I would like to see the national railways refurbished, and used for carrying freight, and people. To see young people get a free ride across Canada, just a bathroom and water, bring your own food. Travel this country, bring your talent, and share living in this country with each other
I agree 100 percent. Just hope whoever gets the contract isn't trying to reinvent the wheel. An example is the Ottawa LRT. Years behind and way over on costs. These type of services are everywhere in the world and in all types of climate but Ottawa's LRT is out of service as much as it is in service due to engineering and design issues.
High speed rail between Ontario and Quebec isn’t a spine. It’s an important appendage - critical even - but it’s not a spine. The rest of Canada deserves to get better/cheaper public rail service as well.
I think there are more facts needed in this discussion to be complete. One of the first that comes to mind is that the distances between benefiting population centers in Europe, Turkey and Indonesia are far shorter than in Canada.
Another consideration is that the ALTO must run on greentrack, which is a brand new track, to achieve speed. It can't run on browntrack, that is an existing track, which is already busy and built with curves and grades to slow down freight trains for safety.
Politically, Quebec isn't going to participate without the Quebec City portion as that's where much of their traffic runs. Ontario needs this to run north of Toronto because the existing Lakeshore rail traffic is already maxed out and because city rail and transport systems must remain operational.
While it's amusing to contemplate leaving out the Ottawa leg, one must remember that the East Ontario portion needs to run north through Ottawa and perhaps Peterborough anyway, in order to maintain an arrival position north of Toronto. Think parallel but north of #7 Hwy.
The Ontario South leg to London and Windsor will again have to be built outside of existing traffic corridors. The #7 Hwy parallel comes to mind again. Also ridership, actual and forecast, for this area will need to be calculated to justify the expense.
That's the outline. The facts are that greentrack will have to be required to run about 1360 km of rail. This will all be new acquisition, through farmland and protected land just to start building. The cost of the land may surpass the cost of building the railway and that's before you get to the costs of legal battles. Now that this project is ALTO HSR (high speed rail) the tracks have to be perfectly straight, without twists and turns. If farmer A says sure and farmer B says no, then we're into expropriation. You can't just go around the tough areas.
The rule of thumb for air vs rail is the three hour rule. If it takes longer than three hours, people will fly. That's about the time to travel from Montreal to Toronto on the Alto. In Europe you've passed through 4 cities and 2 countries in that time. They have 3 times the population density in 1/10 of the distance.
The comparison to "the last spike" and cross-canada rail pioneers is not really apt. Those trains have a few passengers but freight pays the major costs. We already have ways to get from one point to another and I'm sure they can be improved on. I'm not sure this is it.
Fair points, Jim... and that’s exactly the kind of discussion we should be having.
Nobody serious is saying this gets built by snapping fingers and drawing a straight line on a napkin.
The engineering, routing, land acquisition, and ridership math all matter.
My argument isn’t that every current plan detail is perfect.
It’s that Canada should be willing to study, debate, and refine nation-building infrastructure instead of reflexively killing it at the headline stage.
If the route needs adjustment, costs need scrutiny, or assumptions need pressure-testing... good.
I support the project but somehow I have seen many posts opposing the project. The people who are in the corridor, in rural areas do not see the advantages of the TGV as the train will not stop along the way but feel like they will bear the consequences of the tracks passing through their communities. In order to build support along the corridor, the Consortium and or governments would have to provide valid reasons or incentives to want the TGV in areas along the corridor.
We need to build the infrastructure to support a sustainable population that can support the ongoing and evolving upkeep required for a country of our size.
One thing you didn’t mention about China’s high speed rail - they built over 40,000 kms from scratch in 10 years! We’ll spend 10 years discussing it, another 10 years evaluating it, and another 10 years building 600 kms.
I recall high speed proposals when I was in high school some 60 years ago. Proposals over time got pissed away or were punted forward. Enough. The lack of imagination is an apt observation about our collective decision making. This project should become part of strategic initiatives and thé process that has outlined remains guided by sound and balanced route selection combined with concentrated mitigation for negative impacts.
I would like to see the national railways refurbished, and used for carrying freight, and people. To see young people get a free ride across Canada, just a bathroom and water, bring your own food. Travel this country, bring your talent, and share living in this country with each other
Love that idea, Audrey.
A country this big should make it easier for Canadians to actually know their own country.
Freight, passenger rail, youth travel programs...
none of that happens without modern infrastructure first.
We used to build with that kind of long-term thinking. We need some of it back.
What would shipping be like if we hadn't built the St. Lawrence Seaway!
Exactly MaryAnn.
People mocked big infrastructure then too.
Now nobody questions whether the St. Lawrence Seaway was worth building.
That’s the pattern with nation-building projects...
they look expensive before they look obvious.
I agree 100 percent. Just hope whoever gets the contract isn't trying to reinvent the wheel. An example is the Ottawa LRT. Years behind and way over on costs. These type of services are everywhere in the world and in all types of climate but Ottawa's LRT is out of service as much as it is in service due to engineering and design issues.
Fair concern, Norm.
Supporting big infrastructure doesn’t mean giving politicians a blank cheque to screw it up.
Canada should be copying proven systems...
not pretending we need to invent some special snowflake version from scratch.
Build it smart, build it right, and build it once.
It’s a no brainer, build it and it will get used
Vancouver to Quebec City !!!
High speed rail between Ontario and Quebec isn’t a spine. It’s an important appendage - critical even - but it’s not a spine. The rest of Canada deserves to get better/cheaper public rail service as well.
Fair distinction... call it a spine, an artery, or a major nerve line… the broader point stands.
This shouldn’t be the end of the conversation.
It should be the start of Canada finally taking modern rail seriously nationwide.
You build the busiest corridor first… then expand from strength.
I think there are more facts needed in this discussion to be complete. One of the first that comes to mind is that the distances between benefiting population centers in Europe, Turkey and Indonesia are far shorter than in Canada.
Another consideration is that the ALTO must run on greentrack, which is a brand new track, to achieve speed. It can't run on browntrack, that is an existing track, which is already busy and built with curves and grades to slow down freight trains for safety.
Politically, Quebec isn't going to participate without the Quebec City portion as that's where much of their traffic runs. Ontario needs this to run north of Toronto because the existing Lakeshore rail traffic is already maxed out and because city rail and transport systems must remain operational.
While it's amusing to contemplate leaving out the Ottawa leg, one must remember that the East Ontario portion needs to run north through Ottawa and perhaps Peterborough anyway, in order to maintain an arrival position north of Toronto. Think parallel but north of #7 Hwy.
The Ontario South leg to London and Windsor will again have to be built outside of existing traffic corridors. The #7 Hwy parallel comes to mind again. Also ridership, actual and forecast, for this area will need to be calculated to justify the expense.
That's the outline. The facts are that greentrack will have to be required to run about 1360 km of rail. This will all be new acquisition, through farmland and protected land just to start building. The cost of the land may surpass the cost of building the railway and that's before you get to the costs of legal battles. Now that this project is ALTO HSR (high speed rail) the tracks have to be perfectly straight, without twists and turns. If farmer A says sure and farmer B says no, then we're into expropriation. You can't just go around the tough areas.
The rule of thumb for air vs rail is the three hour rule. If it takes longer than three hours, people will fly. That's about the time to travel from Montreal to Toronto on the Alto. In Europe you've passed through 4 cities and 2 countries in that time. They have 3 times the population density in 1/10 of the distance.
The comparison to "the last spike" and cross-canada rail pioneers is not really apt. Those trains have a few passengers but freight pays the major costs. We already have ways to get from one point to another and I'm sure they can be improved on. I'm not sure this is it.
Fair points, Jim... and that’s exactly the kind of discussion we should be having.
Nobody serious is saying this gets built by snapping fingers and drawing a straight line on a napkin.
The engineering, routing, land acquisition, and ridership math all matter.
My argument isn’t that every current plan detail is perfect.
It’s that Canada should be willing to study, debate, and refine nation-building infrastructure instead of reflexively killing it at the headline stage.
If the route needs adjustment, costs need scrutiny, or assumptions need pressure-testing... good.
That’s what competent planning is for.
But “complex” isn’t the same as “bad idea.”
Great read Fred, now, please send a copy to PM Carney :)
Thanks Patsy 😄
If he’s not reading already, someone in his office probably is.
Either way… I’ll keep yelling into the internet until somebody important listens.
Hahaha, if he is reading, we're all keeping him entertained, especially you Fred! haha
Agree 100% we must do this!
I support the project but somehow I have seen many posts opposing the project. The people who are in the corridor, in rural areas do not see the advantages of the TGV as the train will not stop along the way but feel like they will bear the consequences of the tracks passing through their communities. In order to build support along the corridor, the Consortium and or governments would have to provide valid reasons or incentives to want the TGV in areas along the corridor.
That’s a fair point, Luc.
Nation-building projects always create local friction where the route actually goes.
If communities along the corridor feel they’re carrying the burden without sharing the benefit, support will erode fast.
Government needs to make the case clearly...
and where appropriate, ensure those communities see real upside too.
Big projects only work when the people affected believe they’re part of the future being built.
An excellent article and we need more people thinking like this.
Thanks for sharing 👍 😊
We need to build the infrastructure to support a sustainable population that can support the ongoing and evolving upkeep required for a country of our size.
Exactly, Frances.
Infrastructure only works long-term when it’s tied to real population growth, economic development, and sustained use.
The goal isn’t to build shiny things for headlines...
it’s to build systems that strengthen the country for decades.
Even backwards countries and places like Dallas have seen massive growth after launching their long-awaited rail. You can do this. Elbows Up ‼️
One thing you didn’t mention about China’s high speed rail - they built over 40,000 kms from scratch in 10 years! We’ll spend 10 years discussing it, another 10 years evaluating it, and another 10 years building 600 kms.
I recall high speed proposals when I was in high school some 60 years ago. Proposals over time got pissed away or were punted forward. Enough. The lack of imagination is an apt observation about our collective decision making. This project should become part of strategic initiatives and thé process that has outlined remains guided by sound and balanced route selection combined with concentrated mitigation for negative impacts.