VIA Rail

[felix123]

It isn’t like Calgary-Edmonton is a stretch. It was the other corridor examined in the mid 80s by VIA in its HSR study.

There problem there is the initial investment to get a minimally viable service, and that it is so high there is no viable no billions in infrastructure before service option. (or at least not one that is competitive with the bus).

Sure, but there was no reason to criticize the author of the twitter thread for deigning to suggest that the status quo isn't the zenith of Canadian intercity rail.
We're going to get HFR in the corridor one day. Let's encourage rail service beyond that.

 

[Urban Sky]

As someone from the Okanagan, I can unfortunately confirm the absurdity of the idea of a viable passenger rail corridor between Kelowna and Kamloops.

Indeed, when routes have lost their passenger rail services even before VIA was founded (in this case: 14 years before - 1963 vs. 1977), then this is usually a good indication that you shouldn't waste your advocacy on them...

In many ways, rail fans can be VIA's worst enemy.

Amen. *Sigh*

I would say that there's good chance that *Matthew reads this thread...
I also don't think it's by any means a stretch to contemplate Calgary-Edmonton service.
Lastly, let's not forget who's working at VIA, and how bad the current service is. Perhaps reflect on that.

If you had at least cursorily read through the comments of his Twitter thread, you would have seen that I have confronted him and his friend @GlobalTom with the fact that the ridership potential for Edmonton-Calgary seems to be one order of magnitude lower than Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (a corridor where we already have existing passenger rail service and therefore can have entirely different levels of confidence in any ridership forecasts) and two (!) orders of magnitude higher lower for all the other "viable" corridors he's identified and that his response was that my observation confirmed that Calgary-Edmonton can absolutely support hourly service (which makes me wonder what kind of service TRTO-OTTW-MTRL with its 10 times larger ridership potential would justify ):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512778408505360384

I'm sorry, but his demonstrated ability to draw lines in Google Earth and operate a Twitter account alone doesn't make me take his "if I can still trace the tracks with Google Earth, it must be a viable passenger rail corridor!"-level of analysis serious...

Lastly, let's not forget who's working at VIA, and how bad the current service is. Perhaps reflect on that.

I decided last summer that it was time to move on from VIA after 6 years of working there and I can assure you that this decision was based on a very profound level of reflection...

It isn’t like Calgary-Edmonton is a stretch. It was the other corridor examined in the mid 80s by VIA in its HSR study.

There problem there is the initial investment to get a minimally viable service, and that it is so high there is no viable no billions in infrastructure before service option. (or at least not one that is competitive with the bus).

Exactly, and everyone who has any rudimentary understanding of how much struggle it has been to just arrive at something which is pitched to private investor with at least some seriousness in the government's support, wouldn't dream of suggesting Kamloops-Kelowna as one of the next logical steps...

 

[EnviroTO]

If you had at least cursorily read through the comments of his Twitter thread, you would have seen that I have confronted him and his friend @GlobalTom with the fact that the ridership potential for Edmonton-Calgary seems to be one order of magnitude lower than Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (a corridor where we already have existing passenger rail service and therefore can have entirely different levels of confidence in any ridership forecasts) and two (!) orders of magnitude higher for all the other "viable" corridors he's identified and that his response was that my observation confirmed that Calgary-Edmonton can absolutely support hourly service (which makes me wonder what kind of service TRTO-OTTW-MTRL with its 10 times larger ridership potential would justify ):

So let me do the math. Calgary-Edmonton based on his reasoning justifies hourly, and Toronto-Montreal has 10x the potential so service every 6 minutes... like a subway like frequency from Toronto to Montreal. Sweet, if he can get the financing I'm on board .

 

[Urban Sky]

So let me do the math. Calgary-Edmonton based on his reasoning justifies hourly, and Toronto-Montreal has 10x the potential so service every 6 minutes... like a subway like frequency from Toronto to Montreal. Sweet, if he can get the financing I'm on board .

And this is exactly the thing: I don’t expect anyone to come up with the kind of level of analysis I‘m preparing. But I do expect that if I add some missing pieces to someone else’s analysis that he doesn’t just pretend that it doesn’t have the slightest impact on the validity of his analysis…

 

[kEiThZ]

I find a real problem that a lot of rail and transit fans suffer with is the idea of opportunity cost.

Several billion for CalEd rail service can buy a lot of other things. Including a whole lot of transit in those cities. Have to ask if that is the best use of those dollars. CalEd may well have some kind of marginal case. But just imagine what the billions needed for Halifax-Saint John would do for those towns.

The other issue that a lot of people seem to struggle with is return on investment. Especially in relative terms. Is it worthwhile to go from HFR to HSR to save 1 hr on Toronto-Montreal? What price are we willing to pay for that kind of capability upgrade?

Some of this is classic emotionally driven regional jealousy. Why do Ontario and Quebec get all the good stuff? This, of course, ignores the fact that there's an order of magnitude (or more) difference in population between the Corridor and anywhere else in the country. And rail investment here actually saves money in highway widening and airport improvements. Can't really say the same for anywhere else, other than CalEd (with some caveats).

 

[kEiThZ]

Calgary-Edmonton based on his reasoning justifies hourly,...

He's not wrong on the frequency. Just the mode. CalEd should have hourly bus service.

 

[crs1026]

Some of this is classic emotionally driven regional jealousy. Why do Ontario and Quebec get all the good stuff? This, of course, ignores the fact that there's an order of magnitude (or more) difference in population between the Corridor and anywhere else in the country. And rail investment here actually saves money in highway widening and airport improvements. Can't really say the same for anywhere else, other than CalEd (with some caveats).

Magnify that tenfold by imagining the Cabinet meeting where someone has argued unsuccessfully for $500 M to do something with such-and-such benefits, only to be told it's not going to fly..... and then somebody down the table plunks down a plan for a rail service costing eight to ten times that, with only X00,000 voters in the catchment area..

Am I going to jump on the bandwagon?

- Paul

 

[Darwinkgo]

He's not wrong on the frequency. Just the mode. CalEd should have hourly bus service.

It does or did before COVID, just it is spread among many operators. Red Arrow (3-4x), EBus (2x) (same company as Red Arrow the incumbent 'business class' operator--think the Porter Airlines of buses-- E Bus is a different market segment), RiderExpress (from Saskatchewan, 2x), Cold Shot (2x), The Canada Bus (2x).

Calgary-Edmonton has for a long time showed positive net present value in studies. In the 80s it was far behind the corridor in the VIA rail HSR study, but their financial modelling was incredibly conservative (and it was closing in on 40 years ago!).

Anyways! we will see what the private proponents propose over the next year or two.

 

[kEiThZ]

I was being a bit facetious. I do think there's probably a case for some kind of service on the CalEd corridor. Especially given the flying between those two cities. But it's not as high demand as a lot of railfans routinely suggest either.

 

[Xav]

I was being a bit facetious. I do think there's probably a case for some kind of service on the CalEd corridor. Especially given the flying between those two cities. But it's not as high demand as a lot of railfans routinely suggest either.

The problem sometimes is that people will advocate for rail and only rail, without considering any other kind of mode. You can fund many more buses between Calgary and Edmonton for the same price as a brand new rail line. As with everything, if it's well connected to transit at both ends and it's fast and convenient, modal share will shift.

There's just this stubborn tendency among railfans to think that a bus is not sexy or comfortable.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Heads up: VIA’s new train is headed to Toronto right now. Will also head to Windsor today, after train 75.

 

[smallspy]

Heads up: VIA’s new train is headed to Toronto right now. Will also head to Windsor today, after train 75.

View attachment 392513

Not to Windsor - it will lay over during the day at TMC, before heading to London and overnighting there.

It will return to Toronto via Kitchener - then then onto Montreal - tomorrow morning.

Dan

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Not to Windsor - it will lay over during the day at TMC, before heading to London and overnighting there.

It will return to Toronto via Kitchener - then then onto Montreal - tomorrow morning.

Dan

Thanks for the clarity. Will be quite sad to see new, fast equipment crawling along the Guelph Sub lol.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Not to Windsor - it will lay over during the day at TMC, before heading to London and overnighting there.

It will return to Toronto via Kitchener - then then onto Montreal - tomorrow morning.

Dan

Also, wondering if you can confirm that it will follow train 75 to London? I might try to catch it in Oakville. Thanks!

 

[roger1818]

The problem sometimes is that people will advocate for rail and only rail, without considering any other kind of mode. You can fund many more buses between Calgary and Edmonton for the same price as a brand new rail line. As with everything, if it's well connected to transit at both ends and it's fast and convenient, modal share will shift.

There's just this stubborn tendency among railfans to think that a bus is not sexy or comfortable.

There is also an assumption that just because trains can be green, that trains are always green. In reality, a lightly used train can have higher per passenger carbon emissions than driving (or even flying for longer distances). Also the carbon emissions saved by freight trains dwarf any potential carbon emissions that can be saved by passenger trains, so it is important not to discourage rail freight. If anything, we should be encouraging more freight to be moved from trucks to train, but that is rarely talked about by rail fans (or politicians).