Why are we subsidizing VIA?

[overthere]

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

Many would argue that Canadians actually brutally underfund train service.

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.

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

At least two of the G7- UK and USA- have managed to get the train systems largely off the public teat. And you pointedly failed to answer my question about providing a comparable country to the vast distances and lack of people that Canada enjoys.

Many would argue? I agree that many would, but how many of them would argue in favour? Outside those that directly benefit from having taxpayers pick up their commuting cost?

The issue is not what VIA should concentrate on at public expense, the issue is subsidy. As an 'independent Crown Agency', I'd like to see them given the same opportunity as was given Canada Post. It goes like this: Canada will give you a lot of equipment, land and trained employees. You will provide a coherent business plan and choose a staregic business plan. There won't be any subsidy. If you make money, you can reinvest in anything you wish. Canada Post took that scenario and ran with it successfully for three decades or more now(until the latest round of interference from Trudeau)

[Smallc]

At least two of the G7- UK and USA- have managed to get the train systems largely off the public teat.

The UK isn't a rail system that most in Europe would like to emulate. Right now, Amtrak is undergoing a infrastructure expansion, funded by the taxpayer.

And you pointedly failed to answer my question about providing a comparable country to the vast distances and lack of people that Canada enjoys.

I'm not advocating for service everywhere. We should fund VIA to make improvements where it makes sense, and cut other routes that don't.

Many would argue? I agree that many would, but how many of them would argue in favour? Outside those that directly benefit from having taxpayers pick up their commuting cost?

We pick up the commuting costs in almost every community, because it makes economic sense. From road subsides to transit funding, that's always true.

The issue is not what VIA should concentrate on at public expense, the issue is subsidy. As an 'independent Crown Agency', I'd like to see them given the same opportunity as was given Canada Post. It goes like this: Canada will give you a lot of equipment, land and trained employees. You will provide a coherent business plan and choose a staregic business plan. There won't be any subsidy. If you make money, you can reinvest in anything you wish. Canada Post took that scenario and ran with it successfully for three decades or more now(until the latest round of interference from Trudeau)

Canada Post has basically been allowed to continue with their plan - it's simply on hold. The Trudeau government has affirmed the need for them to be profitable. I would love for the same to be true of VIA, but we need to pay for better service where it makes sense first.

[GostHacked]

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

Depends on your definition of efficient. A train can haul much more than a plane in once shot. What is the comparison of moving the same amount of freight by air compared to train?

If one train can pull 100 rail cars, how many planes do I need to match those 100 rail cars? Then consider and compare logistics behind both options.

[Boges]

Depends on your definition of efficient. A train can haul much more than a plane in once shot. What is the comparison of moving the same amount of freight by air compared to train?

If one train can pull 100 rail cars, how many planes do I need to match those 100 rail cars? Then consider and compare logistics behind both options.

We're talking tourism though. How many planes can make a cross country trip over 4 days.

[TimG]

Depends on your definition of efficient. A train can haul much more than a plane in once shot. What is the comparison of moving the same amount of freight by air compared to train?

The measurement of efficiency depends on whether travel time is a considered to be a significant 'cost' to the consumer. For passenger traffic travel time is very important and air travel is more more efficient (e.g. time is money). For non-time sensitive cargo rail is much better option. That is why the rails in North America are used almost exclusively by private businesses shipping cargo. I see no need for any cross Canada passenger rail network.

[Derek 2.0]

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

You're confusing efficient for speed.........rail travel is far more efficient than by air, bus or car.

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.

No, because the story doesn't account for subsidies to the airlines.

And VIA wants Billions more money.

Without a doubt.........and why wouldn't they? Didn't Trudeau promise high-speed commuter rail?

[Derek 2.0]

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

Their funding cuts aside, they have no need to purchase new equipment......by North American railroad standards, Via's equipment is current......the purchase of modern (see European or Japanese inspired technology) trains would be a waste of money, as the the actual grades, rails and track etc the trains would operate on are not optimized for high speed rail..........and its not a mater of giving Via money to upgrade their tracks etc, as Via doesn't own the track it operates on........that would be CP and CN.....and why would freight carriers want to invest in high speed rail?

And of course, the Via monster can be blamed squarely on the former Trudeau government for its creation, copying the American's failure with Amtrak and big government ........when passenger rail service would have survived, with continued subsides like the airlines receive, given to Canadian Pacific.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

At least two of the G7- UK and USA- have managed to get the train systems largely off the public teat.

Amtrak sucks off both teats.........

[bush_cheney2004]

And of course, the Via monster can be blamed squarely on the former Trudeau government for its creation, copying the American's failure with Amtrak and big government ........when passenger rail service would have survived, with continued subsides like the airlines receive, given to Canadian Pacific.

Stones...glass houses !

[bush_cheney2004]

Amtrak sucks off both teats.........

Better than what you got !

[Derek 2.0]

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

That depends on the route, type of ticket (class) and time of year.......for the most part, Via's economy class is cheaper than airlines, with a trade off in the amount of time traveling over comfort.

[Derek 2.0]

Better than what you got !

Aside from the commuter routes in the New York-Washington corridor, not really..........for the most part, Amtrak is operating the same vintage equipment as Via, that was cutting edge decades ago when it was in the livery of Santa Fe, Rio Grande, Great Northern, CN and CPR etc etc.

[Derek 2.0]

Stones...glass houses !

Yes, that is my point......Via and Amtrak are both budget monsters, created by over bearing government............Amtrak, like Via, didn't need to happen, the then US Government could simply have the ICC require x% of routes must be maintained at y level of service by the various railroads.

[bush_cheney2004]

Aside from the commuter routes in the New York-Washington corridor, not really..........for the most part, Amtrak is operating the same vintage equipment as Via, that was cutting edge decades ago when it was in the livery of Santa Fe, Rio Grande, Great Northern, CN and CPR etc etc.

VIA rail gets far more government subsidy per passenger mile than does Amtrak...just like the CBC compared to PBS !

[Boges]

You're confusing efficient for speed.........rail travel is far more efficient than by air, bus or car.

If you're spending a few hundred dollars to sit in a chair for four days, I hardly consider that an efficient use of money, especially considering food options are limited to what's on the train, and I'm guess not inclusive at the lower rate.

No, because the story doesn't account for subsidies to the airlines.

Well that figure shows that the price of a ticket accounts for the entire subsidy of an airline ticket. So how much of an airline's ticket is subsidy?

Without a doubt.........and why wouldn't they? Didn't Trudeau promise high-speed commuter rail?

VIA isn't a commuter rail system.

[Derek 2.0]

If you're spending a few hundred dollars to sit in a chair for four days, I hardly consider that an efficient use of money, especially considering food options are limited to what's on the train, and I'm guess not inclusive at the lower rate.

Inefficient use of money? How so? And food options, compared to an airline? Food on an overnight VIA train is cooked fresh aboard the train, with a different menu each day with each meal.

Well that figure shows that the price of a ticket accounts for the entire subsidy of an airline ticket. So how much of an airline's ticket is subsidy?

I have no idea, thats why I asked the question.

VIA isn't a commuter rail system.

Sure its is, namely in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor, in the same sense as commuter airlines.....the addition of highspeed rail would greatly expand the size of the footprint.

[?Impact]

.....by North American railroad standards, Via's equipment is current......

Perhaps so, but some of their rolling stock was built in 1954-55, that is 60+ years old.

[jbg]

See my recent post on subject:

1 minute ago, jbg said:

I'm on page 480 of 574 of The Impossible Railway, by Pierre Berton. I am almost finished reading this book. What can I say? This book is overlooked epic of the building of a great country as much as the building of a great railroad and a great nation. I'll start with the shortcomings of the country highlighted in the book. Quebec demonstrated its ability to dominate Parliament out of proportion to its numbers, And also, in a mixed socialist-capitalist system, the potential for corruption. And the love/hate relationship with Americans and the U.S.   Now for the greatness. It is obvious. A destitute country that was barely in existence (six years) when it embarked on a Herculean nation-building project. Think what you will about the Riel Rebellion but it demonstrated the need to be able to move across the country expeditiously. And Canada built the railroad successfully through some extremely hostile terrain. Frankly, it dwarfs my country's accomplishment in building its railroad.