Calgary Roads

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Things that far out there is no certainty. I don't think he said anything that would be news worthy with that statement,

[Ramsayfarian]

^ Things that far out there is no certainty. I don't think he said anything that would be news worthy with that statement,

Just noticed he's that penny a word hack whose beat is the real estate market.

[Fuzz]

Perhaps sooner than we think
http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/10/01/choo-choos-choose-wrong-road

Wait, he thinks the train would be BETTER for the city running along the Bow? This must be the dumbest person in Calgary. Imagine, if you will, every road LRT and pedestrian bridge having to cross not only the river, but 50m of railway ROW. What a dumb idea. It's bad where it is, but this is just weird logic.

This, though is my favourite part:
The cold, unfriendly glass and concrete canyons we have now would not exist.

The towers would be spaced well apart, separated by parks, and recreational areas, with the lack of train traffic making the area more appealing for residential development.
Imagine all the space for the skyscrapers to play! Like the endless surface lots would magically be beautiful park land. What a kook.

[milomilo]

I wish I could get paid for my incoherent ramblings.

[Kokkei Mizu]

Sarcee Trail. And my first attempt at road signs, let me know what you think :)

wJ9e47BWkls

[craner]

^Looks good, nice job.
Not crazy about the music tho. ;)

[Joborule]

New Flanders Ave interchange opened. Anyone try roundabout city?

[DoubleK]

I can't wait until the diverging diamond opens at 162nd/Sun Valley Blvd and McLeod.

[Mazrim]

New Flanders Ave interchange opened. Anyone try roundabout city?

I was disappointed! After reading twitter and how skeptical everyone was, I expected Armageddon. There were no cars driving the wrong way, no crumpled bodies of confused cyclists on the sides of the road and no pedestrians walking endlessly in circles. Sadly, I went from one of the end to the other without incident.

To be more serious - this isn't a "choose your own adventure" type old traffic circle, it's a modern roundabout where lane choices guide you where you need to go. There's not really any guesswork involved hoping you can cross a lane and not get sideswiped. Also, I didn't see anyone racing through it which is always nice compared to a normal intersection.

[lubicon]

Sarcee Trail. And my first attempt at road signs, let me know what you think :)

wJ9e47BWkls

Nice, thanks. All I'll point out is it appears you were speeding through the construction zone as you started up the hill. :D. Not to worry, you are not alone in that regard.... ha.

[sim]

I was disappointed! After reading twitter and how skeptical everyone was, I expected Armageddon. There were no cars driving the wrong way, no crumpled bodies of confused cyclists on the sides of the road and no pedestrians walking endlessly in circles. Sadly, I went from one of the end to the other without incident.

To be more serious - this isn't a "choose your own adventure" type old traffic circle, it's a modern roundabout where lane choices guide you where you need to go. There's not really any guesswork involved hoping you can cross a lane and not get sideswiped. Also, I didn't see anyone racing through it which is always nice compared to a normal intersection.

Interestingly, no one raced through the intersection that used to be there either.

It's is a modern piece of shit; a monument to motordom of the past and absolute lip service to other modes. The other modes that this purportedly improves are improved only in the eyes of those that never actually use those other modes. And luckily, with this project, we've assured that there will be more of those people in the future.

[Mazrim]

Interestingly, no one raced through the intersection that used to be there either.

It's is a modern piece of shit; a monument to motordom of the past and absolute lip service to other modes. The other modes that this purportedly improves are improved only in the eyes of those that never actually use those other modes. And luckily, with this project, we've assured that there will be more of those people in the future.

Sooo.....have you tried it? If not, I look forward to your frothing anger afterwards!

People going the wrong way has never been the big problem with roundabouts, it's generally just people blowing through yield signs.

I watched a guy turn left into the wrong direction at a normal intersection yesterday at Midlake Gate and Midpark Blvd SE. Doesn't matter what the intersection is...you just can't fix stupid.

[milomilo]

Had a look at this today... it's fine, driving and on foot. I'd certainly rather walk unimpeded across that than have to keep waiting on signals. The drivers all looked a bit cautious (including myself) but it all mostly made sense and I'm sure it will work well with higher traffic volumes.

That said, it is a little ridiculous! I think roundabouts are great, but I'll have to look into the documents to see how/why they came up with this design. But it will be good to have a little practice circuit for Alberta drivers.

[sim]

Sooo.....have you tried it? If not, I look forward to your frothing anger afterwards!

I have not and likely won't for a long time - you can include me as one of those people in the last point of my previous point. I used to use the signalized intersections there most days.


I watched a guy turn left into the wrong direction at a normal intersection yesterday at Midlake Gate and Midpark Blvd SE. Doesn't matter what the intersection is...you just can't fix stupid.

Precisely true, just have another look at Flanders.

Is that frothy enough anger for you? I happen to dislike bullshit disguised as fact and masqueraded as some feat that magically overcame basic geometry. If the City and those that designed this pile of shit would simply admit that it is was constructed only to improve vehicular mobility, I'd scoff and move on with it. The fact that they don't because the truth is hard, or worse and much more likely the case, because they don't understand why stating that this is an improvement for all modes is factually incorrect, is worth making noise about.

[CalgaryCheese]

I have not and likely won't for a long time - you can include me as one of those people in the last point of my previous point. I used to use the signalized intersections there most days.



Precisely true, just have another look at Flanders.

Is that frothy enough anger for you? I happen to dislike bullshit disguised as fact and masqueraded as some feat that magically overcame basic geometry. If the City and those that designed this pile of shit would simply admit that it is was constructed only to improve vehicular mobility, I'd scoff and move on with it. The fact that they don't because the truth is hard, or worse and much more likely the case, because they don't understand why stating that this is an improvement for all modes is factually incorrect, is worth making noise about.

You can't complain and say how bad it is for pedestrians when you haven't even used it...I'd personally believe Milo above who actually used it and said it was fine.

That said, three roundabout may be a bit much!

[milomilo]

How so? Looks like pretty regular roundabout behavior to me. Granted, until a critical mass of roundabouts is reached here where people experience them enough I think there will be a lot more hesitation and/or people pulling out when they shouldn't. A good reason to build more!

[speedog]

How so? Looks like pretty regular roundabout behavior to me. Granted, until a critical mass of roundabouts is reached here where people experience them enough I think there will be a lot more hesitation and/or people pulling out when they shouldn't. A good reason to build more!

Nope, most people won't ever get them. For the past 4 months, I have had the pleasure of going through two single lane roundabouts twice every day, 5 days a week in the community of Redstone and I would say with ease that 99% of the people using these two roundabouts have absolutely no clue how to use their signal lights while transiting these roundabouts. Most simply just do not signal and it becomes a guessing game for other motorists as to their intentions.

[lubicon]

Nope, most people won't ever get them. For the past 4 months, I have had the pleasure of going through two single lane roundabouts twice every day, 5 days a week in the community of Redstone and I would say with ease that 99% of the people using these two roundabouts have absolutely no clue how to use their signal lights while transiting these roundabouts. Most simply just do not signal and it becomes a guessing game for other motorists as to their intentions.

CPS could and should be targeting locations like this, issuing failure to signal tickets (or warnings if they are feeling generous).

[milomilo]

It sure as hell doesn't. What you see in the video is perfect navigation of the roundabout by every driver, achievable only in a theoretical simulation. My post was not sarcasm. What you see in reality at roundabouts in Calgary is extremely defensive driving by anybody with half a brain, which is necessary because the other half of drivers are unpredictable. This significantly reduces the overall effectiveness of the complex.

Yeah you're right it probably won't be that efficient here, but in places where roundabouts are common it looks exactly like the video. I don't know if there is any route to achieving that efficiency here in practise though - unless people were taught how to use roundabouts while learning to drive there isn't much more opportunity to educate people how to use them. The signage and lane markings on this new one looked good though, so that should help.

[Rollerstud98]

I wasn't taught while taking drivers ed how to use them as we didn't have any back in the day. But I'm a fairly competent driver and do know how to properly use them and even signal my intent when no one is around!

[YYCguys]

I wasn't taught while taking drivers ed how to use them as we didn't have any back in the day. But I'm a fairly competent driver and do know how to properly use them and even signal my intent when no one is around!

