Hat @ Old Strathcona | 66.14m | 20s | Cidex Group

[fromyeg]

I appreciate all HSR discussion. Haha

It’s in Edmonton’s Mass Transit Plan to have a rail connection from YEG to Downtown Edmonton using the existing rail right of way that runs parallel to QEII/Gateway Blvd. This requires a new bridge.

It makes sense that any new rail infrastructure be built to accommodate both HSR service to Calgary and rail service to YEG.

With D. Smith mentioning both the rail connection to YEG and HSR in her recent throne speech, I hope that within the next three years we at least get some way into the planning/design phase.

I also think we should have an Old Strathcona Station as well as a DT station. I think it would be a great economic catalyst for the area, increase ridership, and it would be much closer for me to use.

 

[Clearshades]

There is no confusion here -- I have long advocated a Rail Station at 76th Ave on CP land in Strathcona -- that would not run through the area; rather it would terminate at the southern end of Old Strathcona. The notion of either a high capacity rail or bus system running through Old Strathcona along Whyte, on the other hand, would simply add to congestion not solving any problems at all. Do you really think that someone in the habit of driving from Sherwood Park to U of A would drive part of the distance to then forfeit their car for a transit ride? Presumably in that scenario they would park at Bonnie Doon -- I just don't see it happening. I could see a subway system functioning well that actually runs from Sherwood Park to U of A -- the cost, however, would be prohibitive and the agreement between three separate agencies for cost sharing would be a very difficult document to attain. The best solution in my mind is a tram and a road that crosses CPR land at 76th Avenue (on the periphery of Old Strathcona) -- that provides an alternative route to Whyte running east and west and also provides a non-clustered stop for Edmonton's premier street-scene shopping district.

How did we get to talking about HSR Downtown vs. Strathcona again in the Hat @ Old Strathcona thread?

I think most people can agree that it's best to put the HSR station downtown if possible, the issue is I don't see where you can find the space for both a large station and an appropriately sized ROW. I think that for now a station at Strathcona Junction works perfectly as a central station key word "for now". Eventually it should find a place downtown, but that would require either the construction of a new bridge or a replacement of the High Level, both of which will balloon already high costs of such a project to an even higher proportion. First, build it to Strathcona Junction, then allow ridership and support to grow, recover from that initial massive investment. Then 15 years or so down the line, extend it somewhere Downtown.

I do wonder where a Downtown Station could go however, there are plenty of large open parking lots, but I wonder how one would route tracks to get there, maybe the commercial on the northwest corner of Jasper and 109th st could be a potential station site.

Another bonus of this plan is that Edmonton would then have 2 city centre rail transit hubs in both of the "main cores" of the city.

Regarding a large station, one just has look at how the legislative grounds are built. It straddles over a road. A downtown station across the high level bridge would suffice, for the station can replicate that concept over both directional streets connecting right into the legislative grounds. What a way to welcome visitors. With the amount of real estate's just north of the bridge, I can see three tracks would be possible.

 

[archited]

The High Level Bridge cannot support HSR.

 

[Clearshades]

Understandably but it had to be used for analogy and reference as, by the time any high-speed is concretely in function, that bridge would no longer be useful for any means but pedestrian walk ways .

 

[dunno]

That was yesterday's dollars unless our city is that wealthy as cost inflation since the UoA has skyrocketed. I won't complain if it is doable and would support that. The current leg of Millwoods to the West end is on borrowed dollars as is.

Ok talk to Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Montreal with tunnels currently being built for rapid transit and/or having recently completed new tunnelled sections.

I'm aware of BRT plans @fromyeg and I think it's fine as a temporary measure but realistically this corridor deserves LRT and it deserves to be done right, which is with an underground section. It may or may not happen in the future, but it isn't a farfetched idea. And if we don't, then I'm sure there will be plenty of people bargaining with themselves that "it's perfectly fine" like we already see with the at-grade alignments at University Ave, around Bonnie Doon, and at Kingsway. A surface-level LRT would be an improvement, don't get me wrong, but truly, for a destination like Whyte, it deserves the best, which often means a higher price tag.

 

[archited]

Further, the High Level Bridge is a protected Historical site and there is no prospect that it would be replaced.

 

[Clearshades]

Ok talk to Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Montreal with tunnels currently being built for rapid transit and/or having recently completed new tunnelled sections.

I'm aware of BRT plans @fromyeg and I think it's fine as a temporary measure but realistically this corridor deserves LRT and it deserves to be done right, which is with an underground section. It may or may not happen in the future, but it isn't a farfetched idea. And if we don't, then I'm sure there will be plenty of people bargaining with themselves that "it's perfectly fine" like we already see with the at-grade alignments at University Ave, around Bonnie Doon, and at Kingsway. A surface-level LRT would be an improvement, don't get me wrong, but truly, for a destination like Whyte, it deserves the best, which often means a higher price tag.

I can talk to them , but that doesn't mean it is cheap. Vancouver and Toronto are being binded by no real estate, so it is up or underneath.

The important issue for this street is form, function and convenience. Yes, we currently have traffic issues, so the question is why, where s is it coming from, and what the purpose of this street is for. Further to this complexity, will traffic be as prevalent as now- for myriads of reasons - one of which is, I think and going forward, vehicles will be out of reach for the mass. The cost of gasoline, maintenance, insurance, and upkeep will be too expensive. A truck is 100k and your average vehicle is no longer affordable. If we decide that the direct Whyte is not the option, 76 ave, as Architected mentioned, would be a six block to Whyte. That is a bit of a walk s but closer would work- but not North of whyte. Anything outside of the direct route would require expropriation which exponentially increase in cost right through until 82 ave and 63 ave zipped. We're debating on an ephemeral approach.

