News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

I think the HxR project is gaining significant traction with the general public. I am starting to find that non-rail buffs are not only aware of the program but are excited about it. Even Conservatives.

Now Skippy could still end up cancelling it, but he is a politician first and foremost, and he would certainly have reservations cancelling something that has strong public support.
 
I think the HxR project is gaining significant traction with the general public. I am starting to find that non-rail buffs are not only aware of the program but are excited about it. Even Conservatives.

Now Skippy could still end up cancelling it, but he is a politician first and foremost, and he would certainly have reservations cancelling something that has strong public support.
That’s great to hear and thankfully, the first segment to be decided and funded is the one which is both, the one which requires the least investment and takes the shortest time to build, while also the cost premium of HSR over Higher-Speed Rail or conventional rail is the smallest.

The moment of truth only comes when the green light is given to Montreal-Ottawa and all discussions turn to Ottawa-Toronto…
 
That’s great to hear and thankfully, the first segment to be decided and funded is the one which is both, the one which requires the least investment and takes the shortest time to build, while also the cost premium of HSR over Higher-Speed Rail or conventional rail is the smallest.

The moment of truth only comes when the green light is given to Montreal-Ottawa and all discussions turn to Ottawa-Toronto…
PP just announced that he would scrap the HST for house sales under $1M.... that is estimated to be $5B tax cut.... where will he recoup that... hopefully NOT HSR
 
PP just announced that he would scrap the HST for house sales under $1M.... that is estimated to be $5B tax cut.... where will he recoup that... hopefully NOT HSR
PP (and anyone else ) will have real budgetary concerns. This countries GDP continues to slip, and slip against our friends to the south

From Stats Canada:

Per capita growth edged down 0.2% in the first quarter and 0.1% in the second. With declines in seven of the past eight quarters, real GDP per capita in the second quarter was 2.8% below its pre-pandemic baseline.5 days ago

And a report from TD Economics: on how Canada is falling behind in the Standard of Living Curve: https://economics.td.com/ca-falling-behind-standard-of-living-curve

In short the GDP figure per Capita (as per the World Bank) lags far behind the USA over the past 10 years or so. "Over the past 10 years, the country saw 4.3% growth according to World Bank calculations. That works out to less than a tenth of the growth observed in the US, which saw GDP per capita rise 47.4% over the same period. Canada has made international headlines for its aggregate GDP growth, but rarely have people looked at how that looks adjusted for population."

There are reams of stats available, but the gist of it all, is to show that the Canadian Tax Base is not expanding at the same rate as the USA, that we are relatively poorer as a result, that too much of our economic growth is directly related to Government Expenditure.

The sum total of these trends will leave any government with less and less room to maneuver, especially in the short term. HSR may survive, or may survive in an altered format, just as any other government program..And the government can also just choose to continue to increase the amount of borrowing against the countries GDP,, which stands at 107% of GDP currently, to fund new and expensive programs (such as HSR. Others might be related to Dental, Child Care, Tax Cuts, Shipbuilding etc etc ) (The USA ratio is 124% to compare)

Of note, the first time the country was involved in a major 'nation-building' railway project (not sure if HSR qualifies for that - sounds like a corridor thing to me, but anyways) coincided with the first major incidence o national debt. Courtesy of Stats Canada (and see attached) Three relatively short periods of significant growth in the federal net debt can be identified in Canada's first 100 years. The first period began shortly after 1880 when the government of the day signed an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to build the national rail line to the west coast of Canada.....The Transcontinental Railway was completed in 1885.
 

Attachments

  • StatsCanada_q170329h-eng.pdf
    167.7 KB · Views: 30
I'm not sure where that figure of 107% debt to GDP comes from. The figures I typically see are that the federal debt to GDP ratio is about 45% right now, and provincial debt to GDP varies by province, but averages out to another 30% (I saw "averages", but Ontario and Quebec are most of it).
 
I'm not sure where that figure of 107% debt to GDP comes from. The figures I typically see are that the federal debt to GDP ratio is about 45% right now, and provincial debt to GDP varies by province, but averages out to another 30% (I saw "averages", but Ontario and Quebec are most of it).
Stats, stats and more stats. But you are correct, I should have qualified my figures with greater accuracy. The figure is 107% is the Canadian Government Gross Debt to GDP figure. There are several differing measurements of Debt to GDP.

I believe the figure you are looking at if the ratio of the gross amount of government liabilities reduced by the amount of equity and financial derivatives held by the government. And I think that figure is close to what you have said.

This is a complicated subject and The Converstion has a recent article on the National Debt. Regardless of any political view of the subject of debt, the article is a decent, and recent primer on the subject.
 

Looks like we have commitment from the Feds that they want this to be highspeed!
Translated important bits:
The Trudeau government will announce a high-speed train (TGV) project to connect Quebec and Toronto in the coming weeks, according to Radio-Canada. This would be the first TGV in Canada and is seen as an economic revolution by the government and experts. The project promoters hope the train will take passengers from Montreal to Toronto in three hours, compared to the 5.5-hour drive. The desired speed is 300 km/h, double that of current VIA Rail trains.

According to a source close to the matter, the consortiums estimated that ridership would have been too low with a high-frequency train, as customers are looking for the shortest possible travel time. Furthermore, VIA TGF, the federal state company created in November 2022 to develop a rail corridor between Quebec and Toronto, is expected to change its name to avoid referring solely to high frequency. According to a government source, the consortiums' work has shown that the high-speed train option was much cheaper than initially expected. Transport Canada had initially estimated that the cost of a TGV could be as high as 80 billion dollars.
 
Last edited:

Looks like we have commitment from the Feds that they want this to be highspeed!
It unfortunately matters preciously little what the outgoing government wants to plan & design, but what the next government is willing to fund…
 
It unfortunately matters preciously little what the outgoing government wants to plan & design, but what the next government is willing to fund…

I for one will be interested just to see what details and proposals reach the public if and when a successful bidder is announced. They will be motivated to promote the project to the public. After all the debate and quasi-analysis by us spectators, it will be interesting to hear the hard facts and rationales.

- Paul
 
I for one will be interested just to see what details and proposals reach the public if and when a successful bidder is announced. They will be motivated to promote the project to the public. After all the debate and quasi-analysis by us spectators, it will be interesting to hear the hard facts and rationales.

- Paul

And, maybe even see some maps.
 
"Fiscally responsible" conservatives would never build such a project with tax payers money. They would get the private sector to fund it and build it.

Normally I'd agree but Ford really surprised me with free-spending even on projects guaranteed to be a substantial loss [including indirect benefits], and the public seems happy with it.

PP may follow that lead to some extent: something equal to 10 years current VIA subsidies [~$7B] might be something they consider reasonable.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top