VIA Discussion Thread

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

The biggest drawback that I see with the taking the VIA, is that the costs that you have factored for the train do not include any travel outside of the Kingston to Ottawa corridor. For example, if you wanted to go to a cottage up north for a weekend, you'd have to find (and pay for) a transportation option to get there and back, whereas if you owned a car, the car ownership costs are fairly inelastic for that type of trip.

The modal choice associated with travel needs vary greatly with what those needs are.

I travel very little outside of Kingston or Ottawa. I'm not really into outdoorsy stuff, cottages and camping are not my thing. I can pretty confidently state that I'm probably not going anywhere rural in the next 5 years, and if I am, it will be with someone else, who probably has a car who I can bum a ride from.

I take trips to Toronto or Montreal occasionally, but not a lot, and for those, I'll probably get a free ride--VIA has a loyalty program and all it takes is 3 monthly passes to earn a free round trip to either of those cities.

I'm not saying my approach is going to work for everyone, but it works for me.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

If you did have a car, there is no way the train would be cheaper. Most people who have cars do not factor in all costs and just worry about gas, as that is the main cost if you already own a car.
You could probably drive round trip from Kingston to Ottawa on like 20 or 30 dollars worth of gas.

$465 is just way too high for such a short trip. For that cost you could own a car and gas it up each month.

Believe me, I understand why you take the train, and I would do the same. But it ends up costing more than the car.

That is true. When you own a car, you have sunk costs: whether you use the car or not, you are always paying insurance, and if you're like me and have financing, you are paying the auto loan no matter what. For me, taking a train is foolish because I'm already paying for my car no matter whether I drive or not. The gas is the one variable cost, so on an incremental basis a drive from Kingston to Ottawa and back would cost me $20 extra. If I took the train, I'd still be paying for my car's insurance and financing, plus the cost of the train ticket.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

That is true. When you own a car, you have sunk costs: whether you use the car or not, you are always paying insurance, and if you're like me and have financing, you are paying the auto loan no matter what. For me, taking a train is foolish because I'm already paying for my car no matter whether I drive or not. The gas is the one variable cost, so on an incremental basis a drive from Kingston to Ottawa and back would cost me $20 extra. If I took the train, I'd still be paying for my car's insurance and financing, plus the cost of the train ticket.

That's not true at all. Maintenance & servicing costs increase with more kilometres driven. Think of all the money one spends on replacement tires, tire rotations, oil changes, fluid top ups... it adds up to a lot more than you think. And surprise, the more you drive the more you have to do those things.

Furthermore, more frequent driving wears out the car faster resulting in less time until you need to drop a wack of cash on a new car. Works for financing, too. If you only need to buy a new car every 10 years, you're going to finish your payments long before you have to replace your car, and you'll only be making loan payments for some of your life. If you need to buy one every 3-4 years... you're making those payments constantly.

Gas is only a portion of the incremental cost of driving. This myth that it it is not, needs to die.

And if you can avoid those sunk costs to begin with... big bonus. I'm about to enter the real estate market a lot sooner than I would have thought, and it's largely because of all the money I've saved by never having a car.

[MasterG]

Any changes to VIA program under the new Liberal government? We are all aware of the investment pledge for infrastructure, could we see improvements along the Corridor VIA service as a result?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Any changes to VIA program under the new Liberal government? We are all aware of the investment pledge for infrastructure, could we see improvements along the Corridor VIA service as a result?

I don't think VIA was mentioned specifically in the Liberal platform, but it would seem a good candidate for infrastructure spending. With all the talk about HSR, GO improvements, and VIA, I find it hard to understand what we're likely to see in coming years, at least as far as Southern Ontario is concerned.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Any changes to VIA program under the new Liberal government? We are all aware of the investment pledge for infrastructure, could we see improvements along the Corridor VIA service as a result?

I'd have to put Via near the bottom of any funding. Limited ridership numbers compared to intra city transit, the money should be focused where they get the biggest bang for the buck and that is in the cities.

[Martin Mtl]

/\ Limited maybe because it's not fast enough. Put a 3 hours train between Montreal and Toronto and things may change. We need a fast train at least between those two cities; the others, probably not.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by lubicon

I'd have to put Via near the bottom of any funding. Limited ridership numbers compared to intra city transit, the money should be focused where they get the biggest bang for the buck and that is in the cities.

The situation in Southern Ontario and Quebec is different than elsewhere in the country. Because of increasing congestion on highways, improving VIA service is important in this part of the country. We have seen a big jump in ridership on the Toronto-Ottawa route. Gradual improvements in service speed is making it quite competitive with plane travel.

[Nouvellecosse]

I've often heard the argument about urban transit being more useful due to serving larger numbers of people, and although it sounds persuasive, I've come to the realization that it's pretty much bunk. In order to determine the true value of a piece of transportation infrastructure, you should measure it in terms of the total amount of transportation it provides (in terms of passenger kilometres) rather than the number of people it serves.

One can compare the passenger KMs (and therefore usefulness) of an urban transit line like the Yonge–University–Spadina line in Toronto to a potential HSR between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, by multiplying the distance the average passenger would travel by the number of passengers. The YUS line has average weekday ridership of 714,210 persons. It extends north from Union in two separate arms each of about 15km. Obviously most people will not be traveling from end to end so if we assume the median trip is 1/2 of one of the arms (7.5 km), then it would provide 5,356,575 passenger/KMs of transport per average weekday.

Now, the distance between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal by "way the crow flies" is about 520 km. The exact route it will take will likely be longer. If we use the French TGV for the comparison, its train capacity ranges from 345 to 750 people depending on the route. If we assume ours are somewhere in the middle (548) and they're normally about 3/4 full that's 411 people per trip. If the train runs every hour between 7am and 11pm (16 trips per direction per day) then it would provide a total of 6,839,040 passenger/KMs per day.

Obviously without actually having a HSR line with real details to use, we can't make an exact comparison. But the point is, HSR has the potential to provide just as much transportation as urban rail transport does.

The same kind of debate sometimes arises around inner urban transit vs commuter rail and honestly, there's no rational reason to be biased as to whether it's fewer people making longer trips or more people making shorter trips, or if the average person uses it every day or a couple times per year. Long and short distance travel are both of vital importance to the public.

[1overcosc]

More intercity railway usage would also reduce the load on long-distance highways. There's a lot of long-distance travel patterns in Ontario that are starting to cause real highway congestion--highways from Kingston-Toronto, Toronto-Kitchener, Ottawa-Montreal, etc. are starting to get crowded even in the rural sections. We're probably going to need a 6 laning of the 401 from Kingston to Cobourg in a decade or two unless demand growth slows, and that would amount to four hundred lane kilometres.. this would be so expensive that rail investment is quite a desirable alternative.

Taking passenger load off the regional highways means more capacity to carry freight, good for the economy.

Because of the long distances involved, even though the numbers are smaller, there's a lot of carbon emissions that could be stopped by driving people onto trains for intercity trips.

VIA has proposed a $3B project to build dedicated tracks in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor, and they've said they're going to approach the federal government for financing options in the near future (this was said before the election). The Liberals are likely to fund it.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

VIA has proposed a $3B project to build dedicated tracks in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor, and they've said they're going to approach the federal government for financing options in the near future (this was said before the election). The Liberals are likely to fund it.

Yes, very likely I would think.

[lrt's friend]

Not only is congestion becoming a problem but the amount of freight that has been transferred from rail to our highways in recent years. As the number and size of trucks have grown larger and larger, there is an intimidation factor for many drivers. I believe that if we improve intercity rail and local transit connections, many people will gladly move to rail. I think we are starting to see this.

I know that I discussed travel plans with a co-worker (who lives in rural Eastern Ontario) last spring and if UPX had been opened, travel by VIA out of Brockville to Toronto and onto Pearson airport would have not only been practical but would have made a much more pleasant start and end of their vacation in comparison to driving the 401.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Not only is congestion becoming a problem but the amount of freight that has been transferred from rail to our highways in recent years. As the number and size of trucks have grown larger and larger, there is an intimidation factor for many drivers. I believe that if we improve intercity rail and local transit connections, many people will gladly move to rail. I think we are starting to see this.

Didnt Primier Wynne also state that the ontario highway traffic act would be ammended to allow for 60' trailers on the road to decrease emissions? I would think this would spur even more tractor trailers on the road given a likely reduction in price for shipping.

To move people onto trains they would need to be more cost effective, frequent and fast. The likelyhood of getting people onto trains is lessened without HSR I would think. I realize that making the current tracks fully independent would increase speeds, but that increase I dont think would spur the growth needed to make a difference on say the 401.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The situation in Southern Ontario and Quebec is different than elsewhere in the country. Because of increasing congestion on highways, improving VIA service is important in this part of the country. We have seen a big jump in ridership on the Toronto-Ottawa route. Gradual improvements in service speed is making it quite competitive with plane travel.

The 401 between Kitchener/Cambridge and Oshawa has become a brutal experience. I have taken to driving the 407 out to Pickering to avoid as much of it as possible. Traffic has become noticeably heavier all the way through Kingston, in my experience.

[miketoronto]

We need frequent, fast trains between all the cities in southern Ontario and Quebec.

We need vision like this
https://youtu.be/CZ-z5ebdUt4

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Didnt Primier Wynne also state that the ontario highway traffic act would be ammended to allow for 60' trailers on the road to decrease emissions? I would think this would spur even more tractor trailers on the road given a likely reduction in price for shipping.

To move people onto trains they would need to be more cost effective, frequent and fast. The likelyhood of getting people onto trains is lessened without HSR I would think. I realize that making the current tracks fully independent would increase speeds, but that increase I dont think would spur the growth needed to make a difference on say the 401.

I think that incremental improvements are the most likely scenario to come true. Although the affects are less dramatic, there is a tipping point when people start realizing that the train is better. The Ottawa-Toronto run is already down to 4 hours, which is generally faster than by car. When I was in Europe in April, I experienced incremental rail improvements on the Prague to Berlin route. Most of the route operated at speeds no faster than VIA but from Dresden to Berlin, trains ran at very fast speeds.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

More intercity railway usage would also reduce the load on long-distance highways. There's a lot of long-distance travel patterns in Ontario that are starting to cause real highway congestion--highways from Kingston-Toronto, Toronto-Kitchener, Ottawa-Montreal, etc. are starting to get crowded even in the rural sections. We're probably going to need a 6 laning of the 401 from Kingston to Cobourg in a decade or two unless demand growth slows, and that would amount to four hundred lane kilometres.. this would be so expensive that rail investment is quite a desirable alternative.

Same story towards Kitchener, Niagara Falls, and Barrie. The mid-peninsula highway to Niagara is supposed to cost $6 billion. The GO train proposals to Niagara would cost anywhere from a few hundred million to a bit over a billion, depending on whether they build a rail skyway over the Welland Canal. We could build a full HSR and it would still probably be cheaper than the mid-pen highway.

You could look at the province's HSR plan to Kitchener and London the same way. And if we upgraded the Barrie GO line to have trains go, say, 200+ km/h, the plan to widen the 400 to 10 lanes all the way to Barrie would suddenly start to look pretty silly.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The situation in Southern Ontario and Quebec is different than elsewhere in the country. Because of increasing congestion on highways, improving VIA service is important in this part of the country. We have seen a big jump in ridership on the Toronto-Ottawa route. Gradual improvements in service speed is making it quite competitive with plane travel.

The gradual improvements exist only on paper because in most cases Via cannot keep to the schedule. When this happens over time the schedule gets padded and even then it cannot adhere to the schedule. Even with all the improvements to CN's Kingston subdivision Via cannot get its trains to arrive on time. There needs to be long frequent extended sidings on the trackage owned by Via between Brockville and Ottawa; and Ottawa and Montreal. There really hasn't been any improvement time wise since in the 1980's the standard trip time from Ottawa to Toronto was 4 hours. Transit time would have to consistently be around 3 hours before rail is competitive with flying.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Same story towards Kitchener, Niagara Falls, and Barrie. The mid-peninsula highway to Niagara is supposed to cost $6 billion. The GO train proposals to Niagara would cost anywhere from a few hundred million to a bit over a billion, depending on whether they build a rail skyway over the Welland Canal. We could build a full HSR and it would still probably be cheaper than the mid-pen highway.

You could look at the province's HSR plan to Kitchener and London the same way. And if we upgraded the Barrie GO line to have trains go, say, 200+ km/h, the plan to widen the 400 to 10 lanes all the way to Barrie would suddenly start to look pretty silly.

curvature on the Barrie line is too tight for those sort of speeds. Its the oldest rail line in Ontario after all (well, the part south of Aurora). The northern part has better track geometry and could probably see increased speeds though.


The $4 billion upgrade of the Montreal - Ottawa - Toronto corridor that the current VIA president does exactly that, GoTrans. 2.5 hours to Ottawa, 3.5 to Montreal. The idea is to get dedicated tracks and upgrade the line to 110mph from my understanding.

[someone123]

I was reading an (unfortunately) paywalled article about VIA rail earlier. It mentioned the Toronto-Montreal improvements that have already been covered here, but also that new inter-city service is going to start up in the Maritimes in the second half of 2016.