[Urban Sky]

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

As indicated in its title, this thread is dedicated to the discussion of any passenger rail services outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor, which lost passenger rail service or have it seen reduced to a less-than-daily service.

Currently, these discussions are reliably clogging up the "VIA Rail" thread, which is not the right place to discuss this topic, for at least four reasons:

1) Not all these corridors were historically served by VIA (or CN and CP in pre-VIA days). For instance, Ontario Northland and the Algoma Central Railroad operated passenger rail service in Ontario, while BC Rail operated in British Columbia.
2) VIA is not the only current operator of intercity passenger rail service in Canada. For instance, Ontario Northland still operates the Polar Bear Express, the Keewatin Railway Company operates in Northern Manitoba and Tshiuetin Rail Transportation operates through Northern Quebec and Labrador.
3) The operation of at-least-daily passenger rail services outside densely populated areas (the so-called "Regional services"), were eliminated from VIA's mandate with the January 1990 cuts*, meaning that VIA would not be able to restore daily non-corridor passenger rail service even if it wanted.
4) VIA is not the only operator which could operate daily non-corridor passenger rail services, as any level of government can contract whatever operator they deem suitable.

* Due to a lawsuit by the BC government, service on Vancouver Island was spared from its termination unlike all other "Regional services". Nevertheless, the lawsuit was eventually dismissed and service was terminated when the tracks had become unsafe to operate on.

 

[Urban Sky]

From the VIA Rail thread:

You make a valid point, but I think it’s being expressed a bit mean-spiritedly. Those in remoter regions cannot expect transportation to have the form or convenience that is possible in more densely populated areas, I agree. But ”like it or move” is a bit arbitrary. As a very large country, we need to be very concerned about encouraging development in the hinterland (assuming, of course, that there are resource or other industries out there to make that investment sustainable).

The apt analogy that strikes me this morning, is owning a snowblower. My neighbour owns one, and I never have. At this precise moment as I watch him use it I’m envious, but as I do the math on price, frequency of use, and effort required to maintain and store a snowblower all year long to be ready for the odd blizzard, I still can’t justify the expense. This doesn’t mean I oppose snowblowers, there are other places where snowfall is heavier and everyone sensibly owns one. But not here in Etobicoke.

I think we would be well served to link Northern Ontario to the south by rail. For the most part, we actually have spare rail capacity to do that, if we focus on Toronto-North Bay- Timmins/Sault. However, in an environment where we haven’t even invested in Toronto-Kitchener-London or Toronto-Niagara, (both of which I can get really worked up about as missed opportunities) this may not be the time. Yet.

Whenever I think about Northern Ontario rail, I am reminded of the rail lines to Bodo Norway. Norway certainly proves that one can use rail to structure transportation in remote, sparsely populated areas. Having said that, while there are passenger trains up there, thay are not exactly on the hour - it’s a spartan, well though out but not lavish timetable. And, the Norwegian context is a light year away in terms of taxation and attitudes to public infrastructure investment.

- Paul

Not everyone shops around for places to live. Plenty of people want to live where they were born, where their friends and family are, and in a community where they feel comfortable. Places like Sudbury have seen incredible decay in train service in the last 40 years. You can't take train service away from people and then chastise them for not living somewhere with good train service.

You are both missing my point: I agree that access to a meaningful service level of public transportation is almost a basic civic right and I believe that any Canadian can demand the solidarity of his fellow Citizens and taxpayers to fund a certain service level, regardless of in which part of their municipality, region, province/territory or country their community is located. However, I don't think that I'm in a minority amongst all taxpayers in this country to expect that economic considerations should still be respected, especially where a more expensive mode of transport transportation does not hold any significant competitive advantage over a much cheaper mode.

