[micheal_can]

If we look to how the last few weeks when the 2 railways were going on strike and the way things were done, it is more likely that the existing government would not want to change a thing. They care more about the goods on the tracks than much else when it comes to the railways.

 

[ssiguy2]

You don't know that and neither do I. My entire point is for Ottawa to use it's power to get CN/CP to the bargaining table and then, with all parties working in good faith, they could come up with a proposal that maybe mutually advantageous for both parties. If not, then don't expect any kind of improved HFR little alone HSR in your lifetime because it will simply never happen without the cooperation of the freight companies.

 

[crs1026]

You don't know that and neither do I. My entire point is for Ottawa to use it's power to get CN/CP to the bargaining table and then, with all parties working in good faith, they could come up with a proposal that maybe mutually advantageous for both parties. If not, then don't expect any kind of improved HFR little alone HSR in your lifetime because it will simply never happen without the cooperation of the freight companies.

The way this will happen is through negotiation, and in negotiation each party has to respect the other party’s bargaining power. I am sure CN/CPKC would agree to a deal if the deal gave them things they valued - and I would predict that they would come to the bargaining table with a long list of asks. And they would be aware that Ottawa is not powerless, but they would not be afraid to point out if Ottawa were overplaying its hand.
I would remind us that Ottawa already has the legal right to take the railways to arbitration if the railways are not willing to give VIA proper accommodation. Why has this not happened very often? It’s because Ottawa knows that the arbitrator might award the railways greater compensation if VIA asked for better handling.
The adage “Never ask a question unless you are prepared for the answer” applies.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

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.

The government could start that process tomorrow with an email. No need to start it with a threat. Playing a threat card as an opening move assumes you are willing to live with the other parties not taking the bait.

 

[crs1026]

The government could start that process tomorrow with an email. No need to start it with a threat. Playing a threat card as an opening move assumes you are willing to live with the other parties not taking the bait.

…. And the other parties calling the bluff or responding in like kind.

Starting with the threat (or, actually imposing it) is certainly a time honoured business tactic - examples being Trump imposing aluminum tariffs as an opening move to NAFTA negotiations…. And EHH rerouting Northern Ontario transcon traffic through Chicago as an opening move in Canadian rail labour negotiations.

I’m sure CN and CPKC would know how to counter any threat of that sort. “Be careful what you ask for” also applies.

- Paul

 

[chrisw]

Pablo Rodriguez resigned from cabinet as he plans to run for the leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party.

Anita Anand is the new Minister of Transportation.

 

[guavadelic]

Interview with VIA HFR CEO Martin Imbleau on CBC Radio.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/audio/9.6515359

He's still consistent on not giving details about the project cost estimate or project specifics. He did mention again that the project development phase is likely to take 5-6 years and then likely another 5-6 years to open the initial segment, so an estimated 10-12 years from beginning service. He's also continuing to hint that the project scope evolved in the last year in embracing the "speedier" option.

He also seems to believe the government is close to choosing which consortium to partner with, with a decision expected before the end of the year.

 

[generalcanada]

Interview with VIA HFR CEO Martin Imbleau on CBC Radio.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/audio/9.6515359

He's still consistent on not giving details about the project cost estimate or project specifics. He did mention again that the project development phase is likely to take 5-6 years and then likely another 5-6 years to open the initial segment, so an estimated 10-12 years from beginning service. He's also continuing to hint that the project scope evolved in the last year in embracing the "speedier" option.

He also seems to believe the government is close to choosing which consortium to partner with, with a decision expected before the end of the year.

according to their own survey 92% say hsr is worth it. It sounds like theyre taking it as approval for hsr. words like "generational transformation" and "changing peoples habits" sound alot like hsr

Big hints to "learning experiences" with "segments" with 5-6 years per segment. reminds me a bit of CAHSR with their "segments".
note that he mentions environmental assessments and consultation only started after the partner is selected and that it could take 5-6 years before construction starts

 

[micheal_can]

The announcement of the tunnel under the 401 makes me think that if we stop dithering and build a proper railway network that the traffic problems would decrease. That include a HSR corridor from at least London to QC. It would include things like all commuter services become RER. We have dithered ourselves to where a 50+km tunnel actually sounds feasible. If it is feasible,then build the HSRto Union in a tunnel too.

 

[roger1818]

The announcement of the tunnel under the 401 makes me think that if we stop dithering and build a proper railway network that the traffic problems would decrease. That include a HSR corridor from at least London to QC. It would include things like all commuter services become RER. We have dithered ourselves to where a 50+km tunnel actually sounds feasible. If it is feasible,then build the HSRto Union in a tunnel too.

A 50 km tunnel under the 401 only sounds feasible to Doug Ford. IMHO, putting the same toll on the 401 that is on the 407 would be a much more effective way of reducing congestion.

 

[micheal_can]

A 50 km tunnel under the 401 only sounds feasible to Doug Ford. IMHO, putting the same toll on the 401 that is on the 407 would be a much more effective way of reducing congestion.

It is more of the willingness of the Ford government to spend that kind of money there when throwing that money at Metrolinx would go much further to reduce congestion. Let's say it is $1B per km, at 55 km, that would be $55B. What could that be spent on right now that would improve transportation besides a tunnel?

 

[roger1818]

It is more of the willingness of the Ford government to spend that kind of money there when throwing that money at Metrolinx would go much further to reduce congestion. Let's say it is $1B per km, at 55 km, that would be $55B. What could that be spent on right now that would improve transportation besides a tunnel?

I take a different viewpoint. There is limited money and if Toronto wastes tens of billions of dollars on this vanity project, there won't be any money left to fund any rail projects.

 

[micheal_can]

I take a different viewpoint. There is limited money and if Toronto wastes tens of billions of dollars on this vanity project, there won't be any money left to fund any rail projects.

I agree with your statement. Which goes back to giving it to Metrolinx for rail transit projects within the province.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's not even a vanity project, like the airport rail spur in Ottawa; that is, basically good but not worth it. It's a stupidity project because it will cost a staggering amount and eventually make the problem worse not better. It's like shooting yourself in the foot with a golden bullet.

 

[micheal_can]

It's not even a vanity project, like the airport rail spur in Ottawa; that is, basically good but not worth it. It's a stupidity project because it will cost a staggering amount and eventually make the problem worse not better. It's like shooting yourself in the foot with a golden bullet.

Ah, but to the right people, it is a reason to vote in an election. Had he said he would invest billions into GO RER, and HSR in Ontario as well as intercity rail throughout Ontario, then,maybe I could support that kind of spending..So far, adding lanes to the 401 has not reduced congestion.