Calgary Roads

[CalgaryAlex]

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.

:cheers:

Very, very true. Hopefully when they make decisions, they make the right ones that won't cost us huge down the line.

[andasen]

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.



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.

The congestion on Crowchild broadly has its source by the constrained capacity of Downtown roads. The only effective solution that can be provided is to enable the N-S traffic to bypass the congestion associated with downtown.

[milomilo]

The congestion on Crowchild broadly has its source by the constrained capacity of Downtown roads. The only effective solution that can be provided is to enable the N-S traffic to bypass the congestion associated with downtown.

That would be effectively be achieved by restructuring Bow/Crow to follow the generally accepted best practise of having exiting and entering only from the right of the highway, and having three continuous through lanes. Currently the congestion northbound is mostly caused by having all three lanes having to merge into the left most lane (which then is joined by merging traffic from Bow heading for Memorial) - this is not how roads should be built!

I don't actually think the south of river section would require as large an engineering solution as might be expected - just put lights on Bow trail with at grade crossings over the LRT and parallel slip roads on to Crowchild. It would still require a huge amount of work, but no where near as much as if we wanted to keep Bow Trail free flow (which is unnecessary).

[MMMBeer]

What we should be bringing in is road pricing.

That would cut way down on the increased congestion from improving Crowchild. And it does need improving - what a cluster.

One thing that has always impressed me since I moved here is how limited downtown parking is (by design). That "pricing" of parking has already cut down on demand.

Pie in the sky as it would never fly politically, but the obvious thing to do for a scarce resource (i.e. rush hour road room) is to allocate a price to it. Also brings people's attention to the fact building and maintaining roads is not free.

[CalgaryAlex]

Ironically, Crowchild Trail was conceived of as a downtown bypass road (part of the intermediate ring road), so those in the NW could get to the SE industrial areas without having to go downtown.

One day I really need to look into why the bridge was designed the way it was with only that single through lane northbound.

New blog opportunity?? :yes:

[milomilo]

One day I really need to look into why the bridge was designed the way it was with only that single through lane northbound.

I'd be interested in this. It really does look like someone just started drawing ramps and loops with no consideration whatsoever for how it would function in reality, and also completely forgot about EB-NB traffic.

[MalcolmTucker]

Good lord, that's all I need! But maybe next time I'm in the archives I can pull the old Crowchild files and take a look.

Probably the 1981 Bow Trail Connector Study would point you at the earlier decisions and their names for the Crowchild crossing.

[Full Mountain]

What we should be bringing in is road pricing.

That would cut way down on the increased congestion from improving Crowchild. And it does need improving - what a cluster.

One thing that has always impressed me since I moved here is how limited downtown parking is (by design). That "pricing" of parking has already cut down on demand.

Pie in the sky as it would never fly politically, but the obvious thing to do for a scarce resource (i.e. rush hour road room) is to allocate a price to it. Also brings people's attention to the fact building and maintaining roads is not free.

If there is ever the political will to do this, this will be the best thing to have ever happened. With the current technology I see little reason why this couldn't happen with dynamic pricing on each road depending on congestion.

[DizzyEdge]

I wonder if it would be useful to determine what the cost would be, capital (incl expropriation) and operating (maintenance + loss of property tax revenue), to double the capacity of all roads leading to downtown, and then have an annual report that shows how close we are for that needing to happen, and what we're doing (transit, bike lanes, lane reversals, etc) to keep us from hitting that red zone.
I meet so many people angry at the limited downtown parking, who never seem to think that double the existing parking would likely mean double the # of cars heading there every morning, ie double the time of your commute.

What's funny as after typing that last sentence, it occurs to me I've never heard that message from the city ever, which is another big issue, city explanation/justification for policies never seems to be broadcast.

[sim]

For anyone that wants some empirical evidence, and because this lovely place came up in the construction thread as well:

Houston - freeways beget freeways (http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/it-took-51-more-time-to-drive-out-katy-freeway-in-2014-than-2011/?utm_content=buffer639fe&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

[milomilo]

For anyone that wants some empirical evidence, and because this lovely place came up in the construction thread as well:

Houston - freeways beget freeways (http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/it-took-51-more-time-to-drive-out-katy-freeway-in-2014-than-2011/?utm_content=buffer639fe&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

One would hope an LRT line would also rapidly increase in usage over the years and fill to capacity - that doesn't mean there were no benefits from it's construction. I definitely don't support a massive increase in freeway construction in the city, but I definitely do think there are numerous small improvements that could make some areas a lot better without moving congestion somewhere else. Mainly improvements to Glenmore and Crowchild.

I’m very disappointed and disheartened that my friend, Mr. Poe, would stand up and offer this amendment and call the Katy Freeway a concrete monstrosity. It’s my pride and joy. I got the Katy Freeway built without an earmark. Got it built from five year, three months. Went from eight lanes to 23 lanes. The economics has boomed because of the Katy Freeway. It’s moving more cars in less time, more savings to taxpayers than any other transportation project in the history of Houston.

This quote is moronic though and does indicate the Katy Freeway was road building for the sake of road building - measuring success by number of lanes added and cars moved.

[fusili]

One would hope an LRT line would also rapidly increase in usage over the years and fill to capacity - that doesn't mean there were no benefits from it's construction. I definitely don't support a massive increase in freeway construction in the city, but I definitely do think there are numerous small improvements that could make some areas a lot better without moving congestion somewhere else. Mainly improvements to Glenmore and Crowchild.

This quote is moronic though and does indicate the Katy Freeway was road building for the sake of road building - measuring success by number of lanes added and cars moved.

Roads and transit essentially operate in reverse. For roads, each incremental vehicle on a road decreases the travel time for everyone else, especially near the tipping point of "congestion", where an incremental vehicle will have a significant impact to the flow of traffic.

Transit, on the other hand, works somewhat in reverse. For each additional passenger, there is a incremental increase in frequency (which happens in leaps and bounds because you can only add a whole transit vehicle to a route at a time, not portions thereof). Of course, there is a point where transit too gets congested, but overall, the more people who ride transit in the city, the better it is for transit riders. The more people who drive in a city, the worse it is for drivers.

[CalgaryAlex]

For anyone that wants some empirical evidence, and because this lovely place came up in the construction thread as well:

Houston - freeways beget freeways (http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/it-took-51-more-time-to-drive-out-katy-freeway-in-2014-than-2011/?utm_content=buffer639fe&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

TXDOT plans to provide additional SOV capacity on I-45 North, I-59 South, 288 South, and 290

Lol, one over-budget project complete and studies show it has been a failure. Let's do it again four more times.

[Bri-Guy]

Next set of project information sessions (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Road-projects/Macleod-Trail-162-Avenue-S-Interchange.aspx) by the City coming up Thurs, Jun 18 5 - 8pm and Sat, Jun 21 10am - 1pm.
Looking forward to seeing if we will be getting our first Diverging Diamond interchange. :hyper::fingerscrossed:

This area needs a solution badly. But also looking to see what else they have devised to resolve the issues @ 162nd Ave and Shawville Blvd (separate, but related project)

[Mazrim]

But also looking to see what else they have devised to resolve the issues @ 162nd Ave and Shawville Blvd (separate, but related project)

The Shawville Blvd intersection is very much a part of this project. Spoiler alert: You'll be happy with the direction this project is going. :cheers:

[lubicon]

So had my first experience with the new afternoon lane reversal on 5th Avenue. As expected I was less than impressed and my commute ended up being longer than I generally expect. Now I understand that one sample does not necessarily tell the whole tale but I just don't see this thing working. 4th Avenue was slower than previously and there is no flow anymore after 10 Street as traffic grinds to a halt due to the newly installed lights. Based on a single test I am giving this project a big fail for the moment.

[youngregina]

So had my first experience with the new afternoon lane reversal on 5th Avenue. As expected I was less than impressed and my commute ended up being longer than I generally expect. Now I understand that one sample does not necessarily tell the whole tale but I just don't see this thing working. 4th Avenue was slower than previously and there is no flow anymore after 10 Street as traffic grinds to a halt due to the newly installed lights. Based on a single test I am giving this project a big fail for the moment.

I had quite the opposite experience. I was able to fly down 4th to 7th street in the left hand lane after passing 5th street, and then turn right onto 5th avenue. The flow was mediocre at best, but I know that I was able to pass through the remainder of downtown more easily than sitting in stop and go on 4th, trying to get through the ctrain and 10th street. What really bothers me though, is that all of that traffic exiting downtown on 4th and 5th now has to be funnelled through 1 lane. So you are only ever going to go as fast as your slowest driver. Plus the immense amount of weaving that takes place once the single lane meets up with the rest of bow trail after 14th street.

[lubicon]

I had quite the opposite experience. I was able to fly down 4th to 7th street in the left hand lane after passing 5th street, and then turn right onto 5th avenue. The flow was mediocre at best, but I know that I was able to pass through the remainder of downtown more easily than sitting in stop and go on 4th, trying to get through the ctrain and 10th street. What really bothers me though, is that all of that traffic exiting downtown on 4th and 5th now has to be funnelled through 1 lane. So you are only ever going to go as fast as your slowest driver. Plus the immense amount of weaving that takes place once the single lane meets up with the rest of bow trail after 14th street.

That is the weak link in the entire plan. Essentially 4 lanes of traffic (2 from each of 4th and 5th Ave) are getting squeezed into one lane.

[Bigtime]

Massive rebuild coming for 17th avenue, including long overdue pedestrian improvements east of 4th street. The one glaring oversight (at least in my opinion) is the absence of adding any bike lanes to 17th and the city rep saying that 17th is still a "car focused roadway".

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/06/10/massive-rebuild-planned-for-calgarys-famed-17th-avenue-aka-red-mile

[MasterG]

Massive rebuild coming for 17th avenue, including long overdue pedestrian improvements east of 4th street. The one glaring oversight (at least in my opinion) is the absence of adding any bike lanes to 17th and the city rep saying that 17th is still a "car focused roadway".

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/06/10/massive-rebuild-planned-for-calgarys-famed-17th-avenue-aka-red-mile

Anyone who thinks that 17th Ave is a car-focused road-way is out to lunch. Any city's primary patio and pedestrian retail area should not have those words anywhere near it. Not that cars should be removed entirely, the city should at least recognize its a pedestrian-focused place, not a car-focused one, at the very least in the main sections.

I will withhold judgment until we see the designs but not making any "visible" pedestrian improvements or wider sidewalks on the already key corridor of 4th Street to 8th Street would be a big misstep.

[Full Mountain]

Massive rebuild coming for 17th avenue, including long overdue pedestrian improvements east of 4th street. The one glaring oversight (at least in my opinion) is the absence of adding any bike lanes to 17th and the city rep saying that 17th is still a "car focused roadway".

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/06/10/massive-rebuild-planned-for-calgarys-famed-17th-avenue-aka-red-mile

This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding about roadway design:

“Are the things that we can do with the redesign to make it safer for vehicles and improve the experience for pedestrians.”

The hope of the safety review — which will extend all the way up to Richmond Road — is that it will reduce traffic congestion and collisions on the busy avenue, including those involving pedestrians.

Those two items are not necessarily compatible, typically slower traffic = safer streets.

The MDP lists 17th Ave as a Neighbourhood Boulevard (same as 4th st NW & SW). [link (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)] According to the complete streets policy this means that accommodations for goods & autos are "Not required, or poor performance is acceptable". [Complete Streets Policy (http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Council-policy-library/TP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf)]

By that standard an auto focused 17th Ave is a violation of city policy.

Interestingly the city's page for this project makes no mention of the complete streets policy, starting to wonder if that was a waste of paper to write if the City themselves aren't going to reference or follow it. [City Page (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Road-projects/17-Avenue-S-reconstruction.aspx)]

[MalcolmTucker]

If the road has less visible capacity, the behaviour effect could improve congestion.

[UofC.engineer]

This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding about roadway design:



Those two items are not necessarily compatible, typically slower traffic = safer streets.

The MDP lists 17th Ave as a Neighbourhood Boulevard (same as 4th st NW & SW). [link (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)] According to the complete streets policy this means that accommodations for goods & autos are "Not required, or poor performance is acceptable". [Complete Streets Policy (http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Council-policy-library/TP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf)]

By that standard an auto focused 17th Ave is a violation of city policy.

Interestingly the city's page for this project makes no mention of the complete streets policy, starting to wonder if that was a waste of paper to write if the City themselves aren't going to reference or follow it. [City Page (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Road-projects/17-Avenue-S-reconstruction.aspx)]


Thanks for the info! I'd love to see the design of a neighborhood boulevard of 17th ave. In my opinion 2 traffic lanes either way creates too much congestion. Although I could see taxi's constantly occupying bike lanes.

[Full Mountain]

Thanks for the info! I'd love to see the design of a neighborhood boulevard of 17th ave. In my opinion 2 traffic lanes either way creates too much congestion. Although I could see taxi's constantly occupying bike lanes.

I think implementing more taxi only zones on each block would help with this especially if they were able to force the drivers to only stop in those zones. Basically a taxi zone for 1-2 cars every 100 meters or less along the entire length on both sides.

[CalgaryAlex]

Massive rebuild coming for 17th avenue, including long overdue pedestrian improvements east of 4th street. The one glaring oversight (at least in my opinion) is the absence of adding any bike lanes to 17th and the city rep saying that 17th is still a "car focused roadway".

