Calgary Roads

[Innersoul1]

Some food for thought: Adding one core lane in each direction on Crowchild between 17th Avenue S and 24th Avenue N will do more than just a typical widening because of lane balance. All the lane changing is more of an issue here than in a typical area that requires widening. (ie. Bow Trail Westbound to Crowchild Northbound to Memorial Westbound)

Obviously it's not a simple solution because of the existing interchange designs, but adding one core lane is all this area needs to have significant improvements.

Crowchild Northbound functions at sub-optimal level of service outside normal peak hours quite often. I've been through on a Sunday evening and had to slow down due to volume. It's not just a morning/afternoon rush thing.

I think the biggest thing is that we need a change in terms of mentality with the planning of this area. The solutions is going to have more in common with a LA interstate fly-over than anything we have ever seen in this city (think 16th Ave and Stoney Trail or QE2 and Stoney.

Bow Trail to Memorial is going to need a dedicated fly-over for example. Given the space constraints up seems like the only way to go.

[Bassic Lab]

I think the biggest thing is that we need a change in terms of mentality with the planning of this area. The solutions is going to have more in common with a LA interstate fly-over than anything we have ever seen in this city (think 16th Ave and Stoney Trail or QE2 and Stoney.

Bow Trail to Memorial is going to need a dedicated fly-over for example. Given the space constraints up seems like the only way to go.

The Deerfoot-Stoney interchange also takes up a solid quarter section of land. There is no room for anything close to that at Crowchild-Bow, unless we want to bulldoze most of Scarboro.

[MalcolmTucker]

Lots of room in the air over the river. Not that I think that is a good idea.

[freeweed]

My point is- why are we trying to upgrade Crowchild? We have already planned for four car extensions on the NW line. That will provide additional transportation capacity to the area. As well, the SE LRT will help with commuters going to Foothills Industrial. There is little growth going to occur in the future in the NW, both in terms of residential or employment. So why spend $500 million dollars on improving a stretch of road that won't necessarily see a corresponding increase in usage?

To alleviate the existing congestion, and in a perfect scenario too - with no forecasted induced demand, for a change we might actually see a road built out accordingly based on actual use (instead of perpetually playing capacity catch-up).

Now, whether or not that's worth $500+ million is a different debate.

[sim]

To alleviate the existing congestion, and in a perfect scenario too - with no forecasted induced demand, for a change we might actually see a road built out accordingly based on actual use (instead of perpetually playing capacity catch-up).

Now, whether or not that's worth $500+ million is a different debate.


This would be as much a cause of it as it is a solution in this case.

[Doug]

The old section of Crowchild between 17th SW and 24th NW basically compromises the investments that City has already made in improving other sections of Crowchild. The same can be said about the Crowchild to Glenmore ramp. Traffic backs up so much because of the 3 lane to 2 lane reduction and reduced speed limit due to the curve that all of the interchanges built to the north of it don't really do much.

I agree that the old section of Crowchild, built almost 50 years ago, is likely close to end of life. How much has the City spent rehabing all of the bridges and ramps along there the past few years? It seems like it is permanently under construction. Besides adding capacity and improving safety, a rebuild could also be an opportunity to improve livability:
-move some roadways further from the river and replace with park (ex. Memorial connector to Crowchild, Bow approach to Crowchild from downtown)
-reclaim wasted islands between roadways (ex. Memorial as it approaches Crowchild from East)
-reclaim land wasted by University Drive and its large footprint intersection with Crowchild, maybe do the same at 14th St and Memorial interchange. University Ave serves no purpose other than to provide access between 16th and Crowchild.
-realign Bow trail connectors closer to railway tracks to free up land for redevelopment and green space while consolidating the pedestrian barrier along the tracks
-replace 5th Ave intersection with a no exits flyover

[Innersoul1]

The Deerfoot-Stoney interchange also takes up a solid quarter section of land. There is no room for anything close to that at Crowchild-Bow, unless we want to bulldoze most of Scarboro.

I wasn't comparing those interchanges in terms of the amount of space that they take, but really they are some of the most complex interchanges that we have in the city. I reckon that we are going to have to see lanes piggy backed on top of each other. I am not talking Orange Crush interchange but definitely something complex.

[DizzyEdge]

I don't think there would be a huge amount of blowback to stop turns to and from Crowchild -5th ave, either due to cul-de-sac'ing 5th ave or sinking crowchild so both are free-flow with no turns. Crowchild and Kensington though is a different story. That said, there is some empty land at all 4 corners except the NE corner. Maybe a diamond intersection with Crowchild free-flowing and Kensington Rd not? The ramps could be substantially shorter than the diamonds on deerfoot due to the much slower speeds on Crowchild.

[5seconds]

I don't think there would be a huge amount of blowback to stop turns to and from Crowchild -5th ave, either due to cul-de-sac'ing 5th ave or sinking crowchild so both are free-flow with no turns. Crowchild and Kensington though is a different story. That said, there is some empty land at all 4 corners except the NE corner. Maybe a diamond intersection with Crowchild free-flowing and Kensington Rd not? The ramps could be substantially shorter than the diamonds on deerfoot due to the much slower speeds on Crowchild.

I think you're right about 5th street. If you look at Crowchild and 26th avenue/Richmond Road in the SW, they just ran 26th over the top of Crowchild, no interchange. If you want to access that area, you have to exit on 33rd or 17th. Same could apply to 5th.

As for the Kensington interchange, can something be done slightly to the west, where Kensington meets up with Memorial/Parkdale? For instance, if you are going NB on crowchild, and want to go to Kensington EB, you first have to exit to Memorial WB, and then connect to Kensington that way? Or dedicated lanes that swing along Memorial?

I know there would have to be some serious re-working of the lanes there, but there is maybe a little more room, and it would allow both the free-flowing of Crowchild and maintain the connection to Kensington. I wonder if that would work?

[Cage]

IF you guys want complex and interesting set of interchanges, lets hire a bunch of Quebec Transport engineers who have working knowledge of Autoroute 20 between Decaire and St Anne de Bellevue.

We could flip the Crowchild lanes at University and then replicate the Decaire interchange for Bow-Crow. Call in the Yeehaw malfunction junction interchange.

[5seconds]

I was wondering if someone could help me out with something. I was wondering what the minimum curve radius for a road might be with a couple of variables. Based on the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) - Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads 1999.

I wanted to know the minimum radius for:

1) A 90km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

2) A 110km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

I tried looking this up but I don't really know enough about thins kind of thing to know what to look for.

In the document I am reading (design specs for a road) it stated this:
"Directional Ramps: Des. R 440 (100km/h); Min. R 130 (60 km/h)"

Does this mean that a 100km/h road curve (for a directional ramp) is limited to no smaller than a 440 metre radius?

Thanks for any help you can give me! Apologies if I am asking the wrong thing!

[fusili]

I was wondering if someone could help me out with something. I was wondering what the minimum curve radius for a road might be with a couple of variables. Based on the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) - Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads 1999.

I wanted to know the minimum radius for:

1) A 90km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

2) A 110km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

I tried looking this up but I don't really know enough about thins kind of thing to know what to look for.

In the document I am reading (design specs for a road) it stated this:
"Directional Ramps: Des. R 440 (100km/h); Min. R 130 (60 km/h)"

Does this mean that a 100km/h road curve (for a directional ramp) is limited to no smaller than a 440 metre radius?

Thanks for any help you can give me! Apologies if I am asking the wrong thing!

That sounds about right. I know that for a 50km residential road, the minimum turning radius is 80m. The radius is measured from centreline in that case, so I imagine in the case of a 100km road, it would be measured from the centreline of the innermost lane on the curve.

[5seconds]

That sounds about right. I know that for a 50km residential road, the minimum turning radius is 80m. The radius is measured from centreline in that case, so I imagine in the case of a 100km road, it would be measured from the centreline of the innermost lane on the curve.

That's good to know. Thanks for the reply!

[Mazrim]

I was wondering if someone could help me out with something. I was wondering what the minimum curve radius for a road might be with a couple of variables. Based on the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) - Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads 1999.

I wanted to know the minimum radius for:

1) A 90km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

2) A 110km/h design speed road with 8% max (6% desired) superelevation. (90 degree turn)

I tried looking this up but I don't really know enough about thins kind of thing to know what to look for.

In the document I am reading (design specs for a road) it stated this:
"Directional Ramps: Des. R 440 (100km/h); Min. R 130 (60 km/h)"

Does this mean that a 100km/h road curve (for a directional ramp) is limited to no smaller than a 440 metre radius?

Thanks for any help you can give me! Apologies if I am asking the wrong thing!
This isn't TAC but it's pretty close: 6% is the maximum super used in most Alberta highway design (at least on the projects I've worked on). At 90 km/h, the min R is 340 m and at 110 km/h the min R is 600 m. The reference table you're looking for from the Alberta Transportation Highway Geometric Design Guide is Table B.3.6a.

EDIT: Page 29 in the following link.
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType233/Production/chap-b.pdf

[5seconds]

Thanks for that link Mazrim. I was looking for something like that but couldn't find it.

I recently received the full Alberta Transportation Functional Planning Study for the South West Calgary Ring Road (2006/2009) (without the appendices, but I'm waiting on those) and I wanted to make a little more sense out of some of the things I was reading.

It's actually a fascinating document with the entire route designed in detail, including all of the bridge and interchange designs.

If anyone wants to see it, it's 100mb+ but I think i can send it somehow. I would be happy to send it over.

I had no idea that this stretch of the road has no less than 50 bridges (7 are river crossings) and 4 tunnels!

[freeweed]

I had no idea that this stretch of the road has no less than 50 bridges (7 are river crossings) and 4 tunnels!

One thing about Calgary roads - we do love our bridges. Rail, water, and road, we have them freaking everywhere. Surprised about so many tunnels though. Do we even have any real road tunnels in this city (yet)?

[DoubleK]

How much of an underpass do you need for it to be a tunnel?

[DizzyEdge]

How much of an underpass do you need for it to be a tunnel?

My completely grabbed-out-of-thin-air definition would be that I would call an underpass a tunnel if there is as much non-road area above as there is road.

So if you're going under a 4 lane overpass, but there at least as much or more grass/dirt/parkinglot/etc on either side of it that you're also going under, I would call that a tunnel.

[Mazrim]

Aside from LRT tunnels, the only true road tunnel in Calgary that I can think of would be Memorial Drive WB under Centre Street. A tunnel is essentially defined by it's construction (typically cut and cover or boring), rather than a bridge over something.

Thanks for that link Mazrim. I was looking for something like that but couldn't find it.

I recently received the full Alberta Transportation Functional Planning Study for the South West Calgary Ring Road (2006/2009) (without the appendices, but I'm waiting on those) and I wanted to make a little more sense out of some of the things I was reading.

It's actually a fascinating document with the entire route designed in detail, including all of the bridge and interchange designs.

If anyone wants to see it, it's 100mb+ but I think i can send it somehow. I would be happy to send it over.

I had no idea that this stretch of the road has no less than 50 bridges (7 are river crossings) and 4 tunnels!
I know that a couple of the people who worked on that study read these forums, but I don't think they post. Maybe if you ask nice enough, they might answer some questions! ;)

[lubicon]

Aside from LRT tunnels, the only true road tunnel in Calgary that I can think of would be Memorial Drive WB under Centre Street. A tunnel is essentially defined by it's construction (typically cut and cover or boring), rather than a bridge over something.


I know that a couple of the people who worked on that study read these forums, but I don't think they post. Maybe if you ask nice enough, they might answer some questions! ;)

Soon to be joined by the Airport Tunnel!

