Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 238 of 238

Thread: Terwillegar Drive | Freeway Upgrades | Planning/Discussion

  1. #201

    Default

    I really don't understand how city council could've debated this and come to the decision they did.

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Yeah, no one wants to bike alongside a freeway if there's any other option. and if the freeway just dead ends at another freeway then it's even worse.

    A multi-use trail bridge at 142st is way more useful. Add in another at 153ave over the ravine toward south Campus and suddenly riding a bike is a reasonable alternative to go toward the centre of the city from all of Riverbend. Maybe upgrade the sidewalks on Riverbend road and Rabbit hill Road to proper multi-use paths.

    I guess bus lanes would be nice for a Leger-West express bus but that's hardly the biggest need - and it means riding right past most of the riders in riverbend. Put that money into a new Bus Bridge over whitemud ravine from 153ave to south campus (combined with the multi-use trail bridge above) to provide vastly improved bus service to most of riverbend.

    Then you don't have to think about bikes and transit on Terwillegar so you can focus on general traffic.
    Agreed

    What is wrong with using Bus-on-shoulder lanes that cost far less than dedicated bus lanes?



    Bus-on-shoulder operations, also known internationally as "bus bypass shoulder" (BBS) operations, are a low-cost strategy allowing buses to travel at or near free-flow speeds through congested arterial and freeway routes. BBS describes the routing of a bus onto the shoulder of a road, usually a highway, in lieu of the standard general-purpose lanes. BBS is a policy-based alternative to constructing dedicated rights-of-way or restricting lane use to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV).
    Riders, in particular, seem to perceive a significant time savings from the lanes (possibly a result of the effect of the bus moving quickly past congested lanes). Passengers in Ohio, San Diego, and the Twin Cities have given positive feedback on the lanes. By making use of existing freeway infrastructure, bus-on-shoulder lanes have cost as little as $1,500 to $100,000 US per lane-mile to implement in the Twin Cities, a figure considerably less than adding a new lane (with an average cost of $2 million to $10 million US per lane mile) or implementing mixed-lane bus rapid transit systems (which cost $1 - $7 million US per mile on average)
    https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitW...us-on-shoulder
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  3. #203

    Default

    They could extend the LRT from Century Park to Leger down 23 ave and get rid of a lot of the buses that run there and to South Campus. Just extend the Metro line trains to make that run and get rid of the Health Sciences turn around. This alone could make a big difference in traffic

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Yeah, no one wants to bike alongside a freeway if there's any other option. and if the freeway just dead ends at another freeway then it's even worse.

    A multi-use trail bridge at 142st is way more useful. Add in another at 153ave over the ravine toward south Campus and suddenly riding a bike is a reasonable alternative to go toward the centre of the city from all of Riverbend. Maybe upgrade the sidewalks on Riverbend road and Rabbit hill Road to proper multi-use paths.

    .
    The bridge across the ravine is a nice to have, but if we get the ped bridge at 142, that is all that's really need for a easy pedal into downtown, you can cross the whitemud bridge, into laurier/buena vista/across hawrylak, and off to what ever central destination you want. That one bridge across the whitemud would save 20-40 minutes of riding out of the way.

  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Yeah, no one wants to bike alongside a freeway if there's any other option. and if the freeway just dead ends at another freeway then it's even worse.

    A multi-use trail bridge at 142st is way more useful. Add in another at 153ave over the ravine toward south Campus and suddenly riding a bike is a reasonable alternative to go toward the centre of the city from all of Riverbend. Maybe upgrade the sidewalks on Riverbend road and Rabbit hill Road to proper multi-use paths.

    I guess bus lanes would be nice for a Leger-West express bus but that's hardly the biggest need - and it means riding right past most of the riders in riverbend. Put that money into a new Bus Bridge over whitemud ravine from 153ave to south campus (combined with the multi-use trail bridge above) to provide vastly improved bus service to most of riverbend.

    Then you don't have to think about bikes and transit on Terwillegar so you can focus on general traffic.
    Agreed

    What is wrong with using Bus-on-shoulder lanes that cost far less than dedicated bus lanes?





    https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitW...us-on-shoulder
    Terwillegar has no shoulders. Neat idea though, works/worked well in Ottawa when I was there. There is no room for shoulders. More of an urban freeway with curbs than a highway with shoulders....

  6. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    I really don't understand how city council could've debated this and come to the decision they did.

    Easy, GIGO

    Garbage in, garbage out

    Garbage in-formation supplied to Council by the Administration
    Garbage out-come of decisions made by Council based upon the above.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post

    I guess bus lanes would be nice for a Leger-West express bus but that's hardly the biggest need - and it means riding right past most of the riders in riverbend. Put that money into a new Bus Bridge over whitemud ravine from 153ave to south campus (combined with the multi-use trail bridge above) to provide vastly improved bus service to most of riverbend.

