High Speed Rail | Écotrain Consultants Report Past Due

[dunkalunk]

The Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study is due out next month. I figured this would be a good time and location to begin discussing preferred routings and track improvements that will lead to high speed rail's success, and to keep track of news pertaining to high speed rail. Routing the line through Kitchener is essential for the long-term well-being the region, and would require a major investment to fully grade separate the GEXR Guelph Subdivision through Kitchener.

In any case, I've been sitting on these Google Maps for a couple months and I figure its about time to share them:

Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail

Map of the larger network from Windsor to Quebec to Niagara Falls
Link to Google Map


Greater Golden Horseshoe Passenger Rail Network

Map of regional, intercity and high speed rail from London to Oshawa to Niagara
Link to Google Map


Notable Features
-Lines were designed to take advantage of existing rail and highway corridors as much as possible

-Windsor-Quebec route uses the GEXR Guelph Subdivision for a portion outside of Georgetown, From East Guelph to West Kitchener, Through New Hamburg, and approaching London starting near Fanshawe Lake

-Two distinct lines will be built West of Toronto to connect with US high speed rail network and to properly serve Hamilton and the Golden Horseshoe, as well as pearson

-Upgrades to the Guelph Junction Railway which would connect(route details can be seen here) This corridor would either be electrified or built ready for easy electrification.

-A new rail line built south of the 407 which would remove the majority of freight traffic from key passenger lines. CN traffic would be rerouted through Milton, and the 407 rail corridor to reconnect with the North York Subdivision. CP traffic would also be diverted to the North York Subdivision, and would rejoin the mainline east of Agincourt. This would then allow the Government of Ontario to Purchase the CP Mainline between Cooksville and Agincourt, and the Weston Subdivision all the way to Georgetown with little effect on long-haul rail freight traffic.

[mpd618]

You know, I'm not sure I see the non-local argument for having "the" Quebec City - Windsor line going through Kitchener and not Hamilton. But in any case, Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal is a slam dunk and should be built ASAP.

[dunkalunk]

Completely agree, Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto is definitely a win.

I can think of a few non-local arguments for a Kitchener Alignment:

1) Pearson Airport
By using the Georgetown Subdivision to get out of Toronto, Pearson would have an almost direct connection to the High Speed Rail mainline, making it incredibly attractive to international travellers and convenient for those who don't want to park at the airport. Of course, people would also have the choice of Dorval as well. By making the airport more accessible , you convince people especially in Western Ontario to fly Air Canada and avoid US customs and the hassle of airport security entirely. Pearson would be effectively closer to a larger number of people. It would also allow airlines to focus more on niche international trips, having much of their capacity freed up and by making relatively distant airports closer. This can of course be bad news for smaller airports such as Waterloo Region, Toronto Island, and John C. Munro.

2) Costs
a) Urban vs. Rural
The Oakville Subdivision is very urban when compared to the Guelph Subdivision this would make expanding the corridor more expensive, as land costs more.
b) Niagara Escarpment
It would be almost impossible to straighten the alignment through the Niagara Escarpment, not to mention adding another two tracks along the side of a cliff in Dundas. All of the area around Dundas is protected land, making this section incredibly difficult to deal with. A Kitchener alignment would also have to cross the escarpment, but it has the flexibility of doing so in places where the grade is either less steep, or there has been previous disturbances. For example, I chose to create a new alignment adjacent to the quarry in Acton, but the line could easily cross anywhere between the 401 and the Guelph Subdivision. Even if it were decided not to build a new alignment, the radius curves of the Guelph Subdivision are much larger than the ones at Bayview Junction and through Dundas

3) Station Location
A high speed rail line would likely not make a diversion on its Toronto-Windsor route to serve the city of Hamilton proper, but instead, keep its station at Aldershot. This would tack on an additional transfer and wasted time to many peoples' trips.

Keep in mind that this is just conjecture, but isn't it more likely that someone from Hamilton would be going to Toronto or Montreal on business or pleasure than London or Windsor?

I beleive we really need to consider building a Toronto-Hamilton-Niagara line as soon as possible to connect to Toronto to the larger Empire and Ohio Hub proposed high speed lines. I could almost say that connecting Toronto to New York City and the eastern seaboard while relieving short-haul international trips is more important than completing the corridor to Detroit and eventually Chicago. I hope the studies show that we can support both lines, but if we can only support one, then I would still have to maintain that a Kitchener alignment is the best.

In addition, a passenger rail connection from Hamilton to Kitchener also needs to be seriously considered in High Speed Rail plans.

[IEFBR14]

Porter redefines railroaded

Canada’s Porter Airlines would be unimaginable in Western Europe. Porter is the upstart little carrier, perched on Toronto’s island airport, that’s turning a simple business model—an abundance of remarkably short-distance flights between an abundance of cities—into a success. Starting in May, Porter will offer as many as 84 flights a day between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. You could wait longer for a Toronto streetcar than a Porter flight.

Why does the Porter model work? Easy—because the rail model doesn’t. Taking the train between those three cities is painfully slow and inconvenient. Porter wouldn’t get off the ground in Europe, where high-speed rail is making life uncomfortable for airlines on routes of 500 kilometres or so, and utterly miserable on routes of 250 kms. European rail is getting so big so fast, and the trains so blazingly quick—320 kms/h is routinely achieved in eastern France, 575 kms/h was hit on a test run—that Citigroup analyst Ally Ma said, “There’s no doubt that high-speed rail will defeat airlines on all the routes of less than 800 kilometres.”

Toronto to Ottawa is a mere 350 kms; Toronto to Montreal is 500. Some of Porter’s other Canadian and U.S. routes are equally short. Likewise for Air Canada. You might think a few of the routes would be natural candidates for high-speed rail, all the more so since Canada is a wealthy country that professes to care about infrastructure, business efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction, job creation, nation-building—and not being stuffed into the economy seat next to some wheezing brute in a Moores suit. You might, but you’d be wrong. Too bad for Canada...

High costs and political squabbling were the killer, though an epic government mistake made a bad situation worse. Canada is one of the few countries where rail infrastructure—the tracks and so on—is not publicly owned. The railbed was sold when Canadian National Railway was privatized in 1995. As a result, VIA Rail, the politically powerless, money-starved Crown corporation that runs the passenger service, has to wedge its trains in between the snail-slow freight trains. A Canadian high-speed rail service would require its own, or mostly its own, tracks...

When high-speed rail and airlines compete on the same route, the airlines are goners... The bad news: The faster the train, the higher the cost. The Paris-Lyon run is thought to be the only high-speed route in Europe that covers both its operating and capital expenses. The other routes require fat subsidies because construction costs are so high. The cost of laying dedicated tracks ranges from a low of €4.7 million per kilometre in France, to a high of €66 million in Italy, according to the International Union of Railways.

Train-haters love to cite these figures, but they conveniently avoid tallying up the endless billions spent on building and maintaining highways, urban streets and roads to nowhere—the suburbs. Suburbs wouldn’t exist without road subsidies. Nor do the train-haters talk about the environment. To move a passenger one kilometre, a car emits an estimated eight times more carbon dioxide than rail, while a plane emits 11 times more. High-speed rail may be expensive, but that doesn’t mean it lacks value.

Canada’s stub of a passenger rail network is more than an embarrassment; it’s an industrial, environmental and efficiency letdown. It’s also bad for our aching bums.

[plangan107]

For those that don't know, all recent previous studies for high speed rail in Ontario/Quebec and Edmonton /Calgary are posted at High Speed Rail Canada's site at http://highspeedrail.ca >
FYI - The 1995 Ontario/Quebec study, which is posted on the site, did state the preferred route was through Kitchener/Guelph into Toronto.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Cooperation Between Ontario And Québec Is Yielding Tangible Results
Premiers Charest and McGuinty today held the third joint meeting of the Ontario and Québec cabinets in Quebec City.
June 16, 2010 1:50 PM | http://www.news.ontario.ca/opo/en/20...e-results.html

Quebec City - Ontario and Québec held the third joint meeting of their cabinets, chaired by Québec Premier Jean Charest and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. Nine Québec Ministers and nine Ontario Ministers attended. The meeting focused on key issues, including protecting the environment, strengthening the economy and building stronger partnerships.

"We are building on the foundations we've established to build a stronger Québec, a stronger Ontario and, ultimately, a stronger Canada," said Premier Charest.

"We are here to continue our work to help our families, workers and businesses today and to build a solid foundation for our future," said Premier McGuinty.

Protecting the environment, which is a priority for both cabinets, was a major point of discussion. Ontario and Québec remain committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They agreed to develop regulations required to implement a cap and trade system and to work with key Canadian and U.S. partners on a coordinated approach to the infrastructure and administrative support which may include establishing a Regional Administrative Organization. The cabinets also agreed to concentrate on one of the world's greatest resources -- water. Respecting and maintaining the quality and the conservation of invaluable water resources is a priority for both governments.

About $200-billion worth of Canada-U.S. trade passed through the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region in 2009. The provinces agreed to take greater advantage of the region, in collaboration with Great Lakes states.

The cabinets also expressed their desire to develop and broaden their relations by calling for an annual Ontario-Québec forum dealing with an identified theme in order to advise the governments on new cooperation opportunities. The premiers then announced they will work towards a first forum on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River that will take place in the spring 2011. This forum, which will be divided in two parts, will focus on questions related to their economic importance and on water quality and protection.

The Continental Gateway and Ontario-Québec Trade Corridor Strategy, jointly developed with federal officials and already approved by both provinces, would strengthen the Ontario-Québec trade corridor. This would optimize the region's economic potential and the premiers urged the federal government to endorse the Strategy so the actions of the three governments are most effective in increasing trade, investment and economic growth.

The development of a high-speed train in the Windsor-Québec City corridor was also the subject of discussions. A report from Écotrain consultants is expected in the fall. Considering the importance of this initiative, both at the economic and environmental levels, the two governments have agreed to proceed, following the report, to the next step, namely, environmental assessments, choice of technology and alignment. Given the impact of this corridor for the Canadian economy as a whole, the premiers invited the Government of Canada to continue its full participation as a project partner.

The two cabinets received an update on current negotiations by their lead negotiators on the Canada-European Union trade talks and on opportunities for future cooperation. The premiers highlighted their leadership role in these ongoing trade talks, and efforts to advance the interests of Ontario and Quebec firms in diversifying our markets.

The two cabinets also discussed health care at length and will bring it forward as a major focus at the next Council of the Federation this upcoming August. The focus will be to share information on best practices between jurisdictions in providing quality health care while ensuring its sustainability and finding solutions on containing the ever rising costs.

Like the first two joint meetings, this one reaffirmed the importance and the added value for the two economies of this new era of cooperation begun in 2006. "Canada as a whole benefits from our efforts to strengthen Ontario and Québec," concluded Premier Charest, host of this third joint meeting, the next of which will be held in Toronto in the spring of 2011.

[Spokes]

High Speed Rail Canada in cooperation with the Princess Twin Cinema present an evening full of presentations, guest speakers, and video about high speed trains.
October 14th, 2010

The Princess Twin Cinema in cooperation with High Speed Rail Canada on Wednesday November 18th, 2010 at 7pm is hosting a premier high speed rail event in Waterloo Ontario .

“High Speed Rail in Canada – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” will be a multimedia event featuring video, slide presentations and guest speakers from two of the largest passenger rail manufacturers in the world, Alstom and Bombardier and from High Speed Rail Canada.

From a vintage 1967 promotional 4 minute film on Canada ’s legendary high speed Turbo Train to modern video of the record breaking 574km/h high speed train run in France , this event promises to educate and entertain. Guest speakers include Paul Larouche -Bombardier, Ashley Langford – Alstom and Paul Langan – High Speed Rail Canada .

Paul Langan states,” We are fortunate to have such an intimate and quality venue for this event. I am excited about the quality of our two guest speakers from the passenger rail car industry and the chance to educate Canadians on the past, present, and future of high speed rail in Canada and around the world.”

Tickets are only $10.00, advance tickets are strongly recommended as the cinema has limited seating capacity. The cinema is located at 46 King Street North Waterloo

For more information on the event or directions to the cinema go to the Princess Twin Cinema website - the High Speed Rail Canada website or call Paul Langan at 519-654-0089 519-654-0089

[Spokes]

Agenda Set for High Speed Rail Presentation at the Princess Twin Cinema
Nov 09, 2010

The agenda has been set for the High Speed Rail Canada presentation at the Princess Twin Cinema, Thursday, November 18th, 2010 at 7pm in Waterloo Ontario.

“High Speed Rail in Canada – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” will be a multimedia event featuring video, slide presentations and guest speakers from two of the largest passenger rail manufacturers in the world, Alstom and Bombardier and from High Speed Rail Canada.
Guest speakers include Paul Larouche -Bombardier, Ashley Langford – Alstom and Paul Langan – High Speed Rail Canada .

Paul Langan states,” We have secured for the first time ever in Canada, direct from the Chinese Railway Ministry a high speed rail video of China's high speed rail lines. Along with our guest speakers from Bombardier and Alstom, and other dvds this promises to be an entertaining and educational night for anyone interested in high speed rail.”

Tickets are only $10.00, advance tickets are strongly recommended as the cinema has limited seating capacity. The cinema is located at 46 King Street North Waterloo

For more information on the event or directions to the cinema go to the Princess Twin Cinema website, the High Speed Rail Canada website or call Paul Langan at 519-654-0089 519-654-0089

http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=3750

[IEFBR14]

Trainwreck: Canada's high-speed rail failure

Imagine being able to travel to a city 500 kilometres away in less than two hours, without the hassle of driving through miserable traffic to far-flung airports, without feeling violated by airport security, and actually being able to use that expensive phone in your pocket.
This is a reality in the 20 countries around the world with high-speed rail. But it's an abstract fantasy in Canada, the only country in the entire G8 without at least one such system.
It's been 40 years since Japan unveiled its first high-speed rail systems, but Canada is languishing with a rail system from the 1950s that one rail activist calls a national "embarrassment."
"Who can defend what we have? The public has to say ‘Enough is enough' and tell our government that we need . . . modern passenger rail like the rest of the world has," Paul Langan of the group High-Speed Rail Canada told CTV.ca
The arguments for high-speed rail make it seem like a no-brainer; it's understandable why 88 per cent of Canadians said they supported high-speed rail in a 2009 Ekos poll, compared to the mere six per cent who opposed it.
They're fast. Japanese and French high-speed trains have both reached mind-boggling speeds of over 575 km/h. The Chinese, who are quickly becoming a leader in high-speed rail, had a recent test of a passenger train that hit 486 km/h on a soon-to-be-opened link between Shanghai and Beijing.
Dedicated high-speed rail lines are ridiculously efficient -- at least in Japan. Officials there point out that trains are punctual down-to-the-minute, even with 300 million riders a year.
They're safe. There has not been a single fatality in either the Japanese or French system. An average of seven Canadians die in road accidents every day.
Environmentally, there is no better way to move a large amount of people, unless someone builds a really, big bike.
Major economic benefits. Study after study says high-speed rail creates significant numbers of permanent jobs and massive residual benefits. An Alberta government report suggested a Calgary-Edmonton high-speed line could be worth $33 billion to the economy.
Canada has the home-grown expertise in a company such as Bombardier.
So, if Canadians want high-speed rail and the benefits seem enormous, what's the hold up? In Canada, the problem is somewhat twofold. The cost is prohibitive, and would require an enormous investment from federal and provincial governments. Secondly, Canada's small population over its vast landscape limits its feasibility to only a few areas of the country.
Two potential corridors are oft-cited for their high-speed rail potential – Quebec City to Windsor, Ont., and between Edmonton and Calgary.
Jeff Casello, a professor of transportation planning and engineering at the University of Waterloo, says there's a strong argument to be made specifically for the Quebec-Windsor corridor, where half of Canada's population lives.
He says the capacity of Toronto's Lester B. Pearson Airport and Highway 401 is maxed out, making high-speed rail an attractive alternative.
"I think there's very strong consideration on the (Quebec-Windsor corridor) considering the limits on Pearson and its ability to handle any more traffic and the unwillingness to invest in widening the 401," he said. "There's realization that there needs to be some redundancy in our transportation network, so we can't rely on a single mode to satisfy all our transportation needs.
"If something closed the 401 for an extended period of time, there are very few other alternatives."
So, how did we get here?
A brief history lesson
If you are say, less than 70 years-old, you probably don't remember a time when passenger trains ran frequently or efficiently in Canada.
"The North American transportation planning mindset that we adopted in the post-World War Two said our transportation problems were going to be accommodated by the car and we didn't need to worry about diversifying our transportation alternatives," Casello said. "While our European counterparts were investing in light-rail systems for urban transportation and high-speed rail for intercity transportation, we were investing in interstate or national highway systems."
By the early 1970s, railways were increasingly unprofitable in Canada and then-Crown corporation CN pushed to rid itself of its passenger service. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau formed VIA in 1976, but since CN owned the tracks, Canadians travellers have been second-class to cargo on the lines ever since.
"It was better in the 1950s," Langan says, referring to passenger service in Canada.
Two generations of Canadians have virtually no concept of what proper rail service can be like unless they've travelled to Europe or eastern Asia. So while many Canadians like high-speed rail in theory, it seems about as realistic as hovercars. And that makes it easy for politicians to forget about high-speed rail as public policy.
"There's no vision, there's no policy," Langan says of the federal government.
"We haven't had viable passenger rail for 50 years, so people can't see it as a viable option."
But for high-speed rail advocates there was hope to be found in the despair of the recession, as governments began throwing money at infrastructure projects for economic stimulus.
High-speed stimulus?
In April of 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced $8 billion in investment for high-speed rail for 10 different lines across the country.
"High-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travellers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways," he said, adding traffic and road congestion costs the U.S. economy $80 billion a year in productivity.
However, Obama has had a bit of trouble implementing the plan (newly-elected governors in Ohio and Wisconsin recently turned down the cash), but the move was a significant step for road-obsessed America.
In Canada, there was no equivalent announcement coming out of Ottawa.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced $12–billion in infrastructure spending in the economic stimulus budget in 2009.
The budget promised an additional $407 million to VIA for infrastructure and capital improvements on its aging rail system. But there was not one dollar for high-speed rail, with the government instead focused on "shovel-ready" projects that could get underway immediately.
Langan says the government's emphasis on "shovel-ready" projects (i.e. road construction and improvements) did little to create long-term jobs.
"When you spend that massive amount of money on roads all you are doing is creating make-work projects," he said. "It's not providing long-term jobs, its not providing the economy with a new boost.
"(The stimulus money) just kept the guys paving."
Parliamentary Budget watchdog Kevin Page largely agreed, giving the government's economic stimulus plan poor marks on job creation.
So where does that leave us in Canada? Are we forever doomed to curse at bad traffic and long airport lines, to wait four hours if we miss a Via train?
The Quebec, Ontario and federal government launched a $3-million study in 2009 on the viability of a Quebec City to Windsor high-speed rail line. It was supposed to be finished in early 2010, but the Ontario government will only say now that it will be finished in a "timely manner."
"We will make the report public as soon as possible after it has been completed. The governments will be reviewing the study findings in early 2011. We will subsequently identify the mutually agreed upon next steps and the timing for the report's release," Bob Nichols, senior media liaison officer, with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation said in an email.
In July of 2009, the Alberta released a market report on the feasibility of a Calgary-Edmonton high-speed rail line.
While the report says Alberta stands to gain $33 billion in economic benefits from a top-of-the-line high-speed system, the government has not moved forward in any meaningful way.
"We have not made a decision on a high-speed rail project, however, this report is a good first step. We will continue to look at all options in order to support Albertans and the province's economic future," Transportation Minister Luke Ouellette, said in a statement at the time.
Not surprisingly, they are still looking at "all the options" in Alberta, more than a year later.
John F. Kennedy is remembered as the president who got America on its way to the moon, John A. MacDonald as the prime minister who helped build the Canadian Pacific Railway. As for which politician will be known for bringing high-speed rail to Canada, that remains a very open question at start of 2011.

[Daev]

Trainwreck: Canada's high-speed rail failure

It seriously blows my mind that the government hasn't considered construction of this, considering how easy it would be to implement along the Windsor-Quebec corridor. We have 50% of Canada's total population living in this small stretch and we haven't considered building this yet?

Hell even if they just built the stretch to Ottawa. I know I would certainly visit Ottawa more often if I could get there in less than 2 hours by high speed rail!

[Spokes]

It seriously blows my mind that the government hasn't considered construction of this, considering how easy it would be to implement along the Windsor-Quebec corridor. We have 50% of Canada's total population living in this small stretch and we haven't considered building this yet?

Hell even if they just built the stretch to Ottawa. I know I would certainly visit Ottawa more often if I could get there in less than 2 hours by high speed rail!

You would think they would want to get people to the Nation's capitol as often and quickly as possible.

[IEFBR14]

I've always thought that a good start would be to do the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle by TGV. It's not only politically-correct (includes Federal, Quebec and Ontario interests) but also the most economically-viable part of the corridor. Then they could extend the line west from Toronto and east from Montreal.

I wonder how much clout Air Canada has in Ottawa since they're about the only major player that would get hurt by this.

[DHLawrence]

It seriously blows my mind that the government hasn't considered construction of this

They have--17 times in the last three decades alone. The problem is that no government has the wherewithal to move beyond that so the studies just gather dust on a shelf. The last time any serious upgrades to VIA were proposed, it became a victim of the transition from Jean Chretien to Paul Martin. The Conservatives have thrown VIA a bone by building new stations along the Corridor and rebuilding equipment, but it's only a partial solution. The McGuinty and Charest Liberals are studying it on their own, but there hasn't been much news on that study. Since neither government appears to be long for this world, I'm not optimistic.

[Waterlooer]

Do you think the Liberals would be in favour for this?

[Rowe]

I remember hearing Michael Ignatieff saying high speed rail would be a major part of his time if he were PM.

[IEFBR14]

I remember hearing Michael Ignatieff saying high speed rail would be a major part of his time IF he were PM.

That's a mighty big "IF", if I say so myself

Maybe that's why his supporters call him Iggy but his opponents call him Iffy

From the media from about a year ago.

Idea alert

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will reportedly promise the building of a high-speed train as part of the Liberal Party’s election platform.

The train would be built along the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, and would have many economic spin-offs for Quebec and Ontario, according to a report in Monday’s La Presse. A high-speed train for the corridor has been studied several times and estimated to cost $20 billion, so the timing of the project would have to depend on government finances at both the federal and provincial levels, the report adds.

High-speed rail over hockey

Leader Michael Ignatieff says he hopes for the return of the Quebec Nordiques, but his funding priority would be the often-discussed and never-built high speed rail link from Quebec City to Windsor.

[Daev]

Ughhh ... there is nothing I hate more than "if I am elected I will ______".

Empty promises made to rally up votes, then disappoint everyone who voted for you by telling them there isn't enough money in the budget to make it happen.

If only Harper had taken the $18 Billion he spent on the useless fighter jets to protect our non-inhabited North, to fund this instead.

[bcwessel]

Study: High-speed train would have made money
Dan Tracy | Orlando Sentinel | 9 March 2011 | LINK

The Orlando-to-Tampa high-speed train scuttled by Gov. Rick Scott as a multibillion-dollar boondoggle would have made money from Day One, according to a ridership study released Wednesday by the state.

More than 3.3 million people would have used the 84-mile line, generating almost $63 million in ticket sales during its first year of operation in 2015-16, the report said, leading to a $10 million operating surplus.

By year 10, the report said, the train would have brought in $28.5 million more than it cost to operate and maintain the system, which would have linked Orlando International Airport with Lakeland and downtown Tampa.

The Obama administration last year awarded Florida $2.4 billion in federal stimulus to build the train, but Scott turned back the money several times, even after receiving two extensions to reconsider.

Weird things happen when transportation becomes a matter of bad politics rather than good governance.

In terms of our own HSR dreams, if the SunRail corridor was expected to generate that kind of initial ridership, it must be that case that any Quebec-Ontario corridor would experience similar (and likely greater) volumes, suggesting that it too would turn an immediate profit, as well. Has there been any more traction recently on ever making high speed rail a reality here?

[KevinL]

Has there been any more traction recently on ever making high speed rail a reality here?

Both provinces are behind it, but with Via a federal crown corporation it's hard to get the wheels of change moving there. Political inertia is the biggest stumbling block, I think.