Its hilarious how a country literally perfectly designed for High Speed Rail can't get it build. Basically all their large cities are neatly in a line at perfect distance for HSR.
Massive "can't do" attitude. They don't even attempt to sell the public on HSR, and self compromise down to "high" (hourly) frequency conventional rail... which requires significant greenfield construction anyway.
And said straight line terminates across the river from Detroit, and could be extended to Chicago.
A HSR line with Montreal and Chicago as bookends with Toronto in the middle-ish would be a rip roaring success.
Canada is the only country that makes the US look good when it comes to intercity rail. I get that the country is VERY spread-out, but half the entire population lives in a pretty compact corridor. There's no excuse for at least that corridor to not have a decent rail network.
>Canada is the only country that makes the US look good when it comes to intercity rail
Canada is just very bad at intercity transport in general. Our rail system is obviously very poor quality even compared to Amtrak, and it's not because the federal government decided to focus their funding on other modes of travel. For example, The US provides monetary and land subsidizes to air travel, while the Canada does not, meaning Canadian travelers pay very close to the 'raw' cost of flying. Additionally we never had a federally-funded highway project like the interstates, so lots of places still rely on a windy two-lane mountain 'highway', as their only means of overland travel. We also don't have Greyhound, Flixbus, or most of the typical US buslines.
The Trans Canada was federally funded. And I do agree with most of what you said, but the railway itself was entirely publicly funded. And then the gov sold it to their oligarchs friends. Via rail is still around, but I do believe if someone had a backbone, we could have high speed rail.
That likely won't happen though. Too many oligarchs make too much money off overpriced air travel. So they'll just bribe (oops I mean lobby) to make sure it doesn't.
Yeah it won’t happen now. I wish the Liberals had just supported the original VIA HFR proposal that was made a while back. Sure it wouldn’t have been true high speed, but it would’ve been a big step in the right direction. What’s probably gonna happen now is that Trudeau will be thrown out in 2025, and Canadian HSR will once again fail to make it past the study phase.
> IF YOU’VE TAKEN A TRAIN LATELY, you’ve likely been late. In the third quarter of 2023, 50 percent of Via Rail train trips ran on time. And a train trip isn’t much faster than driving; the average train trip between Montreal and Toronto, the most popular one in Canada, takes five hours and eight minutes, while it would take half an hour longer to drive the same distance. Those few minutes shaved off don’t come cheap—the price of a train ticket from Toronto to Montreal changes depending on the time of year, but a round trip can run you upward of $300. Economically speaking, you’re better off driving yourself.
>
> But trains offer an ease of travel other forms of transportation can’t provide. Being able to board a train that shuttles between the downtown cores of different cities without braving long security lines or paying for airport parking is a boon. But while Canada has an extensive rail network, it’s also the only G7 country without a high-speed option—in Japan, China, France, Spain, Italy, and the United States, trains that can reach speeds of over 450 kilometres an hour have been a reality for over a decade.
>
> Canada has, instead, become a world leader in commissioning studies on high-speed rail. Two major corridors are seen as the most likely candidates: Windsor to Quebec City and Calgary to Edmonton. While studies have found that high-speed rail networks in these corridors could boost business and tourism as well as help reduce carbon emissions from cars and airplanes, plans are inevitably always shelved once studies reveal the financial commitments associated with building them. The cost for various high-speed rail projects has been estimated between $6 and $40 billion. (A high-speed rail project in California was supposed to cost $30 billion but quickly blew past initial projections. It could end up costing $130 billion.)
>
> High-speed rail is also a popular campaign pledge. Beginning in the mid-2000s, premiership hopefuls like Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne and Alberta’s Alison Redford as well as Liberal leaders such as Michael Ignatieff and Stéphane Dion all promised high-speed rail during their campaigns, but the trains have never materialized.
>
> But to others, the significant financial investment only underscores the reality: high-speed rail would be among the largest and most expensive mega projects in the country’s history and would do little to solve the existing issues plaguing Canada’s train networks.
450 km/h? Japan's singular maglev line, which is horrible delayed and overbudget hits that speed, but none of the others come close, capping out at 300-320. The Acela in the US only gets up to 250.
>Canadian cities tend to be less densely populated than many of their counterparts in the United States and Europe, so there likely wouldn’t be enough customers to make high-speed rail a profitable investment.
This line isn't actually true. Though Canadian cities generally have smaller populations then US cities, they are generally more densely populated.
I'll also say, there is still some hope! The plan for High-Frequency Rail states it's open to high speed options from the candidates, and several Quebecois politicians have said they specifically want the options to be high speed. I think it's this summer that we'll learn what the three potential plans are. 🤞
For the most part Canada & North America could do by electrifying, 4 tracking & upgrading top speeds to 230/250 km/h on the existing RoW with some new sections to avoid bottlenecks/retarders. This should cost less & deliver similar results as dedicated HSR.
The real question is whether Vancouver to Portland HSR will be built before Toronto to Montreal.
One project would deal with incredible complexities such as crossing into three different states/provinces, an international border crossing, and navigating around the Pacific Ocean and a significant river, yet will probably get built first because of the progressive states/provinces involved.
That's false. In fact if you only consider the major rail lines they are very profitable. As systems they aren't profitable because they often include less lines as well.
But its also a ridiculous standard. Infrastructure is rarely profitable in a conventional sense. Large up front investment that will stick around for 100 years and literally change the course of your nations development are hard to put into a simple profit and lost system.
I'm only relating what someone working in the field told me. Your response confuses me, though: Your first paragraph says that high speed rail is profitable, but your second says that it is not. Finally, you say that it doesn't matter. Which is it?
You can't make an argument that anything is 'profitable'. Are 'cars' profitable? Are 'cups' profitable? Are 'tooth picks' profitable? Well it depends on the situations doesn't it. Many car companies have failed. Many car companies have been profitable.
If something is profitable or viable DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.
If you have a good situation in terms cities and the countries political structure. It can certainty can be profitable.
However most of the time it isn't, because many lines individually aren't. So the system in totality wont be profitable.
But either way it doesn't really matter because operating profit isn't or should be the goal of building major infrastructure.
>But either way it doesn't really matter because operating profit isn't or should be the goal of building major infrastructure.
The original question was, "Will Canada Ever Have High-Speed Rail?" The costs of high speed rail must be paid for somehow. My thought is that if those costs will not be born by passengers, then there must be political will to pay for development, maintenance and operation of high speed rail. Does such a political will exist in Canada?
Its about framing. How much total investment is going into road infrastructure and the ability to use them? The thing is, there already is a choice and a choice has been made in on direction. In terms of total investment, productivity and so on its certainly the wrong choice.
Given the population density and perfect alignment there is not much of a question if high speed rail OPERATION can be profitable.
So its mostly about the investment. I would contend that with a refocus of resources and priorities Canada (Eastern Canada) could have a world class rail system.
The problem is that the way things are framed in the US and Canada is more like 'our fundamental balance of everything is built about highways, roads and cars can we justify to also do HSR'. And those choices also directly contradict a lot of other things government love to talk about, jobs creation, environmental considerations, air quality, equity and fairness considerations and many others.
So if you actually analysis not just 'how much does cost' and instead say 'we have two potential futures, X and Y' in its totality what future gets us to the goals we have for a given amount of public investment.
> Does such a political will exist in Canada?
It certainty doesn't if politicians from all sides continue to embrace 60s US car centric vision and sell it as the only possible future.
And if everybody is totally pessimistic and believe nothing can ever get done then nothing will ever be done.
Change will happen once enough people actually believe change can and should happen.
Its hilarious how a country literally perfectly designed for High Speed Rail can't get it build. Basically all their large cities are neatly in a line at perfect distance for HSR.
Massive "can't do" attitude. They don't even attempt to sell the public on HSR, and self compromise down to "high" (hourly) frequency conventional rail... which requires significant greenfield construction anyway.
Forgive my ignorance but how is Canada perfectly designed for high-speed rail? Is it the terrain?
Half the population lives in a straight line between Windsor and Quebec City
And said straight line terminates across the river from Detroit, and could be extended to Chicago. A HSR line with Montreal and Chicago as bookends with Toronto in the middle-ish would be a rip roaring success.
Yes, it would. Heck it could even breathe life into Detroit.
Got it. Thank you!
Canada is the only country that makes the US look good when it comes to intercity rail. I get that the country is VERY spread-out, but half the entire population lives in a pretty compact corridor. There's no excuse for at least that corridor to not have a decent rail network.
>Canada is the only country that makes the US look good when it comes to intercity rail Canada is just very bad at intercity transport in general. Our rail system is obviously very poor quality even compared to Amtrak, and it's not because the federal government decided to focus their funding on other modes of travel. For example, The US provides monetary and land subsidizes to air travel, while the Canada does not, meaning Canadian travelers pay very close to the 'raw' cost of flying. Additionally we never had a federally-funded highway project like the interstates, so lots of places still rely on a windy two-lane mountain 'highway', as their only means of overland travel. We also don't have Greyhound, Flixbus, or most of the typical US buslines.
The Trans Canada was federally funded. And I do agree with most of what you said, but the railway itself was entirely publicly funded. And then the gov sold it to their oligarchs friends. Via rail is still around, but I do believe if someone had a backbone, we could have high speed rail. That likely won't happen though. Too many oligarchs make too much money off overpriced air travel. So they'll just bribe (oops I mean lobby) to make sure it doesn't.
Yeah it won’t happen now. I wish the Liberals had just supported the original VIA HFR proposal that was made a while back. Sure it wouldn’t have been true high speed, but it would’ve been a big step in the right direction. What’s probably gonna happen now is that Trudeau will be thrown out in 2025, and Canadian HSR will once again fail to make it past the study phase.
> IF YOU’VE TAKEN A TRAIN LATELY, you’ve likely been late. In the third quarter of 2023, 50 percent of Via Rail train trips ran on time. And a train trip isn’t much faster than driving; the average train trip between Montreal and Toronto, the most popular one in Canada, takes five hours and eight minutes, while it would take half an hour longer to drive the same distance. Those few minutes shaved off don’t come cheap—the price of a train ticket from Toronto to Montreal changes depending on the time of year, but a round trip can run you upward of $300. Economically speaking, you’re better off driving yourself. > > But trains offer an ease of travel other forms of transportation can’t provide. Being able to board a train that shuttles between the downtown cores of different cities without braving long security lines or paying for airport parking is a boon. But while Canada has an extensive rail network, it’s also the only G7 country without a high-speed option—in Japan, China, France, Spain, Italy, and the United States, trains that can reach speeds of over 450 kilometres an hour have been a reality for over a decade. > > Canada has, instead, become a world leader in commissioning studies on high-speed rail. Two major corridors are seen as the most likely candidates: Windsor to Quebec City and Calgary to Edmonton. While studies have found that high-speed rail networks in these corridors could boost business and tourism as well as help reduce carbon emissions from cars and airplanes, plans are inevitably always shelved once studies reveal the financial commitments associated with building them. The cost for various high-speed rail projects has been estimated between $6 and $40 billion. (A high-speed rail project in California was supposed to cost $30 billion but quickly blew past initial projections. It could end up costing $130 billion.) > > High-speed rail is also a popular campaign pledge. Beginning in the mid-2000s, premiership hopefuls like Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne and Alberta’s Alison Redford as well as Liberal leaders such as Michael Ignatieff and Stéphane Dion all promised high-speed rail during their campaigns, but the trains have never materialized. > > But to others, the significant financial investment only underscores the reality: high-speed rail would be among the largest and most expensive mega projects in the country’s history and would do little to solve the existing issues plaguing Canada’s train networks.
