News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.2K     6 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 903     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.8K     0 

Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor

I noticed you did not say "We'd".

Well yeah. I have the same level of affinity for North Bay as I do for Sudbury. No interest beyond going there for work. So sure, I don't see any personal benefit in this endeavour. So "they'd".
 
I think as a priority we first should focus on cities with populations over 150k that have no VIA service whatsoever, such as Calgary and Regina.

And before that we should actually build rail where it's fiscally sensible so that Canadians actually understand the benefits of rail and don't just think it's an anachronistic waste of their tax dollars, as a majority do today.

I don't think railfans fully appreciate how close we are to have a future government simply ditch national rail.
 
I think as a priority we first should focus on cities with populations over 150k that have no VIA service whatsoever, such as Calgary and Regina.

I agree. Alike between Calgary and Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton and Regina and Saskatoon would be much higher on the list of things Via should be investing in than a line to Sudbury. In fact, a Sudbury line could be done as part of the Northlander service. The 17 Corridor west of North Bay could be worth putting a train on as there is a decent amount of population all the way to SSM. However, even though I may think it is a good thing, it likely does not reach a threshold that would make it viable.

Well yeah. I have the same level of affinity for North Bay as I do for Sudbury. No interest beyond going there for work. So sure, I don't see any personal benefit in this endeavour. So "they'd".
Imagine if I was listened to for all transit projects in Toronto. I will make the 1.5 hour drive to the North Bay station to use the Northlander when I go to Toronto for trips that I am not bringing back a load of stuff. Currently, that is about 3x a year. Of our other trips, at least once I need my truck as I am carrying a large load. For many people in Northern ON, this is a normal thing. S, take the `300,000 of us that live within a reasonable distance to it whom would rather not deal with Toronto traffic and parking and it starts to make sense.
 
Imagine if I was listened to for all transit projects in Toronto.

Once again mixing up the needs of a urban agglomeration of 7 million with the needs of a few hundred thousand people who make a handful of trips a year.

I will make the 1.5 hour drive to the North Bay station to use the Northlander when I go to Toronto for trips that I am not bringing back a load of stuff. Currently, that is about 3x a year. Of our other trips, at least once I need my truck as I am carrying a large load. For many people in Northern ON, this is a normal thing. S, take the `300,000 of us that live within a reasonable distance to it whom would rather not deal with Toronto traffic and parking and it starts to make sense.

"Rather not deal" - There you go, once again mixing up needs and wants.

And 300k people spread out over an area the size of some small European countries several hundred kilometers from actual (not made up in your head) major urban centres, is not significant at all. If every single person did 3 trips to Toronto per year that's less than 2500 trips a day. There are suburban bus routes in the GTA with more demand. And nobody would suggest replacing them with rail.
 
Let's be frank. Via is irrelevant, even on the Corridor. Via could shut down their operations and people in the Corridor still could take a bus or fly with private carriers.
 
It’s maintaining rail service where it currently is and expanding it where there is an actual demand and economic rationale for expanding it over investing in an alternative mode (or no mode at all). Simple as that…
You can't expand something that does not first exist. So, maintenance and expansion of existing corridor routes?
 
Last edited:
I think this thread was a lost cause from the jump.

The title alone betrays the agenda: it's not about Via service outside of the corridor, it's about a "lack of meaningful" service. Who exactly defines what meaningful service is? And why are so many of the discussions around connecting one particular small city to specifically Toronto?

There is a discussion to be had based on unequal access to a national rail service, like how the capital of Saskatchewan has none at all. I'm not sure why it needs to be a separate discussion from Via service outside of the corridor in general. But the concern trolling and strawmanning has been of no use to anyone.

You can support rail expansion and also be wary of expansion for the sake of expansion. New service should service new customers. Connecting new cities, and upgrading infrastructure to make trips faster and more comfortable, will do that. Expanding capacity on routes with growth or growth potential will do that. But we don't have infinite money, or infinite labour to make these upgrades. And sometimes people live and work where they do because it fits their lifestyle - if they want to be able to take the train, they move somewhere that it is feasible to take the train.
 
No. I is more along the lines of acceptance that most people here seem to just want Via Shut down and a tax cut passed on to them for it.

You'd find most people on UT - the ones who participate anyways - to be broadly supportive of VIA. That doesn't mean supporting lost causes to service locales with so little demand that would bleed the organization dry. I am fairly certain you know this after 38 pages of posts. Consider this a friendly warning that the thread will be closed if we keep on doing this non-sequitur.

MoD
 
Last edited:

Back
Top