[chenmau]

There would likely be significant tax dollars invested in any project.
Here is the site for one organization trying to get such a project off the ground:

http://www.albertahighspeedrail.com/index.html

And their route map:

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6238/greenfieldhc6.jpg

[Wooster]

We've had this debate quite a few times.

The consensus generally has been that it is unfeasible given our current population, or even decades into the future. Urban rail-transit should be fully built out before even considering a link between cities.

Perhaps in 50 years if we keep growing fast. As such, we should keep the possiblity open and make some provision for it, just incase it becomes feasible some day.

I agree with the consensus.

[jeffwhit]

Not at the expense of LRT development within Calgary and Edmonton. the corridor is still too sparsely populated to justify this. Also, I would debate strongly that Neither Calgary no Edmonton would need more than 1 terminal in their respective downtowns since proper investment in LRT would negate the need.

[SHOFEAR]

not again...

[Xelebes]

How fast are we talking?

Personally, I think we should wait until we get to 9 million in the corridor before we start building. We're 1/3 the way there already.

So... it might happen around 2060-2070, but not in a decade or two, unless there is some major investment into high speed rail in North America. But I'm thinking we would need twice the amount of people to make that needed (700 million in Canada and the US.)

[SHOFEAR]

Lets just protect a ROW and we'll see what happens in 25 years.

[Bassic Lab]

We should probaboly reserve the ROW now but I have no idea when it would be useful and throwing population figures around is probaboly pointless. For any real idea we'd need to see figures for bus and air travel between the cities, projected growth in those numbers, the projected impact on the need for airport and highway construction, and a number of other things. I know I don't have them so I have no idea when it would become practical. I'd imagine that it would be some time after the completion of, at the least, the primary LRT systems of both major cities though.

[tokama]

Yes. It would be forward thinking and bold - so it won't happen. But anything that gets people out of their cars on Highway 2 is good by me.

[Andy6]

Yes, provided that it is routed via Winnipeg for regional development purposes.

[Jay in Cowtown]

Sure, it would be nice and all... but, Alberta Infrastructure is better off spending our money on fixing the #2 and #1 Highways first.

[Riise]

We must first build a strong intraurban rail network before we can focus on building an interurban connection. What good is an interurban connection if you cannot get around by rail, or by any other mode besides the automobile, inside the urban areas it connects, hence the need to focus on intraurban before interurban.

[big W]

Yes, provided that it is routed via Winnipeg for regional development purposes.

Since when did the feds get involved in this matter?

[big W]

Once again this comes up. As mentioned before in previous threads and this one, spend the billions in Edmonton and Calgary LRT lines and complete the systems in each of the cities first.

[The Chemist]

No, absolutely not. It'd be a complete waste of money considering the population density even along the supposedly highly populated Calgary-Edmonton corridor is FAR lower than in other places in the world that do have HSR.

So much of the traffic on the QEII between Calgary and Edmonton is heavy trucks, building a passenger rail line between the two cities would hardly do anything to reduce congestion on that route. Build the LRT systems in the two cities - that's a far better use of so much money.

[Policy Wonk]

Lifting the restrictions on the Edmonton Municipal Airport is a much better alternative,

[Boris2k7]

I'll just repaste what I said in the Calgary Construction Thread:

At this point in time it is probably a bad idea. The LRT systems need to come first. However, it is probably a good idea in the long run. I know that I would take it to Edmonton rather than drive or fly. For now I guess the best thing would be to make sure that YEG and YYC have LRT connections.

I think what we need is some sort of provincial connections program, which could direct funding for LRT systems, HSR links, and other forms of transit to create an integrated system. Smaller cities and towns could use some tram networks or BRT where applicable. If the government were smart, they would make it part of an environmental strategy as well.

Agreed, at least in the near future. We will probably be looking at the idea again once the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor is pushing around 5 million (which, IMHO, is not as far off as some would think). If we have more LRT connections by then in both cities, it would make sense to revisit the proposal and see if it is feasible.

The Van Horne Insitute also has a lengthy study that provides more information, though the lowest time thay they say would be around 97 minutes...
http://www.vanhorne.info/Reports/HSR%20Full%20Report%20(10%206%202004).pdf

I would suggest that before people decide whether it is in fact a good or bad idea, they look at figures from actual studies... otherwise the conversation looks like either a lesson in defeatism or boosterism (depending on your perspective). For instance, the Van Horne insitute study finds, among other things, that the demand for the service already exists, and they back themselves up :

"Market research indicated that between 5.2 and 6.6 million one-way person trips were made
between Calgary and Edmonton in 2003 and another 2.4 to 3.7 million one-way person trips were
made between Red Deer and Calgary/Edmonton. Had high speed rail service as outlined in the
table below been in operation in 2003, the forecasts predicted that high speed rail would have
carried 1.7 to 2.0 million total passenger trips depending on the route/technology alternative
chosen, which represents a 22-28 percent market share of all trips."

etc.

[Nutterbug]

How about starting with restoration of conventional passenger rail?

Unbelievable that two cities as big and close together as Calgary and Edmonton don't have a passenger rail connection between them.

[Greco Roman]

I'm not sure on this one. I would have figured that areas in southern Ontario and Quebec with a much higher population density would have implemented this kind of trasportation.

Maybe in 25-50 years down the road as the province's population increases, but not now.

[freeweed]

Yes, provided that it is routed via Winnipeg for regional development purposes.

:jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester:

I guess the argument could be "sharing of CANADIAN resouce revenues used to fuel the trains", or something. :haha:

To top it off, the trains MUST be built by Bombardier in Quebec, and in fact shipped back there for maintenance. We have far too many unionized jobs at stake and if train cars are maintained outside of Le Bon Province, it is an insult to the French heritage and goes against the very fabric of Confederation. :haha:

Man, I wish I was kidding.

Seriously folks, no one is going to put up the billions necessary to fund a train station so that a few thousand students who don't already own cars can get to Edmonton a tiny bit quicker than the Greyhound. Private companies would lose their shirts on this, and the government has far better ways to spend our money.

[ReginaGuy]

is there actually a need for it? Either than it would be cool? I said yes, if its fully private

[Policy Wonk]

paxrail is dead, but like the confederacy some people just can't accept it and move on.

Even on the Golden Triangle VIA Rail wouldn't be able to make a go of it without their subsudies. The same goes for AmTrak, the pax are simply not prepared to pay the cost of providing the service. It is made more complicated by the fact pax trains have to yield to freight trains making schedualed service very challenging.

[Boris2k7]

*Sigh* Time to post more from the Van Horne report, in order to steer this thread away from mere armchair analysis...

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study concludes that high speed rail would bring significant benefits to
the Calgary-Edmonton corridor and Alberta as a whole. Depending on the
route/technology alternative selected, the project is estimated to generate
between $3.7 and $6.1 billion in quantifiable benefits, including:

- $172 to $565 million in incremental tax revenues for Alberta and $378 to $1,185 million for the federal government;
- 25,500 to 52,000 person-years of construction employment and $1 to 2 billion in associated employment income;
- 2,700 to 4,050 direct, indirect and induced jobs related to rail operations and enhanced economic development and $1.1 to $1.8 billion in associated employment income;
- $1.2 to $1.9 billion in other public benefits, including travel time and cost savings for system users, accident reduction and environmental benefits.

