Car travel is far from subsidized. Gasoline taxes, license and registration fees and bridge and other tolls provide far more revenue than what is spent on the highway infastructure. Governments add this money to general revenues in order to hide the fact that spend the money on other projects.
@@kenmitchell7133 Incorrect. Gasoline tax and property taxes are the primary source of revenue for highways and city roads. Commercial vehicle licensing barely covers 1/10'th of the cost of wear and tear they generate /km. License and registrations fees barely keep the bureaucracy of the licensing department running. Despite there being excess federal money from gas tax, the Feds very much hoard it for themselves and make it a chore to reclaim those taxes. You can rest assured that roads are extremely subsidized in most provinces.
A few things... -VIA needs to have priority over freight trains, which is law in the USA. -VIA needs to explore other potential routes to gain ridership besides ust focusing on the corridor. -VIA needs to promote other routes through advertising, besides just in the corridor. - Most people complain about the taxpayer cost of rail subsidies but have no idea about how much tax money was spent on the highways and the airline industry. - If were supposed to be going green than rail is a big step.
@TheMightyKing100 I understand the population density requirements but keep in mind, that most of these potential routes are only looking to get one train a day, which is much less than the corridor.
The best passenger trains in Canada are actually operated by the Ontario provincial agency Metrolinx, not VIA rail. And Metrolinx has probably invested more in passenger rail than any entity in Canada since before World War 2, and they're starting to edge into medium and now longer distance intercity service. They've effectively taken over VIA in Niagara region after COVID killed the Amtrak/VIA Maple Leaf and there's an argument to be made for Metrolinx taking over VIA in southern Ontario too. One nice thing is Metrolinx has no 1960s CNR holdover crap and knows how to operate actual trains instead of trains LARPing as airplanes (see the boarding process in the VIA concourse at Union Station vs. the GO concourse).
But if you close your eyes… Does it almost feel like nothing changed at all? Real talk: they made plenty of changes, just not noticeable to most people.
Not only does western Canada have poor rail service, bus service has also tanked, especially after the departure of greyhound. Many communities have no public transportation options at all.
5:29 I took the Senneterre train a few weeks ago, getting off at Shawinigan; it was about 40-50% full, which seemed reasonable given the social distancing provisions. And here's a pro tip: the train stops at a few different stations in Montreal, including Sauvé metro, so you don't even have to get yourself to Central Station to use it. Furthermore, in Shawinigan the train arrives at a microbrewery, you literally walk 20 seconds and you're sitting on the patio 😎 This train is a true hidden gem 💎
It is a hidden gem, on many of these routes you are getting a $2000 experience for $200 and people should totally use the lines that do exist while they exist.
@@PaigeMTL The Senneterre isn't supposed to make money, as it's an essential service, just like the White River and Churchill trains. Believe it or not, but in 2021, the Senneterre train still carries mail and even groceries and supplies to a few remote communities.
@@qjtvaddict I remember the government doing that with with first nations peoples, forcibly. IN some cases, to less populated areas. No you don't want to do that as A) it reeks of central planning communist governments. B) Most of those people are there to support and work in critical resource based industries because that's where the resources are. C) Some people like living there.
The Churchill line was actually one of the few lines considered revenue positive when compared with most other routes. it is also an essential service so it can't be cut. There is a lot of truth to making sure then that VIA doesn't pay for the cost of running these services directly out of pocket.
@@colindewolfe3647 The Churchill line was closed for several years because flooding destroyed some sections of the track, and I believe the federal government had to subsidize plane flights because the people there had no other options.
There's some things that are vital to the function of society that will just never be profitable,, mail,, firefighting,, mass transit,,,, we shouldn't expect Amtrack and VIA to make money
Passenger trains aren’t vital to the functioning of a society, transport is. Passenger rail needs to reform itself from being government subsidized luxury travel to one based on what citizens actually want. Not caring about that has seen it get it’s ass whooped by cars, busses and planes for decades. I’d like it to be the #1 form of intercity transport, the fact that it might also make money by caring about demand is just a bonus.
@@PaigeMTL Your essay had quite a gap from a neutral transportation standpoint. Factoring in the cost of a new rail line and consider it the loss of the rail operator is like taking the cost of a new freeway and factoring it in all car transportation going through it exclusively through tolls. Toll roads are incredibly unpopular - in some cases, the tolls make up for the cost of the maintenance, but hardly ever for the cost of construction, especially when also accounting for the right of way land purchases (usually carried out by the local authorities) and the grade separation (freeway bridges, on ramps, etc.). The taxpayer has burden to carry on road construction (and maintenance), but its operation is never accounted as deficitary, and is usually taken on by both national and several regional and local state entities. Indirectly, you sold this idea of "state dependency" of rail on what is essentially an accounting slight of hand rather than a real analysis between transportation options with any sort of genuine utility. Railways can be surprisingly reliable - some rail corridors get surprisingly old and are still used at a reasonable speed. Owning the rail corridor looks to me like it would make sense financially, especially on a long term basis, and it would also avoid paying tolls to circulate on the railways it doesnt own, which besides making all the trains late they are in all likelihood one of your rail operator's biggest cost, i.e. the real debt source.
@@MrRicmeme but they also own the surrounding land at the various destinations which they can rent or lease said land, and that is how Japan's Shinkansen is "profitable". This also works to ensure that everyone works to keep ridership high.
@@ANTSEMUT1 I hear Brightline, which is a privately funded rail operator in the USA, also uses the same strategy - they buy and develop land next to their rail infrastructure and get to collect profit in the increased value that they generate in the land value of the community by running their service. This is not without controversy, but on a public company I think it'd be interesting to consider (as adding value to the community is anyway the ultimate goal). It effectively brings in the company's impact in the community to their accounting.
Why do we measure the effectiveness of a public service based on whether it makes money? I think we should nationalize CN and CP and build highly reliable, highly subsidized passenger service everywhere.
My hometown, also NBs capital removed rails in the 90s. I was very saddened that they turned our train station into a liquor store. we could have been so ahead if we kept the rails.
@@dougbrowning82 Exactly! When VIA was created, it was originally VIA CN in 1977, then spun off into a separate entity called VIA Rail in 1978. At that time, passenger traffic still had priority over freight, since CN was a Crown corporation. But when CN was privatized into CN Rail in 1995, if prioritized freight over passenger service. Of course CP had abandoned allowing VIA to operate on its tracks long before then. In Canada we have a tendency to use public funds to create infrastructure, only to have successive governments sell it off at a huge discount - as though breaking even or even making a small profit were anathema to government operations. Frankly, I doubt this will ever come to fruition. And if it does, and it makes money, the government will privatize it. Again.
I don't understand why some countries just create 399km/h rail like it's nothing and others take an excruciatingly long time to even just break 200km/h. Like where I live in Belgium for instance, we have a tiny few actual HSR lines, mostly for international services. But a line like Brussels-Ghent, which might just be the straightest line I've ever seen is limited to 160km/h, supposedly so more trains can ride closer together but it makes no sense as not even many trains ride there at a given moment to begin with. Meanwhile, the tiny portion between Brussels and Leuven is actually 200km/h, and it's so cool to travel between those cities in just 15 minutes! I guess it's just because they don't want to make the initial capital investments but it's such a shame. Travel by rail would become a premium again with those speeds.
The reason that the remote rail services exist is that they serve communities which do not have road connections. You cannot replace them with buses because there is no road to run the bus on. All the rural routes which could be replaced by buses have already been replaced by buses, except for maybe the Ocean (all of its communities do have road access, as far as I'm aware).
"The railways are losing money" is such a dumb argument. The point is to provide mobility and access, not to turn a profit. It's like opposing sidewalks because they're not profitable.
I've got no problem with VIA being required to service remote areas, and not just because I live in northern Ontario. But they've gotta exploit the high profit routes to fund it! I wish they would get their arses into gear to fix it in this in the swedish style. I really want to be able to catch the train to Toronto damnit.
I would disagree. Quebec city is still home to around 800k people in the region, and the governmental HQ. A lot of folks do Quebec-Montreal during the week. As of now, the train takes roughly 1h more than the bus if you take delays into account, is more expensive and unreliable as hell. We need improvements on the Quebec-Windsor corridor as a whole, not just between Toronto and Montreal.
The split between infrastructure owner and service operators is what really should have happened, in lieu of the 1990 VIA Rail cuts and subsequent privatization of CN. CN was a Crown Corporation already - it should have been split, and only the operating side privatized. Thus giving VIA a fighting chance, and allowing public control of investment in infrastructure rather than subjecting it to a wholly freight-based ROI calculation. Additionally, then we could have been having the discussion of whether investing in yet more highway infrastructure, or improving rail infrastructure, is better for everyone. Imagine where we could be by now...
