Calgary Roads [Archive] - Page 12 - SkyscraperPage Forum

freeweed

Apr 7, 2010, 5:37 PM

I found this a bit humorous given the debate about distances between access points regarding the Peace Bridge. Couldn't resist pointing it out.

That was in the back of my mind, too, but figured I shouldn't pollute every thread with my gripes. :haha:

I should also point out that regarding the tunnel, my brain is thinking of the average Calgarian, who might go to the airport once or thrice in a year. An extra few minutes? Big whoop. For those who work at YYC, it's going to be a serious hassle. Much like our abysmal transit service to it.

It IS very much like the pedestrian bridge. Occasional users like myself won't really care one way or the other, but for those who use it every day, it'll be a godsend.

Ramsayfarian

Apr 7, 2010, 5:38 PM

I found this a bit humorous given the debate about distances between access points regarding the Peace Bridge. Couldn't resist pointing it out.

-------

I thought those solar-powered devices told you your speed, I guess not. I like to shoot for the high score too.

The one on Spiller just has a static display that just blinks the speed limit. I haven't noticed if the rate of it's blinking is tied to the speed at which one is traveling at.

You Need A Thneed

Apr 7, 2010, 5:40 PM

April 3, 2011 according to a sign on Airport Trail.

The more I look at these maps, the more I think that we may just be able to live without the tunnel. It's not ideal, and it's some extra driving for some folks in the NE, but there are worse spots than this in Calgary where you have to drive several minutes extra around whatever obstacle is there.

For the time being, we'll be able to live without the tunnel.

However, when the planned development happens, CHB simply with not be able to handle the traffic demands, without spending as much money on it as it would have cost to build the tunnel in the first place.

Airport Trail is the expressway, and CHB is planned to be a major road. If it was switched around, perhaps the traffic congestion would be ok. That would require a lot of changes to community plans that have already been planned, or started construction. Saddlecrest/Saddlebrook already back onto the Airport Trail right of way, with no connections planned. It certainly won't look like a major road. Skyview Ranch has lot of connections with CHB in the plans that would be a real pain to deal with when CHB gets to the point that it can't handle the traffic load without being an expressway.

Airport Trail with only connections to Metis, future 60th Street, and Stoney Trail is pretty much a useless road - especially as an expressway. It would never have to be twinned to 4 lanes.

Making those changes is possible too, but it will also cost money. CHB as an expressway seems rather close to Stoney - the large capacity roads wouldn't be spaced out very well.

Also, the Airport Trail tunnel makes a nice connection for a future LRT line, to the airport, sometime in the future.

April 3, 2011, is the date for the proposed closure of Barlow Trail, but the city's website says they want to have all of the work on that PDF done by the end of 2011. However, the proposed completion date for the 96th Ave extension (which is on there) is only July 1, 2012 (from the tender specs).

frinkprof

Apr 7, 2010, 5:42 PM

Nevermind.

freeweed

Apr 7, 2010, 6:01 PM

April 3, 2011, is the date for the proposed closure of Barlow Trail, but the city's website says they want to have all of the work on that PDF done by the end of 2011. However, the proposed completion date for the 96th Ave extension (which is on there) is only July 1, 2012 (from the tender specs).

Yeah, I couldn't make heads or tails out of all of the dates, either.

Agreed with the rest of your comments - this could end up being a huge clusterhump in the future. Although it's possible that with all the development planned, most of the traffic won't be going to the airport anyway and CHB will inevitably be turned high capacity (or people will just use Stoney to bypass as much of it as possible).

The tunnel is like the ring road - right now, it's hardly used considering the cost. But in 10 years? 20? Without it the city would choke. Which I guess is why the province had to be involved. Too bad they went bankrupt at the same time we needed the tunnel. :(

bigcanuck

Apr 7, 2010, 6:13 PM

The one on Spiller just has a static display that just blinks the speed limit. I haven't noticed if the rate of it's blinking is tied to the speed at which one is traveling at.

I think there's one of the new signs operational when turning off Deerfoot North to get on to Westbound Glenmore - the long lanes that also lead into Deerfoot Meadows and past all the new luxury car dealerships.

It looks like a normal sign but has small lights surrounding the sign. If you're going over the posted limit (60 kmh in this location), the sign flashes/blinks.

YYCguys

Apr 7, 2010, 7:27 PM

The city's plans for when Barlow trail closes at the airport. This is all supposed to be done before the end of 2011. (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/transportation_infrastructure/barlow_closure_airport/metis_airport.pdf)

Where did you get that map?

It shows McCall Way going quite a bit north, but it closes north of 78th Ave in April 2011.

Also, Barlow Trail north of Airport Road will be severed from the rest of Barlow Trail south of McKnight Blvd and therefore should be renamed. Perhaps Stonegate Blvd since the area called Stonegate is where the road is going to terminate? Or Airport Road as an extension of the road that leads up to the terminal?

Mazrim

Apr 7, 2010, 7:33 PM

Where did you get that map?

...

Also, Barlow Trail north of Airport Road will be severed from the rest of Barlow Trail south of McKnight Blvd and therefore should be renamed.
He got it from the city of calgary website? :sly:

Also, Sarcee Trail is discontinuous yet it retains it's name up north...any problem with that?

Bigtime

Apr 7, 2010, 7:44 PM

Also, Sarcee Trail is discontinuous yet it retains it's name up north...any problem with that?

