Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

From the Global News article - proposed full and partial closures:

Phase 1 (April to July)​
  • 104 Avenue corridor (106 Street to 121 Street)
  • Stony Plain Road at 124 Street (full closure)
  • Stony Plain Road at 156 Street
  • 87 Avenue at Meadowlark Road
Phase 2 (July to September)​
  • 104 Avenue corridor (106 Street to 121 Street)
  • Stony Plain Road at 142 Street
  • 95 Avenue at 156 Street
Phase 3 (September to November)​
  • 104 Avenue corridor (106 Street to 121 Street)
  • Stony Plain Road at 149 Street
Pardon me for being dense, but what's the difference between these proposed partial closures and the partial closures that were already done for the past couple of years?
 
^ The 104th Ave corridor will see the biggest change with the northside (westbound lanes) carrying one lane traffic each way. This should theoretically allow for uninterrupted construction of the roadway and tracks. A significant amount of the CBD disruption should be over by year end if they do this.
 
Gronk! said:
From the Global News article - proposed full and partial closures:

Phase 1 (April to July)​
  • 104 Avenue corridor (106 Street to 121 Street)
  • Stony Plain Road at 124 Street (full closure)
  • Stony Plain Road at 156 Street
  • 87 Avenue at Meadowlark Road
Phase 2 (July to September)​
  • 104 Avenue corridor (106 Street to 121 Street)
  • Stony Plain Road at 142 Street
  • 95 Avenue at 156 Street
Phase 3 (September to November)​
  • 104 Avenue corridor (106 Street to 121 Street)
  • Stony Plain Road at 149 Street
Pardon me for being dense, but what's the difference between these proposed partial closures and the partial closures that were already done for the past couple of years?
Click to expand...
In the original contract the partial closures required certain lanes and movements to be maintained (ie allowing left turn/ right turn etc). Now if the motion passes the new contract would allow them to keep the intersection partially open still, but closing more of it (ie not allowing left turns/ right turns, but allowing straight through).
 
J_gordo said:
In the original contract the partial closures required certain lanes and movements to be maintained (ie allowing left turn/ right turn etc). Now if the motion passes the new contract would allow them to keep the intersection partially open still, but closing more of it (ie not allowing left turns/ right turns, but allowing straight through).
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, the report is just for info. It says that this'll proceed "unless directed otherwise by Council." So hopefully folks like Cartmell don't derail it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top