Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,600 of 1606

Thread: Yellowhead Trail | Discussion

  1. #1501
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,390
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  2. #1502

    Default

    There's a definite shift in culture at the city. Not sure it's for the better.

  3. #1503
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,390
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  4. #1504

    Default

    Thanks for the link. I was meaning to do that survey, but kept forgetting.

  5. #1505
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,079

    Default

    Took it. Thanks!!
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  6. #1506

    Default

    I completed the survey and offered a combo of these two ideas:

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    107 should be extended as a collector road across Blatchford to 121st, where it would access the yellowhead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    That part of the Yellowhead where it curves to the north? Perfect spot for on/off ramps.
    The collector road (call it 123 ave) doesn't even have to connect to Blatchford proper, just to the proposed interchange opposite the Lauderdale park (both 121 and 107 would be closed). It's pretty much dead centre between 127 st and 97 st, and could even be built in advance to serve as a detour during the construction of said interchange.

  7. #1507

    Default

    I think that makes good sense, especially onsidering all that Blatchford land is currently not being used and waiting for redevelopment. There will never be a better time to steal some of it for Yellowhead improvements. Seems like a no-brainer to me. I mean who's in charge of all that Blatchford land anyway? Can't these people get together and say "I need some of that land" and "sure, I'm not using it anyway"?

  8. #1508

    Default

    Exactly. Particularly with the recent unveiling of the LRT bridge design, I'm sure there are advantages to planning and coordinating everything together.

  9. #1509
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    Build a twin bridge beside it for AUTOS connecting 109 to Castle Downs Rd. Blatchford can go fly one.

  10. #1510
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    433

    Default

    I just heard tonight that the multi-hundred million dollar upgrade to Yellowhead Trail will only make it 80 km/h.
    That's baloney.
    I thought we were getting a freeway, not another Whitemud Drive.

  11. #1511
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    That could change at a later date you never know. It’s a decade away at least.

  12. #1512

    Default

    It will be a freeway, just one with a lower speed limit. It will be fine.

    80 vs 100 is just 3 extra minutes for someone driving Henday- Henday. Which includes some parts that are already 90-100, so maybe just 2 minutes difference. That’s not worth another billion to fix.
    There can only be one.

  13. #1513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    I just heard tonight that the multi-hundred million dollar upgrade to Yellowhead Trail will only make it 80 km/h.
    That's baloney.
    I thought we were getting a freeway, not another Whitemud Drive.
    Oh, dear, not even. I don't know how they're going to get 80 at the chicane at Fort Road. And they're apparently going back to two lanes east bound just past 97 Street to better accommodate the on ramp.

  14. #1514

    Default

    80 km/h 50mph is quite decent for a urban freeway.

  15. #1515
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,968

    Default

    I think the Yellowhead speed could be kicked up to 90 or 100 east of 66 Street or West of 156 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  16. #1516

    Default

    Its already 90 west of 149, and 100 east of 50th.

  17. #1517
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    I just heard tonight that the multi-hundred million dollar upgrade to Yellowhead Trail will only make it 80 km/h.
    That's baloney.
    I thought we were getting a freeway, not another Whitemud Drive.
    Up it 100 you say. GADS!!!!!!! That would reduce the potential revenue the city would lose from a artificially lower speed limit. Typical....so very...
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  18. #1518
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,472

    Default

    It would take a lot of modification of existing interchanges to get Yellowhead much faster than 80 km/h. 90 km/h might work, but I can't see any more than that. Even then, something will need to be done with the eastbound onramp from Fort Road. It will need to be lowered to match grade with Yellowhead earlier to provide a reasonable merge zone, and the concrete barrier prior to the merge zone will need to be replaced with something that you can see through to make it possible to pick a spot to merge into.

  19. #1519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    I just heard tonight that the multi-hundred million dollar upgrade to Yellowhead Trail will only make it 80 km/h.
    That's baloney.
    I thought we were getting a freeway, not another Whitemud Drive.
    Groat Road is a "freeway" technically but only posted to 50kph for obvious reasons for much of the road.

    Geometrics play a large part. There are a lot of blind corners and tighter radius in some of the central areas of YHT. going faster than 80kph poses operational risks.

    I think 80kph is plenty fast for a freeway such as Yellowhead given the geometric restraints.

    Further traveling between St. Albert Trail and Fort Road going at 80kph as opposed to 100kph saves you 1 minute of time....not particularly life changing

  20. #1520
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,390

    Default

    80 km/hr is fine as long as it is consistently 80 km/hr from city limit to city limit. A constantly changing speed limit is most annoying.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  21. #1521
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,968

    Default

    I think 80 km/h would work fine between 66 Street and 127 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  22. #1522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    80 km/hr is fine as long as it is consistently 80 km/hr from city limit to city limit. A constantly changing speed limit is most annoying.
    I don't have a problem with changing speed limits at all. I'd rather have that than be forced to drive 80 on a stretch where 100 is obviously still safe. That's way more annoying.

  23. #1523

    Default

    Yeah, it doesn't really matter where the limit change is. dropping to 100 between Victoria Trail and 184 is reasonable, and then to 80 from around 66 until around 149 would be just fine. What would be annoying is jumping up and down several times as you pass through the city.
    There can only be one.

