Memorandum to the federal cabinet:

Honourable ministers,

Your colleague, Transport Minister David Collenette, hopes to secure your support to launch a high-speed train project to be developed and run by VIA Rail.

This will doubtless be presented as a positive initiative. In fact, it deserves your undivided attention, since it will represent the largest federal investment in transportation in this country's history, with huge implications for communities, taxpayers and other transportation companies -- particularly Canada's airlines. So, amid the glittering promises of a new fast technology, please remember that high-speed rail is a genuinely terrible idea.

Some points to consider:

Environment: Train proponents argue that high-speed rail would be a green technology, helping Canada to meet its Kyoto accord commitments. But the government has already done extensive research on this and concluded that, in terms of greenhouse gases, passenger rail travel is actually worse than private automobile travel. Environment Minister David Anderson, himself a former transport minister, seems to realize this. After the last federal budget, he warned that high-speed rail would not be a good candidate for Kyoto funding. "I am not going to let this climate change money drift off into pet projects," he said.

Highway congestion: Another serious problem that high-speed rail won't solve. The majority of cars on Highway 401 travel 125-kilometres or less. In other words, only a fraction of vehicles go all the way from Toronto to Montreal (and even fewer travel from Windsor to Quebec City).

In fact, if you could magically remove all of the cars making the Toronto to Montreal trip on Highway 401, you'd only diminish traffic by one car, per lane, every three minutes.

Consumer options: Even at a cost of billions of dollars, government might find high-speed rail attractive if it gives consumers more competitive travel options. But cabinet needs to know the implications for other modes of travel. Because, depending on how it's priced, a fast train won't complement aviation, it will simply replace it. High-speed rail mimics airline service. It is passenger-based with limited cargo capacity, using a very fast, light vehicle. It "flies" from point to point without stopping because stopping removes its key competitive advantage of speed. The lesson from Europe seems to be that when two technologies compete for the same market niche, one of them loses. Airlines can't win against a government willing to use billions of tax dollars to seize the market, and subsidize it indefinitely by running trains at an operating loss. Consumers will actually end up with less choice in transportation carriers. High-speed rail is designed to replace most or all of the five airlines currently serving the corridor with a single government rail agency. Shouldn't there be some public discussion about that?

Lower fares: The rule of thumb in transportation is this: the faster the trip, the more expensive it is. Would a high-speed train defy this conventional wisdom by providing rapid transit at a low cost? The experience of Europe suggests otherwise. Prices today for high-speed rail travel in France match airfares in Canada quite accurately.

A July booking for a second-class high-speed train ticket for the 580-kilometre trip from Paris to Bordeaux costs $146 in Canadian dollars. Tango offers the similar distance flight from Toronto to Montreal this month for $155.73, including taxes; WestJet Airlines' Hamilton to Montreal fare is now $166.96.

Update: Hamilton, ON (May 30, 2005) -- Reader Paul Morris points out: "Your article with the comment that WestJet offers a low fare of 166$ from Hamilton to Montreal is now irrelevant. I live in Hamilton and due to the fact that WestJet, after receiving tax breaks and monies from our municipality, picked up the Hamilton to Montreal and Hamilton to Ottawa flights and moved them all to Toronto. It irritates me and I am sure many other Hamilton, and Niagara region taxpayers that once again we get screwed because we have to drive to Toronto's Pearson Airport (and the highways twixt here and there are a nightmare) with all its attendant hassles etc, when flying from Hamilton is not only more convenient, but much less congested and so much more relaxing!"

Keep in mind ministers, even if a fast train offers lower fares, you have to spend at least $3-billion to build it and provide an annual subsidy to run it.

Costs: Mr. Collenette will ask cabinet to let VIA Rail borrow more than $3-billion. But right now, there's no business plan the public can evaluate. Supporters admit the fast train will lose money, so they'll need an operating subsidy each year, although they never say how much that might be.

Interest payments on $3-billion will eat up at least $150-million yearly. That will come from the existing VIA Rail subsidy, meaning smaller communities will likely start losing rail service even before the fast train is built. Once it does start running, we can expect passenger train service will be lost altogether in small Ontario towns such as Alexandria, Smiths Falls, Cobourg and Belleville.

Fairness: The airline industry is reeling from an appalling series of recent blows -- 9/11, the Iraq war, SARS and ever-higher costs for security, insurance and government charges. Thousands of workers face unemployment; many communities are in danger of losing air service. In this environment, it's incredible that the government plans a huge commitment to a competing technology.

Ministers, your colleague Mr. Collenette is contemplating the largest federal transportation investment in Canadian history to directly attack the airline industry's most important market. You should make sure this train never leaves the station.

Warren Everson is vice-president, policy and strategic planning, for the Air Transport Association of Canada. He was the executive director of the National Transportation Act Review Commission and chief of staff to the minister of transport in 1990-91.