[micheal_can]

The population of Canada was burned into my schoolboy brain as 20-22 million - and here we are talking about the potential of the population reaching 60 million before too long. That says that we have a lot of growth ahead of us, and huge opportunity yo talk about what kind of infrastructure investments will serve us best.
There’s no question that we need healthy and effective airlines, but there is plenty of room to decide not to expand either highway or air further by building appropriate rail facilities and using that investment to alter modal share - but it’s a question of degree and balance.

- Paul

We are sitting at around 40 million.

Sadly, when it comes to infrastructure we set the bar way to high to do anything. They are still building new freeways in the GTA with only 4 lanes. If we were doing what you speak of, no freeway within 100km of the CN Tower would be less than 6.

Like you said, it depends on how much ridership potential and dispatching flexibility the line has. If the line is fairly slow (not attracting much demand) and it's built as a single-tracked line then there won't be much possibility for competition since the schedule would be limited to a specific service pattern they designed the passing tracks on. But if the line is very popular and is fully double tracked, it would technically be possible to have the Government of Canada own the line and just let open access operators use it, paying nominal track fees.

How would you envision a second passenger operator work? I could see a freight operator doing movements along it, but I do not see a business case for another passenger carrier.

 

[roger1818]

The Windsor-Quebec corridor has well over 20 million people at this point. That's more than a lot of European countries including Austria, the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, Greece, Denmark, etc., all of which have highly developed rail networks. The lack of European solutions here isn't because of population.

I’ve said this before but a big difference between the Windsor-Quebec corridor and those “ similar sized” European countries is the Windsor-Quebec corridor isn’t an autonomous country, but part of a larger country with double the population. As a result, unlike those countries, half of the population doesn’t live close enough to the corridor to benefit from any upgrades made, so it isn’t a priority.

 

[micheal_can]

I’ve said this before but a big difference between the Windsor-Quebec corridor and those “ similar sized” European countries is the Windsor-Quebec corridor isn’t an autonomous country, but part of a larger country with double the population. As a result, unlike those countries, half of the population doesn’t live close enough to the corridor to benefit from any upgrades made, so it isn’t a priority.

Part of that is that the wealth is not spread around such that the cost of investment is seen as worth it as it will eventually reach 'us'. An example of that would be to ask why a Corridor like service is not being talked about for between Calgary and Edmonton. The answer is that that is not a focus. The focus right ow is trying to keep what we have going. If Canadians knew that once the QC-W Corridor was fully equipped with a new fleet that other areas would be identified for places that they could use the option to buy more and have similar service, Via might matter.

 

[nfitz]

I’ve said this before but a big difference between the Windsor-Quebec corridor and those “ similar sized” European countries is the Windsor-Quebec corridor isn’t an autonomous country, but part of a larger country with double the population. As a result, unlike those countries, half of the population doesn’t live close enough to the corridor to benefit from any upgrades made, so it isn’t a priority.

Which is why the corridor should be a provincial corridor. By both Quebec and Ontario - or as they used to be called - Canada.

 

[Urban Sky]

Not sure how you get the hatred of passengers. I hate empty trains.Empty trains are a problem that should be prevented. I want all trains to be full all the time. Maybe not standby/being bumped, like planes, but full enough that the fare paid covers the cost of that train.

I‘m just connecting the dots:

• When GO struggles to attract passengers from London at an ungodly early hour, you demand that they put the arrival even earlier.
• When VIA gears the Canadian towards tourists, you demand that they destroy any utility for tourists (i.e., the only customer group willing to tolerate erratic timekeeping and highly uncompetitive travel times, while even paying generously for that service quality) by forcing countless transfers and layovers, in order to focus instead on a customer group (intercity travellers) to which it is unable to offer anything which could possibly compete against other modes (which are cheaper, faster, more frequent and reliable than anything VIA could possibly offer).
• When VIA offers a service which is geared towards serving remote communities between Sudbury and White River, you demand that VIA abandons these passengers by instead routing the train via SSM (where, again, it chases intercity passengers it will never attract because it will never be able to offer anything competitive).

What is the communality between your demands? Your contempt for passengers and taxpayers, by compulsively demanding changes which would spend as much operating subsidies as possible while minimizing rail ridership as much as possible. If you really cared about increasing rail ridership and making rail relevant again as a passenger mode, you wouldn’t constantly drown any serious attempt at discussing these issues with your brainfarts.

I hate to say this, but the only way you could possibly advance the causes you pretend to champion is by changing the password to this forum to something you won‘t remember and then find yourself a different hobby. Aren’t there any interesting forums for veterans or power generation enthusiasts out there?

 

[Urban Sky]

I’ve said this before but a big difference between the Windsor-Quebec corridor and those “ similar sized” European countries is the Windsor-Quebec corridor isn’t an autonomous country, but part of a larger country with double the population. As a result, unlike those countries, half of the population doesn’t live close enough to the corridor to benefit from any upgrades made, so it isn’t a priority.

That‘s not the problem. The vast geographic size is unfortunately the problem here: whereas in all European countries, it is viable to travel by rail across the country and the construction of just a few HSR lines will benefit cities far beyond these HSR lines, people in Western places like Calgary and Edmonton will always be anything-but-forced to fly to cities like Toronto or Montreal and are therefore not very likely to ever benefit from any HSR link built in the Q-W Corridor.

Paris-Lyon as France‘s first HSL didn‘t just shave 1-2 hours of travel time for passengers travelling to Paris from Lyon, but also from all the cities beyond, ranging from Nice over Marseilles, Avignon, Montpellier to Toulouse and into Spain. Even halving the current travel time between Toronto and Montreal will make zero difference for the travel options Calgarians and Edmontonians will consider…

 

[micheal_can]

I‘m just connecting the dots:

• When GO struggles to attract passengers from London at an ungodly early hour, you demand that they put the arrival even earlier.

My issue is if you are going to put in service, it should work for the people intended. Whether or not it should even exist would be a whole other discussion.

• When VIA gears the Canadian towards tourists, you demand that they destroy any utility for tourists (i.e., the only customer group willing to tolerate erratic timekeeping and highly uncompetitive travel times, while even paying generously for that service quality) by forcing countless transfers and layovers, in order to focus instead on a customer group (intercity travellers) to which it is unable to offer anything which could possibly compete against other modes (which are cheaper, faster, more frequent and reliable than anything VIA could possibly offer).

Imagine if Via geared its Corridor service towards tourists and not travelers. Those are different clientele, and also changes the attitude towards what ways it could be made better. We don't have transit buses being used for tourists. Why should Via be the one to do it?

• When VIA offers a service which is geared towards serving remote communities between Sudbury and White River, you demand that VIA abandons these passengers by instead routing the train via SSM (where, again, it chases intercity passengers it will never attract because it will never be able to offer anything competitive).

Have I suggested removal of it? I have suggested other routes, but I don't remember suggesting its cancellation. If I did,that was stupid on my part.

What is the communality between your demands? Your contempt for passengers and taxpayers, by compulsively proposing changes which would spend as much operating subsidies as possible while minimizing rail ridership as much as possible. If you really cared about increasing rail ridership and making rail relevant again as a passenger mode, you wouldn’t constantly drown any serious attempt at discussing these issues with you BS.

I hate to say this, but the only way you could possibly advance the causes you pretend to champion is by changing the password to this forum to something you won‘t remember and then find yourself a different hobby. Aren’t there any interesting forums for veterans or power generation enthusiasts out there?

I have tried to focus on all the issues that are why Via has become irrelevant One by one you attack each one. Are you going to say that Via is the best passenger rail transportation agency we could ever have in Canada?

 

[micheal_can]

That‘s not the problem. The vast geographic size is unfortinately the problem here: whereas in all European countries, it is viable to travel by rail across the country and the construction of just a few HSR lines will benefit cities far beyond these HSR lines, people in Western places like Calgary and Edmonton will always be anything-but-forced to fly to cities like Toronto or Montreal and are therefore not very likely to ever benefit from any HSR link built in the Q-W Corridor.

Paris-Lyon as France‘s first HSL didn‘t just shave 1-2 hours of travel time for passengers travelling to Paris from Lyon, but also from all the cities beyond, ranging from Nice over Marseilles, Avignon, Montpellier to Toulouse and into Spain. Even halving the current travel time between Toronto and Montreal will make zero difference for the travel options Calgarians and Edmontonians will consider…

If HSR was committed to the Corridor with the stipulation that the Siemens fleet be used elsewhere to add service to places like Calgary - Edmonton, it may not be enough, but it would be something.