Bordercollie
Senior Member
Why do you say that? During the protests last year on the Kingston SUB CN used ONR to get trains from A-B. Also ONR and CN interchange cars with each other on a daily basis. So this is a two way relationship.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
I’m with you in spirit, but the reality is that all political parties at the federal level welcome the opportunity to spend money on provincial matters on everything under the sun.... so long as the funding is released on political lines as a matter of buying votes.
What I would argue for is not to spit into the wind by opposing this, (it’s a fantasy to think this can be overcome in our system) but rather finding more transparent and objective methods for doling out the gravy so there is greater discipline and more attention to measuring the value obtained.
That’s why I mentioned the recent transit funding announcement.... Ottawa has always funded municipal transit, but only in fits and starts and tied to the election cycle. Might as well admit that this item is part of the federal cash flow and build it into the budgets as a well structured program that can be scrutinised for equity and value created.
If I were king for a day, I would execute a Mike Harris style downloading of federal programs, to align revenue to where money is spent. IMhO Canada overtaxes at the federal level and then passes the money back to the provinces as a political exercise, and not as an income redistribution exercise or a valid social programs exercise. The provinces would have much more ability to fund what they need if the contribution to federal coffers were reduced.
But I’m not King, and I’m enough of a realist to accept that I’m a minority of one, so instead I am quite willing to see the provinces line up to ask Ottawa to fund regional passenger trains. If province A declines, the money will just get spent in province b... hoprfully on rail not on highways. That’s what our federal system is all about.... provinces competing to get their own money back.
- Paul
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
I would rate the two agencies equally in their relationship with CN. The differentiators would be the depth of pockets when CN quotes a price. Neither agency could find the funding as things stand today.
Part of the funding needed would undoubtedly go to adding capacity on the part of the route that runs on CN’s transcontinental line. That’s where the proposal becomes more than a simple negotiation. CN has valid interests in that line that have to be respected, but as substantial public money would be involved, there ought to be some objective test of whatever it might seek as a solution. VIA might be better able to navigate that discussion under present conditions, as it regularly faces that with both CP and CN . It’s an area where I feel legislation is needed to provide a more level playing field, but now I’m back in thread # 3.
- Paul
roger1818
Senior Member
One also has to remember that Canada and the USA have very different constitutions. As this paper says, "In Canada, the intent, clearly reflected in the Constitution of 1867, was for the central government to predominate," where as in USA, "the constitutional plan was one of states' rights." Interestingly, both countries (through judicial interpretation) have drifted towards the other, though both still lean towards their original constitutional intent. We can't assume that just because they do things one way south of the boarder, the same thing will work well here.
crs1026
Superstar
The non-sequitur in passenger rail space is when the governance is structured as a "predominantly central" proposition, but when a specific possible route is mentioned the knee-jerk federal response is "that's a provincial responsibility". If things are managed (and funded) in a predominantly central manner, one would expect that Ottawa would respond with sensitivity and concern to requests from the provinces, a "maybe can do, let's look at it" attitude at least.
As much as it may grate with @Urban Sky, how that plays out in public space is people (like UT participants, for example) asking "Why doesn't VIA do X?". If it's not VIA's problem, it certainly ought to be someone in Ottawa's mandate to accept and respond to such questions. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that anyone in Ottawa actually cares. VIA's mandate becomes non-negotiable, and therefore tunnel vision. Unfortunately, VIA becomes the only visible target, and VIA's life becomes that much more difficult. That dynamic really needs to change.
- Paul
dowlingm
Senior Member
Upthread and elsewhere @Urban Sky raised the utility of bus-train connections, passenger expectations about buses holding for delayed trains and vice versa. At the moment VIA connections with bus operators are, as I understand it, a convenience marketing arrangement but the Amtrak Thruway system gives a glimpse of what an extensive and more formalized arrangement could look like but with the continuance of the bus operator's own corporate and branding identity, since they would use the same drivers and vehicles for other routes.
It is accepted that, like direct provincial support of rail service existing and expanded, there would likely need to be some changes in thinking in Ottawa, if not legislative underpinning, to see a move towards this model. Given the battering the private bus sector has taken nationwide in the last 36 months or so, there might be some appetite for cooperation rather than competition.
