Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

High-speed railroading

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:27pm - 115 Comments

From the print edition, Andrew Coyne says a lot of really mean things about my high-speed rail dream. And yet I rather like where his argument ends up.

Tags: Andrew coyne, high-speed rail

More by Paul Wells

Harper in China: Beyond the sea of troubles

Underneath all the hype something real is going on between Ottawa and Beijing, writes Paul Wells
Time out: New art in Beijing

Thursday in Beijing. The Prime Minister had pooled events for the first half of…
Harper in China: rules of the game

Paul Wells on why we should file the trade agreement between Canada and China under “might help; can’t hurt”

Dot

And yet I rather like where his argument ends up.

Good luck with that:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Stelmach+increa…

Btw – take note of the types of vehicles in the parking lot next time you're in Cowtown. Mainly pick up trucks and SUVs. I have trouble seeing the business case for this endeavour in Alberti, given the nature of its residents and their driving/living habits.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Albertans would revolt en masse if the government added highway tolls. There are very few issues that could take down the PCs, but this is one of them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

So, win-win then!
Amateur Hour

"Railways are very restrictive, except in very congested areas". You mean those areas where most Canadians live? They're now called cities. At some point, someone should recognize that when you build more lanes on a highway, they fill up right away and you're pack to where you started… stuck in traffic. And regional jets carry only one carload of rail passengers each. Now that's efficiency! (Not)

Seriously, after 100 years of subsidizing the automotive transport system (from nose to tail) and 60 years of subsidizing the aircraft transport system, and ensuring that local MPs got reelected on the back of "highway subsidies", isn't it time we gave passenger rail the good ole college try?

It galls me that a trip from Toronto to London, UK is nearly the same price and time commitment as a trip from Toronto to Quebec City. I understand that we may not have the density plus tourism demand that much of Europe has, but we could aspire to have trains that do indeed travel faster than highway traffic, no?

TGV may not be the answer, but there are rail alternatives that are fast and feasible given our population corridors AND their proximity to US population centres. This cannot happen as a "made in Canada" project alone. We need to be talking to Governors of US states that would also benefit from better, faster rail. I think we once tried some big infrastructure project with them … The Seaway, was it?

Coyne's example of the Alberta line is silly and intended to distort the matter and deceive as Calgary/Edmonton are far away from any possible links to any other major population centres. We need to connect not just the dense population centres of central Canada, where 2/3 of us live and work, we need them to link up to New York, Boston, Chicago, etc.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

We need to connect not just the dense population centres of central Canada, where 2/3 of us live and work, we need them to link up to New York, Boston, Chicago, etc.

And are the "we" who would use this magnificent international intercity transportation marvel willing to pay full price for it? Of course not.
Larry J. Raid

1/6/11
Dear Paul Wells,

Please email me about 30,812 miles of a High-Speed Railroad System, Ultra-High-Speed Railroad System and QuadRailroading System, which is coming to the USA, and it will be connected with the World. These Trains will be powered with FREE FUEL, and rolling on an All-New, All-Self-Contained, Standard Gauge system traveling at 250 miles per hour up to 400 miles per hour.

Thank you for your interest in High-Speed Railroading.

Sincerely,

Larry

Larry J. Raid, President
Quaint Train International Educational Center, Inc.
333 Park Avenue
Denmark, Iowa 52624 USA "The Center of the World"

319-528-6151
319-371-5063 Cell phone

larryjraid@lisco.com

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Hey, Steady Eddie should pass a no-tax law. I know what he could use for a model:

http://www.canada.com/business/fp/Alberta+deficit…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

How rude.. dredging up facts like that.
Dot

Not right now – he doesn't want to officially take all options off the table until his Economic Advisory panel has met at least once.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Not for the first time, I have to assume the name "Critical Reasoning" was meant to be ironic.

A reader

Or just way too literal.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It's almost as ironic as those in the public sphere who advocate incredibly expensive high-speed rail development, just so they can zip around between their favorite cities in style.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Are you implying that only public-spirited journalists will be able to use such trains? On the contrary, it would save all those wasted hours in businesspeople's days, integrate us, etc.; and the poor would suddenly be able to visit Aunt Julia in Windsor without begging for a whole day off work.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm implying that the staggering costs of such a venture would outweigh the economic benefits of saving travelers a few hours. If there was a way we could build a cost-effective high-speed rail corridor, I'd support it. Unfortunately, every study ever commissioned on this issue suggests that high speed rail projects can't be cost-effective in this country.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm implying that the staggering costs of such a venture would outweigh the economic benefits of saving travelers a few hours. If there was a way we could build a cost-effective high-speed rail corridor, I'd support it. Unfortunately, every study ever commissioned on this issue suggests that high-speed rail projects can't be cost-effective in this country.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

also your claim about cost effectiveness is just false:
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/print/2009.06–off-…

I don't understand why high speed rail wouldn't be cost effective here… montreal, ottawa, toronto, windsor, are only a few hours apart at current rail speeds…

morocco is building high speed rail… they're the same size as us,…. and you know, really poor and in the middle of the desert. Morocco ranks 126th in the Human Development Index (out of 177), Canada ranks 4th. Per capita GDP in morocco is about $4,500. for canada about $33,000

http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

wow, i guess Inkless is elitist scum. unless….

