Real

I like boats

@@trickolas78 Solid choice, but it does require local waterways.

Me too :D

I like trains *Train proceeds to hit just like asdfmovie2*

That has never been trialled at serious scale!

Forget it, hyperloop is totally dead. The idea was stupid to begin with, good riddance.

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

Indeed. If only there was some sort of technology that didn't require a de-pressurized tube with air locks and pressure suits for emergency evacuation, didn't require continuous energy usage to keep the pressure level, and could connect multiple "pods" into a single "platoon" to traverse the tube all at once, and didn't even require a tube at all. Perhaps it could even use a form of road as a guide for the "platoons" of "pods" to keep it on the road with simple well understood mechanical operations. This sounds like something I've seen somewhere but I can't quite put my finger on it.

@@annoyed707 Yes but it needs to achieve success from providing a good service, not from being gadget transportation.

Definitely. That’s why Elon Musk started investing in it, to sell more Teslas.

That's why Elon Musk was talking about Hyperloop a few years ago. He was trying to derail the California HSR project.

Yeah, very effective sabotaging method I have to say. I think we need to coin a word for such activities. How about this one: "Gadgetbahning"?

Hyperloop is the modern version of the monorail. Something futuristic, flashy, sexy... but ultimately impractical. One of those "Wouldnt it be cool/awesome if" things.

​@@caneighdianjake8439 true. But a monorail is real and works in some places like Japan. Hyperloop is just a scam created by Elon to sell over prices cars that are not that great.

Ya not gonna happen lol

Don't hold your breath. It's Bern promised by the Conservative Government for over 50 years. Never going to happen. Fool me once.....

Absolutely. It could even be a Western flight hub for travel to Europe and Asia. The commuter flights in the province could be replaced to flights to Prairie cities in the US and Canada that would bring people to Calgary and Edmonton for onward international journeys.

Emphasis on "if done right". When the government is involved, its never done right no matter what side of the political road you stake your post in

@@ZEROxDEADDEAD It looks pretty awesome from an outsiders perspective.

fair. and made me lol

Does via rail have their own andy byford?

That's a good point. I had my doubts that the UCP would do anything in earnest that might have a chance of benefiting the poor.

@@ericjessee in the press conference they were talking about things like hyperloop and hydrogen trains which was almost like a "we arent taking this seriously" dogwhistle

I mean what constitutes a master plan could be debated to no end, but I think it’s a very positive development for them to be talking about what places they want to link. Progress nonetheless!

@@RMTransit Another detail is that the province is threatening to withhold funding for the green line project ($1.53B) if it does not "fully integrate" with their master plan. Hilarious because the master plan they announced doesn't even mention the green line LRT! The UCP is playing a political game and they likely unveiled this to distract from their failures in other aspects of their governing. Just millions more wasted on proposals from companies and land use studies that have been completed by every single government for the past 30 years.

@@RMTransit I'm very much of the opinion that what the plan needs is a major focus on real estate along the corridor. I actually think you could make a special series dedicated to how different places use real estate development to fund rail expansion. I know you have mentioned it in previous videos, but it would be nice to see a dedicated focus on how real estate and transit can go hand in hand to induce demand on each other and what factors matter most. I don't think 2 hectare TOD is good enough. I'll use Forest Hills Gardens are a good example of what I think Transit Focused Development can be. The area around stations and much of their walksheds should be designed to segregate people from traffic, much like Disneyland.

Thats more or less it on congested corridors!

@@RMTransit Wrong! Sitting in my car in a hot summer day in the middle of traffic while the light is green and nobody is moving is the definition of freedom!

@@Fenthule sitting alone, with only a coffee-cup as your carry-on and you've been noticing that the coffee is going down a lot faster than it should.

Traffic in Calgary has been top 5 in the world several times. It's not stressing at all unless you're trapped in a blizzard

@@phillipsiebold8351 And your tanks are getting uncomfortably full, to boot...

The bus carriers are also likely to have their lunch money stolen from them too. The number of buses running between Calgary and Edmonton would drop to a couple runs a day with all the milk run stops that would be bypassed by the railway, but their bread and butter is from those who want a cheap way to get to the other end of the corridor but don't want to drive or pay for parking at the other end...That said, I could certainly see Pacific Western Transportation (owner of Red Arrow and eBus) looking at being an operator if the province goes to Open Access.

I would hope those business travellers value time and comfort, both of which are superior by train on short distances. You’re probably right that initial backlash can be fierce, but I hope the actual users would be relatively easy to convince.

Just gotta lobby the climate activists to keep them in check

honestly workers are now telecommuting or are driving from edmonton to calgary once a week or so. no one flies. This would be amazing, the impact on red deer would be the most amazing. I think this would really elevate Alberta as a whole.

@@joncalon190 Buses??? I thought they all went away?

Absolutely, being able to go for a day trip comfortably and read on the train would be amazing!

@@RMTransit I made a trip down to Calgary last week and had to pay to stay in a hotel overnight.

I think this video really expressed well that if a plan was well thought out, with universal compatibility that building one now, could lead to the infastructure in place for advancement and upgrades in the future. 140-220 km/hour isnt the most advanced option currently world wide available, but it is "less bad" than what we currently have. Id rather have ANY option now, with the option to upgrade later, than no option at all and wait for something that might never come. Driving up and back to Edmonton from Calgary is doable in one day, albeit grueling. Ive done it myself last month for my son to experience a birthday treat at WEM, but if I could omit the driving exhaustion from the mix, it would be more enticing to do it more often. It would definitely expand most cities market reach, and the cities inbetween.

Been dreaming/hoping about this train system for the same reason that you have.

My dads buddy just speeds. Edmonton to canmore in an hr. Porshe go zoom

Absolutely, and better for the beautiful parks!

@@RMTransit I disagree, I think are beloved parks need less people not more and a rail line would just bring even more destruction to the beauty of the Canadian Rockies. Just my thought.

Speed limit on TCH 110km/hr. Max speed of trains between Calgary/Banff is 80km/hr. Do the math.

@@RMTransit Would you also love to see bike racks on these trains, bike parking at stations and better cycling infrastructure. Rather than timed overtakes, would it be better to run regional trains serving smaller communities on existing freight lines (which might be duplicated) and just run intercity trains between city centres, and at a higher frequency than you suggested? Could this provide a *better* service than cities like Berlin and Oslo?

"80km/hr" Citation needed

There have been a few government studies into a rail connection between Edmonton and Calgary over the years; however, theyve always come back that it wouldnt be financiably viable. As such, its not exactly a novel idea. I would love to see a HSR in Alberta, and I hope that the large population boom over the last 20 years has turned the tables. One difficulty is that while we might be the Texas of Canada, thr financial position of the province hasnt been rosy since the recession of 2008. Our 'rainy day' fund from previous resource royalties is long gone. Historically, most of the royalties came from natural gas, but that market has become saturated since the advent of fracking, driving prices down. Even then, we have limited access to markets besides the USA, so we always have sold of resources below price. Canadian politics makes it easier to move resources south to the USA then across neighbouring provinces to any coast.

There used to be, a long time a ago

How about we just reactivate the lines that already existed there for over a 100 years. You know, before we had mass use of cars, we had passenger rail. Lest we forget..

@@PolarExpress-ql3nk Old rail lines being old have a lot of problems, level crossings, poor geometry, fairly low speed. Simply reactivating old lines isn't going to have the impact of modern rail!

@@RMTransit I guess replacing track is some new concept to you, even though this is all about building a whole new tack.

Its a pretty awesome service! And good historic note yes!

Same with Austrian Airlines (which TBH are part of the Lufthansa group) and ÖBB. you can buy tickets that encompass flight to Vienna and RailJet to final destination like Salzbug

@@mancubwwa Swiss Airways and SBB also have this system, but they are also part of the Lufthansa group, so the origin of the idea is pretty clear.

there's nothing on Earth like a genuine bonafide electrified six car monorail!

@@K.C-2049 were you sent here by the devil?

@@brentrayner65 no good sir I'm on the level!

when did they get monorails

@@zachcarter3186 19 dickety 2

Ive heard this argument over and over again."its just talk, it will never happen because they've said this for decades". Taking you on your word as an engineer for one of the past projects - may I ask what killed your project? What lessons can we learn from the past failures to progress a solution like this into fruition? Have these repeated failures seen an incremental progress?

@@mrssamanthashannon Likely due to the growing car industry and its chokehold on the transportation market. Everyone back then preferred the autonomy of cars and preferred a more private way of travelling, especially when the commercials said so. Not only that, but pair it with taxpayers not wanting to invest in other modes of transportation due to their self-interest (likely owning their own vehicle), they'd much prefer if the government invest on creating a car-centric landscape. Personally, I think railways this time around might be the most viable thing they could invest in, considering that the masses are starting to realize that the glory days of owning a car for cheap is no longer a thing and traffic has become so prevalent that its made them aware that any more car users will make their lives a nightmare.

I mean, you’re definitely unlikely to be wrong. Just look how long it took for the Green Line to _start_ construction. It should’ve been already planned and started 20 years ago. Communities in the deep South East and North have been isolated from LRT for far too long. When I was a teenager going to high school in the SW, my commute from my house in the SE was about an hour and a half to 2 hours one way. 30 minute bus ride to the nearest C-Train station, 15-20 minute train ride to my transfer station, 30 minute bus ride to the closest stop to my school, and then either a wait to catch another bus, or a 10-15 minute walk. Not including waiting for any of the 2 or 3 buses, and the train. And if any one of them was running too late, it would cause me to miss my next bus or train. The point being, this was already clearly an issue in the mid 2000’s, and with all the population growth and expansion of the city eastward and southward, it was only going to get worse and worse as time went on. You can tweak bus routes and add more bus routes or BRT routes, but more buses and more stops and more connections and more transfers doesn’t really solve the problem. It’s a band-aid, and one of the cheap dollar store ones with the weak adhesive that barely sticks to your skin and easily gets torn off, at that. I’d rather have had Calgary’s share of that $1.4 billion in Ralph Bucks have gone to funding stuff like the Green Line back in 2006, rather than voters being bribed with $400 cheques.

This has been talked about for 40 years.

When I think of interprovincial rail, that is going to have to be done by the Federal government. Much like getting rail connections from Edmonton to Leduc, you need the provincial government to step in and solve the jurisidiction problem. It would be great if there could be agreements between jurisdictions, especially regarding transit, but it is a slow progress on that front. The only thing we got going in Edmonton is the ARC card system.

Ontario and Quebec at least have functional (by Canadian standards) passenger rail, something which is otherwise practically nonexistent in Alberta (Via just passes through Alberta these days). It sucks that the Windsor-Quebec corridor doesn't have it already, but they've likewise floated the idea a bunch of times just like Alberta has. This is firmly in a "I'll believe when I see it" because the provincial government here trots out studying connecting Edmonton and Calgary by rail every few years. Is this time for real? Is it any more real than the last dozen times they've floated it? No idea. At least it's not the dumb hyper loop nonsense.

Danielle Smith could not run a lemon stand. She'll never be able to pull this off. People, read my lips, ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Albertans have been hearing about this mystical train creature for over 50 years. Too expensive and nor feasible.

​@@TurnDar It's essentially an annual "let's build a train!" proposal that they take out of a dusty old ideas box every year since Via Rail ended it's Calgary-Edmonton service. I'll believe it when I see it.

Toronto-Montreal or Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal is right there begging to be built.

30% of downtown office towers are still vacant in Calgary. They never recovered from the oil bust of a decade ago. Sure, the city’s population is growing, but retrograde Provincial government is probably more to blame than anything. Rejection of renewable industries, rejection of pretty much anything unrelated to oil/gas industry. Plus the influence of conservative/Christian policies of the more ‘far-out’ and radical politicians. Alberta is similar to Texas in one respect though; the cities are liberal, the state/provincial government is conservative.

i mean there's 'conservatives' in europe who are pro free healthcare and social welfare. unintended 'american exceptionalism' lol

It saves them a lot more capital in the long run, so I can understand the idea.

