TAS said:
Something is up with this line this afternoon. I passed by three separate LRT cars - two with Out of Service messages parked at 102 St station and another in operation at Churchill - as I was riding my bike home. Anyone know what's up?

View attachment 523290
Click to expand...
I know I was on the line when a complication of some sort arose. We were all asked to get off at Churchill. The train then went to continue to 102st. There was 10-15 min of down time and everything restarted.

From a completely ignorant position, it appeared there was some sort of “timing” reset.
 
Yeggy said:
So all the talk about commuting vs drive time (cherry picked during low car traffic times) aside… what happens when the city grows and that “drive time” creeps up while the lrt stays the same?

How many people do you think aren’t taking the train because its just 4 min too fast. The Transit app says the travel time from BD to Mittart is 9 min.

You would rather save 4 min and forgo all the development opportunity on 95th. Meanwhile jamming up more of Conners Road and further complicate conners and 83rd St.
Click to expand...
Sure you would lose development opportunity on 95th street but you'd gain it along Connor's Road. Which is a pretty good trade, because it would be closer to Campus St. Jean and the U of A main campus.

And 4 minutes is a big deal. If it isn't for you, does that mean you'd be happy with adding another 4 minutes to the travel time so the train could slowly trundle to a stop in Riverdale?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soupcrate said:
Sure you would lose development opportunity on 95th street but you'd gain it along Connor's Road. Which is a pretty good trade, because it would be closer to Campus St. Jean and the U of A main campus.

And 4 minutes is a big deal. If it isn't for you, does that mean you'd be happy with adding another 4 minutes to the travel time so the train could slowly trundle to a stop in Riverdale?
Click to expand...
Connors isnt zoned or surveyed the way you think it is and 91st and whyte will have its own stop and is already very well served by transit. Also “some” redevelopment we are talking about denying a proposed high density site consisting of some proposed 2000 living units of various sizes. so lets say 4000 people. Thats nearly the size if the town I grew up in.

you are also creating yet another stroad. very edmonton.

Thankfully the line is built and goes down 95th
 
Last edited:
Yeggy said:
Connors isnt zoned or surveyed the way you think it is and 91st and whyte will have its own stop and is already very well served by transit. Also “some” redevelopment we are talking about denying a proposed high density site consisting of some proposed 2000 living units of various sizes. so lets say 4000 people. Thats nearly the size if the town I grew up in.

you are also creating yet another stroad. very edmonton.

Thankfully the line is built and goes down 95th
Click to expand...
If the train had gone down Connor's Road redevelopment would have been focused there instead. Zoning can change and a $2B train stopping nearby makes it quite likely that it does.

Again, we have no shortage of sites with potential for high density. But those projects tend to stall, as the Strathearn Heights project you're referencing has. Dodging existing density to be close to sites with potential for density (while slowing down the train substantially) doesn't seem like the best trade off.
 
Be careful. Don't point out any flaw in the VL. It's sacrilege for so many on here, it seems.

As for development around the stations, well, this line has been under construction for years and there's only ONE site where a tower has gone up. It looks like the market just simply isn't there. All the while, the vehicle-centric suburbs (which council keeps on approving) continue to grow at an exponential rate.
 
whattheheck said:
Be careful. Don't point out any flaw in the VL. It's sacrilege for so many on here, it seems.

As for development around the stations, well, this line has been under construction for years and there's only ONE site where a tower has gone up. It looks like the market just simply isn't there. All the while, the vehicle-centric suburbs (which council keeps on approving) continue to grow at an exponential rate.
Click to expand...
you know the site where morogaurd wants to start redevelopment was the lrt construction staging ground right?
 
Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but is there any possibility that parts of VLW open before the (planned) grand opening in 2028? Like if they finish work on Alex Decoteau or NorQuest stops, could the western terminus be extended earlier? They did something like this with the Capital Line extension to Century Park. In 2009, the extension opened to South Campus and then in 2010 it opened to Century Park.
 
whattheheck said:
Be careful. Don't point out any flaw in the VL. It's sacrilege for so many on here, it seems.

As for development around the stations, well, this line has been under construction for years and there's only ONE site where a tower has gone up. It looks like the market just simply isn't there. All the while, the vehicle-centric suburbs (which council keeps on approving) continue to grow at an exponential rate.
Click to expand...
Did you forget about West Block?
 
soupcrate said:
Woah, that's fantastic. Do you know when it starts? The transit app still shows 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
Screenshot 2023-11-29 10.04.51 AM.png
 
This is gonna sound like wishful thinking, but do you guys think that frequencies would increase in this line generally once VLW opens? Looking at their weekend frequencies, part of me thinks that's woefully inadequate when WEM gets connected to the network.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top