It costs two to two and a half times more to build the same base or precious metal mine off-grid in the north compared to the south. Seventy per cent of this northern cost premium is directly related to the regional infrastructure deficit.
To date, infrastructure investment decisions that recognize northern challenges and opportunities through the trade and transportation corridors initiative and the investing in Canada plan have been welcome, though the need is far greater than the funds allocated. MAC is aware the northern allocation or $400 million under the TTCI was oversubscribed by greater than five times. Also concerning is that the Canada Infrastructure Bank may not recognize remote and northern realities, potentially limiting the utility of this institution to address northern priorities.
Enabling additional mining development in remote and northern Canada is inextricably linked to the government's indigenous reconciliation and climate change agendas, and the northern infrastructure deficit is the single largest barrier to mining development in the region. To address this, government should, as an immediate action, renew the TTCI in budget 2019, including the $400-million northern allocation, and as a long-term dedicated solution, establish a unique stand-alone Arctic infrastructure investment fund based on the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority that recognizes Arctic realities.
Let's move on to the second recommendation, which is to rebalance the relationship between Canada's railways and its customers. Trade begins at home, and Canada's ability to compete against other countries requires a reliable and cost-effective transportation system to get our goods to market. As the largest corporate customer group of Canada's class I railways, accounting for more than 50% of rail freight revenue in 2017, mining is a major stakeholder to transportation policy.
Canada's rail freight system operates primarily as a dual monopoly, shared by CN and CP, Canada's only class I railways. Communities and businesses are often captive, served by only one of these companies, which gives rail customers little or no competitive choice, and the railways market power over their customers. At core, this market power creates an imbalance between shippers and railways in the rail freight market, which contributes to the ongoing protracted relationship between shippers and railways.
The number of rail service-related consultations and legislative measures in recent years reflect the persisting challenges that rail customers face, as well as the failure of these legislative attempts to curtail railway market power. Most recently, Bill C-49, the Transportation Modernization Act, the third legislative attempt to address reoccurring rail freight service challenges in six years, was enacted. While the package of reforms went further than those of Minister Garneau's predecessors, like them, Bill C-49 fell short of rebalancing the position of railways and customers in the rail freight market.
On the backdrop of a costly and reputationally damaging supply chain disruption in winter 2018, the second such disruption in four years, MAC, in partnership with seven other resource shipping associations, advanced two recommendations to improve the bill. The first is agency own-motion powers, and the second is a shipper right to a costing assessment during the final offer arbitration process. One of those recommendations was watered down, and the second was rejected, and this despite the sober second thought of the Senate, twice over.
As of Friday of last week, I can report that none of the new bill's tools have been used since Bill C-49's enactment, despite their having been lauded by decision-makers as key solutions to the challenges that shippers face. Meanwhile, service challenges have been mounting in recent weeks, and shippers across the supply chain are growing increasingly concerned that costly and reputationally damaging supply chain disruption could occur again this winter, as occurred last.
