Calgary Public Transit II

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MasterG

It only cost me about 50 bucks in 2011 to do that route.

I wish Alberta would get its act together about rail travel. Alberta innovated and is still leading on LRT in North America, it would be nice to leverage that into regional and intercity rail. You couldn't come up with a better pairing of two cities the exact right distance apart to promote rail travel, easy topography to build on and trip profiles that mean everyone is going to the same distance and place. It is a perfect recipe for rail.

Of course, Alberta government may only realize that when Highway 2 is congested at 8 lanes and we ran out of oil revenues in 30 years. It would be nice to get ahead of the curve on this issue.

Unfortunately, it isn't. The ideal situation is a large network of routes all feeding into hubs with branch lines feeding the mainlines.

The UK is in the advanced stages before constructing their first domestic intercity high speed line which is being built to relieve one of the busiest railway lines in the world and will have 18 tph running on it. Even with such an obvious business case it has still been an incredibly tough sell. When comparing that to the Alberta case, with no existing mainline rail and only some feeder LRT networks and the route expecting only what, 2 trains per hour, I cannot see how it could be justified.

It's a shame as I'd love to see it, but there just isn't the density of cities neccesary here and no conventional rail for it to link to.

And lets face it, Highway 2 is not a busy road in the grand scheme of things. It does need to be three lanes throughout (now, not in 10 years), mainly due to trucks, but otherwise it should easily handle the traffic for a long time. I'm all for future planning, but HSR in Alberta just isn't realistic.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Ugh, that is a depressing reality if that is the case. An entire province of kids/young adults who don't know the value of working for what they have/get? *shudder*



They don't really shoehorn anyone in. The seats between the classes are virtually identical, except the economy seats are a green-blue colour and the seats in first class are maroon. The only thing that's different that I noticed about first class on Via is the free wine and the fact that they didn't ID me when I was 17. Got hammered on my way home from Toronto. I may have gotten free food too I think.

That's good to know, but the main point I was making is that there will likely be a range of fares and if you don't mind riding in economy class it'll probably be less than $100 even during peak midweek times. One of these studies found that about half the riders would traveling for business reasons, so they'd likely generate some pretty good revenue from them.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Unfortunately, it isn't. The ideal situation is a large network of routes all feeding into hubs with branch lines feeding the mainlines.

The UK is in the advanced stages before constructing their first domestic intercity high speed line which is being built to relieve one of the busiest railway lines in the world and will have 18 tph running on it. Even with such an obvious business case it has still been an incredibly tough sell. When comparing that to the Alberta case, with no existing mainline rail and only some feeder LRT networks and the route expecting only what, 2 trains per hour, I cannot see how it could be justified.

It's a shame as I'd love to see it, but there just isn't the density of cities neccesary here and no conventional rail for it to link to.

And lets face it, Highway 2 is not a busy road in the grand scheme of things. It does need to be three lanes throughout (now, not in 10 years), mainly due to trucks, but otherwise it should easily handle the traffic for a long time. I'm all for future planning, but HSR in Alberta just isn't realistic.

Actually, highway 2 is a busy highway in the grand scheme of things, and that’s why studies as far back as 10 years ago found that this would be a viable HSR route.

[frinkprof]

Winter Service Revisions

These take effect December 23rd.

Frequency improvements for routes 4, 8, 72, 94, 100, 199, 300

Route 302 extended to South Health Campus

Route 445 Skyview Ranch is having its service ramped up. Now has weekday evening service. Look for weekend service, big buses and frequency improvements to be added in subsequent seasonal changes.

Route 404 has added weekend service.

Minor changes to other routes.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/winter_service_revisions_2013.html

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Winter Service Revisions

These take effect December 23rd.

Frequency improvements for routes 4, 8, 72, 94, 100, 199, 300

Route 302 extended to South Health Campus

Route 445 Skyview Ranch is having its service ramped up. Now has weekday evening service. Look for weekend service, big buses and frequency improvements to be added in subsequent seasonal changes.

Route 404 has added weekend service.

Minor changes to other routes.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/winter_service_revisions_2013.html

I am liking this route 300 progression. It started only a year or two ago at an infrequent service with no services or amenities. Not even a sign at the airport.

Now we are at 20 min headways, word of improved signage and a kiosk at the airport. I like where this is going

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Allan83

Actually, highway 2 is a busy highway in the grand scheme of things, and that’s why studies as far back as 10 years ago found that this would be a viable HSR route.

Do you have any statistics? Even the worst I have seen it, the traffic has only been at the 'annoying' level, and that is mainly due to the trucks. 3 or 4 lanes, with the trucks keeping to the outer 2 lanes, and the road would be fine for a while.

If I remember correctly, a high speed line with 18 tph has the capacity of a three lane highway. Somehow I don't think there is going to be a 400m train full of passengers leaving Calgary every 3 minutes.

[Socguy]

For me, the cost of expanding the QE2 to 3 or 4 lanes is part of the funding solution for HSR. If we don't build rail then we are committing to expanding the road. If the train can save us that expense, or allow us to push it back, that should be factored into the equations.

[sim]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Do you have any statistics? Even the worst I have seen it, the traffic has only been at the 'annoying' level, and that is mainly due to the trucks. 3 or 4 lanes, with the trucks keeping to the outer 2 lanes, and the road would be fine for a while.

If I remember correctly, a high speed line with 18 tph has the capacity of a three lane highway. Somehow I don't think there is going to be a 400m train full of passengers leaving Calgary every 3 minutes.

You can find those stats here


An approximate capacity equivalancy isn't overly meaningful though, given that it depends on quite a few different things. For fun though:

3 lane highway:

Assuming 3 lanes at saturation capacity and a generous load factor of 1.5 per vehicle:

2000 * 3 *1.5 = 9000 people per dir

Train:

400 passenger capacity (approx. ICE 3):

23 trains

1200 passenger capacity (see China):

8 trains

12 trains per hour is reasonably feasible operationally.


In conclusion, it depends and it's kinda moot because there are many assumptions and it's not like everyone currently driving would switch modes and demand travel via the HSR.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Socguy

For me, the cost of expanding the QE2 to 3 or 4 lanes is part of the funding solution for HSR. If we don't build rail then we are committing to expanding the road. If the train can save us that expense, or allow us to push it back, that should be factored into the equations.

Expanding the road will be far cheaper though and will still be neccesary anyway with HSR.

Look at the countries with successful HSR networks - France, Japan, Spain, Italy, Germany and hopefully soon, the UK. These countries are so much more densely populated it's hardly even worth comparing, with tens of millions of people in areas the size of the Calgary - Edmonton corridor, and already well developed rail networks. Try and find a high speed 'network' on the planet which includes only two (plus Red Deer) cities.

This (hypothetical) money would be far better spent on improving the LRT networks, and this is coming from a huge HSR supporter.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Expanding the road will be far cheaper though and will still be neccesary anyway with HSR.

Look at the countries with successful HSR networks - France, Japan, Spain, Italy, Germany and hopefully soon, the UK. These countries are so much more densely populated it's hardly even worth comparing, with tens of millions of people in areas the size of the Calgary - Edmonton corridor, and already well developed rail networks. Try and find a high speed 'network' on the planet which includes only two (plus Red Deer) cities.

This (hypothetical) money would be far better spent on improving the LRT networks, and this is coming from a huge HSR supporter.

Detailed studies as far back as 10 years ago show that it’s a viable route, so I don’t think there’s any serious doubt about its viability.
http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/HSRFullReport%281062004%29.pdf
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Con...ssessment_Full_Rpt_02-2008_FINAL_rev.pdf

Somewhere in one of these threads there’s a quote about the Edmonton-Calgary corridor generating trips equivalent to a corridor of 10 million people, perhaps because there is so much business and government traffic between the two. Also, this would be built with mostly private money. Private companies been approaching the government for some years now about building, owing, and operating such a line if the government put together the land, so this talk about HSR vs. LRT is has no basis. It’s not an either/or situation.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Allan83

Detailed studies as far back as 10 years ago show that it’s a viable route, so I don’t think there’s any serious doubt about its viability.
http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/HSRFullReport%281062004%29.pdf
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Con...ssessment_Full_Rpt_02-2008_FINAL_rev.pdf

Somewhere in one of these threads there’s a quote about the Edmonton-Calgary corridor generating trips equivalent to a corridor of 10 million people, perhaps because there is so much business and government traffic between the two. Also, this would be built with mostly private money. Private companies been approaching the government for some years now about building, owing, and operating such a line if the government put together the land, so this talk about HSR vs. LRT is has no basis. It’s not an either/or situation.

If it can be built with private money then absolutely go for it, obviously, there's nothing to lose. If a company thought it was worth the colossal amount of money, then they would be building it by now, or at least trying.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If it can be built with private money then absolutely go for it, obviously, there's nothing to lose. If a company thought it was worth the colossal amount of money, then they would be building it by now, or at least trying.

