Calgary Roads

[freeweed]

Once again planner bashing. Im sure they would know a great deal more than the average commuter.

I think you need to stop looking at the world in such black and white forms. "Not worshipping" != "bashing".

I'm sure that on average a city planner knows plenty more than the average commuter. But I'm also sure that no planner knows all parts of the city with perfect clairvoyance.

[fusili]

Just to clear things up. Transportation projects, such as roads, are planned and designed by transportation engineers, not urban planners. While their titles may be "transportation planner" the vast bulk of the departments are made up of civil engineers, while planners have degrees in urban planning. Let's not confuse the two.

[kw5150]

Actually, with the number of absolutes stated in a forum such as this, disproof by counter-example is more than sufficient in most cases. ;) But I'm not so much trying to "disprove" anything here, rather make people actually think about what they're saying. Jumping to the conclusion of "induced demand!" every time road usage goes up is silly. It's on par with "it's colder today, therefore global warming is fake!".

Maybe 13,000 cars are induced. Maybe 3,000. Maybe zero. We can't come to a reasonable conclusion based on one data point, however we can show that not every single one of them is induced.



Absolutely. Witness the stupidity of the Scenic Acres access to the Crowfoot LRT station. To put it bluntly, the (vocal part of the) public was WRONG.

However, planners aren't gods. They're human and subject to the same biases and foils as the rest of us. In many cases in the past, I've seen planning done in ways that make me wonder if people are taking some powerful drugs. Or less facetiously, if realities are being overridden by ideology or political motivations. It's like in the business world when a random MBA is tasked to manage something - a company, a department, a team, whatever. Sometimes it works. And often it bombs miserably, because said MBA has pretty much zero clue about the people and processes s/he's managing. I'm not talking about social engineering or some other buzzword - I just think that a lot of the time, an incomplete understanding and/or improper motivations are to blame.

Remember, "planners" (as a profession/group) are the ones who got us into this mess with our roads in the first place. I highly doubt that every single one of them in the past was wrong about everything, and every single one of them today is right. Planners were the ones who wanted to blast a massive freeway right through the core of Calgary not 50 years ago.

I think you need to attend a few meetings. This is not true and definately NOT black and white. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[kw5150]

I think you need to stop looking at the world in such black and white forms. "Not worshipping" != "bashing".

I'm sure that on average a city planner knows plenty more than the average commuter. But I'm also sure that no planner knows all parts of the city with perfect clairvoyance.

Agreed. Ill work on it.

[kw5150]

And this is one of those instances when the public needs to be ignored. Because those complaints stemmed entirely from NIMBY concerns and not legitimate reasons.

Incidentally, I'm watching a NIMBY battle potentially shaping up in Royal Oak right now. Some company wants to put an oil/gas well behind the Wal-Mart. Many of my friends and co-workers are absolutely convinced that my hypocrisy will finally show itself, as I get all NIMBY'd up. My response: oil and gas are what gives me a great salary, low taxes, and phenomenal infrastructure. Build more, please. Put one literally in my backyard if it helps my province's prosperity.

Gross.

[kw5150]

Pretty much. The city institutes the resident parking zones near the LRT stations by default because every community in the past has complained and asked for it when they didn't.

And in the case of Scenic Acres, the reason the bus gate is there is because the residents complained about the original plan which didn't have it there as they didn't want increased traffic in their neighborhood, so the city responded by walling off the park and ride. And then the residents complained again about the lack of pedestrian access through the fences that were built, and the fences were modified to have additional gates and cross walks.

True, I was involved in the Crowfoot Park and Ride. We argued to have more pedestrian access, but the roads department overruled (as they always do) and created the fencing mess. They said that "there could only be one entrance into the park and ride through the fence for pedestrian safety concerns" It was silly. It ended up costing the city quite a bit of money because the fence was replaced with allan block. Previously the fence was made of vinyl and people were finding their own way through by kicking panels out of the fence.

[freeweed]

I always wondered why they completely re-did those fences not a year after it was built. Great planning from the looks of it.

On the semantic definition of who can rightly be called a "planner" - I think some of you may want to step back and realize that the average citizen/civilian isn't privy to, nor really cares about the bureaucracy involved at City Hall. Whoever is making these decisions (walling off a park and ride, adding HOV lanes to lighted intersections, adding pedestrian bridges, designing excellent freeways, whatever) is going to be lumped into a generic "planner" pool by the lay public. They don't particularly care what the official departmental title is.

And I'm not sure that they need to for most instances. Passing the buck by industry-specifc labels and departmental finger pointing is quite possibly why some people have such a poor view of civic planning in general.

Or perhaps we need a more generic term so as not to offend someone's degree. It's one of the reasons I use the word "planner" in quotes from time to time. ie: someone who plans how things are designed and constructed in our city. Not an official legally-described term. :shrug:

I work in IT. This is a field that can't even decide amongst itself what to call us (I guarantee you there are folks on this very forum who would be offended by my use of the term "IT" to describe what I do). Trust me, the general public (and specifically my customers/clients) don't give a rat's ass how we're organized internally, nor whether my being called an "engineer" passes legal muster according to Canadian legal definitions. They just want things to work as requested, and in my opinion making that happen is much more important than getting offended because a lay person doesn't understand my precise job duties nor which degree I happen to have. I'm perfectly willing to accept "it's IT's fault" - because at the end of the day, when the larger "we" screws up, it is.

[freeweed]

I think you need to attend a few meetings. This is not true and definately NOT black and white. Where do you come up with this stuff?

I think you need to read up on your history (sadly, we cannot attend meetings from 50 years ago due to lack of functioning time machine). Joe Bob From Down The Street was not the guy who stood up at a Council meeting one day and said "hyuk, let's put a freeway into downtown" and the Aldermen all nodded in agreement.

Whatever the official job title at the time (and this has changed a fair bit since the 1950s), a group of "planners" in some capacity were responsible for the road system we have today - including some of the ugly options we didn't go with.

[kw5150]

:previous::previous:

Seriously, go attend some large scale project meetings to see how things really work. We all appreciate your feedback, but some things you are just plain wrong about.

[freeweed]

:previous::previous:

Seriously, go attend some large scale project meetings to see how things really work. We all appreciate your feedback, but some things you are just plain wrong about.

Of course, that's why I chat on places like this.

I'm not being snide, either. I'm very serious.

[kw5150]

from:




http://images.toocharger.com/img/graphiques/fonds-d-ecran/pays--villes/villes/paris/paris---les-champs-elysees.72743.jpg


Would it be possible for Calgary to re-examine its downtown area roadways and come up with a concept like this for a couple major roadways in the inner city? This would be a much more grand entrance into our city! We have already (in a way) done this to 16th ave NW and memorial Drive.

9th ave SW should be a 2 way all the way from inglewood to Bow trail and they should think of a more aesthetically pleasing and functional plan to move people west out of the
downtown. It really seems like there is a really simple way to utilize the massive interchange but still find a new
way to connect everything. Crowchild trail should have a massive lane reversal (like 97th ave in Edmonton) and the intechanges need
to stop making people criss cross all over the place. That would buy us quite a bit more time. We have already updated many of these
bridges, no point in tearing them down just yet.




http://images.toocharger.com/img/graphiques/fonds-d-ecran/pays--villes/villes/paris/paris---les-champs-elysees.72743.jpg

:previous::previous::previous::previous:

Ok, back to my dream of Bow trail and 9th ave sw looking like this. Hopefully
the city has plans to line both sides of this road with nice big trees

[kw5150]

We also don't need to design our city to make it easy for the French army to march in and put down revolutionaries. The Champs Elysees is neat and all but it really is a scar across Paris.

I feel the same way about Crowchild / Bow / Memorial. Its a giant scar as well with massive fragments of land left floating with little purpose.

[5seconds]

I feel the same way about Crowchild / Bow / Memorial. Its a giant scar as well with massive fragments of land left floating with little purpose.

One of the arguments for not developing 14th street SW (From the bow to the reservoir) into a freeway in 1970 was the isolation of parts of the city. Since Crowchild was already being developed as a freeway, there was worry that having 2 freeways in 10 blocks was going to isolate and impact the strip of communities in-between, like Marda Loop/Altador, South Calgary etc.

[Yahoo]

Regarding the Crowfoot LRT station:

I don't recall any huge NIMBY issues there. Everyone knew that LRT was coming someday. When I moved to Scenic Acres there was a wooden "future home of LRT parking" sign that eventually rotted away and fell over because it took so long to build it :haha:

I know the Crowchild Trail expansion that went along with it (Nose Hill drive overpass etc) was completely redesigned from what the planners recommended. The planners wanted to raise the roadway and eventually agreed to a massive change and lowered it. That was a success considering the people who understood the area made a recommendation and the city planners - or whoever it is that approves this stuff - agreed.

What I always thought was a planning mistake long ago is that much of Crowchild north had a large amount of land set aside for the tracks running between the roadway. That was a great idea, yet when they expanded Crowchild years later as it approached Nose Hill drive they narrowed the gap - pretty much guaranteeing they'd have to tear everything up when the LRT was added. I have a real issue when planners do things like this. (like putting houses right along some sections of Country Hills Blvd ruining a new transportation corridor for future generations). It's like when they put up light poles right along the edge of the original Stoney Trail configuration, only to dig them up a couple years later and move them over when they added another lane. Why not try to put them in the final home and potentially you can avoid moving them as the road expands? (or put them in the center).

I don't recall getting surveyed about the fencing or blocking access to the LRT parking from within Scenic Acres, but I did read about a lot of discussions. Unfortunately things like released inmates potentially being dropped off at the Crowfoot LRT station and all the talk of poor security at LRT parking lots likely scared a lot of people into wanting Scenic Acres walled off. I guess it's right to think about these things, since it's steps away from an elementary school. But it was an overreaction and prevented people living steps away from the station from accessing it without walking far around (or punching a hole in the fence).

One of the big issues with the original fencing is it was designed to block the view of the cars. That in itself presents a security issue since car prowlers were hidden from road traffic. The slope on the one section and the lure of the parking lot also made the fenced area great for skateboarders, which often seemed to like kicking out the fence panels for fun.

The new fence is much nicer (thin black rails)- so you can see through it and it's harder to vandalize. Even though you can see the parking lot from within Scenic Acres it actually lots nicer because you can also see the landscaping and trees.

I just wish drivers could access the parking lot and overpass from within Scenic Acres (some people do lol, by slipstreaming a bus as it crosses). I know there would be an influx of apparently "evil" Tuscany short-cutters, but the province or planners messed up the alignment of roads for Scenic Acres & Tuscany long ago so that's the price we now pay for poor planning. (don't get me started on the Stoney/Scenic Acres interchange mess - I'll save that rant for another day ;)

One other little note about Scenic Acres roads - it took years for the city (or whoever) to paint lines on the road which would eventually run by the LRT parking lot. Not 2 weeks later the road was completely repaved with the top coat of pavement. Almost funny if it wasn't such a huge waste of time and money, but a prime example of poor planning.

[Yahoo]

:previous::previous::previous::previous:

Ok, back to my dream of Bow trail and 9th ave sw looking like this. Hopefully
the city has plans to line both sides of this road with nice big trees

I'm not sure where a cool looking roadway with nice wide sidewalks and lots of trees would fit. There are some trees along Bow and 9th, but I haven't heard any plans to try to improve on it. And man, the sidewalks downtown are downright embarrassing - with all the heaving and blobbed asphalt patches. That's a real building code issue. Perhaps something nice would work at city entrances, especially on 16th, but I don't think the foot traffic would ever be there. (maybe by the ski jumps it would)

I wish the city would get over it's sudden hatred of the one tree that does well here - the Poplar. I know there are issues with roots, but man it's a shame if we don't allow the one large fast growing tree to be used anymore. The favored Green Ashes are great trees in certain applications but they die rather easily, they're the last trees to get leaves in the spring and the first to lose them in the fall. In Scenic Acres I've watched them year after year replace dead green ashes in a futile attempt to landscape the roadway. Even the few ones that have survived and are 20 years old would best be described as scraggly. On one hill they died every year and I guess the contractor had to keep replacing them in a warranty agreement.

I also wish we'd get over the policy of no evergreens lining roads. Yes, there can be issues with blocking views and what have you, but there can still be more clumps of them planted in areas that make sense (you see a lot more in Edmonton - I know they have more naturally, but it doesn't mean we can't plant them). It would be sweet if there was a push to line Stoney with poplars, spruce, elm etc, at least on the slopes that are somewhat shaded - where they won't have a tendency to get baked in the sun and die off. I know the province doesn't landscape highways, but it would be nice if the city started - even if it was just right along the fencing. Some views of the city are quite ugly - you see nothing but siding and shingles and not a single tree. The roadway itself is the nicest view - which would please many of us who think about such things, but many people don't think of pavement and concrete as beautiful. Bad for tourism and doesn't make the city look very appealing to its residents. (I wonder why the province attempted making the Stoney-Deerfoot overpasses a bit artistic with fake mountains, yet they didn't bother anywhere else). I agree with the city using a percentage of construction project money on art. How cool was the zoo overpass when it came out! It still is cool.

[sim]

Just to clear things up. Transportation projects, such as roads, are planned and designed by transportation engineers, not urban planners. While their titles may be "transportation planner" the vast bulk of the departments are made up of civil engineers, while planners have degrees in urban planning. Let's not confuse the two.

Yup, and therefore there exists a sort of need of an intermediate or cross-discipline that balances the two. I'm sorry engineers of this forum and in general, but a civil engineering degree, even with a transportation focus doesn't entirely give the knowledge or tools to deal with transportation planning, and dare I say, especially one from Canada or at least the U of C. Anyway...

I think you need to read up on your history (sadly, we cannot attend meetings from 50 years ago due to lack of functioning time machine). Joe Bob From Down The Street was not the guy who stood up at a Council meeting one day and said "hyuk, let's put a freeway into downtown" and the Aldermen all nodded in agreement.

Whatever the official job title at the time (and this has changed a fair bit since the 1950s), a group of "planners" in some capacity were responsible for the road system we have today - including some of the ugly options we didn't go with.

Yes, sadly, basically entirely true despite what KW may contend, and poor planning it was in retrospect. It has now created a very path dependent sort of mentality and subsequent lifestyle that few are willing to give up despite the fact that it comes at the cost of society as a whole.

[freeweed]

The Tuscany LRT station is going to get a roundabout on the north side entrance - I'm very pleased to see the city embrace more of these, when appropriate. I personally think damn near every 4-way and low-traffic stoplight should be replaced with them.

Is there any chance we could see some of our diamond-type interchanges get reconstructed to eliminate some of the more needless lights in the city? I'm not sure although I assume a roundabout requires more surface area - traffic engineers, any ideas?

[kw5150]

I'm not sure where a cool looking roadway with nice wide sidewalks and lots of trees would fit. There are some trees along Bow and 9th, but I haven't heard any plans to try to improve on it. And man, the sidewalks downtown are downright embarrassing - with all the heaving and blobbed asphalt patches. That's a real building code issue. Perhaps something nice would work at city entrances, especially on 16th, but I don't think the foot traffic would ever be there. (maybe by the ski jumps it would)

I wish the city would get over it's sudden hatred of the one tree that does well here - the Poplar. I know there are issues with roots, but man it's a shame if we don't allow the one large fast growing tree to be used anymore. The favored Green Ashes are great trees in certain applications but they die rather easily, they're the last trees to get leaves in the spring and the first to lose them in the fall. In Scenic Acres I've watched them year after year replace dead green ashes in a futile attempt to landscape the roadway. Even the few ones that have survived and are 20 years old would best be described as scraggly. On one hill they died every year and I guess the contractor had to keep replacing them in a warranty agreement.

I also wish we'd get over the policy of no evergreens lining roads. Yes, there can be issues with blocking views and what have you, but there can still be more clumps of them planted in areas that make sense (you see a lot more in Edmonton - I know they have more naturally, but it doesn't mean we can't plant them). It would be sweet if there was a push to line Stoney with poplars, spruce, elm etc, at least on the slopes that are somewhat shaded - where they won't have a tendency to get baked in the sun and die off. I know the province doesn't landscape highways, but it would be nice if the city started - even if it was just right along the fencing. Some views of the city are quite ugly - you see nothing but siding and shingles and not a single tree. The roadway itself is the nicest view - which would please many of us who think about such things, but many people don't think of pavement and concrete as beautiful. Bad for tourism and doesn't make the city look very appealing to its residents. (I wonder why the province attempted making the Stoney-Deerfoot overpasses a bit artistic with fake mountains, yet they didn't bother anywhere else). I agree with the city using a percentage of construction project money on art. How cool was the zoo overpass when it came out! It still is cool.

Ya, I walk that street (9th ave ) sw for a block or so and then get the hell off!! It feels like a car is going to jump the curb and hit you. I think the sidewalk is only 1.5m wide which is horrendous considering how many people take that route to get from the train to the beltline.

I am saying that they should just widen the sidewalks and put some trees in on both isdes to match what they are doing closer to the palliser hotel area.

All in good time I suppose?

[kw5150]

Yup, and therefore there exists a sort of need of an intermediate or cross-discipline that balances the two. I'm sorry engineers of this forum and in general, but a civil engineering degree, even with a transportation focus doesn't entirely give the knowledge or tools to deal with transportation planning, and dare I say, especially one from Canada or at least the U of C. Anyway...



Yes, sadly, basically entirely true despite what KW may contend, and poor planning it was in retrospect. It has now created a very path dependent sort of mentality and subsequent lifestyle that few are willing to give up despite the fact that it comes at the cost of society as a whole.

Well if these were planners, they were the heavy handed ones at the meeting. This is why future planners took their own route and learned from the mistakes of the past.

I personally love planning and if I was not doing what I do today, I would be in the planning area instead....or at least urban design.

6 years old and up i would literally study maps of north america and the world. I was fascinated how a place could start out as a little speck and grow into a functioning city. I used to draw city plans and road networks on big sheets of paper for hours....even days......lol. Once I went through my parents 200 national geographic mags and took out all of the maps and stashed them away. The pile was huge and my dad was pissed off because he liked everything to be in it's place.....haha.

[kw5150]

:previous::previous:

When my dad passed away, we were going through everything and he saved some my city plans.....lol. I should scan one of them.

[5seconds]

The Tuscany LRT station is going to get a roundabout on the north side entrance - I'm very pleased to see the city embrace more of these, when appropriate. I personally think damn near every 4-way and low-traffic stoplight should be replaced with them.

Is there any chance we could see some of our diamond-type interchanges get reconstructed to eliminate some of the more needless lights in the city? I'm not sure although I assume a roundabout requires more surface area - traffic engineers, any ideas?

There were 2 roudabouts built for the temporary Glenmore/37th interchange, and they work beautifully. Having looked at the plans for that intersection as part of the SW Ring Road, they will be removed, and a standard bridge with lights at both ends will be installed (if the Tsuu T'ina route is chosen). (Though the plan also explored putting one in in Signal Hill, between the A&W and the PetroCanada. If there was ever a location that could use one, I think that would be it.)

It's a shame, but it looks as if roundabouts are only being built for single lane interactions. Does anyone know if the city has a policy about roundabouts, especially multi-lane roundabouts?

[freeweed]

It's a shame, but it looks as if roundabouts are only being built for single lane interactions. Does anyone know if the city has a policy about roundabouts, especially multi-lane roundabouts?

I'm fairly wary of multi-lane roundabouts myself, at least until we get people more used to the concept in general. McKenzie Towne is a shitshow sometimes. However even just taking advantage of single-lane... we could add hundreds to this city easily.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

I'm very pleased to see the city embrace more of these, when appropriate. I personally think damn near every 4-way and low-traffic stoplight should be replaced with them.

i've heard rumblings in the past that the city has/is exploring the possibilities of a roundabout at macleod and heritage.

[suburb]

:previous::previous::previous::previous:

Ok, back to my dream of Bow trail and 9th ave sw looking like this. Hopefully
the city has plans to line both sides of this road with nice big trees

Right - the Champs 'solution' would also solve the Bow trail, Crowchild, Memorial intersection, as it would simply be an unmarked six lane traffic circle. The new Arch de Rocky Mountains in the middle would be a great observation point, and would not only have statues underneath, but would also have the elevated LRT running through it.

[5seconds]

i've heard rumblings in the past that the city has/is exploring the possibilities of a roundabout at macleod and heritage.

As long as the tracks are still there, this seems like a bad idea, with backups and blockages happening when the train is running by. Also, that would be a 3 lane circle on one of the busiest roads in Calgary... I'm not sure we're ready for that!

[Bassic Lab]

As long as the tracks are still there, this seems like a bad idea, with backups and blockages happening when the train is running by. Also, that would be a 3 lane circle on one of the busiest roads in Calgary... I'm not sure we're ready for that!

The design would not be a pure traffic circle. It would be an interchange incorporating a traffic circle. Basically Macleod would be free flowing underneath a traffic circle that would serve Heritage Drive and the Macleod Trail on/off ramps. The circle would be elevated above the current level of Macleod to allow Heritage to bridge over the C-Train and freight tracks.

I have no idea if that design is still the one favoured by the city. As I recall the interchange plans were the ones that involved the traffic circle but the Heritage Station Development plan shows a common diamond/SPUI interchange. I have no idea if the station plan reflects the current thinking or if they just neglected to consult with the roads department to see what it had planned.

[DizzyEdge]

I'm fairly wary of multi-lane roundabouts myself, at least until we get people more used to the concept in general. McKenzie Towne is a shitshow sometimes. However even just taking advantage of single-lane... we could add hundreds to this city easily.

I'm ok with multilane if the circle is big enough so that you're not crazily shoulder checking just to get in and then immediately doing so a few seconds later to get out. If it's big enough that there is a respectable pause between entering and exiting the inner circle that's cool.

[5seconds]

The design would not be a pure traffic circle. It would be an interchange incorporating a traffic circle. Basically Macleod would be free flowing underneath a traffic circle that would serve Heritage Drive and the Macleod Trail on/off ramps. The circle would be elevated above the current level of Macleod to allow Heritage to bridge over the C-Train and freight tracks.

I have no idea if that design is still the one favoured by the city. As I recall the interchange plans were the ones that involved the traffic circle but the Heritage Station Development plan shows a common diamond/SPUI interchange. I have no idea if the station plan reflects the current thinking or if they just neglected to consult with the roads department to see what it had planned.

Interesting, that makes much more sense. I think if we don't try some of these things, we will never know if we can be doing things better.

[Me&You]

Interesting, that makes much more sense. I think if we don't try some of these things, we will never know if we can be doing things better.

A rather expensive experiment, no?

Calgary drivers can't even navigate the traffic circle at Glenmore / 37th, I can't see how this would be any better. Glad I rarely go near that area...

[DizzyEdge]

So could that design replace all of the diamond interchanges on deerfoot too? (would Macleod over Glenmore be too crazy for a circle?)

Edit: Macleod almost needs something crazy like an elevated circle for all the ramps to play together with Macleod free-flow beneath.

[5seconds]

A rather expensive experiment, no?

Calgary drivers can't even navigate the traffic circle at Glenmore / 37th, I can't see how this would be any better. Glad I rarely go near that area...

I'm not sure what you mean about Glenmore/37th. Apart from the first week or so (with some admittedly terrible signage), I haven't seen drivers who 'can't even navigate the traffic circle at Glenmore / 37th'. All aspects of traffic at that intersection have improved dramatically since that interchange went in. Both circles are a good addition.

[Bassic Lab]

A rather expensive experiment, no?

Calgary drivers can't even navigate the traffic circle at Glenmore / 37th, I can't see how this would be any better. Glad I rarely go near that area...

One major benefit of a Round About Interchange would be allowing traffic from northbound Horton Road to easily access westbound Heritage by taking the circle all the way around (Horton Road is currently a pure right in/right out on Heritage). It would also more easily allow northbound Horton traffic to access northbound Macleod, which is theoretically possible today but incredibly difficult in heavy traffic.

That kind of benefit is essential if Horton Road is to continue to attract intense development along the lines of the London condos or the planned Heritage Station office towers. Most of the Horton Road strip could form a prime TOD opportunity but even TODs need reasonable traffic access.

For that reason, I am all for a Round About Interchange at Heritage as opposed to a Diamond. It shouldn't work any worse than the McKenzie Towne Traffic Circle. The vehicle flows from Heritage and Macleod's ramps aren't that heavy and grade separating the train tracks should help immensely (Heritage is probably the busiest road crossing on the S LRT with the possible exception of 162 Ave). That and adding a few more multi-lane traffic circles should really help teach people how to use them. I imagine most of the problems at the McKenzie Towne Circle are caused by occasional users with the people who do it daily knowing how.

[freeweed]

I'm not sure what you mean about Glenmore/37th. Apart from the first week or so (with some admittedly terrible signage), I haven't seen drivers who 'can't even navigate the traffic circle at Glenmore / 37th'. All aspects of traffic at that intersection have improved dramatically since that interchange went in. Both circles are a good addition.

People in this city/country tend to overstate how bad drivers are in roundabouts. I hear a lot of people whining about the driving in the one by the Crowfoot LRT station - sure, there's the odd idiot who can't seem to figure it out, but that's no different than what happens every day with 4-way stops or lighted intersections. Personally when I pay attention, I don't see roundabouts being particularly better or worse in that respect - but I DO notice how much time I spend sitting at red lights when there's little to no cross traffic.

But for whatever reason, we tend to notice bad drivers at roundabouts more.

[Bassic Lab]

People in this city/country tend to overstate how bad drivers are in roundabouts. I hear a lot of people whining about the driving in the one by the Crowfoot LRT station - sure, there's the odd idiot who can't seem to figure it out, but that's no different than what happens every day with 4-way stops or lighted intersections. Personally when I pay attention, I don't see roundabouts being particularly better or worse in that respect - but I DO notice how much time I spend sitting at red lights when there's little to no cross traffic.

But for whatever reason, we tend to notice bad drivers at roundabouts more.

I really haven't noticed a problem at any single lane circles but there are a fair number of people who consistently misuse the multi-lane ones. If the police ever felt like setting up a trap for anything other than speeding, a day parked at the McKenzie Towne circle would generate a fair number of failure to yield, failure to signal, failure to follow signage, improper lane change, and so on tickets.

Of course the same could be said of just about anywhere but that behaviour seems more dangerous and disruptive to traffic at circles. I'm thinking here of all the people that tend to travel more than one exit in the right hand lane and neglect to yield to traffic in the left.

[Yahoo]

I'd love to see more roundabouts - at least single lane ones. If you can't figure out how to use one after 1 try then you should give up your license.

A lot of the Stoney Trail interchanges have lights at both ends on the side roads. It wouldn't work everywhere but in places like the Scenic/Tuscany & Stoney interchange it would really speed up traffic flow. The lights on both ends aren't timed at all, and you often see a bunch of cars waiting while a road with no cars has the green. The road in Scenic Acres is 2 lanes each way - divided (better specs than spots of Crowchild lol), but they would only really need 1 lane if there was a roundabout. The 2 lanes are mainly for storing traffic at the red lights. Change it to 1 lane with a wide shoulder and you'd have lots of room for a bike lane and a mini-Champs.

If they don't take up too much room (still an open question from Freeweed), I'm going to suggest it to the Alberta Transportation guys for the final build in that interchange. For some reason I see they have plans to reconfigure the turning circles anyway when the road reaches final build stage. It might be a 20-30 year wait, but it would be worth it.

[fusili]

I sometimes go partially out of my way to use the traffic circle at 26th avenue/highfield road/dartmouth, just because I like driving through traffic circles so much. Too fun!

[srperrycgy]

37th & Glenmore does move better, however it has created a problem at Richardson Way/45th Ave & 37th St. When 37th & Glenmore had traffic lights, there was enough of a traffic-free gap where a left turn from 37th onto Richardson could be made without a problem. Now, the 37th St traffic flows without gaps and the left turn onto Richardson becomes problematic. I notice this each morning as the #73 has to wait multiple lights or simply turns on the red.

[Ferreth]

One that I find amusing is the "traffic square" in Coventry, here (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.163811,-114.064822&spn=0.00508,0.007113&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&t=h&z=17).

It's a perfectly OK traffic distributor, but putting a playground in the middle of it - doesn't seem the best idea in my books.

The city is trying to push more traffic circles, but there is some resistance - my neighborhood of Mayland Heights was against the idea of a traffic circle at 19th & 14th Ave - we ended up with a traffic light instead :(

[Ferreth]

On another front, today's Alberta budget showed a marked decrease in funding for road infrastructure - nothing of any significance for the whole province in terms of new projects.

About the only road thing I see in the Calgary area is a 2012 contract to 6-lane the #2 between Crossfield and #581 (Carstairs exit)

I was hoping to see an interchange expansion for highway 22 and highway 2A - that is going to be a mess once the SE ring road opens up. Next year hopefully!

[5seconds]

37th & Glenmore does move better, however it has created a problem at Richardson Way/45th Ave & 37th St. When 37th & Glenmore had traffic lights, there was enough of a traffic-free gap where a left turn from 37th onto Richardson could be made without a problem. Now, the 37th St traffic flows without gaps and the left turn onto Richardson becomes problematic. I notice this each morning as the #73 has to wait multiple lights or simply turns on the red.

It honestly sounds like a second roundabout there would help, even a single-lane one (with dedicated turns). It's a wide area, the traffic from the south originates as a single lane, the traffic from the north will eventually narrow to a single lane, and there are enough people turning in all directions. I think it would be a good candidate for a circle.


One that I find amusing is the "traffic square" in Coventry, here (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.163811,-114.064822&spn=0.00508,0.007113&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&t=h&z=17).

It's a perfectly OK traffic distributor, but putting a playground in the middle of it - doesn't seem the best idea in my books.

The city is trying to push more traffic circles, but there is some resistance - my neighborhood of Mayland Heights was against the idea of a traffic circle at 19th & 14th Ave - we ended up with a traffic light instead :(

Garrison Woods has a similar one here

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.021341,-114.113665&spn=0.002662,0.006899&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&t=h&z=18

[srperrycgy]

It honestly sounds like a second roundabout there would help, even a single-lane one (with dedicated turns). It's a wide area, the traffic from the south originates as a single lane, the traffic from the north will eventually narrow to a single lane, and there are enough people turning in all directions. I think it would be a good candidate for a circle.


At that intersection now? No. A left-turn signal would be a good quick-fix. As for a circle, the City would have to buy up land to do it right.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

One that I find amusing is the "traffic square" in Coventry, here (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.163811,-114.064822&spn=0.00508,0.007113&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&t=h&z=17).

It's a perfectly OK traffic distributor, but putting a playground in the middle of it - doesn't seem the best idea in my books.

The city is trying to push more traffic circles, but there is some resistance - my neighborhood of Mayland Heights was against the idea of a traffic circle at 19th & 14th Ave - we ended up with a traffic light instead :(

i was on that traffic committee. the city said they sent out flyers to the community asking the residents if they would like to see a roundabout. guess what the uninformed public said?

[kw5150]

i was on that traffic committee. the city said they sent out flyers to the community asking the residents if they would like to see a roundabout. guess what the uninformed public said?

The said "not my tax dollars!" as usual.

[freeweed]

On another front, today's Alberta budget showed a marked decrease in funding for road infrastructure - nothing of any significance for the whole province in terms of new projects.

About the only road thing I see in the Calgary area is a 2012 contract to 6-lane the #2 between Crossfield and #581 (Carstairs exit)

This makes me wonder what kind of timeframe we're looking at in terms of seeing #2 made 6 lanes between Calgary and Edmonton. And #1 the same all the way to Canmore. I know the plans are on the books, but are we talking 10 years? 20? 40? With the growth here I have a hard time believing these roads will be sufficient in 20 years time.

[fusili]

this makes me wonder what kind of timeframe we're looking at in terms of seeing #2 made 6 lanes between calgary and edmonton. and #1 the same all the way to canmore. I know the plans are on the books, but are we talking 10 years? 20? 40? With the growth here i have a hard time believing these roads will be sufficient in 20 years time.

hsr?

[freeweed]

hsr?

Consider me more than a little skeptical about that one. I'm all for it however. I've been advocating for HSR into Banff as well, but that will never, ever fly.

[fusili]

Consider me more than a little skeptical about that one. I'm all for it however. I've been advocating for HSR into Banff as well, but that will never, ever fly.

If that could get me from DT Calgary to Banff and then immediately on a shuttle to Louise, I would be all for it. It would mean I wouldn't have to limit myself to just one pint at lunch. :)

[freeweed]

If that could get me from DT Calgary to Banff and then immediately on a shuttle to Louise, I would be all for it. It would mean I wouldn't have to limit myself to just one pint at lunch. :)

Plus avoid the 7am driving in pitch black January.

[Mazrim]

On another front, today's Alberta budget showed a marked decrease in funding for road infrastructure - nothing of any significance for the whole province in terms of new projects.

About the only road thing I see in the Calgary area is a 2012 contract to 6-lane the #2 between Crossfield and #581 (Carstairs exit)

I guess if you by new you mean "we have never heard about this until now", even though the Highway 2 6-laning isn't "new" either. There's a ton of huge $$$ projects on that list though that will be built in the next few years.

I'm personally glad they're going to do the Highway 1 / Dunmore Road Interchange in Medicine Hat. The intersection is a disaster especially now that the new power center thingy opened on the South side of the Highway.

[Ferreth]

Garrison Woods has a similar one here

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.021341,-114.113665&spn=0.002662,0.006899&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&t=h&z=18

Yeah, that's better, at least its less of a "child running across the street" magnet as a park. I was thinking space like that could work as a neighborhood strip mall space - it wouldn't suffer from the typical problems of limited access from certain directions that you get when you put them on a corner of a major road and a feeder road.

[mwalker_mw]

I've found in using the roundabouts in this city, at the very least, it is fairly easy to identify and avoid the users that can't figure them out. As the yield entry gives a lot of discretion in when you enter it is pretty easy to just wait for clear space and then go for it. So, yes, they don't always operate at peak efficiency due to unfamiliar users but I suspect they don't actually result in a great number of accidents. One could describe them as designed to fail gracefully. (Does anyone have any stats on this?)

My biggest complaint with Calgary's implementation is the 1.5 lane situations we see in some locations or the ones designed for 2 lanes eventually but painted for 1 for now. Somehow the engineers behind these have failed to realize that we have snow and gravel on the roads for half the year or more. Roundabouts need to be designed so that one can clearly tell if there is 1 or 2 lanes even when you can't see the lines on the road and have never driven it before. This could be more detailed signage, extra barriers, small grade differences etc. There are many options but one way or another better communication is needed. The wavy entries don't improve matters either as you are busy trying to navigate them when you could be looking at signage to figure out if you have 1 or 2 or more lanes to deal with. And, finally, half opening them with non-final traffic patterns results in people learning the wrong way to use them - these habits are hard to break when users are already uncertain.

So yes, we need more roundabouts, but there is still a ways to go on making them user friendly in our climate.

[Jimby]

I've found in using the roundabouts in this city, at the very least, it is fairly easy to identify and avoid the users that can't figure them out. As the yield entry gives a lot of discretion in when you enter it is pretty easy to just wait for clear space and then go for it. So, yes, they don't always operate at peak efficiency due to unfamiliar users but I suspect they don't actually result in a great number of accidents. One could describe them as designed to fail gracefully. (Does anyone have any stats on this?)

My biggest complaint with Calgary's implementation is the 1.5 lane situations we see in some locations or the ones designed for 2 lanes eventually but painted for 1 for now. Somehow the engineers behind these have failed to realize that we have snow and gravel on the roads for half the year or more. Roundabouts need to be designed so that one can clearly tell if there is 1 or 2 lanes even when you can't see the lines on the road and have never driven it before. This could be more detailed signage, extra barriers, small grade differences etc. There are many options but one way or another better communication is needed. The wavy entries don't improve matters either as you are busy trying to navigate them when you could be looking at signage to figure out if you have 1 or 2 or more lanes to deal with. And, finally, half opening them with non-final traffic patterns results in people learning the wrong way to use them - these habits are hard to break when users are already uncertain.

So yes, we need more roundabouts, but there is still a ways to go on making them user friendly in our climate.

I read somewhere that roundabout accidents were less serious for injuries than traditional intersection accidents as they are usually a sideswipe and not a t-bone or a head-on.

30 Ave & 4th St & Mission Road should have a roundabout as the 3 way traffic light is ridiculous.
I saw a police van go through a red light on 4th St because they were presumably looking at the green light on 30 Ave and if they can't figure it out, then how can the average incompetent Calgary driver know what to do?

[You Need A Thneed]

Airport Trail Tunnel - February Update (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/Airport-Tunnel-Update-February2012.pdf)

[tmjr]

Personally, I would love to see more roundabouts! I suspect any trouble navigating them could be partly addressed by having one-way signs at each entrance - at least until the populace is generally more familiar with roundabouts.

Last time this discussion came up here, there was a link to an article in the Herald saying the city's policy was to change traffic light controlled intersections to roundabouts when it came time to 'renovate' them, as warranted.

As I live in Scenic Acres, the intersections I would love to see changed to roundabouts are:

The two lights at the Stoney-Scenic Acres/Tuscany interchange
The three lights on Nose Hill just south of Crowchild
The intersection just before the bus gates in the Crowfoot LRT station south parking lot
The intersection at Scenic Acres Blvd and Scenic Acres/Scurfield Dr. That one was changed from a 4-way stop to traffic lights just after we moved into Scenic Acres; I guess traffic studies indicated that a traffic light was necessary there, but the 4-way stop seemed to be working fine (at least IMHO).


Scenic Acres seems to be generally overly conservative when it comes to traffic issues, so I'm not sure if these changes would fly, assuming they ever come up for discussion. If I get motivated enough, I may pursue looking into having the bus gates open at least during off-peak hours, and also have the lights at SA Blvd-SA/Scurfied Dr. changed to flashing red/yellow during off peak hours...

In any case, my fantasies about changing traffic lights to roundabouts caused me to think: under what conditions are roundabouts UNsuitable choices for an intersection? In my dream list above, I think certain directions have far more traffic flow than others; would that preclude a roundabout?

[kw5150]

Roundabout are fine. I dont care if people know how to use them. Build more!

[Joborule]

Roundabout are fine. I dont care if people know how to use them. Build more!

I concur. We need much more of them. People will learn; shoot they can barely operate a 4-way stop as it is.

[kw5150]

This is what bow trail entering Calgary should look like.





From Vancouver SSP:







http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6036/6244839715_fd93fdfb53_o.jpg
Photos by TMAB2003: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmab2003/6244839715/

[kw5150]

whoops

[UofC.engineer]

:previous:

It will look way better than that once West Village gets up and running!

I love how visible that bike lane is on the second street(towards the right) in that pic. I dunno if it is very new or the salt and sand just hasn't destroyed it like the bike lanes on our streets.

[Ferreth]

As of Jan 31st:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7191/6879068777_2e69fae917_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferreth/6879068777/)
96th Ave Construction i6094 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferreth/6879068777/) by ferreth (http://www.flickr.com/people/ferreth/), on Flickr

[sim]

As of Jan 31st:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7191/6879068777_2e69fae917_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferreth/6879068777/)
96th Ave Construction i6094 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferreth/6879068777/) by ferreth (http://www.flickr.com/people/ferreth/), on Flickr


Ahh, why are they building a bridge there when there is another one 1 km further up!!! Ahhh! Silly hall!

[ByeByeBaby]

Ahh, why are they building a bridge there when there is another one 1 km further up!!! Ahhh! Silly hall!

What a complete waste of MY/OUR money. The bridge wasn't needed nor wanted. I'd bet that 80% of Calgary's population never sets foot on that bridge. This bridge is another great example of the need for citizens to demand responsibility and accountability by those we put in charge of our tax dollars.

[suburb]

As of Jan 31st:
96th Ave Construction i6094 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferreth/6879068777/) by ferreth (http://www.flickr.com/people/ferreth/), on Flickr

Thanks! That is coming across very nicely.

Ahh, why are they building a bridge there when there is another one 1 km further up!!! Ahhh! Silly hall!

What a complete waste of MY/OUR money. The bridge wasn't needed nor wanted. I'd bet that 80% of Calgary's population never sets foot on that bridge. This bridge is another great example of the need for citizens to demand responsibility and accountability by those we put in charge of our tax dollars.

These plans are from prior municipal administrations, but speaking quite frankly, they are very much needed.

1. Connects Aurora business park to the airport
2. De-loads Beddington Trail from the added load Aurora business park will add
3. Provides a direct connection from the centre street coordidor to the airport, critical to public transit planning
4. Is a cross town connector from the NE to the NW

Even as the birds fly it is much more than 1 km to country hills. Distances on the current roads network from Aurora Business park would be heading West 1-2km, north 2km (curved section of HH Blvd), West 1km to get to the same longtitude that you started, an extra 1km to get to Deerfoot (as Deerfoot is angled to the East in that area) and then down 2km+ on the non-orthogonal section on Deerfoot. All of those were just the 'extra' portions, and discounting the travel along the latitude line from the business park to the other side of Deerfoot. Total extra would be 7-8km, and that does't include the extra lights or the fact that those roads weren't made for Aurora business park traffic.

Anyway - I've given you guys benefit of the doubt by trying to provide a proper answer, but I highly suspect you guys are 'forum terrorists' and really have no clue about Calgary's roads.

[fusili]

These plans are from prior municipal administrations, but speaking quite frankly, they are very much needed.

Anyway - I've given you guys benefit of the doubt by trying to provide a proper answer, but I highly suspect you guys are 'forum terrorists' and really have no clue about Calgary's roads.

Swing and a miss.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Suburb, they're joking.

[fusili]

I believe the Airport Trail bridge is absolutely necessary. Not only from a road connectivity standpoint, but also because it gives us a future connection between the Airport and whatever transit will end up at Aurora Park. Even if it is a Nose Creek Alignment, I think it is prudent to have the potential transit connection to the airport.

As much as I come off as anti-roads, there are definitely some road improvements that I see as useful, such as the Airport Tunnel, or the widening of 52nd Street SE.

[Innersoul1]

I would agreed that it is a much needed bridge. I don't live in that part of the city but when I do drive through that area Country Hills Blvd. is a mess. It's really congested and is a slow slog to get over to Beddington BLVD. As far as E/W accessibility and airport accessibillity it's much needed.

[kw5150]

As of Jan 31st:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7191/6879068777_2e69fae917_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferreth/6879068777/)
96th Ave Construction i6094 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferreth/6879068777/) by ferreth (http://www.flickr.com/people/ferreth/), on Flickr

Lol......the comments on this were hilarious! Its funny, I will probably only use that bridge once but I still support it.

How did this peace bridge thing get so bent out of shape? Stupid Rick Bell and the Sun.

[Ramsayfarian]

Lol......the comments on this were hilarious! Its funny, I will probably only use that bridge once but I still support it.

How did this peace bridge thing get so bent out of shape? Stupid Rick Bell and the Sun.

I can't speak for the rest of the mouth breathers, but my feelings for the Peace Bridge have nothing to do with Rick Bell or The Sun. Even our esteemed Mayor, thinks The Peace Bridge wasn't needed at that location and that the City acted inappropriately. However that's all water under the bridge now.

[kw5150]

I can't speak for the rest of the mouth breathers, but my feelings for the Peace Bridge have nothing to do with Rick Bell or The Sun. Even our esteemed Mayor, thinks The Peace Bridge wasn't needed at that location and that the City acted inappropriately. However that's all water under the bridge now.

What is wrong with the location again? Refresh my memory.

[Ramsayfarian]

What is wrong with the location again? Refresh my memory.

What's the point? As you've already drunk the kool-aid and the bridge is in place.

<Insert arguing on the internet is like the special olympics pic here>

[Yahoo]

As I live in Scenic Acres, the intersections I would love to see changed to roundabouts are:

The two lights at the Stoney-Scenic Acres/Tuscany interchange
The three lights on Nose Hill just south of Crowchild
The intersection just before the bus gates in the Crowfoot LRT station south parking lot
The intersection at Scenic Acres Blvd and Scenic Acres/Scurfield Dr. That one was changed from a 4-way stop to traffic lights just after we moved into Scenic Acres; I guess traffic studies indicated that a traffic light was necessary there, but the 4-way stop seemed to be working fine (at least IMHO).




I also live in Scenic Acres and would love to see a roundabout at each end of the Stoney Trail interchange. I've only ever driven through a roundabout once myself (sheltered life I guess), but it worked well. Considering that the plan is to eventually tear part of it up anyway when they do the final Stoney trail buildout it would be a good time to make the change. They have so much wasted pavement in the areas of the interchanges I think they made some pretty poor choices. For example having yields when merge lanes could have been added. Or people exiting right having to wait at a light because of lack of a turn lane. The light timing is awful and the traffic volume is small enough that a one lane roundabout would be perfect.

I agree that the 4-way stop worked fine in Scenic Acres Blvd. I don't know if there were studies, it just seemed like a few people whined and made a big deal out of getting a traffic light put in. I've never seen a high volume of traffic at that intersection - but I have seem people run stop signs within the district. I guess visitors just sometimes don't pay attention in districts and miss the stop signs, so perhaps that's a good reason to have lights.

I think small 1 lane roundabouts make the most sense. I'm not a fan of the big multilane traffic circles and would be horrified if the city started thinking of using them as a replacement for building interchanges on major roadways. When traffic volumes are high I don't think circles are the way to go.

Some of your other suggested roads I'm not sure if there would be too much traffic volume or enough land to build workable roundabouts.

[Yahoo]

I would agreed that it is a much needed bridge. I don't live in that part of the city but when I do drive through that area Country Hills Blvd. is a mess. It's really congested and is a slow slog to get over to Beddington BLVD. As far as E/W accessibility and airport accessibillity it's much needed.

Country Hills Blvd is a perfect example of a poorly planned roadway. You don't purposely under-build a main new road. It's one of the relatively newest roads in the city but for years the speed-limit was 50, 60, 70, and 80 kph depending where you were. It has inconsistent designs all along the road. Some places left room for new lanes where in others they allowed houses to be built right on the edge of the roadway. 100 years from now do you want to bet the city will be looking at buying up those houses and cursing us for such poor planning?

When we build new main roads we really need to leave room for future lanes, trees, bike & walking paths, trees, utility corridors, trees, and even room for trains or some sort of transit (and trees). At least on anything that is a main road. (On Stoney they pretty much did it right except in areas around Nose Hill & Scenic Acres - but I'm still baffled why the northeast swings so far northeast and didn't just curve through what appears to be a giant empty field)

[suburb]

Country Hills Blvd is a perfect example of a poorly planned roadway. You don't purposely under-build a main new road. It's one of the relatively newest roads in the city but for years the speed-limit was 50, 60, 70, and 80 kph depending where you were. It has inconsistent designs all along the road. Some places left room for new lanes where in others they allowed houses to be built right on the edge of the roadway. 100 years from now do you want to bet the city will be looking at buying up those houses and cursing us for such poor planning?

When we build new main roads we really need to leave room for future lanes, trees, bike & walking paths, trees, utility corridors, trees, and even room for trains or some sort of transit (and trees). At least on anything that is a main road. (On Stoney they pretty much did it right except in areas around Nose Hill & Scenic Acres - but I'm still baffled why the northeast swings so far northeast and didn't just curve through what appears to be a giant empty field)

I do agree that it has inconsistencies, but it was never meant to be a freeway needing expansion. Stoney Trail was meant for that. If all roads in the city were like Stoney Trail, we'd be looking like Dallas IE the pig under the lipstick ;)

[Yahoo]

I do agree that it has inconsistencies, but it was never meant to be a freeway needing expansion. Stoney Trail was meant for that. If all roads in the city were like Stoney Trail, we'd be looking like Dallas IE the pig under the lipstick ;)

I guess I overstated my wishes since it wouldn't be practical to leave too much room on many NEW main roads, but what we're doing now isn't good enough.

Country Hills Blvd (CHB) was never meant to be a freeway but in any case we should have assumed that we will eventually need 3-4 lanes each way and some land for future bike paths, bus lanes or LRT lines. And use the same speed limit and building standards for the entire road since it was built on virgin land. We had a blank slate on CHB and blew it. (Nose Hill drive has the same issues -it was a gravel road out in the country and has been modified dozens of times over the years because it wasn't built right the first time). Even the city admitted they underestimated what was needed on CHB. Who knows, if CHB was built properly perhaps the airport tunnel could have been unnecessary.

I think the city assumed that when Stoney was built it would almost make CHB unneeded except for local traffic. This of course was wrong. It will always be a major east-west roadway because of the thousands of people that live around it. It's much better in my opinion if we build a bunch of decent but smaller main roads in the city rather than forcing traffic onto one or two big roads. If you just build a few main routes you end up needing these massive congested freeways as the population grows. Imagine Calgary at 3-5 million people using the road system we have now. I'd sooner see a decent CHB and Stoney Trail north then Stoney being upgraded to 10 lanes each way. It's not something for us to worry about, but we might as well make things better for future generations.

I don't find it at all attractive to have houses right along main roads. And it isn't just the ugly siding and lack of trees. It severely limits future generations. A thoughtful plan now is better than a controversy in 100 years. Calgary is lucky in that we do have room around most edges of the city and at least for the new roads we can plan for the future.

I don't see Dallas as a pig under lipstick - at least from the pictures posted here. Freeways and main roads may not be pretty but if you do build them at least keep housing away from the edges. Roads are like sewage treatment plants - necessary, so if we build them we should at least leave room for expansion. And the only way to pretty them up is with bike paths and trees - which don't fit if you don't leave room.

[kw5150]

What's the point? As you've already drunk the kool-aid and the bridge is in place.

<Insert arguing on the internet is like the special olympics pic here>

zaclee

[ByeByeBaby]

Anyway - I've given you guys benefit of the doubt by trying to provide a proper answer, but I highly suspect you guys are 'forum terrorists' and really have no clue about Calgary's roads.

Sorry to have troubled you; I agree with you 100% on it - 96th is clearly a key roadway. I thought the joke was obvious; I was just quoting some Herald reader comments on that other bridge. ;)


Country Hills Blvd (CHB) was never meant to be a freeway but in any case we should have assumed that we will eventually need 3-4 lanes each way and some land for future bike paths, bus lanes or LRT lines. <snip> Even the city admitted they underestimated what was needed on CHB. Who knows, if CHB was built properly perhaps the airport tunnel could have been unnecessary.

I don't think CHB -- talking about Stoney to Deerfoot; obviously east of Deerfoot is a totally different situation -- will ever be over 3 lanes anywhere, and probably won't need more than 2 for most of it's length. The communities around it are already developed, except for a few lots here and there. The rest of the northern communities to develop in the future will be on the other side of a freeway. The traffic growth from here on out will be pretty minor; certainly not a doubling in volume to warrant 4 lanes, unless Stoney (which has crazy room for expansion) isn't expanded, but that's just silly.

Where did the City admit they underestimated what was needed on CHB? I don't remember hearing this.

No idea where anyone would get the idea that CHB, at any number of lanes, would be a good replacement for 96th Ave.

[Yahoo]

Where did the City admit they underestimated what was needed on CHB? I don't remember hearing this.


I don't recall if I read it or heard it on the news but I believe the interchange at Beddington/CHB was needed years ahead of schedule because they underestimated the traffic volume. Considering the young age of the CHB roadway - needing to upgrade it to 6 lanes in sections, not long after it was already upgraded, shows that it wasn't adequately thought out. Even in the NW section, around say Superstore, there can be some pretty silly traffic jams even on the weekend - traffic jams that won't be getting smaller as the city grows. Traffic jams that could have been avoided with a wider roadway built when there was nothing there but cows and gophers. The area will likely never need an interchange, but it could already use another lane, or at least some long merge and exit lanes.

You see here for example the city mentioning widening CHB to 6 lanes, which isn't even possible further down the road (without buying houses - will we ever learn? lol).

Stoney, like Deerfoot, will someday become maddeningly crowded and need an upgrade. And we all know that road upgrades often happen decades after they are needed. CHB will be the obvious alternative route when people start avoiding Stoney like they avoid Deerfoot.

From the City of Calgary website:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Road-projects/SBC-Widening.aspx

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/SBC-widening/sbc_newsletter_jan2006.pdf

It's hard to imagine sometimes how the city has grown. I can remember when Crowchild Trail north was 2 lanes by the university (lol - I mean the busy parts that aren't still 2 lanes). But someone was thinking ahead when they left room for both an LRT line and multi-lane roadway in the far northern sections. They even have some room for trees and a bikepath on the hill if that ever makes sense. Perhaps the didn't think about a city of 3-5 million which I'm sure Calgary will ultimately become, but it was better thought out than usual.

In any case I do my part and rarely use CHB now that Stoney NE is open. I only turn onto CHB as it leaves the city when going to Drumheller. Not that I couldn't take CHB all the way, but it's just such a joy to drive Stoney and it has been so painful to take CHB.

[5seconds]

Talking of roundabouts, I never knew that the Elbow Drive/Landsdown Avenue intersection was a roundabout 50 years ago. I always knew it was a strange intersection, but never it never occurred to me why.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=yWZkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z3wNAAAAIBAJ&dq=elbow%20drive%20traffic%20circle&pg=1482%2C5197661

http://maps.google.ca/?ll=51.016758,-114.078051&spn=0.00515,0.009645&t=h&z=17

[kw5150]

Even a baby could navigate a roundabout, Im not sure why people have such a hard time with them.

[sim]

:previous: Stupid next page. This refers to KW's previous post.

This isn't necessarily true for pedestrians. Roundabouts first of all increase walking distance if the pedestrian wishes to go straight through it (not right or left). Secondly, if flows are heavy and there is no signalization (even with zebra stripes) the pedestrian may have a less safe crossing experience.

For cycling, roundabouts can cause even greater problems.

[MalcolmTucker]

Single lane roundabouts I have no problem with on a bike. Multilane ones are harder with the mandatory lane changes if one is going more than one exit around.

[5seconds]

Community group wanting to make Highway 8 upgrades an election issue:

http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/local/article/1118922--sw-residents-make-traffic-congestion-an-election-issue

I still think the Province could pave a single 'ribbon' that followed the part of the 2009 ring road plan for a highway 8 upgrade. Then if the 2009 plan went ahead, that strip would already be there. And if not, the road would at least be temporarily improved until another plan was created.

I'm sure they could improve that part of the road in a way that wasn't wasted regardless of future road plans in the area.

[kw5150]

:previous: Stupid next page. This refers to KW's previous post.

This isn't necessarily true for pedestrians. Roundabouts first of all increase walking distance if the pedestrian wishes to go straight through it (not right or left). Secondly, if flows are heavy and there is no signalization (even with zebra stripes) the pedestrian may have a less safe crossing experience.

For cycling, roundabouts can cause even greater problems.

Sorry, was referring to those small one lane ones. The larger they get, the harder they would be to navigate I would think.

[You Need A Thneed]

Airport Trail Tunnel - March Update (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/Airport-Tunnel-Update-March2012.pdf)

[kw5150]

Airport Trail Tunnel - March Update (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/Airport-Tunnel-Update-March2012.pdf)

COOL! Thanks. This will really benefit the entire NE and others. I like how they show which sections are being worked on.

[You Need A Thneed]

COOL! Thanks. This will really benefit the entire NE and others. I like how they show which sections are being worked on.

I suspect that the chart showing which sections are complete is out of date. The first pours were on Feb 24, and nothing has been added in the nearly 3 weeks since. I believe that they have to be complete the tunnel structure by the end of October, which would mean that they would have to complete 2 sections (one on each side of centre) every 10 days. It's now 19 days since the graph has been updated.

It wouldn't be the first time a graph like that has been made and then not updated.

[You Need A Thneed]

Also, with those big giant tents enclosing the area, you can now really see the construction from the public roads surrounding the project.

[DoubleK]

The first pours were on Feb 24, and nothing has been added in the nearly 3 weeks since

It wouldn't be the first time a graph like that has been made and then not updated.

Suspect they are waiting to see how the concrete is curing. You would want that data before continuing to create new sections to make adjustments when necessary. Their production will increase as weather improves and as the crews get better at it.

If push came to shove, they could use an accelerant to shorten the cure time, but that does not come without drawbacks.

[freeweed]

Also, with those big giant tents enclosing the area, you can now really see the construction from the public roads surrounding the project.

No kidding! I've been to the airport an awful lot lately but JUST noticed the tunnel work the other day. Between that and the new terminal, the place is buzzing with activity.

[You Need A Thneed]

Suspect they are waiting to see how the concrete is curing. You would want that data before continuing to create new sections to make adjustments when necessary. Their production will increase as weather improves and as the crews get better at it.

If push came to shove, they could use an accelerant to shorten the cure time, but that does not come without drawbacks.

That shouldn't be a problem, the know what the strength will be from the testing that's done before the concrete goes into the concrete pump.

Though it is true that the type of repetitive work that they will be doing does tend to speed up significantly as it goes along.

There shouldn't be any requirement for accelerant, they don't have any reason to need the concrete to reach strength any quicker then the standard 28 days.

[Mazrim]

Community group wanting to make Highway 8 upgrades an election issue:

http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/local/article/1118922--sw-residents-make-traffic-congestion-an-election-issue

I still think the Province could pave a single 'ribbon' that followed the part of the 2009 ring road plan for a highway 8 upgrade. Then if the 2009 plan went ahead, that strip would already be there. And if not, the road would at least be temporarily improved until another plan was created.

I'm sure they could improve that part of the road in a way that wasn't wasted regardless of future road plans in the area.
IIRC, there's design work being done on the twinning project for Highway 8 as we speak and we'll be seeing progress out in the field next year.

[5seconds]

IIRC, there's design work being done on the twinning project for Highway 8 as we speak and we'll be seeing progress out in the field next year.

I thought the twinning project was to be stopped just west of 101st street, and that the province was just going to wait for SWCRR plans to be finalised before taking care of the Sarcee-101st section.

If they are not going to wait for that, good for them. I will be interested to see the plans.

[Mazrim]

I thought the twinning project was to be stopped just west of 101st street, and that the province was just going to wait for SWCRR plans to be finalised before taking care of the Sarcee-101st section.

If they are not going to wait for that, good for them. I will be interested to see the plans.

You might be right, I don't know a whole lot about that project. I can only hope they do some interim widening to Glenmore/Sarcee because that area is a disaster.

[DoubleK]

Is there any consideration being given to limiting truck traffic on Deerfoot once Stony Trail is in service?

[mwalker_mw]

Is there any consideration being given to limiting truck traffic on Deerfoot once Stony Trail is in service?

Are trucks really a problem on deerfoot? For the most part they seem to be able to drive in a consistent and predictable manner. (this isn't rhetorical - I've never found them to be an issue, curious if anyone else has and why.)

I think we'd gain more by banning people over 60 and minivans....

[bigcanuck]

Are trucks really a problem on deerfoot? For the most part they seem to be able to drive in a consistent and predictable manner. (this isn't rhetorical - I've never found them to be an issue, curious if anyone else has and why.)

I think we'd gain more by banning people over 60 and minivans....

Offense taken...

[You Need A Thneed]

Is there any consideration being given to limiting truck traffic on Deerfoot once Stony Trail is in service?

Enough of the truck traffic will naturally gravitate to Stoney that you won't have to worry about any limit.

I'm not sure why anyone woud want a full ban anyway. Trucks need to get around inside the city too, not just around the city.

[5seconds]

You might be right, I don't know a whole lot about that project. I can only hope they do some interim widening to Glenmore/Sarcee because that area is a disaster.

Of all of the portions of that road to upgrade, the Sarcee-69th is easily the most needing of attention, and that's the part that (i believe) is being left out of these improvements.

I kind of understand why, but then again not really; if history has taught us anything, it's that SWCRR agreements and decisions are never just around the corner.

See this article from 1985. Apparently the negotiations were settled, and the road is approved! lol
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/jessesalus/Sun-24-7-85.png

[freeweed]

Offense taken...

OK then, can we just ban minivan drivers instead? ;)