Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 625

Thread: QE2 highway badly needs an upgrade

  1. #201
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I'd appreciate if people stopped stating that I am someone else. Please ask the Admin to confirm if they can, I am not Edmonton Daily Photo.

    The point is about vision. They are building for the future. What you want is status quo, even though status quo has failed us time and time again. The sad thing is that in 50 years everyone here left living will look back and wish that we did it.

  2. #202

    Default

    My apologies for the misunderstanding.

    The point is that your comparison to China is so far off and totally unrelated needs Alberta that it makes your argument irrelevant. If you want to pitch HSR, then take it to that thread and use realistic comparisons.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  3. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    I'd appreciate if people stopped stating that I am someone else. Please ask the Admin to confirm if they can, I am not Edmonton Daily Photo.

    The point is about vision. They are building for the future. What you want is status quo, even though status quo has failed us time and time again. The sad thing is that in 50 years everyone here left living will look back and wish that we did it.
    Increasing capacity on very busy highway is keeping the status quo? How has the status quo failed us time and time again? What does China have to do with Alberta? Can you tell me who wins the world series in 50 years with your crystal ball? How does putting in HSR solve the issue with capacity on this highway given the very small market HSR would attract? That 10-20 billion dollar price tag for HSR could fund city wide LRT in both cities and add lanes to the QE2 in its entirety.

    I dont see anyone 50 years from now looking back and being upset we spent a paltry amount of money (compared to the very high cost of HSR) to add a third lane to the QE2

  4. #204

    Default

    ^ to answer the question. In 50 years, China will have won the World Series time and time again...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #205
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    IMO this province will never have the population density necessary to make the money spent on a HSR worth it.

    a third lane to the QE2 with the addition to limits on trucks in left lane would do wonders for traffic congestion
    be offended! figure out why later...

  6. #206

    Default

    And safety.

  7. #207
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    For the record, I don't have a problem with widening the QEII. I have a problem with attaching ridiculous qualifications to building other transportation types (i.e. "it has to pay itself off") that we don't attach to roads.

    I also have a problem with focusing solely on a mode of transportation that is undeniably destructive environmentally, socially, and economically. We should always strive to progress towards building the best Alberta we can, and that is not a future in a relic mode of transportation.

    The solution is pretty simple: toll the QE2 and use the money to subsidize widening and maintaining it. Build a HSR link and use the fares to subsidize constructing and running that. It isn't one or the other.

  8. #208
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^we dont attach the qualification of having to pay for itself to roads because they are for a primary mode of transportation that transports more than just people. The efficiency and safety of a road is unpatriotic to a HSR line. Each driver and commodity can go point of departure to point of destination without intermediate stops. The lack of the intermediate stops means there is no terminal that can serve as a potential terrorist target, or a single vehicle moving hundreds of potential targets.

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    The lack of the intermediate stops means there is no terminal that can serve as a potential terrorist target, or a single vehicle moving hundreds of potential targets.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA H

    Oh wait.

    You were serious?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  10. #210
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^meh, why not.

    For that very same argument I now have to arrive an hour early to an airport for a flight. I dont see why they would treat a HSR system any differently which makes it less efficient than to just jump in my car and drive to Calgary.

    BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!!

    After I arrive at the city of Calgary, i can continue to my final destination without waiting to get off the train, gather my luggage, rent a vehicle and then finally drive to my end point.

  11. #211
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,973

    Default

    Also: For each litre of fuel burned on that highway the province receives it's percentage. Truckers pay fees, vehicles pay registration fees and other licensing fees. All goes to the province to pay for highways. It's a lot.

  12. #212
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    ^we dont attach the qualification of having to pay for itself to roads because they are for a primary mode of transportation that transports more than just people. .
    A: "We over-subsidize roads, therefore they are the primary mode of transportation."

    B: "Yes, but roads are the primary mode of transportation, thus we must subsidize them."

    Last edited by Jaerdo; 30-10-2015 at 04:48 PM.

  13. #213
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,387

    Default

    ^^ It's a lot, but it isn't enough to cover spending on roads. I don't want to restart the debate of tolls vs. higher fuel taxes, but if we want roads to pay for themselves we need one and/or the other.

    HSR that connects Edmonton's LRT to Calgary's LRT would be cool, but I don't think many people would be willing to pay for it with a $100+ one way per person fare when the "apples to apples" alternative is a wider, faster highway financed with a $10-$20 toll or the equivalent in higher gas prices. A wider, fully access controlled highway with a higher speed limit would even make the bus trip more attractive for those who can't or don't want to drive.

  14. #214
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ The prices for the HSR need not be full cost recovery, just as the prices for a toll need not be full cost recovery. You find the mid-point on both where you stimulate the economy (and thus your tax revenue otherwise) without pricing yourself out of the project.

  15. #215
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Widening the highway does not address getting from Calgary to Edmonton in general.
    Can you explain that? Cause, last time I checked most people get to and from Calgary on that highway.
    The answer is in observation. There are other modes of transit (existing and possible). The road isn't the whole thing. Should it be? That's the question that they are planning to address in part by doing the study.

    I just hope they include all parameters in that assessment including costs (construction, maintenance, costs avoided, costs recovered through taxation/ employment, etc), policing costs on the road, emergency services (vehicle crashes etc), revenues, land use and development, utility, potential for generating new business/ diversification of economy... This is not just about adding a new lane vs building HSR. It is about strengthening Edm-Cal corridor as a means to compete with larger jurisdictions for business opportunities, and whether that would provide the sufficient return on investment making one option better than another.
    Last edited by grish; 30-10-2015 at 05:17 PM.

  16. #216
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^ It's a lot, but it isn't enough to cover spending on roads. I don't want to restart the debate of tolls vs. higher fuel taxes, but if we want roads to pay for themselves we need one and/or the other.

    HSR that connects Edmonton's LRT to Calgary's LRT would be cool, but I don't think many people would be willing to pay for it with a $100+ one way per person fare when the "apples to apples" alternative is a wider, faster highway financed with a $10-$20 toll or the equivalent in higher gas prices. A wider, fully access controlled highway with a higher speed limit would even make the bus trip more attractive for those who can't or don't want to drive.
    speed and inclement weather dependency/ trip certainty cannot be ignored out of this discussion.

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    For the record, I don't have a problem with widening the QEII. I have a problem with attaching ridiculous qualifications to building other transportation types (i.e. "it has to pay itself off") that we don't attach to roads.
    ok so if you don't have problem with widening it, the why the sidecar (pun intended). Go post about it in the HSR thread.

    I also have a problem with focusing solely on a mode of transportation that is undeniably destructive environmentally, socially, and economically. We should always strive to progress towards building the best Alberta we can, and that is not a future in a relic mode of transportation.
    We are not focusing solely on anything. Over the last many years, Alberta has been buying up land quietly for HSR. But its still 30-50 years of before one considers to start building that.

    The solution is pretty simple: toll the QE2 and use the money to subsidize widening and maintaining it. Build a HSR link and use the fares to subsidize constructing and running that. It isn't one or the other.
    I wouldn't be against tolling QE2 to widen it.

  18. #218

    Default

    I would. We pay enough taxes. We should expect a safe and sufficient highway network without having to pay extra.

  19. #219
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^^ As I said several times, I didn't post the HSR article here to discuss that. I posted it because it is the latest update on the NDP's plans regarding QEII widening.

    ^ User fees are not a tax. They are a fee for use. In fact, they make it easier to reduce taxes. They are good for business, and good for small government.

  20. #220
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,715

    Default

    Ah, the ol' Klein user fee argument. And the slurps that believe it's not a tax.

    I thought we became smarter than that the last 10 years?

  21. #221
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^my favourite is when people blindly believe there's such a thing as paying less tax.

  22. #222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ User fees are not a tax.
    Potato, potato.

  23. #223
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,973

    Default

    Tomato, tomato

  24. #224

    Default

    Apple = Apple
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  25. #225
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    pay for itself =pay for itself
    user fee = user fee
    government (tax) subsidy = government (tax) subsidy

  26. #226

    Default

    HIGH SPEED RAIL = =

    source
    source
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  27. #227
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^lol

  28. #228
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Ah, the ol' Klein user fee argument. And the slurps that believe it's not a tax.

    I thought we became smarter than that the last 10 years?

    Taxes are collected from all people and firms, and redistributed to pay for programs by the government.

    User fees are collected from only people and firms who utilize the infrastructure/service, and are paid directly into the operation of said infrastructure/service.

    They are completely different concepts, and it is frankly very amusing that so many people have difficulty grasping this. It isn't exactly rocket science.

