hollahollaholla
New Member
I think with grade crossing upgrades and proper lighting/barriers it isn't too big of an issue. Ideally they would all be seperated bjt this isn't a high speed line.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
I think with grade crossing upgrades and proper lighting/barriers it isn't too big of an issue. Ideally they would all be seperated bjt this isn't a high speed line.
Rollerstud98
Active Member
Problems occur usually around 4-6 especially on the Yankee Valley crossing. We will have a train heading north waiting for a train heading south to pass, while doing this train heading south travelling very slow. Traffic already becoming very congested and then the north train starts to go also very slowly at first. Inconvenient for commuters and possibly life threatening for someone in an emergency. Has already occurred where ambulances are stuck due to trains and traffic. That is unacceptable. Our 2 inner city crossings are fine as they are the south end Yankee Valley crossing is the only critical one. Veterans generally has enough time between trains and trains having picked up speed by the time they arrive that the stopped time is not an issue. Yankee Valley grade separation might be starting this year hopefully. Road will be going under the tracks. Once 40th ave is complete over QE2 as well we will have two east west options.
hollahollaholla
New Member
For sure in cities seperated crossings are more important. But part of the issue on Yankee Valley is everybody trying to get on to QE2 in the first place.
darwink
Senior Member
Yeah. surprised it wasn't part of the recent interchange, the X's are level crossings:
And I see the split to two tracks, and then three tracks. Makes sense that that causes delays.
And I see the split to two tracks, and then three tracks. Makes sense that that causes delays.
Rollerstud98
Active Member
Yup, we really need 40th ave completed over QE2 and that would eliminate a huge amount of traffic from Yankee Valley and 8th street out to 566.
JasperTF
New Member
Alberta Advantage Podcast.
Listen to us talking about trains.
https://www.facebook.com/AlbertaAdvantagePod/
https://albertaadvantagepod.com/
https://www.railalberta.com/
https://www.albertaregionalrail.com/
Listen to us talking about trains.
https://www.facebook.com/AlbertaAdvantagePod/
https://albertaadvantagepod.com/
https://www.railalberta.com/
https://www.albertaregionalrail.com/
hollahollaholla
New Member
After talking with a few of the municipalities there is definitely a push to create regional rail. Everybody is just waiting for the Bow Valley Mass Transit study to be released.
Chowda7
Active Member
Full copy of the Mass Transit Study included:
www.cbc.ca
A train or year-round bus between Calgary and Banff would require federal or provincial support: study | CBC News
A joint study by Bow Valley municipalities has determined that year-round bus or passenger rail service between Calgary and Banff National Park is feasible, as long as other levels of government contribute money.
www.cbc.ca
darwink
Senior Member
Reading the report, it seems that using the Calgary Tower station wasn't considered. Only the CP Pavillion, the building built for the Royal Canadian Pacific which wasn't considered due to ventilation issues, and then a new build station near 4th Street SE.
Other facts: an average of 24 trains a day travel the subdivision, but the volume can be significantly higher during a recovery from a track outage.
Costs: Track (excluding stations) $380 million
Stations (excluding park and ride) $4-6 million each, $24 million total
Park and ride, $4.5 ish:
Maintenance depot:
Rolling stock: $70-90 million
total:
Implementation timeframe:
Other facts: an average of 24 trains a day travel the subdivision, but the volume can be significantly higher during a recovery from a track outage.
Costs: Track (excluding stations) $380 million
Stations (excluding park and ride) $4-6 million each, $24 million total
Park and ride, $4.5 ish:
Maintenance depot:
Rolling stock: $70-90 million
total:
Implementation timeframe:
Last edited:
JasperTF
New Member
With these numbers my estimates are going to come way down! I was estimating at $7 million per km.
zagox
Active Member
I’m of mixed mind about this. The positive case for me is that it puts Calgary much more firmly on the tourist trail to Banff, which would be a big step forward in our stature as a tourist destination. That should be possible even with bus service given that Asian tourists have less aversion to bus as a “poor person’s transport” compared to North Americans. A well done bus system could lead naturally to heavy rail over time, which would then open up Cochrane as a really attractive gateway to the mountains as well - our Squamish?
On the other side, the potential ridership is tiny compared to expansion of LRT or BRT in the city, and maybe we can improve as a tourist destination on our own terms rather than as a stopover on the way to Banff.
On the other side, the potential ridership is tiny compared to expansion of LRT or BRT in the city, and maybe we can improve as a tourist destination on our own terms rather than as a stopover on the way to Banff.
darwink
Senior Member
It all depends on the financial model for the capital side. But fortunately in context of provincial transportation spending, the numbers are very small (provided at the bottom of this post). I think the operational funds is pretty minimal placed in the context of how much the highway costs to run. And if the province can hold off triple laneing for a number of years, that has value too. 1st, can private capital plus the infrastructure bank handle a 40 year payoff (build plus 30 years). 2nd, will CP come in and help a bit more than offering land and cooperation, paying a yearly or as used fee for capacity? Even a million or two a year would really help. 3rd, can this be seen as a boon for tourism - the government is going in for a comparable cost convention centre, does this make the package for Calgary even more compelling and how much is that worth? How much is less congestion (or the equal amount of congestion but more visitors) worth to Banff and Banff tourism operators (could there be an incremental hotel room fee capture of some type?) How much is not building a new parkade worth to the Town of Banff?
Given the NPV of the rail project at negative $370-350 million or so (over a 25 year time horizon, and it is unclear whether the NPV included operating and revenues), minimal greenhouse gas savings (given a diesel trainset), and around $1 million a year in reduced highway maintenance, there is a hole - not a huge one. Add operational costs of $7-9 million. So need to find $23 million a year.
In context, operations and maintenance would be 0.6% of the highways operation and maintenance budget for the province. The capital portion would be 0.8% of the provincial transportation capital budget per year. And those numbers are without any other partners providing funding.
Given the NPV of the rail project at negative $370-350 million or so (over a 25 year time horizon, and it is unclear whether the NPV included operating and revenues), minimal greenhouse gas savings (given a diesel trainset), and around $1 million a year in reduced highway maintenance, there is a hole - not a huge one. Add operational costs of $7-9 million. So need to find $23 million a year.
In context, operations and maintenance would be 0.6% of the highways operation and maintenance budget for the province. The capital portion would be 0.8% of the provincial transportation capital budget per year. And those numbers are without any other partners providing funding.
Last edited:
darwink
Senior Member
I don't think we can look at ridership on this in the same context as commuters. Every induced personal tourism night for other Canadians is like the Alberta economy exporting two barrels of oil ($100 in Calgary, $120 in the Banff/Canmore). This average is held down by the sheer number of visiting and staying with friends and relatives.
Each international tourist is worth $1050 on average to Alberta (per night is more fuzzy at a quick look, so lets say $200 a night as we're assuming less friends and family accommodation).
If, pulling numbers from thin air, the train induced 1 extra night from just 100 people on an average day, with an average spend of $150, that equals to $5.5 million in extra tourism spending a year. Half of that spending is captured back by government as taxes (as it flows through the economy). I doubt the train would induce many entirely new outside of Alberta travellers to plan a trip, but who knows some people like riding trains, and people just need an excuse to choose somewhere, why not a new train in a national park of the original CPR route? Even just 5 people a day on average induced international travellers would be $2 million a year in tourism spending.
JasperTF
New Member
Heritage trains are what would capture tourists, and there are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, who would pay thousands of dollars to catch a steam train into Banff.
There are multiple aspects to rail, yes there is the known cost to construct the infrastructure, purchase the rolling stock, and operate the services, against the income from ridership. But there are multiple more intangible benefits with rail, and then there is the cost of the alternatives. Transportation infrastructure is going to be needed to be built as the population of Alberta expands, and more tourists come to enjoy the Alberta scenery and wildlife, do we build more highways or give rail a try?
There are multiple aspects to rail, yes there is the known cost to construct the infrastructure, purchase the rolling stock, and operate the services, against the income from ridership. But there are multiple more intangible benefits with rail, and then there is the cost of the alternatives. Transportation infrastructure is going to be needed to be built as the population of Alberta expands, and more tourists come to enjoy the Alberta scenery and wildlife, do we build more highways or give rail a try?
zagox
Active Member
Fully agree that an incremental international visitor who is induced to come to Calgary and Banff is worth more to the economy than an incremental commuter using rail instead of driving. But how much more? This is simplistic but the Green Line is forecast to have 23 million annual boardings with a capex of $4.7 billion, or ~$200 in capex per annual boarding. This study estimates 0.35 million annual boardings with a capex of $0.67 billion, or ~$2000 in capex per annual boarding.
On balance, I think they are both worthy projects and I’m happy to contribute tax dollars to both. But I predict the cost on a per passenger basis will be a sticking point.
Last edited: