However, Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government intends to change that. Earlier this year Ontario Minister of Transport Glen Murray offered clues about plans to introduce what he called “very very very high-speed rail” linking London, Kitchener, Toronto and Pearson Airport, and by all measures the system would be built very very very fast – within a decade!
The project would be the first of its kind in Canada, and no longer would train enthusiasts be able to speak of Canada's backwater passenger rail system. Recent international examples indicate that such projects can be phenomenally successful; Think China, which went from having no bullet trains to claiming the world’s largest network in a span of five years. At the same time, high-speed rail plans can be disastrous. Current proposals in California and Britain have been politically divisive and costs have run far higher than expected. What this tells us is that if we bring high-speed trains to Canada (and that is a big if), they need to be introduced the right way and for the right reasons.
We’ve heard only snippets about Ontario’s high-speed rail plan. Minister Murray suggests that the system would be organized similar to regional lines in Europe. If he has the French Réseau Express Régional in mind – a system connecting Paris’ core to suburban areas – this would be a useful structural model to emulate. The RER is jointly operated by Paris’ metro service and the national railroad (so it is subsidized by taxpayers), yet the systems are integrated for single-payment and easy rider transferability. In Ontario this would be akin to a partnership between GO and VIA. The RER doesn’t go as fast as the trains Murray seems to have in mind, but an Ontario version could easily reach high speeds since there are far less stops planned. Most importantly, the government has been buying up tracks over the last decade, so a new train wouldn’t have to compete with freight.
If done right, high-speed rail has much to offer: It could alleviate congestion and associated carbon emissions from the 401, North America’s busiest highway. But achieving that feat is not as easy as it sounds. Planners would have to be careful to ensure a new line doesn’t result in increased mobility (and therefore additional emissions); To attract would-be drivers, the system would have to enable commuters to transfer seamlessly between urban transit systems, regional lines, and intercity transport networks. With the right regulatory measures, such as the types of domestic procurement policies seen in the United States, a project of this magnitude could also create numerous domestic jobs and stimulate a number of related sectors.
Critics are correct that a high-speed rail line would only be commercially viable if it received government subsidies. And for such subsidies to be economically sustainable, Ontarians will have to keep contributing handsomely to the tax base (Murray is quite open about his government’s plan to increase taxes). While that idea might have anti-tax groups bleeding from the ears, voters ought to know that a private HSR operation would be doomed by typically low cost-recovery rates.
Proponents of high-speed rail should brace for the usual barrage of critiques: Do we really have sufficient population density for HSR in Canada? Can we really ensure that the costs don't spiral out of control? Can a Crown corporation really be as efficient as a private sector operator? My own answers to these questions, after studying HSR for years, is “it’s complicated.” Possibly, yes, if the planners really think this through. The benefit of being the last industrialized nation to join the HSR club is that we have examples from abroad to emulate, and models to avoid!
No comments:
Post a Comment