Trains For America

More choices for better transportation

HSR and centralization: Quebec-Ontario HSR continues long controversy

High-speed rail has a simple purpose, right? Decrease the travel time between two points, what geographers call the “relative distance.” For better or worse though, bringing far flung places into close contact with the country’s core can bring homogenization and control along with economic benefits and convenience. This was one of the primary rationales for China’s elaborate railway into the core of Tibet, and the Basque nationalist group ETA has often stated their intention of targeting any Avé line into the region. Of course, it’s not a usually a problem here in the US… we’re highly mobile to begin with, and regional separatists are aren’t exactly easy to come by (I know do someone who leans that way sometimes, however…).

Canada, on the other hand, has to contend with the particular political and cultural position of Quebec within the country, and one Liberal MP has recently stirred up trouble by talking about “national unity” with regard to a proposed HSR line from Quebec City to Windsor. The Bloc Québécois, however, isn’t taking the bait.

“Imagine that the people of Quebec are prepared to engage in . . . spending money that’s taken out of the province of Quebec to build a line that’s going to make it easier for them to connect with southern Ontario,” Volpe said in an interview, as parliamentary hearings wrapped up last week on high-speed rail.

“I’m not happy with (Volpe’s) statement (on national unity),” said Bloc transport, infrastructure and communities critic Mario Laframboise. “It’s not a question of politics, it’s an environmental and economic question. We must achieve transport systems for the 21st century.”

Be happy that, despite a myriad of other issues, “national unity” is not a particular stumbling point for American HSR.

Filed under: International High Speed Rail, United States High Speed Rail

4 Responses

  1. I work for the St Louis Metro, and support public transportation. However, I worry that mass transit’s centralizing effect may be troublesome to environmentalists. I’m an environmentalist, and oppose nuclear energy because it involves a centralization of government and industrial power. So far, environmentalists have supported public transit for its low carbon emissions. If our government builds large-scale HSR lines across the country, some may oppose them for the centralization. I’ll have to do some more reading and blog on this issue later.

  2. NikolasM says:

    Matthew. $4 gas showed that a spread out way of life is untenable. It will be economics more than anything that will bring about density, and rail is perfect for it.

  3. Régis Labeaume is very pro this project. He mentions this often in the Quebec City newspapers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

June 2009
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Categories

%d bloggers like this: