[micheal_can]

A government owns the roads and some of the ports. Roads are divided between provincial and municipal ownership. Federal ownership of major ports is an extension of their constitutional responsibilities for navigation and shipping as well as international trade and commerce. That ownership is mostly divided between Transport Canada and federal Crown corporations.

I did not say what level owns what as I knew what you posted. They also own the airports. The only thing transportation related that they do not own the infrastructure of is rail.

 

[micheal_can]

Setting aside the political weight held by the the Class 1 railways in Canada, and setting aside what is would cost to expropriate some or all of the properties (couch it in any terms you like, but that's what it would be), any alternative stewardship of our nation's rail would have to recognize the impact that rail-borne freight has on the Canadian economy. As ha been pointed out several times here, the tonnage of freight carried by rail in this country far outstrips anything in western Europe.

Rail freight is huge here. The problem is, most of it is only single track. So, there could be even more moved but when you are trying to maximize the profit, double track isn't in the budget. That is where the government can do things better. They could 'widen' rail corridors that are congested without upsetting the shareholders.

 

[crs1026]

Setting aside the political weight held by the the Class 1 railways in Canada, and setting aside what is would cost to expropriate some or all of the properties (couch it in any terms you like, but that's what it would be), any alternative stewardship of our nation's rail would have to recognize the impact that rail-borne freight has on the Canadian economy. As ha been pointed out several times here, the tonnage of freight carried by rail in this country far outstrips anything in western Europe.

That's exactly why I would argue the ground has shifted.

In a new world where US-Canada relations are what they are, the relevance of integrated North American railroads may have diminished. And the need for Canada to own and have control of its rail infrastructure is substantially greater. Both CN and CPKC are majority owned by American institutional investors, and heavily influenced by US regulatory policy. Maybe we don't like that picture any more. Maybe that political leverage has faded. Maybe taking back our railroads is a key survival imperative for the new Canadian economy.

Secondly, while a Canadianization would have a purchase price, there's no reason in a tariff-laden, disrespect-prone relationship why these US investors would have to be paid one hundred cents on the dollar. And on a track-mile basis, the actual amount of "expropriation" to achieve a Ontario-Quebec rail passenger corridor is actually a fairly small fraction of the railways' total asset base. So expropriate just that much, leave the much larger network alone (for now, anyways).

The most compelling concern, I agree, is to assure enough freight capacity and flexibility to meet all of Canada's needs for another century. I'm extremely confident that there is enough coproduction capacity on either CN or CPKC for 20-30 years hence. Rather than saying, let's build a new line to serve passenger.... maybe the paradigm is, any new capacity beyond that will add freight capacity, and be funded from that source.

Lastly, the existing law does allow the government to direct one railway to open its tracks to a competitor. So imposing coproduction is not an affront to today's laws.

I'm obviously waaay out there with this, but in a world that is becoming a pure matter of power play, maybe this is a small thing. And I wonder whether, in a world where threats and bluffs seem to have converged, just how far CP and CN would bend to preserve the current state, if they saw a government that was hard nosed (or bloodyminded) enough to be inclined to pull this thread. Fear seems to be the new carrot.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

That's exactly why I would argue the ground has shifted.

In a new world where US-Canada relations are what they are, the relevance of integrated North American railroads may have diminished. And the need for Canada to own and have control of its rail infrastructure is substantially greater. Both CN and CPKC are majority owned by American institutional investors, and heavily influenced by US regulatory policy. Maybe we don't like that picture any more. Maybe that political leverage has faded. Maybe taking back our railroads is a key survival imperative for the new Canadian economy.

Secondly, while a Canadianization would have a purchase price, there's no reason in a tariff-laden, disrespect-prone relationship why these US investors would have to be paid one hundred cents on the dollar. And on a track-mile basis, the actual amount of "expropriation" to achieve a Ontario-Quebec rail passenger corridor is actually a fairly small fraction of the railways' total asset base. So expropriate just that much, leave the much larger network alone (for now, anyways).

The most compelling concern, I agree, is to assure enough freight capacity and flexibility to meet all of Canada's needs for another century. I'm extremely confident that there is enough coproduction capacity on either CN or CPKC for 20-30 years hence. Rather than saying, let's build a new line to serve passenger.... maybe the paradigm is, any new capacity beyond that will add freight capacity, and be funded from that source.

Lastly, the existing law does allow the government to direct one railway to open its tracks to a competitor. So imposing coproduction is not an affront to today's laws.

I'm obviously waaay out there with this, but in a world that is becoming a pure matter of power play, maybe this is a small thing. And I wonder whether, in a world where threats and bluffs seem to have converged, just how far CP and CN would bend to preserve the current state, if they saw a government that was hard nosed (or bloodyminded) enough to be inclined to pull this thread. Fear seems to be the new carrot.

- Paul

I can see your arguments, and maybe some kind of forced marriage for the Toronto-Montreal corridor could work, like a long TTR.

Unless rail is nationalized, how does the government repatriate our freight traffic? How does a government dictate to either railway to not push traffic through the US and return to all-Canadian routes (which may create capacity issues?

The current political climate is between states. If we somehow legislated to pay only foreign shareholders less than domestic ones, we would likely see foreign investment in Canada dry up.

 

[micheal_can]

I can see your arguments, and maybe some kind of forced marriage for the Toronto-Montreal corridor could work, like a long TTR.

Unless rail is nationalized, how does the government repatriate our freight traffic? How does a government dictate to either railway to not push traffic through the US and return to all-Canadian routes (which may create capacity issues?

The current political climate is between states. If we somehow legislated to pay only foreign shareholders less than domestic ones, we would likely see foreign investment in Canada dry up.

Do we need to repatriate it? The goods coming into any port only gets tariffed once it has been delivered. So, a container coming into the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Vancouver would see the same tariff.

 

[crs1026]

Unless rail is nationalized, how does the government repatriate our freight traffic? How does a government dictate to either railway to not push traffic through the US and return to all-Canadian routes (which may create capacity issues?

The current political climate is between states. If we somehow legislated to pay only foreign shareholders less than domestic ones, we would likely see foreign investment in Canada dry up.

The differentiating factor with respect to railroads is that it is vital infrastructure that affects the entinre economy. (And, to use American precedents, it can be argued to affect national security including defense.... I don't buy all the arguments being made down there, but they do cut both ways, so I'm not ashamed of using them)

I think the investor community (and other nations) would understand why a nation would insist on ownership and control of this infrastructure. That sets it apart from investments in auto plants or domestic manufacturing, for instance.

It is, unquestionably, an enormous change from status quo..... but there is certainly plenty of legal precedent for legislating Canadian ownership of key assets and businesses.

The unfortunate part is, we just finished building this trinational continental supply chain, and to date it has served us well.... but that is indeed what the US is attempting to deconstruct. We should not be in denial about this, and our national survival depends on getting ahead of the game and acting proactively if not preemptively on restructuring our economy. In that respect, the ship does appear to have sailed, and while we see the Trump administration hitting a few rocks in the river, I don't see this trend reverting all the way to pre-Trump.

As to passenger vs freight, my point is simply that if we do take control of our infrastructure, that infrastructure as it exists today includes both a large measure of freight capacity and a certain (anemic) amount of passenger capacity. So, why would we define any growth as "adding" only passenger capacity.... the paradigm that accounts for investment in growth should be balanced between the two.

And, finally, coproduction in Ontario-Quebec has always promised much more rational use of passsenger vs freight utilisation on the existing capacity. So, if we are forced to change things up, why would we not avail ourselves of this opportunity? The opportunity cost we are paying by treating railways as private interests owning their own property has always been evident, and maybe this is the tipping point to change the model.

Again, I reccognise this is a huge change - but Canada is at a crossroads, and carpe diem is the best response.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

Do we need to repatriate it? The goods coming into any port only gets tariffed once it has been delivered. So, a container coming into the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Vancouver would see the same tariff.

That depends on the tariff rate of each country. Before all this silliness started, Canadian ports could try to woo US-bound freight with things like handling rates and turn-around times, and carriers, like rail, could benefit from that. Tariffs on certain goods from certain countries still existed but not to the same extent. If non-Canadian tariffed goods are off-loaded in Vancouver but bound for the US, their tariff rate will apply when it crosses the border.

 

[micheal_can]

That depends on the tariff rate of each country. Before all this silliness started, Canadian ports could try to woo US-bound freight with things like handling rates and turn-around times, and carriers, like rail, could benefit from that. Tariffs on certain goods from certain countries still existed but not to the same extent. If non-Canadian tariffed goods are off-loaded in Vancouver but bound for the US, their tariff rate will apply when it crosses the border.

I thought that it only mattered country of origin, not countries it passes through.

 

[IRT_BMT_IND]

I'm extremely confident that there is enough coproduction capacity on either CN or CPKC for 20-30 years hence.

If by this you mean CN freight traffic being moved to CP (because most of the CP network in southern Ontario is not really well suited for high frequency passenger service) then I doubt this is the case. At the very least this would require CTC installation, new sidings, maybe even new double tracking, as well as significant work to build connecting tracks to CP from the Halton and York subdivisions.

