Calgary Roads

[milomilo]

Glenmore/Ogden started today (http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2015/08/free-flowing-traffic-coming-to-glenmore.html?utm_content=buffer00d36&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Looking at the plans, the work includes modifying Glenmore/Barlow also in the same way the diversion is being done to Ogden. Presumably this will make it much easier to add a flyover to Barlow once money arrives. Very sensible. Having both of those done (and 52nd eventually) will be a huge improvement to the area.

http://i.imgur.com/6n4pdLV.jpg

[Innersoul1]

I have noticed that there have been a number of locations when LED lights have been installed. I must admit that they are really slick.

[craner]

Awesome news about Glenmore/Barlow - I didn't know that was included with the Glenmore/Ogden work. :tup:

[Ramsayfarian]

Awesome news about Glenmore/Barlow - I didn't know that was included with the Glenmore/Ogden work. :tup:

Speaking of Glenmore /Ogden, is that project on hold. I drove by there the other day and it doesn't look like anything has been done there for a while.

[speedog]

Speaking of Glenmore /Ogden, is that project on hold. I drove by there the other day and it doesn't look like anything has been done there for a while.

Odd, I would say quite the opposite as there's plenty of prep work happening at Glenmore/Ogden/Sheppard - new power lines, utilities being moved, some rearrangements down on Sheppard Road.

[mersar]

Speaking of Glenmore /Ogden, is that project on hold. I drove by there the other day and it doesn't look like anything has been done there for a while.

Its only just kicking off now. Prep work was done earlier this year and last, but aside from the utilities relocate not much else has been happening. But thats going to change in the next few weeks.


Flanders/Crowchild is going full steam ahead, the entire interchange area on the west side has been stripped, a temporary storm pond dug out, and they were doing some work further north near the existing pedestrian bridge today as well.

[Fuzz]

Wow at #8! Glad Stephen Ave exists as it does today.

[tmjr]

Broadly speaking, two questions...

I'm trying to find out the city's plans for Symons Valley Parkway, particularly the little unconnected stretch between Symons Valley Rd and 37 St NW. Are they eventually going to connect those two sections of Symons Valley Parkway?

Secondly, how does one generally find out about the city's plans for a road? Are the development plans for a road listed somewhere? I searched for "Symons Valley Parkway" on the city of calgary website and came up with nothing, as did my search on google...

[MalcolmTucker]

^ hmm. Start here: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Planning-and-development-resource-library/Land-Use-bylaw-1P2007-maps.aspx

[tmjr]

Thanks! Looks like that parcel is designated S-FUD, which at least means no definite plans to connect the two sections... :-(

[tmjr]

Thanks 5seconds - those maps do show the two segments connecting...

[mersar]

Also check the Symons Valley Community Plan (http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/symons-valley-community-plan.pdf), page 49 has a map of the transportation network which does show it connected, so in the future I assume it eventually will be as that's a statutory document. Probably once the land adjacent is developed, similar to how Country Hills Blvd in the NW took years before it actually was connected from Rocky Ridge to 12 Mile Coulee.

[Ramsayfarian]

Does anyone know if they opened the road in front of the D.I.C? Was down there the other day and it looked like one could drive straight on through now.

[J-D]

Does anyone know if they opened the road in front of the D.I.C? Was down there the other day and it looked like one could drive straight on through now.

Can confirm this. It's kind of a weird road though.

[msmariner]

Broadly speaking, two questions...

I'm trying to find out the city's plans for Symons Valley Parkway, particularly the little unconnected stretch between Symons Valley Rd and 37 St NW. Are they eventually going to connect those two sections of Symons Valley Parkway?

Secondly, how does one generally find out about the city's plans for a road? Are the development plans for a road listed somewhere? I searched for "Symons Valley Parkway" on the city of calgary website and came up with nothing, as did my search on google...
Most of the SVPWY sections west of 37st I believe were built by the developers. Maybe the city is waiting for the section east of 37st to be built by another developer?

[mersar]

It was posted in another thread, but piling is well underway for the Ogden interchange. Quite a substantial abutment from the look of it, and you can definitely tell how that intersection is getting realigned as its quite back from the existing intersection.

[You Need A Thneed]

Bow Trail now has a posted 70 kph zone between 26th street and the west village. Was only 60 before.

[srperrycgy]

:previous: Woo Hoo! :cheers:

[simster3]

I noticed that. I was pretty happy about the change!

[Ramsayfarian]

Can confirm this. It's kind of a weird road though.

Thanks for the confirmation. I agree it is a little strange. Looks like something out of Suburbia's nightmares.

[Innersoul1]

Bow Trail now has a posted 70 kph zone between 26th street and the west village. Was only 60 before.

This is good news! It has always pissed me off how slow that section is. Especially for a downhill portion of the road.

[Innersoul1]

So they have finished paving Sarcee Trail. They have put the preliminary markings down on the pavement. It is VERY apparent, due to the incorrect location of the preliminary markings on the westbound portion going down that hill, that there is room for a third lane. How does the city decide where it is appropriate to add an extra lane?

[lubicon]

So they have finished paving Sarcee Trail. They have put the preliminary markings down on the pavement. It is VERY apparent, due to the incorrect location of the preliminary markings on the westbound portion going down that hill, that there is room for a third lane. How does the city decide where it is appropriate to add an extra lane?

Nope, still working on it. It looks like most of the paving is done and maybe just line marking is left. Hoping it finishes soon, it will be nice to get the speed limit back up to 80. Not that anyone was actually slowing down to 60 :). I was passed by a guy on the outside yesterday morning. (iwas travellingin the outside lane as well). Lights flashing, laying on the horn, the whole nine yards. And I was doing about 70 (in the 60 zone).

[msmariner]

So they have finished paving Sarcee Trail. They have put the preliminary markings down on the pavement. It is VERY apparent, due to the incorrect location of the preliminary markings on the westbound portion going down that hill, that there is room for a third lane. How does the city decide where it is appropriate to add an extra lane?

Besides the addition of a shoulder on the left, the road markings are the same

[Innersoul1]

Besides the addition of a shoulder on the left, the road markings are the same

They appear to be the same as of TODAY. But the markings that they put down post paving allowed for a third lane NO PROBLEM until the exit to 16th at the bottom of the hill and the exit to Bow Trail west at the the top. I know this because on multiple ocassions drivers were using it as a third lane. But it looks like they scrubbed those originally markings and have now shifted everything over. You you are right, NOW there is a small shoulder on the left and the right shoulder has been minimized.

[msmariner]

They appear to be the same as of TODAY. But the markings that they put down post paving allowed for a third lane NO PROBLEM until the exit to 16th at the bottom of the hill and the exit to Bow Trail west at the the top. I know this because on multiple ocassions drivers were using it as a third lane. But it looks like they scrubbed those originally markings and have now shifted everything over. You you are right, NOW there is a small shoulder on the left and the right shoulder has been minimized.

