Renewed passenger rail service between Banff and Calgary?

[Nyah]

I did a trip from Rome to Bolognia on a high speed train. It took just under 2 hours, and our top speed was ~300 km/h (although they didn't stay there, dropped back down to 250ish for most of the trip). It was awesome. Oh, and there was bar service at your seat. Brilliant.

That said, I've also took the slower trains around Europe. It's definitely hell, especially the overnight trips.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Locke

Pfft. Amateur.

I did 44 hours to Chicago on the Amtrak.

Never. Again.

Wear your badge proudly. That I would never do.

But Chicago is crowded and would be better if there was another new city built adjacent to it to take some of the tourist demand.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Locke

Pfft. Amateur.

I did 44 hours to Chicago on the Amtrak.

Never. Again.

Overnight Agra to Varanasi in Chair Car class. Checkmate.


~48 hours from Jalgon to Amritsar, was going a little crazy by the end of that one (but travelled it in 3AC Sleeper at least).

[Wormius]

Kettle Valley Steam Train - Summerland to Summerland.



What do I win???

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Overnight Agra to Varanasi in Chair Car class. Checkmate.


~48 hours from Jalgon to Amritsar, was going a little crazy by the end of that one (but travelled it in 3AC Sleeper at least).

Well you started off a little crazy so thats kind of cheating.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well you started off a little crazy so thats kind of cheating.

You can still pull out the Greyhound experiences and that has to be worth at least double travel by train?

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by GGG

No one decides where they travel based on the reliability of an airport connection in a first world country. Adding a train will not increase visitation by inspiring more confidence.

I also disagree with you that a significant portion of foreign visitors come to Banff via Bus then take day trips from there. I would argue you have car renters and brewsters bus tours that package the hotels and stops. The market of self put together excursions from Banff without personal transportation is quite limited.

For 600 million when can purchase about 1200 busses to ferry tourists

You are actually just flat out wrong on these points. I live in Banff. Plenty of tourists come on their own without a car or as part of a tour. Many take the direct to Banff shuttle service from the airport to the town: The Banff Airporter. Would this replace the Banff Airporter? No, but having an option that goes from Banff to downtown Calgary would absolutely be used and is absolutely needed. There is currently no reliable way to get from Banff or Canmore to downtown Calgary conveniently without a car, and vice versa.

Also, Parks is now running shuttles from the train station to Moraine Lake, Minnewanka and other destinations in the summer. Furthermore, there are Brewster shuttles to Sunshine Meadows from town. There are ski shuttle to Norquay, Sunshine, and LL from the bus station which would likely be moved to the train station if this went ahead. You are just wrong that you can't get anywhere once you are in Banff.

Also, PLENTY of people come to Canmore and Banff and stay in the towns. The idea that people only use these places as jumping off points is ridiculous. Come walk around on a summer's day and tell me that people have no interest in Banff or Canmore as destinations in and of themselves. Both have plenty of available activities starting right in town.

One of the reasons this is so much better than buses is that buses have to use the already congested highway. You add the number of busses needed to make a dent in the car congestion and you have essentially reinvented the same problem. Having a train that takes visitors off the highway and with less busses and cars in both Banff and Canmore is a huge need.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

You can still pull out the Greyhound experiences and that has to be worth at least double travel by train?

I have had some horrific travel experiences. Thats just the way life rolls.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

You are actually just flat out wrong on these points. I live in Banff. Plenty of tourists come on their own without a car or as part of a tour. Many take the direct to Banff shuttle service from the airport to the town: The Banff Airporter. Would this replace the Banff Airporter? No, but having an option that goes from Banff to downtown Calgary would absolutely be used and is absolutely needed. There is currently no reliable way to get from Banff or Canmore to downtown Calgary conveniently without a car, and vice versa.

Also, Parks is now running shuttles from the train station to Moraine Lake, Minnewanka and other destinations in the summer. Furthermore, there are Brewster shuttles to Sunshine Meadows from town. There are ski shuttle to Norquay, Sunshine, and LL from the bus station which would likely be moved to the train station if this went ahead. You are just wrong that you can't get anywhere once you are in Banff.

Also, PLENTY of people come to Canmore and Banff and stay in the towns. The idea that people only use these places as jumping off points is ridiculous. Come walk around on a summer's day and tell me that people have no interest in Banff or Canmore as destinations in and of themselves. Both have plenty of available activities starting right in town.

One of the reasons this is so much better than buses is that buses have to use the already congested highway. You add the number of busses needed to make a dent in the car congestion and you have essentially reinvented the same problem. Having a train that takes visitors off the highway and with less busses and cars in both Banff and Canmore is a huge need.

Again its a matter of scale. of the 4 million visitors how many show up without cars not on a pre-arranged bus tours. My position is that number is an alarmingly small portion of the 4 million visitors. That is the train Market. My position is that is not sufficient.

