VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

My fingers are crossed for VIA HFR

Excellent 'heads-up'. I tend to agree, not by what is stated, but what isn't. Here's what is: (some of this wording is interesting, note "outside experts")

[...]The Liberals have also hired outside experts to review the business case for the 67-kilometre, electric-rail transit project in Montreal, known by its French acronym REM.

"The advisory group reviewed a number of projects to see if private capital investment would be possible. Among these was the REM project in Montreal," Simpson said.

"The due diligence that the advisory group did on this project will be transferred to the bank once it is operational and the bank will then decide if an investment is appropriate in place of traditional grant funding."

In June, the Liberals pledged $1.28 billion towards construction of the $6 billion project overseen by the provincial pension program, the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec.[...]

"Outside experts"...could well be euphemism, or even a clever ploy, to say, in effect, "no"...and since it was 'outsiders' who decided that, then the buck stops on someone else's say. REM puts the Feds in a difficult position, won't go into that, for those who've been following it, you know what I mean.

And it then follows that saying "no" (there will have to be some kind of consolation prize for the sake of diplomacy with PQ Incorporated) it makes it easier to say "yes" to HFR. That's a gross simplification, so let me put it this way: You don't start off with the best. You need something more crude to cut your teeth on, and REM is that.

Frankly, I think the story has been 'chaperoned' for release to the Cdn Press/CTV. Watch for some other reports on this in other newspapers in the next few days with some more in-depth analysis. What's most notable is the eagerness of the Libs to get this on the road. The Cons are just throwing sour grapes, and in a way they don't even realize. The Feds are going to need the InfraBank up and running to be able to further 'chaperone' foreign investment so the same Cons and Dippers aren't complaining about how foreign investment is flowing in 'of its own accord'. I'm waiting for the backlash on "The Yellow Peril" to start soon, and the Cons will be the instigators. The money is there, massive amounts. And they're not coming to dinner, they're bringing it. And what if Chinese money wants to buy the Churchill Railway? The "National Defence" card will be played PDQ.

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.

It's a contract. And even if it wasn't, you can't discontinue service without an application and permission from the CTA.

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

I think you'd best look at the map again, and look for "Northwest Passage".

For goods its not Newfoundland but Halifax.

And Halifax has a rail line, which for heavy equipment being moved, other than emergency loads via C17, is necessary. Military or otherwise. Churchill has a rail line, and it's a heck of a lot closer to the vulnerable north and vastly more in-land protected than Halifax is.

One should ask: Why are interceptors based in more northern airfields? (The threat is from over the Pole, not across the oceans.)

But then there's the indirect threat of loss of sovereignty and Canada needs a naval/coast-guard presence at both Churchill and Tuktoyaktuk, as well as far north refuelling depots.

[...]The contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region: the Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters,[10] but the United States and various European countries maintain they are an international strait and transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage.[11][12] If, as has been claimed, parts of the eastern end of the Passage are barely 15 metres (49 ft) deep,[13] the route's viability as a Euro-Asian shipping route is reduced. However, a Chinese shipping line is planning regular voyages of cargo ships using the passage to the eastern United States and Europe, after a successful passage by Nordic Orion of 73,500 tonnes deadweight tonnage in September 2013. Fully loaded, Nordic Orion was too large to sail through the Panama Canal.[14] [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#cite_note-14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

 

[jys]

Excellent video on this topic by Wendover Productions.

 

[crs1026]

For those who care, the RDC's that got away from VIA in a recent auction are passing through Toronto today, en route to Vermont. One of them (fourth from the front) is the former CP 9110, the unit that led the last CP passenger train on this line in July 1971.

I won't speak ill of the new startup in Vermont, but if it doesn't find its feet..... I sure hope VIA would take a second run at acquiring these units.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

Easier said than done. Setting up the infrastructure for a naval station is not as simple as simply parking a few ships up there. Basing them there means there has a be a supply line there. That's not going to be cheap.

