VIA Rail - Discussion générale ​

[SameGuy]

1 hour ago, p_xavier said:

You just answer yourself with the reasons why it's a good project and must be in place before the costs of carbon pricing goes way up.  Electrification is a way to go. I would also support the end of short flights between YUL, YOW, YYZ and YTZ.

Same.

But conversely, while I believe we should “subsidize” sustainable mass transportation, we must begin by ending subsidies for roads and road users. I’m all for user-fees (taxing fuel, tolls, congestion charges, etc.). Otherwise we maintain an endless cycle of underspending on mass transit while continuing to endorse the the extraction, refining and burning of fossil fuels. 

[FrodoMTL]

The logic that HFR is not going to be competitive with automobiles is ridiculous. It's never meant to compete with cars. People will always drive, because it's much more economical for leisure travelers like a family with 3 kids who live in Brossard or Mississauga. Even in countries with sufficient HSR/TGV, you still have plenty of auto-traffic from leisure travelers.

The primary competition for rail has always been air traffic between Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal. Before Covid, YYZ/YTZ and YUL operated 50-70 flights per day between Air Transat, West Jet, Air Canada, and Porter - averaging $400-800 for a round trip ticket. That is a crazy amount of air traffic between just 3 cities at exorbitant fares. HFR's goal should ALWAYS be to target the air segment first - coupled with federal regulations that incentivize the move to intercity rail (e.g. additional taxes and airport fees on short haul flights between YYZ/YTZ and YUL).

[SameGuy]

Right, but the fares for an electric train ride between the three should be much lower than the costs to drive, making it worth it for that “family of four” to make their way to a station (hopefully by REM or Subway or whatever). Examples I usually use are from car-crazy Italy (HerSR/HSR) where gas, tolls, and traffic make cars considerably less economical or convenient between most cities, and car-centric Australia (modern EMUs) where fares are very low and trains frequent enough that lines are always well-used.

But while we are throwing around hypotheticals, why should rail be targeting “leisure travellers like a family of four” and not every single potential traveller between the three main cities? Amtrak’s NEC should be used as our example and guide. Sure, people still drive between Boston and DC and points between, but NEC trains are always full. Imagine if gas and jet fuel in the States was at European prices? The taxes would pay for a couple of Infrastructure Weeks every year until folks simply gave up and started using mass transportation instead of Chevy Tahoes and Southwest Airlines!

[FrodoMTL]

2 hours ago, SameGuy said:

Right, but the fares for an electric train ride between the three should be much lower than the costs to drive, making it worth it for that “family of four” to make their way to a station (hopefully by REM or Subway or whatever). Examples I usually use are from car-crazy Italy (HerSR/HSR) where gas, tolls, and traffic make cars considerably less economical or convenient between most cities, and car-centric Australia (modern EMUs) where fares are very low and trains frequent enough that lines are always well-used.

But while we are throwing around hypotheticals, why should rail be targeting “leisure travellers like a family of four” and not every single potential traveller between the three main cities? Amtrak’s NEC should be used as our example and guide. Sure, people still drive between Boston and DC and points between, but NEC trains are always full. Imagine if gas and jet fuel in the States was at European prices? The taxes would pay for a couple of Infrastructure Weeks every year until folks simply gave up and started using mass transportation instead of Chevy Tahoes and Southwest Airlines!

3 points:

1. Australia has "modern EMUs" for intercity trains? Not that I'm aware of. In fact their intercity service is comparable in many ways to VIA Rail - underfunded, and in some cases even less frequency that VIA's corridor service. I believe you are referring to their intracity regional/commuter bilevels, which in this case is more comparable to GO Transit or EXO (and yes, far exceeds NA standards when it comes to commuter rail).

2. VIA's corridor service was already frequently sold out prior to the pandemic. In fact, demand already outstrips supply and seats available on Monday, Thurs, and Fridays. It's very comparable to NE Corridor with Amtrak.

3. Are TGV or German ICE fares "much" lower than driving? I'm not so sure.

When I was working in Germany, I frequently rode the Berlin-Munchen route, which has a similar length as Montreal to Toronto (580 km). Berlin to Munich was 4hr02 min on the fastest ICE "Sprinter" service. The cheapest, deep-discounted 2nd class ticket is currently priced at 163 EUR. For a family of 4, that's 652 EUR or almost $1000 CAD. Under what circumstance would this be competitive for a "family" with driving given the similar distance as Montreal and Toronto? If I had a van or SUV, and I'm already paying gas and insurance and all the annual maintenance costs, I'd choose my van/SUV for my family and 2 kids any day because of the sunk costs of vehicle ownership. HOWEVER, if I were traveling as on my own for work, it's the ICE HSR hands down. I'm not saying no family would ever ride the HSR, but it's just not that competitive economically for a family with kids if they already own a car.

Here's the fully priced ticket for the above route on Deutsche Bahn:

https://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en?ld=4322&protocol=https:&seqnr=7&ident=mk.03161522.1621619649&rt=1&rememberSortType=minDeparture&sTID=C2-0:C6-2.0@1&oCID=C2-0&rCID=C6-2&orderSOP=yes&showAvail=yes&completeFulfillment=1&hafasSessionExpires=2105212010&zielorth=Muenchen&zielorte=Muenchen&zielortb=muenchen&zielorta=DEU&xcoorda=11558339&ycoorda=48140229&distancea=504&services=heba&bcrvglpreis=27920&HWAI=SELCON!lastsel=C6-2!&

Lastly, what prompted me to use DB's Berlin-Munich service via train (vs. driving or flying) wasn't so much the speed (it's at minimum 4 hrs on the fastest HSR Sprinter service, and mostly 4.5 - 5 hrs if you get delayed, so really not that fast for a distance of 580 km). It was the frequency and predictability service (every hour minimum, sometimes even every 30 min). I could just show up at Berlin Central HBF anytime and hop on train to Munich. Also, great connectivity with local transit such as S-Bahn and U-Bahn and the intercity rail stations, which is critical to the success of any intercity rail service.

 

Modifié 21 mai 2021 par FrodoMTL

[FrodoMTL]

The final design for the new Siemens fleet has been unveiled on May 26. Currently the first train set is sitting in Sacramento, California, and will be delivered to Montreal this summer to begin testing. Service on the new corridor fleet will commence in 2022.

 

Modifié 27 mai 2021 par FrodoMTL

[Spiter_01]

On 2021-05-21 at 11:46 AM, SameGuy said:

Right, but the fares for an electric train ride between the three should be much lower than the costs to drive, making it worth it for that “family of four” to make their way to a station (hopefully by REM or Subway or whatever). Examples I usually use are from car-crazy Italy (HerSR/HSR) where gas, tolls, and traffic make cars considerably less economical or convenient between most cities, and car-centric Australia (modern EMUs) where fares are very low and trains frequent enough that lines are always well-used.

But while we are throwing around hypotheticals, why should rail be targeting “leisure travellers like a family of four” and not every single potential traveller between the three main cities? Amtrak’s NEC should be used as our example and guide. Sure, people still drive between Boston and DC and points between, but NEC trains are always full. Imagine if gas and jet fuel in the States was at European prices? The taxes would pay for a couple of Infrastructure Weeks every year until folks simply gave up and started using mass transportation instead of Chevy Tahoes and Southwest Airlines!

Aren't we at that point talking about perpetual fare subsidies? I get that in many ways we perpetually subsidize car usage but haven't we learned that good public transit should ideally be able to stand on its own two legs after the initial capital investment rather than vulnerable to political changes?

Isn't the vast majority of the ridership on the NEC business? Also the economic/local realities are vastly different. The NEC connects 3-4? state capitals, the federal capital, one of the most important cities in the world, countless Ivy League/World Class Universities. Give us 50 years we still wouldn't be close to anything resembling that.

 

 

[Decel]

VIA Rail écarte « pour l’instant » l’idée d’un TGV

https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/2021-06-07/corridor-quebec-windsor/via-rail-ecarte-pour-l-instant-l-idee-d-un-tgv.php

Autant dire jamais. C'est vrai qu'ils n'ont ni les pouvoirs ni les moyens financiers pour avoir un mordicum d'ambition. Surtout quand on pelte à coup de milliards l'aide aux compagnies aériennes.

C'est à la structure même de la compagnie qu'il faut changer les choses.

[AP241]

Et il est mentionné que le train va passer sur la rive nord, je me demande bien comment ils vont se connecter au centre-ville de Montréal s'ils vont ça.  

En prenant pour acquis qu'ils voudront bien s'y rendre, mais ça me semble incontournable.

[mtlfan]

Comme mentionné à demi-mot dans l'article, c'est d'abord une question de politique:

"Bien que le trajet entre Montréal et Toronto prenne un peu plus de cinq heures en train contre une heure et trente minutes en avion, le porte-parole a affirmé que « le rôle de VIA Rail n’est pas de compétitionner les compagnies aériennes entre les deux points » et que tout compte fait, le train représente une offre intéressante pour beaucoup de voyageurs."

En d'autres mots, le corridor Montréal-Toronto est la vache à lait de nos compagnies aériennes, qui mettent suffisament de pression sur le gouvernement fédéral de sorte que Via devra se contenter d'une qui n'affectera pas significativement leur part de marché.

Quand on parle d'une offre intéressante pour "beaucoup de voyageurs", on parle de qui?

Les voyageurs d'affaires attribuent une valeur assez élevée à leur temps pour dépenser le 250$-500$ pour l'avion, surtout qu'ils peuvent arrivers soit à Bishop ou à Pearson si l'emplacement ontarien de leur entreprise est à Mississauga. 

La plupart des voyageurs d'agrément voulant visiter Toronto et les environs ne voient pas un gain de temps assez significatif par le train pour sacrifier la flexibilité d'avoir un véhicule rendu à destination, surtout s'ils désirent aller à l'extérieur de la ville (ie Niagara Falls)

Les voyageurs moins en moyens jusqu'à présent se tournaient vers l'autobus, reste à voir avec le retrait de Greyhound du marché canadien ce qu'il va se passer.

Néamoins, le marché pour un train lent est somme toute assez limité. Pas attractif pour le segment le plus lucratif (voyageurs d'affaires), pas assez rapide pour compenser la perte de flexibilité ou justifier la location d'un véhicule rendu à destination

[Decel]

Il y a 16 heures, mtlfan a dit :

Néamoins, le marché pour un train lent est somme toute assez limité. Pas attractif pour le segment le plus lucratif (voyageurs d'affaires), pas assez rapide pour compenser la perte de flexibilité ou justifier la location d'un véhicule rendu à destination

Aussi une personne en cours de déplacement n'apporte aucun gain à l'économie, donc ce serait économique (pas juste fiscal) de raccourcir ce temps mort le plus possible pour les gouvernements.