VIA Rail

[jys]

I say let the damn thing die. Pouring millions to serve a tiny little village of 180 people is an obscene waste of money. How will the people get their supplies?......................sorry but that's their problem. They CHOOSE to live in a very remote place and that is their right but to expect the rest of the country to subsidize them to such a huge amount for their CHOICE of residence is irresponsible and selfish.

If small towns or companies {or both together} want to buy and run the system then more power to them but they should be doing it on their own. As far as people saying "they don't have options" that is a lie as they do have options............either fly or move. As far as not having the money to move remember this is a Native village who pay very little rent and no taxes so their income goes MUCH MUCH further than would their urban counterparts.

Canadians have this deluded idea that VIA should run like railways where in the 19th century. Then they sewed the country and people together but today they are or complete irrelevance to anyone outside The Corridor with the slight exception of the Maritimes.

I don't think politics will allow this to happen. Especially with Justin Trudeau in office. But it's an interesting idea nevertheless.

 

[crs1026]

It would be fascinating if the Feds did force them to fix it. Can anyone think of examples where this has happened? I assume they have the power to do it under the Canadian Transportation Act?

Found one (with a little help from afar).

https://bytownrailwaysociety.ca/phocadownload/branchline/1988/1988-02.pdf

http://www.exporail.org/can_rail/Canadian Rail_no403_1988.pdf

The bridge on the CP Montreal-Quebec City line at Ste-Anne-de-la-Perade QC was wiped out by spring ice break-up, breaking the line into two stubs. CP didn't want to rebuild the bridge, and argued that VIA was going to abandon service on the line anyways. They lost, and the bridge was rebuilt..

The case is a little old (and the law may have changed since then).

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

I say let the damn thing die. Pouring millions to serve a tiny little village of 180 people is an obscene waste of money. How will the people get their supplies?......................sorry but that's their problem. They CHOOSE to live in a very remote place and that is their right but to expect the rest of the country to subsidize them to such a huge amount for their CHOICE of residence is irresponsible and selfish.

If small towns or companies {or both together} want to buy and run the system then more power to them but they should be doing it on their own. As far as people saying "they don't have options" that is a lie as they do have options............either fly or move. As far as not having the money to move remember this is a Native village who pay very little rent and no taxes so their income goes MUCH MUCH further than would their urban counterparts.

Canadians have this deluded idea that VIA should run like railways where in the 19th century. Then they sewed the country and people together but today they are or complete irrelevance to anyone outside The Corridor with the slight exception of the Maritimes.

Even as a non-Canadian and someone who could never live away from the amentities of heavy urbanism, I'm really getting fed up with your condescending attitude towards communities which have been exactly at the same place where they are now for slightly longer than when they became Canadian - or (if you allow me this guess) than your family has lived on this side of the Atlantic. Have a look at the amounts which are really used for infrastructure up north and then relate them to the amounts required for HSR in Southwest Ontario (or elsewhere) or all the transit projects currently proposed by the governments of Canada, Ottawa or Quebec...

 

[steveintoronto]

Found one (with a little help from afar).

https://bytownrailwaysociety.ca/phocadownload/branchline/1988/1988-02.pdf

http://www.exporail.org/can_rail/Canadian Rail_no403_1988.pdf

The bridge on the CP Montreal-Quebec City line at Ste-Anne-de-la-Perade QC was wiped out by spring ice break-up, breaking the line into two stubs. CP didn't want to rebuild the bridge, and argued that VIA was going to abandon service on the line anyways. They lost, and the bridge was rebuilt..

The case is a little old (and the law may have changed since then).

- Paul

Here's a very recent one:
(Btw, read the full decision, there's two sections "Redacted" due to the naming of corporate trade information, not germane to the legal ruling, but the first time I've seen that in these decisions)

February 28, 2017
APPLICATION by Univar Canada Ltd. against the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP), pursuant to sections 25.1 and 113 to 116 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended (CTA); AND IN THE MATTER OF a hearing held in Vancouver, British Columbia on October 13 and 14, 2016.
Case number:
15-04576
TRIBUNAL
Scott Streiner - Chair of the Panel, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency

Stephen Campbell - Member, Canadian Transportation Agency

William G. McMurray - Member, Canadian Transportation Agency

PARTICIPANTS
Forrest C. Hume - Counsel for Univar Canada Ltd.

John Landry - Counsel for Univar Canada Ltd.

Simon R. Coval – Counsel for Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Sylvie Lang – Counsel for Canadian Pacific Railway Company

SUMMARY
[1] Univar Canada Ltd. (Univar) filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) a complaint against CP alleging that CP failed to fulfill its level of service obligations as a result of a fire on July 9, 2014 that damaged the Marpole Rail Bridge (Marpole Bridge), which runs south from the Marpole Spur and allows for direct rail service to Univar’s facility in Richmond, British Columbia (facility).

[2] Univar requests that the Agency find that CP has failed to fulfill its level of service obligations for the receiving, loading, carrying, and delivering of traffic to and from the facility and order CP to:

1. repair the Marpole Bridge and restore rail service forthwith, and to fulfil its level of service obligations to and from the facility; and
2. compensate Univar, pursuant to paragraph 116(4)(c.1) of the CTA, for all expenses Univar incurred due to CP’s service failure, including legal fees, until such time as CP has restored rail service to the facility. Univar requests that the compensation be paid by CP on a monthly basis. Alternatively, Univar seeks its legal fees for this proceeding under section 25.1 of the CTA [...continues with much detail and the minutia of the ruling and background...]

1. https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/conf-4-2017

Btw Paul, I never did find the intended reference with the two links you provided, every time I attempted to wade through them, I found myself lost in some of the fascinating stories and details.

I've bookmarked the Barbados railway one....

Edit to Add: There are others, but I purposely chose this case as it involved bridge access, and so also pertains to the Prince of Wales bridge over the Ottawa River.

 

[steveintoronto]

Have a look at the amounts which are really used for infrastructure up north and then relate them to the amounts required for HSR in Southwest Ontario (or elsewhere) or all the transit projects currently proposed by the governments of Canada, Ottawa or Quebec...

And even though it isn't being mentioned much in the mass media, the *strategic value* of that rail line is immense. If Canada is to continue laying claim to vast Arctic areas, maintaining a presence, let alone having the ability to quickly deploy north is essential. That's certainly not the Far North, but an excellent way to trans-ship to getting there with a very deep port and becoming an all-year ice-free route further north.

It would be insane to not maintain that link, as many other nations do to protect what they have. Trudeau's comments are interesting:
[...]
"Omnitrax has legal obligations to clean up and repair the tracks," Trudeau told a news conference at Winnipeg's Assiniboine Park Saturday morning. "This is a responsibility that is squarely on the shoulders of Omnitrax."

But the prime minister wouldn't say whether he planned to pursue legal action against the company.
[...]

That statement is a set-up for Omni-Trax to walk-away and leave the keys, and whoever assumes the line gets it for the cost of the repairs. That would have to be legally formalized, doubtless, but a likely scenario, and best for all.

Has the private owner started the abandonment process via the legislation?

They can't by contract, and even outside of the contract, the CTA and perhaps other bodies can still deny the application on other grounds. In lieu of not having legal reference handy, best I quote this:

[...]
A statement by a spokesperson for federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau on Wednesday pointed the responsibility for the line directly back at Omnitrax, saying it had an obligation due to funding agreements going back to 2008.

"Under the 2008 agreement, Omnitrax cannot significantly reduce, discontinue, abandon the Bay Line or other Fixed Assets," the statement said.

"While business decisions related to operations and maintenance of these assets fall under Omnitrax's discretion, the company is bound by the terms and conditions set out under both agreements with the Government of Canada."

The federal government provided Omnitrax with $20 million (over five years) and a further commitment of $4.1 million for the Port of Churchill to "ensure that the port remains in adequate operating condition."

Manitoba has also contributed millions in subsidies to Omnitrax and is in a legal battle for non-payment for the company's losses.
[...]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...trax-federal-government-port-repair-1.4213338

 

[Allandale25]

They can't by contract, and even outside of the contract, the CTA and perhaps other bodies can still deny the application on other grounds. In lieu of not having legal reference handy, best I quote this:

When does the contract expire?

 

[steveintoronto]

When does the contract expire?

It's an excellent question, but consider two points:
1) The Feds wouldn't be taking such a strident stance if the contract was about to expire soon
2) Not fulfilling the terms of the contract would most likely result in forfeiture of the property.

There's also other federal law that could pertain to the pending crisis in Churchill. I won't even begin to try and define that until I've had a chance to research it. It might even come under the Emergencies Act although there must be something short of using that sledgehammer.

I suspect what you're now hearing (belatedly) from the Feds is a PR campaign to coerce Omnitrax to walk away and leave the keys.

 

[crs1026]

Contract? Omnitrax bought the line, and the Port of Churchill, for $1 plus a commitment of government investment. I'm sure Omnitrax is ragging the puck to see how much money the government will pay to buy it back.

It's certainly a dire situation for the town. I'm just not sure it's far enough north to actually have that strategic value. Surely something would be happening up there already if it were?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/omnixtrax-freight-slowdown-1.3697483

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/abondoned-churchill/

- Paul

 

[muller877]

It would be fascinating if the Feds did force them to fix it. Can anyone think of examples where this has happened? I assume they have the power to do it under the Canadian Transportation Act?

The gov't is getting quite heavy handed with the enforcement of regulation. I expect that a few of them will go to court in the next year or two.

The other large one is at the CRTC. They are planning to stop giving a subsidy to remote areas for telephone but expect that the telephone companies to lose $40-$60 per month per user to continue to service it. And if someone else wants a line they have to install it for the same loss.

Can they force a company to provide service (rail or telephone) even if you are losing money? It's a disproportionate expropriation of wealth without compensation. Will be an interesting legal case.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Liberals set up fast-track system for infrastructure bank approvals

My fingers are crossed for VIA HFR

 

[jys]

I'm just not sure it's far enough north to actually have that strategic value.

- Paul

Maybe we could put a couple of coast guard icebreakers, the Harry DeWolfe class OPVs and a few arctic capable subs up there? With the Northwest Passage becoming a reality, some capabilities up there would certainly do no harm. Churchill would be a great supply point and maintenance depot for those ships.

 

[crs1026]

Maybe we could put a couple of coast guard icebreakers, the Harry DeWolfe class OPVs and a few arctic capable subs up there? With the Northwest Passage becoming a reality, some capabilities up there would certainly do no harm. Churchill would be a great supply point and maintenance depot for those ships.

Churchill to Resolute - 2500 kms roughly by water (my inexpert measurement by Google Maps)
Resolute to St John's NL by water - 3750 km's
Tuktoyaktuk to Resolute - 1550 kms

Seems to me Churchill is not really that much better than Newfoundland as a supply base.

- Paul

 

[muller877]

Churchill to Resolute - 2500 kms roughly by water (my inexpert measurement by Google Maps)
Resolute to St John's NL by water - 3750 km's
Tuktoyaktuk to Resolute - 1550 kms

Seems to me Churchill is not really that much better than Newfoundland as a supply base.

- Paul

For goods its not Newfoundland but Halifax. Not many goods are made on the Rock destined for the North.

 

[jys]

Churchill to Resolute - 2500 kms roughly by water (my inexpert measurement by Google Maps)
Resolute to St John's NL by water - 3750 km's
Tuktoyaktuk to Resolute - 1550 kms

Seems to me Churchill is not really that much better than Newfoundland as a supply base.

- Paul

As @muller877 said, the navy has no base in Newfoundland. The closest naval base to the arctic is HMC Dockyard Halifax. What I was thinking is that the navy refurbishes the port of Churchill and turns it into a naval base.

 

[MisterF]

Contract? Omnitrax bought the line, and the Port of Churchill, for $1 plus a commitment of government investment. I'm sure Omnitrax is ragging the puck to see how much money the government will pay to buy it back.

It's certainly a dire situation for the town. I'm just not sure it's far enough north to actually have that strategic value. Surely something would be happening up there already if it were?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/omnixtrax-freight-slowdown-1.3697483

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/abondoned-churchill/

- Paul

In that CBC article there's a link to another article that explores the sovereignty implications of closing the port. Russia has several rail-accessible arctic ports and Norway and the United States have arctic ports that have roads. Churchill is easily the most accessible of Canada's arctic ports and should be maintained for strategic reasons if nothing else. Northern shipping and foreign pressure are only going to get more common as the climate warms.