Calgary Roads

[Wentworth]

So here's a list of what I think are the worst stretches of road in this city vitality-wise and pedestrian-wise in no particular order:

4) Bow Tr. between Sarcee and 85th St.


Your point is well taken, just a small correction about this roadway, there is a pathway on the south side of Bow from Strathcona Blvd to Sarcee, this pathway is actually nice to walk (pleasant downhill at least) as it has a spectacular view of the city. From Stratcona Blvd. to 85th, most pedestrian and bike traffic opts off of Bow Trail and onto 11 Ave SW.

Tell that to the joggers that seem to think it is a suitable route for running despite the lack of a sidewalk or pathway, even in the recent fog.

I don't understand this either. I absolutely hate running anywhere near traffic, I'll take my licks on the snowpacked pathways instead.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Now, back to roads... did anyone else see on Global last night that the Science Center on St. Georges is not going to lead to the road being fully upgraded?

According to the report only a small portion in front of the new building will be redone, so main access will still be off Memorial, and if anyone wants to use 8th avenue, they will at best be using a road that looks like a bomb hit it. No plans to upgrade it according to Ald Joe Ceci as the biggest problems are only 500 cars a day use it (there estimates) and the poor drainage in the area would require a storm sewer which currently isn't there. I have to figure personally though that the amount of cars coming off 8th avenue will in deed increase once the science center is open. How many though, I don't know.

Right now the road is closed north of the construction site to soccer field due to flooding/icing which has mangled the road, though drivers were still detouring around the barricade.

i didn't hear that st george's would not be upgraded, but i can't say i'm surprised either. that road has been in horrid condition since i started using it in 2006. every year it closes so they can do half arse patchwork to keep it barely passable.

i call bull on the 500 cars a day on that road. it is the fastest and easiest way to get into mayland heights from downtown. it is used heavily during the daily rush hours, even in such poor condition.

when coming from memorial drive, you don't actually hit the 'closed' barriers until the soccer field parking lots. for some reason they like us driving all the way down that crummy road, then have us turn back and drive it again.

however, i will be ok with not having a really nice road to make it easier to access the science centre from 8 avenue. 8 avenue and 19 st are undergoing 'traffic calming' this spring and hopefully it really slows down the amount of traffic in the area.

[Koolfire]

I call bull on the 500 cars us it as the road is in such bad shape that people avoid it. More people would use it was in decent shape. I remember driving down that road and dodging car size pot holes swearing never to take that road again.

[Ferreth]

Now, back to roads... did anyone else see on Global last night that the Science Center on St. Georges is not going to lead to the road being fully upgraded?

According to the report only a small portion in front of the new building will be redone, so main access will still be off Memorial, and if anyone wants to use 8th avenue, they will at best be using a road that looks like a bomb hit it. No plans to upgrade it according to Ald Joe Ceci as the biggest problems are only 500 cars a day use it (there estimates) and the poor drainage in the area would require a storm sewer which currently isn't there. I have to figure personally though that the amount of cars coming off 8th avenue will in deed increase once the science center is open. How many though, I don't know.

Right now the road is closed north of the construction site to soccer field due to flooding/icing which has mangled the road, though drivers were still detouring around the barricade.


That road is also my alternative way home when Deerfoot is screwed. I also call bullshit on the 500 cars/day. I'd say 1,500, based on driving it at various times of the day. It would double, or triple if the road was actually in decent shape. I also call bullshit on the "requires a storm sewer" bit. Perhaps they need to call their country bumpkin road maintenance friends and learn how to build a road crown with ditches. Would work just fine if they raise the road a bit and grade it so the ditch drains back to Nose Creek. If I lived on the east side of Bridgeland, I'd be pissed, as people to cut through there instead when St Georges Dr. is closed or impassable in the wet times.

[Corndogger]

The two billion Green Trip program wasn't simply for regional transit, it covers all transit. So Calgary Transit, the Edmonton Transit System, L.A. Transit, and other established systems will likely benefit heavily from the funding.

That said the way some of the talk was headed it did look like new regional systems might really benefit for political reasons but I'd wait until the money is actually awarded before declaring the whole thing a bust.

Yup, you're right about the Green Trip Program. I see that Edmonton is going to ask the Province for some of this money to help fund their LRT expansion. What really confuses me now is why are we blowing a huge chunk of our MSI funding on the West LRT if there is another pot of money that we could be accessing? Knowing how ideologically driven our administration and most of council is I can see them trying to spend as much of the MSI funding on transit and then go beg for even more from the Green Trip fund. Despite Mooky implying I'm wrong about climate change (sorry Mooky that IPCC report is being disproven on a daily basis and the UN is finally taking out sections, including the one claiming we'll suffer major catastrophes, because not only is the science not proven it wasn't even peer reviewed in most cases!), I think Ed and the boys will quietly get rid of the Green Fund for transit. A much smarter use, as pointed out before, would be to help fund projects to clean up pollution and protect our waterways. It would also be a lot more politically beneficial for them.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Corndogger]

There's a hint of the Corndogger we all know and love. Just need an allusion to the ramming of things down throats and to revolts or revolutions against a municipal government and the phoenix will have fully risen.

Just poking a little fun at your legacy on this forum CD, I don't mean that to sound wholly malicious. To your post, I will just say I disagree and leave it at that.

But what I said is unfortunately true. The administration seems to get off on screwing motorists around and they've admitted to doing crazy things like making sure traffic lights aren't properly in sync and advocating measures to make car usage as painful as possible. If that is being ideological driven then I don't know what is. City council also likes to play games. They damn well knew about the airport tunnel and yet they allocated the MSI money as fast they could so none would be left for this project and then expected to cry to the Province to get more funding. Then there's Gord Lowe who wants to downgrade roads that will serve hundreds of thousands of people because he's worried about the costs yet he didn't think twice about approving $25 million for a pedestrian bridge that will be used by about 500 people on a good day. When the history of this current council and administration is written the terms "ideological driven," "unethical," and "fucking stupid" will be used a lot. Kids in the future might actually think Ed and his gang were relatively good because even though the same terms apply to them they won't be used as much. Well, the last one might but that's up for debate at the moment.

[Bassic Lab]

Yup, you're right about the Green Trip Program. I see that Edmonton is going to ask the Province for some of this money to help fund their LRT expansion. What really confuses me now is why are we blowing a huge chunk of our MSI funding on the West LRT if there is another pot of money that we could be accessing? Knowing how ideologically driven our administration and most of council is I can see them trying to spend as much of the MSI funding on transit and then go beg for even more from the Green Trip fund. Despite Mooky implying I'm wrong about climate change (sorry Mooky that IPCC report is being disproven on a daily basis and the UN is finally taking out sections, including the one claiming we'll suffer major catastrophes, because not only is the science not proven it wasn't even peer reviewed in most cases!), I think Ed and the boys will quietly get rid of the Green Fund for transit. A much smarter use, as pointed out before, would be to help fund projects to clean up pollution and protect our waterways. It would also be a lot more politically beneficial for them.

Green Trip really couldn't be used for the West LRT. The 2007 election made the West LRT a major political issue that had to be built ASAP. First, Green Trip simply wasn't around, really it still isn't around. Second, there is still the danger that the money will be thrown around to all corners of the province with the "Calgary" portion going towards starting some kind of regional system. Waiting around for the Province to maybe okay funding from Green Trip would have meant breaking election promises and putting the whole project in jeopardy.

