High-Speed Rail Is Good for Business

[Hipster Duck]

I support full-fledged HSR, but I think that building a 500 km long dedicated ROW is difficult, politically. Actually, I think that building a 500 km long transportation corridor of any kind - including a freeway - is politically difficult given the amount of money and time (as in, the person who funds it will not be around to open it) that is sunk into it.

Instead, I think we should try an incremental approach where we build roughly 50 km of dedicated HSR track every year and buy FRA-compliant dual mode diesel electric locomotives capable of at least running 176 km/h on the diesel stretch.

Something like this:

only geared for higher speed.

After 15, or so, years we would have the entire project completed and we could then begin ordering true HSR trainsets.

 

[gweed123]

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.

Agreed. Leave the option open for it if demand justifies it, but I don't think building an extra 100km of track to service an extra 100,000 people and shave 15 minutes off a trip is really worth it to begin with, especially if that extra 100km of track (and the funding for it) can be used elsewhere to extend the line (for instance, a Hamilton-Niagara Falls or a Montreal-US border spur).

 

[MisterF]

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.

Actually replacing short haul connecting flights with trains is a big part of what HSR does...whether the airlines prefer it or not. That’s the whole reason that train stations are built inside airports. When somebody from Lyon wants to fly out of Paris, they’re going to get to the airport on a train, not a plane. If we had HSR, people from Ottawa would get to Pearson the same way.

Anyway, I support full HSR but I'd also support a more incremental system as well. Like VIAFast. Unfortunately that seems to have completely fallen off the radar. Is it so much to ask for someone with some vision in Ottawa?

 

[kEiThZ]

Actually replacing short haul connecting flights with trains is a big part of what HSR does...whether the airlines prefer it or not. That’s the whole reason that train stations are built inside airports. When somebody from Lyon wants to fly out of Paris, they’re going to get to the airport on a train, not a plane. If we had HSR, people from Ottawa would get to Pearson the same way.

I know how it works elsewhere. I just don't buy that we'll see that here. At least not for a long time. There's a couple of reason. In Europe, every country really only has one city with solid international (non European short-haul) air service (this is actually why Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad are proving to be such huge disruptors), with perhaps Germany as the exception. They also don't have massive amounts of internal air travel, requiring major airports in those other cities. In France, using rail to feed Paris, let's them save on additional airports elsewhere. In the TOM triangle, I could see some re-arrangements (for example, Ottawa residents more regularly using Dorval). But I cannot foresee any scenario where AC drops hourly flights from Pearson to Ottawa and Montreal. Smaller aircraft, possibly. Cuts beyond an hourly schedule. Not possible. What possible reason would AC have to redirect all their international passengers to check-in at Pearson? They lose out on the revenue from the portion of the trip to Toronto. And they overload an already crowded node, while they still don't shed other airports.

Perhaps if AC was an investor in any HSR service. Even then, it's a tall order for HSR to match the convenience you have today. You check in an hour before, and then fly for an hour and you're at Pearson. You're bags are checked through. Two hours later you're on to your international destination. To achieve anything equivalent, any HSR would have to make it from Montreal or Ottawa to Pearson in less than 2.5 (allowing 1.5 hrs) to check-in. I can barely see them pulling off 2.5 hrs from Gare Central to Union.

In any event, I think we're talking around each other. I fully accept that HSR will impact aviation in the TOM triangle. What I am disputing is that it will significantly reduce traffic flows. We're largely at hourly flights today (with a few extra in the morning and evening), for Porter and AC, with varying aircraft sizes (Porter at 70 seats, AC using 180 seat A321s down to 73 seat E75s) and Westjet with essentially "rush-hour service" (cluster in the morning, cluster in the evening, one or two at mid-day, one or two at night). This is not anywhere close to what the famed Madrid-Barcelona route had, prior to HSR. That route essentially saw a departure every 15 mins or less (actually closer to every 5-10 mins at peak hours), all airlines considered. We won't see that in the TOM triangle anytime soon. Even if you add up all Westjet, AC and Porter flights today, you don't get more than 3 flights per sector per hour (with some notable exceptions in the early mornings and after the work day). This is why I can't see a huge reduction in the number of flights. Lose the rush hour service to trains. But other than that, same as today, with smaller planes. Ultimately, HSR is not going to get built as Air Canada's feeder network for Ontario and Quebec. If it gets built, the business case for this lies elsewhere.

