[Admiral Beez]

And would you expect a new government to axe any other transportation infrastructure that is equally "unprofitable" when viewed using the same very inclusive accounting methodology?

You appear to confuse my expectation or prediction with my wishes or requirements. Poilievre has publicly slammed VIA, and given this evidence I expect PM Poilievre to take an axe to VIA.

It's cloudy outside. I thus expect it to rain, whether I want it to or not.

 

[crs1026]

You appear to confuse my expectation or prediction with my wishes or requirements. Poilievre has publicly slammed VIA, and given this evidence I expect PM Poilievre to take an axe to VIA.

It's cloudy outside. I thus expect it to rain, whether I want it to or not.

I’m optimistic (or just cynical perhaps) that neither PP nor the CPC will remember half the things they said while in opposition, and will actually rise to the task of governing on the basis of issues placed before them and facing the country.
I’m also optimistic that once the Liberals cease to be blameable for everthing (up to and including the cloudy days), a new government will make decisions pretty much as governments always have.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

I know. Doesn't necessarily make it right. Absent a formal agreement with the provinces. such as healthcare, I'm not sure the feds playing in provincial sandboxes is necessarily a good thing.

Think of all the subway and LRT done in the province for the last 2 decades. None of it would have happened without federal funding. Allowing the federal government to fund public transit without being in charge of it is a good way to get what we need.

There is nothing wrong with an initial study that puts a quantum on potential cost and benefit. The dangerous part is when people misinterpret that very imprecise "what-if" level study for evidence of actual action or commitment.

I particularly dislike media writers who are quick to headline their report along the lines of "LRT is coming to Cape Breton" when all that has been attempted is a very tentative exploration of what might be. Doesn't help when politicians and government officials then make noise as if the thing is moving, so they get credit for doing something, and the thing takes on a life that it never had.

And then we update, revisit, reexamine, and generally repeat the initial study with a second study, and a third study....

- Paul

Take that $600k and put it to another use in the area. Or accept that the costs will be high and the fare box return will be low. I know, for me to say this is a waste of money may be weird, but I do look at things and ask if it is worth the cost that it will take to do it. I just don't see it being worth even looking into it. Unless.... we really are entering a golden age of transit spending for all.

And would you expect a new government to axe any other transportation infrastructure that is equally "unprofitable" when viewed using the same very inclusive accounting methodology?

I am not optimistic that the business case for replacing the Long Distance fleet will prove to be affordable, particularly since it may be expressed as a single one-shot expenditure.... but I'm not sure VIA's profit and loss statement tells the whole story about these trains, either

- Paul

If the CPC plan to "ax the tax" and they plan to balance the books, then anything costing the government will be on the chopping block.

 

[Urban Sky]

I don‘t believe that the Conservatives (or even: PP) are hostile towards VIA in particular, they just dislike public competition against private corporations and have a distorted view on VIA, which is not helped by VIA publishing its fully-allocated cost figures much more prominently than its direct ones.

Once the Conservatives realize that VIA is actually profitable where it competes against the private sector (i.e., in the Corridor, where it competes against bus operators and airlines, and the Canadian during the summer and particularly in the Rockies, when and where the RMR operates) and complementary where it isn‘t profitable (e.g., on the Winnipeg-Churchill route, where many tourists fly first to Winnipeg and then to Thompson to only ride the train for the second half of its journey to the Hudson Bay, before flying back all the way from Churchill), they might actually happily continue funding it and tuen it into a policy tool, like Ford did with the ONTC…

Therefore, splitting VIA post-HxR might actually raise the value of VIA in conservative eyes, as it removes the parts they want to see in private hands and allows VIA to focus on the markets which actually serve its Western or rural key constituents, which are increasingly neglected by private transportation offerings…

 

[micheal_can]

The optimist in me would rather argue that the timing could play into the hands of VIA, as the liberal government could take all the credit for investing into securing the existing services into what is traditionally conservative heartlands without having to spend much money for it ahead of the election, whereas the Conservatives would face quite a backlash of their constituents if they were to cancel the only significant investment into non-corridor passenger rail services, while the procurements for HxR and countless transit projects in the evil big city are ongoing…

I wish I had your optimism. I feel that cutting the LDS will have no affect on his seat count before and after. So, that says to me that when it is time for him to balance the books, this may be one thing that goes. Just look at the things Harper did to balance the budget. Since PP was in cabinet during those times, we can assume he may do the very same things.

I’m optimistic (or just cynical perhaps) that neither PP nor the CPC will remember half the things they said while in opposition, and will actually rise to the task of governing on the basis of issues placed before them and facing the country.
I’m also optimistic that once the Liberals cease to be blameable for everthing (up to and including the cloudy days), a new government will make decisions pretty much as governments always have.

- Paul

The problem with that assumption is is ignores history of how politics plays out. What Harper ran on, he did. The same for JT. So, my assumption is that PP will be no different in that regard.

 

[micheal_can]

I don‘t believe that the Conservatives (or even: PP) are hostile towards VIA in particular, they just dislike public competition against private corporations and have a distorted view on VIA, which is not helped by VIA publishing its fully-allocated cost figures much more prominently than its direct ones.

Once the Conservatives realize that VIA is actually profitable where it competes against the private sector (i.e., in the Corridor, where it competes against bus operators and airlines, and the Canadian during the summer and particularly in the Rockies, when and where the RMR operates) and complementary where it isn‘t profitable (e.g., on the Winnipeg-Churchill route, where many tourists fly first to Winnipeg and then to Thompson to only ride the train for the second half of its journey to the Hudson Bay, before flying back all the way from Churchill), they might actually happily continue funding it and tuen it into a policy tool, like Ford did with the ONTC…

Therefore, splitting VIA post-HxR might actually raise the value of VIA in conservative eyes, as it removes the parts they want to see in private eyes and allows VIA to focus on the markets which actually serve its Western or rural key constituents, which are increasingly neglected by private transportation offerings…

A train twice a week does not serve locals. It serves tourists. Tourists that do not spend much money along the route.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I’m optimistic (or just cynical perhaps) that neither PP nor the CPC will remember half the things they said while in opposition, and will actually rise to the task of governing on the basis of issues placed before them and facing the country.
I’m also optimistic that once the Liberals cease to be blameable for everthing (up to and including the cloudy days), a new government will make decisions pretty much as governments always have.

- Paul

I do look forward to seeing those F-Trudeau sign waving idiots mouth agape when they realize that Poilievre is just as pragmatic, rather than idealistic as Trudeau.

 

[micheal_can]

I do look forward to seeing those F-Trudeau sign waving idiots mouth agape when they realize that Poilievre is just as pragmatic, rather than idealistic as Trudeau.

They were the same ones that voted ABC. They are people who ignore politics. They do not know how the governments work.My favourite is I poke to one who I know, and they thought the sky high property taxes were JT's fault.

 

[lenaitch]

And would you expect a new government to axe any other transportation infrastructure that is equally "unprofitable" when viewed using the same very inclusive accounting methodology?


- Paul

Is any passenger rail or urban transit 'profitable', or at least able to operate without subsidy, anywhere? Honest question.

Think of all the subway and LRT done in the province for the last 2 decades. None of it would have happened without federal funding. Allowing the federal government to fund public transit without being in charge of it is a good way to get what we need.

You know what's a good way to get what we need? Have those responsible for the service pay for it. I have no problem if it is a federal-provincial program, such as healthcare, where there is some level of input and outcome level agreement, or if the federal government had some kind of pan-Canadian per-capita funding formula for transit, roads, etc. The way it now, the provinces view the federal government as some kind of sugardaddy. They want them to step up to the plate to pay for some pet project, yet get all pissy when it 'sticks its nose' in some politically-charged beacon of provincial sovereignty. It's basically just porkbarrelling.

Transit and intra-city rail is a provincial matter.

 

[crs1026]

Is any passenger rail or urban transit 'profitable', or at least able to operate without subsidy, anywhere? Honest question.

I can't think of one. Even supposedly privately invested infrastructure such as Brightline receives indirect support from the State of Florida.

The issue specifically for VIA is that the accounting is very precise and absolutely everything attributable to its existence finds its way into the profit or loss determination. This puts VIA in the light of looking like a "money loser" where its cost base has no indirect support, other than its use of whatever spare capacity the landlord railways can't use themselves.

To compare to highway transport, how gas taxes (or any other user fee) flow to the overall cost of building, maintaining, and operating roads and how that indirect support attaches to individual users is very complicated. There is much more "generosity of strangers" relied on.

The way it now, the provinces view the federal government as some kind of sugardaddy. They want them to step up to the plate to pay for some pet project, yet get all pissy when it 'sticks its nose' in some politically-charged beacon of provincial sovereignty. It's basically just porkbarrelling.

(Resisting getting started, too much) And the feds actually like being a sugardaddy. They thrive on taking credit for all the largesse they distribute. The griping and pissy stuff is just ritual political theatre.

I am convinced that the whole argument of wealth equalization in Canada is grossly overplayed. If that were the case, some provinces would be net gainers and some provinces would be net contributor. Instead, Ottawa raises sufficient funds so that every province is a recipient. There's a lot of just giving people their own money back.

- Paul

 

[Admiral Beez]

Is any passenger rail or urban transit 'profitable', or at least able to operate without subsidy, anywhere? Honest question.

The difference is we expect airlines to be profitable and to generate huge revenue for the government through airport fees and taxes, but VIA doesn't have to generate any revenue for the government. Somehow intercity passenger rail is considered a right, like sewers and fresh water, but airlines are allowed/expected to go bust when they can't break even.

 

[dowlingm]

The difference is we expect airlines to be profitable and to generate huge revenue for the government through airport fees and taxes, but VIA doesn't have to generate any revenue for the government. Somehow intercity passenger rail is considered a right, like sewers and fresh water, but airlines are allowed/expected to go bust when they can't break even.

The government does provide some assistance like during COVID where over a billion dollars was given in assistance or forebearance, but rail is also a market which is much less liberalized - it is simply not possible to pick up a Siemens set in Northern Ontario and send it and its crew to Mexico to go into service with minimal delay. If a trainset is put out of service, there is not an ability to lease one from another continent.

Were VIA to go under, the agreements they have with their host railroads go with them. FedEx can’t veto Air Canada from operating into a major airport, or claim ownership over specific routings.

Now, in Europe, we do see new entrants like Ouigo, but this is a materially different regulatory environment arising from multiple legislative packages which paved the way. We have discussed the difference many times and need not do so again, I hope.

 

[micheal_can]

You know what's a good way to get what we need? Have those responsible for the service pay for it. I have no problem if it is a federal-provincial program, such as healthcare, where there is some level of input and outcome level agreement, or if the federal government had some kind of pan-Canadian per-capita funding formula for transit, roads, etc. The way it now, the provinces view the federal government as some kind of sugardaddy. They want them to step up to the plate to pay for some pet project, yet get all pissy when it 'sticks its nose' in some politically-charged beacon of provincial sovereignty. It's basically just porkbarrelling.

Generally the cost of the projects get split in thirds. So, take 1/3 of all transit projects in the GTA and get rid of them. Is that what you are advocating for?

The difference is we expect airlines to be profitable and to generate huge revenue for the government through airport fees and taxes, but VIA doesn't have to generate any revenue for the government. Somehow intercity passenger rail is considered a right, like sewers and fresh water, but airlines are allowed/expected to go bust when they can't break even.

In general, the airports are owned by arms length government entities. They are there to ensure the airport can put through as many airplanes as they can. The railways are privately owned. They each have the goal to put as many of their own trains through. If you want it to be more profitable, the tracks need to be publicly owned so that all trains have an equal opportunity of usage and of being on time.I would be all for that. However, if we do that, then now railway operators can be government owned, as we have seen Metrolinx make a Via late sot heir GO isn't late.

 

[crs1026]

The difference is we expect airlines to be profitable and to generate huge revenue for the government through airport fees and taxes, but VIA doesn't have to generate any revenue for the government. Somehow intercity passenger rail is considered a right, like sewers and fresh water, but airlines are allowed/expected to go bust when they can't break even.

Airport rental income generates only a partial payment against the debt that was accumulated during previous airport construction. Airport rental income does not rise commensurate with new investment. If a runway needs extension, Ottawa pays.

Whereas VIA is expected to generate a rate of return to service the entire debt that would be created by investment in HFR.

Airlines only are said to make a profit or go broke so long as airport costs are not included. Imagine if VIA only made a profit or went broke based on its above the rail costs.... the Corridor would be seen as highly profitable.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

The difference is we expect airlines to be profitable and to generate huge revenue for the government through airport fees and taxes, but VIA doesn't have to generate any revenue for the government. Somehow intercity passenger rail is considered a right, like sewers and fresh water, but airlines are allowed/expected to go bust when they can't break even.

Remind me again how much fuel tax airlines pay per litre fuel and what percentage of the total fare paid by the customer accounts for sales taxes? Then compare that to what VIA pays. And, no, „airport improvement fees“ are not taxes, but infrastructure access charges which all other modes manage to incorporate into their ticket fares rather than pretending they were anything like taxes…