Bojaxs
Active Member
No one would have predicted Daniel Smith would have put forth a plan for passenger rail in Alberta.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Urban Sky
- Start date
ARG1
Senior Member
I have seen a few people claim that they spoke to PP, where he described VIA HFR as a boondoggle, and for what its worth I do think the claim is true. However in the presence of every other piece of evidence, and the lack of any context with that statement, its difficult to put any strong weight on that claim. The prime minister isn't some dictatorial position, you still have to keep your political backers and special interest groups (political doners and voters) happy, and if the caucus doesn't agree with PP's position, then what he thinks and says on the matter in private settings is irrelevant in the grand scheme of official party policy.
roger1818
Senior Member
I suspect that I am one of the few people on this forum who has talked to PP on multiple occasions in the past (I am in his riding and pre-pandemic he would come door-to-door about every 6 months). I once asked him about his opinions on HFR about 6 years ago, and at the time he hadn't even heard of it, but his comment was he would want to financially invest in VIA Rail in such a way as to reduce its ongoing subsides.
micheal_can
Senior Member
As I am out enjoying an East Coast vacation (Sadly not on rail),I am visiting several national parks. I am noticing their condition. They are clean. However, some parts are,well, worn out. Whether it be old style lighting to the single pane windows to the condition of the roads, they may be clean, but there needs an investment into replacement/refurbishing the parks. The challenge is that for that to be done, there must be a lengthy process to get it done. We wouldn't want taxpayer money on replacing windows or repaving a road.
This makes me think of the 1990s cuts.And the current situation with Via. The 1990s cuts were to stop the bleeding of money. It worked in much the same way as to stop the massive water leak in Calgary, you no longer have water running in Calgary. Not the best solution, but it will do what you intended. By cutting those routes, it allowed Via to cut their rolling stock. Much of that rolling stock was incompatible with the existing rolling stock. Had the government instead did an entire fleet renewal and replaced everything with modern equipment, the bleeding of antiquated rolling stock maintenance costs would have stopped. However, that would be seen as Via bleeding even harder. Kinda like how Calgary decided to fix more than one problem while they were there...
How does this relate to today? We have an antiquated fleet outside the Corridor with most things 50+ years old. They may look pretty, but they are beyond their usefulness. And now, with a potential change in government that potentially could shut it down all together, we are back at the 1990s cuts all over again.
I was in the navy for 8 years. Of the 8 ships I served on only 2 of them were built after I was born. As I look at them, Via and the condition of our national parks, and lets throw in 24 Sussex Drive in to the mix, our federal governments are afraid of real investments for our future.
This makes me think of the 1990s cuts.And the current situation with Via. The 1990s cuts were to stop the bleeding of money. It worked in much the same way as to stop the massive water leak in Calgary, you no longer have water running in Calgary. Not the best solution, but it will do what you intended. By cutting those routes, it allowed Via to cut their rolling stock. Much of that rolling stock was incompatible with the existing rolling stock. Had the government instead did an entire fleet renewal and replaced everything with modern equipment, the bleeding of antiquated rolling stock maintenance costs would have stopped. However, that would be seen as Via bleeding even harder. Kinda like how Calgary decided to fix more than one problem while they were there...
How does this relate to today? We have an antiquated fleet outside the Corridor with most things 50+ years old. They may look pretty, but they are beyond their usefulness. And now, with a potential change in government that potentially could shut it down all together, we are back at the 1990s cuts all over again.
I was in the navy for 8 years. Of the 8 ships I served on only 2 of them were built after I was born. As I look at them, Via and the condition of our national parks, and lets throw in 24 Sussex Drive in to the mix, our federal governments are afraid of real investments for our future.
lenaitch
Senior Member
They're (collectively) not afraid of it, they simply have seen little to no value in it - to them. Sadly, virtually everything a government does that isn't specifically mandated by a piece of legislation (i.e. they 'have to' do it) is driven by how many potential 'votes' the backroom tea leaf readers see in it. Quite frankly, the state of our national parks, national railways or national defence are what they are, is because we, the voters, have let successive governments get away with it.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Very much agree. None of them,including the ones we love or hate cannot see past their next election.The problem is, for much of the investment needed it can take several government mandates for it to be fulfilled. But, this all does go back to when someone wants to argue that the 1990s cuts were not political, I have to scratch my head.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Every budget decision is political, such as the decision to shrink VIA in January 1990 to a skelleton transcontinental service and a somewhat clipped Corridor service, while cancelling its Regional routes, preserving its Remote services and privatizing its emerging Tourism service.
However, concerning the actual choice of routes and services to retain vs. cancel (where this political mandate provided for some flexibility), almost all decisions (except for retaining the Atlantic and Vancouver Island service, which only survived thanks to ferocious political lobbying) were consistent with the stated political objective of minimizing VIA‘s operating subsidy…
However, concerning the actual choice of routes and services to retain vs. cancel (where this political mandate provided for some flexibility), almost all decisions (except for retaining the Atlantic and Vancouver Island service, which only survived thanks to ferocious political lobbying) were consistent with the stated political objective of minimizing VIA‘s operating subsidy…
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
Would you agree that had they decided to replace the fleet back then, ignoring those costs, the subsidy would have gone down due to the lower operational costs for the same number of equipment?
If so, can you see how even though not explicitly stated, that the age of the existing LDF is a potential reason for the CPC government to cut the service instead of replacing it?
And if you do, would you agree that is why we need the LDF replacement contract signed before the next election if the LDS is to be maintained?
At this point, going into the next election,my hope is status quo for routes. I want more, but I doubt a CPC government will do more.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I'll leave the speculation and economic arguments to others, but any contract can be cancelled. Governments of all stripes do it and accept the cancellation costs as the political or ideological cost of doing business. And no, a government cannot make a contract or legislation irrevocable.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I only see limited benefits in discussing some of the counter-factuals certain railfans keep throwing at you, but had the provincial governments in BC, AB and QC bothered to fix the rail infrastructure used by the VICT-COUR, CALG-EDMO and MTPD-GASP trains, all three of these rail services would still be running today…
lenaitch
Senior Member
Which brings it back to the reality that a rail line needs an economic reason to exist unless the government - whatever level - has deep and enduring pockets.
crs1026
Superstar
And, while we all grumble about government wasting money..... even government won't spend money on things that the majority of voters would say are patently uneconomic.
- Paul
micheal_can
Senior Member
I did not know the provinces owned any of those three lines. CN owns to Gaspe, Rail America and CP owned the E&N, and CP owns the Leduc and Red Deer subdivisions. Why was this beholden to the provinces when they did not own anything. This would be like saying that for the Adirondack to run, Quebec needs to pay for it when it is owned by CN.
smallspy
Senior Member
I can't believe this needs to be spelled out to you, but....
CN also owns the Kingston Sub. In order to allow for more VIA Rail service on it, the Federal Government had to pay CN to provide improvements to it.
The railroads will only provide enough maintenance and capacity on a line to serve their own needs. You want above and beyond that? Pony up.
Dan
micheal_can
Senior Member
Yes, and the one who ponied up was the federal government as Via is a federal crown corporation.Those 3 other lines were also part of Via. So, that would mean that the federal government, not a provincial government should be ponying up. Especially for the E&N and Gaspe, they were shut down simply due to track conditions, not due to budget cuts. As I understand it, they will run again if the line gets to a point where it becomes safe to run Via equipment. As I understand it, in 2026, Gaspe should be returning.
What confused me is adding the line between Calgary and Edmonton into that mix. So, yes,please spell this out as I have no idea what is meant by it.