This bit triggered my memory back to when I was reading Richard Florida's book, "Who's Your City". His research leads him to believe that Ontario and Quebec, along with the US just across the border, are part of a large "Mega Region", as measured by economic output.
I've read Richard Florida's musings before. While they are certainly valid, I am still doubtful if this region is as integrated as he portrays it to be. I doubt that the GTA has such strong links with Montreal. Indeed, it might well have better links with Buffalo!
Nope, not aircrew. This is based on very old memories, but I believe I got the impression it was the proximity alarm because the pilot made a comment that it goes off when other aircraft are within X distance - which is not all that close.
Closer separation is usually required in terminal areas. That does not mean the airspace is overly crowded. It simply means you're in tighter airspace where everyone is closer together. Depending on the warning distance that the instrument has been set to, it would probably go off at any major airport. Toronto is certainly not as busy as Chicago, NY, London, Paris...etc.
Toronto is busy in terms of aircraft movements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_airports_by_traffic_movements
But not in terms of passengers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic
So Pearson actually has room to get busier. And higher traffic would probably compel airlines to use larger aircraft improving efficiency. Think Heathrow, JFK, etc.
The only "cost" I had seen was from probably 15 years ago - 3 billion - BUT that was for a half-assed (probably quarter-assed) job. Probably understated - even for that. I think that cost was for upgrading level crossings to non-level crossings, replacing track, not a whole new corridor. Not to mention that was the "bid" price, and we all know that those are never the end price. Of course we will never know the final cost if the government does put out a RFP - with an indication that there will be little room for additional costs. i.e. make a decision to go, put out a RFP, if it does not make financial sense - cancel.
I would argue that this is probably the most likely route and probably the one that offers the best return on capital. Spending 5-6 billion to improve track alignments, upgrading crossings, adding extra track where costs allow would make VIA much more competitive with auto and bus travel. The way I see it, achieving downtown to downtown of 3.5-4 hours would make the train a farely attractive option (so cutting about 40 mins to 1 hr off current travel times). Heck, air travel takes about 3.5 hours from city centre to city centre. This is far more feasible than aiming for a 2.5 hour travel time. And you could still have service to towns along the way.
I figure that if it is affordable to upgrade the airport - costing 4.2 billion dollars - which was projected even with the old plans to keep ahead of projected capacity until 2025 (there have been cuts since that point - and that does not take into affect that fuel will be too expensive by that time to make that assumption plausible) - that what I had assumed to have been non-affordable high-speed rail - may actually be affordable.
4.2 billion is entirely affordable when it's been paid for largely through airport rents, user fees, etc. 20+ billion for high speed rail is not recoverable at all. All those projections of profit on HSR are based on operating costs. There is no hope of any HSR paying back the capital costs. Meanwhile, in Canada airports are making profits for all three levels of government...that should be a clue as to why HSR is politically unfeasible. It's not airline lobby as some have insinuated.
Assuming (always a fun thing to do), that if the economy comes back, and fuel prices come back again on an upward trajectory, the rail option can become a reasonable option. Of course if you assume that the airlines can continue to operate with $99 flights to Montreal - then the rail makes less sense. I do believe that the proper management (i.e. Via goodbye), that traffic using rail can be increased substantially.
What makes flights expensive in Canada is not the $99 fare, its the $100+ in taxes and fees on top of each $200 fare. It is likely that if the aviation industry starts tanking the government will be compelled to reduce those fees and stop making money off airports. We might stop seeing $99 fares. But they really won't rise as much as many think. Fuel still makes up less than half of the direct operating costs for any airline. And higher fuel costs will prompt airlines to use more efficient aircraft finally, keeping fuel costs the same by compensating for higher fuel costs with lower fuel burn. That being said, on purely operating costs, rail would beat air any day.
I am not traveling much on business, but if the option is available - I could see myself traveling to Montreal 4 or 5 times a year - and if Chicago was an option 2 times a year. I don't do it anymore, because rail takes too long for the weekend, and air travel for such a short distance - is too much of a pain (and I am one of the most patient air-travelers - as long as I have a beer, and my laptop). When I was living in London, I regularly traveled to Paris (the only thing that kept me sane) - because it was painless (5 minute walk - put-put-put-zooom).
True enough. And this is exactly why I am a defender of the island airport. It does make flying to Ottawa and Montreal far more convenient....
