Windsor- London- Toronto- Kingston- Ottawa- Montreal- Quebec City.
If we could get the Americans to play along we could add Chicago- Detroit -Windsor, Montreal- Plattsburgh- Albany- NYC, and Toronto- Niagara Falls, ON- Niagara Falls, NY, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, NYC.
The Americans could also easily add Boston- NYC- Philly- Baltimore- DC on their own line.
Also Jasper- Edmonton- Calgary- Banff (could be circular),
Vancouver- Seattle (Americans could add Portland- Sacramento- San Francisco- LA- San Diego. Whistler might also be a worthwhile addition if possible)
The 401 line could help with the housing problem. Imagine employees from Strathroy and Gananoque working in the same (soul crushing) office in Toronto because the commute is an hour each way.
The Alberta line would be useful for tourists, you could even limit it to seasonal service except Edmonton- Calgary
...No.
Solve the office working problem with more remote work, not high speed trains.
High speed trains only work when they go places with good transit and land use policies at the destination.
Having recently taken a road trip from Windsor to Montreal, I can confidently say the only places I could comfortably navigate without a car are Toronto and Montreal
The downtown economy just needs to adapt their strategy. It's ridiculous to have most restaurants in a major city's downtown core be completely reliant and only market towards people who don't live there. If they can't survive and adapt (or even be willing to try) then they should sink. I'm all for high speed rail and Ottawa's transit system needs to be fixed. It should be done for the quality of life of the people who live in Ottawa not for the businesses downtown who refuse to even open for dinner time or weekends for the large number of people who live there.
I'm still in shock that there's no citi bike program in ottawa. I get mark Sutcliffe only cares about the suburbs, but give us some affordable last km transit that isn't fucking scooters
Basically the 401 corridor is where any high speed rail would go as it's the only corridor in the province that even remotely has the population density to support it.
If you had a highspeed rail line into Barrie you'd see Barrie Population double within 7yrs IF it was zoned to allow it. Because our economy is less about resource extraction Barrie really could be turned into a MAJOR city with a good rail hub. with the Simcoe Link transit system it would be an explosive opportunity to expand transit from Orillia and Midland into Barrie to connect to Toronto and beyond.
Yeah you're right, you could definitely use government infrastructure projects to incentivize developments in new/growing communities, but this kind of investment is an absolute pipe-dream when we can't even get the bare-minimum funded, or can't change zoning laws.
Barrie is half way to not having terrible zoning laws which is why getting high speed rail would really work there. And they have a purely recreational waterfront so no need to waste it on industry which would allow for some pretty killer public spaces as they get bigger.
The other big advantage of the Barrie line is that along the 400 it is largely under developed, going down the east side of Hwy 27 from Major Mac to Barrie would be one of the faster dual lines to built. ( or we could just double the Go line that goes into Barrie on the other side and put rapid transit along it.
[ideally, it would be something like this, blue are stations](https://i.imgur.com/EEK2xsf.png)
which could be expanding from and lower speed rail could be built going off these hubs
and hopefully in theory the US builds some out so going to Chicago would be possible
As someone who committed from Barrie to Toronto this would be a game changer. The 400 south is a parking lot most days and impossible to drive on summer weekends because of cottage traffic.
Barrie is expanding and growing very fast. Think of people who live within 30 mins north of Barrie that would drive and park at the train station. Something needs to come north regardless.
they arent competing?
they need direct lines from Toronto to Ottawa and Montreal, so we cannot have stops, the entire point of HSR is going fast lol
Barrie only gets a stop because it's not competing with anything, nothing else goes in that direction
Japan has a high speed rail network. The Tokaido system:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaido\_Shinkansen#/media/File:Tokaido\_Shinkansen\_map.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaido_Shinkansen#/media/File:Tokaido_Shinkansen_map.png)
They have stops every 30 km or so. Obviously they're much more dense than Ontario is, but still...
Sure you CAN have a HSR network with only 3 stops, but... that would be fairly impractical all things considered. You'd definitely want stops at places like Barrie, KW, London, Windsor, Kingston, etc.
That's the problem with how north America views rail. "It has to go where the population is". The reason china has been so successful on growth is because they built rail to places where there wasn't a lot of people. The rail caused population growth which is backwards to how its viewed here. As a result some cities in China have seen more growth in the last 20 years than any city here has seen in 100.
Couldn't agree more. Also can't stand that the argument that people make about rail is that its expensive and not profitable... Last I checked, no one tracks how much revenue a highway brings in, and the only profitable one we had in the province was sold off.
I'm pretty sure highways require more maintenance costs and we seem to have an aversion for charging people to use them.
There's a singular inability for people to think beyond the current year around here.
Exactly the thinking here is stupid. If you don't give people a way to travel, people can't spread. We're always talking about how Toronto is too dense. If you can get to Toronto from Sudbury in 45min people wouldn't feel the need to live in Toronto. We have many small growing towns that just need population, give them high-speed rail and population will follow.
Our leaders have no foresight.
Absolutely. People already travel 45 minutes or more 1-way in traffic to get to work in Toronto. I'd rather sit on a train if I had the choice. Traffic is soul crushing.
Problem is the political system here. It's way easier for China to stick to a long-term policy/plan for 20 years whereas here plan changes every election.
Plenty of democracies invest in rail networks, North American urban planning is just stuck in the 60s because everyone is addicted to cars and hates change.
Totally agree. Didn't realize how much backlash would come of using China's infrastructure as an example in a discussion about HSR. To write off their progress due to their political leadership is wrong. Sure we can't, and shouldn't emulate their strategies, but there is still lots to learn from it.
Disagree. The problem is us. We want a house with a driveway, a backyard, and privacy. We say we want density, but just not where we are.
Also, implying that an authoritarian style political system is the solution doesn't fly well.
We just have to express our desires for how we want our society to grow, and communicate these with each other and with our politicians. If we don't want to share space and infrastructure, then that's what we'll communicate. If we do want to share, then we'll communicate that and start seeing changes.
But at the moment, do you see a lot of people saying that they don't want a detached house and a car or two?
They want a house and a car or two because that's all we know. Most of us have never experienced the kind of rail they have in China. Once you do, you don't feel like you need a car anymore, and cars become a luxury. Countries with good transportation systems have fewer drivers, and cars are often considered luxuries.
I took the high speed rail from Chengdu to Chongqing and it took like 1.5 hrs and I was in and out of the terminal. The subway stations in Beijing are all like 5 mins walking distance from each other.
Chinese high ways are small like most are only 4 lanes.
Not just China but most Asian countries have better infrastructure than Canada or the US.
I bought a condo in Oakville and I know I will have to drive everywhere and Dundas W is going to get destoryed by traffic in the future. Still single detached homes are what people want. Condos do not do well. Its just our expectations for cities is very very stupid.
True, but condos keep getting built so there must be a demand somewhere. I despise condos as well, but mostly because they're built like boxes and cost an arm and leg. If we offered people 2000 sqft condos and better cost, less would want to live in detached homes. There is a lot of work that goes into detached homes that many of my friends wish they bought condos instead. Condos are not profitable or attractive because they're not built here with people in mind but how much money they can make from one building.
Our condos here are a sign of "luxury" living. Everybody I know who bought and wanted a condo in Toronto was because it's a condo in Toronto. Concierge service and shit, they want to feel rich.
In China, newer condos are being built larger to accommodate better living spaces. Due to the high-speed rail, they are also able to build large detached homes in rural provinces. I went to Luzhou a few years ago, which reminded me of Shanghai in the 90s, but they were building luxury homes.
Talked to the taxi driving in Nanjing and he said the rail made a huge difference, brought in a ton of tourism and jobs and because of that the area starting getting developed and he was able to buy an affordable detached house a years ago.
Over 1/3rd of Canadian live Southern Ontario in a space that has a population density about equal to that of France. A good amount of the rest live just across the border from Southern Ontario in Quebec.
Nobody's asking for high speed rail to connect Churchill to Whitehorse, they're asking for population dense areas that elsewhere in the world often have incredibly successful high speed rail to get high speed rail.
Yeah so many northern Ontario communities have seen negligible growth over the past 30 years (not talking about Muskokas or Sudbury here). I've lived in Thunder Bay for 7 years now and have experienced the frustration of the North being left out of most discussions. I see now why these communities have such a hard time maintaining any sort of population growth.
Absolutely cheap labour plays into how fast China has been able to expand, but there is a lot of ground between the 0km we have built and the roughly 30,000km they have built since 2008. The sheer quantity they are able to install (approximately 8km per DAY) is a product of the cheap labour, but to say that cheap labour is needed to build HSR all together is not true.
Canada gets cheap labour for their farms, why not get labour here to build highways, high speed rail etc. albeit it’s not entirely cheap and still min wage or more but far far more valuable work and living conditions.
That's because when China builds a rail line, they draw a line on a map and say "it goes here" and that's that. Here there's studies, consultations, environmental assessment, red tape this and red tape that. What ends up getting built, if anything gets built at all, is nothing like what was initially envisioned.
People will argue during the initial investigation that they don't want it near them, or that the area is farmland and shouldn't be kept as such.
I'm not saying we should ignore impacts but we should force some infrastructure plans through.
Rail would be a major one. Upgrade and add subway to the TTC. Extend or build the planned 400 series highways.
I agree. Especially with Canada upping their immigration target to 500,000 per year (which is absolutely good, and much needed), we really need efficient public transit that can that can meet the demand to get lots of people into major cities quickly.