*you don't actually make any sense.*

1) "For most Albertans, driving is the only viable transportation option." that wouldn't be because the government refuses to invest in other viable options would it? That's sort of like saying in the 1900s; "we can't use cars, there's no viable way to drive them anywhere!'

2)"I don't know why anyone would have a problem with driving being massively subsidized by taxpayers. "

Autoculture sucks:

-it causes climate change
-promotes poor urban planning & hideous urban infrastructure
-makes people fat and lazy
-Isolates people from others, fosters an artificial sense of rugged individualism.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm not sure how you read "elitist scum" into my comment. Our beloved columnist is anything but elitist, as demonstrated by his sincere efforts to promote accessible Canadian musical and cultural works to readers who might not otherwise be exposed to them.

As for the rest of your comment, the cities of Edmonton and Calgary have made commendable and successful investments in public transit. Calgary tops all other Canadian cities in LRT ridership, for example.

However, the simple fact is that Calgary and Edmonton are some of the most spread-out cities in the world, in terms of population density, and there are 1.5 million other Albertans who live in small towns and rural areas. While there are many Albertans who use public transit to commute, the fact remains that most Albertans don't have the luxury of relying on public transport for all their transportation needs.. This is why investments in ring roads and highways are considered such an essential part of Alberta's development strategy. It's also why all Albertans, including nondrivers, benefit from directly and indirectly from taxpayer-subsidized roads and highways.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm not sure how you read "elitist scum" into my comment. Our beloved columnist is anything but elitist, as demonstrated by his sincere efforts to promote accessible Canadian musical and cultural works to readers who might not otherwise be exposed to them.

As for the rest of your comment, the cities of Edmonton and Calgary have made commendable and successful investments in public transit. Calgary tops all other Canadian cities in LRT ridership, for example.

However, the simple fact is that Calgary and Edmonton are some of the most spread-out cities in the world, in terms of population density, and there are 1.5 million other Albertans who live in small towns and rural areas. While there are many Albertans who use public transit to commute, the fact remains that most Albertans don't have the luxury of relying on public transport for all their transportation needs.

This is why investments in ring roads and highways are considered such an essential part of Alberta's development strategy. It's also why all Albertans, including nondrivers, benefit from directly and indirectly from taxpayer-subsidized roads and highways.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm not sure how you read "elitist scum" into my comment. Our beloved columnist is anything but elitist, as demonstrated by his sincere efforts to promote accessible Canadian musical and cultural works to readers who might not otherwise be exposed to them.

As for the rest of your comment, the cities of Edmonton and Calgary have made commendable and successful investments in public transit. Calgary tops all other Canadian cities in LRT ridership, for example.

However, the simple fact is that Calgary and Edmonton are some of the most spread-out cities in the world, in terms of population density, and there are 1.5 million other Albertans who live in small towns and rural areas. While there are many Albertans who use public transit to commute, the fact remains that most Albertans don't have the luxury of relying on public transport for all their transportation needs.

This is why investments in ring roads and highways are considered such an essential part of Alberta's development strategy. It's also why all Albertans, including nondrivers, benefit both directly and indirectly from taxpayer-subsidized roads and highways.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm not sure how you read "elitist scum" into my comment. Our beloved columnist may be self-interested, but he is anything but elitist, as demonstrated by his sincere efforts to promote accessible Canadian musical and cultural works to readers who might not otherwise be exposed to them.

As for the rest of your comment, the cities of Edmonton and Calgary have made commendable and successful investments in public transit. Calgary tops all other Canadian cities in LRT ridership, for example.

However, the simple fact is that Calgary and Edmonton are some of the most spread-out cities in the world, in terms of population density. There are also 1.5 million other Albertans who live in small towns and rural areas. While there are many Albertans who use public transit to commute, the fact remains that most Albertans don't have the luxury of relying on public transport for all their transportation needs.

This is why investments in ring roads and highways are considered such an essential part of Alberta's development strategy. It's also why all Albertans, including nondrivers, benefit both directly and indirectly from taxpayer-subsidized roads and highways.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

Its not as if a cities' density happens by accident. People build them that way. Calgary and Edmonton sprawl because of poor urban planning. Transit only works with effective city planning
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

It's not as if a cities' density happens by accident. People build them that way. Calgary and Edmonton sprawl because of poor urban planning. Transit only works with effective city planning
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

It's not as if a city's density happens by accident. People build them that way. Calgary and Edmonton sprawl because of poor urban planning. Transit only works with effective city planning

Mulletaur

Another dream killer ! What do you have against me taking 3 hour trips from Toronto to Montreal for smoked meat ? Selfish road user. Huh.

sbt

We do subsidize Via Rail. The limited reductions in travel time by upgrading the rail network just aren't worth billions of taxpayer dollars.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

If everybody owned a few guns and were in the habit of using them to enforce order, there would surely be a libertarian outcry (and public grumbling) at the idea of introducing a police force. (There probably was, come to think of it.)

