Calgary Roads

[Full Mountain]

Colossal maybe but if we want to sort it out properly then that is what it's going to take.

Yes, lets wipe out a significant portion of a community, a park and create a colossal monstrosity over the river. :haha::???::runaway:

[DoubleK]

Yes, lets wipe out a significant portion of a community, a park and create a colossal monstrosity over the river. :haha::???::runaway:

Ok. Where do I sign up?

[J-D]

Yes, lets wipe out a significant portion of a community, a park and create a colossal monstrosity over the river. :haha::???::runaway:

Deal. :tup:

[93JC]

Colossal maybe but if we want to sort it out properly then that is what it's going to take.

Depends on what you mean by "properly" or rather what your goal is. If your priority is to accommodate as much automobile traffic as possible then I suppose the original plan would seem appealing to you despite the preposterous billion dollar cost.

I drive across the Bow River on Crowchild at least twice a day to get to work and home again and I don't have much of a problem with the way it is now. Most of the traffic seems to be going to and coming from Bow Trail, whereas there seems to be comparatively little traffic crossing the bridge (particularly northbound in the morning). What screws things up the most is the people from westbound 10th Ave and Bow Trail cutting across two lanes of traffic on Crowchild, right on the (sometimes icy) bridge, to get to Memorial Drive.

So I for one liked the idea of creating a new bridge that would separate traffic from westbound Bow Trail wanting to get on to Memorial Drive from the traffic that is going north on Crowchild. But it's only palatable if the cost is within reason and the plan doesn't entail destroying large portions of established neighbourhoods to do it. There is a narrowing back down to two lanes between University Drive and 16th Ave and that also slows things down but I think there are more reasonable solutions to broadening this part of Crowchild than gobbling up over 1 km worth of homes in Briar Hill to do it.

[lubicon]

Depends on what you mean by "properly" or rather what your goal is. If your priority is to accommodate as much automobile traffic as possible then I suppose the original plan would seem appealing to you despite the preposterous billion dollar cost.

I drive across the Bow River on Crowchild at least twice a day to get to work and home again and I don't have much of a problem with the way it is now. Most of the traffic seems to be going to and coming from Bow Trail, whereas there seems to be comparatively little traffic crossing the bridge (particularly northbound in the morning). What screws things up the most is the people from westbound 10th Ave and Bow Trail cutting across two lanes of traffic on Crowchild, right on the (sometimes icy) bridge, to get to Memorial Drive.

So I for one liked the idea of creating a new bridge that would separate traffic from westbound Bow Trail wanting to get on to Memorial Drive from the traffic that is going north on Crowchild. But it's only palatable if the cost is within reason and the plan doesn't entail destroying large portions of established neighbourhoods to do it. There is a narrowing back down to two lanes between University Drive and 16th Ave and that also slows things down but I think there are more reasonable solutions to broadening this part of Crowchild than gobbling up over 1 km worth of homes in Briar Hill to do it.

That is definitely one of the main issues. But what screws things up the most is the fact that Crowchild effectively goes from 3 lanes of traffic south of the river down to a single through lane across the river and up to McMahon Stadium before it goes back to 3 lanes again. Travelling south to north there is only a single lane of traffic that runs all the way through. The other lanes all either stop or start somewhere in between which really bogs things down.

Southbound is marginally better as it only narrow from three lanes to two.

[MalcolmTucker]

Any changes that get rid of the west bound 10 ave entrance being on the left of crowchild won't get my support. Right now my commute to work involves no merges at all (from 10th Ave to the University) and I would prefer my commute staying this lazy.

[Fuzz]

What about a cheap(ish) fix like this:
http://i62.tinypic.com/kei7gl.jpg
Keep the existing ramps for Crowchild access, and add an extra lane that merges(red and orange) this is signed only as Memorial access, east and west. Crowchild can merge into this lane to access Memorial as well. Re-rout eastbound 10th(maybe westbound as well?) on the green line.

[DoubleK]

What about a cheap(ish) fix like this:

Keep the existing ramps for Crowchild access, and add an extra lane that merges(red and orange) this is signed only as Memorial access, east and west. Crowchild can merge into this lane to access Memorial as well. Re-rout eastbound 10th(maybe westbound as well?) on the green line.

IMO, that will only perpetuate the problem that exists. NB Crowchild to EB Memorial movement needs to be eliminated.

That is a no cost/low cost solution that needs to be tried first before spending a significant amount that will come from elsewhere in the budget.

[suburbia]

IMO, that will only perpetuate the problem that exists. NB Crowchild to EB Memorial movement needs to be eliminated.

Eliminating an important flow is not the solution. That's like stopping a flood by trying to simply block a major part of a river's flow.

[lineman]

Especially since the nearest northbound to eastbound memorial access is at 10 St NW.

[UofC.engineer]

Before anything is done to this road the city should conduct a study to see where most of the cars originate and are destined for.

I would guess: NW neighborhoods->Foothills industrial park.(Visa versa in the afternoon)


It might be cheaper to just extend the 306 BRT from Westbrook->New bridge over river to 29th street->foothills->UofC->Brentwood station

But it would require building a new bridge anyways so maybe not.

[milomilo]

Depends on what you mean by "properly" or rather what your goal is. If your priority is to accommodate as much automobile traffic as possible then I suppose the original plan would seem appealing to you despite the preposterous billion dollar cost.

I drive across the Bow River on Crowchild at least twice a day to get to work and home again and I don't have much of a problem with the way it is now. Most of the traffic seems to be going to and coming from Bow Trail, whereas there seems to be comparatively little traffic crossing the bridge (particularly northbound in the morning). What screws things up the most is the people from westbound 10th Ave and Bow Trail cutting across two lanes of traffic on Crowchild, right on the (sometimes icy) bridge, to get to Memorial Drive.

So I for one liked the idea of creating a new bridge that would separate traffic from westbound Bow Trail wanting to get on to Memorial Drive from the traffic that is going north on Crowchild. But it's only palatable if the cost is within reason and the plan doesn't entail destroying large portions of established neighbourhoods to do it. There is a narrowing back down to two lanes between University Drive and 16th Ave and that also slows things down but I think there are more reasonable solutions to broadening this part of Crowchild than gobbling up over 1 km worth of homes in Briar Hill to do it.

That section of Crowchild is one of only a few sections of major roads in Calgary that still needs (and is still possible) to be fixed. It's only going to get worse from now so we might as well plan for it. Once that and a few other sections (like Glenmore) are fixed we shouldn't need to worry too much about road improvements in the inner city.

I'd say fixing it properly would be defined as fixing all movements so they all are as they should be (exit and merge from the right), eliminating the flat intersections and making it continuous 3 lanes in both directions. There is no simple or cheap way of doing that.

Why are we so sentimental about replacing some houses there with a vital piece of infrastructure? It's only crappy 60s SFHs there anyway, which are being rapidly torn down anyway to make way for infill. The area will become more walkable and access better if it didn't have two enormous four way intersections cut through it, with very pedestrian unfriendly timings.

[craner]

^ I have to totally agree with milomilo here.

[sim]

That section of Crowchild is one of only a few sections of major roads in Calgary that still needs (and is still possible) to be fixed. It's only going to get worse from now so we might as well plan for it. Once that and a few other sections (like Glenmore) are fixed we shouldn't need to worry too much about road improvements in the inner city.

I'd say fixing it properly would be defined as fixing all movements so they all are as they should be (exit and merge from the right), eliminating the flat intersections and making it continuous 3 lanes in both directions. There is no simple or cheap way of doing that.

Why are we so sentimental about replacing some houses there with a vital piece of infrastructure? It's only crappy 60s SFHs there anyway, which are being rapidly torn down anyway to make way for infill. The area will become more walkable and access better if it didn't have two enormous four way intersections cut through it, with very pedestrian unfriendly timings.

Yeah, nothing says walkable like a trenched freeway. If history has taught us anything, it's that once you "fix" a "congestion problem", there are absolutely no adverse effects anywhere further down the network and at no time ever is there a call to then "fix" another proximate intersection via grade separation. In addition, the benefit of the "fix" is never ever diminished after several years and the new capacity due to flow improvements experiences an absolutely static demand.

Now without being too facetious, did it actually ever occur to, well anyone here advocating for it, that constantly improving flow, adding capacity, etc. is actually not a solution at all? I mean, empirical evidence, theory and behavioural economics aside, is that not within the realm of possibility?

[craner]

:facepalm:

[lineman]

How is a trenched freeway any less walkable than what currently exists now? Could it be possible that with a trench, west hillhurst and parkdale could be better connected with at-grade ped overpasses?

And who in their right mind would walk down a freeway anyway? :P

[Fuzz]

IMO, that will only perpetuate the problem that exists. NB Crowchild to EB Memorial movement needs to be eliminated.

That is a no cost/low cost solution that needs to be tried first before spending a significant amount that will come from elsewhere in the budget.
I'm not sure how that would make anything worse. It maintains Crowchild access on the left for people continuing on Crowchild. It also directs any Memorial traffic onto the right side, so they never need to cross a lane, and ads a lane. The only lane change necessary is northbound Crowchild into the Memorial exit lane.

[milomilo]

Yeah, nothing says walkable like a trenched freeway. If history has taught us anything, it's that once you "fix" a "congestion problem", there are absolutely no adverse effects anywhere further down the network and at no time ever is there a call to then "fix" another proximate intersection via grade separation. In addition, the benefit of the "fix" is never ever diminished after several years and the new capacity due to flow improvements experiences an absolutely static demand.

Now without being too facetious, did it actually ever occur to, well anyone here advocating for it, that constantly improving flow, adding capacity, etc. is actually not a solution at all? I mean, empirical evidence, theory and behavioural economics aside, is that not within the realm of possibility?

Yes, yes we all on here know that added road capacity always ends up being used up - but so does the same thing happen with LRT lines, and that's not a reason not to build things. We still end up with the benefit of added capacity and improved access, and probably safety too.

What's being suggested here isn't an outrageous increase in capacity, it's removing a massive bottleneck so that capacity is similar from Stoney down to Glenmore, and reconfiguring what is probably the worst interchange I've ever seen anywhere.

How is a trenched freeway any less walkable than what currently exists now? Could it be possible that with a trench, west hillhurst and parkdale could be better connected with at-grade ped overpasses?

And who in their right mind would walk down a freeway anyway? :P

Yes, exactly. Have people seen what exists around Kensington/Crowchild currently? There is no way you can dress up two gigantic four way signalised intersections to make it a pleasant place to be. A trench would indeed be improvement to the area - light sequences on Kensington would be more favourable to pedestrians and there could be multiple pedestrian footbridges level with the existing road network.

[Joborule]

We talked about walkability, but how the heck can Crowchild be considered a walkable corridor? It was a road designed and functioned for automobiles, and it's only realistic option is to continue to be catered for that. Trying to make it something it can't be is only going to make it un-ideal for all parties involved.

We don't mind that it's up to appropriate freeway standards north of 24th avenue NW, and south of 17th avenue SW; so why is that such a taboo idea in the middle? Just because it's right by downtown doesn't mean it's function has to be different, because it can't be, nor should it.

In the end, the study should result in similar results to the previous one. Maybe more imbrace of HOVs, but sacrificing the lanes ROW for bike lanes and/or pathways would be stupid. Road lanes are going to be needed, houses are going to need to be torn down. The road should have 3 lanes of through traffic between 24 ave N and 17 ave S if they want to do this right, and not have it be a major problem that has to be addressed with again in the future.

Crowchild cuts off communities on either side of it now, and quite frankly it's going to stay that way because no one wants to cross high speed, heavy traffic flow intersections. It's a bridge we crossed long time ago when Crowchild was originally constructed. Building pedestrian bridges could actually increase cross community traffic since they won't be intimidated by the intersection crossings. Also, by cutting off the community from the unattractive aesthetics of the freeway, it could have a positive effect with the removal of idle traffic pollution, noise, and cutting traffic. Perhaps property value could go up?

[Full Mountain]

Yes, yes we all on here know that added road capacity always ends up being used up - but so does the same thing happen with LRT lines, and that's not a reason not to build things. We still end up with the benefit of added capacity and improved access, and probably safety too.

What's being suggested here isn't an outrageous increase in capacity, it's removing a massive bottleneck so that capacity is similar from Stoney down to Glenmore, and reconfiguring what is probably the worst interchange I've ever seen anywhere.

We have to change the discussion, since induced demand does affect all modes of transportation we need to talk about spending our money in the most efficient manner, given the general lack of funding (regardless of the price of hydrocarbons). For a high use corridor we need to consider how we move people & goods in the most cost efficient manner, this may be transit or HOV, but ultimately we need to look at other solutions rather than another lane of SOV's going in the same direction.

Don't get me wrong I realize that transit doesn't fit all trips but if it doesn't exist it doesn't fit any trips and if it has the same priority as the rest of the traffic it is a much less desirable mode of transportation.

Yes, exactly. Have people seen what exists around Kensington/Crowchild currently? There is no way you can dress up two gigantic four way signalised intersections to make it a pleasant place to be. A trench would indeed be improvement to the area - light sequences on Kensington would be more favourable to pedestrians and there could be multiple pedestrian footbridges level with the existing road network.

If I remember correctly, the plan was not a trenched portion of Crowchild near Hillhurst, but rather somewhat raised.

I know that some of the options at least by 5th ave had Crowchild raised and making something of a wall between communities. I can't remember what the pedestrian options were apart from sidewalks along 5th under Crowchild, but there might have been other alternatives I don't remember.

We talked about walkability, but how the heck can Crowchild be considered a walkable corridor? It was a road designed and functioned for automobiles, and it's only realistic option is to continue to be catered for that. Trying to make it something it can't be is only going to make it un-ideal for all parties involved.

We don't mind that it's up to appropriate freeway standards north of 24th avenue NW, and south of 17th avenue SW; so why is that such a taboo idea in the middle? Just because it's right by downtown doesn't mean it's function has to be different, because it can't be, nor should it.

In the end, the study should result in similar results to the previous one. Maybe more imbrace of HOVs, but sacrificing the lanes ROW for bike lanes and/or pathways would be stupid. Road lanes are going to be needed, houses are going to need to be torn down. The road should have 3 lanes of through traffic between 24 ave N and 17 ave S if they want to do this right, and not have it be a major problem that has to be addressed with again in the future.

Crowchild cuts off communities on either side of it now, and quite frankly it's going to stay that way because no one wants to cross high speed, heavy traffic flow intersections. It's a bridge we crossed long time ago when Crowchild was originally constructed. Building pedestrian bridges could actually increase cross community traffic since they won't be intimidated by the intersection crossings. Also, by cutting off the community from the unattractive aesthetics of the freeway, it could have a positive effect with the removal of idle traffic pollution, noise, and cutting traffic. Perhaps property value could go up?

The fight here isn't about Crowchild being walkable (though maybe one day it will be come a linear park), its about cutting cross traffic and how a freeway would impact cross traffic (all modes). While crossing Crowchild now isn't great it is far better than having to climb up and over it in some sort of overpass scenario. Further the impact of an overpass (5th or Kensington Rd) wouldn't be limited to the corridor it would impact a couple blocks either side of Crowchild as the overpass returns to grade.

If it was trenched and covered, the impact could be mitigated, but I doubt there is the political will or money for a Glenmore dig/Boston Big Dig style project. Any raised or surface free flow option should be minimized to ensure that connectivity across the corridor is maintained and/or enhanced.

IMO it would be very short sighted decision to create a scar like this between two communities in the midst of revitalization. I find that 16th with lights provides a significant barrier between communities currently and a free flow situation on this section of Crowchild would be exponentially worse for division between the communities.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Why not tunnel? haha I know you in Calgary LOVE tunnels.

[craner]

Lots of good comments. For me, in the broadest sense, it can basically be summarized by these two by milomilo & Joborule:

What's being suggested here isn't an outrageous increase in capacity, it's removing a massive bottleneck so that capacity is similar from Stoney down to Glenmore, and reconfiguring what is probably the worst interchange I've ever seen anywhere.

and

We don't mind that it's up to appropriate freeway standards north of 24th avenue NW, and south of 17th avenue SW; so why is that such a taboo idea in the middle? Just because it's right by downtown doesn't mean it's function has to be different, because it can't be, nor should it.

[sim]

How is a trenched freeway any less walkable than what currently exists now? Could it be possible that with a trench, west hillhurst and parkdale could be better connected with at-grade ped overpasses?

And who in their right mind would walk down a freeway anyway? :P

It wouldn't be. It really isn't now either, but first we need to frame/ have an understanding of what walkable actually means, which is accessibility and not whether something can be walked across or over, etc., because that's not it.

[sim]

:facepalm:

Well played.

[milomilo]

http://i.imgur.com/APtzMZ1.png

Thinking about this, I don't think it needs to be this complex and an extra bridge across the bow can be avoided. Simply put signals on Bow trail and underneath Crowchild, and have onramps parallel going on to Crowchild. The LRT will get in the way a little but there are lots of similar situations across the city. The northbound Crowchild bridge over Bow will probably have to move west but I think that would be the biggest construction needed.

This would massively simplify the whole thing, removing all the silly tight loops and should allow 3 lanes each way until north of the river. Of course this only fixes that interchange and there is more work on the other side of the Bow.


Something similar to Crowchild/33rd:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Calgary,+AB/@51.0236012,-114.1183749,403m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x537170039f843fd5:0x266d3bb1b652b63a

[Ferreth]

Email I got from the City of interest to you roads people:

The City of Calgary recently completed a functional planning study to identify the configuration of a future interchange at the intersection of 16 Avenue and 19 Street N.E. The study also considered what changes might be required at Deerfoot Trail and Barlow Trail when an interchange is constructed at 19 Street N.E. because they are so close together.

The City implemented a thorough engagement program and used input to develop and refine options for the corridor. In November 2014, The City presented the 16 Avenue / 19 Street N.E. Interchange Functional Planning Study recommendations (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1353&doctype=AGENDA&itemid=31432) to Council, which include changes to the Deerfoot Trail and Barlow Trail. Council has asked City staff to hold additional public engagement sessions to ensure Calgarians are aware of the proposed changes to the other intersections. The project name has been changed to 16 Avenue N.E. Functional Planning Study – Deerfoot Trail to Barlow Trail to better reflect the scope of the study.

The public is invited to attend one of three open houses to learn more about the project and the recommendations.

Pineridge
Thursday, Feb. 19, 2015, 5 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Village Square Leisure Centre (2623 56 St N.E.)

Rundle
Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015, 5 p.m. - 8 p.m.
St. Rupert School (111 Rundlehill Dr N.E.)

Mayland Heights/Vista Heights
Tuesday, Mar. 10, 2015, 5 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Crossroads Community Association (1803 14 Ave N.E.)

Please feel free to forward this information to others that might be interested.

[Mazrim]

There is an Open House tonight (5-8) and Saturday morning (10-1) for the Macleod Trail / 162 Avenue interchange. It's being held at Bishop O'Byrne. They'll be showing further information based on feedback from the first open houses and narrowed down options for the interchange.

http://www.calgary.ca/engage/Pages/Macleod%20Trail%20162%20AveS%20Interchange.aspx

[You Need A Thneed]

McKnight Blvd is being twinned between Stoney Trail and 100 street E.

[speedog]

McKnight Blvd is being twinned between Stoney Trail and 100 street E.
I'm surprised this twinning project isn't going all the way out to Conrich what with all the vastly increased amount of truck traffic that the CNR yard out there is generating. This just means the pinch point will be moved further east to 100th Street.

[Ramsayfarian]

Not sure what amused me more, the article or the comments.

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/kusie-city-is-ignoring-the-plight-of-motorists

[Fuzz]

Gah! Each sentence is more painful to read than the previous one. She's denser than a neutron star. Just when you think she can't say anything stupider, you read the next line, and there it is. Perhaps I'm fortunate all my ad blocking ad-ons render facebook comments invisible. I'm not sure I could handle it.

[shogged]

But guys, she's a soccer mom.

[UofC.engineer]

Another pro car article in my opinion:

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/farkas-how-to-ease-congestion-in-calgary

Thoughts?

[Ferreth]

Another pro car article in my opinion:

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/farkas-how-to-ease-congestion-in-calgary

Thoughts?

The harder I think about it, the more my head hurts.

Although I lol'd at the line:

Questionable practices, such as sending staff to street corners to count bikes with a clipboard, have needlessly set businesses and cyclists against each other

Really? Were city staff beating up cyclists and/or businesses with their clipboards?

This is more of an anti-city hall rant IMO, Manning Foundation style.

[lineman]

i have no problems with traffic. Of course, choosing to live, work and play within a decent proximity works wonders with spending less time behind the wheel. I wish people took more personal responsibility with the choices they make rather than dump blame on our road system.

[fusili]

Another pro car article in my opinion:

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/farkas-how-to-ease-congestion-in-calgary

Thoughts?

http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/driven-apart/

If anyone ever quotes the TomTom, TTI or other such study, link them to this webpage and study. Worst congestion metric ever.

Let's look at Kansas, Phoenix and Indianapolis which Farkas applauds as "leading the way." According to a similar report (the TTI), they all "waste" 15, 44 and 39 hours per year in traffic. Yet, their average annual travel times during rush hour are 229, 191 and 225 hours respectively. This gives them a time travel index of 1.06, 1.12 and 1.05 (non-congested hours divided by congested hours)

Compare this to "congested" cities such as New York, Chicago or San Francisco, who "waste" 41, 44, and 55 hours each year respectively. Yet, their total time spent commuting each year is 163, 136 and 186 hours. These cities are much larger, their drivers spend less time in traffic, yet they are generally seen as more "congested"? (Their time travel indices are 1.45, 1.23 and 1.31- much "worse than Kansas, Phoenix and Indianapolis).

It is a completely backward metric.

[CalgaryAlex]

Another pro car article in my opinion:

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/farkas-how-to-ease-congestion-in-calgary

Thoughts?

Lol, Manning Foundation.

I like this:
Nor is it to give large but well-intentioned transit projects a free pass.

Farkas doesn't supply any justification for this absurd statement, and the numbers indicate that this isn't the case. I don't even know what he means by "free pass"! Does he mean that we just flood Calgary Transit with funding without any thought put into it? If so, where did he even get that from?

Not a single one of these pro-car advocates understands that there will always be congestion. With capacity comes congestion. Increase the former and you get an increase in the latter.

Nor do they acknowledge that it's not about one mode of transportation versus another. It's all about balance and options between all modes.

[MasterG]

http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/driven-apart/

If anyone ever quotes the TomTom, TTI or other such study, link them to this webpage and study. Worst congestion metric ever.

Let's look at Kansas, Phoenix and Indianapolis which Farkas applauds as "leading the way." According to a similar report (the TTI), they all "waste" 15, 44 and 39 hours per year in traffic. Yet, their average annual travel times during rush hour are 229, 191 and 225 hours respectively. This gives them a time travel index of 1.06, 1.12 and 1.05 (non-congested hours divided by congested hours)

Compare this to "congested" cities such as New York, Chicago or San Francisco, who "waste" 41, 44, and 55 hours each year respectively. Yet, their total time spent commuting each year is 163, 136 and 186 hours. These cities are much larger, their drivers spend less time in traffic, yet they are generally seen as more "congested"? (Their time travel indices are 1.45, 1.23 and 1.31- much "worse than Kansas, Phoenix and Indianapolis).

It is a completely backward metric.

This exactly.

My commute takes either 5 minutes or 8 minutes, depending on if a car is in the way so I can't make a key intersection light. This metric gives my 8 commute a congestion rating of 1.6, more congested than all major cities in North America.

[fusili]

This exactly.

My commute takes either 5 minutes or 8 minutes, depending on if a car is in the way so I can't make a key intersection light. This metric gives my 8 commute a congestion rating of 1.6, more congested than all major cities in North America.

The other thing the TTI and TomTom miss completely- walkers, cyclists and transit riders. If we were to implement a priority signalling program in Calgary that hypothetically improved 10K transit riders commutes by 10 minutes each, but slowed down 25K drivers commutes by 3 minutes each, it would be a positive net benefit of 25K minutes per day in terms of overall commute times. But to TomTom it would only look like 75K minutes of wasted time every day.

[Fuzz]

I've got an aprox 15 minute bike commute. Almost 4 minutes of that is spent on the cycle track to get through 4 lights due to what looks like hostile light timing. I hope they fix it soon, last year was way better.

[craner]

Although it's a fairly useless article, I didn't find it to be particularly "pro car".

[bigcanuck]

5th Ave SW afternoon lane reversal is progressing - traffic lights for westbound traffic have been installed at most locations. I think the aim is to launch this following the May long weekend.

[Full Mountain]

5th Ave SW afternoon lane reversal is progressing - traffic lights for westbound traffic have been installed at most locations. I think the aim is to launch this following the May long weekend.

Noticed that on 7th St on my ride in this morning.

[dmuzika]

5th Ave SW afternoon lane reversal is progressing - traffic lights for westbound traffic have been installed at most locations. I think the aim is to launch this following the May long weekend.

Is there any further information on the project?

[eggbert]

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/Roads/Pages/Traffic/Traffic-management/Lane-reversals/Lane-reversal-5-Avenue.aspx

Map:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/Roads/Documents/Traffic/Traffic-management/Lane-reversals/Lane-Reversal-Pilot-5-Ave-SW.pdf

This is going to help out my commute home a whole bunch!

[lubicon]

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/Roads/Pages/Traffic/Traffic-management/Lane-reversals/Lane-reversal-5-Avenue.aspx

Map:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/Roads/Documents/Traffic/Traffic-management/Lane-reversals/Lane-Reversal-Pilot-5-Ave-SW.pdf

This is going to help out my commute home a whole bunch!

I honestly don't see how this is going to help things at all. There is no increased takeaway capacity on Bow Trail and they are going to F things up by installing yet another set of lights on the 4th Avenue connector. Now rather than 4th Ave being free flow all the way out of DT, both 4th AND 5th will be bogged down by lights. How is this going to make things any better? My commute out of DT (on the days I am there) is now going to be worse.

[Policy Wonk]

I know there is some internal dissent about this one, particularly concerning where it crosses the LRT at 9th Street. There are enough collisions as it is at 4th Ave. Distracted morons will stop for the light on the tracks.

[eggbert]

I honestly don't see how this is going to help things at all. There is no increased takeaway capacity on Bow Trail and they are going to F things up by installing yet another set of lights on the 4th Avenue connector. Now rather than 4th Ave being free flow all the way out of DT, both 4th AND 5th will be bogged down by lights. How is this going to make things any better? My commute out of DT (on the days I am there) is now going to be worse.

I'm sorry I totally disagree. I take this road home every day for many years and most of the time your stuck at a red light for the LRT and it backs up 4th Ave so much. At least this will give some cars the opportunity to spread the load across more lights on 5th Ave.

I agree on the extra light on the connector to Bow but I think that will be extremely short, even a yield would more than do for the cars coming from 5th to give priority to 4th Ave cars.

As for Bow, it's not near capacity. It only gets busy around the turn to northbound Crowchild because of that screwed up road. If you're heading that way, I guess you'll get to the slowdown quicker. If you're heading up Bow or southbound on Crowchild, then it helps out a lot.

I don't think this is any magic life changer but the city is estimating a 15% increase in getting cars through. It all helps out in my books. Plus all of the other connectors/lane reversals they done have proven to work and I've used them all. Why not use existing roads more efficiently than build new ones?

I'll report back my finding once it opens on May 19th.

[Joborule]

There's a proposed roundabout for the 68 Street N.E. and Monterey Square intersection (http://www.calgary.ca/engage/Pages/Roundabout%2068%20Street%20NE.aspx) to deal with drivers coming south of Stoney onto west 16th avenue, wanting to go south on 68th street. Currently it's blocked off for them, so they have to make U turns (or try alternatives illegal methods) at the Monterey Square intersection.

The proposed solution would address the U turn issue by technically making it legal, and as well get rid of the lights there, eliminating wait times.

Reading the comments section for this project, I feel for those who have to deal with public input. So much fear spewed out from ignorance.

[YYCguys]

I think roundabouts in general are a great idea to keep traffic flowing. They are few and far between in Calgary, so that's why drivers are scared of them. I sure wish I had a roundabout in my particular neighborhood (I live in Airdrie, actually), where there's an intersection that is just an accident waiting to happen due to poor sightlines for advancing into the intersection. It would make things so much safer!

[DoubleK]

Wow, some (perhaps most) of those comments are extremely short sighted.

[Mazrim]

Wow, some (perhaps most) of those comments are extremely short sighted.

It probably won't surprise you that the vast majority of the people who attended the public information session and were upset with the proposal were senior citizens. Afraid of change/the unknown?

Personally, I don't see why this would negatively affect business at the shopping area, but what do I know?

One of the comments in that link Joborule posted was correct. Traffic Circles HAVE been dropped by most jurisdictions. They're being replaced with modern Roundabouts. There is a difference!

[Ferreth]

There's a proposed roundabout for the 68 Street N.E. and Monterey Square intersection (http://www.calgary.ca/engage/Pages/Roundabout%2068%20Street%20NE.aspx) to deal with drivers coming south of Stoney onto west 16th avenue, wanting to go south on 68th street. Currently it's blocked off for them, so they have to make U turns (or try alternatives illegal methods) at the Monterey Square intersection.

The proposed solution would address the U turn issue by technically making it legal, and as well get rid of the lights there, eliminating wait times.

Reading the comments section for this project, I feel for those who have to deal with public input. So much fear spewed out from ignorance.

We had pretty much the same kind of comments when the city proposed a roundabout rather than putting in traffic lights at 19th St & 14th Ave NE. Some people really do think these intersections are death traps!

Personally, I'm fine with the single lane entry/exit ones, but the multi lane ones make me nervous - no one seems to know the rules for whom to yield to, and I can't compensate for someone who is going to side swipe me. At least in the single lane roundabouts, I can adjust my speed to make sure I'm not going to be where the person who may or may not yield for me being already in the circle.

[craner]

When is a proper interchange planned for 16th Ave. & 68th St. NE ?

Once the 19th St. lights are gone (as seen on this forum) 68th will be the only stop light on the TCH east in the city until west of Deerfoot.

[Mazrim]

When is a proper interchange planned for 16th Ave. & 68th St. NE ?

Once the 19th St. lights are gone (as seen on this forum) 68th will be the only stop light on the TCH east in the city until west of Deerfoot.

It's been planned for a long time...it looks like it will have to sit in "no-funding" purgatory for a long time like the Bowfort Road interchange did.

[YYCguys]

It's been planned for a long time...it looks like it will have to sit in "no-funding" purgatory for a long time like the Bowfort Road interchange did.

I've not driven out to the west edge of the city for awhile. Have they finally approved funding/started construction on that interchange?

[Joborule]

I've not driven out to the west edge of the city for awhile. Have they finally approved funding/started construction on that interchange?

It's suppose to start up this spring/summer.

[Full Mountain]

It probably won't surprise you that the vast majority of the people who attended the public information session and were upset with the proposal were senior citizens. Afraid of change/the unknown?

Personally, I don't see why this would negatively affect business at the shopping area, but what do I know?

One of the comments in that link Joborule posted was correct. Traffic Circles HAVE been dropped by most jurisdictions. They're being replaced with modern Roundabouts. There is a difference!

Now I'm curious what you mean, this [link (http://www.alaskaroundabouts.com/mythfact1.html)] seems to indicate yield at entry is key difference, if that is the case I think all circular intersections in Calgary are roundabouts, not traffic circles.

[flipstah]

Roundabouts are the most efficient way of getting people around.

If only Calgarians knew how to use them. Only way to educate them is exposure, since they forgot it in Class 5 class. :haha:

Anyone see how they f*cked up 12th Ave? :hell:

[Calgarian]

Roundabouts are the most efficient way of getting people around.

If only Calgarians knew how to use them. Only way to educate them is exposure, since they forgot it in Class 5 class. :haha:

Anyone see how they f*cked up 12th Ave? :hell:

12th was pretty backed up this morning, was that from the cycle track? today looked worse than usual and it's been under construction for a month already.

[flipstah]

12th was pretty backed up this morning, was that from the cycle track? today looked worse than usual and it's been under construction for a month already.

Yup. Whoever did the line changes is a potato.

[suburbia]

12th was pretty backed up this morning, was that from the cycle track? today looked worse than usual and it's been under construction for a month already.

I've traveled on 12th several times since they've reduced the lanes. Massive impact on downtown movement in that area. I think the strategic planning to push the cycling agenda by introducing traffic congestion is the wrong way to go.

[lineman]

The problem is that you can barely see the newly painted lines. It makes it hard to differentiate between the grooved out lines and the new ones.

[DizzyEdge]

They were doing painting late last night, hopefully it will look better this morning

[Full Mountain]

They were doing painting late last night, hopefully it will look better this morning

Saw a video on twitter yesterday where someone was parked along 12th (where there is no parking signs currently) and it was causing chaos.

[lubicon]

Signs along the TCH indicating a June start for the Bowfort Road interchange. They have actually already cleared all the brush from the south side of the highway which I am assuming is to begin prepping for the detour roads.

Long term pain for long term gain. My brief 6 month hiatus without construction along my commute will be a fond memory now. Back to construction zones for me, just like the previous 17 years. :( Between this project and SWRR my commuting fate is pretty much sealed for the next decade or more.

[Fuzz]

I'll have to remember to take Crowchild/Stoney for my mountain trips now. Hopefully they get through this one quickly.

[Full Mountain]

The Crowchild Trail study is finishing the 'engagement process design' phase

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/05/31/calgary-officials-set-to-take-second-swing-at-crowchild-tr-corridor-study

Good to see they have made up their minds about phase 2 before getting there:

“Crowchild Tr. is a major north-to-south thoroughfare — ideally, we’ll get to a point of free-flowing traffic, not unlike Glenmore Tr., where you can go end-to-end without having to stop at lights and so on.”

One hopes that this doesn't slant what the outcome of the project is. BTW this goes against of the first rule of the City's engage! policy. Paraphrased Don't engage if the decision has already been made.

[Mazrim]

One hopes that this doesn't slant what the outcome of the project is. BTW this goes against of the first rule of the City's engage! policy. Paraphrased Don't engage if the decision has already been made.

It's okay to have a goal when you start the project and then use the public comments and response to modify as needed. We well can't let the public decide every aspect of the design, can we?

[Full Mountain]

It's okay to have a goal when you start the project and then use the public comments and response to modify as needed. We well can't let the public decide every aspect of the design, can we?

True but if you go into public consultations with too much of a defined view and no interest in changing it then it's just a waste of time and resources for all involved.

IMO a statement like the one I quoted has the potential to dissuade people from getting involved, if people think the end result is guaranteed then they won't bother saying anything.

The better way to approach this is:

Phase 1 - Identify the problem
Phase 2 - Identify desired outcomes
Phase 3 - Identify potential solutions


If you only identify a single facet to the problem in Phase 1 the rest of the process is doomed (i.e. problem is car congestion, while ignoring all the other potential problems of having a 6 lane roadway in the middle of two communities with little buffering). If you complete phase 1 successfully then you need to balance the outcomes to match the problems.

My concern is that all the consultation in the world won't change the plan to bulldoze a bunch of communities in an effort to make a freeway. From looking at the studies webpage I think they are following a good process, but the quote doesn't give me confidence that the process will have an influence. The goals of the study also give me reason to be concerned.


Identify short-, medium-, and long-term plans that will accommodate continued growth in Calgary including upgrades needed to move high volumes of vehicle traffic, improve travel along and across Crowchild, and contribute positively to bordering communities.
Update the 1978 plan to align with the long-range Calgary Transportation Plan and Municipal Development Plan, approved by Council in 2009.
Confirm the amount of space (i.e. right-of-way) needed for the future Crowchild Trail.


