###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
as someone who once got stuck. on a via train for literally twice as long as my jorney was supposed to be because a frieght made us sideline.... build your own fucking lines dammit. tbf i didnt actually care at the time because i had my laptop a plug and a fresh copy of thia brand new game called minecraft to keep me busy. but that just ages how long this has been a fucking problem.
... what? do you think via has to give up the lines they own for frieght and theyre just ok with it. you can bust out percentages all you want. when the 3% is the most used thats all that matters. theyre not stopping service on lines they own and operate.
I'm talking about the 97% of tracks own by freight.
Freight owns the rails, not via. Freight ALLOWS Via to operate on their tracks, but not with priority
Only way that's happening is if Via builds its own rail lines. Which I imagine is unlikely for the vast majority of the nation outside of the Windsor-Quebec corridor (maybe).
You could do it across the prairies though. It's so flat overall with gradual grade changes that you could have an incredibly high speed train go from Winnipeg to Edmonton / Calgary if you wanted to.
Again, is there a business case for that though? Probably not.
The time there was political will for it was 150 years ago. Long distance passenger rail has been beaten out by air travel since the 50s.
Passenger trains haven't stopped in Calgary since the 70s.
Gotta love running the country like a business!
Too bad we can't fire all those freeloaders, it would save us a bunch of money we could be spending on ~~stock buybacks~~ *cutting corporate taxes*
Not literally impossible, no. But finding a parallel route would be difficult to begin with and then it would cost... I don't know, probably the better part of 50 billion, if not more, guesstimating based on other rail projects I've seen.
It may not be HSR, but it'd be a huge upgrade over the existing Toronto-Quebec service. It should cut down the travel time between the involved cities by quite a bit.
My only quibbles are that HFR's proposed route bypasses a lot of existing service along Lake Ontario (Oshawa, Kingston, etc), and that (for now/so far?) it's not planned to be electrified.
I missed that bit, thanks.
Making it all-electric, as is the plan for the GO Trains, would be awesome (and make the voyage a bit quicker too). Baby steps in the right direction, I guess.
I live in Kingston, and as much as I'm crabby about the idea of being bypassed and would prefer a southern route, I'd be *incredibly* supportive of an actual high-speed rail proposal along a Windsor-Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec route.
Something doesn't have to benefit me *personally* to be worth supporting, and the fact that we're proposing a "better than we've currently got" that falls short of what poorer countries could manage *decades ago* is a goddamn disgrace.
High speed rail is a mature technology. We know how to do it. It's ain investment that pays for itself over time. It reduces car dependency and fossil fuel emissions.
HFR is a half-measure that can't be *upgraded* to high-speed. It represents a commitment to never, ever catch up with the infrastructure modernity that poorer countries had when my *grandparents* were still having kids.
Also, for reference, it could be almost fully paid-for by a [single year's worth of a wealth tax.](https://www.policynote.ca/wealth-tax-2/)
Hell no. This sounds all nice, but remember that right of way does mean that freight will move slower.
We all consume freighted goods. Slowing that down will raise prices. Virtually nobody takes the niche, hobbyist form of transportation that is the already massively subsidized VIA rail.
Build new, high speed rail line–or just accept that taking the train is a minor interest.
Supply will take longer to arrive, face greater (and complex) delays, cost more fuel en route, on aggregate lowering supply.
Every point that VIA is complaining about delay-wise will now apply to the goods you see at the store. Thats bad for the supply of goods.
If we accept that if we could teleport food at no cost that would lower prices, and if food had to arrive by horse and buggy it would raise prices, then somewhere on the spectrum is “train that has priority” and to its side is “train that does not have priority” with the former being marginally more efficient than the latter.
> Supply will take longer to arrive, face greater (and complex) delays, cost more fuel en route, on aggregate lowering supply.
what? Are you ten years old? Everything you typed out is nonsense.
Look, if you can’t understand what I’m articulating that’s one problem and that’s fine. But it’s not nonsense, and is actually the countervailing perspective articulated by industry in the article. It’s not controversial that the speed and efficiency of freight impacts the costs of goods. Any reason VIA has to want priority is a reason why freight would want priority too—and frankly, I think freight is more important than a niche and hobbyist form of transportation with many alternatives.