The question is not whether the money is "fairly" allocated (you must say "fairly" in the Andrew Coyne voice, as though what's fair and what's not is perfectly obvious) but whether, overall, a society that is totally dependent on the car is better than a society in which one can opt out of having a car. (That's "opt out" as in personal choice, Mr. Coyne! Personal choice! Rational choice, even!) I don't myself see how we can hope to eventually live in an environmentally friendly society without deaddicting ourselves to the automobile; anything which hurts the automobile forebodes the Future, which might just involve small businesses again, livable communities, etc. Investment in high-speed rail is an investment in the collective quality of life.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

If everybody owned a few guns and were in the habit of using them to enforce order, there would surely be a libertarian outcry (and public grumbling) at the idea of introducing a police force. (There probably was, come to think of it.)

The question is not whether the money is "fairly" allocated (you must say "fairly" in the Andrew Coyne voice, as though what's fair and what's not were perfectly obvious) but whether, overall, a society that is totally dependent on the car is better than a society in which one can opt out of having a car. (That's "opt out" as in personal choice, Mr. Coyne! Personal choice! Rational choice, even!) I don't myself see how we can hope to eventually live in an environmentally friendly society without deaddicting ourselves to the automobile; anything which hurts the automobile forebodes the Future, which might just involve small businesses again, livable communities, etc. Investment in high-speed rail is an investment in the collective quality of life.

Orson Bean

"I don't myself see how we can hope to eventually live in an environmentally friendly society without deaddicting ourselves to the automobile"

But what about the electric car?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I haven't really thought about it, but I don't really care about the environment compared to quality of life.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

and electricity comes from……….

Scott M.

Depends completely on where you are. If you live in Quebec, chances are you can charge your car overnight just from the base capacity of the system from Hydroelectric (ie. electricity that would otherwise be wasted). In Ontario same holds true from base capacity of the Nuclear system (except during heat waves in the summer).

Other provinces rely more heavily on fossil fuels, but in the case of the "big two", you can have timing systems set up that ensure that the only electricity used is electricity that would otherwise be wasted.

Orson Bean

B.C. also has mosty hydroelectric.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I have no problem with people weaning themselves off automobiles. I agree that our over-reliance on automobiles has contributed to urban sprawl and has deteriorated the "livability" of communities. For this reason, I generally support taxpayer-subsidized public transit.

However, we have to draw the line somewhere. If the cost of reducing travel times for rail users amount to tens of billions of dollars, perhaps these funds would be better invested elsewhere . There are many non-boondoggle ways to improve our collective quality of life and our environmental friendliness.

http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

sbt,

good points. and I agree, I ain't complaining about Via Rail Mtl – Toronto. It is my preferred way to get to Hogtown for the very reason you mention (drunkeness).

Here's how I would invest in rail travel to make it even better (again, purely selfish reasons):

I want to be able to reserve a small conference room on the train (1 – 4 people) so that I can also conduct conference calls during my train travel without disturbing my fellow passengers. Call it an "office-on-wheels" and I think you'd have something to sell against flying.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I have no problem with people weaning themselves off automobiles. I agree that our over-reliance on automobiles has contributed to urban sprawl and has deteriorated the "livability" of communities. For this reason, I generally support taxpayer-subsidized public transit.

However, we have to draw the line somewhere. If the cost of reducing travel times for a relatively small number of rail users amounts to tens of billions of dollars, perhaps these funds would be better invested elsewhere . There are many non-boondoggle ways to improve our collective quality of life and our environmental friendliness.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I have no problem with people weaning themselves off automobiles. I agree that our over-reliance on automobiles has contributed to urban sprawl and has deteriorated the "livability" of communities. For this reason, I generally support taxpayer-subsidized public transit.

However, we have to draw the line somewhere. If the cost of reducing travel times for a relatively small number of rail users amounts to tens of billions of dollars, perhaps these funds would be better invested elsewhere. There are many non-boondoggle ways to improve our collective quality of life and our environmental friendliness.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I have no problem with people weaning themselves off automobiles. I agree that our over-reliance on automobiles has contributed to urban sprawl, and has deteriorated the "livability" of communities. For this reason, I generally support taxpayer-subsidized public transit.

However, we have to draw the line somewhere. If the cost of reducing travel times for a relatively small number of rail users amounts to tens of billions of dollars, perhaps these funds would be better invested elsewhere. There are many non-boondoggle ways to improve our collective quality of life and our environmental friendliness.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I take your point, and I yield, I suppose, to every study, if every study has in fact concluded that it's a money sinkhole. I must say that I don't quite grasp how a highspeed rail between, say, Brussels and Namur can be an essential component of Belgian society but the same sort of thing can't link Toronto and Hamilton, or Ottawa and Montreal. Perhaps we need to distinguish between the initial investment, which would naturally be inflated by the greater distances involved, and the operating costs.

tobyornottoby

I generally favour re-investing in rail transportation of various types but I admit I snickered at "train à grand richesse."
Stewart Smith

I posted a nasty comment in Coynes original piece. A reasonable question for the crack Macleans staff:compare the total cost of my "automobile" (captial cost, gas, insurance, subisidy for autoplants, buy out of failed companies, taxes for roads, …) as a comparision for rail. For that matter, compare how much the car costs Canadians per captia compared to the cost of our Queen. It seems to me that Liz is a bargain.

