Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[Second_in_pie]

Several points:

Firstly, why can't it just be an Ontario-Quebec project? The current conservative government is obviously going to do nothing on this issue. Is it so hard for both of the provinces to commit an amount to a project for the better of the two, raise taxes by half a percentage point, and then start the project and put away half the money for some other time when a new federal government comes in and helps half the cost?

Also, a government can't go wrong by appeasing to 2/3 of the country (it mathematically works that way.) But imagine if you also worked on a Calgary-Edmonton HSR, and brought rail improvements to the Maritimes? This is why I think Canada needs some really big plan for growth in the next 50 years. Grow the population so you can have huge improvements on things like HSR which wouldn't be plausible before, along with dozens of other economic and social benefits. Then we might be able to get some Maritime rail, Ontario-Quebec, prairies, Calgary-Edmonton, and BC.

Lastly, I don't see why Canada needs fighter jets and tanks. I definitely agree with a larger peacekeeping role, but I don't see ourselves as a nation that needs to protect our national interests through military as France, the US, UK or Israel do. So what if we were to cut back on those expensive fighter jets and tanks, and instead just focus on helicopters and LAVs? I'm sure that'd free up a lot of money.

Just my 6 cents.

 

[Darwinkgo]

It isn't just the capital cost of these projects, there is the operational subsidy just like the TTC. Considering there is no subsidy for air travel in the country (beyond there being no carbon tax), there is a strong argument to be made that any HSR project should be revenue neutral too. Just because HSR is cool doesn't mean it deserves government subsidy more than any other mode.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Then put a carbon tax on the airlines and see how revenue-neutral they are. And it's not like VIA is currently anywhere near revenue-neutral (or that HSR would make the corridor any less efficient in terms of economics.)

 

[leopetr]

Considering there is no subsidy for air travel in the country (beyond there being no carbon tax), there is a strong argument to be made that any HSR project should be revenue neutral too.

A surprising amount of public money goes towards airport infrastructure.

For example: http://www.gtaa.com/en/gtaa_corporate/pickering_project/

 

[Darwinkgo]

A surprising amount of public money goes towards airport infrastructure.

For example: http://www.gtaa.com/en/gtaa_corporate/pickering_project/

And if GTAA builds that airport it will pay a lease to the federal government like most large airports do. Not a cent goes to expand terminals, build runways, etc at large passenger airports.

 

[Mapleson]

The GTAA is a not-for-profit crown corporation. It can raise it's own public finances. Before we privatized CN/CP railroads were profitable. After we privatized CN/CP, they went to cut passenger service because it's not profitable. Give railroad passenger traffic back the freight profits, like the airlines have the freight profits, then you can talk about one receiving unfair public subsidies. Give railroads the ability to raise public funds and watch the construction boom begin.

Until VIA Rail is made into a full crown corporation instead of being an act of the Privy Council, public subsidies will always be required.

 

[nfitz]

The GTAA is a not-for-profit crown corporation. It can raise it's own public finances. Before we privatized CN/CP railroads were profitable. After we privatized CN/CP, they went to cut passenger service because it's not profitable.

Had CP been privatized, then that might hold water. CP was never privatized.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Had CP been privatized, then that might hold water. CP was never privatized.

It was never public.

 

[Mapleson]

Okay, for the pedantic, VIA Rail was formed in April 1978 with CN passenger cars and locomotives with CP passenger train services changing possession in October 1978. In 1981, Trudeau cut VIA’s budget. In 1989, Mulroney cut VIA’s budget. In 1994, Chrétien cut VIA’s budget. In 2003, Martin cut VIA’s budget.

CN has turned profits every year since 1995 when they were privatized and currently had $511 million net income in Q1 2010. That’s $2 billion this year that could have been invested in rail instead of stockholder’s wallets. I don't really draw a line between CN/CP anymore because they've become essentially matching halves to the Canadian network.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ It's called capitalism at work

I was also going to make a point about taxes and investment in public infrastructure up there, but I thought it would have been less relevant to the discussion.

 

[nfitz]

It was never public.

Precisely, hence it was never privatized. Therefore saying that CP cut passenger rail after it was privatized as a demonstration of the effects of private enterprise is just complete bull.

Okay, for the pedantic

You think not using false examples is pedantic? What's next ... are you going to tell me that not stealing essays in University is pedantic?

VIA Rail was formed in April 1978 with CN passenger cars and locomotives with CP passenger train services changing possession in October 1978. In 1981, Trudeau cut VIA’s budget. In 1989, Mulroney cut VIA’s budget. In 1994, Chrétien cut VIA’s budget. In 2003, Martin cut VIA’s budget.

Sorry, wha't your point here?

CN has turned profits every year since 1995 when they were privatized and currently had $511 million net income in Q1 2010. That’s $2 billion this year that could have been invested in rail instead of stockholder’s wallets. I don't really draw a line between CN/CP anymore because they've become essentially matching halves to the Canadian network.

If you recall, in the 1960s and 1970s, CP was private, and CN was public. CP cut their passenger services much more radically than CN did. By the time VIA took over, there wasn't much CP service left, compared to CN service. This is the complete opposite as what you would expect were your point correct.

Your premise is faulty.

 

[kEiThZ]

The point is, that if we can afford $16-billion for fighter jets every 30 years (it seems like only yesterday there was all the cost for the F18s), not to mention all the other hardware ... tanks, warships, helicopters, ice-breakers, etc.) then we can afford $10-billion for high speed rail. Heck, France can do it, and they spend more on the military than we do!

I'm not sure what set off all the Jingoism here ... I never suggested that they shouldn't be spending the money

That certainly seems like your gripe. Otherwise, why bring it up? Don't backtrack from it.

(though perhaps they should actually tender the thing, instead of sole-sourcing it ... given how corrupt we have seen Conservative ministers are on spending issues lately ...)

Find somebody who makes a plane as capable as the C-17 or the C-130 and the government would gladly hold a competition. Unfortunately, nobody builds something as capable or as up to the standard. Same for the upcoming $10 billion Joint Strike Fighter buy. That was a project agreed to by the Liberal government of the day. Our industry is getting more than $10 billion in contracts in return and we get a fighter that should take the CF to 2050.

Standing policy for defence procurement is to always do whatever takes to ensure a competition unless there is only one compliant bidder.

And by the way, nothing was sole-sourced on the Air Force side. They were all Advance Contract Award Notices (ACANs). With an ACAN, the government announces a preferred bidder. Any other company has 30 days to counter the published bid to launch a competition. That is a competitive process. And it was used by the Liberal governments of the past as well. It's unfortunate that the media plays this up as "sole-source".

And is sole source necessarily bad? Take the recently launched National Shipbuilding policy. The Navy will be sole sourcing all its vessels from two Canadian shipyards. If they had an open competition, you can pretty much guarantee that Canadian shipyards would not win. So would you rather, the government still run competitions even if it costs Canadian jobs?

 

[kEiThZ]

Several points:

Firstly, why can't it just be an Ontario-Quebec project? The current conservative government is obviously going to do nothing on this issue. Is it so hard for both of the provinces to commit an amount to a project for the better of the two, raise taxes by half a percentage point, and then start the project and put away half the money for some other time when a new federal government comes in and helps half the cost?

This is what I have been saying all along. Ontario and Quebec have the resources to get the ball rolling on this. They do not NEED the feds. But if they do start, the feds will come along.

And really for all their talk, the Conservatives are really not all that different from the Liberals on this. They are hesistant because they fear the backlash from the other provinces. Yet, I have no doubt in my mind that they secretly harbour ribbon cutting desires. Just look at the joy that all the stimulus funds brought to Conservative MPs, ministers and candidates everywhere. Anybody who thinks Harper would relish the chance to cut the ribbon on a Toronto-Montreal HSR, doesn't understand politicians.

Also, a government can't go wrong by appeasing to 2/3 of the country (it mathematically works that way.) But imagine if you also worked on a Calgary-Edmonton HSR, and brought rail improvements to the Maritimes? This is why I think Canada needs some really big plan for growth in the next 50 years. Grow the population so you can have huge improvements on things like HSR which wouldn't be plausible before, along with dozens of other economic and social benefits. Then we might be able to get some Maritime rail, Ontario-Quebec, prairies, Calgary-Edmonton, and BC.

I suggested this a while back in this thread. I would sell it thusly:

1) Toronto-Quebec city with a pledge to eventually expand to Halifax.
2) Edmonton-Calgary with a pledge for cross-Prairie service to Winnipeg via Regina.
3) Maybe even a Regina-Saskatoon link.

Unfortunately, infrastructure is a political beast. And sometimes you have to spend more to build stuff that doesn't make sense to make others happy. Just like streetcars to every ward, this might really only get off the ground if we can build HSR to every province. And if that's the only way to do it, I say go for it. Just spread it out over a long enough time-frame.

Lastly, I don't see why Canada needs fighter jets and tanks. I definitely agree with a larger peacekeeping role, but I don't see ourselves as a nation that needs to protect our national interests through military as France, the US, UK or Israel do. So what if we were to cut back on those expensive fighter jets and tanks, and instead just focus on helicopters and LAVs? I'm sure that'd free up a lot of money.

Just my 6 cents.

There's an old saying when it comes to territorial waters (or generally applied to your own territory): "Either you have your own navy in your waters....or somebody else." What the CF has is actually below the levels set our own foreign and defence policies, which really weren't significantly altered since the Chretien era.

Unfortunately, we are a country as a large as a continent. That means we need expensive stuff to do a basic job. For example, the Air Force wanted C-17s just to ensure that it could move large equipment inside Canada in response to a natural disaster. Those planes are $350 million a piece and cost just as much to maintain over 20 years. Next, Search and Rescue. The CF wants to buy some of the largest Search and Rescue planes in the world. Why? Because our search and rescue zone stretches from halfway over the Atlantic to half way out over the Pacific to the North Pole. Yet, we cover this with 15-20 aircraft. The Brits have more aircraft than that for an area the size of Ontario.

Again with fighters and tanks. Like I said, you can get rid of them. But are you willing to live with our incredibly large neighbour to the south then dictating our defence (and effectively) our foreign policy too? Having a small but effective combat force has always us bought us a seat with the big boys. In effect we get to maintain our sovereignty and keep our geopolitical standing on the world stage (instead of being viewed as a US protectorate). I have no issues with giving up our combat capabilities. New Zealand did it. But for us that does mean accepting a status as a US protectorate....because there's no way the US will tolerate a neighbour who's weaker on defence than we are now (our entire air combat capability is smaller than the Air Wing on the smallest US aircraft carrier, of which they have 10...and that does not count the Air Force). So would you be okay with USAF F-16s doing overflights of Toronto in the event of another 9/11 or during events like the Olympics and G8/G20?

 

[kEiThZ]

Then put a carbon tax on the airlines and see how revenue-neutral they are. And it's not like VIA is currently anywhere near revenue-neutral (or that HSR would make the corridor any less efficient in terms of economics.)

We already have one of the most heavily taxed aviation sectors in the world. If they aren't willing to impose similar fees and taxes on other sectors, we could just end up killing the aviation sector. A dangerous proposition for a country this big. Keep in mind that Canada is far more than then TOM triangle.

Our aviation sector actually generates money for the government. That's unique in the world. I don't think even carbon taxes pull off a feat like that anywhere else.

As for VIA not being revenue neutral, I don't think that's the issue. Subsidies could skyrocket with HSR. And that's the worry. That said, I always thought that it was predicted that HSR from Toronto to Quebec City wouldn't need an operating subsidy.

 

[T-Bor]

Several points:

Lastly, I don't see why Canada needs fighter jets and tanks. I definitely agree with a larger peacekeeping role, but I don't see ourselves as a nation that needs to protect our national interests through military as France, the US, UK or Israel do. So what if we were to cut back on those expensive fighter jets and tanks, and instead just focus on helicopters and LAVs? I'm sure that'd free up a lot of money.

Just my 6 cents.

Because we're currently using second-rate military infrastructure. Seems kind of stupid to have the men and women using 30=year old gear. The amount put away to pay for new fighter jets is already less than what is deemed adequate. Especially with the North becoming more of an issue. However, I do agree with your idea that raising taxes and trying to fund this as an Ontario-Quebec project could have some potential