Calgary Roads

[Yahoo]

Lets be honest if there is no way the city is going to be able to get a billion dollars to improve Crowchild in the next 20-30 years. [/URL])

I don't think a billion is an unreasonable amount of money - especially over what you suggest 20-30 years. That's like $33M per year. An easy amount to come up with for staged improvements.

I don't know how they came up with that number anyway. The KHC project in BC is projected to cost $630M, for 12 bridges, 6 sheds, 2 tunnels, and construction in about the worst place possible.

Even if it does work out to be $1B, we're living in a world where a high school is $60M, a hospital is about $1.5B etc. Canada has a trillion dollar economy and there are times when Alberta has had billions in surpluses (too bad Ralph ignored infrastructure at the time - these projects might be done by now). If we have a plan in place and start with the easy stuff it won't be a hard pill to swallow.

But I'm baffled how you suggest that there are no economic benefits to fixing congestion. I guess even if their aren't any it comes down to quality of life. If you look at a lot of the quality of life indexes Calgary does really well outside of complaints about congestion. (particularly for a city our size)

[Yahoo]

Wondering - has there ever been a practical way to use rush hour lane reversals on free flowing divided roadways - and then perhaps use that lane for express buses & hov?

If it's something that can be practically designed that seems to be a good compromise on roadways once they have no other option then to go HOV. Win-win so to speak, since you get an HOV lane on an little used section of road going against rush hour traffic. Perhaps once Calgary has a free flowing skeletal road network then we could look at this when the volume becomes too great? Or is lane reversal impractical on a free flowing roadway? I recall in Houston they had some middle lane HOV's between the barriers on some freeways but I was too busy to see how they worked.

[Full Mountain]

Induced demand may occur in some places but it has nothing to do with the issues on Crowchild. Crowchild is simply about fixing a roadway that was successfully upgraded to the north and south, yet ignored in the busiest sections.

I think you missed the point, the only reason the rest of Crowchild isn't overloaded is due to the bottleneck caused through this section, remove this bottle neck the next one will come along in short order.

How do you propose putting an HOV down the center of Crowchild without fixing the road? It's a 2 lane road in many of the places that need work. There is no middle to use for HOV. Or maybe you think the solution is to take a narrow main roadway and make it even more unusable. I think that would be a great idea - since it would wake the silent majority that use the road.

Left hand lane. See below

Perhaps your solution is just to have everyone walk to work - since you seem to have a thing against people in vehicles. Me, I live in the real world.

The issue is that a fully loaded private vehicle is the least efficient use of roadway.

Average car size: (back of napkin basis given 2013 Ford Explorer: 16.42' x 7.5' and 2003 Mazda Protege5: 14.2' x ~6'): 14' x 6' = 84 sq feet - 5 pax per car gives 16.8 sq feet per pax

60' New Flyer: 60.8' x 9.5' = 577.6 sq feet - 100 pax per bus (116 crush load) gives 5.8 sq feet per pax

A 60' bus carries the equivalent of 66.66 cars worth of passengers yet only takes the space of 7 cars

40' New Flyer: 41' x 9.5' = 389.5 sq feet - 75 pax per bus (85 crush load) gives 5.2 sq feet per pax

A 40' bus carries the equivalent of 50 cars worth of passengers yet only takes the space of 4.6 cars

Note: this doesn't include following distance or lane width

Given a road way with a capacity of 500 cars per hour (2500 people per hour (5 people per car)) converting that roadway to bus only would allow 108 - 40' buses per hour would result in the road moving 8150 people per hour slightly over a three times increase in capacity, without spending a penny on the road only on vehicles.

In a time of scarce resources (land and money) for any transportation (road or transit) project how can you justify spending money on anything but the most efficient mode of transportation?

Sources:
New Flyer Specs (http://www.newflyer.com/index/xcelsior_specifications)
Ford (pdf) (http://assets.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/assets/2013_Ford_Explorer_J1/NGBS/Nameplate_SpecificationLiteDoc/Nameplate_SpecificationLiteDoc_8801F25B-A0D3-23EF-21EC-7CDA21EC7CDA.pdf)
Cars.com (Mazda specs) (http://www.cars.com/mazda/protege5/2003/specifications/)

[fusili]

In a time of scarce resources (land and money) for any transportation (road or transit) project how can you justify spending money on anything but the most efficient mode of transportation?


Great point. Just an FYI, a typical vehicle lane handles around 1850 vehicles per hour at "saturated flow" according to the City's technical standards. Theoretically you can get higher than that, maybe 2200 per hour, but there is a point where that rapidly decreases due to congestion.They also use a approximation of 1.2 people per vehicle. That works out to about 2200 people per direction per hour.

With transit vehicles, think in terms of achievable headways. Buses can maybe get 30 sec or less- so 30 vehicles an hour. This however, cannot include stops, and will only include a right of way being used by several routes. A typical bus is around a 60 person capacity, so that is around 7200 people per direction per hour, so about 3x as much. I've heard some BRTs can get around 20K per direction.

Our LRT is able to handle 38 (?) trains per hour on 7th avenue. The crush load on a single train car is about 200 people. So with 3 car trains, that means 7th avenue can handle just over 22K people per direction, which is around 10x a car lane.

Obviously if we put transit lanes everywhere, the number of passengers per hour would not come close to the maximum, but in select cases, it definitely makes sense to have dedicated transit lanes. Centre street north would probably be a viable candidate.

[Full Mountain]

Great point. Just an FYI, a typical vehicle lane handles around 1850 vehicles per hour at "saturated flow" according to the City's technical standards. Theoretically you can get higher than that, maybe 2200 per hour, but there is a point where that rapidly decreases due to congestion.They also use a approximation of 1.2 people per vehicle. That works out to about 2200 people per direction per hour.

With transit vehicles, think in terms of achievable headways. Buses can maybe get 30 sec or less- so 30 vehicles an hour. This however, cannot include stops, and will only include a right of way being used by several routes. A typical bus is around a 60 person capacity, so that is around 7200 people per direction per hour, so about 3x as much. I've heard some BRTs can get around

Our LRT is able to handle 38 (?) trains per hour on 7th avenue. The crush load on a single train car is about 200 people. So with 3 car trains, that means 7th avenue can handle just over 22K people per direction, which is around 10x a car lane.

Obviously if we put transit lanes everywhere, the number of passengers per hour would not come close to the maximum, but in select cases, it definitely makes sense to have dedicated transit lanes. Centre street north would probably be a viable candidate.

Thanks for the numbers, I was basing purely on size, but your numbers still reinforce the point.

[Full Mountain]

Wondering - has there ever been a practical way to use rush hour lane reversals on free flowing divided roadways - and then perhaps use that lane for express buses & hov?

If it's something that can be practically designed that seems to be a good compromise on roadways once they have no other option then to go HOV. Win-win so to speak, since you get an HOV lane on an little used section of road going against rush hour traffic. Perhaps once Calgary has a free flowing skeletal road network then we could look at this when the volume becomes too great? Or is lane reversal impractical on a free flowing roadway? I recall in Houston they had some middle lane HOV's between the barriers on some freeways but I was too busy to see how they worked.

That's good idea!

[Calgarian]

I love driving when it snows, I went driving around Mount Royal last night looking for some powder to play in lol.

[You Need A Thneed]

Wondering - has there ever been a practical way to use rush hour lane reversals on free flowing divided roadways - and then perhaps use that lane for express buses & hov?

If it's something that can be practically designed that seems to be a good compromise on roadways once they have no other option then to go HOV. Win-win so to speak, since you get an HOV lane on an little used section of road going against rush hour traffic. Perhaps once Calgary has a free flowing skeletal road network then we could look at this when the volume becomes too great? Or is lane reversal impractical on a free flowing roadway? I recall in Houston they had some middle lane HOV's between the barriers on some freeways but I was too busy to see how they worked.

I'm sure other places have them too, But San Diego has a movable divider on the Coronado Bridge. The physical barrier gets moved - there is a vehicle that "zips" the barrier over.

Google Streetview. (https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=google+maps+san+diego&ll=32.682947,-117.153826&spn=0.070146,0.120764&hnear=San+Diego,+California,+United+States&gl=ca&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=32.686685,-117.159663&panoid=8-Oq2RrubEw1VC12xx5PYw&cbp=12,260.83,,0,0)

Here's the trucks that move the barrier over. (https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=google+maps+san+diego&ll=32.689652,-117.165252&spn=0.002803,0.007548&hnear=San+Diego,+California,+United+States&gl=ca&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=32.689654,-117.165252&panoid=2A_KjCkREB0qSuK8Q1R7kQ&cbp=11,292.07,,0,2.49)

[suburbia]

Average car size: (back of napkin basis given 2013 Ford Explorer: 16.42' x 7.5' and 2003 Mazda Protege5: 14.2' x ~6'): 14' x 6' = 84 sq feet - 5 pax per car gives 16.8 sq feet per pax

Very few times would it be a good thing to travel three across in the back-seat of a protege. What did you estimate - 6' across not discounting for thickness of the doors? There would be more pregnancies than there were with twister!

[Full Mountain]

Very few times would it be a good thing to travel three across in the back-seat of a protege. What did you estimate - 6' across not discounting for thickness of the doors? There would be more pregnancies than there were with twister!

6' is the outside dimension mirror to mirror, but yeah unless someone is mighty small 3 across in most vehicles is nigh on impossible

[Doug]

I'm sure other places have them too, But San Diego has a movable divider on the Coronado Bridge. The physical barrier gets moved - there is a vehicle that "zips" the barrier over.

