A section of the road on 107st in front of the John Deere Building is complete.

20241207_194007.jpg
 
Looks great. Makes me wonder what percentage of the construction budget is going towards street realm improvements. Even in the SE, they could've saved money not completely redoing 66 St and 75 St by sticking the tracks on the wide boulevard/median and only improving where the train interfaces with the road. Drivers, pedestrians, and property owners are benefitting from this project directly and indirectly. There are people who would've been happy with Edmonton of the 1980s existing forever, with zero sense of civic pride.
 
dkazzed said:
Looks great. Makes me wonder what percentage of the construction budget is going towards street realm improvements. Even in the SE, they could've saved money not completely redoing 66 St and 75 St by sticking the tracks on the wide boulevard/median and only improving where the train interfaces with the road. Drivers, pedestrians, and property owners are benefitting from this project directly and indirectly. There are people who would've been happy with Edmonton of the 1980s existing forever, with zero sense of civic pride.
Click to expand...
May as well redo it when all the construction equipment is there and the contract is already in place. Also most utilities / drainage combine for both sides of the street so I feel like it was necessary
 
That's why it can be hard to compare 1:1 transit projects in Canada with other places. From what I've seen, we tend to include much more infrastructure spending such as sewers, roads, utilities etc. that other places don't.

This is a good thing in a lot of ways, but unfortunately results in a high looking total cost, which hurts the political viability of projects. Projects should really been broken down into direct transit investment, and infrastructure improvements so people actually understand where the money is going.
 
EtoV said:
That's why it can be hard to compare 1:1 transit projects in Canada with other places. From what I've seen, we tend to include much more infrastructure spending such as sewers, roads, utilities etc. that other places don't.

This is a good thing in a lot of ways, but unfortunately results in a high looking total cost, which hurts the political viability of projects. Projects should really been broken down into direct transit investment, and infrastructure improvements so people actually understand where the money is going.
Click to expand...
If transit construction requires removal or replacement of other infrastructure that wouldn't be necessary otherwise, then it probably should be part of the budget for the transit project.

If our governments are tossing in a bunch of other things that are nice to do or upgrades while we are at it, then they should be accounted for differently and more clearly.
 
I'm guessing there could be more LRT construction on 102 Avenue next spring, probably starting at 105-107 Street. If the Oilers have an extended run in the Stanley Cup playoffs, 103-104 Street could be more difficult for construction.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top