HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1501  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2020, 11:25 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Aviation infrastructure is heavily subsidized in a lot of the world. It's a cash cow for government in Canada (via airport ground rents). No amount of competition would get us down to Australian costs.

There's also that climate change thing....
All of the major Australian airports are completely private. No subsidies and yet they charge similar to lower facility fees. Australia does subsidize security and air traffic control.

Climate change is a red herring. Passenger rail investment would likley increase GHG by running mostly empty trains as no amount of investment could deliver service that could compete with air or personal vehicles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1502  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 12:04 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
All of the major Australian airports are completely private. No subsidies and yet they charge similar to lower facility fees. Australia does subsidize security and air traffic control.
Exactly. We don't subsidize anything and expect our major airports to pay out hundreds of millions (over $400M annually) in revenue to the federal government. Airline competition isn't going to make up for that substantially. Heck, there's nothing stopping any Canadian investor from opening an airline to compete with the big boys right now. The protectionism comes from them controlling airports and slots and alternatives like rail. And actively engaging in anti-competitive practices like dumping fares. A foreign competitor, even if allowed, isn't signing up to be bled dry for a few months before they have to quit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Climate change is a red herring. Passenger rail investment would likley increase GHG by running mostly empty trains as no amount of investment could deliver service that could compete with air or personal vehicles.
Anybody can make up anything they like without evidence.

Unlike your made up nonsense we can see when Acela in the US that rail takes a substantial amount of market share from air. And they don't have our climate, gas prices or airfares. Heck, we have so much global experience on how rail competes with air, that we have an empirical model to predict market share as a function of trip time:



And if you electrify and run it with Canada's grid mix, rail is particularly low emitting. Especially in Ontario and Quebec.

Last edited by Truenorth00; Aug 6, 2020 at 12:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1503  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 12:14 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Exactly what I was going to say.

My approach; scrap the air carrier protectionism, but impose a meaningful universal carbon tax that actually includes the most wasteful activity. What the carbon prices currently apply to is opaque, but AFAIK only some intraprovincial flights are taxed.
Protectionism is sort of exaggerated. Yes, it's there. But foreign investors won't be clamouring to fly in a small market like Canada. Half of our domestic air traffic is the Quebec-Windsor Corridor and Calgary-Edmonton. The former is served by three airlines. The latter by two. Look at similar sized city pairs elsewhere. You won't find much more competition.

There's this fantasy that American carriers would operate north of the border. Why would they bother with a small market with 2.5 strong carriers, and high operating costs? There's far better ROI in the US. Their only advantage comes from a single aviation market so that it's possible to transit at an American hub as easily as you would a Canadian hub. This is what makes Europe's aviation market so competitive. But the Americans would never agree to something like that.

Ergo, the most sensible option is building HSR in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta and relegating flying largely to trips longer than 700 km.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1504  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 7:14 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The topic of Vancouver to Chilliwack rail service comes up every so often. That route is if anything probably getting more attractive as traffic on the highway worsens and the population grows.

The population densities around Vancouver-Surrey-Langley-Abbotsford-Chilliwack are comparable to the more developed parts of Europe that are covered in rail lines and have passenger rail service all day long at regular intervals.
Being born and raised in Abbotsford, I am quite familiar with this region. The problem is finding a good route.

The route of the old interurban line (now the Southern Railway of British Columbia) is usually proposed, but it is quite meandering and would be very slow. On top of that, the stretch around Langley is heavily used by coal trains going to Robert's Bank, so trains could easily get stuck waiting for a long, slow, freight train to pass.

CN's ROW is more direct, but it follows the river and is quite a distance from where most people live (it is mostly ALR land). Also, east of the Mission bridge, it is part of part of CN and CP's track sharing agreement which has all eastbound traffic north of the river (on CP's track) and all westbound traffic is south of the river (on CN's track), which wouldn't be conducive for commuter rail. It is also heavily used by freight trains.

Probably the direct and central route would be to follow the freeway, but it would be expensive as it would require new track. I am also not sure how best to route the train into Vancouver from the freeway. Having stations near a freeway isn't optimal either.

While I agree that demand is there, finding a viable solution won't be easy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1505  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 7:23 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
Being born and raised in Abbotsford, I am quite familiar with this region. The problem is finding a good route.

The route of the old interurban line (now the Southern Railway of British Columbia) is usually proposed, but it is quite meandering and would be very slow. On top of that, the stretch around Langley is heavily used by coal trains going to Robert's Bank, so trains could easily get stuck waiting for a long, slow, freight train to pass.

CN's ROW is more direct, but it follows the river and is quite a distance from where most people live (it is mostly ALR land). Also, east of the Mission bridge, it is part of part of CN and CP's track sharing agreement which has all eastbound traffic north of the river (on CP's track) and all westbound traffic is south of the river (on CN's track), which wouldn't be conducive for commuter rail. It is also heavily used by freight trains.

Probably the direct and central route would be to follow the freeway, but it would be expensive as it would require new track. I am also not sure how best to route the train into Vancouver from the freeway. Having stations near a freeway isn't optimal either.

While I agree that demand is there, finding a viable solution won't be easy.
Wouldn't it be possible to mix these routes? The interurban route to Langley is pretty good (passes through areas where people live), and it looks like it crosses highway 1. Wouldn't a Langley train be useful right now?

I guess the service needs to hit some baseline speed in order to be viable (not very fast in the Lower Mainland!). The overall theme of my posts is that it seems like there are a lot of rail routes in Canada that could be improved incrementally. Yet the discussion on SSP is often a binary one about whether or not to build expensive "high-speed rail". Question why routes of a few hundred km with 1 million+ people don't have any passenger rail service at all and people start talking about why you're a fool for demanding a Shinkansen for Regina.

I think another factor in Canada is that we underspend on infrastructure and consider modest projects very expensive. The Lower Mainland's GDP is around $150B or so. Projects like the $3B Broadway train are not actually that expensive when placed into a historical context or a future context of decades of use and economic growth. And BC is one of the better provinces for transit development.

Around metro Vancouver and the Lower Mainland there are many at-grade rail crossings. It would be good to get rid of them even aside from passenger rail service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1506  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 8:42 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Wouldn't it be possible to mix these routes?
Which routes were you thinking of mixing?

Quote:
The interurban route to Langley is pretty good (passes through areas where people live), and it looks like it crosses highway 1. Wouldn't a Langley train be useful right now?
While a "Langley train" would be useful, that segment has the most freight traffic. Unless you can find a way to somehow divert or get around those trains, the delays would be very frustrating for users.

Quote:
I guess the service needs to hit some baseline speed in order to be viable (not very fast in the Lower Mainland!).
To be viable, it needs to at least as fast as a bus would be. If not, why not run a bus instead?

Quote:
The overall theme of my posts is that it seems like there are a lot of rail routes in Canada that could be improved incrementally. Yet the discussion on SSP is often a binary one about whether or not to build expensive "high-speed rail".
I agree that it doesn't need to be HSR, but the question is, what advantages are there to providing rail service over providing equivalent bus service? Only the most die-hard rail fans will use a rail service that is hopelessly unreliable and significantly slower than other, cheaper options.

Quote:
Question why routes of a few hundred km with 1 million+ people don't have any passenger rail service at all and people start talking about why you're a fool for demanding a Shinkansen for Regina.
There are only 6 cities in Canada with more than 1 million people. Outside of "the corridor" only Edmonton and Calgary are within "a few hundred km" of each other. You mention Regina, but it only has a population of 215 thousand, and the only other city with a population over 50 thousand in Saskatchewan is Saskatoon (with 245 thousand).

Quote:
I think another factor in Canada is that we underspend on infrastructure and consider modest projects very expensive. The Lower Mainland's GDP is around $150B or so. Projects like the $3B Broadway train are not actually that expensive when placed into a historical context or a future context of decades of use and economic growth. And BC is one of the better provinces for transit development.
That's a fair assessment.

Quote:
Around metro Vancouver and the Lower Mainland there are many at-grade rail crossings. It would be good to get rid of them even aside from passenger rail service.
That is not unique to Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. I do agree that more should be done to grade separate busy level crossings from coast to coast. The government seems to only pay lip service to the problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1507  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 8:45 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
What about the existing WCE route, but crossing over the river at Mission (Does VIA go this way already)? Doesn't serve Surrey, but they have Skytrain that will be extended to Langley and some further transit links to our hypothetical line could be added. Rail usage patterns take decades to form as people move and build around the stations, so it makes sense to build up the rail where it already exists, rather than splintering the route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1508  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 8:54 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
I agree that it doesn't need to be HSR, but the question is, what advantages are there to providing rail service over providing equivalent bus service?
Speed would be the main advantage but there are others:

1) Good rail routes have many potential uses. Upgrades that serve one route today may serve many in the future, or may simply add resilience to the transportation network. Separating trains from roadways helps road traffic too.
2) The operating costs can be lower; buses need more drivers for the same number of passengers, and trains may not need any conductors at all.
3) People tend to prefer trains and more permanent infrastructure. Trains are normally more comfortable and can offer more services like a good work environment or food and drinks. In Europe, train rides can be a pleasant way to spend time while here in Canada our time spent on transit typically feels more like time lost in purgatory. There is more to travel than just how much time you spend, but this doesn't tend to be part of the Canadian consciousness around travel because we are so used to low standards.

We need to consider what the alternatives truly are, in concrete terms. While many rail routes are flawed, so are our existing roads and highways. Google Maps tells me to take the 503 bus from Surrey Central to Langley for example, with an expected time of 58 minutes, or the 320 with an expected time of 75 minutes not counting delays waiting for the bus (often the bus arrival times are unreliable).

That is an 18.4 km trip. The bus speed is around 15-18 km/h. So we are not talking about a train that needs to be very fast to beat the status quo. We do not have buses that run at 100 km/h on the highway or even 30 km/h. Nor do car commutes run at 30 km/h in the Lower Mainland.

Highway 1 is becoming extremely unreliable and even dangerous. In 2017 there were 1,100 accidents between Langley and Chilliwack on Highway 1 (source)! I guess this means a resident of the Lower Mainland had something like a 0.1% chance of being in a car crash on Highway 1 in 2017. Insane.

Quote:
There are only 6 cities in Canada with more than 1 million people. Outside of "the corridor" only Edmonton and Calgary are within "a few hundred km" of each other. You mention Regina, but it only has a population of 215 thousand, and the only other city with a population over 50 thousand in Saskatchewan is Saskatoon (with 245 thousand).
There are many corridors with a larger catchment area than the cities suggest. For example, I'd guess that Kitchener-London-Windsor has 1.5-2 million people. The main corridor in the Maritimes serves around 1 million residents plus more who visit from outside (the buses or regional trains would connect with this corridor). Looking at cities alone underestimates the demand.

Last edited by someone123; Aug 6, 2020 at 9:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1509  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 9:14 PM
kool maudit's Avatar
kool maudit kool maudit is offline
video et taceo
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 13,867
Stockholm to Copenhagen is a comparable route, distance-wise, to Toronto-Montreal (bit longer). Flying is too much of a hassle, what with airports and transit to airports etc. Driving takes over your day, is tiring/monotonous, and takes longer than the 5 hour train ride.

The train allows you to get work done, have lunch, relax. It brings you from centre city to centre city. I use it exclusively for this trip. Why would it be inherently uncompetitive in Canada, once it is properly set up?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1510  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 9:33 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit View Post
The train allows you to get work done, have lunch, relax. It brings you from centre city to centre city. I use it exclusively for this trip. Why would it be inherently uncompetitive in Canada, once it is properly set up?
Oregon does not have self-serve gas stations because they will destroy jobs and untrained gas pumpers will spill gas everywhere, light it on fire, and blow up the gas stations.

Here in BC if we had people drinking beer in parks the wheels would fall off of our society. Even crowds are dangerous so the police come and clear people out after the fireworks, etc. Thankfully covid has eliminated that social problem.

In China, they are not ready for democratic elections. They sort of work in the West but China has a different culture and a large uneducated rural underclass that cannot be allowed to make decisions for itself.

In Saudi Arabia, all kinds of bad things will happen if women are allowed to do what they feel like.

(I think there is more going on than just cultural insularity and inflexible institutions, but I believe they are bigger factors than economic or engineering concerns.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1511  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2020, 11:55 PM
CivicBlues CivicBlues is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 947
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Oregon does not have self-serve gas stations because they will destroy jobs and untrained gas pumpers will spill gas everywhere, light it on fire, and blow up the gas stations.

Here in BC if we had people drinking beer in parks the wheels would fall off of our society. Even crowds are dangerous so the police come and clear people out after the fireworks, etc. Thankfully covid has eliminated that social problem.

In China, they are not ready for democratic elections. They sort of work in the West but China has a different culture and a large uneducated rural underclass that cannot be allowed to make decisions for itself.

In Saudi Arabia, all kinds of bad things will happen if women are allowed to do what they feel like.

(I think there is more going on than just cultural insularity and inflexible institutions, but I believe they are bigger factors than economic or engineering concerns.)
Your examples are a bit out of date.

We are allowing public drinking in BC in certain parks and public squares as of 2020
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...arks-1.5620363

Oregon has lifted it's prohibition on Self-service
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020...ronavirus.html

Saudi Arabia has allowed women to drive in 2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_to_drive_movement

In China, the one place you can directly elect a representative/village chief is in small towns and rural areas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electi...9;s_Congresses
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1512  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2020, 12:10 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by CivicBlues View Post
Your examples are a bit out of date.

We are allowing public drinking in BC in certain parks and public squares as of 2020
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...arks-1.5620363

Oregon has lifted it's prohibition on Self-service
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020...ronavirus.html

Saudi Arabia has allowed women to drive in 2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_to_drive_movement

In China, the one place you can directly elect a representative/village chief is in small towns and rural areas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electi...9;s_Congresses
I think you proved his point further, most of what you posted is only minor concessions and the overall situations remain stupidly restrictive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1513  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2020, 12:22 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Yet the discussion on SSP is often a binary one about whether or not to build expensive "high-speed rail". Question why routes of a few hundred km with 1 million+ people don't have any passenger rail service at all and people start talking about why you're a fool for demanding a Shinkansen for Regina.
In the rest of the world they wouldn't be building rail between cities the size of Regina and Saskatoon, before cities like like Toronto-Montreal and Calgary-Edmonton had proper service. That doesn't mean HSR. But what we talk about as VIA's ambitious HFR plan is literally baseline regular rail service for a lot of the developed world.

Also, people love to bring up some tiny ass town in Europe as evidence that everybody gets rail service over there. But those towns are usually on a rail line between much larger cities or in the commuter shed of one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1514  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2020, 12:29 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Also, people love to bring up some tiny ass town in Europe as evidence that everybody gets rail service over there. But those towns are usually on a rail line between much larger cities or in the commuter shed of one.
Most of the towns can be served by routes connecting larger cities, and I agree that it is wrong to suggest that small towns alone support those routes. But some small towns that aren't on those routes have service in Europe too. Sweden has a 200 km/h stretch of rail line serving Umeå, population 130,000.

I don't think it is or should be a zero sum game in Canada where rail service in Saskatchewan means less service for Toronto and Montreal. The places that can support service should get service; provinces chip in for capital spending and wider use encourages greater federal contribution. I don't think anybody is arguing that major urban routes in Canada should not have rail service. There's no "give Saskatchewan rail service instead of Ontario" lobby as far as I can see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1515  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2020, 12:44 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
I agree that it doesn't need to be HSR, but the question is, what advantages are there to providing rail service over providing equivalent bus service? Only the most die-hard rail fans will use a rail service that is hopelessly unreliable and significantly slower than other, cheaper options.
HSR isn't needed everywhere. But it is bonkers that we haven't even started building it on Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, Toronto-Kitchener-London and Calgary-Edmonton. Any city pair that is a few hundred km apart and approaching hourly flights between them can support HSR. Calgary-Edmonton and Ottawa-Montreal would have ex-urban commuter traffic on any HSR.

HFR type of service can be supported and should be built in a number of markets: Vancouver-Chilliwack, Regina-Moose Jaw-Saskatoon, Winnipeg-Portage-Brandon, Halifax-Moncton-Fredricton. I think all these markets could support a single track hourly service in each direction with at least a 2-car DMU.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1516  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2020, 12:52 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
One effect for rail lines connecting cities only a couple hours apart is that the entire trip is within the commuter shed of one of the endpoints. For example if you head into Toronto and you're 1 hour away, or even a bit more, you can serve Toronto commuters as long as the pricing is reasonable enough. If you go back and forth between Kitchener and Toronto you've got a service for Kitchener commuters, Toronto commuters, and people going back and forth between the cities. Many European routes are like this, useful for different types of trips.

VIA's current services outside of perhaps a few main routes aren't like this at all. Too long, too expensive, too infrequent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1517  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2020, 1:03 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
But some small towns that aren't on those routes have service in Europe too. Sweden has a 200 km/h stretch of rail line serving Umeå, population 130,000.
First off, these are exceptions, not the rule. And Europeans see passenger rail very differently. It is vital economic and strategic infrastructure. Not a luxury. They also use these services more. So a town of 130k probably generates more riders than Kingston or London, ON. Also, 130k is not exactly small.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I don't think anybody is arguing that major urban routes in Canada should not have rail service. There's no "give Saskatchewan rail service instead of Ontario" lobby as far as I can see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I don't think it is or should be a zero sum game in Canada where rail service in Saskatchewan means less service for Toronto and Montreal.
In theory, it shouldn't be a zero sum game. In reality? The rest of the country would absolutely lose their fucking minds if the Liberals announced a $15 billion (what it would cost) high speed rail line for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. Politicians have played regions off against each other for so long, this is how it is viewed. Heck, VIA had to appease all the Lakeshore communities in Ontario just to ensure they weren't campaigning against HFR.

And the above plays into VIA's image too. They are saddled with ridiculously expensive essential regional or national routes that they are mandated to operate at huge cost. They are given no money to expand the profitable routes. So VIA always looks like a giant money pit making both politicians and the public reluctant to support large investments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The places that can support service should get service; provinces chip in for capital spending and wider use encourages greater federal contribution.
This is exactly how Amtrak operates in various states in the US. They even have bus services that connect to their stations. I've said repeatedly on here that we should do this in Canada. But I'm also not sure how many provinces would be up for it. For example, if the feds showed up in Alberta tomorrow with an HFR proposal for Calgary-Edmonton tomorrow at a billion dollars, how much do you think the province would willingly to contribute to capital costs? Personally, I think the feds could offer to build the thing and they'd still refuse to subsidize operation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1518  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2020, 1:44 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Also, people love to bring up some tiny ass town in Europe as evidence that everybody gets rail service over there. But those towns are usually on a rail line between much larger cities or in the commuter shed of one.
Define tiny ass town - northern Scotland has decent rail service while having low population density and not being in commuter distance. No, the Scottish north wouldn't be the place you invest in first if Glasgow - Edinburgh didn't have service, but the railways are decently serviced, decently used and there would be uproar if they were taken away. However, there is a big difference in that they have been there for hundreds of years with people using them this whole time. Implementing something from scratch would be different.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1519  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2020, 1:50 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
For example, if the feds showed up in Alberta tomorrow with an HFR proposal for Calgary-Edmonton tomorrow at a billion dollars, how much do you think the province would willingly to contribute to capital costs? Personally, I think the feds could offer to build the thing and they'd still refuse to subsidize operation.
You are correct, however that's mainly because of the dipshit Kenney and his minions who only views things through some Ben Shapiroesque ideology rather than reality. With a different leadership, even a conservative one, things might be different. Before my time in Alberta, but I understand that in the good old days of high oil prices the government would have contemplated big infrastructure projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1520  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2020, 1:51 AM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,284
I don't know why we fight so hard about this. We need a high speed rail line from Toronto to Montreal. There.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.