16th Avenue North Calgary :: The People's Corridor

[Riise]

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, as some of you might know this week has marked the end of the summer semester at the University of Calgary. As such, it has meant that the group project for the course that I was taking, Urban Studies 505 – The Transit City, was due for submission. I was lucky enough to have been placed in one of my best project groups ever and we managed to overcome the time-constraints of the shortened semester to produce a quality product that I’m happy to now share with you. Rather than submitting the normal written project document our group decided to create a more interactive website. Unfortunately, the other night we accidentally lost a couple of pages. However, we worked hard to restore the website within 24 hours, but this meant that the overall quality has dropped slightly as we were unable to devote as much time to re-editing as we would have liked.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the fruits of our labour! Before I lead you to the website I’d like to thank my fellow group members, Tommy Au and David Nguyen. Like I said above, you guys were one of the best groups I have ever worked with, cheers!

Our Project Website (http://16corridor.com/)
Our Executive Summary (http://16corridor.com/resources/16_Ave_EXEC_SUMMARY.pdf)

[Boris2k7]

I'm liking what I see. I'll try and give some more useful critique before I leave for vacation, if I can.

So far, I'm identifying the use of ArcGIS software, Paint.net or Photoshop, Sketchup, actual sketches, photography, and of course whatever software was being used to create the website (which looks great, BTW).

Being familiar with your previous studies, I can see that instead of pushing streetcars as usual, you've switched for BRT in this case study. You've provided your rational for that change though. You also made a point about the capital costs being cheaper than LRT and dedicated busways (and used a graph that I also used in a report on BRT during our Transportation Studies class last year). It seems that you are providing some sort of dedicated bus lanes, not quite the same as a busway of course, but definately a median-seperated laneway. I hope that is correct. I would definately agree that it is a better use of this road widening than just adding more cars to the road.

Great stuff.

[The Kid]

Very cool! Knowing nothing about these things on my part, I found that very interesting. Good job.

[Beltliner]

Riise, you crazy little socceroo, you....

I like your 16 Avenue site a lot. I really do. You laddies put a lot of work and a lot of insight into it, and you deserve a good grade for your project on almost every level...

...except for your advocacy of BRT for 16 Avenue.

The main issue, and it's one that trips up a lot of BRT fans everywhere, is that BRT looks so much cheaper to break out of the box than an LRT system does that people don't look at the high-maintenance lifestyle a BRT lives once it's up and running. To compare apples to apples, even as I cut you guys as many breaks as I can, LRT is a better strategic fit and a better long-haul value than BRT can ever claim to be. Please let me present Exhibit A:

16 Avenue Crosstown Route: Rundle Station to Foothills Hospital via McMahon Stadium and West Campus

Phase I: System Inauguration

Right of Way:
BRT: 8.5 miles surface at $6 mil/mile = $51 mil
LRT: I'm going to splurge--7 miles surface at $25 mil/mile plus 1.5 miles (three-quarters at each end) metro at $90 mil/mile = $310 mil

Makes BRT look pretty good to start, but...

Vehicles
BRT: 24 NewFlyer D60FLs (110 pax) at $1 mil a pop plus 24 more when they go kaboomsie after 20 years = $48 mil
LRT: 12 Siemens S70 Avantos (212 pax) at $3.5 mil a piece, good for 40 years = $42 mil

The gap is narrowing just a tad, right?

40 Years of Operator Overhead
BRT: $100K per operator per year x 3.5 operators per vehicle x 24 vehicles x 40 years = $336 mil
LRT: $100K per operator per year x 3.5 operators per vehicle x 12 vehicles x 40 years = $168 mil

In a town like Calgary, the labour costs are looking especially painful. Now howzabout:

Energy Costs
BRT: 17 miles per circuit per vehicle x 24 circuits per day x 0.5 gallon of diesel consumed per mile x $5.00 per gallon x 14,610 days in service x 24 vehicles in service = $360 mil
LRT: 4 motors per vehicle x 130 kW draw/motor x 24 hours in service x $0.10/kWh x 14,610 days in service x 12 vehicles in service = $216 mil

Totting up the running totals for Phase I:
BRT: 51+48+336+360 = $795 mil
LRT: 310+42+168+216 = $736 mil

Phase II: System Fleet Expansion

So what happens if we double up the vehicle fleet for added capacity?

Vehicles
BRT: 24 NewFlyer D60FLs (110 pax) at $1 mil a pop plus 24 more when they go kaboomsie after 20 years = $48 mil
LRT: 12 Siemens S70 Avantos (212 pax) at $3.5 mil a piece, good for 40 years = $42 mil

40 Years of Operator Overhead
BRT: $100K per operator per year x 3.5 operators per vehicle x 24 vehicles x 40 years = $336 mil
LRT: $100K per operator per year x 3.5 operators per vehicle x 12 vehicles x 40 years x number of additional operators necessary to operate two-car Avanto trains = zilch

Energy Costs
BRT: 17 miles per circuit per vehicle x 24 circuits per day x 0.5 gallon of diesel consumed per mile x $5.00 per gallon x 14,610 days in service x 24 vehicles in service = $360 mil
LRT: 4 motors per vehicle x 130 kW draw/motor x 24 hours in service x $0.10/kWh x 14,610 days in service x 12 vehicles in service = $216 mil

Totting up the running totals for Phase I:
BRT: 48+336+360 = $720 mil
LRT: 42+0+216 = $258 mil

Grand Total, Phase I + Phase II (drumroll, please....):
BRT: $795 mil + $720 mil = $1515 mil
LRT: $736 mil + $258 mil = $994 mil

[Riise]

First off, thanks for your comments guys!



Being familiar with your previous studies, I can see that instead of pushing streetcars as usual, you've switched for BRT in this case study... It seems that you are providing some sort of dedicated bus lanes, not quite the same as a busway of course, but definately a median-seperated laneway. I hope that is correct. I would definately agree that it is a better use of this road widening than just adding more cars to the road.

Great stuff.

I'm definitely a tram guy but in this case we selected the system with the best capacity and current-cost for the corridor in the near future. You are correct; the BRT ROW will be separated from regular traffic as it is in Curitiba. However, as I’ll discuss below, we plan on learning from Curitiba’s mistake and cashing out on BRT at the right time.

We were looking at including a streetcar line to provide local service along the Urban Corridor part of 16th but the complexity of that, as well as the project time limit, ruled the inclusion out. It was actually a bit strange that although I love trams, in the beginning I was actually opposed to including them in the corridor. Even though our plan doesn’t call for streetcars along the corridor itself we believe that streetcars have a place in our plan; as a connection.

Calgary needs to put the streetcar back in the streetcar suburbs! There should be trams running along Edmonton Trail, Centre Street, and 14th Street which would allow these corridors to intensify in a transit-oriented fashion. In addition, it would provide 16th with transit connections into the core and, in the case of Edmonton Trail, to the Bridges. It would expand out city’s radial rail network but it would be complemented by a cross-town BRT network.

Riise, you crazy little socceroo, you....

I like your 16 Avenue site a lot. I really do. You laddies put a lot of work and a lot of insight into it, and you deserve a good grade for your project on almost every level...

...except for your advocacy of BRT for 16 Avenue.

The main issue, and it's one that trips up a lot of BRT fans everywhere, is that BRT looks so much cheaper to break out of the box than an LRT system does that people don't look at the high-maintenance lifestyle a BRT lives once it's up and running...

Thanks, those are awesome calculations that show the hidden costs of BRT. However, we did have your foresight and took them into consideration. We chose BRT over LRT as we saw it as the first phase of a transitional rapid transit system in the corridor. BRT will precede some form of LRT that will replace the BRT at a point in the future where LRT is viable and, as you calculations show, less costly.

[murman]

Jeez, with a title like "The People's Corridor" I figured we'd all sit on some public building steps, sing "We Shall Overcome" and then set fire to an effigy of the latest capitalist tyrant to make the front pages...

[SHOFEAR]

............David Nguyen................



...... He isn't from E-town by any chance?

[Wooster]

Riise. I am very, very impressed by the quality of work in this project. We rarely did projects this comprehensive in scope as this at the graduate level in planning.

Great stuff. Do you plan to go into planning, or transportation planning of something following urban studies?

[Distill3d]

Traffic Management

Goal: Allow for the efficient movement of goods and people that must travel by private-automobile.

Challenge: Opposition from car lobbyists and commercial trucking industry.

Policy Response: Ensure that the quality of life and urban form that results from implementation of our plan is worth more to Calgarian's than the small price paid by drivers and local industry. In other words, ensure full implementation of the plan which puts people first!

-Where feasible, all new developments along the corridor should provide parking through underground parking garages.

-Parking requirements will be based on maximum provision of parking stalls rather than minimum.

-Where feasible, implement public parking for short stay (maximum of two (2) hours) for the purpose of public parking in the rear lane north and south of the 16th Avenue Corridor.

-Short stay facilities will be monitored and strictly enforced by the Parking Control, Calgary Parking Authority and Bylaw Enforcement.
-Short stay parking will be charged through pay and display machines on a fee schedule determined by the Calgary Parking Authority, to be allocated to a fund responsible for maintaining the Avenue and its public amenities.

-Installation of speed humps, raised sidewalks, traffic circles, partial or fully closed blocks, road markings, and traffic control signs should be investigated and implemented in all communities adjacent to 16th Avenue North.

