I call it how I see it, I didn't say I liked it. Do you see it any differrently? That is my problem with following a "national vision", they aren't always even worth a cuupa joe, and sometimes they're worse.
Should canada have high-speed rail?
- Thread starter countryboy
- Start date
I call it how I see it, I didn't say I liked it. Do you see it any differrently? That is my problem with following a "national vision", they aren't always even worth a cuupa joe, and sometimes they're worse.
I'm not sure, you can only really rely on seniority if you are unionized. But if a company goes bust, seniority ain't worth a hill of beans.
Well, we pay the price for those who do, and I do have some empathy for those tossed out on the street. There are a lot of Cape Breton miners sitting on their thumbs because we are now producing power from South American coal, only because it is supposed to be cleaner, not cheaper.
I don't understand exactly why Canada hasn't employed this option. So many of the systems here in Europe are developed or partly developed by a Canadian company, Bombardier Transportation. The German ICE for example is a great example of Canadian-German technology coming together and creating a high speed rail connection between many cities. Given, Canada is a much much larger country, though rail connections between cities like Montreal-Toronto, Toronto-Ottawa, Seattle-Vancouver, Edmonton-Calgary would make sense.
The only problem I see is that Canada's rail system is still powered by dirty diesel while Europe utilises electricity.
The only problem I see is that Canada's rail system is still powered by dirty diesel while Europe utilises electricity.
The simple solution to gouging is to not buy a company's product or service. Companies that get away with it are the ones that have a monopoly on stuff you either need, or really, really want, like natural gas, power, (ours is privatized and owned by Emera), water, if you live in the city, cable. And I have no doubt that there is collusion between the oil companies, even though the government says not. The same will happen with rail travel, if someone owns the track they're not going to allow someone else to use it. If you want the government to own it we might as well go back to the old days where the People's Airline ruled the skies and no one else could effectively compete, oh what fun that was.
I don't know which private companies you would like to see more regulated or what kinds of regulations you desire. But transportation is the most regulated industry in the country. It takes a battery of Philadelphia lawyers to wade through the stuff on a daily basis. 95% of a cheap airline ticket pays for fees, taxes, and compliance with regulations. But would you settle for a less regulated environment for rail travel? My belief is that there is too much of it that is either ambiguous or inane, but we pay for it regardless.
I think it is a matter of demand. Population density and congestion, as it is in Europe, would be driving factors. The convenience and cost of another mode of transport where you don't have your vehicle at the other end would have to outweigh the inconvenience of driving.
Remember too, Bombardier is, I think, the second most highly subsidized company in the country, I know Pratt and Whitney is, or was number one.
" A decent company would lay off the ones with lowest senority and they're usually young enough to learn new stuff anyway."
That's a Union thing, any company who is interested in providing the best service and making a profit lays off the guy who gives the least bang for the buck. At least reputable outfits used to work that way.
That's a Union thing, any company who is interested in providing the best service and making a profit lays off the guy who gives the least bang for the buck. At least reputable outfits used to work that way.
Can I be so presumptuous as to add a couple of thoughts, CB? I'm wondering if Japan is a good comparison when considering high speed rail. Japan has 4 or 5 times the population of Canada and the geography is skinny and linear, so I'm guessing if even one line was run in Japan it would be located within a very few miles of the bulk of the population. Just a couple of thoughts..........................:lol::lol:
Others have pretty much echoed my thoughts on this.
1) A trans-Canada HSR link would be impractical because of terrain reasons and also for usage. How many people make regular sojourns from coast to coast? Not enough to pay for the expense and upkeep of that type of capital expenditure.
2) HSR links in high density areas could well be feasible as long as they are competitive in both cost and travel time. People keep mentioning a Toronto-Montreal link, probably one to Ottawa from those two centers, Calgary-Edmonton is another possibility too. Not sure about many others. Studying airline usage across the country might give some indicators. One thingno one really mentions is security on HSR lines. Sure we're closer to the ground but a lot of the precautions present in air travel will still need to be in place for them as well won't they, thus limiting the time savings?
People are always criticizing Canada's transportation network for its inefficiency but as JLM alludes to, comparing us to Japan or Europe isn't valid most of the time because of our population density. We also don't suffer the same constraints on energy supply that these other countries do. Sure some changesin our systems are desireable but they need make us more efficient, not just copy what works somewhere else.
1) A trans-Canada HSR link would be impractical because of terrain reasons and also for usage. How many people make regular sojourns from coast to coast? Not enough to pay for the expense and upkeep of that type of capital expenditure.
2) HSR links in high density areas could well be feasible as long as they are competitive in both cost and travel time. People keep mentioning a Toronto-Montreal link, probably one to Ottawa from those two centers, Calgary-Edmonton is another possibility too. Not sure about many others. Studying airline usage across the country might give some indicators. One thingno one really mentions is security on HSR lines. Sure we're closer to the ground but a lot of the precautions present in air travel will still need to be in place for them as well won't they, thus limiting the time savings?
People are always criticizing Canada's transportation network for its inefficiency but as JLM alludes to, comparing us to Japan or Europe isn't valid most of the time because of our population density. We also don't suffer the same constraints on energy supply that these other countries do. Sure some changesin our systems are desireable but they need make us more efficient, not just copy what works somewhere else.
Morning JLM...I'm moving slower than a Via Rail train this morning...must be the weather! :lol:
I brought up Japan orginally but you are right - you can't do a head-to-head comparison with Canada or anywhere else...different countries, different needs.
But, it's a handy one to look at from certain aspects, as it's been around the longest. I'm not sure what their population was in 1964 when they started the whole thing, but I think it was around 97 million, which would put it a hair under 3x our population of today. Just a rough guess there.
Indeed their population is concentrated in a long skinny country. I think most of ours is within 200 miles (or km?) of the US border...it's a bit wider that Japan is long, but strangely enough, kind of the same concentration pattern. They have a couple of really big cities - Tokyo and Osaka, and many smaller centres. We have our large cities like Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, (not sure if that's the right order of population), which gives us a proportionately different population spread, to some degree.
Our population density is among the lowest in the world, although it is growing faster than many. Our immigration policies are no doubt geared for population growth, but I have no idea what the projections are for the future numbers.
Japan has virtually no natural resources, we have lots. Another difference.
I think one of the things we already know is that Canada is a big and expensive country to run, no matter how we look at it. I am pretty sure we have quite a bit more investment in roads than Japan does, either on a per capita basis or in total. Again, a guess, but likely a pretty accurate one. In other words, we spend a pile of money on new roads and upkeep for such a small population. Another difference.
One observation that I keep making is the one about tourism. Japan doesn't seem to have a big or flourishing tourism industry (haven't bothered to look up the stats), while we have a pretty decent base in that one. It's got quite a potential for growth, and I think that deserves to be considered, as "fresh money" is always helpful. Who knows, maybe tourism could pay for a good portion of the rail construction?
Japan's bullet trains don't handle freight - passengers only. That's another possible difference when considering the two countries, I think.
Air travel is becoming a pain in the butt for many, and there are people who simply don't/won't fly...I'm wondering it that number will increase over time and if so, how it might impact the need for a train system. At least some of the traffic would come from displacement of air travel and cars too, I think.
I think this is a very interesting discussion though...lots of opinions and viewpoints. Will it ever get down to a real study of the nuts and bolts? I don't know, but I think it would be a worthwhile exercise as transportation is one of the biggest issues facing the country, due to its "bigness." I think we could (and do) spend our time and money on less productive things these days. Too many of our "national decisions" are short term, and it would be nice to have a long range look-see at how things might be say, 25 years from now. That way, we could avoid some of the boondoggles of the past by getting out in front of the changes, instead of trying to keep up to them. In any case, we shouldn't be afraid of them.
As the pretty young gate attendants used to say to me - in their best English - when I was boarding airplanes in Japan to head overseas, "Have a nice fright!" :lol::lol::lol:
Just ran across a website titled "Alberta High-Speed Rail" at Alberta High-Speed Rail (2005) Inc. - Home
They even used the "V" word (vision)!!
They even used the "V" word (vision)!!
Yeah, but sometimes things seem worth the effort of trying. At one time people though rail was a good idea. It turned out to be a good idea. It was a LOT better than trucking stuff around and still is.
And I'd rather have a few hundred people scooting across Canada in a train than have those people scooting across Canada in a few hundred cars. The ones in a hurry can still fly if they like.
Nope. But then companies go bust anyway. Other ones start up. Life goes on.
Besides, how many truckers aren't unionized? Bloody few I would suspect.
I have sympathy for them, too, but why should the air quality suffer and progress of the rest of the country suffer because of a few people out of work?
Last edited:
Even then, a 100 diesel powered locomotives are even a lot better than a couple thousand buses and planes doing the same job.
With the current emissions standards on new locomotives, 'dirty diesel' isn't very appropriate.
Why? Lots of places have a combination of government services and private services. Why does there have to be either/or?
I meant sensible regulation to make sure that the people's interests come before the interest in profit.
Um, so you think we'd be putting the rail line across Yukon, NWT, and Nunavut? Most Canadians live within 50 miles of the border so it's make sense to have rail lines not too far from the border, as well. And that translates to being pretty linear. And we could have one mainline across Canada with branches going to the majot centers away from the border.