If we analyze the reports released by Ontario Northland, the cost of operating its bus service is just under $4 per scheduled km, whereas that same figure is $170 (!) for its sole rail operation with passenger service:

Spoiler

Note: re-post from the VIA Rail thread

I admit that the $170 per train-km looks a bit outlandish, so let's instead take the per-train-km cost of VIA's cheapest service, the $26.11 per train-km for the Sudbury-White River service:

Spoiler

Source: compiled with data from VIA Rail's Annual Report 2019 and from train-mileage figures I presented in the VIA Rail thread

Note that Ontario Northland's bus service costs $3.80 per bus-km, of which it manages to recover $2.87 through its revenue and only requires a subsidy for the remaining $0.93. Therefore, unless you are able to generate almost nine times* as much revenue than what Ontario Northland extracts from its bus passengers in basically the same geographic area (and partly on the same routes), the taxpayers will pay an excessive amount of subsidy for a service which could have been provided at a fraction of cost to the taxpayer.

This is why I say: meaningful access to public transit is (to a certain degree) a civic right and a public obligation. Providing rail service where a bus service would be much more economic is a luxury. Therefore, I did not "chastise" anyone for demanding better public transit or suggested that he should move to a place which is actually blessed with somewhat decent public transport. However, I did suggest that if you insist that "public transportation" has to be provided in the form of a rail service, then the only action you have to escape from your misery is to move somewhere which provides the kind of public transport choices you deem essential for yourself. And to stay in Paul's picture: what @micheal_can has been doing here and on Skyscraper Page for the last few years is equivalent to demanding that the public pays for your housing when you have insufficient income (which is a civic right and public obligation), but insisting that it has to be a mansion with 9 bedrooms and as many bathrooms...

*Calculation: ($26.11-$0.93)/($3.80-$0.93) = 8.77 [operating cost - operating subsidy = required revenues]

 

[ShonTron]

Sorry, why do we need a new thread here?

We have a thread for Ontario Northland (including rail, the loss of the Northlander, and the bus service), we have a VIA Rail thread, and we have a thread for intercity bus services, that touches upon some of the issues here. I don't want to go through the VIA and ONR threads to parse out anything that you think belongs here either. De-constructing the retail thread into its own subforum a few years back was enough for me.

 

[Urban Sky]

Sorry, why do we need a new thread here?

We have a thread for Ontario Northland (including rail, the loss of the Northlander, and the bus service), we have a VIA Rail thread, and we have a thread for intercity bus services, that touches upon some of the issues here. I don't want to go through the VIA and ONR threads to parse out anything that you think belongs here either. De-constructing the retail thread into its own subforum a few years back was enough for me.

I have provided the reasons why I believe that this discussion doesn't belong into the VIA Rail thread in the opening post. I would not expect anyone to go through the 600+ pages of VIA Rail thread to find any related posts which might have been posted over the last 7 years, but I have provided a list of approximately 20 comments which came along with the 2 comments I quoted in post #2. If you deem that this discussions are better kept together with the discussions about the "Ontario Northland and the end of the Northlander", then please move my post #2 into the "Ontario Northland and the end of the Northlander" thread and close or delete this thread.

Either way, I'm not the only one who is completely exasperated with having a certain commenter abusing the VIA Rail thread every single month to complain about the lack of daily passenger rail service in his home town of Sudbury and how it is below his dignity to even suggest to him to ride the bus or to lobby for better intercity bus service. I'm not saying that these discussions shouldn't be on UT (even though this is "Urban Toronto", not "Rural Sudbury") - but please allow a way to keep them outside the VIA Rail thread...

Thank you!

 

[DSC]

In general there is less passenger rail outside the corridor because the potential ridership is just not there (low population density). I like passenger trains very much but they (like subways) really do not (or cannot) be everywhere.

 

[ShonTron]

Might be better, then, to have a thread dedicated to the HFR and any other corridor improvements (like the new Charger rolling stock), and have the existing thread for VIA service and intercity rail general discussion.

 

[crs1026]

^Agree we don’t need another thread - too fragmented.

Things that fall outside the here-and-now of VIA’s current efforts within its existing mandate could just go in the general rail policy thread. We do need a thread that discusses “what could/ought to be done in the rail passenger area in Canada/Ontario” - but without making that discussion sound like a criticism or encroachment on VIA’s efforts or performance or business plan.

The Northlander debate has a life of its own, so that thread might as well keep going, but hopefully firewalled so that one isn’t dragged into that discussion every time we talk more generally.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

Sorry, why do we need a new thread here?

We have a thread for Ontario Northland (including rail, the loss of the Northlander, and the bus service), we have a VIA Rail thread, and we have a thread for intercity bus services, that touches upon some of the issues here. I don't want to go through the VIA and ONR threads to parse out anything that you think belongs here either. De-constructing the retail thread into its own subforum a few years back was enough for me.

I think it is a needed conversation because, contrary to popular belief in Toronto, VIA does serve areas that are outside Ontario. Perhaps you have heard of a small part of the country known as 'West of Windsor'? This is to say nothing of our Atlantic Canadian friends.

I have always been a proponent of getting rid of all VIA services outside of the Corridor with the potential exception of some summer tourist routes where ridership levels are at least passable. I completely agree with UranbSky's comment that public transit access to the country's cities and towns is a near necessity and also agree with his/her notion that it needn't be rail as it is a luxury that is only justifiable on the busiest of routes. VIA should NOT be a rail company but rather a transportation one which includes both rail and bus service and the 2 can compliment each other exceptionally well. Torontonians of all people should know, just because everyone wants a subway doesn't mean they should get it.

You should be able to buy a single ticket from St.John's to Saskatoon, London to Leamington, or Victoria to Victoriaville. Thru a comprehensive system of trains and buses, VIA would reach millions of Canadians who currently have absolutely no access to VIA rail. Such a system would also greatly boost rail ridership. As it stands right now now someone from St.Thomas with 45,000 can't even get to London on transit little alone Toronto via rail. Such feeder routes would cause rail ridership to soar. It's akin to subway ridership. Think of how many fewer people would take the subway if there were no buses to get you to the station.

 

[Urban Sky]

Might be better, then, to have a thread dedicated to the HFR and any other corridor improvements (like the new Charger rolling stock), and have the existing thread for VIA service and intercity rail general discussion.

The name of this forum is “Urban Toronto” and part of Skyrise Cities, which has sub-forums for other parts of this country. Why should fantasy discussions about what lines in Northern Ontario or on Vancouver Island ought to have frequent passenger rail service returned remain in the “VIA Rail” thread, while discussions about VIA’s actual plans (“HFR and any other corridor improvements (like the new Charger rolling stock)”) get outsourced into a separate thread? In your own words, what should the “VIA Rail” thread be for if a separate thread for all corridor-related stuff was created?

And @crs1026, with 200 pages of discussion amassed over the last year alone and new entrants being routinely asked to “read up what has been discussed already”, don’t you see that our thread is getting rather crowded recently? In your own words, at which point would discussions become too off-topic for the “VIA Rail” thread?

@ssiguy2, I really hope you copied and pasted this from one of your last posts, as there is not a single point which I haven’t seen you already posting at least a dozen times in the “VIA Rail” thread...

 

[lenaitch]

Note that Ontario Northland's bus service costs $3.80 per bus-km, of which it manages to recover $2.87 through its revenue and only requires a subsidy for the remaining $0.93. Therefore, unless you are able to generate almost nine times* as much revenue than what Ontario Northland extracts from its bus passengers in basically the same geographic area (and partly on the same routes), the taxpayers will pay an excessive amount of subsidy for a service which could have been provided at a fraction of cost to the taxpayer.

One difference is that the Polar Bear Express is a wilderness service when cannot be replicated by bus. More fitting avatars would be VIA Sudbury-White R. River or Hudson's Bay or some of the other non-VIA remote services.

I have always been a proponent of getting rid of all VIA services outside of the Corridor with the potential exception of some summer tourist routes where ridership levels are at least passable.

I would argue for the retention of the trans-Canada service. Short of a private operator I can't see the provinces jointly picking it up. It is, after all, VIA Rail Canada, not VIA Rail Quebec-Ontario. Same for the Mandatory (remote) services. On the other hand, should Gaspe trackage ever get improved and renewal considered, pax service there should should devolve to the province. It was, primarily, a tourist service.

As for threads, I'll play in whatever sandbox others decide. I'm just a casual observer anyway.