 

[crs1026]

If by this you mean CN freight traffic being moved to CP (because most of the CP network in southern Ontario is not really well suited for high frequency passenger service) then I doubt this is the case. At the very least this would require CTC installation, new sidings, maybe even new double tracking, as well as significant work to build connecting tracks to CP from the Halton and York subdivisions.

Well, no. CPKC is a good route by virtue of having good grades and curves. Sidings and CTC are relatively cheap and easy to add. Windsor to London is not a problem because VIA effectively already has its own route. There are three, not two, routes available Toronto-London. CPKC from Toronto to Smiths falls would need upgrading but there are interchanges possible near Oshawa and Belleville, and the line already has CTC.. Smiths Falls to Montreal is already well configured. All the freight that both lines carry today will easily fit on a fundamentally single track route.

Neither of these routes is all that relevant to a HSR choice, which clearly would demand its own new right of way. But HSR will never serve regional needs, and leaving legacy VIA routes to conflict with freight after HSR is built is not effective. And HSR is minimally 20 years out, at current pace and allowing for the inevitable construction delays over the planned schedule. Southern Ontario in particular can't wait that long.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

I thought that it only mattered country of origin, not countries it passes through.

It does.

I'm not familiar with the mechanics of it but I highly doubt CBSA would be collecting US tariffs and forwarding it to them. Tariffs would be due at a US POE based on country of origin.

 

[micheal_can]

It does.

I'm not familiar with the mechanics of it but I highly doubt CBSA would be collecting US tariffs and forwarding it to them. Tariffs would be due at a US POE based on country of origin.

Let's say 2 containers are on a train from Canada. One originated from Canada and one originated from China. Both are destined to the same USA company. Am I right that it is only once it crosses the USA border that any tariffs get applied, and they would not be based on crossing from Canada? If that is the case, how does that change how our railways operate?

 

[lenaitch]

Let's say 2 containers are on a train from Canada. One originated from Canada and one originated from China. Both are destined to the same USA company. Am I right that it is only once it crosses the USA border that any tariffs get applied, and they would not be based on crossing from Canada? If that is the case, how does that change how our railways operate?

Ya, I think I lost my own point.

The impact and knock-on impacts on freight movement would depend on whether Canada nationalized just the the tracks/infrastructure or the Class 1 carriers entirely, but I don't think anybody suspects that would happen. Paul's argument was more directed to just the Toronto-Montreal corridor (I think).

 

[Bojaxs]

An in-depth report of all 31 commuter/regional rail systems in America was just released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Including an analysis of each individual network with graphs displaying ridership. Would have been interesting to see a similar analysis done on the GO network to see how ridership compares with the 31 American networks.

Unfortunately the report paints a grim picture for commuter/regional rail in America. Ridership still hasn't recovered from Covid, and a lot of the transport agencies running these networks are still heavily reliant on Covid funding from the Biden era.

The link to the report is at the bottom of this article.

Commuter Rail: Most Systems Struggling to Recover Ridership Following the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many riders stopped using public transit. Commuter rail, an alternative to driving between suburbs and city centers, was...

www.gao.gov

 

[drum118]

An in-depth report of all 31 commuter/regional rail systems in America was just released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Including an analysis of each individual network with graphs displaying ridership. Would have been interesting to see a similar analysis done on the GO network to see how ridership compares with the 31 American networks.

Unfortunately the report paints a grim picture for commuter/regional rail in America. Ridership still hasn't recovered from Covid, and a lot of the transport agencies running these networks are still heavily reliant on Covid funding from the Biden era.

The link to the report is at the bottom of this article.

Commuter Rail: Most Systems Struggling to Recover Ridership Following the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many riders stopped using public transit. Commuter rail, an alternative to driving between suburbs and city centers, was...

www.gao.gov

View attachment 649767View attachment 649768

Northstar is on the chopping block that has seen ridership fall from 3K to 500 for 4 daily trips. By not being extended to St Cloud, it had no chance of gaining more rider back in 2018 when we rode the line on a very empty train. Its possible it will be replace by buses at a saving of $10m a year.

Nashville is a 2 car train using 1960 equipment and only a dozen riders on it for the train I saw in 2024. With temperature at 100+, it did not allow me to see the other 4 trains to see what ridership was.

Charlotte NC is planning a 25 mile Red Line that maybe in service by 2035using NS line with 10 stations

Sooth Shore is doubling their tracks and planning to remove the on street running to offer more service

SunRail issue was running 90 minutes service back in 2018 with low ridership as well bot connecting to the airport. The airport extension is in the works now as well to The Thema Parks

Seen a few others, but they don't stand out to me as to ridership nor equipment wise as well service. I have seen the Downeaster and though it was an Amtrack train since it used Amtrack equipment at the north end as well a few station along the line.