News   Apr 01, 2026
Transit Progress and Tall Towers Made Headlines in March, 2026
 59     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
News Roundup for April 1, 2026
 261     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
Lombard Canyon
 456     1 

VIA Rail

robmausser said:
Lol, I love the logic that a plan as simple as HFR is infeasible so that a bullet train proposal is somehow doable?

That would be like saying "sorry kids, we cant afford to rent a van to drive to Disneyland this year, so instead I got us a private jet!!"
Click to expand...
I think at this point, any self-respecting politician/engineer/transport planner would have tuned out this one man shop. He literally doesn't add any value to the discussion on how we can feasibly improve the overall intercity rail experience, except spamming people on Twitter and random online forums every 2 days screaming "Chinese HSR! TGV! Shinkansen NOW!!" Oh and the occasional self promoting interview with sensationalist tabloids like Toronto Sun. It literally sounds like a PR strategy conceived by a 5 year old.
 
Last edited:
SFO-YYZ said:
I think at this point, any self-respecting politician/engineer/transport planner would have tuned out this one man shop. He literally doesn't add any value to the discussion on how we can feasibly improve the overall intercity rail experience, except spamming people on Twitter and random online forums every 2 days screaming "Chinese HSR! TGV! Shinkansen NOW!!" Oh and the occasional self promoting interview with sensationalist tabloids like Toronto Sun. It literally sounds like a PR strategy conceived by a 5 year old.
Click to expand...
The transport advocates may know, but unfortunately the media isn't familiar with who's reputable and who's a nutcase. While the Sun has a particularly low bar when it comes to fact checking, you see similar problems with all sorts of media. Like how newspaper articles will often include a quote from TTCRiders as if they were an organisation who actually understands the issues they comment on.
 
Darwinkgo said:
The carbon tax is effectively doing that. Even if it doesn't make road pricing advocates happy.

Reality is every path is technology dependent, involves choices with long lived capital stock and large hurdle prices. We don't need government dictating our choices if the carbon price is high enough.
Click to expand...
It will, to an extent. But as EV adoption grows that influence will weaken.
 
afransen said:
It will, to an extent. But as EV adoption grows that influence will weaken.
Click to expand...
Yeah of course. The negative externalities of cars really drops like a rock once its electric. Certainly will have to figure out a new way to fund operations, maintenance and renewal. Plus will always have the demand problem where the incremental user puts way more costs on other road users than the benefits they recieve (the economics of congestion).

It will take some time for language to adjust around how urbanites talk about cars. It will be sorta like over last decade as people's rhetoric shifted away from oil crisis/end of suburbia.

For VIA it is about pure geometry! One VIA train = so many cars off the road. HFR = not building an incremental lane each way on the 401/416/417. HFR = less urban congestion, etc.
 
roger1818 said:
Do they? AFAIK, the contract was that there needed to be an upgrade path for electrification. IIRC (and please prove me wrong if you have evidence to the contrary), Siemens plan was that should electrification be necessary, the Chargers could be replaced with electric locomotives.
Click to expand...
One charger at one end and one electric locomotive at the other end?
Probably the best solution considering that electrification will take a long time and will be partial. In addition, bi-mode electric/diesel locomotives tend to be more expensive than their non bi-mode counterparts, at least based on the cost AMT had to pay to buy them from Bombardier.
 
Darwinkgo said:
Yeah of course. The negative externalities of cars really drops like a rock once its electric. Certainly will have to figure out a new way to fund operations, maintenance and renewal. Plus will always have the demand problem where the incremental user puts way more costs on other road users than the benefits they recieve (the economics of congestion).

It will take some time for language to adjust around how urbanites talk about cars. It will be sorta like over last decade as people's rhetoric shifted away from oil crisis/end of suburbia.

For VIA it is about pure geometry! One VIA train = so many cars off the road. HFR = not building an incremental lane each way on the 401/416/417. HFR = less urban congestion, etc.
Click to expand...
Even with electric cars there are still substantial externalities in terms of air pollution (from tire and break wear) and the public health costs. Whether or not the technology embedded in new cars substantially improves pedestrian and other road user safety is something that remains to be seen. Gregory Shill at the University of Iowa's Law School has done a ton of work on this in the American context, but a lot carries over to Canada.
 
