High Speed Train Coming?-split from boosting Canada’s military spending"

[Altair]

Why focus on the train notion? The last few years has seen a massive development in Halton county from Milton east through to Mississauga. Whilst all that mud was flying would have been the perfect time to construct a dual track interurban system parallel to Derry Road and meeting up with the GO at some point enroute. Every one of these new subdivisions you have mentioned in whatever city should have a transit system as part of its construction strategy. Something like this. Flat fare of 3 Euros, it travels at 70 kmh between stops and has a neat gadget that allows the driver to call up a green light at an intersection so there is very little delay.



strategy. View attachment 101832

Still sounds like a provincial issue.

 

[YZT580]

Still sounds like a provincial issue.

Going by definition, Toronto to Ottawa is also a provincial issue. The only section that makes it a national one is the little bit between Ottawa and Montreal. In reality, travel should be of concern on all levels but since Ottawa has and continues to ignore the interests of the vast majority of Canadians in their planning the provinces should pool their markets and devise a interurban system that could be applied throughout all of the major residential blocks if it fits and amplified if appropriate between urban centres. The larger scale should provide for lower building costs and reduce the duplication of effort. As others have pointed out our market is spread out over a huge territory with numerous concentrations of people but nothing that would call out for attention on its own. The Tri-city area constructed almost 40 km of surface light rail through two major downtown cores for about 3 billion with a daily ridership of 17000 and a goal of 25000. That is a lot of buses and a whole slew of cars that are remaining in the garage. For both Quebec and Ontario, putting the provincial tithe for the HSR and combining resources would be a far better use of scarce transit money.

 

[lenaitch]

or work with the province to develop a harmonized system. It was the feds who created VIA by allowing the two majors to divest themselves of their passenger obligations. From what I have read, carrying passengers was the price they paid for receiving the huge land grants that went with the license to build a railway. Rode both CN and CP across Canada and much preferred the CP route. North of Superior was spectacular. I liked the stainless coaches and accommodations too but that is neither here nor there. But it seems that VIA was only half a system. It had no trackage of its own and the issue of scheduling should have been resolved at that time. The way it was written made it doomed to fail. Now as YTZ gleefully points out if they build the HSR local travel via train will primarily devolve upon the province. How is Ontario going to go up against CN in the corridor and develop a service that probably would be used if it actually existed. I have talked to a lot of Trenton bound personnel who would be delighted to traipse down to union and catch the next train to Trenton (or Belleville) if that train wasn't 18 hours from departure.

One would have to get into the original charters to know that (hint: you would have to review the charters of CN's precedent railways).

I don't think we can single out VIA as only being "half a system". The vast majority of Amtrak is operated on host railways (about 97%). I don't know enough about Amtrak's operations, relations with its landlords or their legislation to know whether it fares any better, but at least they have enabling legislation, which is more than what VIA has, which is part of the problem; nothing "is written".

VIA and the government have stated that corridor 'local' service will the maintained after HSR is implemented; I guess we'll have to wait. Even if it does devolve to GO/Metrolinx, they have fared reasonably well in their dealings with CN and CP. All of their network was once on host corridors. They now own about 80% of their network's trackage (most of the rest is on CN, only the Milton service is on CPKC).

Going by definition, Toronto to Ottawa is also a provincial issue. The only section that makes it a national one is the little bit between Ottawa and Montreal.

I think you are overly parsing words. The service is (will be) interprovincial. That's like saying a federally-regulated interprovicial transport truck is only truly interprovincial when it momentarily straddles the Ontario-Manitoba border.

The Tri-city area constructed almost 40 km of surface light rail through two major downtown cores for about 3 billion with a daily ridership of 17000 and a goal of 25000.

If you are talking about Waterloo Region's ION system, that system was built with roughly equal funding from the Region, Province and the federal government.

 

[mariomike]

If you are talking about Waterloo Region's ION system, that system was built with roughly equal funding from the Region, Province and the federal government.

Regarding funding municipal transit , what percentage does Queen's Park pay?

TTC , including Wheel-Trans, is only funded 9% by Queen's Park.

The rest comes from the farebox, and municipal property tax.

January 7, 2026

https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2026.TTC12.1

About 42% of the Operating Budget is funded through TTC own source revenues, including approximately 39% from passenger fare and ancillary revenues and 3% from TTC Stabilization Reserve and TTC Long-Term Liability Reserve funding. Provincial Funding contributions make up approximately 9% of the budget,

 

[lenaitch]

Regarding funding municipal transit , what percentage does Queen's Park pay?

TTC , including Wheel-Trans, is only funded 9% by Queen's Park.

The rest comes from the farebox, and municipal property tax.

January 7, 2026

https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2026.TTC12.1

Operating costs are different than capital. Without looking it up, I believe the Eglington Crosstown LRT was built by Metrolinx and turned over to the TTC, and I believe the Ontario Line under construction will be the same.

 

[ytz]

Economic Case Study from Alto:

https://www.altotrain.ca/sites/default/files/2026-08/canada-s-moment-the-economic-opportunity-of-high-speed-rail-alto.pdf

And the notable bit for those who keep pushing the previous HFR:

The most frequently cited alternative, a dedicated “high-frequency” rail system, would still require largely new, grade-separated, and electrified infrastructure, at a capital cost of $45 to $75 billion, close to the $60 to $90 billion estimated for high-speed rail. Yet it would generate one fifth of the economic impact: a 0.2% GDP uplift, versus 1.1% for high-speed rail. The relevant question is not which option costs less. It is why Canada would spend nearly as much for a fraction of the benefits.

 

[Altair]

Economic Case Study from Alto:

https://www.altotrain.ca/sites/default/files/2026-08/canada-s-moment-the-economic-opportunity-of-high-speed-rail-alto.pdf

And the notable bit for those who keep pushing the previous HFR:

This is why Alto might fail.

The LPC is terrible at defending their ideas.

They let the opposition frame the debate. And by the time they get around to defending their ideas, its too late.

The LPC, Carney, should be out, in public, defending the case for Alto, the need for Alto, the spreading out of the cost for Alto, the economic argument for Alto, and why HSR is objectively better than HFR.

Instead crickets. Alto is more popular than not, but allowing critics to hammer away at it for years with no response, no public campaign to sell the benefits of it, will slowly degrade that support over time.

Because stuff like this should be being blasted out for all to hear, repeatedly, by every MP along the route, including Mark Carney.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Unless they don't believe in it and are hedging their bets.....

 

[MacNav63]

This is why Alto might fail.

The LPC is terrible at defending their ideas.

They let the opposition frame the debate. And by the time they get around to defending their ideas, its too late.

The LPC, Carney, should be out, in public, defending the case for Alto, the need for Alto, the spreading out of the cost for Alto, the economic argument for Alto, and why HSR is objectively better than HFR.

Instead crickets. Alto is more popular than not, but allowing critics to hammer away at it for years with no response, no public campaign to sell the benefits of it, will slowly degrade that support over time.

Because stuff like this should be being blasted out for all to hear, repeatedly, by every MP along the route, including Mark Carney.

See my post above about letting opponents define the narrative and missing opportunities.

Alto is going to go through my riding. It is a hot topic for many people in and around my community. My riding is held by a Liberal MP. Received her latest householder last week. Mention of Alto? Not a peep.

I repeat my point that not everyone goes to open houses but every household gets the householder.

Now I know the householder is essentially a package of canned feel good content and grip and grins and that the vast majority of them get binned immediately but it still seems to me like a missed opportunity to at least try to shape the narrative.

 

[ytz]

And just remember, the last we heard of HFR, they were saying Toronto-Montreal in 5 hrs. The current train is scheduled at 5.5 hrs and with delays is often pushing 6 hrs. Imagine spending $45-75B and still taking 5 hrs for that trip.