DPT

first of all, capital and operating costs are born by the individual not the state, secondly Coyne would undoubtedly oppose subsidies for automakers (and has, quite vociferously. See his last blogpost) The costs of roads are unavoidable due to the requirement to provide intricate and detailed access to millions of locations that rail is unable to provide. Furthermore the distances and geography in this country make it prohibitively more expensive to provide rail service. For what is proposed to be spent in Alberta they could build two new highways between Ed and Cal.

Stewart

Distances and geography… I am not so sure. Comparing most places in Canada, the vast majority of people are going between relatively few places and almost always east or west. I believe it has much more to do with the organization of our cities. When I go to Paris, I get on a train at the airport and go directly where I want in the city. On a trip from Toronto to Vancouver, I spend approximately the same time traveling on the ground at both ends (plus waiting at the airport) as I do in the air.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Wascally_Wabbit Wascally_Wabbit

We have a swing bridge here that we can swing to mid-stream to keep out mainlanders (especially land developers).
Rare that I agree with Coyne – and will no doubt be called Loose Cannon by my Liberals friends for raining on Michael Ignatieff's big plan – but I honestly cannot see any sort of incentive / idsincentive working for this boondoggle – because it is fundamentally wrong.
I for one am all for the 100 kilometre rule – razing all these huge monstrosities called cities and moving back to a multi-community network model – where all communications originate from your home desk a la telecommuting – and all goods are produced locally – or if remotely – sent via bulk transport.
After all, I'm sure Messrs. Wells and Coybne are not chained to a desk in the Mcleans Offices when drumming up this stuff – and it is proven that ITQ can mail in our fodder from – well – pretty well anywhere…
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

Also I know many journalists have addressed this (including Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells), but there really needs to be more analysis/coverage of the GM bailout. There's got to be a way to keep that story alive…. it really is in the public interest, and I suspect support for the intervention is thinner than politicians think.

Andrew (not P or C)

We're buying out the pensions of people who don't deserve it. For some reason, we've created a class of a few thousand people who never worked for the government, yet have a much richer class of government pension than anyone else is entitled to.
sbt

Aren't we still indirectly subsidizing Via Rail through it's infrastructure (stations, rail crossings, etc.)? I get your point about the direct subsidizies subsidizing non-profitable routes.

Andrew (not P or C)

Via piggybacks of private networks. Of course, those private networks were to some extent subsidized way back when. I'm not sure Via benefits much from that.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

So, if Hiway 2 between Edmonton and Calgary (or the QE II Hiway as it is now known) had toll booths, what would a one way trip cost?

Scott M.

Depends. Are you just paying for up-keep from this point forward, or are you paying for the original construction costs of the road and all money that's been poured into it over the years?

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

As if roughly half or more of the price at the gas pump is not tax…?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Thanks for the thoughts.

My basis was that: the toll would cover ongoing maintenance, upgrades, purchase of the existing assets and purchase of right of ways so as to put it on the same basis as a new high speed rail corridor. I was mostly asking so that I could do a better comparison between the actual costs of providing the infrastructure for both automobiles and high-speed trains.

I do realize that governments collect taxes on gasoline (pretty sure less than half the cost), and that nominally those funds are supposed to be targeted towards transportation expenses, but I believe that in reality the this link is closer to fiction than to reality. My napkin calcs say that if the fuel tax is 15c/litre, Albertans pay about $5 per trip. Does that really cover the entire cost?

On a somewhat related note, personally I would seriously consider any move to provide better linkage between the true cost of a public service and a logical revenue source. The obvious example is fuel taxes and automobile transport, which, btw could include the appropriate portion of policing costs and health costs. Cigarette taxes could cover the cost of associated health costs (and I have suspicions that cigarette taxes are actually a net gain for governments). Liquor taxes would go to health care and policing and so on. This would still leave some/many costs that might be rather hard to link, but it would be interesting to see how far this could be pushed.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Or, just like MYL said…..apparently I type too slow.
Mulletaur

Apparently the Via Rail president told parliamentarians last month that Via is using the extra money from stimulus to prepare for high speed rail. Interesting, no ?

Scott M.

Alas, I believe what Paul Cote was referring to when he said a "higher-speed" system was not, in fact, high speed rail. He was referring to upgrading the track to allow their existing LRC coaches to get up to their service maximum, which is 100-120 miles per hour. Right now, the Toronto to Montreal express (when it comes in on time, which is not that often), averages around 83 mph. Toronto to Ottawa and Ottawa to Montreal is much worse, with speeds closer to 60 mph.

If they could get the track upgraded so the LRCs could go up to 120MPH, that could greatly cut current speeds, with no need to buy new cars or locomotives.
Scott M.