Frank_Lee said:
Even with electric cars there are still substantial externalities in terms of air pollution (from tire and break wear) and the public health costs. Whether or not the technology embedded in new cars substantially improves pedestrian and other road user safety is something that remains to be seen. Gregory Shill at the University of Iowa's Law School has done a ton of work on this in the American context, but a lot carries over to Canada.
Click to expand...
It is quite easy in comparison to convince people burning oil probably isn't the best thing. The public health arguments though - they are so diffuse imo to be meaningless to most - basically the urbanist version of chiropracty - a 15 minute city will solve all your ills! Bascially the urbanist equivalent of 'eat your vegetables'.
 
roger1818 said:
A quick Google found Paul Langan's LinkedIn profile. I'll let you judge his credentials.

Click to expand...
For someone who claims to be the "social media guru / spokesperson" for Canadian HSR, he has whopping 71 connections on LinkedIn. Even my 64 year old mama can do better than that 🤪

If this is the representative of the future of intercity rail in Canada, god help us all.
 
crs1026 said:
I wonder if these enhancements are even covered by the JPO/EA work. I'm betting not, just because it's added scope and cost ,when the intent is lowest possible initial cost. I'm hopeful that the initial envelope will fund sufficient sidings, but as noted above even sidings are not cheap.Let's hope that the initial product hasn't been value-engineered too far.

And, while everything seems rosy on the surface, I have to wonder what pass-the-hat discussions happen between ML and VIA. One should not expect VIA to build a second track for ML, any more than one should expect VIA to have free use of all ML's expanded corridors without chipping in for the capital cost of those. I'm sure the CIB would be asking pointed questions about who is paying for what.

- Paul
Click to expand...
I just don't see why GO trains would ever go to Peterborough when Via will already have hourly trains. We don't need a second agency to run a commuter focused service. Via already caters to commuters in certain areas, so it's more than capable of serving both commuters and intercity passengers. Even more so in a corridor that it controls. GO makes sense for a city like Kitchener because it's significantly bigger and doesn't have good Via service. Peterborough, OTOH, will have some of the best Via service in the Corridor.

But just for the sake of the argument, if GO trains serve Peterborough I assume that both GO and Via would be controlled by the same scheduling. Extra sidings or double tracking would make sense when the frequency of both gets high enough. One track for each agency is a very silo mentality and wouldn't be very efficient.

Frank_Lee said:
Even with electric cars there are still substantial externalities in terms of air pollution (from tire and break wear) and the public health costs. Whether or not the technology embedded in new cars substantially improves pedestrian and other road user safety is something that remains to be seen. Gregory Shill at the University of Iowa's Law School has done a ton of work on this in the American context, but a lot carries over to Canada.
Click to expand...
Even if AVs largely eliminate accidents, planning around cars still has health costs. Car oriented communities are one of the causes of the obesity epidemic.
 
I'm still fairly convinced that the moment GO requires substantial new track for Peterborough they would be better served by accessing Peterboroough by extending Lakeshore on new alignment parrallel to hwy 115.
 
MisterF said:
I just don't see why GO trains would ever go to Peterborough when Via will already have hourly trains. We don't need a second agency to run a commuter focused service. Via already caters to commuters in certain areas, so it's more than capable of serving both commuters and intercity passengers. Even more so in a corridor that it controls. GO makes sense for a city like Kitchener because it's significantly bigger and doesn't have good Via service. Peterborough, OTOH, will have some of the best Via service in the Corridor.

But just for the sake of the argument, if GO trains serve Peterborough I assume that both GO and Via would be controlled by the same scheduling. Extra sidings or double tracking would make sense when the frequency of both gets high enough. One track for each agency is a very silo mentality and wouldn't be very efficient.
Click to expand...

Peterborough is similar to Kitchener in that there may be sticker shock at HFR fares, and there may be calls for GO service with its lower fare structure and (if you believe ML) fare integration to other transit operators.

I was struck by the number of posts I have seen on social media and in other forums over the past day who took the budget announcement to signify that GO service to Peterborough is imminent. That's likely on the strength of believing that the business case and lobbying that began back in Shining Waters days is alive and well and made an impact on the JPO and CIB and Ottawa bureaucrats. I highly doubt that this is the case. Peterborough will benefit from HFR, but HFR is not about bringing regional rail to Peterborough.

I expect the pols in Peterborough will be quite happy enough with HFR. The people who want GO are the developers and land owners further west who would love to develop the greenbelt. GO commuter stations along the line would promote that. That's still the reason why Peterborough should never, ever have a GO service to Toronto.

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

Back
Top