Allandale25
Senior Member
Local Councillor along the route asking for pictures and stories on the impacts of HSR. Recent post: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1775494745821911&id=671218429582887
|
|
|
Two questions I see are:Local Councillor along the route asking for pictures and stories on the impacts of HSR. Recent post: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1775494745821911&id=671218429582887
In this country of 37 million people, the intercity rail market only counts a mere 4.4 million trips per year, which means that statistically, every Canadian uses an intercity train less than once every 8 (!) years, meaning that the actual percentage of Canadians using intercity rail in any given year is somewhere in the single digits (considering that some passengers travelled more than once in the same year or were non-residents like international tourists) or most probably even lower than that. Why would any government invest an amount equal to several percentage points of its GDP into such a niche market?I think ultimately Ontario just needs to bite the bullet and at least start to build a high speed rail network. This is a chance for a first time opportunity in Canada, and I think it's something that should definitely be getting more support. Slower more frequent trains would work in some places, but why settle for that when you could go full force towards HSP?
In this country of 37 million people, the intercity rail market only counts a mere 4.4 million trips per year, which means that statistically, every Canadian uses an intercity train less than once every 8 (!) years, meaning that the actual percentage of Canadians using intercity rail in any given year is somewhere in the single digits (considering that some passengers travelled more than once in the same year or were non-residents like international tourists) or most probably even lower than that. Why would any government invest an amount equal to several percentage points of its GDP into such a niche market?
Even when including commuter rail, Canada's per-capita rail ridership is a small fraction of what European countries had when they started to introduce HSR (one single ride on the UP Express from Union to Pearson Airport is already enough to put you above the average mileage travelled by your fellow citizens on any passenger train):
Note: Table was first posted in Post #3064 of the VIA Rail thread and shows the population figures and rail ridership for the "base year" indicated. For sources, please visit the original post.
In this country of 37 million people, the intercity rail market only counts a mere 4.4 million trips per year, which means that statistically, every Canadian uses an intercity train less than once every 8 (!) years, meaning that the actual percentage of Canadians using intercity rail in any given year is somewhere in the single digits (considering that some passengers travelled more than once in the same year or were non-residents like international tourists) or most probably even lower than that. Why would any government invest an amount equal to several percentage points of its GDP into such a niche market?
Even when including commuter rail, Canada's per-capita rail ridership is a small fraction of what European countries had when they started to introduce HSR (one single ride on the UP Express from Union to Pearson Airport is already enough to put you above the average mileage travelled by your fellow citizens on any passenger train):
Note: Table was first posted in Post #3064 of the VIA Rail thread and shows the population figures and rail ridership for the "base year" indicated. For sources, please visit the original post.
In Europe, rail is a way of life.
Realistically the Canadian population is only 20 million............the Windsor-Quebec Corridor. In the rest of Canada, VIA ia a non-entity and even more so in Western Canada. You could close down VIA in the West and no one would ever notice.
The more I read about climate change, the more I am convinced that we are approaching a crisis point where we get desperate about ditching auto travel. The key consideration to me at that point is not trip time alone - we can get to auto equal without high end HSR - but how many start end points we can create for public transit to maximise the auto trips avoided.
To me that argues for not putting all our capital into HSR, but holding some money back to extend the ‘network’ out wherever possible.
My bet is that today’s carbon tax debate will go by the wayside as it’s small potatoes to what we will see eventually. The investment to get off carbon will pale to what today’s carbon tax formula would provide.
It’s not about whether HSR can pay for itself, its more about how we stretch our investment beyond the backbone. To me that says do the network first and keep the enhancement to the main line modest.
- Paul
I am with you on this. All that said. Let's be honest. Canadians don't give a damn about climate change. They say they do. But their actions say otherwise. And we really should stop pretending that Canadians care in the slightest.
We live in some of the largest homes in the world (third largest actually), in one of the coldest countries in the world, with cites that are highly suburbanized. We are some of the most carnivorous populations anywhere, with a lot of that being the most carbon-intensive form of it (red meat). And our exports come from a highly carbon intensive energy sector that supplies carbon emission to other countries.
There's no hope any of that will change in our lifetimes. So the appeal for anything to do with infrastructure has to be convenience and economic benefit.
Don't forget the winter vacations to a Carribean all-inclusive.
But hey let's not build on the Greenbelt.