Calgary Area Regional Transit

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

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.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by milomilo

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.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

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.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by milomilo

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?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Kinda like the CPR?

Yes.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

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:

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.

[Jaspertf]

https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...r-rail-service
Something to consider, CFR compliant rolling stock that is compatible with freight operations.

[YYCguys]

Good to see the government on board with this!

Province signs pact with firm seeking to build 1,000 km/h link between Calgary and Edmonton
High-speed rail connecting Calgary and Edmonton has long been a dream of those seeking to solidify economic development in one of Canada's prime intercity corridors

Bill Kaufmann
Publishing date:Aug 25, 2020

The UCP government is on board with a plan to build a 1,000 km/h magnetic duo-monorail-type link between Calgary and Edmonton.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the province and TransPod moves the dream of constructing the $6-billion to $8-billion hyperloop — that would whisk riders between the two major cities in 30 minutes — a major step closer, say both sides.

“We’re going to try to work with them to make that possible,” said Transportation Minister Ric McIver.

“We want them to build it. I can’t wait to see this technology in action if they can get it in action.”

While the province hasn’t agreed to commit any taxpayer funds to the proposal, it has agreed to work toward finding a right-of-way for the elevated hyperloop, expediting approvals and supplying relevant transportation data.

“Why would we not try to assist them? They didn’t come looking for a handout,” said McIver.

The province has agreed to allocate a 10-kilometre stretch of land between Olds and Didsbury to construct a test track to confirm the technical and economic viability of the proposal, said TransPod.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-697ba3e68e29/

[milomilo]

It's bullshit vapourware. Never going to happen, and I hope we don't end up paying to pull down this monorail when I'm proved right.

[MalcolmTucker]

As long as the government support is minimal in dollar terms, then sure why not. Trains were vapourware long ago. And will hopefully steer the government towards openness if an HSR company comes knocking.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

As long as the government support is minimal in dollar terms, then sure why not. Trains were vapourware long ago. And will hopefully steer the government towards openness if an HSR company comes knocking.

Well it appears the NDP demand they tear it down once testing was complete was a sticking point and the UCP relented on that. So our support is the cost of tearing it down when it fails.

I do not share your optimism for HSR companies coming knocking, I don't think that has ever happened anywhere, at least for the last century or so. If we want a rail link, then it's going to need the government to say so.

[MalcolmTucker]

The Brightline in California and Nevada, and the Texas project are privately led.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The Brightline in California and Nevada, and the Texas project are privately led.

Brightline is hardly HSR and we'll see how the Texas line goes. It's not like a private investor can just build whatever through open prairie, someone owns all the land and it would be practically impossible for the private sector to assemble that land without government assistance.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

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?

Talking about Elon Musk . . . https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/imag...look-like.html. His is one of several companies looking at this concept,

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Brightline is hardly HSR and we'll see how the Texas line goes. It's not like a private investor can just build whatever through open prairie, someone owns all the land and it would be practically impossible for the private sector to assemble that land without government assistance.

Brightline West - HSR by the USA's standards! Florida is just normal everyday rail with a path to mainline speeds.

And no, you're wrong about the private sector assembling the land, if by assistance you mean money. The Alberta Railway Act

For the purposes of constructing track or structural facilities in respect of a public railway, the operator of the railway may expropriate land in accordance with the Expropriation Act.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So our support is the cost of tearing it down when it fails.

The company told the globe and mail that if the full project doesn't go ahead that they will tear it down.

The Canadian startup said that if its testing track in Alberta does not work, then it will be dismantled.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...rloop-project/

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Brightline West - HSR by the USA's standards! Florida is just normal everyday rail with a path to mainline speeds.

And no, you're wrong about the private sector assembling the land, if by assistance you mean money. The Alberta Railway Act

A private entity is capable of assembling a 300km contiguous ROW? Maybe in theory, but in practise it would be so difficult it might as well be impossible. The word "expropriate" is mentioned three times in that act and I'd hazard a guess it has never been put into practise in a meaningful capacity.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The company told the globe and mail that if the full project doesn't go ahead that they will tear it down.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...rloop-project/

Well, that's something. Someone is going to be out of pocket funding this though as hyperloop is clearly bullshit and will never turn a profit. It's either a scam, or the investors are total morons.

I thought people had moved on to the next sucker story years ago, but I guess our government is desperate.