Kind of like how Barlow ceases to exist around Memorial and then returns further south?

I really hate that.

freeweed

Apr 7, 2010, 8:05 PM

What really grinds my gears is how 4th St runs parallel to itself a few blocks over, with no connections on either end.

Mazrim

Apr 7, 2010, 8:10 PM

Kind of like how Barlow ceases to exist around Memorial and then returns further south?

I really hate that.
If you follow Barlow through that section at Memorial going South on Google Maps, it still names it as Barlow (just mixed with 26th)...so maybe it technically is there!

YYCguys

Apr 7, 2010, 8:37 PM

He got it from the city of calgary website? :sly:

Also, Sarcee Trail is discontinuous yet it retains it's name up north...any problem with that?

Wow! Who pooped in your corn flakes this morning? I think it's common knowledge that if a source isn't already explicitly named, that you should say where you got that information in your posting.

And yes, I do have a problem with this city and its practice of discontinous roads retaining the same name! It's confusing for people not familiar with the city. I, myself, when I first moved to Calgary, was trying to get from Sarcee at 17th Ave to a community north of Country Hills Blvd and assumed that Sarcee went all the way up, but of course, found out otherwise when I ended up in the middle of Bowness!

freeweed

Apr 7, 2010, 8:37 PM

If you follow Barlow through that section at Memorial going South on Google Maps, it still names it as Barlow (just mixed with 26th)...so maybe it technically is there!

:haha: Never noticed that one before.

I see this sort of thing from time to time. Google is clearly using mixed data sources, some of which are pretty old. They do their best to figure it out but alas...

I've seen some highways with names/numbers that are 30-40 years old at least, as well as road names that were *never* official, just some local nickname.

You Need A Thneed

Apr 7, 2010, 8:47 PM

Where did you get that map?

Link here. (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_766_231_0_43/http;/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Transportation+Infrastructure/Construction+Projects/Road+and+Intersection+Improvements/Closure+of+Barlow+Trail+at+48+Avenue+NE.htm)

City of Calgary website.

YYCguys

Apr 7, 2010, 9:10 PM

Thanks YNAT! The City's website is so hard to navigate through!

Mazrim

Apr 7, 2010, 9:26 PM

Wow! Who pooped in your corn flakes this morning? I think it's common knowledge that if a source isn't already explicitly named, that you should say where you got that information in your posting.

I have this nasty habit of looking at the links and figuring it out for myself. Sorry? :(

My frosted flakes (sorry, Corn Flakes are boring!) tasted just fine so I thank whoever pooped in them for having a healthy diet! (or something)

crooked rain

Apr 8, 2010, 2:10 AM

What really grinds my gears is how 4th St runs parallel to itself a few blocks over, with no connections on either end.

Where? I can't place this.

Distill3d

Apr 8, 2010, 8:19 PM

Where? I can't place this.

I could think of a few spots where both 4 Street W and 4 Street E are interrupted, but not sure what he means either.

freeweed

Apr 8, 2010, 8:40 PM

I could think of a few spots where both 4 Street W and 4 Street E are interrupted, but not sure what he means either.

The secret was when I mentioned that they were parallel to each other. ;)

It's a bit of a joke - I'm pointing out how stupid it is in this city (or any, really) to use dead reckoning when navigating. You can't just take a given street and assume you can keep driving on it to reach your destination - use a map, or know where the heck you're going beforehand.

In case I really have to spell it out, it's a joke based on the fact that we have 2 entirely separate "4th St"s in Calgary. Along with most of the numbered streets/avenues. It astounds me how many people still don't pay attention to quadrant references when giving/receiving directions.

I've never seen a big city where you can just start at the tip of one road and assume that every single address along it is contiguous. From roads that stop and re-start somewhere else, to duplicate (or damn near) road names, to roads that are one continuous strip of concrete but have 7 different names along the route - you either learn the idiosyncrasies or you buy a map.

fusili

Apr 8, 2010, 9:15 PM

to roads that are one continuous strip of concrete but have 7 different names along the route

The best is Kensington Road/Memorial Drive/Parkdale Blvd/3rd Avenue/Bowness Road.

mersar

Apr 8, 2010, 9:38 PM

The best is Kensington Road/Memorial Drive/Parkdale Blvd/3rd Avenue/Bowness Road.

And if you really want to continue add 85th Street to that as well since thats the way the flow of traffic goes. Way back when you could have tacked Nosehill Drive and possibly Citadel Gate (if it was constructed by that point, can't recall) to that as well before Nosehill was re-aligned when Stoney opened.

kap384

Apr 10, 2010, 7:44 PM

Looks like a track hoe and a scraper were just being unloaded at the Crowchild W to Stoney North off ramp. Hopefully that construction starts next week. When this ramp is finished, it should really help the congestion at the Stoney/Crowchild intersection.

With Rocky Ridge closed as of today, Stoney S to Crowchild W ramp work should kick into high gear too.

mersar

Apr 11, 2010, 12:14 AM

Yep.

They showed the area on Global news tonight, looks like quite a few people will need to get used to the idea of it being closed, fortunately the city has setup a U-turn at the end by Crowchild that quite a few people were using. Looked like the lanes are closed off with jersey barriers and the signals themselves are all down as well.

Bigtime

Apr 11, 2010, 2:36 AM

Hey guys, greetings from Maui. My temporary home until the 17th.

Any idea why the Dartmouth roundabout is closed right now? I think it has been like that for over a week.

Full Mountain

Apr 11, 2010, 3:26 AM

^^^
I believe they are doing the concrete work (curbs, etc.)

mersar

Apr 11, 2010, 5:03 AM

Yep. Dartmouth has been closed again for over a week. Looked like concrete work when I was through there last weekend. 30th Ave was reopened again while the roundabout is closed.

SmokWawelski

Apr 11, 2010, 3:50 PM

So as a resident of Royal Oak, I must say that the closure of RR and Crowchild sucks. Saturday I was coming from Crowfoot, with two choices to get home ( I live close to Victory Church) One, go all the way to 12 Mile and drive through all of Rocky Ridge. Two drive up to Country Hills encounter two sets of lights on the Country Hills bridge over the Stoney Trail, another set of lights from Country Hills into the neigbourhood, another set of lights in the neighbourhood, followed by a four way stop, before making my way all the way down home.

I can't wait for Monday morning rush hour....that will be just a joy, I can feel it.

Absolute dumb move by the city and the province.

TETT2

Apr 11, 2010, 6:25 PM

freeweed

Apr 11, 2010, 11:32 PM

I dont mean to be rude, but it was well known from the beginning.

However, the developers and the City should have known better during the design and ASP stages.

It wasn't anywhere close to well known, and that in no way excuses the really poor design of the neighbourhood. The City and developers created yet another turkey. Unfortunately it's now the residents who have to pick up the pieces and forget their driving patterns from the past 10 years.

That being said, it's nowhere near the worst access I've seen in Calgary. I look at neighbourhoods like Ranchlands, they have exactly zero direct access from anything resembling a freeway and really only one access even close. Tuscany has the most ridiculous access I can imagine, for a large part of the neighbourhood. Yay, an extra 10 minute drive every day for no reason!

RR/RO residents were a tad spoiled up till now, all things considered.

Ramsayfarian

Apr 12, 2010, 2:17 AM

Yep. Dartmouth has been closed again for over a week. Looked like concrete work when I was through there last weekend. 30th Ave was reopened again while the roundabout is closed.

I went through it today, it is concrete work. Which is cutting into the carnage.

TETT2

Apr 12, 2010, 5:28 AM

It wasn't anywhere close to well known, and that in no way excuses the really poor design of the neighbourhood. The City and developers created yet another turkey. Unfortunately it's now the residents who have to pick up the pieces and forget their driving patterns from the past 10 years.

That being said, it's nowhere near the worst access I've seen in Calgary. I look at neighbourhoods like Ranchlands, they have exactly zero direct access from anything resembling a freeway and really only one access even close. Tuscany has the most ridiculous access I can imagine, for a large part of the neighbourhood. Yay, an extra 10 minute drive every day for no reason!

RR/RO residents were a tad spoiled up till now, all things considered.

IMO I thought it was very well known. regardless.... I totally agree with your about the access to RO/RA and Tuscany. Tuscany is brutal. The road network is brutal and i'm not so sure its very transit friendly... not until the station is built anyway. Not sure I completely agree about Ranchlands, I think they do have enough accesses.

freeweed

Apr 12, 2010, 4:19 PM

IMO I thought it was very well known.

I guess it's worth clarifying - I don't mean that thousands of drivers drove up on Saturday morning and went WTF. Certainly over the past weeks/months the city has done an excellent job of communication, between signs, flyers, and seeing mention in the news. Anyone who didn't know by Saturday must live in a cave.

I'm talking about how well known in advance. The folks buying houses 2, 5, even 10 years ago - for the most part, none of us had a clue at that time. I knew about it several years ago, but only because of this forum.

I'd be amazed if even 1% of RR/RO residents knew about it as of 12 months ago.

Then again, I almost never use that intersection, so maybe those that live closer and use it regularly had a better awareness. Either way, most of the anger/shock is from people who moved in assuming that road was going to be there. Not an invalid belief, considering.

Mazrim

Apr 12, 2010, 4:27 PM

I'm talking about how well known in advance. The folks buying houses 2, 5, even 10 years ago - for the most part, none of us had a clue at that time. I knew about it several years ago, but only because of this forum.

I bet these are the same people who were mad about the ring road being built in their back yards. I've heard many a time of those who had no idea what the TUC was for, even though apparently it was something a realtor was supposed to explain.

SmokWawelski

Apr 12, 2010, 4:36 PM

TETT2 "IMO I thought it was very well known."

Absolutely incorrect. Thus both RR and RO were so completely surprised when the final decisions came down. However, we've discussed this issue on these boards long enough. The bottom line is that it will be the residents (tax payers) who will suffer longer commutes and overall inconveniences.

SmokWawelski

Apr 12, 2010, 4:47 PM

Mazrim "I bet these are the same people who were mad about the ring road being built in their back yards."

No we are not the same people. I think freeweed explained it quite well in his other post. Actually I think both RR and RO were kept in the dark, with false promises from comb over Hodges that they are working closely with the province and so on. If they were so serious about closing it, why oh why would they go ahead and twin the Rocky Ridge Road all the way from Crowchild to Country Hills??? If they new late 1980's about the closure.

I wonder how well the area would have developed if every purchaser was told that the main road that they just arrived on will close and they will be forced to go to Country Hills Blvd to get our of the neigbourhood.

frinkprof

Apr 12, 2010, 4:52 PM

Nevermind.

freeweed

Apr 12, 2010, 4:59 PM

No we are not the same people. I think freeweed explained it quite well in his other post. Actually I think both RR and RO were kept in the dark, with false promises from comb over Hodges that they are working closely with the province and so on. If they were so serious about closing it, why oh why would they go ahead and twin the Rocky Ridge Road all the way from Crowchild to Country Hills??? If they new late 1980's about the closure.

Actually you reminded me of 2 very important points here. Even those "in the know" were told by our Alderman that work was being done to retain that connection, so yeah - a lot of people are justifiably miffed about this. And your other point about how it's twinned - same deal. Why the hell twin a road like this unless the intent is for it to be a major artery?? Quite frankly, it's now a major waste of asphalt considering how little traffic it will see in the future.

Like I said, I don't drive it much so it's always been a bit of an afterthought to me. But for those that do - I fully understand their complaints.

We're still really no different than most NW neighbourhoods tho - Tuscany, Silver Springs, Scenic Acres, Ranchlands - none of these areas have direct access from Crowchild or Stoney or really any major road. You have to go through either a long, winding access road, or turn up on something like CHB or Nose Hill (not exactly expressways there).

In 5 years everyone will have forgotten and this will be a footnote at best. No one will look at RR/RO and claim it has "bad" road access. It's just that right now, things got noticeably worse. Combined with what seemed to be clear indications that work was being done to retain the RR Blvd connection...

Personally I don't think the traffic justifies having that connection in the long run, and the City/Province agreed.

PS: the people who complained about RR Blvd closing are usually those that CELEBRATED the TUC finally being used, and this makes sense. Stoney Trail IMPROVES the road system around us, whereas RR Blvd DECREASES it. The only people complaining about anything related to the TUC are idiotic NIMBYs.

Mazrim

Apr 12, 2010, 5:37 PM

Well I take back what I said then, if there really was no info back when you purchased and alderman were making false promises to look into it, then I guess you can understandably frustrated. It's unfortunate that the Alderman felt he could affect change on something that couldn't be adjusted in the first place. If he won his battle, the merge from Stoney onto WB Crowchild would mimic the current "merge" from Stoney Trail onto NB Deerfoot.

I'm glad AT kept their foot down on this one. If you want an example of caving into pressure, check out Yankee Valley Blvd and the awful intersection just to the West of the interchange. I mean JUST to the West. It's terrible and really awkward for those who don't know the area.

freeweed

Apr 12, 2010, 5:50 PM

Agreed, we really don't NEED the RR Blvd access (and could have made Crowchild worse, nevermind the cost). It was just handled extremely poorly by many sides.

Ramsayfarian

Apr 13, 2010, 8:19 PM

While this doesn't have much to do with roads, other than the train is crossing one, but the trains heading down 9th ave seem to blowing their horns more than usual.

Not sure if this is because there are crews working the tracks by Fort Edmonton or that the Engineers really like laying on the horns.

bestnickever

Apr 14, 2010, 1:14 AM

Full Mountain

Apr 14, 2010, 3:02 AM

While this doesn't have much to do with roads, other than the train is crossing one, but the trains heading down 9th ave seem to blowing their horns more than usual.

Not sure if this is because there are crews working the tracks by Fort Calgary or that the Engineers really like laying on the horns.

I would suspect this is to warn them

thager

Apr 14, 2010, 5:04 PM

old trans canada and bow trail plans.

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

Ramsayfarian

Apr 14, 2010, 5:09 PM

GASP!! :whatthefuck: :superwhip

My bad. I guess it's hard for me to consider that glorified fence as an actual fort.

You Need A Thneed

Apr 14, 2010, 5:31 PM

old trans canada and bow trail plans.

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

I think it's been posted before (a while back - no worries).

We certainly dodged a bullet there on that Bow Trail plan not going through. What a disaster that would have been.

frinkprof

Apr 14, 2010, 6:06 PM

Nevermind.

mersar

Apr 14, 2010, 6:40 PM

Yep. What I always find funny about the TCH plan was the ultimate design they show for the Crowchild interchange would have required demolishing the then only 10 year old McMahon Stadium, and even the initial plan would have run pretty much along the north side of it

bestnickever

Apr 14, 2010, 8:33 PM

My bad. I guess it's hard for me to consider that glorified fence as an actual fort.

Actually, it was the Edmonton thing.

Ramsayfarian

Apr 14, 2010, 9:01 PM

Actually, it was the Edmonton thing.

I know it was the Edmonton thing. I subconsiously typed Edmonton, as the words Calgary and Fort don't seem to mesh for me.

You Need A Thneed

Apr 15, 2010, 8:49 PM

The city has a tender out to build a connection to the unused Airport Trail interchange. It will connect up to 60th Street NE for now. When it's done, 68th Street will be closed.

Completion date appears to be only by the end of 2011 though.

tmjr

Apr 16, 2010, 1:51 AM

Does anyone know if there are plans to remove the remaining traffic lights on Crowchild Trail between the river and 24th Ave N?

Thanks,
T.

Ramsayfarian

Apr 16, 2010, 1:56 AM

Does anyone know if there are plans to remove the remaining traffic lights on Crowchild Trail between the river and 24th Ave N?

Thanks,
T.

I seriously doubt if I'll ever see that happen in my lifetime nor do I think that would be worth the expense.

MalcolmTucker

Apr 16, 2010, 2:07 AM

Does anyone know if there are plans to remove the remaining traffic lights on Crowchild Trail between the river and 24th Ave N?

Thanks,
T.
But yeah, there are plans to. It is just really really expensive. Last number I remember was $325 million, so wouldn't be surprised if it came to $400 million with detailed design, $500 million to be truely useful to add through lanes to south of Bow Trail.

sheldonsgongshow

Apr 16, 2010, 2:09 AM

It would pretty well be like Glenmore along Chinook Centre...but with no elevation gain to put it in the ground.

mersar

Apr 16, 2010, 2:34 AM

Noticed tonight they've started the work to install traffic lights at McKnight and Deerfoot to replace that really stupid left turn to access the off ramp to NB Deerfoot.

tmjr

Apr 16, 2010, 3:45 AM

Last number I remember was $325 million, so wouldn't be surprised if it came to $400 million with detailed design, $500 million to be truely useful to add through lanes to south of Bow Trail.

Wow! I would imagine that involves overpasses or interchanges at the various intersections, so Kensington, 5th Ave, 24th Ave, and perhaps something around the stadium. Is $400M a lot for all that (I suppose so - that's on the order of $100M per intersection.)

So it also sounds like this is not even on any funding priority list... Too bad - it would have been nice to speed things up along that stretch... :(

fusili

Apr 16, 2010, 4:52 AM

So it also sounds like this is not even on any funding priority list... Too bad - it would have been nice to speed things up along that stretch... :(

I know I come off as anti-roads for comments like this, but this kind of road improvement really kills the hell out of inner city communities. How the f*#k would a pedestrian cross Crowchild at 5th Avenue? Or at Kensington road? How would a car get from Crowchild to 5th Avenue or again Kensington road? How many homes and businesses would have to be demolished for the overpass? And who wants to live beside a freeway?

Better plan is to upgrade the NLRT to 4 car trains, provide a better BRT on the route 305. Have better crosstown routes for buses etc etc etc. Improving road infrastructure very often just leads to induced use scenarios (less congestion leads to greater trip distances and trip generation rates, thus eating up any improvements in efficiency). Remember that traffic patterns and travel behavior are not fixed, people will travel greater distances and make more trips by car when you improve the roads- they won't simply just maintain their old travel habits. A road improvement will ease traffic up for a few months, or maybe even a few years but then things will just return to the same level of congestion as people start to decide that they can travel to stores farther across the city, or live farther away from work. And the problem with private vehicle traffic is that the more people who drive, the greater for traffic to become grid lock.

There is a lot of really cool research that looks at how traffic volumes affect flow. If you put one car one a road an hour, the traffic flow is one car an hour (obviously). The same with 2, 3, 10, 500, 1000 or so. So as the number of cars on the road increases, so does the number of cars traveling through a section of road (pretty straightforward). But there is this crazy threshold that gets hit where you may be at 2500 cars an hour (with 2500 cars on the road) and you add one more car and the flow decreases to 2300 cars an hour. Traffic works that way. It sucks. So, better roads and more lanes may not lead to increased traffic flow, it actually might lead to gridlock. They have also done some crazy research looking at how ants travel patterns and how they relate to traffic. Some interesting conclusions there as well. Increasing the width of the travel area might just lead to more "turbulence" and in fact reduce travel efficiencies.

Wow, that was a really disjointed rant. Sorry everyone if you have read this far.

I really have to stop ranting on this forum. I am becoming "that guy."

MichaelS

Apr 16, 2010, 2:29 PM

There is a lot of really cool research that looks at how traffic volumes affect flow. If you put one car one a road an hour, the traffic flow is one car an hour (obviously). The same with 2, 3, 10, 500, 1000 or so. So as the number of cars on the road increases, so does the number of cars traveling through a section of road (pretty straightforward). But there is this crazy threshold that gets hit where you may be at 2500 cars an hour (with 2500 cars on the road) and you add one more car and the flow decreases to 2300 cars an hour. Traffic works that way. It sucks. So, better roads and more lanes may not lead to increased traffic flow, it actually might lead to gridlock. They have also done some crazy research looking at how ants travel patterns and how they relate to traffic. Some interesting conclusions there as well. Increasing the width of the travel area might just lead to more "turbulence" and in fact reduce travel efficiencies.

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/3/reviews/edmonds.html

I read this book last year, and it not only talks about how traffic patterns mimic things like insects, but even molecular flow,comparing the movement of H20 particles in lower density (water vapour), medium density (water) and high density (ice) to traffic. Same theory, if it gets too dense, it just basically grinds to a halt. Very intersting book, but a bit of a dry read.

SubwayRev

Apr 16, 2010, 3:16 PM

I know I come off as anti-roads for comments like this, but this kind of road improvement really kills the hell out of inner city communities. How the f*#k would a pedestrian cross Crowchild at 5th Avenue? Or at Kensington road? How would a car get from Crowchild to 5th Avenue or again Kensington road? How many homes and businesses would have to be demolished for the overpass? And who wants to live beside a freeway?

Better plan is to upgrade the NLRT to 4 car trains, provide a better BRT on the route 305. Have better crosstown routes for buses etc etc etc. Improving road infrastructure very often just leads to induced use scenarios (less congestion leads to greater trip distances and trip generation rates, thus eating up any improvements in efficiency). Remember that traffic patterns and travel behavior are not fixed, people will travel greater distances and make more trips by car when you improve the roads- they won't simply just maintain their old travel habits. A road improvement will ease traffic up for a few months, or maybe even a few years but then things will just return to the same level of congestion as people start to decide that they can travel to stores farther across the city, or live farther away from work. And the problem with private vehicle traffic is that the more people who drive, the greater for traffic to become grid lock.

There is a lot of really cool research that looks at how traffic volumes affect flow. If you put one car one a road an hour, the traffic flow is one car an hour (obviously). The same with 2, 3, 10, 500, 1000 or so. So as the number of cars on the road increases, so does the number of cars traveling through a section of road (pretty straightforward). But there is this crazy threshold that gets hit where you may be at 2500 cars an hour (with 2500 cars on the road) and you add one more car and the flow decreases to 2300 cars an hour. Traffic works that way. It sucks. So, better roads and more lanes may not lead to increased traffic flow, it actually might lead to gridlock. They have also done some crazy research looking at how ants travel patterns and how they relate to traffic. Some interesting conclusions there as well. Increasing the width of the travel area might just lead to more "turbulence" and in fact reduce travel efficiencies.

Wow, that was a really disjointed rant. Sorry everyone if you have read this far.

I really have to stop ranting on this forum. I am becoming "that guy."

I agree with what you say about capacity etc.,and the improvmenets increasing the distance in which people will travel. However, I disagree with what you say about the road taking away from the area. What I mean is that I think Crowchild has already done that. It's bad for pedestrians, and nobody wants to live next to it. I don't think eliminating the lights would make it worse, as it's already terrible.

If anything, one overpass or underpass at Kennsignton or 5th, might make it better for the surrounding area, as instead of having 100,000 cars per day inching through your community, they'd just fly by. The damage to the area is already done in my mind.

Based on Sir Humphrey's numbers, (~$350million), I think this improvment would be a far better use of money than the airport tunnel which would only see a quarter the traffic volumes of Crowchild Trail.

mersar

Apr 16, 2010, 3:35 PM

Ok, heres another possibly bad way to get the public used to traffic circles... a partial traffic circle AND it has parking around the outside of it. U of C is building this ingenious idea on Campus Drive just south of 32nd Ave.

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/6203/uofctrafficcircle.jpg

fusili

Apr 16, 2010, 3:37 PM

I agree with what you say about capacity etc.,and the improvmenets increasing the distance in which people will travel. However, I disagree with what you say about the road taking away from the area. What I mean is that I think Crowchild has already done that. It's bad for pedestrians, and nobody wants to live next to it. I don't think eliminating the lights would make it worse, as it's already terrible.

If anything, one overpass or underpass at Kennsignton or 5th, might make it better for the surrounding area, as instead of having 100,000 cars per day inching through your community, they'd just fly by. The damage to the area is already done in my mind.

I am just worried about what would happen to the pedestrian crossings at Kensington and 5th. I don't think they could be improved if overpasses/underpasses are used for the roads. At grade crossings are much, much preferable to either overpasses or underpasses for pedestrians.

EDIT: Plus, the choke point isn't necessarily the lights on 5th and Kensington Road, but rather the point where Crowchild is reduced to two lanes at the University Drive turnoff. And that section will never be improved (or at least not at considerable expense, so overpasses at 5th and Kensington won't improve things much.

Oliver Klozov

Apr 16, 2010, 3:47 PM

If this was the States, the right thing would have been done years ago - elevate Crowchild! One long bridge from Memorial to part way up the hill with no interchanges at Kensington or 5th Ave.

fusili

Apr 16, 2010, 3:55 PM

If this was the States, the right thing would have been done years ago - elevate Crowchild! One long bridge from Memorial to part way up the hill with no interchanges at Kensington or 5th Ave.

Yay for elevated highways! They have no negative impacts on communities, pedestrian accessibility, sprawl or anything. Cities in the States are so awesome! People flock from all over the world to visit the many interesting and exciting cities in the US like Minneapolis, Buffalo, Oklahoma City, Kansas City and Indianapolis. Wait, no one goes there. They suck. I don't think we should be trying to emulate the US in terms of transportation planning. Unless we like crappy inner cities and driving all the time.

freeweed

Apr 16, 2010, 3:58 PM

EDIT: Plus, the choke point isn't necessarily the lights on 5th and Kensington Road, but rather the point where Crowchild is reduced to two lanes at the University Drive turnoff. And that section will never be improved (or at least not at considerable expense, so overpasses at 5th and Kensington won't improve things much.

Not sure I understand what you're saying there. Sure, losing a lane will slow down traffic - but a couple of red lights within blocks of each other? Those STOP IT ENTIRELY.

In my mind stopping traffic is a much worse choke point than just slowing it down...

To be honest I used to loathe that section of Crowchild but as I've gotten used to driving here, I don't find it all that bad anymore. So long as I don't drive it during rush hour, or there isn't a major accident, I find traffic flows reasonably fast through the area on average. Especially with the Ring Road providing alternate ways of getting around the city. I generally only stop for one of the lights, and make it through on the next green.

I'm sure those that drive through there during rush hour will disagree, but quite frankly anyone trying to drive in and out of a downtown core on a daily basis is a bit of a loon in my books, what with our excellent LRT system. :D

Bassic Lab

Apr 16, 2010, 4:07 PM

I am just worried about what would happen to the pedestrian crossings at Kensington and 5th. I don't think they could be improved if overpasses/underpasses are used for the roads. At grade crossings are much, much preferable to either overpasses or underpasses for pedestrians.

EDIT: Plus, the choke point isn't necessarily the lights on 5th and Kensington Road, but rather the point where Crowchild is reduced to two lanes at the University Drive turnoff. And that section will never be improved (or at least not at considerable expense, so overpasses at 5th and Kensington won't improve things much.

Going by GE5 it is possible that the pedestrian experience could be improved by work on Crowchild. It would require lowering Crowchild considerably so that Kensington and 5th remain at grade. It would be interesting, though expensive, to attempt a very urban design; make the bridges for Kensington extra wide so that retail spaces could exist over Crowchild. In that way the wide ROW for the freeway would be experienced as just another block to pedestrians walking the street. The only difference would be that the one way streets on either side of that block would be access ramps for Crowchild as opposed to parts of the true street grid in the area.

mersar

Apr 16, 2010, 5:34 PM

bookermorgan

Apr 16, 2010, 5:41 PM

there was a document posted somewhere earlier here that had the timelines for the proposed projects in and around the city...

fusili

Apr 16, 2010, 8:33 PM

My solution for Crowchild: BIG DIG!!!

EDIT: For those of you unfamiliar with Boston's Big Dig, or Big Debacle, here is a wikipedia article: Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig)

MalcolmTucker

Apr 16, 2010, 8:50 PM

Could also do Crowchild flyer, 2 lanes each way separate from the main road just south of the Stadium and continue level until 17th Ave SW. Not sure if it would be that useful, but it would look bloody cool!

sheldonsgongshow

Apr 17, 2010, 2:06 AM

I think that they will need to do something with this stretch of road. With improvements to Glenmore and Crowchild over the recent years the road will get used more and more. Crowchild will all be interchanges but this Kensington area. With that everything comes to a halt or even a slowdown considerably and continue to cause even more backups in the future. It may not look like it now but 5-10 yrs from now this area will be a problem area for the city much like Glenmore was.

Mazrim

Apr 19, 2010, 4:43 PM

I think that they will need to do something with this stretch of road.
I think everyone can agree that something needs to be done already. The only thing that is holding back the City from doing something now, and for the next 20 years, is the cost. You can't just build interchanges at Kensington or 5th because it doesn't solve the log jams on either side (Bow/Memorial and University/16th). You would have to basically do it all in one go.

The Bow Trail/Memorial Drive stretch is pretty much a massive retrofit or complete rebuild due to the fact that the interchange was never designed for expansion, and the lane balance is totally messed up there (how many lanes can drive through from Bow Trail to 16th Avenue without needed to change lanes to continue? Only one!! This is really badbad.)

As already mentioned, University Drive/16th Avenue would need a rebuild to hold any more traffic. Plus I'm sure the City would love to get rid of the non-standard left exit. You'd need some wacky viaduct to do any kind of expansion in such a narrow right-of-way though.

All in all, a really ugly stretch of road that is not going to be easily fixed. It'd almost be better to relocate traffic somewhere else that is easier to expand.

mersar

Apr 19, 2010, 5:41 PM

From what I've heard the city has notices listed on the titles for all the properties in both St. Andrews Heights as well as in Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill along either side of Crowchild that the properties may be required for future road expansion (similar to how a lot of the properties affected by the WLRT had notices on their titles). Likely if anything ever progressed we'd see them bulldoze everything along 24th Street south of 16th and just remove that road, which would give most of the needed right of way.

bookermorgan

Apr 19, 2010, 9:34 PM

I'm drawing a site and block plan for a DP at 24?? 4th Ave NW. Only thing on the title is the mortgage.

mersar

Apr 19, 2010, 9:44 PM

Well depending on where on the block that particular one is, I'd imagine on the avenues its probably only the one or two nearest Crowchild that may be affected. And I'd only heard of the notices on the titles further north, who knows about down in West Hillhurst.

frinkprof

Apr 19, 2010, 10:03 PM

Nevermind.

Mazrim

Apr 20, 2010, 2:53 PM

Deerfoot has been pretty funny the last few days. I'm sure people would bother following the 80km/h speed limit if there was a reason to slow down for such a long stretch. As it is, instead of having people afraid to do 100 and people racing down at 130, you now have people afraid to 80 and people racing down at 130! If anything, the speed limit has made the general speeds of cars more erratic.

I hope they start doing some actual work to justify such a large scale speed reduction. It sucks that the speed will probably be reduced for a couple months. :(

YYCguys

Apr 20, 2010, 3:09 PM

^^^ The cops have been targetting that area, usually set up on both sides of the Deerfoot just south of CrossIron Mills. The other day I passed by in both directions and I saw tons of vehicles pulled over. The cops were having a field day with all the speeders!

bookermorgan

Apr 20, 2010, 3:18 PM

I think Mazrim means between Memorial and the Ivor Strong bridge.

Mazrim

Apr 20, 2010, 4:19 PM

Yeah sorry, I should have been more clear. The speed limit on the north end is nothing new and will be that way for at least this summer. People are tired of that one too understandably.

Bigtime

Apr 20, 2010, 4:42 PM

mersar

Apr 20, 2010, 4:58 PM

Isn't that the section they are planning to resurface with asphalt this summer?

Also, the city just posted a video message (announced via twitter) about the 96th Ave NE connector project. 6 lanes from Harvest Hills Link east to Deerfoot, new bridges over the CPR and Nose Creek, and AB Transportation will be doing upgrades to the Deerfoot/Airport Trail interchange at the same time. Theres an open house Apr 29th at Harvest Hills Alliance Church about this (and it sounds like other projects in the northern hills area)

lubicon

Apr 20, 2010, 6:57 PM

I'm n ot sure if people just don't care, or are just sick and tired of the never ending speed limit reductions. Virtually every construction I pass through is full of people who are just plain ignoring the speed limit and driving whatever speed they feel like. The QE2 north of Calgary and through Airdrie, Stoney / Crowchild area, Bow Trail etc. I am starting to believe that most people don't mind slowing down for a project, but when that project stretches on for years and years (hello Stoney @ Crowchild) people jsut get sick and tired of it.

bookermorgan

Apr 20, 2010, 6:59 PM

The new asphalt will be nice as it feels like you are driving on rumble strips most of that stretch now

Bigtime

Apr 20, 2010, 7:10 PM

Yeah that is a particularly brutal stretch on northbound Deerfoot there.

freeweed

Apr 20, 2010, 8:00 PM

What the heck is the 80 speed limit for from Ivor Strong to Memorial? I was having a head scratching moment on Sunday as I drove through it, doing 100 like everyone else that were no doubt just as confused about it!

Yeah, we bumped into this on Friday night. Absolutely ZERO reason for it to be slowed down. I mean ZERO. There was, eventually, a single "construction ahead" sign. No actual construction, no pylons, nothing. There was no conceivable reason to slow traffic down whatsoever.

I'm not generally one to buy into the "speed zones are revenue generators" type conspiracy theories, but wow - in this case, I can't see any other reason.

If this is a mistake and the signs were put up too early, then whomever did that should be fined, and fined hard. It was terrifying to drive. I was trying to obey the limit (I'm paranoid in construction zones) but half the traffic was zooming along at the usual 100-120. Cars were dodging each other all over the place. It was amazingly dangerous. Fortunately I just trundled along in the right lane but even at that, I had people constantly coming up HARD on my bumper.

Mazrim

Apr 20, 2010, 8:23 PM

If this is a mistake and the signs were put up too early, then whomever did that should be fined, and fined hard.
Yeah this was the point of my bringing it up...it seems like overkill. The problem is you can tell that they are doing median barrier replacements, it's only that it goes at a glacial pace and I have yet to see them out there at the sites with temporary barricades.

If they used the median replacement as an excuse to set up the speed zones for the paving coming up, then I'm definitely pissed about that. There's absolutely no need for us to spend the last 5 days going 80 on Deerfoot with no work being done in a grand total of 3 locations between Ivor Strong and Memorial. If no one ever sees any work being done, they will not follow it. Talk about irritating.

I know it's a significant amount of work to set up all those speed signs, but they need to cover them for now or SOMETHING before a serious accident happens.

bookermorgan

Apr 20, 2010, 8:36 PM

Well they did make a point to cover the 100 signs. I only saw one area that looked like construction, north of glenmore the median barrier was gone in one small section and there were pylons in its place. For all i know that could have been an accident that did that...

Mazrim

Apr 20, 2010, 9:59 PM

For all i know that could have been an accident that did that...
They're replacing all the median sections that have excessive wear or were struck by vehicles, so that would be true. Problem is that I don't feel like it requires the 80km/h speed limit for such a large stretch.

Full Mountain

Apr 21, 2010, 2:07 AM

What the heck is the 80 speed limit for from Ivor Strong to Memorial? I was having a head scratching moment on Sunday as I drove through it, doing 100 like everyone else that were no doubt just as confused about it!

My bet is that the speed reductions are in place because there are significant gaps in the median at 4 or 5 points, and they were too close to have the speed limit change back to full speed and then slow them back down for the next one

Also they've had southbound closed for a number of nights over the last week or so

Mazrim

Apr 21, 2010, 3:27 PM

Driving up Deerfoot this morning showed that they had done a ton of work on the median between Anderson and Glenmore. Lots of chunks look ready to be removed or patched up, so at least there's something to show for the slowdown.

sheldonsgongshow

Apr 22, 2010, 3:31 AM

I saw the white F-150 officer pull someone over around the corner at the inglewood golf course going south and with no word of a lie almost created a major pile up. Lots of traffic at the time and gets behind a car pulls him to the right shoulder (not really much of one) and then pulls back into the far right lane to make block for him to get to the car he pulls over safe. Well..he did is so damn fast the veicles in that lane slammed on the brakes as well as everyone else in the other 2 or 3 lanes because all they see is lights and veicles slowing down like there is no tomorrow. I'm watching this all in my rear view thinking what a idiot the cop was. They get so concerned about getting a guy instead of realizing that sometimes it just isn't safe to do so.

freeweed

Apr 22, 2010, 2:49 PM

It's worse when they do this on the side of Hwy 1, just after a hill. Imagine the scenario: 2 full lanes of traffic, doing 110+, and when you crest a hill you suddenly notice flashing lights 100m down the road. The law requires everyone to slow down to 50 (or whatever), and it's winter.

Thankfully our driver had a 4wd truck and was skilled enough to handle a ditch at nearly highway speeds. There was quite a pile up behind us.

The police really need to learn about visibility and where it's safe for them to pull someone over. Unfortunately, I guess they end up wherever the driver stops - too bad they couldn't yell on the bullhorn "pull up to a safe place you moron!!".