The only ones I regularly use are the ones in Crowfoot and on McCall Way/Barlow, and I while I understand the concept of yielding and signalling in those situations, it's crazy how many don't; and those drivers are most likely regular users of those ones!

Anyways, I just came back from England, and those roundabouts are SCARY! I was just a passenger. I don't think I could ever navigate those ones without getting hit, or at the very least, a near miss!

[sim]

You can't complain and say how bad it is for pedestrians when you haven't even used it...I'd personally believe Milo above who actually used it and said it was fine.

That said, three roundabout may be a bit much!

How about someone who used to use the previous facility on a daily basis (and not with a car), critically analyzed the BS spun by the project team and objectively found that travel times for peds are now larger for almost every OD pattern; someone that is aware of the fact that multilane roundabouts are knowlingly more dangerous for cyclists and that roundabouts remove essentially any possibility for transit priority?

[sim]

It's a fundamental disadvantage known by any engineer that roundabouts are less pedestrian friendly, but the advantages are enough to negate it. I'm not sure how that can even be argued. It might appear "fine" but it would have been "some degree better than fine" at a conventional setup.

I can live with that. You're at least being honest about the fact that we're still at a point where the "needs" of car drivers are above those of others.

I'm less optimistic about how many engineers actually know that or would critically think about it though. Roundabouts!!!

[milomilo]

I can live with that. You're at least being honest about the fact that we're still at a point where the "needs" of car drivers are above those of others.

I'm less optimistic about how many engineers actually know that or would critically think about it though. Roundabouts!!!

Do you have any evidence that roundabouts aren't safe for pedestrians? All I can see is that it's either claimed that roundabouts are safer, or there isn't enough evidence to say. I don't see why they would be unsafe here, as they have pedestrian priority crossings. If I was looking to improve safety at intersections, I'd first go for some much easier targets at signalised intersections, like banning rights on red.

As for bicycles, I have to agree, having used them lots as a cyclist in a past life, they aren't very well suited to those users - which is why I support completely separate bicycle infrastructure.

[sim]

Do you have any evidence that roundabouts aren't safe for pedestrians? All I can see is that it's either claimed that roundabouts are safer, or there isn't enough evidence to say. I don't see why they would be unsafe here, as they have pedestrian priority crossings. If I was looking to improve safety at intersections, I'd first go for some much easier targets at signalised intersections, like banning rights on red.

As for bicycles, I have to agree, having used them lots as a cyclist in a past life, they aren't very well suited to those users - which is why I support completely separate bicycle infrastructure.

You're quite right all around here. No disagreements. I wouldn't disagree with them purely from a real safety perspective (for peds), but we were talking about them being pedestrian friendly, or more specifically, the travel time implications. There is also an argument to be made for subjective safety - once we get into the multilane realm - in that they aren't perceived to be safe or comfortable.

[milomilo]

Why is it worse for pedestrian travel times though? As far as I can tell, the only disadvantage there is that you might have to walk a slightly longer route, depending where you are going. But that could be made up for by not having to wait at lights, and I personally would rather keep walking than stand waiting somewhere, even if the time difference was negligible, which I think is a fairly common opinion.

The other thing I like is that roundabouts just look better. No signal light infrastructure cluttering up the place and flashing all night.

[DizzyEdge]

Does anyone (5seconds?) know the original full route of Old Banff Coach Road?

Looking at the city's 1924 interactive aerial photo, and google maps, I lose the trail at about Eagle Butte Ranch, you can actually see the 'ghost' of Old Banff Coach Road leading across the prairie and then turning into Eagle Butte. Anyone know where it went from there?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0899365,-114.3128852,879m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Fuzz]

Cool. I'm going to start referring to Nose Hill Park as "The Nose".

[DizzyEdge]

That's awesome, I'd love to know if there are any orphaned sections of the OBCR still visible (even if only upon close inspection). I wonder if Radnor was more than a siding back in the day since it was the connection.

[UofC.engineer]

That's awesome, I'd love to know if there are any orphaned sections of the OBCR still visible (even if only upon close inspection). I wonder if Radnor was more than a siding back in the day since it was the connection.

I also notice that Springbank and Jumping Pond are labelled as settlements. Were they ranches?

[DizzyEdge]

Another interesting thing I see in the 1920s map is Gleneagles Dr was the original 1A near Cochrane.

[DizzyEdge]

I suspect those would have been the locations of a post office (more than likely the kitchen table of a local rancher).

Wikipedia says:

Springbank is named after Springbank Creek which flows southeast into the Elbow River. The descriptive name for this creek was first applied to the municipal district in 1918 (M.D. of Springbank). It was first given as a school district name on July 11, 1887[3] because of the numerous springs breaking out of the sides of the lesser coulees all over the district. Most of the early settlers located near the springs.

[Corndogger]

Given that Sarcee has to indefinitely function as the west leg of the ring road, I hope to God they find a way to justify option B to eliminate weaving.

Do you have inside knowledge that the west leg is never going to be built? Regardless of what happens I agree that option B is by far the worst of the three they are considering.

[You Need A Thneed]

I hope that with option a & c, they would be looking at the traffic impacts on the shopping centre. Closing off that one road could cause a mess on the other roads

[mersar]

Another interesting thing I see in the 1920s map is Gleneagles Dr was the original 1A near Cochrane.

Yep. I grew up in Cochrane in the late 80's and 90's, and the original, crumbing and mostly over grown pavement was still visible through the area that is now Gleneagles, which at the time was a ranch. It was ripped up when they started building the actual community thats there now. If you look on Google Maps around Mountain Ridge Place and Highway 1A you can see where the road allowance started to turn away from the current 1A routing, and in person there is still a bit of over grown pavement visible.

[Corndogger]

I saw that tweet, so I emailed them... and there's a disconnect between Mason and their PR people. Pretty safe to take his word for it, but I'd still call that an uncertain timeline as plenty could change from now till a P3 is signed.

Either way that still leaves (best case) 36 months where an upgraded Sarcee would be of huge value.

The AB Transportation website says "Timing and delivery method for the construction of the West Calgary Ring Road is under review" which is a lot different than delayed indefinitely. "Indefinitely" is used by governments to mean we're never building this or doing that but we'll string you along until we're out of office. What concerns me more than the timing is that they are actually studying the delivery method. We've had two legs built the "traditional" way both of which were complete disasters compared to the five P3 legs built.

[lubicon]

Other notes:

The Petro Canada in Signal Hill is actually on leased City of Calgary ROW land, and would be demolished in Plans A and C. It's possible that it could remain in B, but not guaranteed.
A and C would reduce the access to the north part of Signal Hill shopping centre. Right now, there are 3 roads, but in these plans, the eastern-most road would change into the interchange's on/off ramps, and access would have to be gained by the 2 roads further west.

A and C would remove one set of lights on Richmond Road.

B would keep the area functioning almost as it is today, with the same access and number of lights. This means that the short weaving areas on Richmond road just west of Sarcee would remain, by the Petro Canada and the McDonalds.

C is just a combination of A (on the southbound side) and B (northbound side).

From a purely selfish point of view I hope they keep Option B. It is the only one that (might) allow for that Petro Can to remain open which is hugely convenient for me - it is the only gas station available to me on my 27 km morning commute and saves me a ton of time and hassle.

[suburbia]

it is the only gas station available to me on my 27 km morning commute

Wow! That's a horrendous commute! At 50 cents per kilometer for gas, maintenance and depreciation, that's a $7,000 annual hit just counting going and getting back from work (not even including damage to the planet).

[lubicon]

suburb[/B]ia;7636725]Wow! That's a horrendous commute! At 50 cents per kilometer for gas, maintenance and depreciation, that's a $7,000 annual hit just counting going and getting back from work (not even including damage to the planet).

I hate it but there are not any viable options. Sometimes life in the suburbs isn't all it's cracked up to be... :D

[ClaytonA]

I'd choose option A-looks the cleanest and most economical. Remember there's new access from the ring road to the west side of the shopping area to mitigate traffic to the north side as well.

Couldn't they have sidewalks/greenways/MUPs or whatever they're calling them on both the north and south sides of Richmond Rd? It makes it necessary to cross what could be a busier Richmond Rd once a freeway terminates into Sarcee with it only on the south side. It could use short shallow tunnels under the 4 lanes accessing/egressing Sarcee in NE and NW orientations where the roadways are close together and further from the overpass to mitigate grade changes thereby eliminating road crossings. This would be a dramatic improvement in multi-modal access from, Glenbrook, the north side of Richmond Rd. Alternatively they could build a pedestrian bridge at 26 Ave SW across Sarcee Trail at much higher cost.

[milomilo]

http://engage.calgary.ca/SouthShaganappi

City has also released plans for Shaganappi/16th. I honestly think the at grade is the best option - it's the cheapest, it releases the most wasted land, and that section of 16th doesn't need free flow anyway as either side of it isn't either.

[Fuzz]

Huh? A couple options involve removing a grade separated road(something already paid for) and adding up to 4 traffic lights? This is seen as an improvement? Meanwhile we are building a massive grade separated interchange at Bowmount road? Sorry, how is this even an option worth considering? Honestly all of these options look worse than what is there, which takes some effort. I would have thought one of the plans would makes sense.

Also the idea of putting a traffic light at the bottom of the hill sounds like a recipe for disaster in the winter.

[milomilo]

Huh? A couple options involve removing a grade separated road(something already paid for) and adding up to 4 traffic lights? This is seen as an improvement? Meanwhile we are building a massive grade separated interchange at Bowmount road? Sorry, how is this even an option worth considering? Honestly all of these options look worse than what is there, which takes some effort. I would have thought one of the plans would makes sense.

Also the idea of putting a traffic light at the bottom of the hill sounds like a recipe for disaster in the winter.

I agree that this shouldn't be a high priority, but if the freed up land can be sold and made use of though, then it could be worth it. That section of 16th is out of place, a freeway between two signalised sections. Putting lights in to slow it down before Montgomery wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO - it's a bit of an abrupt transition.

[craner]

Yeah - I don't see this as a top priority.
Just don't add more lights to 16th Ave. please.

[CalgaryAlex]

Huh? A couple options involve removing a grade separated road(something already paid for) and adding up to 4 traffic lights? This is seen as an improvement? Meanwhile we are building a massive grade separated interchange at Bowmount road? Sorry, how is this even an option worth considering? Honestly all of these options look worse than what is there, which takes some effort. I would have thought one of the plans would makes sense.

Also the idea of putting a traffic light at the bottom of the hill sounds like a recipe for disaster in the winter.

I don't think there is an issue with adding lights here. You're already in a section of the road in which there are many controlled intersections. With good timing, this area will still maintain a decent traffic flow. However, I think if the city is going to tackle any portion of 16th and recover wasted land around it, it should be 16th/14th.

Regardless, I hope the city is able to push the recovered land around Shag for development. That's a huge dead zone - it would be nice to connect Parkdale with Montgomery in a meaningful way.

[Fuzz]

I disagree that there are many controlled intersections near here. There is one at home road, and one at 29th st. I can't imagine there would be any coordination of light timing that would make much difference.

I remember one of the earlier plans having traffic circles while keeping 16th ave free flow. That seamed like a much better option.

[CalgaryAlex]

I disagree that there are many controlled intersections near here. There is one at home road, and one at 29th st. I can't imagine there would be any coordination of light timing that would make much difference.

I remember one of the earlier plans having traffic circles while keeping 16th ave free flow. That seamed like a much better option.

Sorry let me retract that - don't know what I was thinking :koko:

I was mostly thinking about the low speed limits in the area. This isn't a fast-track freeway out of or across the city and never will be. Adding one or two more intersections won't make a huge difference. And if development occurs on the recovered land, pedestrian crossings will be required anyways.

However, I do like the idea of a couple traffic circles to control traffic instead of controlled intersections.

[MalcolmTucker]

Couplet or tight diamond look good to me. Tight diamond looks to be the cheapest too (I doubt they would need new bridge structures, unless they are due to be replaced anyways, just higher spec retaining walls).

[CrossedTheTracks]

..it would be nice to connect Parkdale with Montgomery in a meaningful way.

The project web site says "reconnect", I'm curious if they were ever connected? (I say this purely out of historical curiosity, not with intent of arguing, "if they weren't connected before, don't connect them now"). Certainly not in 1951, in this aerial photo: http://contentdm.ucalgary.ca/cdm/ref/collection/airphotos2/id/51118

I have a hard time imagining how any of these "solutions" would connect these 2 communities. Reducing the the loops will certainly make Bowness Road passing under 16th more bike-friendly, but I wouldn't want to be on a bike on Bowness Road east of Shaganappi anyway. It's quite a distance for walking, across large & busy streets, even if crossing becomes safer/easier with traffic lights.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ There was the streetcar line that had a legible connection.

[DizzyEdge]

^ There was the streetcar line that had a legible connection.

Yeah the #1 is the descendant of that streetcar line, which followed a route something like this

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/51.0517271,-114.1200244/51.0959219,-114.2159402/@51.0712757,-114.2024913,13.25z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m15!3m4!1m2!1d-114.1443503!2d51.0574174!3s0x53716e5201f058bd:0x6c2e5fdea7e593ee!3m4!1m2!1d-114.1721601!2d51.0788495!3s0x53716ee586ff9409:0xcfdd41fe8e13c852!3m4!1m2!1d-114.1980627!2d51.0890091!3s0x53716ec772cf4b55:0x4d0810d03678b93c!1m0!3e2

[CrossedTheTracks]

^ There was the streetcar line that had a legible connection.

Yes, connected in that sense, there was just as much road/transit "back then" as there is now. I meant more in an adjacency & human-powered-mobility sense. Clearly in 1951 there was quite a bit of distance between the established areas, and I'm not sure what happened in between 1951 and Shaganappi becoming the "expressway" described in the 1970 report.

Haven't had time to read the entire 1970 report, but the 6th & final recommendation in the summary of "That due consideration be given to the aspects of local access, pedestrian accommodation, and aesthetics" is pretty funny, in the context of the stage 3 behemoths interchanges proposed along the entire length of Shaganappi. Makes my current walks across Shaganappi/John Laurie seem like pedestrian nirvana by comparison! :haha:

[Fuzz]

http://i.imgur.com/7NuCzF5.png
There. Traffic circle, no stupid lights. White box at the bottom removes the road and opens a huge section of land by the river. Keep the first bridge for pedestrian and bike access. Obviously the road alignments would need a little tweaking form my 20 second drawing, but you get the point. How is this not better, cheaper and more efficient than any of the proposals?

[suburbia]

I hate it but there are not any viable options. Sometimes life in the suburbs isn't all it's cracked up to be... :D

I think this comes back to a false understanding of where jobs are and how I personally choose where I live. I live close to where I work. 5/6 jobs in Calgary are not in downtown. I've never understood the concept of people living far from where they work (as measured primarily by time of travel, but also distance). People who live outside of the city limits often don't have a handle on their increased direct costs, and they particularly confuse me. The entire city has a radius of about 20km, and much less from the West. How your one-way commute has been chosen to be 27km (because you choose where you live) is beyond me.

[CalgaryAlex]

I think this comes back to a false understanding of where jobs are and how I personally choose where I live. I live close to where I work. 5/6 jobs in Calgary are not in downtown. I've never understood the concept of people living far from where they work (as measured primarily by time of travel, but also distance). People who live outside of the city limits often don't have a handle on their increased direct costs, and they particularly confuse me. The entire city has a radius of about 20km, and much less from the West. How your one-way commute has been chosen to be 27km (because you choose where you live) is beyond me.

But what if you look at partners who work in different locations? Perhaps they live closer to downtown or along a c-train line to avoid downtown parking fees while the other drives to work. Maybe one can walk to work while the other has to drive to the other side of the city.

What if someone loses their job, which was within close reach of their home, and finds the only suitable position for them across town? What if they aren't in a position to sell their home?

My wife and I have found a pretty good balance between our commutes, but only because circumstances haven't changed for us since moving in.

Ideally, everyone could walk to work or avoid enormous commutes, but often times people get stuck in situations where it is unavoidable.

Certainly I do agree with your philosophy to a point. What I really don't understand is situations where both partners work downtown, and yet they move to Okotoks/Airdrie/etc. My old boss used to commute between Canmore and downtown every single day. In my mind that would be totally unbearable. He didn't seem to think it was a big deal, although I'm sure there were days he arrived at the office stressed to the max.

