Premier in Calgary to announce "major passenger rail initiative for Alberta"

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That map looks a lot like they plan on using the CP tracks, and to that, I wish them all the luck in the world, adding 30 trains an hour on it. And bend on over.

I thought the plan was to twin the CP tracks using the same right-of-way.

I could see CP being if favour of that, because they can pick up the pieces if it crashes and burns.

Edited to add: and if they have that many stops it won't be faster than driving...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I thought the plan was to twin the CP tracks using the same right-of-way.

I could see CP being if favour of that, because they can pick up the pieces if it crashes and burns.

Edited to add: and if they have that many stops it won't be faster than driving...

Transit is almost never faster than driving. That’s rarely the motivation for people to take it.

[Fuzz]

I don't know how you double the tracks beside Deerfoot. Maybe get rid of the pathway? Or the creek? Or the Deerfoot?



I think the plan was to double on the sections to Banff, but this bit they seem to leave to the province to solve. Which I guess means we can than Innisfail for our new Grand Central Station.

[puffnstuff]

That guy is really trying to get the best return on his party donations isnt he?

[DoubleK]

Wouldn't it be more economical to connect the airport using a people mover of some fashion instead of having the mainline going into the airport? The plan from that article doesn't seem to be based in reality.

A sensible plan would be something like:

Banff to Calgary (stop in Canmore), funded 50/50 between the Feds and the Province.

Calgary to Edmonton (stop in Red Deer), funded equally between the Feds, Province and the two Cities.

Up to Calgary and Edmonton to fund and build connections from the mainline to the airport. Potentially could work this into the funding agreement above.

Add in stops as ridership dictates.

As Fuzz knows, this all needs the blessing of Dani before anyone can think about a concept like this, let alone actually discuss it.

[Bill Bumface]

15 trains an hour to downtown. Lol. I wish we could get headways like that on the LRT, I don't see them happening from the airport.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

15 trains an hour to downtown. Lol. I wish we could get headways like that on the LRT, I don't see them happening from the airport.

I don’t even see the demand for it getting anywhere close. That’s higher than SFO numbers and even those trains are pretty breezy/empty outside of super high traffic hours.

Maybe 4-6 trains an hour. And that would probably be plenty.

[Fuzz]

The long term risk of this plan is that we never get a green line going north if this gets built.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't understand the appeal of a train between Calgary and Edmonton. I have no desire to go there and I'd prefer the riff raff there doesn't come here. What's the upside?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't understand the appeal of a train between Calgary and Edmonton. I have no desire to go there and I'd prefer the riff raff there doesn't come here. What's the upside?

For those of us burdened with the necessity of having to go there for work, kicking back and taking a nap or watching a movie would be so much better than dealing with that boring ass 3 hour drive in #### traffic

[Table 5]

I can see the appeal of a Calgary to Banff train (with stops in Cochrane, Stoney, Canmore) as I think there is a good tourism-centred case for it. Ideally it would even go out to Lake Louise, assuming the existing line goes that way.

But Calgary to Edmonton? Maybe the numbers work, but definitely less interested in that one.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't understand the appeal of a train between Calgary and Edmonton. I have no desire to go there and I'd prefer the riff raff there doesn't come here. What's the upside?

I am on that highway a lot. It is surprising to me that there isn't more catastrophic accidents. The sheer amount of large trucks and vehicle congestion is concerning. How that highway is still only two lanes is beyond me.

I don't know if I would use the train but i have to think it will take a good number of vehicles out of this corridor.

[GGG]

I think it suffers from significant last mile problems for a lot of people.

Pushing trucks onto rail service might make more sense then pushing people onto rail service.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I am on that highway a lot. It is surprising to me that there isn't more catastrophic accidents. The sheer amount of large trucks and vehicle congestion is concerning. How that highway is still only two lanes is beyond me.

I don't know if I would use the train but i have to think it will take a good number of vehicles out of this corridor.

I just drove it yesterday and man are people dumb. The difference between the Trans Canada and the QE2 are huge as far as average speed, being in the correct lane and distance between vehicles. Of course there also are a lot more entrance ramps.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I am on that highway a lot. It is surprising to me that there isn't more catastrophic accidents. The sheer amount of large trucks and vehicle congestion is concerning. How that highway is still only two lanes is beyond me.

I don't know if I would use the train but i have to think it will take a good number of vehicles out of this corridor.

You’d have to think the cost of expanding that highway to 3 lanes each way would be far less than a passenger rail line, and yield better results for more people.

[Fuzz]

Passenger rail with freight cars might make sense. Just tag on however many freight cars you need on every trip, they can be quickly detached at a freight depot along the line. And maybe run freight express trips overnight.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I can see the appeal of a Calgary to Banff train (with stops in Cochrane, Stoney, Canmore) as I think there is a good tourism-centred case for it. Ideally it would even go out to Lake Louise, assuming the existing line goes that way.

But Calgary to Edmonton? Maybe the numbers work, but definitely less interested in that one.

I think if the numbers worked it'd have been done by now.

I do think a train to the Airport is a great idea. It'd take tons of work, but most major cities do it, it makes a lot of sense.

I trained into London from Gatwick, got on a train at Charles de Gaulle in Paris, having a train right at the airport is a really good idea....

With the caveat...its gotta go somewhere.

For instance, the train into London proper from Gatwick? It drops you off at...holy hell! A Central Train Station!! From which you can get essentially anywhere in the City you want.

We always run into the same problem of 'circular reasoning.'

Nobody wants to train it to Calgary, Red Deer or Edmonton and wind up without a car.

Ditto Banff/Canmore because while those places are easily traversable on foot and part of the idea is to ease traffic congestion, it immediately goes out the window when travelers want to go and see stuff away from the Urban centers.

Oh and the Green line is a debacle of monumental proportions. That thing is a taxpayer boondoggle.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You’d have to think the cost of expanding that highway to 3 lanes each way would be far less than a passenger rail line, and yield better results for more people.

8 lanes is the sweet spot number.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t even see the demand for it getting anywhere close. That’s higher than SFO numbers and even those trains are pretty breezy/empty outside of super high traffic hours.

Maybe 4-6 trains an hour. And that would probably be plenty.

Calgary is a logistics hub. 15 trains an hour could make a ton of sense if it means they can piggy back some of those trains to do delivery. Instead of fleets of Fedex/UPS/Purolator trucks/intelcom going to/from airport constantly, many can go to some location downtown to pick up additional packages? That's not including the others like Canada post and other delivery people that go to those locations. I've seen how crazy it gets at times around Deerfoot city when all of those delivery vehicles suddenly leave at the same time.

That being said, the thread is about passenger rail. So I agree that the volume of people going back and forth between Calgary airport and DT doesn't make sense at 15 ish trips per hour.

I think one of the benefits of train that many will consider is consistency and not having to focus for long periods of time. A Calgary-Edmonton airport to airport rail could make sense if many do not want to spend 3+ hours focusing on driving between the two cities. But IMO the rail project makes a ton more sense if delivery of packages was also factored in.

Basically Fuzz's freight car idea, but I don't know how easy it is to attach and detach freight cars that do 15 trips an hour (ie: 4 minutes per train @ 15 per hour, or 8 mins per train on a dual platform @ 15 per hour?).

[Jimmy Stang]

I'm just glad that the province is thinking about this stuff, and maybe we'll see some action one day. Like any major infrastructure investment, it needs to be ambitious will cost a tonne. But once built, I can see it as a viable option for Calgary-Edmonton (downtown to downtown) and Calgary to Banff. Of course, the airport factors into both of those plans, though I don't think that the airport is a priority without connecting Banff or Edmonton first.

Of course, it could just be another UCP grift to commission studies and contracts to donors and cronies. But the highways are busy and getting busier, and adding lanes can still be done but isn't the magic bullet (Highway 401 anyone?). It is a shame that we let train travel die in this province/country in the wake of the automobile age, because now we're playing catch-up. Cars will always be king around here, but passenger rail can work in harmony as the population and tourism continues to grow.