[smallspy]

Calgary doesn't have a station anymore, neither does Edmonton. Considering that the Canadian doesn't even serve Calgary there would be no point in investing in a Calgary station.

Calgary absolutely, positively does still have a station, and it is within the downtown.

Edmonton does have a station, but it is located several miles north of downtown.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

You're both right (and, yes, Paul, I do forget the provisions of the CTA), but using legislation to regulate the rate of compensation for a product or service is different than determining the profitability of a company or its ability to retain investors, and I'm not sure that was envisioned in the various sections of the CTA. It's one thing to determine that imposing or allowing passenger service X should be compensated on, say, a per axle basis for wear and tear, maintenance, HR, etc., but how does the Agency or an arbitrator determine that imposed service X makes the rail company Y% less profitable?

This is where I point specifically to Section 112 of the CTA

112

A rate or condition of service established by the Agency under this Division must be commercially fair and reasonable to all parties.

I think we are on the same wavelength here. Any serious restriction imposed by Ottawa that can be portrayed as unfair or unreasonable to the investors (who are a party) would most certainly be challenged in court, possibly taking years. A court would undoubtedly consider the current and past earnings of the railways as one precedent.

One can't just impose a change in earnings by waving a legislative wand. Such policy can be changed, but it would take a whole round of consultations and white papers and hearings. And court challenges. Hence the preference to negotiating and working out deals that all parties will accept, at the pace that negotiation imposes.

With respect to VIA, more aggressive action by the government would assume that the government is willing to spend the big bucks to allow VIA to reap the benefits of their regulatory largesse, and I'm not convinced that's true. Governments have legislative and regulatory authority regarding businesses and services; I'm just not convinced they like using them unless it has a votes in it. Successive Canadian governments have shown a lack of willingness to take on large corporations.

Governments are especially reluctant if going to an arbitrator might lead to an award that can be spun as a "loss", or which may set a price above what they can budget for.

I do suspect the government knows in general terms how an arbitrator or court would rule if they took a bigger stick to CN and CP. And CP and CN likely do consider how far they can push the envelope before they risk being found to be unreasonable.

Both CN and CP have master agreements with VIA. So there is negotiation and probably some horse trading. Could the balance of power be changed? Probably, in some ways. But we have a major railway that already accepts hourly (roughly) entry of passenger trains on a key line at some negotiated price and terms. And another railway that appears willing to accept new construction along its assets between Smiths Falls and Glen Tay, and between Agincourt and somewhere downtown in Toronto. Compromise makes no one happy, but the parties do already get along to a certain degree.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Radio-Canada interview with the CEO of VIA HFR. Could one of our resident french-speakers provide a brief summary?

Mostly a recitation of what we have already been hearing.... ie there is a requirement to submit a proposal for a base 200km/hr network, and also a speed-unrestricted network.
The one detail that stood out for me was the map, which clearly showed the direct Perth-Montreal leg (presumably following the CP Winchester line) as well as the longstanding Perth-Ottawa-Montreal routing.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

One has to think that this is the LPC staking out their election ground.

From the party couldn't get stakes in the ground during 8 years in office and will probably not be able to pledge to do so over their next term. Not to mention the same affiliation as the provincial party that practically lied about HSR, only for voters to discover at election time that they hadn't done anything on the file the whole time.

 

[ssiguy2]

Indeed. Unfortunately we have a pending government change on the federal level - hopefully the Conservatives love high speed rail as much as the Liberals apparently do.

Agreed that advancing a Calgary-Edmonton HSR line would also likely do fairly well, be relatively affordable given the geography, and would quell a lot of the concerns of "ignoring" western Canada.

I completely agree. The Tories may cancel any HSR in Canada but all that does is mean they are following in the Liberal's HSR plan.

I also agree that if there was any money forthcoming from PP, it would also have to entail funds for a similar Cal/Edm Corridor to make it politically palatable to his Western base. That, however, is not a bad thing. There is only one other place in Canada outside the Corridor that makes financial sense and that is Calgary to Edmonton which is in the "sweet spot" of 300km apart with a fairly major city right between the 2. Shockingly, Smith has even stated she would support a HSR between the 2 cities as well as a connection from Calgary to Banff although that route would probably be hydrogen.

A Corridor only route would raise blue murder in Western Canada as it would be viewed as just another Ont/Que voting buying exercise but simultaneously including funding for Cal/Edm would get rid of that perceived Eastern bias. Van/Sea/Port is obviously another potential route but it really has little to do with what Canada would fund but rather Amtrak, so it will be a VERY long time before it sees the light of day.

 

[cplchanb]

I completely agree. The Tories may cancel any HSR in Canada but all that does is mean they are following in the Liberal's HSR plan.

I also agree that if there was any money forthcoming from PP, it would also have to entail funds for a similar Cal/Edm Corridor to make it politically palatable to his Western base. That, however, is not a bad thing. There is only one other place in Canada outside the Corridor that makes financial sense and that is Calgary to Edmonton which is in the "sweet spot" of 300km apart with a fairly major city right between the 2. Shockingly, Smith has even stated she would support a HSR between the 2 cities as well as a connection from Calgary to Banff although that route would probably be hydrogen.

A Corridor only route would raise blue murder in Western Canada as it would be viewed as just another Ont/Que voting buying exercise but simultaneously including funding for Cal/Edm would get rid of that perceived Eastern bias. Van/Sea/Port is obviously another potential route but it really has little to do with what Canada would fund but rather Amtrak, so it will be a VERY long time before it sees the light of day.

i have a feeling that regardless of the merits, the cons may cancel this project simply because its a liberal project and as all incoming govts do they want to erase every bit of legacy the former govt has.
thats why brightline works since the the project doesnt change with the shifting winds of the govt

 

[dowlingm]

The assertion that you just can’t regulate prices and you just can’t tell a company that someone else can’t use its infrastructure are answered by the telecoms industry, where nascent operators in the wired and wireless space have been given, by law, access to infrastructure, and legacy telcos obliged to do stuff like reduce contract lengths and port out numbers. Does this directly map to rail? No. But it shows that concepts are not unthinkable - especially when as noted above the existing CTA legislation contemplates some level of government mandate - that should not be considered as far as Ottawa may grasp. Also, the continued domination of the legacy telcos in both spaces (and AC/WJ in the airline market) are a sign that collapse into bankruptcy is unlikely to be the fate of the Class Is.

The difference with telecoms and airlines is that the benefits of deregulation/liberalization were widely understood and at least to some extent publicly desired, whereas passenger rail has been in decline for so many years, the public may not believe that it can get better.

A problem in comparing the Corridor with Calgary-Edmonton is that the latter is both the most theoretically promising corridor but also one wholly contained in a single province without a separate public service obligation which one could define for White River or Jonqueire, Even Halifax’s local service was posited as part of a service into NB. Accordingly, even absent a PRIIA type regime, many people simply think that it is Alberta’s to do, or Canada’s not to.

 

[dowlingm]

i have a feeling that regardless of the merits, the cons may cancel this project simply because its a liberal project and as all incoming govts do they want to erase every bit of legacy the former govt has.
thats why brightline works since the the project doesnt change with the shifting winds of the govt

Brightline is not a good comparison. That project was set in motion by the owner of the tracks it runs on, and its financing was in significant part greased by the designation of their bonds sold to investors as having tax advantages - not something easy for a later government to unwind as a grant which can be halted.

 

[ARG1]

I don't think it's a given that HFR will skip downtown Montreal in favour of a suburban station. I recall that the Alstom proposal showed the line going downtown and doubling back to go around the mountain on the way to Quebec. I'm not as familiar with Montreal as some of you but it seems like it's possible to serve Central Station and have a second station in the northern suburbs. Kind of like Fallowfield and Ottawa. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Iirc the proposal suggested that it would only serve Gare Centrale for Montreal terminating trains, as in Montreal <--> QC trains and Montreal <--> Toronto trains. I believe any train that simply went through Montreal would only stop at Canora requiring a transfer to the REM to reach downtown.

 

[Urban Sky]

Iirc the proposal suggested that it would only serve Gare Centrale for Montreal terminating trains, as in Montreal <--> QC trains and Montreal <--> Toronto trains. I believe any train that simply went through Montreal would only stop at Canora requiring a transfer to the REM to reach downtown.

Given that Montreal will always remain the much more popular destination than Quebec City for passengers arriving from Toronto/Ottawa or Ottawa/Toronto for passengers arriving from Quebec City, I doubt that many trains would take advantage of such routing…

 

[lenaitch]

The assertion that you just can’t regulate prices and you just can’t tell a company that someone else can’t use its infrastructure are answered by the telecoms industry, where nascent operators in the wired and wireless space have been given, by law, access to infrastructure, and legacy telcos obliged to do stuff like reduce contract lengths and port out numbers. Does this directly map to rail? No. But it shows that concepts are not unthinkable - especially when as noted above the existing CTA legislation contemplates some level of government mandate - that should not be considered as far as Ottawa may grasp. Also, the continued domination of the legacy telcos in both spaces (and AC/WJ in the airline market) are a sign that collapse into bankruptcy is unlikely to be the fate of the Class Is.

The difference with telecoms and airlines is that the benefits of deregulation/liberalization were widely understood and at least to some extent publicly desired, whereas passenger rail has been in decline for so many years, the public may not believe that it can get better.

A problem in comparing the Corridor with Calgary-Edmonton is that the latter is both the most theoretically promising corridor but also one wholly contained in a single province without a separate public service obligation which one could define for White River or Jonqueire, Even Halifax’s local service was posited as part of a service into NB. Accordingly, even absent a PRIIA type regime, many people simply think that it is Alberta’s to do, or Canada’s not to.

Interesting you should make that analogy. Both the federal and provincial governments have promised $3.2Bn to Bell (I don't know if cheques have actually been cut) to improve rural broadband by 2025. Our local municipality was earmarked about $12Mn. We're a year out and not a thing has happened. Even at that, Bell has apparently announced they intend to "descope" the project.

We await the heavy regulatory hand of the government to put Bell's feet to the fire (we really do need a sarcasm emoji).

Unless there are votes in it or a direct link to public safety, no government wants to regulate. No government wants a headline that says a company or sector is less profitable because of some newly imposed regulation. Even worse, no government wants a headline that a company has gone out of business and people are now unemployed because of regulatory action.

 

[lenaitch]

This is where I point specifically to Section 112 of the CTA






I think we are on the same wavelength here. Any serious restriction imposed by Ottawa that can be portrayed as unfair or unreasonable to the investors (who are a party) would most certainly be challenged in court, possibly taking years. A court would undoubtedly consider the current and past earnings of the railways as one precedent.

One can't just impose a change in earnings by waving a legislative wand. Such policy can be changed, but it would take a whole round of consultations and white papers and hearings. And court challenges. Hence the preference to negotiating and working out deals that all parties will accept, at the pace that negotiation imposes.



Governments are especially reluctant if going to an arbitrator might lead to an award that can be spun as a "loss", or which may set a price above what they can budget for.

I do suspect the government knows in general terms how an arbitrator or court would rule if they took a bigger stick to CN and CP. And CP and CN likely do consider how far they can push the envelope before they risk being found to be unreasonable.

Both CN and CP have master agreements with VIA. So there is negotiation and probably some horse trading. Could the balance of power be changed? Probably, in some ways. But we have a major railway that already accepts hourly (roughly) entry of passenger trains on a key line at some negotiated price and terms. And another railway that appears willing to accept new construction along its assets between Smiths Falls and Glen Tay, and between Agincourt and somewhere downtown in Toronto. Compromise makes no one happy, but the parties do already get along to a certain degree.

- Paul

Your right (again). Too often, both are painted as the big bad wolves for not simply 'lying back and thinking of England' where, in truth, much does gat accomplished.

 

[dowlingm]

Unless there are votes in it or a direct link to public safety, no government wants to regulate. No government wants a headline that says a company or sector is less profitable because of some newly imposed regulation. Even worse, no government wants a headline that a company has gone out of business and people are now unemployed because of regulatory action.

indeed. My comparisons are merely to show that Canada could do it, but won’t. Some would leave the government entirely off the hook by saying it’s legally impossible, which I don’t think it quite is. Unfortunately, it’s bad news for significant change either way

 

[Urban Sky]

Quick reminder that the federal government gets what they pay for (i.e., almost nothing) when it comes to investments into our heavy rail infrastructure:

CN is neither a government agency nor a charity and they are liable to their shareholders for putting their interests first. Major European countries invest annually between 40 and 567 Euros (C$54-763) per capita into their rail infrastructure, which translates to C$2-29 billion of taxpayer money invested into this country's rail infrastructure:

View attachment 406524
Source: Allianz pro Schiene

I'm not saying that the taxpayer is getting a bad deal, but he gets what he pays for (i.e. almost nothing)...

 

[crs1026]

Quick reminder that the federal government gets what they pay for when it comes to investments into our rail infrastructure:

Where I have some sympathy with a need for change is - what happens to the accounting when government makes capital investment in the railway? If Ottawa or a province adds a third track to a line, does this become a gift to the railway and whose books does the investment sit on? Does the passenger side then have to deliver a return to the railway on that capital investment?

In some cases the result could be an accounting nightmare, especially if carried to too granular a level - hey, those are our track spikes - but there are cases where the railway derives a material benefit from a passenger enhancement.... the best example being the removal of single track sections from the Halton Sub during the 2007-2009 upgrade that added a third track to Mount Pleasant. That double tracking eliminated a huge amount of standing meets between freight trains irrespective of passenger movements, I wonder how that factored into past and present negotiations..

Accounting of all this is a mystery to me, but as various projects add new trackage to shared use lines, there ought to be appropriate reccognition that some of the asset has been contributed by the taxpayer. And government ought to retain a portfolio of these assets rather than folding these into the railways' asset base. At minimum, these agreements need to be discoverable - the ability of the railways to hide behind secret agreements is inappropriate - making that change would hardly trigger a successful court challenge.

- Paul