VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Intercity trains where demand justifies it, buses where it doesn't. And a competitive airline industry.



The fact you've been asked multiple times to explain what subsidies you are talking about indicates that you don't actually have an answer. You are making this up. Please prove us wrong.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ottawa-subsidies-1.4366718

Lets start with the second article on the Google search for "canadian government subsidies airline industry"

"Air Canada in particular has received considerable state support over the years, both directly and indirectly. It partners with airlines that are themselves subsidized, such as Air China and Air India. "

"Bombardier rival and American manufacturing giant Boeing had previously accused Bombardier of accepting millions in "unfair" subsidies: subsidies that allowed Bombardier to undercut Boeing on price, thereby stealing market share. "

"Of course, Ottawa could disavow aviation subsidies altogether. Government handouts to some firms ultimately disadvantage others. Yet subsidies are the norm rather than the exception. From the United States to France to China, the list of countries that prop up their local aerospace sector is endless. "

From one article. Tell me how many different sources you want.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ottawa-subsidies-1.4366718

Lets start with the second article on the Google search for "canadian government subsidies airline industry"

"Air Canada in particular has received considerable state support over the years, both directly and indirectly. It partners with airlines that are themselves subsidized, such as Air China and Air India. "

"Bombardier rival and American manufacturing giant Boeing had previously accused Bombardier of accepting millions in "unfair" subsidies: subsidies that allowed Bombardier to undercut Boeing on price, thereby stealing market share. "

"Of course, Ottawa could disavow aviation subsidies altogether. Government handouts to some firms ultimately disadvantage others. Yet subsidies are the norm rather than the exception. From the United States to France to China, the list of countries that prop up their local aerospace sector is endless. "

From one article. Tell me how many different sources you want.

You totally misunderstood that article. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort explaining how, as you have ignored explanations from posters.

Long story short; the subsidies/protection would appear to push up ticket prices, not down. You must have missed the obvious reality that prices here are considerably more expensive than in the USA, Europe, Australia etc. I've had cheaper flights to Europe than tickets I've paid within Canada.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Commuter rail would only encourage urban sprawl. Do you really want to encourage people to live in giant, energy hogging mansions far from where they work? It is one thing to have commuter rail in big cities where there isn't enough land near the core for everyone to live nearby, but this isn't the case for small cities.

The thing that has encouraged sprawl in the HRM is the construction of highways. Every time new limited-access expressways have opened around the HRM, sprawl followed. We can't built highways that attract huge numbers of car commuters to the point where the congestion is backed up at rush hour for a km approaching the on/off ramps at places like Fall River, Elmsdale and Hubley, then complain when someone proposes that we try to attract some of these people to transit as a more efficient alternative. If there wasn't already a huge number of commuters from these places who weren't already causing major problems with congestion, then you might have a point.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You totally misunderstood that article. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort explaining how, as you have ignored explanations from posters.

Long story short; the subsidies/protection would appear to push up ticket prices, not down. You must have missed the obvious reality that prices here are considerably more expensive than in the USA, Europe, Australia etc. I've had cheaper flights to Europe than tickets I've paid within Canada.

Then explain it to me. No one has shown how the ticket price is higher for the in Canada air travel.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I wonder if there would be a way to leverage either the NS-NB or NS-Maine ferries to route Montreal-bound traffic from NS and Southern NB through Maine? I suppose if it were that simple we'd probably have that by now.

2 border crossings, transfer to a ferry, the ferry crossing, and then being so far from where you probably want to be going once landed in NS probably eats up whatever time savings the shorter distance would provide.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I’m in London at the moment and I saw a CN train cross Oxford near Wonderland yesterday morning.

EDIT: I don’t know if the CN trackage west of CN London yard is considered part of their “eastern” network, as those tracks cross into the United States only 100 km west of the London yard.

The same VIA train I saw Saturday is still in London, but it was strange to see it all lit up tonight. I thought maybe they were getting ready to go again in the morning, but I see on their website that the 21st is the current "no earlier than" date (which I guess probably moves back on a day by day basis.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Then explain it to me. No one has shown how the ticket price is higher for the in Canada air travel.

Lack of competition. It says in the article. The airlines are "subsidized" but they're subsidized by the users, with the beneficiaries being the airlines. If you got rid of that (we should), then rail would be even less cost competitive with air travel.

What we should do is encourage competition in the airlines then take advantage of the now cheaper tickets by putting a proper carbon tax on all air travel, and use the revenue from that for green transport infrastructure. As usual, good policy is completely simple and obvious, but won't be done.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Lack of competition. It says in the article. The airlines are "subsidized" but they're subsidized by the users, with the beneficiaries being the airlines. If you got rid of that (we should), then rail would be even less cost competitive with air travel.

What we should do is encourage competition in the airlines then take advantage of the now cheaper tickets by putting a proper carbon tax on all air travel, and use the revenue from that for green transport infrastructure. As usual, good policy is completely simple and obvious, but won't be done.

Wait, the government is not subsidizing airlines? What do you me that users?

I do agree, a carbon tax is needed to show the real cost of flying.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Wait, the government is not subsidizing airlines? What do you me that users?

I do agree, a carbon tax is needed to show the real cost of flying.

I'm sure you could argue that in some ways the airlines are subsidized by the government, but then you could say that about literally anything.

What I mean by the passengers subsidizing the airlines is that we pay higher fares than we should, if the market was open to competition. The only beneficiary of this is the airlines.

[Truenorth00]

The airlines are most certainly not more subsidized than rail. What's with the crazy talk?

Yes, we do a poor job of capturing externalities in Canada. But that doesn't make aviation subsidized. Indeed, aviation is the only fuel consumer that actually pays higher fuel taxes.

On topic, higher carbon taxes won't bring rail to the Maritimes. They'll simply see cuts to flights. Higher carbon taxes aren't suddenly going to motivate governments to spend billions on rail where there's no passenger traffic to justify that spending. The logical outcome to any campaign that seeks to replace aviation with rail would be to target improved rail services in corridors with the highest number of flights. I'd be quite happy to see 200 flights between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal replaced with a $15 billion high speed rail line. But somehow I don't think this is the intent of all our Maritime proponents for higher carbon taxes.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Lack of competition. It says in the article. The airlines are "subsidized" but they're subsidized by the users, with the beneficiaries being the airlines. If you got rid of that (we should), then rail would be even less cost competitive with air travel.

That is not the usual meaning of "subsidy." In that sense almost any good or service anyone purchases is "subsidized."

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That is not the usual meaning of "subsidy." In that sense almost any good or service anyone purchases is "subsidized."

It's a particularly odd take when talking about rail. If lack of a competition means a sector is subsidized, than passenger rail is most assuredly more subsidized than aviation.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That is not the usual meaning of "subsidy." In that sense almost any good or service anyone purchases is "subsidized."

The only thing I can think of that could be termed "subsidized", is the foreign ownership restrictions and cabotage laws. Any majority Canadian company is free to start an airline and only has to pass basic requirements to receive government approval. Many have and many have failed. This isn't the 60's where the government set the routes and who was allowed to fly them. Now that was more a subsidy than telling Delta they can't fly Toronto to Montreal. I doubt we would see fares drop appreciably if that happened anyway, and for most routes, they would rise or services cut.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Countless times, and it's worth it for many reasons, 1) having a car when you're at your destination, 2) cheaper, 3) easier (you leave when you want, no need for planning/tickets), and 4) faster.

I've done the Campbellton-Quebec City route many times in the winter as well. Going to visit family in NB for Christmas.

Memories (maybe not "fond") of meeting up with huge logging trucks laden with snow in all those curves in the valley of the Matapédia, dumping a surprise load of white stuff on the windshield just when you least expect it.

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Woah I didn’t know this exists. Thanks for the link. Seriously ever since I had a car, I’ve been out of touch with buses.

A lot of my VIA trips begin on the bus.......connecting to and from the 'Ocean' at Truro. Maritime Bus provided a fast comfortable service on modern equipment and share Terminals in Halifax and Moncton with VIA.

(Below at Halifax.....and at a roadside community stop)

[ghYHZ]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I wonder if there would be a way to leverage either the NS-NB or NS-Maine ferries to route Montreal-bound traffic from NS and Southern NB through Maine? I suppose if it were that simple we'd probably have that by now.

Don't know how the NS-NB and NS-Maine ferries would work.

Back in the '60s for example: you could take Dominion Atlantic's 'Dayliner' from Halifax to Digby at 11am. Connect there to the CPR's 'Princess of Acadia' Ferry and then in Saint John take the 'Atlantic Limited' overnight across Maine arriving in Montreal at 9am. Or:.....just board CN's 'Ocean Limited' in Halifax at 12:45pm and arrive in Montreal at 7:30am. Back in the '60s CN was cheaper too with their 'Red-White-Blue Fares'

Today.....driving there is no advantage to taking the Ferry unless you live in Kentville or Bridgwater and west or you're looking for the nautical adventure. It's just faster to drive if you live in Halifax, Truro or anywhere east. Heading to Montreal.....I'd be beyond Fredericton on the TCH before the Ferry would even dock in Saint John.

[p_xavier]

VIA service to start back on Thursday on some routes.

Trains 22, 24, 26, 28 from Ottawa and trains 33, 35, 37, 39 from Québec City are back.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

The only thing I can think of that could be termed "subsidized", is the foreign ownership restrictions and cabotage laws. Any majority Canadian company is free to start an airline and only has to pass basic requirements to receive government approval. Many have and many have failed. This isn't the 60's where the government set the routes and who was allowed to fly them. Now that was more a subsidy than telling Delta they can't fly Toronto to Montreal. I doubt we would see fares drop appreciably if that happened anyway, and for most routes, they would rise or services cut.

But almost all sectors have some sort of barriers to entry. Several sectors have foreign ownership laws (broadcasting, telecom, newspapers, etc), others are subject to various sorts of regulation, including zoning, requirements for environmental assessment, requirements for government approval, licensing requirements on professions, trades, etc. Other sectors have the state as the only legal provider (much of the health system, military, police, etc.).

In the barrier to entry sense, probably 99% of the economy is "subsidized."

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That is not the usual meaning of "subsidy." In that sense almost any good or service anyone purchases is "subsidized."

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's a particularly odd take when talking about rail. If lack of a competition means a sector is subsidized, than passenger rail is most assuredly more subsidized than aviation.

Yes, I'm only using the loosest interpretation of the word for argument's sake.

What's important is that; if government support/subsidies/protection for both air and for rail were lowered, that would highly favour air travel vs rail. Ticket prices on domestic airlines would become lower, while rail would become effectively unviable.

That's not to say I think we shouldn't subsidise rail, just the argument needs to be made in a factual way.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

On topic, higher carbon taxes won't bring rail to the Maritimes. They'll simply see cuts to flights. Higher carbon taxes aren't suddenly going to motivate governments to spend billions on rail where there's no passenger traffic to justify that spending. The logical outcome to any campaign that seeks to replace aviation with rail would be to target improved rail services in corridors with the highest number of flights. I'd be quite happy to see 200 flights between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal replaced with a $15 billion high speed rail line. But somehow I don't think this is the intent of all our Maritime proponents for higher carbon taxes.

No carbon taxes won't encourage governments to build rail where it doesn't make sense, as it still doesn't make sense and air travel is always (with current technology) going to be preferable for long range travel. Just writing this out shows the absurdity of replacing the sleeper trains in the east - it's a waste of resources that could go on something more beneficial.

What higher carbon taxes could do though is tilt the playing field in more marginal cases. In the case of, for example, Calgary - Edmonton, currently any business case for intercity rail is predicated on having cheap air travel between the two cities. If the planes were more expensive, then the business case for rail, particularly electrified, starts to look better. It would be the same for HFR, and anything that improves the business case of HFR similarly improves the business case of any rail project that touches it.