Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
blue-sky (verb)
: to offer ideas that are conceived by unrestrained imagination or optimism.
Hosted by Erin O’Toole, President and Managing Director of ADIT North America. Erin is the former Member of Parliament for Durham and former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Blue Skies political podcast explores issues facing Canada and the world in a format that brings together thought leaders for an informed and engaging conversation.
Erin O'Toole (00:00:01)
Welcome to Blue Skies. Canada is in a moment. We've talked about this before, where we're becoming more self-reliant. We're trying to get big projects done. We're trying to adapt to the second term of Donald Trump where we can't rely on ⁓ traditional markets and a traditional ⁓ way of doing things with the Americans. We're we're trying to be more independent. We're trying to think big. ⁓ And one of those areas of major projects, it's not just about ⁓ pipelines.
And ports. It's also about transit, including public transit. We've seen ⁓ big debates, ferocious debates on social media on the new high-speed rail proposal, ALT. ⁓ We've seen ⁓ consternation and cancellation of the expansion of the Billy Bishop Aircor airport expansion. We've also seen incredible headlines ⁓ talking about cost overruns on some of the existing transit projects that in some cases go back.
more than a decade in the Toronto area in particular. So ⁓ we're gonna talk transportation, public policy, and can we get big things done in Canada? And we're gonna do that with a new guest to Blue Skies. Reece Martin ⁓ is the host of a YouTube channel called RM Transit. over ⁓ three thousand three hundred and fifty thousand subscribers. ⁓ He's covered transit and transit related issues in ⁓ in over 80 cities. ⁓
He also writes the great Substack, the transit brief. Definitely worth checking out. ⁓ And we ⁓ became acquainted through an ex post I put out to sort of be a bit provocative on ⁓ the cancellation of Billy and the consternation over Alto, and ⁓ you know, why is this canceled and and this is going forward. ⁓ There can be some smart and respectful exchanges on Twitter. And Reece is a voice that is like that, a U of T graduate in computer science.
But a transit nerd at heart, Reece Martin, welcome to Blue Skies.
Reece (00:02:00)
Thanks for having me on.
Erin O'Toole (00:02:02)
Well, listen, let's talk about that. Cause you're a U of T computer science software guy, and you are a transit guru ⁓ and growing an audience both on Substack, on on YouTube, some of your hits on ⁓ on streetcars and subways around the world get a lot of traction. ⁓ How did the computer science guy become the transit guy?
Reece (00:02:25)
Well, I I think I loved trains from a young age. I have a young ⁓ young kid myself and my kid's obsessed with trains and I'm kind of having this reflection now. I'm like, whoa, maybe it started from like age one, ⁓ the obsession with public transit. ⁓ I like cities. I ⁓ I moved to Toronto to go to U of T ⁓ instead of like Waterloo, which is the kind of traditional software ⁓ university because I I didn't want to live out with the geese. I wanted to live in the in the big city.
And ⁓ I was excited that Toronto was building such notable projects as the Eglinton Crosstown. I was ⁓ when I went into university I like, I'll be writing that a few years after I start. ⁓ I was married with a kid before I rode ⁓ the Eglinton Crosstown. But ⁓ yeah, I'm I'm really passionate about cities and I I think the world has enough software people, to be honest. ⁓ and it doesn't have enough people that are really who care about infrastructure and getting people around
Especially country like Canada that ⁓ that has so much potential for better infrastructure of all kinds, when it comes to transportation. We're a big country. We need a lot of transportation. Some places, you know, you can just you kinda walk around, but Canada you you need the planes, trains and automobiles, right? So ⁓ that's that's my story.
Erin O'Toole (00:03:40)
Absolutely. Well you're the Vancouverite that ran rode the the the SkyTrain and the front seat to enjoy it, ⁓ and now the one that is riding ⁓ in the TTC and in Toronto. So you've had this transit approach across Canada ⁓ and you write and speak on it. Anything more you want to add on where people can check out your work?
Reece (00:04:03)
Well what I would add, and I think ⁓ b so people can check me out at the the transit brief and I I write in the Toronto Star and stuff and you just kinda l look up my name, various various ⁓ stuff comes up. But the only other thing I'd really I I want people to to notice is that there's this perception, and I think it's partially because we're attached to America, ⁓ that public transit is, you know, like it's a marginal thing in Canada in the way that it is in the United States. You know, we're a car country. And yeah, we are a car country. Most trips in Canada do happen in cars.
But that's actually also true in Europe and Asia. And what I would what I would just kind of recommend people do is go look at the the stats. ⁓ Toronto's subway, for example, moves about eight times more people every day than ⁓ the Chicago L system, which is kind of way more famous and it's a much more impressive system when you look at a map. And when I look at Vancouver, ⁓ Portland and Seattle, they have rail systems and they're bigger cities, richer cities than Vancouver.
⁓ Vancouver moves about four to five times more than either of those cities on its kind of diminutive skytrain system. And so can Canadian cities really do ⁓ in terms of per capita use, public transit is much closer to Europe actually than it is to the United States. And it's a real asset because it means that ⁓ people have a way of getting around that's much less expensive. You know, the the cost of a car, as much as cars are great and they have some real utility in different situations. For things like commuting, the cost of a car is really high, and if we
We can give people that option of public transportation. It's good for the planet. It's good for people's pocketbooks. They can spend that money at businesses and on various other lifestyle amenities. And so I think I think the fact that Canada's actually pretty good at public transit is something I always try to remind.
Erin O'Toole (00:05:41)
That is a great reminder. And I took the five one into my office today. So I ride the rocket and I I tell people, you know what? It's so Canadian, the T T C stomping Tom Connors
Reece (00:05:45)
Here you go.
Erin O'Toole (00:05:53)
drove a streetcar for many years before he became famous ⁓ as one of our crooners. So you moved to Toronto. Let's let's dive into it because there's been a ton of headlines on here. You moved to Toronto around the time the Eglinton Crosstown was being worked on. ⁓ Six years behind between a billion to two billion over budget. We've seen the in the last few weeks news about the Ontario line ⁓ that being tripled ⁓ in cost compared to its budget. We've seen
Reece (00:05:55)
Yeah, yeah.
Erin O'Toole (00:06:23)
⁓ Recent reports in the Globe and Mail ⁓ that Alto will have a cost of 150 billion. ⁓ And then, of course, in North America, ⁓ we all know the high-speed rail ⁓ experience in California. At least that's ⁓ the scary comparator that's always put up there, where there's been an increase in ⁓ over ⁓ cost overruns in the range of 200 to over 500%. ⁓
You've written on this just this week on the transit brief. ⁓ Why are transit costs ⁓ suddenly going up so much? And why is North America in particular ⁓ so much more expensive, it seems, than Europe and Asia? I know there's a bunch of reasons, but let's talk about a few.
Reece (00:07:08)
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so I wrote I wrote fifty two reasons and so we're not gonna have time for fifty two. But let's ⁓ I think a a big one is the first thing that you kinda have to start with is that I think that our our discussions kinda they're not well grounded a lot of the time. And so California's experience is a is a good one. Th it the project is a debacle. It's been going on for decades. ⁓ a and
I think what's interesting though is that talking to a researcher I regularly talk to who's based in Montreal, but he's actually an Italian guy. And the Italians are really good at high speed rail now. And they actually have you know, they have market forces working in their high speed rail. They actually have competition between the state operator and a private operator, and it's created a really aggressive pricing dynamic where you can travel these huge distances in Italy for, you know, ten Euros or something. And th th the case in California is actually that like California's economy is so big that even if they built it at the really inflated prices, which
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. It would actually not be that much more expensive than what countries in Europe have actually spent, some of the countries in Europe. Not the best ones, but s the middle ground ones have spent similar amounts. Because California has an enormous economy, right? It's like I think it's over two trillion dollars and ⁓ just in California. I mean, they have like all the tech companies and stuff. And so I think a good thing is that like we hear these huge numbers, but we really do have to ground them in like, you know, what do what do ⁓ what do these things even cost anywhere, right? And so
That's the first thing I would say is that is that these projects are very valuable and their costs, while high, ⁓ also need to be considered over very long term. Because when you build a rail system, as you've seen in a place like the UK that built its railways in like a lot of them in the eighteen hundreds, these things are long term assets. They last a hundred, two hundred years. ⁓ and so there is there's a very long time horizon. ⁓ When it comes to why they're costing so much, this is the million dollar question.
We don't entirely know because the problem of high costs, especially not just in North America, though we are particularly bad, but in English speaking countries has really taken off in since 2000. ⁓ and you know, a big reason for that, we think, is because all of these English speaking countries speak English and they all learn from each other, right? So there's like kind of conferences and stuff and all the all the British people and the Singaporeans and the Canadians and Americans and Australians all get together.
Reece (00:09:22)
And they share ideas. And the problem is a lot of the predominant ideas have just not been very good ones. You know, we've we've done we've done a lot of things like public private partnerships. And and actually what I try to highlight in my in my piece in on the transit brief is that public private partnerships are are are not I wouldn't say they're neutral. They they have been kind of unhelpful, but they they can be successful. ⁓
Erin O'Toole (00:09:28)
Yeah.
Reece (00:09:45)
But the problem is what they've kind of led to over time is government agencies in these countries becoming less and less capable as customers of the private sector. All of these projects, railways, have basically all been developed by the private sector since time immemorium. The question is really just like what the exact breakdown in responsibilities is. And what's happened is it's sort of like if you're not capable of kind of planning and designing and doing some of the engineering work yourself as a government.
You can't check the work of the private sector to be like, is this reasonable? Like, do we need do we need a station here? Does that tunnel need to be that deep? All all of these questions come up, right? And you can't be a discerning consumer if you don't know anything. It's like if you were to buy a house but you knew nothing about houses. How how could you tell if like is that a problem with the roof? Or does that does the furnace need to be replaced? You you need that capability and there's been a real a dependence on consultants, etcetera. ⁓ which which some might argue a lot of these consultants that
for the English speaking world are British and the kind of collapse of Britain being able to build stuff, which happened around two thousand. London Lo London's last big huraz in infrastructure, kind of like late ⁓ late nineteen hundreds. ⁓ they gotta sent this army of consultants around the world. And so you'll find in these infrastructure circles there's a lot of British consultants and they're kind of pushing a lot of ide the ideas that Britain had at the time. And it's just like very expensive. And you you go to France, for example, and they can build the same infrastructure
You know, not it's not ⁓ compromised in some way for a tenth of the price. And the funny thing is, I know y you know s you know a few things about defense, is you have a similar dynamic in defense, right? Where ⁓ there's a lot of ⁓ desire for customization, outsourcing certain things instead of insourcing them, different procurement models and all of these things have driven up the cost of building stuff, yeah, in the English speaking world. So that's kinda like the I would say the overarching problem.
Erin O'Toole (00:11:36)
⁓ L let me jump in there ⁓ because ⁓ yeah, well and you know it's kind of like you're saying in the English speaking world we go around and sh and share worst practices. Instead of best practices, we're actually repeating mistakes. ⁓
Reece (00:11:39)
There's a lot there.
Reece (00:11:49)
Exactly.
Erin O'Toole (00:11:53)
And we can blame the Brits, I guess. And ⁓ you may not know, I I work as part of a French group called At It. ⁓ I did not ask you to sort of say the French do it better than the English. ⁓ It's really about breaking that mold. But let me then say, I think why the governments rely on public-private partnerships ⁓ is to provide some risk guarantee in terms of cost overruns and spreading out the risk ⁓ with the private sector.
Reece (00:12:16)
Mm.
Erin O'Toole (00:12:22)
Can can that be done if there's still ⁓ a a a crown agency or a government agency? ⁓ how can you build in that fiscal discipline? Because when we're talking about the California experience, five hundred percent ⁓ cost overruns, how how do you minimize the exposure to the to the taxpayer?
Reece (00:12:37)
Yeah, yeah.
Reece (00:12:41)
Well, I think I think this is a very good point because there is something there, right? You do want to have someone I I think a big problem is that we just have lost fiscal discipline and government in general, right? Because the idea that like the private sector is gonna provide fiscal discipline is a like good intention. But I think that it like in practice obviously isn't working because like the French who don't do these public-private partnerships have really good cost control.
and we have such bad cost control. And so I think part of it is this kind of like we scurry up, right, to higher and higher prices. I you know, look, I think that we don't have all the answers to this. ⁓ Canada has actually come up with some interesting models. So ⁓ a few of our successful projects ironically have been the public-private partnerships in Canada, which globally hasn't been the case. ⁓ in around 2010, Vancouver built the Canada law.
I love to tell people this story because the project was very similar to the Eglinton Crosstown. It's 19 kilometers, half of it's above ground, ⁓ but the Cataline was delivered for a quarter of the price in a quarter of the time. ⁓ and though those things aren't entirely disconnected for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. It was a public-private partnership. There were we did some things which are not popular, and I think that's that's part of the thing, is that you have to be willing to break some eggs, right, to to to get these projects done quickly and efficiently.
But one of the big funders on that project was actually the CDPQ, the pension fund of of Quebec. ⁓ and what happened was they realized that this infrastructure asset was a really good investment.
So basically ⁓ the CDPQ came in and funded the Canada Line and you know they realized it was an asset that performed really well over the years and they decided they wanted to do something like it but a bit bigger. ⁓ So they built a project in a similar vein, a combination of above ground below ground rail service for Montreal. It was gonna be sixty-seven kilometers, so it's kinda like triple the size of the Canada Line, ⁓ spanning the whole of Montreal, it would go to the airport, different suburbs and stuff. ⁓ and they wanted to do it for eight billion dollars. ⁓ and
They basically have achieved that. They they ⁓ it's funny, the project was announced after the Eglinton Crosstown. The first section opened before the Eglinton Crosstown ⁓ actually had opened. They're gonna wrap the whole project in ten years. So sixty-seven kilometers, you know, that's the size of the whole Montreal metro, which is ⁓ entirely below ground, but still an it's an impressive scale. ⁓ and
You know, they've done this and and I think an important and instructive thing for people is the media has just hammered them for being late and over budget because they have been late and over budget. And this is why I always I I I I get irritated with this talk of late and over budget, because it is an important thing. But w the problem is that it doesn't land credence to, well, what was the initial budget? How reasonable was the initial budget? Because it creates an incentive w for policymakers to inflate budgets over time. Because if it's gonna cost more, like let's add these con
These higher and higher contingencies. And so kind of like best practice in contingencies were these projects, it's like 10%. Canadian projects are now leaving like half the budget for contingency. And so that's and once you have the money allocated, well, you're gonna spend it, right? And so it's there's a lot of waste in that. And so the the RAM ended up costing around 10 billion, taking about 12 years to complete, which is like slightly more. But you wanna be slightly worse than a very good estimate.
Erin O'Toole (00:17:03)
Mm-hmm.
Reece (00:17:17)
Then like then like slightly worse than a very bad estimate. And so the REM has happened. And then now ⁓ CDPQ ⁓ is is kind of has built this infrastructure arm. They've tried to launch another project in Montreal which was killed because of of political opposition in the city. It sounds like they might relaunch it because the new mayor has some interest in it. ⁓ But ⁓ but I think this is a really good example of like a Canadian model.
That was that actually came out of sort of the P3 space and our very powerful pension funds, which have a ton of money and a lot of competence, ⁓ but is also delivering public transit infrastructure and at low prices. And so ⁓ we don't have all the answers, but they have done a lot of smart things, right? So they've they've standardized stations, they've scaled down infrastructure to just what's required. They're using automation just like the Vancouver SkyTrain, which is a huge saving, right? Because
otherwise you have a c a person sitting at the front of every train pressing a go button so the train will drive itself to the next station. That's how it works in the Toronto subway, for example. They're not driving the subway manually, they're just pressing a go button which allows the automated system to take the train to the next station. So ⁓ using these these kind of contemporary technologies, smart engineering, ⁓ reusing existing structures. So there's this giant new bridge in Montreal, the Champlain Bridge, built by the federal government to cross the the Seaway.
they designed it with space for a rail service to cross it, right? So there's these efficiencies and combining different infrastructure, etcetera. ⁓ so I think that there's a lot of lessons to be learned from these projects, ⁓ in terms of how to be more cost effective and how to manage a project better.
Erin O'Toole (00:18:51)
Lessons learned and particularly where we're doing things right. As you said, the REM is an example of ⁓ doing that right and case depot ⁓
probably the most forward thinking of the pension funds in this space, but an interest in all of the so-called ⁓ Maple Eight to to play a role in some of this. ⁓ You've then talked about ⁓ lessons learned from the bad experiences. I I hate picking on the Eglinton Crosstown, but ⁓ I used it in a Rotman debate as an example of some of the challenges we have right now. ⁓ We built the CPR ⁓
faster than the Eglinton crosstown. ⁓ So ⁓ the the the original ⁓ plan for the C PR was ⁓ a a ten year construction. It was finished in about eight. ⁓ and to just think we built ⁓ at
At rudimentary construction and sadly very ⁓ poor health and safety for the workers, sadly, ⁓ but we built it across the country and through the Rocky Mountains faster than we're able to get something across town and the GTA. ⁓ So is Metrolynx from your standpoint ⁓ learning the lessons ⁓ of Eglinton Crosstown, the early challenges with the Ontario line? Is is the accountability in that agency, because they seem to have one of the worst.
records ⁓ in the in recent days, ⁓ recent years in Canada. ⁓
Reece (00:20:15)
So I think that Metrolinx is a real enigma. I think a big problem is that it is is the political interference, right? Ultimately you do everyone talks about Metrolinx as an arm's length agency, right? And it's very difficult to do in reality because we live in a democracy and there is direct accountability to to the government. I think where you have issues is that in countries that are really good at this stuff, government doesn't micromanage, right? They basically say, Do this thing and at the end
We're gonna assess whether you've done a good job or not. And we'll do some yes and no's on the way whether to, you know, progress or to stop. but we're not gonna tell you where to put stations, we're not gonna tell you, hey, these people are complaining, you know, you've gotta manage this differently. And what that leads to is it leads to better processes, it leads to ⁓ the ability for an organization to just do its best and for us to judge it on that rather than judge it on this kind of interfered with process. Now, in terms of whether they've learned, they've definitely learned. ⁓
a lot of changes have been made to the Ontario line that are clearly direct results of the Crosstown. For example, one of the big problems with the Crosstown, it went right under the Young subway at Eglinton and Young. And so the Ontario line at Queen and Young is very deep because they didn't want to disrupt the existing subway in the way the Crosstown did. The problem is because this this learning isn't hasn't happened in a super super open way, and and and to be clear, a lot of these decisions were made quite a while ago, right? Like they were made when the Ontario line was being developed.
like almost 10 years ago now, ⁓ they made these decisions. But because there wasn't a public process where they said, hey, like these are the things we learned, these are what we're planning on doing differently, ⁓ there wasn't an ability for professionals and the public to to comment. And so we have this idea of negative learning, and this is an example of it. So it's good that they're at Queen and Young. They're gonna try to avoid being too close to the existing subway and maybe like having tunneling problems.
But by going so deep, right, they've just they've traded one problem for another. Because the deeper you build a tunnel, the more expensive it is. You gotta take more dirt out of the ground, the subway station's super deep, there's a lot of excavation, it's riskier. And so there is this tendency to say, We we're doing it differently, but maybe not in a better way. And so that's why it's really important, I think, for governments, ⁓ of all stripes. Like all of these problems are very like it's very interesting. There's not really a partisan direction to any of them. They need to be more transparent. Th with the crosstown, I think that
Reece (00:22:36)
There still should be some sort of public report that says, here are the lessons we learned. ⁓ there ⁓ when ⁓ NASA completed the Apollo program, they actually released this manual called Why Apollo Worked. ⁓ that like goes through all of their learnings on what made the Apollo program successful. And like it's actually very valuable for us to do the same things when things don't work well.
and to understand that like the Edmonton Cross Dun was really expensive, but we could actually get a lot of value out of like learning lessons from it. And we won't do that if we don't have like transparency and if we don't accept that like, hey, yeah, we're asking ⁓ agencies that are new, Metrolinx is a new agency to do big things, they're gonna screw some things up. The the key indicator of success is that they learn from those things and get better, right?
