I’ll just never understand how someone can say trains are too expensive therefore we need to build a vast pressurized tube maglev system with the same passenger capacity as a minivan.
Indeed. If only there was some sort of technology that didn't require a de-pressurized tube with air locks and pressure suits for emergency evacuation, didn't require continuous energy usage to keep the pressure level, and could connect multiple "pods" into a single "platoon" to traverse the tube all at once, and didn't even require a tube at all. Perhaps it could even use a form of road as a guide for the "platoons" of "pods" to keep it on the road with simple well understood mechanical operations. This sounds like something I've seen somewhere but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Hyperloop is the modern version of the monorail. Something futuristic, flashy, sexy... but ultimately impractical. One of those "Wouldnt it be cool/awesome if" things.
@@caneighdianjake8439 true. But a monorail is real and works in some places like Japan. Hyperloop is just a scam created by Elon to sell over prices cars that are not that great.
It's not more important to add light rail connections between the airports and the downtowns of those cities than it is to have inter-city passenger rail service between those cities. Also, there's no reason that we can't fund both projects simultaneously.
@@syncmonismWhat's the debt burden for funding both projects simultaneously. The moment commodity prices buckle, tax revenues will decrease while interest remains fixed over the lifespan of the debt.
If done right, this has the potential to turn Alberta into a rail transportation leader, not only in Canada, but in North America. The landscape is perfect for rail, the population centers are large enough and growing, and the demand for inbound and local tourism makes this a no-brainer.
Absolutely. It could even be a Western flight hub for travel to Europe and Asia. The commuter flights in the province could be replaced to flights to Prairie cities in the US and Canada that would bring people to Calgary and Edmonton for onward international journeys.
As someone who frequently makes the trip, I think about this almost every time. It's all basically flat land and in a more or less straight line, with two of the most popular tourist destinations in North America (Banff and Jasper) just to the west of the line. Literal no-brainer.
It should be so fast that people from Edmonton and Calgary would do spontaneous trip to the other city. Like you do a spontaneous trip from Shanghai to Nanjing. which is about the same distance as Calgary and Edmonton. Of course those cities are much larger, but a long term plan could include such a fast connection.
I think this video really expressed well that if a plan was well thought out, with universal compatibility that building one now, could lead to the infastructure in place for advancement and upgrades in the future. 140-220 km/hour isnt the most advanced option currently world wide available, but it is "less bad" than what we currently have. Id rather have ANY option now, with the option to upgrade later, than no option at all and wait for something that might never come. Driving up and back to Edmonton from Calgary is doable in one day, albeit grueling. Ive done it myself last month for my son to experience a birthday treat at WEM, but if I could omit the driving exhaustion from the mix, it would be more enticing to do it more often. It would definitely expand most cities market reach, and the cities inbetween.
@@RMTransit Wrong! Sitting in my car in a hot summer day in the middle of traffic while the light is green and nobody is moving is the definition of freedom!
I really would love to see this built. I remember going on holiday to Banff with my parents and they had to hire a rental car to drive from Calgary airport to the park. Taking a train would have been much faster and more comfortable
@@RMTransit I disagree, I think are beloved parks need less people not more and a rail line would just bring even more destruction to the beauty of the Canadian Rockies. Just my thought.
@@RMTransit Would you also love to see bike racks on these trains, bike parking at stations and better cycling infrastructure. Rather than timed overtakes, would it be better to run regional trains serving smaller communities on existing freight lines (which might be duplicated) and just run intercity trains between city centres, and at a higher frequency than you suggested? Could this provide a *better* service than cities like Berlin and Oslo?
As regards the airline approach to trains in Europe, it should be remembered that until 1993, Lufthansa had it's own trains to run between Frankfurt A.M. and Duesseldorf which carried a flight number but was, in fact, a dedicated rail service (the famous DB 'Donald Duck' units or Class 403/4). These days, Lufthansa runs the LH Express Rail service in partnership with DB which allows you to book a ticket to any Lufthansa destination from selected cities in Germany and includes train travel in the price (apparently other airlines also participate in this).
Same with Austrian Airlines (which TBH are part of the Lufthansa group) and ÖBB. you can buy tickets that encompass flight to Vienna and RailJet to final destination like Salzbug
One major correction: Alberta didn't announce that they have a master plan, they announced that *will do* a master plan. It is in procurement right now. The map the released is just basically a back of napkin long-list. A very fair criticism is they are doing this (relatively cheap) planning exercise to delay actually spending real money on the Banff-Calgary Airport link which was approaching (and now missed) a critical stage gate for a federal funding application.
@@ericjessee in the press conference they were talking about things like hyperloop and hydrogen trains which was almost like a "we arent taking this seriously" dogwhistle
I mean what constitutes a master plan could be debated to no end, but I think it’s a very positive development for them to be talking about what places they want to link. Progress nonetheless!
@@RMTransit Another detail is that the province is threatening to withhold funding for the green line project ($1.53B) if it does not "fully integrate" with their master plan. Hilarious because the master plan they announced doesn't even mention the green line LRT! The UCP is playing a political game and they likely unveiled this to distract from their failures in other aspects of their governing. Just millions more wasted on proposals from companies and land use studies that have been completed by every single government for the past 30 years.
@@RMTransit I'm very much of the opinion that what the plan needs is a major focus on real estate along the corridor. I actually think you could make a special series dedicated to how different places use real estate development to fund rail expansion. I know you have mentioned it in previous videos, but it would be nice to see a dedicated focus on how real estate and transit can go hand in hand to induce demand on each other and what factors matter most. I don't think 2 hectare TOD is good enough. I'll use Forest Hills Gardens are a good example of what I think Transit Focused Development can be. The area around stations and much of their walksheds should be designed to segregate people from traffic, much like Disneyland.
Holy cow, this would be incredible if all of these projects were implemented! Its crazy Calgary to Banff and Edmonton- Calgary dont exist to begin with, everything else is very forward thinking and would be amazing for the whole province!
There have been a few government studies into a rail connection between Edmonton and Calgary over the years; however, theyve always come back that it wouldnt be financiably viable. As such, its not exactly a novel idea. I would love to see a HSR in Alberta, and I hope that the large population boom over the last 20 years has turned the tables. One difficulty is that while we might be the Texas of Canada, thr financial position of the province hasnt been rosy since the recession of 2008. Our 'rainy day' fund from previous resource royalties is long gone. Historically, most of the royalties came from natural gas, but that market has become saturated since the advent of fracking, driving prices down. Even then, we have limited access to markets besides the USA, so we always have sold of resources below price. Canadian politics makes it easier to move resources south to the USA then across neighbouring provinces to any coast.
How about we just reactivate the lines that already existed there for over a 100 years. You know, before we had mass use of cars, we had passenger rail. Lest we forget..
@@PolarExpress-ql3nk Old rail lines being old have a lot of problems, level crossings, poor geometry, fairly low speed. Simply reactivating old lines isn't going to have the impact of modern rail!
I think you underestimate how much the airlines will fight this. I used to sit on the Ottawa Chamber's Transportation Subcommittee. We put out a statement supporting high speed rail and met with some MPs. The airlines and airport authority kicked up such a fuss we had to revoke the entire position. Those short "commuter routes" are the cash cows for the airlines. They're full of business travellers paying with expense accounts who don't care how inflated the ticket costs are. Not to say we shouldn't build it all anyway - just be prepare for a full-on brawl with the airlines.
The bus carriers are also likely to have their lunch money stolen from them too. The number of buses running between Calgary and Edmonton would drop to a couple runs a day with all the milk run stops that would be bypassed by the railway, but their bread and butter is from those who want a cheap way to get to the other end of the corridor but don't want to drive or pay for parking at the other end...That said, I could certainly see Pacific Western Transportation (owner of Red Arrow and eBus) looking at being an operator if the province goes to Open Access.
I would hope those business travellers value time and comfort, both of which are superior by train on short distances. You’re probably right that initial backlash can be fierce, but I hope the actual users would be relatively easy to convince.
honestly workers are now telecommuting or are driving from edmonton to calgary once a week or so. no one flies. This would be amazing, the impact on red deer would be the most amazing. I think this would really elevate Alberta as a whole.
Ontario and Quebec take note. When Las Vegas, Texas and now Alberta are getting on board, the lack of an HSR connection from Toronto to anywhere is starting to look really embarrassing.
When I think of interprovincial rail, that is going to have to be done by the Federal government. Much like getting rail connections from Edmonton to Leduc, you need the provincial government to step in and solve the jurisidiction problem. It would be great if there could be agreements between jurisdictions, especially regarding transit, but it is a slow progress on that front. The only thing we got going in Edmonton is the ARC card system.
Ontario and Quebec at least have functional (by Canadian standards) passenger rail, something which is otherwise practically nonexistent in Alberta (Via just passes through Alberta these days). It sucks that the Windsor-Quebec corridor doesn't have it already, but they've likewise floated the idea a bunch of times just like Alberta has. This is firmly in a "I'll believe when I see it" because the provincial government here trots out studying connecting Edmonton and Calgary by rail every few years. Is this time for real? Is it any more real than the last dozen times they've floated it? No idea. At least it's not the dumb hyper loop nonsense.
Danielle Smith could not run a lemon stand. She'll never be able to pull this off. People, read my lips, ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Albertans have been hearing about this mystical train creature for over 50 years. Too expensive and nor feasible.
@@TurnDar It's essentially an annual "let's build a train!" proposal that they take out of a dusty old ideas box every year since Via Rail ended it's Calgary-Edmonton service. I'll believe it when I see it.
This is a good idea. The problem we face in Canada is the inability to accomplish almost anything due to some of the highest bureaucracy in the first world. Fortunately Alberta is one of the only provinces with a can-do attitude, but, there is still far too much red tape even there.
30% of downtown office towers are still vacant in Calgary. They never recovered from the oil bust of a decade ago. Sure, the city’s population is growing, but retrograde Provincial government is probably more to blame than anything. Rejection of renewable industries, rejection of pretty much anything unrelated to oil/gas industry. Plus the influence of conservative/Christian policies of the more ‘far-out’ and radical politicians. Alberta is similar to Texas in one respect though; the cities are liberal, the state/provincial government is conservative.
1:23 I knew in my head that the Conservatives dominate Alberta but hearing it said aloud that they're for highspeed trains just caught me of guard and shook me.
Conservatives are only against rail if they decide to use it as a wedge issue in identity politics. Boris Johnson in the UK was massively pro rail (he had other issues though), but his successor Rishi Sunak is a huge carbrain.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but most of the auto unions in the US vote democrat. How much that effects rail development I couldn't say, but it's not hard to imagine them having a fair amount of sway in the opposite direction. I actually think conservatives are more likely to see the economic benefits of trains and public transport if you show them the spreadsheets. That's why I find the climate angle infuriating, because all anyone is going to say is: I'll buy an electric car. (And the more unhinged activists are doing far more harm than good in this regard. Slinging paint at art isn't going to get anyone onboard).
This railline like this will not be built in my lifetime. I worked on the engineering drawings for a high speed rail between edmonton and calgary 20 years ago. Since then, at least 3 other projects exactly like this have been announced. It never gets past initial planning.
Ive heard this argument over and over again."its just talk, it will never happen because they've said this for decades". Taking you on your word as an engineer for one of the past projects - may I ask what killed your project? What lessons can we learn from the past failures to progress a solution like this into fruition? Have these repeated failures seen an incremental progress?
@@mrssamanthashannon Likely due to the growing car industry and its chokehold on the transportation market. Everyone back then preferred the autonomy of cars and preferred a more private way of travelling, especially when the commercials said so. Not only that, but pair it with taxpayers not wanting to invest in other modes of transportation due to their self-interest (likely owning their own vehicle), they'd much prefer if the government invest on creating a car-centric landscape. Personally, I think railways this time around might be the most viable thing they could invest in, considering that the masses are starting to realize that the glory days of owning a car for cheap is no longer a thing and traffic has become so prevalent that its made them aware that any more car users will make their lives a nightmare.
I mean, you’re definitely unlikely to be wrong. Just look how long it took for the Green Line to _start_ construction. It should’ve been already planned and started 20 years ago. Communities in the deep South East and North have been isolated from LRT for far too long. When I was a teenager going to high school in the SW, my commute from my house in the SE was about an hour and a half to 2 hours one way. 30 minute bus ride to the nearest C-Train station, 15-20 minute train ride to my transfer station, 30 minute bus ride to the closest stop to my school, and then either a wait to catch another bus, or a 10-15 minute walk. Not including waiting for any of the 2 or 3 buses, and the train. And if any one of them was running too late, it would cause me to miss my next bus or train. The point being, this was already clearly an issue in the mid 2000’s, and with all the population growth and expansion of the city eastward and southward, it was only going to get worse and worse as time went on. You can tweak bus routes and add more bus routes or BRT routes, but more buses and more stops and more connections and more transfers doesn’t really solve the problem. It’s a band-aid, and one of the cheap dollar store ones with the weak adhesive that barely sticks to your skin and easily gets torn off, at that. I’d rather have had Calgary’s share of that $1.4 billion in Ralph Bucks have gone to funding stuff like the Green Line back in 2006, rather than voters being bribed with $400 cheques.
Now why on earth would Canadian taxpayers want to fund a Alberta-only high speed rail in a province that claims that they are 'sovereign'? Maybe Dannielle can ask the oil companies she works for to fund it? Canadians just spent $35 Billion on a pipeline to prop up the province while the Alberta government tries to dismantle CPP and refuses to participate in any national programs. I have no interest in any federal dollars being used in Alberta while the UCP continue to attack Canada's democracy and confederation. BTW, I live in Edmonton.
Sounds like 230km/h is basically the sweet spot for a line like this. Btw this is actually whats being done in Egypt right now where a new mixed traffic high speed rail network, built for 250km/h but with an usual max speed of 230, and built to European specifications with a fleet of 35 Siemens Velaro 250km/h EMU's, and 70 Desiro HC EMU's for slower services. It looks neat but the fact that most stations are 10 kilometers or more outside of each's city's respective downtown is depressing. Especially when said cities already have state railway tracks to a more central station on their legacy rail system. It also sounds like this could use a similar standard to Rail Baltica, currently being built across Estonia, Latvia, and Lithauania, also for 230km/h operation. You could possibly also go with the rolling stock they or another Nordic country would have to make sure you have a proven train model for the line, like the Alstom Avelia Streams that the Swedish State railways have ordered, which can run up to 250km/h, or the Talgo 230's that Deutsche Bahn and DSB, the Danish state railways, have both ordered.
Well, Texas has a diversified economy, something that Alberta lacks. In that regard we’re more similar to Oklahoma. Southern Alberta is most similar to Colorado though.
I wish I shared your optimism. We know Danielle Smith here, and this is politics, not policy. She knows Naheed Nenshi will likely win the nomination for the NDP. Maybe his group was planning a major rail announcement itself. Now, that is an also ran. Obviously, no train lines are going to actually be constructed before the next election. On the campaign trail, she can point to this and say they're looking into it. And let's say the effort is genuine; that Conservatives actually want to invest significant amounts of money into rail. They are using this as the "solution," to climate change rather than backing a shift to electric vehicles. This opens up a discussion about these two political solutions to climate change. Really they should both be implemented, because both are necessary. But for people with zero sum thinking, they choose one or the other. Electric cars would tend to support urban sprawl, and rail would support density along corridors. For the most part, small l liberals are opposed to that because their voters are in the dense cores. There's some sort of general liberal dissatisfaction with the idea of individual car ownership. It gets into different ways of life that include or don't include children, etc. If living in dense places is the only option, then cars would obviously not be a part of that. Currently, we still have options.
They've been talking about building a high speed rail between Calgary and Edmonton for decades. Until shovels are in the ground this is just more talk.
Yeah, they been talking about this for a long time. Given the recent stunt by the premier to take away low income transit passes for AISH recipients and pensioners, I have an even more difficult time believing that the UCP would ever promote anything close to this. I have zero confidence that a rail system will ever happen under their leadership. The needle will not move in this direction until 2080.
