[RedRocket191]

How long does border screening usually take on a train?

VIA Rail budgets an hour on the NYC - Toronto run, but it has been known to take double. 30-45 minutes is apparently the record coming back into Canada.

 

[urbanfan89]

In some border trains in Europe and Asia, the entire process can easily take two or three hours. Via and Amtrak must create a system of preclearance if rail can hope to be a competitive form of travel.

 

[TO City of Light]

In some border trains in Europe and Asia, the entire process can easily take two or three hours.

Where are these two or three hour processes????

 

[cacruden]

I would have envisioned a system whereby when you book your travel, you would bring your passport - they would scan it. At boarding time, they would scan a customs form in to the computer, so this information could be processed before you reached Windsor. Buying a cross boarder ticket would not be allowed within the final hour of departure at Windsor. At Windsor, US immigration would have provided a list of people that would not be allowed to cross - without detailed interviews. These people would be removed from the train, and if approved put on the next train. The immigration people would have a car by car list of passengers and documentation, and one agent would walk through each car between Windsor and Detroit for checking documentation against passengers (which should be quicker at this point).

 

[unimaginative2]

As a general rule, the ICE technology is a bit more fancy and advanced (eddy brakes, etc.), while TGVs use more "tried and true" technology. Both pretty reasonably accomplish their goals. From a passenger standpoint (speed, etc.), it's a lot more about the tracks than the train technologies.

The important thing to note is that all of the manufacturers are moving away from the branding that we're familiar with. Up until now, various consortia have made high speed trains around the world, with Bombardier, for example, having a hand in all of them. Now, all of the different companies are making their own next-generation technologies. Alstom is developing the AGV system, Bombardier has Zefiro, and Siemens has updated versions of the ICE3.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think an important question to ask is what a future HSR is supposed to accomplish? Are we banking on HSR to reduce emissions? Is HSR being proposed to improve connectivity between Canadian cities? Is the current connectivity 3-4 hrs downtown-to-downtown between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal inadequate?

I am not against HSR and would love to see on built in Canada, but the more I read about the topic, the more I wonder about the opportunity cost. As a legacy of the BCATP, Canada has one the most developed aviation networks in the country that provides more than adequate connectivity for long distances and costs relatively little to maintain. If the goal is to improve productivity (through connectivity), air travel might prove more effective and requires far less public investment. Indeed, the major airports generate hundreds of millions in revenue for the federal government. If the goal is to reduce emissions, than 10-25 billion can be spent far more effectively building local transit to reduce emissions. The only case that's clear cut in my mind for an HSR, is national prestige.

Many would argue we should do it all...invest in local transit, build HSRs, and improve our aviation infrastructure. Unfortunately, that's not proven to be the Canadian experience and I remain skeptical that the future will be any different. If you had those billions to invest and had to choose between paying for 15 years of local transit investment in the three cities this HSR is supposed to connect or one HSR, which would it be?

So any thoughts on the opportunity cost? I would love to see stats on the returns of HSR on productivity, emissions reductions, etc.

Also, I don't buy that Stephen Harper or the premiers are suddenly converts to the HSR bandwagon. I think they see the picture quite like what I portrayed above. I think the end result will be a significantly improved VIA service in the corridor with more reliable service and somewhat shorter travel times. All in all that would not be a bad thing..... I just spent an extra 1 hr 23 mins on a train back from Toronto to Ottawa on Monday. Made me wish for improvements here and now instead of the constant "we're studying this" treadmill....

 

[Hipster Duck]

I think an important question to ask is what a future HSR is supposed to accomplish?

1. I think that the point of HSR would be to significantly increase the capacity and speed of the transportation system within city regions that are expected to grow and compete with hundreds of other global city regions that have similar or better infrastructure connections.

2. HSR is also a valve for growth that isn't pegged (nearly as much) to a dwindling and increasingly expensive resource.

3. HSR promotes the growth of cities at their cores rather than in the socially vacuous and oil gobbling edges of the suburban periphery.

4. HSR essentially knits together disparate city regions into one network. In Germany, which I know a little more personally, a large number of people who work in Frankfurt commute in from Stuttgart on the ICE; the creation of a HSR and supplementary rail networks across the continent have strengthened the role of the dominant city in a city region while plugging formerly backward hinterland regions into the global economy.

