PDA

View Full Version : Calgary Roads


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Bigtime
May 15, 2010, 1:27 PM
And to think the majority of Calgary citizens are more concerned about their ~$7 contribution to the Peace Bridge... :rolleyes:

jeffwhit
May 15, 2010, 8:02 PM
:previous: Just curious does anybody know the details about how big this tunnel is to be? (Length, Width) I believe the new Olympic Way underpass (two lanes and a bike/pedestrian path) going under 11 CPR Tracks (Mainline and Yard) and must be built to withstand 14,000 Ton Grain/Potash Trains and it is not costing no 900 million.

Also, wouldn’t it be smart to conduct some sort of pre-work to this site before the runway/taxi lanes are built. I.E. dig a trench, insert concrete box, cover over. I know I have over simplified this as I imagine there is serious engineering required for going under a runway, but sheesh $900M. I work for the CPR (23 + Years) and we built a 10 mile long tunnel (Roger Pass Project) under a mountain for around 500M (80’s dollars mind you).

Comparing it to the 4th street underpass is a little off. Just a quick estimate using google earth would put the tunnel at around 3.5-4km long, and I believe it included 8 lanes of road plus a c-train ROW.

I am a little confused though. Is the increase in cost being talked about just reflecting the city's portion of the bill because the upper levels of government are pulling out? wasn't the project always going cost in this range, but the city was going to only have to pay for a third? Maybe I'm wrong.

The fact is though, it's a now-or-never thing. The cost of actually tunneling under the runway is going to ensure if the tunnel isn't built now, it never will be.

mersar
May 15, 2010, 8:54 PM
Comparing it to the 4th street underpass is a little off. Just a quick estimate using google earth would put the tunnel at around 3.5-4km long, and I believe it included 8 lanes of road plus a c-train ROW.

I am a little confused though. Is the increase in cost being talked about just reflecting the city's portion of the bill because the upper levels of government are pulling out? wasn't the project always going cost in this range, but the city was going to only have to pay for a third? Maybe I'm wrong.

The fact is though, it's a now-or-never thing. The cost of actually tunneling under the runway is going to ensure if the tunnel isn't built now, it never will be.

The total cost was pegged at $280M or so (with the city putting up $90M and the airport putting up the same). The total cost of doing it later is the $900M figure.

That figure for the length seems a little long, I'd heard 1km tossed around as the total tunnel length. And you are right, comparing it to 4th Street SE is a bad comparison, two totally different style of project (4th Street is more cut and cover thanks to CP agreeing to shift the rails around on top at different points of the project)

jeffwhit
May 16, 2010, 3:32 PM
^^How is it that you know everything?

I measured from just north of Mcknight to somewhere near the terminal, in a straight line, not too scientific- are there any rough maps of the potential project kicking around? It's hard to figure out how this could only be 1km long looking at a map, doesn't the runway run pretty much straight north south and for about the same distance as the existing one?

mersar
May 16, 2010, 5:11 PM
^^How is it that you know everything?

I measured from just north of Mcknight to somewhere near the terminal, in a straight line, not too scientific- are there any rough maps of the potential project kicking around? It's hard to figure out how this could only be 1km long looking at a map, doesn't the runway run pretty much straight north south and for about the same distance as the existing one?

The runway tunnel doesn't go parallel to the runway, it crosses it perpendicular at Airport Trail. The new runway is actually longer then the existing runway (~14,000 feet). Heres the city's map (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/aldermanic/ward_5/2009/airport_tunnel_propsal_map.pdf)of the proposal.

SubwayRev
May 16, 2010, 11:57 PM
The runway tunnel doesn't go parallel to the runway, it crosses it perpendicular at Airport Trail. The new runway is actually longer then the existing runway (~14,000 feet). Heres the city's map (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/aldermanic/ward_5/2009/airport_tunnel_propsal_map.pdf)of the proposal.

Myself, I think this tunnel is completely unnecessary, and I'm wondering if alot of the people who say we need it, think that it will be running North-South as well.

To me, that map shows why this tunnel is unnecessary too, it will save a very small portion of the city three or four minutes.

freeweed
May 17, 2010, 2:22 AM
Aren't there too many Xs on that map? If Airport Trail is cut off from the terminal the way it looks on that map, they'll have to completely redesign everything approaching the airport.

I more and more agree with the comment above, though. When you look at it on a map, it really is a very small part of the city that will be faced with a slightly longer drive. The LRT through that tunnel is perhaps a bigger deal to me.

mersar
May 17, 2010, 2:29 AM
Aren't there too many Xs on that map? If Airport Trail is cut off from the terminal the way it looks on that map, they'll have to completely redesign everything approaching the airport.

I more and more agree with the comment above, though. When you look at it on a map, it really is a very small part of the city that will be faced with a slightly longer drive. The LRT through that tunnel is perhaps a bigger deal to me.
Not all of the closures indicated on that take effect next year, however the airports long term plan includes an interchange at 19th street and Airport trail which will be the new access to the terminal. I'd expect that Barlow will still so as far south as the access to the terminal after next year.

kw5150
May 17, 2010, 5:20 AM
If the city is going to spend nearly $1 billion on a tunnel, there's no doubt in my mind that it should be the downtown subway, NOT the Airport Trail tunnel.

agreed! Enough with all of this suburban infrastructure! The inner city needs some serious attention. I am going to go and do some guerilla gardening! On another note, I had serious fun on 17th this weekend! Marda loop next weekend?

Joborule
May 17, 2010, 5:47 AM
Yeesh, us NE folks get shafted hard with the tunnel price skyrocketing up like that. Should be done now really; but if that's the price to do it in the future, I don't even know if it would be worth it.

Gotta love when things like this are not dealt with until last minute when it's too late.

frinkprof
May 17, 2010, 5:56 AM
Nevermind.

mersar
May 17, 2010, 6:25 AM
I think it should be done if it can be at the original price. The near-billion dollar price tag to do it later is a lot to ask though. Probably too much. Is it too late now? Does anyone know what a cut-off date for getting it done at the low price would be?

From how the airport has put it, the cut off date was months ago, likely around the March 1st deadline the city and airport authority gave to get a funding deal in place. Realistically they could probably still include it if it was done really soon, but its hard to say as they are likely working on the final engineering work for the runway now since we're under 300 days until Barlow closes and work begins

Bigtime
May 17, 2010, 1:05 PM
So apparently the tunnel is on the agenda down at city hall today, what can they decide during this meeting of council if it is already too late?

MalcolmTucker
May 17, 2010, 2:15 PM
^ I am not sure about the Airport Authority, but doesn't council, if it really wanted to, have the power to replace the board if they don't agree for example to delay for one year if that is what is needed?

You Need A Thneed
May 17, 2010, 3:20 PM
I can't see how they would be passed any kind of "point of no return" deadline. The runway is supposed to open in 2014, or something like that. Building this tunnel would only delay maybe about a 50-100 metre wide section of the runway. They could easily work on the other 3900 metres, then quickly finish up the narrow section where the tunnel would be at the end, after the tunnel is completed.

Also, I'm going to disagree with those who say it will only save a small portion of the city 3-4 minutes of driving. Perhaps right when it opens up, because of the lack of built up area inside the ring road. Once the whole area is built up, Airport Trail tunnel will be necessary because Country Hills Blvd isn't designed to be able to handle all of the traffic. We'll be talking about 15 minutes of extra driving.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, spending $200+ million on the tunnel now will prevent spending significantly more on upgrading McKnight, Metis, and especially CHB in the future to be able to handle the traffic.

Bigtime
May 17, 2010, 3:28 PM
^ I am not sure about the Airport Authority, but doesn't council, if it really wanted to, have the power to replace the board if they don't agree for example to delay for one year if that is what is needed?

Does City council have the authority to replace the board of the Calgary Airport Authority? Is that what you are asking? If they do have that power and did it I think it would reflect rather badly on council, as in my opinion the CAA has done a fantastic job with YYC since it was handed over from federal control.

Delaying the runway another year is unacceptable, I've said it a hundred times over in the YYC thread but the runway has been needed for years now. Further delays will only hurt the airport and its ability to compete with the likes of Edmonton and Vancouver.

Mazrim
May 17, 2010, 4:13 PM
I can't see how they would be passed any kind of "point of no return" deadline.

Detailed design, awarding tender contract and mobilizing would take a minimum of a year, at which point the construction of the runway is well underway. The current planned location of the batch plant, site offices and associated haul roads for the new runway means those operations would be significantly affected by a delay in the runway tunnel. I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it makes life very difficult for those building the IFP and parallel runway to deal with the unknown of a tunnel that "might" get built.

You Need A Thneed
May 17, 2010, 4:31 PM
Detailed design, awarding tender contract and mobilizing would take a minimum of a year, at which point the construction of the runway is well underway. The current planned location of the batch plant, site offices and associated haul roads for the new runway means those operations would be significantly affected by a delay in the runway tunnel. I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it makes life very difficult for those building the IFP and parallel runway to deal with the unknown of a tunnel that "might" get built.

Oh, definitely, things would have to be decided on now, so that plans can be altered where necessary. I'm just saying that, if the tunnel was given a go ahead right now, details like that could still be tweaked to not alter the completion date of the runway. It may require the reworking of the timeline, and the changing of a few plans, but like I said, the area required for building the tunnel is only a very small part of the total area required for the runway. It's well within reason for them to be able to finish up the last part of the runway (above the tunnel) fairly quickly at the end of the construction period.

The only thing that might be difficult is that, for haul roads and the like, they might not be able to build both the taxiway tunnel and the runway tunnel at the same time - one might have to be completed before the other could start.

As far as detailed drawings go, sure they take a while, but there's no reason why, for a project like this, that the basic engineering takes more than a few days. They should be able to figure out the required footings, wall thicknesses, and structural slab thickness, required rebar, etc. in a matter of hours. There's no reason why construction couldn't start long before detailed design was done - if it needed to be.

Mazrim
May 17, 2010, 5:06 PM
No offense, but I think you're underestimating the scope of a tunnel the size of this one. Tunnels in general are no simple task (precast, maybe, but this isn't that case), but then you add in the volatile live loading of an aircraft landing on top of the structure. Overall it's not something that someone can draft plans up for in a matter of days. We're talking weeks of design and probably 1 or 2 months of a firm working massive overtime to finish.

BP_Brandon
May 17, 2010, 5:20 PM
Here is an interesting photo of a plane crossing over a roadway. The overpass it self does not look all that skookum..... (not often I get to use that word LOL)

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:YR3ML7E1DsITxM:http://www.leipzig-halle-airport.de/media/files/lej/unternehmen/publikationen_medien/rb_west.jpg

Mazrim
May 17, 2010, 5:25 PM
Here is an interesting photo of a plane crossing over a roadway. The overpass it self does not look all that skookum..... (not often I get to use that word LOL)

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:YR3ML7E1DsITxM:http://www.leipzig-halle-airport.de/media/files/lej/unternehmen/publikationen_medien/rb_west.jpg

Here's a street view of LAX to show you what you would see here.
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.++6,+Alberta&ll=33.940832,-118.396096&spn=0,0.05476&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.940716,-118.396103&panoid=LoO_lBBoYMStFktGbnXeKg&cbp=12,184.47,,0,-0.29

You Need A Thneed
May 17, 2010, 5:37 PM
No offense, but I think you're underestimating the scope of a tunnel the size of this one. Tunnels in general are no simple task (precast, maybe, but this isn't that case), but then you add in the volatile live loading of an aircraft landing on top of the structure. Overall it's not something that someone can draft plans up for in a matter of days. We're talking weeks of design and probably 1 or 2 months of a firm working massive overtime to finish.

No, i'm not underestimating the scope of the tunnel, I know it's large. But, it's not particularly complicated. The forces exerted should be known. The sizes of materials required for those loads should be fairly easily figured out. I imagine soil testing has already been done for the runway, so no waiting for that. They know how many lanes they want to have through there, so they know what size the tunnel needs to be.

It shouldn't take much to design two straight walls and a precast top (if precast is the way they would go - I imagine it would be to speed up the project).. The detailed design of the roadway and final grading in the areas surrounding the actual bridges themselves could easily be figured out while the project is underway. Of course, you can't really tender the whole thing together doing it that way, I'm just saying it's possible. You'd either have to do multiple tenders, but more likely, just use a construction management model.

There's no reason why it wouldn't be possible to start excavation for the tunnel tomorrow. Then, by the time the excavation was nearing the bottom, they should know the exact elevations. And by the time the excavation was done, there's no reason why they couldn't have figured out what kinds of footings were needed, to start construction on those right away. What I'm saying is that an uncomplicated structure like this tunnel shouldn't be held up by engineering time. The construction time for any portion should be longer than the engineering time required.

Bigtime
May 17, 2010, 5:47 PM
Apparently council is discussing the tunnel right now down at city hall.

Wooster
May 17, 2010, 5:49 PM
http://www.calgary.ca/cws/councilWebCast.html

BP_Brandon
May 17, 2010, 6:30 PM
Here's a street view of LAX to show you what you would see here.
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.++6,+Alberta&ll=33.940832,-118.396096&spn=0,0.05476&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.940716,-118.396103&panoid=LoO_lBBoYMStFktGbnXeKg&cbp=12,184.47,,0,-0.29

:previous: Ermmm.... ya OK.... NE Calgary I think your screwed....
VVVVV

MalcolmTucker
May 17, 2010, 7:06 PM
Here is an interesting photo of a plane crossing over a roadway. The overpass it self does not look all that skookum..... (not often I get to use that word LOL)

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:YR3ML7E1DsITxM:http://www.leipzig-halle-airport.de/media/files/lej/unternehmen/publikationen_medien/rb_west.jpg

That is likely a taxiway, a runway bridge would have to be designed to withstand a much larger 'moment'.

Here is the 'street view' of a runway in Atlanta, taxiway to the north, runway to the south. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=atl&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.490703,84.638672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartsfield+-+Jackson+Atlanta+Intl,+Atlanta,+Clayton,+Georgia+30337&ll=33.621409,-84.428043&spn=0.025623,0.041327&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.621338,-84.428139&panoid=0ymyWdOULmB86gdjY4BDFw&cbp=12,231.31,,0,6.21

SubwayRev
May 17, 2010, 7:21 PM
Also, I'm going to disagree with those who say it will only save a small portion of the city 3-4 minutes of driving. Perhaps right when it opens up, because of the lack of built up area inside the ring road. Once the whole area is built up, Airport Trail tunnel will be necessary because Country Hills Blvd isn't designed to be able to handle all of the traffic. We'll be talking about 15 minutes of extra driving.

Wouldn't it just be easier, and much less expensive, to redesign Country Hills Blvd. then?

You Need A Thneed
May 17, 2010, 7:39 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier, and much less expensive, to redesign Country Hills Blvd. then?

That's the thing. How much does it cost to build a half dozen interchanges where there was no allowance for interchanges in the original design? A lot more than the $280 million talked about to build the tunnel. In all of the community plans for the NE, CHB is only a major road, and Airport Trail is the expressway. Making CHB big enough to handle all of that traffic means that it would have to be a fairly large expressway.

SubwayRev
May 17, 2010, 8:35 PM
That's the thing. How much does it cost to build a half dozen interchanges where there was no allowance for interchanges in the original design? A lot more than the $280 million talked about to build the tunnel. In all of the community plans for the NE, CHB is only a major road, and Airport Trail is the expressway. Making CHB big enough to handle all of that traffic means that it would have to be a fairly large expressway.

Well, I would say that we don't need half a dozen interchanges, as traffic currently using Barlow between McKight and the terminal is very low. 2008 numbers were 23,000 per day. Barlow Trail isn't a very busy road. It doesn't need to be a super-highway, and it doesn't need the most expensive single piece of road infrastructure in the city.

Most people going to the airport currently do not use Barlow Trail. When it is necessary to go 2.5km further East, to reach Metis, and then travel up to the tunnel, then return 2.5km back to the terminal, even less will be travelling that route.

I understand it will inconvience some, but the vast majority of Calgarians would never use that tunnel. The money could be better spent on so many other projects.

freeweed
May 17, 2010, 8:49 PM
I understand it will inconvience some, but the vast majority of Calgarians would never use that tunnel. The money could be better spent on so many other projects.

Don't disagree with your overall thoughts, but with this last one - you could say the same thing about nearly every piece of infrastructure in the city.

"I'll never use it, why should I pay for it" is a really goofy way to have discussions about cities.

frinkprof
May 17, 2010, 9:14 PM
Nevermind.

You Need A Thneed
May 17, 2010, 9:45 PM
Well, I would say that we don't need half a dozen interchanges, as traffic currently using Barlow between McKight and the terminal is very low. 2008 numbers were 23,000 per day. Barlow Trail isn't a very busy road. It doesn't need to be a super-highway, and it doesn't need the most expensive single piece of road infrastructure in the city.

Most people going to the airport currently do not use Barlow Trail. When it is necessary to go 2.5km further East, to reach Metis, and then travel up to the tunnel, then return 2.5km back to the terminal, even less will be travelling that route.

I understand it will inconvience some, but the vast majority of Calgarians would never use that tunnel. The money could be better spent on so many other projects.

I'm not talking about airport access here. I'm talking about when there are 100,000+ people living in the area inside the ring road in the NE that currently has almost 0 people living there.

At the time that Barlow Trail closes, it will be inconvienient for some, but mostly manageable. I think that's what many people (like the opinion you just expressed in your post) are seeing. The major problem is the situation in the future, when 100,000 people access the rest of the city using only a major road (CHB) - and at that, a major road that will have moderate heavy truck usage at the point of most congestion (nearest Deerfoot).

You Need A Thneed
May 17, 2010, 9:46 PM
Could someone tell me if havng the tunnel operate with tolls was ever part of any official options or plans, or was it just people musing about it on here?
I think just musing about it here.

frinkprof
May 17, 2010, 9:50 PM
Nevermind.

MalcolmTucker
May 17, 2010, 10:08 PM
One of the tweeters in the crowd should tweet it to Pincott or is there another alderperson that does there own tweeting?

MichaelS
May 17, 2010, 10:10 PM
I'm not talking about airport access here. I'm talking about when there are 100,000+ people living in the area inside the ring road in the NE that currently has almost 0 people living there.

At the time that Barlow Trail closes, it will be inconvienient for some, but mostly manageable. I think that's what many people (like the opinion you just expressed in your post) are seeing. The major problem is the situation in the future, when 100,000 people access the rest of the city using only a major road (CHB) - and at that, a major road that will have moderate heavy truck usage at the point of most congestion (nearest Deerfoot).

