[CalgaryTiger]

money for buses might not be available but way more money for rail would be.

It's weird to wrap your head around but it's probably easier to get 1 Billion for a train than 100 Million for a bus. The jobs required to build the train and infrastructure means the project will be spun as a job creator (in a sector already desperate for people).

Only way I see selling people on a bus (7 Easy Steps):
1. Double-decker hydrogen buses to add at least some cool factor
2. Dedicated Bus Infrastructure at the Airport terminal (more than is there now)
3. Dedicated Bus Lanes
- From the Airport terminal, down Deerfoot into downtown
- From the bus terminal downtown to the west of town (Bow Trail to Sarcee Trail)
4. Dedicated Bus (Terminal) Infrastructure downtown (a bus terminal along the 4th/5th Ave corridor to streamline trips through downtown):
-4 Ave SE and 3 St SE (not the best option for obvious reasons...)

-4 Ave SE and Centre St

-4 Ave SW and 5 St SW

-Or you know... Just use the old Greyhound bus terminal!
5. Dedicated Bus (Stop) Infrastructure at the Highway 1/22 Interchange (buildout the Rest Stop with a pedestrian overpass and add a spur route for people in Cochrane)

6. Dedicated Bus (Stop) Infrastructure off Highway 1 in Canmore (add a spur route for Canmore that goes downtown)

7. Dedicated Bus (Terminal) Infrastructure at the rail station in Banff

 

[Urban Outdoorsman]

I think my biggest knock on buses to and from Banff would be the perceived unreliability. As someone who drives on that highway often, the traffic during peak hours can be shockingly bad. I can recall at least 3 times I've been stuck in hour long delays driving to or from the mountains. Personally I'd never want to take a bus to Banff unless it was literally my only option. The relative comfort and reliability of the train is a much more appealing option. Not to mention, when I'm travelling I always choose to use trains over busses whenever possible.

 

[Mountain Man]

Sounds like there was some epic traffic in the parks this weekend, enough to close Lake Louise for a few hours. Having a train go there (or at least to the town of Banff) seems like the only way to address the traffic in the area. Highway closure on Highway 1 over the weekend too, we need a train to Vancouver in the not too distant future too.

 

[zagox]

(Herald article) - So the new airport CEO wants rail service “as fast as possible” … duh although no mention of wanting to the airport to pay for any of it.

Also interesting in that article is Adam Waterous of the Calgary-Banff rail project saying that “Essentially what we’ve proposed is that the Calgary Airport-Banff rail, which was originally going to terminate at the airport, continue past the airport and actually connect another four kilometres to the Blue Line”

Still makes no sense to me to use heavy rail in a congested corridor with tight turns and changes in grade. This option will cost a lot more than the people mover, while delivering poorer service with longer headways.

 

[darwink]

(Herald article) - So the new airport CEO wants rail service “as fast as possible” … duh although no mention of wanting to the airport to pay for any of it.

Also interesting in that article is Adam Waterous of the Calgary-Banff rail project saying that “Essentially what we’ve proposed is that the Calgary Airport-Banff rail, which was originally going to terminate at the airport, continue past the airport and actually connect another four kilometres to the Blue Line”

Still makes no sense to me to use heavy rail in a congested corridor with tight turns and changes in grade. This option will cost a lot more than the people mover, while delivering poorer service with longer headways.

We will see what the study recommends. The Banff project just doesn’t want to be left standing when the music stops.

And money commitments that’s way later. They’ll come.

 

[superelevation]

(Herald article) - So the new airport CEO wants rail service “as fast as possible” … duh although no mention of wanting to the airport to pay for any of it.

Also interesting in that article is Adam Waterous of the Calgary-Banff rail project saying that “Essentially what we’ve proposed is that the Calgary Airport-Banff rail, which was originally going to terminate at the airport, continue past the airport and actually connect another four kilometres to the Blue Line”

Still makes no sense to me to use heavy rail in a congested corridor with tight turns and changes in grade. This option will cost a lot more than the people mover, while delivering poorer service with longer headways.

The curves can be managed especially if a train akin to the "FLIRT" being used in Ottawa and the Dallas region (and all across Europe of course) are used - they have smaller "cars" than those used on traditional North American passenger trains.

They could also run a frequent electric service from YYC to Downtown, and then use Battery, or Hydrogen or Diesel to continue to Banff (a train every hour or two) no problem.

I don't really agree the service is worse, while yes higher frequency is good in a vacuum, a faster connection to downtown is worth a lot too - and if its a consistent every 15 minutes like the UP in Toronto thats still quite frequent. (Should and can still extend the Blue line to the airport long term!)

 

[zagox]

The curves can be managed especially if a train akin to the "FLIRT" being used in Ottawa and the Dallas region (and all across Europe of course) are used - they have smaller "cars" than those used on traditional North American passenger trains.

They could also run a frequent electric service from YYC to Downtown, and then use Battery, or Hydrogen or Diesel to continue to Banff (a train every hour or two) no problem.

I don't really agree the service is worse, while yes higher frequency is good in a vacuum, a faster connection to downtown is worth a lot too - and if its a consistent every 15 minutes like the UP in Toronto thats still quite frequent. (Should and can still extend the Blue line to the airport long term!)

Consistent electric service every 15 minutes would be great, but that means expensive overhead catenary and substations, and a dedicated track all the way downtown including new dedicated bridges over the Bow and the Elbow. I doubt those will survive the inevitable 'value engineering' exercise.

Can a lightweight train like the FLIRT operate on a mixed freight and passenger corridor? i.e. does it meet crash safety regulations for that application?

 

[zagox]

Just to articulate a positive vision here and not dump on the Banff train too much (because I love the idea) this would be my thinking:
- Double track the corridor wherever it’s “easy”
- Shared single track with CPR freight over the bridges (4x Bow, Elbow, Kananaskis) and in tight spots (eg Edworthy Park) … will need to cut a cheque to CPR but it will be cheaper than the alternative, and at least it will be a fixed and known amount
- Hotel/tourist development near stations in east village & Keith … maybe give this land to Stoney Nakoda instead of writing them another big cheque
- 2 hr headways focused on tourists and maybe add some peak hour service for Cochrane commuters
- DMU trainsets
- No terminal connection … initial operating service ends in east village or aurora business park with shuttle to airport. Connect via people mover to airport in combination with blue line extension.
- Keep pushing Parks to approve a gondola from Banff station to Norquay (maybe new federal government has different view)

 

[superelevation]

Consistent electric service every 15 minutes would be great, but that means expensive overhead catenary and substations, and a dedicated track all the way downtown including new dedicated bridges over the Bow and the Elbow. I doubt those will survive the inevitable 'value engineering' exercise.

Can a lightweight train like the FLIRT operate on a mixed freight and passenger corridor? i.e. does it meet crash safety regulations for that application?

Yes, thats the big benefit. The Texrail and Silver Line routes in Dallas both use Flirts and TexRail at least interacts with heavy trains.

Could get bimode ones that use diesel and overhead wire like in the UK and wire the Airport - Downtown section.

 

[CBBarnett]

Another massive year for transit to the mountain parks. Roam Transit passed 2 million riders for 2023 in September:
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/banff-sees-record-breaking-transit-numbers-during-summer-2023-1.6590533

Some details are available in Roam's monthly board meeting minutes:
https://roamtransit.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/October-2023-BVRTSC-Board-Package.pdf

All routes are performing between 40 - 200% ridership growth since pre-pandemic records. Great to see.

On the regional numbers for On-It it's equally impressive growth - 10,000 riders a month into September, not bad for a weekend focused service.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Does anybody out there have schedule info for On-It during the summer this year? I can see the late fall schedule if I dig around on their website, but that's less than the full summer schedule was, and archive.org only has a snapshot from April before the schedule info came out.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Another massive year for transit to the mountain parks. Roam Transit passed 2 million riders for 2023 in September:
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/banff-sees-record-breaking-transit-numbers-during-summer-2023-1.6590533

Some details are available in Roam's monthly board meeting minutes:
https://roamtransit.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/October-2023-BVRTSC-Board-Package.pdf

All routes are performing between 40 - 200% ridership growth since pre-pandemic records. Great to see.

On the regional numbers for On-It it's equally impressive growth - 10,000 riders a month into September, not bad for a weekend focused service.

View attachment 513885View attachment 513884

Very successful so far. One improvement I'd like to see is not having any vehicles allowed up to Lake Louise, except for hotel guests or shuttle busses.

 

[darwink]

Very successful so far. One improvement I'd like to see is not having any vehicles allowed up to Lake Louise, except for hotel guests or shuttle busses.

If they rebuilt the streetcar/tram to the Lake, 100%.

 

[lemongrab]

Very successful so far. One improvement I'd like to see is not having any vehicles allowed up to Lake Louise, except for hotel guests or shuttle busses.

It would also be nice if they could work out a limited permit system (but still $$$) - maybe managed through the Alpine Club of Canada - to allow a few personal vehicles up very early for true outdoor pursuits. I believe a private enterprise tried to fill the early morning shuttle gap this year - not sure how it went?

 

[Surrealplaces]

It would also be nice if they could work out a limited permit system (but still $$$) - maybe managed through the Alpine Club of Canada - to allow a few personal vehicles up very early for true outdoor pursuits. I believe a private enterprise tried to fill the early morning shuttle gap this year - not sure how it went?

Good question. I know that there is a strong shuttle demand for regular times. I took some out of town work colleagues up to Banff on a Saturday. I knew it would be busy, but it was a gong show at Lake Louise. I was told the shuttle tickets needed to be booked about a week in advance. I ended up driving up to the hotel and dropping the guests off so they could look around. There was the usual long stream of cars driving to the top hoping for a parking spot and driving back down again, and then repeating the futile procedure. The thing that caught my eye was a guy in the parking lot with a sign advertising drop off and pick up for $20/person.