Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617
Results 1,601 to 1,641 of 1641

Thread: Yellowhead Trail | Discussion

  1. #1601
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,416

    Default

    ^^ Whatever they do, a 127 St interchange should tie in somehow with 124 St.
    “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. #1602

    Default

    I would say there's a 0.00001% chance of that happening since the connection to the Yellowhead was cut off to eliminate shortcutting through the neighbourhood. They would have to designate 124 Street north of 118 Ave an arterial route and you know that's not happening.

  3. #1603

    Default

    They're having an open house on October 16th from 3 to 7 pm regarding the section from 82nd Street to 97th Street.






    97 Street to 82 Street Changes:
    Share Your Feedback
    As part of the Yellowhead Trail Freeway Conversion, changes will be made between 97 Street and 82 Street, including the removal of the traffic signal at 89 Street.

    The City of Edmonton invites you to share your feedback on the recommended design plan for the area and to let us know what information is important to you during construction.

    When: Tuesday, October 16
    Time: 3 to 7 p.m.
    Where: Delton Community League, Main Hall — 12325 88 Street NW

    For those unable to attend, the opportunity to provide feedback on the project design plans and communications during construction will be available online after the event.


    We also invite you to learn about the Eastwood and Elmwood Park Neighbourhood Renewal project and upcoming opportunities for public engagement.


    Take Our Program Survey by Nov. 3

    Feedback collected through the survey will be used in design considerations for various Yellowhead Trail projects and will also inform the development of future communications and engagement plans.



    Questions?



  4. #1604
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,416

    Default

    I love how the Insight survey assumes I'm an everyday commuter instead of the casual user I'm actually am.
    “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

  5. #1605

    Default

    I just did the survey and it assumed nothing like that, or anything else except that could click buttons and type.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  6. #1606

    Default

    Well, it does ask how long your commute is each day and I think the shortest option was 10 minutes. I don't commute at all because I work at home, so I chose 10 minutes. Close enough I guess.

  7. #1607
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Winnipeg doesn't need to plan for growth, so there is always that.
    Really? Have you ever flown over or driven through it? I'd suggest your inaccuracy is obvious.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  8. #1608
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    Spoke with a friend of mine who works for the city. He does our...UMMM..ERRR snow LOLOLOL Plowing . He was saying 66st may be shuttered earlier than first planned as the city may speed up the new access to Ft Rd off YHT. I'll believe it when it happens..If.....
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  9. #1609
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Winnipeg doesn't need to plan for growth, so there is always that.
    Really? Have you ever flown over or driven through it? I'd suggest your inaccuracy is obvious.
    My comment was somewhat sarcastic but...

    Winnipeg CMA population 1950: 344,583 2018: 800,249

    Edmonton CMA Population 1950: 148,861 2018 1,321,426

  10. #1610

    Default

    So people are complaining about the 66 St closure:

    https://globalnews.ca/news/5021266/e...way-66-street/

    I thought this had been the plan for years, if not decades? Why are people acting as though they learnt about this yesterday?

  11. #1611
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    These people don’t follow the news or vote in elections. Take 50 Street or Fort Road.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  12. #1612

    Default

    It hasn't been the plan.

    Official plans from 10 years ago had the smaller accesses at 67/68 being closed and no changes at 66st, at least this phase.

    At the open house in the fall they had graphics that showed the old plan with only the side streets closed but with verbiage indicating 66th closing - and when questioned the staff person indicated that it wasn't set in stone.

    Interestingly the most recent materials they sent out pretty much said straight-up that they've made the decision but are only now working on gathering information to support the decision.
    There can only be one.

  13. #1613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    These people don’t follow the news or vote in elections. Take 50 Street or Fort Road.
    This is not an acceptable response, for a few reasons. First, this was never an election issue. To the limited extent that Yellowhead ever got news coverage it was always about 149, or 127etc. If you've never used 66st you might not be aware that it can be quite busy, at least enough that piling that traffic onto 50th street and Fort Road/WGD will only make traffic on those streets worse.

    That we're considering spending close to a billion dollars for each of 149 and 127street interchanges but the relatively low cost of a flyover ($20-$30m?) is too much for the east side I guess.
    There can only be one.

  14. #1614

    Default

    The 50th street overpass is a mess at the best of times. A couple of large trucks ends in gridlock. The Fort Road overpass to Yellowhead eastbound has a very short and dangerous merge lane that is only about 75 meters long on a curve with blind spots. Both were busy intersections before and now will be a huge mess.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  15. #1615
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The 50th street overpass is a mess at the best of times. A couple of large trucks ends in gridlock. The Fort Road overpass to Yellowhead eastbound has a very short and dangerous merge lane that is only about 75 meters long on a curve with blind spots. Both were busy intersections before and now will be a huge mess.
    In fact, it is not a true merge lane. People treat it as such. In fact, the yield sign indicates traffic is to stop and yield to the traffic on YHT and NOT proceed until clear.It is indeed one of the most dangerous roads yes. Not because of the length, rather the inability for some to read and comprehend what a yield sign means. Only a fool attempts to merge when traffic is approaching on a blind corner.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  16. #1616

    Default

    You are correct. It is a yield. Either way it is a dangerous area.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #1617

    Default

    Yep. And the same geometric constraints means they probably couldn't shoehorn in a safe Eastbound exit but there's no reason that a flyover combined with the same westbound ramps they have planned couldn't work, along with maybe a onramp to eastbound from 67st.

    There's currently a lot of traffic turning from 66 to YH eastbound and a lot of that will move to fort Road.
    There can only be one.

  18. #1618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    It hasn't been the plan.

    Official plans from 10 years ago had the smaller accesses at 67/68 being closed and no changes at 66st, at least this phase.
    I stand corrected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Yep. And the same geometric constraints means they probably couldn't shoehorn in a safe Eastbound exit but there's no reason that a flyover combined with the same westbound ramps they have planned couldn't work, along with maybe a onramp to eastbound from 67st.

    There's currently a lot of traffic turning from 66 to YH eastbound and a lot of that will move to fort Road.
    At the minimum, they should take out the sidewalk and squeeze in an extra eastbound lane.

    On the other hand, traffic coming from the north has to exit westbound, then make a U-turn at Fort road. There's that 125 Ave extension but it just dumps traffic into Fort Road anyway, so it's all on the DDI - hope it's as magical as the hype makes it out to be.
    Last edited by Foolworm; 05-03-2019 at 11:17 PM.

  19. #1619
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,486

    Default

    Even right on/right off ramps at 66th and 107th Streets would be better than total closure.

  20. #1620

    Default

    Here is a graphic

    More than a dozen closures

    Very few improvements to existing intechanges to handle the increased flow at already overloaded intersection.

    Traffic volumes on the east end of YH have dropped significantly since 2012 as the AHD was completed in the NE and the economy has slowed. The amount of traffic on 66th street, Fort road, and 50th street have remained relatively constant.

    As one example: Just try driving south down 50th street (36,800 cars per day) from 137th ave to YH during the morning rush hours. There are 7 sets of lights in 1.8 km, on average one every 300m which severely impedes traffic flow. Every day, traffic backs up on Fort Road for those wanting to get onto YH, often backed up all the way to 66th street itself. The two recommended alternatives routes are already at or over capacity.

    Now imagine even more of the 10,600 cars on 66th street traffic approaching the YH, dumped onto 50th street (36,800 cars per day) and onto the overloaded two lane Fort Road with (36,800 cars per day) approaching the YH

    Traffic numbers c.2016

    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 06-03-2019 at 09:30 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #1621

    Default

    One thing that should have been done years ago was connecting 129 ave to Hermitage road. Having to intersections so close to each other is ridiculous, particularly since it would provide a more direct connection to Belvedere Station.

  22. #1622

    Default

    ^ Correct. Also 127th ave. The COE Transportation department waited too long. There was lots of vacant and underutilized lots and a service road could have been built. Now it is too late. Bad planning and a lack of understanding that the NE has always had poor links to the rest of Edmonton due to the multiple rail lines in the area that limit arterial route options, the heart of the issue.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  23. #1623

    Default

    Unsurprisingly, people aren't happy about the closure.

    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...way-conversion

  24. #1624
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    ^This is just another instance of people not liking change. The 66 Street closure will barely be noticed once residents and local businesses adjust to it. 66 Street's life as an arterial comes to an abrupt end at 118 Avenue. Building an interchange or even a flyover would be a waste of money.

    The short-cutting concern makes no sense. So long as 66 Street stays four lanes it will still be the preferred access to the handful of businesses located south of the Yellowhead.

  25. #1625

    Default

    Obviously you don't know the area very well. It is tough enough to get access to certain business along YH, this and other closures with no planned improvements to alternate routes is a significant problem. If there were alternate access points being created, especially due to the train tracks that bisect the areas, then people would not be as upset. The road ROW of 125th ave from 66th street to 62nd street is one example of the COE not moving forward to alleviate a problem BEFORE the closure. Widening or building more service roads along YH, especially for the amount of truck&trailer traffic, would also help. The business area south of YH and west of 66th street is almost entirely cut off from any usable truck routes without going through residential communities. But what does the COE care about the NE areas anyway?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 10-03-2019 at 11:44 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  26. #1626
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    ^There is a plan to widen Fort Road between Yellowhead and 66 Street. This is a choke point (with the lane reduction from six to four) even before the new transit garage opens.

    There is some truck traffic that needs to access the handful of businesses located south of Yellowhead. None of those businesses require frequent access by large trucks such as tractor trailer units so they can be accommodated using 118 Avenue and 66 Street. Especially since traffic volumes on 66 Street will be even less after the Yellowhead closure.

  27. #1627

    Default

    I don't know why they did not make the RR underpass on Fort Road wider when then rebuilt it years ago.

    Let me guess the plan.
    Close 66th Street, create chaos.
    Increase traffic on Fort Road trying to get on and off YH, more chaos.
    Then close part of Fort Road to widen underpass
    Create cluster fork.


    Sound about right?

    Please correct me if I am wrong.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 10-03-2019 at 01:50 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  28. #1628
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    You're only wrong insofar as you're making this sound like a conspiracy.

    It's been at least 20 years (maybe more) since the Fort Road CN underpass was widened to four lanes from two. At that time Fort Road was a four lane road along its entire length.

    Since then Fort Road has been widened to six lanes east of 66 Street, and WGD (also six lanes) is now the main through route south of the Yellowhead. So widening the short stretch between the Yellowhead and 66 Street to six lanes makes all sorts of sense regardless of the decision to close 66 Street at the Yellowhead. The latter decision is based on making the Yellowhead into an urban freeway without traffic lights.

  29. #1629

    Default

    The underpass was widened in 1992. It is 4 lanes but they are narrow, only about 14 meters wide with no shoulders and only a sidewalk on the north side.

    Even in 1992, that section of Fort Road was busy with the four lane Fort Road being fed with the four lane 66th street traffic connecting traffic to YH. The underpass on Fort Road would plug every day as traffic made left turns immediately north of the underpass, in effect making NE bound traffic into a single lane. I only have Edmonton Traffic Flow Maps back to 2003 but historically even in 1992, widening to 4 lanes was extremely short sighted IMEO.

    Traffic Flow maps of the Fort Road underpass
    2003 34,000 vehicles/day
    2006 37,000 vehicles/day
    2015 38,000 vehicles/day


    Especially since 66th street/Fort Road has and still remains the only crossing point between 50th street and 82 street and the current plan is to close 66th street @YH (it has been a plan since at least 2002). As this underpass has only a 4.0 meter clearance, it has been the site of countless high load incidents because one accident on the Fort Road underpass such as an overheight load, would entirely close traffic in the entire region.

    I see that there is a plan to widen and deepen the underpass to handle an estimated 15% to 20% more traffic and construction is anticipated to begin in 2019. There will also be a massive new intersection for the increased bus traffic. All the businesses north of Fort Road will be effected
    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...nceptPlans.pdf
    Note Design speed, 60kph but Posted speed is planned to be 50 kph.

    Commuters will have a lot of fun during the lengthy reconstruction period.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 10-03-2019 at 06:54 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  30. #1630

    Default

    That new intersection by the bus barn will connect Fort Rd and run a road east to 66street. I'd hope they put this in first before doing any work on the rail bridge, that way they can create an alternate route around the bridge work.

  31. #1631

    Default

    They're putting in another level crossing on the LRT?

  32. #1632
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    ^Brody may wish to clarify. My assumption is that the access road to 66 Street would run parallel to Fort Road and not cross the LRT ROW.

    There already seems to be a construction access road from 66 Street to the transit garage: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5816.../data=!3m1!1e3
    Last edited by East McCauley; 11-03-2019 at 11:49 AM.

  33. #1633

    Default

    No, there is a new two lane level LRT crossing where the old Canada Packers building used to stand. It connects at 125th to 66th street

    See the plan reposted link
    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...nceptPlans.pdf
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  34. #1634
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    ^Oops. Didn't look at the drawings until you re-posted them.

    Wonder what the rationale is for this alignment? Once 66 Street access to the Yellowhead is closed, this means buses and vehicular traffic would have to cross the LRT tracks twice in a very short distance. Keeping the access road north of the LRT ROW would mean not having to cross the tracks at all.

  35. #1635

    Default

    Too many businesses to expropriate.

    Also as stated before, the area needs to have access for businesses east of 66th, South of the tracks and north of YH. The Versacold alone needs access for hundreds of trucks a day.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #1636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Too many businesses to expropriate.

    Also as stated before, the area needs to have access for businesses east of 66th, South of the tracks and north of YH. The Versacold alone needs access for hundreds of trucks a day.
    This linkage road going east/west, with an at grade crossing would be an alternative to going north on 66street with the low clearance on the rail bridge and also the one at fort road.
    I'm sure there were plans to also extend that same ave east of 66street on the north side of Vercacold and connect with 62street.

  37. #1637

    Default

    Just in case people aren't clear, the 125 ave extension is already underway and will connect the roads of the same name:



  38. #1638
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,486

    Default

    I'm not sure why they didn't consider right on/right off ramps at 66th Street, some access is maintained but the left turns and traffic signals are removed.

  39. #1639
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,416
    “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

  40. #1640
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,439

    Default

    ^are they also removing the signals at 142 Street and 121 Street this year or will that be done later?

  41. #1641
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,489

    Default

    I'm thinking they'll be doing that later. Many of the side roads will be built north of Yellowhead.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617

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
  •