News   Mar 28, 2024
 228     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 614     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 373     0 

Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

^
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.
 
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).
 
^
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-vueling-dominates-but-rail-takes-25-of-traffic-of-biggest-route-madrid/
http://www.u.tv/News/High-speed-rail-in-Spain-From-Madrid-to-Barcelona-in-a-flash/232bc56f-371e-4eef-b64f-7d7b15cd9b6a

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.
 
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.
 
[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.
 
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"?
 
>>>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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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!
 
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).

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.
 
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.
 
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! :D 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.
 
At first, I was like Yea! :D 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.
 

Back
Top