigger planes from everywhere, including international. If they could, they would cancel all those regional flights. However, the companies know they are worth having. Westjet only ran 737s. So, if a location could not fill it, it did not get service there. Air Canada flew all types and sizes to match the demand. If they had stuck with a similar attitude,, then no flights would happen. Doesn't mean it should do that either.

A thru train would be a poor idea. It would result in cascading delays, massively hurting one-time performance. Thru trains only make sense where VIA can control the tracks. If HFR goes westward, they'll probably consider thru service.

You are telling me that thru service would hurt on time performance to the point that it would become useless for all but train nuts? Sounds like every other service. Which is why breaking up the other routes would actually make them successful. I would say keep the existing long trains for the 3x a week. Add additional service where it could work the other times of the week.

This starts getting into regional services that are outside VIA's mandate and well outside the affordability envelope of VIA. This is why I said, for such ideas, the provinces have to step up with funding. Even just offering to cover operational costs would go a long way to at least convince the feds to par for some equipment. In the US, the states pay for rolling stock and cover the the operating costs of the state corridors Amtrak runs. Our issue in Canada is that far too many provinces don't want to lift a finger for intercity transport and mostly just pin it all on one national rail service with an absolutely miniscule budget.

Isn't everything west of Toronto operating like that? At least Moncton is in a different province than Halifax. What's he next argument? Distance? They are about the same distance. Windsor to Toronto is 369km, Sudbury to Toronto is 403km, and Moncton to Halifax is 260km. I am not suggesting 4 trips a day. I would suggest 1 trip a day, growing from that.

 

[DSC]

What constitutes "underservice" is debatable. There's a minimum threshold required for service. Kingston isn't exactly a low ridership station.

Kingston is located with three major population centres about 3-4 hours away (even without HSR). Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa. If rail service does not work there it will work nowhere!

 

[kEiThZ]

I would think the places I mentioned would have enough for a single daily Short Charger set.

If all a place can support is a single short charger set per day, there's no point in rail service. They'd benefit way more from 5-6 bus departures per day. We need to think in terms of public transport than rail. The same logic that makes HFR attractive (high frequency) applies to buses too.

You are telling me that thru service would hurt on time performance to the point that it would become useless for all but train nuts? Sounds like every other service. Which is why breaking up the other routes would actually make them successful.

Context matters. Break up the Canadian and a missed connection could mean an unplanned overnight stay somewhere. A missed connection on a Corridor train means waiting for the next one.

 

[micheal_can]

If all a place can support is a single short charger set per day, there's no point in rail service. They'd benefit way more from 5-6 bus departures per day. We need to think in terms of public transport than rail. The same logic that makes HFR attractive (high frequency) applies to buses too.

If that is the case, cancel the short ones. Or maybe it is worth having them?

Context matters. Break up the Canadian and a missed connection could mean an unplanned overnight stay somewhere. A missed connection on a Corridor train means waiting for the next one.

So, keep the long one, but also have smaller ones that supplement it.

 

[kEiThZ]

If that is the case, cancel the short ones. Or maybe it is worth having them?

Those are configurations. It's not like they are fixed or that trains are being bought specifically to operate that way forever. There different configurations are meant to give VIA flexibility matching demand on a given segment. For example, the short configs are going to be really useful out of the Kingston hub and for Corridor West. They'll be able to keep up frequencies by using shorter trains.

So, keep the long one, but also have smaller ones that supplement it.

That requires funding, especially for a lot of the regional rail proposals. Lest we forget that VIA Rail is a $700M agency that takes in about ~$300M in subsidies. This is absolute peanuts. There's transit agencies that get more in subsidies than VIA's entire budget. The TTC, for example, is verging on nearly $800M in operating subsidies. Metrolinx takes in almost $150M annually. Just for comparison, Norway has an annual rail budget of nearly US$3B. The operating subsidy for operations and maintenance and passenger service is over double VIA's entire budget. Norway has fewer people than the GTA and is smaller than Newfoundland or the Yukon.

So there's literally no way to add new services unless the feds and provinces up the subsidy or if savings can be found elsewhere (possible with HFR).

 

[Bordercollie]

Those are configurations. It's not like they are fixed or that trains are being bought specifically to operate that way forever. There different configurations are meant to give VIA flexibility matching demand on a given segment. For example, the short configs are going to be really useful out of the Kingston hub and for Corridor West. They'll be able to keep up frequencies by using shorter trains.



That requires funding, especially for a lot of the regional rail proposals. Lest we forget that VIA Rail is a $700M agency that takes in about ~$300M in subsidies. This is absolute peanuts. There's transit agencies that get more in subsidies than VIA's entire budget. The TTC, for example, is verging on nearly $800M in operating subsidies. Metrolinx takes in almost $150M annually. So there's literally no way to add new services unless the feds and provinces up the subsidy or if savings can be found elsewhere (possible with HFR).

If you were to allow municipalities and provinces to contribute then it would make it easier to expand services. Like Amtrak California or MDOT.

 

[kEiThZ]

If you were to allow municipalities and provinces to contribute then it would make it easier to expand services. Like Amtrak California or MDOT.

This is what me and @crs1026 keep saying.

That said, I question how motivated the provinces are to do anything. Our Western provinces didn't even want to keep Greyhound alive. Ontario was willing to shut down the Northlander than pay VIA to run it. And we're talking about finding tens of millions in a provincial budget of hundreds of billions. Everyone looks at the feds and VIA. Nobody is asking why the provinces don't step up.

 

[crs1026]

^It’s a bit like watching people looking the other way in a restaurant when the check arrives, waiting to see if a colleague will offer to cover it. Let’s hope the Feds see it as their role, and offer money.

Having said that, VIA is not really free to “pitch” proposals, or even prepare a proposal on request. Most “feasibility studies” come from consultants, not necessarily with the same depth of operational and fiscal credibility. Other than BC, Ontario and Quebec, few provinces would have the expertise to negotiate by themselves in an informed way with the host railways. The whole positioning seems to devolve into paralysis as mandates are debated and reasons “why not” are generated.

If the will were there, the funding amounts might not look so impossible.

Ottawa recently announced a funding stream for transit, and has contributed capital funding to GO and to VIa. One would think that medium distance intercity rail might find a niche in the funding universe - not huge dollar amounts, just acceptance as part of the funding universe. That might lead to competing proposals and some more uniform yardstick for discussing which routes might justify funding and which are nonstarters.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Ottawa recently announced a funding stream for transit

The bulk of which is two elections out. Right now I'm just hoping HFR survives this election.

 

[Urban Sky]

This is what me and @crs1026 keep saying.

That said, I question how motivated the provinces are to do anything. Our Western provinces didn't even want to keep Greyhound alive. Ontario was willing to shut down the Northlander than pay VIA to run it. And we're talking about finding tens of millions in a provincial budget of hundreds of billions. Everyone looks at the feds and VIA. Nobody is asking why the provinces don't step up.

The main motivation for demanding VIA to expand service by replacing struggling bus services indeed seems to be to offload the financial obligation to fund transportation to the “rest of the country” (i.e. the federal taxpayer). For a mode (rail) which costs almost ten times the per-scheduled-km subsidy compared to the mode (bus) it is often replacing (often accompanied by the need for costly enabling infrastructure investments), this is not a healthy proposition...

 

[kEiThZ]

The main motivation for demanding VIA to expand service by replacing struggling bus services indeed seems to be to offload the financial obligation to fund transportation to the “rest of the country” (i.e. the federal taxpayer). For a mode (rail) which costs almost ten times the per-scheduled-km subsidy compared to the mode (bus) it is often replacing (often accompanied by the need for costly enabling infrastructure investments), this is not a healthy proposition...

To be clear, I'm not at all in favour of VIA taking on all kinds of new responsibilities on its limited shoestring budget. More a question of whether and where VIA can bring its tremendous experience to bear.

I think there are regional routes where VIA would do well as an operator, if appropriately compensated by the provincial authorities.

 

[Urban Sky]

To be clear, I'm not at all in favour of VIA taking on all kinds of new responsibilities on its limited shoestring budget. More a question of whether and where VIA can bring its tremendous experience to bear.

I think there are regional routes where VIA would do well as an operator, if appropriately compensated by the provincial authorities.

