Mark0f0 wrote:VIA doesn't even pay enough to CN to allow CN to make a return on its investment. Basically CN regards VIA as a nuisance and would kick them off their tracks altogether without hesitation if they felt they could tolerate the potential political repercussions. How exactly is VIA supposed to attract private capital or even be considered a valued CN customer unless they're willing to pay a lot more for infrastructure?
And why would the private sector give VIA capital when they could fund an entity like CN which has proven to be a relatively efficient steward of capital comparatively? And has far more traffic to run over the infrastructure?
Yes, VIA desperately needs additional funding or more capital investment of its own, in infrastructure, but they're playing in "Alice in Wonderland" territory of they think that the private sector will fund VIA's infrastructure without a market-acceptable return on investment.
VIA currently owns and maintains some of its own track so I would assume that they have some idea of the real costs.
And of course the flip side to "far more traffic" is far more wear and tear on the infrastructure.
Anyone know the relative costs of maintaining freight track vs passenger track? My initial guess would be the heavier, longer freight train would do more damage.
Imagine what VIA could've done if the taxpayers gave them $2B.
Well, the taxpayer is likely giving VIA around $1.2B to buy a new fleet of trains for the corridor.