kEiThZ
Superstar
I think I saw signs in Oshawa months ago. I dunno how I feel about advertising this before it's funded and has shovels in the ground. Setup for disappointment if it doesn't happen.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Maybe trying to avoid creating much excitement about a project just to minimize disappointment if it doesn’t get approved would rather risk becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Better to talk to the people which are most likely to benefit from it by extensively using it (i.e. current users) and to have them talk and convince their friends that this would be a good idea until maybe even the local federal MP becomes aware that this is a project which is creating buzz among his/her constituents...
crs1026
Superstar
^I’m pleased to see VIA standing up for themselves and promoting their aspirations. No business can succeed without a growth and investment strategy. If they are deliberately backing government into a corner, good on them.
I am astounded at how utterly noncommittal Ottawa has been about HFR.... talk about toe in the water. Never before has a megaproject happened in such a vacuum of stated support. “We have a HFR project? Gosh, we do. Wonder how that happened”.
I’m left with the impression that the feds anticipate such a “perfect storm” of downer implications should they approve this project. And an equal number of political repercussions if they gave it a firm no. They just want it to fade away and remove the dilemma.
I can certainly see the political risks....they would have to defend spending money in Quebec, they would have to manage the optics of having perceived “welfare corporations” such as Bombardier and SNC Lavalin within the competing vendors, plus fend off opposition from air and highway interests, plus perhaps fuel public mistrust of federal procurement processes generally.
Never mind that it would actually serve a useful purpose..... just too politically risky to stand behind.
- Paul
I am astounded at how utterly noncommittal Ottawa has been about HFR.... talk about toe in the water. Never before has a megaproject happened in such a vacuum of stated support. “We have a HFR project? Gosh, we do. Wonder how that happened”.
I’m left with the impression that the feds anticipate such a “perfect storm” of downer implications should they approve this project. And an equal number of political repercussions if they gave it a firm no. They just want it to fade away and remove the dilemma.
I can certainly see the political risks....they would have to defend spending money in Quebec, they would have to manage the optics of having perceived “welfare corporations” such as Bombardier and SNC Lavalin within the competing vendors, plus fend off opposition from air and highway interests, plus perhaps fuel public mistrust of federal procurement processes generally.
Never mind that it would actually serve a useful purpose..... just too politically risky to stand behind.
- Paul
NotAToy
New Member
It's meant to be a fantasy map. I should have specified that. However, rail service in this country is s***y. I would love to see actual service on all of the major corridors.
These projects have been proposed for 50 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Canada#Early_high-speed_rail_in_Canada
I doubt this project will get built. *I hope it does, I just think the non-committedness of Ottawa makes it impossible. *
kEiThZ
Superstar
Fair points. But I have my doubts. Take a similarly important project. Say the Confederation Bridge? It happened with the public and local politicians pushing it. Not with some government agency lobbying for it.
I have been absolutely disappointed with this government. Their rhetoric on climate change seems increasingly to be some politically correct claptrap that let's them cripple the Oil and Gas sector. Virtually everything else is greenwashing and wealth transfer under the guise of fighting climate change. From giving out thousands to well off suburbanites to buy electric vehicles to giving out rebates for carbon tax that is income based. They don't actually seem all that committed to enabling the kind of mundane changes and infrastructure that will enable low carbon living. And the foot dragging on this project is one of many examples.
It's absolutely infuriating. I just can't use the language I think is appropriate for this, in polite company.
Trudeau seems to have stepped up a bit since the election. And they do seem to be progressing. But I absolutely question their sincerity when they did almost nothing for 4 years with a majority. What happens when the deficit gets too high and they need to cut something? What happens when they realize that $4 billion in transit promises across the country might buy more votes than HFR?
The Montreal-Quebec City section is not very defensible on traffic. I believe that VIA or the CIB's own maths showed that. Yet, they are pushing this, with all the complications of not having access to the Mount Royal Tunnel on top of everything. All while not connecting to Pearson Airport and KWC, places which would have high demand for ridership. So yes, they sort of deserve the flack they are getting for this. Would it really have been hard to at least run through service at Union and reach Pearson at least?
All that said, I think a lot of the public is actually at a point where they'd understand spending a few billion on a train between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. But the process has to be squeaky clean. Can't at all be seen as another back door to pay a big Quebec megacorp.
Allandale25
Senior Member
HFR and using Havelock Sub has not been proposed by VIA for 50 years. Also, VIA is only 40 years old.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
There are two types of fantasy maps: one which extrapolates from the current network to add new corridors and lines first between the main nodes and then branching out, whereas others just draw lines for aesthetic reasons. The ideas presented by @micheal_can here fall under this category (even without posting any maps) because even though he might be overly optimistic, he’s not ignoring the fact that trains can only run where there are still any tracks left, that new dedicated passenger tracks will not be built anywhere outside the Quebec-Windsor or Edmonton-Calgary corridors within our lifetimes, and that the services offered must somehow follow the existing travel flows and that means that most lines will.
Conversely, your map falls into the second category, as it completely ignores the lack of any remaining tracks to cities like Fredericton or along the Ottawa Valley and by having more nodes connected to Rivières-de-Loup (6) than Montreal (5) or more to Fredericton (4) than Halifax (3). I can’t comment on the map in terms of its visual design, but I don’t think that anything else than a dedicated “Fantasy Maps” thread would be the right place to discuss such a map...
HSR (like “these projects” you are referring to) have indeed be studied for almost half a century, but HFR is a much more sober look at what can be done within the next 5-10 years with $4-6 billion to be funded mostly by private investors rather than within the next 15-25 years with $20+ billion to be funded almost exclusively by the taxpayer...
It really surprises me how much even you two struggle to get your head around this project being targeted predominantly at funding from private investors and that the taxpayers’ role would be primarily to get the planning to a stage and to reduce risks to a level where investors have enough confidence to buy into the project. The only reason why the Montreal-Quebec was included into the planning scope was that the (back then: liberal) provincial government insisted on having it included, whereas their (just as liberal) peers in Toronto insisted on putting all of their eggs (for SWO) into the HSR basket instead. However, it will be the private investors who decide into which segments they are willing to invest themselves and into which they don’t and from all we’ve read so far in the newspapers, the Quebec taxpayers will have to pay a non-trivial share of the capital costs of Montreal-Quebec to make that project as profitable (from an investor’s perspective) as Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto...
As for the suggestion that VIA should have expanded the scope of HFR beyond Union Station, how would that have been politically feasible before the Wynne-Colonette HSR zombie finally got buried (just recall how much VIA got scolded in the London Free Press* for continuing to promote their HFR project after Wynne pulled HSR out of her hat and then imagine what would have happened if VIA had dared the same on a Corridor which actually interfered with Wynne’s pet project)? And how would you have achieved a stop at Pearson Airport and frequent frequencies towards KWC-London without auxiliary projects like the Pearson Transit Hub and The Missing Link, which entail much higher capital costs and a much longer time frame than keeping HFR to East of Toronto? Or achieved a mutual agreement with Metrolinx about the extent to which the services and fares offered by HFR and GO would integrate, complement or compete with each other?
* For instance: https://lfpress.com/2016/04/15/via-...peed/wcm/1c01a33c-4249-0675-9561-67bc148ad458
crs1026
Superstar
Well, I read the Business pages daily, and I have yet to see even a single article where any of the pundits have spoken of HFR as a great new investment opportunity that is crying to come to market. HFR is positioned as something that government is mulling over, but the analysts are keeping their distance.
In the time that project has been on the investment radar screen, other whole higher-risk industries have come and gone. (cannabis being one example). Even decisions over pipelines are moving faster, and half the country is furious about the pace of those.
I’m not saying the business case isn’t there. There are undoubtedly investors - likely institutional - who would put up capital, especially given some level of government backstopping. It’s possible that the current round of “studies” is material to getting their buyin. But government has no trouble attracting investors when it incurs debt. It’s called “deficit spending”. The whole Investment Bank initiative seems to have fizzled. So, why not just borrow the money the old fashioned way and get on with it ?
Ottawa is not stepping up with a definitieve declaration that HFR fulfils an important public policy objective and is a driver for economic growth, or even carbon abatement. If they felt it is, they have enough data already to present that case. It sure seems they are looking for a cover story, so they can say to critics “Yeah, it may be dumb, but we don’t stand in the way of investors, and they seem to want it”. That’s hardly taking political risk.
- Paul
cplchanb
Senior Member
I saw what looks like the canadian parked on the bridge on bayview just north of steeles. Is it the canadian or some other train?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Like Paul, I have my doubts that private/institutional investment is coming. Part of that I don' think is VIA's fault but the CIB. A brand new institution created to apparently invest billions for a new return, but drawing very little on the actual funds who have such experience (CPPIB, PSPIB, etc.). I think the CPPIB is in a bit of a trap. To have credibility, it needs to deliver something as large HFR. But nobody will invest in something as large as HFR, until they perceive that CIB has the experience to deliver on something that big. The politcal uncertainty around the CIB, with the two opposition parties promising to shutter it, doesn't help. I appreciate that the government is pushing through. And seems ready to commit without any non-public investment, if they have to. I just with they had come to this conclusion years ago. There's no reason the JPT couldn't have been started 2-3 years ago and gotten all this "pre-procurement work" done.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Infrastructure banks usually work by leveraging government capital to attract institutional capital. They do this by sufficiently de-risking projects and having governments do all the hard non-fiscal bits (expropriation for example). Has CIB actually gotten institutional investors to join any of their projects to date? They don't seem to be really great at making the case to private capital to jump in. And I suspect some of that is also because a government so focused on income inequality doesn't want to look like it's backdooring Bay St and Wall St. In which case the CIB just becomes a low cost federal financier. Not really an infrastructure bank. It's not the worst thing. But it does sort of diminish the case that this is just waiting for private investment to take off.
JamesKoole
Active Member
Likely yes. Departs Union on Wednesdays, then heads up and through Richmond Hill.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
One just has to think of the 8% return which a provincial pension fonds is guaranteed to receive in the form of operational subsidies for a light metro scheme currently under construction in Canadas second largest city and which is complemented by billions in direct capital subsidies, when the provincial government could have borrowed the required funds for a project which is actually centred at the needs of the city and its passengers rather than those of said pension fonds at a relatively modest 2.75%...
dowlingm
Senior Member
If it’s at Bayview and Steeles it is most likely returning to Toronto. It usually heads out of town via the Barrie line, then CN York, because it is too long to turn at Toronto Maintenance Centre.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Correct. This example proves how much the CIB sucks at attracting new capital at a reasonable cost. Caisse was going to build the REM anyway. All the CIB was marginally lower cost of capital. They didn't bring in new investors. And they didn't bargain the financing rate lower.
That's a failure. Let's remember the whole premise for the CIB was that they would attract new capital from institutional investors. Higher cost of capital, maybe. But it's supposed to reduce government capital commitments allowing them to build more infrastructure faster. So far, they seem to suck at this....