High Speed Rail - Calgary/Edmonton

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Maybe Alberta could leverage its pipeline expertise and pilot the Hyperloop system Elon Musk proposed...then we could export the systems.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

If it's being built they should do Calgary - FortMac all in one go.

That would have required the vision a few years a go, now its not needed to FtMac as they are twinning the highway.

[squiggs96]

In order for this to be really effective, both Calgary and Edmonton would need world class transit systems in their cities. People need ways to get around once they have arrived. Neither city is built for that right now.

I would love to see the HSR built, but would also love to see the improvements needed in each city to make it plausible.

[You Need a Thneed]

We need to build the HSR to be able to handle oversized freight. It would be a sight to see - a giant pressure vessel racing along at 500 km/h.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

In order for this to be really effective, both Calgary and Edmonton would need world class transit systems in their cities. People need ways to get around once they have arrived. Neither city is built for that right now.
.

This


The option would be, as someone mentioned on this board, as "chunnel" type set up. You drive on, and then drive off once at your destination.

[Bigtime]

I agree, I think Addick's question of what is the density along the corridors in Spain is a very important one.

Edit: Way behind, this response was to bizaro86's at the end of the last page.

[corporatejay]

You don't want a Chunnel. Far too much opportunity for hijinx, just like the movie, Chunnel.

[mykalberta]

I dont see why it couldnt work (other than money required to build). Sign a deal with Car2Go and other car rental firms for vehicles at the stations. You dont really need to increase the transit systems that much. People can take trains and then rent cars while they are there or take cabs.

For Spain - I was just there and the toll roads are about $14CAD/100KM so if they tolled QE2 and increased its max speed to 130kmph then that would be an equivilent. Add a bulk cargo car to each train and you would reduce the amount of traffic DHL/FedEx/Purolator have to do between the cities and would allow them to consolidate air freight in one City (probably Edmonton).

I dont see how it couldnt work. We arent talking bullet train. We are just talking high speed ICE style train, cut the trip in half or even more. 90 minutes downtown to downtown with a suburban station in each city and I personally would take it a minimum 5 times a year.

Sell this by reducing carbon emissions and you will get the greenies on board. How many tonnes of CO2 would be reduced just by taking 100K trips a year. Future stations in Leduc and Airdrie would also be viable for a milk run style service as well. Would also reduce any future required widening of the QE2 as you wouldnt need it with an HSR

If that worked then exapanding the train to Canmore would be the next logical step but from living in Canmore part time I can tell you the torches and pitch forks would be out against it.

Benefits for Calgary would likely be increased air traffic via YYC.
Benefits for Edmonton would be the HSR would likely run along the same ROW as the future Edmonton SE line to Millwoods so that would decrease its timetable and future costs.

Negatives for Calgary - hard to find any other than maybe might lose some freight traffic located here as they would likely be consolidated at one airport.

Negatives for Edmonton - likely less air traffic at YEG but that shouldnt really matter to Edmonton because the airport is in Leduc - it would probably more convenient for people to take HSR to YYC to fly as that would likely be the location of Calgarys suburban station.

From an Alberta perspective it makes sense to turn Calgary and Edmonton into a "twin-cities" arrangement there by being able to maximize funding at one location over the other. Example Engineering funding directed towards UofC where medical funding directed at UofA.

Also, the gov would likely combine the ROW they are getting for the power line for this as that was always brought up as a possibility even as early as 1998 if they didnt want to use the CN ROW. Getting these days with the increased hype over CO2 it shouldnt be as much of a hurdle to get the Feds to amend the legislation to transporting passengers.

This brings me back to my transportation engineering course at the UofA as this was the subject matter of my paper. Hated the course and having to sit multiple Sundays in a row at an intersection in Edmonton recording the vehicle traffic was a bore, but researching the HSR paper was fun - as was my grade The big thing that has changed since then and now is the reduced CO2 emissions. While it has no monetary value at the moment it has huge political capital associated with it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I agree, I think Addick's question of what is the density along the corridors in Spain is a very important one.

Edit: Way behind, this response was to bizaro86's at the end of the last page.

Definitely. Probably the best comparison would be to draw a 75km strip around the high speed rail lines in Spain and take the population density of that. I don't have the GIS skills to do that.

Spain has huge plans, but most of the country (by area) still doesn't have access to high speed rail

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

We need to build the HSR to be able to handle oversized freight. It would be a sight to see - a giant pressure vessel racing along at 500 km/h.

Who needs a pipeline when you have HSR full of tanker cars. Take that BC

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

That would have required the vision a few years a go, now its not needed to FtMac as they are twinning the highway.

