The Great Canadian Transportation Conundrum

Should Canada pursue a high-speed train or a lower-speed train for inter-regional transportation, and how can the government balance the cost requirements with the need for sustainable transportation?

By Asma Bouikni

Source: Image via Denis Belitsky/Shutterstock

In Canada, the transportation sector is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions​​, accounting for 24 percent of total emissions in 2020. Since 1990, GHGs from cars, light trucks, heavy-duty trucks, and other vehicles grew by 32 percent (up until 2020). In 2019, almost half of the 180 megatonnes of GHGs in this sector were emitted via private vehicles. 

These trends exhibit why public authorities must act to reduce private vehicle-driven GHG emissions. Therefore, designing efficient public transportation systems should be a country-wide policy priority. A major roadblock in nudging consumers towards public transportation, remains in the arena of inter-regional mobility. So, what is the federal government doing about this? 

Efficient transportation between the country's major cities leaves much to be desired, with trains often delayed and buses taking longer than cars to reach their destinations. As a result, many prefer to take their personal vehicles for regular trips. This includes driving between Quebec City and Montreal and leveraging air transportation for trips between Montreal and Toronto. But really, who can blame people for trying to save some time? In fact, it is difficult to point fingers at individuals for these choices, especially when a better alternative is not available. 

In the last few years, the Government of Canada announced plans to develop a high frequency train line (HFR) between Toronto and Quebec City. The idea of constructing a passenger-only rail line on this major route is certainly welcome, but the announcement made Canadians wonder why the high-speed train (HST) option has not been pursued by the government. 

To put it bluntly, two questions are constantly arising in this landscape: Why are the HFR and HST systems being pitted against each other? And, why can it not be a high-speed train that will pass frequently? These are logical arguments. So, instead of making a distinction on the frequency of passage, a distinction will be made on the speed that the trains can reach their destinations. In this context, high-frequency train lines will be considered as lower-speed trains (LST). 

Marco Chitti, a New York University post-doctoral researcher, urban planner, and architect, explains in his Twitter thread, that for trains to reach speeds that qualify as high speed, the infrastructure must allow for it. The development of high-speed rail in the current corridor would require the concurrent development of brand new infrastructural networks. Whereas, LST would allow for the use of existing infrastructure, referring to unused or rarely-used corridors. Unfortunately, such infrastructural networks do not meet the logistical requirements for a pure HST. 

According to Transport Canada, HST requires a protected track, which is fenced over the entire distance. It is imperative to limit the curves in the route so that the trains do not have to slow down at every turn. Above all, it is impossible for a HST to pass over a level-crossing at the intersection of a road, and viaducts must therefore be built at each intersection. This is to say that these niche engineering elements make the costs for an HST much higher, and construction activities much slower than a LST.

With this in mind, transportation experts have speculated the possibility of developing a hybrid option, with areas where trains could reach peaks above the threshold for high speed. This hybrid option would allow for the development of the necessary infrastructure in some portions of the path, reducing overall travel time and lowering the costs associated with a road fully adapted for a HST. 

The Minister of Transport, Omar Alghabra, has expressed his openness to this idea, stating that the government wants to ensure that no planned city in the current route (Toronto, Peterborough, Montreal, Trois-Riviere and Quebec City) is sacrificed and that the costs remain reasonable. The hybrid model is one which already exists in North America, on the Amtrak passenger rail system in the United States. Among others, the cities of Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, and New York are connected by a train, called Acela, which can reach 240 km/h on certain segments of its route. 

In short, the solution to Canada’s inter-regional transportation problems is not as simple as many would like it to be. Important questions about costs, travel time, and passenger traffic must be answered to make an informed decision about the best option. If the current plan moves forward, it could potentially lead to long-term concerns. Once constructed, it will be both challenging and costly to alter its primary purpose. 

If the government chooses to go with the existing infrastructure and create a LST line or a hybrid one, it is unlikely that future governments will be willing to invest more and develop a separate HSR line. As such, this decision should not be taken lightly, considering that it is a once-in-a-generation project that will define the ease of inter-regional mobility for decades to come. 

Whatever the final decision, the government will have to be transparent with the figures, data, studies, and stakeholder insights it will leverage to justify their decision. An accountable and inclusive decision-making approach would allow the opposition parties to rally around this inherently non-partisan project. But beyond politics, no matter who comes to power in the next few years, sustainable transportation systems must be treated as a national priority. 

Asma Bouikni is a Master of Public Policy candidate with the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. Asma is interested in science policy and social affairs, and hopes to bring an EDI (Equity, Diversity & Inclusion) lens to her work.