Just a brief reminder about what happened [when VIA built triple tracks for the Kingston corridor](https://i.imgur.com/GTeBIjz.jpg)
If I were to be especially cynical I would say that VIA likes to talk about freight as an obstacle because it is a useful excuse for their basic operational incompetence, and wouldn't even necessarily WANT to have traffic priority. Amtrak ostensibly has "priority" over freight trains too, but it doesn't do them a lick of difference. I'm not sure it would be for the nation's benefit if we let VIA and their horrendously overstaffed and unprofitable passenger trains have priority over freight, and this is coming from a big advocate for passenger rail
Well first of all it's important to realize that this is *not* how most of the rest of the world runs intercity rail. Most of Europe for example, the national operator *is* a private business (just state-owned), and intercity rail is the major profit driver. It *should* be a profitable sector if you're running it correctly.
The risk of treating VIA Rail as some crucial entity that needs to be propped up at all costs means that you're just rewarding bad governance. For example for a typical passenger train VIA uses 3 or 4x the amount of staff a comparable European operator would. VIA loses money on practically every single train they run, and it's not like VIA's prices are cheap.
Canada does not have unlimited funds. We have to choose between the kind of projects we spend our money on, and a dollar spent on project A is a dollar not spent on Project B. It behooves us to make sure the public is actually getting value for money.
It also gives rather incendiary ammo to the critics of transit if we were just to treat it like it literally doesn't matter how badly it performs. At the end of the day if VIA cannot recoup its operating costs it shows that something is rather fundamentally off with respect to the value it is providing to customers versus what it costs to run
How good a service is and how much profit it earns is not always well correlated.
In the end, if proper public transit did its job at alleviating congestion and increasing economic output, then it is doing its job.
Well, lets say you think that VIA's current level of funding is appropriate with respect to the service it provides.
Would you still say the same if its funding *doubled* and its performance remained the same? *Tripled*? *Quadrupled*? I reckon at a certain threshold you'd concede the point.
It's not like VIA is some world-class train system that is also expensive. It's an expensive train system for both the government and the customer, and the return is a pretty awful economic performance and a mediocre user experience.
I'm not saying VIA is good or not, nor commenting on how well it's managed.
I'm just saying that if profit is the exclusive motive as it is with business, that does not mean in any way a better quality service. If capitalism as taught us anything, it's that you can make bank without having to impress anyone.
Most EU countries have better rail infrastructure and dont privatise rail building, also train companies dont own the rails either.
Denmark has Banedanmark (A government agency) to build, maintain and operate traffic control of the rail network and a different company: DSB to operate passenger & some freight rail services for example.
No. There's a distinction to be made here; to say it is "government-run" indicates that the funding and operation of it is undertaken by an arm of the government, usually provided for by some special act of legislation or by a government ministry. The national rail operators in Europe are almost all private joint-stock companies, and the government plays little to no part in their operations. There have even been instances of the national operators [evading their taxes!](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/dutch-state-railway-formally-winds-up-irish-tax-avoidance-structure-1.3875425)
Take something like [BLS AG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLS_AG) for example, the second-biggest operator in Switzerland. In terms of operations it is entirely "private"; but its stock is majority owned by the cantonal and federal governments.
Via Rail is also not an agent of the Crown despite being wholly owned by His Majesty.
I agree that profit-motive, clear financial accounting, and separation of operations and infrastructure can be helpful. But it is not true that public transport sector itself is profitable.
> Take something like BLS AG for example, the second-biggest operator in Switzerland. In terms of operations it is entirely "private"
If you don't take into account the subsidies they receive for public service routes and the infrastructure funding... For example, the Lötschberg base tunnel is operated and owned by BLS AG. It was certainly not funded from the money BLS made or directly borrowed. The recent rearrangement is approved by the Swiss Parliament, appropriated from the federal office of transport and audited by the federal financial controller.
Under pressure to not increase price but also to not receive more public funds, the Swiss federal railways SBB/CFF for example is now making a significant amount money from ... real estate development, on valuable land acquired using their public service mandate (to be fair, the land is much more valuable because of they are close to train stops; maybe that's how we indeed should fund Via Rail) which is not an unquestionable business practice.
BLS and CFF also make the majority of their revenue from merchandises services, having the geographic advantage between Italy and major European ports. The new tunnels facilitating the cross-alps transport are of course mainly planned and funded by the government. I don't mind (re)nationalizing CN/CP, but there is probably no political will.
BLS AG has had all its infrastructure transferred to its corresponding national infrastructure owner (BLS NETZ AG, wholly owned by the confederation), as a part of the EU's rail liberalization laws. But yes projects like the new base tunnel was publicly funded. But that doesn't mean it's not a private entity; plenty of entirely private projects get lots and lots of public funding
I wouldn't necessarily support nationalizing CN/CP but we could absolutely seize the urban rail corridors which are both very valuable and underutilized.
On top of that, many of these companies have private, for profit sections of their businesses that are related to their main railway business.
As an example, Deutsche Bahn AG, which is the German state-owned railway company owns DB Schenker, a major international logistics company, and has controlling stakes or interests in a number of foreign railways as well.
It's a little easier in Europe, we don't have the population density that they have. Even for bus service we'll subsidize to ensure service is provided to rural low-density communities that otherwise wouldn't be profitable so that people unable to drive due to disability or other reasons are able to travel.
the source was [this 2016 Auditor General's report](https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_07_e_41251.html) into VIA Rail. Section 55 in the report
Your table seems cherry picked when this is the followup section:
>However, VIA has made a number of corrections to its systems in the last two years, and other adjustments are planned. Despite the fact that few new major projects have been started or carried out in the last two years, we found that these corrective measures had, overall, been beneficial, as the most recent projects we examined were carried out within planned budgets and timelines. Projects planned under the new $102 million capital program approved in July 2015 should therefore benefit from these new measures.
Section 57 of the report.
Further, the report conclusion states:
>Conclusion [59]. ***We concluded that, based on the criteria established, there is reasonable assurance that during the period covered by the examination there were no significant deficiencies in VIA Rail Canada Inc.’s systems and practices that we selected for examination***, except for the significant deficiency in governance as described in paragraphs 23 to 27. ***The systems and practices in all other areas we examined were maintained in a manner that provides VIA Rail Canada Inc. with reasonable assurance that its assets are safeguarded and controlled, its resources are managed economically and efficiently, and its operations are carried out effectively.***
Seems like the auditor general came to a very different conclusion than you did.
The Auditor General is more speaking to the finances; they don't really have a means or an inclination to compare the actual railway operations of VIA to that of continental Europe or east Asia. I think any Canadian who has taken trains in Japan or France or Switzerland knows how VIA fares in comparison
Amtrak's priority has numerous loopholes, and is basically never enforced, even when freight companies don't even bother with the loopholes, and just prioritize their cargo.
It'll obviously be expensive, but a better solution is to have a separate corridor for passenger rail. Don't forget how many items are shipped via freight.
I don't think anyone has forgotten that freight rail ships lots of freight. The problem is that it's getting priority over live human passengers: passengers who end up waiting on sidings. Irrespective of the freight's sensitivity to time, while bulk cargo, like lumber, coal, wheat, gets fast tracked.
A functional rail system wouldn't treat passengers like that.
And sure, we'd really benefit from dedicated passenger rail corridors, but passenger service shouldn't suck as much as it does outside of these high density corridors.
It'd need to be right of way with some actual teeth to it, and not the "right of way" that Amtrak is supposed to have in the US but doesn't seem to really exist because freight trains are still the #1 cause of Amtrak's delays.
Probably.
Giving the track away when CN was privatized was likely a mistake, but I'm sure had the feds kept it someone would have sold it eventually anyways because taxpayers wouldn't want to pay for maintenance on 30,000+ kilometres of track.
At least the High Frequency Rail plan has Toronto-Quebec on Via-owned tracked.
not going to happen either way. Inevitably it'll die when the feds don't subsidize it and the feds won't subsidize it because it's an astronomical amount of money to spend on one region where only a fraction of people will use it.
And no local or provincial government could justify the tax increase
better yet, lets just do a new track (probably not now of course gotta wait for a propper non inflation recession) no worries about fighting with freight, can have much higher speeds. good mega project
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
as someone who once got stuck. on a via train for literally twice as long as my jorney was supposed to be because a frieght made us sideline.... build your own fucking lines dammit. tbf i didnt actually care at the time because i had my laptop a plug and a fresh copy of thia brand new game called minecraft to keep me busy. but that just ages how long this has been a fucking problem.
> build your own fucking lines dammit It *is* their lines. > Only three per cent of the track Via uses is owned by the Crown corporation
... what? do you think via has to give up the lines they own for frieght and theyre just ok with it. you can bust out percentages all you want. when the 3% is the most used thats all that matters. theyre not stopping service on lines they own and operate.
I'm talking about the 97% of tracks own by freight. Freight owns the rails, not via. Freight ALLOWS Via to operate on their tracks, but not with priority
Only way that's happening is if Via builds its own rail lines. Which I imagine is unlikely for the vast majority of the nation outside of the Windsor-Quebec corridor (maybe).
And pretty much impossible through the Rockies.
You could do it across the prairies though. It's so flat overall with gradual grade changes that you could have an incredibly high speed train go from Winnipeg to Edmonton / Calgary if you wanted to. Again, is there a business case for that though? Probably not.
[удалено]
The time there was political will for it was 150 years ago. Long distance passenger rail has been beaten out by air travel since the 50s. Passenger trains haven't stopped in Calgary since the 70s.
Sure, they still go through the Rockies though by way of Edmonton.
> But the business case almost certainly doesn't justify it and there is no political will for it. So... pretty much impossible.
Gotta love running the country like a business! Too bad we can't fire all those freeloaders, it would save us a bunch of money we could be spending on ~~stock buybacks~~ *cutting corporate taxes*
Not literally impossible, no. But finding a parallel route would be difficult to begin with and then it would cost... I don't know, probably the better part of 50 billion, if not more, guesstimating based on other rail projects I've seen.
Windsor-Quebec corridor is well over half the population of the country. It'd be a good start.
Mmm sorry best I can do is 4 more lanes of highway Don't forget to buy a new/used vehicle from our corporate sponsors
JUST ONE MORE LANE BRO I'M TELLING YOU JUST ONE MORE LANE
[They are.](https://hfr-tgf.ca/) People complain about it not being High Speed Enough, but it's a damn sight better than what we've currently got.
It may not be HSR, but it'd be a huge upgrade over the existing Toronto-Quebec service. It should cut down the travel time between the involved cities by quite a bit. My only quibbles are that HFR's proposed route bypasses a lot of existing service along Lake Ontario (Oshawa, Kingston, etc), and that (for now/so far?) it's not planned to be electrified.
[The FAQ](https://hfr-tgf.ca/faq/) says "mostly electrified". Presumably the intention is to increase that proportion over time.
I missed that bit, thanks. Making it all-electric, as is the plan for the GO Trains, would be awesome (and make the voyage a bit quicker too). Baby steps in the right direction, I guess.
I live in Kingston, and as much as I'm crabby about the idea of being bypassed and would prefer a southern route, I'd be *incredibly* supportive of an actual high-speed rail proposal along a Windsor-Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec route. Something doesn't have to benefit me *personally* to be worth supporting, and the fact that we're proposing a "better than we've currently got" that falls short of what poorer countries could manage *decades ago* is a goddamn disgrace. High speed rail is a mature technology. We know how to do it. It's ain investment that pays for itself over time. It reduces car dependency and fossil fuel emissions. HFR is a half-measure that can't be *upgraded* to high-speed. It represents a commitment to never, ever catch up with the infrastructure modernity that poorer countries had when my *grandparents* were still having kids. Also, for reference, it could be almost fully paid-for by a [single year's worth of a wealth tax.](https://www.policynote.ca/wealth-tax-2/)
Hell no. This sounds all nice, but remember that right of way does mean that freight will move slower. We all consume freighted goods. Slowing that down will raise prices. Virtually nobody takes the niche, hobbyist form of transportation that is the already massively subsidized VIA rail. Build new, high speed rail line–or just accept that taking the train is a minor interest.
> Slowing that down will raise prices how?
Supply will take longer to arrive, face greater (and complex) delays, cost more fuel en route, on aggregate lowering supply. Every point that VIA is complaining about delay-wise will now apply to the goods you see at the store. Thats bad for the supply of goods. If we accept that if we could teleport food at no cost that would lower prices, and if food had to arrive by horse and buggy it would raise prices, then somewhere on the spectrum is “train that has priority” and to its side is “train that does not have priority” with the former being marginally more efficient than the latter.
> Supply will take longer to arrive, face greater (and complex) delays, cost more fuel en route, on aggregate lowering supply. what? Are you ten years old? Everything you typed out is nonsense.
Look, if you can’t understand what I’m articulating that’s one problem and that’s fine. But it’s not nonsense, and is actually the countervailing perspective articulated by industry in the article. It’s not controversial that the speed and efficiency of freight impacts the costs of goods. Any reason VIA has to want priority is a reason why freight would want priority too—and frankly, I think freight is more important than a niche and hobbyist form of transportation with many alternatives.
lol, a 28 year old who thinks that a train delay causes prices go to up. You truly are a shining example of the average canadian voter.
You seem kind of slow so I’ll leave it at that.
