I'm not really sure why a one-line comment justifies a personal attack, since there was nothing inaccurate in comparing the suspended Gaspe service to the suspended Amtrak service in north Florida. Let's see:Just because you don't grasp the difference between operational funding (i.e. the deficit between train revenues and operating costs, which is automatically paid by the taxpayer) and capital funding (i.e. funding which needs to be approved by the government before it can be used to pay for infrastructure/fleet acquisitions/upgrades), doesn't mean that that there is a conspiracy against restoring services which the federal government has deemed as being part of the mandate of its Crown Corporation. If you insist on blaming someone for the seven years (and counting!) without passenger rail service to the Gaspé peninsula, why not start with the provincial government which could (until very recently) not be bothered to allocate any significant investments into the derelict rail infrastructure it owns...?
Deteriorating track conditions contribute to timekeeping and scheduling issues. Check.
Shortline involvement compounds problem. Check.
Passing responsibility for upgrades between various levels of government. Check.
Takes an advocacy group to draw attention. Check.
The real issue is that it has taken an objective observer - in this case an American with no "horse in the race" - to point out what VIA apologists have never grasped: it is not a national network. It certainly once was, but its political masters in the past reduced it to a point where it served only vote-rich Quebec and Southern Ontario with only one train east of Quebec and 2 1/2 (the Skeena is the half) west of Ontario. That leaves large segments of the country, including many major cities, not served. If a way can be found to better utilize existing resources to better serve the whole country, I would think VIA supporters would back the proposal and make constructive additions, rather than say why it can't be done.