News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

West Jet is overall cheaper then AC, I just booked a flight to visit my mom in Barbados during the holidays - 670 for WJ or 1700 for AC for the same time period. I dont get on how AC can justify there prices sometimes.

That's to Barbados.
Right now if you wanted to book a ticket to Montreal on January 7th (for example) you can get fares of $59 (AC), $59 (WJ) and $89 (Porter)

Porter's looks more expensive but it's because the fuel surcharge is included in the base price. So really all three are the same fare. Of course for long haul you're going to see some variances, especially since Air Canada doesn't cater to the carribean nearly as much as Westjet does. So you need to compare apples to apples.

I think the only issue that will determine whether train travel makes more sense is the cost of oil. However, i think it's smart to have the infrastructure in place before it becomes too expensive for airlines to operate these short routes (if you believe they can't be profitable once oil hits X dollars)

I'm having trouble reconciling the price to build this with the demand right now in comparison to the flight options we currently have available
 
If we go with Option 3, there's nothing that requires a transfer to get to Ottawa. France's TGVs all branch off of the main line, so that many small towns have some service.

Unless Harper is *really* stupid and decrees it has to be maglev or super-ICTS.
 
That's to Barbados.
Right now if you wanted to book a ticket to Montreal on January 7th (for example) you can get fares of $59 (AC), $59 (WJ) and $89 (Porter)

Porter's looks more expensive but it's because the fuel surcharge is included in the base price. So really all three are the same fare.

I don't recall either WestJet or AirCanada having fuel surcharges on my domestic flights in November.

Airport fees, landing taxes, navcan, security, etc. certainly, but not a fuel surcharge on recent domestic flights.
 
I think the only issue that will determine whether train travel makes more sense is the cost of oil. However, i think it's smart to have the infrastructure in place before it becomes too expensive for airlines to operate these short routes (if you believe they can't be profitable once oil hits X dollars)

I'm having trouble reconciling the price to build this with the demand right now in comparison to the flight options we currently have available

I'm still confident that a business case can be made for HSR. I remain confident that oil prices will climb at a rate higher than wage growth, raising the cost of both short haul air travel and road travel. I believe that security concerns will get worse, turning already unpleasant Pearson experiences into something resembling Schindler's List, Porter notwithstanding. Although firmly in the realm of public policy, a more market based approach to major roads would improve the business case for HSR, though I think i've gone on enough about that.

As to the initial price tag, I think it is a bit ridiculous. Chances are this would just end up like a ~600km Spadina Subway Extension, with questionable routings, grossly inflated project costs and just general incompetence all round. Given that it is being touted as a recession fighting measure (it isn't...) there will probably be political pressure to turn it into a jobs creation program. I can see it now, Bombardier being given a non-compete contract to build jet trains that have never been tested before in Thunderbay, a few random firms in Welland selected to build signaling equipment, paying local contractors to work at night so as to award overtime. Frankly, I think Ontario & (especially) Quebec trying to build a HSR line would be a failure of massive proportions. It's almost to the point where I think it would be unfair to the underlying technology to let them handle it. Taiwan's HSR was financed privately.

And that brings us to another wrinkle in the story; Quebec. I don't mean to rant, but the Quebec government has got to be one of the least cooperative governments on earth. Quebecois politics centers around demonizing Ontario, anglo-oppressors we are, subsidizing rural quebec for all it is worth and making a point of taking contrary positions to the federal government. Quebec will not deal with Ontario. It is a kind of social nervosis for them, being a 'nation within a nation,' discussions with a lowly province like Ontario is beneath them. We represent everything wrong with Canada; protestant, uncultured, 'americanized.' Linking Toronto and Montreal, to them, would be like linking Paris or Rome to East. St. Louis or Atlanta. That is why Quebecois like the idea of HSR between Boston-Montreal. They don't have to acknowledge Ontario. And why even bother spending on Montreal? The entire National Assembly is gerrymandered to subsidize rural Quebec. Limit food imports, subsidize hydro projects, build subsidized roads to subsidized hydro projects, build hospitals in the middle of nowhere and so forth. Rural Quebec would have nothing to gain from this. The reality is that the only reason Charest even supported the idea is because Stephen Harper didn't. If Stephen Harper did, Charest would surely claim that the deal is not beneficial (enough) to Quebec and demand more. He would probably just keep demanding until the project stopped even having the veneer of being about train building and just become blatant attempts to source as much of the project to Quebec firms. I bet a new hydro project would be proposed to power the thing!
 
I'm still confident that a business case can be made for HSR. I remain confident that oil prices will climb at a rate higher than wage growth, raising the cost of both short haul air travel and road travel.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think this has been the case historically. Also, our energy intensity has been steadily declining, compensating for increases in price. Given that we have plenty of room to improve here, we can more than keep up with oil price rises if we institute sound policy's to keep efficiency improvements going.

