Calgary Area Regional Transit

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Jaspertf

One way to fund it would be by means of a Public Private Partnership, which the UCP have said they are not adverse to for funding infrastructure projects. The funding sources would be split between the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, and private industry.

It will require subsidy though, which seems optimistic now.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It will require subsidy though, which seems optimistic now.

You're 100% correct.

With the prior AB carbon tax on consumption, there was a stated formula to re-direct dollars to environmentally friendly initiatives, including in particular, public transportation. Even though I doubt this would have flown, there was a chance the province would have stepped up to the plate back then.

With new taxing formulas in AB, there are no revenue streams with the above stipulation, so any dollars the provinces finds can now instead be used to off-set the massive tax break for large corporations. That means the chances for provincial dollars for this project are zero to zilch.

[Jaspertf]

Many mountain resorts in Europe have mass-transit rail access.

https://banffecotransithub.ca/

Reimagining Banff's historic Rail Lands, changing the way people move through Banff National Park and the Banff townsite.
Banff Railway Lands will be an arrival centre for green transit systems including intercept parking, aerial transit to Norquay, and services that support passenger rail.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Jaspertf

Many mountain resorts in Europe have mass-transit rail access.

The context with those is completely different. It is like highlighting a massive robot-enabled Chinese bullet train maintenance facility when talking about Calgary's LRT. The comparison is just not there.

[MalcolmTucker]

We can change our context though, overtime, with strategic investments to encourage tourism without degrading the park.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The context with those is completely different. It is like highlighting a massive robot-enabled Chinese bullet train maintenance facility when talking about Calgary's LRT. The comparison is just not there.

We don't need to transfer that nonsense to this thread.

Wishing for rail transit to the Bow Valley is perfectly reasonable, and indeed sensible. It's right to point out that if our geography was laid out in Europe, we would have an extensive rail network, not just to Banff but to Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Edmonton etc. Just because these things do not currently exist does not mean they never can.

[milomilo]

https://globalnews.ca/news/5729343/lake-louise-shuttle-lineups/

The Bow Valley was predictably a complete gongshow this weekend. Adding car capacity is clearly a non starter, but proper public transport infrastructure can't come soon enough. Proper bus terminals, proper park and rides, real hard infrastructure and tough decisions. And , heaven forbid, a train. If all these people were on a train to begin with, they would not have the option of driving around wondering where the hell the bus is. They would just get off their train, walk to the bus bay and show the driver the ticket they already paid for.

[Corndogger]

Mount Norquay owners pitch gondola, 'eco-transit hub' for Banff

Amanda Stephenson, Calgary Herald
Updated: September 13, 2019

The owners of the Mount Norquay ski resort have proposed an ambitious vision for Banff that they say would combine rail, shuttle service and aerial transit to reduce traffic congestion in the national park.



Jan and Adam Waterous of Liricon Capital Ltd. purchased the long-term lease for the Banff Train Station, as well as the 13 hectares of land that surround it, four years ago. Their goal is to create what they call an “eco-transit hub” aimed at transforming how visitors come to and move around Banff National Park.

On Friday, an opening ceremony was held for the first plank of the plan — a 500-stall intercept parking lot that the Waterouses built to the east of the station. The lot provides free parking for day-trip visitors who are willing to leave their car on the edge of town and walk or take a shuttle to the downtown.

Liricon Capital also wants to build an aerial tramway or gondola that would transport visitors from the train station to the ski hill. That proposal is currently before Parks Canada. In addition, the company is pushing to bring passenger rail service back to Banff National Park and has been assembling an investor group that could put in the required capital to build a dedicated rail line from Calgary to Banff. Plans are in the works to develop the existing train station property, adding restaurants, ticketing offices and more.



In an interview, Jan Waterous said she and her husband are motivated by a desire to tackle the traffic congestion, which is increasingly reducing the quality of life for residents and harming the visitor experience. She said while the operation of the gondola would be a money-making venture for Mount Norquay, the proposal is not just a business venture.

“It’s really been a passion project for my family, because it’s something we know could really be transformative for the national park,” Waterous said. “Banff has the opportunity to be the town that can really be a role model for the rest of Canada, in terms of adopting green initiatives.”

However, not everyone in the community has bought into Liricon Capital’s vision. Harvey Locke, Banff resident and well-known conservationist, said he believes the talk of an “eco-transit hub” is window-dressing for a nakedly commercial enterprise. He is particularly concerned that the Waterouses have proposed building another intercept parking lot with up to 2,000 stalls but have indicated that is conditional on the gondola project going ahead.

“If there were a conversation about how we have a better experience for pedestrians in Banff that didn’t involve a gondola to Mount Norquay, I would be interested,” Locke said. “But this whole thing is just an outrageously brazen effort to get a gondola constructed up to a ski hill to expand its summer use and enrich them. Banff’s problem is too many people … That’s what we need to be managing, not adding more attractions.”



