[QuantumLeap]

^Having posted that with exclamation points and dancing bananas and all, ssi, I partially agree with you. I don't think high-speed rail would be as beneficial as a lot of options, namely, improved regular service in the "Windsor-Quebec Corridor". The mode that rail should be competing with, in my opinion, is short-haul flights, not road traffic. Short-haul flights (eg in the Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto triangle) are a huge GHG contributor. People think that sexy fast trains are the only way to lure jet-setting business people away from these mega-carbon journeys, but they are wrong. All that is needed for a viable alternative is to make the existing trains more frequent and less subject to "unforseen delays" that prevent them from travelling at their design speed. The source of thess unforseen delays is the sharing of VIA trains with mainline freight trains, which get priority. But this problem will have to be dealt with as part of any high-speed proposal too! Otherwise you will have JetTrain trainsets creeping along in Hamilton Harbour, giving way to CN, just like trains do now.
Another of your criticisms is that we should improve intracity transit. I agree that this is a major part of the solution, and that dollar-for-dollar, intracity transit is a better investment. But ultimately, intercity and intracity transportation are two parts of the same whole, namely efficient, sustainable and affordable transportation to support a strong economy. We have deluded ourselves for far too long that the solution to this problem was carbon-burning personal transportation and inefficient short-distance air transportation.
But that brings me to why I think you are only "partially" right, as I said at the beginning. Although you are right to think that high-speed rail is not the right solution for Ontario's transportation network, you are wrong to dismiss this initiative. At least people are talking. At least City Hall is listening! This proposal is on the right track, pardon the pun, even if its going exactly where we want it to go.
Surely, the further we go down this path, the more rail-based alternatives will be discussed between their merits. Before, "intelligent" discussion about transportation was believed to be about plunking down a map and drawing thick lines for future highways- the more, the better. Now, intelligent discussion will mean the difference between expensive fast train sets (good) and service with European-style frequency and Japanese-style reliability (better)