The reason I know about the road markings on Sarcee is because I am the one who puts them on for the City. I've spent the past two months marking the road. Every time another lift of ashphalt (4 lifts were put down coming up and down the hill between Bowdale cr and bow tr.
The right shoulder has always been 3.5-4m wide. Not sure why they have such a wide shoulder, but that is what was called for.
With the additional 6 inches of ashphalt (they built up the road base to hopefully avoid all the cracks in the road from the past). The gutters were paved over the previous 12"+ curbs now being less than 6". With out the gutters to funnel water, larger catch basins were added. Because we don't want people driving over the basins 30cm to 1m shoulders were added on the left side going up the hill and one spot down the hill. After this it seems that the shoulders are smaller.
Looks like wire safety barriers are being added to southbound lanes going up the hill too.

[Innersoul1]

The reason I know about the road markings on Sarcee is because I am the one who puts them on for the City. I've spent the past two months marking the road. Every time another lift of ashphalt (4 lifts were put down coming up and down the hill between Bowdale cr and bow tr.
The right shoulder has always been 3.5-4m wide. Not sure why they have such a wide shoulder, but that is what was called for.
With the additional 6 inches of ashphalt (they built up the road base to hopefully avoid all the cracks in the road from the past). The gutters were paved over the previous 12"+ curbs now being less than 6". With out the gutters to funnel water, larger catch basins were added. Because we don't want people driving over the basins 30cm to 1m shoulders were added on the left side going up the hill and one spot down the hill. After this it seems that the shoulders are smaller.
Looks like wire safety barriers are being added to southbound lanes going up the hill too.

Thanks for the insider insight. I have tried to use my logic and basic understanding of paving while the process was ongoing to understand how it was all going to work. Of interest was certainly the adjustment from 12"+ curbs to the now less than 6" ones. I always found those 12" curbs pretty solid at stopping vehicles from jumping them.

I am quite curious about the wire safety barriers. I understand that they are quite good at stopping vehicles but I am curious of their long term cost. For example the section out on Highway 1 near Bear Hill had a car crash through it within a week of it being erected. How soon will crews be expected to fix the wires and support poles, especially in the winter. I see this as being a big problem with the wire barriers. At least with the Jersey style barriers they can withstand multiple collisions. The wire system, not so much.

[Mazrim]

I see this as being a big problem with the wire barriers. At least with the Jersey style barriers they can withstand multiple collisions. The wire system, not so much.

That's only an illusion given by the solid nature of a concrete jersey barrier. There are additional human costs to providing a solid hazard to the driver versus the flexible nature of a Cable, W-Beam or Thrie Beam barrier system. On a straight stretch of highway, the chance the same section of barrier being struck multiple times in the exact same location is slim. If one location is struck multiple times in a short period of time, there's a chance that area was not assessed properly, however.

Generally I prefer to see concrete barriers as a last resort for a number of reasons, but as a driver, you should want to crash into anything but that.

Supposedly you should be able to quickly repair any section of cable barrier that has been struck, but I've noticed that in reality it's just not happening. I don't know if the logistics of getting a crew out to make the change is tougher than it seems, that maybe the cable barrier needs specific skillsets or tools, but it may also be growing pains from switching to this type of barrier when it hasn't been used before.

[lubicon]

On the topic of repaving....

I never really gave it much thought until watching the whole process at Sarcee this summer. Although I have not proven this yet in regards to the final stage paving I wonder if my observations will hold up. With the milling and then initial stages of paving I noticed that the grade of the road itself remains pretty much unchanged. In other words low spots that collected puddles after a rain were still low spots and collecting water even after the paving. I had just assumed that this would not happen after paving as the small depressions etc. would be covered by varying depths of new asphalt and all even out but maybe not. Seems like a shame that a newly paved road would still suffer from the same low spots as before, and there were some pretty good places that collected water.

[Innersoul1]

That's only an illusion given by the solid nature of a concrete jersey barrier. There are additional human costs to providing a solid hazard to the driver versus the flexible nature of a Cable, W-Beam or Thrie Beam barrier system. On a straight stretch of highway, the chance the same section of barrier being struck multiple times in the exact same location is slim. If one location is struck multiple times in a short period of time, there's a chance that area was not assessed properly, however.

Generally I prefer to see concrete barriers as a last resort for a number of reasons, but as a driver, you should want to crash into anything but that.

Supposedly you should be able to quickly repair any section of cable barrier that has been struck, but I've noticed that in reality it's just not happening. I don't know if the logistics of getting a crew out to make the change is tougher than it seems, that maybe the cable barrier needs specific skillsets or tools, but it may also be growing pains from switching to this type of barrier when it hasn't been used before.

I don't disagree with you. Obviously the wire barrier system and it's flexibility make it superior. The only point that I was trying to make is that it really seems that the sections of cable barrier that are being struck aren't quickly replaced. I would imagine that this will prove problematic when the winter comes around. Even on straight sections. Case in point would be the new wire section between Crestmont and just past Old Banff Coach on highway one. It's a pretty narrow section and once a car slides off there in the winter it will be curious to see how quickly they fix it up.

[Innersoul1]

On the topic of repaving....

I never really gave it much thought until watching the whole process at Sarcee this summer. Although I have not proven this yet in regards to the final stage paving I wonder if my observations will hold up. With the milling and then initial stages of paving I noticed that the grade of the road itself remains pretty much unchanged. In other words low spots that collected puddles after a rain were still low spots and collecting water even after the paving. I had just assumed that this would not happen after paving as the small depressions etc. would be covered by varying depths of new asphalt and all even out but maybe not. Seems like a shame that a newly paved road would still suffer from the same low spots as before, and there were some pretty good places that collected water.

That's a really good point. I noticed that this summer on Sarcee, especially at the top of the hill, westbound, where the water puddles and has nowhere to drain. I am interested to see what happens on the Southbound lanes up the hill. Lots of water used to drain down the hill and freeze on the road. Although Lafarge did some work prior to paving it looks like a band-aid fix.

[craner]

Looks like prep work has started on the MacLeod / 162nd interchange. I didn't realize it was proceeding already.

[srperrycgy]

:previous:

I didn't realize that this one was underway either. I drove through the Flanders Ave bridge demo without problem this afternoon. Pretty massive work being done there. So, we have four major interchanges underway by the City now? :cheers:

[You Need A Thneed]

:previous:

I didn't realize that this one was underway either. I drove through the Flanders Ave bridge demo without problem this afternoon. Pretty massive work being done there. So, we have four major interchanges underway by the City now? :cheers:

Yup, 4 underway:

McLeod / 162nd (diverging diamond including extra basket weave ramp)
Glenmore / Ogden (diamond interchange and includes overpass of rail lines)
Crowchild / Flanders (rebuild - sort of like a dogbone interchange)
16th Ave / Bowfort Road (SPUI)

[MasterG]

Interesting data coming out as a by-product of the cycle-track pilot on Stephen Ave, which went live in late June, but data was tracked since late 2014.

