Alto High Speed Rail

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Besides, with virtually everyone getting access to their own personal transportation, there was limited need to move people by train. Since cars provide cheaper, faster, and a more personalized trip experience, why would people take a train, unless it was the only option. (This is also where the argument that ‘cities used to have lots of trams but got rid of them’ comes into the picture. When there were few personal vehicles, mass transit was the primary option, so many took it. Once the luxury of private vehicles was available, then that became the preferred option. Thus, fewer trams were needed, and the flexibility of buses became a better option over large investments in expanding rail.)

Yet Edmonton and Calgary were among the first cities in NA to build modern LRT systems way back in the late 70s and early 80s respectively. This despite them being small cities at the time and being at the epicenter of the oil industry. And the systems were very successful with high ridership that carried a large percentage of downtown commuters.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

In Canada, with its vast distances, rail travel became mostly irrelevant. Why would anyone who needed to get to Vancouver from Toronto take days to do it on a train? Flying was a far more reasonable option. Anecdotally, my sister is planning a trip to Churchill. I suggested that she take the train, so she looked into it. Her response was swift: “It takes, like, 48 hours. That’s two days! I’m not going to waste that long sitting on a train. We’ll just fly.” For her, the journey is not part of the trip – it is just a necessary waste of time that should be minimized. Would she reconsider the train if it could get her there in only 5-½ hours? Not likely. That is still too long. The plane does the trip in 2-½ hours. Yup, there is also airport time to be added, but when she looks at the times, she, like most people, sees 2-½ hours verses 5-½ hours. The majority of people are going to choose flying over train – meaning fewer passengers for trains. This leads to a poor balance sheet for implementing High-Speed Rail (HSR). Huge costs for HSR, with little increased return.

Just because HSR isn't attractive on routes that are too far for HSR has nothing to do with routes that are an optimal distance for it. HSR works well for routes that are long enough to be a nuisance to drive but short enough that a fast train can be competitive with flying by eliminating the extra hassle that flying entails. It's only been on such routes that HSR has ever been seriously considered, both in Canada and abroad. Mainly the QC-Windsor corridor in Canada's case, which already has high ridership (over 90% of VIA's national total). Since many people already use it even with the current poor speeds and reliability so there's no concern that a much improved service won't be well used. If either of the routes you mentioned were approved for HSR, then that would be a very different story. That's the point where we'd need to look at ulterior political motives.