Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by fusili

I know many of you are going to disagree with me- but I don't think we should build it at all, unless it goes through Ts'uu Tina (I never know how to spell that).

Based on the numbers provided by the province almost all traffic crossing Glenmore going north is going to 3 places: MRU/Westbrook, Downtown and the Foothills Hospital/UofC and is coming mostly from communities in the South. Wouldn't a BRT to MRU/Westbrook from Heritage (and then onto the SE industrial from Heritage), expansion of the south line to 4 car trains, and a 16th Avenue BRT connecting the Hospital to Lion's Park station relieve this bottleneck?

Just a point of conversation.

I imagine there's some traffic that would eventually take the Ring road, that isn't currently using the Glenmore causeway. Large truck traffic specifically.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

I know many of you are going to disagree with me- but I don't think we should build it at all, unless it goes through Ts'uu Tina (I never know how to spell that).

Based on the numbers provided by the province almost all traffic crossing Glenmore going north is going to 3 places: MRU/Westbrook, Downtown and the Foothills Hospital/UofC and is coming mostly from communities in the South. Wouldn't a BRT to MRU/Westbrook from Heritage (and then onto the SE industrial from Heritage), expansion of the south line to 4 car trains, and a 16th Avenue BRT connecting the Hospital to Lion's Park station relieve this bottleneck?

Just a point of conversation.

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but disagree with the solution.

The city should never have allowed development so close to the reserve (I believe the Ring Road was conceptually on the books before those neighbourhoods went in, someone correct me if I'm wrong here). A reserved ROW would have saved countless millions and untold years of delay. It's not like cities didn't do this back then either. As of today we're stuck with reserve or nothing, if you ask me - or a really shitty, almost pointless compromise. Unless some SERIOUS funding appears out of nowhere.

However, no amount of transit will fundamentally affect traffic like the Ring Road would. Again, unless some SERIOUS funding appears out of nowhere.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but disagree with the solution.

The city should never have allowed development so close to the reserve (I believe the Ring Road was conceptually on the books before those neighbourhoods went in, someone correct me if I'm wrong here). A reserved ROW would have saved countless millions and untold years of delay. It's not like cities didn't do this back then either. As of today we're stuck with reserve or nothing, if you ask me - or a really shitty, almost pointless compromise. Unless some SERIOUS funding appears out of nowhere.

However, no amount of transit will fundamentally affect traffic like the Ring Road would. Again, unless some SERIOUS funding appears out of nowhere.

I think we are both in agreement that the problem is just a lack of poor long-term planning. I usually rant about how poor the city's long term transit planning is (how do we not know where the NCLRT is going to go yet?), but you are correct that the city should never have let development occur so close to where the ring road may have to go. It is like everything is on a 5 year time frame in this city.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Based on the numbers provided by the province almost all traffic crossing Glenmore going north is going to 3 places: MRU/Westbrook, Downtown and the Foothills Hospital/UofC and is coming mostly from communities in the South. Wouldn't a BRT to MRU/Westbrook from Heritage (and then onto the SE industrial from Heritage), expansion of the south line to 4 car trains, and a 16th Avenue BRT connecting the Hospital to Lion's Park station relieve this bottleneck?

So why is Glenmore/Sarcee still so busy after Crowchild if that is where all the traffic is going? There's a ton of commuting traffic travelling from the South all the way up to Bow Trail and then beyond to 16th Avenue and Stoney Trail to the NW. Then of course you have all the bedroom communities along Highway 8, Signal Hill and the like...I don't buy it.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

So why is Glenmore/Sarcee still so busy after Crowchild if that is where all the traffic is going? There's a ton of commuting traffic travelling from the South all the way up to Bow Trail and then beyond to 16th Avenue and Stoney Trail to the NW. Then of course you have all the bedroom communities along Highway 8, Signal Hill and the like...I don't buy it.

Keep in mind, by "traffic crossing Glenmore going north" this includes everyone on Deerfoot, MacLeod, Crowchild, etc. What you're talking about is a large amount of traffic but it pales by comparison. Deerfoot alone is probably 50% of the traffic crossing Glenmore (number completely pulled out of my arse, but seems reasonable).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

So why is Glenmore/Sarcee still so busy after Crowchild if that is where all the traffic is going? There's a ton of commuting traffic travelling from the South all the way up to Bow Trail and then beyond to 16th Avenue and Stoney Trail to the NW. Then of course you have all the bedroom communities along Highway 8, Signal Hill and the like...I don't buy it.

Sorry, I misquoted the provinces numbers. They were referring to percentage of projected traffic on the 37th street alignment travelling north after crossing the weaslehead. Of that traffic they say:

-21% is headed downtown
-31% to MRU/Westbrook
-10% to Foothills/UofC
-14% to NW Calgary

The breakdown of whre the traffic is coming from is as follows:

• 10% Glenmore area
• 13% Providence
• 15% Evergreen
• 10% Silverado
• 25% external (Okotoks, Turner Valley, High River, Foothills, etc.)
• 11% southeast (Southeast Industrial, McKenzie, Homesteads, Pine Creek)

So the way I see it, the 25% external is hard to get on transit, but not impossible. Providence, Evergreen, Silverado traffic going to MRU, Downtown or Foothills can all be alleviated through better transit. The same goes for the SE, but a little more difficult, and would really need the SE LRT and a BRT from Quarry Park to Westbrook (which is part of the city's BRT plan). Also with improved east-west transit, downtown transit and transit to Foothills, we can significantly reduce traffic to all these places. It just requires an actual well functioning transit network. A BRT can potentially carry the same capacity of 2 lanes of traffic, if done correctly and an LRT is much higher.

Why spend $2 billion building the SWRR if we can spend much less on transit (BRT from Westbrook to Quarry Park- $28 million, 16th Avenue BRT from Foothills to 52nd Street- $48 million and SW BRT to downtown $43.6 million. Total = $128 million) which will not only address the SWRR problem, but numerous other traffic problems in the city?

[polishavenger]

For anyone who doesnt think this artery is key, Im guessing they have never been on 14th Street S when there is an accident their, or glenmore, or even during inclement weather. I used to live in evergreen and was driving to university on a heavy snow day. I left my place at 9 (so clearly not during rush hour), and did not make it to the university until 11:30. I tried other routes, but nothing was moving in the whole SW. Another link around the glenmore resevoir is needed not just to ease regular traffic, but to provide an alternate when the other options are blocked.

I whole heartedly agree that transit also needs to be improved, but it alone wont solve this problem.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

It isn't like the weasel head is some natural wonder - it didn't exist before the dam was put in. Going from bridge to bored tunnel at likely at least double the cost and lower capacity (and ability to transport a wide range of goods) doesn't seem worth it. A high bridge would be pretty minimal on impact after the construction was done.

Weasel head is a natural wonder, it just so happens that it is a result of human activity, doesnt make it any less beautiful, or ecologically important.

I would not be against a bridge option, as the stony trail bridge over the bow did a good job in not disturbing the ecology it went over.

I dont understand the dangerous goods restrictions on tunnels. Is this something that exists in other parts of the world? Is the risk really that high on a 2km tunnel?

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

Why spend $2 billion building the SWRR if we can spend much less on transit (BRT from Westbrook to Quarry Park- $28 million, 16th Avenue BRT from Foothills to 52nd Street- $48 million and SW BRT to downtown $43.6 million. Total = $128 million) which will not only address the SWRR problem, but numerous other traffic problems in the city?

One failure of cities that never met their potential is that they built out what was required at that time or in the past, rather than what will be required for the next 25 years. Infrastructure should be based on looking forward. It is the same discussion when you get to the airport underpass. These things are required if we are to have a vision going forward.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

It isn't like the weasel head is some natural wonder - it didn't exist before the dam was put in.

Yea, I don't see what is so great about Weasel Head flats, Ive ridden my bike down there several times and it's only a real wetland about 2 months of the year. In fact in fall when the reservoir levels are low huge hunks of earth stick out in the reservoir and the whole place looks kinda sad.

You guys will probably disagree with this but I say just build a bridge over it. I understand Alberta and the prairies are losing a lot of wetlands but maybe we could comprise and build another wetland somewhere else to keep the environmentalists happy(not beside Ralph Klein Park).

What makes this situation so difficult is that so many people are stakeholders:
- Tsuu T'ina
- South Calgary
- Calgary region
- Lakeview
- City

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

What makes this situation so difficult is that so many people are stakeholders:
- Tsuu T'ina
- South Calgary
- Calgary region
- Lakeview
- City

you mean 2 stakeholders; the province and the city. hasn't the province said that they will not negotiate with the tsuu tina any further?

i fail to see the validity of including certain communites as stakeholders, this road is a benefit to all of calgary.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

\
I dont understand the dangerous goods restrictions on tunnels. Is this something that exists in other parts of the world? Is the risk really that high on a 2km tunnel?

Sure is. Imagine a chemical spill in a tunnel. That is a lot of asphixiated people. Chemcial spill in the open air allows for dilution and a lot less dead people.

EDIT- This is why I believe dangerous goods are not allowed over Glenmore. A chemical spill into our drinking water isn't something I would want to risk.

[polishavenger]

A chemical spill in a tunnel is contained, and emergency exits that run parallel to the tunnel allow for people to get the hell out. I would go so far as to say that a chemical spill in a tunnel where it is contained is likely to yeild fewer dead people than out in the open where it can spread to residential areas. Also, a tunnel has a ventilation system that can either kick into over drive during chemical spills that should be vented out, or can be shut off compeltely when the chemical spill should be contained. I would say a permit should be issued so that tunnel operators know whats coming and when.

The causeway is an entirely different story, as you point out a spill there would contaminate our water supply.

Originally Posted by fusili

Sure is. Imagine a chemical spill in a tunnel. That is a lot of asphixiated people. Chemcial spill in the open air allows for dilution and a lot less dead people.

EDIT- This is why I believe dangerous goods are not allowed over Glenmore. A chemical spill into our drinking water isn't something I would want to risk.

[Mazrim]

It's not that simple. For example, some dangerous goods are explosive. On a above ground road, most of the detonation is expelled into the air. In a tunnel, that explosive force can destroy the tunnel. The same can be said for many emissible goods. Being outdoors allows the vast majority of the problem to use the open air to avoid as much problem in a tunnel.

Emergency Ventilation is probably not capable of handing 20 tons of chemicals spilled on the road. The time it would take to clear would take a longer time, and can potentially close the road for longer depending on the chemical that is spilled.

Enclosed spaces in general are troublesome in emergencies. That is the main basis for not allowing dangerous goods in tunnels.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Another link around the glenmore resevoir is needed not just to ease regular traffic, but to provide an alternate when the other options are blocked.

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. The reservoir IS the problem.

Now, on the "dangerous goods" topic - wouldn't a bridge over the weaselhead present the same problems as Glenmore over the reservoir?

[reflexzero]

Are there a lot of trucks hauling dangerous goods past the reservoir right now? I'm not certain what would be going in that direction other than fuel.

[Stingray2004]

Great project.

An outsider's viewpoint here.

The "Dangerous Goods" restriction for tunnels prevents gasoline/jet fuel tankers utilizing same due to the obvious potential disasterous effects.

The George Massey Tunnel on the 99 fwy. in Metro Vancouver has that designation and the 91 fwy. provides the bypass alternate route.

Same for the Cassiar Tunnel on the TC-1 fwy. in Vancouver whereby "dangerous goods" tankers utilize the exit/entrance and the surface route.

As for the Weaselhead wetlands, similar situations have cropped up here in BC regarding the Bevan wetlands on the 19 fwy. on Northern Vancouver Island and the Fraser Heights wetlands on the u/c SFPR expressway in Metro Vancouver.

Both situations utilized/will utilize special viaduct construction techniques to prevent damage to the wetlands. As a matter of fact, the SFPR wetland viaduct will be 1/2 km in length.

The following link provides photos of the respective wetlands and bridge construction methods described above. Frankly, I can't see why same can't be utilized for the Weaselhead wetlands esp. if it's good enough for "enviro-minded" BC.

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/docu...751_7c288af268cd4a148b00fc7026e5015f.pdf

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

you mean 2 stakeholders; the province and the city. hasn't the province said that they will not negotiate with the tsuu tina any further?

i fail to see the validity of including certain communites as stakeholders, this road is a benefit to all of calgary.

A stakeholder is a person, group, organization, or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions.


Did Tsuu T'ina affect the project?
If no, then they are not a stakeholder

You're right, the road is a benefit to all of Calgary but residents of Lakeview and surronding communities will probably be affected more than anyone else.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by reflexzero

Are there a lot of trucks hauling dangerous goods past the reservoir right now? I'm not certain what would be going in that direction other than fuel.

Some, only class 6 (toxic & infectious goods) are banned from the causeway.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

You're right, the road is a benefit to all of Calgary but residents of Lakeview and surronding communities will probably be affected more than anyone else.

you're thinking of lakeview being affected negatively, and i am thinking of the larger community, city of calgary, being affected positively. i guess it's a matter of perspective on how we define 'affected' and 'community'.