BASE
Active Member
Agree, but Devil's advocate me talking with this next statement. Plenty of projects have occurred that the community didn't want to see happen in the interest of the city at large.
|
|
|
Edmonton METS Plan (1969 Historical Freeway Plan)
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Gronk!
Senior Member
Seamusmuldrew
Active Member
In my dreams we'd have a more tightly built freeway network with a further northern (east) Whitemud alignment (SPF-Argyll-63-Fox Dr), 75 st N-S, and 170 St N-S with the Yellowhead where it is. I think that would've ended up being more useful to more people, especially when they would've been built without the need for a central freeway; in reality, I cannot fathom more freeways in this city because we've passed the best before date on them and it's time for a priority shift.
Foolworm
Active Member
It is interesting how the Jasper Freeway was never built, yet Fox Drive and Belgravia Road was.
David A
Senior Member
Compared to some cities, we actually don't have that many freeways and not many going downtown. Some major access roads like 97 St and Calgary Trail are very heavily used, but there are definitely not freeways.
One of the nice thing about the grid pattern in the central areas is if one road is congested, it is easier to detour or take another route. Unlike some places where you end up stuck on the freeway.
One of the nice thing about the grid pattern in the central areas is if one road is congested, it is easier to detour or take another route. Unlike some places where you end up stuck on the freeway.
BASE
Active Member
We certainly have historically been more freeway averse in Edmonton than many counterparts, which is a net positive in my mind as I think a major freeway circling downtown or too many in general isn't ideal either. I would like a more centralized North/South freeway of some sort but don't think we will see much in that regard. The grid system has indeed served us well and hopefully will continue to do so with the population growing rapidly.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
The only possible freeway conversion I can imagine would be 97 st, north of 118 ave, and I don't really see it adding too many benefits, since the highest demographic pressure comes from the Southside, nowadays. The only options I could potentially see for a central-ish southbound freeway conversion would be 111 st south of 63 ave or 75 street south of 101 ave, but as pointed out by others, these are unlikely.
Foolworm
Active Member
I was hoping with Exhibition lands that the City could make the rest of WGD free-flowing, but nope.
Fox Drive really should be a freeway along with Belgravia Road. It is what it is.
MuzikMachine
New Member
Bumping an older thread. In light of the built up Gateway Boulevard, I think the 91 St ROW is a missed opportunity for a free flow Hwy 2 into Edmonton to Whitemud Drive. The issue is with it ending at 63 Ave, it doesn't serve as much purpose further north, and obviously the Mill Creek extension is a non-starter.
Gronk!
Senior Member
JaayJR
New Member
Since the thread is brought up. I always felt deep down that METS would have been a great name for the now dead regional transit commission. Times have changed but they both were meant to serve the purpose of getting people around.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
We my two cents on all of this is. I think we are actually good regarding freeways in Edmonton. Yellowhead is finally getting fixed whish is good. Most other roads are very manageable. (Amazing how one month in a traffic crazy country like the Philippines changes ones perception on traffic.)
The only area that I say needs to be fixed is at the hairpin turn on Saskatchewan Drive at the end of Gateway Blvd.
As for 75th street, yeah I'd be ok with turning that into a freeway. But the is no reason to have to have a super wide empty space on either side of 75th. Again new perspective on roads due to driving in the Philippines. Trench down the 75th street a few feet if necessary, cut off the access points in the middle parts. Also build a couple nice and wide pedestrian bridges over 75st.
Or elevate the road to create an above grade bypass freeway, and the underneath create a linear park and only use the current local roads for the now reduced traffic flow in the area.
The only area that I say needs to be fixed is at the hairpin turn on Saskatchewan Drive at the end of Gateway Blvd.
As for 75th street, yeah I'd be ok with turning that into a freeway. But the is no reason to have to have a super wide empty space on either side of 75th. Again new perspective on roads due to driving in the Philippines. Trench down the 75th street a few feet if necessary, cut off the access points in the middle parts. Also build a couple nice and wide pedestrian bridges over 75st.
Or elevate the road to create an above grade bypass freeway, and the underneath create a linear park and only use the current local roads for the now reduced traffic flow in the area.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Why don't they just replace the hairpin with a traffic circle? Or does it make too much sense?
mcr
Active Member
I'd imagine the pretty immediate elevation drop down QE Park Road + existing developments directly adjacent to Sask Dr. on the other side would make that difficult, or an extremely tight traffic circle, which wouldn't be much better in the end.
Last edited:
itom987
Active Member
Traffic circles will not be able to handle rush hour traffic on that intersection and there is no space to make the circle.