  24. #1524
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,079

    Default

    Make it 100 all the way through as any large city does and call it a freeway and NOT a trail.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  25. #1525

    Default

    ya, that's just not going to work for the reasons stated above. (Short ramps, tight corners, bad sightlines, etc) 80 km/h for an urban freeway is common in many large cities. (Does winnipeg even have an urban freeway???)

    It will be called a freeway when its an actual freeway, and NO LONGER a trail.

  26. #1526

    Default

    Isn't Deerfoot Trail a freeway?

  27. #1527

    Default

    Not at rush hour. Then it's a parking lot.

  28. #1528
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ya, that's just not going to work for the reasons stated above. (Short ramps, tight corners, bad sightlines, etc) 80 km/h for an urban freeway is common in many large cities. (Does winnipeg even have an urban freeway???)
    It will be called a freeway when its an actual freeway, and NO LONGER a trail.
    Winnipeg does have a number of urban freeways as you call them similar to YHT with lights at intervals.The first advantage is the 80 KMH limit not 70 as we have here. They also have 6 lane arterials as opposed to 4 lanes here.The the core, Portage Ave is 8 lanes wide with 2 lanes off peak for curb parking. Same with Main street. Broadway is another 6 laner right through DT. Jasper has all of 2 lanes each direction..Half the size of the 2 major access roads into DT Winnipeg.Why? They PLANNED and BUILT it to be this way.All non essential traffic lights are put to flashing as NOT do stop traffic for a full light set when little traffic is present. Makes good sense to keep traffic moving does it not? They have under passes at heavy rail crossings.You know...that common sense idea that Edmonton has FAILED at. The CP traffic debacles on the South side spring to mind.Yellowhead will have all these funds spent on a mere 10 k..OR 6 mph LOLOL .Don't design nor build it properly the first time. NO NO...Do a half *** job,ala the Henday SW where ALL the growth is and THEN decide to correct the problem later when it becomes critical. Edmonton has one VERY large problem. That being,there is and has been a history of NO forward thinking,planning nor construction of the roadways. This is why we have the traffic issues we do. My question,,,,If Edmonton is so progressive a city, why can we not build for the future and maintain our roads in the present?As for winter tires........LOLOL They don't saves lives. Keeping disqualified,unskilled people off the road does.
    Last edited by cnr67; 23-09-2018 at 02:57 AM.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  29. #1529
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    Winnipeg doesn't need to plan for growth, so there is always that.

  30. #1530

    Default

    No kidding, Edmonton grew at twice the rate in the last half century. It's also worth keeping in mind that Winnipeg has very little by way of public transit beyond buses.

  31. #1531
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,472

    Default

    ^ And the reverse was true for the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While it may not be a freeway, Winnipeg has had a ring road for decades. They have their own issues dating back to that era - a mix of random grid alignments and names instead of numbers on their streets - although that is no worse than the mess that is just about any post-1950 subdivision just about anywhere.

  32. #1532

    Default

    The pre-war era was a completely different situation as far as transportation was concerned, I don't think it's comparable.

    In the context of the Yellowhead, it's worth noting that Winnipeg's equivalent, Chief Penguis Trail, is incomplete - at least Edmonton's inner ring road is drivable end-to-end.

  33. #1533

    Default

    Why do people keep blaming Edmonton for the SW Henday?

  34. #1534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Why do people keep blaming Edmonton for the SW Henday?
    Based on demand (congestion) it seems that the province actually built a highly successful freeway. The problem now is the delay to spend money to expand it.

    It was an early design by people whom it seems lacked perfect foresight in predicting $100/bbl oil and the inward rush of massive amounts of capital and so large increases in suburban population. The problem now is that the problem is obvious but it isn’t being dealt with.

  35. #1535
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,396

    Default

    Winnipeg has wide roads but that has very little to do with far sighted urban planning, more the shallow river valley and muddy roads in 1800s. People would then drive their carts further over and further over to avoid getting stuck in the mud.
    They really don't have a freeway in the city, Disraeli is shorter than Capilano. There are a few interchanges scattered on some streets (Pembina, Portage for example).
    The only real freeway is portions of the Perimeter Highway.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Route_85

  36. #1536
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Winnipeg has wide roads but that has very little to do with far sighted urban planning, more the shallow river valley and muddy roads in 1800s. People would then drive their carts further over and further over to avoid getting stuck in the mud.
    They really don't have a freeway in the city, Disraeli is shorter than Capilano. There are a few interchanges scattered on some streets (Pembina, Portage for example).
    The only real freeway is portions of the Perimeter Highway.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Route_85
    It has everything to do with planning. Pembina was planned for 6 lanes or more. I know this as the areas directly adjacent to the roadway had the buildings next to it set further back allowing for expansion. Which has in the past 50 years occured from the Perimeter ,all the way to Osbourne Street 5 minutes from DT Winnipeg. Portage and main were built wide right from scratch.all 8 lanes worth.Look at any historic picture to see this is fact. Disraeli is not a freeway. It is primarily a collector road through industrial and older residential areas of north-central Winnipeg. it's length is all of 2 km.The speed limit is 50 km/h (30 mph).Jasper ave has always been a narrow right of way. It began as such and as the city built close to it, the availability to expand was removed. So, how did Edmonton plan for traffic in and out of DT? Yelolowhead is supposed to be a freeway. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/freeway "A road designed for safe, high-speed operation of motor vehicles through the elimination of at-grade intersections, usually divided and having at least two lanes in each direction; a dual carriageway with no at-grade crossings." Key term...HIGH SPEED. 80 kmh or 48 MPH is NOT high speed.
    How was Yellowhead planned with expansion in mind? NOT with housing on one side and commercial on the other.For the money being spent, build a freeway..Not a Driveway...
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  37. #1537
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,390

    Default

    Yellowhead before Terwillegar
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  38. #1538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Yellowhead before Terwillegar
    that's already the plan. Pay attention.