As far as I can tell, this might be the first and only pedestrian and vehicle counter in the city which yields a unique data set to review compared to most roads elsewhere where only vehicle data is tracked and published accurately:


There is no day (that I can find) since recording began in December where car numbers exceeded pedestrian numbers, including weekends, poor weather and winter.
Typical Pedestrian counts are 10 - 15x car traffic, even on weekends.
Bicycle traffic is cyclical with seasons, however there was a noticeable increase in late June with the opening of the cycle-track network, becoming 2-5x more common than before. Weather was great all spring and early summer, so it is unlikely this spike was due to weather alone.


Would love to see the Beltline embrace a similar concept as Stephen Ave one day on a North-South route (7th Street SW, or 6th Street SW seem like reasonable candidates). Cars don't have to be totally banned, but just de-prioritized to reflect actual traffic counts through wider sidewalks, all-way stops at more intersection etc. I would guess that many side streets in the Beltline would have far higher pedestrian counts than car counts.

[sim]

And yet here in Calgary, and in other cities, it is fashionable to push for 6-8 lane 'urban boulevards' which are simultaneously choked with slow moving traffic and create a barrier to pedestrian movement. Vancouver has chosen to completely neglect to provide efficient corridors for automobiles hoping that everyone will take public transit, but evidence shows that it just means your main streets are clogged and thoroughly unpleasant for both drivers and pedestrians.

Better to have a small number of efficient roads grade separated to allow cars to pass through away from your 'nice' residential and commercial streets. Calgary has plenty of these failed roads - 16th Ave, Macloed Trail, 36th St, Crowchild in West Hillhurst, Bow Trail. Making these roads terrible for car drivers also made it worse for pedestrian movement and the urban setting.

(The above from the Construction thread, so as not to derail it) :

Evidence shows it worked. I don't know what you mean by evidence or where you get it from, but Vancouver was recently able to boast that for the first time in a long time, 50% of trips where completed with alternative modes (not vehicles) and vehicle kilometres travelled per capita continues to decline.

I agree that (6 to) 8 to 10 lane urban boulevards is just lipstick on a pig, but not moving vehicles "efficiently" is efficient. Freeways beget freeways and interchanges beget interchanges. Try building transit ridership when you have to force riders to access stops located on off-ramps or fenced-in, sound-walled freeways.

[milomilo]

(The above from the Construction thread, so as not to derail it) :

Evidence shows it worked. I don't know what you mean by evidence or where you get it from, but Vancouver was recently able to boast that for the first time in a long time, 50% of trips where completed with alternative modes (not vehicles) and vehicle kilometres travelled per capita continues to decline.

I agree that (6 to) 8 to 10 lane urban boulevards is just lipstick on a pig, but not moving vehicles "efficiently" is efficient. Freeways beget freeways and interchanges beget interchanges. Try building transit ridership when you have to force riders to access stops located on off-ramps or fenced-in, sound-walled freeways.

First I want to say my opinion isn't a million miles away from yours and I fully understand your arguments - I don't think freeways directly into downtown are a good thing at all.

However, I think it's idealistic to think that transit can eliminate all, or even most, car journeys. People don't just make trips to work downtown and come back again. For people who don't work downtown transit is almost always not an option. So for those journeys, providing free flow roads which bypass our busiest areas will be beneficial to those road users, as well as meaning we don't force too much traffic down roads that are not designed to deal with large volumes of traffic.

Remember also that buses still have to travel these 'efficient' gridlocked roads. If we funnel cars onto higher volume roads, that will leave the local streets less busy for buses.

[sim]

First I want to say my opinion isn't a million miles away from yours and I fully understand your arguments - I don't think freeways directly into downtown are a good thing at all.

However, I think it's idealistic to think that transit can eliminate all, or even most, car journeys. People don't just make trips to work downtown and come back again. For people who don't work downtown transit is almost always not an option. So for those journeys, providing free flow roads which bypass our busiest areas will be beneficial to those road users, as well as meaning we don't force too much traffic down roads that are not designed to deal with large volumes of traffic.

Remember also that buses still have to travel these 'efficient' gridlocked roads. If we funnel cars onto higher volume roads, that will leave the local streets less busy for buses.

Transit doesn't just have to serve downtown and commute trips, that's just what we know and perpetuate with our land use and continual interchange building. Without dissecting this to nth degrees, the reason transit works well into downtown is because there are a lot of activities there. There tend not to be a lot of things going on in between interchange off-ramps and large TUC corridors, unless you're prone to admiring retention ponds.

There are also other non-vehicular modes beside transit, and yes, these can combine for a majority of trips, and in many, many cities they do. They are generally symbiotic, but none of them [alternative modes] are supported by large vehicular mobility supporting infrastructure.

To your last point - you're looking at a bus from a car driver's perspective. In fact, it's a rather common misconception and/or is often used to justify even more lane building - that buses also get stuck in gridlock. This only holds if you box in the problem. A) Buses facilitate accessibility better than they do mobility - create a land use / transpo system based on mobility (ie, one with a lot of spatially inefficient vehicular infrastructure) and your bus is bound to do worse. B) Buses are not the only form of PT, nor do they have to run on the same ROWs as general traffic, and if they do, nor do they have to wait at the same signals, for the same amount of time. How do you prioritize a bus through an interchange? You don't. Aggregate the marginal missed opportunities and inaccessible freeway corridor right-of-ways and you might get a transit system useful for radial commuting at best. This is also a manifestation of the misguided belief that all modes can be improved all the time. They can't. Spatial and temporal laws govern this.

The reason people don't choose transit (if they have a choice) isn't because it isn't fast per se, it's because it isn't faster than their alternative. An interchange only further tips the balance: walking to and accessing stops and stations becomes more difficult and longer because of the inherent barriers they present land-use patterns they induce - thus the trip time goes up more.

I mean this in all honesty; if you (a general you) are an advocate for transit, freeways and interchanges directly conflict with that advocacy.

It's a pretty well known relationship that cities with more freeway lane kms, are more car dependent, have larger trip distances and become more entrenched in having to build more of that type of infrastructure to solve issues - a vicious circle.

[milomilo]

Thanks for the detailed reply - sorry mine will only be short!

There has to be a balance though? Do you think all high volume roads in cities are bad?

You imply that high volume roads all have to be km wide Deerfoot style roads, but this I think isn't fair - roads like Crowchild and Glenmore are litttle wider than 16th Ave and Macleod, and in my opinion are less destructive to the local environment. High volumes of cars are separated from the places where you don't want them.

I am an advocate for transit, but I don't think making roads worse is the right way to go about it, I think we should encourage it by making transit better.

I like the setup Melbourne has - excellent local trams and long distance rail, but at the same time they have expensively tolled but very high quality freeways away from downtown. I highly doubt anyone there looks at our lack of quality roads with envy.

I do, however, think Calgary's method of limiting parking spaces downtown is a stroke of genius.

[Full Mountain]

Thanks for the detailed reply - sorry mine will only be short!

There has to be a balance though? Do you think all high volume roads in cities are bad?

You imply that high volume roads all have to be km wide Deerfoot style roads, but this I think isn't fair - roads like Crowchild and Glenmore are litttle wider than 16th Ave and Macleod, and in my opinion are less destructive to the local environment. High volumes of cars are separated from the places where you don't want them.

