On track for high speed

[golodhendil]

...which there are no more of in several European HSR corridors than here.

.. but which is true for the majority of their rail (conventional or HSR) corridors.

Seven. Hartford MSA, 2000 census: 1,148,618. Providence MSA: 1,582,997. Both have grown since. And again, there's nowhere in France with that many big cities so close together. And I'm sure you're aware that many smaller settlements go along with those big cities in the NEC.

Five. I know the MSA populations, but you need to get an idea of what those MSAs entail to understand how meaningful those numbers are and how valid are the comparisons.

And my point all along was that there's no monolithic "Europe" that's somehow beyond our reach. There are parts of Europe that are > the NEC, and some that are < NEC and even QWC. There's no reason we can't have a rail network comparable to many European countries (Scotland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia) without taking "smaller steps". This country doesn't think big enough.

Sure. But I'm sure things will be helped along greatly if we had a different society and history (eg, if our rail infrastructure was more extensively developed back in the 19th century, or if our passenger rail industry didn't completely tank in the 20th due to the rise of automobiles), and that, like those countries, we receive a bunch of extra money from some continent-wide authority (funny that your list just happens to hit every major region or country in Western Europe that are receiving structural and/or cohesion funds from the EU):

 

[MisterF]

.. but which is true for the majority of their rail (conventional or HSR) corridors.

Doesn't matter. HSR has proven successful in environments like ours, which is what really matters.

Five. I know the MSA populations, but you need to get an idea of what those MSAs entail to understand how meaningful those numbers are and how valid are the comparisons.

Even if you dismiss the validity of MSA populations, my point still stands.

Sure. But I'm sure things will be helped along greatly if we had a different society and history (eg, if our rail infrastructure was more extensively developed back in the 19th century, or if our passenger rail industry didn't completely tank in the 20th due to the rise of automobiles), and that, like those countries, we receive a bunch of extra money from some continent-wide authority (funny that your list just happens to hit every major region or country in Western Europe that are receiving structural and/or cohesion funds from the EU)

Our rail infrastructure was very well developed in the 19th century, with basically every community of any size having rail service. And the automobile rose just as much in Europe as here - the difference is that they didn't neglect their rail systems.

Actually the most populated parts of Scandinavia and Scotland, with the densest rail networks, are contributors to EU funds, not recipients. Or consider Russia, which doesn't benefit from some continent-wide authority and is quite a bit less wealthy than us. All of them have superior rail networks and even without EU money Spain's would be better. But they're networks that we could duplicate.

It doesn't necessarily have to be more expensive than what we're building now, we can just shift some of our focus from highways to rail. For example, instead of building a freeway from Kitchener to Brantford, build a rail line instead. That whole region should have a network of fast, frequent regional rail lines connecting its cities. Or consider smaller towns like Owen Sound, Leamington, and Lindsay. The MTO is planning 4 lane expressways to all of them. If you can justify a 4 lane highway to Lindsay you can justify a rail line. If it's competitive with driving people will use it. And you might even have enough money left over to add some more passing lanes to Highway 35.

 

[golodhendil]

Even if you dismiss the validity of MSA populations, my point still stands.

Actually, not really. The very reason those MSA pops aren't useful comparisons is the same as why the situation in the US is still behind that in Europe. In Europe, even France, the landscape is dotted by dense, compact towns and cities with relatively few people living in between. On the other hand, even in northeast cities like Providence or Hartford (among others), very quickly outside of the core the cityscape drops off dramatically into sparse sprawls of single houses (or at most, triple-deckers) with relatively big lots; the NEC, effectively, is one huge sprawl with 4.5 denser clusters. Of those 1M or so people in the MSAs, only about 1/5 actually live in the "city" area, the rest spread out into the sprawl (the Providence numbers also include all the huge swaths of beach resorts, summer settlements and retirement enclaves in RI that hardly contribute meaningfully to an "urban" metro). This is the type of development that makes North America, even the NEC, much harder to be served well by good transit and railway. Railway and transit in the NEC is actually increasingly successful despite of this, with more people willing to drive 30 min to an hour to the commuter rail station and take that for another hour or two into Boston, New York, Philly and DC (or for that matter, commuting 2-3 hrs on rail from Maine into Boston, or midstate NY into NYC, midstate PA into Philly, or VA into DC).

And the automobile rose just as much in Europe as here

Wrong. While car ownership in several European countries did reach levels comparable to North America, automobile usage is significantly less, perhaps for a variety of reasons - government policies, gas prices, density of cities, culture, etc.

Actually the most populated parts of Scandinavia and Scotland, with the densest rail networks, are contributors to EU funds, not recipients.

And those networks were largely completed 100-150 years ago, so of course EU funds didn't go into them.

Or consider Russia, which doesn't benefit from some continent-wide authority and is quite a bit less wealthy than us.

I hardly think Russia, or for that matter China, would be comparable socially/politically to North America.

even without EU money Spain's would be better.

I don't think anyone had travelled to the alternate reality where that is true for this statement to be meaningful.

It doesn't necessarily have to be more expensive than what we're building now, we can just shift some of our focus from highways to rail. For example, instead of building a freeway from Kitchener to Brantford, build a rail line instead. That whole region should have a network of fast, frequent regional rail lines connecting its cities. Or consider smaller towns like Owen Sound, Leamington, and Lindsay. The MTO is planning 4 lane expressways to all of them. If you can justify a 4 lane highway to Lindsay you can justify a rail line. If it's competitive with driving people will use it. And you might even have enough money left over to add some more passing lanes to Highway 35.

As a rail enthusiast, I am all for it. But I think we will have a hard time making this politically palatable enough for many politicians to be willing to take up the cause right now.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Doesn't matter. HSR has proven successful in environments like ours, which is what really matters.

Sorry, MisterF, but I'm going to have to agree with golodhendil here.

HSR has been successful in countries that have less population density or even population than our QWC, but all of these places had an existing culture of flexible intercity passenger rail travel.

What I mean is that in places like Spain, not only was there significant rail travel between Barcelona and Madrid prior to the HSR line, but that that rail travel operated under a different cultural mindset to what we experience today with VIA: frequent service, open jaw ticketing (tickets that were valid between any city in between the ones you paid for), synchronized scheduling, a decent network of regional and feeder rail service radiating out from stations, etc., etc. None of this exists right now with VIA rail: the service is not only infrequent, but somewhat sporadic in terms of service - there are four hour windows where there is no train at all to Montreal, and only one train really runs express; ticketing is rigid and only permits direct-to-destination travel (I can't get off in Kingston with a Montreal ticket, despite the fact that it is within the zone of travel), and there are no feeder services or regional rail lines outside of the backbone of the corridor.

The NEC basically has all these features: it has synchronized and frequent scheduling between trains, it has different brands of trains running the gamut from quasi-HSR Acela to Regionals to low-priced commuter rail; tickets are open jaw; there are numerous feeder routes (Keystone service, Empire Service; New Haven-Springfield Line, numerous MARC,SEPTA,NJT lines that extend beyond mere city-centric commuter rail). This is the necessary next step for a corridor like the QWC. You gotta walk before you can run.

 

[MisterF]

Actually, not really. The very reason those MSA pops aren't useful comparisons is the same as why the situation in the US is still behind that in Europe. In Europe, even France, the landscape is dotted by dense, compact towns and cities with relatively few people living in between. On the other hand, even in northeast cities like Providence or Hartford (among others), very quickly outside of the core the cityscape drops off dramatically into sparse sprawls of single houses (or at most, triple-deckers) with relatively big lots; the NEC, effectively, is one huge sprawl with 4.5 denser clusters. Of those 1M or so people in the MSAs, only about 1/5 actually live in the "city" area, the rest spread out into the sprawl (the Providence numbers also include all the huge swaths of beach resorts, summer settlements and retirement enclaves in RI that hardly contribute meaningfully to an "urban" metro). This is the type of development that makes North America, even the NEC, much harder to be served well by good transit and railway. Railway and transit in the NEC is actually increasingly successful despite of this, with more people willing to drive 30 min to an hour to the commuter rail station and take that for another hour or two into Boston, New York, Philly and DC (or for that matter, commuting 2-3 hrs on rail from Maine into Boston, or midstate NY into NYC, midstate PA into Philly, or VA into DC).

Hold on, you were just arguing that urban density doesn't matter. Now you're saying it does? Your post just reinforces my point that regional rail matters as it feeds intercity rail.

Wrong. While car ownership in several European countries did reach levels comparable to North America, automobile usage is significantly less, perhaps for a variety of reasons - government policies, gas prices, density of cities, culture, etc.

That's exactly what I meant. The car rose in Europe just as much (ie, ownership), it's just not the be-all end-all of transportation.

And those networks were largely completed 100-150 years ago, so of course EU funds didn't go into them.

That's hardly relevant. We had a rail system like that too 100 years ago. The point is that they've managed to retain those systems without EU funds.

I hardly think Russia, or for that matter China, would be comparable socially/politically to North America.

Completely dismissing the experience of another country because of its social differences is like willfully putting on blinders. It's perfectly valid to compare them.

I don't think anyone had travelled to the alternate reality where that is true for this statement to be meaningful.

Come on, Spain only joined the EU in 1986. That's only 24 years ago, not some far flung alternate reality.

As a rail enthusiast, I am all for it. But I think we will have a hard time making this politically palatable enough for many politicians to be willing to take up the cause right now.

Yup, it's hard to be optimistic. Ridership and public opinion consistently make the case for better rail, but powerful lobbies and political apathy are hard to beat. One way to do it might be to merge MTO and Metrolinx into one body. If highways and railways were planned by the same body then maybe it would work towards an integrated system.

Sorry, MisterF, but I'm going to have to agree with golodhendil here.

HSR has been successful in countries that have less population density or even population than our QWC, but all of these places had an existing culture of flexible intercity passenger rail travel.

What I mean is that in places like Spain, not only was there significant rail travel between Barcelona and Madrid prior to the HSR line, but that that rail travel operated under a different cultural mindset to what we experience today with VIA: frequent service, open jaw ticketing (tickets that were valid between any city in between the ones you paid for), synchronized scheduling, a decent network of regional and feeder rail service radiating out from stations, etc., etc. None of this exists right now with VIA rail: the service is not only infrequent, but somewhat sporadic in terms of service - there are four hour windows where there is no train at all to Montreal, and only one train really runs express; ticketing is rigid and only permits direct-to-destination travel (I can't get off in Kingston with a Montreal ticket, despite the fact that it is within the zone of travel), and there are no feeder services or regional rail lines outside of the backbone of the corridor.

The NEC basically has all these features: it has synchronized and frequent scheduling between trains, it has different brands of trains running the gamut from quasi-HSR Acela to Regionals to low-priced commuter rail; tickets are open jaw; there are numerous feeder routes (Keystone service, Empire Service; New Haven-Springfield Line, numerous MARC,SEPTA,NJT lines that extend beyond mere city-centric commuter rail). This is the necessary next step for a corridor like the QWC. You gotta walk before you can run.

The thing is, I'm not arguing specifically about high speed rail. What's been lost in all the debating is my first point - refuting the idea that the US NEC is achievable but Europe is somehow not. Having a system comparable to Europe doesn't necessarily mean bullet trains in Germany, it could mean something like the trains going north from Glasgow. With GO Transit expanding to outlying cities, we're taking baby steps in that direction.

 

[golodhendil]

Hold on, you were just arguing that urban density doesn't matter. Now you're saying it does? Your post just reinforces my point that regional rail matters as it feeds intercity rail.

I didn't argue that urban density doesn't matter, I argued that the density of each individual urban core do not matter as much as how the overall density of a region is patterned (ie, a few hyperdense cores separated by low density sprawl being more difficult than having the density distributed into multiple medium-high density points). And no, my point is less about how regional rail feeds into intercity rail (in many cases they don't, as the two serve rather different purposes and markets), than about how easy/difficult it is for a regional rail network to grow up in different environments.

That's exactly what I meant. The car rose in Europe just as much (ie, ownership), it's just not the be-all end-all of transportation.

It's not car ownership but car usage that cuts into passenger rail markets. I'm not making an argument that car ownership leads to decreased passenger rail, I have all along been stating the historical fact that North America grew a much stronger car culture than Europe that helped sank the passenger rail market.

That's hardly relevant. We had a rail system like that too 100 years ago. The point is that they've managed to retain those systems without EU funds.

And the point is that our society and culture contributed to its demise here and our subsequent urban development have made things worse. It's not a matter of whether it should have, it's the fact that it did, which dropped us to a lower ground state from where we will have to catch up to what Europe has now when they didn't experience the same thing.

Completely dismissing the experience of another country because of its social differences is like willfully putting on blinders. It's perfectly valid to compare them.

Countries that could/can push forward projects with little regard for public opinion (and sometimes even economic merits) is hardly a valid comparison for a society where polls, balancing budgets and playing electoral politics is paramount.

Come on, Spain only joined the EU in 1986. That's only 24 years ago, not some far flung alternate reality.

And all the dramatic development of Spanish railway, including the LAVs, happened in those two decades, after a bounceback from fiscal crises and significant service cuts during the early-mid 80s.

 

[MisterF]

I didn't argue that urban density doesn't matter, I argued that the density of each individual urban core do not matter as much as how the overall density of a region is patterned (ie, a few hyperdense cores separated by low density sprawl being more difficult than having the density distributed into multiple medium-high density points). And no, my point is less about how regional rail feeds into intercity rail (in many cases they don't, as the two serve rather different purposes and markets), than about how easy/difficult it is for a regional rail network to grow up in different environments.

You're splitting hairs. Both types of density help. And yes, people do use regional and local rail to get to intercity rail lines. If they didn't then stations like Termini in Rome or Gare du Nord in Paris wouldn't be the hubs that they are.

It's not car ownership but car usage that cuts into passenger rail markets. I'm not making an argument that car ownership leads to decreased passenger rail, I have all along been stating the historical fact that North America grew a much stronger car culture than Europe that helped sank the passenger rail market.

And the point is that our society and culture contributed to its demise here and our subsequent urban development have made things worse. It's not a matter of whether it should have, it's the fact that it did, which dropped us to a lower ground state from where we will have to catch up to what Europe has now when they didn't experience the same thing.

But that car culture is at least partly the result of government policy, not necessarily an innate love for driving that Europeans lack. "Car culture" isn't some insurmountable barrier. There are many examples both here and in the United States that when rail is fast, frequent, and reliable, it's highly successful.

Countries that could/can push forward projects with little regard for public opinion (and sometimes even economic merits) is hardly a valid comparison for a society where polls, balancing budgets and playing electoral politics is paramount.

Funny that you mention that. Despite strong public opinion for HSR and studies showing its economic merits, it's not happening. Even conventional rail upgrades are slow to happen despite strong public support. Governments in Canada ignore public opinion all the time.

 

[golodhendil]

You're splitting hairs. Both types of density help.

Both types of density help, but lacking the latter type hurts more.

And yes, people do use regional and local rail to get to intercity rail lines. If they didn't then stations like Termini in Rome or Gare du Nord in Paris wouldn't be the hubs that they are.

I should clarify that the statement, according to the context of that paragraph and corresponding ones in preceeding posts, is mainly referring to the NEC. And stations don't need to be major transfer points to be hubs, being a major enpoint for many trips and routes is already sufficient (not that being major transfer points doesn't help Roma Termini or Gare du Nord).

But that car culture is at least partly the result of government policy, not necessarily an innate love for driving that Europeans lack. "Car culture" isn't some insurmountable barrier. There are many examples both here and in the United States that when rail is fast, frequent, and reliable, it's highly successful.

Sure, which is my point that the urban environment of those specific examples are such that rail travel is more easily facilitated (and generally, car culture/use is correspondingly weaker).

Funny that you mention that. Despite strong public opinion for HSR and studies showing its economic merits, it's not happening. Even conventional rail upgrades are slow to happen despite strong public support. Governments in Canada ignore public opinion all the time.

I think at least partly to blame would be those people who would say they support HSR (or rail improvement or transit improvement) on one hand and then cringe at the idea of raising taxes or otherwise reallocating resources to fund those improvements. And if these people's opinion on the issue is strong enough, they would not continue to vote for those politicians who don't listen to them.

 

[saiho]

Ridership and public opinion consistently make the case for better rail, but powerful lobbies and political apathy are hard to beat.

That is of course debateable, ridership and public opinion may warrant better rail but how better? HSR @ 200 Kph? or 300 Kph? or increased service?

First ridership
There are 6.9 million trips between Toronto and Montreal each year most by car, sounds like a lot right. If we build the HSR by TGV standards a la 300 Kph we would capture a large amount of the market. Most of 6.9 million trips lots of ridership right? WRONG! These numbers only sound big in a country with a lower population than the world’s most populous urban area. The Taiwan High Speed Rail (Chinese: 台灣高速鐵路) is built to a TGV standard dedicated tracks top speed of 300 Kph, during the first year of limited operation had 15.6 million rides, yet the company was not making money. By 2009 ridership has reached 32.4 million annually yet the company is still in struggling financially. As much as we love to have a TGV style service heck I would love to have a Shinkansen style service, it is not economically sustainable. How long with 6.9 million rides (even if they double do to increased connectivity) will it take for the HSR built to TGV standards break-even financially... 20 years… 30 years…. 50 years … a lifetime. We should first shoot for an acella express-like infrastructure which we still at this point don’t have... and then we will talk about upgrading.

Next is public opinion
Everyone wants everything but no one wants to pay for something. That is the issue with public opinion. Everyone wants their city to have crazy infrastructure as long as it sounds good but they might think twice once they see the price tag. Same applies to HSR

Bottom line is as much as rail fans like us (myself included) would want to believe, Canada is not really for some massive Shinkansen service heck it’s not ready for TGV style service either. Like what many people have said here, you got to walk before you can run. Except in China everything tends to run there, except freedom of course.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't understand how people expect to capture ridership from drivers when they expect to charge nearly as much as air fare. There's many reasons people drive. But a big one is usually cost. I would not expect to get a huge chunk of those 6.9 million riders unless that HSR was charging pretty much what VIA does today (or less).

 

[andrewpmk]

High speed rail will be successful in Canada because people are willing to pay for a premium service that takes 2-3 hours from Toronto-Montreal, compared to 6 hours or so by car, while avoiding the hassles of flying. High speed rail has been successful in other countries - for example, Madrid-Zarazoga-Barcelona is roughly comparable to Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (similar distance and similar sized cities). This is despite the fact that driving is still often cheaper (even with high European gas taxes).

 

[saiho]

High speed rail will be successful in Canada because people are willing to pay for a premium service that takes 2-3 hours from Toronto-Montreal, compared to 6 hours or so by car, while avoiding the hassles of flying. High speed rail has been successful in other countries - for example, Madrid-Zarazoga-Barcelona is roughly comparable to Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (similar distance and similar sized cities). This is despite the fact that driving is still often cheaper (even with high European gas taxes).

Like what Hipster Duck said those European systems/corridors have an existing system of flexible intercity passenger rail travel, which Canada really lacks. Also Americans have a different mindset about intercity travel compared to Europe, not that the American car culture will never disappear, just not overnight. Also it depends on what you think is successful, some people using, or enough people using it so that it makes economic sense and not making our government bankrupt.

 

[MisterF]

I should clarify that the statement, according to the context of that paragraph and corresponding ones in preceeding posts, is mainly referring to the NEC. And stations don't need to be major transfer points to be hubs, being a major enpoint for many trips and routes is already sufficient (not that being major transfer points doesn't help Roma Termini or Gare du Nord).

Multiple types of transit meet at a single station mainly because of transfers. You still have to get from the endpoint to your final destination. For downtown stations that means local and regional transit (and pickups and taxis obviously). You even see this at Union, despite how disjointed GO, VIA, and TTC are from each other.

I think at least partly to blame would be those people who would say they support HSR (or rail improvement or transit improvement) on one hand and then cringe at the idea of raising taxes or otherwise reallocating resources to fund those improvements. And if these people's opinion on the issue is strong enough, they would not continue to vote for those politicians who don't listen to them.

Well considering the first GO lines were built in lieu of expanded highways, I'd say the public has been just fine with reallocating resources. There has been little to no opposition to the recent money to improve VIA in the corridor, while past cutbacks were very controversial. Again, new rail lines are popular whenever they open. The GO line to Barrie is getting more riders than they expected, and there's a lot of public pressure to improve rail to cities like Kitchener and Hamilton. When it comes to high speed, we have concrete North American examples like California, where voters approved HSR funding in a referendum. In Canada, opnion polls have shown that voters in Canada not only support HSR but support paying for it. http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/HighSpeedRail.pdf

The government continuing to favour driving is more because of inertia than anything else. There are a lot of vested interests in highway transport, suburban development, and car manufacturing. Things are changing, but slowly.

That is of course debateable, ridership and public opinion may warrant better rail but how better? HSR @ 200 Kph? or 300 Kph? or increased service?

First ridership
There are 6.9 million trips between Toronto and Montreal each year most by car, sounds like a lot right. If we build the HSR by TGV standards a la 300 Kph we would capture a large amount of the market. Most of 6.9 million trips lots of ridership right? WRONG! These numbers only sound big in a country with a lower population than the world’s most populous urban area. The Taiwan High Speed Rail (Chinese: 台灣高速鐵路) is built to a TGV standard dedicated tracks top speed of 300 Kph, during the first year of limited operation had 15.6 million rides, yet the company was not making money. By 2009 ridership has reached 32.4 million annually yet the company is still in struggling financially. As much as we love to have a TGV style service heck I would love to have a Shinkansen style service, it is not economically sustainable. How long with 6.9 million rides (even if they double do to increased connectivity) will it take for the HSR built to TGV standards break-even financially... 20 years… 30 years…. 50 years … a lifetime. We should first shoot for an acella express-like infrastructure which we still at this point don’t have... and then we will talk about upgrading.

Next is public opinion
Everyone wants everything but no one wants to pay for something. That is the issue with public opinion. Everyone wants their city to have crazy infrastructure as long as it sounds good but they might think twice once they see the price tag. Same applies to HSR

Bottom line is as much as rail fans like us (myself included) Canada is not really for some massive Shinkansen service heck it’s not ready for TGV style service either. Like what many people have said here, you got to walk before you can run. Except in China everything tends to run there, except freedom of course.

Actually studies have consistently shown that HSR is feasible and would make a profit. The more recent the study, the more optimistic the conclusions. The last major study in the 90s predicted 12 million riders by 2005 and 19 million by 2025. Many of those are induced riders and many are diverted from cars and planes. Yes Taiwan has problems so the question is what did they do wrong that other countries did right? The French TGV makes big profits despite a fraction of the ridership per kilometre. I'm sure there are lessons we can learn from that.

As for public support, I addressed that above. But to expand on that, the Ekos poll showed that HSR support isn't tepid, it's overwhelming. 86% nationwide support it. Most people believe that it will only benefit the most populated parts of the country, and most believe it won't make a profit.....and it still has overwhelming support. According to a Nanos poll a year earlier, about 70% support funding it. How high would that be if people believed it would make a profit, as the experts do?

And finally, it doesn't take "crazy infrastructure" to vastly expand rail in this area, especially the Greater Golden Horseshoe. There are many improvements that wouldn't necessarily cost more than what we're doing now. For example, there's no way a rail line between Brantford and Kitchener would cost more than the planned 424, or that the proposed Peterborough line would cost more than the 407 East extension.

 

[urbanfan89]

There are 6.9 million trips between Toronto and Montreal each year most by car, sounds like a lot right. If we build the HSR by TGV standards a la 300 Kph we would capture a large amount of the market. Most of 6.9 million trips lots of ridership right? WRONG! These numbers only sound big in a country with a lower population than the world’s most populous urban area. The Taiwan High Speed Rail (Chinese: 台灣高速鐵路) is built to a TGV standard dedicated tracks top speed of 300 Kph, during the first year of limited operation had 15.6 million rides, yet the company was not making money. By 2009 ridership has reached 32.4 million annually yet the company is still in struggling financially. As much as we love to have a TGV style service heck I would love to have a Shinkansen style service, it is not economically sustainable. How long with 6.9 million rides (even if they double do to increased connectivity) will it take for the HSR built to TGV standards break-even financially... 20 years… 30 years…. 50 years … a lifetime. We should first shoot for an acella express-like infrastructure which we still at this point don’t have... and then we will talk about upgrading.

I'm going to comment here. The Taiwan High Speed Rail has financial problems for the same reason why subprime-financed housing has financial problems. The entire project was financed by a PPP, and sold to financial institutions at subprime (i.e. higher) interest rates. The stations outside of Taipei and Kaoshiung were built in the middle of nowhere to attract property development (e.g. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=25.012506,121.215334&spn=0.072259,0.129347&t=k&z=14) instead of leading into existing urban areas, which harmed usage. Over the entire period, the line was operationally profitable. The punitive interest rates on the debt used to build the line was what forced the government to bail out and seize the project. Lesson learned: don't finance large public projects with PPPs.

Perhaps it's an ageing good old boy's club which manages MTO, Transport Canada, planning departments, and so forth, who grew up seeing a boom in auto-dependent development and now can't understand anything else and are not open to new ideas thanks to their age. Everyone in Canada is fixated on a can't do attitude, and looking for reasons why we cannot embark on a particular endeavour. But hey, it's our loss.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Really quite honestly, there's such a huge market in rail construction, maintenance, train manufacturing, and rail operation. So much more than what exists today. I don't get why the government's scurrying over the auto sector to try to create an economy. Imagine if that huge Ontario-only auto bailout went towards rail projects? It would have been great!