Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[kEiThZ]

Japan has subsidized their high-speed rail network to the tune of 250Billion dollars (if I remember right). That is half of Canada's entire national debt. Japan's debt/GDP is around 150% and rising.

And Japan also has a significantly higher population density which would make air transport more of a challenge (higher traffic density, higher fuel consumption from short routes, inefficient use of premium land for airports, etc). We don't have that problem here, which conversely puts rail at a bit of a disadvantage. Though, perhaps we are reaching a tipping point.

 

[cacruden]

And Japan also has a significantly higher population density which would make air transport more of a challenge (higher traffic density, higher fuel consumption from short routes, inefficient use of premium land for airports, etc). We don't have that problem here, which conversely puts rail at a bit of a disadvantage. Though, perhaps we are reaching a tipping point.

Also, prices for flying within Japan are as high or sometimes higher than flying in from overseas

Actually, on my way back to Canada this year -- I am going to stop over in Japan, I would have preferred to fly into Fukuoka, but it is cheaper for me to fly into Tokyo, and then work my way down to Tokyo Station and take the bullet train all the way to the south of the Island (not because the train is cheap, but because adding that leg into the ticket was much more expensive.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^Flights within Canada are much more expensive than comparable flights within the United States. Not to mention, the cheapest domestic flying to be had anywhere in the world is in Europe, especially between cities with high speed rail connections.

 

[MisterF]

And Japan also has a significantly higher population density which would make air transport more of a challenge (higher traffic density, higher fuel consumption from short routes, inefficient use of premium land for airports, etc). We don't have that problem here, which conversely puts rail at a bit of a disadvantage. Though, perhaps we are reaching a tipping point.

I don't think anyone's suggesting a rail system as massive as in Japan. But rather a system that's not put to shame by countries with similar or lower population densities, like France, Scotland or Ireland.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't think anyone's suggesting a rail system as massive as in Japan. But rather a system that's not put to shame by countries with similar or lower population densities, like France, Scotland or Ireland.

Can we please stop comparing our rail systems to tiny, densly populated countries like France or Ireland.

We should be comparing our rail network to large, sparsely populated countries like Australia.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Can we please stop comparing our rail systems to tiny, densly populated countries like France or Ireland.

We should be comparing our rail network to large, sparsely populated countries like Australia.

Beez, we're obviously talking about a high speed rail system within the relatively dense and small confines of Central Canada, and not a continent-spanning behemoth from Halifax to Vancouver.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Beez, we're obviously talking about a high speed rail system within the relatively dense and small confines of Central Canada, and not a continent-spanning behemoth from Halifax to Vancouver.

But the routing everyone is always talking about is Windsor to Quebec City. That's 1,150 km, almost the entire length of Japan's main island of Honshu. Meanwhile we've got people here suggesting Ireland as a model rail system, even though the entire country is only 280 km wide by 486 km long. Even France is tiny by the standards we need, being only 962 km x 950 km.

More realistic comparisons would be the rail networks that service large urban centres situated at great distances from each other. For example, let's look at Rail Australia, http://www.railaustralia.com.au/ which services the 1,600 km Melbourne-Camberra-Sydney- Brisbane corridor.

Of how about the USA, where Amtrac which offers daily commuter services between distant cities, in several corridors at speeds over 110 mph (180 kph). Not rocket train territory, but not bad for North America.

Comparing our 1,150 km W2Q Corridor to tiny routes in tiny countries doesn't make sense.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I think full-fledged HSR is only viable between Montreal and some city, be it Hamilton or Kitchener, to the immediate west of Toronto. That's more like 650km, which is still shorter than the LGV Sud-Est/Rhone Alpes/Mediteranee corridor at 750 km in "tiny" France.

 

[MisterF]

Can we please stop comparing our rail systems to tiny, densly populated countries like France or Ireland.

We should be comparing our rail network to large, sparsely populated countries like Australia.

