High-Speed Rail Is Good for Business

[gweed123]

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.

Most of the ridings that it would pass through aren't Conservative ridings. Hence, they wouldn't get the money from it. If it were up to the Neo Cons, we'd have a piecemeal HSR line that only travelled at high speed through Conservative ridings, and at regular speeds everywhere else.

 

[gweed123]

With respect to the reductions in air travel thing: I think it would make sense for either Porter or Air Canada (much more likely Porter, just because I can see them integrating better) to invest in HSR, if it was an inevitability anyways. I'm not saying they'd spearhead it, but it would make sense that, once it's being built, to invest into it. Having the ability to own part of the HSR service would give them the advantage of being able to book combination HSR and plane tickets. It would also cover them for the drop in air traffic that would result. If you're still making just as much money per HSR trip as you were per air trip before HSR, does the reduction in air traffic really hit you? All you've done is shifted your revenue streams around.

I would imagine that this would be extremely convenient for passengers in the outlying areas of the GGH, or just beyond it. Think about it, if you live in London and you're travelling to any of the major cities that Porter flies, you need to either drive to Toronto, or take a 2hr VIA trip to Union, then hop on Porter. With HSR, that 2hr trip becomes ~40 mins, and if you can get a discount on the HSR trip because you booked a Porter flight as well, it would be even more incentive to use the service.

I'm not saying Porter needs to own the HSR service, they just need to be a contributing partner with VIA.

 

[lead82]

Good idea in theory, but in practice, why would Porter want to pay for building rail infrastructure that would potentially shave it's short-haul flying business. Porter is still a very small company, and spending billions on HSR would only put them heavily into debt and not really increase their revenues much. If they want to service London, Kitchener people, they may just end up starting to offer flights to London. They are already doing so to other Ontario cities like Sudbury, Windsor, etc..

Unless VIA or the feds chip in money, I don't see HSR being built at all in Canada. The airlines make a killing in this triangle as many of the other domestic Canadian routes are money losers and are in fact subsidized by the ridiculously expensive flights within the YYZ-YOW, YYZ-YUL triangle. That's how Porter and Air Canada make most of their money.

 

[MisterF]

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.

Toronto wouldn't be limited to just one station. Trains could stop at both Union and Pearson. Just like Paris has both Gare du Nord and de Gaulle, Amsterdam has both Centraal Station and Schiphol, and I'm sure there are lots of others. Then again, even without a direct airport connection HSR can put a serious dent in airline traffic. Obviously it all wouldn’t get built at once – it takes time to integrate services and get seamless connections. But that doesn’t mean those connections won’t happen. A lot of that infrastructure is under construction right now with the air rail link.

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.

Of course they’ll implement it, eventually anyway, since that’s what would make financial sense. Like I said, the airlines would lose out on connecting revenue one way or another, so it would make sense for them to get in on the action. If Westjet played ball with the railway and AC didn’t, AC would lose all kinds of business to Westjet. I think frequencies to Ottawa and Montreal would drop more than you think. There’s a lot of duplication in Toronto – 3 airlines offering frequent flights from two airports. That’s a lot of flights that could be cut. And yes the 125 daily flights are spread out between 3 city pairs, but it would be a single HSR corridor. The Madrid-Barcelona line doesn’t have an equivalent to the Ottawa Airport.

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.)

There’s the Provincial Policy Statement, but it doesn’t have the detail or the teeth of Places to Grow. The only other Growth Plan the province has is for northern Ontario, which just got released this year. Whether or they plan on expanding Places to Grow, I have no idea.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Bombardier enters agreement with Siemens over high-speed rail in Germany


Bombardier Inc's train unit has partnered with Siemens AG for what could be a $3 billion-plus share of a high-speed rail contract in Germany, the Canadian company said on Monday.

Bombardier Transportation said it has signed a framework agreement with Siemens, Europe's biggest engineering conglomerate, to develop and supply parts for up to 300 high-speed trains for German national rail operator Deutsche Bahn AG.

The initial order for 130 trains with Siemens is worth 1.3 billion euros ($1.8 billion US) to Montreal-based Bombardier, the world's largest passenger-train maker.

Deutsche Bahn, Europe's biggest transport group by revenue, plans to place an additional order of 90 trains with Siemens, Bombardier said.

The combined order for the 220 trains would amount to sales of about 2.1 billion euro ($3 billion US) for Bombardier.

"It is very likely they will get the $3 billion... But these things are very long-term agreements," Canaccord Genuity analyst David Tyerman said.

The framework agreement between Siemens and Deutsche Bahn also includes an option for up to 80 additional trains that could be ordered at any time until 2030, Bombardier said.

The production of the ICx high-speed trains will start in the summer of 2013. Bombardier will supply Siemens with body shells as well as trailer bogies for the new fleet. It will also do the final assembly of all end coaches and some intermediate coaches.

Shares of Bombardier, which is also the world's No. 3 aircraft maker, were up 19 Canadian cents, or nearly 3 percent, at $6.86 on Monday afternoon on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Tyerman said the gain could in part be due to the train deal but may also be a reversal of Friday's loss when Bombardier's stock fell on worries about sales of its CSeries aircraft.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Bombard...er+high+speed+rail+Germany/4753094/story.html

 

[Bayer]

Paris-Strasbourg TGV, a couple of weeks ago... 500 km, downtown to downtown in 2 hours and 25 minutes. And then to visit the historic centre of the city served by several tram lines sharing the streets with pedestrians... very few cars to be seen. One can only dream!

 

[gweed123]

Speaking of German High Speed Rail, I snapped this pic a few days ago while driving along the Autobahn (in the passenger seat, FYI) just north of Munich. It was pretty cool driving 130 and seeing this thing go flying by you like you were almost standing still. A far cry from the stretch of the 401 just east of Kingston where if you time it right, you can run beside a VIA train, and the thing is only inching past you.

 

[Fred.S]

Speaking of German High Speed Rail, I snapped this pic a few days ago while driving along the Autobahn (in the passenger seat, FYI) just north of Munich. It was pretty cool driving 130 and seeing this thing go flying by you like you were almost standing still. A far cry from the stretch of the 401 just east of Kingston where if you time it right, you can run beside a VIA train, and the thing is only inching past you.

I know exactly what you mean. Drove in France years ago doing 130 on the freeway, and the TGV line paralleled the highway for a bit. A TGV passed, and it was that same feeling if you've ever stood on the shoulder of the 401 with cars driving past you at 120. The speed was incredible, makes you feel like a sucker for being in a slow-ass car. I hate that it's the other way around here, where cars are the fastest method of transportation 90% of the time.

 

[freshcutgrass]

My plan is very simple...

* Concentrate on just the two destinations that matter...Toronto - Montreal. Forget everywhere else.

* Maglev...low operating and maintenance costs. Cutting edge, but not reinventing anything = 500 km/hr

* Dedicated, elevated track (prefab segments) following the 401. No stops...full speed from station to station = 1 hour trips. Decimates all competition.

* One single track...and one single train (with a back-up). With speed/times like that, one train back and forth is all you need. Cuts build costs dramatically.

* The real priority is freight...passengers are just gravy.

* Train set/track is obviously custom and very large (width, height). freight below...passengers above.

 

[Mapleson]

I like your simple plan, but there are complications in reality.

* Concentrate on just the two destinations that matter...Toronto - Montreal. Forget everywhere else.

Ottawa is a political must, because a Toronto-Montreal train would be interprovincial and subject to Federal regulation (unlike GO Transit which is except as intraprovincial).

* Maglev...low operating and maintenance costs. Cutting edge, but not reinventing anything = 500 km/hr

Like the SRT, the technology is "innovative" and limits your sources and creates a stand-alone part to your transportation system. There is a lot to be said in favour of intermodal transport.

* Dedicated, elevated track (prefab segments) following the 401. No stops...full speed from station to station = 1 hour trips. Decimates all competition.

So 1 hour journey time, 12 minute alighting/boarding time for 2.4 hours round trip - 10 train loads a day? Will these trains be 5x the size of Porter's airplanes (Porter has 46 daily flights Toronto-Montreal)? Otherwise, there won't be capacity to decimate the competition.

If the Maglev train doesn't really drop them off anywhere convenient and they still have to take other transit to their destinations, meaning extra cost and time to the user.

* One single track...and one single train (with a back-up). With speed/times like that, one train back and forth is all you need. Cuts build costs dramatically.

Single track is much more vulnerable to significant delays and reliability issues.

* The real priority is freight...passengers are just gravy.

Your non-stop system doesn't work well with freight. Unless you have extended dwell times at each end of the line to unload/reload the freight or extra trains to pre-load.

 

[sjc]

We better hurry up or we will fall behind the US. The US government is pushing for a high-speed rail line from Chicago to Iowa City that will reach speeds of up to 90-110 mph and average speeds of over 45mph. Once in place, it will be possible to travel from Iowa City to Chicago in only 5 hours which is almost -70 minutes faster than the bus (which takes 3:50). It is expected that fares will be less than 3 times the cost of taking the bus.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002275-high-speed-rail-subsidies-iowa-nothing-something

 

[rbt]

We better hurry up or we will fall behind the US. The US government is pushing for a high-speed rail line from Chicago to Iowa City that will reach speeds of up to 90-110 mph and average speeds of over 45mph. Once in place, it will be possible to travel from Iowa City to Chicago in only 5 hours which is almost -70 minutes faster than the bus (which takes 3:50). It is expected that fares will be less than 3 times the cost of taking the bus.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002275-high-speed-rail-subsidies-iowa-nothing-something

My favourite line of that article is this:

By contrast, the luxury bus service charges a fare of $18.00, and does not require a penny of taxpayer subsidy.

Are US Citizens really that confused as to how the interstate highways are built and maintained? If I recall correctly, and it's been years since I've taken it, that bus is one of GMs models. Not to mention the whole oil empire having some interesting government interactions.

 

[kEiThZ]

To be fair, in the context of the article they are talking about direct subsidies. And while I'm no fan of Wendell Cox, he could very well be right in this case. What's the point, when the train won't even be competitive with the bus on both price and trip time. Now if the argument is that the corridor needs to be upgraded so be it. But to sell it as HSR and then to insist on operating subsidies when a twice-a-day bus service runs without the subsidy, does strike me as a poor economic decision.

 

[Mapleson]

To be fair, in the context of the article they are talking about direct subsidies. And while I'm no fan of Wendell Cox, he could very well be right in this case. What's the point, when the train won't even be competitive with the bus on both price and trip time. Now if the argument is that the corridor needs to be upgraded so be it. But to sell it as HSR and then to insist on operating subsidies when a twice-a-day bus service runs without the subsidy, does strike me as a poor economic decision.

There isn't any back-up to the $50 price or 5-hour journey he's suggesting. Iowa Government estimated it at $25. The difference in time might be related to the exact end points of the journey. Existing trains go 35-miles past Iowa City to Mount Pleasant, IA and take 3.5 hours from Union Station in Chicago.