Conservatives are only against rail if they decide to use it as a wedge issue in identity politics. Boris Johnson in the UK was massively pro rail (he had other issues though), but his successor Rishi Sunak is a huge carbrain.

The Canadian conservative agenda is for building transit, especially near housing

I don't know how it is in Canada, but most of the auto unions in the US vote democrat. How much that effects rail development I couldn't say, but it's not hard to imagine them having a fair amount of sway in the opposite direction. I actually think conservatives are more likely to see the economic benefits of trains and public transport if you show them the spreadsheets. That's why I find the climate angle infuriating, because all anyone is going to say is: I'll buy an electric car. (And the more unhinged activists are doing far more harm than good in this regard. Slinging paint at art isn't going to get anyone onboard).

the talk of a proposed project is a distraction as well. This sort of thing has been discussed for decades with no real plans made.

Yeah, I don't fully agree with Reece, either, it might not be much, but 300 km distance is nothing to sneeze at. it would get the trip between the two cities under or close to 1h30, while 200 will probably be closer to 2h to 2h30, with a few stops. Still very respectable, so I wouldn't say it's completely wrong as an approach. I'm also a big supporter of more development along the rail corridor, if you put in more stops, full high-speed becomes irrelevant much faster. At least a few trains should run express IMO.

320 km/h gives a 70 minute trip non stop. Not enough time to settle in. 250 km/h takes 90 minutes just a bit cozier. Personally go for 320 km/h with stops intermediate as required and if needed 3 levels of service as Reece suggested commuters will happen on this line too.

@@barvdw considering everyone drives on the road (in the warmer months) a healthy 140km/hr at least, and it takes 2.5 hours to drive from Edmonton to Calgary , i do believe the trains need to be closer to that 300 km/hr mark if possible. Otherwise, with the stop in red deer, it’d probably take a similar time vs going by car, which would take away from some of the ridership . Make it as attractive as possible so the maximum amount of people will take the train. It’ll be a no brainer in the winter when it’s hazardous to drive but if it’s also gonna save up to an hour let’s say even in the summer? Bam. Winner winner chicken dinner

@@johndwilson6111 there's generally some slower running on the approach to the city, so while 70 minutes is possible in theory, I feel it's a bit too optimistic in reality. Even non-stop, Paris-Brussels still needs 1h21 minutes on a mostly high-speed infrastructure. Witt stops in just the airports and Red Deer, you're quickly in the 1h30 range, without even serving Airdrie or any of the other potential boom towns along the route, like Wetaskiwin or even Carstairs that might get a station.

@@Mohankeneh there's a market for both, surely. They are reinstating a slower train between Paris and Brussels (during the Olympics for now, but they want to make it permanent from next year), and are confident there's a market for it. Being on a train allows you to do some preparatory work, to relax, to rest... And while cars are decently fast, they are often very unreliable, or better, traffic is. Trains are much more reliable, even when they are slower (which would probably not be the case here, just comparable) than cars. A 300 km/h track vs a 200 km/h, and definitely a 230 or 250 km/h track isn't going to make that big of a difference, and the approach to the city station has probably a bigger impact than a few stretches where they can reach their maximum speed. On the other hand, it's costing a lot more, because the tolerances are much smaller, so you need much more maintenance, curves are wider, etc. It would depend on what you do with that train after that, can you make another trip per day by going faster? Than it might be worth it. Would it fall in a connection node, with many trains in all directions (the Swiss model, go as fast as needed to get to the next node in time to make all connections)? Then it might be worth it, too.

Pretty sure they're planning a new river crossing, so I'm guessing it'll go right under Churchill Square.

@@Jay-jq6bl The map shows it connecting at Central Station-ish but where the proposed Gondola link near Telus Plaza was to go...

@@stickynorthReally, the map isn't anything concrete. They mentioned Jasper in the announcement, but don't even show it on the map. Is there a way for me to share a screen capture here? I'm actually thinking the best plan would be for a tunnel that continues to Yellowhead Trail, to tie everything together. A new railyard and freight corridor between Sherwood Park and Edmonton could help to free up a lot of land for development.

nobody wants to ride the bus when it takes 4x as long, and you have to be yelled at and pissed on by diversity. Solve that problem and the journey back to effective transit begins, but it will never start until people stop being scared of being called wayciss. You may not like it, but it is the truth.

