High speed rail on the #1 highway?

[octothorp]

The population density question is really secondary here. A lot of the high speed rail lines in Europe are passing through very sparsely populated areas, connecting two major centers. The Malmo / Stockholm link is a good example: they use a sprinter rail which runs at 250km on existing tracks over a distance of 515 km, and muck of the Spanish high-speed network runs through similarly sparsely populated areas. The difference between their situation and Alberta's isn't the density of the rural areas, which are pretty similar. There are, however, two key differences:
The population of the end-point cities: there are very few high-speed rail endpoints in the Europe that are less than 1 million people, and most have a 2 million plus city somewhere on the network. The size of these hubs is far more important than overall population density.
Support transit infrastructure: If there was a high-speed rail to Edmonton, I'd still be reluctant to take it, because I know that I'm going to have a hard time getting around Edmonton without a car anyway. The cities need to have european-style in-city transit systems that allow you to get anywhere in the city without a lot of headaches. Similarly, there would need to be a regular-speed rail network built up around the cities and along the corridor to get people to and from the central stations. To really compete with air travel, the transit infrastructure needs to be truly door-to-door, not simply hub-to-hub.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Does anyone else have issues with cost projections like this? I mean, for real, I can see giving a few million, even hundred million for cost overruns, but a gap of 17 BILLION between the low estimate and high estimate is HUGE. Why don't we just find out how much it will actually cost and go from there?

Not to mention, what the hell is costing so much? three stations, 1 in EDM, Red Deer, and CGY. Train track is friggin cheap. The trains themselves would be the expensive part... but not to the tune of a BILLION dollars, like... come on.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

A proposed high speed train from Calgary to Edmonton would cost between $3-20 billion dollars to build.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...-edmonton.html

So a high speed train from say Montreal to Vancouver would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. How economical is this? The country is too big and the population is too small for this type of project.

Not to mention, but it would also be under a state of contant maintenance and repair at some point during a length that long.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Claeren

City rail transit (LRT in Calgary's case) is the much better use of the same finite dollars.

It moves many many many times more people each and every day and is far from built-out in any city in Canada.

Agreed. You take that $225 billion that Photon guestimated, and grant that out to the major cities for their regional rail transit systems, and you will see a far, far greater benefit.

Seriously. Imagine what Calgary's LRT could become with $25 billion to spend on it.

[Muta]

There would be five stations for this project: one in downtown Calgary, one at the Calgary Airport, one in Red Deer, one at the Edmonton Airport, and one in downtown Edmonton. There's already a spot along the tracks in downtown Calgary picked out for a train station if it were to happen.

If this ever went through, there'd have to be huge private sector investment. The idea of a high speed train system between the two cities is fundamentally logical; however, the feasibility of it is yet to be determined. There'd have to be a major shift of attitude from all all political figures within the province for this to occur.

That said, I see it happening... just not right now. I think the populations of the two major cities will need to go up a healthy chunk first and foremost.

[troutman]

How would our brutally cold prairie winters impact a railway like this?

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

How would our brutally cold prairie winters impact a railway like this?

Depends on what kind of train it is.. if it's a levitating train, then it'd be great, colder = lower resistance = lower electricity costs

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Not to mention, what the hell is costing so much? three stations, 1 in EDM, Red Deer, and CGY. Train track is friggin cheap. The trains themselves would be the expensive part... but not to the tune of a BILLION dollars, like... come on.

Would someone please read any of the articles with the wide $3-20 Billion estimate. You would discover that the price varies so much based on the options for the speed of train used and the ultimate alignment. One of the biggest incremental costs of adding more speed is the earthworks invovled. The faster the train the smoother the track and the flatter the line would have to be. It's kinda like our freeways here vs. the Autobahns in Europe. The reason why you can drive at speeds exceeding 160 km/h somewhat safely is because potholes must not get bad and the road itself is as flat as humanly possible, even if that means building expansive bridges to ensure the road is flat.

[MelBridgeman]

my wife doesnt want to go to edmonton, so we don't support this project...

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Not to mention, what the hell is costing so much? three stations, 1 in EDM, Red Deer, and CGY. Train track is friggin cheap. The trains themselves would be the expensive part... but not to the tune of a BILLION dollars, like... come on.

I think that at the high end, it's mag-lev track that's so expensive. The latest maglev technology (not in heavy use anywhere) basically means laying a track of rare-earth magnets, and even the EDS system, which is somewhat cheaper, still requires special tracks that can carry powerful electromagnetic currents.

But yeah, at the cheapest end, you're looking at simply very fast trains on tracks that are not so different from existing ones. I'm not sure if the land cost is factored into this study, but that could certainly account for a lot of that 3 billion.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by octothorp

To really compete with air travel, the transit infrastructure needs to be truly door-to-door, not simply hub-to-hub.

Exactly, well said.

And it is another reason one should focus on local rail transit networks first. When you can more often than not get door-to-door within the city using (rail) transit at a fair cost/benefit compared to (far more expensive/trip) automobile you can start connecting hubs with highspeed rail. That is day is a long ways off.

The only place in Canada close to that is a network connecting Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal(-NewYork/Boston/Washington/etc). But because they already have a regional rail network connecting them, even on that route additonal inner city rail transit would have a far far larger multiplier effect on the network than upgrading to highspeed rail.


The one good thing about talking/planning highspeed rail transit now is that commiting dollars to purchasing land and right-of-ways makes sense this far in advance. But the rest is not needed for another 20-40 years IMO.






Claeren.