Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

[Ward8]

And how have planes been eliminated from Tokyo to Osaka? It's one of the busiest air routes in Japan, with 30 to 40 flights a day!!

Doesn't Toronto to Montreal have like 75 flights per day? Crudely extrapolating that based on population would mean Tokyo to Osaka would have to have 750 flights per day to be like us. 30-40 isn't that many for cities of 20 and 30 million. I think there are 100 trains per day between the two.

I often see 300 to 600 km cited at the optimal distance for HSR. (with 150km to 800km being viable but not necessarily competitive) All this depends on average speed, so it's difficult to pin down when we don't have exact details. In any case the board of trade seems to think ALTO will be an issue.

 

[ear2ear]

That would require a 5:30 AM departure for a 9 AM meeting, from Toronto to Montreal, with the fastest train. The fasted Tokyo to Osaka train is only about 2.35 hours.

I don't think we should be making major infrastructure investments to accommodate such an antiquated idea. Any responsible person who needs to be in a new city for a 9am meeting should be in a local hotel the night before. If the meeting is so important that it can't be done over Zoom, you can justify the hotel costs.

 

[afransen]

It's hard to guarantee you'll be at a 9am meeting even with flying. Flight delays are not that unusual.

 

[mburrrrr]

Okay. We’ll move the meeting to 10:00 am.

 

[afransen]

If I have a hard schedule (can't flex in the event of delays) in the morning, I'd fly the night before. I have gone for 6:30/7 am flights before, this usually involves waking up at 3 am to be at the airport in time. I'd rather just fly the day before and not have completely disrupted sleep.

 

[nfitz]

Doesn't Toronto to Montreal have like 75 flights per day?

I'm not sure where you get that.

Picking Wednesday April 15 at random, from Pearson to Dorval I see 16 on Air Canada, 5 on Porter, and 1 on Westjet. From Billy Bishop I see 9 on Air Canada and 6 on Porter. That's 37 a day - similar to Tokyo-Osaka. And only 22 are jets - 16 are smaller turboprops that only carry about 75 passengers.

For Tokyo to Osaka the same day (and I'm no expert on this route, so I might have messed something up), I see 60 flights (mostly from Haneda, some from Narita), 27 on All Nippon, 19 on JAL, 6 on Skymark, 4 on Starflyer, 3 on Jetstar, and 2 on Peach,

I'm not sure why that's 60, when the original source I had said 75 - perhaps it varies by day and season?

There's also the issue of plane size. Checking a couple of flights (which might not be representative), I see JAL using 767s, which have up to about 200 seats, and others using A320s (up to 240 seats) while Air Canada is using A220s with about 140 seats, and Porter is using their 116 seat E195s. And all the Billy Bishop flights are about 90 seats.

Again I ask - how is Alto eliminating Toronto to Montreal flights?

Tokyo and Osaka are certainly larger, but they have over 60% more flights, and back of the envelope I get about 300% more capacity on Tokyo-Osaka, with the much larger planes.

 

[nfitz]

I don't think we should be making major infrastructure investments to accommodate such an antiquated idea. Any responsible person who needs to be in a new city for a 9am meeting should be in a local hotel the night before.

A new city perhaps - but that's the exception for most. Someone in Toronto supervising staff in their Montreal office will be doing this weekly. Taking the train the day before would start impacting the availability of the previous work day!

That said, I don't ever flying in the night before for a meeting - except when travelling to Omaha where it didn't work out well. Even Wichita would in the morning (but not for 9 AM!). Even when travelling to Gujarat, I had to fight to fly in on Sunday morning to be in the office for Monday (which is how my boss did it ... but then he'd take a nap mid-day in the office).

You only have to look at the flight schedule to see that travelling in the AM rush hour is the norm. Tokyo to Osaka has a flight about every ten minutes during the two-hour morning peak. But down to two an hour later on in the morning.

I'm not sure how this is antiquated if it remains common practice. Perhaps though you are more familiar with government work?

 

[Ward8]

I'm not sure where you get that.

It was the first result on Google. Also in the result was a link from air canada claiming 30 flights per day, and porter/west jet said about 10 each, so it seemed reasonable. I can send a screenshot if you don't believe me. Deeper digging does suggest an average of less than 75 though. I'm probably seeing a promotion of maximum capacity.

In any case, my point stands that air travel between Tokyo and osaka is a rounding error of total travel between the two cities, mostly accounted for by people connecting between airports. There are triple to quadruple the number of trains vs flights. The capacity of each train is equivalent to 5 boeing 787's.

