Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 170

Thread: Old Freeway Plans

  1. #1
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,036

    Default Old Freeway Plans

    Does anyone have pictures/plans of the freeway plan (called the "Met" I believe) that was developed in the 1960's? It detailed freeways running all over the city & was responsible for starting the construction for the freeway that was to run through McKiney??? Ravine.

  2. #2
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,801
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    METS.

    If you search on that keyword on C2E or even Skyscraper Page, I think someone posted it...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  3. #3

  4. #4
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    Awesome...thanks!

  5. #5
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    49

    Default

    good god...

  6. #6
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Oh, what could have been!

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bdejong
    Oh, what could have been!
    A disaster? A wall cutting off the CBD?

    (Some parts would be alright - but most of this would be awful!

  8. #8

    Default

    On the bright side, if you look, one of the freeways goes right through where they are building the Venetian...

  9. #9

    Default

    Yes, and it makes sense to run the freeways there - because you can't really have that high of developments... but it would've totally strangled off downtown...

  10. #10
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    Yes, and it makes sense to run the freeways there - because you can't really have that high of developments... but it would've totally strangled off downtown...
    Personally I've never liked the entire block between 106ave and 107ave. Good riddance, I say.

  11. #11

    Default

    I would've liked to see the Jasper freeway and the East freeway. That would've given us good traffic flow both north/south and east/west near downtown without "strangling" downtown.

  12. #12

    Default

    The one thing this drawing does not show is that Highway II was designed to split (right around where gateway park is now) into two freeways going north.

    One was to be 91st street going north to eventually join up with Manning. The other was to be 111th street going north to eventually join up with St.Albert Trail. It would've been a "freeway fork".

    Even now you can see that both 91 and 111 both have lots of room and were obviously designed to be much more than they are.

  13. #13

    Default

    Erm, and have a nice two or three level interchange where cloverdale sits and a free way cutting off holes 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Victoria golf course and cutting through a city ravince...no thanks.

  14. #14
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    48

    Default

    I would be interested in seeing exactly how the Capilano/Gretzky and the Sherwood Park Freeways were to tie into the entire METS plan. I know the Capilano would have tied into the Northeast Freeway, just below Yellowhead Trail, near the Northlands/Rexall. I don't know how far south the freeway was intended to run.

    The Sherwood Park Freeway just splits into Whyte Ave and Argyll Road and stops. I think the freeway would have continued down the Argyll split until it hit 91 Street/Southeast Freeway and stopped. I don't know. I'm just speculating.

    If anyone knows, please post the information here.

    The METS plan in the link shows the Downtown Loop, Jasper West-98 Ave East, as well as the Northwest/South (111 St) and Northeast Freeway (Manning)/Southeast (91 St). I can see how these freeways would have tied into Whitemud and the AHD. Whitemud and AHD were part of the original METS plan that actually got built.

    I don't live in Edmonton, so I can't and won't say what is best for your city. I can say the plans were certainly interesting. I have been following road development for your area for the past thirty five years or so, and I find it fascinating. I don't know why, I just do.

    So, if any of you can share additional information, it would be appreciated.

    I have dozens and dozens of North American city freeway networks memorized, including cancelled freeways. It's an odd hobby, but I like it !!

  15. #15
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I think the goal of freeways should not be to take traffic directly downtown, but rather to take it around it.

    Looking back, I think that the freeway west of 109 Street and the 106/107 Avenue corridor (extending to 111 Avenue and Gretzky Drive) would have worked well for downtown. 109 Street could have been extended to 111 Street to meet up with the Whitemud.

  16. #16
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Leduc, Alberta
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Thanks for posting the plans and link. Very cool, yet very mind boggling.

    I had to be around 3ish when these plans were drafted and my dad used to tell my brother and I where all the new roads were going. I had no clue it was this extensive. I would really like to see other proposed road system plans pop up. I would be very interested!

    It's neat to see the remaining legacy of this plan in a few places such as highway 16 and 14X and Baseline where high speed off ramps were intended. The split in highway 14 near Colchester School that is now Henday/HW14 is very fun to watch.

    Hind sight is 20/20 and metro sprawl obviously changed the METS landscape significantly but I am disappointed that 91 St didn't meet it fruition to trunk downtown from QE2 and that the 3 inbound routes from the south fell to confusing, if not misguided, planning. It was all here even if 91 St was it or Calgary Trail or 111 St was selected. It stopped at the river valley and went no further.

    Obviously a multi billion dollar freeway system within a mile or so of each other was not practical but I like the fact that "they" had the notion that something big was needed almost 40 years ago. Great stuff! I hope to see and hear more!

  17. #17
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    thank god we can build lrt in some of those corridors instead!

  18. #18

    Default

    I'll glad 91st never came to fruition cutting through mill creek ravine.

  19. #19
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    I'll glad 91st never came to fruition cutting through mill creek ravine.
    Why?

  20. #20
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    what a mess that would have been...i for one am glad we have poor access into the core over ridiculous access as planned above
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  21. #21
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    what a mess that would have been...i for one am glad we have poor access into the core over ridiculous access as planned above
    It really does make me wonder if transportation engineers and planners in the '60's actually did any "engineering" or "planning."

    Or did they just show up for work with a set of french curves and they were good to go?

  22. #22
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    48

    Default

    I'll be willing to bet the planners were asked to plan a traffic system that would be able to accomodate the greatest numbers of commuters in smallest space, taking into account future growth of the area, and expropriation of a minimal amount of developed land.

    DeLeuw and Cather was the engineering company who composed the METS Plan. I'm certain they were offered to develop a plan, based on what the City of Edmonton wanted at the time. Don't blame them. They were simply doing their jobs.

    A single, north-south running freeway/expressway/parkway near downtown Edmonton would probably be beneficial to the area. In the rare event it would be built, its pathway would be left up to you and and your elected officials.

    In the event a plan is ever developed, it would likely take up a very small portion of the river valley. Should this occur, please remember there are mitigation remedies available. For instance, if a corridor required, say, 75 hectacres of land, the authorities could purchase 250 hectacres elsewhere along some ravine along the river valley for eternal preserve. It's a fairly common practice here in the States, and California in particular.

    Common sense, compassion and balance should come into place when it comes to City Planning in North America.

  23. #23
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,801
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Well, although I am not intimately familiar with the times, I am old enough to remember some of the ideals.

    Remember, it was all about the car. OPEC was just starting to flex muscle.

    Add to this the attitude of Edmonton at the time - it was a lot like what we think Calgary's is now - go get 'em. Edmonton dreamt bigger than Calgary does now.

    So, time, practice, attutide, and ego (you've got to have freeays to be a major city) gave us METS.

    My main concern with the lack of METS is that NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was put in place for the West End. To this day, Whitemud north to 107 is choked off from Downtown.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  24. #24
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    "
    Or did they just show up for work with a set of french curves and they were good to go?"


    hahaha
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  25. #25
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    I'll be willing to bet the planners were asked to plan a traffic system that would be able to accomodate the greatest numbers of commuters in smallest space, taking into account future growth of the area, and expropriation of a minimal amount of developed land.
    Right, and that's why we built the LRT instead. If you want to solve any of those problems with a freeway, you're seriously misguided.

    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    In the event a plan is ever developed, it would likely take up a very small portion of the river valley. Should this occur, please remember there are mitigation remedies available. For instance, if a corridor required, say, 75 hectacres of land, the authorities could purchase 250 hectacres elsewhere along some ravine along the river valley for eternal preserve. It's a fairly common practice here in the States, and California in particular.
    This is the same flawed logic that produced carbon credits. 250 hectares in Devon is not the same as 75 hectares in downtown Edmonton, especially when there was never going to be any development on those 250 acres anyway. River valley land is priceless, and even if it only took up a small portion (which it wouldn't have, look at a map), it would still have created a wall between a place that likes to refer to itself as the "River City" and its namesake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    Common sense, compassion and balance should come into place when it comes to City Planning in North America.
    I'm fine with those principles, but not your application.

  26. #26
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    Well instead of a higher speed, hi-flow propostion like the MET, we instead have a lo-speed, no-flow mess. What was proposed would have been able to accomodate a city of millions (probably greater than 6 million), I believe what should have happened is a compromise. What we got was inaction, and what we have now is beyond the means it was deisgned for...and only going to get worse. And NO, no amount of LRT will or would fix this!

  27. #27
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    With the influx of infrastructure funding, and the LRT plans for North Edmonton, the city finally has a chance to get its act together with respect to transportation.

    In retrospect, I wish that the city would have considered purchasing the land for transportation ROWs. They could have been used for a lot of things, including LRT.

    As for transportation, this could be our last chance to get it right.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soycd
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    I'll glad 91st never came to fruition cutting through mill creek ravine.
    Why?
    That ravine and the river valley is one the top things I like in Edmonton.

  29. #29
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,006

    Default

    If you look at MacKinnon Ravine between Groat Road/River Valley Rd and 149 St, you can tell that one point it was ready to accommodate a major roadway from the west end to downtown. I personally wouldn't mind seeing an extension of River Valley Road through there all the way to 149 St. If not, then either this ravine or the MacKenzie Ravine could be an LRT corridor from the U of A station to the west end.
    “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

  30. #30

    Default

    LRT running through MacKinnon ravine at an above grade level (ie. skytrain) would look hot! And wouldn't interfere with the continued use of the biking trails. Or it could rest on the ravine slope about halfway up.

  31. #31
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Wow. Someone was on crack when they came up with this. How fugly would downtown have been if this went through.

  32. #32

    Default

    I don't think they were on crack - a bit excessive for sure - but you have to look when it was made - Cars ruled more than now. Everyone thought and wanted to be in a car.
    Some of this plan came to fruition, some of it didn't.

    Yes, I agree - it would've made an unpleasant downtown and region around it - especially if it cut downtown off from the east and west... Think we complained about people leaving the core at 5 pm now... What would it have been if this all came to be

  33. #33
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104
    LRT running through MacKinnon ravine at an above grade level (ie. skytrain) would look hot! And wouldn't interfere with the continued use of the biking trails. Or it could rest on the ravine slope about halfway up.
    No, it would not.

    This will never, ever happen. And with good reason.

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled
    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104
    LRT running through MacKinnon ravine at an above grade level (ie. skytrain) would look hot! And wouldn't interfere with the continued use of the biking trails. Or it could rest on the ravine slope about halfway up.
    No, it would not.

    This will never, ever happen. And with good reason.
    Not only would it completely ruin that park aesthetically, but having the LRT run along River Valley Road -> Gov House Park -> McKinnon has the west branch of the line bypassing the most densely populated parts of Edmonton on its way to the west end.

    It really should go on 102 ave, IMO.

  35. #35

    Default

    We could have a musem station with 102 Ave, which would be nice for tourists. I understand that this has already been researched though, and that a Southern route is preferred (cost reasons, etc.)

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    It really should go on 102 ave, IMO.
    We could have a musem station with 102 Ave, which would be nice. I understand that this has already been researched though, and that a Southern route is preferred (cost reasons, etc.)
    How is it a good idea to build a massive new bridge, tunnel and cut and cover in front of and in the middle of some of the richest most powerful people in Edmonton. As has been said time and time again, that route will go to court.

  37. #37

    Default

    There are a lot of rich and powerful people near the museum too. My guess is there could be a good compromise on 102 avenue though, if car traffic is reduced / diverted in compensation. I just want a West End LRT to be built, but I fear the route will be endlessly argued over, as I guess was the case with the much needed North South expressway proposals in the past.

  38. #38

    Default

    There are obviously good arguments for and against both routes but at some point a decision has to be made and I only hope that the decision will be based on what's best for the transportation needs of the city and not based on what a small group of people with the loudest voices complain about.

  39. #39
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    I think we have a few threads on LRT alignment options.

    Let's keep this focused on the old freeway plans
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  40. #40
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,560

    Default

    LRT expansion is one thing, but roadway expansion in this city should be limited centrally. We need to encourage LRT/BUS/WALk. We need to put that infrastructure money into central parks, central facilities, central rehabilitation. Get that done and people will be more likely to live/work downtown and thereby forgoing the need of new roads to suburbia.

    *wakes up
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  41. #41
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,801
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled
    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104
    LRT running through MacKinnon ravine at an above grade level (ie. skytrain) would look hot! And wouldn't interfere with the continued use of the biking trails. Or it could rest on the ravine slope about halfway up.
    No, it would not.

    This will never, ever happen. And with good reason.
    Not only would it completely ruin that park aesthetically, but having the LRT run along River Valley Road -> Gov House Park -> McKinnon has the west branch of the line bypassing the most densely populated parts of Edmonton on its way to the west end.

    It really should go on 102 ave, IMO.
    Let's be serious here...LRT won't go here the same reason why the freeway was killed...and this example is EXACTLY WHY the 87th route across the river from the U will never ever ever never ever ever ever ever never never never ever ever ever be built....zoo stop or not.

    blah blah straight line blah blah onion paper blah blah shortest distance blah blah zoo stop blah blah blah....it all comes down to their lawyers are bigger than the city's, and this lack of a freeway/free flow way is the testiment to how and why...staring right into the face and laughing at any planner who thinks this 87 route will go ahead unless they tunnel 100% of the way to 149th street..and we find the inexhaustable money fairy....or the Laurier Heights people suddenly like mass transit.

    Logically a great route. www.nevergonnahappen.com I give this one less of a chance than HSR.

    So, as I said before, the lack of planning for this quadrant plus the addition of WEM has forever doomed this area to be isolated. It is a shame really, I love living there...SPR has potential.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  42. #42
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    252

    Default

    I love how the blue lines are just draw over the little brown squares. Those squares just happen to be people's houses.

    I am glad this project was never completed and I find it unfortunate that a lot of it did happen. The massive freeway engineering bonanza of the 50’s and 60’s was a true mistake that cities across North America are still dealing with (and not learning from).

  43. #43
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Leduc, Alberta
    Posts
    314

    Default

    I am not flaming but no one wants it over the little brown squares and no one wants it over the little green ones either. So the city shouldn't be in the city? We are revitalizing downtown. Whoo Hoo new arenas and condos! I wonder how we are going to unclog that mess in a few years.

    Look what WEM did for 170th.

    The LRT is 30 years behind, good trunk roads go nowhere, are too small or deadend. Just one good route from all directions into downtown. Even if that means moving over a couple 3 metre bike paths.

    Honestly, Cather DeLeuw must of moved to Calgary because I can't figure out the northeast to save my life.

  44. #44

    Default

    ^^ just one good road in each direction? Checked a map lately?

  45. #45
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Leduc, Alberta
    Posts
    314

    Default

    I guess we are looking at different maps. I am not talking about the million combinations of buttonhooks, traffic circles, traffic lights and detours. Yes, there are numerous ways in and out but nothing really effective.

  46. #46

    Default

    Some detail of the Jasper Freeway proposal can be seen on page 27 of this July 8, 1966, Edmonton Journal article. Page 3 of the same issue has a story and diagram of the 105 Street Bridge proposal. The front page story talks about the city wanting more provincial money for roads.

  47. #47

  48. #48
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    ^ Awesome. I love these old American docu-propaganda clips. The belief that post war technology and self superiority could do no wrong. I quite like the part discussing the need to build roads that will consider future needs, when many of the freeways in the movie clip have now been torn down and removed today.

  49. #49

    Default

    ^ if you liked that one, check out the rest of that users clips on youtube...

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    what a mess that would have been...i for one am glad we have poor access into the core over ridiculous access as planned above
    Agreed... My Soul died after looking at this..

