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?
One needs to differentiate between capital investment and operating subsidy. Capital investment is the big ticket part of the public investment in passenger rail, not operating subsidies.
So far, we have a very poor model for infusing public capital into a private system. The railways do not necessarily welcome "gifts" of capital to increase their track capacity - because fundamentally a capitalist business tries to reduce its capital base relative to its revenue, not expand it. Sure, there may occasionally be a freebie or a win-win (as when ML double tracked sections of the Halton Sub, removing historic single track choke points for freight traffic) - but a private rail operator will generally figure out how to operate around current limitations rather than welcome a bigger, more capitalised infrastructure to do the same work.
The railways do not really "charge" for capital investment, it's more a matter that they convince government that the desired service can't be operated without that investment. And then government decides if it can justify making the investment, especially considering the financing costs as apply to government. That's a whole different proposition than how two businesses might agree to each raise and invest capital and share the profits. And then government waives or ignores the direct rate of return on whatever capital they pony up (the ROI is more of a calculation of general social benefit than a dividend collected each quarter). Whereas from the railways' viewpoint, the capital that government "gives" them to invest (and becomes part of the assets on their balance sheet) ought to earn the same ROI as all their other investments. How all that is worked out in compensation is what makes the (confidential) agreements between VIA and landlord railways so complicated. I find it odd that there isn't a public accounting of how much of the railways' accumulated assets are public money invested .... and what the depreciation of these is. It seems simpler to just gift the capital and brush this under the rug.
Under current rules, railways insist on control of much capital spending, as it impacts their operations..... but don't have any accountability to spend the money wisely or expeditiously. It will be interesting to see how HxR addresses this, since all of the proposals will of necessity require tenancy at some point along the line. Nobody is going to drive a new rail line into Toronto or Montreal. (Which, incidentally, government does do to build new transit and new highways...but we saw how quickly government backed away when Oxford County objected to a HSR proposal that was mostly only fictional in the first place). Much public investment in commuter, regional, and national passenger rail might flow much more easily if there were a more explicit, enforceable set of rules around this.
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.
Which is why the most interesting discussion here is about things that the parties might realistically achieve, mostly within existing parameters and systems.... and changing the laws and regulatory system only to a degree that is publicly sellable and mutually beneficial to the parties involved. Thinking up places to run trains just to feel good about it is just a fantasy discussion. Fantasy discussions are fine, but not the core value of this forum imho.
- Paul
