Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
A few reasons:
Firstly, I find it hard to believe there actually are any serious proposals being made. If there have been any offers to build a line, I expect they were as credible as the Waterous proposal to send trains to Banff. That proposal clearly hadn't done any real research and had lowballed the costs, and I expect any proposal we've seen for HSR to Edmonton is similarly well made.
Secondly, and I think this is the most important, is that while the idea of a private company building and operating the line sounds fine on paper - the money and risk is all theirs after all (in theory at least if not in real life). But I think you downplay the opportunity cost of allowing the one chance we have to build a new passenger railway railway to be solely the property of a private company and not the people. If the existing lines between Calgary and Edmonton were in public hands we would be in a much better situation, but this plan would triple down on the problem. Sure, you could implement strict regulations to allow other operators to use the line, but as you say that will affect the economics, and if you're putting in enough meaningful regulations to make it worth it, you might as well own and maintain the line anyway.
Third, if the government is to lay down a corridor they are going to have to do all the work of deciding what the best route and technology choice is anyway, and decide what the line will look like. The route that is optimum for a 350km/h train won't be the same as a 200km/h train nor a 500km/h maglev or hyperloop etc. So the optimum route and technology the government has decided and mandated may not align with what this hypothetical private company is the the most profitable.
|
So, it all comes down to capital costs vs revenue.
The last market study had a higher return on normal high speed rail (320 kph I believe was their baseline) than 200 kph and 500 kph. Depends on your capital costs though. I fully expect a private company to build the most profitable route-they might approach the government to lets say, fund a more proximate placement of the Red Deer Station, which would be more expensive.
A private route would still be subject to regulatory approvals, the government can steer them towards a route that maximizes public benefit of course. The routes are pretty easy-the major questions are placement of a Red Deer Station, how (and if) to directly service the Edmonton Airport, and whether you want a straight shot into downtown Edmonton, or to loop around and come from the NE.
As for:
"if you're putting in enough meaningful regulations to make it worth it, you might as well own and maintain the line anyway."
No, then the government has to pay for the line. And then it has to compete on the government capital list for priority, as the largest single capital spend ever.
Governments regulate big projects like this funded by private companies all the time. They set what they can charge, where it goes, what it does. This is totally normal in: pipelines, power lines, telecommunications, the existing railways - all forms of linear infrastructure that have a natural monopoly basically. The government has all the tools and experience to do this.
With a lot of market proving studies already done, the economics worked out, I would expect a lot of interest from the big infrastructure companies, and the large passenger rail companies who do this in their home markets. Maybe most of them would bid in with billions of needed government support, but maybe they won't - and I suspect a few won't. I think running a process that would cost very little compared to the capital spend would be great - the government would get a lot more studies for free and would see what companies think can be done. Talking tens of millions at most here (need to staff up a specialized office basically, do some local consultations so people don't feel railroaded
and promote the process to potential bidders).