VIA Rail

[TOareaFan]

Given the amount of Canadians that fly out of Buffalo, couldn't a case be made for hourly or bi-hourly service from Toronto or Hamilton to Buffalo?

isn't the train station in buffalo like 10k+ from the airport?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I would ask this differently..... what (after collecting user fees) is the subsidy paid on behalf of an air traveller using a GTA airport? Is the subsidy to take them to Buffalo by rail a better deal?

What pricing for the rail shuttle could be offered, minimising a subsidy, given that the user will still pay less overall than they would if they flew from the GTA airport and incurred the whopping user fees? (not to mention paying a mor competitive fare)

- Paul

Except that having a strong hub is of benefit to the country - it's not really about giving users a "better deal". There is something perverse about using taxpayer resources to support a service that is ultimately about boosting the economic activity of another city.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

isn't the train station in buffalo like 10k+ from the airport?

Yeah, and flying ain't what it used to be. Since the security crisis, the adventure and spontaneity of just hauling a back-sack to run to make connections to save a fraction of the over-all price of the trip is not worth the risk of something going wrong. (I invoke Houlihan's Law here, Houlihan thought Murphy was an optimist). And as much as I love the States, you're suddenly in a situation with different money, social expectations and lack of protections on your flight.

There's no doubt we're getting bamboozled flying out of Pearson, but at the end of the day, the alternatives aren't worth the risk, a huge one being flight cancellation insurance. Haven't even checked lately on my present credit-card, but often those features are nulled for flying into/out of another nation.

Not to mention the stress of doing all that...even flying out of YYZ has been stressful last few times.

Damn...flying used to be so much fun decades back...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There's no doubt we're getting bamboozled flying out of Pearson, but at the end of the day, the alternatives aren't worth the risk, a huge one being flight cancellation insurance. Haven't even checked lately on my present credit-card, but often those features are nulled for flying into/out of another nation.

Not to mention the stress of doing all that...even flying out of YYZ has been stressful last few times.

Note that part of the reason for high fees at YYZ is due to the rent Feds charges. So instead of subsidizing rail travel, perhaps it would be more beneficial to just reduce the rent (with proviso that the savings goes directly to end users).

As to rail improvements to the US - it will in all likelihood remain noncompetitive to other modes - it would be more productive to focus on the windsor-qc corridor instead (and let GO deal with regional transit to NF)

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Note that part of the reason for high fees at YYZ is due to the rent Feds charges. So instead of subsidizing rail travel, perhaps it would be more beneficial to just reduce the rent (with proviso that the savings goes directly to end users).

There's some interesting info here: (four years dated, fuel prices have obviously changed)

[...]
A Conference Board of Canada report earlier this month garnered a lot of attention by concluding if the federal government were to change its policies, including reducing or eliminating many of the fees and taxes it levies on the industry, it could potentially bring two million passengers back to Canadian airports a year.

But the board’s report didn’t rest the entire blame on federal fees and taxes. It also noted that Canadian carriers are less competitive than their U.S. counterparts. This is due to their higher labour, fuel and aircraft ownership costs as well as lower aircraft utilization contributing roughly 50% of the cost differential with their U.S. counterparts. Airport fees amounted to 25% of the difference, the board said. Combined this left Canadian carriers at a 30% cost disadvantage to their U.S. counterparts, leading to higher fares.

SUBSIDIZED U.S AIRPORTS

Yet there are also a lot of questions about whether the highly subsidized U.S. airport system is sustainable given the current economic situation there, said Vijay Gill, who authored the report.

“We have a viable system, and they don’t,” he said in an interview. “The U.S. does not have a fully-funded infrastructure. They’re subsidizing it … there’s also a huge gap that they’re going to have to make up somehow.” Mr. Gill said the U.S. will be likely be left with a choice between increasing its airport subsidies, or increasing their own airport fees.

It wasn’t too long ago Canadian airports were also government run and relied heavily on subsidies for their operations. But in the early 1990s, the operations of country’s largest airports were handed over to various airport authorities so that they could be run in a more business-like manner.

The federal government, however, retained ownership of the land the airports sat on, and has been charging them rent, which is passed onto flyers as a user fee. An estimated $2.5-billion has been collected from the country’s various airport authorities since, which has become a bone of contention for Canadian carriers as well.