The one thing that such arrangements have going for them in the 2020s is the expansion of trainset tracking and motorcoach tracking. This allows dispatchers on both sides of the arrangements to estimate the degree of impact to the service and in turn alert passengers with firm bookings, without relying on the other operator to provide initial notification of the issue.
*edit to correct link to Urban Sky to the right username
It is accepted that, like direct provincial support of rail service existing and expanded, there would likely need to be some changes in thinking in Ottawa, if not legislative underpinning, to see a move towards this model. Given the battering the private bus sector has taken nationwide in the last 36 months or so, there might be some appetite for cooperation rather than competition.
The one thing that such arrangements have going for them in the 2020s is the expansion of trainset tracking and motorcoach tracking. This allows dispatchers on both sides of the arrangements to estimate the degree of impact to the service and in turn alert passengers with firm bookings, without relying on the other operator to provide initial notification of the issue.
*edit to correct link to Urban Sky to the right username
micheal_can
Senior Member
While I like the idea of a Via bus line; of which they used to have, It could be used as a tool to close existing Via service that under performs.
robmausser
Senior Member
A provision could be written such that Via could only run bus service to compliment existing rail lines, not replace them.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Why should VIA operate bus service in competition to provincial or private operators like Ontario Northland or Maritime Express?
nfitz
Superstar
Looking at this post from another thread, the 1988 VIA cuts to the Peterborough service look even more unnecessary. They'd have saved more cutting the Montreal to Quebec City service. The loss of the Halifax to Sydney and Toronto to North Bay service also looks unnecessary. Perhaps time to roll back these cuts, perhaps with some provincial support.
littlewill1166
Active Member
To act as a feeder service, and to allow for the reallocation of rolling stock from underperforming trains 85/88 to trains that are always full 73/78.
dowlingm
Senior Member
My understanding of Thruway's model is that at least some routes are run by such operators and not by Amtrak, like a codeshare; it would be trivial to direct VIA not to sell tickets on reservia under such arrangements other than for services with a train leg.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
The solution for trains 85 and 88 is not to replace them by a bus service, but to schedule them at a less unattractive time slot...
Then how do you want to solve the inherent conflict between the needs of intermodal passengers who want the connecting bus hold until whatever time the train arrives at the interchange station (even if that causes a delay by 4 or even 12 hours) against the needs of local (i.e. the bus operator’s own) passengers, who want to arrive on time? Amtrak’s “codeshare” agreements only work because it enjoys the operational priority VIA so sorely lacks...
Last edited:
roger1818
Senior Member
Looking at this post from another thread, the 1988 VIA cuts to the Peterborough service look even more unnecessary. They'd have saved more cutting the Montreal to Quebec City service. The loss of the Halifax to Sydney and Toronto to North Bay service also looks unnecessary. Perhaps time to roll back these cuts, perhaps with some provincial support.
HFR would bring back service to Peterborough. Having said that, it really depends on which numbers you consider important. While the Subsidy per Passenger for Montreal-Quebec is significantly higher (a bad thing), the Ridership, Cost Recovery and Occupancy Rate are also higher (good things).
Ridership | Subsidy per passenger | Cost recovery | Occupancy Rate | |
| Montreal-Quebec | 287,111 | $73.80 | 28.4% | 39% |
| Toronto-Havelock | 59,067 | $32.10 | 24.5% | 32% |
What the table doesn't tell you is that it is 272 km between Montreal-Quebec and 162km between Toronto and Havelock, so the Subsidies per Passenger km are $0.27 and $0.20 respectively. Still higher for Montreal-Quebec, but more reasonable and it does have better Ridership, Cost recovery and Occupancy Rate figures.
littlewill1166
Active Member
It's already been replaced by a bus, just not by a VIA bus. I don't see either train coming back for a very long time, to be honest. Also, I'm not sure how the two trains could be timed better given that 85 is timed to connect with 73, and 88 is timed to connect with 78.
PC Connect - Your Community Transit System
www.perthcounty.ca