Feds may sell part of VIA rail

[eternallyme]

What would ridership need to be for VIA Rail to be self-sustaining? That should be the goal.

[Dado]

Well now that's a bit of a complicated question, isn't it?

VIA is already self-sustaining or very nearly so in the T-O-M region, and likely not too far off as far as London and Québec. Niagara probably pays for itself in the summer months, but I'm not so sure about the rest of the year.

It's just about everything else that is causing the red ink. Privatizing the services in the Corridor solves nothing because all it does is leave the government with the money losing routes while having gotten rid of the money earners.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Dado

It's just about everything else that is causing the red ink. Privatizing the services in the Corridor solves nothing because all it does is leave the government with the money losing routes while having gotten rid of the money earners.

The Corridor doesn't make money. It's still about 50% subsidized as nearly all of the capital (hundreds of millions every decade or so) comes from federal dollars.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

What would ridership need to be for VIA Rail to be self-sustaining? That should be the goal.

As stated before. There is a reason passenger rail was nationalized. Because even during the heyday of rail travel, the rail companies wither made very tiny profit or no profit at all. That is why they gave up passenger rail.

In fact the book Transport for Suburbia has a great write up on this. In Europe, passenger rail was nationalized as early as the late 1800's in some countries.
But in Canada and the USA, passenger rail was not nationalized until the private companies almost collapsed.
This led to a situation where the private rail companies in North America never really cared about building a rail network that was attractive, because they just thought of their riders as captives. once cars came to the mainstream, the railway companies continued to provide sub-par service, instead of trying to build attractive service like they did in Europe.
This led to even more declines in revenue, and the governments taking over.

Anyway our rail systems were nationalized for a reason. Even in Europe they don't pull a profit.

In fact, did you know what while public transit as a whole has a cost recovery of around 60% Canada wide. In nations like France, the cover recovery is only in the 30% range. That is approaching American level cost recovery.

As a country we are either going to invest and provide proper funding for public transit including national rail service. Or we are going to continue our underfunding(and Canada is underfunded to a great degree. Our 60% cost recovery is a symbol of underfunding).

If the government has no problem spending $3 billion extra a year on jails. Then why not spend more on rail, health care, etc?
It is about priorities.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by rbt

The Corridor doesn't make money. It's still about 50% subsidized as nearly all of the capital (hundreds of millions every decade or so) comes from federal dollars.

If the route disappeared, I'm wondering how much the additional maintenance costs to the 401 (paid for by Ontario) would be compared to the current costs of the rail corridor.

[MolsonExport]

Without much more than a shred of investment, I amazed that Via is as good as it is (or is not as bad as it should be).

Via should be self-sustaining? What utter horseshit. Kinda like the American model of letting inner city schools wither and die on account of grotesquely unfair funding (re)sources.

The degree to which our tax dollars subsidize the road infrastructure (and by extension, the auto, trucking, bus industries, fast food industry, shopping malls, etc. ad naseum) is so vastly greater than the piddling monies spend on rail in general and Via in particular. Which makes the idea of a fully sustainable VIA utterly absurd.

In July 2010, the government announced it intended to order 65 new F-35 Lightning aircraft to replace the aging CF-18 fleet. The initial cost estimate was $9 billion but that has since ballooned to nearly $30 billion over 30 years, including maintenance. If the order goes through, the planes are scheduled to be ready by 2016.

VIA Rail federal funding contributions

Canadian Government figures

Costs something like 1/2 of a plane...and moves millions of canadians, per year.

[Nick.]

sidewalks and roads aren't profitable, time to stop building them.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The degree to which our tax dollars subsidize the road infrastructure...

Is crisis level inadequate.

It is pretty difficult to seriously argue that tax dollars subsidize road (or aviation) infrastructure at all. In 1998-1999 for instance approximately $12 billion dollars was spent on road infrastructure while direct taxation of road users in the form of federal and provincial gas taxes, registration and license fees combined with small sum in tolls amounted to $14.3 billion. (Canada Transportation Act Review - 2001)

Aviation gets an even worse deal still, relative to roads and aviation passenger rail is the spoiled child. When it comes to the funding of transportation infrastructure Canada is a third world country.

Canada is still governed as though it is an agrarian colonial outpost, this leaves all forms of infrastructure intensive transportation in the dust. When it comes to passenger rail the attitude in Ottawa is more that it is something quaint to be preserved for its historical significance than as a serious form of transportation.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

When it comes to the funding of transportation infrastructure Canada is a third world country.

I love meaningless statements like this. What exactly does a third world country spend? What does a responsible first world country spend?

[BretttheRiderFan]

I heard the Maldives outspent us 10 to 1 last year on overall transit per capita.

Canada is so third world.

[eternallyme]

Airlines and coach operators are self-sustaining, so why can't VIA be as well?

[jmt18325]

Exactly. They do compete, after all.

[MolsonExport]

If Canada's road infrastructure is "third world", then that of the UK must be "forth world". When I think of "third world" infrastructure, I think of permanent gridlock in Calcutta, or the complete chaos of Lagos.

Toronto:

masterfile royalty-free images

[rbt]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Airlines and coach operators are self-sustaining, so why can't VIA be as well?

Most airport terminals are heavily government subsidized; though less so in Canada since the 90's.

Most coach operators receive substantial subsidies on their running surface (their rails), at terminals (Dundas Terminal is $20M in debt because it doesn't charge coaches enough to cover expenses), and sidewalk pickup/drop-offs (MegaBus) are wholly government built and maintained.

VIA is profitable too if you assume the government takes care of the rails, snow/ice/etc, and station maintenance.

[miketoronto]

Airlines are sometimes barely profitable. In addition, airlines have monopoly. You have to fly to go to certain places no matter what.

When it comes to buses, the service is so sub-par that the buses would not pull a profit if they actually put put an attractive service.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It is pretty difficult to seriously argue that tax dollars subsidize road (or aviation) infrastructure at all. In 1998-1999 for instance approximately $12 billion dollars was spent on road infrastructure while direct taxation of road users in the form of federal and provincial gas taxes, registration and license fees combined with small sum in tolls amounted to $14.3 billion. (Canada Transportation Act Review - 2001)

The costs of an automobile-based transportation system are more than just the infrastructure. There is winter maintenance, traffic-law enforcement, and I'm sure other recurring costs to continuing to have a functioning road system, not to mention environmental costs.

Aviation is one area though which, from my understanding, is taxed far beyond the investment the government returns to the industry. I don't think you can really argue that the airline industry is subsidized anymore.

[vid]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Airlines and coach operators are self-sustaining

Bi-annually seeking bankruptcy protection is "self sustaining"? Threatening to pull entirely out of a market unless the government gives them millions of dollars is "self sustaining"?

I call bullshit on that! Yes, Air Canada is a fantastic model of sustainability! It's so sustainable that it has to re-brand itself every two years to prevent itself from becoming too popular!

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

The costs of an automobile-based transportation system are more than just the infrastructure. There is winter maintenance, traffic-law enforcement, and I'm sure other recurring costs to continuing to have a functioning road system, not to mention environmental costs.

©Andy Singer

[waterloowarrior]

full cost analysis of roads/rail/air travel in Canada was done in 2008
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/...port-final.pdf

page 27 has some costs for intercity trips by mode