Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 170 of 170

Thread: Old Freeway Plans

  1. #101
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^^ those bike lanes could be dual zoned "dog sled" lanes for the other 10 months of the year.

  2. #102

    Default

    I am far from entering a blind emotional NIMBY rage... so don't dare mistake denouncing the outdated transportation planning you are promoting for Nimbyism.

    I urge you to do some research into modern urban planning.. there are extensive studies and historical research into the effects of what you are proposing.

    Cars like freeways, people don't. Trying to promote walk able healthy residential neighborhoods along a freeway isn't possible again I point to the Henday and the noise complaints that come from it... and those neighborhoods are hardly butting up right against the ring road.

    looking at San Fran... Widley agreed apon as a HORRID decision the Embacadero Freeway was a disaster. In 1989 it was torn out after a earthquake destroyed portions of it.



    The designs i advocate for of wider sidewalks and dedicated mixed modal transportation aren't even that new... When market street had to be rebuilt many plans include options like this...



    Wider sidewalks along main arterial roads, not freeways. Wider sidewalks with buffers from the car traffic. Left hand turning is reduced... Increase the flow of traffic at sencible human orientated speeds of 50 km, add transit that is accessable by people where the people are... which is not in the middle of a freeway and promote healthy cities along streets that people want to live near or on.. which is not freeways.

    There is a place for high frequency roadways but running hiway 2 through DT is not that place. City council and Admin agree with this.

    Please review our DT plan.... It can be found here... http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...town-plan.aspx

    I am sorry to advise you missed the years of consultation that went into this... or if you didn't you can clearly see your input was ignored.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 16-10-2012 at 04:36 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

  3. #103
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    ^^See GranaryMan now your just throwing out a misconception that doesn't help your argument. Let's be rational. The below is copied from a recent EBC presentation:

    In Vancouver there are 169 days a year with precipitation. 155 of them with rain. 112 days stay below 10 degrees C.

    In Montreal there are 122 days a year with rain and 54 days with snow. 14 days have snowfall greater than 5cm.

    There are 80 days a year in Montreal that never rise above 0 degrees C.

    In Edmonton there are 77 days a year with rain, 55 with snow and 7 days have snowfall great than 5cm.

    There are 87 days (3 months) in Edmonton stat stay below 0 degrees, just one week longer than Montreal.

    Let's quit the weather arguments for alternate transportation than cars.

  4. #104
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Mr Edmonton Daily Photo, clearly you must think I want to turn EVERY road in Edmonton into a freeway. I don't. Simply have one centralized freeway connecting N/S with downtown.

    I even tried to promote public transit into my vision of a freeway with elevated BRT and car pool lanes. LRT lines below that and then private transportation on the sides of the LRT. With everything free flowing.

    I still believe if you had more traffic from off the current roads onto one centralized freeway system you could then have YOUR vision of roads on more of the current exisiting N/S roads, as less traffic might be on them in favor of the freeway, making the other roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

    I'm trying to compromise, you clearly are not. But also let's be honest this is Edmonton, these plans will never happen. We didn't build the freeway when we should have, and we also didn't build the LRT network we should have 30 years ago. And now rather than an rapid transit system that is underground, we have the above ground system that cuts neighborhoods in half, blocks traffic, and brings noise. Plus we are planning on building and even slower tram style system. but even that won't materialize for another 30 years and billions of more dollars in inflation costs if even then.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    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.
    Gold Line LRT in L.A/Pasadena

    [IMG]
    Metro Gold Line Pasadena by prayitno, on Flickr[/IMG]

  6. #106

    Default

    ^Yep and the USA has some of the most abismal mass transit patronage in the developed world. Likely THE MOST


    Ridership
    Following the extension to East Los Angeles, the line's ridership increased to more than 34,000 daily boardings. (32KM LONG BTW) [1] Gold Line ridership has been below projections, which has resulted in cuts in service midday and at night. Service previously operated every 15 minutes during the day with limited stop service during rush hour, which was long by Los Angeles standards but is similar to other light rail lines in the United States such as the San Diego Trolley and UTA TRAX. This Express service was eliminated as of December 16, 2007 (see below).

