High Speed Train Coming?-split from boosting Canada’s military spending"

[lenaitch]

A littlle late to the party but I'll say my piece. Some things have already been covered. I have no dog in the hunt. At my age and location in all likelihood will see it or use it.

Canadian rail companies have great expertise in running railways, but not building them. There hasn't been a significant amount of greenfield railway construction in probably a century. Why wouldn't we tap offshore companies that have actually built HSR? We bemoan the loss of expertise in our shipyards and the accompanying cost inherent in the learning curve knowing (hoping?) that subsequent builds will we faster and cheaper. This is our first and so far only planned HSR (maybe they should have gone ahead with a Calgary-Edmonton project as practice).

For heavy rail, Metrolinx does precious little greenfield development; they mostly expand existing infrastructure. If light rail is any indication, the Eglington Crosstown certainly doesn't highlight their project management expertise. The Junction diamond flyover seems to be a rare success story. Do we want it to run over-budget because of high-priced consultants, or because of home grown inexperience? I suspect that the ALTO project was removed from VIA for the same reason; they don't possess the project management expertise to greenfield several hundred kilometers of new service either, let alone high speed service.

Speaking of cost, does anyone know if the $90Bn is to build HSR, or is typical government accounting which compiles the cost of building, infrastructure, operating costs, salaries and pencils for the next 40 years?

It has been mentioned that CN and CPKC don't do 'nation building'. Regardless of what that is supposed to mean, why would they? Their responsibility is to their shareholders.

VIA's biggest problem is that it exists at the whim and behest of Cabinet. It has no enabling legislation; it's mandate is as broad or shallow as Cabinet says it is on any given day. In the lakeshore corridor, CN is not going to improve VIA service at the expense of its own, and dispatchers will prioritize their trains - why wouldn't they, that's why the money is? I don't know the terms of agreement between CN and VIA, and perhaps there is some capacity for Transport Canada (CTA) to step in as the regulator, but it has shown no interest in doing so. There is an ongoing court battle between CN and VIA over speed restriction imposed on their new Venture equipment because of the 'possibility' of the shorter, lighter equipment not consistently triggering crossing signals. Why this is in the court and not in front of the regulator is beyond me.

I suspect that if CN was directed to improve VIA's access to any significant degree without great big gobs of money thrown at them, it would be in the courts until we are all long dead. They will not willingly constrain their current or future profitability. A few years ago, they were given money to add track to enhance VIAs performance, but it had little net effect.

CN is the landlord and VIA is the tenant. So long as that relationship exists, there is no hope of significant corridor service improvements, let alone something approaching HSR. Both CN and CPKC have absolutely no interest in electrifying their properties.

 

[Altair]

Fair. But I also don't want to let blatant misinformation go unchallenged. Which is why I don't block them.

Think of it as a mini vacation from one of the circles of hell.

You can always come back later.

 

[Altair]

A littlle late to the party but I'll say my piece. Some things have already been covered. I have no dog in the hunt. At my age and location in all likelihood will see it or use it.

Canadian rail companies have great expertise in running railways, but not building them. There hasn't been a significant amount of greenfield railway construction in probably a century. Why wouldn't we tap offshore companies that have actually built HSR? We bemoan the loss of expertise in our shipyards and the accompanying cost inherent in the learning curve knowing (hoping?) that subsequent builds will we faster and cheaper. This is our first and so far only planned HSR (maybe they should have gone ahead with a Calgary-Edmonton project as practice).

For heavy rail, Metrolinx does precious little greenfield development; they mostly expand existing infrastructure. If light rail is any indication, the Eglington Crosstown certainly doesn't highlight their project management expertise. The Junction diamond flyover seems to be a rare success story. Do we want it to run over-budget because of high-priced consultants, or because of home grown inexperience? I suspect that the ALTO project was removed from VIA for the same reason; they don't possess the project management expertise to greenfield several hundred kilometers of new service either, let alone high speed service.

Speaking of cost, does anyone know if the $90Bn is to build HSR, or is typical government accounting which compiles the cost of building, infrastructure, operating costs, salaries and pencils for the next 40 years?

It has been mentioned that CN and CPKC don't do 'nation building'. Regardless of what that is supposed to mean, why would they? Their responsibility is to their shareholders.

VIA's biggest problem is that it exists at the whim and behest of Cabinet. It has no enabling legislation; it's mandate is as broad or shallow as Cabinet says it is on any given day. In the lakeshore corridor, CN is not going to improve VIA service at the expense of its own, and dispatchers will prioritize their trains - why wouldn't they, that's why the money is? I don't know the terms of agreement between CN and VIA, and perhaps there is some capacity for Transport Canada (CTA) to step in as the regulator, but it has shown no interest in doing so. There is an ongoing court battle between CN and VIA over speed restriction imposed on their new Venture equipment because of the 'possibility' of the shorter, lighter equipment not consistently triggering crossing signals. Why this is in the court and not in front of the regulator is beyond me.

I suspect that if CN was directed to improve VIA's access to any significant degree without great big gobs of money thrown at them, it would be in the courts until we are all long dead. They will not willingly constrain their current or future profitability. A few years ago, they were given money to add track to enhance VIAs performance, but it had little net effect.

CN is the landlord and VIA is the tenant. So long as that relationship exists, there is no hope of significant corridor service improvements, let alone something approaching HSR. Both CN and CPKC have absolutely no interest in electrifying their properties.

Transport Canada could step in, but they know which side their bread is buttered.

CN is one of Canada's most secure corporations, providing steady dividends for shareholders and have the economy of Canada in the palm of their hand. It wouldn't take much for them to put the screws to freight traffic, causing supply disruption and bottlenecks and simply blame TC and VIA Rail saying it was due to passenger rail taking priority.