[5seconds]

The original FPS calls for a tunnel in the Anderson road interchange, 2 tunnels in the Sarcee/Glenmore/SWCRR interchange (it could be 1 tunnel, but at 280m it would introduce extra lighting and ventilation concerns, so it looks like splitting it into 2 was preferred.) and the strangest one is a 2 lane, 168m long tunnel for the Weaselhead Road that runs under the SWCRR. I assume it's a private road for Nation residents, but not sure about that.

I know that a couple of the people who worked on that study read these forums, but I don't think they post. Maybe if you ask nice enough, they might answer some questions! ;)

That's really good to know. Thanks!

[kw5150]

In some peoples' opinion, here is what freeways did to Detroit. It is really important that we get this road system right in Calgary!
Don't get all riled up either. It is from a documentary I watched.





http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8574/detroit2kms.jpg
By kw5150 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/kw5150) at 2010-09-24

[You Need A Thneed]

Soon to be joined by the Airport Tunnel!

Airport Trail tunnel AND the McCall Way tunnel.

[Ramsayfarian]

In some peoples' opinion, here is what freeways did to Detroit. It is really important that we get this road system right in Calgary!
Don't get all riled up either. It is from a documentary I watched.






It's this person's opinion that those people don't know what they're talking about.

Let me guess their theory. Without freeways, whites wouldn't have fled for the burbs during the racial tensions of the late sixties

[Rusty van Reddick]

White flight started in Detroit- and I mean in a huge way- in the 1950s several years before the riots.

Every US city has "freeways." Detroit's problems are about far more than freeways.

[Ramsayfarian]

White flight started in Detroit- and I mean in a huge way- in the 1950s several years before the riots.

Every US city has "freeways." Detroit's problems are about far more than freeways.

I don't doubt that it started as soon as the first house in the burbs was available. The riots added a whole bunch of fuel to the fire.

[YYCguys]

Airport Trail tunnel AND the McCall Way tunnel.

Is this tunnel going to be a public access tunnel? I thought that it was going to be for airport airside ground personnel.

[UofC.engineer]

filler...i screwed up a quote

[UofC.engineer]

In some peoples' opinion, here is what freeways did to Detroit. It is really important that we get this road system right in Calgary!
Don't get all riled up either. It is from a documentary I watched.

Whats the name of the doc?

[DizzyEdge]

That google maps shot above is what happens when a city of 1.8 million gets reduced to 700k in 60 years. You can find similar occurrences in other US cities, although Detroit got it the worst.

[You Need A Thneed]

Is this tunnel going to be a public access tunnel? I thought that it was going to be for airport airside ground personnel.

Yup, Public access. The only way for WestJet and other cargo area employees to get to work.

There is also an airside only tunnel a little further north.

[kw5150]

It's this person's opinion that those people don't know what they're talking about.

Let me guess their theory. Without freeways, whites wouldn't have fled for the burbs during the racial tensions of the late sixties

I dunno....it was filmed from the perspective of a long term inner city resident of detroit.

[kw5150]

Whats the name of the doc?

I forget, but I will try to track it down.

Here are some other facts

"Detroit engineers developed a massive freeway system to transport their so called fruits of the automobile industry, in doing so Detroit destroyed many public housing units to accomidate the freeway expansion. Public housing residents were evicted and offered no plan for relocation. The city of Detroit failed to comply with the Federal Housing Act 048, which required alternative housing for dislocated renters. In effect, the city created 17,000 refugees and wide distrust for local government."

I just dont want to see this happen to kensington / hillhurst or any other area in the city.

[kw5150]

http://maps.google.ca/?ll=42.429705,-83.11051&spn=0.002795,0.013154&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.429703,-83.110507&panoid=W1qpttHQXh-E-yHnzJWgsQ&cbp=11,219.25,,0,0

Here, take a drive through Detroit!

[DizzyEdge]

Here, take a drive through Detroit!

Interesting how the block south of that, W Golden Gate is really nice.

Hard to believe this is on the the very next block:

http://maps.google.ca/?ll=42.428901,-83.112157&spn=0.001022,0.005284&t=h&layer=c&cbll=42.428903,-83.112158&panoid=gcqrJbGOrV6A1Mx5GPN7Eg&cbp=12,28.01,,0,-4.84&z=18

[Yahoo]

Longtime listener - first time poster here.

I feel that we spend so much time in Calgary worrying about what other cities do and it leads us to think that they're all doing it better. They aren't. Calgary has evolved naturally and like every city needs to keep changing. But the call for greater density or messing with our roadways smacks of our planners treating the city like it's an experiment, and they want to change things for their own personal agenda.

Take Crowchild Trail for example. There is a debate about the need to upgrade it and if we should. To me that's just silly. The last time it was upgraded in the bad part I was shocked. I was just a kid and couldn't believe that they went through all the effort just to put in 2 narrow lanes with no shoulders on Crowchild in one of the busiest areas.

It needs to be upgraded to at least 3 lanes of free flowing traffic and we can forget all the debate about "traffic acting like a fluid and filling up anything we build right away" or HOV lanes. Losing houses along the main roads is unfortunate but necessary for the greater good - and is nothing like the situation in Detroit. Those topics are interesting to discuss, but are just distractions and designed to delay action on a badly needed project.

Sure, in some studies some roads do fill up and become congested as lanes are added. But that's only in specific circumstances. It's not like every road upgrade causes congestion. Crowchild is too narrow, has too many lights, not enough lanes, choke points, awful merge and exit lanes with other main roads, and only 1 lane that doesn't require traffic to change lanes to proceed down the road. But it's a great road, for a city of 250,000.

HOV is laughable at this point in time for Calgary. We need to think about it once our multi-lane freeways start becoming overcrowded. That's 100-200 years from now.

I remember driving in the San Francisco area and I couldn't figure out why traffic was flowing so smoothly during rush hour. Yes, they have their bad areas but overall it was a dream. Then I realized every road was at least 3 lanes - even the side streets. It's like the planners of old knew that 2 lane main roads - and even side roads - just lead to congestion, pollution, and a real drop in productivity (not to mention quality of life).

I just wish city council would stick to the plan and focus on making a free flowing skeletal road network. We dropped the ball on 16th - because of a restaurant, I hope we don't make the same mistake on Crowchild etc.

Sorry for the long post but there is one other topic that annoys me with roads. The tendency to build things incorrectly to "prevent" future generations from changing things. I mean will the city ever learn that putting houses right up against Country Hills Blvd for example is just wrong? That's a relatively new road yet there are no standards. Some areas leave lots of room, and then other sections have man made choke points - and you just know that someday the city will be looking at buying up the houses along the edge to add another lane (for traffic, HOV, bike lanes, bus lanes, hover cars, trains, or what have you). Calgary is lucky in that we have very few geographical barriers to doing things correctly. We have room. The situation in SW Stoney is purely man made in that past city councils never imagined the city would grow. They need to leave room beside new transportation corridors.

[fusili]

:previous: Just as a counter point. You talk about San Francisco's roads and how well they function. During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake several major freeways in San Francisco were badly damaged, especially the Embarcadero Freeway and large parts of the Central Freeway, both multi-lane free flow freeways with off-ramps. The damage was so extensive that both were pretty much demolished outright and converted into at-grade boulevards with multiple signalized intersections.

And guess what? Traffic imrpoved. Not only that, there was considerable redevelopment where the Embarcadero used to be, around what is now Pier 39, which, as a tourist, I am sure you visited.

Just a counter point to saying that San Francisco's success is based on large roads with free flow traffic. Removing a major freeway improved traffic in the long run.

Check out a UofT study on this called "The fundamental law of road congestion". This isn't a select few cases, it is a well studied relationship.

http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/IMG/pdf/traffic_seminar3b.pdf

[5seconds]

Just to add a little to that. An interview with Vancouver urban planner and ex-councilor Gordon Price, now director of the CITY Program, a continuing education program in urban planning and sustainable community development at Simon Fraser University.

Peter Mares: But roads are popular. I mean, if we look at Brisbane at the moment for example, they're tunnelling under the city all over the place and have built more links so that everyone can drive through the city more easily. People are complaining about public transport in Melbourne and Sydney. I mean, roads are popular, people like roads.

Gordon Price: Indeed. And roads are where buses go, where bicycles are. You will, and can do roads so that they serve many different purposes. But to make them simply traffic sewers -- this is the tragedy of it. You're going to spend a lot of money and you'll be pretty much back where you started, only you've got more of what you tried to solve in the first place.

Peter Mares: You mean, more traffic?

Gordon Price: Of course. I simply ask people show me the example where this has worked. All I want is for a working example of a city that has built its way out of congestion simply by building more roads and then is that the place you want to be? I don't get an answer to A or B.

Peter Mares: You mean, there's never been a city that's managed to fix congestion by building more freeways or more roads.

Gordon Price: You might argue that Houston, Texas has. They throw about $1-billion a year into it, they do keep the traffic moving. Do people want to be like Houston? Can you be like Houston? Are you prepared to spend that amount of money and is that really the kind of city that you want in the end? And they have to run as fast as they can just to keep where they are. And they're looking at transit too. It's never going to be either/or. The car doesn't go away, people will always be complaining about public transit. You want both, you have to have some kind of balance.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/nationalinterest/canadian-transport-solutions/3400396

[kw5150]

Interesting how the block south of that, W Golden Gate is really nice.

Hard to believe this is on the the very next block:

http://maps.google.ca/?ll=42.428901,-83.112157&spn=0.001022,0.005284&t=h&layer=c&cbll=42.428903,-83.112158&panoid=gcqrJbGOrV6A1Mx5GPN7Eg&cbp=12,28.01,,0,-4.84&z=18

I know! but drive down to the end and it fades fast into rundown-ness.

[kw5150]

Longtime listener - first time poster here.

I feel that we spend so much time in Calgary worrying about what other cities do and it leads us to think that they're all doing it better. They aren't. Calgary has evolved naturally and like every city needs to keep changing. But the call for greater density or messing with our roadways smacks of our planners treating the city like it's an experiment, and they want to change things for their own personal agenda.

Take Crowchild Trail for example. There is a debate about the need to upgrade it and if we should. To me that's just silly. The last time it was upgraded in the bad part I was shocked. I was just a kid and couldn't believe that they went through all the effort just to put in 2 narrow lanes with no shoulders on Crowchild in one of the busiest areas.

It needs to be upgraded to at least 3 lanes of free flowing traffic and we can forget all the debate about "traffic acting like a fluid and filling up anything we build right away" or HOV lanes. Losing houses along the main roads is unfortunate but necessary for the greater good - and is nothing like the situation in Detroit. Those topics are interesting to discuss, but are just distractions and designed to delay action on a badly needed project.

Sure, in some studies some roads do fill up and become congested as lanes are added. But that's only in specific circumstances. It's not like every road upgrade causes congestion. Crowchild is too narrow, has too many lights, not enough lanes, choke points, awful merge and exit lanes with other main roads, and only 1 lane that doesn't require traffic to change lanes to proceed down the road. But it's a great road, for a city of 250,000.

HOV is laughable at this point in time for Calgary. We need to think about it once our multi-lane freeways start becoming overcrowded. That's 100-200 years from now.

I remember driving in the San Francisco area and I couldn't figure out why traffic was flowing so smoothly during rush hour. Yes, they have their bad areas but overall it was a dream. Then I realized every road was at least 3 lanes - even the side streets. It's like the planners of old knew that 2 lane main roads - and even side roads - just lead to congestion, pollution, and a real drop in productivity (not to mention quality of life).

