High-Speed Rail Is Good for Business

[dunkalunk]

I have to disagree on routing and stops, but I do agree that the system needs to be upgraded gradually, and that local transit networks do need priority. However, if the choice comes between building a new airport or widening or building new highways, then I would much rather see high(er) speed rail put in its place.

Also, do not underestimate the power that smaller urban centres have to increasing the line's usage. Waterloo Region has a population which is comparable to London or Hamilton. Sure, there could be express trains running straight from Toronto to Montreal or Detroit, or Buffalo, and those trains would be very well used, but there is no reason why limited, and regional trains can't be run on the same track

 

[MisterF]

If they build HSR it should go from Mon to Tor and NOT stop in Ottawa. That is where most of the traffic is and diverting and stopping in Ottawa would slow the speed of the train do so much that it would be no faster than the current line.
Win/Lon/Tor/Mon/QC and that's it with a potential spur line from Tor to Ott and Mon to Ott but it should not be part of the main trunk line. No stops between Tor and London as they can use commuter rail to get to Tor and London desperately needs better rail service as London is the 4th busiest VIA rail station in the country.

Under the last proposal, a high speed express train going through Ottawa would take 2 hours 20 minutes to get to Montreal. The time savings of following the St. Lawrence would be marginal. Bypassing a city of over a million people for marginal time savings is simply bad business. As for not having stops in smaller centres, it amazes me how many people on these forums don't understand the concept of express and local trains.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would think that Hamilton could accommodate a lot of air freight. Its also not like air freight's popularity is going to increase that much, as a lot of time-sensitive things can now be sent over the Internet, and I may sound like a broken record, but the cost of fossil fuels (and everything else for that matter) is going to rise at a much greater rate than inflation. Few people will be able to afford air freight. I think we could see shipping on the lakes and rail make a comeback.

You're kidding right? In many cases air freight is what pays the bills for major carriers. Freight is actually a more profitable business than carrying passengers. Pound for pound transporting humans is nowhere as profitable as what they can charge transporting widgets. Freight is booming.

Also, the aviation industry can adjust a lot better to alternatives fuels than any other industry because aviation operates from centralized hubs. You need to change a few tanks and you're good to go. Indeed, all the NATO air forces are switching over to synthetic blend fuels already (USAF and CF leading the way). The airlines are next. The eventual aim being to get to fully synthetic (algae based) fuels. And you can bet that aviation will get there before anybody else. No other industry is so sensitive to even 1% improvements in fuel efficiency/costs.

 

[kEiThZ]

You drive right through the middle of it anytime you take Autoroute 50 between the 15 and Lachute. Right along the wide-ROW they built to build the train.

Mirabel's biggest issues were that the highway and rail connections to the airport were never finished, and the airport was too far from downton (45-50 kilometres) - about a 45-minute drive compared to the 20-minute 20-km drive to Dorval. The next issue was that they cancelled the plan to close Dorval (the redevelopment of which would have provided a lot of $)

From downtown Toronto to the Pickering airport location is about 45 km - and a 45-minute drive compared to the 25-minute 25 km drive to Malton. The parallels are huge - particularly as this is no plan to close Pearson! I can see Pickering being used for freight, like Mirabel is now; though I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to Hamilton instead. But I doubt we'll see scheduled passenger service there in our lifetime.

I understand the skepticism. But the projects have major differences. Nobody is suggesting building a Mirabel sized airport, right off the bat. Don't forget, that airport was also supposed to consolidate international traffic from Ottawa as well. The Pickering airport will consolidate general aviation to begin with. Then, if and only if, demand warrants it, the airport will grow to become a regional airport. Only the most extreme of projections, sees it becoming an international airport. And that's usually still in a half century or more.

I think it will be entirely possible to sustain some short and medium haul flights from Pickering, in addition to GA. People forget, that's what the Island airport is like. Indeed, most airports in Canada are regional airports with lots of GA and some scheduled carrier movements. Pickering is not an exception. It's the norm.

When it comes to Mirabel though....I do wonder if there will be a business case at some point in our lifetimes to see that land redeveloped and all aviation activities moved to Mirabel. If an HSR comes in and it has a stop at Mirabel, I wouldn't write it off.

 

[gweed123]

Mirabel's biggest issues were that the highway and rail connections to the airport were never finished, and the airport was too far from downton (45-50 kilometres) - about a 45-minute drive compared to the 20-minute 20-km drive to Dorval. The next issue was that they cancelled the plan to close Dorval (the redevelopment of which would have provided a lot of $)

From downtown Toronto to the Pickering airport location is about 45 km - and a 45-minute drive compared to the 25-minute 25 km drive to Malton. The parallels are huge - particularly as this is no plan to close Pearson! I can see Pickering being used for freight, like Mirabel is now; though I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to Hamilton instead. But I doubt we'll see scheduled passenger service there in our lifetime.

I agree there are some parallels. I see the Pickering Airport operating in a similar way to what Midway does in Chicago. It would become a hub for a few passenger airlines (WestJet comes to mind), as well as a hub for cargo (like Mirabel). It's not intended to compete with Pearson, but rather provide a relief for freight traffic, as well as provide a hub for a few different airlines who specialize in direct flights. For example, during the winter WestJet offers direct flights to southern destinations. I see no reason why these trips need to leave from Pearson, as almost no one on those flights is connecting through Pearson from another city (most of those trips are originating in Toronto). It would also be more suitable for handling charter flights.

 

[nfitz]

Nobody is suggesting building a Mirabel sized airport, right off the bat.

Isn't that exactly what Transport Canada under Jean Marchand was proposing though? Certainly not the current plan ... but what goes around, comes around.

 

[kEiThZ]

Every HSR line that has ever opened has decimated air traffic. Air traffic between Madrid and Barcelona fell by 40% in only two years after that line opened. Probably more since. TOM would be no different. When there's an option, there's a clear preference for HSR over flying. I think it goes without saying that there would be at least hourly trains.

I think context matters. Madrid-Barcelona was the world's busiest air route prior to the launch of the HSR. Stops on that line are very widely spaced allowing for a significant portion of time spent at high speeds. Comparable service here would be running an HSR line between Toronto and Montreal with only 3 stops in the middle (GTA East, Kingston, Ottawa). How saleable do you think that would be to the rest of the millions of folks who live along the corridor? But once you tack on stops (and you know that Belleville, Coburg, Brockville and Dorval are a must. Maybe even another stop between Ottawa and Montreal), you reduce the average speed. This is why I think 2h 20 mins for Union to Gare Central is not likely, right off the start. This is why I suggested that HSR won't draw off the most time sensitive passengers. For them the Island will be pretty competitive for a while yet.

That said, certainly TOM aviation traffic will take a hit when HSR comes in. However, my point was directed at those who think HSR would negate the need for the Pickering airport. This is just not true. The Pickering airport may have long term pretensions of being a Pearson reliever. But for now, it's a general aviation airport that is needed regardless of whether HSR is built or not. HSR may however, curtail its expansion. And even that's not necessarily true....since less than 10% of Pearson movements are TOM traffic. The idea that we'll save billions on a Pickering airport (when no plan right now even calls for expending billions on that airport), by spending billions more on HSR is simply flawed thinking.

 

[kEiThZ]

Isn't that exactly what Transport Canada under Jean Marchand was proposing though? Certainly not the current plan ... but what goes around, comes around.

Perhaps. But that's not what the GTAA is planning on building today. The key driver for Pickering has always been the impending closure of Buttonville. Initially, I expect something only a little bigger than maybe Oshawa. Maybe Buttonville. But that's it. An airport that size can handle regional traffic if necessary. So need for expansion for a while.

And Pearson still has tons of room to grow. They have a huge number of runways (compared to say Heathrow). They just need better NAVAIDs to improve reliability and throughput in bad weather. Indeed, Pearson is now slowing down/holding off on expansion of its piers because traffic hasn't grown as much as the airport development plan called for.

In any event, I see the Pearson reliever idea as an excuse to get Pickering off the ground quickly. They need a new GA aiport in the eastern GTA with Buttonville closing and Markham and Oshawa under threat. The west has Hamilton. This will be the eastern GTA's equivalent. GA, freight, bizjets, etc. That's the kind of traffic that HSR can't really impact. That's why suggesting that the airport won't be needed if HSR is built is flawed.

 

[gweed123]

Perhaps. But that's not what the GTAA is planning on building today. The key driver for Pickering has always been the impending closure of Buttonville. Initially, I expect something only a little bigger than maybe Oshawa. Maybe Buttonville. But that's it. An airport that size can handle regional traffic if necessary. So need for expansion for a while.

And Pearson still has tons of room to grow. They have a huge number of runways (compared to say Heathrow). They just need better NAVAIDs to improve reliability and throughput in bad weather. Indeed, Pearson is now slowing down/holding off on expansion of its piers because traffic hasn't grown as much as the airport development plan called for.

In any event, I see the Pearson reliever idea as an excuse to get Pickering off the ground quickly. They need a new GA aiport in the eastern GTA with Buttonville closing and Markham and Oshawa under threat. The west has Hamilton. This will be the eastern GTA's equivalent. GA, freight, bizjets, etc. That's the kind of traffic that HSR can't really impact. That's why suggesting that the airport won't be needed if HSR is built is flawed.

To me, I would expect the size of the Pickering airport to be similar to the airport in Syracuse. Big enough to land decent sized cargo planes, yet still small enough to cater to GA, charter flights, and a couple carriers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracuse_Hancock_International_Airport

 

[kEiThZ]

I agree there are some parallels. I see the Pickering Airport operating in a similar way to what Midway does in Chicago. It would become a hub for a few passenger airlines (WestJet comes to mind), as well as a hub for cargo (like Mirabel). It's not intended to compete with Pearson, but rather provide a relief for freight traffic, as well as provide a hub for a few different airlines who specialize in direct flights. For example, during the winter WestJet offers direct flights to southern destinations. I see no reason why these trips need to leave from Pearson, as almost no one on those flights is connecting through Pearson from another city (most of those trips are originating in Toronto). It would also be more suitable for handling charter flights.

Westjet's not going to leave Pearson. They took huge pains to move there from Hamilton and they aren't going to move an airport with a less populated catchment area. And while some dedicated freight might move, a huge chunk of freight ops at Pearson is what travels in the belly of the scheduled carriers that operate to/from Pearson. Charters maybe.

But again, it's mostly a replacement for a few GA airports.

http://www.gtaa.com/local/files/en/PickeringAirportDraftPlanReport.pdf

Straight from the document:


9. Opening Day Configuration

9.1 The Demand Driven Approach

The facilities described reflect the requirements associated with the traffic forecast by 2032; however, an airport on the Pickering lands will be a demand driven development, phased to meet the needs of the community.

At the outset, the airport will serve the existing demand derived by the expected closures of Buttonville, Oshawa and Markham airports. The facilities will be further developed only as the demand for additional air transportation services grows....


Like I said. GA airport. They may dream of another Mirabel. But I doubt they'll ever get there. In reality, this is basically what Buttonville was supposed to be: a solid GA airport with good sized runways that can facilitate heavy bizjets.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Under the last proposal, a high speed express train going through Ottawa would take 2 hours 20 minutes to get to Montreal. The time savings of following the St. Lawrence would be marginal. Bypassing a city of over a million people for marginal time savings is simply bad business. As for not having stops in smaller centres, it amazes me how many people on these forums don't understand the concept of express and local trains.

The last proposal was pretty flawed and lacked a lot of creativity. Not to mention it would have been drawn up in the early to mid 90's and in that time a lot has changed. Not just in terms of how cities have grown, but also transportation patterns.

If you start to examine possible routes in detail there are a seemingly endless number of possibilities in terms of how to serve the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal area. The biggest reason for serving Montreal via Ottawa is to save money on an additional Lakeshore route. But if you plan the route right you can still offer a line that bypasses Ottawa and serves Toronto-Montreal trains in almost the same distance as a direct Lakeshore route. It means an additional 50km - 100km of track (versus the 140km length for the Lakeshore portion depending on which alignment is chosen) but given the total length of the system from Windsor to Quebec would require 1300km - 1500km of HSLs this is really a small amount.

