The discussion here seems to revolve around personal opinions and recycliing all the debates we have had since HFR was proposed a decade ago.
Seems to me that we (myself included) are not paying sufficient attention to the Alto package and focussing on the merits as Alto has presented them. (I wonder if some posters actually bothered to read the
Alto presentation). Seems to me we should be focussing more specifically on their pitch.
So - I went thru their document again, jotted down some of the key themes as Alto is arguing them, and attempted some critical challenge and fact checking, admittedly with my own opinions added.
My take on Alto's claims.....
1. The current network is disjointed and has not seen significant upgrades since the TCH was built in 1962
Not true, in the sense that since 1962 there has been massive investment in air terminals and in highway transportation - the 416, triple lanes on 401, expressway construction in the cities. The current network moves people fairly efficiently....at current volumes. Alto's pitch is a bit rhetorical.
A more relevant argument might be around how well present capacity matches future demand, and if there is clearly a need for further investment to match future demand, which mode will be cheapest to build beyond today's capacity..
And that leads to a very simple comparison - how much airport and highway construction costs compare to HSR costs, for the same projected capacity growth. This case could be made a lot more clearly and simply than the document, which makes one wonder if they actually have numbers and what these might actually say.
2. HSR links communities
Not true, in the sense that HSR only links the biggest cities and offers only 7 stops. This is fine as a "virtual airport" network, does a great job of moving large numbers of people terminal to terminal as a "backbone". but it does very poor job of serving communities along the way. And, the very small number of stops creates a huge first mile/last mile challenge. Consider the disjointed transportation network that connects Ontario communities to Trudeau and Pearson Airports....HSR does nothing to fix that (although co-locating HSR with regional rail and urban transit does improve on connectivity, also despite adding some recent new airport transit lines, airport connectivity is generally very weak and might be improvale at very low cost eg buses).
There is a second parallel need for regional and local transportation building.... does HSR inhale all the available capital, or will there be a second parallel expense to be budgeted and planned? Canada can only afford so much.
3. Our current air network is plagued by unreliability and is not upwards scalable
Completely true and the prognosis is not appealing. The impact of cancellations, missed connections, and weather disruptions will only multiply as more people travel by air and more flights are required.
4. Highway travel in the corridor is plagued by congestion and is not upwards scalable
Completely true. There is no room to add automobiles as there are zones that are maxxed out and that throttles the whole network. Again, the upwards scalability will be hugely expensive.
5. Travel time saved has an economic and social value
Only true sometimes. Not all customers are time sensitive.... but.... any disruption beyond planned travel time has an economic cost: When grandpa and grandma wait four hours at the airport due to a flight delay, it's an economic impact even when their travel is not time sensistive. The added hour spent in a car when a highway is disrupted is an economic and social impact, even if the driver is simply taking longer to get home and make dinner for their family.
6. HSR will attract 13 x more riders than conventional rail
It's hard to verify this one without seeing more data. It runs contrary to common sense since HSR will likely be priced above conventional rail. Certainly, HSR will outperform today's VIA service, but today's service can be improved at far less cost than full HSR. We all have our opinions, but let's see the hard data.
7. HSR will cover its operating costs
Maybe, this point is debatable and needs more granular data. But... even if true, it's overemphasized. Covering the financing and amortisation cost to invest in HSR matters at least as much, but no promises made here. Ability to raise the capital cost within the nation's GDP over the next 15 years matters more.
8. Current rail service over shared tracks is unsustainable and passenger rail needs its own corridor to remove conflict with freight
Absolutely true -
the most important point of all IMHO - but this doesn't justify HSR on its own merit. The original vanilla HFR will address this concern, at much lower cost.
9. HSR has strong support among population
Hard to verify, but we can be sure that the Liberals have polled this to death with the electorate.
Doesn't mean Alto's numbers are truthful - we have three political parties all saying their numbers prove they will form the next government, after all.
The key is, the Cons probably have 80 western seats locked in, and yea-or-nay on HSR won't shift the needle on that one way or the other.
To win a government, the Cons need traction in the 200 seats up for grabs in Ontario and Quebec. I suspect their polling will say that opposing HSR will cost them seats in that region, whereas promising to do something - anything - about VIA's current situation will sit well with voters. Just my speculation.
10. HSR will improve mobility and stimulate productivity and gdp, more choice in where people live and work, catalyst for housing and mobility.
HSR is great if you live or work close to the terminals. But their terminals are going to be located in the center of our most dense cities, with all the first and last mile problems that creates. If you take Alto's line of reasoning, HSR will help Toronto Ottawa and Montreal become more dense and build more housing. Huh? HSR is in many ways just an airport substitute... and If airports did that, we would already have enough housing in those cities.
What will move the needle on housing and community growth? Regional rail and local transit. Again, we need to keep building regional networks. Alto is completely silent on what will happen to VIA's current "local" services, which retain the problem of shared freight trackage. Proposing HSR without an equally well thought out statement of how those services will be invested in and operated is, in my opinion, proof that Alto is about having nice things and not serving any of mobility or community linkage issues.
11 Gen Z is train friendly (to be a bit crass, the people who don't like trains (aka Boomers) are going to die soonest and are not the key market segment)
Undoubtedly, an astute observation, but only in one segment. Certainly true of urban dwellers, especially those who have travelled abroad, and those who are in a no-auto, live downtown mindset. Likely correlates to post secondary education. But ignores the size of the "suburban populations". For many Canadians, their most significant long distance travel needs will still be getting to an airport to fly across the country, or to a southern vacation destination. A large number won't see HSR moving their personal needle much.
12. HSR will reduce ghg
Sort of. The biggest savings is getting people out of cars and airplanes onto a smoky diesel train. Making that diesel train carbon-neutral is the gravy, not the steak. Also, the test is not how much carbon HSR saves, it's how it performs relative to other options within the available investment envelope for carbon reduction. My personal opinion is that improved local transit, replacing regional and local auto use, would remove much more carbon emissions. So those options take priority over HSR if the ccarbon reduction envelope won't achieve both.
To sum up, the arguments that resonate most with me are
- Replacing the current shared-with-freight system with dedicated passenger lines is the paramount consideration, but doing so by full HSR is still open to debate
- Any intercity solution has to be matched with a plan to meet regional and urban transportation investment requirements - HSR can't steal all the funding
- Retaining and building the non-HSR side of VIA is as important as building H(whatever)R
- All political parties will have to give this proposal serious attention, perhaps not to buy in. but certainly to explain their views on doing something, anything, about VIA's current deplorable status
- All political parties ought to declare their plans for highway and airport expansion, and justify why these are cheaper and better than a rail solution
A two-cup-of-coffee commentary
- Paul