[lubicon]

I think this comes back to a false understanding of where jobs are and how I personally choose where I live. I live close to where I work. 5/6 jobs in Calgary are not in downtown. I've never understood the concept of people living far from where they work (as measured primarily by time of travel, but also distance). People who live outside of the city limits often don't have a handle on their increased direct costs, and they particularly confuse me. The entire city has a radius of about 20km, and much less from the West. How your one-way commute has been chosen to be 27km (because you choose where you live) is beyond me.

I didn't choose the commute. I live in a great community and had great access to my work location until my employer moved locations. I'm not going to quit my job for that and I cannot uproot my family to move closer to work when for all I know my job could disappear tomorrow.

[milomilo]

Couplet or tight diamond look good to me. Tight diamond looks to be the cheapest too (I doubt they would need new bridge structures, unless they are due to be replaced anyways, just higher spec retaining walls).

I don't see any advantage of the couplet over the regular at-grade option? Capacity will be almost identical (and lots of capacity isn't neccesary anyway*), but it will waste a ton of land with an ugly, useless median. If the diamond is cheaper though, then that's fine too.

*This section of 16th, despite being a freeway, is actually the least used portion of 16th in the entire city.

Source (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/Planning/Transportation-Data/Traffic%20Volume%20flow%20maps/traffic-flow-city-2015.pdf)

[ByeByeBaby]

I didn't choose the commute. I live in a great community and had great access to my work location until my employer moved locations. I'm not going to quit my job for that and I cannot uproot my family to move closer to work when for all I know my job could disappear tomorrow.

Which is a lot of words to say you chose the commute.

It's not necessarily unreasonable to choose a long commute over the hassle and uncertainty of switching employers, and it's not necessarily unreasonable to choose a long commute over the enjoyment of living in a 'nice community' and the hassle and uncertainty of moving. But you explicitly described two alternatives that would result in a shorter commute, and then give your reasoning for choosing a long commute over those two alternatives.

[UofC.engineer]

http://i.imgur.com/7NuCzF5.png
There. Traffic circle, no stupid lights. White box at the bottom removes the road and opens a huge section of land by the river. Keep the first bridge for pedestrian and bike access. Obviously the road alignments would need a little tweaking form my 20 second drawing, but you get the point. How is this not better, cheaper and more efficient than any of the proposals?

I like your idea, it frees up a lot of land. The BRT could also use the underpass.

[fusili]

I think this comes back to a false understanding of where jobs are and how I personally choose where I live. I live close to where I work. 5/6 jobs in Calgary are not in downtown. I've never understood the concept of people living far from where they work (as measured primarily by time of travel, but also distance). People who live outside of the city limits often don't have a handle on their increased direct costs, and they particularly confuse me. The entire city has a radius of about 20km, and much less from the West. How your one-way commute has been chosen to be 27km (because you choose where you live) is beyond me.

Simple, they have to make complex decisions about where to live that involves more than just proximity to one job. These include:

- employment location of a partner (they may work at opposite ends of the city)
- location of schools, green space, shopping, amenities, family, friends
- cost of housing (this is especially prominent for lower-income households, whose jobs are often disperse (retail and industrial) and poorly served by transit)
- proximity to transportation infrastructure (transit, roads)
- quality and type of housing
- availability of housing in that neighbourhood (is it a new community with lots of houses for sale, or an older community with few options available)
- timing of housing purchase relative to timing of securing a job (maybe you bought your house prior to your current job, or vice versa)
- getting a new job
- relocation of a job for various reasons (company moves, you get laid off, you get relocated to another division/building)

[lubicon]

Which is a lot of words to say you chose the commute.

It's not necessarily unreasonable to choose a long commute over the hassle and uncertainty of switching employers, and it's not necessarily unreasonable to choose a long commute over the enjoyment of living in a 'nice community' and the hassle and uncertainty of moving. But you explicitly described two alternatives that would result in a shorter commute, and then give your reasoning for choosing a long commute over those two alternatives.

I won't disagree with that, it is true. I chose the commute over unemployment is what it boils down to at the end of the day.

[Cage]

http://engage.calgary.ca/SouthShaganappi

City has also released plans for Shaganappi/16th. I honestly think the at grade is the best option - it's the cheapest, it releases the most wasted land, and that section of 16th doesn't need free flow anyway as either side of it isn't either.

I have read the study website and comments posted above but cannot find the answer to my question.

Why is the city looking at making changes to the interchange after spending millions of dollars on bridge deck overhaul?

The bridge decks were overhauled in the 2012-14 time frame at the cost of several millions of dollars. It would be a huge waste of tax dollars to rip out the interchange in favour of an at grade solution. Unless there are safety concerns with the interchange design, why do anything at all?

[CrossedTheTracks]

I have read the study website and comments posted above but cannot find the answer to my question.

Why is the city looking at making changes to the interchange after spending millions of dollars on bridge deck overhaul?

I had a similar reaction. I can't find the motivation for this. How am I supposed to answer questions on how well this solves our problems if you don't tell me what your problems are?? (In my opinion, the existing 3 loop ramps are horrible because they end in sharp yields with poor visibility. But if that's the problem, just say so!!)

If you dig deeper at http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Projects/Current-Planning-Projects/South-Shaganappi-Study.aspx, you can find:
Objectives
1. Address safety for those who use and/or live by the corridor
2. Address accessibility across and throughout the corridor, reconnecting the adjacent communities of Montgomery and Parkdale
3. Accommodate all modes of transportation including walking, cycling, driving, HOV (high occupancy vehicles), and transit.
4. Move people and goods in an efficient way, providing continuous traffic flow and a reduction in GHG emissions.
5. Preserve and enhance land within the study area where there are opportunities

Okay, motherhood-and-applie-pie.... although "continuous traffic flow", if I take it literally, pretty much rules out any of these proposals.

The top of http://engage.calgary.ca/SouthShaganappi is even more obscure. "It reclassified Shaganappi Trail to an Arterial Street from a Skeletal Road and identified the corridor as a primary route for transit, cycling and HOV. ... These changes require us to revisit how Shaganappi Trail was designed in the south end."

They do? Obviously I'm insufficiently educated on city planner jargon if it's not immediately clear to me why an "arterial"->"skeletal" designation change requires a design study.

[Mazrim]

I have read the study website and comments posted above but cannot find the answer to my question.

Why is the city looking at making changes to the interchange after spending millions of dollars on bridge deck overhaul?

The bridge decks were overhauled in the 2012-14 time frame at the cost of several millions of dollars. It would be a huge waste of tax dollars to rip out the interchange in favour of an at grade solution. Unless there are safety concerns with the interchange design, why do anything at all?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a corridor study, and the major changes are longer term (ie. closer to the end of the useful life of the bridges) anyway?

[ByeByeBaby]

http://i.imgur.com/7NuCzF5.png
There. Traffic circle, no stupid lights. White box at the bottom removes the road and opens a huge section of land by the river. Keep the first bridge for pedestrian and bike access. Obviously the road alignments would need a little tweaking form my 20 second drawing, but you get the point. How is this not better, cheaper and more efficient than any of the proposals?

While traffic circles and Harry Potter do both come from England, only the latter has the magical ability to solve any problem. :)

The capacity of a traffic circle at an approach is based on two volumes - the entry flow (the number of vehicles entering the traffic circle) and the circulatory flow (the number of vehicles already on the traffic circle). So for example in your figure, in the north entrance, the entry flow is SB Shaganappi and the circulatory flow is primarily WB 16th thru, but also includes WB Bowness thru and others.

The entering cars are trying to find gaps in the circulatory flow on the circle. If the circulatory flow is high, there are very few gaps for cars to enter. If the entering flow is high, they need a lot of gaps. The figure below is from the FHWA roundabout guide (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/00068/):
http://i.imgur.com/ydDCORq.png

If the volumes are both low, then a roundabout works (but you could probably use a stop sign). If the circulatory flow is high then there is a low capacity for entering vehicles, and if the entering flow is high, then there is a low capacity for circulatory vehicles. There is also potential for a semi-balanced flow if both volumes are moderate. So places where a roundabout works well are providing access to a small volume while maintaining flow on a larger volume. Here, there's substantial volumes in all directions.

In the AM peak, I think the primary breakdown point is the west entrance; the entering flow is from eastbound 16th and Bowness, and the primary circulatory flow is SB Shaganappi traffic, heading to 16th or Bowness EB. As rough estimates of the volume, let's say the peak hour is 9% of daily weekday traffic (which is the peak hour factor for the Stoney/16th interchange; the top hour is 9% of daily traffic) and the peak direction factor is 60% (which is the peak direction factor for 16th E of Stoney; during the peak, 60% of traffic is heading in the peak direction).

This gives us the following volumes: Shaganappi 24K AAWT = ~1300 peak hour, peak direction vehicles. 16th Ave 37K AAWT = ~2000 peak hour, peak direction vehicles. Bowness 12K AAWT = ~650 peak hour, peak direction vehicles. (Obviously, the City has better count data and would have access to this for this study.) We can stop pretty well right here. If there's 2650 vehicles entering the roundabout (Bowness + 16th), that's already beyond the capacity of a 2-lane roundabout, even if no one is circulating, and in fact most of the traffic on Shaganappi Trail is.

We could have Bowness enter, then 16th as a 5 leg roundabout -- which would require a lot more road realignment than your diagram, but maybe that's what the white lines are supposed to represent. In that case, there's roughly 2000 vehicles entering from 16th, which is okay as long as the circulatory flow is under 500 vehicles. But Bowness alone has 650 vehicles, and almost none of them are going to be making a U-turn back onto WB 16th. Plus there's the 1000 vehicles from Shaganappi passing through. The provincial highway standard is even lower than the FHWA diagram; they require entering and circulating to be under 1900 vehicles per hour for a two lane roundabout - the combined entering and circulating volumes of the west entrance during the AM peak are roughly 3500 vehicles or so, almost double the provincial volume.

The bottom line is that roundabouts have capacity constraints, that they aren't well suited for intersections with high volumes from all directions like this one and even though this is the lowest volume segment of 16th, it's still probably too high for a roundabout with any road of significance.

[Cage]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a corridor study, and the major changes are longer term (ie. closer to the end of the useful life of the bridges) anyway?

While this may only be a corridor study, a key differentiation between this corridor study and Crowchild Trail corridor study is that timelines are not defined for the construction phase. All that is mentioned is that construction remains unfunded.

However I direct your attention to the SWBRT early engagement sessions and study and the language is similar to South Shaganappi Study. At the early SWBRT engagement sessions were only for study purposes and mentioned longterm timelines. Once the engagement sessions were complete, the RouteAhead took the engagement session results and provided funding for the SWBRT.

I think the same thing could happen with South Shag. After the engagement sessions have wrapped up some future infrastructure money will be made available and the overpass will be ripped out well within its 30 year lifespan.

[lineman]

Although it is nice to see a discussion regarding Shag and 16th, I'd rather see funds ATM go toward Crowchild improvements.

[tmjr]

While traffic circles and Harry Potter do both come from England, only the latter has the magical ability to solve any problem. :)

[snip]

The bottom line is that roundabouts have capacity constraints, that they aren't well suited for intersections with high volumes from all directions like this one and even though this is the lowest volume segment of 16th, it's still probably too high for a roundabout with any road of significance.

Thank you! Great explanation!

[Fuzz]

Thanks. I knew someone would ruin my vision for a high volume, no traffic light, low land usage intersection design! Reality bites. :)

[MasterG]

If you dig deeper at http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Projects/Current-Planning-Projects/South-Shaganappi-Study.aspx, you can find:


Okay, motherhood-and-applie-pie.... although "continuous traffic flow", if I take it literally, pretty much rules out any of these proposals.

The top of http://engage.calgary.ca/SouthShaganappi is even more obscure. "It reclassified Shaganappi Trail to an Arterial Street from a Skeletal Road and identified the corridor as a primary route for transit, cycling and HOV. ... These changes require us to revisit how Shaganappi Trail was designed in the south end."

They do? Obviously I'm insufficiently educated on city planner jargon if it's not immediately clear to me why an "arterial"->"skeletal" designation change requires a design study.

Thanks for posting this. I am a bit familiar with the structure and it's an important distinction that this is not just "city planners" but most assuredly "transportation planners & road engineers" doing this project. The "tell" is the options they presented and their goals.

Here are my thoughts:

Objectives
1. Address safety for those who use and/or live by the corridor
First one is easy. Safety is best accomplished by slowing down cars in the area (reducing harm from collisions) and giving dedicated space (sidewalks, cycle-tracks) to vulnerable users. Remove blind corners, narrow lanes and put up some lights and high-quality pedestrian crossings. At-grade option is the best for this.

2. Address accessibility across and throughout the corridor, reconnecting the adjacent communities of Montgomery and Parkdale.
Easy. Build an urban grid road network and remove the huge areas of fallow land caused by the interchanges. It's not just about the roads connecting, but the neighbourhoods themselves through the redevelopment of land. At-grade option again is best for this.

3. Accommodate all modes of transportation including walking, cycling, driving, HOV (high occupancy vehicles), and transit.
Assuming walking, cycling or transit are important, none of them work well with interchanges. Bizarre couplet puts pedestrians at risk twice as much for no real benefit. At-grade option is therefore the only choice that improves the other modes.

4. Move people and goods in an efficient way, providing continuous traffic flow and a reduction in GHG emissions.
Strangely this objective is in contradiction to both the first 3 objectives and within itself. "Continuous" traffic flow means wide roads, interchanges and long signal timing, meaning that all other modes suffer greatly as the "solution" will be a barrier.

The internal contradiction is that free-flow traffic will reduce GHG. While this is a "kinda-truth", cars stuck in congestion for longer are polluting more. However the real problem is not congestion, it's the car. Free-flow automotive-focused solutions reduce the barriers to driving, resulting in people who drive more, more often and drive farther. This raises GHG emissions, not lowers them.

5. Preserve and enhance land within the study area where there are opportunities.
Again, the at-grade option seems to make the most sense as it provides hectares of usable land. Other options create a weird un-developable median section or more ramps and unattractive location that will never be developed. See the current configuration for proof of this phenomenon.

Note in the language: the project is successful if it "accommodates" other modes, while also is successful if it provides "continuous" traffic flow. This is how you know its a roads-only project. An engineer looking at this without a holistic planning approach (i.e. its not just a roads project) would put some silly pedestrian ramp or bridge, create some wide and unusable multi-use pathways and close a bunch of cross-walks to keep other users safe and "accommodated".

TL/DR:
In short, no proposal accomplishes all the objectives. But the at-grade proposal is the only one that doesn't plainly fail 4 of the 5 objectives at this preliminary design stage.

My pessimistic hunch is that this will be another classic Calgary roads project: say and do everything in the name of sustainable transportation and urban development.... except for the things that actually make those things happen because it appears to inconvenience drivers too much.

Thanks for the wide sidewalks though! Can't wait to stand on them while I wait 5 minutes to cross a windswept 6-lane couplet with cars racing by at 60km/h.

[Fuzz]

Speaking of the roads dept screwing things up...they added that second pedestrian crossing at Memorial and 9th. So what did they do to the other crossing? They at least doubled the time it takes form pushing the beg button to the light changing. What did I see this week? Lots of people pressing the button, notice it not changing in the usual 1 minute, waiting a little longer and saying screw it and run across through a break in traffic. So thanks Roads dept for screwing another thing up. Oh, and people are still j-walking at 8th directly to the Peace Bridge.

[MasterG]

Speaking of the roads dept screwing things up...they added that second pedestrian crossing at Memorial and 9th. So what did they do to the other crossing? They at least doubled the time it takes form pushing the beg button to the light changing. What did I see this week? Lots of people pressing the button, notice it not changing in the usual 1 minute, waiting a little longer and saying screw it and run across through a break in traffic. So thanks Roads dept for screwing another thing up. Oh, and people are still j-walking at 8th directly to the Peace Bridge.

:facepalm:

1 step half-step forward (i.e. still a block from the Peace Bridge & only a cross-walk on one side for no reason other than inconvenience pedestrians) and a step back.

