Calgary Roads

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Good point .. Large free flow intersections in the NW might be overkill

It would be nice to make McKnight more freeway-ish to at least improve the flow of it .. It can be such a gongshow, it would be nice if there was improved flow so it's not a complete stop and go mess

[speedog]

How many of you remember the days when you could access 40th Avenue NW right from John Laurie - 40th Ave was much more heavily used in the morning rush back then.

[speedog]

Found the McKnight widening project, sure took a bit of digging - link (http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2003/pdfs/furtado.pdf). Will be saving a copy.

[dmuzika]

Found the McKnight widening project, sure took a bit of digging - link (http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2003/pdfs/furtado.pdf). Will be saving a copy.

Good find! I remember seeing another study where there were 6 lanes east of 48 Ave NW, but they replaced the 48 Ave/John Laurie/McKnight intersection with an interchange that took out a big chunk of Highwood. Does anyone remember that document and if it's still floating around?

[dmuzika]

How many of you remember the days when you could access 40th Avenue NW right from John Laurie - 40th Ave was much more heavily used in the morning rush back then.

I never knew that, was that before the 14 St interchange was constructed?

[Calgarian]

Are there plans to update the JL / McKnight interchange?

[rotten42]

How many of you remember the days when you could access 40th Avenue NW right from John Laurie - 40th Ave was much more heavily used in the morning rush back then.



I grew up In Cambrian Heights so I used that all the time, Was not happy when they closed it.

[Fuzz]

I grew up In Cambrian Heights so I used that all the time, Was not happy when they closed it.

I'm in Highwood. That would be awesome to have...

[speedog]

The Jophn Laurie-McKnight corner had a project on the books to make it a wider corner to speed things up with an underpass for EB 48th Avenue traffic onto EB McKnight. A number of homes in Highwood would have to be bulldozed and there's been at least one that's been quietly bought and bulldozed already.

As far as the EB 40th Ave exit off of John Laurie - that's been gone for ages now, probably since the early-mid 80's as best as I can remember. Sure did make a difference on traffic volumes in the mornings in Highwood and Cambrian Heights.

Will do some searching for the John-Laurie/McKnight project as it has to be out there somewhere as well.

[Design-mind]

The John Laurie-McKnight corner had a project on the books to make it a wider corner to speed things up with an underpass for EB 48th Avenue traffic onto EB McKnight.

Glad to see they will help out those going East from 48th Ave. I had a friend who lived up on the hill and sometimes we saw cars sit there for a very long time in heavy traffic.

[speedog]

Glad to see they will help out those going East from 48th Ave. I had a friend who lived up on the hill and sometimes we saw cars sit there for a very long time in heavy traffic.
Just be aware that this project along with the McKnight widening project has been shelved so deeply that I can find nothing on it anywhere - suspect there's still something going on because of the homes that slowly get bought and bulldozed in the areas that these two projects would've had an impact. All I know is that I can remember finding PDF's on-line at the city's web site and that they're not able to be found anymore.

[Joborule]

The same document also had plans that 12 Street east would go under McKnight, which would help that clusterfudge east of deerfoot.

[You Need A Thneed]

The full intersection at Country Hills Blvd & 36th Street NE is now open.

It's no longer simply a right in, right out.

[craner]

The Jophn Laurie-McKnight corner had a project on the books to make it a wider corner to speed things up with an underpass for EB 48th Avenue traffic onto EB McKnight. A number of homes in Highwood would have to be bulldozed and there's been at least one that's been quietly bought and bulldozed already.

As far as the EB 40th Ave exit off of John Laurie - that's been gone for ages now, probably since the early-mid 80's as best as I can remember. Sure did make a difference on traffic volumes in the mornings in Highwood and Cambrian Heights.

Will do some searching for the John-Laurie/McKnight project as it has to be out there somewhere as well.
I remember seeing those plans as well - shame they have disappeared, I hope they are still planning to improve this crosstown combo.

[andasen]

So how did it escape the notice of this forum that The Ogden/glenmore Interchange has been green lit?

With Construction taking place from 2014- 2016 using funds freed up from the West LRT due to phase one of greentrip funds coming from the province. (so piggybacking on SETWAY)

[North_Regina_Boy]

So how did it escape the notice of this forum that The Ogden/glenmore Interchange has been green lit?

With Construction taking place from 2014- 2016 using funds freed up from the West LRT due to phase one of greentrip funds coming from the province. (so piggybacking on SETWAY)

I just hope that East Glenmore can get to freeway status with interchanges between Deerfoot and Stoney as well as a full systems interchange at Stoney Trail east soon. THAT would really help the SE end of Calgary (Along with the SETWAY) Also a start to the full re-design of the Glenmore Deerfoot interchange as well.

[YYCguys]

Where can I find information about the Ogden/Glenmore interchange specs, etc?

[5seconds]

Now that the SW Ring Road route is more or less decided, I wonder if they will implement this design, from 2002 on the Glenmore Causeway:

http://calgaryringroad.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/glenmore_2002_causeway.jpg

Imagine, no more weaving over the causeway!

The reason the GE5 was implemented but not the portion west of 14th street was due to uncertainties over the SWRR.

[dmuzika]

Now that the SW Ring Road route is more or less decided, I wonder if they will implement this design, from 2002 on the Glenmore Causeway:

http://calgaryringroad.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/glenmore_2002_causeway.jpg

Imagine, no more weaving over the causeway!

The reason the GE5 was implemented but not the portion west of 14th street was due to uncertainties over the SWRR.

It looks like they're adding extra lanes on Glenmore Trail under 14 St SW, is there room to add any lanes without replacing the bridges?

[5seconds]

It looks like they're adding extra lanes on Glenmore Trail under 14 St SW, is there room to add any lanes without replacing the bridges?

EDIT: It looks like the WB Glenmore to SB 14th would have to be rebuilt to accommodate 3 through lanes. In the scenarios with 4 through lanes (which is most of them), two replacement bridges for NB 14th to WB Glenmore would also be constructed.

[Ferreth]

Where can I find information about the Ogden/Glenmore interchange specs, etc?

Try this pdf (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/investing-in-mobility-lores-graph.pdf), page 52. Not much, but at least a rendering of the interchange. I know I used to have something on that intersection a long time ago, but it's probably changed now anyways.

If anyone knows of more details I'd be interested!

[andasen]

Try this pdf (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/investing-in-mobility-lores-graph.pdf), page 52. Not much, but at least a rendering of the interchange. I know I used to have something on that intersection a long time ago, but it's probably changed now anyways.

If anyone knows of more details I'd be interested!

Only details I've been able to dig up have been that project is funded. No renders yet.

[kev_427]

http://www.naiopcalgary.com/events/dbEvents/presentations/NAIOP%20Presentation%20-%20Jan2010.pdf

Page 29.

[YYCguys]

Ferreth, that was an interesting read! Found out there's a lot more on the wish list of projects than I knew about. For example, an expansion/replacement of the 9th Avenue and 12th Street (into Inglewood) bridges. I also see that the McKnight/John Laurie mess was not included in that document, but that McKnight is expected to see expansion/improvement east of Deerfoot.

[MalcolmTucker]

the McKnight/John Laurie mess

Pretty sure council rejected a study outcome for improving that. IIRC it was due to middling traffic improvements for a pretty high cost, including a good number of expropriations.

[Mazrim]

I would suggest patience on Glenmore/Ogden. In a few months there will likely be a lot more information going around on it. AFAIK though...it's not going to include Barlow right now.

