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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 !!!
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
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.
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.”
Thanks for sharing 👍 😊