If you live in Edmonton, you’ve likely heard about or experienced first-hand the lengthy delays that are a direct result of the ongoing construction on the southwest leg of the Anthony Henday. I used to commute using this leg of the Henday every day but have had to find alternative routes for the past two months and will continue to do so until the end of September when the construction is expected to be complete.
Normally I’d post or write a letter complaining about this but have, instead, written my City Councillor, MLA, and the Minister of Transportation asking for further information. My goal is is to gain greater insight into why we’re faced with this issue. Specifically, I’d like to know:
- What group was responsible for the decision to use concrete? Was it the City of Edmonton, the Government of Alberta, or both?
- What were the deciding factors in choosing concrete as the material to pave the SW leg of the Anthony Henday? Global Edmonton reported (http://www.globaltvedmonton.
com/pages/story.aspx?id=) that the original paving came with the promise to be maintenance free for 25 years but this is not holding true. Alberta Transportation’s comment is that this is “standard maintenance and review.” 6442698061
- What information and/or learnings are hoped to be gained by using concrete instead of asphalt?
- Is there a particular cost-savings (short- or long-term) to using the concrete that would justify these drawn-out maintenance periods?
- Are there plans to review and possibly replace the concrete with asphalt? If yes, what is the timeline for the review and replacement?
We’ll see what answers I receive to my questions. My hope is that I’ll get honest and straightforward information, my fear is that it’ll be boiler plate or inconsistent across the three sources.