BrettB
Active Member
If we had regional transit, I think you'd be right. But since each has its own service, then I'm sure each one will want to continue to offer single-seat service into downtown
Metro Line LRT | ?m | ?s | City of Edmonton
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
David A
Senior Member
If we were thinking ahead, probably could have planned for the train station to be here too.
IanO
Superstar
Train to nowhere? VIA ain't moving and not worth the squeeze given two trains a week.
YEG imagineer
Active Member
I disagree with train to nowhere. This would be the time to build a connected train station to the Blatchford Gate LRT station. First the whole area is a brownfield and much cheaper to build now if the city ever wants intermodal, regional, etc. Secondly the current VIA line could be swapped to connect to the MUP south of 118th Avenue but more importantly use the west VIA bridge to cross over the Yellowhead. Thirdly if the city had the current VIA line as MUP they could extend 120th or 121st Avenue to connect into Blatchford. Important since the plan is to build at least a fire hall on 121st Street. But also connects Blatchford directly to Prince Rupert. But if you don't build a new train station in the near future, the opportunity cost in the future will be much, much higher if it is even available. And who knows, a connected train station might encourage new service since VIA is unwilling and unable to accommodate.
archited
Senior Member
VIA was prepared to move a couple of years before COVID so that suggests that they are not "static" in their thinking -- I know because I was in direct talks with them looking at the Coliseum site -- we had numerous discussions -- they didn't like their current location. And Via was looking at the possibility of creating active passenger spur lines to various central and northern Alberta communities (e.g. Athabasca, Cold Lake, Lac la Biche) -- spur lines that would draw on the potential strengths of those Alberta communities. Just because there are "only" two continental trains per week doesn't mean the passenger side is dead -- it only requires inventive thinking. @YEG imagineer has hit on the perfect solution and the means to implement a great idea.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
It would be nice if VIA could have a station connected to the LRT but also if that VIA station could cater to other regional lines.
YEG imagineer
Active Member
Totally agree Edmcowboy11 that any new station should be built with capacity to expand or already have multiple platforms for future growth.
YEG imagineer
Active Member
Keith Gerein: Edmonton's next LRT line shaping up to be a train to nowhere — Blatchford
(Place your bets now on whether it opens before the southeast Valley Line, which is 28 months delayed and counting.)
edmontonjournal.com
Aaron_Lloyd
Active Member
Has the city done anything to improve connectivity between Westwood and Blatchford ahead of the LRT opening?
David A
Senior Member
Gee what a concept, has this ever been done anywhere in the world before? (Before someone replies to that, please be aware I am being sarcastic. I know it doesn't always across in writing).
David A
Senior Member
Probably not great growth since the last count, but the City really doesn't help itself by not providing updated populution figures for Blatchford, just like the people planning the other LRT line 28 months delayed, don't help anyone by not giving us updated deadlines anymore. Perhaps it falls into the bureaucratic category of with no information they can just pretend the problem doesn't exist, while it gets worse.Keith Gerein: Edmonton's next LRT line shaping up to be a train to nowhere — Blatchford
(Place your bets now on whether it opens before the southeast Valley Line, which is 28 months delayed and counting.)
I agree with Gerein. I do still have hope for Blatchford, but patience will run out soon, so hopefully things will start moving along much more quickly.
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
I find myself disagreeing again with Keith Gerein.
If you wanted to kill Blatchford you should have done it in 2015.
As of right now land is sold. We've actually seen more movement now than at any point over the last decade and a lot more development is now locked in but not visible. He's missing the forest for the trees again.
If you wanted to kill Blatchford you should have done it in 2015.
As of right now land is sold. We've actually seen more movement now than at any point over the last decade and a lot more development is now locked in but not visible. He's missing the forest for the trees again.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Keith Gerein is ALWAYS missing the forest for the trees.
As much as I agree the the CoE shouldn't be playing developer, leaving it at the whim of the market, purely, would also be less than ideal.
One thing he barely touched on, however, is that the developments should indeed be more affordable, considering that, even with the strict environmental requirements, all of the public infrastructure is being built by the city. Developers are marking the units up waaaaay too much, which I think has a lot to do with them using the awards, the ones Gerein seems to minimize the importance of, to boost revenue numbers.
Now, I do believe that the new stations will help spur development a bit faster, now. To be honest, I don't really understand the minds of people in this city. If we build the transit first, we're "building trains to nowhere" but if we put it on mature neighborhoods, we're disrupting and damaging people's lives, and whatnot. And that comes even from people who claim to support transit. What gives?
EtoV
Active Member
In situations like this, it's not about being logically consistent, it's about using whatever excuse is convenient at the time to justify being against it.
This is Keith Gerein slander that I can't abide. Frankly he's the only urbanist columnist at the journal. He may not be perfect, but we could do worse at a publication that hosts Lorne Gunter.