Anyway, I support full HSR but I'd also support a more incremental system as well. Like VIAFast. Unfortunately that seems to have completely fallen off the radar. Is it so much to ask for someone with some vision in Ottawa?

VIAFast is something I support too. HSR won't happen here till VIAFast does.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

But my point is that the type of development you would get would be exactly what we would want to avoid. People aren't going to put up with a 1hr HSR ride to live in a townhouse or in a new urbanist subdivision. They're going to want to live on 1 acre rural estate subdivision lots. Why? Because if you wanted a townhouse, you could get that in Brampton for a lot less hassle than it would be in Kingston. If you want a rural estate lot in the GTA, in the west you would need to go past Milton. The area between Milton and Guelph is littered with rural estate subdivisions. Not exactly something you want to replicate.

Encouraging this type of growth would been not encouraging urban sprawl, but encouraging exurban sprawl, which is even worse. I have no doubt that the City of Kingston would welcome the tax revenues brought in from these developments, but they would be the epitome of bad planning. The City of Kingston, like the City of Ottawa, has a large amount of rural land within its borders (along Highway 15, you drive for at least 15 minutes inside of the Geographic City of Kingston before you even hit the 401). Turning this land into an exurban paradise is not exactly what the Province wants to see happen.

By that logic than we should halt all GO Train service to Hamilton, K-W/G, Barrie etc for it would encourage exurban sprawl there as well. Besides, I disagree with your use of exurb in reference to Kingston. Kingston is already a moderate (by Canadian standards) urban centre with a population over 150 000 and a number of employers located there (though no major head offices), as such it does have the political power that a typical exurban development would not have. It has survived on it's own without the need for the mystical 1 hr commute to Toronto/Montreal that would make it a bedroom community for both. Kingston also has a number of cultural attractions that are not in a typical exurban town.

The key for Kingston should a HSR line be built would be planning and developing the rail station and surrounding area integrating it with the exisiting built urban form, as I understand that the station is not exactly in the centre of the city. Transit lines extending from the station into the city centre and surrounding areas, TOD around the station, etc. Ideally the goal of Kingston being on the HSR line would be to integrate it into the greater economic system of the TOM triangle rather than settling on a bedroom community role. For example with the number of prisons located within Kingston the Federal or provincial justice departments may decide to relocate some or all of their offices to Kingston from Ottawa/Toronto. With that transition a number of legal practices may follow suit and thus improve Kingston's commercial base.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would actually suggest that GO is at least partly responsible for sprawl in the GTA. That said, HSR to Kingston is not the same thing. Hardly anybody is going to be commuting everyday from Kingston. There might a handful. But by and large it's going to be Kingston based businesses servicing clients in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal using that HSR in short burst (say 1 week of daily usage or 1 day every week to visit a client, etc.). So I still don't see it as becoming a full-fledged Niagara Falls type of exurb. Kingston will still be out of GO train range. Ultimately though, Kingston will be responsible for containing its own sprawl, that might arise from HSR implementation.

 

[gweed123]

By that logic than we should halt all GO Train service to Hamilton, K-W/G, Barrie etc for it would encourage exurban sprawl there as well.

They're part of the same region though. People are already driving from those locations to Toronto for work. The majority of the trips that will be served by opening those new services are existing trips that will change from what they're currently doing (Greyhound, driving, etc) to using the GO Train. It's not creating demand out of nothing, it's shifting existing demand. No one who lives in Kingston currently works in Toronto (well, maybe like 0.01% of Kingston's population).

Besides, I disagree with your use of exurb in reference to Kingston. Kingston is already a moderate (by Canadian standards) urban centre with a population over 150 000 and a number of employers located there (though no major head offices), as such it does have the political power that a typical exurban development would not have. It has survived on it's own without the need for the mystical 1 hr commute to Toronto/Montreal that would make it a bedroom community for both. Kingston also has a number of cultural attractions that are not in a typical exurban town.

Just because it has a decent population base doesn't mean it wouldn't experience exurban growth. My point is that if the person using the HSR every day can afford that ticket EVERY DAY, they're not going to live in a townhouse! It's just not going to happen. They'd move to Kingston because they want the big house out in the country. If you move to Kingston to buy a cookie cutter townhouse and pay $150 a DAY to go back and forth between Kingston and Toronto, then you might as well just buy a townhouse in Toronto for the same price, and save yourself the hastle. If you think that building HSR in Kingston is going to create any kind of 'commuter node' of development around the station of people taking HSR to and from Toronto/Montreal every day, you're dreaming.

And I wasn't referring to Kingston itself as exurban, I was referring to the type of development that would accompany the HSR as exurban. Look at the built-up City of Kingston vs the Geographical City of Kingston, huuuuuge difference. Maybe 1/5 of the City's land area is currently built up. The rest is rural. That's an abundance of land to sprawl upon.

The key for Kingston should a HSR line be built would be planning and developing the rail station and surrounding area integrating it with the exisiting built urban form, as I understand that the station is not exactly in the centre of the city. Transit lines extending from the station into the city centre and surrounding areas, TOD around the station, etc. Ideally the goal of Kingston being on the HSR line would be to integrate it into the greater economic system of the TOM triangle rather than settling on a bedroom community role. For example with the number of prisons located within Kingston the Federal or provincial justice departments may decide to relocate some or all of their offices to Kingston from Ottawa/Toronto. With that transition a number of legal practices may follow suit and thus improve Kingston's commercial base.

Again, no one is going to buy a townhouse or condo in Kingston to work in TOM. There's plenty of those options available in those cities themselves. The main reason people get driven further out into more suburban and exurban areas is because they either can't find the housing stock they want further towards the urban core, or they can't find the housing stock they want at a price they can afford closer to the urban core.

 

[gweed123]

I would actually suggest that GO is at least partly responsible for sprawl in the GTA. That said, HSR to Kingston is not the same thing. Hardly anybody is going to be commuting everyday from Kingston. There might a handful. But by and large it's going to be Kingston based businesses servicing clients in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal using that HSR in short burst (say 1 week of daily usage or 1 day every week to visit a client, etc.). So I still don't see it as becoming a full-fledged Niagara Falls type of exurb. Kingston will still be out of GO train range. Ultimately though, Kingston will be responsible for containing its own sprawl, that might arise from HSR implementation.

I agree that it would be up to Kingston to contain the resulting sprawl, and I think to a certain extent they would. However, there will be the business type who wants the 1 acre tree-borded lot in the middle of nowhere, but who's still a 15 minute drive to the HSR station and a 1hr train ride to downtown Toronto. Is this a relatively small market? Yes. But it's still there, and refusing to acknowledge that I think is unwise.

And I think the highway system is more responsible for GTA sprawl than GO is. The suburban cities became magnets for growth once they started putting expressways in. All GO did was give people an alternative. Did it help 'legitimize' living in the suburbs for the environmentally-concious person though? Absolutely.

 

[kEiThZ]

I agree that it would be up to Kingston to contain the resulting sprawl, and I think to a certain extent they would. However, there will be the business type who wants the 1 acre tree-borded lot in the middle of nowhere, but who's still a 15 minute drive to the HSR station and a 1hr train ride to downtown Toronto. Is this a relatively small market? Yes. But it's still there, and refusing to acknowledge that I think is unwise.