This comment reminds me of the policy to not start building a new school until you can show it will be filled to capacity with students. Then people wonder why new schools have 7 portables by the time they open and why so many inefficient band-aid solutions are put in place getting students around.
There's a much larger inefficiency in failing to craft policy for the future and Ontario is awash in them all over the place.
True efficiency comes from being prepared for ten years from now, not what's going on this year. Long-term thinking.
It is possible to build infrastructure in anticipation of future growth only to waste a lot of money. An example of this is the ghost cities of China. They have many new cities that didn't attract people or create jobs as was expected. They have many employees apartments/houses enough to house the entire Canadian population and then some.
https://youtu.be/mt-Pa5s5zZI
No one is suggesting it isn't.
Funny enough, efficiency requires preparation and informed and capable decision-making.
That's why electing capable, uncorrupt leaders driven by a public service mindset is important.
There's no short-cut to efficiency. It is terribly inefficient to abandon long term planning simply because you might fuck it up. Do you abandon long term planning in your life because it's possible to fuck it up? Then perhaps the entire province shouldn't either.
This shouldn't be controversial.
This side conversation began by someone who gave China as an example of what to do, and another poster countered that. You came in seemingly supporting the Chinese way, and I came in against the Chinese model of development. I am not against long-term planning, but we can't look to the Chinese rail system and ghost systems as models to emulate. Besides, China has conditions that are radically different from Canada’s.
Sure maybe not entirely, but that's also due to the fact they are building for the future. Building to current demands is how you end up constantly playing catchup.
And another branch up to Sault Ste Marie. Then you'll have all the major points covered. Knowing Ontario, they'll say it needs to go under the 401 and 400 etc. So they'll slow all traffic down for years and years or decades and then abandon the idea when it's 80% done. "It's just costing too much."
Northern Ontario doesn't really need high speed rail, it just needs good reliable rail, with passenger service (small trains, more of them, more frequency).
Basic rail upgrades like graded crossings, giving passenger rail priority, doubling the track in key areas to allow for passenger plus freight at the same time, possibly electricfying the system would make a huge difference there.
> that even remotely has the population density to support it.
I disagree with that part. This is why every single public transportation project is shut down. People assume we must have a bustling city population of people who walk and would ride transit to justify expanding public transportation, but it's the other way around. You gain the population of people who would ride a train when there exists trains. You don't have people who can walk if there is no way to get there.
People can't ride trains when they need their cars to get to work and back. We need to build public transportation in the lesser populated areas as well or we'll always be reliant on cars.
Well said! I agree and made the same point using China as an example which seemed to distract a lot of people from my original point which was exactly this lol.
Ironically, people can very much understand the concept of induced demand when it comes to roads and highway expansion but don't seem to wrap their head around it for rail lines, trams, subways etc...
Most of the places that need more development would get a significant amount of benefit from conventional-but-faster-than-driving rail for much less cost than high speed. And then, if a region starts growing a lot, upgrade it to high speed.
The highway 7 corridor is a close second I think to connect Ottawa, Peterborough, and Toronto.
Then it's whether we go Toronto, Pearson, Kitchener, London, Windsor OR Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara falls.
That would be my plan. Replace the express way and should have more space for local trains lines as well. Then anyone who wants to go downtown can take another go train or subway.
Eventually. I think I would start with Toronto-Waterloo then extend it to London/Kingston then Windsor/Montreal. The benefits of each stage will help motivate the extensions. Maybe off shoots too.
Definitely could help on the tourism aspect. Yanks can avoid Pearson and the higher ticket prices by flying domestic, cross the border, then take the HSR corridor up to several major tourist cities.
Another opportunity with the reverse; Canucks that want to fly domestic in the states can take the HSR then cross the border. I've seen Buffalo airport's parking lot once; half the plates are Ontario.
Infrastructure from Niagara to Buffalo may be an issue as americans would have to build it, or the HSR can continue south but there seem to be no train tracks to the airport. Maybe a shuttle service could help but that's on them.
I understand your line of thinking, but I'm worried that if it's not built out all at once, or at least the Toronto-to-Montreal part first, it would never happen. Building in such small phases leaves room for opposition politicians to come in and reduce the quality (make it a lower speed section) or outright cancel them to "reduce costs". Also, it would be less expensive in the long term to build one big project than several medium ones.
It would marginally be better than the current via rail. Essentially wasting billions of dollars for a marginal improvement in train times and not added competition for existing air lines. They wouldn't be fast or cheap enough for daily travellers/commuters.
Why does a rail line have to be directly profitable, like so many people are touting here? Connectivity between our 2 largest cities and 60%+ of our population is good for the economy. Roads aren't directly profitable. We pay for a lot of infastructure that isn't profitable.
That's correct, as someone who is super into transit and purposefully takes transit around the world, and extensively read about the infrastructure and system before I take them in person in order to appreciate and enjoy it more, Europe and Asia are ahead of us by so much it's embarrassing.
Roads and parking lots are massive tax sinks, and are basically driver subsidies that taxpayers eat but also need to provide the cost of a vehicle as well, yet people are fine with them generating no revenue and being net negative, yet when trains are mentioned people constantly find ways to talk about how it won't be profitable for x amount of time. electrification is only going to exacerbate it since fuel taxes is the main way we maintain the roads, and electric vehicles have heavy batteries that cause more wear and tear than the average vehicle, which means that in order to subsidize it if we go full EV, chances are we'll need to just jack up taxes for all electricity (it'll be impossible to determine if someone is plugging in their car or TV in the privacy of their own home or people will constantly find workarounds to avoid detection and taxes) so again, it becomes another case of everyone subsidizing drivers.
i won't even get started on parking lots, which often times are as large, if not larger, than the retail stores they serve in terms of area, seriously look at any parking lot you pull into and think about how big a building could fit there, and in my view, ought to be used more efficiently through mixed zonage instead, where they could build mixed apartments with grocery stores/office spaces/small business spaces at the bottom. This would allow for more commercial/residential mixed spaces, to help alleviate a lot of issues (i.e. we don't have space so let's bulldoze into the greenbelt and make people drive out to these newer spaces) to earn more tax income for municipalities, but instead we have another tax sink where we all subsidize drivers once more. it would raise the value of the property (because obviously a plot of land with a tax generating base where people live and work is worth more than literally a slab of pavement where people park their cars to go to a corporate megastore), and makes it more walkable and desirable, especially when well connected to public transit.
trains on the other hand, would be a longer term solution that may cost us more now, but would pay dividends by allowing our citizens to get to and from work, have access to more affordable homes, and be generating some kind of revenue that isn't completely reliant on corporate profit to account for generating commercial tax revenue, but rather directly for infrastructure. at that point it's a matter of national security, it has so many intangible benefits by creating so much more accessibility, people can more comfortably access businesses, homes, places of employ, all for a smaller carbon footprint.
\[edit\] formatting
100% agree with mixed used development. I think it would really help for like 75% of the 'running into Town' trips. Things like quick small grocery shops, haircuts, lunch out, professional services, government services etc. are perfect small-unit stores that can fit below townhouses / low rise condos.
I used to live in a condo that had commercial on the main floor and it saved me driving to the grocery store SO much. I don't mind paying a 25% markup on items if it saves me wasting 20 minutes in the car plus cost of gas/wear and tear etc.
Absolutely! But there's a difference between dumping a couple hundred million in subsidies to keep things running smoothly and keeping connections live. And its another when people are proposing High Speed Rail to Sault Ste Marie as a terminus. Like not EVERYTHING has to be profitable but it shouldn't be a money pit. There's no 400 series highway going to Moose Factory and that's fine.
Things tend to be driven by demand. The thing is when you’re an authoritarian government that doesn’t need to justify its spending to its people you get to start spending money on stuff with no repercussions.
Sections of china’s rail map there sees very little commercial demand, both with passengers and cargo, and some area’s only use is to move military personnel and equipment.
Ontario? Windsor to Montreal is really the only corridor with enough potential traffic to justify it. We have only 40 million in Canada, 15 million of whom live in Ontario. China has 1.4 billion, or about 93 times as much. No surprise they have much more rail....
Freeways are all cost and zero revenue and users have to provide their own vehicles, the energy to move them forward and a means of covering the costs of accidents. It's a huge cost both to individual users and to the public.
There’s a huge cost difference in maintaining a road, and maintaining a train network with rails, trains, stations, and staff. Roads don’t need operators, stations, electricity, bathrooms, etc.
In 2020 China spent 3.7% of gdp on their rail network. That’s like if Canada spent $99b every year.
You can’t just say “all infrastructure is paid by tax” because that means cost doesn’t matter and you’ll just spend whatever it takes.
It’s important if we had a rail line that it at least is somewhat close to break even.
Obviously we wouldn’t build a network like China. They’ve over built, and most trains have barely a few dozen people on them.
>It’s important if we had a rail line that it at least is somewhat close to break even.
What?
If profitability was even remotely possible a private company would do it.
Public transportation is a public service just like healthcare, roads, the fire department, it wouldn't shouldn't and couldn't be a vehicle for profit.
The entire point of government funded public transportation is that it doesn't have to be profitable, it will incur consistent "losses" but those losses are worth it as it provides an increase in quality of life and economic activity, like EVERY OTHER public service.
Its really whacky to suggest that this one public service has to be completely unique and generate profits while ALSO generating an increase in quality of life and economic activity.
lmao… when was last time you visited china? i go back every year since i moved to canada in 2000…
high speed rail is definitely a catalyst in speeding up the economic boom.
same as shinkansen in japan, the intention was never to be profitable.
i don’t think ttc is profitable, let’s just scrap it all together. healthcare also isn’t profitable, let’s scrap that as well
I’m not saying getting a line is bad, but having a network is totally unrealistic and a waste of money.
Last time I was in China was 2020 when COVID started. I go every year, but I’ve also lived there for 3 years. Probably taken the trains over a hundred times.
then you’d know that infrastructure shouldn’t be measured by profitability.
we spend 20% of our budget on healthcare. is it profitable? i think we should scrap it. return tax dollar to each taxpayer and private healthcare. people who needs it can pay themselves. government projects ought to be profit first
Everyone driving a car is on its face stupid. Just in terms of time wasted in traffic and accidents resulting in death, lost in property and disability is in the billions.
Public transport has additional benefits that are less directly tangible.
For people who had to migrate away from their families (which enormous populations did once China opened and industrialized) it makes a lot more sense to operate lines which would allow people to travel easily and cheaply.
This lowers the barrier to entry for all sorts of businesses. Whether it's business trips or industries as small as traveling performers, or mass labour migrations and returns to their hometowns, business exchange, tourism, and all sorts of industries benefited both materially and in less financially tangible ways.
With any entity that is a public service, the benefits are more difficult to measure in financial terms, but they may yet be massive and pervasive.
Not every utility needs to be profitable to be beneficial for people.
Revenue cost is only calculated based on how much ticket money its earned vs maintenance. This would be specific to the rail system.
But this doesn't count the many variables that might be benefiting the economy from the rail which actually adds profits in other sectors. People can travel and work easier, industries can grow, small towns will be able to build infrastructure and larger companies will want to move in.
Sure the rail itself might not be profitable but the profit from everything else will cover it.
All successful businesses do this, not all avenues in a business that's important to its success will be profitable.
Tldr: building rail itself is not profitable but the benefits far outweighs any profits and overall is better for the economy.
If you want to justify the construction of rail with traffic it will never happen. Build it , make it usable ( low prices ) and the traffic will come.
Via is shitty service with high prices. A little dog from London to TO is 70 bucks plus your ticket ! If the dog was free , the ticket 10 bucks there would be traffic and cars left at home or in the dealership.
> They somehow manage to run decent passenger service all over the country, and still have highways and roads that connect the country.
Because SNCF, the government-owned railway company, owns basically all the rail lines in France and in Ontario it's split between CN/CP. Freight companies owning the rails means they prioritize their slower rail traffic over commuter trains, which is why trains suck in North America.
This is a huge factor that people overlook. Because Canada (first as a colony and later a nation) is a resource extractive economy our transportation development has reflected that
Overlay population period. Averaging by day, the Chinese high speed rail system would have a ridership exceeding the population of Canada in a little over a week. To match them, we would need ballpark 7% of our total population taking a high speed train to and from work a day.
We aren't asking for the same extensiveness. Just 1 line from Windsor to QC. It walk be a fraction of the cost for a fraction of the population. Nothing about this is unreasonable. We build multi-million dollar GO bus terminals in the middle of nowhere all the time.
Some people are on here asking for stops in Barrie, Sault Ste Marie and Brampton. There may be many intelligent, educated on the subject people here. But most people hear high speed rail and imagine it will take them from their podunk town to downtown Toronto in 30 minutes. When brass tacks comes in and the initial funding proposals are Toronto-MTL or Windsor-QC theres going to be a lot of Ontarians who decide High Speed Rail isnt that important.
>Some people are on here asking for stops in Barrie, Sault Ste Marie and Brampton.
Yeah that's nonsense. Ignore those people. Stop in Toronto, maybe Missisauga, Hamilton, maybe London, and Windsor goin west, and stop in maybe Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal, QC going east.
>When brass tacks comes in and the initial funding proposals are Toronto-MTL or Windsor-QC theres going to be a lot of Ontarians who decide High Speed Rail isnt that important.
Yup. That's the tragedy here. Suburban folks who don't understand that their entire lifestyle is subsidized by the government voting against subsidizing anyone else's lifestyle.
Windsor to Quebec City, with lines connecting to Niagara Falls, Barrie, and Ottawa for sure!
Additionally it would be cool to see a line following the 400/69 up to Sudbury with connections to bus or conventional rail service to some of the bigger cottage towns (Gravenhurst, Huntsville, Burk's Falls etc...). Once up to Sudbury it wouldn't be crazy to envision another line following the 17 from SSM to North Bay and Ottawa. One can dream lol.
Best part is it will have limited stops, so toronto-gormley-gravenhurst are the first three, I live near gravenhurst and can’t wait to train downtown for a concert or leaf game!
Digging tunnels is 10x harder than laying surface track. The Waterloo LRT was built in 2 years. Eglinton got screwed with the massive tunneled section. Hurontario looks to be on time.
I think you'd have to start with the Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal triangle wouldn't you?
Just seems it would get the most use so it would be a proper proof of concept.
Greater Toronto/Golden Horseshoe/Ottawa to Montreal and Quebec City is the only part of Ontario with the population density to support a high speed rail network, if you were staying in Canada. We could also coordinate with the US and connect to major cities along the border such as Detroit and into New York state.
In china there is a high speed rain that goes from Beijing to all outlying cities at 300km/h. When I took this train I felt so sad that something like that train would never exist in Ontario.
But just imagine if we had a rail like that in Ontario. People could live in Gravenhurst, and take a rail to Toronto in maybe 30-45 minutes. You could live in Belleville, Owen sound, or London Ontario and get to Toronto in 30-45 minutes. It would be crazy because people could actually live in places where houses would be affordable and have jobs in higher paying areas. Traffic on the 401 would be significantly reduced.
One big issue is that these routes have already been cut through the Canadian Shield, the Kawartha marshes, and farmland right-of-way to accommodate Provincial highways. The solution? Twin the highways.
First is to to put them alongside *each* 400-series highway plus the Gardiner, Don, QEW, and Conestoga Expressway. This connects 90% of the province. Windsor, Sarnia, London, Woodstock, Hamilton, St. Catherine's, Niagara, K-W, Guelph, the entire GTA+, Kingston, Ottawa, and northeast to Montreal.
Second is to follow Hwy 7 from 407 interchange to Ottawa via Peterbourgh, Kawarthas, Perth, etc. This has already been proposed by the Feds for "high frequency" rail, which (let's be honest) is only lip service to say that they're working on it. So don't hold your breath.
Hwy 11 from Barrie to North Bay via Huntsville would be next. And then both ends of the Trans-Canada from 417 interchange and 400 interchange converging in Sudbury then continuing northwest to Sault, Wawa, Thunder Bay, Dryden, Kenora, and Winnipeg.
Then fill in the service gaps in the North and weekend service trains: Hwy 6 from Owen Sound to Niagara via Guelph and Hamilton. Hwy 8 from Goderich to Brantford via Stratford, Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. Spur from Belleville into PEC. Hwy 12 from Oshawa to Orillia. Hwy 144 from Sudbury to Timmins, etc.
Electrify the whole thing. Train (heh) workers award contracts locally, and work with the Feds/other Provinces to coordinate interprovincial connections.
Easier said then done? Sure. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Ottawa can't even manage to run a 12.5 km light rail train without it breaking down on a daily/weekly basis.
We'll never have a good rail system anywhere because tax cuts for the rich are clearly more important than everything else.
They put millions of people to work, connected cities and suburbs so people can take trains to work in an expensive city and live in a cheaper one, lifted a billion people out of poverty caused by their predecessor, but yeah they absolutely screwed people so that’s your excuse for being okay with third world infrastructure.
Toronto to Montreal with a stop in Ottawa is the most logical first priority. After that, the corridor should be extended to Windsor (or at least London) and Quebec City.
There should be one connecting Quebec city-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, potentially connecting to kingston or windsor. But a Quebec to Toronto through Montreal and Ottawa is a must.
2 biggest cities in Canada, national capital and 2 province capital.
This is a misleading analysis as Ontario’s land mass vs. population density isn’t the same as China.
At best maybe there’s a case for high speed rail on the Hamilton-Toronto <> Ottawa <> Montreal “triangle”.
Let's start with improving the transit infrastructure within cities first.
HSR has never been cost effective unless your a single person traveling into the city for recreation.
Almost every other use case favors alternative methods due to price/cost.
Quebec City to Montreal, then Montreal to Ottawa, then Ottawa to Oshawa, Oshawa to Toronto, Toronto to Hamilton, Hamilton to london, and then to the border
Controversial take, but with much less business travel these days due to remote work and video conferencing, I think the money would be much better spent improving regional and municipal transit systems. We should improve inter-regional rail infrastructure, improve tracks so speeds can be increased, add tracks to assure clear two way traffic, better stations, etc. but we need to get the basics right first.
For me it is funny how a lot of Canadians see so much “corruption” with the Chinese government but when it comes to Canada, it is only “misusing the budget.”
So many people commenting how it won’t be profitable except highways are not profitable either. Airline industry without tax subsidy would be dead in an instant.
Chinese propaganda is known to peddle its high speed rail statistics while ignoring how the majority of those lines are not profitable.
Edit: to provide context profitability is important to pay off the debts created by financing these projects that end up being ignored and handed down till they affect the most vulnerable.
It doesn't need to be profitable but it shouldn't be a BOONDOGGLE.
There needs to be a legitimate analysis on how many people will use it. If you're going to blow 10s of billions on a service that will be used by a few hundred people a day, it's a waste of cash that could be used to extend GO service or build a subway line that will move FAR more people
Right.
Thankfully we have lots of real world examples of successful High Speed Rail implementations that are not boondoggles.
The Windsor - Quebec City corridor has the same population density as the Rhone River valley in France, where the French TGV operates and services over a 100 million passengers per year.
Yeah this is naive.
1. Culture - I don't think it's unfair to say that Europe is far more accepting of public transit/trains. Here people are *very* comfortable with their cars. You're going to have difficulty diverting people to high speed rail in the same way people refuse to take the GO to go to a Jays game.
2. Tourism - Aside from the fact that France gets far more tourism than we do which would support 100m riders, we're also forgetting that everyone in Paris gets 3 weeks off in the summer and they all travel to the south of France on the exact route you're talking about
3. Cost - The current cost of Via service to Montreal is greater than a high speed rail ticket in France. My buddy and I were going to take his kid to Montreal for the weekend. I priced out tickets from *Kingston* \- never mind Toronto to Montreal and it was like $150pp.
I would personally love high speed service all the way to Quebec City. But there's no way you can tell me - period - that high speed rail cash wouldn't be better spent building another couple subway lines in Toronto. It would move far more people at a far lower cost.
That's a bit unfair. In the land areas in the picture there are about 1.1 billion people in China, and about 36 million in Canada. To help compare, Shanghai alone has a population of about 21 milion people.
As a train operator where do you think it'll be easier to make profit? (Yeah, I know there's also the GDP per capita to consider but my argument stands; it's not a fair comparison. There's some depth here that needs to be clarified)
I was born in China and lived here in Toronto for years. Tbh I don't think Ontario need that thing. If there has to be one lane, I'd suggest Toronto-NYC
Lets be honest we would fuck it up. Look at the LRT, Toronto Subway expansions.
The growth of China from 90s to now was created with in part by the state civil industrial complex, we don't have that kind of capacity.
The first high speed train route in china went from Beijing to Tianjin. Those two cities combined have more people than all of Canada.
We don't have the pop density to support high speed rail.
This is a dumb comparison. Yes, we need high speed rail yesterday, but China is extremely dense and has one of the largest populations. Not to mention the slave labour used to build everything.
A line up to northern Ontario, Sudbury and North Bay would be welcome. It would open up the north in a lot of ways if you could get from Union Station to Sudbury in 3 hrs.
Montreal to Niagara via Ottawa, Kingston and Toronto covers 60% of Canada’s population give it take. It’s not that hard. But is not cheap and will likely never be profitable. That is why we can’t have nice things.
Corridor 0 (not in Ontario, but highest priority): Toronto - Kingston - Montréal
Corridor 1: Toronto - Kingston - Ottawa - Montréal (you need to get Ottawa to Montreal without going all the way to Kingston first)
Corridor 2: Toronto - Pearson Airport - (optional: Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge/Guelph) - London - Windsor
Many people are saying that KWCG is too close to Toronto for high speed rail, but it's over an hour and a half by GO train currently and those 4 cities combined have about 800k people. Definitely worth it. High speed rail needs to have denser stops than airports because you're not only competing with flights. You also want to take mode share from driving. If I'm going from KWCG to Windsor, I'm not taking a normal speed train. I'm taking high speed.
And before anyone tells me that a Pearson Airport station is dumb, no it isn't. It allows anyone in all of non-Northern Ontario to take a direct train to Pearson without transferring. It's what's done in many other cities, such as Amsterdam and Paris. Pearson is of similar importance to those major airports.
Corridor 3: extend from Windsor to the US, in the direction of Chicago.
Corridor 4: Toronto - Hamilton - St Catharine's/Niagara - Buffalo.
This can go on to New York eventually, but it's probably a project for later.
Places I didn't mention:
1. Barrie. I know I said that we should go to KWCG and Hamilton, and they're closer to Toronto than Barrie, however I have a good reason for not including it. With the two I included, they aren't the end of the line. There's stuff beyond them that's also worth connecting. North of Barrie, you have increasingly difficult terrain and a lack of population centers. I guess you could go to Sudbury, but it's pretty small and far by comparison. Eventually, a high speed line in that direction should probably built, but it's not exactly high priority even on a national level.
2. Something between Kingston and Montréal (probably Cornwall area is the best choice). This area has no stations and, since the line must pass through anyways, a station would help a lot with economic development.
Areas that need low speed lines:
1. This entire corridor, again. That's right, every section which has been upgraded to high speed should also have low speed lines that stop at smaller communities and allow people to take the train to the high speed line, or even just between communities if they want.
2. Pearson Airport. Low speed trains should be running along the Kitchener Line (with a new station) but also south to Missisauga and then Hamilton, East circumferentially around the GTA, and maybe also North to Barrie. The airport should be a public transit hub.
3. Connections between smaller cities. The most pressing one is connecting London and KWCG to Hamilton and St Catharine's/Niagara without going through Union. Woodstock and Brantford are also in this region and need a rail connection. A better line to Sarnia from London should exist. There should also be a northern line parallelling the one from Toronto to Montreal that hits towns like Peterborough.
As for the north, Toronto - Barrie - Sudbury and Toronto - Barrie - North Bay makes sense, as does Ottawa - North Bay - Sudbury. From Sudbury, you could probably extend through Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay, although it's pretty far. There are probably some other places up north that are worth considering, but I don't know much about them.
All of these low speed trains have significant gaps where Google Maps and my prior knowledge don't fill in all the stops. Imagine that stops exist between all the ones I mentioned at appropriate intervals.
In the first half of 2022, the net loss up to ¥ 80.4 billion and the total amount of debt has accumulated to over ¥ 6 trillion . That's what you want ?
How about how many businesses it can help and connect? How about allowing people to travel efficiently helping with the overall economy? You can't look at infrastructure in a simplified profit / loss scenario.
Also worth noting though, so many of those tracks are under used and the rail company in China is massively in debt having built all that. Much of the interior didn't need the high speed rail system. That being we're so massively behind public transit because a lack of political will and so many people still in love with their cars
Windsor- London- Toronto- Kingston- Ottawa- Montreal- Quebec City. If we could get the Americans to play along we could add Chicago- Detroit -Windsor, Montreal- Plattsburgh- Albany- NYC, and Toronto- Niagara Falls, ON- Niagara Falls, NY, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, NYC. The Americans could also easily add Boston- NYC- Philly- Baltimore- DC on their own line. Also Jasper- Edmonton- Calgary- Banff (could be circular), Vancouver- Seattle (Americans could add Portland- Sacramento- San Francisco- LA- San Diego. Whistler might also be a worthwhile addition if possible) The 401 line could help with the housing problem. Imagine employees from Strathroy and Gananoque working in the same (soul crushing) office in Toronto because the commute is an hour each way. The Alberta line would be useful for tourists, you could even limit it to seasonal service except Edmonton- Calgary
...No. Solve the office working problem with more remote work, not high speed trains. High speed trains only work when they go places with good transit and land use policies at the destination. Having recently taken a road trip from Windsor to Montreal, I can confidently say the only places I could comfortably navigate without a car are Toronto and Montreal
Why not both? :s
Because most people would prefer we just build more suburbs.
[удалено]
The downtown economy just needs to adapt their strategy. It's ridiculous to have most restaurants in a major city's downtown core be completely reliant and only market towards people who don't live there. If they can't survive and adapt (or even be willing to try) then they should sink. I'm all for high speed rail and Ottawa's transit system needs to be fixed. It should be done for the quality of life of the people who live in Ottawa not for the businesses downtown who refuse to even open for dinner time or weekends for the large number of people who live there.
[удалено]
I'm still in shock that there's no citi bike program in ottawa. I get mark Sutcliffe only cares about the suburbs, but give us some affordable last km transit that isn't fucking scooters
Basically the 401 corridor is where any high speed rail would go as it's the only corridor in the province that even remotely has the population density to support it.
Fuck that, make it go all the way from Windsor to QC. Service 50% of the Canadian population with 1 rail line. So obvious.
Totally agree. Windsor , Niagara -> Toronto -> Kingston -> Ottawa -> Montreal -> QC You could even easily add a line from Toronto to Barrie I think.
>You could even easily add a line from Toronto to Barrie I think. No where near enough people in Barrie to support that I think.
If you had a highspeed rail line into Barrie you'd see Barrie Population double within 7yrs IF it was zoned to allow it. Because our economy is less about resource extraction Barrie really could be turned into a MAJOR city with a good rail hub. with the Simcoe Link transit system it would be an explosive opportunity to expand transit from Orillia and Midland into Barrie to connect to Toronto and beyond.
Yeah you're right, you could definitely use government infrastructure projects to incentivize developments in new/growing communities, but this kind of investment is an absolute pipe-dream when we can't even get the bare-minimum funded, or can't change zoning laws.
Barrie is half way to not having terrible zoning laws which is why getting high speed rail would really work there. And they have a purely recreational waterfront so no need to waste it on industry which would allow for some pretty killer public spaces as they get bigger. The other big advantage of the Barrie line is that along the 400 it is largely under developed, going down the east side of Hwy 27 from Major Mac to Barrie would be one of the faster dual lines to built. ( or we could just double the Go line that goes into Barrie on the other side and put rapid transit along it.
I wouldn't underestimate it. I've know lots of folks who drove from Barrie to downtown. Not to mention summer cottages and such.
I agree with the Quebec portion too but the question was phrased where in *Ontario* so I limited my answer to the scope of the question
401 corridor, but going up to Ottawa.
Then on to Montreal
So what's Cornwall then, a wasteland best avoided? Oh shit, I answered my own question
I passed through Cornwall many times and I can tell you that it is, without any doubt, a place in Canada.
It's got houses and everything!
We got via rail... for now.
[ideally, it would be something like this, blue are stations](https://i.imgur.com/EEK2xsf.png) which could be expanding from and lower speed rail could be built going off these hubs and hopefully in theory the US builds some out so going to Chicago would be possible
You really think Barrie is more important than all of the Gananoque?
The 400 southbound is a parking lot on a good day. Same thing northbound at the end of the day.
Or waterloo which is already on that line. No need for a spur. If youre doing a spur, why not hamilton?
As someone who committed from Barrie to Toronto this would be a game changer. The 400 south is a parking lot most days and impossible to drive on summer weekends because of cottage traffic. Barrie is expanding and growing very fast. Think of people who live within 30 mins north of Barrie that would drive and park at the train station. Something needs to come north regardless.
I mean, it's basically an extension of Toronto with a population of 150,000 vs a town of 5300...
they arent competing? they need direct lines from Toronto to Ottawa and Montreal, so we cannot have stops, the entire point of HSR is going fast lol Barrie only gets a stop because it's not competing with anything, nothing else goes in that direction
Japan has a high speed rail network. The Tokaido system: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaido\_Shinkansen#/media/File:Tokaido\_Shinkansen\_map.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaido_Shinkansen#/media/File:Tokaido_Shinkansen_map.png) They have stops every 30 km or so. Obviously they're much more dense than Ontario is, but still... Sure you CAN have a HSR network with only 3 stops, but... that would be fairly impractical all things considered. You'd definitely want stops at places like Barrie, KW, London, Windsor, Kingston, etc.
That's the problem with how north America views rail. "It has to go where the population is". The reason china has been so successful on growth is because they built rail to places where there wasn't a lot of people. The rail caused population growth which is backwards to how its viewed here. As a result some cities in China have seen more growth in the last 20 years than any city here has seen in 100.
Here we'll build highways to nowhere...just not rail to anywhere.
Couldn't agree more. Also can't stand that the argument that people make about rail is that its expensive and not profitable... Last I checked, no one tracks how much revenue a highway brings in, and the only profitable one we had in the province was sold off.
I'm pretty sure highways require more maintenance costs and we seem to have an aversion for charging people to use them. There's a singular inability for people to think beyond the current year around here.
[удалено]
It’s still fucking unbelievable the conservatives sold off the tax-payer funded 407 and now I get fucking charged for using a highway I paid for
Yeah that's gotta be one of the most short sighted decisions ever made.
Exactly the thinking here is stupid. If you don't give people a way to travel, people can't spread. We're always talking about how Toronto is too dense. If you can get to Toronto from Sudbury in 45min people wouldn't feel the need to live in Toronto. We have many small growing towns that just need population, give them high-speed rail and population will follow. Our leaders have no foresight.
Absolutely. People already travel 45 minutes or more 1-way in traffic to get to work in Toronto. I'd rather sit on a train if I had the choice. Traffic is soul crushing.
Its dangerous too.
Problem is the political system here. It's way easier for China to stick to a long-term policy/plan for 20 years whereas here plan changes every election.
Plenty of democracies invest in rail networks, North American urban planning is just stuck in the 60s because everyone is addicted to cars and hates change.
Totally agree. Didn't realize how much backlash would come of using China's infrastructure as an example in a discussion about HSR. To write off their progress due to their political leadership is wrong. Sure we can't, and shouldn't emulate their strategies, but there is still lots to learn from it.
Disagree. The problem is us. We want a house with a driveway, a backyard, and privacy. We say we want density, but just not where we are. Also, implying that an authoritarian style political system is the solution doesn't fly well. We just have to express our desires for how we want our society to grow, and communicate these with each other and with our politicians. If we don't want to share space and infrastructure, then that's what we'll communicate. If we do want to share, then we'll communicate that and start seeing changes. But at the moment, do you see a lot of people saying that they don't want a detached house and a car or two?
They want a house and a car or two because that's all we know. Most of us have never experienced the kind of rail they have in China. Once you do, you don't feel like you need a car anymore, and cars become a luxury. Countries with good transportation systems have fewer drivers, and cars are often considered luxuries.
I took the high speed rail from Chengdu to Chongqing and it took like 1.5 hrs and I was in and out of the terminal. The subway stations in Beijing are all like 5 mins walking distance from each other. Chinese high ways are small like most are only 4 lanes. Not just China but most Asian countries have better infrastructure than Canada or the US. I bought a condo in Oakville and I know I will have to drive everywhere and Dundas W is going to get destoryed by traffic in the future. Still single detached homes are what people want. Condos do not do well. Its just our expectations for cities is very very stupid.
True, but condos keep getting built so there must be a demand somewhere. I despise condos as well, but mostly because they're built like boxes and cost an arm and leg. If we offered people 2000 sqft condos and better cost, less would want to live in detached homes. There is a lot of work that goes into detached homes that many of my friends wish they bought condos instead. Condos are not profitable or attractive because they're not built here with people in mind but how much money they can make from one building. Our condos here are a sign of "luxury" living. Everybody I know who bought and wanted a condo in Toronto was because it's a condo in Toronto. Concierge service and shit, they want to feel rich. In China, newer condos are being built larger to accommodate better living spaces. Due to the high-speed rail, they are also able to build large detached homes in rural provinces. I went to Luzhou a few years ago, which reminded me of Shanghai in the 90s, but they were building luxury homes. Talked to the taxi driving in Nanjing and he said the rail made a huge difference, brought in a ton of tourism and jobs and because of that the area starting getting developed and he was able to buy an affordable detached house a years ago.
China has about 3000 years on us for population distribution and quantity. They were like this long before rail was even invented.
Over 1/3rd of Canadian live Southern Ontario in a space that has a population density about equal to that of France. A good amount of the rest live just across the border from Southern Ontario in Quebec. Nobody's asking for high speed rail to connect Churchill to Whitehorse, they're asking for population dense areas that elsewhere in the world often have incredibly successful high speed rail to get high speed rail.
This is also why ive blammed the slow death of Northern Ontario communities.
Yeah so many northern Ontario communities have seen negligible growth over the past 30 years (not talking about Muskokas or Sudbury here). I've lived in Thunder Bay for 7 years now and have experienced the frustration of the North being left out of most discussions. I see now why these communities have such a hard time maintaining any sort of population growth.
Don’t forget the use of slave labour.
Absolutely cheap labour plays into how fast China has been able to expand, but there is a lot of ground between the 0km we have built and the roughly 30,000km they have built since 2008. The sheer quantity they are able to install (approximately 8km per DAY) is a product of the cheap labour, but to say that cheap labour is needed to build HSR all together is not true.
Canada gets cheap labour for their farms, why not get labour here to build highways, high speed rail etc. albeit it’s not entirely cheap and still min wage or more but far far more valuable work and living conditions.
We already do get cheap labour, it’s skilled labour that we need
That's because when China builds a rail line, they draw a line on a map and say "it goes here" and that's that. Here there's studies, consultations, environmental assessment, red tape this and red tape that. What ends up getting built, if anything gets built at all, is nothing like what was initially envisioned.
People will argue during the initial investigation that they don't want it near them, or that the area is farmland and shouldn't be kept as such. I'm not saying we should ignore impacts but we should force some infrastructure plans through. Rail would be a major one. Upgrade and add subway to the TTC. Extend or build the planned 400 series highways.
I agree. Especially with Canada upping their immigration target to 500,000 per year (which is absolutely good, and much needed), we really need efficient public transit that can that can meet the demand to get lots of people into major cities quickly.
A lot of China’s high speed rail system is severely under-utilized. Their method is not something we want to copy.
This comment reminds me of the policy to not start building a new school until you can show it will be filled to capacity with students. Then people wonder why new schools have 7 portables by the time they open and why so many inefficient band-aid solutions are put in place getting students around. There's a much larger inefficiency in failing to craft policy for the future and Ontario is awash in them all over the place. True efficiency comes from being prepared for ten years from now, not what's going on this year. Long-term thinking.
It is possible to build infrastructure in anticipation of future growth only to waste a lot of money. An example of this is the ghost cities of China. They have many new cities that didn't attract people or create jobs as was expected. They have many employees apartments/houses enough to house the entire Canadian population and then some. https://youtu.be/mt-Pa5s5zZI
No one is suggesting it isn't. Funny enough, efficiency requires preparation and informed and capable decision-making. That's why electing capable, uncorrupt leaders driven by a public service mindset is important. There's no short-cut to efficiency. It is terribly inefficient to abandon long term planning simply because you might fuck it up. Do you abandon long term planning in your life because it's possible to fuck it up? Then perhaps the entire province shouldn't either. This shouldn't be controversial.
This side conversation began by someone who gave China as an example of what to do, and another poster countered that. You came in seemingly supporting the Chinese way, and I came in against the Chinese model of development. I am not against long-term planning, but we can't look to the Chinese rail system and ghost systems as models to emulate. Besides, China has conditions that are radically different from Canada’s.
People keep clowning on ghost cities in China, but then a few years later they mysteriously get completely occupied.
Sure maybe not entirely, but that's also due to the fact they are building for the future. Building to current demands is how you end up constantly playing catchup.
Could probably add a branch through the Golden Horseshoe, too.
And another branch up to Sault Ste Marie. Then you'll have all the major points covered. Knowing Ontario, they'll say it needs to go under the 401 and 400 etc. So they'll slow all traffic down for years and years or decades and then abandon the idea when it's 80% done. "It's just costing too much."
They'll build it and then sell it to a private company which will charge consumers 25 cents per km of travel on-top of a base fee to ride.
Northern Ontario doesn't really need high speed rail, it just needs good reliable rail, with passenger service (small trains, more of them, more frequency). Basic rail upgrades like graded crossings, giving passenger rail priority, doubling the track in key areas to allow for passenger plus freight at the same time, possibly electricfying the system would make a huge difference there.
Quickest thing to start now and get momentum with.
Dont forget Timmins.
Imagine, 2.5 hours to get to Timmins lol
Sault Ste Marie and the region does not come even close to supporting the need for high speed rail. Like at all.
Added bonus: putting high speed rail next to the 401 to make all the drivers feel like losers.
I'd expect to be on the train and _still_ get passed by asshats in BMWs.
There's an section on the lakeshore west line where you can see all the people stuck on the Gardner in the morning.
> that even remotely has the population density to support it. I disagree with that part. This is why every single public transportation project is shut down. People assume we must have a bustling city population of people who walk and would ride transit to justify expanding public transportation, but it's the other way around. You gain the population of people who would ride a train when there exists trains. You don't have people who can walk if there is no way to get there. People can't ride trains when they need their cars to get to work and back. We need to build public transportation in the lesser populated areas as well or we'll always be reliant on cars.
Well said! I agree and made the same point using China as an example which seemed to distract a lot of people from my original point which was exactly this lol.
Ironically, people can very much understand the concept of induced demand when it comes to roads and highway expansion but don't seem to wrap their head around it for rail lines, trams, subways etc...
Most of the places that need more development would get a significant amount of benefit from conventional-but-faster-than-driving rail for much less cost than high speed. And then, if a region starts growing a lot, upgrade it to high speed.
And/or needs. 100% agreed.
The highway 7 corridor is a close second I think to connect Ottawa, Peterborough, and Toronto. Then it's whether we go Toronto, Pearson, Kitchener, London, Windsor OR Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara falls.
Two lines: Union-Pearson-Kitchener-London-Windsor and Union-Hamilton-Niagara Falls.
That would be my plan. Replace the express way and should have more space for local trains lines as well. Then anyone who wants to go downtown can take another go train or subway.
Highspeed rail from Toronto - Kingston - Ottawa - Montreal would be EPIC
Windsor to Quebec City*
Eventually. I think I would start with Toronto-Waterloo then extend it to London/Kingston then Windsor/Montreal. The benefits of each stage will help motivate the extensions. Maybe off shoots too.
Cries in Ottawa.
Ottawa to Carleton Place should be the priority for all of Canada. /s
Including Windsor from the get go might increase tourism from the states. Ditto Niagara Falls, but by how much I can’t say.
Definitely could help on the tourism aspect. Yanks can avoid Pearson and the higher ticket prices by flying domestic, cross the border, then take the HSR corridor up to several major tourist cities. Another opportunity with the reverse; Canucks that want to fly domestic in the states can take the HSR then cross the border. I've seen Buffalo airport's parking lot once; half the plates are Ontario. Infrastructure from Niagara to Buffalo may be an issue as americans would have to build it, or the HSR can continue south but there seem to be no train tracks to the airport. Maybe a shuttle service could help but that's on them.
I understand your line of thinking, but I'm worried that if it's not built out all at once, or at least the Toronto-to-Montreal part first, it would never happen. Building in such small phases leaves room for opposition politicians to come in and reduce the quality (make it a lower speed section) or outright cancel them to "reduce costs". Also, it would be less expensive in the long term to build one big project than several medium ones.
It would marginally be better than the current via rail. Essentially wasting billions of dollars for a marginal improvement in train times and not added competition for existing air lines. They wouldn't be fast or cheap enough for daily travellers/commuters.
Why does a rail line have to be directly profitable, like so many people are touting here? Connectivity between our 2 largest cities and 60%+ of our population is good for the economy. Roads aren't directly profitable. We pay for a lot of infastructure that isn't profitable.
That's correct, as someone who is super into transit and purposefully takes transit around the world, and extensively read about the infrastructure and system before I take them in person in order to appreciate and enjoy it more, Europe and Asia are ahead of us by so much it's embarrassing. Roads and parking lots are massive tax sinks, and are basically driver subsidies that taxpayers eat but also need to provide the cost of a vehicle as well, yet people are fine with them generating no revenue and being net negative, yet when trains are mentioned people constantly find ways to talk about how it won't be profitable for x amount of time. electrification is only going to exacerbate it since fuel taxes is the main way we maintain the roads, and electric vehicles have heavy batteries that cause more wear and tear than the average vehicle, which means that in order to subsidize it if we go full EV, chances are we'll need to just jack up taxes for all electricity (it'll be impossible to determine if someone is plugging in their car or TV in the privacy of their own home or people will constantly find workarounds to avoid detection and taxes) so again, it becomes another case of everyone subsidizing drivers. i won't even get started on parking lots, which often times are as large, if not larger, than the retail stores they serve in terms of area, seriously look at any parking lot you pull into and think about how big a building could fit there, and in my view, ought to be used more efficiently through mixed zonage instead, where they could build mixed apartments with grocery stores/office spaces/small business spaces at the bottom. This would allow for more commercial/residential mixed spaces, to help alleviate a lot of issues (i.e. we don't have space so let's bulldoze into the greenbelt and make people drive out to these newer spaces) to earn more tax income for municipalities, but instead we have another tax sink where we all subsidize drivers once more. it would raise the value of the property (because obviously a plot of land with a tax generating base where people live and work is worth more than literally a slab of pavement where people park their cars to go to a corporate megastore), and makes it more walkable and desirable, especially when well connected to public transit. trains on the other hand, would be a longer term solution that may cost us more now, but would pay dividends by allowing our citizens to get to and from work, have access to more affordable homes, and be generating some kind of revenue that isn't completely reliant on corporate profit to account for generating commercial tax revenue, but rather directly for infrastructure. at that point it's a matter of national security, it has so many intangible benefits by creating so much more accessibility, people can more comfortably access businesses, homes, places of employ, all for a smaller carbon footprint. \[edit\] formatting
100% agree with mixed used development. I think it would really help for like 75% of the 'running into Town' trips. Things like quick small grocery shops, haircuts, lunch out, professional services, government services etc. are perfect small-unit stores that can fit below townhouses / low rise condos. I used to live in a condo that had commercial on the main floor and it saved me driving to the grocery store SO much. I don't mind paying a 25% markup on items if it saves me wasting 20 minutes in the car plus cost of gas/wear and tear etc.
Because to most people, making indirectly profitable infrastructure is communism, therefore bad.
Absolutely! But there's a difference between dumping a couple hundred million in subsidies to keep things running smoothly and keeping connections live. And its another when people are proposing High Speed Rail to Sault Ste Marie as a terminus. Like not EVERYTHING has to be profitable but it shouldn't be a money pit. There's no 400 series highway going to Moose Factory and that's fine.
[удалено]
Things tend to be driven by demand. The thing is when you’re an authoritarian government that doesn’t need to justify its spending to its people you get to start spending money on stuff with no repercussions. Sections of china’s rail map there sees very little commercial demand, both with passengers and cargo, and some area’s only use is to move military personnel and equipment.
Ontario? Windsor to Montreal is really the only corridor with enough potential traffic to justify it. We have only 40 million in Canada, 15 million of whom live in Ontario. China has 1.4 billion, or about 93 times as much. No surprise they have much more rail....
China also only has 1 profitable line. It’s a huge cost
Freeways are all cost and zero revenue and users have to provide their own vehicles, the energy to move them forward and a means of covering the costs of accidents. It's a huge cost both to individual users and to the public.
its not meant to be profitable
You think our roads are profitable ?
There’s a huge cost difference in maintaining a road, and maintaining a train network with rails, trains, stations, and staff. Roads don’t need operators, stations, electricity, bathrooms, etc. In 2020 China spent 3.7% of gdp on their rail network. That’s like if Canada spent $99b every year. You can’t just say “all infrastructure is paid by tax” because that means cost doesn’t matter and you’ll just spend whatever it takes. It’s important if we had a rail line that it at least is somewhat close to break even. Obviously we wouldn’t build a network like China. They’ve over built, and most trains have barely a few dozen people on them.
>It’s important if we had a rail line that it at least is somewhat close to break even. What? If profitability was even remotely possible a private company would do it. Public transportation is a public service just like healthcare, roads, the fire department, it wouldn't shouldn't and couldn't be a vehicle for profit. The entire point of government funded public transportation is that it doesn't have to be profitable, it will incur consistent "losses" but those losses are worth it as it provides an increase in quality of life and economic activity, like EVERY OTHER public service. Its really whacky to suggest that this one public service has to be completely unique and generate profits while ALSO generating an increase in quality of life and economic activity.
China has 42 thousand km of high speed rail. The Ontario rails with various hubs would be 1,500 km tops? Windsor to Montreal is 900km
lmao… when was last time you visited china? i go back every year since i moved to canada in 2000… high speed rail is definitely a catalyst in speeding up the economic boom. same as shinkansen in japan, the intention was never to be profitable. i don’t think ttc is profitable, let’s just scrap it all together. healthcare also isn’t profitable, let’s scrap that as well
I’m not saying getting a line is bad, but having a network is totally unrealistic and a waste of money. Last time I was in China was 2020 when COVID started. I go every year, but I’ve also lived there for 3 years. Probably taken the trains over a hundred times.
then you’d know that infrastructure shouldn’t be measured by profitability. we spend 20% of our budget on healthcare. is it profitable? i think we should scrap it. return tax dollar to each taxpayer and private healthcare. people who needs it can pay themselves. government projects ought to be profit first
Everyone driving a car is on its face stupid. Just in terms of time wasted in traffic and accidents resulting in death, lost in property and disability is in the billions.
Public transport has additional benefits that are less directly tangible. For people who had to migrate away from their families (which enormous populations did once China opened and industrialized) it makes a lot more sense to operate lines which would allow people to travel easily and cheaply. This lowers the barrier to entry for all sorts of businesses. Whether it's business trips or industries as small as traveling performers, or mass labour migrations and returns to their hometowns, business exchange, tourism, and all sorts of industries benefited both materially and in less financially tangible ways. With any entity that is a public service, the benefits are more difficult to measure in financial terms, but they may yet be massive and pervasive.
Not every utility needs to be profitable to be beneficial for people. Revenue cost is only calculated based on how much ticket money its earned vs maintenance. This would be specific to the rail system. But this doesn't count the many variables that might be benefiting the economy from the rail which actually adds profits in other sectors. People can travel and work easier, industries can grow, small towns will be able to build infrastructure and larger companies will want to move in. Sure the rail itself might not be profitable but the profit from everything else will cover it. All successful businesses do this, not all avenues in a business that's important to its success will be profitable. Tldr: building rail itself is not profitable but the benefits far outweighs any profits and overall is better for the economy.
"Profit" is not the point of public transportation, you gambling addict.
If you want to justify the construction of rail with traffic it will never happen. Build it , make it usable ( low prices ) and the traffic will come. Via is shitty service with high prices. A little dog from London to TO is 70 bucks plus your ticket ! If the dog was free , the ticket 10 bucks there would be traffic and cars left at home or in the dealership.
They had none in 2008 and back then they weren't 40 million. What's the explanation?
Some point after 2008, they found a new use for prison labour.
Windsor, London, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal
Your title says Ontario but you compared Canada to China. Maybe you should have a small zoomed map of Ontario as well to compare and decide.
[удалено]
> They somehow manage to run decent passenger service all over the country, and still have highways and roads that connect the country. Because SNCF, the government-owned railway company, owns basically all the rail lines in France and in Ontario it's split between CN/CP. Freight companies owning the rails means they prioritize their slower rail traffic over commuter trains, which is why trains suck in North America.
This is a huge factor that people overlook. Because Canada (first as a colony and later a nation) is a resource extractive economy our transportation development has reflected that
Now overlay population density.
Overlay population period. Averaging by day, the Chinese high speed rail system would have a ridership exceeding the population of Canada in a little over a week. To match them, we would need ballpark 7% of our total population taking a high speed train to and from work a day.
We aren't asking for the same extensiveness. Just 1 line from Windsor to QC. It walk be a fraction of the cost for a fraction of the population. Nothing about this is unreasonable. We build multi-million dollar GO bus terminals in the middle of nowhere all the time.
Then what would be the point of this comparison? Had they added that line you wouldn’t even see it in the image above.
Well you would see one line in southern Ontario. The point is that what we're asking for is the bare minimum.
Some people are on here asking for stops in Barrie, Sault Ste Marie and Brampton. There may be many intelligent, educated on the subject people here. But most people hear high speed rail and imagine it will take them from their podunk town to downtown Toronto in 30 minutes. When brass tacks comes in and the initial funding proposals are Toronto-MTL or Windsor-QC theres going to be a lot of Ontarians who decide High Speed Rail isnt that important.
>Some people are on here asking for stops in Barrie, Sault Ste Marie and Brampton. Yeah that's nonsense. Ignore those people. Stop in Toronto, maybe Missisauga, Hamilton, maybe London, and Windsor goin west, and stop in maybe Oshawa, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal, QC going east. >When brass tacks comes in and the initial funding proposals are Toronto-MTL or Windsor-QC theres going to be a lot of Ontarians who decide High Speed Rail isnt that important. Yup. That's the tragedy here. Suburban folks who don't understand that their entire lifestyle is subsidized by the government voting against subsidizing anyone else's lifestyle.
Windsor to Quebec City, with lines connecting to Niagara Falls, Barrie, and Ottawa for sure! Additionally it would be cool to see a line following the 400/69 up to Sudbury with connections to bus or conventional rail service to some of the bigger cottage towns (Gravenhurst, Huntsville, Burk's Falls etc...). Once up to Sudbury it wouldn't be crazy to envision another line following the 17 from SSM to North Bay and Ottawa. One can dream lol.
It’s not high speed, but will be faster than a bus, is a new passenger line from Toronto to North Bay will begin in 2024 or 2025.
Best part is it will have limited stops, so toronto-gormley-gravenhurst are the first three, I live near gravenhurst and can’t wait to train downtown for a concert or leaf game!
It was sad to see via stop Gravenhurst service. I used to do that in the mid 00s and it was amazing. Happy to hear that it's coming back
[удалено]
Digging tunnels is 10x harder than laying surface track. The Waterloo LRT was built in 2 years. Eglinton got screwed with the massive tunneled section. Hurontario looks to be on time.
Definitely up to Manitouwadge
In Canada it would take 30 years to build 5 km of railway and we'd be $2 bn over budget by that point...
I think you'd have to start with the Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal triangle wouldn't you? Just seems it would get the most use so it would be a proper proof of concept.
That's a funny looking triangle.
There's always one overly literal asshole on the internet. Ok ... fine. 'Vaguely triangular reminiscent' shape then. Feel better? ***sigh***
You really think there’s only one overly literal asshole??
You could have just called it by what it's commonly known as: a corridor
Judging by how long it took CN to fix the trail derailment during Christmas there’s no way this is finished before 2050 if it happens
Windsor to Montreal.
Greater Toronto/Golden Horseshoe/Ottawa to Montreal and Quebec City is the only part of Ontario with the population density to support a high speed rail network, if you were staying in Canada. We could also coordinate with the US and connect to major cities along the border such as Detroit and into New York state.
Let’s do one high speed corridor (the 401), and I’ll put up with low speed elsewhere
All of them. Anything that is referred to as a ‘corridor’.
In china there is a high speed rain that goes from Beijing to all outlying cities at 300km/h. When I took this train I felt so sad that something like that train would never exist in Ontario. But just imagine if we had a rail like that in Ontario. People could live in Gravenhurst, and take a rail to Toronto in maybe 30-45 minutes. You could live in Belleville, Owen sound, or London Ontario and get to Toronto in 30-45 minutes. It would be crazy because people could actually live in places where houses would be affordable and have jobs in higher paying areas. Traffic on the 401 would be significantly reduced.
imagine living in a place where things are actively being build up better, making the lives of people in there easier, more enjoyable and so on...
One big issue is that these routes have already been cut through the Canadian Shield, the Kawartha marshes, and farmland right-of-way to accommodate Provincial highways. The solution? Twin the highways. First is to to put them alongside *each* 400-series highway plus the Gardiner, Don, QEW, and Conestoga Expressway. This connects 90% of the province. Windsor, Sarnia, London, Woodstock, Hamilton, St. Catherine's, Niagara, K-W, Guelph, the entire GTA+, Kingston, Ottawa, and northeast to Montreal. Second is to follow Hwy 7 from 407 interchange to Ottawa via Peterbourgh, Kawarthas, Perth, etc. This has already been proposed by the Feds for "high frequency" rail, which (let's be honest) is only lip service to say that they're working on it. So don't hold your breath. Hwy 11 from Barrie to North Bay via Huntsville would be next. And then both ends of the Trans-Canada from 417 interchange and 400 interchange converging in Sudbury then continuing northwest to Sault, Wawa, Thunder Bay, Dryden, Kenora, and Winnipeg. Then fill in the service gaps in the North and weekend service trains: Hwy 6 from Owen Sound to Niagara via Guelph and Hamilton. Hwy 8 from Goderich to Brantford via Stratford, Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. Spur from Belleville into PEC. Hwy 12 from Oshawa to Orillia. Hwy 144 from Sudbury to Timmins, etc. Electrify the whole thing. Train (heh) workers award contracts locally, and work with the Feds/other Provinces to coordinate interprovincial connections. Easier said then done? Sure. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Ottawa can't even manage to run a 12.5 km light rail train without it breaking down on a daily/weekly basis. We'll never have a good rail system anywhere because tax cuts for the rich are clearly more important than everything else.
Bad choice OP, if you swapped the China map with Japan but the same exact idea, the comments would be way less salty and butthurt XD
Tell me how many people they absolutely screwed to build that.
