VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If they didn't work with monopolies, I struggle to see how they would work with more competition. Bus service in Canada primarily gets its competition from driving. Not other bus services.

It was better in Mexico because Mexico has more demand. Simple as that. Fewer private vehicles. More of the population is sensitive to fuel prices. Etc.

I agree. The main advantage of a free market economy verses a regulated monopoly is that the completion will tend to drive the prices down. What made Greyhound's regulated monopoly challenging was the requirement to continue to operate unprofitable routes. In theory the extra profits, from having a monopoly, on profitable routes would help pay for those unprofitable routes, but as ridership dropped, they no longer fully covered those costs. What we are seeing with deregulation is that operators end up running only the profitable routes, unless they receive a subsidy to cover their losses.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree. The main advantage of a free market economy verses a regulated monopoly is that the completion will tend to drive the prices down. What made Greyhound's regulated monopoly challenging was the requirement to continue to operate unprofitable routes. In theory the extra profits, from having a monopoly, on popular routes would help pay for those unprofitable routes, but as ridership dropped, they no longer fully covered those costs. What we are seeing with deregulation is that operators end up running only the profitable routes, unless they receive a subsidy to cover their losses.

The problem we have is some groups of people think that every service delivered must pay for itself. The reality is many things do not, and cannot pay for themselves unless you make it unreachable for the people you want to reach. The honest reality is the government is there to provide certain services that the public needs.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem we have is some groups of people think that every service delivered must pay for itself. The reality is many things do not, and cannot pay for themselves unless you make it unreachable for the people you want to reach. The honest reality is the government is there to provide certain services that the public needs.

A Canada Post kind of service might be doable as long as the decisions are made by VIA and not the Minister of Transportation. The government should set up a committee with ALL the parties to come to a long-term revenue stream agreement for VIA that will remain in their platform and dictated by law. An example would be a tax/surcharge on certain items {ie new cars, flight prices etc} that would result in a steady and predictable government funding which would roughly go up with inflation. Britain does this to fund the BBC.

If a system like that could be developed then I have no problem with the government subsidizing the operation but only to a "reasonable" level. As an example all routes should be able to raise from fares at least 70% of operational costs. If they can't then VIA should have the option of either cancelling the route altogether or raising fares enough to bring it up to 70%.

Life is about choices for both governments and individuals. When people decide to live in smaller towns they have made a choice to enjoy the benefits of no commute times and cheaper housing but also have made the choice knowing that with that comes trade-offs like fewer government services. All choices come with costs.............good & bad.

Just because every little town wants a university, a freeway, or a hospital doesn't mean they should get one and the same is true of rail service.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

A Canada Post kind of service might be doable as long as the decisions are made by VIA and not the Minister of Transportation. The government should set up a committee with ALL the parties to come to a long-term revenue stream agreement for VIA that will remain in their platform and dictated by law. An example would be a tax/surcharge on certain items {ie new cars, flight prices etc} that would result in a steady and predictable government funding which would roughly go up with inflation. Britain does this to fund the BBC.

If a system like that could be developed then I have no problem with the government subsidizing the operation but only to a "reasonable" level. As an example all routes should be able to raise from fares at least 70% of operational costs. If they can't then VIA should have the option of either cancelling the route altogether or raising fares enough to bring it up to 70%.

Life is about choices for both governments and individuals. When people decide to live in smaller towns they have made a choice to enjoy the benefits of no commute times and cheaper housing but also have made the choice knowing that with that comes trade-offs like fewer government services. All choices come with costs.............good & bad.

Just because every little town wants a university, a freeway, or a hospital doesn't mean they should get one and the same is true of rail service.

The crutch to this is regulating the owners of railways to allow Via to be on time and to run as much as it feels is practical. Kind of like building owners giving keys to mail carriers to come in and drop the mail off.

As far as fares, I feel that if all routes ran at least once a day, both ways that there should be some sort of way to price it such that a full train pays for itself.Anywhere less than once a day each way should still be lower due to not having a schedule to build ridership.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As far as fares, I feel that if all routes ran at least once a day, both ways that there should be some sort of way to price it such that a full train pays for itself.

Economics says otherwise. We know the losses VIA makes. They aren't going to be made up for, in volume. If VIA was price competitive the trains would already be full. VIA would be net profitable.

VIA doesn't need to make money as a public service. But we (the country) do need to have a discussion on what the appropriate level of subsidy is and what we expect to get for that level of public funding.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Economics says otherwise. We know the losses VIA makes. They aren't going to be made up for, in volume. If VIA was price competitive the trains would already be full. VIA would be net profitable.

VIA doesn't need to make money as a public service. But we (the country) do need to have a discussion on what the appropriate level of subsidy is and what we expect to get for that level of public funding.

As I understand it, the Corridor trains almost break even, and they are a reasonable fare.

Remember, every road, except for a small percentage is 100% subsidized. So, the appropriate subsidy is somewhere between where it is at at 100%. What we really need to ask is what level of service should a given location have, and then accept the cost of it. Just like we accept the cost of paving roads and plowing them in the winter even though they are not used much.

I am not suggesting somewhere like Churchill should have Toronto level of service, but we should be frank and agree on a minimum level. I would start with every capital of every province, if they are connected to the NA rail network, that they should have a daily in/out service to all other capitals. Start with that. Also, look at city pairs. And if they are no faster by air, when considering normal check in times, then they should have a daily or more between them. Interestingly, this would allow those much smaller towns to have more service than they have now. It would almost cancel the 1990s cuts.

[Truenorth00]

Traditionally, land transport has been seen as the purview of provinces. This is exactly why extensive rail funding from the federal government is difficult. So either provincial governments have to be brought onboard or the vision has to be narrowed.

I think the feds are on to something in privatizing the Corridor with their recent HFR plan. They should use the same construct to start up CalEd and Saint John-Moncton-Halifax. Regional services are a money sink. They'll be reduced to bare minimum over time.

Fundamentally, the problem is that rail is not relevant to most Canadians. Not even in the Corridor where VIA has something like 3% marketshare. There will be no public support for substantially improving rail services substantially until people in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Edmonton and Calgary think it's relevant to them. And we're a long way from that.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As I understand it, the Corridor trains almost break even, and they are a reasonable fare.

Remember, every road, except for a small percentage is 100% subsidized. So, the appropriate subsidy is somewhere between where it is at at 100%. What we really need to ask is what level of service should a given location have, and then accept the cost of it. Just like we accept the cost of paving roads and plowing them in the winter even though they are not used much.

Fares cover about 2/3 of corridor costs. That is not really “almost break even” and that is the densest and most populated part of Canada. Everything else would be way lower.

The roads will be provided no matter what. No town would trade their road access for rail access. The few rail only communities are quite challenging. In some high density area you might argue that better rail service will avoid costly road expansion projects, but that is not true for most places.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Traditionally, land transport has been seen as the purview of provinces. This is exactly why extensive rail funding from the federal government is difficult. So either provincial governments have to be brought onboard or the vision has to be narrowed.

I think the feds are on to something in privatizing the Corridor with their recent HFR plan. They should use the same construct to start up CalEd and Saint John-Moncton-Halifax. Regional services are a money sink. They'll be reduced to bare minimum over time.

Fundamentally, the problem is that rail is not relevant to most Canadians. Not even in the Corridor where VIA has something like 3% marketshare. There will be no public support for substantially improving rail services substantially until people in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Edmonton and Calgary think it's relevant to them. And we're a long way from that.

Maybe it is time to do what Amtrak does and ask for provincial funding in some way. That may mean Via delivering on things like being on time, or running more often service in certain areas than they are now, or even new routes added to Via's responsibility.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Fares cover about 2/3 of corridor costs. That is not really “almost break even” and that is the densest and most populated part of Canada. Everything else would be way lower.

The roads will be provided no matter what. No town would trade their road access for rail access. The few rail only communities are quite challenging. In some high density area you might argue that better rail service will avoid costly road expansion projects, but that is not true for most places.

That is closer than the other routes, but, I didn't know they were that low.

GO train has kept the gridlock to about as bad as it has been, so it is true that better rail has avoided things like the canceled expressways and other major expansions. I feel that the same could be said of the EXO and it's future REM. I'd bet that if the WCE expanded beyond what it started as, the demand for widening TC 1 would not be so urgent. And then we have all the highway construction in Calgary and Edmonton that if they had something, they may have been able to defer longer.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe it is time to do what Amtrak does and ask for provincial funding in some way.

There's no evidence to date that the provinces are interested. Ontario and Quebec occasionally talk about high speed rail in the Corridor and sponsor studies on that. They've shown no real interest in partnering with VIA. Indeed, if anything they are slowly eating away at more high demand routes. Like GO going to Niagara Falls and London. Or Alberta proposing private rail to Banff.

VIA is losing relevance. Eventually, I expect some future federal government will privatize the Corridor and probably scrap the rest. The fact that nobody is interested in renewing VIA's long haul fleet gives a hint of where things are going. Also, the government explicitly laying out a pathway for privatization of the Corridor in their HFR plan.

[J81]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no evidence to date that the provinces are interested. Ontario and Quebec occasionally talk about high speed rail in the Corridor and sponsor studies on that. They've shown no real interest in partnering with VIA. Indeed, if anything they are slowly eating away at more high demand routes. Like GO going to Niagara Falls and London. Or Alberta proposing private rail to Banff.

VIA is losing relevance. Eventually, I expect some future federal government will privatize the Corridor and probably scrap the rest. The fact that nobody is interested in renewing VIA's long haul fleet gives a hint of where things are going. Also, the government explicitly laying out a pathway for privatization of the Corridor in their HFR plan.

The fact the NB provincial government coughed up millions of dollars for CN to maintain and upgrade the Newcastle sub for 10 years would indicate otherwise.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by J81

The fact the NB provincial government coughed up millions of dollars for CN to maintain and upgrade the Newcastle sub for 10 years would indicate otherwise.

The refusal of the provinces of Quebec (Gaspé), Ontario (Algoma Central Railway) and B.C. (Vancouver Island and BC Rail)* to pay to maintain their existing intercity rail services suggests that NB is an outlier here...

*If you go further back into the past, you can add to that PEI and NL, which traded away any remaining rail services for improved roads, as well as Nova Scotia (Bras d'Or service to Cape Breton) and Alberta (Calgary-Edmonton), which brings you to already more than two-thirds of all Canadian provinces...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J81

The fact the NB provincial government coughed up millions of dollars for CN to maintain and upgrade the Newcastle sub for 10 years would indicate otherwise.

That's good for NB. But it really isn't going to save VIA. Their fate is largely going to be determined in the more populated provinces. For better or worse.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J81

The fact the NB provincial government coughed up millions of dollars for CN to maintain and upgrade the Newcastle sub for 10 years would indicate otherwise.

But that was for the benefit of local freight customers.

[Truenorth00]

Some rolling stock for VIA's long distance fleet is something like 70 years old. Given that a change of government is likely. And given the general lack of interest in passenger rail from federal conservatives, I would expect a substantial reduction in long haul and even some regional services by the end of the decade with a change in government. ssiguy might just get most of his wish!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no evidence to date that the provinces are interested. Ontario and Quebec occasionally talk about high speed rail in the Corridor and sponsor studies on that. They've shown no real interest in partnering with VIA. Indeed, if anything they are slowly eating away at more high demand routes. Like GO going to Niagara Falls and London. Or Alberta proposing private rail to Banff.

VIA is losing relevance. Eventually, I expect some future federal government will privatize the Corridor and probably scrap the rest. The fact that nobody is interested in renewing VIA's long haul fleet gives a hint of where things are going. Also, the government explicitly laying out a pathway for privatization of the Corridor in their HFR plan.

They are doing what they are due to Via becoming irrelevant. I am certain if the federal government went to the provinces and said they would increase service and add service if the provinces put money towards it, we could see a resurgence. I feel it is more of the case that Via has never asked and the provinces have never offered.

Originally Posted by J81

The fact the NB provincial government coughed up millions of dollars for CN to maintain and upgrade the Newcastle sub for 10 years would indicate otherwise.

Ontario has also offered up money to HCR among others. These show that if they see the need they may.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That's good for NB. But it really isn't going to save VIA. Their fate is largely going to be determined in the more populated provinces. For better or worse.

Imagine NB saying they will pay for service between Moncton -Saint John. Or that they would pay to bring back daily service on the Ocean through NB. I'd bet NS would offer up. QC might even too. Again, I doubt anyone has talked to anyone on this.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Some rolling stock for VIA's long distance fleet is something like 70 years old. Given that a change of government is likely. And given the general lack of interest in passenger rail from federal conservatives, I would expect a substantial reduction in long haul and even some regional services by the end of the decade with a change in government. ssiguy might just get most of his wish!

https://www.transportaction.ca/national-news/long-distance-train-fleet-replacement-inches-forward/
It appears that Via plans to replace its long distance fleet. Is it too much to dream that they would take the best of the old stuff and move them to one service and then add with the new trainsets they get? Yes, I know it is.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They are doing what they are due to Via becoming irrelevant. I am certain if the federal government went to the provinces and said they would increase service and add service if the provinces put money towards it, we could see a resurgence. I feel it is more of the case that Via has never asked and the provinces have never offered.



Ontario has also offered up money to HCR among others. These show that if they see the need they may.



Imagine NB saying they will pay for service between Moncton -Saint John. Or that they would pay to bring back daily service on the Ocean through NB. I'd bet NS would offer up. QC might even too. Again, I doubt anyone has talked to anyone on this.

What is the incentive for the provinces to do this? Ontario owns two passenger railway companies, it could easily expand intercity services with either of them. In fact Ontario has cut its long distance train services.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

What is the incentive for the provinces to do this? Ontario owns two passenger railway companies, it could easily expand intercity services with either of them. In fact Ontario has cut its long distance train services.

I guess you haven't heard.... they plan on bringing one back....

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe it is time to do what Amtrak does and ask for provincial funding in some way. That may mean Via delivering on things like being on time, or running more often service in certain areas than they are now, or even new routes added to Via's responsibility.
...

I think your looking at the wrong way. The Washington State and Oregon State wanted an intercity train service and they contracted Amtrak to operate it. The state owns the rolling stock. The key reason the rolling stock is unique and different from anything else Amtrak operates. There is likely some US federal funding in there. The service does extend beyond Washington state up into Vancouver. The BC Government is paying for part of the engineering studies on turning that into a highspeed rail service.

Given Amtrak is also responsible for selling tickets may cause a consumer to think it is a Amtrak service.

The BC Government already uses VIA rail as a supplier. VIA rail is contracted to provide maintenance and service the WestCoast Express Commuter rolling stock. The province was contracting Bombardier to run the trains.

The one difference between the US and Canada is Amtrak has priority over freight trains in the US. We could and should do the same in Canada.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

I think your looking at the wrong way. The Washington State and Oregon State wanted an intercity train service and they contracted Amtrak to operate it. The state owns the rolling stock. The key reason the rolling stock is unique and different from anything else Amtrak operates. There is likely some US federal funding in there. The service does extend beyond Washington state up into Vancouver. The BC Government is paying for part of the engineering studies on turning that into a highspeed rail service.

Given Amtrak is also responsible for selling tickets may cause a consumer to think it is a Amtrak service.

The BC Government already uses VIA rail as a supplier. VIA rail is contracted to provide maintenance and service the WestCoast Express Commuter rolling stock. The province was contracting Bombardier to run the trains.

What you are saying backs up what I mean. For example, if Ab wanted a train between Calgary and Edmonton, or NB wanted a train between Saint John and Moncton, than instead of them owning and operating it, they could use the resources of Via to deliver it.

Originally Posted by casper

The one difference between the US and Canada is Amtrak has priority over freight trains in the US. We could and should do the same in Canada.

Yes, this needs to happen, and much sooner than anything else.