Finally, a personal anecdote:

5. Air travel is a fucking pain in the ass that nobody enjoys.

 

[afransen]

What about relieving Pearson/avoiding building Pickering? It would also help tourism by bundling Montreal and Toronto.

 

[cacruden]

What about relieving Pearson/avoiding building Pickering? It would also help tourism by bundling Montreal and Toronto.

That would be one benefit. Before recent reductions in air traffic, the high rate of growth in air traffic - has created a crowded sky's (limited routes, traffic closer together, etc.). When I was flying to Toledo - 15 years ago (don't ever want to go to that city again), the proximity alarm in the cockpit was almost constantly going off (closer to Detroit). One of the goals should be to remove all short-haul traffic from the Montreal/Toronto/Ottawa and even Kingston - from the airports -- opening up those slots for long-haul travel. There is a lot of business travel between these cities - where people are traveling for a meeting and want to go there and return the same day. Rail would make it more efficient - in fact if it is a half-day meeting - you could return in the afternoon.

I believe if there was anytime to actually start the project (unfortunately it probably will not happen), is during a recession of the likes we are going to have to suffer through. That along with other transit/highway/border crossings/communications would be other projects that could be done to soften the impact of a long recession, and hopefully pull us out a little earlier.

 

[Whoaccio]

^^^

I think HSR can be justified to improve connectivity between MTL-OTT-TOR, though the Windsor & QC branches are probably not necessary at first. A few things would have to happen before this is practical though. Firstly, gas prices will have to continue to climb above wage increases. Recent set backs aside, I think most people are still bullish on the long term price of gas. In other words, I would be surprised if oil was 60$/B in 2030 (adjusted for inflation). We saw earlier in this summer how poorly the airlines were able to cope with rising gas prices. Given the industries absurdly low margins (really, I don't even know why people invest in airlines...), it would have a tough time if gas prices started to average out at 150$/b or higher. I doubt air travel would disappear, but I don't see how cutbacks could be avoided. The Tor-Mtl especially. As I understand it, short-medium haul flights tend to be the least fuel efficient and most sensitive to fuel jumps (compared to an A380 hauling 850 cattle class passengers over the Pacific). So, I think if oil prices follow their long term trend lines would improve the business case of HSR relative to Air and road. (that is, unless Canada opts for that idiotic Bombardier JetTrain proposal. What an idiotic idea that is...)

Secondly, if we were serious about HSR, we should sell off the 401. It makes absolutely no sense to subsidize competing mediums. In 2006, Indiana leased it's toll road for 75 years for an upfront fee of roughly 15m per km. Prorating that to 401 would land Ontario with roughly 12b (though, the 401 should be much more valuable being the busiest highway on earth and all). That alone should be able to incentavize a private consortium to build a HSR. The resulting tolls I imagine the 401s owners would implement would shift some demand towards rail.

EDIT: I should say though, that Proposition 8 is not a good idea. If we did it in Ontario/Quebec, it would fail. The entire project looks set to make the Big Dig seem like a shining example of competent management. Some estimates (admittedly by Wendell Cox...) have suggested the final price tag could be in the neighborhood of 80b, which just seems absurd. kEiThZ is right in that these things do have a habit of turning into billion dollar boondoggles justified on the sole basis of "Europe has trains, why don't we?" We need to figure out a better reason to build HSR than Europe did it. If done by the government, this would likely turn into a blatant vote buying tool.

 

[kEiThZ]

What about relieving Pearson/avoiding building Pickering? It would also help tourism by bundling Montreal and Toronto.

TC estimates that a reliever would not be needed till at least the mid-2020s. Building the Pickering airport would result in the re-location and consolidation of traffic from City Centre, Markham and Oshawa, the reduction of some traffic at Buttonville. The price tag of $2 billion is relatively cheap compared to any proposed HSR and would probably be recovered through airport fees.

I could see a benefit to tourism though since HSR travel might be cheaper than commercial air. But even this is a specious argument. Air travel in Canada is expensive because of prohibitive government fees. Canada is the only country in the developed world that extracts revenue from its airports instead of spending on them. If the federal government merely stopped collecting rent, air travel would become significantly cheaper.

That would be one benefit. Before recent reductions in air traffic, the high rate of growth in air traffic - has created a crowded sky's (limited routes, traffic closer together, etc.). When I was flying to Toledo - 15 years ago (don't ever want to go to that city again), the proximity alarm in the cockpit was almost constantly going off (closer to Detroit). One of the goals should be to remove all short-haul traffic from the Montreal/Toronto/Ottawa and even Kingston - from the airports -- opening up those slots for long-haul travel. There is a lot of business travel between these cities - where people are traveling for a meeting and want to go there and return the same day. Rail would make it more efficient - in fact if it is a half-day meeting - you could return in the afternoon.

Having operated in the Toronto Terminal Area, I can tell you that, while it's crowded, it's nowhere close to the level of proximity alarms engaging on a regular basis....which brings to mind the question of what the heck was going on Toledo that the TCAS was going off as often as you say it was? That's pretty serious business.

Another significant question here is...what's so bad about the skies filling up? Competition for slots will actually improve the efficiency of the system by forcing airlines to use bigger aircraft. Air Canada has over two dozen departures a day from Toronto to Montreal alone, most of them on A319s and A320s sitting 120 and 140 pax respectively. Fewer slots would actually prompt AC to use larger aircraft as traffic increased for that city-pair.

^^^
I think HSR can be justified to improve connectivity between MTL-OTT-TOR, though the Windsor & QC branches are probably not necessary at first. A few things would have to happen before this is practical though. Firstly, gas prices will have to continue to climb above wage increases. Recent set backs aside, I think most people are still bullish on the long term price of gas. In other words, I would be surprised if oil was 60$/B in 2030 (adjusted for inflation). We saw earlier in this summer how poorly the airlines were able to cope with rising gas prices. Given the industries absurdly low margins (really, I don't even know why people invest in airlines...), it would have a tough time if gas prices started to average out at 150$/b or higher. I doubt air travel would disappear, but I don't see how cutbacks could be avoided. The Tor-Mtl especially. As I understand it, short-medium haul flights tend to be the least fuel efficient and most sensitive to fuel jumps (compared to an A380 hauling 850 cattle class passengers over the Pacific). So, I think if oil prices follow their long term trend lines would improve the business case of HSR relative to Air and road. (that is, unless Canada opts for that idiotic Bombardier JetTrain proposal. What an idiotic idea that is...)

Air Canada's CEO pointed out years ago that the company simulatde $100/b when planning out its fleet purchases which is what led to the large B787 Dreamliner buy. He was mocked at the time. He's since been proven to be more than prudent. Likewise, Westjet uses relatively efficient aircraft as well and keeps their costs low through other practices (common fleet, simple fare/service structure, etc). And Porter is showing no signs of struggling with it fuel sipping aircraft. Canadian airlines (like our banks) are thankfully, nowhere close to their American counterparts in fiscal performance. They've seen losses as a result of a slumping economy leading to reduced corporate and tourist demand, but their losses have been relatively minor compared to the bloodbath elsewhere in the global aviation industry and compared to their own revenues.

You are right though, that sustained high oil prices would probably lead to some reduction in air travel. But again, I would point to the likely system response....higher oil prices might finally force the public (and airlines) to fly on turbo-props for short-haul instead of larger jet aircraft. If airlines replaced their RJ and low end short haul fleet with the large turboprops that are being proposed, they could continue making profits on short haul at $150/b. Aside from high oil prices, carbon policies in Europe might achieve this shift on their own. Several aircraft manufacturers, with Bombardier in the lead are proposing 90+ seater turboprops that would make most RJs obsolete.

Secondly, if we were serious about HSR, we should sell off the 401. It makes absolutely no sense to subsidize competing modes. In 2006, Indiana leased it's toll road for 75 years for an upfront fee of roughly 15m per km. Prorating that to 401 would land Ontario with roughly 12b (though, the 401 should be much more valuable being the busiest highway on earth and all). That alone should be able to incentavize a private consortium to build a HSR. The resulting tolls I imagine the 401s owners would implement would shift some demand towards rail.

Probably the only way to make HSR really feasible in Canada. At present all HSR will accomplish is divert air travel to rail. There's hardly any incentive for governments to spend tens of billions of dollars to tackle the 1% of emissions caused by air travel when the 30%+ block of emissions from passengers car and commercial trucking can be given a serious dent with the same amount of money.

 

[kEiThZ]

1. I think that the point of HSR would be to significantly increase the capacity and speed of the transportation system within city regions that are expected to grow and compete with hundreds of other global city regions that have similar or better infrastructure connections.

Perhaps, but Toronto and Montreal are hardly an integrated region. They simply happen to lie in the warmest part of Canada that can be connected linearly. I am willing to bet that each of those respective regions does more trade North-South than with each other. Heck, there are still significant trade barriers between Ontario and Quebec.

2. HSR is also a valve for growth that isn't pegged (nearly as much) to a dwindling and increasingly expensive resource.

Good point. But aviation is also hardly the largest customer for fossil fuels and is probably far more efficient user of said resource than our other transportation sectors. By that standard, the personal auto should be first on the hit list.

3. HSR promotes the growth of cities at their cores rather than in the socially vacuous and oil gobbling edges of the suburban periphery.

So do downtown airports and non-HS rail stations.... But this has more to do with where the station is located than the mode per se. And this is not always the case. Ottawa's VIA station is hardly surrounded by the highest states of urbanity. Ditto for many stations along the corridor, ie. Kingston, Brockville, etc. Developments around stations may have been true in the past, when access to stations was an issue. But today an HSR station could just as easily be located in the burbs if a quick transit ride was an option.

4. HSR essentially knits together disparate city regions into one network. In Germany, which I know a little more personally, a large number of people who work in Frankfurt commute in from Stuttgart on the ICE; the creation of a HSR and supplementary rail networks across the continent have strengthened the role of the dominant city in a city region while plugging formerly backward hinterland regions into the global economy.

This is the best argument I've heard for HSR and should probably be the thrust of any pitch for HSR in the Windsor-VDQ corridor. Having personally witnessed the rail system in several European countries, I agree that this is probably the strongest impact of an HSR. But I am skeptical that HSR was the sole reason behind these regions tieing up.

But, keep in mind in your example the city-pair is just over 200 km apart. That's more akin to Kingston to Toronto. Merely letting VIA run an express train at it's current maximum speed would achieve a travel time of roughly 1.5 hours making it possible for Kingston to become a bedroom community of Toronto. Achieving that hardly requires HSR. Simply improving conventional rail could achieve that.

Finally, a personal anecdote:

5. Air travel is a fucking pain in the ass that nobody enjoys.

Ever tried Porter?

 

[cacruden]

Having operated in the Toronto Terminal Area, I can tell you that, while it's crowded, it's nowhere close to the level of proximity alarms engaging on a regular basis....which brings to mind the question of what the heck was going on Toledo that the TCAS was going off as often as you say it was? That's pretty serious business.

Another significant question here is...what's so bad about the skies filling up? Competition for slots will actually improve the efficiency of the system by forcing airlines to use bigger aircraft. Air Canada has over two dozen departures a day from Toronto to Montreal alone, most of them on A319s and A320s sitting 120 and 140 pax respectively. Fewer slots would actually prompt AC to use larger aircraft as traffic increased for that city-pair.

Don't know, landed in Detroit, then took a short hop in a turbo-prop of some sort - with an open cockpint - to Toledo. The alarms were going off constantly, I remember thinking to myself - boy - that is useless if it is always going off.

 

[kEiThZ]

Don't know, landed in Detroit, then took a short hop in a turbo-prop of some sort - with an open cockpint - to Toledo. The alarms were going off constantly, I remember thinking to myself - boy - that is useless if it is always going off.

Are you aircrew? Were you sure that's the TCAS? There's a lot of things inside the cockpit that make noise. Usually, it's flashing lights...as in master caution that really get a pilot's attention not necessarily noise per se (unless it's the master caution).

 

[kEiThZ]

Does anybody have stats on the breakdown of these costs? I'd be interested in knowing how much were the costs to build the rail line in a separate corridor, or to simply add a rail or two to the current corridor, or the costs for just the train set. It would be interesting to get a breakdown.