Admiral Beez
Superstar
I think as a priority we first should focus on cities with populations over 150k that have no VIA service whatsoever, such as Calgary and Regina.
Last edited:
|
|
|
- Thread starter Urban Sky
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
Well yeah. I have the same level of affinity for North Bay as I do for Sudbury. No interest beyond going there for work. So sure, I don't see any personal benefit in this endeavour. So "they'd".
kEiThZ
Superstar
And before that we should actually build rail where it's fiscally sensible so that Canadians actually understand the benefits of rail and don't just think it's an anachronistic waste of their tax dollars, as a majority do today.
I don't think railfans fully appreciate how close we are to have a future government simply ditch national rail.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I agree. Alike between Calgary and Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton and Regina and Saskatoon would be much higher on the list of things Via should be investing in than a line to Sudbury. In fact, a Sudbury line could be done as part of the Northlander service. The 17 Corridor west of North Bay could be worth putting a train on as there is a decent amount of population all the way to SSM. However, even though I may think it is a good thing, it likely does not reach a threshold that would make it viable.
Imagine if I was listened to for all transit projects in Toronto. I will make the 1.5 hour drive to the North Bay station to use the Northlander when I go to Toronto for trips that I am not bringing back a load of stuff. Currently, that is about 3x a year. Of our other trips, at least once I need my truck as I am carrying a large load. For many people in Northern ON, this is a normal thing. S, take the `300,000 of us that live within a reasonable distance to it whom would rather not deal with Toronto traffic and parking and it starts to make sense.
micheal_can
Senior Member
We are at the 1990s cuts feelings.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Once again mixing up the needs of a urban agglomeration of 7 million with the needs of a few hundred thousand people who make a handful of trips a year.
"Rather not deal" - There you go, once again mixing up needs and wants.
And 300k people spread out over an area the size of some small European countries several hundred kilometers from actual (not made up in your head) major urban centres, is not significant at all. If every single person did 3 trips to Toronto per year that's less than 2500 trips a day. There are suburban bus routes in the GTA with more demand. And nobody would suggest replacing them with rail.
kEiThZ
Superstar
And nothing will justify cuts more than inefficient spending like the nonsense you routinely insist should be a priority here.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Let's be frank. Via is irrelevant, even on the Corridor. Via could shut down their operations and people in the Corridor still could take a bus or fly with private carriers.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
It’s that the corridor, and nothing more?
Urban Sky
Senior Member
It’s maintaining rail service where it currently is and expanding it where there is an actual demand and economic rationale for expanding it over investing in an alternative mode (or no mode at all). Simple as that…
Admiral Beez
Superstar
You can't expand something that does not first exist. So, maintenance and expansion of existing corridor routes?
Last edited:
dowlingm
Senior Member
This is just posting for attention at this point.
micheal_can
Senior Member
No. I is more along the lines of acceptance that most people here seem to just want Via Shut down and a tax cut passed on to them for it.
north-of-anything
Active Member
I think this thread was a lost cause from the jump.
The title alone betrays the agenda: it's not about Via service outside of the corridor, it's about a "lack of meaningful" service. Who exactly defines what meaningful service is? And why are so many of the discussions around connecting one particular small city to specifically Toronto?
There is a discussion to be had based on unequal access to a national rail service, like how the capital of Saskatchewan has none at all. I'm not sure why it needs to be a separate discussion from Via service outside of the corridor in general. But the concern trolling and strawmanning has been of no use to anyone.
You can support rail expansion and also be wary of expansion for the sake of expansion. New service should service new customers. Connecting new cities, and upgrading infrastructure to make trips faster and more comfortable, will do that. Expanding capacity on routes with growth or growth potential will do that. But we don't have infinite money, or infinite labour to make these upgrades. And sometimes people live and work where they do because it fits their lifestyle - if they want to be able to take the train, they move somewhere that it is feasible to take the train.
The title alone betrays the agenda: it's not about Via service outside of the corridor, it's about a "lack of meaningful" service. Who exactly defines what meaningful service is? And why are so many of the discussions around connecting one particular small city to specifically Toronto?
There is a discussion to be had based on unequal access to a national rail service, like how the capital of Saskatchewan has none at all. I'm not sure why it needs to be a separate discussion from Via service outside of the corridor in general. But the concern trolling and strawmanning has been of no use to anyone.
You can support rail expansion and also be wary of expansion for the sake of expansion. New service should service new customers. Connecting new cities, and upgrading infrastructure to make trips faster and more comfortable, will do that. Expanding capacity on routes with growth or growth potential will do that. But we don't have infinite money, or infinite labour to make these upgrades. And sometimes people live and work where they do because it fits their lifestyle - if they want to be able to take the train, they move somewhere that it is feasible to take the train.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
You'd find most people on UT - the ones who participate anyways - to be broadly supportive of VIA. That doesn't mean supporting lost causes to service locales with so little demand that would bleed the organization dry. I am fairly certain you know this after 38 pages of posts. Consider this a friendly warning that the thread will be closed if we keep on doing this non-sequitur.
MoD
Last edited: