Bad news...
Governments should not be so fast to write off bullet train
High-speed train would cost more, but you could take money from road budget
HENRY AUBIN , The Gazette
Published: Saturday, January 19, 2008
When Ottawa, Quebec and Ontario last week announced a study to explore the feasibility of a swift new train between Quebec City and Windsor, Ont., federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon's press release omitted an important detail. It did not say what kind of fast train was under consideration.
There are two main kinds. Let's call one category the TGV-type (named after France's train à grande vitesse, although other countries have competitive models). It requires a special track for much of its run and can cruise at 300 kilometres or more per hour. The second kind of train is the more conventional high-speed model whose speed is roughly 200 km/h.
A spokesperson for Cannon said yesterday the study would only explore this second, slower kind. Too bad.
I know what you're thinking: "The TGV model would be terribly expensive." And it would be. A 1999 study by industry (which envisaged the project as a public-private partnership) estimated such a train would cost taxpayers $7.5 billion for infrastructure; the private sector would pay an additional $3.6 billion for rolling stock and other equipment. A 2003 study said the total cost of a simple high-speed model would be $3 billion.
Would the huge cost of the TGV be unaffordable? I'll come back to this issue of cost in a moment, but first let's consider the TGV's advantages.
According to the 1999 study, it would cut the travel time between Montreal and Toronto to two hours and 21 minutes. That's just over half the time of VIA Rail's fastest train today (four hours and 20 minutes). A conventional high-speed train would take three hours and 15 minutes.
If it is to be a financial success, a new train would have to attract businesspeople. For them, the main allure of air travel between Montreal and Toronto is that it permits them to have meetings in the other city and be home in time for dinner. The TGV would allow them to do that. The high-speed model would make this harder.
The need to curb greenhouse gases is, of course, one of the main reasons for either kind of train. The conventional high-speed train would run on diesel fuel. Transport 2000 estimates such a train would churn out about half as much greenhouse gases per traveller mile as most cars and one-third to one-quarter as much as a plane. But the TGV would do even better: It would run on relatively clean hydro-electricity for much (if not all) of its route.
Now that we've seen the clear superiority of the TGV, let's go back to the crucial question of whether it's affordable.
I'm an advocate of frugal government. But there's a staggeringly simple way for the federal and provincial governments to pay for really good train service - and, no, I don't mean by increasing the debt.
That way is to redirect much of the money they now spend on new highways. I stress the word "new." (I'm not talking taking money away from such essential work as repairing roads and fixing crumbling overpasses.) The Quebec government said last fall it would spend $5.2 billion on new highways in 2008-2012. Given that motor vehicles are Quebec's No. 1 source of greenhouse gases, it's nuts to encourage more use of cars.
The Charest government is now nibbling at the climate-change problem by tightening cars' fuel-economy standards, but if it were to shift its bucks from asphalt to tracks it could take a real bite out of Quebec's contributions to global warming.
Trains, not cars, also should be Ottawa's focus. In 2002-03, federal subsidies and grants to the rail system ($288 million) were greater than to the highway system ($235 million). There's been a reversal since then. By 2006-07, according to Transport Canada figures, help to rail had shrunk ($191 million) while highway aid had soared ($964 million). That's right, highways are getting five times as much support as rail.
The feds are going in precisely the wrong direction.
The mandate that the Harper, Charest and McGuinty governments have given to their new study is far too narrow. Let's not be too speedy in dismissing the TGV.
haubin@thegazette.canwest.com
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2008
****
If this is true it's incredibly shortsighted of the governments. We don't want a half-assed high speed line like Acela in the US. A cheaper, slower train on existing tracks would require bigger, heavier trains to meet North American crash standards, which would be murder on parts like brakes. Exactly the problems that Acela's been having. It also wouldn't be as successful, as the travel time from Toronto to Montreal would be more than 3 hours.