I just wish city council would stick to the plan and focus on making a free flowing skeletal road network. We dropped the ball on 16th - because of a restaurant, I hope we don't make the same mistake on Crowchild etc.

Sorry for the long post but there is one other topic that annoys me with roads. The tendency to build things incorrectly to "prevent" future generations from changing things. I mean will the city ever learn that putting houses right up against Country Hills Blvd for example is just wrong? That's a relatively new road yet there are no standards. Some areas leave lots of room, and then other sections have man made choke points - and you just know that someday the city will be looking at buying up the houses along the edge to add another lane (for traffic, HOV, bike lanes, bus lanes, hover cars, trains, or what have you). Calgary is lucky in that we have very few geographical barriers to doing things correctly. We have room. The situation in SW Stoney is purely man made in that past city councils never imagined the city would grow. They need to leave room beside new transportation corridors.

You also have to look at the fact that: If you upgrade Crowchild, sure it goes faster....but to where? It will just bring people into downtown faster and then.....guess what? More congestion. The answer is getting people out of their cars in the long run. The planner aren't involved in some secret war on cars, they are trying to solve the problems that ONLY relying on cars has created. Lets not make an enemy out of planners.....they have done some VERY excellent things to our inner city in the last couple of years.

[kw5150]

Also, dead end streets all over the place (where freeways run through) create urban blight in many circumstances.

[sim]

Longtime listener - first time poster here.

I feel that we spend so much time in Calgary worrying about what other cities do and it leads us to think that they're all doing it better. They aren't. Calgary has evolved naturally and like every city needs to keep changing. But the call for greater density or messing with our roadways smacks of our planners treating the city like it's an experiment, and they want to change things for their own personal agenda.

Take Crowchild Trail for example. There is a debate about the need to upgrade it and if we should. To me that's just silly. The last time it was upgraded in the bad part I was shocked. I was just a kid and couldn't believe that they went through all the effort just to put in 2 narrow lanes with no shoulders on Crowchild in one of the busiest areas.

It needs to be upgraded to at least 3 lanes of free flowing traffic and we can forget all the debate about "traffic acting like a fluid and filling up anything we build right away" or HOV lanes. Losing houses along the main roads is unfortunate but necessary for the greater good - and is nothing like the situation in Detroit. Those topics are interesting to discuss, but are just distractions and designed to delay action on a badly needed project.

Sure, in some studies some roads do fill up and become congested as lanes are added. But that's only in specific circumstances. It's not like every road upgrade causes congestion. Crowchild is too narrow, has too many lights, not enough lanes, choke points, awful merge and exit lanes with other main roads, and only 1 lane that doesn't require traffic to change lanes to proceed down the road. But it's a great road, for a city of 250,000.

HOV is laughable at this point in time for Calgary. We need to think about it once our multi-lane freeways start becoming overcrowded. That's 100-200 years from now.

I remember driving in the San Francisco area and I couldn't figure out why traffic was flowing so smoothly during rush hour. Yes, they have their bad areas but overall it was a dream. Then I realized every road was at least 3 lanes - even the side streets. It's like the planners of old knew that 2 lane main roads - and even side roads - just lead to congestion, pollution, and a real drop in productivity (not to mention quality of life).

I just wish city council would stick to the plan and focus on making a free flowing skeletal road network. We dropped the ball on 16th - because of a restaurant, I hope we don't make the same mistake on Crowchild etc.

Sorry for the long post but there is one other topic that annoys me with roads. The tendency to build things incorrectly to "prevent" future generations from changing things. I mean will the city ever learn that putting houses right up against Country Hills Blvd for example is just wrong? That's a relatively new road yet there are no standards. Some areas leave lots of room, and then other sections have man made choke points - and you just know that someday the city will be looking at buying up the houses along the edge to add another lane (for traffic, HOV, bike lanes, bus lanes, hover cars, trains, or what have you). Calgary is lucky in that we have very few geographical barriers to doing things correctly. We have room. The situation in SW Stoney is purely man made in that past city councils never imagined the city would grow. They need to leave room beside new transportation corridors.


I'm going to be more blunt than some previous responses.

This post is precisely what necessitates planners. Transportation systems and mobility are an interesting topic in that everyone makes use of them and everyone requires it. Thus, a lot of people then become self-appointed "experts" on it. This seems to be the case here. I may be singling you out, because I know exactly where what you quoted is coming from.., but just because you don't understand the concept(s) doesn't make it (them) any less true.

The reason the city is also always compared with other cities is again precisely because you don't treat a city like an experiment. Building a transportation system, indeed a city, isn't like developing a new consumer product. You don't have a second chance with infrastructure - or one that is affordable anyway. That is why other cities are (and should) be looked at as empirical and tangible substantiation to any major concept and infrastructure development. In certain cases, it is indeed the planners job to take a bold new but calculated step.

If you want to take out the reflexivity of planning, as you seem to be suggesting, you can then also say goodbye to your city being competitive and attractive, economically, not to mention socially and environmentally. We also live in a democratic and discursive society where simply throwing a freeway up "to benefit the greater good" is first of all no longer accepted and secondly a narrow definition of what the greater good is. This may well work in developing countries and it may well even be needed there. Or perhaps you are volunteering your place of residence as the first to see a Cat D8?

[Yahoo]

Re: Crowchild Trail

Perhaps I'm coming off as a know it all (lol - I admit that's one of my flaws. I'm not a traffic or civil engineer, just a commuter. But perhaps the user has more insight as to what works than the designer)

My point isn't that we shouldn't plan - I wish there was more planning, but with less emphasis on radical new ideas - under the assumption that everything we've done is wrong. Radical ideas are needed when there are huge problems to overcome, not when this issue was just a simple lack of keeping up with projects.

Look at the Crowchild - Sarcee interchange. That was a massive planning blunder. The city expanded Crowchild to 3-4 lanes past 24th heading north. They eliminated several lights. Once the new roadway just before Sarcee was opened there was chaos every day. The city failed to notice that Sarcee was still a lighted intersection. Not only that, it was at the base of a hill. And Crowchild suddenly narrowed to 2 lanes from 3&4. All the work on the interchanges leading up to Sarcee were pointless and actually made things much worse during rush hour. This wasn't an issue about HOV or needing some new concept, it was just a failure to plan ahead and see how one upgrade couldn't possibly succeed if you forgot about the rest of the roadway. The city scrambled to add another lane by repainting the shoulder, and pushed through one of the quickest overpass builds in city history (Sarcee & Crowchild). And now traffic flows smoothly. (maybe a little too smoothly - with some going 100+ on that section - but that's another issue)

And I agree that we should always think about what other cities are doing - but that doesn't mean that their failures and successes will apply to us, because every city has differing issues.

We aren't trying to solve some impossible or unusual problem here, and Calgary hasn't reached the point where there is massive gridlock. The problems on many of Calgary's main roads are quite simple. They haven't been built to proper minimum specs. At least not for a city of 1 million people. City council was planning on a free flowing skeletal main road network but they've lost focus on that.

When Crowchild narrows from 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 lanes and then there are traffic lights I don't think you should conclude that what we need is an HOV lane.

The conclusion on this road is simple and doesn't require a bunch of planning studies or new ideas. Just build it to the same specs as the rest of the road like was planned in the 1970's.

Issues with HOV on Crowchild can wait a generation since putting HOV on it now would just be an experiment and I'd rather not sit in traffic just so some planner can present a study or put something interesting on his resume. Hey, I often drive with another person so I could even use the HOV lane.

[5seconds]

I'm not against some obvious road upgrades, and making the most of the opportunities that are out there (Like simplifying the lanes on the Crowchild bridge, making 14th st. SW more efficient etc) but that cannot be the end-all and be-all of transportation planning. Unless we are committed to more sustainable transportation methods and ideas, we will forever be playing catch-up: More roads, more land, more money. That, I believe, will be to the detriment of the city as a whole.

Traffic planners are thinking of new ways to move more people with the budget and the land available. It has been said that the LRT moves the equivalent of 19 more lanes of roadways of commuters into the downtown core. In the 1960s/1970s the LRT could be considered an 'experiment', one that took money away from road-building, but ultimately it actually saves us money, makes better use of the infrastructure we do have and allows for a more diverse transportation network (not everyone is the same, and neither is their travel).

I'm not sure what HOV etc. will do to that area (it might not be the right time or place, or it might be), but if there is an option that can move more people on the infrastructure we already have, wouldn't that be a good thing to explore?

You also said this:
The situation in SW Stoney is purely man made in that past city councils never imagined the city would grow. They need to leave room beside new transportation corridors.

I agree that the situation was man-made, but the city knew full well that the city would grow. They were the ones who expropriated the land and approved the development of those very same subdivisions. The problem wasn't simply a lack of transportation planning, but a lack of overall planning. If they planned on growing, then transportation needs should have been planned as well, and if the existing roads and transportation could not support the population, then the growth should have been curtailed until it could be developed sustainably. They didn't do that, and the mess we now have was created.

[Yahoo]

:previous: Just as a counter point. You talk about San Francisco's roads and how well they function. During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake several major freeways in San Francisco were badly damaged, especially the Embarcadero Freeway and large parts of the Central Freeway, both multi-lane free flow freeways with off-ramps. The damage was so extensive that both were pretty much demolished outright and converted into at-grade boulevards with multiple signalized intersections.

And guess what? Traffic imrpoved. Not only that, there was considerable redevelopment where the Embarcadero used to be, around what is now Pier 39, which, as a tourist, I am sure you visited.

Just a counter point to saying that San Francisco's success is based on large roads with free flow traffic. Removing a major freeway improved traffic in the long run.

Check out a UofT study on this called "The fundamental law of road congestion". This isn't a select few cases, it is a well studied relationship.

http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/IMG/pdf/traffic_seminar3b.pdf


I remember reading about how eliminating a collapsed freeway in San Fran actually improved traffic flow. It's definitely interesting how and why that happened.

Was the BART transit system in place when they originally built that raised freeway? Perhaps people took advantage of transit at some point in time as it became more convenient and that negated the need for that raised freeway altogether? (meaning they should have built the BART instead of a raised freeway in the first place - but again they had massive crowding issues that we don't have in Calgary - our issues are with under-built main roads)

Also, were the access and off ramps onto that second freeway built in such a way that they actually caused traffic backups? Slapping up a freeway but ignoring the intersecting roads could have easily meant that this freeway actually caused issues rather than solved them. A poor design doesn't always mean the execution couldn't have worked if it was simply designed better.

All it takes is one poor choice to ruin a roadway. I know in Calgary you'll often see roads work better while they're under construction - simply because they for example eliminated one of the exit turns. Meaning that sometimes 1 exit is enough to cause problems on the road, and if it was gone that road may very well have worked okay for years without an upgrade.

It's like some of the off/on ramps on Memorial. You might wonder why they aren't used more during rush hours, but it's simply because they're dangerous. They have blind spots and can be too short so commuters just avoid them - causing more traffic issues on other roads. Adding to the length of a merge lane for example can often "fix" a road, but sadly that kind of minor upgrade is rarely done where there is room to do so. Look at the turn to Crowchild south on Shagannapi. It should be a dual off ramp but they painted it as a single. There is often a tie-up there because of this. And when it snows and the lines aren't visible people treat it like the dual off ramp it should have been. (just as people often added another lane to Crowchild during snow storms before the overpasses were built). The road needed another lane, but the city didn't bother. Perhaps the overpasses could have been delayed by years if they added a few feet of pavement to make another lane - there was lots of room. Crowchild North back then was full of single turn lanes that should have been dual. Simple line painting could have fixed issues on Crowchild in the past.

