[kEiThZ]

On this one specific issue he has a point. Studies have shown that, all things being equal, people do prefer rail over buses. In Ottawa of course, all things are certainly not equal. The same principles apply in Canada. We're not fundamentally different from people in other countries.

Except that all things are never equal. The choice is rarely between a 1:1 bus or train service where schedule and cost are matched. The preference for a train is usually largely driven by the permanence of the train offering up frequent and convenient services. Do you think the Japanese or French would choose once or twice a day rail service over hourly bus service to their town? I doubt it. And of course, here at home that's not even the choice. It's mostly, between having bus service and having no service.

 

[reaperexpress]

LRT done properly doesn't have to be slower than a bus in mixed traffic. The Calgary LRT is very fast in most of the system.

Yes that's why I said that it would have been fine, if not for all the speed restrictions

 

[micheal_can]

Because it's a terrible idea? Instead of a train from Toronto to Ottawa being 30-40 mins late, you'll end up with 2 hr delays when you create even more dependencies with a continuous route. A continuous service would only work if the entire Corridor is owned and operated by VIA. And that's not going to happen in our lifetime.

Yet we have Toronto to Vancouver and Montreal to Halifax and people wonder why people along the route are not satisfied with them.

Nope. Most people have a car to get to work and to get groceries. They don't buy a car because they might need to take a trip once every 3-6 months. That's what car rentals, buses, trains and flights are for.

And you know this instinctively if you're being honest with yourself. You don't own a vehicle because you drive to Toronto every few months. You own one because you live very far from centre of town and you need a vehicle for basically everything.

Part of solving our car dependency is to have options to not need it. Sure, I need it for groceries,but if I am going to Toronto for the weekend, why not drive to my local existing Via station (we have 3 to choose from, 2 that serve going to Toronto.) take the train down, use transit, take the train back and drive home? Via does not need to stop at our front door, but it should be reliable and frequent enough to be useful. For the Via long distance routes, once a day each way is all that is needed for frequency to become more useful.

What exactly is "long distance transit"?

And what percentage of the population is using this service given that StatsCan said the average commute was 24 mins and the average transit commute was 45 mins. We aren't wasting tax dollars build services catering to 0.001% of the population.

Long distance transit, as I was referring to is intercity travel on any public owned or operated service. Via, bus service and even air travel is what I would lump it in to. Is there a proper term for this? It is not commuting per se, but can be. So, for example, Toronto - Montreal as a opposed to Toronto to Mississauga.

 

[roger1818]

The way to have people ditch their cars is to make the long distance routes useful. Pick a major city along the Canadian or Ocean. Now, pick a smaller city or town within a reasonable drive to The bigger city. Try to do a weekend trip. It is not possible. Try it in the Corridor and except forgoing from the extreme ends to the extreme other end, it is very possible, and common. Have people leave their car in the station parking lot and take the long distance transit.

It seems as though we have very different definitions of ditching one’s car. To me it isn’t parking it while on vacation, but otherwise living a car dependent life. It is about not owning a car and using alternative modes of transportation for most of one’s daily activities. I shouldn’t be surprised that the idea of anyone choosing to not own a car is totally out of your grid though.

 

[MisterF]

Neither you nor him seem to understand that the question is not whether a train draws more people out of their cars than a bus operating at the same speed and frequency, but whether the same taxpayer amount spent to fund the operation of a rail service draws the same number of people out of their cars than if invested in expanding Intercity bus services.

Even if we assume that a train is twice as popular as a bus, the operating cost of every train-km is approximately ten times that of a bus-km. Now assume that the bus operates with a cost-recovery of 50% and you‘ll nead each of these twice as many riders to pay 9.5 times as much for their fare to match the subsidy need of the bus:

Bus
$50 ticket price
20 passengers (assumed ridership)
$1,000 total revenues
$2,000 operating costs [$1,000/50%]
$1,000 operating subsidy

Train
Operating cost: $20,000 (i.e. 10 times that of the bus)
Desired subsidy need: $1,000 (i.e. same as bus)
Required revenues: $19,000
Assumed ridership: 40 passengers (i.e. twice that of bus)
Required average fare: $475 (i.e. 9.5 times the bus fare)

Attempting to replace a subsidized intercity bus service with an even more subsidized rail service is insane…

I understand it just fine. You're reading way too much into my post. I'm not making any argument about how money should be spent.

Except that all things are never equal. The choice is rarely between a 1:1 bus or train service where schedule and cost are matched. The preference for a train is usually largely driven by the permanence of the train offering up frequent and convenient services. Do you think the Japanese or French would choose once or twice a day rail service over hourly bus service to their town? I doubt it. And of course, here at home that's not even the choice. It's mostly, between having bus service and having no service.

The point of the "all things being equal" is to remove other factors and concentrate solely on the question of whether people prefer one mode over another. That's the only way to answer that question.

 

[micheal_can]

It seems as though we have very different definitions of ditching one’s car. To me it isn’t parking it while on vacation, but otherwise living a car dependent life. It is about not owning a car and using alternative modes of transportation for most of one’s daily activities. I shouldn’t be surprised that the idea of anyone choosing to not own a car is totally out of your grid though.

Actually, no. I have a family member who made it through most of their adult life without the need for getting their license. They used to live in downtown Toronto and have moved to the suburbs. As for me, to be able to actually ditch the car,The home I live in would be worth 100x more. It is a choice. Part of having a choice is having options.

 

[micheal_can]

Neither you nor him seem to understand that the question is not whether a train draws more people out of their cars than a bus operating at the same speed and frequency, but whether the same taxpayer amount spent to fund the operation of a rail service draws the same number of people out of their cars than if invested in expanding Intercity bus services.

Even if we assume that a train is twice as popular as a bus, the operating cost of every train-km is approximately ten times that of a bus-km. Now assume that the bus operates with a cost-recovery of 50% and you‘ll nead each of these twice as many riders to pay 9.5 times as much for their fare to match the subsidy need of the bus:

Bus
$50 ticket price
20 passengers (assumed ridership)
$1,000 total revenues
$2,000 operating costs [$1,000/50%]
$1,000 operating subsidy

Train
Operating cost: $20,000 (i.e. 10 times that of the bus)
Desired subsidy need: $1,000 (i.e. same as bus)
Required revenues: $19,000
Assumed ridership: 40 passengers (i.e. twice that of bus)
Required average fare: $475 (i.e. 9.5 times the bus fare)

Attempting to replace a subsidized intercity bus service with an even more subsidized rail service is insane…

All taxpayers want is to pay less tax. Most do not care about what the government spends it on. So, basing government spending on those that want less taxes is exactly why Reagan was so successful in getting the "trickle down economics" passed. Everyone thinks if they work hard enough they can become a billionaire, and when they do, they do not want to pay taxes. I understand the realities of our world. Doesn't mean I won't advocate for change.

 

[Urban Sky]

Yet we have Toronto to Vancouver and Montreal to Halifax and people wonder why people along the route are not satisfied with them.

You can bet that these people wouldn’t bother much about VIA‘s schedules if bus services hadn’t been disrupted between Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country for almost four years and reduced between Central Canada and the Prairies to a single departure per week (!). But to someone who cares about nothing but trains, this of course doesn‘t bother you the slightest…

Part of solving our car dependency is to have options to not need it. Sure, I need it for groceries,but if I am going to Toronto for the weekend, why not drive to my local existing Via station (we have 3 to choose from, 2 that serve going to Toronto.) take the train down, use transit, take the train back and drive home? Via does not need to stop at our front door, but it should be reliable and frequent enough to be useful. For the Via long distance routes, once a day each way is all that is needed for frequency to become more useful.

Just take the Ontario Northland bus and stop whining that rail service is not useful! (It‘s simply not meant to be useful for what you want to use it for)

Long distance transit, as I was referring to is intercity travel on any public owned or operated service. Via, bus service and even air travel is what I would lump it in to. Is there a proper term for this? It is not commuting per se, but can be. So, for example, Toronto - Montreal as a opposed to Toronto to Mississauga.

