Calgary Roads

[sim]

http://www.oneshift.com/news/uploads/large-news_4958.jpg

Source: Oneshift.com

[freeweed]

We could just as easily put a sign up on Deerfoot that read "Crawling along for 45 mins? You're burning $X in gas right now".

Probably be cheaper than spending untold millions on toll gates/plazas/monitoring/enforcement/billing systems.

[Northski]

We could just as easily put a sign up on Deerfoot that read "Crawling along for 45 mins? You're burning $X in gas right now".

Probably be cheaper than spending untold millions on toll gates/plazas/monitoring/enforcement/billing systems.


In the routeahead there is plan to build a transit-way on center st From 24 ave north into downtown. Rather than try and create a transit only lane on a road with lots of right and left hand turning movements it could easily be more effective to charge a toll to get over the center bridge during rush hour which would allow buses to move quicker. Once you have a number of toll points in the network everyone will buy a transponder and operational costs will be small.

[freeweed]

In the routeahead there is plan to build a transit-way on center st From 24 ave north into downtown. Rather than try and create a transit only lane on a road with lots of right and left hand turning movements it could easily be more effective to charge a toll to get over the center bridge during rush hour which would allow buses to move quicker. Once you have a number of toll points in the network everyone will buy a transponder and operational costs will be small.

Yeah, downtown would be much more feasible to toll due to the limited access points. From the north, east, and west it's trivial, and even from the south it could just be done at each CPR underpass. Or we could just add a parking surcharge in the CBD.

Problem is, how to deal with the hundreds of other roads in the city that either see congestion today, or WOULD see it once toll avoidance became commonplace. The SE alone is a nightmare, although maybe road changes have happened since I last thought about this. At one point it seemed like there were 30 ways to get anywhere.

[RyLucky]

We could just as easily put a sign up on Deerfoot that read "Crawling along for 45 mins? You're burning $X in gas right now".

Probably be cheaper than spending untold millions on toll gates/plazas/monitoring/enforcement/billing systems.

Lol! I'd love to see this, especially with real time adjustments for gas prices and congestion!

[RyLucky]

In the routeahead there is plan to build a transit-way on center st From 24 ave north into downtown. Rather than try and create a transit only lane on a road with lots of right and left hand turning movements it could easily be more effective to charge a toll to get over the center bridge during rush hour which would allow buses to move quicker. Once you have a number of toll points in the network everyone will buy a transponder and operational costs will be small.

It's a question of which works better to get people home faster: a carrot for transit riders, or a stick for drivers. Both have pros and cons... Both improve the net commute time situation...

[fusili]

Yeah, downtown would be much more feasible to toll due to the limited access points. From the north, east, and west it's trivial, and even from the south it could just be done at each CPR underpass. Or we could just add a parking surcharge in the CBD.

Problem is, how to deal with the hundreds of other roads in the city that either see congestion today, or WOULD see it once toll avoidance became commonplace. The SE alone is a nightmare, although maybe road changes have happened since I last thought about this. At one point it seemed like there were 30 ways to get anywhere.

I think a larger toll area for the downtown, to include Beltline could work. Otherwise you will get lots of people parking in the Beltline and walking into the downtown (well, this happens anyway, so maybe it isn't all that bad)

North is simple- just toll the bridges into the core: 14th street, Louise, Centre, Langevin, 4th ave flyover.
East as well- 9th avenue and MacDonald bridges.
West and south are tricky though- I would basically use the Elbow river for the south- so tolls on Macleod, 25th ave and Mission Road Bridges. Then you can use Premier way through Mount Royal/14th Street and the Scarboro bluff as other barriers. So tolls on all roads north or Premier way (including Elbow Drive before 5th street) or all roads entering Mount Royal from 14th.Then you toll both 14th street and 17th avenue going into the Beltine, as well as the two roads connecting Scarboro and Sunalta. Then all you have to do is put a toll on the 10th avenue connector and on Bow Trail eastbound and call it a day. I think this amounts to 27 tolls in all.

[yads]

Yeah, motor fuel cost is one of those weird consumer obsessions that has always fascinated me. Especially in Calgary - people move here for high paying jobs in the O&G sector, and then piss and moan about the cost of gasoline due to commodity price increases.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine the exact irony here.
At a gas station, Terry sticks a pump in his tank. He notices a man on a ladder changing the price on the sign from 108.9 to 83.9.

Terry: Right on… Bring it down more fuck!!
...
Boss: The price of oil has gone in the shitter. Just got word from the head
office, I'm gonna have to let you all go.

[suburbia]

Collision on 4 Avenue at 6 Street. The Core in grid-lock.

[Yahoo]

Tolls and fees are just taxes. They hurt poorer people and make things easier on the richer people that can afford to pay. This isn't what I want for our society - one that only helps the rich - one that allows the rich even more privileges.
It would be like tolling you to enter a hospital - to help offset the cost of the hospital. (Oh wait - we do that now for hospital parking - we can't afford to let freeloaders visit their kids in the new Children's hospital for example).

It's like a city council that gets free reserved heated parking who then make parking policies that hurt all but the rich and elite. Oh wait - that's exactly the way it works in Calgary.

To me HOV, Toll etc are only considerations when the city has no choice. Calgary is not that city. For example:

- Is the real problem on the Crowchild bottlenecks a lack of money - thereby requiring a toll? NO

- Is the problem on Crowchild that a large multilane roadway is at capacity - thereby creating a need for HOV? NO.

- Are gasoline, gasoline taxes & yearly vehicle registration taxes too low? NO

- Were the people living beside Crowchild unaware that the road would need to be expanded at some point? NO. The plans have been there for what 50 years - and even if they weren't were the people buying there really that naive?

- Is the problem on Crowchild that we have a little used transit system and an overused road system? NO

The problem is that they came up with a plan in the 1970's to deal with something that was already unacceptable and they still haven't acted on it. The problem is that what we have was designed for 400k people and it now needs to be built to handle 2M. They want to turn it into one gigantic project to scare the aldermen and citizens. I think it's the wrong approach. Like with the north and south upgrades just work your way along upgrading sections over time. Like with house and car maintenance it's a lot easier to swallow if you deal with it as needed rather than wait 50 years and try to fix all the mess at once.

In any case - if you look at cities that rely on tolls I think you'll find they're some of the most congested places on the planet. (Man, I just got back from Houston and it should be renamed Road city - yuck - and I like roads). I remember running into a toll booth in San Francisco - they like to toll in only one direction - and man it's a huge tourism trap. I didn't even realize the Golden Gate was a toll road - and it was cash only. As someone mentioned earlier it really made me feel nickle and dime'd. Much like the unpopular parking tolls BC had for a long time in provincial parks that was eventually removed. Complete anti-tourism money grab. I know people who changed their yearly vacations away from BC and will never go back because of it.

[ByeByeBaby]

In any case - if you look at cities that rely on tolls I think you'll find they're some of the most congested places on the planet. (Man, I just got back from Houston and it should be renamed Road city - yuck - and I like roads). I remember running into a toll booth in San Francisco - they like to toll in only one direction - and man it's a huge tourism trap. I didn't even realize the Golden Gate was a toll road - and it was cash only. As someone mentioned earlier it really made me feel nickle and dime'd. Much like the unpopular parking tolls BC had for a long time in provincial parks that was eventually removed. Complete anti-tourism money grab. I know people who changed their yearly vacations away from BC and will never go back because of it.

Totally! And the last time I went to the doctor's office, you wouldn't believe how sick everybody in the waiting room was. Places with problems tend to implement solutions.

PS: The vast majority of traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge is local, and the many tourists probably notice the big ass toll plaza (https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.806422,-122.47453&spn=0.000417,0.002064&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=37.806422,-122.474531&panoid=JtHApkQWXdQx-jiu5Fgj5w&cbp=12,323.26,,0,4.97) for the SB lanes that you have to drive past to get on the bridge.

[sim]

We could just as easily put a sign up on Deerfoot that read "Crawling along for 45 mins? You're burning $X in gas right now".

Probably be cheaper than spending untold millions on toll gates/plazas/monitoring/enforcement/billing systems.


I happen to fully agree, especially as far as Crowchild trail goes. Cordon pricing is but only one option, and likely it would have to be a full congestion pricing scheme (the whole central city) or you may get some new, rather unwanted traffic patterns/flows.

In a high income area, the higher value of time generally dictates that travel time is more of a deterrent than travel costs. Indeed, deman due to gas price changes is relatively inelastic.

If reducing local emissions is the main goal in this case (and it isn't), then congestion pricing might make sense, because you would likely reduce localized traffic at least somewhat. However, at least one side (direction) of this Crowchild "problem" has the majority of vehicles sitting on a bridge over a river where local emissions aren't directly affecting residents and pedestrians. Why not keep it there. Congestion pricing may well increase speeds and that will cause increased noise, as friction (both tires and with air) start to become decisive over engine noise. Adverse effects of noise are often overlooked.

So we're basically sitting there with the solution to congestion already in hand on the long term. And it's free! If you want a holistic solution, start investing in alternatives, and basically alternatives only. The worst policy is creating a system where you discretize each mode in analysis and then make them compete not only for financial resources, but also in time savings. (My biggest criticism of RouteAhead btw.)

Singapore was brought up earlier, and indeed that picture I posted is from one of their ERP gantries. The whole island is not under the congestion pricing scheme (yet...), and they are often lauded for their transportation management strategies. Fusili mentioned the high costs of ownership as well, and that didn't even include the ohh 60,000 - 100,000 dollar certificate of entitlement (so that you may even go buy a vehicle and then pay the registration fee.) Yet, they still have congestion. Interestingly enough, they are also adding freeway capacity underground at the same time, making driving from point to point that much more attractive...




The problem is that they came up with a plan in the 1970's to deal with something that was already unacceptable and they still haven't acted on it. The problem is that what we have was designed for 400k people and it now needs to be built to handle 2M. They want to turn it into one gigantic project to scare the aldermen and citizens. I think it's the wrong approach. Like with the north and south upgrades just work your way along upgrading sections over time. Like with house and car maintenance it's a lot easier to swallow if you deal with it as needed rather than wait 50 years and try to fix all the mess at once.

In any case - if you look at cities that rely on tolls I think you'll find they're some of the most congested places on the planet. (Man, I just got back from Houston and it should be renamed Road city - yuck - and I like roads). I remember running into a toll booth in San Francisco - they like to toll in only one direction - and man it's a huge tourism trap. I didn't even realize the Golden Gate was a toll road - and it was cash only. As someone mentioned earlier it really made me feel nickle and dime'd. Much like the unpopular parking tolls BC had for a long time in provincial parks that was eventually removed. Complete anti-tourism money grab. I know people who changed their yearly vacations away from BC and will never go back because of it.

You seeing any pretty big gaping holes in your logic here? Think about it a bit more... Start by understanding the lane-km these two cities you've mentioned have per capita.

[Acey]

Just got back from the DFW area. Several large signs along I-20 say "No Trucks in the Left Lane". I would like to see these here. Boy it sucks having to come back here after spending time in a place with actual freeways.

[fusili]

Just got back from the DFW area. Several large signs along I-20 say "No Trucks in the Left Lane". I would like to see these here. Boy it sucks having to come back here after spending time in a place with actual freeways.

I remember the same thing in the Netherlands, especially in Rotterdam.

EDIT- Also interesting to point out that Dallas' light rail system (DART) gets 78K riders a day. We get ~270K. While Dallas proper is only 1M people, the metro area is ~6M. That is dismal transit ridership.

[TransitSupporter]

I remember the same thing in the Netherlands, especially in Rotterdam.

Toronto has this also on the Don Valley Parkway

[Acey]

That is dismal transit ridership.

Indeed. But with four and five level interchanges all over the place, the road capacity is there. DFW has the second highest number of freeway miles per capita in the country. I wonder how we'd do in that metric.

[Full Mountain]

Just got back from the DFW area. Several large signs along I-20 say "No Trucks in the Left Lane". I would like to see these here. Boy it sucks having to come back here after spending time in a place with actual freeways.

I remember the same thing in the Netherlands, especially in Rotterdam.

EDIT- Also interesting to point out that Dallas' light rail system (DART) gets 78K riders a day. We get ~270K. While Dallas proper is only 1M people, the metro area is ~6M. That is dismal transit ridership.

I think the keep left except to pass would help more than getting the trucks out of the left lane, really its quite rare that you get stuck behind a truck that isn't also stuck behind someone else

[Ramsayfarian]

I think the keep left except to pass would help more than getting the trucks out of the left lane, really its quite rare that you get stuck behind a truck that isn't also stuck behind someone else

This might be too long for a sign, but I would love to see signs on Highway 1 that read, "If your average speed is below 90K, please don't hit 120K when we finally get to a passing lane."

Just came back from a quick trip to Revelstoke and on more than one occasion, I'd get stuck behind someone doing crawling along at 80K, then hit 110 on a passing lane, only to slow down to 80K again when the passing lane ends.

[RyLucky]

Tolls and fees are just taxes. They hurt poorer people and make things easier on the richer people that can afford to pay. This isn't what I want for our society - one that only helps the rich - one that allows the rich even more privileges.
It would be like tolling you to enter a hospital - to help offset the cost of the hospital. (Oh wait - we do that now for hospital parking - we can't afford to let freeloaders visit their kids in the new Children's hospital for example).

It's like a city council that gets free reserved heated parking who then make parking policies that hurt all but the rich and elite. Oh wait - that's exactly the way it works in Calgary.

To me HOV, Toll etc are only considerations when the city has no choice. Calgary is not that city. For example:

- Is the real problem on the Crowchild bottlenecks a lack of money - thereby requiring a toll? NO

- Is the problem on Crowchild that a large multilane roadway is at capacity - thereby creating a need for HOV? NO.

- Are gasoline, gasoline taxes & yearly vehicle registration taxes too low? NO

- Were the people living beside Crowchild unaware that the road would need to be expanded at some point? NO. The plans have been there for what 50 years - and even if they weren't were the people buying there really that naive?

- Is the problem on Crowchild that we have a little used transit system and an overused road system? NO

The problem is that they came up with a plan in the 1970's to deal with something that was already unacceptable and they still haven't acted on it. The problem is that what we have was designed for 400k people and it now needs to be built to handle 2M. They want to turn it into one gigantic project to scare the aldermen and citizens. I think it's the wrong approach. Like with the north and south upgrades just work your way along upgrading sections over time. Like with house and car maintenance it's a lot easier to swallow if you deal with it as needed rather than wait 50 years and try to fix all the mess at once.

In any case - if you look at cities that rely on tolls I think you'll find they're some of the most congested places on the planet. (Man, I just got back from Houston and it should be renamed Road city - yuck - and I like roads). I remember running into a toll booth in San Francisco - they like to toll in only one direction - and man it's a huge tourism trap. I didn't even realize the Golden Gate was a toll road - and it was cash only. As someone mentioned earlier it really made me feel nickle and dime'd. Much like the unpopular parking tolls BC had for a long time in provincial parks that was eventually removed. Complete anti-tourism money grab. I know people who changed their yearly vacations away from BC and will never go back because of it.

I either disagree or take issue with almost everything you've written.

[fusili]

Indeed. But with four and five level interchanges all over the place, the road capacity is there. DFW has the second highest number of freeway miles per capita in the country. I wonder how we'd do in that metric.

You mean the metric that measures how much road space there is, but not how well it performs? What is the average commuting time in Dallas? Or how about how much money is spent on road construction and maintenance? Shouldn't the metric be something like the average commuting time divided by the cost per capita in terms of transportation? Saying you built a bunch of stuff with no regard to its actual output is pretty meaningless.

So basically this is an input metric that does not measure outcomes. That would be like measuring how many hours you spent at work and not what you actually did.

[freeweed]

PS: The vast majority of traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge is local, and the many tourists probably notice the big ass toll plaza (https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.806422,-122.47453&spn=0.000417,0.002064&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=37.806422,-122.474531&panoid=JtHApkQWXdQx-jiu5Fgj5w&cbp=12,323.26,,0,4.97) for the SB lanes that you have to drive past to get on the bridge.

Not to be a dick, but... that toll plaza is on the south end of the bridge. You don't see it until you've already crossed. This view is looking north (and you don't pay in that direction). I just drove this last month and I don't even remember seeing warning signs before getting on the bridge (although I'll be honest, I wouldn't have noticed anyway because I'm well aware of the inbound tolls on the Gate and Bay bridges).

[freeweed]

I think the keep left except to pass would help more than getting the trucks out of the left lane, really its quite rare that you get stuck behind a truck that isn't also stuck behind someone else

You'd think so, but Deerfoot proves this not to be the case. Trucks idle in the left lane holding up traffic virtually every time I'm on it lately.

It's annoying, too - in my experience truckers are some of the most polite, well-trained drivers on the highways. But the ones that drive in Calgary are from a different planet or something - they're every stereotype you've ever heard about asshole truckers. I think it's caused by so many large delivery trucks and construction vehicles, etc. These people would never cut it on long-haul routes.

[freeweed]

I either disagree or take issue with almost everything you've written.

His point about tolls and fees (and hell, fuel taxes) being regressive is spot on, however.

I'm far from rich, and I can tell you that another $100/month in tolls would not change my driving behaviours one bit. It's hardly pocket change for most of the middle-upper class in this city. It's the poorer folks out there that get penalized the worst.

[fusili]

His point about tolls and fees (and hell, fuel taxes) being regressive is spot on, however.

I'm far from rich, and I can tell you that another $100/month in tolls would not change my driving behaviours one bit. It's hardly pocket change for most of the middle-upper class in this city. It's the poorer folks out there that get penalized the worst.

Agreed. One thing I have to concede is that tolls are disproportionately hard on the poor.

[MasterG]

Tolls and fees are just taxes. They hurt poorer people and make things easier on the richer people that can afford to pay. This isn't what I want for our society - one that only helps the rich - one that allows the rich even more privileges.
It would be like tolling you to enter a hospital - to help offset the cost of the hospital. (Oh wait - we do that now for hospital parking - we can't afford to let freeloaders visit their kids in the new Children's hospital for example).

It's like a city council that gets free reserved heated parking who then make parking policies that hurt all but the rich and elite. Oh wait - that's exactly the way it works in Calgary.

To me HOV, Toll etc are only considerations when the city has no choice. Calgary is not that city. For example:

- Is the real problem on the Crowchild bottlenecks a lack of money - thereby requiring a toll? NO

- Is the problem on Crowchild that a large multilane roadway is at capacity - thereby creating a need for HOV? NO.

- Are gasoline, gasoline taxes & yearly vehicle registration taxes too low? NO

- Were the people living beside Crowchild unaware that the road would need to be expanded at some point? NO. The plans have been there for what 50 years - and even if they weren't were the people buying there really that naive?

- Is the problem on Crowchild that we have a little used transit system and an overused road system? NO

The problem is that they came up with a plan in the 1970's to deal with something that was already unacceptable and they still haven't acted on it. The problem is that what we have was designed for 400k people and it now needs to be built to handle 2M. They want to turn it into one gigantic project to scare the aldermen and citizens. I think it's the wrong approach. Like with the north and south upgrades just work your way along upgrading sections over time. Like with house and car maintenance it's a lot easier to swallow if you deal with it as needed rather than wait 50 years and try to fix all the mess at once.

In any case - if you look at cities that rely on tolls I think you'll find they're some of the most congested places on the planet. (Man, I just got back from Houston and it should be renamed Road city - yuck - and I like roads). I remember running into a toll booth in San Francisco - they like to toll in only one direction - and man it's a huge tourism trap. I didn't even realize the Golden Gate was a toll road - and it was cash only. As someone mentioned earlier it really made me feel nickle and dime'd. Much like the unpopular parking tolls BC had for a long time in provincial parks that was eventually removed. Complete anti-tourism money grab. I know people who changed their yearly vacations away from BC and will never go back because of it.

I do agree with your comments about tolls being regressive; high-income earners are not nearly as influence by tolls as low. However the rest of your argument is true everywhere, infrastructure is never going to be good enough for everyone to drive or for everyone to take transit. Blowing 1 billion over 20 years or doing 1 billion over 5 all at once (excluding time value of money for arguments sake) is still blowing that money. The reality is that tolls are not the answer and neither is additional road construction. Neither will make a difference.

The goal has to be in the long run to influence behaviour. THis is not as hard as it sounds as it happens anyways. Congestion bumming you out on Crowchild for 10 years? might be time to move or take the train so that you don't have to worry about it. Lots of people do that, hence condo construction downtown in the last 10 years and record transit usage. This trend will continue with or without spending 1 billion on a single road. Its the reality of living in a city hitting the sprawl wall.

It is simply not as good of an investment to continually upgrade 1 road as it is to provide greater flexibility and resilience in our transport system as a whole by promoting alternatives so that your world doesn't have to come crashing down when it snows or there is an accident on crowchild.

[DoubleK]

Agreed. One thing I have to concede is that tolls are disproportionately hard on the poor.

Agree 100%. User pay schemes are brutal forms of non-selective taxation, which really hurt people on low/fixed incomes.

[fusili]

Agree 100%. User pay schemes are brutal forms of non-selective taxation, which really hurt people on low/fixed incomes.

Not all user pay schemes are like this though. Asking people to pay for sporting events, for example, is not a regressive tax, because it is a discretionary activity (hence I don't support tax funded sports arenas).

User pay for public goods is mostly a bad idea, for private goods, it isn't. That being said, there isn't much I can think of that our government provides that justifies a user-pay system. If you can justifiably charge based on a user pay system, I would argue the whole thing should be privatized anyway.

[MichaelS]

Not all user pay schemes are like this though. Asking people to pay for sporting events, for example, is not a regressive tax, because it is a discretionary activity (hence I don't support tax funded sports arenas).

User pay for public goods is mostly a bad idea, for private goods, it isn't. That being said, there isn't much I can think of that our government provides that justifies a user-pay system. If you can justifiably charge based on a user pay system, I would argue the whole thing should be privatized anyway.

Rec centres? :shrug:

[fusili]

Rec centres? :shrug:

Good point. That is a grey area for me. Definitely a case to be made the physical activity has a public benefit, but to what extent?

[Acey]

You mean the metric that measures how much road space there is, but not how well it performs? What is the average commuting time in Dallas? Or how about how much money is spent on road construction and maintenance? Shouldn't the metric be something like the average commuting time divided by the cost per capita in terms of transportation? Saying you built a bunch of stuff with no regard to its actual output is pretty meaningless.

So basically this is an input metric that does not measure outcomes. That would be like measuring how many hours you spent at work and not what you actually did.

Fair enough. Bottom line is that I drive to and from downtown Dallas in rush hour when I'm there. It is nowhere near the crap I deal with in Calgary. Our city, for no good reason, has the traffic problems of a metro area four times our size. What's worse is that it's pretty much irreparable at this point. Embarrassing... this pathetic road network will keep Calgary from ever being a major north American center as far as I'm concerned.

The fixes underway? LRT lines at $1B per 8 km. Keep doing your thing, Calgary.

[ByeByeBaby]

Not to be a dick, but... that toll plaza is on the south end of the bridge. You don't see it until you've already crossed. This view is looking north (and you don't pay in that direction). I just drove this last month and I don't even remember seeing warning signs before getting on the bridge (although I'll be honest, I wouldn't have noticed anyway because I'm well aware of the inbound tolls on the Gate and Bay bridges).

Exactly. The toll plaza is on the south end after you've crossed in the SB toll direction, but probably 95%+ of tourists drive across north first right past the toll plaza; I've made the trip probably a half dozen times myself, every time starting out from San Francisco, rather than coming from Santa Rosa or where ever. The specific view I provided has a right turn that takes you off the bridge approach road, where there are two underpasses that you can take to go back south on Hwy 1/101 without crossing the bridge, and where you can also park and walk across the bridge if you want to. I don't remember any signage (and didn't see any with a quick look on Street View), but it is possible to turn off the bridge at this point after seeing the toll plaza... that's why I picked that location.

Going back on topic, tolls are absolutely regressive and I don't like that, but that's what the overall tax system is for. Cigarette taxes are regressive too, but the point is that our government is funded mostly through a progressive income tax, so a small number of regressive taxes don't upset the whole system. If the goal was to raise all the tax revenue in Canada through tolls, then there would be a problem.

[Ramsayfarian]

You'd think so, but Deerfoot proves this not to be the case. Trucks idle in the left lane holding up traffic virtually every time I'm on it lately.

It's annoying, too - in my experience truckers are some of the most polite, well-trained drivers on the highways. But the ones that drive in Calgary are from a different planet or something - they're every stereotype you've ever heard about asshole truckers. I think it's caused by so many large delivery trucks and construction vehicles, etc. These people would never cut it on long-haul routes.

I think you see big truck in the left lane on the Deerfoot because the right hand lanes are usually cluster fucks with Calgary's notorious weaves. I think the keep left rule gets a bit slacker on freeways.

What I would like to see is a crackdown on HID headlights. I drove back from Revelstoke recently at night and was blinded more than once.

[Ferreth]

I think you see big truck in the left lane on the Deerfoot because the right hand lanes are usually cluster fucks with Calgary's notorious weaves. I think the keep left rule gets a bit slacker on freeways.

What I would like to see is a crackdown on HID headlights. I drove back from Revelstoke recently at night and was blinded more than once.

If Deerfoot was upgraded to be 3 through lanes each direction everywhere, I'd support the law of no big trucks in the left lane. Seemed to work well on the 401 in Ontario when I drove there, and they only had it in the 3+ lane sections.

Agreed on HID headlights, in fact a lot of headlight beams are sloppy in terms of spilling light all over the place. Dodge RAM trucks of a certain era are my most hated; having driven them I see no light on the road, but plenty of light in my eyes when they are coming at me!

[sim]

Fair enough. Bottom line is that I drive to and from downtown Dallas in rush hour when I'm there. It is nowhere near the crap I deal with in Calgary. Our city, for no good reason, has the traffic problems of a metro area four times our size. What's worse is that it's pretty much irreparable at this point. Embarrassing... this pathetic road network will keep Calgary from ever being a major north American center as far as I'm concerned.

The fixes underway? LRT lines at $1B per 8 km. Keep doing your thing, Calgary.


Good opinion...:koko:

[Acey]

Good opinion...:koko:

Oh yeah, and the fact that our population is not in the top 50 in North America. That should do it.

a) Is our traffic worse than it should be for our metro population? YES... we're comparable in size to cities like Oklahoma City, Richmond, and Hartford. There's no reason we should have Vancouver, Denver, STL-sized problems.
b) Is major road expansion unfeasible at this point? YES (see shot down Crowchild project)
c) Is the focus going forward on LRT? YES, given that I see plans for more LRT lines but not for a turnpike, massive Deerfoot expansion, or something similar
d) Did WLRT cost $1B? YES, and is the line not 8 km so that equals $1B per 8 km? :yes:

Note that I AGREE with the building of LRT. How could you not, given that point b is always going to be true here as long as Druh and others are alive so mass transit is the only way to move forward. This is simply my bitterness at the fact that our roads weren't built properly the first time around.

[Ramsayfarian]

If Deerfoot was upgraded to be 3 through lanes each direction everywhere, I'd support the law of no big trucks in the left lane. Seemed to work well on the 401 in Ontario when I drove there, and they only had it in the 3+ lane sections.

Agreed on HID headlights, in fact a lot of headlight beams are sloppy in terms of spilling light all over the place. Dodge RAM trucks of a certain era are my most hated; having driven them I see no light on the road, but plenty of light in my eyes when they are coming at me!

If it was 3 lanes, then for sure, but as it is today, I can see why they're staying out of the right hand lanes.

I'd rather see the City crack down on headlights than noisy bikes. Easier to enforce as well.

[Acey]

I'm not even sure HID's in stock halogen housings are illegal. If it's not, well then we've got a long wait before police can even do anything about it. If they do start enforcing it, it'd probably just be a $57 ticket for an equipment violation like window tint, which isn't much of a deterrent. You can drive for years here with lightly tinted windows and not be cited. Heck, the $172 distracted driving penalty seems to not be much of a deterrent, either...

I find Calgary police very slack when it comes to equipment violations. Seems they have more important things to do (though I find a crackdown on HID's to be very important)

[Ramsayfarian]

I'm not even sure HID's in stock halogen housings are illegal. If it's not, well then we've got a long wait before police can even do anything about it. If they do start enforcing it, it'd probably just be a $57 ticket for an equipment violation like window tint, which isn't much of a deterrent. You can drive for years here with lightly tinted windows and not be cited. Heck, the $172 distracted driving penalty seems to not be much of a deterrent, either...

I find Calgary police very slack when it comes to equipment violations. Seems they have more important things to do (though I find a crackdown on HID's to be very important)

From what I've been able to google. HID's are illegal in Alberta if one retrofits the bulb in an non HID reflector. It's also illegal to have improperly aimed headlights.
As there is a potential to cause an accident they should make it a $250 fine.
In doing my little research I stumbled onto a Kia forum, where one idiot thought it was cool that he gets a lot of people flashing their lights at him because his lights are so bright.

[kw5150]

I dont ever want to compare Calgary to other American city unless it is mentioning how much better Calgary is.

Calgary has a great road system, we just need to link it back together. The residents of all of these inner city neghborhoods seem to think that cutting off access to everything and funneling people onto the main roads is the answer. We need to fix this before half the population sounds as angry as you. Now THAT would be an angry city.

Let link these roads together that we all pay taxes for! Maybe I will petition the City to close 14th ave because I dont want so much traffic? I dont think so, I live in a city and I expect traffic.

More freeways are not the answer......why the hell does Calgary need such a massive road system already at 1 million?

BTW, Dallas doesnt seem to have much inner city life......wonder why that is.

You may as well move away now, Calgary will never look like Dallas....thank God. Why would we want to revert back to the 60s and 70s?

http://fc03.deviantart.net/images/large/photography/photocityscape/Aerial_shot_of_Dallas_Downtown.jpg
http://fc03.deviantart.net/images/large/photography/photocityscape/Aerial_shot_of_Dallas_Downtown.jpg

Oh yeah, and the fact that our population is not in the top 50 in North America. That should do it.

a) Is our traffic worse than it should be for our metro population? YES... we're comparable in size to cities like Oklahoma City, Richmond, and Hartford. There's no reason we should have Vancouver, Denver, STL-sized problems.
b) Is major road expansion unfeasible at this point? YES (see shot down Crowchild project)
c) Is the focus going forward on LRT? YES, given that I see plans for more LRT lines but not for a turnpike, massive Deerfoot expansion, or something similar
d) Did WLRT cost $1B? YES, and is the line not 8 km so that equals $1B per 8 km? :yes:

Note that I AGREE with the building of LRT. How could you not, given that point b is always going to be true here as long as Druh and others are alive so mass transit is the only way to move forward. This is simply my bitterness at the fact that our roads weren't built properly the first time around.

[kw5150]

Seriously??


Fair enough. Bottom line is that I drive to and from downtown Dallas in rush hour when I'm there. It is nowhere near the crap I deal with in Calgary. Our city, for no good reason, has the traffic problems of a metro area four times our size. What's worse is that it's pretty much irreparable at this point. Embarrassing... this pathetic road network will keep Calgary from ever being a major north American center as far as I'm concerned.

The fixes underway? LRT lines at $1B per 8 km. Keep doing your thing, Calgary.

[RyLucky]

Inner city highways can definitely wreck a neighbourhood and use a ton of valuable land. The trade off is that arterial roads give value to land further from employers, of which there is more. Back in the day, Inglewood and Ramsay opposed a plan to build a highway connecting downtown to deerfoot. Compare this to Sunalta, where the Bow Trail/ Crowchild intersection was built. What if Sunalta had successfully opposed Bow Trail? What if Inglewood had allowed a highway to be built through it? The city might have developed totally differently.

While you're chewing on that, also consider what the Deerfoot corridor could have been like were it not for the massive highway running through it. Picture a waterfront village at the head of 17th Ave SE. Picture people enjoying parkland along Nose Creek. Thousands of acres of waterfront, inner-city property along the Bow River and Nose Creek have been transformed into an automotive hellscape with hundreds of reportable collisions per year. Worst of all, for generations the communities to the east of Deerfoot have been cut off from the rest of the city resulting in social plight and self-fulfilling stigmatization. While this is more complex than being based on just one factor, I'd argue that the construction of Deerfoot was one of the foremost causes. See Cross Bronx Expressway.

That said, we need highways to transport goods and services, and they have to get built somewhere. However, overtime, as the value of lands near major roads increases, the functionality of these roads must evolve. A good example of this is 16th Ave N, where increased density along what was once a major inter-city route now demands improved transit and pedestrian amenities. Another example is Memorial Dr between 16th Ave NW and Centre Street, where there is increased pressure for traffic slowing and local access. In the next 20-30 years we may see Bow Trail evolve near the West Village, and Macleod trail, to become more of an "urban boulevard" with increased crossing traffic, transit, and pedestrians at the expense to thoroughfare/express traffic. This kind of evolution of Calgary's arterial roads will really start to make Calgary feel more metropolitan, and why not, it's a natural caveat of increased innercity density.

[Acey]

Calgary has a great road system

Never did I say Calgary should be Dallas. But what exactly is so great about Deerfoot, Crowchild, Glenmore, and whatever other major arteries inexplicably narrowing to 2 lanes and causing horrible bottlenecks at all hours? What is great about a lack of a connection from NB Deerfoot to Glenmore, which is the only real E-W route through the city? Or the disaster that is McKnight Blvd? I'm not saying blow up everything in sight and build 10 lane freeways into the core, but Calgary roads only appear great on a map. Then you zoom in and say to yourself, wait... there's only a diamond interchange at Deerfoot and 16 Ave? What great road system has the cities 2 major arteries connected by a diamond interchange?

Don't answer that, I already know the answer. One where transit ridership is 270k per day. :) To me, the fact that we have the highest transit ridership in North America (or whatever the stat is) is indication that the roads are horrible, is it not? Not saying that's a bad thing.

[DizzyEdge]

Improvements to the roads we have already is definitely worthy of spending money on. Mainly because even if we did approve new freeways it would be stupid to build them before fixing what we already have.

[Doug]

His point about tolls and fees (and hell, fuel taxes) being regressive is spot on, however.

I'm far from rich, and I can tell you that another $100/month in tolls would not change my driving behaviours one bit. It's hardly pocket change for most of the middle-upper class in this city. It's the poorer folks out there that get penalized the worst.

Demand for transportation is less elastic than I ever would have guessed , but guaranteed that significantly higher costs would destroy some demand. Lots of driving is unnecessary. First example, single purpose trips for anything other than work. I can't believe how many people drive their kids to school. Tolls have the problem of the free rider effect. To be effective, every road would need to be tolled which isn't practical. I agree that fees like those for garbage collection are taxes because they are mandatory. Owning a vehicle and especially multiple vehicles is a choice.

Calgary is friendlier than most cities for avoiding congestion as many employers allow people to shift their hours. It is usually the last 20 somethings who Co plain most about traffic as they don't like getting up early. It would be easy in Calgary to get up at 5:30, jump on the car and be at work downtown at 5:45.

[sim]

Oh yeah, and the fact that our population is not in the top 50 in North America. That should do it.

a) Is our traffic worse than it should be for our metro population? YES... we're comparable in size to cities like Oklahoma City, Richmond, and Hartford. There's no reason we should have Vancouver, Denver, STL-sized problems.
b) Is major road expansion unfeasible at this point? YES (see shot down Crowchild project)
c) Is the focus going forward on LRT? YES, given that I see plans for more LRT lines but not for a turnpike, massive Deerfoot expansion, or something similar
d) Did WLRT cost $1B? YES, and is the line not 8 km so that equals $1B per 8 km? :yes:

Note that I AGREE with the building of LRT. How could you not, given that point b is always going to be true here as long as Druh and others are alive so mass transit is the only way to move forward. This is simply my bitterness at the fact that our roads weren't built properly the first time around.


a) Is our traffic worse than it should be for our metro population? NO... this makes no real sense to say to begin with, nor is it the case anyway. But since you wanted so badly to use Vancouver in your awesome analogy, they've also been about the only North American major city that have halted the trend of increasing commute times.
b) Is major road expansion unfeasible at this point? NO (see shot down Crowchild project)
c) Is the focus going forward on LRT? NO, given that the current timelines would sadly see some of the forumers here to their final resting place, I hardly call that a focus. You may have meant vision.
d) Did WLRT cost $1B? NO, even if you had gotten the final price tag right, it's not as if it was all attributable to the line itself. Furthermore, our insistence that road space is not to be allocated to alternatives only aided to increase said price. :yes:

Note that I AGREE that you have the right to your opinion, but to be blunt, your contentions are way off the mark and your argument largely framed around what is clearly best for you and you only. The largest issue I have however, is that you frame your overt personal opinion as though as it were fact.

American transportation policy is by and large considered archaic, as are the cities' transportation systems that have been manifested by them. If you don't want to take it from me I can point you to more sources - or you can merely have a look at how incessantly they aim to keep gas prices low as a starting point. Oh - short by about 50% on infrastruture budgets are we? Gas tax revenues nowhere close to O & M budgets? Selling off public infrastructure to privates? They've been built around unfettered individualism and a complete disregard for the true meaning of economics, and yes, in my opinion might well be the largest contributing factor in why the country currently sits where it does (but these are other converstations.)

I can not reiterate enough, that the more you increase road capacity, the more you entrench yourself in having to continue doing so. So while you might not want to emulate Dallas per se, what you are advocating or see as wonderful would inherently lead us on the same path. There is no golden rule as to how many, how wide, and how connected a road network should be, but one thing is for sure; the more you add to it the more it will fill up and the more perceptible all the negative effects that it carries become.

But if you did want to simply the problem somewhat, the answer would basically be that the current network we have shrunken to one lane per direction would suffice:

I will piggyback off of ByeByeBaby's quick analysis in the Public Transit thread a bit. Really the only people needing to commute to work via vehicle should be on the roads: Those who have no fixed workplace, as well as local freight and services and emergency vehicles and obviously feeder bus systems and perhaps some direct services. Were and had this been the case from the beginning (with concomitant build up of mass transit) there would never have been the need for large roads and economically speaking, the people and services truly dependent on the ubiquity and connectivity of road networks would have been able to make use of them much more efficiently than now (with all the SOVs commuting getting in the way.)

We haven't really even thought about how this would have affected land-use patterns and the subsequent feedback loop created that would then have required less of the above to begin with. Furthermore, there exist other models (modes) for freight transport.

But please, don't try and contend that Calgary's road network is not what it should be for a city of its size. It is first of all a pretty illogical statement, and if you wanted to get right into it, if anything it is too overbuilt.

Have you, btw, even looked at where Dallas stands in average commute times and/or at least time spent in congestion?

[Acey]

Calgary's roads are overbuilt? How? How is this possible. The roads I drive on certainly aren't. How do you measure whether or not roads are overbuilt, anyway? And also, what major road expansion in Calgary is financially feasible in the near term? Zero, according to Nenshi. This point supported your argument... did you even notice?

How the hell am I supposed to get to school on a 2 lane Deerfoot Trail?!

All that, after ending my post saying it was my stupid opinion because I hate having to drive on our horrible roads, and you say I'm framing it as fact. Oh lawd.

[MasterG]

Inner city highways can definitely wreck a neighbourhood and use a ton of valuable land. The trade off is that arterial roads give value to land further from employers, of which there is more. Back in the day, Inglewood and Ramsay opposed a plan to build a highway connecting downtown to deerfoot. Compare this to Sunalta, where the Bow Trail/ Crowchild intersection was built. What if Sunalta had successfully opposed Bow Trail? What if Inglewood had allowed a highway to be built through it? The city might have developed totally differently.

While you're chewing on that, also consider what the Deerfoot corridor could have been like were it not for the massive highway running through it. Picture a waterfront village at the head of 17th Ave SE. Picture people enjoying parkland along Nose Creek. Thousands of acres of waterfront, inner-city property along the Bow River and Nose Creek have been transformed into an automotive hellscape with hundreds of reportable collisions per year. Worst of all, for generations the communities to the east of Deerfoot have been cut off from the rest of the city resulting in social plight and self-fulfilling stigmatization. While this is more complex than being based on just one factor, I'd argue that the construction of Deerfoot was one of the foremost causes. See Cross Bronx Expressway.

That said, we need highways to transport goods and services, and they have to get built somewhere. However, overtime, as the value of lands near major roads increases, the functionality of these roads must evolve. A good example of this is 16th Ave N, where increased density along what was once a major inter-city route now demands improved transit and pedestrian amenities. Another example is Memorial Dr between 16th Ave NW and Centre Street, where there is increased pressure for traffic slowing and local access. In the next 20-30 years we may see Bow Trail evolve near the West Village, and Macleod trail, to become more of an "urban boulevard" with increased crossing traffic, transit, and pedestrians at the expense to thoroughfare/express traffic. This kind of evolution of Calgary's arterial roads will really start to make Calgary feel more metropolitan, and why not, it's a natural caveat of increased innercity density.

You make a good point regarding the connections to the northeast. The northeast has essentially been isolated from the rest of the city by the Nose Creek valley and subsequent deer foot freeway. It very unfortunately that there is essentially a km - wide dead zone between northeast communities east of deer foot and the most eastern ones on the west side of Deerfoot . Imagine how ingle wood and 17th ave SE would have evolved if there wasn't such a barrier and change in landscape due to the train lines and 17th/Blackfoot/Deerfoot interchange?

The reality is walking the 1km over a highway and through interchanges is so unpleasant and inconvenient that all trips from west to east across the barrier are done by car and serve to separate the northeast rather than integrate it.

My hope is for the horrible nightmare of 36th street northeast to transition to higher density and more attractive place as it is the biggest failure in planning we have. Essentially it functions to no ones benefit, congestion at all times due to the train/ box store parking lots, huge number of pedestrians forced to utilize substandard sidewalks and overpasses, all in an unattractive place. What's so hard about replacing a few parking lots with cheap 5 story condos with some wider side walks?

[RyLucky]

My hope is for the horrible nightmare of 36th street northeast to transition to higher density and more attractive place as it is the biggest failure in planning we have. Essentially it functions to no ones benefit, congestion at all times due to the train/ box store parking lots, huge number of pedestrians forced to utilize substandard sidewalks and overpasses, all in an unattractive place. What's so hard about replacing a few parking lots with cheap 5 story condos with some wider side walks?

Wouldn't it be great if Sunridge followed Chinooks example and decided to redevelop a lot of surface parking into mixed use? (That is, if Chinook's plans go through). I say, if a developer wants to build something within 100 m of an LRT station, go nuts and we'll forget to count the parking stalls and shadowing restrictions, especially if development is replacing sprawling surface parking. Actually, I think that is more or less the MO for developments like University City. Really, any parking lot within 100 m of an LRT ought to be automatically for sale to any developer who will build density.

[DizzyEdge]

It's too bad Cadillac-Fairview's other holding, Market Mall, isn't on the LRT route.

[Yahoo]

Totally! And the last time I went to the doctor's office, you wouldn't believe how sick everybody in the waiting room was. Places with problems tend to implement solutions.

PS: The vast majority of traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge is local, and the many tourists probably notice the big ass toll plaza (https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.806422,-122.47453&spn=0.000417,0.002064&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=37.806422,-122.474531&panoid=JtHApkQWXdQx-jiu5Fgj5w&cbp=12,323.26,,0,4.97) for the SB lanes that you have to drive past to get on the bridge.

I think you missed my point entirely and only read the one paragraph. As I stated Calgary isn't at the stage where tolls are necessary. Understand? That's just a lazy political way to try to further tax people. Tax people - that's fine - but don't target a specific group since that just makes it easier on rich people and harder on poorer people. The goal should be to make things better - not to inconvenience people. Tolls and HOV may even have their place once a city reaches a certain size. But only if the infrastructure is maxed out and we're desperate. Calgary's infrastructure isn't maxed out. A few simple changes are all that are needed in many places. Eliminate narrow choke points and make free flowing skeletal roads.

Look at 24th and Crowchild. The solution isn't tolls or HOV. The solution is that it needs an interchange and it should have been implemented when they built the NW LRT (just like for example they shouldn't have at-grade pedestrian crossings on Bow Trail - it's just dangerous and causes congestion. Man, they didn't even eliminate them when spending over a billion on the new LRT line!). There are short term solutions too like light timing and turn elimination - but ultimately we need to build our skeletal road to a certain standard.

I'm sure there are people who think Airdrie or Medicine Hat need tolls and HOV, but I think that's just a lazy solution. Why not toll people using bike's and parks? Wait - in some places that does occur. I'm sure some politicians eyes light up when they hear that - drooling at the thought of all the extra money they can get from the people that can afford it. Forgetting that it hurts those that can't and for the most part is just annoying to everyone. (again - income tax is the only fair way to tax people since you can make sure people pay their fair share. But I also don't want city politicians adding another layer of income tax - as some are dying to do)

And no - if you are driving in a strange city like San Francisco it's very easy to miss that there are toll roads - it all depends where you're coming from. On a multilane freeway you tend to focus on driving and perhaps on the view. I work with people in the area and they all agreed that it's a trap. I'm not stupid and know very well that most traffic isn't tourist traffic in any city. I'm just stating that it's another negative aspect to tolling.

[Yahoo]

I think you missed my point entirely and only read the one paragraph. As I stated Calgary isn't at the stage where tolls are necessary. Understand? That's just a lazy political way to try to further tax people. Tax people - that's fine - but don't target a specific group since that just makes it easier on rich people and harder on poorer people. Tolls and HOV have their place once a city reaches a certain size. But only if the infrastructure is maxed out.

Look at 24th and Crowchild. The solution isn't tolls or HOV. The solution is that it needs and interchange and it shouldn't have been implemented when they built the NW LRT. There are short term solutions too - but ultimately it'll need to be built.

I'm sure there are people who thing Airdrie or Medicine Hat need tolls and HOV, but I think that's just a lazy solution. Why not toll people using bike's and parks? Wait - in some places that does occur. I'm sure some politicians eyes light up when they hear that - drooling at the thought of all the extra money they can get from the people that can afford it. Forgetting that it hurts those that can't. (again - income tax is the only fair way to tax people)

And no - if you are driving in a strange city like San Francisco it's very easy to miss that there are toll roads - it all depends where you're coming from. On a multilane freeway you tend to focus on driving and perhaps on the view. I work with people in the area and they all agreed that it's a trap. I'm not stupid and know very well that most traffic isn't tourist traffic in any city. I'm just stating that it's another negative aspect to tolling.

And if you go to a doctors office you notice it's full of sick people. Very true. How many people waiting had appointments that the doctor missed by several hours? How many people sit their while the doctor is away from the office and they aren't even told? I have doctors in my family - and doctors often triple book appointments. Like with roads too many people ignore the real issue and hope for a quick fix. The quick fix is often obvious - but people in power don't care for that solution.

[Yahoo]

You seeing any pretty big gaping holes in your logic here? Think about it a bit more... Start by understanding the lane-km these two cities you've mentioned have per capita.

Not sure your point. Houston and San Francisco are nothing like Calgary. They've reached the point where tolling and HOV are their only solutions (although both of those cities made big mistakes in not building effective transit choices as they grew). Our road networks aren't at capacity because the city it too large or dense. Our roads are usually congested for simple reasons. Too many lights. Not expanded as the city grew. Plans made but not implemented. Low standards. Lane weaving built in.

[Yahoo]

This might be too long for a sign, but I would love to see signs on Highway 1 that read, "If your average speed is below 90K, please don't hit 120K when we finally get to a passing lane."

Just came back from a quick trip to Revelstoke and on more than one occasion, I'd get stuck behind someone doing crawling along at 80K, then hit 110 on a passing lane, only to slow down to 80K again when the passing lane ends.

In Australia they have signs telling you to pull over and let people pass in passing lanes. Something similar is needed in BC, but I think the biggest issue is too many people are clueless when driving. Or walking. Or biking. :haha:

[Yahoo]

I either disagree or take issue with almost everything you've written.

We all have a right to our opinions :yes: :shrug:

Mine just happen to be different from yours.

I may spout off and come off like a loudmouth much of the time. I'm aware of that. But I'm also passionate about things. I also believe that great things happen when people think differently. Some of the greatest people in history are the ones that defied the conventional logic of the time. They said "wait a minute - the emperor has no clothes". Or "wait a minute - the solution isn't a bigger horse - it's a wheel". Or "let's go to the moon", or even something as recent as adding a touchpad to a phone - when the company that made the touchpad never dreamt of using it that way. Just because everyone thinks a certain way it doesn't mean it's the best way.

I don't want Calgary to grow into another Houston, DFW, SanFran etc. We can do things better and learn from their mistakes. We aren't those cities, yet many of us want to follow their examples. The solution isn't to just do what they do - only do it earlier in our growth.

[fusili]

- income tax is the only fair way to tax people)


Is it? What about those with high wealth, but low income? Or how about those with high income, but little wealth? What about consumption taxes (GST etc)?

That is a very simplistic view of taxation.

[suburbia]

Just came back from a quick trip to Revelstoke and on more than one occasion, I'd get stuck behind someone doing crawling along at 80K, then hit 110 on a passing lane, only to slow down to 80K again when the passing lane ends.

I absolutely agree with you, but just wanted to point out that sometimes there is a line of ten cars going 80km/hr, and the fellow in front of you wants to pass some cars just as much as you do. So when the passing lane comes, they take care of a couple of cars out of the 10 in front of them, and then are stuck being 8.

Again, the above is not always the case, and some people really have no clue. As some of you may have experienced, the absolute worse is on a single lane undivided road when you try to pass, and the person you're passing speeds up perhaps for the entertainment of having you stuck in the opposing direction lane. This is somewhat along the same lines as what you've highlighted.

[suburbia]

Is it? What about those with high wealth, but low income? Or how about those with high income, but little wealth? What about consumption taxes (GST etc)?

That is a very simplistic view of taxation.

When we speak of high wealth, that would have been accumulated over time via income of some sort, so that wealth is net of the taxes they would have paid during that prior (possibly protracted) period of wealth generation. I agree with Yahoo on this one IE an appropriate formula for income taxation is the best way to go.

[fusili]

When we speak of high wealth, that would have been accumulated over time via income of some sort, so that wealth is net of the taxes they would have paid during that prior (possibly protracted) period of wealth generation. I agree with Yahoo on this one IE an appropriate formula for income taxation is the best way to go.

So how about families with high wealth due to inheritance? As well, do we tax only income in wages, or do we also tax wealth earned from investments?

I am not necessarily disagreeing, I am just saying taxation is a lot more complicated than saying income tax is the best.

[Yahoo]

Income taxes aren't perfect. Like with transportation and political systems the various ideas all have their benefits and flaws. Adding a toll road isn't going to hurt a billionaire by inheritance one bit - but it will actually help that billionaire by clearing the roads for his Rolls Royce. (There is nothing wrong with being rich by the way - but I don't think public dollars should be spent giving the rich better access to public infrastructure at everyone else's expense). Yes, even HOV lanes can be used by rich people because their chauffeur counts as an occupant if you want me to make a somewhat silly point on the extreme end of things lol.

I'm just saying that user fees and tolls are the worst form of taxes. (does anyone remember the days before Ralph when some campgrounds, most heritage sites, and all museums were actually free so even poor or financially strapped people could use them?). Yes, fee taxes have some uses in modifying behavior but in my opinion they're just unfair to the poorest of us and nothing but an annoyance to the middle class (me) or rich. All you have to do is read a paper to see that the problems aren't usually with finding money - but with how it's spent.

Look at parking in Calgary. A huge city in area but very low density in terms of people (which I happen to like). What the political powers have done is built a parking system designed purely for the rich and executive class. They've made a system that gives the elite a benefit plain and simple. They've given the city a parking problem that makes it hard on business owners and the service industry, they've made downtown less attractive and priced it out of line for the working poor and lower middle class. They've artificially given Calgary a problem that we shouldn't have for 100 years. I almost think the planners and politicians are so envious of big cities that they purposely try to emulate their problems and are happy when they succeed.

Myself - I'd be more in favor of something radical. Build a public transportation system that's so appealing you want to take it. Why on earth weren't the stations built to accommodate 4 car trains (or 5)? Why in our climate do new LRT stations have super expensive roofs yet the platforms are entirely exposed to our harsh environments? Why can't I even drive into the Crowfoot Station parking lot from Scenic Acres? Why did they wall it off from pedestrian traffic at first? Why is it that when I walk to the LRT station I have to cross so many dangerous intersections and roadways? Why do some people have to cross 6-8 lanes of traffic on main streets at-grade just to reach their bus stop or LRT station? I wouldn't let my kid or spouse take transit on Bow Trail if they had to cross the busy roadway. Why are pedestrian overpasses always an afterthought in the home of the +15 (the extremely popular +15)? (a crosswalk is also a big congestion point on a main road is it not?) These are rhetorical questions folks - I'm not really expecting an answer. But hopefully it'll at least trigger some thoughts about the mistakes we're making.

Tax dollars should be used to lower the cost of transit fairs - not increase them! Imagine if you will a transit system that was free! Like our medical system that at one time wasn't free. It was inconceivable to most that basic medical care could ever be free. :yes: Yet now it's paid for by income taxes and government revenue. (and no I'm not a commie - I just think tax dollars should be wisely spent on things that help everyone). There are problems and issues with free systems too - but it's mostly due to politicians who love to mess things up that are working fine. Transit should at least be free for kids and old people don't you think? Or free for everyone at rush hour? Or maybe instead of that make it free outside of rush hour to encourage people to get used to it? What do politicians want for transit? They're usually chomping at the bit to raise prices - even as they pull into their free heated reserved parking spot. (That's another reason certain political ideologies fail - the people making the rules make exceptions for themselves)

[DizzyEdge]

So how about families with high wealth due to inheritance? As well, do we tax only income in wages, or do we also tax wealth earned from investments?

I am not necessarily disagreeing, I am just saying taxation is a lot more complicated than saying income tax is the best.

