Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 201

Thread: Even MORE High Speed Rail

  1. #101
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    You say people are hand waving and just offering opinions, what you fail to mention is that all those "opinions" are based off existing examples of massively subsidized communter rail around north america, as well as the lack of high speed rail between two place with the same population densities. So why if it doesn't work else where would it work here? How are Edmonton and Calgary any different than other North American cities? They aren't, they are based around vehicular transport. Unless it becomes highly cost prohibitive to drive to and from Calgary, you aren't going to see people migrating to this type of rail option. That is based upon occurances, trials and failures else where through out North America. Those are facts, you can call it more hand waving if you want, but you ignoring the reality of the situation.

  2. #102
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    There are many people here who participate in what is called a "hand waving argument." a lot of air is being pushed around, but there are no justiofications offered.
    And basically the only difference between the opinions here and the single Van Horne publication is they were given money by the government to put word to print. We have people on this forum who work in government, urban planning, engineering, government, but you're just brushing off everyone's opinion because it's not in print.

    I've already voiced the reasons why I doubt any study that comes out of political party-backed think tanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    the populations aren't big enough. well, that is just an opinion isn't it? back it up. tell me why. give an example where it didn't work (a real, non-MONORAIL example ).
    Give some examples of two singular centres of a million each have successfully had a HSR route built between them in a sustainable manner.

    People here have provided plenty of good reasons to doubt the Van Horne report yet there has not been any evidence outside of that singular report to back it up! Oh, wait, I already said that. Now we're getting into a useless circular argument.

  3. #103
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    and ten years of fighting off a bridge to Vancouver Island...
    That needed 10 years of fighting off? That project would be 10x more expensive than Edmonton-Calgary HSR and the fares needed for it to break even make BCFerries look like a bargain. That's if it could even be done with current technology.

    The situation with HSR in Alberta is less clear though, as the technical viability is certain and economic viability is at least debatable.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    and ten years of fighting off a bridge to Vancouver Island...
    That needed 10 years of fighting off? That project would be 10x more expensive than Edmonton-Calgary HSR and the fares needed for it to break even make BCFerries look like a bargain. That's if it could even be done with current technology.

    The situation with HSR in Alberta is less clear though, as the technical viability is certain and economic viability is at least debatable.
    Once one of theses silly ideas surfaces, it keeps coming back. Somebody will always insist that it's a really good idea. Here's the current government position:
    The costs of a fixed-link construction project may not be affordable for the provincial government to undertake for many years to come. As technology advances, the ministry would be willing to look at any proposals the private sector brings forward.

  5. #105
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    Give some examples of two singular centres of a million each have successfully had a HSR route built between them in a sustainable manner.
    this is precisely the problem. sometimes you have to be the first one to try it out. Calgary and Edmonton and Red Deer are in somewhat unique position. the geography, the financial stability of the government, the influx of people, the current and projected size, the economic forcasts make us unlike many other jurisdictions. if there are no other examples where it worked, do we never try? do you never sample foods you haven't seen others eat?

  6. #106
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    And basically the only difference between the opinions here and the single Van Horne publication is they were given money by the government to put word to print. We have people on this forum who work in government, urban planning, engineering, government, but you're just brushing off everyone's opinion because it's not in print.

    I've already voiced the reasons why I doubt any study that comes out of political party-backed think tanks.
    You said government twice...is that a Blazing Saddles moment?

    To get to the hand waving argument comment, replicating stat after stat on a forum is not really viable. As Myles says, there are plenty of studies out there, and as I mentioned there were a few at the Cameron library. All mention some type of high speed rail in the Edmonton/Calgary corridor, and all of them have this WELL after the Texas Triangle, the NE, the Vancouver to San Diego run, and some make mention of an ATL to MIA run.

    Edmonton/Calgary gets an appreciable nod in many of the private studies I've seen due to 2 things.

    1. The belief that Alberta is awash in money and that the government will build this. Funny that these reports and studies happen during the huge boom years, like the 1970's.

    2. We are a relatively captive market that needs to work together as a whole and the successful PWA AirBus routes tried to solidify that. However, they all ignore the YEG/YXD debate and the fact that Edmonton even HAS an international airport. One I read even mentions consolidating ALL air service to Calgary and having HSR serve Edmonton. Funny enough, when I looked at the author....hmmm.....

    I looked at a recent study for a Cinci - Clevaland run. This study was done by a company that specializes in all forms of transportation - http://www.temsinc-na.com/overview.htm. The study is here…. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/...inalReport.pdf This route has more stops and more catchment, and yet still no construction. They also have MAGLEV studies on Orlando to the Cape and others. They seem to have rather intricate statistical models for ridership and demand elasticity native to this consulting company's methodology.


    This run has 10 stops and a catchment of Metro Cleveland/Akron at ~2.9 million (already as big as ALL of Alberta), Metro Cinci/Hamilton OH at 1.9 million (but that includes Lousiville KY, and Indianapolis IN), we have an area clearly bigger and more clogged than we are. Add the midpoint stop of Columbus OH at approximately 1.5 million, and we have a 3 metro catchment of about 6.3 MILLION PEOPLE!!!! By 2010, according to the study, the population of Ohio is forecast to be just under 12 MILLION PEOPLE, or roughly 4 TIMES OF ALBERTA!!! Throw in the fact that the airspace over Cinci and Cleveland is more occupied than YYC or YEG. Cinci in March 2005 did more than ALL of this year at YEG. In May 2005, they were bigger than YYC. By August 2005, Cinci had MORE passengers and movements than YYC and YEG COMBINED!!!

    They assume the majority (over 70%) to be casual non business travelers. So, in their model;, unlike some of the assumptions made by Alberta reports and folks, the business travelers are NOT why they are building this according to this study. Again, the logistics and times for when you actually GET THERE are at issue, but then I guess I am just hand waving and haven't studied nor LIVED frequent city pair air travel before...

    Then they only cite some 74 minute time savings on a Cleveland-Cinci run. Their major savings come from air congestion savings, and from Cinci alone, I can see why. Now add Cleveland TRACON and its stat as the busiest center in North America as well as Cleveland's air traffic of 11 million in 2001, and we see a MAJOR increase in the potential for HSR to see the light of day.

    Funny, they say an initial capital outlay of ~800 million, must be a USD to CAD difference?

    So, we have a state that is ~4 times more populous, has about triple the air traffic in all metros combined, covers an area about 1/6th of Alberta, saves only 74 minutes over auto travel times, and STIL asks for government grants at all levels and does not even touch TOTAL travel times, just in transit. They do show a profit over 30 years assuming heavy government intervention (aka paying for the whole thing up front) as well as assumed soft costs as emissions avoidance into this calculation to bring up net social benefit. Even in this more populous and tighter spot, HSR is still years away. This is a population and air congestion rate that even many of the insulted hand wringers say would be about right to even CONSIDER HSR, and the area that IS THERE is NOT BUILDING IT!!! Again, we hand wringers have a lot more than subjective opinions, we’ve looked at it. So, here is yet ANOTHER study from a “respected” company with nice paper and pretty formulas, not backed by a political party, saying how wonderful HSR is, and yet it is not funded. Hmmmmm.

    Funny enough, I get this when I was looking at some old HSR studies I have, and tried to get the internet version…I get things like this from Columbus…

    Columbus, OH
    From John Kazalia,
    Your Guide to Columbus, OH.
    FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
    < Columbus Needs to Act Its Size
    |
    Main
    |
    Ohio State Fair Time! >
    High Speed Rail?
    The Other Paper reports the state is studying participating in a high-speed rail project that will connect us with Chicago, Fort Wayne, Pittsburgh, and uh, Lima. This prompted the Other Paper to let loose with a barrage of beautiful downtown Lima jokes.
    All kidding aside, this sounds nice, but if you read the fine print, this is less than 110 mile-per-hour high speed rail. Over 110 mph rail costs too much.
    Another proposal for Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland rail is also less than 110 miles an hour. Estimates are that a 3C trip would take 3 and a half hours and cost the passenger $90.
    But I can take Greyhound's 3C express in about 4 and a half hours and it costs about $30.
    Are we headed for another boondoggle? I hope all of this gets thoroughly thought through before we spend money on it. I'm all for rail, but I don't see the big advantage in this.
    Thursday July 24, 2003


    …and I am supposed to believe the Van Horne study as gospel? It seems I can find way more detractors in this more populous area than I can find supporters, and funny enough the EXACT SAME DEBATE and no bullet train!!!


    Edited for spelling mistakes...darn wireless keyboard. Yeah, that's my excuse...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  7. #107
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Now look at the Midwest studies - just google, there are several. This is still on the drawing boards in an area that includes O'Hare (80 million passengers) and Midway (18 million) to grab local traffic from and actually reduce air congestion....and it is just being planned.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  8. #108

    Default

    Richard, thanx for the patience to prepare such a well thought-out "take a whiff of reality". Nothing like a sniff test to discover that most pie on the sky is really a cow-pie, and it's mighty smelly.

  9. #109
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    yey! i finally got through to you guys (or at least to RichardS). thank you. this was informative and educational. i will have to check these out and get back if I find a flaw in comparison between the studies you report and alberta. thanks for not waving your hands this time around.

    mur--that is what your posts should look like if I were to take your opinion seriously.

  10. #110
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I wasn't waving my hands, I live this industry. This silly little "prove it" crap bugs me. All it took was 5 minutes on google, but it wasted about 1/2 hour of my time just to say, "Look, we're right." The sad part, you could have done the same thing and saved my fingertips and my wireless keyboard's battery... I am curious to see what really was different than what everyone else was saying a few posts back?

    I can find way more detractors for the exact same reasons for about 90% of the projects out there. The NE corridor and the PNW - San Diego run being some notable exceptions....but even then the PNW run is years away. Amtrak's version in the NE is, well, not making money. ...but then, we are just hand wringing.

    Oh, and as for my momorail comments, look at Seattle to see why I joke. An extremely liberal town and they haven't got that freaking thing past Pike in over 30 years....another "mass transit marvel" gone awry, even after folks in King/Pearce County have to pay a ~$100 mass transit tax on their car tabs....but then, I am just wringing my hands...but BOY DO THEY HAVE STUDIES FROM RESPECTABLE INSITIUTIONS singing monorail......monorail.....MONORAIIIILLLLLLL.....* gasp* monorail!!!!


    Funny, in the 1992 movie Singles, one character even had the HSR dream and pitched it to the Seattle mayor, played by Tom Skerritt. He had the facts and the "paybacks", but the Mayor said no and in a biting comment on reality, he said, "People like their cars." This after being talked to for awhile about the virtues of this train, it came down to the political reality that cars will be it and that there will always be a want for that transportation more than trains in America. Talk about a small part of that movie being art imitating life...a simple comment on reality killing "respected" studies.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  11. #111

    Default

    There is a show starting at 1am called "Ultimate Trains" on Discovery Channel (32).

  12. #112
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Seen it. It is more of a showcase of the technology and not the feasibility...but nonetheless an uber-cool demonstration...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  13. #113
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    (...)
    8. The report lists a wide array of intangible benefits we would see from HSR, from time saved to improved integration to increased investment stemming from improved integration. This is what we really get for our $2.5B (2003 dollars) and this is where the decision is. Look at the opportunity costs. What else could we do with that money. ( I suggest we keep to infrastructure projects- bringing health care into this is like talking about affordable housing for seniors when discussing churchill Square)

    I'll trade you SLRT, NLRT(to nait and Northgate), the art gallery and The 23rd and gateway interchange for edmontons' share of the train.

    or

    WLRT, and a free flow Yellowhead?

    How about the Edmonton clinic, the provincial museum and U of A's new science Building?

    (...)
    Agree and disagree. I only brought up the other ideals such as health care when the discussion left from what to to with the BUDGETED infrastructure money and became this "creative thinking" bit by finding 1.4 billion in Tory "waste". That is found money, not money already allocated to infrastructure and they are just re-prioritizing or found it by saving money on needed projects. As "found money", it is wide open to that argument of a square vs housing - it was unclaimed before.

    It is like winning a $10k scratch and lose ticket. You never had that 10K before, so now all sorts of options open up to you. Wifey wants a new dress, Jenny needs braces, you want a car...but none of this was budgeted previously and you are not sacrificing previously agreed to expenses...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  14. #114
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    I wasn't waving my hands, I live this industry. This silly little "prove it" crap bugs me. All it took was 5 minutes on google, but it wasted about 1/2 hour of my time just to say, "Look, we're right." The sad part, you could have done the same thing and saved my fingertips and my wireless keyboard's battery... I am curious to see what really was different than what everyone else was saying a few posts back?

    I can find way more detractors for the exact same reasons for about 90% of the projects out there. The NE corridor and the PNW - San Diego run being some notable exceptions....but even then the PNW run is years away. Amtrak's version in the NE is, well, not making money. ...but then, we are just hand wringing.

    Oh, and as for my momorail comments, look at Seattle to see why I joke. An extremely liberal town and they haven't got that freaking thing past Pike in over 30 years....another "mass transit marvel" gone awry, even after folks in King/Pearce County have to pay a ~$100 mass transit tax on their car tabs....but then, I am just wringing my hands...but BOY DO THEY HAVE STUDIES FROM RESPECTABLE INSITIUTIONS singing monorail......monorail.....MONORAIIIILLLLLLL.....* gasp* monorail!!!!


    Funny, in the 1992 movie Singles, one character even had the HSR dream and pitched it to the Seattle mayor, played by Tom Skerritt. He had the facts and the "paybacks", but the Mayor said no and in a biting comment on reality, he said, "People like their cars." This after being talked to for awhile about the virtues of this train, it came down to the political reality that cars will be it and that there will always be a want for that transportation more than trains in America. Talk about a small part of that movie being art imitating life...a simple comment on reality killing "respected" studies.
    i am in the process of reviewing all of what you have said. hold your horses. and there are a lot of people out there who love to pretend to know all. i don't know who you are or what you do. so, i don't have a blind trust in your comments. you have, however, demonstrated a lot more thought than many out here in your posts. that earns respect.

  15. #115
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,092

    Default

    Not having the inclination to do any research, all I can say is the HSR idea appears to be pie in the sky.
    We should concentrate our time and energy on more realistic and practical ideas, like Breezy_Bri's "Mount Edmonton".

  16. #116
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60
    Not having the inclination to do any research, all I can say is the HSR idea appears to be pie in the sky.
    We should concentrate our time and energy on more realistic and practical ideas, like Breezy_Bri's "Mount Edmonton".
    if it is tall enough, maybe one could pick up enough speed to ski down to calgary.

  17. #117
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Too bad Calgary is ~100 meters higher above sea level than Edmonton...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  18. #118
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    that shouldn't be a problem if you ski well enough. how about a zip line? Put up towers (here about 100m taller than there) and zip all the way!

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    that shouldn't be a problem if you ski well enough. how about a zip line? Put up towers (here about 100m taller than there) and zip all the way!
    One is reminded of the Rhinoceros Party's platform, which included creating a bike trail from coast to coast, which is fine, but what made it glorious was their vehement insistence that it be downhill the entire way in both directions.

  20. #120
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Too bad Calgary is ~100 meters higher above sea level than Edmonton...
    Actually almost 400m (Edmonton is at 660m ASL, Calgary is at 1050m ASL). But hey, we couldn't really call it a mountain if it was only 100m high.

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    that shouldn't be a problem if you ski well enough. how about a zip line? Put up towers (here about 100m taller than there) and zip all the way!
    One is reminded of the Rhinoceros Party's platform, which included creating a bike trail from coast to coast, which is fine, but what made it glorious was their vehement insistence that it be downhill the entire way in both directions.
    Yeah.... they called it "coast to coast", and to do it they proposed levelling the Rockies. They'd have my vote in a heartbeat.

  22. #122
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Too bad Calgary is ~100 meters higher above sea level than Edmonton...
    Actually almost 400m (Edmonton is at 660m ASL, Calgary is at 1050m ASL). But hey, we couldn't really call it a mountain if it was only 100m high.

    oops...my bad Brain fart when I saw 1000m in another document...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  23. #123
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman

    Yeah.... they called it "coast to coast", and to do it they proposed levelling the Rockies. They'd have my vote in a heartbeat.
    I like their platform for repealing the law of gravity.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  24. #124
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I found the Ohio 3C rail link study.
    three things that jump out:

    1. the study says it is a viable option and can be set up as early as 2010. basically meaning--start digging

    2. the length of one ride is 3 hours. i checked flight times--you can get all the way across ohio in 47min with continental. no wonder ohio had to wait until their three centres grew to a total of nearly 6 million before this becomes viable. In alberta, the link will provide time savings over flying (45min flight + 20-25 min to airport times 2 equals 1.5 hours + taxi of the plane times (?) and costs $150 for the flight + $100 for cab rides to/ from each airport=$250 for the trip). a trin trip edm-cal is going to be nearly the same length of time and will cost less than $250 (this is my hope not a fact--if it is too expensive, I wouldn't use it either).

    3. One of the sources of revenue I have forgotten is fast shipping and parcel service on HSR (ohio study mentiones that) and food service on the train. I though of it before, but they actually include the projections in their revenue calculations.

    so, perhaps, while we are not as populated as Ohio, we have some advantages that will make this rail link as viable as theirs.

  25. #125
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ALL studies say it is a viable option with heavy "givernment" funding for the initial capital outlay. Give me one that says no government funding.

    With the government funding all dreams, let's build a giant Treboucher with Manulife as a counterweight so that we can hurl pods to Calgary. They can build one too using one of the Banker's towers to throw cargo back at us. Maybe we'll hurl giant pink bunnies for sport to see if we can take out MylesC's house in Lacombe.

    Parcel shipping would be included in any HSR proposal, but that too is limited. Seriously, how many parcels just "gotta get there" each and every hour.Once a day with Fed Ex works.

    The 3C study realizes that business travelers will call and fax most of the time, as we normally do now. We only travel when it requires a face to face. Our line does not even come close to the amount of people that would take leisure travel here between our two small city pairs.


    The advantages you list do not equate to the obvious omission, they aren't building it. You also didn't look at many of the detractors websites. Then, you get the funny little blurb in the 3C study where they debate 1 track or 2, and better yet, sharing with freight trains which will get priority. Do this with CP and we will get the same result, with a freight train being the winner.

    So, we look at Greenfield in Alberta. Higher costs yet, but the ultimate flex.

    ...and please do NOT think that a cake or two will account for the 4 million less potential riders. Seriously. Ohio's roads are significantly more clogged than ours, and we will pick the car's flexibility if the difference is a mere 30 mins one way.

    I know I drive to Calgary because I go when I want, stay as long as I want, and leave when I want. I am on no one's schedule but mine and my client's dinner desires.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  26. #126
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    it is true, all fo them call for government spending. the reason being, as strange as it may sound at first, the government will profit from such line more than a private business.

    Here is the reason:

    Each study (the alberta one or ohio one) cite that there is going to be a huge windfal (billions of dollars) for the province (or state) through spin-off benefits. Government is the only one that benefits from every economic activity in the province through taxation. Every new transaction that happens because of the HSR will benefit both (maybe all three) levels of government. Every dollar that the line brings in to the whole province benefits the government and the people living under this government.

    a private business wouldn't go into HSR now because all they profit from is revenues that directly associate with HSR usage.

    so, it really is a debate about the role of the government and whether they should attract business opportunities into the province. If you think they shouldn't make such investments--you then would be against HSR. My view is that they should invest to help us to diversify the economy (not just through HSR but other projects as well).

  27. #127
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    it is true, all fo them call for government spending. the reason being, as strange as it may sound at first, the government will profit from such line more than a private business.
    Then get the private sector out of it and call it mass transit...knowing full well that this will be a loss leader...

    The profit to government is not monetary, but in "social good". Hence what you are sayng is that a company that touts HSR as an environmentally friendly choice is full of BS, when really they just want money. Therefore, companies will never truly be FOR the environment? I couldn't build this because I actually CARE for the social good? The social good couldn't be an allure for me to spin for even MORE profit?

    I think that if this was viable, the private secotr would do this just like airlines. True, airlines were crown at one time, but they have spun off for the most part. Why should we go back to the 1930's style of thinking for HSR, when that technology is already here and supposidly "viable"?
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  28. #128
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I have lost the link to environment... if what you are saying is that HSR is not environmentally firendly, than I would disagree. While they require energy to run on, they substitute one form of energy 9gasoline in cars or jet fuel in planes) for another. If the "other" is electric motor--they are much more efficient than any internal combustion engine currently in use.

    as for private business--they can be expected, in a p3, to participate to pick up some of the cost and run the operations to reduce the immediate burden on the taxpayer.

    you make an interesting point with airlines. government had to get into that business for variety of reasons (mostly sovereignty and national pride) but also due to initial investment being too great for a private company to do as a startup. in the end, airline industry proved to be very valuable and benefitial to the communities it serves, while not being as great for the pocket books of airline investors. HSR has the same potential. Start it as a crown corp and then spin it off if you want to.

  29. #129
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Why dont we skip this whole HSR technology and get calgary to build teleporter pads to match the ones we already have at bay station. Mag-Lev is so last year.

    [/Then get the private sector out of it and call it mass transit...knowing full well that this will be a loss leader...
    If we (the province) ever do decide to drop 3B on this, this is the ideal case. Why subsidize CP?

  30. #130
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    If the province drops 3B on this, it is not to subsidize CP, but to invest into our own province.

  31. #131
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    While it wouldn't be the motivation, we would be effectivly subsidizing CP, by giving them an upgraded, double track route for free.

  32. #132
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    as for private business--they can be expected, in a p3, to participate to pick up some of the cost and run the operations to reduce the immediate burden on the taxpayer.
    does this answer how I think it should go down?

    in the end, if we benefit, what harm is it for a private company to benefit as well? do you want us to do things that hurt private business? c'mon! really, what is your point when you voice opposition to building something that also benefits CP?

  33. #133
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Mainly I'm opposed because CP is promoting this, and because, in my opinion, CP's benefit is what made their route the #1 option.

  34. #134
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    so, if it was, say, CN or another start-up railway company you would be in support of it?

    how about Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company?

  35. #135
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    No, but strangely they are absent in even wanting to run this thing...there are 2 greenfield options here...

    It is not about where CP is located. It is more about the questioning of the numbers on a track set that DOES need some upgrading and strangely the numbers for HSR on the CP route are low in my opinion. Plus, with CP asking for subsidies for freight lines to Ft Mac makes me go hmmmm. If there is so much money to be made, go and build it.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  36. #136
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    No, but strangely they are absent in even wanting to run this thing...there are 2 greenfield options here...

    It is not about where CP is located. It is more about the questioning of the numbers on a track set that DOES need some upgrading and strangely the numbers for HSR on the CP route are low in my opinion. Plus, with CP asking for subsidies for freight lines to Ft Mac makes me go hmmmm. If there is so much money to be made, go and build it.
    Exactly! If the ROI figures were present the private companies would have invested their own capital to establish the service.

    Nuff said already.....

  37. #137
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    except that CP, CN or any other rail does not make money directly from yet another ugrader or another oil-sands project. they don't make any money off of sales of oil or gas. the benefit is indirect, through more future service if new plants are built. however, once oil sands reach capacity, there will be no new construction and the need for rail will diminish.
    Alberta government, on the other hand, earns royalties from every barrel sold. So an initial investment into railway will continue generating funds even if rail isn't used anymore to move construction equipment. From this point of view, I see nothing wrong with AB gov subsidizing CP or CN or anyone else--it will result in profits to the public purse. Otherwise, AB gov't will have to not just double, but tripple hwy 63 to accomodate the movement of equipment and not slowing down the development of the sands.
    HSR is in a similar boat. Ab gov't could save money on road repairs and earn money from increased business opportunities by building HSR. A rail company isn't in the same position--the only profits they expect are from collection of fares and hopes of increase in ridership. That is why all the studies mentioned on here call for public funding--it will be much more benefitial to the public than to a private business.

  38. #138
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Then widen 63 and offer point to point truck service...

    2 birds, one stone, and we have an access road for Wood Buffalo long after the construction is gone to open up the entire route to settlement..
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  39. #139
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Then widen 63 and offer point to point truck service...

    2 birds, one stone, and we have an access road for Wood Buffalo long after the construction is gone to open up the entire route to settlement..
    what is the cost of that? maintenance cost? cost of delays due to weather? cost of accidents and fatalities on a busy highway?
    are you sure a retrofit of an existing rail line isn't:
    a. more cost effective
    b. more reliable (fewer winter storm delays)
    c. will reduce the load on 63
    d. safer means for public transit and maybe even less costly (2 tanks of gas for a return trip can run over $100 at todays prices and a return trip on greyhound/ red arrow is oevr $100 as well)

    how did we get on hwy 63? back to HSR to Calgary... although my dream is to connect edmonton with HSR to Regina, Sask, FtMac, GrPraire, Kamloops through Jasper and regular rail to many other communities around to turn us into a true centre of the west... and on to world domination

  40. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Then widen 63 and offer point to point truck service...

    2 birds, one stone, and we have an access road for Wood Buffalo long after the construction is gone to open up the entire route to settlement..
    what is the cost of that? maintenance cost? cost of delays due to weather? cost of accidents and fatalities on a busy highway?
    are you sure a retrofit of an existing rail line isn't:
    a. more cost effective
    b. more reliable (fewer winter storm delays)
    c. will reduce the load on 63
    d. safer means for public transit and maybe even less costly (2 tanks of gas for a return trip can run over $100 at todays prices and a return trip on greyhound/ red arrow is oevr $100 as well)

    how did we get on hwy 63? back to HSR to Calgary... although my dream is to connect edmonton with HSR to Regina, Sask, FtMac, GrPraire, Kamloops through Jasper and regular rail to many other communities around to turn us into a true centre of the west... and on to world domination
    THANK YOU. Now I finally understand that this whole HSR thing of yours is actually a cruel joke. I kind of thought it was right off the bat, but a little confirmation is good for one's soul.

  41. #141
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    world domination was a joke. the rest is what i think the short and long term plans of the capital of alberta should be.

  42. #142
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    I'm seeing a real conflation of HSR and heavy industrial rail.

