[The_Cat]

I think the only challenge with the tram could be whether it could be run over residential areas, It may be possible to run the tram south along the CPR track and east along the old CPR route in Hazeldean, as an alternate route.

 

[David A]

This.

I think there are some people who like these but it's literally a suburban form strip mall right in downtown, on one of the most prominent intersections in the city. It gives you a lot more room than any other lot in the area to build a truly massive station. Also as @Platinum107 says, the station itself could be a "mall" type of setup. As it is an elevated station, you could have a mall below, the train station at the top of the podium and towers on top. If we're worried about losing commercial space, the station could easily accommodate more than is currently there.

For me, its not so much like or dislike, but a reality. It is a busy, well used shopping area and I believe privately owned place, so it might be hard to convince the owners to go along with this which would involve disruption and loss of income. They may be content to keep it as is.

So it would probably be much easier and less costly to build on some of the empty and less utilized lots a bit south of this. This would also be closer to the existing LRT station, so perhaps it could better integrate with it.

 

[archited]

Advantages of this site for a downtown rail connection:
Aesthetic --
1. a new hotel tower atop the rail station (ticketing, administration, passenger services) could be via architectural competition one of Edmonton's signature buildings.
2. the boarding platform and baggage area would be located on the south side of Jasper Avenue beneath pocket park (part and parcel of the same architectural competition.
3. the subterranean pedway could be treated like a "lowline" landscaped park, making it an enjoyable experience in itself
4. a grand "living bridge" that becomes a focal centerpiece in the City
Connective --
1. as direct a connection to the City Centre as is possible with the pedways reaching a series of important civic and commercial facilities -- the pedway connection could also be extended to the McCauley Plaza LRT station, to Hotel Macdonald, and to the Convention Centre, boosting relevance of all three.
2. connects directly (assuming pedway improvement) to Hotel Macdonald, Courtyard by Marriott, Westin Edmonton, a new hotel as part of the station complex (ideally an Omni or a 4 Seasons) and via the extended pedway complex to Sandman Signature, JWMarriott, Delta Hotels in ECC and -- maybe -- if Alldritt sees the impetus created here, a revival of the 80-storey building east on Jasper that as a mixed use project had a hotel as a functioning component.
3. connects directly to the Civic Centre -- Milner Library, Citadel, Winspear, AGA and RAM as well as City Hall and the Fed Building
4. By way of LRT connects to every transportation node in the entire City
Beneficial --
1. extends 99th street to downtown and provides a more complete retail experience on that street benefitting both downtown and the SouthSide
2. provides a grand overview of the north Saskatchewan river and the river valley in total -- grand welcoming to Edmonton for the train-riders coming into the City
3. provides the least amount of curves and keeps those that are present at a sweeping radius that is mandated by a speedy rail solution
4. provides a new direct route to the southside and enables the low level bridge to be repurposed into an "active" transportation (rolling means) mode and pedestrian way (northeast portion of the bridge), allowing the southwest portion of the low-level to be repurposed into a few bridge-spanning, glass-enclosed eateries... thereby removing the Gordian Knot traffic mess that perplexes @Gronk! in particular and converts most of the roadways so affected into river valley parkland
5. by way of strategically located elevators on the bridge allows access to the river valley (one such elevator should drop people off at the repurposed Low Level Bridge which should be renamed Asokan (Cree for bridge that has meaning both literally and figuratively -- bridging cultures)

 

[archited]

 

[Garneau2Go]

I’ve said it before on another thread but could we not just buy out or upgrade the Radial Railway societies tracks from downtown to Strathcona for some sort of downtown connection? The right of way is already in place and drops you near the strathcona junction. The high level bridge would need to be upgraded anyways, it may be more cost effective to run a light rail connection to downtown rather than a heavy one plus a new station.

Strathcona station would be so much easier to build given that the land near those tracks is more underdeveloped. The area would also be perfect for a Victoria Station inspired terminus (man I miss London).

 

[Foolworm]

I’ve said it before on another thread but could we not just buy out or upgrade the Radial Railway societies tracks from downtown to Strathcona for some sort of downtown connection?

I've suggested this before (albeit for Centre LRT and Whyte BRT public engagement) but it's a non-starter. The ERRS is heavily opposed to any other use of the corridor, several of their members post on this forum and can attest to it.