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/06/10/massive-rebuild-planned-for-calgarys-famed-17th-avenue-aka-red-mile

This is ridiculous... why do they hold extensive public consultations on some things and not others? Where is the main streets policy in this? And where has all of the progressive pedestrian/cycling design thought from the past few years gone, other than right out the window? Epic fail on the city's part. This is one of the most important pedestrian routes in the city, and they are focused on reducing congestion?

They could put in wider sidewalks and cycle tracks. They could use the extra sidewalk space to encourage licensed street vendors to liven up the street even more. They could probably make some sections resemble more of a plaza than a roadway. Everyone in this city knows that 17th is one of the worst options for E-W travel in the inner city, everyone is used to it, and it should just remain that way.

[Riise]

The one glaring oversight (at least in my opinion) is the absence of adding any bike lanes to 17th and the city rep saying that 17th is still a "car focused roadway".

I have heard the idea of using 16th for a cycle lane being floated around. It could help turn it back into a street rather than the alley it has become in some parts.

[Full Mountain]

This is ridiculous... why do they hold extensive public consultations on some things and not others? Where is the main streets policy in this? And where has all of the progressive pedestrian/cycling design thought from the past few years gone, other than right out the window? Epic fail on the city's part. This is one of the most important pedestrian routes in the city, and they are focused on reducing congestion?

They could put in wider sidewalks and cycle tracks. They could use the extra sidewalk space to encourage licensed street vendors to liven up the street even more. They could probably make some sections resemble more of a plaza than a roadway. Everyone in this city knows that 17th is one of the worst options for E-W travel in the inner city, everyone is used to it, and it should just remain that way.

The city's project page does mention that the feedback from the Main Streets process will be incorporated into the design. To what extent is the question. :shrug:

[CalgaryAlex]

I have heard the idea of using 16th for a cycle lane being floated around. It could help turn it back into a street rather than the alley it has become in some parts.

That would be a decent (although distant) second option to 17th Ave getting a cycle track.

15th Ave from 4th St to Macleod is also incredibly wide, and could easily accommodate a separated track. It narrows a bit going west from there, but if they could properly design a connection between 4 St/15 Ave and 7 St/16 Ave, that would fill a much needed hole for cycle infrastructure in that area.

Still, nothing would beat a track being built on 17th itself.

[UofC.engineer]

This is ridiculous... why do they hold extensive public consultations on some things and not others? Where is the main streets policy in this? And where has all of the progressive pedestrian/cycling design thought from the past few years gone, other than right out the window? Epic fail on the city's part. This is one of the most important pedestrian routes in the city, and they are focused on reducing congestion?

They could put in wider sidewalks and cycle tracks. They could use the extra sidewalk space to encourage licensed street vendors to liven up the street even more. They could probably make some sections resemble more of a plaza than a roadway. Everyone in this city knows that 17th is one of the worst options for E-W travel in the inner city, everyone is used to it, and it should just remain that way.


That's a good idea! Put a food truck in a parking space and then you have wall to wall food and drinks! :cheers:

This would require a much larger sidewalk though.

[CalgaryAlex]

The city's project page does mention that the feedback from the Main Streets process will be incorporated into the design. To what extent is the question. :shrug:

Yeah I wonder. In the Main Street open house I went to (for 4th St), the idea bubble for "more parking" had so many red dot stickers (indicating that someone disagreed with the idea; you only had three red stickers to use, so had to choose your top three placements carefully) on it that it completely overflowed the bubble.

I just hope that these open houses don't turn out to be illusions of community involvement. Rollin Stanley was at the open house I attended, and he was super excited about the potential improvements to pedestrian and cycling realms. I wonder what he thinks of the 17th Ave plans.

[CalgaryAlex]

That's a good idea! Put a food truck in a parking space and then you have wall to wall food and drinks! :cheers:

This would require a much larger sidewalk though.

I agree, it would be awesome! Imagine if you could walk down the sidewalk and have two frontages to look at instead of one to your right and parking to the left. Would make for a much more interesting and comfortable pedestrian realm.

[msmariner]

Today is the start of construction of the Bowfort road interchange.

[Full Mountain]

Yeah I wonder. In the Main Street open house I went to (for 4th St), the idea bubble for "more parking" had so many red dot stickers (indicating that someone disagreed with the idea; you only had three red stickers to use, so had to choose your top three placements carefully) on it that it completely overflowed the bubble.

I just hope that these open houses don't turn out to be illusions of community involvement. Rollin Stanley was at the open house I attended, and he was super excited about the potential improvements to pedestrian and cycling realms. I wonder what he thinks of the 17th Ave plans.

I kinda wonder if the spokeman is getting ahead of himself, they haven't completed the analysis for the design so saying it's going to be an auto focused road is premature.

[DizzyEdge]

The only auto use that should be maintained on 17th is the 'cruise slowly and show off your ride and check out potential mates' aspect, that's about it.

[MasterG]

Yeah I wonder. In the Main Street open house I went to (for 4th St), the idea bubble for "more parking" had so many red dot stickers (indicating that someone disagreed with the idea; you only had three red stickers to use, so had to choose your top three placements carefully) on it that it completely overflowed the bubble.

I just hope that these open houses don't turn out to be illusions of community involvement. Rollin Stanley was at the open house I attended, and he was super excited about the potential improvements to pedestrian and cycling realms. I wonder what he thinks of the 17th Ave plans.

The central section of 17th Ave (2nd Street to 8th Street) is 4.5 lanes wide with narrow sidewalks given the traffic. The main retail along it sees almost no benefit from additional parking and actively rejects it.

A few anecdotes for those that don't live down here:

Popular indie music bar Local 510 is near the corner of 4th and 17th. The construction of the building next door (corner of 4th and 17th) closed the sidewalk and Route 6 bus stop with no provisions without notifying them last fall. They were absolutely pissed. All of their business is walk or bike up traffic which was negatively affected by the sidewalk closure. They couldn't care less about preserving parking or car travel. The bar agrees with this idea so much so that they close their back parking lot (about 6-8 spots) with a big music tent all summer for the various festivals and shows they have.

The Ship and Anchor regularly holds a few hundred patrons on any given afternoon or evening. They have 8-10 stalls behind, usually occupied with a band-van or two for their frequent shows. The length of their bar permits 4 or 5 cars parking on the street in-front. Compared to bicycling, they added a whole new side of the patio bike rack last year fitting 20-30 more bikes (always full) in addition to the 20-30 regular bicycle spots along the sidewalk (also always full). Their business depends nothing on the ability of those to park at or nearby. Locals make up the vast majority of traffic, usually on foot.

If there is ever a place in Calgary that can stop pretending cars are important it's those blocks of 17th Ave. The signal timing to cross 17th Ave and sidewalk widths are already offensively inconsiderate for pedestrians along that corridor; along a corridor and neighbourhood that is predominately pedestrian and increasingly so every year.

