kEiThZ
Superstar
Not relevant to this thread. Can you please move this off topic discussion on rail privatization to another thread, so that we can discuss Alto here?
|
|
|
Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
Not relevant to this thread. Can you please move this off topic discussion on rail privatization to another thread, so that we can discuss Alto here?
zang
Senior Member
You mean the cadre of regional monopolies? That's generally not what's considered open-market privatization here. Or are you referring to JR Rail, where only profitable regions were privatized, leaving JR Hokkaido, JR Shikoku and JR Freight under the control of the government. Planning and construction for all of JR Group members (private or state owned) are still in the hands of the government-owned JRCTTA. Hell, even though those private members are traded on the Nikkei, JR rail is still considered a public asset.
There are good and bad state run rail systems. I'll take the SCNF (State owned) over GWR (Privatize) any day of the week. And state-owned Trenitalia tops lists as the best train operator in Europe.
The problem we have here in Canada is that we handed the keys entirely over to private companies and told them "you get to dictate how they're used for the public good", and it's been nothing but a complete headache. As a result, anything we want to do to improve passenger rail, be it GO, VIA or Alto generally means we have to create whole new track.
crs1026
Superstar
The “trope” lies in believing that money and assets and commercial opportunity can simply be seized or redirected at the blink of a poster’s wishes.
I happen to agree with you that the railways have excessive room to chase their own self interest ahead of meeting a variety of public goals.
Now, how would you actually change that without bringing other consequences that we might not like?
And - to bring this back to Alto - how would you fund the larger network you are looking for? Alto appears to be the most ROI-likely rail pax project in the country....but....the economics of Alto aren’t even that clearly laid out, yet. Just how are investors being attracted? And, if you had a choice of buying Alto investments vs CN-CPKC stock, or (for example, lol) Brookfield stock, as the major component of your retirement living wage, which would you choose?
- Paul
Last edited:
MisterF
Senior Member
As much as I wish we had a public rail network like other countries do, government after government has shown that they have no willingness to create that. A decade ago Via Rail recognized that and decided to be pragmatic and work within those constraints instead of constantly pushing for something that wasn't going to happen. If they hadn't done that we probably wouldn't have high speed rail as a major national priority that we have today.
Pushing for rail nationalization instead of building Alto is basically this.
Pushing for rail nationalization instead of building Alto is basically this.
micheal_can
Senior Member
The good thing is, ALTO is going to stay as a government entity. From my limited understanding, it will be separate from Via, potentially a P3, but still government owned. It is not going to be wholly privately owned with the government paying for it, is it?
kEiThZ
Superstar
There are some people who would rather not have HSR, if it isn't delivered with their preferred model that lines up with their ideology. Hard to reason with such people.
zang
Senior Member
Don’t make assumptions. We should have both a national railway and HSR; they’re not mutually exclusive, and the combination of both shown many places throughout the world to be beneficial, effective and sustainable.
Perhaps I’m just not fond of being one of the richest countries in the world with a rail system that’s complete garbage, has barely improved in decades, and is ruled by uninterested and greedy freight companies.
Can we get up to the connectivity and standards many European countries had in the 90s? Let alone Japan from the late 1950s; not even 20 years after a war that demolished a significant amount of their rail infrastructure.
zang
Senior Member
Personally, investment in private companies for retirement savings truly serves corporations and not the people.
Just ask anyone who had Nortel in their retirement portfolio.
PPPs are a shell game scam. Build them the same way governments everywhere have built them; taxation, bonds, or eminent domain.
Last edited:
Thaboss
Active Member
No we cannot move like they did back then for many many reasons.
1. Weak to Zero labour laws
2. Cheap labour
3. Plentiful labour
4. Cheap materials
5. Limited alternatives (cars were much less prevalent)
6. Weak environmental and property laws.
Incidentally the last country to build transit at a rapid rate (china) benefits from all of the above. However, unless you roll back on most of the above and somehow reduce material costs, then your industrial capacity is seriously limited, even for a rich country.
I mean HSR is expected to cost like 60 -9 0 billion or whatever. Do you know what that kind of money bought you in the 50s ?
There's no benefit to pretending that the facts on the ground hasn't shifted dramatically to where rich countries can just buy themselves to EU or chinese style transit service in 20 years (unless you're the UAE).
McGillicuddy
New Member
Having your infrastructure bombed to smithereens makes it remarkably cheap and easy to rebuild it. Rubble is cheap to expropriate, and you can freely draw tidy lines on a map without disrupting other uses.
It's a great solution, so long as you're comfortable with a few million people dying.
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2016
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Location
- Plateau-Mont-Royal, Montréal
Maybe let’s all get back to HSR and Alto, instead of fantasy ideological discussions of socialism vs the evils of capitalism (not sure why this thread keeps getting derailed, pun intended, into grand ideological debates).
Does anyone know the current day status of the project (e.g. ALTO project office)?
On the legislative front, last I heard was that the Highspeed Rail Network Act (part of the broader Bill C-15 budget implementation bill) has just passed first reading in parliament with little opposition and is now headed into second reading. There’s a high likelihood of passage before Christmas, a significant milestone given that this is the first ever formal statutory framework authorizing government overarching land appropriation powers and override powers, while simultaneously deeming construction of the HSR network to be *legally* approved under CTA (therefor bypassing years of CTA regulatory paperwork).
So far I’m pretty impressed by the speed which Carney govt is moving this portfolio (of course HSR being tied to Bill C-15 makes it go faster).
Does anyone know the current day status of the project (e.g. ALTO project office)?
On the legislative front, last I heard was that the Highspeed Rail Network Act (part of the broader Bill C-15 budget implementation bill) has just passed first reading in parliament with little opposition and is now headed into second reading. There’s a high likelihood of passage before Christmas, a significant milestone given that this is the first ever formal statutory framework authorizing government overarching land appropriation powers and override powers, while simultaneously deeming construction of the HSR network to be *legally* approved under CTA (therefor bypassing years of CTA regulatory paperwork).
So far I’m pretty impressed by the speed which Carney govt is moving this portfolio (of course HSR being tied to Bill C-15 makes it go faster).
Last edited:
generalcanada
Senior Member
so Alto is supposed to release quarterly reports. its mostly financial but theres some detail about their activities from July to September. https://www.altotrain.ca/sites/default/files/2025-11/alto-via-hfr-qfr-q2-2025-26-en-final.pdf
nothing really noticible since most development will be done by Cadence i guess?
crs1026
Superstar
The report doesn't add much to what we know about the project, but its form is encouraging as it clearly is structured with an eye to a commercialised future.... I don't know how much is pro forma based on Treasury Board guidelines for reporting, but it reads like a document that a Bay Street analyst would feel comfortable dissecting. It also conveys the sense that Alto is being built as an enterprise with all the corporate functions implied (which VIA Rail Canada already had and didn't need to be duplicated, but whatever.....).
The numbers are kind of irrelevant, since we are in a planning phase and we know that at the moment there is no business revenue.... but there seems to be a desire to present information as one would for a project that gets a lot of oversight from the street and possibly actual investors. It feeds directly towards a standard Annual Report.
I would hope that when the project gets further along, there would be more detail to project management. The financial statements are only one lens - a "what by when with how much time and money view" will give key information on whether execution is performing properly.
It remains to be seen whether Alto will present a transparent view or just cherrypick things to throw out publicly... but this version gives some reason to be optimistic that accountability is in hand.
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
I've said this elsewhere. I've got a quarter century in the CAF. This is by far the fastest I've ever seen a government move. We should have been doing all these reforms decades ago. But better late than never.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I really want to know what the Alto-Metrolinx and Alto-Exo relationships are like. Both seem crucial to delivering HSR. And there will have to be co production on whatever corridor is developed.