News   Nov 12, 2024
 575     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 499     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 569     0 

Quebec-Windsor Corridor

the Class Is are utilities not mom and pop bakeries. Europe managed to implement this across two dozen countries and Canada runs and hides without a fight. Implement analogous legislation and see what the Supreme Court says about it. It’s not even free access! They will get paid by the third party operators!
Remind me again who owns the rail infrastructure networks in Europe? They are all either government-affiliated entities or dedicated infrastructure companies without any own train operations, as virtually all large networks were nationalized and consolidated in the 1920s. You can’t just take EU Directive 2007/58/EC and adapt it into Canadian law…
 
Last edited:
Nobody is saying it would be an immediate process, and the Class Is would need to get something out of it to soften the impact, but is the status quo really tenable? Well, I suppose to a Canadian competition authority, sure (gesticulates wildly at telecoms, airlines, newspaper ownership, pharmacy and supermarkets)

But if we’re not willing to tell the Class Is that they MUST accommodate reasonable use of their networks for fair compensation, we really should stop pretending that there is any step-change in passenger rail in Canada’s future when those same Class Is own access to downtowns pretty much everywhere outside Toronto.
 
Nobody is saying it would be an immediate process, and the Class Is would need to get something out of it to soften the impact, but is the status quo really tenable? Well, I suppose to a Canadian competition authority, sure (gesticulates wildly at telecoms, airlines, newspaper ownership, pharmacy and supermarkets)

But if we’re not willing to tell the Class Is that they MUST accommodate reasonable use of their networks for fair compensation, we really should stop pretending that there is any step-change in passenger rail in Canada’s future when those same Class Is own access to downtowns pretty much everywhere outside Toronto.
We’ve discussed this countless times on the VIA Rail thread: CN and CP have a market capitalization of $100 billion each, thus some 5% of GDP each. It will be extremely costly to motivate or coerce them into ceeding control over their vital key assets, as the government would find itself in constant litigation where you try to establish what exactly constitutes “reasonable use” and “fair compensation”, while investors will leave Canada in droves (you may want to look at what happened when China’s government needlessly went at war against its domestic video game or private tutoring industries recently)…
 
Last edited:
One side benefit of this (hopefully) going through are upgrades to existing central stations and maybe a few new ones. Does Calgary have a large central station? Also does Union have the capacity to handle more trains? Where would new platforms go?
 
One side benefit of this (hopefully) going through are upgrades to existing central stations and maybe a few new ones. Does Calgary have a large central station? Also does Union have the capacity to handle more trains? Where would new platforms go?
Calgary doesn't have a station anymore, neither does Edmonton. Considering that the Canadian doesn't even serve Calgary there would be no point in investing in a Calgary station.
 
Calgary doesn't have a station anymore, neither does Edmonton. Considering that the Canadian doesn't even serve Calgary there would be no point in investing in a Calgary station.
Got it! But it may need some type of facility if they get a train to the mountains or a commuter train to Airdrie.
 
One side benefit of this (hopefully) going through are upgrades to existing central stations and maybe a few new ones. Does Calgary have a large central station? Also does Union have the capacity to handle more trains? Where would new platforms go?
Got it! But it may need some type of facility if they get a train to the mountains or a commuter train to Airdrie.
How exactly is Calgary relevant to anything which has been discussed in this thread lately?
 
I am going to speculate that the reference to having termini outside major city centres is actually limited to Montreal, and only insofar as the Quebec City line can't reach Central Station via the Mount Royal tunnel any more.

Perhaps some bureaucrat has mused about some sort of real estate savings or redevelopment opportunity by shedding downtown termini generally, but in reality Central is also a commuter hub and tied into the Metro and REM networks.... so I don't see any potential for it to be repurposed. Similarly Toronto is committed to Union Station, although again Metrolinx might have good use for any platform capacity that VIA might relinquish. And Ottawa is already "suburban". Repurposing the Gare Palais seems a bit unlikely.

Montreal is an interesting study because a through Quebec-Dorval-Ottawa route with appropriate connections to REM, plus some sort of hub at Dorval connecting to Trudeau Airport might actually have some appeal, and would not rule out transit as the way to reach central Montreal. People living in the north end might find that more convenient than schlepping downtown.

For that matter, one could theoretically move all VIA service to Lucien L'Allier, with the right new connecting tracks (making the MMC a bit harder to reach, however). But I find that a bit unrealistic.

So I suspect that the new CEO simply didn't want to single Montreal out in the press, especially before the proposals are submitted.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
the Class Is are utilities not mom and pop bakeries. Europe managed to implement this across two dozen countries and Canada runs and hides without a fight. Implement analogous legislation and see what the Supreme Court says about it. It’s not even free access! They will get paid by the third party operators!
I'm not sure I fully understand the concept of 'open access rail', but different systems of governance and different laws can mean it is no guarantee that whatever they have done in Europe could be replicated over here. The one thing that wasn't clear in the link was whether any of the lines involved carry any - or any significant amount of freight. The amount of freight moved by rail in Europe pales in comparison to us. If access impairs freight income, it impairs profitability.

The concept of open access seems to imply something more than the landlord-tenant type of trackage rights arrangements that we currently have.

I would think that any attempt to legislate some kind of shotgun wedding between private corporations without compensation (not just access payment) to the property owner would be doomed to failure. No, I don't know for sure how the courts would view it.

“Open Access” in a North American context is the equivalent to suddenly forcing you to rent out a room of the condo you live in at below-market rates. It’s nothing short of a partial expropriation, which would entail extreme levels of litigation and send shockwaves across the Canadian Economy…
The concept is called 'constructive expropriation' or 'disguised expropriation', and the SCOC has ruled on it, but not in this direct context. Only the State (federal, provincial or municipal government0 can expropriate for a public work. If it was enabling legislation impacting private corporations I think it would subject to massive litigation. VIA rail (or any other Crown corporation created by the government) is not a private corporation; it is a child of the State.
 
“Open Access” in a North American context is the equivalent to suddenly forcing you to rent out a room of the condo you live in at below-market rates. It’s nothing short of a partial expropriation, which would entail extreme levels of litigation and send shockwaves across the Canadian Economy…

I do understand that there are potential consequences, nonetheless. I think that its important to point out.......

1) Gov'ts here can and do legislate that someone cannot sue them, and that their legal rights are moot. Very rarely is this successfully contested in Canada. The courts hold parliamentary sovereignty in high regard, and private property is not constitutionally protected here.

2) Gov'ts have regulated rate of return in the past (and currently) for all sorts of companies, particularly monopolies, and this was never successfully challenged. Energy utilities, and patented drugs are obvious examples. You're allowed your 'x' percent, that is determined by legislation, and no compensation has ever been paid by the state for those limitations, so far as I'm aware.

Accordingly, I don't see any legal impediment to limiting the right of return on investment for railways, and I don't see any avenue of legal appeal for compensation, should legislation preclude same.

That's merely supposition on my part, and courts evolve their positions over time. Still, this idea that the gov't has no leverage.........does not work for me.
 
Who is winding down what's left of non-corridor rail service?

I must have missed that announcement.

There is no highway (or road) to Churchhill, MB and building one would likely cost more than replacing the entire LD Fleet........

I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here......
HEP cars (just like LRC cars) are already permanently withdrawn one-by-one on an almost monthly basis and VIA already doesn’t have the fleet to reintroduce trains 3/4 (the third summer-only EDMO-VCVR frequency) or to add additional peak Sleeper capacity on the Ocean and Churchill trains. At the same time, TC seems determined to not tolerate HEPs in operation past 2035 (and I’m not sure how many cars would even last that long), meaning that the current trajectory (the “Do-nothing” or “Business-As-Usual” scenario) is that VIA’s non-Corridor services will steadily fade out and completely disappear over the next 12 years:
IMG_4676.jpeg


I do understand that there are potential consequences, nonetheless. I think that its important to point out.......

1) Gov'ts here can and do legislate that someone cannot sue them, and that their legal rights are moot. Very rarely is this successfully contested in Canada. The courts hold parliamentary sovereignty in high regard, and private property is not constitutionally protected here.
No court can stop investors from fleeing the industry (and the country) when you start abruptly changing the rules and micromanaging the two largest corporations in this country, which represent one-tenth of the Economy (measured as market capitalization as % of nominal GDP).
2) Gov'ts have regulated rate of return in the past (and currently) for all sorts of companies, particularly monopolies, and this was never successfully challenged. Energy utilities, and patented drugs are obvious examples. You're allowed your 'x' percent, that is determined by legislation, and no compensation has ever been paid by the state for those limitations, so far as I'm aware.

Accordingly, I don't see any legal impediment to limiting the right of return on investment for railways, and I don't see any avenue of legal appeal for compensation, should legislation preclude same.

That's merely supposition on my part, and courts evolve their positions over time. Still, this idea that the gov't has no leverage.........does not work for me.
Unless you want to cap overall profits of CN and CPKC, you will get tangled endlessly in discussions over what maintenance (and opportunity) costs are directly associated with operating passenger trains and which ones aren’t - all of which need to be settled somehow, whether by courts or arbitrators. The governments’ experiences which led to the creation of VIA in 1976-78 was that when you make a “cost-plus” (or “cost-minus”) reimbursement, then suddenly almost every single operating expense magically becomes directly related with passenger operations…
 
Last edited:
I seem to say this a lot....but..... the whole debate around what the government can do and what rights the railways have as private enterprises gets a whole lot simpler if one refers to the Canada Transportation Act.

The most relevant sections to this discussion are -

Section 36 - CTA authority to impose mediation and Arbitration
Section 112 - Commercially fair and reasonable
Section 113 - Levels of service
Section 138 - Running rights and joint trackage
Section 145.1 - Offer to governments before discontinuance
Section 152.1 - Public Passenger Service Providers Dispute Resolution
Section 157.1 - Determination of costs

The point being - the CTA does give the government (via application to the CTA) much of the power that posters are wishing it had.... and the CTA does already outline the general framework for determining compensation to the railways when such powers are exercised. So, the law is not as constitutionally murky - or as toothless - as one might think.

Open access of a European vein would likely mean scrapping the CTA in entirety, and writing a whole new regime. definitely a hammer to kill a big bug proposition. Maybe that would be desirable, but the delay before anyone could get on with a passenger rail project would be considerable.

The present framework may not expedite solving some of the issues that stand in the way of a better passenger infrastructure, but the solution may be some tinkering and not a more substantial legal rewrite.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's a given that HFR will skip downtown Montreal in favour of a suburban station. I recall that the Alstom proposal showed the line going downtown and doubling back to go around the mountain on the way to Quebec. I'm not as familiar with Montreal as some of you but it seems like it's possible to serve Central Station and have a second station in the northern suburbs. Kind of like Fallowfield and Ottawa. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

A good project is a good project. The government, whoever it happens to be, shouldn't avoid necessary investment because of potential optics problems. I'm not HSR or bust, but characterizing it as "shiny" is probably selling short how much economic productivity is squandered on the unnecessary economic segregation of the two largest cities in the country.
I hope you're not underestimating the willingness if a vindictive new government to cancel good projects. It's happened before.

A fever dream of mine would be to make use of Toronto's midtown corridor, although that would never happen. Regardless, Peterborough needs this missing link.
I wouldn't link service to Peterborough with the midtown corridor. There are multiple options for getting a train from the Havelock sub to Union.
 
HEP cars (just like LRC cars) are already permanently withdrawn one-by-one on an almost monthly basis and VIA already doesn’t have the fleet to reintroduce trains 3/4 (the third summer-only EDMO-VCVR frequency) or to add additional peak Sleeper capacity on the Ocean and Churchill trains. At the same time, TC seems determined to not tolerate HEPs in operation past 2035 (and I’m not sure how many cars would even last that long), meaning that the current trajectory (the “Do-nothing” or “Business-As-Usual” scenario) is that VIA’s non-Corridor services will steadily fade out and completely disappear over the next 12 years:
View attachment 542397


No court can stop investors from fleeing the industry (and the country) when you start abruptly changing the rules and micromanaging the two largest corporations in this country, which represent one-tenth of the Economy (measured as market capitalization as % of nominal GDP).

Unless you want to cap overall profits of CN and CPKC, you will get tangled endlessly in discussions over what maintenance (and opportunity) costs are directly associated with operating passenger trains and which ones aren’t - all of which need to be settled somehow, whether by courts or arbitrators. The governments’ experiences which led to the creation of VIA in 1976-78 was that when you make a “cost-plus” (or “cost-minus”) reimbursement, then suddenly almost every single operating expense magically becomes directly related with passenger operations…

I seem to say this a lot....but..... the whole debate around what the government can do and what rights the railways have as private enterprises gets a whole lot simpler if one refers to the Canada Transportation Act.

The most relevant sections to this discussion are -

Section 36 - CTA authority to impose mediation and Arbitration
Section 112 - Commercially fair and reasonable
Section 113 - Levels of service
Section 138 - Running rights and joint trackage
Section 145.1 - Offer to governments before discontinuance
Section 152.1 - Public Passenger Service Providers Dispute Resolution
Section 157.1 - Determination of costs

The point being - the CTA does give the government (via application to the CTA) much of the power that posters are wishing it had.... and the CTA does already outline the general framework for determining compensation to the railways when such powers are exercised. So, the law is not as constitutionally murky - or as toothless - as one might think.

Open access of a European vein would likely mean scrapping the CTA in entirety, and writing a whole new regime. definitely a hammer to kill a big bug proposition. Maybe that would be desirable, but the delay before anyone could get on with a passenger rail project would be considerable.

The present framework may not expedite solving some of the issues that stand in the way of a better passenger infrastructure, but the solution may be some tinkering and not a more substantial legal rewrite.

- Paul
You're both right (and, yes, Paul, I do forget the provisions of the CTA), but using legislation to regulate the rate of compensation for a product or service is different than determining the profitability of a company or its ability to retain investors, and I'm not sure that was envisioned in the various sections of the CTA. It's one thing to determine that imposing or allowing passenger service X should be compensated on, say, a per axle basis for wear and tear, maintenance, HR, etc., but how does the Agency or an arbitrator determine that imposed service X makes the rail company Y% less profitable?

Some people (not you guys) take a 'damn the torpedoes' approach'. "The GTA needs 15-minute pax rail everywhere - kick CPKC off the mid-town'. 'Legislate pax rail priority'. Which is all great, until CN and/of CPKC become money pits and investors flee or they are scooped up by foreign money.

With respect to VIA, more aggressive action by the government would assume that the government is willing to spend the big bucks to allow VIA to reap the benefits of their regulatory largesse, and I'm not convinced that's true. Governments have legislative and regulatory authority regarding businesses and services; I'm just not convinced they like using them unless it has a votes in it. Successive Canadian governments have shown a lack of willingness to take on large corporations.

The above link's comments about the failure of governments to look after infrastructure should be put on a plaque somewhere.
 

Back
Top