Hacker News Reader

Comment by pseudolus | Hacker News Reader

The article might focus on the US but Canada shouldn't be overlooked for its own neglect of high-speed rail. The Toronto-Montreal corridor is a clear candidate for such a service which has been promised onwards of decades now.

View on HN

Intercity travel in Canada is pretty dismal. I just took the train from Vancouver to Winnipeg for the first time, and from Fresno to Vancouver. Both were great experiences, with the Canada line being more social and more interesting, but with old trains and low priority on the tracks. Amtrak was fine, but like VIA took 30+ hours. Anyone taking the train is doing so because they prefer the experience. Typically the fares are not competitive with airline costs but it's a much more relaxing experience. Amtrak was far more affordable, and both trains allow more baggage if you have it.

BTW, the 1991 WNET film "The Last Train Across Canada"[0] featured a journalist taking one of the last transcontinental Via Rail (Canada's national railway system) trips, including a side trip up to Churchill (on Hudson Bay), before the system was broken up and segments privatized.

[0] https://www.worldcat.org/title/last-train-across-canada/oclc...

Currently, Toronto-Montreal isn't even bring considered for high speed rail. If anything, the Toronto-London corridor is what's being evaluated.

Canada's size, terrain, and population density make it a special case. Ottawa-toronto might work, but vancouver-calgary would be insanely expensive if even possible. Linking across the country ... we might as well not bother charging for tickets and just call it a government project never intended to break even.

And in the north, spaceX rockets might be cheaper.

I don't think anyone is seriously considering a cross Canada high speed train connection. The emphasis has always been, as it is in many other regions, on short hops lasting up to 3-4 hours over highly trafficked routes. Portions of the Quebec City to Windsor corridor are ideal candidates for high-speed connections.

Isn't it interesting to think about though? If you could built a coast to coast—or even half way—high speed transit option that isn't a bus or car, what would it look like? If you could use existing infrastructure with perhaps minor changes, what could you build or think of? It's really a domain that presents insane constraints to work in/on. Infrastructure currently costs tremendous amounts to build and maintain, the distance is extremely vast, the terrain is rugged, the climate varies wildly, the population is low and spread out. What sort of impact could it have on future urban development?

Seems like Canada could realistically cover almost 75% of the population: https://i.redd.it/sjbijiqb0u211.png

Similar maps work for the us. East and west coasts are dense, so too the boarder with canada (the great lakes cities). Every developed country has population centers around ports. There just arent any ports in the north. (That may one day change.)

https://wywing.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/us_population_den...

There is actually a little known port called Hudson Bay Port in the town of Churchill Manitoba. The town has an airport and a rail line, though unfortunately the rail line has fallen into disrepair in recent years, as the private company that owns it has chosen not to maintain it. I'm not sure on the current status, but I recall it being big news because it's lack of running cut off services to many northern communities, as well as rail service in general.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com