VIA Rail

[MisterF]

I was hoping to take the kids somewhere for March break on the VIA train. We've done Ottawa, so thought we'd try Montreal. But for a family of four it's over $700. So, we'd take the car and instead pay $60 in gas.

There's more to the cost of driving than gas. You're forgetting depreciation, wear & tear, maintenance, and parking/tolls. Plus whatever value you put on weather delays and stress, which can be significant as I experienced on a recent drive down the 401.

 

[Markster]

VIA is the more comfortable way to travel, not the best way to get across the Rockies in a hurry.

And yet, there are people who actually rely on The Canadian for travel. They get delays of 3 or 6 or 12 hours, and just have to take it, because they have no other choice. It's terrible, and downright abusive.

 

[nfitz]

If you want lower fares, you may want to tell your local (federal) MP to ensure HFR will receive the green light (whether it will be funded publicly or privately remains of secondary importance) since high frequency does also mean high capacity...

Most, if not all, the high-speed services I've been on have been no cheaper, and often more expensive, than regular services.

 

[TOareaFan]

Most, if not all, the high-speed services I've been on have been no cheaper, and often more expensive, than regular services.

ours will start off higher priced and will market itself as a premium service with premium features.....then when no one uses it, we will slash the price below the level of our basic service and everything will get cheaper!

 

[mdrejhon]

Most, if not all, the high-speed services I've been on have been no cheaper, and often more expensive, than regular services.

It's worth comparing the without-HFR/HSR and with HFR/HSR. For a long while, VIA was an extremely expensive way to travel when they were cash-starved and had to raise fares, and cheap fares were much harder to find.

Nowadays they are back on the upswing with gradually increasing service, and you've got those "VIA Tuesday sales" that work well when you're doing advance bookings, and HFR may actually make the Tuesday fare numbers more common.

It's still too easy to pay over $100 for one-way travel in the Golden Triangle, when smart travellers know how to book fares for $29, $39 and $49. The high capacity frees up a lot more room for those fares to be more common.

 

[Urban Sky]

Most, if not all, the high-speed services I've been on have been no cheaper, and often more expensive, than regular services.

Where are those people who point out at every occasion that HFR with its design speed of 176 km/h (110 mph) is slower than most intercity trains in Europe (which typically reach 200 km/h) and therefore has nothing to do with HSR when you need them? VIA Rail CEO Yves Desjardins-Siciliano rarely misses any occasion to stress that HFR is not HSR, as "High-speed rail [is] not the right solution for Canada"...

Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Austria have a frequent and dense intercity network which is serviced once every 30-120 minutes at very affordable prices (compared to HSR)...

 

[dowlingm]

I'm not familiar with school breaks in Ontario, but since you've mentioned "March break", I assume they apply to every school kid in Ontario and naturally a lot of families will have the same idea as you. With limited capacity and the guarantee to fill almost every seat, I can't really blame my colleagues at Revenue Management for restricting the number of Escape or reduced-fare Economy tickets in order to minimize the federal subsidy as mandated by the federal government. If you want lower fares, you may want to tell your local (federal) MP to ensure HFR will receive the green light (whether it will be funded publicly or privately remains of secondary importance) since high frequency does also mean high capacity...

In the states, Amtrak sometimes hires commuter equipment from NJT, MARC etc. to add NEC surge capacity at holidays. Not as practical on VIA with incompatible HEP voltages (vs GO at any rate) and longer, thinner routes.

 

[kEiThZ]

There's more to the cost of driving than gas. You're forgetting depreciation, wear & tear, maintenance, and parking/tolls. Plus whatever value you put on weather delays and stress, which can be significant as I experienced on a recent drive down the 401.

1) Those are marginal costs.

2) Still won't add up to $700.

Depreciation. 20¢ per km.
Wear and Tear. 5¢ per km.
Maintenance. 5¢ per km
Insurance. 10¢ per km.
Stress. Let's value at $10 per hr for each hour driven.

1200km return. And 12 hrs driving. $600. And that's being generous. Usually, people just consider gas money since everything else is marginal to them....

So just like Europe, sometimes driving is cheaper for a family on a road trip. Unlike Europe, VIA doesn't get you there quickly.

 

[innsertnamehere]

driving is more efficient in terms of energy expended if you have a full car too, IIRC. cars become more environmentally unfriendly when they are carrying less passengers. Costs all in (insurance, wear and tear, etc.) is generally considered to be $0.50 - $0.60 a km. The more you drive, the less that is. Insurance is essentially flat no matter how many km you put on a year, and wear and tear slows the more km you put on it (well, in terms of $/km).

 

[MisterF]

1) Those are marginal costs.

2) Still won't add up to $700.

Depreciation. 20¢ per km.
Wear and Tear. 5¢ per km.
Maintenance. 5¢ per km
Insurance. 10¢ per km.
Stress. Let's value at $10 per hr for each hour driven.

1200km return. And 12 hrs driving. $600. And that's being generous. Usually, people just consider gas money since everything else is marginal to them....

So just like Europe, sometimes driving is cheaper for a family on a road trip. Unlike Europe, VIA doesn't get you there quickly.

As you showed, the costs add up to quite a bit. Of course, I don't really count insurance when I consider the cost of driving somewhere since I own my car already, but the cost of maintenance, depreciation, etc. increase for each kilometre driven.

That said, I agree that driving will generally be cheaper when the car is full. A full car is a cost effective way to travel and uses highway space fairly efficiently. The decision for a family four to take the train to Montreal would be more about not having to be at the wheel for six hours, not worrying about washroom and meal breaks, and avoiding city driving.

 

[kEiThZ]

Here's reality. Most people consider a simple metric. Gas money. If it's cheaper to train (or just slightly over) than split gas money, the train wins. This is why I question if HSR will do well, if it's based on anything like fares that UPE had at launch. That $27.50 was justifiable as some posters have shown here. But in reality, even the $19 Presto fare didn't attract enough ridership. Hopefully we don't see $200 return fares Toronto-Ottawa. "Because the HSR competes with the airplane."

 

[Urban Sky]

Here's reality. Most people consider a simple metric. Gas money. If it's cheaper to train (or just slightly over) than split gas money, the train wins. This is why I question if HSR will do well, if it's based on anything like fares that UPE had at launch. That $27.50 was justifiable as some posters have shown here. But in reality, even the $19 Presto fare didn't attract enough ridership. Hopefully we don't see $200 return fares Toronto-Ottawa. "Because the HSR competes with the airplane."

HSR competes with the plane, HFR competes with the car (and the bus)...

 

[mdrejhon]

As long as it's sub-3-hour Toronto-Ottawa, and as long as VIA Tuesdays pricing still exists and becomes more common, you can put anything in the 2nd letter out of three!

 

[1overcosc]

The issue is what compensation they get if VIA builds on their property. Their shareholders would justifiably hold management's feet to the fire to get every last penny, and their management are pretty aggressive about this in themselves. At a high level, CN and CP would be eager to take the money, but the parties could be a Billion $ or more apart on the price. Ask Bautista how that works ;-)

The issue with the Canadian is that CN quite deliberately ignores it, even though the schedule is heavily padded. Originally the schedule was set at CN's request with assurances that If VIA agreed to it, it would be achievable. CN simply doesn't care, and VIA is helpless to deal with the problem.

- Paul

Things are different for an HSR project. Nobody really cares about the Canadian. But if the federal government went in on HSR, they will have very little patience for any pesky interference from CN or CP. And they can use the full might of their regulatory control over Canadian railways if they have to.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised that if the GO RER project runs into too many roadblocks from CN/CP, Wynne gets the federal government to intervene in GO's favour.

 

[1overcosc]

Here's reality. Most people consider a simple metric. Gas money. If it's cheaper to train (or just slightly over) than split gas money, the train wins. This is why I question if HSR will do well, if it's based on anything like fares that UPE had at launch. That $27.50 was justifiable as some posters have shown here. But in reality, even the $19 Presto fare didn't attract enough ridership. Hopefully we don't see $200 return fares Toronto-Ottawa. "Because the HSR competes with the airplane."

Ontario's HSR proposal has $40 average fares between Toronto and London.

VIA's new president is very aware that his competition is with cars, not planes.