    If you think our DT was Bad before... it would have been worse because of this. Do some research on why freeways ended up going through black neighborhoods in the USA and how thoes communities used to be thriving, healthy and lively... and see what happened after.

    Half of Oliver would have become a slum.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I don't think they were on crack - a bit excessive for sure - but you have to look when it was made - Cars ruled more than now. Everyone thought and wanted to be in a car.
    Some of this plan came to fruition, some of it didn't.

    Yes, I agree - it would've made an unpleasant downtown and region around it - especially if it cut downtown off from the east and west... Think we complained about people leaving the core at 5 pm now... What would it have been if this all came to be
    Not only that... but the USA fed gov't was subsidizing interstate and freeway building to the tune of 90+%. That was in the 50's.. the influence of such a policy that literally changed the face of the USA was also felt in Canada.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  52. #52

    Default

    ^it was considered a security issue in the event of nuclear war, an escape route from the cities:

    At the end of World War II, General Dwight David Eisenhower surveyed the war damage to Germany and was impressed by the durability of the Autobahn. While a single bomb could make a train route useless, Germany's wide and modern highways could often be used immediately after being bombed because it was difficult to destroy such a wide swath of concrete or asphalt.

    These two experiences helped show President Eisenhower the importance of efficient highways. In the 1950s, America was frightened of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union (people were even building bomb shelters at home). It was thought that a modern interstate highway system could provide citizens with evacuation routes from the cities and would also allow the rapid movement of military equipment across the country.
    http://geography.about.com/od/urbane...nterstates.htm

    The internet also was also designed from WWIII fears, a decentralized military system that could not easily be knocked out, instead of hub and spoke where the hub can be destroyed.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-06-2012 at 09:40 AM.

  53. #53

    Default

    ^That was heavily lobbied for by the auto industry... However you spin it, it was about a nominal percentage of the USA population making a lot of money.

    It was more than just interstates though it was also about inner city freeways as these hiways were used to cut cities in half.

    Now, as many of these over build roads are ending their lifespan, you are seeing large portions torn out and not replaced or replaced with more cost effective and community friendly routes. The cancellation of Edmonton's MET plan was NIMBYism well applied.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-06-2012 at 09:44 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  54. #54
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Perhaps it might cost more but what about a partially elevated and partially below grade and partially at grade free flow freeway connecting highway 2 from AHD to 97 street on AHD north? Or any path really as long as it had direct access into the downtown core. But use all the engineering and building technologies at our disposal to either build it above/below/around the ravines and millionaires houses.

    Maybe if there was a freeway into downtown that could accommodate the higher paid white collar people who enjoy owning their own cars as a symbol of wealth more office jobs would be build in the downtown core and Nisku would just be an industrial yard instead of a mixture of office and industrial. Perhaps head offices would stop leaving Edmonton for the prestige of a Calgary address.

  55. #55

    Default

    Than why are major USA urban centres tearing out their downtown freeways?
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  56. #56

    Default

    Which American cities are tearing out downtown freeways?

  57. #57
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    There might be more but these come to mind;

    Boston did, although they replaced it with hugely over budget tunnel
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

    Oakland moved one after the 89 quake
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypress_Street_Viaduct

    San Francisco after the 89 quake
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Freeway

    Seattle is in the process of tunneling the Alaskan Way Viaduct, it will be removed
    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/viaduct

    Oklahoma City almost finished re-routing I-40 south. The new one is open, they were demolishing the old one when I was there in April
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...Top+Stories%29

    Portland - Harbor Drive
    Milwaukee - Park East Freeway
    Last edited by sundance; 15-10-2012 at 10:59 AM.

  58. #58

    Default

    Med I have posted about this before and you have replied to this topic before.... I find it interesting that you take a partisan stance and act like this is a "new" thing.


    St. Louis to Study Removal of Elevated Highway
    http://americancity.org/daily/entry/...evated-highway

    Portland
    http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysHarbor.html

    Downtown need a makeover? More cities are razing urban highways
    In New Haven, Conn., a mistake of the past – one that displaced hundreds, razed a neighborhood, and physically divided a city – is finally set to be rectified: A highway is going to be demolished

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/03...urban-highways

    7 CITIES CONSIDER REMOVING MAJOR URBAN HIGHWAYS
    Baltimore
    Cleveland
    New Orleans
    New Haven
    Buffalo
    Louisville

    http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/15457

    Why Removing Freeways Can Be Good for Cities
    http://www.changinggears.info/2011/0...od-for-cities/


    From Skyscraper...
    http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1360275

    I have discovered this website about freeway removal projects: http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/index.htm

    Some examples of freeways/expressways that have been removed are:
    Harbor Drive in Portland
    Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco
    Central Freeway in San Francisco
    Park East Freeway in Milwaukee
    Gardiner Expressway in Toronto
    West Side Highway in New York
    Robert Moses Parkway in Niagara Falls
    Pompidou Expressway in Paris
    Cheonggye Freeway in Seoul

    There is also a page about freeway removal plans and proposals, such as:
    Inner Loop in Rochester
    Route 29 in Trenton
    Innerbelt in Akron
    Whitehurst Freeway in Washington, D.C.
    Cleveland Shoreway
    Claiborne Expressway in New Orleans
    Downtown Loop in Nashville
    Route 34 Connector in New Haven
    Bonaventure Expressway in Montreal
    Metropolitan Expressway in Tokyo
    Cahill Expressway in Sydney

    Jones Falls Expressway in Baltimore
    Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle
    Sheridan expressway in the Bronx
    Route 5 in Buffalo
    Aetna Viaduct in Hartford
    I-81 in Syracuse
    I-64 in Louisville
    I05 in Portland
    Lakeshore Drive in Chicago
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 15-10-2012 at 11:58 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  59. #59

    Default

    Had we built the METS we would no be faced with some VERY REAL and major complications as the infrastructure would be nearing a point where MAJOR reinvestment would be required. USA freeways were built using a grant program that saw apx 90-95% of the cost covered by the feds and state gov't. Could you imagine undertaking all the infrastructure upgrades we need to do now AND prepare for multi billion dollar Free way improvements?

    THANK GOD Edmonton rallied against this and it never happened.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  60. #60

    Default

    Yes, thank god we did stop METS. You know what the alternative was to building those freeways? Our LRT system. A high speed/high capacity LRT link between the mature areas and suburbs to downtown, the uofa and other nodes/clusters.... something we are now working against with new vision for LRT.
    Last edited by Medwards; 15-10-2012 at 12:15 PM.

  61. #61

    Default

    ^ Just like Portland... but to be honest there was over a decade between the two. Edmonton.. the Portland of Canada. Bring on the bike lanes!!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ Just like Portland... but to be honest there was over a decade between the two. Edmonton.. the Portland of Canada. Bring on the bike lanes!!
    Bikelanes in Edmonton, while I agree to a point that the two cities are similar, the weather is NOT, except for the hardcore cyclists its a little hard to convince somebody to get on their Norco when she's below zero and ice and snow on the road...ah nevermind its a moot point the METS didn't get built so lets move on...I can just see this turning into a Medwards, EDP p!ssing match again, sigh
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  63. #63

    Default

    Nah, I'm not interested. Lets leave this thread for what is about.

  64. #64

    Default

    ^ What more can you say about a freeway system that didn't get built.

    I think Edmonton could really own the fact they rallied against this freeway plan. I feel like we have forgotten how forward thinking we once were and now that we are trying to recapture that spirit many have developed a fear of change.

    Just a thought.. I'm not 100% committed to it. One thing I will stand behind NOT building the freeway system defined Edmonton. Where we failed is that we didn't stick to that definition and we became complacent in the 80's and 90's
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  65. #65
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    I can just see this turning into a Medwards, EDP p!ssing match again, sigh
    The two of them should either get a room or get into a boxing ring already
    “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

  66. #66

    Default

    ^ please don't encourage it... please please please..
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    I can just see this turning into a Medwards, EDP p!ssing match again, sigh
    The two of them should either get a room or get into a boxing ring already
    If we were in a boxing ring, I would win in due to technicalities... EDP would pull my hair, kick, scratch and claw, with likely a few shots below the belt.

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ please don't encourage it... please please please..

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    I can just see this turning into a Medwards, EDP p!ssing match again, sigh
    The two of them should either get a room or get into a boxing ring already

    You've said what I was thinking and damn near put in my post ....hahahaha... the get a room part


    ...and lookie lookie I said p1ssing match and look what we have :O
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  70. #70
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,561
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    For the love of whatever you think is holy, STOP IT! Both of you.

  71. #71

    Default

    The METS was crazy, and according to someone who was on the edges with involvement, even the people doing it knew it wouldn't fly....almost more experiment then design, but it probably back fired cause what we ended up with is nothing!
    mandel is a cry baby

  72. #72
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    I think the METS plan would have worked.

    Think about it, Had it been built edmonton's downtown core would be home to many head offices due to the ease of access. These towers could have been built on both sides of the freeway.

    Not only could the freeway have been used by private traffic but if an elevated section had been built over the middle of the freeway, the additional elevated lanes could have been used as HOV lanes with car pool traffic and BTR traffic. Having above grade fly overs into park'n'rides and transit centers. This would have encouraged not only increased ridership of ETS, but also reduced cars on the road due to people being rewarded for car pooling. By charging a small fee of say $2/day/car to park at the park'n'ride parades those could have paid for themselves.

    For the rest of the freeway, include tollbooth sections. Sure it slows/stops traffic but it sure works great on the Sam Houston tollway! For those that don't want to carry change around to pay the toll, introduce monthly passes and utilize photo radar technology to enforce only the people driving through the "EZ-Pass" zones have monthly passes. Issue $500 fines to discourage people from trying to avoid paying the toll. These tolls could not only have paid for the entire construction costs but also the maintance costs of the freeway.

    And had they planned wisely, and left space below the elevated HOV lanes, they could have later introduced and LRT line underneath them directly down the center of the freeway. This would involve tunneling under the freeway at points for where the train might continue a different direction of travel than the freeway or at an interchange point, but still completely doable.

    So now we have covered the benefits of the freeway had it been built, Edmonton being the true oil capital with head offices and great population and metro population than our current ones. The costs of the construction and maintance covered via tollbooths and monthly passes. Reduced emissions from automobiles via BTR lines, carpooling lanes and park'n'ride parkades, and future room under the HOV lanes for LRT expansion.

    The only remaining arguement against building the METS freeway (in my vision of it) would be the loss of small sections of ravines, and knocking over houses that today look as though they should be condemned.

    As for the ravine issue, I could understand the arguement if they weren't polluted with garbage and dirty needles, but at the current state of the ravines in question I don't see where the loss is.

  73. #73
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,006

    Default

    Where are you getting this notion that head offices only operate in cities with big shiny freeways into their downtown cores? Do you have irrefutable proof of this?
    “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

  74. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    As for the ravine issue, I could understand the arguement if they weren't polluted with garbage and dirty needles, but at the current state of the ravines in question I don't see where the loss is.

    Oh heck, I'll bite: which Edmonton ravine that you're familiar with is polluted with needles?
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  75. #75
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    To mr. Sonic Death Monkey, the easier you can transport your white collar worker into your downtown office, the more likely you are to build your head office there. Poor access = no head offices. Can't have the CEO spending hours stuck in traffic everyday, can we.

    To Mr. Dialog, just about all of them. The main river valley I have been walking along and run into people smoking crack, shooting up heroin, homeless people making camps, and everything from dirty used possibly HIV infected needles to dirty diapers. I'm sure a nice concrete and steel freeway would not only look better in some of our ravines but also have a lot of people feeling safer. Plus, it might actually encourage citizens and the city to take pride in the remain ravines/green spaces and CLEAN THEM UP

  76. #76

    Default

    So if they wanted to build the METS today, can anyone estimate how much it would now cost?

  77. #77

    Default

    ^ Wow.... thats all I can say.

    You are right.. surrounding Edmonton's core with a moat of Freeway would have solved EVERYTHING. (mega sarcasim here) How could I be so blind... and how could we be so foolish to think that Edmonton would have been the exception to the blight and destitution that freeways bring to their surroundings. I mean NO ONE complains about the traffic noise from the Henday and EVERY one loves living along side a free way.

    I see the errors of my ways now.. No longer will I advocate for people living closer to where they work, using mix modes of transportation and support for family development DT. You are right we should all drive everywhere and I know I JUST KNOW Edmonton would have been that one city that would have thrived if only we designed it completely around the car with free surface parking everywhere... A nice ratio of 5 spots to one car sure has helped the walkability of places like South Edmonton Common...

    What was Calgary thinking.. I mean how could the every have hope to become the head office of Calgary by promoting dense infill development in their beltline and central neighbourhoods. Limiting the amount of DT Parking stalls, Putting their arena near their downtown, Building out their LRT and promoting things like car sharing. WOW did they ever get it wrong.

    My grandfather was one of those oil white colar workers you grasp onto... and guess what.. every day he took the LRT as did MANY of his colleagues.

    But hey that is your opinion... i whole heartily disagree
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 15-10-2012 at 10:05 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jizzaldo View Post
    So if they wanted to build the METS today, can anyone estimate how much it would now cost?
    No urban planner in their right mind would ever sign onto this...

    The cost of a mile of freeway isn’t easy to pin down. The mayor’s office said Adams was referring to a mile of a typical 4-lane urban freeway. That cost, according to the city’s data, ranges between $20 to $80 million depending on various environmental factors.

    http://www.politifact.com/oregon/sta...ds-spent-its-/

    the cost of freeways (in 2006 dollars) breaks down as such: ( source - Rails to Trails Conservancy )

    -Rural areas: $3.1 million to $9.1 million per lane mile; $12.4 million to $36.4 million for a four-lane mile.
    -Urban areas: $4.9 miilion to $19.5 million per lane mile; $19.6 million to $78 million for a four lane mile.
    -Areas with severe restrictions: $16.8 million to $74.7 million per lane mile; $67.2 million to nearly $300 million for a four-lane mile.

    We tried to get some official estimates from the U.S. Department of Transportation, but they did not respond to our inquiry. Still, the numbers that the Conservancy reported seem to match other estimates, such as this one from the Michigan Department of Transportation.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  79. #79

    Default

    Why would we need surface parking lots? We could fill in the river valley with concrete parade and freeway in top. We could name the freeway after the river that once was there, like they name subdivision after the area it used to be before it became sprawl.

  80. #80

    Default

    Lol - o careful Meds our biting wit combined on the same side may cause the world to implode..
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  81. #81

    Default

    I'm picturing some corny 80s cartoon super heros

  82. #82

    Default

    ^ Take a look at the Thread about the worst cities in Canada to drive in and the commute times, I can get anywhere in Edmonton in 30 minutes. Try that in Calgary even on a Saturday it's impossible to get around that city downtown or suburbs.

    Wait there is some info in another thread that Imperial Oil is moving their Head Office to the Suburbs, to expensive downtown I hear and too hard to get around downtown Calgary too! and Calgary has Quasi Freeways to downtown.

    Here is some food for thought Parts of the Mets plan would have been decent, the south entrance via 91St and Mill Creek Ravine, Yes it would have changed that part of the city, but could you just imagine the drive into downtown from the south, straight down a way less industrial and rundown area on 91 Street then coming around the corner under the James Mac from Mill Creek and seeing the Great view of the downtown with the Mac Hotel right there?

    And how awful would it have been to finish the 100 Ave Jasper Freeway straight throw the bottom of the valley from baseline to Stonyplain Road?

    We would have a Clean Single major road East West through the valley, Its not like the River valley in that area is pristine wilderness it's already full of development, there are the major roads along with a myriad of little goofy roads that really go nowhere, get rid of those replace with parks and trees and have a major 6 lane road straight East west, If anything is a blight on the river valley its the reversal by the City to not develop the "flats" into parkland and plant condo's and houses all over the valley to make a buck.

    And then heading west from 105 Street river valley road would be a freeway through the parks up the ravine to SPR, then the LRT COULD run down SPR and not be such a burden on traffic.

    I dunno I think that part of it would have worked quite well

    Just my thoughts though, feel free to add to or pick it apart, because I know there are those that will throw stats from all over North America how its a crime to humanity to have easy access to your downtown and that we should all be riding bicycles to work on dedicated roads/paths even in the winter

    Ken
    Last edited by KenL2; 15-10-2012 at 10:18 PM.
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  83. #83
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I think, back in the sixties, that one or two of the freeways would have worked (Calgary Trail or 109 Street, continuing north to 97 Street, and 107 Avenue going NE and West to the Yellowhead.

    Edmonton's employment base is more spread out, and I think that our city may do better by encouraging new businesses to set up (we're #6 out of 103 for entrepreneurial cities in Canada). Edmonton's LRT is expanding to reach the U of A, Downtown, NAIT, major hospitals and shopping centres. Other routes like Henday connect surrounding areas in Edmonton, turning a 45 minute north-south trip into 30 minutes and diverting major truck traffic. Edmonton still needs better connections, like Calgary Trail south or 97 Street north.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  84. #84

    Default

    ^ How do you explain Vancouver being one of the top cities to live in with its glaring lack of freeways.

    Freeways do not make for health cities.. full stop..
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  85. #85
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Clearly for those opposed to the vision of my freeway plan can't visualize it. Four lanes both directions, space down the center of that for a future LRT line, elevated above that two lanes either direction for car pooling and BRT lines with fly overs to park'n'ride parkades and transit centers.

    The entire project could have been mortgaged with payments being made from the revenue of toll booths, photo radar tickets and and the LRT and BRT lines paid for with revenue from the parkades and transit fares.

    The exact path of the freeway didn't have to follow the original METS planned route, but then if you examine that map it doesn't completely destroy the ravines. And to keep the "bleeding hearts" and "NIMBY" groups that are opposed to it happy, I'm sure they could have knocked over some houses and built parts of the freeways outside of the ravines.

    Don't want to live next to the freeway, fine! Move and then that land can be used for future expansion. However I'm sure with the addition of the LRT lines and BRT lines integrated into the freeway design extra lanes wouldn't be needed on the system.

  86. #86
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    It would have made more sense environmentally to keep those cars moving quickly so they release less emissions than the car traveling slow and idling at intersections. However your tiny bit of ravine that you look at as you're stuck in the traffic jam trying to get to work downtown everyday blinds you from that.

  87. #87
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Actually, since people decide where to move/ where to go based on travel time, not travel distance, the actual fuel consumption and emissions would be higher.

  88. #88
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    To mr. Sonic Death Monkey, the easier you can transport your white collar worker into your downtown office, the more likely you are to build your head office there. Poor access = no head offices. Can't have the CEO spending hours stuck in traffic everyday, can we.
    Let me rephrase this. Do you know any companies who relocated their HQ to another city specifically because of its freeways? Have any CEOs stated such reasons on record?

    There's many reasons why a HQ relocates: the hiring pool of white collar professionals, being closer to industry peers, availability of land or office towers, better airline routes, lifestyle choices of the CEO that could be anything from the city's climate to its nightlife.

    Despite building underground freeways, that somehow did not prevent Montreal from losing many HQs to Toronto. Why? Because the provincial language laws enacted by the PQ governments were clearly a bigger factor than freeways.

    Edmonton's loss of downtown HQs can be blamed on many factors: anti-business "Redmonton" city councils from 20 - 25 years ago, City Centre Airport overlays that limited downtown's vertical growth, the media promoting us as a blue collar hick town or a frozen crime-ridden hellhole, loss of airline routes thanks to the YEG-YXD fight, long-standing competition with another city in the province just a 3 hour drive away that learns from our screw-ups and beats us.

    Has any firm cited the failure to implement the METS freeway system as a reason for leaving Edmonton?
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 15-10-2012 at 11:18 PM.
    “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

  89. #89
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Mr. Sonic Death Monkey, perhaps they haven't verbally mentioned lack of freeways as a reason for leaving, but I'm sure IF the METS system had been build the improved free flow access into downtown would have encouraged the white collar growth and hence all the other reasons you cited for Calgary being the better city would never have happened.

  90. #90
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    Downtown Edmonton (and Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto) are making downtown streets more pedestrian friendly, and LRT/Subway transportation carries similar votes to freeways, only without the vehicle traffic. I think the challenge with Edmonton is that the industrial and white collar bases are highly different. You need a vehicle if you're working in Nisku or NW Industrial, or if you're building houses. Most professional jobs are concentrated downtown or university and can be reached by LRT or transit.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  91. #91
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Langley, B.C.
    Posts
    172

    Default

    ^^I worked in DT Calgary for the last ten years before moving last winter (yeah). Calgary "freeways" into DT aren't all what they are cracked up to be. They should be run by Impark because you spend more time not moving than you do driving. In the afternoon it would take me 50 min to drive home from DT, only 22km, but it would take 20 minutes to get the first 12 blocks out of DT. What is your infatuation with freeways? I tend to avoid them here in the lower mainland and keep to surface roads, gets me there quicker. I'm not saying freeways themselves are bad but they are not the only or complete answers to traffic; a complete transportation system; which includes transit, walking, biking, expressways, surface roads etc. is the start of the answer. On another note tall towers do not necessarily create DT vibrancy either, density does. Thank goodness METS was buried.

  92. #92

    Default

    The only thing to do with urban freeways is to destroy them. Full stop.

    The difference between urban Edmonton, roughly inside the Yellowhead/75 Street/Argyll/Calgary Trail/Whitemud/170 ring, and suburban Edmonton, outside it, is so big it's really two municipalities. First of all in the attitudes.

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    To mr. Sonic Death Monkey, the easier you can transport your white collar worker into your downtown office, the more likely you are to build your head office there. Poor access = no head offices. Can't have the CEO spending hours stuck in traffic everyday, can we.

    To Mr. Dialog, just about all of them. The main river valley I have been walking along and run into people smoking crack, shooting up heroin, homeless people making camps, and everything from dirty used possibly HIV infected needles to dirty diapers. I'm sure a nice concrete and steel freeway would not only look better in some of our ravines but also have a lot of people feeling safer. Plus, it might actually encourage citizens and the city to take pride in the remain ravines/green spaces and CLEAN THEM UP
    Craiger/Dakine?
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  94. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    To mr. Sonic Death Monkey, the easier you can transport your white collar worker into your downtown office, the more likely you are to build your head office there. Poor access = no head offices. Can't have the CEO spending hours stuck in traffic everyday, can we.

    To Mr. Dialog, just about all of them. The main river valley I have been walking along and run into people smoking crack, shooting up heroin, homeless people making camps, and everything from dirty used possibly HIV infected needles to dirty diapers. I'm sure a nice concrete and steel freeway would not only look better in some of our ravines but also have a lot of people feeling safer. Plus, it might actually encourage citizens and the city to take pride in the remain ravines/green spaces and CLEAN THEM UP
    Craiger/Dakine?
    Not... There's no way it's Dakine. Dakine would be all for protecting the river valley against any sort of development, and could care less if people could get downtown or not.

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Clearly for those opposed to the vision of my freeway plan can't visualize it. Four lanes both directions, space down the center of that for a future LRT line, elevated above that two lanes either direction for car pooling and BRT lines with fly overs to park'n'ride parkades and transit centers.

    The entire project could have been mortgaged with payments being made from the revenue of toll booths, photo radar tickets and and the LRT and BRT lines paid for with revenue from the parkades and transit fares.

    The exact path of the freeway didn't have to follow the original METS planned route, but then if you examine that map it doesn't completely destroy the ravines. And to keep the "bleeding hearts" and "NIMBY" groups that are opposed to it happy, I'm sure they could have knocked over some houses and built parts of the freeways outside of the ravines.

    Don't want to live next to the freeway, fine! Move and then that land can be used for future expansion. However I'm sure with the addition of the LRT lines and BRT lines integrated into the freeway design extra lanes wouldn't be needed on the system.
    LRT doesn't belong in the middle of a freeway... people don't live on freeways.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  96. #96
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    ^ But in some places a lot of people live near freeways, and an LRT station could be integrated into an interchange with a major arterial road supporting several bus routes. It is a good thing that the central METS freeways were never built, but an LRT route along a freeway isn't necessarily a bad thing.

  97. #97

    Default

    Yes like a park and ride at the Henday where a line ends... LRT should be connected to freeways not routed along, at least not for any extended distance.

    this is common practice and you will be hard pressed to find any modern system being built today that uses a freeway as it's primary ROW.

    Please feel free to prove me wrong.

    Everything GranaryMan is suggesting is right out of the the 1950's way to design a city.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  98. #98
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    ^^
    To Mr. Edmonton Daily Photo, the suggestion of having the LRT line built down the center of the freeway would help speed up future construction of the line (instead of today's 60 year plans) as the land would already belong to the city, and the line would be traveling in the directions that most people are going, and the LRT stations could have been integrated into the BRT lines stations at the park'n'ride's along the freeway as I mentioned.

    Perhaps if the word "freeway" didn't send you into a blind emotional NIMBY rage you might have picked up on that suggestion of mine.

  99. #99
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,135

    Default

    I don't want to have to cross a freeway to get an LRT station. I don't want to have to walk under a freeway to get to the other side of a street downtown.

    I like the fact that Jasper avenue is getting narrower. That I can walk from 100th Street to 124th Street, or Jasper Avenue to 118th Ave.

    That I can bike freely most everywhere without pain of having freeways that don't allow bikes. (Whitemud is an example of a place that forbids, for good reason, bikes)

    Let's build streets for all transportation, not for 100km/hr cars/busses/trains. edit: <- this last statement is more for downtown than for an entire city network. I do understand the use of ring roads.
    Last edited by Channing; 16-10-2012 at 03:26 PM.

  100. #100
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    ^^Obviouly there would grade seperated train crossings.

    And for pedestrians there would also be over passes and under passes.

    Bikes wouldn't and don't belong on freeways. But with most traffic on the freeway on of the current exisiting N/S streets could be turned into a bike street perhaps.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •