News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

I think we can do this, thanks to an example of high speed rail working in a country with similar stats to Ontarebec: Taiwan (pop. 23 million, about the same as Ontario+Quebec). A private public partnership was created to make a $15 billion 335 km (about the third of what ours would be) line that expects to become profitable by 2009. It carries a few million passengers per month, in a country where the gdp per capita is just over a third of ours.
 
Keep in mind though, that it travels virtually the entire length of the island, and is only about 350 km long.

The distances and population densities are in their favour more than ours.
 
The distances and population density here are very similar to Spain. The Madrid-Barcelona corridor and the Toronto-Montreal corridor are alike in almost every way.
 
The population density of the land that an airplane flies over does not affect the viability of that airline route.
The population density of the land that a train travels through without stopping does not affect the viability of that railway route.

What matters is the size of the markets at either end of the non-stop train/plane route.
 
Exactly, CDL.

The population density of the land that a train travels through without stopping does not affect the viability of that railway route.

In fact, lower population density may improve the viability of the rail route by reducing construction cost. Compared with its counterparts in most of Europe, a Quebec City-Windsor route would be vastly easier to build. No mountains or big valleys, far fewer people to disturb in rural areas and far lower land values. Unlike most European HSR routes, we wouldn't need multiple 10+km tunnels. In fact, I don't think we'd need a long tunnel anywhere to meet grade and turning radius requirements.
 
What matters is the size of the markets at either end of the non-stop train/plane route.

+1

And that's what creates the problem here. No government at any level would support a line that only served Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal while leaving an unprofitable VIA to service the other half of the population of the region. That would be electoral suicide.
 
Obviously not, and they wouldn't have to. Any high speed rail service would also serve Kingston, Trois Rivieres, Brampton/Pearson Airport, Waterloo Region, London, and Windsor. Some trains could also stop around Port Hope and Guelph, among other places. That's a pretty extensive network, especially if it's accompanied by improvements to connecting services to places like Sherbrooke, Hamilton, Niagara, and Brantford.
 
Too bad that VIA is a wagon hitched to a political horse. The most well-run crown corporations, such as European federal railways, are very independent and don't operate according to the whims of whatever party or politician is in charge. For example, the LCBO does not have to worry about who will be voted in power in terms of its day-to-day operation and the influence of Liberal-appointed Philip Olsson, as opposed to his conservative predecessor Andy Brandt, has not been felt by the person who is at the store buying booze.
 
Obviously not, and they wouldn't have to. Any high speed rail service would also serve Kingston, Trois Rivieres, Brampton/Pearson Airport, Waterloo Region, London, and Windsor. Some trains could also stop around Port Hope and Guelph, among other places. That's a pretty extensive network, especially if it's accompanied by improvements to connecting services to places like Sherbrooke, Hamilton, Niagara, and Brantford.

Indeed. Montreal and Toronto are the necessary markets to make a HSR line viable. The million or two extra people along the way are just the icing on the cake.
 
Too bad that VIA is a wagon hitched to a political horse. The most well-run crown corporations, such as European federal railways, are very independent and don't operate according to the whims of whatever party or politician is in charge. For example, the LCBO does not have to worry about who will be voted in power in terms of its day-to-day operation and the influence of Liberal-appointed Philip Olsson, as opposed to his conservative predecessor Andy Brandt, has not been felt by the person who is at the store buying booze.

I think the fact that VIA Rail (which I use often) is a recipient of government funds while the LCBO (which I also use!) is a contributor to government revenue may explain why one is more micro-managed than the other!
 
^No, what I meant is that there are many, many crown corporations in the world that operate at an arm's length and are not at the whim of political dictat. Whether they generate profit, or not, does not have much to do with it. An inordinate number of Parks Canada properties are located in Alberta or BC or Nunavut, for example, but you don't have howls of protest from Ontario MPs about closing them down or demanding that National Parks be turned into profitable enterprise.
 
It is an interesting issue, though. The more successful high speed networks, particularly France, operate primarily non-stop services between two major metropolitan areas in order to reduce travel times and improve competitiveness with airlines. Less successful services, like Germany's, have relatively frequent stops in small communities (<100,000) for largely political reasons.
 
The population density of the land that an airplane flies over does not affect the viability of that airline route.
The population density of the land that a train travels through without stopping does not affect the viability of that railway route.

What matters is the size of the markets at either end of the non-stop train/plane route.
Any high-speed train I've taken has had stops (though not all trains stop at all stations) about 20 minutes apart. It's hard to see any major markets between Ottawa and Oshawa except Kingston - and some of the proposed alignments don't even go through Kingston.

Now, I'm not against it, mind.
 

Back
Top