Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Oliver Klozov

I also suspect that there will be an at-grade intersection to allow access to the casino.

I would bet money on that never happening.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by yeeg

Not sure if anyone noticed this but the current intersection is so big that when you turn north or south onto Stoney from Crowchild, it looks like you need to go through another intersection. This has caused problems because people who turn in those directions via a turn signal all of a sudden stop in the middle thinking they have a red light. I think they need to have cops out there to direct traffic during rush hours.

It can be very confusing. I've seen people turning left ofF Crowchild then coming to a dead stop because they are facing a red light. The first time I went through it was momentarily confusing as well. They do have a flashing green arrow mounted to the side of the road but it is not very clear as to what that means. But it is relatively short term, the traffic pattern will be changed again hopefully by this fall - so another couple of months at the latest hopefully.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by lubicon

It can be very confusing. I've seen people turning left ofF Crowchild then coming to a dead stop because they are facing a red light. The first time I went through it was momentarily confusing as well. They do have a flashing green arrow mounted to the side of the road but it is not very clear as to what that means. But it is relatively short term, the traffic pattern will be changed again hopefully by this fall - so another couple of months at the latest hopefully.

Another couple weeks at most before its changed I bet. They've finished paving the off ramps for the SB to EB ramp and it looked like they'd rebuilt the road bed for Stoney itself all the way to where the detour alignment of Crowchild was, and the detour road is mostly down to the level of where Stoney needs to be. This was as of Monday night when I was through there.

[Jack Doe]

Originally Posted by Wooster

So, curious what you guys think:

What's the best solution for completing the SW ring road without tearing out hundreds of lakeview homes?

Is there an alternate solution for this quadrant if the SW ring road is not built?

The best solution from a highway engineering standpoint would be an 80km/h freeway south of 66 Av and something like Elbow Dr with a median north of it. A recipe for a clusterf**k from day one. Besides having housing fronting onto a major road, you would have a very convienent cut-thru route on 66 Av and 24 St to Crowchild Tr.

There is always alternatives unfortunatedly none of them are very good. Upgrading 14 St to a freeway would take some pressure off the 37 St corridor for a while but would increase traffic on Glenmore Tr. As well, houses would have to be taken out in Eagle Ridge and Braeside. There is a well-organized group of wealthy people who have been very successful at opposing any expansion of 14 St.

The only real alternatives for building a SWRR are thru the Tsuu Tina lands or expropriation of houses in Lakeview and Glamorgan.

[Jack Doe]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

... We don't want to be like Saskatoon, where "Circle" Drive has been a 3/4 Circle Drive until this year when they've started the final portion ...

Saskatoon (population 250,000) will have a completed ring road (albeit not a true freeway...yet) in a couple of years. They have already demarked the route for the second ring which they intend to start building before the population hits 350k.

Calgary (population 1,100,000) will have a completed ring road in ? No concrete plans have been made for a second ring.

I think I like Saskatoons' approach to ring road planning better than Calgarys.

[Jack Doe]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

There really isn't a good economical solution without knocking out 700-800 homes, or going through the reserve. Best to wait and try again later. The government should indicate that beyond particulars on what exact land the reserve would come to own (and whether it would then become reserve land is up to the feds and could be controversial) the deal as offered stands.

That way each successive band elections a pro road and anti road side will fight it out, and eventually one will get power with enough support to bring in the deal.

If you want to avoid both, you could always tunnel, but it would be exceedingly expensive, likely an order of magnitude higher.

There seem to be some misconceptions regarding the deal between the Tsuu Tina and Province. Perhaps I can clear up some of these.

The exact land the Tsuu Tina was to receive is set out in the agreement between the band and the province. It is 4,858.1 acres of Crown land and 320 acres of private land located NW of Bragg Creek, E of the Forest Reserve. The majority (95%) of the Crown land is leased to the Copithorne family.

If the province was unable to acquire the leases, the band was to be compensated. I have seen reports in the media that this was to be about $200m in addition to the $275m they would receive for the 988.21 acres they were required to relinquish for the transportation and utility corridor.

The chief of Tsuu Tina stated that he thought the reason of the majority of the people who voted against the agreement was that there was no guarantee the nation would actually receive the land. I can understand their reasoning. In every agreement the Tsuu Tina have made with another level of government they've received the short end of the stick. That's a polite way of saying they got screwed. They gave up the West Weaselhead for what amounted to a handful of beads (they are currently contemplating going to court to try get it back - I don't think they'll be successful) and their experience with the Sarcee Military Reserve left them with land strewn with unexploded ordinance and asbestos-filled housing.

The Copithorne family that owns the leases to the Crown land that was to become part of the reserve is a wealthy and politically-connected ranching family that owns large tracts of land west of Calgary. Clarence Copithorne was a minister in Peter Lougheeds' government and is sometimes credited as being the driving force behind the establishment of Kananaskis Country and Kananaskis Provincial Park (I refuse to call it Peter Lougheed PP - no cult of personality for me; I long for the day when Lougheedgrad is once again Kananaskisburg).

AFAIK no one has asked the Copithornes if they would even be willing to sell their leases. Perhaps if the provincial government secured an agreement to buy the leases, thus guaranting the band that they would receive the land, a vote on the agreement might turn out differently.

Part of the agreement was that if the provincial government secured the land it would then be turned over to the federal government. Not specifically the federal government, but to the feds to hold in trust for its real owner, Queen Elizabeth II. Many people are unaware that ownership of Indian Reserves is not actually with the natives but with our monarch.

The band council voted 8-1 in favour of the agreement. I suspect when band elections come around many are going to lose their jobs. Elections on the reserve depend a great deal on family ties. The Whitneys were overthrown by the Big Plumes and I suspect the Big Plumes are going to have a tough time of it come next election.

---

For any who care to view it, here is the final agreement between the province and the Tsuu Tina:

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/2480.htm

Click on Tsuu T'ina Final Agreement (pdf 8 MB)

[Jack Doe]

Originally Posted by Oliver Klozov

I was chatting with a central Alberta MLA...

Unless he is a cabinet minister I wouldn't give much credence to what he had to say. Even if he was a cabinet minister, unless he's one of Eds' confidants, I have my doubts.

Transportation is one of any governments' biggest patronage schemes. Conservative, Liberal, NDP or BQ, they're pretty much all the same. Vote for the government and you get your road paved. Even by the provincial governments own measures our roads are deteriorating. Yet they keep expanding them in some regions (Calgary and Edmonton Ring Roads, Twinning Hwy 63 to Fort McMurray). One would think that the proper thing to do would be maintain what you have before you increase your commitment.

The trained seals (both government and opposition) who "represent" Calgary, in regards to the SouthWest Ring Road, are noted for their complete lack of interest. Better to keep your head down then actually make a commitment.

I agree with you that the government will take the most politically expiedent route to resolve this problem. More the pity.

[Jack Doe]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I would bet money on that never happening.

I'll take that bet.

Whenever the provincial government restricts access to a provincial highway they are required, if not by law than by custom, to provide alternative access. This usually requires the construction of service roads to the next "reasonable" access.

As I see it there are three possible access points to the SWRR north of the Elbow River for the Tsuu Tina:

1 - 66 Av/37 St
2 - Sarcee Tr/Glenmore (Stoney) Tr
3 - Westhills Dr/Glenmore (Stoney) Tr

1 - "If" 37 St is constructed to a freeway standard south of Glenmore Tr, then I believe the 37 St/66 Av interchange would be a north-in/out interchange. There would be no connection for traffic travelling to, or from, the south. This would be to prevent traffic short-cutting to Crowchild Tr.
A simple one-lane overpass from south-to-east would suffice. Give access to the Tsuu Tina and you would have to increase this to a three-lane (one eastbound, one westbound, and one east-to-north lane) bridge.

2 - Sarcee/Glenmore (Stoney) Tr would remain as a system-to-system interchange (no traffic lights), but would be greatly simplified as it would become a three-point interchange instead of the massive multi-point interchange that was initially envisioned. Adding a connection to the Tsuu Tina would greatly complicate this interchange and add to its cost.

3 - Westhills Dr/Glenmore (Stoney) Tr - This is the logical place to provide access to the Tsuu Tina. It is only a couple of hundred metres west of Sarcee/Glenmore (Stoney) and requires no expansion of the proposed overpass.

Saying something can "never" happen is a fools bet as you can "never" be proven right. I mean no offence, but I look forward to you buying me a beer.

The Tsuu Tina have said they will go to court if access is denied to them and I think they have a good case. They are, after all, Canadian and Albertan citizens, and are entitled to all rights and considerations as the rest of us. It depends on what a judge considers "reasonable". Any bets?

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Jack Doe

Saskatoon (population 250,000) will have a completed ring road (albeit not a true freeway...yet) in a couple of years. They have already demarked the route for the second ring which they intend to start building before the population hits 350k.

Calgary (population 1,100,000) will have a completed ring road in ? No concrete plans have been made for a second ring.

I think I like Saskatoons' approach to ring road planning better than Calgarys.

Ah, but you're looking at things a little differently. Saskatoon's road network pales in comparison just in the ratio of local/collector/expressway/freeway roads compared to Calgary. Circle Drive and Idlewyld (sp) are the only decent East/West roads in the City, the rest are clogged with traffic lights and tons of access points. Circle Drive is as much a part of the City as Glenmore is to Calgary, not necessarily a high-speed bypass that we look at Stoney Trail as.

It's great that Saskatoon and Regina have ring roads so to speak, but their use is definitely more of a local perspective than Stoney Trail's. Yes, locals use Stoney Trail, but the road is certainly more designed as a bypass.

As for the Casino access, none of your options propose an at-grade intersection with Stoney Trail, so I'm still in the green.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by Jack Doe

Whenever the provincial government restricts access to a provincial highway they are required, if not by law than by custom, to provide alternative access. This usually requires the construction of service roads to the next "reasonable" access.

i can't remember where i heard it, probably on this site, but i thought the city is only required to maintain a primary access point to the reserve, which would be the bull head road location.

[YYCguys]

^^^I do believe that is correct.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Jack Doe

Saskatoon (population 250,000) will have a completed ring road (albeit not a true freeway...yet) in a couple of years. They have already demarked the route for the second ring which they intend to start building before the population hits 350k.

Calgary (population 1,100,000) will have a completed ring road in ? No concrete plans have been made for a second ring.

I think I like Saskatoons' approach to ring road planning better than Calgarys.

I just drove through Saskatchewan (Regina) for the first time in about 5 years and I'm thoroughly impressed with their road system. Tons of money in that province these days compared to 10-15 years ago. However, as good as they build rings roads, and Regina's is amazing for a city of its size... Victoria Ave is a freaking disgrace. I counted no fewer than 5 sets of traffic lights in a row. So it's a bit hit and miss.

Calgary seems to be taking the "baby steps" approach. At least we don't have any NEW traffic lights going up in places which used to be freeflow (that I can think of, anyway).

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I just drove through Saskatchewan (Regina) for the first time in about 5 years and I'm thoroughly impressed with their road system. Tons of money in that province these days compared to 10-15 years ago. However, as good as they build rings roads, and Regina's is amazing for a city of its size... Victoria Ave is a freaking disgrace. I counted no fewer than 5 sets of traffic lights in a row. So it's a bit hit and miss.

Calgary seems to be taking the "baby steps" approach. At least we don't have any NEW traffic lights going up in places which used to be freeflow (that I can think of, anyway).

Not 100% sure, but IIRC there never used to be lights at Crowchild / 12 Mile Coulee Road but I may be mistaken. For sure there never were any at Crowchild / Bearspaw Road and now there. But that is not in City Limits.

[MMMBeer]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Victoria Ave is a freaking disgrace. I counted no fewer than 5 sets of traffic lights in a row. So it's a bit hit and miss.

Victoria Ave itself is not the problem, it's the fact that the Trans Canada runs on Victoria Ave that's the problem. You can say the same for many spots where the Trans Canada has urban traffic lights on it (e.g. Medicine Hat, Strathmore).

That's why Stoney is important as a bypass considering the gazillion lights on 16 Ave. I was amazed that the Trans Canada ran on 16 Ave when I first moved to Calgary.

[Seadood]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Ah, but you're looking at things a little differently. Saskatoon's road network pales in comparison just in the ratio of local/collector/expressway/freeway roads compared to Calgary. Circle Drive and Idlewyld (sp) are the only decent East/West roads in the City, the rest are clogged with traffic lights and tons of access points. Circle Drive is as much a part of the City as Glenmore is to Calgary, not necessarily a high-speed bypass that we look at Stoney Trail as.

It's great that Saskatoon and Regina have ring roads so to speak, but their use is definitely more of a local perspective than Stoney Trail's. Yes, locals use Stoney Trail, but the road is certainly more designed as a bypass.

Agreed to a point. I think there is a case for overbuilding and one for underbuilding. Saskatoon and Regina might be considered the latter, but there are a lot of wild cards (oops, "variables") to be considered. Population growth has (until recently) always lagged in the prairie cities, not including Alberta cities. That is a prime driver there. And take a look at the way the provinces behaved from say, the fifties onward. There has been a constant loosening of trade barriers over the years. Regina and to a lesser extent Saskatoon were very much nodal points for commerce, that is, any nationally known retailer covered his/her bases by placing a distribution centre in the province it served. Simpsons Sears and Canada Packers were big in the past. With the loosening of the trade barriers between provinces, it became more economical to provide regional nodes. Calgary and Edmonton got the lions share of those. That left the local drivers such as population growth and whatever new industry (mostly agribusiness) driving the demand for increased transportation. But if you parse it down even further, the origins of the Ring Road (I use Regina as an example as I am most familiar with it) were to get the traffic out of the DT core. Victoria and Albert must have gotten quite congested. The southern half of the Ring Road was there in the sixties (yes, I remember it), nearest housing was 1/2 mile away. Albeit was a 2 lane, but it was still a "bypass". The development of the north 1/2 then grew more to service the industrial expansion and to relieve traffic from west-north in addition to north-south.

[Seadood]

II: It is interesting to note that the ring road was easily upgraded to a free flow by the eighties without having to bulldoze anything. The problem though, now, is Victoria east of the ring road. Commercialization and suburbanization leapt into the breach before a dithering city/regional plan was in place, hence the congestion. A second ring is in the works now to bypass all of that. Will it be built? Who knows.....

A case for overbuilding might be Winnipeg ring road. Have never driven the south side but in the north(west) they built it so far out that you are driving out in the country. I think in this scenario, planning was a little too optimistic. Perhaps the reason is the density of the city proper would render it impossible politically to bulldoze houses within the corporate limits.

Most of this is merely throwing out some observations and attempting to draw conclusions from it. We (lay people) know far more about planning now than ever before because of the internet. The province communicates its planning in far greater detail, and virtuously instantly.

[Seadood]

Originally Posted by MMMBeer

That's why Stoney is important as a bypass considering the gazillion lights on 16 Ave. I was amazed that the Trans Canada ran on 16 Ave when I first moved to Calgary.

The TCH is definitely served by the NENWRR, but it isn't the primary beneficiary of it. Trade flows are by far greater north-south than east-west. But the TCH definitely benefits from it. The TCH is where it is due to an incredibly strong business lobby. Remember a few years ago, a couplet system was proposed? Shot down pretty quick.
And the lights? My opinion is more of a traffic calmning/tranquilizing effect than access issue. Cars=bad, mothers pushing babystrollers=good.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MMMBeer

That's why Stoney is important as a bypass considering the gazillion lights on 16 Ave. I was amazed that the Trans Canada ran on 16 Ave when I first moved to Calgary.

Absolutely. It was one of the single biggest annoyances about Calgary (until just recently of course).

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Seadood

A case for overbuilding might be Winnipeg ring road. Have never driven the south side but in the north(west) they built it so far out that you are driving out in the country. I think in this scenario, planning was a little too optimistic. Perhaps the reason is the density of the city proper would render it impossible politically to bulldoze houses within the corporate limits.

Winnipeg's ring road (the Perimeter Highway as it's called) is a case of planning for the past, and not being able to predict the future. When it was conceived and designed, the city was still growing at a pretty good pace and was expected to have long since filled in the area surrounded by the Perimeter. Unfortunately Winnipeg's growth slowed considerably and then took a serious nosedive starting in the 80s or so, and by the 90s had completely stalled. But when it was designed and built? It was anticipated that development would reach the road within a couple of decades at most.

In the south it used to be the same, where it was several km outside the built up city area in some places. It's been filling in over the past few decades though, to the point that houses are now visible from much of it. The funny part (and much to the chagrin of locals) is all the lights still on it. It's not exactly freeflow but again, when built it was assumed the city would keep growing and overpasses would be built as necessary. When the city stopped growing (and we stopped building roads like it was 1960) the lights remained. As the city has continued to grow, and truck traffic has vastly increased over rail, those lights have become a serious annoyance.

Speaking of rail, there's still a level crossing on the south side, if you can believe it. Things don't seem too bad now but that used to be one of the busier lines in Winnipeg. Traffic would be stopped several times every day for a long long time as trains slowly lumbered into the yards.

[Seadood]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Speaking of rail, there's still a level crossing on the south side, if you can believe it. Things don't seem too bad now but that used to be one of the busier lines in Winnipeg. Traffic would be stopped several times every day for a long long time as trains slowly lumbered into the yards.

What is the status of #75? Does the prov govt provide the necessary funds to upgrade it to handle NAFTA? If not, seems to be the weak link in the network.

Yeah, I thought at-grade r/r crossings were verboten these days. On #4 south of Lethbridge at Milk River is a LEVEL CROSSING, on a NAFTA highway!
The highway bypasses to the west of town, but utilizes a level crossing for a spur line into Milk River. Probably a temporary situation until the grain companies build an inland terminal off the main line and get the current facility out of town.