If it's HSR why not send Calgarians direct to FM, if it's going 240-300 KPH. I will never, ever, ever drive to fort mac. Even though my work might require it (I'd instead fly). I can fly to edmonton too but prefer to drive.

If there was a train I'd go to fort mac.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

If it's HSR why not send Calgarians direct to FM, if it's going 240-300 KPH. I will never, ever, ever drive to fort mac. Even though my work might require it (I'd instead fly). I can fly to edmonton too but prefer to drive.

If there was a train I'd go to fort mac.

Twinning the highway is the logical first step. If traffic numbers get to the point where its justified - example Ft Mac expands to 500K+ people then maybe the discussion can start but likely only if industry kicked in a portion of the cost.

Edmonton to Calgary is twinned and they are getting to the point where any future expansion of the highway would be costly. Less than the HSR but if you can build the HSR and not need to expand Hwy2 then that would seem like the more economical solution if the money can be worked out.

From a purely good press POV it would be worth its weight in gold. Just think of the optics of Calgary to Edmonton having the only real high speed train in North America. It would be a great talking point how the "tarsands province" is investing in clean renewable transportation when Silicon Valley still needs to drive?

And building it now adds so many economic possibilities along the corridor for possible future stations. It would also make suburban rail to Calgary more viable with connections to Cochrane and Okotoks.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

You don't want a Chunnel. Far too much opportunity for hijinx, just like the movie, Chunnel.

"Everybody out of the Chunnel!"

[Addick]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

While it has no monetary value at the moment it has huge political capital associated with it.

That was an excellent post and you've brought up some great points. Although you mentioned a lot of positives of an HSR project and mentioned a few problems that it would solve, how do these measure up to the problems that would be solved and positives created by improving intra-city rapid transit?

The HSR project would create opportunities but I believe rapid transit projects would both solve massive issues and provide new opportunities. Consequently, the latter would have a much greater impact.

[SebC]

While I agree with many here that intracity transit is a better use of public funds, the idea with the intercity train is that it would be built largely with private funds, and paid off through fares.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by SebC

While I agree with many here that intracity transit is a better use of public funds, the idea with the intercity train is that it would be built largely with private funds, and paid off through fares.

We need to join the EU and just have Germany et al pay for all our infrastructure. You know, like Spain did.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

We need to join the EU and just have Germany et al pay for all our infrastructure. You know, like Spain did.

[Table 5]

^ Ha, pretty much. I can't speak for Greece, but when I was in Spain a few years ago, I was amazed how much new infrastructure was being build, with the vast majority of them having EU-funded signage. Everything from highways, interchanges, high speed trains etc, it was everywhere. Spain might be a poorer European country when it comes to individuals, but they have some of the most amazing infrastructure on the continent.

Although at least they are putting it to use...in a lot of eastern Euro countries that EU money just gets syphoned off into personal bank accounts.

[HOWITZER]

I posted about this in the WRGMG thread, and the possibility of a chunnel type deal with car transportation especially in winter.

What sticks out for me is that I don't understand what company would ever want to finance, build and operate a railway. CPR and CN had their transcanadian network built for them by the government, and I don't think either of them have invested in any new lines since they've become private (correct me if I'm wrong)?

What really seems worth completing this project now (depending on ridership growth) is the low interest rates, and the time-value of money in favour of getting this project done now rather than in the future.

Maybe the best option for Alberta is to go at this almost in a Deutsch Bahn (German Railroad) way. Have a company, majority controlled by the provincial government, that owns the railway, and what-not, and maybe you sell off shares to private industry. I am not convinced that private industry can effectively operate an extensive, and sufficient public railway system, and the general consensus among tax payers is that they can't trust the government. SO why not remove it from both, but give the government the upper hand.

I think there's market potential if such a "at arms length of government" company were to be established. If they twinned a track between CGY and FtMac, in theory they could also accommodate relatively high speed freight. HSF is something that I'm pretty sure does not exist in NA.

[HOWITZER]

From the other thread...

I'm going to get blasted for this, but,

With the amount of gear grinding we all have about driving, and the dangers of driving CGY-RD-EDM in the winter, is it maybe appropriate to consider the benefits of getting the high speed rail project actually going? Like I know how well over the idea of taxation is received, but what is the big deal of every albertan (equivalent) chipping in $50 per year for ten years in dedicated funding (plus an equivalent sum from federal level) to get this thing done? Heck, imagine if we could have a train Chunnel style where you drive your car in and get whisked to Edmonton in a 1/3 of the time, even in the crappy weather.

And maybe if in the crappy weather people were still able to travel easily, people wouldnt be risking their lives and those of first responders trying to do HWY 2 at Mach 2 in a snowstorm.

Just a thought.