PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Should there be a High Speed Rail link from Calgary to Edmonton?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11

shogged
Nov 29, 2007, 6:25 AM
what is meant by air rights?

well what i thought it to mean was that you can build above land, but not directly on it

I have no idea how this relates to rail lines though, like maybe elevated lines?

evolv
Nov 29, 2007, 8:41 AM
maybe they are thinking maglev. Which needs ground clearance. That would probably piss off a few on this form

jeremy_haak
Nov 29, 2007, 12:27 PM
Air rights typically refer to the space above land. They can be sold to be built within. The prime example would be in New York where the railroads sold the air rights within Manhattan and developers built above them.

MichaelS
Nov 29, 2007, 8:54 PM
So I was just at a lunch presentation by the President of the Van Horne Institute on their preliminary study for the HSR. They didn't have a station at the Edmonton International Airport. There was a suburban station, but it was planned for around Whitemud Drive area.

rapid_business
Nov 29, 2007, 9:18 PM
That would be a nail in the coffin for YEG. Absolutely ridiculous!

S_B_Russell
Nov 29, 2007, 9:29 PM
^What crap. What a great way to ensure people will ride HSR - shut down YEG. Screw that idea!

240glt
Nov 29, 2007, 9:43 PM
They didn't have a station at the Edmonton International Airport. There was a suburban station, but it was planned for around Whitemud Drive area.

Yup, screw that. I hope this project never sees the light of day.

newfangled
Nov 29, 2007, 10:02 PM
Yup, screw that. I hope this project never sees the light of day.

Surely the provincial government of Alberta would put a multi-billion dollar project like this (not to mention the multi-howevermany dollar funnel that's pointed straight at Rod Love and Co.) to the people for a decision? No?

:(

240glt
Nov 29, 2007, 10:04 PM
With this government who knows what they'll do.

Beltliner
Nov 29, 2007, 10:08 PM
The question being lost amidst the cacophonous screams of agony is why a proper TGV system would actually need suburban or airport stations, or for that matter pit stops in Sylvan Lake and spur lines to Palookaville, in the first instance. If the whole point of the exercise is to get downtown to downtown more quickly than by driving or by flying, surely the thought has occurred to someone that adding a cavalcade of stops in between would work against this principle, oi wot? ;)

newfangled
Nov 29, 2007, 10:14 PM
The question being lost amidst the cacophonous screams of agony is why a proper TGV system would actually need suburban or airport stations, or for that matter pit stops in Sylvan Lake and spur lines to Palookaville, in the first instance. If the whole point of the exercise is to get downtown to downtown more quickly than by driving or by flying, surely the thought has occurred to someone that adding a cavalcade of stops in between would work against this principle, oi wot? ;)

That's about #83 on my list of "Why this doesn't make any sense."

It's certainly an important point, but it's less worrisome than the fact that they're funding the train with magic beans and powering it with unicorns.

Beltliner
Nov 29, 2007, 10:23 PM
It's certainly an important point, but it's less worrisome than the fact that they're funding the train with magic beans and powering it with unicorns.

Really? I thought they knew that a Stormtroopers-versus-Redshirts (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Stormtroopers_vs._Red_Shirts) Device was found in completely unscientific studies to be 13.37 percent more efficient than unicorns in powering fantasy TGV systems! :haha:

wild wild west
Nov 29, 2007, 10:36 PM
The question being lost amidst the cacophonous screams of agony is why a proper TGV system would actually need suburban or airport stations, or for that matter pit stops in Sylvan Lake and spur lines to Palookaville, in the first instance. If the whole point of the exercise is to get downtown to downtown more quickly than by driving or by flying, surely the thought has occurred to someone that adding a cavalcade of stops in between would work against this principle, oi wot? ;)

Actually, you could have both. For example, Japan's Shinkansen (bullet train) line includes "super-express" trains that only stop in the biggest cities, as well as others that stop at some or all stations. Obviously you can get between Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya very quickly in a super-express, whereas the more local train might tack on a half-hour to the journey. So you could have, for example, a train that stops only in Calgary and Edmonton, one that also stops in Red Deer, and one that also stops in other towns along the way as well as at the suburban stations.

newfangled
Nov 29, 2007, 10:46 PM
Actually, you could have both. For example, Japan's Shinkansen (bullet train) line includes "super-express" trains that only stop in the biggest cities, as well as others that stop at some or all stations. Obviously you can get between Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya very quickly in a super-express, whereas the more local train might tack on a half-hour to the journey. So you could have, for example, a train that stops only in Calgary and Edmonton, one that also stops in Red Deer, and one that also stops in other towns along the way as well as at the suburban stations.

If this were Japan, Edmonton and Calgary would be small suburban stations.

I assume that they're promising "an HSR station on every block, in every small town, day or night, for free" because HSR may actually be put to a vote at some point. And you're certainly not going to win that vote based on the fact that the only people it benefits are Calgary businessmen. For this to work in Alberta it needs to soak up that rural support somehow.

murman
Nov 29, 2007, 10:47 PM
That's about #83 on my list of "Why this doesn't make any sense."

It's certainly an important point, but it's less worrisome than the fact that they're funding the train with magic beans and powering it with unicorns.

What's the flash-point of a unicorn?

feepa
Nov 29, 2007, 10:47 PM
They are funding the train by selling the useless papers to recyclers that have come from the million reports on HSR between Edm - Cal

newfangled
Nov 29, 2007, 10:52 PM
What's the flash-point of a unicorn?

Be realistic. The unicorns would pull the train - no combustion required.

As an alternative they could maybe use the unbearably-cute-puppy furnance, but that isn't commercialized yet and I can't seem them using something so unproven.

noodlenoodle
Nov 29, 2007, 10:56 PM
Who's going to help me with my proposal for a popsicle stick skyscraper or a 50 foot magnifying glass? What about an escalator to nowhere?

I just want to know why there's so much effort into pursuing an answer to a question nobody's ever asked. An airport deserving of a $1 billion expansion is not only not worth putting a station in, but they're actively diverting around it!

Evidently the train isn't supposed to run on unicorns or electricity or recycled paper. It'll run on the crushed dreams of our future.

Edmonchuck
Nov 29, 2007, 11:33 PM
Silly you...the government doesn't need a mandate to move forward on controversial multi-billion dollar projects. What are you thinking?

Remember...

An ROW, actually this is a TUC, can be used for many many things..

