[yeggator]

So I was inspired to make this thread because I use Gateway Boulevard/Calgary Trail to commute to and from work every day, and with how much traffic's grown, it's such a pain in the ass it use these roadways. I also think it doesn't give a great first impression of the city as the main entrance from the international airport and places like Calgary. When you reach the first stoplight on Gateway, you get to bear witness to a frequently backed up at-grade railroad crossing with a giant Wendy's sign behind it, and a whole lot of cluttered commercial buildings that butt right up against the roadway on both sides. It's such a small-town entrance for the capital of the highest-HDI region on the continent. And since I mentioned Calgary, I always thought it's nice that you can theoretically travel from the QE2 entrance to the city up to Downtown in a wide-open, fairly naturalized free-flow right-of-way (even if, in practice, you'll get stuck in traffic 99% of the time).

Now, I'd never advocate for all the destruction required to plow a freeway straight to downtown, but you could get most of the way there by upgrading 91st Street to a freeway (which already has nice naturalized greenery along the ROW). Then, with all the capacity you free up on Gateway and Calgary Trail, turn them bidirectional arterials (cause unidirectional couplets are stupid) and add BRT and active transportation along Calgary Trail. Then, you funnel traffic from the 91st Street freeway onto Argyll, from which they can access DT by Gateway/Walterdale or 109th/High Level (both bridges becoming bidirectional). Make some aesthetic improvements and you now have a proper north-south transportation spine south of the river that accommodates several modes, moves them quickly and is a more fitting entrance to the big city. And don't forget about grade-separating the railway for high-speed rail!

 

[yeggator]

 

[yeggator]

 

[thommyjo]

Lots of this makes sense. I also think we just need some new signs to welcome people to our city. Our current highway/entrance ones suck. As does the airport experience of driving into the city.

Nicer art, lighting, planters/landscaping.

 

[yeggator]

Lots of this makes sense. I also think we just need some new signs to welcome people to our city. Our current highway/entrance ones suck. As does the airport experience of driving into the city.

I’d love for our highway entrance signs to have the same design motifs as city hall. Blue-tinted glass and steel diamond-covered pyramids, the city logo in dark metal lettering against sandstone, and an updated skyline motif with Walterdale, the Leg, Epcor Tower and Stantec Tower

 

[kcantor]

Discussing Gene Dub’s design for entrance markers from 2007:

https://blog.mastermaq.ca/tag/entrance-signs/

You have to love the quote from Tod Babiak coming on almost two decades ago now:

“In 10 years, we won’t remember the potholes of 2007. But giant pyramids on each end of the city could be there, still inspiring debate.”

“If we continue to configure our priorities, as a community, around a reflexive, mean- spirited and frankly stupid hostility to cultural spending, the filled potholes will allow a lot of very smooth one-way trips out of this cold, efficient province.”

 

[itom987]

Entrance gimmicks are a sign of desperation, who wants to see the world's largest paperclip?

 

[constance_chlore]

You have to love the quote from Tod Babiak coming on almost two decades ago now:

“In 10 years, we won’t remember the potholes of 2007. But giant pyramids on each end of the city could be there, still inspiring debate.”

“If we continue to configure our priorities, as a community, around a reflexive, mean- spirited and frankly stupid hostility to cultural spending, the filled potholes will allow a lot of very smooth one-way trips out of this cold, efficient province.”

That's perfect. Reminds me of Yves-François Blanchet's line, "I am not certain that oil and gas qualify to define a culture." Take heed, Alberta separatists: if you want to be a nation, give more money to artists!

 

[David A]

After over 30 years, probably time to update the entrance signage. While I don't dislike the current ones as much as some, they do seem very staid and boring as well as of course dated ... of a city living in past glories.

I hope this is not the image we are intending to convey.

 

[The_Cat]

I'm not sure whether it would be a wise idea to make Gateway and Calgary Trail two-way south of 51 Avenue. Perhaps have a single lane the other direction running along the business sections, something like Stony Plain Road west of 175 Street.

Otherwise, I think the connector to 91 Street would be great.

 

[archited]

After I finish playing with the downtown former Tegler building site, I will take a crack at a new vision for Gateway Boulevard.

 

[MuzikMachine]

I really like the idea, especially the 91 St/109 St combination. If you were wanting to discourage downtown traffic from taking Gateway Boulevard into downtown, maybe the place for two-way conversion would be north of 63 Avenue (ish) in Old Strathcona.

Admittedly when when I first saw the thread title, I was thinking of something different. One thing Calgary has been able to do is better establish land use and design standards along its entrance corridors, so it encourages more visually appealing developments along the highway (relativley speaking). In Edmonton it seems more like a work in progress. Some less visually appealing development the older development around 16A/Winterburn Road, 2/Ellerslie Road (the old motels), or the newer development along the edges of Yellowhead Trail. While outside of the City's control, some of development in Nisku and Acheson isn't the most visually appealing when coming into town. I grew up SE of Edmonton, so coming in on Hwy 14 and Whitemud Drive is an example where it was a little newer and cleaner.

I recognized that Edmonton is city with lots of industrial development that needs easy access to transportation corridors, but maybe some of the permitted development right along the corridors needs rethinking.

 

[archited]

Gateway Boulevard could be vastly improved and be a benefit to Old Strathcona and fix the hairpin turn access to the new 105th street bridge and eliminate traffic buildup and, and...

 

[David A]

I really like the idea, especially the 91 St/109 St combination. If you were wanting to discourage downtown traffic from taking Gateway Boulevard into downtown, maybe the place for two-way conversion would be north of 63 Avenue (ish) in Old Strathcona.

Admittedly when when I first saw the thread title, I was thinking of something different. One thing Calgary has been able to do is better establish land use and design standards along its entrance corridors, so it encourages more visually appealing developments along the highway (relativleyspeaking). In Edmonton it seems more like a work in progress. Some less visually appealing development the older development around 16A/Winterburn Road, 2/Ellerslie Road (the old motels), or the newer development along the edges of Yellowhead Trail. While outside of the City's control, some of development in Nisku and Acheson isn't the most visually appealing when coming into town. I grew up SE of Edmonton, so coming in on Hwy 14 and Whitemud Drive is an example where it was a little newer and cleaner.

I recognized that Edmonton is city with lots of industrial development that needs easy access to transportation corridors, but maybe some of the permitted development right along the corridors needs rethinking.

Yes, the process is gradual but it is happening as new things are built in the older industrial area and older buildings are repurposed or replaced.

It is more noticeable south of 51 St Ave, some of the older motels have been replaced by newer commercial buildings and empty space has been filled by newer commercial buildings.

 

[MuzikMachine]

Gateway Boulevard could be vastly improved and be a benefit to Old Strathcona and fix the hairpin turn access to the new 105th street bridge and eliminate traffic buildup and, and...

That would be ideal. I recall seeing proposals to address the hairpin when the Walterdale Bridge was replaced, I believe they were 'deferred'. I'm wondering if there wasn't a political appetite for it then, there probably never will be as the engineering challenges are still there and costs are much higher.

Diverting traffic to 109 Street and Walterdale Hill, which has a better approach to the bridge might be a better solution. The original Highway 2 alignment took 104 St, 82 Ave, and 109 St to the High Level Bridge back when it was two-way traffic (not sure when it became one-way). I'm guessing nobody wants to reuse Whyte Ave as part of the main north-south corridor into downtown.