C-Train to airport

[Muta]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

A whole new can of worms indeed. High Speed Rail is at least 25 years away from being viable, which is beyond the timeframe for a City/airport authority rail link. The stop would likely not be at the terminal itself anyway, necessitating some sort of people mover to/from the rail stop and airport terminal anyway.

HSR might be sooner than you think. I've already heard that land has been dedicated for locations at both downtown and the airport, although I'm not sure the exact airport location. And I'm not sure why you think it won't go to the terminal, but if it doesn't, it's not really a problem. You're at the airport anyways, and that's the point.

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The high speed rail link wouldn't be moving "extremely fast" between downtown and the airport. Certainly not much faster than a direct LRT route would be. The HSR wouldn't pick up speed until it's out of the city.

Dude, you're just nitpicking. You know what I meant. A direct, non-stop route between the locations means optimal traveling times for users, which is why it would get built in the first place.

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Except the part where Vancouver's (and Portland's, and St. Louis', and Atlanta's, and...) airport lines/stops don't get good ridership relative to the rest of the system.

You sure about that? Airport rail links are an investment, no doubt. They are determined by many years of study before construction, and are heavily influenced by ebbs and flows of local economies. And in addition, you can't expect every station and every train everywhere to be at full capacity all the time, that's completely unrealistic. Airport links are long-term investments as a city grows.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Muta

HSR might be sooner than you think. I've already heard that land has been dedicated for locations at both downtown and the airport, although I'm not sure the exact airport location. And I'm not sure why you think it won't go to the terminal, but if it doesn't, it's not really a problem. You're at the airport anyways, and that's the point.

Yes, land has been dedicated, and in some cases purchased by the Province. Not exactly sure about sections of right of way, but I seem to recall some scuttlebutt about that as well. That's the smart and prudent thing to do at this stage before land values and interests naturally go up. However, to take that as an indication that the actual construction of the line is happening sooner than it is viable is a bit of a stretch.

Originally Posted by Muta

Dude, you're just nitpicking. You know what I meant. A direct, non-stop route between the locations means optimal traveling times for users, which is why it would get built in the first place.

Actually I must apologize then as I did misinterpret you. When you said "extremely fast ride," in the context of a high speed rail link going from downtown to the airport, I thought you might be under the impression that it would be doing 150-250 km/hr. along that portion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Muta

You sure about that? Airport rail links are an investment, no doubt. They are determined by many years of study before construction, and are heavily influenced by ebbs and flows of local economies. And in addition, you can't expect every station and every train everywhere to be at full capacity all the time, that's completely unrealistic. Airport links are long-term investments as a city grows.

Yes, I am sure. Airport links and, well, any rail transit line are also the result of political choices as well. Sometimes smart, sometimes not so much. For example, in Calgary we have at least one mayoral candidate (Craig Burrows) who is advocating making airport LRT the number one priority for transportation infrastructure projects in the city. SE LRT currently holds that spot (as decided by previous council). This is without doing any ridership studies or even implementing tried-and-true measures like starting with rapid buses first. Despite that, and for whatever unknown reasons, he just wants to build it. I guarantee that the ridership/$ spent numbers would come out strongly in favour of SE LRT. Like not even close.

In Vancouver's circumstances, the Olympics played a big part (for a relevant Calgary example see: NW LRT routing decisions, prioritization, and funding c. mid 1980s), as did the fact that they were building the adjacent line to Richmond as their next project anyway. Oh, and the part where the airport authority coughed up the dough.

At the end of the day, I generally agree with those that want airport LRT and/or some other rail connection. It is an investment, it would be nice to have, and it would benefit the system. What I have a problem with is when people say they want it to be a high priority, at least higher than the SE and north central lines, and probably links to MRU and an east line.

[ken0042]

I have taken the BART train from SFO airport; and ridership didn't seem that high; I think we waited 10-15 minutes for a train and only one other group of people got on.

Part of the reason people think of an LRT to our airport would be to save on the other transportation costs. Unfortunately the people like me in the deep south who are looking at a $60-70 cab ride are also in the position where we would be looking at at least 1 or 2 transfers; and what is currently a 30 minute ride turns into a 90-120 minute trip. For those in the NE; the quick trip offerred by the LRT may be out weighed by the fact a cab ride is likely closer to $20.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Muta

Another option to consider is the high-speed rail link, starting downtown and having its next stop at the Airport before continuing on to Red Deer and Edmonton. That, in itself, is a whole new can of worms. I do know people who are championing for this, however (and people in power in this city, no less). A non-stop, extremely fast ride from downtown to the airport would be highly desirable for travellers of all types.

This would mean that the LRT wouldn't have to extend up right to the airport - although, I would also be a huge proponent of this. A rail link from international airports to city centres is quickly becoming a critical component of infrastructure. Of the top of my head, I know that Vancouver, BC and virtually every major city in Japan have this type of infrasructure. It works, and WORKS WELL. Granted, each is tailored to their respective population sizes and anticipated number of travellers per year.

This would be the ideal situation. However, I question how much it would cost and how long it will take. If high speed rail is going to be something Albertans argue about for generations but never actually do (as seems to be the trend so far) I would hate for an airport connection to get stalled because of it. The idea that, "We'll wait until the high speed rail is built to do it" is dangerous because it might never happen then.

Michael

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I have taken the BART train from SFO airport; and ridership didn't seem that high; I think we waited 10-15 minutes for a train and only one other group of people got on.

Part of the reason people think of an LRT to our airport would be to save on the other transportation costs. Unfortunately the people like me in the deep south who are looking at a $60-70 cab ride are also in the position where we would be looking at at least 1 or 2 transfers; and what is currently a 30 minute ride turns into a 90-120 minute trip. For those in the NE; the quick trip offerred by the LRT may be out weighed by the fact a cab ride is likely closer to $20.

Instead of the CIA expanding and continuing to eat up real estate all around it, maybe it's time to stop the sprawl and just put up a new airport in the south end of the city. That would solve your cab cost and LRT transfer issues right there.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This would be the ideal situation. However, I question how much it would cost and how long it will take. If high speed rail is going to be something Albertans argue about for generations but never actually do (as seems to be the trend so far) I would hate for an airport connection to get stalled because of it. The idea that, "We'll wait until the high speed rail is built to do it" is dangerous because it might never happen then.

Michael

Oh man, don't get me started. The amount of bickering we do in this province, where other cities and governments around the world just up and do it and consider it an investment in the future, annoys the hell outta me. But I digress.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Instead of the CIA expanding and continuing to eat up real estate all around it, maybe it's time to stop the sprawl and just put up a new airport in the south end of the city. That would solve your cab cost and LRT transfer issues right there.

For the price of a new airport, we could get a high speed rail line put underneath Deerfoot and into downtown, and then another leg down Deerfoot with a couple of stops in the South, along with giant parkades for covered parking.

PS. CIA? I'm pretty sure you're not using that acronym in the only way I'm familiar with it...

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

For the price of a new airport, we could get a high speed rail line put underneath Deerfoot and into downtown, and then another leg down Deerfoot with a couple of stops in the South, along with giant parkades for covered parking.

PS. CIA? I'm pretty sure you're not using that acronym in the only way I'm familiar with it...

I'm pretty sure he's being facetious, but your point stands.

CIA = Calgary International Airport.

PS: Bizaro86, are you an airport employee? If not, how often do you travel to the airport, say on an annual basis? I'd be interested in responses from others on this as well.

I don't work at the airport, and between my own flights and meeting people when their flights come in, etc. I'd say I go to the airport about 4-7 times a year.

[bizaro86]

Ah, thanks for the clarification re: CIA, I was thinking he meant the expanding sprawl in the South.

I don't work at or for the airport, I'm in the oil and gas industry downtown. I don't travel for work either, but do go to the airport probably once or twice a month. We travel a fair bit for leisure (~10 trips per year, some long, some just a weekend) and so do many of my ride-mooching relatives.