Greatly *increase* current speeds, ahem.
sbt

If you eat every day you benefit from it. It's not like your tomatoes are going to be shipped to you by high speed rail.

Andrew (not P or C)

Veg could quite conceivably make use of 'high speed' rail freight, by which I mean ~200kph. It would require better infrastructure, but would allow the blossoming of an intermodal distribution system while taking a lot of truck-miles off our over-punished highways, as well as increase productivity (a couple people to move what it would take 50 truckers three times as long to move).

sbt

I don't disagree that it "could" be possible but if there was an economic case for that why wouldn't we use cheaper good old fashion rail (which is already there). It's not like the vegetables are going to go rotten in the hour or two we save in transportation.

Scott M.

I love trains, they are wonderful to travel on and they provide a very special experience, but they are no more worthy of subsidy than ocean liners or horse-drawn coaches.

Or roads? Look, we subsidize bus services and airplane services to the hilt. If trains can move more people, quicker and with less impact to the environment why wouldn't we want to support that?
http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

Oh, cripes, another Coyne hitpiece on rail.

And it’s no better than any of the other ones. Not only because it ignores countries with extraordinarily successful high speed rail like Japan or France, and not only because it ignores the relative energy efficiency of rail mass transit over individual engines, or the concentration effects of having rail links from city core to city core (his sprawl argument was just inane)…

…but he makes the astonishing error of not acknowledging that rail can be electrified, and therefore powered by non-fossil energy sources.

Has Coyne even used public transportation before? Has he seen a subway or streetcar in his life? Or is he one of those people who thinks that mass transit is for The Little People?

Yes, taking the subsidy out of driving would be a good idea. But rail is a natural monopoly. You aren’t going to get “entrepreneurs” to pony up the dough, it requires the heavy hand of government to make the necessary investments, just like with any other form of transporation infrastructure. That’s not a “subsidy”. That’s just sanity.

But, hey, if it’ll save Coyne a few extra bucks on his tax bill…

http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

And just a bit to add to the last comment: high-speed rail is a huge second-order incentive for public transportation.

People who use high-speed rail are unlikely to rent a car at their destination: they’ll use the existing transit system, therefore boosting the fare-box take of those systems and making them less expensive to run. That, in turn, provides a stong incentive to invest in transit.

And since the transit systems become better, there’s more of an incentive towards densification as well. If you need to use your car for any and all transportation, you’re almost certainly going to prefer to live in some sort of suburban or exurban sprawl; they’re custom-tailored for your needs. Cities are far less convenient- so if you NEED a car to get to travel, you’ve got a big disincentive to live in a city.

(Though–paradoxically–transit can help by reducing the number of drivers to those who actually need to use a car. But nevermind that.)

If a city’s got a good transit system AND a good regional rail system backing it up, people are more likely to choose to live in the city, as they can get from place to place without needing a car in the first place. They may still have one, but they’re less likely to build their lives around it, because they’ve got dependable local and regional transit as well. It’s just one option among several, instead of the only game in town.

So if you’re into densification–and anybody who knows a damned thing about planning these days is–regional rail is a no-brainer.

Except, I suppose, to Coyne.

sbt

"People who use high-speed rail are unlikely to rent a car at their destination: they'll use the existing transit system"

Only if they are actually staying downtown. Those same people are likely currently flying into the airport and taking a cab, shuttle or public transit downtown. The difference in car rental is probably minimal and most airports are already relatively conveniently connected to transit systems. It currently costs $2.75 and about an hour to get from Pearson to Union using the TTC. The direct rail link (if it's ever built) will reduce that travel time significantly.

Orson Bean

"Not only because it ignores countries with extraordinarily successful high speed rail like Japan or France"

An absolute killer point, because as we all know, our population density is essentially the same as Japan's or France's.
Scott M.

Actually, we only subsidize Via Rail in part, to make up for the routes it is *required* to run by law. If the Government allowed Via to cut service on it's run-at-a-loss routes (Hudson Bay, Canadian (seasonally), Skeena, Malahat, Ocean, Saguenay, etc.) and just keep it's profitable routes (the Corridor, Canadian during the summer), VIA rail would not need any subsidies at all.

High-speed rail would not have an effect on the routes the Government partially subsidizes.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, no, I imagine my tomatoes come by a combination of regular rail and truck. I never said I got no benefit at all from the highways, just that they're heavily subsidized and that other people get way more benefit from that than I do.
Lord Kitchener's Own

It currently costs $2.75 and about an hour to get from Pearson to Union using the TTC.

No one actually DOES that do they? Getting your suitcases on to a train to get downtown is one thing. Getting them on to a BUS??? That's madness.
sbt

I'll admit I'm in the minority of Pearson travelers who carries 30 lbs of suitcases onto the Airport Rocket but if you have that much luggage are you really going to take it down into the subway at Union? If you're a cheapskate like me, yes, but I imagine the suit-and-tie crowd will take a cab whether they get off at Pearson or Union.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Please don't tell me the TTC calls it the "Airport Rocket."

Canuckistanian

i think we should stop subsidizing sewage systems and go back to pooping in the yard. only commies want indoor plumbing dontcha know. we should also stop subsidizing public healthcare, as the resulting cholera epidemic will be expensive.

also, traffic lights are a ridiculous public subsidy. we should just let people crash.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Ah, yes, the public health canard, coughed up to try to support the next birdbrained scheme to suck the wealth out of the productive economy in order to unfairly subsidize the competition to existing travel choices in the marketplace. Thank you, Canuckistanian.

And, BTW, traffic lights are ridiculous and dangerous. Study after study shows far fewer accidents with roundabouts.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BSallows BSallows

If money must be spent on transportation, buy more buses and build more roads and bridges.

When a road is blocked, a bus takes a detour.

As the population shifts, buses change routes.

A railway is a cost literally sunk into a single road bed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

The only Albertans who are likely to support a highway toll are those who don't drive. Like it or not, driving is a fact of life in Alberta.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

You left some words out. It should say, "Like it or not, driving is a massively taxpayer-subsidized fact of life in Alberta."
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Given that all Albertans benefit from an extensive and well-maintained highway system, I don't know why anyone would have a problem with driving being massively subsidized by taxpayers. For most Albertans, driving is the only viable transportation option.
Blammo

The trick would be to include juicy cuts to income tax at the same time as introducing the tolls. It would be a sure winner, just like the Liberal carbon tax. Oh, I forgot, you've got to tell people about the income tax cut part of it. Yes, you really do have to remind them of that.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

It really is as though almost nobody read Coyne's column. Especially the last two paragraphs, which must have been printed in invisible ink (invisible pixels?). Instead of asking where the next subsidy dollar could go — to trains — he's asking whether the last subsidy dollar had to go where it did — to roads, GM, what have you. This is what makes Critical Reasoning's chosen name so gloriously absurd: he is absolutely convinced the next subsidy dollar is a crime, but the last (several billion) subsidy dollar(s) were put there by natural law. What a brave defence of the world as you happen to find it.
http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

For most people supermarkets are the only viable option for people to buy their groceries. Let's massively subsidize those too!
http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

I'm not only an Albertan, but a fat, lazy Albertan subject to the massive ball of incompetence and lies that is the Edmonton Transit System, and I can assure you that almost any Edmontonians (and, I would assume, Calgarians) who consider driving their "only viable transportation option" are, to put it mildly, just not giving the matter a great deal of honest thought.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

For most people, hospitals are the only viable option for people to obtain health care. Let's massively subsidize those too! Oh wait, we already are, just like we massively subsidize highways, railways, and airports.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

For most people, hospitals are the only viable option to obtain health care. Let's massively subsidize those too! Oh wait, we already are, just like we massively subsidize highways, railways, and airports.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

For most people, hospitals are the only viable option to obtain health care. Let's massively subsidize those too! Oh wait, we already are–just like we massively subsidize highways, railways, and airports.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

For most people, hospitals are the only viable option to obtain health care. Let's massively subsidize those too! Oh wait, we already are–just like we massively subsidize highways, railways, seaports, and airports.
G Betts

Actually, Mike, the food in supermarkets is massively subsidized. If meat was priced at what it cost to make, there would be a lot more (and healthier) vegetarians in this country.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

Food is one of the most heavily subsidized industries on earth. You'll notice (if you care to find out) that agriculture is never ever included in free-trade agreements. Futhermore many provinces actually heavily subsidize shipping costs of food.

In fact I doubt you'll be able to name one aspect of your life that isn't affected by government programs, subsidies, or regulation.
http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

I meant the stores themselves, not the products themselves. But you have a point.
Mulletaur

Ah, the bitterness.
Mulletaur

So building a transcanada rail network that "binds this country together" was a total waste of time and money ? Should we tear it up and replace it with a highway instead ?
Lord Kitchener's Own

Isn't the point rather that if you looked at the subsidy of highways and conventional rail back when they were being proposed, that they'd likely look just as ridiculous as the subsidy for high speed rail does?

I guess I'm just not as convinced as you that, all told, all the money we've spent over the decades building and maintaining highways and traditional rail is some sort of great bargain compared to the cost of subsidizing HSR. It may SEEM like a great bargain to the average driver, but that's because it IS a great deal to them, because it's massively subsidized Then again, I'm one of those who's subsidizing a huge highway network that I almost never use and being denied a subsidized HSR line that I'd use ALL THE TIME. Sure, I'm in the minority, but it doesn't mean I can't be bitter about it. I mean, fine, don't help pay for my HSR line from Toronto to Montreal. Just stop asking me to pay for the 401 in return.
Stewart

Actually Paul, Coyne suggests removing the subsidy for roads after slagging rail infrastructure development. In the column he is proposing some version of libertarian anarchy that reinforces the 100 km nutbar rule. (I mean this in no way to defend Crit although it has been said being green is tough sleddin, but yes it is a shot at the Wabbit) Coyne has produced a well written article (as always) articulating the very worst of conservative thought, (apparently thoughtful) attack without meaningful analysis but use a few emotive numbers to confuse the hapless.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I chose my name not because of egotism or glorious absurdity, but simply because I thought it would set a high standard that I would try to live up to. I may not always succeed, but at least I make the effort. (I also chose a goofy avatar, to let people know that I don't take myself too seriously.)

