News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.1K     9 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

VIA Rail

Is there any chance at all that the "proponents" will try to propose to the government a very geometrically favorable, High-Speed Rail allowable ROI in order to make more money? (A straighter line would involve more engineering and construction work.) Would the government go with such a plan? Might we just get HSR after all or is this just me wishing on a shooting star?
 
LemonCondo said:
Is there any chance at all that the "proponents" will try to propose to the government a very geometrically favorable, High-Speed Rail allowable ROI in order to make more money? (A straighter line would involve more engineering and construction work.) Would the government go with such a plan? Might we just get HSR after all or is this just me wishing on a shooting star?
Click to expand...
The VIA RFP seems to be pushing for at least some higher-speed segments, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see some 200km/h stretches, which would qualify it as HSR.

Don't be too hopeful for 350km/h rail here though.
 
LemonCondo said:
Is there any chance at all that the "proponents" will try to propose to the government a very geometrically favorable, High-Speed Rail allowable ROI in order to make more money? (A straighter line would involve more engineering and construction work.) Would the government go with such a plan? Might we just get HSR after all or is this just me wishing on a shooting star?
Click to expand...

I suspect this is actually being hoped for. Ottawa is possibly in a quandry: They know the original HFR is sub-optimal because it was deliberately designed to be austere - but if they come out and appear to favour something more HSRish, they will be accused of playing loose with the taxpayer's dollars. Full HSR is probably not sellable to the public even now..... personally I suspect many people (myself included) favour an "improved" HFR rather than full HSR.

If a proponent comes forward with a more elaborate proposal that has a business case (prepared by someone other than the government) attached, and appears to have a P3 partner taking some of the risk instead of the taxpayer, it's not Ottawa's idea and there is a veneer of “selected in a competitive bid” and "business backing".

Political decisionmaking seems to require a coating of huge amounts of sugar (or some other substance) before the right thing can happen.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
robmausser said:
Not true. If your goal is simply an express service between major cities, there is no issue with this.

Not every train needs to be an all-stop situation that serves local communities.
Click to expand...
Exactly. HFR’s goal is to connect major cities, which is where the lion’s share of ridership will come from. Peterborough and Trois Rivières just happen to be along the route, so it makes sense to serve them.

The fact that Tweed and Sharbot Lake showed up on early HFR maps was misplaced political pandering. If VIA happened to cut through these settlements, maybe it is worth stopping 1 to 2 trains per day. But it is not worth rerouting or twisting the corridor to serve them.
 
SaugeenJunction said:
Exactly. HFR’s goal is to connect major cities, which is where the lion’s share of ridership will come from. Peterborough and Trois Rivières just happen to be along the route, so it makes sense to serve them.

The fact that Tweed and Sharbot Lake showed up on early HFR maps was misplaced political pandering. If VIA happened to cut through these settlements, maybe it is worth stopping 1 to 2 trains per day. But it is not worth rerouting or twisting the corridor to serve them.
Click to expand...
How about a Kingston North Station?
 
Bordercollie said:
How about a Kingston North Station?
Click to expand...
Kingston to Sharbot Lake (the closest point of the proposed HFR route) is about an hour. To Perth (the more likely town for an actual station), is an hour and a quarter. Both are via county roads - the route to Sharbot Lake is particularly twisty. Either are hardly what I would call handy but I suppose faster than driving to T-O-M. I though the plan was to keep some kind of service on the Lakeshore line anyway.
 
B6428BA3-8D65-4338-95B3-23DE55C518AE.jpeg
 
cplchanb said:
Well essentially its back to square one now since they are taking it off of vias hands... shame that the govt is getting to hands on in this. I'll bet if the conservatives get into power in 25 they will change the scope again.
Click to expand...
I don't see the conservatives would even build it.
 
cplchanb said:
Well essentially its back to square one now since they are taking it off of vias hands... shame that the govt is getting to hands on in this. I'll bet if the conservatives get into power in 25 they will change the scope again.
Click to expand...

The issue is that VIA is and was never set up as an agency to construct and build rail corridors. Everything they have done so far was through CN/CP doing the work for them.

They simply don't have the ability or expertise to carry out the work and project scope. Changing VIA to be such would take years and waste even more time for getting HFR built.

But, taking the corridor and operations off their hands is a bit of an odd one. I was certain after its construction operations would be handed over to VIA.

My assumption is that private partners do not want to bid on a project without having their hands in the operations, or if they aren't involved they will significantly increase the costs of the capital works.

Companies are all about providing a service they can bill monthly for versus one large project that ends.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top