And since it doesn't mean we're splitting the fleet, that means several bases running supply lines for the same fleet, resulting in duplicated efforts. All this for Churchill? A place that's largely irrelevant to the Northwest Passage?

And all that is aside from the fact that you're going to have pay people a ton more to get posted up there and probably going to have massive personnel attrition issues if it becomes a regular base. Would you want a 5 year posting in Churchill? What about with a spouse and kids? Is the government going to start building schools up there and providing an extra $3k per month for the job the spouse just lost? The Navy already has quality of life issues. Making an Arctic base a permanent base would compound them.

Indeed, the government has realized how ridiculous it was to suggest that they'd base personnel at the Arctic bases. And has now downgraded them to oversized Forward Operating Bases with skeleton crews to keep them running. The AOPS will all be based in Victoria and Halifax. Like all of the Navy's other major vessels.

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.

The Navy doesn't have bases everywhere, but they do use certain ports a lot more frequently than others. And St. John's is one of them. Fuel, spares and foodstuffs are usually the big items needed. And you can only find all that at ports with generally a shipbuilding tradition.

And asking the Navy to refurbish a port is a definite non-starter. Especially after asking the Navy to pay 3x the price just to get the ship built in Canada. Unless the government is going to start raining down money on the military, it's not going to be building more infrastructure. If anything, the push is towards fewer and larger bases to benefit from economy of scale.

Addendum: The Navy and the Air Force have been looking at climate change models and what that will do to a ice floes for over a decade, with strategic considerations in mind (particularly the claim by the US that the NW passage does not constitute an internal waterway). Nanisivik and Resolute Bay weren't picked by accident. I'll just say that.

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

I believe they can. As long as they have a some way to make up the difference. Allow charges elsewhere, etc. Or could be made conditional for the operating license of the infrastructure.

Liberals set up fast-track system for infrastructure bank approvals

My fingers are crossed for VIA HFR

Not much in the way of new info. Except for the apparent fact that the government is not running analysis outside their own investment bank! Hopefully that was a one-off for REM because they saw it as an easy way to jump on a project and earn a quick win for the CIB.

I am not holding my breath for HFR. It has no where near the level of fidelity in its proposal as REM. So lots of work will have to be done. I am now convinced that we'll be lucky if the actually approve an EA this year. I wouldn't expect shovels in the ground before the next federal election. I am also worried that HFR efforts might get diverted to roll on the Southwestern Ontario High Speed Rail Line. To save the Ontario Liberals hides.

 

[steveintoronto]

And all that is aside from the fact that you're going to have pay people a ton more to get posted up there and probably going to have massive personnel attrition issues if it becomes a regular base. Would you want a 5 year posting in Churchill? What about with a spouse and kids? Is the government going to start building schools up there and providing an extra $3k per month for the job the spouse just lost? The Navy already has quality of life issues. Making an Arctic base a permanent base would compound them.

You mean like other nations do to protect what they consider to be theirs?

You're right, this nation has neither the backbone, or the awareness to protect the North. Perhaps we could hire some Finns, Norwegians or Swedes to do it for us? Perhaps not, it might cost money, and besides, Cdns might get their feet wet and cold.

I know! Let's give the Inuit Lee-Enfields and fancy Ranger outfits! Yessirree! The Chinese and Russians, let alone the Americans, will just turn and run.

Is the hockey game on TV?

 

[crs1026]

It's not that anyone is not interested in upping Canada's presence or assertion of sovereignty over its Arctic regions.

It's that Churchill is a lousy place to do that from. Anything that you need to supply from Churchill, you can supply better by boat from the Maritimes, or by road from Tuktoyaktuk. You aren't going to send a ship 2500 kms south to Churchill to refuel.

The Northern presence is an imperative for the country, but offering Churchill in that context is just inventing a phony raison d'etre for Churchill. And not a very productive or affordable one at that.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

The Northern presence is an imperative for the country, but offering Churchill in that context is just inventing a phony raison d'etre for Churchill. And not a very productive or affordable one at that.

Mmmm...tell that to the Russians: (just to name a few who depend on rail to feed their northern ports)

Putin instructs Government to speed up Arctic development
The President says he wants to work with foreigners to implement projects in Russia’s Arctic economic program.
By
Thomas Nilsen

March 30, 2017
[...]
Higher economic growth in north
Norway’s Foreign Minister Børge Brende, visiting Russia for the first time in three years, said in his speech at the opening of the conference that Norway eyes huge potentials for economic developments in the high north.

«Norway today has a higher economic growth north of the Arctic Circle than below. Also the unemployment rate is lower in the north,» Brende said.

For Putin, the Arctic shelf exploration, Northern Sea Route and infrastructure projects are important. The president in particular asked to included new approaches to develop state-private partnership in the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects.

In Arkhangelsk, the delegation of China’s Vice-Prime minister Wang Yang has already highlighted two projects ready to be invested into; the new deepwater port by the White Sea and the Belkomur railway, linking the port with the Komi Republic and the Urals.

When meeting Putin on Tursday, Finland’s President, Sauli Niinistö is expected to discuss a Finnish initiative to link Europe and Asia with a new Arctic fiber cable. From Northern Finland, via Norway’s Barents Sea port of Kirkenes, along the entire Northern Sea Route to countries in Eastern Asia. Such fiber-optic cable could be bi-linked to different Russian Arctic cities and projects on the shelf or in Siberia.[...]

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2017/03/putin-instructs-government-speed-arctic-development
The Churchill rail line is and will remain an extremely important strategic lifeline to the north.

The Alaska Railroad, State owned:

[...]
Strategic military deployments to the JPARC are conducted by land, sea, and air.
Over land this can be accomplished along remote expanses of the Alaska Highway
system or via the Alaska Railroad, which connects the towns and ports in Valdez,
Seward, Whittier, and Anchorage to Fairbanks and Eielson Air Force Base. However,
the most efficient means to move heavy equipment to and from the JPARC is by
7maritime assets into one of Southcentral Alaska’s four deepwater ports, which possess
rail interconnectivity.
Strategically essential to the JPARC and all of Alaska's armed forces is the Port
of Anchorage. It provides deployment and staging areas, critical fuel, and throughput
for both consumer and business materials. The port has a long and successful history
of supporting military deployments from its docks. The port successfully supported over
20 military deployments, including multiple brigade-size deployments to Iraq and
Afghanistan from 2005 to 2010. Approximately 20,000 items of military-related
equipment passed through the port's facilities during this critical time period.
The Port of Anchorage was designated a Department of Defense Nationally
Strategic Seaport in 2006. The port is one of only 19 ports throughout the U.S. with this
“strategic” distinction.
[...]
This capability allows the military to deploy directly from JBER to the port
without having to tie up public roadways in the most heavily trafficked city in Alaska,
thus significantly increasing safety and operating efficiencies. The Anchorage port
facilities are connected by rail to four of Alaska's major military installations 12 months
out of the year. These rail line connections can support deployments from both JBER
8and Fort Wainwright by transporting all military cargo directly onto the port’s secure
property.
[...]

handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA560878

 

[steveintoronto]

Nanisivik and Resolute Bay weren't picked by accident. I'll just say that.

They're not ports, they're re-fueling depots. And further away from the Northwest Passage than Churchill is.

Here's a reality check:

Resolute Bay: A Chilly Response in Ottawa
Canadian Armed Forces, Paul Pryce March 1, 2016March 1, 2016 Paul Pryce
[...]
However, there is reason to be cautious before getting ones hopes up. In June 2010, CAF proposed the construction of an airbase in Resolute Bay, including a three-kilometre paved runway, hangars, and other infrastructure. This would be accomplished with the aim to improve search and rescue capabilities in the Arctic, as well as providing a base for strategic refueling aircraft, namely the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Airbus CC-150 Polaris. Yet to this day, the Resolute Bay airport has only a gravel runway less than two kilometres long, unsuitable for most RCAF aircraft.

