High Speed Rail in Canada

[ainvan]

HSR in Canada? That's hilarious!

As Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said, "Canada is more or less a combination of individual fiefdoms fighting with each other for advantage."

It's a broken country. Northern Ontario vs. Southern Ontario, Ontario vs. Quebec, BC vs. Alberta, etc.

The best route and the most logical one for HSR is from Toronto to Montreal, but because of this petty rivalry of fiefdoms, we'll never see HSR in Canada maybe until 2050.

Meanwhile in Morocco, an impoverished country in Africa.

Morocco, population: 33 million, GDP per capita: $3,077.



Come on, Canada! I believe in you!

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by ainvan

HSR in Canada? That's hilarious!

As Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said, "Canada is more or less a combination of individual fiefdoms fighting with each other for advantage."

It's a broken country. Northern Ontario vs. Southern Ontario, Ontario vs. Quebec, BC vs. Alberta, etc.

The best route and the most logical one for HSR is from Toronto to Montreal, but because of this petty rivalry of fiefdoms, we'll never see HSR in Canada maybe until 2050.

Meanwhile in Morocco, an impoverished country in Africa.

Morocco, population: 33 million, GDP per capita: $3,077.



Come on, Canada! I believe in you!

Morocco also has a fraction of our land area, and way lower car ownership rates.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Morocco also has a fraction of our land area, and way lower car ownership rates.

HSR should be competing more with short/medium distance air travel rather than the automobile.

If HSR were ever successfully implemented in the Quebec City - Windsor corridor, it would kneecap regional intercity air travel. This would be a good thing really.

The ideal distribution of conveyances should be:

- local - automobile/bus
- regional - bus/rail
- interregional/international(USA) - rail/HSR/air
- overseas - air

[milomilo]

There's always an excuse as to why it wouldn't work here. No one's talking about HSR across the country from Nunavut to Vancouver or anything, so using the population density of the entire country is irrelevant.

The population density of Morroco is 71/km2, the same stat for Southern Ontario is 91/km2. SO/QC has a number of good sized cities spaced relatively evenly and linearly over a reasonable distance - it's perfect for HSR.

Spain also has a population density of 91/km2, and here is their HSR network:

[jmt18325]

It's a totally different mindset than here. The most logical line is difficult in Canada.

[caltrane74]

Toronto to Kitchener is doable.

Windsor and London, I don't see the justification.

[jmt18325]

The reality is, it should be Toronto to Montreal. Full stop, no questions asked.

[casper]

Originally Posted by ainvan

HSR in Canada? That's hilarious!

As Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said, "Canada is more or less a combination of individual fiefdoms fighting with each other for advantage."

It's a broken country. Northern Ontario vs. Southern Ontario, Ontario vs. Quebec, BC vs. Alberta, etc.

The best route and the most logical one for HSR is from Toronto to Montreal, but because of this petty rivalry of fiefdoms, we'll never see HSR in Canada maybe until 2050.

Meanwhile in Morocco, an impoverished country in Africa.

Morocco, population: 33 million, GDP per capita: $3,077.

.....

Come on, Canada! I believe in you!

I don't buy the argument that Canada is "a series of individual fiefdoms fighting with each other for advantage"; quite the opposite.

The federal government on most program, (including public transit) sets goal for how much they want to spend in each province. They then go after the provincial and municipal government to put in the other 2 thirds. That way every layer of government has some skin the game. The project ideas generally come form the region. If High speed rail was a priority over say expanded subway lines in Toronto, I am pretty certain the feds would be happy to partner with the province to spend the budget one way or another.

How Ontario's share of federal transit money is spent has little to any impact on how BC share is spent.

The reason Canada does not have high speed rail, is it only makes sense in certain isolated regions of the country. One of these locations is Quebec City-Windsor.

[swimmer_spe]

In Canada, Windsor to Quebec City and Edmonton to Calgary are the only places that have enough demand for HSR. Due to the high cost, it may never happen. Ontario is broke. Alberta is broke, and the Federal government cannot afford such a high price tag.

In Ontario, it is being used to try to secure votes for the wynne government in the next election.

If we could afford it, a Transcontinental HSR should be built to all major cities from Halifax to Vancouver. This would make transporting people across Canada better.

[niwell]

Neither Ontario or Alberta are broke in the larger context. I don't think the latter has the existing infrastructure or demand to justify HSR though. Calgary-Edmonton just doesn't have the population and the rail would have to be built from scratch.

If a country like South Africa can build the Gautrain between Johannesburg and Pretoria (pretty much the same as Toronto-Hamilton) including underground and elevated stations we should at least be able to build electrified rail between Toronto and KWC. Which I do think will happen in the next 10 years at least.

[TownGuy]

^ Where do the PCs stand on electrification? If the Liberals get re-elected its a 99% chance we see electrification IMO. They have been very good for infrastructure and transit in Ontario, the PCs traditionally not so much.

As for high speed rail in the Windsor-Quebec corridor it's embarrassing that as a country we haven't been able to do it, all the ingredients are there for it. 2/3s of the country live in the corridor, the density is there, it connects the capital, 2 largest cities, numerous mid-sized cities and a major US city together.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by niwell

Neither Ontario or Alberta are broke in the larger context. I don't think the latter has the existing infrastructure or demand to justify HSR though. Calgary-Edmonton just doesn't have the population and the rail would have to be built from scratch.

I'm pretty sure any HSR trackage would have to be purpose built "from scratch". It certainly needs to be dedicated and dual trackage is a must. HSR needs more precise tolerances in the railbed than standard rail.

It's really a matter of the government figuring out what it's priorities should be. Right now the governments are shoveling billions into our airport infrastructure. If they instead put a portion of this money into HSR, then high speed rail will become a reality.

Again, the true competitor for HSR is local/regional air travel, not the automobile. Personally I think HSR has it all over air travel in terms of safety, convenience, reliability and environmental protection. This is where the government should be turning in terms of future investments. The aviation industry should be reserved for inter-regional and international travel.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm pretty sure any HSR trackage would have to be purpose built "from scratch". It certainly needs to be dedicated and dual trackage is a must. HSR needs more precise tolerances in the railbed than standard rail.

It's really a matter of the government figuring out what it's priorities should be. Right now the governments are shoveling billions into our airport infrastructure. If they instead put a portion of this money into HSR, then high speed rail will become a reality.

Again, the true competitor for HSR is local/regional air travel, not the automobile. Personally I think HSR has it all over air travel in terms of safety, convenience, reliability and environmental protection. This is where the government should be turning in terms of future investments. The aviation industry should be reserved for inter-regional and international travel.

If they had limited stops, and traveling at about 300 km/hr or higher, Toronto to Montreal would easily be done comparable to times it takes for flying. Plus there is the added benefit that there is less issues with passing through security.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If they had limited stops, and traveling at about 300 km/hr or higher, Toronto to Montreal would easily be done comparable to times it takes for flying. Plus there is the added benefit that there is less issues with passing through security.

And downtown to downtown too. No hassles getting to and from the airport (on either end).

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It's really a matter of the government figuring out what it's priorities should be. Right now the governments are shoveling billions into our airport infrastructure.

I don't know of them doing any such thing.

[itom 987]

Folks, you spend 6 to 8 hours each night night sleeping. That time sleeping could be used to travel. Go to sleep in Toronto, wake up in Quebec City. Go to sleep in Edmonton, wake up in Vancouver. Go to sleep in Winnipeg, wake up in Ottawa - that might seem like a stretch but speed limits will be determined by the physics of the roads, not human reaction times. As a result, the demand for HSR will be reduced to the point of making it unviable. Like it or not, self driving cars are the way of the future. If you don't believe me then take an overnight trip by train in Europe or Asia. It is a very comfortable way to travel.

[itom 987]

Why should Canada invest in HSR that will only serve a tiny region when we can invest in a complete automated driving network that will benefit the entire nation?

[jmt18325]

Because that's not realistic. Toronto - Montreal HSR is much more realistic.

[itom 987]

Why would you say that? It is already happening.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by itom 987

Why would you say that? It is already happening.

Driverless cars are going to be legislated to have an alert driver in them. You can't be sleeping or reading or playing chess. There's also the realities of wildlife, remoteness, and weather that make a network like that completely unfeasible in Canada.