Good video! The only two points I’d like to make is that the drop in passenger numbers from 1980 is mostly due to over half of via’s routes and frequency collectively being cut in 1981 and 1990 (which speaks more to the issue that the government can unilaterally cut ViaRail routes and trains without oversight or public consultation) so it’s not entirely via’s fault that their passenger numbers have declined. I feel that they’ve done their best with a really, really bad hand. Another issue I think via rail has is that unlike other crown corporations there’s no act of parliament for via so it has no clear mandate of how it is to provide services or how it receives funding. Because of this provinces or other providers can’t even give via funding for routes they’d want which leaves via with next to no ways to work independently and establish routes.
Those routes weren’t dropped because those trains were full. People chose cars over slower more expensive trains. In effect we’ve been making the same mistake for 40 years. If we had spent that money wisely we’d have had HSR between Montreal and Toronto 20 years ago. Even a fraction of the car/air/bus traffic from that route would have doubled rail ridership in Canada.
@@PaigeMTL Not going to claim that all of these trains were packed to the max but they certainly weren’t empty either and many people relied on them. Just before it was cut the Halifax to Yarmouth train had over doubled its ridership over the past few years with 4 RDCs being needed per train to handle the demand. It is the most prominent example of a heavily used route just being cut with no replacement. Plus there was the cutting of sleeper trains and additional trips in the corridor made it less convenient to take the train. The best way to drive ridership of any public transportation system is to properly fund it and make it convenient and there is bounds of evidence that if you cut funding and service frequency ridership will suffer. Which is why I think it’s a bit of a false argument to say that people choose the car over the train. Someone in Calgary doesn’t exactly choose to drive to Edmonton or Regina when it’s the only viable option given to them, it’s a false choice when one has been made inconvenient or inaccessible due to funding cuts and negligence. The only other point I’d like to make I think that overly focusing profit margins for transportation is somewhat meaningless as there are many other factors to consider that don’t have a quantifiable dollar amount such as the environmental impact and the societal good of having connectivity with public transportation systems to cities and small towns that you can’t put on a balance sheet. Plus every form of transportation has some level of subsidies needed to operate and if no truly independently profitable transportation businesses.
@@PaigeMTL This distances are so vast for long distance travel in the West that HSR would never be practical or affordable. There is a much larger quantity of people willing to use the "slow" train if ones like the Canadian were actually run on the original (faster and safer than car) time table. The only way to fix the Western problem is to nationalize the rail lines and expand capacity by twinning them or offer CN that VIA will build passing lanes that actually fit the size of the freight trains with an agreement that CN MUST wait in those lanes for the single train to pass. As little demand you think there is in places like Calgary and Regina, it would be a lot higher if there was an actual schedule because driving and flying are not always an option.
@@PaigeMTL VIA ridership has never recovered from these cuts. Out west, the Super Continental and Canadian were jointly packing 800,000 yearly passengers before the cuts.
I might be biased, living near Quebec city, but i think that weither it's built now or later, a MTL/Quebec city rail line owned by Via is necessary. Everything to reduce car dependancy is a step in the right direction imo.
Great video!! We really need more content like this and especially the eyes of politicians. It makes me more depressed thinking about the squandered opportunities and the sad fact that I’ll probably never get to experience an express train to Toronto. What’s crazy is the bullet trains out in Asia go through highly dense communities, meanwhile people are spread out all over Canada. We only have a few really dense cities yet we still can’t even manage to construct one
As a person living in Ottawa, and more importantly as someone who wants Ontario to be more than just a bunch of places close to Toronto, I agree with the idea of improving the existing line. We currently have a connection to Brockville, so making a cheap connection would be fine with me. Hopefully, we'd eventually get a better rail line that would get expanded along the 417 as that became more viable and important.
The reasons I support extending HFR to Québec City are two fold: - As Québec's second biggest metropolitan area, I firmly believe it should be part of the national immigration and economic strategy. A reliable rail link between the two cities would help strengthen that ecosystem. People already regularly commute between those two cities and tickets are fairly cheap. - The second is anecdotal. I took a train from Montréal to Québec City Friday around 6PM. It was packed to the brim, left Montreal 45min late, had to wait in the sidings twice for freight trains that were already on a single tracked spur and arrived in Québec City 1 hour late. That is appalling for what should be a 3 hours trip. This being said, since this project will be phased, it doesn't need to be the first phase of this rail infrastructure project. As for revenue service, HFR does not need to be one continuous line. HFR could maintain its core service between Montréal and Toronto, and offer an independent service between Ottawa/Québec or Montréal/Québec as it currently does.
I agree with you but I recognize I am biased as I live in Quebec city. There is a bus every 15 minutes leaving quebec for montreal plus the trains plus the rideshare plus the planes plus the car traffic so I do believe there is a demand strong enough to justify a train. Maybe not high speed, but 160kmh would do. Furthermore, making a profit is not necessary, as long as it brings a benefit for the population, just like highways. If it has a decent average speed, it should enable to do the distance in an 1h40 which would get plenty of people on the train instead of the car. I agree that the first phase should be built between Toronto and Montreal but if Ottawa and Quebec as well as the other smaller but still significant cities in Quebec and Ontario are not included in the project, it will simply remain a sub-par system among the modern world and a huge lost potential.
So glad someone's talking about this. HSR between Montreal and Toronto would do SO MUCH for the environment and hugely improve ridership. I recently got an email from VIA smugly announcing new diesel trains as some big fancy environmental project. What an embarrassing way to try and spin things. HSR on that route alone would stop VIA losing money and would bolster confidence in a cross-country route. And you're quite right about them needing to lay dedicated tracks. Besides it's non-negotiable with HSR.
No need to bolster confidence in a cross-country HSR route. Just link clusters of cities with separate systems. The diminishing returns would be far too great to build HSR from Toronto to Thunder Bay and Saskatoon.
@@coastaku1954 The problem there is that both CP and CP run double stacked container trains over their lines (20 feet tall). You would not be able to put an electrical system for VIA without having a parallel line.
Via rail est une blague qui se laisse marcher dessus par le CN et le CP. I'm always carefull talking about transport on the web. transport nerds (and I say this in a positive fashion) are ruthless and passionate and will correct your every move if they have to.
You make some valid points. However cities like Kingston, Belleville etc would grow if you could get to ToRONto in an hour or less on time. With city growth comes all kinds if opportunities. Kingston could become a useful secondary airport in the “Triangle”. They already expanded it….
I like the ideia of high frequency rail, but it would really be better if they made it as high speed rail from the get go, it wouldn't even matter that it goes through small cities in the middle
I live in Peterborough and honestly people are pretty excited to soon have high frequency rail. Now we can just jump on the train here rather then having to drive to our closes via station which in port hope and closes GO Oshawa both around 35 mins to 45 mins away from here it will make things so much easier. They still will no own some rail between Toronto and Smith falls since it is CP Rail owned but the trains that use this line are not very big move slow and not very frequent. It will be coming straight through downtown which will bring in more people and help people that have moved here since covid which is a lot travel to the city if they have gone back to the office.a
It's unrealistic to expect passenger rail to be profitable. It's transport infrastructure, just like roads. And we're not whining about the billions we sink into subsidizing roads for cars. That's why it's cheaper with a car. The metro is not profitable and yet.. oh right, the REM. And as someone without a car, already using VIA Rail to go from Montréal to Drummondville or Québec City, having service dropped or not improved at all because "it has to be profitable" is, erhm, a tad insulting. All those talks about profitability first is scary from the perspective of someone relying on those services to move around. No service for you if it's not profitable; guess you'll have to use a car.
Actually intercity passenger rail in Canada isn't transport infrastructure and that's the problem. Also, I don't say that it has to be profitable. You know the graphic where the coins go into the infrastructure division instead of the operating company? I thought I had created a memorable visual to show the application of the subsidy to the railway lines so that rail would be given the same opportunity as highways. Did you watch the whole video?
What will probably happen is the Quebec City portion will get cut after they get more serious about planning. Canada has an history of overshooting public transport projects and scaling down afterwards.
Honestly Canada doesn't have the density for it outside of few corridors however if it was cross border you could piggyback of US population density in a number of places but the continental divide would essentially be impassable by HSR even in the US so you would end up with 2 disconnected networks a small west coast network and a gigantic eastern network
The Senneterre train is an actual service. It provides mail, groceries and médecine to communities that are only reachable by rail, so yes the bus is great for people going from Montreal to Senneterre directly. But not for the communities like Parent, Clova, Press etc.
What's really crazy is the subsidy for our fighter plane pilots. We spend billions to fly one or maybe two people around at supersonic speeds, just so that we can continue to exist as a country. Instead we could just give them bicycles, or maybe hot air balloons and save a fortune. Maybe we could take an idea from this video and ferry around three pilots in a stretch limo on their missions.
