A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Calgary-Edmonton High Speed Rail Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this capstone project I address a transportation issue of importance to the future of economic development in Alberta. A high-speed rail transit system linking the Calgary-Edmonton corridor has been proposed in Alberta as an effective method to foster and accommodate economic development. However, because of the very large initial cost, public investment is almost seen as being required in order for it to be financially viable. In order to justify billions of taxpayer dollars, a high-speed rail project must be found to produce a net social benefit. High-speed rail has the potential to greatly improve the efficiency of transportation in Alberta. The link between Calgary and Edmonton is a crucial one to the success of Alberta's economy. With a high speed rail system, the goal is for Albertans to be able to increase the speed of transportation and at a reduced cost. If this outcome was realized, it would inevitably enhance future development and augment economic growth. There exists detailed information on high-speed rail in Alberta. It provides reasonably reliable estimates of costs of the project, and how much revenue it can generate. It is also well-known from literature that external benefits, both on the demand side and supply side of high-speed rail, come in many forms and are not just marginal. The components of the project have undergone extensive analyses, but there has only been one cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the net benefit of high-speed rail to Alberta. Recently, the Government of Alberta summoned a committee to investigate high-speed rail further. However, they decided against the results of the analyses to go through with the project immediately. Their recommendations were primarily based on public submissions and oral reports as opposed to more heavily relying on evidence. Because of the major economic impact that it can have on Alberta, and because most of the analyses have portrayed a likely positive result, it was beneficial to conduct another cost-benefit analysis. This one provided an even more updated and thorough estimate of the viability of highspeed rail in Alberta, because it included updated cost, revenue, and external benefit figures as of 2013. The results of this cost-benefit analysis are in accordance with other analyses, especially with respect to the typically used 5% nominal discount rate and it is estimated that high-speed rail will almost certainly provide a positive net benefit to Albertans, and thereby will assist with the province's economic development. What has been determined from the research conducted in this capstone is that the Government of Alberta should begin preparation for a high-speed rail system in Alberta in the future by determining which high-speed train will benefit Alberta the most, by gathering the necessary land titles for the project, by launching public consultations with any affected First Nation's land, and by launching a campaign in Alberta to inform the public of the benefits of high-speed rail and garner support for the project. It would also be wise to conduct further sensitivity analysis as it plays a pivotal role in the feasibility of the project, as well as a comparative analysis designed to determine if any other avenues under the umbrella of government accountability need the funds instead.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".