It's a dumb idea for Alberta

I would actually prefer the High Level Bridge to be replaced. It is a bridge that is over 100 years old with declining capacity as the years go on. Also, the word on a new river crossing is centred mostly around connecting Gateway Boulevard to downtown, and not any rail connections. Thirdly, there is also the Downtown Circulator project (Low Floor LRT) that is being planned by the city. I know they want to use the High Level bridge for that but the old lady can't take it anymore.

@@phillipsiebold8351 Why would they need another bridge for traffic? That bridge down by Kinsmen is plenty wide for 2 lanes each direction. I can't say for sure whether another road bridge is planned or not, but I'm pretty sure there and west of the UofA both have rail crossings planned. I'm not really talking about using the High Level bridge at all. In my view, Whyte ave would be good as part of an automated light metro loop line, book ended by 142st/50st and Yellowhead/Whyte. In combination with a regional/HSR tunnel headed north, from south of Whyte to Yellowhead Trail, which could then branch out to the surrounding towns easily. Overlay those two things with the LRT and it would be a pretty good system.

@@phillipsiebold8351 Since you mentioned a road crossing, I'll tell you what I'd love to see. If the whole commercial/industrial space between 104st and 91st out to the Henday could be redeveloped into a transit focused development, with Calgary Trail and Gateway moved into a a central tunnel that can come up at traffic circles, with the rail alignment also underground. If they were to develop the area on their own account, they could help to pay for the infrastructure. At Whyte, a station at the NE corner of Gateway, just east of the washroom/parking lot. With Gateway underground, a park out to Sask Dr would be nice. Under that park the road tunnel would continue to a replacement for Sask Dr, that's lower on the hill. Cover it and turn Sask Dr into an entertainment terrace, terracing down the hill with landscaped gardens. Use 3 traffic circles as part of the Sask Dr replacement, at Gateway/109st, and right in the middle, to feed onto or from Walterdale Bridge. The valley is the best part of the city. They could make it a really amazing spot. Since you mentioned the High Level Bridge. I did hear someone talk about turning the top deck into a park, similar to the Highline in NYC, which could be quite nice and could tie into the entertainment terrace.

@@Jay-jq6bl The Walterdale Bridge is part of 109th street and is meant to take capacity off of the High Level Bridge. The alignment of Walterdale Bridge is also a significant detour for Gateway Boulevard. Right now Gateway Boulevard uses Low Level Bridge to get across the river and that thing has a hairpin as you go down the valley.

​@@phillipsiebold8351I actually think Saskatchewan Dr could use a redesign. What I'd really like to see, is the whole industrial/commercial space between 91st and 104st, from Whyte all the way out to Henday get redeveloped, with Gateway and Calgary Trail moved into an underground tunnel, that has entries and exits at traffic circles along the way. Once you're at the River Valley, you'd come out lower on the hill, where you'd have another traffic circle that would tie in with Sask Dr to the east of Gateway, and a replacement for the existing Sask Dr further down the hill. This replacement road would have another circle at 109st, and another in the middle, which would connect to Walterdale Bridge and back into Strathcona. So, you could drive all the way from Highway 2 or the Henday directly across Walterdale Bridge without any traffic lights, potentially. Put a terrace over the new road and turn the whole hillside into terraced parks and gardens. I did hear someone mention turning the top deck of the High Level Bridge into a park, akin to the Highline in NYC. That could tie into the terrace very nicely.

Bingo! 80% of Albertan's live in The Corridor... Aka that North-South ribbon of CP Rail towns founded along the old Calgary & Edmonton Railway... Add in the Vulcan-Lethbridge section and that number jumps even higher. This should be priority #1 especially with a concept to bring back passenger rail between Calgary and Livingstone, Montana as well... That was just also proposed this week...

The fact the plan includes Grande Prairie (though however remote) really does mean the plan intends to connect the vast majority of the province's population.

as a Canmorite, it would be really REALLY nice to see less tourists in rental cars doing silly things they shouldn't be doing as well.

240 kmh Bombardier Jettrain was the OG concept about 20 years ago for the line...

@@stickynorth turbo train max test speed was 274km/h, how crazy it would be if they can get an HSR that fast here. Still hasn’t been beat yet in NA

Don't repeat the mistake at Welwyn North though Plopping a station on a two track section while on both sides it's four tracked

Yeah, though some 125 mph railways in the UK do have level crossings, can't recall if the ECML does!

@@RMTransit yeah there are a couple very rural ones that just cross over some single lane country roads, main issue on the ECML is just how old it is, some of the tracks near Grantham/Peterborough are very wobbly, but hopefully Alberta wouldn't copy that bit...

Well, Texas has a diversified economy, something that Alberta lacks. In that regard we’re more similar to Oklahoma. Southern Alberta is most similar to Colorado though.

Well Texas is also exploring an HSR project using Shinkansen technology(!)

@@yaygya Yea, but Northern Alberta is more so the Texas, and Alabama of Canada.

more like the punjab 😂

@@snatchhogyou’ve described most major cities in English Canada.

Maybe not directly. But considering how brightline is building a train from California to Vegas. They may expand that service eastward in the near future if they expand at the same rate they're expanding in Florida. There are already existing trains along the west coast that could get you as far as Vancouver Canada. Unfortunately there's no direct route from Vancouver to Calgary with trains. There's a slow expensive tourist train that goes to Edmonton. If that high speed gets built between Calgary and Edmonton it would eventually be possible to travel entirely by train. But it would be slow with lots of connections. Anything more direct would be far in the future unless there's a new Golden age train revolution. And our two governments decide to build at the same rate as China

Reuse the piers, rebuild everything else. It'll likely give drivers on the lower deck less headaches trying to squeeze those two tight lanes down the bridge core, plus provide room for the trains up top.

Its old and spooky to drive on. Time for an update

So I cannot picture that area super well in my head at the moment (moved away 2 years ago now), but could a re-route be done to make the High-Level pedestrian/streetcar and then have transit rail beside it? I know there was a proposal floated (don't know how serious though) about making Whyte Ave car free and just transit lines, so having that end of 109th be similarly adapted could work. That would re-route any and all traffic to the new Walterdale bridge though so there would need to be a plan for shifting car traffic as that will not be entirely reduced.

That's a bad place to cross. High Level Bridge is 777 m.

Or as CGP Gray described Alberta, “The Snowy Empty West’’

@@eliplayz22that would be Saskatchewan. Alberta actually has stuff in that north south corridor.

Texas of Canada? There are more people who live in and around Houston than all of Alberta (by a LONGSHOT)..Although there’s more public will for a train in Alberta than Texas..

Curve radius for 320kmh is about 7km, but for 250kmh it's about 4km. The additional land and tunneling costs associated with the more restrictive geometry could be quite high, for actually fairly low journey time improvements for such a short journey. You don't really want level/grade crossings on routes with more than 4 trains per hour in each direction, or where linespeed is more than 160kmh (certainly no more than 200kmh). So grade separation is vital, very high speed rail is probably an unnecessary expense. In reality, even a 2 hour rail journey time is likely to attract virtually all air traffic, and a fair bit of road traffic.

@@joegrey9807a hell lot of road traffic when the Snow starts to hit

@@joegrey9807 Perhaps but this rail will be here for well over a century, how many people will be living in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor then? Why not pay the additional cost now when it's at its lowest?

Aren't the curves the expensive bit?

@@ZontarDow Population has no impact on this. If anything, it will mean lower maximum linespeed because there will be more intermediate stops and you won't be able to get up to 320km/h while both serving the intermediate stops and maintaining line capacity. What's key to maximum and average linespeed are the distances between stops, line capacity, and the balance between end to end JT, Capex and Opex.

The announcement for this project said it's a 15 year plan for the entire network. With airport connections being completed in the first five years

Exactly, I expect the NDP to run with this if elected, and since it was the UCP who are proposing it I would hope for pause before slamming on the brakes!

@@RMTransit And how about integration of Alberta's timetables and also an overnight train between those two cities?

One only need look at bungled HS2 mega rail project in the UK, managed by the Tories (ie. Conservatives) - it’s budget and master plan slashed. I expect the same results in Alberta; therefore, don’t believe it’ll happen until you see something actually built.

@barvdw you don’t need to limit speeds because of snow. Operators can just run snowplow trains first. from experience, they don’t limit speeds on northern china’s high speed rail line even though they get tons of snow there. I don’t think they plan to limit the shinkansen to Sapporo either, one of the snowiest cities in the world

@@Trohnald I live in Belgium, and work for the Belgian railways. And yes, we will limit speeds during heavy snowfall, or high winds. Admittedly, we don't have many snowploughs, it doesn't snow all that often here. The risk isn't as much snow as it is the ice formation on the train, which when released, can cause great dammage. So if we get warnings about icile projections, we will limit the speed. From experience, I know the French and Germans do the same on their high-speed lines. As that speed is still 160-230 km/h, it only happens on the high-speed lines, though, as speed doesn't exceed 160 on almost all conventional lines.

It all sounds good, except the Ft. McMurray part. That place could be a ghost town in 30 years. Population is already going down.

@@wadexyz Is that because it's basically dependent on the price of oil or because of all the recent natural disasters? Anyway, crazy that Fort Mac has better airport transit (and probably transit in general) than a lot of other cities much larger than it.

@@J-Bahn well obviously just a guess and im exaggerating for effect, but I was thinking a lower demand for oil, especially that kind of oil, which has political overtones. also it's so isolated , anyone who has kids might feel pressure to get out of there as they get older to give them more opportunities. didn't realize they have a nice airport!

You mean again... As recently as the 70's Alberta had some form of rudimentary regional rail networks... Trains from Calgary to Lethbridge... Edmonton to Vegreville via Fort Sask, etc

Not yet... might take 50 years.

Absolutely

@@RMTransit it’s always a pain anyways trains are awesome. After travelling in Europe by train you kinda don’t wanna go home. Im hoping Vancouver island can get some rail back like that case has been going

If one looks back more than a few years, there are actually less flights between the cities now, especially after Edmonton's airport authority closed the Municipal airport. We had hourly air shuttles between Calgary and the Muni, now we've got smaller planes and a handful of flights in each direction daily between the two cities.

That is a poor metric there is not that much air volume between edmonton and Calgary. Basically there are 3 trains worth per day.

The Conservatives in Ontario are desperately holding onto the idea of Sprawl and new highways, but are facing immense pressure AND have been given even greater funding to GO rail expansion. I think you're right!

@deanorr5378 The Ford government has dumped big big money into expanding the rail network and real efforts are being done to try get the GO Train off cargo rail and onto its own network. The GO network and intercity VIA network has gotten multiple multi-year expansion and improvement plans. Some of it, I concede, _might_ only be optics, but shovel has hit ground enough for me to doubt they all are. For all other things I would say the Ford government has ranged from disappointing to neutral, but that dude _loves_ trains. The highway expansions has mostly been because trucks are getting stuck in traffic. Someone needs to explain to Ford that cargo rail is just trains but for stuff, and maybe he'll then create multiple expansion programs for that, too.

It's because it's a smart long-term financial investment to invest in transit and limit road infrastructure. There are also aesthestic, business, and traditionalist arguments for transit. The fact that there are political arguments in favour of transit for all sides from communists to conservatives, it just shows the power of the oil and auto industries.

Largely because transit construction is the only really easy visible and tangible sign of progress that wins votes.

I believe it's a belief that is strongest with the boomers. Younger generations don't really have the same attitude towards cars, and Alberta is the youngest of the Canadian provinces. Young people on the left like transit for the big cities and lifestyle while younger conservatives like it for the fiscal sensibility and maybe traditionalism. Boomers are really the ones holding everyone back on this which is why America is so much worse about this: our boomers still hold all the political power.