The would seem to need a train for Kingston, Cornwall and Ottawa which could use the current system. If they did a really fast train between Montreal and Toronto surely they could do it by not having double track all the way.
I actually don't think that the detour over Ottawa wouldn't be much of a problem. Like if you theoretically have trains that run 320km/h (~200mp/h) 50 additional kilometers is hardly an additional 30min which is not that dramatic.
I often wonder why we can't run a high speed rail line down the center median of hwy 401 and it's Quebec counterparts. It's already surveyed, public owned land, grade separated with drainage and service access. Both Montreal and Toronto airports are adjacent. A branch up the 416 could access Ottawa and link to LTR in city west. With grade separation already in place, there is no political dangers from disruption of community or land rights.
100%, I am sure they could work something out for much of the route. Strategic acquisition of land is another common sense thing that should have started decades ago.
i thought about that also. I think the problem is the highway is bypassing a lot of cities rahther than go through it. So you either build a track that only connect two or three cities, or you have to build a LOT tracks to connect the line to existing lines to serve more cities
The best train setup would be a high speed rail line then have a freight line or a passing line where if planed right a pasnger train could pass a freight train well at speed both make it on time no idea if that been done anywhere else
@@qjtvaddict That seems to be in their long term plans. They are getting their own tracks (soon ~2025) between Toronto and Ottawa, and they already have some trackage between Ottawa and Montreal. They would simply need to upgrade those tracks (electrification, lighter curves etc.)
Isn't that why a third track was added to the CN in some parts of Ontario between Toronto and Kingston. ... Oh right, CN used it for more frieght trains.
I rode VIA a few years ago from Sarnia to Quebec City with a Japanese friend. What an embarrassment. Have not been on VIA since. I did not think anything could be worse than Amtrak, but I was wrong. While Europe and Asia continues to make improvements the US and Canada go backwards. The US does one thing well and that is run single long distance trains with private rooms and great meals.
Québec city should absolutely be included in the project. It is still an area of about a million people. If the service is quick enough with little to no delays, it's gonna be faster than by car and will end up picking up more ridership. There is definitely a demand for it, train service just needs to be good enough.
@@PaigeMTL The Trudeau government announced they would be funding a train project between Calgary and Edmonton the day after they made the HFR announcement for the Ontario Québec corridor, so it seems like it will be included (to the extent that any of those projects actually materialize).
“If Calgary seats were swing ridings” - this would require Albertans to stop being stupid. Until Calgarians and Albertans stop brainlessly voting Conservative, we’ll never get the Canadian back on the tracks it belongs on. (And selling Banff as part of the Canadian route would make it more money than its current route)
I totally agree with what you say about the Montréal to Québec City portion. Just add a couple more departures daily. And restrict the Hfr for Toronto to Montréal.
As a professional railwayman, that is fully conversant with both the EU directive to separate train operations from railway infrastructure, and used to work for the state run British Rail, I have to admire your hopes, but say it won't solve anything. To start with you need a PSO (Public Service Obligation) Grant to fund rural routes, like Senneterre. You have to get away from simple cost benefit analysis, and take into account social and environmental costs. Stranding remote settlements with no train, does nothing for social cohesion of a nation. Indeed, cutting branchlines have a negative impact on truck core routes too. World governments across the globe have no qualms spending billions on roads, yet see funding in railways as some sort of communist money-pit, a drain on the taxpayer. It is not. It is investment in your nation's future ! A better example would be to compare with France, that has built EIGHT high speed, high frequency, lines and has TWELVE more under construction - mostly funded by Air France to negate building more airports. Their double decker / bi-level trains reach 200 mph (320 kmh) over hundreds of miles, unlike AMTRAK's Acela that only achieves 150 mph through one station and averages 75 mph (110 kmh). In Britain the privatisation model is a complete disaster, miles more expensive for the taxpayer as every franchise skims off their profits for shareholders rather than invests for the passenger. Before privatisation, British Rail's intercity sector, was the ONLY MAINLINE RAILWAY IN THE WORLD that operated at a profit. While Network South East managed to balance their books, and covered their operating costs through ticket sales. In its final year BR received a subsidy of £450 million. Now the privatised railway is nearer £800 billion in real terms. I have travelled on every single railway line in the whole of Canada (except Churchill, which is still on the Bucket List), including non VIA Rail services operated by Skytrain, West Coast Express, Rocky Mountaineer, White Pass & Yukon, GO Transit, AMT Montreal, Ontario Northland, Tshiuetin, AMTRAK Maple Leaf, plus countless heritage lines.
Take It Away From The Crown Corporation Because Our Stupid Transport Minister Couldn't Run A Passenger Service Through A Wet Paper Bag With A Hole In It.
Excellent data presentation as usual. I find the company conference is a thing of the past. 2020 made digitisation happen. There's no point travelling when you can video into meetings. Better for the planet & people. But agree better rail needed. Remember though, roads are subsidized, gas is subsidized.
I get what you mean by saying that roads in Canada are subsidized, but really they are publicly owned and maintained infrastructure. You can tell there is a difference because if rails in Canada were like roads (a chunk of public infrastructure that responsible businesses can use for transport) I wouldn't have had to make this video. If climate is a concern for a person, we really have to fill trains up, electrify them or not run them. I read a few studies during this research that found in real word usage in North America trains emit more CO2 per passenger than buses, because we tend to run them at such low occupancy. For me, things have come to a head on that issue. We have to chose one of those 3 things or sunset the route.
Agreed, Montreal to Quebec city already has a pretty good service. HFR would work if they build it right. However, it is going to be a challenge for the cities like Brockville and Kingston.
This is such an amazing video!! Great research, graphics, humour, opinions etc. You constantly show up in my feed and this video blew me away. You really deserve more viewers. How long does it take to make such a high-quality video?
I was thinking if they ever need a new station to use, unfortunately it isn’t downtown is Gare Parc. Still on the same alignment to Quebec City though downtown connection is the Blue line then have to connect to Orange to do so.
@@PaigeMTL are you implying car driving is not subsidized? All the free parking, free highways, no cost for causing death and injuries that are a wreck on economy. A mode of transport that takes way too much for moving people, causes traffic and sits idle 95% of the time and creates an unhealthy society. If all these costs were past onto drivers, which is fair as they should be, 90% of drivers couldn't afford to drive. If so, then your research is lacking.
Okay for one, the Montreal to Sennetere/Jonquiere trains are considered more sightseeing tours. The Budd Car is the ONLY WAY to get to White River The Hudson Bay is also THE ONLY WAY to get to Churchill, and that train is relied on by it's residents to deliver important products as well as residents. The Ocean, is well, an experience. While The Canadian, is what the Cruise Industry should really be.
@@dougbrowning82 The Budd Cars are absolutely built different and maintained in the highest order, remember the fact that the Streamliner aesthetic died in the US, it's a tourist attraction. The cars were rebuilt completely during the early 2000s, so they have a lot left in them. The F40PHs also were completely rebuilt and got a new designation (GPA30H) as they were completely redone.
@@Dexter037S4 It's a testament to the great care they receive. It's good that people get to ride these cars in regular service. Old isn't necessarily bad.
@@dougbrowning82 100% Agreed, I think Siemens should offer to bring back the Stainless Steel Aesthetic on the Venture Chassis, it'd be a great investment for more tourist-y long distance routes.
13:08 Hi @RMTransit ! I feel like you put a cameo of him in another one of your videos but I can't remember which one. He's been putting in NotJustBikes references, and you've got your Not Just Buttons thumbnail, it's the Canadian trifecta! Oh and great video, as usual!
CP had the Dayliner which was much fastr than these locomotive pulled Via trains. Brian Mulroney put an end to it. As P.T. Barnum said, "build it and they will come".
There is also the issue of the Mont-Royal tunnel. Let's be frank, before this is over, we'll be spending at least another two billion to build a new tunnel under Park Avenue in Montreal, and I'm probably being way too optimistic with that amount given just how complex the engineering is going to be in order to connect it to Gare Centrale.
Yeah but a large part of the benefit of that tunnel would be for the trains to St-Jérôme and Mascouche, so we could reasonably expect the Province of Québec to provide a large part of the funding.
@@OntarioTrafficMan Québec isn't going to fund that. There are no plans to increase frequency on the commuter lines. I really wish that the government took a look at that since it really does feel like a low hanging fruit when compared to more expensive transit plans such as expanding the metro system.
If VIA was to follow the route that made the most financial sense than it actually wouldn't include Montreal but rather London. Subsidy by passenger per-km travelled on the Union-London section is the lowest in the country as London is the 4th busiest station in the network. The ONLY reason this lackluster expansion is going to QC is due to politics because any business person would automatically include London.