[Ferreth]

http://www.naiopcalgary.com/events/dbEvents/presentations/NAIOP%20Presentation%20-%20Jan2010.pdf

Page 29.

Thanks for that kev. Yeah, that's the one I remember. It seems like they are going to take out all the development in the median right now from that plan at least. Why they ever allowed development in the ROW is beyond me. It's not even like it's that old - was built about 15 years ago IIRC.

[milomilo]

Why they ever allowed development in the ROW is beyond me. It's not even like it's that old - was built about 15 years ago IIRC.

Yeah, they need to stop doing that!

I've recently started driving semi-trailers, luckily mainly in rural areas. I can only imagine how horrible an experience it must be driving one around that industrial area.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Driving along McKnight yesterday across Deerfoot I saw a sign for an open house regarding a transportation study for McKnight from Deerfoot to Barlow:

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Planning/Transportation-Planning-Studies/McKnight-Boulevard-Transportation-Study.aspx?redirect=/mcknight

Glad to see the City is looking into this clusterfuck

[speedog]

Jeez, McKnight Boulevard has to be one of the most over studied roads in the city that's really never had anything of substance come to be.

There was the McKnight widening proposal/study between Deerfoot and 4th Street NW that disappeared; there was the McKnight/John Laurier/48th Ave proposal/study that disappeared and there was the McKnight intersection proposal/study for the 12th Street NE mess that also disappeared and these are the ones I can remember in the past 16 years.

How many more studies will we have to endure on this roadway before something comes to fruition?

[You Need A Thneed]

Jeez, McKnight Boulevard has to be one of the most over studied roads in the city that's really never had anything of substance come to be.

There was the McKnight widening proposal/study between Deerfoot and 4th Street NW that disappeared; there was the McKnight/John Laurier/48th Ave proposal/study that disappeared and there was the McKnight intersection proposal/study for the 12th Street NE mess that also disappeared and these are the ones I can remember in the past 16 years.

How many more studies will we have to endure on this roadway before something comes to fruition?

This. Why not jut use the old studies. It's not like there is a different option for the 12th St Interchange.

[Boris2k7]

Studies are make-work projects for plannercrats. ;)

[YYCguys]

My goodness! Another study!?!? Sheesh! McKnight Blvd needs to be fixed for sure between JLB and Barlow Trail, but east of Barlow seems to be fine. I can't recall any traffic snarls east of there though.

[speedog]

What I remember of the oldest study was a faster curve at John Laurier/McKnight (70kph?) with 48th Ave EB ducking underneath and coming up near Northland Drive overpass. Believe there were additional single lanes on either side of the existing Northland Drive bridge pillars to accommodate 48th Ave ramps and Highwood would've lost a number of homes to accommodate the relaxed curve - at least one lot in Highwood (house bought and bulldozed) now sits vacant in the area that would've been affected.

Second oldest study I can remenber is McKnight going to six lanes between Deerfoot and just west of 4th Street NW with either grade separated intersections at Edmonton Trail, Center and 4th or regular intersections at Edmonton Trail and 4th with jughandle intersections at Center. My thoughts were to eliminate any ingress/egress at 4th and to grade separated stuff at Center and Edmonton Trail. Note that expansion was to move to the south for the most part and multiple homes have been bought and bulldozed along this corridor over the years. The 7/11 on Ceter already owns the two homes to the north of them to accomodate this expansion and Greenview School is no longer public which would allow it to be shutdown very quickly if need be.

Third project was 12th Street which involved an overpass at 12th Street NE with all McKnight traffic getting onto/off 12th Street via egress/entrance points at 14th Street - no ingress/egress at 12th Street, 45th Ave and Aviation Road/Blvd would've been expanded to handle the additional traffic volumes. All traffic from/to McKnight from 12th would have to enter/exit from 14th Street.

[speedog]

What I can vaguely remember of John Laurier/McKnight...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5040260/pics/m-jl.jpg

[Acey]

A McKnight/12 St engine will just push the problem down to 19 St and to Barlow. The closing of Barlow due to the new runway has turned McKnight into an irreparable clusterfuck.

[ByeByeBaby]

A McKnight/12 St engine will just push the problem down to 19 St and to Barlow. The closing of Barlow due to the new runway has turned McKnight into an irreparable clusterfuck.

Well, I suppose there's nothing to worry about then. Good news!

[You Need A Thneed]

A 12th interchange combined with widening McKnight to 6 lanes between 12th and 19th would mostly solve the problem, for now.

[lineman]

It's John Laurie. Like Hugh Laurie, aka House.

[speedog]

It's John Laurie. Like Hugh Laurie, aka House.
D'oh - it was even on the map pic I posted.

Never the less, the spelling isn't the issue we should be discussing, no?

[fusili]

Anyone think that Macleod Trail by Chinook should be partially buried with through-traffic on the buried section, and Chinook access at grade?

[Jimby]

Anyone think that Macleod Trail by Chinook should be partially buried with through-traffic on the buried section, and Chinook access at grade?

No!

[lineman]

That would be one deep tunnel ( taking Glenmore into consideration).

[fusili]

That would be one deep tunnel ( taking Glenmore into consideration).

I was thinking of burying 2-3 lanes in each direction north of Glenmore, bascially to get past 61st and 58th. Keep 2 lanes in each direction at grade for access to the mall.

More of a pie-in-the-sky idea than anything real. It's just such a cluster F$%^ at Macleod and 61st, but I can't think of anything they can do to make it better.

[Jimby]

I was thinking of burying 2-3 lanes in each direction north of Glenmore, bascially to get past 61st and 58th. Keep 2 lanes in each direction at grade for access to the mall.

More of a pie-in-the-sky idea than anything real. It's just such a cluster F$%^ at Macleod and 61st, but I can't think of anything they can do to make it better.

They need to improve the pedestrian realm from Chinook Station to Chinook Centre.

[MalcolmTucker]

An easier measure would be to build tunnels directly from the parkade from northbound MacLeod, and from the parkade to northbound Macleod. Eliminate two turning movements.

[Calgarian]

I was thinking of burying 2-3 lanes in each direction north of Glenmore, bascially to get past 61st and 58th. Keep 2 lanes in each direction at grade for access to the mall.

More of a pie-in-the-sky idea than anything real. It's just such a cluster F$%^ at Macleod and 61st, but I can't think of anything they can do to make it better.

I've always thought they need to have a bypass in that area somehow, not sure how they can do it though.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

^ if Cadillac Fairview were to pay for a sizeable chunk of a tunnelling Macleod, yes .. Otherwise that's a lot of cost

[milomilo]

Anyone think that Macleod Trail by Chinook should be partially buried with through-traffic on the buried section, and Chinook access at grade?

The whole road would best be obliterated and started from scratch! Seriously though, I don't think burying it would be feasible regardless of the cost, as you have Glenmore below grade to the south.

The best I could think of is to reduce the number of access points, and improve access from the lrt including a pedestrian overpass or even better the mooted +15 type pathway. The walk from the lrt currently is quite unpleasant.

[MichaelS]

I was thinking of burying 2-3 lanes in each direction north of Glenmore, bascially to get past 61st and 58th. Keep 2 lanes in each direction at grade for access to the mall.

More of a pie-in-the-sky idea than anything real. It's just such a cluster F$%^ at Macleod and 61st, but I can't think of anything they can do to make it better.

They need to improve the pedestrian realm from Chinook Station to Chinook Centre.

A pedestrian bridge (new, and far better than the crappy concrete channel that currently exists to the south) is being planned and built to cross Macleod Trail on the south side of 61st Ave. Once across, it will extend all the way into the mall's food court.

With the bridge in place, the crosswalk will be closed to pedestrians, and that will remove them and the required long walk time from the signal phase, allowing more green time for the N-S movement of vehicles.

It will also remove the pedestrians from the parking lot/grade entrance to the mall, creating a more efficient flow for people trying to park and a safer environment for the pedestrians (up on the bridge).

Bridge design in 2014, construction 2015 is the tentative schedule.

[MichaelS]

The whole road would best be obliterated and started from scratch! Seriously though, I don't think burying it would be feasible regardless of the cost, as you have Glenmore below grade to the south.

The best I could think of is to reduce the number of access points, and improve access from the lrt including a pedestrian overpass or even better the mooted +15 type pathway. The walk from the lrt currently is quite unpleasant.

You posted while I was typing. As part of the bridge construction, there will also be upgrades to the pedestrian realm on the south side of 61st Ave, between the bridge and the LRT station.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

You posted while I was typing. As part of the bridge construction, there will also be upgrades to the pedestrian realm on the south side of 61st Ave, between the bridge and the LRT station.

Is the plan also to eventually turn 61st into a pedestrian only type street with retail/mixed use developments on both sides?

A new bridge is a great start to improve traffic flow in that corridor .. You can spend 10 minutes trying to get past Chinook on a busy day

Also are there any plans to upgrade the Macleod/Glenmore interchange?? It's a bit of a gongshow presently...

[Jimby]

Any plans for the pedestrian tunnel north of Glenmore? It is a sketchy place as is.

[MichaelS]

Is the plan also to eventually turn 61st into a pedestrian only type street with retail/mixed use developments on both sides?

A new bridge is a great start to improve traffic flow in that corridor .. You can spend 10 minutes trying to get past Chinook on a busy day

Also are there any plans to upgrade the Macleod/Glenmore interchange?? It's a bit of a gongshow presently...

There will always be cars on 61st, but it will be an "Urban Boulevard" style street, similar to 17th Ave or Centre Street. The Chinook Station ARP calls for high density mixed use on either side of it, just need the land owners to develop. I think it will be decades though before we see Home Depot shut down....

No plans for the tunnel, or the Glenmore/Macleod interchange that I am aware of.

[DizzyEdge]

If the CIBC/Staples/PetSmart could be redeveloped, then the Home Depot remaining wouldn't have much affect.

[fusili]

If the CIBC/Staples/PetSmart could be redeveloped, then the Home Depot remaining wouldn't have much affect.

The Scotiabank/Garden Retreat lot is the biggest waste of space. Why does the Scotiabank have like 70 parking stalls.

It would be a perfect location for a secondary office area. Lower rent office all the way baby!

[Cage]

The Scotiabank/Garden Retreat lot is the biggest waste of space. Why does the Scotiabank have like 70 parking stalls.

It would be a perfect location for a secondary office area. Lower rent office all the way baby!

The scotiabank lot is also employee parking for Chinook centre retail outlets. Employees of the retail stores at Chinook are not allowed to park on premises.

[J-D]

A pedestrian bridge (new, and far better than the crappy concrete channel that currently exists to the south) is being planned and built to cross Macleod Trail on the south side of 61st Ave. Once across, it will extend all the way into the mall's food court.

With the bridge in place, the crosswalk will be closed to pedestrians, and that will remove them and the required long walk time from the signal phase, allowing more green time for the N-S movement of vehicles.

It will also remove the pedestrians from the parking lot/grade entrance to the mall, creating a more efficient flow for people trying to park and a safer environment for the pedestrians (up on the bridge).

Bridge design in 2014, construction 2015 is the tentative schedule.

That tunnel is so sketchy... I forgot it even existed.

[5seconds]

That's quite the +15

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/jessesalus/ScreenShot2014-01-07at91913PM_zps6d8bae71.png

[Calgarian]

Evan Woolley is proposing turning 11th and 12th into 2 way streets, though there are no plans to take it to council as of yet. I still think it's a bad idea even though I live in the area and walk along 11th and 12th pretty much every day. As a motorist as well as a pedestrian I think it will absolutely FUBAR traffic in the area, and I don't want a 10 minute drive through the Beltline to become a 20 minute drive. I know I'm in the minority on this issue though.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Councillor+wants+scrap+avenues+Beltline/9365146/story.html

[youngregina]

Evan Woolley is proposing turning 11th and 12th into 2 way streets, though there are no plans to take it to council as of yet. I still think it's a bad idea even though I live in the area and walk along 11th and 12th pretty much every day. As a motorist as well as a pedestrian I think it will absolutely FUBAR traffic in the area, and I don't want a 10 minute drive through the Beltline to become a 20 minute drive. I know I'm in the minority on this issue though.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Councillor+wants+scrap+avenues+Beltline/9365146/story.html

Though wouldn't it benefit the commuters just as much as I'm sure after reverting both back to two-ways (if even it does happen) would give commuters better options of traversing through the beltline? Also, would't road capacity stay the same between the couplet that is 11th and 12th as there would be 2 sets of 2 lanes in each direction?

[geotag277]

Evan Woolley is proposing turning 11th and 12th into 2 way streets, though there are no plans to take it to council as of yet. I still think it's a bad idea even though I live in the area and walk along 11th and 12th pretty much every day. As a motorist as well as a pedestrian I think it will absolutely FUBAR traffic in the area, and I don't want a 10 minute drive through the Beltline to become a 20 minute drive. I know I'm in the minority on this issue though.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Councillor+wants+scrap+avenues+Beltline/9365146/story.html

So he wants to intentionally slow down traffic and cause congestion in the hopes of improving the business environment?

This guy is throwing our tax dollars down the drain shooting in the dark, his first project is something that will assuredly have a negative impact (traffic) in the hopes that it maybe might possibly spurs business activity in the future?

I didn't expect he would be this much out of ideas his first week on the job.

[geotag277]

Though wouldn't it benefit the commuters just as much as I'm sure after reverting both back to two-ways (if even it does happen) would give commuters better options of traversing through the beltline? Also, would't road capacity stay the same between the couplet that is 11th and 12th as there would be 2 sets of 2 lanes in each direction?

Look at 17th avenue as an example of a horrible situation that 11th and 12th avenue would turn into. Two lanes in either direction which move at a snails pace, and traffic frequently backed up from 14th st sw to 1st st se.

Right now 11 and 12 move just fine. I'd be just fine with reducing the speed limit and encouraging pedestrian traffic along those roads (although as a pedestrian I've walked them many times and never had an issue) but this just seems like an arbitrary shot in the dark measure that is likely to only have one massively negative effect on traffic and an unknown hopeful effect on business.

[fusili]

So he wants to intentionally slow down traffic and cause congestion in the hopes of improving the business environment?

This guy is throwing our tax dollars down the drain shooting in the dark, his first project is something that will assuredly have a negative impact (traffic) in the hopes that it maybe might possibly spurs business activity in the future?

I didn't expect he would be this much out of ideas his first week on the job.

One way streets can increase traffic because they require additional turns and movements to access a building. There is a lot of double-backing that happens because of one-ways. The other thing is that it creates confusion for access to buildings you don't go to very often. If you are on a side street and end up a block west of a place you are trying to go 11th avenue, you have to do a full block turn around to get back to where you were trying to go. Imagine you were southbound on 5th street trying to get to Centre 10. If you missed the turn on 10th you can't just go west on 11th to correct your error, you have to go to 12th and double back.

[fusili]

Look at 17th avenue as an example of a horrible situation that 11th and 12th avenue would turn into. Two lanes in either direction which move at a snails pace, and traffic frequently backed up from 14th st sw to 1st st se.

Right now 11 and 12 move just fine. I'd be just fine with reducing the speed limit and encouraging pedestrian traffic along those roads (although as a pedestrian I've walked them many times and never had an issue) but this just seems like an arbitrary shot in the dark measure that is likely to only have one massively negative effect on traffic and an unknown hopeful effect on business.

Compare retail rents and success between 17th avenue and 11th and 12th. Not even in the same leagues. One way streets kill retail.

[geotag277]

Compare retail rents and success between 17th avenue and 11th and 12th. Not even in the same leagues. One way streets kill retail.

Many, many, many, many businesses have failed on 17th avenue. It seems a little disingenuous to say that all businesses on 11th and 12th are suffering due to being on a one way street and businesses on 17th are more successful.

Do you have any data to back up your assertion that businesses on 17th are in general more successful then businesses on 11/12? Where is the data showing higher average retail rents and less turn over?

I've heard "one way streets" kill retail repeated over and over, but have seen very little proof. To me at this point it is simply a quaint phrase.

[geotag277]

One way streets can increase traffic because they require additional turns and movements to access a building. There is a lot of double-backing that happens because of one-ways. The other thing is that it creates confusion for access to buildings you don't go to very often. If you are on a side street and end up a block west of a place you are trying to go 11th avenue, you have to do a full block turn around to get back to where you were trying to go. Imagine you were southbound on 5th street trying to get to Centre 10. If you missed the turn on 10th you can't just go west on 11th to correct your error, you have to go to 12th and double back.

One way streets make left turns and right turns easier, which makes doubling back a thousand times easier than in a two way snail pace congestion fest such as 17th ave. More lanes of traffic means better traffic flow means more convenient traffic access. I never got the argument that two way streets are better for pedestrians either. You cross the street the same at any cross walk, and only have to look one way for traffic.

Manhattan doesn't seem to have a problem with retail and one way streets.

[Spring2008]

Haha u can't compare Manhattan to here though. 17th Av and 4th street both have the highest streetfront lease rates in the city and both are two way streets. 11th and 12th will likely never be as big of retail corridors but there's room for improvement. The thing with 11th and 12th is you would have two, two way streets, so I doubt they'd be backed up like 17th. I'd like to see some study results on this.

[artvandelay]

This whole notion that switching a street to two-way traffic is going to increase vitality is a complete fallacy. Some of the most vibrant streets in the world in terms of pedestrian traffic and business activity are one way streets - think New York, Hong Kong, Bangkok, and even downtown Portland (which is more comparable to us) is full of one way streets. I've spent the last while looking for quantitative research on this claim and can't find anything other than anecdotal evidence which is no better than my counterpoint above. If any of you who are in favour of this switch can point me to a study that provides some concrete backup for your claim it would be much appreciated.

[MasterG]

One way streets make left turns and right turns easier, which makes doubling back a thousand times easier than in a two way snail pace congestion fest such as 17th ave. More lanes of traffic means better traffic flow means more convenient traffic access. I never got the argument that two way streets are better for pedestrians either. You cross the street the same at any cross walk, and only have to look one way for traffic.

Manhattan doesn't seem to have a problem with retail and one way streets.

Any change that makes N-S pedestrian traffic easier is a welcome one. The currently heavily favoured east-west auto traffic and green-wave signalling completely acts against the primary benefit of having the highest density neighbourhood next to the highest density employment centre: it ruins the pedestrian experience.

Walking southbound from the north corner of 10th ave on 5th street until cross 12th ave takes around 5 minutes, more than half waiting for East-west traffic. That is similar with 4th street. Between those two alone you have 10,000+ pedestrian commuters everyday that are completely inconvenienced by a road in their own neighbourhood at the expense of cut through traffic, largely from outside the Beltline. No other neighbourhood would be happy with this.

Why should the Beltline continue to pay for the brunt of traffic, accidents, noise and other detrimental effects of speedy one-ways when other neighbourhoods would make it unthinkable for a road connection of even half the speed and capacity? See: Mount Royal 8th street. Its an excellent medium-capacity connection that slowly was traffic calmed, stop signed and turn restricted to the point that it is a publicly financed private road for Mount Royal. Turning these streets into 2-ways would hardly be as restrictive or detrimental to commuter flow than streets like 8th Street which are simple not usable anymore as commuter roads.

I like the engagement and would support any changes that lead to a more pedestrian friendly Beltline whatever the cost to outside commuters. 2-way streets would do that. Commuters don't live here and don't have enough skin-in-the-game to comment against locals that put up with these roads everyday.

[geotag277]

Haha u can't compare Manhattan to here though. 17th Av and 4th street both have the highest streetfront lease rates in the city and both are two way streets. 11th and 12th will likely never be as big of retail corridors but there's room for improvement. The thing with 11th and 12th is you would have two, two way streets, so I doubt they'd be backed up like 17th. I'd like to see some study results on this.

Having high lease rates is good for a land lord but not good for businesses trying to survive or residents who are charged higher for goods and services.

I'd like to see some data which shows lease rates, business turn over, and revenue per square foot between these streets.

I doubt we'll ever see a study. The philosophy with politicians is spend tax dollars first, ask questions later.

[geotag277]

Any change that makes N-S pedestrian traffic easier is a welcome one. The currently heavily favoured east-west auto traffic and green-wave signalling completely acts against the primary benefit of having the highest density neighbourhood next to the highest density employment centre: it ruins the pedestrian experience.

Walking southbound from the north corner of 10th ave on 5th street until cross 12th ave takes around 5 minutes, more than half waiting for East-west traffic. That is similar with 4th street. Between those two alone you have 10,000+ pedestrian commuters everyday that are completely inconvenienced by a road in their own neighbourhood at the expense of cut through traffic, largely from outside the Beltline. No other neighbourhood would be happy with this.

Why should the Beltline continue to pay for the brunt of traffic, accidents, noise and other detrimental effects of speedy one-ways when other neighbourhoods would make it unthinkable for a road connection of even half the speed and capacity? See: Mount Royal 8th street. Its an excellent medium-capacity connection that slowly was traffic calmed, stop signed and turn restricted to the point that it is a publicly financed private road for Mount Royal. Turning these streets into 2-ways would hardly be as restrictive or detrimental to commuter flow than streets like 8th Street which are simple not usable anymore as commuter roads.

I like the engagement and would support any changes that lead to a more pedestrian friendly Beltline whatever the cost to outside commuters. 2-way streets would do that. Commuters don't live here and don't have enough skin-in-the-game to comment against locals that put up with these roads everyday.

As someone who lives in the Beltline and commutes to destinations regularly outside the Beltline I absolutely have skin in the game.

Here is a simple solution to the green wave thing inconveniencing pedestrians. Make the light cycles faster. Done, problem solved. Let's spend the 5$ on changing the signal timing as a first step to increasing pedestrian traffic and see what happens. Using that as an excuse to completely redesign the traffic flow is insane to me.

I would support any measure that is clearly a net positive to the community. As it stands, this initiative has one very clear net negative effect - causing congestion - and no clear benefit. That stinks of a bad proposal.

[MasterG]

I doubt we'll ever see a study. The philosophy with politicians is spend tax dollars first, ask questions later.

And by ask questions you mean the engagement process that was mentioned in the article before they do anything?

They did spend the money to turn these into 1-ways to begin with. Might as well spend some more to fix it after a poor idea ruined half the neighbourhood's walk-ability.

[MasterG]

As someone who lives in the Beltline and commutes to destinations regularly outside the Beltline I absolutely have skin in the game.

Here is a simple solution to the green wave thing inconveniencing pedestrians. Make the light cycles faster. Done, problem solved. Let's spend the 5$ on changing the signal timing as a first step to increasing pedestrian traffic and see what happens. Using that as an excuse to completely redesign the traffic flow is insane to me.

I would support any measure that is clearly a net positive to the community. As it stands, this initiative has one very clear net negative effect - causing congestion - and no clear benefit. That stinks of a bad proposal.

As it stands, the current situation has several key net negatives to the community - poor circulation of traffic (that example of having to circle multiple blocks to get back to your location), higher speeds and traffic noise (along with the safety issues related to pedestrian-car conflicts), congestion (i.e. increased travel times) for a thousands of commuters, both pedestrian and N-S auto traffic, and subsequent knock-on effects to promoting a healthy retail environment.

I would be happy keeping them 2 way if as you said, light cycle times were changed to favour pedestrian traffic as well as wider sidewalks, curb extensions and other pedestrian safety amendments were added to compensate for the situation that exists currently.

[geotag277]

And by ask questions you mean the engagement process that was mentioned in the article before they do anything?

They did spend the money to turn these into 1-ways to begin with. Might as well spend some more to fix it after a poor idea ruined half the neighbourhood's walk-ability.

The engagement process being asking the Joe Public at some random meeting and proposing the idea to council? Great, but that isn't exactly what I mean when I say a study. Let's see some aggregate numbers on sales revenue of the different avenues, let's see some goals on the revenue targets we expect to hit by making this change, and let's offset the goals by the Beltline redevelopment plan already in place adding thousands of units to the market. The City Council should have access to all those numbers and be able to provide insights into the nitty gritty details of their plan. As I see it, there is no real argument or data to support the fact that businesses on 11th and 12th are any less successful than businesses on 17th.

Personally, I say give the Beltline time to grow up. The 17th avenue redevelopment plan has been around since 1988 or longer.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/lower-mount-royal-arp.pdf?noredirect=1

New condos along the 10, 11, and 12 corridors such as Mark, Aura, Oslo, 6th and tenth, and others will naturally increase pedestrian traffic and foster business growth, and provide street front retail options that desirable businesses can move into.

Like it or not it's going to take time, but swinging in the dark by intentionally screwing up traffic flow doesn't sound like a sound strategy to me.

[artvandelay]

Compare retail rents and success between 17th avenue and 11th and 12th. Not even in the same leagues. One way streets kill retail.

You are a smart guy, please tell me you don't actually believe this. :)

The reason that there is limited retail success on 11th and 12th is because they have a mere fraction of the amount of street front CRU space that exists on 17th. Please tell me how changing the direction of traffic is going to improve retail (or overall pedestrian experience) here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=calgary&ll=51.042554,-114.069106&spn=0.001108,0.002409&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.042563,-114.069398&panoid=2ptd12KxcaGDcixhoSX7fA&cbp=12,227.8,,0,-2.31), here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=calgary&ll=51.042461,-114.06636&spn=0.001115,0.002409&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.042461,-114.06636&panoid=fJVVP1pMT9T-snxrIDzYeA&cbp=12,237.49,,0,-0.5&z=19), or here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=calgary&ll=51.041921,-114.080687&spn=0.000557,0.001204&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.041916,-114.080547&panoid=Pg1wOn3S11rT3ndrRnHROA&cbp=12,62.83,,0,-7.52&z=20).
Here is a stretch of 11th that includes a vibrant retail strip (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=calgary&ll=51.042713,-114.074312&spn=0.002229,0.004817&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.042717,-114.074474&panoid=vLOMCL5Hfq95fbxl1yjfXQ&cbp=12,242.5,,0,3.41&z=18). How is this possible when traffic is one way? It can't have anything to do with the wider sidewalks, better streetscaping, and on-street parking - can it?

If the City actually wants to improve the vibrancy 11th and 12th, they should:
- narrow the traffic lanes and widen sidewalks
- remove on street parking restrictions, a row of cars provides a great buffer from traffic
- ensure that new developments have an abundance of street front CRU space (even new buildings like Stella/Nova/Luna, Castello, and Xenex have very little in terms of retail and create dead zones adjacent to the sidewalk)
- plant more street trees
- here's a visual of what this would look like (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=portland+oregon+nightlife&ll=45.522676,-122.673361&spn=0.004773,0.009634&fb=1&hq=nightlife&hnear=Portland,+Multnomah+County,+Oregon&t=h&fll=45.523894,-122.673619&fspn=0.004773,0.009634&z=17&layer=c&cbll=45.522051,-122.673478&panoid=3xME4NvUVU7glfwqX1pW3Q&cbp=12,203.14,,0,0.6)

There is absolutely no need for these roads to be changed to two way traffic. All that will do is make it harder for those of us who live in Connaught or Vic Park to get around when we need to drive.

[Calgarian]

And by ask questions you mean the engagement process that was mentioned in the article before they do anything?

They did spend the money to turn these into 1-ways to begin with. Might as well spend some more to fix it after a poor idea ruined half the neighbourhood's walk-ability.

Did it really ruin the walkability though? how do 11th and 12th really do anything more than just slow pedestrians down by maybe a minute? and there is nothing saying 2 way traffic would change the amount of time someone going N-S has to wait at 11th and 12th.

I get that 2 way streets are better for retail and make pedestrians feel safer (slower traffic is the biggest reason), but this has to be looked at from a city wide perspective. I'm tempted to make the argument that no one would want a street like 11th or 12th going through their neighbourhood, but the Beltline is unique in this city in that it is both a destination in itself and a gateway to the CBD, so comparing it to pretty much any other neighbourhood doesn't make sense. If we were to limit access to downtown through the Beltline what would the alternative route be?

[geotag277]

As it stands, the current situation has several key net negatives to the community - poor circulation of traffic (that example of having to circle multiple blocks to get back to your location), higher speeds and traffic noise (along with the safety issues related to pedestrian-car conflicts), congestion (i.e. increased travel times) for a thousands of commuters, both pedestrian and N-S auto traffic, and subsequent knock-on effects to promoting a healthy retail environment.

I would be happy keeping them 2 way if as you said, light cycle times were changed to favour pedestrian traffic as well as wider sidewalks, curb extensions and other pedestrian safety amendments were added to compensate for the situation that exists currently.

There are several easy fixes to those problems. Want slower speeds? Have slower speed limits. Really easy fix. Also change the signalling timing to prevent green wave traffic and encourage more pedestrian crossings. No problem.

I might agree with wider sidewalks if they were needed but as it stands I walk those streets plenty and they seem plenty wide enough. It's something that's easy to tackle with a one way street because you only really need to close down one lane. I can't imagine attempting a construction project like that on 17th avenue today.

Circling blocks is easy with one way streets. I would rather circle the blocks around 11/12 avenue than 17th avenue and Cameron avenue for example. It seems absurd to suggest that 17th avenue is more traffic friendly for parking given the mess that street is in at all hours of the day.

You keep mentioning safety, but do you have any data which shows 11/12 have more pedestrian-car incidents than 17th avenue? If not, than really you should stop bringing it up as a point of contention.

[artvandelay]

Any change that makes N-S pedestrian traffic easier is a welcome one. The currently heavily favoured east-west auto traffic and green-wave signalling completely acts against the primary benefit of having the highest density neighbourhood next to the highest density employment centre: it ruins the pedestrian experience.

Walking southbound from the north corner of 10th ave on 5th street until cross 12th ave takes around 5 minutes, more than half waiting for East-west traffic. That is similar with 4th street. Between those two alone you have 10,000+ pedestrian commuters everyday that are completely inconvenienced by a road in their own neighbourhood at the expense of cut through traffic, largely from outside the Beltline. No other neighbourhood would be happy with this.

Why should the Beltline continue to pay for the brunt of traffic, accidents, noise and other detrimental effects of speedy one-ways when other neighbourhoods would make it unthinkable for a road connection of even half the speed and capacity? See: Mount Royal 8th street. Its an excellent medium-capacity connection that slowly was traffic calmed, stop signed and turn restricted to the point that it is a publicly financed private road for Mount Royal. Turning these streets into 2-ways would hardly be as restrictive or detrimental to commuter flow than streets like 8th Street which are simple not usable anymore as commuter roads.

I like the engagement and would support any changes that lead to a more pedestrian friendly Beltline whatever the cost to outside commuters. 2-way streets would do that. Commuters don't live here and don't have enough skin-in-the-game to comment against locals that put up with these roads everyday.

Do you actually live in the Beltline?

Because I live on 12th Ave, walk to and from the core everyday, and I've never really come across any of the issues you speak of. The pedestrian experience isn't the greatest, but that is a function of poorly maintained sidewalks that are too narrow for the amount of pedestrian traffic during peak hours. Not exactly sure how they are supposed to time traffic signals for pedestrians when people rarely walk in a linear direction and the pace at which they walk varies so much.

[MichaelS]

What would the cost be to do this? I think it currently costs around $300,000 to build a traffic signal (if someone has a better estimate please share, but this is the latest figure i have heard). All of the signalized intersections on these streets only have half a signal, as the other half is currently not needed due to no traffic in that direction.

I count 30(?) signals between Macleod and 14th. Not sure if it is simple as saying $150k per intersection but lets say it is. Works out to $4.5 million, not including required sign and road marking changes. :shrug:

[artvandelay]

I'm tempted to make the argument that no one would want a street like 11th or 12th going through their neighbourhood, but the Beltline is unique in this city in that it is both a destination in itself and a gateway to the CBD, so comparing it to pretty much any other neighbourhood doesn't make sense. If we were to limit access to downtown through the Beltline what would the alternative route be?

I actually really like living on 12th. As a latte sipper I rarely drive, but occasionally I need to make a trip to Yopville and being so close to 11th and 12th makes it very easy to get to Crowchild, Macleod, or even 9th to Deerfoot. I'd assume that most in my building would agree. As far as the noise goes, it's just a part of downtown living.

[geotag277]

What would the cost be to do this? I think it currently costs around $300,000 to build a traffic signal (if someone has a better estimate please share, but this is the latest figure i have heard). All of the signalized intersections on these streets only have half a signal, as the other half is currently not needed due to no traffic in that direction.

I count 30(?) signals between Macleod and 14th. Not sure if it is simple as saying $150k per intersection but lets say it is. Works out to $4.5 million, not including required sign and road marking changes. :shrug:

You could probably measure the long term congestion impact with a B.

[geotag277]

I actually really like living on 12th. As a latte sipper I rarely drive, but occasionally I need to make a trip to Yopville and being so close to 11th and 12th makes it very easy to get to Crowchild, Macleod, or even 9th to Deerfoot. I'd assume that most in my building would agree. As far as the noise goes, it's just a part of downtown living.

The train is much noisier than any traffic on 11 or 12. People here are acting like 11th ave is a 110 km/h freeway.

[MasterG]

Did it really ruin the walkability though? how do 11th and 12th really do anything more than just slow pedestrians down by maybe a minute? and there is nothing saying 2 way traffic would change the amount of time someone going N-S has to wait at 11th and 12th.

I get that 2 way streets are better for retail and make pedestrians feel safer (slower traffic is the biggest reason), but this has to be looked at from a city wide perspective. I'm tempted to make the argument that no one would want a street like 11th or 12th going through their neighbourhood, but the Beltline is unique in this city in that it is both a destination in itself and a gateway to the CBD, so comparing it to pretty much any other neighbourhood doesn't make sense. If we were to limit access to downtown through the Beltline what would the alternative route be?

See my next comment. I am fine with 2-ways if appropriate pedestrian safety considerations are made (i.e. wider sidewalks on 5th street, curb extensions etc.); as these are not part of the idea floated by the councillor, they are even more of a pipe-dream.

As for commute times: it typically is around 2 minutes of waiting for 1:30 of walking to cross 10-11-12 for a total of 3:30. The problem is that comparing minutes to a driver vs. a pedestrian are not alike. My walk is 10 minutes. 2 minutes of waiting is a 20% increase in commute time. It is not much but to think 1 minute is nothing is to refer to a world where commute times are generally quite a bit longer. It doesn't have to be that way. The city policy supports the idea of sustainable transportation priority. And unlike other areas of the city, the Beltline is a largely active-mode commuter area. Pedestrians should have priority.

I don't believe that switching from a 1-way to a 2-way would see the reduction in capacity that would qualify as "limiting access" to downtown. In key areas, bar traffic from left turns if necessary. if anything having 2 ways in more areas improves access and prevents excessive circling. I am entirely for improving access to and from downtown and Beltline. I just don't see how slowing traffic would bring anything but a benefit for the people that live there.

But if we are improving access lets do it: additional bridge across the Bow from 19th Street NW to Sunalta. Removal of traffic restrictions on 8th street for the SW. Connect 17th Ave through Stampede Park. Albeit expensive, through a underpass or two to really connect things. Even more level crossings in for pedestrians or cyclists.

While you are right, the Beltline is unique in Calgary. The most unique feature is that unlike other areas of the city, the Beltline is a largely active-mode commuter area. Pedestrians should have priority not only because it improves the community's walk-ability, safety and attractiveness, it also supports development goals of sustainability. And most importantly because they are the majority commuter-type in most of the neighbourhood already.

[MasterG]

Do you actually live in the Beltline?

Because I live on 12th Ave, walk to and from the core everyday, and I've never really come across any of the issues you speak of. The pedestrian experience isn't the greatest, but that is a function of poorly maintained sidewalks that are too narrow for the amount of pedestrian traffic during peak hours. Not exactly sure how they are supposed to time traffic signals for pedestrians when people rarely walk in a linear direction and the pace at which they walk varies so much.

I do live in the Beltline. They don't so much as have to time for pedestrians (your point exactly, you can't really time for different walks) as reduce the cycle times on the lights. all three are close to 1 minute E-W cycles which happen to work out so that average speed walkers largely line up with at least 2 or 3 full waits of the 3 lights in 10-11-12. It is impossible without a short jog to make 10th and 11th without waiting, particularly southbound on 5th and 4th. Try it next time during rush-hour.

Reduced cycle-times would be effective enough.

And you are right again, putting some larger sidewalks would be my ideal situation. especially 5th street. I am surprised no one has been clipped by a mirror there (for a while at least).

Perhaps I wouldn't be so concerned about pedestrian wait times if the pedestrian experience was more enjoyable with better walks, lighting and a buffer with the fast moving traffic and splash-zone. I am in a hurry to get out of there :)

[geotag277]

I seriously don't buy the whole "doubling back" thing as an issue. As a driver, one way streets offer a plethora of convenience:

- easy access to parking on both sides of the street
- easy and swift ability to turn right and left along any corridor
- straightforward routing and understanding of proximity to area

If 11 and 12 offered convenient parking on both sides of the street along the whole strip I could see that being more effective than the parking mess of 17th avenue.

There are also several small businesses along 11 and 12 already which people seem to be ignoring here, including art galleries, restaurants, bars, spas, etc.. I haven't seem much evidence to show that the shops at 17th are any more successful.

[Boris2k7]

As someone who lives in the Beltline and commutes to destinations regularly outside the Beltline I absolutely have skin in the game.

Here is a simple solution to the green wave thing inconveniencing pedestrians. Make the light cycles faster. Done, problem solved. Let's spend the 5$ on changing the signal timing as a first step to increasing pedestrian traffic and see what happens. Using that as an excuse to completely redesign the traffic flow is insane to me.

I would support any measure that is clearly a net positive to the community. As it stands, this initiative has one very clear net negative effect - causing congestion - and no clear benefit. That stinks of a bad proposal.

Pretty much in line with how I feel about 2-way conversion. The problem I have with the kind of thinking behind this policy is that, when you get down to it, the actors that support it tend to treat pedestrians (and cyclists, but I don't really want to go there right now...) who live in Beltline and work in the downtown core (or live in Beltline and work in Beltline) as the only type of commuter that matters. Everyone else just gets to deal with the consequences.

Thing is, I could get behind every street being two ways, if not for the fact that we seem to go out of our limit the usefulness of every other road through traffic calming, closures, and other nuisances. Kinda gets rid of the natural advantage of a street grid. Get rid of the nuisances and we can talk about conversion.

[fusili]

Many, many, many, many businesses have failed on 17th avenue. It seems a little disingenuous to say that all businesses on 11th and 12th are suffering due to being on a one way street and businesses on 17th are more successful.

Do you have any data to back up your assertion that businesses on 17th are in general more successful then businesses on 11/12? Where is the data showing higher average retail rents and less turn over?

I've heard "one way streets" kill retail repeated over and over, but have seen very little proof. To me at this point it is simply a quaint phrase.

Failed businesses on 17th like Rogers (CIBO), Blockbuster (Servus), the Dollar Store (Jameson's), Source Adult Video (80th and Ivy, Sobey's, La Vida Loca), and the 7th street convenience store (Analog Coffee)? You are right, when dollar stores, video shops and convenience stores are replaced with restaurants, rents must be going down. 17th avenue has the highest street retail rent in the city. Average ~$60/sq ft IIRC.

[fusili]

Many, many, many, many businesses have failed on 17th avenue. It seems a little disingenuous to say that all businesses on 11th and 12th are suffering due to being on a one way street and businesses on 17th are more successful.

Do you have any data to back up your assertion that businesses on 17th are in general more successful then businesses on 11/12? Where is the data showing higher average retail rents and less turn over?

I've heard "one way streets" kill retail repeated over and over, but have seen very little proof. To me at this point it is simply a quaint phrase.

Here:

Ted Brovitz, Converting Downtown Streets from One-Way to Two-Way Yields Positive Results, The Urban Transportation Monitor (2000)."]Ted Brovitz, Converting Downtown Streets from One-Way to Two-Way Yields Positive Results, The Urban Transportation Monitor (2000)

Meagan Elizabeth Baco, One-way to Two-way Street Conversions as a Preservation and Downtown Revitalization Tool: The Case Study of Upper King Street, Charleston, South Carolina (M.Sc. Thesis, Historic Preservation, Graduate School of Clemson University and the Graduate School of the College of Charleston, May 2009).

G. Wade Walker, Walter M. Kulash, and Brian T. McHugh, Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks? TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium (1999), 5. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf

Thoreau Institute, Should Cities Convert One-Way Streets to Two Way?, The Vanishing Automobile 30, 29 October 2008. http://www.ti.org/vaupdate30.html

Walker, Kulash, and McHugh, Downtown Streets, 5. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf

John D. Edwards, Converting One-Way Streets to Two-Way: Managing Traffic on Main Street (Washington, D.C.: The National Trust's Main Street Center, 2002). http://www.preservationnation.org/main-street/main-street-news/2002/06/converting-one-way-to-two-way.html

[woychukb]

As one of the pedestrian commuters from the beltline to the core I have to say I don't see the point to this project. Are pedestrians really that scared of traffic that moves at 60 instead of 50? Is there really that much extra traffic noise? I will agree with improving north/south movements but shortened cycles on the lights would probably help a lot more than introducing two-way traffic. Personally I end up jaywalking more often than not across 11/12 because it's more convenient than waiting at each light - and jaywalking is a whole lot easier/safer on one way streets where you only have to watch for a break in one direction.

I guess I'd just really hate to see the city create another two messes like 17th Ave which sucks for pretty much everybody.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

If the main concept for this idea is to make 11th and 12th more walkable, I would think there are better, less risky options to achieve that (mentioned already) that might net the desired result ... The risk, obviously, is creating more congestion within the Beltline

[fusili]

Having high lease rates is good for a land lord but not good for businesses trying to survive or residents who are charged higher for goods and services.

I'd like to see some data which shows lease rates, business turn over, and revenue per square foot between these streets.

I doubt we'll ever see a study. The philosophy with politicians is spend tax dollars first, ask questions later.

This is the dumbest statement I have ever heard. Rents are high because business is doing well. This is like saying the office market in Boise is doing well because rents are low and Manhattan is terrible because rents are high. When the price of something increase it means there is demand.

Like Yoggi Berra said "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

[fusili]

You are a smart guy, please tell me you don't actually believe this. :)

The reason that there is limited retail success on 11th and 12th is because they have a mere fraction of the amount of street front CRU space that exists on 17th. Please tell me how changing the direction of traffic is going to improve retail (or overall pedestrian experience) here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=calgary&ll=51.042554,-114.069106&spn=0.001108,0.002409&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.042563,-114.069398&panoid=2ptd12KxcaGDcixhoSX7fA&cbp=12,227.8,,0,-2.31), here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=calgary&ll=51.042461,-114.06636&spn=0.001115,0.002409&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.042461,-114.06636&panoid=fJVVP1pMT9T-snxrIDzYeA&cbp=12,237.49,,0,-0.5&z=19), or here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=calgary&ll=51.041921,-114.080687&spn=0.000557,0.001204&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.041916,-114.080547&panoid=Pg1wOn3S11rT3ndrRnHROA&cbp=12,62.83,,0,-7.52&z=20).
Here is a stretch of 11th that includes a vibrant retail strip (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=calgary&ll=51.042713,-114.074312&spn=0.002229,0.004817&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.042717,-114.074474&panoid=vLOMCL5Hfq95fbxl1yjfXQ&cbp=12,242.5,,0,3.41&z=18). How is this possible when traffic is one way? It can't have anything to do with the wider sidewalks, better streetscaping, and on-street parking - can it?

If the City actually wants to improve the vibrancy 11th and 12th, they should:
- narrow the traffic lanes and widen sidewalks
- remove on street parking restrictions, a row of cars provides a great buffer from traffic
- ensure that new developments have an abundance of street front CRU space (even new buildings like Stella/Nova/Luna, Castello, and Xenex have very little in terms of retail and create dead zones adjacent to the sidewalk)
- plant more street trees
- here's a visual of what this would look like (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=portland+oregon+nightlife&ll=45.522676,-122.673361&spn=0.004773,0.009634&fb=1&hq=nightlife&hnear=Portland,+Multnomah+County,+Oregon&t=h&fll=45.523894,-122.673619&fspn=0.004773,0.009634&z=17&layer=c&cbll=45.522051,-122.673478&panoid=3xME4NvUVU7glfwqX1pW3Q&cbp=12,203.14,,0,0.6)

There is absolutely no need for these roads to be changed to two way traffic. All that will do is make it harder for those of us who live in Connaught or Vic Park to get around when we need to drive.

Ok, I don't believe one way streets kill retail, but they sure as hell don't help. Many retail businesses are "discretionary" in the sense they depend on people to drive by them, and make a quick decision to stop in. Therefore "exposure" is very important. You want to be somewhere where the most amount of people will see, and pass by, your store. One a one way street, exposure is limited to only those traveling in one direction. For instance, the camera store on 7th and 11th can only "capture" drivers going west, but not those going east. It cuts your market significantly.

[geotag277]

Failed businesses on 17th like Rogers (CIBO), Blockbuster (Servus), the Dollar Store (Jameson's), Source Adult Video (80th and Ivy, Sobey's, La Vida Loca), and the 7th street convenience store (Analog Coffee)? You are right, when dollar stores, video shops and convenience stores are replaced with restaurants, rents must be going down. 17th avenue has the highest street retail rent in the city. Average ~$60/sq ft IIRC.

Several restaurants in Kuzina, the coffee shop across Analog, La Vida Loca used to be Wild Wing, another restaurant by the way which closed down.

Show me the data. I don't want a quote from a random stranger on the internet about rental costs. I want to see a peer reviewed study that analyzing the rental cost of both locations, the revenue averages across avenues, and overall business turn over on both sections of the city.

By the way, it's a bit strange to say that on it's own having high rental costs is a positive thing. Having high rental costs makes it harder for a business to survive, increases costs to customers, and generally only benefits the landlord. Sure, if you're in the landlord business I can see why pretending 17th avenue is better for retail businesses can allow you to charge more rent, but on it's own the number is pretty meaningless.

[geotag277]

This is the dumbest statement I have ever heard. Rents are high because business is doing well. This is like saying the office market in Boise is doing well because rents are low and Manhattan is terrible because rents are high. When the price of something increase it means there is demand.

Like Yoggi Berra said "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

You clearly have no idea about the commercial retail rental business. Rent is typically the highest cost a small business pays for behind payroll. High rent is likely up there with the top reasons a business fails.

[Calgarian]

I actually really like living on 12th. As a latte sipper I rarely drive, but occasionally I need to make a trip to Yopville and being so close to 11th and 12th makes it very easy to get to Crowchild, Macleod, or even 9th to Deerfoot. I'd assume that most in my building would agree. As far as the noise goes, it's just a part of downtown living.

I just mean that they are big fast roads that carry a lot of traffic, and suburbanites only like that in other neighbourhoods, not their own. I used to live on 11th and my only problem was the dust every time there was a chinook or in the spring before the street sweepers were out.

I personally don't have an issue with 11th and 12th as one way streets, but I'm not paranoid that someone is going to jump the curb and kill me lol. Aside from a few hours each day, there is a buffer of parked cars anyway. Also, as others have said, the best solution for pedestrian safety and comfort would be wider sidewalks.

[geotag277]

Here:

Ted Brovitz, Converting Downtown Streets from One-Way to Two-Way Yields Positive Results, The Urban Transportation Monitor (2000)."]Ted Brovitz, Converting Downtown Streets from One-Way to Two-Way Yields Positive Results, The Urban Transportation Monitor (2000)

Meagan Elizabeth Baco, One-way to Two-way Street Conversions as a Preservation and Downtown Revitalization Tool: The Case Study of Upper King Street, Charleston, South Carolina (M.Sc. Thesis, Historic Preservation, Graduate School of Clemson University and the Graduate School of the College of Charleston, May 2009).

G. Wade Walker, Walter M. Kulash, and Brian T. McHugh, Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks? TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium (1999), 5. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf

Thoreau Institute, Should Cities Convert One-Way Streets to Two Way?, The Vanishing Automobile 30, 29 October 2008. http://www.ti.org/vaupdate30.html

Walker, Kulash, and McHugh, Downtown Streets, 5. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf

John D. Edwards, Converting One-Way Streets to Two-Way: Managing Traffic on Main Street (Washington, D.C.: The National Trust's Main Street Center, 2002). http://www.preservationnation.org/main-street/main-street-news/2002/06/converting-one-way-to-two-way.html

I take it you didn't even read most of these. From the clickable versions:

"On just about any ground imaginable -- safety, congestion, pollution, and effects on most businesses -- one-way grids and one-way couplets are a superior method of moving people and vehicles. The idea that pedestrian-friendly design can be enhanced by creating more pedestrian-deadly environments is just a planning fantasy."

http://www.ti.org/vaupdate30.html

"Street conversions to two-way traffic should be based upon real and anticipated economic benefits, such as reduced vacancy rates, increased retail sales and employment, increased pedestrian activity, and/or increased property tax assessments. While a growing number of communities are opting for two-way traffic in their business districts and there is significant anecdotal evidence that positive changes occur after most street conversions, there has been limited research on actual retail sales and property value increases. More economic data is needed to support the economic benefits of these conversions."

http://www.preservationnation.org/main-street/main-street-news/2002/06/converting-one-way-to-two-way.html

The essays advocating for conversion are just that - essays. No data, no studies, no supporting evidence, just pie in the sky ideas about safety, economy, and pedestrian traffic. If we are going to do this we should demand better than that.

[geotag277]

A few comments on safety from one of the linked articles:

"One review of two-way to one-way conversions found that two-way streets caused 163 percent more pedestrian accidents in Sacramento, and 100 percent more pedestrian accidents in Portland OR, Hollywood FL, and Raleigh NC. This study called one-way streets "the most effective urban counter-measure" to pedestrian accidents.

The above-cited study is from 1976, and is titled "National Highway Safety Needs Study," published by the Research Triangle Institute for the US Department of Transportation."

"The claim that slowing traffic will reduce the safety problems of two-way streets is diminished by the fact that congested streets with narrow lanes will also slow emergency service vehicles. As pointed out in "The Vanishing Automobile," studies of traffic calming show that delays to emergency service vehicles will kill far more people than will be saved by the slower speeds (p. 352)."

If you have evidence to support increased pedestrian safety with two way streets, please show it.

[fusili]

You clearly have no idea about the commercial retail rental business. Rent is typically the highest cost a small business pays for behind payroll. High rent is likely up there with the top reasons a business fails.

Yes, and therefore high rents are a sign of a successful area. If businesses can afford high rents it means they are moving a tremendous volume of product. Businesses on 17th avenue move out because they just aren't doing good enough in a highly competitive market.

Look at Chinook mall. Rents there are the highest in the City. Is Chinook failing then? Is Chinook doing worse than Northland mall?

I understand retailers want low rents, who doesn't. But high rents have one massive benefit to lower rents: more customers.

A failing commercial strip is one where rents are plummeting, stores are vacant and pawn shops and predatory money lenders move in.

[speedog]

A few comments on safety from one of the linked articles:

"One review of two-way to one-way conversions found that two-way streets caused 163 percent more pedestrian accidents in Sacramento, and 100 percent more pedestrian accidents in Portland OR, Hollywood FL, and Raleigh NC. This study called one-way streets "the most effective urban counter-measure" to pedestrian accidents.

The above-cited study is from 1976, and is titled "National Highway Safety Needs Study," published by the Research Triangle Institute for the US Department of Transportation."

"The claim that slowing traffic will reduce the safety problems of two-way streets is diminished by the fact that congested streets with narrow lanes will also slow emergency service vehicles. As pointed out in "The Vanishing Automobile," studies of traffic calming show that delays to emergency service vehicles will kill far more people than will be saved by the slower speeds (p. 352)."

If you have evidence to support increased pedestrian safety with two way streets, please show it.
Not trying to be picky but how relevant is data from a 38 year old study?