Calgary Public Transit II

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I really, really doubt you could build any form of worthwhile HSR for $3B.

You got to buy land, you've got the build over 300 km of new double track suitable for HSR, complete with catenary. Most of all, you have to have the entire thing grade separated from everything else. Every road crossing the line, for 300 km, would have to be raised over the line, or the line raised over it.

I completely agree. Even in China, where construction costs are significantly lower (labour, environmental issues, land acquisition, etc), the 1300km long Beijing-Shanghai HSR cost about $32 billion to build, which would mean a MINIMUM $7.5 billion cost for the 300km Calgary-Edmonton HSR. That's only if construction could be done for the same cost as it was done in China, which it obviously could not be. My guess is you're looking at a MINIMUM cost of $10 billion, and probably higher - which, given population densities, etc, would be far better spent on completing the LRT networks in Edmonton and Calgary. As far as I'm concerned, HSR in Alberta is a non-starter - too high cost for too small a population.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I really, really doubt you could build any form of worthwhile HSR for $3B.

You got to buy land, you've got the build over 300 km of new double track suitable for HSR, complete with catenary. Most of all, you have to have the entire thing grade separated from everything else. Every road crossing the line, for 300 km, would have to be raised over the line, or the line raised over it.

From Van Horne (2011 $) http://vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/HighSpeedRailUpdatedCostReport2011.pdf

The current estimated cost in 2011 for HSR in the Calgary Edmonton corridor with the additional contingency allowance is as follows:

 $2,465.5 million for the CPR option

 $3,702.3 million for the Greenfield non-electric option

 $4,969.0 million for the Greenfield electric option.

[DizzyEdge]

Do those figures just include land already purchased or just land remaining to be purchased?

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

From Van Horne (2011 $) http://vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/HighSpeedRailUpdatedCostReport2011.pdf

CPR option is a non starter. Red Arrow would be just as fast, and likely more reliable.

There's also no consideration to grade separate anything in any of those estimates. Add a couple billion, at least.

Only $71 million allowed for land purchase for the greenfield option. Bizarre.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

I completely agree. Even in China, where construction costs are significantly lower (labour, environmental issues, land acquisition, etc), the 1300km long Beijing-Shanghai HSR cost about $32 billion to build, which would mean a MINIMUM $7.5 billion cost for the 300km Calgary-Edmonton HSR. That's only if construction could be done for the same cost as it was done in China, which it obviously could not be. My guess is you're looking at a MINIMUM cost of $10 billion, and probably higher - which, given population densities, etc, would be far better spent on completing the LRT networks in Edmonton and Calgary. As far as I'm concerned, HSR in Alberta is a non-starter - too high cost for too small a population.

There are WAYYYY too many differences beyond wages to make that comparison.


Via source


Via source

[kw5150]

Seconded. I think it is a smart plan. Also, that cycle track would be really flat the whole way which would be perfect. I can see many cyclists signing on to such a great route.

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Interesting - the development will allow for a 1-way peak flow busway while LRT is being built. Once done, the extra lane could be used as a bikeway. I like this idea!

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburbia

There are WAYYYY too many differences beyond wages to make that comparison.


Via source


Via source

There would have to be some of that for a Calgary - Edmonton HSR line as well.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

CPR option is a non starter. Red Arrow would be just as fast, and likely more reliable.

There's also no consideration to grade separate anything in any of those estimates. Add a couple billion, at least.

Only $71 million allowed for land purchase for the greenfield option. Bizarre.

The amount of land required is quite low. 500 acres or so for ROW, another 500 acres for land made economically useless due to the ROW. The cost of the land would be much higher if you had to go buy it on a linear basis. If you can just offer heads of compensation (more than current market value), it is more reasonable.

The CPR option projected a travel time of 2hr 10 min.

Grade sep. was included in the cost estimates, from the 2004 report http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/HSRFullReport(1062004).pdf:

Road Work
For safety reasons, elimination of level crossings is likely required, which in turn necessitates construction of road overpasses and underpasses, road re-routing to connect with existing overpasses or underpasses and, in the case of the CPR alternative, costs to deal with closure of
private crossings (e.g. buy-outs). While improvement of some these crossings is already planned or anticipated, other crossings would likely remain “as is” for many years, if not forever. For the CPR alignment and the common portion of the Greenfield alignment, CPR conferred with Alberta Transportation on the treatment of each crossing on a case-by-case basis and applied current
costs for similar works to develop the estimate for roadwork costs. These costs are assumed to be inclusive of design, engineering and construction management, as construction of these works for a project of this magnitude would most likely be carried out through design-build contracts.

The dedicated new portion of the Greenfield alternatives, on the other hand, used the 1984 roadwork construction costs, which were then adjusted to current dollars. Design, engineering and construction management were calculated separately and are included under these specific cost items identified in the soft cost section of the cost estimate.

The higher cost associated with the CPR alternative is partly explained by the all inclusive nature of the estimate, but may also reflect the fact that the CPR line passes through numerous communities and has a larger number of existing level crossings, including private crossings, which must be dealt with.

In contrast, the Greenfield alignment tends to be in open territory. It also assumes severance of public roads that are not now grade separated with Highway 2, which may result in a smaller number of grade separations than can actually be realized. Furthermore, it assumes that no private at grade crossing will be created to provide access to properties that are severed, which may add to property acquisition costs. Another explanation may be that roadwork costs have escalated in price more than the cost of inflation since 1984. All of these considerations would require detailed study in a later phase of project development.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The amount of land required is quite low. 500 acres or so for ROW, another 500 acres for land made economically useless due to the ROW. The cost of the land would be much higher if you had to go buy it on a linear basis. If you can just offer heads of compensation (more than current market value), it is more reasonable.

The CPR option projected a travel time of 2hr 10 min.

Grade sep. was included in the cost estimates, from the 2004 report http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/HSRFullReport(1062004).pdf:

The report calls for 1400 hectares, which is 3300 acres.

I call BS on 2 hours 10 minutes on a CPR alignment. Complete BS. Including stops and acceleration, etc, the train would have to be averaging 160 km/h+. Impossible. And again, there' no point to building a system that can't get downtown to downtown including stops in 90 minutes.

The numbers in that report don't pass a smell test.

[MalcolmTucker]

So, experts studying the CPR alignment in the reports over the past 30 years are wrong? All of them?

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So, experts studying the CPR alignment in the reports over the past 30 years are wrong? All of them?

No, I don't think they are "wrong". Considering that if a train (they are refering to a train that can go 200km/h) didn't have to stop anywhere, and had no backups anywhere due to traffic, It probably could make the trip in about that time.

However, perfect conditions are never going to happen like that, and the train is going to stop in more places. A train that maxes out at 200 km/h isn't going to be able to have a trip average of 150 km/h in the real world. I find it really hard to believe that a train sharing tracks with freight is going to be able to make the trip in less than 2.5 hours, but probably it would be closer to 3 in the real world, at least some of the time. But even at 2h 10 min, it doesn't help anyone whose origin or destination isn't downtown in either of the two cities, as driving will be less hassle and faster.

A train limited to 200 km/h max just isn't fast enough for people to consider using the system. Unknowns with potentially being held up due to freight traffic - which would be somewhat common - would push most people to the existing bus service, most of the time. Faster than 200km/h will require it's own dedicated track, and full grade separation.

It's going to be lots of money either way, let's spend a little bit more and actually build a great system, not something half-assed.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The amount of land required is quite low. 500 acres or so for ROW, another 500 acres for land made economically useless due to the ROW. The cost of the land would be much higher if you had to go buy it on a linear basis. If you can just offer heads of compensation (more than current market value), it is more reasonable.

The CPR option projected a travel time of 2hr 10 min.

Grade sep. was included in the cost estimates, from the 2004 report http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/HSRFullReport(1062004).pdf:

I’m a big supporter, but I think we have to go with the Greenfield 350 km/h option. I think the time between the two cites is a critical factor, and I think getting close to the 1 hour travel time, and even under for the express train, would be a magic number. People still have to get to and from the stations, of course, but that number would make days trips easy to do, and that would open up many more reasons possibilities for travel. Two hours each way, plus the time to and from the stations, makes it a difficult day trip, and that would limit many options for potential travelers. I’m not sure the time savings a maglev would provide would make a huge difference, but for sure this has to be at least a screaming fast HSR, imo.

Also remember that projected ridership numbers will have increase greatly since that 2004 study. Not only has the population increased greatly, but the drive between the two cites has gotten worse. We’ve had multiple multi car pileups in recent years, for example, due to the congestion. The public transit systems in both cities are also both greatly improved, making it much easier to get to and from the stations.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Allan83

I’m a big supporter, but I think we have to go with the Greenfield 350 km/h option. I think the time between the two cites is a critical factor, and I think getting close to the 1 hour travel time, and even under for the express train, would be a magic number. People still have to get to and from the stations, of course, but that number would make days trips easy to do, and that would open up many more reasons possibilities for travel. Two hours each way, plus the time to and from the stations, makes it a difficult day trip, and that would limit many options for potential travelers. I’m not sure the time savings a maglev would provide would make a huge difference, but for sure this has to be at least a screaming fast HSR, imo.

Also remember that projected ridership numbers will have increase greatly since that 2004 study. Not only has the population increased greatly, but the drive between the two cites has gotten worse. We’ve had multiple multi car pileups in recent years, for example, due to the congestion. The public transit systems in both cities are also both greatly improved, making it much easier to get to and from the stations.

I would appreciate a level of resiliency that currently doesn't exist in intercity travel in Alberta. If the snow and traffic is terrible (long weekends etc.) I would much prefer an option that does not involve me driving and can get me there reliably and less stress. If tickets are within the $50 to 100 range that would be the preferred option for university students and make casual traveling for concerts, business, visiting friends etc. an entirely different experience.

LRT is more of a need without a doubt. But we should really have both. Constant highway expansion has already been out of fashion for a decade. Lets imagine a different future for a change.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I would appreciate a level of resiliency that currently doesn't exist in intercity travel in Alberta. If the snow and traffic is terrible (long weekends etc.) I would much prefer an option that does not involve me driving and can get me there reliably and less stress. If tickets are within the $50 to 100 range that would be the preferred option for university students and make casual traveling for concerts, business, visiting friends etc. an entirely different experience.
LRT is more of a need without a doubt. But we should really have both. Constant highway expansion has already been out of fashion for a decade. Lets imagine a different future for a change.

The projections I remember were for tickets to be about $100 each way, but it would certainly make sense for them to have a student rate, and perhaps weekend rates as well. I think the core of their business would come from business and government mid-week traffic, but there are endless possibilities for other discounts and promotions that would bring in all kinds of people who would not otherwise take the trip.

[VIce]

I wouldn't even mind a Via-style slow passenger train between Calgary and Edmonton. I'd use it. When I'm in the East, I regularly travel by Via between Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal. Escape fares are $40, and stations put you in the metro system or Transitway. Free wifi, time to work or relax, and very quiet and comfortable.

It's four hours from Ottawa Station to Union. The alternative for me is a 3-3.5 hour airline adventure (for $130 extra), a substantially less comfortable (and surprisingly, more expensive) bus adventure, or about $40 in gas to drive, which is a small amount of convenience for wasting four hours I could otherwise spend on other things. I wouldn't even consider travelling between Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal other than by train, unless it was the last minute and I had no choice.

A slow, 3 or 3.5 hour train between Calgary and Edmonton is something I would use several times a year.

[Chadillaccc]

$100 each way sounds like it would be pretty much unattainable for a significant amount of the population, myself included. It should be around the same cost as travelling round trip between the cities, 100 - 120 for a round trip.

[Rusty van Reddick]

130 minutes travel time would be exquisite- why do you (YNAT) dismiss it? Why would 60 minutes be so important? As long as it's faster (a lot faster actually) than driving with zero attendant parking headaches it'd be magnificent/

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

$100 each way sounds like it would be pretty much unattainable for a significant amount of the population, myself included. It should be around the same cost as travelling round trip between the cities, 100 - 120 for a round trip.

I don't know. That is less than the cost of a decent hotel, which sometimes is the only option if you are going on a business trip. High speed rail seems to primarily serve business commuters, and $100 per trip is not at all unreasonable for that purpose.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

130 minutes travel time would be exquisite- why do you (YNAT) dismiss it? Why would 60 minutes be so important? As long as it's faster (a lot faster actually) than driving with zero attendant parking headaches it'd be magnificent/

130 minutes would be better than what exists now, but I also think that it would miss a lot of opportunities. I think the ability to easily do a day trip from one city to the other would be very valuable and would bring in a lot of people. For the general public you go to the other city for essentially a full day and yet not have to say the night. You could even go up for the evening, or an event, or perhaps a big hockey game, and still catch a late train back. Being able to do a day trip would also allow schools to take trips to the other city to tour the museums in Edmonton, for example, or the Legislature Building. Edmonton school kids could take day trips to the Calgary zoo, or to tour the Olympic facilities. I think that a great many more options, and a lot of added value, opens up if the train is fast enough to make an easy day trip possible.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Allan83

130 minutes would be better than what exists now, but I also think that it would miss a lot of opportunities. I think the ability to easily do a day trip from one city to the other would be very valuable and would bring in a lot of people. For the general public you go to the other city for essentially a full day and yet not have to say the night. You could even go up for the evening, or an event, or perhaps a big hockey game, and still catch a late train back. Being able to do a day trip would also allow schools to take trips to the other city to tour the museums in Edmonton, for example, or the Legislature Building. Edmonton school kids could take day trips to the Calgary zoo, or to tour the Olympic facilities. I think that a great many more options, and a lot of added value, opens up if the train is fast enough to make an easy day trip possible.

A train trip under 2 hours would be fantastic. Sure the faster the better, but I think around 2 hours is enough to convince many of the even die-hard drivers that this is an attractive option.

I agree with a few of the other comments on here: I would take a train even if it was 3 hours Via-style. Travelling between the big cities in the east it is very much the way to go. I have done the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal on Via and it was a very pleasant experience each time. It saves the trouble of dealing with traffic, weather, accidents and gets you exactly where you need to go in a way that is much more comfortable than any other option. Plus driving isn't free, you are looking at a good portion of a tank of gas for an Edmonton trip, anywhere from $40 - 80 depending on how fuel efficient your F350 club cab is.

I think Via caps out around 160km /h in the Toronto - Montreal corridor? You would have thousands of takers even just for that route of adding a bit of track for efficiency and a few bare-bones stations in major stops for local trains.