The project would also result in significant qualitative and other benefits. By effectively shrinking the distance and time separation between Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer, high speed rail could unify the region into a single economic unit, fundamentally changing how it is perceived and improving its competitive position among urban centres on the world stage. It also has the potential to reshape growth and development in support of Alberta’s future economic development strategy promoting economic diversification and increasing knowledge-based, high value jobs. Furthermore, the high speed rail line would improve access to both Calgary and Edmonton International Airports and that in turn would create opportunities and make the region more attractive to firms requiring high quality air services.

The study determined that sufficient demand exists today to support a high speed rail service that offers about two hours or less travel time between Calgary and Edmonton. This was based on a purposely conservative estimate of high speed rail ridership (e.g. induced ridership is excluded) that was developed using up-to-date market research and two proven demand forecasting models. This conclusion also differs significantly from the previous 1980s studies, which indicated that, while demand at that time was insufficient, projected ridership by the late 1990s would support high speed rail. The current study appears to corroborate these past predictions.

The study confirmed that two route/technology alternatives are technically feasible to construct and are able to offer travel time of two hours or less required by prospective riders, namely:

- upgrading the existing CPR line to permit mixed freight and high speed passenger rail service based on JetTrain technology, or
- constructing a largely new or Greenfield line dedicated to high speed rail service with shared access via the CPR corridor into both cities that uses either JetTrain technology or 300 km per hour electrified TGV type trains.

Projected ridership and revenues are able to cover estimated operating costs based on the current rail industry costs and work practices for both alternatives. In addition, these revenues would be able to repay all of the estimated $1,835 million capital cost for the CPR alternative plus generate a surplus of $669 million over 30 years, if the project was 100 percent government funded and
funds were advanced on a grant basis. In the case of the Greenfield alternative assuming electrified train technology, 73 percent or $2,712 million of the system’s initial $3,708 million capital cost is repaid over 30 years.

Based on all of the above, the CPR alternative has significant advantages over the Greenfield alternatives and particularly the Greenfield Electric alternative. These advantages include:

- Significantly lower capital and operating costs
- Less property disruption and complexity to implement (i.e., reduced environmental requirements, property acquisition and engineering and design work)
- Less time required for construction
- Added benefits to Industry and freight operations
- Improved rail and road safety as a result of the rail upgrades.

However, these advantages must be balanced against slightly lower ridership and the associated benefits of the Greenfield alternatives. In addition, choosing the CPR alternative is contingent on the CPR’s agreement and cooperation and would require more extensive participation by CPR in implementation of the project that would have to be negotiated upfront.

Here again, the current study differs significantly from the previous 1980s studies in two important respects. First, a high speed technology (i.e., JetTrain) did not exist that met North American design standards, allowed mixed freight and high speed passenger rail service and avoided costly electrification. Second, the previous studies lacked both CPR participation and willingness to accept use of the existing CPR line even to access the city centre in Calgary and Edmonton because of technology compatibility concerns. Without these limitations, the current study was able to explore the option of shared high speed passenger and freight use of the existing CPR line as well as a Greenfield Non-Electric alternative, which will be less costly to build and operate than the Greenfield Electric alternative recommended by the previous 1980s studies as well as yielding other implementation advantages.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, of course, the last thing we need to hear about is whining about subsidies from drivers, of all people. You bloody hypocrites. Unless someone can up with a credible study in opposition, the only real arguments come from the fact that the intraurban networks need to be built up first, which I agree with.

My point is, we can argue policy and such on here. That doesn't require expert knowledge. But please, leave the number-crunching to the professionals.

[Policy Wonk]

The subsidy issue is not the degree to which it is appropriate to subsidize a railroad or not, the issue is that even with subsidies both VIA and Amtrak are still unviable and launching another one like launching another stage coach line.

Using the CPR line is absolutely not workable as an avenue for high speed rail as those jet trains will either be throttled back inching their way north behind freight trains or standing still in the sidings while another train passes.

The CPR is NOT going to invest in modernizing the sidings to accomodate longer freight trains so they can yield to paxrail they don't even want on their track in the first place.

[itom 987]

Lifting the restrictions on the Edmonton Municipal Airport is a much better alternative,

I'll never let that happen.

[Xelebes]

Now, of course, the last thing we need to hear about is whining about subsidies from drivers, of all people. You bloody hypocrites. Unless someone can up with a credible study in opposition, the only real arguments come from the fact that the intraurban networks need to be built up first, which I agree with.

My point is, we can argue policy and such on here. That doesn't require expert knowledge. But please, leave the number-crunching to the professionals.

As a venture capitalist, I wouldn't put the money into it.

[Waterlooson]

While I agree that such a train isn't viable, I wouldn't object to it being built as long as not one cent of taxpayers' money goes into it.

[Waterlooson]

My point is, we can argue policy and such on here. That doesn't require expert knowledge. But please, leave the number-crunching to the professionals.

Sorry, but that made me laugh. The "number-crunching" in that report by "professionals" uniquely possessing "expert knowledge" is subject to such large margin of errors that their figures could easily be no better than those from the rest of us. Chances are very high that any high-speed train built in the near future between Edmonton and Calgary would end up being the biggest white elephant in the history of Alberta. The need simply isn't there!

[Bassic Lab]

I'm not sure about high speed rail but I know I'm opposed to that plan. The provincial government should not be subsidizing the capital expenses of a HSR route to allow a private company to run the route at a profit. It is corporate welfare and nothing else. Either the entire system should be a private venture (which would not happen as it would lose alot of money) or it should all be done under a Crown Corporation. Taxpayers money should never go to subsidizing an unneccasary private venture.

[Boris2k7]

Sorry, but that made me laugh. The "number-crunching" in that report by "professionals" uniquely possessing "expert knowledge" is subject to such large margin of errors that their figures could easily be no better than those from the rest of us.

Have you performed any studies? Have you gone from agency to agency and found out the exact specifications of each train and route? Have you done any research to try and estimate market share or economic benefits? I think not. Certainly, the margin of error COULD potentially be large, but that doesn't mean that our relatively uninformed opinions carry the same weight as that of people who do these kinds of studies for a living. You are still entitled to your opinion, but I think it is very premature to outright label something as a "white elephant" or such, based purely on speculation. At the very least, objections to the concept should, IMHO, be based upon actual plans and their merits or lack thereof.

I'm not sure about high speed rail but I know I'm opposed to that plan. The provincial government should not be subsidizing the capital expenses of a HSR route to allow a private company to run the route at a profit. It is corporate welfare and nothing else. Either the entire system should be a private venture (which would not happen as it would lose alot of money) or it should all be done under a Crown Corporation. Taxpayers money should never go to subsidizing an unneccasary private venture.

You've got a point there. Can't say that I disagree.

[m0nkyman]

Jeez. Have some vision. Let's not just ask for a teeny little line from Calgary to Edmonton and back again. I want Japanese style bullet trains that also carry containers going in a big circle from Vancouver through Kelowna and Banff to Calgary, up to Edmonton through GP, and then over to Jasper, through the mountains to the new port they're building in Prince Rupert, then back down the coast through Whistler and back into Vancouver.
































With freaking lazer beams.

[freeweed]

Have you performed any studies? Have you gone from agency to agency and found out the exact specifications of each train and route? Have you done any research to try and estimate market share or economic benefits? I think not.

Sometimes you have to ask yourself why the folks who do such extensive research haven't been able to drum up the capital necessary - if you can believe their figures, they'd be rich in no time, AND provide an invaluable public service.

I've seen dozens of dream proposals like this in my life, all backed by really good-looking numbers. Yet the folks who do these studies never seem willing to take the risk on themselves, without a buttload of government funding. I think that you'll see far more skepticism about this concept than you'd like, precisely because seemingly everyone realizes it would be a huge money pit. Including those who actually have the money to do something like this, and in theory would make a killing. Mostly though, like it or not you're in a province that isn't big on throwing money at things in the hopes of some indirect economic benefit. Instead, what you *could* possibly see is a huge tax cut, cheap land, etc - much like the oilsands. This way if it doesn't pan out it doesn't actually "cost" taxpayers a thing. But the study you quote seems predicated on billions being invested, with some nebulous "in the future it will pay off" promise.

The phrase is "put your money where your mouth is" - not you individually, of course. :)

[Boris2k7]

Fair enough, I can't argue that.

[cornholio]

A investment in such things as this will always pay off in the long run, the only question is how long and if you can recieve a biger return by sticking the money somwhere else. If Alberta has the spare change to have this built and posibly suported until it starts turning a profit then its a no brainer.

[Waterlooson]

Have you performed any studies? Have you gone from agency to agency and found out the exact specifications of each train and route? Have you done any research to try and estimate market share or economic benefits? I think not. Certainly, the margin of error COULD potentially be large, but that doesn't mean that our relatively uninformed opinions carry the same weight as that of people who do these kinds of studies for a living. You are still entitled to your opinion, but I think it is very premature to outright label something as a "white elephant" or such, based purely on speculation. At the very least, objections to the concept should, IMHO, be based upon actual plans and their merits or lack thereof.



The problem with your comments is that you have things backwards. It's not for the skeptics to prove the promoters wrong by coming up with their own set of dubious reports. Rather, the onus is 100 % on the shoulders of the promoters - of any project - to prove the investment merits of their proposal. Once they acheive any such proof, they can raise all the money they need from the financial markets. This is how business works. In other words, you wouldn't go to a bank asking for a loan and expect the bank to come up with a study disproving your business plan - you would have to convince them, they don't have to convince you.

It's always the proponents of high-risk projects, with dubious business merit, who are the ones running to government asking for subsidies. Businesses that service unmet needs that the public is willing to pay for don't need government subsidies. In fact, such businesses only want government to stay out of their hair.

Mirabel Airport had detailed studies/reports showing it would be a huge success, so the government put lots of money into the project.... but what happened to that investment?

The reason I know high speed rail (Ed - Cal) would be a "white elephant" is because the public seems to be managing rather nicely without it. Unless Alberta can't do without it, it's an excellent bet that it would fail - without massive government subsidies.

[Doug]

I'll go out on a limb with the position that HSR would be a dog anywhere in North America, forget Calgary-Edmonton. Most of the growth in inter-city traffic is commercial.

[Waterlooson]

Sometimes you have to ask yourself why the folks who do such extensive research haven't been able to drum up the capital necessary - if you can believe their figures, they'd be rich in no time, AND provide an invaluable public service.



Exactly.

[Arriviste]

If they were really thinking they would build a high speed rail link between Winnipeg, Saskatoon, then on too Fort McMurray. Maybe one from BC aswell.

[Bassic Lab]

The problem with your comments is that you have things backwards. It's not for the skeptics to prove the promoters wrong by coming up with their own set of dubious reports. Rather, the onus is 100 % on the shoulders of the promoters - of any project - to prove the investment merits of their proposal. Once they acheive any such proof, they can raise all the money they need from the financial markets. This is how business works. In other words, you wouldn't go to a bank asking for a loan and expect the bank to come up with a study disproving your business plan - you would have to convince them, they don't have to convince you.

It's always the proponents of high-risk projects, with dubious business merit, who are the ones running to government asking for subsidies. Businesses that service unmet needs that the public is willing to pay for don't need government subsidies. In fact, such businesses only want government to stay out of their hair.

Mirabel Airport had detailed studies/reports showing it would be a huge success, so the government put lots of money into the project.... but what happened to that investment?

Your reasoning is off. The bussiness model they have could very well make money, and they could probaboly raise the capital they need. The problem is their bussiness model involves running a profit only on what they wish to do. They fully admit that the government would be spending a large amount on the initial capital without making a return. So their figures could very well be very reliable, the fact that they have not endeavored to biuld it does not make the report unreliable. You're just missing what the report actually says, that they expect to make money by dividing the project into profitable and unprofitable portions and taking the former. I'm not saying the report is neccasarily accurate but your assertions that the demand they project is inacurate is quite baseless.

[Waterlooson]

Your reasoning is off. The bussiness model they have could very well make money, and they could probaboly raise the capital they need.

Then let them do it!

The problem is their bussiness model involves running a profit only on what they wish to do. They fully admit that the government would be spending a large amount on the initial capital without making a return. So their figures could very well be very reliable, the fact that they have not endeavored to biuld it does not make the report unreliable. You're just missing what the report actually says, that they expect to make money by dividing the project into profitable and unprofitable portions and taking the former. I'm not saying the report is neccasarily accurate but your assertions that the demand they project is inacurate is quite baseless.

The report is unreliable because it is based on a set of assumptions. It's like they say, "assumption is the mother of all fuckups". :haha:

Just because segments of a project may likely turn a profit doesn't mean that the project as a whole (and that's all that really matters) could be considered a worthwhile endeaver - you have to look at the project as a whole.

Your comments about the report reminds me of the citrus orchard that I started in the common area of a development here in Mexico. I joke with the other owners that they are my partners in the orchard so that they are responsible for the rootstock of each citrus tree, and I am responsible for the upper part of the trees (aka the scion). They are responsible for watering, weeding, and fertilizing the roots, and I'm responsible for picking and eating all the fruit. :)

[Xelebes]

Jeez. Have some vision. Let's not just ask for a teeny little line from Calgary to Edmonton and back again. I want Japanese style bullet trains that also carry containers going in a big circle from Vancouver through Kelowna and Banff to Calgary, up to Edmonton through GP, and then over to Jasper, through the mountains to the new port they're building in Prince Rupert, then back down the coast through Whistler and back into Vancouver.

With freaking lazer beams.

I'd rather see a "Cordillera Railway" going from Edmonton to Denver and possibly further south to Mexico City myself.

[canucklehead2]

I think if it's not viable now, it could be within a few years, especially if the province decided to encourage proper urban planning in the province. I mean the existing corridor has all the basic patterns to make inter-city transit work, in theory anyway.

Longer down the road, I think extensions of the potential HSR Network should be considered between Edmonton and Slave Lake (a potential Northern Alberta hub for several reasons), as well as Calgary to Lethbridge.

[Sammy]

I rode the . . . . I can't remember what they call it (Maglev sp?) from the Shaghai airport to downtown Shanghai, or in close proximity to where several office towers - are just a quick taxi ride away. Even with Shaghai's large population base I was told that it wasn't feasible and built for show. (I don't know if that is the case or not), but it was impressive - you travel at a speed at one point of 433 km per hour.

I would love to see a system like that between Calgary and Edmonton but I don't believe a 1.5 percent birth rate in Canada will ever allow for such systems to be built here. Our nation and cities are too small with large distances in between. HS rail lines pricing would need to be slashed dramatically. I may be wrong on this point but, the two major Alberta cities can't even afford good municpal transportation systems. It is one thing to build it - its another matter to keep the system going.

I agree with an earlier post that mentioned re opening Edmonton's muni. Perhaps, that is too good an idea to ever be implemented up there. At least that would get more people flying north again.

[JBinCalgary]

yes, but not high speed

[ibz]

I rode the . . . . I can't remember what they call it (Maglev sp?) from the Shaghai airport to downtown Shanghai, or in close proximity to where several office towers - are just a quick taxi ride away. Even with Shaghai's large population base I was told that it wasn't feasible and built for show. (I don't know if that is the case or not), but it was impressive - you travel at a speed at one point of 433 km per hour.

I would love to see a system like that between Calgary and Edmonton but I don't believe a 1.5 percent birth rate in Canada will ever allow for such systems to be built here. Our nation and cities are too small with large distances in between. HS rail lines pricing would need to be slashed dramatically. I may be wrong on this point but, the two major Alberta cities can't even afford good municpal transportation systems. It is one thing to build it - its another matter to keep the system going.

I agree with an earlier post that mentioned re opening Edmonton's muni. Perhaps, that is too good an idea to ever be implemented up there. At least that would get more people flying north again.


Edmontons downtown airport will never open again to commercial traffic & more people then ever are flying north, Grand Prarie and Ft Mac airports are both bursting at the seams with growth.

The maglev in Shanghai is pretty cool. The one from Pudong airport to the middle of nowhere in Pudong (it doesnt actually go anywhere near the center of Shanghai) was built as a demonstration / test line. Plans are currently underway for a maglev from Shanghai to Hangzhou as well as one up north in Dalian. There was talk of a Shanghai to Beijing maglev as well, but I am unsure of the status.

What the cost of a maglev these days would be I have no clue, but I dont imagine it would be that afforable. Maybe by the time Alberta ever gets hsr, it would be possible.

And for the record, like everyone other one of these threads, I think it would be really cool to see a HSR connection between dt Edmonton and Calgary, however I really do not think it is feasible / necessary to spend govt dollars on a project like this and would much rather see the money spent on further LRT expansion and upgrading highway 2.

[m0nkyman]

I agree with an earlier post that mentioned re opening Edmonton's muni. Perhaps, that is too good an idea to ever be implemented up there. At least that would get more people flying north again.

NO!
¡NO PASARAN!

[Policy Wonk]

You anti-airport types really need to put down the Jane Jacobs and pickup the John Kasarda. The revitalization of urban airports is the next big thing.

[evolv]

According to transrapid the cost of maglev and tgv are similar (my bet maglev is higher) however the real cost savings according to transrapid (and it makes sense) are in operating the system. As there are limited moving parts (no wheels, axels, etc) as well as load points being reduced maintaince would not be nearly as high.

[m0nkyman]

The revitalization of urban airports is the next big thing.

No. It isn't. Anything much bigger than a DeHavilland DHC-3 or a Sikorsky 61 has no business in an urban core.

[Policy Wonk]

A Q400 is a whole lot more quite than a Beaver,

[m0nkyman]

Noise? I was thinking real estate. Lake, river or Helicopter pad.
No land usage.

Oh, and I was also thinking Otter, not Beaver. The Beaver was the DHC-2

[Kevin_foster]

Didn't you guys ever play sim city? You should know how easy and how in-expensive this would be.

[Policy Wonk]

Noise? I was thinking real estate. Lake, river or Helicopter pad. No land usage

Many old airports have significant re-development challenges, especially one like the Muni. They are best put to their original use.

[Boris2k7]

Old Thread: New Article.

Quite accidentally, I took the Calgary Transit thread off topic when I posted this image, which then turned to an HSR discussion, then this morning this article just happened to come out in the Herald's editorial section...


On an unrelated and slightly OT note:

I just found this image in the Glenbow Archives. Here is the description:

Two separate images published in the Calgary Herald, December 6, 1974.
a) This fast train, thought to be futuristic, was tested on a Calgary-Edmonton run.
b) The L.R.C. or Light Rapid Comfortable train, at Alyth, Alberta, before going on to Edmonton, Alberta.
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/6315/na286426485tk7zi8.jpg


High-speed rail looking better
Todd Babiak, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Friday, April 06, 2007

With the prospect of spring comes dreams of bounteous harvests, sex and high-speed trains. Imagine sitting back with a glass of wine and a novel, for a one-hour trip between Edmonton and Calgary on a Friday afternoon, the boring countryside zipping past. Sitting across from you, a kindly stranger, also with wine and a novel.

"Greetings."

"Why, hello. Are we not wonderfully lucky to be Albertan on a Friday afternoon in 2011? And to think, we used to drive sport utility vehicles between the two cities, on a congested highway, and waste hours in airports."

"What a silly, dangerous waste of money and fossil fuels! Remember gasoline alley? Ha ha ha."

The dreaminess is even more intense than usual, because of the French V150 train that broke a speed record on Tuesday. At 574 km/h, the speed reached by the V-150, Calgarians could be in Edmonton in less than 45 minutes -- the lucky devils.

Last year at this time, Infrastructure and Transportation minister Lyle Oberg had the fever. If he had become premier, Oberg would have purchased land for a high-speed train. Private industry, he suggested, would build and operate the infrastructure in co-operation with the province -- a much more comprehensible P3 arrangement than, say, the construction of public schools.

As Oberg knows, a comprehensive study already exists. In 2004, the Van Horne Institute concluded that a high-speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary was both feasible and beneficial -- financially, socially and environmentally.

"Not only would it increase transportation choice, promote price competitivity and add inter-city capacity," the study's authors said, "it has the potential to reshape growth and development, strengthen the flow of trade and labour between cities in the corridor and transform international perceptions of the region."

The Van Horne Institute suggested upgrading the existing CPR line for freight and high-speed passenger service on Bombardier JetTrains. Purchasing land for magnetic train links of the German or French sort is a sexier, yet more expensive option, and Premier Ed Stelmach is well-briefed on it; he had a meeting with Siemens AG, the German train builder, in 2004.

Of course, there are skeptics. Some say Albertans won't go for trains unless gas prices are taxed to European levels. Others say, given the labour shortage, it's too expensive to build anything but Wal-Marts. Still others think Edmonton and Calgary should upgrade their LRT systems before the cities link up by rail. Northerners worry a rail link would consolidate international flight connections at the dreaded Calgary airport.

Higher taxes for petroleum products would discourage leisure-based driving in Canadian cities and boost public transportation. Unless the province relieves pressure on the crowded QEII, it will soon require billions in upgrades. Why not divert some of that money to a rail project, and leave the highway for commercial travel?

Edmonton and Calgary must expand and improve their LRT systems, train or no train, and a high-speed link would only further integrate the regions and the corridor. Worrying about the all-consuming power of the Calgary airport is pointless and old-fashioned. Airlines are driven by profit.

Since parking fees have exploded in downtown Calgary, and since commutes from the ever more distant suburbs and exurbs have turned ugly, it has transformed into a public transit city without sacrificing an inch of its conservatism.

According to the provincial government, we'll know more in July. A market research firm is finishing up a study Oberg commissioned last year. "It's just to get a gauge on how many people would use the rail service and what they'd be willing to pay," says Jerry Bellikka, with Infrastructure and Transportation. "What does our marketplace want? Then we have to figure out if what the market wants can be delivered at a reasonable cost."

Costs and benefits can be defined in a number of ways. With luck, the province will consider the increased productivity, as well as the social and environmental benefits, that would come with reduced car and airline traffic in the corridor.

"The numbers coming out of their market research, we would expect, hope, will reinforce the Van Horne study," says Peter Wallis, president and CEO of the Van Horne Institute. "Or, more likely, considering the growth we're experiencing, we underestimated the demand for this project."

The high-speed rail debate, 2007 edition, will amount to a classic struggle between governing with vision and governing with the fear of upsetting a largely imaginary cult of Albertans living in a perpetual 1968. If it's easier to contemplate, replace the wine and novel with beer and a copy of Truckin' magazine.

tbabiak@thejournal.canwest.com

[CanadianCentaur]

I have the feeling that the high-speed rail debate will never go away, unless one of two things happen:

Either Edmonton or Calgary disappears from the face of the planet,

or...

The high-speed rail actually gets built, whether it's 2025 or 2125.

[ctown.myth]

Didn't you guys ever play sim city? You should know how easy and how in-expensive this would be.

SimCity is not that accurate of a sim, the money and dedication doesn't only come from the government, the private and corporate world must also think that suck a connection will be better for their business. Also, the everyday Calgarian isn't going to go to Edmonton on a train which will be more expensive that taking a normal gasoline car.

That being said I think that the rail could be built, but not as a high-speed rail connection, a normal rail going a bit faster than the normal car on QEII would be feasible, but only if it doesn't hinder the progress on the LRT connections being built in the cities.

[Danma]

If a well-thought out business plan can be made, then I think it's a pretty cool idea. Having taken the Shinkansen a number of trips, I can say that the convience, security and ease of high speed rail is definitely worth it from a traveler standpoint. Instead of getting at the airport 60-90 minutes ahead of time, going through security, etc. you show up 15 minutes ahead of time, walk on, take your seat and relax... nothing beats it IMHO. However, I see a few obstacles.


A trip from downtown to downtown must be significantly faster than driving and at least as fast as flying. Given a proper ROW between ends this could happen. Any talk of anything less than 180km/hr should be forgotten, since you might as well just take Red Arrow.
Most high-speed lines do not have crossings, period. The shinkansen is raised and/or cordoned off the entire distance as a train going 220km/hr+ takes a significant distance to stop in case of emergency, etc. Just taking the existing ROW and upgrading the rails may not be enough.
About that rail upgrading... most high speed rail requires the tracks to be welded together with only very occasional gaps or else it's bumpy as hell. Japan has extreme weather in the northern half, so we know that there's ways to survive cold weather, but I'd be concerned about the cost of maintenance.
I keep bringing up the cost of maintenance of the rails, but this is an extremely big deal... that if we went with an electric solution then that 290km would require electric maintenance... I wonder what the costs of maintenance for these are like in Europe and Japan?


However, there are also some excellent opportunities and advantages that haven't been considered:


Putting stations between the three major cities, say at Olds and Ponoka, would enable those areas to become low-cost business areas, and make those areas prime options for building manufacturing and development centers... if it only takes the executive 20 minutes by HSR to go to their factory in Olds from downtown Calgary, then that opens doors!
With all the maintenance required, this would create more jobs, and more importantly, jobs all along the stretch between Calgary and Edmonton, not just in the centers.
Perception of Alberta by investors may change in a positive manner, as we will appear more high-tech and diversified due to the halo effect of such a rail line. This would help when the oil goes dry :haha:


Finally, someone said that there's no good place for HSR in North America... but I disagree. There's lots of obvious places and indeed there were a significant number of officials from North American cities at the TGV speed test. New York to Boston is being eyed, as is San Francisco to Los Angeles. The important thing that needs to be considered is that a large population isn't necessarily what's needed -- it's a large need to go between two places quickly.

As I stated above, though, that those obstacles MUST be overcome and planned for before this ever has a chance of hitting the rails.

EDIT: Washington D.C to Boston actually has 220km/hr Bombardier trains running on them. They are not electric.

[Riise]

I'll just repost what I posted in the Calgary Transit thread:

You can put me in the group that thinks the HSR would be useless until both cities become easily accessible via Transit (especially LRT). However, I do believe that we need to be proactive and start working on the project immediately. To start, the government needs to start setting aside funds for the project. Work on a passenger train ROW (LGV/HS style) should commence in a few years.

The LGV ROW would be owned and maintained by the government. Track time would be rented out to private passenger companies, and medium speed train service should start upon the LGV's completion. This train service will not be intended solely for intercity travel but also for commuter travel; you'd be amazed at the amount of people north of Calgary and south of Edmonton that would use this service.

At the same time the QEII highway should be upgraded to motorway/autobahn standards and turned into toll road of some sort, preferably an ETR. The toll would help pay for the project and ensure that auto-users pay the full cost of using an automobile. In combination with the construction delays it would add to the amount of people using the medium speed passenger rail system.

By the time both projects are complete transit service in both cities will be vastly improved and the population of the corridor might be at the threshold for HSR service, which would run on the already constructed LGVs.



lets be realistic here:

Route 1: EXPRESS >
Downtown Calgary to Downtown Edmonton in 45 Minutes

I think Route 1 should work like this, or be split into Routes 1A and 1B.

Departure
Downtown Calgary to Downtown Edmonton, calling at: Calgary International Airport.

Return
Downtown Edmonton to Downtown Calgary, calling at: Edmonton International Airport.

[Jay in Cowtown]

QE-2... does this annoy anyone else but me???

[SHOFEAR]

QE-2... does this annoy anyone else but me???

I refuse to call it that. It's highway 2, or in some cases Calgary Trial.



When needed.....many many years from now. I think this route idea is pretty good.
I think Route 1 should work like this, or be split into Routes 1A and 1B.

Departure
Downtown Calgary to Downtown Edmonton, calling at: Calgary International Airport.

Return
Downtown Edmonton to Downtown Calgary, calling at: Edmonton International Airport.

[KrisYYC]

Well I can't post the exact numbers of passengers flying on AC to YEG in a day (there might be some Westjet employees out there somewhere haha). But I think the demand is there IF the train links city centre to city centre. We dispatch a flight to YEG every 30 mins during business hours and every 60 mins after business hours until 11pm. I'd say around 60% of it is coporate travel. Westjet also has several daily frequencies.

The number of people travelling between Calgary and Edmonton is a lot higher than some on this forum think. It's more than just counting cars on the QE2.

Don't forget, that access to a convenient HSR link would probably develop the market even more. For example, with HSR you could live in the Red Deer area (cheaper housing) and still work in Edmonton or Calgary. So it's not ONLY about how many people travel between Edmonton and Calgary today.

Of couse, LRT expansion has to be complete before opening day of the HSR link. But that's easily possible.

Kris

[chenmau]

Thanks for resurrecting this, Boris.

[EdmTrekker]

User Pay, not with my tax dollars.

[feepa]

QE-2... does this annoy anyone else but me???

Little bit off topic, but when your in Edmonton, and you head down to Calgary, you can say 'you are going down on the queen'....

anyways... its stupid. Hwy 2 for life!

[e909]

It might not be such a bad idea actually. If you have a bullet train with stops in communities along QE2, you're able to have more population that can live in these smaller areas, allowing the surge on Edmonton and Calgary to be balanced out a little.

[walli]

I voted no for several reasons ...

The biggest reason was the people served to cost ratio, comparing fully expanding out both Edmonton and Calgary's LRT networks with adding this high-speed link. The high speed link should only be thought about after that.

I don't think the link should be city centre to city centre ... rather, it should be from (approximately) airport to airport. The local train networks should take over from there. Navigating within the city would completely erode the value of a high speed train. For Calgary, the station should be in the Deerfoot valley close to Airport trail (one LRT stop from the airport).

Here is a radical idea ... don't serve the Leduc International Airport at all, and use Calgary's airport for the entire province. In that case, the Edmonton station could be into the city limits.

[Hardhatdan]

I voted no for several reasons ...

Here is a radical idea ... don't serve the Leduc International Airport at all, and use Calgary's airport for the entire province. In that case, the Edmonton station could be into the city limits.

Genius! :tup:

[Riise]

Here is a radical idea ... don't serve the Leduc International Airport at all, and use Calgary's airport for the entire province. In that case, the Edmonton station could be into the city limits.

Much to the dismay of YEG supporters, that is quite the interesting idea... As long as the journey by HSR is cheap as well as fast it might be an alternative for U.S. and International bound travellers from Edmonton. If you were to make one of the High-Speed train carriages a baggage one and placed a baggage check at the train station in Edmonton, it could make for a hassle free trip to YYC and beyond. I wonder how the Air Carriers would feel about this? If they got in on the action they might not care so much, isn't this what is done in Amsterdam Schiphol and other parts of Europe?

[S_B_Russell]

^ Here's an idea, let's shut down YYC and YEG and share an airport located in Red Deer.

Comparing Alberta and the Netherlands doesn't make any sense, but nice try. ie Netherlands - 41,526 km² vs Alberta - 661,848 km² and population Netherlands - 16,491,461 vs Alberta - 3,290,350

[Riise]

Comparing Alberta and the Netherlands doesn't make any sense, but nice try. ie Netherlands - 41,526 km² vs Alberta - 661,848 km² and population Netherlands - 16,491,461 vs Alberta - 3,290,350

It's actually a much larger regional concept, I'm sorry for not explaining myself properly. The concept I'm talking about is how instead of flying between CDG and AMS to catch connecting flights some people are simply taking the train. I did this myself last summer.

[walli]

Much to the dismay of YEG supporters, that is quite the interesting idea... As long as the journey by HSR is cheap as well as fast it might be an alternative for U.S. and International bound travellers from Edmonton. If you were to make one of the High-Speed train carriages a baggage one and placed a baggage check at the train station in Edmonton, it could make for a hassle free trip to YYC and beyond. I wonder how the Air Carriers would feel about this? If they got in on the action they might not care so much, isn't this what is done in Amsterdam Schiphol and other parts of Europe?

This also responds to the issue of high airport costs. There would be increased efficiencies of scale.

The other thing is, it takes 40 minutes from Edmonton airport to Edmonton downtown now ... so the high speed train would likely be much faster (not to mention cheaper) than flying to Edmonton and then transferring to a cab.

[KrisYYC]

Passengers in Edmonton connecting to a flight from YYC would benefit big time. Take into account the time to get from Edmonton to Leduc International (YEG). Plus the fact you have to be there at least one hour before your flight etc. etc.
Systems that allow passengers to check in for their flights at train stations are common throughout Europe and Asia. I've used them several times and they are enormously convienient.

Kris

[Beltliner]

I would support a Calgary-Edmonton TGV under the following circumstances:


Privately funded. There are enough outstanding needs for municipal public transport infrastructure, not the least of which is building out the LRT systems in Calgary and Edmonton, that to my mind would be of a much higher priority for public financing.
Downtown to downtown, with no stops in between. There are too many issues related to engineering, maintenance, passenger convenience, and public safety to warrant multiple stops on a 300-kilometre TGV line. Can't say it would do much good either for Todd Babiak's glass of wine or for Sir Isaac Newton's dish of applesauce if the train were to lurch from zero to Warp 200 and back to zero again for every town on the QE2.
Strategic scalability. Why stop at Edmonton and Calgary if the line operates at a profit and expanding the system can reasonably be justified over the long term? Conversely, why go to the trouble and expense of building a TGV line if Calgary and Edmonton are intended to be the alpha and omega of the system?

[walli]

I would support a Calgary-Edmonton TGV under the following circumstances:


Privately funded. There are enough outstanding needs for municipal public transport infrastructure, not the least of which is building out the LRT systems in Calgary and Edmonton, that to my mind would be of a much higher priority for public financing.
Downtown to downtown, with no stops in between. There are too many issues related to engineering, maintenance, passenger convenience, and public safety to warrant multiple stops on a 300-kilometre TGV line. Can't say it would do much good either for Todd Babiak's glass of wine or for Sir Isaac Newton's dish of applesauce if the train were to lurch from zero to Warp 200 and back to zero again for every town on the QE2.
Strategic scalability. Why stop at Edmonton and Calgary if the line operates at a profit and expanding the system can reasonably be justified over the long term? Conversely, why go to the trouble and expense of building a TGV line if Calgary and Edmonton are intended to be the alpha and omega of the system?


I agree that we should not allow stops in the middle, however, I disagree with going to Calgary downtown instead of Calgary airport. Firstly, it would have to make a very sharp turn by TGV standards, and as such would need to slow down in a major way. Second, it would increase the cost significantly, as you'd need new bridges / overpasses. Third, instead of building on and supporting Alberta's busiest and most important travel hub, you'd be bypassing the airport.

[Beltliner]

...instead of building on and supporting Alberta's busiest and most important travel hub, you'd be bypassing the airport.

It strikes me that this TGV corridor is going to be asked to serve three wildly incompatible constituencies:


Commercial inter-city travellers, who would want to travel from downtown to downtown quickly, efficiently, and conveniently on business;
Airport transfer passengers, who would want to connect themselves and their baggage to flights out of YYC and YEG; and
Commuter and regional rail passengers, who would want to travel from a variety of exurban communities either to Calgary or to Edmonton for their employment.


To ask one TGV to handle all three of these transportation functions is to condemn the whole system to inefficiency and to failure. One right of way could conceivably support all three modes separately, but the TGV, as a case in point, has no business trying to be Dayliner 2.0. As a thought experiment, how about setting up a trusteeship or a Crown corporation to administer the right of way and lease it out respectively to the TGV consortium for inter-city travel, to YYC and YEG for terminal transfers, and to some other going concern for commuter and regional services? Let the respective note-holders sort out if, when, and how they want to proceed.

[ibz]

I agree with Beltliner..unless this project is 100% privately funded, and goes from DT to DT with no or very minimal stops, I would in no way want to see this happening or think that it could be feasible.

BTW...While I am well aware that YEG is located near the city of Leduc, its actually called the Edmonton International Airport...seems some of you Calgary folk have trouble getting that right. ;)

[You Need A Thneed]

Perhaps a good solution would be to have some downtown to downtown express trains, and some that have a few stops, but downtown to downtown would be a bit slower.

[walli]

It strikes me that this TGV corridor is going to be asked to serve three wildly incompatible constituencies:


Commercial inter-city travellers, who would want to travel from downtown to downtown quickly, efficiently, and conveniently on business;
Airport transfer passengers, who would want to connect themselves and their baggage to flights out of YYC and YEG; and
Commuter and regional rail passengers, who would want to travel from a variety of exurban communities either to Calgary or to Edmonton for their employment.


To ask one TGV to handle all three of these transportation functions is to condemn the whole system to inefficiency and to failure.

I agree - that is why I would suggest it only go from close to the Calgary Airport to a stop close to Edmonton downtown (or perhaps the LRT serviced TOD the are planning where that old mall was in South Edmonton), bypassing Leduc International. The Calgary station would be a transfer hub handling the LRT (via North-Central line). The highspeed train would NOT continue to downtown. This is not a new idea, as it already part of the "North Central Transit Corridor Review":

http://www.calgarytransit.com/north_central_calgary_transit_corridor_review.pdf

"Stations within the Aurora Business Park near 96 Ave including a potential
multimodal interchange terminal that would offer connections with a possible high speed rail station and a transit connection to the Calgary International Airport." - page 26 or 28, depending how you count em'

There is also a map identifying this on page 27 or 29, again, depending how you count em'.

By forcing it downtown to downtown, not leveraging the existing and/or expected LRT systems, the proposal would not be feasible. You undercut the possibility while short-changing both the Calgary International and the LRT.

[Beltliner]

The Calgary station would be a transfer hub handling the LRT (via North-Central line). The highspeed train would NOT continue to downtown. This is not a new idea, as it already part of the "North Central Transit Corridor Review"....

Had a look at the North Central Transit Corridor Review last year when I was looking into the north leg of the LRT, and the last I'll say of it is that it is not a load of non-penny-wise-pound-foolish non-codswallop that didn't make me want not to drop-kick my alderthingy.

As fate would have it, the Centre City Plan (2007) refers to a downtown terminus for the TGV as part of its Grand Central Station (http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/centre_city/proposed_centre_city_plan_ten.pdf) running down 2 Street SW. Page 94 of the Centre City Plan (the tenth page of the PDF) refers to "the establishment of a Centre City multi-modal 'station' [as] a key piece" of the transit integration puzzle in Calgary, and the importance of a downtown TGV connection is made clear in the plan's policy direction:
Plan for a multi-modal transit “station” at 2 Street SW between 5 and 10 Avenue SW that integrates underground and at-grade LRT lines, the BRT routes, high speed rail to Edmonton [emphasis added], regional commuter rail/bus lines, parking facilities for automobile and bicycle and the appropriate supportive land uses. A “station” may include purpose-built structures and connections (above, below or at street level) through other private and public facilities and structures. Taken together, these structures and connections will form an integrated “station” complex. (City of Calgary, 2007:94)

So in the end, the evidence from the city is something of a wash, eh what? ;)

[Kevin_foster]

SimCity is not that accurate of a sim, the money and dedication doesn't only come from the government, the private and corporate world must also think that suck a connection will be better for their business. Also, the everyday Calgarian isn't going to go to Edmonton on a train which will be more expensive that taking a normal gasoline car.

That being said I think that the rail could be built, but not as a high-speed rail connection, a normal rail going a bit faster than the normal car on QEII would be feasible, but only if it doesn't hinder the progress on the LRT connections being built in the cities.

You should realize I was being sarcastic :rolleyes:

[Boris2k7]

I think that downtown to downtown service is absolutely essential. If you have to get off near the airport, then people who live in the other three corners of the city are less likely to use the service (because you have to get off the HSR train, get to downtown by CTrain, make a transfer to another Ctrain, and then get to your place from there) as well as business travellers.

I don't have too many opinions about the stops. I assume that the trains would only hit their full speeds at certain sections, and wouldn't run too fast while in the cities. You can slow down a train rather than it "lurching" to a stop. Go ask the engineers I guess. But if you can still have 5 stops and make it faster than driving and flying, then I say do it.

Why should we be worrying so much about the Airports again? They seem to be doing just fine, with or without the Edmonton-Calgary traffic.

And related to that, why are we worried about the LRT? In any case it would still be well utilized, and the frequencies just wouldn't be high enough for the HSR to replace the LRT as a form of suburb-downtown commuting.

The VHI report mentions several environmental, economic and social benefits as well. I am quite interested in these. The social benefits in particular. And hell, Red Deer could really explode in population if it had a stop. Imagine being in the centre of both Edmonton and Calgary and being able to commute to either in about half an hour.

[JerryK]

This is the dumbest topic I have ever reread, save the type. Why would anybody who could drive Edmonton to calgary in 2.5 hours, then, have there vehicle to drive or fly in 45 min want a train????? I do alot of business all over north america, and can say, If you think this is the way the tax payers of Alberta should spend there cash:koko:

[JerryK]

P.S, Why do people Mind F**k things to death...None of this shit is going to happen:koko:

[walli]

^^ Why did Edmonton build an airport in Leduc? :koko:

[KrisYYC]

This is the dumbest topic I have ever reread, save the type. Why would anybody who could drive Edmonton to calgary in 2.5 hours, then, have there vehicle to drive or fly in 45 min want a train????? I do alot of business all over north america, and can say, If you think this is the way the tax payers of Alberta should spend there cash:koko:

Flying takes 45 mins? Including getting to the airport, checking in, going through security etc. Oh bad weather, flights delayed, finally get to Edmonton errr Leduc then it's another 40 min drive!

45mins?? Think again!!

Kris

[JerryK]

Flying takes 45 mins? Including getting to the airport, checking in, going through security etc. Oh bad weather, flights delayed, finally get to Edmonton errr Leduc then it's another 40 min drive!

45mins?? Think again!!

Kris Im talking airtime 45min:sly: Im sure taking any train you willl (Also) have to drive to the station, and put-up with delays of some sort!


Just think!!

[feepa]

This is the dumbest topic I have ever reread, save the type. Why would anybody who could drive Edmonton to calgary in 2.5 hours, then, have there vehicle to drive or fly in 45 min want a train????? I do alot of business all over north america, and can say, If you think this is the way the tax payers of Alberta should spend there cash:koko:

Makes you kinda dumb if you've had to re-read it? I'd certainly take a train to Calgary, and I know alot of people would too. Doesn't make this viable yet, but like its been stated many times, plan for it now, built it a little later. If you've read a thing many people here have said, this would be something SHOULD BE BUILT PRIVATELY. But of course, you've only re-read this twice. Go have another go at it. This is about the dumbest post I've ever read. (and yes, I've re-read it a few times now, just to make sure it is dumb)

[Calgarian]

How can it take 45 minutes of Airtime to fly to Edmonton when it takes 55 to fly to Vancouver and 35 to fly to Kelowna?

[walli]

^^ it takes less than 45 minutes, but it is not proportional to a flight to Vancouver as the plane never actually reaches cruising altitude / speed.

That being said, we should not under-estimate the time it takes to clear security, board and taxi. And then double everything to get from Leduc International to Edmonton proper.

[mersar]

How can it take 45 minutes of Airtime to fly to Edmonton when it takes 55 to fly to Vancouver and 35 to fly to Kelowna?

Every flight I see for YYC->YLW is 62 minutes... and YYC->YVR is 88 minutes. YYC->YEG is only 40 however. (These are all direct flights via Westjet, AC is pretty much the same but their site is acting up right now).

[Calgarian]

Either way, I think a 45 minute train ride would be much more convenient than either driving or flying.

[KrisYYC]

Im talking airtime 45min:sly: Im sure taking any train you willl (Also) have to drive to the station, and put-up with delays of some sort!


Just think!!

So, somebody works dowtown and needs to be in Edmonton for a meeting. What do you think is quicker? Boarding a high speed train downtown then disembarking in downtown Edmonton? Or taking a taxi for 20 mins (and $35) 90 mins before your flight is even supposed to leave. Check in, go through security, get to gate, board, fly, arrive in Edmonton, disembark. Take 40 minute taxi ride (another $50 at least) to downtown Edmonton. There's no contest man.

Sure, trains can be delayed. But train schedules are nowhere near as fragile as airline schedules are. Weather that would delay a flight 30 mins or more wouldn't even phase a High Speed Train. Also, airline schedules are affected by other cities weather as well. If the plane scheduled to fly your Edmonton flight is delayed in Kelowna because of a storm, well your flight will be delayed too.

Every flight I see for YYC->YLW is 62 minutes... and YYC->YVR is 88 minutes. YYC->YEG is only 40 however. (These are all direct flights via Westjet, AC is pretty much the same but their site is acting up right now).

Those are gate to gate times and not actual air times. Air times are always fluid with a million variables.

Kris

[Nutterbug]

Even a 4 hour conventional train ride would be more convenient than driving or flying in many situations, wouldn't you say?

[feepa]

Even a 4 hour conventional train ride would be more convenient than driving or flying in many situations, wouldn't you say?

no. You need to make it 2 hours or under for sure. If you drive the unwritten speed limit when going down on the queen, you can easily make it downtown to downtown in 2.5 hrs

[CMD UW]

Fact of the matter is that HSR "IS NOT SUSTAINABLE" in this province. For the love of god Alberta is not a populated province in a sparsely populated country. We have no idea what 'densely populated' areas are.

Enough of the pipe dreams now.

[Calgarian]

I think we would see a HSR between Toronto and Montreal LONG before we would ever see one here, still, it would be nice and convenient to have.

[CMD UW]

/\ Yes, absolutely!

For convenience, yes, it would be great. But if the numbers can't work, it doesn't get my support.

[Boris2k7]

Well, since you said it is a fact, would you care to show an opposing study? I mean, something that isn't just the opinion of a National Post or Sun journalist?

[CMD UW]

/\ Dude, population stats alone should be enough. If HSR was soooo viable, why don't we see trains running between Dallas - Houston, Toronto - Montreal, Philly - NYC, etc. There are maaaaaany, maaaany other higher populated areas in North America that don't have HSR. Think about it.

The rose coloured glasses can come off at anytime now.

[Boris2k7]

Not good enough. I'm just going to dismiss that as your opinion until you can come up with some sort of opposing study, or actually crunch the numbers yourself in whatever creative fashion you need to prove your point. Otherwise you are just a naysayer.

BTW, I'm not seriously waiting for that as I'm fairly sure that no such study exists. In fact the only credible study so far is the VHI Study. Now, obviously I wouldn't want to just go ahead and build the thing with only a single study done about it. We need the issue examined inside and out. And I would welcome some good opposing arguments with a study to back them up, really. :)

I just spent some time reading the discussions on C2E about the issue, and am fairly surprised by the narrow-minded opposition. One of the big mistakes was that people kept saying that it unfeasible for a route with only 2.5 million or so people in it, as if the project would be done by tomorrow, or even in the next 10 years. Another is the assumption that LRT lines are going to remain stagnant and aren't recieving funding (the real problem there is civic priorities... road vs LRT debate). And a last one is the belief that such infrastructure money would be best spent [wasted] in other areas of provincial jurisdiction (hell, even beyond that, some people have gone off the deep end and started throwing in fire, police, etc.)

But why is it necessary that we wait for an example and be the last to build it? Look at LRT's for example, I don't know if even our CTrain pays for itself. Most systems are dependent on government subsidization, yet we still build them. Notwithstanding that there are factors such as parking which come into play, the time and cost savings, as well as the redevelopment and economic benefits of LRT make it a worthwhile investment and one that benefits our cities as a whole. I look at HSR the same way. Even if the service doesn't pay for itself, the net economic benefits MAY be enough that it is worth it overall.

EDIT: What I think is most essential is that there is real public dialogue and some thoughtful discussion between industry partners, the government, and citizens. Even if it doesn't result in HSR, it could boost support for different alternatives and we could come up with a long-term provincial strategy. It happens far too often that an issue comes up and is just brushed aside without any discussion. The reason this topic keeps coming up is due to various reasons, but the ones that come to mind are that it is something very much desired by at least a large minority of Albertans (read: not just forumers here), and that is just something that is very cool and is fun to think about.

But I would rather not talk about the realism of the concept so much as the potential outcomes if were built in a variety of different ways. If there is a stop at Red Deer, would companies and/or people start flocking there to be in the center of the action? If it has a spur ran to Fort Mac, would people be moving there less quickly and thus there would be less need for expensive infrastructure projects? If it ran to Lethbridge would we have people from Calgary commuting there for school? And suppose it did become popular and the trains were full, how high of a frequency would be feasible and would this demand translate into further growth of transit connections?

So many fun things to discuss! ;)

[Calgarian]

We don't see HSR in other highly populated corridors in NA because everyone on this side of the pond has a love affair with our cars. Once it happens in one area, and becomes successful, I think you would see it catch on in a lot of other areas. As the environment becomes more and more of a social and political issue, I think people in NA will start looking at HRS lines a lot more seriously. It would be erally cool if Calgary / Edmonton got the first mag-lev train in NA.

EDIT: how fast do the fastest Amtrak trains go?