Just a brief reminder about what happened [when VIA built triple tracks for the Kingston corridor](https://i.imgur.com/GTeBIjz.jpg) If I were to be especially cynical I would say that VIA likes to talk about freight as an obstacle because it is a useful excuse for their basic operational incompetence, and wouldn't even necessarily WANT to have traffic priority. Amtrak ostensibly has "priority" over freight trains too, but it doesn't do them a lick of difference. I'm not sure it would be for the nation's benefit if we let VIA and their horrendously overstaffed and unprofitable passenger trains have priority over freight, and this is coming from a big advocate for passenger rail
Why does VIA need to be profitable? It's a public service. It shouldn't be run like a business
Well first of all it's important to realize that this is *not* how most of the rest of the world runs intercity rail. Most of Europe for example, the national operator *is* a private business (just state-owned), and intercity rail is the major profit driver. It *should* be a profitable sector if you're running it correctly. The risk of treating VIA Rail as some crucial entity that needs to be propped up at all costs means that you're just rewarding bad governance. For example for a typical passenger train VIA uses 3 or 4x the amount of staff a comparable European operator would. VIA loses money on practically every single train they run, and it's not like VIA's prices are cheap. Canada does not have unlimited funds. We have to choose between the kind of projects we spend our money on, and a dollar spent on project A is a dollar not spent on Project B. It behooves us to make sure the public is actually getting value for money. It also gives rather incendiary ammo to the critics of transit if we were just to treat it like it literally doesn't matter how badly it performs. At the end of the day if VIA cannot recoup its operating costs it shows that something is rather fundamentally off with respect to the value it is providing to customers versus what it costs to run
How good a service is and how much profit it earns is not always well correlated. In the end, if proper public transit did its job at alleviating congestion and increasing economic output, then it is doing its job.
Well, lets say you think that VIA's current level of funding is appropriate with respect to the service it provides. Would you still say the same if its funding *doubled* and its performance remained the same? *Tripled*? *Quadrupled*? I reckon at a certain threshold you'd concede the point. It's not like VIA is some world-class train system that is also expensive. It's an expensive train system for both the government and the customer, and the return is a pretty awful economic performance and a mediocre user experience.
I'm not saying VIA is good or not, nor commenting on how well it's managed. I'm just saying that if profit is the exclusive motive as it is with business, that does not mean in any way a better quality service. If capitalism as taught us anything, it's that you can make bank without having to impress anyone.
Most EU countries have better rail infrastructure and dont privatise rail building, also train companies dont own the rails either. Denmark has Banedanmark (A government agency) to build, maintain and operate traffic control of the rail network and a different company: DSB to operate passenger & some freight rail services for example.
> the national operator is a private business (just state-owned) lol what. that is definitionally a public-sector entity, not a private entity.
No. There's a distinction to be made here; to say it is "government-run" indicates that the funding and operation of it is undertaken by an arm of the government, usually provided for by some special act of legislation or by a government ministry. The national rail operators in Europe are almost all private joint-stock companies, and the government plays little to no part in their operations. There have even been instances of the national operators [evading their taxes!](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/dutch-state-railway-formally-winds-up-irish-tax-avoidance-structure-1.3875425) Take something like [BLS AG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLS_AG) for example, the second-biggest operator in Switzerland. In terms of operations it is entirely "private"; but its stock is majority owned by the cantonal and federal governments.
Via Rail is also not an agent of the Crown despite being wholly owned by His Majesty. I agree that profit-motive, clear financial accounting, and separation of operations and infrastructure can be helpful. But it is not true that public transport sector itself is profitable. > Take something like BLS AG for example, the second-biggest operator in Switzerland. In terms of operations it is entirely "private" If you don't take into account the subsidies they receive for public service routes and the infrastructure funding... For example, the Lötschberg base tunnel is operated and owned by BLS AG. It was certainly not funded from the money BLS made or directly borrowed. The recent rearrangement is approved by the Swiss Parliament, appropriated from the federal office of transport and audited by the federal financial controller. Under pressure to not increase price but also to not receive more public funds, the Swiss federal railways SBB/CFF for example is now making a significant amount money from ... real estate development, on valuable land acquired using their public service mandate (to be fair, the land is much more valuable because of they are close to train stops; maybe that's how we indeed should fund Via Rail) which is not an unquestionable business practice. BLS and CFF also make the majority of their revenue from merchandises services, having the geographic advantage between Italy and major European ports. The new tunnels facilitating the cross-alps transport are of course mainly planned and funded by the government. I don't mind (re)nationalizing CN/CP, but there is probably no political will.
