Calgary Roads

[MalcolmTucker]

Looks like it, unless there is another sign that says otherwise.

[mersar]

It seems someone in the roads department realized that most drivers don't understand how to merge properly. On westbound Crowchild this morning they've set out some new signs, the first of which reads: "Did you merge correctly?", followed by two others that look (from a distance, I'll see for sure tonight) to try to show how to do it the right way. These are just past where Crowchild goes back to 2 lanes from 3 west of Crowfoot, but before Crowfoot Rise. Only temporary signs (they are affixed to plastic barricades) but people not knowing how to merge is probably the biggest tie up in that area with the current intersection at Stoney.

[freeweed]

It seems someone in the roads department realized that most drivers don't understand how to merge properly. On westbound Crowchild this morning they've set out some new signs, the first of which reads: "Did you merge correctly?", followed by two others that look (from a distance, I'll see for sure tonight) to try to show how to do it the right way. These are just past where Crowchild goes back to 2 lanes from 3 west of Crowfoot, but before Crowfoot Rise. Only temporary signs (they are affixed to plastic barricades) but people not knowing how to merge is probably the biggest tie up in that area with the current intersection at Stoney.

Calgary has had these for years in various spots. McLeod southbound around (Anderson? Shawnessy?) had them when I first moved here, and they always make me laugh.

[korzym]

It seems someone in the roads department realized that most drivers don't understand how to merge properly. On westbound Crowchild this morning they've set out some new signs, the first of which reads: "Did you merge correctly?", followed by two others that look (from a distance, I'll see for sure tonight) to try to show how to do it the right way. These are just past where Crowchild goes back to 2 lanes from 3 west of Crowfoot, but before Crowfoot Rise. Only temporary signs (they are affixed to plastic barricades) but people not knowing how to merge is probably the biggest tie up in that area with the current intersection at Stoney.

Good, I always thought it would be a good idea to have a sign that says "speed up" on merge ramps onto roads like deerfoot

[korzym]

Looks like it, unless there is another sign that says otherwise.

no this is the only sign:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image070.jpg
can anyone else confirm this? Apple the only thing that throws me off is the 'except by permit'

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[You Need A Thneed]

^Permit holders can park there at any time. Everybody can park there as long as it is not 8am to 8pm on a weekday.

So, yes, you can park there on Saturday.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Not sure which permit applies, or how to obtain one though.

pretty sure it's a resident permit. live in the area and you get one.

[freeweed]

Not sure which permit applies

Permit "F", duh. :P

[jeffwhit]

You wouldn't believe how easy it is to get permit parking rules changed.. the crazy bitch across the street who's always up in everyone's business put out a petition to change our street from permit only 8-5, M-F to permit only M-F 24h hours a day in addition to 8-5 Saturday and Sunday.

Just becasue she doesn't have any friends I guess no one else can either.

All this becasue she says people are always parking in front of her house. Meanwhile, she has 3 cars out front. I refused to sign her petition and she told me that I'd better "watch out."

Guess where I'm parking everytime I can from now on.

[You Need A Thneed]

Construction is underway for the widening of Deerfoot Southbound between Beddington and McKnight.

Basically an extra lane between Beddington and 64th, and two extra lanes between 64th and McKnight, so that there will be 4 lanes continuous, plus a full extra weave lane between interchanges.

[Calgarian]

Does anyone know if they are widening Dartmouth road just south of 25th Ave? That road is in terrible shape and I've always wondered why they hanen't re-paved it in the last few years. They are levelling the area between Highfield and 25th, and it looks like it is going to be the same level as the raod...

[MMMBeer]

For all that are interested, the new roundabout setup at Glenmore & 37 St. SW is up and running.

I guess the whole point is to give westbound traffic a longer green, was going eastbound at 8:30am and seemed to be working smoothly. Key test is when I head home later and see if westbound has really improved.

[You Need A Thneed]

Speaking of roundabouts, there's a new one beside Riverside Quays, on the road that goes to Peace Estate Park. If you want to cut over to 9th Ave on the little 17th Ave connector, you have to go around the roundabout.

[mersar]

Went and checked out the Country Hills Blvd extension tonight, they've made decent progress so far. The entire thing has been ripped up and rough graded for the 2 lanes (at least) from where the pavement ends just west of Rocky Ridge Road to where the pavement ends on the east side at Rocky Ridge Blvd. Grabbed a few photos I'll get up later tonight

[korzym]

For all that are interested, the new roundabout setup at Glenmore & 37 St. SW is up and running.

I guess the whole point is to give westbound traffic a longer green, was going eastbound at 8:30am and seemed to be working smoothly. Key test is when I head home later and see if westbound has really improved.
several articles out there today saying its failing. mainly for lakeview traffic, though they do say westbound glenmore has improved

[mersar]

Country Hills Boulevard NW
http://compscience.info/public/images/2009/chb-oct5-1.jpg

Park & Carpool Lot (16th Ave @ Stoney)
http://compscience.info/public/images/2009/parkcarpool-oct5-1.jpg

http://compscience.info/public/images/2009/parkcarpool-oct5-2.jpg

[Mazrim]

several articles out there today saying its failing. mainly for lakeview traffic, though they do say westbound glenmore has improved

The article I read was hilarious, because they said it was failing from drivers not driving properly through the intersection. People heading SB on 37th Street going through the intersection and using the traffic circle to turn around and take a right onto EB Glenmore? Uh yeah, that might make the traffic circle a little busy! There is no change to SB 37th, morons...keep driving it like you did before.

The change is working as intended.

[Calgarian]

Country Hills Boulevard NW
http://compscience.info/public/images/2009/chb-oct5-1.jpg

Park & Carpool Lot (16th Ave @ Stoney)
http://compscience.info/public/images/2009/parkcarpool-oct5-1.jpg

http://compscience.info/public/images/2009/parkcarpool-oct5-2.jpg

That park and carpool lot is where I park and catch the bus to go snowboarding BC for a weekend.:cool:

[korzym]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/mergefail.jpg

[korzym]

good article on raising speed limits http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/27/report-utah-dot-admits-higher-speed-limits-has-worked-out-to-le/

also I remember an article out there about Montana having no speed limits and only seeing an increase in accidents after implementing a speed limit. This only works for highways, studies still prove speed limits in cities are required

[Stang]

I think that there's some truth to that article. I have found that when I'm driving on the highway, I tend to base my speed on what feels right. I know that it may sound a bit wishy-washy, but if I'm driving to Edmonton on a clear day with light traffic, the speedometer creeps up a bit. If visibility is reduced or if traffic is a little heavier, the speedometer drops a little.

Of course, not everyone seems to share the same instincts, as I have been passed by clowns doing 140 in a snowstorm, and I have also flown past idiots doing 90 on the most perfect of days.

While I'm not sure that abolishing the speed limits all together would be the best approach, but on certain roads, there could definitely be an increase. 120 on the QEII as a speed limit would be a good start, since 80% of cars are travelling at least that fast anyway.

[Ferreth]

I'm all for no speed limits on highways, as long as highways are upgraded appropriately. Both the #1 and the #2 have sub-standard interchanges with yields or very short merges.

I'm hesitant to the idea on any road with at grade intersections - I may not be an idiot when it come to pulling out into traffic, but the guy pulling in front of me might be an idiot and not leave nearly enough room to account for my 160km/hr.

[Stang]

Sarcee and 16th Ave NW - anyone have any idea what is going on here? For the past few mornings the ramp from EB 16th to SB Sarcee has been backed up, and there are reduced lanes right where the ramp connects to Sarcee.

It looks like there is a crew doing to work just adjacent to that point in the green area.

Anything interesting or something boring but necessary like stormwater work? ;)

[mersar]

Likely just utilities, though I did notice they'd staked out something in there last time I was past, almost looked like the outline for a couledesac but I doubt theres any development going on since thats part of the slopes area, though i guess its possible they may be building a parking lot. Wasn't there a plan to turn the area into an official city park at some point?

[YYCguys]

We have discussed in this thread the advantages and disadvantages to traffic circles. I, for one, advocate them, as they take up less space and probably cost less and take less time to build than our North American interchanges, however I've only ever navigated the small traffic circles such as can be found in Mount Royal. The link below is an animation of a really confusing traffic circle (actually it's a combination of 5 traffic circles) in Swindon, England (taken from youtube).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPANKRHL9HU

[Stang]

I have heard about the "Magic Roundabout" before... I still can't wrap my head around it, but an aerial view helps:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=51.562834,-1.771465&spn=0.000564,0.001725&z=19

From what I can gather, the "big" roundabout isn't a roundabout at all. Just a joining point for the smaller roundabouts.

Apparently this thing actually works, but I honestly can't imagine how... :)

[mooky]

I never went through that round-a-bout in the UK, but I went through several that seemed almost as "mad" as that one, where one would connect to another to another, all with silly white dots painted on the ground, no real physical obstacle to go around. A bit of an over complication to a traffic situation. That said, single round-a-bouts where there is moderate traffic flow so much smoother then lights or any other alternative I could think of.

[Stang]

I never went through that round-a-bout in the UK, but I went through several that seemed almost as "mad" as that one, where one would connect to another to another, all with silly white dots painted on the ground, no real physical obstacle to go around. A bit of an over complication to a traffic situation. That said, single round-a-bouts where there is moderate traffic flow so much smoother then lights or any other alternative I could think of.

My Grandfather was explaining to me that the painted roundabouts are simply to show that the roundabout right-of-way rules are to be used (ie: yield to the vehicle already in the intersection and on your right (the opposite of circles here). You don't actually have to drive around the paint.

There are some big, strange roundabouts though. Although I'm a proponent of roundabouts, I'll be the first to admit that the Brits seem to prefer them a little too much.

[tmjr]

I'm also a proponent of roundabouts and wish we had a lot more of them... but what on earth is the advantage of the Swindon magic roundabout? Does it 'absorb' more traffic?

T.

[mersar]

Country Hills Boulevard west extension has been paved as of yesterday, though not open yet

[jsbertram]

We have discussed in this thread the advantages and disadvantages to traffic circles. ...

I've not had many problems with Traffic Circles, but for someone unfamiliar with them, they can be a nightmare.

I was in Edmonton attending a wedding reception, and an elderly cousin from the US approached me to help him find a liquor store. There was one across the highway from the hotel where the reception was being held, and I pointed to the sign from his room balcony so he knew what direction to go.

Later on, I found out that his wife was quite upset that he'd disappeared for most of the reception. It turns out (pun intended) that he got into a traffic circle while driving to the liquor store, but not being familiar with them he couldn't figure out how to get out again. The liquor store sign would keep whizzing by - taunting him - until he did a 'crazy jackrabbit turn' out of the traffic circle and into the liquor store parking lot.

Only to find out that it had closed for the day while he was spinning around the traffic circle.

The thought of having to use the traffic circle again to get back to the hotel frightened him, so he left the car behind & hailed a cab back to the hotel.

