Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698
I doubt it. The layoffs are a response to cash flow issues - not as much revenue coming in each year so you have to trim expenses to match. The Arbutus line doesn't really represent much of an expense. But it probably kiboshes any plans they may have had to improve the line or run anything on it.
|
Most of the jobs they are cutting are through "attrition" so I doubt they will see a lot in the way of immediate cost savings. It's something you do to get headlines to stabilize your stock price.
But if they are trying to save money, yeah, the first thing you do is stop spending money on rail spurs you don't use. So the residents of the West Site will get reprieve from any possible trains for the time being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12
An easy way to generate quick cash is by selling unused assets. The short-thinking stock market likes that, as well as governments desperate to show a "balanced budget".  |
Yeah. They could easily be motivated to sell at a more reasonable price. CP has been holding out for a pie in the sky evaluation, or a rezoning of the land so they can become the new Concorde Pacific and redevelop the land themselves (or more likely spin off the land into a new company that the important share holders in CP get shares in thus shielding the profits from regular stock holders).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698
But in this case they'd have to formally abandon the line to do that, and given that their threat to run trains would have failed if that step had been taken I'm a bit doubtful that they'll want to cross that bridge.
A short-term cut in expenses (wages) is appropriate for a short-term drop in business. It's generally not wise to sell assets unless there's some structural reason why you think your revenues are not going to recover in the future.
It's true that this is an unused asset, but I think they'd still like to maximize its value. The question is really one of whether they think they've exhausted all their options in that regard. And that evaluation process is really quite independent of their current business issues.
|
They did formally abandon the line, they just didn't follow the rest of the procedures of offering it for sale at salvage value back to the local governments and transit agencies. Until they do that, they can't sell it on the open market.
You typically sell off assets when they have no use to your company business plan. Unlike a lot of companies that have business plans that revolve around NOT what you think (like McDonalds is actually a real estate company that happens to sell food), CP is actually transportation company. If the Arbutus corridor can't be used for transport, it is useless to CP's business model.
Unloading the land and using the money for operations/asset purchase, or returning it to shareholders should be their priority. And it is their priority, hence why they have been trying to extort the City so badly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicbomb
Record profits, record revenues, more layoffs. CP continues to abandon useful spurs. In fact, CP will likely be ceasing operations along the Marpole Spur come the end of the year.
Despite my disdain for railway corporations in this country, I think CP has every right to sell the Arbutus Corridor, and for fair market value. Too bad the Federal government didn't have any foresight to think about protecting critical rail corridors, many of which could have been transferred to short-line entities. Instead, many of the "under-performing" spurs/branch lines in this region fall on valuable land....and here we are.
|
The thing is, what is "market value"? The land is currently zoned for transportation. And the city has made its intentions clear that that will never change.
So, what is the land worth? Nothing. How much would you pay for land you couldn't build anything on? If it had value, wouldn't private developers like Bosa and Concorde Pacific and Wall Center be all over trying to buy it?
What's the market value of land that only has value as a railway with no business clients?
The whole active train thing was to put pressure on the city to settle at an exorbitant price, or change the zoning laws so third parties would be interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker
Waiting out the city until the city folds. The city or translink will need permission to go over or under for transit to UBC, and if you hold until then, you can come to a compromise that isn't 'give us this land for way less than its value'.
|
They don't need permission from the railroad to build a crossing. If the 2 parties can't come to an agreement on a road crossing, then they submit an application to the Canadian Transportation Agency, and they decide if it happens (and even who pays).
So, say the federal government is partially funding a subway line of national importance, and that line crosses a railway, and they submit to the Agency (a federal one) a request to cross the RR... who do you think the agency is going to side with?
Prev
Linear Mode
