Should there be a High Speed Rail link from Calgary to Edmonton?

[chenmau]

There would likely be significant tax dollars invested in any project.
Here is the site for one organization trying to get such a project off the ground:

http://www.albertahighspeedrail.com/index.html

And their route map:

[Wooster]

We've had this debate quite a few times.

The consensus generally has been that it is unfeasible given our current population, or even decades into the future. Urban rail-transit should be fully built out before even considering a link between cities.

Perhaps in 50 years if we keep growing fast. As such, we should keep the possiblity open and make some provision for it, just incase it becomes feasible some day.

I agree with the consensus.

[jeffwhit]

Not at the expense of LRT development within Calgary and Edmonton. the corridor is still too sparsely populated to justify this. Also, I would debate strongly that Neither Calgary no Edmonton would need more than 1 terminal in their respective downtowns since proper investment in LRT would negate the need.

[SHOFEAR]

not again...

[Xelebes]

How fast are we talking?

Personally, I think we should wait until we get to 9 million in the corridor before we start building. We're 1/3 the way there already.

So... it might happen around 2060-2070, but not in a decade or two, unless there is some major investment into high speed rail in North America. But I'm thinking we would need twice the amount of people to make that needed (700 million in Canada and the US.)

[SHOFEAR]

Lets just protect a ROW and we'll see what happens in 25 years.

[Bassic Lab]

We should probaboly reserve the ROW now but I have no idea when it would be useful and throwing population figures around is probaboly pointless. For any real idea we'd need to see figures for bus and air travel between the cities, projected growth in those numbers, the projected impact on the need for airport and highway construction, and a number of other things. I know I don't have them so I have no idea when it would become practical. I'd imagine that it would be some time after the completion of, at the least, the primary LRT systems of both major cities though.

[tokama]

Yes. It would be forward thinking and bold - so it won't happen. But anything that gets people out of their cars on Highway 2 is good by me.

[Andy6]

Yes, provided that it is routed via Winnipeg for regional development purposes.

[Jay in Cowtown]

Sure, it would be nice and all... but, Alberta Infrastructure is better off spending our money on fixing the #2 and #1 Highways first.

[Riise]

We must first build a strong intraurban rail network before we can focus on building an interurban connection. What good is an interurban connection if you cannot get around by rail, or by any other mode besides the automobile, inside the urban areas it connects, hence the need to focus on intraurban before interurban.

[big W]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Yes, provided that it is routed via Winnipeg for regional development purposes.

Since when did the feds get involved in this matter?

[big W]

Once again this comes up. As mentioned before in previous threads and this one, spend the billions in Edmonton and Calgary LRT lines and complete the systems in each of the cities first.

[The Chemist]

No, absolutely not. It'd be a complete waste of money considering the population density even along the supposedly highly populated Calgary-Edmonton corridor is FAR lower than in other places in the world that do have HSR.

So much of the traffic on the QEII between Calgary and Edmonton is heavy trucks, building a passenger rail line between the two cities would hardly do anything to reduce congestion on that route. Build the LRT systems in the two cities - that's a far better use of so much money.

[Policy Wonk]

Lifting the restrictions on the Edmonton Municipal Airport is a much better alternative,

[Boris2k7]

I'll just repaste what I said in the Calgary Construction Thread:

Originally Posted by Boris550

At this point in time it is probably a bad idea. The LRT systems need to come first. However, it is probably a good idea in the long run. I know that I would take it to Edmonton rather than drive or fly. For now I guess the best thing would be to make sure that YEG and YYC have LRT connections.

I think what we need is some sort of provincial connections program, which could direct funding for LRT systems, HSR links, and other forms of transit to create an integrated system. Smaller cities and towns could use some tram networks or BRT where applicable. If the government were smart, they would make it part of an environmental strategy as well.

Originally Posted by Boris550

Agreed, at least in the near future. We will probably be looking at the idea again once the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor is pushing around 5 million (which, IMHO, is not as far off as some would think). If we have more LRT connections by then in both cities, it would make sense to revisit the proposal and see if it is feasible.

Originally Posted by Boris550

The Van Horne Insitute also has a lengthy study that provides more information, though the lowest time thay they say would be around 97 minutes...
http://www.vanhorne.info/Reports/HSR...06%202004).pdf

I would suggest that before people decide whether it is in fact a good or bad idea, they look at figures from actual studies... otherwise the conversation looks like either a lesson in defeatism or boosterism (depending on your perspective). For instance, the Van Horne insitute study finds, among other things, that the demand for the service already exists, and they back themselves up :

"Market research indicated that between 5.2 and 6.6 million one-way person trips were made
between Calgary and Edmonton in 2003 and another 2.4 to 3.7 million one-way person trips were
made between Red Deer and Calgary/Edmonton. Had high speed rail service as outlined in the
table below been in operation in 2003, the forecasts predicted that high speed rail would have
carried 1.7 to 2.0 million total passenger trips depending on the route/technology alternative
chosen, which represents a 22-28 percent market share of all trips."

etc.

[Nutterbug]

How about starting with restoration of conventional passenger rail?

Unbelievable that two cities as big and close together as Calgary and Edmonton don't have a passenger rail connection between them.

[Greco Roman]

I'm not sure on this one. I would have figured that areas in southern Ontario and Quebec with a much higher population density would have implemented this kind of trasportation.

Maybe in 25-50 years down the road as the province's population increases, but not now.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Yes, provided that it is routed via Winnipeg for regional development purposes.

I guess the argument could be "sharing of CANADIAN resouce revenues used to fuel the trains", or something.

To top it off, the trains MUST be built by Bombardier in Quebec, and in fact shipped back there for maintenance. We have far too many unionized jobs at stake and if train cars are maintained outside of Le Bon Province, it is an insult to the French heritage and goes against the very fabric of Confederation.

Man, I wish I was kidding.

Seriously folks, no one is going to put up the billions necessary to fund a train station so that a few thousand students who don't already own cars can get to Edmonton a tiny bit quicker than the Greyhound. Private companies would lose their shirts on this, and the government has far better ways to spend our money.

[ReginaGuy]

is there actually a need for it? Either than it would be cool? I said yes, if its fully private