TCH Route Through Calgary

[craner]

With the current work on 16th Avenue in Calgary there was some discussion about changing the designated Trans Canada Highway route through the city. Out driving on the weekend I came from the east city limit heading west on McKnight - John Laurie. I think this is a realistic option to turn into a free-flow TCH route as far as Sarcee Tr NW at which point it would have to head south to Crowchild (Hwy 1A) or further south across the river to link up with 16th Ave (not very likely). New connections to the TCH outside the city limits would be required but not insurmountable. I like the fact this route would pass close to the Airport, and there are some great views of the skyline, mountains, and the city which would leave a good impression on travelers. Widening and interchanges for John Laurie would be relatively simple along Nose Hill park.
If I was more software savy I would post a map, but sorry, I'm not. Feel free to do so for your proposal. Have fun with it.:notacrook:

[mersar]

In my opinion the only realistic route change for the TCH would be to do what Winnipeg did and make the ring road part of it. I'm all for upgrading McKnight and John Laurie, especially around the corner at 48th, but I wouldn't support making it the TCH. Most of the changes needed (and thankfully a number are coming) to McKnight would be needed even more if it were to be redesignated, probably to the tune of several hundred million dollars (interchange at Sarcee, Shagnappi, McKnight/John Laurie, potentially Centre Street, rebuilding the McKnight/Deerfoot, 12th Street, 19th Street, Barlow, and most of them are just about needed as it is currently)

[Boris2k7]

I have put this forward already, but I believe that upgrading already-existing highways to reroute the TCH down to Glenmore would be a reasonable solution.

Click to Enlarge
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4121/transglenmorecb4.jpg (http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/8012/transglenmorehd8.jpg)

This is in recognition of the fact that, realistically, Glenmore is the only E-W route directly through Calgary that could be turned fully into a limited-access freeway. And that drivers, unless forced otherwise, will probably choose to go through the city than around it.

[Spocket]

Sorry to intrude but I doubt you'll ever see a re-route of the TCH through Calgary. When cities build circumferential highways (Winnipeg, Regina, for example) what usually happens is that two routes are created with the same designation. One is a city route and the other is the bypass route. Why that's done exactly I don't know but it appears to be the norm. Anyway, now that Calgary is building a bypass encircling most of the city , part of it at least will probably be designated as TCH. In that case, there's not really any point in re-routing the current TCH path through the city.

[Boris2k7]

Well, except that there IS a point in doing so, since unlike Winnipeg the ring road is very, very close to the edge of Calgary and people are more likely NOT to go all the way around. People use a bypass when the difference between that and the direct route appears to be negligible, and even better. Here, you will hit the ring road and you have the choice of going about 10Km directly through the city, 30Km around the city, or 5Km down to Glenmore and right through the city for the rest of the 10Km anyways. And if we want an E-W route that is built up to the highest standards (think German Autobahn), we might as well choose the primary route through the city and give it a reason to be that way.

[freeweed]

Well, except that there IS a point in doing so, since unlike Winnipeg the ring road is very, very close to the edge of Calgary and people are more likely NOT to go all the way around.

The Perimeter Highway around Wpg (TCH 1A, basically) is a lot further out of the way than you realize. Hell, it even has stoplights on it, and people still take it. :haha: Most of it actually borders farmland that extends for kilometers towards the city.

Not that I'm adverse to another free-flow route through Calgary, but having lived with a slow inner-city TCH, it's a non-issue for the most part. When approaching Calgary from the east, we'll see 2 signs: Calgary (straight), and Banff (turn right and take the freeway). Anyone going through will figure it out pretty quick.

[Riise]

In my opinion I don't see the need for an inner-city east-west freeway. Though, if it was decided that one was indeed needed and a current roadway would be converted I would prefer Glenmore over McKnight. My reasoning behind this is that the Glenmore corridor couldn't be used for much more and a good number of sections are already at or near to motorway standard. On the other hand, McKnight has the potential to be a decent transit enabled urban corridor that could handle a decent amount of vehicular traffic. However, like Freeweed pointed out, we have already managed without an inner-city east-west freeway in the past and could continue to do so in the future.

The largest amount of inner-city east-west trips made are those made for commuting, a good portion of these trips, as well as those made for general purposes (i.e. shopping), could be taken off of the "road" if an east-west rapid transit corridor was established. Of course, that is in addition to a more multi-destinational Calgary Transit network/system. However, there would still be some trips that people would have to make by car as well as inner-city commercial trips.

I believe these could be handled by quality urban corridors that are built to handle arterial level, or close to, traffic volumes; think the new 16th. This could be made easier if we encouraged a change in the transportation industry. We could encourage, or even require through size restrictions, inner-city commercial traffic to utilize urban transport vehicles like Sprinters or narrow body freight trucks (GMC W and T-Series).

[Grendel]

Well, except that there IS a point in doing so, since unlike Winnipeg the ring road is very, very close to the edge of Calgary and people are more likely NOT to go all the way around. People use a bypass when the difference between that and the direct route appears to be negligible, and even better. Here, you will hit the ring road and you have the choice of going about 10Km directly through the city, 30Km around the city, or 5Km down to Glenmore and right through the city for the rest of the 10Km anyways. And if we want an E-W route that is built up to the highest standards (think German Autobahn), we might as well choose the primary route through the city and give it a reason to be that way.

Is it faster to get to Banff from YYC via Country Hills Bl, or 16 Ave? I would tend to think that 16 Ave is faster; however, when I worked at the car rental desk at the airport, it was the common belief (among the business travel set) that Country Hills Bl was the more direct route. I always put this down to the perception that you were making better progress due to the fact that CHB is wider, with less stoplights and in general, less congestion.

In the same way, I think that when it's built, people will prefer to take the ring road rather than the TCH through the city, if only because people in cars tend to prefer freeways to boulevards.
Speaking as someone who has had the occasion to travel across the country several times by road, I take the detour around Winnipeg's ring road every time, if only to avoid having to deal with all the problems inherent in urban road systems: gridlock, car accidents, breakdowns, shopping centre rushes, drive by shootings :haha:, unexpected navigation problems, etc etc.

[Boris2k7]

Is it faster to get to Banff from YYC via Country Hills Bl, or 16 Ave? I would tend to think that 16 Ave is faster; however, when I worked at the car rental desk at the airport, it was the common belief (among the business travel set) that Country Hills Bl was the more direct route. I always put this down to the perception that you were making better progress due to the fact that CHB is wider, with less stoplights and in general, less congestion.

Well, I would asume from YYC it would be CHB... but people coming west on the Transcanada aren't going to be hitting the Ring Road at YYC, they are going to be hitting it at 16th Ave. I don't really know that much about what those people's perceptions really would be, but those are the assumptions that my quick and dirty model was based off of. I think the biggest piece of rational for providing an actual E-W freeway, using existing routes that are already freeway-like, is that it would cut off and future expansions of said routes, lower their traffic (in addition to the travellers whom would be going the long way around on Stoney), and enable the city to "localize" the roads once again by putting in boulevards, increasing pedestrian connections, throwing in transit and bike lanes, etc.

[Rise_of_the_West]

Interesting idea Boris. This would definitly speed up travel on the TCH through the city, particularly if Glenmore is transformed into a freeway with higher speed limit. It would definitly involve quite a bit of cost, but if it was implemented as part of the planned Glenmore trail upgrades (particularly widening the west section), then it might be feasable.

You may not even have to extend it that far west either. Using Sarcee Trail you would only have 3 intersections (which should have been overpasses in the first place) to deal with between glenmore and the current TCH

[freeweed]

Is it faster to get to Banff from YYC via Country Hills Bl, or 16 Ave?

Neither. McKnight and John Laurie, then duck down to Crowchild, then down Stoney, is much faster.

CHB is a gigantic parking lot any time the sun is above the horizon.

[freeweed]

From TCH/NE ring road intersection to TCH/Stoney intersection, as measured on Google Earth:

16th Ave direct - 22.7km
Stoney trail ring road (NE & NW) - 40.4km

As the ring road will be (virtually) free-flow and 80kph, you'd have to average at least 40kph to make 16th Ave even compete in terms of time.

I don't think anyone has ever managed to average 40kph on 16th Ave. That's hitting damn near every light green. There are a LOT of 50 sections on that road. I'd be surprised if a person averaged 30.

[Bassic Lab]

From TCH/NE ring road intersection to TCH/Stoney intersection, as measured on Google Earth:

16th Ave direct - 22.7km
Stoney trail ring road (NE & NW) - 40.4km

As the ring road will be (virtually) free-flow and 80kph, you'd have to average at least 40kph to make 16th Ave even compete in terms of time.

I don't think anyone has ever managed to average 40kph on 16th Ave. That's hitting damn near every light green. There are a LOT of 50 sections on that road. I'd be surprised if a person averaged 30.

Maybe at 3:00 AM, you'd still have to be kind of lucky. Also, won't much of the completed ring road have a speed limit higher than 80?

One problem with Glenmore, it can't be used for a lot of trucking as dangerous goods are not allowed over the causeway.

[mersar]

Completed ring road is supposed to be 100km/h initially. Design speed for most was 110 but until all the traffic lights are gone I wouldn't expect to see it increased.

[freeweed]

Completed ring road is supposed to be 100km/h initially. Design speed for most was 110 but until all the traffic lights are gone I wouldn't expect to see it increased.

Seriously?? I figured I'd go with the conservative estimate at 80.

Surprising we'll see a 100 road with lights, but I guess the Deerfoot was like that too until recently.

OK, so the ring road will be MUCH faster than 16th, not just a lot faster. :tup:

[mersar]

Crowchild is 90 with lights on the NW edge of the city, and I wouldn't expect to see Stoney approaching the Nose Hill interchange to go up from 80 just due to the hill.

Perhaps one of the Edmonton forumers can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most of AHD 100km/h along the southern edge of the city?

[freeweed]

K, and as further comparison:

Boris' neat idea through Glenmore: 68.4km.

It adds some distance on the existing TCH from my earlier measurements, so here's the other 2 options:

16th Ave: 62km
Ring Road: 79km

Heading a ways up north on the ring road is about 10km longer than ducking down through Glenmore. Not sure if 10km shorter for that kind of distance is worth the extra roadwork involved in upgrading Glenmore (and adding more highway on either end to join with the TCH. But I must admit, this is the first time I've ever seen Boris argue for more car-friendly driving within the city, so I'm all for it if he is. ;)

[freeweed]

Crowchild is 90 with lights on the NW edge of the city, and I wouldn't expect to see Stoney approaching the Nose Hill interchange to go up from 80 just due to the hill.

You're right. And it makes sense. I still can't get over the impending fear that planners are going to do the stupid thing and make roads far less efficient than they could be.

You might say it's how I was raised.

You've made my day though - I figure it'll take me roughly 15 minutes from my door to the Airport now. That's fantastic. :worship:

[Zilla]

I understand that routing the TCH in the vicinity of McKnight was a preferred option for TCH planners when it was built in the 50s, but the 16th Avenue businesses lobbied for the current route, fearing loss of business traffic. It was a much smaller city back then, eh?

[freeweed]

I understand that routing the TCH in the vicinity of McKnight was a preferred option for TCH planners when it was built in the 50s, but the 16th Avenue businesses lobbied for the current route, fearing loss of business traffic. It was a much smaller city back then, eh?

This is actually a concern that's been brought up with every single bypass/ring road project I've ever heard of. Local businesses sure think people will take the roundabout way instead of the "direct" route.

I'm actually surprised we haven't heard much of anything along these lines w.r.t. our ring road - maybe adult video shops and pawn shops aren't too worried about the loss of highway traffic. :haha: Seriously though, I'm surprised the Banff Trail strip hasn't been complaining - they must see a fair chunk of the drive-through business.

[mersar]

I understand that routing the TCH in the vicinity of McKnight was a preferred option for TCH planners when it was built in the 50s, but the 16th Avenue businesses lobbied for the current route, fearing loss of business traffic. It was a much smaller city back then, eh?

Definitely. The routing on the west side by the University was originally planned to run down 24th (hence the extra wide corridor) from what I recall, then down the hill to where 16th is in Montgomery and out the city that way.

[Jarrod]

Seriously?? I figured I'd go with the conservative estimate at 80.

Surprising we'll see a 100 road with lights, but I guess the Deerfoot was like that too until recently.

OK, so the ring road will be MUCH faster than 16th, not just a lot faster. :tup:

The Inland Island Highway on VAncouver Island is 110 km/h with lights.

[freeweed]

The Inland Island Highway on VAncouver Island is 110 km/h with lights.

Yeah.. I meant within the confines of a city. I've been on many 100kph highways with lights, believe me - I grew up on the prairies, after all! We even have stop signs on 100 routes (not making this up).

[craner]

I have put this forward already, but I believe that upgrading already-existing highways to reroute the TCH down to Glenmore would be a reasonable solution.

Click to Enlarge
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4121/transglenmorecb4.jpg (http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/8012/transglenmorehd8.jpg)

This is in recognition of the fact that, realistically, Glenmore is the only E-W route directly through Calgary that could be turned fully into a limited-access freeway. And that drivers, unless forced otherwise, will probably choose to go through the city than around it.

Interesting idea Boris. I always assumed if Glenmore was to become the new TCH route it would be done via 16th Ave - Sarcee - Glenmore (as someone also mentioned). I think your route is a better one but there would likely be some resistance from lower Springbank residents, might have to bring it out Hwy 8 further. It also wouldn't be the most scenic route through the east side industrial area along Glenmore.

Mersar: Thanks for explaining the wide ROW for 24th Ave - interesting.

[craner]

Yeah.. I meant within the confines of a city. I've been on many 100kph highways with lights, believe me - I grew up on the prairies, after all! We even have stop signs on 100 routes (not making this up).

Only on the Canadian praries. :haha:

[dmuzika]

As already mentioned, rerouting the TCH via Glenmore Trail would only add a nominal distance but greatly improve travelling through Calgary. There are enough links out there pointing to Sarcee & Glenmore Trails being full freeways between Calgary's eastern & western city limits, so the only project that isn't on the books is an eastern Glenmore Trail extension to TCH 1.

Compliments of the City of Calgary
Graves Bridge Twinning (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_395_203_0_47/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Transportation+Infrastructure/Construction+Projects/Road+and+Intersection+Improvements/Glenmore+Trail+Improvements+and+Graves+Bridge+Twinning.htm)
Glenmore Trail Corridor (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_780_230_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Transportation/Transportation+Planning/Studies/Glenmore+Trail+Corridor+Blackfoot+to+Barlow+SE/Introduction.htm) (Blackfoot Tr to Barlow Tr) - click on Open House 3 (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_780_230_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Transportation/Transportation+Planning/Studies/Glenmore+Trail+Corridor+Blackfoot+to+Barlow+SE/Open+House+3+November+2005.htm) to see some maps

East of Calgary (Compliments of Rocky View MD)
Shepard Area Structure Plan (http://www.gov.mdrockyview.ab.ca/Uploaded/ShepardASP.pdf) - fast forward to page 80

Compliments of Alberta Transportation
Deerfoot Trail & Blackfoot Trail interchange reconfigerations (http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType490/production/glen-m1.pdf)
West Ring Road Interchanges (http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType490/production/1106SWRR-FUNC-BOARD2.pdf)- includes Stoney Trail SW, Sarcee Tr, and 37 St SW
East Freeway Interchange (http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType490/production/P-3247-51.pdf)

There are no links, but you can probably bet there are will utimatly be interchanges at 52 St SE and 68 St SE, the only signals on Glenmore Trail not addressed in the above links.

As for Sarcee Trail? Here (http://www.mcelhanney.com/mcsl/projects/Sarcee/project.php) is a study for interchanges at Richmond Rd, 17 Ave SW, and Bow Trail.

[craner]

:previous: Thanks for the boatload of info and links.:tup:

[defaultuser]

Is it really so bad that people traveling through our fair city are burdened by a few traffic lights and a slower speed limit? I mean, this place is in the middle of nowhere in the grand scheme of things, so why not slow down and take in the awesomeness that is Calgary. What else is there?

Any upgrades should be done with the interests of the people using the infrastructure daily, first and foremost.

[Boris2k7]

Any upgrades should be done with the interests of the people using the infrastructure daily, first and foremost.

Any highway traffic taken off of innercity roads is in the interest of people who live in those areas, first and foremost.

Catering to suburban commuters is secondary.

[craner]

Whatever the TCH route through the city is (or becomes) I really hope they landscape the crap out of it. The trees along 16th Ave east between Barlow and 52nd are brutal.:( And get rid of the lights at 19th and the Deerfoot interchange while they are at it.;)

[craner]

Actually, if 16th Ave remains the TCH this is what I would like to see:
1. Complete the widening and "Boulevard" improvements currently underway between 10th St. NW and 6th St NE.
2. Make the route free flow (no lights) coming in from the west all the way to Crowchild Tr.
3. Change the current alignment east of shouldice Park to Bowness Road to get the highway away from the river and avoid having to by out business owners along this stretch. Link it back up west of Shagannappi.
4. Complete free flow from 6th St. east out of the city with a "Grand" bridge over the Deerfoot ravine.
5. And like I said before - LANDSCAPE THE SHIT OUT OF THE ENTIRE ROUTE !

That is my pipe dream anyway. :)

[Beltliner]

Actually, if 16th Ave remains the TCH this is what I would like to see:
1. Complete the widening and "Boulevard" improvements currently underway between 10th St. NW and 6th St NE.
2. Make the route free flow (no lights) coming in from the west all the way to Crowchild Tr.
3. Change the current alignment east of shouldice Park to Bowness Road to get the highway away from the river and avoid having to by out business owners along this stretch. Link it back up west of Shagannappi.
4. Complete free flow from 6th St. east out of the city with a "Grand" bridge over the Deerfoot ravine.
5. And like I said before - LANDSCAPE THE SHIT OUT OF THE ENTIRE ROUTE !

That is my pipe dream anyway. :)

Aside from tying off the western portal of AB-1 at Sarcee Trail instead of Crowchild to keep the Bownesians and Montgummers from descending on City Hall with pitchforks and molten lead, I would strongly suspect that your pipe dream is pretty much how it's going to look in the end. ;)

[dmuzika]

Definitely. The routing on the west side by the University was originally planned to run down 24th (hence the extra wide corridor) from what I recall, then down the hill to where 16th is in Montgomery and out the city that way.

I found this on "Alberta Roads", is this what you're talking about?

http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Calgary/plans/index.html

It shows the proposed Trans Canada Highway as well as the proposed Bow Trail through downtown.

[mersar]

Thats another plan I hadn't seen, the one I had seen had continued along 24th after Crowchild then across Shaganappi, and hooked back into 16th just west of 53rd street. Most of the rest was similar.

Looking at those plans I am glad they weren't fully built out, especially the interchange at Crowchild which would have erased all of McMahon Stadium plus probably a good portion of Foothills Athletic Park. Other parts such as the full interchanges with flyovers would have been nice to have though, especially since that type of design is whats needed now (for instance imagine if the full flyover interchange labeled for 24th and Blackfoot was built to replace what exists at 16th and Deerfoot today)

[jeffwhit]

Thats another plan I hadn't seen, the one I had seen had continued along 24th after Crowchild then across Shaganappi, and hooked back into 16th just west of 53rd street. Most of the rest was similar.

Looking at those plans I am glad they weren't fully built out, especially the interchange at Crowchild which would have erased all of McMahon Stadium plus probably a good portion of Foothills Athletic Park. Other parts such as the full interchanges with flyovers would have been nice to have though, especially since that type of design is whats needed now (for instance imagine if the full flyover interchange labeled for 24th and Blackfoot was built to replace what exists at 16th and Deerfoot today)


Forget about McMahon, that plan would have completely destroyed every neighbourhood on the north side of 16th, Banff Trail, Capital Hill, etc etc. We dodged a major bullet there, although, nothing ever planned for Calgary can compete with the horror show that Edmonton avoided:

http://albertaroads.homestead.com/edmonton/METS/ultimatestagekey.jpg

"Ultimate Stage" ha, more like "Final Solution."

[Beltliner]

To paraphrase Brampton Billy Davis in his assessment of another motorway scheme in 1971 (http://spacing.ca/spadina):

If we are building a transportation system to serve the automobile, the Trans Canada Highway Freeway Plan would be a good place to start. But if we are building a transportation system to serve people, the Trans Canada Highway Freeway Plan is a good place to stop.

[Riise]

Actually, if 16th Ave remains the TCH this is what I would like to see...

2. Make the route free flow (no lights) coming in from the west all the way to Crowchild Tr.

I'm with Beltliner here, this wouldn't be for the best. 16th between Sarcee and Bowness Road has a lot of potential. I'm pretty sure a former group partner of mine worked on a pretty neat concept plan for the area, I'll try to dig it up.

[shreddog]

Forget about McMahon, that plan would have completely destroyed every neighbourhood on the north side of 16th, Banff Trail, Capital Hill, etc etc.
As someone who not only lives in Tuxedo, but actually right on 24th ave NW, all I can say is "thank god'!

That said an interesting benefit for me is that the city did include an extra large ROW on our street so my front and back yard is significantly larger than other avenues in the area. Though much of that extra space is actually owned by the city, the truth is that I get to live inner city on an extra large lot!

Regarding that Edmonton proposal - crap, were they on crack back then?? Ditto for the Calgary proposal - nice finds.

[dmuzika]

It would have been nice if at least a decent bridge connecting downtown Edmonton with the south side came out of Edmonton freeway proposals (like the one marked "105 St bridge" on the map), but I'm glad very little of that plan actually came into fruition.

Regarding that Edmonton proposal - crap, were they on crack back then?? Ditto for the Calgary proposal - nice finds.

That plan almost looks like the end result of a 4 year old armed with a blue marker getting a hold of a map of Edmonton.

[DizzyEdge]

Re: 24th ave, wasn't the original plan only utilizing 24th ave *west* of crowchild? vs 24th ave through the north hill communities? Or did I misinterpret mersar's post? That said I don't quite understand where the TCH would route between Shaganappi and 'hooked back into 16th just west of 53rd street'.

[shreddog]

Re: 24th ave, wasn't the original plan only utilizing 24th ave *west* of crowchild? vs 24th ave through the north hill communities? Or did I misinterpret mersar's post? That said I don't quite understand where the TCH would route between Shaganappi and 'hooked back into 16th just west of 53rd street'.
The plan indicates that it would have followed the routing of 24th Ave all the way to 52rd St NE. See this map http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Calgary/plans/TCH/1970planTCH4.jpg

[mersar]

Yep, starting from roughly 53rd Street NW to 52nd Street NE it was to follow roughly where 24th is. On the west side it would have diverged to follow 24th immediately after it crossed the Bow (at the same location as it does currently), then crossed Shaganappi, and followed 24th pretty much due east with one dip south to bypass Queens Park.

[shreddog]

... and followed 24th pretty much due east with one dip south to bypass Queens Park.
Actually, the dip is to accomodate Confederation Park. Queen's Park the cemetary is north of 32nd Ave on 4th St so no dip needed, whereas Queen's Park the school would have been replaced by 3 lanes of west bound traffic!

As would have my house!

[DizzyEdge]

The plan indicates that it would have followed the routing of 24th Ave all the way to 52rd St NE. See this map http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Calgary/plans/TCH/1970planTCH4.jpg

And to think that I missed out on living 2 blocks away from all that.. ugh.

[mersar]

Actually, the dip is to accomodate Confederation Park. Queen's Park the cemetary is north of 32nd Ave on 4th St so no dip needed, whereas Queen's Park the school would have been replaced by 3 lanes of west bound traffic!

As would have my house!

Woops, yep you are right. Serves me for posting while on the phone at work.

[lubicon]

Is it really so bad that people traveling through our fair city are burdened by a few traffic lights and a slower speed limit? I mean, this place is in the middle of nowhere in the grand scheme of things, so why not slow down and take in the awesomeness that is Calgary. What else is there?

Any upgrades should be done with the interests of the people using the infrastructure daily, first and foremost.

Maybe not for cars but it sure is for truck traffic. Time is money (and pollution from idling engines while we are at it). Every extra minute a truck spends sitting on 16th as it passes through Calgary is costing someone some $$ (probably you & I at the end of the day). Hope the ring road helps because this city sucks for inter city trucking when they are travelling E/W.

[jeffwhit]

Re: 24th ave, wasn't the original plan only utilizing 24th ave *west* of crowchild? vs 24th ave through the north hill communities? Or did I misinterpret mersar's post? That said I don't quite understand where the TCH would route between Shaganappi and 'hooked back into 16th just west of 53rd street'.

Nope, all the way to Deerfoot, (well "Blackfoot" back then)

Looksee:

http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Calgary/plans/TCH/1970planTCH3.jpg

and this section answers your other question
http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Calgary/plans/TCH/1970planTCH2.jpg

[dmuzika]

Is it really so bad that people traveling through our fair city are burdened by a few traffic lights and a slower speed limit? I mean, this place is in the middle of nowhere in the grand scheme of things, so why not slow down and take in the awesomeness that is Calgary. What else is there?

Any upgrades should be done with the interests of the people using the infrastructure daily, first and foremost.Maybe not for cars but it sure is for truck traffic. Time is money (and pollution from idling engines while we are at it). Every extra minute a truck spends sitting on 16th as it passes through Calgary is costing someone some $$ (probably you & I at the end of the day). Hope the ring road helps because this city sucks for inter city trucking when they are travelling E/W.

Agreed. One thing to keep in mind is this discussion isn't about a few traffic lights, we're talking about a lot of traffic lights. There are 25 traffic signals on 16 Ave N - 19 are located between Crowchild Trail and Deerfoot Trail, the most of any city on the Trans Canada Highway (I'll exclude Winnipeg because the Perimeter Highway serves as a viable bypass for the city, and the southern portion is marked TCH 100).

On the contrary, there are no traffic signals on Glenmore Trail between Deerfoot & Crowchild, and if the Trans Canada were to follow Glenmore and Sarcee Trails, there would a total of 11 traffic signals without any new interchanges being constructed – with the potential to eliminate every traffic signal.

[korzym]

^^lubicon and dimuzika
you guys have come closest to what I was hoping would finally get mentioned...we're on the 3rd page here and it still hasn't been mentioned explicitly...the E-W problem is known but to put it in perspective
Going N-S if your on the east side of the city, you can take Deerfoot
Going N-S if your on the west side of the city, you can take crowchild

Going E-W if your on the south side of the city, you can take Glenmore
Going E-W if your on the north side of the city........your out of luck IMO.

The E-W problem for the north should get looked into, I hope for a scenario where 16th is completed and then declared insufficient to meet user demands or some excuse that would obviously justify them looking into building a better/another road and ultimately guys....having the TCH run through the city is relevant here so we can secure federal tax money to pay for it [which is really just us recouping some of the billions of dollars forced from us by the rest of Canada]

I love those plans you put up jeffwhit, transit and urban planning enthusiasts may not, there are practical transportation needs and those plans seem like they could do good for a lot of people and businesses

[Boris2k7]

I love those plans you put up jeffwhit, transit and urban planning enthusiasts may not, there are practical transportation needs and those plans seem like they could do good for a lot of people and businesses

Uhhh, yeah, for pretty good reasons too. The fact that building those roads would have totally devastated those communities pretty more than offsets any possible gains. It would have been a total disaster.

I'm pretty sure that Inglewood, for example, is more than happy to have sacrificed easier commuting into the core and trucking through the city in order to have saved their community from having a freeway plowed up their collective arse.

Such schemes as the ones above do well enough for suburban commuters and corporations with high volumes of trucking, but it totally fucks over local businesses and people and does irrevocable damage to the urban fabric.

Now, if you could find a route through the north that could be upgraded without causing much harm, and isn't totally redundant, given the presence of the ring road (which pretty much kills anything north of Nose Hill), then I wouldn't have many concerns.


But that's besides another point. If we are going to use one of these routes as an E-W highway, for the Transcanada, and the concern is moving people and goods through Calgary, to continue along the TCH on the other end, then there is absolutely no need for more than a single detour.

[korzym]

Uhhh, yeah, for pretty good reasons too. The fact that building those roads would have totally devastated those communities pretty more than offsets any possible gains. It would have been a total disaster.

right....................................
Would help if you described what exactly would be lost. Obviously tearing down a row of houses brings changes, there are ways they could deal with it; plus it would make 20th ave more quiet and improve things for the folks that live along that road. That road is way too far above capacity and is evidence there isn't an adequate route for E-W drivers, and you can't tell me 20th ave even passes the litmus test of an urban planner. Just put in a highway along 24th, concentrate the traffic volume to a specific area and that will ease 20th ave and surrounding areas
The ability to quickly move people and goods through the middle of the city FAR outweighs having residential houses in its place, their taking up valuable land. Economic stimulation would be quite beneficial to the city. The present set up is highly inefficient IMO.

I'm pretty sure that Inglewood, for example, is more than happy to have sacrificed easier commuting into the core and trucking through the city in order to have saved their community from having a freeway plowed up their collective arse.
Completely irrelevant. I've heard from the horse's mouth [city transit planner] the city is not going to do anything to improve vehicle access to downtown to encourage transit.

Such schemes as the ones above do well enough for suburban commuters and corporations with high volumes of trucking, but it totally fucks over local businesses and people and does irrevocable damage to the urban fabric.
There we go...so your against this because you believe it encourages the expansion of suburbs? Well what is the sense of packing more people closer to the inner city if you can't get around properly?
The government should do whatever is in it's power to help businesses, those 'nasty corporations' are ultimately good for Canadians. Those small businesses that profit from TCH traffic are just profiting from other peoples' misfortunes and are hindering greater economic expansion.


Now, if you could find a route through the north that could be upgraded without causing much harm, and isn't totally redundant, given the presence of the ring road (which pretty much kills anything north of Nose Hill), then I wouldn't have many concerns.


But that's besides another point. If we are going to use one of these routes as an E-W highway, for the Transcanada, and the concern is moving people and goods through Calgary, to continue along the TCH on the other end, then there is absolutely no need for more than a single detour.

Required: better E-W route in north
Options:somewhere between Mcknight and 16th ave. [ie: 24th ave 70s plan]
Obstacles: houses along south side of 24th ave, finding a way to by pass confederation park [very beloved no doubt]
In the end you dont give up any schools or parks, just a row of houses. South of 24th you'd end up with 7 blocks between 16th, thats probably the area to be effected the most, but they have a new 16th ave. There are more narrow communities in Calgary yet their still surviving
TCH relevance: I don't care about non-Calgarians here coming through the city, they could use stoney trail. It completely sucks for Calgarians to put up with slow commuting in that area, you have to understand it makes sense to use the TCH purely as an excuse to get funding to solve this problem.

[Boris2k7]

right....................................
Would help if you described what exactly would be lost. Obviously tearing down a row of houses brings changes, there are ways they could deal with it; plus it would make 20th ave more quiet and improve things for the folks that live along that road. That road is way too far above capacity and is evidence there isn't an adequate route for E-W drivers, and you can't tell me 20th ave even passes the litmus test of an urban planner. Just put in a highway along 24th, concentrate the traffic volume to a specific area and that will ease 20th ave and surrounding areas
The ability to quickly move people and goods through the middle of the city FAR outweighs having residential houses in its place, their taking up valuable land. Economic stimulation would be quite beneficial to the city. The present set up is highly inefficient IMO.

Isolating communities between highways and cutting off people in different areas is obvious damage. If you cannot see that I believe you should go to a city such as Detroit which employed such practices in the past, though their use of elevated freeways exacerbated the problem. Those much-coveted "economic outcomes" that you speak of cannot easily be quantified nor justified given the damage it would cause by paving over several blocks of housing and tearing communities asunder. Sometimes the cure is worse than the cause. This is one of those cases.

Completely irrelevant. I've heard from the horse's mouth [city transit planner] the city is not going to do anything to improve vehicle access to downtown to encourage transit.

Completely relevant, and you are being a fool not to see it. Since you don't, how about we propose ramming a freeway right through the centre of your community, and construct massive cloverleaf interchanges right about where you live.

There we go...so your against this because you believe it encourages the expansion of suburbs? Well what is the sense of packing more people closer to the inner city if you can't get around properly?
The government should do whatever is in it's power to help businesses, those 'nasty corporations' are ultimately good for Canadians. Those small businesses that profit from TCH traffic are just profiting from other peoples' misfortunes and are hindering greater economic expansion.

You are way, way off in your analysis. The only way to build a denser, more vibrant city is through mass transit. By trying to build denser but by still encouraging car use, you will only end up with unending congestion, decreasing air quality, and road expansion until everything is paved over. And it is amusing that you think government should help big business by putting massive amount of taxpayer dollars in what amount to the largest corporate subsidy in history. Expansion of the economy at the detriment to the local area is the greatest folly of the last few centuries.

Required: better E-W route in north
Options:somewhere between Mcknight and 16th ave. [ie: 24th ave 70s plan]
Obstacles: houses along south side of 24th ave, finding a way to by pass confederation park [very beloved no doubt]
In the end you dont give up any schools or parks, just a row of houses. South of 24th you'd end up with 7 blocks between 16th, thats probably the area to be effected the most, but they have a new 16th ave. There are more narrow communities in Calgary yet their still surviving
TCH relevance: I don't care about non-Calgarians here coming through the city, they could use stoney trail. It completely sucks for Calgarians to put up with slow commuting in that area, you have to understand it makes sense to use the TCH purely as an excuse to get funding to solve this problem.

But you do not have a solid case for why it is required in the first place. People can sit in traffic, as can trucks and whatnot. Congestion is just a typical outcome of autocentrism, and cannot be avoided while ill-advised schemes to widen roads, and corporate profits with them, issue forth. Let them sit in traffic. There is no way to help people who would support the very means that lead to their supposed "suffering." The economy is only one of many concerns in planning, it has an important role but it should by no means be overemphasized.

If we are to have a real Transcanada route, let it only be for the Transcanada and skip the bullshit clamouring for federal tax handouts to support unsustainable practices.

[craner]

...the E-W problem is known but to put it in perspective:

Going N-S if your on the east side of the city, you can take Deerfoot
Going N-S if your on the west side of the city, you can take crowchild
Going E-W if your on the south side of the city, you can take Glenmore
Going E-W if your on the north side of the city........your out of luck IMO.

The E-W problem for the north should get looked into ...

:previous: This is really at the core of why I started this thread.

Now, if you could find a route through the north that could be upgraded without causing much harm, and isn't totally redundant, given the presence of the ring road (which pretty much kills anything north of Nose Hill), then I wouldn't have many concerns.

:previous: and this is the Billion $ question - which brings me back to my opening post of this thread (i.e. the McKnight - JLB option)

[craner]

Thanks for posting those old plans from '69 & '70 guys. I'm sure thankful the city didn't proceed with a freeway through downtown next to the river.:yuck:

[korzym]

Completely relevant, and you are being a fool not to see it. Since you don't, how about we propose ramming a freeway right through the centre of your community, and construct massive cloverleaf interchanges right about where you live.

I'm a fool hey? Maybe you should easy off donald trump and the apprentice there. It is irrelevant, your talking about something the city is completely against and has no chance of happening.
Your views are purely left wing, heck you've even publicly discussed voting for radical parties such as the green party on here. Boris you flip-flop, cower away by avoiding the issues at hand by changing topic [just read your responses], thankfully your in a province that drowns out lefties such as yourself. People aren't interested in going 100% transit, it will never happen, ask al-noor if he's recovered from that ass-kicking in the municipal elections, probably not. You want to force people to be behind transit and it will never happen. Your proposal to send traffic of the TCH to glenmore is all part of transit's do nothing approach, and hell it benefits you since you live in the south so why not right?

:previous: This is really at the core of why I started this thread.
You could have been more clear son

[Boris2k7]

If you think of the greens as a radical party then there is no helping you, since you obviously represent a branch of extremist, rightwing, neocon thinking. Let's fling some insults back here. I detest the fact that you are so incredibly self-centered that you can't see, nor really care about how your line of thinking would actually affect other people. Your line of status-quo, bottom line thinking is representative of our fucked-up, selfish society that can't seem to get a grip and deal with the issues because every last person wants the whole damn pie, and are totally inept when it comes to solving social or environmental problems. But hey, it's all good if I can get from home to work in 20 minutes right?

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: This is what is called an ad hominem attack kids. Learn it, love it.

Now, if you are done with your irresponsible dumbassery, which includes your lame attempt to put words in my mouth by saying I want people 100% on transit, or that I am a crazy commie, maybe you will stop cowering away from my question and actually answer why we need an E-W expressway in the north in the first place, and why this would be a good thing necessarily. You're not going to get away with the flimsy, "well, it'll be good for the economy" argument.

[freeweed]

why we need an E-W expressway in the north in the first place

Duh, because it helps me flee from the crime in the NE all that much faster.

Yes, this thread has sunk that low that my comment actually fits in. :D

[dmuzika]

...why we need an E-W expressway in the north in the first place, and why this would be a good thing necessarily. You're not going to get away with the flimsy, "well, it'll be good for the economy" argument.

(Risking trying to raise the civility of the thread...)

Here's my kick at the can.

When you look at north Calgary outside the inner city, the majority a major employment centres are located in the NE (especially between 36 St NE and Deerfoot Trail) while the NW is mostly residential. Consequently, there is a lot of west to east traffic movement in the AM while a lot of east to west traffic movement in the PM on a very limitited number of roads. Most of these employment centres are light industrial and commercial, and are not as transit friendly as the downtown core (especially the light industrial). While there is transit service, the existing set up cannot warrent an E-W LRT line.

While you can argue that the city should have made some of these developments more transit friendly, a number of the industrial-based employment centres like manufactoring and shipping require exstensive space and are not suited for high density development.

While it may not be officially recognized as such, the north Calgary E-W expressway is McKnight Blvd and John Laurie Blvd, and the city is looking to make improvements to McKnight (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_766_230_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Transportation/Transportation+Planning/Studies/McKnight+Boulevard+Improvements/John+Laurie+Blvd+and+48+Ave+NW.htm) between JLB and 19 St NE. The problem is that this corridor, especially in the NW, goes through residential communities and does not connect with Stoney Trail or with good connections to TCH 1, meaning it would not make an ideal route for the Trans Canada Highway.

In an ideal world (i.e. what should have happened 25+ years ago), (1) there should have been more commerical development in the suberban NW, (2) John Laurie Blvd should have connected directly with Crowchild Trail and TCH 1 west, making TCH 1 follow JLB and McKnight before communties like Brentwood or Dalhousie were constructed, and (3) there should be more E-W connectors in Calgary, like 32 Ave N going all the way to Crowchild, especially after it was determined that the 24th St/TCH Freeway was dead. But none of this did happen or will happen (with the possible exception of #1) so there needs to be a willingness to accomidate this movement.

So to summerize, improve McKnight & John Laurie for Calgary based E-W movement and reroute the TCH to Glenmore Trail. :tup:

[Boris2k7]

See, now that was a more reasonable rebuttal.

Now I question you, just for the sake of argumentation what standards you would bring those roads up to. McKnightmare doesn't sound like it would be too much of a problem, but what about John Laurie? And would this route be suitable for a BRT or HOV, if it was expanded (or even if it wasn't?). I ask this because I feel that road expansions are the absolute last resort, unless there is a situation involving a bottleneck due to previous expansions. I would go so far as to ask what could be done with this "corridor" and if it has the potential for densification if a higher-speed route was constructed.

I think that on the TCH at least, the point of this thread, you and I are seeing eye to eye, which I of course find quite aggreable. :yes:

[craner]

So to summerize, improve McKnight & John Laurie for Calgary based E-W movement and reroute the TCH to Glenmore Trail. :tup:

:previous: This sounds like a reasonable option - just have to deal with the "Hazardous Goods" issue accross the reservoir.
:cheers:

[mersar]

:previous: This sounds like a reasonable option - just have to deal with the "Hazardous Goods" issue accross the reservoir.


Yeah, that is a fairly big thing that would need to be dealt with. Its also a provincial issue, since its the province that sets the rules on protection of drinking water sources.

[freeweed]

At least I'm not the only one who notices the abysmal transportation options E-W in the north part of the city. All I can say is GO STONEY! There's something to be said about picking where you choose to live based on access to both transit AND freeways. :tup:

[dmuzika]

See, now that was a more reasonable rebuttal.

Now I question you, just for the sake of argumentation what standards you would bring those roads up to. McKnightmare doesn't sound like it would be too much of a problem, but what about John Laurie? And would this route be suitable for a BRT or HOV, if it was expanded (or even if it wasn't?). I ask this because I feel that road expansions are the absolute last resort, unless there is a situation involving a bottleneck due to previous expansions. I would go so far as to ask what could be done with this "corridor" and if it has the potential for densification if a higher-speed route was constructed.

I think that on the TCH at least, the point of this thread, you and I are seeing eye to eye, which I of course find quite aggreable. :yes:

Well we might disagree a little here. I would expand John Laurie Blvd to 6 lanes between Shaganappi Trail, much like what happened to Beddington Trail this past summer. I would also do something with the Shaganappi/John Laurie interesection, whether it would be building an interchange or expanding the number turning lanes. Shaganappi would serve as connector to Crowchild (though another possiblity is Sarcee Trail), where "express" traffic would go if they wanted to go further west, as it's already a freeway, so there is no need to build a parellel freeway. As it stands now, John Laurie prohibits truck traffic west of Shaganappi and downgrades from an expressway to an arterial street west of Sarcee, so I would be inclined leave it as is. Eventually I would maybe construct an interchange at Charleswood Drive and possibly Brisebois Dr (avoid adding more signals) and either close or convert the other intersections between Shaganappi and 14 St into RIRO.

As for BRT? I would be curious to see how successful it would be in Calgary and I'm not sure of if the John Laurie/McKnight corridor would be the best place for the first experiment. I say allow for it down the road (no pun intended). A possiblity for HOV could be to designate certain lanes as HOV during peak periods only.

This sounds like a reasonable option - just have to deal with the "Hazardous Goods" issue accross the reservoir.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that certain not-so-Hazardous Goods are permitted to use the causeway. As for the others? I'm not sure the real hazardous goods should be taking 16 Ave either, so that's where Stoney Trail comes in.

[lubicon]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that certain not-so-Hazardous Goods are permitted to use the causeway. As for the others? I'm not sure the real hazardous goods should be taking 16 Ave either, so that's where Stoney Trail comes in.

Only Class 6 dangerous goods are prohibited on the Glenmore Causeway (the part that crosses over the water reservoir). Class 6 substances are toxic and infectious substances (poisons, biohazards, etc). For obvious reasons (the Glenmore reservoir supplies about 1/2 Calgary's water) these substances would have a very negative effect if they spilled into the reservoir.

[twsnagel]

Well, I'm personally opposed to any further development, because I own a house backing onto JLB between 14 St. and the McKnight corner.

NIMBY ALERT!

Anyways, in all honesty, the corner where JLB turns into McKnight is a disaster.

I see frequent accidents there.

Not only does the traffic have to slow to ~30km/h around that corner, there is also a very strange left-lane stop-sign/merge from eastbound 48th Ave traffic joining eastbound McKnight.

The situation could be greatly solved with a single-lane underpass for eastbound 48th, an easement of the curve into surrounding parkland, and a pedestrian over/under pass.

The rest of McKnight to Deerfoot could be solved with a fairly cheap 16th-Ave type project, with only about 10 house buy-outs.

There were community meetings about the McKnight / JLB corner about 3 years ago, but still no project.

Does anyone know the current status of this corner?

[mersar]

The McKnight/JLB corner is on the radar, but as project to be done when the opportunity arises (in other words they aren't planning on expropriating, for now they'll just buy up properties as they come up for sale). The latest (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_766_230_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Transportation/Transportation+Planning/Studies/McKnight+Boulevard+Improvements/John+Laurie+Blvd+and+48+Ave+NW.htm) the city has on their site is from 2004.

The preferred option for that corner involves buying 16 houses, and is pretty much what you describe.

[twsnagel]

Cool links. I'm fascinated by the McKnight plans - how do you go northbound on 19th St NE from eastbound McKnight?

See here (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/transportation_planning/mcknight/open_house_2005jun8/improvement_plan_part2.pdf)

Strange...

[You Need A Thneed]

Cool links. I'm fascinated by the McKnight plans - how do you go northbound on 19th St NE from eastbound McKnight?

See here (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/transportation_planning/mcknight/open_house_2005jun8/improvement_plan_part2.pdf)

Strange...

If you mean 12th St instead of 19th (I'm assuming you do), you turn south onto 14th Street, west onto 46th Ave, then North on 12th. With the signage that will go up once the interchange is done, it'll be well marked.

[twsnagel]

Yeah, 12th, my bad.

Hahaha, you sound like I have no faith.

[Koolfire]

Cool links. I'm fascinated by the McKnight plans - how do you go northbound on 19th St NE from eastbound McKnight?

See here (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/transportation_planning/mcknight/open_house_2005jun8/improvement_plan_part2.pdf)

Strange...

What I don't get is why do we need that new road that connects to Goodard Ave near 4th St NE?

[YYCguys]

.

[YYCguys]

Cool links. I'm fascinated by the McKnight plans - how do you go northbound on 19th St NE from eastbound McKnight?

See here (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/transportation_planning/mcknight/open_house_2005jun8/improvement_plan_part2.pdf)

Strange...

I will be moving to the NW in the fall and until Stoney Trail is completed all the way to Deerfoot, I will be forced to use JLB and McKnight to get to Westjet, so I'm curious to know what these plans are. Do you have another way to access the link (it's broken)?

[freeweed]

I will be moving to the NW in the fall and until Stoney Trail is completed all the way to Deerfoot, I will be forced to use JLB and McKnight to get to Westjet, so I'm curious to know what these plans are. Do you have another way to access the link (it's broken)?

This fall Stoney will be complete at least to Beddington. Stoney->Beddington->Deerfoot will be completely freeflow. Much better than JLB etc. Stoney to Deerfoot will be done by 2010 at the latest.

Besides, any plans for McKnight are so far in the future as to be academic. For one thing, the city needs to buy and demolish several dozen homes from the last I saw of the plans - and that hasn't even started. It will be 10 years minimum before JLB/McKnight improves, and that's not even worrying about all the lights on west JLB.

Trust me, the Ring Road is the way to go.

[mersar]

Stoney from Sarcee to Deerfoot to 17th Ave SE should all be open by this October actually. Deerfoot to 17th Ave will be for sure as thats what the P3 agreement stated and the part from Sarcee to Deerfoot really only needs the last stretch from the CPR bridge (14th Street NE) to Deerfoot to be paved which hopefully won't take that long.

[Oliver Klozov]

Interesting discussion. I'd like to toss in another idea that was perhaps contemplated by the province at one time.

Hwy 901:
Some of you may remember that when the province first designated secondary highways with the number scheme of 500/600s for E-W and 700/800s for N-S, they also created some 900s. The 9xx designation was used for roads which would become Hwy xx once they were brought up to Primary highway standard. Most have been done, some changed (eg. 940 Forestry Trunk Road is now 734) and at least one still remains, Hwy 901.

Hwy 901 connects to the TCH just east of Gleichen/Siksika just before the TCH takes that ridiculous N-S jog. From there it heads west and becomes Hwy 22X after crossing Hwy 24 near Carseland. Hwy 22X will be part of the SE to SW ring road.

It would seem to me that the best routing of the TCH if it is to change would be to build a new interchange with Hwy 1 Just N of Gleichen and proceed west on a new alignment along the northern edge of the Siksika reserve until it reaches the current 901 alignment. It would then continue west on the current 901/22X routing and the future SW ring road until it reaches 16 Ave.

I realize this does nothing for those that want an improved E-W route through the northern part of the city but for through traffic this makes the most sense to me. It would certainly be more economical for trucks versus using the NE/NW ring road to bypass 16 Ave.

[AirGuitarChampion]

Interesting discussion. I'd like to toss in another idea that was perhaps contemplated by the province at one time.

Hwy 901:
Some of you may remember that when the province first designated secondary highways with the number scheme of 500/600s for E-W and 700/800s for N-S, they also created some 900s. The 9xx designation was used for roads which would become Hwy xx once they were brought up to Primary highway standard. Most have been done, some changed (eg. 940 Forestry Trunk Road is now 734) and at least one still remains, Hwy 901.

Hwy 901 connects to the TCH just east of Gleichen/Siksika just before the TCH takes that ridiculous N-S jog. From there it heads west and becomes Hwy 22X after crossing Hwy 24 near Carseland. Hwy 22X will be part of the SE to SW ring road.

It would seem to me that the best routing of the TCH if it is to change would be to build a new interchange with Hwy 1 Just N of Gleichen and proceed west on a new alignment along the northern edge of the Siksika reserve until it reaches the current 901 alignment. It would then continue west on the current 901/22X routing and the future SW ring road until it reaches 16 Ave.

I realize this does nothing for those that want an improved E-W route through the northern part of the city but for through traffic this makes the most sense to me. It would certainly be more economical for trucks versus using the NE/NW ring road to bypass 16 Ave.

That is an interesting idea, and really distance wise might turn out to be the same, as instead of jogging north by Gleichen you just do it on Calgary's west side (when that section of the ring is completed). Lots of truckers might end up doing that route anyway...

Wondering though if they'll still impose the class 6 dangerous goods exclusion on the west ring road / Weaselhead, as it basically is at the west end of Glenmore. On the same line, anyone know what is done about class 6 on Stoney as it goes over the bow river? As far as I know the intake for bearspaw water treatment plant is that little light concrete structure downstream of the bridge.

[lubicon]

That is an interesting idea, and really distance wise might turn out to be the same, as instead of jogging north by Gleichen you just do it on Calgary's west side (when that section of the ring is completed). Lots of truckers might end up doing that route anyway...

Wondering though if they'll still impose the class 6 dangerous goods exclusion on the west ring road / Weaselhead, as it basically is at the west end of Glenmore. On the same line, anyone know what is done about class 6 on Stoney as it goes over the bow river? As far as I know the intake for bearspaw water treatment plant is that little light concrete structure downstream of the bridge.

Good question. Currently there are no signs posted that prohibit Class 6 DG's, but I don't know if that is because they are allowed, or because the road is not fully open yet (as a provincial highway) and thus would not be allowed.

[mersar]

Good question. Currently there are no signs posted that prohibit Class 6 DG's, but I don't know if that is because they are allowed, or because the road is not fully open yet (as a provincial highway) and thus would not be allowed.

The city has their truck route map (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/engineering_services/emaps/calgary_truck_routes_map.pdf) available online, it only shows restrictions on the causeway, and the no trucks restriction on 85th Street. It shows Stoney as a truck route, though the future extensions (Country Hills NW looping all the way to 22X on the east side, and 16th Ave to Highway 8 on the west side) are all labeled as future dangerous goods routes. I believe the only reason the restriction is on the causeway is due to the fact its upstream from the intakes for the water treatment plant, whereas Stoney trail in the NW crosses downstream of the intakes for the bearspaw plant. Theres numerous other river crossings (16th Ave in the NW, Deerfoot, Blackfoot, Glenmore that are all dangerous goods routes without restrictions)

[lubicon]

Good find Mersar. Looks to me that right now Stoney is NOT designated as a DG route but will be in the future once the road actually becomes functional. I guess it remains to be seen as to whether they allow Class 6 goods on it but my guess would be 'yes' based on your observations about other routes that cross the river.

[dmuzika]

Interesting development, it appears that province might be considering realigning the TCH east of Calgary to follow Highways 22X and 901, http://www.strathmorestandard.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2203446. Although not mentioned in the article, the TCH would likely follow the SW Ring Road to link with TCH 1 west of the city.

[craner]

dmuzika
Interesting development, it appears that province might be considering realigning the TCH east of Calgary to follow Highways 22X and 901, http://www.strathmorestandard.com/Ar...aspx?e=2203446. Although not mentioned in the article, the TCH would likely follow the SW Ring Road to link with TCH 1 west of the city.

:previous: That sounds like a good plan (just like Oliver Klozov's post above), except Calgary wouldn't get a E-W expressway for the northern half of the city out of it. :(

[lubicon]

Interesting development, it appears that province might be considering realigning the TCH east of Calgary to follow Highways 22X and 901, http://www.strathmorestandard.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2203446. Although not mentioned in the article, the TCH would likely follow the SW Ring Road to link with TCH 1 west of the city.

Looks like a great idea on paper, but there are a couple of flies in that ointment (as always).

1. The route would somehow have to reconnect with #1 west of Calgary, meaning using the SW ring road. Unless they figure out some miracle on how to make that portion of the ring road a true free flow, high speed roadway I'm not sure I see the poin tin doing this.

2. 901 runs right through the Siksika nation, and they could have a similar problem in building a major highway through here that they did with the Tsu Tiina land.

[Oliver Klozov]

:previous: What a bunch of NIMBY dolts! The alignment would almost assuredly be a simple twinning of 22X not running through the middle of a farmer's field. At the east end it would not likely be on the alignment of 901; most of that is on the reserve and we know how much grief attaining that land would be. Besides, 901 goes right through a reserve housing area. More likely, the alignment would follow the northern boundary of the reserve and the village of Gleichen. Any farm land required would at the field's edge not through the middle.

[dmuzika]

Here is a link to East of Calgary TCH study by the province, http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4046.htm. It shows a potential bypass of Strathmore and the possibilty of linking to Hwy 22X.

[mersar]

Very interesting to see whats being studied.

[YYCguys]

Indeed it was. A good friend of the family was killed while attempting to cross the TCH near Strathmore in her vehicle some years ago. I can't remember the cross road off the top of my head. When she died, I remember hearing that hers was but one of the many accidents that have occured in that area. To eliminate all but local traffic on that stretch of the highway would be a good thing! Bring on the realignment sooner rather than later!

[Corndogger]

Here is a link to East of Calgary TCH study by the province, http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4046.htm. It shows a potential bypass of Strathmore and the possibilty of linking to Hwy 22X.

After looking at the PowerPoint presentation it looks to me like there is no plan to get rid of 16th Ave. as the TCH through Calgary. Hwy 22X will be an upgraded route into the city. The freeway plans are very interesting and are consistent with what the province said a few years ago. Too bad this wasn't being done tomorrow. The Strathmore bypass should definitely be done right away to improve safety and traffic flow. A well-placed interchange or two should serve them well. The indirect route to connect 22X with Hwy 1 (Slide 21) is no doubt to avoid Indian land. Looks like the province has learned their lesson and will probably never consider land deals with the natives again.

[mersar]

Yeah, it appears its more to give alternate access then to replace access. The one thing I could see that proposal would do is make it more attractive to truckers to use the south part of the ring road to bypass the city rather then using 16th or even the north part of Stoney. And I agree on the need for the bypass at Strathmore, its long over due

[Koolfire]

Seeing we don't know what the SW ring road is going to look like, I'm not in favour of this plan. To me it makes more sense to bypass Strathmore to the north and link up with the north part of the ring road just north of Country Hills NE/Stoney trail interchange.

[Corndogger]

Seeing we don't know what the SW ring road is going to look like, I'm not in favour of this plan. To me it makes more sense to bypass Strathmore to the north and link up with the north part of the ring road just north of Country Hills NE/Stoney trail interchange.

If you look at the PowerPoint presentation there's a slide which shows the annual growth rates of traffic into Calgary from the east via the various highways in the area. Hwy 22X is growing the fastest by far. Given the layout of Calgary, this route is probably a lot more convenient for many people than Hwy 1 and would definitely be better than going even farther north.

[Koolfire]

If you look at the PowerPoint presentation there's a slide which shows the annual growth rates of traffic into Calgary from the east via the various highways in the area. Hwy 22X is growing the fastest by far. Given the layout of Calgary, this route is probably a lot more convenient for many people than Hwy 1 and would definitely be better than going even farther north.

Yes, but I wonder how much of that traffic heads to Deerfoot/Glenmore/Hwy 8. If the traffic is headed to foothills industrial area then then it's fine :cheers: but if the traffic increase is because it's quicker way across Calgary then :yuck:

[Corndogger]

Yes, but I wonder how much of that traffic heads to Deerfoot/Glenmore/Hwy 8. If the traffic is headed to foothills industrial area then then it's fine :cheers: but if the traffic increase is because it's quicker way across Calgary then :yuck:

But the province isn't planning on taking options away from people, just making them better. There's probably more than enough people and commerce to justify improving all of the routes and we do need to consider the biggest market is the intercity traffic which is only going to keep on growing.

As far as I'm concerned, the best option to solve a few huge issues we have would be to turn Hwy 8 (Glenmore Trail) into a true freeway and have it link up with Hwy 1. Hwy 22X could still be done as well and it shouldn't cost too much as I can't see the need for many interchanges outside of the city until it meets up with Hwy 1. If development pushes further out in the deep SE then developers should pay for the interchanges they want. If we were to follow CalTrans recommended rules of spacing interchanges at least 3 km apart that would allow for a lot of development before extra interchanges would be needed.

[lubicon]

Simply by-passing Strathmore would go a long ways to solving many of the problems. Why the town was ever allowed to place even more traffic lights on the highway is a mystery to me, it goea against everything Alberta Transportation seems to be trying to achieve. A simple bypass of the town would be a relatively cheap option to implement. Stoney Trail will serve to route traffic to the SE portions of Calgary so there is no real benefit to building an entirely new 4 lane highway to link up to 22X . Given the cost of doing that I don't see the point. If any of you are familiear with #16 (the other TCH :) , a similar bypass was built around Vegreville, east of Edmonton. It works very well.

[craner]

Here is a link to East of Calgary TCH study by the province, http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4046.htm. It shows a potential bypass of Strathmore and the possibilty of linking to Hwy 22X.

Interesting indeed - I will be following the progress of this - thanks dmuzika :tup:

I'll say it again: It still doesn't address an express route through the city on the north side (not that this is really the province's responsibility). :(

[Oliver Klozov]

......A simple bypass of the town would be a relatively cheap option to implement. Stoney Trail will serve to route traffic to the SE portions of Calgary so there is no real benefit to building an entirely new 4 lane highway to link up to 22X . Given the cost of doing that I don't see the point.......

Any simple bypass of Strathmore would definitely fragment farmland, exactly what the county folks claim they don't want.

As for SE Calgary destinations being served by Stoney from the TCH, 901 and 22X are being used for that now including an ever-increasing number of trucks. I started using that much quicker route even back when it was still gravel and you had to dip south to 24 and go past Carseland.

Moving the TCH to the 901/22X alignment makes the most sense. Once arriving in the SE corner of the city, traffic from the east can take Stoney north or continue on Stoney west. It also eliminates all that useless mileage of going north just to go south again :hell:

Also, 901/22X would put off the need for a Strathmore bypass for decades.

[dmuzika]

Interesting indeed - I will be following the progress of this - thanks dmuzika :tup:

I'll say it again: It still doesn't address an express route through the city on the north side (not that this is really the province's responsibility). :(

I agree, the city does need an express route on the north side. However I think that route will run independently of the Trans Canada Hwy, McKnight Blvd & John Laurie Blvd would probably be the best bet.

[craner]

:previous: Totally agree.:tup:

[Daguy]

I've wondered for awhile about a probably crazy idea, but I was just curious to see what anyone else would think about it.

Given full access control of 16th from Sarcee Trail to Crowchild, could a 6 lane tunnel be constructed under 16th to Deerfoot? I understand the obvious problems with this idea, as it would almost certainly require expensive tunnel boring, but it would create a very fast through route for the TCH. Any thoughts?

[dmuzika]

I've wondered for awhile about a probably crazy idea, but I was just curious to see what anyone else would think about it.

Given full access control of 16th from Sarcee Trail to Crowchild, could a 6 lane tunnel be constructed under 16th to Glenmore? I understand the obvious problems with this idea, as it would almost certainly require expensive tunnel boring, but it would create a very fast through route for the TCH. Any thoughts?

A tunnel could not borred to connect 16 Avenue to Glenmore Trail inside city limits. To do that it would have to be N-S orrientated and there are already some major routes that serve that purpose; Deerfoot Trail, Crowchild Trail, Sarcee Trail, and the future Stoney Trail on both the east and west perimeter of the city. Maybe an alternative would be to construct a NE/SW orientated connector somewhere between Calgary and Strathmore that could connect the Trans Canada with Glenmore Trail.

I've thought about an E-W tunnel between Crowchild and Deerfoot Trails under 16 Ave, but other than cost I don't know how practical it would be for inner city usage.

[Joborule]

I've thought about an E-W tunnel between Crowchild and Deerfoot Trails under 16 Ave, but other than cost I don't know how practical it would be for inner city usage.

That's something that I've been musing about for a while. It would allow the ability to make the TCH a full (and directly E-W) freeway in the city, while preserving the 16th avenue urban corridor. Wonder if it would be anything realistically done in the long term future. Because it seems a bit off to have freeways on the east side of Deerfoot, and west of Sarcee Trail, but make it a major road right jab in the middle.