News   Nov 26, 2024
United BLDG Gets Height Bump While Rising Behind Heritage Walls
 420     0 
News   Nov 26, 2024
UrbanToronto at The Buildings Show: The Challenges of Supertalls
 548     0 
News   Nov 26, 2024
Three Towers Up to 44 Storeys Proposed Near Bloor and Hwy 427
 1K     0 

VIA Rail

I am guessing that there will be governance differences which a P3 proponent might expect of their HFR partner but that Ottawa isn't willing to grant the non-corridor side of VIA.

For instance, a different level of authority to borrow or commit money or make binding decisions.... or operate on a truer profit and loss basis.

It continues to feel like the two mean sisters aren't letting Cinderella go to the ball, in the sense that VIA has never been given a proper legislated legitimacy, and remains in the class of Crown Corporations that don't have much actual independence. Despite all the nice words about being a subsidiary, the HFR Board and CEO will have a lot more power and make much bigger decisions than the "old" VIA executive office.

- Paul
 
If I’m reading the various articles right, the point at which serious money starts flowing is over 4 years in the future, correct?

There’s a 2-month RFQ phase, followed by a 9-month RFP phase, followed by a 3.5-year co-production phase (I assume this means shared design etc.) and only then will a decision be made on proceeding. Plenty of opportunity for this to be stalled or quashed.
 
allengeorge said:
www.theglobeandmail.com

Robert Prichard appointed chair of new board to lead Quebec City-to-Toronto high-frequency rail project

Pace of planning activity has picked up in recent months on rail megaproject that would build dedicated passenger lines between Quebec City and Toronto
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...

Hmmm, an under-achieving former president of the University of Toronto, and later an under-achieving, overtly political, rather mealy-mouthed CEO, and later chair of Metrolinx; yes the CV seems to fit. Sigh.

(also currently the chair of BMO as far as I recall)
 
allengeorge said:
Separately, it’s really unclear why a separate entity had to be made for corridor purposes and handling the contract. I totally understand why Cynthia Garneau resigned earlier this year if this was the plan they were putting together.
Click to expand...

The HFR proponents might want a different mix of people on the Board than Ottawa would want running the non-corridor operation. For that matter, Ottawa might want a different skill set…..Different marketing expertise, different operational expertise, engineering construction and project management focus. And a different bottom line and financial paradigm.

Getting top people with credibility especially on Bay Street might dictate giving them a higher profile …. movers and shakers might not want to be associated with running subsidiaries….. or non-corridor public services that aren’t expanding business opportunities.

CEO contracts usually have language around “change of control” scenarios….. usually there are specific rights and even severance entitlements for senior people when the ownership of a corporation changes ( imagine waking up and finding that Elon Musk just bought your company, for instance…. the CEO job may no longer be what you signed on for….). So while it may be disappointing for Garneau to find her job has changed, I presume she had a good lawyer and left on terms she was comfortable with.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
The HFR proponents might want a different mix of people on the Board than Ottawa would want running the non-corridor operation. For that matter, Ottawa might want a different skill set…..Different marketing expertise, different operational expertise, engineering construction and project management focus. And a different bottom line and financial paradigm.

Getting top people with credibility especially on Bay Street might dictate giving them a higher profile …. movers and shakers might not want to be associated with running subsidiaries….. or non-corridor public services that aren’t expanding business opportunities.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, then it would be nice if it a case were made for it. None has been made so far.
Northern Light said:
Hmmm, an under-achieving former president of the University of Toronto, and later an under-achieving, overtly political, rather mealy-mouthed CEO, and later chair of Metrolinx; yes the CV seems to fit. Sigh.

(also currently the chair of BMO as far as I recall)
Click to expand...
Reading between the lines, he seems to have been picked for his political connections and his ability to toe the line as opposed to competence (another reason I question the rationale for the HFR split)
 
Last edited:
allengeorge said:
Reading between the lines, he seems to have been picked for his political connections and his ability to toe the line as opposed to competence (another reason I am question the rationale for the HFR split)
Click to expand...

All true, but at least he is a known commodity on Bay Street and in the railroad community., as well as the engineering and construction business. And Metrolinx is a landlord railroad for HFR.

His tenure at Metrolinx happened before the ML culture tipped towards PR and accountability evasion. I’m hoping he remembers how to get a few things done.

Not a perfect choice, but better than plenty of well connected Liberals who might have made the short list.

- Paul
 
I think there's overanalysis here. The whole Liberal plan of mobilizing private sector capital with the CIB has become an embarrassing failure. So now we get this bizarre attempt at privatization where the LPC pretends again to be friends with the private sector, in the hopes of mobilizing capital. I think somewhere deep in the bowls of Transport Canada and PMO, they are somehow hoping that this whole exercise will deliver something exceptional. Like the private sector delivering HSR for half the price. They are going to be disappointed when the bids come in.

No wonder Cynthia Garneau quit. I would have done the same in her shoes. There's no real benefit at all to breaking up VIA like this. If it's just for HFR, they could just start up a major capital project and deliver it to VIA. This is a convoluted face saving political exercise. And a half hearted one, that might not even survive the next election.
 
It seems as though they came up with this path before the Ottawa LRT and Eglinton Crosstown chickens really came home to roost, and are now sticking with it because they are afraid of the work it would take to do anything else.
 
Does anyone have a reason why they are only targeting speeds of 200km per hour instead of 300km per hour? Is it just $$ ??
 
kEiThZ said:
If it's just for HFR, they could just start up a major capital project and deliver it to VIA.
Click to expand...
The issue with this is there are very few consortiums that want to and would bid on just a capital project and then hand it over. They all want to be in the service business. Thats where the real money lies, and a consistent yearly stream of it.
 
thefreak said:
Does anyone have a reason why they are only targeting speeds of 200km per hour instead of 300km per hour? Is it just $$ ??
Click to expand...

Yes. Not only do things get exponentially more expensive from the 200km/h to 300km/h range, but especially for this route using the old Havelock Sub. There are many sharp turns that are there to get around the rocky Canadian Shield of the area. Those curves exist for a reason: that going straight through would require significant blasting away of the rock, at significant cost.

The transportation minister was quoted that he is asking those bidding on the project to show plans for 300km/h. I suspect the outcome of that will be that it will be extremely expensive, or so expensive to straighten the Havlock sub, that you would be better off buying farmland along a new corridor to the south of the Havlock line and to the North of the existing corridor. If it would cost 40 billion to engineer the Havlock line to 300kmh but only 20 billion to purchase land for a new route, why would you do the former?
 
robmausser said:
The issue with this is there are very few consortiums that want to and would bid on just a capital project and then hand it over. They all want to be in the service business. Thats where the real money lies, and a consistent yearly stream of it.
Click to expand...

Sure. But DBOT doesn't actually require splitting up VIA. That's just political shenanigans. They can just as easily stand up a project office and make VIA the owner with the winning consortium responsible for development and operations.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top