Calgary Roads

[You Need A Thneed]

Country Hills Blvd is wider past Stonegate because of truck traffic in the area. Similar to Barlow Trail in the SE. the median is wider to allow the angled left turn lanes, that are much safer for left turning truck traffic.

The “urban Blvd” portion is essentially unbuilt so far, as that is generally everything east of what is currently developed.

[milomilo]

CHB is actually classed as an arterial https://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/Planning/Forecasting/2019-road-classification-city.pdf?noredirect=1.

That reason does make sense, but I don't believe it is a good trade off. You get marginally better safety at the expense of a ton of wasted space and an ugly road, isolating those outer suburbs and further entrenching crappy city building. The road design would make sense in a purely industrial area like Barlow in the SE, but not so much in a residential/commercial one.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Does anyone know if 2A between Dunbow and 194th is to receive interchanges? Would seem that once West Stoney is done that a lot of traffic will flood into that area.

[msmariner]

Does anyone know if 2A between Dunbow and 194th is to receive interchanges? Would seem that once West Stoney is done that a lot of traffic will flood into that area.

Not in the immediate future. 194 is being extended to Silverado right now. Don’t think the city will put that intersection high up on the interchange priority list

[milomilo]

How much traffic is there from the south to west? I doubt it's massive, but the current route is pretty awful, so adding the SWRR and then WRR would each be a massive improvement.

[North_Regina_Boy]

How much traffic is there from the south to west? I doubt it's massive, but the current route is pretty awful, so adding the SWRR and then WRR would each be a massive improvement.

I'd consider more The CanAMEx corridor. I mean they can and likely will stay on 2 till they reach Stoney, but I guess time will tell.

[lubicon]

Two updates on the Glenmore/Sarcee upgrade that goes along with the SWRR project.

1. detour at Sarcee/Glenmore.Hwy #8 intersection is set to open July 28 as per the electronic signs this morning.

2. Glenmore widening west of Crowchild kicked off yesterday. On top of the 60km speed zone that has been in place (despite zero construction) between 37 Street and Richard Road they have now tacked on a 50km zone to the east. Not sure where that ends because the City has somehow forgotten to post where the construction zone actually ends eastbound). Or perhaps it goes on indefinitely.....

[DoubleK]

Canamex traffic on the west side? Theoretically it should be zero, the east bypass is signed as such and is a much shorter route.

And way flatter...

[lubicon]

Leisure traffic (tourist and local) transitting from south Calgary or coming from the South and heading west, and vice versa will be the main benefactory of the west RR. Also a makes the intra city movements from NW Calgary to the SW or SE much easier which is a huge deal.

[Corndogger]

Leisure traffic (tourist and local) transitting from south Calgary or coming from the South and heading west, and vice versa will be the main benefactory of the west RR. Also a makes the intra city movements from NW Calgary to the SW or SE much easier which is a huge deal.

So true. I wish the west leg was being built right now as the benefits of the fully completed project will be a lot larger than the detractors want to admit.

[craner]

Agreed - will really be a game changer. :tup:

[milomilo]

I was barely here before the other legs opened, but it seems to me the remaining two will offer far more than the others in opening up the city to different route options. I know the west leg will have a number of different use scenarios that will benefit me even though I'm not doing the main NW-S route.

[Rollerstud98]

East bypass (Stoney from Deerfoot NE to Deerfoot SE) is 40 km. West completed bypass will therefore be ~60 km, and involves crossing the Bow River, Fish Creek, Elbow River, big climb adjacent to COP, crossing the Bow River again, West Nose Creek, and finally Nose Creek. It also includes the busiest point on Stoney which is at Beddington, 80k vehicles per day.

The design of the Stoney/Deerfoot interchanges confirm the intended path for Canamex traffic without even considering any of that. In the deep south, the northbound to westbound movement from Deerfoot to 22X is pretty much an afterthought, though it becomes significantly more important upon completion of the west leg. North to east and west to south are high speed 2 lane flyovers.

What will the Macleod to west Stoney interchange be like? That will be the one more used for those coming from the south and heading west.

[DoubleK]

What will the Macleod to west Stoney interchange be like? That will be the one more used for those coming from the south and heading west.

It's a big system loop, right exit and 2 lanes.

Similar to EB Stoney to NB Deerfoot except a bigger loop.

Alignment map here. (http://www.swcrrproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Info-Session_Segments_Final_Feb2018-6.pdf)

[lubicon]

What will the Macleod to west Stoney interchange be like? That will be the one more used for those coming from the south and heading west.

Hopefully not but it won't surprise me if it ends up this way. The problem of course is lowers speed limits and at least three signalized intersections along McLeod which defeats the whole purpose. Traffic really should be encouraged to use #2 all the way to Stoney even if it is a little longer distance wise.

[DoubleK]

Macleod will ultimately be free-flow from Stoney to the De Winton fork.

But when?

I didn't think the Walden and Dunbow interchanges were funded yet. I thought I read that 194th was.

[DoubleK]

That would be quite the challenge.

[milomilo]

But when?

I didn't think the Walden and Dunbow interchanges were funded yet. I thought I read that 194th was.

That's just an intersection and road to connect it to Silverado I think. No interchange.

I really dislike the city's road building philosophy. Are they really (eventually) going to build three or four interchanges down that section of Macleod? 1 or 2 would be fine. We definitely shouldn't have them a km apart at 194 and 210 ave, but that's what the plans show.

[Corndogger]

That's just an intersection and road to connect it to Silverado I think. No interchange.

I really dislike the city's road building philosophy. Are they really (eventually) going to build three or four interchanges down that section of Macleod? 1 or 2 would be fine. We definitely shouldn't have them a km apart at 194 and 210 ave, but that's what the plans show.

I agree. Building interchanges that close together is usually a waste of money and creates weaving problems.

[DoubleK]

That's just an intersection and road to connect it to Silverado I think. No interchange.


The road is definitely under construction (I live in Silverado), but I thought I read that the eventual interchange was funded.

There isn't really any wasted work between the two projects, so maybe it's still a couple years out.

[milomilo]

Oh, in that case I don't know then. You're right that building the intersection does not appear to waste anything before building the interchange around it. Then they have to do the one at 210.

Hopefully that and one at Dunbow is all they do, then close off all the grade intersections and that area will be fine with a few tweaks.

[joe498]

Council today discussing the Glenmore Trail East Functional Planning Study

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=62632

[craner]

^Any news on how it was received by council ?

[Wentworth]

Why does Google maps show Sarcee Trail as being closed between Richmond Road and Glenmore/Hwy 8? It's been like this for a few days now, and Google is giving really weird routing instructions. I am assuming it has to do with the roadway changes there, but whomever made those updates really pooched it.

[Porfiry]

Why does Google maps show Sarcee Trail as being closed between Richmond Road and Glenmore/Hwy 8? It's been like this for a few days now, and Google is giving really weird routing instructions. I am assuming it has to do with the roadway changes there, but whomever made those updates really pooched it.

I think it's because the new realignment and intersection are now (or soon to be) active. Technically Google is correct in that the old bits of roadway are (or will be) closed, but they have yet to add the replacement road sections. I imagine most of their data is automated so they don't realize that they're giving bad routing instructions.

http://www.swcrrproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SWCRR_Sarcee_Detour_Jul25.pdf

[milomilo]

^It wasn't open yesterday at least.

[Porfiry]

I imagine most of their data is automated so they don't realize that they're giving bad routing instructions.

...actually it looks like Google is pulling their data straight from Waze, where a user marked those sections as "permanently closed". They jumped the gun a bit since the switchover apparently hasn't been completed just yet.

https://www.waze.com/livemap?lat=51.012580164329066&lng=-114.16500806808473&zoom=16

[Mazrim]

Can't another Waze user fix it? Seems like it should be something that's relatively easy to do...

[MalcolmTucker]

Can't another Waze user fix it? Seems like it should be something that's relatively easy to do...
It is updated on the Waze backend. Probably needs to be approved at the map back office in India.

[ClaytonA]

Wow, so not only does the SW get upgrades because the SWRR wasn't going right to the TransCanada, so Glenmore, Sarcee Tr etc upgrades had to be done, but now they get an 6-8 lane freeway right to the TransCanada and upgrades west and north of the Bow River.

And NDP governments are supposed to be biased towards "social engineering" etc. like transit/bicycling etc? What happens when gas prices go up and oil and gas employment mushrooms? Roads take up the most land and are much less able to scale. Roads automatically get built/expanded because they are included in offsite levies putting money in a capital fund while other transportation modes are the poor cousin begging for scraps on a case-by-case basis. I see this new council has also abrogated the MDP by changing greenfield development targets. What are the impacts on the CTP? Interesting direction Calgary's going.

How much will this shift traffic from Crowchild Trail and lessen the need for Crowchild Trail Bow River upgrades after the phase one? Probably not much, Deerfoot is still in need of upgrades after the East Freeway was built. It could mean there's even more of a push to do the 8 Ave LRT Subway to increase road capacity out of downtown westbound onto Bow Trail. More pressure to add interchanges to Country Hills, MacLeod, Anderson, Bow Trail, 16 Ave, or other roads feeding Stoney?

[Doug]

Calgary and Edmonton's ring roads have different utility, i.e. ours is less useful for intracity trips. Just the geography of the city.

I would agree except that the SW ring road will massively alter intracity trips by bridging the bottlenecks created by Fish Creek Park, the reservation and Glenmore Park. I suspect suburban development will boom in the Providence area and commuter patterns will shift dramatically for all SW areas south of Glenmore Park. Stoney Trail to date has been a bypass. The SE segment has also opened up warehouse development.

[speedog]

Happened to be installing cabinets at a home on Sarcee Road SW and certainly the street situation there is the silliest thing. The Sarcee Road name is assigned to two two way streets that run adjacent to each other, one would be the old and original Sarcee Road and the newer one is named the same. One would like to think that the city could've come up with a better solution - Google Maps link (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.020763,-114.1329448,17z/data=!3m1!1e3).

[milomilo]

Calgary has the shittest road names of any city I've known. Not only are there two 'Sarcee Roads' as you point out, but then even worse, two more 'Sarcee Trails' disconnected in different parts of the city, and worse still, three fucking 'Barlow Trails'. And that scratches the surface, it's totally moronic.

I'm sure someone could say 'oh no it makes sense because the city wanted to do this but then cancelled the plans blablabla'. Doesn't matter. Sort it fucking out.

[Corndogger]

Calgary has the shittest road names of any city I've known. Not only are there two 'Sarcee Roads' as you point out, but then even worse, two more 'Sarcee Trails' disconnected in different parts of the city, and worse still, three fucking 'Barlow Trails'. And that scratches the surface, it's totally moronic.

I'm sure someone could say 'oh no it makes sense because the city wanted to do this but then cancelled the plans blablabla'. Doesn't matter. Sort it fucking out.

I totally agree with you. If they had built the full length of those roads instead of catering to SIGs this city's transportation problems would be way less significant. And people would be way less confused finding their way around.

I also wish we would get rid of the term "Trail" for major roads. This is the 21st century not the 1880s. Major highways should be numbered--end of fucking story!

[Mazrim]

I also wish we would get rid of the term "Trail" for major roads. This is the 21st century not the 1880s. Major highways should be numbered--end of fucking story!

Yeah, how dare they try to be interesting and unique with naming roads! :rolleyes:

[MalcolmTucker]

I totally agree with you. If they had built the full length of those roads instead of catering to SIGs this city's transportation problems would be way less significant. And people would be way less confused finding their way around.

I also wish we would get rid of the term "Trail" for major roads. This is the 21st century not the 1880s. Major highways should be numbered--end of fucking story!
Peter Lougheed was a special interest group now?

[milomilo]

I kind of like the 'trail' name, it's unique to Alberta. I'd rather it was more consistently for major roads though, and the little stubs and obsolete roads were renamed (Banff Trail etc)

And I don't care what the reason was why there are two Sarcee Trails and three Barlows. It doesn't matter, a road should be one continuous piece. Pick one to keep the name and re name the rest.

[ImmortalHawk]

Calgary has the shittest road names of any city I've known. Not only are there two 'Sarcee Roads' as you point out, but then even worse, two more 'Sarcee Trails' disconnected in different parts of the city, and worse still, three fucking 'Barlow Trails'. And that scratches the surface, it's totally moronic.

I'm sure someone could say 'oh no it makes sense because the city wanted to do this but then cancelled the plans blablabla'. Doesn't matter. Sort it fucking out.

The city should rename some parts of the roads. Instead of having 2 Sarcee Roads, maybe keep the name for the bigger road, and the smaller residential road can be renamed to 30 Street SW or something else.

For Sarcee Trail, I have seen people recommending an alternative for Sarcee Trail NW and renaming it to Spyhill Trail. Although I think it's not the best road rename, Sarcee Trail SW should stay the same.

Barlow Trail is complicated...

The North portion of Barlow should be renamed to something else, although if renamed, they would also have to rename Barlow Crescent up in Stonegate Landing, a new industrial area west of Skyview Ranch and Redstone

The Central portion of Barlow should remain the same imo

The South portion should just be completely renamed to something else. It causes confusions to drivers with address and other things. Could be renamed as Foothills Boulevard/Road since it goes through both Foothills and South Foothills Industrial areas, or just simply rename it as a numbered street (although it would be pretty boring)

What are your thoughts about this?

[Corndogger]

Peter Lougheed was a special interest group now?

What did he have to do with what I mentioned? The use of "Trail" came about long before him and I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with road stopping and ending.

[milomilo]

The city should rename some parts of the roads. Instead of having 2 Sarcee Roads, maybe keep the name for the bigger road, and the smaller residential road can be renamed to 30 Street SW or something else.

For Sarcee Trail, I have seen people recommending an alternative for Sarcee Trail NW and renaming it to Spyhill Trail. Although I think it's not the best road rename, Sarcee Trail SW should stay the same.

Barlow Trail is complicated...

The North portion of Barlow should be renamed to something else, although if renamed, they would also have to rename Barlow Crescent up in Stonegate Landing, a new industrial area west of Skyview Ranch and Redstone

The Central portion of Barlow should remain the same imo

The South portion should just be completely renamed to something else. It causes confusions to drivers with address and other things. Could be renamed as Foothills Boulevard/Road since it goes through both Foothills and South Foothills Industrial areas, or just simply rename it as a numbered street (although it would be pretty boring)

What are your thoughts about this?

No complaints from me, honestly though I don't care what they are named as long as there is only one of each road and it makes sense.

The larger of the 2 Sarcee Roads was originally a private road that the Military used for driving tanks from the Currie Barracks area to the Sarcee Barracks. It was literally the road to Sarcee, thus 'Sarcee Road'. The City acquired it in the 1970s in partial trade for land in the Weaselhead.

That doesn't mean the smaller road couldn't be renamed, but since there are houses only one one side of each street, and since this has existed for decades, is it really a problem?

As for Sarcee Trail, I think they should rename the entire southern corridor from 22x to the TransCanada as 'Tsuut'ina Trail'. Since that corridor will be Tsuut'ina Trail from Glenmore to 146th Ave, they might as well embrace the name for the whole corridor and eliminate the whole '2 roads that don't connect' thing.

I also like the 'Trail' nomenclature. It's a nod to our history, and some of those roads were among the most important infrastructure in our emerging province when they were created.

The Tsuut'ina Trail idea for Sarcee makes the most sense though - so it won't happen. Keeping Glenmore continuous through to Highway 8 would make sense too, seeing as the Stoney designation is already broken.

On a side note - does anyone know the history of Peigan Trail? It seems like the most pointless of the trails, neither being very important nor going anywhere in particular. A more appropriate name, IMO, would be 42 Ave. (Which, now I think about it has the same problem I'm talking about, replicated across all the number streets and aves over the city - but somehow that doesn't bother me).

[MalcolmTucker]

What did he have to do with what I mentioned? The use of "Trail" came about long before him and I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with road stopping and ending.
Oh, he messed up road alignment all over the place by interfering in the city's plans for roads over Fish Creek.

[Doug]

What did he have to do with what I mentioned? The use of "Trail" came about long before him and I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with road stopping and ending.

Rerouted Deerfoot from the current Bow Bottom alignment to the Barlow alignment. The Sarcee gap was due to NIMBYism. The section of Sarcee through Silver Springs from Bowmont Park to Crowchild was renamed to Silver Springs Gate.

I don't know if the Barlow gap between Memorial and Peigan has always existed.

[MalcolmTucker]

From an old Soviet map:
https://i.imgur.com/znypnkh.jpg

[milomilo]

Glory to the Motherland! How old is that map and why does it exist?

[milomilo]

I'm confused with numbering. If it's a city road, does it still have the provincial highway number? Is Glenmore Trail still Highway 8? Crowchild Trail is the 1A, but only to Banff Trail, which then continues until 16 Ave NW and disappears into the void to reappear at 17th Ave SW? That doesn't serve any useful purpose to drivers, so what's the point?

[Corndogger]

I've made my thoughts clear on this matter; I have no issue with "trail" and agree that it's unique and our own thing. In case you didn't notice Corndogger, major highways are numbered, it's just a matter of getting signs and common folk to refer to them by their number instead of name. You don't need to entirely eliminate the name.

Eliminate the name and people would use the number. I know that's not going to happen anytime soon because politicians in this country are obsessed with assigning names to stretches of highway to score cheap political points.

[s211]

Glory to the Motherland! How old is that map and why does it exist?

Cold war relic? Where to nuke next? :shrug:

[speedog]

I kind of like the 'trail' name, it's unique to Alberta. I'd rather it was more consistently for major roads though, and the little stubs and obsolete roads were renamed (Banff Trail etc)

And I don't care what the reason was why there are two Sarcee Trails and three Barlows. It doesn't matter, a road should be one continuous piece. Pick one to keep the name and re name the rest.

So which name would you keep for the continuous road that is Memorial Drive/Parkdale Boulevard/3rd Avenue NW/Bowness Road/85th Street NW?

Better yet, 20th Avenue becomes 10th Avenue on the east side of 16th Street SE..

This is just shit that has to stay with us although if you're living on Sarcee Road SW, how do you explain to a driver delivering you some pizza at 1am in the morning that I'm on the west side of the western Sarcee Road or would it be the lower Sarcee Road because the one Sarcee Road is lower than the other Sarcee Road.

[milomilo]

That's not much of an issue to me, as if you are driving on Memorial you know it will take you to anywhere on Memorial, which is not the case if you are on some other roads.

[DizzyEdge]

So which name would you keep for the continuous road that is Memorial Drive/Parkdale Boulevard/3rd Avenue NW/Bowness Road/85th Street NW?


Memorial Drive<->Bowness Road in my opinion.
If that causes issues because there are parts of the old Bowness road now running parallel rename those parts to numbers, or if you want to retain the historic naming rename those parts to 'Old Bowness Road' like Old Banff Coach Road.

[MalcolmTucker]

Cold war relic? Where to nuke next? :shrug:
The map has all sorts of interesting information. The bridges are marked with weight carrying ability not width. Every building is marked. Every public building is marked, all of the utilities. Industrial buildings which are part of the military supply chain are noted differently than regular industry. When a slough has lots of bugs, it is marked bugs (wouldn't want to build a camp near there!).

The maps were a way for the Soviets to plan, assemble information in one place, and in some cases try to figure out how capitalism works through interrelated firms in clusters versus state firms with linear supply chains. I think Wired did a big piece on them awhile back.

[milomilo]

What numbers would you use? Do the provincial numbers even apply? Highway 8 would work fine for Glenmore, but 1A doesn't for Crowchild. I guess 2A works ok for Macleod, but 16th needs to be stripped of any reference to the TCH or highway 1.

[Porfiry]

Eliminate the name and people would use the number.

I fail to understand why you would care. A name or a number, it's just an identifier. All that matters is if it's broadly accepted and understood.

[lubicon]

I would agree except that the SW ring road will massively alter intracity trips by bridging the bottlenecks created by Fish Creek Park, the reservation and Glenmore Park. I suspect suburban development will boom in the Providence area and commuter patterns will shift dramatically for all SW areas south of Glenmore Park. Stoney Trail to date has been a bypass. The SE segment has also opened up warehouse development.

Totally agree. W and SW Stoney will completely transform how I get to work, and how I get from my quadrant of the city to the south part of Calgary.

[milomilo]

I fail to understand why you would care. A name or a number, it's just an identifier. All that matters is if it's broadly accepted and understood.

Agreed. I quite like the actual road names here. Also if someone says 'Deerfoot' you know they're talking about the road in the city, but if they say highway 2 they are not.

[Corndogger]

I fail to understand why you would care. A name or a number, it's just an identifier. All that matters is if it's broadly accepted and understood.

A properly implemented numbering system can let people know the type of road, what direction it goes, if it's a bypass road, etc. Important stuff if you're new to the area or not familiar with it.

[milomilo]

No normal people actually know or care about this stuff and I think you'd actually be hard pressed to find a numbering system that is actually a whole lot more useful than ours - not that I think ours is much good.

The one change I'd like to see made is a separate classification for our 'freeways'. If they were a distinct class of road (unlike now where they are the same as any other road) then we could actually set some proper rules and driving standards for them and police those.

[Mazrim]

A properly implemented numbering system can let people know the type of road, what direction it goes, if it's a bypass road, etc. Important stuff if you're new to the area or not familiar with it.

You've chosen a pretty strange hill to die on. :shrug:

[ClaytonA]

...



Nobody important is saying it will.

...

Calgary and Edmonton's ring roads have different utility, i.e. ours is less useful for intracity trips. Just the geography of the city.

Your tone detracts from your message. It's not geography, the roads are pretty much a series of continuous interchanges providing so much access to the city. The majority of trips on these roads are intracity, because the highways were designed to facilitate people driving single occupant vehicles for work commutes/etc.

An argument could also be made that the other legs also predominately have intracity trips too, not bypasses, don't have the data, again because so much access was provided with interchanges. Almost every single arterial road has ring road access, not just main roads for example like 1/16 Ave, 8/Glenmore, and I'd throw in an Airport Trail/564 Delcour. Lots of land for freeways and people have to money to pay higher taxes making up for that land not earning property tax for the city.

[milomilo]

We wouldn't get any property tax at all without roads to move stuff around on.

[ImmortalHawk]

From an old Soviet map:
https://i.imgur.com/znypnkh.jpg

Is anyone going to point out how Blackfoot and Glenmore have a proper cloverleaf then, meanwhile now it's incomplete?

Does anyone know why they closed down the southeastern 'leaf' ramp ?

Glenmore @ Blackfoot on Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9937544,-114.0527172,16z)

[Doug]

is anyone going to point out how blackfoot and glenmore have a proper cloverleaf then, meanwhile now it's incomplete?

Does anyone know why they closed down the southeastern 'leaf' ramp ?

glenmore @ blackfoot on google maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9937544,-114.0527172,16z)

~1997

[You Need A Thneed]

~1997

Was that that long ago? Seems more recent than that.

[milomilo]

Is anyone going to point out how Blackfoot and Glenmore have a proper cloverleaf then, meanwhile now it's incomplete?

Does anyone know why they closed down the southeastern 'leaf' ramp ?

Glenmore @ Blackfoot on Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9937544,-114.0527172,16z)

A 'proper' cloverleaf is worse than a partial one.

[craner]

Your tone detracts from your message. It's not geography, the roads are pretty much a series of continuous interchanges providing so much access to the city. The majority of trips on these roads are intracity, because the highways were designed to facilitate people driving single occupant vehicles for work commutes/etc.

An argument could also be made that the other legs also predominately have intracity trips too, not bypasses, don't have the data, again because so much access was provided with interchanges. Almost every single arterial road has ring road access, not just main roads for example like 1/16 Ave, 8/Glenmore, and I'd throw in an Airport Trail/564 Delcour. Lots of land for freeways and people have to money to pay higher taxes making up for that land not earning property tax for the city.
I'm not sure how good access/tie-ins between the city and the ring road is a bad thing. :shrug:

A 'proper' cloverleaf is worse than a partial one.
Indeed - lots of weaving problems with a full cloverleaf.

[craner]

The Province's first comprehensive study of the ring road in 1974 stated categorically that Intra-urban trips would be the primary use for the ring road.

"The major function of the Ring Road would be to initially accommodate intra-urban traffic."

and

"Intra-urban trips, in the case of Calgary, are by far the most significant because nearly all of the Metropolitan Region population lies within the proposed corridor as well as major industrial and commercial development."

and

"Calgary is a major terminal for truck trips, and thus bypass truck trips are not very significant... The function of the Ring Road for bypass trips will not be significant."
Nice 5seconds!
You're always ready with the research/back-up :worship:

[ClaytonA]

TLDR; World isn't fair or ideal. Hopefully the province gets some great contract prices and saves some funds, there's always a limited amount in the one pot it all comes from.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To play devil's advocate;

Marketing it as a bypass to get public acceptance or leverage money from higher orders of government is really a misrepresentation. Why are people in Stavely, or rural Alberta, paying for Calgary's commuter road? Shouldn't all those extra interchanges, beyond an accessibility minimum - for example in my above post, be paid for instead by the City of Calgary if we're being fair? I've read in CBA's or MAE's (even seen a presentation) for projects like this ring road economic benefits for saved time from Heritage Point to COP (or strongly implied) as if the main benefits accrue from bypass trips, not people commuting from the NW to SE industrial jobs, or Bridlewood to downtown.

If "The function of the Ring Road for bypass trips will not be significant" is there really a significant benefit provincially? i.e. if 95% of the benefit is to Calgary, shouldn't Calgary pay 95% of the investment? Maybe Calgarian citizens would invest differently if they paid the fair cost and more directly (one could say democratically)? Maybe a provincial politician wants to only pay 33% as with Green Line if this was clear in the CBA/MAE/business case? Do ends justify means when it's "your project"?

“Our government is proud to invest in the critical Southwest Calgary Ring Road project which will connect communities, enhance access to markets and services and make life better for Albertans, ... Communities as in neighbourhoods within Calgary? Does this imply the bypass function is significant? Yes it will make life better for Albertans, all Albertans?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In preclusion, the world isn't fair. Perhaps it's multiple people's condescending tone earlier that questioning the construction timing of one section of one freeway (yes M not all freeways or even all roads) makes me less important, bad, an idiot, myopic, uninformed, or some enviro nut job, etc. that's motivating a post about equity. Perhaps idealism about professionals' ethics (not morals). Learned last time this isn't the right communication medium for that discussion.

I drive. I'm for transportation in all modes. I understand the mode share in Calgary: i.e. https://postmediacalgaryherald2.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/transitdrivingtowork.jpg?quality=55&strip=all

That's a lot of people sitting hours per day in cars over really long distances for commutes; https://censusmapper.ca/maps/980?index=1#11/51.0347/-114.0515

That also tend to have a lot more income than others (for example note along Centre St N); https://censusmapper.ca/maps/838?index=4#11/50.9893/-114.0652

In non-income segregated neighbourhoods (people just like them) Note also how similar these maps are, both higher and more uniform income in newer communities far south/west/NW they chose to live in. I can understand where people are coming from; https://censusmapper.ca/maps/840?index=1#11/51.0222/-114.0892


Think about group biases in people working in transportation (again you see it just as often with people doing active transportation design and transit design as people doing highway design), perhaps curse of knowledge, projection bias, endowment effect, class bias. Plus just world hypothesis, and zero sum bias (LOL).

It's better to work on projects that actually get built. Discuss projects that benefit you. There's always an unfunded capital list you compete in and with highways you can bend things more than transit.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Planning/Calgary-Transportation-Plan/Transportation-Infrastructure-Investment-Plan-(TIIP).aspx

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/8beb5614-43ff-4c01-8d3b-f1057c24c50b/resource/68283b86-c086-4b36-a159-600bcac3bc57/download/2018-21-Fiscal-Plan.pdf#unfunded (that's a lot of schools... )

Sometimes in such environments, in the when is it appropriate to be an advocate game, those transit people just have to be that much more compelling than roads, the bar is higher. World isn't ideal. We shouldn't envy politicians, often lay people, making decisions in this area since it's slightly different than internal gas plant debottlenecking assessments for example. Much more BS to step in. World isn't ideal.

Hopefully the province gets some great contract prices and saves some funds, there's always a limited amount in the one pot it all comes from. Back to cheerleading!

[canucklehead2]

Glory to the Motherland! How old is that map and why does it exist?

Cough, Cough. RED DAWN... Cough, Cough...

Also for the alt-right members of the audience the plans laid out Premier Notley's father Grant in the case of a 1980's takeover of Alberta or future-proofing for our current one... ;)

In all seriousness though, I am sure it was intended for exactly that purpose. In case of takeover, know your targets, major infrastructure, etc. After all during the Cold War ICBM's were actually targeted at both Calgary and Edmonton making a nuclear holocaust shockingly plausible.

After all "The West" did the same with closed off Eastern Bloc cities during that timeframe which let's face is continues until this day, we just choose not to focus on the reality of two absolute mad-men running both Russia and the USA at the same time with access to the largest nuclear stockpiles this side of the Sun. Sorry to be a freakin' Debbie Downer but that's just life in 2018... Still think Trudeau is the worst leader we could have? Yeah I don't think so. And I'm an anarco-communist NDP'er at heart who would rather shotgun a tesla battery full of acid than vote for the Lieberals...

[Doug]

I didn't say the majority of trips on Stoney are not intracity. I said Henday has more utility for intracity trips, given the immediate proximity of St. Albert and Sherwood Park to Henday. The proof is in Henday at about 110k in the west with even more significant rush hour spikes vs Stoney at 80k near Beddington, for similarly sized metros.



Of course they do, nobody is disputing that. I certainly did not.

However, when pondering AT's primary purpose for Stoney, keep in mind the design of the Deerfoot SE/22X and how it is highly unfavourable for intracity connections. Not sure you were in here when we discussed it in 2013. Both Stoney/Deerfoot complexes, as well as the 22X/88 St complex, are designed to favour CANAMEX.

I suspect that SW Stoney will become the busiest segment of either ring road due to the fact that it will provide the only connection across Fish Creek and Glenmore Parks. SW Henday is similar it that it is the only bridge over the North Saskatchewan upstream of the Quesnell.

[s211]

In all seriousness though, I am sure it was intended for exactly that purpose. In case of takeover, know your targets, major infrastructure, etc. After all during the Cold War ICBM's were actually targeted at both Calgary and Edmonton making a nuclear holocaust shockingly plausible.

Anyone here old enough to have been around when Edmonton used to have air raid sirens?

[Doug]

According to City of Calgary 2017 traffic counts
-Macleod over Fish Creek is 114K
-Glenmore Causeway is 160K
-37th Street over Fish Creek (soon to be part of SW ring road) is 20K

It wouldn't be a stretch to expect the SW ring road, which bypasses both Macleod and Glenmore to hit 100K in the short term. Putting 40K people into Providence will only push that number up as the SW ring road will be their only connection to the city other than Macleod.

[milomilo]

AT predicts it will carry less than 100k in 30 years, half of a 6 lane Deerfoot? Good thing we built it for 16 lanes. Money well spent!

[milomilo]

OK, so an 8 lane, non C/D Stoney SW that is designed well should easily be able to handle the volumes AT predicts well into the future. Even if it has to handle 200,000 in 60 years, it still won't need a C/D system. Obviously this ship has sailed now and we're building it anyway, but I hope this sort of thing is scrutinized better in the future.

[milomilo]

I'll strongly disagree there, there would be great utility for a C/D system at 200k. "Need" is subjective too, like Deerfoot is in a level of service defined as failure, but we all get home at the end of the day. At its present 170k, Deerfoot would benefit greatly from C/D and baksetweaves given the proximity of its exits. Does it need those upgrades? Technically no, because we're surviving.

The discussion should therefore shift to where it was earlier, i.e. if 200k will ever be reached, and whether or not we should grade for that now and lengthen overpasses. Again, we've beat that to death and I made my position clear when we did so. However, contrary to that position, you may have noticed in the past few posts that I believe SW Stoney volume to be lower than others are anticipating, at least initially, and will not at any point between Glenmore and 22X surpass Anthony Henday Drive at either 87 Ave or SPF.

Forget Henday, I find myself wondering if SW Stoney can even beat Stoney at Beddington.

There's alway going to be a very blurry line between whether we 'need' a road of a certain size or whether we can make do with a smaller one. It's very easy to argue that we'll always need more capacity, as we all know it will always fill up.

I may have poorly expressed my argument in the past, but the point is there has never been any justification for building the SWRR as large as they have. As it stands, we only have statements from AT stating what you have said, seeing relatively light usage out for decades. I'm not some anti road loon, I'd be quite happy with building road capacity where it is justified. But in this case it clearly is not and the government has admitted that - so I think it's quite right we should be angry that we are building lanes that we have no plans on using. I'd rather that money was spent on road upgrades elsewhere in the province where they would actually provide benefit.

There should be more anger over this - literally hundreds of millions (my guess, if anyone has a better one please say because AT will not) has been poured down the drain to build roads for no benefit. Yet no-one in this so-called conservative province bats an eyelid, they'd rather fet about minimum wage workers getting $15 an hour.

[dmuzika]

Does anyone know what's happening at Glenmore Trail and Barlow Trail? It seems the split intersection is complete but now they're doing grading on west side of the intersection(s). Is the city constructing an interchange similar to the diamond over Ogden Road?

[milomilo]

It hasn't been stated in any of their plans, AFAIK, but the way that Barlow intersection was reconstructed from a normal 4-way to a split signalized one indicates that one day the desire is to put a similar interchange there. That's interesting they are doing grading though.

[MalcolmTucker]

"This work also provides infrastructure upgrades necessary for the upcoming Green Line Light Rail Transit, and sets the stage for a new interchange at Barlow Trail SE and Glenmore Trail."
https://www.grahambuilds.com/project-profiles/infrastructure/glenmore-corridor-improvements


The proposed road layout:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/glenmore-ogden/glenmore-ogden-revised-plan.pdf

[Mazrim]

"This work also provides infrastructure upgrades necessary for the upcoming Green Line Light Rail Transit, and sets the stage for a new interchange at Barlow Trail SE and Glenmore Trail."
https://www.grahambuilds.com/project-profiles/infrastructure/glenmore-corridor-improvements


The proposed road layout:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/glenmore-ogden/glenmore-ogden-revised-plan.pdf
That's all about the interchange that's already completed. The grading dmuzika is probably something separate, or perhaps finishing some earthworks that weren't finished.

[You Need A Thneed]

I suspect that some earthworks for the future Barlow interchange might have been included in the contract for the Ogden interchange.

The rework to the Barlow intersection should make detouring and reconstruction for the eventual interchange much easier.

[DizzyEdge]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-neighbourhood-speed-limit-30-kilometres-per-hour-1.4809664

30 km/h could be new default speed limit in Calgary

Coun. Druh Farrell wants speed reduced in all city neighbourhoods
Drew Anderson · CBC News · Posted: Sep 04, 2018 10:56 AM MT | Last Updated: September 4

The default speed in Calgary's neighbourhoods could be reduced by 20 km/h. (Danielle Nerman/CBC)
153 comments
Speed limits could be drastically reduced in Calgary neighbourhoods — along with pedestrian fatalities — if council approves a motion on Sept. 10.

Coun. Druh Farrell wants the default speed limit on neighbourhood streets in the city reduced to 30 kilometres per hour, down from the current 50 km/h.

What do you think of the proposal to reduce speed limits? Leave your comments below
"Improving neighbourhood street safety, comfort, and livability are top priorities for communities across Calgary," said the Ward 7 representative in a news release.

"Calgarians want safer streets, and reducing neighbourhood speed limits is an important part of the equation. Considering the $120 million annual societal cost of pedestrian-involved collisions, this is a sensible investment in making walking safer."

Pedestrian survival
Her office cites stats from the World Health Organization that show 90 per cent of pedestrians struck by cars travelling 30 km/h survive.

That number drops to 60 per cent at 40 km/h and below 20 per cent at 50 km/h.

Calgary speed limit study rejected but council approves rest of pedestrian strategy
Advocate says city's poor pathway detours a sign we're not 'there yet'
According to Farrell's office, the reduction would prolong the average commute by less than one minute as it would not affect "major collectors, arterials, parkways, industrial, and skeletal roads."