I'm in favour of an airport link not necessarily because it would benefit me, although I'd probably use it to go from work directly to the airport to leave on a trip. I'm in favour of it because I love (and travel more frequently to) cities where I can travel by public transit. I really believe it would improve the international competitiveness of our city by making it more attractive for conventions/business travellers/vacationers.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

PS: Bizaro86, are you an airport employee? If not, how often do you travel to the airport, say on an annual basis? I'd be interested in responses from others on this as well.

I'm at the airport about 20-30 times a year. If it isn't obvious by now, I'm hugely in favour of a rail link to downtown.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I really believe it would improve the international competitiveness of our city by making it more attractive for conventions/business travellers/vacationers.

This is a great point worth noting here. The residual impact of having a rail link would allow for our city to host more international conferences and events, and is very likely to facilitate more business in the city in a multitude of ways.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm in favour of it because I love (and travel more frequently to) cities where I can travel by public transit. I really believe it would improve the international competitiveness of our city by making it more attractive for conventions/business travellers/vacationers.

Can't argue with you there, but I would contend that adding lines to amenities and huge swaths of the city that are currently miles from a station would allow for the city to be travelled by public transit to a greater extent. Why build an airport link before hundreds of thousands in the SE, far north and east ends of the city can't get to it (nevermind downtown, university, McMahon, Saddledome, etc.) by using the existing infrastructure?

Incidentally, it's also why building HSR doesn't make as much sense until the transit systems in Edmonton and Calgary see investment. Why travel to Edmonton (or Calgary) on a train if, in a lot of instances, you just have to rent a car when you get there anyway?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Can't argue with you there, but I would contend that adding lines to amenities and huge swaths of the city that are currently miles from a station would allow for the city to be travelled by public transit to a greater extent. Why build an airport link before hundreds of thousands in the SE, far north and east ends of the city can't get to it (nevermind downtown, university, McMahon, Saddledome, etc.) by using the existing infrastructure?

Incidentally, it's also why building HSR doesn't make as much sense until the transit systems in Edmonton and Calgary see investment. Why travel to Edmonton (or Calgary) on a train if, in a lot of instances, you just have to rent a car when you get there anyway?

I definitely think we should build out the LRT in both Calgary and Edmonton before a high speed rail line between the two makes sense. I still think some sort of airport spur makes sense, and I don't think it would slow down the progress on the other lines appreciably, since it shouldn't be that expensive as its not that far. I really do think it could be financed and paid for by an "airport-station-surcharge" or something similar. Examples of this type of pricing include Vancouver, San Francisco, and Sydney, Australia.

The biggest users of an airport link are likely to be business travellers and convention attendees. Those arriving by air probably mostly go downtown, Stampede/Roundup Centre, and the University/Motel Village.

[frinkprof]

^In other cities, it is almost always airport employees that are the most frequent riders. Makes sense, since they travel there hundreds of times a year compared to, at best, a couple dozen by most other people. Business travellers can often write off cab fares.

[Muta]

A HSR link between Calgary and Edmonton, with stops at both airports, could work within a P3 construction model. Something that will eventually become more popular in this province. Just a side thought.

[frinkprof]

Hot off the presses

Calgary Transit's Proposed Service Plan for YYC Airport

2012:



Routes 430 and 57 are existing (57 currently goes all the way to terminal, but doesn't in above map due to Barlow Trail closure).

Route 100 would be in service by 2011

Route 310 is a BRT route that would be in operation by 2012

Long Term:



Route 310 is replaced by "European-style" Tram.

More images and information at the link.

[bizaro86]

That's very interesting! Hopefully some of that comes to fruition. I know I would certainly take a BRT from Crowfoot.

[mykalberta]

I dont think you will ever see above ground CTrain at the airport, the closest you will get is an airport people move connecting you from a CTrain station to the airport, that way the airport gets its fee from it.

The plan was posted by someone a few months ago was for it to connect to the new HSR /CTrain location on the west side of Deerfoot. It makes sense to do it from there as you will have very few stops from downtown to the transfer terminal.

Having the NE line connect to the airport has never been in the City long term plans as the CTrains turns away from the airport once it passes McKnight.

Magical route "310" will never happen for at least 20 years. It would take vision and money for that to occur, both of which are in short supply.