Erin O'Toole (00:23:16)
Yeah. ⁓ Yeah.
Yeah, I was in the military and it was after action reports, ⁓ lesson learned from every single ⁓ training. ⁓ if you weren't learning, you weren't improving. ⁓ okay, well let's talk, let's switch into this whole high speed rail thing, you know, particularly because you said we need more transparency. I think this is one area where there needs to be. ⁓ But for a lot of listeners that don't have your background or my ⁓ know enough to get into trouble background, ⁓ high speed rail versus high frequency.
Reece (00:23:37)
Yeah. ⁓ For sure.
Erin O'Toole (00:23:48)
⁓ A lot of people, especially in the online debates, ⁓ don't seem to understand the difference. Obviously, high frequency rail ⁓ is a lot ⁓ less expensive than high speed rail. Can you take us through ⁓ the difference and maybe ⁓ how the ⁓ what is now the ALTO, the sort of high speed for ⁓ Quebec into Toronto, ⁓ how that could be approached from high speed versus a high frequency rail standpoint? ⁓
Reece (00:24:15)
Yeah, yeah. Well the first thing I need to do is push back on the use of the term high frequency rail. And I know you didn't invent this term, so it's not a personal it's not a personal attack. ⁓ I actually when the government, the like liberal government started talking about high speed rail, they kept using the term HFR and I I really push back on this, ⁓ and I I wanna say like I wanna take five percent of credit for them changing the name because ⁓ the key thing to know is that like frequency is like a separate axis to the speed. Like a lot of ⁓
My favorite or the most impressive rail service in the world is the the Tokaido Shinkansen, which is the high-speed bullet train service from Tokyo to Osaka in Japan. It's it's high speed, ⁓ but it runs every three minutes at peak periods. So they're pushing one of these 16-train, four 400-meter long ⁓ high-speed trains out of Tokyo station every couple of minutes during the peak periods. And so and so you can have slow train frequent, fast train infrequent, or any combination.
The major difference I think here is that high frequency rail was proposed as a conventional rail service. So this would probably max out at about 200 kilometers per hour. It's 125 miles per hour. ⁓ and that was kind of the ⁓ the sort of rail standard that countries like the UK, when they built out in the kind of 20th century, they built out a huge system up to like Scotland, etc., of rail lines at at that kind of speed. In the Northeast Corridor in the US, from Boston to New York, it's kind of also operating at that speed.
a lot of rail services around the world operate at speeds like that. ⁓ and basically it allows you to have more intermixing with legacy infrastructure, right? So you could have a you could have your old train line and you have a short section where you can of I say short, but maybe it's like fifty kilometers, right? Where you you do a more direct line and then you can speed things up. And so that's kind of the high frequency rail approach is a more ⁓ is it's more of a
⁓ incrementalism on our existing ⁓ rail services which top out at about 160 kilometers per hour ⁓ but at h ideally a much lower cost. Whereas high speed rail, what that would mean is an entirely new rail system effectively. You're building new lines, you're acquiring new land for it, ⁓ possibly building new stations. ⁓ and so you you do see both of these ⁓ used around the world ⁓
Reece (00:26:34)
most big countries have both and it's sort of a like, hey, like some places will serve with one type of ⁓ of of speed and some places will be served with others. ⁓ in some countries there's been like kind of pivots, right? So Sweden was talking about high speed rail ⁓ for a long time. ⁓ and then the most recent government they they were like, we're gonna do a more of a ⁓ let's call it an HFR approach, a conventional rail, more like a two hundred kilometer per hour service. ⁓ and there's real you know, there's real value in that as well because
Toronto and Montreal, for example, are not so far apart that if you had a really fast conventional rail train, it would still be a compelling journey. You could get under four hours. some of the fastest trains historically, though they really had to press, got in at three three hours fifty nine minutes from Toronto to Montreal. And so that's kind of the distinction. You have ⁓ services which are gonna use more legacy infrastructure at a little bit of a lower speed, ⁓ but require less less of
you know, expensive new infrastructure land takings and then high speed rail would be kind of like a more isolated, separate, contemporary system.
Erin O'Toole (00:27:35)
Okay, that's very helpful as an overview. Let's hop in then. So let's use the Toronto, Montreal example. ⁓ So you're saying with the conventional, you don't like HFR, but conventional, ⁓ the new via ⁓ trains that are just coming into service, they can max out at about ⁓
Reece (00:27:45)
Yeah yeah.
Erin O'Toole (00:27:54)
two hundred kilometers ⁓ an hour now if the track and the the circumstances allow. ⁓ so under that conventional model, ⁓ how long is the distance anticipated ⁓ between say a ⁓ a Toronto and Montreal direct? No no milk run. ⁓
Reece (00:27:55)
Exactly.
Reece (00:28:09)
You could you could probably do a direct Toronto to Montreal in three hours, thirty minutes, if you had it really optimized, right? maybe a little bit less than that if you did a a direct with the trains we have now. Yeah.
Erin O'Toole (00:28:24)
Okay, three three and a half hours. Now go to the Alto the high speed example. We'll leave aside the costs and what Alto is planning now. What is that express train ⁓ Montreal to Toronto ⁓ under under that? And what how fast and how long? ⁓
Reece (00:28:26)
Yeah, yeah.
Reece (00:28:32)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Reece (00:28:41)
So frustratingly, Auto is talking about three hundred kilometer per hour. so right, so it's a one and a half times faster, which means you would get about two hour travel time. ⁓ if it's still up in the air, I don't think anything frustratingly has been decided, certainly not decided publicly. High speed rail k is typically capped at more like three hundred and twenty, ⁓ and in China now they're doing three fifty, and sometimes even a little bit higher than that. And so
For high speed rail, you're looking at about two hours, maybe in optimal conditions, a little under two hours for that Toronto.
Erin O'Toole (00:29:18)
So then the real public discussion really needs to be, ⁓ you know, obviously consultations and expropriation, all that sort of stuff, ⁓ is ⁓ how much the cost difference is for that hour and a half, right? ⁓ we we can we can also then talk about ⁓ the frequency and issues and we're gonna get into that in a minute. ⁓ but ⁓ maybe speak a bit to the ⁓
Reece (00:29:36)
Mm-hmm.