IMO project illustrates an issue with having the transportation planning departments separated between modes (roads vs transit), this project should be looking at all modes of transportation and how we can improve the efficiency of people and goods movement along the corridor. I would bet a $1B would build a pretty nice BRT system from the NW to the SE via this corridor providing a huge capacity increase for moving people while also freeing up space for goods movement.

BTW this also illustrates issues with the way we count traffic, it should be people/goods based i.e. how many people and how many vehicles designed for goods moved through an area, then consider modal split of the people.

[sim]

It's okay to have a goal when you start the project and then use the public comments and response to modify as needed. We well can't let the public decide every aspect of the design, can we?

Again, boxed-in problem. This isn't about the public deciding the aspects of design.*

It is okay to have a goal; it is also okay to acknowledge that goal may well be [is] counter to what even broader community goals are and that it is outdated.

*I can't stress this enough - it's time we understood that road design is not really a very difficult in and of itself - it's about the broader implications that road / transit / whatever has on communities and how we live. We need to get past believing that road design is the goal itself.

[Full Mountain]

Again, boxed-in problem. This isn't about the public deciding the aspects of design.*

It is okay to have a goal; it is also okay to acknowledge that goal may well be [is] counter to what even broader community goals are and that it is outdated.

*I can't stress this enough - it's time we understood that road design is not really a very difficult in and of itself - it's about the broader implications that road / transit / whatever has on communities and how we live. We need to get past believing that road design is the goal itself.

This is the biggest issue I have with transportation (particularly roads) planning in Calgary.

[Mazrim]

Again, boxed-in problem. This isn't about the public deciding the aspects of design.*

It is okay to have a goal; it is also okay to acknowledge that goal may well be [is] counter to what even broader community goals are and that it is outdated.

*I can't stress this enough - it's time we understood that road design is not really a very difficult in and of itself - it's about the broader implications that road / transit / whatever has on communities and how we live. We need to get past believing that road design is the goal itself.

This is not how the general public perceives this, however.

[Full Mountain]

This is not how the general public perceives this, however.

Expand?

[Mazrim]

Expand?

I've attended many open houses on both sides of the equation. When I get to see the comments on these projects, even though more than 1/2 of the content is on Transit, Pedestrians, Cycling, HOV, and so on, more than 80% of the comments are on the driving experience.

A recent open house had a huge focus on ways to improve all modes of transportation, yet the majority of the comments said things like "You won't get people to switch to public transport by pissing them off" or "HOV will just frustrate everyone." There was distressing lack of comments on the configuration of pathways, bus queue jumps, and crossing improvements. As an aside, my favorite that always shows up all the time is "You would be stupid not to consider a Cloverleaf design. It's much more efficient than a Diamond."

The people the City regularly engages at these sessions end up being the ones who help steer the ultimate direction of the design of a project (not just the roads, mind you. I didn't specifically say road in my last post), and as much as this forum would like to think otherwise, it's actually a decent representation of this city as a whole.

[Full Mountain]

I've attended many open houses on both sides of the equation. When I get to see the comments on these projects, even though more than 1/2 of the content is on Transit, Pedestrians, Cycling, HOV, and so on, more than 80% of the comments are on the driving experience.

A recent open house had a huge focus on ways to improve all modes of transportation, yet the majority of the comments said things like "You won't get people to switch to public transport by pissing them off" or "HOV will just frustrate everyone." There was distressing lack of comments on the configuration of pathways, bus queue jumps, and crossing improvements. As an aside, my favorite that always shows up all the time is "You would be stupid not to consider a Cloverleaf design. It's much more efficient than a Diamond."

The people the City regularly engages at these sessions end up being the ones who help steer the ultimate direction of the design of a project (not just the roads, mind you. I didn't specifically say road in my last post), and as much as this forum would like to think otherwise, it's actually a decent representation of this city as a whole.

It's true the general population has very poor foresight, how to engage people to think about not only what they want to out of the project in the immediate future but also the impacts of those desires, is the challenge.

However it's been interesting to see how the Main Streets feedback is very much active modal focused and quite progressive in it's feedback. Wonder if the other part of the population will get in a flap when the implementation starts.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, if the Calgary Transportation Plan draws Crowchild as a Skeletal Road[PDF] (http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a//www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/mdp-maps.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1), and most other Skeletal Roads are limited access freeways, can the department really go out and consult based on one option being not a Skeletal Road?

I don't think so, unless directed by council.

[craner]

“Crowchild Tr. is a major north-to-south thoroughfare — ideally, we’ll get to a point of free-flowing traffic, not unlike Glenmore Tr., where you can go end-to-end without having to stop at lights and so on.”


Yes please.

[Full Mountain]

Well, if the Calgary Transportation Plan draws Crowchild as a Skeletal Road[PDF] (http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a//www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/mdp-maps.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1), and most other Skeletal Roads are limited access freeways, can the department really go out and consult based on one option being not a Skeletal Road?

I don't think so, unless directed by council.

It's also listed as part of the primary transit network.

A few interesting items from the complete street policy [pdf] (http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Council-policy-library/TP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf) that should be included in the engagement

SKELETAL
These roadways primarily provide movement between one area of the city and another. They are typically higher speed roadways, used for private vehicles and goods movement with limited support allowances for active modes of travel.

1) SKELETAL ROAD (FAMILY: SKELETAL – FIGURE 1.4-1)
Formerly known as expressways and freeways, these roads promote the movement of vehicular traffic over long distances and typically carry a minimum of 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd). They operate at high speeds (80-100 km/h), have limited direct access, and therefore limited interaction with adjacent land uses. The interchange spacing on Skeletal Road is 2.0 – 2.4 km. Facilities within the Skeletal Road right-of-way for walking and cycling are not common, but sometimes vital to regional pathway connectivity.

My follow up question is should this really be a skeletal road in this section? Will it being a skeletal road make that portion of the city a better place to be?

[Full Mountain]

This. No amount of notice of open houses or surveys will get some people to pay attention until the work begins.

The number of times I have actually been to an open house and had good conversations with City planners and learned about projects on their website, only to hear from other members of the community weeks or months later that 'there was no consultation' and 'no one told us this was happening' is kind of amazing.

Not sure if there is a cure for apathy though, and I am not sure what more the City can be doing on many of these projects. (I can't remember how the Crowchild consultation was rolled out though, so this may not have been one of the better ones.)

I would agree for the most part the city is pretty proactive on the engagement and can only reach the people interested in being reached.

[craner]

^^Yes & yes.

[Full Mountain]

^^Yes & yes.

Or will it simply make it an easier place to move through? And is that the desired result for the people that live beside it?

[MalcolmTucker]

My follow up question is should this really be a skeletal road in this section? Will it being a skeletal road make that portion of the city a better place to be?

I am guessing you noticed the same thing I did - 16th Ave near Bowness.

I guess a follow up question could be - would a freeway be better or worse than a wider non-freeway, so capacity was as high.

Taking houses for a freeway is annoying, but for a 10 lane urban boulevard with trees in the middle? hmmm.

[milomilo]

Or will it simply make it an easier place to move through? And is that the desired result for the people that live beside it?

I live right next to it and Crowchild not being a disaster would definitely make my life slightly better. I don't think the opinions of a few potential nimbys like myself should outweigh the needs of the city as a whole, however.

How can the situation be worse though? There's already a huge roadway with equally massive intersections. It's ugly as sin there and I honestly think a Glenmore style solution would make the area nicer.

[sim]

I've attended many open houses on both sides of the equation. When I get to see the comments on these projects, even though more than 1/2 of the content is on Transit, Pedestrians, Cycling, HOV, and so on, more than 80% of the comments are on the driving experience.

A recent open house had a huge focus on ways to improve all modes of transportation, yet the majority of the comments said things like "You won't get people to switch to public transport by pissing them off" or "HOV will just frustrate everyone." There was distressing lack of comments on the configuration of pathways, bus queue jumps, and crossing improvements. As an aside, my favorite that always shows up all the time is "You would be stupid not to consider a Cloverleaf design. It's much more efficient than a Diamond."

The people the City regularly engages at these sessions end up being the ones who help steer the ultimate direction of the design of a project (not just the roads, mind you. I didn't specifically say road in my last post), and as much as this forum would like to think otherwise, it's actually a decent representation of this city as a whole.

This is true, but it does also get into other rather complex issues such as do people really know what they want. Can people know what they want? And the public is but one stakeholder.

This was recently discussed in one of the transit threads and Byebyebaby also put it well there. What he said nevertheless addresses why road design is not the problem in and of itself, and actually why you are right that people should not often be asked directly about it. At the highest level, people want a liveable community, and that is hard to argue with. There is of course room to discuss on how that is achieved.

Suburban networks are largely proof positive of this mechanism playing out. Everyone wants quiet, safe streets, believing that if streets loop and lollipop to direct traffic onto arterials, this is achieved. Well that works only on an incremental basis and local scale. Unfortunately, streets actually get more dangerous and some select streets become much more noisy (and fragile and congestion prone and etc). And the pattern goes on and on.

Thus, what people want, even if they knew exactly what that was and how to achieve it does have to be balanced with other goals.

[craner]

I live right next to it and Crowchild not being a disaster would definitely make my life slightly better. I don't think the opinions of a few potential nimbys like myself should outweigh the needs of the city as a whole, however.

How can the situation be worse though? There's already a huge roadway with equally massive intersections. It's ugly as sin there and I honestly think a Glenmore style solution would make the area nicer.

I agree and I've thought the same thing about 14th Street SW. How is adding overpasses going to make it worse ?

[Full Mountain]

I am guessing you noticed the same thing I did - 16th Ave near Bowness.

I guess a follow up question could be - would a freeway be better or worse than a wider non-freeway, so capacity was as high.

Taking houses for a freeway is annoying, but for a 10 lane urban boulevard with trees in the middle? hmmm.

16th Ave is a problem in general as it switches from skeletal to urban boulevard and back twice as it goes through the city, I'm really not sure how they intend for that to work.

You could actually increase capacity of crowchild by decreasing the speed, more and more studies are showing that high speed roads are subject to random slowdowns much more than slightly slower ones.

That said the lane layout of this portion of crowchild is problematic when looking at capacity, regardless of speed. only having a single lane southbound through is a major issue as is the cut over traffic from 9th to memorial. However those issues can be fixed with far less money than the original plan intended to spend.

[Full Mountain]

I live right next to it and Crowchild not being a disaster would definitely make my life slightly better. I don't think the opinions of a few potential nimbys like myself should outweigh the needs of the city as a whole, however.

How can the situation be worse though? There's already a huge roadway with equally massive intersections. It's ugly as sin there and I honestly think a Glenmore style solution would make the area nicer.

I'm not saying it should be a disaster I'm just not sure you want a Glenmore or Deerfoot out your back door, I know I wouldn't.

[Full Mountain]

This is true, but it does also get into other rather complex issues such as do people really know what they want. Can people know what they want? And the public is but one stakeholder.

This was recently discussed in one of the transit threads and Byebyebaby also put it well there. What he said nevertheless addresses why road design is not the problem in and of itself, and actually why you are right that people should not often be asked directly about it. At the highest level, people want a liveable community, and that is hard to argue with. There is of course room to discuss on how that is achieved.

Suburban networks are largely proof positive of this mechanism playing out. Everyone wants quiet, safe streets, believing that if streets loop and lollipop to direct traffic onto arterials, this is achieved. Well that works only on an incremental basis and local scale. Unfortunately, streets actually get more dangerous and some select streets become much more noisy (and fragile and congestion prone and etc). And the pattern goes on and on.

Thus, what people want, even if they knew exactly what that was and how to achieve it does have to be balanced with other goals.

This is one area where I think Rolin has gotten it right, the focus should be on the outcome rather than how we get there. If the stakeholders (one of which is the public) defines the outcome they want to see, the planners, designers, engineers, etc. can then take that outcome and design the system to achieve it.

[YYCguys]

With the limited room available to improve Crowchild from 17th Ave S to 24th Ave N, perhaps a stacked freeway in the area would be a good idea (ie: northbound lanes on a bridge above southbound lanes, etc).

[mersar]

With the limited room available to improve Crowchild from 17th Ave S to 24th Ave N, perhaps a stacked freeway in the area would be a good idea (ie: northbound lanes on a bridge above southbound lanes, etc).

Why is there "limited room"? The city own's the first couple houses adjacent to most of that stretch north of the river, probably 1/2 of the stretch is already quite wide and the costs of stacking it would far outweight land acquisition to just buying out and bulldozing a few dozen houses.

That said, the width of the road isn't the issue in most places. A stacked freeway won't solve traffic lights and inane lane jogging.

[sim]

I agree and I've thought the same thing about 14th Street SW. How is adding overpasses going to make it worse ?

Well because this is a systems level problem.

Interchanges and freeways beget interchanges and freeways.

If we "fix" this corridor by making it totally free flowing, all you'll see is peak narrowing - more traffic in the same amount of time, even before accounting for generated traffic - which will come from users of existing roads and existing modes.

So now you'll just have higher and more intense volumes on "downstream" streets like 9 Ave, 12 ave, 17 Ave and maybe Memorial, Kensington, etc, until either these are now a new "problem" or their "problem" causes upstream issues all the way to the problem you've just solved.

You'll have reduced transit mode share by widening the relative gap in time savings even before accounting for the fact that access has just been made harder and less attractive (because stairs into an 80,000 vpd traffic abyss aren't all that great), and you'll have increased the barrier effect, even if only psychologically. You'll also watch your accident severity rate go up, and so to, your global emissions.

That's all and only in the short run.

In the long run, because people generally have constant travel time budgets, you'll watch your urban boundaries ever be pushed outward, exacerbating every issue (and more) that I just stated above.

Now you have new problems. A lot of new problems. Unfortunately, you've recently spent a lot of money to fix the problem that has now caused these new problems, that are even more expensive to fix:

Want to make transit competitive again? Well there is burying it or elevating it. Want to "encourage" people to walk again? Throw a greenway down every street, add an expensive and likely underutilized plaza and spend several million in public engagement. Maybe a nice pedestrian bridge..??

If human behaviour were at all analogous to storm run-off, then I'd say, "yeah fix Crowchild." It's not. Crowchild as is, is currently a large benefit.

[CalgaryAlex]

Well because this is a systems level problem.

Interchanges and freeways beget interchanges and freeways.

If we "fix" this corridor by making it totally free flowing, all you'll see is peak narrowing - more traffic in the same amount of time, even before accounting for generated traffic - which will come from users of existing roads and existing modes.

So now you'll just have higher and more intense volumes on "downstream" streets like 9 Ave, 12 ave, 17 Ave and maybe Memorial, Kensington, etc, until either these are now a new "problem" or their "problem" causes upstream issues all the way to the problem you've just solved.

Couldn't agree more with your entire post.

The general public will never, ever understand that increased capacity (whether due to extra lanes or increased speed) will do nothing to reduce congestion. As soon as Crowchild is more convenient/faster/wider, more people will use it and it will put further strain on peak time road use in this city.

I do believe Crowchild is nonsensical with lane changes, etc. These problems should be looked at, for the sake of clarity and cutting down on stop-and-go bottlenecks. But demolishing houses to add extra lanes or going back to 1950 with a stacked highway (which would be fought tooth and nail by anyone living even remotely close to it) isn't the answer here.

[MalcolmTucker]

I wonder if you could do something like a super 2 express lanes to add more through capacity while retaining everything else as is. Elevate 2 additional lanes from around 17th Ave SW to north of 24th. No on or off, one north, one south. You could also put up collapsible posts to stop the merge then two lane changes in 300 meters that people still attempt. If well integrated, it could also be host to one of the spoke to spoke transit connectors.

[DizzyEdge]

Could you simply trench it with all of the various turnoffs split between Kensington Rd and 5th Ave instead of the current situation where you can merge all directions at each of those? I really prefer a plan where 5th and Kensington road can be walked, biked, etc across at grade, without having to climb up windswept ped overpasses.

[milomilo]

Couldn't agree more with your entire post.

The general public will never, ever understand that increased capacity (whether due to extra lanes or increased speed) will do nothing to reduce congestion. As soon as Crowchild is more convenient/faster/wider, more people will use it and it will put further strain on peak time road use in this city.

I do believe Crowchild is nonsensical with lane changes, etc. These problems should be looked at, for the sake of clarity and cutting down on stop-and-go bottlenecks. But demolishing houses to add extra lanes or going back to 1950 with a stacked highway (which would be fought tooth and nail by anyone living even remotely close to it) isn't the answer here.

Should we just reduce every road to one lane then? If increasing capacity can only increase congestion, the opposite has to be true also?

Apologies for the strawman - but there has to be a middle ground. Solving this problem isn't so much about vastly increasing capacity, but more efficiently using the infrastructure we've got. What's there now is two highly used roads funneling through a neighbourhood street network and then possibly the most stupidly designed interchange on the planet. What we have isn't good for anyone right now, and either doing nothing or decreasing capacity even further will do nothing to make the area friendlier to pedestrians or make the streetscape less hostile.

I wonder if you could do something like a super 2 express lanes to add more through capacity while retaining everything else as is. Elevate 2 additional lanes from around 17th Ave SW to north of 24th. No on or off, one north, one south. You could also put up collapsible posts to stop the merge then two lane changes in 300 meters that people still attempt. If well integrated, it could also be host to one of the spoke to spoke transit connectors.

What do you mean by that? That's what you have to do to make that movement, there's no other option. In fact, all traffic from the south heading north has to filter briefly into one lane, it's idiotic and not the fault of the drivers.

[milomilo]

Could you simply trench it with all of the various turnoffs split between Kensington Rd and 5th Ave instead of the current situation where you can merge all directions at each of those? I really prefer a plan where 5th and Kensington road can be walked, biked, etc across at grade, without having to climb up windswept ped overpasses.

It's the only option I can see working - elevated would never be accepted, but a trench would decrease noise/ugliness and eliminate the 5 minute wait for lights that everyone is forced to endure right now. Or perhaps a shallower trench and berms either side.

The cost though...

[CalgaryAlex]

Should we just reduce every road to one lane then? If increasing capacity can only increase congestion, the opposite has to be true also?

Apologies for the strawman - but there has to be a middle ground. Solving this problem isn't so much about vastly increasing capacity, but more efficiently using the infrastructure we've got. What's there now is two highly used roads funneling through a neighbourhood street network and then possibly the most stupidly designed interchange on the planet. What we have isn't good for anyone right now, and either doing nothing or decreasing capacity even further will do nothing to make the area friendlier to pedestrians or make the streetscape less hostile.

No, I fully agree that Crowchild needs vast improvements, but you know what people will say in these public consultations: "Add four more lanes!" People who say these things don't understand what that implies in relation to other roads, nor do they understand that congestion will never go away. They also don't understand that it isn't feasible to have a Stoney Trail-style road running along the Crowchild corridor.

I never said that we should decrease capacity. And I definitely agree with you in that we need to take a look at the space Crowchild already takes up and see what can be done with it from an organizational perspective. The lane changes, speed limit variations, clusterfucks of interchanges (btw, 16th/University Dr/Crowchild has baffled me forever), etc., all need to be analyzed and altered.

If they have space (currently a few lots on each side) to implement small-ish interchanges similar to the ones at Charleswood or Brisebois, then that could be a solution. We don't need enormous cloverleaf interchanges for every roadway in the city. Smaller intersections also reduce the effect of a roadway cutting off one community from another.

I'm certain something can be done if planners ignore the incessant banter about "more lanes, more lanes, more lanes" and focus on innovative, progressive solutions (such as reducing speed, as Full Mountain suggested).

One thing I can promise is that when they start to study any and all possibilities available, the average Calgary driver's automatic dismissal of roundabouts will enrage many who are engaged in the process.

[MalcolmTucker]

What do you mean by that? That's what you have to do to make that movement, there's no other option. In fact, all traffic from the south heading north has to filter briefly into one lane, it's idiotic and not the fault of the drivers.

Eliminate the movement. We have plenty of other intersections without all direction access. Can always turn left at Kensington Road, or take another route to get to Memorial.

[milomilo]

No, I fully agree that Crowchild needs vast improvements, but you know what people will say in these public consultations: "Add four more lanes!" People who say these things don't understand what that implies in relation to other roads, nor do they understand that congestion will never go away. They also don't understand that it isn't feasible to have a Stoney Trail-style road running along the Crowchild corridor.

I never said that we should decrease capacity. And I definitely agree with you in that we need to take a look at the space Crowchild already takes up and see what can be done with it from an organizational perspective. Those crazy interchanges need to be fixed, for sure. The lane changes, speed limit variations, clusterfucks of interchanges (btw, 16th/University Dr/Crowchild has baffled me forever), etc.

If they have space (currently a few lots on each side) to implement small-ish interchanges similar to the ones at Charleswood or Brisebois, then that could be a solution. We don't need enormous cloverleaf interchanges for every roadway in the city. Smaller intersections also reduce the effect of a roadway cutting off one community from another.

I'm certain something can be done if planners ignore the incessant banter about "more lanes, more lanes, more lanes" and focus on innovative, progressive solutions (such as reducing speed, as Full Mountain suggested).

One thing I can promise is that when they start to study any and all possibilities available, the average Calgary driver's automatic dismissal of roundabouts will enrage many who are engaged in the process.

We are in agreement then :tup:

I have to say though, any solution worth doing will be enormously expensive I think. It'll be a tough sell and there may well be projects more deserving of the money. But once it's done it would be fair to call the road network there 'complete' and wouldn't need to receive any major new road infrastructure ever again.