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

[micheal_can]

Perhaps, but one still has to find the money and justify the funding in relation to other potential investments. Ottawa has focus on the HFR procurement, and is currently paying off the new Venture fleet. There will be a decision needed on a long distance fleet procurement shortly. Lots of federal money is going into local transit and even GO Expansion. Ontario is carrying the burden of Crosstown, other LRT projects, GO Expansion, and four subway projects.Plus the Northlander

I'm not sure that the money pot goes any further.

- Paul

That is why the provinces coming up with some funding is key. Think of it as any other transit project. Generally there is a buy in from all levels of government. If the first province/Via collaboration were to happen and be seen publicly as a success, they would find the money. The federal government gives money to all sorts of things that are not specifically in their scope, but is for the betterment of Canadians. They also fund provincial things, such a s healthcare.

Ontario is fine for money. Places like the Maritimes are not.So, if they wanted a Saint John -Halifax daily train, which would be about the same length as the Northlander, They may look for federal funding. They might be able to get it and run it separately. However, if there was a funding formula within Via for it to be run by Via and be partially paid for by the provinces, then it could still happen, but not separate. Would having them separate be better?

 

[roger1818]

When I lived in Fredericton I would have regularly used a passenger service from the capital to Moncton and Saint John, and less frequently to Charlottetown and Truro and Halifax.

This brings up a point that seems to be frequently overlooked, which is that there is more synergy between cities in the same province than there is between cities in different provinces. That’s one reason why there is far more O-D travel between Ottawa and Toronto than Montreal and Toronto, despite Montreal being much larger than Ottawa and only slightly further.

This also explains why Quebec City-Montreal, Toronto-Kingston and even Ottawa-Kingston do well. London Toronto has significant potential. Ottawa-Montreal is a bit unique as 1/3 of Ottawa’s population is in Quebec.

Similarly Edmonton-Calgary could also do well, but I don’t think Regina-Calgary has any significant potential. One could argue that Regina-Saskatoon has potential, but I would put that very, very low on a my list of city pairs. I once suggested that the Canadian should be rerouted to travel via Regina and Saskatoon. This routing would have the additional advantage of properly connecting Winnipeg with Brandon (also both in the same province). The problem is the change wouldn’t be without costs and the Canadian doesn’t do a very good job of providing intercity rail service, so it’s probably not worth the effort.

 

[micheal_can]

This brings up a point that seems to be frequently overlooked, which is that there is more synergy between cities in the same province than there is between cities in different provinces. That’s one reason why there is far more O-D travel between Ottawa and Toronto than Montreal and Toronto, despite Montreal being much larger than Ottawa and only slightly further.

This also explains why Quebec City-Montreal, Toronto-Kingston and even Ottawa-Kingston do well. London Toronto has significant potential. Ottawa-Montreal is a bit unique as 1/3 of Ottawa’s population is in Quebec.

Similarly Edmonton-Calgary could also do well, but I don’t think Regina-Calgary has any significant potential. One could argue that Regina-Saskatoon has potential, but I would put that very, very low on a my list of city pairs. I once suggested that the Canadian should be rerouted to travel via Regina and Saskatoon. This routing would have the additional advantage of properly connecting Winnipeg with Brandon (also both in the same province). The problem is the change wouldn’t be without costs and the Canadian doesn’t do a very good job of providing intercity rail service, so it’s probably not worth the effort.

This observation only highlights why the provinces and Via should be working together to provide a service that is wanted and would have a high possibility of success. I wish one of the federal parties could step up and put this as part of their platform. To me, things like this, are the next steps of putting a price on carbon. Give us a lower carbon option to go to/from where we want to go.

 

[roger1818]

One thing that happens in the US that we might benefit from here is local partnerships and funding for AMTRAK. Some local service might happen faster if the federal and related provincial government shared the cost. It would obviously be cheaper for each.

The way I see it there are two likely reasons why Amtrak has states supported routes, but VIA doesn’t have any province, supported routes.

1. Amtrak has (in theory at least) priority on the freight railway tracks, so the states want to take advantage of that with the services they fund. VIA does not have such priority, so the provinces might as well do it alone.
2. The American states seem eager to fund things they want, whereas Canadian provinces seem to want the federal government to pay for everything, so the idea of paying VIA to provide better service would be blasphemous.

 

[lenaitch]

With its frequency and on-time performance, I think relying on Canadian to provide any kind of reliable inter-city service is doomed to failure.

 

[Urban Sky]

With its frequency and on-time performance, I think relying on Canadian to provide any kind of reliable inter-city service is doomed to failure.

Of course, which makes tourism and essential (i.e. remote) travel the only viable customer groups you can adequately serve over such infrastructure and quite frankly, the main motivation for demanding non-Corridor intercity passenger rail services seems to be that „someone else“ (i.e. the federal taxpayer) would pay for it…

 

[micheal_can]

With its frequency and on-time performance, I think relying on Canadian to provide any kind of reliable inter-city service is doomed to failure.

Which is why I feel that any additional service along there should be broken up like the Corridor is.Except for the Toronto - Winnipeg section,the rest could be done without sleepers.It would likely be no worse than the Northlander service.

 

[lenaitch]

Which is why I feel that any additional service along there should be broken up like the Corridor is.Except for the Toronto - Winnipeg section,the rest could be done without sleepers.It would likely be no worse than the Northlander service.

I don't have the data but it seems that much of Canadian's passenger demographic is tourism, with a significant component of that being foreign. Many are willing to pay for quality service and food, sleepers, dome cars, wine, the whole package. Break it up and you risk loosing that market.

Quite frankly, if it weren't for VIA's remote service mandate, if the Canadian route was broken up, there would be no market for a train between Sudbury and Winnipeg.

 

[micheal_can]

I don't have the data but it seems that much of Canadian's passenger demographic is tourism, with a significant component of that being foreign. Many are willing to pay for quality service and food, sleepers, dome cars, wine, the whole package. Break it up and you risk loosing that market.

Quite frankly, if it weren't for VIA's remote service mandate, if the Canadian route was broken up, there would be no market for a train between Sudbury and Winnipeg.

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 Edmonton and Saskatoon,and Saskatoon and Winnipeg, 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.

 

[Urban Sky]

No Corridor route is close to 800 km long (like SASK-WNPG), takes more than 12 hours (6 hours is the limit currently), while not hitting a single Census Metropolitan Area (and only a single Census Agglomeration with Portage-la-Prairie and its 13k inhabitants).

Envisioning any Corridor-style set-up for anything across the Prairies is nothing but railfan daydreaming…

 

[Wm Perkins Bull]

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

 

[ShonTron]

The way I see it there are two likely reasons why Amtrak has states supported routes, but VIA doesn’t have any province, supported routes.

1. Amtrak has (in theory at least) priority on the freight railway tracks, so the states want to take advantage of that with the services they fund. VIA does not have such priority, so the provinces might as well do it alone.
2. The American states seem eager to fund things they want, whereas Canadian provinces seem to want the federal government to pay for everything, so the idea of paying VIA to provide better service would be blasphemous.

Amtrak has enabling legislation that allows it to partner with states. VIA has much less authority and autonomy.

 

[micheal_can]

No Corridor route is close to 800 km long (like SASK-WNPG), takes more than 12 hours (6 hours is the limit currently), while not hitting a single Census Metropolitan Area (and only a single Census Agglomeration with Portage-la-Prairie and its 13k inhabitants).

Envisioning any Corridor-style set-up for anything across the Prairies is nothing but railfan daydreaming…

I know the distances are not the same. I also know that most traffic wont likely be from end to end. However, by having it connect those major cities within a day, it means people between the cities can use it much like people will use the Northlander. I would have no expectations more than a single daily each way, unless the usage demands it.

 

[Urban Sky]

Amtrak has enabling legislation that allows it to partner with states. VIA has much less authority and autonomy.

Yet, Ontario has found a way in the early 1990s to co-fund expanded VIA services (see Footnote 25):

 

[Urban Sky]

I know the distances are not the same. I also know that most traffic wont likely be from end to end. However, by having it connect those major cities within a day, it means people between the cities can use it much like people will use the Northlander. I would have no expectations more than a single daily each way, unless the usage demands it.

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?