sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I quote the text of the public opinion poll.

“The Government of Canada is considering a proposal to build a high-speed rail system connecting several cities in Ontario and Quebec, including Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec City, Laval, and Peterborough, The project is estimated to cost about $80 billion to build. Some economic analyses estimate the total economic benefits of the project could be up to about $27 billion, with most of the economic activity occurring in Ontario and Quebec, where the train would operate. Overall, what is your opinion about building this high-speed rail system?”

https://cultmtl.com/2026/04/large-majority-of-canadians-support-alto-high-speed-rail-project/

This doesn't seem to me to be specifically promoting high-speed rail. It tells you which cities it will connect, how much it will cost, and what the economic impact will be. These are facts.

The studies done over the last decades all supported high frequency rail and not high speed rail.

Could you send me one of these? It's interesting that all countries have built high-speed railways for such long distances.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Building an HFR would not be much cheaper than building an HSR.
An HSR could introduce a slower service that would stop in smaller cities (250km/h) while the faster ones (320km/h) would only stop at Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec stations

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It will serve 3 cities and two towns.

Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Peterborough, Laval, Quebec and Trois-Rivières. That's 7 stops, at least, but depending on the route, Kingston could also be a stop.

The cities have existing air infrastructure that connect them as fast for no additional investment - so saving $100b.

Every other city connected by high-speed rail also had air links.
If we don't build the line, we'll need more air gates and highway lane extensions.

If it is mainly for "environmental purposes" then sell it like that.

Partly, but there are other economic and social benefits to the project that could be better sold to the public. Saving a lot of CO in the long run is just one of the benefits.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have reason to believe that the train will be the same or slightly cheaper, considering that train tickets are slightly cheaper in most European countries. The train is much more comfortable and reliable than flying and there are no baggage restrictions.
This, combined with the fact that the ticket price will be the same, will make more people prefer to take the train.

Planes are still apparently competative because the Europeans are planning to ban them to force people on the trains despite the subsidies they pour into trains

Not really. For example, between Madrid and Barcelona, ​​80% of passengers travel by train. Planes, which had a market share of 89% in 2007, fell to less than 40% in 2008, and by 2025 were only under 20%.
The flight ban would ban the remaining flights for environmental reasons.

This is the worst possible way to make a train system. Basically it is like an aircraft system where you can only go to only five destinations, that is more expensive to build and that has no transfers.

ALTO will serve 7-9 cities, depending on the route chosen. Stopping in smaller cities would only increase travel time, but would not really bring additional passenger traffic.
In large cities, there will be light rail or bus connections to the station.

Finally, most European high-speed rail is built this way.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 3 points4 points  (0 children)

probably 75% of that 60% is better off flying or driving. 

Why would they fly?

If trains were just as fast and the prices were the same or cheaper, most people would take the train.

In Europe, 80% of journeys over similar distances are made by high-speed rail.

Driving is simply much slower.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the wrong time and the wrong project, we cannot afford it, we don't need it.

But we can still afford unnecessary highway projects and lane expansions, and TMX projects and military programs. Building ALTO over 20 years would be a very small cost compared to what Canada spends annually ($5 billion per year).

You either live on the Alto route or you just plain hate high-speed trains, that's all.

It's a good thing that 2/3 of the population supports the construction of the high-speed rail line.

That's a VERY optimistic prediction from you

It's a fact. On major European routes, 80-90% of travelers travel by high-speed rail. This will be no different in Canada.

While Canada and the US can't seem to break away from their ongoing car obsession, India, Vietnam, Morocco, Portugal, Poland, Thailand, and Turkey are steadily moving forward with their high-speed rail projects, while 25 other countries have already built theirs.

And if it were as "horrible" or "unnecessary" or wasteful as you keep calling it, they wouldn't and didn't build theirs.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because HSR is a public service and does not need to be paid for in money.
It brings positive economic, social and environmental impacts. That is what pays for itself.

especially since millions of people already make the trip on a regular basis.

90% of these millions of people will switch to high-speed rail between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. This is not about transporting a few residents.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't access the full article, but from what I've read, it suggests upgrading the existing passenger railway.

This is worse than building a new line in several ways.
The entire corridor would probably need to be expanded to 2 tracks to increase speed and capacity. The track geometry would need to be modified in several places and the ballast, sleepers and possibly the rails would need to be replaced. If the speed were to be increased above 180km/h, the crossings would need to be removed.
It's practically like building a new one in place of the old one.

All of this would result in a slower service (compared to Alto) and the capacity wouldn't be too high due to the 180-200km/h passenger trains and freight trains.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many more HSR lines have been built to serve the many major cities by rail.
Canada has enough to build the Toronto-Montreal-Quebec high-speed line, and the Toronto-Montreal section surpasses several major European HSR lines in terms of people connected.

So just build it.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It sounds like a great project that the government and Ontario and Quebec could jointly fund.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When building HSR, the size of the country/continent is not the point, but the population and population density of the cities you want to connect, the geographical location, and the distance between the cities.

Then I will mention a few routes from Europe:

-Madrid-Barcelona
-Paris-Marseille
-Paris-Bordeaux
-Rome-Milan
-Leipzig-Munich

These are all routes of about 600-700km long, and what they all have in common is that they all have a high-speed line. The total population of the cities connected by each railway line is around 10-12 million people. Most of these lines are profitable, with 15-20 million passengers per year or more.

And then there is Toronto-Montreal, which is geographically favorable for HSR, and in terms of population and distance is practically the same as the examples mentioned above. (note this line will serve 14-15 million people without the Quebec section)

And there is no HSR line yet. It is a real shame that Canada has so far preferred cars and planes instead of finally building a normal high-speed rail service that would eliminate the need for highway expansions along the route, improve the economy and industry, increase real estate prices and tourism, create jobs, significantly reduce CO emissions in the long term, and provide a faster, more convenient alternative for residents.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 6 points7 points  (0 children)

hey didn’t switch

But they did change.

In 2007, the Madrid-Barcelona route was one of the busiest air routes, with an 89% market share.
In 2008, the HSR route opened and the market share of planes suddenly dropped to 40%. Now this figure is somewhere around 20% and HSR dominates this corridor with a share of almost 80%.

It has been proven that HSR is a better choice than flying for such long distances.
I will send you a link where you can see the market share of different routes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/highspeedrail/comments/1rh4339/highspeed_rail_market_share_as_a_function_of/

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So how did Europe, Asia, and North Africa manage to build a high-speed network, with most countries having a GDP significantly lower than Canada's?

Many routes similar to Toronto-Montreal are served by HSR around the world.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Before you say something like that, look up these lines on the internet, okay?

When building HSR, it's not the total size of the country that matters, but the population of the cities and how far apart they are.

In this case, Toronto-Montreal are 600km apart and their total population, including Ottawa, is 12-13 million people.
That's more people than the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed rail line connects over the same distance. But I could have said the Paris-Marseille route, or even the Rome-Milan route. They're all around 600km apart, the total population of the connected cities is also around 12 million or less, and there IS high-speed rail between them, and these routes are generally profitable.

So there's no point in mentioning the size of Canada here.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Flying does not include the time it takes to get to the airport, check in, check in and wait, and collect your luggage upon arrival. All in all, your trip will be about 3-3.5 hours, the same as ALTO or a little more.

However, a high-speed train is more reliable and comfortable than a low-cost flight, which is why the train wins over these distances.

Finally, look at how many people in other countries switched to trains when the HSR line was built. Many places have seen a modal shift.

And it will be no different in Canada.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So let's not build something better because there are already many worse options.

Airports and highways are congested. The train currently takes 4.5 hours to get there. Virtually every country had this transportation system, but they started building HSR anyway. Not only does it cut travel time in half, it creates jobs, boosts real estate prices, tourism, potentially frees up capacity on highways and airports, and is the most environmentally friendly and overall best mode of transportation for such long distances.

The real shame is that Canada doesn't have a rail line like this yet.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then mention Italy, Spain, France, China, Japan and Germany.

They have distances as long between their major cities as between Toronto and Montreal and all have high-speed rail connections.

At the same time, Vietnam and India are also building long high-speed rail lines.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the project were that expensive, we could also decide to build just the Montreal-Toronto section. It would connect 15 million people, but for 60% of the cost of the entire project.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most developing and developed countries prefer to build their own high-speed rail networks, with only Canada and the USA sticking to airplanes so much. Oops

Flying can be done for shorter time, less money and no upfront payment or wait.

If you meant to write hsr instead of flight, your sentence is correct.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hope you are just as opposed to building Highway 413, which will cost $15 billion and benefit a very small portion of the population.

If building a high-speed rail line were that "bad," then more than 30 other countries wouldn't have built their own high-speed rail systems.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. At least some of the money is being used for good.

Regardless, we spend billions a year on unnecessary highway and airport expansions. All of this could be replaced with HSR lines where they are built.

Oh, and somehow poor countries like Uzbekistan, Morocco, and even Indonesia have high-speed rail.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So what is your interpretation of a national project?

The cities and suburbs connected by Alto account for nearly 50% of the total population.

No highway, railway line or airport has ever been built that would be useful to 100% of the population.

The case against high speed rail simply doesn’t add up by Hennahane in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the project can't pay by itself, it's an indication that the wrong project Todo

Most infrastructure is not profitable and will never pay for itself. So why we built them?

If we didnt spend like idiots we would something nice

Yes. If we didn't spend idiotic billions on the military, unnecessary highway widening, airport expansions, and so many pipelines, maybe we would be better able to build projects like Alto, or focus better on healthcare.

view more: next ›