The Canadian Federal Government’s High-Speed Rail Project: Ambitious Intentions, Impractical Execution

The idea of implementing a high-speed rail (HSR) system between Toronto and Quebec City is, on the surface, a bold and visionary proposal. The Canadian federal government’s initiative seeks to address critical concerns such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving regional connectivity, and modernizing Canada’s infrastructure. However, despite these noble intentions, a deeper analysis reveals that the high-speed rail project, though ambitious, may ultimately be a waste of taxpayers’ money. The drawbacks, ranging from cost-effectiveness and practicality to environmental trade-offs and competition with air travel, outweigh its potential benefits.

Flying: A Faster and Already Established Alternative

One of the most significant challenges facing the proposed high-speed rail project is the competition from air travel. Even with the introduction of a high-speed rail system capable of reaching speeds of 300 km/h or more, flying will remain considerably faster. The distance between Toronto and Quebec City is approximately 800 kilometers. A direct flight typically takes about an hour and 20 minutes, whereas even the fastest HSR trips are likely to take at least 3 to 4 hours due to intermediate stops and the time required for acceleration and deceleration.

Moreover, air travel infrastructure in Canada is already well-developed. Major cities along the proposed HSR route, including Montreal and Ottawa, are served by international airports that facilitate frequent and reliable connections. Airlines can adapt to demand quickly, scaling up or down without the massive capital investments required for high-speed rail construction. Given that air travel will remain a more time-efficient option for most travelers, the HSR is unlikely to achieve significant ridership to justify its immense cost.

The High Cost of Building and Maintaining HSR

The development of high-speed rail is notoriously expensive. For example, similar projects in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have encountered significant cost overruns. In California, the high-speed rail project was initially estimated to cost $33 billion but has since ballooned to over $128 billion, with sections still incomplete. The Canadian proposal will likely face similar challenges, especially considering the complexity of building rail infrastructure in densely populated urban centers and areas with diverse geography.

Transport Canada initially projected that the cost of a high-speed rail connection between the two cities could reach up to $80 billion. However many experts have suggested this price could easily increase to $120 billion.

In addition to construction costs, maintenance of HSR infrastructure is prohibitively expensive. Tracks, rolling stock, and stations require constant upkeep to ensure safety and efficiency. These costs are typically borne by the government, meaning Canadian taxpayers will be on the hook for billions over the lifespan of the rail system.

Limited Ridership Potential

A key factor determining the success of any public transit project is ridership. High-speed rail systems thrive in regions with dense populations and high intercity travel demand, such as Japan's Tokaido Shinkansen line or France's TGV. While the Toronto-Quebec City corridor does have some of Canada’s most populous cities, the overall population density of this region is low compared to successful HSR corridors elsewhere in the world. Furthermore, Canada’s car culture and sprawling urban development make it less likely that people will switch from driving to high-speed rail for intercity trips.

Additionally, high-speed rail tickets are typically expensive due to the high costs of operation. Many Canadians may opt for cheaper alternatives, such as driving or taking a bus, especially for shorter trips between cities like Toronto and Ottawa. For longer distances, flying will remain a more attractive option due to its speed. This leaves the HSR system in a precarious position, potentially operating at a financial loss if it fails to attract a critical mass of riders.

Environmental Benefits Are Marginal

One of the government’s primary justifications for the high-speed rail project is its potential environmental benefit. Shifting travelers from planes and cars to trains could theoretically reduce carbon emissions, as rail travel is more energy-efficient and can be powered by electricity from renewable sources. However, these benefits are not as significant as they might appear.

First, constructing the HSR infrastructure itself has a substantial environmental cost. The production of concrete, steel, and other materials required for rail tracks and stations generates significant emissions. Land clearing for new rail corridors can also disrupt ecosystems. These construction-related emissions would take decades to offset through reduced car and plane travel, meaning the environmental benefits may not be realized until far into the future.

Second, the emissions savings depend on high ridership, which, as discussed earlier, is uncertain. If the HSR fails to attract enough passengers, the environmental return on investment will be minimal. Furthermore, advances in aviation technology, such as electric and hydrogen-powered planes, are likely to reduce the carbon footprint of flying, making HSR’s environmental advantage even less significant over time.

Disruption to Existing Communities

Building a high-speed rail line will inevitably require the acquisition of land along the proposed route. This can lead to significant disruption for communities, including the displacement of residents and businesses. The construction process itself can cause noise, traffic congestion, and other disturbances over several years. These disruptions may disproportionately affect smaller towns and rural areas, where residents might not even benefit directly from the HSR system.

In contrast, the existing air travel network operates on infrastructure that is already in place. Enhancing this system—for example, by improving airport efficiency or encouraging the use of cleaner fuels—could achieve similar connectivity and environmental goals with far less disruption.

Opportunity Costs

The high-speed rail project represents a massive financial commitment. Estimates for similar projects suggest costs could easily exceed $50 billion. This raises questions about the opportunity costs of such an investment. Could this money be better spent on other priorities, such as healthcare, education, housing, or improving urban transit systems?

Many Canadian cities are struggling with aging public transit infrastructure and increasing congestion. Investing in local transit systems could provide more immediate benefits to a larger number of people while also contributing to environmental goals by encouraging more sustainable commuting habits. Additionally, improving intercity bus and conventional rail services along the Toronto-Quebec City corridor could achieve many of the same objectives as high-speed rail at a fraction of the cost.

Lessons from Other Countries

Canada can learn valuable lessons from other countries’ experiences with high-speed rail. For example, Spain has built an extensive HSR network, but many of its lines are underutilized, operating at a financial loss. Similarly, the United States has struggled to develop a viable high-speed rail system, with projects often delayed or canceled due to high costs and lack of public support. These examples highlight the risks of investing in HSR without a clear and realistic understanding of its economic and practical feasibility.

So What Now?

The Canadian federal government’s high-speed rail project from Toronto to Quebec City is undeniably well-intentioned. It seeks to address critical issues such as climate change, regional connectivity, and infrastructure modernization. However, the practical realities of such a project—ranging from competition with air travel and prohibitive costs to uncertain ridership and environmental trade-offs—suggest that it is unlikely to deliver on its promises.

Rather than committing billions of dollars to a high-speed rail system with questionable benefits, Canada would be better served by investing in more cost-effective and targeted solutions. Enhancing the existing transportation network, improving urban transit systems, and supporting technological innovations in aviation and sustainable travel could achieve similar goals with greater efficiency and less financial risk. Ultimately, while the vision of high-speed rail is compelling, the realities of its implementation make it an impractical and potentially wasteful endeavor for Canada.