  29. #229
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    So...if we start paying "user fees" for everything, what is the government collecting taxes from us for??

  30. #230
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ The government would have a reduced reliance on income taxes under a user fee regime, and thus should lower them.

    There will always be some things that need to be taxed traditionally for policy considerations or to address market failures (e.g. health care, education, emergency services), however things like transportation infrastructure and municipal services can best be substantiated through user fees.

    So to answer directly: more user fees, less income taxes.

  31. #231
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^If you really think our taxes will ever be lowered due to user fees, i have a parcel of land in texas that I will sell you.

  32. #232
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Fair enough, I'm a cynic too. However, that isn't an argument against my position. User fees are a more efficient way of paying for infrastructure, and there isn't any way around that.

    I'll also mention that municipalities in Alberta have a very good track record of keeping tax rates down to what they need (a few notable exceptions *cough* MD of Opportunity, Strathcona). The CoE even recently cut an increase due to higher revenue. At the provincial level, fair enough, I find it hard to believe they'll cut taxes as well due to all the other pressures they have.

  33. #233
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,973

    Default

    Back to the highway. I remember in the good old days when the Dept. Of Highways just went ahead and did what was necessary and no consulting with all the public and announcements and questions and meetings and more meetings and planning and more planning and unnecessary bs. You just came upon a project and said oh they are fixing this or they are building this without hearing about it for 20 or more years first. Alberta Transportation should just go ahead and add lanes, just do so many kilometres per year starting at north and south ends and continue along until it is finished. Enough of all this debating and questioning already. They know what is needed now grow some balls and do it without all this crap already.

  34. #234

    Default

    Sounds like a common sense approach. Too bad politics tends to get in the way.

  35. #235
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Oh yeah. Why would anyone want any sort of oversight into how public money is being spent? I mean, they should just go ahead and build the HSR link and be done with this "talking and studying" nonsense...

  36. #236

    Default

    we should just let a bunch of armchair know it alls decide how everything is built and when/where/how. Why bother letting paid experts determine anything, the grish's of the world have everything and everyone figured out! We can all use HSR!

  37. #237
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ ahh, good old medwards... please review the sequence of posts 233, 234, and 235, not that it would lead to anything different. reading has always been a challenge for ya

  38. #238

    Default

    Sounds like you're in full agreement with me for once grish. We shouldn't just go out a build HSR. We need yet another study proving that now's not the time, the population density just isn't there yet. What more do you want?

    Here I thought this thread was about expanding capacity on an overburden highway, somehow a big white elephant keeps getting in the way.

  39. #239

    Default

    Grish and Jaerdo

    If you believe HSR will be so well used, then propose to the government that they set up a HSB first.

    HSB you ask? High speed bus. An express bus from Edmonton to Calgary that has flashing lights and has permission to cruise at 130kph.

    Offer $75 one way fares and emulate the HSR service. After a 12 month trial service you can properly see what demand is really there and what schedules people want. With leased buses your total cost would only be 10 or 20 million but at least you would have a real basis for any rail based proposal. Now for the last time, can I encourage you to keep on the thread topic and move the HSR conversation to the appropriate thread?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  40. #240

    Default

    ^A HSB would require its own dedicated lane, which might end up costing not that much different from HSR (especially if you ran it around the ring road and stuck an extra lane there / completed it). Not wise.

  41. #241

    Default

    Even with a dedicated lane it would be much cheaper than HSR. And if the experiment fails, we have an new lane for cars. Win, win.

  42. #242
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Oh yeah. Why would anyone want any sort of oversight into how public money is being spent? I mean, they should just go ahead and build the HSR link and be done with this "talking and studying" nonsense...
    They are a lot smarter than that and I am sure Alberta Transportation will be relaying that to the premier and thoughts of the HSR will be called off ..... for now, to be reviewed in 2075

  43. #243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ The government would have a reduced reliance on income taxes under a user fee regime, and thus should lower them.

    There will always be some things that need to be taxed traditionally for policy considerations or to address market failures (e.g. health care, education, emergency services), however things like transportation infrastructure and municipal services can best be substantiated through user fees.

    So to answer directly: more user fees, less income taxes.
    Look at one example of transportation user fees. The Airport Fee. Once one airport tried it, every airport jumped on the bandwagon. Then they raised the fees again. Yes we got shiny new terminals but they resemble malls except with $2.50 chocolate bars and expensive handbag stores. Every airport is constantly expanding or building a hotel or expensive parking lot with valet service. At the EIA they had do much excess money they built a golf course.

    It was not an airport fee but a slush fund.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #244
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    @ Medwards: Big face palm. Make it double face palm
    @ EPRT: interesting idea. Doesn't match the speed or comfort of a train, but good suggestion for a study nevertheless
    @ Vincent: that is why we need studies done first. Building something in the event it works without a prior insight is insane. But it sure sounds like EPRT is suggesting a three-headed study with a few permutations of both or either/ or.
    @ Drumbones A smart person knows not to jump to conclusions without facts and the way we expect governments to function is through public consultation and disclosure.

    Did I forget anyone? Maybe an additional facepalm @ Medwards.

    That's about it for now.

  45. #245
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,973

    Default

    We don't need a study to know QE2 should be 6 lanes between Calgary and Edmonton. If you would drive it once in a while you would know that. Now go study the Yellowhead for a few more years to see if it needs a couple more interchanges. Lol

  46. #246
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,431

    Default

    I think people are confused. They're not funding a study to find out if something should be done, they are funding a study to find out what would be involved in getting something done.

    Nobody is arguing against a solution, only deciding what the best solution will be.

  47. #247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    I think people are confused. They're not funding a study to find out if something should be done, they are funding a study to find out what would be involved in getting something done.

    Nobody is arguing against a solution, only deciding what the best solution will be.
    Then that's not a study. That's preliminary planning.

  48. #248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    @ Medwards: Big face palm. Make it double face palm
    @ EPRT: interesting idea. Doesn't match the speed or comfort of a train, but good suggestion for a study nevertheless
    @ Vincent: that is why we need studies done first. Building something in the event it works without a prior insight is insane. But it sure sounds like EPRT is suggesting a three-headed study with a few permutations of both or either/ or.
    @ Drumbones A smart person knows not to jump to conclusions without facts and the way we expect governments to function is through public consultation and disclosure.

    Did I forget anyone? Maybe an additional facepalm @ Medwards.

    That's about it for now.
    You can continue adding facepalms every time you post. It doesn't make your theories any stronger.

  49. #249
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    I think people are confused. They're not funding a study to find out if something should be done, they are funding a study to find out what would be involved in getting something done.

    Nobody is arguing against a solution, only deciding what the best solution will be.
    Then that's not a study. That's preliminary planning.
    from what I've been told that's exactly what they're doing. Preliminary planning and exploring the feasibility of HSR.

  50. #250
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I think they should expand the QEII, toll it, and also build a world-class HSR line.

    Reasons:

    It would have an enormous positive impact on our economy. It would offer a future-ready sustainable transportation option (so long as we transition off coal power). It would fundamentally change the social landscape of Alberta - "Edmonton vs. Calgary" would cease to be as much of a competition when it takes under an hour to get from one to the other. It would end the needless duplication of investment between the cities. It would hugely stimulate development around the terminals in both downtowns. Etc. Etc.

    I don't care whether it will immediately pay itself off. We need to stop thinking about the train as a business, and start treating it like a transportation mode that we construct for the good of our society - just like roads. I would offset the needed investment with fares, and also offset the cost of roads to government by tolling them to recover some of the costs.

  51. #251

    Default

    Or we could become the laughing stock of the world for building a seldom used train between two minor cities only 300 km apart that we spent billions of hard earned tax dollars on.


    What endless duplication do you mean? Dropping Edmonton EIA down to a regional airport or closing it all together? Calgary will get rid of all the duplicate federal and provincial offices? Car dealers can consolidate in one city? Only have one Starbucks in one city and one Tim Hortons in the other and we just can commute by train to pick up our java cravings?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  52. #252

    Default

    cricket sounds. ...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  53. #253
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    You mean, you like going around in circles in an endless argument?

    Ok, i'll continue:

    You are wrong... You are wrong to jump to erroneous conclusions based on misleading information. You are wrong to assume EIA would be reduced to a regional airport or that it would be closed. Fanning fear ≠ being correct. There is a business case for flying into both. Cooperation in terms of areas served could just as easily increase and simplify access to the world with EIA origin flights to, say, Northern Europe and S/E Asia, and Calgary origin flights to North/ South America and South Europe/ Middle East. You are wrong to assume that calgary will get all the provincial or federal offices. It is already not the case. The leigslature isn't moving to calgary either.

    No, car dealers will not close up shop in Edmonton. That is ridiculous. (Did you really want someone to argue that point?)
    Starbacks will probably not close down to a single store, although I do not represent Starbacks and would not know. Besides, they have a much, MUCH larger problem with their festive cups fiasco having upset tens of people with a non-committal red. Tim Hortons? They could... I don't care. (Again, is that the debate you wanted?)

    On the other hand, two distinct offices of the same company could choose to lease cheaper office space in one or the other downtwon. Professionals from one city could find employment in the other and not uproot family. A major concert could stay an extra night in the same city to accommodate larger crowds and not have to take down and set up in the other–cheaper for them=more attractive. A tourist to Calgary is much more likely to dart to Edmonton for a day if a quick link is available and vice versa. We could compete to win more international events such as the Olympics. We do have to sets of nice hotels to accommodate the visitors.

    Of course, a convoy of 20 buses driving at 130km/hr in a dedicated lane may be better... Sorry, I could not continue this line... Very difficult to laugh my head off and type at the same time.
    Last edited by grish; 11-11-2015 at 12:05 PM.

  54. #254
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I am not familiar on the smugness etiquette. How soon until I can type "cricket sounds" pretending I have won the debate by being "oh so clever"?

    Just in case the time has come:

    Cricket Sounds

    (please disregard until tomorrow of it is too early)...

  55. #255

    Default

    Can we stop beating the dead horse that is HSR. Current HSR designs are not built with our corridor volume in mind. They are designed with corridors with 10s of millions of people in mind, who go to locations with huge volumes of people who use public transit. We don't have the infrastructure for supporting HSR, NOR (and much much much more importantly) the number of people. HSR is built in areas with a condensed population of that of CANADA. Sure we can do preliminary planning but HSR WILL NOT BE VIABLE IN THIS PROVINCE BASED UPON CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS FOR 50 YEARS!!!

    Planes are dirty polluting messes, as are cars and trucks. But the costs are way way way way way way too huge. It would be completely unsurprising to see HSR between edm and cgy cost in $100 billion dollar range after everything is said and done. Look at figures being tossed around in Cali for san fran to LA or boston-dc or ny-anywhere, toronto-montreal, even the cheap build outs in china when converted to canadian dollars (and safety costs/material quality/build quality) would work out to similar dollar figures. This province couldn't shoulder that sort of burden.

    I LOVE HSR, I am an HSR nerd, but short of buying up a RoW for it after plotting a few routes no more money should be spent on this lame duck idea.

    Can we please not talk about HSR anymore. There is a thread for this.

    3 lanes each way, fix gasoline alley's wonky and fix the screw job bridge in leduc. Also the hwy should be lit in that section due to the glare from the bldgs/street lights beside the hwy.

  56. #256
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    ^ There are not enough Thanks for that post!
    “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

  57. #257
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    I still don't understand why Alberta thinks HSR or nothing are the two options for inter-city train service.... What about VIA Rail/Amtrak style trains running on existing CP tracks? Yeah, yeah... CP won't want to share their tracks. Well, I believe, legally they're obligated to. And with some investment, lengthening sidings and double-tracking parts, it will help both CP and passenger service. It works in so many other jurisdictions, I don't see why it can't work here. Whyte Ave - Downtown Calgary. Easy.

    But alas, we must look at the most expensive option first... If that doesn't work, well then, we must forgo all progress....

  58. #258
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,416

    Default

    I think one remedy would be building Highway 2A (Along 170 Street), west of the EIA, and have it connect with Highway 2A (proposed project). On the south side, Centre Street can be extended north to connect with 2A at Crossfield.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  59. #259
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Loebs... As far as this thread goes, the province is planning to do a study on the expansion and a parallel looksy looks into a possible HSR. So, as a dicussion of these two alternative ways of spending the same public $$, mentioning both as alternatives are perfectly ok. As is bringing up roads such as QEII in the HSR thread... Both projects have a huge overlap in public (dis)interest, public cash, and some overlap in purpose.

    While opinions go every which way, a consideration is not all that bad. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you are... This is the sort of thing that doesn't get decided on E-PRT's dinner napkin.

  60. #260
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,973

    Default

    I thought we already stopped talking of it in this thread grish

  61. #261

    Default

    For the love of god, take the HSR topic to the appropriate thread otherwise I will bring up High Speed PRT!

    How about electric trolley buses to Calgary?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 11-11-2015 at 10:49 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  62. #262

  63. #263
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I thought we already stopped talking of it in this thread grish
    I did too... but then E PRT decided to add the smugness effect to it by unleashing his pet crickets.

  64. #264

    Default

    I was responding to Jaerdo's comments, not yours.

    Don't be so vain
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    ...

    Don't be so vain
    I probably think this thread is about me.

    Sadly the only thing not in the planning stage is the 41st Avenue SW interchange that will open shortly. Everything else from improving the road around Red Deer and other areas are not funded.
    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...cts/index.html

  66. #266

    Default

    If i had to choose between 6 laning QEII or 6 laning SW leg of henday, I'd choose the henday.

    Obviously not the same scale, but I rather the next "big" job funding be the SW Henday.

    Then let's talk about 6-laning QEII

  67. #267
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    ...

    Don't be so vain
    I probably think this thread is about me.

    Sadly the only thing not in the planning stage is the 41st Avenue SW interchange that will open shortly. Everything else from improving the road around Red Deer and other areas are not funded.
    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...cts/index.html

    Refer to posts #65 and #66 on upcoming QE2 and 2A planning and construction projects
    “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

  68. #268
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,235

    Default

    There is a few billion (15 billion?) things that need to be done in Alberta though, bypassing St. Albert, Hinton, Edson, Lloydminster, Crownest Pass, Fort McLeod, Lethbridge, Grande Prairie, LRT extensions in Edmonton and even Calgary and then the needed schools and hospitals that are either crowded or falling apart.

  69. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    There is a few billion (15 billion?) things that need to be done in Alberta though, bypassing St. Albert, Hinton, Edson, Lloydminster, Crownest Pass, Fort McLeod, Lethbridge, Grande Prairie, LRT extensions in Edmonton and even Calgary and then the needed schools and hospitals that are either crowded or falling apart.
    And freeway-ing Yellowhead. lol

  70. #270
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,235

    Default

    Yah I forgot that one... but there are a lot of priorities, QE2 does tend to bubble to the top on a lot of the list, just because it serves most of Alberta's population.

  71. #271
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    If only fewer people would need to take that road by providing them with efficient, convenient alternatives to travel by car on that road.

  72. #272
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    They do have alternatives. I believe West Jet and Air Canada both offer flights to Calgary.

  73. #273

    Default

    And buses and car pooling, and tele-commuting. Leave the ugly expensive albatross that wouldn't be feasible for 40 years discussion somewhere else.

  74. #274
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    They do have alternatives. I believe West Jet and Air Canada both offer flights to Calgary.
    in terms of efficiency and convenience, bus is better than air in our context and train is better than bus.

    Let me put it this way, if we already had a 250kmh train to calgary downtown to downtown, we likely would not be talking about adding an extra lane or removing the train service. It's getting one built that's the problem. Having one isn't.

  75. #275

    Default

    We had a train to Calgary that was used less and less while demand for the highway grew and grew and grew over the decades. Now there is even more demand to expand the well used highway and people are pushing the government to spend their tax dollars wisely on widening the highway while a small group of special interest HSR supporters cannot demonstrate a demand for their ideals.


    People voted for their preferred transport modes with their pocket books. Even when rail was subsidized 80% on operating costs to lower ticket prices, the demand fell. The choice is both democratic and a fulfillment of the law of supply and demand.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 13-11-2015 at 09:12 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  76. #276
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    Personally I wouldn't mind it if there were a good train option where I wouldn't have to waste most of my time waiting for the train to get in and out of both Edmonton and Calgary. Instead of a train station in the heart of the cities, how about stations that would link HSR or just regular rail to the LRT and Ctrain stations.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  77. #277
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Sigh. For the umpteenth time, can you folks please take the rail and air options to another thread and keep this thread just for the highway improvements? Is that seriously too much to ask???
    “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

  78. #278
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    Sorry...

    Anyways about that train.... just kidding

    I sometimes keep wondering if there were sections of QE2 that could be made a bit more direct to shave off more time on the drive. For example the stretch north of Lacombe that connects the two 2A's together. Or how about a complete bypass of the south part of Red Deer/gasoline alley.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  79. #279

  80. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    A bypass of a bypass?
    It's happened. Look at Grand Prairie.
    Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...

  81. #281
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,973

    Default

    Alberta Transporation had planned to bypass gasoline alley but the businesses got together and convinced them to do otherwise then they upgraded the highway through there to freeway status. Before that it was very scary and hazardous. They still plan to change the northbound curve to Edmonton by Uncle Bens there, change it somewhat.

  82. #282
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Would have preferred that bypass because I really hate getting in and out of Gasoline Alley now, I avoid it like the plague. For NB you now have to drive into the city, turn left and through a traffic signal to get back onto the highway. Hope this is rectified when they redo the Gaetz Ave interchange.
    “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

  83. #283
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    ^ looks like they're keeping the same configuration, just better geometry.

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...all%20file.pdf

    Edit: actually never mind. I see they have added a new ramp that allows you to access NB QE2 without entering the city.

  84. #284
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    We had a train to Calgary that was used less and less while demand for the highway grew and grew and grew over the decades. Now there is even more demand to expand the well used highway and people are pushing the government to spend their tax dollars wisely on widening the highway while a small group of special interest HSR supporters cannot demonstrate a demand for their ideals.


    People voted for their preferred transport modes with their pocket books. Even when rail was subsidized 80% on operating costs to lower ticket prices, the demand fell. The choice is both democratic and a fulfillment of the law of supply and demand.
    Oh, yes, that was EXACTLY the same. There is not enough rolling eyes to respond to this.

    There will definitely be an improvement over the past service in terms of grade separation, number/ location of stops, the speed, and the comfort.

    As far as QEII discussion goes, using public money to increase the size of the road between Edmonton and Calgary, and using money to provide an alternative mode of transportation to remove some cars/ busses from the roads is a fair question that needs to be answered in a fair, fully disclosed way.

    QEII should not be expanded until this question is answered fully and properly.

  85. #285
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    ^ looks like they're keeping the same configuration, just better geometry.

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...all%20file.pdf

    Edit: actually never mind. I see they have added a new ramp that allows you to access NB QE2 without entering the city.
    Thanks! Here are more details on the plans for Gaetz Ave, Taylor Drive and Gasoline Alley

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...s/central.aspx

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...Fact_Sheet.pdf

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...rge%20file.pdf

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ion_Part_1.pdf

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ion_Part_2.pdf

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ion_Part_3.pdf

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ion_Part_4.pdf

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...dGaetz/FAQ.pdf

    Interchange Upgrade - Gaetz Ave / Taylor Dr

    Location: Hwy 2 at Gaetz Avenue and Taylor Drive in Red Deer

    Project Description: Interchange reconstruction; including the removal of three bridge structures and construction of five new bridge structures, reconfiguration of ramps and intersections, realignment of the highway ,expansion to six lanes and the construction of collector-distribution roads.

    The new Taylor Drive/Gaetz Ave and Highway 2 Interchange system will consist of the realignment of Highway 2 to improve the geometry through the corridor, expansion to six lanes (three in each direction) from 32nd street to Mackenzie Drive and the introduction of a collector-distribution (C-D) road System that will run parallel to Highway 2.

    The new interchange system is designed to separate high speed highway traffic from low speed local traffic. This is accomplished with the introduction of a C-D road system. This consists of a one way road on each side of the highway that will run parallel with the highway. The C-D road system is a significant safety improvement to the existing Interchange and will be constructed to a design speed of 80 km/h.

    The southbound C-D road starts north of Taylor Drive and terminates at the north end of Leva Avenue in the Gasoline Alley Business District. Once on the C-D road motorists have the option of travelling north on Taylor Drive, south on Highway 2A, enter gasoline Alley business district or enter Highway 2 southbound.

    The northbound C-D road starts south of Gaetz Avenue and terminates north of Taylor Drive. Once on the C-D road motorists have the option of travelling north on Gaetz Avenue, north on Taylor Drive (via new access to Taylor Drive), south on Highway 2A or enter Highway 2. As well, motorists travelling on the East service road can access Highway 2, via the C-D road, avoiding the busy intersections at Gaetz Avenue/19th Street and Taylor Drive/19th Street.
    “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

  86. #286
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Since I guess we aren't supposed to talk about roads in the HSR thread, and we aren't supposed to talk about HSR here (who needs to discuss replacement goods in context, anyway), here is what we need to include in our calculations to see if building a publicly subsidized QEII expansion is beneficial to the public good.

    Costs:

    - Direct infrastructure cost
    - Indirect infrastructure pressure on supporting municipal roads
    - Air pollution cost (for the entire fuel supply chain) - greenhouse gases
    - Air pollution cost (for the entire fuel supply chain) - environmentally destructive gases (S02 N0x etc, acid rain)
    - Traffic collision cost (ranging from loss of life to property damage)
    - Noise pollution cost
    - Land pollution cost (for entire supporting fuel supply chain)
    - Water pollution cost (for entire supporting fuel supply chain)
    - Land opportunity cost
    - Health impacts of increased car-dependency
    - Health impacts of pollution
    - Loss of biodiversity derivative from all of above.


    Benefits:

    - Economic benefit of shipping goods and people by car (increased time and route flexibility)
    - Economic benefit of supporting fossil fuel and vehicle manufacturing industry
    - Economic (time) benefit of reduced congestion from road expansion (limited benefit, disappears as population increases)
    - Social benefit of extended flexibility in personal mobility


    Failing to account for all of the above costs and benefits is intellectually dishonest. If above costs are greater than the benefits and are subsidized, over consumption will occur. This calculation should be done for ALL infrastructure and service projects.

  87. #287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    ^ looks like they're keeping the same configuration, just better geometry.

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...all%20file.pdf

    Edit: actually never mind. I see they have added a new ramp that allows you to access NB QE2 without entering the city.
    That will be a big improvement in terms of safety, especially northbound. However, if you're southbound and want to stop at Smitty's you need to exit long before you can even see gasoline alley. That will take some getting used to.

  88. #288
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,235

    Default

    My guess is that it will not be built to this configuration, but all in all the plan does seem to address most of the issues.

    They plan on replacing the Red Deer River bridge in part of the plans to reduce the curve radius of the new road. My guess is that will not happen but a 3rd lane will be added to the bridge. The piers seem to be designed for extra lanes.
    https://www.google.ca/maps/@52.26814...!3m1!1e3?hl=en

    You can view those plans here (23 mb in size)
    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...aningPlans.pdf

  89. #289
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    That will be a big improvement in terms of safety, especially northbound. However, if you're southbound and want to stop at Smitty's you need to exit long before you can even see gasoline alley. That will take some getting used to.
    I'm presuming you will see a couple of those large blue Services signs before the exit c/w logos for Smittys, Esso, etc.

    In one of the links I posted yesterday, they indicate plans to turn Gasoline Alley into a hamlet. So that is another impetus for corridor and access improvements.
    “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

  90. #290

    Default

    A hamlet? I always assumed it was part of Red Deer.

  91. #291
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ It is part of the county.

    The county has very few servicing needs compared to the urban municipality. So they set artificially low taxation rates there and pull all of the business out. They also abuse geographic advantage along the highway (sort of like how Strathcona, Opportunity etc do with linear property).

    It is actually a huge problem, because all of the people who work on the county lands live in the urban. They consume the urban municipalities services such as fire, water, police, etc. Yet all of the commercial/industrial/linear tax goes to the county, which doesn't need it at all.

  92. #292
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,288

    Default

    How is that like Strathcona?

  93. #293
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    I think he meant Sherwood Park being like a hamlet within Strathcona County...a hamlet of about 65,000 people. But that's discussed in other topics, let's not start yet another thread derail over it.
    “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

  94. #294
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Perhaps this maybe a good idea to fund the expansion:
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...-highways.html

  95. #295
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,288

    Default

    Not a bad idea, but how many leadfooted doofi(?) will zip over into that extra lane because someone is already in the fast lane at the speed limit passing another vehicle - said leadfoot being unable to wait a few seconds?
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  96. #296

    Default

    16.5 km of High occupancy toll lanes as an example of how to fund qeii expansion? Im not sure i see the complete connection, or even much of correlation between the two.

  97. #297
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ you wouldn't... not surprised. others will. I am confident that it is so.

  98. #298

  99. #299
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    If you want to talk about how badly we need more lanes, we need to have a conversation about how to pay for them. Last time I checked we were a bit short of cash in Alberta right now.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 08-12-2015 at 08:10 AM.

  100. #300

    Default

    Now is the time to build, while labour and materials are cheaper. Governments should build when the times are slower, and save while the economy is boiling over.

    this is a necessary infrastructure expansion that's been planned for years.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 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
  •