Intercity transport is not transit. Local/municipal bus/streetcar/metro/LRT service is transit run by local transit agencies. Intercity services are transportation services, especially those involving airplanes…

All taxpayers want is to pay less tax. Most do not care about what the government spends it on. So, basing government spending on those that want less taxes is exactly why Reagan was so successful in getting the "trickle down economics" passed. Everyone thinks if they work hard enough they can become a billionaire, and when they do, they do not want to pay taxes. I understand the realities of our world. Doesn't mean I won't advocate for change.

Just because you disagree with the priorities of the majority of your fellow citizens doesn’t mean that we should do the opposite of what they want. If you want to convince people, you need to show that you understand and accommodate their needs…

 

[Natika33]

So you want to reduce the number of fright trains to allow more passenger trains, but want to legislate that freight off of the highways as well? Is your plan to somehow reduce the amount of freight or are you proposing some other method of transporting it?

A better option might be to legislate pickup trucks and SUVs off of the highways.

Or we could build a dedicated passenger line & not change anything about the freight line.

 

[roger1818]

Actually, no. I have a family member who made it through most of their adult life without the need for getting their license. They used to live in downtown Toronto and have moved to the suburbs. As for me, to be able to actually ditch the car,The home I live in would be worth 100x more. It is a choice. Part of having a choice is having options.

So you admit that it was your choice to live where are you do, but yet you want the government to pay you $1000 each time you want to go to Toronto (my guess is the approximate per passenger subsidy for the rail service you feel you deserve) because of the choice you made to live in a car dependent “city.” You could’ve chosen to live somewhere else that is just as affordable but has has good train service.

I’m curious if you’ve ever added up the true cost of owning and operating your vehicle (amortize purchase price, insurance, gas, and maintenance).

 

[micheal_can]

So you admit that it was your choice to live where are you do, but yet you want the government to pay you $1000 each time you want to go to Toronto (my guess is the approximate per passenger subsidy for the rail service you feel you deserve) because of the choice you made to live in a car dependent “city.”

I don't think the government should cover that high. Urbansky can confirm this, but I think the Canadian is subsidized about $400 per passenger. Maybe if it had a better frequency more people would use it, driving down that subsidy.

 

[roger1818]

Or we could build a dedicated passenger line & not change anything about the freight line.

I agree that’s the best option but you’re taking my post out of context.

 

[roger1818]

I don't think the government should cover that high. Urbansky can confirm this, but I think the Canadian is subsidized about $400 per passenger. Maybe if it had a better frequency more people would use it, driving down that subsidy.

So you think VIA could get thousands of rich foreign tourists a year to take the train from Toronto to Sudbury, and back as a luxury land cruise?

 

[micheal_can]

You can bet that these people wouldn’t bother much about VIA‘s schedules if bus services hadn’t been disrupted between Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country for almost four years and reduced between Central Canada and the Prairies to a single departure per week (!). But to someone who cares about nothing but trains, this of course doesn‘t bother you the slightest…

Pick something that the government does. Most don't care till they need it, whether it be for the service it provides, or for a talking point.

Just take the Ontario Northland bus and stop whining that rail service is not useful! (It‘s simply not meant to be useful for what you want to use it for)

I'll do one better. I'll drive 2 hours, park my truck and tank the Northlander in a few years. Much better than dealing with Toronto traffic.

Intercity transport is not transit. Local/municipal bus/streetcar/metro/LRT service is transit run by local transit agencies. Intercity services are transportation services, especially those involving airplanes…

So, intercity transportation services is the proper term?
Thank you.

 

[micheal_can]

So you think VIA could get thousands of rich foreign tourists a year to take the train from Toronto to Sudbury, and back as a luxury land cruise?

From what I have heard, the Canadian has been sold out much of this last summer. So, if they can run it7x a week instead of 2, maybe it might be filled with those you speak of.