VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Unfortunately the Liberals could easily get rid of the western services as there is no political fallout for them. They have already lost the support of the people in the west and have rendered the transcontinental service irrelevant to the citizens and taxpayers of the western provinces. If they were smart they would replace the transcontinental service with a series of short daytime or overnight trains providing daily service to the west.

In the east they would lose some political support but they have once again rendered the train irrelevant to most people's needs.

This is the really scary part.

However, this would also be the perfect time to bring in new, more frequent service. My suggestion of simply chopping the Canadian at Winnipeg and Edmonton and run more trains between there as demand exists, but at least once a day each way would actually help win the west over, even slightly.

For the Ocean, with the mess at the terminal in Halifax, chopping it in Moncton, adding a new train that does not need to be turned for the leg to Halifax, and making it once a day each way would do the same.

Both of these fix many of the issues that really do exist, but most people are blind to. Or, they are complacent with (Hence the blocked poster). This fix would also set up these routes to allow service elsewhere, not already served. This aligns the rest of the service to be much like the Corridor.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Due to many reasons, I have blocked him. I feel that we no longer can have a civil conversation, so, it is better to not expose all of you to it. Unless that is what you really want....

Your choice, but just know that there are trains running outside of the corridor.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Your choice, but just know that there are trains running outside of the corridor.

I know. I hear one go by my house every day. Besides, I hear from the public methods from Via, why do I need to hear from someone who tows the company line? Part of working for somewhere is to attempt to make it better, not to excuse it's regressions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Unfortunately the Liberals could easily get rid of the western services as there is no political fallout for them. They have already lost the support of the people in the west and have rendered the transcontinental service irrelevant to the citizens and taxpayers of the western provinces. If they were smart they would replace the transcontinental service with a series of short daytime or overnight trains providing daily service to the west.

In the east they would lose some political support but they have once again rendered the train irrelevant to most people's needs.

People keep saying there's enough ridership to support these routes. Absolutely nothing stopping private companies or the provincial governments from prairie provinces from starting up services.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

People keep saying there's enough ridership to support these routes. Absolutely nothing stopping private companies or the provincial governments from prairie provinces from starting up services.

Even the corridor does not generate a profit. Rail for profit in Canada will never exist, unless it is purely tourist geared and higher priced.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Even the corridor does not generate a profit. Rail for profit in Canada will never exist, unless it is purely tourist geared and higher priced.

Right. So then there isn't any ridership to support increased services. Which is why it's insanity to insist ViA commit more resources to somebody's pet cause because it's likely to make the hole bigger. Want better Intercity rail? Start talking about how to fund it first. That comes before building anything.

At least HFR has a shot at being profitable. Which is what makes it sellable...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Right. So then there isn't any ridership to support increased services. Which is why it's insanity to insist ViA commit more resources to somebody's pet cause because it's likely to make the hole bigger. Want better Intercity rail? Start talking about how to fund it first. That comes before building anything.

At least HFR has a shot at being profitable. Which is what makes it sellable...

HFR won't be profitable. It would need to have much higher prices than now.

But, you know, we should make Long Term Care homes profitable ... oh, wait, that is what many are, and look at the mess that covid is doing to them.

The government services are not there to generate a profit. They are there as there is a need for the service. If all services were set up for a profit, then mot would be shut down.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

HFR won't be profitable. It would need to have much higher prices than now.

VIA says HFR would eliminate the requirement for Corridor services to be subsidized. This is why they were suggesting that they could make a push for commercial financing. Take that as you wish.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The government services are not there to generate a profit. They are there as there is a need for the service. If all services were set up for a profit, then mot would be shut down.

Which government? That is the question.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

VIA says HFR would eliminate the requirement for Corridor services to be subsidized. This is why they were suggesting that they could make a push for commercial financing. Take that as you wish.

I'll believe that when the reports come out.
The line will cost money.
The new rolling stock will cost money.
The additional staff to run more trains will cost money.

I don't see that as a profitable thing. Doesn't mean it isn't needed. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which government? That is the question.

Well, Via falls under the federal government.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'll believe that when the reports come out.

The line will cost money.
The new rolling stock will cost money.
The additional staff to run more trains will cost money.

