News   Apr 25, 2024
GTA 2024 BILD Award Finalists Announced — and You Can Vote!
 248     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Brightwater Resubmission Proposes Increased Density and Height in Port Credit
 799     2 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Wyse Meter Solutions Encouraging Sustainability Through Submetering Technology
 811     0 

VIA Rail

tmlittle said:
I think virtually every populated place in Canada should have passenger rail. I don't particularly care about finances. These are political choices and there is plenty of money here if there was a government aggressive enough to take something from mining, logging, and petrochemical companies for a change.



Ah, I see another cost that could be cut...
Click to expand...

Off to ignore land.
 
tmlittle said:
I think virtually every populated place in Canada should have passenger rail. I don't particularly care about finances. These are political choices and there is plenty of money here if there was a government aggressive enough to take something from mining, logging, and petrochemical companies for a change.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Rail is capital intensive - even Europe with a much more compact geographical footprint cannot afford that. General agreement with the social dimension of transportation in Canada doesn't dictate the form the transportation should be in, much less rail is appropriate no matter where and when (like does it make sense to have a rail line to Iqaluit?)

tmlittle said:
Ah, I see another cost that could be cut...
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious - beyond the fact that you still won't get rail to everywhere even if you did.

AoD
 
kEiThZ said:
Since when is VIA in the business of providing social services? If the bleeding heart argument is there, why only Sudbury? How many other towns should VIA service, and how many billions do you think the government should commit to that cause?
Click to expand...

The former CEO of VIA said something along the lines of VIA being a crown corporation and having a mandate to maximize the utilization of its assets for the benefit of the public. VIA Rail has a Public Service Obligation to operate trains on the routes under Schedule 1 of SOR/89-488 (Order Varying Certain National Transportation Agency Orders Respecting Railway Companies).
 
tmlittle said:
I think virtually every populated place in Canada should have passenger rail.
Click to expand...

1) Why? To what purpose and end?

2) Define "populated".

3) Define "passenger rail".

If we're talking about sending up a once a week tourist train to Sudbury, there's probably a business case for that....

tmlittle said:
I don't particularly care about finances.
Click to expand...

That's pretty obvious. But the government (and most of the public) thinks funds should be allocated to ensure maximum benefit for the most taxpayers.

tmlittle said:
These are political choices and there is plenty of money here if there was a government aggressive enough to take something from mining, logging, and petrochemical companies for a change.
Click to expand...


tmlittle said:
Ah, I see another cost that could be cut...
Click to expand...

And none of those cuts would change the reality that there's no rational business case for regular (daily or better) rail service to Sudbury.
 
littlewill1166 said:
The former CEO of VIA said something along the lines of VIA being a crown corporation and having a mandate to maximize the utilization of its assets for the benefit of the public. VIA Rail has a Public Service Obligation to operate trains on the routes under Schedule 1 of SOR/89-488 (Order Varying Certain National Transportation Agency Orders Respecting Railway Companies).
Click to expand...


Right. They are obligated to operate specific routes in the public interest and allocated resources to do that. Many of the stops on these routes are far less connected than Sudbury is. Sudbury is about as connected as most cities of similar size.

If we're going to argue federal investment is required in communities of a similar context, there's several corridors that should be ahead: Calgary-Edmonton, Regina-Saskatoon, Vancouver-Kelowna, Halifax-Moncton, etc.

I'd argue that a more sensible investment is GO/Ontario Northland providing regular bus service to Barrie to connect to the GO network, or bus service to North Bay to connect with a reinvigorated Ontario Northland Train.
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
I was encouraged by the comment that a first task will be to assess curves and the potential for easing some. This strikes me as a desirable sanity check especially for the Peterboro- Perth segment. There is an impact on both cost and timekeeping here, and as one who just can’t shake reservations about the route, this is useful and possibly reassuring analysis even if it takes some time. Likewise, it seems that tunnel sharing with REM is not dead yet.
Whether it’s strategy or unintentional outcome, it’s beginning to feel like this work might just roll on to the point where everyone is so gradually acclimatised that it leads to a decision to proceed.....

