Facebook Post - Calvin Goulet-Jones and Selected Comments

Calvin Goulet-Jones Community Voice: Red Deer & Area: There have been a lot of questions recently regarding the proposed Highway 2 expansion through the Red Deer River valley.

The provincial government recently released a fact sheet outlining their perspective on the project. I’m sharing some of the information here simply to help provide context and allow people to see what the government is saying about the proposal.

This is not meant to advocate one way or another, but simply to provide another side of the discussion.

Here is what the government says:

Why does the province say improvements are needed?

According to the Government of Alberta, the section of Highway 2 through the Red Deer River valley has a higher-than-average incident rate compared with other parts of the corridor.

The province attributes this largely to older highway design standards including tight curves, sharp crests, and limited sightlines that reflect design standards from the 1950s.

The government also says traffic volumes continue to grow as Alberta’s population increases, and without improvements congestion and safety risks are expected to worsen.

What role does Highway 2 play in Alberta’s transportation system?

The province describes Highway 2 as one of Alberta’s most important transportation corridors, connecting the Edmonton and Calgary metropolitan regions.

It supports the movement of people, goods, and services across the province and also serves a local function in Red Deer by providing access to neighbourhoods, businesses, and institutions on both sides of the Red Deer River.

What concerns exist with the current Red Deer River bridges?

According to the province, the existing twin Red Deer River bridges were built in the early 1960s and are approaching the end of their service life.

Increasing maintenance requirements and periodic lane closures have been cited as affecting reliability and capacity on this portion of Highway 2.

What improvements is the government proposing?

The project described by the province includes:

• Widening Highway 2 between 32 Street and Highway 11 from four lanes to eight lanes
• Replacing the existing Red Deer River bridges with new structures designed to modern safety standards
• Correcting curves and grades to improve sightlines and driver expectations
• Designing the highway to modern freeway standards, including a 130 km/h design speed (an engineering design standard, not the posted speed limit)

Why isn’t the highway simply widened in its current location?

According to the province, widening the highway within the existing alignment would not resolve several of the safety issues related to curves, grades, and sightlines in the valley.
It would also require replacing the bridges in the same location, which the government says could result in longer disruptions to traffic during construction.

Because of the physical constraints in the valley and the nearby rail corridor, the proposed design shifts part of the highway alignment slightly east to meet modern highway design standards.

How would Maskepetoon Park and the Red Deer River valley be affected?

The government acknowledges that portions of the Red Deer River valley — including areas near Maskepetoon Park — would be affected by the proposed highway realignment.

According to the province, environmental studies have been conducted to examine impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, watercourses, and historical resources within the valley.

The fact sheet states that project planning aims to avoid the most sensitive areas where possible and to reduce impacts through mitigation measures.

What about wildlife movement through the valley?

The province notes that the Red Deer River valley functions as an important wildlife corridor.
The government says the project design will consider wildlife movement and include mitigation measures intended to reduce animal-vehicle collisions and maintain wildlife connectivity through the valley.

Why is the highway being widened to eight lanes?

According to the province, traffic volumes on Highway 2 are expected to continue increasing as Alberta’s population grows and economic activity expands.

The government says widening the highway to eight lanes through this section is intended to accommodate long-term traffic demand and reduce congestion along one of Alberta’s busiest transportation corridors.

When would construction happen?

The province says the project is currently being advanced through planning and design so that it will be ready to proceed once funding decisions are made.
A construction timeline has not yet been confirmed.

Source: Hwy 2 Fact Sheet Section C
Source: Highway 2 Widening – Red Deer Project Summary Presentation

---

​Red Deer Observer: Okay I read it quickly but do they say what happens to the Old Highway? Are they going to remove it? If so, can they maybe expand the Marshland/Park under QE2 and into the old Highway land? Increase preservation land in exchange for the damage they caused? I don't agree to this project but maybe there is a compromise?

---

Laura Murphy: Overview of the extent of damage to Maskepetoon Park and wetlands with the proposed highway 2 expansion on Google Earth Map.

What Calvin isn’t saying is that 25% of Maskepetoon Park including the wetlands will be destroyed. Initially, AB Transportation said that they wanted a win-win situation. Sadly, the stakeholders, including those whose residences are either backing on to the park, or in the vicinity of the park, after reaching out to Mr. Dreeshen with an alternative proposal, received the same, word for word, form letter.

It is very disappointing that citizens are not being heard.

This park is zoned A-2 Environmental Protection land under the Land Bylaws. It’s also a designated pollinator park. Many people in the City of Red Deer don’t even know about the highway expansion.

Suggestions have been put to the AB Transportation that a six-lane highway would be sufficient with the lanes moving to the west rather than through the park. Highway lanes are 12 feet wide. The ditch in between southbound and northbound is in fact more than wide enough to accommodate a lane and a concrete barrier and on the southbound the ditch to left (which has already been readied and fairly leveled) could be used as another lane without encroaching on the CP Rail right of way. Now that would be a win/win scenario since Maskepetoon Park would remain whole, traffic flow would be improved and let’s face it, building a highway over a wetlands isn’t going to be the most stable. Millions of dollars could also be saved.

Building a “replacement” wetland on the other side of Highway 2 to the west, which is not feasibly accessible to residents by foot, doesn’t negate the fact that wetlands and habitat that are well established are being destroyed. We will not gain anything by the proposed replacement which will take up to 40 years or more to reach the level of the
existing wetlands in Maskepetoon Park.

Beyond the false promise of greater safety, the road’s expansion from eight lanes back to four creates high-speed chokepoints potentially more hazardous than the curve currently targeted for elimination. If safety is truly the priority, lowering, not raising, speed limits should be the focus, as other communities do when confronted with similar risks.

Further, as wider, faster roads bring more vehicles to the corridor, levels of air and noise pollution will increase. Numerous studies link such increases—especially of fine particulate matter near highways—to higher incidences of respiratory and cardiovascular illness. Red Deer’s community health and quality of life cannot be sacrificed for the expedience of traffic flow, especially for those neighborhoods bordering the park.

The natural habitat and wildlife in the park will suffer significant ecological damage, which is unacceptable. The City of Red Deer invested millions to create this space, and paving over it makes little sense, especially from an environmental standpoint. Destroying the park’s biodiversity and eliminating its wetlands will also diminish its ability to capture carbon.

---

Red Deer Observer: I didn't think it would be a solution but I know other people would bring it up. And I wasn't exactly saying a replacement Wetland I was saying expand the Wetland onto the other side of QE2 to replace what was destroyed. Obviously it would take decades to rebuild it environmentally but it would have also expanded a protected Zone that doesn't exist now. Again it was not one I personally support but it was a compromise if you will. Personally I think they should leave the highway alone and lower the speed limit within the city range to 90 km an hour. Instead they're planning to raise it to 120.

But this is why I said during the campaign we need a Red Deer Conservation Authority (common in Eastern Canada), but locally would take all of the groups in all area and puts them under one coalition. This group would then be involved in the steps of an approval process for any project within, as I proposed 100 m of a designated Red Deer watershed.

Such an Authority might not stop a project like this one, but it would add layers requiring public hearings and proof that the environmental impact would not be devastating.

The same Authority would be a stamp required on any development near the Watershed, in this case the Marshland would be part of that Red Deer Valley. So for example, they would have had to sign off on the rehabilitation of the CPR Bridge because of the significant environmental impact underneath the bridge.
​
It's a separate issue to this specific one, but it's one that we need to seriously look at.
Especially if the city continues to grow as it has been and to the level that the Premier and, I believe, our former mayor would like it to be.

---

Laura Murphy: Our group, SAVE MASKEPETOON PARK AND WETLANDS, have addressed the wetlands that they proclaim to be building with Alberta Transportation. We were told by one of the project team at the July information session that they would be draining whatever has been started there for parking for their vehicles during the project. We took a drive to find this new wetlands and I think it’s going to be close to Burnt Lake trail because we sure didn’t see anything besides a gravel pit with junk in it and a botanist we know said what they are proposing is full of noxious and invasive weeds.

Also, the reason that many people built and bought homes in Oriole Park West was specifically for the park and its wetlands. A perfect place to go for a walk on the trails with the family and to observe the wildlife.

I spoke with a “Communication Expert” that one of the subcontractors for AB Transportation hired and I felt he was respectful and understanding until I got off the phone and realized I had been completely gaslighted. He was smooth!
​
The other thing that I am confused about is that every bat in Alberta is protected under the Wildlife Act. It is illegal to kill, harm, or harass bats, and it is illegal to disturb their roosts or dens. A $25,000 fine can be levied for these actions and yet it’s perfectly legal for AB Transportation to plow down their colonies?

Red Deer Advocate, March 13, 2026: ​https://reddeeradvocate.com/2026/03/13/residents-fighting-to-save-maskepetoon-park-from-highway-expansion-not-giving-up/

SAVE MASKEPETOON PARK AND WETLANDS - Hwy 2 Expansion Concerns! Facebook Group

---

​Red Deer Observer: I'm going to take some of the information you provided here and update my website. I had a section on this issue back during the election campaign but it was just scratching the surface. Thank you for your insight.

---

Red Deer Observer > Grant Mills: "Additionally, the impact to the park sucks, BUT you have to remember, 80 years ago, Maskepetoon Park was a gravel pit. " and a few decades ago Bower Ponds was a garbage dump, so...

As for the pedestrian/bike bridge, do you honestly think the Province would build you a $50M+ bridge in exchange for land they are probably going to just take anyway?

You should probably stay off the QE-II with bicycles if you don't want to have close calls. I hope they prohibit bicycles on QE-II when they raise the speed to 120.

" we could have a connection to a future park nearly 5x the size of what will be impacted."
I suggested converting the old highway land to park, but in trying to compromise we both made the same mistake. Parkland and marsh/wetland are not the same thing. An urban park can be built in about a year, but a marsh/wetland takes generations to develop. The existing park has taken about 70 years to reach the stage it is at today.