I don't see that as a profitable thing. Doesn't mean it isn't needed. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

I look forward to the doubters and haters being silenced when this enters service. Similar projects elsewhere have been profitable. And most of those places don't have our long winters (with attendant treacherous roads), high airfares and horrible traffic from large suburban belts. Some back of the envelope math shows that, if anything, VIA is underpromising. Their current growth rate alone would get them close to HFR ridership projection. That should tell you how much they are sandbagging this. I would love to get my hands on some of their actual internal projections. Good on them for being cautious though. Management has clearly learned how to deal with the politics of all this.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, Via falls under the federal government.

And? Why does that mean the feds have to pay for a specific rail service?

I can expect that public services don't have to make money. But there's also a limit to that. Everybody wants their pet cause paid for the government and nobody wants to pony up more to pay for it. That naturally means governments have to balance what services are offered in the interests of the broad majority.

If you think you can change that you're welcome to run for office and make that pitch to the Canadian public. I am most curious how a platform of, "We're going to raise taxes to pay for a rail line from Winnipeg to Calgary," would sell at the national level.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I look forward to the doubters and haters being silenced when this enters service. Similar projects elsewhere have been profitable. And most of those places don't have our long winters (with attendant treacherous roads), high airfares and horrible traffic from large suburban belts. Some back of the envelope math shows that, if anything, VIA is underpromising. Their current growth rate alone would get them close to HFR ridership projection. That should tell you how much they are sandbagging this. I would love to get my hands on some of their actual internal projections. Good on them for being cautious though. Management has clearly learned how to deal with the politics of all this.

I am not suggesting it will not be successful. I just feel if the only way you measure success is by the profitability of it, that it may not be a good metric.

I would use things like:
On time performance
overall time between major stations,
overall top speed
ridership

All of those would show it's successful.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And? Why does that mean the feds have to pay for a specific rail service?

I can expect that public services don't have to make money. But there's also a limit to that. Everybody wants their pet cause paid for the government and nobody wants to pony up more to pay for it. That naturally means governments have to balance what services are offered in the interests of the broad majority.

If you think you can change that you're welcome to run for office and make that pitch to the Canadian public. I am most curious how a platform of, "We're going to raise taxes to pay for a rail line from Winnipeg to Calgary," would sell at the national level.

There are very few departments or services of the government that might be able to run without a subsidy. But, that is not the point of any government service. The government does these things are they are a necessary need for a group of citizens.

If you really feel that way, I would love to hear how you would make the CAF profitable.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I would use things like:
On time performance
overall time between major stations,
overall top speed
ridership

All of those would show it's successful.

It's going to have massive improvements on all those and it's want enables increased revenue and reduced unit cost through higher asset utilization. These improvements are the cherry on top of improved financials.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There are very few departments or services of the government that might be able to run without a subsidy. But, that is not the point of any government service. The government does these things are they are a necessary need for a group of citizens.

I agree with you that public service don't need to be profitable. Which is specifically why I said this above:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I can expect that public services don't have to make money.

It's sad that you didn't read the above and responded with this weak strawman:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If you really feel that way, I would love to hear how you would make the CAF profitable.

I never said public services should be profitable. I said that resource constraints force governments to have to make choices (usually biased to what the majority wants):

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But there's also a limit to that. Everybody wants their pet cause paid for the government and nobody wants to pony up more to pay for it. That naturally means governments have to balance what services are offered in the interests of the broad majority.

Now. You want the feds to expand VIA to cover all kinds of routes requiring massive annual subsidies? Why don't you spell out where that money is going to come from? Are you going to cut some other service to fund these improvements? Or raise taxes? Or deficit finance all this?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's going to have massive improvements on all those and it's want enables increased revenue and reduced unit cost through higher asset utilization. These improvements are the cherry on top of improved financials.

Still does not mean that a zero subsidy would be applied to the route. Still won't make it a failure.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I agree with you that public service don't need to be profitable. Which is specifically why I said this above:

It's sad that you didn't read the above and responded with this weak strawman:

I never said public services should be profitable. I said that resource constraints force governments to have to make choices (usually biased to what the majority wants):

Now. You want the feds to expand VIA to cover all kinds of routes requiring massive annual subsidies? Why don't you spell out where that money is going to come from? Are you going to cut some other service to fund these improvements? Or raise taxes? Or deficit finance all this?