- Paul
Click to expand...

What's sad is that this should all have been done years ago. 4 year term and they couldn't even fund the detailed engineerings, market definition and EA work needed to be done.

That said, this JPT does seem to be taking the bull by the horns and proceeding in a methodical fashion to make the idea more implementable. The route and station scrub should help them nail down costs and timelines a bit better. And thankfully, that's only 5-6 months away.
 
mdrejhon said:
For the routing and railfan info perhaps! Early deets, deets, deets, deets. ;)

But for the "IT IS HAPPENING! YAY!" decision, that's 2021 ?
Click to expand...

Who knows if this government survives till then. That's why I'm so pissed that Trudeau couldn't at least get all the studies done during his first term. The big $4 billion dollar price tag (which is bound to go up) is going to become a massive political football. And a minority government is going to have a tough time justifying expending political capital on that. As it stands, best case scenario is probably something like 2026 before service starts.

At least getting the studies and EA done is something I guess.....
 
It drives me a little nuts the way folks on forums talk about Ford does this and Trudeau does that as though they individually sit and design transit lines, social programs, windmill farms etc. They don't. Government is big, processes are complex, and this stuff is not all easy. VIA is a crown corporation. They are moving at their speed.
 
At the risk of sounding naive, one has to believe that the Cons are holding strategy sessions on “how to win hearts and minds of urban voters in the east”. I’m not sure they will oppose this project when the next election inevitably arrives. It’s not that expensive.

There’s no doubt that Ottawa (collectively) is ragging the puck on this one. The Liberals, having been cut back to a minority, certainly aren’t going to make big splashy announcements that favour Ontario and Quebec. It’s frustrating, but a couple years more of study may be the only way to save this proposal.

Getting all this paperwork done is an interesting bit of “thin edge of the wedge”.... at some point, if the media has done enough talking about this, people may just assume it’s happening and not notice the actual announcement. It would be ironic if this project were kicked off in a low-key way, ie the direct opposite style to a DelDuca transit photo op binge.

I also have to wonder if anyone is quietly looking at HFR West. A Lethbridge-Calgary-Edmonton rail service might soften some blows right now. The economic case may actually be tolerable to supportive.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
At the risk of sounding naive, one has to believe that the Cons are holding strategy sessions on “how to win hearts and minds of urban voters in the east”. I’m not sure they will oppose this project when the next election inevitably arrives. It’s not that expensive.
Click to expand...

Their rural base will be against it and raise a stink (like they did with the Toronto to London stretch provincially). Not sure if they see it as an urban vote-getter in any case.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Their rural base will be against it and raise a stink (like they did with the Toronto to London stretch provincially). Not sure if they see it as an urban vote-getter in any case.

AoD
Click to expand...

Rural voters (tied to the Tory base vote) don't have many other places to go electorally; if shaving off a small percentage costs a seat or two, that could be very worthwhile if swapped for a dozen or more '905' seats and 2-3 in the City proper.
 
Northern Light said:
Rural voters (tied to the Tory base vote) don't have many other places to go electorally; if shaving off a small percentage costs a seat or two, that could be very worthwhile if swapped for a dozen or more '905' seats and 2-3 in the City proper.
Click to expand...

I doubt it is an issue that will get them votes in the city either - vs bread and cutter tax cuts and tough-on-crime policies. And VIA is one of those things that they would dearly love to get rid of as a government enterprise if they could get away with it.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Their rural base will be against it and raise a stink (like they did with the Toronto to London stretch provincially). Not sure if they see it as an urban vote-getter in any case.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure the rural base were against it per se, they were against new lines that gobble up farmland. Most folks (in Ontario anyways) realise the highways are full and this will help. The Ford government hasn't had that much difficulty getting their heads around transit, they are waking up to the reality that new and bigger highways cost far, far more.
People from rural Alberta tell me they resist going to Calgary because 'the traffic is awful'. Alberta has sold LRT to its electorate. It's largely perception, and it's all relative.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top