One thing I noticed driving on the freeways around San Francisco and area was some dangerous off and on ramps. I didn't drive everywhere and was only there for a week for work so I can't comment on the overall system, but man, some off ramps were crazy. You leave the freeway then have to slam on your brakes and make a 90 degree turn. And many of the off ramps have those water/sand barrels on them because the road was poorly designed.

I took one HOV lane in a construction zone in SF and it was a big mistake. The "merge" lane was literally 1 car length long. The local I was driving with told me to just wait for a big truck to pass and then floor it since they usually don't have people on their bumper. Scary stuff!

The local I drove with did mention that they were building another bridge across the bay. It's not like San Francisco doesn't have congestion, and in some cases the only choice is to build your way out of it. The economies of the world just can't ignore gridlock, and no matter how well transit systems are built there is still a need for the odd new road. Calgary can't continue to grow without expanded roads. The Inca's and Roman's knew that - and that's why they thrived during their heydays. But I certainly wouldn't suggest that transit and other forms of transportation should be ignored. The key to a great system is to try to make all forms of transportation usable. If you try to take a sudden change from the most popular form (roads) you're just asking for trouble.

[Radley77]

I'd be curious what traffic patterns would be like with the Shaganappi to Sarcee Tr SW bridge over the Bow.

There is still a need so that welders, interior designers, Coke delivery truck and such to get across the city and to it's destination. This is a bit different problem than everyday commuters who are technologists, accountants, lawyers, students who work\study near a business\academic node and commute via light rail.

Calgary needs to fund roads adequately and make sure the dollars are being spent on compelling opportunities that improve mobility.

One can spend a shitload of money without a large improvement when there are some sort of geographic, development, or environmental constraints.

[kw5150]

Re: Crowchild Trail


My point isn't that we shouldn't plan - I wish there was more planning, but with less emphasis on radical new ideas - under the assumption that everything we've done is wrong. Radical ideas are needed when there are huge problems to overcome, not when this issue was just a simple lack of keeping up with projects.

What new radical ideas?? Many of the ideas that planners are talking about have restored many areas in Canadian and American cities. New ideas are what we need. There are reasons why we have very successful areas in our city now as opposed to how they were before. Calgary's Road system is actually really good for a city of a million. I dont understand where people are getting this "the roads aren't designed for a city of a million people" bullsh%$. We are better off that many other Canadian cities.

What we really need is new attitudes and new ways of getting to work and back. 1 person in every car simply does not work.

[Yahoo]

What new radical ideas?? Many of the ideas that planners are talking about have restored many areas in Canadian and American cities. New ideas are what we need. There are reasons why we have very successful areas in our city now as opposed to how they were before. Calgary's Road system is actually really good for a city of a million. I dont understand where people are getting this "the roads aren't designed for a city of a million people" bullsh%$. We are better off that many other Canadian cities.

What we really need is new attitudes and new ways of getting to work and back. 1 person in every car simply does not work.

By radical new ideas I'm referring to confusing the situation on Crowchild by discussing HOV. That's radical for Calgary on a road that has very obvious problems and solutions. (2 lane choke points & traffic lights are the obvious issue on the road, not lack of HOV)

I welcome radical ideas when they help. For example I suggested once making a dedicated bike road downtown and have bikers simply walk the final block or 2 to their destination. Personally when I was a heavy bike rider in my youth I wouldn't even consider driving on a main road. A dedicated road and walking the last leg of the journey is something I'd have done.
(I was almost tarred and feathered for that radical idea though).

I've thought about expanding +15 downtown and narrowing sidewalks where possible. Narrowing them to allow room for a bike lane. And allowing people to walk with their bikes in the +15 system. (Hey, what about a +15 system or lane for bikes indoors? Just brainstorming here)

Another radical idea I've had is change the trains to 2 car instead of 4 right now, but run them twice as often? My biggest issue with transit is the wait - so if you speed up service then more people are likely to want to take it.

Another radical idea I've read in the USA is to try to eliminate as many stop signs as possible. Turn them into yields when it's safe. It saves fuel and time when things aren't busy.

At one time I thought turning circles were just confusing and dangerous on roads. And then I used one. The single lane ones are actually great and could eliminate lights on many of the Stoney Trail overpasses (in Scenic Acres for example). The lights there aren't timed and are a silly bottleneck. But we should resist the urgent to build big dual or triple lane roundabouts since I think they are too confusing to many people.


Another radical idea is to build more bus turn outs on main roads so when they stop to pick up passengers on main routes they don't block traffic. That did wonders on 2 lane Bow Trail, and actually helped speed up bus traffic because they were also trapped by buses stopping when the lights turned green.

Another idea is to always build 2 lane off ramps (or just paint singles as duals) and to examine every merge lane in the city to see if they can be easily lengthened.

Another suggestion is to always build new LRT lines so they don't cross paths with traffic, people, or bikes. (it's silly but the new line on Bow still has a pedestrian crosswalk that will stop traffic and trains). Yes, cost is an issue, but I'd sooner build LRT correctly even if the length comes up short. It's a lot cheaper to do it right and lengthen it later than to try to fix a problem after the fact.

It's like with Glenmore when the city asked if they should spend the extra money to do it right. Or when they asked people if they should spend a bit more money when building the NW LRT line so they could avoid crossing Memorial drive at grade. (Imagine adding another stop light for the LRT and road on Memorial just to save $100k).

My radical idea is to have a policy to try to do it right the first time. I live near Nose Hill drive. I've watched that road change 20x in 20 years. Lanes moved and added, turn lanes moved, turn lanes added or lengthened, the entire road rerouted. A simple plan to build it thinking 20 years into the future would have saved money and time in the long run. Even the province finally came on board with this type of thinking when they decided to make Stoney free flowing (that wasn't always the plan).

Another idea that would attract people to LRT (and I've ridden LRT since the day it opened on the original line) is to design the stations for our weather. As a kid going to high school it always baffled me that there was a relatively huge heated area in most of the first stations in Calgary. But you couldn't stand or see the trains from this area. You had to stand out in -30 rather than in the heated interior.

Ideas are a good thing. And quite often the cheap ones can buy you time while you save up to do the right thing. There is no need to suddenly decide that cars are bad and we should artificially force people to use a transportation system that doesn't work for them. We aren't at that stage.

[UofC.engineer]

http://vimeo.com/21509646

[kw5150]

http://vimeo.com/21509646

Nice vid. Well composed and truthful. Lets restore the downtown West End and figure out something new to do with the Crowchild / Bow / Memorial overpasses. With crowchild, there is a wrench thrown in with the large difference in grade, but surely there can be a great alternative to a mass freeway system.

[kw5150]

Re: Crowchild Trail

Perhaps I'm coming off as a know it all (lol - I admit that's one of my flaws. I'm not a traffic or civil engineer, just a commuter. But perhaps the user has more insight as to what works than the designer)



Believe me, the planner do their research with the average user. You sound like you should take a planning degree since you have so much interest in it.

[Yahoo]

http://vimeo.com/21509646

Interesting video and in certain specific cases it does show a flaw with the way many US cities designed their huge freeway projects in the past.

Implying that Vancouver traffic is some sort of utopia for commuters is something I'm sure many people in Vancouver would disagree with though. I remember reading one article about how great it was for people to live downtown and walk to work. But they forgot to mention that only near millionaires in Vancouver could afford to do that - and it would be even more expensive if they tried to do it on the scale of a whole city.

I'm not sure how much the video applies to Calgary anyway since I don't think there are any proposals to build grade separated freeways - or any new freeways in Calgary. I guess it serves as a suggestion for the future. The fact that we need to eliminate lights and bump some of our main roads up to 3 lanes or add the odd bridge isn't anywhere on the scale of the USA style freeway system. We simply need to fix our main roads & expand LRT as we grow. Let's not get radical and look at 1 road that collapsed in SF or NYC and use that as an excuse to ignore needed upgrades. (look at one alderman messing with the +15 system, suggesting it should be removed because it hurts street vitality - simply ignoring the fact that this isn't Vegas, it's Calgary)

We need to remember that huge cites were crowded messes long before the automobile, so it's not like cars have created a problem or are the enemy. Lots of people mean lots of congestion. 3rd world countries with relatively few cars have the same transportation problems (or worse) as cities with large car populations. We had the same issues with people, horses, buggies, and chariots at one time! Cars are not the enemy.

[kw5150]

another gooder

http://vimeo.com/19836629

[5seconds]

I'm not sure how much the video applies to Calgary anyway since I don't think there are any proposals to build grade separated freeways - or any new freeways in Calgary.

Stoney Trail SE, SW, and W are freeways. Plus there are some instances of recent and upcoming upgrading of major roads to freeway standards. There is billions being spent on freeway roads and freeway-standard upgrades in Calgary.

Let's not get radical and look at 1 road that collapsed in SF or NYC and use that as an excuse to ignore needed upgrades.

It's not one road or one city. It's part of a well understood phenomena. Look up Braess's Paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess's_paradox ) and Induced Demand ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand )

More on San Francisco
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html

Seoul Korea
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysCheonggye.html

General examples all over the world
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml

More
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/13/does-destroying-highways-solve-urban-traffic-congestion/

More
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/the-best-tool-for-fixing-city-traffic-problems-a-wrecking-ball

[sim]

By radical new ideas I'm referring to confusing the situation on Crowchild by discussing HOV. That's radical for Calgary on a road that has very obvious problems and solutions. (2 lane choke points & traffic lights are the obvious issue on the road, not lack of HOV)

I welcome radical ideas when they help. For example I suggested once making a dedicated bike road downtown and have bikers simply walk the final block or 2 to their destination. Personally when I was a heavy bike rider in my youth I wouldn't even consider driving on a main road. A dedicated road and walking the last leg of the journey is something I'd have done.
(I was almost tarred and feathered for that radical idea though).

I've thought about expanding +15 downtown and narrowing sidewalks where possible. Narrowing them to allow room for a bike lane. And allowing people to walk with their bikes in the +15 system. (Hey, what about a +15 system or lane for bikes indoors? Just brainstorming here)

Another radical idea I've had is change the trains to 2 car instead of 4 right now, but run them twice as often? My biggest issue with transit is the wait - so if you speed up service then more people are likely to want to take it.

Another radical idea I've read in the USA is to try to eliminate as many stop signs as possible. Turn them into yields when it's safe. It saves fuel and time when things aren't busy.

At one time I thought turning circles were just confusing and dangerous on roads. And then I used one. The single lane ones are actually great and could eliminate lights on many of the Stoney Trail overpasses (in Scenic Acres for example). The lights there aren't timed and are a silly bottleneck. But we should resist the urgent to build big dual or triple lane roundabouts since I think they are too confusing to many people.


Another radical idea is to build more bus turn outs on main roads so when they stop to pick up passengers on main routes they don't block traffic. That did wonders on 2 lane Bow Trail, and actually helped speed up bus traffic because they were also trapped by buses stopping when the lights turned green.

Another idea is to always build 2 lane off ramps (or just paint singles as duals) and to examine every merge lane in the city to see if they can be easily lengthened.

Another suggestion is to always build new LRT lines so they don't cross paths with traffic, people, or bikes. (it's silly but the new line on Bow still has a pedestrian crosswalk that will stop traffic and trains). Yes, cost is an issue, but I'd sooner build LRT correctly even if the length comes up short. It's a lot cheaper to do it right and lengthen it later than to try to fix a problem after the fact.

It's like with Glenmore when the city asked if they should spend the extra money to do it right. Or when they asked people if they should spend a bit more money when building the NW LRT line so they could avoid crossing Memorial drive at grade. (Imagine adding another stop light for the LRT and road on Memorial just to save $100k).