I am a fan of being told how you will pay for it. I am tired of the promises and tax cuts. That is not a smart plan. All of the parties do it to get elected because if they did not promise new spending and cut taxes somewhere they would never get voted in. I would see no issue with higher wage earners, such as myself to pay an extra 5-10% taxes so that we can afford to have nice things.

Or, another option would be to price each route such that the subsidy is the same percentage as a minimum. That kind of math would mean knowing the break even point of each train and what rate would cover it.

After this mess is over, we are going to be so deep in debt that the days of tax cuts are hopefully gone. In the 1960s, the highest earners paid 70% taxes, and they didn't complain.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Still does not mean that a zero subsidy would be applied to the route.

Actually it does. It's really simple. If revenue > operating costs, no subsidy required. The rest of VIA will still need to be subsidized. But the Corridor won't. And that's a huge part of the sales pitch for this project. If you're suggesting that this is not true, we have huge issues at that point....

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am a fan of being told how you will pay for it. I am tired of the promises and tax cuts. That is not a smart plan. All of the parties do it to get elected because if they did not promise new spending and cut taxes somewhere they would never get voted in. I would see no issue with higher wage earners, such as myself to pay an extra 5-10% taxes so that we can afford to have nice things.

I agree with you. But most Canadians don't agree with us. It's time to recognize reality. VIA doesn't have unlimited resources. And that is not going to change for the foreseeable future. Demand > Resources, means that priorities decide which projects get funded and services are offered. So until VIA's funding structure changes, there will be no new substantial service offerings, unless the provinces are willing to pony up subsidies (like what happens in the US with Amtrak).

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Or, another option would be to price each route such that the subsidy is the same percentage as a minimum. That kind of math would mean knowing the break even point of each train and what rate would cover it.

You can go through VIA's financials and work out the per passenger subsidy and $/pax-km. I believe Urban_sky has shown this before. If not here, than Urban Toronto. Using those metrics, every route is more subsidized than the Corridor IIRC.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

After this mess is over, we are going to be so deep in debt that the days of tax cuts are hopefully gone. In the 1960s, the highest earners paid 70% taxes, and they didn't complain.

More than likely we will see service cuts and tax increases. Which is all the more important for VIA to get data-driven prioritization in place. I am hoping that HFR can go fast enough that the reduction in Corridor subsidies, after launch, can offset cuts in total subsidies to VIA.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Actually it does. It's really simple. If revenue > operating costs, no subsidy required. The rest of VIA will still need to be subsidized. But the Corridor won't. And that's a huge part of the sales pitch for this project. If you're suggesting that this is not true, we have huge issues at that point....

Does that figure the new rolling stock, the additional staff and the additional fuel costs? More trains does not necessarily equal no subsidy. I look forward to one day when the HFR is built and run. I also look forward to what those numbers show. I'll bet it'll get closer, but still need some subsidy.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I agree with you. But most Canadians don't agree with us. It's time to recognize reality. VIA doesn't have unlimited resources. And that is not going to change for the foreseeable future. Demand > Resources, means that priorities decide which projects get funded and services are offered. So until VIA's funding structure changes, there will be no new substantial service offerings, unless the provinces are willing to pony up subsidies (like what happens in the US with Amtrak).

I know reality. I also know that forward thinking within a government organization is frowned upon.

We are not in the same reality we were 3 months ago. We do not know what the airline industry looks like. We do not know what the demand for regional or long distance rail will look like. It might go up or down. We don't know how long the government is willing to prop up the airline industry. However, if in some office somewhere within Via's corporate offices there isn't someone working on ways to improve service outside of the Corridor, then Via is long dead and should be replaced with one that speaks for all Canadians, not just the ones that will make it profitable.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You can go through VIA's financials and work out the per passenger subsidy and $/pax-km. I believe Urban_sky has shown this before. If not here, than Urban Toronto. Using those metrics, every route is more subsidized than the Corridor IIRC.

I have. He doesn't like when I point out the numbers that he posts. So, I ignore him.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

More than likely we will see service cuts and tax increases. Which is all the more important for VIA to get data-driven prioritization in place. I am hoping that HFR can go fast enough that the reduction in Corridor subsidies, after launch, can offset cuts in total subsidies to VIA.

A sad, but possible reality. I still want to see more expansion. I always will. This entire country moved by rail. Now, so little is still connected by passenger rail that it is sad. I do hope HFR is fast tracked to be started within the next 2 years. I hope that the total subsidy for Via never gets lowered and instead they take that extra and apply it elsewhere to improve service.

I would never last long in a government agency... I think forward too much.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Does that figure the new rolling stock, the additional staff and the additional fuel costs?

Do you really think people who do this stuff don't know how to write a business case?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

More trains does not necessarily equal no subsidy. I look forward to one day when the HFR is built and run. I also look forward to what those numbers show. I'll bet it'll get closer, but still need some subsidy.

I predict net profit on Corridor East (which is what HFR is). VIA is already over a dozen trains a day. Every train they add fills up fairly quickly. And they will be in a situation where Toronto-Ottawa, Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec City are competitive with air. They'll be able to divert a fair amount of passengers used to paying air fares. But I'll just wait to be proven right in a few years. No point going back and forth.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

A sad, but possible reality. I still want to see more expansion. I always will. This entire country moved by rail. Now, so little is still connected by passenger rail that it is sad.

That was true before airplanes and highway networks existed. We cooked and heated with coal fires, insulated homes with asbestos, and lit interiors with gas and oil. What holds then is not going to hold true today with technological change. Passenger rail service is only economically feasible in certain corridors. Our first goal should be to build those. Expanding after that gets easier.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

We are not in the same reality we were 3 months ago. We do not know what the airline industry looks like. We do not know what the demand for regional or long distance rail will look like. It might go up or down. We don't know how long the government is willing to prop up the airline industry. However, if in some office somewhere within Via's corporate offices there isn't someone working on ways to improve service outside of the Corridor, then Via is long dead and should be replaced with one that speaks for all Canadians, not just the ones that will make it profitable.

First, the government is already bailing out airlines with wage subsidies and I believe they've said more will follow (and it's inevitable given how many countries are bailing out their carriers). Next, the government's own infrastructure banker has said that long term projects like HFR are vital to national competitiveness. So no, VIA isn't "long dead" just because they don't build something you personally consider important. And if they did get shut down, you'd quickly discover that absolutely nobody is interested in starting up another service to replace it. I would think the lack of a replacement for Greyhound bus services out West should have taught a lesson to those who think that the private sector or other governments will happily step in to replace those services.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have. He doesn't like when I point out the numbers that he posts. So, I ignore him.

You've clearly not seen his data on subsidies per pax-km. But to help you educate yourself, I suggest you download VIA's last annual report and calculate them yourself. It's a good learning exercice.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I know reality. I also know that forward thinking within a government organization is frowned upon.
....
I would never last long in a government agency... I think forward too much.

Most likely you'd finally understand that public servants don't make policy, they execute it. And that means that all those fine ideas you have won't be going anywhere without political support. And then you'd discover doing anything overtly political would get you fired as a public servant.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Do you really think people who do this stuff don't know how to write a business case?

Well my experience with the JSS and the F-35s among other things that affected my day to day life tells me that if it can be screwed up, then the government will find a way to screw it up. I am skeptical of any financial thing from any government agency. Everything comes in over budget and late.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I predict net profit on Corridor East (which is what HFR is). VIA is already over a dozen trains a day. Every train they add fills up fairly quickly. And they will be in a situation where Toronto-Ottawa, Ottawa-Montreal and Montreal-Quebec City are competitive with air. They'll be able to divert a fair amount of passengers used to paying air fares. But I'll just wait to be proven right in a few years. No point going back and forth.

I agree that it will be competitive with air. I also agree that it will fill up too. Were we differ is whether there will be a subsidy applied to it, or will the passengers pay the fare that covers the cost, and then some, as that would be a profitable service.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That was true before airplanes and highway networks existed. We cooked and heated with coal fires, insulated homes with asbestos, and lit interiors with gas and oil. What holds then is not going to hold true today with technological change. Passenger rail service is only economically feasible in certain corridors. Our first goal should be to build those. Expanding after that gets easier.

I agree. There are a few that might be close, but if it must be HFR to start, it is likely a dead issue.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

First, the government is already bailing out airlines with wage subsidies and I believe they've said more will follow (and it's inevitable given how many countries are bailing out their carriers). Next, the government's own infrastructure banker has said that long term projects like HFR are vital to national competitiveness. So no, VIA isn't "long dead" just because they don't build something you personally consider important. And if they did get shut down, you'd quickly discover that absolutely nobody is interested in starting up another service to replace it. I would think the lack of a replacement for Greyhound bus services out West should have taught a lesson to those who think that the private sector or other governments will happily step in to replace those services.

I know of the bailouts, but that is for all companies, not just the airlines.

I also know of the shovel ready request too. I hope the Dayliner gets restarted with that.

Ontario Northland has been expanding their bus service in Northern Ontario. They were supposed to extend to Thunder Bay, but that has been delayed during the pandemic. If anything, the exit of Greyhound has shown us that i order to serve outside the major cities, we must subsidize it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You've clearly not seen his data on subsidies per pax-km. But to help you educate yourself, I suggest you download VIA's last annual report and calculate them yourself. It's a good learning exercice.

Oh, I have. Many pages back, I have debated with him. For example, when he posted past data, I showed him that the data points a different way, and we spent the next few pages debating it. Go back and read it, it was interesting watch him wiggle out of that.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Most likely you'd finally understand that public servants don't make policy, they execute it. And that means that all those fine ideas you have won't be going anywhere without political support. And then you'd discover doing anything overtly political would get you fired as a public servant.

I know they don't. I knew that a long time ago. It doesn't mean that they cannot think outside the box. Even in the military, they let us think outside the box. When they needed ideas out of a situation, like a ship adrift, they then asked for those ideas. It is what saved us and our ship.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well my experience with the JSS and the F-35s among other things that affected my day to day life tells me that if it can be screwed up, then the government will find a way to screw it up. I am skeptical of any financial thing from any government agency. Everything comes in over budget and late.

Defence projects are very different. Dealing with capabilities that aren't known, timeframes that are amorphous, low volumes, etc. By the way, the F-35 has come down in price as manufacturing ramped. It now costs less than its competitors.

Infrastructure projects are far less amorphous and difficult to do estimates for. It's just a matter of spending enough to get a high fidelity estimate. And hopefully the $70M the Joint Project Office is spending is enough.

Going back, we were talking about what was included in an estimate. Again, I'll ask, do you think that you're the only one tha thought of including the cost of rolling stock in a business case?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I agree that it will be competitive with air. I also agree that it will fill up too. Were we differ is whether there will be a subsidy applied to it, or will the passengers pay the fare that covers the cost, and then some, as that would be a profitable service.

VIA fills up trains at today's fares. Filling more trains at close to or slightly lower prices increases revenue. While higher average operating speeds vastly boosts productiving. Think of Ottawa-Toronto. Currently 4.5 hrs. 3.25 hrs with HFR. That's a nearly 28% increase in productivity. This is before accounting for the efficiency of newer rolling stock. Doesn't scale exactly, but their operating costs per passenger-km could easily be 15-20% lower than today. Lower costs and much higher revenue adds up to a likelihood of profit.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ontario Northland has been expanding their bus service in Northern Ontario. They were supposed to extend to Thunder Bay, but that has been delayed during the pandemic. If anything, the exit of Greyhound has shown us that i order to serve outside the major cities, we must subsidize it.

Your Northland example was what I was getting at. You see the province funding a service it deems essential. So why can't the other provinces do the same? That's my point. The only obstacles to VIA setting up new services is funding. If the provinces pony up, we'd get a lot of these services earlier. I have regularly cited the Amtrak model in the US, where states will subsidize specific Amtrak corridors along with target services levels. This allows Amtrak to offer a network far larger than what its federal funding would suggest. Yet, for some reason, we see no real interest from most of our provinces to do the same.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Oh, I have. Many pages back, I have debated with him. For example, when he posted past data, I showed him that the data points a different way, and we spent the next few pages debating it. Go back and read it, it was interesting watch him wiggle out of that.

Can you link me to your data on subsidy $ per pax-km? I want to see how your figures compare to his.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I know they don't. I knew that a long time ago. It doesn't mean that they cannot think outside the box. Even in the military, they let us think outside the box. When they needed ideas out of a situation, like a ship adrift, they then asked for those ideas. It is what saved us and our ship.

Thinking outside the box in an operational emergency is very different business planning. I am going to guess you never had a staff/HQ job doing business planning. I assure you, that nobody is going to take you seriously or keep you in a job very long if you business plans are outside government direction.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Defence projects are very different. Dealing with capabilities that aren't known, timeframes that are amorphous, low volumes, etc. By the way, the F-35 has come down in price as manufacturing ramped. It now costs less than its competitors.

Infrastructure projects are far less amorphous and difficult to do estimates for. It's just a matter of spending enough to get a high fidelity estimate. And hopefully the $70M the Joint Project Office is spending is enough.

Going back, we were talking about what was included in an estimate. Again, I'll ask, do you think that you're the only one tha thought of including the cost of rolling stock in a business case?

I don't think I am the only one looking at it from more than just the day to day operations. I just hope the ones that should be looking at it from that angle are. Assuming they are is how we end up with all the messes the governments try to back pedal from.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

VIA fills up trains at today's fares. Filling more trains at close to or slightly lower prices increases revenue. While higher average operating speeds vastly boosts productiving. Think of Ottawa-Toronto. Currently 4.5 hrs. 3.25 hrs with HFR. That's a nearly 28% increase in productivity. This is before accounting for the efficiency of newer rolling stock. Doesn't scale exactly, but their operating costs per passenger-km could easily be 15-20% lower than today. Lower costs and much higher revenue adds up to a likelihood of profit.

Are you suggesting lowering the fare further? I have a hard time believing that HFR will do anything to lower costs that would be noticeable. The only place this might make a difference is the cost of fuel. New equipment will likely have more of an effect on lowering costs than a reduction of an hour or so.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Your Northland example was what I was getting at. You see the province funding a service it deems essential. So why can't the other provinces do the same? That's my point. The only obstacles to VIA setting up new services is funding. If the provinces pony up, we'd get a lot of these services earlier. I have regularly cited the Amtrak model in the US, where states will subsidize specific Amtrak corridors along with target services levels. This allows Amtrak to offer a network far larger than what its federal funding would suggest. Yet, for some reason, we see no real interest from most of our provinces to do the same.

Via is not provincial. Ontario currently isn't funding provincial long distance rail. I could go on about this.... but I won't. Now, if we wanted to bring in a cost sharing thing with the province to improve rail across their province, that I feel would be a good start. Maybe it would look like a minimum service, and if the province wants more, it works out an agreement on funding it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Can you link me to your data on subsidy $ per pax-km? I want to see how your figures compare to his.

I was using his, and pointing out where what he is saying and what his numbers were saying were different.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Thinking outside the box in an operational emergency is very different business planning. I am going to guess you never had a staff/HQ job doing business planning. I assure you, that nobody is going to take you seriously or keep you in a job very long if you business plans are outside government direction.

Governments change regularly. Some come along and want to spend money. Some come along and want to cut money. The one thinking outside the box is the one who most likely can do this in only a positive way. There are positive ways to spend money, but there can be positive ways to save it too.

As far as an HQ position, I never made it that far.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are you suggesting lowering the fare further? I have a hard time believing that HFR will do anything to lower costs that would be noticeable. The only place this might make a difference is the cost of fuel. New equipment will likely have more of an effect on lowering costs than a reduction of an hour or so.

I don't blame you for thinking that as government projects never seem to go right and end up making things more expensive. But in theory a frequent rail service should have lower ticket prices, although it matters a lot who is paying the bill for the infrastructure. If you can use a train for 4 trips a day instead of 2 (arbitrary numbers), then your utilization cost of the equipment is much lower, and your marginal cost of the equipment just becomes fuel, maintenance and staffing. If there is still demand to fill the trains, then it would make sense to run more trains at lower ticket prices.

And if ticket prices don't fall, that just proves the need for HFR as demand was so high that the additional supply is just absorbed. In that case, more capacity would easily be justified until the point that additional trains don't demand a high enough ticket price that it covers the marginal cost.