Toronto Pearson International Airport

[picard102]

Hopefully not. A larger airport means more jets, and Pearson makes enough noise already.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hopefully not. A larger airport means more jets, and Pearson makes enough noise already.

Well considering turbofans aren't jets, and they're whisper quiet, I am not sure what the concern is all about.

The silliness aside, it will be interesting how see how GTAA responds.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

Transfer traffic won't be moving substantially to Pearson. Not without serious air-rail integration. Which is really unlikely to happen (since any rail project will target union station before all else). HSR may kill Porter's case for Ottawa and Montreal flights. But it won't do much to change the picture for Air Canada at Pearson. Air Canada's runs hourly flights to those cities so that it can feed Air Canada's long-haul network. It's not going to cut too many frequencies there. It'll just downgauge the size of aircraft, on account of less origin-destination traffic between Toronto and Ottawa/Montreal.

The best case for rail serving the airport is between Ottawa and Montreal-Dorval. There are already shuttle buses that leave from Ottawa's VIA station no less, that take international passengers for several airlines from Ottawa. Air traffic in Ottawa would be reduced a bit if HSR is established between Ottawa and Montreal.


Not too sure about this comparison with Europe for HSR. Higher national population densities. And those HSRs replaced a lot of short-haul turboprop flights. Other than Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal, what's our market for say Ottawa-London or Toronto-Windsor? More importantly, governments in Europe and willing to take on insane amounts of debts to spend on all sorts of public programs and infrastructure. Would the Canadian public ever tolerate governments spending (and taxing) like what they do in Spain or France? Doubt it. That's why I'm skeptical about spending on the whole corridor. Best case scenario is that the Liberals commit to VIA's new corridor enhancement plan and we get regular, reliable and solid service. Some speed enhancements. And hopefully costs that make it more accessible and competitive with the bus.

 

[MisterF]

Transfer traffic won't be moving substantially to Pearson. Not without serious air-rail integration. Which is really unlikely to happen (since any rail project will target union station before all else). HSR may kill Porter's case for Ottawa and Montreal flights. But it won't do much to change the picture for Air Canada at Pearson. Air Canada's runs hourly flights to those cities so that it can feed Air Canada's long-haul network. It's not going to cut too many frequencies there. It'll just downgauge the size of aircraft, on account of less origin-destination traffic between Toronto and Ottawa/Montreal.

The best case for rail serving the airport is between Ottawa and Montreal-Dorval. There are already shuttle buses that leave from Ottawa's VIA station no less, that take international passengers for several airlines from Ottawa. Air traffic in Ottawa would be reduced a bit if HSR is established between Ottawa and Montreal.

I'm not sure how you're coming to these conclusions considering the real world examples point to just the opposite. Air Canada's feeder flights from Montreal and Ottawa are basically the same as a connecting flight from Lyon to de Gaulle in Paris...a market that has been nearly completely taken over by the TGV. Short haul flights to Brussels, London, Barcelona, and Madrid all declined rapidly after HSR service was introduced. The UK is planning the same thing for domestic flights with their High Speed 2 project.

Of course a rail project will target Union primarily, but there's no reason that it couldn't serve Pearson as well, air-rail partnerships and all. Everything you say won't happen is already happening on comparable routes around the world.

Not too sure about this comparison with Europe for HSR. Higher national population densities. And those HSRs replaced a lot of short-haul turboprop flights. Other than Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal, what's our market for say Ottawa-London or Toronto-Windsor? More importantly, governments in Europe and willing to take on insane amounts of debts to spend on all sorts of public programs and infrastructure. Would the Canadian public ever tolerate governments spending (and taxing) like what they do in Spain or France? Doubt it. That's why I'm skeptical about spending on the whole corridor. Best case scenario is that the Liberals commit to VIA's new corridor enhancement plan and we get regular, reliable and solid service. Some speed enhancements. And hopefully costs that make it more accessible and competitive with the bus.

Considering the TGV makes a profit and subsidizes the rest of the rail network in France, I'm not so sure about your claim that high speed rail is the reason that certain European countries have high taxes and debt. Ireland has a superior rail system to ours and it's famous for its low taxes. The reality is that these countries simply put a larger percentage of their infrastructure money into rail than we do (although that may be starting to change, at least in Ontario). National population densities aren't relevant, only the population densities in the areas where high speed rail would actually be built. The Windsor-Quebec corridor has the same population density as France and Spain. And while the Corridor has less than half the population of Spain, it also has much smaller HSR ambitions.

I do agree that VIA's enhancement plan (or some version of it) should be built. But it's not the best case scenario. It's the bare minimum - a step in the right direction.

 

[rbt]

Considering the TGV makes a profit and subsidizes the rest of the rail network in France, I'm not so sure about your claim that high speed rail is the reason that certain European countries have high taxes and debt.

TGV finances are complicated. Last I looked (2009ish) you've got RFF accumulating debt paying interest on interest at this point subsidizing trackage fees to ensure TGV appears profitable. They were up to something like €25B at that time and SNCF had nearly another €5B of legacy debt on top of that. If they forced TGV passengers to pay down the debt, they would struggle to make payments.

VIA would be massively profitable if we forced CN Rail to build and provide infrastructure for VIA, and not allow them to charge VIA the trackage fees required to pay for that infrastructure.

TGV profits are largely smoke and mirrors.

RFF isn't the entire story. They only cover(ed?) something like 30% of TGV expansion capital with the rest coming from other sources.

Edit: RFF debt in 2013 was up to €32B and they still don't seem to have much of a plan for reducing it other than gifts from the Minister of Transportation (my French is very poor, confirming this would be wise).

Edit 2: RFF seems to be defunct in early 2015 replaced by 2 other State owned companies; SNCF Réseau and SNCF Mobilités; capital and operations respectively. FY 2015 finances for these organizations don't seem to be available yet. SNCF Réseau did seem to be carrying €7B debt in 2014 though, I assume this is the legacy debt plus interest growth.

 

[kEiThZ]

The feeder flight ops are not the same in Europe and Canada. Air France has one hub. Air Canada has 4 international hubs and 3 secondary regional hubs. Air Canada will not be shuttling passengers by train to Pearson even with high speed rail. That said passengers may do some of that themselves. However, it just won't be enough for AC to be substantially curtailing regional feeder flying.

rbt covered the profitability situation well. Which is to say that it's lots of sketchy accounting.

Now, none of that means that HSR isn't justified or desired. But let's not make a pie-in-the-sky business case for it. Service to Ottawa in 3 hrs. And Montreal in 4 hrs. With good frequencies would still do quite well. It would steal from both buses and cars. And maybe even a little from flying.

 

[MisterF]

It’s not only France. Spain’s AVE system seems to be making an operational profit, although the capital costs of their massive system may never be paid off. Russia’s high speed line between its two biggest cities makes a profit, as do operators in Germany and the UK. Even VIA Rail’s Corridor routes recover most of their costs. A rail service can make money if it can attract a large portion of the market share.

But even if, for the sake of the argument, an HSR line doesn’t make a profit, would that be so bad? Almost all rural freeways have to be subsidized but that hasn’t stopped countless billions from being spent on them. It’s a clear double standard. Put it this way...which is a better use of money – a $2 billion freeway to Sudbury that will have limited use, be subsidized every year, and be inherently unsafe? Or a $3 billion high speed rail line to London which will benefit more people, increase safety and reliability over driving, reduce pollution, and potentially make a profit?

We can’t forget the indirect savings from high speed rail that aren’t accounted for in profits: reduced emissions, less need for highway expansion, fewer collisions on the roads, reduced economic costs from delayed flights and traffic jams, etc. These are all costs that are higher than they need to be because of the way we prioritize our transportation spending.

The feeder flight ops are not the same in Europe and Canada. Air France has one hub. Air Canada has 4 international hubs and 3 secondary regional hubs. Air Canada will not be shuttling passengers by train to Pearson even with high speed rail. That said passengers may do some of that themselves. However, it just won't be enough for AC to be substantially curtailing regional feeder flying.

rbt covered the profitability situation well. Which is to say that it's lots of sketchy accounting.

Now, none of that means that HSR isn't justified or desired. But let's not make a pie-in-the-sky business case for it. Service to Ottawa in 3 hrs. And Montreal in 4 hrs. With good frequencies would still do quite well. It would steal from both buses and cars. And maybe even a little from flying.

What you're describing isn't true HSR, it's more like what VIAFast was supposed to be. For HSR, the 1990s study estimated that airlines would lose 44% of their passengers to HSR on short haul corridor routes. That's consistent with other HSR lines, conservative even. It's not "maybe a little", it's a huge shift in how people travel.

De Gaulle isn’t Air France’s only hub, it has six of them including secondary hubs throughout France. Regardless of how many hubs Air Canada has, there are loads of flights coming in from Ottawa, Montreal, and even London. You keep saying that Air Canada would just keep flying feeder routes, but it isn’t really Air Canada’s choice. Travellers have shown a clear preference for high speed rail over flying (and driving) where it’s an option and there’s no reason to think that Canadians would be any different. With an HSR system, airlines can either adapt and offer partnerships with rail or lose massive business. It’s pretty tough to keep planes in the air when all your customers are taking the train.

 

[kEiThZ]

But even if, for the sake of the argument, an HSR line doesn’t make a profit, would that be so bad? .

When it does substantial damage to a strategic private sector? Yes. This is Canada. Aviation is strategically vital to our national survival, given our geography and population distribution. In my most humble opinion, you will not see any government put in billions of taxpayer dollars that threatens to both harm a vital private sector industry, only to then create further liabilities for taxpayers.

I could be wrong, but I just can't see it happening.

Almost all rural freeways have to be subsidized but that hasn’t stopped countless billions from being spent on them. It’s a clear double standard. Put it this way...which is a better use of money – a $2 billion freeway to Sudbury that will have limited use, be subsidized every year, and be inherently unsafe? Or a $3 billion high speed rail line to London which will benefit more people, increase safety and reliability over driving, reduce pollution, and potentially make a profit?

This is not a relevant comparison or choice. Government has an obligation to provide services to Sudbury. Full stop. By your rationale, we could save billions by abandoning cost-ineffective services to most remote communities and first nations reserves. We don't do that, because we've accepted as a society that we will support the services and infrastructure they need.

The actual choice is between supporting $2 billion in highway expansion to London or $2 billion in rail improvements to London. And on that front, nobody is going to argue with you. Neither is the government actually. Who has actually the pitched the most recent study, as an alternative to 401 expansion.

We can’t forget the indirect savings from high speed rail that aren’t accounted for in profits: reduced emissions, less need for highway expansion, fewer collisions on the roads, reduced economic costs from delayed flights and traffic jams, etc. These are all costs that are higher than they need to be because of the way we prioritize our transportation spending.

HSR is mostly competing with air. Not road. We're talking about investing $3-4 billion for VIA's most recent proposal vs. $20 billion for HSR. At that point, how much additional traffic are you taking off the road, and how much economic benefits are accumulated, over and above the $3 billion spent on VIA's proposal?

What you're describing isn't true HSR, it's more like what VIAFast was supposed to be.

And that's exactly what we'll be getting. Unless the private sector steps up, our governments will not put in $20 billion for HSR. Mark my words. That's because the opportunity cost is huge. For $10 billion, the feds could pay for all of VIA's plans and the entire GO RER build out and still have enough money left over for half the transit projects in the country during their first term. That benefits a multitude more people than HSR.

Think of this debate as the regional version of subway vs. LRT.

For HSR, the 1990s study estimated that airlines would lose 44% of their passengers to HSR on short haul corridor routes. That's consistent with other HSR lines, conservative even. It's not "maybe a little", it's a huge shift in how people travel.

VIA's own CEO has argued against HSR, dismissing the business case and the marginal utility of spending over and above his $4B propoosal. I just can't see the government overruling him to spend tens of billions more. And all to compete with Air Canada and Westjet?

De Gaulle isn’t Air France’s only hub, it has six of them including secondary hubs throughout France. Regardless of how many hubs Air Canada has, there are loads of flights coming in from Ottawa, Montreal, and even London. You keep saying that Air Canada would just keep flying feeder routes, but it isn’t really Air Canada’s choice. Travellers have shown a clear preference for high speed rail over flying (and driving) where it’s an option and there’s no reason to think that Canadians would be any different. With an HSR system, airlines can either adapt and offer partnerships with rail or lose massive business. It’s pretty tough to keep planes in the air when all your customers are taking the train.

