News   Apr 03, 2020
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.4K     0 

Calgary Regional Rail Transit

They could always do both, the line runs along nose creek and the CP tracks before going over Deerfoot. that way you'd have the connectivity as well as the one-seat ride to DT and Banff from the airport
Exactly. We have Deerfoot and Centre Street for cars currently. They go in roughly the same direction and locations but are very different roads because they serve very different needs.

Regional rail v. Greenline is the same thing as Centre v. Deerfoot. We need to stop shoe-horning our LRT system to be everything to everyone, it's okay to have two lines - one with a faster regional service and a nearby an LRT line to service a different need.
 
If you find an extra billion bucks for the people mover that will make the trip worse - sure I guess could do that. The heavy rail should be seen as complimentary and not in competition. Not like the Green Line will be up to 96th until the late 2030s/early 2040s anyways.
(pipe dream disclaimer):

I know a project that we could cancel for a couple extra billion to accelerate the green line and maybe even airport transit. Probably won't happen... but one can dream..
 
(pipe dream disclaimer):

I know a project that we could cancel for a couple extra billion to accelerate the green line and maybe even airport transit. Probably won't happen... but one can dream..
That Crowchild project isn't funded though. As it is, the Green Line already accounts for more than 50% of Calgary's allocated capital spending, 9X more than streets and roads.

1647127687963.png
 
That Crowchild project isn't funded though. As it is, the Green Line already accounts for more than 50% of Calgary's allocated capital spending, 9X more than streets and roads.
It's more of a proposal for ~2027 when it comes time to make a funding decision on the Crowchild project
 
If you find an extra billion bucks for the people mover that will make the trip worse - sure I guess could do that. The heavy rail should be seen as complimentary and not in competition. Not like the Green Line will be up to 96th until the late 2030s/early 2040s anyways.

In a future with built out Green Line, Blue Line, and regional rail, I would think a frequent E-W bus service would do the trick?

If regional were to come to fruition with a Nose Creek station, maybe it would make sense for the Green Line to follow Beddington to the NW to Sage Hill area, etc? I presume in the long-term the Beddington/Symons Valley Rd catchment population will equal or exceed that of Harvest Hills Blvd/Centre St ? That alignment might be more expensive though since Beddington doesn't seem designed well to accommodate a rail line. Just a thought.
 
^ the automated people mover with transfers to the green and blue line is pretty useful, but requires a bit of vision. You’re paying more to avoid two things: spurs (reducing frequency on branches, making spur to spur transfers just about the worst, and spur to spur to spur to spur transfers the absolute worst); and transfer penalties (running an automated light metro you can pump up frequency, reduce operating costs and reduce co structure costs/add stations at minimal cost).

Just we don’t need it today/it isn’t where I would spend the first extra billion available.
 
I still don't believe anything will get built, but this is one step closer to proving me wrong I suppose.
I doubt they will advance beyond approaching government for a generous 'co-investment', and this will stop. Even though I wish they would go forward and fail due to technical problems or high costs which should hopefully kill hyperloop worldwide.

And maybe they'll succeed?
 
I still don't believe anything will get built, but this is one step closer to proving me wrong I suppose.
I know nothing about the tech/specs... I imagine there is a certain distance where hyperloop's speed really starts to payoff, but I wonder if there wouldn't be a stronger business case for YYC-Banff than CGY-EDM?

CGY-Red Deer = ~31k AADT
Red Deer-EDM = ~28k AADT

CGY-Banff = ~23k AADT

source:
https://open.alberta.ca/opendata/traffic-volumes-at-points-on-the-highway#summary


Presumably this means vehicles...it seems likely there are more HOVs heading to Banff. For a few decades it would be a tourist attraction in itself.

And then there is the perennial argument about needing a vehicle "at the other end"...which is probably less of an issue on the Banff route.

Constructing the Edmonton route is probably much simpler, but I'm really curious about how the hyper pipe[dream] would handle steep grades? Mountain passes and extreme conditions could be a particular niche for them - in the long-term I really wonder how well AV's will be able to handle stretches like Rogers Pass...
 
A high speed train doesn't need the additional cost of a kilometers long pressurised chamber and can travel at the same speeds so the infrastructure costs aren't worth it.
And yet, they think it would be, either in through put or speed induced demand (and/or fares!)
Hyperloop is a transparently awful idea and government money should not touch it with a ten foot pole
Yeah, until they prove it feasible and can demonstrate what costs would look like I agree. Hence the test track this investor money would hopefully go to.
 
Yeah, until they prove it feasible and can demonstrate what costs would look like I agree. Hence the test track this investor money would hopefully go to.
Agreed. If private investors want o do it, have at it, but until then let someone else with a lot more money at least prove it works.
 
Call me pessimistic on this - hyper-loop is pure vapour-ware nonsense.

Of course, private interests can look into it all they want and perhaps one day the technology will come up with something applicable. But it's a pointless exercise to imagine a Calgary - Edmonton hyperloop line as transportation as the tech doesn't exist yet, and requires several inventions to even achieve something testable, let alone be in service.

The problem we are trying to solve is to improve the efficiency, choice and resiliency of our intercity transportation network.

Currently this is done with a congested highway, with high degree of weather variability that takes between 2.5 - 3.5 hours on average. Highway 2 also kills multiple people a year, emits a ton of carbon, costs a lot to maintain and has no practical competition. A couple pricy buses and flights and that's about it.

It's all been said before, yet we still get hyperloop articles every few months - to compete against the current state you don't need to invent a new system that can move small pods 1,000km/h. You are competing against a car that takes 2.5 to 3.5 hours and is subject to high amounts of delays. Trains can do that off the shelf.
  • Offer a 3 hour travel time with high train capacity and better reliability than than Highway 2, you'll attract a ton of ridership.
  • Offer 2 hour or less travel time with high train capacity and better reliability than Highway 2 and you'll probably never need to expand highway 2 again.
Will a train be cheap or easy to build? Nope - but neither was the highway. At least it can be built though! Higher speeds are good but they really don't even need to be that high - again you are competing against a congested, unreliable highway.

With a Banff - Calgary train much further along plus the two cities expanding their LRT networks it's a great time to get into the intercity rail game.
 

Back
Top