The Texas of Canada has just released a very
exciting passenger rail master plan that
seeks to set out a series of priority corridors,
as well as the creation of a provincial agency
that can coordinate projects with
public and private partners.
While cynics were quick to come out of the
woodwork to complain that any progress
short of actually doing something we
haven't done yet is meaningless —
I mean, come on, plans are for suckers —
People generally seem taken aback.
What if Canada's Texas had high speed
rail between its biggest cities before
Texas, Texas? The race is on.
I mean, the premier was talking about how
untenable the idea of building eight or ten
lane highways across the provinces beautiful
landscapes would be, which is kind of amazing.
But maybe we shouldn't be surprised
that a premier who formerly owned a
restaurant in a train car would be into
the idea of more trains.
Now, there are a lot of projects that are
in the plan, from regional routes into
Calgary and Edmonton from
surrounding cities, air rail links,
the Banff- Calgary connection that can
hopefully save Canada's nicest park
from becoming a parking lot,
and intercity routes from Calgary to Edmonton
and perhaps all the way up to Fort Mac.
I've heard shock that the province
would unveil such bold plans, but the
reality is that Alberta is growing extremely fast.
As the speakers mentioned at the announcement,
this is a multi-decade, generational plan.
It's not all going to happen overnight.
But making a plan is really valuable.
The Conservatives have put the ideas out there
and put them on the map
and people are going to run with them.
And as I've said before, this kind of master
planned approach is the right one.
It's fiscally responsible because you don't
have to build everything right away,
but you set aside the land so that future
construction is more affordable,
kind of like with the light rail systems
in Calgary and Edmonton.
Canada is a huge place, but fortunately
that's mostly irrelevant to discussions of
intercity passenger rail since the corridors
where trains would actually travel are
fairly dense thanks to their size and proximity.
High speed rail between Edmonton
and Calgary just makes common sense.
But since in 2024 I've still heard the media
talking about the potential for Hyperloop
between the cities, a technology that doesn't
exist anywhere in commercial service,
I thought it was time for me to do a video on
the topic so I can talk about the things I
think planners and politicians should be
thinking about as they pursue this fantastic
generational opportunity,
and for the record, what is
the most ambitious rail plan in Canada.
Welcome to RMTransit, a channel about
railways in Canada and around the world.
The core problem Edmonton to Calgary rail
seeks to solve is getting people between the
cities in a fast, convenient, affordable and
environmentally conscious way.
Building a train is of little use if it's just a
tourist service that few people ride,
which is why it needs to be fast,
frequent, and affordable.
This shouldn't be a luxury travel option,
but the best way to get between
the Rocky Mountain parks, Alberta's
big cities and smaller communities,
as well as the airports.
And while this video is mostly focused
on the intercity service, I do want to say that
the regional service is both good
and important to the entire proposition,
not only for getting people on board, literally,
but also politically, because people rarely
want to support a vision that they won't
actually directly benefit from.
The nice thing about regional train services,
which I unfortunately heard getting
labeled commuter, is that they can
feed into a network of other services.
Someone from Okotoks can take a train into
Calgary and then transfer to another train
that takes them to Banff or Edmonton
or even just the airport.
They free up highway capacity for
goods transport, save money,
and get linked up to so many of the
province's amenities without having to spend
hours behind the wheel.
Regional rail isn't a new idea in Canada either.
Montreal is building its automated REM
regional train system and just yesterday
I was riding a GO train through the Toronto
suburbs at 140km/h while scrolling my emails.
It's just a way better way to get around for
the long journeys that are sometimes required
when you have sprawling suburbs.
And maybe you're not going into the city to
connect to another train, but to go to
a sports game or an event or to the airport.
Now today, people have three main options
for going between Calgary and Edmonton.
Flights, which are not all that affordable,
not all that convenient, and certainly not
environmentally friendly.
Buses, which are less sexy, less fast,
and more liable to get stuck in traffic,
not to mention always hanging on
the edge of oblivion.
And well, driving is driving: traffic, stress,
traffic, gas, traffic, insurance, traffic, nightmare.
So a rail option is really compelling.
Now, the journey from Calgary to
Edmonton is about 280 kilometres.
On the way you get to hook up to
Red Deer, Leduc, and Airdrie, as well as a
number of smaller communities that people
often don't think about.
For some communities along the line,
new rail service will obviously mean
new affordable, transit oriented development.
But for all of the communities it will mean that
you don't have to move to the big city to get
all of the big city amenities, which are increasingly
concentrated in the cities, whether that be
access to cutting edge hospitals or
universities or the airports.
Now, I do think it's worth noting that it is crazy
that VIA hasn't built something on this corridor.
Growing up in western Canada, I get people's
frustration with a train service that
basically only operates to a few communities
like three times a week.
I don't think I ever saw a VIA logo in the wild
growing up in suburban metro Vancouver
until I traveled to Halifax and saw
their VIA rail station. And of course,
VIA doesn't even touch Calgary at all.
It's just kind of hard to get people on board
with paying for something that they
have probably never used.
What's great about the corridor is that
it also allows for natural connections
to both the Calgary and Edmonton airports,
which are between the cities.
For the airports, as I talked about
in a video really not that long ago,
rail connections would be a game changer,
but high speed rail would be a revolution
because people in both cities would suddenly
have their airport market expand to two airports,
giving you a second airport option with
potentially cheaper flights and more destinations.
And the airports would be wise to develop
offices and other uses near the stations
on the airport lands, kind of like
you see in Germany.
This could allow them to create additional
revenue streams that would let them
bring down landing fees and make Calgary
and Edmonton's airports more competitive.
The most basic way to connect
the airports up would obviously be light rail
or people mover connections from the
closest point on the new line to the airport
terminals themselves.
But I think aiming higher is a great idea,
especially if we're doing a master planned
long term vision, and because using rail to
get to the airport is obviously more attractive
if you don't need to ride another train
to get between the train and the plane.
What's nice is that any new rail line between
Calgary and Edmonton should have
enough capacity to provide a 15 minute
airport express type service between
the airports and their respective cities
while still operating half hourly or better
intercity service, preserving lots of
capacity for the long term.
You could even do what Hong Kong and
some other world class cities do and let
people check their luggage right in the
downtown core so that they could hang out
downtown for a few hours before caching
their flight later in the day.
Fortunately, both airports have tons of land
to play with, including surface parking lots
right near the terminal buildings.
These surface parking lots could be excavated,
cut and cover style to build beautiful rail stations
that could have offices and shopping centres
on top, linked by cheap spur tunnels like the one
just recently built under the Montreal airport's
runways to connect them to the main line.
This is exactly the type of approach you see
in cities like Berlin and Oslo with their airports.
And before you say Oslo?
Oslo has way less people in it than
either Calgary or Edmonton, so clearly if
they can do it, these cities can as well.
At the very least since this is a master plan,
the airports and province can start
assembling the land and putting together plans.
I do want to reiterate though that a tunnel
for long distance and express trains
to the airport with an underground station
at the terminal doesn't have to be super expensive.
Actually building the tunnels with tunnel
boring machines isn't all that expensive,
and if you can build the station
cut and cover, it's not bad.
Now I've talked a lot before about how
Toronto should do something like this
with a direct rail line through the airport
and beyond to places like Brampton,
and it would be hilarious if Calgary
and Edmonton beat the city to the punch.
If you've followed this at all historically
you might go "well, the airlines will never want this"
but I'd actually disagree.
Airlines still exist in Europe and
in Asia where high speed rail is the norm,
and many would argue they're better
and more competitive for it.
In reality, if rail was handling most of the
traffic on the Calgary Edmonton corridor,
then the airlines could focus on
more profitable, longer distance flights,
which if you've been watching the fact that
Westjet now flies to Paris and Tokyo at all,
you'll know theyre already doing.
Looking at the main rail line itself,
you'd want a mostly double tracked corridor
with some sections of more tracks to allow
for express trains heading from the north of
Calgary to the south of Edmonton.
Having those short sections of overtake tracks
are critical because they allow you to both have
fast service between Calgary and Edmonton as
well as direct service that connects into
lots of little communities.
What's really nice about the corridor is that
it's pretty flat and not all that heavily developed,
so building a new fast passenger rail line
should be fairly simple and cost effective.
You might ask about using existing freight tracks,
but that runs the risk of eating into capacity
from Canadian National and Canadian Pacific,
and it would also mean dangerous
level crossings and tracks which aren't
up to snuff either geometry or quality-wise
for higher speed passenger service.
And that raises a question.
How fast is fast?
I think with Calgary and Edmonton,
the temptation and the way that most people
talk about it is full high speed rail — 320 km/h.
But I think that's neither necessary or advisable.
It's more expensive, it requires wider curves,
and the reality is that the distance between
Calgary and Edmonton is not that significant
and neither city is that gigantic.
Paris, Barcelona, Lyon, Madrid, Osaka:
they're all much larger cities
than Calgary or Edmonton.
So I think the correct solution is something
between 200 and 250, slower than
conventional modern high speed rail
but similar in speeds to the Northeast corridor
in the US and faster than anything
we have today in Canada.
That would allow you to do the downtown
to downtown trip way faster than driving
or taking the bus, and it would be
time competitive with flying.
A train would also offer you a ton
of predictability and travel time consistency
because trains run just as fast when it's snowing.
And the better economics with several
hundred people seated on each train would
mean that ticket prices could come down.
Planning for intercompatibility is also critical.
If Alberta is going to be building more and more rail,
you want a train to be able to seamlessly
go from one line to another without
having any problems, both for purposes of
operational flexibility, but also so that
you can buy a common set of trains
that can operate anywhere.
To be honest, right now, intercompatibility of
North American railways is patchy at best,
so you really want to think about things like
platform heights and signaling,
which should be built to open international
standards as opposed to a bespoke
North America-only system.
And because the decisions made for a line like
Calgary-Edmonton will have knock on
effects on future rail projects,
you want to think very carefully.
You want to design the stations so that
they have enough tracks for all your
planned service, but also for express trains.
Now, while between the cities I don't think
passenger and freight trains should interact,
getting into the cities freight operators are
much more important, or more specifically
land along their existing freight corridors and yards.
Fortunately, there's always basically a ton
of land available where you can shift
freight tracks over and then include two
additional passenger tracks while maintaining
all of the existing freight infrastructure.
That's especially true compared to the
tight spaces where you're seeing Toronto
currently upgrade from one to two, three,
or sometimes four tracks.
What's in it for the freight companies though?
Well, perhaps they could be made partners in
the project, making it clear the role they
played in enabling it.
But at the same time, when you're building
the new passenger infrastructure
into the cities, you can upgrade
their infrastructure and corridors as well,
including removing level crossings.
On the Calgary side, it's really easy.
Passenger tracks stay north and west of CP's
from downtown all the way up to the airport,
which kind of amazingly wouldn't
interact with any sidings.
A future airport tunnel connecting to
a station right at the terminal could be built
using a flyover and a tunnel starting
in some industrial lands near the airport.
Edmonton is trickier.
I've heard people suggest terminating in
Strathcona before, but I think that's a poor choice.
A big benefit of the train is the downtown
to downtown walkable pedestrian
transit-oriented connection, and Strathcona
isn't even on Edmonton's LRT network.
Fortunately, there's a solution that doesn't
need to cost very much that would provide an
excellent connection within Edmonton.
Heading into the city, you can once again
follow CP's tracks and stay to the west of them,
where once again there aren't any sidings
you'd have to interact with.
You might sometimes have to shift CP's
infrastructure over, but there should always
be enough room to maintain it without
having to impact it at all.
There are a few level crossings
and these could be removed, benefiting
both passenger and freight trains.
When you get to around 79th Avenue
you build a trench along the old rail
right of way, and the local community gets
the level crossings removed and a nice
linear park along the trench.
And in case you're wondering, which I'm sure
some people will be, the high level streetcar
could absolutely be maintained.
Finally, you'd rebuild the one parking structure
that goes over the corridor with a tunnel fit for
three tracks, one for the streetcar, two for
intercity trains, and then you relocate a
short section of 109th street and build a
new bridge which can carry both trains,
trains and road traffic over the valley.
In downtown, you build an elevated four track
terminal similar to the one Brightline uses
in Miami and potentially with transit
oriented development on top.
While this work might sound complex,
a few level crossing removals, shifted tracks,
a rebuilt parking structure, a trench,
and a bridge really aren't that big of a deal
for getting trains into your city centre.
In fact, many cities would love to
have it be that simple.
And for the price of admission, you get
high quality rail connections from
the edge of Edmonton and Calgary to your
new high speed rail line.
You're probably curious if there's a
particular model this line should be built on.
And yes, there is. It's Brightline in Florida,
which Alberta politicians should really be
booking flights to to go check out.
In a lot of ways, I think Brightline Florida
sets the standard for what you'd want to
aim for technically.
you have nice stations, double track,
high platforms, nice trains and service every
hour, half hour or even better.
You also have a brand new, fully
grade separated high speed section running
along the beach line expressway from
the coast to Orlando, which is a great model
for a similar high speed line
that can be built along the QE 2.
And you might even get a lot of the grade
separation on the line for free if you build
it in the median like Brightline is doing
with its second line between
Las Vegas and suburban LA.
The only real change I would make is
electrifying the entire line like we
see with the second Brightline route.
Electrifying is more cost up front,
but it's lower cost forever, with trains that are
more reliable, require less maintenance,
and last way longer.
But I think we can go even further than Brightline.
The government should consider a partnership
with Westjet and potentially Air Canada to allow
code sharing between flights and rail.
If I book a flight from Toronto or Calgary
to Cologne in Germany, it will actually be
a flight to Frankfurt and then a high speed rail
connection on the last leg to Cologne.
And you can imagine a similar setup in Alberta
where someone flying from say Japan or
London to Edmonton would first fly to
Calgary and then get on a high speed train
for their last leg.
Serious thought should also be given to
open access operations like you're starting to
see in other parts of the world.
This is where the government creates a market
in terms of the rails and the stations
and then different operators can compete to
provide affordable and convenient services.
And I really think that's key.
To a large extent, the Alberta government
should fund the infrastructure,
but other parties can fund operations.
At the very least I'm sure VIA Rail and
the federal government would fund
running VIA trains between Edmonton
and Calgary like they should have
decades ago, and these trains would finally
actually be able to operate at their top speed.
All in all, the projects should be affordable
because of the relatively simple urban
approaches and the big wide open right
of way between them.
There would be lots of capacity to run
loads of trains, providing affordable service
as well as the creation of a big new
intercity rail market in Canada.
And of course GHG emissions would
also come down for the airports.
It's great because they can move up
the value chain, providing less
short hop flights between local cities
and more international ones
that are higher value.
This should be something that we built
but not in five decades, in like five years.
If Toronto and Montreal are going to
get a new train, it's time Calgary
and Edmonton got a train.
Thanks for watching.