I am an advocate for transit, but I don't think making roads worse is the right way to go about it, I think we should encourage it by making transit better.

I like the setup Melbourne has - excellent local trams and long distance rail, but at the same time they have expensively tolled but very high quality freeways away from downtown. I highly doubt anyone there looks at our lack of quality roads with envy.

I do, however, think Calgary's method of limiting parking spaces downtown is a stroke of genius.

How is something that I can cross as a pedestrian/cyclist every 2 blocks more destructive than something I can only cross every 10-15 blocks if you're lucky?

16th/Macleod can be redeemed, Deerfoot and Crowchild are so far gone it would take a massive effort to get them back to a multi-modal corridor.

[DizzyEdge]

I think what he's proposing is separate highstreet and car-centric routes through an area, rather than attempting to combine the two.

[Full Mountain]

I think what he's proposing is separate highstreet and car-centric routes through an area, rather than attempting to combine the two.

Except by doing that you cut off part of the residents (at least 50%) from the high street.

[DizzyEdge]

Except by doing that you cut off part of the residents (at least 50%) from the high street.

Well and the cost of interchanges, etc.
I agree that even lots of slow moving (or barely moving) traffic that occurs when commuters end up funneled into local streets is a negative, but that will only occur a couple of hours during each rush hour.

[dazzlingdave88]

Thanks for the detailed reply - sorry mine will only be short!

There has to be a balance though? Do you think all high volume roads in cities are bad?

You imply that high volume roads all have to be km wide Deerfoot style roads, but this I think isn't fair - roads like Crowchild and Glenmore are litttle wider than 16th Ave and Macleod, and in my opinion are less destructive to the local environment. High volumes of cars are separated from the places where you don't want them.

I am an advocate for transit, but I don't think making roads worse is the right way to go about it, I think we should encourage it by making transit better.

I like the setup Melbourne has - excellent local trams and long distance rail, but at the same time they have expensively tolled but very high quality freeways away from downtown. I highly doubt anyone there looks at our lack of quality roads with envy.

I do, however, think Calgary's method of limiting parking spaces downtown is a stroke of genius.

Great points. Love the idea of a toll.

I think a combination of what you and sim are advocating for is the optimum way to design a transportation network in a city. I also think you guys are not really really that far apart in your viewpoints.

[milomilo]

Thanks for your responses guys, I'm enjoying discussing this.

How is something that I can cross as a pedestrian/cyclist every 2 blocks more destructive than something I can only cross every 10-15 blocks if you're lucky?

16th/Macleod can be redeemed, Deerfoot and Crowchild are so far gone it would take a massive effort to get them back to a multi-modal corridor.

They can't be redeemed without fundamentally changing them - ripping out half the lanes and stopping them being a primary artery for our city (one's even the Trans Canada!). What we have now is a block either side of these roads filled with auto-centric stripmall style developments, as no one is going to spend any time walking around or to these places. Compare that to Crowchild around the Marda Loop area, where the surrounding neighbourhoods are largely not affected by the road.

Just because there is a slightly higher spacing of crossings doesn't mean these boulevards are pedestrian friendly - the original post I replied to by Rusty mentioned having to walk many blocks and a 60 second light countdown. Building thoughtful pathways, underpasses and overpasses between transit stations, destination areas etc where people actually want to go rather than arbitrarily following the roads will provide a much nicer experience for pedestrians. Memorial is a great example of this (minus the lack of a crossing at the Peace Bridge).

I think what he's proposing is separate highstreet and car-centric routes through an area, rather than attempting to combine the two.

Essentially, yes.

Except by doing that you cut off part of the residents (at least 50%) from the high street.

Our high streets should be fronted mainly by retail anyway, I don't really see what the problem here is? An example of what we could do - reconfigure the roads around Kensington Road so that everything can go via Memorial or service access via the alleys. Then pedestrianise Kensington Road. How would that not be better?

[milomilo]

Great points. Love the idea of a toll.

I think a combination of what you and sim are advocating for is the optimum way to design a transportation network in a city. I also think you guys are not really really that far apart in your viewpoints.

Thanks. The more I think about it I do think tolled freeways would be a way forward.

With the caveat, however, that we do it properly. Not merely as a way to finance arbitrary, difficult to fund roads (like some have suggested to fund the SWRR - which would be counter productive). Rather, all of our freeways should be tolled at a level sufficient that we can fund major improvements. The toll could also be set at a level to manage demand.

We don't need a toll for all roads, as we already have a user pay system (gas tax) - although that could definitely be looked at for additional funding.

[sim]

Thanks for the detailed reply - sorry mine will only be short!

There has to be a balance though? Do you think all high volume roads in cities are bad?


You imply that high volume roads all have to be km wide Deerfoot style roads, but this I think isn't fair - roads like Crowchild and Glenmore are litttle wider than 16th Ave and Macleod, and in my opinion are less destructive to the local environment. High volumes of cars are separated from the places where you don't want them.

I am an advocate for transit, but I don't think making roads worse is the right way to go about it, I think we should encourage it by making transit better.

I like the setup Melbourne has - excellent local trams and long distance rail, but at the same time they have expensively tolled but very high quality freeways away from downtown. I highly doubt anyone there looks at our lack of quality roads with envy.

I do, however, think Calgary's method of limiting parking spaces downtown is a stroke of genius.

Good discussion and I apologize if I come off a bit... heavy-handed, but a couple things:

First Paragraph
I don't imply that they are 1 km wide. Glenmore and Crowchild are massive barriers - except in Kensington. They might not be Deerfoot massive, but they are substantial. How are you suppose to comfortably, and often physically, access transit in the GE5 area? I'm not sure what you mean by "destructive to the environment", as that is rather multifaceted. I guess to keep that much shorter, the best way to reduce that destruction is to reduce the vehicle kilometers travelled. You do that by reducing roadway (particularly freeway) lane kilometres.

Second Paragraph
Again, this is relative. I'm exactly saying transit needs to be made better and that this happen, simply by not continually making roadway "improvements". If the improvement isn't explicitly for transit and only transit (or active modes, especially walking), it isn't making transit better. A hypothetical interchange or freeway; one that doesn't somehow create transit access barriers so that travel times for a transit rider and for a car driver decrease equally, does not make transit better. It makes transit the same. Unfortunately, that hypothetical interchange or freeway doesn't and can't exist, so transit gets worse.

And we haven't even talked about what that does to transit operational costs. We could also make transit better, by going over or under these barriers. This is a very real-world option and done in lots of places. Unfortunately, it also comes with very real costs, not just capital, but operationally. If you get the ridership out of it, then it might work. I don't think it needs to be restated here how density/intensity promotes ridership.

I'm not advocating making roads "worse" per se. We are momentarily stuck with what we have. I'm advocating quitting doing more of the same, so we can eventually not be stuck with it and make some actual headway in making transit better in very cost-feasible and realistic ways.

Toll roads:
Type "toll roads in australia" into Google and see what happens. Australia is basically the ne plus ultra of failing toll roads. I believe Melbourne is no exception.

But I think you are advocating for congestion charging, although your last post conflicts that..

