CplKlinger said:
I think it comes down to capacity limitations. The long term plan is for the line to terminate at South Campus, but the 114 st/ University Ave intersection is maxxed out; they can't have both lines going through there at acceptable frequencies without causing unimaginably bad traffic congestion. Back when the Metro Line went down to Century Park, it had less frequency because of the issues with the signal system. I think they moved it to Health Sciences once the signal system was fixed, and they could run the Metro Line trains more often.

In the long-term, the city wants to grade-separate the track at that intersection. Should it have been done originally? Sure, I think so. I think it'd have made more sense for the LRT to come up closer to McKernan/Belgravia as was originally planned. But unfortunately, the province didn't give the city enough money to work with, so here we are.
Click to expand...
Good points. But I think that in the interim a short-term fix should be running maybe half the peak hour trains to/from Clareview only as far as Health Sciences and running some peak NAIT trains all the way down to Century Park. That way you are serving the needs of your many south Edmonton commuters who attend NAIT or MacEwan or work at Kingsway or RAH. If some of your Clareview trains run no further than Health Sciences, you're only inconveniencing that one guy who lives in Belmont and works at the Heritage FreshCo.
 
Foolworm said:
A little aside: the City had the choice of "fixing" the original NAIT line by grade separating past 105 St, or extending the line to Blatchford. No prizes for guessing which option the City went with.

Click to expand...
Of COURSE.
This is what civic administration does: Deny that the problem is as bad as the public is claiming. Come up with a series of "options" but make sure that the drawbacks of the most impactful solutions are over-emphasized. Conveniently list "status quo" as the most attractive alternative. Allow public officials to thus claim that they are saving taxpayer dollars while doing nothing useful to solve the original problem.
 
I think one challenge (looking back) was that KIngsway Mall seemed to have no interest with accommodating the LRT. Also, the city and contractors probably thought of an LRT station (at Kingsway) with clear sight lines.
 
TravellingChris said:
Of COURSE.
This is what civic administration does: Deny that the problem is as bad as the public is claiming. Come up with a series of "options" but make sure that the drawbacks of the most impactful solutions are over-emphasized. Conveniently list "status quo" as the most attractive alternative. Allow public officials to thus claim that they are saving taxpayer dollars while doing nothing useful to solve the original problem.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that this is "What civic administration does"

There isn't some grand conspiracy going on to specifically make the City worse.
 
occidentalcapital said:
I don't agree that this is "What civic administration does"

There isn't some grand conspiracy going on to specifically make the City worse.
Click to expand...
Then you clearly haven't been following the history of LRT in Edmonton, particularly the 114 St/University Ave intersection, 111 St/51 Ave, the Metro Line signalling issue, the Metro line grade crossings, the failure to elevate the Valley Line at 82 Ave/83 St.

History of government, business, military, transportation and a myriad other areas are full of disasters which were caused not by people intentionally trying to sabotage a given situation but by ignoring valid concerns expressed to them by outsiders, by telling higher-ups what they wanted to hear regardless of consequences, by seeking to save money in the short term while minimizing or massaging the potential for long-term losses and problems.
 
I’m sure the City Manager might listen. One thing I’m glad see for these LRT projects is that construction costs aren’t skyrocketing. One challenge for the Metro Line to NAIT was that there was a short window of opportunity for federal funding because of shovel-ready projects. I’m guessing that there wasn’t as much time to come up with a detailed plan.
 
The_Cat said:
I’m sure the City Manager might listen. One thing I’m glad see for these LRT projects is that construction costs aren’t skyrocketing. One challenge for the Metro Line to NAIT was that there was a short window of opportunity for federal funding because of shovel-ready projects. I’m guessing that there wasn’t as much time to come up with a detailed plan.
Click to expand...
The Metro line was actually delivered on budget, but the signalling issues kinda overshadowed everything then and after.

The complaints have been minimal since resignalling was completed, but the real test is post-COVID traffic.
 
Taken: April 25, 2022
NAIT station
20220425_091127_HDR.jpg
20220425_091120.jpg

Blatchford station
20220425_091846.jpg
 
MacLac said:
Will there be a path of some sort of path for those of whom have bought already in Blatchford? Or are they to traverse through the construction zones?
Click to expand...
The plan is to start work on the pathway connections this year - should be plenty of time before the stations are expected to open in 2024/25


From Nov 2021
"the ongoing construction means direct pedestrian and cycle connections aren’t yet safe. However, routes are in detailed design, construction is expected to begin next year and will open with the new stations."

blatchfordedmonton.ca

Another Metro LRT construction season | Blatchford | City of Edmonton

Now that the snow has fallen, it’s a great chance to take a peak at the Metro LRT extension as the second construction season has finally wrapped after a warm fall. Two LRT stations in Blatchford are expected to open in 2024/25. The NAIT/Blatchford Market station will sit at the heart of the...
blatchfordedmonton.ca blatchfordedmonton.ca
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top