News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

thommyjo said:
I still like the idea of using a new high level bridge to do a terminus at government centre. Less ideal than Churchill though. But a way for us to sort out the massive costs that bridge will be.

Does greenfield forsure mean a henday type route though instead of a straight shot south from downtown?
Click to expand...
There is no room in the government centre for a major terminal. I have no idea where it would fit.
 
northlands said:
Greenfield, you say? Here's my sicko mode suggestion (red at/above grade, blue u/g) if no existing rail ROWs can be utilized.

Put grand central station terminus stretching from 103 to 102 ave between 97th to 95th, plus extended over 97th st where the law courts building is, utilize those existing pedway connections to Churchill, and have direct access to Quarters VLSE station.

The stretch down Baseline is probably elevated. Replace the Dawson with a nice combined vehicles on the bottom rail on top bridge. Old coal mines a major concern near the Rowland Rd portal, and McNally Highschool is probably demolished (but it's having geotechnical issues already). Overall fairly minimal expropriation required, mostly in Fulton and Riverdale north of Rowland Rd.

View attachment 661818
Click to expand...
How much am I getting for my house, then? 🤣
 
High level bridge, then the rail MUP corridor, to the empty 109st lots.

Jasper ave plus Capital line connection.

But farther from CBD and Valley line tie in. Churchill is obviously the ideal connect, but might mean a massive new bridge while we also still need to pay for the HLB too.
 
thommyjo said:
High level bridge, then the rail MUP corridor, to the empty 109st lots.

Jasper ave plus Capital line connection.

But farther from CBD and Valley line tie in. Churchill is obviously the ideal connect, but might mean a massive new bridge while we also still need to pay for the HLB too.
Click to expand...
As long as the province is paying no problem. The commuter trains could terminate at Stadium as an interim measure until demand dictates otherwise. Huge parking lot next to the station could easily accommodate four platforms. Get the province to pay for grade seperation at 111ave. and anywhere else as needed.
Of course Stadium station would need a Spanish solution and five car trains. 😉
 
ys11 said:
Why isn't Edmonton to Jasper a priority? They should just make a loop from Edmonton - Calgary- Banff - Jasper.
Click to expand...
Jasper I don't think attracts the tourists that Banff does. It is much further away from Edmonton than Banff is from Calgary. Very little between Edmonton and Jasper that would be trip generators.
So expensive line, less demand.

As for Banff-Jasper. Holy hell. It would take a lot of money to build a new railway through the mountains. And the Parks Canada red tape.
 
EdwardEdm said:
Jasper I don't think attracts the tourists that Banff does. It is much further away from Edmonton than Banff is from Calgary. Very little between Edmonton and Jasper that would be trip generators.
So expensive line, less demand.

As for Banff-Jasper. Holy hell. It would take a lot of money to build a new railway through the mountains. And the Parks Canada red tape.
Click to expand...
I’d be interested to see the data, but I have to imagine the Calgary to Banff volume is 4-8x the Edmonton to jasper. And waaaay shorter.
 
Agard said:
Would building a train to Jasper not be helpful for attracting more tourists?
Click to expand...
This.

I think the biggest reason it doesn't get the same volume of visitors as Banff is because it's not as easy to get to for botg international & domestic tourists. The ones that do visit, they mostly drive or take a bus there via the Icefields Parkway.

But if you could fly into YEG, hop on a train that takes you to directly Jasper in 2-2.5 hours, then it will become more attractive for tourists. Jasper would promote the heck out of this, resulting in increased demand for services and modern lodgings, giving Jasper the economic boost it sorely needs.
 
Agard said:
Would building a train to Jasper not be helpful for attracting more tourists?
Click to expand...
Sure, but at what cost?
A new 400 km railway is laughable just to attract tourists with its costs.
While we already have the CN mainline, and CN has been adding capacity, but I suspect the line could use $100's of millions more in upgrades to reliably include operation of multiple passenger trains per day.
The problem for Jasper is it will never really be a day trip destination being 4 hours from Edmonton. Certainly not like Banff can be an easy day trip.
Jasper also lacks anything like Banff has with Canmore near by. Hinton just doesn't do it.
Banff also already has multiple coach companies providing service to Banff, and a thriving and expanding transit system that get people to assorted useful destinations.

A 370 km long high speed train would probably cost a minimum of of $20.35 billion. Assuming $55 million per km from this (old!) article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...in-toronto-windsor-kitchener-london-1.4121663

It would probably more more once it hits the mountains and needs a route through there to Henry House where the topography is flatter and wide open.
 
Last edited:
Now, don't yell at me I'm just brainstorming but, the quickest route from the south is 91st up til Argyle and then an elevated track ( leaving just pylons contacting ground straight through the millcreek ravine right into the downtown core where a new bridge and tunnel bring us to a Central Station in the Quarters.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top