Calgary Area Regional Transit - Page 48

milomilo · #**941** Posted **Aug 7, 2018, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaspertf

They have received the draft final report from their consultants and upon review they realized there was still lots of work to do.
Plus there is also a review of transportation options in the Calgary - Edmonton corridor by Alberta Transportation.
And don't forget there is the NDP policy convention in the fall, the NDP are likely the only Political Party capable of initiating passenger rail in Alberta, they exhibit a willingness to invest/spend money on mass public transportation.

Thanks. I hope it doesn't take too long.

Jaspertf · #**942** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 12:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thanks. I hope it doesn't take too long.

There is no timeline, it may be never. A reason the Waterous's released their plan to the media, maybe I need to do the same with mine.

MalcolmTucker · #**943** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 2:38 AM**

They’ve spent millions getting their ducks in a row on this one it looks like, albeit most visibly in Banff proper.

milomilo · #**944** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 1:29 PM**

Who is they?

MalcolmTucker · #**945** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Who is they?

The Waterouses.

This is a very serious proposal:
Couple say they've secured half of $600M needed to build Banff passenger train

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rail-1.4744603

Reecemartin · #**946** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 3:16 PM**

[Deleted]

milomilo · #**947** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 3:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The Waterouses.

This is a very serious proposal:
Couple say they've secured half of $600M needed to build Banff passenger train

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rail-1.4744603

Do you have other information that isn't in the public to support that? Because to me, while they seem serious about it, it doesn't seem realistic at all. It also isn't the road I want to go down. If you let a private operator run a line there, there is no chance of building off that to make an integrated network. It's going to need large subsidies and regulations to make it work anyway, so the far better option is to have some form of government body run it.

MalcolmTucker · #**948** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Do you have other information that isn't in the public to support that? Because to me, while they seem serious about it, it doesn't seem realistic at all. It also isn't the road I want to go down. If you let a private operator run a line there, there is no chance of building off that to make an integrated network. It's going to need large subsidies and regulations to make it work anyway, so the far better option is to have some form of government body run it.

Well, all rail service is regulated. And if they think they can do it without operating funds, more power to them. And yes, it does look like a subsidy will come, in the form of a loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which will lower their cost of capital. Additional cost recovery would come from CPR using the added infrastructure.

In this case, there is little opportunity cost for letting the private sector lead on this. Should the government want track access later for a Cochrane service, they would be able to lease access (as we can on CP, we just aren't willing to pay what it actually is worth to have access).

They seem to think it is realistic, which is all that matters.

In addition to talks with CP and the infrastructure bank they have:

Bought Norquay, and proposed a gondola to it from the Banff townsite: https://www.rmoutlook.com/article/no...n-hub-20180308
Leased the CPR station in Banff and surrounding lands with the intention of turning it into a transit hub: https://www.pressreader.com/canada/c...81672549835667

And have resources themselves, and connections to raise money given the right investment (infrastructure investments are attractive to generate consistent returns, and this one has less risk if CP is willing to partner for some capacity too):

If Calgary and the Bow Valley can add regular passenger rail in the province for very low public investment, at little risk to the interests of the public, I don't see the problem with it.

milomilo · #**949** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 4:50 PM**

I see your argument, but I feel you are too optimistic with your faith in the private sector to pull it off and build something that is in the public interest. If they can find a private operator willing to fund this (I'll believe it when I see it!), then maybe it could be successful. Maybe.

But what if it isn't? I would say the chances are slim that it won't fail. Who cares, you might say? It's just private investors who lose their investment and some government subsidy. But then we have just wasted all this time and energy to end up with a failed project. The government could maybe step in and support it at that point, as has happened with other private railways (we learnt this a century ago), but if we know that's what's going to happen, why not just do it right in the first place?

milomilo · #**950** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 4:54 PM**

Then again, this might be our only option, and if the options are no passenger rail vs the Waterous' option which I am 99% certain will fail in the long run, then I'd relectantly go with the latter.

MalcolmTucker · #**951** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 4:57 PM**

Yeah, I'd love for the government to go whole hog on it, but I am pretty sure the option is nothing vs. the possibility of something.

We don't know that it would fail, and if it fails after the thing has been built and running, we end up ahead! The amount of government effort on this is pretty minimal to this point, only the study right now, plus some staff time at the national infrastructure bank.

milomilo · #**952** Posted **Aug 10, 2018, 2:14 AM**

I don't know they will fail, but I can be quite confident they will. Though I am just as confident this will never get to the start line. The family may be great at making investments in the oil industry, but they know nothing of building or running railways, and it's not like there is a wealth of knowledge in the continent to draw from. There is precisely one privately run passenger railway on this continent (Brightline) and despite the hype, it does not exactly look like a gleaming success.

While their idea might be nice, I expect if they ever get to the stage of truly costing it out, it will be far more expensive and difficult than they realise. My best hope is that it gets the idea more into the public mind and maybe the government will say 'nice idea, but we'll take it from here'. Perhaps tied with an Olympic bid.

Reecemartin · #**953** Posted **Aug 10, 2018, 3:21 PM**

[Deleted]

milomilo · #**954** Posted **Aug 10, 2018, 5:12 PM**

Of course he would say that, he's the CEO!

Saying that, brightline does look to be more successful than I had thought at first. It will be very interesting to see how it goes long term to compare to a line here. Look at the costs of that line, for starters - far more than C$600. And they don't have to build railway through sensitive land in a mountain valley.

I'd put money on it, upgrading the CP line will be far more expensive and difficult than what is being implied. Just a quick look at the line on Google maps and there are many spots where you would never build a railway today, including places where it is immediately adjacent to the Bow and hemmed in on the other side by other water bodies or valley sides. Doubling the track will limit need a new alignment in a few places, and then there are multiple bridges which need twinning too.

MalcolmTucker · #**955** Posted **Aug 10, 2018, 5:35 PM**

It is likely way easier and cheaper to do no new alignment, just a lot of blasting and rock bolting. Alternatives aren't in great supply down the valley.

An EA should be pretty standard as long as there is minimal fill into water. Extensive consultation with Indigenous groups would be required no matter the corridor.

milomilo · #**956** Posted **Aug 10, 2018, 11:02 PM**

The worst part to my eyes (and I'll fully admit I'm no engineer) is between Exshaw and Canmore. It's built with the Bow immediately to the south, and other lakes, ponds, marshes etc to the north and it's sometimes literally no wider than the railway. If you were building this from scratch there is no way you would choose that alignment and I doubt you'd be allowed to either. So I think it's rather optimistic to think it would be feasible to widen that alignment, as it absolutely would have to involve filling in a lot of waterbodies. And to add to the problem, you have to do that without CP being affected.

This isn't to say I don't think the cost to run passenger rail out to Banff would not be worth it, I just think it is best to just bite the bullet and admit that running a passenger rail service on the existing lines is unfeasible on much of the route, and expecting a couple of investment bankers to figure out what the best solution will be is foolhardy. These things need to be decided by the government with a long term view.

Reecemartin · #**957** Posted **Aug 11, 2018, 3:32 AM**

[Deleted]

Reecemartin · #**958** Posted **Aug 11, 2018, 3:58 AM**

[Deleted]

Jaspertf · #**959** Posted **Aug 15, 2018, 9:56 PM**

There really is limited information on the Waterous's idea, but they want to build a separated railroad within the Canadian Pacific Right of Way.

By building within the existing Right of Way, Environmental Assessments are not required and neither is consultation with Indigenous Groups, the Right of Way is "grandfathered" and wholly own by Canadian Pacific. Anything outside of the Right of Way will.

The current CP alignment is pretty much the best you will get, railways require the shallowest gradient possible and that is found in valley bottoms. Slope stability is not nearly the issue it is made out to be, there are multiple techniques to remedy it.

TEXRail will soon commence operations, this is a separated line within an existing Right of Way, the Stadler FLIRTs that are to be used are not FRA compliant and cannot be operated on the same lines as freight. The line goes from Fort Worth to Dallas Fort Worth International Airport along the Cotton Belt Rail Line, it is 43.8km long, has 9 stations, and is costing at least $1billion.

$1 BILLION for 43.8km!

In my discussions with Canadian Pacific they will not accept any conflict with their freight operations, especially on the east-west mainline. It was also mentioned that even if the line was twinned they would be looking to add a third and possibly a fourth line, which would occupy their entire Right of Way in most places.

The Waterous's idea is not a bad idea in principle, the Bow Valley Mass Transit Study will likely say that the transportation infrastructure in the Bow Valley is at capacity and in a critical condition, and that alternative forms of transportation will likely need to be made available. In the short term that would be the implementation of regular bus services between Calgary - Canmore - Banff, then also adding lanes to the Trans-Canada. In the long term passenger rail will be required.

Current capacity of the Canadian Pacific mainline is 1 train every 45mins in either direction, twinning the line would enable 1 train in every 10mins or less in each direction. Increasing the capacity by almost 10x.

milomilo · #**960** Posted **Aug 15, 2018, 10:53 PM**

Well how big is the ROW? Because somewhere like this does not appear to have any extra space (and is a terrible place to build a railway):

And even if it was in the ROW, you couldn't build there without affecting CP, which as you say CP will not allow. Also yeah, if that TEXRail is US$1B, just scaling that up to the same route length is ~$4B CDN, before you even factor in the much harder terrain...

Meanwhile, the TCH has been built more recently on a good route with medians easily large enough to add another lane. I can't see how it wouldn't be far cheaper to do that.

The more I think about this, the more I think the Waterous proposal is Hyperloop level fantasy.