Bordercollie
Senior Member
Is the ROW owned by the Crown? Is there a cost to transfer that ownership?
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
robmausser
Senior Member
Another reason is that if people wanted the government to do all this, a huge crown corp would have to be setup from scratch to do it. VIA is not setup to do 90% of this. If you think the timelines are slow now, just wait until we have to add the time needed to set all of this up.
Outsourcing this work to P3's means the project can be expedited as much as possible, these are organizations already setup and ready to go for this work, with past expertise and experience.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
I don't think much or any of the proposed route has been assembled yet (outside of the existing operating CP subdivision). The way I understand expropriation legislation, I'm not sure land can be expropriated on behalf of a non-public entity. As far as I know - and stand to be corrected - the Hwy 407 land and infrastructure is in the name of the Crown, and leased to the consortium to operate.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Isn't most of the ROW in tact? The only thing they would need to adjust is curves. When CP abandoned the route did the ROW return to the ownership of crown?
crs1026
Senior Member
Much of the ROW between Glen Tay and Havelock is now owned by the local municipalities with custodial relationships/agreements with various trails organizations. Bell or other telco's may own or have easements along parts of it.
I expect VIA will want to assemble “rights” but that could take many forms.
And if the plan now includes “enhancements” - such as the proposed bypass around Sharbot Lake - we could see a bigger land acquisition effort, no different than say building a stretch of new 400-series highway.
- Paul
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Private railway companies can expropriate with government approval IIRC - though that's a unique clause dating back from the 19th century that essentially never gets used anymore. Back then expropriation had to be allowed for railways to get their services running as they couldn't reasonably assemble corridors otherwise.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
Land and rights can be expropriated on behalf of corporations. In this case, it would be expropriating for a publicly owned piece of infrastructure, so even if there was an issue, there isn't in this case.
Expropriating for private purposes is much more fraught in the USA.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
If there were an easy way to adjust all of those curves, the original builders would have done it. That area is full of swamps, ponds, rocks, and hills, and straightening most of it out would be prohibitively expensive.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
It is safe to say any newly activated rail in this project would be on property that would be purchased (mostly via expropriation) by the federal government. The P3 would build infrastructure on top of that land with all that infrastructure transferring to the government at the end of the contract period. I would imagine that they would have minimum state of repair measurements so that approaching the end of the P3 period things aren't being left unimproved.
The details of the P3 would need to outline how to handle running rights (I would think VIA would pick up those costs rather than having a bill go from GO/CN/CP to P3 to VIA), how to deal with breach or end of contact (transfer of ownership). With transfer of ownership there is some transfer of liability so I can see not wanting to own anything until the route has been operated for many years.
The details of the P3 would need to outline how to handle running rights (I would think VIA would pick up those costs rather than having a bill go from GO/CN/CP to P3 to VIA), how to deal with breach or end of contact (transfer of ownership). With transfer of ownership there is some transfer of liability so I can see not wanting to own anything until the route has been operated for many years.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
P3s like this use words to simplify things for the 'everyperson'.
"Own" when coupled with transfer is akin to an exclusive long term lease.
Only in rare cases would a P3 not guarantee maintenance and repair. Typical you'll have rolling stock amortized fully, and hard infrastructure in a year 10, 15, or year 20 condition for your transfer year.
At the end of the P3 term, then as the owner there are two options: offer a new concession; or self operate. The original P3 contract will include how that transition happens.
It is best practice to include provisions for breaking the contract early, if you end up bankrupting the private partner or the public partner's requirements change (like deciding to build a competitor). That being said, going bankrupt is an orderly process so there can be an agreement just to use bankruptcy to ensure continuity of service.
"Own" when coupled with transfer is akin to an exclusive long term lease.
Only in rare cases would a P3 not guarantee maintenance and repair. Typical you'll have rolling stock amortized fully, and hard infrastructure in a year 10, 15, or year 20 condition for your transfer year.
At the end of the P3 term, then as the owner there are two options: offer a new concession; or self operate. The original P3 contract will include how that transition happens.
It is best practice to include provisions for breaking the contract early, if you end up bankrupting the private partner or the public partner's requirements change (like deciding to build a competitor). That being said, going bankrupt is an orderly process so there can be an agreement just to use bankruptcy to ensure continuity of service.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I think that is key; or at least for a public benefit. A developer can't expropriate a farmer off his land to build a subdivision.
While it is somewhat challenging terrain, the ROW was originally built using the technology of the day and aiming to accommodate the speeds of the day, both with an eye to return on investment.
robmausser
Senior Member
Come off it now. You're comparing 19th Century builders who simply wanted a cheap and easy route for freight and slow passenger trains, and 21st Century builders who want to create an express track. Perhaps prohibitively expensive in the 19th Century but people here with expertise have already shown how straightening a lot of the tracks curviest sections will not be that huge of a deal.
Certainly no more expensive than buying out the CN mainline.
crs1026
Senior Member
Well, to be precise - the discussion here mostly acknowledged the swamps and rocks are there. But there was general acceptance that the curvature of the existing line will allow banking that will allow moderately high speed. So the curves can be left alone.
The HFR 1.0 proposal generated by VIA left those curves alone in Phase I, with improvements only if ROI calculations suggested there was a case. But it appears (reading between the lines, more than because anyone said so explicitly) that the political level in Ottawa may be willing to spend more to achieve a higher performance standard and smooth over some political rub points. That's good news, but don't downplay the challenges - it will still be expensive.
- Paul
roger1818
Active Member
I just received the following email from the HFR Project Team which includes a link to their new website:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
The liberals made a deal with the NDP to stay in power until 2025 so hopefully we can make some progress between now and then.