The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[thebasketballgeek]

Honestly in regards to the HSR if it happens why don’t we fully commit and do a trans-Canada project? You can definitely argue some locations don’t have the “population density” to support it but if it serves as a viable alternative to the plane I’m sure even the prairies could probably have high enough passenger numbers to make it feasible.

It will massively increase our countries carrying capacity as we keep ramping up our immigration numbers. Not to mention the thousands of well paying jobs it would require would really stimulate our economy. Also, wherever the high speed rail would be developed can involve a major capital project for each city involved which would most likely be high density sustainable development. This economic growth would most likely significantly increase our population and establish Canada as a legitimate global power.

I would even go further and partner with the US to create an interconnected North American high speed rail network to assure there would be enough funds available.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Honestly in regards to the HSR if it happens why don’t we fully commit and do a trans-Canada project?

HSR in Spain is at $14M/km. France is at $25M/km. Those are countries with far more experience across the infrastructure spectrum. And those figures are US$. So in reality think of something like C$40M/km as the absolute best case scenario for some cross-Canada HSR. If we're going to spend a quarter trillion dollars as a country, we'd be better off spending it on local transit, HSR in 2-3 select corridors and electrifying every road vehicle in the country. That would be better return than an insanely underutilized cross-Canada rail corridor that would still take you days to get across the country.

[thebasketballgeek]

It’s not just High Speed passenger rail that could be done. There could also be high speed freight on these lines which would make the line far from underutilized and would actually strengthen the case to have it pass through the central parts of Canada for distribution and logistics.

If we’re going to progress as a country and go experience high growth these infrastructure projects will be necessary sooner rather then later. It’s also just another amenity that many Canadians would provide to be fruitful. Furthermore, if high home prices remain in Toronto and Vancouver it will give further incentive to reallocate our population to cities that need it like Winnipeg and Edmonton.

Also, not everyone wants to take 1,000km road trips to go cross country and wouldn’t mind actually relaxing during travel. It’ll also serve as a competitor to planes and therefore reduce airfare prices. The cost would be justified with the substantial benefits it would provide for the country and residents quality of life. If a far less sustainable mode of transportation (cars and planes will always be more unsustainable then a train no matter how electrified they get) can get massive subsidies so can this form of transportation.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

It’s not just High Speed passenger rail that could be done. There could also be high speed freight on these lines which would make the line far from underutilized and would actually strengthen the case to have it pass through the central parts of Canada for distribution and logistics.

There's no business case for high speed freight. The energy involved to move freight at higher speeds is immense. And customers would never pay for that.

Also, once freight and passengers are on the same track, the laws substantially restrict passenger trains, for safety reasons.

At the end of the day designing a rail network for cross-country trips is not as important as facilitating regional and local mobility. People takes orders of magnitude more trips in their community than they do nationally. That's why the biggest problem we have with transport emissions is cars. Not airplanes.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no business case for high speed freight. The energy involved to move freight at higher speeds is immense. And customers would never pay for that.

Also, once freight and passengers are on the same track, the laws substantially restrict passenger trains, for safety reasons.

At the end of the day designing a rail network for cross-country trips is not as important as facilitating regional and local mobility. People takes orders of magnitude more trips in their community than they do nationally. That's why the biggest problem we have with transport emissions is cars. Not airplanes.

Ok these are good points against it and for now I can concede that the lines are better served to start with Edmonton-Calgary and Quebec-Windsor.

My question is hypothetically what would the population of Canada need to be where a trans Canada high speed rail is feasible?

Unrelated, but also as tech progresses I really hope there can be some sort of way to make electric planes feasible. Of course they don’t produce much emissions compared to car, however, they still produce significant amounts of emissions and it would put me a bit more at ease if this is the most feasible option for national mobility.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no business case for high speed freight. The energy involved to move freight at higher speeds is immense. And customers would never pay for that.

Also, once freight and passengers are on the same track, the laws substantially restrict passenger trains, for safety reasons.

