High-Speed Rail Is Good for Business

[Mapleson]

We have a thread on here claiming that a 37 mile LRT results in ~$10 billion in economic activity with little question of it's validity and yet we question the validity of this claim???

I mean question the numbers if you like but how can a single LRT network generate twice the economic activity of a HSR network connecting multiple 1 million+ cities, and question the HSR numbers as being inflated.

Just because some bad math goes unchallenged doesn't mean other bits should be neglected.

$10 billion in economic activity for a project that was going to cost over $15 billion doesn't seem that far fetched, if it's including the cost of construction and operation as economic activity. However, planners have to play the political game and try to spin negatives into positives. I'm not against HSR, just the presentation of certain numbers as being more significant than they actually are.

 

[gweed123]

We have a thread on here claiming that a 37 mile LRT results in ~$10 billion in economic activity with little question of it's validity and yet we question the validity of this claim???

I mean question the numbers if you like but how can a single LRT network generate twice the economic activity of a HSR network connecting multiple 1 million+ cities, and question the HSR numbers as being inflated.

Those numbers actually do kind of make sense. HSR is beneficial to a much smaller percentage of the population than an LRT is. The main benefit from LRT in terms of economic activity is the development that occurs around a line. What's the benefit of building an office building next to HSR tracks? A nice view of trains whizzing by?

In terms of location-based economic activity, the only benefit is around the terminus and midpoint stations, which needless to say are few and far between. The inter-regional trip market is a completely different animal, and works in completely different ways that the local trip market.

 

[dunkalunk]

One must remember that High Speed Rail does not largely create trips, but instead shifts trips from different modes such as flying or driving. A lot of the economic activity that would be generated by high speed rail would be associated with it operations. Since high speed rail would serve the dense cores of cities, there is little opportunity for new development around stations which would not already be supported by other modes of transit.

A lot of the savings from high speed rail, and rail in general comes from not having to expand airports and highways. The Pickering airport alone would cost $2 billion. It also saves some money by not having to rely on liquid fossil fuels for its propulsion.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And they could potentially create more bedroom communities and cause additional outlying cities into suburbs of the main city.

 

[dunkalunk]

Who/what is they?

 

[M II A II R II K]

Who/what is they?

HSR making more outlying communties more accessible.

 

[dunkalunk]

HSR making more outlying communties more accessible.

I would think there would be a cost deterrent to using HSR as a commuter service. In order for people to commute effectively, they would need to live and work within close proximity of a station, which means living in city cores where cost of living is generally high.

Any time you increase mobility, you increase the chance of sprawl. This can be countered with a good planning policy around stations.

 

[sjc]

A lot of the savings from high speed rail, and rail in general comes from not having to expand airports and highways. The Pickering airport alone would cost $2 billion.

I doubt the decision to build or not build Pickering airport will be based on potential Ottawa or Montreal traffic. Airports provide can provide service to a lot more places than can be served effectively by rail.

 

[Markster]

I doubt the decision to build or not build Pickering airport will be based on potential Ottawa or Montreal traffic. Airports provide can provide service to a lot more places than can be served effectively by rail.

The decision to build Pickering will be based on congestion at Pearson.
Diverting Ottawa and Montreal traffic frees up runway space for flights to other cities, and ultimately postpones the need to build Pickering.

A good follow-up question then, is how much traffic could HSR divert, and how many years would that buy us?

 

[dunkalunk]

Depends when we start running air planes on algal biofuel. I don't think a Pickering airport will ever be needed.

High speed rail would also increase the utility of running flight to Quebec City and Ottawa, as an easy connection and code share could be achieved at these airports to take the stress off of Dorval and Pearson.

 

[nfitz]

I don't think a Pickering airport will ever be needed.

GTA population is currently about 6.2 million. The Ontario government is forecasting it will increase to 9.1 million by 2036. Pearson also draws from the the rest of Central Ontario which is currently about 2.9 million people. Ontario projects this will grow to 3.8 million by 2036.

Who knows where it will be at by 2100. But even by 2036 we'll be bigger than some cities that have several major airports. There are other issues though ... will flights per capita stay steady; I'd think it's increased over the last 25 years.

 

[Mapleson]

GTA population is currently about 6.2 million. The Ontario government is forecasting it will increase to 9.1 million by 2036. Pearson also draws from the the rest of Central Ontario which is currently about 2.9 million people. Ontario projects this will grow to 3.8 million by 2036.

Who knows where it will be at by 2100. But even by 2036 we'll be bigger than some cities that have several major airports. There are other issues though ... will flights per capita stay steady; I'd think it's increased over the last 25 years.

People always forget about freight when talking about airports. Last year Pearson had 319,956 freight flights (2% year over year growth) compared to 98,061 passenger flights (8.1% year over year growth).

The Pickering Airport is expected to take half that current freight load by 2032, freeing Pearson for more passenger flights.

 

[dowlingm]

The decision to build Pickering will be based on congestion at Pearson.
Diverting Ottawa and Montreal traffic frees up runway space for flights to other cities, and ultimately postpones the need to build Pickering.

No need to start there - start with the 10x/direction/weekday between YYZ and YXU and the 6x/direction/weekday between YYZ and YGK.

 

[Dan416]

I don't see what's wrong with diverting traffic to Hamilton's airport. Hamilton is easily accessible to the western GTA.

 

[EnviroTO]

If the GO Train continued up the old escarpment rail corridor to the airport then I would agree, however without a real transportation link Hamilton is not a great reliever for Pearson. The plan for Pickering Airport has a rail link on day one and that could be used to link to Pearson via Union station.