It certainly seems to contradict the notion that VIA has no involvement - in fact, as near as I can tell, Alto is still a VIA subsidiary. But maybe that’s wrong, it’s a little unclear.
I don’t think it necessarily invalidates the idea of it being a “fast track to privatization,” or that ticket prices will be high.
So does that directly contradict the article or is it a semantical difference that doesn’t detract from its thesis?
It certainly seems to contradict the notion that VIA has no involvement - in fact, as near as I can tell, Alto is still a VIA subsidiary. But maybe that’s wrong, it’s a little unclear.
I don’t think it necessarily invalidates the idea of it being a “fast track to privatization,” or that ticket prices will be high.