While Cadence will technically report to Alto, the consortium will maintain control over both building the line and running its trains.
The federal government will subsidize the consortium’s work but will have little control over how its money is used.
It sounds like the public role is “moneybags.” While Cadence is pretty much running the show, it’s quite unclear to me where actual ownership lies, though. In an article of this length, that’s a disturbing detail to find absent.
My unsolicited rant follows...
In my opinion it should be at minimum 51% public owned, and ideally 100% of at least the land/stationary assets.
Not only should it be publicly owned, the contract with Cadence for ongoing management should have an exit/public buyout plan, possibly with different terms depending on who wants out and whether it’s early or at renewal time. Give Cadence the reasonable guarantees they need to reach a fair return on investment, in a manner that still depends on the quality of their long-term stewardship. There can even give provisions for renewal - but nothing in perpetuity, ever.
We have the right leadership for the moment and I hope we manage to keep it through the election. But even with his expertise, this isn’t really something I’m confident Carney will handle any better than Trudeau will have done. Maybe eventually we can elect someone with some faith in the public sector, and the confidence to either drive harder bargains or be willing to forge our own path. But I know we’re going to overpay long term for the private investment. We always do, and it’s my biggest worry considering the generational investment we’ll need to pivot away from heavy U.S. trade reliance.
“There’s a mentality in government that a public corporation can’t do things, even though there’s no reason why VIA Rail couldn’t be tasked with developing higher-speed rail by itself,” the research concludes.
Yep. Sometimes I think neoliberalism is imposter syndrome in a trench coat.
