VIA Rail

[Admiral Beez]

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.

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]

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

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]

Given the present limbo state of HFR, I'm becoming more sympathetic to Ontario taking the project on by itself.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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…

 

[nfitz]

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.

 

[Urban Sky]

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.

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.

Also, do those $600 million of annual costs include all the back office stuff?

Of course (where else could VIA possibly hide it?), they are in the “semi-variable and fixed” costs I just posted…!

That said, I'm fully in favour of funding public transit.

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…

 

[nfitz]

Of course (where else could VIA possibly hide it?), they are in the “semi-variable and fixed” costs I just posted…!

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]

Indeed. From 2023. https://www.acta.ca/news-releases/via0623

MP Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, Ont.), Conservative Treasury Board critic, questioned ongoing subsidies for the Crown railway as unfair competition to private airlines. “The airline system is not subsidized,” Poilievre said; “In fact it is a net contributor to the Government of Canada. Airlines pay corporate taxes, fuel taxes, airport rents; the passenger pays for the cost of security.” Why should taxpayers be subsidizing a money-losing mode of transportation at the expense of a money-generating mode of transportation?” he said; “That’s just the reality. The Winnipeg to Churchill per passenger subsidy is $1,000 – what is a plane ticket from Winnipeg to Churchill?” “There are no planes on the 42 stops between Winnipeg and Churchill,” replied Desjardins-Siciliano. “That is why the Government of Canada provides the service.”

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Costs and trends of transit funding

"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."

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%) loose money, but the Corridor (135%) generates enough surpluses to offset the direct deficits of the remaining network:
View attachment 576272

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:View attachment 576273

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…

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.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hmcs-protecteur-crew-fought-engine-fire-for-11-hours-1.2586636

 

[drum118]

New VIA Rail fleet arrives in southwest Ontario »

 

[Bibi L]

 

[Bordercollie]

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.

Costs and trends of transit funding

"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.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hmcs-protecteur-crew-fought-engine-fire-for-11-hours-1.2586636

Honestly, elimination of the national passenger rail system would make us a disgrace among G7 countries. I doubt that the conservatives would want to be in that position. Every other country in the world is spending money on passenger rail, to eliminate it would make us a laughing stock.

And although they lost this by election, I don't think the liberals are finished just yet. Don't forget that the conservatives have no plan on the environment or housing for that matter.

Perhaps the best thing to happen would be for Mr Trudeau to step down and for the Liberals to choose a new leader (NOT Christa Freeland). Someone outside of the Trudeau circle. Then they may have a chance.

 

[drum118]

Honestly, elimination of the national passenger rail system would make us a disgrace among G7 countries. I doubt that the conservatives would want to be in that position. Every other country in the world is spending money on passenger rail, to eliminate it would make us a laughing stock.

And although they lost this by election, I don't think the liberals are finished just yet. Don't forget that the conservatives have no plan on the environment or housing for that matter.

Perhaps the best thing to happen would be for Mr Trudeau to step down and for the Liberals to choose a new leader (NOT Christa Freeland). Someone outside of the Trudeau circle. Then they may have a chance.

Big different between Canada and the World, Canada doesn't own or control rail corridors like the EU. We don't even have high speed rail nor is electrify where most places have it as well in the process of electrify lines.

They are also stopping air flights over X hours where there is high speed lines. They are also more density in smaller area while Canada can put most of those counties in the backyard. They been around for over 500 years while Canada is younger than that.

You are talking about a few $100 Billions to put in a rail system that may come close to the EU and everyone will be dead before it haft built, if that.

Train travel in NA is expensive than Europe as well air travel.

Look at the major cities in Canada to see where rail can run within 4-6 hours from it that can support seeing a train every 3-6 hours vs seeing hourly in Europe

I look forward riding the rails in Europe if travel time is max 6 hours, otherwise I will fly for the 1.5-3 hour flight. Overnight trains are not in the pictures after 3 trips on them.