Why are we subsidizing VIA?

[Boges]

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jesse-kline-the-case-for-privatizing-via-rail

Indeed, a government report released in February found that the feds sank $55 million into The Canadian in 2014, which amounts to a subsidy of $591 per passenger — roughly the cost of an economy ticket to travel between Toronto and Vancouver. And even with this huge subsidy, rail transport is still not an economic means of transportation. A quick search shows that an economy ticket on this Saturday’s train costs $595 and requires spending four days in a cramped seat, whereas an airline ticket can be had for $528 and will get you to Vancouver in five hours. Taking the train as a means of transportation (rather than a vacation) is only really viable for short distances, but even then, many of the routes are already served by private bus companies, which surely don’t need the federal government competing with them.

A more recent auditor general report found that ridership levels have been decreasing even more sharply in recent years — from 4.1 million in 2010, to 3.8 million in 2014. Perhaps part of the problem is that the government isn’t good at running a train service. The AG found that nearly a quarter of VIA’s trains didn’t run on time in 2014.

If you want to go across the country in a train, you should pay the full freight. Even with the government boost, it's still extraordinarily expensive for something that provides no tangible value to average Canadians.

If it's about the journey and not the destination, then drive. Or take a bus. If it's about the destination, then fly.

There's no good reason that taxpayer money should be used to prop up a leisure travel option that only wealthy people can afford anyway.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Boges

[Smallc]

I agree, actually - Rail service should exist where it makes sense - in the TOM corridor.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Smallc

[?Impact]

There's no good reason that taxpayer money should be used to prop up a leisure travel option that only wealthy people can afford anyway.

Just how many tens of billions is the airline industry subsidized every year? CATSA alone gets a half billion dollars a year. Then we have the airports capital assistance program, the airports operations and maintenance subsidy program, etc. etc. Sure, a few of the larger airports probably pay their own freight but move away from Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver main airports and the subsidy dollars just roll in.

[Boges]

Just how many tens of billions is the airline industry subsidized every year? CATSA alone gets a half billion dollars a year. Then we have the airports capital assistance program, the airports operations and maintenance subsidy program, etc. etc. Sure, a few of the larger airports probably pay their own freight but move away from Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver main airports and the subsidy dollars just roll in.

But air travel is an efficient form of travel, Cross-country rail travel isn't.

The OP story cites that a 4-day trip on a train (cross country) is subsidized for more than the actual airfare that takes 5-hours. So even if there is some subsidization in airfare, it pales in comparison.

And VIA wants Billions more money.

[overthere]

To answer the OP question 'Why are we subsidizing VIA?' requires a one word answer.

Montreal.

VIA is headquartered in Montreal, and buys a fair bit of Bombardier equipment.

Therefore the federal money just pours in, eternally.

I agree, actually - Rail service should exist where it makes sense - in the TOM corridor.

How would you feel about the consumers of that service paying for it too?

[Boges]

To answer the OP question 'Why are we subsidizing VIA?' requires a one word answer.

Montreal.

VIA is headquartered in Montreal, and buys a fair bit of Bombardier equipment.

Therefore the federal money just pours in, eternally.

How would you feel about the consumers of that service paying for it too?

Perhaps that route is profitable. I think the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor makes money. But many do not.

[overthere]

Perhaps that route is profitable. I think the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor makes money. But many do not.

What do you think the reaction would be from Denis Coderre, then Ottawa, if the incredible happened and VIA decided to chop all unprofitable routes, operate without subsidies in a modern business model and to undertake a major trimming of Montreal HQ staff? The only Crown agency that has come close to efficiency has been Canada Post, and look what happens when they try to roll out an intelligent, well organized business plan to match reality in 2016? Answer: crushed by political interference.

I don't think VIA , operating as a Crown agency from Montreal, could be profitable under any circumstances.

To be fair, nearly every govt since the creation of VIA has dicked around with it. Why? Same answer: Montreal.

Edited May 12, 2016 by overthere

[The_Squid]

Agreed, this money should be subsidizing commuter routes, not holiday routes. Vancouver Island has no commuter train any longer. A very small amount of that subsidy could have helped with this route and perhaps expanded it for the future.

Now there is a push to use the rail corridor as a footpath. In 50 years, when the population has increased significantly, there will be a demand for a commuter train, but there won't be a corridor any longer. Short sighted politicians... lack of leadership from the province...

[jacee]

You are really focussed on commuting between major cities. The train has always been the link of northern communities to major cities.

Here you are again assuming that the train is about making money when it is and always was about connecting the country.

[The_Squid]

You are really focussed on commuting between major cities. The train has always been the link of northern communities to major cities.

Here you are again assuming that the train is about making money when it is and always was about connecting the country.

This particular route in the OP doesn't connect any northern communities. And which norther communities are you talking about that have rail service?