Hesitation to pursue the construction of large-scale military facilities in Canada’s Arctic stems from the challenges inherent in building any infrastructure in the region. The delays and cost increases encountered by the Nanisivik Naval Facility are an example of this. In 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced plans to convert abandoned mining facilities on the northern coast of Baffin Island into a deepwater port and refueling station for the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard at a cost of just over $60 million. By 2014, the estimated cost had increased to almost $260 million. Although the port was originally expected to be operational by 2016, construction work did not actually begin until summer 2015 and completion has been postponed until 2018.

Nanisivik demonstrates that Arctic development is not for the faint of heart. The nearly impenetrable bedrock in some areas, or the deep clay located beneath the wharf in Nanisivik, coupled with the shorter construction season makes Nunavut a challenging place in which to build. As such, any federal government interested in preserving Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic must be willing to absorb cost overruns on any major infrastructure project. It is difficult to say whether the new government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will be willing to do so. Although Hunter Tootoo, the new Member of Parliament for Nunavut and federal Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, argued during the 2015 general election that Nunavut is in desperate need of infrastructure, the only project announced thus far has been the Iqaluit deepwater port, originally promised in August 2015 by then Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq.

If history is any indication, it may be quite some time before the CAF ATC in Resolute sees an expansion. Until then, CAF will make do with existing facilities, though this will cost many eager Canadian soldiers the opportunity to learn how to operate successfully in Canada’s far north.

Photo courtesy of MCpl Louis Brunet (Canadian Army Public Affairs).

About Paul Pryce
Paul Pryce is a Research Analyst at the NATO Association of Canada, supporting the work of the Canadian Armed Forces Program. Holding degrees from the University of Calgary and Tallinn University, he has previously worked in conflict resolution as a diplomatic aide with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and as an infantryman in the Canadian Armed Forces. His research interests are diverse and include maritime security, the African Peace and Security Architecture, and NATO-Russia relations. View all posts by Paul Pryce →

http://natoassociation.ca/resolute-bay-a-chilly-response-in-ottawa/

Nanisivik:
[The design was later downgraded to a refueling station. The base will now consist of storage tanks for fueling the new Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessels, a site office and a wharf's operator shelter. The main purpose of the base will be to allow the new class to patrol the breadth of Canada's arctic areas during the four month summer season.[10][11] The facility will have two 3.75 million-litre fuel tanks connected directly to the jetty by a pipeline. The base will also have unheated storage facility.[12]]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanisivik_Naval_Facility

Churchill is a functioning, all-weather, deep ocean port. With a fully functioning, save for the washouts, rail line. If it was moving millions of tons of wheat, it can move military equipment.

But the real question is when is the hockey game on...?

 

[Allandale25]

Latest on the Omnitrax-Fed battle: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/omnitrax-contract-ottawa-1.4230972

But Omnitrax argues recent events amount to a force majeure — a legal term referring to unforeseeable circumstances that excuse a party from fulfilling a contract — and it is unable to fulfill its contract with the federal government.

 

[steveintoronto]

Latest on the Omnitrax-Fed battle: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/omnitrax-contract-ottawa-1.4230972

Excellent 'heads-up'. I was waiting for that one. *Usually* (I can't find what was signed or even the terms that were signed to in an internet search, I'll keep looking) a contract of this type, and the various Railway/Transport Acts disallow that. I still highly suspect that there's a 'shepherding' by the Feds to get Omnitrax to turn in the keys and walk away. Is OmniTrax liable, even if they are running at a loss? I say almost inevitably (albeit blindly w/o seeing the contract) but like MM&A, what the courts rule and what value there is in the company (that resides in Canada) becomes a game of 'getting what's owed'. Haven't read the link yet, but already, the Feds *appear* to be on top of this...I'm off to buy some popcorn. (Something to keep in mind is how other potential foreign investors will be looking at this: "Could that happen to us?". Libs got to play this very carefully...)

Edit to Add:
lol...

[...]
The contract that came with the money, obtained through freedom-of-information laws, stated Omnitrax had to assume full responsibility for the operation, maintenance and repair of the rail line until October 2018.

If the company discontinues or abandons the rail line or port, Ottawa is entitled to have the funding returned, according to the contract.
[...]
Omnitrax also received subsidies from Ottawa following the end of the Canadian Wheat Board in 2012 and the provincial government has given millions in funding to the company, including $820,000 in payments under a 2015 agreement.
[...]
Omnitrax has said it won't pay to repair the tracks and asked the federal and provincial governments for help. It estimates the cost of the repairs at $20 million to $60 million.[...]

[...Manitoba's paltry hand-off to the Feds follows...completely overlooking it's a Manitoba regulated short-line. That's going to cause problems for Manitoba, but the Feds do have the power to assume that railroad and/or jurisdiction under a number of Acts, not least because it's connected to a Class 1 railway]

"FOI"...that's why I couldn't find anything about the 'contract'. It might be redacted when and if it is released. CBC are also pursuing this. If OmniTrax have other properties in Canada, they'd best start putting them at arm's length. The Feds will come after them for restitution. But it's unwise for me to guess a court outcome, the CTA one is much more predictable, and not for OmniTrax.

Most likely some damages will be deducted for the change of the Wheat Board status, but OmniTrax had best "take the train".

Note: ["The future of the railway is inextricably tied to the port, and ports and railways are federally regulated assets."]
Manitoba is playing two faces on this:

[...]The Hudson Bay Railway (HBR) needs an even playing field. Like most short lines railways, the HBR cannot act independently, having to rely on mainline railways to use the government-owned grain rail car fleet. Grain rail rates for cars originating off the HBR are set by mainline railways.
[...]
http://www.hbra.ca/

Look for "Canadian National Railways" to be born out of this. Oh, damn, been used...OK: "Canadian Urban, National and Arctic Railway Development"...The CUNARD Line....ummm...

Hudson Bay Railway (reporting mark HBRY) is a Canadian short line railway operating over 1,300 kilometres (810 mi) of track in northeastern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba.

HBRY was formed by railroad holding company OmniTRAX in July 1997 to purchase former Canadian National Railway (CN) rail lines running north from The Pas, MB on two branches, one to Flin Flon, MB and on to Lynn Lake, MB, the other to Thompson, MB and on to the Port of Churchill on Hudson Bay. Operations began on August 20, 1997.

At the same time, OmniTRAX also took over the operation and marketing of the Port of Churchill from Transport Canada. Previous owner CN had limited the allowable tonnage to operate on the lines as a result of the light rail and poor track base. However, the HBRY has been able to successfully operate heavier rail cars and longer trains in recent years without difficulty, resulting in increased business to the Port of Churchill and from various mines and pulp mills.

HBRY is considered a vital transportation link in northern Manitoba, hauling ores and concentrates, copper, zinc, logs, kraft paper, lumber, and petroleum products. Via Rail Canada also uses HBRY tracks to operate its passenger train service between The Pas and Churchill.

Major customers for HBRY include HudBay Minerals, Tolko, Vale, Gardwine North, Stittco Energy, Farmers of North America, and formerly, the Canadian Wheat Board.
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Bay_Railway_(1997)

Note:
[the HBRY has been able to successfully operate heavier rail cars and longer trains in recent years without difficulty]

 

[ssiguy2]

Liberals set up fast-track system for infrastructure bank approvals

My fingers are crossed for VIA HFR

I'm glad to know your fingers are crossed because no one from London or Windsor are crossing theirs. Right now to get to Toronto via VIA is like taking the slow boat to China and now all they have to look forward to is more slow boats. Seriously, 70km/hr from London to Toronto for a 2.5 hour trip is pretty blistering.

 

[steveintoronto]

Here's more about 'the contract':

Dylan Robertson
Winnipeg Free Press
Posted: 08/1/2017 6:30 PM | Comments:

OTTAWA — Omnitrax is refusing to explain what grounds it has to turn its back on a 2008 contract that provided millions of taxpayer dollars in exchange for keeping its rail line running to Churchill.

On Monday, the company said it no longer felt an obligation to follow the agreement because of the May 23 flooding that damaged the line, as well as government changes to how the town’s port is used.


Omnitrax Handout

Omnitrax has a contractual obligation to keep the rail line running under a 2008 agreement that saw the feds and Manitoba each contribute $20 million for repairs along the line, but the American company said repairing the damaged line is not economically viable following flooding (above) in May.

Two weeks ago, the company said it wouldn’t pay to repair the line because it was "not economically viable." Since then, Ottawa has insisted Omnitrax has a contractual obligation to keep the rail line running under a 2008 agreement that saw the feds and Manitoba each contribute $20 million for repairs along the line.

The Free Press has obtained the 43-page contract, as well as prior agreements dating back to Omnitrax’s 1997 takeover. When asked Tuesday to specify which line in any contract allows Omnitrax to reneg on its duty to keep the line running, the company responded 20 minutes later and refused to explain.

"Omnitrax is not in a position to provide comment beyond the statement offered on this issue yesterday," wrote a spokeswoman with Toronto public-relations firm Edelman, which is handling Omnitrax’s media requests.

The 2008 agreement says Omnitrax has "full responsibility for the operation, maintenance and repair" of the rail line through to 2018, and that Canada can seek reimbursement (though only 10 per cent by 2017) if the company chooses to "reduce, discontinue or substantially abandon" either the rail line or port.

On June 9, the company declared a force majeure, a contract term for when an unforeseen event such as a natural disaster or a war absolves a company of its responsibilities, but the Free Press has learned the 2008 agreement has no such clause.

A force majeure clause exists in the 2012 terms for a three-year fund to keep Churchill’s port running, but not in the 2008 funding agreement for the railway, nor the 1997 contract that transferred the port to Omnitrax.

Elden Boon, head of the Hudson Bay Route Association, said Omnitrax’s refusal to explain its contractual obligations fits a pattern of asking for public money without answering the pubilc’s questions.

"I find it unbecoming that an American company in our country here is operating the way they are," said Boon, whose group advocates for increasing traffic along the line.

Since the rail line flooded — some 10 weeks ago as of Wednesday — the group has met with provincial ministers and corporations, asked an expert about examining the rail bed and corresponded with Ottawa. Boon said Omnitrax seems to be the only stakeholder he can’t reach.

"It’s just a real frustrating thing. It's clear that Omnitrax doesn't want to be involved in running this railway anymore," he said.

Asked to respond to that criticism, Omnitrax claimed it’s busy getting the rail line back in service.

"We’re focused on what is most important to the people of Churchill at the moment: working with government to return safe and reliable service," their spokeswoman said.

dylan.robertson@freepress.mb.ca

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/l...-grounds-for-breaking-contract-437972083.html

 

[Urban Sky]

I'm glad to know your fingers are crossed because no one from London or Windsor are crossing theirs.

I'm glad for you to know that the economic case for HSR Toronto-Windsor is so compelling (especially beyond London) and that the construction costs are such a bargain (especially when compared to HFR)...

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/pdfs/preliminary-business-case-hsr.pdf (pp.8+13)

 

[cplchanb]

I'm glad for you to know that the economic case for HSR Toronto-Windsor is so compelling (especially beyond London) and that the construction costs are such a bargain (especially when compared to HFR)...
View attachment 116881

View attachment 116883
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/pdfs/preliminary-business-case-hsr.pdf (pp.8+13)

Can someone seriously explain why it costs over DOUBLE just to get 50km/h.?!?! surely the infrastructure for HSR isnt that much different when speeds are already past 250....it would
seem like the report has been shaped to suit a 250km/h recommendation.

on another note, the federal govt should really buy into this as well as this can be a national infrastructure project. Imagine going cross country via HSR.... beijing has the equivalent of the Ocean right now from Beijing to Shanghai....perhaps if theres money and vision they can do that too and incorporate it into Via