[Second_in_pie]

I suggested this a while back in this thread. I would sell it thusly:

1) Toronto-Quebec city with a pledge to eventually expand to Halifax.
2) Edmonton-Calgary with a pledge for cross-Prairie service to Winnipeg via Regina.
3) Maybe even a Regina-Saskatoon link.

Unfortunately, infrastructure is a political beast. And sometimes you have to spend more to build stuff that doesn't make sense to make others happy. Just like streetcars to every ward, this might really only get off the ground if we can build HSR to every province. And if that's the only way to do it, I say go for it. Just spread it out over a long enough time-frame.

I'd be ok with that, but it has to be used. I'd be willing for a big prairie network with Calgary-Edmonton HSR and 200 km/h Regina-Saskatoon, as long as those prairies won't maintain the steady population they currently have and make it a general waste of money. A region like the prairies could support tens of millions of people based on Canada's special standing in cultures of the world and the technology, economy, and general amount of land that we have. And with that means that this country could have the density to support things like HSR, more mass transit, and in general better and more modern (though hopefully more sustainable,) lifestyles.

Perhaps London-Quebec and Calgary-Edmonton HSR, with 200 km/h through Halifax-Moncton-Fredricton/Saint John and Regina-Saskatoon, and less specific improvements up the Fraiser Valley from Vancouver and Toronto-North Bay? I'm trying to think of what part of Canada wouldn't be able to see benefits from that. But even that would require population growth for me to be able to support it as a long-term plan. If we could get that by 2050 and maybe double our population in the process/in conjunction, I'd be a happy man.

There's an old saying when it comes to territorial waters (or generally applied to your own territory): "Either you have your own navy in your waters....or somebody else." What the CF has is actually below the levels set our own foreign and defence policies, which really weren't significantly altered since the Chretien era.

Unfortunately, we are a country as a large as a continent. That means we need expensive stuff to do a basic job. For example, the Air Force wanted C-17s just to ensure that it could move large equipment inside Canada in response to a natural disaster. Those planes are $350 million a piece and cost just as much to maintain over 20 years. Next, Search and Rescue. The CF wants to buy some of the largest Search and Rescue planes in the world. Why? Because our search and rescue zone stretches from halfway over the Atlantic to half way out over the Pacific to the North Pole. Yet, we cover this with 15-20 aircraft. The Brits have more aircraft than that for an area the size of Ontario.

Again with fighters and tanks. Like I said, you can get rid of them. But are you willing to live with our incredibly large neighbour to the south then dictating our defence (and effectively) our foreign policy too? Having a small but effective combat force has always us bought us a seat with the big boys. In effect we get to maintain our sovereignty and keep our geopolitical standing on the world stage (instead of being viewed as a US protectorate). I have no issues with giving up our combat capabilities. New Zealand did it. But for us that does mean accepting a status as a US protectorate....because there's no way the US will tolerate a neighbour who's weaker on defence than we are now (our entire air combat capability is smaller than the Air Wing on the smallest US aircraft carrier, of which they have 10...and that does not count the Air Force). So would you be okay with USAF F-16s doing overflights of Toronto in the event of another 9/11 or during events like the Olympics and G8/G20?

Well, the distinction I see is that we should be focusing on defensive and peacekeeping missions. And really honestly, our brute military might hasn't gotten us a seat at the big boy table, it's mostly been our now crumbling peacekeeping record. If you look at all the international reputation that Canada's gotten since WWII, a huge amount of it is through brute peace work, no tight muscle flexing as the US does. And if this is to defend against the future cataclysm of the US invading us for our wonderful lakes, it just won't happen. They have 10x the amount of people we do, and I'd really prefer us to not have the military expenditures that the US does. So either way, we're screwed. Might as well be screwed and save us a bunch while we're at it. I can dig things like patrol boats and icebreakers and search and rescue helicopters and the like. More of that stuff new would be great. But I'm sure we've got a huge "what if?" offensive budget that we really don't need and would be pretty insubstantial anyways. I just can't see how tanks and state of the art fighter jets really fit in with peacekeeping and sea patrol.


But really, what kind of tax increase would that require for $25 billion over maybe 15 years? Between 20 million people, I can't really imagine it being something to seriously fight over, especially considering that at least once in your life you would face the choice of driving, flying, or buying a $70 ticket and reaching Montreal in an hour.

 

[kEiThZ]

I just can't see how tanks and state of the art fighter jets really fit in with peacekeeping and sea patrol.

Unfortunately neither can most Canadians. They seem to forget that when we first went to the Suez, we took an aircraft carrier with us. To keep the peace between two sides with big guns, you need your own. Boyscouts don't do well in warzone.

Ditto for sea patrol. Let's just say that it takes more than ships to patrol our territorial waters, which unlike other countries span a continent.

Anyway, I don't want to divert the thread any more, I'd be happy to explain the intricacies of peacekeeping, why we've been successful at it, and how it's evolved in a separate forum. Suffices to say that there are more geopolitical consequences than worrying about the US invading us (which is not what I said to begin with....sovereignty is more than just about invading other countries). What we have now isn't much by any global standard, we don't spend much on defence as a percentage of GDP, so we wouldn't be saving much either. Much of what the CF does would simply be done by other agencies and would probably cost more. For example, Search and Rescue could easily cost double or triple what it does if it wasn't a CF capability. Nothing is cheaper than taking a trained and fit soldier who wants out of the infantry and teaching him in a few months to be a parachuting medic.

 

[kEiThZ]

But really, what kind of tax increase would that require for $25 billion over maybe 15 years? Between 20 million people, I can't really imagine it being something to seriously fight over, especially considering that at least once in your life you would face the choice of driving, flying, or buying a $70 ticket and reaching Montreal in an hour.

It'd be more than $25 billion. There's the cost of financing.

At 5%, it'd work out to around $2.41 billion per year for 15 years.

A 1% increase in sales taxes or income taxes would probably do it. So would a 10 cent increase in fuel taxes.

Is there public appetite for that? I don't know.

But it certainly seems economically feasible for Ontario and Quebec to go it alone if necessary.

 

[MisterF]

It isn't just the capital cost of these projects, there is the operational subsidy just like the TTC. Considering there is no subsidy for air travel in the country (beyond there being no carbon tax), there is a strong argument to be made that any HSR project should be revenue neutral too. Just because HSR is cool doesn't mean it deserves government subsidy more than any other mode.

It wouldn't have an operational subsidy. Every time it's studied it's determined that HSR would make significant profits. Now if we did something silly like build HSR to Halifax or Winnipeg then yeah it would probably have to be subsidized, but the core Windsor-Quebec route would be profitable.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Depends how they split out maintenance - I know how TTC calculates operational costs minimalizes them - in any other system keeping the SRT going would count as an operational expense, but to renew it the TTC has it as capital.

Until you tender the P3, or if a fully public situation are operating it, you don't know. I know France and Spain have operational subsidies for their successful routes - economically it makes sense to subsidize the price of a new train of capacity operating down to only marginal cost so the system gets lots of ridership, there is no reason to leave ridership on the table.

It isn't a bad thing to have a subsidy, it just has to be a conscious decision.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have always wondered if it was possible to build a mixed passenger and freight HSR operation. This would make HSR much more feasible just about everywhere in Canada. High speed freight would have a lot of potential too. It would also make passenger HSR much more feasible.

 

[MisterF]

Depends how they split out maintenance - I know how TTC calculates operational costs minimalizes them - in any other system keeping the SRT going would count as an operational expense, but to renew it the TTC has it as capital.

Until you tender the P3, or if a fully public situation are operating it, you don't know. I know France and Spain have operational subsidies for their successful routes - economically it makes sense to subsidize the price of a new train of capacity operating down to only marginal cost so the system gets lots of ridership, there is no reason to leave ridership on the table.

It isn't a bad thing to have a subsidy, it just has to be a conscious decision.

I don't know about Spain but from everything I've read about France, the TGV makes big profits, especially the Sud-Est line. It pays for its own maintenance costs and subsidizes the rest of France's rail system.

I have always wondered if it was possible to build a mixed passenger and freight HSR operation. This would make HSR much more feasible just about everywhere in Canada. High speed freight would have a lot of potential too. It would also make passenger HSR much more feasible.

It's been done, but it can't be the monster freight trains we have - those would just destroy high speed tracks.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Hm, that's an interesting idea. Along a corridor like Quebec-Windsor, HSR would have to involve express passenger-only trackage and then other tracks for freight. I don't really know of freight HSR per se. There sure is a lot of improvements that our network could use. Electrification is a start, which I'm sure would have huge benefits for passenger rail. But I feel like 200 km/h freight trains would require a bit more than your regular HSR infrastructure. The rails need to be able to support the weight of the freight that trains carry.

But, if technology exists or there's room for some good ol' Canadian innovation, that creates a huge incentive for an actual nationwide HSR network, and that's without the population density of a place like Europe. That idea actually has a lot of merit.

 

[kEiThZ]

At the very minimum they could have a mail car catering to couriers and Canada Post!

 

[Darwinkgo]

In France I remember there is a dedicated mail run at night on one of the routes. The speed advantage generally doesn't make up for the need to build specialized stations and terminals for cargo. - The last mile transport would likely even out full transport time for goods even at longish distances between Toronto and Montreal to be comparable or likely slower than point 2 point trucking.

With mail sorting already moved away from railway sites I think it unlikely for mail to make sense to carry in Canada, perhaps a special class of same day courier would work.

 

[savevp]

I should think that they fly the mail across our vast nation, no?

 

[Second_in_pie]

If you could get mail across it by train within a day and a half, I think that trainmail is a preferable to plane.

 

[SlickFranky]

I don't think mail service is going to make or break HSR. Who mails things anymore, anyway?

 

[kEiThZ]

.

With mail sorting already moved away from railway sites I think it unlikely for mail to make sense to carry in Canada, perhaps a special class of same day courier would work.

Huge Canada Post facility near main train station in Ottawa.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think mail service is going to make or break HSR. Who mails things anymore, anyway?

Think small parcels and valuable documents that are usually couriered.