Transit – mackaycartoons

Wednesday October 30, 2024

October 30, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

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

August 22, 2024

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

January 21, 2020

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.

Wednesday October 2, 2024

October 2, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 2, 2024 (also published in the Toronto Star)

Animated making-of clip here!

Doug Ford’s 401 Tunnel: A Far-Fetched Fantasy That Deserves to Be Shut Down

September 27, 2024

Premier Doug Ford has once again put forward a grandiose idea, this time proposing a tunnel beneath Highway 401 to address Toronto’s infamous traffic congestion. On paper, it may sound like a bold, out-of-the-box solution. But let’s not kid ourselves — this tunnel plan is nothing more than a fantasy. It should be stopped in its tracks before any serious time, money, or energy is wasted on what would inevitably become Ontario’s most expensive and disruptive boondoggle.

Traffic congestion in and around Toronto is undeniably a major problem. Every day, commuters spend countless hours crawling through the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), their lives eaten away by the city’s overwhelming gridlock. And yes, solutions are desperately needed to tackle this growing crisis. But a 50-kilometre tunnel under one of the busiest highways in North America is not the solution — in fact, it’s a laughable idea.

Globe & Mail Editorial: Doug Ford is driving Ontario down the wrong road

May 12, 2022

Let’s start with the basics. Shutting down the 401, even temporarily, would create a logistical nightmare. This isn’t just a highway — it’s the main artery of Ontario’s road system, carrying millions of vehicles every week. Any construction work, let alone digging a multi-billion-dollar tunnel beneath it, would cause absolute chaos. Traffic would be forced onto already congested side roads and highways, exacerbating an already dire situation. And for what? A project that, even if completed, would likely create more problems than it solves.

The reality is that this tunnel wouldn’t alleviate congestion; it would induce more traffic. It’s simple economics — add more road space, and more cars will come. We’ve seen this happen time and again. From the Gardiner Expressway to the Don Valley Parkway, expanding capacity doesn’t ease traffic; it encourages more drivers to hit the road, creating more gridlock in the long run. This tunnel would do the same, all while bleeding the province of billions of taxpayer dollars.

October 30, 2001

Even if Ford could magically snap his fingers and build the tunnel overnight, it still wouldn’t address the core issue: Toronto’s over-reliance on cars. More cars on more roads won’t solve the problem. What we need are smarter, more sustainable solutions that focus on reducing the number of vehicles on the road, not increasing them.
There are countless alternatives Ford could pursue that don’t involve digging a tunnel beneath the 401. Investing in better public transit, for one, would have a far more meaningful impact. Expanding and modernizing the transit system — projects like the Eglinton East LRT or the Waterfront East LRT — could move thousands of people more efficiently, easing road congestion without the need for more highways. These are real, tangible solutions with existing business cases that simply need funding.

Toronto Star Editorial: Doug Ford’s tunnel fantasy gives politics a bad name

May 30, 2003

Ford could also consider measures like road tolls, congestion pricing, or policies that incentivize fewer cars on the road. These ideas may be less flashy than a massive tunnel, but they are effective. Major cities around the world, from London to Singapore, have seen significant reductions in traffic thanks to congestion pricing. Toronto could follow suit, but that would require serious, hard work — something Ford’s tunnel fantasy allows him to sidestep.

More frustratingly, Ford’s tunnel proposal is a massive distraction from the other pressing issues Ontario faces. While the premier was out selling this fantastical idea, the province’s healthcare system continues to suffer from severe underfunding, hallway medicine persists, and students are stuck in crumbling schools. Housing is increasingly unaffordable, and social services are stretched to their limits. Yet instead of addressing these crises, Ford is focused on selling us a tunnel to nowhere.

At best, Ford’s tunnel plan is a misguided attempt to appeal to voters frustrated by traffic. At worst, it’s a cynical distraction — a shiny object meant to pull focus away from his government’s failures in health, education, housing, and the environment. Either way, this tunnel must never be allowed to leave the drawing board.