 

[CplKlinger]

I've suggested this before (albeit for Centre LRT and Whyte BRT public engagement) but it's a non-starter. The ERRS is heavily opposed to any other use of the corridor, several of their members post on this forum and can attest to it.

Just to clarify, the ERRS does not own the ROW. The province owns most of it, and the city owns the crossings. Or something like that. Either way, it's out of the society's hands completely.

I am a member, but when I post here it's purely on behalf of myself and my beliefs. I do think it would be be better to tunnel, and yes, part of that reason is because the society uses that ROW. It's not very common in North America to have heritage streetcars operating in the "real world". There are some systems yes, most notable probably being San Frasisco. And many of those are owned, operated, and maintained by municipal organizations on the public dime. Most streetcar museums operate on loops built on rural properties that are out of the way, and ironically sometimes inaccessible without a car. Contrast that with the ERRS, which draws tens of thousands of visitors annually to the Whyte-Jasper corridor at little cost to the taxpayer - relying largely on fare revenue and private donations. Aside from teaching history, it is a genuine economic generator for the area and serves as one of the city's best known tourist experiences. Yes, there's the line at Fort Edmonton Park, but they serve two different purposes, and I truly believe that the High Level Bridge streetcar benefits local businesses (both by drawing in visitors, and offering charters, which businesses take advantage of and often sell out their tickets), and the city due to its brand recognition, its ability to attract so many visitors, and the way that it fits into broader city tourism efforts (I.e., Explore Edmonton often brings visiting officials on board as part of its tour of the city).

That being said, there's other reasons I think HSR should be tunneled. First, doing so would let it avoid numerous at-grade road and pedestrian crossings. Second, it would preserve a very busy shared use-path and parkway. This isn't meant to be a nimby thing, but I look at it this way: HSR would serve Alberta's for generations to come, meaning that the decisions we make today will affect the environment where people many years from now will live. I see a lot of people using that park, and the path making cycling in the area a lot easier and quicker; the area would be worse off without them. Third, tunneling could allow a greater ability to design the track and equipment layout based on operational needs; the at-grade corridor is very much boxed in by housing on either side and short of expropriating land or digging a tunnel, the rail operator would always be restricted by that set width no matter the operational needs down the line. Tunneling will be more expensive for sure, but I think the LRT has shown us that we can either do it right the first time, or future generations will need to pick up the tab.

This is just off the top of my head, and I'm sure there's plenty of holes that will understandably be poked in my arguments. All I'm trying to get across is that all the posts I've made here have been good-faith and based on what I genuinely believe is the best outcome for all; they're not part of any organized platform on behalf of the society, and certainly not a sign that anyone in the society has any say in this beyond giving their perspectives. I stayed quiet in this most recent discussion because I didn't want to bug people by repeating things too much, but I wanted to make this post to get that across.

 

[Gronk!]

@CplKlinger exactly which section of the HSR do you want tunneled?
Downtown?
North Saskatchewan River?
Old Strathcona until south of 76 Ave?
All the way to Calgary?

 

[CplKlinger]

@CplKlinger exactly which section of the HSR do you want tunneled?
Downtown?
North Saskatchewan River?
Old Strathcona until south of 76 Ave?
All the way to Calgary?

The area north of Whyte Ave and south of the river is what I have in mind!

 

[Gronk!]

The area north of Whyte Ave and south of the river is what I have in mind!

I agree with you for the most part, although I'd want the tunneling extended until south of 76 Ave.

Reasons include:
- Whyte Ave crossing
- Station Park development
- possible 76 Ave extension from 99 St to Gateway Blvd that may include an HSR station or terminal

 

[Foolworm]

Just to clarify, the ERRS does not own the ROW. The province owns most of it, and the city owns the crossings. Or something like that. Either way, it's out of the society's hands completely.

This is worth clarifying, as the ERRS was able to construct an extension to the line quite recently. Even if they don't own the ROW, it seems like they manage it on behalf of whoever does.

 

[CplKlinger]

This is worth clarifying, as the ERRS was able to construct an extension to the line quite recently. Even if they don't own or control the ROW, it seems like they manage it on behalf of whoever does.

That extension took many years of paperwork before they could break ground precisely because they don't own or control the ROW. I recall hearing they were surprised by how long the administrative process took; they thought it'd be a bit easier to get approved since it was a recently abandoned rail ROW rather than an area that hadn't seen rail traffic ever/in a long time, or needed a lot of work to make it rail-friendly. And it's the city that makes decisions about the ROW, everything from having the park by the tunnel expanded to how frequently the grass is mowed. The society's role is limited to ensuring safe operating conditions, like maintaining the track and cutting branches that get too close to the overhead wire.

 

[David A]

Just to clarify, the ERRS does not own the ROW. The province owns most of it, and the city owns the crossings. Or something like that. Either way, it's out of the society's hands completely.

I am a member, but when I post here it's purely on behalf of myself and my beliefs. I do think it would be be better to tunnel, and yes, part of that reason is because the society uses that ROW. It's not very common in North America to have heritage streetcars operating in the "real world". There are some systems yes, most notable probably being San Frasisco. And many of those are owned, operated, and maintained by municipal organizations on the public dime. Most streetcar museums operate on loops built on rural properties that are out of the way, and ironically sometimes inaccessible without a car. Contrast that with the ERRS, which draws tens of thousands of visitors annually to the Whyte-Jasper corridor at little cost to the taxpayer - relying largely on fare revenue and private donations. Aside from teaching history, it is a genuine economic generator for the area and serves as one of the city's best known tourist experiences. Yes, there's the line at Fort Edmonton Park, but they serve two different purposes, and I truly believe that the High Level Bridge streetcar benefits local businesses (both by drawing in visitors, and offering charters, which businesses take advantage of and often sell out their tickets), and the city due to its brand recognition, its ability to attract so many visitors, and the way that it fits into broader city tourism efforts (I.e., Explore Edmonton often brings visiting officials on board as part of its tour of the city).

That being said, there's other reasons I think HSR should be tunneled. First, doing so would let it avoid numerous at-grade road and pedestrian crossings. Second, it would preserve a very busy shared use-path and parkway. This isn't meant to be a nimby thing, but I look at it this way: HSR would serve Alberta's for generations to come, meaning that the decisions we make today will affect the environment where people many years from now will live. I see a lot of people using that park, and the path making cycling in the area a lot easier and quicker; the area would be worse off without them. Third, tunneling could allow a greater ability to design the track and equipment layout based on operational needs; the at-grade corridor is very much boxed in by housing on either side and short of expropriating land or digging a tunnel, the rail operator would always be restricted by that set width no matter the operational needs down the line. Tunneling will be more expensive for sure, but I think the LRT has shown us that we can either do it right the first time, or future generations will need to pick up the tab.

This is just off the top of my head, and I'm sure there's plenty of holes that will understandably be poked in my arguments. All I'm trying to get across is that all the posts I've made here have been good-faith and based on what I genuinely believe is the best outcome for all; they're not part of any organized platform on behalf of the society, and certainly not a sign that anyone in the society has any say in this beyond giving their perspectives. I stayed quiet in this most recent discussion because I didn't want to bug people by repeating things too much, but I wanted to make this post to get that across.

I don't know what the additional cost would be, but you do make a good case for tunneling. It would allow existing uses and high speed rail to nicely co-exist on the same right of way.

In any event, I strongly feel the line should go to somewhere to downtown rather than end on the southside. Our city already has too many half measures and transportation compromises that make traveling here more difficult than it should be both for visitors and residents. We have cheaped out too many times in past and it would really be a mistake to keep on doing it out of comfort and habit.

 

[yeggator]

The area north of Whyte Ave and south of the river is what I have in mind!

Curious, how well would it sit with you if the city opted to build the spur to downtown cut-and-cover, with the streetcar tracks being temporarily displaced and then set right back where they were originally after construction? I fear tunnel boring would dramatically escalate the cost.

 

[CplKlinger]

Curious, how well would it sit with you if the city opted to build the spur to downtown cut-and-cover, with the streetcar tracks being temporarily displaced and then set right back where they were originally after construction? I fear tunnel boring would dramatically escalate the cost.

I can only speak for myself, but I think that'd be a good compromise. Short term pain for long term gain.