Another great article. Here's a fun little fact: When the Toronto Bypass (now Highway 401) was being built, many of these farmers used the same arguments we see now with Alto.
However, after a little money, and expropriation, the highway was built.
I also find it very funny that Doug Ford is trying to pander to the NIMBY's by suggesting the train corridor follows Highway 401, but is very adamant on bulldozing swaths of land for the Bradford Bypass (Highway 413).
The next argument that we botched Crosstown, therefore we can't build rail is also flat. I cannot speak about what happened, but the conditions that caused Crosstown does not apply to exposed rail. We are also forgetting places like Vancouver, who built the SkyTrain in a fairly quick manner.
All in all, I've kinda taken a step back with the public transit discourse, especially online. It can get very draining, and it reminds me of mudslinging at times. It's nice to read a level-headed article with nuance.
What few want to discuss is why a passenger railway has to be in the public sector, and why pipelines can be in the private sector. Also, what few on either side want to discuss what the largest barrier to building pipelines is today and how it applies to railway construction, and how REM was the exception to that. Or how the failure to be an of exception was the cause of CDPQ withdrawing from REM East.
There are private and public goods, and costs of choices made by individuals that affect many others. Other highway users of crowded highways have cause to want as many others as possible to be taking other means. Every driver who has a cause such that transit or inter-city rail is not good for them (excessive baggage, a bunch of people traveling together, etc.) should hope that it is the best choice for as many other potential drivers as possible. A single train carrying 600 people is likely removing 400 or so cars from the road. The difference between 1800 vehicles/hour and 2200 in a lane is the difference between crowded flow and stopped. The lion's share of the benefit of that railway does not find its way into the market transactions.
Having said that, stability in the regulatory regime, the ability to actually plan and move forward without constant political risk and demand for changes that are simply not viable, and also not seeking the maximalist projects that will create their own failures, are all requirements for getting things done. This, along with no dangerous political grandstanding to create risk that is not required. I will be the first to say, the Ottawa-Montreal portion of the project for high speed should be the easiest, and the hardest to create honest doubt about alternatives around. Even if looking at this in city pair terms (how I believe it should be) this is the portion that Via already owns, that requires substantial straightening to make fast, and the one with the least outlandishly expensive construction.
I have real doubts about the Toronto Ottawa proposals, serious questions about a stop in Peterborough and how that would make sense, given the travel time implications for the entire route. If you are ok with that, why not just invest in the existing Montreal-Toronto corridor, removing level crossings, straightening the few spots where 200 kp/h plus speeds are not possible now, and add 2 more pair of tracks? The promised travel time requires an average travel speed just shy of 190kph, where the 70km across Ottawa, and the 60 or so on approach to both Montreal and Toronto are likely to be below 120.
That is likely 100 minutes of the promised 180 will perforce be required to cover the 190 km of the 560 or so km (leaving 80 minutes to cover the remaining 370). So, 5 minutes stopped, plus slowing, and speeding up for Peterborough would seem material. Even a 5-minute stop would likely mean losing 7 or 8 minutes in travel time, time you don't have if you are actually making that trip in 3 hours. We need to be making rail more time and comfort competitive, spending the minimum dollars for the maximum effect, which means time from departure to arrival, not the vanity of maximum speed. We need to build a lot of infrastructure to make that happen, but it should be for the maximum benefit. It may be that the best way to achieve reduced travel times also happens to reduce risks associated with freight rail operations, and make them more competitive with highways as well. Again, if you are stuck in a car, because you are moving your sister to Montreal for school, would you not be happier to have fewer trucks and cars sharing the road with you?
Consider the Conservatives track record with mega projects when in government:
Diefenbaker as a Conservative killed the Trans Canada Pipeline that would have refined Alberta crude in Montreal, and thus forced Canada into importing oil from Venezuela to serve Ontario & Quebec;
Diefenbaker as PM killing the Avro Arrow figher jet, killing the Canadian aerospace industry, forcing our engineers and technical people to look for work in NASA, not to resurface until the Canada Arm started 30 years later;
Mike Harris as Premier killing the Eglington Subway, delaying the start of rapid transit that brcame the Eglington LRT.
Pierre P carries on with the grand Conservative tradition of grand complaints and minimal achievements.
Canadian Conservatives have a long history of not only NOT doing things, but actively removing things that are already being built or completed. Most of these are by design, and holding true to the "conservative" name. At times, perhaps this is a prudent view. However, in this current political climate, I am well beyond expecting Conservatives to propose or implement anything of grand scale that truly benefits the broader Canadian populace. They would highly prefer schemes to "return money to people" (usually high earners and special interest groups) and letting private enterprise create and run the things people want. Both of those premises have repeatedly been proven to fall short, domestically and globally. It is time for the Liberals to stop being so polite and just proceed with what they feel is best for the population that elected them, which is actually a Conservative tactic.
I am 100 percent for high speed rail but I do wonder why we are fiddling with a proven, direct route between Montréal and Toronto and why we would begin by connecting Ottawa and Montréal years before Toronto our largest city. If Ottawa must be feasibly on the route then in the very least the first construction should include the whole Toronto Ottawa Montréal corridor.
The shorter the segment, the cheaper and quicker it is to build. I'd rather they open something sooner than try to do everything all at once as a big bang.
The Trent-Severn Waterway took 100 years to build because every time the Conservatives were in power construction stopped, and when the Liberals were in power construction continued. Will it be the same with High Speed Rail?
How sad that the choice that Canadians have is *if* we should build infrastructure or stay in the same place we have been for decades, instead of *how* to build infrastructure.
Now that it's ok to talk about China, can we just pay them to do this. The alto trains are not really high speed and route is a joke made to help rail freight carriers happy by moving passengers away.
Imagine if China did it. We could get from Halifax to Vancouver in 2 days, not two weeks like via.
Love the comparison to military procurement projects Reece! I'm an avid viewer of the YouTube channel Perun, who covers defence economics. I'm always struck by how so many of the problems faced by militaries are paralleled by transit projects, despite the different contexts.
Your list of arguments against the project seems to be missing (to me) the most important one. We could do something more useful with 90 billion dollars.
As always I agree with you just about 100%, Reece, though I would vote for improving the existing normal-speed trains as the best and most realistic approach.
Jamie Dimon (of JP Morgan), in a recent Axios video interview, predicted a future with 0 car accidents (as well as a 3.5 day work week and some other vague optimisms). In other words, big American capital is backing autonomous cars as the primary mode of passenger transport. I would guess PP's response would be similar, and he'll probably hew to the line that residual rail is for freight, not passengers (and that autonomous trucks may replace rail for freight too).
It's really a pretty wild bet, given the present limitations of self-driving cars, but I think the myth of automotivity is tattooed, not just painted, on English/post-Protestant North America's metaphorical skin. It's going to take a lot to change the opinion that railed vehicles are obsolete.
Self driving cars solve some of the problems of transport but it’s their size, speed and noise that make them unsuitable for large cities. Congestion is a harder constraint for cars than for bikes or mass transit; in big cities and population centres cars aren’t a winning solution.
For longer trips they might be a better match for people’s needs, but it’s still far slower to drive than to take high speed rail.
Hi Reece,
Another great article. Here's a fun little fact: When the Toronto Bypass (now Highway 401) was being built, many of these farmers used the same arguments we see now with Alto.
However, after a little money, and expropriation, the highway was built.
I also find it very funny that Doug Ford is trying to pander to the NIMBY's by suggesting the train corridor follows Highway 401, but is very adamant on bulldozing swaths of land for the Bradford Bypass (Highway 413).
The next argument that we botched Crosstown, therefore we can't build rail is also flat. I cannot speak about what happened, but the conditions that caused Crosstown does not apply to exposed rail. We are also forgetting places like Vancouver, who built the SkyTrain in a fairly quick manner.
All in all, I've kinda taken a step back with the public transit discourse, especially online. It can get very draining, and it reminds me of mudslinging at times. It's nice to read a level-headed article with nuance.
Thanks Reece, happy long weekend.
Best regards,
What few want to discuss is why a passenger railway has to be in the public sector, and why pipelines can be in the private sector. Also, what few on either side want to discuss what the largest barrier to building pipelines is today and how it applies to railway construction, and how REM was the exception to that. Or how the failure to be an of exception was the cause of CDPQ withdrawing from REM East.
There are private and public goods, and costs of choices made by individuals that affect many others. Other highway users of crowded highways have cause to want as many others as possible to be taking other means. Every driver who has a cause such that transit or inter-city rail is not good for them (excessive baggage, a bunch of people traveling together, etc.) should hope that it is the best choice for as many other potential drivers as possible. A single train carrying 600 people is likely removing 400 or so cars from the road. The difference between 1800 vehicles/hour and 2200 in a lane is the difference between crowded flow and stopped. The lion's share of the benefit of that railway does not find its way into the market transactions.
Having said that, stability in the regulatory regime, the ability to actually plan and move forward without constant political risk and demand for changes that are simply not viable, and also not seeking the maximalist projects that will create their own failures, are all requirements for getting things done. This, along with no dangerous political grandstanding to create risk that is not required. I will be the first to say, the Ottawa-Montreal portion of the project for high speed should be the easiest, and the hardest to create honest doubt about alternatives around. Even if looking at this in city pair terms (how I believe it should be) this is the portion that Via already owns, that requires substantial straightening to make fast, and the one with the least outlandishly expensive construction.
I have real doubts about the Toronto Ottawa proposals, serious questions about a stop in Peterborough and how that would make sense, given the travel time implications for the entire route. If you are ok with that, why not just invest in the existing Montreal-Toronto corridor, removing level crossings, straightening the few spots where 200 kp/h plus speeds are not possible now, and add 2 more pair of tracks? The promised travel time requires an average travel speed just shy of 190kph, where the 70km across Ottawa, and the 60 or so on approach to both Montreal and Toronto are likely to be below 120.
That is likely 100 minutes of the promised 180 will perforce be required to cover the 190 km of the 560 or so km (leaving 80 minutes to cover the remaining 370). So, 5 minutes stopped, plus slowing, and speeding up for Peterborough would seem material. Even a 5-minute stop would likely mean losing 7 or 8 minutes in travel time, time you don't have if you are actually making that trip in 3 hours. We need to be making rail more time and comfort competitive, spending the minimum dollars for the maximum effect, which means time from departure to arrival, not the vanity of maximum speed. We need to build a lot of infrastructure to make that happen, but it should be for the maximum benefit. It may be that the best way to achieve reduced travel times also happens to reduce risks associated with freight rail operations, and make them more competitive with highways as well. Again, if you are stuck in a car, because you are moving your sister to Montreal for school, would you not be happier to have fewer trucks and cars sharing the road with you?
Doug Ford is the exception to the rule.
Consider the Conservatives track record with mega projects when in government:
Diefenbaker as a Conservative killed the Trans Canada Pipeline that would have refined Alberta crude in Montreal, and thus forced Canada into importing oil from Venezuela to serve Ontario & Quebec;
Diefenbaker as PM killing the Avro Arrow figher jet, killing the Canadian aerospace industry, forcing our engineers and technical people to look for work in NASA, not to resurface until the Canada Arm started 30 years later;
Mike Harris as Premier killing the Eglington Subway, delaying the start of rapid transit that brcame the Eglington LRT.
Pierre P carries on with the grand Conservative tradition of grand complaints and minimal achievements.
Davis, and those before him, funded transit.
I would also note that the provincial government in Alberta has been fairly good about funding transit, and it is pretty conservative.
Canadian Conservatives have a long history of not only NOT doing things, but actively removing things that are already being built or completed. Most of these are by design, and holding true to the "conservative" name. At times, perhaps this is a prudent view. However, in this current political climate, I am well beyond expecting Conservatives to propose or implement anything of grand scale that truly benefits the broader Canadian populace. They would highly prefer schemes to "return money to people" (usually high earners and special interest groups) and letting private enterprise create and run the things people want. Both of those premises have repeatedly been proven to fall short, domestically and globally. It is time for the Liberals to stop being so polite and just proceed with what they feel is best for the population that elected them, which is actually a Conservative tactic.
I am 100 percent for high speed rail but I do wonder why we are fiddling with a proven, direct route between Montréal and Toronto and why we would begin by connecting Ottawa and Montréal years before Toronto our largest city. If Ottawa must be feasibly on the route then in the very least the first construction should include the whole Toronto Ottawa Montréal corridor.
As the bird flies:
160km - Montreal-Ottawa
350km - Ottawa-Toronto
500km - Montreal-Toronto
The shorter the segment, the cheaper and quicker it is to build. I'd rather they open something sooner than try to do everything all at once as a big bang.
The Trent-Severn Waterway took 100 years to build because every time the Conservatives were in power construction stopped, and when the Liberals were in power construction continued. Will it be the same with High Speed Rail?
How sad that the choice that Canadians have is *if* we should build infrastructure or stay in the same place we have been for decades, instead of *how* to build infrastructure.
Now that it's ok to talk about China, can we just pay them to do this. The alto trains are not really high speed and route is a joke made to help rail freight carriers happy by moving passengers away.
Imagine if China did it. We could get from Halifax to Vancouver in 2 days, not two weeks like via.
Love the comparison to military procurement projects Reece! I'm an avid viewer of the YouTube channel Perun, who covers defence economics. I'm always struck by how so many of the problems faced by militaries are paralleled by transit projects, despite the different contexts.
Your list of arguments against the project seems to be missing (to me) the most important one. We could do something more useful with 90 billion dollars.
why some numbers in red?
As always I agree with you just about 100%, Reece, though I would vote for improving the existing normal-speed trains as the best and most realistic approach.
Jamie Dimon (of JP Morgan), in a recent Axios video interview, predicted a future with 0 car accidents (as well as a 3.5 day work week and some other vague optimisms). In other words, big American capital is backing autonomous cars as the primary mode of passenger transport. I would guess PP's response would be similar, and he'll probably hew to the line that residual rail is for freight, not passengers (and that autonomous trucks may replace rail for freight too).
It's really a pretty wild bet, given the present limitations of self-driving cars, but I think the myth of automotivity is tattooed, not just painted, on English/post-Protestant North America's metaphorical skin. It's going to take a lot to change the opinion that railed vehicles are obsolete.
Self driving cars solve some of the problems of transport but it’s their size, speed and noise that make them unsuitable for large cities. Congestion is a harder constraint for cars than for bikes or mass transit; in big cities and population centres cars aren’t a winning solution.
For longer trips they might be a better match for people’s needs, but it’s still far slower to drive than to take high speed rail.
so true!