Results 1 to 43 of 43

Thread: Converting Whyte Ave to pedestrian-only?

  1. #1

    Lightbulb Converting Whyte Ave to pedestrian-only?

    I've thought of this for a long time and mentioned it several times in threads. I love the pedestrian-only shopping streets of Europe and would love to see it in Canada.

    Now this is a rough idea and I welcome constructive criticism or alternative ideas, but don't waste anyone's time just posting that it's a dumb idea or it won't work without putting any thought into it or at least providing some idea of your own. There are enough posts like that in other threads...

    Here's the thought on a rough map

    EDIT: Apologies for the image, it got resized very small. If you can't tell, the far left street is 109 Street, the blue zone starts at 108 Street until Gateway.


    The blue zone would be the stretch of Whyte Ave where vehicle traffic is not allowed, it's a walking area like a long park. New stands could even open in the middle, and the restaurant patios could be much larger. Of course there would still be north-south traffic crossing the blue zone with pedestrian crossings.

    The yellow arrow to the right would be the short stretch of Whyte Ave that would be one-way eastbound only to allow traffic from Gateway to turn east. The Gateway/82 Ave intersection would become a T-intersection since traffic will no longer go in our out of the blue zone, and the traffic light can be removed completely, possibly leaving only a pedestrian crossing.

    Traffic coming from 82/Whyte Ave westbound would be diverted (upper green arrows) to a one-way street (83 ave) westbound which is currently a one-way eastbound and will change to westbound.

    The lower green arrow is where eastbound traffic on Whyte would divert down to 81 Ave where the current empty Don Wheaton dealership lot is and run all the way to Gateway. 81 Ave is already one-way westbound but will change to eastbound.

    Westbound issue
    All the traffic from Whyte would be diverted right in front of the Farmer's Market. Not sure how disruptive that would be.
    Also unclear how it could rejoin the original road (where the question marks are). One idea would be to have the traffic going westbound on 83 Ave freely turn southbound on 108 Street which could also be one-way and freely turn right back onto the original Whyte Ave with no stop signs or lights.

    Eastbound issue
    Traffic trying to continue east along 82/Whyte heading towards 99St would need to turn north on Gateway and then immediately right on 82 Ave (where the yellow arrow is). Not sure how to smooth it out.


    Alternates for blue zone
    The centre of the street could include an LRT line or a buses-only route.


    Reasons for doing such a project would be to first of all make Whyte more enjoyable to visit. The side streets already have additional parking lots and more could be added. If anyone has spent time down there, I'm sure you've seen the same motorcycles, sports cars and trucks going up and down just cruising back and forth and revving their engines and looking for girls to impress. This would put a stop to it and decrease traffic from the people just cruising all day.

    Unfortunately Whyte is not only for shops but also a route used by many passing through, so trying to get the traffic to flow through alternate means will of course be a challenge. But I think this type of strip would be far better than what there is now.

    Any suggestions for having the traffic rejoin the original routes on either end? What about the LRT or bus idea? Buses might be noisy as well...
    Last edited by alkeli; 22-08-2018 at 01:00 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Although I very much like the idea of pedestrain streets, Idon't think Whyte AVenue is a good candidate for it. The side streets used in your vision are not build to handle the load of traffic. Would need big upgrades. Another factor is the people that live along these roads probably don't want to live right on a busy thoroughfare. So while your vision may make Whyte Avenue a nicer place for pedestrians to visit, it makes Old Strathcona a worse place to live.

  3. #3

    Default

    It's kind of stuck being like it is in a way. But I like to think there might be alternatives. Not sure how much work would be needed for those side street to handle 2 lanes one-way. They're wide enough...

    Yes it would be more disruptive to those living on 83rd and 81st, but I wonder if traffic would drop by people not cruising and others taking alternative quicker routes.

    It's a shame that the alleys are probably used by the businesses for loading goods. They would be less disruptive, but I don't think they're wide enough to be used for a 2-lane road anyway...