Doug Ford may pride himself on being a man of big ideas, but sometimes the biggest ideas are also the worst. And this 401 tunnel is one of the worst. Instead of wasting time and resources on a pipe dream that would lead to more traffic and more problems, Ford should focus on real, actionable solutions that benefit everyone, not just drivers. Let’s hope this tunnel gets buried before it ever gets dug. (AI)

Saturday September 17, 2022

September 17, 2022 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 17, 2022

Beyond LRT and How to pay for it and Transit

For the first election in years, “LRT is not the central issue,” said Karl Andrus of the Hamilton Transit Riders’ Union. “I’m elated to see conversations about transit moving beyond just ‘yes or no’ to LRT.”

August 22, 2012

That’s a big change from elections in 2014 and 2018 — both of which featured serious candidates campaigning to kill the 14-kilometre light-rail transit plan for the lower city in favour of building bus rapid transit.

The city’s transit union still wants to make an election issue out of LRT — particularly, over whether the city will operate the train instead of a private consortium like the one running the LRT in Kitchener-Waterloo, said vice-president Rob Doucette. “We want to hear specifically if (candidates) will commit to keep public transit in public hands.”

But unlike in past elections, no major mayoral candidate is openly campaigning against LRT — likely in part due to $3.4-billion in new federal and provincial funding for the project. Major construction is supposed to start by 2024.

That means candidates can “move beyond” the yes or no LRT question to explaining to voters how they would make the entire transit system better for residents, said Andrus.

He said that includes expanding bus service to underserved suburban communities like Binbrook, Waterdown and Stoney Creek — and finally moving ahead on a nearly 15-year-old “BLAST” rapid transit vision for the rest of the city.

May 12, 2012

The grassroots riders’ union argues all those improvements require an overhaul of Hamilton’s “bizarre” system of taxing different areas of the city more or less for transit. That debate over ending so-called “area rating” of transit could prove just as controversial as past LRT battles, Andrus conceded.

“In the mayor’s race, everyone has kind of run away from that issue,” he suggested.

“Area rating” of taxes sounds like a boring bureaucratic argument — but the question of how and who Hamilton taxes for bus service can really fire up political debate (and taxpayer ire).

A short summary of a two-decade argument: When Hamilton amalgamated suburban communities like Ancaster, Binbrook, Waterdown, Dundas and Stoney Creek in 2001, it created different tax rates for transit based on level of service and old geographical boundaries.

Meant as a temporary measure, the geography-based tax rates never disappeared — leaving Hamilton as the only large Ontario city where urban residents pay different rates for transit depending on where they live.

August 14, 2014

So in 2019, for example, the average old-city homeowner paid about $389 a year for transit compared to $184 for the urban parts of Ancaster, $201 for Glanbrook and $137 in Stoney Creek. Rural residents pay no taxes for transit.

Forcing all urban residents across Hamilton to pay the same transit tax rate should result in a tax cut for the old city and a hike of between two and four per cent in former amalgamated communities.

But Andrus suggests the city could skip the old-city tax cut, with extra money raised “plowed directly back into improving transit” in poorly served areas.

Otherwise, he argued the current system makes it difficult to expand transit to where it is needed — and unfair to old-city residents who shoulder the brunt of HSR budget increases.

It’s the kind of conundrum that has split council along urban-suburban lines in the past — with retiring Ancaster councillor Lloyd Ferguson, for example, at one point threatening to withdraw his support for LRT if council changed transit taxes in a way that hurt his ward residents.

Where do the Mayoral candidates stand? Keanin Loomis: Proposes phasing out area-rated transit taxes “over time,” in tandem with plans for expanded service; Andrea Horwath: Says transit must expand to all suburban communities but says any changes to area-rated taxes must happen in tandem with improved service. Has not suggested a timeline for changes; Bob Bratina: Calls ending area-rated transit a “tax grab” but wants to experiment with alternative transit like on-demand service in suburbs. (The Hamilton Spectator)

Thursday May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday May 12, 2022

Use Highway 407 to ease GTA traffic woes

Premier Doug Ford raised some eyebrows last week when he talked about highways, and actually made a lot of sense.