  39. #1539

    Default

    Edmonton did have plans for more freeways (METS) but those plans were squashed after only partial implementation.

  40. #1540
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,728

    Default

    ^ I think clear cutting McKinnon ravine was the beginning and the end of implementation!
    ... gobsmacked

  41. #1541

    Default

    The interchange system by the muttart was part of that plan I believe. Also the James MacDonald bridge and the 97th Ave tunnel under the Legislature.

  42. #1542
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,519

    Default

    Unfortunately they never got to build METS...

  43. #1543
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    The freeway would have been 100 ave on the west end, down McKinnon ravine, river valley road to James McDonald bridge, 98 ave, 101 ave. The tunnel came 20 yrs later as part of the new park, reflecting pool and parkade. It had nothing to do with Mets.

  44. #1544
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Unfortunately they never got to build METS...
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Unfortunately they never got to build METS...
    I agree. Probably the only two that think so, but I totally agree. We wouldn’t have all the problems moving traffic that we do. Imagine coming in from the west and doing 100km non stop right to downtown and the same going east out of town. Imagine coming in from the airport nonstop at 100k to downtown. No hairpins, lights or detours.

  45. #1545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    The freeway would have been 100 ave on the west end, down McKinnon ravine, river valley road to James McDonald bridge, 98 ave, 101 ave. The tunnel came 20 yrs later as part of the new park, reflecting pool and parkade. It had nothing to do with Mets.
    o.k. I wasn't sure about the tunnel.

  46. #1546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Unfortunately they never got to build METS...
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Unfortunately they never got to build METS...
    I agree. Probably the only two that think so, but I totally agree. We wouldn’t have all the problems moving traffic that we do. Imagine coming in from the west and doing 100km non stop right to downtown and the same going east out of town. Imagine coming in from the airport nonstop at 100k to downtown. No hairpins, lights or detours.
    I would've liked to see parts of METS implemented like the McKinnon Ravine and the two freeways coming into Edmonton from the South, at least up to the Whitemud. I don't think I would've liked the freeway loop around downtown.

  47. #1547
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Unfortunately they never got to build METS...
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Unfortunately they never got to build METS...
    I agree. Probably the only two that think so, but I totally agree. We wouldn’t have all the problems moving traffic that we do. Imagine coming in from the west and doing 100km non stop right to downtown and the same going east out of town. Imagine coming in from the airport nonstop at 100k to downtown. No hairpins, lights or detours.
    I would've liked to see parts of METS implemented like the McKinnon Ravine and the two freeways coming into Edmonton from the South, at least up to the Whitemud. I don't think I would've liked the freeway loop around downtown.
    Currently in Houston again, and the inner freeway loop around downtown, and then the 610 freeway loop and Sam Houston tollway loop are so convenient, access into downtown or any other part of the city is so easy and fast. Yes, rush hour traffic slows things a bit, however the dedicated HOV/transit lanes seem to encourage large amounts of people to use public transit.
    Point being, I think that I would have been okay with the downtown freeway loop from the METS system. Only problem is, I see how Edmonton maintains their roads and I know that they would have let these highways fall into similar disrepair.

  48. #1548

    Default

    Thank god we neither built METS. Would've destroyed this city, like it did Houston.

    How does Houston deal with the months and months of frost heaving and freeze/thaw cycles?

  49. #1549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    I would've liked to see parts of METS implemented like the McKinnon Ravine.
    Ya big fuk no to developing our River Valley/Ravines into places for cars. Fck that noise. The river valley is what makes Edmonton a special place, and not just an overgrown Regina

  50. #1550

    Default

    Who does a METS type freeway loop to downtown benefit? Only those who work downtown and then race back to you low density suburban home with a three car driveway and huge lawn in Sherwood Park, Leduc or St. Albert. Such an 1960's utopia.

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  51. #1551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Who does a METS type freeway loop to downtown benefit? Only those who work downtown and then race back to you low density suburban home with a three car driveway and huge lawn in Sherwood Park, Leduc or St. Albert. Such an 1960's utopia.

    or most of Edmonton, with their low density suburban homes... no point in only shaming SP, Leduc or St Albert, they weren't the reason for METS, as most of them barely registered on a map at the point (Sure, St Albert is older than Edmonton, but really wasn't a reason for the METS plan)

  52. #1552
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Currently in Houston again, and the inner freeway loop around downtown, and then the 610 freeway loop and Sam Houston tollway loop are so convenient, access into downtown or any other part of the city is so easy and fast. Yes, rush hour traffic slows things a bit, however the dedicated HOV/transit lanes seem to encourage large amounts of people to use public transit.
    Point being, I think that I would have been okay with the downtown freeway loop from the METS system. Only problem is, I see how Edmonton maintains their roads and I know that they would have let these highways fall into similar disrepair.
    Houston is a disaster for driving around. It is not easy, not fast.
    We already have our inner loop (75st/whitemud/170st/yellowhead). Houston's is about 8.5km from it's core (the 610). Ours is about 5km from our core.
    Their Tollway is ~18.5k from their core, Anthony Henday is about 10.5km from our core.
    The don't really have an 'inner loop'. The Inner Loop refers to all property inside the 610 'loop'.
    There is the 45/10/69 that goes around their downtown, but its hardly an effective loop.
    The proposed Outer ring road for Edmonton, would be about 20k from our core.

    Given the relative sizes, we're pretty well set up. I don't know what the relative work concentrations are for downtown Edm vs Houston, but I would think Houston has a greater percentage working downtown than Edmonton - Calgary would probably be more similar to Houston.

  53. #1553

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    I would've liked to see parts of METS implemented like the McKinnon Ravine.
    Ya big fuk no to developing our River Valley/Ravines into places for cars. Fck that noise. The river valley is what makes Edmonton a special place, and not just an overgrown Regina
    Oh right, because we make such good use of our river valley now? At least with a road driving through there we could all enjoy the valley. As it is now 99% of Edmontonians have never been in the McKinnon ravine. My two favourite roads in this city are Groat Road and River Valley Road, and they have not ruined our river valley. They provide access to our river valley. A McKinnon ravine freeway would've been the most scenic road in the city.

  54. #1554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Who does a METS type freeway loop to downtown benefit? Only those who work downtown and then race back to you low density suburban home with a three car driveway and huge lawn in Sherwood Park, Leduc or St. Albert. Such an 1960's utopia.
    So you admit it would benefit people.

  55. #1555

    Default

    It is a pet peeve of mine when I went to an ETS and transit planning conference. Before the conference began, there was a group of senior transportation and ETS managers complaining to each other about their drive in on the Saturday morning from their homes in St. Albert, Leduc and Sherwood Park. It irked me that these guys doing the planning don't even live or pay property taxes in Edmonton.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 01-10-2018 at 10:42 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  56. #1556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    I would've liked to see parts of METS implemented like the McKinnon Ravine.
    Ya big fuk no to developing our River Valley/Ravines into places for cars. Fck that noise. The river valley is what makes Edmonton a special place, and not just an overgrown Regina
    Oh right, because we make such good use of our river valley now? At least with a road driving through there we could all enjoy the valley. As it is now 99% of Edmontonians have never been in the McKinnon ravine. My two favourite roads in this city are Groat Road and River Valley Road, and they have not ruined our river valley. They provide access to our river valley. A McKinnon ravine freeway would've been the most scenic road in the city.
    You probably have never been in this ravine to see just how well it's used. The river valley is very extensively used... But you'd again... have to get out of your car to know that.

    FYI: Edmonton is much better experienced out side of your car...

    I'm very against developing or paving over any part of the river valley. We don't need to pave over Edmonton's best features...


    and yes, Groat ravine was a lot more scenic before the road.

  57. #1557
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,728

    Default

    Thing is, Yellowhead, when done, will replace what McKinnon would have been for through traffic.

    Neither McKinnon nor Mill Creek freeways would have actually gotten folks into out out of DT any faster than currently.

    Why? You'd still have but 4 hills to get out of or into the valley. Two of the hills being two lanes - and one three (reverse) lanes.

    There'd still be congestion - maybe even more. You'd get to the back of the line faster, just the line would be much longer than it is now.
    ... gobsmacked

  58. #1558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You probably have never been in this ravine to see just how well it's used. The river valley is very extensively used... But you'd again... have to get out of your car to know that.
    Actually I have been in that ravine, as I've been in all the ravines and parks and nature trails around the city. Yes, the McKinnon ravine gets used by people like you and I but not by 99% of Edmontonians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm very against developing or paving over any part of the river valley. We don't need to pave over Edmonton's best features...
    I can tell. But I would just like to point out that any road driving through Edmonton's best features would only take up a small fraction of those features leaving plenty of ravine and valleys for us to admire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    and yes, Groat ravine was a lot more scenic before the road.
    And nobody knew it because nobody saw it.

  59. #1559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Thing is, Yellowhead, when done, will replace what McKinnon would have been for through traffic.

    Neither McKinnon nor Mill Creek freeways would have actually gotten folks into out out of DT any faster than currently.

    Why? You'd still have but 4 hills to get out of or into the valley. Two of the hills being two lanes - and one three (reverse) lanes.

    There'd still be congestion - maybe even more. You'd get to the back of the line faster, just the line would be much longer than it is now.
    So adding more roads into downtown would increase congestion? Not sure I get your logic there. I'll tell you what will increase congestion is when the only road heading into downtown from the West has its capacity cut in half when our new LRT line is done.

  60. #1560

    Default

    "the only road" LOL

  61. #1561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    I would've liked to see parts of METS implemented like the McKinnon Ravine.
    Ya big fuk no to developing our River Valley/Ravines into places for cars. Fck that noise. The river valley is what makes Edmonton a special place, and not just an overgrown Regina
    Oh right, because we make such good use of our river valley now? At least with a road driving through there we could all enjoy the valley. As it is now 99% of Edmontonians have never been in the McKinnon ravine. My two favourite roads in this city are Groat Road and River Valley Road, and they have not ruined our river valley. They provide access to our river valley. A McKinnon ravine freeway would've been the most scenic road in the city.
    A billion dollar public recreation project for those snowflakes who choose not to get out of their cars and walk? Sounds like socialism to me.

  62. #1562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You probably have never been in this ravine to see just how well it's used. The river valley is very extensively used... But you'd again... have to get out of your car to know that.
    Actually I have been in that ravine, as I've been in all the ravines and parks and nature trails around the city. Yes, the McKinnon ravine gets used by people like you and I but not by 99% of Edmontonians.



    So your solution is to pave it over?!? So the 99% (I fully disagree with your number here, but whatever) can whisk through it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm very against developing or paving over any part of the river valley. We don't need to pave over Edmonton's best features...
    I can tell. But I would just like to point out that any road driving through Edmonton's best features would only take up a small fraction of those features leaving plenty of ravine and valleys for us to admire.
    putting a road through the ravine would be a death to the peaceful sanctuary it is now. No, no, and again, no... to developing our parkland. Back in the 70s, Edmonton voted against this... and for good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    and yes, Groat ravine was a lot more scenic before the road.
    And nobody knew it because nobody saw it.
    Lots of people saw it. but again, you need to get out of your car...

    The worlds best spots require you to get out a car to enjoy.

    Fck no to developing/paving over the river valley so Joe and Sally can whisk through it on their way to a destination they can already get to via other roads. Good god. You sure love your car and roads. Edmonton already has lots of that, and very little in park space.

  63. #1563
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  64. #1564

    Default

    In this thread: Car lovers, and park haters, and those who can only experience the world while buckled into a environmentally controlled vehicle.

  65. #1565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

    good god that would be horrible.

  66. #1566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    "the only road" LOL
    o.k. I exaggerated for effect. I meant the "main road", (but I think you knew that)

  67. #1567

    Default

    Big Yellow Taxi
    by Joni Mitchell
    They paved paradise And put up a parking lot
    With a pink hotel *, a boutique
    And a swinging hot spot


    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot


    They took all the trees
    Put 'em in a tree museum *
    And they charged the people
    A dollar and a half just to see 'em


    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot


    Hey farmer farmer
    Put away that DDT * now
    Give me spots on my apples
    But leave me the birds and the bees
    Please!


    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot


    Late last night
    I heard the screen door slam
    And a big yellow taxi
    Took away my old man


    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot


    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot
    Vincent would turn New York's Central Park into a parking lot...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  68. #1568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    So your solution is to pave it over?!? So the 99% (I fully disagree with your number here, but whatever) can whisk through it?

    My point is, putting a freeway there would not even come close to ruining our beautiful river valley and would benefit us greatly. You're making it sound like we'd end up with concrete everywhere and no greenery anywhere. The reality is we'd still have lots of beautiful river valley parkland to walk through but at the same time we'd have an efficient transportation network to downtown.

  69. #1569

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Big Yellow Taxi
    by Joni Mitchell
    They paved paradise And put up a parking lot
    With a pink hotel *, a boutique
    And a swinging hot spot


    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot


    They took all the trees
    Put 'em in a tree museum *
    And they charged the people
    A dollar and a half just to see 'em


    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot


    Hey farmer farmer
    Put away that DDT * now
    Give me spots on my apples
    But leave me the birds and the bees
    Please!


    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot


    Late last night
    I heard the screen door slam
    And a big yellow taxi
    Took away my old man


    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot


    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot
    Vincent would turn New York's Central Park into a parking lot...
    Wow. I want one little freeway and you make me sound like the hater of parkland. (I do hate that song though. So bad)

  70. #1570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    "the only road" LOL
    o.k. I exaggerated for effect. I meant the "main road", (but I think you knew that)
    even that is an exaggeration. Have you even looked at a map before?

  71. #1571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    So your solution is to pave it over?!? So the 99% (I fully disagree with your number here, but whatever) can whisk through it?

    My point is, putting a freeway there would not even come close to ruining our beautiful river valley and would benefit us greatly. You're making it sound like we'd end up with concrete everywhere and no greenery anywhere. The reality is we'd still have lots of beautiful river valley parkland to walk through but at the same time we'd have an efficient transportation network to downtown.
    Putting a freeway down mckinnion ravine and expanding River Valley Road into a freeway would have a very negative impact on the valley and ravine, and most certainly ruin that part of the river valley, and it doesn't solve any problems at all. LRT is the solution to bringing more people downtown efficiently, not paving over the river valley.

    As you've may or may not notice, your not receiving much support for your opinion outside of Calgary's GranaryMan

  72. #1572

    Default

    That's o.k. It's an irrelevant discussion anyway. It's not like this is something that's seriously being considered.

  73. #1573
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    So adding more roads into downtown would increase congestion? Not sure I get your logic there. I'll tell you what will increase congestion is when the only road heading into downtown from the West has its capacity cut in half when our new LRT line is done.
    Most likely, yes it would increase congestion, especially McKinnon - which would have served as a through route - linking hwy 16 on both sides of the city, as well as a commuter route for both west and east end commuters (including Sherwood Park).

    That, plus, freeways encourage low density suburban development - see SW Anthony Henday.

    Not against freeweays per se - love the AHD ring road and think it was a great idea.

    And, back on topic, also favour the Yellowhead upgrade plan, as free flow might well reduce GHG emissions by several tonnes!
    Last edited by McBoo; 01-10-2018 at 12:21 PM.
    ... gobsmacked

  74. #1574

    Default

    See SW Anthony Henday? You mean the area that's been built up with higher density than most of the rest of the suburban areas of the city new and old? Great Example...

  75. #1575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    That's o.k. It's an irrelevant discussion anyway. It's not like this is something that's seriously being considered.
    It's not being considered at all. The only people discussing this 'idea' is you and a few other scattered here and there.