So what? Like you said, it's a small market. And generally speaking such lots have a nice ratio of house to greenspace. Regardless, this is not really the source of sprawl. A bunch of millionaire executives having 1 acre lots is not great. But a bunch of working class folks all living in a subdivision of McMansions is far worse for the city. Think about it. The millionaire executives won't ask for great transit. They don't care. They work from home or drive to their reserved parking spots at work and will take the train in to Toronto other times. It's the folks in the subdivision who don't have the density to accomplish much and yet insist on top-notch civic services that you should worry about.

And I think the highway system is more responsible for GTA sprawl than GO is. The suburban cities became magnets for growth once they started putting expressways in. All GO did was give people an alternative. Did it help 'legitimize' living in the suburbs for the environmentally-concious person though? Absolutely.

After a recent chat with my cousin and her husband who moved from right atop Cooksville GO to Williams Parkway and 401, I have my doubts whether it's the higway system or the GO network facilitating sprawl. The biggest factor in their move further away: GO service that facilitates her husband's commute to Yonge/Sheppard (my cousin works in Mississauga so not much changes for her). Whereas before he took the GO train to Union and then the subway up Yonge, he now gets a direct bus ride from a GO station (Lisgar?) to Yonge and Sheppard, and he actually spends less per month than his combined Metropass/monthly GO pass.

While I'm happy that my cousin and her husband got what they wanted, I can't help but feel that this is a system that inherently subsidizes sprawl by actually making it easier to commute from further away. My cousin's husband has a shorter commute to his job than my mother does from the corner of Malvern (and no, Transit City wouldn't have helped much).

 

[MisterF]

I know how it works elsewhere. I just don't buy that we'll see that here. At least not for a long time. There's a couple of reason. In Europe, every country really only has one city with solid international (non European short-haul) air service (this is actually why Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad are proving to be such huge disruptors), with perhaps Germany as the exception. They also don't have massive amounts of internal air travel, requiring major airports in those other cities. In France, using rail to feed Paris, let's them save on additional airports elsewhere. In the TOM triangle, I could see some re-arrangements (for example, Ottawa residents more regularly using Dorval). But I cannot foresee any scenario where AC drops hourly flights from Pearson to Ottawa and Montreal. Smaller aircraft, possibly. Cuts beyond an hourly schedule. Not possible. What possible reason would AC have to redirect all their international passengers to check-in at Pearson? They lose out on the revenue from the portion of the trip to Toronto. And they overload an already crowded node, while they still don't shed other airports.

Perhaps if AC was an investor in any HSR service. Even then, it's a tall order for HSR to match the convenience you have today. You check in an hour before, and then fly for an hour and you're at Pearson. You're bags are checked through. Two hours later you're on to your international destination. To achieve anything equivalent, any HSR would have to make it from Montreal or Ottawa to Pearson in less than 2.5 (allowing 1.5 hrs) to check-in. I can barely see them pulling off 2.5 hrs from Gare Central to Union.

In any event, I think we're talking around each other. I fully accept that HSR will impact aviation in the TOM triangle. What I am disputing is that it will significantly reduce traffic flows. We're largely at hourly flights today (with a few extra in the morning and evening), for Porter and AC, with varying aircraft sizes (Porter at 70 seats, AC using 180 seat A321s down to 73 seat E75s) and Westjet with essentially "rush-hour service" (cluster in the morning, cluster in the evening, one or two at mid-day, one or two at night). This is not anywhere close to what the famed Madrid-Barcelona route had, prior to HSR. That route essentially saw a departure every 15 mins or less (actually closer to every 5-10 mins at peak hours), all airlines considered. We won't see that in the TOM triangle anytime soon. Even if you add up all Westjet, AC and Porter flights today, you don't get more than 3 flights per sector per hour (with some notable exceptions in the early mornings and after the work day). This is why I can't see a huge reduction in the number of flights. Lose the rush hour service to trains. But other than that, same as today, with smaller planes. Ultimately, HSR is not going to get built as Air Canada's feeder network for Ontario and Quebec. If it gets built, the business case for this lies elsewhere.

You're seriously underestimating the impact that HSR has on air travel. There's no reason that connecting flights wouldn't largely be replaced with HSR here as they have everywhere else in the world. Your description of how convenient flying is applies to rail too - you check your bags at the train station and the bags are checked through in exactly the same way. When you buy a plane ticket a train ticket would be included for the connection. Again, that's the way it works in other countries. Air Canada can fight it, but people aren't going to stop choosing HSR for the connection just because AC doesn't want them to. They'd lose out on short connection revenue whether they like it or not. Other airlines around the world embrace HSR for connections and concentrate on long haul routes. AC/Westjet/Porter would be forced to do the same.

Another thing you're underestimating is just how many flights there are in the TOM corridor. Once Air Canada starts flying out of the Island next month, there will be 125 daily flights between the 3 cities. That's every 5-10 minutes at peak and way more than "one or two at mid-day". That's a lot of demand no matter how you look at it. Experience in other countries shows that modal share for air drops much more severely than for car trips when an HSR line opens. It would here too.

Just because it has a decent population base doesn't mean it wouldn't experience exurban growth. My point is that if the person using the HSR every day can afford that ticket EVERY DAY, they're not going to live in a townhouse! It's just not going to happen. They'd move to Kingston because they want the big house out in the country. If you move to Kingston to buy a cookie cutter townhouse and pay $150 a DAY to go back and forth between Kingston and Toronto, then you might as well just buy a townhouse in Toronto for the same price, and save yourself the hastle. If you think that building HSR in Kingston is going to create any kind of 'commuter node' of development around the station of people taking HSR to and from Toronto/Montreal every day, you're dreaming.

And I wasn't referring to Kingston itself as exurban, I was referring to the type of development that would accompany the HSR as exurban. Look at the built-up City of Kingston vs the Geographical City of Kingston, huuuuuge difference. Maybe 1/5 of the City's land area is currently built up. The rest is rural. That's an abundance of land to sprawl upon.

Agreed, and Kingston isn't exactly the most progressive city when it comes to suburban growth. But the province could always create a growth plan or expand Places to Grow to include cities like Kingston and London. That's probably the only way sprawl could be kept in check.

 

[gweed123]

At a stop in Quebec City today, Layton brought up a plan to build the QC-Windsor High Speed Rail link. This could be interesting.

 

[kEiThZ]

At a stop in Quebec City today, Layton brought up a plan to build the QC-Windsor High Speed Rail link. This could be interesting.

Saw that. But I don't think it's a vote getter as presented. It's rather vague and not well fleshed out.

Make it a serious policy proposal rather than a "thinking out loud" idea and you might have something.

I also think it would be a far bigger deal if the idea came from the other two parties. And I wouldn't write off the Conservatives on this one entirely. Personally (and many will disagree with me here), I actually think HSR might just be an idea that sellable to the Conservatives. It's a vote getter in Quebec. A big infrastructure project with a national legacy. And would have a lasting economic long term impact that would seriously harm the sovereignists. I'm sure there's at least some Conservatives who are warm to the idea.

 

[kEiThZ]

You're seriously underestimating the impact that HSR has on air travel. There's no reason that connecting flights wouldn't largely be replaced with HSR here as they have everywhere else in the world. Your description of how convenient flying is applies to rail too - you check your bags at the train station and the bags are checked through in exactly the same way. When you buy a plane ticket a train ticket would be included for the connection. Again, that's the way it works in other countries. Air Canada can fight it, but people aren't going to stop choosing HSR for the connection just because AC doesn't want them to. They'd lose out on short connection revenue whether they like it or not. Other airlines around the world embrace HSR for connections and concentrate on long haul routes. AC/Westjet/Porter would be forced to do the same.

I'm just saying it depends on integration. And travel time. I think the scenario is more complicated that you present. One big reason is that we'll have Union as the terminus, not Pearson. And second to that, like I suggested, you're more likely to see Ottawa travellers routed through Dorval than you are to see Montreal and Ottawa passengers routed through Pearson. It does not happen today actually. With the exception of a lot of US-bound travellers, a lot of international pax from Ottawa and Montreal actually route through Star Alliance hubs in Europe.

In any event, I didn't say transfers won't happen. I just disagree that it will be as fluid as you envision right off the bat. I don't think this will be a day one feature. And that's assuming that HSR is time-competitive with a transfer at Pearson to begin with. We'll see.

Another thing you're underestimating is just how many flights there are in the TOM corridor. Once Air Canada starts flying out of the Island next month, there will be 125 daily flights between the 3 cities. That's every 5-10 minutes at peak and way more than "one or two at mid-day". That's a lot of demand no matter how you look at it. Experience in other countries shows that modal share for air drops much more severely than for car trips when an HSR line opens. It would here too.

Again. You are assuming I disagree wholeheartedly. That's not the case. I don't disagree that TOM air passenger traffic will take a hit. I just disagree that we'll see huge drops in frequencies. Take a look at the airline schedules. Only AC and Porter actually run dozens of flights every day. Westjet runs a handful and clusters them around certain hours. I can see Porter taking a huge hit because they will compete directly with HSR, downtown-to-downtown traffic. To the extent that AC gets hit though, it's mostly going to be on this traffic. And this is why I've said, there'll only be a minor cut to their schedule (10% maybe), and a shift to smaller aircraft (this is where the big capacity cut comes).

As for AC operating out of the island, we all know they're doing that because of Porter. If Porter didn't exist, there would be half as many flights in the TOM triangle, just on bigger aircraft.

Lastly, keep in mind that number of flights is spread out between 3 city pairs. In the cast of Barcelona-Madrid, it was more traffic than that for one city pair.

Anyway, none of this is to say I disagree with the need for HSR. I'm a huge fan and supporter...and probably a regular user if it comes. What I am against, is this view that HSR will utterly replace the need for aviation within the TOM triangle (especially to the point where airport expansion is negated). Or this absurd idea that we'll see a huge drop in frequenices. Fat chance. It'll take away a good chunk of TOM traffic....especially downtown-to-downtown. But the drop in frequencies will be limited. You'll just see smaller planes. Could it happen? If HSR is perfectly implemented and it's run at 400 km/h with express trains running from Montreal to Pearson every hour, maybe. And providing that baggage can be completely segregated so that it won't need to rechecked after check-in at the train station. Anything less than that perfection and you aren't going to seriously dent AC's feeder traffic through Pearson. And really, will HSR and the airlines play to implement such a seamless experience for what amounts to about 200-300 pax an hour? I'll applaud it, if it happens. But I don't see that happening, until 10-15 years after HSR services commence in the Corridor.

Agreed, and Kingston isn't exactly the most progressive city when it comes to suburban growth. But the province could always create a growth plan or expand Places to Grow to include cities like Kingston and London. That's probably the only way sprawl could be kept in check.

I always thought that was the next step after the GTA. And aren't there already some guidelines in place for those cities? (I could be mistaken.)

 

[MapleLeafs]

So... has any party actually acknowledged the possibility of a high speed rail plan? I understand that balancing the budget is a bigger priority currently, but it would nice to get something, if even a 'raincheck' of sorts.

 

[kEiThZ]

So... has any party actually acknowledged the possibility of a high speed rail plan? I understand that balancing the budget is a bigger priority currently, but it would nice to get something, if even a 'raincheck' of sorts.

NDP.

And it doesn't need to be a raincheck. The thing will take a decade to construct. If the $30 billion was split three ways (roughly speaking), between Ottawa, Queen's Park and Quebec, that would be a committment from each of a billion a year. Manageable in my opinion.

I wish people would stop looking at absolute price tags and start looking at cash flow. This sticker shock and lack of an understanding of long term value is what prevents any ambition in this country.