Erin O'Toole (00:29:44)
costs from expropriation because I've noticed online on online discussions about this, people just say, let's just put the trains on the on the tracks and like ⁓ why don't we take the tracks back from from CN or ⁓ you know, ⁓ people don't seem to realize that ⁓ our history, ⁓ the rail line was generally created for a cargo purpose ⁓ and not a passenger purpose. And ⁓ the lines, particularly since the privatization of of ⁓ CN and and
Reece (00:29:57)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Erin O'Toole (00:30:14)
⁓ has been private. And so when Via ⁓ is on the lakeshore line, ⁓ which I've taken many times, take it I will take it again ⁓ this month, ⁓ VI I think is the fourth priority on those lines because of ⁓ the pecking order of cargo and even the go train I think has ⁓ priority in some stretches. ⁓
Reece (00:30:16)
Yeah yeah.
Erin O'Toole (00:30:39)
Talk about that because ⁓ whole new line, ⁓ and this is running into Eastern Ontario c community ⁓ concerns, because they will have to expropriate, you know, a a right of way for hundreds of kilometers and ⁓ talk a little bit about why we can't just compare to Europe where these existing systems, the land was acquired decades ago. That's probably the biggest cost in this, right?
Reece (00:31:07)
I think I think the distinction is so it is you have there's a key distinction here and you're totally right, is that in North America freight rail is the thing we do. And we do it quite successfully. We move huge tonnages. I think ⁓ a fun stat and it goes both ways is that Canada moves more freight by rail every year than the European Union does. ⁓ as you know, which has a population of over five hundred million people. Now the Europe the
Erin O'Toole (00:31:30)
That's an impressive stat.
Reece (00:31:31)
The Europeans will tell you though, they move a higher value of goods. And so the European freight trains are these kind of small little trains that will move like a bunch of cars or some semiconductors or something very expensive. Canadian trains move bulk goods. And so where they would rely on trucks in Europe, we actually move huge volumes of like minerals and containers and stuff in Canada. ⁓ the the the big thing is, like, and this is especially true in Canada, but still true in Europe, is that with high speed rail, you need a new line. ⁓
Erin O'Toole (00:31:35)
Ha ha ⁓
Reece (00:32:00)
The freight lines, and and this is kind of true for high frequency a bit as well. ⁓ the freight lines are really curvacious. They the speed limits are are fairly low. They're even lower for freight trains because they're kind of heavy, they can't tilt. ⁓ there's this a concept of super elevation where passenger trains actually lean into the corners a bit, and that allows them to comfortably go a bit faster. And so ⁓ using existing lines is always a bit of a limitation. And so there is this.
Where I would say there's a big distinction is in the more conventional rail approach, you can do this piecemeal upgrading. And so you'll see in a place like Italy, they what they did was they had their old rail line, it's kind of slow, and they would identify sections of it where they said, if we cut this corner, we kind of built a more direct line here. This is gonna cost this much, and we're gonna remove an you know 30 minutes of travel time ⁓ and build a more direct route through some curvy areas. And so that's ⁓ that approach. And then with high speed rail, what you see more often it's an entirely new line.
Right, we're gonna we're gonna draw a more direct line between the cities as opposed to trying to remove the kinks from the existing line. And so with ⁓ with this kind of alto or or or ⁓ or HFR kind of debate, what you're really looking at is it's it's like, ⁓ do we wanna take an existing route or an existing quarter that kind of existed, or are we gonna cut an entirely new path? And what are the trade offs with this? And a big problem I think, honestly, is how governance of rail works in Canada. Not only is there the privatization, which
is I think ⁓ a bad idea. I think in the sense that like if you look at even countries like Australia, they maintained ⁓ public ⁓ ownership stakes and stuff. And the reason that's important is that infrastructure is typically best managed by a impartial, over overlooking body, which basically manages traffic. The way air traffic control or something works. So you don't prioritize one form of traffic over another. And the problem with even if you had passenger rail ownership of the tracks, as we see with the GoTrains, is that
The Via Train is in one place and the freight company is like, you're not getting in the way of my freight train, and then it goes onto the GoTrain tracks, ⁓ and the Go train gets in the way of the VA train. And the problem is there isn't a there isn't a sort of like neutral arbiter that goes, hey, like we want to minimize delays for all passengers or for all traffic, right? So it's this jostling of different operators. And so a big part of the I think the debate here is about
Reece (00:34:19)
Do we try to create a n a new piece of infrastructure where Via kinda has sovereignty over the rails? ⁓ right? And and there's the two different approaches to that could be this conventional approach or the the high speed approach. But both of them, they're really trying to give Via control of its own destiny. Because right now, you're like stuck behind a container train carrying Canadian tire hockey sticks.
Erin O'Toole (00:34:39)
Mm-hmm.
I I I've been there, Reece. I've I've been there. ⁓ let's talk about that piecemeal for example, 'cause I'm gonna share a bit of my perspective. You know, I've been quite critical about ⁓
some of the ⁓ you know what I view as lack of real discussion about ALTO ⁓ and ⁓ and the really good debate on, you know, stations and stuff. We'll get into that. But when I was first elected and then in 2013, thanks to the work actually of the Peterborough MP, Dean D Del Mastro, ⁓ and Jim Flaherty, the late finance minister ⁓ who was in Whitby, ⁓ there was a proposal to ha let VA do a dedicated route to Ottawa to get off the lakeshore lines ⁓
pick up what was called the Shining Waters ⁓ rail link to Peterborough and then take ⁓ right-a-ways and and lines that basically go back to I think the Grand Trunk, for goodness sake. ⁓ And then there needed to be some work in Smith Falls, ⁓ but that would have been dedicated to Via would have potentially ⁓ dropped that trip by almost an an hour, like 50 minutes or something like that. ⁓
Reece (00:35:34)
Mm-hmm.
Reece (00:35:40)
Mm-hmm.
Erin O'Toole (00:35:47)
Via was very hot on it and we were very supportive of it and actually funded some of it. ⁓ is that is you know that's kind of what you're saying Italy did was take, you know, and improve some routes, ⁓ you know, upgrade the track in some curves. Is that still a a model that's possible? ⁓ or ⁓
Reece (00:36:00)
⁓ Kind of.
It it is. And I think that, you know, for me, I really believe that it would be a great thing for the public policy discussion is for two is for another plan to be advanced. Because what would be a real shame is if a new government came in and cancelled Alto and didn't have kind of something that they could pick up and say, We're gonna do this instead. Because I think everyone agrees that like it's not good that our biggest cities
are not connected by better rail service because ultimately it's about having competitive options. You know, you can drive, you can fly, you should be able take a good train. ⁓ the the big I think problem with ⁓ the like the the potential risk with the the conventional rail approach is we still basically need to build a new line. Because the existing alignment ⁓ is ⁓ is not like there's no signaling, there's a lot of level crossings and stuff. So you're gonna still have to do a lot of upgrading. You're gonna to build crossings or crossing removals
add signaling, ⁓ probably ⁓ rebuild a ton of like bridges and stuff. A lot of them are quite dilapidated, and then also probably want to do some curve straightening. And so that is a a possible plan. And I do think like obviously it's gonna cost a lot less because you can leverage existing land holdings, etcetera. I don't think you're gonna get a ri away from the NIMBYism problem because a lot of people are very happy that they have like this rail trail near them and they're n you know and so I think that's always something I'm hesitant about is that like
when there's a plan and there's like we could do this plan and people are upset about this plan, it's like people will always be upset about something. And ⁓ so that that's something I'm I'm always I I I'm hesitant about. But look, like the Swedes, they did go with more of a low speed approach. And if you run a really frequent service, then, you know, it still could be compelling. It can be competitive, but it's a different level of competitiveness, right? So it's like
Erin O'Toole (00:37:33)
Mm-hmm.
Reece (00:37:51)
I think the difference between high speed and something like that is like how many flights you're gonna get rid of, right? If you do full high speed rail, you're gonna like really sh shrink the number of flights. There's probably gonna be almost no flights. If you look at places like Tokyo, Osaka, Paris Leon, even when there isn't a a legislated rule, the flights go to zero because it's just not it's becomes not compelling anymore. Even if you're doing connections, it's so much faster that you would still rather connect on rail. ⁓
With a more conventional rail approach, right, it's gonna be different. You're gonna have a bit more of that aviation market ⁓ still existing. And there's trade-offs to both, right? Like on one hand, some people like having the aviation option, but ⁓ air you know, sometimes airlines actually would prefer an option, kind of like the Japanese, because it means they can use their slots for h longer distance, higher value international flights and stuff, right? Or for me,
Erin O'Toole (00:38:28)
Mm-hmm.
Reece (00:38:44)
Going to Vancouver, where there's never going to be a good train to to go to Vancouver. It's just not really in the cards, right? And so these are like the trade offs we need to consider, right? And I I think another important one is that like when people are talking about the cost of things, et cetera, and the costs are too high. Like ⁓ I am the first person to say it, I have written a lot about it, like our costs are ludicrous, and it is a it's a problem, and every ⁓ every government, every party should care about it because it just limits what we can do as a country. ⁓ but we also have to recognize that the cost of all infrastructure is high.
Erin O'Toole (00:38:46)
Yeah. ⁓
Reece (00:39:13)
Hospitals, highways, airports, everything is costing way more than it costs in Asia or continental Europe, not Britain. Britain is expensive. ⁓ and so if we don't do high speed rail and it's like, well that's gonna incur some four one widenings and some airport expansions, we should really cost those things in because I think that's an i important part of the discussion. And we should talk about how we bring those costs down.
Erin O'Toole (00:39:31)
Mm-hmm.
Erin O'Toole (00:39:36)
So great point. So really ⁓ public policy forum or one of these smart think tanks out there needs to work with you and have a really
conference dedicated on a how do we get the cost down and b what are the various options ⁓ that we can look at. And final point I have, I have taken the train to Vancouver, Reece. I took the Canadian with my grandfather as a kid to see Expo eighty six. I was thirteen ⁓ and it was very cool. We had the sleepers and ⁓ traveling with my grandfather, it's it's it's a great memory. ⁓
Reece (00:39:49)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Reece (00:39:56)
Yeah.
Reece (00:40:01)
That's very cool.
Erin O'Toole (00:40:09)
Not exactly fast for business meetings or anything like that, but ⁓ quite special. So now we're gonna go on to Alto itself. So for people that are listening, Alto is roughly about a thousand kilometers, Quebec City to Toronto. Right now, although this is in maybe a state of flux, and we'll talk about that, ⁓ seven stations: Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Montreal, Laval, Tois-Rivières, and Quebec City.
⁓ the issue in the news in the last few weeks is $150 billion costs and that has some operational costs and ⁓ there's a question the consortium that that's ⁓ that's running it includes CDPQ, which you talked about its success in British Columbia. ⁓
But let's talk about this debate on how many stations and ⁓ and can you do both? And ⁓ there was a really good ⁓ Substack on this recently by your friend Jonathan English talking about the myth of the non-stop high speed rail.
And use the Japanese example. There's the the direct the Nazomi, I think, trains, which like would be the Toronto, Montreal, hit it in the morning, get down there as quick as possible. ⁓ Then then there's the Kodama type trains, which are the we'd call the milk run here, where it would actually be good for the underlying ⁓ cost structure to have more stations. Can you talk about this debate a little bit and how, you know, maybe we can have more public discussion so that ⁓ communities and and
Reece (00:41:23)
Exactly.
Erin O'Toole (00:41:43)
⁓ Yeah. ⁓
Reece (00:41:45)
Yeah, so ⁓ th one of the big assets of rail compared to aviation, and this is why I always think that like there's there's comparisons positive and negative where people go like trains are gonna replace planes or people say like we don't need trains because we have planes. What it ignores is that these are like fundamentally different things. The marginal cost of adding a stop on a train is like zero. Because your train is already running along the rails, you slow down, you maybe add a few minutes to your trip, you pick up new people in the in in a town on the way, right? And so the best rail system
and basically every high-speed rail system in the world has intermediate stops. But what what that looks like, right, is it looks kind of like a highway interchange. You've got your two main tracks that run s from Toronto to Montreal. But then at the stations, the tracks widen out to four. You have these kind of bays at the side where you have platforms. The fastest trains just shoot straight through those intermediate cities at full full clip. ⁓ But the slower trains, and so there can be a mix, right? ⁓ they're gonna stop
at some of those intermediate stations. And the thing that's nice is you can have all kinds of mixes, right? You can have some that maybe they stop at the s cities in Ontario, some in Quebec. You have different different blends and so it's optimized for different types of travel, right? You have the the Peterborough commuter train or the the Ottawa politician express, you know, coming in to Toronto at nine AM, right? You got all these different options. And I mean, people do that now. They take the via from Ottawa and try to get into Toronto early in the morning and it's a
Erin O'Toole (00:43:02)
Ha ha ha. ⁓
Reece (00:43:11)
It's a miserable masochistic it's a masochistic experience. ⁓ Yeah. And and so you you have a lot of different stop pattern options. And so I think what Jonathan's point is here is that like we have to highlight that ⁓ the rail infrastructure is infrastructure that is gr that allows you to do other things, right? Like something I've said makes a lot of sense is if Alto's gonna build new tracks into Toronto, then like yeah, there should be a commuter service to Peterborough. And there's no reason
Erin O'Toole (00:43:11)
I've done it. I've done it. It's like a f five AM departure ⁓ from Ottawa, yeah.
Reece (00:43:40)
'Cause Alto, ⁓ you know, Canada does not have the population of Japan. So we're not gonna need a train every ⁓ three minutes direct to Toronto, Montreal. There'll probably be one every half hour or something. That leaves you lots of space on those rails to say, we're gonna have a high speed GO train that goes to Peterborough or that goes to Kingston, right? And ⁓ that'll run in between those those more express services. So it's really it's a local and express system, and you could even have in the future
Erin O'Toole (00:43:50)
Yeah, yeah.
Reece (00:44:10)
as they do in France, you have tracks split off. So ⁓ the government has done this kind of political maneuvering with adding the stop in Kingston. I'm not gonna like say whether that was a good thing or not, but you have options. We didn't have to do that. One option we could have done is we could have said we're gonna build a little branch off of the main high speed line. It's gonna go down to Kingston and then that's how you serve Kingston. And maybe that wouldn't be high speed, right? So in in France you'll see that the high speed trains
will get off the high speed line to go into some of these cities and that way you can add that track. It's less expensive. It's not full high speed rated. ⁓ and the high speed is kind of the it's the trunk of the system, right? You got little branches. And so there's a lot of different options here with ⁓ different services and and connections. And intermediate communities, if I can call them that, are like they stand to benefit, ⁓ especially if they push for these like local services and connectivity. ⁓ because yeah, like
It's hard for me as a Torontonian to get to Montreal, but like I also can't really get to Kingston very easily, right? And ⁓ I would probably visit Kingston more often if I could get there in like an hour on the train, right? ⁓ but if there's not a station, if they're not connected, that's not an option for me, right? And so this ⁓ everyone should really be part of this conversation and how we optimize it, not just for people going between Toronto and Montreal, even if there's a lot of people that would do that.
Erin O'Toole (00:45:30)
Yeah, this is why I became a big fan of the Shining Waters or this initiative that Dean and Jim had proposed, ⁓ because you could then have the commuter ⁓ option, ⁓ which when I was a a lawyer before politics, if I had a critical ⁓ day, instead of taking the go train from the Durham region, I would take the via from Oshawa, the last stop, ⁓ and I would be ⁓ in Toronto. ⁓ You you paid doubled fare essentially, but there was a commuter group ⁓ using via to come into Toronto every day.
Reece (00:45:48)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Erin O'Toole (00:46:00)
from the Coburg and the Oshawa stations. ⁓ So North Durham would have been served in the p in the ⁓ run to Peterborough. So as you said, ⁓ there'd be options for the bullet the the the the sort of ⁓
⁓ nozomi train to just get there ⁓ and then other options that allow relief on the commuter systems as well once you've built the infrastructure. ⁓ So ⁓ can more stops over time actually bring a better cost benefit analysis to the infrastructure ⁓ investment itself?
Reece (00:46:31)
Definitely, because more stops ⁓ ultimately, right? A stop is not that expensive, especially ⁓ and and it's also like it's a unit that you could say a developer could build it, and the developer could implement their own price discipline on it, right? And so ⁓ you you you can add a stop and right, each stop you add, it doesn't bring the value of the project down, right? Because as I said, there's a lot of capacity on these rail lines. You're you're not gonna run out of capacity any time soon. And so adding a stop really just adds a new place that some services connec connect to, right? You add
add value and then there's a development opportunity too, right? We're short of housing, etc. Honestly, Alto is probably gonna pass through North Durham, right? They're not talking about a station. They should be. I I personally was more of a fan of taking a route through Oshawa just because that's where a lot of the existing demand is. But if they're gonna go ⁓ on the north, there is really no reason that they shouldn't be building some commuter stations because ⁓ and this is part of the problem with the the breakdown of and it's not really Alto's fault.
In Canada, the provinces and the feds, ⁓ the way that transport is broken down isn't great. And so like the GoTrain is the province of Ontario. And so the feds don't have the same incentive to create a commuter option on a federal high speed railway, right? And you need that integration. You want, you know, ideally those people would pay with their Presto card. They would all all these things would be integrated, right? And so this is something we need to work out. In most countries, there is a national body that does rail.
And it's not broken down in this provincial federal way that we have in Canada. And that also is part of expertise, right? We have Metrolinks and we have ALTO. There's gonna be a lot of overlap in the expertise, right? Both are gonna be maintaining and building rails. It's not ideal. In most countries you would have one body, one public body that would do all of this kind of work, and then it would be able to have more expertise and it would be able to like hire you you can't hire the same expert at both of these organizations, right? And so this is a
This is a real problem. But Alto is g if Alto's gonna spend a lot of money going into the cities, then there's gonna be so much capacity. Same is true in Montreal, they really need to be thinking about the commuter services that could use that capacity because as Jonathan mentions, like there is a huge volume of people that travel intercity, but it the numbers are just much, much, much higher for people commuting into and out of cities. And so getting the synergies and combining those allows you to have a better project overall that gets more use.
Erin O'Toole (00:48:56)
Okay. This has been great and ⁓
For interest of time, because this is a great discussion, and ⁓ and we've got a whole section on Billy Bishop and stuff we could do and some of the some of the ⁓ mischief of debates on Twitter. ⁓ But why don't we use this final segment as ⁓ a ⁓ RM transit Reece Martin advice ⁓ for politicians, for ALTO, for Metrolinks is ⁓ if there is this expectation ⁓ that costs are tripling, we can't get anything done, there's delays, ⁓ there's a lot of concern.
And particularly in Western Canada, that won't really have any benefit from this ⁓ national project that really is only about connecting Quebec City and Toronto. ⁓ What are some improvements to ⁓ the model, ⁓ to the dialogue, to the transparency ⁓ that we can have ⁓ so that we can have more responsible discussions about this? Because I'm actually a big rail proponent. I take it all the time. I take ⁓ the channel every time I'm in the UK.
Going to France. ⁓ I was a GoTrain guy. I'm the 501 ⁓ guy. ⁓ But I do think ⁓ we need to improve things. So, ⁓ what are your thoughts on how we can have smarter ⁓ discussions, get this right, build in the commuter stuff? I'm going to let you riff off, ⁓ and then I'm going to send this to a number of people to make sure that ⁓ some politicians and some folks at Alto ⁓ can learn.
Reece (00:50:04)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Reece (00:50:21)
no.
Reece (00:50:25)
I well, a big one. I'm gonna I'm gonna push back again about there's always this dynamic with Western Canada. And this is like just something I wanna say to like a politician because like ⁓ and because I always feel this so passionately, because I'm a Western Canadian, but I feel like we use the term Western Canada to always refer to Alberta and like BC, like people in BC like, hoorah, more trains ⁓ and the Albertans like, I don't know. I think I think one of the big mistakes we've made
Erin O'Toole (00:50:49)
Ha ha.
Reece (00:50:53)
historically with Alberta, to be honest, is not just bringing them into the fold. It is baffling that via Rail does not operate something between Calgary and Edmonton. Right? And and they it could be high s it doesn't even but you know what they're actually a great opportunity to not do high speed. Because ⁓ there it's flat. There's actually some existing corridors like the QE2. You could imagine building something. If you actually look at Brightline in Florida
Erin O'Toole (00:51:02)
A Calgary Edmonton. That's been talked about as a high speed target. Yeah.
