[David A]

I'm not even sure that 2 hours would be "a good time savings vs auto" but it might be by bus.

If I want to go to Calgary, I can leave now and be there by auto in 3 hours and I have the use of my car while there instead of having to use a taxi or an Uber to get to where I want to go.

Even if the train is 2 hours, I need to get to the station, purchase a ticket and board. At the other end, I need to disembark, arrange transportation and get to where I want to go. Say 20 minutes to get to the station, 20 minutes to board, 10 minutes to disembark and 20 minutes to get to where I want to go and that's 3 hours and 10 minutes. It's also the same thing getting home and perhaps longer if I want to leave before the train does.

Both probably have their advantages - which may even change depending on the season - but there's no substantial advantage to rail over driving. On the cost side, it's also worth noting that if there are two people travelling, the cost is doubled by train whereas it would be halved if travelling by car.

I realize many north Americans and Albertans have car separation anxiety, but even here we can get by without one without great difficulty. It depends on where you are going and what you are doing.

For instance, if you are going to a meeting downtown, you may not need a car, or if you are visiting a friend or family member they might be able to pick you up at the train station.

And both Calgary and Edmonton have bus and LRT systems which while not perfect, do cover a good part of each city. And in that 2 hours you could read a book or rest and not have to worry about icy roads.

 

[TAS]

You also have to factor in cost and time to get to the train from your home. That could add an extra 30 minutes plus cost. And when you come back home, the same thing.

 

[Platinum107]

I'm not even sure that 2 hours would be "a good time savings vs auto" but it might be by bus.

If I want to go to Calgary, I can leave now and be there by auto in 3 hours and I have the use of my car while there instead of having to use a taxi or an Uber to get to where I want to go.

Even if the train is 2 hours, I need to get to the station, purchase a ticket and board. At the other end, I need to disembark, arrange transportation and get to where I want to go. Say 20 minutes to get to the station, 20 minutes to board, 10 minutes to disembark and 20 minutes to get to where I want to go and that's 3 hours and 10 minutes. It's also the same thing getting home and perhaps longer if I want to leave before the train does.

Both probably have their advantages - which may even change depending on the season - but there's no substantial advantage to rail over driving. On the cost side, it's also worth noting that if there are two people travelling, the cost is doubled by train whereas it would be halved if travelling by car.

Even if the train took just as long as driving, many people (including myself) would take it. You're right in saying that both intercity driving and intercity transit have different drawbacks and advantages, but the drawbacks of driving are usually very underplayed and don't encapsulate the bigger picture.

1) The average cost of owning a car can go well beyond $1000 per month. Even if an economy train ticket costed $100 round trip with $40 allocated for rideshare on both sides, you could visit Calgary once a month and only have 1/10 of a yearly car budget spent. This would be even cheaper when using public transit or walking (if your destination is within a kilometer or two of the station), and there would be many destinations in close proximity if the stations are downtown.

2) While the start to end travel time may be equivalent or longer than driving point A to B, you gain productivity time when you don't have to drive. On a train you can comfortably work, browse the internet, talk, listen to music or sleep if need be.

3) With driving there are often significant stressors as well which you need to worry about directly, such as traffic, adverse weather conditions, and detours. Not to mention that driving is a significantly more dangerous and life-threatening than taking transit, which definitely stresses me out whenever I do it.

Trains aren't perfect for everything but they should be an option, as that would make life better for everyone. Even if you wouldn't take the train someone else will, and that's one less person on the road in front of you.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

I realize many north Americans and Albertans have car separation anxiety, but even here we can get by without one without great difficulty. It depends on where you are going and what you are doing.

For instance, if you are going to a meeting downtown, you may not need a car, or if you are visiting a friend or family member they might be able to pick you up at the train station.

And both Calgary and Edmonton have bus and LRT systems which while not perfect, do cover a good part of each city. And in that 2 hours you could read a book or rest and not have to worry about icy roads.

