this blog has moved to a new address:

Please update your RSS, bookmarks, and links to

Friday, April 17, 2009

photo post: mckernan-belgravia and south campus lrt stations.

On April 25, 2009, the City of Edmonton will be opening two new stations on the south line of the LRT. I was lucky enough to join the contingent of Edmonton media touring of the new LRT stations this morning.

I've posted more photos on Flickr.

(A big thanks to Alex Abboud in Councillor Kim Krushell's office for arranging my media pass to the event)


Party of One said...

I fail to understand why the McKernan-Belgravia station was built at all; it's too close to the University Hospital station, and there isn't really a dense enough population "catchment" area there to justify it.

It looks as if it was a sop to the McKernan-Belgravia neighbourhoods who would otherwise have protested the re-routing of their traffic and the destruction of several houses.

norm said...

Only in Alberta and probably only in Edmonton would someone complain about there being too many stops for the LRT.

Anonymous said...

I have heard my city councillors say that the Mc-Bel station was the price the local community extracted in exchange for the hassle of having several homes torn out and the rest subjected to longer lights and increased noise.

While it probably cost a fair bit to build, the stop times themselves will be very short and it doesn't hurt to allow a few more people to completely abandon their motor vehicles in favour of LRT. I wouldn't expect or want a stop in every fiesty neighborhood though, so it sets a bad precident in that way.

Party of One said...

I'm not complaining about too many stops, Norm, I'm complaining about badly located stops.

The point of LRT stations is that they're supposed to be serviced by bus routes, so that conceivably someone could get on a bus, ride to the LRT station, ride to another station, and if necessary get on another bus to their final destination. That model reduces the number of cars on the road.

The nice pictures that Dave provided of the South Campus station included a "transit hub"; Mc-Bel doesn't. Any buses that pass by Mc-Bel ALSO pass by Health Sciences and University stations, so in terms of connecting to bus services, Mc-Bel is sort of redundent.

I suspect that Anonymous' explanation if correct; the station was put there to mollify the neighbourhood...

And, as I pointed out, there isn't really a high-density catchment area close by.

Norm (the one in Edmonton who's not a complete penis) said...

Dear Party of One:

Would you please go to London and New York and let them know that some of their transit stops have no "logic" for their placements. We can't have a transit system that might adhere to neighbourhood quirks and should probably remove the Bay station as well.

Long live neighbourhoods that have the capability to be mollified. The more the better.

kenchapman said...

I applaud Alex for recognizing Daveberta as media and getting you the Media Pass for the event. This has to happen more often with some bloggers with the erosion of MSM

Party of One said...

For NORM, the incomplete penis:

I'm guessing, Norm, that you live in McKernon or Belgravia; at least it would seem that way from your defence of poor transportation planning.

Your comparison of Edmonton to London or New York is, of course, specious. London's Underground was built starting in 1863, and currently has 275 stations serving 408 km of railway, and a ridership of about 3.4 million per weekday. New York's subway was first built in 1904, and has 422 stations on 1056 km. of track and has about 5 million rides per weekday. Edmonton's LRT system currently has 20 km of revenue track and 12stations. See the difference?

Both New York and London transportation systems started out as private enterprises that were eventually combined; Edmonton's LRT was always a city initiative starting in 1978.

So yeah, with private enterprise following it's own imperatives, there WAS a lot of duplication, and extra stations (Both New York and London have several "out of service" stations that you can sometimes visit).

My point, again, is that there is no excuse in Edmonton for building stations in places that a) can't serve as a hub for other transit, and b) don't have a high enough population density catchment area.

The political reason for building Mc-Bel is understandable, and I concur with Anon above that this should not be the determining factor in deciding where stations should be located.

Diane R said...

The McKernan-Belgravia station was an unfortunate reality. Compromise was needed to stop the two community leagues from a mass NIMBY protest against the southern train line going straight in between their neighborhoods. The line to the UofA South Campus makes a lot of sense and will be even more effective when the Southgate and Heritage stations open in 2010.

Edmonton, we are finally getting there. Moving slow but moving forward.

Anonymous said...

If there was actually adequate funding for public transit in this province, then the city could have built the lrt underground, and the Mckernan-Belgravia station could have been avoided, along with a mess of other potential problems.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone actually ride the train in Edmonton?

Seener Beaner said...

Oh wow, I had no idea about those stations ( haven't lived in Edmonton in ... 7 years ). Very nice!

Alex said...

Ken - the credit for recognizin bloggers belongs to the Communications people in the Transportation department. I just made the ask.