steveintoronto
Superstar
VIA's prime corridor is, as is Amtrak's NEC, profitable as it is. Improvements could only add to that.So as you can see, all HSR studies, even the Ecotrains one, projected that intercity rail can be profitable in Canada.
Via Rail’s first-quarter profit triples after service cuts
MONTREAL
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...t-triples-after-service-cuts/article12260462/
Via Rail profit triples to $11M
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/via-rail-profit-triples-to-11m-1.1391346
The Feds certainly weren't the ones espousing that as a policy, it was obviously Queen's Park, and the Pearson people had best pucker up and get their principles polished. Throwing around terms like "HSR" is counterproductive. I liked "HFR+" but Paul came up with something even better, and that's "HxR" (leaving the parameters open to anything at or between HFR and HSR).The question isn't about whether the federal government is motivated to build HSR to relieve Pearson, it's whether the federal government is motivated to build HSR for a list of reasons that just got one item longer.
Can it be profitable as an element of the Pearson Hub? Absolutely, the business case is already extant. It's the application of the principle that's still open to planning interpretation.
I think the Investment/Infrastructure Bank just might have a proposal along those lines in the works.