My point was that in the United States, when individual States call for new Amtrak services, it’s because they are prepared to pay for better transportation options for their citizens, whereas in Canada, local politicians and “social media users” from the individual provinces call for new VIA services to rid themselves from which would conveniently transfer the financial obligation to run bus services along the corridor in question to a higher and less erratic level of government*. I struggle to imagine any politician on Vancouver Island would demand restoration of the Malahat service if the province would have to contribute more to its operating deficit than what saving the failing bus service would cost. The reflex (as with the demise with Greyhound all across Western Canada) is: “Ottawa, help us, our regional bus services are failing! Please pay millions to restore VIA service, so that we can avoid paying hundred-thousands to preserve our bus services!”...

* Edit (2021/02/26): Precision added, to specify that this observation concerns local politicians and activism, not the provincial governments themselves, as discussed later in this thread.

 

[micheal_can]

Those are configurations. It's not like they are fixed or that trains are being bought specifically to operate that way forever. There different configurations are meant to give VIA flexibility matching demand on a given segment. For example, the short configs are going to be really useful out of the Kingston hub and for Corridor West. They'll be able to keep up frequencies by using shorter trains.



That requires funding, especially for a lot of the regional rail proposals. Lest we forget that VIA Rail is a $700M agency that takes in about ~$300M in subsidies. This is absolute peanuts. There's transit agencies that get more in subsidies than VIA's entire budget. The TTC, for example, is verging on nearly $800M in operating subsidies. Metrolinx takes in almost $150M annually. Just for comparison, Norway has an annual rail budget of nearly US$3B. The operating subsidy for operations and maintenance and passenger service is over double VIA's entire budget. Norway has fewer people than the GTA and is smaller than Newfoundland or the Yukon.

So there's literally no way to add new services unless the feds and provinces up the subsidy or if savings can be found elsewhere (possible with HFR).

I guess I should ave said that if more funding becomes available. Or, if HFR frees up more funding.

If you were to allow municipalities and provinces to contribute then it would make it easier to expand services. Like Amtrak California or MDOT.

I know EXO does this. The question is, what if an intermediate station looses the local funding, do they simply close the station?

This is what me and @crs1026 keep saying.

That said, I question how motivated the provinces are to do anything. Our Western provinces didn't even want to keep Greyhound alive. Ontario was willing to shut down the Northlander than pay VIA to run it. And we're talking about finding tens of millions in a provincial budget of hundreds of billions. Everyone looks at the feds and VIA. Nobody is asking why the provinces don't step up.

Greyhound is a private company. ONR has always been under the wrong ministry. With the move to the MTO, it can actually be utilized for for what it is, a transportation agency.

^It’s a bit like watching people looking the other way in a restaurant when the check arrives, waiting to see if a colleague will offer to cover it. Let’s hope the Feds see it as their role, and offer money.

Having said that, VIA is not really free to “pitch” proposals, or even prepare a proposal on request. Most “feasibility studies” come from consultants, not necessarily with the same depth of operational and fiscal credibility. Other than BC, Ontario and Quebec, few provinces would have the expertise to negotiate by themselves in an informed way with the host railways. The whole positioning seems to devolve into paralysis as mandates are debated and reasons “why not” are generated.

If the will were there, the funding amounts might not look so impossible.

Ottawa recently announced a funding stream for transit, and has contributed capital funding to GO and to VIa. One would think that medium distance intercity rail might find a niche in the funding universe - not huge dollar amounts, just acceptance as part of the funding universe. That might lead to competing proposals and some more uniform yardstick for discussing which routes might justify funding and which are nonstarters.

- Paul

I doubt anything outside of HFR will get funded from this stimulus package.

The bulk of which is two elections out. Right now I'm just hoping HFR survives this election.

Depends on a lot of things. The Liberals and Conservatives do not have enough of a lead for an election. HFR will be in the next election along with all the other transit things.

 

[nfitz]

Why make a bigger mess? ONR owns the line north of North Bay. CN owns the line south of North Bay. That means that Via still needs to negotiate the line, where as ONR only needs to negotiate with CN.

Surely VIA has more experience negotiating with CN than Ontario Northland. Though a VIA Rail act would (finally) make that easier.