Of the 4 billion dollars pledged towards green initiatives the Green Trip is easily the best part. Pledging to put 2 Billion towards carbon capture was the stupid part. There is no consensus that it could work and there are no beneficial side effects. Green Trip is great in that it not only includes the good optics of doing something about the environment, whether you believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change or not, as it can also provide necessary infrastructure improvements. You might prefer road infrastructure (which no one can accuse the province of ignoring with the billions going towards Anthony Henday and Stoney) but investment in either will increase mobility, helping the economy. Transit infrastructure will help reduce road congestion. The SE LRT, for instance, would seriously benefit traffic flow on Deerfoot. My only fear with the Green Trip is that the money will be awarded with political consideration paramount, with funding going towards systems that might look attractive on the surface but will do far less to improve transportation and cut emissions than expansion in the major cities.

[para transit fellow]

Re: green trip dollars for LRT

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this before but the Green trip program is only going to consider one application from each region. So for example, calgary's request for LRT funds with have to bundle with Regional partnership's Regional BRT, etc. And if Rocky View stays outside of the Calg Metro paln, there transit plans would still have to be bundled into the one application for Calgary and area communities.

Source: an Alberta Transportation info session I attended last spring.
disclaimer: Alberta transportation is making up the rules as they go along....

[Radley77]

...

Of the 4 billion dollars pledged towards green initiatives the Green Trip is easily the best part. Pledging to put 2 Billion towards carbon capture was the stupid part. There is no consensus that it could work and there are no beneficial side effects. Green Trip is great in that it not only includes the good optics of doing something about the environment, whether you believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change or not, as it can also provide necessary infrastructure improvements...

I haven't seen a lot in the provincial press releases, but carbon capture (and C02 injection) would likely be injected into reservoir. Once the reservoir is pressured up above the minimum misciblity pressure it changes the PVT properties of the oil. This may change a pools recovery factor from 30% to 60% as was the experience in the largest C02 flood in the world in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. Of the ERCB's conventional oil reserves of 60 billion barrels, only 20 billion are expected to be recovered. The value in carbon capture, is that it helps reduce the per barrel climate effects of CO2, and will help unlock energy that would otherwise not be recovered. While I haven't seen a study on the cost\benefit of CCS, the crown will get incremental royalties, leverage other capital investment in the economy, and the technology has been proven successful in Weyburn, Saskatchewan.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ The problem is it isn't cost effective - that is why the subsidy or a carbon pricing mechanism is needed (Alberta has both). Hopefully doing a couple huge projects will bring the cost down to the point where it is economical without the subsidy.

As for being able to use the CCS money for roads if the CCS project didn't exist, it is untrue. The CCS money is funded out of a technology fund that is funded by the Alberta Carbon Levy where companies can either invest internally in carbon mitigation or research to avoid paying, or pay and contribute centrally to carbon mitigation research.

If the government used a carbon tax to pay for roads, firstly it would be pretty ironic. Secondly, industry might rebel and form their own research consortium to avoid paying the tax therefor depriving the government of the revenue.

[Radley77]

Thanks for sharing the information about the Alberta Carbon Levy; I had not realized that CCS money was funded by this mechanism.

It may not be cost effective for oil and gas companies, but may be cost effective for the goverment. Royalties for oil and gas are at a par price of $80/bbl are 25% alone, and does not consider the quantity component so would likely be even higher. In the Weyburn flood, they gained an incremental 130 million barrels by CO2 flooding. There are a lot more applications for CO2 flooding in Alberta compared to Saskatchewan, so it's not hard to do the math ($20/bbl * 130 million bbl = $2.6 billion ) and see that the government may come out ahead by spending some money. Also, government collects additional revenues through operating costs and F&D costs (personal income and corporate tax).

As I understand it, the majority of the costs are weighted towards the capturing component, rather than transportation or implementation. There is also the issue that although some pools may be economic on a regional basis, due to seperation of interests, it doesn't make sense for any single corporation to implement for a single or portion of a pool.

Besides a possible economic gain for the province, there is also the benefit of taking about a million equivalent vehichles off the road for CO2 emissions and creating hightech and academic jobs in enhanced oil recovery.

If one looks at CCS from an asset position instead of cashflow, the full value to the province is not going to be the -$2 billion expense spent in the next couple of years, but will be offset by incremental future revenues due to enhanced oil recovery.

[Corndogger]

Green Trip really couldn't be used for the West LRT. The 2007 election made the West LRT a major political issue that had to be built ASAP. First, Green Trip simply wasn't around, really it still isn't around. Second, there is still the danger that the money will be thrown around to all corners of the province with the "Calgary" portion going towards starting some kind of regional system. Waiting around for the Province to maybe okay funding from Green Trip would have meant breaking election promises and putting the whole project in jeopardy.

Of the 4 billion dollars pledged towards green initiatives the Green Trip is easily the best part. Pledging to put 2 Billion towards carbon capture was the stupid part. There is no consensus that it could work and there are no beneficial side effects. Green Trip is great in that it not only includes the good optics of doing something about the environment, whether you believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change or not, as it can also provide necessary infrastructure improvements. You might prefer road infrastructure (which no one can accuse the province of ignoring with the billions going towards Anthony Henday and Stoney) but investment in either will increase mobility, helping the economy. Transit infrastructure will help reduce road congestion. The SE LRT, for instance, would seriously benefit traffic flow on Deerfoot. My only fear with the Green Trip is that the money will be awarded with political consideration paramount, with funding going towards systems that might look attractive on the surface but will do far less to improve transportation and cut emissions than expansion in the major cities.

I think we'll have to disagree about the 2007 election. There were no major political issues other than those pushed by the media. 2010 will be different.

The MSI funding program wasn't announced until Sept 2007 and there was no promise of money right away. According to government documents, etc. Green Trip was also announced in 2007. The big difference seems to be the MSI funding was allocated down to the dollar and year for each city and community whereas the Green Trip funding was to be based on who submitted the best project ideas.

If you look at how everyone is spending their MSI funding it's very clear that Calgary was in a huge rush to spend as much (all?) of their funding as quickly as possible. Council and the administration can claim all they want they had plans in place but the facts are their decisions were totally driven by their transit agenda. Now we are going to pay the price for decades because of this. Don't forget that only about 16% of the workforce works downtown and the vast majority of people do not want to use transit. In otherwords, the SE LRT, etc. will not have the impact you think it will. Yes, the trains will be packed during rush hours but Deerfoot will still be a disaster and as the city grows it will only get worse. What needs to be done is a combined road/transit project where both issues get dealt with at once using the same funding. Crowchild is a good example if you disregard the usual interchange design disasters.

I agree totally with you about the carbon capture money. $2 billion for PR but then again so is the Green Trip Program. At least that's why Ed was allocating the money. I highly doubt he was thinking about the environment at the time.

[Corndogger]

^ The problem is it isn't cost effective - that is why the subsidy or a carbon pricing mechanism is needed (Alberta has both). Hopefully doing a couple huge projects will bring the cost down to the point where it is economical without the subsidy.

As for being able to use the CCS money for roads if the CCS project didn't exist, it is untrue. The CCS money is funded out of a technology fund that is funded by the Alberta Carbon Levy where companies can either invest internally in carbon mitigation or research to avoid paying, or pay and contribute centrally to carbon mitigation research.

If the government used a carbon tax to pay for roads, firstly it would be pretty ironic. Secondly, industry might rebel and form their own research consortium to avoid paying the tax therefor depriving the government of the revenue.

Are you claiming that industry has already paid $2 billion into this technology fund? I find that hard to believe. If true, you'd think the oil and gas industry especially would be advertising it on a daily basis.

Gas tax money is used for transit projects and transit advocates continually base their funding models for transit projects on getting some of that money while at the same time claiming people will abandon their vehicles to use these transit projects. That's what I find ironic. And stupid. If we all switched to transit where do they think the funding would come from? This is why people like Jack Layton will never form government in this country.

[Corndogger]

Thanks for sharing the information about the Alberta Carbon Levy; I had not realized that CCS money was funded by this mechanism.

It may not be cost effective for oil and gas companies, but may be cost effective for the goverment. Royalties for oil and gas are at a par price of $80/bbl are 25% alone, and does not consider the quantity component so would likely be even higher. In the Weyburn flood, they gained an incremental 130 million barrels by CO2 flooding. There are a lot more applications for CO2 flooding in Alberta compared to Saskatchewan, so it's not hard to do the math ($20/bbl * 130 million bbl = $2.6 billion ) and see that the government may come out ahead by spending some money. Also, government collects additional revenues through operating costs and F&D costs (personal income and corporate tax).

As I understand it, the majority of the costs are weighted towards the capturing component, rather than transportation or implementation. There is also the issue that although some pools may be economic on a regional basis, due to seperation of interests, it doesn't make sense for any single corporation to implement for a single or portion of a pool.

Besides a possible economic gain for the province, there is also the benefit of taking about a million equivalent vehichles off the road for CO2 emissions and creating hightech and academic jobs in enhanced oil recovery.

If one looks at CCS from an asset position instead of cashflow, the full value to the province is not going to be the -$2 billion expense spent in the next couple of years, but will be offset by incremental future revenues due to enhanced oil recovery.

If the government would stick to their guns and keep funding the work until it was proven to be economically viable then I'd be in favor of it. The numbers you present are very compelling. I'm just worried that the government's decision was driven by trying to buy some good PR and that once they get it they'll abandon this project.

[MalcolmTucker]

Are you claiming that industry has already paid $2 billion into this technology fund? I find that hard to believe. If true, you'd think the oil and gas industry especially would be advertising it on a daily basis.

Gas tax money is used for transit projects and transit advocates continually base their funding models for transit projects on getting some of that money while at the same time claiming people will abandon their vehicles to use these transit projects. That's what I find ironic. And stupid. If we all switched to transit where do they think the funding would come from? This is why people like Jack Layton will never form government in this country.

Not exactly, sure, but we have to remember that the $2 billion for CCS was also over 5 years (or maybe even more)

At $15/tonne, and Alberta's large industrial emissions coming in at north of 150 megatonnes, that works out to $2.25 billion a year. Of course have to reduce that by the credits applied for internal research, which are probably rather generous.

It isn't hard to see that the carbon levy especially over the periods over which Green Trip and CCS are planned to be spent will be more than funded by the levy.

That the Stelmach Government is so incompetent in the communications department to not triumph these facts is pretty stupid. Perhaps they are scared that if they publicize that they have implemented a carbon tax the public will either be against it or that it will open the door for other levels of government to implement a tax. Imagine how easy it would be for the Wildrose to run an election on repealing the carbon tax.

As for road funding in the province, I don't think we have to worry about that given the ring road being years ahead of what was originally planned. From the city side, given that the McKnight connection and the Crowchild Freeway projects are still on the books I don't think attacks of a too big of a transit focus are warranted.

I have to wonder when the airport first announced it was building the new runway however - I don't remember whether it was before or after MSI 'markup'. In any case, the tunnel never made it onto the funded project list because council never ranked it high enough. Add to that the airport being luke warm about the tunnel because it reduces their potential land lease value in the north of the terminal precinct (where that new multi hotel convention centre is planned) and that it increases the cost of the spaghetti ramps to service the terminal.

[SubwayRev]

Are you claiming that industry has already paid $2 billion into this technology fund? I find that hard to believe. If true, you'd think the oil and gas industry especially would be advertising it on a daily basis.

Gas tax money is used for transit projects and transit advocates continually base their funding models for transit projects on getting some of that money while at the same time claiming people will abandon their vehicles to use these transit projects. That's what I find ironic. And stupid. If we all switched to transit where do they think the funding would come from? This is why people like Jack Layton will never form government in this country.

Please quote a source for this...as it is my understanding that gas tax goes into 'General Revenue' and is impossible to trace. If what you are saying is true, Calgary should be receiving North of $200 million per year for transit. We aren't.

[MalcolmTucker]

Please quote a source for this...as it is my understanding that gas tax goes into 'General Revenue' and is impossible to trace. If what you are saying is true, Calgary should be receiving North of $200 million per year for transit. We aren't.

Here are the capital grants Calgary recieves from other levels of government (the federal gas tax amount has close to doubled since this was created, and GST rebate is not included as it is a variable number):
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/1965/funding.jpg (Source: Alnoor Campaign)

When Calgary receives that money it goes into the capital budget. That money pays for whatever projects the city has on its priority project list, plus some is carved out for MSI apportionment.

While for accounting purposes you can say it is impossible to trace, since the gas tax money coming to the city comes from general revenues, the dollar value still flows from the real world collection of the gas tax.

[Corndogger]

Please quote a source for this...as it is my understanding that gas tax goes into 'General Revenue' and is impossible to trace. If what you are saying is true, Calgary should be receiving North of $200 million per year for transit. We aren't.

As far as I'm concerned, none of the money should go to transit as the original intent of the tax was to build and maintain roads. Technically Calgary should receive over $400 million a year in gas tax money as the Feds give us only a small part back of what they collect. I realize that some of the money would have to be allocated to highway projects outside of the city as we rely on these roads to take us or our goods from Point A to B.

When the City receives gas tax money they've usually stated how the money is going to be used and transit projects receive a ton of this money. If this funding were to dry up or be used only for it's original intended purpose, transit users would either see huge increases in fares or the end of transit capital projects. The option of having huge tax increases to pay for LRT lines would never fly in this city.

[mersar]

The traffic lights have been installed at Country Hills Blvd and Rocky Ridge Road, though not turned on yet. And they've installed yet another 'Rocky Ridge Road at Crowchild is closing' sign at that intersection, in addition to the 5 others on Rocky Ridge Road, Crowchild and 12 Mile Coulee.

[Stang]

The traffic lights have been installed at Country Hills Blvd and Rocky Ridge Road, though not turned on yet. And they've installed yet another 'Rocky Ridge Road at Crowchild is closing' sign at that intersection, in addition to the 5 others on Rocky Ridge Road, Crowchild and 12 Mile Coulee.

What?!? Rocky Ridge Road is closing?? ;)

Seriously though - that link that is formed by CHB between RRR and 12 Mile Coulee is going to be quite necessary. There are also lights ready to be switched on along 12 Mile Coulee near the Rocky Ridge Co-op.

When is the actual closure scheduled / expected to happen anyway? At least the city is getting the surrounding infrastructure somewhat prepped, but I still foresee a bit of a gong show initially as people adjust their routes.

[mersar]

What?!? Rocky Ridge Road is closing?? ;)

Seriously though - that link that is formed by CHB between RRR and 12 Mile Coulee is going to be quite necessary. There are also lights ready to be switched on along 12 Mile Coulee near the Rocky Ridge Co-op.

When is the actual closure scheduled / expected to happen anyway? At least the city is getting the surrounding infrastructure somewhat prepped, but I still foresee a bit of a gong show initially as people adjust their routes.

The province needs the intersection closed this spring so South Rock can start building the SB to WB ramp for Stoney which is set to open this fall. Exactly when I'd bet on some time in April as thats whats on some of the 'road is closing soon' signs, though some of the others just say spring so there may be some leeway.

[Mazrim]

The traffic lights have been installed at Country Hills Blvd and Rocky Ridge Road, though not turned on yet. And they've installed yet another 'Rocky Ridge Road at Crowchild is closing' sign at that intersection, in addition to the 5 others on Rocky Ridge Road, Crowchild and 12 Mile Coulee.
Believe it or not, there are still people who live in the NW and didn't know Rocky Ridge Rd. was closing, and you always get the "how the hell can they do this to us?" routine. It's pretty funny, and I'm willing to bet they say to the city "why didn't you tell us this was happening, I haven't seen anything saying this!" :haha:

[freeweed]

Believe it or not, there are still people who live in the NW and didn't know Rocky Ridge Rd. was closing, and you always get the "how the hell can they do this to us?" routine. It's pretty funny, and I'm willing to bet they say to the city "why didn't you tell us this was happening, I haven't seen anything saying this!" :haha:

To be fair, outside this forum I've only ever seen a single sign pointing it out. A sign that for mysterious reasons is no longer up. All it would have taken is me being out of town for a few weeks, and I'd be in the dark.

I imagine the sign on RR Rd itself is very obvious, but still. I can see how most people in the NW have no idea about this, if they don't take that road very often. The road should just have been closed once the communities started, period. With so many people relying on GPS units these days (heck, even maps take a while to be replaced), I can see MANY people getting lost.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Bigtime]

As of Sunday there was a sign on westbound Crowchild just past the intersection with Stoney indicating that RR Rd. will be closed come April.

[mersar]

As of Sunday there was a sign on westbound Crowchild just past the intersection with Stoney indicating that RR Rd. will be closed come April.

Yep. Theres also a sign on EB Crowchild just before, one on RRR just past Eamon Road, another at RRR and Country Hills, and one on 12 Mile Coulee just south of the co-op and one other I'm missing. Most of the signs have been up for a few months now. The ones on Crowchild have been there for most of that time

[freeweed]

^Hasn't that information been included in mailouts for XRT?

Probably, buried on page 9 or something. I wouldn't even notice it as like I said, I've known about it for years now thanks to this forum so I don't even pay attention. It's probably also mentioned in the community junkmail^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnewsletter that goes straight into the recycling bin.

Regular people don't read every mailer from the city, nor do they prowl the calgary.ca website, nor is it a subject that comes up in conversation for no reason. Not saying that's a good thing, that's just how people are. The day that road closes I bet thousands of people are going to suddenly go "WTF?!?!".

Although the road signs are REALLY increasing awareness, finally. For those that live in the area and regularly drive, anyway. I do have many friends that don't live in RR/RO that still don't have a clue, until I tell them.

Put it to everyone this way - it's like that road by the new Science Centre. Those that live right there mostly know that it closes every year due to water concerns. And people on this forum know, because we talk about stuff like that. But 99% of Calgarians, when they try to visit it for the first time, are in for a real shock if the road happens to be closed on that day (presuming they come from the side that is closed off).

[Stang]

Put it to everyone this way - it's like that road by the new Science Centre. Those that live right there mostly know that it closes every year due to water concerns. And people on this forum know, because we talk about stuff like that. But 99% of Calgarians, when they try to visit it for the first time, are in for a real shock if the road happens to be closed on that day (presuming they come from the side that is closed off).

Are you referring to the pothole-riddled road known as St. George's Drive? I believe that's where the new science centre is going. I honestly can't recall that ever being closed due to water (I used to go there more often for soccer), so it would be WTF indeed for me.

Edit: I actually vaguely remember going to soccer one day and coming from the zoo side and seeing a barrier. But I promptly drive around it. ;)

I absolutely agree that a large number of people don't seek out information like we do and don't keep up with the happenings in the neighbourhood. And don't get me started about GPS maps... Things that I have submitted to Navteq a couple of YEARS ago still aren't updated on the maps (I subscribe to unlimited updates)!

[CalgaryLankan]

Does anyone in the forum know expected completion date for 96th Avenue extension from Harvest Hills to Deerfoot? Thanks

[mersar]

Does anyone in the forum know expected completion date for 96th Avenue extension from Harvest Hills to Deerfoot? Thanks

Construction was scheduled for this year, so probably 2011 or 2012 I'd bet.

[Ferreth]

Are you referring to the pothole-riddled road known as St. George's Drive? I believe that's where the new science centre is going. I honestly can't recall that ever being closed due to water (I used to go there more often for soccer), so it would be WTF indeed for me.

Edit: I actually vaguely remember going to soccer one day and coming from the zoo side and seeing a barrier. But I promptly drive around it. ;)


That's been the normal mod of operations for a closure up until now - put some barriers up mostly blocking the road that you can drive around. It can become undrivable to cars with low clearance at those times. This time they mean business with concrete blocks and no way around them. Perhaps the city is tired of grading out the ruts every few weeks during wet season.

[mwalker_mw]

The disaster that is the Highfield/Dartmouth/26th construction site now has signs up saying "opening soon" that I'm pretty sure weren't there before. A little bit later than the original promise of open by December... (might have even been earlier than that)

It seems they think Calgarians are getting used to roundabouts and decided that having one with railway tracks through the middle would up the challenge... Should help greatly with the traffic flow through there.

[mersar]

The disaster that is the Highfield/Dartmouth/26th construction site now has signs up saying "opening soon" that I'm pretty sure weren't there before. A little bit later than the original promise of open by December... (might have even been earlier than that)

It seems they think Calgarians are getting used to roundabouts and decided that having one with railway tracks through the middle would up the challenge... Should help greatly with the traffic flow through there.

They closure on Dartmouth was extended another month last week, March 19th reopening or something now.

[Koolfire]

Is there a list were they have potential roundabout locations? I think 11st / 49th ave NE and 49th ave / Aviation Blvd would be good locations for roundabouts.

[shreddog]

Before any new roundabouts we need an educational program for the idiots that seem to live in this city. This past fall the city installed 2 round abouts in my neighbourhood - 2nd St and 24/28th Ave NW. Since finishing it I have been in 3 near misses with idiots who can't figure a left turn means driving 3/4's the way around the circle, not 1/4 against traffic. IDIOTS!!

Plus we've had enough red necks drive their trucks right over the top even with the metal barriers. Perhaps they just didn't see them??

But then again the city could also be as stupid as Ottawa where their biggest round about has traffic in the circle yielding to traffic coming in?????

[Mazrim]

But then again the city could also be as stupid as Ottawa where their biggest round about has traffic in the circle yielding to traffic coming in?????
That's a traffic circle, not a roundabout. That's one of the differences between the two.

[shreddog]

That's a traffic circle, not a roundabout. That's one of the differences between the two.
I am quite familiar with the differences between the two, the problem is most people in N. A. are not and therefore treat them similar when driving plus the one on Prince of Wales wasn't truly built as a traffic circle. While you are right that there are many difference between the two, in my experience one of the primary diffs has been the size. If a traffic circle is too small (I.e. more like the size of a roundabout) it seizes up during high traffic volumes. The Prince of Wales debacle, falls apart at rush hour every day. Enough traffic wants to make a left turn into the farm when going north, or the aboretum when going south that yielding traffic in the circle blocks the N-S flow on Prince of Wales. The city looked into fixing it in the late 80's by either changing the yield patterns or increasing the size. Of course they did neither.

As for the intersectionat 24th Ave and 2nd St NW, half the people seem to treat it as a traffic cirle and the other half as a roundabout.

My concern in Calgary will be if we build traffic circles that should be roundabouts due to size constraint. That and roundabouts also tend to fail in cities that get snow and don't plow the roads. Not saying we should do that here, but again the roundabouts on 2nd St NW were gong shows this winter due to icing - particularly fun for the number of school buses that flow through that intersection.

[mooky]

:previous:

Aren't they the same thing? Over in the UK whether small or large, they are all called round-a-bouts.

The yields really shouldn't be there because then it ceases to do what it was intended for and simply becomes a big round intersection. don't get hung up on the definition because the definition is simply what we ascribe to it.

That said, I came a cross major "A"-way round-a-bouts in a few cities, Manchester to name just one, that also had lights on it, like the one near bonnie doon in Edmonton. Last I knew (this was a while back) it had traffic lights as well, but it didn't used to when I was a kid and was treated just like a normal round-about (what we in NA call a traffic circle - free flow).

EDIT: I just google street viewed, Boonie doon traffic circle has no lights, but it does have yields, but I do remember several high volume traffic circles in the UK that have lights.

[freeweed]

No wonder people get confused. This is literally the first time in my life that I've ever heard the terms "roundabout" and "traffic circle" not being used interchangeably.

I, like everyone else I've ever talked to, have always thought of them as being the same thing, just different terms on different sides of the pond.

Now that I glance at the Wikipedia articles, I can see the distinction, but colour me ignorant on this one. And I've driven a heck of a lot more of this continent than the average bear, so it's not like I'm insulated or anything. I've *never* driven one where the traffic inside has to yield. Granted, the one area I haven't explored much is New England, and it seems like there are a ton there, but still - 90% of the continent does not have these. Is it any wonder people have problems with them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout

[mooky]

freeweed, I've been informed too! Hmmm, problem is, int he UK, I don't remember any circle being called a "traffic circle" they were all called roundabouts.... maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention, it's poossible.


Also, do bear in mind wiki isn't 100% accurate either on all situation. Wiki isn't beyond infallibility :shrug:

[Stang]

I can find plenty to be critical about with Calgary drivers, but I have noticed that my roundabout experiences have actually improved in the last few months. Not as many people misusing them, it seems.

Of course, my observations are far from scientific, and we still have a very long way to go!

[freeweed]

Once people learn to signal their intention to leave a roundabout, I'll be happy with how drivers here handle them.

Oddly enough, many people for whatever reason signal when they ENTER them. Yeah, I kinda figured you were going to enter it, seeing as there's nowhere else for you to go...

[bigcanuck]

Oddly enough, many people for whatever reason signal when they ENTER them. Yeah, I kinda figured you were going to enter it, seeing as there's nowhere else for you to go...

From my driver's ed course (yep - it was over 20 years ago so bear with me), I thought the protocol was to signal left when entering and leave your signal light on as you circle (going counter-clockwise). When you're ready to leave the circle, you signal right and then leave at the next exit.

Of course, my old memory may be failing me.

[lubicon]

Once people learn to signal their intention to leave a roundabout, I'll be happy with how drivers here handle them.

Oddly enough, many people for whatever reason signal when they ENTER them. Yeah, I kinda figured you were going to enter it, seeing as there's nowhere else for you to go...

You've actually seen people in Calgary who use their signals?? I thought it was a myth.

[Stang]

You've actually seen people in Calgary who use their signals?? I thought it was a myth.

I thought those things were removed on import to Alberta. ;)

(For the record, I'm an avid signaller. Freeweed can enter the roundabout confidently as I'm exiting.)

[freeweed]

From my driver's ed course (yep - it was over 20 years ago so bear with me), I thought the protocol was to signal left when entering and leave your signal light on as you circle (going counter-clockwise). When you're ready to leave the circle, you signal right and then leave at the next exit.

I never learned circles in driver's ed personally, so I can only go on a) what seems logical and b) what the brits, who have thousands of them, do.

Signaling left, and especially leaving the signal on, seems assinine to me. Not only is it pointless (it's blatant that you are entering the circle), but a left-on signal just about always means nothing. It's far more likely the driver completely forgot about it. Much like anyone with a signal left on for more than a few seconds on Deerfoot, odds are they just plain forgot that it was on.

Signaling right is important so that the person entering at the next "exit" knows that it's safe to do so. Again, a left-on signal just tells me "do not trust the driver, period".

Not sure what the actual law/best practice is, though.

[Stang]

Not sure what the actual law/best practice is, though.

This sounds like a question for my cousin-in-law who is a) a driving instructor and b) a Brit. ;)

[bigcanuck]

Interesting - from the U of A website:
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/driving/nav01.cfm?nav01=85411

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/driving/images/85st90avcirclecopy.jpg

Drivers intending to turn right should:


approach the traffic circle in the blue lane
signal right
yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk and vehicles in the traffic circle
when safe to proceed, continue the turn in the curb lane to first exit


Driver who intend to exit on the second intersecting roadway:


approach the traffic circle in the red or blue lane
signal left
yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk and vehicles in the traffic circle
when safe to proceed, enter into the appropriate lane
continue to signal left in the traffic circle
signal right on exit
do not change lanes while moving through the traffic circle or on exit

Drivers who intend to travel past the second exit:


enter the traffic circle from the red lane
signal left
yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk and vehicles in the traffic circle
when safe to proceed, enter the green lane
continue to signal left while travelling through the traffic circle in the green lane
signal right and maintain green lane position on exit

[YYCguys]

:gaah: :eeekk:

'nuf said!

[shogged]

while that u of a map is correct, the most important law associated with it is the universal traffic circle law... "Yield to the vehicle on the left always"

it's unfortunate that nobody seems to know that law, because you'll always get people rocking the outside of the traffic circle like they own the thing and its always the inside lane that has to come to a stop when someone can't make their exit because the soccer mom was too afraid to get stuck in the inside lane and has no idea that shes supposed to yield to drivers on her left.

I really have no problem with people using the outside lane of the traffic circle, unlike the vast majority of calgary residents who even went as far as to make a home-made sign for the mckenzie towne traffic circle a few months back (complete with profanity and lots of lol). I just have a problem with people who can't follow such a basic rule.

Then when people complain that its hard to yield to people on your left when you're travelling around the circle, all I have to say to them is don't use the outside lane then. Seriously.

/end rant

edit: when i say traffic circle, i'm referring to the alberta version which function as wikipedias definition of a round-about with traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic in the circle already

[shreddog]

No wonder people get confused. This is literally the first time in my life that I've ever heard the terms "roundabout" and "traffic circle" not being used interchangeably.

I, like everyone else I've ever talked to, have always thought of them as being the same thing, just different terms on different sides of the pond.

Now that I glance at the Wikipedia articles, I can see the distinction, but colour me ignorant on this one. And I've driven a heck of a lot more of this continent than the average bear, so it's not like I'm insulated or anything. I've *never* driven one where the traffic inside has to yield. Granted, the one area I haven't explored much is New England, and it seems like there are a ton there, but still - 90% of the continent does not have these. Is it any wonder people have problems with them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout
Nomenclature aside, the biggest problem is when use mix orbital intersection A with orbital intersection B in the same city (where A/B equal different yield standards).

Personaly I love roundabouts (particularily the mini-ones in the UK) but find most people on this continent are still befuddled by them.

Plus while they can be okay for pedestrations (if done right) they're a real bitch for bikes unless the bikes riders have a pair and take owbership of the intersection when riding through it.

Plus, I still think that they suck in our city due to the road plowing situation. In January, the one at 24th/2nd had an ice mound in it that would push cars out of the turn. That said, I did have a hoot driving my 4 wheeler through it!!

[octothorp]

Dartmouth road traffic circle is now open!! Man, it makes my commute to work a little bit more fun.

[mr.steevo]

[QUOTE=freeweed;4720362
Signaling left, and especially leaving the signal on, seems assinine to me. [/QUOTE]

Hi,

The problem with traffic circles in Alberta is there are so few of them that people do not have the opportunity to learn or regularly practice using them. I loved using traffic circles in Edmonton but there was so much inconsistency in how people used them. The left indicator left on does mean the vehicle on the inside lane intends to continue around, but for some it meant they forgot their signal was on. I was always on guard when driving through traffic circles because you never knew if your dancing partner knew the rules.

s.

[freeweed]

City of Calgary street sweepers just went down my street. In March. I'm stunned.

There was no announcement, no signage, and they're not doing the full job or anything, so I suspect this may just be some pre-emptive "let's get rid of the metric ton of gravel per kilometer".

Still, nice to see. One of the worst parts of a Calgary spring is just how long we drive on gravel.

[Bigtime]

Dartmouth road traffic circle is now open!! Man, it makes my commute to work a little bit more fun.

A traffic circle plus a rail line crossing next to it, what do you do when a train is rolling through? Just keep circling? :D

I could also incorporate this circle as part of my commute home, or choose not to and use 11 street instead.

[Mazrim]

Still, nice to see. One of the worst parts of a Calgary spring is just how long we drive on gravel.
After spending enough time in Medicine Hat, Calgary has a pretty tame amount of gravel on the roads. You could swear you're driving on dirt roads in Medicine Hat, since they seem to drop 25 times the proper amount during the winter than necessary. :haha:

[korzym]

The new roundabout on Highfield and Dartmouth opened on Friday. It's only a matter of time before some gets smoked by a tra

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4F5lAmN0NJE/S5PRBDkwACI/AAAAAAAAA_c/QW-d1Wh_gOw/s800/Traffic%20Circle.jpg

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4F5lAmN0NJE/S5PRBiq20II/AAAAAAAAA_g/wKqpgca3Tr0/s800/Traffic%20Circle-2.jpg

I didn't have to wait long for someone to go the wrong way.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4F5lAmN0NJE/S5PRCTS9JJI/AAAAAAAAA_k/xq3iX9T1jwQ/s800/Traffic%20Circle-3.jpg

Bigger ones here:
http://picasaweb.google.ca/trad16/TrafficCircle#
That's fairly prevalent in Europe..if people don't expect roads to be safe then maybe they'll pay attention more.

[entheosfog]

It's going to get really interesting. One has to see it in person to fully appreciate how bad of an idea this actually is.

I might grab a lawn chair and head down there for rush hour after work on Monday. I have a feeling it's going to be entertaining.

Please take video footage!

[Ramsayfarian]

That's fairly prevalent in Europe..if people don't expect roads to be safe then maybe they'll pay attention more.

What, traffic circles or traffic circles with train tracks?

It seems like a large number of Calgarians get confused by a four-way stop, I can't imagine how they're going to handle this. I was out today and saw 4 cars come to a complete stop at a flashing yellow.

I've been through this roundabout about 6 times since it has opened and I've almost been hit once. Just wait until that siding gets finished and the number of trains using that line pick up. I think we'll be handing out a few Darwin awards.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Ramsayfarian]

Most of you probably saw these shots in the construction thread. Finkprof kindly pointed me here, so I thought I'd post them here.

As some one else pointed out, it's S.O.P to have your left hand turn signal on when entering a traffic circle where you intend to travel further than the first exit.
I took my driver's ed up in Edmonton when I was a kid. We spent about an hour and a half going from one traffic circle to the other. I thought it sucked at the time, but it was worth it.

This traffic circle is a bad idea as Calgary hasn't enough exposure to traffic circles, it won't belong before someone gets smoked by a train. I've been around it 1/2 a dozen times and I've almost been hit once. I was expecting it, so I was able to react in time.




I think I noticed one pedestrian crossing.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4F5lAmN0NJE/S5PRBDkwACI/AAAAAAAAA_c/QW-d1Wh_gOw/s800/Traffic%20Circle.jpg

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4F5lAmN0NJE/S5PRBiq20II/AAAAAAAAA_g/wKqpgca3Tr0/s800/Traffic%20Circle-2.jpg

I didn't have to wait long for someone to go the wrong way.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4F5lAmN0NJE/S5PRCTS9JJI/AAAAAAAAA_k/xq3iX9T1jwQ/s800/Traffic%20Circle-3.jpg

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Ferreth]

I checked this out today on my way out for an urban walk. I agree it sucks, but I'll hold full judgment until they finish it completely. It may suck slightly less or greatly more. It's looking like it's going to be a combination of 1 lane and 2 lane exits, with the traffic circle looking big enough for 2 lanes, although it may be only one to accommodate the trucks better.

As a Calgarian driver, I'm not totally comfortable with traffic circles. The 1 lane guys I have no problem with but the 2 lane ones I don't like. I get confused by the inside / outside lane ROW's in the traffic circle. I'm hoping this thing is only 1 lane inside the traffic circle, as with the railway, and multi-lane possibilities, it's going to confuse me, never mind the idjits.

It will be interesting to see how it works when a train is going through. I predict 26th Ave traffic will use the traffic circle going the wrong way to get on Highfield Rd; similarly on Dartmouth Rd.

[DLLB]

That's fairly prevalent in Europe..if people don't expect roads to be safe then maybe they'll pay attention more.

I have diriven in 10 countries in Europe but I know I have never come across one like this. I wonder what the rationale is behind this? Was there no other option? :shrug:

[korzym]

I have diriven in 10 countries in Europe but I know I have never come across one like this. I wonder what the rationale is behind this? Was there no other option? :shrug:
Looks like you haven't driven as much as you think

[korzym]

What, traffic circles or traffic circles with train tracks?

It seems like a large number of Calgarians get confused by a four-way stop, I can't imagine how they're going to handle this. I was out today and saw 4 cars come to a complete stop at a flashing yellow.

I've been through this roundabout about 6 times since it has opened and I've almost been hit once. Just wait until that siding gets finished and the number of trains using that line pick up. I think we'll be handing out a few Darwin awards.
In fact, I've seen some with train stations, bus stations, in the middle of the rondo

I think this is good, it should force drivers to be aware and think. It probably will take a few sacrificial lambs at this rondo for people to wake up. Not enough drivers respect the rules and have poor conduct. Stay left on highspeed roads, know how to handle 4 way stops. I think we need to go the other way in handling this situation instead of baby-ing drivers with road design. Don't want to pay attention? Then rightfully your car will get smashed up

[DLLB]

Looks like you haven't driven as much as you think

You are wrong.

I first drove in Europe in 1973 and the last time I drove there was in 2009. I have driven in Eurpope at least 20 times. The last time was from Frankfurt to Budapest and back. How many times have you driven there?

And by the way, I have never seen a roundabout like this one.

[mwalker_mw]

Dartmouth Traffic Circle:

I am quite relieved to see this project complete, the workaround for those of us trying to get from downtown to Ogden Rd during construction was a complete mess.

With regards to trains: I had the pleasure of sitting through a train on the detour the night before this opened. It took a full 14 minutes for the train to clear. It was at night so there was only about 20 vehicles backed up, but I can see this being a big problem for the circle. Is there any time restrictions on track use there?

With regards to traffic circles in general. I love them, and I think I've got the ins and outs of them worked out pretty well thanks to some of the details posted here. But one thing does still confuse me, hopefully someone can shed some light on: I see many of these with a standard road and then what appears to either be an elevated inner lane or a wide central sidewalk. Can anyone clarify what the rules are in determining which is which. I see these frequently in situations where the circle usage doesn't seem to justify a 2 lane setup. The inner 'lane' seems to vary in width quite a bit too. So, how do I tell if it is drivable or not?

[Ramsayfarian]

Dartmouth Traffic Circle:

I am quite relieved to see this project complete, the workaround for those of us trying to get from downtown to Ogden Rd during construction was a complete mess.

With regards to trains: I had the pleasure of sitting through a train on the detour the night before this opened. It took a full 14 minutes for the train to clear. It was at night so there was only about 20 vehicles backed up, but I can see this being a big problem for the circle. Is there any time restrictions on track use there?

With regards to traffic circles in general. I love them, and I think I've got the ins and outs of them worked out pretty well thanks to some of the details posted here. But one thing does still confuse me, hopefully someone can shed some light on: I see many of these with a standard road and then what appears to either be an elevated inner lane or a wide central sidewalk. Can anyone clarify what the rules are in determining which is which. I see these frequently in situations where the circle usage doesn't seem to justify a 2 lane setup. The inner 'lane' seems to vary in width quite a bit too. So, how do I tell if it is drivable or not?

It wasn't that difficult to get to Ogden Road. My route was 22nd Ave, turn right at the Shamrock and left at at the next set of lights.

There is no restriction on when the trains can cross the road. I think the city would like for them to clear the intersection within 5 minutes, but CPR really doesn't care. Once the construction of the siding is complete, the number of trains should increase as this siding is a replacement for the one on 9th ave by the King Eddy.

The Dartmouth circle appears to be wide enough for 2 lanes, but it isn't marked, however the exits all appear to single lanes, which will just add to the confusion.

[You Need A Thneed]

Single lane traffic circles often have that raised "inner lane" to allow trucks with trailers & larger vehicles to get around them without dragging the back end through the landscaped area in the centre.

I know the new traffic circle by Pearce Estate Park is that way.

[Mazrim]

A properly done roundabout will have an extra wide median that is painted to make sure people don't use it as a lane. Check out the Highway 8/22 Roundabout for an oversized one which makes it apparent.

[Blue_Cypress]

That's fairly prevalent in Europe..if people don't expect roads to be safe then maybe they'll pay attention more.

Idiot road design of this magnitude is not prevalent anywhere. Calgary is now a world leader. If anyone in Roads is reading this, hit the undo button on this one. If you had something to do with the design of this intersection, FUCK YOU, GO DIE.

[Blue_Cypress]

:haha: I love this way too much! :tup:

Having driven the intersection for the first time two nights ago, I feel it is an appropriate response. The first time someone dies here (prediction: by the end of the week), manslaughter charges should be laid. I am confident that a worse-designed intersection does not exist on earth, nor beyond.

[s211]

Idiot road design of this magnitude is not prevalent anywhere. Calgary is now a world leader. If anyone in Roads is reading this, hit the undo button on this one. If you had something to do with the design of this intersection, FUCK YOU, GO DIE.

World leader of what? Idiot road design?

[mwalker_mw]

Good, I think I've been using them right then.

This guy in particular had me confused this weekend. Its median area is wide enough for a full lane:

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1053+10+St+SW,+Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.033735,-114.19208&spn=0,359.996092&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.033618,-114.192191&panoid=WNIs5FMMp5vgg2Nr65Kcuw&cbp=12,28.49,,0,18.34

Having them clearly painted would be beneficial.

My personal feeling is a little education could go a long way with both roundabouts and bike lanes. There needs to be a published consensus on how these are to be used in the City of Calgary, who has right-of-way, how many lanes, etc. Unique elements in the designs (such as these wide medians) makes generic information incomplete. Everyone taking their best guesses as to what the city intended is a recipe for accidents. (I mention bike lanes as there are many situations where it is not clear who has right of way with the way the city has half-assed their implementation of those as well)

[kw5150]

I drove around this traffic circle on the weekend, and I was so busy looking at all of the vehicular entrances and exits and whether or not I had the right of way, that I didn't even notice the train crossing. I definately knew the train crossing was there, so it was strange to realize that I drove over it without looking. Hopefully there are really good train gates!

Also, I am not sure if this was intentional or not, but when there is a train crossing, there is no way to shortcut into ramsay anymore!! I suspect that many people will go against traffic (when a train is coming) and head into ramsay anyway........

Hope that all made sense.

[You Need A Thneed]

Good, I think I've been using them right then.

This guy in particular had me confused this weekend. Its median area is wide enough for a full lane:

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1053+10+St+SW,+Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.033735,-114.19208&spn=0,359.996092&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.033618,-114.192191&panoid=WNIs5FMMp5vgg2Nr65Kcuw&cbp=12,28.49,,0,18.34

Having them clearly painted would be beneficial.

One would think that the little curb and the concrete finish vs the pavement would be enough.

That's definitely intended to be a one lane roundabout, with extra space for long vehicles and trailers to get around it. The only wheels that should be going over that inside section are the back wheels of trailers, and long vehicles.

Re: the Dartmouth roundabout.

Dartmouth Road & Highfield Rd are both 1 lane each way roads. I can't see the finished roundabout actually being a two lane roundabout. I'm sure it will just be a single lane with the slightly raised concrete area in the centre to aid longer vehicles.

And people are definitely going to go around it the wrong way when a train is blocking the intersection to get onto highfield road.

The added train crossing is a bit different, but I can't see how driving around a single lane roundabout is hard at all, there is no rights of way that are different from regular non-roundabouted driving.

[kw5150]

In fact, I've seen some with train stations, bus stations, in the middle of the rondo

I think this is good, it should force drivers to be aware and think. It probably will take a few sacrificial lambs at this rondo for people to wake up. Not enough drivers respect the rules and have poor conduct. Stay left on highspeed roads, know how to handle 4 way stops. I think we need to go the other way in handling this situation instead of baby-ing drivers with road design. Don't want to pay attention? Then rightfully your car will get smashed up

The bible of korzym! haha. Those roundabout in europe are much larger in scale than this small confusing one.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Bigtime]

Re: the Dartmouth roundabout.

And people are definitely going to go around it the wrong way when a train is blocking the intersection to get onto highfield road.

Well with the new district 1 cop shop right there they should park a cop farther up along Highfield road with a view of the roundabout and ticket every single idiot that does that when a train is there.

[DizzyEdge]

Is it arranged like this?

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8426/rounddeath.jpg

If so it's really doesn't seem that scary.. if arms are down you don't proceed.
Actually it does seem scary, but only because it seems most motorists can't figure out that you look left and yield until the path is clear to enter any roundabout in this city.

[kw5150]

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/3107/ramsayroundabout2.jpg

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/7483/ramsayroundabout.jpg
In plan view

[zooropa]

Well with the new district 1 cop shop right there they should park a cop farther up along Highfield road with a view of the roundabout and ticket every single idiot that does that when a train is there.

just drove by and there were 2 cruisers parked to the side and officers standing outside. not sure if their goal was to educate or ticket.

[Bigtime]

just drove by and there were 2 cruisers parked to the side and officers standing outside. not sure if their goal was to educate or ticket.

I'd be fine if they educate for 30 days, and then switch to ticketing.

[mwalker_mw]

One would think that the little curb and the concrete finish vs the pavement would be enough.

I think that people going around them the wrong way despite clear signage and inclusion in the driver training manual everyone is required to read is a clear enough indication that a small 3" rounded rise, with no other instruction, might not be enough of a hint as to what should be done by the user with respect to the centre area. Especially when there is a larger "normal" looking curb inside that that is the clear edge of the roadway.

While I did come to the conclusion that I should be driving on the paved part. I certainly did consider the possibility that the raised area might be some kind of new-fangled lane demarcation designed to look pretty and provide some tactile feedback as to when one is changing lanes. Given how easily painted lines disappear from our roadways in winter it seemed like a valid possibility.

I don't think anything less than 100% clarity is really acceptable for anything traffic related.

[Mazrim]

I don't think anything less than 100% clarity is really acceptable for anything traffic related.

100% Clarity comes at the expense of information overload to the driver, which is equally bad. The more signs, the more chevrons, the more brightly colored paint you put in a small area, the more the driver needs to read and react to it all. You need to balance it all.

Theoretically a rail crossing in the middle of a roundabout in a city with little experience with roundabouts is possibly the worst idea imaginable. Drivers have enough to contend with, let along adding all the visual mess of a rail crossing.

[korzym]

Idiot road design of this magnitude is not prevalent anywhere. Calgary is now a world leader. If anyone in Roads is reading this, hit the undo button on this one. If you had something to do with the design of this intersection, FUCK YOU, GO DIE.

what's with this world leader talk all the time? It's amusing because we're really not, do we get mentioned in the same breath as tokyo, new york, paris, etc? Let it go, its like people saying this have a severe case of napoleon syndrome. We'll do what we want with our city but seriously just to do things in the name of feeding an inferiority complex to try and get into the "elite" club, doesn't fly

[Bigtime]

Umm, I'm pretty sure that Blue_Cypress was referring to Calgary now officially becoming a world leader in idiotic road design.

[korzym]

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/3107/ramsayroundabout2.jpg

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/7483/ramsayroundabout.jpg
In plan view

from that pic its no big deal. It's always the design of the road and never the driver's fault for close calls...........................

Most people don't know how to merge, people probably aren't timing it right and not accelerating in time. After a while there will be enough people comfortable with this thing, no big deal.

[fusili]

Umm, I'm pretty sure that Blue_Cypress was referring to Calgary now officially becoming a world leader in idiotic road design.

It's our Napoleon complex of not being idiotic enough. We are going with the strategy of either first place or dead last. Since we can't design the best roads in the world, we decide to design the worst.

[korzym]

Umm, I'm pretty sure that Blue_Cypress was referring to Calgary now officially becoming a world leader in idiotic road design.

his sarcasm hints at wanting a world class road design. you guys are making a big deal out of nothing.

[korzym]

It's our Napoleon complex of not being idiotic enough. We are going with the strategy of either first place or dead last. Since we can't design the best roads in the world, we decide to design the worst.

ok, then draw a rondo and show us what a world class rondo looks like with train tracks as seen at this location. Sounds like you have a better idea, by all means the floor is yours

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[You Need A Thneed]

Looking at the intersection the way it was before and now, I don't know what could have been done that was better than what was done. The problem is that it was basically a road that goes straight that has two T intersections coming off the same side very close to each other. Having two intersections so close together is never a good plan, a traffic circle that they built makes the whole thing into one intersection, eliminating that problem.

The tracks couldn't exactly move, and we are stuck with Dartmouth on one side of the tracks, and Highfield on the other. The tracks would not have gone through the centre of the traffic circle had the traffic circle been shifted to one side, but that means that there's going to have to be a second intersection again. Ignoring the train tracks, the traffic circle appears to be the best way to handle the traffic. How much do the train tracks change that, I'd argue not as much as some have been making it out to be - as long as it is, in fact, a single lane roundabout.

[mersar]

In my mind the better solution would have been to remove Highfield Road between 26th and just north of the one property that is there, and force all the traffic onto Dartmouth Road via 30th Ave. This would have removed the second T intersection and left two separate (and already existing) level crossings

[Ramsayfarian]

In my mind the better solution would have been to remove Highfield Road between 26th and just north of the one property that is there, and force all the traffic onto Dartmouth Road via 30th Ave. This would have removed the second T intersection and left two separate (and already existing) level crossings

Except that 30th Avenue is closing. They should have closed off access to 24 th ave. I would gladly give up direct access from 24 th ave.

[mersar]

Except that 30th Avenue is closing. They should have closed off access to 24 th ave. I would gladly give up direct access from 24 th ave.

Really? I only know that 30th is temporarily closed until spring to let them finish building the new siding, but the city's closure notice (http://newsroom.calgary.ca/pr/calgary/road-closures-and-lane-restrictions-154779.aspx?ncid=17224) lists it as reopening this spring.

[Full Mountain]

30th was open on Sunday when I went through there

[Ramsayfarian]

Really? I only know that 30th is temporarily closed until spring to let them finish building the new siding, but the city's closure notice (http://newsroom.calgary.ca/pr/calgary/road-closures-and-lane-restrictions-154779.aspx?ncid=17224) lists it as reopening this spring.

That would be awesome if I'm wrong. I heard they will have to close 30th once the siding is complete so they'll have a long uninterrupted piece of track for zee trains to park on.

The one thing I noticed about this design, that it's quite easy to be caught either right underneath the crossing card or between the guard and the track as one creeps forward, waiting for a lull in the traffic that will allow them to enter the circle.


/edit
I was going to video tape rush hour tonight, but that's been called due to weather.