I want this. But it wont happen for many many many years. Look at highway 3 between med hat and lethbridge..... still not double lane.... our government cant execute on anything
I dont agree with the speed opinion, if we are thinking long term it would be well worth investing in the rail required for faster trains. We dont wanna a rail version of deerfoot in a generation or two
3:50 no better advertisement for trains than speeding past cars on the highway. every single driver will be forced to acknowledge its existence and second guess their choice to drive
I have been supporting a plan for such a project to put a station right across the Albert Legislauree on the parking lot adjacent to Government Centre LRT station what a no brainer connecting to both Capital and Metro Line in Edmonton! Friend of mine says he asked ETS about it apparently there are underground tunnels connecting the Legislature to the LRT station, makes sense. Though for Calgary, not for a HSR route but to a Banff route, they should put a station by Sinatra LRT station for a good Intermodal transfer with having an ample enough space for it and already have a footbridge going on top of CPKC RoW. 2km away from Calgary Tower Station.
@@stickynorthReally, the map isn't anything concrete. They mentioned Jasper in the announcement, but don't even show it on the map. Is there a way for me to share a screen capture here? I'm actually thinking the best plan would be for a tunnel that continues to Yellowhead Trail, to tie everything together. A new railyard and freight corridor between Sherwood Park and Edmonton could help to free up a lot of land for development.
I am still baffled by how and when mass transit and rail flipped to being something the Conservatives care about more than the other parties. The "just everybody buy a car" era is fading.
The Conservatives in Ontario are desperately holding onto the idea of Sprawl and new highways, but are facing immense pressure AND have been given even greater funding to GO rail expansion. I think you're right!
@deanorr5378 The Ford government has dumped big big money into expanding the rail network and real efforts are being done to try get the GO Train off cargo rail and onto its own network. The GO network and intercity VIA network has gotten multiple multi-year expansion and improvement plans. Some of it, I concede, _might_ only be optics, but shovel has hit ground enough for me to doubt they all are. For all other things I would say the Ford government has ranged from disappointing to neutral, but that dude _loves_ trains. The highway expansions has mostly been because trucks are getting stuck in traffic. Someone needs to explain to Ford that cargo rail is just trains but for stuff, and maybe he'll then create multiple expansion programs for that, too.
It's because it's a smart long-term financial investment to invest in transit and limit road infrastructure. There are also aesthestic, business, and traditionalist arguments for transit. The fact that there are political arguments in favour of transit for all sides from communists to conservatives, it just shows the power of the oil and auto industries.
I believe it's a belief that is strongest with the boomers. Younger generations don't really have the same attitude towards cars, and Alberta is the youngest of the Canadian provinces. Young people on the left like transit for the big cities and lifestyle while younger conservatives like it for the fiscal sensibility and maybe traditionalism. Boomers are really the ones holding everyone back on this which is why America is so much worse about this: our boomers still hold all the political power.
I'm one of those cynics that don't really believe just plans yet. I really want this to happen, but I've been told that High-Speed Rail is coming multiple times over many years with no results whatsoever between multiple different governments, though I will say this does seem like the highest probability of actually becoming something
i once did some math, and providing passenger rail from Edmonton-Lethbridge, and Banff-Medicine Hat would connect roughly 75-80% of ALL of alberta’s population by train, and improve two major traffic pinch-points (calgary-edmonton and calgary-banff). alberta is getting more frequent snowstorms during winter, making travel by vehicle and air impossible at those times. im so glad my government is looking into trains. people here are skeptical because once every decade, they have talked about these kinda plans for the past 4 decades. hopefully they go through with it this time!
Bingo! 80% of Albertan's live in The Corridor... Aka that North-South ribbon of CP Rail towns founded along the old Calgary & Edmonton Railway... Add in the Vulcan-Lethbridge section and that number jumps even higher. This should be priority #1 especially with a concept to bring back passenger rail between Calgary and Livingstone, Montana as well... That was just also proposed this week...
The fact the plan includes Grande Prairie (though however remote) really does mean the plan intends to connect the vast majority of the province's population.
The number of tradespeople driving and flying to Fort McMurray for weeks long jobs continues to grow. A high speed rail connection to Fort Mac from Edmonton and Calgary would be fantastic, and would almost certainly see an immediate, solid commuter base.
When Alberta unveiled this I was so taken aback, pleasantly surprised is an understatement. And by a conservative government too! This won't be taken by another, left-winger party and smushed into the ground, they were more likely to propose this in the first place seeing as it aligns even better with their goals.. this is happening. What I'm most excited for is the knock-on effect, seeing as I don't actually directly benefit from Alberta getting rail (though of course I am VERY excited for them). This plan is likely to encourage other provinces and regions to start drawing up their own plans. My premier takes most of his inspiration for new, uh, let's just call them catastrophes, from the more polarized conservatism out west, especially in Alberta.. the chance of my region getting the passenger network we deserve just bumped up a good amount. This is the way to go. Conventional-speed rail, outlined in a masterplan made to be implemented gradually over many years, with ambitious goals but a large timeframe. No huge leap to (true, european) high-speed rail where there is no passenger rail currently. No absurd unproven and fiscally unpredictable technologies like hyperloop or monorail. Just conventional rail with an ambitious potential that is planned for.
Exactly, I expect the NDP to run with this if elected, and since it was the UCP who are proposing it I would hope for pause before slamming on the brakes!
One only need look at bungled HS2 mega rail project in the UK, managed by the Tories (ie. Conservatives) - it’s budget and master plan slashed. I expect the same results in Alberta; therefore, don’t believe it’ll happen until you see something actually built.
Come on, this is canada....we won't accomplish this. And if we did, in true canadian fashion, every ticket would be priced so far past reasonable, few people would be on it. That's the canada I've always lived in.
Cities need to do more to diversify transportation options. Most cities and transportation planners focus too much on cars. Electric trains, trams, electric buses, electric bicycles, escooters, walking running and green open spaces all need to work together and make cities better. The trick is to connect all these resources and make them easy to access by using various forms of mobility.
nobody wants to ride the bus when it takes 4x as long, and you have to be yelled at and pissed on by diversity. Solve that problem and the journey back to effective transit begins, but it will never start until people stop being scared of being called wayciss. You may not like it, but it is the truth.
Given that Alberta is projected to grow by a further 2 million people in the next 20 years, I think they should use this opportunity to create some great transit focused communities, on their own account, to help finance further expansion. Pretty sure they're planning on a new river crossing, so not 109st, in Edmonton. The corridor between the cities can run adjacent to the towns, to keep the alignment straighter, and allowing for transit focused development. Also, I think running along Barlow Trail from Calgary Airport could help to keep up speed and tie in to future expansion to the east of the city. The focus on regional rail should really be getting people between nodes, quickly, that can feed into more local service.
I would actually prefer the High Level Bridge to be replaced. It is a bridge that is over 100 years old with declining capacity as the years go on. Also, the word on a new river crossing is centred mostly around connecting Gateway Boulevard to downtown, and not any rail connections. Thirdly, there is also the Downtown Circulator project (Low Floor LRT) that is being planned by the city. I know they want to use the High Level bridge for that but the old lady can't take it anymore.
@@phillipsiebold8351 Why would they need another bridge for traffic? That bridge down by Kinsmen is plenty wide for 2 lanes each direction. I can't say for sure whether another road bridge is planned or not, but I'm pretty sure there and west of the UofA both have rail crossings planned. I'm not really talking about using the High Level bridge at all. In my view, Whyte ave would be good as part of an automated light metro loop line, book ended by 142st/50st and Yellowhead/Whyte. In combination with a regional/HSR tunnel headed north, from south of Whyte to Yellowhead Trail, which could then branch out to the surrounding towns easily. Overlay those two things with the LRT and it would be a pretty good system.
@@phillipsiebold8351 Since you mentioned a road crossing, I'll tell you what I'd love to see. If the whole commercial/industrial space between 104st and 91st out to the Henday could be redeveloped into a transit focused development, with Calgary Trail and Gateway moved into a a central tunnel that can come up at traffic circles, with the rail alignment also underground. If they were to develop the area on their own account, they could help to pay for the infrastructure. At Whyte, a station at the NE corner of Gateway, just east of the washroom/parking lot. With Gateway underground, a park out to Sask Dr would be nice. Under that park the road tunnel would continue to a replacement for Sask Dr, that's lower on the hill. Cover it and turn Sask Dr into an entertainment terrace, terracing down the hill with landscaped gardens. Use 3 traffic circles as part of the Sask Dr replacement, at Gateway/109st, and right in the middle, to feed onto or from Walterdale Bridge. The valley is the best part of the city. They could make it a really amazing spot. Since you mentioned the High Level Bridge. I did hear someone talk about turning the top deck into a park, similar to the Highline in NYC, which could be quite nice and could tie into the entertainment terrace.
@@Jay-jq6bl The Walterdale Bridge is part of 109th street and is meant to take capacity off of the High Level Bridge. The alignment of Walterdale Bridge is also a significant detour for Gateway Boulevard. Right now Gateway Boulevard uses Low Level Bridge to get across the river and that thing has a hairpin as you go down the valley.
@@phillipsiebold8351I actually think Saskatchewan Dr could use a redesign. What I'd really like to see, is the whole industrial/commercial space between 91st and 104st, from Whyte all the way out to Henday get redeveloped, with Gateway and Calgary Trail moved into an underground tunnel, that has entries and exits at traffic circles along the way. Once you're at the River Valley, you'd come out lower on the hill, where you'd have another traffic circle that would tie in with Sask Dr to the east of Gateway, and a replacement for the existing Sask Dr further down the hill. This replacement road would have another circle at 109st, and another in the middle, which would connect to Walterdale Bridge and back into Strathcona. So, you could drive all the way from Highway 2 or the Henday directly across Walterdale Bridge without any traffic lights, potentially. Put a terrace over the new road and turn the whole hillside into terraced parks and gardens. I did hear someone mention turning the top deck of the High Level Bridge into a park, akin to the Highline in NYC. That could tie into the terrace very nicely.
We all would really love this but this would literally such billions of dollars every year out of the pockets of big auto and big oil. Those two lobbies are particularly powerful in Alberta. Every proposal resulted in a study that was artificially inflated in costs plus legal challenges to add further costs. The Edmonton to Calgary high speed rail has been literally studied to death since the 1980s. It's literally the train to nowhere.
A high-speed rail between Calgary and Banff would relieve the housing crisis in the bowvalley for sure! Renting rooms for $12-1500/month is getting out of hand!
Texas of Canada? There are more people who live in and around Houston than all of Alberta (by a LONGSHOT)..Although there’s more public will for a train in Alberta than Texas..
I pitched this Y-shaped route to former PCAA member Moe Amery that was in charge of researching high speed rail in Alberta around 15 years ago. Great to see that they've taken the suggestion seriously! And also that their research and consultation wasn't thrown away.
It would be awesome if Alberta moved forward on this. With Ontario and Quebec already taking little steps, maybe in thirty years Canada will have a viable high speed network. That being said, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard this out of Alberta, so I’ll wait until ground is broken.
The UK East Coast Mainline should be a model for this, fast but not necessarily high speed service with the Azumas, high frequency express and stopping services, etc.
@@RMTransit yeah there are a couple very rural ones that just cross over some single lane country roads, main issue on the ECML is just how old it is, some of the tracks near Grantham/Peterborough are very wobbly, but hopefully Alberta wouldn't copy that bit...
A rail system makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways. The problem is the goverment is almost always conservative because the people are conservative. People want to drive, they want the flexibility and the freedom. Talking them out of this will be difficult. The people of Edmonton have got to worried that this will make their airport unviable.
Makes SO much sense. Just need to travel between cities in Europe and one can understand how this would greatly enhance the province. Would be nice to have high speed travel between all of the major cities between the prairie provinces - Edmonton->Saskatoon-> Winnipeg etc.
I wish there was something in Montana worth connecting the rail to. This is obviously assuming both the US and Canada would work together on this. I would love to take the train from Denver to Calgary one day
Maybe not directly. But considering how brightline is building a train from California to Vegas. They may expand that service eastward in the near future if they expand at the same rate they're expanding in Florida. There are already existing trains along the west coast that could get you as far as Vancouver Canada. Unfortunately there's no direct route from Vancouver to Calgary with trains. There's a slow expensive tourist train that goes to Edmonton. If that high speed gets built between Calgary and Edmonton it would eventually be possible to travel entirely by train. But it would be slow with lots of connections. Anything more direct would be far in the future unless there's a new Golden age train revolution. And our two governments decide to build at the same rate as China
Can the ministry of transportation in Alberta please have this video sent to them? As an Alberta resident and someone who loves your videos, I feel like you would add some wonderful insight to the master plan. They are currently working on a master plan that’ll take at least a year or so to be fully completed. Once done, they will start at least one of their proposed rail projects. Personally I’d like for the rails to all be done within 10 years not 25 or so . And yes, I think the hyperloop is stupid since it’s not a proven technology at all and it looks unbelievably expensive to build regardless. High speed rail is tried and true for many decades around the world. I’m surprised you said a 200-250 kmhr rail is perfect instead of let’s say a 300km/hour one. Anyways thank you for covering my province and I’m excited this long overdue project is finally in the works 😊
Yeah, I don't fully agree with Reece, either, it might not be much, but 300 km distance is nothing to sneeze at. it would get the trip between the two cities under or close to 1h30, while 200 will probably be closer to 2h to 2h30, with a few stops. Still very respectable, so I wouldn't say it's completely wrong as an approach. I'm also a big supporter of more development along the rail corridor, if you put in more stops, full high-speed becomes irrelevant much faster. At least a few trains should run express IMO.
320 km/h gives a 70 minute trip non stop. Not enough time to settle in. 250 km/h takes 90 minutes just a bit cozier. Personally go for 320 km/h with stops intermediate as required and if needed 3 levels of service as Reece suggested commuters will happen on this line too.
@@barvdw considering everyone drives on the road (in the warmer months) a healthy 140km/hr at least, and it takes 2.5 hours to drive from Edmonton to Calgary , i do believe the trains need to be closer to that 300 km/hr mark if possible. Otherwise, with the stop in red deer, it’d probably take a similar time vs going by car, which would take away from some of the ridership . Make it as attractive as possible so the maximum amount of people will take the train. It’ll be a no brainer in the winter when it’s hazardous to drive but if it’s also gonna save up to an hour let’s say even in the summer? Bam. Winner winner chicken dinner
@@johndwilson6111 there's generally some slower running on the approach to the city, so while 70 minutes is possible in theory, I feel it's a bit too optimistic in reality. Even non-stop, Paris-Brussels still needs 1h21 minutes on a mostly high-speed infrastructure. Witt stops in just the airports and Red Deer, you're quickly in the 1h30 range, without even serving Airdrie or any of the other potential boom towns along the route, like Wetaskiwin or even Carstairs that might get a station.
@@Mohankeneh there's a market for both, surely. They are reinstating a slower train between Paris and Brussels (during the Olympics for now, but they want to make it permanent from next year), and are confident there's a market for it. Being on a train allows you to do some preparatory work, to relax, to rest... And while cars are decently fast, they are often very unreliable, or better, traffic is. Trains are much more reliable, even when they are slower (which would probably not be the case here, just comparable) than cars. A 300 km/h track vs a 200 km/h, and definitely a 230 or 250 km/h track isn't going to make that big of a difference, and the approach to the city station has probably a bigger impact than a few stretches where they can reach their maximum speed. On the other hand, it's costing a lot more, because the tolerances are much smaller, so you need much more maintenance, curves are wider, etc. It would depend on what you do with that train after that, can you make another trip per day by going faster? Than it might be worth it. Would it fall in a connection node, with many trains in all directions (the Swiss model, go as fast as needed to get to the next node in time to make all connections)? Then it might be worth it, too.
It would be amazing to have a terminal station there in downtown Edmonton. Only stickler is that the High Level Bridge on 109th St is a city icon and people would be loathe to remove it. Maybe a different bridge beside it?
Reuse the piers, rebuild everything else. It'll likely give drivers on the lower deck less headaches trying to squeeze those two tight lanes down the bridge core, plus provide room for the trains up top.
So I cannot picture that area super well in my head at the moment (moved away 2 years ago now), but could a re-route be done to make the High-Level pedestrian/streetcar and then have transit rail beside it? I know there was a proposal floated (don't know how serious though) about making Whyte Ave car free and just transit lines, so having that end of 109th be similarly adapted could work. That would re-route any and all traffic to the new Walterdale bridge though so there would need to be a plan for shifting car traffic as that will not be entirely reduced.
Sorry but "ecofriendly" & "Alberta" don't belong in the same sentence. This is a disaster of an idea for the simple fact that albertans are married to their cars...in fact, worse, trucks. Way to many people drive trucks when they have ZERO need to. Add to that the actual cost to build a 300km fast rail between 2 cities that have low populations, the costs to maintain such a railway, this would be in no way economical. People would rather take their own cars or rent one, if they need/want to go between the two cities. But this being Alberta, the dimwitted politicians will probably ok this because this will "put Alberta on the map"...
Just tell Albertans that if they build HSR, they can beat Toronto and Montreal at something. That'll light a fire under their butts. Nothing motivates an Albertan more than being able to do something better than a Torontite or Quebeconian. Nothing.
So long as the turns are build to handle 320kmh service, you can start it off as an electrified at grade service and then increase speeds by gradually grade separating it after it opens.
Curve radius for 320kmh is about 7km, but for 250kmh it's about 4km. The additional land and tunneling costs associated with the more restrictive geometry could be quite high, for actually fairly low journey time improvements for such a short journey. You don't really want level/grade crossings on routes with more than 4 trains per hour in each direction, or where linespeed is more than 160kmh (certainly no more than 200kmh). So grade separation is vital, very high speed rail is probably an unnecessary expense. In reality, even a 2 hour rail journey time is likely to attract virtually all air traffic, and a fair bit of road traffic.
@@joegrey9807 Perhaps but this rail will be here for well over a century, how many people will be living in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor then? Why not pay the additional cost now when it's at its lowest?
@@ZontarDow Population has no impact on this. If anything, it will mean lower maximum linespeed because there will be more intermediate stops and you won't be able to get up to 320km/h while both serving the intermediate stops and maintaining line capacity. What's key to maximum and average linespeed are the distances between stops, line capacity, and the balance between end to end JT, Capex and Opex.
you'd have to fix the whole problem of the car mentality. north america as a whole is not a huge public transport nation. just look at the statistics and you see trains are fine in europe, where distances like edmonton to calgary actually take you to different countries. i believe the cities might make a case to their airports, it's going to still take decades before a train will ever be running between edmonton and calgary. cars will already be fully electric before this ever takes off, if ever.
For people like me who are from outside North America, I found the references to Texas extremely confusing. (As you use the word 'petrol' I suspect that you (like me) are British.)
I hope they go with shinkansens, they are my favourite, also i think it would be good to buy from them because of the low value of the japanese currency they may get it for cheap
It was interesting that you used Brightline Central Station (terminal) as example with its TWO LEVEL platforms: one for Siemens' coaches, another for Bombardier equipment for Tri-Rail (commuter) train service.
Its a great idea, it should of been done along time ago. When greyhound was taken out some people had no way to travel thru the province. Many people will use it for work, thus less polution from vehicles.
Just one small thing regarding the airlines in Europe. The reason why they’re more competitive can pretty much solely be chalked up to Ryanair and European air deregulation in the 1990s. Canada could have this sort of deal but if everyone I know in this country is a measure that level of actual competition may make Canadian heads explode, especially if it means an American company may get a fair shot in Canada
As much as I'd love to see HSR between Calgary and Edmonton, and eventually beyond I'm sorry to sound cynical but it's all just a diversion from the UCP's more authoritarian attacks on public education and healthcare, to name just two targets. Also remember, this is a government that recently put a moratorium on renewable energy projects jeopardizing multiple advanced projects, all to appease the almighty oil patch here in Alberta. For the record, Alberta turned down an almost free (see below) HSR line running between downtown Calgary and Old Strathcona are in Edmonton from Seimens Düwag in the late 70s or early 80s (SD wanted to use the line as their North American demo facility of their intercity trains). All the Government of Alberta had to provide was a right of way with no level crossings. The farmers complained about the inconvenience (the horror the HORROR) and the provincial government said HSR to compete unfairly with the provincially-owned Pacific Western Airline and their cash cow route between YYC and YXD (Edmonton's old inner city airport). I've said for years that having HSR between Calgary and Edmonton would have reduced the suburban growth pressures in both cities while Red Deer would have become a viable option and would now probably be about 250,000 rather than just now approaching 100,000 in population.
You mentioned an ownership model where the province owns/maintains the infrastructure and companies compete for and run the operations. Personally I think that is the ideal model for most public infrastructure. I see it as a pity that our freight rail and most utilities devolve into private monopolies/oligopolies.
The most overdue train and train video on this channel ever. You really should check out the 2004 Van Horne study for the best info on the concept you just described if you haven't done so already. It proposed a 240 km/h Jettrain using a double-tracked CP corridor with a few upgrades around Red Deer and the Blindman River which would need a new path around the city. Travel Time? 1H 45M... Down from the fastest time of 3H 30M under VIA... Thankfully a Ring Road has been built and part of the corridor is assumed to be for a rail bypass... And then of course there's the Ellis-Don Prairie Link concept which has been quiet as of late...
Should be: Medicine Hat to Grande Prairie & Straight line Wainwright, Bonnyville- Fort McMurray.... With a Lethbridge to Fort McMurray with a Major JUNCTION in Red Deer
@@RMTransit it’s always a pain anyways trains are awesome. After travelling in Europe by train you kinda don’t wanna go home. Im hoping Vancouver island can get some rail back like that case has been going
If one looks back more than a few years, there are actually less flights between the cities now, especially after Edmonton's airport authority closed the Municipal airport. We had hourly air shuttles between Calgary and the Muni, now we've got smaller planes and a handful of flights in each direction daily between the two cities.
Brightline is kind of amazing. I'd love to see more trains like that in the US. Is this more ambitious than the whole REM thing for Toronto? I can't wait for that to be built it's going to be amazing!
You mean again... As recently as the 70's Alberta had some form of rudimentary regional rail networks... Trains from Calgary to Lethbridge... Edmonton to Vegreville via Fort Sask, etc
Some other notes to add: For decades the Alberta provincial government has been quietly buying up ROW land between Edmonton and Calgary, including parcels of land for future stations in downtown Edmonton (east of Rogers Place) and downtown Calgary (between 9 and 11 ave SE, east of Olympic Way). In Calgary, vehicle bridges over the existing rail line along Nose Creek were designed with extra space for future rail tracks. It's really just a matter of hitting some arbitrary passenger volume threshold to trigger construction - but of course construction needs to start at least 5 years before we hit that threshold. Perhaps climate change and other political pressures will finally make it happen. Regarding snow, I've taken the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Kyoto in the winter, and JR reduces the train speed from 300 km/h to 150 km/h when there is snow accumulating on the tracks. Unfortunately, that increases the travel time from 2 hours to 4 hours. My point is, Reese correctly suggested a more modest train speed between Edmonton and Calgary - which in turn would minimize snow delays. For sure it would still be much, much faster than driving (or flying) in the same weather conditions.
The Mulroney Conservative government killed the existing VIA Rail once each way a day service between Edmonton and Calgary in 1986. The problem has always been getting people out of their cars and into public transit, but random development and poor integration of public transit has prevented that.
I decided a long time ago that if I'm ever in a position to decide on public transportation infrastructure, I am hiring you as a one time or board position consultant.
They've been talking about this since they mid 70's, I'll believe this when I actually see it. Like with the flying car (Affordable (it hasn't appeared yet either)), I know in my lifetime I don't believe that I'll ever see this develop (40+ years maybe, but in the near future...)
Just a little reminder that we do limit speeds with running through the snow, snow can become ice quite fast, and flying ice packs have broken train windows before, so in general, speeds are restricted from 300 to 220 or even 160 km/h. Still much better than what's possible on the road, of course.
@barvdw you don’t need to limit speeds because of snow. Operators can just run snowplow trains first. from experience, they don’t limit speeds on northern china’s high speed rail line even though they get tons of snow there. I don’t think they plan to limit the shinkansen to Sapporo either, one of the snowiest cities in the world
@@Trohnald I live in Belgium, and work for the Belgian railways. And yes, we will limit speeds during heavy snowfall, or high winds. Admittedly, we don't have many snowploughs, it doesn't snow all that often here. The risk isn't as much snow as it is the ice formation on the train, which when released, can cause great dammage. So if we get warnings about icile projections, we will limit the speed. From experience, I know the French and Germans do the same on their high-speed lines. As that speed is still 160-230 km/h, it only happens on the high-speed lines, though, as speed doesn't exceed 160 on almost all conventional lines.
What will happen in Alberta is that they'll spend 20M$ to assess what to do and in the end they'll do nothing....Par for the course here in backwoods Alberta...
To answer the question as to why VIA hasn’t done this yet, they get their funding for capital projects from the federal government and so far, they haven’t seen value in this. They actually did once offer service between Calgary and Edmonton, but there were many fatalities at the many grade crossings, so it was terminated in 1985 at the request of the Alberta government. In fact Laurence Decore (former mayor of Edmonton) once said of the Alberta VIA service, "It's a seedy, tacky service used by very few people. Its 200 level crossings make it an absolute calamity that has caused too many deaths." With endorsements like that, it would be a tough sell to politicians.
He's gone and so are the Lib's... Thankfully... The NDP is pro-transit... And so is Marlena... Thankfully... Kenney had a rather churlish attitude towards transit sadly but again... Gone!
I’m aware of where they get their funding, but it’s not so simple! “We don’t see value” is a very weak excuse. If they were to make a strong proposal between Edmonton and Calgary I’m sure they could find lots of political support!
@@RMTransit As Rick Mercer said, we are world leaders in studying HSR (there have been 26 studies of HSR in Ontario and Quebec since 1970, that’s about a study every 2 years), but it never gets funded. If we haven’t been able to get funding for HSR between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, what makes you think that Edmonton-Calgary would be more successful. Also, don’t forget that VIA is so cash strapped that they needed to ask the government to fund the HFR study, and even then the government is dragging its feet and until recently only funded a study to see if one day we should study HFR.
