[unimaginative2]

At a bare minimum, they should have four of those expresses a day. I remember talking to a colleague when I was working in Montreal about taking the train to Toronto. He said he likes the train, but will only use it when the 17:00 express is convenient. He said that four hours is acceptable, but anything longer is too much. I'm inclined to agree with him, and I think many people share his view. They could really boost their ridership if they could provide more of those trains. It would be nice if, at a bare minimum, they could also get back to the 3h59m schedules that they had in the 80s.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ The investments in a third rail from the last budget could bring the times significantly closer to the 4 hr standard. Travel to Ottawa will certainly be within the 4 hr timeframe.

 

[Whoaccio]

TVO's The Agenda has a segment on HSR in Canada tonight at 8 & 11 on channel 2. You can submit questions before hand and some of the more prescient ones may be asked on air. Can't seem to find out who the guests are, though.

 

[ahmedyusali]

High-speed rail would foster national unity: MP
Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service
Published: Sunday, June 21, 2009

OTTAWA -- A multi-billion dollar high-speed rail project between Quebec City and Windsor, Ont., would promote national unity among Quebecers and boost their attachment to the rest of the country, says federal Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe.

"Imagine that the people of Quebec are prepared to engage in . . . spending money that's taken out of the province of Quebec to build a line that's going to make it easier for them to connect with southern Ontario," Volpe said in an interview, as parliamentary hearings wrapped up last week on high-speed rail.

Volpe added that a major passenger train project would be the largest national infrastructure project involving both Quebec and Ontario since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway 50 years ago. At the same time, he said it could also bring Canada back to its roots, when the first railway networks were built.

"That's nation building because they're going to be caught up in the same kind of enthusiasm that caught up Canadians 140 years ago when they were building this ribbon of steel to connect the vast empire that was way out there in the Northwest Territories and other provinces, and the two Canadas, obviously along with the two maritime provinces."

Volpe said that people have lost sight of the fact that Canada was built on rail and passenger rail, but he sees an enormous opportunity with a new proposal for a high-speed link that already has an endorsement from the Bloc Quebecois.

"One needs to look no further than all the CP hotels that are built around the country in order to accommodate people who had to move from one point to another," Volpe said. "Rail [and] passenger rail has been a part of the Canadian fabric, the Canadian psyche and the Canadian experience since before Confederation because it was perceived to be an economic development strategy as well as a moving goods, moving [people] strategy."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1718907

 

[Whoaccio]

Of all reasosn to build HSR, National Unity may be the least accurate. Allusions to the railway nationalism of John A. and the rhetoric of rails innate 'binding' effects on a people, I can't see anything good (from a nat. unity perspective) coming from this. Right off the bat, this thing wont end up costing under 20b for a pretty conservative Tor-Ott-Mtl route. As far as I know, that would be the single biggest federal project to date. Maybe relative to GDP something in the 19th century would beat it, but one way or another this thing will be obscenely expensive. Odds are it will also suffer delays and cost overruns.

That wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't HSR. I can say with near certainty that nobody west or north of cottage country will like the idea of billions flowing towards Toronto & Montreal which are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to receive the most attention anyways. It will just get perceived the same way the CBC or Air Canada is, a Toronto-Montreal centric enterprise which sucks money away from the West. Riding on the heals of billion dollar GM bailouts, this simply wont play well. Atlantic Canada will also hate it, on the basis that it is yet more proof (to them) of their lack of relevance to the Feds (nevermind exceeses like Conf. Bridge). In both West & Atlantic, it wont help that Tor-Mtl already has much better infrastructure than any other region. The Trans Canada looks like a cart trail, in parts.

I also doubt it would play well in either Ontario or Quebec, politically. A simple Tor-Ott-Mtl route would basically serve only the predominantly Liberal & Anglophone areas of Quebec. Seperatists would view this as a negative and paint it as an abandonment of franco heartlands like Saguenay in favor of places like Montreal. They would also probably see it as an admission of defeat to connect Montreal w/ Toronto, hence their affinity for connections to NYC. So, the only way they would sign on is if a wildly disproportionate share of the supplies come from Quebec firms. Its basically a given that the rail tyes would come from the poorest Quebec logging town. A potentially larger share of the capital costs would be expected from the Feds & Ont. Most people in Ontario would probably like the idea, though typical mega project issues like land aquisition could give off an imagine of Toronto 'elites' trying to crush the rural poor. More likely would be a NIMBY issue somewhere inside of Toronto or Ottawa. Small towns will most likely resent HSR passing through without a stop. Northern Ontario would surely view this as yet more proof of Ontario's lack of interest in them and obsession with Toronto.

In short, spending dozens of billions in the County's most resented region will almost definitely inflame every manner of regional divisions. Part of that is parochial, but its not totally unreasonable for other regions to expect a kind of reciprocity either. It doesn't help that the bulk of government interventions historically and, even more so, currently have been perceived to favor Tor-Ott-Mtl at the expense of the RoC. Part of the reason the Arrow was cancelled, after all, was its perception as an industrial welfare policy for Toronto.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ That's exactly why I have always thought that the only realistic way to sell HSR is to make it a national program encompassing several corridors. Not just Windsor-Quebec City and Calgary-Edmonton, but also Regina-Saskatoon and the BC Lower mainland. There should also be a long term commitment to extend HSR from Quebec City to Halifax and from Calgary to Lethbridge.

You can argue all you want about how this will tie in 10 million people, but that won't sell in the rest of the country. The only way to sell it as a national program is if its truly a national program. I would suggest that the government launch with TOM with a commitment to go to Halifax via Quebec and to Windsor on the other side. At the same time Calgary-Edmonton should also be launched with a commitment to extend south to Lethbridge. I would also offer help build a Regina-Saskatoon and Chilliwack-Vancouver link in a National HSR Phase 2 program. It's not necessarily as challenging as some folks think. Constructions costs would be lower in the Prairies. And of course, making the provinces cough up half, ensures that they can't complain if they aren't willing to pony up.

At the end of day if we want a TOM link, we are going to have get the rest of the nation on-board. The only way to do that is to give them a stake in HSR advancements in Canada.

 

[MisterF]

Wow, if people really thought that way nothing would ever get built in this country. Of course Canadians can be a petty bunch, but not to the extremes you two are saying. Most people support high speed rail in every region of Canada, even in places like the Maritimes.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-S08-T305.pdf

Now I know what you're going to say, the study was commissioned by the Railway Association of Canada so it has no merit. But Nanos Research did the poll, and they're one of the most respected polling companies anywhere. The results are valid. Now if only the politicians would start selling the project by its financial and economic merits instead of warm and fuzzy stories about the CPR in the 19th century.

 

[nfitz]

Interesting poll. I'd never seen that. Results are more positive than I'd have thought!

 

[Whoaccio]

^^
That poll is pretty broad. I don't think its data necessarily contradicts with my opinion vis a vis national unity anyways. 'Do you support HSR' is a very different question to asking someone in Halifax 'do you support your tax dollars subsidizing travel between Toronto-Montreal.' As it is the Western Premiers are using the GM bailout as proof of an Ontario bias to leverage EI reforms out of the Feds to their benefit. I think we would be kidding ourselves to think that Calgarians would be clicking their heels with joy to know that still more money will be transferred East. Not that these concerns could never be addressed, but just charging ahead on the premise that everyone will support it could be damaging from a national unity perspective. Its especially damaging to imply, as Volpe is, that building a train between Toronto & Montreal will improve national unity. It implies to others that we think Toronto and Montreal is the nation, which drives non Torontonians and Montrealers nuts.

As to Keithz point, something like that would be politically necessary. I am cautiously optimistic that a Tor-Ott-Mtl HSR could yield positive economic and environmental results by itself. If a condition of that is rail between Regina and Sask or Halifax & QC though, the economics seem horrendous. I take it you don't imply TGVs zipping along the prairies, but I don't even see how RDCs could operate on these routes. Regional turboprops are clearly the more efficient solution to these low volume trips compared to rail.

 

[kEiThZ]

The questions in that poll are generic. Everybody likes HSR if they are going to get it. I wonder how much Maritimers would support federal funding for HSR if construction would stop in Quebec City. Or how Westerners would feel if only the TOM line was on the plate. The price of HSR means that a good chunk of the country (even in Ontario and Quebec) will be paying for a service that won't benefit them very much. That's not to say it's not worthwhile, but it's a potential PR nightmare for any government.

 

[MisterF]

'Do you support HSR' is a very different question to asking someone in Halifax 'do you support your tax dollars subsidizing travel between Toronto-Montreal.'

Wow, you should write headlines for the Toronto Sun. Seeing as HSR between Toronto and Montreal is forecast to have an operating profit and pay for itself, that question would be misleading and highly inaccurate. Any investment the feds make into HSR will have a healthy return. You and Keithz are really overestimating how petty Canadians are.

You can argue all you want about how this will tie in 10 million people, but that won't sell in the rest of the country.

The Windsor-Quebec corridor has about 19 million people, or close to 60% of the population of the country.

 

[nfitz]

'Do you support HSR' is a very different question to asking someone in Halifax 'do you support your tax dollars subsidizing travel between Toronto-Montreal.'

Wow, you should write headlines for the Toronto Sun.

I really object to the unnecessary rudeness!

Seeing as HSR between Toronto and Montreal is forecast to have an operating profit and pay for itself, that question would be misleading and highly inaccurate. Any investment the feds make into HSR will have a healthy return.

????? That makes no sense. It is forecast to have an operating profit, because it will take in more revenue that it takes to operate it. The revenue would cover operating costs. It doesn't cover the capital costs of construction! So tax dollars still have to subsidize the construction of the thing in the first place.

I'm amazed that you have the gall to accuse him of spin, when you've completely spun the capital costs out of the equation!

 

[MisterF]

I really object to the unnecessary rudeness!

????? That makes no sense. It is forecast to have an operating profit, because it will take in more revenue that it takes to operate it. The revenue would cover operating costs. It doesn't cover the capital costs of construction! So tax dollars still have to subsidize the construction of the thing in the first place.

I'm amazed that you have the gall to accuse him of spin, when you've completely spun the capital costs out of the equation!

Actually, the 1995 tripartite study concluded that revenues would pay back the capital costs.

 

[Whoaccio]

Wow, you should write headlines for the Toronto Sun. Seeing as HSR between Toronto and Montreal is forecast to have an operating profit and pay for itself, that question would be misleading and highly inaccurate. Any investment the feds make into HSR will have a healthy return. You and Keithz are really overestimating how petty Canadians are.

Well, believe it or not, that is what the vast majority of the country that never travels between Tor-Ott-Mtl will think when the government takes on 20+ billion in debt to pay for this. And, as nfitz said, to suggest that a 20+b dollar public project doesn't constitute a subsidy is beyond ridiculous. If reality sounds like a Toronto Sun headline to you, then that's probably an indication that this isn't the PR cakewalk you imagine it is.

Anybody who knows anything about polling doesn't take question like 'do you support x' seriously. The only relevant question, from a National Unity point of view, is 'do you support paying for someone else to receive HSR'. I suspect the majority of Canadians have a positive or somewhat positive view of kittens.

 

[nfitz]

Actually, the 1995 tripartite study concluded that revenues would pay back the capital costs.

I'm quite shocked to hear that ... I don't disbelieve you ... but I certainly have to wonder about that study. I don't think that either of the VIA Rail studies concluded that.

Hmm, wasn't this the same timeframe as the studies that showed that the Channel Tunnel and HS1 would both pay back their costs ... which both lead to the bankruptcy of the "company" holding the bag.