AB Highway Construction

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by s211

I seem to recall that this thread had to do with construction, not fantasies. Just as the Vancouver sub-forum has a transit fantasies thread, perhaps an AB road fantasy thread might assist?

I'm not sure what parameters constitute fantasy vs construction, but for what it's worth Alberta Transportation has ROWs set aside for the all bypasses that were previously mentioned, internally designated as Hwy __X (e.g. Strathmore bypass is Hwy 1X). The alignments have been determined but are currently unfunded, so it's beyond fantasy.

Some other boards use the qualifier of government study or active construction vs. user proposals for determining whether it's belongs in a fantasy/fictional forum or not. Not sure how this thread should be treated.

[Dengler Avenue]

Earlier in the thread, someone suggested renumbering.
So I just noticed that there’s no AB-89 yet. One might actually be able to make a case to renumber AB-2 south of Fort McLeod as AB-89 as a continuation of U.S.-89, and AB-4 as AB-2. Meanwhile AB-2 will be concurrent with Crowsnest Highway.
That might actually work. Now I wonder whether the non-existence of AB-89 is coincidental or intentional.

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Earlier in the thread, someone suggested renumbering.
So I just noticed that there’s no AB-89 yet. One might actually be able to make a case to renumber AB-2 south of Fort McLeod as AB-89 as a continuation of U.S.-89, and AB-4 as AB-2. Meanwhile AB-2 will be concurrent with Crowsnest Highway.
That might actually work. Now I wonder whether the non-existence of AB-89 is coincidental or intentional.

I think at this point, the availability of AB-89 is coincidental as most numbers are lower. AB-88 used to be AB-67, but was renumbered in 1988 and designed as the Bicentennial Hwy in honour of Fort Vermillion's bicentennial. Then there's AB-93...

I couple years back I emailed Alberta Transportation with that same idea. I was told that it was considered in 1990s when the North-South Trade Corridor was established (resulting AB 4/2/43 being upgraded) but was decided against because they have a policy against concurrencies and the impact on local residents in changing highway numbers. I can appreciate the impacts on local residents, but that hasn't prevented other renumbering projects in the past and would further solidify the N-S Corridor in Southern Alberta. As for concurrencies, I can appreciate wanting to avoid overkill on concurrencies, like what you might see in other jurisdictions, especially in the U.S. (US 87/US 89/MT 3/MT 200 east of Great Falls, MT comes to mind), but policies can also evolve over time as needs change. It's ~55 km from Hwy 2 north in Fort Macleod to 43 St/Hwy 4 South in Lethbridge, which doesn't seem like an overly long or redundant concurrency. The fact that a sign like this in Lethbridge is needed, https://maps.app.goo.gl/fUhQWkakqWS151RB8, and that the North-South Trade Corridor seems to supercede highway numbers might prove the benefits. One additional drawback is all the exit numbers on AB-2 would have to be renumbered to reflect its new southern terminus.

[foolworm]

If anything, Alberta shouldn't be renumbering highways to suit the US. Alberta is not a US state, and Highway 2 is arguably a more important road than US-89.

If a common identifier is needed for an international corridor (CANAMEX), then a custom logo/shield can be developed to mark designated routes.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by foolworm

If anything, Alberta shouldn't be renumbering highways to suit the US. Alberta is not a US state, and Highway 2 is arguably a more important road than US-89.

If a common identifier is needed for an international corridor (CANAMEX), then a custom logo/shield can be developed to mark designated routes.

I guess it can be up to the provinces. B.C.-395, B.C.-97, B.C.-95, and B.C.-93 all continue from the respective U.S. routes. I may even count B.C.-99 as well if former U.S. routes count too.
The same goes for MB-83, maybe MB-75 as well, and MB-59 and even for ON-71, and maybe ON-61 if we count the former U.S. routes.

But a CANAMEX shield may do wonders since apparently AB-43 is also involved?? It's starting to feel like TCH in Ontario.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I guess it can be up to the provinces. B.C.-395, B.C.-97, B.C.-95, and B.C.-93 all continue from the respective U.S. routes. I may even count B.C.-99 as well if former U.S. routes count too.
The same goes for MB-83, maybe MB-75 as well, and MB-59 and even for ON-71, and maybe ON-61 if we count the former U.S. routes.

But a CANAMEX shield may do wonders since apparently AB-43 is also involved?? It's starting to feel like TCH in Ontario.

Keeping legacy routes is fine, people are used to the numbers and changing signs takes money and time. But deliberately renumbering a main highway at this time (even a lightly used portion) just to follow US conventions at would raise a few eyebrows, given the current Albertan Premier and some of her views.

Come to think of it, if the ring road numbering conventions are followed then the Lethbridge bypass would be Highway 304, while the Medicine Hat bypass would be 301?

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by foolworm

If anything, Alberta shouldn't be renumbering highways to suit the US. Alberta is not a US state, and Highway 2 is arguably a more important road than US-89.

If a common identifier is needed for an international corridor (CANAMEX), then a custom logo/shield can be developed to mark designated routes.

The purpose is less about conforming to a U.S. highway and more about having Highway 2 go through Lethbridge and link to Alberta's most important border crossing at Coutts. Hwy 2 south of Fort Macleod is less important than the section to the north, as it isn't even part of the Canadian National Highway System. The number 89 seems like a reasonable alternative, though switching Hwy 2 & 4 designations south of Hwy 3 (probably more confusing) or picking a completely different number could be options as well. We're not wanting to renumber the QE2 to match I-15.

I also think Hwy 2 should follow current Hwy 43 to the BC border, where it continues as BC 2 (the section west of Grande Prairie used to be AB 2); however, that would be a lot harder of a sell.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by dmuzika

The purpose is less about conforming to a U.S. highway and more about having Highway 2 go through Lethbridge and link to Alberta's most important border crossing at Coutts. Hwy 2 south of Fort Macleod is less important than the section to the north, as it isn't even part of the Canadian National Highway System. The number 89 seems like a reasonable alternative, though switching Hwy 2 & 4 designations south of Hwy 3 (probably more confusing) or picking a completely different number could be options as well. We're not wanting to renumber the QE2 to match I-15.

I also think Hwy 2 should follow current Hwy 43 to the BC border, where it continues as BC 2 (the section west of Grande Prairie used to be AB 2); however, that would be a lot harder of a sell.

Well, my concerns are more on optics, like I mentioned in my previous post. Given some of the stunts the UCP has pulled (i.e. the Alberta Sovereignty Act), I think re-signing Highway 2 to match US-89 would come across as provocative.

Quite honestly I think Highway 2 should swap with Highway 35 past Peace River, so that it becomes the sole route bisecting the Province North-South and connecting to the Northwest Territories.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Well, my concerns are more on optics, like I mentioned in my previous post. Given some of the stunts the UCP has pulled (i.e. the Alberta Sovereignty Act), I think re-signing Highway 2 to match US-89 would come across as provocative.

Quite honestly I think Highway 2 should swap with Highway 35 past Peace River, so that it becomes the sole route bisecting the Province North-South and connecting to the Northwest Territories.

Might be better to do that to 88 since that is the preferred route north to NWT.

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Well, my concerns are more on optics, like I mentioned in my previous post. Given some of the stunts the UCP has pulled (i.e. the Alberta Sovereignty Act), I think re-signing Highway 2 to match US-89 would come across as provocative.

Quite honestly I think Highway 2 should swap with Highway 35 past Peace River, so that it becomes the sole route bisecting the Province North-South and connecting to the Northwest Territories.

Possibly, though I think it might be a bit of a stretch. Not start a political discussion, but I don't see Danielle Smith trying to pander to Joe Biden.

[foolworm]

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/leduc-to...city-1.6737785

I expect Alberta Transportation will tell them to pound sand on this. Maybe it's about time the Leduc section of QE2 got a third lane as well.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by foolworm

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/leduc-to...city-1.6737785

I expect Alberta Transportation will tell them to pound sand on this. Maybe it's about time the Leduc section of QE2 got a third lane as well.

I’ve always had a feeling that municipalities and provincial transportation departments are at odds with one another everywhere (except B.C. where they’re in bed with one another) in Canada as the former is being more and more ideologically driven.

[craner]

Originally Posted by foolworm

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/leduc-to...city-1.6737785

I expect Alberta Transportation will tell them to pound sand on this. Maybe it's about time the Leduc section of QE2 got a third lane as well.

Isn’t it already 3 lanes through Leduc ?
I think the issue is more some tight curves on narrow bridges.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by craner

Isn’t it already 3 lanes through Leduc ?
I think the issue is more some tight curves on narrow bridges.

It's crazy, but no. The third lane ends at the 50 Ave / Highway 39 intersection. The issue would be pretty much be resolved if that was extended to the truck scale and the intersection with Highway 2A realigned.

https://www.leduc.ca/sites/default/f...g%20Study_.pdf

[craner]

I wish they would just bite the bullet and 3-lane the entirety of Highway 2 between Edmonton & Calgary.

[s211]

Originally Posted by craner

I wish they would just bite the bullet and 3-lane the entirety of Highway 2 between Edmonton & Calgary.

I'm with you on that. Can't believe it's not a higher priority than it appears to be. Maybe there's planning going on in the background?

[craner]

Construction on long-awaited Highway 3 twinning confirmed to begin this year
http://https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/budget-transportation-highway-3-1.7137363

And

Planning funding provided for Hwy. 2 interchange near Okotoks
http://https://www.westernwheel.ca/local-news/planning-funding-provided-for-hwy-2-interchange-near-okotoks-8451579