-Review maximum Corridor speed and determine the suitability of the present speed limit along the Avenue.

-Ensure that the curbside lane has a width of at least 3.66metres to safely accommodate light and medium-duty commercial truck traffic.

not that i'm going to quash your dream here, its a wonderful concept and one I personally would love to see implimented. however, that said, there is nothing in your plans to reroute of existing traffic. and no mention of promoting usage of the ring road as an alternative to using 16 Avenue. i am intrigued to know which alternate routes your proposal offers.

[Boris2k7]

not that i'm going to quash your dream here, its a wonderful concept and one I personally would love to see implimented. however, that said, there is nothing in your plans to reroute of existing traffic. and no mention of promoting usage of the ring road as an alternative to using 16 Avenue. i am intrigued to know which alternate routes your proposal offers.

"Reroute existing traffic... ?"

Why? Who uses 16th to go through the city? The Ring Road will speak for itself. There's no need to promote alternative routes. It would be a little more inconvenient for people driving east-west, but who cares?

[Wooster]

"Reroute existing traffic... ?"

Why? Who uses 16th to go through the city? The Ring Road will speak for itself. There's no need to promote alternative routes. It would be a little more inconvenient for people driving east-west, but who cares?

I believe 96% of traffic on 16th North is local traffic.

[Boris2k7]

I believe 96% of traffic on 16th North is local traffic.

That's what I thought. And in that case, let people find other routes by themselves. It's not like we are using our current road infrastructure to capacity. No sense in building more.

Heaven forbid that we have 4 lanes to drive on instead of 6! :O

[Riise]

Great stuff. Do you plan to go into planning, or transportation planning of something following urban studies?

Thanks! I'm planning on attending a planning school in Europe. I have my eyes set on the Bartlett School of Planning at the University College London. They have a great 3+1 program where in your first three years you works towards a The BSc in Urban Planning, Design & Management, and in your last year you work towards an MSc in Spatial Planning.

not that i'm going to quash your dream here, its a wonderful concept and one I personally would love to see implimented. however, that said, there is nothing in your plans to reroute of existing traffic. and no mention of promoting usage of the ring road as an alternative to using 16 Avenue. i am intrigued to know which alternate routes your proposal offers.

As Josh and Boris have pointed out, most of the traffic along 16th is local; cross-town commuters. If we were to provide BRT as a quick transportation option we believe a healthy share of the traffic can be re-routed through transit. As for the remaining traffic, our mobility section handles that, but thank you for pointing this out though. It's a point that after our presentation we thought needed to be clarified yet we didn't clarify it enough, sorry!

Mobile Drivers

As 16th Avenue North is a crucial component of the Skeletal Road Network and a part of the Trans-Canada Highway, it is important to maintain and support the level of traffic that is expected from these functions. While the goal of the redevelopment of 16th Avenue North is not to cause reduced capacity for motorists, it is envisioned in The Plan that the proposed regional and local high capacity BRT service will provide some relief for the Corridor. In addition to this, with the opening of the Ring Road the city is planning for through-truck traffic to bypass the city and avoid using 16th Avenue. However, even with the reduced demands placed on the Avenue it must also cater to traffic which will need to use the road. Therefore, the environment of 16th Avenue must not only be conducive to the pedestrian and transit alone, but also needs to enable the safe and controlled movement of automobiles and semi-trucks. The Plan ensures that inner-city truck traffic which utilizes light to medium duty trucks (Dodge Sprinters/GMC Tilt Cabs), which we deem as more than adequate for local commercial trucking purposes, will be comfortably accommodated on the carriageway and will experience a high level of mobility.

[Aralaus]

it'd be a hard political sell given that we just invested some serious money and time into getting it to six lanes, and to retract it back to four would be near political suicide, especially to those of us who remember the four lane conditions. Granted the semi-trucks would be on the ring road, but there are enough '86 Buick Regals travelling at 30 km/h that it would enfuriate people. Yes its crosstown traffic, but even to somebody who does actually commute along 15 km of 16th avenue daily (points to self) my truck would still be preferred simply because of logistics (there is a major reason why people point to free park'n'ride for the LRTs success here).

To really sell this project, you have to be able to not only get a sizeable enough share of commuters onto the BRT lanes, but also provide a credible E-W road in that sector of the city... so most likely this would have to coincide with an expansion of McKnight/John Laurie.

That being said, great vision there De, and a great project, definately on par for somebody following a history of ambitious projects. ;)

[Distill3d]

...but there are enough '86 Buick Regals travelling at 30 km/h that it would enfuriate people...

OT: there are some of us here who do drive '86 Buick Regal's that don't do 30 km/h, even in school zones lol

anyways, i agree this should be pitched with expansion of McKnight/John Laurie. i would also mention this would be a wonderful model for the 17 ave SE "International Avenue" concept.

[Tau1]

The goal of this project is to implement Transit-Oriented development along an existing transportation Corridor. While one goal is to provide movement for automobiles in an east-west fashion, and to support local traffic and the regional context, the project strives to stimulate and provide options to intensify mixed-use and quality residences, commercial, institutional, and other uses as seen along 17th Avenue - Red Mile.

Absolutely correct about having to garner enough ridership for the BRT. It is important and this is something the City needs to catch up to, is to provide the transit service before the development, or have it as part of the development plan. For this project, it is envisioned the increased development, in addition to the fact that it is now an additional option for east-west movement (to address the jobs-housing imbalance in Calgary), that ridership in an east west fashion would be justified. It is in a sense an overall scope and the project looks ultimately to link to Chestermere in the east and Canmore in the west.

Anyway, to people who don't know me.
I'm Tommy. One of the group members on the project. Hello De. =)

[The Geographer]

I agree with the statement that the advantages of BRT are exaggerated.

My biggest problem with the comparison of Ottawa and Calgary, holding Ottawa as the superior example, is that it mixes up correlation and causation for land use development and transportation.

The disadvantages of Ottawa's BRT is that it has cost almost as much to build as Calgary's LRT while: lacking ability to expand capacity through the most congested (appropriate) areas of the city, a lack of reliability due to dependence on roadways in congested areas, and a higher operating cost due to greater labour/fuel/maintenance.

The generally stated advantage of Ottawa's BRT is that it was deployed faster and thus was able to affect development towards a higher density, transit-oriented development. This is supposed to justify the fact that Ottawa will now have to build and LRT anyway so as to increase capacity. The problem is that there is a whole list of reasons why Calgary has developed the way it has that doesn't have to do with a lack of LRT. Zoning policy, to how the city let developers operate over the decades had more to do with how Calgary grew. Calgary has poor development despite its LRT, not because of it.

While Ottawa's BRT is correlated with more transit-oriented development, I think it is a stretch to say that it was the cause of it. While Calgary's LRT is correlated with less-transit-oriented development, it is also a stretch to say it is the cause of it (relative to BRT).

[Wooster]

^ Ottawa has practically no good examples of Transit Oriented Development save for maybe Holland Cross since the inception of BRT. At Queen's planning our major land use project course was looking at the TOD potential of a future LRT line on Montreal and Blair Roads in East Ottawa. We scoured Ottawa and asked many of the planners for good precedents regarding TOD. There aren't any.

In fact, probably the best executed TOD in Canada is Bridges, perhaps Collingwood in Vancouver.

[The Geographer]

I was under the impression that, despite a scattered metropolitan form, Ottawa has generally pursued more dense development on a community scale. I am not necessarily talking about particularly TOD "nodes", just development in general. At least that is the impression the BRT advocates have given me...

Anyway, if it has, then that has a lot to do with policy that is more complex than simply BRT. If Ottawa hasn't even developed that way, as you suggest, then using Ottawa as a positive BRT example is on even shakier ground.

[Wooster]

Perhaps some newer neighbourhoods on the outskirts have relatively dense form, but they have little or no relation to BRT. I rode several of the lines, but most are really quite isolated from anything at all except for the extreme inner city.

TOD needs to be done deliberately through very specific policy. Ottawa, Calgary and many other cities have learned that development does not simply follow transit, be it BRT or LRT). It usually needs large parcels of public land. The public, such as the City usually has to be the initiator.

In our study we determined several different 'types' of TOD depending on the context. It related well to Duaney's idea of the transect. The 'urban mainstreet' context had a very different appropriate TOD form to an 'urban node' or a 'suburban neighbourhood' context.

[dmuzika]

I think that if you want 16 Ave N to be a pedestrian-friendly, transit orientated corridor, the Trans Canada Highway needs to be rerouted.

The ring road will alleviate some of the TCH traffic, but taking Stoney Trail/East Freeway will significantly lengthen the trip through Calgary. Between the 16 Ave/Ring Road junctions, it’s approx 41 km via the ring road (when complete) as opposed to 23 km via 16 Ave.

The Trans Canada Highway should still go through Calgary, as opposed to around Calgary, so reroute Hwy 1 through Calgary via Sarcee & Glenmore Trails. Extend the Glenmore Trail freeway east of Calgary and construct a NE/SW connector to reconnect with the current TCH near Langdon, similar to what happened Yellowhead Trail west of Edmonton.

If a Glenmore extension was constructed, approx distances between Stoney Trail & Hwy 9 would be:

- 42 km via 16 Avenue N
- 49 km via Glenmore Trail/Sarcee Trail (approx, depending on alignment)
- 60 km via Stoney Trail/East Freeway

Any thoughts?