He's gone and so are the Lib's... Thankfully... The NDP is pro-transit... And so is Marlena... Thankfully... Kenney had a rather churlish attitude towards transit sadly but again... Gone!

@@stickynorth Agreed. It answers why it hasn’t been done yet though.

I’m aware of where they get their funding, but it’s not so simple! “We don’t see value” is a very weak excuse. If they were to make a strong proposal between Edmonton and Calgary I’m sure they could find lots of political support!

@@RMTransit As Rick Mercer said, we are world leaders in studying HSR (there have been 26 studies of HSR in Ontario and Quebec since 1970, that’s about a study every 2 years), but it never gets funded. If we haven’t been able to get funding for HSR between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, what makes you think that Edmonton-Calgary would be more successful. Also, don’t forget that VIA is so cash strapped that they needed to ask the government to fund the HFR study, and even then the government is dragging its feet and until recently only funded a study to see if one day we should study HFR.

Sadly in the US and Canada it’s the opposite. Legally the freight trains are supposed to pull into a siding to allow the passenger train to pass, but the freight trains are so long here they do not fit in all the sidings anymore! The freight companies also own most of the tracks here, (Amtrak only owns the line from Washington to Boston and a few other shorter sections here and there.)

When those tracks are owned by the freight companies... It's a very different system to what you see in Europe, the only line somewhat similar is the line from Narvik to Kiruna and Luleå, where the ore trains get obvious priority. Also, while we in Europe do much better when it comes to passenger rail, Northern America transports a lot more tonnage by rail than we do.

Europe, except in drought years, also has internal water-borne freight on rivers and canals that are rare or non existent in North America carrying about 30% of large freight loads.

@@johndwilson6111 true, but that is not enough to explain the difference.

Tell all Conservative and many other politicians that.

Same with the mythical BC-California rail line. They've been talking about it for decades, but until shovels are in the ground, none of it matters.

Yeah, they been talking about this for a long time. Given the recent stunt by the premier to take away low income transit passes for AISH recipients and pensioners, I have an even more difficult time believing that the UCP would ever promote anything close to this. I have zero confidence that a rail system will ever happen under their leadership. The needle will not move in this direction until 2080.

Lyon, which he described as being much bigger, is roughly the same size too.

Lyon, which he described as being much larger, is roughly the same size too.

Bingo! As an Albertan with roots in both cities it's good to know your size rivals... Glasgow would be another good example too!

I agree. Building a station box under the existing Old Strathcona CP station was actually proposed for LRT back in the 1970's and 1980's in city planning documents. This could be revived for both streetcar and HSR...

Iirc the plan for a line there got dropped in one of the recent plans? And the terminal should be downtown because downtown remains a far more important and better connected destination. Making sure last mile users are walking, cycling and taking transit makes this very important.

@@RMTransit It shouldn't be a terminal. From my understanding they'll likely use a TBM to go under the river toward City Hall. If they're doing that, may as well continue a few km further to Yellowhead Trail, where there's an East/West alignment that could easily tie into Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan, St Albert, Stony Plain, and Spruce Grove.

What I'd like to see is any regional rail be through running, under Churchill. Then having a loop line contained by Yellowhead/82ave, 50st/142st, with a tail to WEM. Then you need not go DT to get between LRT lines either.

For people like me who are from outside North America, I found the references to Texas extremely confusing. (As you use the word 'petrol' I suspect that you (like me) are British.)

Both are about the same size. Both have a large agriculture sector with lots of cattle. Both even have cowboys.

Not true. Many of my Texan friends say Alberta is more Texan than Texas. Its culture above even oil

@@johncorkery3664 both also their respective countries in oil production

Bingo! Even if its just an extension of the existing NE line that would be a start since a lot of the airport employees live in that area nearby for obvious reasons..

The press release of this announcement said they were prioritizing the blue line connection to the airport as the first project to be built under this program

@@LoneHowler nice

Pretty sure they are, but that shouldn't be a substitute for higher speed service. A big issue with the LRT is it's too slow, but depending where you're going, the regional service can get you across town much faster. Especially if you include express service. The Airport could be a great location to transfer from regional to local service though.