December 11, 2018

That’s not what we’ve become accustomed to hearing from the premier in this area. He seems bound and determined to build new highways wherever he can, no matter the financial cost and environmental consequences.

But when it comes to Highway 407, the underused, mostly private toll route across the northern GTA, Ford hit the bullseye.

“I would never have sold it,” he said. “What did they sell it for, $3 billion? And it’s worth, what, $20 billion now? So I don’t believe in selling off toll roads.”

Two things on that. First, current estimates actually put the value of Highway 407 closer to $30 billion, making the sale back in 1999 look even more foolish. And second, it was a Progressive Conservative government, the one led by Mike Harris, that sold off the highway for what we can now see amounted to a handful of beans.

But never mind. Ford wasn’t part of that government and it’s a long time ago. The essential point is that even a PC premier can now see the folly of selling a valuable public asset for far below its long-term worth.

Wednesday May 19, 2021

May 26, 2021 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 19, 2021

Liberal MP Bob Bratina sticks to his guns on LRT

Give Hamilton East-Stoney Creek Liberal MP Bob Bratina this much: When it comes to LRT, at least, he’s a politician of conviction.

This week Bratina announced he will not seek re-election, because he disagrees with his government’s decision to invest $1.4 billion in light rail transit in Hamilton.

“I just can’t defend it,” Bratina said in an interview with The Spec’s Matthew Van Dongen this week. “They are saying this is a good project for Hamilton but I know in my heart it is not … I don’t know how I could continue as a member of the governing party.”

In his own party, Bratina’s opinion is an outlier. Infrastructure Minister and Hamilton native Catherine McKenna, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Labour Minister Filomena Tassi, who also represents Hamilton-West-Ancaster-Dundas, all support the project. Tassi reportedly cheered during the announcement.

Hamilton’s other high-profile political voice, Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath, and her party, also support LRT. So do other local MPs and MPPs, although it’s not clear where Conservative MP David Sweet stands — he, too, is not running again.

July 22, 2011

No doubt the decision is hard to swallow for Bratina. He has long opposed light rail in this city, and tried to derail it repeatedly when he was on council and then in the mayor’s office. To rub salt in the wound, Bratina says he was not consulted about the agreement between the federal government and the provincial government, and that his concerns about “affordability” were totally ignored.

So be it. Bratina is at least consistent in his opposition, and he cannot be accused of hypocrisy on this file. No doubt the Liberals will find another strong candidate to compete in the riding, and the NDP has also been historically competitive there.

To digress with a bit of political gossip, there is a juicy rumour circulating that Bratina plans another run for mayor in the next municipal election coming in 2022. Bratina won’t rule that out, but says he is focusing on his job as MP for the remainder of his federal term. He referred to the rumour as “speculation.”

The plot, if he does run, looks like this. Anti-LRT Hamilton councillors successfully push for the matter to be deferred to a referendum question on the next ballot, and we could see incumbent Fred Eisenberger running on a pro-LRT ticket while Bratina runs on an anti-LRT platform as Eisenberger challenger Vito Sgro did last election.

May 29, 2013

It’s good political drama, but unlikely to unfold that way. Bratina may well seek another term as mayor, and he could possibly win. But Ottawa and the provincial government have been clear that this $3.4-billion LRT investment is for LRT only, and they want an answer sooner rather than later so the thousands of jobs generated during construction could serve as a post-pandemic jobs recovery project. That doesn’t work if shovels aren’t in the ground until after the local election in the fall of 2022.

All the smart money says if the project is delayed that long the provincial and federal investment will be off the table. That would mean the end of LRT, and also that local taxpayers would be footing the bill for infrastructure investments (underground services and the like) along what would have been the route.

That won’t stop anti-LRT councillors and others from trying to stall or outright kill the project. Which raises an interesting question: Where is Progressive Conservative MPP Donna Skelly in all this? She has always been strongly anti-LRT, but her government now supports the project. The Spectator reached out to Skelly for comment on the matter, but she has yet to respond. Her response will be interesting. (Hamilton Spectator)