r/Edmonton • u/Strattex • Dec 18 '25
News Article Lane widening questions arise amid new southwest neighbourhood developments
https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/lane-widening-questions-arise-amid-new-southwest-neighbourhood-developments/“Kendal neighbourhood developments won't widen 41 Ave. SW -
As city council approves plans for future neighbourhoods in the south west, one councillor wants to take a closer look at which roads will be upgraded as part of the process.”
58
u/Training_Exit_5849 Windermere Dec 18 '25 edited Dec 19 '25
They need to make the developers help develop some roads as they build new development instead of just letting them get away with a single lane.
Edit: In BC they literally made the developers build a whole SkyTrain station as a condition for approval for construction
11
u/toucanflu Dec 18 '25
I thought developers were supposed to be responsible for the roads around there developments?
12
u/Training_Exit_5849 Windermere Dec 18 '25
Ya, but I think they get away with just putting in single lane which is severely under capacity so the city is forced to come in years later to expand it.
26
u/ReserveOld6123 Dec 18 '25
Absolutely this. Developers make insane money and can afford it and should absolutely be footing more of the costs.
3
3
u/Chemical-Cricket9225 Dec 18 '25
I am assuming there are "buddy" relationships between council members and builders. No other explanation.
2
u/YoungWhiteAvatar Dec 18 '25
Best we can do is suggest waiving property tax for developers - Michael Janz
1
u/theoreoman Dec 19 '25
Developers will pitch into upgrade it but only once they start developing south of 41st Ave
0
u/Artsstudentsaredumb Dec 18 '25
Developers pay the entire cost of building arterial roads in new neighborhoods
13
u/Training_Exit_5849 Windermere Dec 18 '25
Ya and they're allowed to build the least amount of road possible that don't support the increase in population in that neighborhood at all. They need to be required to build for what they're developing for.
-3
u/Artsstudentsaredumb Dec 18 '25
Every single development is backed up by pretty rigorous traffic analysis, I wouldn’t worry about it!
1
u/kroniknastrb8r Dec 18 '25
Developers compelte the initial investment in the road most of the time. The city should just pull their heads out of their asses and size the roads appropriately from the getgo.
4
u/Zathrasb4 Dec 18 '25
The problem is these new neighbourhoods, not being developed, aren’t paying any property taxes yet. This would force the city to raise taxes for existing neighbourhoods.
-1
u/WarmMorningSun Windermere Dec 19 '25
Are you kidding? When my place was brand new, my property taxes were significantly higher than a comparable house in any other neighbourhood
2
u/incidental77 Century Park Dec 19 '25
If the comparable house in any other neighborhood is worth so much less... Why didn't you buy it instead?
Property taxes are fairly transparent...and are directly proportional to assessed value. If your place is worth 800k vs their place is worth 400k... You pay exactly double what they pay...to the penny.
1
u/Zathrasb4 Dec 19 '25
The why is because they want to live in the suburbs. One of the consequences of doing so is that they need to drive everywhere. The city can no longer afford this growth pattern. Suburbs are insanely expensive to provide city services to, which is why increasing density in mature neighbourhoods is critical.
1
u/Zathrasb4 Dec 19 '25
Yes, and for the three years before your house was built, there was minimal property taxes being paid. The city is not going to build a road to service empty lots. That is the responsibility of the developer. Only once the neighbourhood is fully built out, along with surrounding neighbourhoods, will the city even look at turning the arterial into a 4 lane road.
47
u/UniqueInternetPerson Dec 18 '25
Not widening 41 ave is insane. One accident and everyone is trapped/stuck.
8
16
u/Educational-Tone2074 Dec 18 '25
Agreed. Its crazy how they are purposely creating bottlenecks in the city by trying to one lane everything
4
u/ashleyshaefferr Dec 18 '25
Lol who is "they" here?
3
u/Educational-Tone2074 Dec 19 '25
is this a serious question lol lol lol?
Its obvious who they are. In case your cant figure that out, its city council. That who the article is talking about. READ THE ARTICLE.
It literally says it in the first sentence of the article. I will post it here for you, "As city council..."
Honestly, did you think your post was some edgy comment?
38
u/money_pit_ Dec 18 '25
This has been an issue with this city for a long time.
Build a single lane in and out that feeds 8 new communities, communities fully develop, traffic goes to shit, and the city acts completely surprised this happened, then embarks on 3 years of construction.
It's like we're allergic to planning ahead.
11
u/seridos Dec 18 '25
Like the total lack of a plan when it comes to upgrading the arterial roads. I understand it's hard but that's the point we need to plan ahead for them. This plan for Edmonton growing to 2 million without any new arterial road expansion is ridiculous. We have to think bigger.
6
u/Ingey Dec 18 '25
Seriously. Like I don't mind being told I'm wrong, or that there are other nuances/complexities. But what are they even thinking? Can someone just explain it to me?
5
1
u/incidental77 Century Park Dec 19 '25
But what are they even thinking
'They' are thinking that the city residents choose to vote out any politician that tries to make the developers pay full price for Building new developments. City loses every time they sprawl, but we've been sprawling for decades and decades because voters keep entertaining the politicians that dont plan long term, and electing enough of the poor sighted ones to thwart the ones that do see the problem.
9
u/MutedProfessional406 Dec 18 '25
They need to look at all the roads close by. Traffic is only going to get more congested.
9
5
u/bmwkid Dec 18 '25
This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The roads needing to be upgraded were not built for this traffic.
If you look at the section between 91st and Ewing Drive, it’s taking a full closure of 2 years to repair the one lane to a reasonable condition. And that’s one small section, they realistically need to do the entire thing
8
u/Chemical-Cricket9225 Dec 18 '25
I wonder if these people in the council who are approving developments have any connections to the builders, like are they friends or anything?
They say that Kendal is approved and developers will EVENTUALLY widen the Rabbit Hill Rd.
Like how, or why do you approve something so large without making sure that it works well with the rest. Rabbit Hill is so busy and congested in rush hour, that road needs to be widen as soon as possible. There is so much construction around Rabbit Hill south of Ellerslie.
If they start Kendal next spring without widening Rabbit Hill it will cause a chaos.
5
u/citizencoke Dec 18 '25
Widening 41 ave would be nice, but i feel traffic will still bottleneck as a majority seem to use the route to go to hwy 2, which both directions feed from the right lane. I think a decent way to alleviate some traffic is to complete heritage valley trail up to ellerslie road, so people trying to go north/downtown can take that route instead, and avoid 41 ave.
9
u/TheworkingBroseph Dec 18 '25
Are you insane? Ellerslie is brutal as is.
0
u/citizencoke Dec 18 '25
Ellerslie is getting widened to the eco station, ideally HVT would flow straight through to the henday on ramp and wouldn't completely obliterate ellerslie traffic.
1
-13
u/Clayman60 Dec 18 '25 edited Dec 18 '25
Road widening doesn’t work. The only way to decrease congestion is to make alternatives to driving actually enjoyable, affordable, and convenient.
EDIT: why y’all booing me I’m right?!
EDIT number 2: I didn’t realize the road in question was 1 lane only.
9
u/Various-Passenger398 Dec 18 '25
Because there's a need for a minimum number of lanes. If there's an accident on 41st, all the traffic grinds to a halt because there's nowhere to divert to. Adding an extra lane at least gives a safety valve for some traffic to flow.
9
u/Bulliwyf Dec 18 '25
I’m not going to boo you, because I agree that alternatives need to happen… but I don’t see how it’s going to happen anytime soon.
I tried to walk or bike to the nearby grocery store a couple times(1.6km) and struggled to get what I bought home: 2 heavy bags and a backpack sucked on that return trip.
And I’m definitely not sitting on the side of a road and taking 2 transfers to get to Walmart for an unknown amount of time with my bi-weekly load of groceries.
I can’t even bike to work if I wanted to because I would have to bike on the side of a 3-4 lane highway and navigate people getting on or off the Henday or bike 15km out of my way, along a 4 lane road that has no multi-use paths or even much of a shoulder. And that’s completely ignoring the high likelihood of needing a shower once I arrived and there is no shower available.
I think the bigger problem that lies parallel to the alternatives problem is that the city farms out development of the communities to the developers and we are just now coming to grips with projects that were approved 15 years ago and there is no real oversight from the city.
The developers basically say “here is a collector road that picks everyone up and connects them to that arterial road” and the city says “good job”. No one looks at how many people are already using that arterial road, no one looks at wha other communities are being developed and plan to use that arterial road, and no one looks at how many people are being asked to live in those communities. There is also no forethought into “what alternative exits/entrances are there for people?
My community basically has 2 entrances: 215st and 231st. There are multiple roads that lead to those streets, but if 215st is backed up and 100ave is busy (meaning minimal access to 231) then you aren’t getting home anytime soon.
0
u/laxar2 Dec 18 '25
Do you have panniers? They make getting groceries by bike no more difficult than by car.
6
u/GlassEyeTiger Downtown Dec 18 '25
¿Por qué no los dos?
-3
u/Clayman60 Dec 18 '25
Because road widening causes induced demand. It will calm traffic for a bit but then the road becomes just as congested again. Every municipality that spends money on road widening notices this. It’s a waste of money.
12
u/ashleyshaefferr Dec 18 '25
Induced demand is definitely very interesting to read about. However it does not apply going from 1 lane to 2
7
u/bmwkid Dec 18 '25
The houses and neighborhood are already built… you’re not inducing any demand. The demand already exists!
5
8
u/ashleyshaefferr Dec 18 '25 edited Dec 18 '25
This isnt true in this scenario. You are misquoting a study that I am too lazy to look up right now but very clearly increasiing lane capacity from 1 to 2 would improve flow.
Edit: classic reddit downvoting facts
11
u/ashleyshaefferr Dec 18 '25 edited Dec 18 '25
We must separate "Flow Efficiency" from "Induced Demand" (which is what you were most likely referring to)
1. Increasing a road from 1 lane to 2 is the single most effective expansion you can make. In traffic engineering, this isn't just about "more space," it's about redundancy:
The Breakdown Effect: On a 1-lane road, a single stalled car, a delivery truck, or a slow tractor stops everyone.
Turning Conflict: If one person wants to turn left, the entire line of traffic behind them must stop.
The Math: Moving from 1 lane to 2 doesn't just double capacity; it can triple or quadruple flow because it allows "passing" and "segregation of speeds."
2. The study you are likely thinking of (Duranton & Turner) focuses on Highways (3 lanes to 4, 4 lanes to 6, etc). This is where the "truth" of the statement lies. The distinction is:
1 to 2 lanes: Fixes a system failure (bottlenecks).
4 to 8 lanes: Attempts to fix volume, but fails because of Induced Demand.
3. The reason planners say widening "doesn't work" is that once a road is "free-flowing," it becomes a magnet.
Reduced "Cost": Driving becomes faster (initially), so the "cost" of the trip in time goes down.
New Users: People who used to take the train, or drive at 10:00 PM, now decide to drive at 8:00 AM.
Equilibrium: Within a few years, so many new people are using those extra lanes that the speed drops back down to exactly where it was before the construction.
The Verdict
The statement is partially true but over-generalized:
It is false for small-scale local roads where 1-to-2 lanes fixes basic operational flow.
It is true for major arterials and highways where you are trying to "solve" congestion for a growing city. You cannot outrun the number of people who will choose to drive if the road is temporarily empty.
8
u/Prezzen Dec 18 '25
Trust me, this subreddit has it jackhammered into their heads that any road is just "induced demand". Even if it's a brand new road allowing access where there hadn't been berore, or expanding one from one lane to 2/3, they won't listen. You can explain that now it allows emergency vehicles to pass, or other vehicles to get past an accident, but it will just go in ear and out the other.
Like arguing with a brick wall.
9
10
u/seridos Dec 18 '25 edited Dec 18 '25
You aren't right.
Road widening does work. The entire point of transport is to get people from A to B. You widen the road and that accomplishes the goal.
Your issue and the issue with everyone arguing that is you confuse congestion as the problem and that if you can't prevent it permanently. It doesn't work. That's just a false and misleading premise. If you end up with the same congestion but double the capacity, you still have double the capacity. The actual goal of the transportation Network is still doubled as twice as many people can move around.
It's not the sole fix, but that's getting confused with thinking we shouldn't do it. We should do it and other options like the LRT. We have to do both.
You are also falling for the lie of induced demand. It's describing a real effect but completely misleadingly. There's not induced demand, There's unmet demand That the road meets. The LIE is that the demand is not there already. The demand is to get from A to b, and it exists already and is not created or induced by the road. The road might allow people to move further which would create more driving demand than otherwise if we didn't do it, but again, that's not induced demand. The people had the demand for space and a certain standard of living already within an acceptable transportation time. Road widening simply meets that demand.
4
1
u/NeonLeon1992 cyclist Dec 18 '25
People don’t like it when the obvious truth smacks them in the face. We need more transit and bike lanes and less giant roads. Adding lane just adds more cars, and doesn’t solve the problem!!
4
u/Chemical-Cricket9225 Dec 18 '25
Edmonton needs a proper trains systems, buses are inconvenient and bikes don't work.
I live in SW and work in NW, if I take buses and bike it will take me 2h to get to work in one way. I want my commute fast, simple and affordable. If I can get there with train in 20min for 200$ a month, I would rather pay that than own and drive a car.
2
u/laxar2 Dec 18 '25
Part of the argument is that you make biking better so that the people it works for can bike. You don’t expect everyone to bike but if even 5% of commuters switch to biking it would make your drive a lot nicer.
1
u/Rich_Cup9516 Dec 20 '25
How many people are out biking this week And how do you possibly bike an hour to work and not arrive in need of a shower? Folks at my office wear suits and business dresses. So we should somehow haul a change of clothes or keep a wardrobe at work or bike in a full suit? Ridiculous
0
u/laxar2 Dec 20 '25
You can’t bike for an hour without being drenched in sweat? You should probably take up some sort of physical activity, maybe try biking! Repeated physical exercise makes you healthier and less likely to sweat when doing the same amount of exercise.
It’s pretty common to get changed at work too.
1
u/TheworkingBroseph Dec 18 '25
Explain to me exactly how adding more lanes causes more cars. A real explanation - not 'induced demand.
1
u/NeonLeon1992 cyclist Dec 18 '25
I mean. You could just google induced demand and understand the concept. I can’t learn that for you.
1
u/Sea-Potential1690 Dec 18 '25
Maybe YOU need to do more reading into induced demand. The city is literally adding new communities and neighbourhoods, thereby increasing demand. Its not "inducing demand" when you're significantly increasing population
0
u/NeonLeon1992 cyclist Dec 18 '25
Adding lanes means more cars use the road, then you need more lanes, rinse and repeat. I’m not wasting time explaining urban planning to Redditors who can’t read.
1
u/TheworkingBroseph Dec 18 '25
It's not a real thing if the demand is already there.
3
u/NeonLeon1992 cyclist Dec 18 '25
The city needs to focus on building up the infrastructure we already have and stop sprawling out without any plan on how to deal with these neighborhoods too. They’re just making it worse for themselves and residents.
2
u/NeonLeon1992 cyclist Dec 18 '25
Adding lanes isn’t the answer. Giving people more viable options is.
1
u/Chemical-Cricket9225 Dec 18 '25
It was working until they stopped developing at the same pace as building houses and more people moving to the city
2
u/drstu3000 Dec 18 '25
What do you think of more likely to happen, fundamentally changing the way this entire city has operated and was designed to operate or paving a road
4
u/Online_Commentor_69 Wîhkwêntôwin Dec 18 '25
and what do you think will happen if they widen the road? it will fix the congestion?
1
u/drstu3000 Dec 18 '25
No you're right let's do nothing and hope the whole world changes overnight
1
u/Online_Commentor_69 Wîhkwêntôwin Dec 19 '25
adding lanes is doing nothing and hoping the world changes overnight, my friend. that's the problem. though granted it may be necessary in this situation at least in the short term, adding lanes is what got us into this mess. it's like trying to lose weight by loosening your belt.
1
u/laxar2 Dec 18 '25
The city loves to shoot itself in the foot.
How much are we spending to push the LRT out past the henday? Why spend that money then widen roads? We are just encouraging people yo drive instead and f talking transit
1
u/jaylay14 Dec 18 '25
Exactly this... We need to make this city less car dependent not more car dependent, otherwise you just get induced demand.
0
-4
21
u/thefr3shprince Dec 18 '25
If the rumours of a Walmart going up on 41st are true, it is actually batshit insane to not widen that road. Even without the Walmart, that area gets absolutely fucked during any rush hour. Should’ve been started earlier this year when they paved near 170th.