They have been trying, so I guess the question then becomes why hasn’t the government got on board yet? I suspect that they’re waiting to make sure the right project gets built. Imo the faster the train the better, but maglev is a lot more expensive and less proven, so maybe the fastest HSR is the way to go. This line would also operate in a colder climate than most HSRs and there may some lingering technical questions about whether certain technologies will work reliably in colder weather.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Allan83

They have been trying, so I guess the question then becomes why hasn’t the government got on board yet? I suspect that they’re waiting to make sure the right project gets built. Imo the faster the train the better, but maglev is a lot more expensive and less proven, so maybe the fastest HSR is the way to go. This line would also operate in a colder climate than most HSRs and there may some lingering technical questions about whether certain technologies will work reliably in colder weather.

There aren't many options really. If it is to be built, it should be steel on steel and 400 km/h, which should be easily achievable, because hardly anyone lives in between the two cities and it's flat. Since the capacity will be so massively under utilized, it would probably be a good idea to link Airdrie and other places along the way into it and give them some commuter rail. Providing the approaches into a downtown station could also give more options for other rail lines in the future.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by Allan83

They have been trying, so I guess the question then becomes why hasn’t the government got on board yet? I suspect that they’re waiting to make sure the right project gets built. Imo the faster the train the better, but maglev is a lot more expensive and less proven, so maybe the fastest HSR is the way to go. This line would also operate in a colder climate than most HSRs and there may some lingering technical questions about whether certain technologies will work reliably in colder weather.

There may be other factors but the basic science underlying maglev says that it would be marginally easier to operate at -30 rather than +30. In order for Maglev to be create sufficient lift the only magnetic fields powerful enough are electro-magnets under conditions of super-conduction (which occurs at very low temperatures which are easier to maintain when it is -30 rather and +30)

[andasen]

Originally Posted by milomilo

There aren't many options really. If it is to be built, it should be steel on steel and 400 km/h, which should be easily achievable, because hardly anyone lives in between the two cities and it's flat. Since the capacity will be so massively under utilized, it would probably be a good idea to link Airdrie and other places along the way into it and give them some commuter rail. Providing the approaches into a downtown station could also give more options for other rail lines in the future.

It would be easier just to have Airdrie commuter rail run on the existing freight lines like the west coast express in Vancouver does. That and Okotoks are the easiest commuter rail links to make (with their not being on CP's mainline, instead on less busy N-S line.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by milomilo

There aren't many options really. If it is to be built, it should be steel on steel and 400 km/h, which should be easily achievable, because hardly anyone lives in between the two cities and it's flat. Since the capacity will be so massively under utilized, it would probably be a good idea to link Airdrie and other places along the way into it and give them some commuter rail. Providing the approaches into a downtown station could also give more options for other rail lines in the future.

You should have a look at one of those reports so you have a better idea what the proposal is and what the findings were.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by andasen

There may be other factors but the basic science underlying maglev says that it would be marginally easier to operate at -30 rather than +30. In order for Maglev to be create sufficient lift the only magnetic fields powerful enough are electro-magnets under conditions of super-conduction (which occurs at very low temperatures which are easier to maintain when it is -30 rather and +30)

Maglev or conventional HSR, I think there could be some concerns with both. Our train would probably have to be designed for +40C to -40C, and I’m not sure many of the current trains are. There is a line in northern China that operates in this temperature range, but they’ve had some problems and have had to reduce their winter speeds to 200 km/h. I’m not sure what the problems are, but one report said that they’ve had some frost heaving issues with the tracks. I believe their trains are based on one of the Siemens Velaro trains that run in Europe, so they're quite proven in general, and the issues in China may be more related to the tracks and perhaps soil conditions, but I'm not sure.

[sim]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If it can be built with private money then absolutely go for it, obviously, there's nothing to lose. If a company thought it was worth the colossal amount of money, then they would be building it by now, or at least trying.

Yeah, like how all the roads were.

I'm patently fed up with that ridiculous contention.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by milomilo

There aren't many options really. If it is to be built, it should be steel on steel and 400 km/h, which should be easily achievable, because hardly anyone lives in between the two cities and it's flat. Since the capacity will be so massively under utilized, it would probably be a good idea to link Airdrie and other places along the way into it and give them some commuter rail. Providing the approaches into a downtown station could also give more options for other rail lines in the future.

Not a single HSR line in the world operates at anywhere near 400km/h! Chinese HSR lines are built to a 380km/h standard, but they only operate at 300km/h maximum.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Not a single HSR line in the world operates at anywhere near 400km/h! Chinese HSR lines are built to a 380km/h standard, but they only operate at 300km/h maximum.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS2

400km/h is the design speed of the future UK line, not necessarily expecting the first trains to run at that speed, but future proofing. If it can be done in England with far greater design constraints, then it can be done on an arrow straight run across Alberta.