Alto High Speed Rail

[Richard Eade]

I think that there is a big difference between Ottawa and any other city. To say that it is ‘BEST PRACTICE’ in Europe to do something may not be the case in Ottawa. Absolutely you would not tunnel under the ruins of Rome or Athens – even though huge numbers of tourists want to go there. But just because it is not done there doesn’t mean that the same reasons are valid for Ottawa. It might be BEST PRACTICE to not try to tunnel under Venice, but the reasons for that don’t apply to Ottawa.

Each of the cities that the HSR is going to visit will need to be evaluated with respect to itself. What works best for each city will be done – funds permitting.

Something to remember is that the HSR station will be where people go OCCASIONALLY to begin/end their travel. It is like going to an airport. People will expect to have to travel to/from it – and most will, regardless of where it is located. The location of this station will not be determined with the hope that ‘walk-ins’ will provide the majority of riders. The trick will be to have EXCELLENT public transit from that station to other local destinations throughout the city.

My personal opinions: Downtown or airport.

I think that a downtown station would be great. There is already good transit from downtown to other parts of the city. It could either be in Ottawa (maybe under Albert/Slater) or in Gatineau (between Place du Portage and the Ottawa River with a new pedestrian and transit connection under/over the river to Ottawa). That said, the added cost may not be worth the benefit.

Therefore, an alternative would be to follow Fallowfield Road through the Greenbelt; dive under Prince of Wales Drive; across the Rideau River (on a new bi-level bridge, built for both the HSR, on the lower level, and cars, on the top, to relieve Hunt Club); to an HSR/transit/airport station under the airport; then follow Davidson Road to the east-bound rail corridor. Then put some of the money saved into building better public transit to that station. Build a transit line (basically Line 4 – 2.0) from Limebank Station, north along Limebank Road; turning to travel under the airport (through a tunnel that is parallel to and built at the same time as the HSR tunnel) to stop at an Airport Station; then surface to head north along the rail corridor to the SE Transitway (which would be converted to double-tracked rail to also handle Line 2 – which would remain as it is north of Mooney’s Bay Station); with this line going underground at Billings Bridge to become the Bank Street Subway; which extends under the Ottawa River to a station under Laurier, in the parking lot of Place du Portage. A new, larger interchange station would be needed under the Airport Parkway Bridge for transferring passengers between the Baseline Transitway, Line 2, and Line 4. This station would replace Mooney’s Bay Station and Heron Station (and hopefully be given the name HERON STATION).

In graphic form:



Oh, and Line 2 should be extended across the Rideau River (on another new bridge) to Market Place, as originally planned. And that should be done BEFORE the SW Transitway is torn up to be replaced by the extension of Line 1 to Barrhaven.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Acela has the luxury of using existing stations in downtown cores. Ottawa does not. So we're asking the project to take on billions in liabilities (that we would never accept on our own as local ratepayers and did not for our own transit system when we had the chance) for marginal gain. Sure, none of the Acela stations are as far from City Hall as Tremblay. But 5 km is not the struggle you're making it out to be either.

Would there be a marginal gain in ridership at Union. Maybe. But I seriously doubt it would be worth the cost increase and loss in ridership between Toronto and Montreal from slower service.

Also, as a transit user, Union would probably be worse connecting to the LRT than Tremblay. There's no way that tunnelling to the LRT will be easy and won't involve multiple level changes.

Either way. Alto saying they want international standard 400m platforms should tell you where this is going. Tremblay actually has a 500m platform today.

I actually think that the cost of reaching Union is less of a consideration than the risk that massive underground infrastructure would add to the project. This isn't one we can afford to mess up, so risk mitigation should be very top of mind in the decision-making process.

In terms of transit connections, I think Union without a direct connection to the LRT is already better than Tremblay. The connection at Tremblay includes level changes and quite a long walk outside without shelter. At Union you just pop across the street and you are inside on an escalator going down to the station. It wouldn't be a huge risk to leave it as is. Now that said, hopefully a HSR renovation of Tremblay would include a better connection to the station.

As for making a big deal of the 5km to Tremblay, it's not just the distance, although that adds to the time, and the cost of a cab or uber. It's also the fact that arriving passengers are sent out into a car-centric wasteland on the side of the highway. It's a terrible gateway to the city, and one that isn't going to appreciably change any time in the foreseeable future. If we do go all in on a transportation hub there, it should be accompanied by far more amenities, pedestrian-friendly places for people to wait, and connections to the surrounding area.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by phil235

I actually think that the cost of reaching Union is less of a consideration than the risk that massive underground infrastructure would add to the project. This isn't one we can afford to mess up, so risk mitigation should be very top of mind in the decision-making process.

In terms of transit connections, I think Union without a direct connection to the LRT is already better than Tremblay. The connection at Tremblay includes level changes and quite a long walk outside without shelter. At Union you just pop across the street and you are inside on an escalator going down to the station. It wouldn't be a huge risk to leave it as is. Now that said, hopefully a HSR renovation of Tremblay would include a better connection to the station.

As for making a big deal of the 5km to Tremblay, it's not just the distance, although that adds to the time, and the cost of a cab or uber. It's also the fact that arriving passengers are sent out into a car-centric wasteland on the side of the highway. It's a terrible gateway to the city, and one that isn't going to appreciably change any time in the foreseeable future. If we do go all in on a transportation hub there, it should be accompanied by far more amenities, pedestrian-friendly places for people to wait, and connections to the surrounding area.

I would expect that HSR at Union Station would also include a pedestrian tunnel connection right to the Rideau O-Train station. What's a little extra side tunnel if you're already boring and mining out a large station cavern?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

I actually think that the cost of reaching Union is less of a consideration than the risk that massive underground infrastructure would add to the project. This isn't one we can afford to mess up, so risk mitigation should be very top of mind in the decision-making process.

For any project like this, I think risk management is paramount and largely determines success. A big part of why I am vehemently opposed to Union. The risk is off the charts. Building a 400m+ underground station in that area with several platforms? Insanity.

But also, from a purely design perspective, with the main target being Toronto-Montreal, I don't think we'll see anything approved which impacts or jeopardizes that travel time.

Originally Posted by phil235

In terms of transit connections, I think Union without a direct connection to the LRT is already better than Tremblay. The connection at Tremblay includes level changes and quite a long walk outside without shelter. At Union you just pop across the street and you are inside on an escalator going down to the station. It wouldn't be a huge risk to leave it as is. Now that said, hopefully a HSR renovation of Tremblay would include a better connection to the station.

If you have the platform that is closest to the station, it's literally walking off, down a steps into the station. And then out the door to the LRT station. The big level change is at the LRT station. You're only doing several level changes if you're arriving/leaving from a platform further away. That's a function of the VIA station. Not a problem with the LRT station. At Rideau, how many escalators or elevators are you taking to get down from street level? I don't think it's as straight forward a connection as you remember.

Originally Posted by phil235

As for making a big deal of the 5km to Tremblay, it's not just the distance, although that adds to the time, and the cost of a cab or uber. It's also the fact that arriving passengers are sent out into a car-centric wasteland on the side of the highway. It's a terrible gateway to the city, and one that isn't going to appreciably change any time in the foreseeable future. If we do go all in on a transportation hub there, it should be accompanied by far more amenities, pedestrian-friendly places for people to wait, and connections to the surrounding area.

Again. Alto exists to move passengers faster. Not to fund anybody's city building dreams. If Ottawa doesn't want a wasteland outside Tremblay, they should fix that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I would expect that HSR at Union Station would also include a pedestrian tunnel connection right to the Rideau O-Train station. What's a little extra side tunnel if you're already boring and mining out a large station cavern?

Cause it was just so easy to build underground over there the first time?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

At Rideau, how many escalators or elevators are you taking to get down from street level? I don't think it's as straight forward a connection as you remember.

It's definitely a deep station, but I don't think people mind that as much when it's all inside and on escalators that are protected from the weather. Contrast that with the walk at Tremblay in January which sucks. I think it's six of one, half dozen of another.

Again. Alto exists to move passengers faster. Not to fund anybody's city building dreams. If Ottawa doesn't want a wasteland outside Tremblay, they should fix that.

This is true, but it is a bit more than that. One key reason that it is being pushed forward now is it's impact as an economic driver. Arguably that impact will be greater if stations are located where they can spur the most activity.

It doesn't make sense to approach this project as if it is occurring in a vacuum and completely ignore the impact on the urban environments that they are serving. This isn't a case where major decisions should be made by Alto alone and the city should just react. It's a pretty important stakeholder. I am wary of expanding the scope to multiple mandates, but as I mentioned, I think the best chance of success as a passenger service is in the city centre. Again, not the only factor, but a factor nonetheless.

[OTownandDown]

But Richard....

WHY would we do this if it makes practical sense?

Honestly, this is a great idea. Line 2 is a head scratcher in this scenario, because it makes no sense still. But extending Line 4 up Bank Street to downtown terminus is amazing. And an airport connection is amazing. Think also of the parking revenue at the airport for travellers who bring their car there for a little Montreal trip.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I think that there is a big difference between Ottawa and any other city. To say that it is ‘BEST PRACTICE’ in Europe to do something may not be the case in Ottawa. Absolutely you would not tunnel under the ruins of Rome or Athens – even though huge numbers of tourists want to go there. But just because it is not done there doesn’t mean that the same reasons are valid for Ottawa. It might be BEST PRACTICE to not try to tunnel under Venice, but the reasons for that don’t apply to Ottawa.

Each of the cities that the HSR is going to visit will need to be evaluated with respect to itself. What works best for each city will be done – funds permitting.

Something to remember is that the HSR station will be where people go OCCASIONALLY to begin/end their travel. It is like going to an airport. People will expect to have to travel to/from it – and most will, regardless of where it is located. The location of this station will not be determined with the hope that ‘walk-ins’ will provide the majority of riders. The trick will be to have EXCELLENT public transit from that station to other local destinations throughout the city.

My personal opinions: Downtown or airport.

I think that a downtown station would be great. There is already good transit from downtown to other parts of the city. It could either be in Ottawa (maybe under Albert/Slater) or in Gatineau (between Place du Portage and the Ottawa River with a new pedestrian and transit connection under/over the river to Ottawa). That said, the added cost may not be worth the benefit.

Therefore, an alternative would be to follow Fallowfield Road through the Greenbelt; dive under Prince of Wales Drive; across the Rideau River (on a new bi-level bridge, built for both the HSR, on the lower level, and cars, on the top, to relieve Hunt Club); to an HSR/transit/airport station under the airport; then follow Davidson Road to the east-bound rail corridor. Then put some of the money saved into building better public transit to that station. Build a transit line (basically Line 4 – 2.0) from Limebank Station, north along Limebank Road; turning to travel under the airport (through a tunnel that is parallel to and built at the same time as the HSR tunnel) to stop at an Airport Station; then surface to head north along the rail corridor to the SE Transitway (which would be converted to double-tracked rail to also handle Line 2 – which would remain as it is north of Mooney’s Bay Station); with this line going underground at Billings Bridge to become the Bank Street Subway; which extends under the Ottawa River to a station under Laurier, in the parking lot of Place du Portage. A new, larger interchange station would be needed under the Airport Parkway Bridge for transferring passengers between the Baseline Transitway, Line 2, and Line 4. This station would replace Mooney’s Bay Station and Heron Station (and hopefully be given the name HERON STATION).

In graphic form:



Oh, and Line 2 should be extended across the Rideau River (on another new bridge) to Market Place, as originally planned. And that should be done BEFORE the SW Transitway is torn up to be replaced by the extension of Line 1 to Barrhaven.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

It's definitely a deep station, but I don't think people mind that as much when it's all inside and on escalators that are protected from the weather. Contrast that with the walk at Tremblay in January which sucks. I think it's six of one, half dozen of another.




This is true, but it is a bit more than that. One key reason that it is being pushed forward now is it's impact as an economic driver. Arguably that impact will be greater if stations are located where they can spur the most activity.

It doesn't make sense to approach this project as if it is occurring in a vacuum and completely ignore the impact on the urban environments that they are serving. This isn't a case where major decisions should be made by Alto alone and the city should just react. It's a pretty important stakeholder. I am wary of expanding the scope to multiple mandates, but as I mentioned, I think the best chance of success as a passenger service is in the city centre. Again, not the only factor, but a factor nonetheless.

It can only impact the economy if it gets built... Canada isn't California & it can't afford monetarily nor politically a California HSR situation.

If HSR gets built & becomes a success (which considering the terrible advocacy groups it has is a big if) then we can build the downtown station.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

I can't imagine any logical reason why Tremblay isn't a reasonable choice.

I don't think Tremblay isn't a reasonable choice. It offers advantages that Union might not (connection to VIA, more space for an inter city bus terminal, space for potential commuter rail). Union is just a more ambitious choice that could be transformational for the city, and generally far more convenient for most travelers.

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Best thing about Tremblay: no panhandlers and drugged out people when you walk out the door. I don't think that problem on Rideau will ever be solved. It will probably get worse if the station is placed there.

There are homeless camps in the nearby woods? I have no doubt the social problems would grow as the area develops and is more frequented.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Look at what a protracted and costly experience building 3 underground stations and 3 km of tunnel was. A 10 km tunnel and a deep underground mainline station would be a nightmare. Stuttgart still hasn't finished their project, which started construction in 2010 and is now estimated at €12 billion, to convert their dead end station to a through station with tracks deep underground.

It would be max 2 kilometers. They will have to build a 10+ km tunnel in Montreal though, which no one seems to take issue with.

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

It can only impact the economy if it gets built... Canada isn't California & it can't afford monetarily nor politically a California HSR situation.

If HSR gets built & becomes a success (which considering the terrible advocacy groups it has is a big if) then we can build the downtown station.

California? The first phase of their HSR goes from nowhere to nowhere. Not quite the same.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It would be max 2 kilometers. They will have to build a 10+ km tunnel in Montreal though, which no one seems to take issue with.

That's a tunnel that is necessary to connect to what will be both an interim terminus and probably a partial service terminus even in the future. This is not the case in Ottawa. Also, there's a direct impact from this stub to the rest of the service that won't be the same in Montreal. Every passenger not starting or terminating in Ottawa will suffer. But also, it's not just any 2 km tunnel. It's a 2 km tunnel beside a major heritage site with water running through, through a place that already saw a tunnel collapse because of unstable geotechnical conditions. Why would Alto take on that risk voluntarily?

Originally Posted by J.OT13

California? The first phase of their HSR goes from nowhere to nowhere. Not quite the same.

UK HS2 is a better example. Whole bunch of NIMBY demands and upgrades ended up ballooning the cost so high that it killed a downtown station in Birmingham and everything north of there.

Ottawa doesn't have to care about the rest of the line. Ottawa residents can ask for the sun, the moon and the stars. But nobody should be surprised when that is shot down for rather good reasons.

[Aylmer]

I will preface by saying that I am neither advocating nor not advocating for a downtown station.

I've been thinking about the design viability of Union station's interaction with a tunnelled station. The main issue I've been thinking about is this: if the station is underground, will the old station building be meaningfully connected to the platforms?

If the platforms are bored deep underground, then there's little actual interaction with the station building. Taking a train, you'd enter through the building, but immediately take an elevator or 6 flights of escalators down to where you actually wait for the train. The station building becomes just an oversized elevator waiting room. And the question of the elevators becomes an issue itself, as they'd get easily overwhelmed by a fraction of a train's passenger load arriving all at once (see Édouard-Montpetit REM station's elevator backups, despite much smaller vehicles than a high speed train's).

On the other hand, if the platforms are more directly connected to the station, then passengers can be directed to stairs, and the platforms can be visually and functionally connected to the station building. Flow is smoother and easier.

But this requires a shallow cut-and-cover tunnel - probably no more than two stories (10m) removed. And that's a tough ask in such a constrained space.

But I remembered something from a trip to Amsterdam some years ago: the construction of the Albert Cuyp garage under one of its canals. I remember seeing it opened up, with the water held back on both ends while they built the cut-and-cover box before installing a waterproof membrane and reinstating the canal. The whole thing was surprisingly cheap - 35M EUR back in 2015. Though a station would most certainly be more complex and at least twice the size, I still expected even the simpler garage to be a much more complex and expensive undertaking.

If the downtown Ottawa station were to be selected (again, I'm not wading into that one), a similar construction approach might be a solution that allows for an underground platform and concourse close enough to the station building to make the two meaningfully connected.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't think Tremblay isn't a reasonable choice. It offers advantages that Union might not (connection to VIA, more space for an inter city bus terminal, space for potential commuter rail). Union is just a more ambitious choice that could be transformational for the city, and generally far more convenient for most travelers.



There are homeless camps in the nearby woods? I have no doubt the social problems would grow as the area develops and is more frequented.



It would be max 2 kilometers. They will have to build a 10+ km tunnel in Montreal though, which no one seems to take issue with.



California? The first phase of their HSR goes from nowhere to nowhere. Not quite the same.

It's a far more risky and fantasy choice for a city that has a functional station already.

If it has to be tunneled it will have to be longer than 2km due to csst (22-30 deep at waller/Nicholas), LRT and general conditions of that location, and your forgetting that it's not just tunneling the station requires a cavern. Which would put it under DND HQ or the canal.

The first phase per there plan was San Francisco to las Angeles the fact that is been years with little completion that you think it goes nowhere kinda makes my point.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I will preface by saying that I am neither advocating nor not advocating for a downtown station.

I've been thinking about the design viability of Union station's interaction with a tunnelled station. The main issue I've been thinking about is this: if the station is underground, will the old station building be meaningfully connected to the platforms?

If the platforms are bored deep underground, then there's little actual interaction with the station building. Taking a train, you'd enter through the building, but immediately take an elevator or 6 flights of escalators down to where you actually wait for the train. The station building becomes just an oversized elevator waiting room. And the question of the elevators becomes an issue itself, as they'd get easily overwhelmed by a fraction of a train's passenger load arriving all at once (see Édouard-Montpetit REM station's elevator backups, despite much smaller vehicles than a high speed train's).

On the other hand, if the platforms are more directly connected to the station, then passengers can be directed to stairs, and the platforms can be visually and functionally connected to the station building. Flow is smoother and easier.

But this requires a shallow cut-and-cover tunnel - probably no more than two stories (10m) removed. And that's a tough ask in such a constrained space.

But I remembered something from a trip to Amsterdam some years ago: the construction of the Albert Cuyp garage under one of its canals. I remember seeing it opened up, with the water held back on both ends while they built the cut-and-cover box before installing a waterproof membrane and reinstating the canal. The whole thing was surprisingly cheap - 35M EUR back in 2015. Though a station would most certainly be more complex and at least twice the size, I still expected even the simpler garage to be a much more complex and expensive undertaking.

If the downtown Ottawa station were to be selected (again, I'm not wading into that one), a similar construction approach might be a solution that allows for an underground platform and concourse close enough to the station building to make the two meaningfully connected.

Super interesting, thanks. I do think you should stop pushing so hard for Union station though.

Obviously the preferred option would be a station that was more directly connected to the platforms, but I understand that would be a challenge in this context. Without having any idea of the geological or technical challenges under Union, I had kind of pictured platforms that would extend in both directions so that the station roughly sits in the middle. That setup may dictate the construction method.

I was also envisioning other entrances to the platforms, perhaps one in the Market and another near the Rogers Centre or the Rideau Centre parking, so the passenger flow could be shared. The station would be where the services would be located, so it would be more than an elevator waiting room regardless.

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

Another question, how many passengers can sit on these trains? The trains will stop 20-30 in each directions (up to 72 total).

Not sure anyone ever answered this point. I think this is all TBD depending on the technology chosen, but a reasonable guess based on existing systems would be 300-500 passengers per train.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't think Tremblay isn't a reasonable choice. It offers advantages that Union might not (connection to VIA, more space for an inter city bus terminal, space for potential commuter rail). Union is just a more ambitious choice that could be transformational for the city, and generally far more convenient for most travelers.

I think that's why I'm so skeptical of it. HSR is already such an ambitious project that has taken so many decades to even get green lit that I'm not confident it it can even be done without getting mired in an Eglinton-style quagmire at a must larger scale. I'm all for trying, but we need to be doing everything possible to reduce it's ambition level as much as possible without sacrificing the core HSR mission. I fear that every extra level of ambition reduces the probability of success, so I'm wary of any unnecessary "nice to haves". Not that I'd immediately rule out anything unnecessary, but the bigger it is and less necessary it is, the more I'm skeptical.

[urbanforest]

Originally Posted by phil235

Super interesting, thanks. I do think you should stop pushing so hard for Union station though.

This dude is literally just sharing a thought they had. Why are you condemning civil discourse?

[Mikeed]

I really want to stress how much HSR in Canada was suggested and shot down because it did not serve the capital interest and political economy of a major petro state to build HSR when we had a domestic oil & gas industry and aerospace industry that were both our national champions.

It is only the realities of the Paris Treaty and sectorial carbon budgets that marks a profound change in the viability of HSR and it's role in our political economy. Japan, Germany, Spain, France- all lack oil resources. In fact the TGV was largely in response to the energy crisis along side Frances nuclear push. France used its aerospace industrial base to build HSR to decouple elite movement within the Republic (business class) from foreign imports which means less stress on the balance of payments and more surplus capital sloshing around inside the state. This positive feed back loop did not exist in Canada strongly for most of our existence because Western Canadian oil and gas was shipped directly to Sarnia, Nanitcoke, Montreal and Quebec City to be turned into jet fuel. This is a positive feed back loop that keeps capital accumulating in Canada and upending this never made any sense as it was a unity between Western and Eastern elites of keep dividends flowing in an industrial sector dominated by institutional investors (the big six banks, and Pensions).

Everything changes once the world has a treaty to decarbonize. Especially one that especially focuses on state sovereignity to focus on what sectors get the whip hand and what sectors don't.

With declining EROEI - energy returned on energy invested - the old positive feed back loop is broken and HSR is largely a surplus preservation machine in a world of declining EROEI and ratcheting carbon budget constraints.

I just like writing this because the past stop / go makes perfect sense once you understand this. It made no sense. It was never going to happen because of who it hurt to do HSR in the past.

It does mean we can build big. We can aim higher. We dont have to be so worried about scope creep. It's now in the advantage of the elites to build a good system.

The fact they are pushing/investigating for a downtown station once the Senate moves out tells you someone really gets it. What this machine really does for the political economy and who really wins.

Words for your consideration. Typed but not proof read.
HSR was always going to not be moved forward once the "right people get the right talking to". But it makes for easy headlines and consulting fees, studies to sit on the shelf for the era when sucking sound on the carbon straw comes around.

Canada is export oriented transportation networks, an archipelago nation, that in the 50s choose aviation to be the way forward, as the 3rd largest aviation sector in the Western world.

Things are seriously different now. I'm not saying the oil lobby killed HSR it's just *everything in Canada was against HSR before climate change, structurally* and that's often not stressed.

TLDR: do not value engineer this project, do not end up with a lemon like the Confederation Line, go for the downtown station

[Truenorth00]

^ Conspiracist reach.

If we cared about emissions, $90B spent on local transit and EVs would do a lot more to reduce emissions. What $90B spent on HSR will do will substantially integrate the region economically and make it broadly more competitive. That's the motivation.

[Nouvellecosse]

Not only that, but being an oil producing nation in no way requires us to be the ones to use the oil domestically. Using a bit less oil in the Ontario-Quebec corridor would have little to no negative effect on oil profits. We see the same thing in Norway where they produce a lot of oil and export most while being a global leader in electrified transportation with one of the highest uptakes of EVs on the planet. If we were a major oil consumption market at the global level like the US or China that might be different.

[Richard Eade]

I think that there is some validity in what Mikeed is saying.

Faster train service has been looked at in Canada for many decades. There were ‘Turbo Trains back in the late 1960s, for example. The problem was that faster trains was not economically viable since the cost to run faster trains goes up exponentially, but the income from passengers will not climb as fast. Thus, there was just no economic reason to have faster trains. If people wanted to get somewhere fast, they could fly.

Besides, with virtually everyone getting access to their own personal transportation, there was limited need to move people by train. Since cars provide cheaper, faster, and a more personalized trip experience, why would people take a train, unless it was the only option. (This is also where the argument that ‘cities used to have lots of trams but got rid of them’ comes into the picture. When there were few personal vehicles, mass transit was the primary option, so many took it. Once the luxury of private vehicles was available, then that became the preferred option. Thus, fewer trams were needed, and the flexibility of buses became a better option over large investments in expanding rail.)

In Canada, with its vast distances, rail travel became mostly irrelevant. Why would anyone who needed to get to Vancouver from Toronto take days to do it on a train? Flying was a far more reasonable option. Anecdotally, my sister is planning a trip to Churchill. I suggested that she take the train, so she looked into it. Her response was swift: “It takes, like, 48 hours. That’s two days! I’m not going to waste that long sitting on a train. We’ll just fly.” For her, the journey is not part of the trip – it is just a necessary waste of time that should be minimized. Would she reconsider the train if it could get her there in only 5-½ hours? Not likely. That is still too long. The plane does the trip in 2-½ hours. Yup, there is also airport time to be added, but when she looks at the times, she, like most people, sees 2-½ hours verses 5-½ hours. The majority of people are going to choose flying over train – meaning fewer passengers for trains. This leads to a poor balance sheet for implementing High-Speed Rail (HSR). Huge costs for HSR, with little increased return.

What changed to make HSR seem like it might be a viable option now? The environment became more important. The idea of so many people flying in Green House Gas (GHG) spewing jets became an issue for more people. Among those people was the newly elected Prime Minister, J. Trudeau. Had the economics actually changed, to be in favour of HSR? No, but because more weight was being put on the environmental elements, the equation could be skewed to be more favourable for HSR. Having an environmentalist as a leader turned the tide. And the following Prime Minister, M. Carney, also having concerns about the environment, has continued the push for electrification of the inter-city train. The Federal Government is not alone in working to lower GHG emissions. The same is happening at GO Transit, in Toronto. In the name of environmental benefit, GO Transit is in the process of electrifying many of the commuter trains that it runs. Unlike GO Transit, however, the Federal Government believes that it has the ability to also reduce short-haul flights, thus multiplying the GHG reductions.

Make no mistake about it. Whether it was the signing of the Paris Accord, or not, the thing that has made the electrification of rail travel economical is the over-weighting of the benefit to the environment.

[Truenorth00]

HFR was there before the Paris Accords. It scope creeped into HSR because the government took forever to make a decision and eventually decided they favoured HSR for a whole bunch of reasons. But I would argue economics is a much bigger driver than the environment. It's $90B spent in Canada from mostly Canadian suppliers. It's the same reason defence spending is being ramped and largely focused on spending at home. It's a way for the government to spend and get some productivity out of the spending rather than just pure consumer inflation.

Conspiracists are mixing up correlation for causation and thinking this is about some grand oil conspiracy. Did y'all just miss Mark Carney ditching the consumer carbon tax and pledging to build more pipelines?