I think you
misunderstood me. While we did disagree on semantics, we are just describing many things similarly.
I agree with portions of your post but
we are actually agreeing more than disagreeing!
It could be new federal crown agency/corporation/construct/whatever, something similar to Metrolinx (a crown agency) but a different crown agency specifically created for this Bypass. This has nothing to do with private corporations! (please re-read my post) I stayed vague here
because we don't know how they will ultimately operate the Bypass. What we both probably agree is that neither CP nor CN will operate the Bypass. It will be some other government-owned (definition of "crown") entity of some kind.
I beg, please re-read my post.
I beg to differ. This is a recipe for failure. No investor (of size)
I didn't say any investors. It's government funded.
(unless you're trying to say the government is the investor.)
...is going to go for a piecemeal approach, and that includes the Feds. Do you start building the roads of a subdivision before you know what's to be erected?
You just proved exactly my point.
When it is definitively confirmed what's going to be erected (contract with developer)
the subdivision roads are often built before the houses.
What I said in my earlier points (rephrased) is that the Bypass will likely need both CN/CP commitments(contracts) to share the corridor, before it gets built. The Feds can force that, as you exactly said.
You miss one of the most crucial aspects, make that two, on this: The dictatorial fiat of two Acts, where the Feds can step in and make this happen the way they see best fit for the nation, and *financing*.
Yes, agreed, but I never said anything to dispute this.
Precedent. Look at Highway 407. Ontario opened the extension (to Highway 412) before it 407 fully connects to the twinned 115 to Peterborough. Ontario is going to earn money (once the free time ends) on this 407 extension without holding off opening until the 407 extension all the way to 115.
The CN bypass is a subset of the CP bypass; almost perfectly.
Naturally you fund the whole project, get ironclad agreements from CN, CP. Then you build the whole shebang. That's what you said.
But how do you arrange the order of construction? There's a lot less CN work than CP work. You begin work on the shortest possible shared 3-track corridor that gets you to earning government revenue sooner. Naturally, the length chosen means CN may end up going first (by possibly a few years).
Whether CP lets CN goes first, is something we don't know. They may say it's unfair -- and maybe everything stalls. Then we build the whole thing first (metaphorically like building the 407 all the way to Peterborough before opening highway 412). But, who knows, some agreement mechanism might occur (e.g. compensation mechanism to CP that's cheaper than losing the revenue by keeping the Bypass closed longer).
But my point is it is possible to have CN benefit first before CP. The shared CN+CP section that benefits CN is much shorter than the shared CN+CP section that benefits CP. So build the shortest possible shared corridor (no track is CN or CP specific) to get revenue flowing sooner.
This may not be the scenario that happens, but it is one possible one. If you look at how other government entities operate, this is precisely what already happens.
Why would a large org involved in financing back a half-baked scheme?
I've never said that. I am just simply saying in my earlier post (which you need to re-read) that *something* needs to operate the Bypass, and it ain't going to be a CN-operated one and ain't going to be a CP-operated one. That was one of my points of my earlier post. It would not be fair.
So a neutral entity is needed (whether crown corp or crown consortium or whatever) Government chooses (Existing) or creates (New) entity, mechanism, consortium, whatever -- *something* needs to operate the Bypass.
Defacto, you already agree the Bypass can't operate itself unattended. That's my point.
I never said anything about that *something* being the same entity financing AND operating the Bypass. Read my post.
They'd much rather put twice the money into the full scheme than half into each of two competing entities.
No disagreement. Never said anything against this. So?
To do this the way you project is riven with complexities and inefficiences, if not complete conundrums.
Please explain.
Are you suggesting the Bypass operates itself unattended, or be given to CN/CP instead of an independent entity of some kind? (whether be crown corporation or consortium or otherwise, or whatever). If not, then I forgive you if you misinterpreted my post.
How's this for an idea? Two competing street-car systems along the same streets. Different tracks.
That was never my suggestion. That's exactly what my post is advocating against -- we don't want to give the bypass to CN or CP.
It would create the situation you describe (and no guarantee of them going into conproduction by themselves).
So the bypass will probably likely be operated some (new or existing) government entity. In alternate scenarios, maybe a percentage will be given to CN/CP (so both benefit from dividends regardless of what train goes over the shared track) but they may not agree to that.
Whatever pigs-flying scenario happens (of your/my description), ultimately, it is still going to some kind of a government-created entity (what I earlier referred to a crown corporation or consortium -- "crown" means government -- in case you misunderstood).
If you are confused, unrelated examples are like:
St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation -- an entity originally created by government to operate the canal -- any ship is compatible with the canal, is allowed to use the canal (and for bypass, any freight company is allowed on it).
Some entities do get privatized either in full or part (e.g. Hydro One, uggggghhh....), but it's still originally a government created entity. I never said anything about CN/CP later being equal shareholders in the entity that operates the corridor. (Much like how arch-enemies Bell and Rogers bought MLSE and are both shareholders in the same entity)
But whatever entity (choose your favourite or preferred entity scenario), it's going to be a government created entity -- the ownership isn't going straight to CN nor it is going to CP. The feds have to force it, and it falls onto their hands, when they are serious.
Think it through. CN's marshmallow attempt isn't even called a "Link" for good reason. I used the term "link" to search the document to find the apt chapter. Guess what? Zilch hits.
While I think it is indeed the Missing Link
.....No disagreement on this hedge. They are hedging. Exactly as you said.
But they definitely left the door open that this *IS* the Missing Link. And I choose to view it that way. There is enough room to interpret that way -- they just don't want to definitively say Missing Link is what's happening. Yet.
But we are getting sidetracked, when I was trying to explain that
some kind of entity is needed to operate the bypass (The bypass cannot operate itself unattended. And I never said it is the same entity that funds it) and that second point is
the bypass may receive one of the two freight companies first (ie. CN), simply because of completion sequence (Like like the subdivision example you mentioned, roads gets built before houses once the building contract is nailed. And like the 407 example, where extensions are opened before fully extended). That is the two chief points of my earlier post, but you pounced on my semantics/terminology rather than my main points.
You could be right, but you can concede that it's not a 0% possibility that it is. (eventually -- once Trudeau gets serious)