My radical idea is to have a policy to try to do it right the first time. I live near Nose Hill drive. I've watched that road change 20x in 20 years. Lanes moved and added, turn lanes moved, turn lanes added or lengthened, the entire road rerouted. A simple plan to build it thinking 20 years into the future would have saved money and time in the long run. Even the province finally came on board with this type of thinking when they decided to make Stoney free flowing (that wasn't always the plan).

Another idea that would attract people to LRT (and I've ridden LRT since the day it opened on the original line) is to design the stations for our weather. As a kid going to high school it always baffled me that there was a relatively huge heated area in most of the first stations in Calgary. But you couldn't stand or see the trains from this area. You had to stand out in -30 rather than in the heated interior.

Ideas are a good thing. And quite often the cheap ones can buy you time while you save up to do the right thing. There is no need to suddenly decide that cars are bad and we should artificially force people to use a transportation system that doesn't work for them. We aren't at that stage.


Sorry, while your enthusiasm is nice, you're spending a lot of time only cementing via these "ideas" that there is a reason and a necessity for a planner and that the individual user of the transportation system does not necessarily constitute as one, even if they feel so.

Perhaps not my place to say... but, yeah...

At least to the bolded part since it is such a "good" idea: Perhaps we should apply this to every single parking spot as well. Even the one in front of your house...?

[5seconds]

So a few years ago, the road that runs through North Glenmore Park (the park, not the neighbourhood) was changed from a two-way road to a one-way road (to curb the gay cruising/sex in the park)

When the storm-sewer pond construction in the park was going on (18 months ago?), they had to close some access, and that meant putting the road back to a two-way road. Now that the construction is long over, they never put it back to a two-way road.

Does anyone know if this kind of thing would normally be decided by the council (as a bylaw or whatever) or would the roads/parks department make that kind of decision?

[Yahoo]

Stoney Trail SE, SW, and W are freeways. Plus there are some instances of recent and upcoming upgrading of major roads to freeway standards. There is billions being spent on freeway roads and freeway-standard upgrades in Calgary.



It's not one road or one city. It's part of a well understood phenomena. Look up Braess's Paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess's_paradox ) and Induced Demand ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand )

More on San Francisco
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html

Seoul Korea
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysCheonggye.html

General examples all over the world
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml

More
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/13/does-destroying-highways-solve-urban-traffic-congestion/

More
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/the-best-tool-for-fixing-city-traffic-problems-a-wrecking-ball


Stoney isn't a proposed freeway. It's already a given. And it's not going to plow through any neighborhoods on the last corner if the "best route" ultimately gets approved. (fingers crossed that the deal with the Indian band goes through since I think it's the best deal for everyone).

What are your thoughts on Stoney? Do you really think it'll be bad for the city when it's finished?

In any case, Stoney Trail is technically a bypass of the city. I'd call it a highway, more than a city freeway. But it will soon become a city freeway no doubt. But man, that's not always a bad thing. We need to be able to transport goods. Roads aren't evil, they're just transportation corridors.

Upgrading small sections of our main roadways to freeway standards is not the same thing as proposing a new freeway through the middle of the city. And anyway, I don't know of 1 road in Calgary slated to become a freeway except Stoney. Do you? Heck, I don't even know of any city roads being upgraded at all except related to LRT or Stoney construction (and that silly expensive hole at the airport). Do you?

It may be a "well understood phenomena" that on some roads the demand increases as new capacity is added. But you can't broadly paint an entire city and every single road with that brush. If you did then eliminating all main roads would fix road congestion. Surely you wouldn't agree with that?

Perhaps cite an example of that phenomena in Alberta? I suspect you can't because our population hasn't reached the level where this occurs.

(Hey, maybe I'm wrong and removing main roadways would work. But let's experiment with Edmonton doing that first and see how it works for them lol)

I've driven on many main roads in Calgary that are exceptions to this congestion rule. The old Sarcee Trail up the hill from 16th to Bow has been double divided for 50 years and it hasn't needed one upgrade or sucked cars into a congested mess. It was built properly a long time ago and has served the city well.

Anyway, new hospitals also fill up when they're built. And when cities grow their schools fill up too. That's expected. And that's why man has been expanding roadways since the first paths were built.

Perhaps, as I noted earlier in areas around San Francisco is that we should be looking at more multi-lane roads everywhere, not just on main roads. That way traffic isn't drawn to one main road. I don't know if that's the answer though since that would mean a lot more houses wiped out and more new roads. As I see it the only choices are big main roads (spokes & a wheel ideally), or lots of little roads where you can effectively move around the city. Both come with costs. I guess we could also quit building roads altogether, but I don't think that will help.

[Full Mountain]

By radical new ideas I'm referring to confusing the situation on Crowchild by discussing HOV. That's radical for Calgary on a road that has very obvious problems and solutions. (2 lane choke points & traffic lights are the obvious issue on the road, not lack of HOV)

I welcome radical ideas when they help. For example I suggested once making a dedicated bike road downtown and have bikers simply walk the final block or 2 to their destination. Personally when I was a heavy bike rider in my youth I wouldn't even consider driving on a main road. A dedicated road and walking the last leg of the journey is something I'd have done.
(I was almost tarred and feathered for that radical idea though).

I've thought about expanding +15 downtown and narrowing sidewalks where possible. Narrowing them to allow room for a bike lane. And allowing people to walk with their bikes in the +15 system. (Hey, what about a +15 system or lane for bikes indoors? Just brainstorming here)

Another radical idea I've had is change the trains to 2 car instead of 4 right now, but run them twice as often? My biggest issue with transit is the wait - so if you speed up service then more people are likely to want to take it.

Another radical idea I've read in the USA is to try to eliminate as many stop signs as possible. Turn them into yields when it's safe. It saves fuel and time when things aren't busy.

At one time I thought turning circles were just confusing and dangerous on roads. And then I used one. The single lane ones are actually great and could eliminate lights on many of the Stoney Trail overpasses (in Scenic Acres for example). The lights there aren't timed and are a silly bottleneck. But we should resist the urgent to build big dual or triple lane roundabouts since I think they are too confusing to many people.

Another radical idea is to build more bus turn outs on main roads so when they stop to pick up passengers on main routes they don't block traffic. That did wonders on 2 lane Bow Trail, and actually helped speed up bus traffic because they were also trapped by buses stopping when the lights turned green.

Another idea is to always build 2 lane off ramps (or just paint singles as duals) and to examine every merge lane in the city to see if they can be easily lengthened. Cuz people can't stay in their own lane on a straight road how do you expect them to do this on a on/off ramp?

Another suggestion is to always build new LRT lines so they don't cross paths with traffic, people, or bikes. (it's silly but the new line on Bow still has a pedestrian crosswalk that will stop traffic and trains). Yes, cost is an issue, but I'd sooner build LRT correctly even if the length comes up short. It's a lot cheaper to do it right and lengthen it later than to try to fix a problem after the fact.

It's like with Glenmore when the city asked if they should spend the extra money to do it right. Or when they asked people if they should spend a bit more money when building the NW LRT line so they could avoid crossing Memorial drive at grade. (Imagine adding another stop light for the LRT and road on Memorial just to save $100k).

My radical idea is to have a policy to try to do it right the first time. I live near Nose Hill drive. I've watched that road change 20x in 20 years. Lanes moved and added, turn lanes moved, turn lanes added or lengthened, the entire road rerouted. A simple plan to build it thinking 20 years into the future would have saved money and time in the long run. Even the province finally came on board with this type of thinking when they decided to make Stoney free flowing (that wasn't always the plan).

Another idea that would attract people to LRT (and I've ridden LRT since the day it opened on the original line) is to design the stations for our weather. As a kid going to high school it always baffled me that there was a relatively huge heated area in most of the first stations in Calgary. But you couldn't stand or see the trains from this area. You had to stand out in -30 rather than in the heated interior.

Ideas are a good thing. And quite often the cheap ones can buy you time while you save up to do the right thing. There is no need to suddenly decide that cars are bad and we should artificially force people to use a transportation system that doesn't work for them. We aren't at that stage.

Dealing with the 2 car consists on trains vs 3 (not 4 yet) currently, the issue right now is that with the current setup the system is at max frequency at peak due to the interlining downtown, build out the 7th and 8th street tunnels and we are good to go!

Point 2 - Are you willing to face a huge yearly increase in your property taxes to pay for your wonderful ideas? (I think most are good)

[Full Mountain]

I have an idea rather than building more roads, how about we train better drivers? I would bet you would see a huge difference in traffic related delays and accidents if everyone used a decent following distance and it was enforced

[Yahoo]

Sorry, while your enthusiasm is nice, you're spending a lot of time only cementing via these "ideas" that there is a reason and a necessity for a planner and that the individual user of the transportation system does not necessarily constitute as one, even if they feel so.

Perhaps not my place to say... but, yeah...

At least to the bolded part since it is such a "good" idea: Perhaps we should apply this to every single parking spot as well. Even the one in front of your house...?

Yes, it's your place to say! This is a discussion forum so even if you completely disagree with me I welcome your thoughts. There is a good chance nobody will listen to any of us anyway.:haha:

Oh, I don't know. I think the end user has often got more valuable info than a planner. Particularly a planner unfamiliar with the local needs and feelings. It would be silly for me to design a road or make suggestions for a city I'm not familiar with since they all have unique weather and geography issues. Perhaps that's why the city is asking about HOV on Crowchild. Perhaps the people looking at the designs have never even driven the road on a regular basis. Or some of the people commenting on this forum aren't regular users either and don't see that the issue in Crowchild isn't a broad planning problem.

Outsiders can offer fresh perspectives and ideas. But they will also tend to draw from their personal experiences which can sometimes lead to poor designs and planning.

Look at the new Children's hospital. My brother brought his daughter to emergency there and told me that to get to emergency you have to go through a bunch of lights and speed bumps right at the hospital grounds. Ambulances do too. But I'm sure it looked good on paper.

I'm not sure what you mean about parking? It would be great if people would walk or ride bikes (on safe out of the way bike paths). It annoys me that people drive to the store on the corner. You may be surprised to learn I've taken transit for years. When I do park it's on the edge of downtown and I walk at least 2 km through downtown. Many people parking downtown do walk quite far to their jobs. Most aren't given the sweet expensive spots in the buildings where they work. Those are saved for the elite and wealthy.

I think the biggest issue with city council is they are sheltered. Many of them park in their private reserved heated parking spots and don't even see the issues people face.

Don't get me started on what's wrong with transit or pedestrian corridors in this city.

I think I'm commenting too much lately, so I'll try to go back to a listener instead of yammering on so much.:haha: Hopefully my ideas aren't too crazy. If nothing else I try to get people to think twice about everything they read because I believe for every story or rule you'll see a lot of exceptions.

[kw5150]

Other cities around the world are quickly finding out just how expensive it is to maintain a "great" road system. Get ready for tax hikes everyone. The amount that many Calgarians want to see spent on roads makes the peace bridge look like peanuts. People really need to wake up and see the reality of the current status quo of road systems and the pre-conceived notions surrounding them. Roads and sprawl equals MASSIVE costs down the road. 30 somethings, be ready to pay for it in a couple decades or sooner!

[Yahoo]

Dealing with the 2 car consists on trains vs 3 (not 4 yet) currently, the issue right now is that with the current setup the system is at max frequency at peak due to the interlining downtown, build out the 7th and 8th street tunnels and we are good to go!

Point 2 - Are you willing to face a huge yearly increase in your property taxes to pay for your wonderful ideas? (I think most are good)


I know there are often reasons why things aren't done, but perhaps instead of building 4 car stations - at great expense, the money should have went towards the long awaited downtown tunnel. If that was built and allowed faster service then it would have been a better result. Stand by the train tracks heading north from downtown at 5:30. You'll see a lot of 1/2 full train cars. You'll also see surprisingly empty train cars in the morning. I'm not sure what happened, but it seems we no longer need 4 car trains (yet anyway)

You're correct - all idea's come with costs. I think most of the ideas I mentioned though wouldn't be as expensive as 1 overpass. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to occur overnight, or even succeed right away. But future generations might be happy.

(I know I said I'd quit yapping so much, but I'm just replying to questions lol)

[Blader]

<snip>Oh, I don't know. I think the end user has often got more valuable info than a planner. Particularly a planner unfamiliar with the local needs and feelings.<snip>

That's what Stalin thought in the 1930s Soviet Union - when it came to building dams, he chose to exile many of the engineers to Siberia (many died and of those that survived, many were subsequently executed). He replaced many of the engineers with salt of the earth proletariat (end users) with no knowledge of dam building. I don't have to tell you what that resulted in.

I don't think our planning department is unfamiliar with local needs, quite the contrary. That's not to say that their recommendations should go unchallenged.

[MalcolmTucker]

I know there are often reasons why things aren't done, but perhaps instead of building 4 car stations - at great expense, the money should have went towards the long awaited downtown tunnel. If that was built and allowed faster service then it would have been a better result. Stand by the train tracks heading north from downtown at 5:30. You'll see a lot of 1/2 full train cars. You'll also see surprisingly empty train cars in the morning. I'm not sure what happened, but it seems we no longer need 4 car trains (yet anyway)

You're correct - all idea's come with costs. I think most of the ideas I mentioned though wouldn't be as expensive as 1 overpass. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to occur overnight, or even succeed right away. But future generations might be happy.

(I know I said I'd quit yapping so much, but I'm just replying to questions lol)
A tunnel before changes for longer trains would really hike up operating costs, even before you start thinking about capital efficiency.

Personally, I'm one to think for the most part we need more transit and road investment. I just think the public should be consulted directly on how to fund it, since there will alwys be a limit to how much can be spent out of current revenue sources.

[Bassic Lab]

I'd be curious what traffic patterns would be like with the Shaganappi to Sarcee Tr SW bridge over the Bow.

There is still a need so that welders, interior designers, Coke delivery truck and such to get across the city and to it's destination. This is a bit different problem than everyday commuters who are technologists, accountants, lawyers, students who work\study near a business\academic node and commute via light rail.

Calgary needs to fund roads adequately and make sure the dollars are being spent on compelling opportunities that improve mobility.

One can spend a shitload of money without a large improvement when there are some sort of geographic, development, or environmental constraints.

I imagine that a bridge between Shaganappi and Sarcee (or connecting the two portions of Sarcee) would immediately cause bottlenecks at Sarcee@Bow and Sarcee@Glenmore and worsen the traffic on the Glenmore Causeway as more people find it easier to reach the SE industrial parks from the NW. By making it easier to reach the SE it would promote more job growth there. In the longer term, with interchanges at Bow Trail and Glenmore, the Causeway would get worse as more jobs move to the SE.

There really isn't a problem with goods movement in this city. Most of the road network has spare capacity 95% of the time. The majority of routes are only congested during either the AM or PM rush. A slim minority of areas see congestion during both peaks and only have spare capacity 90% of the time. These areas include the inner portion of Deerfoot (perhaps between Peigan and McKnight), segments of the Crowchild-Glenmore corridor, and Macleod near Chinook (particularly before Christmas). There are very few areas that see any real congestion more than 10% of the time (Crowchild between Bow Trail and 24 Ave N might barely qualify). Goods should be, and generally are, moved during the 90% of the day when spare capacity abounds. Trying to make the AM and PM peaks congestion free is a great way to spend billions on a goal that will never be realized and will not affect the transportation of goods in a significant way.

I'm not really opposed to fixing Crowchild between Bow Trail and 24 Ave N. It really should be on a, pretty small, to do list of roads projects. The thing is, it would be very expensive. The kind of expensive which puts it in the same realm as the 8 Ave Subway, replacing our fleet of U2s, getting a good start on funding for the SE LRT, and a number of other projects that really ought to be a higher priority. Until we reach the end of the current infrastructure's lifecycle, Crowchild can wait.

I know that no one here has expressed this idea but now seems as good a time as any to comment on the Sun comment board's bizarre concept that there had been a war on cars under Bronconnier that has continued under Nenshi (except when they're complaining about making Airport Trail an expressway). We have thrown tons of money at our road network over the past decade. It has been getting its fair share of attention.

[UofC.engineer]

I know there are often reasons why things aren't done, but perhaps instead of building 4 car stations - at great expense, the money should have went towards the long awaited downtown tunnel. If that was built and allowed faster service then it would have been a better result. Stand by the train tracks heading north from downtown at 5:30. You'll see a lot of 1/2 full train cars. You'll also see surprisingly empty train cars in the morning. I'm not sure what happened, but it seems we no longer need 4 car trains (yet anyway)

You're correct - all idea's come with costs. I think most of the ideas I mentioned though wouldn't be as expensive as 1 overpass. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to occur overnight, or even succeed right away. But future generations might be happy.

(I know I said I'd quit yapping so much, but I'm just replying to questions lol)

We need 4-car trains. We needed them 7 years ago. I get on at Canyon Meadows station in the morning and it's standing room only. This is the third stop on the south line.

We also need the 8th ave subway along with SE LRT pretty badly.

[ByeByeBaby]

It may be a "well understood phenomena" that on some roads the demand increases as new capacity is added. But you can't broadly paint an entire city and every single road with that brush. If you did then eliminating all main roads would fix road congestion. Surely you wouldn't agree with that?

Perhaps cite an example of that phenomena in Alberta? I suspect you can't because our population hasn't reached the level where this occurs.

<snip>Oh, I don't know. I think the end user has often got more valuable info than a planner. <snip>

In each of the two years before the Glenmore/Elbow/5th St interchange opened, the average annual daily traffic on Glenmore between Macleod and Elbow was 81,000 vehicles a day. In each of the two years since the interchange opened, the AADT in the same location was 94,000 vehicles per day. That's a 16% increase on a road not located near any new development, and it's from a stable level both before and after; i.e. it's not a trend, it's the new capacity being filled up as it was created, i.e. it's induced demand.

Also, it's not like planners are some sort of mythical half-lion half-badger creature that only survives in climate-controlled pods. They're people who also live in the city. So they're both end users and planners.

[kw5150]

I know there are often reasons why things aren't done, but perhaps instead of building 4 car stations - at great expense, the money should have went towards the long awaited downtown tunnel. If that was built and allowed faster service then it would have been a better result. Stand by the train tracks heading north from downtown at 5:30. You'll see a lot of 1/2 full train cars. You'll also see surprisingly empty train cars in the morning. I'm not sure what happened, but it seems we no longer need 4 car trains (yet anyway)

You're correct - all idea's come with costs. I think most of the ideas I mentioned though wouldn't be as expensive as 1 overpass. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to occur overnight, or even succeed right away. But future generations might be happy.

(I know I said I'd quit yapping so much, but I'm just replying to questions lol)

The half full train cars wont be that way for long. Those are usually just the downtown line anyway. The crowfoot / shawnessy line is always packed during rush hour and getting more and more packed everyday. I appreciate the observations and the fact that you care to comment, but the trains are never half full on the line that actually goes somewhere. When the west LRT is connected, there wont be anymore half full trains. Part of the really selfish me wishes that they would always be half full on the downtown line...oh well, at least I got 3 years riding basically half-full trains!

[5seconds]

Stoney isn't a proposed freeway. It's already a given.

The SWCRR is very much a proposed freeway.

In any case, Stoney Trail is technically a bypass of the city. I'd call it a highway, more than a city freeway. But it will soon become a city freeway no doubt. But man, that's not always a bad thing. We need to be able to transport goods. Roads aren't evil, they're just transportation corridors.

Freeway, Highway, Bypass. Call it what you like, it's the same road. (Though I believe the road standard is called a 'Freeway' and that the Transportation Association of Canada does not have a classification of 'Bypass' or 'Highway').

I don't think people here think of transportation corridors as 'Evil'. I certainly don't. I think we need a healthy road network. And i think that eliminating bottlenecks in roads like Crowchild would probably be a really good idea. My problems start when large sums of money get spent on projects that ultimately end up right where they started, or end up increasing issues, especially when that money might have been better spent on other solutions that might have better long-term benefits.

I am not sure HOV lanes on Crowchild are what that roads need either, but doing a study, gathering feedback and maybe even starting a pilot project are all good things for this city (IMO).

Upgrading small sections of our main roadways to freeway standards is not the same thing as proposing a new freeway through the middle of the city. And anyway, I don't know of 1 road in Calgary slated to become a freeway except Stoney. Do you? Heck, I don't even know of any city roads being upgraded at all except related to LRT or Stoney construction (and that silly expensive hole at the airport). Do you?

You're right. I meant limited-access expressways, and the capacity and interchange upgrades that add expressway-like features to city roads, like the GE5, Glenmore, Crowchild, Sarcee, etc.

It may be a "well understood phenomena" that on some roads the demand increases as new capacity is added. But you can't broadly paint an entire city and every single road with that brush. If you did then eliminating all main roads would fix road congestion. Surely you wouldn't agree with that?

Perhaps cite an example of that phenomena in Alberta? I suspect you can't because our population hasn't reached the level where this occurs.

ByeByeBaby covered an example very well. There is no evidence (That I know of) to suggest that Alberta is immune from these effects.

I've driven on many main roads in Calgary that are exceptions to this congestion rule. The old Sarcee Trail up the hill from 16th to Bow has been double divided for 50 years and it hasn't needed one upgrade or sucked cars into a congested mess. It was built properly a long time ago and has served the city well.

I think you're right. The capacity designed in the 1960s exceeded the demand for the road. Then again, it was also part of the 1950s/1960s Ring Road system that was never fully implemented. It was planned to continue up through Bowness and connect with Sarcee in the north. (As well as connecting to Shaganappi over the river via Edworthy park) so it's fair to say that the expected use and intended volumes were never fully realised.

As others have said, I think that its a good thing when people get involved and start to think and talk about transit issues. It affects us all. I also think that planners should be allowed to explore any and all ideas, because that is how we get better at doing things, including planning and implementing transit solutions.

[5seconds]

I imagine that a bridge between Shaganappi and Sarcee (or connecting the two portions of Sarcee) would immediately cause bottlenecks at Sarcee@Bow and Sarcee@Glenmore and worsen the traffic on the Glenmore Causeway as more people find it easier to reach the SE industrial parks from the NW. By making it easier to reach the SE it would promote more job growth there. In the longer term, with interchanges at Bow Trail and Glenmore, the Causeway would get worse as more jobs move to the SE.

Once the West leg of the Ring Road is built, we won't have to imagine. The SWCRR plans of 2009 called for Glenmore trail to be a 10 lane expressway at the completion of Stage 1, though I haven't seen the City's plans for actually doing that, or doing anything about Glenmore/Crowchild. I think bottlenecks downstream from the SWCRR will be a given, but I wonder to what extent.

[mersar]

Does anyone know if this kind of thing would normally be decided by the council (as a bylaw or whatever) or would the roads/parks department make that kind of decision?

So long as it doesn't involve actually closing a road allowance I believe that the Roads department can make the change on their own. Bigger road changes though tend to come through council (such as the soon to be realized conversion of 12th and 11th avenues back to two way traffic)

[5seconds]

So long as it doesn't involve actually closing a road allowance I believe that the Roads department can make the change on their own. Bigger road changes though tend to come through council (such as the soon to be realized conversion of 12th and 11th avenues back to two way traffic)

As always, thank you!

[Full Mountain]

So long as it doesn't involve actually closing a road allowance I believe that the Roads department can make the change on their own. Bigger road changes though tend to come through council (such as the soon to be realized conversion of 12th and 11th avenues back to two way traffic)

This is good news!

[Mazrim]

In each of the two years before the Glenmore/Elbow/5th St interchange opened, the average annual daily traffic on Glenmore between Macleod and Elbow was 81,000 vehicles a day. In each of the two years since the interchange opened, the AADT in the same location was 94,000 vehicles per day. That's a 16% increase on a road not located near any new development, and it's from a stable level both before and after; i.e. it's not a trend, it's the new capacity being filled up as it was created, i.e. it's induced demand.
16% increase, but travel times still significantly improved for those commuting in the area. I'm okay with this.

[fusili]

So long as it doesn't involve actually closing a road allowance I believe that the Roads department can make the change on their own. Bigger road changes though tend to come through council (such as the soon to be realized conversion of 12th and 11th avenues back to two way traffic)

Wait, what? When is this going to happen. I feel out of the loop. In any case, I think it makes sense, especially considering the opening up of 10th avenue across 14th street (which I take everytime I am coming from or going to the NW back into Beltine- it is much quicker than 11th or 12th.

[Yahoo]

That's what Stalin thought in the 1930s Soviet Union - when it came to building dams, he chose to exile many of the engineers to Siberia (many died and of those that survived, many were subsequently executed). He replaced many of the engineers with salt of the earth proletariat (end users) with no knowledge of dam building. I don't have to tell you what that resulted in.

I don't think our planning department is unfamiliar with local needs, quite the contrary. That's not to say that their recommendations should go unchallenged.

Stalin? Really? I wasn't advocating sending our planners to Siberia (or Quebec lol). And I think you know that. My simple point is that a planner from San Diego for example may not be the best choice for Calgary - unless of course he makes an effort to find out what the end users need.

Our planning department is asking about an HOV lane on a section of roadway that narrows to 2 lanes with traffic lights. That to me shows that they have a basic misconception about the problem. Fine, perhaps they're just gathering info - but I think us end users are suspicious that the planners are hoping to institute HOV lanes all over the city. And they aren't needed now. Simple expansion of roadways that have been ignored for years is all we need.

It isn't unsustainable. You see all kinds of examples where money is poorly spent or "planners" missed the ball. The key is to plan wisely but to not lose focus.

[Yahoo]

In each of the two years before the Glenmore/Elbow/5th St interchange opened, the average annual daily traffic on Glenmore between Macleod and Elbow was 81,000 vehicles a day. In each of the two years since the interchange opened, the AADT in the same location was 94,000 vehicles per day. That's a 16% increase on a road not located near any new development, and it's from a stable level both before and after; i.e. it's not a trend, it's the new capacity being filled up as it was created, i.e. it's induced demand.

Also, it's not like planners are some sort of mythical half-lion half-badger creature that only survives in climate-controlled pods. They're people who also live in the city. So they're both end users and planners.

Why someone who lives in the city and takes the LRT would design an LRT station like Heritage or Anderson for example I'll never know. On day 1 the escalators were broken - oops, they forgot that hundreds of people would be riding them at once apparently - so you can't design a system that breaks under the weight of a dozen people .

And it wasn't -30 the day they designed the large heated indoor area. The heated indoor area where you can't see the trains coming - and where you can't stand and wait for trains. I was in high school and I noticed these flaws on the day the LRT opened. Why didn't the planner? - likely because he wasn't there. And who planned the train cars - so you have to touch knees with the stranger sitting across from you? Or that kids use as muddy footstools? Or that wastes valuable space? Many non-planner citizens noticed that flaw right away too and wrote into The Herald, yet that's the seating config our planners ordered.

I agree that our planners most likely live and use the city and likely care very much about what they do. But just because they're planners some people assume that they somehow know the needs of the people better than the people themselves do. (I work in IT but when we design systems it's based on the needs of the end users - not my personal preferences or what I find the most interesting). A planner that lives in Lake Bonavista may not truly understand the issues of Crowchild Trail north, anymore than I'd understand the road issues in the deep south. It's like with the pipeline protests - we don't want certain groups hijacking the review for/against the project when they might not actually represent the views of the majority.

Someone referred to Stalin in an earlier post. That's the problem with people imposing their will on people - they're often wrong or completely uncaring about the needs of other citizens just because their needs are different. I love the fact the city is asking about HOV lanes. But scared about it too, because they may just use it to broadly change policy before citizens or even city council knows what's happening.

And as for the "expanding roads actually causes congestion" phenomena I don't think it's any mythical mysterious thing that's beyond comprehension. As I mentioned with the road collapse in San Francisco. Perhaps if you studied the BART (transit) system expansion and the layout and design of the intersecting roadways it would be obvious that the design was flawed or came at the wrong time in history. If they just introduced the BART system, then perhaps a lot of people quit driving. Or if the intersecting roads just caused congestion with poorly designed interchanges (as in Crowchild/Shagganappi tie ups in the morning) then the designers blew it. One poor design choice and the 5 lanes by that Crowchild interchange can bottleneck because of a few people heading into a mall on a different roadway. (my examples with BART etc are just examples - and may not be factual - I'm just saying there must be an explanation).

Glenmore may be seeing more traffic, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything unless you study it in detail. Does the traffic actually flow better? In which case it's a success. Did people abandon transit because of the better roadway (and the desire to cut their commute time)? Did other roads get relieved? The fact that this road is a major choke point means the traffic doesn't have many alternatives.

Ideally perhaps cities would have better flowing streets if traffic wasn't forced to take huge roadways to travel around the city. Perhaps, especially in cities without a lot of geographical barriers requiring bridges, the layouts we've been using are wrong. More little roads where you can get to point B without having to chose between only a few main roads. I'm not sure if that would be better or not though since there would be a whole lot more intersections. And of course even if we now discovered that it's a better way to lay out the city we couldn't really do that now. Perhaps we could unblock some of the intentional barriers we've put up though.

I don't think people are suggesting that we could have solved the problem on Glenmore by reducing the number of lanes instead of adding them? Are people suggesting the complaints about the narrow section of Crowchild Trail are wrong? And that a 2 lane main road is all we really need forever? People get lost in this interesting phenomena and their judgement gets clouded. They obsess on one thing and suddenly think it's the solution to everything. I wish there was a solution to everything, but there isn't.

One thing I think planners should start using is simulation software. One would think that you could model roadways and semi-predict how they'd work. Simulations might not be prefect yet, but one would think you could build a computer model of Crowchild or even the whole city then simulate what will happen with varying traffic patterns. Although one would think lights could be timed properly in the city so perhaps that art hasn't arrived yet.

[Yahoo]

The half full train cars wont be that way for long. Those are usually just the downtown line anyway. The crowfoot / shawnessy line is always packed during rush hour and getting more and more packed everyday. I appreciate the observations and the fact that you care to comment, but the trains are never half full on the line that actually goes somewhere. When the west LRT is connected, there wont be anymore half full trains. Part of the really selfish me wishes that they would always be half full on the downtown line...oh well, at least I got 3 years riding basically half-full trains!

I'm referring to the line between Crowfoot and downtown. People used to be nose to nose packed in the trains. Now by 8-8:30 am going into downtown very few people are standing. Last night ~ 5:30 pm the train cars heading to Crowfoot had no more than 5 people in each of them. I almost wanted to video it and post it here, but people probably wouldn't like getting video'ed :haha:

I know that's got to change and it's a weird situation on a main line. Perhaps the extra train cars the city bought did a great job relieving capacity issues? Or perhaps delays and issues on the trains is driving people (pun) to drive - in another interesting phenomena like we see one some roadways that work better when capacity is reduced.

As a resident of Scenic Acres I'm highly annoyed that I have to leave the district just to park at the train station. No doubt to prevent what the city thinks are "evil" shortcutters from using the roads in Scenic Acres. To me, as long as there isn't a big problem people should be allowed to park or drive everywhere. If you'd like to drive or park in front of my house so you can take the train then be my guest. I don't own the roadway. Sadly, rules like this deter many people in Scenic Acres from using a train that's in their back yard (too far to walk, too long to bus, and no parking access - plus not enough spots even though this parking lot was planned at least 30 years ago when there were actually cows walking in what is now the parking lot).

[Bigtime]

So long as it doesn't involve actually closing a road allowance I believe that the Roads department can make the change on their own. Bigger road changes though tend to come through council (such as the soon to be realized conversion of 12th and 11th avenues back to two way traffic)

Whaaa? When did this start moving forward?

[Full Mountain]

I'm referring to the line between Crowfoot and downtown. People used to be nose to nose packed in the trains. Now by 8-8:30 am going into downtown very few people are standing. Last night ~ 5:30 pm the train cars heading to Crowfoot had no more than 5 people in each of them. I almost wanted to video it and post it here, but people probably wouldn't like getting video'ed :haha:

I know that's got to change and it's a weird situation on a main line. Perhaps the extra train cars the city bought did a great job relieving capacity issues? Or perhaps delays and issues on the trains is driving people (pun) to drive - in another interesting phenomena like we see one some roadways that work better when capacity is reduced.

As a resident of Scenic Acres I'm highly annoyed that I have to leave the district just to park at the train station. No doubt to prevent what the city thinks are "evil" shortcutters from using the roads in Scenic Acres. To me, as long as there isn't a big problem people should be allowed to park or drive everywhere. If you'd like to drive or park in front of my house so you can take the train then be my guest. I don't own the roadway. Sadly, rules like this deter many people in Scenic Acres from using a train that's in their back yard (too far to walk, too long to bus, and no parking access - plus not enough spots even though this parking lot was planned at least 30 years ago when there were actually cows walking in what is now the parking lot).

For the most part restrictions on parking in the neighbourhoods surrounding the LRT are there because people compained, not because the city decided that no one should be able to park there

[mersar]

For the most part restrictions on parking in the neighbourhoods surrounding the LRT are there because people compained, not because the city decided that no one should be able to park there

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

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

[craner]

Keep up the fight Yahoo - I agree with most of your points.:tup:

[kw5150]

from:




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


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

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




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

[kw5150]

:previous::previous::previous:

Im seriously going to sit down one day and figure this west end spaghetti out one day. I think crowchild can use an additional lane in some areas but that is about it. We dont need to get carried away and create induced demand.

Induced demand can be simplified by comparing it to using paper towels.....If you put them on the counter, they will be used, but you can easily live without them and live a more sustainable lifestyle.

[Bassic Lab]

:previous::previous::previous:

Im seriously going to sit down one day and figure this west end spaghetti out one day. I think crowchild can use an additional lane in some areas but that is about it. We dont need to get carried away and create induced demand.

Induced demand can be simplified by comparing it to using paper towels.....If you put them on the counter, they will be used, but you can easily live without them and live a more sustainable lifestyle.

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

[DizzyEdge]

I'd like to see the 16th ave/Memorial Dr treatment applied to Centre st south of 16th ave. Also Macleod Trail north of Cemetery hill and 9th ave west of Inglewood, although the latter two in conjunction with redevelopment across from Erlton station and redevelopment of the East Village respectively, so for now likely just Centre.

[kw5150]

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

Lol, sure whatever. That street is unreal, no matter how it evolved. Fortunately our roads are already that wide.

[fusili]

Lol, sure whatever. That street is unreal, no matter how it evolved. Fortunately our roads are already that wide.

Actually the rights-of-way for many of our roads, Macleod Trail included, are far narrower than the Champs. Champs is about 65m from property line to property line, whereas Macleod Trail is typically around 27m or so. Not saying that we shouldn't be investing in better sidewalks and streetscapes in general. But to have a similar situation as the Champs in Calgary is near impossible.

[jeffwhit]

Someone on this forum once suggested something live the Champs to be built over the CPR mainline from the Palliser Hotel west, I thought it was a pretty cool idea actually, as something to imagine, Then I guess Bow Trail and Crowchild would dump out onto that.

[kw5150]

Actually the rights-of-way for many of our roads, Macleod Trail included, are far narrower than the Champs. Champs is about 65m from property line to property line, whereas Macleod Trail is typically around 27m or so. Not saying that we shouldn't be investing in better sidewalks and streetscapes in general. But to have a similar situation as the Champs in Calgary is near impossible.

Thank you for the information, 65m is really wide.

I mean generally our roads are wide. I know now that champs is impossible. I am suggesting a hybrid model. I was thinking that some area could actually be near 65m wide and incorporate plazas and the rest of the widths would be based on site specific constraints.

[kw5150]

Someone on this forum once suggested something live the Champs to be built over the CPR mainline from the Palliser Hotel west, I thought it was a pretty cool idea actually, as something to imagine, Then I guess Bow Trail and Crowchild would dump out onto that.

I was thinking about the rail line running through downtown as well. How cool would that be? I would definitely miss the rail running through downtown, it has a great effect to making our city seem older than it is. I like that crashing noise when the trains start/ stop, but I'm sure MANY could live without it!


EDIT: I see now that you said "built over".............I thought you meant rail torn out.

[Yahoo]

I was thinking about the rail line running through downtown as well. How cool would that be? I would definitely miss the rail running through downtown, it has a great effect to making our city seem older than it is. I like that crashing noise when the trains start/ stop, but I'm sure MANY could live without it!


EDIT: I see now that you said "built over".............I thought you meant rail torn out.

It would be interesting to see what could be done if the heavy rail lines downtown were diverted elsewhere (or moved underground in a massively expensive project). I thought there were plans at various times in history to move the tracks but it never worked out. (I'm not sure how practical it would be to move them in a Stoney Trail like bypass).

While I'm dreaming, the commuter in me would like a new transportation corridor of some sort if the heavy tracks ever went away, but instead making it into a green thin "central park" type area could really attract people to the inner city and be a showcase for downtown if it was done right. The land would be too valuable to turn into a park but it would be cool if it happened. But then again, there was also talk about using the heavy rail lines for commuter trains into downtown, so if that happened I'd say the chances of us losing the downtown trains is about zero.

There was talk today about the city possibly buying up the Paskapoo slopes. It would be cool if they made a "nice" entrance to the city, especially considering the road to the mountains is a main tourist corridor. I'd rather see interesting art and landscaping (even if it is eventually a freeway), then a bunch of retail stores lining the road leading into the city. (Tourists I hosted from Australia loved our spruce trees). I guess if it doesn't work out then perhaps some sort of theme standard for the building designs along the main roads leading into the city, like the western theme they seem to be pushing in Cochrane (we could go western, sandstone, Olympic, or something interesting that's a bit unique to Calgary rather than the square warehouse and big parking lot look) I'm always a bit excited driving into a city I haven't been to, but it's pretty rare when it isn't a letdown.

[DizzyEdge]

:previous::previous::previous:

The main plan was to put them along the banks of the bow where the bike paths are now (along with a freeway I believe).

[jeffwhit]

I was thinking about the rail line running through downtown as well. How cool would that be? I would definitely miss the rail running through downtown, it has a great effect to making our city seem older than it is. I like that crashing noise when the trains start/ stop, but I'm sure MANY could live without it!


EDIT: I see now that you said "built over".............I thought you meant rail torn out.

In my dream world, commuter rail and LRT run below this BLVD and a showstopper of a multi model Central Transit Station (commuter rail, LRT and a central bus station) is built around the base of the Calgary Tower.

[freeweed]

In each of the two years before the Glenmore/Elbow/5th St interchange opened, the average annual daily traffic on Glenmore between Macleod and Elbow was 81,000 vehicles a day. In each of the two years since the interchange opened, the AADT in the same location was 94,000 vehicles per day. That's a 16% increase on a road not located near any new development, and it's from a stable level both before and after; i.e. it's not a trend, it's the new capacity being filled up as it was created, i.e. it's induced demand.

False conclusion. Or at least built with incomplete data. I used to avoid Glenmore like the plague, but since GE5 I take it regularly. For the exact same trips I did before. This isn't induced demand, it's shifted demand from other roadways. Surely I'm not the only Calgarian this applies to.

You really have to look at traffic patterns as a whole to see if GE5 has actually induced demand. Because if 13,000 cars a day have been shifted from other routes, there's nothing "induced" whatsoever.

Also, it's not like planners are some sort of mythical half-lion half-badger creature that only survives in climate-controlled pods. They're people who also live in the city. So they're both end users and planners.

No, but I highly doubt a planner who lives in the NE and drives to work every day has much of a clue of what the commuter experience on the NWLRT is like. I find it hard to believe any city planner has the time to drive every road, ride every train, walk every sidewalk in the city - which is why we end up with some pretty bizarre choices sometimes, and why a lot of the public distrusts "planners" as an entity. No one person (or small group of people) can know everything. Hence the need for public consultation.

Incidentally, I find the previous "Stalin" reference baffling - the Stalinist system was entirely designed around central planning. It was the exact opposite of sending planners to Siberia - he and his bureaucracy basically ignored what local people already knew, and went ahead and tried to design a society and country with some pretty stupid ideas. Comparing our poster Yahoo's ideas to Stalin's methods is entirely nonsensical. They're diametrically opposed.

[freeweed]

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

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

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

[kw5150]

False conclusion. Or at least built with incomplete data. I used to avoid Glenmore like the plague, but since GE5 I take it regularly. For the exact same trips I did before. This isn't induced demand, it's shifted demand from other roadways. Surely I'm not the only Calgarian this applies to.

You really have to look at traffic patterns as a whole to see if GE5 has actually induced demand. Because if 13,000 cars a day have been shifted from other routes, there's nothing "induced" whatsoever.



No, but I highly doubt a planner who lives in the NE and drives to work every day has much of a clue of what the commuter experience on the NWLRT is like. I find it hard to believe any city planner has the time to drive every road, ride every train, walk every sidewalk in the city - which is why we end up with some pretty bizarre choices sometimes, and why a lot of the public distrusts "planners" as an entity. No one person (or small group of people) can know everything. Hence the need for public consultation.

Incidentally, I find the previous "Stalin" reference baffling - the Stalinist system was entirely designed around central planning. It was the exact opposite of sending planners to Siberia - he and his bureaucracy basically ignored what local people already knew, and went ahead and tried to design a society and country with some pretty stupid ideas. Comparing our poster Yahoo's ideas to Stalin's methods is entirely nonsensical. They're diametrically opposed.

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

[craner]

False conclusion. Or at least built with incomplete data. I used to avoid Glenmore like the plague, but since GE5 I take it regularly. For the exact same trips I did before. This isn't induced demand, it's shifted demand from other roadways. Surely I'm not the only Calgarian this applies to.

Totally agree - Glenmore is 10X better than it used to be.

[sim]

False conclusion. Or at least built with incomplete data. I used to avoid Glenmore like the plague, but since GE5 I take it regularly. For the exact same trips I did before. This isn't induced demand, it's shifted demand from other roadways. Surely I'm not the only Calgarian this applies to.

You really have to look at traffic patterns as a whole to see if GE5 has actually induced demand. Because if 13,000 cars a day have been shifted from other routes, there's nothing "induced" whatsoever.

Not that you don't have a point here, but trying to disprove a point in general using anecdotal information (something, I must point out, you do habitiually) is not sufficient either.

If we want to get technical, the broader term would be generated traffic, encompassing both shifted and induced demand. It is probably likely that more of the increase you see there is shifted, but it is impossible to discount that a portion of that is also induced (trips shifted from other modes, or trips now taken that weren't at all taken before.) Not that there were overly attractive alternatives to begin with in this case, in the long-run, this simply garauntees that future alternatives (if ever they were provided) are then harder to provide feasibly. Again, contributing to the nice little circle of supply and demand in road transportation.

And since we are considering the whole network: Didn't this all stem from a nice discussion on expanding Crowchild due to its ever increasing congestion? Since we are talking about a particular trip being made from the NW part of the city, and it is very likely that that isn't the only one, the question arises of how that driver gets from their to the GE5 in the first place... Crowchild trail is a rather safe assumption here. Strange, now it also requires a more urgent increased LOS.

Sure, we could do that. The most appropriate solution being something that at the very least that mirrors the GE5, but also with increasing the capacity of off-ramps (or their elimination...) further up ahead. I don't think a ball park of a cool billion here would be that far off. Or we could stop doing that and provide alternatives that then retain viability.

I'm thereby going to counter another point recently stated. That being that money should be spent on both roads and transit/alternatives. It is a broad statement but I'm going to go ahead and contend that if this includes road capacity increases of any significance through hard infrastructure anywhere in the inner (inner-middle) city, this is not a good idea. It is a further trap to making you have to spend more on both roads and alternatives, and a further addition to the nice little vicious circle.

Here is a little shocker - we can't have it all, and we already have more than enough expensive and subsidized/externality producing roads.

Let's not touch any long term effects here.




No, but I highly doubt a planner who lives in the NE and drives to work every day has much of a clue of what the commuter experience on the NWLRT is like. I find it hard to believe any city planner has the time to drive every road, ride every train, walk every sidewalk in the city - which is why we end up with some pretty bizarre choices sometimes, and why a lot of the public distrusts "planners" as an entity. No one person (or small group of people) can know everything. Hence the need for public consultation.


Very true. They can provide valuable insight into overlooked or unforeseen aspects of a plan or project. Yet, I don't think that should necessarily mean that the public's opinion necessarily needs to be acted on. The public, strangely enough, tends to act on individual interests and not that of society as a whole. Planning might be perceived as "social-engineering" or whatever happens to be the word of the day, until that individual is the one being negatively effected. (I guess in that regard, planners a little bit like the police.) Secondly, even if they aren't always acting on individual interest, it doesn't mean they fully understand the issue from a broad perspective. I don't want to explicitly say I'm right in the above case, but try, for example telling the people of Calgary that the way to reduce traffic issues in the long term is by not increasing capacity...

[freeweed]

Not that you don't have a point here, but trying to disprove a point in general using anecdotal information (something, I must point out, you do habitiually) is not sufficient either.

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

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

Very true. They can provide valuable insight into overlooked or unforeseen aspects of a plan or project. Yet, I don't think that should necessarily mean that the public's opinion necessarily needs to be acted on. The public, strangely enough, tends to act on individual interests and not that of society as a whole. Planning might be perceived as "social-engineering" or whatever happens to be the word of the day, until that individual is the one being negatively effected. (I guess in that regard, planners a little bit like the police.) Secondly, even if they aren't always acting on individual interest, it doesn't mean they fully understand the issue from a broad perspective. I don't want to explicitly say I'm right in the above case, but try, for example telling the people of Calgary that the way to reduce traffic issues in the long term is by not increasing capacity...

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

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

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