Anything that prioritized vehicular movement further is an enormous step backward.

[CalgaryAlex]

If there is ever a place in Calgary that can stop pretending cars are important it's those blocks of 17th Ave. The signal timing to cross 17th Ave and sidewalk widths are already offensively inconsiderate for pedestrians along that corridor; along a corridor and neighbourhood that is predominately pedestrian and increasingly so every year.

Anything that prioritized vehicular movement further is an enormous step backward.

:cheers:

Love it and couldn't agree more. The anecdotes are spot-on. In the very least, I would like to see a Stephen Avenue mall situation on the busiest blocks of 17th (with reversed times from the 8th Ave schedule, so vehicles not allowed at night, but allowed during the day).

A car-free 17th would be amazing. Sitting on a patio on a nice day would be far more enjoyable without having to breathe in diesel fumes from trucks idling at lights or in parking stalls. On blazing hot days, 17th can be a nightmare to walk along with exhaust fumes and the extra heat created by all of the vehicles slowly moving along it. With a complete reduction in traffic noise, the draw to 17th would increase 100-fold. Add an increased level of safety, and you have yourself an automatic winner.

I'd also like to see the park between 8 St and 7 St increased in size and scope of use.

If the city wants to change 17th for the better, make it more of a pain for drivers, not less of one. The entire stretch from Macleod to 14 St could be a real gem if the infrastructure is rebuilt properly next year.

Instead, I fear they are going to develop a road barely different, if not more focused on vehicular traffic, than what is currently there.

[MasterG]

:cheers:

Love it and couldn't agree more. The anecdotes are spot-on. In the very least, I would like to see a Stephen Avenue mall situation on the busiest blocks of 17th (with reversed times from the 8th Ave schedule, so vehicles not allowed at night, but allowed during the day).

A car-free 17th would be amazing. Sitting on a patio on a nice day would be far more enjoyable without having to breathe in diesel fumes from trucks idling at lights or in parking stalls. On blazing hot days, 17th can be a nightmare to walk along with exhaust fumes and the extra heat created by all of the vehicles slowly moving along it. With a complete reduction in traffic noise, the draw to 17th would increase 100-fold. Add an increased level of safety, and you have yourself an automatic winner.

I'd also like to see the park between 8 St and 7 St increased in size and scope of use.

If the city wants to change 17th for the better, make it more of a pain for drivers, not less of one. The entire stretch from Macleod to 14 St could be a real gem if the infrastructure is rebuilt properly next year.

Instead, I fear they are going to develop a road barely different, if not more focused on vehicular traffic, than what is currently there.

I am even okay with keeping cars on the road, but treat them the way they should be on the road: as an obviously secondary and increasingly less important mode.


Go from 4.5 lanes to 3.
Have raised intersections / mid-block pedestrian crossings at key intersections.
Perhaps a shared space area (like many European cities, or even a half-baked one like Stephen Ave).
Evenly timed lights in all directions at al key intersections to allow people to cross easily and more often.
Reopen closed intersection crossings (i.e.College Lane by Starbucks; 5A Street SW etc.)
Improve sidewalk lighting and street furniture areas while widening key strips that generate huge traffic.
Close or reorient all driveways and non-street turn-off where possible (or require when redeveloped)


Even if they do half of that list it's a huge improvement. Do all of it and you can really create a special space for the city to build off of for years.

[CalgaryAlex]

I am even okay with keeping cars on the road, but treat them the way they should be on the road: as an obviously secondary and increasingly less important mode.


Go from 4.5 lanes to 3.
Have raised intersections / mid-block pedestrian crossings at key intersections.
Perhaps a shared space area (like many European cities, or even a half-baked one like Stephen Ave).
Evenly timed lights in all directions at al key intersections to allow people to cross easily and more often.
Reopen closed intersection crossings (i.e.College Lane by Starbucks; 5A Street SW etc.)
Improve sidewalk lighting and street furniture areas while widening key strips that generate huge traffic.
Close or reorient all driveways and non-street turn-off where possible (or require when redeveloped)


Even if they do half of that list it's a huge improvement. Do all of it and you can really create a special space for the city to build off of for years.

That is a great list, and should really be the bare minimum of what they attempt to achieve with this reconstruction.

They could really close all of the driveways from 14th St to 1 St SE tomorrow without an impact on business. There are only two lots (both on the same block as Republik) that don't have an access point on either the abutting Street, 16th or 18th Avenues. That would cut down on congestion related to vehicles trying to turn into a lot while waiting for endless streams of pedestrians on the sidewalk.

[Innersoul1]

Today is the start of construction of the Bowfort road interchange.

They are also repaving Sarcee from Richmond Road to Bowfort Cres. That area is going to be slow going over the next little while.

[Mazrim]

The MDP lists 17th Ave as a Neighbourhood Boulevard (same as 4th st NW & SW). [link (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)] According to the complete streets policy this means that accommodations for goods & autos are "Not required, or poor performance is acceptable". [Complete Streets Policy (http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Council-policy-library/TP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf)]

By that standard an auto focused 17th Ave is a violation of city policy.

Interestingly the city's page for this project makes no mention of the complete streets policy, starting to wonder if that was a waste of paper to write if the City themselves aren't going to reference or follow it. [City Page (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Road-projects/17-Avenue-S-reconstruction.aspx)]
The complete streets guide allows 2 or 4 lanes for a Neighbourhood Boulevard. It's not violating any policy. The Complete Streets guide is used all the time in tons of projects, so your crusade is a little misguided.

[eggbert]

So had my first experience with the new afternoon lane reversal on 5th Avenue. As expected I was less than impressed and my commute ended up being longer than I generally expect. Now I understand that one sample does not necessarily tell the whole tale but I just don't see this thing working. 4th Avenue was slower than previously and there is no flow anymore after 10 Street as traffic grinds to a halt due to the newly installed lights. Based on a single test I am giving this project a big fail for the moment.

i must say I've had completely had a different experience than you. I've used it at least 15 times now and it's cut my time exiting out of downtown by 75%. This is at 4pm every day. I used to sit on 4th Ave, which is still busy, waiting and waiting to get across those train tracks. Now going down 5th it seems like there's never a train going by.

I will agree about that light on the Bow Trail connector now is kind of screwing things up, at least for the cars coming from 4th Ave as every single time I get to that light from 5th Ave it turns green.

The biggest issue in that whole road is the pedestrian crossing half a block after that light. With the weather being so nice there are always people crossing it so it backs up everything from both 4th and 5th. I think it may be time to put an actual light there for cars and pedestrians rather than the flashing lights.

As far as Bow Trail past 14th, it's not that big of deal, never really has been. Going up Crowchild North is always stopped but all other directions (Crowchild South and Bow Trail West) are usually free flowing.

[fusili]

I am even okay with keeping cars on the road, but treat them the way they should be on the road: as an obviously secondary and increasingly less important mode.


Go from 4.5 lanes to 3.
Have raised intersections / mid-block pedestrian crossings at key intersections.
Perhaps a shared space area (like many European cities, or even a half-baked one like Stephen Ave).
Evenly timed lights in all directions at al key intersections to allow people to cross easily and more often.
Reopen closed intersection crossings (i.e.College Lane by Starbucks; 5A Street SW etc.)
Improve sidewalk lighting and street furniture areas while widening key strips that generate huge traffic.
Close or reorient all driveways and non-street turn-off where possible (or require when redeveloped)


Even if they do half of that list it's a huge improvement. Do all of it and you can really create a special space for the city to build off of for years.

Great ideas. 3 lanes should be totally fine for 17th. I don't think we need raised intersections, but curb bump outs mid block would be great.

What I would add to this is more underground parking in various locations.

[Full Mountain]

The complete streets guide allows 2 or 4 lanes for a Neighbourhood Boulevard. It's not violating any policy. The Complete Streets guide is used all the time in tons of projects, so your crusade is a little misguided.

I think you're misinterpreting my goal here, my goal is that the priorities listed in the policy are followed (in the case of a neighbourhood boulevard ped/bikes, then transit, then auto/goods). If the spokesperson is saying that it's an auto focused road, that goes directly against the policy. The number of lanes has little direct influence on the overall feel of the road. Lane widths, sidewalk widths, buffer areas, etc. have a much larger impact on it.

Also if it is used all the time, why is it never in the public communications? Again it's a communication/perception issue not necessarily a real one. BTW I've been told by City staff that they are not looking at making incremental improvements to roads to work towards the policy.

The city in general seems to struggle with translating technical language and jargon into language the majority of the population can understand. This applies to most every department from planning to roads and transit.

Disclaimer: I get that the spokesperson was likely trying to defuse a potential outcry about removing vehicle capacity. However that doesn't justify such a simplistic statement.

[Mazrim]

Just a reminder that tomorrow and Saturday is the information session for the interchange design at Macleod Trail and 162 Avenue/Sun Valley Blvd.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/macleod-162ave/macleod-information-session3-notice.pdf

Spoiler alert: It will be a diverging diamond interchange.

[craner]

^Hmmm interesting, I'm not convinced the diverging diamond is the best option, seems a bit gimmicky.

[YYCguys]

Just a reminder that tomorrow and Saturday is the information session for the interchange design at Macleod Trail and 162 Avenue/Sun Valley Blvd.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/macleod-162ave/macleod-information-session3-notice.pdf

Spoiler alert: It will be a diverging diamond interchange.

For us non-road engineer types, what is a diverging diamond (interchange)?

[Fuzz]

I can picture the Sun news articles now....

[googspecial]

[delete]

[Fuzz]

When posting a youtube embed, you only need the part of the URL after the = at the end. In this case, it would be

HD-0QnUlLOQ[/YOUTUBE

add the closing square bracket to complete.

[YOUTUBE]HD-0QnUlLOQ

[googspecial]

^^ My bad. Should've double checked it. Thanks!

[Mazrim]

^Hmmm interesting, I'm not convinced the diverging diamond is the best option, seems a bit gimmicky.

The information session will better explain why they chose it, but long story short:
- Safer for all modes of travel (less conflict points)
- Free flowing left turns
- Public support for it at the previous information sessions was strong

There will be detailed plans and animations going through the interchange to help illustrate the design.

[tmjr]

Really happy they are putting in a DDI!

Off topic, but the pinavia interchange that appears at the very end of that youtube clip looks very interesting - has it been used before? Perhaps they could have done THAT at the 16Ave/Stoney interchange, for example... Or Crowchild/Stoney :haha:

Edit - here's the link I mean:
XDDmE4qoCns

[MalcolmTucker]

The land requirement would be huge to keep speeds at 100 kph for all directions.

[Bri-Guy]

The information session will better explain why they chose it, but long story short:
- Safer for all modes of travel (less conflict points)
- Free flowing left turns
- Public support for it at the previous information sessions was strong

There will be detailed plans and animations going through the interchange to help illustrate the design.

I was surprised to see the basket weave on the exit to Shawville Blvd South. A nice benefit. Had to be do e to be reasonable about providing that entry access though.

Unfortunately the free flow left turns are only onto NB/SB Macleod, left turns from Macleod onto east/west 162/Sun Valley Blvd are still restricted by lights. Probable not a problem during heavy traffic periods, but will lead to unnecessary stops during light/no traffic times. I get it, this is a new design, people are unfamiliar and it offers protection. Just too bad it wasn't like it should be. Like training wheels I guess. There for people who don't quite know what they are supposed to do. And that aspect could be a benefit. Delays due to people hesitating or being overly cautious could be problematic. And the dual lefts from SB to EB does require a lot of lane crossing.

And, I just realized, these lights could be put on yellow flash during off hours (late night). That is a good solution I think.

All in all, very excited to see this thing happen, and good for the city to consider something a bit more progressive. :)

[Mazrim]

Unfortunately the free flow left turns are only onto NB/SB Macleod, left turns from Macleod onto east/west 162/Sun Valley Blvd are still restricted by lights. Probable not a problem during heavy traffic periods, but will lead to unnecessary stops during light/no traffic times. I get it, this is a new design, people are unfamiliar and it offers protection. Just too bad it wasn't like it should be. Like training wheels I guess. There for people who don't quite know what they are supposed to do. And that aspect could be a benefit. Delays due to people hesitating or being overly cautious could be problematic. And the dual lefts from SB to EB does require a lot of lane crossing.

I don't think traffic volumes on 162/Sun Valley would allow those lefts to signal free. They're not insignificant number during off-peak hours either. The reduced number of signal phases offered by the diverging diamond will mitigate any red time you have to sit through anyway.

[UofC.engineer]

The City of Calgary has posted the 1978 functional planning study for Crowchild Trail on their project website, and makes for some interesting reading:

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Projects/Current-Planning-Projects/Crowchild-Study-Project-Library.aspx

Thanks!!!

On page 11 of the document, Crowchild could almost classify for a "Main Street" status. Too bad it was widened and thank god it was not built to completion!

[craner]

Why is it too bad it was widened?

[milomilo]

The City of Calgary has posted the 1978 functional planning study for Crowchild Trail on their project website, and makes for some interesting reading:

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Projects/Current-Planning-Projects/Crowchild-Study-Project-Library.aspx

I was far too excited to be reading this. So the cluster south of the river was pre-1978 - fascinating.

Thanks!!!

On page 11 of the document, Crowchild could almost classify for a "Main Street" status. Too bad it was widened and thank god it was not built to completion!

I think they pretty much knew what was needed 40 years ago. They were just a little unsympathetic to the locality. Change that elevated structure to a trench, narrow the corridor a little and what they have there is almost exactly what we need. Even what they have proposed would make the area nicer, tbh.

[milomilo]

I believe that the Crow-Bow-Memorial/Bridge configuration was there from day 1. This is part of a picture of the area from about 1970-72, and from what I can see, it looks the same today.

[IMG]https://calgaryringroad.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/1970s_crow.jpg[IMG]

Wow. Was the EB Bow - NB Crow movement always as it is now? I can't decide whether I'd want to punch the guy who designed that in the face, or shake his hand.

[Innersoul1]

Really happy they are putting in a DDI!

Off topic, but the pinavia interchange that appears at the very end of that youtube clip looks very interesting - has it been used before? Perhaps they could have done THAT at the 16Ave/Stoney interchange, for example... Or Crowchild/Stoney :haha:

Edit - here's the link I mean:
XDDmE4qoCns

The centre of the pinavia is begging for a GIGANTIC piece of public art.

[DizzyEdge]

The centre of the pinavia is begging for a GIGANTIC piece of public art.

http://i.imgur.com/3Vfi2hX.jpg

[Mazrim]

http://i.imgur.com/3Vfi2hX.jpg

Well, now I'm FULLY on board with this interchange design.

[mersar]

Also, in looking for that Crowchild Trail picture from the 1970s, I found that 14th street NW at SAIT use to have a cloverleaf interchange with 14th ave. The Trans Canada Highway, only a block away, was still at grade. I never knew this existed before:


Interesting. I would have thought that interchange would have been built around/during when the LRT was built, not a decade or more beforehand.

[Cage]

http://i.imgur.com/3Vfi2hX.jpg

Good one dizzy edge. :cheers:

Only sad part is that most people under 30 won't get the reference.

[Cage]

I wonder if the LRT was the reason the cloverleaf was removed.
The over pass at 16th appears to be the reason the cloverleaf was removed. Additionally, therer appears to be a lad swap between the city and both North Hill mall and SAIT. The city purchased land for 16th Ave overpass and gave up land for the 14th avenue overpass.

[Acey]

That pinavia thing wouldn't really have a practical application because any junction that has volume high enough to justify semi-directional ramps for all left turns would likely have through volume such that the the curves for traffic not turning would be too much of a bottleneck. It would miserably and horrendously fail any real cost-benefit analysis vs a cloverstack, Alberta's new go-to free flow design. Look at all those piers.

[Oliver Klozov]

Also, in looking for that Crowchild Trail picture from the 1970s, I found that 14th street NW at SAIT use to have a cloverleaf interchange with 14th ave. The Trans Canada Highway, only a block away, was still at grade. I never knew this existed before:


That was the first and for awhile the only cloverleaf interchange in Alberta. Barlow and 16th was next.

[UofC.engineer]

That was the first and for awhile the only cloverleaf interchange in Alberta. Barlow and 16th was next.

Do you know what year it was built?

[tmjr]

That pinavia thing wouldn't really have a practical application because any junction that has volume high enough to justify semi-directional ramps for all left turns would likely have through volume such that the the curves for traffic not turning would be too much of a bottleneck. It would miserably and horrendously fail any real cost-benefit analysis vs a cloverstack, Alberta's new go-to free flow design. Look at all those piers.

Perhaps, but could a sarlacc find an adequate home in a cloverstack? I think not...

[CrossedTheTracks]

The Barlow/16th was built in the summer of 1956, and was the first in Alberta to my knowledge. Do you know when the 14th/14th one was built?


No earlier than 1955, but close to it, it looks like: (http://contentdm.ucalgary.ca/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/airphotos2&CISOPTR=51811) (source: University of Calgary Library: http://library.ucalgary.ca/node/2142)

South is on the left side of the picture. Zoom level is pretty far out, but looks like there might be some earth moving going on in the 14th/14th and North Hill Mall areas.

[Acey]

Macleod/162 Render

http://i.imgur.com/xfV6ACU.png

WR6vGc-JrCc

[Fuzz]

As a pedestrian, you get to cross 4 roads, no matter which way you want to go!

[You Need A Thneed]

That pinavia thing wouldn't really have a practical application because any junction that has volume high enough to justify semi-directional ramps for all left turns would likely have through volume such that the the curves for traffic not turning would be too much of a bottleneck. It would miserably and horrendously fail any real cost-benefit analysis vs a cloverstack, Alberta's new go-to free flow design. Look at all those piers.

That was exactly my thoughts - it looks cool, but a cloverstack accomplishes the same thing for less money.

The Pinavia has all that open space in the middle, but no good way to access it.

I doubt one will ever exist outside of a computer simulation.

[Full Mountain]

As a pedestrian, you get to cross 4 roads, no matter which way you want to go!

Just walk to the pedestrian bridge.....:haha:

Pedestrian friendly my backside.

[simster3]

That is no different than most other interchanges. It would be nice if they could somehow build it to go under the roads though.

[milomilo]

As a pedestrian, you get to cross 4 roads, no matter which way you want to go!

It's still going to be better than waiting 5 minutes for Macloed to then cross 8 lanes of traffic, as the situation is now. I don't think it's fair to criticise the design for that, I'm fairly sure the pedestrian traffic on that stretch isn't going to be very high. I'd rather we built paths/bridges/crossings between destinations rather than just following roads.

[Full Mountain]

It's still going to be better than waiting 5 minutes for Macloed to then cross 8 lanes of traffic, as the situation is now. I don't think it's fair to criticise the design for that, I'm fairly sure the pedestrian traffic on that stretch isn't going to be very high. I'd rather we built paths/bridges/crossings between destinations rather than just following roads.

This is a bit of a misleading statement, we don't often determine the need for a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river.

[milomilo]

This is a bit of a misleading statement, we don't often determine the need for a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river.

No, but that wasn't how I judged that. The intersection has huge parking lots and malls on all four corners - I doubt too many people are walking between them. And if they are, it would be better to have separate pathways and bridges going where people actually want to walk, rather than forcing pedestrians to make long detours just to follow roadways, as is the norm in suburbia.

[Fuzz]

It's still going to be better than waiting 5 minutes for Macloed to then cross 8 lanes of traffic, as the situation is now. I don't think it's fair to criticise the design for that, I'm fairly sure the pedestrian traffic on that stretch isn't going to be very high. I'd rather we built paths/bridges/crossings between destinations rather than just following roads.
Didn't mean to criticize, it was just an observation. Most at grade crossings are at most 3 streets, trying to think of bridge ones but I think they would be 3 as well?

[Bri-Guy]

As a pedestrian, you get to cross 4 roads, no matter which way you want to go!

Just walk to the pedestrian bridge.....:haha:

Pedestrian friendly my backside.

As you are counting "4 roads" based on 2 separate turn lanes and 2 separate main directional travel roads. Seem that this would be the same measurement as any other major roads that have turn lanes with small "islands" once you cross the turn lanes and stand at the corner on the island. Roads not as major as this have this as well.

As far as pedestrian friendly, I think that it is a benefit that there are not more crossings that are required to be made whether you are staying on the same side (north or south) or if you are crossing the intersection (ie. NW to SE). This allows for much more direct travel as compared to some other iterations what would have forced pedestrians to cross Macleod on only one side of 162nd Ave ( most likely the north side due to loops from and to Macleod Trail north. Definitely a negative vs this plan. Pedestrian bridges would be good to separate travelers from cars, but would also likely involve bridges that would be either much less direct and would also require climbing additional height (undesirable).

Overall, given what it is (a high volume interchange) it considers and accommodates pedestrian traffic in a better fashion than other plans. My opinion.

[DizzyEdge]

Anything that makes people on foot climb a bridge so that people sitting in cars don't have to isn't pedestrian friendly in my opinion.

[Fuzz]

As you are counting "4 roads" based on 2 separate turn lanes and 2 separate main directional travel roads. Seem that this would be the same measurement as any other major roads that have turn lanes with small "islands" once you cross the turn lanes and stand at the corner on the island. Roads not as major as this have this as well.

As far as pedestrian friendly, I think that it is a benefit that there are not more crossings that are required to be made whether you are staying on the same side (north or south) or if you are crossing the intersection (ie. NW to SE). This allows for much more direct travel as compared to some other iterations what would have forced pedestrians to cross Macleod on only one side of 162nd Ave ( most likely the north side due to loops from and to Macleod Trail north. Definitely a negative vs this plan. Pedestrian bridges would be good to separate travelers from cars, but would also likely involve bridges that would be either much less direct and would also require climbing additional height (undesirable).

Overall, given what it is (a high volume interchange) it considers and accommodates pedestrian traffic in a better fashion than other plans. My opinion.
I was just kidding around, but I'm not sure I see how most "standard" intersections have 4 crossings. The main one involves crossing 2 directions of traffic, but you don't stop in between.

[Bri-Guy]

I was just kidding around, but I'm not sure I see how most "standard" intersections have 4 crossings. The main one involves crossing 2 directions of traffic, but you don't stop in between.

True - I was thinking crossing the "same/similar" number of traffic movements - but you are correct, this doesn't mean additional stops for pedestrians.

Probably more than enough time spent on this item already. Moving on. :)

[ByeByeBaby]

Just walk to the pedestrian bridge.....:haha:

Pedestrian friendly my backside.

There was a tour a traffic engineer made of the pedestrian friendly features of a diverging diamond interchange, and this is a good response to that:
zWG49xlZ_eQ

[CrossedTheTracks]

There was a tour a traffic engineer made of the pedestrian friendly features of a diverging diamond interchange, and this is a good response to that:

Not sure I'd call it a "good response to diverging diamond". Most, if not all, of the criticisms have nothing to do with diverging diamond, and could be equally applied to (traditional) diamond, or just about any high-volume interchange with at-grade pedestrian crossings.

Now, I agree with what he says, that's it's *not* particularly pedestrian-friendly... To be fair, he was calling it a rebuttal to someone claiming that it is pedestrian-friendly.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

The proposed changes to the Flanders interchange off of Crowchild goes to CPC next Thursday ... Here's a link to show what the proposal is:

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/calgary_planning_commission/agenda/2015/M-2015-015.pdf

Roundabouts everywhere

[sim]

The proposed changes to the Flanders interchange off of Crowchild goes to CPC next Thursday ... Here's a link to show what the proposal is:

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/calgary_planning_commission/agenda/2015/M-2015-015.pdf

Roundabouts everywhere

Such a load of horseshit (in the spirit of the Stampede).

The same tired bullshit rhetoric about how this is an improvement... blah, blah, blah.. It's an improvement for car drivers and the almighty narrow objectives of localized traffic flow. That's it.

I can state in no uncertain terms that walking times (and cycling, depending on which non-cyclist category you are to slot yourself in) are increased due to this "improvement", the potential for prioritizing transit has been negated and there is a large likelihood that bicyclist collisions will increase. Pavement widths are much larger and traffic will be much faster and therefore, subjectively (if not objectively) less safe.

Oh but they are roundabouts!! The greatest thing ever.

Nothing says walkable community like one you are ever more forced to drive to.

Here's an improvement - widen the bridge structure to add a sidewalk on the south side and perhaps slot in some bike lanes, add signal priority to the existing lights (or realize that two "BRT" routes) will soon be shooting through the area, and leave it as a lane per direction.

This improvement is cheaper, safer, actually more convenient for every other mode, promotes mode shift and ensures a relative reduction in vehicle kilometers travelled and higher cost effectiveness of the impending BRTs, all the while not shifting vehicular congestion issues further down the network, uses less development and/or green space, creates less run-off, reduces noise emissions, maintains a reasonably human-scaled environment, is true to the vision of a walkable community and, well isn't a "complete street" of horseshit.

The one thing such an improvement won't do is move more cars faster. But hey, moving cars fast trumps all.

[Fuzz]

While not having traffic lights all over the overpass will be nice, I'm kind of foreseeing lots of pedestrians getting run over.

With trees everywhere blocking sight lines, 2 lane's entering/exiting multiple traffic circles, and several pedestrian cross walks, it is gong to be a lot for drivers to keep their eye on, especially coming off of Crowchild where they have just been driving 95.

[MasterG]

Such a load of horseshit (in the spirit of the Stampede).

The same tired bullshit rhetoric about how this is an improvement... blah, blah, blah.. It's an improvement for car drivers and the almighty narrow objectives of localized traffic flow. That's it.

I can state in no uncertain terms that walking times (and cycling, depending on which non-cyclist category you are to slot yourself in) are increased due to this "improvement", the potential for prioritizing transit has been negated and there is a large likelihood that bicyclist collisions will increase. Pavement widths are much larger and traffic will be much faster and therefore, subjectively (if not objectively) less safe.

Oh but they are roundabouts!! The greatest thing ever.

Nothing says walkable community like one you are ever more forced to drive to.

Here's an improvement - widen the bridge structure to add a sidewalk on the south side and perhaps slot in some bike lanes, add signal priority to the existing lights (or realize that two "BRT" routes) will soon be shooting through the area, and leave it as a lane per direction.

This improvement is cheaper, safer, actually more convenient for every other mode, promotes mode shift and ensures a relative reduction in vehicle kilometers travelled and higher cost effectiveness of the impending BRTs, all the while not shifting vehicular congestion issues further down the network, uses less development and/or green space, creates less run-off, reduces noise emissions, maintains a reasonably human-scaled environment, is true to the vision of a walkable community and, well isn't a "complete street" of horseshit.

The one thing such an improvement won't do is move more cars faster. But hey, moving cars fast trumps all.

This exactly. Backwards design that is only an improvement over the shit designs that didn't even bother painting in a pedestrian crosswalk at all.

The transportation department needs to recognize, that if they do as they say - 10-15K high density residents + similar office market - this area shares more in common with the Beltline, not some nameless offramp in Mackenzie Towne.

This would get at C+ in Mackenzine Towne or elsewhere in car-oriented burbia. F- for Garrison area. It's ridiculously offensive to such a promising redevelopment (planned out in the next 5 to 25 years) to assume and design as if the the car-orientated lifestyle of 1981 will continue to thrive in 2040 when the neighbourhood is built out.

While being better than the older, "pedestrians are not a thing" interchange designs, make no mistake: this design is pure shit.

[CalgaryAlex]

If vehicle-pedestrian collisions turn out to be a consistent problem, I can't even see how they can fix the problem. They've left very little room for improvement here unless they build a giant pedestrian bridge over the whole mess for $25 million.

[ByeByeBaby]

This exactly. Backwards design that is only an improvement over the shit designs that didn't even bother painting in a pedestrian crosswalk at all.

The transportation department needs to recognize, that if they do as they say - 10-15K high density residents + similar office market - this area shares more in common with the Beltline, not some nameless offramp in Mackenzie Towne.

This would get at C+ in Mackenzine Towne or elsewhere in car-oriented burbia. F- for Garrison area. It's ridiculously offensive to such a promising redevelopment (planned out in the next 5 to 25 years) to assume and design as if the the car-orientated lifestyle of 1981 will continue to thrive in 2040 when the neighbourhood is built out.

While being better than the older, "pedestrians are not a thing" interchange designs, make no mistake: this design is pure shit.

I didn't think it would be that bad; I looked at the design; it is this bad.

[dmuzika]

Plans for Deerfoot Trail improvements put on hold by province
Dave Dormer, Calgary Sun

Ministry of Transportation spokesman Aaron Manton confirmed Monday the improvements — which would have seen Deerfoot Tr. widened to relieve pressure on three pinch-points — between Southland and Anderson Tr. and at Glenmore Tr. in the south; and near Airport Tr. in the north — have been put on hold.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/07/13/plans-for-deerfoot-trail-improvements-put-on-hold-by-province

Three-year, joint study of Deerfoot Trail to cost up to $3.5 million, says province
Trevor Howell, Calgary Herald

City officials were told nearly a year ago a plan to improve bottlenecks along Deerfoot Trail was being shelved, the NDP government said Tuesday.

The former Progressive Conservative regime promised in late 2013 to spend $15 million on improvements on the Southland Drive interchange and the Glenmore Trail off-ramp on Deerfoot Trail with work to start the following year.
...

The province and city are now proceeding with a joint $3-million to $3.5-million, three-year study of Deerfoot Trail from Stoney Trail north to Highway 22X [Stoney Trail] in the south.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/three-year-joint-study-of-deerfoot-trail-to-cost-up-to-3-5-million-says-province

[Acey]

Deerfoot is so bad that you can pretty much throw anything at and it will be an improvement. Frustrating to see them spend $3.5M just to confirm what we already know, that Deerfoot is an abomination. Then it will be further tens of millions to start making an indent on the weave zones which every Deerfoot commuter already knows is the root of the problem.

[ken0042]

My thinking was that the proposes changes to Southland would have simply moved the problem area up a bit. Basically you have Deerfoot going from 3 lanes to 2 right where there are two major interchanges. (Anderson and Southland.) The new plan would move the pinch point up to between Southland and Glenmore; once again where it goes down to 2 lanes.

[Full Mountain]

Plans for Deerfoot Trail improvements put on hold by province
Dave Dormer, Calgary Sun



http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/07/13/plans-for-deerfoot-trail-improvements-put-on-hold-by-province

Three-year, joint study of Deerfoot Trail to cost up to $3.5 million, says province
Trevor Howell, Calgary Herald



http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/three-year-joint-study-of-deerfoot-trail-to-cost-up-to-3-5-million-says-province

This study has one reason, to give Deerfoot back to the city.

[MalcolmTucker]

Thought I'd throw these up, the phases of the Bow Trail Connector, as the last time I was looking for them they had vanished:
From the Downtown West End Policy Consolidation (http://content.mindmixer.com/Live/Projects/calgary/files/47016/PolicyConsideration.pdf?634932812314100000)
http://i.imgur.com/kavBA61.png
http://i.imgur.com/9M6fgLf.png

The following transportation changes affect the West End area.
The future Bow Trail Connector is a multi-stage scheme that would
improve traffic flows entering and exiting the Downtown from the
west. Road improvements, widening and new ramps would focus on Bow
Trail in the vicinity of the Mewata Bridge. The first phase of the
project was completed in 1989. The second phase of the project
will entail the construction of an interchange in which 5th Avenue
South will be elevated in the order of 9 m west of 11th Street West
(Figures 7 and 8). No fixed construction schedule has been set
as the timing of the Connector is tied to population thresholds
in Calgary. The Community Planning Advisory Committee which was
created to review planning issues in the West End requested that
pedestrian access to the West End Riverbank be provided in the form
of an at-grade crossing with a pedestrian-operated signal generally
in the vicinity of 10th Street West.

The Riverbank Park is also affected by planning for the Bow Trail
Connector. The alignment of this roadway may create a widened park
area adjacent to the Bow River. The Planning Advisory Committee for
the West End has also requested that this decision recognize the
requirements of the West End community for recreation and access
to the Bow River.
Future development potential on the Mewata public lands is severely
restricted by the transportation constraints. In the ultimate Bow
Trail Connector design, limited access is available to lands west
of the Mewata Stadium via 6th Avenue South, 9th Avenue South or
11th Street West.

[technomad]

wow, that's pretty slick actually.. just get all of Bow closer to the tracks west of 14, and lump this in with the Crowchild fixes

[mersar]

Prelimary construction of the new Flanders interchange has begun with prep work for the new ramps for construction. Big work starts Labour day weekend when the existing bridge is being demolished. So that will make Crowchild an active construction zone again until some time in mid 2017, and access into the barracks a bit more complicated if you're coming from the south.

[sim]

Yup, this abject stupidity has started.

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary South Downtown Bypass Plan
Source: Calgary Inner City Plan, 1979 http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/inner-city-plan-sc.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/7XCZbBI.png
http://i.imgur.com/AZME8fY.png