VIA Rail

[kEiThZ]

I've spoken to one of my friends who did an internship at VIA and I was told that it was in preparation for complimentary upgrades for frequent travellers through VIA Preference with the new reservation system. Under this situation, the increase in Business space becomes more socially palatable.

So you were told exactly why they procured the ratio of seats they did and how the plan on effectively monetizing it and you're still here whining?

I'm actually excited about this since I travel over 100 segments with VIA annually, contrary to yet another false personal assumption that you have made about me (which you should really stop doing).

If the shoe fits.....

Let's not forget that you implied your superior crayon chart knowledge gives you apparently deep financial insight into rail infrastructure, without apparently seeing the actual financials. You really shouldn't be surprised that lines like that have people making assumptions about you.

Also, taking the train back and forth from college every weekend doesn't make you a business traveler. It's why you didn't know about those rail travel policies. Which by the way are growing, with corporate travel booking tools now showing carbon footprints for bookings. There's a solid reason why VIA should be planning for more business travelers.

HFR could see an increase in contribution margin relative to fixed costs that does not exceed it. This results in a lower net loss, and thus a lower subsidy. But it does not yield a net profit. In essence, HFR is an investment for VIA to lose less money on its corridor services over the long term. It is not necessarily one for VIA to generate a net profit.

Never said it would absolutely make a net profit for the Corridor, though I think it will. But sure, let's use contribution margin to be more precise.

Based on what's happened with UPX and the Scarborough subway extension, I am very skeptical of its actual profitability.

You mean two public transit projects with no control over revenue policies or service delivery design? Where exactly is the comparison with HFR?

The EcoTrains study shows that the incremental economic, public safety, social, and environmental value of that project far exceeds the incremental benefit to the rail operator itself.

You realise that the Ecotrain study was about High Speed Rail right?

 

[littlewill1166]

So you were told exactly why they procured the ratio of seats they did and how the plan on effectively monetizing it and you're still here whining?

I was told today. It benefits frequent VIA's riders who are able to pay for travel that often costs more than Greyhound, but less so the low-income earners without cars (who public transportation economically/socially benefits the most). It's quite ironic to me how a private company is able to offer public transportation within the corridor for less than what a crown corporation charges. VIA needs the masses rallying for it. Raising fares, and looking like a subsidy for big business doesn't help its cause. I can still see a future government come in and replace VIA corridor service with bus service while relegating business travellers to the skies. Remember what happened the last time around? Chances are even higher if greyhound falls, which might happen given its precarious state and the possibility of a prolonged recession. They're barely breaking even. For reference, look at what is happening to Amtrak. Hence my point about VIA over-focusing on business travellers being a bad thing still stands...

If the shoe fits.....

Let's not forget that you implied your superior crayon chart knowledge gives you apparently deep financial insight into rail infrastructure, without apparently seeing the actual financials. You really shouldn't be surprised that lines like that have people making assumptions about you.

Also, taking the train back and forth from college every weekend doesn't make you a business traveler. It's why you didn't know about those rail travel policies. Which by the way are growing, with corporate travel booking tools view showing carbon footprints for booking.

Most of the charts I posted were pulled directly from access to information requests that VIA made internally. The one I did make was based on actual passenger numbers and ticket revenues on the Montreal-Quebec City from an access to information request/annual reports for an assignment... That I got a good mark on it. I also said that it was under a base case scenario without HFR, I have no idea what you're going on about. If you could lay out the names of people and their assumptions about me, that would be great.

I've travelled on VIA for business during the summer reimbursed by my school. My school allows staff (like me) to take business class on the train, or fly (again, quit making false assumptions about me). At least for my school, there is significantly more paperwork involved to get reimbursed for taking the train compared to flying where you just book through a portal. This is where I emphasize the importance of VIA working to upgrade its reservation system.

Nonetheless, my only claims were that HFR was highly unlikely to turn a profit and that any profit would be minuscule compared to the economic/social/environmental benefits that the project would bring. I didn't provide any specific numbers on this one, but its a theme of almost all public rail projects. And that the balance of business/economy cars didn't match current demand, which is quite obvious from the chart. Those business class travellers adjusted for seat density generate the same revenue as economy travellers. The math is all laid out, if there's something wrong with it, let me know. You're critiquing me more than the analysis itself. If you don't like it, explain why by referencing the chart/analysis.

Never said it would absolutely make a net profit for the Corridor, though I think it will. But sure, let's use contribution margin to be more precise.

That's surprising....

But given the massive increase in seats that HFR would bring, the math quickly leads to a binary situation where losses grow or this thing is profitable enough to pay for the whole Corridor or even all of VIA.

First, you used cashflow positive, which doesn't say very much. Then you used profit where you should have used contribution margin.

You mean two public transit projects with no control over revenue policies or service delivery design? Where exactly is the comparison with HFR?

UPX did, admittedly SSE did not. From 2015 to 2019, the anticipated travel times have increased quite significantly while the cost of the project has also increased. The projects on eerily similar trajectories of increasing costs and decreasing benefits. Hopefully not the same with the reservation system...

2015

2019

You realise that the Ecotrain study was about High Speed Rail right?

Yes, VIA's corridor subsidy is around $143 million a year. If the project hypothetically allows the corridor to break even. Do you seriously think that the combined economic, social, environmental, and other ancillary benefits of this project won't exceed that measly $143 million a year that the government saves in subsidies?

Honestly having a hard time understanding why you continue to be aggressive to me personally when you've been wrong about your comments about me at every turn. If you want to have a serious conversation about my thoughts, opinions, and analysis about VIA, I encourage you to create a list with a direct quote from each of my posts. This conversation has become increasingly constructive and is border lining on trolling.

According to the forum rules, trolling is: "an ongoing series of posts of an antagonistic and disruptive nature, including borderline pathological attention to certain threads, which add little new perspective or information, and those which will only serve to needlessly and baselessly provoke a particular member or a group of members, are prohibited. An occasional harsh but fair comment would not be considered trolling."

I have reviewed your replies to my posts and not once have you provided reference material supporting your claims. They also do not provoke any productive discussion which I have not previously disclaimed. Specifically, the fact that my analysis was based on current demand, without the inclusion of HFR.

 

[kEiThZ]

I've travelled on VIA for business during the summer reimbursed by my school. My school allows staff (like me) to take business class on the train, or fly (again, quit making false assumptions about me). At least for my school, there is significantly more paperwork involved to get reimbursed for taking the train compared to flying where you just book through a portal.

Yeah. None of that indicates real world familiarity with corporate travel. It shows you know how to fill out forms at your university. Ever dealt with travel policies that require you to minimize your carbon footprint?

This is where I emphasize the importance of VIA working to upgrade its reservation system.

Your priorities are not VIA's priorities. This is yet another example of you not understanding how government agencies operate and what public servants do. They don't get to pick what to work on.

First, you used cashflow positive, which doesn't say very much. Then you used profit where you should have used contribution margin.

You're right. I should have chosen my words more carefully in the presence of the next Jesse Livermore....

UPX did, admittedly SSE did not. From 2015 to 2019, the anticipated travel times have increased quite significantly while the cost of the project has also increased. The projects on eerily similar trajectories of increasing costs and decreasing benefits.

Further study refines estimates. Shocker! Go back in this thread. You'll find plenty of skepticism over the initital numbers and caution that the numbers would worsen as estimates were refined.

UPX never did anywhere near the depth of analysis that VIA and the CIB are conducting right now. They practically winged it based on the shuttle bus and airport taxi numbers. When they couldn't close the business case and the Blue 22 consortium was going to bail, government stepped in to make it happen. This is a far cry from a $70M three year study including a full EA to develop a business case.

Do you seriously think that the combined economic, social, environmental, and other ancillary benefits of this project won't exceed that measly $143 million a year that the government saves in subsidies?

Never said otherwise. But I find it interesting that you keep pressing the point that there's no chance of the subsidies being eliminated, having never seen the financials at all.

Honestly having a hard time understanding why you continue to be aggressive to me personally

Because you're an arrogant prick with lines like this:

easier and more profitable to trade options.

Let me guess. You thought you were smarter than everybody here because you knew how to look at options flows and draw some TA crayon lines, and you didn't think there would be somebody else in the room who knew those things too?

According to the forum rules, trolling is: "an ongoing series of posts of an antagonistic and disruptive nature, including borderline pathological attention to certain threads, which add little new perspective or information, and those which will only serve to needlessly and baselessly provoke a particular member or a group of members, are prohibited. An occasional harsh but fair comment would not be considered trolling."

Indeed, taking over the existing discussion and trying to assert authority based on your unrelated financial skill might just fit the bill.

They also do not provoke any productive discussion which I have not previously disclaimed. Specifically, the fact that my analysis was based on current demand, without the inclusion of HFR.

The classic troll tactic. Appeal for civility when challenged.

 

[DSCToronto]

Having a dwell time in Kingston to alleviate potential delays would be a good thing. This would make it seem like each leg is on time.

If I am looking to travel somewhere, I always look at the total trip time. If I am on a train (and I am quite often) I really do not care if it is on time at intermediate stops, only that it arrives at MY destination on time. If trains from Toronto to Ottawa and Montreal had a dwell time in Kingston, anyone going to Ottawa/Montreal would see (and probably experience) a longer trip time. High Speed Rail implies that the trip times decrease not increase (due to 'making up for delays' stops en route.)

 

[kEiThZ]

If I am looking to travel somewhere, I always look at the total trip time. If I am on a train (and I am quite often) I really do not care if it is on time at intermediate stops, only that it arrives at MY destination on time. If trains from Toronto to Ottawa and Montreal had a dwell time in Kingston, anyone going to Ottawa/Montreal would see (and probably experience) a longer trip time. High Speed Rail implies that the trip times decrease not increase (due to 'making up for delays' stops en route.)

Keep in mind the context in which a longer layover was being discussed: that freight traffic makes scheduling of thru trains at Kingston challenging. The longer layover is meant to provide schedule flex.

 

[DSCToronto]

Keep in mind the context in which a longer layover was being discussed: that freight traffic makes scheduling of thru trains at Kingston challenging. The longer layover is meant to provide schedule flex.

Yes, I realise the idea is to give some leeway BUT, though having a scheduled layover in Kingston may make the arrival time at the final destination more achievable it will also cause the total trip time to be longer. We all probably like trains and planes to be on time BUT, for many people, the total advertised (or actual) length of the trip is important and if the train times are too long, many people will just fly.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes, I realise the idea is to give some leeway BUT, though having a scheduled layover in Kingston may make the arrival time at the final destination more achievable it will also cause the total trip time to be longer. We all probably like trains and planes to be on time BUT, for many people, the total advertised (or actual) length of the trip is important and if the train times are too long, many people will just fly.

I think there's some confusion here. If you're traveling between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, you would be traveling on the High Frequency (not high speed) Rail corridor. That train would not be going through Kingston.

The trains going through Kingston after HFR is implemented are meant to service communities along the Lakeshore. So a hypothetical passenger from Toronto to Brockville or Cornwall. It is these services that we were discussing.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

In fairness the largest share of passengers affected would be those heading from points east of Toronto to Ottawa or Montreal.

Still not a big market, though potentially enough passengers I wonder if a station around Madoc with park and ride might be justified.

Overall though I think the relegation of Lakeshore to local service should be an improvement in frequency even with a longish connection at Kingston.

 

[crs1026]

^There is a difference also between a train that pauses to achieve a schedule, versus a schedule with two runs that is serviced by a single trainset.

The hub idea implies that (on paper) trains would end their runs at Kingston. The consist might or might not run through, after sitting for a while. In effect Ottawa is such a terminal today. Some trains have been marketed as through M-O-T trains, but some are shown as M-O and others as O-T. In practice, when the schedule is broken into two, the train still runs through, but through passengers may or may not have to detrain and reboard.

I see no merit in publishing a schedule that adds padded dwell time in Kingston to through trains. Nor is there merit in changing trains in Kingston. Those options makes the corridor less marketable. I can see merit however in a schedule that retains say 2-3 through stopping trains Toronto-Montreal (serving markets such as Cobourg- Montreal or Toronto- Cornwall as one seat rides, as they are today) ... interspersed with additional trains that turn back at Kingston to serve the market west of there. Toronto- London has this kind of mixture of runs. The only point of the dwell is to create contingency so that even if trains are late on arrival at Kingston, they can still depart on time on their next run.

The point of the “hub” proposal for Kingston is to address marketable timings that don’t exist today because the reliance on through trains is inflexible. For instance, an early start from Kingston to Ottawa would no doubt attract telecommuters and professionals having business in the Capital. That train doesn’t exist today because it would have to leave Toronto at an unsociably early hour, and would be empty until it reached Kingston. The turnback puts seats where deman is highest (eg I suspect - without data - that one could retain/build more ridership between Cobourg/Belleville and Toronto versus between Kingston and points east). That might make the service more productive than today, and permit frequent enough service to retain/build enough demand, to be economically viable.