I agree that transit is getting better in the park. Currently it is insufficient and if you want to focus on a problem to solve its moving people around Banff better. I fully agree that in the last 2 years it has improved. Still woefully insufficient for it to be a realistic option for the bulk of the 4 million visits.

How many buses are you removing from the highway. Looks to be about 20 per day from the airporter. If you add the number of buses needed to make a dent in the car problem you have eliminated the car problem. Each bus takes 25 cars of the road roughly. The additional bus relative to the train has negligible impact on a road filled with RV's.

Just look at the price of the airporter at $60 per trip and compare it to the $15 proposed by the article and ask yourself if you see a problem here with the initial proposal.

I agree with you that there should be a better option to get from Banff to Calgary without a car. Its called a bus. And if there was a proposal for a subsidized bus service to Banff and Canmore as a low cost pilot to organically develop carless demand and improve on the transit options once in Banff I would get behind it.

Spending 600 million on track from the edge of Calgary to Banff makes no sense. (You'll notice the article forgot the Billions it would cost to get the track from the airport to the edge of the city).

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by GGG

Again its a matter of scale. of the 4 million visitors how many show up without cars not on a pre-arranged bus tours. My position is that number is an alarmingly small portion of the 4 million visitors. That is the train Market. My position is that is not sufficient.

I agree that transit is getting better in the park. Currently it is insufficient and if you want to focus on a problem to solve its moving people around Banff better. I fully agree that in the last 2 years it has improved. Still woefully insufficient for it to be a realistic option for the bulk of the 4 million visits.

How many buses are you removing from the highway. Looks to be about 20 per day from the airporter. If you add the number of buses needed to make a dent in the car problem you have eliminated the car problem. Each bus takes 25 cars of the road roughly. The additional bus relative to the train has negligible impact on a road filled with RV's.

Just look at the price of the airporter at $60 per trip and compare it to the $15 proposed by the article and ask yourself if you see a problem here with the initial proposal.

I agree with you that there should be a better option to get from Banff to Calgary without a car. Its called a bus. And if there was a proposal for a subsidized bus service to Banff and Canmore as a low cost pilot to organically develop carless demand and improve on the transit options once in Banff I would get behind it.

Spending 600 million on track from the edge of Calgary to Banff makes no sense. (You'll notice the article forgot the Billions it would cost to get the track from the airport to the edge of the city).

Look, you want to argue that you don't want to spend the money on this infrastructure, that is your prerogative. But you have supported that stance with points and facts that are wrong, flat out inaccurate. I am not interested in debating when you do not have the facts. You are doing quick google searches and making huge assumptions to support what you think is true. You clearly do not have an understanding of how people visit the parks and what they do when they are there. That is fine, but please don't pretend like you do know when you clearly don't.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Sliver

For the public to appreciate and enjoy the parks, they need to access them. To access them, they need a gas station, roads, restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, etc. Infrastructure isn't the enemy of the goals here.

Serious question - where do you stand on further pipeline development? If you are for it, hopefully you now see why there is so much opposition and you should likely consider publicly voicing your support of their concerns.

Personally, I'm in favour of more pipelines and more infrastructure in the mountains, so I think I'm consistent in my approach. If you don't mind a pipe ripping across the country through other people's land and territories, but you do mind a few square kilometers being used in your own mountain backyard, I think you have something to consider.

Pipelines help our petroleum industry. Developing tourism destinations helps the economy as well. We all have seen at least a couple of busts in this province now. Let's not wait any longer to develop our other industries and attractions.

The only pipeline development going ahead is using an existing right-of-way. The chances of getting a new ROW approved in a National Park would be next to zero. Similar to the likelihood a new town gets built in the park, lol.

More infrastructure = less bears = happy Dess, opps Sliver...

Pave it up, and they will come!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

Look, you want to argue that you don't want to spend the money on this infrastructure, that is your prerogative. But you have supported that stance with points and facts that are wrong, flat out inaccurate. I am not interested in debating when you do not have the facts. You are doing quick google searches and making huge assumptions to support what you think is true. You clearly do not have an understanding of how people visit the parks and what they do when they are there. That is fine, but please don't pretend like you do know when you clearly don't.

Then present the facts that you believe are correct and representative. What % of the 4 million visits are currently made by bus that are not part of a bus tour. What % of visitors visit without vehicles and don't have a packaged tour? I am quite happy to change my position if this number is significant and could support train service. And I don't even want you to have a source for these numbers. Numbers that you feel are representitive based on your experience are fine.

When you talk about these options Banff have to get people places it makes me think you have never visited any of the Big Us national parks for what a working public transit system in the park is. You need it to work on the scale of Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Zion, and Glacier to truly solve the bottlenecks. The current options are an improvement on what was there but certainly aren't of the required scale to make carless a palatable option for most visitors. Again if you have facts to dispute that carless would be a practical option for a large portion of visitors I am happy to change my mind.

Just saying that I am wrong and am an idiot is you providing what the "Facts" are.

[puckedoff]

Can you imagine living in Banff and commuting to downtown Calgary by train... Then finally the smug Airdree commuters would have to shut up.

Originally Posted by GGG

I am wrong and am an idiot

^ Don't be so hard on yourself. FWIW I agree it would be a huge waste of money.

[4X4]

I, for one, cannot wait to buy a condo in Sliverton.

In fact, I think we should develop a couple more towns and create the Cinque Terre of the Rockies.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Weitz

They are animals. They will adapt.

More likely become endangered/extinct.

Even when wildlife does successfully adapt, it can still throw the whole ecosystem out of whack and impact other animals, or the environment as a whole. Do you want catastrophic flooding and droughts? Then kill all the beavers and watch what happens (and has happened in the past).

[Amethyst]

Again its a matter of scale. of the 4 million visitors how many show up without cars not on a pre-arranged bus tours. My position is that number is an alarmingly small portion of the 4 million visitors. That is the train Market. My position is that is not sufficient.

It is also the people who currently rent a car but who would take a train if that option was available. People who come from countries where trains are more common would probably take that option. I know I am currently looking at vacation options for myself and the one where I can take a train to my destinations is winning over the one where I would need to rent a car.

I agree with you that there should be a better option to get from Banff to Calgary without a car. Its called a bus. And if there was a proposal for a subsidized bus service to Banff and Canmore as a low cost pilot to organically develop carless demand and improve on the transit options once in Banff I would get behind it.

Travelling by train is much more pleasant than travelling by bus. And there already is a subsidized bus service to Banff and Canmore. It's called On-It. I tried it twice last year because I didn't want the hassle of trying to park in Banff.

Can you imagine living in Banff and commuting to downtown Calgary by train... Then finally the smug Airdree commuters would have to shut up.

You can't live in Banff unless you work there. You'd have to live in Canmore. Actually that sounds great. Let's build this train! And then I only need to win the lottery so I can buy a nice house in Canmore.

Honestly, I don't see this happening at all. But I would love a train to Banff / Canmore for $15.

[Bill Bumface]

Trains pull into the Frankfurt Airport station with hundreds of people with luggage and kids and strollers and it takes literally a few minutes to get everyone off the train. You need to remember this isn't 4 train cars packed with people standing. There aren't that many people per door getting on and off compared to our LRT.

[Knalus]

The place that makes the most sense for a new town in the Rockies is the area left behind by the big quarry at Exshaw. It's not going to be in operation forever, will it?? While they are at it, they should carve into the mountain some cool benches, terraces, and amphitheaters to fit the cool dome and lake sitting right there. It's literally the perfect spot, when they finish with that, that is.

It's also not in the park, so there isn't that argument about it. Other people claim that a town would be built in the river valley - if you quarry out a space, you can put it on a slope instead. Win win.

Can you imagine a cool amphitheater carved out of the mountain, like Red Rocks in Colorado, at the entrance to the mountains??? It would be so cool.

I just don't know the long term plans for the quarry. Like how much longer they plan on using the site, and what the reserves life (or quarry equivalent) of the limestone is.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Trains pull into the Frankfurt Airport station with hundreds of people with luggage and kids and strollers and it takes literally a few minutes to get everyone off the train. You need to remember this isn't 4 train cars packed with people standing. There aren't that many people per door getting on and off compared to our LRT.

I was going to say the same thing. It isn't like when you pull into the train station it is a surprise. Before the train has stopped people have their bags and are ready to disembark. People can manage fine on a gondola that is still moving, I am sure a train stop would be fine. Only reason a train waits 5 minutes is for those stragglers that couldn't make it to the train station in a reasonable time.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The place that makes the most sense for a new town in the Rockies is the area left behind by the big quarry at Exshaw. It's not going to be in operation forever, will it?? While they are at it, they should carve into the mountain some cool benches, terraces, and amphitheaters to fit the cool dome and lake sitting right there. It's literally the perfect spot, when they finish with that, that is.

It's also not in the park, so there isn't that argument about it. Other people claim that a town would be built in the river valley - if you quarry out a space, you can put it on a slope instead. Win win.

Can you imagine a cool amphitheater carved out of the mountain, like Red Rocks in Colorado, at the entrance to the mountains??? It would be so cool.

I just don't know the long term plans for the quarry. Like how much longer they plan on using the site, and what the reserves life (or quarry equivalent) of the limestone is.

While an interesting idea, it isn't very big:
https://goo.gl/maps/WanQDT2YF6N2


Certainly not big enough for a tourist centre.