Also, it's exactly the phenomenon of efficient cars and planes, that are putting a dent into the HSR business case in Europe. There's not to many privately financed HSR in Europe any more. It's all government funded. There's a good reason for that. I am fairly sure if private industry could have built this by now, it would have done so. As it is, there's probably no profit to be made if capital costs are included. For HSR to be successful, that track is going to have utilized heavily to pay back the capital costs. Even if we move all the flights in the corridor currently (about $1 billion worth) to rail, at the estimated cost of $25 billion, initial construction costs, are still a major hurdle to overcome. I doubt any private financier would want to take on a project that had a guarantee of no return for at least 25 years. Hence, we are now going to ask government and taxpayers to take on that risk. And to show that there is profit to be had, we will simply ignore the capital costs. That's like sayings Sears can make a profit if they ignore the cost of building the store.

I don't mean to harp on this....but $25 billion is a hell of a lot of money. It's nearly 2% of Canada's GDP. And we are asking our government to spend it on a rail line that would move less passengers than some bus routes in any of the destination cities. If government is doing this, something will get sacrificed. What's the opportunity cost of $25 billion? Doesn't anybody want to know?

I believe that security concerns will get worse, turning already unpleasant Pearson experiences into something resembling Schindler's List, Porter notwithstanding.

Security procedures are improving. Did you fly immediately after 9/11? Also, there is new technology that is improving screening, making it faster and less invasive. Lastly, any HSR is sure to have almost commercial aviation type of security. I highly doubt the government would allow folks to board what would be a nice target, without some sort of screening.

Although firmly in the realm of public policy, a more market based approach to major roads would improve the business case for HSR, though I think i've gone on enough about that.

Yes! Arguably, this is where HSR makes sense. As an alternative to roads. Currently, rail can't beat a car in travel time. If it could, then rail would be far more of an alternative. That's what the target should be. Getting cars of the road, not taking down planes....which are already far more fuel efficient than most cars on the 401.
 
^Actually HSR affects air much more than highway travel - this is supported by both studies in Canada and real-world experience in Europe.

42 flights a day represents demand for quick travel. That does not mean it translates into demand for high speed rail per se.It does not mean that they need HSR to get there. It boils down to a simple question. Should the government spend 25 billion in subsidies to move the 4000-5000 or so passengers per day between Toronto and Montreal by rail instead of air. It's a valid question given that the aviation sector is paying its own way and then some.
The induced demand principle applies to rail just as much as it does to highways. When travel is made easier more people will travel. Since HSR is more convenient and easy than flying, ridership would be a lot higher than your numbers. Not to mention if you're talking about potential HSR ridership, you have to include flights to Ottawa, which brings the total number of daily flights to 83. Those 83 daily flights do translate to demand for high speed rail. Air traffic plummets whenever a new HSR line opens, to the point where some routes have been eliminated altogether. You can't fly from Paris to Brussels, for example. By Air Canada's own estimates in the 90s, 30% of HSR ridership would come from air travel, representing a market loss of at least 45%.

Comparisons to Europe are not necessarily on an even keel. Europe has far higher gas prices, which prompts drivers to leave their cars at home (more often) for long trips. And incidentally, even in Europe low fare airlines are putting up quite a fight against HSR, which has seen it's modal share drop in recent years despite heavy subsidies. Europe has also developed its local transit infrastructure quite well and done so before the implementation of HSR. If we are to follow their example, then local transit should be priority one, not HSR.
HSR in Europe makes substantial profits and in some cases pays for its own capital costs. The Montreal-Toronto portion of an HSR line is expected to pay for itself. HSR requires major government investment (just like highways) but it completely transforms how people travel for the better and has significant economic and environmental benefits.

Given that there's probably somewhere in the vicinity of 1 billion dollars (of private funds) worth of air travel in Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor, is it worthwhile to spend 25 billion worth of taxpayer's money to move less passengers than some TTC bus routes? If we are going to do this, then I'd like to see the business case and justification for this and some defence as to the opportunity cost of spending that much on HSR when several other transport priorities are pressing. 25 billion would be about half the price tag of MO2020. I for one, would not be willing to have governments give that up to build an HSR that benefits a few.
The business case has been made. Transit investment and high speed rail aren't mutually exclusive, they reinforce each other. An HSR line would make the Metrolinx plan more likely to happen, not less.
 
Good points Whoaccio. If the government ever decides that a public works project is necessary to get jobs into areas that need them during an upcoming recession it could provide a foundation for public support. Split three ways (feds, Ontario and Quebec) 8billion each over 15 or even 25 years really isn't that hard to swallow. The problem is whether it can be sustained through every new government. That's the issue we ran into with the 2011 subway plan and could easily derail this one over that span of time. The optimal time for such a project would have been in the 90s when the Liberals ran away with elections and could have used this as some sort of pork project as a "thank you" for all the votes Ontario and Quebec were giving the Grits.

Where are we getting the $25billion price from though?

Looking around at what other jurisdictions are doing it looks like a price of $15mill/km seems to be a rough estimation. We're pricing this route at double the cost. i think if we could somehow get this down to 20mill/km we're looking at only $12billion, which makes this thing a lot easier to sell.
 
Remember that the $25 billion figure is for the whole Windsor-Quebec corridor. The most profitable, and realistic, portion is Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, which is only half the distance and presumably half the cost. It's also the part that's expected to pay for itself.
 
Remember that the $25 billion figure is for the whole Windsor-Quebec corridor. The most profitable, and realistic, portion is Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, which is only half the distance and presumably half the cost. It's also the part that's expected to pay for itself.

Then why not allow private industry to build and run that portion?
 
Ha, convenient this article was posted in the Globe:

"White elephants for a new generation"
KONRAD YAKABUSKI
Globe and Mail Update

The Turcot interchange in southwest Montreal is a remnant from a more confident era, when concrete and cars equalled progress and Expo '67 epitomized the promise of Canada's then-premier metropolis.

Today, the 42-year-old monstrosity that rises as much as 30 metres above abandoned rail yards is a dilapidated eyesore whose advanced state of decomposition has thousands of risk-averse Montrealers taking the long way home simply to avoid driving on or under what remains a pivotal road link.

For years, Quebeckers bemoaned the decrepit state of their roads with a shrug of the shoulders. But the collapse of a suburban Montreal overpass two years ago, killing five, turned their resignation into indignation. A subsequent public inquiry showed it wasn't just their imagination: Chronic underinvestment in the province's transportation infrastructure had left Quebec with the most substandard roads and viaducts in Canada.

With the inquiry's damning report in hand, it didn't take long for Jean Charest's minority Liberal government to announce an infrastructure program to double annual spending to build new roads, overpasses, schools and hospitals and repair existing ones.

In all, the government last year promised $37-billion in direct infrastructure spending between 2008 and 2013 – including $1.5-billion on replacing the Turcot interchange – and a similar amount in capital spending by Hydro-Québec over the next decade.

Mr. Charest's first announcement of the current election campaign was to pledge an additional $4-billion in infrastructure spending by 2013, holding himself up as the saviour of the provincial economy in a time of crisis. Building all those roads and hydro dams, he vowed, will create 100,000 jobs over five years.

Rather than a plan to make Quebec recession-proof, the Liberal Leader's economic strategy is a sobering reminder of the limits of infrastructure spending as a short-term stimulus – though Stephen Harper promised more of the same in yesterday's Throne Speech.

By the Quebec Finance Ministry's own calculations, as laid out in last spring's budget, the ramped-up infrastructure program should contribute only 0.2 per cent to economic growth in 2008. When Mr. Charest's ministers talk up the stimulative impact of recent government actions, it's not infrastructure spending they should mention. It's tax cuts – and most of them are federal.

In this month's economic update, the Quebec government acknowledged that all recent federal and provincial stimulative measures would add only 0.4 per cent to growth in 2009.

If Mr. Charest was of the Paul Krugman school – and subscribed to the Nobel laureate's theory of “depression economics†– he'd be decupling, rather than simply doubling, annual infrastructure spending. But even if he could afford a tenfold increase, the Liberal Leader couldn't spend the money fast enough. By the time the shovels were in the ground, the “crisis†Mr. Charest says he needs a majority to solve will have passed. And all that overbuilding would stoke inflation, create a labour shortage, and leave another generation of Quebeckers with a collection of white elephants to regret.

Besides, Mr. Charest's economic strategy already underscores Quebec's continued overdependence on state-led investment. Though it accounts for about 20.5 per cent of Canada's economy, Quebec's share of private business investment has hovered between 15 and 18 per cent for more than two decades.

It would be lower still if the government didn't grease the wheels of every supposedly private investor – two recent examples being Rio Tinto Alcan and Pratt & Whitney – with public largesse. Thankfully, there's no longer an auto maker in the province to bail out.

Short on private investment, the government counts on Hydro-Québec to partly fill the gap. But the best hydro sites have been developed. The projects on the drawing board, representing an additional 4,500 megawatts by 2015, face vastly higher production costs.

The Liberals' much-trumpeted North Plan, aimed at boosting hydro and mining development, is so short on substance it's insulting. Mr. Charest this week promised another 3,500 MW worth of unspecified energy projects – between 2015 and 2035.