As per mono rails, that requires it to be above ground which would mean lots of concrete for pillars and viaducts. If that is the approach, I would like a ruminate concept of mono/mini-freeway. Mono going underneath and vehicles above (toll).

 

[Clearshades]

Further, the High Level Bridge is a protected Historical site and there is no prospect that it would be replaced.

Who says it has to be replaced? It can go right next to it. Once this bridge is retired, I would love for that bridge to become farmers/flee market with restaurants and coffee shops etc having see through glass bottoms.

 

[archited]

You should see the bridge that I have proposed -- months ago!

 

[itom987]

Holy thread derail! I thought we were talking about The Hat in strathcona.

 

[dunno]

I can talk to them , but that doesn't mean it is cheap. Vancouver and Toronto are being binded by no real estate, so it is up or underneath.

The important issue for this street is form, function and convenience. Yes, we currently have traffic issues, so the question is why, where s is it coming from, and what the purpose of this street is for. Further to this complexity, will traffic be as prevalent as now- for myriads of reasons - one of which is, I think and going forward, vehicles will be out of reach for the mass. The cost of gasoline, maintenance, insurance, and upkeep will be too expensive. A truck is 100k and your average vehicle is no longer affordable. If we decide that the direct Whyte is not the option, 76 ave, as Architected mentioned, would be a six block to Whyte. That is a bit of a walk s but closer would work- but not North of whyte. Anything outside of the direct route would require expropriation which exponentially increase in cost right through until 82 ave and 63 ave zipped. We're debating on an ephemeral approach.

As per mono rails, that requires it to be above ground which would mean lots of concrete for pillars and viaducts. If that is the approach, I would like a ruminate concept of mono/mini-freeway. Mono going underneath and vehicles above (toll).

You're not getting that I realize it isn't cheap. My point is that, yes, Edmonton can just choose to be cheap like it always does, but the best solution for Whyte Ave would be an underground tube. Whether or not that happens is up to the future, but it doesn't change that it's the best. It is entirely possible even despite the finances, and you can go on about how this isn't the early '90s or we aren't Toronto, but these are just excuses that we use to delude ourselves into thinking mediocrity is fine. And that's how we continue to accept cheap, mediocre solutions.

Providing fast, effective transit around a well-liked corridor like Whyte would also make transit far more effective and desirable for Edmontonians. This is how you're going to win against cars because otherwise, Edmonton is too well-designed for cars.

If I understand @archited correctly, he isn't suggesting a 76 Ave corridor instead of Whyte, but rather using the CPR corridor and having a stop at 76 Ave. I could've misread that one though.

Why are you bringing up monorails? I literally never suggested it. It was never "the approach."

 

[Clearshades]

I brought up mono rails as a general possibility. Architected mentioned 76ave for the TRAM.
Cheap does not mean it is not high quality.

 

[dunno]

I brought up mono rails as a general possibility. Architected mentioned 76ave for the TRAM.
Cheap does not mean it is not high quality.

Having a train underground instead of at grade, where it will cause issues for cross-traffic and potentially be bogged down by traffic is a downgrade in quality. I don't know why you're so against a tube, aside from $$$.

You're right that, even if underground, an LRT may still not be the highest possible quality, but you're completely missing the point.

1) Even if not the best possible quality, the functionality of an underground LRT in this corridor means that it would be a marked improvement over at-grade

2) I am imagining the best scenario for Whyte Ave, which would, yes, be costlier. This means a high quality underground LRT. May it not be even if underground LRT is one day built? Sure. But I am envisioning what the best possible outcome would be, and IMO this is it.

As much as I am overall for above-ground LRT, I do think that the visibility and shadowing issues it would cause for such a high quality main street mean that underground is preferrable. Save the Skytrain for Kingsway and Bonnie Doon.

 

[Clearshades]

How far is this tunnel? Would that not constraint traffic even more as you can't drive on it while construction takes place. What is expensive to buy ...tunnelling, mono rail, TRAM? If mono rail is chosen, we could look at a 2 for1 with Maglev mono running below the viaducts while vehicles on top. The advantage of Maglev mono is that they are automatic and they suspend therefore not much stress caused to the infrastructure, so that would allow for a mini freeway on top of the viaduct. I wouldn't doubt extra integrity would have to be Added, but if you get 2 for 1, I would be laughing. They are just ideas thrown out. You're looking at one option underground. How would you know underground is the best? Do you have a study on cost metrics for all form of transit pertaining to what we are discussing, or is that a gut hunch? If it is the latter, I won't buy that. The best is the cheapest numbers for quality built, and all options should be carefully reviewed. Further to this, how would this proposal help this site's area for further development? How will Millwoods line be affected with tunnelling? Will this intersect cost more as we have to perhaps dive deeper. It would definitely cost more, for it will be a major stop. If you go deep you pay more for accesses to above ground.
Whatever is chosen, it has to integrate with this development going on here, as I could see more towers around this area.

 

[IanO]

Simple solution.

Integrate the gondola into this project as the south terminus