Jet fuel costs have nearly doubled since the US and Israel attacked Iran in February. This is obviously straining the overall economics of air travel, but the most impacted segment is the one that has always been tenuous: short-haul flights.
As I understand it, airlines generally prefer flights that are at least 2 hours long. Takeoff and landing consume the most fuel, and add a lot of wear and tear on a plane's equipment, so you want a long enough flight to amortize these costs. This is why for the 10 years spanning 2016 to 2026, US flights spanning less than 250 miles declined by 11% — the largest drop of any route length.
Now, in some cases, these short-haul flights are simply necessary loss leaders. For example, the flight from Milwaukee to Chicago is comically short. It's only about 70 miles, translating into an actual cruising time of around 20 minutes. But it's an important route for connecting passengers and the overall hub-and-spoke airline model.
This also makes it slightly harder for rail to effectively compete, because you need to solve for two clear passenger demands (again, assuming they're connecting): (1) people leaving Milwaukee will want to check their bags at the point of departure and (2) they don't want to arrive downtown, they want to arrive at the airport for their connecting flight.
That said, both of these wants are solvable. Hong Kong, for instance, allows in-town check-in where passengers drop their bags downtown before boarding the airport train. This is particularly convenient if you have to check out of your hotel and need to rid yourself of your luggage until you arrive at your final destination.
Very cool, so what's my point?
I mention all this because if short-haul flights are the flight segment that airlines don't love to operate, then it only strengthens the opportunity for high-speed rail to fill this gap in the market and become a seamless component of overall global mobility.
Here in Canada, the obvious opportunity is the Toronto-Montreal corridor. This is arguably the single best opportunity in North America when you consider its geography, construction viability (lots of undeveloped land to lay new track), and ability to replace short-haul flights. The broader Windsor-Quebec City corridor is also, as we know, the densest part of Canada with roughly 50% of our entire population.
But the overall opportunity is twofold: it will service origin-destination travel and it will connect Toronto and Montreal as global airport hubs. In fact, this is one of the stated reasons for why Air Canada joined the high-speed Alto project as a core consortium partner:
Connections with other modes of transport, such as rail or bus, are part of the solutions the company is already developing to offer the most relevant mobility option, responding in a sustainable way to the specific needs of each of its customers. In the longer term, the contribution of its expertise to the Cadence team will enable the airline to contribute to the harmonious integration of a future intercity rail network with existing airport hubs in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, for the benefit of all travellers.
Here's a specific example. Montreal largely serves as Canada's direct gateway to France's secondary cities, Francophone Africa, and the Mediterranean. So if you live in Toronto and want to fly to Marseille or Algiers or Mallorca, you are going to connect in Montreal (or connect across the Atlantic somewhere in Europe).
The multi-modal train option would include an in-town baggage check at Union Station in Toronto, a 3-hour train ride to Montreal, a seamless rail connection from Gare Centrale to YUL (with the REM airport train set to open in 2027), and then your flight to Europe or Africa.
The overall travel time should be comparable, except in the high-speed rail option you'd have more uninterrupted time to work, watch a movie, or sleep. And now that Air Canada gets to rid itself of its less profitable (or unprofitable?) short-haul flights, it should have the margin to aggressively market these tickets.
If this customer experience is designed properly — with one booking, competitive fares, clean transfers, and convenient baggage handling — it will quickly dominate the market. We know this because it's already working in Europe.
Toronto Pearson Airport has just announced a $3 billion investment called LIFT, which stands for Long-term Investment in Facilities and Terminals. (This feels like a "how do we make this acronym work" kind of name.) The investment includes an upgraded baggage system, an expansion of the airfield to 2.2 million square metres, and a bunch of new tech.
Following this, the plan is to refresh Terminals 1 and 3, and look for opportunities to create some net-new terminal space. And when it's all said and done, the program is expected to grow the airport's capacity to about 65 million passengers per year by the early 2030s.
My first reaction when I read the announcement was, "Great, let's make Pearson better." My second reaction was, "Why only 65 million passengers? Why not 100 million or even 125 million?" (Side note: I love airports and I think it would be a lot of fun to design and/or work on one.)
For those of you who are curious, here are the top 10 busiest airports in the world by annual passenger volume (according to Gemini):
My follow-up question to Gemini was my second reaction: Why not target 100 million passengers? The response I got was, "Yeah, well, the airport is physically constrained and simply doesn't have the room for this kind of volume." So then I asked it to give me the land area in both acres and square kilometres for the same list of airports:
The obvious question: If Tokyo and London can achieve close to 100 million passengers on less than 4,000 acres, why can't Toronto? Gemini then said, "Okay, yeah, I guess it might be possible," but then gave a number of reasons why it's currently more challenging; everything from the layout of the runways to the high percentage of origin & destination travel over connecting flights.
I frankly don't know enough about the operations of international airports to comment intelligently, but at the end of the day, the LIFT program is fundamentally about densifying the existing airport lands and unlocking additional capacity. And that's what it will take to eventually get to 125 million!
The March issue of Monocle just dropped, debuting a new format called the Monocle 100. It's a list of the people, places, and things worth knowing about. And in the middle of it is something called the Monocle Property Survey, which was deliberately timed to coincide with MIPIM, the massive real estate conference that takes place every March in Cannes.
As a quick aside, our team contemplated going to MIPIM this year in search of both friends and money, but then we thought to ourselves: Why bother going to the South of France when we have Toronto in the middle of March to enjoy?
The first thing the Property Survey does is give a rare nod to developers: "While architects often nab all the credit for building our cities, streets and homes, it's actually developers who should get much of the kudos (and blame, in some instances). Because it's usually developers — small, large, private, state-funded — that must secure land, raise capital and take risks." It almost feels weird hearing somebody say something positive about our kind.
But even better, the survey includes a full page on our unique creative residency program at Parkview Mountain House (Park City, Utah):
A big thanks to the Monocle team for the feature. If you're in Toronto and would like to pickup a copy of this month's issue, visit their shop in Little Italy at 776 College Street. And if you'd like to learn more about PMH, including our creative residency program, visit pmhpc.com.