News   Mar 31, 2026
City Council March, 2026: Plenty of Rental, Mutli-Phase Redevelopments Approved
 1K     2 
News   Mar 31, 2026
Building Toronto’s Skyline Podcast Event to Feature Brad Bradford in Concord
 184     2 
News   Mar 31, 2026
Glittering Forma Rises Higher in the Entertainment District
 1K     0 

VIA Rail

EnviroTO said:
The good news is that $491 million isn't doing nothing, the bad news is that they haven't published a plan yet so whether $491 million is going to a watered down plan where they throw good money after bad, or actually build something supportive of eventually controlling their own timetable is a big question mark. The easiest work to commit to is Ottawa-Montreal. If they focused their efforts there, ensuring continued access to downtown Montreal before developments there lock them out of affordable access, and improvements towards getting the trip time to 75min then it would be money well spent, while being fairly non-committal on the route and cost of Toronto to Ottawa.
Click to expand...

This was my first thought also, but time is of the essence. So I'd be happier if they selected items that the engineering study found will be the longest to build, and got those started.
Even so, the spend for 21-22 suggests they aren't prepared to mobilise yet. (They really can't put shovels in the ground until they have completed consultations, and those aren't really off the ground yet, and those might not be taken seriously until government confirms they are serious about proceeding.... it's a circle)

- Paul
 
Allandale25 said:
^ I'm not as familiar with the Ottawa-Montreal stretch as I am with the Toronto-Ottawa stretch.

What types of projects between Ottawa-Montreal could the $491 million be spent on?
Click to expand...

Additional sidings, some curves to be eased, perhaps grade separations or crossing improvements to get that last 20 km/hr of speed. And likely new trackage through and east of De Beaujeu... Coteau would have to see additional track, as it's a known bottleneck that is an important yard for CN freight. The mid-2000's track expansion called for improvements there, until VIA ran out of money. Possibly new CTC and turnouts for the approach to Central Station - while the curves there can't be eased, the signalling is old and probably end of life. (Kind of analogous to the various USRC improvements.) Adjustments to get the most capacity out of the line(s) east of Coteau given that there will be VIA trains there continually if service goes to hourly.

IIRC the amount cited specifically for Ottawa - Montreal was only about $195M.

- Paul
 
There's plenty they could do. But again, why is all this budgeted over 5-6 years and not 2-3 years?
 
kEiThZ said:
There's plenty they could do. But again, why is all this budgeted over 5-6 years and not 2-3 years?
Click to expand...

Do you really think that this whole project could be completed in 2-3 years? For example, if the plan is indeed to replace the swing bridge, it would take a year for the RFQ on the new design, a a year or two to finalize the design, a year for the RFQ on the construction and a couple years to build the replacement.
 
roger1818 said:
Do you really think that this whole project could be completed in 2-3 years? For example, if the plan is indeed to replace the swing bridge, it would take a year for the RFQ on the new design, a a year or two to finalize the design, a year for the RFQ on the construction and a couple years to build the replacement.
Click to expand...
Do I think that? No.

Is that what VIA claimed was possible? Yes.

Six years is a change from the stated plan, which iirc was closer to 4.

Shame on us for relying on the little that has been said about this project publicly.

- Paul
 
Re complaints there isn’t enough $$ for infrastructure:
21651143-350C-4513-934F-566D4627A743.jpeg

For stimulus, there isn’t much if any excess capacity in construction. Directing more money there would cause mostly cost inflation, not extra construction. Why? This is a really weird recession.

Also: why has such a big group on here lost the thread?
1: the budget was never going to contain the full HFR budget (because it isn’t a government expenditure)
2: we know the project does not have environmental and Duty to Consult approvals
3: we know that the intent was to create as freestanding (uses revenues to pay for itself) of a project as possible, but that additional funding was possibly needed
4: we know the government doesn’t shy away from out of cycle announcements
5: CIB has been making a lot of investments
 
roger1818 said:
Do you really think that this whole project could be completed in 2-3 years? For example, if the plan is indeed to replace the swing bridge, it would take a year for the RFQ on the new design, a a year or two to finalize the design, a year for the RFQ on the construction and a couple years to build the replacement.
Click to expand...

Given that they had previously said they could construct HFR in 4 years, I don't doubt there's a lot they could do in 2-3 yrs. Would a swing bridge be replaced in 2-3 years? Probably not. But, I doubt most of these enabling works are swing bridges either.

We're at not the point that people are so desperate to see anything positive in this, that we're trying to argue that replacing a swing bridge over 6 years is definitive progress on HFR. Ridiculous.
 
Here's something we haven't seen in awhile, a Minister talking about enhancing passenger rail service in front of a VIA Rail train.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1384541459668520962

Caveats I'll proactively acknowledge:
  1. yes I'm aware some will see this as a political stunt;
  2. yes, I'm aware the budget hasn't passed and could be tied to an election;
  3. yes, I'm aware that the $491 million will be spent over six years and we don't know yet exactly what it'll be used for;
  4. yes, I'm aware they could have exercised the option for the new fleet to buy even more rolling stock and invest even more over six years than what was listed in the budget;
  5. yes, I'm aware we still don't know what "de-risking" HFR means and the exact role and next steps of the CIB; and
  6. [insert all other caveats, concerns noted above I missed, and healthy skepticism]
At the end of the day, just nice to see a Minister mentioning VIA Rail and investing in it. Hope to see more of it and by all parties (including the Conservatives).
 
You guys have to remember that expanding VIA, at least in it's current form, is a hard sell.

Ottawa has dedicated a LOT of new money for infrastructure and all of it being Green and hence improving a rail service that will expand both it's diesel fleets and usage of them goes counter to their vision of transferring Canada over to a non polluting economy.
 
kEiThZ said:
It's weird. They keep talking as though they are building HFR. And yet they haven't put out an official launch.
Click to expand...
*whispers* because they are.

I'll add another bit of archania for you. If the JPO found a subsidy was needed, the CIB could not sign off on an investment before the feds signed off on a subsidy. Now the process can flow through Treasury Board (program approval), then the CIB board can approve, then the JPO full report goes to the Minister of the Environment and a mandatory waiting period starts (we will hear about this if anyone is paying attention). Then the Minister/Cabinet signs off on the report, and then an event with the PM is scheduled. If the process is properly followed.

If they don't think someone will sue (or a FNMI group or person will sue) they can take the risk and do the above in just about any order.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Ottawa has dedicated a LOT of new money for infrastructure and all of it being Green and hence improving a rail service that will expand both it's diesel fleets and usage of them goes counter to their vision of transferring Canada over to a non polluting economy.
Click to expand...
People have to travel somehow. Rail travel is much better than car/plane travel.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top