Then why are there ~60 flights a day? Did flying all of a sudden become cheap? Can you take your car on a plane nowadays? It takes longer to fly then drive and yet a more expensive yet a faster/cheaper option to flying is not economical?
While you're somewhat correct and I agree with you a lot of these flights are likely because there are better flights from YYC to the rest of the world than Edmonton. I've got a buddy who lives in Edmonton and 99% of his flights anywhere (excluding Calgary) fly through Calgary.
So a large portion of those YYC - YYG and back flights may be taking people to and from non-calgary destinations.
That said, I know plenty of people that flight to-from Calgary/Edmonton.
While you're somewhat correct and I agree with you a lot of these flights are likely because there are better flights from YYC to the rest of the world than Edmonton. I've got a buddy who lives in Edmonton and 99% of his flights anywhere (excluding Calgary) fly through Calgary.
So a large portion of those YYC - YYG and back flights may be taking people to and from non-calgary destinations.
That said, I know plenty of people that flight to-from Calgary/Edmonton.
Yup but the people that fly from yeg and connect through yyc could take the train from downtown Edmonton to yyc faster and presumably cheaper.
Yup but the people that fly from yeg and connect through yyc could take the train from downtown Edmonton to yyc faster and presumably cheaper.
Debatable on both fronts. Using a Flex fare from Air Canada this Saturday to LA as an example... $320 one-way from YYC is the cheapest option. But most flights are in the $580 range. Cheapest flight from YEG is $430 - stopover in Calgary - but with fewer options. Flights through YVR are about $1200.
The cost of a train ticket would immediately eat the difference between departing from YYC instead of YEG if you are an Edmontonian. Plus the cost of a taxi from the train station to the airport.
Time wise, you'll have fewer options for departure time on the train. That limits your options for departing from Calgary. Especially since you will want to arrive two hours early for international flights. So if your schedule or that of the train means you can't be at YYC by 9:30AM for the $320 direct flight in the morning, then you're going through YVR at $600 and dealing with a 6-10 hour odyssey as well.
There will certainly be occasions in this scenario where a train from Edmonton to get to a flight from Calgary would work out to being cheaper, faster or both. But I also think it would be an exception to the norm, and therefore does not answer the question of where demand for the train would come from.
Why does everyone assume that driving is the only way to get to Edmonton?
There are 31 flights to yeg --> yyc and 29 yyc --> yeg today alone.
As a taxpayer, I'd rather they stick to flying then rather than me needing to pay $50 a year to build this thing. To be honest, if that was forced upon me, I'd even rather my $50 go towards a new hockey arena over high speed rail.
A train going only 140 km/h will have over two hours of time travelling at that speed
140km/h would be pretty slow for HSR. Most of the trains in Europe/Asian run can do around 300km/h (and some of course can go faster). With the relatively flat terrain between Calgary/Edmonton, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible here either. It's gotta be fast. Otherwise don't bother.
The Following User Says Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Put me in the group that believes the money would be better spent on expanding the LRT systems in both cities rather than HSR. The train wouldn't save that much time in comparison to taking the bus, plane, or using a vehicle. Therefore I think the line would have better purpose in serving major urban areas along the corridor, but I don't think the population density between the two metros justify the costs of it currently. When it becomes more a metro in the future, then it may be worthwhile.
While you're somewhat correct and I agree with you a lot of these flights are likely because there are better flights from YYC to the rest of the world than Edmonton. I've got a buddy who lives in Edmonton and 99% of his flights anywhere (excluding Calgary) fly through Calgary.
So a large portion of those YYC - YYG and back flights may be taking people to and from non-calgary destinations.
That said, I know plenty of people that flight to-from Calgary/Edmonton.
99%?
Your buddy must fly to Calgary on purpose. In the last 3-4 years I have taken probably 20 flights to various places and never had a single stop over in Calgary.
It doesn't really make sense to go to Calgary, when there are bigger Hubs like Vancouver, San Fran, LA, Chicago, Denver, and Minnesota to connect in.
I'd also rather spend money on developing local transit systems. I don't see Edmonton and Calgary having the population bases to justify a high speed rail. It would have to be heavily subsidized in order to keep the ticket prices competitive. Not worth it.
Then why are there ~60 flights a day? Did flying all of a sudden become cheap? Can you take your car on a plane nowadays? It takes longer to fly then drive and yet a more expensive yet a faster/cheaper option to flying is not economical?
I don't have any concrete information but I would guess much of the YYC-YEG air traffic is of the transit type instead of dedicated YYC-YEG ones.
If my company is paying for it, sure I will take the plane instead of driving there myself.
Your buddy must fly to Calgary on purpose. In the last 3-4 years I have taken probably 20 flights to various places and never had a single stop over in Calgary.
It doesn't really make sense to go to Calgary, when there are bigger Hubs like Vancouver, San Fran, LA, Chicago, Denver, and Minnesota to connect in.
I'd also rather spend money on developing local transit systems. I don't see Edmonton and Calgary having the population bases to justify a high speed rail. It would have to be heavily subsidized in order to keep the ticket prices competitive. Not worth it.
LOL, see how easy it is to blurt out something so unlikely. Whoops, probably not 99% but quite often it seems
Debatable on both fronts. Using a Flex fare from Air Canada this Saturday to LA as an example... $320 one-way from YYC is the cheapest option. But most flights are in the $580 range. Cheapest flight from YEG is $430 - stopover in Calgary - but with fewer options. Flights through YVR are about $1200.
Which is why I said presumably. It would depend on a few factors.
Quote:
The cost of a train ticket would immediately eat the difference between departing from YYC instead of YEG if you are an Edmontonian. Plus the cost of a taxi from the train station to the airport.
The 2004 Van Horne study estimated $97 round trip. This fare was market tested by Ipsos-Reid. There would be no taxi cost, the train station is at the airport.
Quote:
Time wise, you'll have fewer options for departure time on the train. That limits your options for departing from Calgary. Especially since you will want to arrive two hours early for international flights. So if your schedule or that of the train means you can't be at YYC by 9:30AM for the $320 direct flight in the morning, then you're going through YVR at $600 and dealing with a 6-10 hour odyssey as well.
We don't know how many departures would be scheduled but 5, 8, 10, and 12 were tested. If this is aimed at attracting any part of the business market you can sure as #### assume that it would be possible to get to Calgary by 9:30am.
Quote:
There will certainly be occasions in this scenario where a train from Edmonton to get to a flight from Calgary would work out to being cheaper, faster or both. But I also think it would be an exception to the norm, and therefore does not answer the question of where demand for the train would come from.
Demand would come from current travelers between the 2 cities plus Red Deer.
2003 numbers: The survey indicated that between 5.2 and 6.6 million person trips occurred between Calgary and Edmonton over the last year. Business was the reason for just under half of all trips (44%), totaling 2.2 to 2.8 million person trips. The vast majority of all trips (89%), particularly non-business trips (95%), were made by car. Air and bus/other together accounted for 10 percent of all travel. However, air has a significantly higher share of business trips (13%) and a much lower share of non-business trips (less than 1%).
An estimated 2.4 to 3.7 person million trips were made between Red Deer and Calgary and another 1.9 to 2.3 million trips were made between Red Deer and Edmonton over the last year. Most of these trips (60%) were made for non-business purposes, with business accounting for 40 percent of all trips. Again, the vast majority of trips were made by car, with one percent of business trips and two percent of non-business trips carried out by bus/other.
The study concludes that in 2003 there would have been between 1.3 and 1.6 million trips which still makes the car dominate but would overtake bus and plane trips by a lot in terms of popularity.
That study should be required reading to post in this thread.
Notably, it concluded that "projected ridership and revenues are able to cover the system's operating costs and, depending on the route/technology chosen, repay all or most of the system's capital cost within 30 years".
Heh, even if those rosy ridership numbers were met, its curious that they didn't include the cost if debt servicing in that projection of when this would be paid off. In their defence, I doubt they would have predicted in 2003 that Stelmach and the global economic meltdown would run the province's surpluses into the ground. Likewise, they also predicted 40 cents per litre on fuel. Hard to mock that too much without knowing exactly what type of fuel they are using.
Alas, 10 years later, given inflation, deficit spending and massive fuel cost increases, that study is actually of very little value to today's situation.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Heh, even if those rosy ridership numbers were met, its curious that they didn't include the cost if debt servicing in that projection of when this would be paid off. In their defence, I doubt they would have predicted in 2003 that Stelmach and the global economic meltdown would run the province's surpluses into the ground. Likewise, they also predicted 40 cents per litre on fuel. Hard to mock that too much without knowing exactly what type of fuel they are using.
Alas, 10 years later, given inflation, deficit spending and massive fuel cost increases, that study is actually of very little value to today's situation.
While omitting interest costs sounds like a major error, and the state of Alberta's finances has shifted, some of the other things you've mentioned are really non-factors.
Inflation: fare prices and capital costs would go up, but inflation doesn't alter the conclusion of the report.
Fuel costs: the net effect of rising fuel costs is increased viability of rail. So, while it means the ticket prices would be off, the case for rail is only strengthened.
Deficit spending: value is value. If the value is there, it's worth raising taxes or cutting other spending elsewhere. Deficit spending does make it a tougher sell politically though.
To those suggesting that driving takes only marginally more time than a train would, and thus people wouldn't pay to save only a little time, I think that misses much of the point and I disagree.
When driving, it is wasted, unproductive time. Not to mention stressful - especially with weather. In other words it is negative time.
When flying, you can access your laptop, or read or do a few, somewhat more productive things. But you are still cut off.
On the train, not only can you have a coffee or a snack like flying (much more conveniently than in a car), but you can get up and walk around - it is a better way to travel - especially if you are going straight to meetings at arrival. It is much less stressful.
More importantly though, is the fast that you have internet access and are essentially in full productive mode. Two hours on a train (or however long it takes) is the opposite of driving because it is useful, productive, and stress-free time.
People pay to fly to Edmonton even though it doesn't save much time because flying is better than driving for the reasons listed above.
Rail is far superior to both so I don't doubt at all that people would pay for the experience.
Also, someone mentioned cartogo, which is a perfect compliment - hop off the train, zip to your meeting, and zip back to the train.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
^Plus all the people that HATE driving on the QE2. They'd love a different way. I know lots of woman that'd prefer to take a train, even it's it's more costly and takes the same amount of time
