New regional ring road 30 years away

**IanO** · 10-11-2006, 09:33 AM

New regional ring road 30 years away
Province pondering routes, and may soon protect land for future
Susan Ruttan, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Friday, November 10, 2006
EDMONTON - Long before Edmonton's first ring road is finished, the provincial government is already planning a second one.

The regional ring road is still in its early stages but a map of the proposed route has been circulated among the 21 municipalities in the Edmonton area.

Unlike an earlier version of the route, the latest one bypasses the town of Devon and goes north of Beaumont, instead of south of it.

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****The new alignment has raised concerns in both towns, although officials are saying little publicly.

"I'm not sure I want a ring road right on the boundaries of Beaumont," Beaumont Mayor Camille Berube said in an interview Thursday.

"Whatever the plans are going to be, we want to be at the table."

The earlier version had the south leg of the ring road on Highway 625, which runs south of Beaumont and right through the Nisku Industrial Park. A source said land around Nisku is now too expensive for the government to assemble for a major highway.

The latest route also goes around the Enoch Cree First Nation, rather than up Highway 60 through Devon and the reserve.

Chris Jardine, chief administrative officer for the town of Devon, said if the ring road were being built tomorrow the town would be upset that it no longer goes through Devon, because the ring road will draw traffic away from the town.

But the road won't be built for 25 or 30 years, Jardine said, and the whole Edmonton region will be much bigger and busier by then.

"So there's still going to be lots of traffic going through this area."

Bart Johnson, spokesman for Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation, said the ring road route has not been approved by government.

"These are conceptual ideas at this point, very early in the process," Johnson says.

"No plan has been endorsed."

He said the province is doing advance planning decades ahead of when the regional ring-road would come into use, just as a corridor of land for the Anthony Henday ring road was protected by the province about 35 years ago.

The Henday is a long way from being completed. The south section of the highway opened last month and other sections are being planned or built.

The northern leg of the highway, however, has not been funded by the provincial government.

An environmental group, the Legacy Lands Conservation Society, is holding a news conference today to raise concerns about the regional ring-road plan.

Any environmental concerns are completely premature, Johnson said.

[email protected]

© The Edmonton Journal 2006

**RichardS** · 10-11-2006, 09:39 AM

Devon needs to get its act together. They can't even decide on how they want access into their town, and they are looking at criticizing the ring road?

Plus, we already have a 2nd ring road. 39 to 21 to 37 in the north to 44/60. Note Highway 60 Devon, that's YOU. Why would we need to secure more land?

We are looking more and more like Houston every day.

**Medwards** · 10-11-2006, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by RichardS

Devon needs to get its act together. They can't even decide on how they want access into their town, and they are looking at criticizing the ring road?

Plus, we already have a 2nd ring road. 39 to 21 to 37 in the north to 44/60. Note Highway 60 Devon, that's YOU. Why would we need to secure more land?

We are looking more and more like Houston every day.

Doesnt highway 39 stop at QE2 and turn into a secondary highway?

Land that would need to be secured would be for upgrades to the highway.

This ring road will be needed eventually. Planning way in the future is a good idea. Can you imagine how expansive this city will be if it continues to growth at current rates? Or even at less then the current rates.

**IanO** · 10-11-2006, 11:49 AM

" Can you imagine how expansive this city will be if it continues to growth at current rates?"

no kidding....

**EdmTrekker** · 10-11-2006, 12:31 PM

Do you think the celver boys at Alberta Transportation had the smarts to protect lines for commuter rail traffic as well????? I doubt it.

**MylesC** · 10-11-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

Do you think the celver boys at Alberta Transportation had the smarts to protect lines for commuter rail traffic as well????? I doubt it.

Agreed. They should really be worrying about lines for regional LRT in the Edmonton area. We're not Calgary and have many regional nodes. That needs to be considered.

**Edmcowboy11** · 11-11-2006, 12:49 AM

Maybe the region has to sit down and start considering all the factors so that in 30 years when the stuff needs to get built we will have all aspects covered, ring road, commuter rail traffic. Also when doing these ring roads I think there should be a very good road system to link each ring to the next outer ring. One example of this is to properly finish quickly Terwillergar drive from Whitemud to Anthony Henday Drive, so it will be free flow with nice wide lanes. Same thing for the future, there should be a good road to link the new ring road to by then the old AHD.

**RichardS** · 11-11-2006, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by feepa

Doesnt highway 39 stop at QE2 and turn into a secondary highway?

Yes, but there is an easy ROW for that...

**Sonic Death Monkey** · 11-11-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by RichardS

Plus, we already have a 2nd ring road. 39 to 21 to 37 in the north to 44/60. Note Highway 60 Devon, that's YOU. Why would we need to secure more land?

Yep. All that needs to be done is to extend Hwy 19 to Beaumont and Hwy 21 (which is now secondary hwy 625), and then twin any two-lane sections of this highway bypass network.

Hwy 60 might be a challenge for twinning because of the Enoch reserve and the Acheson industrial park. If twinning those sections can't be done, then maybe Hwy 44 should be extended down to Hwy 60 to a point south of the reserve.

**RichardS** · 11-11-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

Hwy 60 might be a challenge for twinning because of the Enoch reserve and the Acheson industrial park. If twinning those sections can't be done, then maybe Hwy 44 should be extended down to Hwy 60 to a point south of the reserve.

Um....er....it already IS twinned?

The twinnig is from the Yellowhead all the way through to about 1/2 mile south of Highway 19's intersection.

You could use 19 as the southern freeway, and I have heard of yet ANOTHER possibility just north near the Rabbit Hill Road (the secondary name escapes me), but I really want 39 twinned - possibly all the way back to 16, as growing up on that highway was an exercise in survival skills. Too many deaths - especially at that speed curve on 39 near 622 and the route between Lindale and Drayton. There is enough industry there to warrant even securing the land (which I think is done for the most part), but getting the plans published would be nice.

**ChrisD** · 11-11-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by RichardS

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

Hwy 60 might be a challenge for twinning because of the Enoch reserve and the Acheson industrial park. If twinning those sections can't be done, then maybe Hwy 44 should be extended down to Hwy 60 to a point south of the reserve.

Um....er....it already IS twinned?

The twinnig is from the Yellowhead all the way through to about 1/2 mile south of Highway 19's intersection.

You could use 19 as the southern freeway, and I have heard of yet ANOTHER possibility just north near the Rabbit Hill Road (the secondary name escapes me), but I really want 39 twinned - possibly all the way back to 16, as growing up on that highway was an exercise in survival skills. Too many deaths - especially at that speed curve on 39 near 622 and the route between Lindale and Drayton. There is enough industry there to warrant even securing the land (which I think is done for the most part), but getting the plans published would be nice.

So you want to see plans eh....

**RichardS** · 11-11-2006, 01:49 PM

OH YES SIR!!

Coffee and doughnuts provided...or that rye so I can look at the plans while you are on the floor...flyweight...

**canucklehead** · 12-11-2006, 05:37 PM

Yeah, the city already sorta has an outer ring road in Hwy's 21, 60, 37 and 19/625. Upgrading them to 4 lands divided each way would be a great idea.

**Medwards** · 10-07-2014, 08:00 AM

Regional mayors push for second ring road
Proposal would promote sprawl, Iveson says

Elise Stolte
Edmonton Journal

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Some regional mayors hope to put Alberta Transportation's second outer ring road back on the table Thursday, but face stiff opposition from Edmonton.

The proposed highway would circle Edmonton about eight kilometres outside the Anthony Henday.

Proponents argue it should be discussed and land set aside today to facilitate movement in the region 50 years from now. Critics say ring roads encourage low density suburban growth in all directions and the money is better spent upgrading current highways and expanding light rail transit. A neutrally worded motion up for vote Thursday morning at the Capital Region Board won't settle the debate, but it could reopen it. The land-use committee is asking mayors for permission to restart talks with the province on the regional highway network...

http://www2.canada.com/components/pr...79469&sponsor=
__________________

**Kitlope** · 10-07-2014, 08:15 AM

They'll set aside the land but until development actually occurs not one foot of a second ring road will be laid.

**thatguy** · 10-07-2014, 08:33 AM

what a terrible idea! there's enough sprawl in the region already. building more roads does not ease congestion. has anyone travelled on the henday during rush hour!!!??? it's amazing the small town, 1950's attitude that still prevails. and btw, don't these conservative types realize that sprawl=more taxes that have to be paid to maintain it.

**Chmilz** · 10-07-2014, 08:36 AM

Where's our inner-ring road and fully built out LRT? Seems like the province should help finish ancient projects before dreaming up new ones.

**ScottieA** · 10-07-2014, 08:51 AM

Regional mayors push for second ring road
Proposal would promote sprawl, Iveson says

Elise Stolte
Edmonton Journal

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Some regional mayors hope to put Alberta Transportation's second outer ring road back on the table Thursday, but face stiff opposition from Edmonton.

The proposed highway would circle Edmonton about eight kilometres outside the Anthony Henday.

Proponents argue it should be discussed and land set aside today to facilitate movement in the region 50 years from now. Critics say ring roads encourage low density suburban growth in all directions and the money is better spent upgrading current highways and expanding light rail transit. A neutrally worded motion up for vote Thursday morning at the Capital Region Board won't settle the debate, but it could reopen it. The land-use committee is asking mayors for permission to restart talks with the province on the regional highway network...

© Edmonton Journal 2014

Copyright © 2014 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/pr...79469&sponsor=

**ScottieA** · 10-07-2014, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Chmilz

Where's our inner-ring road and fully built out LRT? Seems like the province should help finish ancient projects before dreaming up new ones.

It's the regional mayors pushing for this, not the Province.

**ScottieA** · 10-07-2014, 08:53 AM

A second outer ring road is ridiculous and unnecessary. Such a plan would help facilitate sprawl as it would primarily service the surrounding counties, not Edmonton. And its been see that the counties don't promote smart growth with their residential developments:

But county governments don’t build high density neighbourhoods. Instead, they build country residential, low density acreages. That’s what Leduc County is now doing near Beaumont with its East Vistas development. Sturgeon and Parkland County have done the same, hemming in Edmonton to the north and west.

In comparison, Edmonton builds high-density suburban neighbourhoods. Edmonton’s new south side neighbourhoods, Rutherford, Callaghan and Allard, are on the same size of land (eight quarter sections) as the East Vistas development, says Alice Leung of city communications. But when fully built out, the Edmonton neighbourhoods will have 27,450 people, while East Vistas is expected to have no more than 7,593.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Stapl...683/story.html

**ctzn-Ed** · 10-07-2014, 08:56 AM

I do agree land should be set aside for the future, but Iveson is correct in regards to concentrating on LRT etc. at this stage. Im certainly not promoting sprawl, but that will be inevitable as population will grow. Infill and smart growth can only do so much. Reserve the land now, and in the future, if it is not needed, it can be return to responsible developement. Remember, our region won't be at 1.3 million in the future, so we still have to factor for growth organically.

**Spill** · 10-07-2014, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Chmilz

Where's our inner-ring road and fully built out LRT? Seems like the province should help finish ancient projects before dreaming up new ones.

Is the benefit of the province's forty-some-year-old foresight in establishing the current TUCs not obvious? Perhaps it's difficult to imagine the financial, logistic, sociological and political expense - if not near impossibility - of trying to create the current ring road without prior row establishment. I suggest such planning for the future is in no way an inherent instigator of sprawl. Rather, the mitigation of sprawl requires intensive planning, incentives and enforced regulation *without* using the lack of a second ring-road row as a cornerstone/threat.

**sundance** · 10-07-2014, 09:20 AM

This thread should be merged with

Regional Mayors Pushing for Outer Ring Road
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=35805

or

New regional ring road 30 years away
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=1109

**sundance** · 10-07-2014, 09:20 AM

This thread should be merged with

Regional mayors push for second ring road
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=35804
or

New regional ring road 30 years away
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=1109

**kcantor** · 10-07-2014, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by ScottieA

Originally Posted by Chmilz

Where's our inner-ring road and fully built out LRT? Seems like the province should help finish ancient projects before dreaming up new ones.

It's the regional mayors pushing for this, not the Province.

Originally Posted by ScottieA

A second outer ring road is ridiculous and unnecessary. Such a plan would help facilitate sprawl as it would primarily service the surrounding counties, not Edmonton. And its been see that the counties don't promote smart growth with their residential developments:

these are exactly the same kind of comments that were prevalent when the current tuc corridor was secured by the province.

would you like to expand on your vision of what the city/region would look like and function like today without it?

would you like to expand on your vision of what the city/region would look like and function like in thirty years without it and with a population of more than 2 million?

would you like to expand on your vision of what the city/region would look like and function like thirty years after that and with a population of more than 3 million?

these things aren't just commuter roads for outlying communities, they are major transporation and utility corridors moving everything from semi-trailers to pipe line to major storm and sanitary sewer trunk lines not just to the centre but bypassing the centre (and making the centre more efficient and less congested as a result).

if in fact you want a denser and less far flung overall municipal infrastructure and built form, you still need to be able to make it work and function on a regional/provincial basis. not providing for the future development of appropriate infrastructure that will support that density is not how to build a liveable region. that makes as much sense as not building new sewage treatment plants in hopes that people will share their toilets.

the way to address planning concerns surrounding density is to provide the appropriate infrastructure and incentives and zoning, not eliminate key pieces of regional/provincial infrastructure.

if you want to achieve better planning across the entire region you won't get that by strangling the city (and not completing our "inner ring road" was a city of Edmonton decision - as with too many of our decisions reached by the default action of simply not doing things early enough to ever get them done).

**Sonic Death Monkey** · 10-07-2014, 10:45 AM

The more ring roads we build, the more Edmonton is going to look like the planet Saturn from above!

**IanO** · 10-07-2014, 10:46 AM

^
Protect a corridor, focus on what's within the current AHD and get a citywide LRT completed, while upgrading/improving some of the existing roadways within the region.

Obviously we need to ensure efficient transport of good and services within the region, but a 2nd ring road vis a vis other priorities is a no brainer at this stage.

**kcantor** · 10-07-2014, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by IanO

^
Protect a corridor, focus on what's within the current AHD and get a citywide LRT completed, while upgrading/improving some of the existing roadways within the region.

Obviously we need to ensure efficient transport of good and services within the region, but a 2nd ring road vis a vis other priorities is a no brainer at this stage.

"at this stage" is the key phrase here IanO.

you don't build a city - at least a city as good as it could be - in 3 or 4 year election cycles or even in 5 year neighborhood development cycles.

you build a city by planning for things that will be much different than they are at this stage and if we don't do that all we set up is failure whether that's a "new" outer ring road or regional planning or rossdale or blatchford.

**IanO** · 10-07-2014, 10:57 AM

(http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...?size=620x400s)

**IanO** · 10-07-2014, 11:00 AM

^^I recognize that Ken and prudent corridor protection something to work on, but not to the point where current infrastructure projects are further delayed or underfunded.

**noodle** · 10-07-2014, 11:19 AM

We have already approved the 30 years of build out that's to house our next big chunk of new Edmontonians & the sprawl that's associated with them is now a given. This is prudent planning by the administration to mitigate the possible outcomes of choices already made.

**kcantor** · 10-07-2014, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by IanO

^^I recognize that Ken and prudent corridor protection something to work on, but not to the point where current infrastructure projects are further delayed or underfunded.

i'm glad you now recognize that IanO but even "prudent corridor protection" was not part of your or ScottieA's initial "ridiculous and unnecessary" reactions to the concept both here and elsewhere.

**RichardS** · 10-07-2014, 04:56 PM

Exactly!

The TUC that is now the Henday was heralded as a bright, smart, and progressive move by some of the very detractors of this new 50+ year in the future ROW at this moment!

A lot of the infrastructure being put in place was planned out when many of you here were either in diapers or not even a gleam in daddy's eye. It wasn't planned in great, point by point detail, but the concepts were designed, put forth, ROW's secured, and overall concepts put into action that some 40+ years later just started to see traction. ...and urban sprawl/suburbia was a concern then too...look up the words Ticky Tacky and the requisite song that goes with it...1962

Some here would even say secure a ROW for High Speed Rail! Yet...this long term ROW is a bad thing?

kcantor said it. Density and the like is more a result of the planning, and in the end the product offered.

Let's just call this opposition what it really is...a fear by Edmonton that it will lose out on economic opportunity as someone may not actually want to build within the borders. So, figure out how to make yourself attractive as a place to do business then...not complain when others start doing the same...

**Himser** · 10-07-2014, 07:01 PM

A large problem with the AHD ring road is its access. it has great access within the city.... But from many of the highways surrounding it is TERRIBLE!. look at Highways 628 and 627. (from what i heard Stony Plain, Spruce Grove and Parkland County have offered to help upgrade the very badly maintained west part of white mud drive. to highway 60 and the CoE said no.) Until people everywhere have access to AHD people will support a second ringroad. (not to mention with by 2040 Edmonton Region having 2.1 million people. and transit not nearly efficient enough to provide for that many people. we are going to need one.

whether it the official proposed route a few miles out of the city or Ed Gibbons route. (weirdly with that jot to Carvel [even tho i approve as it would help me in my business]) something is going to be needed in the future... and the future is not a whole long time away. we will need this road by 2050 at a minimum. (along with real transit ect)

**Sonic Death Monkey** · 10-07-2014, 08:35 PM

In about 50 - 75 years they'll be wanting another ring road that passes near Ponoka, Entwistle, Westlock and Vegreville.

**Medwards** · 10-07-2014, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

In about 50 - 75 years they'll be wanting another ring road that passes near Ponoka, Entwistle, Westlock and Vegreville.

and 100 years after that Edmonton will have a ring road of LloydMinster, Cold Lake, Bon Accord, Slave Lake, Edson, Rocky Mountain house and Red Deer.

**RichardS** · 10-07-2014, 09:09 PM

Hyperbole aside...

You already have an outer outer ring road....if you connected the approximate alignments

Garden Valley Road/Township 490

Highway 770/43

Highway 834 and adjacent alignments

Highway 45/642

There is also 627, 779, 830....

What you just proposed is a nevergonnahappenbutIappreciatethehyperbole.com piece. Veg will grow long before that happens. Entwhistle is how far away and you forget to include Dreadful Valley? Westlock...nope. You don't even give poor ol Wabblybum a chance!

**The_Cat** · 10-07-2014, 11:10 PM

I think the Henday will take a lot of truck traffic around Edmonton. Perhaps look at upgrading Highways like 19 east and west of Nisku, and extending Highway 2A past the airport into Edmonton. Highway 21 and 60 are twinned, in locations close to the city.

**Chmilz** · 11-07-2014, 07:18 AM

Should they assemble the land? Sure, that makes sense.

However, it was asked of me what the situation would be like if the province had not prepared for the Henday with the TUC. Well, I say maybe we'd have better routes within Edmonton. Without the Henday it's very difficult and time consuming to go north/south within the city during peak times (or any time if freight trains are being stupid). I live within in Griesbach, and it takes less time for me to drive north on 127St and completely around the city (over 50km) to get to Millwoods Road South, than it does for me to drive through the city (28km). Nothing about that is good for the city, the environment, or me. Better movement within the city needs to be a priority. In the scope of just movement of goods, this cannot be any more true - the amount of commercial traffic that originates and terminates within Edmonton is significantly higher than any that originates within and terminates elsewhere, or vice versa.

IMHO, the Henday was a solution looking for a problem (at least as far as the road portion goes), whereas doing the hard work and completing our inner-city routes is problem very much in need of a solution.

On that note, I need to get just south of Argyll in rush hour and it'll take 45 minutes - there's no Henday there so I have to go through town. Off I go!

**Bray88** · 11-07-2014, 07:50 AM

Why build a 2nd ring road when you have glaring problems with existing infrastructure like the current state of the Yellowhead... Having traffic lights on a freeway is the most boneheaded idea ever..

**Kitlope** · 11-07-2014, 08:34 AM

Because contrary to what the city wants you to believe, the Yellowhead isn't a freeway.

**ctzn-Ed** · 11-07-2014, 08:46 AM

The city never claimed it was a freeway but have always desired it as part of the inner ringroad.

As well, isn't it a provincial highway?

**McBoo** · 11-07-2014, 09:24 AM

That's an interesting and contentious point there ctzn

It's sort of Highway16, but not Highway 16.

Unlike Calgary, where the city built part of the Deerfoot, then the province generously built the rest of it and continues to maintain the entire Deerfoot ...

Yellowhead is entirely a CoE road, and yes, not a freeway.

All that said, there's a story about - I have no idea if it's true - that once upon a time the province did offer to build a freeway connecting Highway 16 through the city and ....

The city turned them down.

Like I say, not sure if it's true or not, but I've heard it said.

**edmonton daily photo** · 11-07-2014, 10:10 AM

no I don't believe the province maintains the deer foot to this day... regardless.

Much larger centers get away without a another ring road 8 km from the last. the province is planing like it's 1950 and is not supporting the planning documents we have filed with them.

**B.ike** · 11-07-2014, 11:29 AM

^^ Deerfoot Trail is maintained and operated by Alberta Transportation. It will be until a bypass for Highway 2 around Calgary is created - if that ever happens.

It says so here as well.

I've heard the story that AT offered the city to upgrade YHT to a freeway as well back in the 70s I believe. It was a large sum of cash that the city decided to divert to transit instead. I have no backing for the 2nd half of that statement other than from word of mouth from the old guards at AT.

This document does show planning was a joint venture between AT and CoE back in late 70s and early 80s

I know this stuff should go on the YHT thread, but I feel like the pattern here is similar to what is happening with the 2nd ring road. The city is trying to get away from freeways and hoping to use the money elsewhere. But while freeways have their negative effects, there are a time and place for them if they're planned properly. To simply say we don't need a regional ring road is short sighted. The current plan and its proximity to the current AHD should be revised, but not the entire idea.

**sundance** · 18-07-2014, 10:27 AM

I've said before portions are needed today. Highway 60, Yellowhead, 16A and Anthony Henday in the west are at capacity for good portions of the day.

Highway 60 in Acheson isn't 4 lanes all the way there is about a 1 mile 2 lane portion that backs things up, plus you have a level crossing with the CN line which is frequently blocked because of trains.

Fort Saskatchewan needs to be bypassed around the south and to the east because of traffic plus to remove dangerous goods from traveling right through the town. While Anthony Henday NE will take some traffic away from this section but it is quite far away from the Highway 15 bridge so its effects will be minimal.

Nisku needs more access too QE2 during the rush hours is at or over capacity, there needs to be more routes in and out of it.

So already there are 3 portions that are needed today not 30 years down the road.

The province needs to be purchasing ROW for roads, LRT, commuter rail and HST for the future today not 10 years in the future.

PS: Parkland County messed up royally on Acheson, area 3 has essentially 1 exit point if you want to go east.

**53latitude** · 09-10-2014, 01:34 PM

I know companies in Nisku that are adjusting their hours so their employees can actually get out of Nisku before 4:15. The roads there are out of control, and it is starting to effect the entrance to the Airport in the morning rush. Airport road is not becoming an alternate route, via looping through the airport property and coming back around into Nisku.

**Perspective** · 09-10-2014, 01:57 PM

Leduc county does a sub-standard job on the roads both in and around Nisku. Nothing is accommodating to all the volume, and highway 19 should have been twinned 10 years ago. They should be working on another road north from Nisku to Edmonton as an alternative to hi2

**Gemini** · 09-10-2014, 02:04 PM

Yeah, but the roads around Nisku must take one heck of a pounding considering all the big equipment that's hauled in and out of there. Fixing roads around there would be a day to day activity.

**Himser** · 09-10-2014, 03:53 PM

Both primary and secondary highways are owned, maintained and operated by the province. Highway 19 should be twinned... I swear the transportation guys models don't work with industrial transportation.

**Sonic Death Monkey** · 09-10-2014, 04:43 PM

Hwy 19 should be twinned and extended to Hwy 21

**EightBitRanger** · 24-11-2014, 09:30 PM

Forget ring roads. We should be curtailing sprawl, not encouraging it. Just because we have the space doesn't mean we should be trying to gobble it up. Lets stop building out and start building up.

**Edmcowboy11** · 25-11-2014, 11:51 PM

Well the biggest problem we have in this region is that even if Edmonton puts a stop to sprawl developers will be very willing to go talk to Sherwood Park, St. Albert, Leduc, Beaumont, Stony Plain and other surrounding communities to convince those places to let them come in and build. The only reason that Leduc hasn't pushed further north towards Edmonton is because the airport and Nisku are in the way, but they are slowly push south now, same thing for Sherwood Park, they can't push further west because refinery row is in the way, but that just let's them push further east and south. In order for urban sprawl to be stopped the capital region all have to be on the same page and all be willing to say no more land, if you want to build, build up.

**Drumbones** · 26-11-2014, 01:41 AM

Haha ya right. Sherwood Park 70,000, St. Albert 65,000, Spruce Grove 30,000, Leduc 30,000, Ft. Sask. 25,000, Stony Plain 20,000, Beaumont 16,000, Morinville-Cardiff 12,000, Devon 7000 and so many developments in the counties going ahead like Sturgeon Valley and dozens more. Industrial areas being built everywhere. Don't kid yourself, if you live long enough you and the rest of us will see it all joined together. There's no stopping it. It's just inevitable so we should plan our infrastructure accordingly and try to keep ahead of it and I feel the province should be assembling the land for this key roadway. A lot of it would be on existing right of way like hwys 21, 37, 44, etc but I hope they are starting land negotiations. It would be the wise thing to do. Time flies, it's already been over 8 years sine this thread was started.

**Kitlope** · 26-11-2014, 03:19 AM

Don't fret Drum, it will eventually happen.

Nobody, other than Portland, has stopped sprawl.

**kcantor** · 26-11-2014, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Kitlope

Don't fret Drum, it will eventually happen.

Nobody, other than Portland, has stopped sprawl.

no they didn't... not even close.

**Drumbones** · 26-11-2014, 07:10 AM

Central Portland only stops because of hills and the Columbia but the metro area goes on and on beyond. Vancouver WA you don't count? How about Beaverton and way out past the Hillsboro airport almost all the way to the coast and way east of town to troutville and south along I5. One of my exes is from Newberg and her sons live in McMinnville . I'm familiar with the area so you can't fool me Kit. Better check your GoogleEarth. 2.5 mil metro pop now.

**Marcel Petrin** · 26-11-2014, 08:38 AM

Portland municipal population: 610,000
Portland metro population: 2,315,000

Hmmm.

**Drumbones** · 26-11-2014, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

Portland municipal population: 610,000
Portland metro population: 2,315,000

Hmmm.

I see I was editing while you were posting. lol. I added the population. The 2,315,000 metro is from the 2010 census 4.5 years ago so I rounded to 2.5 which it's likely at by now.

**Kitlope** · 26-11-2014, 09:06 AM

My bad guys, everything I read over the last 15 years was that Portland fought sprawl and didn't have much. Looks like it was all just typical feel good, bullshite PR.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i..._reputati.html

**moahunter** · 26-11-2014, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Kitlope

Don't fret Drum, it will eventually happen.

Nobody, other than Portland, has stopped sprawl.

Its not about stopping sprawl altogether, its about:

1. Ensuring the long term costs of sprawl are borne by those who choose it (i.e. bedroom communities not the main city, let them pay the higher taxes for all that snow removal, new fire stations, etc.)
2. Planning where development will work best for the city longer term (e.g. Calgary now prioritizing affordable areas of the NE ahead of other areas, so that sprawl really is "affordable" stuff)
3. Spending infrastructure on existing neighborhoods with a view to filling the many gaps within the city already / improving infill. There is a ton of room for example, for COE to go "up" in downtown, quarters, muni lands, and perhaps even the university lands, and plenty of room for infill on post war sideways bungalows - skinny homes / semi-detached, and similar.
4. Recycling existing neighborhoods - both inner city and mature suburbs, so that their schools are re-used / they become attractive for new families after their residents kids move on.

Either that, or just choose to be a suburban city, much like US cities like Atlanta - the downtown will suck relative to other Canadian cities who have chosen to plan their development (even with a new Arena), but the new suburbs will be nice (old ones will suck, but they can be the future "affordable" slums).

**Medwards** · 26-11-2014, 01:21 PM

1) Unfortunately, what sprawls outside our borders doesn't happen in a vacuum. We are all in this together, and in the end, we all pay directly or indirectly. Sprawl in our borders or just outside doesn't matter. Edmonton taxpayers pays the cost, and so do Alberta taxpayers, a double hit to me.
2) We already do this.
3) pretty sure the city is already focused on doing this.
4) Except if its a neighbourhood like Glenora....

**moahunter** · 26-11-2014, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Medwards

4) Except if its a neighbourhood like Glenora....

Its an example of one of the few COE neighbourhoods that has recycled, its school is packed, and new homes are replacing the old / being filled with kids. IMO it would be good for COE if you saw that in places places like Castledowns, or the inner South East like Bonnie Doon (LRT might help there). Rather than build new neighbourhoods for children with new schools, why not put more effort into encouraging more families to buy into existing neighborhoods?

**kcantor** · 26-11-2014, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by moahunter

Originally Posted by Medwards

4) Except if its a neighbourhood like Glenora....

Its an example of one of the few COE neighbourhoods that has recycled, its school is packed, and new homes are replacing the old / being filled with kids. IMO it would be good for COE if you saw that in places places like Castledowns, or the inner South East like Bonnie Doon (LRT might help there). Rather than build new neighbourhoods for children with new schools, why not put more effort into encouraging more families to buy into existing neighborhoods?

encourage more families to buy into existing neighborhoods????

how many vacant homes do you think there are in all of our existing neighborhoods combined?

and those new subdivisions? most of them have densities up to twice what you hog in yours. and many of the people living in them work in employment nodes much closer to many of those new neighborhoods than yours. in the planning world that's called sustainable.

but go ahead. keep on insisting that "calgary is doing it better" by forcing development to stay in flood plains or move to airdre and okotoks. because that's really sustainable.

**kcantor** · 26-11-2014, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by moahunter

Originally Posted by Medwards

4) Except if its a neighbourhood like Glenora....

Its an example of one of the few COE neighbourhoods that has recycled, its school is packed, and new homes are replacing the old / being filled with kids. IMO it would be good for COE if you saw that in places places like Castledowns, or the inner South East like Bonnie Doon (LRT might help there). Rather than build new neighbourhoods for children with new schools, why not put more effort into encouraging more families to buy into existing neighborhoods?

emphasis added...

which school is packed???

the provincial utilization rating for glenora elementary is 63%.

it's provincially adjusted school ratings give it a provincial acu school capacity of 277 and an acol school capacity of 200.

it had 180 students enrolled in 2013 which was a 9% decline over the previous 4 years.

what's interesting is that there were 280 epsb students living in the glenora attendance area but only 140 of them attend school in glenora.

**moahunter** · 26-11-2014, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by kcantor

but go ahead. keep on insisting that "calgary is doing it better" by forcing development to stay in flood plains or move to airdre and okotoks. because that's really sustainable.

Calgary flood zone population has declined. The City under Nenshi has made a conscious choice though to change its development pattern, to be more akin to Toronto and Vancouver. It's population continues to grow, even though the bedrooms grow, infill is rampant in neighbourhoods like Altadore, Richmond, Summerside, with fourplexs, semi detached and skinny homes replacing single family home lots. That hasn't happened by magic, it's a concious plan to prioritize certain suburbs, and encourage infill, not perfect, but the results are starting to show:

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/10...course-report/

As that article notes, Edmonton is falling out of step by keeping the status quo. That's fine, I'm not saying it's wrong, it's expensive for residents though, and it means despite some encouraging high rise condo projects there won't be any high rise condo boom like Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver anytime soon, you don't get significant up in the core of residential or infill in mature unless there are some limits to greenfield out.

**XTendEdmonton** · 27-11-2014, 12:46 PM

^ uhh.... Calgary is one of the worst examples of Urban Sprawl in the country...

**Medwards** · 27-11-2014, 12:51 PM

Same with Vancouver and Toronto. Yes, even Vancouver sprawls far up the flats of the Fraser river valley.

**moahunter** · 27-11-2014, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by XTendEdmonton

^ uhh.... Calgary is one of the worst examples of Urban Sprawl in the country...

Agreed, which is why they are changing, these changes are leading to a high rise condo boom like Vancouver and Toronto, and its why UDI is furious there (bold added):

The shift in Calgary’s approach mirrors changes that took place in Vancouver in the late 1960s and in Toronto in the 1980s, according to the report, titled “Alberta Cities at the Crossroads” and published Thursday by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

Author Zack Taylor describes Calgary’s new regime as one of “sustainability-oriented intensification” that puts an emphasis on infill development, mass transit, and higher-density housing.

That’s a departure from the “efficiency-oriented expansion regime” of decades past, in which the city annexed land, serviced it, and encouraged developers to build single-family homes in suburban communities.

“This has been an incredibly efficient way of accommodating population growth for decades,” Taylor said in an interview, adding that the approach begins to lose its effectiveness as cities grow past a certain size and start experiencing congestion problems and mounting infrastructure costs.

Calgary has only “very recently” moved in a new direction, Taylor writes, as “city council has embraced intensification … over the objections of developers and rural municipalities.”

But, he added, the status quo is “deeply entrenched,” as suburban developers remain resistant to changing their already profitable business models and surrounding municipalities see little incentive to cooperate with the city’s growth plans.

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/10...course-report/

Edmonton, by contrast, remains the “outlier” of the four cities in the report.

“Edmonton has maintained a consistent urban development policy regime throughout the postwar period,” Taylor writes. “Growth is expected to occur primarily through fully serviced suburban expansion.”

Its not about stopping sprawl, its about the option of passing the cost of that sprawl onto people who choose that, which in turn, makes infill and condo towers realtivley more price attractive. COE's leaders can choose to read Iveson's old blogs and act / lead in that direction / the direction Nenshi is taking Calgary in, or they can choose to tinker with the status quo and do what UDI wants them to do i.e. continuation of 1950's efficiency-oriented expansion policies that resulted in the hole in the downtown, but did lead to terrific economic growth throughout the rest of the city.

**SP59** · 27-11-2014, 01:42 PM

How did 1950's efficiency oriented expansion result in the hole in the downtown?

Just keep driving up prices to try and make something else appear more affordable. Let's put sprinklers in everything while were at it.

Sounds like the Edmonton region is doing things right by having several different municipalities that have to take care of their own costs of the sprawl.

**Drumbones** · 28-11-2014, 04:46 PM

And seem to be doing ok at it. If Edmonton locks up their limits, the neighbours will really be growing.

**moahunter** · 25-05-2015, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Drumbones

And seem to be doing ok at it. If Edmonton locks up their limits, the neighbours will really be growing.

Which is why now, with the NDP, a regional greenbelt can be put in place like Ontario did, so the neighbours don't. Everyone stops destroying farnland / starts building inwards and upwards.