Stimulus and infrastructure building are all the rage these days. Our project on the crisis and the future of Ontario tackles infrastructure options. Led by civil engineer Chris Kennedy, whose forthcoming book The Wealth of Cities examines the role of infrastructure historically in powering economic growth, the report provides a framework for thinking about and investing in the future. The Toronto Star’s Sandro Contenta reports:
The report estimates the total cost of infrastructure work at up to $27.5 billion. But they say their recommendations address the two most pressing issues today – global warming and global recession. The report proposes 560 kilometres of high-speed electric track that runs from Toronto north to Orillia, east to Peterborough and west to a corridor that includes Waterloo, Hamilton and Niagara Falls. It would take at least a decade to build and cost anywhere from $4 billion to $20 billion, depending on the route and technology chosen.
The rail system would help create a high-density “mega-region” by improving transportation and attracting what the report calls well-paid “creative” jobs, such as those in aerospace, finance and telecommunications. “A high-speed rail network knitting Ontario’s cities together could revolutionize the province’s role within the continental and global economic systems,” it says …
The provincial government plans a 15 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases, below 1990 levels, by 2020, and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. The report describes Ontario’s plan to phase out coal-burning energy and Metrolinx’s proposed transit projects during the next 25 years as important steps. But it adds that Ontario’s population is expected to increase to about 15 million by 2021 – with half of the 2 million growth in the Toronto region – and more needs to be done …
A scenario in which 25 per cent of Ontario cars are plug-in hybrids would require an extra 2,500 megawatts of electricity during peak nightly hours, when most would be recharging their cars. It would cost between $5 billion and $7.5 billion to build the extra nuclear and wind power needed, spread over a 10-year period, the report says. The move could also put Ontario at the forefront of the emerging hybrid auto sector, it argues.
The report emphasizes “mobility hubs” built around high-speed rail stations that connect passengers to local buses, trains and subways. The government should zone land around these hubs to allow for a high-density mix of residential and commercial buildings, it says. Highway congestion would be reduced by high-speed trains that can travel, depending on the technology used, from 130 to 400 km/h, the report says. This high-speed link could eventually be extended to Ottawa, Montreal, Chicago and New York, the report says.
(Graphic via the Toronto Star).
December 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Question (not rhetorical): why does every transportation proposal fixate on light rail, and nearly (if not completely) ignore buses?
I see huge advantages to buses (flexible, responsive, etc.) I see the potential to invest in “clean” buses. I see the many examples of loss-piling rail services that offer poor service and fail to meet the public transit needs of the citizenry (driving them, so to speak, to use POVs).
I can see why light rail is aesthetically appealing: the idea is certainly sexier than buses. And I understand that in theory these rail systems should be more efficient because they would operate on their own tracks. But that hasn’t been the case in history, and the only thing that has held back buses has been controls on private bus company routes. Where there has been private bus competition, e.g., New York-Boston-DC, there are $15 tickets.
Also, I’d note, that if you wanted to free buses from any traffic problems you might have, well just use that money you would have spent on creating the light rail system’s tracks, and/or use congestion pricing! It’s not that hard!
So, with my monologue complete, I ask again: Where for art thou bus champions?
December 20th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
I think BOTH need to be considered.
Good luck, though. There seems to be huge resistance against public transportation (or even private mass transit).
December 21st, 2008 at 10:27 am
Publius, I believe in this case they’re talking high-speed heavy rail, not light rail. For example, Hamilton-Toronto-Oshawa is already a commuter rail corridor carrying 24 million people per year. (Each train is up to 12 cars in length, which is about 1,700 seats, or the equivalent of 35 standard-sized buses. Rail fits best here simply as a matter of scale.)
Richard, I’m afraid I don’t quite understand the scope of this study. It seems that the first priority for high-speed rail should be Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal — just like Eurostar, high-speed rail has the potential to capture much of the travel between these cities. (On a typical weekday, Air Canada and WestJet fly a total of 4,300 seats each way between Toronto and Montreal, and a bunch more to Ottawa. The carbon footprint of that can’t be pretty.)
But would the point of high speed rail links between Toronto and places like Waterloo and Orillia be to serve commuters living in one city but working in the other, or to facilitate occasional day-trips (for either business meetings or pleasure)? Absolutely, there are businesses in Waterloo and Toronto that should collaborate with each other, and an easy way to visit each other would aid that. But as for daily Waterloo-Toronto daily commuters, that seems like a case of greenbelt-leaping sprawl that should be discouraged. There’s plenty of room for intensification in Markham, Vaughan, Pickering, and Brampton, and even within the city of Toronto’s old suburbs. It’s great the report specifies energy-efficient trains, but of course the simplest way to be more energy efficient is to travel shorter distances.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood and the system would be priced and scheduled in such a way that it wouldn’t appeal to commuters. But the references to mobility hubs and reduced highway congestion certainly sound like a plan for commuters — a bit like Metrolinx’s proposals, stretched across a wider area and sped up. And I just don’t see how setting up a system for people to live 150 km from where they work is a wise infrastructure investment.