I believe this is where it gets grey. I'm for congestion charging in principle, especially on per km basis, but it does beg the question, which I think hasn't been adequately addressed in the literature/schemes developed, why not let congestion self-regulate road use in which would be a much more equitable, democratic means? Provide the alternatives (actual better transit - transit lanes, signal priority, grade-separate) and don't worry about setting up expensive, politically and socially contentious, complicated schemes.

[Bassic Lab]

Good discussion and I apologize if I come off a bit... heavy-handed, but a couple things:

1. I don't really imply that. Glenmore and Crowchild are massive barriers - except in Kensington. They might not be Deerfoot massive, but they are there. How are you suppose to comfortably, and often physically, access transit in the GE5 area? I'm not sure what you mean be destructive to the environment, as that is rather multifaceted. I guess to keep that much shorter, the best way to reduce that destruction is to reduce the vehicle kilometers travelled. You do that by reducing roadway (particularly freeway lane kilometres).

Again, this is relative. I'm exactly saying transit needs to be made better and that this would be the case, simply by not continually making roadway "improvements". If the improvement isn't explicitly for transit and only transit (or active modes, especially walking), it isn't making transit better. A hypothetical interchange or freeway; one that doesn't somehow create transit access barriers (which they all do, but let's assume), so that travel times for a transit rider and for car driver decrease equally, does not make transit better. It makes transit the same. Unfortunately, that hypothetical interchange or freeway doesn't and can't exist.

And we haven't even talked about what that does to transit operational costs. We could also make transit better, by going over or under these barriers. This is a very real-world option and done in lots of places. Unfortunately, it also comes with very real costs, not just capital, but operationally.

I'm not advocating making roads "worse" per se. We are momentarily stuck with what we have. I'm advocating quitting doing more of the same, so we can eventually not be stuck with it and make some actual headway in making transit better in very cost-feasible and realistic ways.

Toll roads:
Type "toll roads in australia" into Google and see what happens. They are basically the ne plus ultra of failing toll roads. I believe Melbourne is no exception.

But I think you are advocating for congestion charging, although your last post conflicts that..

I believe this is where it gets grey. I'm for congestion charging in principle, especially on per km basis, but it does beg the question, which I think hasn't been adequately addressed in the literature/schemes developed, why not let congestion self-regulate road use in which would be a much more equitable, democratic means? Provide the alternatives (actual better transit - transit lanes, signal priority, grade-separate) and don't worry about setting up expensive, politically and socially contentious, complicated schemes.

Turning 24 St SW into Crowchild certainly created a barrier to pedestrians but I think it isn't clear at all that a GE5 style project would make the Kensington area worse for transit or pedestrians compared to the status quo. Crowchild is already a massive barrier that can only be crossed at certain locations. Now I don't think we should but mainly because it is hugely expensive and I can't see how putting that money towards the 8th Ave Subway and 50 LRVs wouldn't aid mobility much more while having all kinds of ancillary benefits to sustainability.

When GE5 is your example of interchanges doing damage to transit and pedestrian access, I think you're reaching. Crossing Glenmore at grade was not a pleasant pedestrian experience.

[milomilo]

Good discussion and I apologize if I come off a bit... heavy-handed, but a couple things:

First Paragraph
I don't imply that they are 1 km wide. Glenmore and Crowchild are massive barriers - except in Kensington. They might not be Deerfoot massive, but they are substantial. How are you suppose to comfortably, and often physically, access transit in the GE5 area? I'm not sure what you mean by "destructive to the environment", as that is rather multifaceted. I guess to keep that much shorter, the best way to reduce that destruction is to reduce the vehicle kilometers travelled. You do that by reducing roadway (particularly freeway) lane kilometres.

To clarify, I'm only talking about the roads' effect on the local, human, environment. Impact on the natural environment/climate etc is a whole other discussion!

This may come down to opinion, but zeroing in on the Kensington portion of Crowchild, I truly and honestly believe that putting it in a trench or some other means of grade separation would be massively better for everyone - aesthetically and practically. What we have at the moment is just disgusting and completely severs both sides - due to the volume of traffic the signal cycle is unbearingly long, frustrating all users. I personally must have wasted hours of my life at one particular left turn signal there, and I expect everyone else on 5th Ave would be happy if they had better access to the road.

If there was a flyover there, pedestrian/cycle traffic would have a much easier and faster route between the two sides.


In regards to transit - I don't expect buses to navigate interchanges, for all the reasons you've said. Buses should be on local streets, ideally unhindered by too much commuter traffic. If we use GE5 as the example, then Elbow Drive is where buses should (and of course, do!) run North-South. For other routes we should consider transit only cut-throughs and right of ways, to connect transit through neighbourhoods without creating back routes for automobile traffic.


I couldn't find much on the problems of toll roads in Australia after some googling? I mainly like the idea as it could help get around the obvious problem that these roads are hugely expensive. If people were more exposed to how much it costs, then $5b on the Green Line might not look so bad.

[milomilo]

Turning 24 St SW into Crowchild certainly created a barrier to pedestrians but I think it isn't clear at all that a GE5 style project would make the Kensington area worse for transit or pedestrians compared to the status quo. Crowchild is already a massive barrier that can only be crossed at certain locations. Now I don't think we should but mainly because it is hugely expensive and I can't see how putting that money towards the 8th Ave Subway and 50 LRVs wouldn't aid mobility much more while having all kinds of ancillary benefits to sustainability.

When GE5 is your example of interchanges doing damage to transit and pedestrian access, I think you're reaching. Crossing Glenmore at grade was not a pleasant pedestrian experience.

This is also pretty much exactly what I think!

If I were to pick road projects in an ideal world, all I think we really need are Glenmore and Crowchild freeflow end to end. I'd say all of 16th Ave as well but it's too far gone.

If we had those two roads done, Stoney trail complete and other piecemeal interchange improvements, I'd be happy to call the road network 'complete' and then we could really focus our efforts on Transit.

[sim]

Turning 24 St SW into Crowchild certainly created a barrier to pedestrians but I think it isn't clear at all that a GE5 style project would make the Kensington area worse for transit or pedestrians compared to the status quo. Crowchild is already a massive barrier that can only be crossed at certain locations. Now I don't think we should but mainly because it is hugely expensive and I can't see how putting that money towards the 8th Ave Subway and 50 LRVs wouldn't aid mobility much more while having all kinds of ancillary benefits to sustainability.

When GE5 is your example of interchanges doing damage to transit and pedestrian access, I think you're reaching. Crossing Glenmore at grade was not a pleasant pedestrian experience.

It's not reaching, it's just a poignant example. Grab google earth, turn on the public transit layer so it shows the stops, and find how many are in and around interchanges. There won't be many, but where there are some, head to Streetview and see what they look like/ if you'd think it a comfortable, accessible environment to be walking to and waiting for a bus. Do the same along Crowchild south of the river...

And I might add, that only further reinforces what I'm saying. Glenmore then, was more or less a Blackfoot now: It's also large and has large barriers. I'm just sticking to the truly large stuff to keep this discussion framed.

I can't understate this enough, the more freeways and therefore interchanges or vice versa a city has, the less transit ridership there is. This isn't something I'm making up.

[Bassic Lab]

It's not reaching, it's just a poignant example. Grab google earth, turn on the public transit layer so it shows the stops, and find how many are in and around interchanges. There won't be many, but where there are some, head to Streetview and see what they look like/ if you'd think it a comfortable, accessible environment to be walking to and waiting for a bus. Do the same along Crowchild south of the river...

I can't understate this enough, the more freeways and therefore interchanges or vice versa a city has, the less transit ridership there is. This isn't something I'm making up.

It isn't a poignant example. Yes, there are awkward bus stops that aren't particularly pleasant to access and no, it isn't a a great area to be a pedestrian. So yeah, putting a GE5 at 17 Ave @ 4 St SW would be an epic disaster that would do massive damage to the pedestrian realm. The thing is, Glenmore was not a pedestrian friendly area in 2004. I'd much rather walk between Kingsland and Chinook by crossing Glenmore @ 5 St today than in 2004.

There are projects that can improve transit and roads at the same time. If a project shaves travel time for drivers and transit riders it is a win win. The former does not negate the latter. When you state it does, I have to question what you think the point of transit is? Is it to improve people's mobility?

[sim]

It isn't a poignant example. Yes, there are awkward bus stops that aren't particularly pleasant to access and no, it isn't a a great area to be a pedestrian. So yeah, putting a GE5 at 17 Ave @ 4 St SW would be an epic disaster that would do massive damage to the pedestrian realm. The thing is, Glenmore was not a pedestrian friendly area in 2004. I'd much rather walk between Kingsland and Chinook by crossing Glenmore @ 5 St today than in 2004.

There are projects that can improve transit and roads at the same time. If a project shaves travel time for drivers and transit riders it is a win win. The former does not negate the latter. When you state it does, I have to question what you think the point of transit is? Is it to improve people's mobility?

Unfortunately, the networked nature of the roadway system does not allow a linear application of how these things work. Blackfoot, Barlow, McKnight, 14 St, Shagannapi, Country Hills, etc etc, are all similar to what Glenmore was. "Improving" said roads by further grade separation and restricted access, will merely ensure that roads further downstream start to suffer the same issues. I do wonder if your stated preference (one that requires you to compare something from 10 years ago to now) reflects what you'd actually do. It sure seems that for Calgary as a whole, this is not the case - you know, with our overall mode share still trending ever more toward vehicle use.

It's a win-win at best if you're content on keeping transit as marginal for most people as it currently is. Win-win is an illusion. If such a thing existed, you wouldn't need to bring projects to council, even if it is not explicit.

Give me an example of a project that is truly a win-win, in every form - including long-term costs, broader sustainability goals, and land use patterns and most importantly, how they "win" relative to one another. I'm seriously all ears. A bridge for example, might come close. Unfortunately, in relative terms, it decreases vehicular travel time by the same - the difference is you can't pick anyone up on a bridge, and not every O and D needs to make use of it, so essentially you reduce accessibility (see below) unless you're willing to run more bus service. Secondly, assuming every O and D pair did necessitate a bridge, saving A to B travel time, then accentuates the dwell time as stops' delay (they become a bigger percentage of the overall travel time) which would not be the case for car drivers. At best this would be a win - 2nd place scenario (which is not to say it shouldn't be undertaken).

A transit and active mode only bridge, on the other hand - now that's a win. It's a win for absolutely all facets except vehicular mobility.

Mobility as the end goal has been, was, is and remains wrong-headed. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of why we travel to begin with. So to keep this brief and to answer your question, it is to improve people's accessibility, and to do so in an egalitarian, more sustainable manner. Mobility is but one part of that equation, and it is also misunderstanding the broader benefits of public transit. These benefits can't be realized if transit remains marginal, because we perpetually pit it against a mode that will always have an unfair, and distorted advantage in most cases.

[milomilo]

I wasn't in Calgary before GE5, but as I understand it there were signals at Elbow Drive and 5th street with Glenmore, similar to what Crowchild is like now? I can definitely see how that would be an ugly situation and what we have now being an improvement.

I see that as a win-win. It's now easier to walk north/south - Glenmore is less of a barrier than it was before. Additionally, transit on Elbow would no longer have to wait at what I imagine were extremely long signal cycles.

[sim]

I wasn't in Calgary before GE5, but as I understand it there were signals at Elbow Drive and 5th street with Glenmore, similar to what Crowchild is like now? I can definitely see how that would be an ugly situation and what we have now being an improvement.

I see that as a win-win. It's now easier to walk north/south - Glenmore is less of a barrier than it was before. Additionally, transit on Elbow would no longer have to wait at what I imagine were extremely long signal cycles.

Hey, and neither do car drivers, but now if you're accessing a stop, it has become more difficult. So in relative terms, that "improvement" tips in favour of car drivers. It's only a win-win if you perturb the definition of win. You can score 100 goals, but if you're playing a team that scored 101, you did not win.

Anyway, I've beaten the logic into the ground, and won't go over yet again why this plays out as such, at first at a network and then a systems level, especially taking into account not just overall trip travel times, but also their costs and how they get financed, and inevitably land-use.

Again, why is it that we are still trending more and more toward car use in this City and that roadway kms supplied are so correlated with decreased transit use broadly speaking?

[craner]

I wasn't in Calgary before GE5, but as I understand it there were signals at Elbow Drive and 5th street with Glenmore, similar to what Crowchild is like now? I can definitely see how that would be an ugly situation and what we have now being an improvement.

I see that as a win-win. It's now easier to walk north/south - Glenmore is less of a barrier than it was before. Additionally, transit on Elbow would no longer have to wait at what I imagine were extremely long signal cycles.

You got it.

[mersar]

Saw a story on CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-zoo-replacement-bridge-construction-to-begin-1.3229843) that they've started the more indepth geotech work for the new 12th Street SE bridge. Current plan is construction next year.

And a quick note in the city's presentation from a recent open house that the 9th Ave bridge over the Elbow replacement will likely start construction in 2018 or 2019

[DizzyEdge]

I see that they are going to scrap the zoo bridge, but is there any efforts to save the 9th ave bridge and re-purpose it anywhere else?

No. There has been some thought about retaining the vertical structures of the 9th ave bridge and incorporating them into the replacement bridge.
The 'zoo bridge' was the one that was considered for re-purposing, similar to the Hextall bridge in Bowness. I would be interested in seeing the estimated cost to refurb it, more details than just 'too expensive' would be nice.

[craner]

Thanks for the info regarding the old bridges and their replacements guys.

[srperrycgy]

Found this through Twitter this morning.

Time-lapse removal of the Flanders Ave bridge over Crowchild Trail:

jhjhWSDYZuw

[milomilo]

Cool! I was surprised they just ate away at the bridge until it collapsed.

[ByeByeBaby]

That's cooler than the last video I saw of a bridge being demolished in Calgary:
FYM4DNG1tms

[craner]

Very cool video srperrycgy - thanks for posting.
Amazing they can tear down a bridge and cleanup the site in 11 mins.

[davee930]

That video changes from summer to winter every few seconds. It's so obvious!

[holhm22]

I remember reading how they filmed that movie on Centre Street Bridge on Wikipedia and then immediately going to YouTube to watch it. Pretty neat to see the differences between then and now

[PPAR]

I wish that northbound leg of 14th street still existed!

[speedog]

I wish that northbound leg of 14th street still existed!
I'm sure the residents of Altadore are glad that it's gone.

[Innersoul1]

That's only an illusion given by the solid nature of a concrete jersey barrier. There are additional human costs to providing a solid hazard to the driver versus the flexible nature of a Cable, W-Beam or Thrie Beam barrier system. On a straight stretch of highway, the chance the same section of barrier being struck multiple times in the exact same location is slim. If one location is struck multiple times in a short period of time, there's a chance that area was not assessed properly, however.

Generally I prefer to see concrete barriers as a last resort for a number of reasons, but as a driver, you should want to crash into anything but that.

Supposedly you should be able to quickly repair any section of cable barrier that has been struck, but I've noticed that in reality it's just not happening. I don't know if the logistics of getting a crew out to make the change is tougher than it seems, that maybe the cable barrier needs specific skillsets or tools, but it may also be growing pains from switching to this type of barrier when it hasn't been used before.

Well the first section of barrier was taken out over the weekend as a result of a crash. Let's see how long it takes for them to fix it.

[MalcolmTucker]

I would guess that even when not looking ship shape that the cables still provide a reasonable level of safety. On Highway 2 back when I was on it a few times a month, the standard seemed to repair sags was 2-3 months. Sections that looked non-functional were all sub 1 month.

[MichaelS]

Bus stop is my first thought, but if so the angles of entry/exit will need to change quite a bit. And based on the location of those compared to the splitter islands, it would only work for bus routes in one direction, something Transit usually doesn't go for.

[srperrycgy]

Access to the houses, perhaps?

[PPAR]

This is a planning diagram for the SW ring road isn't it?

I feel sorry for those home owners. They currently have parkland across the street from their places, and soon they will be on a busy roundabout access point for the whole neighbourhood.

[Porfiry]

I feel sorry for those home owners. They currently have parkland across the street from their places, and soon they will be on a busy roundabout access point for the whole neighbourhood.

To be fair, those homes currently front onto 37th, which already provides access for most of the neighbourhood. Also, that's not "parkland" across the road, it's reserve land and I'm pretty sure it will be developed eventually.

[suburbia]

This is a planning diagram for the SW ring road isn't it?

I feel sorry for those home owners. They currently have parkland across the street from their places, and soon they will be on a busy roundabout access point for the whole neighbourhood.

They should have known there would be a road possibly coming in.

[geotag277]

They should have known there would be a road possibly coming in.

They only had about 40 years or so of warning.

[Joborule]

City is currenlty doing a study on the south part of Shaganappi Trail (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Projects/Current-Planning-Projects/South-Shaganappi-Study.aspx) around 16th avenue and Bowness road. With the river crossing plan being eliminated, and the downgrade of the road classification, the design of the roads and area in general is being reconsidered.

I ponder if the city still should consider making a transit-only/emergency vehicle bridge where the Shaganappi/Sarcee Trail was suppose to be. For emergency vehicles like EMS, I think it's silly that there have to wrap around to Sarcee Trail at 16th, or go down Crowchild to get to/from the hospital, when it's right there if the origin is Bow Trail and Sarcee.

[UofC.engineer]

City is currenlty doing a study on the south part of Shaganappi Trail (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Projects/Current-Planning-Projects/South-Shaganappi-Study.aspx) around 16th avenue and Bowness road. With the river crossing plan being eliminated, and the downgrade of the road classification, the design of the roads and area in general is being reconsidered.

I ponder if the city still should consider making a transit-only/emergency vehicle bridge where the Shaganappi/Sarcee Trail was suppose to be. For emergency vehicles like EMS, I think it's silly that there have to wrap around to Sarcee Trail at 16th, or go down Crowchild to get to/from the hospital, when it's right there if the origin is Bow Trail and Sarcee.

That's great news! In my opinion that entire interchange area is a disgusting waste of space.

[ClaytonA]

... a transit-only/emergency vehicle bridge where the Shaganappi/Sarcee Trail was suppose to be. ...

No - it'd wreck Edworthy Park as the EMS/transit bridge would evolve into the Sarcee Trail Bridge eventually. This dead horse keeps getting brought up because it was in the early LA style freeways everywhere road plans. With the road investments coming for Sarcee Trail at 16th Ave and for the Crowchild Tr bridge is this needed too?

[milomilo]

City is currenlty doing a study on the south part of Shaganappi Trail (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Projects/Current-Planning-Projects/South-Shaganappi-Study.aspx) around 16th avenue and Bowness road. With the river crossing plan being eliminated, and the downgrade of the road classification, the design of the roads and area in general is being reconsidered.

I ponder if the city still should consider making a transit-only/emergency vehicle bridge where the Shaganappi/Sarcee Trail was suppose to be. For emergency vehicles like EMS, I think it's silly that there have to wrap around to Sarcee Trail at 16th, or go down Crowchild to get to/from the hospital, when it's right there if the origin is Bow Trail and Sarcee.

That's great news! In my opinion that entire interchange area is a disgusting waste of space.

What's wrong with what's there currently? Granted there is a lot of wasted space, but is there much development possibility there anyway? It's quite hilly... Functionally the interchange is fine.

There are pieces of road that need fixing far more than this, IMO.

[CalgaryAlex]

Anyone attending the Crowchild Trail idea workshops? I am considering attending the one this Saturday.

Would love to see Crowchild trenched from 16th Ave to Kensington with at-grade traffic circles at 5th Ave and Kensington to control connections. I would also like to see new at-grade local traffic/pedestrian connections for a couple avenues, candidates being 14th Ave, Sumac Rd/12th Ave, 7th Ave and 3rd Ave to reestablish community connection on either side of the corridor.

[Sands]

Anyone attending the Crowchild Trail idea workshops? I am considering attending the one this Saturday.

Would love to see Crowchild trenched from 16th Ave to Kensington with at-grade traffic circles at 5th Ave and Kensington to control connections. I would also like to see new at-grade local traffic/pedestrian connections for a couple avenues, candidates being 14th Ave, Sumac Rd/12th Ave, 7th Ave and 3rd Ave to reestablish community connection on either side of the corridor.

I may go as well. Does anyone have 2012 Crowchild study document? why was it rejected and how this time is different?

[UofC.engineer]

What's wrong with what's there currently? Granted there is a lot of wasted space, but is there much development possibility there anyway? It's quite hilly... Functionally the interchange is fine.

There are pieces of road that need fixing far more than this, IMO.

The bottom of the hill is quite flat, there is residential and institutions flanking the entire site and it is very close to the river.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0651193,-114.1478637,957m/data=!3m1!1e3

Get rid of the spaghetti roads and build some residential.

[Innersoul1]

I am really digging the LED streetlights that are seemingly going up all over the city. I have become so accustomed to the hue of the city being that alien orange. The bright white is a nice change. Much better visibility too!

[Mazrim]

I am really digging the LED streetlights that are seemingly going up all over the city. I have become so accustomed to the hue of the city being that alien orange. The bright white is a nice change. Much better visibility too!

I'm assume it's just not being used to the different colour, but I've had many people tell me they feel it's harder to see distances with that light at night. Personally I feel it's better and I'm looking forward to more places using it.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Not sure if it's been posted yet but a render of the new 162/Macleod overpass is shown on page 8 of this CPC doc for this week

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/calgary_planning_commission/agenda/2015/M-2016-001.pdf

[outoftheice]

Article on the replacement bridge for the zoo crossing. I'm a bit disappointed in the design... it's very basic and yet it's an important link between two character areas of the city (the zoo and Inglewood) and is located in a very picturesque point in the river from along the river walk as well as St. Patrick's Island. It's a shame the Peace Bridge controversy seems to have everyone at the City scared of doing anything beyond basic when it comes to bridges. Hopefully the public input the city is seeking on esthetics dramatically changes the look from the renderings.


City unveils final concept for replacement zoo bridge

Trevor Howell, Calgary Herald
More from Trevor Howell, Calgary Herald

Calgary officials unveiled Wednesday the final concept for a $19-million bridge spanning the Bow River, linking Inglewood and the Calgary Zoo.

The new crossing will replace the century-old truss bridge on 12th Street S.E. that opened in 1908 for horse and buggy traffic.

The city considered three concepts, including another steel truss design, before settling on the arched steel box girder bridge, which has fewer piers in the river and no height restrictions.

The chosen design has “enhanced flood resiliency features” such as a higher clearance over the river, allowing it to withstand a 1-in-200-year flood, said project manager Katherine Hikita.

“We require it to withstand a 1-in-100-year flood and to have an extra metre of what we call freeboard … space before you hit the top of the underside of the bridge,” said Hikita.

“We also have to have it pass the 1-in-200 flood,” she said. “We’re actually exceeding what the city’s requirements are.”

She added the city will seek input from the public about the bridge’s esthetics...


Full article: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/city-unveils-final-concept-for-12th-street-bridge

http://wpmedia.calgaryherald.com/2015/12/151116-st-georges-bridge-viewnorth.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1

https://postmediacalgaryherald2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/151106-from-fort-calgary-14-172-hires.jpg?quality=55&strip=all

[MasterG]

The design is good but I would agree quite boring. Overall it certainly is an improvement, just missing a small detail that would make it better:

I am concerned they didn't give any attention to pedestrian lighting on what can be a key pedestrian route to the Zoo, St. Patricks Island and Bridgeland.

It isn't a far off future I am imagining where people are walking from Inglewood to the Island for late night movies in the park or Zoo lights and on to East Village. I would think pedestrian lighting should be a bigger priority in the inner city, (especially along key links like bridges), it seems if they arbitrarily took whatever engineering standard for streetlights exist for roads and didn't think about other users.

[suburbia]

I'm happy with the design being very much functional, and a massive improvement over the current bridge. I think the low profile highlights the picturesque landscape well.

While fancy bridges are always appreciated, in an environment that needs to be fiscally prudent, picking and choosing is very important. I also point out that making macro-level artistic modifications to a traffic bridge increase cost at a different order than when the same is done for footbridges. Lastly, even the most amazing bridge cities in the world have exceptional bridges mixed with basic functional designs.

Lighting should be alright - there are street lamps. Plus, Calgary is an ultra-safe place.

[Ferreth]

/\Booooring! /\

This bridge needs an artistic element added to it - something that refers to the original structure - perhaps they could incorporate something that looks like the original bridge over top the road area - don't need to copy the whole thing, just the part you see coming from Inglewood.

Change the railing from a bar pattern to a crossing diamond, again to have a tip to the original bridge.

I'd be good with spending a little more on this one to make something that looks nice!

[googspecial]

I hate to say it, but keep this one boring so perhaps there will be less uproar for a fancy LRT crossing for Green North :D

[craner]

^Good point.
Choose your battles.
I do like the diamond railing design suggested for the zoo bridge though - and ensuring lighting at the pedestrian level us above "adequate".

[evolv]

Does anyone know of the more permanent plans for the lane reversal on 5th ave?

[msmariner]

Does anyone know of the more permanent plans for the lane reversal on 5th ave?

It'll be tested as is for 6 months. If approved then a more permanent system will be installed within a year. Like Centre Street or any of the other permanent lane reversals were

[UofC.engineer]

The city is holding an open house on Jan.28 at the East Hills Walmart regarding the stretch of 17th ave between Calgary and Chestermere

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Projects/Current-Planning-Projects/17-Avenue-S.E.-Corridor-Study---Stoney-Trail-to-East-City-Limit.aspx?redirect=/17avestudy

[jeremy.r]

Has anybody heard the idea of packing more lanes onto Crowchild over the Bow River before? Do you think it's a realistic option?

Transit/transportation committee also hears it's possible to add 2 more lanes of traffic to the Crowchild bridge over Bow River now.

Concepts for adding two lanes to that bridge over the Bow are being worked on. Does not mean expanding/adding on to bridge.

From Transit/Transportation committee via Scott Dipple on twitter:
https://twitter.com/CBCScott/status/689855222001356801
https://twitter.com/CBCScott/status/689855362598592514

There's another one that says the Crowchild study recommendations are still about a year away.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Has anybody heard the idea of packing more lanes onto Crowchild over the Bow River before? Do you think it's a realistic option?





From Transit/Transportation committee via Scott Dipple on twitter:
https://twitter.com/CBCScott/status/689855222001356801
https://twitter.com/CBCScott/status/689855362598592514

There's another one that says the Crowchild study recommendations are still about a year away.

Maybe if they're bike lanes ... It's pretty tight already in there.

[mersar]

Maybe if they're bike lanes ... It's pretty tight already in there.

Agreed. The only way would be to squeeze the lane widths down, and that would probably also force reducing speed limit further. I just can't see how it could work any better, the issue isn't the number of lanes so much as it is the amount of lane changing.

[msmariner]

Maybe if they're bike lanes ... It's pretty tight already in there.

I think northbound they could flow traffic better if they eliminated the cars changing lanes. The ramp coming onto the bridge has cars stopping immediately trying to merge while getting to the ramps to wb/eb Memorial. City needs to put either lane delineators or cement jersey barriers down the lanes to stop this. It would keep traffic flowing much smoother going over the bridge.

[MalcolmTucker]

I think northbound they could flow traffic better if they eliminated the cars changing lanes. The ramp coming onto the bridge has cars stopping immediately trying to merge while getting to the ramps to wb/eb Memorial. City needs to put either lane delineators or cement jersey barriers down the lanes to stop this. It would keep traffic flowing much smoother going over the bridge.

Very true. Followed an articulated cement truck pulling the 200m double lane change this morning. Everyone got out of the way pretty fast!

[Fuzz]

They could maybe drop the speed limit and get rid of the centre divider for an extra lane. I'm not sure how they could get 2.