Talk:Anthony Henday Drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada Roads / Alberta (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics AB-provincial highway.svg Alberta  
Note icon
This article has a KML file.
WikiProject Canada / Alberta (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Future Interchange plans[edit]

This link: links to detailed plans of future interchanges at Lessard Rd, 63 Ave/Collingwood, Whitemud Dr, Stony Plain Rd, and 109/111 Avenues. These could be used to complete/update the interchange table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulliver (talkcontribs) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


I think it would be nice to have a map of the Edmonton area, showing where the Anthony Henday will be built and where it has been already completed. Zadora13 (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:AB Poundmaker trail.png[edit]

The image File:AB Poundmaker trail.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Name Change[edit]

I think this article should be moved to Anthony Henday Drive. It is never referred to as Highway 216, in fact all the signs along the eastern portion have been change to say Anthony Henday. Thankyoubaby (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and it is practice to name highway articles after their official designation. Why are you saying that it is never referred to as Highway 216? Just look at any map, or the signs all along the route, even the eastern portion, still have the 216 shield on them. 117Avenue (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It is absolutely still referred to as Highway 216 on signs but it is more commonly referred to as Anthony Henday Drive elsewhere. For example the city of Edmonton website and the Access Roads website only refer to the road as the Anthony Henday. As well, the articles for Calgary's Deerfoot Trail and Crowchild Trail are listed under their proper names. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The City of Edmonton isn't the official source here, Alberta Transportation is, and Alberta Transportation calls it Highway 216 on all maps, lists, and engineered drawings. The Deerfoot and Crowchild are freeways entirely within Calgary, and deserve their own articles, like Whitemud Drive and Groat Road. Anthony Henday Drive is an alternate name for the entire length of the highway, just like Buffalo Trail and Veteran Memorial Highway. 117Avenue (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

50 Street interchange (north side)[edit]

I understand that the at-grade intersection at 50 Street is now closed permanently.[1][2][3]

However, Alberta Transportation's plans indicate a future interchange at this location.[4][5]

If we cannot find a reference that confirms that the originally planned 50 Street interchange will never be constructed, should it remain in the Interchanges and intersections list with a note about its current status? Hwy43 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think 50 Street should be removed (as it is not an intersection) and be replaced if and when it is confirmed that there will be an interchange. The sources provided were preliminary, and not the final construction plan. This is evidenced by looking at the Manning interchange on those plans (the plans show lights on Manning, but actual construction will be free-flowing on both Manning and Anthony Henday). Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't in the final construction plan of the current construction project. It is speculative to remove it without something that verifies that it has been outright nixed. I will conduct a more thorough web search to see if we can find anything to shed light. Hwy43 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This opening day diagram indicates future interchange construction with the grade for the future interchange to be constructed under the current construction project. Hwy43 (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No rows using the FBCEB1 background indicates a timeline, and they shouldn't, as that would be a WP:CRYSTAL violation, and possibly no one knows when these interchanges will need to be upgraded. The hills for the flyover at 50 Street (northside) have been built, and the Alberta Transportation refs confirm it is for future upgrading. I don't see how this is different than listing any of the other proposed interchanges (112 Street, Fort Road, etc.). 117Avenue (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Hwy43's last ref looks good. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Found the drawings for the construction agreement to serve as a better ref for both the planned interchanges at 50 Street and 137 Avenue. Hwy43 (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Colours and NE Leg[edit]

I am wondering why all the colours were removed from the table? Even though current construction is finished, upgrades still remain. Also, we need to discuss a way to show in the table that the NE Leg is not open. For example it says "none" at 50 Street and 153 Ave. There is no difference, even though AHD is open at 50 Street but not at 153 Ave. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RJL#Colors says #ffdead for "unopened" (interchange being constructed, not yet open to traffic). If taken literally, it would be premature to colour them as construction is scheduled to start in 2012. Hwy43 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Then wouldn't it also be premature to list them at all as there is nothing there but fields? I'm not talking about listing those intersections as under construction, but something needs to differentiate the NE Leg from the rest that is opened. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Not sure if there is a colour for planned. There should be. Hwy43 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is why I changed the column header to Proposed. Because what is proposed, isn't always constructed. 117Avenue (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the colour of the three non-existent intersections and made a note at the bottom that construction should start 2012. I also added the "End Freeway" marker to further help readers see where construction is completed to. Thankyoubaby (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless it's a completed ring road, every road has two ends. 117Avenue (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
And how exactly are people unfamiliar with the Anthony Henday supposed to know where the end is? Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Your edit indicated it started at Gateway Boulevard, and ended at Manning Drive, yet below the end freeway line there are completed free-flow interchanges. Does this make sense to an unfamiliar user? 117Avenue (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Drive the route yourself, there are no other locations of an "End Freeway" sign except at the location I indicated. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that a road only has one end? Counter-clockwise driving, the freeway and highway designation ends at Highway 16 westbound, and the road ends at 137 Avenue. 117Avenue (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No response? I've driven it both clockwise and counter-clockwise. Hwy43 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is the colour not enough to indicated the unconstructed portion? 117Avenue (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Heights/184th[edit]

The Cameron Heights/184th Street Interchange is labeled as a partial cloverleaf/folded diamond in the table but isn't it really a modified Trumpet? Take out the intersection to Cameron Heights and it is the definition of a Trumpet interchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Trumpets don't have intersecting traffic. But yes, if you remove one road you get an entirely different interchange, which can be said about any interchange. 117Avenue (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy on chart[edit]

Since the entire route is a single highway designation, it looks rather redundant to have the 216 shield repeated several times on the chart. Once is enough, if it's even necessary. (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


I am 100% sure the length of the ring is 78 km, as per old AB Trans documents, the exit numbering, and satellite imagery. AB Trans appears to have rounded 78 up to 80 on press releases presumably because it is a more attractive number. I am in the process of sourcing additional documents that state the length to be the correct 78 km. -- Acefitt 12:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

See the Edmonton inset in the lower-left corner of this 2015 highway progress chart. Prior to the opening of the final segment, the length of AHD was 69.73 km (23.74 + 24.55 + 14.64 + 6.80). Add "9 kilometres of new highway construction" per page 3 of this news release we are at ~78.7 km. At this point, a case could now be made for 79 km as well. Once the 2017 highway progress chart is out we will have the precise length. It is usually prepared in March (though then there is actually uploading it to the AT website for us to consume as the next step [it is October now and the 2016 chart still isn't on AT's website yet]). Hwy43 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay cool, we'll keep it at 78 then, and I'll add that chart as a secondary link in the infobox till the new one is out. -- Acefitt 23:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Obtained the 2016 edition of the Provincial Highways 1-216 Progress Chart today (not yet on AT's website unfortunately). The total length of AHD according to it is 77.23 km (23.74 + 24.55 + 14.64 + 14.30). Hwy43 (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
You can change it if you wish, if not I'll update it as soon as the link is available because technically there is no proof of 78 km as I currently have it. -- Acefitt 04:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually here's something usable, Google directions going around the outer lanes is 77.8 km, which seems correct given that the 77.23 km would be the center line measurement. I'll link this for now. -- Acefitt 04:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want the 2016 progress chart, just go to my user page and reach out via the "Email this user" link. Hwy43 (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
No need. They are now posted on AT's map page. Hwy43 (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Starting point[edit]

I received the following on my talk page, but I feel it is more appropriate to post it here so as to engage more watchers of this article.

"More baffling is the starting point of the loop... the interchange is 3 km wide - calling the entire thing the starting point is in fact more vague, and adds more text, than simply stating Calgary Trail. Strongly disagree there. If we have to compromise on that I'd say make that distinction further down, but I still think that adds nothing. -- Acefitt 23:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)"

Further to that, there was an edit summary stating "I can't possibly see why those extra words would be necessary, nor is it even a true statement. Calgary Trail mainline is a more specific point to reference instead of the entire massive complex".

The point (and truth) here is the odometer of the length of AHD starts at its crossing of Calgary Trail/Gateway Boulevard, a single road in this location that unconventionally has two names – Calgary Trail for southbound traffic and Gateway Boulevard for northbound traffic.

The "interchange complex" aspect of my edit was sloppy during a tired moment when I should have been asleep. It inadvertently suggested a defined area (the interchange complex or footprint of the interchange) as a starting point, not a point itself. I understand the concern and that was not the intent.

However, saying "Calgary Trail is designated as the starting point" is not 100% correct. It should read "Calgary Trail/Gateway Boulevard is designated as the starting point" per my comment a few sentences back. Providing only one of the two names of the same road, within the same right-of-way separated by a median that is mere metres in width, is only half the story. Surely there is enough room in this article for the additional 18 characters so as to make the statement 100% correct. Hwy43 (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


@MuzikMachine: There is no real precedent on the format for listing the junctions in the infobox, aside from the highly inflexible way the infobox road allows. We should therefore discuss it here and reach some kind of compromise, because obviously I feel the way I'm doing it is both more aesthetic and more informative. Again, since no one took initiative to do anything before, it should at least be discussed. Especially for a ring road where the same road (16) is intersected twice. It makes sense to disambiguate that it's two different junctions instead of listing the same thing twice. -- Acefitt 19:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ring roads with some sort of disambiguation where the same road is crossed twice: I-275, I-485, I-285. -- Acefitt 20:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@MuzikMachine: SPF technically extends east of AHD, so it's fine for Wye Rd to not be listed for the purpose of being succinct. It is not signed as Hwy 100, but it is indeed technically Hwy 100 so for the sake of consistency within the infobox it hurts nothing to keep the shield there. There is no ideal way to sign the Hwy 16 junctions, but to put it as "Hwy 16 west" implies there is no eastbound access. My method is closer to the technique already used by the aforementioned Interstate beltways. -- Acefitt 22:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Acefitt: Fair enough, but the link to Gateway Blvd link was also deleted. Another possibility is only listing it once like I-610 around Houston. Like AHD, it is entirely within the City of Houston. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@MuzikMachine: Technically the east interchange is in Strathcona County, as is the whole eastern part down to highway 14. Didn't mean to delete the Gateway link. -- Acefitt 23:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Acefitt: I'm attempting to make both Stoney Trail and AHD consistent, where the majority would be in Calgary and Edmonton respectively; with Calgary one could use the quadrant but it wouldn't quite work in Edmonton. In the ring road/beltway articles that were referenced they show the junction location, as opposed to the destination city. As the east Hwy 16/216 Jct is located in Strathcona County, it could be differentiated that by indicated that it's in Strathcona Co. or near Sherwood Park. A couple ideas could be:
Hwy 16 in Edmonton
Hwy 16 near Sherwood Park
Another option could be:
Alberta Highway 16.svg Yellowhead Tr W
Alberta Highway 16.svg Yellowhead Tr E

Any other thoughts?
I really like the first option of Edmonton/near Sherwood. Heck, the west one could even be near St. Alb to further differentiate. For Stoney, we could maybe use neighbourhoods... like Marlborough/Valley Ridge/Canada Olympic Park. I dunno. Everybody knows where COP is. I don't like the Yellowhead W option because that's how street names here are written so it just doesn't convey enough info. -- Acefitt 17:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@MuzikMachine: Went ahead and made that change to Henday used "near" for both so it's consistent, I'll play with Stoney and see how it looks. -- Acefitt 18:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Acefitt: Calgary has quadrants, what about
Hwy 1 (16 Avenue NW)
Hwy 1 (16 Avenue NE)
MuzikMachine (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Cite RJL distances[edit]

Since this is a GA nominee, I think it would be a good idea to actually cite the distances listed in the junction list, as well as specifying them to a precision of at least a tenth of a kilometer. -happy5214 21:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a list to a tenth. I don't have a list at all. -- Acefitt 23:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Happy5214: This map validates the existence of each exit from Alberta Transportation, which can then be cross referenced to a map to validate which roadway is which, but the only thing it can be used to validate in terms of length is the total distance, and in months of searching I have not found a public document with distances for each exit, probably in part because exit numbering is a relatively new thing in Alberta. I can measure it to a tenth but it'd be OR, this is the best it's going to get for now. -- Acefitt 23:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
USRD articles have used Google Maps or other similar services to cite distances up to a tenth of a mile without running afoul of OR. -happy5214 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Of note is the fact that there is no requirement of precision stated at WP:RJL, and it would therefore not be a criterion of a GA review. -- Acefitt 02:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
...which is only to say that given the massive scale of work required for Alberta highway articles and the amount of content that needs to created, measuring out exits to a tenth of a km seems a very inefficient use of my time relative to its encyclopedic value. -- Acefitt 02:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I personally was more concerned with actually citing them than the precision. Anyone should be able to use Google Maps to make the distances more precise (meaning you could focus on other things), but I do think the exit distances definitely need to be cited on any GA, whether it's from a government agency or Google Maps. -happy5214 02:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit: Just noticed the new citation. -happy5214 02:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Early History (Hwy 14X, etc.)[edit]

I was wondering what the thoughts were about incorporating the history of Hwy 14X (technically Hwy 16A, 14X, and 14) on what is now part of Anthony Henday Drive? While it only became a part of Hwy 216/AHD in the 1990's/2000's, it was constructed a lot earlier (1960's?) and might good to include. Any thoughts?
MuzikMachine (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It can absolutely go in, but there's not much else to say. Reliable sources is what held me back in the history sections of this one and SPF. -- Acefitt 02:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I have reliable sources. I'll put this on my to do list. Hwy43 (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Came across a pair game changing documents for history sections, not particularly Henday's but pretty much everything else. Construction year of what appears to be all bridge structures in Alberta, local and provincial. Frankly, I should have spent more time digging in the depths of AB Trans site... but I glad I found this before starting on hwy 2's history section. -- Acefitt 14:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anthony Henday Drive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 10:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and leaving the lead until the end. Can I suggest you record any issues that you have addressed with comments and/or the {{Done}} template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text more difficult to read at a later date, and this review is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Route description[edit]

  • The entire road is paved with asphalt, except for... Entire does not work well with except. Suggest "Most of the road is paved..."
West and north Edmonton
  • curving northeast toward the city of St. Albert. Suggest wikilink to [St Albert, Alberta].
  • where it reduces to two lanes each way from three. Suggest this would be better as "where it reduces from three lanes each way to two."
East and south Edmonton
  • ...similar in design to those of the southwest crossing... This is not very obvious. I presume the southwest crossing is the 360m twin bridges described in West and north Edmonton, since those are slightly longer, but you would not guess that they were in the southwest from the description. Can this be clarified?
Interchange design
  • the most common being the partial cloverleaf ranging from four to six total ramps. Total presumably refers to the number, rather than being a qualifier of ramps. Suggest "the partial cloverleaf, with between four and six ramps."
  • fourth level flyovers are not required like in a stack interchange. Suggest "as in" rather than "like in".
  • all four lane sections of Henday were over 40,000 vehicles per day in 2015. Suggest replacing "were" with "carried".
  • use of AADT. This is used as just an acronym on first occurrence, and then bracketed (AADT) after a description of what it represents. It would be better if the first occurrence was expanded, ie Annual average daily traffic (AADT), and (AADT) omitted after the description.


Early plans
  • Areas ... were ... called a Restricted Development Area. Presumably, each of the areas were so designated. Suggest "... called Restricted Development Areas."
  • the Alberta provincial government ... continued land acquisitions. Had they been buying up land previously for this purpose? Needs clarifying.
South construction
  • With its CANAMEX designation... This is the first mention in the body of the article, and so should be wikilinked. I suggest it also needs a few words of explanation at this point, to maintain the text for flow.
  • the consolidation ... are managed. Should be "is managed", because consolidation is singular.

The future[edit]

  • and upgraded to an freeway. Should be "a freeway".
  • The final paragraph is a single sentence. Suggest merging it with the previous paragraph.
  • Overall, the text is well written for grammar and flow. There are a number of places where long sentences could do with some additional punctuation, which you might like to address at some point, but this will not affect the GA outcome.

I will be checking the references next. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. All prose issues addressed. -- Acefitt 19:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


  • The lead should introduce and summarise the main points of the article. It does this quite well.


  • The references generally support the text as written very well. There are two main issues. One is where a multi-page pdf file is referenced, but no page number is given. The other is where a page number is given, but that page number is the page in the pdf, rather the page in the document. This typically occurs where there are introductory pages (i to iv, for instance) and maybe an index, so that page 1 of the document starts on page 9 of the pdf file, for instance. This should normally cite the page number of the document, or make it clear that the page number refers to the pdf file (so p.32 (of pdf)). The following are multi-page pdfs without a page number.
  • Ref 9 Schedule 18 - Technical Requirements (Northeast) - 711 pages
    Most instances swapped to different ref. -- Acefitt 19:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 13 Northeast Leg – Anthony Henday Drive - Environmental Assessment - Final Report - 264 pages
  • Ref 16a Constructability of the North Saskatchewan River Bridge - 26 pages
  • Ref 44 Governments of Canada and Alberta fund Edmonton ring road interchange - 6 pages
  • Ref 46 P3 enables Anthony Henday Drive S.E. to open in 2007 - 6 pages
  • Ref 47 Construction set to begin on north Edmonton ring road - 9 pages
  • Ref 56 Construction digs-in on final leg of Edmonton ring road - 4 pages
  • Ref 59 Fiscal Plan/Capital Plan 2016 - 140 pages
  • Ref 64 Schedule 18, Appendix A – Drawings Issued for Agreement (Northwest) - 42 pages
     Done. All addressed. -- Acefitt 19:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 16a (tagged to footnote 4) still has no page number. Is this because the note is just pointing to the existence of the document, rather than specific info within it?
    Correct. -- Acefitt 18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The following cite the pdf page number, rather than the document page number.

  • Ref 18 Schedule 18 - Technical Requirements (Northwest) - p.32 (pdf), p.16 (doc)
  • Ref 23 Schedule 18 - Technical Requirements (Southeast) - p.37 (pdf), p.19 (doc)
  • Ref 24 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets - p.844 (pdf), p.807 (doc)
  • Ref 36 TUC Program Policy - p.12 (pdf), p.9 (doc)
  • Ref 41 Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation Annual Report 2005-2006 - p.30 (pdf), p.27 (doc). Reference says p.29.
  • Ref 63 North East Edmonton Ring Road Advanced Functional Plan - Bridge Planning Summary Report - p.9 quoted, but I cannot find the quote on either p.9 (pdf) or p.9 (doc).


  • Ref 2 Volker Stevin Highways part of JV that reaches financial close on next leg of Ring Road project needs deadurl=yes switch, as the original url is no longer valid.
 Done. All references addressed. -- Acefitt 19:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The formal bit[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See comments above
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    See comments above
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

I will leave things for a few days, and will only put the article on hold if there is no movement. Do let me know if you have any queries about the issues raised. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • All issues have now been addressed, so I am pleased to award the article GA status. Congratulations. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)