Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
UrbanToronto News - the latest headlines
Streetcar's The Carlaw and The Taylor Growing in Leslieville
ALSO
Page 52 of 95 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... LastLast
Results 766 to 780 of 1414

Thread: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

  1. #766

    Default

    ^
    That last part isn't really true. Madrid-Barcelona is the single busiest route on Earth by aircraft movements, despite HSR. Routes like Paris-Marseilles or Paris-London are still some of the busiest on Earthy by passenger volumes, and that doesn't include the proliferation of discount point-point short-haul air travel that has characterized European travel of late.
    *Give me convenience or give me death*


  2. #767
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    525

    Default

    The trip to Montreal would take 2 hours, 18 minutes,
    That's starting to be a long time and would make it difficult to get to morning meetings without having to get up ridiculously early. There would need to be a substantial price difference to get me off of the plane. [EDIT: The 7am Porter flight to Montreal gets there at 8:05am, although admittedly "there" is out in Dorval]

    And the stations better be right downtown (see Ottawa for an example of where not to put the train station).

  3. #768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whoaccio View Post
    ^
    That last part isn't really true. Madrid-Barcelona is the single busiest route on Earth by aircraft movements, despite HSR. Routes like Paris-Marseilles or Paris-London are still some of the busiest on Earthy by passenger volumes, and that doesn't include the proliferation of discount point-point short-haul air travel that has characterized European travel of late.
    Not so fast. In only 3 months after the AVE line opened, airline ridership dropped 27%, and after a year it was down 46%. HSR lines take a few years to build ridership, wait a few years and that number will likely be even higher. Yes there are still a lot of flights between major European cities, but that doesn't change the fact that airlines have trouble competing with HSR.

    http://www.anna.aero/2008/07/11/new-...-route-madrid/
    http://www.u.tv/News/High-speed-rail...f-7d7b15cd9b6a

    Quote Originally Posted by sjc View Post
    That's starting to be a long time and would make it difficult to get to morning meetings without having to get up ridiculously early. There would need to be a substantial price difference to get me off of the plane. [EDIT: The 7am Porter flight to Montreal gets there at 8:05am, although admittedly "there" is out in Dorval]

    And the stations better be right downtown (see Ottawa for an example of where not to put the train station).
    When you count time getting to and from airports and the whole boarding ritual, 2:18 is competitive with flying. The Madrid-Barcelona train takes longer, 2:32, but it's having no problem attracting airline passengers.

  4. #769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MisterF View Post
    Not so fast. In only 3 months after the AVE line opened, airline ridership dropped 27%, and after a year it was down 46%. HSR lines take a few years to build ridership, wait a few years and that number will likely be even higher. Yes there are still a lot of flights between major European cities, but that doesn't change the fact that airlines have trouble competing with HSR.
    Well, fair enough, but there is a big difference between saying airlines would loose market share to an HSR and "short haul flights have all but been replaced on HSR corridors in other countries." The later is heavily exaggerated.
    *Give me convenience or give me death*

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sjc View Post
    [EDIT: The 7am Porter flight to Montreal gets there at 8:05am, although admittedly "there" is out in Dorval]
    That's a matter of scheduling the meetings at a hotel near Dorval or even in the airport itself.

    Wouldn't be the first time I've had a meeting at an airport and boarded another flight to a different location without leaving the secured area. Air Canada lounges are actually a pretty good place to meet.


    IMHO, that lifestyle sucks and I'm glad it's behind me.

  6. #771

    Default

    But what is ignored are the feeder flights operated by the airlines to feed into the major hubs. Most of those flights are already of marginal profitability to, say, Air Canada, and High Speed Rail would kill them off entirely.

    If there was a high speed rail line which included both Dorval and Pearson, all the short haul feeder flights (YYZ - London, Sarnia, Windsor, Kingston as well as YUL - Ottawa, Quebec) would be withdrawn. The airlines would enter partnerships with the rail business outright, so that you could check in for your flight from the nearest train station.

    The Transport Canada report highlighted is comparing apples to oranges, since short haul flights are less fuel efficient than long haul flights, and are most vulnerable to competition from fast trains. Removing the short haul flights which could be served by ground transporation would also free up capacity at airports, enabling them to build more links with more profitable and more socially valuable destinations around the world.

    How many times has the GTAA management told themselves, "If only we didn't have to accommodate those flights to London or Kingston, we could be having flights to Guangzhou and Mumbai by now"?

  7. #772
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    525

    Default

    >>>When you count time getting to and from airports and the whole boarding ritual, 2:18 is competitive with flying.<<<

    Unfortunately it would mean sitting on a train for close to five hours in total if you go up and back on the same day vs. approximately 2 total hours of plane travel. I rarely stay overnight when I travel.

  8. #773

    Default

    I don't know about you, but I prefer even 5 hours of sitting in a train in total as opposed to commuting to the airport, security/waiting, flying for 1.5 hours, commuting to downtown, and repeating again. Less stressful. And if the train is an express Toronto - Montreal at 350 km/h, the journey can be made in 90 minutes.

  9. #774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by urbanfan89 View Post
    I don't know about you, but I prefer even 5 hours of sitting in a train in total as opposed to commuting to the airport, security/waiting, flying for 1.5 hours, commuting to downtown, and repeating again. Less stressful. And if the train is an express Toronto - Montreal at 350 km/h, the journey can be made in 90 minutes.
    You got that right. I don't expect Toronto-Montreal to be quite 350, as 320 km/h top speed+stop in Ottawa might make it closer to 250-280. Still a very comfortable 2 hour trip that's quite competitive with plane after you add in security and getting to the airport.

  10. #775
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    525

    Default

    I think we are a long way from a train that can go from Toronto to Montreal with a stop in Ottawa in 2 hours. But I agree that, if there were such a thing, it would be time competitive with flying. EDIT: But I have trouble imagining it to be cost-competitive with flying, when you consider the cost of building the infrastructure. Airplanes only need infrastructure at each end of the route, while trains need it all the way from one end to the other (and still need extra infrastructure at each end - stations). Rails aren't free to buy, install or maintain.
    Last edited by sjc; 2009-Aug-13 at 17:19.

  11. #776

    Default

    Rail isn't free, but neither is the expansion of airport capacity. Or the opportunity cost incurred by the airport when it has to take in short-haul flights at the expense of long-haul ones.

    Neither are highways and cars. Not only are the externalities unpaid by consumers, taxpayers own the car companies outright!

  12. Default

    [QUOTE=urbanfan89;302337] The airlines would enter partnerships with the rail business outright, so that you could check in for your flight from the nearest train station.

    Won't happen because of security issues. But with a terminal at Pearson, it would truly be useful for international travellers. Hell, you could probably shut down international (trans-atlantic) service in Montreal and Ottawa and consolidate international traffic at Pearson (or at least Ottawa and use Montreal).

    Quote Originally Posted by urbanfan89 View Post
    The Transport Canada report highlighted is comparing apples to oranges, since short haul flights are less fuel efficient than long haul flights, and are most vulnerable to competition from fast trains. Removing the short haul flights which could be served by ground transporation would also free up capacity at airports, enabling them to build more links with more profitable and more socially valuable destinations around the world.

    How many times has the GTAA management told themselves, "If only we didn't have to accommodate those flights to London or Kingston, we could be having flights to Guangzhou and Mumbai by now"?
    This argument I will challenge. That maybe an issue at Heathrow. But it's not an issue at Pearson. It could be in 30-40 years. However, Pearson is no where close to capacity today. And when that day comes, you'll be far more likely to see more international flights from non-GTA airports and larger aircraft flying into Pearson, just like Heathrow today.

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by urbanfan89 View Post
    Rail isn't free, but neither is the expansion of airport capacity.
    But airport users do pay fees to build and maintain airport capacity. And the rents collected over the years have more than repaid for the original construction costs of the airports in the Corridor. Rail users will never ever re-pay the capital required to build an HSR line.

  14. #779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kEiThZ View Post
    Won't happen because of security issues. But with a terminal at Pearson, it would truly be useful for international travellers. Hell, you could probably shut down international (trans-atlantic) service in Montreal and Ottawa and consolidate international traffic at Pearson (or at least Ottawa and use Montreal).
    At first, I was like Yea! But then I was like Noo

    It's a neat idea, but it's got some flaws. First of all, that would put enormous pressure on Pearson. Even if it's got a lot of planes out because of a HSR route, there's no way it could cope with taking up all overseas flights to Ottawa-Montreal. Also (I'm thinking mainly Ottawa here) there are a lot of people that would be severely turned off by not even landing in the City they're going to. The inconvenience is just too great.

  15. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Second_in_pie View Post
    At first, I was like Yea! But then I was like Noo

    It's a neat idea, but it's got some flaws. First of all, that would put enormous pressure on Pearson. Even if it's got a lot of planes out because of a HSR route, there's no way it could cope with taking up all overseas flights to Ottawa-Montreal. Also (I'm thinking mainly Ottawa here) there are a lot of people that would be severely turned off by not even landing in the City they're going to. The inconvenience is just too great.
    It's not as bad as you think. These days to go pretty much anywhere from Ottawa (save a few US, international and seasonal Caribbean destinations) you have to connect through Toronto or Montreal. It would not make too much of a difference. However, the few remaining flights could be consolidated at either Toronto or Montreal. The airlines would actually like it because it lets them use larger, more efficient aircraft. Though, I'll admit that service wise its a bit of a step backwards in time to when all trans-atlantic flights had to land at a port of entry. Maybe, Mirabel can come into play again. They can finally achieve their dream of consolidating air traffic in Ottawa and Montreal at Mirabel.

Page 52 of 95 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •