High Speed Rail - Calgary/Edmonton

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Assuming the train goes 240 km/hr and you can drive 120 km/hr (your results may vary), you're looking at about 1 hr and 15 minutes to take the train to Edmonton (assuming no stops). Driving would take about 2 hrs and 30 min. That's a cushion of a 1 hr and 15 minutes to fart around with stops in Red Deer and waiting times.

The timing isn't that simple.

Lets assume its only a Calgary to Edmonton and vice versa milk run at 1h15 each way. Bascially, that means three hour round trips for the trains, assuming you ran them constantly. So, if the train schedule is to leave Calgary at 6AM, 9AM, 12Noon, etc, and I want to leave Calgary at 7:30, I am waiting around an hour and a half for the next train, whereas I could have just driven, and arrived at the same time.

That, of course, is the big tradeoff. To drive, you just hop in and go. Taking the train would be faster, but you are a slave to their schedule.

How much you wanna bet Airdrie, Red Deer and Leduc would want stops?

Cost wise, I don't see a benefit for the average user. It's not going to be cheap. Frankly, I doubt it would be cheaper to take the train than the half tank of gas would cost. And, of course, if you are going anywhere but where the train stops, you are either renting a car or cabbing it. No savings there.

From an environmental perspective, if we are going to spend that much tax money on rail transit, spend it on building out Calgary and Edmonton's LRT systems. It would have a much bigger impact, and be much more useful to the average person in both cities.

If some private company wants to take a risk on it, go ahead. I think there are far better ways for government to spend our money.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

From an environmental perspective, if we are going to spend that much tax money on rail transit, spend it on building out Calgary and Edmonton's LRT systems. It would have a much bigger impact, and be much more useful to the average person in both cities.

Agreed, make it easier to get around within the cities and if the populations get to a level where a high speed rail line could be of benefit than it's maybe worth pursuing. But in countries like France, Germany, and Japan where high speed rail is used, the populations of the centers are substantially higher that Calgary and Edmonton.

[mykalberta]

I agree, also it makes sense tou build out the LRT in either city to get people accustomed to using rail traffic.

The only reason I see the HSR to be before than say LRT to West Edmonton Mall would be a long term vision to get the Winter Olympics to a Calgary/Edmonton/Red Deer combo with Edmotnon holding the opening/closing ceremonies. That might be my pipe dream though

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Agreed, make it easier to get around within the cities and if the populations get to a level where a high speed rail line could be of benefit than it's maybe worth pursuing. But in countries like France, Germany, and Japan where high speed rail is used, the populations of the centers are substantially higher that Calgary and Edmonton.

I was just in Japan, and was on trains for pretty much two straight months. And here's the synopsis:

120 million people crammed into a country the size of Alberta. You have a (relatively) wealthy country, huge tax base, and over 30 private companies offering competitive rates sharing lines, including four Shinkansen lines / JR Group companies.

While a train is a nice luxury in Alberta, we are nowhere NEAR what we need as a population to sustain a cheap, effective and efficient train system. Not by a long shot.

Unless this thing runs on solar power or something like a low-cost hydrogen-cell engine, this line will not be successful, even though we would love to see it happen.

[guzzy]

I have a good friend who works at Stantec, which is the company responsible for the feasibility study. Spring 2007 the Calgary & Edmonton Railway Company (I believe this is the tentative name of the company) purchased the land in both downtown Edmonton and downtown Calgary to complete the corridor. They now have the right of way purchased from Calgary right up to Edmonton.

The ticket price used in the feasibility study was $50 each way. Long term they are looking at stops along the small towns between Calgary and Edmonton. THe goal is to provide a 45 minute commute from Red Deer to downtown Calgary with stops two to three stops at smaller towns along the way.

I actually have a survey drawing from around the Olds area that shows the railway right of way with the owner showing Calgary & Edmonton Railway Company. I have no idea if they have a timeline in place yet, or even a formal go ahead
.

[4X4]

Re: Resolute

But that's you. You go to Edmonton regularly and you have a schedule to keep. There are hundreds (thousands? many thousands?) of people that would use the train in a less restricted way. Tons of oilpatch guys that get flown to Edmonton for TO that end up bussing it to Calgary, lots of people without cars that have family in the other town, people that would strategically schedule their meetings around train schedules...

I'd say that Red Deer stands to gain the most from a project like this. Look at the GTA for example. They have their Go Trains that hit all the surrounding towns and cities. Many, many people now have the means to buy a house (in one of the satellite communities) and get to work in a reasonable amount of time inside the city of toronto.

Basically I think that while it's not a necessity, it would be a major bonus for people considering moving to Alberta, individuals and businesses alike.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Lets assume its only a Calgary to Edmonton and vice versa milk run at 1h15 each way. Bascially, that means three hour round trips for the trains, assuming you ran them constantly. So, if the train schedule is to leave Calgary at 6AM, 9AM, 12Noon, etc, and I want to leave Calgary at 7:30, I am waiting around an hour and a half for the next train, whereas I could have just driven, and arrived at the same time.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that they are going to have more than one HST consist.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

From an environmental perspective, if we are going to spend that much tax money on rail transit, spend it on building out Calgary and Edmonton's LRT systems. It would have a much bigger impact, and be much more useful to the average person in both cities.

I agree that we should expand Calgary and Edmonton's LRT network but rather from a mobility standpoint. I'm all for providing travellers between Calgary and Edmonton an alternative to driving, but once they are in each city they will still need a convenient alternative. Basically, before we build our inter-city rail network we need to ensure that there are solid and reliable intra-city rail networks.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If some private company wants to take a risk on it, go ahead. I think there are far better ways for government to spend our money.

Actually, I believe that the best railway systems in countries like Canada are ones where a Crown Corporation owns the rail infrastructure but rents it out to private companies that own the rolling stock and provide rail service.

[Tyler]

Who wants a quicker way to get to Edmonton?

If I had my way, I'd spend those billions on shipping Edmonton to BC.

[BlackArcher101]

Here is the previous thread on it for reference.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...gh+speed+train

[Kev]

It would probably help the tourism revenuefor both cities, as people visiting Edmonton might be more apt to take a day trip to Calgary and vice versa if they knew they didn't have to drive.

Car rentals might increase as people would travel to a city and rent a car for the day.

It would be silly to not include Red Deer if they're going to Edmonton already.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Addick

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that they are going to have more than one HST consist.

Truthfully, I doubt there would be enough usage to justify a single train making round trips every 3 hours. Multiple trains is not cost effective, imo.

4x4 - I'm not suggesting that my view is universally shared, however I am just pointing out some of the limitations of such a system.

In theory, we would have three ways of getting between the two cities: car, train, fly. Each has its benefits, each has its limitations. Personally, I question whether the train's benefits outweighs its limitations. Frankly, it is not the superior option in any way, but simply a middle ground. Driving would be both cheaper and allows the most freedom of scheduling. Flying is far faster, and while you are limited in when you can leave, there are many, many more departure options. HSR would be a middle ground, but I question whether that middle ground is large enough to support such a system.

Toronto's GoTrain is not a comparable example. 5 million people in a single MSA vs. half the population over a massively larger land area.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Truthfully, I doubt there would be enough usage to justify a single train making round trips every 3 hours. Multiple trains is not cost effective, imo.

4x4 - I'm not suggesting that my view is universally shared, however I am just pointing out some of the limitations of such a system.

In theory, we would have three ways of getting between the two cities: car, train, fly. Each has its benefits, each has its limitations. Personally, I question whether the train's benefits outweighs its limitations. Frankly, it is not the superior option in any way, but simply a middle ground. Driving would be both cheaper and allows the most freedom of scheduling. Flying is far faster, and while you are limited in when you can leave, there are many, many more departure options. HSR would be a middle ground, but I question whether that middle ground is large enough to support such a system.

Toronto's GoTrain is not a comparable example. 5 million people in a single MSA vs. half the population over a massively larger land area.

Ah. I see whut you're saying...

Guess I still think that if you build it they will come.

[STeeLy]

There are some things that need to be cleared up here.

Firstly, the top speed of the train is 240km/h, not the average speed. It will take time to speed up and slowdown. It's unlike a car where you can hit the brakes and stop within hundreds of meters depending on your speed. Trains carry a lot of momentum, it will take MUCH more to slow and because of its weight, it also takes a lot of time to accelerate as well. A train's top speed being 240km/h, you're probably looking at maybe 210 - 220km/h average speed. If the train was to stop in Red Deer and/or Airdrie and/or Leduc, the average speed would be much lower. If trains stop in all of those 3 places in between, you might as well drive and may still get there at around roughly the same time.

Secondly, just because Red Deer, Airdrie, Leduc, etc... wants stops doesn't mean every train will stop there. I highly doubt that they would have only one train running this entire route. They would probably build stations in those places, but have express trains that bypass them, so direct route from Calgary to Edmonton departing at certain times with no stops and charge a more for it and than the trains that stop along the way at those stops.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ah. I see whut you're saying...

Guess I still think that if you build it they will come.

And they might. In the end though, as a tax payer, I think that spending a couple billion on Calgary and Edmonton's LRT systems offers a far greater ROI than HSR would.

If some conglomeration steps up and says it wants to finance and operate such a project, then I wish them all the success in the world.

[RougeUnderoos]

People in Alberta wouldn't even use this thing.

It costs a hundred bucks just to take the smelly old Greyhound to Edmonton and back. The swankier Red Arrow is closer to $140. The Alberta Supertrain would cost a lot more than that. 200 bucks is probably a cheap estimate. Even if you drive a Hummer, you can beat that.

Say you want to take the wife and kid up to Edmonton so you can sleep in the bed of a plastic truck for the weekend, why you're looking at 600 dollars in train fare.

[wooohooo]

nm

[wooohooo]

Originally Posted by guzzy

The ticket price used in the feasibility study was $50 each way. Long term they are looking at stops along the small towns between Calgary and Edmonton.
.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

People in Alberta wouldn't even use this thing.

It costs a hundred bucks just to take the smelly old Greyhound to Edmonton and back. The swankier Red Arrow is closer to $140. The Alberta Supertrain would cost a lot more than that. 200 bucks is probably a cheap estimate. Even if you drive a Hummer, you can beat that.

Say you want to take the wife and kid up to Edmonton so you can sleep in the bed of a plastic truck for the weekend, why you're looking at 600 dollars in train fare.

Like guzzy said, probably going to be around $50 for people to use it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by wooohooo

Like guzzy said, probably going to be around $50 for people to use it.

Well then maybe that feasibility study is either outdated or seriously flawed.

It is not going to be cheaper than taking the Greyhound.

[Ozy_Flame]

If its $50 for a ticket and only $40 for a full tank of gas, I'm still going to pay $50. It's faster, and absolves me of any liability to get there. Worth it IMO.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

If its $50 for a ticket and only $40 for a full tank of gas, I'm still going to pay $50. It's faster, and absolves me of any liability to get there. Worth it IMO.

How about when you get to the station? Public transportation or taxi?