Join the discussion on the following article:
VIA Rail reports smaller loss in second quarter
If VIA stopped running trains completely and laid off all its employees, I’m sure its loss could be almost zero. But what’s VIA’s purpose, to serve the public or to cost as little as possible? It seems that VIA and the government have chosen the latter. Despite the huge amount of money spent on the Kingston and Alexandria subs, I see no improvement in actual service, other than the bogus “increase in the number of departures” between Montreal and Toronto. What good is a new “departure” if the one right after it, which does not detour via Ottawa, arrives an hour earlier?
Don’t forget the “Halifax Train” is only tri weekly and the “Gaspe Train” is still not running!!! 
. The Tourist train is running from Gaspe to Perce Rock and the track is ok? So what gives? the train station is also NEW as it was burnt down by some thieves? Via rebuilds the station for no trains…?
Not to be repeating the mantra of how passenger trains should pay for themselves but it’s always good to hear of increases in revenues when it comes to them. Revenue growth should be an ongoing concern.
Graham, you seem to be confused about something in regard to VIA’s purpose. If we are to cast out any accountability in regard to subsidy and budget performance because it’s a public service, we could use that logic to fund VIA so that every Canadian citizen has access to high speed rail right at their doorstep, just like the road system provides for passenger cars. Somewhere between that ridiculous scenario and the other end of the spectrum where VIA doesn’t even need any subsidy for capital expenses, is where VIA should be. The question, then, is where? The article indicates a drop in passengers in the whole system, so obviously there’s a decrease in public utility. But just number of passengers isn’t a good measure because my ridiculous scenario above would generate the absolute highest passenger counts (never mind that load factors would often be as low as one or two people per train).
Higher load factors at less expense I think is a good thing, especially in busy corridors where this indicates more people moving more efficiently, as opposed to having all those people have to drive on already crowded roads. And improved on time performace at reduced cost are good as well, as reliability encourages ridership.
But I’m after a good formula that would maximize any passenger system’s ridership for the least cost, as well as providing savings over having the same passengers have to use other modes. I haven’t found it, but I think that’s what needs to be determined.
And ideally, if passenger trains could actually pay their full costs, it would take the question of government/taxpayer subsidy off the table, and end much of the time spent on these debates.