HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1161  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2020, 4:35 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegasus View Post
As Banff tourism (the main driver, I assume) is so seasonal, wouldn't a line between Alberta's two largest cities make more economic sense? Especially as it could also tie in with Red Deer and the international airports in both Calgary and Edmonton?
Seasonal with a huge peak, summer and a minor peak, winter.

There are a couple things:
1) tourism is a different type of economic development - every dollar a tourist not from Alberta spends is like an export, a new dollar.
2) A link between Calgary and Edmonton would cost about 10 times as much
3) I think both projects are close to economic if not economic. A lack of vision holds back both--thinking that the full capital cost equals the support required from government. The Banff project has a viable proponent that has put effort in and lined up players. If the model is shown as working, I suspect it will be pretty fast for the government to try to deploy a similar model to Caglary and Edmonton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1162  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2020, 4:48 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
Seasonal with a huge peak, summer and a minor peak, winter.

There are a couple things:
1) tourism is a different type of economic development - every dollar a tourist not from Alberta spends is like an export, a new dollar.
2) A link between Calgary and Edmonton would cost about 10 times as much
3) I think both projects are close to economic if not economic. A lack of vision holds back both--thinking that the full capital cost equals the support required from government. The Banff project has a viable proponent that has put effort in and lined up players. If the model is shown as working, I suspect it will be pretty fast for the government to try to deploy a similar model to Caglary and Edmonton.
Do we have any proof of that, other than the Waterous' word?

I don't want private interests dictating public infrastructure in Canada except perhaps for a setup like the CTRL. Private ownership of railways is half the reason it's so difficult to create new rail service today, doubling down on that would be a terrible idea. Luckily these claims of illusive private dollars for passenger rail have never materialised, so I don't think we have to worry.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1163  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2020, 5:23 PM
CTrainDude CTrainDude is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
But the federal plan (from the vague details we have) is for a line from the airport to Banff, so the city plan is redundant, except as a suburban connector. Is it worthwhile having both a heavy rail line and another rail transit line? I don't think there is good justification for both, and the heavy rail line will be better, so that eliminates the city line, IMO.
It's the City's airport connector that would get people from the airport to the heavy rail station - the heavy rail station is in the Nose Creek CP ROW, so would benefit from the light rail link to the airport itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1164  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2020, 5:33 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Do we have any proof of that, other than the Waterous' word?

I don't want private interests dictating public infrastructure in Canada except perhaps for a setup like the CTRL. Private ownership of railways is half the reason it's so difficult to create new rail service today, doubling down on that would be a terrible idea. Luckily these claims of illusive private dollars for passenger rail have never materialised, so I don't think we have to worry.
The Waterous's were the driving force for initiating the study by the town of Banff, have navigated federal and CPR processes to develop the tran station into a intercept lot hub, and were the people who at least started the engagement with the infrastructure bank.

And sorry, private interests influence everything, and our system works pretty well.

If the CPR was public, it would be just as busy, and it would be just as important to not displace freight. The federal government could dictate to the private rail companies (as the regulator) just as much as they could to public rail companies (as the owner) to accommodate passenger rail. You're seeing a symptom (no passenger rail) as a consequence of ownership, when it is a consequence of capacity and economics. No ownership change changes the fundamental economics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1165  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2020, 12:29 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
The Waterous's were the driving force for initiating the study by the town of Banff, have navigated federal and CPR processes to develop the tran station into a intercept lot hub, and were the people who at least started the engagement with the infrastructure bank.
And yet, no evidence at all of any actual investors. Without any evidence, I have no option but to assume these investors haven't actually made promises. These lines will need subsidies. Who invests hundreds of millions in a project they don't know the price or potential profit of? No one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
And sorry, private interests influence everything, and our system works pretty well.
The private sector is awesome and I'm as big a fan of free trade as there is. But some things the private sector cannot do well, and natural monopolies, like infrastructure, are one of them. At least without so much regulation that they become quasi public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
If the CPR was public, it would be just as busy, and it would be just as important to not displace freight. The federal government could dictate to the private rail companies (as the regulator) just as much as they could to public rail companies (as the owner) to accommodate passenger rail. You're seeing a symptom (no passenger rail) as a consequence of ownership, when it is a consequence of capacity and economics. No ownership change changes the fundamental economics.
The fundamental economics would be hugely different with public ownership. A private owner can only place value on the direct payments made to it by a passenger train operator. Whereas a public owner would be able to include a whole host of external benefits in its calculation - tourism, GDP growth, health benefits, carbon reductions, reduced cost of roads - all things irrelevant to CP's interests.

A public owner would be able to make investments and allocate resources to all potential operators on a line, whereas CP only cares about itself - that's not a slur just an absolute fact of the corporate economy. Sure, if a good enough offer was made to CP then they might have to accept running trains on their lines, for a price. But it would be on their terms, since they are a monopoly. We both know what the effect of monopolies are on the structure of business relationships.

That said, I can see the benefit of a structure like that used on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, that might be used on HFR, where the public still has substantial control of how the asset can be used. I just don't want to give a blank cheque to a company that gets sole dictate of the railway for the next thousand years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1166  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2020, 12:42 AM
YYCguys YYCguys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I just don't want to give a blank cheque to a company that gets sole dictate of the railway for the next thousand years.
Kinda like the CPR?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1167  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2020, 12:48 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by YYCguys View Post
Kinda like the CPR?
Yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1168  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2020, 2:14 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTrainDude View Post
It's the City's airport connector that would get people from the airport to the heavy rail station - the heavy rail station is in the Nose Creek CP ROW, so would benefit from the light rail link to the airport itself.
That has never been said, to my knowledge. The recent federal study just says a rail line from YYC - Banff.

Direct from the CIB website:

Quote:
The Calgary-Banff Rail project is a new, 130-kilometre sustainable passenger rail service that would potentially include six stops (Calgary International Airport, Downtown Calgary, Cochrane, Morley, Canmore and Banff) along a dedicated line built within the existing Canadian Pacific Railway’s corridor. The service could have up to eight departures per day from the airport to Banff and the capability of running an express service from Calgary International Airport to downtown Calgary every 20 minutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:09 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.