  4. #4

    Default

    Buses are heading toward being electric, so that's not a big deal. I would say Whyte is too wide to be pedestrian only and would need to have buses/streetcars to feel more full. Probably bike lanes too.

    You could flip the bike lanes from 83 back to whyte, cyclist would prefer it.

    Two narrow lanes one-way on each of 81 and 82 wouldn't necessarily be really noisy and could be 40km/hr limit. Hopefully they wouldn't attract the cruising crowd that afflicts whyte now... and with most of both avenues having lots of apartments maybe it wouldn't be as politically impossible as otherwise?
    There can only be one.

  5. #5

    Default

    In 20 years there is a great possibility that something could be done. Whether or not it will is the usual course of transportation and land-use planning and democracy / community participation and consultation. The area needs to be more dense to facilitate a change of use of the side streets to be "less disruptive", as a selling feature of sorts. This is more common in urban centres a little bigger than Old Strathcona. Would be worth exploring temporary options in the meantime as the bus changes are rolled out, LRT is considered for 2030+ and cycling and rezonings / denser development occurs.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    In 20 years there is a great possibility that something could be done. Whether or not it will is the usual course of transportation and land-use planning and democracy / community participation and consultation. The area needs to be more dense to facilitate a change of use of the side streets to be "less disruptive", as a selling feature of sorts. This is more common in urban centres a little bigger than Old Strathcona. Would be worth exploring temporary options in the meantime as the bus changes are rolled out, LRT is considered for 2030+ and cycling and rezonings / denser development occurs.
    I don't think there are any other major roads that go in a fairly straight line all the way from Sherwood Park to the U of A, so I don't see that happening for practical reasons. Remember, the road doesn't just serve people living nearby, but also people traveling a greater distance.

  7. #7
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,730

    Default

    I appreciate the effort and thought put into the idea above. It could work if the neighbourhood would get on-board with it.

    Another idea I've pondered is to turn 81st Ave into the pedestrian street between 105th street and Gateway. There is SO MUCH potential here with multiple parking lots ripe for pedestrian-facing multi-use redevelopment, a bunch of established bars and businesses, and a pretty wide right of way. It wouldn't affect bus traffic at all, wouldn't shut down the E/W route for emergency vehicles, and would help extend the area a bit to space things out so it's less crowded at closing time. Plus, as the city grows we all know this area will get busier and interest will shift to off-whyte streets/aves eventually. Build it in now, be patient, and eventually the right development will happen. Seems better than trying to make a drastic change like turning Whyte into pedestrian only. That will only cause a huge uproar.

    Also it could be an alternate venue for things like Sand on Whyte, concerts, etc.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    In 20 years there is a great possibility that something could be done. Whether or not it will is the usual course of transportation and land-use planning and democracy / community participation and consultation. The area needs to be more dense to facilitate a change of use of the side streets to be "less disruptive", as a selling feature of sorts. This is more common in urban centres a little bigger than Old Strathcona. Would be worth exploring temporary options in the meantime as the bus changes are rolled out, LRT is considered for 2030+ and cycling and rezonings / denser development occurs.
    I don't think there are any other major roads that go in a fairly straight line all the way from Sherwood Park to the U of A, so I don't see that happening for practical reasons. Remember, the road doesn't just serve people living nearby, but also people traveling a greater distance.
    Not intended to change the width or physical layout of streets that exist beyond changing traffic directions or on-street parking. Much like what we've seen in urban areas of Edmonton (Oliver or Downtown), Calgary, Montreal, Vancouver. Simply the side streets would be much more dense by 2030 and them being 2-lane one ways isn't outrageous as per the image above. All using existing ROWs.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  9. #9

    Default

    I mean... look at Gastown in Vancouver. Way more traffic than Old Strathcona and it was a one-way layout with parking and lots of pedestrian activity. Is it efficient to have multiple 90 degree turns and hold that traffic up? I dunno but along Whyte there's lot of lights already "delyaing traffic". Actually... as we speak Vancouver is debating the same "car light" or pedestrian only street for Water Street in Gastown... I think it's possible here... but as I said, years from now after other things fall into place.

    Car Free Sundays along Whyte from 103-105 st in the summer!!!!
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Buses are heading toward being electric, so that's not a big deal. I would say Whyte is too wide to be pedestrian only and would need to have buses/streetcars to feel more full. Probably bike lanes too.

    You could flip the bike lanes from 83 back to whyte, cyclist would prefer it.

    Two narrow lanes one-way on each of 81 and 82 wouldn't necessarily be really noisy and could be 40km/hr limit. Hopefully they wouldn't attract the cruising crowd that afflicts whyte now... and with most of both avenues having lots of apartments maybe it wouldn't be as politically impossible as otherwise?
    Let me know what road you live on, and I'll direct traffic from the nearest crosstown route on to it.... tell me how much you enjoy it.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    In 20 years there is a great possibility that something could be done. Whether or not it will is the usual course of transportation and land-use planning and democracy / community participation and consultation. The area needs to be more dense to facilitate a change of use of the side streets to be "less disruptive", as a selling feature of sorts. This is more common in urban centres a little bigger than Old Strathcona. Would be worth exploring temporary options in the meantime as the bus changes are rolled out, LRT is considered for 2030+ and cycling and rezonings / denser development occurs.
    Right, lots of moving parts. This idea would definitely be a long-run thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    In 20 years there is a great possibility that something could be done. Whether or not it will is the usual course of transportation and land-use planning and democracy / community participation and consultation. The area needs to be more dense to facilitate a change of use of the side streets to be "less disruptive", as a selling feature of sorts. This is more common in urban centres a little bigger than Old Strathcona. Would be worth exploring temporary options in the meantime as the bus changes are rolled out, LRT is considered for 2030+ and cycling and rezonings / denser development occurs.
    I don't think there are any other major roads that go in a fairly straight line all the way from Sherwood Park to the U of A, so I don't see that happening for practical reasons. Remember, the road doesn't just serve people living nearby, but also people traveling a greater distance.
    Yes that's what's unfortunate about it. It's also a main street... The only other main routes even close to being an east-west artery are Sask Drive and 61/63rd Ave. Sask wouldn't serve well, and 61/63 is quite the detour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    I appreciate the effort and thought put into the idea above. It could work if the neighbourhood would get on-board with it.

    Another idea I've pondered is to turn 81st Ave into the pedestrian street between 105th street and Gateway. There is SO MUCH potential here with multiple parking lots ripe for pedestrian-facing multi-use redevelopment, a bunch of established bars and businesses, and a pretty wide right of way. It wouldn't affect bus traffic at all, wouldn't shut down the E/W route for emergency vehicles, and would help extend the area a bit to space things out so it's less crowded at closing time. Plus, as the city grows we all know this area will get busier and interest will shift to off-whyte streets/aves eventually. Build it in now, be patient, and eventually the right development will happen. Seems better than trying to make a drastic change like turning Whyte into pedestrian only. That will only cause a huge uproar.

    Also it could be an alternate venue for things like Sand on Whyte, concerts, etc.
    That would be awesome as well! As I keep mentioning, it's unfortunate that Whyte has been established on a route that's become so busy. The 81st Ave (or even 83rd Ave) idea would be great, but it would require quite a bit of work. I also wonder if there would be some resistance to the idea of "moving" Whyte Ave traffic and visitors from the existing businesses... If that were to move forward, you would at least have the opportunity to start with more of a clean slate. I like it!

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Buses are heading toward being electric, so that's not a big deal. I would say Whyte is too wide to be pedestrian only and would need to have buses/streetcars to feel more full. Probably bike lanes too.

    You could flip the bike lanes from 83 back to whyte, cyclist would prefer it.

    Two narrow lanes one-way on each of 81 and 82 wouldn't necessarily be really noisy and could be 40km/hr limit. Hopefully they wouldn't attract the cruising crowd that afflicts whyte now... and with most of both avenues having lots of apartments maybe it wouldn't be as politically impossible as otherwise?
    Let me know what road you live on, and I'll direct traffic from the nearest crosstown route on to it.... tell me how much you enjoy it.
    I live a half-block from 118ave, so I can heat them pass from both my front and back yards. Most of the noise is the engine as the bus accelerates.

    Anyway, I was talking about leaving electric buses on Whyte - that electric buses wouldn't be a significant detraction from an otherwise pedestrianized street.
    There can only be one.

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,625

    Default

    While I get the attraction to this idea, it:

    A) isn't practical, and
    B) Won't enhance the pedestrian experience that's already there.

    As to practicality - 81 and 83 ave just won't work. Already, westbound especially, Whyte often backs up solidly from 104 Street to almost 100th. Putting buses, trucks and miles of cars on a single lane residential road flanked by apartments and bike lanes would be an unmitigated disaster. Possibly because Sask Drive is not far away, eastbound doesn't seem to be as badly congested.

    Remember too, Whyte is not just a road for cars, but also a major bus route and the only westbound route available for twenty blocks for fire and medical emergency vehicles. It'd be a good bet, with the option suggested, someone is going to die who would not otherwise have to.

    My other point is, what's wrong with the Whyte Ave pedestrian experience that needs (such a radical) fix?

    I love the human density, people watching and being so close to the pubs, cafes, shops along Whyte just as is - including those funky walk around patios.

    So, I admire your passion, but to me, aint nothing broke that needs fixing.
    ... gobsmacked

  14. #14

    Default

    Well, the new routes would be 2-lane one-way. No different than the current 2-lanes westbound on Whyte right now.

    One big thing that would be eliminated is noise. Sitting outside Hudson's on a Saturday sucks when you can't hear the people at your own table because of Harleys, cars, trucks, with their loud exhausts and their stereos.

    The patios could be made much larger.

    The entire open area would be more like a long park and could have booths, chipstands, and there's enough room for large events, fringe, buskers, etc, maybe even live bands, expand the Farmer's Market outdoors, all surrounded by restaurants and shops. And at Christmas there could be booths brought in to make a Christmas market.




    Christmas Market with booths brought in to sell food and Christmas decorations and gifts, with attractions for children.



    Turns it into an entire new area of it's own.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Well, the new routes would be 2-lane one-way. No different than the current 2-lanes westbound on Whyte right now.
    2 lanes only if you remove all the street parking for the residents in the area.... Not going to fly. The roads all need to be rebuilt to handle the new load too. Those side roads are built as side roads, not as a major thoroughfare

    One big thing that would be eliminated is noise. Sitting outside Hudson's on a Saturday sucks when y.
    The noise isn't eliminated, just moved to the side streets... where you are impacting residents of the area. Again, not going to fly.

    You're asking to move noise and traffic to side roads for the benefit of only a few during a very short stay on whyte for a few beers or chips, and at at the determinant of many more who live in the area.

  16. #16

    Default

    This is really a solution is search of a problem that doesn't exist, along a major thoroughfare that is a vital link to the entire city and the uofa and its hospital.

    This idea has merit, just not on whyte avenue. How about 102 avenue or 103 avenue? 104 street already does this on Saturdays. Rice howard way? The many blocks around churchill square?

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    This is really a solution is search of a problem that doesn't exist, along a major thoroughfare that is a vital link to the entire city and the uofa and its hospital.

    This idea has merit, just not on whyte avenue. How about 102 avenue or 103 avenue? 104 street already does this on Saturdays. Rice howard way? The many blocks around churchill square?
    I am thinking this proposal would also mean the bike lanes being put in on 83 Ave as we speak would have to be taken out to widen for two lanes of traffic.

  18. #18

    Default

    to be fair, OP has stated the the bike lanes and transit would move/remain on Whyte somehow in his vision...

  19. #19

    Default

    I think the main idea is to consider that Edmonton of 2018 will be different than Edmonton of 2030+. What that looks and feels like is more in question now than before new transit upgrades in the area were a reality, the major revamp of the alleys and patio extensions, the 83ave bike lane, improving 104st and extending the contra-flow lane as well as the new ARP being released today and the ARP for 109st, talk of the streetcar... lots of moving parts now.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    This idea has merit, just not on whyte avenue. How about 102 avenue or 103 avenue? 104 street already does this on Saturdays. Rice howard way? The many blocks around churchill square?
    Agree merit - (and why not where the new DT Central Park is planned? Or Capital Blvd? )

    104 Street - gimme a minute and check the Rants thread!
    ... gobsmacked

  21. #21
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,166

    Default

    Leave Whyte Ave as-is. It's a major corridor between the U of A and Sherwood Park.

    Just make a couple of adjustments:
    Change the speed limit to 30 km/hr, between 99 St and 112 St.
    Enforce the hell out of that plus the noise limits.
    “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

  22. #22

    Default

    Speed limit review is definitely still taking place for I think that whole stretch. Not sure when it comes out, but most likely will be 40km/hr. 30km/hr works well on East Hastings in Vancouver.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Leave Whyte Ave as-is. It's a major corridor between the U of A and Sherwood Park.

    Just make a couple of adjustments:
    Change the speed limit to 30 km/hr, between 99 St and 112 St.
    Enforce the hell out of that plus the noise limits.
    This would also be a great solution. But we know, it wouldn't be enforced. Or it would be for a month and then never again... And "that guy" on the Harley is still going to put the clutch in and rev whenever he coasts by a group of people or a patio, or when he's stopped, and still drive in 1st gear the whole time to be loud. You know as well as I do what "that guy" is like. Slow speeds also won't help so much with the bro's and their booming stereos. Noise enforcement is something severely lacking throughout the city.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    In 20 years there is a great possibility that something could be done. Whether or not it will is the usual course of transportation and land-use planning and democracy / community participation and consultation. The area needs to be more dense to facilitate a change of use of the side streets to be "less disruptive", as a selling feature of sorts. This is more common in urban centres a little bigger than Old Strathcona. Would be worth exploring temporary options in the meantime as the bus changes are rolled out, LRT is considered for 2030+ and cycling and rezonings / denser development occurs.
    I don't think there are any other major roads that go in a fairly straight line all the way from Sherwood Park to the U of A, so I don't see that happening for practical reasons. Remember, the road doesn't just serve people living nearby, but also people traveling a greater distance.
    Why should any focus of a City be servicing Sherwood Park or outlying regions. They don't pay taxes to the COE, balk at expense sharing.


    Next, people should probably stop a dependency on driving to the U of A. What kind of sense does that make? U of A is well serviced by Public transit, LRT, bike lanes, AND has busses coming directly from outlying regions like Sh park. Which could be facilitated almost as well with Argyll.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Leave Whyte Ave as-is. It's a major corridor between the U of A and Sherwood Park.

    Just make a couple of adjustments:
    Change the speed limit to 30 km/hr, between 99 St and 112 St.
    Enforce the hell out of that plus the noise limits.
    lol, another Sherwood Park vote. Is this Connect2Edmonton?

    Sorry, but SCREW Sherwood Park. Theres no reason that connection should even be a consideration within the COE.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #26
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,625

    Default

    For one, there are a LOT of property-tax paying Edmontonians between the U of A and Sherwood Park.

    Secondly, there are legitimate issues between the CoE and the region, but our relationship is pure bliss compared to the Calgary Region, and

    lastly, let's not forget the huge investment all Alberta taxpayers make every day in institutions such as the U of A, and hospitals, etc. etc that are based in Edmonton and for which the province makes an annual payment to the CoE in lieu of property taxes.

    I know, off topic .... I blame the wildfire smoke
    ... gobsmacked

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    For one, there are a LOT of property-tax paying Edmontonians between the U of A and Sherwood Park.

    Secondly, there are legitimate issues between the CoE and the region, but our relationship is pure bliss compared to the Calgary Region, and

    lastly, let's not forget the huge investment all Alberta taxpayers make every day in institutions such as the U of A, and hospitals, etc. etc that are based in Edmonton and for which the province makes an annual payment to the CoE in lieu of property taxes.

    I know, off topic .... I blame the wildfire smoke
    I live in East Edmonton as well. Even with that some changes and sacrifices need to be made for the betterment of other modes. The vehicular mode is slowly dying. Increasingly younger people don't even buy vehicles. Many of them don't drive. We live in worlds that are basically made for vehicles and apparently have difficulty conceiving of vast urban areas without them. Its not unfathomable to make 8-9 blks of Whyte Avenue pedestrian/multi user only. Indeed this is the MODE traffic in the area. PEOPLE, not cars. If you did counts on that section in a 24hr period I would bet more people are traversing the area on foot then vehicles going completely through using it as a corridor. This could be a wonderful area as the OP is mentioning. Have you ever been there for the art markets or for activities when the road is closed off? Its much nicer, ambience is different, friendly, feels more like a community without vehicles whizzing past. I'm still a driver and I would say do this. Traffic as the OP has suggested can be diverted. I would divert it even farther from 82AVE.

    So many ways exist to go from one place to another in vehicles and to the degree that there is still an expectation that every road and avenue in the city be vehicle navigable. Why? Its long past time to start considering, and prioritizing other modes. Which only serves to then build wonderful locations.

    This is what we need to aspire to; In Toronto 25% of people now commute by transit. Close to 10% more either cycle or walk. Meaning not even 2/3 now are driver commuting and those numbers are steadily going down.

    Vancouver is exhibit A for quantum changes in what can occur. So that in Vancouver now 30% of people do not drive to work. They take public transit, walk, cycle.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tats-1.4425660


    Increasing other modes is win for everybody. Places become much more liveable when vehicular dominance is lessened.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-08-2018 at 02:07 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Leave Whyte Ave as-is. It's a major corridor between the U of A and Sherwood Park.

    Just make a couple of adjustments:
    Change the speed limit to 30 km/hr, between 99 St and 112 St.
    Enforce the hell out of that plus the noise limits.
    lol, another Sherwood Park vote. Is this Connect2Edmonton?

    Sorry, but SCREW Sherwood Park. Theres no reason that connection should even be a consideration within the COE.
    you seem transfixed by the word sherwood park and cant comprehend the rest of th city proper in between it and the uofa use this road as pretty much as the only east west road in the central south side

  29. #29
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Alkeli quote: "One big thing that would be eliminated is noise. Sitting outside Hudson's on a Saturday sucks when you can't hear the people at your own table because of Harleys, cars, trucks, with their loud exhausts and their stereos."

    yes! lets move all this noise to the residential streets! Brilliant!!

  30. #30

    Default

    The noise is why people go down there
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Leave Whyte Ave as-is. It's a major corridor between the U of A and Sherwood Park.

    Just make a couple of adjustments:
    Change the speed limit to 30 km/hr, between 99 St and 112 St.
    Enforce the hell out of that plus the noise limits.
    lol, another Sherwood Park vote. Is this Connect2Edmonton?

    Sorry, but SCREW Sherwood Park. Theres no reason that connection should even be a consideration within the COE.
    you seem transfixed by the word sherwood park and cant comprehend the rest of th city proper in between it and the uofa use this road as pretty much as the only east west road in the central south side
    I'm well aware of the roads configuration. I occasionally use but could quite easily not use it. In anycase its an extremely poor east/west corridor. People have the option of Argyll, Whitemud, etc. Plus other than the University the demand to go west of Old Strathcona is not very pronounced.

    All people are talking about here is detouring for 8 blocks so as to NOT have vehicle traffic on Whyte IN Old Strahcona. Seems to me the major impediment to that is the long since pointless end of rail stretching across Whyte Avenue. The City would be well served by NOT having that rail line there essentially dividing neighborhoods/districts in two and preventing surface roads between Argyll and Whyte. Its interesting that in the 21st century we continue to allow freight lines to divide up our cities and massively screw with our transportation infrastructure and connectivity but having a people only segment of 8 blocks is considered a non starter? Why?


    Like I said its time to reanalyze these things. Vehicles will become less and less of a mode. Our planning should take that into account.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-08-2018 at 10:24 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,915

    Default

    76 ave would have to run straight through and be widened and University Ave would have to be reopened as it was years back

  33. #33
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,808

    Default

    More pedestrian friendly, sure, but good lord not closed to traffic.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Seems to me the major impediment to that is the long since pointless end of rail stretching across Whyte Avenue. The City would be well served by NOT having that rail line there essentially dividing neighborhoods/districts in two and preventing surface roads between Argyll and Whyte. Its interesting that in the 21st century we continue to allow freight lines to divide up our cities and massively screw with our transportation infrastructure and connectivity but having a people only segment of 8 blocks is considered a non starter? Why?


    .
    The tracks that use to cross whyte avenue, and gateway blvd were completely pulled out several years ago. There is no tracks crossing whyte avenue anymore.

    The freight lines were in many cases, built before the city engulfed them.

  35. #35

    Default



    Since we're talking about pie-in-the-sky ideas I have a different solution: Build a road out of the High Level Streetcar ROW and have it share track with the Centre LRT (with a spur to the High Level Bridge).

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post


    Since we're talking about pie-in-the-sky ideas I have a different solution: Build a road out of the High Level Streetcar ROW and have it share track with the Centre LRT (with a spur to the High Level Bridge).
    Interesting! And the path is already there....

  37. #37
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,832
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    You don't have the land to do this effectively, and the residents would absolutely explode with anger...the verbal barrage would be intense.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  38. #38
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post


    Since we're talking about pie-in-the-sky ideas I have a different solution: Build a road out of the High Level Streetcar ROW and have it share track with the Centre LRT (with a spur to the High Level Bridge).
    Thanks but no thanks.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    You don't have the land to do this effectively, and the residents would absolutely explode with anger...the verbal barrage would be intense.

    Agreed. I think we need a main corridor somewhere south of Whyte, and the only real feasible one is 76ave. The easement is wide enough there through much of it. 76ave should be made contiguous all the way from East Henday through to 105st and then follow the University Avenue spur to campus terminus. But again the train ROW and yard there is preventing this currently. The growing city of Edmonton needs some East-West access between Whyte and Argyll that is more efficient. Whyte, even as is, is a poor corridor with lights at almost every intersection and blocks of jammed traffic at rush hour and slow going at anytime.


    You can't put it on the HLB row that would just destroy the ambience of the Old Strathcona area and events like the Fringe Festival.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  40. #40
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,888

    Default

    My guess is that 76 Avenue could take some traffic off Whyte if it's built between Gateway and 99 Street. However, 76 Avenue could experience congestion around Queen Alexandra and McKernan.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    You don't have the land to do this effectively, and the residents would absolutely explode with anger...the verbal barrage would be intense.
    Hence pie-in-the-sky.... I can't even imagine the amount of flak the city would be taking when the LRT line finally gets built, never mind a diversion scheme like this. Just trying to expropriate the land for the intersection at 87th ave (is the streetcar tunnel heritage?) kills the entire idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You can't put it on the HLB row that would just destroy the ambience of the Old Strathcona area and events like the Fringe Festival.
    Actually the added space on Whyte would counterbalance the whole thing nicely.

  42. #42
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,386

    Default

    In my opinion this current city council would vote to close it even before LRT is built. I rarely go downtown now because of the difficulty getting around. I wonder if they are possessed by the spirit of Tooker Gomberg?

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    My guess is that 76 Avenue could take some traffic off Whyte if it's built between Gateway and 99 Street. However, 76 Avenue could experience congestion around Queen Alexandra and McKernan.
    Considering they are already lowering the speed limit, and putting traffic calming measure on this road, I doubt you will see an appetite from anyone to increase traffic on this road.

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
  •