A couple of things , first it's thousands of passengers waiting in sidings not millions. Second Via waits in sidings because they fit in the sidings ,freight train quite often are over the length of the siding. If high speed passenger rail is to be a viable option it must be on dedicated track and not at grade (no road crossings).
Just for the record Amtrack's law that passanger trains should get right of way is borderline useless thanks to infrastructure constraints maintained by the class 1 railways in the US. If you have a mile long freight train that's supposed to wait for a 4 car passenger train because that's the law but the physical size of the siding is such that the mile of freight train can't fit in the siding but the passanger train can, well that law doesn't matter much because that passenger train is going to do the waiting. If you want freight and passanger to share the rails you're probably going to have to shift ownership away from the class 1 railways and will probably have to impose some regulation to get the freight to run trains of a size that actually functions with the infrastructure in place.
Great video! Maybe the numbers don't really make sense in all cities, however, an electrified (so: GHG-cutting transit) is supposed to reduce the more poluting air travel. It's an environmental move, not just a timing question. But it can also be a way of connecting smaller cities, with limited air service, to larger airports. What about getting people from Ottawa, or Kingston, or Quebec City, or Trois-Rivières/Drummondville out of that connecting (poluting) flight and getting them straight to YUL or YYZ by high-frequency, semi-high-speed [electric] trains? Having the train lines interconnect in a seamless way, like the case with the Schiphol Airport rail tunnel in The Netherlands, would get people out of their cars and connecting flights and get them in an environmentally-responsible way to a much larger air-travel hub.
Quebec City is the deFacro French capital of Canada, Quebec is still the 2nd largest province. HSR can't just be Ontario's baby! The Windsor Quebec corridor is 1,150 km long, half the nation's population and we need connections to Chicago and NYC too.
Little did he know, only several months later, ViaRail would finalize their designs for a new fleet, debuting in summer 2022. These extremely comfortable and accessible trains would make any Canadian want to ride one of them on sight. A little more hope for Canadian rail fans
i think if there was a branch to ottawa that wasnt fast, and only every few trains would go to ottawa, then the toronto - montreal would be great. or even if ottawa had a train to get to the via rail train
If I want to go from Toronto to Montreal, I have 3 options: VIA, the 401, or a flight. I'm taking the 401 out of this argument because that thing gives me nightmares. The VIA rail ticket is about $50 to go Union-Central according to their website. The flight from Pearson to Trudeau is about $300 on Air Canada. The VIA rail trip is allegedly 5 hours (but we know it's actually gonna be like 8-10 hours) while the flight will only be 1.25 hours (which would be like 3 hours with airport shenanigans). Now I don't really want to take any of these trips, the VIA trip is so long I'd lose my weekend vacation on transit, and the flight is so expensive I couldn't afford to do anything once I get there. If I'm gonna spend money on a flight I'd rather just go somewhere really far, like Tampa or Amsterdam, and take a 2 week vacation instead of just a weekend trip. And once again, the 401 is never an option because fuck that.
Huh, I dunno. The north shore rail makes sense when you have a big ass thing like the St-Laurent splicing the province in two. You can deserve most major and minor cities of Quebec with a north and south lines. If we want to convince everyone to leave their car when travelling, that's the step we'll have to take otherwise we'll stick to car sharing never knowing if you can actually bring 2 big bags or just a backpack.
VIA Rail should get involved as the operator of the proposed Calgary-Banff rail project. There is so much potential for it to be a popular and profitable route. Serving tourists, locals, students, and business people alike, year-round. It'd be a great way to reintroduce VIA to Southern Alberta. I think the future of VIA, like that of Amtrak, is in the shorter-distance, high-frequency routes between major cities and attractions. The profits from those routes can then be used to subsidize the longer-distance, less frequented ones. By focusing on this we can we make rail travel more competitive with flying over certain distances.
@@justinsimaluk314 Unfortunately, I don't see the AB gov't creating a crown corporation to operate the route...so it's probably gonna be some greedy corporation who will milk it for every penny while providing the absolute minimum level of service. Ugh.
@@RealisticMgmt a private company wants to build a train out to Banff so why would Via try and come in to block that? Government is failing rail travel in the West so what other options do we have? Via isn't a solution here.
@@justinsimaluk314 Well actually nothing has been decided yet about an operator. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is currently leading preliminary studies with the GoA to look at the costs of new rail/stations/operations, etc. I'm simply saying that if VIA were smart, they would look at investing in routes such as that. But I don't have much faith in that organization.
Mmmm - I’d add that each regional area should use a hub and spoke model (like WestJet used to have pre-pandemic). Let’s say each province gets a hub city that connects to the next province’s hub city. The spokes coming out of those hubs can more easily be serviced via a good public bus system (or seasonally/geographically appropriate option, including ferries and/or ice roads etc.) that runs, is scheduled, and purchased alongside the VIA rail schedule. That way, we’d still be abiding by confederation and the Atlantic Provinces and Northern Territories MIGHT even have access to some public transport…or something ;)
I'd love to see Quebec implement a regional rail network similar to what Ontario has. It's ridiculous that there's no rail link to Sherbrooke or Trois-Rivières. Even the Exo trains don't go nearly far enough.
@@APJTA Definitely. The Province should expand the mandate of Exo to provide fast regional train services to places like Ste Hyacinthe, Drummondville and Sherbrooke, especially since with the rise of work-from-home the number of commuting trips is decreasing but the average commuting trip length is increasing.
Being a high ranking rail employee, I am from Ontario, I wish to let you know high speed rail is so expensive you would never pay for it even at full trains daily, Then there is track time when Cn Metrolinks lines, Most track is in poor condition and has slow speed restrictions. The engineers are very overpaid a lot of the runs are required, Its a shit show and needs to be phased out
But car travel is also subsidized: its infrastructure is free to use.
Car travel is far from subsidized. Gasoline taxes, license and registration fees and bridge and other tolls provide far more revenue than what is spent on the highway infastructure. Governments add this money to general revenues in order to hide the fact that spend the money on other projects.
@@kenmitchell7133 Incorrect. Gasoline tax and property taxes are the primary source of revenue for highways and city roads. Commercial vehicle licensing barely covers 1/10'th of the cost of wear and tear they generate /km. License and registrations fees barely keep the bureaucracy of the licensing department running. Despite there being excess federal money from gas tax, the Feds very much hoard it for themselves and make it a chore to reclaim those taxes. You can rest assured that roads are extremely subsidized in most provinces.
@@TohaBgood2 I don't disagree with you, but "Congress," "Republicans" and "Democrats" don't apply to a discussion about Canadian railways.
@Zaydan Naufal "Interstate"? This is a discussion about Railways in Canada.
So true! Also when building and fixing highways nobody ever worries about how those projects are going to “pay for themselves” or “turn a profit”
A few things...
-VIA needs to have priority over freight trains, which is law in the USA.
-VIA needs to explore other potential routes to gain ridership besides ust focusing on the corridor.
-VIA needs to promote other routes through advertising, besides just in the corridor.
- Most people complain about the taxpayer cost of rail subsidies but have no idea about how much tax money was spent on the highways and the airline industry.
- If were supposed to be going green than rail is a big step.
@@henryab43 Same story in Canada. Freight trains keep getting longer, but not the sidings.
@TheMightyKing100 I understand the population density requirements but keep in mind, that most of these potential routes are only looking to get one train a day, which is much less than the corridor.
The best passenger trains in Canada are actually operated by the Ontario provincial agency Metrolinx, not VIA rail. And Metrolinx has probably invested more in passenger rail than any entity in Canada since before World War 2, and they're starting to edge into medium and now longer distance intercity service. They've effectively taken over VIA in Niagara region after COVID killed the Amtrak/VIA Maple Leaf and there's an argument to be made for Metrolinx taking over VIA in southern Ontario too.
One nice thing is Metrolinx has no 1960s CNR holdover crap and knows how to operate actual trains instead of trains LARPing as airplanes (see the boarding process in the VIA concourse at Union Station vs. the GO concourse).
But if you close your eyes…
Does it almost feel like nothing changed at all?
Real talk: they made plenty of changes, just not noticeable to most people.
The Amrtrak is returning to Niagara June 27th 2022
@@qjtvaddict “There are no good intercity routes on the American continent”
Northeast Corridor, which it corrects right to:
VIA needs to take notes
Yeah GO Transit's rail network carries more passengers than every other Canadian railway combined.
Not only does western Canada have poor rail service, bus service has also tanked, especially after the departure of greyhound. Many communities have no public transportation options at all.
Liked simply for pointing out that Taiwan is not part of the PRC.
Based
5:29 I took the Senneterre train a few weeks ago, getting off at Shawinigan; it was about 40-50% full, which seemed reasonable given the social distancing provisions. And here's a pro tip: the train stops at a few different stations in Montreal, including Sauvé metro, so you don't even have to get yourself to Central Station to use it. Furthermore, in Shawinigan the train arrives at a microbrewery, you literally walk 20 seconds and you're sitting on the patio 😎 This train is a true hidden gem 💎
It is a hidden gem, on many of these routes you are getting a $2000 experience for $200 and people should totally use the lines that do exist while they exist.
@@PaigeMTL The Senneterre isn't supposed to make money, as it's an essential service, just like the White River and Churchill trains. Believe it or not, but in 2021, the Senneterre train still carries mail and even groceries and supplies to a few remote communities.
@@qjtvaddict I remember the government doing that with with first nations peoples, forcibly. IN some cases, to less populated areas. No you don't want to do that as A) it reeks of central planning communist governments. B) Most of those people are there to support and work in critical resource based industries because that's where the resources are. C) Some people like living there.
The Churchill line was actually one of the few lines considered revenue positive when compared with most other routes. it is also an essential service so it can't be cut. There is a lot of truth to making sure then that VIA doesn't pay for the cost of running these services directly out of pocket.
@@colindewolfe3647 The Churchill line was closed for several years because flooding destroyed some sections of the track, and I believe the federal government had to subsidize plane flights because the people there had no other options.
There's some things that are vital to the function of society that will just never be profitable,, mail,, firefighting,, mass transit,,,, we shouldn't expect Amtrack and VIA to make money
Passenger trains aren’t vital to the functioning of a society, transport is. Passenger rail needs to reform itself from being government subsidized luxury travel to one based on what citizens actually want. Not caring about that has seen it get it’s ass whooped by cars, busses and planes for decades. I’d like it to be the #1 form of intercity transport, the fact that it might also make money by caring about demand is just a bonus.
@@PaigeMTL Your essay had quite a gap from a neutral transportation standpoint.
Factoring in the cost of a new rail line and consider it the loss of the rail operator is like taking the cost of a new freeway and factoring it in all car transportation going through it exclusively through tolls.
Toll roads are incredibly unpopular - in some cases, the tolls make up for the cost of the maintenance, but hardly ever for the cost of construction, especially when also accounting for the right of way land purchases (usually carried out by the local authorities) and the grade separation (freeway bridges, on ramps, etc.). The taxpayer has burden to carry on road construction (and maintenance), but its operation is never accounted as deficitary, and is usually taken on by both national and several regional and local state entities.
Indirectly, you sold this idea of "state dependency" of rail on what is essentially an accounting slight of hand rather than a real analysis between transportation options with any sort of genuine utility. Railways can be surprisingly reliable - some rail corridors get surprisingly old and are still used at a reasonable speed. Owning the rail corridor looks to me like it would make sense financially, especially on a long term basis, and it would also avoid paying tolls to circulate on the railways it doesnt own, which besides making all the trains late they are in all likelihood one of your rail operator's biggest cost, i.e. the real debt source.
@@MrRicmeme but they also own the surrounding land at the various destinations which they can rent or lease said land, and that is how Japan's Shinkansen is "profitable". This also works to ensure that everyone works to keep ridership high.
@@ANTSEMUT1 I hear Brightline, which is a privately funded rail operator in the USA, also uses the same strategy - they buy and develop land next to their rail infrastructure and get to collect profit in the increased value that they generate in the land value of the community by running their service. This is not without controversy, but on a public company I think it'd be interesting to consider (as adding value to the community is anyway the ultimate goal). It effectively brings in the company's impact in the community to their accounting.
Highways are also highly subsidized.
Why do we measure the effectiveness of a public service based on whether it makes money? I think we should nationalize CN and CP and build highly reliable, highly subsidized passenger service everywhere.
We should never have privatized CN in the first place.
My hometown, also NBs capital removed rails in the 90s. I was very saddened that they turned our train station into a liquor store. we could have been so ahead if we kept the rails.
Short answer--Neoliberalism
@@dougbrowning82 Exactly! When VIA was created, it was originally VIA CN in 1977, then spun off into a separate entity called VIA Rail in 1978. At that time, passenger traffic still had priority over freight, since CN was a Crown corporation. But when CN was privatized into CN Rail in 1995, if prioritized freight over passenger service. Of course CP had abandoned allowing VIA to operate on its tracks long before then.
In Canada we have a tendency to use public funds to create infrastructure, only to have successive governments sell it off at a huge discount - as though breaking even or even making a small profit were anathema to government operations. Frankly, I doubt this will ever come to fruition. And if it does, and it makes money, the government will privatize it. Again.
Trenitalia turns a profit and is one of the best rails systems anywhere.
I don't understand why some countries just create 399km/h rail like it's nothing and others take an excruciatingly long time to even just break 200km/h. Like where I live in Belgium for instance, we have a tiny few actual HSR lines, mostly for international services. But a line like Brussels-Ghent, which might just be the straightest line I've ever seen is limited to 160km/h, supposedly so more trains can ride closer together but it makes no sense as not even many trains ride there at a given moment to begin with. Meanwhile, the tiny portion between Brussels and Leuven is actually 200km/h, and it's so cool to travel between those cities in just 15 minutes!
I guess it's just because they don't want to make the initial capital investments but it's such a shame. Travel by rail would become a premium again with those speeds.
The reason that the remote rail services exist is that they serve communities which do not have road connections. You cannot replace them with buses because there is no road to run the bus on. All the rural routes which could be replaced by buses have already been replaced by buses, except for maybe the Ocean (all of its communities do have road access, as far as I'm aware).
"The railways are losing money" is such a dumb argument. The point is to provide mobility and access, not to turn a profit. It's like opposing sidewalks because they're not profitable.
Have you considered that it’s not the argument the video is making?
@@PaigeMTL Have you considered that it’s not what my comment is claiming?
I've got no problem with VIA being required to service remote areas, and not just because I live in northern Ontario. But they've gotta exploit the high profit routes to fund it! I wish they would get their arses into gear to fix it in this in the swedish style. I really want to be able to catch the train to Toronto damnit.
I would disagree. Quebec city is still home to around 800k people in the region, and the governmental HQ. A lot of folks do Quebec-Montreal during the week. As of now, the train takes roughly 1h more than the bus if you take delays into account, is more expensive and unreliable as hell. We need improvements on the Quebec-Windsor corridor as a whole, not just between Toronto and Montreal.
The split between infrastructure owner and service operators is what really should have happened, in lieu of the 1990 VIA Rail cuts and subsequent privatization of CN. CN was a Crown Corporation already - it should have been split, and only the operating side privatized. Thus giving VIA a fighting chance, and allowing public control of investment in infrastructure rather than subjecting it to a wholly freight-based ROI calculation. Additionally, then we could have been having the discussion of whether investing in yet more highway infrastructure, or improving rail infrastructure, is better for everyone. Imagine where we could be by now...
Good video! The only two points I’d like to make is that the drop in passenger numbers from 1980 is mostly due to over half of via’s routes and frequency collectively being cut in 1981 and 1990 (which speaks more to the issue that the government can unilaterally cut ViaRail routes and trains without oversight or public consultation) so it’s not entirely via’s fault that their passenger numbers have declined. I feel that they’ve done their best with a really, really bad hand. Another issue I think via rail has is that unlike other crown corporations there’s no act of parliament for via so it has no clear mandate of how it is to provide services or how it receives funding. Because of this provinces or other providers can’t even give via funding for routes they’d want which leaves via with next to no ways to work independently and establish routes.
Those routes weren’t dropped because those trains were full. People chose cars over slower more expensive trains. In effect we’ve been making the same mistake for 40 years. If we had spent that money wisely we’d have had HSR between Montreal and Toronto 20 years ago. Even a fraction of the car/air/bus traffic from that route would have doubled rail ridership in Canada.
@@PaigeMTL Not going to claim that all of these trains were packed to the max but they certainly weren’t empty either and many people relied on them. Just before it was cut the Halifax to Yarmouth train had over doubled its ridership over the past few years with 4 RDCs being needed per train to handle the demand. It is the most prominent example of a heavily used route just being cut with no replacement. Plus there was the cutting of sleeper trains and additional trips in the corridor made it less convenient to take the train. The best way to drive ridership of any public transportation system is to properly fund it and make it convenient and there is bounds of evidence that if you cut funding and service frequency ridership will suffer. Which is why I think it’s a bit of a false argument to say that people choose the car over the train. Someone in Calgary doesn’t exactly choose to drive to Edmonton or Regina when it’s the only viable option given to them, it’s a false choice when one has been made inconvenient or inaccessible due to funding cuts and negligence. The only other point I’d like to make I think that overly focusing profit margins for transportation is somewhat meaningless as there are many other factors to consider that don’t have a quantifiable dollar amount such as the environmental impact and the societal good of having connectivity with public transportation systems to cities and small towns that you can’t put on a balance sheet. Plus every form of transportation has some level of subsidies needed to operate and if no truly independently profitable transportation businesses.
@@PaigeMTL This distances are so vast for long distance travel in the West that HSR would never be practical or affordable. There is a much larger quantity of people willing to use the "slow" train if ones like the Canadian were actually run on the original (faster and safer than car) time table. The only way to fix the Western problem is to nationalize the rail lines and expand capacity by twinning them or offer CN that VIA will build passing lanes that actually fit the size of the freight trains with an agreement that CN MUST wait in those lanes for the single train to pass. As little demand you think there is in places like Calgary and Regina, it would be a lot higher if there was an actual schedule because driving and flying are not always an option.
@@holofernesz We had a national rail line with two main lines across the west, CN. And the government privatized it in the 1990s. Big mistake.
@@PaigeMTL VIA ridership has never recovered from these cuts. Out west, the Super Continental and Canadian were jointly packing 800,000 yearly passengers before the cuts.
You simplify problems that Canadian history and politics has complicated.
Unfortunately you can't always throw out 200 years of history and politics.
Seriously dude you need more subscribers the content is so good!
The sweary man’s RMTransit
I might be biased, living near Quebec city, but i think that weither it's built now or later, a MTL/Quebec city rail line owned by Via is necessary. Everything to reduce car dependancy is a step in the right direction imo.
Great video!! We really need more content like this and especially the eyes of politicians.
It makes me more depressed thinking about the squandered opportunities and the sad fact that I’ll probably never get to experience an express train to Toronto. What’s crazy is the bullet trains out in Asia go through highly dense communities, meanwhile people are spread out all over Canada. We only have a few really dense cities yet we still can’t even manage to construct one
As a person living in Ottawa, and more importantly as someone who wants Ontario to be more than just a bunch of places close to Toronto, I agree with the idea of improving the existing line. We currently have a connection to Brockville, so making a cheap connection would be fine with me. Hopefully, we'd eventually get a better rail line that would get expanded along the 417 as that became more viable and important.
The reasons I support extending HFR to Québec City are two fold:
- As Québec's second biggest metropolitan area, I firmly believe it should be part of the national immigration and economic strategy. A reliable rail link between the two cities would help strengthen that ecosystem. People already regularly commute between those two cities and tickets are fairly cheap.
- The second is anecdotal. I took a train from Montréal to Québec City Friday around 6PM. It was packed to the brim, left Montreal 45min late, had to wait in the sidings twice for freight trains that were already on a single tracked spur and arrived in Québec City 1 hour late. That is appalling for what should be a 3 hours trip.
This being said, since this project will be phased, it doesn't need to be the first phase of this rail infrastructure project. As for revenue service, HFR does not need to be one continuous line. HFR could maintain its core service between Montréal and Toronto, and offer an independent service between Ottawa/Québec or Montréal/Québec as it currently does.
Maybe have it go to the other cities as a separate route. May be more expensive but in the long run will probably be better
I agree with you but I recognize I am biased as I live in Quebec city. There is a bus every 15 minutes leaving quebec for montreal plus the trains plus the rideshare plus the planes plus the car traffic so I do believe there is a demand strong enough to justify a train. Maybe not high speed, but 160kmh would do. Furthermore, making a profit is not necessary, as long as it brings a benefit for the population, just like highways. If it has a decent average speed, it should enable to do the distance in an 1h40 which would get plenty of people on the train instead of the car. I agree that the first phase should be built between Toronto and Montreal but if Ottawa and Quebec as well as the other smaller but still significant cities in Quebec and Ontario are not included in the project, it will simply remain a sub-par system among the modern world and a huge lost potential.
So glad someone's talking about this. HSR between Montreal and Toronto would do SO MUCH for the environment and hugely improve ridership. I recently got an email from VIA smugly announcing new diesel trains as some big fancy environmental project. What an embarrassing way to try and spin things. HSR on that route alone would stop VIA losing money and would bolster confidence in a cross-country route. And you're quite right about them needing to lay dedicated tracks. Besides it's non-negotiable with HSR.
Weirded out by how few subscribers you have, btw. Great channel. Found you yesterday
No need to bolster confidence in a cross-country HSR route. Just link clusters of cities with separate systems. The diminishing returns would be far too great to build HSR from Toronto to Thunder Bay and Saskatoon.
@@coastaku1954 The problem there is that both CP and CP run double stacked container trains over their lines (20 feet tall). You would not be able to put an electrical system for VIA without having a parallel line.
Via rail est une blague qui se laisse marcher dessus par le CN et le CP.
I'm always carefull talking about transport on the web. transport nerds (and I say this in a positive fashion) are ruthless and passionate and will correct your every move if they have to.
Why couldn't the government buy the CN sub division from Toronto to Montreal and build a new freight line for CN on the proposed HFR line.
wow they think that track would cost 1 billion while it takes us in toronto 5.6 billion dollars to make a 3 stop 15 km subway lmao
You make some valid points. However cities like Kingston, Belleville etc would grow if you could get to ToRONto in an hour or less on time. With city growth comes all kinds if opportunities. Kingston could become a useful secondary airport in the “Triangle”. They already expanded it….
I like the ideia of high frequency rail, but it would really be better if they made it as high speed rail from the get go, it wouldn't even matter that it goes through small cities in the middle
I live in Peterborough and honestly people are pretty excited to soon have high frequency rail. Now we can just jump on the train here rather then having to drive to our closes via station which in port hope and closes GO Oshawa both around 35 mins to 45 mins away from here it will make things so much easier. They still will no own some rail between Toronto and Smith falls since it is CP Rail owned but the trains that use this line are not very big move slow and not very frequent. It will be coming straight through downtown which will bring in more people and help people that have moved here since covid which is a lot travel to the city if they have gone back to the office.a
It's unrealistic to expect passenger rail to be profitable. It's transport infrastructure, just like roads. And we're not whining about the billions we sink into subsidizing roads for cars. That's why it's cheaper with a car. The metro is not profitable and yet.. oh right, the REM. And as someone without a car, already using VIA Rail to go from Montréal to Drummondville or Québec City, having service dropped or not improved at all because "it has to be profitable" is, erhm, a tad insulting. All those talks about profitability first is scary from the perspective of someone relying on those services to move around. No service for you if it's not profitable; guess you'll have to use a car.
Actually intercity passenger rail in Canada isn't transport infrastructure and that's the problem. Also, I don't say that it has to be profitable. You know the graphic where the coins go into the infrastructure division instead of the operating company? I thought I had created a memorable visual to show the application of the subsidy to the railway lines so that rail would be given the same opportunity as highways. Did you watch the whole video?
What will probably happen is the Quebec City portion will get cut after they get more serious about planning. Canada has an history of overshooting public transport projects and scaling down afterwards.
The current study is considering an Ottawa bypass via the CP Winchester subdivision for certain Montreal-Toronto express trains.
This is the first video from your channel I've watched. Subscribed! Keep up the great work.
Welcome aboard!
We should build a high-speed rail network across the entire country. That’d be nice.
Only to be derailed by maintenance issues.
Honestly Canada doesn't have the density for it outside of few corridors however if it was cross border you could piggyback of US population density in a number of places but the continental divide would essentially be impassable by HSR even in the US so you would end up with 2 disconnected networks a small west coast network and a gigantic eastern network
Thanks for adding actual captions for the Deaf
The Senneterre train is an actual service. It provides mail, groceries and médecine to communities that are only reachable by rail, so yes the bus is great for people going from Montreal to Senneterre directly. But not for the communities like Parent, Clova, Press etc.
As a Kingston resident, I am crying. We can’t have shit around here.
What's really crazy is the subsidy for our fighter plane pilots. We spend billions to fly one or maybe two people around at supersonic speeds, just so that we can continue to exist as a country. Instead we could just give them bicycles, or maybe hot air balloons and save a fortune. Maybe we could take an idea from this video and ferry around three pilots in a stretch limo on their missions.
The would seem to need a train for Kingston, Cornwall and Ottawa which could use the current system. If they did a really fast train between Montreal and Toronto surely they could do it by not having double track all the way.
How does this guy only have 3k subs?
I watched this after taking ottawa -> quebec city. You dissed those two locations lol.
Another banger from Paige
Public transit doesn’t need to make a profit.
He becomes radicalised and becomes a threat to us all... That slayed me!