It's more than separation anxiety. A huge portion of our citizens wouldn't know how to navigate either city without a car. Many haven't taken transit in years, if ever. Part of that is because our LRTs focus on the downtowns, and while a large number of people do commute/travel to downtown I would guess the majority almost never go downtown. So why would they use a transit system that prioritizes a place they don't want to go? So there is a major skill deficit that people would have to overcome to use a train between cities.

I still think its worth it but it needs to offer either significant speed and/or cost savings to pull enough people off the QEII. And even with that I bet it would replace 10% of traffic at most in the short term. We need to think of it as a long term investment that will pay off over the next century as cars become less and less viable as an urban transportation solution.

 

[erudyk_29]

1) The average cost of owning a car can go well beyond $1000 per month. Even if an economy train ticket costed $100 round trip with $40 allocated for rideshare on both sides, you could visit Calgary once a month and only have 1/10 of a yearly car budget spent. This would be even cheaper when using public transit or walking (if your destination is within a kilometer or two of the station), and there would be many destinations in close proximity if the stations are downtown.

I wholly agree with you except I would point out that most people probably own a car, so the choice is more to do with the cost of gas / maintenance than things like insurance and the cost of buying the car itself. So I think the ticket price would have to be kept a decent bit under 60$ (roughly a tank of gas in today's economy) in order to offer any sort of major financial incentive to take the train as opposed to driving.

 

[Platinum107]

I wholly agree with you except I would point out that most people probably own a car, so the choice is more to do with the cost of gas / maintenance than things like insurance and the cost of buying the car itself. So I think the ticket price would have to be kept a decent bit under 60$ (roughly a tank of gas in today's economy) in order to offer any sort of major financial incentive to take the train as opposed to driving.

Hey, a family might consider having only one car instead of two if transit options were better And at $60 a tank a round-trip ticket could be$100 and be quite competitive, not to mention the other benefits.

 

[erudyk_29]

I still think its worth it but it needs to offer either significant speed and/or cost savings to pull enough people off the QEII. And even with that I bet it would replace 10% of traffic at most in the short term. We need to think of it as a long term investment that will pay off over the next century as cars become less and less viable as an urban transportation solution.

This is important to keep in mind. With this idea, we aren't looking at the Alberta of today but the Alberta of 20+ years in the future where car dependency has (hopefully) decreased significantly in major metro areas.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

Even if the train took just as long as driving, many people (including myself) would take it. You're right in saying that both intercity driving and intercity transit have different drawbacks and advantages, but the drawbacks of driving are usually very underplayed and don't encapsulate the bigger picture.

1) The average cost of owning a car can go well beyond $1000 per month. Even if an economy train ticket costed $100 round trip with $40 allocated for rideshare on both sides, you could visit Calgary once a month and only have 1/10 of a yearly car budget spent. This would be even cheaper when using public transit or walking (if your destination is within a kilometer or two of the station), and there would be many destinations in close proximity if the stations are downtown.

2) While the start to end travel time may be equivalent or longer than driving point A to B, you gain productivity time when you don't have to drive. On a train you can comfortably work, browse the internet, talk, listen to music or sleep if need be.

3) With driving there are often significant stressors as well which you need to worry about directly, such as traffic, adverse weather conditions, and detours. Not to mention that driving is a significantly more dangerous and life-threatening than taking transit, which definitely stresses me out whenever I do it.

Trains aren't perfect for everything but they should be an option, as that would make life better for everyone. Even if you wouldn't take the train someone else will, and that's one less person on the road in front of you.

84% of households own a car. And the majority that don't are because of poverty. That isn't changing anytime soon. The opportunity cost of living by transit is very high in Calgary/Edmonton, especially if you have a family. So most of the $1000 is a sunk cost already and a train between Calgary and Edmonton isn't going to change that much.

I actually really like that Smith is pushing the tourism angle. Most Albertans already have their sunk cost in car ownership and don't even think about the cost, danger, risks of car travel anymore. But to people visiting from other parts of the world it is a major barrier to visiting. Not that our mountain parks need more tourists.....

I agree that trains are less stressful and more productive ways to travel. That's a big selling feature and worth shouting from the roof tops, especially to seniors. The QEII has gotten much harder to travel, but I have noticed that since I bought a new car with a bunch of self driving features (lane centering, adaptive cruise, etc.) it has made driving the highway much less stressful. Trains will have to compete with that technology developing.

 

[kcantor]

Hey, a family might consider having only one car instead of two if transit options were better And at $60 a tank a round-trip ticket could be$100 and be quite competitive, not to mention the other benefits.

A tank of gas there and tank of gas back would be $120. If two people travelled, that's $60 each. If a family of four travelled, that's $30 each. Four people travelling by train at $100 each would be $400 in total.

 

[David A]

It's more than separation anxiety. A huge portion of our citizens wouldn't know how to navigate either city without a car. Many haven't taken transit in years, if ever. Part of that is because our LRTs focus on the downtowns, and while a large number of people do commute/travel to downtown I would guess the majority almost never go downtown. So why would they use a transit system that prioritizes a place they don't want to go? So there is a major skill deficit that people would have to overcome to use a train between cities.

I still think its worth it but it needs to offer either significant speed and/or cost savings to pull enough people off the QEII. And even with that I bet it would replace 10% of traffic at most in the short term. We need to think of it as a long term investment that will pay off over the next century as cars become less and less viable as an urban transportation solution.

Its not that difficult, even school children take busses regularly! I have taken transit systems in cities I am unfamiliar with. It is possible to figure it out. But I am not saying this will work for everyone, no transportation system serves 100% of people.

 

[David A]

84% of households own a car. And the majority that don't are because of poverty. That isn't changing anytime soon. The opportunity cost of living by transit is very high in Calgary/Edmonton, especially if you have a family. So most of the $1000 is a sunk cost already and a train between Calgary and Edmonton isn't going to change that much.

I actually really like that Smith is pushing the tourism angle. Most Albertans already have their sunk cost in car ownership and don't even think about the cost, danger, risks of car travel anymore. But to people visiting from other parts of the world it is a major barrier to visiting. Not that our mountain parks need more tourists.....

I agree that trains are less stressful and more productive ways to travel. That's a big selling feature and worth shouting from the roof tops, especially to seniors. The QEII has gotten much harder to travel, but I have noticed that since I bought a new car with a bunch of self driving features (lane centering, adaptive cruise, etc.) it has made driving the highway much less stressful. Trains will have to compete with that technology developing.

So the non car owing households are around 800,000 Albertans, which is not an insignificant number. And this does not account for households that only have one car for several people, who may not want to or be able to always travel together, or people who don't have new cars.

But this isn't about getting people to give up car ownership, its about giving people more travel options. A less congested road between our major cities would be better for all motorists too.

 

[kcantor]

^ There are 1,633,220 households in total in Alberta so 16% would be 261,315.

 

[roe_]

I think there are a few people here that cannot fathom why someone would want to travel to Calgary without a car because they do not want to travel to Calgary without a car. The devil will be in the details, and cost is an important factor, but I can imagine lots people going down for a weekend to party on 17th Ave where a car is more of a liability than an asset.

 

[HappyJazzz]

The HSR link to Calgary really is a no-brainer, and getting the YEG/DT portion will be transformative for the core. No need to worry about losing the airport to YYC, on the contrary, having the existing airports linked pretty much guarantees Calgary or Red Deer don't build a new major airport in the future. IIRC YEG has room for four runways total, so plenty of growth room there, vs built-out YYC.

Where Edmonton and friends should be pushing is for a higher speed link to Jasper. Not expecting Shinkasen speeds, but being able to get from Blatchford to Jasper in 2 hours would be huge for the city!

Beyond the tourism angle, the west leg of the rail line is also Edmonton's most feasible commuter line with Acheson, Spruce Grove, and Stoney Plain. Could also help push Edson and Hinton towards Canmore status for remote or hybrid workers.