Coun. Gian-Carlo Carra, who is one of the councillors supporting the motion, said the exact nature of the roads affected will have to be determined.

"We would have to be very clear about that, but I think general unlined streets — streets without lines on them — are your general places where that is going to apply, and then potentially some higher order roads, depending on where they are and what the impacts would be on traffic flows," he said.

more at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-neighbourhood-speed-limit-30-kilometres-per-hour-1.4809664

[CrossedTheTracks]

I'm generally in favour of efforts to include pedestrian safety, but the amateur data scientist in me wonders... "how many pedestrian collisions have occurred on the roads that would be affected by this proposal, at speeds that would be [hypothetically] reduced by this proposal?"

I'm usually not doing 50 on Carra's "... I think general unlined streets..." because the road design/traffic patterns don't really let me anyway. But I'm not a crazy driver prone to cause pedestrian collisions in the first place...?

[DizzyEdge]

I'm generally in favour of efforts to include pedestrian safety, but the amateur data scientist in me wonders... "how many pedestrian collisions have occurred on the roads that would be affected by this proposal, at speeds that would be [hypothetically] reduced by this proposal?"

I'm usually not doing 50 on Carra's "... I think general unlined streets..." because the road design/traffic patterns don't really let me anyway. But I'm not a crazy driver prone to cause pedestrian collisions in the first place...?

Yeah I'd like to see some stats on that.
I have doubts about this, but I'm actually looking forward to the discussions in council.

[Mazrim]

I have to agree with what's been said elsewhere about this being a smaller step towards improving road safety in the future. Lowering the speeds like this also means future roads will be better designed with the lower speed in mind, which will have broader effects on safety than simply lowering the speed limit on residential streets. Traffic calming is the best way to lower speeds, but that costs way more than changing some signs.

[milomilo]

I'd rather it was made 40 everywhere and got rid of the pointless, annoying 30 zones. I'm already going slower than the speed limit in areas where there are likely to be children and reduced visibility such as residential areas. Why do I need to go 30 in areas when I have wide open visibility and 99% of the time there are zero children, and the times there are children it's blindingly obvious?

[Corndogger]

I'd rather it was made 40 everywhere and got rid of the pointless, annoying 30 zones. I'm already going slower than the speed limit in areas where there are likely to be children and reduced visibility such as residential areas. Why do I need to go 30 in areas when I have wide open visibility and 99% of the time there are zero children, and the times there are children it's blindingly obvious?

50 is fine. The people pushing this are conveniently forgetting that 50 is the maximum under ideal conditions. If kids are present of course you slow down. Same goes for crappy weather conditions. This is nothing but a huge tax grab. Did you see the story today about how the number of tickets issued in construction zones went up over 1,300% in the first six months of this year compared to last year? No amount of spin is going to convince people that this isn't a blatant attempt by the city to raise revenue. Speed limits in construction zones are absurdly low now and the zones begin and end well before they should start and finish. People should simply refuse to pay these fines and force the provincial government to reverse their decision to give cities the power to change speed limits. Thank God they didn't give them taxing powers as well. Any party that promises to rip up those charters will get my vote next year.

And since I know it's coming I'll let you know in advance that I'm ready to be attacked on what I said above. I know some of you will give me the "what about the children" line and tell me I'm a selfish jerk. I care about safety and sadly care way too much about others...but not when it comes to people trying to ruin my quality of life and robbing me.

[DizzyEdge]

50 is fine. The people pushing this are conveniently forgetting that 50 is the maximum under ideal conditions.

Unfortunately as I experience on my narrow residential street with parked cars lining both sides drivers tend to drive more like 50 (or 60) is their god given right than paying any attention to conditions. That said I have no doubt that making everything 30 is an attempt to get drivers to drive 40-50.

[Corndogger]

Unfortunately as I experience on my narrow residential street with parked cars lining both sides drivers tend to drive more like 50 (or 60) is their god given right than paying any attention to conditions. That said I have no doubt that making everything 30 is an attempt to get drivers to drive 40-50.

I live in an area just like that and I hate it when people drive 50 or so especially when someone else is coming from the opposite direction. It's also why I'm not a fan of narrow streets that have parking.

[DoubleK]

I am a bazillion percent in supporting the lowering of the speed limits.

If you are hurry to get somewhere, leave earlier.

The consequences of hitting a pedestrian at 50 vs 30 is a big difference, no matter who is at fault.

This is a good change.

[milomilo]

Are the statistics available for all the pedestrian injuries and fatalities in the city? They should be, as it's important, but I can't find them. We could then have a look at the speed people were hit at and how many of them, and whether speed was a factor. It's all hot air right now as we don't know the numbers.

Simply saying '50 is more likely to kill you than 30 so the speed limit must be reduced' is a vacuous argument. Using that logic, we should reduce all roads in the country to 30 (or 20, that's safer still) - as long as it saves one life, it's worth it, right?

Yes we should always be looking at improving safety, but having Druh Farrell come out and say that there should be a blanket application of 30 zones on residential streets regardless of condition or without any idea of what it would look like is bound to needlessly inflame a lot of the driving population (ie most people). By proposing this, you've now set up a battle which is going to get a lot of push back, rather than opting for more reasonable limits which might get more support.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Simply saying '50 is more likely to kill you than 30 so the speed limit must be reduced' is a vacuous argument.

Yeah, the first part ('50 kills more than 30') is fine, it's the conclusion that's tenuous. The correct conclusion is, "so we need to know the places where collisions are occurring at 50, and why, and find a way of reducing those collisions."

Changing the default speed limit probably doesn't cost much cash, but if it doesn't accomplish anything, it's worse than spending money on measures that would help in spots that need it -- anything from better crosswalk paint, signs, lights, curb bulbs, localized speed limit changes, all the way up to a new overpass.

[suburbia]

Simply saying '50 is more likely to kill you than 30 so the speed limit must be reduced' is a vacuous argument. Using that logic, we should reduce all roads in the country to 30 (or 20, that's safer still) - as long as it saves one life, it's worth it, right?

Fully agree with milomilo.

Changing to 30km/hr is akin to shutting down the NE LRT line because of accidents involving pedestrians, versus properly reviewing the specific intersections where the accidents have occurred, and circumstances of those accidents (like being on the phone or listening to music while crossing).

[Bri-Guy]

CTV 6 o'clock news (https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/statistics-show-that-lower-speed-limit-in-calgary-may-not-solve-safety-issues-1.4083172) had a segment last night indicating that pedestrian fatalities occurred 8% of the time at locations that would have the speeds reduced to 30 by this proposal. Majority of incidents occur at marked crosswalks on major roads (with painted lines, so wouldn't have a speed reduction). Seems like an overly punishing condition to reduce speeds everywhere if those aren't the sites of most of the problems.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Agreed. I'm not surprised by who the motion is coming from (Duh Farrel, and Gian Carlo) You can always count on one or both of those f-ing retards to propose something stupid at least 2 or 3 times a year.

Are the statistics available for all the pedestrian injuries and fatalities in the city? They should be, as it's important, but I can't find them. We could then have a look at the speed people were hit at and how many of them, and whether speed was a factor. It's all hot air right now as we don't know the numbers.

Simply saying '50 is more likely to kill you than 30 so the speed limit must be reduced' is a vacuous argument. Using that logic, we should reduce all roads in the country to 30 (or 20, that's safer still) - as long as it saves one life, it's worth it, right?

Yes we should always be looking at improving safety, but having Druh Farrell come out and say that there should be a blanket application of 30 zones on residential streets regardless of condition or without any idea of what it would look like is bound to needlessly inflame a lot of the driving population (ie most people). By proposing this, you've now set up a battle which is going to get a lot of push back, rather than opting for more reasonable limits which might get more support.

[SteveP]

All the talk from these politicians about downing the speed limit, not one of them has ever considered The possibility that a large number of people don’t know how to drive a car properly. That and I’m sorry but pedestrians need to grab half a brain when crossing the street. If you don’t want to get hit by car look both ways and make sure it’s safe. Seriously not that hard to do. I understand it’s not as easy for kids who are still learning to criss streets but parents and teachers need to do a better job of teaching safety.

Yeah, the first part ('50 kills more than 30') is fine, it's the conclusion that's tenuous. The correct conclusion is, "so we need to know the places where collisions are occurring at 50, and why, and find a way of reducing those collisions."

Changing the default speed limit probably doesn't cost much cash, but if it doesn't accomplish anything, it's worse than spending money on measures that would help in spots that need it -- anything from better crosswalk paint, signs, lights, curb bulbs, localized speed limit changes, all the way up to a new overpass.

Fully agree with milomilo.

Changing to 30km/hr is akin to shutting down the NE LRT line because of accidents involving pedestrians, versus properly reviewing the specific intersections where the accidents have occurred, and circumstances of those accidents (like being on the phone or listening to music while crossing).

CTV 6 o'clock news (https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/statistics-show-that-lower-speed-limit-in-calgary-may-not-solve-safety-issues-1.4083172) had a segment last night indicating that pedestrian fatalities occurred 8% of the time at locations that would have the speeds reduced to 30 by this proposal. Majority of incidents occur at marked crosswalks on major roads (with painted lines, so wouldn't have a speed reduction). Seems like an overly punishing condition to reduce speeds everywhere if those aren't the sites of most of the problems.

Agreed. I'm not surprised by who the motion is coming from (Duh Farrel, and Gian Carlo) You can always count on one or both of those f-ing retards to propose something stupid at least 2 or 3 times a year.

[jc_yyc_ca]

All the talk from these politicians about downing the speed limit, not one of them has ever considered The possibility that a large number of people don’t know how to drive a car properly. That and I’m sorry but pedestrians need to grab half a brain when crossing the street. If you don’t want to get hit by car look both ways and make sure it’s safe. Seriously not that hard to do. I understand it’s not as easy for kids who are still learning to criss streets but parents and teachers need to do a better job of teaching safety.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how slow you make cars go, if 25% of the drivers on the road are idiots who can't drive (which is what it seems like these days), and you have a substantial number of people who can't cross a street properly (there are even more pedestrians who are idiots than drivers I think). People are gonna get hit by cars. Most accidents are at busier intersections, so it won't make any difference.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Fully agree with milomilo.

Changing to 30km/hr is akin to shutting down the NE LRT line because of accidents involving pedestrians, versus properly reviewing the specific intersections where the accidents have occurred, and circumstances of those accidents (like being on the phone or listening to music while crossing).

Back in the 80's they almost changed the speed of the LRT downtown because drunken natives were constantly getting hit by the LRT along 7th ave.

[Porfiry]

Exactly. It doesn't matter how slow you make cars go, if 25% of the drivers on the road are idiots who can't drive (which is what it seems like these days), and you have a substantial number of people who can't cross a street properly (there are even more pedestrians who are idiots than drivers I think). People are gonna get hit by cars. Most accidents are at busier intersections, so it won't make any difference.

I assume you're against school zones also, because slower speeds "won't make any difference".

[milomilo]

I assume you're against school zones also, because slower speeds "won't make any difference".

School/playground zones are mostly pointless. I know, 'think of the children' is a compelling argument, but 99% of the time there are no children there and despite having wide open visibility a lot of the time, we are forced to slow down. That isn't helping anyone, it just pisses people off.

[SteveP]

I assume you're against school zones also, because slower speeds "won't make any difference".

School zones are good in a few areas, but as milo mentioned, they are mostly a waste. Once or twice out of every hundred times I pass through a playground zone do I actually see children playing. Proper driver/pedestrian education would go a long way.

[SteveP]

You are so right about the amount of stupid drivers in Calgary, and yes everywhere really. It’s way too easy to pass a drivers test now a days. Also agree about pedestrian education, almost every day I see pedestrians making stupid decisions, I can’t help but wonder where people picked up these bad habits from.
All the talk from these politicians about downing the speed limit, not one of them has ever considered The possibility that a large number of people don’t know how to drive a car properly. That and I’m sorry but pedestrians need to grab half a brain when crossing the street. If you don’t want to get hit by car look both ways and make sure it’s safe. Seriously not that hard to do. I understand it’s not as easy for kids who are still learning to criss streets but parents and teachers need to do a better job of teaching safety.