As part of their proposal, Liricon Capital has also suggested that the Town of Banff should go so far as to implement a “resident-only vehicle pass,” so that all day-trip visitors will be required to park in the lots at the Banff Train Station and the downtown could be converted to a “car-free” zone.

Mayor Karen Sorensen, who attended Friday’s event, said council hasn’t considered anything that drastic yet, though she said the new intercept lot along with the Waterouses’ other plans would go a long way toward addressing traffic congestion in the area.

“If there was another 2,000 stalls in that (train station) vicinity, I would probably go so far as to say we would have no parking challenges whatsoever,” Sorensen said.

According to Parks Canada, Liricon Capital’s first proposal for an aerial tram at Mount Norquay exceeded the scope of what can be permitted under the site guidelines and park management plan. Since then, Liricon has provided a response to the preliminary review of their proposal and the new information is now being considered, said Parks Canada spokeswoman Carly Wallace.

Formal public consultations would also need to take place before any such proposal could be approved.

Source: https://calgaryherald.com/business/local...-pitch-gondola-eco-transit-hub-for-banff

[milomilo]

Sadly the article only talked about the gondola and not the rail. I could take or leave the gondola, but Banff has to do something. Banff personifies the NIMBYest of NIMBYs though so likely won't make any decisions on much worthwhile. Harvey Locke sounds like a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 - 'Banff's problem is too many people'. OK, how come he still lives there then? With people like that in town, nothing will get done.

Interesting how that train says 'zero emissions hydrogen'. They are obviously using that as a sales pitch but it needlessly complicates the proposal.

[MalcolmTucker]

Going hydrogen removes an objection at a low cost compared to the project as a whole.
The fight now is rightly focused between the views of ‘people are the problem’ versus ‘cars are the problem’.
My view is that intensifying use in a limited area that isn’t car supported is way better than just letting things continue as they are to the point where we need intercept lots and transit at every intense use attraction but are dependent on cars to go between.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Going hydrogen removes an objection at a low cost compared to the project as a whole.
The fight now is rightly focused between the views of ‘people are the problem’ versus ‘cars are the problem’.
My view is that intensifying use in a limited area that isn’t car supported is way better than just letting things continue as they are to the point where we need intercept lots and transit at every intense use attraction but are dependent on cars to go between.

I totally agree on your second point. The demand isn't going away, best we cater for that demand in a sustainable way.

As for hydrogen, if it can be put in easily it's fine. But there's no need for it, even if the trains were diesel it's still way better than having 300 extra cars on the road. I don't really see it as a problem at this stage though as there is no way this couple is going to have the financial backing or expertise to negotiate with CP to build a railway. I'm glad they are keeping the conversation going though, and any steps taken now to focus transit on the station area make building rail more attractive.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ The report that came back showed that diesel trains wouldn't reduce emissions compared to cars iirc.

I think you're underestimating the symbolic elements that people latch onto to oppose things, even if there is little logical material difference.

I also think you're underestimating what is behind this. This isn't the old group that owned Fortress, Banff Rail Co, that for years failed to raise any sort of money. The report issued showed a bit of financial projection. Even without increasing value of associated properties, the project looks viable with a bit of a government cash injection to increase the rate of return.

With the way CP operates, if they can make money off of an under utilized asset (the ROW), without taking risk themselves, why wouldn't they take it?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ The report that came back showed that diesel trains wouldn't reduce emissions compared to cars iirc.

I've seen similar data (and the report you are referencing), I do find it hard to believe that diesel trains are in the same ballpark of emissions intensity as cars, but even if that's the case, getting rail is as much a quality of life/long term economic issue as an environmental one.

I see the hydrogen pitch as potentially a way of promoting the project more on its green credentials, and I have no issue using it if it can be done cost effectively. But if it turns out that it is more difficult than they guessed (it is just guesswork), then we should have no qualms dropping the hydrogen aspect and using diesel. Diesel trains will still give us huge benefit, and we can electrify, use batteries or hydrogen later once it makes sense. The important part is we get the trains running.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I think you're underestimating the symbolic elements that people latch onto to oppose things, even if there is little logical material difference.

I also think you're underestimating what is behind this. This isn't the old group that owned Fortress, Banff Rail Co, that for years failed to raise any sort of money. The report issued showed a bit of financial projection. Even without increasing value of associated properties, the project looks viable with a bit of a government cash injection to increase the rate of return.

With the way CP operates, if they can make money off of an under utilized asset (the ROW), without taking risk themselves, why wouldn't they take it?

Well, I'll believe it when I see it. If the can rail stand up on its own merits, what's stopping them?

As for CP, is there no risk, no disbenefit to them? I don't think we know what the Waterous couple have envisioned for the infrastructure, but if it involves building a separate railway alongside, that will be hugely expensive, and if it involves sharing infrastructure with CP, then I'm sure they are going to want to have priority for their own trains. Is the sliver of extra revenue for CP worth the hassle for them? Given the way these rail companies have behaved in the past, I don't see why they wouldn't play hardball.

[MalcolmTucker]

The report came out within the year. They commissioned the eco hub 'study' to try to help pitch the town and parks canada on their concept. Of course, they also are trying to build political support, like any project that requires environmental approvals (the gondolas would - I think the rail too). There is no way they could get to a package that would assuage your fears with the style of financing they are using - they need to clear the hurdles, then the financing stack can come.

Grants, Canadian Infrastructure Bank, and private.

I guess what I am saying, this isn't a sure thing, but it isn't the Bill Smith Group talking about the McMahon either, with back of the napkin proposals.

As for CP, is there no risk, no disbenefit to them? I don't think we know what the Waterous couple have envisioned for the infrastructure, but if it involves building a separate railway alongside, that will be hugely expensive, and if it involves sharing infrastructure with CP, then I'm sure they are going to want to have priority for their own trains. Is the sliver of extra revenue for CP worth the hassle for them? Given the way these rail companies have behaved in the past, I don't see why they wouldn't play hardball.

As for CP sure they can play hard ball if they want. But if you go back to the report, it isn't a fully segregated line in the ROW, it is integrated. You end up with way more capacity than CP will need in the corridor for decades, and CP gets to use the extra for free (that is what pays the ROW rent basically). At the end of a term, CP can opt to buy out the infrastructure if it wants to. Imagining how it would end up being set up, there'd most likely include a mechanism for CP to buy out the entire project at any time as well.



The costs, to remind people:

•The capital cost for a proposed rail service is expected to be approximately $660-680 million, including track, stations, maintenance depot and rolling stock.
•The track component (excluding station tracks) is expected to be approximately $380 million, excluding engineering and contingency.
•Each station is expected to have a capital cost of approximately $4 to $6 million, excluding park-and- ride facilities.

•Five sets of rolling stock are estimated to be needed. The total cost for rolling stock is expected to be $70 to $90 million.

While not inexpensive, it is also not expensive.



Onto another thing, that I hadn't seen before: CED's estimates of induced tourism spending increases that came out without much fanfare in March (it was unfortunate it came out right at the start of the provincial election) https://www.calgaryeconomicdevelopment.c...banff-rail-on-track-for-economic-growth/ there is a strong economic development case for public support.

[milomilo]

Is the recent Bow Valley transit/rail connected to what the Waterouses are proposing? As I understand, they are separate things, but happy to be corrected on that. Of course, the information is relevant regardless but I'm not sure we can be confident what the Waterouses have in mind, or if they even have a fully fleshed out proposal.

I place as much confidence in that cost from the study as in the initial Green Line cost estimate. Until they actually start talking to CP and putting in serious work, we won't know what it will cost. It seems too low though, when you compare that to the amount of money CN spends for some mundane double tracking in the prairies, doubling or tripling the track through fairly tough terrain in sensitive areas cannot come cheap.

That said, in my opinion the cost will be worth it, but we should also set ourselves up right from the start. The biggest problems they have out east with their railways, and the WCE too, are due to not owning the tracks. If we're to build rail, I don't want us paying to upgrade CP's lines only for them to keep control of the track.

I guess what I am saying, this isn't a sure thing, but it isn't the Bill Smith Group talking about the McMahon either, with back of the napkin proposals.

Yeah, I treat it with more credibility than that!

[DizzyEdge]

"Banff’s problem is too many people … That’s what we need to be managing, not adding more attractions.”

I mean, not really. I'm sure if Banff Avenue was converted to pedestrian-only like the rendering seems to suggest there would be no problem handling an increase in visitors, the issue is vehicular gridlock. Anything that keeps cars out of the townsite should make a positive difference.

[milomilo]

[quote=dizzyedge;8688562 anything that keeps cars out of the townsite should make a positive difference.[/quote]

100%

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I place as much confidence in that cost from the study as in the initial Green Line cost estimate. Until they actually start talking to CP and putting in serious work, we won't know what it will cost. It seems too low though, when you compare that to the amount of money CN spends for some mundane double tracking in the prairies, doubling or tripling the track through fairly tough terrain in sensitive areas cannot come cheap.

That said, in my opinion the cost will be worth it, but we should also set ourselves up right from the start. The biggest problems they have out east with their railways, and the WCE too, are due to not owning the tracks. If we're to build rail, I don't want us paying to upgrade CP's lines only for them to keep control of the track.

Like all such rail projects the cost estimates are grossly underestimated to make it look more attractive to the public and governments. I'd also like to know why they didn't include the cost of the park and ride element of stations. Was that done to make the station costs look very affordable?

[Jaspertf]

The passenger rail section in the Calgary Bow Valley Mass Transit Feasibility Study is effectively the plan. It is pretty detailed.

[joe498]

Calgary, Chestermere working on transit link

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/chestermere-transit-city-council-1.5290695