News   Jun 28, 2024
 111     0 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 274     0 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 342     0 

VIA Rail

Meh, a Quebec public pension fund investing in a project wholly inside Quebec with municipal and provincial backing for an LRT is a full order of magnitude (at minimum) easier than what any investor would face supporting VIA on simply the Toronto-Ottawa portion. Nobody constructing an LRT in Montreal for example has to wonder about crossing First Nations lands. Or worry about political considerations impacting routing. Or about co-operation with freight.

As for hedge funds facing withdrawals. That's of absolutely zero consequence to the topic at hand.
 
To top it off.... Trudeau signed the Paris Agreement today.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-agreement-trudeau-sign-1.3547822

Corridor Electrification, here we come!

I remember thinking that Kyoto would prompt the government of the day to invest in HSR. We all know how that turned out. And if it's truly private money backing this thing, it'll be private investors deciding on electrification. And they care about the business case. Not emissions.

Look no further than the last budget and you'll see how little the government actually cares about investing in emissions reductions.
 
I remember thinking that Kyoto would prompt the government of the day to invest in HSR. We all know how that turned out. And if it's truly private money backing this thing, it'll be private investors deciding on electrification. And they care about the business case. Not emissions.
The goalposts are in a completely separate location and the demographics/economics related to electrification makes a lot more sense today than it did back then.

For VIA itself... It can be a governmental condition on a modification of the VIA Rail Act, exempting electrified corridors from complete restriction of private investment (at least pension fund investment).

If this is not enough and you need to pull the rest of the electorate in, possibly minimum performance criteria. (A compromise, such as requiring 10% of corridor length being made 240kph capable committed within an agreed-upon time period, to unlock private investment, while keeping budgets low enough by eliminating the need for full-length luxury greenfield HSR corridors).

The change to the VIA Rail Act (or winning governmental approvals needed) is big step, but we have a grand opportunity here to align Corridor electrification (and incrementally towards HSR), rail investment recruitment, AND do a bit-contribution towards Paris Agreement.

Three birds with one stone!

On the note of climate/environment... Corridor electrification and economics of electrification is easy stuff on an environment-related perspective, compared to this - China is currently scaling back a tenth of coal industry country-wide. In a mere 5 years. This has some gigantically massive economic repercussions of nearly biblical proportions (panic-shifting 1.3 million Chinese workers to new industries -- you're completely liquidating a "Walmart sized" workforce permanently -- and need to reassign workers to new industries). Corridor electrification is really truly a low lying opportunity, with many pots of funds involved/interested, and economics that already is attracting private interest while contributing to climate goals. Lots of things to do, but Corridor Electrification is easy-peasy stuff on a climate goal alignment perspective. Relatively speaking.
 
Last edited:
As for hedge funds facing withdrawals. That's of absolutely zero consequence to the topic at hand.
lol...it was perhaps a tad sophisticated for the likes of some. How do you think the railroads of this any many other nations were built?
[...] Green Bonds, also known as Climate Bonds, were popularized in 2010 as a method for raising capital for climate-friendly projects across the globe. In 2015, $41.8 billion in Green Bonds were issued, according to the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) an international nongovernmental, nonprofit organization dedicated to stimulating investment in projects and assets emphasizing environmental sustainability. MTA’s Transportation Revenue Green Bonds, Series 2016A (Climate Bond Certified) is the first bond issuance to be certified in the U.S. under CBI’s Low Carbon Transport Standard.
[...]
The bonds are being issued under the MTA’s Transportation Revenue Bond credit, which is backed by MTA’s operating revenues and State subsidies dedicated to the MTA. A unique strength of the credit is that investors benefit from a “gross pledge” of all pledged revenues to fund debt service requirements before being available to pay for operations. The credit is rated AA+/AA-/A1/A by Kroll, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch respectively.

The bonds’ financial characteristics are typical for bonds backed by the Transportation Revenue Bond credit. It will pay interest at a fixed rate, with interest payments made every May 15 and November 15. The interest rate and final maturity date will be set in the coming week. Interest on the bonds is exempt from Federal, New York State and New York City personal income taxes.

The bonds are being offered by Ramirez & Co., a member of MTA’s existing approved pool of book running senior managers and a New York State certified minority-owned business. Drexel Hamilton, LLC., a New York State certified service disabled veteran owned business, and Stern Brothers & Co., a New York State certified women-owned business, are serving as special co-senior managers. The MTA syndicate of Board-approved managers will also serve on the transaction.

http://www.mta.info/news-bonds-green-bonds-mta/2016/02/10/mta-issue-its-first-‘green-bonds’

Apologies to those who fail to understand the significance...
 
Last edited:
For VIA itself... It can be a governmental condition on a modification of the VIA Rail Act, exempting electrified corridors from complete restriction of private investment (at least pension fund investment).
The legal aspect concerned is whether it is incorporated as a 'common carrier', not ownership. If a RoW is completely privately owned, it can still lease overhead rights (in the North Am meaning) to public carriers. That's exactly the model being done in Montreal )(from the details published so far. I suspect we're going to see some in-depth analysis of this in the quality print-press. Globe, Star, industry pubs...and yes, the WSJ and FT). What intrigues me is the opportunity for bond-issues as this is going to capture the public interest, both for transportation and investment. The question then becomes how far the various gov''ts are willing to underwrite them. There's a lot of investment money out there looking for a safe home.
 
Right, a separate company other than VIA, where VIA works with them.
So in this case, if not the VIA Rail Act, then whatever federal approvals are needed to let HFR happen (even if accomplished by a completely separate entity than VIA).

That said, there's a sections of VIA owned corridors that can actually be gradually nursed to HSR (there's some good sections where a long 160kph coast is easy -- and could be upgraded to 240kph+ via grade separations, in sections north of Kingston). That is where some complications may come in as that is not privately owned, since that means either selling the corridor, or paying VIA to upgrade the corridor for a privately-run HFR service, etc. Many possible business relationships, some of them messy and many potential options enroach into the VIA Rail Act.

- What restrictions does VIA have in selling a rail corridor to a privately-run 100% passenger rail entity?
- Or what restrictions does VIA have in accepting payment from a private entity to upgrade their own passenger corridor, and charge them for running rights of HFR trains (privately run HFR service)?
- What restriction does VIA have in licensing their brand to a separate, completely independent company designed to run HFR/HSR trains?
- Could it be a HFR service that doesn't even have VIA branding, but pays VIA for slots on their (now-upgraded) passenger network?

YDS did acknowledge that HFR may have to be a separate entity, which lends credence to any of the above.

Not saying any of these scenario would be would happen, but am curious of the business relationships that would enable currently-VIA assets to be upgraded under private funding -- with and without modifications to the VIA Rail Act -- easier/harder/cheaper/expensive options.
 
Last edited:
That is where some complications may come in as that is not privately owned.
Not at all MD. Private infrastructure projects. Private capital pays for the bridges, and then rents them as a 'leashold' to the railway on railway owned property until it reverts back to the landowner after a period of time (typically 50 to 100 years). Done all the time.
 
Not at all MD. Private infrastructure projects. Private capital pays for the bridges, and then rents them as a 'leashold' to the railway on railway owned property until it reverts back to the landowner after a period of time (typically 50 to 100 years). Done all the time.
So, like this, but on steroids.

Or even vice versa like the 407 situation. Even without it being a 407 situation of building public, selling (...the concession/rights...) to private, this is still a rather big variant of a P3.

Simply packaging all of this in a way that is easy to sell to the electorate, is also the kicker too -- they know when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. (Some might call that a "complication" -- of a different kind). It's possible that some financial variants of this may be easier to sell to the electorate, as a VIA Rail Act change to enable an easier-to-sell plan. Maybe not needed.

(Time will tell...soonish I hope)
 
Last edited:
Here's where it went wrong in the UK's case:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/apr/18/pfi-construction-taxpayer

It's not that the *concept* was wrong, it was the *implementation*! I think it was Paul who wrote about (gist) 'the open books and accountability' of private corporations, esp those with shareholders and bond-holders'. As we all well know, Gov't is the least open of all institutions. If this is to be done, (and right now it looks especially ripe) then it has to be done right, with full public accountability if the gov'ts are involved.

This is where it went right, from the FinTimes:
Transport for London, which runs the UK capital’s underground and buses, has become the latest outfit to join the green bonds bonanza with a £400m, ten-year bond, reports Joel Lewin.

The proceeds will be ploughed into environment-friendly projects such as cycling initiatives, energy efficiency and capacity improvements at the busiest stations and new low-emissions buses.

The bond carries a coupon of 2.125 per cent, just over half a percentage point higher than the 10-year gilt.

Standard & Poor’s has forecast green corporate bond sales will double this year to $30bn, while the Climate Bonds Initiative has even more optimistically predicted total issuance will grow by 2.5 times to $100bn.

The French real-estate company Unibail-Rodamco launched its third green bond last week with a €500m, ten-year year carrying a 1 per cent coupon. Investors snapped it up, with the issue six times oversubscribed.

Green bonds can be sold by any entity that would normally raise money on the capital markets. Although the proceeds raised must be used for projects or investment with a positive environmental impact, they are backed by the issuer with full recourse, just like its mainstream bonds.[...]
http://www.ft.com/fastft/2015/04/17/transport-london-green-bonds/

And Canada:
[...]One year on, Ontario has selected its first recipient: the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit project, a 19-kilometre, “25 stations and stops,” system that runs east-west across mid-town Toronto. Most of the track will be underground. Tunneling work has started on the project that was estimated to cost $5.3-billion in 2010 and to be operational by 2020. The LRT will replace buses.

The project is noteworthy because it’s being developed as a public private partnership, understood to be the first for the Toronto Transit Commission. It’s a P3 because the winning consortium will design, build, finance and maintain the project for 30 years. Last December, two consortiums were identified with the preferred bidder being selected in 2014/2015.

Given that green bonds are standard debt obligations of the province – meaning they rank equally with other bonds it issues – why issue them and face a task that’s complicated because it requires independent verification? A couple of reasons are at work: such issues will potentially expand the investor base; and such issues may lead to the development of a Canadian green bond market. Until that development, issuers aren’t expected to gain any interest rate advantages.

When Ontario does come to market with an expected $500-million four-year deal, it will distribute the securities through its existing domestic benchmark medium term note program. It will also join a handful of such Canadian issuers.

Last January, the Export Development Corp, a federal agency, launched the country’s first such offering, a US$300-million financing that reflected “EDC’s commitment to the environmental aspects of its Corporate Social Responsibility principles.” At the time, the EDC said its current portfolio of green assets includes loans made to companies who are active in fields of preservation, protection or remediation of air, water, and/or soil, or the mitigation of climate change.[...]
http://business.financialpost.com/n...reen-bond-a-500m-raise-for-light-rail-transit

Were those bonds issued? Good question. Whether they were or not it matters little to it being evident that the *mechanism* exists in this nation to issue and underwrite bonds for VIA.
 
Last edited:
^thus far, Ontario has issued $1.25B (CD$) of green bonds in two separate issues....proving, I guess, that one of the "new" revenue tools is just, well, debt.
 
^thus far, Ontario has issued $1.25B (CD$) of green bonds in two separate issues....proving, I guess, that one of the "new" revenue tools is just, well, debt.
Asset backed. "Debt" is a very misconstrued term. If it saves money, it's an investment that shows return, not to mention if they are gov't or otherwise guaranteed, the interest is as low as can be gotten.
 
Asset backed. "Debt" is a very misconstrued term. If it saves money, it's an investment that shows return, not to mention if they are gov't or otherwise guaranteed, the interest is as low as can be gotten.
Ontario Green bonds are not asset backed bonds....they are bonds issued by the province of Ontario earmarked for (but not secured by) specific environmentally sound projects. In fact the government acknowledges they are no different than other bonds they issue

http://www.ofina.on.ca/pdf/green_bond_qa.pdf said:
No. Ontario’s Green Bonds are standard debt obligations of the Province and rank equally with Ontario’s other bonds. Payments of principal and interest will be a charge on and payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Ontario and not tied to the revenues of any particular
projects.
 
lol...it was perhaps a tad sophisticated for the likes of some. How do you think the railroads of this any many other nations were built?

I get that for some old farts (like yourself) all investment pools look the same. But they are not. You can learn something by looking up what a hedge fund is. And you might just then extend some long time unused brain power to figure out why a hedge fund won't be investing in a railroad.

Please share an example of where a hedge fund funded rail development. A case of your favourite beer on me if you can find one example.

And one more condescending post like that and you're on my block list. I don't want to debate @$$holes.
 
I get that for some old farts (like yourself) all investment pools look the same. But they are not. You can learn something by looking up what a hedge fund is. And you might just then extend some long time unused brain power to figure out why a hedge fund won't be investing in a railroad.

Please share an example of where a hedge fund funded rail development. A case of your favourite beer on me if you can find one example.

And one more condescending post like that and you're on my block list. I don't want to debate @$$holes.
Don't hedge funds just fund landscaping projects? ;)
 
Here is the Globe's copy of the story:
The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is proposing to build a $5.5-billion automated rail network connecting downtown Montreal with both the south and north shores and the airport.

The giant pension fund unveiled details of the 67-kilometre project on Friday, billing it as the third-largest automated transportation system in the world after Dubai and Vancouver.

Dubbed REM (for Réseau électrique métropolitain), the proposed system represents a major change from the initial plan to build two separate rail links – one crossing the new Champlain Bridge to the South Shore and one linking the downtown with the airport and West Island.

Caisse president and chief executive officer Michael Sabia said the fund is willing to commit $3-billion to what he said will be a profitable venture, but that the balance of $2.5-billion will need to come from the provincial and federal governments if the network is to go ahead as proposed.

The project is ideally suited to the Trudeau government’s proposed infrastructure investments, including major commitments to infrastructure spending such as urban transit, said Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre.

Mr. Sabia corrected a reporter who asked about government “subsidies.”

“I don’t accept the word “subsidy,” he said at a news conference. “Investment. It’s an opportunity for governments to share the upside.”[...]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...illion-montreal-rail-network/article29716857/
 

Back
Top