crs1026
Superstar
Don't wait til an election. Write letters, join advocacy groups, get the issue on the table now. Call your MP, call whoever you suspect will run against your MP. Write the media. Make noise.
- Paul
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Don't wait til an election. Write letters, join advocacy groups, get the issue on the table now. Call your MP, call whoever you suspect will run against your MP. Write the media. Make noise.
- Paul
micheal_can
Senior Member
Well, Greyhound has abandoned completely.
Air Canada's service and coverage is not as good as it was. Everything from seat sizes and meal options and even on time performance have all become worse since privatization.
In short, if Via's services became a private entity or entities, many routes will become abandoned. Other routes will become worse, but not cheaper.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
The best move for VIA fans is to directly tackle Poilievre's criticisms. We need to explain and justify why Canadian taxpayers nationwide should cover the following subsidies per VIA passenger:
- $37 Toronto-Ottawa-Montréal Corridor
- $317 Toronto-Niagara
- $461 Ocean service from Montréal to Halifax
- $528 Canadian service from Toronto to Vancouver
- $779 Winnipeg-Churchill
C_Johnson_1995
New Member
This is a good point. Really, an organization like VIA should have these numbers on total external economic impact on hand for itself to justify its existence and defend itself from political attacks.
I think the fact that we're having this discussion is telling of an important fact. VIA is fundamentally a fatally flawed organization. It's paralyzed and has absolutely no agency for itself. It's hard to imagine things ever getting better for VIA, but things getting worse is kind of a rule. The fact that it can be dismantled so easily with no option for pushback or recourse by the public is not a good setup for something that needs long term stability like passenger rail. Under other circumstances, I would not be apprehensive to see VIA dismantled to start from scratch.
Given the present limbo state of HFR, I'm becoming more sympathetic to Ontario taking the project on by itself. And to be fair, given the recent resurgence in Quebec nationalism/separatism, it might be best to take a tepid approach to giving Quebec anything they don't want to fund with their own tax revenue anyway.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
With the renewal of the Ontario Northland passenger railway service and expansions with the GO Train network, we may find that Queen's Park, not Ottawa overseas the largest intercity rail network in the country.
cplchanb
Senior Member
maybe they should break up the services to be run by region, Via West, East, and Central. At least for that the federal agenda wont affect the operations as much.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I could see the long distance tourist trains, like the Toronto-Vancouver Canadian service being privatized, like the similarly long distance, privately-owned Journey Beyond services in Australia.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Seriously, the amount of paranoia in this (and related) thread(s) is unbearable. “Fully-allocated” cost/revenue/subsidy figures like those posted in VIA’s Annual Reports include whichever arbitrary assumptions VIA uses when spreading its overheads across its network, assigning each non-direct cost (or revenue) according to whichever “cost drivers” like passenger counts, passenger mileage, train mileage or gross ton miles it deems the least irrelevant and therefore provide only relevant information for accountants.
Therefore, when discussing VIA’s financials, always use the “direct” (or “variable”) figures published by VIA in their Corporate Plans. They are also much easier to read for whoever wonders whether increasing a certain service would likely decrease or increase VIA’s subsidy need, as variable revenues exceeding variable costs suggests the former (i.e., that an increase in the number of departures offered would increase the route’s surplus, which can be used to partially offset the overhead costs), whereas variable costs exceeding variable revenues suggests the opposite (i.e., that an increase in service levels would increase the route’s deficit and thus increase VIA’s overall subsidy needs).
I’ve already posted here countless times a table which shows that the Canadian basically pays for itself (direct revenues represent approximately 100% of its direct costs), the Ocean (50%) and Regional services (10-15%) lose money, but the Corridor (135%) generates enough surpluses to offset the direct deficits of the remaining network:
I unfortunately haven’t found the time yet to update above table with more recent figures, but if you look into the most recent Corporate Plan, you’ll see that the direct revenues of the Corridor had already recovered to 112% of direct costs post-COVID as early as 2022, so you can guess how strong these figures will be in 2023 or 2024:
So please, if you feel the need to talk about VIA’s financials, please use only “direct” figures to highlight the need for intercity passenger rail in this country to outgrow its subsidies by increasing its revenue base until it fully absorbs its overheads…
Therefore, when discussing VIA’s financials, always use the “direct” (or “variable”) figures published by VIA in their Corporate Plans. They are also much easier to read for whoever wonders whether increasing a certain service would likely decrease or increase VIA’s subsidy need, as variable revenues exceeding variable costs suggests the former (i.e., that an increase in the number of departures offered would increase the route’s surplus, which can be used to partially offset the overhead costs), whereas variable costs exceeding variable revenues suggests the opposite (i.e., that an increase in service levels would increase the route’s deficit and thus increase VIA’s overall subsidy needs).
I’ve already posted here countless times a table which shows that the Canadian basically pays for itself (direct revenues represent approximately 100% of its direct costs), the Ocean (50%) and Regional services (10-15%) lose money, but the Corridor (135%) generates enough surpluses to offset the direct deficits of the remaining network:
I unfortunately haven’t found the time yet to update above table with more recent figures, but if you look into the most recent Corporate Plan, you’ll see that the direct revenues of the Corridor had already recovered to 112% of direct costs post-COVID as early as 2022, so you can guess how strong these figures will be in 2023 or 2024:
So please, if you feel the need to talk about VIA’s financials, please use only “direct” figures to highlight the need for intercity passenger rail in this country to outgrow its subsidies by increasing its revenue base until it fully absorbs its overheads…
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
It's impressive, however it should be noted that if this was a private business, it would include the cost of amortization (or perhaps leasing) of new rolling stock. What's that - $1 billion over 30 years (I'm guessing). On the other hand, that's only (very very roughly) $33 million or so a year. So if Corridor was separate, that would pay for a couple of new trainsets a year.
Also, do those $600 million of annual costs include all the back office stuff?
That said, I'm fully in favour of funding public transit.
Also, do those $600 million of annual costs include all the back office stuff?
That said, I'm fully in favour of funding public transit.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
From a taxpayer view’, the new (Corridor) fleet is already there and there is no more profitable use for it than to use it for VIA’s Corridor operations which generate revenues faster than costs.
Of course (where else could VIA possibly hide it?), they are in the “semi-variable and fixed” costs I just posted…!
My personal, subjective threshold for funding transit and intercity transport is 50% and 100% cost-recovery (i.e., direct revenues as share of direct costs), respectively. Exceptions should of course be made, such as for serving remote communities and for providing the ability to shuttle equipment around the countries, thus drastically reducing thenumber of costly maintenance centers, which is why I see no problems defending VIA’s current network against any fiscally conservative government.
If VIA’s performance was still that of 2012 (like when these comments were made by Conservative politicians), I would be scared, but it’s impossible to exaggerate the service YDS has provided to anyone relying or depending on intercity passenger rail services in this country by aggressively growing VIA’s ridership by maximizing the train miles and passenger miles it could possibly squeeze out of its obsolete fleet, while pushing up yields…
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
In tables called "Fixed Costs" or "Amortization of Capital Assets". That's just a table. I don't know what it represents in full, from the annual report.
KevinT
Active Member
I love YDS response here! Its what we all need to keep on file to use for ourselves when we hear people making this criticism during the next election.
micheal_can
Senior Member
It is a wonder it still exists. When it was created, legislation and regulations could have made it successful. Instead we have seen nothing but cuts. The only saving grace is the QC-W Corridor has the new trains, and that part of the network makes money.
And none of them are cost neutral. GO transit does need a subsidy for it to operate. However, it has be come so necessary for the people in the GTHA that cancelling it, or raising the fare to the point that it no longer needs a subsidy would be political suicide.
"In Canada, Toronto has the highest fare recovery ratio with Go Transit (82.2 percent)"
Imagine Doug Ford announcing "My friends, GO transit users will be paying 20% more to cover the costs."
In order to balance the books, Harper decided to make the government pay for itself. One thing that he did was have our RCN resupply ships out when they were not mechanically fit, to act as a gas station.That caused my ship to be decommissioned due to the fire on board. PP was part of that cabinet. I can see him requiring all government agencies to no longer be subsidized. That is why I feel most of the LDS will get axed soon enough. The Canadian may stick around, but the others may shut down simply due to the higher cost to run them vs revenue generated.
drum118
Superstar
