VIA Rail

[lrt's friend]

Good Luck on how Conservatives will move forward on this file. If tax cuts are your priority, so be it, but that is not the path towards making the big projects come true, whether it is HFR or some sort of National Pharmacare project, which is now becoming key towards maintaining fairness and access to proper medical treatment in the 21st century.

Here is another new story that is more instructive.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...interest-in-via-rails-planned-expansion-says/

Before we get so negative, remember how quickly REM got going.. This has been supported by CIB. Part of the story presented is that shared use of the Mount Royal tunnel will be a priority. I think that has been an ongoing worry and Montreal municipal officials have been opposed. We need a federal advocate and possible money to make sure that HFR and REM share that tunnel.

 

[lrt's friend]

This is exactly what I told the last Liberal fundraiser who called me to ask for the same donation as last time. I don't like being duped and then being fed vague fear-mongering for my vote and donation. Do what you promised to do and you'll win my support.

Don't kid yourself. The Conservatives do the exact same thing.

 

[kEiThZ]

I've worked ten years in the federal government and the mentality was the public servants work for the government and not the people. I'm definitely not surprised what I'm seeing here.with the BIC, it's just an extension of that mentality.

You respond to the person that pays your paycheque and legislates and governs your work. By law, the federal public service works "for the government and not the people". The people elect the government to direct and execute on their behalf.

What commercial bank would invest $71M to merely study a proposal?

Exactly. I don't think the CIB what kind of tools this makes them look like. Or maybe they don't have a say (which puts a lie to the idea that they are independent and non-partisan) or don't care (worse).

The last round of studies were supposed to lead to a decision on HFR.... by 2017.

Exactly. This is clearly an attempt to claim credit on this file while doing as little as possible. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't have had whatever studies they needed done, by this point.

I am genuinely angered by this announcement. It's insulting to anyone who is a fan of VIA Rail and public transport. And I am particularly offended because the Liberals have pitched themselves as great defenders and proponents of public transport and infrastructure. Their real record is one of being just marginally better than the Conservatives with a whole lot more spending on everything else.

 

[gweed123]

Hmm ... if Montreal to Toronto trains stayed alongside the CP Winchester sub instead of going all the way up to Ottawa and back, that would knock off almost 34 km to bring the route length down to 552 km - and less curves. I wonder if that's feasible in the long-run.

I was hoping this would make it into the proposal at some point. The service pattern I'd like to see is this:

• Express: Toronto-Ottawa
• Express: Toronto-Montreal (via the Winchester sub, bypassing Ottawa)
• Local: Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal

Run the local service as a single through-route, since the purpose isn't to go very fast. Ottawa-Montreal passengers won't really care, since there aren't that many stops between the two anyway.

 

[kEiThZ]

There are lots of things that the country could do with that money.

There's probably plenty that VIA itself could do with $71 million. Worse than saying "no" is spending money on an election stunt.

Before we get so negative, remember how quickly REM got going.. This has been supported by CIB.

REM was already "going". Long before CIB agreed to "invest" (provide them low interest loan). REM would have happened without a single email from the CIB. CDPQ didn't need the CIB or anybody else.

We need a federal advocate and possible money to make sure that HFR and REM share that tunnel.

Investing billions and not getting a guarantee for access to HFR just goes to show how incompetent the CIB really is.... Real investment banks/funds don't make these kinds of amateur mistakes. See CDPQ for how it's really done.

 

[lrt's friend]

I was hoping this would make it into the proposal at some point. The service pattern I'd like to see is this:

• Express: Toronto-Ottawa
• Express: Toronto-Montreal (via the Winchester sub, bypassing Ottawa)
• Local: Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal

Run the local service as a single through-route, since the purpose isn't to go very fast. Ottawa-Montreal passengers won't really care, since there aren't that many stops between the two anyway.

I have suggested that before and got shot down big time. It is an obvious solution to achieving under 4 hour service between Montreal and Toronto. Sure, it will cost money, but in the grand scheme of it all, it will make the whole project more successful.

 

[kEiThZ]

It is an obvious solution to achieving under 4 hour service between Montreal and Toronto.

As long as there are freight trains in the way, VIA can't make it to Montreal in less than 4 hrs. Even with a direct route and fewer stops.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am staring to wonder if this why Desjardin-Siciliano left. He must have seen the writing on the wall, that the government wasn't really serious about HFR.

 

[crs1026]

The Globe just published this article which puts a slightly different spin on things. The essence of the difference is -

Tuesday’s announcement means the project now enters an 18-24 month “pre-procurement” phase that will include environmental assessments and First Nations consultations along the proposed 850-kilometre route from Quebec City to Toronto. The government would then make a final decision on whether to go ahead with construction.

One could read this a bit more positively, as a gated process similar to say Toronto subway decisions (yeah, I know, that's not a very happy comparison....) where the planners go away and reach X% design completion before any decision to proceed to the next step.

It does hint that the EA and the consultations are being advanced.. I'm still pretty jaded, however - it actually places the decision long beyond the coming election.... even if the Conservatives declare their opposition, there is no need for the Liberals to take a position in favour.

Clearly, the Liberals have absolutely no resolve in pushing this project forwards. They could not try harder to distance themselves. I'm really disappointed.

- Paul

 

[lrt's friend]

As long as there are freight trains in the way, VIA can't make it to Montreal in less than 4 hrs. Even with a direct route and fewer stops.

It is almost entirely rural corridor. Surely parallel track is possible. I would assume that VIA will not be sharing track with CP between Smiths Falls and Glen Tay. but building parallel track.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Clearly, the Liberals have absolutely no resolve in pushing this project forwards. They could not try harder to distance themselves. I'm really disappointed.
- Paul

Well, part of it is VIA, who is advancing that this proposal will pay for itself and be at least partially privately financed. You have to have everything in a row to make sure the project won't be blocked after a bunch of private money is spent.

 

[crs1026]

Well, part of it is VIA, who is advancing that this proposal will pay for itself and be at least partially privately financed. You have to have everything in a row to make sure the project won't be blocked after a bunch of private money is spent.

Well, if the issue is that the private investors have questions and have due diligence to perform, then find out what their questions and reservations are, and then endeavour to give them proper answers.

Instead what we have seen is Transport Canada asking questions and asking for study, not as investors but as some sort of gatekeepers. If their questions haven't arisen from investors' due diligence, the answers don't matter. It began with how many angels VIA can fit on the head of their pin. VIA gives an answer, but then TC wants their names. VIA gives names, TC wants each angel's CV. Now each angel has to be security cleared (their Triple-A Angel status notwithstanding). On it goes.....

If this is an investment opportunity, we don't need public policy analysis - we just need a business based prospectus, to the degree of specificity that Bay Street expects.

- Paul

 

[lrt's friend]

As long as there are freight trains in the way, VIA can't make it to Montreal in less than 4 hrs. Even with a direct route and fewer stops.

Build a separate set of tracks. We will likely need to do this from Smiths Falls to Glen Tay anyways.

 

[lrt's friend]

Well, if the issue is that the private investors have questions and have due diligence to perform, then find out what their questions and reservations are, and then endeavour to give them proper answers.

Instead what we have seen is Transport Canada asking questions and asking for study, not as investors but as some sort of gatekeepers. If their questions haven't arisen from investors' due diligence, the answers don't matter. It began with how many angels VIA can fit on the head of their pin. VIA gives an answer, but then TC wants their names. VIA gives names, TC wants each angel's CV. Now each angel has to be security cleared (their Triple-A Angel status notwithstanding). On it goes.....

If this is an investment opportunity, we don't need public policy analysis - we just need a business based prospectus, to the degree of specificity that Bay Street expects.

- Paul

Hopefully that is what the $71M is intended to do.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm still pretty jaded, however - it actually places the decision long beyond the coming election.... even if the Conservatives declare their opposition, there is no need for the Liberals to take a position in favour.

Clearly, the Liberals have absolutely no resolve in pushing this project forwards. They could not try harder to distance themselves. I'm really disappointed.

This is exactly where I'm at. If they were at all serious, a routing study and detailed business case would have been complete already and they'd have announced that they are commencing the EA. But they have not, in fact, even completed any of that. If I am reading correctly, they've spent years and millions only trying to find out whether there is public interest in rail and potential investors. Took them two years to do all that? Nothing shows you how insincere they are about this project than that timeline.

I don't even fully blame the CIB for this one. The government knew the idea was there when they took power. After a year in power to digest it all, they could have launched the study the same time as the CIB. They didn't. And they waited till end-2018 before ordering new rolling stock. Another point in time when they could have started the study. But didn't. Nope. They waited a full year into their term to set up the CIB. Then either through deliberate mismanagement or incompetence, seem to have underresourced it to the point that CIB can't seem to process and assess proposals fast enough, and then waited two years after the creation of the CIB to fund another study.

Instead what we have seen is Transport Canada asking questions and asking for study, not as investors but as some sort of gatekeepers. If their questions haven't arisen from investors' due diligence, the answers don't matter. It began with how many angels VIA can fit on the head of their pin. VIA gives an answer, but then TC wants their names. VIA gives names, TC wants each angel's CV. Now each angel has to be security cleared (their Triple-A Angel status notwithstanding). On it goes.....

If this is an investment opportunity, we don't need public policy analysis - we just need a business based prospectus, to the degree of specificity that Bay Street expects.

Well put. This is not how competent investors conduct a business case study. And I don't blame VIA or even some bureaucrat at TC. I blame the government. If they really wanted a proper study, they could have directed TC to undertake one any time in the last 3.5 years. Instead, they simply directed TC to play games with VIA.

Heck, even they know how bad it looks and are trying hard to justify it and spin it as "pre-procurement". Here's the CIB CEO from the G&M article:

“This is far more than a study,” Mr. Lavallée said in an interview Tuesday. I think it’s important to make the difference between studies and detailed planning and pre-procurement activities. This is a lot more detail, a lot more specific. This is what leads to being able to call for tenders on construction and having people who perform that work being willing to commit to a certain work package and pricing and so on.”

Apparently you can now "pre-procure" before you've even made a decision to procure....

They should stop giving more interviews. This is only making the CIB look more and more like partisan hacks and less-than-competent tools. They certainly don't look like institutional infrastracture bankers.