The problem, of course, is that the plan is founded on the same freight-pax conflict as today. By the time VIA runs two Montreal- Toronto trains for that local service, plus two or three Toronto- Ottawa trains for that service, plus whatever new turnbacks are envisioned, there will be numerous passenger trains and numerous freights. “Change at Kingston” still seems ominous to me.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

In fairness the largest share of passengers affected would be those heading from points east of Toronto to Ottawa or Montreal.

How far east we talking? Because there's the planned station at Eglinton and the one in Peterborough? Older maps had a "GTA East" that hopefully will still materialize. East of Durham though there's not a lot of people.

Still not a big market, though potentially enough passengers I wonder if a station around Madoc with park and ride might be justified.

I don't see the point. The drive to Madoc for most would negate any time savings over just taking the Lakeshore route.

Overall though I think the relegation of Lakeshore to local service should be an imrovement in frequency even with a longish connection at Kingston.

Some of them will lose frequencies. Crossed fingers that a better schedule does mitigate the damage a fair bit. And hopefully fewer trains might make CN a bit more cooperative (doubtful).

 

[kEiThZ]

For instance, an early start from Kingston to Ottawa would no doubt attract telecommuters and professionals having business in the Capital.

There are so many Kingston/Brockville/Smiths Falls to Ottawa commuters and daytrippets that there's no doubt in my mind that VIA could fill 2-3 Extra-Short (176 seats) trains at peak.

 

[crs1026]

How far east we talking? Because there's the planned station at Eglinton and the one in Peterborough? Older maps had a "GTA East" that hopefully will still materialize. East of Durham though there's not a lot of people.

Oshawa currently attracts a very good ridership from the east end of the GTA. When I was taking the train to points east for business, often most of our delegation would board there - it always took time on the phone to book our seats so the Toronto riders and the Oshawa riders sat together, so we could work on board.

The proposed Eglinton stop is too far into the city to attract this business as it’s too much of a double-back, and won’t have day or overnight parking.I don’t have a fixed view of where VIA should place a Durham HFR stop, but it absolutely needs one, with an eye to the whole Durham catchment.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Oshawa attracts a very good ridership from the east end of the GTA. When I was taking the train to points east for business, often most of our delegation would board there - it always took time on the phone to book our seats so the Toronto riders and the Oshawa riders sat together, so we could work on board.

The proposed Eglinton stop is too far into the city to attract this business as it’s too much of a double-back, and won’t have day or overnight parking.I don’t have a fixed view of where VIA should place a Durham stop, but it absolutely needs one, with an eye to the whole Durham catchment.

- Paul

They need a "GTA East" north of Durham and east of Markham. I think there's value in an Eglinton. It would have over half a million in its catchment. Depending on how numbers work out, might want to even consider trading Guildwood for it. Especially since GO RER will make it relatively easy to catch a Lakeshore train after getting off in Oshawa.

Also, I always feel like Oshawa's numbers get pumped because of fewer trains stopping in Guildwood. There are so many times I've driven to Oshawa because the timings from Oshawa work out better than Guildwood.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Eglinton has value certainly, but between it and something around Sheppard I'm not convinced either way.

As far as Durham, Highway 12 seems about the right location, although I definitely see a good case for a Markham station around Reesor/Hwy 7 with connection to 407 GO and VIVA.

I agree entirely about Oshawa, and there's actually an even worse iteration. The first morning train to Ottawa at the moment doesn't do Guildwood and is too early to count on a connection from the first eastbound Lakeshore GO train. Probably says more that GO needs an earlier train than VIA's doing something wrong, but this sort of problem really is what ends up with people driving to stations, if not giving up altogether.

 

[kEiThZ]

Eglinton has value certainly, but between it and something around Sheppard I'm not convinced either way.

I've not seen anything on a Sheppard station. Last I saw was that Eglinton was the station for eastern Toronto, possibly the whole eastern GTA.

As far as Durham, Highway 12 seems about the right location, although I definitely see a good case for a Markham station around Reesor/Hwy 7.

It's a challenge to place a station here to be sure. Has to serve York and Durham and northeastern Scarborough at the same time. Would probably have a much higher proportion of riders accessing the station by car, compared to Eglinton. So highway access becomes important too.