I agree with Yahoo, but as you point out all forms of income have to be taxed: pay, inheritance, interest, etc.

[Ramsayfarian]

In Australia they have signs telling you to pull over and let people pass in passing lanes. Something similar is needed in BC, but I think the biggest issue is too many people are clueless when driving. Or walking. Or biking. :haha:

We have those signs as well.

I absolutely agree with you, but just wanted to point out that sometimes there is a line of ten cars going 80km/hr, and the fellow in front of you wants to pass some cars just as much as you do. So when the passing lane comes, they take care of a couple of cars out of the 10 in front of them, and then are stuck being 8.

Again, the above is not always the case, and some people really have no clue. As some of you may have experienced, the absolute worse is on a single lane undivided road when you try to pass, and the person you're passing speeds up perhaps for the entertainment of having you stuck in the opposing direction lane. This is somewhat along the same lines as what you've highlighted.


My issues isn't being able to pass a lot of cars, my issue is when you're following someone for miles who's only doing 80K and hitting the brakes on every corner because the mountains are scary, suddenly finds their cojones when you hit a passing lane and accelerates to 100K as they don't want someone in front of them. I'll still pass them, but they're adding an element of risk that didn't need to be there.

[Yahoo]

We have those signs as well.


I agree with you completely on this. But if I recall the ones in Australia are worded better than "keep right except to pass". Something along the lines of "hey dumbass - look in your mirror and if there is a convoy behind you pull over and let them all by instead of flooring it in the passing lane". Ultimately the best solution in BC is to twin the highway - it's time to do that and they slowly are.

[MichaelS]

I agree with Yahoo, but as you point out all forms of income have to be taxed: pay, inheritance, interest, etc.

So for inheritance, you can work your life and pay taxes on your income, but manage to save up a nesteg with what is left over. Your beneficiaries then have to pay taxes AGAIN on that money, simply because you left it for them?

[suburbia]

My issues isn't being able to pass a lot of cars, my issue is when you're following someone for miles who's only doing 80K and hitting the brakes on every corner because the mountains are scary, suddenly finds their cojones when you hit a passing lane and accelerates to 100K as they don't want someone in front of them. I'll still pass them, but they're adding an element of risk that didn't need to be there.

Yeah - got ya'

Another pet peeve of mine is people touching their breaks somewhat randomly on the highway. You should virtually never have to touch your breaks on the highway.

[DizzyEdge]

So for inheritance, you can work your life and pay taxes on your income, but manage to save up a nesteg with what is left over. Your beneficiaries then have to pay taxes AGAIN on that money, simply because you left it for them?

It's certainly tricky, and might be worth an exemption, but people pay tax on the same money infinitely. I pay tax on my pay, if I buy something that person pays tax again on that, if they use it to buy something that person pays tax on it. Every time money changes hands taxes are applied. Should inheritance be different? Hard to say, although I understand why it might be reasonable to make it the exception.

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

[suburbia]

So how about families with high wealth due to inheritance? As well, do we tax only income in wages, or do we also tax wealth earned from investments?

I am not necessarily disagreeing, I am just saying taxation is a lot more complicated than saying income tax is the best.

When I said income in my prior note, I was meaning it in the broadest sense, IE net revenue towards your personal wealth. While there are different formulas for different forms of it, you basically pay some tax for any net revenue, even interest on your regular savings account.

I think the biggest loophole is donation of shares, where capital gains are exempt and you get receipted on the total donation, but on the other hand, I don't see this as that bad a thing as it encourages donations.

It's certainly tricky, and might be worth an exemption, but people pay tax on the same money infinitely. I pay tax on my pay, if I buy something that person pays tax again on that, if they use it to buy something that person pays tax on it. Every time money changes hands taxes are applied. Should inheritance be different? Hard to say, although I understand why it might be reasonable to make it the exception.

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

There should be a better formula for inheritance, as it really is a shame that we in effect tax families who save for the purposes of setting up their next generation better.

Good question about lotto winnings. What was the thinking being that exactly? Maybe because you could win a house, but couldn't keep it as you'd need to give 40% to the government? Bet ya' there are fewer house lotteries in the USA! Still, you'd think there should be some level of tax on this type of thing.

Dumb question:

Why are we talking about this in the roads section?

[DizzyEdge]

When I said income in my prior note, I was meaning it in the broadest sense, IE net revenue towards your personal wealth. While there are different formulas for different forms of it, you basically pay some tax for any net revenue, even interest on your regular savings account.

I think the biggest loophole is donation of shares, where capital gains are exempt and you get receipted on the total donation, but on the other hand, I don't see this as that bad a thing as it encourages donations.



There should be a better formula for inheritance, as it really is a shame that we in effect tax families who save for the purposes of setting up their next generation better.

Good question about lotto winnings. What was the thinking being that exactly? Maybe because you could win a house, but couldn't keep it as you'd need to give 40% to the government? Bet ya' there are fewer house lotteries in the USA! Still, you'd think there should be some level of tax on this type of thing.

Dumb question:

Why are we talking about this in the roads section?

No that's the best question of all :)

PS Maybe the inheritance thing is like the lotto situation: You can inherit and win non-monetary goods, so taxation is problematic.

[MalcolmTucker]

Inheritance isn't taxed in Canada.

[Northski]

Inheritance isn't taxed in Canada.

The estate tax in the usa is 40% on income over 5 million. So most people don't pay it.

[suburbia]

Inheritance isn't taxed in Canada.

Not exactly.

http://www.canadianliving.com/life/money/what_to_do_with_an_inheritance_3.php
Unfortunately, the tax man doesn't forget us when we die. Before an inheritance can be doled out, the Canada Revenue Agency(CRA) has to get a cut. Depending partly on how rich the deceased person was, up to half of the estate can go to taxes.
The tax situation gets more complicated when the surviving spouse dies – or if the deceased was single or divorced. Under the federal Income Tax Act, the person is deemed to have disposed of company shares, real estate or any other capital property at fair market value. "Basically this just means that the government pretends you sold all of your property the second before death," explains James Rhodes, a tax lawyer with the Miller Thomson firm in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont. "The estate hasn't sold anything. It just has to pay tax now on things it’s still holding in its hands."
The executor of the will files a final tax return for the deceased. In it, RRSPs and RRIFs must be reported as if they have been cashed in. Assets that have capital gains – or an increase in value from the time they were purchased – must also be reported. (One bonus: The deceased person's principal residence is exempt from capital gains tax. Additional residences, such as a cottage, are not.)

In the end, an estate can be stuck with a hefty tax bill, one that can eat into what the beneficiaries will receive. "The beneficiaries don't pay the tax," explains Rhodes. "They simply get less of a gift, provided there is enough cash cashable investments or insurance paid to the estate."

Once the executor settles the estate, CRA issues a clearance certificate to confirm all income taxes have been paid. By the time you get your inheritance cheque, you shouldn't have to worry about the taxes. "It's a bit like winning the lottery," explains Foster. "The taxes should have been paid by the estate. So the money, when you receive it, is yours."

[MalcolmTucker]

That isn't inheritance tax, and capital gains are taxed much lower than normal income.

[fusili]

Ok, so now we are totally off-topic, but I continue.

Inheritance taxes, to my best understanding, are intended to prevent the development of a inheritance-based upper-class. While many will lament that they cannot pass their entire investments onto their children, it does beg the question of what the children did to deserve the inheritance other than being born. Basically, why should we reward the children of rich people for winning the ovarian lottery (Warren Buffets term)? It isn't really fair to people who were born to poor parents, something that is completely out of their control.

John Rawls' idea of the veil of ignorance is much in line with this thinking. If you had no idea of what situation you were born to in a society, you would probably look unfavorably at things such as inheritance, and would rather have a pretty equal start no matter who your parents are.

So, roads huh?

[andasen]

So, roads huh?

Err....

Ah here's something on topic. I forgot to check the status of 24th st SE before I left town. Have they continued work on this or are they going to hold off til construction season hits full swing?

[suburbia]

... it does beg the question of what the children did to deserve the inheritance other than being born.

Wow! As a parent, my whole reason for being is my child. Thinking to the contrary has resulted in many a horrific crime.

Like you said, er ... can we get back to roads now?

[Doug]

That isn't inheritance tax, and capital gains are taxed much lower than normal income.

Capital gains are paid at deemed disposition on the date of death, which may be an inopportune time (ex. in the middle of the crash of 2008). The beneficiaries could hold on to the investments, but are usually forced to cash in in order to pay the taxes. The nastiest part is RRSP treatment. All RRSP investments are also deemed dispositions and taxable at the full rate. Neither of my parents, who were divorced, made it to 65 and both of their estates were taxed at 39%, basically the same as the US. A fairer system would tax the RRSPs over several years similar to how they would have been if the person had survived and gradually drawn them down. It is a penalty for being financially prudent.

[sim]

Not sure your point. Houston and San Francisco are nothing like Calgary. They've reached the point where tolling and HOV are their only solutions (although both of those cities made big mistakes in not building effective transit choices as they grew). Our road networks aren't at capacity because the city it too large or dense. Our roads are usually congested for simple reasons. Too many lights. Not expanded as the city grew. Plans made but not implemented. Low standards. Lane weaving built in.

This is in response to your multitude of posts, not just the above:


My point is that you're all over the place with what you're saying, and you've just shown it even more so with the latest few points; that you have some sort of erratic and fanciful notion of how things in transportation are suppose to work, wherein no real trade-offs exist and everything can just somehow get better:

In the same breath you mention you don't want Calgary to be a Houston or what have you, but go on advocating (likely unknowningly) the exact measures that got those cities to be there in the first place.

You want better walking connectivity and pedestrian facilities in general and then go on to state that pedestrian overpasses should be built on the dubious premise that these are somehow "safer" and provide better utility for said pedestrians - well, because adding sometimes hundreds of meters to a walk or climbing and then ascending a 2.5 to 4 m high set of stairs to an often more exposed (to weather) infrastructure is actually favourable for able-bodied people and really awesome for less mobile or handicapped individuals... (sarcasm);all the while advocating greater speeds for what has introduced the prospective danger to begin with.

So if that wasn't enough, in the next breath you claim (and not that it is necessarily erroneous) that tolls are hardest on society's poorest and are basically not fair (~because that's what life is~), seemingly forgetting what you've just mentioned above with regards to pedestrians and walking - the MOST democratic mode of transportation there is. Moreover, you favour land-use patterns (low-density) that is essentially conducive to neither [car, walk], unless of course it be that you can afford the former.

Were you by chance to actually understand why tolling can be a good thing, and with the proper policies in place and political will, is a good thing, you might realize that those revenues are usually diverted to improve alternatives - allowing the mobility (or better, accessibility) of the less fortunate (in terms of monetary wealth) to converge to that of the wealthy.

Strangely enough, you encourage better public transit systems too, but seem not to realize that you want to put them into direct competition (which they are usually already losing) with the private vehicle, not only for money, but also time. Resources don't just rain down at a whim.

You also somehow hold your advocacy and "solutions" as "different" and novel but which effectively amount to increased road capacity (and uneconomically to boot); which can logically only lead to an adjournment, transfer or spatial re-distribution of the true problem only to have inadvertently enlarged it incrementally, all the while deriding proven transportation demand strategies and true solutions to a problem of an over use of SOVs with assertions based on nothing more than what might amount to a marginally informed opinion.

Transportation works as a system. As with any system, it is impossible to have every single aspect improve simultaneously, even if resources were unlimited. Geometry and natural laws of physics will kick in too. In all honesty, I can not follow what you feel good transportation policy and the ensuing measures are. All over the map...

The passion is great, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a knowledge base or an understanding that can somehow lead to justification of such unequivocal yet unsubstantiated claims as this:

As I stated Calgary isn't at the stage where tolls are necessary. Understand? .

How do you know this? What is this based on? In depth analysis and studies? What are you comparing this to? Bergen or Oslo? Minneapolis? Toronto? Stockholm? Milan? Singapore? Tehran? Or you just went to San Francisco and decided you didn't like tolls?

Excuse the arrogance, but I am going to be blunt about this. There happens to be people that actually know about this stuff and are rather more versed in the field than the average citizen unfortunately having to sit in traffic and then claiming they know best. (I can't say that you are said average citizen, but you sure come across that way.) This is the same for every other profession or skill is it not? I probably should know better than to state something so rhetorical though.

[Ramsayfarian]

Ok, ...it does beg the question of what the children did to deserve the inheritance other than being born.


Exactly, nothing worse than someone who was born on third, thinking they hit a triple.

[Yahoo]

This is in response to your multitude of posts, not just the above:


Hey, at least my rants get people talking and hopefully once in a while I'll mention something that someone didn't consider.

I guess in summary I'm in favor of making all types of transportation effective. All types.

I'm not in favor of focusing blindly on one transportation solution since that solution won't work for everyone - just because it's best for you.

I'm not in favor of making decisions based purely on the loud minority or based on a political agenda of some alderman. Decisions should be debated and based on the greater good of the city even if that means some people don't like it. They can be compensated and move on rather than block progress and benefits for the majority.

I'm in favor of carrots - not sticks when it comes to transportation.

I'm against user fees and tolls as I feel these are just hidden taxes that hurt the poor, help the rich, and inconvenience the middle class.

I can like a solution in one city or even one area yet think it's crazy somewhere else. I even support some tolls believe it or not - on like the Coquihalla it worked out well - and stopped when it was paid off despite some politicians who wanted to change the law to continue the tolls. It was fair because people had an effective alternate route, and taking the toll road saved you money and time - no matter what your income bracket. It wasn't about manipulating peoples transportation choices in any way.

That may come off to you as me being all over the place, but unlike you (sorry I can't resist) I'm fully aware that there are huge drawbacks to a lot of "solutions" planners and politicians want to impose on people. Even if those solutions work well in some areas - I'm flexible enough to know that they may be a disaster somewhere else. I'm also realistic enough to know that you can't please everyone. (you call that "being all over the place")

Another example of me being "all over the place" with my opinions is Nose Hill and Stoney. I was a big advocate for getting it built quickly - if for no other reason than to safety. But guess what - I changed my mind. Now I think eliminating the interchange would be the best way to go - since blocking left turns appears to be enough of a solution there and the money could be better spent on other projects.

I also fully understand that it's sometimes necessary to do the very things I disagree with. Or at least I understand why people are doing them.

You see - I'm capable of wanting one thing, and accepting - or at least understanding - a compromise. But in my opinion - Calgary doesn't have to compromise yet - as long as we don't get distracted by radical solutions to simple problems. If you want an example of what I'm referring to - it's HOV, bike lanes, or tolls on Crowchild. Those are radical solutions to a roadway with simple problems. Some people find the easy solution distasteful for whatever personal reason, but I would suggest the silent majority agrees with me. Just upgrade the road.

[kw5150]

Exactly, nothing worse than someone who was born on third, thinking they hit a triple.

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

[fusili]

I guess in summary I'm in favor of making all types of transportation effective. All types.

I'm not in favor of focusing blindly on one transportation solution (roads) since that solution won't work for everyone - just because it's best for you.

I'm not in favor of making decisions based purely on the loud minority or based on a political agenda of some (pro-roads)alderman. Decisions should be debated and based on the greater good of the city even if that means some people don't like it (such as the west LRT, NC LRT, bus lanes, etc. They can be compensated and move on rather than block progress and benefits for the majority.

I'm in favor of carrots - not sticks when it comes to transportation.

I'm against user fees and tolls as I feel these are just hidden taxes that hurt the poor, help the rich, and inconvenience the middle class.

That may come off to you as me being all over the place, but unlike you (sorry I can't resist) I'm fully aware that there are huge drawbacks to a lot of "solutions" planners and politicians want to impose on people (such as the Crowchild upgrade, the 2nd ring road or the earlier downtown penetrator). Even if those solutions work well in some areas - I'm flexible enough to know that they may be a disaster somewhere else. I'm also realistic enough to know that you can't please everyone. (you call that "being all over the place")

Another example of me being "all over the place" with my opinions is Nose Hill and Stoney. I was a big advocate for getting it built quickly - if for no other reason than to safety. But guess what - I changed my mind. Now I think eliminating the interchange would be the best way to go - since blocking left turns appears to be enough of a solution there and the money could be better spent on other projects.

I also fully understand that it's sometimes necessary to do the very things I disagree with. Or at least I understand why people are doing them.

You see - I'm capable of wanting one thing, and accepting - or at least understanding - a compromise. But in my opinion - Calgary doesn't have to compromise yet - as long as we don't get distracted by radical solutions to simple problems (like a one billion plan to upgrade an interchange that has two bad turn movements). If you want an example of what I'm referring to - it's HOV, bike lanes, or tolls on Crowchild. Those are radical solutions to a roadway with simple problems (which is incorporate right turns only on 5th avenue). Some people find the easy solution distasteful for whatever personal reason, but I would suggest the silent majority agrees with me. Just upgrade the road.

Funny, I could read almost your whole post and interpret it as you are very pro-transit and are tired of so much being spent on roads. Bolded parts are added by me.

[RyLucky]

Funny, I could read almost your whole post and interpret it as you are very pro-transit and are tired of so much being spent on roads. Bolded parts are added by me.

Fusili, if you could revise every post, I'd almost never disagree with anyone.

[Yahoo]

Funny, I could read almost your whole post and interpret it as you are very pro-transit and are tired of so much being spent on roads. Bolded parts are added by me.

Hmm, that's a huge stretch. No, actually that's completely wrong. Obviously my points are lost on you - or perhaps I'm just no good at making you understand my thoughts. (or lol - you just enjoy poking at me). When someone says they don't want to focus on one solution you interpret that to mean we should focus on transit??? For one thing, it's a roads forum, so that's why I was focusing on roads.

I don't think this city council is at all pro-roads - if anything many are against doing any road projects at all it would appear. But I know the mayor knows it's an issue - he specifically commented on Crowchild before he was elected, unlike so many that had no plan other than an airport tunnel and a vague promise to be green. I don't see any huge drawbacks to fixing Crowchild. Sure, there may be individual drawbacks - but overall the city will be thrilled - just like when they fix other roads or finish a section of ring road.

Man, if you want to hear whining look at news reports after they open a new LRT line. There is a lot more whining about that then any new road opening.

When you throw around a billion dollar plan or talk about bulldozing houses you're just using scare tactics. Makes me wonder if you're a certain politician. For many sections the fixes are quick and easy. 24th - overpass. Not a billion dollar one. Narrow, 2 lane choke points - make them 3 lanes. Easy to do in some short sections. (notice the 16th avenue bridge over Crowchild that's crumbling away - I don't think we should wait for a Quebec like collapse to fix it, and when you fix you should look at upgrades). Sure, ultimately at the speed city council works I'm sure making Crowchild a 3 lane free flowing road everywhere will end up costing $10 billion. In 2063 dollars. Because that's when I predict people will be so fed up they'll elect another mayor Dave who promises to get the city moving again.

There is a cost of doing business. Roads and transit are expensive. Some city council members think keeping roads operational after a snow storm is uneconomical or even impossible. Nonsense - because the cost of not keeping the city moving costs us more - even if it's indirectly we actually save money by keeping roads safe. Some people just don't understand that concept - spending money to save money.

One thing we do where I work is always say "what if I don't do it?". It's a very simple way to decide if you're wasting your time on something.

If you don't upgrade Crowchild what will happen? More polluting bottlenecks. More delays and inefficiency. It would be cool if someone calculated the actual dollar benefits of fixing Crowchild. They'd likely be massive. Consider: less pollution, more free time, easier trade, safety - translating into lower medical and emergency costs & no loss of income, lower insurance, lower vehicle maintenance, less stress, less gasoline and diesel usage. Consider the # people and employers that will directly benefit if people and trucks weren't delayed. A study like that would likely show that overall it is worth it. I believe it was the BC gov that estimated each accident on the TCH costs society at least $1M.

If a few houses lose an alleyway or even if a few houses have to be purchased at a premium I think the costs will more than outweigh the benefits. And honestly - I think if you've lived in a house for more than 20 years they should give you a huge premium if you're forced out. If you're a new speculator buying along a main road - or just renting out the property hoping for a jackpot then that's another matter). Politicians seem to have no issue giving out massive bonuses or severance packages - so I don't understand why they don't do the same if someone is troubled or inconvenienced by a road or transit project. Maybe that would give them some incentive to plan new projects and roads properly (unlike say CH blvd).

Remember the people that would sooner die than convert to metric? Like with any construction project you'll find some people that will oppose every project. (I love roads but I'm for example "all over the place" and think the airport tunnel was something we'd never need, but whatever that's a lost battle).

Swinging over to transit (since as I stated all forms of transportation should be improved). Did you read my suggestions about transit incentives? Making transit free or really cheap outside of rush hour - to get people using it and maybe get people to work outside of regular hours? City council would likely take a completely different approach - punish people commuting during rush hours rather than reward ones who work outside it.

Over to parking now: Maybe build a downtown parking lot with really cheap rates that won't allow you to enter or exit it during rush hour (or bills you extra if you leave during rush hour)? That way people who need to drive would be encouraged to avoid rush hour. Nah, that would make too much sense. Better to just keep pricing at outrageous levels.

Reminds me of the movie Enemy at the Gates where the Russian commander asks for suggestions about how to motivate people in the fight against the Germans. The suggestions were along the lines of "threaten their families" "shoot anyone who retreats". Then one scared guy suggested the radical solution to inspire them to defend their country. Something they never even imagined. Inspire us with fixing Crowchild rather than just point out the costs and complaints of a few.

Did you catch the news report about how the NW LRT didn't destroy neighborhoods as was thought by the opposition back when it was first being planned? Did you read the reports about the highway updates in Banff that were opposed by environmental groups - and now they concede that it was actually better for the environment after the upgrade? Carrots and benefits folks! Something we don't hear enough of when they propose an upgrade.

Sorry for posting such long messages all the time.

[fusili]

Hmm, that's a huge stretch. No, actually that's completely wrong. Obviously my points are lost on you - or perhaps I'm just no good at making you understand my thoughts. (or lol - you just enjoy poking at me). When someone says they don't want to focus on one solution you interpret that to mean we should focus on transit??? For one thing, it's a roads forum, so that's why I was focusing on roads.
.

Sorry, what I was intending to say is that it is humorous that opposite sides of a debate can use such similar language. I just found it funny because I, being an obvious transit advocate, use similar language to argue the opposite points. I say things like we need more balance, or that simple solutions are rarely implemented.

I think overall we agree- I think the fact that there is no turn from northbound Deerfoot to westbound Glenmore and you have to use Heritage Meadows or whatever is absolutely ridiculous. I also think the triple lane change on Crowchild to get to memorial is also pretty dumb. But I disagree the solution is one that costs $1B.

[fusili]

Fusili, if you could revise this post, I'd almost always disagree with John. What an idiot, John.

Ha ha. See, I did it again!

[Acey]

My God did McKnight ever acheive parking lot status today. From McCall Way around 4:30, it was quicker for me to go east on McKnight, up Metis, over on CHB and down Deerfoot than it was for a friend who left at the same time to wait for 7 light cycles at 12 St NE. That's a lonnng way.

It's fine, yeah, I realize cars shouldn't be on the road anyway and everyone should just take the train. But what's frightening me at the moment is the realization that Airport Trail as a freeway isn't going to help out McKnight that much.

[You Need A Thneed]

^ and McKnight Blvd appears to be just starting its annual "biggest pothole in the western hemisphere" competition.

[fusili]

My God did McKnight ever acheive parking lot status today. From McCall Way around 4:30, it was quicker for me to go east on McKnight, up Metis, over on CHB and down Deerfoot than it was for a friend who left at the same time to wait for 7 light cycles at 12 St NE. That's a lonnng way.

It's fine, yeah, I realize cars shouldn't be on the road anyway and everyone should just take the train. But what's frightening me at the moment is the realization that Airport Trail as a freeway isn't going to help out McKnight that much.

We really need east/west transit routes, especially to connect the industrial area around 32nd avenue.

[fusili]

Don't want to brag, but my commute will be exactly the same amount of time it is every single day. The roads are going to be fun. Drive safe everyone, watch out for idiots who don't know how to drive in snow.

[Full Mountain]

Hmm, that's a huge stretch. No, actually that's completely wrong. Obviously my points are lost on you - or perhaps I'm just no good at making you understand my thoughts. (or lol - you just enjoy poking at me). When someone says they don't want to focus on one solution you interpret that to mean we should focus on transit??? For one thing, it's a roads forum, so that's why I was focusing on roads.

I don't think this city council is at all pro-roads - if anything many are against doing any road projects at all it would appear. But I know the mayor knows it's an issue - he specifically commented on Crowchild before he was elected, unlike so many that had no plan other than an airport tunnel and a vague promise to be green. I don't see any huge drawbacks to fixing Crowchild. Sure, there may be individual drawbacks - but overall the city will be thrilled - just like when they fix other roads or finish a section of ring road.

Man, if you want to hear whining look at news reports after they open a new LRT line. There is a lot more whining about that then any new road opening.

When you throw around a billion dollar plan or talk about bulldozing houses you're just using scare tactics. Makes me wonder if you're a certain politician. For many sections the fixes are quick and easy. 24th - overpass. Not a billion dollar one. Narrow, 2 lane choke points - make them 3 lanes. Easy to do in some short sections. (notice the 16th avenue bridge over Crowchild that's crumbling away - I don't think we should wait for a Quebec like collapse to fix it, and when you fix you should look at upgrades). Sure, ultimately at the speed city council works I'm sure making Crowchild a 3 lane free flowing road everywhere will end up costing $10 billion. In 2063 dollars. Because that's when I predict people will be so fed up they'll elect another mayor Dave who promises to get the city moving again.

There is a cost of doing business. Roads and transit are expensive. Some city council members think keeping roads operational after a snow storm is uneconomical or even impossible. Nonsense - because the cost of not keeping the city moving costs us more - even if it's indirectly we actually save money by keeping roads safe. Some people just don't understand that concept - spending money to save money.

One thing we do where I work is always say "what if I don't do it?". It's a very simple way to decide if you're wasting your time on something.

If you don't upgrade Crowchild what will happen? More polluting bottlenecks. More delays and inefficiency. It would be cool if someone calculated the actual dollar benefits of fixing Crowchild. They'd likely be massive. Consider: less pollution, more free time, easier trade, safety - translating into lower medical and emergency costs & no loss of income, lower insurance, lower vehicle maintenance, less stress, less gasoline and diesel usage. Consider the # people and employers that will directly benefit if people and trucks weren't delayed. A study like that would likely show that overall it is worth it. I believe it was the BC gov that estimated each accident on the TCH costs society at least $1M.

If a few houses lose an alleyway or even if a few houses have to be purchased at a premium I think the costs will more than outweigh the benefits. And honestly - I think if you've lived in a house for more than 20 years they should give you a huge premium if you're forced out. If you're a new speculator buying along a main road - or just renting out the property hoping for a jackpot then that's another matter). Politicians seem to have no issue giving out massive bonuses or severance packages - so I don't understand why they don't do the same if someone is troubled or inconvenienced by a road or transit project. Maybe that would give them some incentive to plan new projects and roads properly (unlike say CH blvd).

Remember the people that would sooner die than convert to metric? Like with any construction project you'll find some people that will oppose every project. (I love roads but I'm for example "all over the place" and think the airport tunnel was something we'd never need, but whatever that's a lost battle).

Swinging over to transit (since as I stated all forms of transportation should be improved). Did you read my suggestions about transit incentives? Making transit free or really cheap outside of rush hour - to get people using it and maybe get people to work outside of regular hours? City council would likely take a completely different approach - punish people commuting during rush hours rather than reward ones who work outside it.

Over to parking now: Maybe build a downtown parking lot with really cheap rates that won't allow you to enter or exit it during rush hour (or bills you extra if you leave during rush hour)? That way people who need to drive would be encouraged to avoid rush hour. Nah, that would make too much sense. Better to just keep pricing at outrageous levels.

Reminds me of the movie Enemy at the Gates where the Russian commander asks for suggestions about how to motivate people in the fight against the Germans. The suggestions were along the lines of "threaten their families" "shoot anyone who retreats". Then one scared guy suggested the radical solution to inspire them to defend their country. Something they never even imagined. Inspire us with fixing Crowchild rather than just point out the costs and complaints of a few.

Did you catch the news report about how the NW LRT didn't destroy neighborhoods as was thought by the opposition back when it was first being planned? Did you read the reports about the highway updates in Banff that were opposed by environmental groups - and now they concede that it was actually better for the environment after the upgrade? Carrots and benefits folks! Something we don't hear enough of when they propose an upgrade.

Sorry for posting such long messages all the time.

While I agree with the fact that Crowchild needs to be improved, I'm getting sick of people calling it an economic thing, if it really was an economic thing we would have commercial vehicle lanes on all major roads enforced with cameras. I'm sorry your SOV isn't an economic factor, even if 5000 people are slightly delayed there isn't a catastrophic effect on the economy, the fact is 60% of the people that use Crowchild in their SOV each day could work from home and have zero effect on the economy.

Lets be honest if there is no way the city is going to be able to get a billion dollars to improve Crowchild in the next 20-30 years. So now is the time for creative solutions to improve Crowchild do a Lake Fraser Gate on all the intersections from 5th to 24th. Right in right out during rush hour really left turns are still possible it just sends people a little out of their way.

If we really want to put our money where your mouth is lets put that commercial vehicle/HOV lane down the center, lets get the economy moving, sure it'll suck for the SOV's in the right hand lane but guess what it's called carpooling.

Adding lanes isn't going to help they are just going to fill up with more people who have gotten into their cars because the heard about the improvements and in 5-10 years we'll be having this same discussion about taking out more homes to widen it yet again. (See: Induced Demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand))

[freeweed]

Don't want to brag, but my commute will be exactly the same amount of time it is every single day. The roads are going to be fun. Drive safe everyone, watch out for idiots who don't know how to drive in snow.

Mine was quite a bit longer. The NWLRT broke down due to loss of power around Dalhousie.

I was lucky, I was already seated. I can only imagine how many people were piled into the stations after the trains didn't move for nearly half an hour, right at the peak of rush hour.

[You Need A Thneed]

Did some abnormal running around (dropped my daughter off at school so my wife didn't have to go out too), but I think my commute would have been roughly the same. I think I was in a little bit of a seam driving my daughter to school though, it seemed like less traffic than it should have been, and a couple minutes later, it looked like there was more again.

[floobie]

Mine was quite a bit longer. The NWLRT broke down due to loss of power around Dalhousie.

I was lucky, I was already seated. I can only imagine how many people were piled into the stations after the trains didn't move for nearly half an hour, right at the peak of rush hour.

Thank you for swiftly validating my decision to work from home today :D

[bigcanuck]

Drove into the core from the burbs - no change in commute this morning during rush hour. I expected slow, I got normal.

[DizzyEdge]

I drove a car2go between 7:40 and 8:40 last night, from centre and 16th ave all the way to Tuscany and back. That was fun, although for much of the trip I was passing people. Wasn't impressed with the people zooming by me on Crowchild while I was doing 80 though.

[simster3]

Fusili, I wish I could 'Like' your post. I'm in the same boat!

[Yahoo]

If we really want to put our money where your mouth is lets put that commercial vehicle/HOV lane down the center, lets get the economy moving, sure it'll suck for the SOV's in the right hand lane but guess what it's called carpooling.


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

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

Perhaps your solution is just to have everyone walk to work - since you seem to have a thing against people in vehicles. Me, I live in the real world. Edit - sorry for the smart alec tone. I shouldn't take that approach to debates or other opinions

[Acey]

Yep, my morning drive was about the same. When your commute is already slow due to volume, the snow doesn't make it much worse. It's the afternoon drive I'm worried about.

[lubicon]

My morning drive was double what it normally is (1 hour vs the usual 30 minutes). This afternoon is really going to suck.

[lubicon]

I drove a car2go between 7:40 and 8:40 last night, from centre and 16th ave all the way to Tuscany and back. That was fun, although for much of the trip I was passing people. Wasn't impressed with the people zooming by me on Crowchild while I was doing 80 though.

I sure hope you were in the far right hand lane!:) And not one of those people who cruise along the entire stretch of Crowchild in the left ahnd lane doing 80.5.

[DizzyEdge]

I sure hope you were in the far right hand lane!:) And not one of those people who cruise along the entire stretch of Crowchild in the left ahnd lane doing 80.5.

No no, I was in the right hand lane :) But it was almost whiteout conditions.