I think this might be a bit of an exageration, as the NE Regional Policy Plan only expects 50,000 in the residential portion:
http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/northeast_regional_policy_plan/northeast_regional_policy_plan_one.pdf

See page 32/60, Section 9.1.1

You Need A Thneed
May 17, 2010, 10:18 PM
I think this might be a bit of an exageration, as the NE Regional Policy Plan only expects 50,000 in the residential portion:
http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/northeast_regional_policy_plan/northeast_regional_policy_plan_one.pdf

See page 32/60, Section 9.1.1

50,000 in the area, plus added traffic and people from currently built areas that are closer to CHB than McKnight, plus large industrial area, plus lots of commercial, plus some airport traffic. Sounds like a disaster to try to force all of that traffic mainly onto one major road.

The area East of the ring road along CHB could grow significantly in population in the future as well. 100,000 isn't necessarily very far off.

Mazrim
May 17, 2010, 10:23 PM
I understand it will inconvience some, but the vast majority of Calgarians would never use that tunnel. The money could be better spent on so many other projects.

And what about all those people would likely use the Ring Road to get to the airport? Seems pretty convenient to go to the Airport by using the ring road if the connection was there. I hate going Northbound Deerfoot in rush hour from the south end of the city to get to the airport.

mersar
May 17, 2010, 10:26 PM
And what about all those people would likely use the Ring Road to get to the airport? Seems pretty convenient to go to the Airport by using the ring road if the connection was there. I hate going Northbound Deerfoot in rush hour from the south end of the city to get to the airport.

It would be quicker to just go on the ring road all the way to Deerfoot then in from the west side on Airport Trail rather then exit onto Airport Trail off of Stoney itself. 96th Ave/Airport Trail east of the airport will only be signed at 60km/h more then likely, whereas Stoney and Deerfoot are 100 or 110.

You Need A Thneed
May 17, 2010, 10:31 PM
It would be quicker to just go on the ring road all the way to Deerfoot then in from the west side on Airport Trail rather then exit onto Airport Trail off of Stoney itself. 96th Ave/Airport Trail east of the airport will only be signed at 60km/h more then likely, whereas Stoney and Deerfoot are 100 or 110.

IF Airport Trail does go through to the airport eventually, it's definitely not going to be signed as low as 60km/h. 80km/hr minimum I would think, perhaps 90, like 16th Ave is currently in the NE. Evan at 60, It would be much faster then going around the extra distance you mentioned. I think the route you mentioned would add about 10-12 km to the trip.

SubwayRev
May 18, 2010, 5:46 AM
I'm not talking about airport access here. I'm talking about when there are 100,000+ people living in the area inside the ring road in the NE that currently has almost 0 people living there.

At the time that Barlow Trail closes, it will be inconvienient for some, but mostly manageable. I think that's what many people (like the opinion you just expressed in your post) are seeing. The major problem is the situation in the future, when 100,000 people access the rest of the city using only a major road (CHB) - and at that, a major road that will have moderate heavy truck usage at the point of most congestion (nearest Deerfoot).

Well if we're not talking about airport access, I'm not sure why we're considering a tunnel. You say that CHB would require several interchanges, so the tunnel should be built as they would cost the same.

If CHB needs interchanges, wouldn't Airport Trail as well? If it's to act as a major expressway, wouldn't it need not only a large tunnel, but also interchanges between the airport and Stoney to the East, at the airport itself, and the interchange at Deerfoot, which would need to be compeltely re-done to accomodate the amount of traffic that comes with 100,000 people. So, it would need all the same interchanges as CHB, plus a massive tunnel.

In my mind, for non-airport access, these two roads are six of one and a half dozen of the other. Except in this case, the half dozen costs $250,000,000 more.

SubwayRev
May 18, 2010, 5:53 AM
Don't disagree with your overall thoughts, but with this last one - you could say the same thing about nearly every piece of infrastructure in the city.

"I'll never use it, why should I pay for it" is a really goofy way to have discussions about cities.

My bad. That didn't quite come out right. I guess I was just trying to say that not enough people will use it to justify the cost. Didn't mean to sound like I had a case of Rickbellitis.

mwalker_mw
May 18, 2010, 2:26 PM
re: Airport tunnel.

Just speculating, but, would a valid compromise solution be to move the tunnel north, just off the end of the actual runway? This could possibly greatly reduce the loading requirements (no planes landing directly on it) as well as eliminate the need to tunnel directly under the runway (perhaps a cut and cover method could be used). This maintains the benefits of keeping CHB clear of traffic with the small tradeoff of a slightly longer drive on Airport trail.

MichaelS
May 18, 2010, 2:27 PM
50,000 in the area, plus added traffic and people from currently built areas that are closer to CHB than McKnight, plus large industrial area, plus lots of commercial, plus some airport traffic. Sounds like a disaster to try to force all of that traffic mainly onto one major road.

The area East of the ring road along CHB could grow significantly in population in the future as well. 100,000 isn't necessarily very far off.

Saddleridge is the only community that is closer to CHB than McKnight that I can see.

The area structure plan for the larger industrial area can be seen here:
http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/northeast_industrial_asp.pdf

According to paragraph 1 of the preface (page 9 of 96) the area is only projected to have about 1600 jobs. And, based on the area map (page 15 of 96) majority of those will be located north of Country Hills Blvd, which in my opinion means most people would probably take that road as opposed Airport Trail.

The Area Structure Plan for Cell A of the North East Regional Policy Plan (essentially the Skyview Ranch portion) can be seen here:
http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/northeast_community_a_asp/northeast_community_a_asp.pdf
It has a projected population of 25,000 (see section 4.1, page 25/264).

The executive summary of Part 2 of that ASP (the Country Hills Station Area Plan) on page 178/264 does say that the full area of 5 communities will have 70,000 people (so a bit of a contradiction from the regional policy plan I posted earlier), which is still less than the 100,000. And a large portion of that population will be within the Country Hills Station Area plan, and hopefully more reliant on Transit than the automobile.

In my mind, the money for the airport tunnel would be better spent towards extending the NE LRT line up to the Country Hills station.

You Need A Thneed
May 18, 2010, 2:43 PM
Well if we're not talking about airport access, I'm not sure why we're considering a tunnel. You say that CHB would require several interchanges, so the tunnel should be built as they would cost the same.

If CHB needs interchanges, wouldn't Airport Trail as well? If it's to act as a major expressway, wouldn't it need not only a large tunnel, but also interchanges between the airport and Stoney to the East, at the airport itself, and the interchange at Deerfoot, which would need to be compeltely re-done to accomodate the amount of traffic that comes with 100,000 people. So, it would need all the same interchanges as CHB, plus a massive tunnel.

In my mind, for non-airport access, these two roads are six of one and a half dozen of the other. Except in this case, the half dozen costs $250,000,000 more.

There would only need to be about 4-5 interchanges on Airport Trail between Deerfoot and Stoney. (60th Street, Metis Trail, perhaps a half interchange with 36th Street, Barlow Trail, and probably another airport access) On CHB, you would probably be talking about 12 (See here (http://www.stonegatelanding.ca/downloads/StoneGate_Landing_Map.pdf), and here (http://www.liveatskyview.ca/pdf/SkyViewRanch_Community_Concept.pdf)), along a road that doesn't have land set aside for interchanges - and would ruin the community hub plans that the communities have been designed around. An expressway through the centre of the proposed hub (CHB and 60th Street) would wreck all of those plans.

Airport Trail has right of way set aside for it to be an expressway. CHB does not. The Airport Trail interchange at Deerfoot is designed to be fairly easily upgraded - as the grading is already done - CHB wouldn't be quite as easy.

mersar
May 20, 2010, 12:53 AM
Noticed this evening that they've got the bases in for the new traffic lights at McKnight and Deerfoot, nothing above ground in yet but its good to see progress albeit slow.

AB Born
May 21, 2010, 7:12 AM
"PATTISON Outdoor" installed a Digital Superboard overlooking eastbound traffic on Glenmore. The sign is actually on the south side of Glenmore between Macleod & Blackfoot. Looks pretty cool. I've also seen one on Mcknight just west of Barlow Tr.

dmuzika
May 23, 2010, 4:13 PM
Noticed this evening that they've got the bases in for the new traffic lights at McKnight and Deerfoot, nothing above ground in yet but its good to see progress albeit slow.

Looks like they installed the signals on Friday, hopefully it's operational fairly soon.

jsbertram
May 24, 2010, 12:18 AM
I've been reading about the Airport Tr tunnel on this forum for a few months, and I understand that Barlow Tr as it exists today has to be removed to build the new runway & taxiways. However, I've never understood why its necessary to completely lose Barlow Tr from south of the Terminal to McKnight.

When I was flying in Friday, I was reminded that Barlow was shifted east when the new terminal was built back in the 80s, so why not shift it back west (closer to it's original alignment when it was Highway 2 - before Deerfoot Tr & the new terminal was built), with a tunnel under the new taxiway to the new 2nd runway?

It may not need to be a full tunnel per se, but could be more like a highway dipping under a railway overpass.

I've played around with the PDF to show this idea:

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9241/airportbarlowtrpropsalm.png
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9241/airportbarlowtrpropsalm.png



This is what Boeing built in the 70s to get their planes from the assembly plant (left side of the picture) to their painting facility at Paine Field:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=everett&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.489543,56.513672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Everett,+Snohomish,+Washington&ll=47.921979,-122.277524&spn=0.000872,0.002747&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.921983,-122.277369&panoid=-Ee4PK0fvm2OAD_z4IPcug&cbp=12,66.91,,0,7.29

My uncle living there told me that when the first 747s were rolled over the highway from the Assembly building to the Painting building it was done during the daytime, but they quickly found out that the highway would freeze in gridlock with all the drivers slowing down to watch the jumbo jet crawl over the highway. Boeing now tries to do these moves at night when there's less traffic on the highway (and fewer lookie-loos slowing down), but I think the Everett locals have become so used to seeing planes roll from the factory to painting they're 'meh .. ' without slowing down.

BTW: I highly recommend the tour of the Boeing plant in Everett. It seems to bring out the six-year-old in everyone.

You Need A Thneed
May 24, 2010, 12:54 AM
^I imagine that the Airport Authority has problems with that design, or else it would be being built already. Why, I don't know exactly, but probobly something to do with have that public road going in between all of those runways.

Perhaps they want to lengthen the NW-SE runway sometime ing the future?

Also, the real need for the Airport Trail tunnel still remains under that plan.

jsbertram
May 24, 2010, 1:48 AM
I was wondering why they don't build Airport Tr (96th Ave) between Barlow and 36th St in a trench until the decision is made to build the East runway? As I understand it, the new East runway still hasn't been given final approval & isn't fully funded.

Phase 1 - New Airport Tr in a wide trench so that the roadbed is lowered to the finished elevation it would need to be for a tunnel under the new runway/taxiway. You are essentially building the base of the tunnel & roadway without actually building the walls and roof (yet).

Phase 2 - EB & WB traffic is temporarily squeezed into the WB roadway while the tunnel walls and roof are completed for the EB tunnel; then traffic is temporarily squeezed into the finished EB tunnel while the new WB tunnel walls and roof are built.

Phase 3 - new runway/taxiway built over tunnels while traffic flows as normal.

Doing it this way, you can spread the cost of construction over several years (and separate budgets), rather than have a $250+ million hit all at once.

MalcolmTucker
May 25, 2010, 1:00 PM
new East runway still hasn't been given final approval & isn't fully funded

Airport Board just has to say go methinks. Might be subject to a federal environmental assessment if they haven't started it yet so that may delay it for a bit.

Unless the business case is really bad the Airport Authority shouldn't have any problems raising the cash (not government money but debt financing) for this.

Mazrim
May 26, 2010, 4:09 PM
As far as I've seen, the new Airport runway is a go if they have a contractor and construction plans going for it already.

You can bet the City and the Airport Authority have looked at all options for Barlow Trail. The simple fact that there is a large swath of taxiway area for planes connecting the East Runway to the new terminal (~750m at least) means that moving Barlow Trail to the west would be as expensive as the airport trail tunnel and definitely a security concern.

Mazrim
Jun 2, 2010, 4:55 PM
So who wants to go to the Euphoria Cafe? Looks like a great place to sit down and enjoy nature...

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/7813/58854005.jpg

:sly:

srperrycgy
Jun 6, 2010, 10:43 PM
I found this roadgeek oddity (for Calgary at least) on my walk into downtown today:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4676005615_6782c021a1_b.jpg

It's a concrete light-standard. Sunset Ave SW.

Mazrim
Jun 7, 2010, 3:57 PM
Isn't that where the pole kept getting hit by cars in the winter or something? I bet they made a "super-light-pole" or something to stop evil-doers in its tracks!

sheldonsgongshow
Jun 8, 2010, 1:29 AM
"PATTISON Outdoor" installed a Digital Superboard overlooking eastbound traffic on Glenmore. The sign is actually on the south side of Glenmore between Macleod & Blackfoot. Looks pretty cool. I've also seen one on Mcknight just west of Barlow Tr.


They also put one between Balzac and Airdrie on west side for North and South bound traffic.

mersar
Jun 8, 2010, 1:51 AM
They've installed a lot of these recently. Theres another on Macleod just south of the Elbow River, one down by Heritage, at least one on McKnight and I've seen 3 or 4 others I can't recall the exact locations of.

DizzyEdge
Jun 14, 2010, 5:20 AM
I see the city has taken possession of their right of way on the north size of 16th Ave North, and are doing a bunch of sidewalk widening East of Centre. (my pics)

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1314/img1576g.jpg
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/918/img1575g.jpg
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/4859/img1574.jpg
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9485/img1573ww.jpg
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3326/img1577f.jpg

Seeing how super wide the sidewalks are, I actually wonder if making them perhaps 1/2 as wide in places and allowing on-street parking could have been useful. I know it's the TransCanada, but it's also a 50 km/h zone, so in theory traffic shouldn't be going any faster than on 17th ave SW.



This is the sidewalk, just poured 1-3 yrs ago as you turn right onto 16th ave while heading north on Centre, with a giant crack :/

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8259/img1569s.jpg

mwalker_mw
Jun 14, 2010, 2:25 PM
I actually wonder if making them perhaps 1/2 as wide in places and allowing on-street parking could have been useful.

Or, how about a nice, dedicated, bidirectional cycle lane in place of the street side row of trees? There is absolutely no need for a side walk to be that wide in that location.

Mazrim
Jun 14, 2010, 3:41 PM
Eh, I guess we'll just have to bike on the sidewalk then? :cool:

I'm glad there's no on-street parking on 16th. Last thing we need is more things slowing down traffic in that area.

kw5150
Jun 14, 2010, 3:48 PM
Wow, love the new wide sidewalks!! I hope we get additional wide sidewalks like that in some other areas!!! It is really soothing walking along 16th now near the SAIT area and it looks like it will be even better all the way down. Way to wake up Calgary!

This is a City of 1.1 Million almost.... We cannot keep constructing 1.5m sidewalks. We may have a lot of drivers here hence the reason for a multi billion dollar ring road and interchanges..... but we also have a lot of pedestrians. A couple dollars for some pedestrian infrastucture wont hurt anyone. Maybe move on to some of the city core streets as well?

fusili
Jun 14, 2010, 5:10 PM
Or, how about a nice, dedicated, bidirectional cycle lane in place of the street side row of trees? There is absolutely no need for a side walk to be that wide in that location.

I would say there is. Depending on how much density is approved for that area, 16th/Centre can turn into a fairly high density pedestrian area. A east/west BRT on 16th and either a subway or streetcar up Centre would really generate a large amount of pedestrian traffic there.

MichaelS
Jun 14, 2010, 6:38 PM
Density along 16th Ave North is set to increase, and the design is meant to be less auto focused so the wide sidewalks will be needed in the future. Here is a link to the ARP:
http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/sixteen_avenue_north_study/sixteen_avenue_north_study_one.pdf

freeweed
Jun 14, 2010, 7:14 PM
Chalk me up as a huge fan of the really wide sidewalks. The bit in front of the Stampede Casino is just heaven when you're dealing with large crowds of people, and in general is just so inviting that I WANT to walk on it. If we had sidewalks like that everywhere, I'd be walking a whole lot more.

mwalker_mw
Jun 14, 2010, 11:12 PM
Ok, I should clarify a bit: I'm not against wide sidewalks in general - but putting a sidewalk that wide in a location that currently rarely sees more than a few pedestrians whilst completely ignoring the existence of bicycles just seems lazy. You could still have wider than normal sidewalks AND a bike corridor AND one row of trees. It is a major E/W route and it should be designed to visibly encourage all forms of transportation.

Also, while there is plenty of plans for future development in the area I doubt a sidewalk, even 30% narrower, would be starved for capacity for quite sometime. Those look to be substantially wider than many of the sidewalks in downtown Toronto even.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: painting random lines on the road for a block at a time does not constitute actively supporting alternate modes of transportation. This just seems like an enormous wasted opportunity to serve as an example of how European style cycling infrastructure could be implemented here.

It's better than before... but I think they missed its full potential.

Ferreth
Jun 15, 2010, 12:55 AM
I like wide sidewalks and trees too, but not here. 16th is the only good E-W route on the north side of town, that isn't way out in the 'burbs. Personally, I'd have been looking to take out a whole block south of 16th and drop the road down to minimize the impact to the surrounding residence - with a meridian road on the north side. But we are 20 years too late for that one.

Given what the city had to work with, I'd have been much less compromising with the local communities, and built a road with as much car capacity as reasonable. Build the sound walls, sure. But I would've cut off way more roads, gone for tight interchanges if possible, and right in/right out only where not possible. Not having looked at this in detail, I'm sure traffic lights would be the only reasonable option at least for some of the main intersections.

For the cyclists at least, I'd have been looking at using one of the current "alternate routes" (20 Ave or 12 Ave) and turning it into a cyclist friendly route, with no through traffic for cars (for example, only right hand turns at Centre St, with a cut through the median a cyclist/pedestrian can get through on a traffic signal).

What the city (is still building :hell:) is going to be better locally, but long term for cars, it is going to suck balls - there are no other good alternatives that wouldn't be even *more* disruptive to local communities for building a E-W route across north Calgary.

freeweed
Jun 15, 2010, 1:56 AM
Ok, I should clarify a bit: I'm not against wide sidewalks in general - but putting a sidewalk that wide in a location that currently rarely sees more than a few pedestrians whilst completely ignoring the existence of bicycles just seems lazy. You could still have wider than normal sidewalks AND a bike corridor AND one row of trees. It is a major E/W route and it should be designed to visibly encourage all forms of transportation.

Fair enough, and I agree with your comments about bicycle paths. As a driver I LOATHE bike lanes - and as a cyclist, I stopped riding when bikes were no longer allowed on the sidewalk. People can argue at me till they're blue in the face and I'll never change my opinion on this: bicycles and vehicles DO. NOT. MIX. I've seen the results of the inevitable collisions and no thanks. Not for me as a cyclist, and it makes me incredibly nervous when some unprotected meat sack is only a couple of feet from my car as I pass by doing 60km/h more than he is.

So yeah, I think I'll give you this one. Instead of insanely wide sidewalks, I'd be all over a separate bike path.

outoftheice
Jun 24, 2010, 8:56 PM
I was just looking over the construction schedule for the SE Ring Road on the Stoney Trail thread. Part of the construction includes a rather large interchange to be constructed for Peigan Trail/Stoney Trail and includes the comment "link to future of City of Calgary road." In my experience, most of the transport trucks on Deerfoot seem to use Peigan Trail as the main access point for the SE industrial parks. I think that linking Peigan Trail to Stoney Trail is critical to getting a good deal of the truck traffic off of Deerfoot Trail. Does anybody know if there are plans by the City to link Peigan to Stoney by the time the SE Stoney Trail extension opens? If not, does anybody know why this project isn't a priority?

mersar
Jun 24, 2010, 9:06 PM
My understanding of it is that essentially the city has committed to the project, just hasn't announced exactly when it will do it. You'll notice other city roads that are critical to the project (such as realigning 114th ave between the TUC and its existing alignment) are also labeled as future city projects. Fortunately most of these tie ins are fairly short, flat, road with a secured right of way. But something like Peigan I could see becoming like the Airport Trail NE flyover, which won't open for another couple years after opening potentially.

Ferreth
Jun 25, 2010, 2:15 AM
At least the City has upgraded Glenmore Tr. to 4 lanes up to the TUC. I fully expect Peigan to not be connected on opening day; although at least the connection to 84th street will allow truck traffic to access the east industrial area.

Mazrim
Jun 25, 2010, 5:17 PM
At least the City has upgraded Glenmore Tr. to 4 lanes up to the TUC. I fully expect Peigan to not be connected on opening day; although at least the connection to 84th street will allow truck traffic to access the east industrial area.

I'd love to say otherwise and think the City would do the right thing, but considering they're STILL not ready to do anything to 16th Avenue and 68th Street...i'm not going to hold my breath. :(

Mazrim
Jun 25, 2010, 8:25 PM
Has anyone seen the new overhead signs they installed on Deerfoot Trail recently? I know they have to put them on existing structures, but wow. The one on SB Deerfoot at 16th Avenue is ridiculous. I like to think my vision is pretty good but it was really hard to read the exit information. It looked like they were having a contest to cram as much information as possible into as small a space.

The interesting part was that these new signs for 16th Avenue all say "TO Highway 1", which implies that 16th Avenue in the City will not be termed Highway 1 for much longer...hmm! Redirecting the Trans Canada some time soon maybe?

srperrycgy
Jun 26, 2010, 12:39 AM
Nm...wrong thread.

Ferreth
Jun 26, 2010, 1:29 AM
Has anyone seen the new overhead signs they installed on Deerfoot Trail recently? I know they have to put them on existing structures, but wow. The one on SB Deerfoot at 16th Avenue is ridiculous. I like to think my vision is pretty good but it was really hard to read the exit information. It looked like they were having a contest to cram as much information as possible into as small a space.

The interesting part was that these new signs for 16th Avenue all say "TO Highway 1", which implies that 16th Avenue in the City will not be termed Highway 1 for much longer...hmm! Redirecting the Trans Canada some time soon maybe?

I was laughing at the 95km/hr corner sign they posted on NB Deerfoot, just before you go under 17th/Blackfoot. OTOH, at least they didn't try to do anything stupid(er?) by making it at 80km/hr corner sign.

freeweed
Jun 27, 2010, 9:51 PM
Someone who works for the Province must read my rants here. There are several new signs on Deerfoot advising drivers to "slow to 60 for emergency vehicles and tow trucks".

The print's a bit small, but it's a good start. :tup:

koval95
Jun 28, 2010, 1:50 AM
Hey guys :)
Ive been recently driving through Glenmore trail and ive seen some major construction on the 37th st and Glenmore intersection. It seems like they are building an overpass. Can anyone post information about this project? I am very interested in it since the traffic wait there is horrible.

srperrycgy
Jun 28, 2010, 2:08 AM
Hey guys :)
Ive been recently driving through Glenmore trail and ive seen some major construction on the 37th st and Glenmore intersection. It seems like they are building an overpass. Can anyone post information about this project? I am very interested in it since the traffic wait there is horrible.

From the Ring Road thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4870869&postcount=2266

freeweed
Jun 28, 2010, 4:49 AM
Hey guys :)
Ive been recently driving through Glenmore trail and ive seen some major construction on the 37th st and Glenmore intersection. It seems like they are building an overpass. Can anyone post information about this project? I am very interested in it since the traffic wait there is horrible.

It's always been horrible, it's just now slightly worse.

That's one of the parts of the city to avoid at all costs, unless you absolutely HAVE to go through there. Thankfully an Indian casino is about the only draw within miles.

Wentworth
Jun 28, 2010, 5:07 AM
It's always been horrible, it's just now slightly worse.

That's one of the parts of the city to avoid at all costs, unless you absolutely HAVE to go through there. Thankfully an Indian casino is about the only draw within miles.

After the causeway construction wrapped up, the recession hit, and winter came on, there were six months that were pure bliss on Glenmore. But it's all gone to hell again.

BP_Brandon
Jun 28, 2010, 9:21 PM
Little change in the subject, but starting last week or so my Garmin Traffic Alert is now working for streets in Calgary. Mainly getting alerts about Deerfoot, Glenmore, etc. Not sure how Garmin gets this info? but it's pretty cool.

freeweed
Jun 28, 2010, 9:29 PM
Little change in the subject, but starting last week or so my Garmin Traffic Alert is now working for streets in Calgary. Mainly getting alerts about Deerfoot, Glenmore, etc. Not sure how Garmin gets this info? but it's pretty cool.

It's broadcast over the radio. Friend of mine has a radar detector with similar functionality. He claims his radar detector is a "safety device" as a result. :haha:

BP_Brandon
Jun 28, 2010, 9:42 PM
It's broadcast over the radio. Friend of mine has a radar detector with similar functionality. He claims his radar detector is a "safety device" as a result. :haha:

But were does the data come from to send over the radio? How do they know of a delay on Deerfoot, I have been impressed so far how the delay points are predicted and relayed over the system. Driving SB on Deerfoot from Stoney every morning, the delay alerts and location on DF were they are quite accurate. Especially when the delay points seem to shift from day to day, ie traffic slowing @ 64th one day, then @ Mckight or Beddington the next. My Garmin seems to know this???? I think it's time I start wearing my tin foil hat.... :haha:

Mazrim
Jun 28, 2010, 10:36 PM
Garmin doesn't harvest traffic reports off the radio. They probably do something very similar to google and use the GPS in cell phones to see how quickly they move. Any places that have real-time traffic data available they use as well.

mersar
Jun 29, 2010, 4:05 AM
I think what he meant by radio is that the data is transmitted over FM frequencies to the GPS units, not that they are using the traffic reports the radio stations give. The source data thats aggregated and transmitted likely comes from things like you mention.

jsbertram
Jun 29, 2010, 6:29 AM
A recent article on fixing traffic jams:

Predictive Modeling Warns Drivers One Hour before Jams Occur
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=traffic-avoided

http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/traffic_congestion/ideas/

Stang
Jun 29, 2010, 2:29 PM
While we're talking about Garmin GPS units, the next map update (which is due at the end of July) will finally have Stoney Trail all the way to 17th Avenue. Previous versions have only gone as far as Sarcee. As well as the new Tuscany entrance.

It probably won't have much of an impact on people's day-to-day use, but will eventually come in handy for truckers and tourists when bypassing the city or doing the YYC-Banff trek.

And, more relevant to the topic of traffic on GPS devices, the Navteq (Garmin's map provider) web site now displays traffic as well:

http://www.navteq.com/

freeweed
Jun 29, 2010, 3:22 PM
I think what he meant by radio is that the data is transmitted over FM frequencies to the GPS units, not that they are using the traffic reports the radio stations give. The source data thats aggregated and transmitted likely comes from things like you mention.

Yeah, sorry - I meant "radio" as in the technology (and yeah, it's FM frequencies they use) not radio traffic reports.

You know those signs on freeways that say "congestion ahead" or "slow for construction" or "accident ahead"? Those messages get updated by FM radio waves. In the US they're sent out by the DOT and I assume we have something similar here in Calgary (roads department? the Province for Deerfoot?). The sign boards are hard-wired into the electrical grid, or in many cases use solar cells + batteries, but there's no hard-wire link for the actual message. It's sent in the clear over the air, and many devices can pick this up.

That's what your Garmin is picking up.

mersar
Jul 6, 2010, 5:59 PM
Was just going through this weeks CPC agenda, and the Downtown Underpass Urban Design Guidelines are up. Mostly based on improving whats there for the most part, and incorporating the better design of the 4th Street SE underpass as the new standard.

Couple interesting notes though are the other not-yet-built underpasses that are on the books. One is proposed at 2nd Street SW (likely would be built in conjunction with the SELRT as pedestrian/cycling only but may have roads as well) and the city has also identified a future potential need for one at 11th street SW (which would remove the last at-grade CPR crossing in the downtown/beltline). Theres also an analysis of the existing ones and what needs to be done to improve them.

You Need A Thneed
Jul 8, 2010, 7:06 PM
The tender is out for the construction and twinning of Metis Trail between 64th Ave and 96th Ave (airport Trail), finally. It also includes twinning of 80th Ave between Metis and 52nd Street.

The first priority is to build two lanes of Metis between 80th And 96th, so that the road can be used - in fact, the tender specifically says that any other roadwork is not allowed until that section is complete.

Work looks like it's supposed to start in September. They want the Metis Trail section to open this year.

I'm looking forward to not having to drive the cowpath that 36th Street is currently.

You Need A Thneed
Jul 9, 2010, 3:45 PM
^Metis Trail calls for a completion date of November 30, 2010, to be fully open, and the tender is written so that the contractor gets a bonus if that goal is met. They really want it done this year.

Ferreth
Jul 10, 2010, 4:43 PM
I noticed on Friday for the first time that those electronic information signs the Province have installed on Deerfoot are now working, at least northbound, north of 16th Ave. They were warning motorists of downtown congestion due to road closures for the Stampede Parade.

I also noticed on my vacation that the Province is installing these signs in areas other than the CANMEX corridor - for example, I saw one on highway 36 just south of Lac la Biche.

Hopefully these are put to good use for up to date timely information.

Mazrim
Jul 12, 2010, 6:33 PM
I noticed on Friday for the first time that those electronic information signs the Province have installed on Deerfoot are now working, at least northbound, north of 16th Ave. They were warning motorists of downtown congestion due to road closures for the Stampede Parade.

I also noticed on my vacation that the Province is installing these signs in areas other than the CANMEX corridor - for example, I saw one on highway 36 just south of Lac la Biche.

Hopefully these are put to good use for up to date timely information.

They will be tied to the RWIS (Road Weather Info Service) the government runs (AMA for example uses RWIS to get their webcam feed and data), so I imagine they will be used regularly.

You Need A Thneed
Jul 16, 2010, 10:59 PM
Construction of the 48th Ave to 36th Street Connector up in the NE is underway.

mersar
Jul 20, 2010, 12:10 AM
Well heres a nice twist in the Airport Tunnel saga. Alderman McIver went out and sought an independent estimate on the costs for building just the tunnel from CANA and Focus, who said they could build a 250m wide tunnel under the runway for just $40M. Thats half the length of what the city said they needed, but even if you double it (and add a bit extra since its likely not a linear scaling), its still less then half of the city's estimate.

MichaelS
Jul 20, 2010, 2:44 AM
Do you think that estimate is anyway accurate?

Ramsayfarian
Jul 20, 2010, 3:10 AM
Well heres a nice twist in the Airport Tunnel saga. Alderman McIver went out and sought an independent estimate on the costs for building just the tunnel from CANA and Focus, who said they could build a 250m wide tunnel under the runway for just $40M. Thats half the length of what the city said they needed, but even if you double it (and add a bit extra since its likely not a linear scaling), its still less then half of the city's estimate.

Wow, someone actually went out and got a second estimate for a city job? That's got to be a first.

:haha:

YYCguys
Jul 20, 2010, 12:26 PM
Yesterday, Council voted 'no' to go ahead with the Airport Trail Tunnel. Alderman Stevensen tried to get even the shell of the tunnel built, but council didn't go for it.

Calgarian
Jul 20, 2010, 1:29 PM
So is that it for the tunnel then? what a dumb decision.

Stang
Jul 20, 2010, 2:42 PM
So is that it for the tunnel then? what a dumb decision.

I know that the airport authority has suggested that they're ready to go, tunnel or not, but I don't see this going away quietly as the election approaches. October isn't all that far away, so I would be willing to bet that it wouldn't be too late to revisit the idea as part of the new council's first orders of business.