I actually don't think that the detour over Ottawa wouldn't be much of a problem. Like if you theoretically have trains that run 320km/h (~200mp/h) 50 additional kilometers is hardly an additional 30min which is not that dramatic.
I often wonder why we can't run a high speed rail line down the center median of hwy 401 and it's Quebec counterparts. It's already surveyed, public owned land, grade separated with drainage and service access. Both Montreal and Toronto airports are adjacent. A branch up the 416 could access Ottawa and link to LTR in city west. With grade separation already in place, there is no political dangers from disruption of community or land rights.
100%, I am sure they could work something out for much of the route. Strategic acquisition of land is another common sense thing that should have started decades ago.
i thought about that also. I think the problem is the highway is bypassing a lot of cities rahther than go through it. So you either build a track that only connect two or three cities, or you have to build a LOT tracks to connect the line to existing lines to serve more cities
I think about this every day on the 401/402 near London. Fill those medians with tracks instead of lanes.
@@yitezeng1035 which major cities do the highways bypass? Every one I can think of is built up at least to the highway.
Amazing video! I like your pragmatic approach to solving our passenger train problem, and of course the swearing which is very entertaining.
I drop the fbombs for you, it’s certainly not good for the algorithm
@@PaigeMTL Fuck the algorithm!
The best train setup would be a high speed rail line then have a freight line or a passing line where if planed right a pasnger train could pass a freight train well at speed both make it on time no idea if that been done anywhere else
@@qjtvaddict That seems to be in their long term plans. They are getting their own tracks (soon ~2025) between Toronto and Ottawa, and they already have some trackage between Ottawa and Montreal. They would simply need to upgrade those tracks (electrification, lighter curves etc.)
well over a year latter and still no rail Canada
Via is usually priority. Unless the freight is a what we call 'precious' train.
Isn't that why a third track was added to the CN in some parts of Ontario between Toronto and Kingston. ... Oh right, CN used it for more frieght trains.
I rode VIA a few years ago from Sarnia to Quebec City with a Japanese friend. What an embarrassment. Have not been on VIA since. I did not think anything could be worse than Amtrak, but I was wrong. While Europe and Asia continues to make improvements the US and Canada go backwards. The US does one thing well and that is run single long distance trains with private rooms and great meals.
Did you see the new locomotive that will operate between Toronto and Montreal Ottawa
The west is still stuck with the 30 year old EMDs
It’s actually beautiful 😍
“Blowing so much money, you’d think they were working on a space program.” Yep! Sounds about right. Most of it goes to executive salaries and bonuses.
My man. You got me to subscribe.
Québec city should absolutely be included in the project. It is still an area of about a million people. If the service is quick enough with little to no delays, it's gonna be faster than by car and will end up picking up more ridership. There is definitely a demand for it, train service just needs to be good enough.
Why isn’t Edmonton included? It has a million residents.
@@PaigeMTL The Trudeau government announced they would be funding a train project between Calgary and Edmonton the day after they made the HFR announcement for the Ontario Québec corridor, so it seems like it will be included (to the extent that any of those projects actually materialize).
@@PaigeMTL Edmonton already has the Canadian. Three trains a week to Vancouver, two a week to Toronto. They figure that's enough.
“If Calgary seats were swing ridings” - this would require Albertans to stop being stupid.
Until Calgarians and Albertans stop brainlessly voting Conservative, we’ll never get the Canadian back on the tracks it belongs on.
(And selling Banff as part of the Canadian route would make it more money than its current route)
I totally agree with what you say about the Montréal to Québec City portion. Just add a couple more departures daily. And restrict the Hfr for Toronto to Montréal.
As a professional railwayman, that is fully conversant with both the EU directive to separate train operations from railway infrastructure, and used to work for the state run British Rail, I have to admire your hopes, but say it won't solve anything. To start with you need a PSO (Public Service Obligation) Grant to fund rural routes, like Senneterre. You have to get away from simple cost benefit analysis, and take into account social and environmental costs. Stranding remote settlements with no train, does nothing for social cohesion of a nation. Indeed, cutting branchlines have a negative impact on truck core routes too. World governments across the globe have no qualms spending billions on roads, yet see funding in railways as some sort of communist money-pit, a drain on the taxpayer. It is not. It is investment in your nation's future ! A better example would be to compare with France, that has built EIGHT high speed, high frequency, lines and has TWELVE more under construction - mostly funded by Air France to negate building more airports. Their double decker / bi-level trains reach 200 mph (320 kmh) over hundreds of miles, unlike AMTRAK's Acela that only achieves 150 mph through one station and averages 75 mph (110 kmh). In Britain the privatisation model is a complete disaster, miles more expensive for the taxpayer as every franchise skims off their profits for shareholders rather than invests for the passenger. Before privatisation, British Rail's intercity sector, was the ONLY MAINLINE RAILWAY IN THE WORLD that operated at a profit. While Network South East managed to balance their books, and covered their operating costs through ticket sales. In its final year BR received a subsidy of £450 million. Now the privatised railway is nearer £800 billion in real terms. I have travelled on every single railway line in the whole of Canada (except Churchill, which is still on the Bucket List), including non VIA Rail services operated by Skytrain, West Coast Express, Rocky Mountaineer, White Pass & Yukon, GO Transit, AMT Montreal, Ontario Northland, Tshiuetin, AMTRAK Maple Leaf, plus countless heritage lines.
1000% yes on the Taiwan comment, thanks for not self censoring that
Take It Away From The Crown Corporation Because Our Stupid Transport Minister Couldn't Run A Passenger Service Through A Wet Paper Bag With A Hole In It.
Excellent data presentation as usual. I find the company conference is a thing of the past. 2020 made digitisation happen. There's no point travelling when you can video into meetings. Better for the planet & people. But agree better rail needed.
Remember though, roads are subsidized, gas is subsidized.
I get what you mean by saying that roads in Canada are subsidized, but really they are publicly owned and maintained infrastructure. You can tell there is a difference because if rails in Canada were like roads (a chunk of public infrastructure that responsible businesses can use for transport) I wouldn't have had to make this video.
If climate is a concern for a person, we really have to fill trains up, electrify them or not run them. I read a few studies during this research that found in real word usage in North America trains emit more CO2 per passenger than buses, because we tend to run them at such low occupancy. For me, things have come to a head on that issue. We have to chose one of those 3 things or sunset the route.
I live in Peterborough Ontario can not wait for this. Unless it's cheaper to drive from Peterborough to Toronto then Via.
Agreed, Montreal to Quebec city already has a pretty good service. HFR would work if they build it right. However, it is going to be a challenge for the cities like Brockville and Kingston.
This is such an amazing video!! Great research, graphics, humour, opinions etc. You constantly show up in my feed and this video blew me away. You really deserve more viewers. How long does it take to make such a high-quality video?
Brilliantly articulated with a keen wit!
Why does this not have more views? This hits the nail on the head. Another issue I have with HFR is that REM really screws it up
Also the fact that there’s no mainline corridor that travels through east Montreal.
I was thinking if they ever need a new station to use, unfortunately it isn’t downtown is Gare Parc. Still on the same alignment to Quebec City though downtown connection is the Blue line then have to connect to Orange to do so.
Wow! This was a fantastic and in depth video
why don't you also point out the subsidies drivers get each year? I wouldn't be suprised if the number is north of 50k per driver, each year!
Because I put a lot of time into research.
@@PaigeMTL are you implying car driving is not subsidized? All the free parking, free highways, no cost for causing death and injuries that are a wreck on economy. A mode of transport that takes way too much for moving people, causes traffic and sits idle 95% of the time and creates an unhealthy society. If all these costs were past onto drivers, which is fair as they should be, 90% of drivers couldn't afford to drive.
If so, then your research is lacking.
we just need new railssss
Effectively. More interested in the government owning the highway than a fleet of trucks. In Canada it’s the opposite way around.
@@PaigeMTL facts, this country has now been transformed into a car paradise. should not be that way!
Okay for one, the Montreal to Sennetere/Jonquiere trains are considered more sightseeing tours.
The Budd Car is the ONLY WAY to get to White River
The Hudson Bay is also THE ONLY WAY to get to Churchill, and that train is relied on by it's residents to deliver important products as well as residents.
The Ocean, is well, an experience.
While The Canadian, is what the Cruise Industry should really be.
The western trains languish with 65 year old equipment. Even our locomotives are 30 years old.
@@dougbrowning82 The Budd Cars are absolutely built different and maintained in the highest order, remember the fact that the Streamliner aesthetic died in the US, it's a tourist attraction. The cars were rebuilt completely during the early 2000s, so they have a lot left in them. The F40PHs also were completely rebuilt and got a new designation (GPA30H) as they were completely redone.
@@Dexter037S4 It's a testament to the great care they receive. It's good that people get to ride these cars in regular service. Old isn't necessarily bad.
