Should there be a High Speed Rail link from Calgary to Edmonton?

[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]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

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

I'll never let that happen.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Boris550

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]

Originally Posted by Boris550

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]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Boris550

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]

Originally Posted by Boris550

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]

Originally Posted by freeweed

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]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

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]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

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".

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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