- The proposed $90 billion high-speed rail project for the Toronto-Quebec City corridor faces scrutiny for its immense cost and lack of public debate.
- HSR is characterized as an “aircraft on the ground,” duplicating existing passenger transport with inflexible, point-to-point service.
- Significant cost overruns are a common issue with government-run infrastructure projects, as seen in California and the Trans Mountain pipeline.
- The need for large terminals and potential security screening raises questions about convenience and accessibility compared to current travel methods.
- HSR’s ability to pull people from cars is questioned, as intra-city mobility and the need for personal vehicles for family visits are significant factors.
- The project could negatively impact freight rail efficiency, VIA Rail’s viability, and the airline industry, while offering questionable benefits for Canada’s competitive standing.
The federal government’s High-speed rail (HSR) gambit is a no-brainer. Ask anyone. Or, at least ask anyone who lives in Toronto or Montreal and travels for business, and they will tell you:
“It’ll be cheaper, and I won’t have to drive way out to the terminal.”
“I won’t have to go through passenger screening, or arrive at the terminal two hours before departure, or check my bags for X-ray.”
“It’ll pull people out of their cars.”
“And anyway, all the other G7 nations have a high-speed train, so we’re lagging behind.”
But is HSR the best solution for Canada? The $90 billion price tag for the project set to connect the Toronto-Quebec City corridor is three times more expensive than the largest government-financed infrastructure project in our history, but it has received astonishingly little debate. We need to ask some challenging questions.
HSR isn’t unique. It’s essentially an aircraft that flies on the ground. Its characteristics are identical to those of a passenger airliner: a vehicle that carries only passengers. Inflexible, point-to-point service with rigid departure times. A very large catchment area—because it rarely stops—requiring a large terminal.
We need to ask if HSR offers a new form of transport, or merely duplicates one we have already paid for.
The government’s new rail corporation, ALTO, has started public consultations. It’s our chance to test if any of our assumptions are correct.
“It will be cheaper”
Current federal estimates for the HSR range from $60 to $90 billion. But virtually all HSR projects around the world overran their original budgets, often by 100 percent or more. In California, for example, the original HSR budget was about $32.1-35.3 billion, and it’s currently $120 billion.
This isn’t a problem for HSR alone, but one that affects essentially all government-run major infrastructure projects. In Canada, the most expensive federal infrastructure project, so far, was the Trans Mountain pipeline, which was estimated to cost $5 billion and ended up costing $34 billion. Governments have trouble controlling costs.
While the proposed $90 billion high-speed rail (HSR) project connecting Toronto and Quebec City is being touted as a “no-brainer” with little public debate, it is reasonable to question HSR’s value. Concerns are raised about massive cost overruns, the need for large terminals, potential security screening, and whether it will truly entice people out of cars or planes. There are also negative impacts on freight rail, VIA Rail, and the airline industry. Alternative investments might better serve Canada’s competitive needs.
Is Canada's proposed $90 billion high-speed rail project a wise investment, or a costly duplication of existing transport?
Beyond speed, what are the real-world challenges of integrating HSR into Canadian cities and travel habits?
If HSR is built, what are the potential consequences for Canada's existing passenger and freight rail services?
Comments (9)
Well said. Carney has tried, generally successfully, to distinguish himself from his predecessor. But the announcement of HSR took me back to Justin Trudeau’s track record of poorly conceived but nice sounding ideas that failed. I cringed.
I really don’t see the benefit to spending +/- $100B to enable people to travel between Toronto and Quebec City slower than via a plane at likely higher cost. One piece I saw very briefly mentioned an expected $35B annual boost to the economy. Haven’t the laptop class discovered MS Teams? I’d like to see the math.
I’d rather see an investment in the existing service in the corridor via conventional rail. Add lines so passenger rail isn’t competing with freight, etc. For a much smaller cost VIA could be reliable on hitting their arrival times and faster. And all those smaller towns (i.e. economic centres) along the way could benefit from the service instead of people driving to get to the nearest HSR hub or their destination.
Currently most media coverage is giving this idea a pass from critical examination. I think rail benefits from a certain nostalgia (which I share) and HSR sounds sexy and modern (it is). But before this becomes a money pit, a lot of fundamental questions need to be asked and answered. Thanks for starting the process.