Edmonton-Nisku-QE II freeway plans

[0773|=\]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

We don't need a north-south FREEWAY into downtown. Calgary doesn't have a north-south freeway neither does Vancouver and they are doing fine. What we do need is a new and improved river crossing, improved / reduced direct access to Gateway to improve freeflow. That's it.

One of the reasons that Calgary's downtown is thriving is because it is attractively accessible by car. It has two freeways that run in very close proximity of downtown, and both have free-flowing spurs that dump vehicles RIGHT in downtown. I'm talking about Deerfoot/Memorial and Crowchild/Bow.

Edmonton needs to do something like this, and I disagree with the people proposing a freeway bisecting downtown, even if it's underground. If a route is too attractive, you're asking for unnecessary congestion. LRT's can carry higher volumes of passengers per hour for that purpose, that's where they should be implemented, as for freeways, they should be attractively close without boxing in a downtown. This is what I think should happen:

-North of 23 ave, convert Calgary Trail into a two-way service road with ample links to all services along both Gateway Blvd. and Calgary Tr. Then convert Gateway Blvd into a viaduct freeway and re-align it to take advantage of vacated CP rail yards after they move south of the city. Expropriate where necessary, because there really isn't that much property in the way as it is. Have interchanges well spaced apart (LISTEN UP CITY PLANNERS) at 34 ave, Whitemud (systems interchange), 51 Ave, 63 Ave, and 82 Ave. At Whyte, you could try tunnelling but I've heard the soil in that area is not favorable to that, you could also viaduct over, but face the side of the viaduct so that it looks attractive running through that area, I even thought of perhaps suspending a cafe under the freeway but above Whyte and having a large intersection (6-way if they went for a single-point urban interchange) and face it nice, make it pedestrian-friendly... basically plow it through but be sensitive of the integrity of that district. It CAN be done.

-The inner ring road --It DOES need to be done. The east leg is actually 75 street/Gretzky Drive, not 50 street as someone mentioned. It's the basis for a wheel-and-spoke freeway design to serve Edmonton's suburbs. Have two spurs within that loop that come attractively close to downtown but still remain 0.5 to 1 km outside of it. Definitely have one coming from the south with a bridge over the valley (the land is there just east of walterdale hill), and possibly a spur from 107 or 97 street linking up with the Yellowhead.

-Another thought, if they go ahead and build the Oiler's arena downtown, let Edmonton acquire Rexall's land, blow it down and realign Gretzky Drive, as a freeway, up to Yellowhead, giving Northlands an interchange access, and removing the access points further south (currently a bad weave-zone for traffic, plus the alignment of Gretzky Drive through that area is currently very poor).

-Freewayize this inner ring for ample suburban and cross-town traffic movement. The service industry depends on it. If you need proof on something like this working, look at Calgary. They have Glenmore, Memorial, Crowchild, Macleod, and the list goes on Free-flowing routes through the city assist traffic in off-peak hours, which is something a lot of the local industry depends on. We could easily take a page out of their book and create freeways that also become good paths for median-LRTs (see Memorial Drive and Crowchild Trail).

-Spoke traffic out to Anthony Henday from the inner ring via freeway connections on Yellowhead, Stony Plain Road, Whitemud, Terwilliger, Gateway/Calgary Trail, Whitemud again, Sherwood Park Freeway, 101 Ave, Yellowhead again, 50 Street/Manning, 97 street, and St. Albert Trail. Once that infrastructure's in place, the city will have smart intra-city roadways without hurting their downtown.

It's probably unrealistic cost-wize, but at least it gives the city things to peg away at, one interchange at a time. They should explore the P3 approach and see if something like this could get done using that sort of funding.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

One of the reasons that Calgary's downtown is thriving is because it is attractively accessible by car. It has two freeways that run in very close proximity of downtown, and both have free-flowing spurs that dump vehicles RIGHT in downtown. I'm talking about Deerfoot/Memorial and Crowchild/Bow.

Edmonton needs to do something like this, and I disagree with the people proposing a freeway bisecting downtown, even if it's underground. If a route is too attractive, you're asking for unnecessary congestion. LRT's can carry higher volumes of passengers per hour for that purpose, that's where they should be implemented, as for freeways, they should be attractively close without boxing in a downtown. This is what I think should happen:

-North of 23 ave, convert Calgary Trail into a two-way service road with ample links to all services along both Gateway Blvd. and Calgary Tr. Then convert Gateway Blvd into a viaduct freeway and re-align it to take advantage of vacated CP rail yards after they move south of the city. Expropriate where necessary, because there really isn't that much property in the way as it is. Have interchanges well spaced apart (LISTEN UP CITY PLANNERS) at 34 ave, Whitemud (systems interchange), 51 Ave, 63 Ave, and 82 Ave. At Whyte, you could try tunnelling but I've heard the soil in that area is not favorable to that, you could also viaduct over, but face the side of the viaduct so that it looks attractive running through that area, I even thought of perhaps suspending a cafe under the freeway but above Whyte and having a large intersection (6-way if they went for a single-point urban interchange) and face it nice, make it pedestrian-friendly... basically plow it through but be sensitive of the integrity of that district. It CAN be done.

-The inner ring road --It DOES need to be done. The east leg is actually 75 street/Gretzky Drive, not 50 street as someone mentioned. It's the basis for a wheel-and-spoke freeway design to serve Edmonton's suburbs. Have two spurs within that loop that come attractively close to downtown but still remain 0.5 to 1 km outside of it. Definitely have one coming from the south with a bridge over the valley (the land is there just east of walterdale hill), and possibly a spur from 107 or 97 street linking up with the Yellowhead.

-Another thought, if they go ahead and build the Oiler's arena downtown, let Edmonton acquire Rexall's land, blow it down and realign Gretzky Drive, as a freeway, up to Yellowhead, giving Northlands an interchange access, and removing the access points further south (currently a bad weave-zone for traffic, plus the alignment of Gretzky Drive through that area is currently very poor).

-Freewayize this inner ring for ample suburban and cross-town traffic movement. The service industry depends on it. If you need proof on something like this working, look at Calgary. They have Glenmore, Memorial, Crowchild, Macleod, and the list goes on Free-flowing routes through the city assist traffic in off-peak hours, which is something a lot of the local industry depends on. We could easily take a page out of their book and create freeways that also become good paths for median-LRTs (see Memorial Drive and Crowchild Trail).

-Spoke traffic out to Anthony Henday from the inner ring via freeway connections on Yellowhead, Stony Plain Road, Whitemud, Terwilliger, Gateway/Calgary Trail, Whitemud again, Sherwood Park Freeway, 101 Ave, Yellowhead again, 50 Street/Manning, 97 street, and St. Albert Trail. Once that infrastructure's in place, the city will have smart intra-city roadways without hurting their downtown.

It's probably unrealistic cost-wize, but at least it gives the city things to peg away at, one interchange at a time. They should explore the P3 approach and see if something like this could get done using that sort of funding.

Kinda like whats already planned or been planned or been bandied about for 20 years ?? Most of this stuff will happen, or is happening. This stuff will happen quicker if the city stops pushing outwards, and focuses on smart density.

[0773|=\]

Originally Posted by feepa

Kinda like whats already planned or been planned or been bandied about for 20 years ?? Most of this stuff will happen, or is happening. This stuff will happen quicker if the city stops pushing outwards, and focuses on smart density.

I'm often skeptical of these 20 year master plans, which is why I re-iterate some of their finer points. They have to get beyond being discussed; they need to get done. Currently, the reputation of Edmonton's transportation planning is to cave in to people who don't comprehend the transportation needs much beyond their own street and alleyway. If everything from the city plans of the 70's had materialized, Edmonton would have a downtown freeway loop today.

Instead, we have a huge problem with NIMBY's forcing undesireable revisions of the Terwilliger Drive interchange, and there are more stubborn residents keeping Gretzky Drive from pushing south of 101 Ave, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Stuff like this is what makes me wish the city could grab some balls and plow ahead without listening AS MUCH to every concerned citizen's limited grasp of the needs of the city as a whole.

Edmonton stands to be more progressive and efficient with the time they spend consulting the public's input, I don't know how many more times I can live with the results of bad road planning from the city before I start lobbying for the province to take over operations of all signed provincial highways through our city, something that almost every other state or province in North America already does.

The city's FUBAR'd the Yellowhead from 156 street (including the interchange) to at least 50 street, they've concerned themselves more with the cosmetics of a boulevard and building a 3rd consequent sign that says "welcome to Edmonton", as if we didn't have enough of those already, and meanwhile they've forgotten to update their signage design guidelines or positioning to properly correspond with Alberta Transportation's, or include other road design essentials like a full-width shoulder, proper ramp lengths, proper interchange spacing, elimination of RIRO style intersections on routes designated to become freeways... seriously, this city flat-out sucks! Alberta only had to build 10 kms of Anthony Henday to have me convinced that they should be put in charge of all freeways within our city limits. It's too obvious.

At least then, the city could stick to streets and alleys, and leave the bigger stuff to a government with a larger budget and a better idea of how to build something right the first time.