    End

    So lets sum it up.. line is 32 KM Long, Slow, crappy ridership and crap frequancy... This is NOT the design we want to emulate.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 16-10-2012 at 10:35 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

  7. #107
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    And now I must thank you all for turning a OLD FREEWAY thread into a thread about LRT's, riderships of cities that are apples when compared to the orange that edmonton is.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^Yep and the USA has some of the most abismal mass transit patronage in the developed world. Likely THE MOST


    Ridership
    Following the extension to East Los Angeles, the line's ridership increased to more than 34,000 daily boardings. (32KM LONG BTW) [1] Gold Line ridership has been below projections, which has resulted in cuts in service midday and at night. Service previously operated every 15 minutes during the day with limited stop service during rush hour, which was long by Los Angeles standards but is similar to other light rail lines in the United States such as the San Diego Trolley and UTA TRAX. This Express service was eliminated as of December 16, 2007 (see below).

    End

    So lets sum it up.. line is 32 KM Long, Slow, crappy ridership and crap frequancy... This is NOT the design we want to emulate.
    But yet Calgary has some of the highest ridership and the whole nw line is built in the middle of a freeway.

    And look another thread off the rails (pun intended) by the anti car warrior again. Who would've guessed! You go gerwl!

  9. #109
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,277

    Default

    I still want to see the bridge on Saskatchewan Drive which was part of the METS plan for the Walterdale Bridge, but most of the other parts of METS were way overbuilt for Edmonton.

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    But yet Calgary has some of the highest ridership and the whole nw line is built in the middle of a freeway.
    Which freeway is that? I have never seen LRT in the middle of the Deerfoot, it only goes through the middle of a small piece of the crowchild (at end of line) on the NW line which goes past UofC and Kensignton (an urban station). The new west line goes up the middle of Bow trail (or is it 17?) a bit, but that's not a freeway anymore than Yellowhead is.

    Calgary has benefited from having Memorial drive being an 80km/hr freeflow right into the downtown off the Deerfoot. I do think it has hurt Edmonton that the downtown is percieved to be so difficult to get to, esp. the maze in the River Valley (I'm familiar with, but it took a few years).
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-10-2012 at 09:38 AM.

  11. #111
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,277

    Default

    Crowchild Trail the LRT runs about 6 miles down it...
    https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Crowf...lgary&t=m&z=13

    Plus they are extending it to just west of Stony Trail
    http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...--Tuscany.aspx
    Last edited by sundance; 17-10-2012 at 09:46 AM.

  12. #112

    Default

    Memorial and crowchild are both freeway like example of lrt running down the middle.

    Edmonton has groat road and river valley road. Close enough to free flow

  13. #113

    Default

    ^ I am sorry it's like calling St Albert trail a freeway....

    Anyways I am not going to get into semantics.
    "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

  14. #114

    Default

    I'm not call St. Albert trail a freeway though. The portion of groat road from 87 ave to 111 ave is freeway like.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    Anyways I am not going to get into semantics.
    Some would argue that you already have

  16. #116

    Default

    ...excuse me, could someone pass the popcorn, a good show is about to begin...
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Edmonton has groat road and river valley road. Close enough to free flow
    How does one travel into Edmonton's downtown by exiting a freeway directly onto a freeflow (at 80km/hr) straight into the downtown? Call me crazy if you like, but unlike you, I never saw how groat road or river valley road connected to a freeway like Whitemud Drive or AHD.

    Edmonton has great East West and suburban connectors, but lacks a proper vehicle access to the centre of the city (Vancouver is admittedly similar, but Vancouver have made their downtown a residential centre).

  18. #118

    Default

    What exactly is a proper vehicle access? I've never had a problem getting downtown without a freeway dropping me at the doorstep. Do we really want to be like Houston, a downtown encircled by freeways that's totally dead after 5 pm?

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Edmonton has groat road and river valley road. Close enough to free flow
    How does one travel into Edmonton's downtown by exiting a freeway directly onto a freeflow (at 80km/hr) straight into the downtown? Call me crazy if you like, but unlike you, I never saw how groat road or river valley road connected to a freeway like Whitemud Drive or AHD.

    Edmonton has great East West and suburban connectors, but lacks a proper vehicle access to the centre of the city (Vancouver is admittedly similar, but Vancouver have made their downtown a residential centre).
    Ok, see, your first problem was where you thought I said you that there was a freeflow road from downtown to the whitemud or yellowhead. There isn't, and not at all what I'm trying to say. However, there is a freeflow route into downtown, which is groat road and river valley road.
    Now back to Calgary - Travel any direction but from the east into downtown Calgary, and there is no freeflow route. And most hours of daylight, I doubt many would consider travel on the deerfoot "freeflow" as its highly congested, especially around memorial drive.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    ...excuse me, could someone pass the popcorn, a good show is about to begin...
    No it won't...

    We all clearly know what a freeway is. I am not taking this bate and urban planners know that simply running a lrt down a freeway, although easy, is not the best way to create a system.

    So THE OP post that we can take free way an make it into some sort of backbone for our Public Transit system is wrong and poor logic.
    "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

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Mr Edmonton Daily Photo, clearly you must think I want to turn EVERY road in Edmonton into a freeway. I don't. Simply have one centralized freeway connecting N/S with downtown.
    Even one really good freeflow, say an enhancement of Gateway eliminating its lights and perhaps connecting it to 99 to avoid the hairpin (or similar), would be a hugely valuable enhancement IMO.

  22. #122

    Default

    ^ Just upgrade gateway...

    Dig under whyte and have it go straight DT.

    No need to make it a freeway.
    "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

  23. #123

    Default

    Wouldn't digging under whyte ave and straight into downtown make it like a freeway?

    A freeway doesn't have to be a 10 lane monstrosity

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    [.

    We all clearly know what a freeway is. I am not taking this bate and urban planners know that simply running a lrt down a freeway, although easy, is not the best way to create a system.

    So THE OP post that we can take free way an make it into some sort of backbone for our Public Transit system is wrong and poor logic.
    However, Calgary is a good example of a well-used LRT that contains significant sections of track in the middle of "urban" freeways (only 80 km/h but mostly free flowing). When I lived there, I used to ride the NE and NW lines to U of C daily. I found the non-freeway sections (downtown and Kensington) painfully slow. The freeway sections covered about half of the distance of my commute but took only about 10 minutes of the 35 minute travel time (not counting the 10-15 minutes of waiting for transfers).

    Ironically, I actually prefer driving in Edmonton to driving in Calgary. We have fewer freeways, but more connectivity between our main arterial roads. Calgary has too many bottlenecks where large parts of the city are only connected by a few roads.

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Wouldn't digging under whyte ave and straight into downtown make it like a freeway?

    A freeway doesn't have to be a 10 lane monstrosity
    Not really...

    A controlled-access highway is a highway designed exclusively for high-speed vehicular traffic, with all traffic flow and ingress/egress regulated. They are known by various terms worldwide, including Autobahn, autoestrada, autopista, autoroute, autostrada, freeway, motorway, snelweg, thruway, and sometimes less precise terms such as expressway, highway, interstate, parkway, or turnpike.
    A controlled-access highway provides an unhindered flow of traffic, with no traffic signals, intersections or property access. They are free of any at-grade crossings with other roads, railways, or pedestrian paths, which are instead carried by overpasses and underpasses across the highway. Entrance and exit to the highway are provided at interchanges by slip roads (ramps), which allow for speed changes between the highway and arterial thoroughfares and collector roads. On the controlled-access highway, opposing directions of travel are generally separated by a central reservation such as a strip of grass or a traffic barrier.
    "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

  26. #126

    Default

    I'm not sure that you've countered my point (especially with a broad/wide definition you've used of highway). By tunnelling/trenching to the river valley starting south of whyte, you are doing everything in your definition but perhaps the high speed part, though that could certainly change as the egresses and ingresses south of whyte are removed\ consolidated.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited-access_road
    Last edited by Medwards; 17-10-2012 at 01:28 PM.

  27. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    ...excuse me, could someone pass the popcorn, a good show is about to begin...
    Feels like a rerun to me
    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

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Ironically, I actually prefer driving in Edmonton to driving in Calgary. We have fewer freeways, but more connectivity between our main arterial roads. Calgary has too many bottlenecks where large parts of the city are only connected by a few roads.
    I have found the opposite, but I guess it depends on where you are driving to. Sure, Deerfoot and Crowchild clog up at rush hour, but that's a short period each day. Consider how many more people work downtown (one location) in Calgary, and it is a more efficient road network.

  29. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm not sure that you've countered my point (especially with a broad/wide definition you've used of highway). By tunnelling/trenching to the river valley starting south of whyte, you are doing everything in your definition but perhaps the high speed part, though that could certainly change as the egresses and ingresses south of whyte are removed\ consolidated.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited-access_road
    Yep you are right Medwads..

    there now you can quit.

    Thanks.
    "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

  30. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    ...excuse me, could someone pass the popcorn, a good show is about to begin...
    Feels like a rerun to me
    I am working hard not to make it a double feature!
    "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

  31. #131
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,277

    Default

    The new road under Saskatchewan Drive doesn't even need to be super wide, 2 or perhaps 2 lanes with a bus lane would be fine as it would be one way northbound, Walterdale Bridge is one way, the new bridge (construction should start next year) is supposed to be one way too. But that is a lot less than METS had.

  32. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    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.
    To a certain degree, freeway development and head offices are mutually exclusive. There are many North American cities where they are easily accessed by freeways but their downtown areas went through (or still in) a period where they are very undesirable. The US is full of cities that have their version of the METS and their downtowns are worse off than Edmonton’s. At this point, Rapid transit access to white collar residential neighborhoods would probably do more to promote the growth of a downtown area than a huge network of freeways.

    In regards to the METS, the only thing I wanted to see was 91 Street extended downtown via the Mill Creek Ravine and connect with Hwy 2 – it wouldn’t even need to be a full freeway, but rather an urban boulevard/parkway north of Whitemud Drive. At the very least, downtown Edmonton should be connected to the International Airport via a good roadway system.

    Downtown could probably be better accessed via its current surface streets, and mixed with transit it could become quite accessible. The closure of the City Centre Airport could be an opportunity of more downtown surface streets to access Yellowhead Trail if 109 St was extended. Why not reintroduce one-way streets to increase access to downtown from the north (i.e. pair 97 St & 101 St as one-ways south 111 Ave) and west (Calgary Trail/Gateway Blvd-like corridor via Stony Plain Road, 102 Ave, and 100 Ave) combined with LRT access.

    Of course, there also needs to be a reason for people to go downtown...

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmuzika View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    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.
    To a certain degree, freeway development and head offices are mutually exclusive. There are many North American cities where they are easily accessed by freeways but their downtown areas went through (or still in) a period where they are very undesirable. The US is full of cities that have their version of the METS and their downtowns are worse off than Edmonton’s. At this point, Rapid transit access to white collar residential neighborhoods would probably do more to promote the growth of a downtown area than a huge network of freeways.

    In regards to the METS, the only thing I wanted to see was 91 Street extended downtown via the Mill Creek Ravine and connect with Hwy 2 – it wouldn’t even need to be a full freeway, but rather an urban boulevard/parkway north of Whitemud Drive. At the very least, downtown Edmonton should be connected to the International Airport via a good roadway system.

    Downtown could probably be better accessed via its current surface streets, and mixed with transit it could become quite accessible. The closure of the City Centre Airport could be an opportunity of more downtown surface streets to access Yellowhead Trail if 109 St was extended. Why not reintroduce one-way streets to increase access to downtown from the north (i.e. pair 97 St & 101 St as one-ways south 111 Ave) and west (Calgary Trail/Gateway Blvd-like corridor via Stony Plain Road, 102 Ave, and 100 Ave) combined with LRT access.

    Of course, there also needs to be a reason for people to go downtown...

    You mean like a new Arena?? oh wait......never mind
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  34. #134
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^^ I think the biggest issue why people are against the METS freeway system is because all those roads scare the inexperienced drivers that plague the Edmonton area. Little dusting of snow and the city is shutdown because the drivers are frightened to drive on our existing infrastructure.

    The ravines being destroyed is not really a issue. Only a small portion of the ravines would be used for the ROW's. And compromises could have been made to redirect portions of the freeway system away from the ravines.

    In regard to dmuzika with the public transit, if you read back to my original vision of what the METS freeway could have been, you'll notice I suggested elevated lanes for carpooling and BRT buses, with an LRT ROW beneath those lanes down the center of the freeway into the downtown core where it could then be integrated into the existing underground subway. And assuming they had built it, they probably would have also build the subway system to WEM.

    Anyway, none of this got built or ever will get built. We can't even (as Mr. KenL2 points out) build a arena downtown.


