VIA Rail

[micheal_can]

They will champion and support what the PMO tells them to champion and support. The Act, as it appears to be written and if passed (why champion if you're not going to vote for it?) would no doubt land the government in protracted legal proceedings.

My guess is that once it is tabled, the true intentions of the LPC will be known. Right now, I doubt the LPC will say much.

As far as legal proceedings, which laws could the railways fight it on? This would not force them to allow passenger trains on the line, only force them not to hold up the existing ones. Does the Charter protect companies?

 

[nfitz]

As far as legal proceedings, which laws could the railways fight it on? This would not force them to allow passenger trains on the line, only force them not to hold up the existing ones. Does the Charter protect companies?

What's this got to do with the Charter?

And what about simple tort? Do you know as little about law, as pretty much any other subject you raise?

 

[crs1026]

By the way, Canadian law already gives Ottawa the authority to order co-production, in exchange for suitable compensation..

If somebody were intent on improving VIA's priority without moving passenger trains off the existing Corridor tracks, the obvious solution would be to shift some freight away from that line by forcing it onto a parallel railway.

The question is really, would that arrangement be good for Canadians, given that we need freight to move efficiently. And what compensation could the railways claim. In the end, we have to pay for anything that we impose on the railways.

Maybe that money is better spent giving ViA its own tracks.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

my concern about passenger rail priority legislation in the event that the NDP managed to have the LPC sign on (assuming this one MP could even persuade his own party to put it up the list of what they want for continued support) is that if it has anywhere near as many teeth as people would like to think, then freight roads will do as much as they can to prevent any new rail services from traversing their tracks. For example - GO Bolton, VIA HF/SR, Amtrak Detroit-Windsor, Calgary-Banff, Calgary-Edmonton

On the other hand, by the time it passes through Parliament, industry lobbyists will likely have managed to insert enough caveats to not even placate users of those aforementioned existing services

 

[lenaitch]

What's this got to do with the Charter?

And what about simple tort? Do you know as little about law, as pretty any other subject you raise?

This. Railways are regulated private companies. They would vigorously argue that any regulation that impacts their profitability and isn't safety-related needs to be compensated. CN could also argue that it is disproportionately impacted.

 

[dowlingm]

This. Railways are regulated private companies. They would vigorously argue that any regulation that impacts their profitability and isn't safety-related needs to be compensated. CN could also argue that it is disproportionately impacted.

There will be areas where a court will recognize an act as being for a suitable and non compensable public purpose, and another as being essentially seizing private property for the government’s direct use. Sometimes the only way to be sure is to go to court.

The closest analogy I can think of is telecoms where large incumbents have been obliged to permit other companies to offer services over their networks, in return for regulated compensation - the incumbents have not been able to get that legislation deemed unconstitutional nor have they been able to seek excess profit from the government above the regulated tariff.

If such legislation ever saw the light of day in Canada, with actual effective prioritization, it would surely be bundled with every wish the Canadian rail industry has for the government to get out of its way and let it push workers even harder and employ fewer of them. I suspect TC and TSBoC would rather such giveaways be done, if they absolutely must, with something like PTC being the return.

 

[crs1026]

There will be areas where a court will recognize an act as being for a suitable and non compensable public purpose, and another as being essentially seizing private property for the government’s direct use. Sometimes the only way to be sure is to go to court.

If the legislation simply aligns the Canadian rules to what already applies to Amtrak in the US, I don’t see a problem. While CN and CP may complain, they would have trouble arguing that the rule is too harsh considering they are already coping with similar requirements (like it or not) south of the border.
I do think some form of public obligation ought to be imposed as a component of HFR, because even with a separate routing, CN and CP (and Metrolinx) will control segments of the route. We need discoverable and enforceable language - law or contract, doesn’t matter - so that VIA can run HFR to high standards.
The question remains, what might CP and CN agree to voluntarily in preference to legislation. Ottawa probably has some leverage to drive an acceptable bargain, but past behaviour suggests they are excessively passive in negotiating with the railways.
I don’t have a problem with the NDP bill as a lever to a better deal, but at the end of the day I suspect it will never be passed. But I’m glad to see this put on the table, maybe it forces some discussion or discloses an ugly point that Ottawa and the railways would prefer to keep hidden.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

considering they are already coping with similar requirements (like it or not) south of the border.

Interesting angle I had not considered. I wonder how much of Amtrak is operated on CN or CP owned trackage in the US.

Regardless, it certainly wouldn't stop them from trying. Different countries, different legal systems, different politics.

 

[dowlingm]

Interesting angle I had not considered. I wonder how much of Amtrak is operated on CN or CP owned trackage in the US.

Regardless, it certainly wouldn't stop them from trying. Different countries, different legal systems, different politics.

USGov traded loss of competition for additional Amtrak access during the CPKC merger. One of the gives was Detroit-Windsor.

 

[micheal_can]

What's this got to do with the Charter?

And what about simple tort? Do you know as little about law, as pretty any other subject you raise?

I know very little about law, hence why I posed the question.

By the way, Canadian law already gives Ottawa the authority to order co-production, in exchange for suitable compensation..

If somebody were intent on improving VIA's priority without moving passenger trains off the existing Corridor tracks, the obvious solution would be to shift some freight away from that line by forcing it onto a parallel railway.

The question is really, would that arrangement be good for Canadians, given that we need freight to move efficiently. And what compensation could the railways claim. In the end, we have to pay for anything that we impose on the railways.

Maybe that money is better spent giving ViA its own tracks.

- Paul

The NDP MP was pushing this for the LDS. Doing a new track for something like the Canadian is ridiculous, even for me.

my concern about passenger rail priority legislation in the event that the NDP managed to have the LPC sign on (assuming this one MP could even persuade his own party to put it up the list of what they want for continued support) is that if it has anywhere near as many teeth as people would like to think, then freight roads will do as much as they can to prevent any new rail services from traversing their tracks. For example - GO Bolton, VIA HF/SR, Amtrak Detroit-Windsor, Calgary-Banff, Calgary-Edmonton

On the other hand, by the time it passes through Parliament, industry lobbyists will likely have managed to insert enough caveats to not even placate users of those aforementioned existing services

The federal government could push back with the threat of nationalization.They could also threaten more regulations. There are many tools the government could use if they wanted to to allow them to use the tracks. The rail companies know this, so they will do what is best for them, up to the point of risking that from the government.

If the legislation simply aligns the Canadian rules to what already applies to Amtrak in the US, I don’t see a problem. While CN and CP may complain, they would have trouble arguing that the rule is too harsh considering they are already coping with similar requirements (like it or not) south of the border.
I do think some form of public obligation ought to be imposed as a component of HFR, because even with a separate routing, CN and CP (and Metrolinx) will control segments of the route. We need discoverable and enforceable language - law or contract, doesn’t matter - so that VIA can run HFR to high standards.
The question remains, what might CP and CN agree to voluntarily in preference to legislation. Ottawa probably has some leverage to drive an acceptable bargain, but past behaviour suggests they are excessively passive in negotiating with the railways.
I don’t have a problem with the NDP bill as a lever to a better deal, but at the end of the day I suspect it will never be passed. But I’m glad to see this put on the table, maybe it forces some discussion or discloses an ugly point that Ottawa and the railways would prefer to keep hidden.

- Paul

Do we have anything legally that allows foreign laws and regulation to set p residence?

 

[crs1026]

Interesting angle I had not considered. I wonder how much of Amtrak is operated on CN or CP owned trackage in the US.

Regardless, it certainly wouldn't stop them from trying. Different countries, different legal systems, different politics.

The Twin Cities - Chicago route uses CP, and as noted a new Amtrak service out of New Orleans was agreed to within the CP-KCS merger . CP has one of the better reputations for keeping Amtrak on time.
CN serves the Chicago-New Orleans and Chicago-Port Huron lines, as well as out of Montreal. CN’s performance has gained criticism and attracted litigation at times.
The American law is no guarantee. Some railroads simply ignore it and hope they are not taken to court. But it does set precedent of sorts. See here

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

Nationalization

 

[micheal_can]

Nationalization

View attachment 531870

At this point, since Via is all but shut down, most likely true. However, that option still does exist.

 

[dowlingm]

The Twin Cities - Chicago route uses CP, and as noted a new Amtrak service out of New Orleans was agreed to within the CP-KCS merger . CP has one of the better reputations for keeping Amtrak on time.
CN serves the Chicago-New Orleans and Chicago-Port Huron lines, as well as out of Montreal. CN’s performance has gained criticism and attracted litigation at times.
The American law is no guarantee. Some railroads simply ignore it and hope they are not taken to court. But it does set precedent of sorts. See here

- Paul

Chapter 3 of this 2019 report summarizes the attitude of Amtrak, the AAR, and other agencies such as the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission to the present US “preference” arrangements

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/18863/Report%20to%20Congress%20Shared-Use%20of%20Railroad%20Rights-of-Way%20July%202019.pdf

 

[nfitz]

By the way, Canadian law already gives Ottawa the authority to order co-production, in exchange for suitable compensation..

If somebody were intent on improving VIA's priority without moving passenger trains off the existing Corridor tracks, the obvious solution would be to shift some freight away from that line by forcing it onto a parallel railway.

During the indigenous protests back in early 2020, when the CN line through Tyendinaga was blockaded, some of the CN trains had been quietly shifted to the CP line. Quietly I'd suspect, as the CP lines also run though the same unceded tract.

Was it a government order? Was there compensation?