I don't understand. Years of political pressure, advocacy and data on people jaywalking results in the smallest of victories, albeit a compromised one: 1 cross-walk, a half block away from where it was should be. Then sneakily, without engagement or any publicly available decision-making criteria to critique - they fiddle with the timing.

What is the process to get more pedestrian-friendly light timing? Another 3-5 years of political pressure and community organization? Just so Roads can change the next light down over the course of a weekend. This is one - of many - poster-childs of a broken system in transportation planning.

[ByeByeBaby]

2. Address accessibility across and throughout the corridor, reconnecting the adjacent communities of Montgomery and Parkdale.
Easy. Build an urban grid road network and remove the huge areas of fallow land caused by the interchanges. It's not just about the roads connecting, but the neighbourhoods themselves through the redevelopment of land. At-grade option again is best for this.

It's an interesting area, because while Montgomery is on one side of the site, Parkdale really isn't on the other side. There's a substantial stretch of 600m between Shaganappi/Bowness and 37th. The south side is Point McKay, which has a lot of residential density, but it's in the form of two hideous auto-oriented towers and much more in the form of townhouse complexes focused on internal roads and separated from Bowness Road by a virtual wall of trees and an actual wall to boot. (On the other side of the wall is a grassed area presumably built as a free-fire zone, then fences, then backyards. It couldn't be less oriented to Bowness if you tried.)

The north side is a mix of primarily medical/institutional uses; the medical examiner's office, Colonel Belcher senior's centre, a medical admin office and further in a medical professional building and Woods Homes. I suspect these are unlikely to change much soon and I don't think that the coroner's office is a real main street attraction.

So even with redevelopment of the 500m gap where the interchange lands are, there's still substantial long-term land uses that will prevent good community connection in the short to medium term.

I'm not sure that 16th through here shouldn't be thought of and designed as a road primarily for higher speed, higher volume auto traffic. I think Bowness can and should be an urban street, but past the four blocks of stroad in Montgomery, the next place 16th is or could be an urban street is in British Columbia.

[milomilo]

It's a good plan, my only criticism is that it seems to waste too much space on loop ramps and roundabouts along University Drive and Memorial.

It'll be interesting to see the expected cost, looks expensive!

[PPAR]

Sorry that no proposal to allow eastbound Bow traffic to easily get to northbound Crowchild

[milomilo]

Sorry that no proposal to allow eastbound Bow traffic to easily get to northbound Crowchild

Yeah this is true, perhaps out of the scope of the plan though. I've mused some thoughts I might put into a diagram of how this could potentially be dealt with. But essentially, my idea is to put either a U-turn or roundabout on Bow Trail after it crosses the tracks, around where the west end of the GM parking lot is, so that eastbound Bow traffic can turn around and utilise the WB Bow - NB crow ramps.

This would be complimented by a connecting road/flyover/under across the tracks between 10th Ave and Bow Trail around 18th or 19th St. The 3D nature of all the various elevated and ground level road and railways makes this an interesting challenge, but I think this could be a good way of solving a few issues. You could delete the ridiculous 10th Ave - Crow ramp, all movements should be catered for in a half-logical way, and connectivity between Sunalta and the West Village is improved.

An even better solution would be just to make Bow/Crow a diamond interchange with lights on Bow, but the LRT is in the way.

[craner]

Thanks for posting that Crowchild video - the proposed imrovements have been a very long time coming. I hope it can be funded.

[speedog]

It's a good plan, my only criticism is that it seems to waste too much space on loop ramps and roundabouts along University Drive and Memorial.

It'll be interesting to see the expected cost, looks expensive!

What would you propose that space be used for as an alternative?

[milomilo]

What would you propose that space be used for as an alternative?

Well there's already a lot of green space in those areas, but it's mostly useless right now as it's trapped within roads. If some of those loops were eliminated it would at least free up some of this which could potentially be put to better use, exactly what I don't know. The University Drive section definitely seems needlessly complicated for such a low volume road. If you changed 16th/University to a simple signalised intersection, straightened it out and removed the roundabouts, there's probably potential for developable land in there. At least to my untrained eye.

[MasterG]

Well there's already a lot of green space in those areas, but it's mostly useless right now as it's trapped within roads. If some of those loops were eliminated it would at least free up some of this which could potentially be put to better use, exactly what I don't know. The University Drive section definitely seems needlessly complicated for such a low volume road. If you changed 16th/University to a simple signalised intersection, straightened it out and removed the roundabouts, there's probably potential for developable land in there. At least to my untrained eye.

My thoughts exactly. University Drive is a bizarrely over-built road currently, with no real rationale to why it needs to be free-flow at the expense of developable land.

The 16th - University Drive interchange is less than 600m from Foothills Medical Centre, 800m from U of C, and 600m from Banff Trail LRT. Unlike ever-shifting downtown jobs, these anchors are permanent destinations that will only grow in importance with time.

Being walking distance to the ~10-20K jobs and the destinations of 30-50K daily visitors is not a location that should continue to have unnecessarily land-intensive road infrastructure. A far better use is re-development.

[speedog]

Well there's already a lot of green space in those areas, but it's mostly useless right now as it's trapped within roads. If some of those loops were eliminated it would at least free up some of this which could potentially be put to better use, exactly what I don't know. The University Drive section definitely seems needlessly complicated for such a low volume road. If you changed 16th/University to a simple signalised intersection, straightened it out and removed the roundabouts, there's probably potential for developable land in there. At least to my untrained eye.

To my untrained eye, there is land there that is bordered by three multillane roads, two of which are quite high volume roads. Any residences developed on available land would have to accommodate ackwardly shaped land parcels and relatively difficult access never mind the noise levels from neighbouring roadways. It really isn't that large of a space unless University Drive was eliminated south of 16th - if that were done, then there would be some space that might be more desireable.

[milomilo]

It might be true that the land isn't extremely valuable, but I think when we are making changes to infrastructure that are likely to last decades, we shouldn't make decisions that will lock up land for all that time. Green space separating ramps and roadways is about as useless as it gets - it may look superficially nice from a car, but that is it. In the case of University Drive we are spending money to perpetuate this, and it's not clear what the benefits of the design are. Your point of removing U. Drive south of 16th is a good one - maybe that is an option that should be/has been looked at. It's always struck me as an odd road.

[Mazrim]

The whole anti-freeway stance of Calgary and Edmonton, and now they're going to do it anyway and it'll cost 10x more. It's not even a case of "I told you so" because nobody wins.

The freeway was the 2012 version of the Crowchild project. This is pretty much the opposite of it. It'll cost 10x more than what? An above ground interchange that wipes out a neighborhood in the process?

[MasterG]

Than doing it properly back in the day when everybody else did it so you wouldn't be wiping out neighbourhoods and trying to cram now. Not saying that either is a perfect solution by any means - sprawl, gentrification, etc... not looking to open that can of worms.

A depressed inner city freeway was the anti-Christ, and now they're doing it anyway and portraying it as a brilliant and innovative solution. Just funny the sequence of events, is all.

As we are building depressed inner-city freeways, Montreal is covering theirs and removing elevated stretches:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ville-marie-expressway-project-cover-park-chum-park-1.3344127

I don't think the final design of the Crowhole is a particularly poor one, but every road project in this city has taught me how little the City tends to pay attention to the details which are crucial if road projects are to function for anyone else other than demand-inducing car traffic generators. Scepticism in warranted.


Nearly every roads project gets put in with wider lanes (designed unnecessarily to highway standard width even in urban areas) increasing car speed and reducing pedestrian crossing safety and quality of space.


Nearly every roads project includes new turn movements to make it a little easier to drive while harder to cross the road on foot or bike through increasingly long signal cycles.


Nearly every roads project misses big opportunities to fundamentally change some areas to pedestrian-focused or more liveable scales. Projects only go in one direction - to increase car speed/capacity and mitigate the worst pedestrian, bike or transit impacts. It's never the other way around.


For this example, University Drive will remain hilariously over-built, the interchange at Memorial will continue to occupy prime river-front land with an inefficiently large and high-speed interchange on what could be a prime neighbourhood boulevard with great access between the riverfront and surrounding neighbourhoods.

Again, the Crowhole it's not all bad. It's a light-years more sensitive design than something the City would have proposed a decade ago. But it also is not a compromise. This is firmly a road capacity project that will inevitably bring more cars into the city centre, which will inevitably create new bottlenecks elsewhere.

[milomilo]

As we are building depressed inner-city freeways, Montreal is covering theirs and removing elevated stretches:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ville-marie-expressway-project-cover-park-chum-park-1.3344127

I don't think the final design of the Crowhole is a particularly poor one, but every road project in this city has taught me how little the City tends to pay attention to the details which are crucial if road projects are to function for anyone else other than demand-inducing car traffic generators. Scepticism in warranted.


Nearly every roads project gets put in with wider lanes (designed unnecessarily to highway standard width even in urban areas) increasing car speed and reducing pedestrian crossing safety and quality of space.


Nearly every roads project includes new turn movements to make it a little easier to drive while harder to cross the road on foot or bike through increasingly long signal cycles.


Nearly every roads project misses big opportunities to fundamentally change some areas to pedestrian-focused or more liveable scales. Projects only go in one direction - to increase car speed/capacity and mitigate the worst pedestrian, bike or transit impacts. It's never the other way around.


For this example, University Drive will remain hilariously over-built, the interchange at Memorial will continue to occupy prime river-front land with an inefficiently large and high-speed interchange on what could be a prime neighbourhood boulevard with great access between the riverfront and surrounding neighbourhoods.

Again, the Crowhole it's not all bad. It's a light-years more sensitive design than something the City would have proposed a decade ago. But it also is not a compromise. This is firmly a road capacity project that will inevitably bring more cars into the city centre, which will inevitably create new bottlenecks elsewhere.

I agree with much of this (as in my earlier post), but I do think the Crowchild proposal will actually make the West Hillhurst area much better for all users. Some seem to think this must be impossible as you are now putting a freeway through there, but what exists now is so horrific that short of removing the Bow River crossing, the only way to fix it is by grade separating the mainline.

Currently we have freeway levels of traffic going through grade intersections. This means the light timings are so long that crossing the road on foot/bike and left turning takes an eternity, and you have a wide, ugly ROW there. After the proposal, the roadway will be hidden and there will be three wide overpasses (one more crossing than now). Plus access to the communities by vehicles will be much improved. So I think the plan does function for far more than car users.

p.s. While Montreal is covering some roads and removing some elevated structures, they are also spending $3.7B on rebuilding the Turcot. Different roads have different needs. One of the Crowchild options was also to cover it up, but it was too expensive.

[craner]

^^Well said milomilo - I agree. I would much rather cross Crow on one of the new overpasses than the current at grade signalized intersections.
14 Street SW is in a similar predicament but anytime adding interchanges is brought up the neighbourhoods go ballistic and somehow defend that the existing condition of the road is preferred. :(

[Mazrim]

A depressed inner city freeway was the anti-Christ, and now they're doing it anyway and portraying it as a brilliant and innovative solution. Just funny the sequence of events, is all.
AFAIK it wasn't depressed in 2012, so how it was the anti-Christ initially? I'm not remembering that part of public response.

I don't think the final design of the Crowhole is a particularly poor one, but every road project in this city has taught me how little the City tends to pay attention to the details which are crucial if road projects are to function for anyone else other than demand-inducing car traffic generators. Scepticism in warranted.
I agree your scepticism is warranted, but I disagree that they did not look at anyone else other than vehicle traffic with this particular project. Are cars still considered quite important? Yes. Even the surrounding communities such as West Hillhurst still care a ton about how they can drive around. One of the knocks on making Crowchild a tunnel was that it was not good for community connectivity, among others. If you look through the different phases of Crowchild you can see how many times, the road is reduced in scale or changed to accomodate other modes of travel. There have also been many things which have been tried and rejected for all modes that aren't showing on the recommended plan, but I imagine that kind of stuff could have been answered at the open houses if you really wanted to know more.



Nearly every roads project gets put in with wider lanes (designed unnecessarily to highway standard width even in urban areas) increasing car speed and reducing pedestrian crossing safety and quality of space.


Nearly every roads project includes new turn movements to make it a little easier to drive while harder to cross the road on foot or bike through increasingly long signal cycles.


Nearly every roads project misses big opportunities to fundamentally change some areas to pedestrian-focused or more liveable scales. Projects only go in one direction - to increase car speed/capacity and mitigate the worst pedestrian, bike or transit impacts. It's never the other way around.


The only road with wide lanes in the Crowchild project are Crowchild itself, and even then, they accounted for the possibility of narrowing them as well in their presentation.
Grade separating Crowchild reduces intersection phase times significantly, and a number of underpasses and overpasses are added in this project as well for pedestrians and cyclists. These new interchanges aren't exactly huge like something you'd see out in the 'burbs, either.
I feel like because of the timing of the Calgary main streets program, it's tough to ensure they all line up with the study being done here, but I imagine that those will play a bigger role on 17th Avenue and Kensington Road then what was shown. Otherwise, I think the focus on adding lots of wide pathways and new crossings goes a long way on this one. No road in this project has more lanes except for the current bottlenecks on Crowchild and the already planned widening of 16th Avenue.


For this example, University Drive will remain hilariously over-built, the interchange at Memorial will continue to occupy prime river-front land with an inefficiently large and high-speed interchange on what could be a prime neighbourhood boulevard with great access between the riverfront and surrounding neighbourhoods.
They have a slide showing the future planned growth of the University area being quite significant, so I can imagine that would be a reason University Drive is kept there. The changes they've suggested slightly reduce the capacity of the road, however. I also imagine that the St. Andrews Heights residents would have an issue with removing or drastically reducing University's connectivity.

For Memorial, I know they showed a bunch of intersection options to revise Memorial at Crowchild earlier in the project, but they all failed traffic wise. I don't see the point of an expensive reconstruction to make traffic worse, all to add a pretty small parcel of riverfront land that is already home to a good chunk of park space and not terribly develop-able if you ask me. Who would want to live below the Bow River Bridge and the noise it generates?


Again, the Crowhole it's not all bad. It's a light-years more sensitive design than something the City would have proposed a decade ago. But it also is not a compromise. This is firmly a road capacity project that will inevitably bring more cars into the city centre, which will inevitably create new bottlenecks elsewhere.
If it was a road capacity project, wouldn't they have been closer to the 2012 project than they are now? I think the extra interaction with the communities along Crowchild made a pretty good difference in adding extra features that make it much more than a road capacity project. I also get that not everyone has time to go over everything they've shown, but I can't help but feel that you're going to get people who say what you have no matter what they do, simply because they're improving the roads as well as everything else.

In a perfect world, could the City simply stop improving roads and focus on everything else? Maybe. Based on the present day negativity many drivers have towards cyclists, we're not there yet. The other side of the coin is the people who came to the Crowchild open houses and griped that their roads were being taken over by cyclists. Whether you like it or not, they are still a large sample size of the population, and they feel the City is ignoring them and pushing these in despite their protests. Until then, there will be push and pull and I think this project has done a decent job of accommodating everyone.

[UofC.engineer]

As we are building depressed inner-city freeways, Montreal is covering theirs and removing elevated stretches:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ville-marie-expressway-project-cover-park-chum-park-1.3344127

I don't think the final design of the Crowhole is a particularly poor one, but every road project in this city has taught me how little the City tends to pay attention to the details which are crucial if road projects are to function for anyone else other than demand-inducing car traffic generators. Scepticism in warranted.


Nearly every roads project gets put in with wider lanes (designed unnecessarily to highway standard width even in urban areas) increasing car speed and reducing pedestrian crossing safety and quality of space.


Nearly every roads project includes new turn movements to make it a little easier to drive while harder to cross the road on foot or bike through increasingly long signal cycles.


Nearly every roads project misses big opportunities to fundamentally change some areas to pedestrian-focused or more liveable scales. Projects only go in one direction - to increase car speed/capacity and mitigate the worst pedestrian, bike or transit impacts. It's never the other way around.


For this example, University Drive will remain hilariously over-built, the interchange at Memorial will continue to occupy prime river-front land with an inefficiently large and high-speed interchange on what could be a prime neighbourhood boulevard with great access between the riverfront and surrounding neighbourhoods.

Again, the Crowhole it's not all bad. It's a light-years more sensitive design than something the City would have proposed a decade ago. But it also is not a compromise. This is firmly a road capacity project that will inevitably bring more cars into the city centre, which will inevitably create new bottlenecks elsewhere.

Well said!

The weird:
I'm really scratching my head at the three traffic circles being proposed at university drive.

The good:
I am very impressed with the wide pedestrian bridge being built on 2nd ave.

The bad:
I despise the existing pedestrian bridge between St.Andrews Heights and 9th ave NW. It is in a tough spot geographically, but the entire design of it just seems like such an after thought.

[Fuzz]

Well said!
The bad:
I despise the existing pedestrian bridge between St.Andrews Heights and 9th ave NW. It is in a tough spot geographically, but the entire design of it just seems like such an after thought.
No way that is an afterthought. Someone forced them to put in a pedestrian bridge, and out of massive spite between departments or something, that monstrosity was built. My future wife used to live on the other side, and I was at Banff Trail. I'd walk, or days with poor judgment try to bring my bike over it(don't attempt). What an unusable hunk of trash.

[craner]

Hey ... Edmonton just received funding to turn Yellowhead Tr. into a freeway - maybe there is hope for Crowchild.

[s211]

Hey ... Edmonton just received funding to turn Yellowhead Tr. into a freeway - maybe there is hope for Crowchild.

Well, looking back at history, the province originally helped with Deerfoot (full freeway for decades) and Edmonton got the Yellowhead (a goat path in comparison to the Deerfoot), so in a fashion one could suggest that Edmonton is finally getting its due for overdue work to bring the Yellowhead up to a respectable standard.

[Joborule]

Anyone else feel that the city should seriously consider buring 16th avenue in Montgomery? The road currently functions as a expressway and commercial strip, serving neither well. It's best function right now is dividing Montgomery into two communities.

If the expressway function was buried underneath from 43 Street to Home Road, it would give the above ground level the ability to finally transport the road into the high activity community street it can be. With university district and the progression of the NW Hub in the vicinity, as well as Bowness, Edworthy Park, COP and other attractions, the potential is significant.

[suburbia]

Anyone else feel that the city should seriously consider buring 16th avenue in Montgomery? The road currently functions as a expressway and commercial strip, serving neither well. It's best function right now is dividing Montgomery into two communities.

If the expressway function was buried underneath from 43 Street to Home Road, it would give the above ground level the ability to finally transport the road into the high activity community street it can be. With university district and the progression of the NW Hub in the vicinity, as well as Bowness, Edworthy Park, COP and other attractions, the potential is significant.

There are many other places where roads could be buried that would make more sense, but very few if any would be feasible. Additionally, that area of the floodplain is particularly risky. Lastly, it is not like Montgomery has a large N-S commercial / retail area. The area it has actually runs along 16th for the most part,

[craner]

Anyone else feel that the city should seriously consider buring 16th avenue in Montgomery? The road currently functions as a expressway and commercial strip, serving neither well. It's best function right now is dividing Montgomery into two communities.

If the expressway function was buried underneath from 43 Street to Home Road, it would give the above ground level the ability to finally transport the road into the high activity community street it can be. With university district and the progression of the NW Hub in the vicinity, as well as Bowness, Edworthy Park, COP and other attractions, the potential is significant.
Yes, I've considered this - would sure be nice.

[technomad]

Anyone else feel that the city should seriously consider buring 16th avenue in Montgomery?
...
With university district and the progression of the NW Hub in the vicinity, as well as Bowness, Edworthy Park, COP and other attractions, the potential is significant.

Have pondered something similar for a while.. but have a different route in mind. this assumes that west Stoney is complete, and CP track expansion for passenger service to Banff underway or complete

http://i.imgur.com/FYuU7UG.png

Rather than going underground, HWY1 can be extended across the Bow west of Edworthy park, and run in a stacked viaduct over the CP line up to the current Sarcee/HWY1 interchange. Something like: (from GIS)

http://www.mrbrklyn.com/resources/Cross%20Brooklyn%20Expressway%20(I-287,%20I-695%20and%20I-878,%20unbuilt)_files/img10.gif

This, along with a 29 st separation, would extend freeway grade HWY1 from Stoney to Crowchild, and free up the current 16 Av route through Montgomery for LRT use (purple line above)

Sarcee, with the west ring/bypass role now being performed by Stoney, could be removed going up the hill, and the portion south of Bow trail renamed and rerouted through the ravine to connect to Shaganappi across the river, and could include a transit link as well

Definitely a longer term project to get all the right pieces in place.. but in the meantime incorporating grade separation at 29 st into the Crowchild plans instead of the overbuilt university drive portion would be a good first step

[MalcolmTucker]

CP requires much greater clearance these days, but still intriguing. Not that traffic seems to be holding back redevelopment along the strip much.

[Joborule]

There are many other places where roads could be buried that would make more sense, but very few if any would be feasible. Additionally, that area of the floodplain is particularly risky. Lastly, it is not like Montgomery has a large N-S commercial / retail area. The area it has actually runs along 16th for the most part,

Which areas would suggest? I advocate for the Montgomery stretch based on it's proximity to areas where people work and live, as well it's a shorter stretch of roadway to be buried which would make the costs a bit easier to swallow.

Have pondered something similar for a while.. but have a different route in mind. this assumes that west Stoney is complete, and CP track expansion for passenger service to Banff underway or complete

http://i.imgur.com/FYuU7UG.png

Rather than going underground, HWY1 can be extended across the Bow west of Edworthy park, and run in a stacked viaduct over the CP line up to the current Sarcee/HWY1 interchange. Something like: (from GIS)

http://www.mrbrklyn.com/resources/Cross%20Brooklyn%20Expressway%20(I-287,%20I-695%20and%20I-878,%20unbuilt)_files/img10.gif

This, along with a 29 st separation, would extend freeway grade HWY1 from Stoney to Crowchild, and free up the current 16 Av route through Montgomery for LRT use (purple line above)

Sarcee, with the west ring/bypass role now being performed by Stoney, could be removed going up the hill, and the portion south of Bow trail renamed and rerouted through the ravine to connect to Shaganappi across the river, and could include a transit link as well

Definitely a longer term project to get all the right pieces in place.. but in the meantime incorporating grade separation at 29 st into the Crowchild plans instead of the overbuilt university drive portion would be a good first step

Interesting idea, however based on recent developments from the city, a river crossing connecting Sarcee to Shaganappi is never gonna happen. It seems Edworthy is going to be protected from here on out; meaning road development impact it is a non-starter.

[suburbia]

A stacked viaduct for 40,000 vehicles per day? What fantasy world are y'all living in?! Honestly not sure if this is a joke.

I thought it was a joke on first read. I tried to shut it down, but then others came back saying they've thought the same thing and then the stacked viaduct idea was shared. Boggles the mind. LOL!

[technomad]

A stacked viaduct for 40,000 vehicles per day? What fantasy world are y'all living in?! Honestly not sure if this is a joke.

:haha: nah, my fantasy world is filled with ideas for an actual road network in Edmonton..

no joke, merely an idea on how to bridge a gap in the freeway network, and move those 40k+ vehicles past a community rather than through it

I think this would be better than a tunnel, but open to any alternate ideas you have?


Interesting idea, however based on recent developments from the city, a river crossing connecting Sarcee to Shaganappi is never gonna happen. It seems Edworthy is going to be protected from here on out; meaning road development impact it is a non-starter.

Plans for a road through there have been on the books for decades, and any recent changes could be changed back just as easily. Biggest impact to the park would be from the double or triple tracking of the CP line, and I don't think Edworthy park should present an obstacle to improving access to Banff national park. Proposed bridge/viaduct locations would have very little impact to the park itself.

The project could even improve the city park system by incorporating a high line style park as a top deck on the viaduct ..

[Fuzz]

LOL. First, Sarcee to Shaganppi through Edworthy is not gong to happen. Have you seen the grade? And you cut a park in half. I couldn't imagine the embarrassment for the guy presenting this idea to the city and getting laughed out of the room. This would be below paying 100% of the Calgary Next project as far as priorities go. It's not like 16th ave is that busy, or that that section ever takes long to get through. What problem is this trying to solve?