[nfitz]

Besides, British government rail subsidies *rose* dramatically after the privatization and infrastructure was neglected until the railways became a national joke. It's now a textbook example of how *not* to run a business.

Privatization of the operating companies seems to have worked well.

It's the privatizaton of the infrastructure that was the problem. Since the infrastucture was renationalised back in 2002 things have been improving.

(well sort of renationalised - it's complicated, it's a private company with no shareholders. Which is really a dodge as if they officially nationalised they'd be hit with paying penalties to the Railtrack shareholders).

 

[urbanfan89]

Privatization of the operating companies seems to have worked well.

It's the privatizaton of the infrastructure that was the problem. Since the infrastucture was renationalised back in 2002 things have been improving.

(well sort of renationalised - it's complicated, it's a private company with no shareholders. Which is really a dodge as if they officially nationalised they'd be hit with paying penalties to the Railtrack shareholders).

You forgot to mention the fare hikes more than double the actual inflation rate, or the government subsidies which are larger than those in France (with similar population and twice the area), or a fare structure more complicated than our GO/TTC/MT/BT/YRT/etc mix.

There's no reason to privatize if plenty of countries can provide better service with less public funds while keeping the system public.

 

[jn_12]

Having used the system in the UK, prices are comparable or cheaper than VIA. A ticket from London Euston to Peterborough round trip is less than $40 and Euston to Edinburgh $200. The distance and price is equal to current VIA prices from Toronto to St Catharines and Montreal respectively. So the rate of inflation means little to me. Considering the cost of living in the UK far exceeds here, one could argue its actually better value over there.

My experience in Europe is that the systems that are nationalized (Belgium for example) offer cheap regular service at abysmal speed and comfort. 2 hours in the equivalent of a school bus seat at 50km/h isn't fun. To be honest, I'd rather have subsidized companies offer something good, fast and comfortable than governments offer half-assed service.

I know everyone gets their back up when privatization is suggested, but in a case like this where service is already sub-par, what do we lose?

 

[nfitz]

I know everyone gets their back up when privatization is suggested, but in a case like this where service is already sub-par, what do we lose?

Well they lost a national institution - British Rail tea. You could always count on British Rail tea being the most impotable brew in the land. And now the tea is actually drinkable. What is the world coming to!

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Full out privatization makes sense, and would bring no benefits. Private companies would only be interested in operating the most profitable lines, so either VIA is left with low profit smaller communities and requires a huge subsidy to keep those lines open, or service just fades away. Having VIA remain a crown corporation means it can use the profits from the most profitable lines offset costs from those that do not make money, but still provide important service to smaller communities. Not that private companies dont have a role, or could not have a limited partnership, but the wholesale privatization of VIA would be a terrible mistake.

As others have said, creating high speed service in the corridor is not complicated, and there are handfuls or solutions for most of the problems that would arise in terms of infrastructure, service, coordination of service with regional rail operators, etc. It just requires a critical mass of public and political support too make it happen, which is slowly happening, and should pick up momentum in the next few years.

I know everyone gets their back up when privatization is suggested, but in a case like this where service is already sub-par, what do we lose?

What do you gain though? Unless there is massive infrastructure investment in the network itself then a privatized VIA can do nothing to change the problems that limits it growth and operating potential. If the government is going to invest 10 billion dollars or more, why should it then hand over what will become a profitable corporation to private interests? So actually there is a lot too lose because once a current or upgraded HS VIA is privatized it is almost a guarantee that service to small centers will be lost or service to anywhere else they deem to be unprofitable.

I would also add that if the private sector where willing to cover most of the cost of infrastructure, then it would be different. But when the public funds the total cost of the infrastructure and then is expected to hand it over and let private industry take the profits, that is little more than a scam and a waste of public money for private interests.

 

[Dan416]

I think privatization would be a terrible idea, and I'm not a left-wing nut by any means. But I agree with AS that it's just a big scam.

 

[kEiThZ]

I wonder if the project could be feasible without federal involvement. Could Ontario and Quebec pull it off on their own? Let VIA run it and pay them back. Any thoughts?

 

[jn_12]

Full out privatization makes sense, and would bring no benefits. Private companies would only be interested in operating the most profitable lines, so either VIA is left with low profit smaller communities and requires a huge subsidy to keep those lines open, or service just fades away. Having VIA remain a crown corporation means it can use the profits from the most profitable lines offset costs from those that do not make money, but still provide important service to smaller communities. Not that private companies dont have a role, or could not have a limited partnership, but the wholesale privatization of VIA would be a terrible mistake.

Ya, the typical argument when you privatize anything. However, it's not like there are any lines the specifically serve just a small community. All of the small communities with service lie within the corridor. Greyhound/Trentway provide service to tiny towns across the province, so obviously there's some sort of business to be found in these smaller communities. To say that a private company would simply cut out every small town is absurd and nothing suggests this would happen. Perhaps we don't privatize VIA but instead open the market and allow some competition, much in the same way GO fills in for the missing links in greyhound/Trentway's service.

What do you gain though? Unless there is massive infrastructure investment in the network itself then a privatized VIA can do nothing to change the problems that limits it growth and operating potential. If the government is going to invest 10 billion dollars or more, why should it then hand over what will become a profitable corporation to private interests? So actually there is a lot too lose because once a current or upgraded HS VIA is privatized it is almost a guarantee that service to small centers will be lost or service to anywhere else they deem to be unprofitable.