In terms of serving airports, Pearson and Trudeau are no brainers. Jean Lesage in Quebec could probably be served since it would likely be on the route anyways but its hardly worth making much of an effort. Ottawa can be skipped too.

 

[gweed123]

The last proposal was pretty flawed and lacked a lot of creativity. Not to mention it would have been drawn up in the early to mid 90's and in that time a lot has changed. Not just in terms of how cities have grown, but also transportation patterns.

If you start to examine possible routes in detail there are a seemingly endless number of possibilities in terms of how to serve the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal area. The biggest reason for serving Montreal via Ottawa is to save money on an additional Lakeshore route. But if you plan the route right you can still offer a line that bypasses Ottawa and serves Toronto-Montreal trains in almost the same distance as a direct Lakeshore route. It means an additional 50km - 100km of track (versus the 140km length for the Lakeshore portion depending on which alignment is chosen) but given the total length of the system from Windsor to Quebec would require 1300km - 1500km of HSLs this is really a small amount.

In terms of serving airports, Pearson and Trudeau are no brainers. Jean Lesage in Quebec could probably be served since it would likely be on the route anyways but its hardly worth making much of an effort. Ottawa can be skipped too.

An extra 50-100km of track is still an extra 50-100km of track... No matter how you slice it, that's a lot of money. Certainly well up into the billions. That's not exactly chump change.

 

[nfitz]

An extra 50-100km of track is still an extra 50-100km of track... No matter how you slice it, that's a lot of money. Certainly well up into the billions. That's not exactly chump change.

I'd think it's the kind of thing you might plan for in the future, but isn't part of the day 1 operation. If things go well, you can add it in the future.

 

[MisterF]

I think context matters. Madrid-Barcelona was the world's busiest air route prior to the launch of the HSR. Stops on that line are very widely spaced allowing for a significant portion of time spent at high speeds. Comparable service here would be running an HSR line between Toronto and Montreal with only 3 stops in the middle (GTA East, Kingston, Ottawa). How saleable do you think that would be to the rest of the millions of folks who live along the corridor? But once you tack on stops (and you know that Belleville, Coburg, Brockville and Dorval are a must. Maybe even another stop between Ottawa and Montreal), you reduce the average speed. This is why I think 2h 20 mins for Union to Gare Central is not likely, right off the start. This is why I suggested that HSR won't draw off the most time sensitive passengers. For them the Island will be pretty competitive for a while yet.

Again, not every train stops at every station. Just because you have a station at Cobourg that doesn't mean that every train will stop there. Even today plenty of VIA trains don't stop there. Speaking of Spain, they still have slower trains that serve local communities that AVE trains bypass. But Spain is just an example. Every high speed line that has ever opened has taken much of its ridership from flights. That's a big part of their market and HSR here would be no different. While Pickering might be needed eventually either way, demand for flights will drop significantly if HSR gets built.

 

[kEiThZ]

Again, not every train stops at every station. Just because you have a station at Cobourg that doesn't mean that every train will stop there. Even today plenty of VIA trains don't stop there. Speaking of Spain, they still have slower trains that serve local communities that AVE trains bypass. But Spain is just an example. Every high speed line that has ever opened has taken much of its ridership from flights. That's a big part of their market and HSR here would be no different. While Pickering might be needed eventually either way, demand for flights will drop significantly if HSR gets built.

I can see demand reducing but not necessarily traffic in proportion. WS and Porter might cut back a little. But AC will simply downsize aircraft for the most part (with most of the schedule trimming done to the Toronto-Montreal schedule). Keep in mind that there's just as much feeder traffic from these cities than there is origin-destination traffic between the TOM cities. For this traffic, the airlines will all vastly prefer to have passengers start their journey at an airport, fly with them and remain inside the secure zone at Pearson. Air Canada will simply drop airbuses on the TOM triangle (as they should have a long time ago) and go to an all Embraer or Bombardier flying schedule. But I don't dispute that there will be a drop in passenger demand. Total number of passenger-kms flown among the TOM cities will drop.