    Then you don't have to think about bikes and transit on Terwillegar so you can focus on general traffic.
    Agreed

    What is wrong with using Bus-on-shoulder lanes that cost far less than dedicated bus lanes?



    Bus-on-shoulder operations, also known internationally as "bus bypass shoulder" (BBS) operations, are a low-cost strategy allowing buses to travel at or near free-flow speeds through congested arterial and freeway routes. BBS describes the routing of a bus onto the shoulder of a road, usually a highway, in lieu of the standard general-purpose lanes. BBS is a policy-based alternative to constructing dedicated rights-of-way or restricting lane use to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV).
    Riders, in particular, seem to perceive a significant time savings from the lanes (possibly a result of the effect of the bus moving quickly past congested lanes). Passengers in Ohio, San Diego, and the Twin Cities have given positive feedback on the lanes. By making use of existing freeway infrastructure, bus-on-shoulder lanes have cost as little as $1,500 to $100,000 US per lane-mile to implement in the Twin Cities, a figure considerably less than adding a new lane (with an average cost of $2 million to $10 million US per lane mile) or implementing mixed-lane bus rapid transit systems (which cost $1 - $7 million US per mile on average)
    https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitW...us-on-shoulder
    Nothing wrong with bus-on-shoulder but in the case of a 70 or 80km/hr urban freeway just a few KM long there's not much need for a continuous shoulder in the first place. Breakdowns are rare and most crashes occur at intersections - which a freeway doesn't have.
    There can only be one.

  8. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Yeah, no one wants to bike alongside a freeway if there's any other option. and if the freeway just dead ends at another freeway then it's even worse.

    A multi-use trail bridge at 142st is way more useful. Add in another at 153ave over the ravine toward south Campus and suddenly riding a bike is a reasonable alternative to go toward the centre of the city from all of Riverbend. Maybe upgrade the sidewalks on Riverbend road and Rabbit hill Road to proper multi-use paths.

    .
    The bridge across the ravine is a nice to have, but if we get the ped bridge at 142, that is all that's really need for a easy pedal into downtown, you can cross the whitemud bridge, into laurier/buena vista/across hawrylak, and off to what ever central destination you want. That one bridge across the whitemud would save 20-40 minutes of riding out of the way.
    That's a nice ride but it's hardly an all-weather all-abilities route to anywhere... and for the west half of riverbend they already have decent access toward the Quesnel bridge from the fort Edmonton park side if a recreational ride is the goal.

    For a utility commute destined toward the university or downtown Rainbow valley bridge to the 122st multi-use would be better, and a high- level ravine crossing would be a huge improvement.
    There can only be one.

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Terwillegar has no shoulders. Neat idea though, works/worked well in Ottawa when I was there. There is no room for shoulders. More of an urban freeway with curbs than a highway with shoulders....
    The current Terwillegar has no shoulders but the design for the upgrades could have them.

    I think the 4 lanes of expressway is so counter intuitive and against the original 1970's design that it should be thrown out. The original free flow underpass/diamond interchanges is the way to go but some tall foreheads made the price so outrageous, thereby misleading Council on their decision to go with the silly expressway design.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #210

    Default

    While I don't think it's wise to be bound to 40-year-old plans, it seems to me as though the pre-built ROW should make an actual freeway upgrade cost the same or less as this 4-lane expressway that requires re-grading the whole route. In light of what realistic costs should be from here forward the freeway option just makes sense - and you don't even need a bus lane when you don't have stop-and-go-traffic.
    There can only be one.

  11. #211

    Default

    No saying that you should be bound with 50 year old plans but when those plans were sound and commonly used on other areas in Edmonton and other cities, why reinvent the wheel?

    Spending hundreds of millions on a 4 lane expressway lineal parking lot with multiple lights is insane.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  12. #212

    Default

    I don't know if you've been out on manning drive lately but it's become something like this, with 3 through lanes and multiple turning lanes in places... the difference is that a whole lot less of the freeway work was done so that the current expressway design didn't cost much to build and it didn't requiring doing extensive work that will have to be re-done if we ever want to build the freeway.

    Terwilegar as a 3 or 8 lane arterial wouldn't be that bad, really. No different than St. Albert Trail or 137ave as 6-lane arterials.

    It's spending more to build a 6 or 8 lane arterial than it would cost to build a superior freeway that's the problem. And yes, a freeway would be superior in every way, even for pedestrians. All the pedestrian-unfriendyness of a freeway is already built, all that the expressway option adds is extra lanes to cross. I know I prefer crossing Gretzky drive as a freeway at 112 ave rather than as an expressway at 118ave.
    There can only be one.

