Admiral Beez
Superstar
Thirty-seven posts about Sudbury. Is this thread just about rail to the big Nickel?
urbantoronto.ca
|
|
|
Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor
- Thread starter Urban Sky
- Start date
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Now do the same about the „VIA Rail“ thread. We have this troll thread here to keep us sane there…Thirty-seven posts about Sudbury. Is this thread just about rail to the big Nickel?
Search results for query: Sudbury
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
37 out of 211?That would be 17%Thirty-seven posts about Sudbury. Is this thread just about rail to the big Nickel?
Search results for query: Sudbury
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Ah. Does our trolling friend understand that this sub thread was created as a box to put them in - essentially as harm reduction?
crs1026
Superstar
There are actually three boxes - first he got a Northlander box, but given that inch....
Taking a more constructive tone, I do think there is an equivalency to "Maslow's Hierarchy" going on with transportation funding, and it's fundamentally on the right track. We need to work according to a "hierarchy of needs". We don't need to fulfil each level totally before addressing the next, there is value in some overlap... but our passion for a particular route or project should not overtake the rational and deliberate building of the network, nor should it demand funding when money is needed for a higher level build. One does foundations and load bearing walls first.....
First, there is substantial investment in local and regional transit, which is the fundamental enabler to a transportation network that is not perpetuating automobile (and airplane).
Then there is the investment in a dedicated central corridor backbone, which for the moment is Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal HxR.
Then there are logical extensions to the backbone. In my view, Montreal-Quebec is a "logical extension" that appears to be already in motion. Toronto-Kitchener-London-Windsor is probably the next deserving logical extension. One could argue Toronto-Niagara is a logical extension.
Then there are the lesser but desirable spokes from the backbone. I would place Toronto-North Bay in this bucket, but it needs to compete with other buckets.... Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa/Montreal is one, possibly Montreal-Sherbrooke and Montreal-Drummondville-Quebec. Toronto-Brantford-London. toronto-Sudbury belongs here. Links to the USA belong here. The big challenge with the "spokes" is they are all individually expensive, in that they largely depend on sharing freight routes and/or may require rebuilding segments of abandoned or downgraded branch lines. So they will have to compete for funding, which the backbone and logical extensions are already needing. And they may demand policy changes eg sharing priority. It's critical that we build business cases and prioritize them on an apples to apples basis. How does Sudbury fit in that bucket? We can debate that, but why bother until we are getting to this point in the priority listing.
North Bay-Timmins falls elsewhere, in the category of "services to outlying areas needing special treatment". The question becomes how deserving is it compared to Prince Rupert, Churchill, White River, northern and northeastern Quebec resource communities in the hinterland. My sense is that the roads and airports are already good enough, certainly better than some routes in this bucket, so I don't see the burning need for spending money here. Queens Park is playing politics with the Northlander investment, not working from a sensible transportation to-do list.
A big question is, when is the right time to begin additional backbones on the Prairies and in the Maritimes. I believe both of these can come eventually, but probably not until people in those regions see the value and become committed to these as a priority. For example, while Edmonton-Calgary is probably viable as a backbone, it only deserves to be started once Albertans agree that it's how they intend to get around. Otherwise it's a "nice to have" but is a sideshow that is marginal to existing highway and air resources. Frankly, I think it will take a full and successful buildout in Ontario-Quebec which demonstrates modal share growth before people really get interested, even if there is lots of political grumbling about equity and favouritism. We need to build these when we need them, not just so people in Alberta and the Maritimes have nice things.
So yeah, we can all troll about our pet project - but let's stick to an orderly to-do strategy.
- Paul
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
When I lived in Fredericton I would have regularly used a passenger service from the capital to Moncton and Saint John, and less frequently to Charlottetown and Truro and Halifax. When first saw the Confederation Bridge I remember thinking there should be a train track alongside the automobiles. I realize now that road-rail bridges are actually quite rare, especially anything more than a short span, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road–rail_bridges
Very true. So, sorry Maritimes.....
lenaitch
Senior Member
There still seems to be a sentiment that VIA doesn't want to do something. I am going to go out on a limb and think that it will willingly do what its parent government tells them to do and funds them to do it. Like or not the pending return of Northlander, ONR's parent government has made the decision to support it.
All pax rail is political, even rail-based Toronto transit falls into that column.
One thing that happens in the US that we might benefit from here is local partnerships and funding for AMTRAK. Some local service might happen faster if the federal and related provincial government shared the cost. It would obviously be cheaper for each.
All pax rail is political, even rail-based Toronto transit falls into that column.
One thing that happens in the US that we might benefit from here is local partnerships and funding for AMTRAK. Some local service might happen faster if the federal and related provincial government shared the cost. It would obviously be cheaper for each.
micheal_can
Senior Member
This is very true. If the federal government tomorrow decided to double Via's budget, I doubt anyone here thinks that Via would only add more trains on the W-QC corridor. All crown corporations are at the mercy of the government of the day.
Saving said that, it is good to discuss other things that play into a decision besides politics. Which is where the number of buses or number of planes a given route has on it. Or preclearances at a station for a border crossing route. All of these get at the mechanics of what needs to be resolved for a route to come back.
There is an LRT line that is the most expensive line ever built, I think in North America that was actually under construction 30 years ago. Why was it stopped? Political.
Why did the CP Canadian route get shut while the CN Super Continental get kept when the CP route had the lower subsidy? Political.
It is too bad that Via has not explored this.If they have, we, the public, should know that they have tried and why it has not happened yet.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I doubt thy have the legislated authority, but honestly don't know.
crs1026
Superstar
Considering that there is no legislation governing VIA, it’s a question of what Cabinet would allow.
- Paul
micheal_can
Senior Member
Id assume that if a province said they would cover all or a significant portion of the costs for Via to run a service they want, Cabinet would likely see it as a way to gain votes in those areas, and may comply. For example, if the province of AB came to Via and wanted regular frequent service between Edmonton and Calgary and they would pay for half the initial costs and operating costs, the federal government would do it.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
How many more times do you want to repeat that stupid conspiracy theory of yours? You can whine all you want want that the federal government shouldn’t have sought to minimize VIA‘s deficit, but once you accept the fact that they did and consider the implications of closing the CP line vs. closing the CN line, it becomes blatantly obvious that it was cheaper for the federal government to keep the CN line, making it a fiscal and not a political decision. Deal with it and grow up!
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
I was thinking more of the financial rules surrounding Crown agencies in general. As a Crown corporation, VIA is allowed to have income-for-service (fares); government departments in general cannot, but whether that would include non-service-related income from a level of government would be a question. Also whether another level of government could directly subsidize a federal Crown corporation. You are right that all things flow from Cabinet, and government accounting rules are pretty much voodoo.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Those kinds of rules could be changed if the political will is there.
crs1026
Superstar
Perhaps, but one still has to find the money and justify the funding in relation to other potential investments. Ottawa has focus on the HFR procurement, and is currently paying off the new Venture fleet. There will be a decision needed on a long distance fleet procurement shortly. Lots of federal money is going into local transit and even GO Expansion. Ontario is carrying the burden of Crosstown, other LRT projects, GO Expansion, and four subway projects.Plus the Northlander
I'm not sure that the money pot goes any further.
- Paul