The North Plan also projects 4,000 mining jobs over 10 years, but commodity prices, not the government, will determine whether that happens. It won't soon. Breakwater Resources just closed its zinc-copper mine in the Abitibi region while Canadian Royalties just shelved plans for a $520-million nickel mine in Nunavik.

In short, the Liberals have an economic strategy based on roads, dams and mines. How post-industrial. Expo it ain't.
 
Then why not allow private industry to build and run that portion?

For the same reason private industry did not build up the air travel system in Canada, the train system in Canada, or the trucking/automobile system in Canada.

Most airports are still heavily subsidized in Canada today. They received billions in infrastructure and really didn't pay for it. Toronto's Pearson is the only Canadian airport to have replaced most of the gifted infrastructure (IMO, this should make their land rents lower but doesn't seem to).


It might be an interesting thought to see the Feds build the HSR and let Air Canada/Bombardier operate it with a fee paid back for land rent -- similar in arrangement to our airport infrastructure.
 
If we're talking about costs, I just came across this study (PDF).
Published by OECD and the International Transport Forum, page 10 of 38 says:
From the actual building costs (planning and land costs, and main stations excluded) of 45 HSR lines in service, or under construction, the average cost per km of a HSR line ranges from 9 to 40 million of euros with an average of 18. The upper values are associated to difficult terrain conditions and crossing of high density urban areas.

If that can be translated over to the Ontario-Quebec situation (reasonably flat terrain, the majority of the route not passing through major urban areas), it would be reasonable to expect the average cost of 18M Euros per km (C$29M) as the maximum and a low range cost of 9M Euros per km (C$14.5M). For a Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal route, approx. 600km, that would put the cost in a range of $8.7B-$17.4B.

Keep in mind this is for a fully dedicated HSR system, and not one that uses portions of conventional track, as many prominent HSR systems do. I also understand this is a European report, and Europe is different, but I wanted to inject this into the discussion.
 
Did this thread really begin in January?

I hear tell the study has not actually commenced yet. Anyone know? Perhaps seen a website with a progress report?
 
Keith, your reasoning taken to its logic conclusion suggests the government should shut down Via, not upgrade the Toronto-Montreal corridor as you seem to be suggesting.
 
For the same reason private industry did not build up the air travel system in Canada, the train system in Canada, or the trucking/automobile system in Canada.

But no mode of transport is more dependent on public subsidies than passenger rail in Canada. Not only that....There seems to be no hope of ever spinning off Via like Air Canada. And there is a difference with HSR. When governments build roads, airports, and rail, they design them so that anyone can operate on them. They are built to the lowest common denominator.....ie if your can can hit 100 you can get on the 401. If your plane has the right instrumentation, you can operate in controlled airspace. The government, however, does not build 200 kph lanes specifically for use by a single bus line that only serves Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and possibly, Kingston.

Most airports are still heavily subsidized in Canada today. They received billions in infrastructure and really didn't pay for it. Toronto's Pearson is the only Canadian airport to have replaced most of the gifted infrastructure (IMO, this should make their land rents lower but doesn't seem to).

Toronto's not the only airport upgrading its infrastructure. It's just the furthest along. Moreover, taken as a whole, the national airports system is a net revenue generator for all three levels of government.

http://www.cacairports.ca/english/news/airportrent.php

It might be an interesting thought to see the Feds build the HSR and let Air Canada/Bombardier operate it with a fee paid back for land rent -- similar in arrangement to our airport infrastructure.

I dunno if Air Canada would be able to run a rail line. Bombardier though is virtually guaranteed to win any competition for HSR train sets. The majority of the cost here though is probably not the train sets though, it's the cost of building the rail line.

Keith, your reasoning taken to its logic conclusion suggests the government should shut down Via, not upgrade the Toronto-Montreal corridor as you seem to be suggesting.

I think it's a valid question. Even though I use VIA regularly, I would have no problem if the federal government decided to scrap VIA and used the savings to reduce airport rents, making flying more affordable.

The only reason I advocate upgrading the current lines, is that this would arguably be the sweet spot of return on investment, getting to the point where VIA is self-sustaining without spending tens of billions of dollars.

Essentially, what is being asked for here...is for the government to heavily subsidize every single passenger on this new HSR to a degree that has never been done with any other mode of transport before. Indeed the projected 25 billion probably costs more than the total costs to build the 401 and all the airports at the destination cities. It's not a bad thing necessarily to spend that much, but I'd like to see more discussion on the cost-benefit analysis. All I have seen so far are studies that argue for the social benefits of HSR. That's hardly re-assuring reasoning to undertake this level of spending. At very minimum, I'd like to see the justification for extending to Windsor and Quebec City.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top