[Urban Sky]

Often corridor discounts are limited to certain trains. The T&Cs are on the website and generally unavailable after Tuesday, but the emails still contain evidence. From the last two Discount Tuesday emails:View attachment 716792View attachment 716793

If you already have to incessantly complain about how VIA‘s pricing hurts your feelings, can you at least find yourself a more appropriate thread?

 

[zang]

If you already have to incessantly complain about how VIA‘s pricing hurts your feelings, can you at least find yourself a more appropriate thread?

Feel free to click ignore.

 

[smallspy]

Well, I think you would indeed find those here who feel subsidy is a bad word.

Sure, but we don't give those people the time-of-day.

What you will get more arguments about is the level of subsidy. Some posters here have no concept about the value of money, and would like untold billions on brand new corridors to every corner of the country.

There is a sweet spot to be reached.

Aside from that, yes, they should be getting more subsidy. Our current government seems to believe austerity is the better path with a 15% cut mandate.

Again, no arguments here.

Every corridor trip late by over an hour gets a 50% compensation. For the record, I racked up three of these last year alone. Between myself and a handful of other family members, we're up in the double digits.

So, in order to fund these compensations and lacking additional subsidy (and now, a 15% cut), there's incentive to raise prices.

I'm well aware of the math. I too have travelled on late trains, some measured in multiple hours.

By the way, pro-tip - collect the late credit compensation as points.

But that goes back to the whole crux of the argument of ALTO versus VIA. Most of those delays are caused by corridor traffic, or accumulated delays over the course of the day. Putting the trains into their own corridor gets them out of that problem, or at least limits it.

The federal government both owns VIA and regulates rail. It's been more than happy to sit back and let CN/CPKC continue to control what VIA Rail can do in this country.

They also have to regulate rail in some sort of parallel with how the US operates, considering that a fairly major fraction of freight traffic originates from or is destined to the US.

Plus, you realize that a government is not a monolith, right? Those doing the regulatory oversight aren't necessarily the ones doling out the monies that VIA needs.

So how would you do it, in that case?

But only for HSR. We'll ultimately have two "classes" of rail; one subject to freight companies, one not. So those heading to Port Hope, Cornwall, etc. will continue to suffer delays. Somehow, Ontario was able to legislate priority for GO, but…

As pointed out above, Ontario did no such thing.

They spent far too much money on buying corridors. And even then, they don't have perfect priority, as most of those lines still have to interface with the freight railways. Delays still happen.

Again, who dictates those regulations and who owns VIA?

I'm still waiting on you to suggest a better option.

Please, show me variable pricing (not discount code) fare that goes any lower than $55 from Toronto-Montreal.

You want me to do your homework? Shall I suggest instead that you tell everyone that your dog ate it?

See above as to who's allowing the hamstringing to continue.

Continuing to score own goals for decades is ridiculous, don't you think?

And see my points above about the railways.

Oddly enough, managing to increase ridership while having their funding cut time-and-time again and operating in a regulatory environment that is set up to cause you to fail is not what I'd describe as an "own goal".

Because this isn't an airline thread?

It's not even a VIA thread, and yet here we are. Why limit yourself?

Dan

 

[zang]

Sure, but we don't give those people the time-of-day.

What you will get more arguments about is the level of subsidy. Some posters here have no concept about the value of money, and would like untold billions on brand new corridors to every corner of the country.

And some posters think taxing the rich and corporations a fair amount is a cardinal sin.

We did some of the most impressive nation-building in the 50s and 60s, and built a massive middle class, on the backs of marginal tax rates that could actually support things like building out and subsidizing a rail network. What's stopping that from happening now?

But that goes back to the whole crux of the argument of ALTO versus VIA. Most of those delays are caused by corridor traffic, or accumulated delays over the course of the day. Putting the trains into their own corridor gets them out of that problem, or at least limits it.

They also have to regulate rail in some sort of parallel with how the US operates, considering that a fairly major fraction of freight traffic originates from or is destined to the US.

Amtrak has priority (preference), but Via doesn't deserve that apparently.

Bill C-371 sits rotting away without so much as a second reading, let alone a visit to the senate.

Plus, you realize that a government is not a monolith, right? Those doing the regulatory oversight aren't necessarily the ones doling out the monies that VIA needs.

No, but they both serve the same master. Legislation can do wonders if you have a government willing to put people ahead of corporations.

So how would you do it, in that case?

I'm still waiting on you to suggest a better option.

Nationalize the railways. It's not exactly a radical idea. National papers like the Globe and the Star have suggested it, and hell, the UK just did it. Why can't we?

You want me to do your homework? Shall I suggest instead that you tell everyone that your dog ate it?

No, I am asking you to back up a claim you made ("Just because you've never seen it happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It does.").

When dealing over the phone with a missing compensation for one of our late arrivals, I asked the VIA CSR about the variable pricing and was told it never goes down below the base price without additional discounts.

And yes, sometimes you can get cheaper than $55 with added discounts, but the variable pricing algorithm alone only ever considers capacity, not lack of it. Without applying any kind of external discount (senior, Tuesday, etc,, you're welcome to look through the fares for the next year and see for yourself if you can find one for Toronto-Montreal for less than $55. I've looked; there aren't.

The variable pricing is a popularity tax, not a load balancer.

Oddly enough, managing to increase ridership while having their funding cut time-and-time again and operating in a regulatory environment that is set up to cause you to fail is not what I'd describe as an "own goal".

The "own goal" was on the part of the Feds, who continue to hamstring VIA.

It's not even a VIA thread, and yet here we are. Why limit yourself?

Okay, variable pricing on flights sucks too. Last I checked though, Alto is a wholly owned subsidiary of VIA.

I don't get the point of that other than whataboutism.

 

[crs1026]

And some posters think taxing the rich and corporations a fair amount is a cardinal sin.

We did some of the most impressive nation-building in the 50s and 60s, and built a massive middle class, on the backs of marginal tax rates that could actually support things like building out and subsidizing a rail network. What's stopping that from happening now?

"Things that I may believe in that clearly won't happen anytime soon" for $100 please, Alex.

The ability to attract investment is different than the 50's and 60's, given globalization and tax regimes currently in place in other countries where investors might put their money instead of in Canada. If you tax them, they will not come. Governments in Canada tax to the absolute limit that those paying taxes will tolerate. And then they borrow money, lots of it, to reach beyond what the taxpayer will willingly pay. I'm not saying it's a fair and just solution, but one can't simply wave a wand and make things different.

Bill C-371 sits rotting away without so much as a second reading, let alone a visit to the senate.

Because it's a Private Members' Bill, which gives it virtually no stature beyond letting the initiator express their opinion, especially if it is not a direction the government wants to move in. If the government thought it would sell, they would move it forward..

Nationalize the railways. It's not exactly a radical idea. National papers like the Globe and the Star have suggested it, and hell, the UK just did it. Why can't we?

The answer to your question has been offered a dozen times in earlier pages of the Alto/VIA/HFR discussion, if you would like to read up.

And the UK did not just "nationalise". They owned the tracks all along. All they did was shift operations from private operators to a single public operator. They did it at the expiry of the operators' terms of operation. That's very different from appropriating anyone's equity.

The variable pricing is a popularity tax, not a load balancer.

Not if people actually have the option to travel in some other way or at some other time. Pricing works.

Besides, I thought you were just declaring yourself in favour of taxing those who can afford to pay more? You can avoid the tax, just pick a different train with a lower posted fare.

- Paul

 

[Tuscani01]

Interesting seeing this:

CPC has apparently said it was a mistake and that they would come back to this later.

 

[zang]

"Things that I may believe in that clearly won't happen anytime soon" for $100 please, Alex.

The ability to attract investment is different than the 50's and 60's, given globalization and tax regimes currently in place in other countries where investors might put their money instead of in Canada. If you tax them, they will not come.

Russia's got lower personal and corporate tax rates, yet woefully dismal investment (yes, even prior to Ukraine). It's always far more than just lack of taxes driving investment.

And to boot, capital flight is a myth.

Don't make excuses for the wealthy. Where there are people, a stable government and a desirable place to live, someone will stand up to serve the public.

Because it's a Private Members' Bill, which gives it virtually no stature beyond letting the initiator express their opinion, especially if it is not a direction the government wants to move in. If the government thought it would sell, they would move it forward..

Whether it's a private member's bill doesn't matter. If the government wanted to actually fix the problems with rail in this country and not give credit to someone else, shoot it down and introduce your own bill. It would've gone through easily when the NDP still held the balance of power. But that doesn't seem to be the goal of the Liberals, now does it? HSR has been framed by this government not about making lives easier, but as a way to boost the economy.

The great irony in all of this is that if Via reliably and frequently served the communities it links, there'd likely be less squawking from smaller towns to be included in ALTO.

All they did was shift operations from private operators to a single public operator. They did it at the expiry of the operators' terms of operation.

"all they did…"

That's very different from appropriating anyone's equity.

It was an example of a country recently doing something to fix their national rail situation, not a 1:1.

If we actually want to improve situations in this country, we need bolder moves and to take off the kid gloves reserved for the rich and corporation.

Not if people actually have the option to travel in some other way or at some other time. Pricing works.

Not by non-public owned means. I don't think the government's job should be to overprice accessible public transit to the point that it forces people to move to private companies.

Besides, I thought you were just declaring yourself in favour of taxing those who can afford to pay more? You can avoid the tax, just pick a different train with a lower posted fare.

Taxing the obscenely rich is quite a bit different than intentionally making affordable transit unaffordable because it's popular. Surely you can see the difference, right?

 

[crs1026]

Don't make excuses for the wealthy. Where there are people, a stable government and a desirable place to live, someone will stand up to serve the public.

I'm not making excuses for anybody. I'm noting that the power exercised by those holding wealth seems to be substantial. I may be privately holding my nose, but let's stay in the realm of "the things that you can change". We won't be storming the palace anytime soon.

Whether it's a private member's bill doesn't matter. If the government wanted to actually fix the problems with rail in this country and not give credit to someone else, shoot it down and introduce your own bill. It would've gone through easily when the NDP still held the balance of power. But that doesn't seem to be the goal of the Liberals, now does it? HSR has been framed by this government not about making lives easier, but as a way to boost the economy.

The great irony in all of this is that if Via reliably and frequently served the communities it links, there'd likely be less squawking from smaller towns to be included in ALTO.

If you read up in this list, you will note that the commentary over VIA's relationship with its landlords has a very clear consensus that says VIA is getting shafted and the balance of power needs to change.

The point is, how does that get changed. All the commentary doesn't seem to be having much impact. Even the considerable advocacy in that direction isn't carrying the day.

And note just how long the NDP has had the option of bringing down the government, if it chose to. VIA Rail's plight is not a good enough reason to force a non-confidence vote and trigger an election. It's not even big enough to have factored into whatever deals they have struck with the Liberals over the years to align on bigger issues that might have brought down the government. A private members' bill gives them moral high ground, but it won't see the light of day, and they know it.

"all they did…"

Yeah - They made the transition without triggering litigation, or affecting stakeholder relations with private companies that have a chokehold on the movement of goods across the country, That's a quantum level below what you are suggesting, in terms of actual doability. And at a much lower pricetag, one that is within affordability for the UK.

Taxing the obscenely rich is quite a bit different than intentionally making affordable transit unaffordable because it's popular. Surely you can see the difference, right?

We are talking about reasonable signals in pricing, not creating extreme go-no go thresholds that completely exceed affordability.

Funny how the politicians that hold the balance of power, and are making noise about how they should form the next government to bring about radical change, all seem to want to lower taxes and not raise them.

I'm a lot more interested in what might be done within the latitiude of acceptance of the voters, than in making highly ideological suggestions about how to overthrow the system. I like to tilt at windmills, but just the ones that can be tilted.

- Paul

 

[ownthesky]

Interesting seeing this:

View attachment 717050

CPC has apparently said it was a mistake and that they would come back to this later.

From the 2023 CPC Policy Declaration still held on their website's governing documents:

66. Passenger Rail
We support rail infrastructure across Canada, including innovative high-speed passenger rail where
warranted. This would ease conflicts between passenger and freight trains, reduce highway congestion
and GHG emissions, and promote national unity and inter-provincial trade.

I'm hopeful they're sincere and this doesn't become politicized into a right wing boogeyman like California HSR.

 

[micheal_can]

Interesting seeing this:

View attachment 717050

CPC has apparently said it was a mistake and that they would come back to this later.

So, just Ottawa-Toronto then? If Quebec MPs don't want it, then lets not give them it.

 

[Thaboss]

the media is already starting to do its thing. Hopefully as has been mentioned, the plan can avoid too much politics. But I suspect that will only be possible with a strong majority govt to push the "controversies" aside.

I have zero faith in QB politicians...anything that pits them against the feds is fair game for them..

 

[ericmacm]

So, just Ottawa-Toronto then? If Quebec MPs don't want it, then lets not give them it.

BQ is a separatist party, and deepened economic/transport integration between Ontario/Quebec with an HSR line runs antithetical to their beliefs. The more that Ontarians and Québécois are able to travel back and forth, the less palatable separatism will be in the eyes of the general public. It is even weirder in my opinion that the CPC voted against it when HSR is literally in their party platform as was posted above.

That being said, a political party standing in opposition to HSR at this point is a bizarre move. HSR is overwhelmingly supported in Canada (PMO polling in summer 2025 showed 70% public support for HSR) and by corporate Canada, despite the opposition that has suddenly emerged in some rural communities. For two political parties to attempt to block or slow down construction of such an important project will almost certainly politically backfire. Being on record voting against the HSR Network Act is very potent political ammunition if another election were to be called, especially when there are CPC-held ridings in metro Quebec City and BQ-held ridings in the Trois-Rivières area and Mirabel, which are not overwhelmingly strong holdings and have historically been able to flip Liberal.

 

[crs1026]

An unfortunate by-product of the consultation strategy is that it may invite some knee jerk opposition that opposition parties can be predicted to leverage, even it they truly support HSR.

The swath of land actually needed for HSR is trivial, but starting publicly with a 10-km wide study zone draws in a whole lot of people who may never actually be impacted.

Ottawa is moving pretty wisely on Alto, certainly compared to California where the route selection exercise (and subsequent litigation) has been a dysfunctional and costly nightmare. We really need to beat the bushes for objections and opposition now during the consultation phase, so that no one can later challenge the project on allegations of failure to consult or consider alternatives. If that means that some rush to the barricades now, it's still the better way through this phase of the project.

I'm no political expert but strategically I would expect that the government would simply retable the "objectionabe" sections as a take or leave piece of legislation, and call the opposition parties' bluff. The closer we get to election time, the harder it will be for the opposition to stand in the way. Ideologically Quebeckers may not want closer ties, but pragmatically - they need the jobs.

- Paul

 

[generalcanada]

these guys protesting are only doing it because they cant get answers whose properties are affected. Which answers should not be given out at this point, which is understandable, they just have to wait

 

[Thaboss]

It is even weirder in my opinion that the CPC voted against

The usual. "We cant afford this right now" "the plan is too expensive" "get out of the way and let the private sector do it" etc.

Instead of outright oposition, All of the above can easily be sold as, "we can do the project better".