[SFO-YYZ]

This is a good video and motivator for having a good rail network built in Canada.

(Sigh, it'll never happen...)

I get the "motivational" aspect of this, but there is very little value comparing the two.

Completely different population, geography, historic development patterns, and most importantly, two completely different governmental systems that lead to different decision making processes and funding models when it comes to large scale infrastructure. I'd much rather that countries like Canada take a gradual approach similar to the EU, rather than a bulldozer approach building massive cookie cutter HSR stations across the country fuelled by trillions of $$ of debt funding.

On social media, you often see some people bring out massive Chinese infrastructure projects, and say "why can't XYZ country do this?" Aside from China, I very much doubt there is a second country on this planet that can (or want to) replicate its governance model.

 

[kEiThZ]

The Liberal convention is set to vote on HSR.

Can't wait to see how HFR is marketed as HSR in the coming election.

 

[Towered]

This is a good video and motivator for having a good rail network built in Canada.

(Sigh, it'll never happen...)

China has 35 times the population of Canada...

 

[crs1026]

The Liberal convention is set to vote on HSR.

Can't wait to see how HFR is marketed as HSR in the coming election.

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

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm actually fearful of how this approach might harm HFR.

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.

 

[crs1026]

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.

I suspect HFR is all anyone will find the funding for. Perhaps some momentum will be created towards projects elsewhere.
If it were simply a matter of wordsmithing, I would gladly let them have their 15 minutes of fame so long as they got on with building. But as you suggest, the public will expect HSR to look like TGV or Bullet trains.
Amazing how little attention is paid to managing expectations beyond the next election.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

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

I agree. The one thing is we don't know many details about HFR and how it has evolved under the JPO. For all we know, the detailed plan could be looking more like HSR than was originally proposed. Only time will tell.

A bit off topic (as it isn't related to VIA Rail specifically), but this could open the door to finally working with Amtrak to make the necessary upgrades to improve Cascades service to Vancouver.

 

[EnviroTO]

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.

Agreed. If the HSR crowd, especially the ones who think a "trans-Canada" option is achievable become the loudest of the passenger rail supporters, they are likely to drown out the more realistic options leading to a vote where nothing gets done.

 

[roger1818]

Agreed. If the HSR crowd, especially the ones who think a "trans-Canada" option is achievable become the loudest of the passenger rail supporters, they are likely to drown out the more realistic options leading to a vote where nothing gets done.

That could actually be the strategy.

 

[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.