Article content continued

Neither proposal fits the current Canadian bill.

Despite its proponents’ claims, HSR isn’t applicable yet because of its high cost and inadequate potential ridership. The impressive bullet train systems in other countries resulted from the maximization of the existing railways to boost their speed, traffic volume and revenue. Only then, was HSR justifiable as the next step in this incremental improvement of those rail systems.

As for VIA’s HFR proposal, it’s based on the logical conclusion that it would be advantageous to disentangle faster, track-sensitive passenger trains from slower, track-pounding freights to benefit both. But logic doesn’t necessarily equal practicality or cost-effectiveness.

Photo by Ian Willms / Getty Images

Rebuilding an abandoned line and upgrading a large portion of a low-speed CP freight line would still cost billions and take years to complete. This HFR line would also miss major ridership-generating communities served by VIA’s current Quebec-Windsor Corridor operation, which is largely on CN lines where passenger and freight trains often uncomfortably co-mingle.

No one is denying that CN has become an unwelcoming host to VIA in recent years, but there are ways to deal with its train-delaying tactics and expand VIA’s role that are cheaper and faster than the current HFR proposal.

VIA already owns nearly 300 kilometres of track in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor. Upgraded to tap the full capabilities of the 200-km/h diesel-powered trains VIA recently ordered, this could form the core of a high-performance rail (HPR) system, which might be considered a middle ground between HFR and HSR. As explained in my SouthwestLynx plan, it would include not just faster, more frequent and more affordable trains, but also feeder buses and improved transit connections.