BASE
Active Member
The right of way behind it has been preserved I think so that wouldn't prohibit. Also some tunneling under Whyte/Gateway might be realistic.
|
|
|
EllisDon to Lead Prairie Link High-Speed Rail Partners - Edm-RD-Cal
- Thread starter IanO
- Start date
David A
Senior Member
Nope that is not what I am saying, but thanks for your interpretation.
kcantor
Senior Member
^^^
california hsr??? you mean the system with its first 170 mile operating link between merced (pop. 90,000) and bakersfield (pop. 400,000) that is hopefully now, after 15 years, scheduled to open sometime between 2030 and 2033? the cost of that link has gone up from $10 billion to $38 billion while the system budget that started at $20 billion has been narrowed down to somewhere between 128 billion and more than $200 billion depending on whose estimated and what's included and what isn't. at the same time, ridership projections have dropped and the financial analysis being provided by proponents is "no matter how much it cost it will be less than it will cost in the future" which, while true, would be just as true for any other integrated transportation network in the state (regular rail, local lrt, bus rapid transit etc...).
california hsr??? you mean the system with its first 170 mile operating link between merced (pop. 90,000) and bakersfield (pop. 400,000) that is hopefully now, after 15 years, scheduled to open sometime between 2030 and 2033? the cost of that link has gone up from $10 billion to $38 billion while the system budget that started at $20 billion has been narrowed down to somewhere between 128 billion and more than $200 billion depending on whose estimated and what's included and what isn't. at the same time, ridership projections have dropped and the financial analysis being provided by proponents is "no matter how much it cost it will be less than it will cost in the future" which, while true, would be just as true for any other integrated transportation network in the state (regular rail, local lrt, bus rapid transit etc...).
David A
Senior Member
Yes, such large scale infrastructure projects seem both incredibly expensive and prone to incredibly lengthy delays.
If California, which has better existing passenger rail service than we do and around as many people as Canada isn't making much progress on this, I doubt that Alberta with 10% of Canada's population will. We've talked and talked about this for the last 50 years, I wouldn't be surprised if that is also all that happens for the next 50 years.
We don't have much passenger rail service in western Canada and haven't for decades. Most people are happy to drive between our major cities. There is inter city bus service for those that don't want to drive. Probably the fastest, cheapest and easiest thing would be to expand and improve that.
yeggator
Active Member
California’s project is also plagued by difficult geography in a seismic zone, extreme corruption and severe project mismanagement. Now, the latter two could 100% happen here, albeit with lessons learned (or maybe not, we can be cynical), but at least our geography is easier.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Fastest - maybe? How long would it take to significantly improve the QEII between Calgary and Edmonton?
Cheapest - not really. The only realistic way of doing that is what? Adding a lane to QEII and repaving the existing road (which is in subpar condition currently, for the most part). It would cost billions, and the long-term maintenance costs would add even more to this tally. In the long term, rail is ALWAYS cheaper than roads.
And also, unlike in California, the ROW already exists here, the terrain is A LOT simpler, to mention two monumental differences.
Easiest - Yeah, I'll give you that one... But is easiest always best?
Bus services are not nearly as reliable, safe and fast as trains, especially in the winter, and the possibility of connecting YEG and YYC adds extra benefits to the whole endeavour. Real services are also much more scalable, and should the need to increase capacity, it's just much easier to add more trains (or cars to the existing ones, if capacity is the only concern) than add extra busses.
I would LOVE to understand the fetish for car infrastructure when rail is a much more efficient way to move both people and good in larger quantities, especially across long distances.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Sorry, but as a Latin American, I to have to laugh at "extreme corruption".
Also, considering that currently the frontrunner for the proposal plans on making this an entirely private endeavour(as much as it would obviously demand a high degree of cooperation with public actors), it does minimize the risk of corruption and mismanagement being majors issue, since it is in their best interests to get it up and running as quickly and cheaply as possible.
archited
Senior Member
The Dayliner passenger rail service between Edmonton and Calgary was terminated in 1985, 38 years ago, not 50. It was not as popular as "commuter" air service at the time and therefore was discontinued.
archited
Senior Member
What once was but ain't no more... VIA rail reduced to one transcontinental service twice weekly and local (private) rail conveyances in 2 Provinces.
David A
Senior Member
Well easier geography, but still a lot fewer people. I don't know about corruption, but it seems to be a common thing that such large projects struggle with project management almost everywhere these days. We certainly have no history of large high speed rail projects in Canada, so probably a big learning curve.
Just to clarify, I was referring to improved bus service as being the fastest, easiest and cheapest to do, not expanding the road.
chrisvazquez7
Active Member
Yes, my assumption is that the bridge would undergo an extensive rehabilitation at some point to extend its lifespan another 100 years, and upgrade its carrying capacity.
The Dayliner was cancelled for stupid reasons. Crossings should have been upgraded, more services added, and sidings lengthened. Instead VIA gave up on Alberta. I’m just hoping they think about returning now that our population has doubled.
David A
Senior Member
Yes, I would rather see something more practical like that now or in the near future, rather than have to wait maybe another 50 years (the discussion of high speed rail actually started back in the 1970's I think) or more or for something that might never happen because of the much higher cost.
jason403
Active Member
I love the idea of high speed trains, however it just doesn't seem practical due to the high cost.
People's fetish with cars are that they are the most efficient method of transportation that goes beyond traveling to 2 nodes. A car has full access to all points of a city, as well as intercity travel. They have large cargo capacity, as well as storage for items when vehicle is not in use. They are relatively cheap, and generally the fastest mode of transit, especially between multiple nodes. They also offer privacy.
I get that people love the idea of Public transport, but private vehicles are superior in so many ways until road capacity becomes too congested.
If congestion in LA is so terrible and people still find it worthwhile to drive, Edmonton will find cars as the most used, and most preferred method of transit for years to come..
EdmTrekker
Senior Member
And with emerging technologies ... may generate the hydrogen fuel they need in the car.
Didama
Active Member
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/hydrogen-train-quebec-city-1.6888891
Not 'high speed' but this is the train set that is proposed for the CABR line from Calgary Airport to Banff. I believe this could be a game changer for intercity travel in NA because it reduces infrastructure costs significantly.
Not 'high speed' but this is the train set that is proposed for the CABR line from Calgary Airport to Banff. I believe this could be a game changer for intercity travel in NA because it reduces infrastructure costs significantly.