At the end of the day designing a rail network for cross-country trips is not as important as facilitating regional and local mobility. People takes orders of magnitude more trips in their community than they do nationally. That's why the biggest problem we have with transport emissions is cars. Not airplanes.

Not to mention the banking required on curves for HSR aren’t suited to freight traffic. The weight would be incredibly punishing on the rail bed.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Ok these are good points against it and for now I can concede that the lines are better served to start with Edmonton-Calgary and Quebec-Windsor.

My question is hypothetically what would the population of Canada need to be where a trans Canada high speed rail is feasible?

Unrelated, but also as tech progresses I really hope there can be some sort of way to make electric planes feasible. Of course they don’t produce much emissions compared to car, however, they still produce significant amounts of emissions and it would put me a bit more at ease if this is the most feasible option for national mobility.

I don’t think there is any population that makes very long distance high speed rail feasible. China has wasted a huge amount of money and pollution building long distance high speed trains that run mostly empty.

Even a non-stop 300 kph service between Toronto and Vancouver would take 15 hours, more realistically it would be a 24 hour trip.

The sweet spot for high speed rail is 1-3 hour trips (longer if air transportation is really inefficient), any less than that local transportation is usually more efficient, more than that it is much faster to fly.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Ok these are good points against it and for now I can concede that the lines are better served to start with Edmonton-Calgary and Quebec-Windsor.

Those might be the only corridors where HSR makes sense in Canada ever. What might have a case is more regular, reasonably frequent rail service, that mostly uses existing infrastructure in some parts. I can think of the Vancouver-Abbotsford-Hope, Regina-Moose Jaw-Saskatoon, Saint John-Moncton-Halifax, etc

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

My question is hypothetically what would the population of Canada need to be where a trans Canada high speed rail is feasible?

It's not how many people there are. It's where they are located. If 100 million people, all ended up in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor, VIA would need Maglevs to move them around, but trans-Canada HSR still wouldn't have a business case.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Unrelated, but also as progresses I really hope there can be some sort of way to make electric planes feasible. Of course they don’t produce much emissions compared to car, however, they still produce significant amounts of emissions and it would put me a bit more at ease if this is the most feasible option for national mobility.

There's a few different concepts here we need to address separately.

1) A significant chunk of aviation emissions in Canada comes from short haul flying in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor, Calgary-Edmonton, Southern BC, or regionally into the US. Think of flights from Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal to major cities in the US Northeast or Upper Midwest. There's portions of these emissions that could be reduced by a modal shift to rail. The obvious places to start would be the Quebec-Windsor Corridor and Calgary-Edmonton.

2) Electric aviation is still really early. Think of the Heart Aerospace ES-19, the first real electric airliner that is getting orders. 400 km of range and 19 passengers. That kind of capacity and range has very limited uses. Fuel is saved. But with two pilots, landing fees, etc all the other operating costs are higher per passenger-mile. Even with increasing battery density, the best we might get are regional aircraft 75-100 pax with 1000 km range by 2040. Having national aviation go electric might not be in the cards in our lifetimes.

3) Aviation doesn't need to be electric to be carbon neutral. Aviation fuels can be produced that are low carbon or even carbon neutral. And these fuels can be deployed on existing aircraft. This is probably the path the industry is going to go over the next few decades, for the bulk of aviation.

In summary, the best thing we can do is invest in rail, in the corridors that have the population to support such services. Not only does this cut emissions. It negates the need for road expansion, which comes with higher maintenance costs. It negates the need for new or expanded airports in urban areas, at a time where we have a housing crisis. And it provides a transportation option that is cheaper, more reliable and less susceptible to weather disruptions. Talk about electric aviation or nationwide rail should only come after the bulk of Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and Calgary-Edmonton travelers are going by rail.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Given that Quebec is the only province to allow unpasteurized cheeses, this might be closer to the truth than you think....



It'd be a step up from not feeding kids anything....

In any event, my point here is that the geography excuse is just pure nonsense. Nobody is proposing this infrastructure in the middle of low density prairie. Indeed, I've been particularly vocal on how wasteful such investment would be in low density regions. But really, it is amazing that we accept such poor infrastructure, to the point of it impacting economic productivity and even safety, in regions of the country where we have the population to support such infrastructure.