Like pipelines

transmission towers

roads

trains

or be sold off as surplus LAND....and they make a buck.

it isn't until they cover it with something that is has a direct "purpose".

wild wild west
Nov 30, 2007, 12:53 AM
If this were Japan, Edmonton and Calgary would be small suburban stations.


True, but going under the premise that we may get HSR anyways, I would assume that there would be people wanting coverage for the small towns, and others wanting a direct connection to the big cities - so this is a way that both could be accommodated.

Boris2k7
Nov 30, 2007, 1:16 AM
Remember...

An ROW, actually this is a TUC, can be used for many many things..

Like pipelines

transmission towers

roads

trains

or be sold off as surplus LAND....and they make a buck.

it isn't until they cover it with something that is has a direct "purpose".

Can we order an "all of the above?" :P

And I'm pretty sure that if we employ the cat-toast engine, we can turn this sucker into a maglev.

The Geographer
Nov 30, 2007, 3:55 PM
Actually, you could have both. For example, Japan's Shinkansen (bullet train) line includes "super-express" trains that only stop in the biggest cities, as well as others that stop at some or all stations. Obviously you can get between Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya very quickly in a super-express, whereas the more local train might tack on a half-hour to the journey. So you could have, for example, a train that stops only in Calgary and Edmonton, one that also stops in Red Deer, and one that also stops in other towns along the way as well as at the suburban stations.

I don't know that much about trains, but wouldn't that screw up the headways if they run on the same line?

Xelebes
Nov 30, 2007, 4:12 PM
is there actually a need for it? Either than it would be cool? I said yes, if its fully private

I finally voted and my vote was just like yours.

mersar
Nov 30, 2007, 4:15 PM
I don't know that much about trains, but wouldn't that screw up the headways if they run on the same line?

Depends on the frequency. It would be possible (at least until some minimum point that would be determined by factors such as the exact location of any stations along the route) that you could create a schedule so that the express train would pass the other train(s) while they were in one of the stations (this does also require that the stations exist as sidings from the main line)

Policy Wonk
Dec 2, 2007, 5:49 AM
that is how it has been done since the construction of the Stockton and Darlington Railway in 1825 - although it was only intended to be temporary until they twined the tracks.

Corndogger
Dec 24, 2007, 3:48 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TRACKING_AMTRAK?SITE=SCCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

If Amtrak can't achieve profitability after 36 years in existence what makes people think HSR in sparsely populated AB ever will? We have enough other things to pay for without needing to bail out a private company just because a small percentage of the population feels this will make us look good.

shogged
Dec 24, 2007, 5:03 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TRACKING_AMTRAK?SITE=SCCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

If Amtrak can't achieve profitability after 36 years in existence what makes people think HSR in sparsely populated AB ever will? We have enough other things to pay for without needing to bail out a private company just because a small percentage of the population feels this will make us look good.

we've discussed this before. High speed rail is not equal to amtrak commuter rail, its a completely different product. If amtrak had its own right of way and trains that went > 200km/h in somewhere like the east coast, they would actually pull people from the airplanes and automobiles. Instead, they have row's that they share with freight service (aka occasional major delays) and trains that rarely pass 100km/h. If a train takes longer than a car, how is that reason to leave the comfort of your automobile, or the speed of an airplane? This is why there are literally hundreds of 30 minute flights all over the east coast every day, and each one of those is another reason not to use amtrak.

The reason why amtrak isn't profitable is because its a shitty product.

Policy Wonk
Dec 24, 2007, 6:52 AM
Amtrak isn't profitable because it is opperating redundant routes that have not been viable since the 1950's at the cost of routes that are actually profitable. These routes incinerate money, they tie up rolling stock and personnel that is needed elsewhere for a week at a time and don’t make a dime. Alot of the same issues apply to VIA Rail, who is still opperating as though it was the 1950's.

Alberta on the other hand just doesn't need high speed rail.

Corndogger
Dec 24, 2007, 6:52 AM
we've discussed this before. High speed rail is not equal to amtrak commuter rail, its a completely different product. If amtrak had its own right of way and trains that went > 200km/h in somewhere like the east coast, they would actually pull people from the airplanes and automobiles. Instead, they have row's that they share with freight service (aka occasional major delays) and trains that rarely pass 100km/h. If a train takes longer than a car, how is that reason to leave the comfort of your automobile, or the speed of an airplane? This is why there are literally hundreds of 30 minute flights all over the east coast every day, and each one of those is another reason not to use amtrak.

The reason why amtrak isn't profitable is because its a shitty product.

Yes, it's been discussed but people keep making excuses to justify spending $10 billion in a market with 2.5 million people. Amtrak might have problems but they are competing against some of the most congested freeways and airports in the country. The on-time record for airlines the last few years in the US, especially at larger airports has been pathetic. I highly doubt those 30 minute flights take 30 minutes and if you add in time getting to the airport, etc. how long do they take? The Calgary-Edmonton corridor has none of those problems so what would make people take HSR here?

Policy Wonk
Dec 24, 2007, 7:13 AM
for a change of pace, here is the Simpsons Monorail song in Spanish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Wl6pVIoYk

Bassic Lab
Dec 24, 2007, 8:38 AM
Yes, it's been discussed but people keep making excuses to justify spending $10 billion in a market with 2.5 million people. Amtrak might have problems but they are competing against some of the most congested freeways and airports in the country. The on-time record for airlines the last few years in the US, especially at larger airports has been pathetic. I highly doubt those 30 minute flights take 30 minutes and if you add in time getting to the airport, etc. how long do they take? The Calgary-Edmonton corridor has none of those problems so what would make people take HSR here?

No one here is advocating that such a line be built today (well, almost no one, and the odd one who does is typically not from the province and aware of the issues), only that preparations be made so that it can easily be accommodated in the future. By 2020 we'll be in the neighbourhood of 3.5, 2025 at the latest. When we start approaching a certain threshold it becomes more feasible. The alternative would be massive highway and airport construction, which begins to get costly at a point, where as maximum capacity on an HSR line would be signifigantly higher. After the initial upfront costs related to construction of the line itself further gains would only involve the minimal costs of additional rolling stock. So at some point it would make sense.

You're exagerating the costs of the line as well. It would not be any where near ten billion, half of that would be a high figure.

It would never be profitable, but that is not the point. Infrastructure is never profitable, roads and airports do not make money, the provide for the opportunity to exist to make money doing other things.

Corndogger
Dec 24, 2007, 9:17 AM
No one here is advocating that such a line be built today (well, almost no one, and the odd one who does is typically not from the province and aware of the issues), only that preparations be made so that it can easily be accommodated in the future. By 2020 we'll be in the neighbourhood of 3.5, 2025 at the latest. When we start approaching a certain threshold it becomes more feasible. The alternative would be massive highway and airport construction, which begins to get costly at a point, where as maximum capacity on an HSR line would be signifigantly higher. After the initial upfront costs related to construction of the line itself further gains would only involve the minimal costs of additional rolling stock. So at some point it would make sense.

You're exagerating the costs of the line as well. It would not be any where near ten billion, half of that would be a high figure.

It would never be profitable, but that is not the point. Infrastructure is never profitable, roads and airports do not make money, the provide for the opportunity to exist to make money doing other things.

Actually if you read the comments in this thread and the poll results a lot of people seem to be in favor of this idea. The poll results would seem to indicate that there must be a significant number from AB based on the people who post here.

I don't think I'm exaggerating the costs at all. The estimates do go much lower than $10 billion but you are getting very comprised systems and I believe at the low end the trains are diesel. I've seen estimates even higher than $10 billion. Even if we had 3.5 million people in the corridor that is a drop in the bucket compared to the 60+ million in the Washington-Boston corridor. FL, TX and CA have all looked into HSR and they all have much larger populations than we do. If they can't justify the cost I don't see how we can.

As for roads and airports not being profitable that is not true even if you don't include all of the economic benefits they bring to a region. There are toll roads that make a profit and many airports make a profit. Maybe when they were government run they didn't but some do under airport authorities. The airport in Calgary makes a profit despite the feds forcing us to pay outrageous rent amounts. Since I know you won't believe me I'll post a link to their latest results. Given the results have been audited there should be no disputing the figures.

http://www.calgaryairport.com/fts/getfile.cfm?FID=8544

Policy Wonk
Dec 24, 2007, 9:41 AM
It would never be profitable, but that is not the point. Infrastructure is never profitable, roads and airports do not make money, the provide for the opportunity to exist to make money doing other things.

The question then becomes what is the most economical way to facilitate rapid transportation between Calgary and Edmonton, should it be established that the requirement even exists.

The most economical way would be lifting the restrictions on the old Edmonton airport and establishing bus or lrt connections between the airports and city cores and institutional areas.

The costs associated with a new terminal at the Muni and those urban transit links would be in the millions and would have lower costs for the passengers as multiple airlines would compete on the route - and not just the opperator of the train.

feepa
Dec 24, 2007, 4:19 PM
The most economical way would be lifting the restrictions on the old Edmonton airport and establishing bus or lrt connections between the airports and city cores and institutional areas.

The costs associated with a new terminal at the Muni and those urban transit links would be in the millions and would have lower costs for the passengers as multiple airlines would compete on the route - and not just the opperator of the train.
Fuck that noise. Close the muni permanently. Now. There is absolutely no point to keeping that airport open. YEG serves this city well, and is much more accessible then the muni.

Its now cheaper to bring LRT to YEG. The ROW is there from Century Park to the edge of the built up area, and the few km of farm field that remains between would be cheap to build on.

Close... The.... Muni... .Now... and lets never talk about the muni again. Thanks.

City of Edmonton, excluding CAANA

rapid_business
Dec 24, 2007, 5:32 PM
Amtrak isn't profitable because it is opperating redundant routes that have not been viable since the 1950's at the cost of routes that are actually profitable. These routes incinerate money, they tie up rolling stock and personnel that is needed elsewhere for a week at a time and don’t make a dime. Alot of the same issues apply to VIA Rail, who is still opperating as though it was the 1950's.

This is true across the country, but VIA does well in ON. They could do a hell of a lot better with a system revamp a la 2007, but that's not likely to happen for some time.

kcantor
Dec 24, 2007, 5:34 PM
we've discussed this before. High speed rail is not equal to amtrak commuter rail, its a completely different product. If amtrak had its own right of way and trains that went > 200km/h in somewhere like the east coast, they would actually pull people from the airplanes and automobiles. Instead, they have row's that they share with freight service (aka occasional major delays) and trains that rarely pass 100km/h. If a train takes longer than a car, how is that reason to leave the comfort of your automobile, or the speed of an airplane? This is why there are literally hundreds of 30 minute flights all over the east coast every day, and each one of those is another reason not to use amtrak.

The reason why amtrak isn't profitable is because its a shitty product.
if, if, if and if... although "if" pigs could fly we wouldn't need hsr either (although there might be a different set of problems and excuses as to why things still don't work the way the should "if only they worked the way we want them to...").

tuffyy
Dec 24, 2007, 6:53 PM
Wow,I guess we really still need to talk about something that will never happen...It wont, not for a long time if ever.

Policy Wonk
Dec 24, 2007, 9:09 PM
Fuck that noise. Close the muni permanently. Now. There is absolutely no point to keeping that airport open. YEG serves this city well, and is much more accessible then the muni.

Because Leduc International Airport would be so effective in enabling rapid travel to downtown Edmonton...

kcantor
Dec 24, 2007, 9:19 PM
Because Leduc International Airport would be so effective in enabling rapid travel to downtown Edmonton...
which is probably a pretty good argument for lrt to the airport from downtown (for calgary as well as for edmonton and which i readily support) not high speed rail between calgary and edmonton which is this thread's topic.

feepa
Dec 24, 2007, 9:26 PM
Because Leduc International Airport would be so effective in enabling rapid travel to downtown Edmonton...
because it takes what? 10 more minutes to get to YYC from downtown Calgary then YEG -> downtown Edmonton?

Policy Wonk
Dec 24, 2007, 9:39 PM
This is true across the country, but VIA does well in ON. They could do a hell of a lot better with a system revamp a la 2007, but that's not likely to happen for some time.

What VIA Rail needs to do is scrap their entire fleet of scrap metal and retrench themselves along the Quebec-Windsor corridor with a small fleet of modern equipment and work from there.

The present conservative government has now given VIA Rail more funding to refurb the same scrap metal fleet yet again!

The GE Genesis P42DC locomotives are the only equipment in the VIA inventory that aren't scrap metal. The Alstom cars aren't very old but were a bad purchase - very much like the used British submarines that were abandoned to the scrap yard after only a few years only to be bought by Ottawa who never saw a cheap lemon they didn't go weak in the knees for. They were really cheap, VIA paid less than 20% of their original price - but they got them cheap because they were garbage.

Edmonchuck
Dec 26, 2007, 6:11 PM
The question then becomes what is the most economical way to facilitate rapid transportation between Calgary and Edmonton, should it be established that the requirement even exists.

The most economical way would be lifting the restrictions on the old Edmonton airport and establishing bus or lrt connections between the airports and city cores and institutional areas.

The costs associated with a new terminal at the Muni and those urban transit links would be in the millions and would have lower costs for the passengers as multiple airlines would compete on the route - and not just the opperator of the train.

are

you

freaking

KIDDING

me??

A new terminal? Try extending the freaking runways first. Oh, and making them have the weight capacity to handle something other than a fruit fly would be nice too.

Ok, instant anger aside, this is not going to happen. I'd rather take the $500 million it would take to redo a terminal and improve airside facilities to 2007 levels and place them towards LRT to YEG. From the last station to the terminal it is 4.5 miles. Problem solved.

Policy Wonk
Dec 27, 2007, 1:41 AM
No I am not too serious, it is just a marginally better alternative than the stupid train.

However regional service should have been allowed to continue at the Muni as long as carriers wished to provide it.

feepa
Dec 27, 2007, 1:59 AM
However regional service should have been allowed to continue at the Muni as long as carriers wished to provide it.

:koko: Not at the expense of downtown and others affected by the muni.

Why we need 2 airports in this city is beyond me. The Muni lands offer much more potential then keeping the thing open to serve the VERY few that actually use it.

Distance from YEG to Downtown is still alot shorter then many comparable airports in other cities.

The only people fighting to keep the muni open are those that have no interest in the well being of this city, and just want to get in and get out as quick as possible (though, getting to YEG from 90% of the city is now faster than going to the muni, thanks to the Anthony Henday), and those with business interests that serve the muni (such as the odd hotel along kingsway)

Policy Wonk
Dec 27, 2007, 5:02 AM
The costs of rehabilitating a site that has been an active airport for going on 80 years are enough reason to leave the airport open.
West Edmonton Mall is more of a blight on Edmonton than the Muni is.

Although I have to laugh at somebody with "Gateway To The North" in his signature being anti-Muni.

feepa
Dec 27, 2007, 5:10 AM
Although I have to laugh at somebody with "Gateway To The North" in his signature being anti-Muni.
I fail to see the humour on how to location of 25 km between airports changes Edmonton's unofficial title as Gateway to the North. :frog:

MalcolmTucker
Dec 27, 2007, 5:37 AM
are

you

freaking

KIDDING

me??

A new terminal? Try extending the freaking runways first. Oh, and making them have the weight capacity to handle something other than a fruit fly would be nice too.

Ok, instant anger aside, this is not going to happen. I'd rather take the $500 million it would take to redo a terminal and improve airside facilities to 2007 levels and place them towards LRT to YEG. From the last station to the terminal it is 4.5 miles. Problem solved.

From Century Park to the YEG Terminal is at best just inside 20 km. A pretty penny for that much line, even if it is over farmland. If you want to maintain the same headway all the way out to the airport, the main cost is not the land, the tracks. It is the train sets.

The main arguments to close the muni is not from the transportation side, it is from the aesthetic, noise, and land use side.

The current situation however is untenable to both sides. The urbanists who want to make a transit oriented village there, and want the height restrictions on downtown gone (not that it would help towers get built).

The other people argue if your going to have all the negatives of the airport, why not at least use it.

Both sides have valid arguments. However, when there isn't any lack of areas in downtown E-town or along the LRT that would be good as urban villages and there is a current renewal plan going in the east end of downtown would the market put anything else on the muni land than industrial that can leverage the good rail and road connections from there?

The city should either decide one direction or the other. With the NLRT heading up to the muni there should be a plebiscite in the next election on the issue.

MalcolmTucker
Dec 27, 2007, 5:39 AM
I fail to see the humour on how to location of 25 km between airports changes Edmonton's unofficial title as Gateway to the North. :frog:

Edmonton's municipal airport is the "gateway to the North" as many many bush pilots flew from there to up north. Therefor: gateway.

Learn some history, it might help you in the future.

MalcolmTucker
Dec 27, 2007, 5:46 AM
Distance from YEG to Downtown is still alot shorter then many comparable airports in other cities.


The problem from YEG to downtown isn't distance, it is that for people from outside Edmonton, it is confusing. Never mind the fact the the central river crossings are often bogged down in traffic. The distance from YEG to downtown Edmonton SEEMS much longer because the city is not continuous like in many cities with there similarly distance airports.

Twinning the Waterdale Bridge with better access to Gateway and Calgary Trail would be a good start.

But back to High Speed Rail, Edmontonians: from potential stops at YEG, Henday, Whitemud and Grandin which two get the nod?

feepa
Dec 27, 2007, 2:59 PM
From Century Park to the YEG Terminal is at best just inside 20 km. A pretty penny for that much line, even if it is over farmland. If you want to maintain the same headway all the way out to the airport, the main cost is not the land, the tracks. It is the train sets.

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/497/23yeglz8.jpg

20Km...or more like 7.5 to 23 ave... 4.5 to the edge of the current built up area of edmonton

might want to review the next phase of SLRT in Edmonton thats being planned now too...

South Planning Study - Extension (http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_288_222_0_43/http%3B/CMSServer/COEWeb/roads+and+traffic/lrt+projects/South+Planning+Study+-+Extension.htm)


The main arguments to close the muni is not from the transportation side, it is from the aesthetic, noise, and land use side.


sure ok I can agree with this. Though, it is from a transportation side as well


The current situation however is untenable to both sides. The urbanists who want to make a transit oriented village there, and want the height restrictions on downtown gone (not that it would help towers get built).


it wouldn't?


The other people argue if your going to have all the negatives of the airport, why not at least use it.

Both sides have valid arguments. However, when there isn't any lack of areas in downtown E-town or along the LRT that would be good as urban villages and there is a current renewal plan going in the east end of downtown would the market put anything else on the muni land than industrial that can leverage the good rail and road connections from there?

The city should either decide one direction or the other. With the NLRT heading up to the muni there should be a plebiscite in the next election on the issue.

The city did decide, it just didn't act upon it. Close the thing now

feepa
Dec 27, 2007, 3:01 PM
Edmonton's municipal airport is the "gateway to the North" as many many bush pilots flew from there to up north. Therefor: gateway.

Learn some history, it might help you in the future.

History lesson not needed, I know full well the history behind the muni airport, and the city I reside in. Times have changed. Edmonton's airport is now the International, and Edmonton still remains the Gateway to the North

MalcolmTucker
Dec 27, 2007, 3:59 PM
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/497/23yeglz8.jpg

20Km...or more like 7.5 to 23 ave... 4.5 to the edge of the current built up area of edmonton

might want to review the next phase of SLRT in Edmonton thats being planned now too...

South Planning Study - Extension (http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_288_222_0_43/http%3B/CMSServer/COEWeb/roads+and+traffic/lrt+projects/South+Planning+Study+-+Extension.htm)


http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/475/picture1ws4.th.png (http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1ws4.png)
Google says 18.24 km, of course it doesn't follow the exact recommended alignment, that would be LONGER.

Optimal distances to theoretical future stations don't cut it, this is the real world.

sure ok I can agree with this. Though, it is from a transportation side as well

There are good transportation cases for keeping the Muni open, such as the plan NLRT being really close, and that if you keep it open you may be able to justify not building High Speed Rail to the public, and avoid spending at least $5 billion that could be better spent on LRT.


it wouldn't?
Edmonton just had its first tower of any sort in close to two decades. If there isn't demand, a height ceiling doesn't count for squat. Look at Eau Claire in Calgary, an entire fleet of condo towers are being built there despite being a shadowing requirement that artificially limits building height. the Aviation limit doesn't stop towers, it just makes them shorter.

If the demand is there they will be built, and the market has said there is not the demand.

The city did decide, it just didn't act upon it. Close the thing now

The people decided that they didn't want to close the muni completely (first plebiscite), then decided later to close it to scheduled traffic (second plebiscite).

The city decided to not act on closing the muni. Not acting is still a decision.

High Speed Rail upon completion would be a great excuse (but not really a great reason) to use with the public to completely close the muni. I wonder how long the Grand Prix has the right to use the runways for?

kcantor
Dec 27, 2007, 5:22 PM
... the Aviation limit doesn't stop towers, it just makes them shorter.
...

??????????????????

canucklehead2
Dec 27, 2007, 7:53 PM
Do you think we could add another poll to this thread discussing technology and alignment?

Personally, I think we should stick with the existing CP ROW and move forward with either an electric HST or a Jetrain...

Regardless, I'm getting rather pissy waiting for this long talked about project to get off the ground... "Suh... I demand satisfaction!"

Coldrsx
Dec 27, 2007, 7:59 PM
this project is so wrong in so many ways...

kcantor
Dec 27, 2007, 8:41 PM
Do you think we could add another poll to this thread discussing technology and alignment?

Personally, I think we should stick with the existing CP ROW and move forward with either an electric HST or a Jetrain...

Regardless, I'm getting rather pissy waiting for this long talked about project to get off the ground... "Suh... I demand satisfaction!"
you're bladder will be much better off simply visiting the washroom on a regualr basis than waiting for this one to ever be more than long talked about (and with good reason) regardless of how much blustering support you gather from foghorn leghorn. :)

Corndogger
Dec 27, 2007, 9:30 PM
??????????????????

What was said makes perfect sense. Towers can still be built but there will be a height restriction on them.

feepa
Dec 27, 2007, 9:40 PM
What was said makes perfect sense. Towers can still be built but there will be a height restriction on them.


So your telling me there's nothing taller then 17-19 floors between 107st and 112 st because of other reasons? and on the other side of that specific restriction, theres taller buildings? Edmonton's skyline is clearly shaped by it, to say it isn't is absurb.

Who's to say what would happen with out that restriction on not just downtown, but jasper east and oliver and other areas in between the present day
Look at a map of the path overlay, and then look at the skyline from the north

Edmonchuck
Dec 27, 2007, 10:56 PM
What was said makes perfect sense. Towers can still be built but there will be a height restriction on them.


Sigh...if the overall equation was really that simple...

Edmonchuck
Dec 27, 2007, 10:57 PM
Regardless, I'm getting rather pissy waiting for this long talked about project to get off the ground... "Suh... I demand satisfaction!"


Then take some patience pills. You're gonna need them...say 2040...

Edmonchuck
Dec 27, 2007, 10:58 PM
I wonder how long the Grand Prix has the right to use the runways for?


Well, the race is here until 2010 for sure, but as for the use of the site, it is for as long as there is pavement there to do so. There is no end date to that arrangement.

Policy Wonk
Dec 27, 2007, 11:54 PM
Personally, I think we should stick with the existing CP ROW and move forward with either an electric HST or a Jetrain...

CP DOES NOT WANT THIS THING ON THEIR TRACK!

MalcolmTucker
Dec 28, 2007, 1:58 AM
So your telling me there's nothing taller then 17-19 floors between 107st and 112 st because of other reasons? and on the other side of that specific restriction, theres taller buildings? Edmonton's skyline is clearly shaped by it, to say it isn't is absurb.

Who's to say what would happen with out that restriction on not just downtown, but jasper east and oliver and other areas in between the present day
Look at a map of the path overlay, and then look at the skyline from the north

Shape doesn't mean stop. If they are not built where they can be built, which is by all accounts a desirable area, then why would they be built anywhere else if restrictions are lifted.

If there is no or little demand for towers of the height allowed, why would there be demand for more expensive, taller towers?

Projects get 'chopped' down a lot in the conceptual stage before DP for various reasons.

MalcolmTucker
Dec 28, 2007, 1:58 AM
CP DOES NOT WANT THIS THING ON THEIR TRACK!

Here here, green field all the way.

Mikemike
Dec 28, 2007, 3:46 AM
CP DOES NOT WANT THIS THING ON THEIR TRACK!

He said ROW, not track. The vanhorne report that CP was a part of recommended exactly that. Sure it was a crappy deal that proposed that we build a new double track for CP, and then pay them to maintain it despite their big freights doing all the damage

Corndogger
Dec 28, 2007, 4:02 AM
So your telling me there's nothing taller then 17-19 floors between 107st and 112 st because of other reasons? and on the other side of that specific restriction, theres taller buildings? Edmonton's skyline is clearly shaped by it, to say it isn't is absurb.

Who's to say what would happen with out that restriction on not just downtown, but jasper east and oliver and other areas in between the present day
Look at a map of the path overlay, and then look at the skyline from the north

The market will decide what gets built and how high the buildings will be. If you are building in restricted airspace then there are height restrictions thrown into the mix. What's so hard to understand?

tuffyy
Dec 28, 2007, 4:20 AM
I declare this thread DEAD!!!Its good for people that seem to enjoy fantasy role playing though...

Edmonchuck
Dec 28, 2007, 6:16 AM
Tried to declare that a long time ago. This IS the song that doesn't end....

freeweed
Jan 10, 2008, 3:04 PM
Can't believe this thread hasn't been revived yet:

City growth plan needs help from high places
Province and Ottawa relied on for funding
Colette Derworiz, with files from Jason Fekete, Calgary Herald, Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, January 10, 2008

A 10-year strategy to deal with Calgary's growth hinges on support from other levels of government and the private sector to succeed.

The blueprint identifies 68 goals -- including a high-speed rail link to Fort McMurray, a ring road around the city and an urban campus in the downtown core -- to make Calgary a world-class city.

The story continues. A good chunk of the evening news last night was discussing the HSR in Alberta, and showing the Chunnel train in the UK/France. 300km/h!

Edmonchuck
Jan 10, 2008, 3:48 PM
The tenacity, or is that stubbornness, is incredible.

240glt
Jan 10, 2008, 4:04 PM
The blueprint identifies 68 goals -- including a high-speed rail link to Fort McMurray


:haha: :haha: :haha:

what a great idea. If the energy companies want to pool their money to build it I say go right ahead

Calgarian
Jan 10, 2008, 4:31 PM
All 3 levels of government (civic for Calgary, Red Deer, Edmonton and Fort McMurray), should make a proposal that if they get a certain amount from the private sector, they will combine their resources and make it happen.

S_B_Russell
Jan 10, 2008, 5:41 PM
Pipe dream... cough

Kevin_foster
Jan 10, 2008, 5:56 PM
And then HSR will do REALLY well when our economy eventually slows down and ridership sits somewhere around 25% :P

The Monorail episode from the simpsons comes to mind.... I picture a vast, broken, unused, money suck of a rail line.

Give our cities more LRT instead.

rapid_business
Jan 10, 2008, 6:30 PM
Speaking of monorail...and way off topic... Las Vegas' system is a disaster for sooo many reasons. Especially if you go down there now during CES.

Edmonchuck
Jan 10, 2008, 7:16 PM
The Monorail episode from the simpsons comes to mind....

Always does. Why? Because it is the perfect metaphor for this discussion.

Mid1
Jan 10, 2008, 7:30 PM
I don't understand why people are still pushing for this. If the HSR does go through and gets funding, it'll push back LRT expansion back 10 to 15 years.

leendert
Jan 10, 2008, 11:03 PM
More studies for HSR on the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

From http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/01/10/rail-study.html

Governments consider high-speed rail link between Quebec, Ontario
Last Updated: Thursday, January 10, 2008 | 4:51 PM ET
CBC News

Ontario and Quebec want to develop a high-speed rail link between Quebec City and Windsor, Ont., the two premiers announced Thursday.

Dalton McGuinty of Ontario and Jean Charest of Quebec said they will spend $2 million to study the project and expect to have a report ready in a year.

At a joint news conference in Ottawa, the premiers said they will invite the federal government to join the study.

More to come

Calgarian
Jan 10, 2008, 11:06 PM
I don't understand why people are still pushing for this. If the HSR does go through and gets funding, it'll push back LRT expansion back 10 to 15 years.

I think it will do the Calgary - Edmonton - For Mac. corridor a lot of good, I don't know about the effects it will have on the LRT expansion though.

noodlenoodle
Jan 10, 2008, 11:10 PM
More studies for HSR on the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

From http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/01/10/rail-study.html

Bah! No HSR down East! If we're buying a white elephant I want to at least get a ride...

240glt
Jan 10, 2008, 11:23 PM
All 3 levels of government (civic for Calgary, Red Deer, Edmonton and Fort McMurray), should make a proposal that if they get a certain amount from the private sector, they will combine their resources and make it happen

THat's just it... it's a guaranteed money loser. What private sector company is going to put up for something they'll never see a return on ?

Let Calgary energy companies and Calgary MLA's pay for it. THey're the only ones who'll really benefit from it.

ETA: I just got back from a day trip to Calgary... had to go down & straighten out some BS on a project @ Foothills hospital. There was little traffic on the QE2 both this morning and this afternoon, and once again the most noticeable traffic was heavy truck traffic. We should be looking towards getting THAT off the roads.

Mid1
Jan 10, 2008, 11:52 PM
I think it will do the Calgary - Edmonton - For Mac. corridor a lot of good, I don't know about the effects it will have on the LRT expansion though.

My worry about this is that HSR would require a large investment of funds from the province to get it built and going. These funds would come at the expense of LRT expansion in Calgary and Edmonton where funds should go. So HSR is nice to have but rather spending those funds on LRT expansion would serve a greater amount of people and remove more cars off the roads.

MalcolmTucker
Jan 11, 2008, 12:01 AM
My worry about this is that HSR would require a large investment of funds from the province to get it built and going. These funds would come at the expense of LRT expansion in Calgary and Edmonton where funds should go. So HSR is nice to have but rather spending those funds on LRT expansion would serve a greater amount of people and remove more cars off the roads.

The cities likely have all the money they are going to get for LRT already committed, that is the MSI money and gas tax money. If the conservative government stays in office, and even if it is turfed I could see this number staying constant for a fair amount of time.

And as it should be, there is enough money to complete huge LRT expansions in both Calgary and Edmonton in the next decade.

Council just needs to decide to spend it.

Bassic Lab
Jan 11, 2008, 12:55 AM
I think it will do the Calgary - Edmonton - For Mac. corridor a lot of good, I don't know about the effects it will have on the LRT expansion though.

I have no idea how Fort Mac comes into this discussion. There is no corridor, between Edmonton and Fort Mac is a great deal of absolutely nothing. Fort Mac isn't even that big of a city. Lethbridge is 200 km away from Calgary with a CA of nearly one hundred thousand (95 196, 2006 census) and towns along the way. Fort Mac is twice as far from Edmonton with a population of 51,496 (2006 census) in a huge area.

I don't think it particularly makes sense to expand to either in the near term, let alone the smaller more distant one. That said, by all means secure ROWs, but lets be realistic about the project, Fort Mac would likely double the cost of a Calgary-Edmonton HSR route (longer distance, but cheaper land and no urban areas in the way) while only minimally increasing the ridership.

evolv
Jan 11, 2008, 3:02 AM
I have no idea how Fort Mac comes into this discussion. There is no corridor, between Edmonton and Fort Mac is a great deal of absolutely nothing. Fort Mac isn't even that big of a city. Lethbridge is 200 km away from Calgary with a CA of nearly one hundred thousand (95 196, 2006 census) and towns along the way. Fort Mac is twice as far from Edmonton with a population of 51,496 (2006 census) in a huge area.

I don't think it particularly makes sense to expand to either in the near term, let alone the smaller more distant one. That said, by all means secure ROWs, but lets be realistic about the project, Fort Mac would likely double the cost of a Calgary-Edmonton HSR route (longer distance, but cheaper land and no urban areas in the way) while only minimally increasing the ridership.

I think they are considering the fact that so many people travel to Ft. Mac from Calgary and Edmonton just for the day or a couple days. Not saying it would work because it would probably need maglev tech for it to make sense. It would probably alleviate some of the infrastructure problems (housing) seen there today

The Geographer
Jan 11, 2008, 3:03 AM
If they are going to spend the money to go to Fort Mac, they should almost save it to go to Vancouver (though the mountains would be pricey). I don't actually think Van is a priority, but certainly more than Ft. Mac.

freeweed
Jan 11, 2008, 3:28 AM
If they are going to spend the money to go to Fort Mac, they should almost save it to go to Vancouver (though the mountains would be pricey). I don't actually think Van is a priority, but certainly more than Ft. Mac.

I'm sorry, but you people are on crack (not to pick on you personally, Geographer, you were just the last post here ;) ).

If anything, a line to Ft. Mac makes MORE sense than Edm-Cgy. The oilsands have tens of thousands of temporary workers who commute huge distances each day as it is. Tens of billions are going to be invested in the area in the next decade alone. The highway out there is continually jammed and they're building new airport infrastructure just to handle the air trips out there.

Working on the assumption that the oilsands are going to be our big money mover for the next 50-100 years, and considering we've only BEGUN to tap into them - HSR out there is a perfect fit. The road capacity sucks as it stands. There's nowhere to house anyone. Companies are paying thousands of dollars a head just to bring people up there for a few hours/days on last-minute charters. Instead of building more road capacity (which is a MUST as it stands), build rail.

I'd say that line could end up being the only profitable rail line in Canada.

Kevin_foster
Jan 11, 2008, 4:09 AM
I'm sorry, but you people are on crack (not to pick on you personally, Geographer, you were just the last post here ;) ).

If anything, a line to Ft. Mac makes MORE sense than Edm-Cgy. The oilsands have tens of thousands of temporary workers who commute huge distances each day as it is. Tens of billions are going to be invested in the area in the next decade alone. The highway out there is continually jammed and they're building new airport infrastructure just to handle the air trips out there.

Working on the assumption that the oilsands are going to be our big money mover for the next 50-100 years, and considering we've only BEGUN to tap into them - HSR out there is a perfect fit. The road capacity sucks as it stands. There's nowhere to house anyone. Companies are paying thousands of dollars a head just to bring people up there for a few hours/days on last-minute charters. Instead of building more road capacity (which is a MUST as it stands), build rail.

I'd say that line could end up being the only profitable rail line in Canada.

Good for 20 years, maybe. Then what happens when the mine closes down? By that time, the cost to build the thing would probably just start to be paid off :P

Think mono-rail.

IF we were dumb enough to build it, the only possible route would be EDM/CALG - Sorry freeweed, but WAY more people commute between the two cities than just to Ft. Mac from Edmonton.

Plus, Edmonton and Calgary won't be mined dry one day and vanish. There would be some sustainability there for a line. In any case HSR doesn't make sense.

SHOFEAR
Jan 11, 2008, 4:22 AM
Plus, Edmonton and Calgary won't be mined dry one day and vanish. There would be some sustainability there for a line. In any case HSR doesn't make sense.


Yes but, sustainability doesn't mean dumping billions of dollars in infrastructure into a region that might be the worlds largest ghost town 50 years from now either. Houses, roads and underground aren't free. Letting these people commute to Fort Mac from Edmonton would mean this investment would take place in a region (Edmonton) that is only going to grow.

Of course the irony is i'm talking as an edmontonian who see's ed-FtMac HSR as being a big benefit to Edmonton at the expense of another...no doubt most of the Calgary fans of ed-cal HSR see it as the same thing.

ZiZiPop
Jan 11, 2008, 4:43 AM
HSR ..... I keep getting visions of a white elephant in Swan Hills.

The Geographer
Jan 11, 2008, 4:42 PM
I'm sorry, but you people are on crack (not to pick on you personally, Geographer, you were just the last post here ;) ).

If anything, a line to Ft. Mac makes MORE sense than Edm-Cgy. The oilsands have tens of thousands of temporary workers who commute huge distances each day as it is. Tens of billions are going to be invested in the area in the next decade alone. The highway out there is continually jammed and they're building new airport infrastructure just to handle the air trips out there.

Working on the assumption that the oilsands are going to be our big money mover for the next 50-100 years, and considering we've only BEGUN to tap into them - HSR out there is a perfect fit. The road capacity sucks as it stands. There's nowhere to house anyone. Companies are paying thousands of dollars a head just to bring people up there for a few hours/days on last-minute charters. Instead of building more road capacity (which is a MUST as it stands), build rail.

I'd say that line could end up being the only profitable rail line in Canada.

:haha: Come on man, it is too early in the morning for me to already be pwned. I am trying to get over a lack of caffeine induced headache.

You do make an excellent point though. I am sure the SSP mole the airlines' have on salary (Edmonchuck) will shortly attempt a counter-pwn, but it doesn't mean you are wrong. :cheers:

newfangled
Jan 11, 2008, 5:08 PM
I know the Van and Lethbridge suggestions weren't serious, but:

You can fly to Van in an hour for anywhere from $75 to $150 (+tax, of course). Why would anyone want to spend 3-4+ hours and probably a lot more money for the same trip? This isn't a Rocky-Mountaineer-romance-of-trains-atmosphere-thing. A plane is way better for that trip.

And as for why Ft. Mac and not Lethbridge? I would say HSR supporters are smart enough to know that if they suggested a train to Lethbridge it would blatantly expose how ridiculous the whole HSR idea is, and they would be laughed out of the province.

The Geographer
Jan 11, 2008, 5:16 PM
I know the Van and Lethbridge suggestions weren't serious, but:

You can fly to Van in an hour for anywhere from $75 to $150 (+tax, of course). Why would anyone want to spend 3-4+ hours and probably a lot more money for the same trip? This isn't a Rocky-Mountaineer-romance-of-trains-atmosphere-thing. A plane is way better for that trip.

And as for why Ft. Mac and not Lethbridge? I would say HSR supporters are smart enough to know that if they suggested a train to Lethbridge it would blatantly expose how ridiculous the whole HSR idea is, and they would be laughed out of the province.

It may STILL not make it worth it, but there are other things to consider. There is a lot less down time at a train station than at an airport. That could easily be another half hour or more of travel time. There are also lots of delays at airports that make the travel times a LOT less reliable. Also, how long does it take to get from Vancouver's airport to downtown? The station would be right downtown.

Again, it may not tip the balance towards trains, and building new trackage through the mountains would be a huge cost. But you were certainly exaggerating the time difference.

newfangled
Jan 11, 2008, 5:19 PM
But you were certainly exaggerating the time difference.

And here I was thinking that 3-4 hours would be highly optimistic with the mountains in the way. :)

Editted to add.

Even with airport delays, I can leave Edmonton at 8:00, be in Van by 8:30, and be at a downtown meeting by 9:30 without a problem. That could never happen with a train (especially if I had to commute through Calgary).

zooropa
Jan 11, 2008, 5:49 PM
And here I was thinking that 3-4 hours would be highly optimistic with the mountains in the way. :)

Editted to add.

Even with airport delays, I can leave Edmonton at 8:00, be in Van by 8:30, and be at a downtown meeting by 9:30 without a problem. That could never happen with a train (especially if I had to commute through Calgary).

leave Edm at 8am and in Van at 8:30am? I guess you did the time change in there.

The air time from Cgy to Van is about 1hr 20mins. Don't forget that most of us I think still try to get to the airport the suggested 1hr before flight time, plus add time for the plane to taxi and pull up to the gate and for you to walk to the baggage claim or taxi stand - realistically it's at least 2 1/2 hours from the time you walk in the Calgary airport to walk out the Vancouver airport. and that is if there are no delays and your not waiting for bags.

freeweed
Jan 11, 2008, 6:06 PM
The above points out where HSR makes sense, and where it doesn't.

Flights have an in-built fixed time cost that you can't get around. Arriving 1hr early, security, boarding, deplaning, baggage pickup. These are all pretty much identical time for any flight. On short trips (such as Cgy-Edm or Edm-Ft. Mac) you actually spend far more of your time here than you do in the air. HSR could conceivably remove most of this fixed cost, so even if the actual travel time is longer (300 kph vs what, 7-800?) the trip takes less time overall.

Cgy/Edm-Van has enough sheer distance involved that even if you eliminate that extra time, HSR will still be slower because much more of your time is spent actually travelling.

It's really no different than deiciding whether or not to drive or fly between Cgy and Edm. Much of the time it can actually faster to drive, because while that does take 3 hours, that 3 hour drive time works out to roughly all of your wasted airport time. The travel time becomes nearly irrelevant.

There's a reason QE2 is full of cars, but the TCH to Vancouver far less so (in comparison to the actual number of people who make the trip).

I realize I'm kind of laying out the obvious, but just thought I'd remind everyone that there's a huge difference between a 300km trip and a 1000km trip when deciding which mode to take. HSR to Vancouver is sheer lunacy while planes still exist. I can't imagine anyone taking it assuming similar costs - beyond casual vacationers who want to see the mountains.

240glt
Jan 11, 2008, 6:11 PM
There's a reason QE2 is full of cars, but the TCH to Vancouver far less so (in comparison to the actual number of people who make the trip).

Huh ?

Compare corridors like Cal-Edm, and say... Abbotsford - Vancouver... & I'd say the traffic is way worse in Vancouver. Rarely does traffic on the QE2 grind to a halt. It happens all the time right around Surrey & all the way into Van.

lubicon
Jan 11, 2008, 6:56 PM
I'm sorry, but you people are on crack (not to pick on you personally, Geographer, you were just the last post here ;) ).

If anything, a line to Ft. Mac makes MORE sense than Edm-Cgy. The oilsands have tens of thousands of temporary workers who commute huge distances each day as it is. Tens of billions are going to be invested in the area in the next decade alone. The highway out there is continually jammed and they're building new airport infrastructure just to handle the air trips out there.

Working on the assumption that the oilsands are going to be our big money mover for the next 50-100 years, and considering we've only BEGUN to tap into them - HSR out there is a perfect fit. The road capacity sucks as it stands. There's nowhere to house anyone. Companies are paying thousands of dollars a head just to bring people up there for a few hours/days on last-minute charters. Instead of building more road capacity (which is a MUST as it stands), build rail.

I'd say that line could end up being the only profitable rail line in Canada.

Sorry Freeweed, I have to disagree with you on this one. A line to Ft Mac makes no sense to me at all (actually the whole HSR idea makes no sense to me at the moment but I digress).

Ft Mac is seeing a temporary surge in commuting traffic from all the workers coming and going to the various sites but remember this:
1. once the construction is finished there will be far fewer workers travelling back & forth
2. the majority of them are working 4/5 day weeks and thus they all head up on Sunday night and come home Thursday/Friday night. For the rest of the time relatively few people are travelling. I don't know how a train running on a regular schedule can help that situation.

For Ft Mac I think a better solution is to upgrade the highway to 4 lanes, and upgrade the railway. This will better serve getting heavy industrial loads either off the highway altogether or at least make is safer to transport by road. It also allows car traffic to make the trip safer. As a matter of fact, CN just bought the Athabasca Northern Railway (the line that runs to Ft Mac) so they may be thinking that already.

freeweed
Jan 11, 2008, 7:28 PM
Huh ?

Compare corridors like Cal-Edm, and say... Abbotsford - Vancouver... & I'd say the traffic is way worse in Vancouver. Rarely does traffic on the QE2 grind to a halt. It happens all the time right around Surrey & all the way into Van.

Sorry - we were talking about trips from Cal/Edm-Van. Obviously small sections of the TCH, like Abbotsford to Vancouver, are insanely busy. Which is exactly my point - no one in their right mind would fly that short of a distance.

Road/rail makes a lot of sense for moving bodies short distances. But for long haul, air travel rules.

You Need A Thneed
Jan 11, 2008, 7:28 PM
They should do the HSR to Fort Mac, but add the capability to do high speed oversized freight. All those giant tanks and other things built around edmonton could be bought up to Fort Mac at 300km/h instead of 20km/h.

Then, while we're at it, we could extend the line all the way out to the diamond mines in the NWT, to expediate the money flowing into the province.