[The Geographer]

You know, I was thinking the same thing when looking at a map. Would a trucker actually go all the way around if they thought they might get an average of 35-40 km/h in an off-peak period on 16th?

Anyway, I kind of like your Glenmore idea, but I don't know how it would work in the SW. Perhaps just use the new SW ring road as the connector?

[dmuzika]

You know, I was thinking the same thing when looking at a map. Would a trucker actually go all the way around if they thought they might get an average of 35-40 km/h in an off-peak period on 16th?

Anyway, I kind of like your Glenmore idea, but I don't know how it would work in the SW. Perhaps just use the new SW ring road as the connector?

That would work. Another option is using the already existing Sarcee Trail, which forms the origional SW Bypass. Converting it to a freeway might be tricky with the high tension power lines, but it would use already existing city infastructure.

[YYCguys]

If the Tsuu Tina are able to permanently stall negotions for the Ring Road through their land (which it seems to have done, since I've not heard a thing about it for ages!), what are the options that the City/Province have come up with in getting a ring road into the SW?

Why doesn't the Province do a land swap with the Nation, giving us the ample land we need for the road and giving them undisturbed land out west of Bragg Creek?

Sorry, I realized that I had posted this in the wrong thread. I will copy it into the proper one.

[The Geographer]

But they want in on the benefits of the ring road, not just to have the land reimbursed elsewhere... which is quite understandable.

[craner]

I think that if you want 16 Ave N to be a pedestrian-friendly, transit orientated corridor, the Trans Canada Highway needs to be rerouted.

The ring road will alleviate some of the TCH traffic, but taking Stoney Trail/East Freeway will significantly lengthen the trip through Calgary. Between the 16 Ave/Ring Road junctions, it’s approx 41 km via the ring road (when complete) as opposed to 23 km via 16 Ave.

The Trans Canada Highway should still go through Calgary, as opposed to around Calgary, so reroute Hwy 1 through Calgary via Sarcee & Glenmore Trails. Extend the Glenmore Trail freeway east of Calgary and construct a NE/SW connector to reconnect with the current TCH near Langdon, similar to what happened Yellowhead Trail west of Edmonton.

If a Glenmore extension was constructed, approx distances between Stoney Trail & Hwy 9 would be:

- 42 km via 16 Avenue N
- 49 km via Glenmore Trail/Sarcee Trail (approx, depending on alignment)
- 60 km via Stoney Trail/East Freeway

Any thoughts?

I meant to resond to this post awhile ago and then forgot:
I agree the TCH should go through the city as freeway in addition to the ring road. I have also thought of the Sarcee-Glenmore alignment you mention and I think it would be the easiest.
Ideally though I think there should be an east-west freeway on the north side of the city. Coming from the west I was thinking of an upgraded 16th Ave. in it's current alignment to Shagannappi Tr., head north to John Laurie (lots of room to widen this puppy), and then linking up with McKnight Blv. (which the city is planning to upgrade) and then east out of the city and link up with the existing TCH. May have to switch the TCH and Bowness road alignments near the river.
Another option would be to bring the TCH in from the west along Crowchild Tr. and link up with Shag-JLB_McKnight from there. One thing I like about the Mcknight alignment is that it would service the airport as well.
Anyway, just me sharing some of my daydreams. ;)

[Stephen Ave]

I have no problems with the TCH still going through Calgary, as long as the trucks are gone. 16th ave is going to have a much bigger profile in our city once all of the construction is finished and the trucks are banished to the ring road. It's going to blossom into a nice artery.

[Corndogger]

I have no problems with the TCH still going through Calgary, as long as the trucks are gone. 16th ave is going to have a much bigger profile in our city once all of the construction is finished and the trucks are banished to the ring road. It's going to blossom into a nice artery.

What makes you think trucks are going to be banished from 16th avenue? They're not going to be and unless the province wakes up and takes out the lights on the NW part of Stoney Trail I bet a lot of truckers will not use it. Who in their right mind is going to go that far out of their way so they can suffer through stop and go traffic when they could do the same thing for a much shorter distance? Also, building Stoney Trail as only a four lane road to start off with is another huge mistake. With tens of thousands of people expected to move into new developments north of Stoney Trail, the road will be clogged in no time. This is just another example of bad planning and inflated construction costs down the road.

[Deepstar]

What makes you think trucks are going to be banished from 16th avenue? They're not going to be and unless the province wakes up and takes out the lights on the NW part of Stoney Trail I bet a lot of truckers will not use it. Who in their right mind is going to go that far out of their way so they can suffer through stop and go traffic when they could do the same thing for a much shorter distance? Also, building Stoney Trail as only a four lane road to start off with is another huge mistake. With tens of thousands of people expected to move into new developments north of Stoney Trail, the road will be clogged in no time. This is just another example of bad planning and inflated construction costs down the road.

Truckers probably won't have a choice. If the ring road becomes the designated truck route, then that's the route they'll have to take. 16th will be a hell of alot better once the trucks are off of it.

[Corndogger]

Truckers probably won't have a choice. If the ring road becomes the designated truck route, then that's the route they'll have to take. 16th will be a hell of alot better once the trucks are off of it.

I don't think the City can force trucks to use a certain route unless they are carrying dangerous goods. Truckers will use the route that is most economical for them and that probably won't be Stoney Trail if the NW portion has lights on it. Given the rate they're going on it they could easily start building the missing interchanges now and still have them done at the same time as the rest of the project. Anyone who says going P3 is a mistake on roads hasn't been paying attention to the huge difference in progress on the government built vs. P3 built sections of 201 in Calgary and 216 in Edmonton.

[Bad Grizzly]

I don't think the City can force trucks to use a certain route unless they are carrying dangerous goods. Truckers will use the route that is most economical for them and that probably won't be Stoney Trail if the NW portion has lights on it. Given the rate they're going on it they could easily start building the missing interchanges now and still have them done at the same time as the rest of the project. Anyone who says going P3 is a mistake on roads hasn't been paying attention to the huge difference in progress on the government built vs. P3 built sections of 201 in Calgary and 216 in Edmonton.

I thought the city could designate truck routes. Not just dangerous goods, but what roads trucks could use, with the exception of making deliveries.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

I don't think the City can force trucks to use a certain route unless they are carrying dangerous goods. Truckers will use the route that is most economical for them and that probably won't be Stoney Trail if the NW portion has lights on it. Given the rate they're going on it they could easily start building the missing interchanges now and still have them done at the same time as the rest of the project. Anyone who says going P3 is a mistake on roads hasn't been paying attention to the huge difference in progress on the government built vs. P3 built sections of 201 in Calgary and 216 in Edmonton.


I know in my neighborhood (Mayland Heights) trucks are prohibited on 19 St except for local delivery. I'm sure it can be done elsewhere, especially where there is a new 4 lane highway to accept re-routed traffic.

[Riise]

I don't think the City can force trucks to use a certain route unless they are carrying dangerous goods.

As long as they have these they can...

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/56/39/23303956.jpg

[Greco Roman]

So when is construction set to be complete for this whole project?

[mersar]

So when is construction set to be complete for this whole project?

Summer 2009 according to the city. Road work will be done next summer, but there are some landscaping things and sidewalks on the schedule for spring of 2009.

[You Need A Thneed]

Yeah, the city sure can dictate where trucks will drive. I'm not sure if 16th Ave will remain a truck route, it still might. But Truck traffic will use the ring road anyway, because even though it will be a longer distance, the number of lights will be only 3 or 4 to start instead of 20 or so, and that's not to mention the 100 or 110 speed limit as opposed to the 60km/h that will be the posted speed through the centre of town when all the construction is done.

Truck drivers much prefer less lights, its much easier to drive.

[mersar]

I wouldn't be surprised if they did similar to John Laurie where trucks are prohibited only certain times (for J.L. its during the day Mon-Sat and Sunday all day from what I recall), so potentially allow trucks at night but restrict them during the day from using 16th.

[korzym]

Trucks should have more restrictions, they should be required to take stoney when it's complete instead of 16th, and on top of that it should be law that they must stay in the right lane...that applies for deerfoot as well.
Benefits to 16th traffic wise are obvious, it will also help preserve the life of the pavement on 16th, if you've ever noticed that massive waves in the pavement...look no further than tractor trailers

[You Need A Thneed]

it will also help preserve the life of the pavement on 16th, if you've ever noticed that massive waves in the pavement...look no further than tractor trailers

Caused directly by the heavy weight of the trailers, yes, but ultimately caused by improper design and construction of the road.

[Surrealplaces]

Trucks should have more restrictions, they should be required to take stoney when it's complete instead of 16th, and on top of that it should be law that they must stay in the right lane...that applies for deerfoot as well.
Benefits to 16th traffic wise are obvious, it will also help preserve the life of the pavement on 16th, if you've ever noticed that massive waves in the pavement...look no further than tractor trailers

I agree. I'd like to see trucks off of 16th ave. The reason the pavement gets all screwed up from trucks is the sudden stop action. If they weren't stopping alot, the road probably would be fine, but that won't be the case with 16th ave of course.

Without trucks on 16th, it has the potential to become a nice urban artery.

[Riise]

If they weren't stopping alot, the road probably would be fine, but that won't be the case with 16th ave of course.

If the ridiculous amount local traffic that uses the road did not clog it up then the trucks wouldn't have to stop as much...

Without trucks on 16th, it has the potential to become a nice urban artery.

I think the amount of local traffic that uses it is the biggest obstacle.

[Corndogger]

Yeah, the city sure can dictate where trucks will drive. I'm not sure if 16th Ave will remain a truck route, it still might. But Truck traffic will use the ring road anyway, because even though it will be a longer distance, the number of lights will be only 3 or 4 to start instead of 20 or so, and that's not to mention the 100 or 110 speed limit as opposed to the 60km/h that will be the posted speed through the centre of town when all the construction is done.

Truck drivers much prefer less lights, its much easier to drive.

I totally agree with your last paragraph but have doubts about your first points. Truckers coming from the east and heading to areas around the airport or further north will definitely use Stoney Trail. But if the NW section of Stoney Trail is too congested because of lights they might discover the shorter distance through the city makes up for the million traffic lights.

And speaking of traffic lights and the 'upgrade' to 16th Avenue, I believe once the average person discovers that we spent close to $100 million and ended up with four more sets of lights that there will be a huge uproar. The later this project is done the better. Then maybe the residents of Ward 7 who don't live close to downtown will vote out Druh in 2010 and we can be rid of her social engineering and micro managing of projects in this city.

[The Chemist]

Jeez, with a title like "The People's Corridor" I figured we'd all sit on some public building steps, sing "We Shall Overcome" and then set fire to an effigy of the latest capitalist tyrant to make the front pages...

I can't even read the word People's anymore without hearing the voice of the subway destination announcer from the Shanghai metro - I just LOVE the way she renders 'People's Square' with her lovely Chinese accent. :)

On topic, I'd love to see all the heavy trucks off of 16th. The stretch of 16th between Peters Drive in and SAIT would be a pretty nice urban artery if not for the huge amount of truck traffic on it.

[shreddog]

At the last community info meeting on the 16th ave upgrade (I live in Tuxedo) one of the city reps stated that once the northen ring road component was complete, heavy trucks would be banned from 16th Ave 24 hours a day. Their intent is to make it a "people oriented corridor" and allowing trucks there in off hours would defeat this.

Currently it is insane how much heavy truck traffic there is on 16th after midnight. Many TCH truckers time their Calgary leg to between 12AM and 6AM to avoid traffic. Allowing that to stay would kill the desire of anyone to buy into one of Le Caille's (or anyone else's) condos.

Once Stoney is complete, truckers will have no choice but to bypass.

[niwell]

And speaking of traffic lights and the 'upgrade' to 16th Avenue, I believe once the average person discovers that we spent close to $100 million and ended up with four more sets of lights that there will be a huge uproar. The later this project is done the better. Then maybe the residents of Ward 7 who don't live close to downtown will vote out Druh in 2010 and we can be rid of her social engineering and micro managing of projects in this city.

Why are more lights bad exactly, unless you're looking from a purely auto oriented perspective? The great boulevards of the world aren't free flow, and I'm sure as hell glad Calgary is finally starting to realize this.

Oh, and at Riise, great plan! Exactly what I'd like to see 16th look like in the future, except with Spadina ave style LRT as opposed to BRT.

[Stephen Ave]

I totally agree with your last paragraph but have doubts about your first points. Truckers coming from the east and heading to areas around the airport or further north will definitely use Stoney Trail. But if the NW section of Stoney Trail is too congested because of lights they might discover the shorter distance through the city makes up for the million traffic lights.

The city can control whether trucks use 16th or not. Hopefully the don't allow trucks on 16th.


And speaking of traffic lights and the 'upgrade' to 16th Avenue, I believe once the average person discovers that we spent close to $100 million and ended up with four more sets of lights that there will be a huge uproar. The later this project is done the better. Then maybe the residents of Ward 7 who don't live close to downtown will vote out Druh in 2010 and we can be rid of her social engineering and micro managing of projects in this city.

What four new sets of lights?

Anyhow I could care less about the lights. I agree with ^Niwell^ a slow moving but busy avenue can be a good urban avenue. I personally like wide arteries that move at a bit slower pace. Much like the boulevards in European cities.

[Jeffsey500]

Slow moving can be good, if it were quieter (Remove loud semis and why on earth are cars getting louder and louder?). Whenever I have to walk along there, even with the new sidewalks, it so noisey I'd rather walk a few blocks in to avoid the noise. But that might just be me. I hear hearing is overrated.

[93JC]

why on earth are cars getting louder and louder?

:koko:

They're not.

[KrisYYC]

Slow moving can be good, if it were quieter (Remove loud semis and why on earth are cars getting louder and louder?). Whenever I have to walk along there, even with the new sidewalks, it so noisey I'd rather walk a few blocks in to avoid the noise. But that might just be me. I hear hearing is overrated.

That's all of the trash that has moved here in droves over the last 5 years and blowing their new Alberta wages on things like loud ass harley's and huge pick up trucks with loud exhausts.

[Jeffsey500]

That's all of the trash that has moved here in droves over the last 5 years and blowing their new Alberta wages on things like loud ass harley's and huge pick up trucks with loud exhausts.

In a few years, they can blow their wages on hearing aides too. I miss the days of quiet vehicles (and the quiet high-floor busses (no that low-floor is bad), but thats another story)

[Habanero]

That's all of the trash that has moved here in droves over the last 5 years and blowing their new Alberta wages on things like loud ass harley's and huge pick up trucks with loud exhausts.

Hey, I'm one of those people who moved here in the last five years, are you saying I'm trash??

[Tau1]

The 16th Avenue North: The People's Corridor project has now officially received the Honorable Mention award from the City of Calgary's 2007 Mayor's Urban Design Awards held Nov 1 at The Grand.

The award winning designs, along with honorable mentions and the other submissions will be displayed Nov 2, Nov 6-9 at the atrium in the Municipal Building downtown.

Please feel free to head on down and check out the work!
The project team has improved on the original plans since the summer and exciting progress to come and to be announced.

Tommy A.
B.A. UBST (2009)
MUDA H.M. Recipient (2007)

[Boris2k7]

Wait a sec, you are a forumer here?

HI! :coolugh:

maybe you told me that already?

[Wooster]

The 16th Avenue North: The People's Corridor project has now officially received the Honorable Mention award from the City of Calgary's 2007 Mayor's Urban Design Awards held Nov 1 at The Grand.

The award winning designs, along with honorable mentions and the other submissions will be displayed Nov 2, Nov 6-9 at the atrium in the Municipal Building downtown.

Please feel free to head on down and check out the work!
The project team has improved on the original plans since the summer and exciting progress to come and to be announced.

Tommy A.
B.A. UBST (2009)
MUDA H.M. Recipient (2007)

Wow, congratulations! That is outstanding. :tup:

[Tau1]

Wait a sec, you are a forumer here?

HI! :coolugh:

maybe you told me that already?

Haha...
I'm Tommy... from your Canadian Studies class, lol.

[Tau1]

Wow, congratulations! That is outstanding. :tup:

Thank you!
Work will continue so keep your eyes peeled on the website very soon.

[Boris2k7]

Haha...
I'm Tommy... from your Canadian Studies class, lol.

That's what I'm acknowledging through my slight astonishment at your forum participation, misplaced as it may be.

Congrats on the honorable mention. I'll have to head down after school and have a look. I'm interested in seeing who the winner is if they could beat this project.

[Tau1]

That's what I'm acknowledging through my slight astonishment at your forum participation, misplaced as it may be.

Congrats on the honorable mention. I'll have to head down after school and have a look. I'm interested in seeing who the winner is if they could beat this project.

There are different winners in various categories.
The student category winner was iCITY 2.0.

http://www.calgary.ca/muda has a comprehensive list.

[Boris2k7]

Went and had a look. Lots of good ideas out there. At least two of them had to do with revamping Brentwood Mall, though with very different visions.

Sturgess ran away with at least three of the awards, two of them for the 1st Street Station and one for Water Centre. He might have won at least one more for the Water Centre, but I can't remember.

[Tau1]

Went and had a look. Lots of good ideas out there. At least two of them had to do with revamping Brentwood Mall, though with very different visions.

Sturgess ran away with at least three of the awards, two of them for the 1st Street Station and one for Water Centre. He might have won at least one more for the Water Centre, but I can't remember.

Well, practically all, for the exception of student projects and I think one other project, were won internally on City projects =)

Who would have thought!

[Wooster]

Went and had a look. Lots of good ideas out there. At least two of them had to do with revamping Brentwood Mall, though with very different visions.


I will be working on the TOD planning for Brentwood thanks to having won a postition with the consulting firm who was awarded 3 of the 6 stations for TOD study. I will be reading these with interest.

[frinkprof]

^Can you specify which stations?

And congratulations. Hopefully the city adopts AND politically supports AND funds the projects.

[korzym]

looks like the city put up new documents
http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_707_203_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Development+and+Building+Approvals+and+Land+Use+Planning+and+Policy/Land+Use+Planning/Current+Studies+and+Ongoing+Activities/16+Avenue+North+Urban+Corridor+Area+Redevelopment+Plan/16+Avenue+North+Urban+Corridor+Area+Redevelopment+Plan.htm

seems like these are more concrete plans to increase density