Reece (00:51:18)
Not the hottest time to bring up American examples of things, but the way that they built Brightline along the Beach Line Expressway from Orlando to Coco, ⁓ it's totally ⁓ y it's easy to imagine how you could do the exact same thing along the highway from Calgary to Edmonton. ⁓ And it's a real mistake on the part of politicians at the federal level, ⁓ for not saying like, hey, like the Albertans are left out.
And like they should feel left out. I know as someone from Vancouver, I don't think I saw the via rail logo ever until I moved to Toronto when I was like twenty, right? So, you know, bring people into the fold. Vancouver Island had its rail service, the Malahat. That was removed, and it's like, you know, the cost of having these services, same with Calgary Edmonton. It's pr it's it's a fraction of what Alto would cost, right? But it's it makes people feel like they they actually own a stake in it. And so ⁓ I think that that's something that we really have been foolish about. On the cost issue.
Erin O'Toole (00:51:48)
Yeah.
Reece (00:52:12)
Look, it's just like it's a fundamental problem that we have and it's not just transit. The the the the thing is this applies to everything we build. The hospitals, the defense projects, everything. And a lot of the same reasons are behind these cost increases. ⁓ we learn on defense and on hospital procurement from the same places we learn ⁓ about these things from. And you know, we learn some good lessons too. ⁓
But we we need to be willing to really tackle this because no matter what a particular government's priorities are, you might want to build pipelines, you might want to build roads, you might sensibly want to build all of the things. You cannot be cost effective, you cannot you know enact your will if these projects are costing what a space program costs, right? Like which is what we're we're getting into, right? ⁓ maybe we wanna go to the moon. Like we're not gonna be able to if we don't deal with these costs. And so I think cost being a key consideration is critical.
And what's really important is you have to understand that we're not asking to cut projects back. The key differentiator is that like in France or in Korea, they're not saying like we're not gonna build the big ambitious things we wanna build or we're gonna scale them back. It's we're gonna build those, but we're gonna do it at 10% the cost. And so it's important that when we ask for projects to cost less, we don't we don't you know cut off their arm and go, okay, now this project.
This project is lacking one arm and it costs ⁓ twenty percent less. It's about we bring the cost down while delivering the same benefits, right? ⁓ And and there's a lot of ways you can do that. And so I think that that's a key thing. ⁓ I think that this transportation, public transit, intercity rail, all of it is a competitive advantage Canada has. ⁓ cars have to be better. Aviation has to be better when it's competing with another option.
people always comment that flights in Europe are so cheap. And like part of that is because, yeah, people could potentially take the train, right? That's another option they have. We have these big pension funds. How do we bring them into the fold, right? There's costs and benefits to doing that, but you mentioned the channel, owned by OMERS, right? Like there's another Canadian pension fund ⁓ property there. And so like we we have the the right ingredients to be successful. I think we really have to we have to, you know.
Reece (00:54:30)
prioritize this effectiveness and and and you know something that like a real ⁓ policy guru Mad Iglacius said when talking about transportation projects and his kind of reflection on why they cost so much is like it just doesn't seem like anyone cares how much they cost, right? ⁓ it it's either becomes this huge p political thing where it's like Alto's gonna cost so much money, or we don't talk about it. And so all the intermediate steps where we say we're gonna change this, we're gonna do this, and each of these things is making the project more expensive
Nobody ever says anything, but then the project becomes an Ontario line or an Alto and it gets super expensive and then we kind of we freak out. But you can't kind of retroactively bring these costs down a lot of the time. Like Alto's not being built, so we can, but but your options for making it less expensive shrink over time. ⁓ And ⁓ you know, a big problem, if you look at something like the Canada line, why did it cost so little in Vancouver? They did the cut and cover construction where they build a subway by digging a giant trench down the middle of the street.
Did people like that? ⁓ No. And so th this is like what's tugging at these these these strings, right? Is that ⁓ there's a real disincentive to upset people or to say like, no, we're not gonna build, you know, we're building you a new train station, but you're not gonna get a new bike lane with the train station. ⁓ because th there there is a real i incentive for people when they see a mega project to kind of demand more and more. And you kind of it's death by a thousand cuts for these projects. And so
there's a lot of different things that we could be doing better, but I think at the at the top it's really just about looking at these projects, recognizing that they are coming in at these high prices, and pushing p policymakers and everyone up and down the stack of the projects to ask how could we do more for less? Because I think that it would really change our conversation, right? If Alto cost fifteen billion, which presumably if we were in like Spain it might cost fifteen billion, then I think everyone would be on board with it and we'd be building it by now, right? And so
I think if we these fundamentals, if we can shift those, then we don't like a lot of the debates we're having wouldn't even need to happen, right? And then if we were paying fifteen billion for Alto, we go build, you know, go build a new highway from Toronto to Ottawa, and we could expand the airports too. We really could have more for less. And so that's my that's my advice and and what I suggest to people is just that you know we're fighting the wrong battles, right? It's not about this thing is expensive and a bad idea. It's like why is it so expensive?
Erin O'Toole (00:56:54)
Yeah. ⁓ Great conversation. And I'm gonna pull just as we conclude a few ⁓ lessons from it. So ⁓ more transparency, more public discussions, keep the public ownership and keep that public oversight there and maybe incentivize ⁓ smarter, more effective ⁓ public
owners and managers, ⁓ competition and more options for other parts of the Canada, like the that Calgary-Edmonton line, maybe if they saw ⁓ an option and and making sure that nobody dominates so that there's competition, ⁓ options for commuter rail and and potentially more stations ⁓ to to feed into the system. ⁓
Leverage the pension funds, who are some of the trailblazers, ⁓ and fewer consultants, and ⁓ stop learning the the ⁓ worst practices and leveraging the best practices. ⁓ I think we've taken a lot from this discussion. ⁓ We we may have to have you back to talk ⁓ E. VTOL and Billy Bishop and where you see transportation in ⁓ 20 years, but with all of these headlines about rail and transit systems and cost overruns, I think it's been very hard.
Helpful ⁓ to have you break it down. So thanks for blue skying all this with us today, Reece Martin. ⁓
Reece (00:58:10)
Thanks for having me on, Erin.
Erin O'Toole (00:58:12)
Reece Martin, RM Transit on YouTube, the transit brief on Substack, a smart ⁓ observer, a proud Vancouverite who rides the Red Rocket occasionally here with his family in Toronto, ⁓ and someone showing that ⁓ even X comment streams can lead to some good conversations to improve Canada and to seize this moment we're in. Thanks for Blue Skying Transit and Transportation with us today.