Your argument would have to work both ways. If Japan, for some reason, made all trains from tokyo to osaka the same as what we have with VIA, air travel between the two cities would explode.

If Alto is done, even reasonably well, it will absolutely disrupt the current air economy between Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal.

For BB, I really don't know what their niche will be. Alto will cannibalize a huge source of short haul flights and I don't know how they'll be able to compete on long haul prices with flights out of Pearson.

 

[nfitz]

It was the first result on Google. Also in the result was a link from air canada claiming 30 flights per day, and porter/west jet said about 10 each, so it seemed reasonable. I can send a screenshot if you don't believe me. Deeper digging does suggest an average of less than 75 though. I'm probably seeing a promotion of maximum capacity.

The first result on Google is usually AI. How would WestJet have 10 flights a day? How does for a minute seem reasonable - they have 6 a week currently.

Perhaps the 75 is in both directions? It's 37 one way (on Wednesday), so that's 74 in both directions. That makes Tokyo to Osaka have 120 a day - and the capacity is still 300% higher than Montreal-Toronto by plane.

The bottom line is that 500 km is NOT the sweet spot for HST. It's more like 200 km to 400 km. Toronto to Ottawa. Ottawa to Montreal. Montreal to Quebec City. Toronto to London. Toronto to WIndsor. Toronto to Kingston. Ottawa to Kingston. Montreal to Kingston. Calgary to Edmonton. Saskatoon to Regina. Halifax to Moncton. Halifax to Frederickton. Halifax to Saint John. Halifax to Sydney.

Toronto to Montreal is 550 km, and it's not even the most direct route. Heck, it's longer than Saskatoon to Edmonton!

Will it dent air traffic - yes. Will it change the game; no. AC and Porter have had a huge increase in demand now that Westjet is all but gone from Toronto-Montreal. At worst they drop down to their old levels when there were 3 or 4 carriers (or 5?); rather than the just two currently.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

TRBOT also argues that mobility is one of the reasons Toronto waterfront has so many visitors, and expects even noisy mobility improvements like Jets and Hovercraft would increase that number.

There is no evidence that YTZ is good for the economy. The airport’s claims of economic benefits are pure vibes, and their “report” from Richard Florida’s firm completely misstates the economic consensus about the role of airports. There’s a consensus among economists that one airport is better than two.

My piece (paywall, available via toronto public library):

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...-to-expand-downtown-toronto-airport-would-be/

 

[Ward8]

Perhaps the 75 is in both directions? It's 37 one way (on Wednesday), so that's 74 in both directions. That makes Tokyo to Osaka have 120 a day - and the capacity is still 300% higher than Montreal-Toronto by plane.

This has become a sematic debate when it comes to the number of flights. The point still stands that, by your numbers, Tokyo to Osaka has over 50-70% less air travel between the two cities on a per capita basis. Pearson is going to have a more resiliant Toronto to Montreal route as it will be fed by connecting passengers.

The bottom line is that 500 km is NOT the sweet spot for HST. It's more like 200 km to 400 km.

I can't find a source that suports this. Every source I can find points to 150km to 800km as the fringes of HSR viability. Perhaps it's another semantic debate about the degree of optimization. If the Alto trip is anywhere near 3 hrs it will beat door to door time of the vast majority of flights. Again, this is one of the core reasons they are using to push for runway expansion at BB. The asset is becoming superfluous and we should put the land to better use.

 

[nfitz]

This has become a sematic debate when it comes to the number of flights

It's only a semantic debate because of the mistaken assumption that it will put a serious dent in Montreal-Toronto business air travel (and assumption by a few that it will eliminate it!). So we need to dig into the details of it.

The modal shift I've previously observed for Montreal-Toronto for VIA 2-somthing hour travel times was not a huge dent in business travel. And here we are dealing with 3-hour trips ... plus the more recent concept of surge pricing rather than not adding many extra cars to trains as demand varies.

The point still stands that, by your numbers, Tokyo to Osaka has over 70% less air travel between the two cities on a per capita basis. Pearson is going to have a more resiliant Toronto to Montreal route as it will be fed by connecting passengers.

Population is only one part of the modelling calculations. Pricing is very significant (especially for non-business travel). Air pricing seems similar there, but I can get a 2h:45 minute trip Sunday there for $129 (not sure if that's that's US or CAN) - and every trip is the same price. Is it cheaper if I go mid-week and a month in advance? Yes, it's $3 cheaper! For Sunday on VIA for Toronto to Montreal the price is STARTS at $219, for a 5.5 hour trip, unless I want the earliest departure, that starts at $169. The faster 5-hour (LOL) 3pm train starts at a shocking $260! And how much will that increase for ALTO? 50%? 100%?

Remember that ALTO is based on VIA's age-old problem of aiming to operate the corridor with no subsidy. ALTO even seems to be expecting a profit! That makes the pricing significantly higher than you need to put big dents in air travel. The pot of gold is auto travel, and overall demand increase - both of which are primarily related to pricing, and then travel time. You could achieve much of that tomorrow by dropping the fare to $50 and restoring (somehow) the older 4-hour travel times.

I can't find a source that suports this. Every source I can find points to 150km to 800km as the fringes of HSR viability.

I don't see that we are discussing viability. We are talking about significantly reducing, or eliminating air travel. I don't see how simple HSR viability has much impact on Billy Bishop's importance without most air travel gone (to a lot more places than Ottawa/Montreal!). With 800 km you could get to Chicago (well South Chicago). I don't see how that would be less than 4.5 hours - which isn't going to touch business travel by air much at all.

If the Alto trip is anywhere near 3 hrs it will beat door to door time of the vast majority of flights.

Will it though? Travel times to train stations aren't insignificant. All you really save is the waiting time at the airport. What's that ... 45 minutes at Billy Bishop?

 

[Ward8]

Will it though? Travel times to train stations aren't insignificant. All you really save is the waiting time at the airport. What's that ... 45 minutes at Billy Bishop?

Most people don't cut it that close. Most people show up an hour to the reccommended 90 minutes ahead of time. 3 hours is going to be the common travel time from BB to Montreal not including the longer trip from Trudeau to the CBD. It's simply not going to be competetive, and it's both more uncomfortable and more of an incovenience. Who wants to go through security and go through the boarding process of a plane, when you can get there faster by tapping on like its the subway?

I agree dynamic pricing would depress Alto ridership. That said, they're going to want to be competetive and probably wont self sabotage like VIA does.

I don't see that we are discussing viability.

Because its based on comparing door to door travel times with other transit modes.

The bottom line is that HSR routinely disrupts air travel in other jurisdictions and the TRBOT thinks it will happen here too. I'm inclined to agree.

 

[nfitz]

Most people don't cut it that close. Most people show up an hour to the reccommended 90 minutes ahead of time.

That's certainly not my experience at Billy Bishop.

And certainly not how a once or twice weekly (or even monthly in my past life) business travellers behave - which is what the discussion is of denting. Even at Pearson 1, it's stay on the intermediate level, through the quick entry gate on the east side past the chapel, that the tourists don't find, and leg it to the gate. Porter from the T3 satellite requires an extra few minutes though - I haven't done Toronto though from T3 - only Vancouver (which once a year or so, I do give a bit more time - mostly because I want to eat something - which I don't do on Montreal flights).

 

[TRONto]

There is no evidence that YTZ is good for the economy. The airport’s claims of economic benefits are pure vibes, and their “report” from Richard Florida’s firm completely misstates the economic consensus about the role of airports. There’s a consensus among economists that one airport is better than two.

My piece (paywall, available via toronto public library):

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...-to-expand-downtown-toronto-airport-would-be/




View attachment 723355View attachment 723356

This is under 'efficiency', remember how we got screwed over during COVID because of efficiency? We need system resilience which a second airport helps to provide.

I would even say there is a contradiction in the article when stating BB moves 5% of Toronto passengers yet Lindsay's arguments are based on dilution. I would never argue with someone that 4.X% dilutes. BB would need to hit at least 15% of Toronto passengers for his framework to apply and it never will. For that matter, ALTO does that same as BB in Lindsay's framework.

Lindsay's arguments are based on "the airport should be the center of the city, not a peripheral nuisance." Which ones fits better for Pearson?

BB is redundancy and competition which are good things.

I wouldn't use this article as a basis to argue against BB as I feel no evidence is presented. It feel like "what I like is good and what Ford wants is bad because I say so". It shows up when using phrases like "The few people who use the airport" or “I would think [an expansion] runs counter to the stated goals of the Carney government to increase its trading partnerships overseas versus the United States.” Using an economic framework, I'd expect BB to show up as a net benefit to the region (as I'd expect ALTO to be). Other major cities are also well served by multiple airports.

If you want to argue that BB shouldn't exist because of damage to the waterfront and residents who live there, that is a basis for an argument against the airport. I doubt you'd find valid economic arguments against BB and that it would cause "real economic harm."