I would also add that if the private sector where willing to cover most of the cost of infrastructure, then it would be different. But when the public funds the total cost of the infrastructure and then is expected to hand it over and let private industry take the profits, that is little more than a scam and a waste of public money for private interests.

Why do we build highways? It's so that way people and more importantly goods can travel between cities. We don't restrict access because we understand its an investment. Also, if a company that employs locally, builds locally (assuming they used Bombardier) and helps the government meet environmental and congestion reduction targets makes profit thanks to public investment in infrastructure, is it really that bad? It's not like we don't see examples of public money winding up in private hands in other sectors of our economy.

I just don't see VIA alone being the answer. if the government wants to invest and then make VIA better by increasing trains and improving service, then I'm all for it. However, there's little to suggest this will happen at any sort of level we could expect from the private sector.

 

[nfitz]

Well one federal party is calling for a high-speed train. Duceppe wants high-speed train in Quebec (connecting to Ontario and New York). Perhaps we should all vote BQ in the GTA! Duceppe notes that the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal project was tagged at $23 billion and the Tories have rejected it.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Ya, the typical argument when you privatize anything. However, it's not like there are any lines the specifically serve just a small community. All of the small communities with service lie within the corridor. Greyhound/Trentway provide service to tiny towns across the province, so obviously there's some sort of business to be found in these smaller communities. To say that a private company would simply cut out every small town is absurd and nothing suggests this would happen. Perhaps we don't privatize VIA but instead open the market and allow some competition, much in the same way GO fills in for the missing links in greyhound/Trentway's service.

There is plenty to suggest that this would happen. Read the Lynx proposal, developed by private enterprises who suggest just that. The C.D. Howe institute wrote a report on high speed rail and said that it would certainly be profitable and recommended only serving the major centers and cutting out everything but Trudeau, Kingston, and Guildwood between Montreal and Toronto, just as one example of their plan. There is nothing wrong with some sort of partnership or even open rail policy if that truely offers everyone the best service. But flat-out privatization is a virtual guarantee that small markets see reduced service or lose it all together.

Why do we build highways? It's so that way people and more importantly goods can travel between cities. We don't restrict access because we understand its an investment. Also, if a company that employs locally, builds locally (assuming they used Bombardier) and helps the government meet environmental and congestion reduction targets makes profit thanks to public investment in infrastructure, is it really that bad? It's not like we don't see examples of public money winding up in private hands in other sectors of our economy.

Of course lots of investments do help private industry, either through direct or indirect subsidies. But why should the government invest billions of dollars in creating a high speed network that would be profitable in terms of operating costs, and then simply throw it away to private industry? The government has a chance to create a service that could bring in revenue that might not recoup all the costs, or even a majority, but could ensure that the revenue it generates from the high speed routes could be used towards future projects and serving smaller communities.

I just don't see VIA alone being the answer. if the government wants to invest and then make VIA better by increasing trains and improving service, then I'm all for it. However, there's little to suggest this will happen at any sort of level we could expect from the private sector.

There is no indication that private industry would even consider operating a high speed service if it had to fund the cost of building the infrastructure. It is the same situation as Blue 22. SNC-Lavalin wants to operate the airport service, and will put some money towards it, because it will a profitable venture. But that is only because it doesnt have to spend $500 million towards the upgrade of the line. The infrastructure for a high speed network is where the overwhelming majority of the costs lie. If private industry wanted to pay for those costs too then by all means let them operate it. But they wont, so let the taxpayers who funded the construction also see a crown corporation operate it so that their investment can bring financial gain to those who paid for it.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Well one federal party is calling for a high-speed train. Duceppe wants high-speed train in Quebec (connecting to Ontario and New York). Perhaps we should all vote BQ in the GTA! Duceppe notes that the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal project was tagged at $23 billion and the Tories have rejected it.

This idea has been bouncing around for the past 20 years.By the time the different levels of government come to an agreement,we will all be dead.

 

[nfitz]

This idea has been bouncing around for the past 20 years.

Try over 30 years. There were serious detailed studies in the late 1970s. By 1980 VIA Rail had a group of people in their HQ dedicated to studying high speed rail, headed up by Wilfred Sergeant, who was also the person behind setting up GO Transit's Lakeshore line in the mid-1960s.

By the time the different levels of government come to an agreement,we will all be dead.

After over 30 years many are already dead.

 

[jswag]

I would encourage everyone to email their MP or those that are running for MP in your riding, to see what their thoughts are on a HSR project. I believe that this is a project that the majority of people in Ontario and Quebec would agree with. It has enormous benefits for the economy and the environment.

Politicians are often out of touch, so we have to put them in touch with what we want! This CAN be done before we're all dead...

 

[Hipster Duck]

Now that the Argentinians and South Africans are building lines, it's a race between sparsely populated Oceania, Antarctica and North America to see which will be the last continent to build HSR.

So, which one comes first? The Queed Maud Land/Larsen B ice shelf express, or a Montreal-Toronto line?

 

[carrefour]

Just build the damn thing!

Really, too bad we can't vote for the Bloc. I agree with most of their platform - except the whole treason thing. Ontario votes Liberal and we show us no love. The Conservatives don't get our votes so they show us no love. The NDP shows love only to the working man. The Bloc aime le Quebec seul. And the Greens don't yet have a clue.

Queen Maud to Larsen B 2012.