Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[kEiThZ]

If we're talking about costs, I just came across this study (PDF).
Published by OECD and the International Transport Forum, page 10 of 38 says:

Thanks for that. It's good to see some substantive study on the the topic.

 

[cacruden]

But no mode of transport is more dependent on public subsidies than passenger rail in Canada. Not only that....There seems to be no hope of ever spinning off Via like Air Canada. And there is a difference with HSR. When governments build roads, airports, and rail, they design them so that anyone can operate on them. They are built to the lowest common denominator.....ie if your can can hit 100 you can get on the 401. If your plane has the right instrumentation, you can operate in controlled airspace. The government, however, does not build 200 kph lanes specifically for use by a single bus line that only serves Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and possibly, Kingston.

There are a lot of problems with Via, which is why I would not have them run the railway - which is what I would expect to be part of the RFP process. First, cross country passenger rail should be scrapped, second - the federal government should not take the lead -it should be provincial since only Quebec, and mostly Ontario will benefit. In fact, it should be part of the proposal to elimate the federal subsidies of the railway. The only real role for the federal government is to chip in on capital costs - through infrastructure funding. It should not be restricted to domestic either - if an international company can do a better job - let them run it.

 

[kEiThZ]

An alternative view of HSR:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9753

While I am skeptical of some claims here...he does raise some good questions. Will HSR displace freight from rail? Does HSR actually get cars of the road or does it instead succeed through subsidy, in sinking successful private businesses (commuter airlines)? Who covers the re-capitalization costs and infrastructure maintenance costs? etc.

Read the report. I would love to here some critiques of the arguments he's made.

 

[kEiThZ]

There are a lot of problems with Via, which is why I would not have them run the railway - which is what I would expect to be part of the RFP process. First, cross country passenger rail should be scrapped, second - the federal government should not take the lead -it should be provincial since only Quebec, and mostly Ontario will benefit. In fact, it should be part of the proposal to elimate the federal subsidies of the railway. The only real role for the federal government is to chip in on capital costs - through infrastructure funding. It should not be restricted to domestic either - if an international company can do a better job - let them run it.

This being Canada:

1) It is more like that service in Windsor-VDQ corridor would be pared down rather than cross-country rail service.

2) Ontario and Quebec have no hope of succeeding at managing such a project when they can't even agree on letting each other's plumbers and electricians to practice across the provincial border.

3) There is no way the federal government is going to hand over one of the largest infrastructure subsidies in history without being some say.

4) There is no way in hell, that taxpayers would then turn around and tolerate foreigners run the whole show with that much Canadian tax dollars sunk in there.

 

[urbanfan89]

But, did Cato consider the positive externalities of having more transportation choices? How is it fair that we have no problem with subsidizing air and road transport (macroeconomically, at least) yet we must insist that rail pays its own way? Perhaps we should abolish GO Transit and TTC, since they are being subsidized by tax dollars. Let's build the first transit-free city of the world!

As for the Cato report, 1) since the HSR will be built on expanded capacity it should not affect freight rail, and 2) the air industry is already being subsidized, since they don't pay for hidden costs.

What if the cost of fuel were to again skyrocket further than it did in the past year? Any society that depends on cars and planes for transportation would be toast.

If Canada had this attitude in 1870, then the Canadian Pacific Railway would never have been built because it was a massive project which cost taxpayers a lot, and which could not turn a profit from day one (as opposed to HSR in Toronto/Montreal, which likely would turn a profit). After all, who could make money laying tracks through miles of Saskatchewan grassland?

 

[waterloowarrior]

An alternative view of HSR:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9753

While I am skeptical of some claims here...he does raise some good questions. Will HSR displace freight from rail? Does HSR actually get cars of the road or does it instead succeed through subsidy, in sinking successful private businesses (commuter airlines)? Who covers the re-capitalization costs and infrastructure maintenance costs? etc.

Read the report. I would love to here some critiques of the arguments he's made.

"by Randal O'Toole" nuff said
this person writes opinion columns across the US and Canada against rail (especially light rail) and is pro-car anti-urban planning, anti-growth management, etc... he will argue that building new roads is better for the environment than more transit etc.. he uses misleading statistics etc (ala wendell cox). one of his latest 'studies' found that rail transit reduces the livability of every urban area in which it is found. I will let someone else argue his actual points

here's his 9-part series on [against] high speed rail
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=559

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Though I am an advocate for HSR in the Quebec-Windsor corridor I can admit that the one thing that most advocates fail to do, and is really to the detriment of HSR, is not be honest about a lot of the questions that still surround HSR in a North American context. Simply put, density matters, and Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, all cities in the corridor, do not have the density that European cities do and without that density it means that someone who lives in say Markham or Vaughan or Richmond Hill might not find it all that convenient once commuting time is added on too travel time. Not too mention cities such as Hamilton which are effectively ignored, even by basic commuter rail service, and would likely not be a potential customer base for HSR. I bring this up because this is just one good example of HSR advocates leaving themselves open to attack, rightfully so, for not addressing fully a pretty fundamental issue such as potential customer base.

