[ssiguy2]

The basic issue for VIA is that CN/CP own the tracks they run on and hence are at their mercy. They have to play nice lest they upset their landlords. Ottawa continually hopes that offering carrots will get the freight companies to play nice and it hasn't worked and now Ottawa should grab a pair and start using a stick.

CN/CP own their tracks and have the right to use them as they see fit and Ottawa should not be able to just come in and expropriate them at a whim and even if they tried this method it will take decades of battles in the courts which Ottawa would probably lose anyway. Where Ottawa does have complete control is over safety issues that they could not appeal as transportation safety is 100% the domain of the Ministry of Transport.

Ottawa could simply bring in new safety standards, like they did after Lac Megantic, to make them come to the negotiating table. Ottawa could simply change the safety regulation with new regulations stating that any freight line that crosses a road with more than 1000 vehicles a day must be grade separated. This would result in hundreds of new over/underpasses having to be built nationwide and all at the expense of the freight companies. All of a sudden CN/CP who currently state that sharing with VIA is an absolute impossibility would have an epiphany so fast it would make your head spin.

Yes, CN/CP should be fairly compensated for inconvenience or loss of track but such a maneuver would force CP/CP onto the bargaining table knowing that Ottawa means business.

 

[crs1026]

The basic issue for VIA is that CN/CP own the tracks they run on and hence are at their mercy. They have to play nice lest they upset their landlords. Ottawa continually hopes that offering carrots will get the freight companies to play nice and it hasn't worked and now Ottawa should grab a pair and start using a stick.

True, but they will get further if they grabbed legally defensible positions that balance carrot and stick.

Ottawa could simply bring in new safety standards, like they did after Lac Megantic, to make them come to the negotiating table.

Nothing would be less defensible and more toxic than using safety standards to coerce the railways. Safety standards need to be defensible on their own right, and agenda-free, lest they lose credibility.

Ottawa could simply change the safety regulation with new regulations stating that any freight line that crosses a road with more than 1000 vehicles a day must be grade separated.

Considering that by law, the biggest share of grade separation cost is borne by municipalities, and not railways, this strategy would backfire in a big way

Yes, CN/CP should be fairly compensated for inconvenience or loss of track but such a maneuver would force CP/CP onto the bargaining table knowing that Ottawa means business.

..... but meaning husiness is a two way street, unless Ottawa wants to see railways taking contrary positions on things like terminal capacity, prairie grain capacity, etc etc.

If passenger service were the most lucrative business out there, the railways would be all over it.... but government is looking for a much lower cost, and you get what you pay for.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

No, the municipalities would not have to bear any of the cost under such a scenario. Currently grade separations are built by the cities because they chock traffic...................they are trying to get rid of an inconvenience. This would be totally different as it would be a safety regulation and hence the cost would be born by the freight companies. No one would be telling them they can't use their tracks but simply that they can't cross a road with more than 2,000 vehicles per day at grade.

Is this ideal? Certainly not and I do not think the freight companies should have to engage in this kind of massive infrastructure for such low volume roads. That, however, is not the point. The point is that such a threat, even with 5 or even 10,000 vehicles per day would cost them untold billions. This would force them to the table. Currently they aren't even at the table and have no reason to be because their perspective is "what's in it for me"? It would let them know that if they are not willing to bargain with Ottawa then there will be real financial costs of not doing so and they would lose much more money by not doing so. All parties, including Ottawa, should work in good faith with flexibility on both sides in order to make sure this kind of mandate does not have to take place.

The first priority should be a full stoppage of CN/CP being able to charge VIA for using it's tracks. The second, should be a focus on The Corridor making CN/CP share railways to free up the other one for VIA. Ottawa should definitely help fund any new small lines to connect the 2 to their nearest depot and if there are places where CN/CP want already want to have grade separation in order to maintain higher speeds going thru cities then Ottawa should also help them in this regard. However, before any of those proposals can be discussed it will require being able to get CN/CP to show up at the meeting and only a very harsh threat will force them to show up because, after decades of playing nice, they have gotten no where.

 

[Bordercollie]

The basic issue for VIA is that CN/CP own the tracks they run on and hence are at their mercy. They have to play nice lest they upset their landlords. Ottawa continually hopes that offering carrots will get the freight companies to play nice and it hasn't worked and now Ottawa should grab a pair and start using a stick.

CN/CP own their tracks and have the right to use them as they see fit and Ottawa should not be able to just come in and expropriate them at a whim and even if they tried this method it will take decades of battles in the courts which Ottawa would probably lose anyway. Where Ottawa does have complete control is over safety issues that they could not appeal as transportation safety is 100% the domain of the Ministry of Transport.

Ottawa could simply bring in new safety standards, like they did after Lac Megantic, to make them come to the negotiating table. Ottawa could simply change the safety regulation with new regulations stating that any freight line that crosses a road with more than 1000 vehicles a day must be grade separated. This would result in hundreds of new over/underpasses having to be built nationwide and all at the expense of the freight companies. All of a sudden CN/CP who currently state that sharing with VIA is an absolute impossibility would have an epiphany so fast it would make your head spin.

Yes, CN/CP should be fairly compensated for inconvenience or loss of track but such a maneuver would force CP/CP onto the bargaining table knowing that Ottawa means business.

Could they not just leave the freight track as is and build the new VIA sub next to it? The curvature and alignment is going to be different anyway.

 

[crs1026]

No, the municipalities would not have to bear any of the cost under such a scenario. Currently grade separations are built by the cities because they chock traffic...................they are trying to get rid of an inconvenience. This would be totally different as it would be a safety regulation and hence the cost would be born by the freight companies. No one would be telling them they can't use their tracks but simply that they can't cross a road with more than 2,000 vehicles per day at grade.

Is this ideal? Certainly not and I do not think the freight companies should have to engage in this kind of massive infrastructure for such low volume roads. That, however, is not the point. The point is that such a threat, even with 5 or even 10,000 vehicles per day would cost them untold billions. This would force them to the table.

See https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/agreements-apportionment-costs-grade-separations

If you are suggesting that the railways should be financially coerced into accepting passenger rail, why not just fine them and sidestep all that construction effort. And the answer to that "why not" is simple.... any such move would not stand up in court.

It makes sense to legislate to curb the railways' opposition.... but .... whatever pressure is applied will need to be legally defensible, and must be reasonable enough that it does not create knock-off issues for the railways and their investors.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

Using safety legislation as a cudgel to bring railways to some negotiating table would likely end up in court until all of the original participants are long dead, and I wouldn't underestimate the Class 1's abilities to take retaliatory action that would scare the pants off a sitting government.

 

[lenaitch]

Could they not just leave the freight track as is and build the new VIA sub next to it? The curvature and alignment is going to be different anyway.

The two sentences are inconsistent, but the incompatibility of the alignments would increase as intended speeds increase. That would essentially be 'green fielding' a new ROW which, in the vicinity of the lakeshore corridor, would be extremely disruptive and costly.

 

[chrisw]

Could they not just leave the freight track as is and build the new VIA sub next to it? The curvature and alignment is going to be different anyway.

You're going to need wider curves, the problem is that you're going to need to curve both right and left.

 

[ssiguy2]

Using safety legislation as a cudgel to bring railways to some negotiating table would likely end up in court until all of the original participants are long dead, and I wouldn't underestimate the Class 1's abilities to take retaliatory action that would scare the pants off a sitting government.

I very much doubt this would end up in the courts primarily because the freight companies know they would lose.

Ottawa has the ability to change safety regulations for anything or any reason on transportation issues that are under it's domain whether that be air travel, freight, or car/truck safety requirements. When Ottawa increases safety minimums on new cars like air bags, all day running lights etc, it did not have to worry about any of the auto manufacturers taking them to court because they knew it was unappealable no matter how much it might cost them. With accidents and deaths being much higher with trucks & SUVs and hence decided that all new vehicles sold in the country could have no more than 3 cylinders, the automakers would raise Cain but they know they have no option but to comply.

Like I said, this sort of thing should be a last resort but that is not the point. The point is that Ottawa's carrot approach to dealing with the freight companies in regards to passenger rail hasn't worked. It's time to use a stick. The freight companies must know that Ottawa means business and not even bothering to show up at the meeting is no longer an option. Once they get to the meeting then both sides could engage in the conversation about passenger rail in a environment of good faith and reasonable expectations.

Ottawa using such a draconian and heavy handed approach is the worse possible option but due to the freight companies not even willing to entertain anymore passenger rail on their railways, it maybe the only option Ottawa has left.

 

[lenaitch]

I very much doubt this would end up in the courts primarily because the freight companies know they would lose.

Ottawa has the ability to change safety regulations for anything or any reason on transportation issues that are under it's domain whether that be air travel, freight, or car/truck safety requirements. When Ottawa increases safety minimums on new cars like air bags, all day running lights etc, it did not have to worry about any of the auto manufacturers taking them to court because they knew it was unappealable no matter how much it might cost them. With accidents and deaths being much higher with trucks & SUVs and hence decided that all new vehicles sold in the country could have no more than 3 cylinders, the automakers would raise Cain but they know they have no option but to comply.

Like I said, this sort of thing should be a last resort but that is not the point. The point is that Ottawa's carrot approach to dealing with the freight companies in regards to passenger rail hasn't worked. It's time to use a stick. The freight companies must know that Ottawa means business and not even bothering to show up at the meeting is no longer an option. Once they get to the meeting then both sides could engage in the conversation about passenger rail in a environment of good faith and reasonable expectations.

Ottawa using such a draconian and heavy handed approach is the worse possible option but due to the freight companies not even willing to entertain anymore passenger rail on their railways, it maybe the only option Ottawa has left.

I would be curious how much the federal government, outside of VIA itself, has been actively attempting to improve the lot of passenger rail on host railways. Has there actually been a concerted effort by the government or any of its other agencies to try and bring the railways to a table and they have been thwarted? I honestly don't know, but I get the sense that they have been happy to let VIA carry the can by its lonesome.

Your comparison with automobile safety regulations is flawed. Many of the vehicle safety standards were done in concert with the US DOT and of those that were not; i.e. DRLs, the change was accommodated by a $5 module. In addition, it didn't mandate that standards to existing vehicles had to be upgraded, only new sales going forward from a certain date. Most of those changes were founded on fairly extensive studies. If the standards imposed were seen to too onerous, manufacturers would have simply left the market, as many European and UK manufacturers did during the changes to emission and collision standards in the 1980s.

If TC ruled that all railway crossings with more than X movements (trains+vehicles) per day had to be grade separated going forward, it might be more defensible, but to use a statute that has the word "safety" right in its title simply as a means to enforce its will on corporations I believe would have a rough ride. Even at that, the increased cost to the railways will be reflected in the rates they charge their customers.

There could also be unintended consequences when the railways decided that, they too, could play hardball. Transport Canada could suddenly see a lot more subdivisions identified for abandonment in the railway's three year plans. I recall several years ago, possibly during the Hunter Harrison era, when CP mused about shutting down its Canadian routes east of Thunder Bay since it had the capacity to run everything through the US. Both Class 1s are international carriers and much of their freight is overseas in nature. So long as they can get freight to and from ports, I'm fairly sure they, and their shareholders, are agnostic which ports they are.

Money is fluid. The US economy is 12x ours (our vehicle sales are about that of the State of California). If making money becomes too difficult or expensive here, it will move. Do that enough and perhaps VIA's problems will be solved since they will have the tracks to themselves.

 

[nfitz]

All this "they can't do anything because of the law" ignores that the law is something the federal government can change (though I can't see that they will).

As long as there is width in a corridor (and there invariably is - except perhaps on the Kingston Sub between Eastern and Pape - thanks Doug), there's a solution that doesn't impact freight capacity - which is mostly single track, and rarely double, in a corridor that can handle 5 or 6 tracks.

 

[Urban Sky]

Friendly reminder that the market capitalization of CN and CPKC exceeds $100 billion each. No government will pick unnecessary fights with such heavyweights which represent more than 10% of national GDP, especially over such a niche policy concern like intercity passenger rail…

 

[chrisw]

Let's not compare GDP with stock market capitalization.

 

[Urban Sky]

Let's not compare GDP with stock market capitalization.

As Bill Clinton famously said, “it’s the Economy, stupid!”, and that’s where size is might. CN and CPKC command substantial sway in this country’s industry community, much more than private railroads in any other country on this planet…

 

[ssiguy2]

The idea of a threat would only be used to actually get them to the bargaining table but Ottawa would let them know that working with them could be mutually advantageous.

You guys free up an entire route, via sharing some portions of track, so that there is a complete VIA-only corridor between Windsor & Quebec City and we will give you billions to upgrade your current lines nationwide. You forfeit the Toronto mid-town corridor and we will build the "missing link", We will build grade separations and help you repair and straighten out current trackage in all urban areas you so that you can maintain speeds, improve safety, and and operate faster thru the cities and allow you to run on current VIA rail trackage free of charge overnight. You give up some of your trackage between Edmonton & Calgary and we will give you larger tax credits and direct funding to switch to greener locos and buy new equipment. You allow for electrification on trackage you control but are still used by VIA and we will give you a large rebate on your fuel taxes.

Such initiatives would cost Ottawa up to $10 billion or more but that is a bargain if they can get their hands on these 2 key corridors. This means these 2 lines could introduce HFR almost immediately without the endless community consultations, inevitable cost overruns, ridiculous construction times of new tracks, and years long environmental reviews because VIA would be operating on already operating tracks. Only the trains would change. Electrification and needed grade separation for faster electric trains could be phased over time but in the mean time VIA rail users would enjoy faster, more frequent, and much more reliable travel.