fiction

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme’s MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 30, 2024

Why High-Speed Rail in Canada Always Feels Stuck in the Station

With the federal government announcing high-speed rail plans once again, Canadians are right to be skeptical. For a country that has been chasing this dream since the 1960s, the hurdles standing in the way remain as daunting as ever.

When the federal government announced its intention to move ahead with high-speed rail (HSR) between Quebec City and Toronto, the news carried the familiar ring of optimism—but also the weight of history. Trains traveling at speeds of up to 300 km/h would transform travel between major urban centres, cutting trips from Toronto to Montreal down to just three hours and reducing carbon emissions by offering a viable alternative to short-haul flights and car travel. However, given Canada’s track record with rail mega-projects, skepticism is more than justified.

Wikipedia: High-speed rail in Canada

Canada has flirted with high-speed rail for decades without delivering. As early as the 1960s, CN Rail introduced the TurboTrain, one of the first true high-speed trains in North America, capable of reaching 201 km/h in service and even clocking 225 km/h in tests. But the TurboTrain ran into issues that have become emblematic of the country’s rail woes: the dual use of passenger and freight lines degraded service, technical glitches dogged the trains, and ridership lagged. By 1982, the project was scrapped, a cautionary tale of ambitious plans undermined by poor infrastructure and management.

A decade later, the Bombardier LRC trains, which introduced tilting technology to reduce travel times, looked promising. But while the LRCs performed well on paper, the rail system’s reliance on freight-owned tracks limited speeds to 161 km/h. As with the TurboTrain, the trains could not achieve their full potential because Canada’s passenger trains run on tracks owned primarily by freight companies like CN Rail, which prioritize slower-moving freight traffic over passenger trains. As a result, the dream of high-speed rail was once again shelved.

News: Cabinet green lights high-speed passenger rail line between Quebec City and Toronto

The latest push for a high-speed rail line between Quebec City and Toronto follows years of frustration with Via Rail’s deteriorating service. Currently, the Toronto-Montreal route takes over five hours, often delayed by freight traffic. With ticket prices often exceeding $300 for a round trip, rail travel offers little advantage over driving. In response, the government initially floated the idea of “high-frequency rail” (HFR)—a compromise aimed at offering more trains on dedicated tracks without reaching the speeds seen in Japan or France. However, recent reporting by CBC and The Globe and Mail suggests that the government is now leaning toward incorporating some high-speed elements into the project after private-sector bidders warned that HFR alone wouldn’t attract enough ridership to make the investment worthwhile.

But history shows that announcements like these don’t guarantee action. The Walrus points out that governments in Canada have a habit of making promises about high-speed rail during elections, only to abandon them when the financial or political costs become clear. Similar proposals—ranging from the Quebec City-Windsor corridor to an Edmonton-Calgary link—have been floated for decades, only to be derailed by ballooning cost estimates, regulatory hurdles, and shifting political priorities. The California high-speed rail project, which began with a $30 billion budget and now faces estimates of up to $130 billion, serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of underestimating such mega-projects.

While Transport Minister Anita Anand’s office has defended the project as transformative—citing its potential to improve productivity, reduce emissions, and unlock housing development—critics see the announcement as political maneuvering. With the Liberals trailing in the polls and an election on the horizon, some commentators argue that the government is making grand promises it might not be around to keep. Skeptics point to the familiar roadblocks: environmental reviews, Indigenous consultations, and local opposition from communities worried about being bypassed. One commenter from The Globe and Mail sarcastically remarked that the project’s likely completion date would be “2124, give or take a few years”.

Another structural barrier lies in Canada’s geography and urban density—or lack thereof. Unlike France or Japan, where densely populated urban centres create strong demand for fast, inter-city travel, Canada’s population is spread thinly across vast regions. Even the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, where nearly half the population lives, may not generate enough ridership to make high-speed rail profitable, especially if trains must make frequent stops in smaller cities. As The Walrus notes, adding too many stops would reduce the speed advantage, but skipping over smaller communities would spark political backlash from those regions being left out. (AI)

Opinion: Will Canada Ever Have High-Speed Rail?

On top of these logistical challenges, Canada’s freight rail dominance remains a stubborn obstacle. Unlike countries with dedicated passenger lines, Via Rail owns just 3 percent of the tracks it uses. The bulk of the rail infrastructure is controlled by companies like CN Rail, which are unlikely to cede control or disrupt their profitable freight operations for the sake of passenger trains. Building entirely new tracks for high-speed rail, as the government now proposes, would sidestep this issue—but at an astronomical cost. Initial estimates of $6 to $12 billion have likely grown, and some experts warn the final price tag could exceed $100 billion.

While proponents of high-speed rail argue that the environmental and economic benefits outweigh the risks, skepticism lingers. As one commenter noted, Western provinces like Alberta feel increasingly left behind by rail investment, reinforcing regional tensions and the sense that national infrastructure decisions cater primarily to Central Canada. Without significant political will and public support, the latest high-speed rail announcement could go the way of earlier efforts—derailed before leaving the station.

In the end, the promise of high-speed rail in Canada has become something of a national ritual: bold announcements met with equally bold skepticism. Unless the government can overcome the familiar challenges—ownership disputes, political inertia, high costs, and regional opposition—there’s every reason to doubt that this time will be any different. For now, the dream of a sleek, high-speed train zipping between Quebec City and Toronto feels more like wishful thinking than a serious plan.