And yes, HSR probably would take a sizable share of the current airline traffic, but is that goal really all that great? Personally I think HSR should also be targeting highway travel, and though that is harder to do, especially in an auto-centric, North American society, it is really the only way HSR can have an impact beyond a simple modal shift. And currently no HSR plans or advocates have come forward with a plan that specifically targets automobile traffic. And assuming that people will drive as long as need to be to their nearest HSR station just so they can take a train is not a plan. I do not mean this as a negative critique of North American society, but, people want convenience. The automobile is still champ in that respect and if HSR is to become a truly desirable option over automobile travel (or automobile/short plane ride) it better be really damned convenient. Honestly, would someone from Markham or Hamilton who has too battle traffic to get to an HSR station, and do it again on the way home, really see it as all that convenient (especially when they can battle traffic and take a plane which is going to have a pretty short travel time)?

There are lots of other well known issues surrounding HSR. Airlines, airport authorities, rail freight companies and track ownership issues, safety and design standard for passenger rail vehicles, too name a few. But most of these can probably be overcome with even the slightest political backbone. But until these issues, and much larger ones, are all addressed, and put into a plan that would benefit a majority of those living in the corridor, and in a manner that isn't just transplanting European ideas but actually considers the realities of North American society, it isn't likely to gain much traction. This is particularly true when no political leader is going to take it upon his or herself to push it in a dictatorial type fashion and when economic concerns and wise spending of public money are particularly important concerns at the moment.

And I don't want to make it sound as though HSR can't happen or work in North American regions, because I do believe it can. But HSR advocates (whether involved in the private sector or a public advocacy group or whatever), better be a lot more realistic and honest about the challenges instead of trying to sell the idea on warm and fuzzy thoughts of environmental do-gooding and cool looking, fast moving trains.

 

[Whoaccio]

O'Toole does have to be taken with a grain of salt, it is clear that he rights with a very, shall we say, focused train of thought (pun!). Some of his use of statistics is quite poor, and misleading. I haven't really had time to dissect the report, but right off the top the hallmark he uses for HSR energy savings was Florida's proposal, which used Bombardier's jet engine trains. His treatment of the Japanese HSR industry was appalling as well. The idea of complaining about the Japanese government absorbing the capital costs of HSR construction is extremely hypocritical in light of the hyper subsidized nature of the US Interstate system. More than that, the exact same thing happened to the Japanese highway system during the 1980s. Politicians kept lobbying for superhighways to reach villages, for no real reason, and eventually the government had to just absorb the debt and privatize the successful parts. There was not one mention of that. Japan did this for everything, I think they actually sold off their parliament in the 90's to raise capital. How could Shinkansen possibly displace freight rail? He specifically pointed out that the two run on different gauges. It is impossible that one could displace the other.

I think AS made a good summary of some areas where HSR fans haven't done a good job of making their case. O'Toole does make some valid points on the cost efficacy of HSR. I think I read it with a mind to taking issue with everything he writes, so I'll try to look through it again to see what I get the second time round. From my own personal observations on the California initiative, I'm highly frustrated by the half assed nature of discourse. The main selling point of HSR seems to be Europe has trains, Japan has trains, we should have trains. Even if HSRs cured cancer, I should hope we could think of a few better reasons than 'Europe jumped off a bridge...'

EDIT: I also distrust O'Toole for wearing a bolo tie.

 

[MisterF]

AnarchoSocialist, those issues are more or less addressed. WRT density, there's a number of points to address that -
-The cities in the Windsor-Quebec corridor, especially Toronto and Montreal, are closer to European density than most North American cities.
-I don't know about Montreal, but there's major commuter rail upgrades planned in Toronto. First in line for electrification is the line to Hamilton.
-Some of the high speed trains will probably stop in places like Oshawa and Peel Region.
-Finally, I'd argue density is less important than you think. You could make the same argument for airports, that someone in Markham or Scarborough might not find it convenient to go to Pearson and fly from there. If anything access to Union, especially after major GO upgrades, will be a lot easier than access to Pearson. Plus, travel time won't be any less when you're flying, especially for business and liesure travellers who are usually going downtown.

I'm not sure how you'd design an HSR system that focuses on highway travel more than air travel, or what would be different about a system that takes "realities of North American society" into account. Obviously a lot more drivers would choose the train if we had HSR, but cars still have the advantage of flexibility that planes and trains just can't match, no matter how fast they are. People will always drive, as they do in Europe. Planes, OTOH, have no advantages over HSR for travellers.

 

[nfitz]

-I don't know about Montreal, but there's major commuter rail upgrades planned in Toronto. First in line for electrification is the line to Hamilton.

There's many in line before that one. Electrication of the Lakeshore line is still in the planning stage, and is unfunded. GO has a website that documents the many projects that are actually in the construction phase - http://www.gotransit.com/gotrip/index.asp

The highlight being the third track on the Lakeshore line. Union to Eglinton and Burlington to Bayview is now operation, with Port Credit to Oakville to be completed next summer. There have been reports that this will lead to an increase in frequency of all-day service on the Lakeshore line from 1 train per hour (TPH) to 2 TPH next fall - which is a start. Transport for London doesn't count lines as High Frequency until they get to 4 TPH.

 

[hkric88]

This is an argument that tends to be missed during most attempts to correlate simultaneous trends: High speed rail in Japan apparently, according to this report, was correlated with a massive increase in personal vehicle travel.

Great, what would have happened if the high-speed rail was never built. Honestly, what the f**k could Mr. Tool have to say about that.

What a silly argument. Reminds me of Kunstler: a retard who thinks he's awful smart, though not quite as bad.

 

[jswag]

There's many in line before that one. Electrication of the Lakeshore line is still in the planning stage, and is unfunded. GO has a website that documents the many projects that are actually in the construction phase - http://www.gotransit.com/gotrip/index.asp

The highlight being the third track on the Lakeshore line. Union to Eglinton and Burlington to Bayview is now operation, with Port Credit to Oakville to be completed next summer. There have been reports that this will lead to an increase in frequency of all-day service on the Lakeshore line from 1 train per hour (TPH) to 2 TPH next fall - which is a start. Transport for London doesn't count lines as High Frequency until they get to 4 TPH.

I believe Metrolinx is funding the electrification of the entire Lakeshore line. It is also one of their top priorities.

 

[kEiThZ]

But, did Cato consider the positive externalities of having more transportation choices? How is it fair that we have no problem with subsidizing air and road transport (macroeconomically, at least) yet we must insist that rail pays its own way?

Aviation may be subsidized elsewhere quite heavily. But that's not the case in Canada. We charge the highest fees for aviation in the world. Road transport, however, is a different story. But this is what makes it interesting. HSR is being targetted at flyers not at drivers. And therein lies the problem, the way I see it. If you want to address the externalities, isn't it better to target drivers?

Perhaps we should abolish GO Transit and TTC, since they are being subsidized by tax dollars. Let's build the first transit-free city of the world!

We aren't discussing local rail here.....GO/TTC rail has nothing in common with long-distance rail save that they use metal-on-metal.

As for the Cato report, 1) since the HSR will be built on expanded capacity it should not affect freight rail, and 2) the air industry is already being subsidized, since they don't pay for hidden costs.

1) That's still to be determined.
2) The aviation industry pays all its direct costs, while passenger rail still requires direct subsidies to survive. Sure they don't pay externalities, but neither does the rail or commercial bus or trucking sectors either.

If Canada had this attitude in 1870, then the Canadian Pacific Railway would never have been built because it was a massive project which cost taxpayers a lot, and which could not turn a profit from day one (as opposed to HSR in Toronto/Montreal, which likely would turn a profit). After all, who could make money laying tracks through miles of Saskatchewan grassland?

In 1870, there were no airplanes and there was no Trans-Canada highway. The railway was of strategic importance because it tied the country together. That is not the case today. Airplanes tie the country together far more effectively than rail and at shorter distances, highways do a fairly effective job as well. Today, we are merely debating what's the most cost-effective way to tie the country together, not whether there is a way to do it or not.

"by Randal O'Toole" nuff said

I will agree that I do not agree with his general outlook on urban transport. He seems particularly ill-disposed towards light rail. However, he does raise some good points about the cost effectiveness of HSR and the European experience with HSR displacing freight. That would be a nightmare if it happened here. One of North America's strengths is that we move a lot of our freight by rail.

Though I am an advocate for HSR in the Quebec-Windsor corridor I can admit that the one thing that most advocates fail to do, and is really to the detriment of HSR, is not be honest about a lot of the questions that still surround HSR in a North American context.

Thank you. Exactly. We need to debate these questions without blinders on. I don't want my government saddled with a white elephant project. But if this report to come, provides sound basis for HSR, then I will most certainly support it.

Simply put, density matters, and Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, all cities in the corridor, do not have the density that European cities do and without that density it means that someone who lives in say Markham or Vaughan or Richmond Hill might not find it all that convenient once commuting time is added on too travel time. Not too mention cities such as Hamilton which are effectively ignored, even by basic commuter rail service, and would likely not be a potential customer base for HSR. I bring this up because this is just one good example of HSR advocates leaving themselves open to attack, rightfully so, for not addressing fully a pretty fundamental issue such as potential customer base.

I think it's more a case of the density of the catchment areas. But in this case, I think HSR has a good case. It's catchment area would probably be quite similar to that of Pearson and it would arguably be bigger since access points would be distributed (ie stops at Guildwood, Oshawa, etc.)

And yes, HSR probably would take a sizable share of the current airline traffic, but is that goal really all that great?

Exactly. And this is my question. Is it worthwhile to use tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to wipe out a profitable private commercial aviation industry for the 1% of emissions it generates while ignoring the thousands of cars traveling down the 401/416 between the three cities. That's why I think it'd be far more cost-effective merely to upgrade the line and keep the fares low - while trying to attract folks who drive currently.

Personally I think HSR should also be targeting highway travel, and though that is harder to do, especially in an auto-centric, North American society, it is really the only way HSR can have an impact beyond a simple modal shift. And currently no HSR plans or advocates have come forward with a plan that specifically targets automobile traffic.

+1. That's exactly what I want to see. Moreover, if we start leaving out intermediate stops, what do folks think will happen with all those potential HSR customers. For example, if we leave out Cobourg or Belleville, how sure are the HSR planners that folks would drive over an hour to the nearest HSR station (Oshawa or Kingston)?

This is particularly true when no political leader is going to take it upon his or herself to push it in a dictatorial type fashion and when economic concerns and wise spending of public money are particularly important concerns at the moment.

The price tag might perhaps be justified. It's the potential for significant recurring costs that probably stifles political commitment, particularly if government will be on the hook for recapitalization costs.

Some of his use of statistics is quite poor, and misleading. I haven't really had time to dissect the report, but right off the top the hallmark he uses for HSR energy savings was Florida's proposal, which used Bombardier's jet engine trains.

The reason he used that stat is that's what was in the report done by the authorities in Florida themselves. He has cited his sources there.

The main selling point of HSR seems to be Europe has trains, Japan has trains, we should have trains. Even if HSRs cured cancer, I should hope we could think of a few better reasons than 'Europe jumped off a bridge...'

This is ultimately what is worrying me here. In the rush to immitate all things European we might be screwing up the things we do well (freight by rail). HSR might be needed, but its effectiveness needs to be thoroughly studied in the Canadian context (not US or European operating environments).

AnarchoSocialist, those issues are more or less addressed. WRT density, there's a number of points to address that -
-The cities in the Windsor-Quebec corridor, especially Toronto and Montreal, are closer to European density than most North American cities.
...
-Finally, I'd argue density is less important than you think. You could make the same argument for airports, that someone in Markham or Scarborough might not find it convenient to go to Pearson and fly from there.

It's not the density of the corridor per se, it'll be the density of the catchment areas surrounding each station that determine potential ridership. This creates conflicting goals though. For example, this means that we might need stops in the burbs to create new catchment areas. I will concede though, that the faster the train, the larger the catchment area is likely to be. Once you start approaching airplane times, customers will be willing to travel just as far as Pearson to ride the train.

I'm not sure how you'd design an HSR system that focuses on highway travel more than air travel, or what would be different about a system that takes "realities of North American society" into account.

More stops outside of the downtown areas?

 

[Whoaccio]

Keithz, Jn12 -

Both of you seem to know quite a bit about air travel in Canada. I hear of late that Pearson contributes roughly 2/3rds of Canada's airport fees despite only making up 1/3rd of passenger volume. Is it true that federal fees on Pearson are disproportionate to federal fees on, say, Trudeau or Vancouver? How are airport fees even calculated?

 

[jn_12]

I don't know to be honest. I know more about the Island Airport and Porter's role in the industry.

Here's my best guess: You mention passenger cargo. Do you mean cargo in general? or just people? Because the amount of cargo that goes through Pearson is (according to wikipedia) roughly 500k tonnes. As a comparison, CDG in Paris does about 2.5million, LHR in London does 1.5million and YVR in Vancouver does about 250k.

So Pearson probably accounts for half of the country's cargo movements, and 1/3rd of the passenger movements. Not sure how this comes to 2/3rds of the airport fees collected nationally, but fiddling around with some numbers could probably answer that.

I should also say I don't know how fees are determined. I do know that all airports have a NAV Canada charge. At the Island it's $15 per ticket purchased. Nav Canada's website has a breakdown of how they calculate the fees but I don't really get it. http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.a...rvices\ChargesAndAdmin\Calculator\default.xml


I guess a good question is whether similar fees would be expected from HSR travel? I'm very surprised that an additional railway improvement tax isn't included in ticket purchases on VIA. Considering a ridership of roughly 5 million, a $2 fee per ticket could go a long way towards improving some smaller aspects of the system. Imagine if it was more along the lines of what we see at airports? Obviously the higher ticket price would deter some people from buying tickets but let's just say it didn't... $10 improvement fees would do some amazing work.