News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

I think I would rather have the 23 AV tunnel built as opposed the elevated rail over Ellerslie, if one had to choose. 23 AV is at an intersection and as we all know, the LRT can impact traffic in all directions at intersections. As for Ellerslie, this is a mid block crossing, so hopefully impacts will be less. The tunnel for drainage of the 23 AV tunnel is also already under construction, so to change that now would be a waste of money.
 
Or university Ave. Then metro line service could be extended further south. Grade separating Ellerslie or 23rd Ave has no benefit to riders.
 
TagYEG said:
I think I would rather have the 23 AV tunnel built as opposed the elevated rail over Ellerslie, if one had to choose. 23 AV is at an intersection and as we all know, the LRT can impact traffic in all directions at intersections. As for Ellerslie, this is a mid block crossing, so hopefully impacts will be less. The tunnel for drainage of the 23 AV tunnel is also already under construction, so to change that now would be a waste of money.
Click to expand...
dictionary.cambridge.org

facetious

1. not serious about a serious subject, in an attempt to be funny or to appear…
dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary.cambridge.org
 
TravellingChris said:
Remember, the City's LRT Planning branch are the same ones who insisted that at-grade crossings wouldn't cause major backups at University Avenue and would be just fine around 111 Avenue and Princess Elizabeth Avenue. Their projections are about as accurate as those of the guy in the Kremlin who thought he could defeat Ukraine in under a week.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't know what sort of planning they actually do. Both of our recent LRT lines have significant delays, missed deadlines and have generally been fairly messed up.

If any money is going to be spent on this, I would start with fixing at grade problems for the longer suffering people around University Avenue and Kingsway.
 
soupcrate said:
Or university Ave. Then metro line service could be extended further south. Grade separating Ellerslie or 23rd Ave has no benefit to riders.
Click to expand...
The City isn't going to grade-separate the University Avenue crossing now. This would mean massive disruption in the area and would result in a years-long interruption in LRT service on the Capital Line (trains would be replaced by buses running between Health Sciences or University and Century Park). The other issue is that doing so would take scarce funds away from other future LRT projects like the Metro Line to Castle Downs.

This is why it is vital to do the Capital Line South Phase One extension right the first time. It will be enormously difficult and expensive to fix later when problems become unmanageable.

But even in a perfect world where the University Avenue crossing could be trenched, the Metro Line wouldn't be extended to Century Park alongside the Capital Line, because in that scenario it wouldn't just be an at-grade University Avenue crossing that would pose problems. As I understand it, there would be too many trains running through all the at-grade intersections south of University Avenue (such as 76 Avenue, 51 Avenue, 40 Avenue, etc.) and the gates would be down too often at peak times, messing with vehicular traffic flow.

My personal preference is (when the new NAIT station opens and platforms can accommodate 5 car trains) extending the Metro Line to Century Park and truncating the Capital Line at Health Sciences. There are plenty of riders traveling between South Edmonton and NAIT and Grant MacEwan, there are comparatively few riding between South Edmonton and Clareview or Belvedere. Let the latter change trains.
 
TravellingChris said:
The City isn't going to grade-separate the University Avenue crossing now. This would mean massive disruption in the area and would result in a years-long interruption in LRT service on the Capital Line (trains would be replaced by buses running between Health Sciences or University and Century Park). The other issue is that doing so would take scarce funds away from other future LRT projects like the Metro Line to Castle Downs.

This is why it is vital to do the Capital Line South Phase One extension right the first time. It will be enormously difficult and expensive to fix later when problems become unmanageable.

But even in a perfect world where the University Avenue crossing could be trenched, the Metro Line wouldn't be extended to Century Park alongside the Capital Line, because in that scenario it wouldn't just be an at-grade University Avenue crossing that would pose problems. As I understand it, there would be too many trains running through all the at-grade intersections south of University Avenue (such as 76 Avenue, 51 Avenue, 40 Avenue, etc.) and the gates would be down too often at peak times, messing with vehicular traffic flow.

My personal preference is (when the new NAIT station opens and platforms can accommodate 5 car trains) extending the Metro Line to Century Park and truncating the Capital Line at Health Sciences. There are plenty of riders traveling between South Edmonton and NAIT and Grant MacEwan, there are comparatively few riding between South Edmonton and Clareview or Belvedere. Let the latter change trains.
Click to expand...
It is in the longer term council-approved transit plan to move the metro terminus to south campus once that intersection is dealt with. But that's an interesting idea you have, about changing the capital and metro termini around like that. I think it makes sense, at least that's my initial thought.
 
TravellingChris said:
My personal preference is (when the new NAIT station opens and platforms can accommodate 5 car trains) extending the Metro Line to Century Park and truncating the Capital Line at Health Sciences. There are plenty of riders traveling between South Edmonton and NAIT and Grant MacEwan, there are comparatively few riding between South Edmonton and Clareview or Belvedere. Let the latter change trains.
Click to expand...
The problem is I don't think the infrastructure at HSS would allow you to turn back NE trains with only 1 track with current frequencies.
Right now, the NE and S legs are much better paired for ridership and frequency than the N line would be with either the NE or S LRT lines.

I've always wondered if they could get a couple of extra trains per hour across University Ave and send every second Metro line train to South Campus.
 
I don't mind more trains across University Avenue. My big beef is that it isn't yet extended along Terwillegar Drive to Windermere.
 
The project is going to be 30%+ over budget regardless. Why not just spend the little bit of extra money and do the damn thing right?

And IMO I think Twin Brooks station is 50% what @TravellingChris said, and 50% the City not wanting to set any recent precedent regarding neighbourhood residents managing to successfully stop LRT development in their area.
 
Their rationale for not considering an underpass in the future is because other areas in the city have been wanting grade separation for years so they should get priority. So why don we create another problem while we are at it.
Notley has promised $1.8 billion for capital projects in Edmonton. Why not wait and see if they are elected and if this money could be used for inflationary costs.
 
Glenco said:
Their rationale for not considering an underpass in the future is because other areas in the city have been wanting grade separation for years so they should get priority. So why don we create another problem while we are at it.
Notley has promised $1.8 billion for capital projects in Edmonton. Why not wait and see if they are elected and if this money could be used for inflationary costs.
Click to expand...
This whole thing is just baffling....

They clearly did not think this through all that well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top