Could daily intercity passenger rail service be revived across Western Canada?

[milomilo]

What you are envisioning is quite different than what was proposed in the only study that has been done recently on rail travel in the Bow Valley, which was 8 round trips per day in the summer.

Frequencies

To be comparable with an all-day bus option, an all-day rail service is proposed. Figure 14-5 shows an
illustrative time-distance diagram for summer service, with each line used to represent a different
trainset. In the summer period, eight round trips per day are proposed, with two of the trainsets laying
over in Banff, rather than returning to Calgary in the mid-day when demand is lower. For the winter
period, six round trips are prop

And this is what they say about infrastructure:

Rail Infrastructure Capacity Requirements

Should a complete, all-day rail service be under consideration, a completely dedicated track with
multiple short sidings would likely be required. At least five short sidings of approximately 1,000 feet
each would be required. In downtown Calgary, from approximately Sunalta station east, because of
available-land constraints in downtown Calgary, a passenger rail train would need to use existing CP
track.

Provided CP were able to utilize the available track capacity overnight of the new dedicated track, we
believe there is sufficient capacity for freight use for the foreseeable future.67 One exception is the
exclusive use of one of the four tracks through the downtown. Because additional tracks could not be
built through this area, the passenger train would need to utilize one of the four tracks exclusively
throughout the day when the service operates. To compensate CP for the use of this track, the
extension of two tracks at Keith Yard to at least 11,000 feet long is proposed.

Now, I don't treat this study as being much authority, but I do agree with their proposed service levels and hence the need for dedicated track. I see your point that leisure travel wouldn't be as much affected by freight delays, but going the track sharing route with its associated reliability problems would ensure this proposal could never be used for anything but leisure, and not commuting.

I also very much agree with your analysis of the cost of building dedicated track - it will be expensive. But until we are OK with spending what it costs to build a dedicated track, I see little point pursuing a train to Banff. Better to plow that many into improved regional buses and get the demand there for rail.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What you are envisioning is quite different than what was proposed in the only study that has been done recently on rail travel in the Bow Valley, which was 8 round trips per day in the summer.

I'm not sure I'm envisioning anything, I'm just trying to apply the same focus on the essential minimum which still achieves something meaningful and worthwhile and without which the HFR proposal would never have survived 6 years...

Now, I don't treat this study as being much authority, but I do agree with their proposed service levels and hence the need for dedicated track. I see your point that leisure travel wouldn't be as much affected by freight delays, but going the track sharing route with its associated reliability problems would ensure this proposal could never be used for anything but leisure, and not commuting.

Just because you don't go dedicated tracks from the beginning doesn't mean you can't add dedicated tracks at a later stage. As for Commuter Rail, I can only identify three population centers which could possibly support a stop for such a service:

• Banff had a population of less than 8k people in the 2016 Census, which are much more likely to work in the tourism industry or being retired than to have any inclination to commute 132 km to Calgary.
• Canmore had a population of 14k people in the 2016 Census, but with 108 km distance to Calgary it is still too remote and small to warrant any commuter rail service.
• Cochrane had a population of 26k in the 2016 Census and with a distance of 37 km it's the only realistic candidate for a commuter rail service along the line to Banff.

Therefore, if you build a dedicated track only until Cochrane, you can still build some kind of Commuter Rail service, while saving approximately half-a-billion in construction costs...

I also very much agree with your analysis of the cost of building dedicated track - it will be expensive. But until we are OK with spending what it costs to build a dedicated track, I see little point pursuing a train to Banff. Better to plow that many into improved regional buses and get the demand there for rail.

I don't see a problem persuing a once-or-twice-daily passenger train from Calgary to Banff and given that Rocky Mountaineer was able to operate their tourist trains without any dedicated tracks all the way to Calgary until a few years ago, why shouldn't the same be possible for a more ordinary passenger train? However, I agree that any investment of hundreds of millions would be better invested into the kind of transit projects which might grow the base for future rail services...

[milomilo]

I'm sure I either mostly agree with you, or our points of disagreement are very minor.

With the starting point we have and the structure of rail ownership in Canada, I think passenger rail service to Banff is going to be a hard sell. You either spend as little as possible to implement a service that is unreliable, infrequent and slow or spend a lot of money to implement a service that is good, although not exactly world class either. This has to be compared with the alternative of spending money on much better regional buses, which is what is slowly happening anyway.

That's not to say that I wouldn't be excited by the idea and would love for it to happen. Perhaps the CIB could operate with a much wider and more longscale viewpoint than our municipal and provincial governments could. Calgary and Alberta have some pretty trying economic times to contend with, so projects that only make sense on a 30 or 60 year timescale won't exactly be top of mind.

[milomilo]

The idea of heavy rail from downtown Calgary to the airport is another issue with its own set of problems and justifications. Personally, I think it is the best way to go vs using city transit/LRT. However the City of Calgary will probably be very protective of this for irrational, self gratifying reasons and will want to preserve their idea for what should be done, which is a separate LRT running east and west between the real existing Blue line station and the fictional future Green Line station, with a transfer. At least here we have proper numbers to look at because there is a fairly shitty implementation of a bus serving the route. I'm not sure that the numbers using the bus would justify anymore than 30 minute rail service with a small train, so first priority should be to upgrade the bus so that meaningful numbers are using it.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by milomilo

However the City of Calgary will probably be very protective of this for irrational, self gratifying reasons and will want to preserve their idea for what should be done, which is a separate LRT running east and west between the real existing Blue line station and the fictional future Green Line station, with a transfer.

Really? I thought it was a brilliant bit of political theatre by the UCP - since North Central Calgary only gets BRT with the current Green Line, they score brownie points by building a commuter (read YYC) link as part of a tourist train to Banff. Otherwise Edmonton would demand a YEG link as well and that's NDP territory, quelle horreur.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Really? I thought it was a brilliant bit of political theatre by the UCP - since North Central Calgary only gets BRT with the current Green Line, they score brownie points by building a commuter (read YYC) link as part of a tourist train to Banff. Otherwise Edmonton would demand a YEG link as well and that's NDP territory, quelle horreur.

I'm concerned with the municipal government and administration of Calgary, as a heavy rail line would directly contradict their plan. The city's stub LRT plan is thoroughly unexciting, serves the airport poorly and unlikely to happen ever. But even though a heavy rail airport link networked with a rail link to Banff and future opportunities is a way better idea, I can see the city being protective of their turf.

[foolworm]

Not really though? The Province's intent to reserve the Nose Creek corridor for an eventual HSR line with a YYC stop has been known for years, and has appeared in both City and Regional documents.

If the Province does make the decision to build then the City will probably be the one revising its plans instead. In any case, there's nothing to say that there can't be both LRT and commuter service.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Not really though? The Province's intent to reserve the Nose Creek corridor for an eventual HSR line with a YYC stop has been known for years, and has appeared in both City and Regional documents.

If the Province does make the decision to build then the City will probably be the one revising its plans instead. In any case, there's nothing to say that there can't be both LRT and commuter service.

It would be easier if the city had buy in though, and I do not have much faith in our city government making sensible decisions if they contradict their existing plans.

Who says the province is the one pushing this Banff - YYC line? It's a federal study. The UCP is ideologically opposed to anything that has even the appearance of a public good, they will have no interest in funding something like this in a time where public finances are in the shitter.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It would be easier if the city had buy in though, and I do not have much faith in our city government making sensible decisions if they contradict their existing plans.

Who says the province is the one pushing this Banff - YYC line? It's a federal study. The UCP is ideologically opposed to anything that has even the appearance of a public good, they will have no interest in funding something like this in a time where public finances are in the shitter.

Who says? The CIB itself:

- The MOU confirms the CIB will collaborate with Alberta Transportation to review the project’s estimated costs and revenues, explore financing options and assess environmental, social and economic benefits prior to any potential investment decision by the CIB. This phase of work is consistent with the CIB’s role to provide advisory services to governments.

- The Government of Alberta intends to structure the project as a public-private partnership (P3) to attract investment, transfer risks and drive performance.

Even if it's the CIB footing the bill for the study, AT is the 'client' here.

[milomilo]

If Alberta was the client they'd be paying for it. While they're paying nothing, it's very easy to sing all praise to the project, but as soon as they have to put any real political or financial backing towards it they'll lose interest.

[foolworm]

If Alberta wasn't the client the memorandum of understanding would be with Transport Canada, not Alberta Transportation.

The press release is worded extremely carefully, which given the hostilities between the Federal Liberals and Provincial UCP is expected. The ostensible aim of connecting Banff National Park and YYC provides reasonable excuse for the CIB to bankroll a feasibility study.

[milomilo]

OK

Regardless, this will amount to nothing, I am sure. We'll need multiple feasibility studies and a different premier before there's a chance of real work.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by foolworm

If Alberta wasn't the client the memorandum of understanding would be with Transport Canada, not Alberta Transportation.

The press release is worded extremely carefully, which given the hostilities between the Federal Liberals and Provincial UCP is expected. The ostensible aim of connecting Banff National Park and YYC provides reasonable excuse for the CIB to bankroll a feasibility study.

Ironically, politically speaking, this could help the federal liberals look like they are doing something for a province that didn't vote for them.

[milomilo]

Why is that ironic?

I don't know how independent the CIB is and if they were told by the Federal Government to make this decision, but making investments in all provinces is surely part of their mandate, and sensible politically.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why is that ironic?

I don't know how independent the CIB is and if they were told by the Federal Government to make this decision, but making investments in all provinces is surely part of their mandate, and sensible politically.

The fact that the UCP, which would be more aligned with the CPC would, by doing something the voters want, help the LPC look good.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why is that ironic?

I don't know how independent the CIB is and if they were told by the Federal Government to make this decision, but making investments in all provinces is surely part of their mandate, and sensible politically.

The CIB accepts submissions from everywhere. Even outside Canada, if they benefit Canada. For example, they suggested they could help with high speed rail from Vancouver to Portland. The goal is to bring a more business focused approach that might help institutional investors get onboard and to provide financing which helps close the business case with loans or or guarantees. They are specifically supposed to be politically independent and less driven by the 4 year electoral cycle.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The fact that the UCP, which would be more aligned with the CPC would, by doing something the voters want, help the LPC look good.

But it's not the UCP doing the study, it's the CIB. Who knows where the idea came from, but there isn't much/any indication that this came from the UCP even if they'll happily give support to something they don't have to pay for and has zero practical consequence.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But it's not the UCP doing the study, it's the CIB. Who knows where the idea came from, but there isn't much/any indication that this came from the UCP even if they'll happily give support to something they don't have to pay for and has zero practical consequence.

You can bet Kenny will be there to announce it. But, standing next to him will also be Trudeau.

[lio45]

This looks like the best thread to ask, has anyone here ever traveled by riding freight trains...? Just curious.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The fact that the UCP, which would be more aligned with the CPC would, by doing something the voters want, help the LPC look good.

I'm pretty sure that whenever the UCP has a choice between doing something that helps Alberta, and doing the opposite which harms Alberta and thus makes the current bunch of people in charge federally look bad, they'll go for the former every time.