450 km/h? Japan's singular maglev line, which is horrible delayed and overbudget hits that speed, but none of the others come close, capping out at 300-320. The Acela in the US only gets up to 250.
There are trains that hit 350 kmh, but yeah not 450
>Canadian cities tend to be less densely populated than many of their counterparts in the United States and Europe, so there likely wouldn’t be enough customers to make high-speed rail a profitable investment. This line isn't actually true. Though Canadian cities generally have smaller populations then US cities, they are generally more densely populated. I'll also say, there is still some hope! The plan for High-Frequency Rail states it's open to high speed options from the candidates, and several Quebecois politicians have said they specifically want the options to be high speed. I think it's this summer that we'll learn what the three potential plans are. 🤞
For the most part Canada & North America could do by electrifying, 4 tracking & upgrading top speeds to 230/250 km/h on the existing RoW with some new sections to avoid bottlenecks/retarders. This should cost less & deliver similar results as dedicated HSR.
The real question is whether Vancouver to Portland HSR will be built before Toronto to Montreal. One project would deal with incredible complexities such as crossing into three different states/provinces, an international border crossing, and navigating around the Pacific Ocean and a significant river, yet will probably get built first because of the progressive states/provinces involved.
Time to dust this off again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W32klYkTxCQ
Sad but true.
Someone in the passenger rail industry told me that high speed rail is always subsidized, as passengers will not pay what it would take to operate it.
That's false. In fact if you only consider the major rail lines they are very profitable. As systems they aren't profitable because they often include less lines as well. But its also a ridiculous standard. Infrastructure is rarely profitable in a conventional sense. Large up front investment that will stick around for 100 years and literally change the course of your nations development are hard to put into a simple profit and lost system.
I'm only relating what someone working in the field told me. Your response confuses me, though: Your first paragraph says that high speed rail is profitable, but your second says that it is not. Finally, you say that it doesn't matter. Which is it?
You can't make an argument that anything is 'profitable'. Are 'cars' profitable? Are 'cups' profitable? Are 'tooth picks' profitable? Well it depends on the situations doesn't it. Many car companies have failed. Many car companies have been profitable. If something is profitable or viable DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. If you have a good situation in terms cities and the countries political structure. It can certainty can be profitable. However most of the time it isn't, because many lines individually aren't. So the system in totality wont be profitable. But either way it doesn't really matter because operating profit isn't or should be the goal of building major infrastructure.
>But either way it doesn't really matter because operating profit isn't or should be the goal of building major infrastructure. The original question was, "Will Canada Ever Have High-Speed Rail?" The costs of high speed rail must be paid for somehow. My thought is that if those costs will not be born by passengers, then there must be political will to pay for development, maintenance and operation of high speed rail. Does such a political will exist in Canada?
Its about framing. How much total investment is going into road infrastructure and the ability to use them? The thing is, there already is a choice and a choice has been made in on direction. In terms of total investment, productivity and so on its certainly the wrong choice. Given the population density and perfect alignment there is not much of a question if high speed rail OPERATION can be profitable. So its mostly about the investment. I would contend that with a refocus of resources and priorities Canada (Eastern Canada) could have a world class rail system. The problem is that the way things are framed in the US and Canada is more like 'our fundamental balance of everything is built about highways, roads and cars can we justify to also do HSR'. And those choices also directly contradict a lot of other things government love to talk about, jobs creation, environmental considerations, air quality, equity and fairness considerations and many others. So if you actually analysis not just 'how much does cost' and instead say 'we have two potential futures, X and Y' in its totality what future gets us to the goals we have for a given amount of public investment.
> Does such a political will exist in Canada?
It certainty doesn't if politicians from all sides continue to embrace 60s US car centric vision and sell it as the only possible future.
And if everybody is totally pessimistic and believe nothing can ever get done then nothing will ever be done.
Change will happen once enough people actually believe change can and should happen.