https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1548029348199813120?s=20&t=tom32izajkBfUjQZDAs43A
The Quebec City-Windsor corridor is the most densely populated region in Canada. The last time I checked Wikipedia, it was reported to house about 18 million people, or about half of Canada's entire population.
So it is not surprising that there have been numerous high-speed rail studies for this corridor over the decades, as well as studies for other important links in Alberta (Edmonton-Calgary) and other parts of the country.
And yet, Canada remains the only G7 country without any high-speed rail. Though to be fair, the US doesn't have all that much either; certainly with respect to the size of its population.
However, there is some good news. In March of this year, the Government of Canada announced a Request for Expression of Interest related to high frequency rail service between Quebec City and Toronto. More information, over here.
But from what I have read, it'll be a faster upgraded service (~200 km/h), but not true high-speed rail (~250-300 km/h). I took the TGV from Marseille to Paris last summer, and this is how fast we were going:
If we're going to do this, let's be the absolute best in the world and not settle for mediocrity.
If you can't see the Twitter poll below, click here:
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1547268634661322754?s=20&t=p6Tvuq9hsn_CUmQ0kO6KaQ
At the time of writing this post, affordability was number one, followed by design and beauty, and then sustainability.
Some of you were right to point out that these options are not always mutually exclusive. Affordability and sustainability, for instance, can be mutually reinforcing.
Building in walkable and transit-rich neighborhoods where parking is not needed is both good for overall affordability (parking is usually a loss leader) and better for the environment.
But in other cases, sustainability costs more. Triple-glazed windows might perform better than conventional double-glazed, but they're also more expensive.
Now, as a general rule, I believe in working hard to find the mutually reinforcing opportunities. How can we check all of the boxes and not have to compromise?
But sometimes there's no other option. So it is interesting to see how people answer the above question. Not surprisingly, affordability is top of mind.
Which would you pick?
This is an interesting chart from Nathaniel Bullard over at Bloomberg Green. In 1985 (the start of this chart), coal-fired power was responsible for about 38% of global electricity generation. This particular stat hasn't changed all that much since then -- the current figure is around 36% -- but renewables have gone from 0.8% to 13% of global electricity. That is something. Since 2010, renewables are adding about 0.8% market share each year, and presumably this rate will only increase going forward. (Here, renewable power is defined as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and small hydropower.)
Chart: Bloomberg Green
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