  13. #213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Terwillegar has no shoulders. Neat idea though, works/worked well in Ottawa when I was there. There is no room for shoulders. More of an urban freeway with curbs than a highway with shoulders....
    The current Terwillegar has no shoulders but the design for the upgrades could have them.
    Could maybe, its a fairly tight ROW in places... probably not the best idea. The intention of this space was never for a highway style road with shoulders, always an urban freeway with interchanges.... like the next part of your post

    I think the 4 lanes of expressway is so counter intuitive and against the original 1970's design that it should be thrown out. The original free flow underpass/diamond interchanges is the way to go but some tall foreheads made the price so outrageous, thereby misleading Council on their decision to go with the silly expressway design.
    emphasis added by me

  14. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    I don't know if you've been out on manning drive lately but it's become something like this, with 3 through lanes and multiple turning lanes in places... the difference is that a whole lot less of the freeway work was done so that the current expressway design didn't cost much to build and it didn't requiring doing extensive work that will have to be re-done if we ever want to build the freeway.
    .
    Manning was downgraded to none-freeway status with the rejunevation of fort road. That window has sailed. The city has decided it will remain as an expressway type road between fort road and the Henday.

  15. #215

    Default

    True, although there's no constructed obstacles so far to prevent returning to the original plan.

    My main point of course is that while an expressway can handle this volume of traffic and it's not always a mistake it doesn't make sense to build one when it costs so much - and when so much of the freeway is pre-built.
    There can only be one.

  16. #216

    Default

    I agree.

    Expressway is bandaid for a proper solution, and will end up costing tax payers extra in the end, expressway now + freeway later (30-50 years) vs freeway phased in (30-40 years)

  17. #217

    Default

    How would freeway be phased?

    I'm skeptical that the multi-level ramps claimed for WM/TD are necessary, but I would think that the 40th Ave, Rabbit Hill Road and 23rd/Riverbend overpasses could reasonably be built all at once for less than the cost of the proposed expressway, and you would have a freeway at that point.
    There can only be one.

  18. #218

    Default

    phased I: 40th avenue+whitemud drive re-do years 5-8
    Phase II: Rabbit Hill Road 8-14 years
    Phase III: 23rd Avenue 14-20 years
    Phase IV: Haddow drive flyover+Henday redo 20-30

    The thing lost in this discussion expressway vs freeway was that the freeway was to be phased in, similiar to above, over the next 20-40 years. The cost of 1.2 Billion over the length of the project. The expressway is immediate, 300 M and done, then any further fixes would need to remove some of the express and go right back to building the freeway, except now there's a more immediate need, and likely.... COST ESCALATIONS!!$#@!#@$)#@(I%

  19. #219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    How would freeway be phased?


    Phase I: Reserve ROW (1960's)
    Phase II: Grade ROW for freeway (early 70's)
    Phase III: 1980's Build two lane Off Ramps and Diamond Intersections and use them for 40 years
    Phase IV: Complete overpasses and pave 4 lane Freeway (2019)

    or

    push an expensive 8 lane "expressway" with multiple lights for stop and go traffic jams...
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 10-10-2018 at 04:07 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  20. #220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    How would freeway be phased?


    Phase I: Reserve ROW (1960's)
    Phase II: Grade ROW for freeway (early 70's)
    Phase III: 1980's Build two lane Off Ramps and Diamond Intersections and use them for 40 years
    Phase IV: Complete overpasses and pave 4 lane Freeway (2019-2039)

    or

    push an expensive 8 lane "expressway" with multiple lights for stop and go traffic jams...
    ftfy

  21. #221

    Default

    ex·press·way

    [ikˈspresˌwā]


    NOUN
    NORTH AMERICAN



    • a highway designed for fast traffic, with controlled entrance and exit, a dividing strip between the traffic in opposite directions, and typically two or more lanes in each direction.





  22. #222

    Default

    ftfy

    Ed·mon·ton ex·press·way
    [ed-muh n-tuh ikˈspresˌwā]


    NOUN
    City of Edmonton Definition


    a big budget highway designed for clogged traffic, with ill timed traffic lights every 700-1,300 meters, a dividing strip between the traffic in opposite directions, and typically two or more lanes in each direction, plus added bike lanes, bus lanes, and uber expensive overpasses that takes longer to build than the entire AHD ring road. Future planned improvements include multiple at grade crossing of slow urban streetcar with signals installed by Thales.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  23. #223
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,378

    Default

    Yup

  24. #224

    Default

    The City's abandonment of a freeway for Terwillegar makes my blood boil. It seems a few vocal residents who are worried about an additional 3 minutes of travel time to and from their houses in Bulyea Heights, Haddow or Terwillegar Town are at fault. With the limited access at Haddow and 40AV, we would have had better traffic flow for people from every other part of the City and an improvement in commute time between 5 and 10 minutes. I'm afraid that sometimes for the greater good, some people have to 'suffer'.

    The expressway plans will do little to improve safety and level of service at the Whitemud and Terwillegar interchange. We will still continue to see accidents at the Rainbow Valley bridge as people try and cross 4 lanes of traffic to go from the 122 ST on-ramp to the Terwillegar exit. You will still have people moving into the fast lane on the Whitemud at 111 ST in order to prepare for their eventual exit. The plan also shows that Whitemud eastbound at the Terwillegar interchange will remain 2 lanes and no change of geometry for this curve. Some people slow down to below 60km/h here and with increased future traffic, this will only get worse.

    The staging for this project suggests that improvements to the Whitemud will take place after the expressway is built. What's the point? You will build an expressway that will continue to back up due to the bottleneck at Whitemud, so morning commute times will not change. Honestly, if the City wants to cheap out, build the Whitemud-Terwillegar interchange along with 40 AV and do it properly. This alone would be enough to reduce congestion on Terwillegar with little or no improvement to Terwillegar to the south. I would honestly rather see the City build a Metro line LRT extension though the University farm, across the Whitemud Creek and down the middle of Terwillegar as opposed to wasting money on this expressway.

    Rant over...

  25. #225
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,355

    Default

    What a stupid decision. Waste of money for no benefit. What’s the point?!?!

  26. #226
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,019

    Default

    I think the real issue is the turn at Terwillegar. Build a left-turn flyover.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  27. #227
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think the real issue is the turn at Terwillegar. Build a left-turn flyover.
    Build where? At Whitemud? Henday? or somewhere between?
    “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

  28. #228
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,019

    Default

    At Whitemud/Terwillegar. That left-turn loop is at a crawl during rush-hour.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  29. #229

    Default

    Guess it's official. Personally I'd rather them keep the original freeway, but any improvements are welcome at this point. The anticipated timeline seems to overlap with the Henday SW widening though, hopefully the City works something out with the Province because things are going to be brutal otherwise for that area.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...egar-1.4937960

  30. #230

    Default

    and also the the widening of Rabbit hill road (though that should all be started/finished in 2019)

    Any improvements... but this plan isn't a improvement at all. An expressway with lights... it's pretty much what we have now, with an extra lane....

    I'd much rather just spent 300 M on building the first overpass, and phasing in the rest of the freeway... like they should be doing over the next 20-30 years.

  31. #231
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Windermere
    Posts
    2,011

    Default

    I'd rather them do nothing now and the freeway later, than this halfassed band-aid solution that will solve nothing.

  32. #232

    Default

    I don't actually have a beef with the expressway plan, it's the retention of the left-in, left-out interchange that gets me. That is a safety hazard and should take precedence over capacity problems.

  33. #233
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    and also the the widening of Rabbit hill road (though that should all be started/finished in 2019)

    Any improvements... but this plan isn't a improvement at all. An expressway with lights... it's pretty much what we have now, with an extra lane....

    I'd much rather just spent 300 M on building the first overpass, and phasing in the rest of the freeway... like they should be doing over the next 20-30 years.
    The province should step in and say no no. This needs to be a freeway. This route is expected to be a future provincial highway to run south and west of the airport to join with hwy 2a south of Leduc. I would like to see some leadership by the province on this issue. Pleeze

  34. #234
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    361

    Default

    ^agree. this will be an important link between the Whitemud, AH and Hwys 19 and 39 to the south. Once complete it will take a lot of pressure off of QEII/Gateway.

  35. #235

    Default

    The Provincial Government can't do anything about it unless they take over responsibility for the road like they did with Deerfoot Trail, which is not going to happen. As things are, the Southwest Henday widening is already a significant commitment on their part - it would be nice if they could upgrade the Terwillegar interchange at the same time but I doubt that's the case.

  36. #236
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,378

    Default

    What do you mean can’t. They can if they want. NDP never will, they give a rats behind about roadways.

  37. #237

    Default

    the NDP are the ones that put it in the budget to fix Red Deer Hwy 2, and adding lanes to the SW Henday.

    The province is only interested in the corridor south of Henday as a potential connection around the west of EIA and leduc.

  38. #238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    What do you mean can’t. They can if they want. NDP never will, they give a rats behind about roadways.
    Municipal roads are the responsibility of the municipality they are situated in. The Province can't just swoop in and demand a particular road be a freeway unless the affected municipality agrees to relinquish responsibility for its construction and maintenance.

    There is zero appetite for the Province to take on the responsibility for a road that is entirely within, and solely serves, a single municipality - particularly one that sees the amount of traffic that Terwillegar Drive does relative to its length.

    All things considered, unless the Province decides to fast-track the extension of Highway 2A (Leduc bypass) they won't have any interest. Again, they are widening SW Henday which is as much as can be hoped for.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •