So you were told exactly why they procured the ratio of seats they did and how the plan on effectively monetizing it and you're still here whining?
I was told today. It benefits frequent VIA's riders who are able to pay for travel that often costs more than Greyhound, but less so the low-income earners without cars (who public transportation economically/socially benefits the most). It's quite ironic to me how a private company is able to offer public transportation within the corridor for less than what a crown corporation charges. VIA needs the masses rallying for it. Raising fares, and looking like a subsidy for big business doesn't help its cause. I can still see a future government come in and replace VIA corridor service with bus service while relegating business travellers to the skies. Remember what happened the last time around? Chances are even higher if greyhound falls, which might happen given its precarious state and the possibility of a prolonged recession. They're barely breaking
even. For reference, look at what is happening to Amtrak. Hence my point about VIA over-focusing on business travellers being a bad thing still stands...
If the shoe fits.....
Let's not forget that you implied your superior crayon chart knowledge gives you apparently deep financial insight into rail infrastructure, without apparently seeing the actual financials. You really shouldn't be surprised that lines like that have people making assumptions about you.
Also, taking the train back and forth from college every weekend doesn't make you a business traveler. It's why you didn't know about those rail travel policies. Which by the way are growing, with corporate travel booking tools view showing carbon footprints for booking.
Most of the charts I posted were pulled directly from access to information requests that VIA made internally. The one I did make was based on actual passenger numbers and ticket revenues on the Montreal-Quebec City from an access to information request/annual reports for an assignment... That I got a good mark on it. I also said that it was under a base case scenario without HFR, I have no idea what you're going on about. If you could lay out the names of people and their assumptions about me, that would be great.
I've travelled on VIA for business during the summer reimbursed by my school. My school allows staff (like me) to take business class on the train, or fly (again, quit making false assumptions about me). At least for my school, there is significantly more paperwork involved to get reimbursed for taking the train compared to flying where you just book through a portal. This is where I emphasize the importance of VIA working to upgrade its reservation system.
Nonetheless, my only claims were that HFR was highly unlikely to turn a profit and that any profit would be minuscule compared to the economic/social/environmental benefits that the project would bring. I didn't provide any specific numbers on this one, but its a theme of almost all public rail projects. And that the balance of business/economy cars didn't match current demand, which is quite obvious from the chart. Those business class travellers adjusted for seat density generate the same revenue as economy travellers. The math is all laid out, if there's something wrong with it, let me know. You're critiquing me more than the analysis itself. If you don't like it, explain why by referencing the chart/analysis.
Never said it would absolutely make a net profit for the Corridor, though I think it will. But sure, let's use contribution margin to be more precise.
That's surprising....
But given the massive increase in seats that HFR would bring, the math quickly leads to a binary situation where losses grow or this thing is profitable enough to pay for the whole Corridor or even all of VIA.
First, you used cashflow positive, which doesn't say very much. Then you used profit where you should have used contribution margin.
You mean two public transit projects with no control over revenue policies or service delivery design? Where exactly is the comparison with HFR?
UPX did, admittedly SSE did not. From 2015 to 2019, the anticipated travel times have increased quite significantly while the cost of the project has also increased. The projects on eerily similar trajectories of increasing costs and decreasing benefits. Hopefully not the same with the reservation system...
2015
2019
You realise that the Ecotrain study was about High Speed Rail right?
Yes, VIA's corridor subsidy is around $143 million a year. If the project hypothetically allows the corridor to break even. Do you seriously think that the combined economic, social, environmental, and other ancillary benefits of this project won't exceed that measly $143 million a year that the government saves in subsidies?
Honestly having a hard time understanding why you continue to be aggressive to me personally when you've been wrong about your comments about me at every turn. If you want to have a serious conversation about my thoughts, opinions, and analysis about VIA, I encourage you to create a list with a direct quote from each of my posts. This conversation has become increasingly constructive and is border lining on trolling.
According to the forum rules, trolling is: "an ongoing series of posts of an antagonistic and disruptive nature, including borderline pathological attention to certain threads, which add little new perspective or information, and those which will only serve to needlessly and baselessly provoke a particular member or a group of members, are prohibited. An occasional harsh but fair comment would not be considered trolling."
I have reviewed your replies to my posts and not once have you provided reference material supporting your claims. They also do not provoke any productive discussion which I have not previously disclaimed. Specifically, the fact that my analysis was based on current demand, without the inclusion of HFR.