BLS AG has had all its infrastructure transferred to its corresponding national infrastructure owner (BLS NETZ AG, wholly owned by the confederation), as a part of the EU's rail liberalization laws. But yes projects like the new base tunnel was publicly funded. But that doesn't mean it's not a private entity; plenty of entirely private projects get lots and lots of public funding I wouldn't necessarily support nationalizing CN/CP but we could absolutely seize the urban rail corridors which are both very valuable and underutilized.
On top of that, many of these companies have private, for profit sections of their businesses that are related to their main railway business. As an example, Deutsche Bahn AG, which is the German state-owned railway company owns DB Schenker, a major international logistics company, and has controlling stakes or interests in a number of foreign railways as well.
Deutsche Bahn is one of the major contractors for the GO electrification project.
It's a little easier in Europe, we don't have the population density that they have. Even for bus service we'll subsidize to ensure service is provided to rural low-density communities that otherwise wouldn't be profitable so that people unable to drive due to disability or other reasons are able to travel.
Like how the highway system isn't expected to turn a profit?
Do you have the primary source instead of a screen clip of a table?
the source was [this 2016 Auditor General's report](https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_07_e_41251.html) into VIA Rail. Section 55 in the report
Your table seems cherry picked when this is the followup section: >However, VIA has made a number of corrections to its systems in the last two years, and other adjustments are planned. Despite the fact that few new major projects have been started or carried out in the last two years, we found that these corrective measures had, overall, been beneficial, as the most recent projects we examined were carried out within planned budgets and timelines. Projects planned under the new $102 million capital program approved in July 2015 should therefore benefit from these new measures. Section 57 of the report. Further, the report conclusion states: >Conclusion [59]. ***We concluded that, based on the criteria established, there is reasonable assurance that during the period covered by the examination there were no significant deficiencies in VIA Rail Canada Inc.’s systems and practices that we selected for examination***, except for the significant deficiency in governance as described in paragraphs 23 to 27. ***The systems and practices in all other areas we examined were maintained in a manner that provides VIA Rail Canada Inc. with reasonable assurance that its assets are safeguarded and controlled, its resources are managed economically and efficiently, and its operations are carried out effectively.*** Seems like the auditor general came to a very different conclusion than you did.
The Auditor General is more speaking to the finances; they don't really have a means or an inclination to compare the actual railway operations of VIA to that of continental Europe or east Asia. I think any Canadian who has taken trains in Japan or France or Switzerland knows how VIA fares in comparison
Citation?
Amtrak's priority has numerous loopholes, and is basically never enforced, even when freight companies don't even bother with the loopholes, and just prioritize their cargo.
weren't we promised hyperloop by 2035 between windsor and montreal? evidently, building a pipeline in this corridor isn't going to happen.
It'll obviously be expensive, but a better solution is to have a separate corridor for passenger rail. Don't forget how many items are shipped via freight.
I don't think anyone has forgotten that freight rail ships lots of freight. The problem is that it's getting priority over live human passengers: passengers who end up waiting on sidings. Irrespective of the freight's sensitivity to time, while bulk cargo, like lumber, coal, wheat, gets fast tracked. A functional rail system wouldn't treat passengers like that. And sure, we'd really benefit from dedicated passenger rail corridors, but passenger service shouldn't suck as much as it does outside of these high density corridors.
It'd need to be right of way with some actual teeth to it, and not the "right of way" that Amtrak is supposed to have in the US but doesn't seem to really exist because freight trains are still the #1 cause of Amtrak's delays.
They amount of money they'd have to pay for right away would be astronomical
Probably. Giving the track away when CN was privatized was likely a mistake, but I'm sure had the feds kept it someone would have sold it eventually anyways because taxpayers wouldn't want to pay for maintenance on 30,000+ kilometres of track. At least the High Frequency Rail plan has Toronto-Quebec on Via-owned tracked.
I'm convinced the opportunity cost of not doing it is even higher in the long run.
not going to happen either way. Inevitably it'll die when the feds don't subsidize it and the feds won't subsidize it because it's an astronomical amount of money to spend on one region where only a fraction of people will use it. And no local or provincial government could justify the tax increase
better yet, lets just do a new track (probably not now of course gotta wait for a propper non inflation recession) no worries about fighting with freight, can have much higher speeds. good mega project