 

[crs1026]

And @crs1026, with 200 pages of discussion amassed over the last year alone and new entrants being routinely asked to “read up what has been discussed already”, don’t you see that our thread is getting rather crowded recently? In your own words, at which point would discussions become too off-topic for the “VIA Rail” thread?

I hope my wordy response elsewhere answered this. It’s unreasonable for the VIA discussion to answer for anything its mandate doesn’t allow it to pursue. Much of the grumbling in the VIA thread may read like criticism of VIA, when it’s better directed to the policies that shape VIA‘s destiny. One can appreciate VIA’s performance yet argue for VIA’s mandate to be much different. I think the tension in this forum is because those two different conversations are colliding.


- Paul

 

[nfitz]

In your own words, at which point would discussions become too off-topic for the “VIA Rail” thread?

I'd say at the point, when it's dealing with a community that has never had rail service. Yellowknife?

Why we need to be discussing that in local forum for Toronto I don't know. If anything, it should go to the https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/forums/general-discussions.13/ as there's no actual infrastructure to discuss. More like policy.

 

[Urban Sky]

I hope my wordy response elsewhere answered this. It’s unreasonable for the VIA discussion to answer for anything its mandate doesn’t allow it to pursue. Much of the grumbling in the VIA thread may read like criticism of VIA, when it’s better directed to the policies that shape VIA‘s destiny. One can appreciate VIA’s performance yet argue for VIA’s mandate to be much different. I think the tension in this forum is because those two different conversations are colliding.


- Paul

Please correct me if I read this and your "wordy response elsewhere" horribly wrong, but I suddenly believe that we may be able to agree on a shared vision of what the "VIA Rail" thread and the three other threads I created should be used for (and what not):

• The "VIA Rail" thread should be used only for discussions relating directly or indirectly with VIA's history (including CN/CP), present-day VIA and its various initiatives for the future (e.g. increased service in SWO, "Eastern Intercity", HFR, new fleet, Heritage Fleet Program). Discussions may include ideas to modify existing services, but should still acknowledge the reality and constraints the Canadian passenger rail sector (and especially: VIA) operates in.
• This thread should be renamed to something like "Fantasy rail discussions" and accommodate any proposals or ideas which are not yet pursued by either VIA, Metrolinx or Ontario Northland and therefore don't fit into the existing threads for these three railroads.
• The thread "Transportation Policy in Canada" should be used to discuss the government's approach to administering and regulating the rail industry and what would need to change to move certain proposal from the domain of fantasy into something which might actually become attainable.
• Finally, the thread "General railway discussions" is the right place for any rail-related discussions which don't fit into any of the above threads or any other existing thread.

Splitting the VIA Rail thread would be appropriate if we were overwhelmed with various on-topic discussions (like intense discussions of HFR or the new fleet going on simultaneously), but the problem are rather the off-topic discussions which either have very little (if anything) to do with VIA itself or completely ignore the complex constraints under which it operates. And not keeping fantasy rail discussions separate from threads concerning specific railroads may very well lead us to the same rail proposal (let's say: daily Sudbury-Toronto service) being simultaneously discussed in the "VIA Rail", "Ontario Northland and the End of the Northlander" and one of the many GO Transit threads, just because different people have different visions about which railroad should pursue the proposal and eventually operate it...

 

[2transpo]

Island Corridor Rail worst performing option for transit | Chemainus Valley Courier

ICF commitment not in sync with South Island Transportation Strategy

www.google.ca

Why reviving the E&N is a bad idea. It is pretty much the most useless rail corridor in Canada.

This applies to the OBRY too.

 

[Urban Sky]

Island Corridor Rail worst performing option for transit | Chemainus Valley Courier

ICF commitment not in sync with South Island Transportation Strategy

www.google.ca

Why reviving the E&N is a bad idea. It is pretty much the most useless rail corridor in Canada.

This applies to the OBRY too.

Vancouver Island is arguably the most challenging non-rural area in Canada to serve with meaningful public transport options. Thanks to its extremely unfortunate demography (Victoria accounts for more than half of its population) and geography (Vancouver-Victoria would be a buzzing corridor if it wasn’t for that stupid water inbetween)...