VIA Rail

[crs1026]

The unfortunate part is that there are excellent babies in with the bathwater.

Bill C-577, referenced in one of the resolutions, is a private members' bill put forward by MP Olivia Chow, to create a VIA Rail Canada Act. For obvious reasons, it was killed by the government of the day. If only that part of the resolution makes its way into the next round of legislation, it would be a great win. But I'm doubtful that anyone will allow that.

The portions of Resolution 3377 dealing with better fly-in access for Indigenous communities, and linkage to better regional and remote rail service, make eminent sense. But linking that infrastructure with HSR is absurd. Ironically, the return of the Northlander might actually be made more likely by this resolution - although the current mindset tends to place remote rail services with individual First Nations instead of giving VIA a broader mandate to provide these. I would like to see stronger language to get VIA and First Nations working together on remote services - it's a crying opportunity for partnership.

The "within three years" qualifier is, sad to say, part of our legacy of broken promises to First Nations. I can't fault the authors for adding that comment to emphasise the expectation that government get off the pot. However, it's obviously absurd on its face. A more realistic phrasing would call for Ottawa to set out a timetable that is actually doable and then deliver on that promise - but promises to First Nations do seem to be meaningless, so they have reverted to rhetoric.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

The unfortunate part is that there are excellent babies in with the bathwater.

Bill C-577, referenced in one of the resolutions, is a private members' bill put forward by MP Olivia Chow, to create a VIA Rail Canada Act. For obvious reasons, it was killed by the government of the day. If only that part of the resolution makes its way into the next round of legislation, it would be a great win. But I'm doubtful that anyone will allow that.

The portions of Resolution 3377 dealing with better fly-in access for Indigenous communities, and linkage to better regional and remote rail service, make eminent sense. But linking that infrastructure with HSR is absurd. Ironically, the return of the Northlander might actually be made more likely by this resolution - although the current mindset tends to place remote rail services with individual First Nations instead of giving VIA a broader mandate to provide these. I would like to see stronger language to get VIA and First Nations working together on remote services - it's a crying opportunity for partnership.

The "within three years" qualifier is, sad to say, part of our legacy of broken promises to First Nations. I can't fault the authors for adding that comment to emphasise the expectation that government get off the pot. However, it's obviously absurd on its face. A more realistic phrasing would call for Ottawa to set out a timetable that is actually doable and then deliver on that promise - but promises to First Nations do seem to be meaningless, so they have reverted to rhetoric.

- Paul

Part of the problem with these types of statements is they often seem deliberately worded to mean different things to different people, or perhaps it is all things to all people.

"The expedited National Rail Strategy include a National Inter-City and Regional Rail strategy with funding to build inter-city and regional rail that connects Remote and Fly-In communities with major cities across Canada by 2025."​

What does that mean? Rail to every remote/fly-in community in four years? There are approximately 30 scattered across northern Ontario alone, let alone MB, SK, QC, NL and the territories.

Given that we seemed challenged to fund HFR between Toronto and Montreal, the concept of constructing and operating a national HSR, given our geography and demographics, is beyond a pipe dream.

Given that a Liberal policy document calls for an increased military presence, notwithstanding that it was pretty much a throwaway statement, tells me they aren't serious. Perhaps they were trying to counter the NDP resolution debate to simply disband it completely.

No wonder the general population tuned out politicians a long time ago.

 

[2transpo]

I'm actually fearful of how this approach might harm HFR. The resolutions do not speak of cost or business case. They just want HSR.... within 3 years. So much room for "spending like drunken sailors" backlash when VIA has at least built a value proposition.

It's like watching a Toronto light rail project blossom into a subway.... and then devolve into debate.......

- Paul

View attachment 310829View attachment 310830

In case anyone needed evidence that HFR isn't going to happen. The Liberals are just going to shout HSR and put us through another 5 years of studies. Shouldn't we have seen the JPO by now? This is pretty much as bleak as it gets without the project being officially cancelled.

 

[Allandale25]

Instagram

www.instagram.com

 

[p_xavier]

VIA Rail website states May 15 though.

 

[TerryJohnson]

Policy resolutions in any party tend to be the blended efforts of dozens or hundreds of grassroots party activists, usually redrafted several times to fit within the word limit. The 2014 Liberal resolution for a national transportation strategy, for example, got the word "transit" shoved into it once the Toronto ridings got hold of the draft, and freight along the way too, but the original draft was more focussed on a national passenger rail strategy to reconnect all Canadians. The wording on intercity and regional rail above is along the same lines, and the inclusion of remote and fly-in communities is exactly what we should see, but somehow the word "bus" is not in the draft, although it is the glue that would bring the whole thing together... the recent announcement of $250 million for rural transportation would have been made in October 2015, and the response to the HFR proposal should've been "yes, get on with it, and Calgary-Edmonton while you're at it" or "no, because we're dusting off Ecotrain" if the government paid closer attention to the underlying policy development work that goes into these conventions.