[0773|=\]

Originally Posted by craner

I'll search the link but does anyone know if there is an 'outer' ring road planned for Calgary too ?

If it were investigated, both the outer ring ring road and the current ring road being built would run multiplexed along the southwest leg, because the T'su T'ina (sp?) reserve is painfully difficult to acquire land from. Currently, Alberta Transportation is negotiating for enough R/W to build a 12-16 lane 401-style highway through the region so that they won't have to negotiate for more land for a long time.

[feepa]

Edmonton doesn't need a downtown loop - especially the one that was proposed back in the METS plan in 68? Nothing like a circle with 4-8 lanes around your downtown to isolate it.....

I do agree, Edmonton needs to start getting some balls and doing it rather then planning it, and not doing...

I disagree with your assessment on the yellowhead... perhaps you forget that this was developed area of the city that it pushed through. Yes, there should be more interchanges already, but it would've been very costly to build all at once. Slowly, each interchange is removed. 149st (flyover?) and 66st are next for overpasses. the lights at 124 st and 89 st better disappear soon, and divert traffic to elsewheres... that will leave only lights at 142/127/107 st... and 107st wouldn't be that hard to get rid of....
I agree, that the province should be doing all signed/numbered highways. Yellowhead and whitemud included.

[Bassic Lab]

Aren't most other cities trying to come up with ways to get rid of inner city freeways? So why are we trying to biuld more in this province?

Won't outer ring roads not be required in Calgary and Edmonton for a good fifty years? I mean with new suburbs being biult with densities in the 10 000 per square mile range and the intensive inner city redevelopment we all like to talk so much about we could easily have two million people in the are of Calgary contained by the current ring road project and the areas within a few miles.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Aren't most other cities trying to come up with ways to get rid of inner city freeways? So why are we trying to biuld more in this province?

Won't outer ring roads not be required in Calgary and Edmonton for a good fifty years? I mean with new suburbs being biult with densities in the 10 000 per square mile range and the intensive inner city redevelopment we all like to talk so much about we could easily have two million people in the are of Calgary contained by the current ring road project and the areas within a few miles.

I wouldn't consider the ring roads planned and under construction in Edmonton and Calgary Inner City...

[feepa]

browsing that link for the Edmonton ring road - found a bunch of old maps of hwy 2 , Calgary, Edmonton... between 69-75...
look at the very bottom of this page

http://www.altaroads.ca/

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by feepa

I wouldn't consider the ring roads planned and under construction in Edmonton and Calgary Inner City...

Neither did I, I was going for two different areas of population expansion, the new suburbs near the ring roads as one place to acomadate some of the growth, and new condos in the inner city as a seperate place for population growth to fit. With the two working together fit more people into the region. Sorry for the confusion.

[codeman9669]

Originally Posted by feepa

Edmonton doesn't need a downtown loop - especially the one that was proposed back in the METS plan in 68? Nothing like a circle with 4-8 lanes around your downtown to isolate it.....

I do agree, Edmonton needs to start getting some balls and doing it rather then planning it, and not doing...

I disagree with your assessment on the yellowhead... perhaps you forget that this was developed area of the city that it pushed through. Yes, there should be more interchanges already, but it would've been very costly to build all at once. Slowly, each interchange is removed. 149st (flyover?) and 66st are next for overpasses. the lights at 124 st and 89 st better disappear soon, and divert traffic to elsewheres... that will leave only lights at 142/127/107 st... and 107st wouldn't be that hard to get rid of....
I agree, that the province should be doing all signed/numbered highways. Yellowhead and whitemud included.

Dont forget the lights on 121 st, too! That one section is brutal, three sets of lights in 6 blocks!

[Beltliner]

Originally Posted by craner

This is the first I've heard of an 'outer' ring road. Doesn't the city want an 'inner' ring road as well - Whitemud-170st-Yellowhead- 50st? on the east.
I'll search the link but does anyone know if there is an 'outer' ring road planned for Calgary too ?

During the first spasm of planning activity on the Sarcee Trail Extension in November 2005, INFTRA made mention of a second Calgary ring road being necessary fifty years on. Page 2 of this open house handout shows this outer ring road running on express lanes through the Sarcee Trail Extension alignment, mostly to ensure that the Tsuu T'ina nation, the City of Calgary, INFTRA, and whichever muppet is running Indian Affairs federally this week only have to come to one right of way settlement. The rest of the alignment being mooted ranges from two to five miles outside of Stoney Trail.

From my standpoint, Stoney Trail should be built entirely as a collector-express system, and for good measure the express lanes should be electronically tolled to cover at least some of its costs for operations and maintenance. The outer ring road being proposed for Calgary represents a colossal waste of land and money, and moreover speaks to INFTRA's utter lack of interest in maximising its investment in what is after all a 1300-foot-wide right of way.

[craner]

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

If it were investigated, both the outer ring ring road and the current ring road being built would run multiplexed along the southwest leg, because the T'su T'ina (sp?) reserve is painfully difficult to acquire land from. Currently, Alberta Transportation is negotiating for enough R/W to build a 12-16 lane 401-style highway through the region so that they won't have to negotiate for more land for a long time.

Yeah I heard this too. I almost wonder if the outer ring road sould run west of bragg Creek ? Anyway - I'll likely be long gone before this sees the light of day . . . hell I hope I'm still around if they ever get the ROW through the reserve negotiated for the first ring road.

[mersar]

It won't be SW of Bragg Creek, as that area is in a provincial park, and bordered by the reservation (it stretches from Highway 8 south to 22X and goes a bit west of 22 along the river). Plus there is no where to run it northwards, as you'd also have to negotiate with the bands at Morley (3 of them) to run it west of Cochrane. The one idea that I'd heard in the past was running it from the city along highway 8 then north about 1/2 way from Cochrane to Calgary, over the Bow, then up Lochend Road (Highway 766) then east again along 567 and around Airdrie.

[ssiguy]

Has Edmonton learnt nothing over the last 30 years which led to Edmononton's downtown near elimination.
Downtown freeways and even elaborate freeways in the burbs lead to spraw;
and big box stores and are very TOD unfriendly.
It is the cities with huge network networks are the one's with desolate downtowns. Almost all US cities reflect that.
In the 50s and 60s freeways to downtown were meant to be easy for suburbanites to get downtown easily but instead led to sprawl and downtown by-passes.

[Coldrsx]

^while i agree with you, you need freeways for efficient transport of goods and services as much as for commuting.

Freeways are not what made downtown die in the 80's/90's...WEM and the people of this city did.

It is finally coming back to where it should be and has a very bright future, ring road or not.

[neilson]

1st off I'm gonna refer to the Ring Road as the Perimeter or Bypass since that's the lingo I use(kinda like I say Coke or Soft Drink, you say Pop).

Now that that's out of the way, here's what I propose. For the inner city Perimeter, just do like Texas with the Frontage Roads on the Freeway.

Watch these videos of actual drives along Houston freeways: http://www.houstonfreeways.com/video.aspx

That's what oil money + ambitious roadbuilding can do.

[Hardhatdan]

Originally Posted by neilson

1st off I'm gonna refer to the Ring Road as the Perimeter or Bypass since that's the lingo I use(kinda like I say Coke or Soft Drink, you say Pop).

Now that that's out of the way, here's what I propose. For the inner city Perimeter, just do like Texas with the Frontage Roads on the Freeway.

Watch these videos of actual drives along Houston freeways: http://www.houstonfreeways.com/video.aspx

That's what oil money + ambitious roadbuilding can do.

Yes lets follow houston's example of uncontrollable sprawl! GOOD IDEA.

[Jasper and one o nin]

Houston is a fine example of what is wrong with American Cities
(I've had a chance to live there)

[Edmonchuck]

While Houston does make the case against urban sprawl a good one (lived there too, couldn't wait to leave), it does have a good freeway system between Beltway 8, the 610 loop, and the interstates that intersect therein.

They do work well, even the Katy Freeway is OK, but it also explains why they have no mass transit and their downtown is a ghost town after 5. Take their ring road example of how to at least flow traffic around the city at specific points, but leave the multitude of interstates out.

[0773|=\]

Houston is an example of the other extreme. Canada is often very cautious to build freeways, or more to the point build parallel alternate freeways as opposed to widening single routes (case in point, highway 401 in T.O.)

There has to be a middle ground. A variety of transportation modes all in a healthy condition are vital to the liveability of the city. Transit downtown works for a lot of people, but some people will still want to be able to take their vehicles to certain locations in cities. Both options have to be easy though.

When looking at Canada, we can see some downtowns that are killed by excessive access provisions to one mode of transportation, while not enough by another. Calgary's downtown works for many people because it has three spurs of LRT, but it ALSO has easy access to two cross-town freeways (Crowchild and Deerfoot via Memorial and Bow trails). A place like Winnipeg has a choked downtown because it just plain isn't easy to get to by car OR transit.

Bottom line, capacity counts for something, but certain modes of transportation have their own sets of problems. You don't want a downtown dominated by parkades, but you can't expect your Millionaire execs to hop on the LRT with everyone else either (except maybe in NYC).