News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

One challenge of the north extension is the lack of OMF for the LRV's. There is one planned, but it is on the 3rd segment. Even for the extension to Blatchford, a new storage facility for the LRV fleet was needed. That was supposed to be built next to the ball diamond east of Wayne Gretzky Drive. One reason for going south was they would be building a new OMF on the first segment to be built, and that meant they could get by without building the storage facility along the NE line, and presumably, this will help store LRV's for when the line expands north of Blatchford.
It's a bit like how so much planning was going on with the WLRT, but they did the SELRT first because that was where the land was for the main OMF.

I get the need for a new OMF, which is why I support phase one of Capital south going forward first and then Metro phase two. With the new facility south of the Henday capacity needs for the LRT should be met, at least for a while.
 
^that's one thing i wonder about with the metro line, particularly if only the extension to Castle downs is built. with only OMFs on the Capital line, that means any stock serving the Metro line will have to deadhead extensively along the Capital line to start or end the day, or increase frequency for peak hours. this would take up valuable timeslots for services on the capital line, which is a big issue given the grade crossings, which can only handle 1 train every few minutes or traffic gets too snarled. we have this happening a bit right now, (trains deadheading south in the am to start peak services on the capital, and the odd metro line train staying stored at Health Sciences) but it only works because the current metro line is still short, low-ridership, and low frequency at all times, with no peak service. an extension to castle downs will require more trainsets, as well as an increase in service during peak hours; meaning a lot more deadheading and/or train storage happening at stations/sidings. I'm not a transit engineer, so my knowledge of solutions is limited, but i don't see how Castle downs can get proper service without some kind of storage facility built closer to the line than current facilities (ie the site by coliseum from a couple years ago).
not an unsurmountable issue, to be sure. but something that looks under-considered by the City at this point. just because they drew a map and put phases on it doesn't mean every kink is worked out yet lol. still hope the Metro Line gets built next, but I think we'll need some kind of facility beyond what was laid out in earlier plans.
 
Hopefully contruction closures to the MUP going up 111St are minimal, as that is pretty much the only connector for cyclists who live past the Henday to commute into the city. Any detours would be extremely inconvenient.
 
Hopefully contruction closures to the MUP going up 111St are minimal, as that is pretty much the only connector for cyclists who live past the Henday to commute into the city. Any detours would be extremely inconvenient.
I think the replacement of the Blackmud Creek bridge down Running Creek Road may have been a factor in this. There likely will be no other way across the creek during construction for pedestrians. It would be awesome if the City replaced the sidewalk on the east side of 111 ST , south of 23 AV with a MUP before construction started to ensure the corridor is somewhat maintained. The trail is on the east side of 111 ST across the Henday, so this would actually make sense.
 
I think the replacement of the Blackmud Creek bridge down Running Creek Road may have been a factor in this. There likely will be no other way across the creek during construction for pedestrians. It would be awesome if the City replaced the sidewalk on the east side of 111 ST , south of 23 AV with a MUP before construction started to ensure the corridor is somewhat maintained. The trail is on the east side of 111 ST across the Henday, so this would actually make sense.
Never thought of this, but I think you're likely right. I just wish they would have also included some resurfacing for Running Creek Rd as well, as it is in pretty rough shape (probably the same condition it was in when it was still a country road). There's also a missing section of sidewalk between the 9 and 12 Ave which is inconvenient.

It'll also sure be interesting to see how the MUP on the west side along the LRT line is done, too. Particularly the intersection of 111 St and Saddleback Road just after the bridge, as I think that is probably currently one of the worst crossings along the way with the slip lane and amount of traffic that turns right on the red to go on 111 St south. I can't even count the number of times I've almost been hit there while crossing or using the painted bike lane.
 
Never thought of this, but I think you're likely right. I just wish they would have also included some resurfacing for Running Creek Rd as well, as it is in pretty rough shape (probably the same condition it was in when it was still a country road). There's also a missing section of sidewalk between the 9 and 12 Ave which is inconvenient.

It'll also sure be interesting to see how the MUP on the west side along the LRT line is done, too. Particularly the intersection of 111 St and Saddleback Road just after the bridge, as I think that is probably currently one of the worst crossings along the way with the slip lane and amount of traffic that turns right on the red to go on 111 St south. I can't even count the number of times I've almost been hit there while crossing or using the painted bike lane.
Saddleback will still have painted bike lanes with slip lanes crossing over; however, with the LRT crossing, right on red would be illegal here, so hopefully that improves safety a little bit.

I don't see a sidewalk being added on the east side of 111 ST between 9 and 12 AV, so this is something I would be pushing the councillor for to add. There is a possibility this could get added in when the design/build contractor is selected though.
 
Saddleback will still have painted bike lanes with slip lanes crossing over; however, with the LRT crossing, right on red would be illegal here, so hopefully that improves safety a little bit.

I don't see a sidewalk being added on the east side of 111 ST between 9 and 12 AV, so this is something I would be pushing the councillor for to add. There is a possibility this could get added in when the design/build contractor is selected though.
I think that the missing sidewalk had been marked in the Paths for People missing links project years back, so maybe there might be a chance that it gets constructed with the city's initiative to construct those.

I'm actually curious to see if they keep the slip lane on that particular intersection (turning right onto Saddleback from 111 St southbound), especially as I believe the LRT will have an at-grade grossing there. Same with the one entering Twin Brooks just after the bridge crossing.
 
An ideal minor expansion of Edmonton's Capital LRT Line would be building one on 66th Street Northwest. The popular Londonderry Mall and neighbourhoods surrounding it would be located within walking distance of rail.
 

Attachments

  • maxresdefault.jpg
    maxresdefault.jpg
    109.8 KB · Views: 74

Back
Top