Google Streetview. (https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=google+maps+san+diego&ll=32.682947,-117.153826&spn=0.070146,0.120764&hnear=San+Diego,+California,+United+States&gl=ca&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=32.686685,-117.159663&panoid=8-Oq2RrubEw1VC12xx5PYw&cbp=12,260.83,,0,0)

Here's the trucks that move the barrier over. (https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=google+maps+san+diego&ll=32.689652,-117.165252&spn=0.002803,0.007548&hnear=San+Diego,+California,+United+States&gl=ca&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=32.689654,-117.165252&panoid=2A_KjCkREB0qSuK8Q1R7kQ&cbp=11,292.07,,0,2.49)

Lots of US cities have reversible freeway lanes or "contra flow" as they are known down here.

[DoubleK]

So now is the time for creative solutions to improve Crowchild do a Lake Fraser Gate on all the intersections from 5th to 24th. Right in right out during rush hour really left turns are still possible it just sends people a little out of their way.

Love this idea!!! I have benefited immensely from the Lake Fraser Gate solution. The only question that I have is why they aren't doing it during evening rush as well.

These low cost/no cost solutions solutions have the potential to create some efficiencies to traffic flow as well as buying time to develop transit solutions/transportation plans.

[Doug]

One thing I've never understood is why lotto winnings are tax free.

Because the government runs most lottos. A $50M prize that is tax free would be the same as a $90M prize that was taxable. The lotto could market either and the impact to its revenue would be the same. Marketing a $90M prize would likley sell more tickets.

[You Need A Thneed]

Because the government runs most lottos. A $50M prize that is tax free would be the same as a $90M prize that was taxable. The lotto could market either and the impact to its revenue would be the same. Marketing a $90M prize would likley sell more tickets.

I've always wondered about those huge American lotteries - if a Canadian ever one one of those, they would put a large dent in the tax revenue of some State, that wouldn't get its $150 Million.

[Wooster]

Love this idea!!! I have benefited immensely from the Lake Fraser Gate solution. The only question that I have is why they aren't doing it during evening rush as well.

These low cost/no cost solutions solutions have the potential to create some efficiencies to traffic flow as well as buying time to develop transit solutions/transportation plans.

Yep - Council gave Transportation $2m additional funding annually to do these kinds of low cost high benefit projects around town.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+traffic+Congestion+more+common+planners+turn+creative+cheap+solutions/7664063/story.html

[Bassic Lab]

I don't think a billion is an unreasonable amount of money - especially over what you suggest 20-30 years. That's like $33M per year. An easy amount to come up with for staged improvements.

I don't know how they came up with that number anyway. The KHC project in BC is projected to cost $630M, for 12 bridges, 6 sheds, 2 tunnels, and construction in about the worst place possible.

Even if it does work out to be $1B, we're living in a world where a high school is $60M, a hospital is about $1.5B etc. Canada has a trillion dollar economy and there are times when Alberta has had billions in surpluses (too bad Ralph ignored infrastructure at the time - these projects might be done by now). If we have a plan in place and start with the easy stuff it won't be a hard pill to swallow.

But I'm baffled how you suggest that there are no economic benefits to fixing congestion. I guess even if their aren't any it comes down to quality of life. If you look at a lot of the quality of life indexes Calgary does really well outside of complaints about congestion. (particularly for a city our size)

Combine the billion dollar Crowchild fix with all the other road improvements necessary to have that free flow skeletal network you want: Glenmore @ Deerfoot, Glenmore @ Ogden/Shepard, Glenmore @ Barlow, Glenmore @ 52 St, Sarcee @ Bow Trail, Sarcee @ Richmond, 16 Ave @ Bowfort, 16 Ave @ 68 St, Macleod @ Heritage (north of the point where Macleod ceases to be a skeletal road but it's busy enough and probably necessary for the SLRT to really exploit an 8 Ave Subway), Macleod @ 25 Ave (same as Heritage), Macleod @ 162 Ave/Sun Valley, Macleod @ 194 Ave. That doesn't even touch on McKnight, Blackfoot, Anderson, 14 St S, Barlow, Sarcee N, Shaganappi, John Laurie, etcetera, or the massive work that a downloaded Deerfoot will require to function over the next 20-30 years.

A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we're talking about real money. On top of that, transportation infrastructure costs will also be required for transit and you want Calgary Transit to forgo the ~100 million it receives annually from the fare box. You say that you recognize the need for compromise, well Calgary could easily use 20 billion worth of transportation infrastructure over the next 20 years. Something will need to be compromised.

[sim]

Induced demand may occur in some places but it has nothing to do with the issues on Crowchild.

Oh yeah? I'm all ears as to how you reached this conclusion.

[Cage]

I've always wondered about those huge American lotteries - if a Canadian ever one one of those, they would put a large dent in the tax revenue of some State, that wouldn't get its $150 Million.

The Canadian would still pay the American taxes, however the Canadian would see a large foreign tax credit to offset Canadian taxes.

[You Need A Thneed]

The Canadian would still pay the American taxes, however the Canadian would see a large foreign tax credit to offset Canadian taxes.

Why would a Canadian pay any American tax?

(I don't mean to take this off topic)

[freeweed]

Why would a Canadian pay any American tax?

(I don't mean to take this off topic)

Because the money was earned in the US. Blame US tax law.

This is a fairly complicated subject, by the way. Fly through LAS sometime and you'll see advertising everywhere that is specifically devoted just to this very topic.

[SubwayRev]

Wondering - has there ever been a practical way to use rush hour lane reversals on free flowing divided roadways - and then perhaps use that lane for express buses & hov?

A big stretch of I-5 through Seattle includes Express Lanes, which are a section of freeway three or four lanes wide, which change direction depending on the time of day. They're in between the Northbound and Southbound sections.

[Acey]

A big stretch of I-5 through Seattle includes Express Lanes, which are a section of freeway three or four lanes wide, which change direction depending on the time of day. They're in between the Northbound and Southbound sections.

Works decently well, based on the little time I've spent in Seattle. Can't really think of anywhere in Calgary where this would be of great value.

[freeweed]

Works decently well, based on the little time I've spent in Seattle. Can't really think of anywhere in Calgary where this would be of great value.

Deerfoot heading into/out of downtown (the directions would be different obviously). Crowchild.

I can see huge value here (hell, we already do this on Memorial, not sure why this seems like a new concept to some). The question is how the hell do we implement it. I've always wondered why roads weren't built like this in the first place - rush hours where 90% of the traffic heads in one direction has been the norm for at least 50 years.

[fusili]

Deerfoot heading into/out of downtown (the directions would be different obviously). Crowchild.

I can see huge value here (hell, we already do this on Memorial, not sure why this seems like a new concept to some). The question is how the hell do we implement it. I've always wondered why roads weren't built like this in the first place - rush hours where 90% of the traffic heads in one direction has been the norm for at least 50 years.

Deerfoot isn't so simple. There is actually a lot of traffic heading north from the south and vice versa during each rush. Lots of industrial jobs in the NE and SE make Deerfoot pretty two-way. Difficult with this road.

[para transit fellow]

Deerfoot isn't so simple. There is actually a lot of traffic heading north from the south and vice versa during each rush. Lots of industrial jobs in the NE and SE make Deerfoot pretty two-way. Difficult with this road.

Might be able to use google traffic to visualize that.

http://goo.gl/maps/H8G8z

[fusili]

Might be able to use google traffic to visualize that.

http://goo.gl/maps/H8G8z

Cool, thanks.

[Acey]

Crowchild.

I can see huge value here (hell, we already do this on Memorial, not sure why this seems like a new concept to some). The question is how the hell do we implement it. I've always wondered why roads weren't built like this in the first place - rush hours where 90% of the traffic heads in one direction has been the norm for at least 50 years.

I should said "where this is feasible" as opposed to great value. Seems like we're committed to LRT in the median of Crowchild so I didn't mention it; I'm often stuck heading toward downtown on Deerfoot from the NE. We don't really have room for any major 3-4 lane roadway adjacent to our current roadways without some major bulldozing, bridge construction, or whatever.

[freeweed]

Deerfoot isn't so simple. There is actually a lot of traffic heading north from the south and vice versa during each rush. Lots of industrial jobs in the NE and SE make Deerfoot pretty two-way. Difficult with this road.

While this traffic exists, I'm not sure I'd call it "pretty two-way". I'd love to see some actual hard figures on this - I know that anecdotally, when I drive against the usual rush hour traffic it feels like MAYBE 20-30% contraflow. You could easily switch a lane over and not impact the other direction.

Of course, a single lane on much of Deerfoot wouldn't really add much. The gridlock in many areas results from on/off ramps, lanes disappearing, bridges and curves (OMG SLOW DOWN FOR CALF ROBE EVERYONE!!), etc.

[Ramsayfarian]

Might be able to use google traffic to visualize that.

http://goo.gl/maps/H8G8z

I was using google maps last night as I was heading out to dinner. It is magically accurate.

[MalcolmTucker]

While this traffic exists, I'm not sure I'd call it "pretty two-way". I'd love to see some actual hard figures on this - I know that anecdotally, when I drive against the usual rush hour traffic it feels like MAYBE 20-30% contraflow. You could easily switch a lane over and not impact the other direction.

Of course, a single lane on much of Deerfoot wouldn't really add much. The gridlock in many areas results from on/off ramps, lanes disappearing, bridges and curves (OMG SLOW DOWN FOR CALF ROBE EVERYONE!!), etc.