HSR is being seriously discussed between Calgary and Edmonton and Calgary and Banff.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

HSR is being seriously discussed between Calgary and Edmonton and Calgary and Banff.

That's not HSR. It's just good old fashioned regional rail. And it works just fine.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Those might be the only corridors where HSR makes sense in Canada ever. What might have a case is more regular, reasonably frequent rail service, that mostly uses existing infrastructure in some parts. I can think of the Vancouver-Abbotsford-Hope, Regina-Moose Jaw-Saskatoon, Saint John-Moncton-Halifax, etc

I can't speak to the other regions, but I'm not sure of the viability of Halifax-Moncton-SJ, as train service to SJ hasn't been offered for decades, as the Ocean continues from Moncton through to Montreal. To take a 'train' from Halifax to SJ means hopping on a bus from Moncton to SJ (at least pre-covid, not sure of the status now).

From a climate change perspective, I'm not sure how viable this would be as a car trip from Halifax to SJ can be done in approximately 4 hours, whereas a train trip (even if a direct route was opened up to SJ) would take quite a bit longer, with all the stops in between.

Unless an express route could be opened up to to make it competitive with the car, it probably wouldn't be viable. Even then, how many people need to commute between Halifax and SJ on a regular basis? Halifax to Moncton is 2.5 hours by car.

Even Halifax to Montreal is questionable as it takes over a day by train, compared to a flight under 2 hours.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That's not HSR. It's just good old fashioned regional rail. And it works just fine.

The Calgary Banff line sounds like it might be more of a regional rail but the proposal between Calgary and Edmonton has been explicitly pitched as a HSR train that would reduce the 3 hour travel time by car between both cities.

https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/det...Rail-Line/4494

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I can't speak to the other regions, but I'm not sure of the viability of Halifax-Moncton-SJ, as train service to SJ hasn't been offered for decades, as the Ocean continues from Moncton through to Montreal. To take a 'train' from Halifax to SJ means hopping on a bus from Moncton to SJ (at least pre-covid, not sure of the status now).

From a climate change perspective, I'm not sure how viable this would be as a car trip from Halifax to SJ can be done in approximately 4 hours, whereas a train trip (even if a direct route was opened up to SJ) would take quite a bit longer, with all the stops in between.

Unless an express route could be opened up to to make it competitive with the car, it probably wouldn't be viable. Even then, how many people need to commute between Halifax and SJ on a regular basis? Halifax to Moncton is 2.5 hours by car.

Part of the problem with having little to no rail service in Canada, is that people have a really hard time even imagining what regular regional rail services would look like in their communities.

If we want to reduce pax-km in cars and even airplanes, rail service has to be frequent and fast enough to compete. So this would mean something like hourly frequencies and track infrastructure that would allow something like Halifax-Moncton in less than 2 hrs with stops and Moncton-Saint John in 1 hr. This would make places like Truro much more commutable to Halifax. And make Moncton and Saint John a single employment corridor with routine commuting between them. What I'm suggesting here is basically a Maritimes version of the Quebec-Windsor Corridor.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Even Halifax to Montreal is questionable as it takes over a day by train, compared to a flight under 2 hours.

Train from Halifax to Montreal would never make sense to upgrade. Not enough traffic. But any such service can benefit from stretches that are upgraded.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

The Calgary Banff line sounds like it might be more of a regional rail but the proposal between Calgary and Edmonton has been explicitly pitched as a HSR train that would reduce the 3 hour travel time by car between both cities.

https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/det...Rail-Line/4494

Forgot about that proposal. It's $9B. Let's see where it goes. Would be happy if this happened though. I think it would absolutely transform Calgary and Edmonton into much more of a cohesive CalEd conurbation.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But by all means, ask your neighbour how much more tax they'd be willing to pay for highspeed rail in the corridor.

Axe the airline subsidies for short-haul trips, amortize the project over 30 years, and have high enough prices so that fare-box revenues cover operating costs. Once you divide those capital costs by each person in the corridor over 30 years, tax increases would be minimal.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Honestly in regards to the HSR if it happens why don’t we fully commit and do a trans-Canada project?

HSR makes sense in 2.5 locations in Canada: the corridor, Vancouver to Portland, and kinda maybe Calgary to Edmonton (I am not sure Albertans will get out of their cars though).

A train from Toronto to Winnipeg has no speed advantage over a plane, and it will pick up next to no passengers in between those two cities. Same with Winnipeg to Regina, or Saskatoon to Edmonton.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no business case for high speed freight. The energy involved to move freight at higher speeds is immense. And customers would never pay for that.

The business case isn't there for freight trains moving oil or cars or grain. However, small packages could be carried in addition to passengers on some trains. Think low density, high value cargo that would typically be flown or loaded on a truck. With good supply chain integration, this could speed up the flow of some cargo significantly. Besides, thanks to Amazon we are all used to two-day delivery.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

A geoscientist I know who studies debris flows and landslides did a helicopter survey of the Fraser Canyon and up the Coquihalla just after the first round of heavy rain, he said that none of the landslides he saw were triggered in forest fire scars, they were all natural landslides.

The major flooding in Abbotsford and Chillwack wasn't caused by wildfire scars either, it was caused by inadequate dykes and massive amounts of rainfall in BC and Washington State.

Good to know when the fires get trotted out as an out of context explanation by some for the ravages caused by the floods. Clearly this is one of the most undeniable Climate Change caused disasters to date.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

HSR makes sense in 2.5 locations in Canada: the corridor, Vancouver to Portland, and kinda maybe Calgary to Edmonton (I am not sure Albertans will get out of their cars though).

Anyone who has done the monotonous drive between Calgary and Edmonton (especially if it's on a semi regular basis) would probably jump at the opportunity.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Anyone who has done the monotonous drive between Calgary and Edmonton (especially if it's on a semi regular basis) would probably jump at the opportunity.

if there was a car carrier section sure. Anytime I have had to get to Calgary its always to some far flung corner that I would need to rent or cab it.

[Airboy]

Here is another image of the ongoing EPCOR Solar project in Edmonton.

And for an added bonus, the clear cuts through the trees to the right of the bridge (Henday west) is the TMX Pipeline right of way. Using the Transportation Utility corridor.

[IMG]Epsolar by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[/url], on Flickr[/IMG]

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The business case isn't there for freight trains moving oil or cars or grain. However, small packages could be carried in addition to passengers on some trains. Think low density, high value cargo that would typically be flown or loaded on a truck. With good supply chain integration, this could speed up the flow of some cargo significantly. Besides, thanks to Amazon we are all used to two-day delivery.

High speed rail freight has been killed in virtually every market where it has been tried, globally. Most things that are valuable enough to need quickly, are valuable enough to fly or truck across the country, and not have to rely on standard freight schedules.

And really, the only place where any high or even higher speed rail is being built, are all truckable distances, where the distance of simply moving from warehouse to rail terminus and loading would eat up any savings from using high speed rail.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Airboy

if there was a car carrier section sure. Anytime I have had to get to Calgary its always to some far flung corner that I would need to rent or cab it.

I think having a car carrier would completely destroy any time savings of taking a high speed train, especially for such a short distance.

I haven't taken the Auto Train in the US or the Channel Tunnel car train, but my experience from ferries in BC and elsewhere is that if you bring your car onboard, you're adding a minimum of 1 hour of extra travel time between queuing up in the appropriate lane to board, driving your car in and then waiting to unload. Not surprisingly, BC ferries tries its hardest to discourage drive-on traffic with high fares for cars compared to walk-on passengers. I don't blame them. If it wasn't for cars, they could probably make 50% more voyages in the same time on routes like Tsawassen-Swartz Bay, and like 200% more on Gibsons-Horseshoe Bay while operating ships that are 1/3 the size.

And you'd have to place the train station on the outskirts, because these kinds of operations are basically giant parking lots.

If you need to make the last mile trip in a car-centric city, just take an Uber or taxi.