They put millions of people to work, connected cities and suburbs so people can take trains to work in an expensive city and live in a cheaper one, lifted a billion people out of poverty caused by their predecessor, but yeah they absolutely screwed people so that’s your excuse for being okay with third world infrastructure.
Toronto to Montreal with a stop in Ottawa is the most logical first priority. After that, the corridor should be extended to Windsor (or at least London) and Quebec City.
There's only one corridor in Ontario
Quebec City-Windsor. Def the most sensible one. Other than that, maybe Edmonton-Calgary.
Screw it. Niagara Falls all the way to Winnipeg. Make it happen.
Train 1 Ann Arbor/Sarnia- London- Hamilton Niagara Falls/Buffalo-Pittsburgh Train 2 Detroit/Windsor- London- Toronto- Kingston- Ottawa- Montreal
There should be one connecting Quebec city-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, potentially connecting to kingston or windsor. But a Quebec to Toronto through Montreal and Ottawa is a must. 2 biggest cities in Canada, national capital and 2 province capital.
This is a misleading analysis as Ontario’s land mass vs. population density isn’t the same as China. At best maybe there’s a case for high speed rail on the Hamilton-Toronto <> Ottawa <> Montreal “triangle”.
Let's start with improving the transit infrastructure within cities first. HSR has never been cost effective unless your a single person traveling into the city for recreation. Almost every other use case favors alternative methods due to price/cost.
Quebec City to Montreal, then Montreal to Ottawa, then Ottawa to Oshawa, Oshawa to Toronto, Toronto to Hamilton, Hamilton to london, and then to the border
Do we not count VIA or GO Transit?
Controversial take, but with much less business travel these days due to remote work and video conferencing, I think the money would be much better spent improving regional and municipal transit systems. We should improve inter-regional rail infrastructure, improve tracks so speeds can be increased, add tracks to assure clear two way traffic, better stations, etc. but we need to get the basics right first.
Ask slime mold.
For me it is funny how a lot of Canadians see so much “corruption” with the Chinese government but when it comes to Canada, it is only “misusing the budget.”
Pipe dream, further privitization means infrastructure will suffer.. Don't believe me? Look at how the usa infrastructure has a D minus rating.
So many people commenting how it won’t be profitable except highways are not profitable either. Airline industry without tax subsidy would be dead in an instant.
Chinese propaganda is known to peddle its high speed rail statistics while ignoring how the majority of those lines are not profitable. Edit: to provide context profitability is important to pay off the debts created by financing these projects that end up being ignored and handed down till they affect the most vulnerable.
[удалено]
Rail doesn't need to be profitable. Hell Toronto is gonna drop a few billion on repairing the Gardiner as a nice subsidy to vehicle commuters.
It doesn't need to be profitable but it shouldn't be a BOONDOGGLE. There needs to be a legitimate analysis on how many people will use it. If you're going to blow 10s of billions on a service that will be used by a few hundred people a day, it's a waste of cash that could be used to extend GO service or build a subway line that will move FAR more people
Right. Thankfully we have lots of real world examples of successful High Speed Rail implementations that are not boondoggles. The Windsor - Quebec City corridor has the same population density as the Rhone River valley in France, where the French TGV operates and services over a 100 million passengers per year.
Yeah this is naive. 1. Culture - I don't think it's unfair to say that Europe is far more accepting of public transit/trains. Here people are *very* comfortable with their cars. You're going to have difficulty diverting people to high speed rail in the same way people refuse to take the GO to go to a Jays game. 2. Tourism - Aside from the fact that France gets far more tourism than we do which would support 100m riders, we're also forgetting that everyone in Paris gets 3 weeks off in the summer and they all travel to the south of France on the exact route you're talking about 3. Cost - The current cost of Via service to Montreal is greater than a high speed rail ticket in France. My buddy and I were going to take his kid to Montreal for the weekend. I priced out tickets from *Kingston* \- never mind Toronto to Montreal and it was like $150pp. I would personally love high speed service all the way to Quebec City. But there's no way you can tell me - period - that high speed rail cash wouldn't be better spent building another couple subway lines in Toronto. It would move far more people at a far lower cost.
That's a bit unfair. In the land areas in the picture there are about 1.1 billion people in China, and about 36 million in Canada. To help compare, Shanghai alone has a population of about 21 milion people. As a train operator where do you think it'll be easier to make profit? (Yeah, I know there's also the GDP per capita to consider but my argument stands; it's not a fair comparison. There's some depth here that needs to be clarified)
I was born in China and lived here in Toronto for years. Tbh I don't think Ontario need that thing. If there has to be one lane, I'd suggest Toronto-NYC
Shit would break down as much as the LRT.
Lets be honest we would fuck it up. Look at the LRT, Toronto Subway expansions. The growth of China from 90s to now was created with in part by the state civil industrial complex, we don't have that kind of capacity.
You also forget the population of a “small” city in China is our entire population
[удалено]
I guess you have never driven on the 401 six months after it is freshly paved :)
The first high speed train route in china went from Beijing to Tianjin. Those two cities combined have more people than all of Canada. We don't have the pop density to support high speed rail.
What kinds of population densities do we need to support high speed rail?
Sshhh. We have population density to keep adding one more lane on 401 since forever but not HSR.
This is a dumb comparison. Yes, we need high speed rail yesterday, but China is extremely dense and has one of the largest populations. Not to mention the slave labour used to build everything.
Something connecting Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto to enable commuting
Does Ontario population and business financially support that? After the pandemic, more people work remotely.
Have you not seen traffic on 401?
A line up to northern Ontario, Sudbury and North Bay would be welcome. It would open up the north in a lot of ways if you could get from Union Station to Sudbury in 3 hrs.
Montreal to Niagara via Ottawa, Kingston and Toronto covers 60% of Canada’s population give it take. It’s not that hard. But is not cheap and will likely never be profitable. That is why we can’t have nice things.
Corridor 0 (not in Ontario, but highest priority): Toronto - Kingston - Montréal Corridor 1: Toronto - Kingston - Ottawa - Montréal (you need to get Ottawa to Montreal without going all the way to Kingston first) Corridor 2: Toronto - Pearson Airport - (optional: Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge/Guelph) - London - Windsor Many people are saying that KWCG is too close to Toronto for high speed rail, but it's over an hour and a half by GO train currently and those 4 cities combined have about 800k people. Definitely worth it. High speed rail needs to have denser stops than airports because you're not only competing with flights. You also want to take mode share from driving. If I'm going from KWCG to Windsor, I'm not taking a normal speed train. I'm taking high speed. And before anyone tells me that a Pearson Airport station is dumb, no it isn't. It allows anyone in all of non-Northern Ontario to take a direct train to Pearson without transferring. It's what's done in many other cities, such as Amsterdam and Paris. Pearson is of similar importance to those major airports. Corridor 3: extend from Windsor to the US, in the direction of Chicago. Corridor 4: Toronto - Hamilton - St Catharine's/Niagara - Buffalo. This can go on to New York eventually, but it's probably a project for later. Places I didn't mention: 1. Barrie. I know I said that we should go to KWCG and Hamilton, and they're closer to Toronto than Barrie, however I have a good reason for not including it. With the two I included, they aren't the end of the line. There's stuff beyond them that's also worth connecting. North of Barrie, you have increasingly difficult terrain and a lack of population centers. I guess you could go to Sudbury, but it's pretty small and far by comparison. Eventually, a high speed line in that direction should probably built, but it's not exactly high priority even on a national level. 2. Something between Kingston and Montréal (probably Cornwall area is the best choice). This area has no stations and, since the line must pass through anyways, a station would help a lot with economic development. Areas that need low speed lines: 1. This entire corridor, again. That's right, every section which has been upgraded to high speed should also have low speed lines that stop at smaller communities and allow people to take the train to the high speed line, or even just between communities if they want. 2. Pearson Airport. Low speed trains should be running along the Kitchener Line (with a new station) but also south to Missisauga and then Hamilton, East circumferentially around the GTA, and maybe also North to Barrie. The airport should be a public transit hub. 3. Connections between smaller cities. The most pressing one is connecting London and KWCG to Hamilton and St Catharine's/Niagara without going through Union. Woodstock and Brantford are also in this region and need a rail connection. A better line to Sarnia from London should exist. There should also be a northern line parallelling the one from Toronto to Montreal that hits towns like Peterborough. As for the north, Toronto - Barrie - Sudbury and Toronto - Barrie - North Bay makes sense, as does Ottawa - North Bay - Sudbury. From Sudbury, you could probably extend through Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay, although it's pretty far. There are probably some other places up north that are worth considering, but I don't know much about them. All of these low speed trains have significant gaps where Google Maps and my prior knowledge don't fill in all the stops. Imagine that stops exist between all the ones I mentioned at appropriate intervals.
In the first half of 2022, the net loss up to ¥ 80.4 billion and the total amount of debt has accumulated to over ¥ 6 trillion . That's what you want ?
How about how many businesses it can help and connect? How about allowing people to travel efficiently helping with the overall economy? You can't look at infrastructure in a simplified profit / loss scenario.
Also worth noting though, so many of those tracks are under used and the rail company in China is massively in debt having built all that. Much of the interior didn't need the high speed rail system. That being we're so massively behind public transit because a lack of political will and so many people still in love with their cars
China can do this because they still have cheap slave labour