In your zeal to defend your little cause célèbre, you've completely misread my position. I have no problem with subsidy dollars per se, as long as they are spent effectively. In my view, the billions of subsidy dollars spent over many decades to develop the the highway network that binds this country together was money very well spent. I wish I could say the same for high-speed rail proposals, which, by most accounts, are an extremely inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.
http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

I too share a dream for train-a-grand-richesse. And while I accept A. Coyne's column wholesale (and sadly), there is a bit of a straw man argument to make it simply train vs. car.

What is the total cost of flying and how does that get paid? Airports, security, traffic control — the whole damned infrastructure on top of the actual airline businesses.

Okay, straw man is probably too strong. Maybe air travel is cheaper than TGV – but it can't be much cheaper, can it? I'd love to know and I think that's the appropriate comparison not the car travels.

Air travel and train travel compete in the same way as they are stem travel systems. The car is so precious because its what you use to go places once you've arrived at your destination. That is what makes it so damned difficult to compete for traffic with.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

I agree, Stewart. He spends the whole article hating on rail infrastructure, and then as an afterthought tacks on the road tax. I don't know why he'd even bring it up unless he was going to properly address it. No one supports rail infrastructure, whereas Crit_reasoning and the likes can't fathom a world without car infrastructure. Shouldn't he be challenging common perceptions/orthodoxy instead of reinforcing them??? I'm sure Mr. Coyne knows full well if he had spent the whole article on car infrastructure, his article would have been dismissed out of hand.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

Also I know many journalists have addressed this (including Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells), but there really needs to be more analysis/coverage of the GM bailout. There's got to be a way to keep that story alive…. it really is in the public interest, and I suspect support for the intervention in thinner than politicians think.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Huh? I have no problems with subsidized conventional rail development. It's a more efficient means of cargo transport than trucking, and it's served this country well for more than 100 years. It may be slower and less glamorous than high-speed passenger rail, but it's multipurpose and cheaper by a factor of 10-100.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Huh? I have no problems with subsidized conventional rail development. It's a more energy efficient means of cargo transport than long-haul trucking, and it's served this country well for more than 100 years. It may be slower and less glamorous than high-speed passenger rail, but it's multipurpose and cheaper by a factor of 10-100.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

You're absolutely right. In the year 2009, I "can't fathom a world without car infrastructure." It must be nice to live in that dreamy bubble of yours. Maybe we can build a high-speed rail link to everybody's front door.
Andrew (not P or C)

Grocery distribution is massively subsidized through dirt cheap highways.
Andrew (not P or C)

Perhaps you should push away from your computer, and look downwards. Most people have two appendages dangling from the bottom of their legs that could potentially be used for the purposes of perambulation. Other alternatives are bicycles, scooters, light rail transit, buses, streetcars, subways, etc. It is astonishingly possible for people to move without the aid of personal automobiles.
Andrew (not P or C)

Point being?
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Point being that motorists have been paying for years for road upkeep every time they fill up. And the CAA (not a disinterested player, fer sure) keeps harping that fuel taxes & license fees et al are way more than the costs of roads & highways. Motorists do not need tolls to be contributing to the public purse, they need an Esso SpeedPass.

Anyone with the true numbers? How much more in tolls (if any) would drivers need to contribute over and above all the taxes & fees associated with passenger vehicle operation in order to "break even" with public roadway operation? And if the true answer is "lots!" then by all means let's slap some tolls on the superhighways.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I know all about the joys of walking. We just took the dogs out for a glorious hour-long walk in beautiful Nose Hill Park. I also enjoy biking, and I make frequent use of light rail transit. I am fortunate enough to live in an area with access to many automotive alternatives.

However, if you think there's even the slightest chance that automobiles will be replaced in our lifetimes, you're delusional. Cars are here to stay. The best we can hope for is that cars will become as clean and energy efficient as possible, perhaps aided by breakthroughs in fuel cells or battery storage. But any notion that we could do away with automobile infrastructure, as hardmouth suggests, is completely absurd.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I know all about the joys of walking. We just took the dogs out for a glorious hour-long walk in beautiful Nose Hill Park. I also enjoy biking, and I make frequent use of light rail transit. Fortunately. I live in an area with access to many automotive alternatives. I know many people who aren't so lucky.

If you think there's even the slightest chance that automobiles will be replaced in our lifetimes, you're delusional. Cars are here to stay. The best we can hope for is that cars will become as clean and energy efficient as possible, perhaps aided by breakthroughs in fuel cells or battery storage. But any notion that we could do away with automobile infrastructure, as hardmouth suggests, is completely absurd.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I know all about the joys of walking. We just took the dogs out for a glorious hour-long walk in beautiful Nose Hill Park. I also enjoy biking, and I make frequent use of light rail transit. Fortunately, I live in an area with access to many automotive alternatives. I know many people who aren't so lucky.

If you think there's even the slightest chance that automobiles will be replaced in our lifetimes, you're delusional. Cars are here to stay. The best we can hope for is that cars will become as clean and energy efficient as possible, perhaps aided by breakthroughs in fuel cells or battery storage. But any notion that we could do away with automobile infrastructure, as hardmouth suggests, is completely absurd.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

So, if I want to take the wife and kids down the 401 to visit Grandma and Gramps for the weekend, we should all be limbering up our dangling appendages? You are confusing inter-city with intra-city here, A nPoC…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Excellent point, myl. Through fuel taxes, highway maintenance is already supported by highway users. The notion of slapping tolls on existing roadways to encourage high-speed rail development is as ridiculous as it is unpopular.
Joe Canadian

Slightly out of date official (Transport Canada) numbers

Basically it would seem in 07/08, Canada spent roughly $21B on roads and received roughly $15B in liscence fees, gas taxes, etc.

A doubling of the federal excise rate would make up the difference, or else about a 60% increase in (average) provincial gas taxes, though likely each province would be different.
Andrew (not P or C)

I don't think it's too much to remove subsidies of car infrastructure. Whatever you think of gasoline taxation, failing to charge for roads is a problem, and distorts the market for transportation. If we started charging for roads, we could dial back subsidies for many other modes.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I would, however, point out that certain jurisdictions add tax on fuel for "public transit" support. And if it weren't all some general revenue shell game anyways, this would actually be an excellent idea. There's only so much you can pave in and around major cities. Gridlock at rush hour (and even outside of rush hour) is a major public security problem. Improved mass transit is an essential feature of modern urban organization, and it makes sense for those contributing to the gridlock (by driving their cars) to be contributing to this congestion-alleviating program.

And I would further modify your "ridiculous & unpopular" a wee bit, by stating that I am more than willing to accept tolls on superhighways, for the following reasons: (a) the revenues (if tracked properly) might IMPROVE the road conditions and safety features of these highways, (b) to the extent the true cost of that car or truck or bus using the highway has not been properly covered, it should be, (c) if the gas taxes do not actually properly cover the true cost of highway capital and operations costs, it is indeed unfairly subsidized competition to alternative transportation choices (VIA excluded, obviously), (d) if it discourages frivolous travel, or encourages more "high occupancy" vehicles, this reduces pollution overall. Clearly you can argue that "gas tax" is as much (or more) a user fee than a true "tax." I am happy to see that "user fee" go up (either at the pump or at the toll booth) if such is required to fairly offset costs.
Mulletaur

I see. So it's okay to spend money on highways (facilitating pollution) and conventional rail (where diesel locomotives cause pollution) but not on electrified high speed rail which would get people out of planes and onto trains and uses nice, clean electricity. Oh, and I note that you didn't mention anything about forcing cargo off the roads and onto multimodal. I think you're just a high speed rail hating dream killer.
Bill Simpson

It is very easy, apparently, to forget why people have chosen to use cars and trucks instead of the railway, and it is mostly about freedom of movement and choice. Railways are very restrictive, except in very congested areas; you go where the train goes and this may or may not be close to where your real destination is. Even in the most densely populated areas of Europe, trains must be heavily subsidized, and car use is on the rise despite the high price of gas.

Some people think that we should lose this freedom of movement for environmental reasons. I expect that the result will be only that we lose freedom of movement. In any event, there is no acceptable way to drive traffic to a certain mode. Taxes, subsidies, bans and other obstacles are politically unworkable and people will rebel against this sort of coercion,

As for economics, all railway building was financed on the basis that they built a railway and then sold off the land around it. Building railways between existing locations appears to have no economic viability at all, since people have already figured out how to get to and fro thank you very much.

I love trains, they are wonderful to travel on and they provide a very special experience, but they are no more worthy of subsidy than ocean liners or horse-drawn coaches.
http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

As is Wal-Mart. Their near-monopoly is due almost entirely to JIT inventories, which are impossible without a massive fleet of trucks constantly hurling themselves hither and yon along taxpayer-subsidized roads.
sbt

So trains wouldn't need train stations, security or traffic control? The same overhead exists in both systems (to what extent I don't know). The only difference is that the plane can get you from Montreal to Paris relatively quickly and the train can't even get you there. So subsidies in air travel are at least providing the ability to get places that are inacessible in a reasonable time without it. I don't necessarily agree with the subsidies but at least advocates of them have a stronger case that intercontinental air travel is an essential part of transportation infrastructure than HSR advocates. I don't really see how reducing travel time from downtown Toronto to downtown Montreal by about an hour is so essential that it is worthy of billions in subsidies. Besides it will give us that much less time to drink in Via1.
Andrew (not P or C)

No reason why rail couldn't work for many such trips. Doesn't need to be gee-whiz high-speed rail, just not the unreliable garbage service we have now.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Thank you Joe. Slapping superhighways with tolls would also help recoup any imbalance.

(UPDATE 20 minutes later): Especially for the heavy trucks that are killers for road surface integrity.