[crs1026]

Exactly. Let the private sector come in and do some great things like we see in the U.S. with Brightline.

So, you would be happy with one stellar service in one small part of the country snd nothing else ? You seem to overlook all the services that continue to operate under government authority across the USA because they are not amenable to private investment.

VIA is a pretty well run organization, but it is handcuffed by its limited legal status and by political and bureaucratic impediments. Take off the handcuffs, and I bet it could do just fine.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Exactly. Let the private sector come in and do some great things like we see in the U.S. with Brightline.

Where $6.5 billion of the $12 billion cost has come from the federal government - $3 billion of that as a simple gift.

 

[micheal_can]

This forum has been around this tree a number of times. So long as it is a tenant, I'm not exactly sure how another organizational or ownership structure would have a significant impact on speed or reliability.

Look at other places in Canada where the private sector has taken over part or all of a public thing. I hate the cost of the 407, but the service is great. The Mac bridges in Halifax/Dartmouth are great,even though there is a toll. Our airports are nice. Heck, as much As I want to knock the private rail carriers, they seem to make it work well..All of those and more operate with some private and some government mix.

Imagine if there was an organization that solely focused on normal intercity rail travel. No sleepers. No fine dining, just travel between cities. Obviously the QC-W Corridor would fall under their mandate. One could see if part of their mandate was to add more service like that in Canada where else they may invest in to make a profit or break even service happen.

 

[Urban Sky]

Where $6.5 billion of the $12 billion cost has come from the federal government - $3 billion of that as a simple gift.

Agreed, and let’s also not forget about the investor who happened to own the host railroad together with large lands in prime location around each desired station location. No comparable corridor to Brightline Florida exists anywhere in this country, whereas the only Canadian equivalent to Brightline West would be building a HSR corridor between Edmonton (Strathcona) and Calgary (YYC Airport), which complements rather than substitutes VIA’s network in the same way as Brightline West would with Amtrak’s network…

 

[roger1818]

Agreed, and let’s also not forget about the investor who happened to own the host railroad together with large lands in prime location around each desired station location. No comparable corridor to Brightline Florida exists anywhere in this country, whereas the only Canadian equivalent to Brightline West would be building a HSR corridor between Edmonton (Strathcona) and Calgary (YYC Airport), which complements rather than substitutes VIA’s network in the same way as Brightline West would with Amtrak’s network…

Exactly. If we were to see something like Brightline in the Corridor, they wouldn't want to serve either Toronto Union Station or Montreal Central Station, but instead want to build new stations that are surrounded by land that is owned by investor. They could buy the land around the exiting stations, but the stations already exist, so there is no opportunity for profit.

You will notice that Brightline (or Brightline West) doesn't use or plan to use any existing Amtrak stations.

 

[T3G]

I hate the cost of the 407, but the service is great.

The 407 runs so well precisely because the price tag is such a turn off to so many people...

 

[dowlingm]

am not generally a fan of “AI” but a plug-in to forum posting where people could be reminded of (for example) the number of times Brightline has already been distinguished from things which can be done in Canada before they are allowed to mash the post button would be great.

The one (1) good thing Brightline did was get Siemens building intercity passenger coaches and diesel locomotives to North American specs.

 

[roger1818]

The 407 runs so well precisely because the price tag is such a turn off to so many people...

Exactly. It is tolled to maximize profitability. If doubling the toll results in 40% reduction in ridership, that improves profitability.

Imagine if all 400 series highways in Ontario were privatized like the 407.

 

[micheal_can]

Exactly. It is tolled to maximize profitability. If doubling the toll results in 40% reduction in ridership, that improves profitability.

Imagine if all 400 series highways in Ontario were privatized like the 407.

I might finally not need to sit in traffic when I travel a route I could be using Via for?

 

[roger1818]

I might finally not need to sit in traffic when I travel a route I could be using Via for?

And it would probably cost about $200 in tolls...each way.

People might start thinking twice about driving between cities though.

 

[micheal_can]

And it would probably cost about $200 in tolls...each way.

People might start thinking twice about driving between cities though.

Is that a feature or bug?

But this does get to the heart of the challenges. Would I pay an extra $200 to drive? Well,If it is between the $500 flight, or a train that comes every second day...This is why splitting the current services into 3 different agencies would better serve them. However,if I were a betting man, the HxR will be a P3 under Via Rail. So,if the consortium that has Air Canada as part of it, it is unlikely that they will have the HxR labeled "Air Canada ____It will most likely stay as Via Rail. It might be Via Rail ____

 

[lenaitch]

Look at other places in Canada where the private sector has taken over part or all of a public thing. I hate the cost of the 407, but the service is great. The Mac bridges in Halifax/Dartmouth are great,even though there is a toll. Our airports are nice. Heck, as much As I want to knock the private rail carriers, they seem to make it work well..All of those and more operate with some private and some government mix.

Those aren't direct comparisons. Hwy 407 is operated by its owners. I haven't been on it since my employer paid the tolls. I assume the Halifax bridges, like the Confederation bridge, are owned by the Crown (federal or provincial), but they are operated by a company under contract. I'm not enough of a traveller to comment on Canadian airports except that Pearson is chaos on a good day and T3 feels like you landed in Soviet Russia.

None of these are trying to provide a service on and alongside whoever owns the property. It would be like trying to operate a restaurant at Pearson, next door to one operated by the GTAA, and they get to say what hours you keep.

Other than a couple of FNs, what private rail carrier doesn't have freight revenue to backstop it (for than matter, what private carrier operates passenger service - don't say RMR?).

Absent significantly different legislation, I fail to see how a private carrier could do measurably better, particularly when they have to return a profit to their shareholders. No business exists to break even. If I recall, the corridor does 'turn a profit' but I assume that is operating costs only. Who do you think bought the fancy new trainsets?

 

[micheal_can]

Those aren't direct comparisons. Hwy 407 is operated by its owners. I haven't been on it since my employer paid the tolls. I assume the Halifax bridges, like the Confederation bridge, are owned by the Crown (federal or provincial), but they are operated by a company under contract. I'm not enough of a traveller to comment on Canadian airports except that Pearson is chaos on a good day and T3 feels like you landed in Soviet Russia.

None of these are trying to provide a service on and alongside whoever owns the property. It would be like trying to operate a restaurant at Pearson, next door to one operated by the GTAA, and they get to say what hours you keep.

Other than a couple of FNs, what private rail carrier doesn't have freight revenue to backstop it (for than matter, what private carrier operates passenger service - don't say RMR?).

Absent significantly different legislation, I fail to see how a private carrier could do measurably better, particularly when they have to return a profit to their shareholders. No business exists to break even. If I recall, the corridor does 'turn a profit' but I assume that is operating costs only. Who do you think bought the fancy new trainsets?

The way they could potentially do better is the fact they are not beholden to the federal budget. They could get investors to fund expansions where they think they could make a profit.

If you want a pigeon holed company that would do exactly what some of us see, they may not exist. However, the list of things in Canada were a small list of various models. I doubt anyone here will say that how Via is being operated is the best for Canadians. So, maybe it is time to figure out a different model so that it can.

 

[lenaitch]

The way they could potentially do better is the fact they are not beholden to the federal budget. They could get investors to fund expansions where they think they could make a profit.

If you want a pigeon holed company that would do exactly what some of us see, they may not exist. However, the list of things in Canada were a small list of various models. I doubt anyone here will say that how Via is being operated is the best for Canadians. So, maybe it is time to figure out a different model so that it can.

So . . . private investors and government subsidies. The funny thing about publicly-provided services (in theory anyway) is they are supposed to be provided where they are needed, not necessarily where there is profit potential.

Taken alone, I believe the corridor 'makes a profit', but that is used to offset losses on other routes. Where do you envision any other route being a money maker. Where do you envision an investor willing to spend money to be spent on the infrastructure of another for-profit company (CN, CPKC)?

I'm not defending VIA. From the little I know about rail passenger operations and what I read publicly, there is a large room for improvement, but they, and any private investor, is still beholden to the host railways. If private money was injected into the process, no doubt access charges by CN and CPKC would increase. If there was money to be made in passenger rail, don't you think the Class 1s would get back into it?

Better legislation would no doubt help - a bit - but there are limits to what the government can impose on private industry.

 

[micheal_can]

So . . . private investors and government subsidies. The funny thing about publicly-provided services (in theory anyway) is they are supposed to be provided where they are needed, not necessarily where there is profit potential.

Taken alone, I believe the corridor 'makes a profit', but that is used to offset losses on other routes. Where do you envision any other route being a money maker. Where do you envision an investor willing to spend money to be spent on the infrastructure of another for-profit company (CN, CPKC)?

I'm not defending VIA. From the little I know about rail passenger operations and what I read publicly, there is a large room for improvement, but they, and any private investor, is still beholden to the host railways. If private money was injected into the process, no doubt access charges by CN and CPKC would increase. If there was money to be made in passenger rail, don't you think the Class 1s would get back into it?

Better legislation would no doubt help - a bit - but there are limits to what the government can impose on private industry.

If it were done, my guess is that there would be new legislation to ensure that it can be successful without seeing the rail carriers charge an exorbitant amount for access. We could even see the rail carriers be part of the consortium that runs it. Who wouldn't want free government money, especially to use their own stuff? Reality is, we have no idea what will happen to Via in the next 5 years. We can want to believe what politicians say, or we can prepare for one of many realistic scenarios.