Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[freeweed]

Yeah, for anyone that's curious, check out some of the intersections already being done - at McKnight (well where it becomes a range rd), at Shaganappi, at Deerfoot, at Country hills...

The ring road is actually happening! Not just 16th Ave NW anymore!

[The Geographer]

Originally Posted by Doug

No they are from mid 90's planning initaitves like the 1995 GoPlan.

Even without the boom Calgary needed much of the infrastructure to handle the population that existed in the 90s. And besides, LRT should be put in before communities are built so as to influence the kind of development that occurs. For instance, Shawnessy and Crowfoot were meant to be major employment centres containing thousands of office jobs. The transit wasn't there though, so all that developed in Crowfoot was bloody car dealerships and Shawnessy is a big-box mess.

It is called a positive feedback loop, and it is why the idea of governments waiting for demand to warrant long-term planning projects is ludicrous. If an LRT gets to a community 40 years after it is built, after the majority of the residents are retired and no longer commuting regularly, and after the built environment has been influenced by government-funded road-building (itself not a market-driven phenomenon) then it is less effective.

The Crowfoot station should have been built in the mid-1990s when it was still possible to create a viable employment centre there rather than a bloody automall.

[Deepstar]

Thanks for those photo updates Korzym! I hadn't realized that the ring road was that far along.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by The Geographer

Even without the boom Calgary needed much of the infrastructure to handle the population that existed in the 90s. And besides, LRT should be put in before communities are built so as to influence the kind of development that occurs...

That's why I believe the ring road should have an LRT running in its median, or at least a reserved ROW. No matter how much Bronconcrete talks about quasi-sustainable development it's only a matter of time before we see new communities sprouting up beyond the ring road, that is where they haven't already...

[Arch26]

Originally Posted by Riise

That's why I believe the ring road should have an LRT running in its median, or at least a reserved ROW. No matter how much Bronconcrete talks about quasi-sustainable development it's only a matter of time before we see new communities sprouting up beyond the ring road, that is where they haven't already...

Building rapid transit of any kind in such a low d part of the city is futile. Better not to end up with such low density in the first place IMO. A reserved ROW for BRT or future LRT? I could see that. That said, an "LRT ring" would definitely be nice to have one day to facilitate better travel between areas other than downtown, but I see that being more feasible as a ring around the inner city, or perhaps the inner suburbs...

[The Geographer]

Originally Posted by Arch26

Building rapid transit of any kind in such a low d part of the city is futile. Better not to end up with such low density in the first place IMO. A reserved ROW for BRT or future LRT? I could see that. That said, an "LRT ring" would definitely be nice to have one day to facilitate better travel between areas other than downtown, but I see that being more feasible as a ring around the inner city, or perhaps the inner suburbs...

Not necessarily... the reason this stuff gets built on the outskirts in the first place is due to lower land values and an almost complete lack of NIMBYs. That is the advantage of putting transit in first and building the new communities around it. No one lives there yet, so the city and developers can TOD themselves silly and experiment with all sorts of new employment centre opportunities.

Look at the fuss in Varsity Estates over a very sensitively designed residential TOD... now imagine trying to cut an LRT line with corresponding development through an entire generation of older suburbs with politically vocal residents.

[Claeren]

LRT in the ring road is the least of our worries!!

We need better W, SE, N-Central (plus airport spur line) and downtown/beltline service before we need to spend one penny on a Ring Road route - and even then i could come up with another half dozen better routes to focus on.



Claeren.

[The Geographer]

Originally Posted by Claeren

LRT in the ring road is the least of our worries!!

We need better W, SE, N-Central (plus airport spur line) and downtown/beltline service before we need to spend one penny on a Ring Road route - and even then i could come up with another half dozen better routes to focus on.



Claeren.

I agree that the present radial system is more important. In fact, my main point is that it should have been completed to the edge of the city before development made it there. Slightly higher taxes? Maybe... but it would have completely reshaped the way Calgary developed and would have been a long-term economic coup.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Arch26

Building rapid transit of any kind in such a low d part of the city is futile. Better not to end up with such low density in the first place IMO. A reserved ROW for BRT or future LRT? I could see that. That said, an "LRT ring" would definitely be nice to have one day to facilitate better travel between areas other than downtown...

If you look at my Northern Cross line (below) that I drew up a while back you can see where portions of the median LRT can be built. If the rest was reserved as an ROW the city could slowly allow TOD developments to occur along the ring-road/ring-LRT. They could start off with transit-oriented developments at West and North Kincora stations, then move east, station by station, once the LRT lines up again with ring-road (east of Saddlecrest Station). Restricting new developments to TOD will be easier than restricting development entirely, and I think, rather hope, there is enough will at city hall to do so.

Originally Posted by Claeren

LRT in the ring road is the least of our worries!!

We need better W, SE, N-Central (plus airport spur line) and downtown/beltline service before we need to spend one penny on a Ring Road route - and even then i could come up with another half dozen better routes to focus on.



Claeren.

There are areas that need transit right now but that doesn't mean we should ignore areas that will need it in the future, doing that is what got us here in the first place. LRT service is catching up and if we continue to focus solely on that it'll be an endless game of catch-up. We can no longer afford to treat transit as an afterthought when planning new developments, transit must be present from the start. It might not make money but when does it ever? We need to follow the example of other cities, most notably Amsterdam, and ensure that some form of rapid, or at least decent, transit service is provided by the time residents and workers move into a new community.

[lubicon]

I was up at the new NW Costco the other day and you get a real good look east along the Stoney Trail alignment. I'm floored by the fact that they are NOT connecting Shaganappi to Stoney Tr at this time, instead having a 2 lane bridge over Stoney Trail with no connection to/from Shaganappi. They are rough grading offramps etc but not finishing them. Surely the incremental cost of one more bridge (so Shag is 4 lanes) and a bit of pavement for the offramps is not too much considering the overall cost of the project. People in Sherwood etc, and those communities along Shaganappi (south of Stoney Trail) are cut off from the ring road and face a long circuituous path to get onto it. It makes absolutely no sense to me. While they are doing a great job on the NE portion of Stoney Trail, they are f<cking it up royally on the NW portion by putting in signalized intersections and not connecting major roads to it.

[The Geographer]

One problem with trying to put TOD in the Stoney Trail median is that the median is so wide that most of the prime TOD land (within walking distance) would be unavailable for development (its needed for a 16 lane highway). If it could be offset from the ring-road a bit than it would be more useful... of course it is probably too late for that since the surrounding communities are already filling in. In the end it will cost far more and be less effective.

@Riise. Fantastic post. People have to get out of the mindset of merely responding to and accommodating previous patterns of growth. Waiting for "demand to reach a threshold" based on the previous paradigm of development is far less effective than actively trying to change the paradigm of development. While I like the idea of diverting freight thru-traffic out of the city, building a massive ring road without putting in transit is completely counterproductive and will condemn Calgary to another generation of bad development, commuting patterns, and employment/residence locations. It will be astronomically more expensive to fix in the long-term.

Calgary (and Alberta) has to stop being a place that passively lets history happen to it and instead must actively shape it. We are wealthy and have a good quality of life, but it all could be SO much better.

[Doug]

A SW circumferential line could also be viable some day:

McKenzie Towne->Sundane Office Park->Shawnessy/Bridlewood->162nd Ave->37th St (future Stoney Trail/SW connector)->Mount Royal College/WestMount Corporate Campus->Currie Barracks->WestHills (Sarcee and Richmond)->Sarcee and Bow->Over Edworthy Park->Foothills Hospital->U of C West Campus->U of C

[ctown.myth]

Originally Posted by lubicon

I was up at the new NW Costco the other day and you get a real good look east along the Stoney Trail alignment. I'm floored by the fact that they are NOT connecting Shaganappi to Stoney Tr at this time, instead having a 2 lane bridge over Stoney Trail with no connection to/from Shaganappi. They are rough grading offramps etc but not finishing them. Surely the incremental cost of one more bridge (so Shag is 4 lanes) and a bit of pavement for the offramps is not too much considering the overall cost of the project. People in Sherwood etc, and those communities along Shaganappi (south of Stoney Trail) are cut off from the ring road and face a long circuituous path to get onto it. It makes absolutely no sense to me. While they are doing a great job on the NE portion of Stoney Trail, they are f<cking it up royally on the NW portion by putting in signalized intersections and not connecting major roads to it.

They're not only doing signals only on the NW side, they're doing it on the SE side too.

[mersar]

The only SE one that gets signals from my understanding is @ 17th avenue, and thats only until they start the next phase of the east side in a few years time

[craner]

Has there been any mention of upgrading 16th Ave. and 68th Street to an interchange in conjunction with te NE ring road ? It would be nice to get rid of that set of lights as you come into the city.

[frinkprof]

While I agree that a ring-road LRT line should be low on the priority list, at the very least, a right of way should be secured. As I said when it was originally posted in the Calgary Public Transit thread, that north cross looks good.

@ Doug:
We had mused in the Calgary Public Transit thread awhile back about a line similar to that, or rather two separate lines that you have more or less combined in your proposal. My idea used Anderson Road in the south, and 14th Street instead of the future ring road, although I have since warmed up a bit to the idea of using the future ring road.

I'm not too hot on the idea of a bridge over Edworthy, however.

Anyway, back on the topic of the ring road, I pass by the work near 16th Ave. NE every day and I might take some pictures sometime. Lots of earthmoving going on.

[mersar]

Earth moving is well underway the entire route it seems. Plus at McKnight they already have the piles going in for the interchange, so it may be reasonable to expect to see that interchange mostly done by the end of the year.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by craner

Has there been any mention of upgrading 16th Ave. and 68th Street to an interchange in conjunction with te NE ring road ? It would be nice to get rid of that set of lights as you come into the city.

Since it only makes sense that this should be done, it's probably likely that this WON'T be done (IMHO). When was the last time the city did anything that made sense or smelled of long term planning??

[Doug]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I'm not too hot on the idea of a bridge over Edworthy, however.

An alignment could follow the existing road below Wildwood to the lower Edworthy parking lot and then cross the river on a combined pedestrian bridge, replacing the existing pedestrian bridge. That shortcut is too appealing not to use and would offer a significant advantage that roads could not match.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by Doug

An alignment could follow the existing road below Wildwood to the lower Edworthy parking lot and then cross the river on a combined pedestrian bridge, replacing the existing pedestrian bridge. That shortcut is too appealing not to use and would offer a significant advantage that roads could not match.

FANTASTIC Idea!

I really think that route would have minimal impact