High Speed Rail in Canada

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Agreed. We're talking about $90B as build cost over a decade of construction, that might start 4-5 years from now. Big number sticker shock aside, it's $9B/yr for a decade. That's 1.8% of revenue of the last federal budget. It's not the insanely unaffordable idea that some imagine it is. But at least for now, the Liberals are claiming this will be revenue neutral eventually, and that it's just financing that is needed. We'll see when the final design is presented in 4 years I guess.

Personally, I am okay with the feds getting out of transit and road funding completely except for projects with at least regional to national impact. HSR between Southern Ontario and Quebec, or even between Calgary and Edmonton would qualify. $100B Express 401 Tunnel would not. And let's be clear, the feds will always be spending a few billion per year for infrastructure. We should try and aim that at things that have national relevance and impact.

I really hope you can tell the difference between upgrading the #1, the primary highway link between Canada and the Pacific Ocean, to modern safe twinned standards through the Rocky Mountains (and more specific, the segments within Yoho, Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks, making it 100% the feds responsibility) and upgrading an urban expressway in Toronto.

If you don’t see how this is also an important part of nation building for Canada, I don’t know what else to say.

Again, for the record, I support the HSR between Toronto and Quebec City, and hope it moves forward quickly, but even a billion dollar investment in the #1 from the feds would be greatly appreciated.

Phase two twinning through Yoho Park (40km long) was largely designed a decade ago and has been “waiting for funding” ever since.

That does kind of come off as a middle finger to BC / the West in some respect.

Again, a token movement on this project would go a long way for political optics.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Canada's land mass is sparsely populated overall, but Canada's population isn't that sparsely distributed. And that's all that counts with projects like this. Worrying about the country's overall population density rather than sticking to the specific corridor makes about as much sense as saying that Canada is too sparely populated to justify any metro systems. The only thing that counts is the density present where the infrastructure would be built.

But yes, it wouldn't make sense to build HSR in Nunavut, or to build a metro system in Labrador.

There's a huge difference between population density and population proximity. Ethiopia has a very high population density but because the urbanization rate there is so low it does not feel or act very dense because the people are so spread out. Even in Australia, people are extremely spread out. Along the East Coast, between Melbourne, Canberra, and Sydney there just aren't really any significant clusters of people. Meanwhile, in SE Ontario and Quebec, people live very close to each other, and in a fairly dense straight line from Toronto to Quebec. If you take just Southern Ontario, you'll find a population density much closer to France and Poland than Mongolia and Kazakhstan, and I can't find any combined stats for the population density of Southern Quebec, but a cursory back of the envelope calculation has it only a bit less dense.

If France and Poland are no-brainers for HSR, Southern Ontario and Quebec should be.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Australia doesn’t have high speed rail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Australia has much better national and regional rail. I've travelled on Australian rail.

Exactly. Not just that. The distance between their major cities is much higher than us. If Toronto and Montreal were 800 km apart, we'd be having a different conversation.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I really hope you can tell the difference between upgrading the #1, the primary highway link between Canada and the Pacific Ocean, to modern safe twinned standards through the Rocky Mountains (and more specific, the segments within Yoho, Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks, making it 100% the feds responsibility) and upgrading an urban expressway in Toronto.

If you don’t see how this is also an important part of nation building for Canada, I don’t know what else to say.

At no point did I say anything about Hwy #1. So not sure why you're reading opposition into the idea. I just said there should be some requirement to show at least regional relevance for federal funding. A lot of the transit and road funding federally would fail that. I don't think most Hwy #1 upgrades would fail.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I can't find any combined stats for the population density of Southern Quebec, but a cursory back of the envelope calculation has it only a bit less dense.

Nevermind Wikipedia has the information. The entire Windsor-Quebec corridor has a population density of 82/sqkm which is only a little bit less dense than Spain or France which have HSR networks throughout the country.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Australia has much better national and regional rail. I've travelled on Australian rail.

At risk of derailing (ugh sorry) the conversation, I can comfortably say as a former resident that Australia's intercity rail is substantially worse than Canada's - in the regions that can plausibly support rail. VIA Rail is often delayed but at least you can get from Toronto-Quebec City without being chucked out at 3am in Thetford Mines to wait for a coach. If you've ever taken the train from Sydney to Brisbane, you'll know what I mean.

I do think its often worth comparing and contrasting with Australia, who are our true contextual peers.

Australia has been similarly toying with the idea of high speed rail, and funded studies that have never amounted to anything. Melbourne-Sydney is comparable in distance to Toronto-Quebec City. And whilst the big cities of Sydney and Melbourne are farther apart than Toronto-Montreal, both Aussie cities are larger than Montreal. As one of the busiest air routes on the planet, that one makes eminent sense for high speed rail, and there is no progress at all down there. At least it could finally happen here.

And let's just remember that the UK's only operational high speed route is the Eurostar. And even after HS2, you still won't be able to get high speed rail north of Birmingham. All of which is to say, we're pretty much in line with the Anglosphere at the moment, and with Alto, we'd be the leaders of our (fairly sorry) bunch.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7



Exactly. Not just that. The distance between their major cities is much higher than us. If Toronto and Montreal were 800 km apart, we'd be having a different conversation.



At no point did I say anything about Hwy #1. So not sure why you're reading opposition into the idea. I just said there should be some requirement to show at least regional relevance for federal funding. A lot of the transit and road funding federally would fail that. I don't think most Hwy #1 upgrades would fail.

Ah, okay. For some reason I read it as comparing highway one upgrades through the Rockies as being equivalent to dumping billions into burying the 401.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by savevp

And let's just remember that the UK's only operational high speed route is the Eurostar. And even after HS2, you still won't be able to get high speed rail north of Birmingham. All of which is to say, we're pretty much in line with the Anglosphere at the moment, and with Alto, we'd be the leaders of our (fairly sorry) bunch.

D'accord, alors on est francophonies.

Though if you count >200km/h as highspeed rail, then the UK has a pretty sizeable network actually.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by savevp

At risk of derailing (ugh sorry) the conversation, I can comfortably say as a former resident that Australia's intercity rail is substantially worse than Canada's - in the regions that can plausibly support rail. VIA Rail is often delayed but at least you can get from Toronto-Quebec City without being chucked out at 3am in Thetford Mines to wait for a coach. If you've ever taken the train from Sydney to Brisbane, you'll know what I mean.

I do think its often worth comparing and contrasting with Australia, who are our true contextual peers.

Australia has been similarly toying with the idea of high speed rail, and funded studies that have never amounted to anything. Melbourne-Sydney is comparable in distance to Toronto-Quebec City. And whilst the big cities of Sydney and Melbourne are farther apart than Toronto-Montreal, both Aussie cities are larger than Montreal. As one of the busiest air routes on the planet, that one makes eminent sense for high speed rail, and there is no progress at all down there. At least it could finally happen here.

And let's just remember that the UK's only operational high speed route is the Eurostar. And even after HS2, you still won't be able to get high speed rail north of Birmingham. All of which is to say, we're pretty much in line with the Anglosphere at the moment, and with Alto, we'd be the leaders of our (fairly sorry) bunch.

Country comparisons are dumb. Especially against peers who also suck. It's like arguing who has a worse housing crisis. Also fashionable in the Anglosphere.

Want to see a near perfect analogy for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal? Barcelona-Zaragoza-Madrid. One of the most successful HSR lines in the world. Similar distances and populations. And unlike Canada, they actually have cheaper flights in Spain and better driving conditions year-round.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by savevp

Australia has been similarly toying with the idea of high speed rail, and funded studies that have never amounted to anything. Melbourne-Sydney is comparable in distance to Toronto-Quebec City. And whilst the big cities of Sydney and Melbourne are farther apart than Toronto-Montreal, both Aussie cities are larger than Montreal. As one of the busiest air routes on the planet, that one makes eminent sense for high speed rail, and there is no progress at all down there. At least it could finally happen here.

True that Montreal is smaller but a Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto route would serve more people than a Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne route since Ottawa is much larger than Canberra and the GTA has a good million on either Sydney or Melbourne, fully making up for what Montreal lacks.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Country comparisons are dumb. Especially against peers who also suck. It's like arguing who has a worse housing crisis. Also fashionable in the Anglosphere.

Want to see a near perfect analogy for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal? Barcelona-Zaragoza-Madrid. One of the most successful HSR lines in the world. Similar distances and populations. And unlike Canada, they actually have cheaper flights in Spain and better driving conditions year-round.

I agree more with your first point comparisons are dumb. A big difference is Barcelona and Madrid at least have excellent rapid transit which means car ownership rates are lower and they have smaller less pleasant cars to ride on long trips which is related to the final point that gas prices are 50% more than in Canada. Even more in income terms as wages are lower. They also had German taxpayers to foot part of the bill.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by savevp

At risk of derailing (ugh sorry) the conversation, I can comfortably say as a former resident that Australia's intercity rail is substantially worse than Canada's - in the regions that can plausibly support rail. VIA Rail is often delayed but at least you can get from Toronto-Quebec City without being chucked out at 3am in Thetford Mines to wait for a coach. If you've ever taken the train from Sydney to Brisbane, you'll know what I mean.

I do think its often worth comparing and contrasting with Australia, who are our true contextual peers.

Australia has been similarly toying with the idea of high speed rail, and funded studies that have never amounted to anything. Melbourne-Sydney is comparable in distance to Toronto-Quebec City. And whilst the big cities of Sydney and Melbourne are farther apart than Toronto-Montreal, both Aussie cities are larger than Montreal. As one of the busiest air routes on the planet, that one makes eminent sense for high speed rail, and there is no progress at all down there. At least it could finally happen here.

And let's just remember that the UK's only operational high speed route is the Eurostar. And even after HS2, you still won't be able to get high speed rail north of Birmingham. All of which is to say, we're pretty much in line with the Anglosphere at the moment, and with Alto, we'd be the leaders of our (fairly sorry) bunch.

Agree about Australia. Intercity rail is not really better than Canada/USA there.

Commuter and even urban rail in cities tends to be more expansive than in Canada. Adelaide has a way better system than Ottawa and even slightly more extensive than Edmonton and Calgary.

Sydney and Melbourne may give up a tiny bit to Toronto and Montréal in the heart of the city but rail service in the overall metro area is way better and even to surrounding towns and cities.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I agree more with your first point comparisons are dumb. A big difference is Barcelona and Madrid at least have excellent rapid transit which means car ownership rates are lower and they have smaller less pleasant cars to ride on long trips which is related to the final point that gas prices are 50% more than in Canada. Even more in income terms as wages are lower. They also had German taxpayers to foot part of the bill.

Gas maybe more expensive. But flying is a lot cheaper than Canada. Also, HSR is more about competing with flying and offering more higher speed connectivity than driving. This is why in many places, HSR stations operate more like small airport terminals. They will have car rental counters, small shopping parades or business centres attached. Even in Spain (highest density of HSR in the world), people still drive on roadtrips. What HSR does is enable a whole lot more business travel. To the extent that HSR displaces driving it's usually supercommuting. Not uncommon to see people commuting over 100 km by HSR everywhere. So for example, it could be very easy to live in Peterborough and work in Toronto. This is actually how you spread population a bit more along the Corridor and reduce some of the worst housing pressures. Peterborough and Trois Rivières are probably the biggest winners from this.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by savevp

At risk of derailing (ugh sorry) the conversation, I can comfortably say as a former resident that Australia's intercity rail is substantially worse than Canada's - in the regions that can plausibly support rail. VIA Rail is often delayed but at least you can get from Toronto-Quebec City without being chucked out at 3am in Thetford Mines to wait for a coach. If you've ever taken the train from Sydney to Brisbane, you'll know what I mean.

I do think its often worth comparing and contrasting with Australia, who are our true contextual peers.

Australia has been similarly toying with the idea of high speed rail, and funded studies that have never amounted to anything. Melbourne-Sydney is comparable in distance to Toronto-Quebec City. And whilst the big cities of Sydney and Melbourne are farther apart than Toronto-Montreal, both Aussie cities are larger than Montreal. As one of the busiest air routes on the planet, that one makes eminent sense for high speed rail, and there is no progress at all down there. At least it could finally happen here.

And let's just remember that the UK's only operational high speed route is the Eurostar. And even after HS2, you still won't be able to get high speed rail north of Birmingham. All of which is to say, we're pretty much in line with the Anglosphere at the moment, and with Alto, we'd be the leaders of our (fairly sorry) bunch.

Thanks for giving some posters a reality check. I recall the last time I was in Sydney looking to get to Melbourne by rail for the scenic experience but ended up just flying because of time and convenience.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Phase two twinning through Yoho Park (40km long) was largely designed a decade ago and has been “waiting for funding” ever since.

I wonder how much of this is on the feds versus the province. BC can be stingy. It has a very low debt to GDP ratio, which is good, but I wonder if more should have been spent on highways (not just in the interior but around Abbotsford and along some underbuilt parts of the island highway) and SkyTrain extensions.

A lot of highway projects in Canada are only 1/3 federal funding.

Another factor for interior highways, of course, is the higher construction costs from the mountains. It must be much, much more expensive than building in a flat area.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how much of this is on the feds versus the province. BC can be stingy. It has a very low debt to GDP ratio, which is good, but I wonder if more should have been spent on highways (not just in the interior but around Abbotsford and along some underbuilt parts of the island highway) and SkyTrain extensions.

A lot of highway projects in Canada are only 1/3 federal funding.

Another factor for interior highways, of course, is the higher construction costs from the mountains. It must be much, much more expensive than building in a flat area.

This is true for the sections under BC’s control, but the portions located within federal parks (roughly 100km of the #1 in BC) are fully the responsibility of the federal government and are fully funded federally, as was done through the parks in Alberta and elsewhere in the nation.

[MolsonExport]

The Trans Canada through much of Northern Ontario to the Manitoba border is very shabby.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how much of this is on the feds versus the province. BC can be stingy. It has a very low debt to GDP ratio, which is good, but I wonder if more should have been spent on highways (not just in the interior but around Abbotsford and along some underbuilt parts of the island highway) and SkyTrain extensions.

A lot of highway projects in Canada are only 1/3 federal funding.

Another factor for interior highways, of course, is the higher construction costs from the mountains. It must be much, much more expensive than building in a flat area.

The Yoho twinning is because of Steven Guilbeault - he is a Greenpeace type person who famously said the Liberals aren't going to build new roads any more. He sure as hell isn't going to be funding a new freeway through a national park. The Federal government has a very, very, very limited list of roads projects that it has funded under Trudeau in general.

Until he's gone, it won't happen.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

But I think the infrastructure should be focused on boosting interprovincial trade and national security/unity. The HSR boosts Quebec <> Ontario trade and unity big time. Twinning Highway 1 fully through the Rockies probably does too, but does it do that to the same relative extent? Are there other infrastructure projects in BC, or pooled between BC and AB that could go further?

Assuming sanity returns to the US, funding the Canadian portion of a Vancouver-Seattle-Portland HSR would be a no-brainer.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The Yoho twinning is because of Steven Guilbeault - he is a Greenpeace type person who famously said the Liberals aren't going to build new roads any more. He sure as hell isn't going to be funding a new freeway through a national park. The Federal government has a very, very, very limited list of roads projects that it has funded under Trudeau in general.

Until he's gone, it won't happen.

Which will be sooner than later. A new PM is coming and I'm sure Guilbault will get used to being a backbencher. I welcome him running for the Greens the next election.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Jaws

Which will be sooner than later. A new PM is coming and I'm sure Guilbault will get used to being a backbencher. I welcome him running for the Greens the next election.

If the Greens were smart they'd poach him for leader. Might take them slightly above the "totally irrelevant" spot they occupy now.