This route is purely a very expensive trip for tourists (it's a really awesome trip, btw) that is subsidized for dubious reasons.

[overthere]

You are really focussed on commuting between major cities. The train has always been the link of northern communities to major cities.

Here you are again assuming that the train is about making money when it is and always was about connecting the country.

You are making the same assumption that is made about subsidizing the CBC, that somehow Canada is frozen in time 50 years ago and that there are no alternatives today. The connectivity required then has been almost entirely replaced with other modes of personal transport, highways and airports. Note also that (from long personal experience) that living in a remote place means access is difficult and expensive. All of that is voluntary, you are not obliged to stay.

For example, Churchill MB has both a viable airport, and the railway hauls plenty of freight. Prince Rupert also has an airport and a very good all weather paved highway.

[Smallc]

When is the last time that VIA bought a new train from anyone, never mind Bombardier?

[overthere]

When is the last time that VIA bought a new train from anyone, never mind Bombardier?

All aboard the Gravy Trains!!!

http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/ottawa-quebec-must-cough-up-some-money-for-light-rail-network-caisse-ceo

and

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/via-rail-quebec-ontario-1.3537019

I wonder if Bombardier might get invited to tender on these projects?

[Smallc]

The first link has nothing to do with VIA. The second link is about service in the TOM corridor, which requires almost zero subsidy, and would require none with slightly better service. Also, name me a G7 country that doesn't subsidize rail service.

I know none of that fits your narrative - sorry.

[overthere]

The first link has nothing to do with VIA. The second link is about service in the TOM corridor, which requires almost zero subsidy, and would require none with slightly better service. Also, name me a G7 country that doesn't subsidize rail service.

I know none of that fits your narrative - sorry.

Name me a G7 country, with the demographics and geography of Canada, that would piss away hundreds of millions every year on this pointless, endless political waste of money The VIA subsidies are stupid, and entirely typical of Canadian thinking. If The Corridor is indeed self sufficient, then the correct procedure would be to terminate all other VIA services, and sell the break even sections. There is no need whatsoever for Canadian taxpayers to fund or subsidize VIA. If it is not viable financially, let it die. if it is viable, sell it. VIA adds nothing to the 'national fabric'.

I was giving examples of why VIA continues to be subsidized, that makes three undertakings (one actual and longterm, the other two proposed) where the correct answer to the question 'why?' is 'Montreal'.

[Smallc]

Name me a G7 country, with the demographics and geography of Canada, that would piss away hundreds of millions every year on this pointless, endless political waste of money

Almost all publicly funded train services lose money, from the TTC to the TGV.

The VIA subsidies are stupid, and entirely typical of Canadian thinking.

Many would argue that Canadians actually brutally underfund train service.

If The Corridor is indeed self sufficient, then the correct procedure would be to terminate all other VIA services, and sell the break even sections. There is no need whatsoever for Canadian taxpayers to fund or subsidize VIA. If it is not viable financially, let it die. if it is viable, sell it. VIA adds nothing to the 'national fabric'.

Typical short sighted Conservative thinking. I'm not opposed to ending parts of the service. At the same time, I'm also open to the idea of improving them. With the money VIA has right now, they should focus on TOM.

I was giving examples of why VIA continues to be subsidized, that makes three undertakings (one actual and longterm, the other two proposed) where the correct answer to the question 'why?' is 'Montreal'.

The Montreal LRT has nothing to do with VIA. The other is a proposal that is to have mostly private financial backing.

[jacee]

This particular route in the OP doesn't connect any northern communities. And which norther communities are you talking about that have rail service?

This route is purely a very expensive trip for tourists (it's a really awesome trip, btw) that is subsidized for dubious reasons.

For the same reason that national parks and museums exist, I expect.

.

[The_Squid]

For the same reason that national parks and museums exist, I expect.

.

VIA is a private for-profit company. Poor analogy.

[Smallc]

VIA is a private for-profit company. Poor analogy.

Technically, but not really.

[jacee]

VIA is a private for-profit company. Poor analogy.

That runs a national attraction, and is subsidized for that.

I see no problem.

.

[The_Squid]

That runs a national attraction, and is subsidized for that.

I see no problem.

.

Train travel is a national attraction?

[jacee]

Train travel is a national attraction?

That route.

.

[The_Squid]

That route.

.

The Rocky Mountaineer is their competition and doesn't get a subsidy. Why should VIA?

[Boges]

That runs a national attraction, and is subsidized for that.

I see no problem.

.

Even with that subsidy, it's still more expensive than many Canadians can afford.

Why should the Canadian taxpayers subsidize vacations for the wealthy?

Edited May 13, 2016 by Boges

[?Impact]

VIA is a private for-profit company. Poor analogy.

Via Rail has a single shareholder, the Government of Canada represented by the Minister of Transport. That makes it an independent Crown corporation.