  76. #1576
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    Vincent you can’t argue with the tree huggers. They are the 5% that rule this city with a vengeance. The main reason it’s so fuqed up. lol. Imagine if we could put some of the billions being spent on a useless ‘look at us’ status symbol little train system to replace a few buses with an actual transportation system that most could use. It would be fantastic.

  77. #1577
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    So your solution is to pave it over?!? So the 99% (I fully disagree with your number here, but whatever) can whisk through it?

    My point is, putting a freeway there would not even come close to ruining our beautiful river valley and would benefit us greatly. You're making it sound like we'd end up with concrete everywhere and no greenery anywhere. The reality is we'd still have lots of beautiful river valley parkland to walk through but at the same time we'd have an efficient transportation network to downtown.
    Yes it would.
    Whitemud drive goes up a ravine on the north/west side of the river that is/was very similar to mckinnon ravine. That's what it would end up looking like. Nobody enjoys the nature drive on whitemud.
    Adding more freeways never makes things more efficient. It's been proven time and again.

    But as you say, it would never happen. Even those who live on the west side and work downtown would never sign up for that.

  78. #1578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Vincent you can’t argue with the tree huggers. They are the 5% that rule this city with a vengeance. The main reason it’s so fuqed up. lol. Imagine if we could put some of the billions being spent on a useless ‘look at us’ status symbol little train system to replace a few buses with an actual transportation system that most could use. It would be fantastic.
    Rest of C2E, you can't argue with the car-holics. They love their cars, and spending every waking moment driving from one place to the other, never really too aware of their surroundings, and have little care for the natural world MOST of Edmonton enjoys on a regular basis. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on roadways across and around the city (but how dare they even consider money spent on anything else like bike lanes), but they won't be happy until they have paved over everything including our best attractions, like the river valley. They mantra includes "Fck LRT, fck bike lanes, I gotta car, get the fck out of my way" The only thing they care about is making it to the timmies drive through in record time, and then whisking away to where ever they are going without a care in the world about their impact, or how beautiful the world is outside of their cars. "What about my commute time bro" is heard often and frequently, as if those are the only metrics on quality of life they care about.
    Last edited by Medwards; 01-10-2018 at 01:26 PM.

  79. #1579
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    But but that’s all we have time for.

  80. #1580

    Default

    well for a guy that claims to love endless low density sprawl, you get what you ask for!

  81. #1581
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    See SW Anthony Henday? You mean the area that's been built up with higher density than most of the rest of the suburban areas of the city new and old? Great Example...
    And what residential development south of the AHD was there prior to it opening? Zactly. Actually, a very good example.

    The province's traffic simulation forecast something like 70k/day by 2030.

    That was reached a decade ago.

    Only problem is the area totally lacks a requisite thousand seat mega sports bar!!!!
    ... gobsmacked

  82. #1582

    Default

    Except you stated "low density" and it's not, at least compared to 60's through 80's neighbourhoods. WHAT gets built has everything to do with what is allowed/planned.

    It's not hard to argue, though, that the Henday has had a massive effect on the speed of development out there, at the expense of places that might be closer to the jobs - places including Beaumont and Leduc as well as the part of the established west and south that might be closer.
    There can only be one.

  83. #1583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    See SW Anthony Henday? You mean the area that's been built up with higher density than most of the rest of the suburban areas of the city new and old? Great Example...
    And what residential development south of the AHD was there prior to it opening? Zactly. Actually, a very good example.
    in the last 15+ years, the city has grown by 200,000 people or more, that's just the city proper. No matter how much infill you build, it wont satisfy those numbers. We had incredible amounts of growth... Most of Macewan and the neighbourhoods existed before the AHD started...


    The province's traffic simulation forecast something like 70k/day by 2030.
    And a corresponding very low growth forecast to go with that. GUESS WHAT HAPPENED? In case you just arrived here, our population exploded, both in the city alone, and regionally. The city itself grew by 200,000, and the region itself 400,000. Henday is a road for the region, not just the city proper. Could you imagine all the traffic on our inner city roads had we NOT built the Henday?


    That was reached a decade ago.
    Yes, back in 2001, not many people forecasted the massive oil booms that started in 2006. Whats' your point?


    Only problem is the area totally lacks a requisite thousand seat mega sports bar!!!!
    We have quite a few larger establishments out here already, but would welcome a big sports bar. It's great to see how a mega sports bar that was originally 400 people is growing to 600 and now... 1000!! Boy, you haters sure hate!

  84. #1584
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,728

    Default

    Okay, I'll give you low density may not have been the best term - though I'll stand by sprawl.

    And now we've annexed land for more sprawl up to Hwy 19.

    That's more at the centre of my contention, which was actually related to the McKinnon Ravine Jasper Freeway having the likely ironic effect of increasing, not decreasing congestion.
    ... gobsmacked

  85. #1585

    Default

    Sprawl is a term people use when they want to paint suburban areas in a negative connotation, which I think is exactly what you are trying to do (but it would be just as fair for me to call downtown a crime ridden dead zone... neither is fair), what we have in Edmonton is smart growth that has dealt with the large population growth we've had.

    Yes, you can talk about the land grab Edmonton is doing in the south... but we are running out of space for more smart growth in the next 20-40 years, and we need to start planning what happens beyond that. Keep in mind the areas in the SW were annexed back in the 80s...for the same reason we are annexing more land. It's either we develop the land smartly, or allow Leduc County to build estate style developments. If you want to use sprawl correctly, estate style developments is exactly what we need to avoid, and why its important for Edmonton to build smart compact density.




    https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...n-history.aspx


    Seriously - where did you think these 250,000 people would go since 2001? You think they would all fit within the confines of the existing city circa 2001? Give your head a shake.
    Last edited by Medwards; 01-10-2018 at 03:31 PM.

  86. #1586

    Default

    Density of other cities.

    Edmonton City Density is 13.6 people/hectare
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_242702832


    Yeah, we can't do more...

    Gotta have room to park the 4x4's
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 01-10-2018 at 03:58 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  87. #1587
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,728

    Default

    First 200,000, now 250,000 ....

    And if you want to call someone a hater - go look in the mirror.

    Bye
    ... gobsmacked

  88. #1588

    Default

    Sorry, my first figure was an estimation... now I looked up stats and realized I was underestimating.

    Look in the mirror, Found I love all this city, not just a few square blocks downtown.

    I guess 'Bye' is your way of surrendering? Admitting you were wrong? Okay, Bye!

  89. #1589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Density of other cities.

    Edmonton City Density is 13.6 people/hectare
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_242702832


    Yeah, we can't do more...

    Gotta have room to park the 4x4's
    Not too far off Chicago? Not bad at all for a north american city. Much much better than Altanta, or Housssston. I'm surprised we are so close to San Fran + Bay area. Those numbers really need a big grain of salt though, and a very macro way of looking at things, but on the micro level, we are doing good on our new areas, especially for a landlocked plains city.

  90. #1590
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Density of other cities.

    Edmonton City Density is 13.6 people/hectare
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_242702832


    Yeah, we can't do more...

    Gotta have room to park the 4x4's

    Mumbay most not be factoring their thousands of hectares of farmland in the density numbers.

  91. #1591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Density of other cities.

    Edmonton City Density is 13.6 people/hectare
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_242702832


    Yeah, we can't do more...

    Gotta have room to park the 4x4's
    Not too far off Chicago? Not bad at all for a north american city. Much much better than Altanta, or Housssston. I'm surprised we are so close to San Fran + Bay area. Those numbers really need a big grain of salt though, and a very macro way of looking at things, but on the micro level, we are doing good on our new areas, especially for a landlocked plains city.
    Density is all in how its defined--and unfortunately that reference doesn't provide the methodology or sources for their numbers.

    For example, from Wikipedia Edmonton's city density is indeed 13.6 per hectare. However its metro density is only 1.4 per hectare!

    By way of comparison, Wikipedia gives corresponding numbers for Atlanta as 13.7 per hectare for city density and 5.22 per hectare for the metro area. So by one measure Atlanta is actually 3.5 times denser than Edmonton.

    At the end of the day Edmonton is not a dense city at all and is, in fact, quite similar in that regard to any sprawling American city.

  92. #1592

    Default

    San Francisco + Bay area alone is much less dense than San Francisco proper. You might as well look at the density of the Capital Region and say that Edmonton is hardly dense at all. Bay area 6,966 square miles vs Capital region of 9,439 km² (3,644 sq miles).

  93. #1593
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Density of other cities.

    Edmonton City Density is 13.6 people/hectare
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_242702832


    Yeah, we can't do more...

    Gotta have room to park the 4x4's
    Not too far off Chicago? Not bad at all for a north american city. Much much better than Altanta, or Housssston. I'm surprised we are so close to San Fran + Bay area. Those numbers really need a big grain of salt though, and a very macro way of looking at things, but on the micro level, we are doing good on our new areas, especially for a landlocked plains city.
    Density is all in how its defined--and unfortunately that reference doesn't provide the methodology or sources for their numbers.

    For example, from Wikipedia Edmonton's city density is indeed 13.6 per hectare. However its metro density is only 1.4 per hectare!

    By way of comparison, Wikipedia gives corresponding numbers for Atlanta as 13.7 per hectare for city density and 5.22 per hectare for the metro area. So by one measure Atlanta is actually 3.5 times denser than Edmonton.

    At the end of the day Edmonton is not a dense city at all and is, in fact, quite similar in that regard to any sprawling American city.
    Is Edmonton's city density calculated for everything within the city limits? Including the 1,000s of hectares of farmland!

  94. #1594
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    putting a road through the ravine would be a death to the peaceful sanctuary it is now. No, no, and again, no... to developing our parkland. Back in the 70s, Edmonton voted against this... and for good reason.

    I get the impression that you're they type of person who is also against pipelines to transport oil to our coasts and also against the increased oil tanker traffic because there is a 0.009% chance of either a leak or a spill. But again, the wants of the 1% minority will outweigh the needs of the 99% because those 1% cry louder than the 99%. Same argument applies to building freeways in Edmonton, whether they are in ravines through river-valleys or not.

  95. #1595
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Vincent you can’t argue with the tree huggers. They are the 5% that rule this city with a vengeance. The main reason it’s so fuqed up. lol. Imagine if we could put some of the billions being spent on a useless ‘look at us’ status symbol little train system to replace a few buses with an actual transportation system that most could use. It would be fantastic.
    Agree with Drumbones on this point. At least the CoE is going to make an "honest attempt" at turning the YHD into a freeway (albeit with a low speed limit) by the time I am too old to drive, but they are definitely failing at Terwillegar Drive due to their shortsightedness.

  96. #1596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    putting a road through the ravine would be a death to the peaceful sanctuary it is now. No, no, and again, no... to developing our parkland. Back in the 70s, Edmonton voted against this... and for good reason.

    I get the impression that you're they type of person who is also against pipelines to transport oil to our coasts and also against the increased oil tanker traffic because there is a 0.009% chance of either a leak or a spill. But again, the wants of the 1% minority will outweigh the needs of the 99% because those 1% cry louder than the 99%. Same argument applies to building freeways in Edmonton, whether they are in ravines through river-valleys or not.
    your impression is wrong as usual.

  97. #1597

    Default

    Do we know what kind of interchange is planned for 127 street?

  98. #1598

    Default

    The design hasn't even been started yet. Preliminary planning for that interchange will start next year.
    Last edited by Vincent; 04-10-2018 at 01:56 PM.

  99. #1599
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    Ravines without roadways are great places for homeless camps so better definitely keep that as the homeless rate rises up. A nice bushy ravine a great place to set up a tent. My wife may kick me out before too long so I may need a spot myself.

  100. #1600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Thing is, Yellowhead, when done, will replace what McKinnon would have been for through traffic.
    I disagree, unless there is another future north/southbound arterial (a la 97St) linking it to the core. One could be routed through Blatchford to connect with 109 St. if the foresight was there to do it now, while the land is still available.

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Neither McKinnon nor Mill Creek freeways would have actually gotten folks into out out of DT any faster than currently.

    Why? You'd still have but 4 hills to get out of or into the valley. Two of the hills being two lanes - and one three (reverse) lanes.
    First of all? You're talking about people getting into/out of downtown. This is not the point. The point is all of those guys driving the 5 ton cube vans bringing product from the highways/warehouses/airport, the guys trying to get into the core for construction purposes, business travelers coming from the highways and the airport. The mess we have costs our economy millions annually in wasted time. Also there is significant cost to the environment with our current situation. Thousands of people drive 40-60km out of their way around this immobile mess on the ring road every day. I am one of them.
    To your point, I (again) disagree. If the full build out of McKinnon and Mill Creek freeways had been undertaken, including the Riverdale bridge/completion of the full (4 span) MacDonald bridge/Riverdale interchange/Walterdale-105 St. Interchange, and completion of the South/North East Freeway linking Hwy 2 to Hwy 15, then we would be in a drastically different situation as far as vehicle movements are concerned. We didn't (and still don't) need the redundancy and ridiculous excess of the full Freeway Loop as set out in the 1963 DeLeuw-Cather study. What we do really need is a means for free-flow commercial/vehicular traffic to bypass/access the downtown core in all directions, without clogging the arterials. You can look at the absolute cluster-fuk of thousands of square meters of pavement, comprising the convoluted "interchanges" (on the north slope of the river, adjacent to the core) as a testament to the fact. This mess of "work-a rounds" is horribly confusing to anyone that is not accustomed to navigating it and is quite frankly, an embarrassment.
    This above described cluster-hump would have been obviated if these 2 freeways were built and all of that space could be better used. The Riverdale Interchange as designed provided free-flow access in all four directions to the south and east sides of the CBA, directly linking to every major highway access point except #2 North.
    That said, I don't think that the Province had the cajones to make this happen and the CoE could never have "gone it alone", what with the rampant effects of inflation on construction costs in the mid-late 1960's. The maintenance bills on such infrastructure would also have been "hell to pay" when they started coming due by the mid-late 80's. Look at the ridiculous cost for the rehabilitation of the single span (of the 4 span MacDonald complex) that was actually built, for reference to this.

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    There'd still be congestion - maybe even more. You'd get to the back of the line faster, just the line would be much longer than it is now.
    Conversely, I think that the arterials (102 Ave/107Ave/97St/118Ave/Kingsway/Walterdale Bridge/St. Albert Tr/109St. etc.) would still carry a large proportion of the daily commuter trips and that the traffic flow would be more balanced overall. This system would serve the core primarily, and if it were in place today (in conjunction with AHD), you could probably have obviated the fiasco that is Yellowhead entirely, relying on the perfectly fine system of arterials that serve the north side.
    But, but, but! You want more pavement in my river valley...
    Whitemud Fwy in the south would be required, regardless of the build out of the axial system I describe here. Development south of the river was already far outpacing that in the north, even back in those days.
    I am a drywall contractor. My business takes me all over the greater Edmonton area on a daily basis (50+K km/yr.). I frequently have to transit east-west or north south through/adjacent to the downtown area and I frequently get stuck in traffic. Not everyone alone in a truck that could hold 5 people is thumbing their nose at the world (soccer mom's driving big-assed, empty SUV's are another matter...but I digress). I need to drive my truck every day...it's how I make my living; I carry all my tools, all my supplies, and I need to be able to go anywhere (at any time), if something needs to be addressed. You could pave Edmonton over with LRT tracks and I would still NEED my truck every day.
    Every single time I pass eastbound on the (designed as) west collector lanes of the "James MacDonald Bridge" and see the "temporary Phase 1-I ramps" I think: "What if?"
    Believe it or not? Some of those "fifteen extra minutes stuck in traffic" have actually had major impacts on me as a businessman over the years. Dead time, blown appointments. Bad.

    Maybe I'm just weird because I need to be able to get around throughout the day.

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •