Alto High Speed Rail

[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.