 

[crs1026]

^That equipment move is the eastward counterpart of the deadhead train that left Toronto back in March. I don’t believe it has actually left Winnipeg, it’s not due back into Toronto for another week.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

Policy resolutions in any party tend to be the blended efforts of dozens or hundreds of grassroots party activists, usually redrafted several times to fit within the word limit. The 2014 Liberal resolution for a national transportation strategy, for example, got the word "transit" shoved into it once the Toronto ridings got hold of the draft, and freight along the way too, but the original draft was more focussed on a national passenger rail strategy to reconnect all Canadians. The wording on intercity and regional rail above is along the same lines, and the inclusion of remote and fly-in communities is exactly what we should see, but somehow the word "bus" is not in the draft, although it is the glue that would bring the whole thing together... the recent announcement of $250 million for rural transportation would have been made in October 2015, and the response to the HFR proposal should've been "yes, get on with it, and Calgary-Edmonton while you're at it" or "no, because we're dusting off Ecotrain" if the government paid closer attention to the underlying policy development work that goes into these conventions.

OK, but are they expecting to be taken seriously with a policy resolution that says they will have year-round, bus capable roads to the likes of Nain, Attawapiskat and Rankin Inlet by 2025?

 

[Darwinkgo]

I would predict we are a lot closer to some new rail tunnels than we may think

Yeah, freight is pushing capacity.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Absolutely. So am I.

They sat on their hands for years and did nothing. Now HSR is looking sexy because the Biden administration is pushing it. But they don't have anything on deck but HFR. So they have two choices. Either they go back to the drawing board or sell HFR as HSR lite.

I think the second strategy is the likely outcome. And that is a double edged sword. On one hand, we'll finally see discussion on upgradability. "We can make this better and take it to HSR." On the other hand, we'll see a public feeling duped when the "higher speed rail" the Liberals promised turns out to take over 3 hrs between Toronto-Ottawa and 5 hrs between Toronto-Montreal. It's the kind of political wordsmithing that breeds cynicism.

Sadly, I think there's zero chance they'll be honest with the public and say HFR first and upgrades later as we can afford them.

The party does not equal the government. Think of this as an expression of the party to spend money on rail.

 

[kEiThZ]

The party does not equal the government. Think of this as an expression of the party to spend money on rail.

Sure. I get that.

But politics does mean that politicians respond to their base. And if the base starts arguing that HFR is insufficient, we might be in for a rough ride.

Also, I worry that broad over-the-top ambitions like this, sort of make easy fodder for anti-investment advocates. "Those crazy folks want to run high speed rail to Flin Flon!"

 

[2transpo]

Le TGV Montréal-Québec en voie de dérailler?

Des tractations en haut lieu à Ottawa pourraient compromettre le projet de train rapide entre Montréal et Québec.

www.journaldemontreal.com

However, reliable sources told the Journal that the Minister of Infrastructure, Catherine McKenna, is instead promoting a fully electric high-speed train (TGV) between Montreal and Toronto that would leave aside Quebec and Trois- Rivers.

This means HFR is all but dead. RIP. Is everyone ready for another 5 years of studies?

 

[crs1026]

Le TGV Montréal-Québec en voie de dérailler?

Des tractations en haut lieu à Ottawa pourraient compromettre le projet de train rapide entre Montréal et Québec.

www.journaldemontreal.com

This means HFR is all but dead. RIP. Is everyone ready for another 5 years of studies?

If true, the lack of alignment between Sabia, the Infrastructure bureaucracy, and the Transport bureaucracy, after all this work and angst, is truly concerning. One would have thought the Cabinet was on the cusp of a final decision. Perhaps this is the debate over that decision leaking out, and the convention is just a sideshow.

Having said that, I can't imagine the Liberals arriving at the next election with a TGV like proposal that alienates both the Quebec grass roots and throws even more gobs of money at Ontario with nothing for Alberta. Never mind ignoring the merits of HFR vs HSR vs whatever.

So yeah.... more years of "study" (ie vaccilation) is quite possible.

Ugh.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

More details from the article linked above.

(translated to English) (note that TGF here is what we are calling HFR, TGV is HSR)

A Montreal deputy confirmed to the Journal yesterday to be aware of the backstage games in favor of a TGV.
However, he assured that the Quebec caucus of the PLC remained firmly behind a TGF.

In January, the project office set up jointly by VIA and BIC to refine the TGF submitted its analysis to the new Minister of Transport, Omar Alghabra.

According to our information, the document favors an improved version of the TGF over the first version of the project and a TGV. Ottawa has injected $ 71 million into this work.

****

The TGF is "the flagship of our modernization plan," VIA Rail said in an email yesterday.

"The Government of Canada is firm on its commitment to build a high-frequency train between Toronto and Quebec,"
for her part assured Chantalle Aubertin, spokesperson for Minister McKenna.

 

[roger1818]

Le TGV Montréal-Québec en voie de dérailler?

Des tractations en haut lieu à Ottawa pourraient compromettre le projet de train rapide entre Montréal et Québec.

www.journaldemontreal.com

This means HFR is all but dead. RIP. Is everyone ready for another 5 years of studies?

If true, that 5 more years of studies will be followed by studies by Air Canada on how HSR will not be economical and will damage their viability. Similar to the way Brightline will be required to compensate the state for lost toll road revenue when they extend their line to Tampa, VIA would likely be responsible to compensate the airlines for lost passenger revenue.