In June, a federal Senate Committee tasked with reviewing the competitiveness of air travel released several recommendations. Much of the attention the report garnered was focused on the recommendation that Ottawa stop charging rent and transfer ownership of the land to the various authorities who operate the airports.

The committee report said ground rents average about $3 a passenger nationally, ranging from 77¢ a person in Edmonton to $4.63 a person at Pearson.[...]

http://business.financialpost.com/n...ian-airports-are-so-expensive-and-inefficient

As to rail improvements to the US - it will in all likelihood remain noncompetitive to other modes - it would be more productive to focus on the windsor-qc corridor instead (and let GO deal with regional transit to NF)

AoD

Absolutely. Any 'operating at a loss' route must pay for itself in other ways, and Johnny Plebe gets his tax dollars back by it being an investment in economic efficiency domestically.

 

[crs1026]

Except that having a strong hub is of benefit to the country - it's not really about giving users a "better deal". There is something perverse about using taxpayer resources to support a service that is ultimately about boosting the economic activity of another city.

AoD

i can buy that argument a lot better with respect to bypassing Hamilton rather than bypassng YYZ.

Pearson is effectively full. There is nothing wrong with asking if we can find a cheaper option that diverts people away from it. The subsidy to Pearson should be thought to include the subsidy to ground transportation to reach the terminal, too. Diverting all the cars and limos that use the 401 and 403 and QEW to get to Pearson, and sending them away from Pearson instead of towards it, is a worthwhile goal given how crowded those roads are. This is totally in line with the whole premise of subsidising GO. Losing revenue from Pearson user fees by having people fly from other airfields is the least of our worries.

The argument for Hamilton is a little different. I can't see why we would pay a subsidy to haul people beyond Hamilton when we have a perfectly good small and underutilized facility there.....but..... that in my mind assumes letting Southwest, JetBlue et al fly out of Hamilton. I'm sure they would like to do that.....it's the howls of protest from AC and Westjet, and not transport economics or hub-building, that prevents that. Access to more competitive carriers, with a different route network, as well as ease of use of a smaller terminal, is why people drive to Buffalo. Lower fares and lower user fees are not the sole factor.

I doubt that in the end a train to Buffalo would be cost effective or marketable, even considering the above. But when the argument put forward serves the interest of the most expensive and least competitive option for the consumer, then it has to fail.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

i can buy that argument a lot better with respect to bypassing Hamilton rather than bypassng YYZ.
- Paul

Agreed on all points, and very well justified in terms of allaying the present congestion, much of it from the West for whom Hamilton is even closer!

But there's an even better option as per rail access to the west of the GTA, and it's the Waterloo Regional *International* Airport. Less than 2 km from the K/W rail line, and close to where a future stop is planned anyway.

Now about that 'Theory of All Day Service' on the K/W line....it would certainly buttress the case for the all-day service.
http://www.waterlooairport.ca/en/

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Pearson is effectively full. There is nothing wrong with asking if we can find a cheaper option that diverts people away from it. The subsidy to Pearson should be thought to include the subsidy to ground transportation to reach the terminal, too. Diverting all the cars and limos that use the 401 and 403 and QEW to get to Pearson, and sending them away from Pearson instead of towards it, is a worthwhile goal given how crowded those roads are. This is totally in line with the whole premise of subsidising GO. Losing revenue from Pearson user fees by having people fly from other airfields is the least of our worries

Except that your alternative to diversion basically involves another set of saturated roadways - and for even longer distances all the way to the border (not like QEW can use that, right?) I mean just how much traffic is generated from the west eastward to Pearson than the converse scenario- especially considering the lesser utility of any reliever airports.

The argument for Hamilton is a little different. I can't see why we would pay a subsidy to haul people beyond Hamilton when we have a perfectly good small and underutilized facility there.....but..... that in my mind assumes letting Southwest, JetBlue et al fly out of Hamilton. I'm sure they would like to do that.....it's the howls of protest from AC and Westjet, and not transport economics or hub-building, that prevents that. Access to more competitive carriers, with a different route network, as well as ease of use of a smaller terminal, is why people drive to Buffalo. Lower fares and lower user fees are not the sole factor.

No argument towards the potential utility of the airport at Hamilton, and I think that's what the GTAA is foreseeing regarding the airport network anyways. Don't kid yourself though - lower total cost is pretty much the only meaningful reason as to why people drive to Buffalo - the other factors you mentioned are probably marginal to that.

AoD

 

[dowlingm]

The argument that a subsidized rail journey is merely shifting subsidy from air travel is a tricky one (fixed vs variable costs etc), and politically null unless the same level of government is subsidizing both alternatives.

 

[TransitBart]

There is a problem with the rationale - so we are going to subsidize (because the line isn't likely to ever break even) riders so that they can avoid added fees and higher prices at Canadian airports?

AoD

Not.

 

[TransitBart]

I would ask this differently..... what (after collecting user fees) is the subsidy paid on behalf of an air traveller using a GTA airport?

- Paul

Zilch.

Transport Canada has not operated Toronto International (Pearson) since 1985. GTAA pays tens of millions in rent to Transport Canada. Toronto's landing fees are the highest in he world. They may have been adjusted slightly down under the new Liberal administration or at the tag end of the Conservative government.

 

[crs1026]

Zilch.

Transport Canada has not operated Toronto International (Pearson) since 1985. GTAA pays tens of millions in rent to Transport Canada. Toronto's landing fees are the highest in he world. They may have been adjusted slightly down under the new Liberal administration or at the tag end of the Conservative government.

Direct airport operations may nor receive a subsidy, perhaps....but indirectly, some share of UPX and Crosstown West is an indirect subsidy to GTAA. GTAA have taken the position they will not fund transit serving the airport. So there is nothing wrong with local or federal government looking for alternatives to subsidising transit to Pearson, based on size of market or competitive equity. Or just because.

While highways leading to Hamilton are no picnic, the Hurontario-427 segment of the 401 is one of the most congested in Ontario. If we put a market price on highway demand, automobiles accessing Pearson are using some of the most expensive highway infrastucture in the GTA.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

Like the various ideas; love the graphic!

However, I remain of the opinion that Toronto-Buffalo needs to be more frequent............

Also, I the run time you quote is probably right on the money, but it needs to be better.

Given track alignments and new and better rolling stock, even w/o high-speed, we should be able to get Toronto-Buffalo well under 3 hours.

Yeah, the times I used are taken directly from current VIA, GO and Amtrak schedules then rounded to the nearest 10 to emphasize that this is only a general concept for a schedule. So any investment in infrastructure would result in travel times better than shown on those schedules.

As you said, even relatively modest investment in the line should allow fairly substantial time savings, and I agree that sub 3h times should be easily achievable. From Burlington to Buffalo, the current track speeds are rather disappointing considering the alignments are generally fairly good. The main thing is that we need to encourage Metrolinx to upgrade the Grimsby subdivision from its current 65 mph (105 km/h) limit to a speed competitive for intercity rail like 95-110 mph (153-177 km/h). Looking purely from the perspective of GO service, they wouldn't see the benefit of upgrading above 80-85 mph (129-137 km/h) given that GO trains would be stopping relatively frequently.

You want even more frequent Toronto-Buffalo service? Here, how about adding an overnight service to Boston:

 

[MisterF]

Even ignoring a potential link to Buffalo airport, substantial improvements to the rail line to Niagara are easily justifiable. The QEW is routinely congested all the way to the 420. The number of people travelling between the GTA and Niagara every day is huge.

 

[dowlingm]

You want even more frequent Toronto-Buffalo service? Here, how about adding an overnight service to Boston

Couple of things:
First, any additional service to Boston via Albany, no matter where from, is likely to require crossing CSX' palm with silver. My read of US boards is that a NYC-BOS service via Springfield and Hartford is more likely in the short term. There is an issue about a freight yard that CSX is hoping public money will solve before it eases up on how many east-west services it will permit.
Second, who's paying? Cascades, Adirondack, Maple Leaf and possibly soon Vermonter services are a significant benefit to Canada at minimal expense to us.

An extension of current Empire trains at the Toronto end might happen, but again that exposes Amtrak to additional operating cost and border impacts on scheduling.