Search results

Yeah of course. The negative externalities of cars really drops like a rock once its electric. Certainly will have to figure out a new way to fund operations, maintenance and renewal. Plus will always have the demand problem where the incremental user puts way more costs on other road users than...

From the communications strategy point, it helps people be not surprised, and it reminds media that this is a live issue and might come up soon. Plus, I'm sure with the bubble up in french media about HSR before the budget, and then all the Mayors writing for HFR, that this can also be taking...

Yes. Because you might have noticed, there were a lot of $1 billion + things in the budget! $8 billion for the net zero accelerator, $30 billion for childcare. Lots of others. In a normal year, this would likely have occupied enough mindshare and dollar value to be one of the 'top 5'...

*whispers* because they are. I'll add another bit of archania for you. If the JPO found a subsidy was needed, the CIB could not sign off on an investment before the feds signed off on a subsidy. Now the process can flow through Treasury Board (program approval), then the CIB board can approve...

Re complaints there isn’t enough $$ for infrastructure: For stimulus, there isn’t much if any excess capacity in construction. Directing more money there would cause mostly cost inflation, not extra construction. Why? This is a really weird recession. Also: why has such a big group on here...

Gotta read between the lines. And not even very finely. It is $4.4 million to get it to cabinet decision day. And $491.2 million for the subsidy. "for infrastructure investments that would support the overall success of the high frequency rail project" That is the subsidy. Without the subsidy...

But they don't want HFR lost. It will be the vindication of the CIB. They also don't want to announce it on a day when the cities got very little because construction is over heated in the economy right now. Would provide a bad contrast. Plus needing to explain the net cost basis, etc.

You're thinking too specifically - it isn't that there are bits that impair the business case, it is that the capital cost came in higher than revenues would support. This is the 'non-approval' approval. Full steam ahead! This is wrong. Remember, the CIB investment does not need to be in the...

Here is some interesting context on requiring CN and CP to do climate reporting: https://thelogic.co/news/canadas-railroads-endorse-climate-proposals-in-rare-support-for-shareholder-activism/ From when they were first proposed...

Right now the plan should be: we will evaluate new applications of renewable and zero emissions technology to the sector as they emerge, and ensure VIA's operations are net zero by or before 2050. Or what would likely be called no plan by you. It would be irresponsible to have a detailed...

^ Kicking the can 5 years down the road is totally viable. CN and CPR will have tested hydrogen enough to be able to run modeling. Batteries + catenary will also have more experience, as will the dedicated electric freight corridors in India. Lots of pieces moving at the same time. Almost no...

The carbon tax is effectively doing that. Even if it doesn't make road pricing advocates happy. Reality is every path is technology dependent, involves choices with long lived capital stock and large hurdle prices. We don't need government dictating our choices if the carbon price is high enough.

VIA is a small fish in the North American pond - it isn't a real concern, the rest of the industry will move on, and VIA will purchase near off the shelf solutions. Easy to think of VIA like the TTC, having to think of much of a technology framework for a bespoke product. But instead VIA is in a...

Plus, the third wave is going collapse even faster than past ones, as vaccines keep marching. It is going to happen so fast that it will feel like whiplash. The result is companies that foresee this will look like they are moving too early now, and those that don't will look like laggards by June.

While the first is true of course, you're missing that low fares would induce a boat load of demand, so you're spreading that higher capital and operational cost among way more users. Anyways, I think this group has way too much Kremlinology on the brain. In the end, if a subsidy is needed...

This belays a fundamental misunderstanding of HSR businesses cases. Sure, there is a revenue maximization point with high fares, but there is also a revenue maximization point at low fares, and a lot of the time the revenue maximization point with low fares is higher than the point with high fares.

But it could be less public money as subsidy even with spending more. We don't know. In Alberta it would be less. With the geology of Ontario - I doubt it would be less. But you can also see the case: maybe you up your subsidy from $2 billion to $4 billion, but that ups spending from $6 billion...

It is possible. The JPO should have at least costed that as well as a screen.

The party does not equal the government. Think of this as an expression of the party to spend money on rail.

Yeah, freight is pushing capacity.