VIA doesn't have enough clout to go up agaisnt CN. VIA rail needs its own dedicated rail to run their own stock, but they are broke and would need something close to what ALTO is getting to build their own.

Which is why VIA, despite being another Canadian passenger rail company has nothing of value to add to this conversation other than to serve as a word of warning. It's what happens when you allow freight operators to own the tracks, when trains are too slow, non electric is too expensive and prices, passed on to the consumer, are too high.

ALTO is everything VIA is not, and for that reason, at least they have a shot at success.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Transport Canada could step in, but they know which side their bread is buttered.

Hummm! We need a "Transport Supremo".

 

[dapaterson]

CN and CP exist because of massive grants of land by the governments of the day.

Much like Canadian telecom companies who thrive on free frequencies they received, the government should probably remind them that what they got for free has value that could be capriciously destroyed by reclaiming it, as a reminder to play nice.

 

[Brad Sallows]

CN and CP exist because of massive grants of land by the governments of the day.

Much like Canadian telecom companies who thrive on free frequencies they received, the government should probably remind them that what they got for free has value that could be capriciously destroyed by reclaiming it, as a reminder to play nice.

Sure, that'll go over well in the middle of the next public welfare emergency when people expect their emergency communications to even the most remote places to function flawlessly and for train companies to repair washouts Right Now. Go right ahead and pull that lever.

Governments already got what they paid for. Debts were settled long ago.

We could always turn them back into something like a typical Department of Motor Vehicles, I suppose.

 

[dapaterson]

Sure, that'll go over well in the middle of the next public welfare emergency when people expect their emergency communications to even the most remote places to function flawlessly and for train companies to repair washouts Right Now. Go right ahead and pull that lever.

Governments already got what they paid for. Debts were settled long ago.

We could always turn them back into something like a typical Department of Motor Vehicles, I suppose.

If your entire business model is reliant on free stuff the government gave you, you should probably try to not be too much of an asshole.

 

[ytz]

If your entire business model is reliant on free stuff the government gave you, you should probably try to not be too much of an asshole.

Why not? They own the politicians. And they are all "Too big to fail". Big fish small pond syndrome runs deep in corporate Canada. But it's also why they never venture outside Canada (or the US) in most cases. They know the beating they'd get. Heck, they fight hard to keep the competition out. I still remember the fearmongering when Harper was trying to bring Verizon to Canada. And then later when Trudeau was courting Carrefour.

On topic, like I said earlier, it was an open bid. Either company could have put in their own big or join a consortium. They didn't. They seem to have decided they don't have anything to offer on the subject.

 

[YZT580]

CN and CP exist because of massive grants of land by the governments of the day.

Much like Canadian telecom companies who thrive on free frequencies they received, the government should probably remind them that what they got for free has value that could be capriciously destroyed by reclaiming it, as a reminder to play nice.

ironically all that I have looked at required the operation of passenger service.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If your entire business model is reliant on free stuff the government gave you, you should probably try to not be too much of an asshole.

Governments wanted railroads; possibly, governments needed railroads (eg. to extend and exercise sovereignty). Governments had neither the expertise nor the money.

One frame for looking at it is that the railroads "owe" governments. That is probably the popular, conventional frame.

Another frame is that what you characterize as "free stuff" was "price paid" for someone else to come up with the rest of what was needed and take the risks.

Also, the value of what was originally transferred to various degrees of private interests is probably not worth much today. Most of what corporations have today is what they built themselves.

A claim I found interesting (not sure if I already mentioned it here): in the ongoing saga over GVRD, someone interviewed made the claim that costs of infrastructure are going up 7% per year. (The point was that it would be better to start projects on the bucket list now, rather than delay them to deal with other pressing fiscal issues.) I doubt (or rather, I'd like to doubt) that it's 7%. If the number is that high, whatever we're doing is on an unsustainable track (ie. wages, GDP, etc are not growing 7% per year).

I also doubt that it has always been 7%. But it raises the proposition that infrastructure costs really have been increasing over time. That would mean that projects done relatively long ago were much cheaper, relatively, then, than they would be now. So, again: the legacies are probably not worth much today. New York probably couldn't replicate its subway system. And so on.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why not? They own the politicians. And they are all "Too big to fail".

The big telcos would love to own the politicians so that spectrum auctions wouldn't be fixed to put them at a disadvantage. And they'd love to be "too big to fail" so that the federal government wouldn't just stiff-arm them after ordering them to absorb a big cost hit. Evidence falsifies your theories.

For telcos in particular, the impediment to foreign investment is political (security) and is well-known where it matters, regardless what stories are told to the media.

In any given year, Canadian companies typically have more invested abroad than foreign companies have invested in Canada. Recent years. Whatever that might indicate, concerns about taking a beating are unlikely.

 

[ytz]

So which telco do you work for that you're suddenly so worked up to defend?

I looked at the way they ganged up to keep Verizon out. Tells me all I need to know about how competitive they are. Funny how Vodafone and T-Mobile and Orange can compete all over the world. But three big telcos and not one has set foot in so much as a tiny Caribbean Island.

And don't worry, your oligopolistic employer isn't the only one. Heck, Air Canada was so important, we lost Camp Mirage for a bit, because heaven forbid that AC and its colluding Star Alliance partners lose their monopoly on immigrants flying to South Asia.

Plenty of examples to go around of Canada's big Corps regularly preferring to lobby over competing. If you want, we can discuss grocery stores next starting with the bread price fixing scandal.

I'm quite liberated cause unlike you and Humphrey my paycheque doesn't depend on promoting oligopolies.