    I don't think I've EVER heard the argument of the line being built up to Mac to carry passengers. The government was talking solely heavy, industrial rail.

  43. #143
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    While the government was talking heavy rail, there were those that jumped on the "why not a passenger line too" idea. It is not like they couldn't add passenger cars to the same train..
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  44. #144
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    While the government was talking heavy rail, there were those that jumped on the "why not a passenger line too" idea. It is not like they couldn't add passenger cars to the same train..
    True, but I just wanted to point out that I never actually heard the government proposal bring up passenger transportation as well in the case of Fort Mac and the HSR rail doesn't do much for goods transportation between Calgary and Edmonton on its own.

    Since apparently I can't even ask for clarification on the poll in the poll thread...I'll post something here. I voted yes for under $80 return. I asked the point of clarification since I don't own a vehicle - if the stations are central and connected to transit then I'd be fine with it.

  45. #145
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Yes, that would be a valid assumption. If it ISN'T connected to transit, then this thing truly would be a waste of time.

    BUT, you still need a park and ride for the people who drive. No matter how hard the train. transit, and anti-car nazi's want to try, the majority of this population loves the freedom of the car. So, now we need a decent sized plot of land at each and every station.


    Hence why I want the money for HSR put into LRT lines first, LRT and even BRT will be the ONLY way to get people out of their cars and onto this dream line w/o having to make a massive P&R onsite. There is no way on God's green earth that I would take a bus that stops every 50 freaking feet to get to the station.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  46. #146
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Yes, that would be a valid assumption. If it ISN'T connected to transit, then this thing truly would be a waste of time.
    Tell that to Greyhound

  47. #147
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    Since apparently I can't even ask for clarification on the poll in the poll thread...I'll post something here. I voted yes for under $80 return. I asked the point of clarification since I don't own a vehicle - if the stations are central and connected to transit then I'd be fine with it.
    Sorry, MylesC, I didn't mean to upset you. I just wanted to keep the discussion to one place instead of a multiple of threads, that is all.

    In the poll I do wish people consider the train locations being central (downtown) and well-coonected to roads and transit.

  48. #148
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Not upset at all. I kept my comment related specifically to clarification on what you were asking in the poll thread so I could answer the poll accurately.

  49. #149
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i added that clarification in the poll thread.

  50. #150
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    out of 18 people voting on my little poll (i know--statistically very insignificant number) 15 would ride if the cost is $40 return (including those who voted for higher amounts), 12 if the cost is $80 or less. That is pretty encouraging.

    Of course--would be nice to have more people vote and perhaps, later I will put up another poll to gather the number of rides. If it is just once every 5 years, then what's the point? Otherwise, if it is a few times a month--that would be great!

    the current poll is at http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...pic.php?t=1290

  51. #151
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    so, now that few more people have joined C2E community and more people are watching as guests (c'mon sign up and participate ) I would like to bring this one back to life to see if any more new thoughts on this matter have emerged. I have said what I thought about it. Richard and few others have written arguments (more against than for). If you have ideas about it, yes' or no's--type away.

  52. #152

    Default

    let's keep this Pandora's Box closed like a time capsule until we see our beautiful province hit the 5 Million mark (or more).

    Until then, I'll built a temporary service between Ponoka and Lacombe for the low fee of 400 mil.
    Shameless Urbanophile

  53. #153
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Here is a small example of the many endeavours that can be helped along or spurred into being if a fast and convenient rail line existed between the two cities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Journal
    Edmonton, Calgary theatrical forces unite
    Brash, talented group of young actors, writers and directors seek to change the face of Alberta theatre

    Liz Nicholls
    The Edmonton Journal


    Friday, January 26, 2007
    see full article here:
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...6-10e187e4a12c

    no the article doesn't mention HSR, but this is just one of many things people often overlook that will benefit from having an HSR.

    who knows how many other cultural or business ventures could result in having such an access to both cities?

  54. #154

    Default

    Grasping in vain at the ether these days, aren't we...

    Why not transfer cattle on HSR, instead of on those stinky trucks while we're at it? I'm sure that will improve the economics of your white elephant on high-speed rollerskates.

  55. #155
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Grasping in vain at the ether these days, aren't we...

    Why not transfer cattle on HSR, instead of on those stinky trucks while we're at it? I'm sure that will improve the economics of your white elephant on high-speed rollerskates.
    i am just trying to open some of the closed minds to possibilities other than the obvious. the spin-offs will be greater than anticipated by most.

    and cattle has been tranfered by train for a very long time. i don't see why you would want a cow downtown edmonton, but if you could justify it--go nuts. personally, i am not in a cow moving business.

  56. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    white elephant on high-speed rollerskates.
    I swear, I'm going to start buying keyboards in bulk.

  57. #157
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish

    i am just trying to open some of the closed minds to possibilities other than the obvious. the spin-offs will be greater than anticipated by most.
    Be careful on who you mind you select as closed. Some here have been involved in the studies that say hell no, and others that say forget it unless this thing does 300+ km/h, and even others that are extremely suspicious of CP’s motives. With respect to closed mindedness...there is something to be said for a closed mind who can't admit when a topic is done.

    I’ll make you a deal. Find a study for North American High Speed Rail, and I mean HIGH speed, that does the following:

    1) is 100% private funded –OR- utilized interest bearing loans for financing (government or institutional banking),
    2) demonstrates measurable savings in travel time with our distances in mind, INCLUDING travel to and from the station, -OR-
    3) a self sustaining example in our demographic even if it is somewhat built by public grants and then handed over to another entity. Remember, we would be just a single line with (if each and every person in the metro area would take the train) about 2.3 million potential customers.

    …and I’ll entertain reading this more. Otherwise, I can easily say that I showed you studies that are at best a panacea of earnest belief based on wishful thinking, with little to no movement over years of talk.

    OR, stick a fork in this...it's done.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  58. #158
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i am opening the minds of those who wish to move cattle on high speed rail. Can you hear the a cow moo at 300km/hr?

    as i have said it before, there have been stduies mentioned previously on here that claim HSR can be beneficial. even the ohio study that Richard brought up doesn't negate the concept outright. it talks about government participation if i remember this correctly.

    the hsr need not be 100% private. it is a mass transit that is traditionally government's. I have tried explaining it earlier how governments don't pay 100% of the cost, but more like 80 or so due to the money they get back in the form of income taxes immediately. and another tricle down in taxes from the manufacturing sector that feeds supplies to the construction. it is far more economical for a government to fund this or even assist by investing back the money they expect to collect in extra taxes.

    governments also benefit from every single other economic benefit that this line produces while a business such as CP makes money only exclusively on rail-related operation. for example, if the government brings in extra jobs, more people will pay taxes, buy homes, spend their money on various goods and services. CP would not see a cent of this financial spinoff while the government will. as such, this line will be more of an investment and applying a private business principles here are not so straight forward.

    Red arrow claims to be beating flying "downtown-to-downtown" and that is at 120km/hr. hsr's that are available (not even maglev, though that would be great) beat that spead with minimal line upgrades. it isn't unreasonable to expect 200-250km/hr train cutting the trip down to under 2 hours dt to dt.

    i like talking about this. gives me extra pleasure. this is my little battle. i don't like eating it raw. i like my arguments well done. i'll wait for that crazy cattle on hsr to bring be something to chew on.

  59. #159
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    as i have said it before, there have been stduies mentioned previously on here that claim HSR can be beneficial. even the ohio study that Richard brought up doesn't negate the concept outright. it talks about government participation if i remember this correctly.
    Yes, again, it talks about the government basically hemorrhaging money into this just to get it going...or the "panacea of earnest belief based on wishful thinking, with little to no movement over years of talk". Or in Alberta, we call it Van Horne...

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    the hsr need not be 100% private. it is a mass transit that is traditionally government's. I have tried explaining it earlier how governments don't pay 100% of the cost, but more like 80 or so

    I'll stop you RIGHT there. 80% of a billion, that is still 800 million urinated into the wind. WHOOOPEEEEE!!! Sign me up now!!! Heck no, let’s not make it private. I know several banks that would throw 800 million into the air, so why shouldn’t we taxpayers. …but we all know that any real HSR is in the multi-billions…


    If we are jsut going to throw money around, I bet you for $800 million alone I could sell 2 new arenas, domed stadiums, and a couple concert halls in Edmonton and Calgary before HSR gets accepted. Talk about your proven and real tax returns, spending increases by John Q Average, and TANGIBLE ROI. Heck, I would get crucified if I didn’t spend a lot of that on many many other priorities.

    Quote Originally Posted by grish

    Red arrow claims to be beating flying "downtown-to-downtown" and that is at 120km/hr. hsr's that are available (not even maglev, though that would be great) beat that spead with minimal line upgrades. it isn't unreasonable to expect 200-250km/hr train cutting the trip down to under 2 hours dt to dt.
    My friend, the "beating" is in comfort, convenience, and "class". That is what they are boasting about. Time is tertiary because they really can't beat flying's time or frequency.

    Funny, you still CAN'T find ONE place with even any of the conditions I describe above. Not ONE. Why? ...BECAUSE THERE ISN'T one. This pipe dream relies 100% on government hand-outs to "develop technology" or "deploy MADE IN AMERICA solutions" (like the Atlanta Maglev contest) OR is a simple way for cash strapped railroads to sneak in extensive line upgrades at taxpayer expense (aka ANY HSR proposal that will share existing heavy rail lines or even new lines that have surprisingly the same gauge and turning radius “just in case” we need a freight train to go there, and I am supposed to believe that HSR gets priority *cough cough Van Horne cough cough*). Funny how CP suddenly "bellied up to the bar" when sharing their ROW was the "best" route. Hmm, the Port of PR is huge, and they could need more capacity between EDM and CGY as a result. Let me digest that one for awhile..

    I'll bet I see a freer flowing Gateway/Cal Trail, LRT to the airport, a new logo for the city, a new bridge, LRT to West Ed, LRT to St. Albert, a downtown arena, 30 homeless shelters, a plethora of affordable housing projects, and some giant hockey-stick statue keeping the bat company on 118th BEFORE we see HSR. I'll even bet 16th ave N in Calgary has a better chance of losing a few traffic lights before HSR is real. Hell, I’ll throw in a true agreed and negotiated Edmonton regional deal, not one mandated by the province!! Why? Oh, I don't know, possibly that these are the pressing priorities.

    ...but you can go for your "well done" argument. Personally, you'd better take it off the BBQ, it is in flames.

    Oh look, the pretty picture again...

    President and CEO - Airshow.

  60. #160
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    $800 will not be ****** down the wind. it will be used to build something tangible. i think it has merrit. you like to characterize it as pissing money away. perhaps you can join the cattle shipping boy in a pretty good comedy routine but it doesn't make for a 1/3 of a decent argument. you sound a lot more credible when you don't resort to stolen cartoons to make your argument, though it was cute and funny.

    we see the role of the government totally differently. that's fine.

    edm calgary by air:

    30 min to the airport, 40min + (likely more) at the airport, 10 min taxi, 30 min in the air, 10 min taxi, 10 min at the airport, 30 min from airport=2 hours and 40 minutes at least fragmented and interrupted.

    red arrow:
    5 min at the bus stop, 5 min to southside stop, 2 hours and 40 min to calgary dt=2 hours and 50 min.

    I can see the claim being not just convenience. I use the service regularly.

    you also gave me homework to find a study that satisfies your conditions. I don't agree with your conditions as per my previous posts. you shouldn't assign stuff that is at its very core flawed. and who are you to give homework anyways?

    yet another reason we will not agree on this is due to our very different opinion about who this will serve and the purpose of this service. you look at it as simply a private business venture that is solely for moving people between cities quickly, inexpensively and conveniently.

    i see it as an investment into sustaining future growth. in addition to moving people quickly, etc.. it will stimulate further growths in a variety of areas and a variety of businesses of the whole region into something more cohesive beyond the current situation. it will help balance and spread the growth evenly through the province. it will strengthen the arts, tourism, science and innovation, and many other areas.

  61. #161
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    you shouldn't assign stuff that is at its very core flawed. and who are you to give homework anyways?

    .


    OMG - TOO FUNNY...from the guy who wanted research and facts and data on this thread...and I obliged. Funnier still is when solid contra points are thrown your way, you ignore them. Then, you try to manipulate your equations to make them fit I.e. your Red Arrow example, just like your high speed example, OMITS TRAVEL TO AND FROM THE FREAKING TERMINAL, but you certainly added it in YEG! Then when you get all in a huff and backed in a corner, you decry the same request for facts and data as “who am I to give homework”???

    I give you those terms BECAUSE THE REST OF THE TRANSPORATION INDUSTRY MUST ABIDE BY THEM!!!! For the sweet name of whatever you think is holy, tell me how that is FLAWED?? HSR should be no different. Otherwise, I want to start an airline. Eddie, gimmie 50 billion dollars, and we could have the greatest airline ever with ramjet engines and caviar economy class and 20 minute travel times to Tokyo. Just look at the backlash the airline industry took when it went begging to Congress for post 9/11 money. People were furious. If they cannot live on their own, they should consolidate or die…and that is what’s happening. Look to Delta and Northwest to cease to exist as late as 2008. The model cannot sustain itself, the market shall correct.

    There ae many things that have more merit than HSR. Funny, I seem to have physical evidence that folks in government and others think similarly - the deafening silence of no HSR built here over the past 30 years, and its amazing lack of traction still.

    There are a plethora of "sustaining future growth" initiatives that trump High Speed Rail.

    Oh, and are you afraid to take my bet? I'm serious here.

    My "stolen" cartoon (whatever) comes from the very premise you are trying to espouse. Take the hint, you're starting to sound like Lyle. ...or maybe sell it to Shelbyville.

    ...and with that, I grow tired. Notice grish that the only one keeping this alive is you. All I am telling you is that although HSR would be neat (and maglev especially), our market is not going to support it. When I see a successful one in the Tri-State area (or other large North American market), when construction costs come down to manageable levels so that a real NETWORK could be built, when I see Bombardier and other rail corporate whores actually delivering on their promises and NOT coming back for more grant money, and when we grow about 3 times bigger, let's talk.

    Until then, we have options (and by your example, I should take the bus regularly and Red Arrow should have a terminal in all 4 corners of the city). Now, off to lobby for some real rail project that will get built - full LRT spines for Edmonton and Calgary.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  62. #162
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    c'mon Richard... you know they're going to build the HSR,
    when I'm 165 years old
    You're right... the market is not there. When Edmonton gets
    a population of at least 2 million, Calgary 2 million, Red Deer
    a million, and Ponoka and Carstairs a half million... then just
    maybe

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Jeez. Have some vision. Let's not just ask for a teeny little line from Calgary to Edmonton and back again. I want Japanese style bullet trains that also carry containers going in a big circle from Vancouver through Kelowna and Banff to Calgary, up to Edmonton through GP, and then over to Jasper, through the mountains to the new port they're building in Prince Rupert, then back down the coast through Whistler and back into Vancouver.



















    Cause if you're going to have an unrealistic fantasy, go the whole hog.

    If RichardS can re-use his cartoon, I get to re-use my sarcasm. :P

  64. #164
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,601

    Default


  65. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Grish, be honoured that someone devoted the time to render you in gif...

    I'm with Richard 100000000000% here. Time to lock this thread and put 'er in the archives, or a very deep grave.

  66. #166
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,072

    Default

    [Nostalgic]Remember the old Dayliner to Calgary? I took that trip on a couple of occasions, and it was pretty good. - Not high-speed, but it made the trip in a couple of hours if I remember correctly, and it arrived in Calgary right at the Calgary Tower. (Remember passenger trains to the center of cities?)[/Nostalgic]

  67. #167
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 24karat
    [Nostalgic]Remember the old Dayliner to Calgary? I took that trip on a couple of occasions, and it was pretty good. - Not high-speed, but it made the trip in a couple of hours if I remember correctly, and it arrived in Calgary right at the Calgary Tower. (Remember passenger trains to the center of cities?)[/Nostalgic]
    Ah, the dayliner... memories... not to fret, I won't sing...
    I think it took at least 4 hours though, maybe 5, from Edmonton
    to Calgary, cuz it stopped at nearly every town along the way.
    And of course the railway follows the old Highway 2, which
    is now mostly Highway 2A, which isn't the most direct route.
    When did they remove the dayliner, mid 80s sometime??

  68. #168
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,092

    Default

    They got rid of the Dayliner in the late 70's/early 80's if my fading memory serves me correctly.
    One of the major reasons the dayliner went was it's accident record, because it was only one car and went relatively fast a lot of drivers didn't notice it. The number of fatal level crossing accidents was terrible.

  69. #169
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60
    They got rid of the Dayliner in the late 70's/early 80's if my fading memory serves me correctly.
    One of the major reasons the dayliner went was it's accident record, because it was only one car and went relatively fast a lot of drivers didn't notice it. The number of fatal level crossing accidents was terrible.
    Yeah, most of the level crossings were only marked with
    the crossbucks... they still are that way actually.
    But it is easier for a car driver to see a 100-car freight train
    then it is a 1-car dayliner.