@@dougbrowning82 100% Agreed, I think Siemens should offer to bring back the Stainless Steel Aesthetic on the Venture Chassis, it'd be a great investment for more tourist-y long distance routes.
We need new more efficient and cost-effective train, and a better customer service or it will never viable $$$
HSR on dedicated tracks-we've been trying to do it on the cheap for decades.
So well put!! Hope we get better trains in the future!!
hey, your videos are cool, thanks for making them
I'm thinking 🤔 while building profit center line, why not make it 300+ km/h, cause here we will still be half a century behind.
The only thing to make sure you’re not behind, is the plane
13:08 Hi @RMTransit ! I feel like you put a cameo of him in another one of your videos but I can't remember which one. He's been putting in NotJustBikes references, and you've got your Not Just Buttons thumbnail, it's the Canadian trifecta!
Oh and great video, as usual!
Now all we need is AvE to contribute some "colourful French", and IFHT/MahaloMyDude to give a west-coast bike-positive perspective...
CP had the Dayliner which was much fastr than these locomotive pulled Via trains. Brian Mulroney put an end to it. As P.T. Barnum said, "build it and they will come".
There is also the issue of the Mont-Royal tunnel. Let's be frank, before this is over, we'll be spending at least another two billion to build a new tunnel under Park Avenue in Montreal, and I'm probably being way too optimistic with that amount given just how complex the engineering is going to be in order to connect it to Gare Centrale.
Yeah but a large part of the benefit of that tunnel would be for the trains to St-Jérôme and Mascouche, so we could reasonably expect the Province of Québec to provide a large part of the funding.
@@OntarioTrafficMan Québec isn't going to fund that. There are no plans to increase frequency on the commuter lines. I really wish that the government took a look at that since it really does feel like a low hanging fruit when compared to more expensive transit plans such as expanding the metro system.
@@jonathanlanglois2742 Then it's not happening.
I agree with him!
If VIA was to follow the route that made the most financial sense than it actually wouldn't include Montreal but rather London. Subsidy by passenger per-km travelled on the Union-London section is the lowest in the country as London is the 4th busiest station in the network.
The ONLY reason this lackluster expansion is going to QC is due to politics because any business person would automatically include London.
A couple of things , first it's thousands of passengers waiting in sidings not millions.
Second Via waits in sidings because they fit in the sidings ,freight train quite often are
over the length of the siding. If high speed passenger rail is to be a viable option it
must be on dedicated track and not at grade (no road crossings).
finally someone with some understanding of how the railway works
Great video, and was that a @RMTransit sighting at 13:10 ?
That comment about the CN and CP workers being well compensated aged like milk.
Just for the record Amtrack's law that passanger trains should get right of way is borderline useless thanks to infrastructure constraints maintained by the class 1 railways in the US.
If you have a mile long freight train that's supposed to wait for a 4 car passenger train because that's the law but the physical size of the siding is such that the mile of freight train can't fit in the siding but the passanger train can, well that law doesn't matter much because that passenger train is going to do the waiting. If you want freight and passanger to share the rails you're probably going to have to shift ownership away from the class 1 railways and will probably have to impose some regulation to get the freight to run trains of a size that actually functions with the infrastructure in place.
Great video!
Maybe the numbers don't really make sense in all cities, however, an electrified (so: GHG-cutting transit) is supposed to reduce the more poluting air travel. It's an environmental move, not just a timing question.
But it can also be a way of connecting smaller cities, with limited air service, to larger airports.
What about getting people from Ottawa, or Kingston, or Quebec City, or Trois-Rivières/Drummondville out of that connecting (poluting) flight and getting them straight to YUL or YYZ by high-frequency, semi-high-speed [electric] trains? Having the train lines interconnect in a seamless way, like the case with the Schiphol Airport rail tunnel in The Netherlands, would get people out of their cars and connecting flights and get them in an environmentally-responsible way to a much larger air-travel hub.
Quebec City is the deFacro French capital of Canada, Quebec is still the 2nd largest province. HSR can't just be Ontario's baby! The Windsor Quebec corridor is 1,150 km long, half the nation's population and we need connections to Chicago and NYC too.
Little did he know, only several months later, ViaRail would finalize their designs for a new fleet, debuting in summer 2022. These extremely comfortable and accessible trains would make any Canadian want to ride one of them on sight. A little more hope for Canadian rail fans
Jesus. I hope you wait until that train is 16.
Ha ha, imagine getting accommodations on the road trip to Florida. Lucky if you get three rest stops.
i think if there was a branch to ottawa that wasnt fast, and only every few trains would go to ottawa, then the toronto - montreal would be great. or even if ottawa had a train to get to the via rail train
If I want to go from Toronto to Montreal, I have 3 options: VIA, the 401, or a flight. I'm taking the 401 out of this argument because that thing gives me nightmares. The VIA rail ticket is about $50 to go Union-Central according to their website. The flight from Pearson to Trudeau is about $300 on Air Canada. The VIA rail trip is allegedly 5 hours (but we know it's actually gonna be like 8-10 hours) while the flight will only be 1.25 hours (which would be like 3 hours with airport shenanigans). Now I don't really want to take any of these trips, the VIA trip is so long I'd lose my weekend vacation on transit, and the flight is so expensive I couldn't afford to do anything once I get there. If I'm gonna spend money on a flight I'd rather just go somewhere really far, like Tampa or Amsterdam, and take a 2 week vacation instead of just a weekend trip. And once again, the 401 is never an option because fuck that.
Huh, I dunno. The north shore rail makes sense when you have a big ass thing like the St-Laurent splicing the province in two. You can deserve most major and minor cities of Quebec with a north and south lines. If we want to convince everyone to leave their car when travelling, that's the step we'll have to take otherwise we'll stick to car sharing never knowing if you can actually bring 2 big bags or just a backpack.
Its not broken. It works, but has never had any significant money spent on it. Chump change.
VIA Rail should get involved as the operator of the proposed Calgary-Banff rail project. There is so much potential for it to be a popular and profitable route. Serving tourists, locals, students, and business people alike, year-round. It'd be a great way to reintroduce VIA to Southern Alberta. I think the future of VIA, like that of Amtrak, is in the shorter-distance, high-frequency routes between major cities and attractions. The profits from those routes can then be used to subsidize the longer-distance, less frequented ones. By focusing on this we can we make rail travel more competitive with flying over certain distances.
Via Rail can't even get their shit together enough to look at any route in Alberta. The last thing I want is them operating a line here.
@@justinsimaluk314 Unfortunately, I don't see the AB gov't creating a crown corporation to operate the route...so it's probably gonna be some greedy corporation who will milk it for every penny while providing the absolute minimum level of service. Ugh.
@@RealisticMgmt a private company wants to build a train out to Banff so why would Via try and come in to block that? Government is failing rail travel in the West so what other options do we have? Via isn't a solution here.
@@justinsimaluk314 Well actually nothing has been decided yet about an operator. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is currently leading preliminary studies with the GoA to look at the costs of new rail/stations/operations, etc. I'm simply saying that if VIA were smart, they would look at investing in routes such as that. But I don't have much faith in that organization.
That's the thing, Via doesn't care about anything outside of Quebec City-Windsor
Shot bro. Good video
not to mention way too expensive!!!
Mmmm - I’d add that each regional area should use a hub and spoke model (like WestJet used to have pre-pandemic). Let’s say each province gets a hub city that connects to the next province’s hub city. The spokes coming out of those hubs can more easily be serviced via a good public bus system (or seasonally/geographically appropriate option, including ferries and/or ice roads etc.) that runs, is scheduled, and purchased alongside the VIA rail schedule. That way, we’d still be abiding by confederation and the Atlantic Provinces and Northern Territories MIGHT even have access to some public transport…or something ;)
I'd love to see Quebec implement a regional rail network similar to what Ontario has. It's ridiculous that there's no rail link to Sherbrooke or Trois-Rivières. Even the Exo trains don't go nearly far enough.
@@APJTA Definitely. The Province should expand the mandate of Exo to provide fast regional train services to places like Ste Hyacinthe, Drummondville and Sherbrooke, especially since with the rise of work-from-home the number of commuting trips is decreasing but the average commuting trip length is increasing.
Man, I love your videos but it sometimes feel like screaming at the void.
Being a high ranking rail employee, I am from Ontario, I wish to let you know high speed rail is so expensive you would never pay for it even at full trains daily, Then there is track time when Cn Metrolinks lines, Most track is in poor condition and has slow speed restrictions. The engineers are very overpaid a lot of the runs are required, Its a shit show and needs to be phased out
_the bad thing_
Took me way too long to realize what he meant.
13:07 LOL is that RMTransit?