Anthony Henday Drive - Page 20

vaportrail · #**381** Posted **May 29, 2009, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

Didn't the improvements to TCH 16 from AB 216 to AB 21 already happen? They did some paving, widening, re-signing, etc. a couple years ago... I suppose they could be running six lanes all the way out to AB 21, plus some of the merges around the AB 216 interchange could use a longer auxiliary lane.

There was an extra lane put in on 16 east bound from just west of 17 Street NE/Broadmoor Boulevard to Sherwood Drive. But that's nothing compared to the dramatic modifications the 216/16 interchange will bring.

Wrecker · #**382** Posted **May 29, 2009, 3:00 PM**

^Those were considered "minor" improvements that were part of the overlay. There could possibly be more improvements undertaken.

ExcaliburKid · #**383** Posted **May 29, 2009, 10:30 PM**

I really hope they figure something out other than lights at the crossings over Baseline from 216. That would actually make things worse imo. Even if they levelled the old approaches and just did a standard clover leaf, while expanding the bridge to handle 3 lanes of traffic per side, that would make a huge improvement.

0773|=\ · #**384** Posted **May 30, 2009, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExcaliburKid

I really hope they figure something out other than lights at the crossings over Baseline from 216. That would actually make things worse imo. Even if they levelled the old approaches and just did a standard clover leaf, while expanding the bridge to handle 3 lanes of traffic per side, that would make a huge improvement.

Will not do a cloverleaf unless there's a C/D lane configuration with exits. Those interchanges are going the way of the dinosaur these days... the weave zones they create are deemed unacceptable for a 100+km/hr design speed. An A4 Parclo interchange reversed from the current configuration would likely meet the demands of traffic that are experienced in that interchange better than the current set-up.

rapid_business · #**385** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 3:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

Will not do a cloverleaf unless there's a C/D lane configuration with exits. Those interchanges are going the way of the dinosaur these days... the weave zones they create are deemed unacceptable for a 100+km/hr design speed. An A4 Parclo interchange reversed from the current configuration would likely meet the demands of traffic that are experienced in that interchange better than the current set-up.

Wasn't sure what an A4 Parclo interchange was. Googled it and read some interesting articles....

Coldrsx · #**386** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 3:45 AM**

Had one of the roughest approaches on a CRJ today coming in from LAX... unreal winds from calgary north.

Had the please of seeing denver, vegas, and lax.... reminds me how far YEG has come.

rapid_business · #**387** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 3:59 AM**

/\ well look who is back and isn't dead....

0773|=\ · #**388** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 5:00 AM**

Yeah, I experienced the same wind today on the QE2. So funny, all day today in Banff there wasn't a breeze or cloud in the sky, and as soon as I reached Airdrie there were big storm clouds and howling wind... crazy how much Alberta weather can vary!

vaportrail · #**389** Posted **Jun 2, 2009, 4:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrecker

^Those were considered "minor" improvements that were part of the overlay. There could possibly be more improvements undertaken.

Ummmmmm ....

Okay, what "overlay?" And what possible improvements do you foresee prior to the NE 216 improvements?

Wrecker · #**390** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vaportrail

Ummmmmm ....

Okay, what "overlay?" And what possible improvements do you foresee prior to the NE 216 improvements?

This was work done circa 2007 or 2006

Wrecker · #**391** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 7:58 PM**

New plans for the NE are up on the website

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/3787.htm

Coldrsx · #**392** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrecker

New plans for the NE are up on the website

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/3787.htm

impressive and LONG overdue... interesting to see how they kept the LRT moving north in a certain direction...

Daveography · #**393** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 8:38 PM**

Wow, the one thing that strikes me about this is the ultimate plan for the Yellowhead/21 interchange. Definitely needs those flyovers, the cloverleaf has far and long ago outlived the capacity of this interchange.

Wrecker · #**394** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 8:55 PM**

If anyone wonders why its impratical to have a lot of full service interchanges on a freeway, just look at the ultimate plan for Hwy 16, and all of the seperations needed to accomodate the volumes of traffic.

0773|=\ · #**395** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrecker

If anyone wonders why its impratical to have a lot of full service interchanges on a freeway, just look at the ultimate plan for Hwy 16, and all of the seperations needed to accomodate the volumes of traffic.

Correct. At least the grade seperations are being done though. I can't wait for the day that the city wise-up and fix the weave zone between 170 and 159 street in a similar manner. Perhaps the province will offer to take over all freeways so the city can focus on LRT projects...

Wrecker · #**396** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 10:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

Correct. At least the grade seperations are being done though. I can't wait for the day that the city wise-up and fix the weave zone between 170 and 159 street in a similar manner. Perhaps the province will offer to take over all freeways so the city can focus on LRT projects...

The same problem exists around Gateway Blvd, and is a major factor holding down the speed.

Coldrsx · #**397** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 10:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

Correct. At least the grade seperations are being done though. I can't wait for the day that the city wise-up and fix the weave zone between 170 and 159 street in a similar manner. Perhaps the province will offer to take over all freeways so the city can focus on LRT projects...

one can dream... one can dream.

0773|=\ · #**398** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 10:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrecker

The same problem exists around Gateway Blvd, and is a major factor holding down the speed.

But Ellerslie doesn't have access to AHD. There aren't any dangerous weave zones along that route as is the case along Whitemud west of Terwilliger. In that sense, I think after the 23/19 Ave interchanges are built, that route could easily support a 100 km/hr limit as far north as 34th Ave. Won't happen though...

0773|=\ · #**399** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 10:37 PM**

I should also add, I really like these designs for the NE/E AHD. Particularly that there isn't so much re-grading that will have to be done between the initial and ultimate phases as is the case along the West AHD (Whitemud to Yellowhead section). The province is getting smarter...

The Sherwood Park Freeway interchange manages to work with very limited ROW, and a C/D cloverleaf solution for SB 216 is not the worst thing in the world, because completely divided from AHD thru-lanes. I'm looking forward to the monstrosity that will be the 216/16 interchange! Nothing like this to give our east city entrance a real "big-time" feel to it. As long as they redo the signage properly...

Daveography · #**400** Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 10:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

As long as they redo the signage properly...

Heh, reminds of me the AHD/Gateway interchange when it first opened but before proper signage was in place. My fiancee and I were driving back from Calgary, and we were in the centre lane when we came to the brand-new split, and nearly went into the V-shaped median before we figured out which way we had to go. At least in any other lane it would have forced us to go one way or the other rather than give us the third option of ramming into concrete.

The signs they have since put up help enormously.