  70. #170
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The Dayliner was accident prone...too many people couldn't figure out that if you race a train to a crossing, and it's a tie, YOU LOSE!!!
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  71. #171
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    OMG - TOO FUNNY...from the guy who wanted research and facts and data on this thread...and I obliged. Funnier still is when solid contra points are thrown your way, you ignore them. Then, you try to manipulate your equations to make them fit I.e. your Red Arrow example, just like your high speed example, OMITS TRAVEL TO AND FROM THE FREAKING TERMINAL, but you certainly added it in YEG! Then when you get all in a huff and backed in a corner, you decry the same request for facts and data as “who am I to give homework”???
    follow me on this... DOWNTOWN to DOWNTOWN Red Arrow beats flying. THERE IS NO TRAVEL TO DOWNTOWN BUS TERMINAL FROM DOWNTOWN. I FIND IT VERY AMUSING TO WRITE IN CAPITALS--MAKES WHAT YOU SAY SO MUCH MORE CORRECT!

    I haven't manipulated a single calculation. And, saying "freaking" terminal makes your line of reasoning so much more coherent and correct.

    ps
    a promise--i will revisit this every now and then. if you think this issue is dead--don't reply.

  72. #172
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    If you want to leave at 12 noon, Monday Jan 29th, for Calgary,
    and come back on Jan 31st...
    Both fares include seat selection and two pieces of luggage.
    Red Arrow is $120.86 return, including all taxes and surcharges.
    Air Canada is $320.48 return, including all taxes and surcharges.
    Both return from Calgary around noon on Jan 31st.
    Now let's say you don't have a vehicle, so you need to get
    to where the bus or plane leaves from.
    ETS bus to Holiday Inn Downtown for $2.25, and $2.25 to get
    back home on Wednesday.
    To get to the airport, a taxi would probably be at least $80 return.
    Sky Shuttle is $25 return, plus the $4.50 return for ETS to get to it.
    So far, Red Arrow is going to cost $125.36, and Air Canada
    is going to cost a minimum of $349.98.
    Then there's the time factor, which was pointed out elsewhere
    in this thread.
    Then there's also the transportation costs in Calgary.
    Red Arrow sounds like the better deal to me

  73. #173
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Has anyone changed his mind yet?


    No??


    I'm still in the 'not anytime soon' catagory.

    You'll have to try harder to convince me that it would be worth while, and grish, I want to be convinced because HSR is so cool.

  74. #174
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    follow me on this... DOWNTOWN to DOWNTOWN Red Arrow beats flying. .
    Grow up grish...not everyone lives downtown. Deal. Add that transit time grish....you don't LIVE in the transit center. For you to ADD travel time to the airport manipulates the calculation. Deal. You've been proven wrong yet again. Deal.

    You've manipulated the calculation by simply omitting this fact. To use your logic, Airport to Airport, the plane wins. Even add security time, the plane wins. If you want to do destination to destination, then that is the comparison. That is what you did with the bus. Each method of travel requires some travel time at either end. Walking, cab, rental car, waiting for a friend/collegue, whatever, there will be transit time. DEAL.

    Funny, if the Red Arrow was so cool, then why does the YEG/YYC run still generate traffic even with YEG gaining international flights by the month, and I mean YYC DESTINED traffic, not connecting. Is it because people prefer the plane? Gee, I don't know.

    Strange, but yet again you avoid the request to find real examples by hiding behind your flawed argument and complaining about capitals. Even in lower case, you're still wrong.

    Gosh, I have to add this. In the hiring bonus thread, you say you are against money hand outs...yet you want me to support handing BILLIONS out to this, how did murman put it, white elepahnt on roller skates????? Wow.

    I am with Highlander...I would like to think this is doable, but the numbers really say otherwise.

    Sorry grish. Find me the real example, stop avoiding the real questions, and then I will comment again. Otherwise, post all you want. This topic is DEAD.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  75. #175
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    You are being very slippery and decietful in the way you conduct this argument.

    We disagree on ONE thing--the role of the government. all the studies you have mentioned suggested that government involvement would make HSR in certain situations viable.

    to you it means a no go project because you don't see the government's role here and you think the money can be spent better on other worthy projects such as... you will have to fill in here. i have found my cause to promote.

    to me it sounds like a good idea for all the reasons i have outlined previously:

    1. governments ability to recover funds through a variety of spin-off activity and taxation not rail exclusively
    2. increased profile of the corridor/ region might bring in more investors that otherwise would pass on a city of 1 million people
    3. improved access between the cities
    4. increased tourism and commerce
    5. the spin-off activities themselves (not just the extra revenue to the government)
    6. more environmentally friendly way to travel
    7. will reduce wear and tear on the highway and reduce highway maintenance costs
    8. safer (fewer cars on the highway=fewer accidents particularly in winter)
    it is getting late--there probably were more reasons, but i don't feel like searching back through 6 pages of debate.

    some other studies you mention do not quite apply here because, for example in Ohio study, they do not offer significant time savings. to produce significant time saving of, say, one hour they have to go with much more expensive technology than the one here. as you will see from a sample calculation, one of the cheaper models of high speed rail could produce savings of over an hour over flying or bussing.

    you also keep tossing numbers out in an attempt to scare people off. i doubt this would cost 50 billion. this number was tossed in by you to intimidate and so it is garbage. you can do better.

    now you are trying to sideline the discussion by focusing on your complete misrepresentation of what I have said.

    when i brought up red arrow, it was to highlight the speed advantage of connection DOWNTOWN to DOWNDTOWN via bus over plane. i did not hide this and so there was no manipulation. the discussion isn't about red arrow itself. most points on both cities are closest to downtowns since they are teh centres of each city. however, to humor you, i propose a new calculation:

    if you are in the north of edmonton going to south of calgary for example:

    Red Arrow:
    to downtown bus stop=25 min
    + by bus to southside stop=10 min
    +to calgary downtown=2 hours 40 minutes (I am a frequent user of this service)
    +from downtown clagary to south of calgary=25 min
    Total travel time=3 hours and 40 minutes

    flying:
    car to airport (from north edmonton)=50 min
    at the airport (check in/ security)=40min (very likely longer. read airport authority recommendations)
    travel time including boarding, taxing, deplaning, collecting luggage=1 hour 20 min
    trip from calgary airport to south calgary via deerfoot=40 min
    total time is 3 hours and 30 minutes

    back to the train idea. if the train is built to travel at an average speed of 200km/hr:
    to downtown stop=25 min
    +train trip to calgary downtown=(300km/200km per hour)=1 hour 30 minutes
    +trip from downtown clagary to south of calgary=25 min
    Total travel time=2 hours and 20 minutes

    that would be nearly 1 hour savings and likely a cheaper fare. my time is valuable. this hour in saving might actually be worth it too.

    train moving at 300km/hr will result in further 30 min savings down to 1 hour and 50 minutes. (downtown to downtown in 1 hr)

    train going at 400km/hr is more expensive, but will accomplish the same trip (including connections) in 1 hour and 35 minutes. (downtown to downtown in 45 min)

    high speed train is a good idea. it should be built now.

  76. #176
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,092

    Default

    The South LRT complete with level intersections and no river crossing will cost $500 million to go from the University to 23 ave. (a whole 8km.)
    A high speed rail line into downtown Edmonton would be three times longer within Edmonton than this project, it would require an absolutely dedicated right of way with no level crossings and would require a new bridge and major construction downtown. (or we could sell tickets to daredevels and run it at 300 km/hr. on the Highlevel !!! now that would be a way to raise Edmonton's profile)
    Combine this with much more expensive construction requirements due to it's technology, increasing construction costs, even if started today, and an equivalent cost to run it to downtown Cowgary, add in 280 km between the cities, put Red Deer into the mix and $50 billion is not outside the realm of possibilities.
    I say let Shelbyville have it.

  77. #177
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    You are being very slippery and decietful in the way you conduct this argument.

    .
    Um...no. Sorry. Deal. That is such a pot calling the kettle comment, I can't even begin to respond.


    Your time savings need to be based on the technology that your vaunted Van Horne study proposes. MAGLEV significantly increases the costs, and so does the TGV/ICE world. ralph60 is so correct, you should listen.

    As for my more worthy causes...get a life. I've more than outlined them in thread after post after forum. My bet ALONE outlines them.

    Keep avioding finding the real examples grish. Keep avoiding...

    I think I have a better idea of where the priorities lie with respect to HSR. Even when we did the top ten list and invited all C2E members to join, out of the 20 that showed up, and the 40+ ideas thrown around, HSR was not brought up once. NOT ONCE!

    Renaming Churchill Square was suggested. Logos suggested. LRT made the list. HSR didn't. In fact, it isn't on ANYONE'S priority list....you know...those very government folks that you want to divert $$$ from affordable housing, infrastructure, politically helpful things like LRT, and the ever present health care and education. Heck, sending water down to Southern Alberta, 550 kV trasmission lines, and slaughterhouses rate higher!

    I even see money being spent on the real environmental question, ALTERNATIVE fuels. The car isn't going away. The truck isn't going away. The plane isn't going away. The fuel that propels them is. So, before a single useless taxpayer dime is spent on this HSR pipe dream , I'd rather see sustainable fuel sources being developed and promoted.

    My goodness grish, this forum is littered with alternate ideas for the billions you think need to be spend on a train to save some small market portion up to what, 30 minutes one way?

    Sorry. We already have transportation alternatives. ...and I still have the trump card...none built in a market like ours, and very little to no movement in markets 10 times ours. You know, those markets with real air and traffic congestion problems...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  78. #178

    Default

    I'm tempted to post something horribly offensive just for the sheer pleasure of getting any thread about HSR shut down.

  79. #179
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    I'm tempted to post something horribly offensive just for the sheer pleasure of getting any thread about HSR shut down.
    have nothing to contribute--don't post. ignore. mark as "read" and move on.

  80. #180
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    richardS,

    i know MAGLEV is more costly. i mentioned that in my post. i have outlined the differences in travel times as that is what you specifically questioned in my prior posts.

    i have also outlined the benefits that i percieve will be a result of building the high speed rail line. previously i have written about what i think will be the demographic of users.

    sometimes i have a feeling i should just repeat what i say until it is actually read an understood and addressed directly:

    to me it sounds like a good idea for all the reasons i have outlined previously:

    1. governments ability to recover funds through a variety of spin-off activity and taxation not rail exclusively
    2. increased profile of the corridor/ region might bring in more investors that otherwise would pass on a city of 1 million people
    3. improved access between the cities
    4. increased tourism and commerce
    5. the spin-off activities themselves (not just the extra revenue to the government)
    6. more environmentally friendly way to travel
    7. will reduce wear and tear on the highway and reduce highway maintenance costs
    8. safer (fewer cars on the highway=fewer accidents particularly in winter)
    it is getting late--there probably were more reasons, but i don't feel like searching back through 6 pages of debate.

  81. #181
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  82. #182
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    they claim "productivity" as a way to combat labour shortage. interesting thought. i am surprized by the tone with which they claim alignment as if it is already negotiated and in place. they claim high level bridge to get the train over to downtown and on to CN lands via a tunnel.

    i wonder if this will actually be feasible. access to high level bridge is rather difficult.

    the head office is in calgary. i wonder if they understand the realities of edmonton's realestate and edmontonian's desires for a new bridge.

    i would much rather such train line incorporates the new bridge plans. if they plan to tunnel, why not pull the resources together and work with the city of edmonton to realign calgary tr and gateway, put the bridge etc and have the new train line be incorporated into it somehow alongside. then place the stop on the northern bank of the river somewhere near the bottom of Shaw conference with a tunnel acces to LRT. i think that would be cheaper and better for edmotnon, not to mention it will look stunning if done right.

    also i think there isn't such a need to have one stop at grandin and another at CN--that's too much for downtown. one stop downtown is more than enough as long as it connects to LRT easily.

  83. #183
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I just took a look at that site and it all looks good, with no estimate of costs.

    They also lose points for suggesting HSR could be expanded to other Alberta cities. Not bloomin' likely.

    Their suggestion that a tunnel could link Edmonton downtown station#1 ( grandin) to a terminus at CN tower is poorly thought out. What would be gained by adding that Extra station for an extra couple hundered million when a grandin station would have direct LRT access?

  84. #184
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i think this company is piggy-backing on the VanHorne institute's study that does have projected costs. i would expect these costs have since climed (3 years or so later) from bewteen $1.5 to $3.6 billion to probably $3 to $7 billion.

  85. #185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    http://www.albertahighspeedrail.com/
    Funny, when I click on that link I get redirected to www.justnotgonnahappen.com.

  86. #186
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Ohh Ohh, another fluffy website showint a potential route map. Can I add this to the list of other fluffy websites and glossies?

    Why am I so cynical? Simply, no discussion on the specific technology chosen, no direct correlation of costs (probably because of no specific technology chosen), and somehow the government is supposed to own and develop the track yet they will do the rolling stock. Something tells me it won't stop there. Then they bring in the "Japanese Experince" - aka my market rant. A market so clogged and short on real estate with several times the population level...enough said.

    They do get kudos for saying what they will theoretically pay for and they do include stops at either airport, but they need to demonstrate what the times will be. 84 minutes DT to DT, but how many are "express" and how many stop at both airports and other stops. How long is a stop? Projected loading and disembarking times. Luggage handling. Security, yes, security. You name it. This is a great marketing page, let's omit the real issues with logistics and travel. 84 minutes is transit time en route. Seems to me that I can fly it in jsut over 30 point to point (it's only 144 nm, and you are doing over twice that in average true airspeed. Even at a slow 250 knots true, I kick HSR butt point to point). It's the internal logistics of terminal travel time that is the issue, so conveniently avoided here.

    Fluffy and light. Just like the rest. All full of amenities like "Food and beverage service will be provided in a Bistro-like environment.
    " Great. Lovely. Perfect.

    Show me the numbers. Show.....me.....the.....numbers. This is greenfield, so it is definitely over the 1 billion mark. More like 10, depending on technology.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  87. #187
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    /\ /\ /\ On the time issue (i thought you read posts)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grish
    if you are in the north of edmonton going to south of calgary for example:

    flying:
    car to airport (from north edmonton)=50 min
    at the airport (check in/ security)=40min (very likely longer. read airport authority recommendations)
    travel time including boarding, taxing, deplaning, collecting luggage=1 hour 20 min
    trip from calgary airport to south calgary via deerfoot=40 min
    total time is 3 hours and 30 minutes

    back to the train idea. if the train is built to travel at an average speed of 200km/hr:
    to downtown stop=25 min
    +train trip to calgary downtown=(300km/200km per hour)=1 hour 30 minutes
    +trip from downtown clagary to south of calgary=25 min
    Total travel time=2 hours and 20 minutes

    that would be nearly 1 hour savings {over flying} and likely a cheaper fare. my time is valuable. this hour in saving might actually be worth it too.

    train moving at 300km/hr will result in further 30 min savings down to 1 hour and 50 minutes. (downtown to downtown in 1 hr)

    train going at 400km/hr is more expensive, but will accomplish the same trip (including connections) in 1 hour and 35 minutes. (downtown to downtown in 45 min)

    this is a slightly emphasized quote from my previous post. i think if you include a few extra stops at 300km/hr 80-90 min (or nearly 1.5 hours) is not out of line with previous calculations DOWNTOWN to DOWNTOWN. Richard, for you to beat this time you would have to ressurect the Muni . I would rather use rail.

    ps meaning to ask you--what's "Deal" anyways?

  88. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    Richard, for you to beat this time you would have to ressurect the Muni . I would rather use rail.

    ps meaning to ask you--what's "Deal" anyways?
    I'd rather see scheduled helicopter service.

    Deal with it.

  89. #189
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman

    I'd rather see scheduled helicopter service.
    only if they put the landing pad at Stationlands--it's about time something real has landed there.

    Deal with it.
    why

  90. #190
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    /\ /\ /\ On the time issue (i thought you read posts)

    (...)I would rather use rail.

    ps meaning to ask you--what's "Deal" anyways?
    I did read your posts. ...and, you and this website eliminate all the time adders I mention over and over and over again. If you are talking point to point times, air kicks rail. If you add stops to rail, you are getting into the realm of "I may as well just drive". Who cares DT to DT, not everyone lives, works, and plays downtown! DT to DT passengers = narrow, narrow, narrow market. Why else would the propose other stops? Narrowing your focus to point to point and eliminating the travel times for everything else but placing them on rail is misleading. I can leave my house in Blue Quill, hit the QEII, and get to my office on Barlow and 16th as fast as the COMBINED time to get to a station, wait for the train, get on the train, travel DT, get a car/cab, and go to my office. By car, I leave when I want to leave, and stop where I want to stop, eat what I want to eat, enjoy the company of the people I want to enjoy, and arrive at home. My time, my schedule, and all for the bargain basement time price of gas and a car I use anyway. It will take a heck of a lot more than 15-20 minutes for me to get out of my car. By your calculations, I should be taking the bus and forgetting HSR. It is here, cheap to expand, uses EXISTING infrastructure, and a nicer way to go.

    Deal = get over it. I quoted "I'd rather use rail" as it sums up your point. You like rail, you'll make the stats work to support rail, so that is the only option you see. Funny, this new webpage does EXACTLY the same thing. Gets you all excited about bistro food to have you salivating (compared to peanuts on a plane), but omits the real issues. So, yet again, we have pretty pictures and half promises. Funny, my BS detectors went on overload when this webpage solicits the government to pay for the track. Why would we pay for the track, unless this is the only asset that can be re-used by regular rail should this pipe dream go belly up...er...WHEN this pipe dream goes belly up. Hmm, who is funding this website and these folks? This site doesn't specify. Is this rail the same gauge as heavy rail (aka What's the technology folks?) If this was such a good idea, go whole hog and pay for the rail. This isn't the electric grid after all.

    Trying to hide behind the "environment" is an effective lobbying ploy, but I'd rather see alternative fuels. More bang to more people.

    I say Deal...with the fact that we have 3 transportation options for the people involved, and for HSR we are talking billions upon billions to shave minutes for an extremely focused market. Just because you like something doesn't make it so...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  91. #191
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    No you didn't read. Let me try giving you homework for a change. Try reading again. This time pay attention to all the highlited portions such as:
    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    if you are in the north of edmonton going to south of calgary for example:

    flying:
    (...)
    total time is 3 hours and 30 minutes

    back to the train idea. if the train is built to travel at an average speed of 200km/hr:
    (...)
    Total travel time=2 hours and 20 minutes

    train moving at 300km/hr will result in further 30 min savings down to 1 hour and 50 minutes. (downtown to downtown in 1 hr)
    (...)
    let me try your line: Deal.


    don't feel any different or special.

    Hmmm, special...

  92. #192
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    it just occured to me that you are not opposed to the idea of HSR, just having too many stops. Perhaps try calling that office in calgary (the one from the website on HSR) and suggest they build only one stop in edmonton and one in calgary.

    i know driving is fast. but there are a lot of problems with driving your own car:
    1. not everyone is able to drive (health, age, wealth)
    2. driving isn't always safe (icy roads, too many cars, you're tired)
    3. driving isn't the convenient mode (you would like to finish some work, or relax and read a book)
    4. it pollutes
    5. parking at destination is difficult
    6. the road is closed due to a multi-car pileup
    7. the 23ave interchange isn't built and you've got a 50min rush-hour bottle neck to get through.
    i am getting creative here but you get the idea--driving isn't always king.

    and plane doesn't always beat travel time. would you save time going to your neighbourhood 7-11 by plane?

    i know this one is a cheap shot, but I am not the only one here who brings in examples that don't quite apply to the situation at hand.

    i like this quote:

    I say Deal... Just because you like something doesn't make it so...
    i agree with it wholeheartedly.

  93. #193
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    it just occured to me that you are not opposed to the idea of HSR, just having too many stops.
    No, I am not opposed to the idea of HSR, just to having the government fund a financially repugnant dream.

    Fast train = cool.

    Fast white elephant = I can find better ways to spend govenment money when we have other options...which you strangely avoid...like alternative fuel research.

    Let me kill the HSR dream.

    For the billions in track money, I can have...

    Full LRT to all corners of Edmonton and Calgary.

    LRT to BOTH airports.

    ...satisfying your rail dream to the fast place - aka airport.

    Then from the airport, I now have access to the globe, and this uses EXISTING technology and leverages the already huge investment in LRT, while also building out the needed rail spines within the city. Fast between EDM and CGY downtowns if you so choose, or to the world. Remember, the EDM and CGY terminals have the current process of low security access when travelling between the cities, and also a CHOICE of providers, and of course, speed.

    If I am going to have any govenrment money going into rail, I want the greatest benefit to the greatest number, and HSR isn't it.

    Period.

    Until you truly understand the logistics world, I am done. The mass support for the position I take is enough, combined with the glaring lack of traction in any way shape or form on HSR anywhere else in this province. The next time I even engage here is when something concrete is here, and includes all sides of the argument and enough of a market to make sense.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  94. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Ohh Ohh, another fluffy website showint a potential route map. Can I add this to the list of other fluffy websites and glossies?

    Why am I so cynical? Simply, no discussion on the specific technology chosen, no direct correlation of costs (probably because of no specific technology chosen), and somehow the government is supposed to own and develop the track yet they will do the rolling stock. Something tells me it won't stop there. Then they bring in the "Japanese Experince" - aka my market rant. A market so clogged and short on real estate with several times the population level...enough said.

    They do get kudos for saying what they will theoretically pay for and they do include stops at either airport, but they need to demonstrate what the times will be. 84 minutes DT to DT, but how many are "express" and how many stop at both airports and other stops. How long is a stop? Projected loading and disembarking times. Luggage handling. Security, yes, security. You name it. This is a great marketing page, let's omit the real issues with logistics and travel. 84 minutes is transit time en route. Seems to me that I can fly it in jsut over 30 point to point (it's only 144 nm, and you are doing over twice that in average true airspeed. Even at a slow 250 knots true, I kick HSR butt point to point). It's the internal logistics of terminal travel time that is the issue, so conveniently avoided here.

    Fluffy and light. Just like the rest. All full of amenities like "Food and beverage service will be provided in a Bistro-like environment.
    " Great. Lovely. Perfect.

    Show me the numbers. Show.....me.....the.....numbers. This is greenfield, so it is definitely over the 1 billion mark. More like 10, depending on technology.
    I just thought I would post the link I found to add into this discussion. I don't think any sort of rail connection between edm and cal is yet feasible. It may be in the future. Lets attempt to start thinking about a ROW to reserve between, and then in 20-70 years, lets start building the thing?
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  95. #195
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    (...)I just thought I would post the link I found to add into this discussion. I(...)?
    I wasn't referring to you directly feepa, sorry if I left that impression. I was speaking directly to the webpage itself...

    I agree, when the market is there, then fine. If there are ROW's to be secured, let this private consortium ante up. You can always rent this land out to the farmer while you await the market.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  96. #196
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    ...we have other options...which you strangely avoid...like alternative fuel research.
    this is the second time you bring this up. i don't avoid it. this is federal government's responsibility for the most part, but yes, we have to look for better fuels.

    can we get back to trains please? they are related, and i did ask for other ideas, but the idea of fast train link in no way interefers with the idea of developing better fuels. well, maybe initially due to funds drain. however, these funds better not come from the same budget. trains is transportation and infrastructure. fuel research is science and environment budget. i am ok with both of these dipping inot gasoline taxes.

  97. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    and plane doesn't always beat travel time. would you save time going to your neighbourhood 7-11 by plane?

  98. #198
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    ...we have other options...which you strangely avoid...like alternative fuel research.
    this is the second time you bring this up. i don't avoid it. this is federal government's responsibility for the most part, but yes, we have to look for better fuels.

    .
    When a business plan suggests investing government money on an initiative under the auspecies of "better for the environment", you bet your *ahem* alternative fuel research enters the discussion. How do you think this pipe dream is powered, dilithium crystals or coal?

    Otherwise, remove that excuse from bellying up to the public trough.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  99. #199
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Let me kill the HSR dream.

    For the billions in track money, I can have...

    Full LRT to all corners of Edmonton and Calgary.

    LRT to BOTH airports.

    etc. etc.


    Until you truly understand the logistics world, I am done. The mass support for the position I take is enough, combined with the glaring lack of traction in any way shape or form on HSR anywhere else in this province. The next time I even engage here is when something concrete is here, and includes all sides of the argument and enough of a market to make sense.
    i think I should number my previous posts on the subject 1 through 20(?) and to every one of your recycled objections reply with the number of the post in which the objection is rebutted.

    LRT is a great and a necessary project the city should focus on. LRT to the airport is a fantastic idea. the LRT to the airport is going to be as slow as driving to the airport. so all the timelines previously mentioned will not reduce by much.

    the train does have benefits that are reach out much further than getting RichardS from E to C. When you realize that you will see that it isn't just the logistics. When you trully understand that the role of the government isn't just to supervize the pothole filling...

    So, your promise (in writing!) not to engage with this thread is conditioned on your ability to see the world more broadly.

    might i also suggest in the future not to try and bully with cartoons, misleading numbers, rehashing of old, failed arguments, characteriziations of other thoughts as childish, and a generally aggressive tone. (God--my wife is right--I AM sensitive!). if you disagree--you disagree. that is as far as it goes. the world as YOU know it will not crumble if someone disagrees with your position and your narrow (my opinion) view.

    Cheers.

  100. #200
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,228
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Pot calling the kettle grish....pot calling the kettle....

    ...and you call asking government funds to be spent where it makes the most good narrow? Wow. I look at where 10 billion could be better spent, including transportation projects, and you call me narrow minded? When the heck did I limit the scope to pothole filling? Crap, you were being grumpy with me when I brought other items goverment could fund like education and health care and social services...you know, places where 10 billion could make a difference. No, becasue I argue against a pretty train, I am narrow minded.

    Here's another bet. You go in front of Eddie with this dream, I go in front with what I say is the reality. See who gets funded first.

    Not seeing the broad world. Wow, that is the first time I have ever been accused of this. Just because I can shoot this dream so full off holes that a seive looks seaworthy doesn't mean that I don't look at a broader picture. I am the one that normally gets accused of taking too broad a view and not narrowing my focus! Holy crap, I need to put this on my next performance review...finally was called narrow minded!

    I have systematically killed your arguments. I have killed your market. Basically, the market is at best subjective, and at worst imaginary unless it cannibalizes all other modes or we grow exponentially. If there was a market, a REAL market, someone would already be raising 100% of the money privately, building out the network, and starting service. Funny, that is how Westjet started. Sorry that hurts your feelings.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •