Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal
I'd venture Quebec gets a much bigger overall subsidy from Ottawa than Spain does from Brussels. But yes not on trains. And the point is tt will be a Federal project so the Lachute to Montreal subsidy will be paid by the feds.
Probably we end up with a model adapted from the REM. Though it will be more subsizided as a per km subsidy would have to be so huge for private money to pay for it all. Actually it would show how ridiculous the whole idea is but that's why it can't happen. And sure recovering the capital cost doesn't have to even paritally on the table as most of that is spent in Canada with huge multiplier effects and tax revenues.
The REM model is actually great for getting a good project. They will focus on ridership instead of other silliness like making 3 stops in Gatineau or something that slows the whole thing down.
|
I believe past studies have shown that HSR would be operationally profitable. Just not capable of returning the capital. Heck, Urban Sky has shown here before how VIA's Corridor East service is net profitable and subsidizes the rest of VIA. And given how much air fare is, there's definitely a market of people who have the budget to buy more expensive fares.
As for not recovering capital, we don't expect it for highways, unlike a lot of countries that average toll intercity highways. So really, it's the same model being applied to passenger rail.
Lastly on the REM model. It actually recovers capital and provides a net return to CDPQ (also a consortium member here). That's what the per rider subsidy goes to: Quebec pensions.
Threaded Mode