For decades now, the family has been laughing about "the wedding where Cousin *** lost his car after driving in circles"

[Corndogger]

The Province is asking for feedback on recommendations on making all school zones go from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM and playground zones from 7:30 AM to 9:00 PM.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4027.htm

It would be nice (actually great) if the City would eliminate a large number of the phoney playground zones that we have that are seldom if ever used.

[eternallyme]

The Province is asking for feedback on recommendations on making all school zones go from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM and playground zones from 7:30 AM to 9:00 PM.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4027.htm

It would be nice (actually great) if the City would eliminate a large number of the phoney playground zones that we have that are seldom if ever used.

They should remove the time rules and change it to "when children are present" for playground zones - regardless of time of day or night, based on sightline views as determined by enforcement. If no children are present, the 30 km/h speed limit would not apply.

For school zones for junior and senior high schools, the rule should be at all times from 7:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday except school holidays. For elementary schools, the playground rule should apply if a playground is part of the school property.

Arterial roads with a speed limit of 60 km/h or higher should be exempt from the speed restrictions for junior and senior high schools (ideally, elementary schools and playgrounds would not be located on those roads, but those require extra safety issues). Pedestrian-only traffic signals should be considered for those settings.

[The Chemist]

They should remove the time rules and change it to "when children are present" for playground zones - regardless of time of day or night, based on sightline views as determined by enforcement. If no children are present, the 30 km/h speed limit would not apply.

For school zones for junior and senior high schools, the rule should be at all times from 7:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday except school holidays. For elementary schools, the playground rule should apply if a playground is part of the school property.

Arterial roads with a speed limit of 60 km/h or higher should be exempt from the speed restrictions for junior and senior high schools (ideally, elementary schools and playgrounds would not be located on those roads, but those require extra safety issues). Pedestrian-only traffic signals should be considered for those settings.

They should also make it so that school zones/playground zones are ONLY within sight of the school/playground. There are far too many (coming up the hill on Canyon Meadows Drive approaching Queensland Drive as one example) where it seems the only purpose of the extended playground zone is to give the cops a better hiding place to catch people speeding.

[Corndogger]

They should remove the time rules and change it to "when children are present" for playground zones - regardless of time of day or night, based on sightline views as determined by enforcement. If no children are present, the 30 km/h speed limit would not apply.

For school zones for junior and senior high schools, the rule should be at all times from 7:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday except school holidays. For elementary schools, the playground rule should apply if a playground is part of the school property.

Arterial roads with a speed limit of 60 km/h or higher should be exempt from the speed restrictions for junior and senior high schools (ideally, elementary schools and playgrounds would not be located on those roads, but those require extra safety issues). Pedestrian-only traffic signals should be considered for those settings.

The "when present" rule should definitely be implemented for playgrounds. I'm fine with the proposed school zone changes. Do high schools even have such zones? One would hope by that age the students are smart enough to pay attention to the traffic on the road.

[freeweed]

The "when present" rule should definitely be implemented for playgrounds. I'm fine with the proposed school zone changes. Do high schools even have such zones? One would hope by that age the students are smart enough to pay attention to the traffic on the road.

Children of most ages are smart enough, if taught. And if they're too young, they're not allowed to run out into the freaking road unattended.

Are there any actual statistics backing up the purpose of playground zones? To me they feel like a feel good gesture and nothing more. Kids play in a heck of a lot more places than playgrounds, and yet somehow those kids survive.

Hell, until moving to Calgary, I'd never seen an actual enforced playground speed zone. Are children here that much less likely to be hit by cars that this is even justified? And why are we letting the slaughter continue in other cities?

[Stang]

^ Maybe one of the Edmonton forum members can confirm this, but I seem to recall that Edmonton doesn't have any playground zones. I go there once or twice a month, and I can't recall seeing any, but I generally stick to mostly main roads for what I do there.

Although I'd like to see some stats, I do believe that playground zones provide a false sense of security for both kids and parents.

I recall that on the road that I grew up on (a collector road), back in the late 80's or early 90's a young girl was tragically hit and killed. Although the driver was not charged as he was not speeding, the parents in the area picketed and moaned loudly enough until a playground zone was put in. And get this - there was absolutely no playground there. Anywhere. Not even a field or play area. Nothing.

It was finally taken out a few years ago - surprised it lasted that long.

But to me it reiterates the point about a false sense of security. "30km will make everything so much safer". But will it? I don't want to sound cold, but supervising your kids and not letting them play near busy roads would probably do more to save lives than putting up a couple of yellow signs.

[srperrycgy]

I recall that on the road that I grew up on (a collector road), back in the late 80's or early 90's a young girl was tragically hit and killed. Although the driver was not charged as he was not speeding, the parents in the area picketed and moaned loudly enough until a playground zone was put in. And get this - there was absolutely no playground there. Anywhere. Not even a field or play area. Nothing.


Sounds exactly like 51st St SW from 26th Ave to Richmond Rd.

[freeweed]

:previous: Wow, so there is actually someone who likes the Cleveland Show. :P

[srperrycgy]

:previous: Wow, so there is actually someone who likes the Cleveland Show. :P

Not really, I just like the bears. :cool:

Anyway, back to the roads discussion.

[Corndogger]

^ Maybe one of the Edmonton forum members can confirm this, but I seem to recall that Edmonton doesn't have any playground zones. I go there once or twice a month, and I can't recall seeing any, but I generally stick to mostly main roads for what I do there.

Although I'd like to see some stats, I do believe that playground zones provide a false sense of security for both kids and parents.

I recall that on the road that I grew up on (a collector road), back in the late 80's or early 90's a young girl was tragically hit and killed. Although the driver was not charged as he was not speeding, the parents in the area picketed and moaned loudly enough until a playground zone was put in. And get this - there was absolutely no playground there. Anywhere. Not even a field or play area. Nothing.

It was finally taken out a few years ago - surprised it lasted that long.

But to me it reiterates the point about a false sense of security. "30km will make everything so much safer". But will it? I don't want to sound cold, but supervising your kids and not letting them play near busy roads would probably do more to save lives than putting up a couple of yellow signs.

Calgary definitely has way too many playground zones. If I remember correctly, we have over 1,000 of them. I did a bit of digging tonight and found an interesting document from Alberta Transportation on playground and school zones. I found the following very interesting.

D3.2 Establishment of School and Playground Zones and Areas

D3.2.1 Introduction

"School and Playground Zones and Areas should be used sparingly, and in accordance with these Guidelines. Zones and Areas should not be provided in an attempt to increase the safety of crossing the roadway; other devices have been developed and should be applied for such a purpose." (p. 10 of PDF file)

I'd find it hard to believe that Calgary uses playground zones sparingly.

The document, which seems to provide guidelines for every last detail you could think of concerning playground and school zones/areas can be found at http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType233/Production/schlpgnd.pdf.

[Corndogger]

good article on raising speed limits http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/27/report-utah-dot-admits-higher-speed-limits-has-worked-out-to-le/

also I remember an article out there about Montana having no speed limits and only seeing an increase in accidents after implementing a speed limit. This only works for highways, studies still prove speed limits in cities are required

And here's a document from the Washington State DOT that states lowering speed limits does not mean that people will slow down and that it is motorists who influence speed limits. Too bad the City of Calgary and our police force can't be honest with us like WSDOT is with motorists in Washington state.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/36221729-2EEE-40AE-B10A-6EC5707B0C0A/0/SpeedLimitsInfov02.pdf

[mwalker_mw]

While I find playground zones annoying (especially the overly long ones or the ones that run along an 8' high chainlink fence) I can understand their purpose. I do agree strongly, however, that the time restrictions need to be updated. Limiting school zones to 4:00pm would be a big help for rush hour traffic. Most importantly of all - the "until one hour after dusk" rule for playground zones needs to be changed. It is arbitrary, inaccurate, and swings too far each way during the extremes of the year. A simple 8pm or 9pm would make much more sense.

That all being said - by the time I was 6 I knew playing in traffic was a bad idea.

[Mazrim]

And here's a document from the Washington State DOT that states lowering speed limits does not mean that people will slow down and that it is motorists who influence speed limits. Too bad the City of Calgary and our police force can't be honest with us like WSDOT is with motorists in Washington state.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/36221729-2EEE-40AE-B10A-6EC5707B0C0A/0/SpeedLimitsInfov02.pdf

Not that Washington DOT actually lets the people set the speed limit on their interstates. I-5 for example seems to fluctuate quite a bit in places with no real explanation, and cars certainly don't seem to adjust their speeds. I'm willing to bet the complaints there are just as often as anywhere else.

[Stang]

Sounds exactly like 51st St SW from 26th Ave to Richmond Rd.

This was in Beddington on Berkley Drive, but I'm sure that it has happened in numerous places before.

I am familiar with that stretch you are referring to - I believe that one is still there though, isn't it? It has been a while since I have driven through it.

[korzym]

While I find playground zones annoying (especially the overly long ones or the ones that run along an 8' high chainlink fence) I can understand their purpose. I do agree strongly, however, that the time restrictions need to be updated. Limiting school zones to 4:00pm would be a big help for rush hour traffic. Most importantly of all - the "until one hour after dusk" rule for playground zones needs to be changed. It is arbitrary, inaccurate, and swings too far each way during the extremes of the year. A simple 8pm or 9pm would make much more sense.

That all being said - by the time I was 6 I knew playing in traffic was a bad idea.
7dE4UgY7lgI

[mersar]

Went and took a closer look at Country Hills Blvd west of Rocky Ridge Road today. So far they've done all the curbs and the first layer of asphalt from one side all the way to the other, so still another bit of work before its ready to open. Its also extremely narrow, felt narrower then the average 2 lane roadway though not much worse then the existing part of CHB where it meets 12 Mile Coulee.

[You Need A Thneed]

The 16th Ave project looks like it will be substantially complete very soon. The last corner island has been removed, and it just waiting paving, then there will be 3 continuous lanes in both directions from barlow trail to motel villiage.

Of course there is lots of final paving to do yet.

[mersar]

Yep. They were doing some traffic light work on 16th yesterday east of Edmonton Trail. We got stuck in traffic and had a chuckle at the sign for the project that's sitting near there, which reads "completion 2008"

[Calgarian]

Sorry for the OT, but since it's about driving I figured this would be the best place to ask this.

Does anyone know a good place to get winter tires and steelies?

[Stang]

Sorry for the OT, but since it's about driving I figured this would be the best place to ask this.

Does anyone know a good place to get winter tires and steelies?

I got my steel rims at Canadian Tire (they were about $40 or 50 each) and then some winter tires at Kal Tire.

I had some good experiences with Kal Tire before (fixing a flat for free even through I hadn't bought the tires there, etc.) but getting my winter tires last year was a nightmare.

Visit 1: Steel wheels in trunk. Pick up car and new winter tires are mounted on my alloys instead, old tires in my trunk, steel wheels missing.

Visit 2: They find the steel wheels. Winter tires mounted on steel wheels (yay!), alloys on back seat, old tires in trunk. (The reason I got steelies was so I didn't have to mount the tires each season).

Visit 3: Old tires remounted on my alloys and a free alignment for my troubles.

In the end, they made it right, but it was a very frustrating. I have heard that Kal Tire isn't the cheapest, but they seemed reasonable in my shopping around. Also consider that I was getting some cheap winter tires for an older car - nothing fancy. Each year they'll change your already-mounted tires/wheels for free. It is hard to get an appointment there, so you'll usually need to leave your car there for the day to get even the changeover done. Or... swap them yourself if you have a jack.

Also - a word about Canadian Tire rims - I read online from a few people that said their hubcaps wouldn't fit over the steel wheels. But if you're just going to go cap-less, it won't bother you.

[bookermorgan]

I had good experience with my last 4 tires at pit stop tire. they will do the install in 30 mins. pitstoptire.ca 403.287.7647

[korzym]

I had good experience with my last 4 tires at pit stop tire. they will do the install in 30 mins. pitstoptire.ca 403.287.7647

what an inconspicuous post lol

[freeweed]

I always debate getting winter tires but with snow on the ground 4 days out of the year, it's hard to justify.

Of course, I drive into Banff all the time in the winter, but then I just pretend it's Winnipeg and have no problems. :haha:

[bookermorgan]

what an inconspicuous post lol

You think i work there? im not that low....

vistageomatics.com vistageomatics.com vistageomatics.com

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[korzym]

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/bown_article_image/files/articles/diverging.jpg

http://www.popsci.com/bown/2009/product/diverging-diamond-interchange

[para transit fellow]

That's a radical departure in traffic interchanges!

[Koolfire]

I was thinking something similar to that would work for 16th/Deerfoot. Here's a crude drawing.

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg138/koolfire_ssp/deerfoot-16thave.jpg

Green being a straight through 6 lane bridge (New), Purple being 16th ave to Deerfoot traffic and Red being Deerfoot to 16th traffic.

[jeffwhit]

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/bown_article_image/files/articles/diverging.jpg

http://www.popsci.com/bown/2009/product/diverging-diamond-interchange

Woah.

[greg_a]

Anyone seen any proposed interchanges for the Kensington set of lights on Crowchild or the intersection at Crowchild/Stadium?

[mersar]

Anyone seen any proposed interchanges for the Kensington set of lights on Crowchild or the intersection at Crowchild/Stadium?

There hasn't been any official design work done yet, so if theres anything floating around its at most either pure fantasy or extremely conceptual (the Banff Trail TOD work did propose changes to the area, so there are those type of proposals for at least that area)

[mersar]

Also noticed on Saturday night that they've been working on the 2nd bridge for Seton Blvd/Cranston Road interchange on Deerfoot. So far the abutments on either side look to be formed in, and work on the footings for the pier is underway

[Mazrim]

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/bown_article_image/files/articles/diverging.jpg

http://www.popsci.com/bown/2009/product/diverging-diamond-interchange

This has been proposed for use on a project in the Calgary area, but wasn't approved because of it being fairly new...I personally would love to see it tried out. Too bad Alberta Transportation is afraid to try it. It's geometrically sound and holds way more volume than a Parclo interchange.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

here is a video about the airport tunnel i just received by email.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA4pMXk2Ajk

[MalcolmTucker]

Hopefully money is found to put at least a roughed in tunnel (more likely trenches and bridges) under the runway and taxi ways. Can worry about the other roads as needed. Still worth it even if it sits unused for 5 or 10 years.

[You Need A Thneed]

Hopefully money is found to put at least a roughed in tunnel (more likely trenches and bridges) under the runway and taxi ways. Can worry about the other roads as needed. Still worth it even if it sits unused for 5 or 10 years.

The roughed in tunnel would be 90% of the total project cost. No reason then to not build the roads. However, a roughed in tunnel would be better than nothing.

[Corndogger]

This has been proposed for use on a project in the Calgary area, but wasn't approved because of it being fairly new...I personally would love to see it tried out. Too bad Alberta Transportation is afraid to try it. It's geometrically sound and holds way more volume than a Parclo interchange.

So obviously this was a provincial project and sounds like it was outside the city. Do you know where this was proposed?

I did a bit of research the other day and it looks like a number of jurisdictions in North America are either building DDIs or have plans to. MoDOT seems to be happy with them as they are building and planning a number of them. Here's a link to an animation of a DDI they plan on building in KC. After watching the clip I can see how this design can handle a lot more traffic. If you look around the site they have other animations which show traffic movements from various directions and the proposed signage, etc. looks like it would make it rather easy to use this interchange.

http://www.435ddi.com/video/Overhead3DViewMed_Prog.wmv

[MalcolmTucker]

The roughed in tunnel would be 90% of the total project cost. No reason then to not build the roads. However, a roughed in tunnel would be better than nothing.

Depends, 90% of the 150 million dollar project, but not 90% of the $450 million dollar connection all the way to Stoney.

[You Need A Thneed]

Speaking of interesting interchange designs, here's the recommended plan for the Heritage/MacLoed interchange - from the planning study - not approved for construction yet.

Traffic Circle interchange (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/trans_planning/studies/heritage_macleod/roundabout_road_layout.pdf)

[You Need A Thneed]

Depends, 90% of the 150 million dollar project, but not 90% of the $450 million dollar connection all the way to Stoney.

The $450M number is nothing but a ploy by some to say that the project is too expensive. That includes interchanges and road construction that would otherwise be required anyway - in the future - and the tunnel doesn't really change the timeline for when they would be needed.

Also, like I've mentioned before, the total project costs that they use never take into account the cost of not building the tunnel, in terms of the road widenings and improvements that would be required elsewhere if the tunnel is not built. I suppose that is totally separate from your original point.

[O-tacular]

Speaking of interesting interchange designs, here's the recommended plan for the Heritage/MacLoed interchange - from the planning study - not approved for construction yet.

Traffic Circle interchange (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/trans_planning/studies/heritage_macleod/roundabout_road_layout.pdf)

It looks like it has a traffic circle in the centre? WTF?

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

a lot of calgarians are afraid of circles. i sat on the traffic committee for mayland heights while we we're going thru the traffic calming process. the city said that a circle at 14 ave and 19 st ne was the best solution for that intersection. after a survey went out to residents, there was some concern over the circle, so the city eliminated it, although they claim it was by far the best solution. real frustrating.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Ferreth]

^^ I was at the open house for that and a lot of people I overheard were downright hostile to the idea of a traffic circle. The alternative most people seemed to want was a traffic light. I was undecided. The city didn't provide any details of what they might want to build there for a traffic circle, although they had some models of a typical one. I wanted to see how they would integrate a 4 lane road north of 14th St. & 19th Av. connecting with two lane roads in every other direction. City could have done a better "sales job" on the traffic circle IMHO.

[Mazrim]

People are afraid to try new things... :haha:

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

^Interesting. Which part was frustrating?

I know traffic circles tend to be a fairly divisive idea for one reason or another.

the most frustrating part was having the city go back on it's word of wanting to install the best option of a circle, then having a resident survey change their minds and install lights instead, which was always a very undesireable solution from the city.

^^ I was at the open house for that and a lot of people I overheard were downright hostile to the idea of a traffic circle. The alternative most people seemed to want was a traffic light. I was undecided. The city didn't provide any details of what they might want to build there for a traffic circle, although they had some models of a typical one. I wanted to see how they would integrate a 4 lane road north of 14th St. & 19th Av. connecting with two lane roads in every other direction. City could have done a better "sales job" on the traffic circle IMHO.

a lot of people may have been hostile, because the city doesn not communicate well at all. i was the only one that brought any background of a circle to our meetings. the city brought nothing. majority of the traffic committee, after discussing the pros and cons of a circle with the city, were all sold on installing one, and the city was happy because they didn't think we'd go for it.

the circle, as explained to us, would have been one lane in, one lane out. so only a single lane circle. this is the simplest form of circle couldn't be more esy to navigate. they would have used curb extensions to close of the extra lanes to creat this scenario.

after the city, the committee all agreed on a final traffic calming plan, they city sent out a survey asking residents about it. well, some residents screamed bloody heel over a circle. somehow, the city decided that what they thought was the best option, what the traffic committee thought was the best option, was all of a sudden not the best idea, because some people were afraid of it. yet the city still proudly thinks that a circle at heritage and macleaod will go over smoothly with calgarians. if they can't stand up to a few maylanders, they won't be able to do it to all calgarians.

all in all, they city balked on the best deal for mayland heights, and decided to install traffic lights, which were one idea they despised from the get go, as it would cause traffic to back up towards 16 ave and possibly creating more isssues.

i wrote our alderman, the traffic committee and the city officials who were dealing with us. i asked why they went away from, as they claimed, the best idea of installing a traffic circle. it's been just over a year and i still have not heard a response from any party involved.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[freeweed]

I won't be fully onboard with roundabouts until people in this city learn to freaking signal as they exit. It's so much fun to yield for no reason.

Is this even taught in driver training here?

[jsbertram]

the most frustrating part was having the city go back on it's word of wanting to install the best option of a circle, then having a resident survey change their minds and install lights instead, which was always a very undesireable solution from the city.



a lot of people may have been hostile, because the city doesn not communicate well at all. i was the only one that brought any background of a circle to our meetings. the city brought nothing. majority of the traffic committee, after discussing the pros and cons of a circle with the city, were all sold on installing one, and the city was happy because they didn't think we'd go for it.

the circle, as explained to us, would have been one lane in, one lane out. so only a single lane circle. this is the simplest form of circle couldn't be more esy to navigate. they would have used curb extensions to close of the extra lanes to creat this scenario.

after the city, the committee all agreed on a final traffic calming plan, they city sent out a survey asking residents about it. well, some residents screamed bloody heel over a circle. somehow, the city decided that what they thought was the best option, what the traffic committee thought was the best option, was all of a sudden not the best idea, because some people were afraid of it. yet the city still proudly thinks that a circle at heritage and macleaod will go over smoothly with calgarians. if they can't stand up to a few maylanders, they won't be able to do it to all calgarians.

all in all, they city balked on the best deal for mayland heights, and decided to install traffic lights, which were one idea they despised from the get go, as it would cause traffic to back up towards 16 ave and possibly creating more isssues.

i wrote our alderman, the traffic committee and the city officials who were dealing with us. i asked why they went away from, as they claimed, the best idea of installing a traffic circle. it's been just over a year and i still have not heard a response from any party involved.

Years ago I had a heated argument with my uncle about the Elbow Dr / Riverdale / Lansdowne traffic circle. Basically he was telling me I was stupid to think it was a traffic circle, because Elbow doesn't bend around a circle. A few weeks later, we were walking his dog in the area and I subtly changed direction to walk through this traffic circle. Standing at the Elbow bus stop, I showed him the traffic driving in a circle around us. After about a minute of watching the traffic, it donned on him that he never knew he was using a traffic circle there, probably because of the traffic lights.

[eternallyme]

Are the plans to extend the Macleod Trail expressway/freeway north of Anderson Road? Due to the amount of development along there, I think that parallel routes (14th/Crowchild and Deerfoot/Memorial) should get the attention for upgrades to divert traffic from the south to downtown.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

^I'm a little confused. So you're frustrated that the city bent to residents not in the consultation committee?

kind of, but not entirely. i'm frustrated that the city bent at all. when they know they have the best solution, why deviate from it, whether it be pressure from the committee or residents. from the get go, the city made us aware, they are the experts, not us, therefor, their expertise will rule at the end of the day.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Stang]

I won't be fully onboard with roundabouts until people in this city learn to freaking signal as they exit. It's so much fun to yield for no reason.

Is this even taught in driver training here?

Vehicles sold in Alberta have the signal lights removed at the point of sale. ;)

I wonder whether people just don't realize that other drivers benefit from their signalling, or whether they simply don't care.

While I don't trust people's signalling implicitly, it is nice to have some idea of what other drivers are planning to do and then adjust my move accordingly.

A personal pet peeve of mine is those that don't signal prior to changing into a turning lane (but they'll slam on the brakes before they even get into it), and then as soon as they get to the light they'll start signalling. No shit - you're in a turning lane!

Maybe we need a driving rant thread a-la CalgaryPuck?

[korzym]

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/bown_article_image/files/articles/diverging.jpg

http://www.popsci.com/bown/2009/product/diverging-diamond-interchange

This has been proposed for use on a project in the Calgary area, but wasn't approved because of it being fairly new...I personally would love to see it tried out. Too bad Alberta Transportation is afraid to try it. It's geometrically sound and holds way more volume than a Parclo interchange.

I think the best place to implement this is glenmore and macloed, 14th and john laurie. The symmetry of those bridges could certainly accommodate it

[Mazrim]

Those bridges aren't long enough to handle the Diverging Diamond (queue lengths would be really short). The design they have is pretty solid as it is.

[Ferreth]

the most frustrating part was having the city go back on it's word of wanting to install the best option of a circle, then having a resident survey change their minds and install lights instead, which was always a very undesireable solution from the city.

a lot of people may have been hostile, because the city doesn not communicate well at all. i was the only one that brought any background of a circle to our meetings. the city brought nothing. majority of the traffic committee, after discussing the pros and cons of a circle with the city, were all sold on installing one, and the city was happy because they didn't think we'd go for it.

the circle, as explained to us, would have been one lane in, one lane out. so only a single lane circle. this is the simplest form of circle couldn't be more esy to navigate. they would have used curb extensions to close of the extra lanes to creat this scenario.

Ah, this would have made all the difference to me for moving my opinion from 'undecided' to 'support'. Unfortunately, at the meeting, the guy from traffic was being mobbed the whole time I was there so I didn't get a chance to ask him any questions. A diagram of the proposed traffic circle configuration in the mail-out would've helped, along with a stronger argument for rather than the lame "visit our website for more details" cop-out.


after the city, the committee all agreed on a final traffic calming plan, they city sent out a survey asking residents about it. well, some residents screamed bloody heel over a circle. somehow, the city decided that what they thought was the best option, what the traffic committee thought was the best option, was all of a sudden not the best idea, because some people were afraid of it. yet the city still proudly thinks that a circle at heritage and macleaod will go over smoothly with calgarians. if they can't stand up to a few maylanders, they won't be able to do it to all calgarians.

all in all, they city balked on the best deal for mayland heights, and decided to install traffic lights, which were one idea they despised from the get go, as it would cause traffic to back up towards 16 ave and possibly creating more isssues.

i wrote our alderman, the traffic committee and the city officials who were dealing with us. i asked why they went away from, as they claimed, the best idea of installing a traffic circle. it's been just over a year and i still have not heard a response from any party involved.

The city did send a generic letter out explained that (from the letter) "... a significant number of the community were opposed to the roundabout. A large number of residents asked for signals to be installed at 19 Street and 14 Avenue instead of a roundabout. Again we listened to your feedback and will install signals at this location."

Kind of pointless to have a traffic committee take it's time to figure out what's best for the community when the city just goes with the will of people who bothered to answer a survey (20% response) at the end of the day. Perhaps the city needs to survey first then have the the traffic committee modify its suggestions based on feedback. So, as a committee, if you know there is strong opposition to the idea of a traffic circle, you at least have a heads up and can prepare a proper case for one to convince the community.

[greg_a]

Anyone see this tonight? It looked awful.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091124/CGY_crash_crowchild_091124/20091124/?hub=CalgaryHome

[jsbertram]

One of my Urban Planning profs years ago was saying that a problem in Calgary is all the different traffic patterns of the different intersection designs that are used on the major streets. For the people using an interchange often they get used to how it is laid out, but for people who rarely use some interchanges, having different types and shapes and rules for interchanges throughout the city can get confusing.

As an example, he was saying that for people used to the cloverleaf designs (where you are familiar with using the right lane to exit/enter the traffic flows), the (then new) open-diamond design used on Deerfoot and 16th NE would always cause accidents with people unfamiliar with using two separate light-controlled intersections while turning left to get on or get off Deerfoot or 16th. He was saying that was the worst possible design for a major interchange that a lot of tourists would be using (Trans Canada Highway & Highway 2). He was also critical that the same four-intersection design was being used up & down Deerfoot, but with slight variations so none of the Deerfoot interchanges were the same.

He predicted then that there would be daily accidents at those interchanges, and at least monthly an accident causing death, because someone who makes it through the first light forgets or ignores the second intersection. Or because someone using the off-ramp ignores the first set of lights.

Now the planners in their infinite wisdom want to put a traffic circle on a major interchange (MacLeod & Heritage), when most people couldn't point to another traffic circle on a map (unless they are from Edmonton), let alone describe how to safely navigate through one.

If a traffic circle is absolutely necessary, looking at the design, I see that all of the Heritage traffic has to circulate around the circle, even if they aren't turning on to MacLeod, interfering with traffic that actually needs to change from Heritage to MacLeod (or vise versa) . Why not have a straight-though Heritage Dr traffic bridge as the top layer (which also flies over the CPR/LRT tracks), the second layer is the traffic circle for traffic turning on/off MacLeod Tr, and bottom layer for straight-though MacLeod Tr traffic?

[kw5150]

So obviously this was a provincial project and sounds like it was outside the city. Do you know where this was proposed?

I did a bit of research the other day and it looks like a number of jurisdictions in North America are either building DDIs or have plans to. MoDOT seems to be happy with them as they are building and planning a number of them. Here's a link to an animation of a DDI they plan on building in KC. After watching the clip I can see how this design can handle a lot more traffic. If you look around the site they have other animations which show traffic movements from various directions and the proposed signage, etc. looks like it would make it rather easy to use this interchange.

http://www.435ddi.com/video/Overhead3DViewMed_Prog.wmv

I get a headache just looking at it! Im glad I hardly ever drive.

[eternallyme]

One of my Urban Planning profs years ago was saying that a problem in Calgary is all the different traffic patterns of the different intersection designs that are used on the major streets. For the people using an interchange often they get used to how it is laid out, but for people who rarely use some interchanges, having different types and shapes and rules for interchanges throughout the city can get confusing.

As an example, he was saying that for people used to the cloverleaf designs (where you are familiar with using the right lane to exit/enter the traffic flows), the (then new) open-diamond design used on Deerfoot and 16th NE would always cause accidents with people unfamiliar with using two separate light-controlled intersections while turning left to get on or get off Deerfoot or 16th. He was saying that was the worst possible design for a major interchange that a lot of tourists would be using (Trans Canada Highway & Highway 2). He was also critical that the same four-intersection design was being used up & down Deerfoot, but with slight variations so none of the Deerfoot interchanges were the same.

He predicted then that there would be daily accidents at those interchanges, and at least monthly an accident causing death, because someone who makes it through the first light forgets or ignores the second intersection. Or because someone using the off-ramp ignores the first set of lights.

Now the planners in their infinite wisdom want to put a traffic circle on a major interchange (MacLeod & Heritage), when most people couldn't point to another traffic circle on a map (unless they are from Edmonton), let alone describe how to safely navigate through one.

If a traffic circle is absolutely necessary, looking at the design, I see that all of the Heritage traffic has to circulate around the circle, even if they aren't turning on to MacLeod, interfering with traffic that actually needs to change from Heritage to MacLeod (or vise versa) . Why not have a straight-though Heritage Dr traffic bridge as the top layer (which also flies over the CPR/LRT tracks), the second layer is the traffic circle for traffic turning on/off MacLeod Tr, and bottom layer for straight-though MacLeod Tr traffic?

A three-level interchange is probably overkill there considering neither road is even an expressway, let alone a freeway, and both have 60 km/h speed limits. Is an interchange even needed there at all? Macleod Trail is too developed there to ever be upgraded to a freeway...

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Corndogger]

^An interchange there is more for Heritage as it also has the nearby level crossing of the LRT and CP tracks. Volumes on Heritage are set to increase a bit with development on the nearby Heritage TOD site, as well as increased train frequencies and lengths. It is becoming increasingly necessary to have an interchange and overpass of the tracks there for all of the roads and tracks in question.

Which is why the proposed traffic circle interchange makes no sense. The city complains about weaving with cloverleafs but I think this would be considerably worse, especially in winter.

[SubwayRev]

Speaking of interesting interchange designs, here's the recommended plan for the Heritage/MacLoed interchange - from the planning study - not approved for construction yet.

Traffic Circle interchange (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/trans_planning/studies/heritage_macleod/roundabout_road_layout.pdf)

Here's another interesting one...with three traffic circles. This one is being built near the Victoria airport.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayprojects/hwy_17_McTavish_Interchange/docs/091009/mctavish_interchange.pdf

[Corndogger]

Here's another interesting one...with three traffic circles. This one is being built near the Victoria airport.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayprojects/hwy_17_McTavish_Interchange/docs/091009/mctavish_interchange.pdf

Without knowing the traffic volumes it's hard to say if this would be good or not. They're not designed for higher traffic volumes but then neither are diamond interchanges. But both are cheap which is we keep getting saddled with them. When it comes to roads, especially in Calgary, Cost > Safety. :-(

[Bassic Lab]

Without knowing the traffic volumes it's hard to say if this would be good or not. They're not designed for higher traffic volumes but then neither are diamond interchanges. But both are cheap which is we keep getting saddled with them. When it comes to roads, especially in Calgary, Cost > Safety. :-(

How are diamonds unsafe? They might not allow the same kind of traffic volumes as some interchanges but they're not any more dangerous.

[freeweed]

Offtopic, but maybe someone here knows:

What is being done on the EB TCH between Banff and Canmore (basically just west of the park gates)? They have it slowed down for what appears to be a gravel road parallel to the TCH; that can't possibly be what's being constructed??

[mersar]

Offtopic, but maybe someone here knows:

What is being done on the EB TCH between Banff and Canmore (basically just west of the park gates)? They have it slowed down for what appears to be a gravel road parallel to the TCH; that can't possibly be what's being constructed??

Theres nothing being done right at the gates, the twinning work thats underway is all west of Castle Junction. Parks Canada has a site for the project here (http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/docs/routes/sec2/page1_e.asp) including monthly updates and maps.