Comparing the Windsor-Quebec corridor to France or Ireland makes perfect sense. the population density of Southern Ontario is about 110 people/km2. That figure includes large, sparsely populated counties like Haliburton and Renfrew. Some European countries for comparison, according to Wikipedia:

France 114/km2
Spain 90
Turkey 93
Poland 122
Ireland 71
Scotland 65

Most of the above countries have high speed rail either built or planned. All of them make our rail system look pathetic. We need to put to rest the idea that quality rail service isn't feasible in this country because of population density.

BTW, the density of those countries is relatively uniform for the most part, so it makes sense to compare the density of the entire country while it doesn't in Canada. Northern Ontario is about as relevant to Montreal - Toronto rail as the Amazon is to rail between Rio and Sao Paulo.

 

[cacruden]

Comparing the Windsor-Quebec corridor to France or Ireland makes perfect sense. the population density of Southern Ontario is about 110 people/km2. That figure includes large, sparsely populated counties like Haliburton and Renfrew. Some European countries for comparison, according to Wikipedia:

France 114/km2
Spain 90
Turkey 93
Poland 122
Ireland 71
Scotland 65

Most of the above countries have high speed rail either built or planned. All of them make our rail system look pathetic. We need to put to rest the idea that quality rail service isn't feasible in this country because of population density.

BTW, the density of those countries is relatively uniform, so it makes sense to compare the density of the entire country while it doesn't in Canada. Northern Ontario's population density is about as relevant to Montreal - Toronto rail as the Amazon is to rail between Rio and Sao Paulo.

If you compare rail from these countries, then you also have to compare the taxes the average person spends..... are you willing to pay their tax rate to get those trains.

 

[MisterF]

I'm not sure of the point of that question. I've never seen any evidence that HSR would result in higher taxes, considering it's expected to make a profit and pay for itself. But since you brought up taxes, going by total tax revenue as a % of GDP the only one of those countries that's significantly higher than us is France. The rest are in the 30-36% range. Canada is right in the middle at 33%.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/35471773.pdf

 

[Admiral Beez]

I can fly on Porter Airlines from downtown Toronto to Montreal on Monday next week and return on Thursday for a grand total of $267.58. VIA, using their Super Saver fare to Montreal City Centre is $165. For a savings of about $100 over air travel, I have to spend an extra six to eight hours in transit. So, the economics of HSL will only work if VIA can get me from Union Station to Montreal in about the same amount of time for less. Otherwise we've already got a fast, economical and convenient way to get to Montreal from Toronto.

 

[poomar]

not to mention envoronmentally destructive to boot.

Beez, you're forgetting that Porter only takes you to Dorval, not Station Centrale. So you either have to pay $40 for a taxi ride downtown, still adding at least another 40 minutes to the trip, or you take the bus, another bus and then the metro--at least 1.5 hours.

You have raise the cost of the Porter fare to include the taxi or make the trip take longer. Either way it's not as great an option as you think it is.

 

[kEiThZ]

not to mention envoronmentally destructive to boot.

Beez, you're forgetting that Porter only takes you to Dorval, not Station Centrale. So you either have to pay $40 for a taxi ride downtown, still adding at least another 40 minutes to the trip, or you take the bus, another bus and then the metro--at least 1.5 hours.

You have raise the cost of the Porter fare to include the taxi or make the trip take longer. Either way it's not as great an option as you think it is.

Using the crude number being thrown about here....

That's still 60 dollars cheaper and 2 hrs faster downtown-to-downtown using Porter. And if you take the metro its 98 bucks cheaper and still about 1 hr faster downtown-to-downtown. And that doesn't include how productive one can be waiting for a flight or Porter's service (especially the lounge at the island)...or how much more energetic and relaxed a person is from the relative shortness of the trip (vs. the train ride...in comfort class). Incidentally, Via surveys now inquire about how they compare to Porter.....they should learn to stop over charging for their crappy sandwiches....and perhaps consider free wine, free wifi, free hot meals like Porter.

 

[poomar]

OK fine, but isn't the exercise here to compare porter to a potential HSR line? i'm not going to dispute the fact that i'd rather fly porter than take via, but the whole point of this discussion is that given an HSR option, even flying wouldn't be competitive.