Traffic congestion is heavily impacted by the U shaped curve of capacity versus speed.

The road that is flowing well may only have 5% less traffic than the one that is all fouled up. Especially since throughput capacity maxes out at around 80 kph for any given lane, not withstanding interactions with exits and whatnot.

[Yahoo]

Oh yeah? I'm all ears as to how you reached this conclusion.

I haven't listened to the "Tony Robbins" type motivational speakers who claim that induced demand is why many cities have traffic problems. I tend to rank people like that with the people who come up with the latest fad diet. Interesting, but not any solution to an obvious problem (eating too much, or in the case of roads - population growth)

To me the reason induced demand has nothing to do with the problems on Crowchild is simple. (beyond the fact that induced demand is sometimes seen after a project is completed - where this road hasn't seen improvements in the areas targeted for what - 40 years?)

The areas I am talking about are what I believe are called Skeletal roads. By definition that would mean main road corridors (I believe - I'm not in the industry so my assumptions are made simply as a concerned citizen, not an expert - as many would enjoy pointing out lol).

What are the issues on Crowchild? Traffic is forced to weave and change lanes. 2 lane choke points. Traffic lights.

I'm not sure why anyone would say that traffic in these areas are evidence of induced demand? Huh? How did you induce demand by ignoring planned upgrades and keeping it the same? If anything the reasonable traffic flow in the south and north where they have already "fixed" the road shows that you can "fix" a road. I know some people assume that fixing bottlenecks will make things worse - poppycock. Fixing things is never permanent and will not turn a road into a utopia. But you can't ignore an obvious problem and assume that fixing it will just lead to another problem. Talk about negative backward thinking - "I won't fix that problem because there will just be another one some day". It's all about managing the problems we do have - we'll never solve them all, but that doesn't mean we should give up.

When the city grows you naturally get increased or "induced" demand. So what? The only ways to get reduced demand is to have some disaster that results in a population decline or to build some other transportation system that is so attractive that people use that instead. That usually means transit - and we already have LRT running in the NW sections of Crowchild we're discussing. Very well used LRT I might add. (remember, I'm not anti anything, especially transit, but we aren't going to fix our roads simply with transit, bike paths or whatever. We need effective roads. The cities that really mess things up are the ones that focus on roads at the expense of everything else. Or likewise - ignore roads and other problems in the hope of a magical solution).

If you ignore growth you'll pay the price as we now are. I don't want to have a society where everyone sits around saying "something must be done" when nobody even tries. Obvious solutions exist. The people with hidden agenda's are the only ones who claim that the problems on Crowchild are impossible to fix due to cost or whatever.

[Yahoo]

Combine the billion dollar Crowchild fix with all the other road improvements necessary to have that free flow skeletal network you want:

A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we're talking about real money. On top of that, transportation infrastructure costs will also be required for transit and you want Calgary Transit to forgo the ~100 million it receives annually from the fare box. You say that you recognize the need for compromise, well Calgary could easily use 20 billion worth of transportation infrastructure over the next 20 years. Something will need to be compromised.

I'm not sure your point. Everything we do will cost a lot - nobody said it wouldn't. My compromise is to spend money on all types of transportation, not blindly believe that one type will save us.

Perhaps you're confused about priorities. I fully understand you have to pick and choose priorities and money is limited. But Crowchild's time is approaching where it needs to be the priority. Unless there is another project that you feel should be done first? If so then that's fine. We obviously need to spend it where it does the most good.

Even if we do nothing that just shifts the cost to the citizens and businesses. Quit spending money and we get increased pollution, longer commute times, it's harder to do business, and in general the quality of life nosedives.

The population is growing so this "all is lost" attitude towards improving the city is a little shocking. As I said earlier - Canada has a trillion dollar economy. A billion dollars isn't the magical hopeless amount of money some people think it is. And as I mentioned earlier, the remaining Kicking horse canyon project in BC is a lot less costly than the numbers spouted for Crowchild and seems to be a lot less ambitious, so I'm not sure why it would cost so much - or if people are just making up numbers. (I'm not saying the numbers are wrong - I'm just shocked by them).

So I take it you also think the solution to the health care problem is to shut down hospitals and close beds? How'd that work out for you? Yah, trying to save money the wrong way actually ends up costing you more money and results in a dramatic drop in the quality of life. We don't need more people with these defeatist plans. Kennedy asked for 7 billion to put man on the moon. Luckily he didn't have to answer to some of you guys or people would have never even gone into space because it was "too expensive" to be great.

[MalcolmTucker]

so I'm not sure why it would cost so much

Keeping the existing road open with little room to work.

[Yahoo]

In addition to my question about lane reversals - which I think triggered some good discussion I have a somewhat strange proposal. I'm not sure if it would ever fly but here goes...

The city is divided into 4 quadrants (ignore downtown for now). What if we divided our entire transportation budget into 4 for the next 50 years and went different directions in each quadrant? Each quadrant was run by different planning people, and each had a different focus but the same amount of money to spend (except for the obvious requirement to spend some of the money maintaining & servicing the systems already in place)

4 Quadrants:

1. Transportation projects are entirely focused on transit and getting people to use transit at the expense of everything else.

2. Transportation projects are focused entirely on roads. No new money could be spent on paths, trains, bus routes. Lane reversals & even HOV or tolls perhaps if it made sense - but all focused on driving.

3. Foot/bike or alternative transportation like trams focused. This quadrant would obviously try to get people to live near work. It may seem like they'd have money to spare, but things like a huge pathway system, +15's, overhead walkways, or even tunnels for walking/bikes could be expensive.

4. Distributed systems. Say 45% spent on roads, 45% transit, 10% alternate solutions like trams, overhead walkways, paths for bikes and people.

I know where I'd like to live (area 4), and I know this would effectively turn the city into 4 different cities (maybe a good thing?) - but it would be an interesting experiment if you allowed people to live in the area they favored. I realize a plan like this might be unworkable in real life, but what if it was possible? Where might you want to live and how would it be best to implement it? (sorry, maybe this should be in its own area rather than roads - but whatever - we discuss lottery winning so it's obviously not that strict of a forum).

[Yahoo]

Keeping the existing road open with little room to work.

Are you referring to the Kicking horse canyon or Crowchild? Interestingly enough they have similar space problems.

They also have similar solutions that could be implemented over time and built in stages so the costs were easier to swallow.

I'm still not convinced that Crowchild would cost more than the last phase of the KHC project.

[MalcolmTucker]

KHC actually has lots of room to work if you look at the plans. The last phase is almost entirely a new alignment and benefits from the previous stages construction of large staging areas. The number of new lane kilometers is also much lower.

[fusili]

I'm not sure your point. Everything we do will cost a lot - nobody said it wouldn't. My compromise is to spend money on all types of transportation, not blindly believe that one type will save us.

Perhaps you're confused about priorities. I fully understand you have to pick and choose priorities and money is limited. But Crowchild's time is approaching where it needs to be the priority. Unless there is another project that you feel should be done first? If so then that's fine. We obviously need to spend it where it does the most good.



Quick answer- 4 car extensions, the Stephan Avenue Subway and a possible downtown toll.

Crowchild (as of 2010) handled 101K vehicles per day between 33rd and Bow Trail and what looks like 86K across the bridge (taken from the City of Calgary Transportation Planning average weekday traffic volume). These are all day numbers, and I believe I read somewhere that 40% of this is traffic destined for downtown , so there is some adjustment needed. If we take the City of Calgary's standards for lane capacity (~2000 cars/lane/hour) and the number of lanes going from Crowchild into the downtown (3 lanes total) and a peak commuting period of say, 2.5 hours, we get a total of 15K vehicles using Crowchild to get downtown (30K vehicles per day for both an inbound and outbound trip). That works out to about 40% of Crowchild traffic even if all 80K people travel during rush hour, so it is obviously a conservative estimate.

The NW LRT runs 22 cars per hour during the peak. Using the same 2.5 hour peak period and the 200 people/train car capacity, that works out to 11K more people than can get downtown from the NW during rush hour with just the 4 car extensions. Effectively, we can get 2/3 of the vehicles going downtown from crowchild for what it will cost for the 4 car extension.

The Stephan avenue subway will allow for almost a doubling of capacity, but let's be conservative and say we will get only an increase in number of trains equivalent to what the NE LRT uses now (14 cars/hour). With 4 car extensions, each train can hold 800 people. That equates to another 28K transit riders additional capacity on the NW line, not to mention the doubling of capacity on all other lines. The estimated cost for the subway is $800M. So for less the cost of the Crowchild upgrade, we can effectively double transit capacity into the downtown. As 51% of commuters use transit now, that pretty much means we can get every single downtown worker (today) to work using transit.

Now add in a downtown road toll (which probably isn't even necessary). Downtown has ample transit service, and parking is expensive already, so it isn't really lower income brackets who are driving downtown. You will see a drastic drop in commuters using Crowchild to get downtown. That will effectively reduce most of that 40% of Crowchild traffic going downtown, freeing up capacity for others.

So yes, I can think of many, many other improvements that will be more beneficial on a cost/benefit perspective than a $1B Crowchild upgrade. 4 car extensions on all LRT lines. SETWAY. NC LRT. Limited stop bus service from Foothills Hospital to Peter Lougheed via 16th avenue. Extension of 306 BRT from Heritage to Quarry Park. Stephan Avenue Subway. Implementation of limited stop bus on 52nd street from Saddletown to South Hospital, etc etc.

Fixing the three lane crossover from the Bow Trail on ramp to the Memorial Drive off ramp? Definitely. Should that problem cost $1B. Hell no. We do not need to increase capacity on Crowchild. Capacity is better dealt through expansion of transit capacity, which is far cheaper and much, much more effective. We need to solve bad turning movements on Crowchild. That doesn't cost $1B.


EDIT- Based on my math, downtown traffic probably makes up 60% of Crowchild Traffic, not 40%. Which would make even a stronger case for transit.

[Full Mountain]

:previous:

Bingo :cheers::tup:

[fusili]

As a follow up, put it this way. Deerfoot handles 184K vehicles per day at its busiest point (intersection with Memorial Drive). 1.3 people per car (very liberal assumption) equals 240K people. The LRT, on the other hand, handled 286K people per day, the vast majority of which used 7th ave at some point (let's say 70% conservatively). That equals 200K people.

So:
Deerfoot: 8 lanes / 240K people per day.
7th Avenue LRT: 2 lanes / 200K people per day.




PS- These are the numbers for the LRT before the West LRT went into operation, so the numbers will be higher.

[Acey]

It deeply saddens me that all these arguments skew so heavily in favour of transit, because transit is of zero value to me. Stoney Trail SE will be of huge value to me, so I plan on bending down and kissing that pavement once it's done.

[craner]

Crowchild from 24th Ave N to 33rd Ave S is a joke and required upgrading/expansion 25 years ago. Lets get on with it already.

[Doug]

Because the money was earned in the US. Blame US tax law.

This is a fairly complicated subject, by the way. Fly through LAS sometime and you'll see advertising everywhere that is specifically devoted just to this very topic.

Money earned by anyone in the US is taxable as is money earned by US citizens offshore. Basically, the IRS always wins.

[Wooster]

Crowchild from 24th Ave N to 33rd Ave S is a joke and required upgrading/expansion 25 years ago. Lets get on with it already.

Ok, just give us the billion dollars and we'll get right on that.

[craner]

Ok, just give us the billion dollars and we'll get right on that.

I doubt they would. They probably have to "study" it some more.

[RyLucky]

Fusili is right. I'll leave it at that.

Acey, you may never take transit, but surely you wouldn't mind if the city got more people off the road and into busses and trains?

Put simply, moving thousands of tons of steel (transit) is less expensive and takes less room than moving billions of tons of steel (cars). Of course, transit cant ever work for everyone, but lets get it to work for the people who can use transit. The problem remains that Crowchild is one of the only ways between the NW and SW. Glenmore has the same problem between the SSW and SWW. In both situations, more lanes will not solve the problem, but only demand yet another lane every 10 years. What we need are good crosstown transit routes (carpool lanes, BRT, or LRT). Specifically what we need is a line that connects Rockyview, MRU, Foothills, and a string of other, less significant places like Northland, Market, ACH, UC west campus, Westbrook, etc. Current crosstown service to these places is a far cry 3 from adequate, Crowchild is part of the problem. All legitimate solutions to this problem will cost a lot of money, but the Crowchild plan brought forward in the Fall is the worst of them.

In the short term, right-in-right-outs at Kensington and 5th will do. With this, lights at Memorial & 19th and Memorial & Kensington will probably be necessary. Eventually, a Crowchild&26th ave SW style interchange might be a good fit for Crowchild&5th ave NW, and a single Crowchild&33rd ave SW style interchange might be a good fit for McMahon/24th ave NW. The massive redesign ought to never ever happen, even if Calgary had 5 000 000 people. In fact, the more people Calgary has the more it ought to favour everything else over cars.

[RyLucky]

A list of better ways to spend 1B:

LRT anywhere (I can think of about 20, 1 billion dollar projects or sub projects more deserving)
A convention ctr, and a new library, both world class
Total West Village redesign
The following are ridiculous yet still more deserving: a highline style bike path through the beltline, a rideau canal style skating rink from prince's island to 17th ave, a +30 elevated park covering the CPR tracks from millennium park to 5th st, a 10 story sandstone castle built on shagannappi golf course, (you get the point)

[sim]

I haven't listened to the "Tony Robbins" type motivational speakers who claim that induced demand is why many cities have traffic problems. I tend to rank people like that with the people who come up with the latest fad diet. Interesting, but not any solution to an obvious problem (eating too much, or in the case of roads - population growth)

To me the reason induced demand has nothing to do with the problems on Crowchild is simple. (beyond the fact that induced demand is sometimes seen after a project is completed - where this road hasn't seen improvements in the areas targeted for what - 40 years?)

The areas I am talking about are what I believe are called Skeletal roads. By definition that would mean main road corridors (I believe - I'm not in the industry so my assumptions are made simply as a concerned citizen, not an expert - as many would enjoy pointing out lol).


So in other words, you just simply pulled it right out of the air?

You seeing any contradictions between the two bolded parts? So you admit yourself you're not an expert yet you seem to be able to know that people that actually are, aren't...? Listen, if you want to have opinions on the subject at least try to be somewhat knowledgeable about it. You might also get taken seriously then.

You're actually getting tiring and I'm going to try do better not to respond to your wanting opinions.

So I'll give you even one mesoscopic perspective as to why induced demand is important. Nothin macroscopic, intertwined with alternatives, with any long-run time scale or any land-use interactions. Just to the corridor itself:

The benefits of such an upgrade are by and large calculated on the premise of travel times savings - upwards of 80% or so of the benefits. I really can't speak to how and who specifically is or would be doing the Cost - Benefit analysis, but be assured they can contain and engender a pretty high degree of subjectivity. That being said, those travel time savings are only savings insofar that traffic remains as completely free flowing as the capacity increase meant to do so. Cut that down by 50% and you've effectively taken away 40% of the benefits that were claimed to be brought about by it [the capacity increase].

That of course presupposes that there will in fact be induced demand. I challenge you to find me a road (anywhere), that once it has been built doesn't have at least one vehicle making use of it at some point of time. There, that's an incredibly simplified version of it (so that you may understand.) And yes, this may well come about due to population growth - which is only reinforcing the need for not continually expanding roadway capacity, but I'm to keep this in the mentioned perspective. Now extending this back to Crowchild, you essentially won't find a road in the city where this will be a bigger issue. An inner-city tangential road (with good access to the CBD) that is for most already the shortest, most direct route (in time) from the NW quadrant to the SW and SE, and then vice-versa. It will effectively divert and generate new demand likely to the point where travel times along the corridor are on average no different than they were before within due time. This is by and large emperically the case, and without having to go dig up the literature on it, I don't for the life of me see why you don't just look 7 - 8 km east to get an idea of what you'll end up with.

That capacity will get taken up. It's not a question of if, but when, and it's the whole point of constructing a larger roadway to begin with.

It deeply saddens me that all these arguments skew so heavily in favour of transit, because transit is of zero value to me. Stoney Trail SE will be of huge value to me, so I plan on bending down and kissing that pavement once it's done.

Yeah, because a transportation system is a "ME" issue. You're paying the average cost of using the roads right? The marginal? Internalizing it all? I'd counter that the over bloated sense of entitlement is more saddening.

Favour transit? I wonder if the investment proportions substantiate that. Favour equitable access, prudent economics and environmental sustainabililty you mean?

I do apologize, but this is getting silly. I think I'll go post in the construction thread about how we need to build canvas tents in the CBD, and a double-scale likeness of the Ryugyong hotel in Tuscany, well, just because...!

[RyLucky]

Re: induced demand. It's basic economics. If supply (capacity) increases, price (opportunity cost of travel time, out-of-pocket expenses on gas, etc) decreases and demand increases. All of this is great, because we want people to easily move between quadrants of the city. However, the problem is that the supply is continually exhausted as it is increased, requiring more and more public investment to keep the price down. Moreover, so long as the price is low, there's no reason for us to change our behaviours.

For example, you live in Rosscarrock and are deciding between two job offers: one at the Westbrook Mall and one at Market Mall. Ideally, the city wants each business to have access to the largest possible labour market and consumer market, but in reality, we will only travel so far (and for so much time) for most of our needs. If the difference in travel time is only a few minutes you might decide where to work based on other factors (wage, interest, etc), but if travel time differs by 30 mins, you will be more likely to choose the closer employer OR move OR travel only at times outside rush hour OR take transit if it provides an advantage over driving. All of these alternatives are less than ideal (because ideally you should be able to work anywhere and go anywhere for any reason), but are way more efficient behaviours. In a city of a million, all of these subtle changes in behaviour can have a big effect on congestion, but if the price of travel is kept artificially low by investing billions into roads, there is no incentive to change behaviour to more efficient models. Transit also experiences induced demand, but the advantage is that this induced demand improves the bottom line, and LOWERS the cost/trip. Transit will get you the best "people kilometres per dollar". I'd like to have my tax dollars spent efficiently.

[freeweed]

Deerfoot: 8 lanes / 240K people per day.
7th Avenue LRT: 2 lanes / 200K people per day.

Devil's Advocate: 7th Ave is actually 4 lanes. But I'm not sure if that's actually required space, or just historical accident.

Is there any technical reason to have the extra laneways, IF it was only trains running on it? I always thought it would be cool to close it off to non-train traffic period, and expand the sidewalks a fair bit. Not sure if that could be done.

[fusili]

Devil's Advocate: 7th Ave is actually 4 lanes. But I'm not sure if that's actually required space, or just historical accident.

Is there any technical reason to have the extra laneways, IF it was only trains running on it? I always thought it would be cool to close it off to non-train traffic period, and expand the sidewalks a fair bit. Not sure if that could be done.

Fair point. I wouldn't say 4 full lanes, because the stations take up the lane space and sometimes there are sidewalk extensions that take up the lane as well. As you point out, only 2 are used by the train. The other two (where they do exist) are used mostly for emergency vehicles and select buses (the #1 for example).

One benefit of 7th avenue, which isn't talked about much, is that it allows emergency vehicles to move through the downtown very quickly during rush hour.

[Acey]

Fusili is right. I'll leave it at that.

Acey, you may never take transit, but surely you wouldn't mind if the city got more people off the road and into busses and trains?

Of course. What I'm saying is that, I don't go downtown except for the occasional weekend night. For any trip that I personally am making in Calgary, it is faster for me to drive, which is why I say that transit isn't useful to me. I wish I was in the group of people who will benefit from the subway, 4 car trains, or whatever else, upgrades that I very much welcome... there is no sense of entitlement here. Doesn't change the fact that taking the bus, train or any combination of the two would make my daily trip about six times longer.

[fusili]

Of course. What I'm saying is that, I don't go downtown except for the occasional weekend night. For any trip that I personally am making in Calgary, it is faster for me to drive, which is why I say that transit isn't useful to me. I wish I was in the group of people who will benefit from the subway, 4 car trains, or whatever else, upgrades that I very much welcome... there is no sense of entitlement here. Doesn't change the fact that taking the bus, train or any combination of the two would make my daily trip about six times longer.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live (generally) and where do you work?

The reason I ask is I think Calgary transit needs to serve crosstown routes better (they know this too) and I want to see if their suggested improvements would actually help you.

[Acey]

Just out of curiosity, where do you live (generally) and where do you work?

The reason I ask is I think Calgary transit needs to serve crosstown routes better (they know this too) and I want to see if their suggested improvements would actually help you.

I live near SAIT and go to school at the airport (Aero Centre). This is obviously not ideal and will change next year. I can make this drive in the morning in 15 minutes via 16th to Centre St and over on McKnight; afternoon is about 30 min as McKnight slows to a crawl. This trip is generally 75-90 minutes via transit. Stoney SE will benefit me greatly beacause I make a Lethbridge trip every weekend, should be nice and quick to get from the airport to the south end via Stoney. The train is one thing, but if said crosstown route has anything to do with McKnight, which it will because there's simply no other way... well then I'll be glad to chip in to help the environment but it's not gonna be any faster.

I am generally very busy and making trips every which way around the city to everywhere except downtown, for the most part.

[Mazrim]

Transit also experiences induced demand, but the advantage is that this induced demand improves the bottom line, and LOWERS the cost/trip. Transit will get you the best "people kilometres per dollar". I'd like to have my tax dollars spent efficiently.

Except cost/trip hasn't ever gone down in recent memory?

Regardless of transit improvements, the bottleneck at Crowchild still needs addressing. It's not something that can be just pushed under the rug.

[craner]

All I'm saying is Crowchild (24th N to 33rd S) should be brought up to the standard of Crowchild north and south of that portion as it is part of the City's skeletal network. Similar to how GE5 made a huge improvement to Glenmore Trail.

[fusili]

I live near SAIT and go to school at the airport (Aero Centre). This is obviously not ideal and will change next year. I can make this drive in the morning in 15 minutes via 16th to Centre St and over on McKnight; afternoon is about 30 min as McKnight slows to a crawl. This trip is generally 75-90 minutes via transit. Stoney SE will benefit me greatly beacause I make a Lethbridge trip every weekend, should be nice and quick to get from the airport to the south end via Stoney. The train is one thing, but if said crosstown route has anything to do with McKnight, which it will because there's simply no other way... well then I'll be glad to chip in to help the environment but it's not gonna be any faster.

I am generally very busy and making trips every which way around the city to everywhere except downtown, for the most part.

This is why the 16th avenue BRT would really help. It would get you to Saddletown, where a bus will take you straight to the airport. The other option would be to transfer at Centre Street and use the 300 BRT to go to the airport. Both would be fairly quick.

[Full Mountain]

This is why the 16th avenue BRT would really help. It would get you to Saddletown, where a bus will take you straight to the airport. The other option would be to transfer at Centre Street and use the 300 BRT to go to the airport. Both would be fairly quick.

The SAIT Art Smith Aero Center (See Here (http://goo.gl/maps/ClK2V)) is on the south side of the air field, served by the 57 from Whitehorn, with a bus to bus transfer this would make this trip painful, even with a cross town route as you describe. Unless the frequency on both routes are greater than 10 minutes.

For him currently the greatest benefit would be to car pool with others who live in his area. When I attended SAIT @ the Aero Center there were a number of folks that car pooled from the SAIT residence each day.

[Cage]

This is why the 16th avenue BRT would really help. It would get you to Saddletown, where a bus will take you straight to the airport. The other option would be to transfer at Centre Street and use the 300 BRT to go to the airport. Both would be fairly quick.

Acey is going to the SAIT Aero Centre on McCall Landing NE, not the terminal. The 300 is of no use to him. THe best bet would be to take 201 to 202 to the 57. Crosstown 16th Ave BRT would remove the need for LRT portion through downtown, but the 57 trip from Whithorn to McCall Landing would take 20 minutes, about the time it takes to drive between SAIT and Aero Centre.

[Yahoo]

KHC actually has lots of room to work if you look at the plans. The last phase is almost entirely a new alignment and benefits from the previous stages construction of large staging areas. The number of new lane kilometers is also much lower.

I've only ever referred to the last phase of the KHC - as the easier phases are already done. (We need a similar approach on Crow - do what we can, easy stuff first, then stage the rest as the time and need increases and as money becomes available).

You're right in that it's less km on KHC, so that partly explains the lower cost. But multiple tunnels through mountains, long snow sheds, multiple bridges - all along a highway that must be kept open on a cliff face - it's definitely a challenge. I really don't see how a mountain one one side and a winding cliff on the other is a lot of room to work. It certainly doesn't look as easy to implement as Crowchild.

I don't think anyone so far mentioned how they came up with a billion for Crowchild. Crowchild is challenging in some places (not all), and I think the cost of 1 billion was just another way of saying a lot (but not accurate). Ultimately I think it'll likely be even more lol - but only because of foot dragging and inflation over the 1-5 more decades it gets debated and delayed. Like when mayor Dave took office I think his "get the city moving" attitude grabbed the attention of voters after years of transportation project neglect. Unfortunately we may be in another period of neglect for now, as many people in this forum appear to believe that fixing roads is hopeless - and some of them may unfortunately represent politicians and planners. I hope we aren't enter another dark age of transportation projects where they're all deemed too expensive.

[Mazrim]

I don't think anyone so far mentioned how they came up with a billion for Crowchild. Crowchild is challenging in some places (not all), and I think the cost of 1 billion was just another way of saying a lot (but not accurate).

The 1 billion is the cost to do the entire stretch from 17th Avenue to 24th Avenue. If they focused on specific areas, you'd be looking at smaller amounts needed. Similar to Kicking Horse, they could do the whole process in stages as money allows.

While there are definitely restrictions in the canyon, they had room to have multiple route options. There is only route Crowchild can take through this stretch, and not much wiggle room at that. This makes building it much tougher, on a GE5 scale except worse.

[Yahoo]

I challenge you to find me a road (anywhere), that once it has been built doesn't have at least one vehicle making use of it at some point of time.

lol - yah, you got me there. You may think I'm a fool - but I'm not that big of a fool. If we fix a road or increase its capacity more people will use it. My point is that it can't be used as an excuse not to fix an obvious bottleneck. The city is growing. A balanced improvement in transit and roads will always be needed.

In my uninformed opinion - the induced demand that people talk about here is referring to a phenomenon where if you improve a road physically - it actually gets worse for traffic rather than better. Isn't that what the motivational speakers point to - strange unpredictable instances where this occurs? My issues are with people who assume that improving Crowchild will make it worse.

You have other instances where you build a road or increase capacity you see other phenomena. Faster commute times, safer trips, less pollution, happier citizens... and yes, it won't be a perfect solution. When the city grows to 3 million people it won't be adequate anymore.

[Yahoo]

The 1 billion is the cost to do the entire stretch from 17th Avenue to 24th Avenue. If they focused on specific areas, you'd be looking at smaller amounts needed. Similar to Kicking Horse, they could do the whole process in stages as money allows.

While there are definitely restrictions in the canyon, they had room to have multiple route options. There is only route Crowchild can take through this stretch, and not much wiggle room at that. This makes building it much tougher, on a GE5 scale except worse.

I never supported the airport tunnel project - but I never liked how other people used costs that might be included decades beyond the initial implementation as an argument not to do it. It's a consideration - but shouldn't be the main headline. We're seeing that with Crowchild. I'd like it all done in one giant project - but realistically a phased approach makes more sense.

They had 2 options on KHC - tunnel it all, or do what they're planning. The tunnel would have to be done as one expensive project so a big reason they chose to go the other way is that the 4th phase could itself be built in phases. That's the way to go for Crowchild in my opinion.

[Yahoo]

Some interesting infrastructure shown here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/16-ways-asian-cities-are-making-their-us-counterparts-look-like-the-third-world-2013-1?op=1

[suburbia]

No doubt......"I started my company all on my own" is one of my least favourite douchebag quotes, when you know they have been attached to the tit the whole time.

Don't know what you guys have against the possibility of BigTime inheriting a monster 7 bedroom 5 bathroom "cottage". It is just an outcome of his folks deciding to buy instead of renting and shipping their money away.

[Bassic Lab]

I've only ever referred to the last phase of the KHC - as the easier phases are already done. (We need a similar approach on Crow - do what we can, easy stuff first, then stage the rest as the time and need increases and as money becomes available).

You're right in that it's less km on KHC, so that partly explains the lower cost. But multiple tunnels through mountains, long snow sheds, multiple bridges - all along a highway that must be kept open on a cliff face - it's definitely a challenge. I really don't see how a mountain one one side and a winding cliff on the other is a lot of room to work. It certainly doesn't look as easy to implement as Crowchild.

I don't think anyone so far mentioned how they came up with a billion for Crowchild. Crowchild is challenging in some places (not all), and I think the cost of 1 billion was just another way of saying a lot (but not accurate). Ultimately I think it'll likely be even more lol - but only because of foot dragging and inflation over the 1-5 more decades it gets debated and delayed. Like when mayor Dave took office I think his "get the city moving" attitude grabbed the attention of voters after years of transportation project neglect. Unfortunately we may be in another period of neglect for now, as many people in this forum appear to believe that fixing roads is hopeless - and some of them may unfortunately represent politicians and planners. I hope we aren't enter another dark age of transportation projects where they're all deemed too expensive.

The project would involve rebuilding a major interchange (16 Avenue/University Drive), rebuilding another major interchange with a river crossing in the middle (Bow Trail/Memorial Drive), adding up to four new minor interchanges or overpasses (24 Ave, 23 Ave, 5 Ave, and Kensington), and associated expropriation. That would cost a lot of money, pretty much a billion, and it wouldn't be easy to implement.

No one is arguing that roads should never be upgraded or that Crowchild, specifically, should never be upgraded. In fact, many people are promoting cheap temporary solutions for the immediate future, like rush hour right in/right out only restrictions. What people are arguing is that in the short to medium term, the city has more pressing needs and better ways to spend a billion than improving your car's commute. which seems to be your principal rationale here what with your opposition to Airport Trail extending east of the Airport (also part of the skeletal road network and a now or never construction need, so unless you think Country Hills will always be able to handle all of the traffic between McKnight and Stoney (a gap of nearly 9 km) then what is your idea there?).

You asked which projects would be more important. Fusili pretty much summed it up but I'd add that we'll need 140 or so new LRVs to replace the U2s and expand the fleet for 4 car trains, more if we want to add additional consists that an 8 Ave Subway would allow. All in, an extra billion on upgrading the existing LRT system would add far more transportation capacity than Crowchild upgrades.

[RyLucky]

Except cost/trip hasn't ever gone down in recent memory?


The fare has never gone down, nor will it, but the user fare is only part of the cost. The rest comes from your taxes. A bus with 50 people on it collects more fares than an empty bus, but the gas will be bought and driver paid for his/her time regardless of how many people are on the bus. More fare revenue means less cost/rider.

[Ramsayfarian]

Don't know what you guys have against the possibility of BigTime inheriting a monster 7 bedroom 5 bathroom "cottage". It is just an outcome of his folks deciding to buy instead of renting and shipping their money away.



kw was replying to a comment I made a week ago, one day before Bigtime posted his pic.


Not that it needs pointing out, but once again, it is blindingly obvious that you're the one who has the issue.

[suburbia]

Not that it needs pointing out, but once again, it is blindingly obvious that you're the one who has the issue.

What issue?

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by suburbia
What issue?

It's the way you often add twists to your argument. KW said something about a douchebag quote:

Originally Posted by kw5150 View Post
No doubt......"I started my company all on my own" is one of my least favourite douchebag quotes, when you know they have been attached to the tit the whole time.

You somehow brought up Bigtime's cabin. Wtf.
Don't know what you guys have against the possibility of BigTime inheriting a monster 7 bedroom 5 bathroom "cottage". It is just an outcome of his folks deciding to buy instead of renting and shipping their money away.

[Acey]

Random thought as I drove up Deerfoot in the deep SE with no streetlights because of a power outage tonight. 10 lane wide stretches of Interstate 20 in the south DFW area (and other area freeways) have no streetlights. Kinda weird how dark they are. The key is those reflectors they have on the ground, which wouldn't work here because of plows, I imagine. Being able to see where the lanes are makes a huge difference, as you don't have to memorize the road's configuration as you do on Deerfoot. I bet if we could figure out a way to not have the lines rub off 2 days after they're painted, we could cut down on an accident or two.

[MasterG]

Random thought as I drove up Deerfoot in the deep SE with no streetlights because of a power outage tonight. 10 lane wide stretches of Interstate 20 in the south DFW area (and other area freeways) have no streetlights. Kinda weird how dark they are. The key is those reflectors they have on the ground, which wouldn't work here because of plows, I imagine. Being able to see where the lanes are makes a huge difference, as you don't have to memorize the road's configuration as you do on Deerfoot. I bet if we could figure out a way to not have the lines rub off 2 days after they're painted, we could cut down on an accident or two.

Agreed, not to mention crosswalks that fade out. im always surprised how bright and crisp street markings are in alot of other cities: those green bikelanes, crisp bright lines. we have some serious faded lines.

[fusili]

Random thought as I drove up Deerfoot in the deep SE with no streetlights because of a power outage tonight. 10 lane wide stretches of Interstate 20 in the south DFW area (and other area freeways) have no streetlights. Kinda weird how dark they are. The key is those reflectors they have on the ground, which wouldn't work here because of plows, I imagine. Being able to see where the lanes are makes a huge difference, as you don't have to memorize the road's configuration as you do on Deerfoot. I bet if we could figure out a way to not have the lines rub off 2 days after they're painted, we could cut down on an accident or two.

Agreed, not to mention crosswalks that fade out. im always surprised how bright and crisp street markings are in alot of other cities: those green bikelanes, crisp bright lines. we have some serious faded lines.

Those reflectors in the ground are called "cat's eyes" and yes, our plows would rip them right off the pavement.

[freeweed]

Random thought as I drove up Deerfoot in the deep SE with no streetlights because of a power outage tonight. 10 lane wide stretches of Interstate 20 in the south DFW area (and other area freeways) have no streetlights. Kinda weird how dark they are. The key is those reflectors they have on the ground, which wouldn't work here because of plows, I imagine. Being able to see where the lanes are makes a huge difference, as you don't have to memorize the road's configuration as you do on Deerfoot. I bet if we could figure out a way to not have the lines rub off 2 days after they're painted, we could cut down on an accident or two.

Snow cover (and the resulting slush) tends to defeat the purpose of newly-painted lines anyway.

Canadian driving has always required a better sense of where the lanes are. I wish it weren't the case (I LOVE driving in the south) but there's not much we can do about it.

[You Need A Thneed]

I love lane reflectors. I wish there was some solution that would allow us to have something like that here.

[suburbia]

It's the way you often add twists to your argument. KW said something about a douchebag quote:

You somehow brought up Bigtime's cabin. Wtf.

There was more context than that Spring. KW was responding to the thread where fusili suggested via a question if children deserve any inheritance whatsoever. While Ramsayfarian and KW focused in on "douchebags", my response was aligned to fusili's original train of thought, and yeah, I used Bigtime's (parents') cabin as an example. People often say the darndest things, and so a real example with the person looking them in the eyes (or reading their posts) helps people come to more thoughtful conclusions.

I've provided the two posts that KW was responding to below. My articulation was not twisting anything, rather, it was following a longer train of posts than just the last the latest post.

... it does beg the question of what the children did to deserve the inheritance other than being born.
Exactly, nothing worse than someone who was born on third, thinking they hit a triple.

Does Bigtime deserve the cabin (if that is the wish of the current owners)? Absolutely. I've always been a multi-generational thinker. If you support Fusili's suggestion, that the results of a parent's labour should not be passed on to children, then you all can pack your bags and go back to wherever it was you came from, because someone somewhere worked hard to get to this country, be it on a boat, plane, or walking across a land bridge. It was their hard work that gives you the privilege of being here, and that is no different than inheritance.

Now can we please get back to the topic of the thread?

[fusili]

There was more context than that Spring. KW was responding to the thread where fusili suggested via a question if children deserve any inheritance whatsoever. While Ramsayfarian and KW focused in on "douchebags", my response was aligned to fusili's original train of thought, and yeah, I used Bigtime's (parents') cabin as an example. People often say the darndest things, and so a real example with the person looking them in the eyes (or reading their posts) helps people come to more thoughtful conclusions.

I've provided the two posts that KW was responding to below. My articulation was not twisting anything, rather, it was following a longer train of posts than just the last the latest post.

Does Bigtime deserve the cabin (if that is the wish of the current owners)? Absolutely. I've always been a multi-generational thinker. If you support Fusili's suggestion, that the results of a parent's labour should not be passed on to children, then you all can pack your bags and go back to wherever it was you came from, because someone somewhere worked hard to get to this country, be it on a boat, plane, or walking across a land bridge. It was their hard work that gives you the privilege of being here, and that is no different than inheritance.

Now can we please get back to the topic of the thread?

My grandparents were prisoners of war, interned in Japanese POW camps during WWII. My grandfather (my opa) was a survivor of the Burma Railway, the infamous "Railway of death" which was a forced labour camp where thousands of Burmese, Dutch, British and Australian labourers were killed. My Oma raised two children in a Japanese POW camp, one of whom was born there. My family owned a lot of land in Indonesia, all of which was lost when Indonesia became independent (I don't think it was justifiably ours in the first place). My grandparents on my mom's side crossed under the Berlin wall to get to west Germany, and my Opa on that side was shot twice, which saved his life, because otherwise he would have starved or froze in the Russian winter (they slept on dead bodies to keep them off the cold ground).

My "inheritance" is the ability to work hard, get a good education and live in a society that is safe, just and equitable. My inheritance is opportunity, not wealth. It would be a horrible disservice to my relatives who sacrificed so much to have this opportunity to expect anything other than the ability to work hard in my life. If for some reason, I inherited a bunch of cash from somewhere, if I quit my job, burned all my cash on luxuries and didn't work a day in my life afterward, I should feel ashamed.

If our parents labours should be passed on to us in the form of material wealth, does the same go for the child of a crack addict that starts with absolutely nothing? Are they relegated to a hard life because of something they never did. If I make a bunch of money in my life, the only thing my kids are getting is a good education and (hopefully) the values of hard work I instill in them. My cash can be taken by the government and used to pay for the education and health care of kids who weren't as lucky to have good parents.

[suburbia]

My grandparents were prisoners of war, interned in Japanese POW camps during WWII. My grandfather (my opa) was a survivor of the Burma Railway, the infamous "Railway of death" which was a forced labour camp where thousands of Burmese, Dutch, British and Australian labourers were killed. My Oma raised two children in a Japanese POW camp, one of whom was born there. My family owned a lot of land in Indonesia, all of which was lost when Indonesia became independent (I don't think it was justifiably ours in the first place). My grandparents on my mom's side crossed under the Berlin wall to get to west Germany, and my Opa on that side was shot twice, which saved his life, because otherwise he would have starved or froze in the Russian winter (they slept on dead bodies to keep them off the cold ground).

My "inheritance" is the ability to work hard, get a good education and live in a society that is safe, just and equitable. My inheritance is opportunity, not wealth. It would be a horrible disservice to my relatives who sacrificed so much to have this opportunity to expect anything other than the ability to work hard in my life. If for some reason, I inherited a bunch of cash from somewhere, if I quit my job, burned all my cash on luxuries and didn't work a day in my life afterward, I should feel ashamed.

If our parents labours should be passed on to us in the form of material wealth, does the same go for the child of a crack addict that starts with absolutely nothing? Are they relegated to a hard life because of something they never did. If I make a bunch of money in my life, the only thing my kids are getting is a good education and (hopefully) the values of hard work I instill in them. My cash can be taken by the government and used to pay for the education and health care of kids who weren't as lucky to have good parents.

Thank-you for setting the terms of reference for your comments. I think you'll agree that both you and I, while articulating differently, at least also think about aspects other than wealth, and are also concerned with what can be passed to future generations. Forums are good for expressing different takes on topics, so I very much appreciate your thoughtful posts. I think the one-liner "douchbag" zingers from others are clearly not as thoughtful.

[dmuzika]

I found an article about Canada's most dangerous intersections and Calgary made two of the top five. It's not the scientific method of determining the most dangerous intersections, but there would be few that would disagree that these are some of the most notorious spots in the city. Here's the top five:


1) Vancouver: Knight Street Bridge at Marine Dr
2) Calgary: Deerfoot and 16th Ave NE
3) Winnipeg: Kenaston Blvd and McGillivrary Blvd
4) Winnipeg: Leila Avenue and McPhillips Street
5) Calgary: Glenmore Trail and Deerfoot Interchange

Full article: http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/calgary+home+to+two+of+canadas+most+dangerous+intersections/6442789950/story.html.

The province has been talking about upgrading the Deerfoot/Glenmore interchange for some time by twinning the bridge over Glenmore, improving the merge lanes, and eliminating the "Glenmore Squeeze", http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/OH1-GDI-Stage1.pdf. There is also a 2nd stage interchange that would make Glenmore/Deerfoot fully freeflow in all directions that has been proposed, http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/glen-m1.pdf.

Deerfoot/16th Ave is also notorious. I saw two possible solutions that could improve that interchange:

1. Diverging Diamond (http://www.divergingdiamond.com/) - eliminates some of the signals at the interchange, however eastbound & westbound traffic have to yield to each other at signalized intersections, causing awkward movement for thru traffic on 16th Ave. Might work better on a less busy cross-street like 32nd Ave.

2. Double Crossover Merging Interchange (DCMI) (http://www.dcmiinterchange.com/) - works on the same principle as the Diverging Diamond however it allows free flow movement for 16th Ave. The ROW at 16th Ave might allow for the extra structures however it can be cost prohibitive.

Thoughts?

[You Need A Thneed]

I found an article about Canada's most dangerous intersections and Calgary made two of the top five. It's not the scientific method of determining the most dangerous intersections, but there would be few that would disagree that these are some of the most notorious spots in the city. Here's the top five:


1) Vancouver: Knight Street Bridge at Marine Dr
2) Calgary: Deerfoot and 16th Ave NE
3) Winnipeg: Kenaston Blvd and McGillivrary Blvd
4) Winnipeg: Leila Avenue and McPhillips Street
5) Calgary: Glenmore Trail and Deerfoot Interchange

Full article: http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/calgary+home+to+two+of+canadas+most+dangerous+intersections/6442789950/story.html.

The province has been talking about upgrading the Deerfoot/Glenmore interchange for some time by twinning the bridge over Glenmore, improving the merge lanes, and eliminating the "Glenmore Squeeze", http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/OH1-GDI-Stage1.pdf. There is also a 2nd stage interchange that would make Glenmore/Deerfoot fully freeflow in all directions that has been proposed, http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/glen-m1.pdf.

Deerfoot/16th Ave is also notorious. I saw two possible solutions that could improve that interchange:

1. Diverging Diamond (http://www.divergingdiamond.com/) - eliminates some of the signals at the interchange, however eastbound & westbound traffic have to yield to each other at signalized intersections, causing awkward movement for thru traffic on 16th Ave. Might work better on a less busy cross-street like 32nd Ave.

2. Double Crossover Merging Interchange (DCMI) (http://www.dcmiinterchange.com/) - works on the same principle as the Diverging Diamond however it allows free flow movement for 16th Ave. The ROW at 16th Ave might allow for the extra structures however it can be cost prohibitive.

Thoughts?

Rather than completely redesigning the 16th Ave interchange, just build flyover ramps from WB-SB and SB-EB. That would pretty much solve the problem, IMO.

Glenmore needs extra lanes on Deerfoot and some flyover ramps.

[Mazrim]

The government will never install radical design ideas on major interchanges, so they need to find somewhere less critical to try out the diverging diamond before we'll see it at places like 16th and Deerfoot.

[Full Mountain]

I found an article about Canada's most dangerous intersections and Calgary made two of the top five. It's not the scientific method of determining the most dangerous intersections, but there would be few that would disagree that these are some of the most notorious spots in the city. Here's the top five:

1) Vancouver: Knight Street Bridge at Marine Dr
2) Calgary: Deerfoot and 16th Ave NE
3) Winnipeg: Kenaston Blvd and McGillivrary Blvd
4) Winnipeg: Leila Avenue and McPhillips Street
5) Calgary: Glenmore Trail and Deerfoot Interchange

Full article: http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/calgary+home+to+two+of+canadas+most+dangerous+intersections/6442789950/story.html.

The province has been talking about upgrading the Deerfoot/Glenmore interchange for some time by twinning the bridge over Glenmore, improving the merge lanes, and eliminating the "Glenmore Squeeze", http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/OH1-GDI-Stage1.pdf. There is also a 2nd stage interchange that would make Glenmore/Deerfoot fully freeflow in all directions that has been proposed, http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/glen-m1.pdf.

Deerfoot/16th Ave is also notorious. I saw two possible solutions that could improve that interchange:

1. Diverging Diamond (http://www.divergingdiamond.com/) - eliminates some of the signals at the interchange, however eastbound & westbound traffic have to yield to each other at signalized intersections, causing awkward movement for thru traffic on 16th Ave. Might work better on a less busy cross-street like 32nd Ave.

2. Double Crossover Merging Interchange (DCMI) (http://www.dcmiinterchange.com/) - works on the same principle as the Diverging Diamond however it allows free flow movement for 16th Ave. The ROW at 16th Ave might allow for the extra structures however it can be cost prohibitive.

Thoughts?

The issue with the options you propose is that they are designed for an interchange where a minor road meets and major one, this is not the case @ 16th, lane wise 16th is similar in capacity to Deerfoot (3 lanes each direction).

Rather than completely redesigning the 16th Ave interchange, just build flyover ramps from WB-SB and SB-EB. That would pretty much solve the problem, IMO.

Glenmore needs extra lanes on Deerfoot and some flyover ramps.

I'm in agreement with this, using the hill and sinking some of the movements below grade would reduce the need for massive flyovers.

[Full Mountain]

The government will never install radical design ideas on major interchanges, so they need to find somewhere less critical to try out the diverging diamond before we'll see it at places like 16th and Deerfoot.

I could see Heritage and MacLoed being a good place for this

Edit: 1000th Post!

[fusili]

I could see Heritage and MacLoed being a good place for this

Edit: 1000th Post!

I don't think Macleod and Heritage will be upgraded for quite some time. When they do, I better hope they would put bus lanes on it.

[Acey]

If they built a WB-SB flyover then it'd make sense to do the opposing one, EB-NB, as opposed to SB-EB which would probably make the interchange four levels high, i.e., not going to happen. The two opposing flyovers would make for a pretty compact cloverstack-hybrid-still-not-what-it-should-be interchange that would move traffic much better.

[Ferreth]

I like the DCMI interchange for 16th, but I don't think the west part of it will fit between the railroad and Deerfoot.

I'm hoping the 1st phase of Glenmore-Deerfoot will get the green light once the SE ring road winds down. Even with the SE ring road, we need that extra bridge to get rid of the lane reductions over Glenmore. Also, the exit ramp curves will be broadened, which would help safety a bit.

[Yahoo]

My cash can be taken by the government and used to pay for the education and health care of kids who weren't as lucky to have good parents.

Fine, put that in your will - it's allowed. More likely your money will go into a general fund and be used to pay $4M in severance to a health care exec - rather than to do any good. My niece is a registered nurse and complains that people often will money for equipment in specific hospital units - and she's yet to see anything different in one of those units. The problem is any money that's donated usually just means other money is pulled away - likely to end up in the pockets of one of the executives trying to fix a mess that mismanagement has created. It then ends up as an executive bonus for saving money.

It's much better to donate your money while you're alive since at least then you can direct what it goes to - but even then, if it's not a huge amount it won't go where you want simply because administering charities don't have the resources to allocate every donation to a specific need.

Others have the right to expect that when they work hard all their lives they can leave it to whoever they want - their children or their friends or to a charity of their choice. (and no - I didn't inherit anything myself - but would certainly not complain about it if I did since I'd be giving a lot more to the charities I support).

[Ramsayfarian]

There was more context than that Spring. KW was responding to the thread where fusili suggested via a question if children deserve any inheritance whatsoever. While Ramsayfarian and KW focused in on "douchebags", my response was aligned to fusili's original train of thought, and yeah, I used Bigtime's (parents') cabin as an example. People often say the darndest things, and so a real example with the person looking them in the eyes (or reading their posts) helps people come to more thoughtful conclusions.

I



Where in my post did I use the word douchebag? It wasn't even implied. When I said born on third and thinking they hit a triple. I was referring to those who were born into opportunity, but then act like it was they're own hard work that got them were they are.

[Bassic Lab]

Rather than completely redesigning the 16th Ave interchange, just build flyover ramps from WB-SB and SB-EB. That would pretty much solve the problem, IMO.

Glenmore needs extra lanes on Deerfoot and some flyover ramps.

What about just building an overpass for 16 Ave through traffic above the current interchange. With the width between the existing bridges there is plenty of room for the necessary supports. With the reduced traffic over the existing portion it could probably be turned into a traffic circle with minor changes. That's actually what I always imagined the plan was for a phase 2. I can't think of any other explanation for the huge gap between the east and west bound bridges.

[Acey]

I can't think of any other explanation for the huge gap between the east and west bound bridges.

To hold more traffic queuing to turn? A diamond is such a joke of an interchange for a major junction I hope they don't ever plan on doing this crap again... and in comes Crowchild/Shag.

[You Need A Thneed]

What about just building an overpass for 16 Ave through traffic above the current interchange. With the width between the existing bridges there is plenty of room for the necessary supports. With the reduced traffic over the existing portion it could probably be turned into a traffic circle with minor changes. That's actually what I always imagined the plan was for a phase 2. I can't think of any other explanation for the huge gap between the east and west bound bridges.

That could work too, though I wonder if my idea would work better, in that there is a lot of traffic turning left. The ramps I suggested would allow the removal of both of the western traffic lights at the intersection, leaving just the ones east of Deerfoot.

It depends on the exact traffic numbers, and the relative costs.

[You Need A Thneed]

To hold more traffic queuing to turn? A diamond is such a joke of an interchange for a major junction I hope they don't ever plan on doing this crap again... and in comes Crowchild/Shag.

Crow/Shag had to be a diamond to allow straight movements on the ramps, because of the distance to other interchanges.

[Bassic Lab]

I could see Heritage and MacLoed being a good place for this

Edit: 1000th Post!

I think the existing plan, with the traffic circle over Macleod, is the best option. It is the only option that provides effective access to and from development on Horton.

I don't think Macleod and Heritage will be upgraded for quite some time. When they do, I better hope they would put bus lanes on it.

I think that it largely depends on how LRT improvements affect the intersection. Four car trains will be a test. The longer consists take more time to clear an intersection. We could find that the interchange will need to be built in conjunction with the 8 Ave subway. Heritage and 25 Ave are the only level crossings on the SLRT where the difficulty with syncing trains and Macleod's lights seriously hampers through traffic.

[Acey]

Crow/Shag had to be a diamond to allow straight movements on the ramps, because of the distance to other interchanges.

Kinda joking about Crow/Shag as I realize there's absolutely no room over there. I go through there quite often and it's not that bad, though I feel like the light timing could use some tweaking in the PM rush.

Quick update on my bitching about traffic in the NE: I'm finding it's faster to go down 19 St NE and west on 32 Ave to get onto SB Deerfoot instead of going west on McKnight, which backs up from Centre St to 19 St every weekday beginning around 4 pm. The left turn arrow timing is very favourable for the left turn from WB 32 Ave to SB Deerfoot... I did not know this. I save 5-7 minutes going this way, savings would be even more in the 5 o'clock hour.

The other thing I find is interesting is that traffic on McKnight is heavily WB in the afternoon and mostly EB (but not as heavily skewed) in the morning. I would have figured it to be the other way around.

[MasterG]

I found an article about Canada's most dangerous intersections and Calgary made two of the top five. It's not the scientific method of determining the most dangerous intersections, but there would be few that would disagree that these are some of the most notorious spots in the city. Here's the top five:


1) Vancouver: Knight Street Bridge at Marine Dr
2) Calgary: Deerfoot and 16th Ave NE
3) Winnipeg: Kenaston Blvd and McGillivrary Blvd
4) Winnipeg: Leila Avenue and McPhillips Street
5) Calgary: Glenmore Trail and Deerfoot Interchange

Full article: http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/calgary+home+to+two+of+canadas+most+dangerous+intersections/6442789950/story.html.

The province has been talking about upgrading the Deerfoot/Glenmore interchange for some time by twinning the bridge over Glenmore, improving the merge lanes, and eliminating the "Glenmore Squeeze", http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/OH1-GDI-Stage1.pdf. There is also a 2nd stage interchange that would make Glenmore/Deerfoot fully freeflow in all directions that has been proposed, http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/glen-m1.pdf.

Deerfoot/16th Ave is also notorious. I saw two possible solutions that could improve that interchange:

1. Diverging Diamond (http://www.divergingdiamond.com/) - eliminates some of the signals at the interchange, however eastbound & westbound traffic have to yield to each other at signalized intersections, causing awkward movement for thru traffic on 16th Ave. Might work better on a less busy cross-street like 32nd Ave.

2. Double Crossover Merging Interchange (DCMI) (http://www.dcmiinterchange.com/) - works on the same principle as the Diverging Diamond however it allows free flow movement for 16th Ave. The ROW at 16th Ave might allow for the extra structures however it can be cost prohibitive.

Thoughts?

Well I think that this is a good thing to consider, lets all relax and realize that this data was from "The Yahoo! report looked at national and provincial collision statistics from 2002-2004. I mean, Calgary ( and vancouver and toronto for that matter have changed dramatically in commute patterns since then, it has been 10 years since this data. how can anyone consider this accurate? no definition of what makes an interchange dangerous (i.e. number or accidents, number of deaths/injuries, number of traffic violations etc) as well as 10 year old data? irrelevant.

[Acey]

no definition of what makes an interchange dangerous (i.e. number or accidents, number of deaths/injuries, number of traffic violations etc) as well as 10 year old data? irrelevant.

Yep. I don't see how a free-flow interchange (even though it's a crappy free-flow interchange) can be one of the most dangerous "intersections" in Canada. Deerfoot and Glenmore are often at a crawl through here, but at least nobody's dying.

[Stang]

A bit late to the party re: road markings. I personally quite like it when, particularly in areas where dual turns are common, the markings are gouged into the pavement instead of being painted. I'm not sure if this is practical to do everywhere, but I find them much easier to see than faded paint. They even stand out nicely on wet roads when the faded paint all but disappears in the reflection.

Just a thought. Not as good as cat's eyes (which are amazing), but perhaps a good compromise for our climate.

[Acey]

Wikipedia calls this a "snowplowable pavement marker". But I see those plows scraping the heck out of Stoney Trail with sparks flying everywhere... nothing is surviving that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Snowplowable_reflector.jpg

[MalcolmTucker]

Wikipedia calls this a "snowplowable pavement marker". But I see those plows scraping the heck out of Stoney Trail with sparks flying everywhere... nothing is surviving that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Snowplowable_reflector.jpg
This might be interesting to you.
Title: Study of Snowplowable Raised Pavement Markers
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType241/Production/TM0206.pdf

[suburbia]

Where in my post did I use the word douchebag? It wasn't even implied. When I said born on third and thinking they hit a triple. I was referring to those who were born into opportunity, but then act like it was they're own hard work that got them were they are.

The following may apply ...

Wow sounds like you could use some of this.
http://thehealthjunction.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/allbran.jpg

Now let's please get back to the thread's official topic.

[kw5150]

Im starting to think you and bigtime are secretly dating. Its cute.

I made the comment long before bigtime posted his cabin.
Don't know what you guys have against the possibility of BigTime inheriting a monster 7 bedroom 5 bathroom "cottage". It is just an outcome of his folks deciding to buy instead of renting and shipping their money away.