Well, I downloaded and read the document.
It was a very quick read..... the thing is redacted to the hilt, which does validate the complaint that the government is being hugely secretive about the report. There is understandable secrecy around commercial aspects, but the document is far from transparent.
In some ways that's a good thing, because it removes the temptation to challenge every statistic or figure. It would be too easy to get lost in the fine detail of specific numbers, but that is at the expense of not knowing the big picture at all, especially at least knowing that the NPV and ROI fall in a positive zone.
In particular, all route information is redacted. We know that Toronto and Quebec City are the end points, but not much in between, although the presumptive routing through Peterborough and Trois Rivieres is confirmable.
.
The few takewaways and insights that I noted:
- There will be more than 50 kms of new track construction proposed (this was stated to explain that the scope triggers a fuller EA process)
- The report implies that where tracks continue to be shared, it's an all-CN routing. Not much mention of CP at all, which may imply that some of the scenarios involving CP were tangential or speculative or imposed at the political level
- One redacted comment about "There will be a bypass around... (redaction)"
- Considerable analysis presented to compare HSR vs HFR, and appearing to show that HSR isn't necessary and does not deliver better economic value. I'm sure the HSR proponents are itching to attack this data.
- There's a chart comparing international cities' GDP per capita that is half-redacted... the inference being that all the Canadian data points fall in the low-absolute-GDP band, so little room to argue for HSR as an economic lever because there's less to leverage,
- Confirms that the business case for diesel is better than for electric, but recognizing that a social goal/public policy thrust wouldn't be met.
- There is an implication that Indigenous issues will be complicated, by virtue of the project spanning so many different treaty areas and impacting any number of ongoing land claims and grievances. I have always suspected that this aspect is bigger than people generally assume. When there are many First Nations impacted, Ottawa will have to both address any specific issues that each FN may raise, but also ensure an overall standard of fairness and equity across all FN's. With potential precedent for any number of other non-rail infrastructure projects. Many treaties date from the original rail-building era, and there may be commitments or precedents or gotcha-statements that have been long forgotten but that may surface as we return to building new rail lines. Just a hunch on my part.
Much fanfare by HSRC about very little, I'm afraid.
- Paul