You really should check out Air France's air-rail integration. It's not even as you describe it. Air France hasn't stopped regional flying completely. It's just offloaded low demand destinations to the TGV. Look at Paris-Lyon (comparable to say Toronto-Ottawa in distance). There's still 5 flights a day. Or Paris-Marseille (comparable to Toronto-Quebec City in distance) with 6 flights a day. Air France isn't moving you to those destinations by train. They are moving you by train, if you have to go to Nantes, Angers, etc. In the Canadian context, this would be the equivalent of dropping flights to Kingston, London, Kitchener-Waterloo. If we're talking about cutting flights to low demand Corridor destinations, then I agree, it's going to move to rail. But then this is a likely outcome whether we have true HSR or just really good long-distance rail like VIA's CEO is proposing. Simply offering more frequencies, with a stop at the airport would accomplish this. There's already plenty of people who drive from London to Pearson for flights. Simply having regularly hourly or bi-hourly service would move both the road and air traffic to rail. You don't need HSR per se. You just need a reasonably frequent service that drops you off at the airport, not downtown.

Essentially, the only flights likely to be offloaded by AC to rail would be Toronto-London, Toronto-Kingston, Ottawa-Montreal, Quebec City-Montreal, and possibly Quebec City-Ottawa, and Toronto-Windsor. But again, you don't need HSR for this. Just a regular rail service from Pearson. And unless you get the higher end of HSR service, Air Canada and Westjet, are probably still likely to have hourly service or least bi-hourly service to Montreal and Ottawa from Toronto. They are just likely to do it on smaller regional jets than large narrowbodies and occassional widebodies like they do today, with a a few less peak shoulder frequencies.

So is any of this enough to build a business case for HSR. We are talking about going from $4 billion to $20 billion. There's a lot you can do with that extra $16 billion. Even in transportation. I can't see the point in spending $16 billion just to kill Toronto-Ottawa, and Toronto-Montreal flights. I'd rather the government spend $4 billion and get me good solid VIA rail service (closer to VIA Fast), and then put that $16 billion building transit everywhere in the country. That would do more for the environment and the economy.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'll also add that all is not rosey in TGV land either:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/08/france-s-tgv

Air is making a comeback with discount carriers booming in Europe. The only reason we don't have that situation here is because we don't have the supporting business case for domestic low-cost carriers.

 

[hawc]

Pearson makes enough noise already.

What does that even mean? Pearson is too noisy? What???

 

[nfitz]

What does that even mean? Pearson is too noisy? What???

You haven't noticed the noise under the flight path in Western Mississauga? Hard to hold a conversation at times near Erin Mills/Brittannia.

 

[hawc]

Not true.

 

[nfitz]

Not true.

I've had to stop speaking and wait for the plane to pass overhead. When it's directly overhead on approach to runway 6R or 6L (whichever it is that lines them up near that intersection). Never heard anything that loud downtown - though you do hear a bit at Cherry Beach on approach.

 

[hawc]

I've had to stop speaking and wait for the plane to pass overhead. When it's directly overhead on approach to runway 6R or 6L.

Don't believe you. Especially not on landing. If you had said on take off, maybe. I'm out at the airport around that area once or twice a week. No issues with not being able to talk while planes pass overhead at all. None whatsoever.

 

[nfitz]

Don't believe you. Especially not on landing. If you had said on take off, maybe. I'm out at the airport around that area once or twice a week. No issues with not being able to talk while planes pass overhead at all. None whatsoever.

Well, I think it's landing ... honestly, I'm inside, at the frigging dinner table, trying to talk to in-laws ... with all the windows open - I'm not heading outside to see which way the bloody plane is heading.

I'm surprised anyone would accuse someone about lying over such an innocuous observation. It's not like I only noticed it on one occasion. And I was quite surprised it's noticeable that far west. Though some days seemed worse than others.

I've never looked at the noise contours before, but there's a spike heading right down Britannia. The spot I'm thinking about is about 1/3 of the way from Erin Mills to Mississauga, not far south of Brittania. Just outside whatever this (30) contour is ...