News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Seamusmuldrew said:
Ok… we still will never *need* an urban freeway into downtown. That debate was largely settled by the 80s in Edmonton.
Click to expand...
Needs and wants are different things. Making Gateway free-flow with a tunnel under Old Strathcona would be a win-win-win for the neighbourhod, traffic flow and visitors' perceptions entering the river valley and downtown.

Start the tunnel around 78 avenue and exit the river valley top of bank under Saskatchewan Drive, removing that hairpin turn as well. It would be a 1km-long tunnel more or less and a local service road could be located on top for traffic that is only going to Old Strathcona. Of course the cost would be considerable, but if money were no barrier it would be an ideal project.
 
HappyJazzz said:
Well other than the short section near Whyte, I'd hardly call the Gateway corridor urban...

And if I was a resident in the Whyte adjacent communities I'd happily support changes that would get traffic that was just passing through out of the neighborhood.

Maybe it would just be easier to relocate all of DT to Leduc? Just think of how many dog parks could be built where those ghastly skyscrapers are ruining the neighborhood 🙃
Click to expand...
I think those residents actually fought to keep it the way it is and not make it a free flow road with no lights...but I could be wrong.
 
Avenuer said:
Needs and wants are different things. Making Gateway free-flow with a tunnel under Old Strathcona would be a win-win-win for the neighbourhod, traffic flow and visitors' perceptions entering the river valley and downtown.

Start the tunnel around 78 avenue and exit the river valley top of bank under Saskatchewan Drive, removing that hairpin turn as well. It would be a 1km-long tunnel more or less and a local service road could be located on top for traffic that is only going to Old Strathcona. Of course the cost would be considerable, but if money were no barrier it would be an ideal project.
Click to expand...
I understand the difference between needs and wants. If you read snowman123's post, they express that urban freeways are part of a network of *needed* infrastructure, and I disagree that an urban freeway into downtown is in any way necessary. But I also personally do not want a multi-billion dollar free-flow tunnel into our downtown (which should be less car-centric, not more) that would require a distributor system to prevent the free-flow traffic from clogging up in the tunnel. I'd argue the benefit of our entries into downtown is how it staggers traffic so as to not overcrowd our city-centre roads, and does not offer one single fast way in, and instead spreads it out across multiple entries. Obviously there are issues with traffic, particularly over the high level, but honestly our traffic really isn't bad at all compared to most major Canadian downtowns.
 
Edmonton has at least two roads south from downtown that drivers can take. Calgary has the Deerfoot, which is frequently backed up because of weather or accidents. Do Rogers Place patrons remember the gridlock on Wayne Gretzky Drive?
 
Seamusmuldrew said:
I understand the difference between needs and wants. If you read snowman123's post, they express that urban freeways are part of a network of *needed* infrastructure, and I disagree that an urban freeway into downtown is in any way necessary. But I also personally do not want a multi-billion dollar free-flow tunnel into our downtown (which should be less car-centric, not more) that would require a distributor system to prevent the free-flow traffic from clogging up in the tunnel. I'd argue the benefit of our entries into downtown is how it staggers traffic so as to not overcrowd our city-centre roads, and does not offer one single fast way in, and instead spreads it out across multiple entries. Obviously there are issues with traffic, particularly over the high level, but honestly our traffic really isn't bad at all compared to most major Canadian downtowns.
Click to expand...
The_Cat said:
Edmonton has at least two roads south from downtown that drivers can take. Calgary has the Deerfoot, which is frequently backed up because of weather or accidents. Do Rogers Place patrons remember the gridlock on Wayne Gretzky Drive?
Click to expand...

You aren't wrong about the benefits of distributed access, there certainly are some advantages.
But Deerfoot gets backed up frequently because people are actually using it.
To get to their jobs, at businesses, located in their downtown.
Which is something many here are frequently desiring Edmonton to have too...

{IMG}dots connecting{/IMG}

If Gretzky got gridlocked, it is in large part because it isn't really a freeway, just a road with a couple of overpasses, much like Groat rd.
Had it been truly freeflow up to a freeflow Yellowhead, much of that traffic would have dispersed quite quickly.
 
bodsbods9090 said:
I think those residents actually fought to keep it the way it is and not make it a free flow road with no lights...but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the old METS project from the 60s?
Or was something closer to what I'm suggesting actually proposed more recently?
 
Some roads like Gateway have largely uninterrupted traffic flow (4 major lights at 34, 51, 63 and 82 Avenue) en route to downtown. 50 Street just eliminated the rail crossing. and Roper Road is the only major light between Whitemud and Sherwood Park Freeway.
 
The_Cat said:
Edmonton has at least two roads south from downtown that drivers can take. Calgary has the Deerfoot, which is frequently backed up because of weather or accidents. Do Rogers Place patrons remember the gridlock on Wayne Gretzky Drive?
Click to expand...
Calgary also has Macleod and Crowchild; arguably Groat Road could be the Edmonton-equivalent of Crowchild Trail (but probably not). During off-peak times, Deerfoot usually flows pretty well.

At the very least it would be nice for Gateway Blvd/Calgary Trail to be a Macleod Trail equivalent with minimum 3 lanes each way and no hairpin turns linking to downtown.
 
HappyJazzz said:
OK I recall the Walterdale replacement, but I don't remember anything about a gateway freeway proposal from that time.

Do you have a news article you can share on that?
Click to expand...
I remember reading this old proposal.

Loading…

www.edmonton.ca

IMG_4592.png
 
yeggator said:
I remember reading this old proposal.

Loading…

www.edmonton.ca

View attachment 597224
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I guess I can see why community residents weren't that enthused about it. Doesn't really do anything to get traffic off of neighborhood roads.

Likely would have been an expensive, lengthy and disruptive project with little end benefit.

Actually surprised the city didn't go for it!
 
Last edited:
HappyJazzz said:
OK I recall the Walterdale replacement, but I don't remember anything about a gateway freeway proposal from that time.

Do you have a news article you can share on that?
Click to expand...
Wasn't a freeway, just eliminating the hair pin.
HappyJazzz said:
Thanks for that, I guess I can see why community residents weren't that enthused about it. Doesn't really do anything to get traffic off of neighborhood roads.

Likely would have been an expensive, lengthy and disruptive project with little end benefit.

Actually surprised the city didn't go for it.
Click to expand...
I wish they did. It would be nice to have a proper roadway linking the south side to downtown, even if there are traffic signals.

Seeing as how this is the 50th Street thread, are there any plans for future upgrades beyond the overpass?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top