    **on a side note, let's scrap the arena downtown idea and build an aquarium with sharks!!

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    ^^ I think the biggest issue why people are against the METS freeway system is because all those roads scare the inexperienced drivers that plague the Edmonton area. Little dusting of snow and the city is shutdown because the drivers are frightened to drive on our existing infrastructure.
    um.. ya.... wow.

    Or how about we have the gift of hindsight!

    Top 10 Metro Highway Removal Projects
    http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/20...kTopTenHighway

    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-10-2012 at 09:33 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

  36. #136
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^^ You probably are of the those people too.

  37. #137
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    The ravines being destroyed is not really a issue. Only a small portion of the ravines would be used for the ROW's.
    You did look at the METS maps? Virtually every ravine was going to be used for freeways, Mill Creek, McKinnon, some now are ... Capilano, Groat, north end of Whitemud. Most of the river flats would become freeways or interchanges.

    I've driven in blizzards, freezing rain, perhaps a million km by now in 9 provinces, 48 states on all sorts of freeways, definitely not afraid to drive on any freeway. LA freeways I hate driving on because they are slow moving parking lots, that city followed a policy like you recommend and realize that it doesn't work. Other cities like Dallas and Houston are moving away from massive freeways to more light rail too, while we might have been the 1st (LRT) we certainly aren't alone.

  38. #138
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I think granary man's preferred plan would have fewer lanes, but it doesn't really matter how many lanes it is. We can very easily compare park use in groat ravine versus McKinnon. It's not hard to guess which people prefer. Having any heavily used lanes down a ravine or cutting through open space degrades it immensely.

    Even river valley road's 2 lanes severely limit enjoyment of that section of the valleys even as it provides access.

  39. #139

    Default

    ^ we could change that (river valley road) by lowering the speed limit to 30-40 km a hour.

    It would still provide quick and easy access and would add next to nothing on peoples travel time but increase the ped experience greatly.
    "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

  40. #140
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,277

    Default

    They parodied the reality of LA getting rid of street cars and replacing them with freeways in Who Framed Roger Rabbit
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOXDrAk4tpc

  41. #141

    Default

    @EDP: I'm not in favour of lowering the speed on river valley road. It wouldn't do much to the pedestrian experience. There is a great widely used multi-use path that runs the length of this road, that said, I would also be against expanding the road any further than what it is now.

    @ALL: Does anyone else find it ironic the GranaryMan is calling for more roads/freeway in our rivervalley and ravines, because our river valley and ravines are full of garbage, homeless, needles and other unmentionables? (ie our river valley is not worth saving) But where the majority of that stuff is is near the areas that the road has ruined? I doubt Granary Man has gone more than 2 mins away from his car in our river valley, or he wouldnt have this jaded opinion of our river valley.

    @GranaryMan, I offer to you, a free guided tour of our river valley. You'll need a good pair of walking shoes though. It's not something you can enjoy or appreciate from the confines of your private vehicle @ 60km/h or more.

  42. #142
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    ^^^ Lowering the speed limit won't turn River Valley Road into Ada Blvd. Without lowering the traffic volume I don't think it would make much difference.

  43. #143
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    It would be an improvement. Slower speeds would make the road easier to cross, and would reduce noise. Slower speeds on the road might also entice some of the fastest cyclists off the path. A slower design speed could also allow better, more park-like landscaping closer to the road.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^^ Lowering the speed limit won't turn River Valley Road into Ada Blvd. Without lowering the traffic volume I don't think it would make much difference.
    Volume isn't an issue if fact more volume would lower speeds and again make it more enjoyable....

    Are you telling me that 17th ave in Calgary isn't an enjoyable place to be... It has a high volume of traffic which travels slower due to the congestion and the pedestrians are buffered by parked cars, light standards and other infrastructure.

    I am sorry but things like lowering the speed limit are not just thought up on the fly, People research, study design and apply these concepts as their full time job. Despite some peoples negative view towards it and me these concepts DO work I would be perfectly ok with widening the road a bit and placing a line of parked cars along the multi use trail and creating a segregated bike lanes and squish the moving cars closer together.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-10-2012 at 06:17 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

  45. #145

    Default

    17th ave + ada blvd to river valley road is apples to oranges....

    theres but two or three places where one might want to cross river valley road... slowing the road down won't improve the pedestrain experience at all. It's not like its a commercial drive anyways...

    Plus - there's this well used multi-use path....

    Not sure what the point is to slow down river valley road outside of ones personal vendetta against cars...

    I am sorry, but lowering the speed limit on one road doesn't mean all roads will get the same impact by lowering it. You can name countless research and studies done... still doesn't mean much when you are comparing apples to oranges though.

  46. #146
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    River Valley Road is fine as is, leave it alone. A couple more pedestrian signals wouldn't hurt though.
    “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

  47. #147
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^^ Lowering the speed limit won't turn River Valley Road into Ada Blvd. Without lowering the traffic volume I don't think it would make much difference.
    Volume isn't an issue if fact more volume would lower speeds and again make it more enjoyable....

    Are you telling me that 17th ave in Calgary isn't an enjoyable place to be... It has a high volume of traffic which travels slower due to the congestion and the pedestrians are buffered by parked cars, light standards and other infrastructure.

    I am sorry but things like lowering the speed limit are not just thought up on the fly, People research, study design and apply these concepts as their full time job. Despite some peoples negative view towards it and me these concepts DO work I would be perfectly ok with widening the road a bit and placing a line of parked cars along the multi use trail and creating a segregated bike lanes and squish the moving cars closer together.
    I'm with Medwards on this one. I'm not sure how you can compare a road through a park to a commercial strip. Comparing Calgary's 17 Av to Whyte Av would be reasonable, comparing it to River Valley Road is not. If you want a Calgary equivalent of River Valley Road, the closest thing I can think of is Memorial Drive near Center St. I think we come off rather well in that comparsion.

    Unless the traffic volume is reduced substantially the road will still present a barrier to pedestrians regardless of speed, and even if it were closed to vehicles the other side is a golf course, not a public park. Sonic Death Monkey's suggestion of some pedestrian crossing lights is good though. Just put them at the existing intersections, and build a multi-use trail to connect the golf course entrance to trail beside Victoria Park Road.

  48. #148

    Default

    Than we agree to disagree...

    I stand by my vision
    "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

  49. #149

    Default

    What exactly would that vision be?

  50. #150

    Default

    Explained it pretty clearly above
    "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. #151

    Default

    To unneseccarily lower the speed limits on a road that doesn't need it, on a road that already has a great pedestrian interface, where both already coexist without any problems or conflicts? Lets not forget that for 95% length of this road there is no purpose or reason to cross the road.
    I'm all for lowering speed limits in applicable places, like say our part of 102 avenue through oliver...or even jasper ave and whyte ave...

    If so, what is the point of this vision? What is the hopeful outcome?

  52. #152

    Default

    You don't agree I get it... I stand by my vision.

    Know your audience.... And you my friend I know all too well

    So how bout these needle infested river valleys!!!
    "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

  53. #153
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^^Should take your own advice there EDP, you should just accept that I dont agree with YOUR vision of city planning or transportation methods.



    Also, lowering speed limits wont help. All you're going to do is frustrate drivers with no high speed route home after spending 8 hours at work. This will lead to speeding on the lower speed limited roads which will lead to increased accidents and less safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

    Build pedestrian over passes at certain sections of river valley road would be a better idea instead.

    However, seeing as how this is a thread about Old Freeway Plans I must point out that river valley road was intended to be turned into "Jasper Freeway" and also that in my opinion they should have built this road. Throw some trees on the sides and down the center median and call it a "grand boulevard".

  54. #154
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Build pedestrian over passes at certain sections of river valley road would be a better idea instead.

    However, seeing as how this is a thread about Old Freeway Plans I must point out that river valley road was intended to be turned into "Jasper Freeway" and also that in my opinion they should have built this road. Throw some trees on the sides and down the center median and call it a "grand boulevard".
    “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

  55. #155
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^^not entirely sure what that has to do with freeways

  56. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    You don't agree I get it... I stand by my vision.

    Know your audience.... And you my friend I know all too well

    So how bout these needle infested river valleys!!!
    Why bother posting at all? If your not going to debate, maybe it's best you become just a lurker. This response my friend is very weak.

  57. #157

    Default

    ^ we get it you don't agree...

    I am thinking of others sanity and what is best for C2E another VIS a VIS over a topic we don't see eye to eye isn't debating.

    So I am sure others will understand why I don't "take the bait" but thanks for the offer.
    "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

  58. #158

    Default

    It's fine if you don't want to debate. There is no bait. If you don't want to qualify your statement/vision, dont bother offering it. You feel there is a need to slow down river valley road why?

    If you don't feel like answering the questions I, and now others have posed to you, Please get off the soapbox, and exit stage left.

  59. #159

    Default

    We should increase the speed of this road to 100km/h.

    we get it, you don't agree. ("we" as if saying I've consulted with everyone on c2e and formed a consensus).

    I stand by my vision.

  60. #160
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    ^^not entirely sure what that has to do with freeways
    The facepalm pics are so last year
    “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

  61. #161
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,686

    Default

    Out of all the streets in Edmonton, I think River Valley Road needs the least attention. It's perfect the way it is.

  62. #162

    Default

    The only thing I would add is an eventual historic streetcar connecting the redeveloped power plant to victoria park, Hawrelak Park, the zoo and Fort Edmonton.

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The only thing I would add is an eventual historic streetcar connecting the redeveloped power plant to victoria park, Hawrelak Park, the zoo and Fort Edmonton.
    That would be cool but could you imagine the cost? There are all along the river how about a water taxi?!
    "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

  64. #164

    Default

    You could start at the ends and move towards each other, starting with connecting the zoo and the fort. If the streetcar took transfers from ETS then you could also eliminate the specialized zoo/fort bus route.

  65. #165
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    Recently saw this tweeted.

    The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities (Link to PDF document)

    It's in regards to Toronto, but would hold true for here as well I assume. Bolding mine.

    Abstract: We investigate the relationship between interstate highways and highway vehicle kilometers traveled (vkt) in us cities. We find that vkt increases proportionately to highways and identify three important sources for this extra vkt: an increase in driving by current residents; an increase in transportation intensive production activity; and an inflow of new residents. The provision of public transportation has no impact on vkt. We also estimate the aggregate city level demand for vkt and find it to be very elastic. We conclude that an increased provision of roads or public transit is unlikely to relieve congestion and that the current provision of roads exceeds the optimum given the absence of congestion pricing.

  66. #166
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    July 22, 1963: Bold plan would divide downtown Edmonton into eight separate districts girded by freeway system

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...674/story.html

    City council was handed a sweeping plan that had the potential to change the face of downtown Edmonton over the next 20 years.

    The plan, made public after months of study by city planners and private consultants, would divide downtown into eight separate districts, with a multimillion-dollar freeway system skirting the area on all four sides.

    A $100-million rapid transit system would run underground along 102nd Avenue, then fan out from downtown to the suburbs in six different directions, while elevated sidewalks would relieve pedestrian congestion downtown.

    The eight distinct districts would include a government centre, a wholesale distribution district, a civic centre, institutional housing and a motel and special-purpose office district. Planners aimed to pack stores, theatres, restaurants, arcades and plazas into an area bounded by 100th and 104th avenues and 100th and 105th streets.

    It was estimated that by 1980, a total of 12,000 people per hour would flow along downtown sidewalks, three or four times the 1963 rate.
    Dodged a bullet there!
    “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

  67. #167
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/1974+...128/story.html

    Another retro article from the Journal. This is about the city killing the MacKinnon Ravine route for the METS Jasper freeway in 1974. Some interesting (brief) backstory on the protest against METS at the time. I got a chuckle about the effigy of the city engineer.


    Also another gem I found (not sure if this has been posted already). But a great clip of Groat Road Bridge (and other scenes of Edmonton) in 1955. Credit goes to the poster, CineAudioVisual, on youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nR_uptkwz4

  68. #168
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,945
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  69. #169
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    Could sure get around on those freeways!

  70. #170
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halocore View Post
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/1974+...128/story.html

    Another retro article from the Journal. This is about the city killing the MacKinnon Ravine route for the METS Jasper freeway in 1974. Some interesting (brief) backstory on the protest against METS at the time. I got a chuckle about the effigy of the city engineer.


    Also another gem I found (not sure if this has been posted already). But a great clip of Groat Road Bridge (and other scenes of Edmonton) in 1955. Credit goes to the poster, CineAudioVisual, on youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nR_uptkwz4
    Cool, also the others. Rat hole closing, other vids. Very interesting.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •