Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by bookermorgan

How much space does a ROW need? By my rough adding there is a 31.4m Road Allowance there already.
Add another 36.6m when you demo the houses fronting 37th.
68m

If we have shoulder 3.05m (10ft), 5 lanes @ 3.66m (12ft), shoulder 3.05m (10ft), median 3.05m (10ft), shoulder 3.05m (10ft), 5 lanes @ 3.66m (12ft), shoulder 3.05m = 51.85m

Am I way off here?

You need separation distance to mitigate the noise, and you need a place to plow snow off of the road into.

[bookermorgan]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

You need separation distance to mitigate the noise, and you need a place to plow snow off of the road into.

Well the 9.14m Lane still exists, and 16m more. I dont know how much space is needed for snow and noise...

[O-tacular]

I don't normally wade into this debate but... I think before the city moves ahead with the ringroad they need to at least widen Glenmore between Sarcee and Crowchild from 4 lanes to 6. Widening the bridge over the reservoir was pointless as traffic bottlenecks going West bound b/c you have 8 lanes go down to 4. The entire thing is ridiculous. They have the space on the shoulders. Fucking widen it already. Every day my commute gets bogged down in that stretch from 37th to 14th. And guess what? Every day there's an accident or stalled car reducing traffic to 1 lane. I know things will never be perfect where Crowchild merges onto Glenmore, but at least the west end of the city will have an actual serviceable arterial connector to the rest.

[Jack Doe]

Originally Posted by Jack Doe

"Lakeview residents and their napkin-estimated 700 houses being demolished"

The Lakeview estimate is explained in their newsletter and is based on a 8-lane, 90 metre ROW. It also includes 200-250 homes in Glamorgan. Based on measurements I made in Google Earth the ROW on 37 St is 26m and that of Glenmore Trail is 34m. South of the reservoir the ROW on the 37 St corridor is 65m. By taking out the housing fronting onto 37 St and Glenmore you could increase the ROWs to 68m and 86m respectively. It would involve approximately 221 units in Lakeview (37 houses, 32 duplexes, 3 apartment blocks) and 115 in Glamorgan (15 houses, 12 fourplexes, 13 seniors units (fourplexes?) and 1 nursing home). That ROW would probably be enough to accomodate a Crowchild type freeway (80km/h).

The MOU between the province and city is for a 8-lane, 110-km/h corridor with the acknowledgement that the design speed may be lower due to the constrained nature of the route location. The 16-lane configuration was based on a second ring road being built about 3-4 miles outside of Stoney Trail with the SWRR having to double as the SouthWest leg of this ring road as well. This seems to have fallen out of favour with province's highway planners.

It seems odd to be quoting myself but some people may have missed this the first time around.

When I talked to a AB Transportation rep at the Acadia open house yesterday, he confirmed that the outer ring road idea has been shelved.

In non-South West news, the throne speech implied that the Nose Hill I/C would start construction this year and be completed by the end of 2012. There should be confirmation of this when the budget and the 3 year construction program are released today.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Really? Right now the 9 lane Causeway is unable to handle the traffic loads crossing the Glenmore Resevoir. What it needs is 12 lanes. I'm not sure how the thought of 4-5 core lanes and 2-3 collector lanes per direction is such a far-fetched idea 50-100 years from now where the inner and outer SW ring roads combine. Just think about how that kind of highway works. Use the 401 as an example. I don't see the confusion in the methodology at all.

If your example of good transportation planning is the 401, you may need to rethink your argument.

[MalcolmTucker]

he confirmed that the outer ring road idea has been shelved

Woot. That is excellent.

[Jack Doe]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I don't normally wade into this debate but... I think before the city moves ahead with the ringroad they need to at least widen Glenmore between Sarcee and Crowchild from 4 lanes to 6.

This has been on hold for the past 8 years pending resolution of the SWRR debate. Same with upgrades to 14 St SW and Anderson Rd.

Don't expect any progress anytime soon.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Woot. That is excellent.

I would actually prefer it if they had kept it on the books. It would give us an opportunity to try and lobby for the funds to instead be transferred to transit. We could tell them that if they plan on spending billions on area transportation we want commuter rail and LRT projects instead of another ring road. If instead they have no plans, it would likely be more difficult to convince them to spend the money.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Jack Doe

This has been on hold for the past 8 years pending resolution of the SWRR debate. Same with upgrades to 14 St SW and Anderson Rd.

Don't expect any progress anytime soon.

That's exactly my point! We'll be stuck with a shitty GLenmroe trail indefinitely if we wait for the SWRR resolution. How would adding an extra lane in either direction between 37th and Crowchild conflict with Ring Road plans. NO matter what they end up doing the road needs to be wider. Same thing for Hwy 8 going west. Add extra lanes as it can't handle the traffic from all the new communities. I fucking hate politics and red tape. It's a necessity so fucking do it!

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by fusili

If your example of good transportation planning is the 401, you may need to rethink your argument.

How they planned the 401 isn't my intention, it is the mechanics of a collector-express freeway. How the network revolves around that constitutes a poor or excellent planning strategy. As of right now, the originally planned route through the native reserve with a collector-express freeway section would have been fine as there was obviously was not going to be major development on the West side of it. The 401 is trying to feed cities it cannot handle on it's own, and the connections exacerbate the problem.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Really? Right now the 9 lane Causeway is unable to handle the traffic loads crossing the Glenmore Resevoir. What it needs is 12 lanes. I'm not sure how the thought of 4-5 core lanes and 2-3 collector lanes per direction is such a far-fetched idea 50-100 years from now where the inner and outer SW ring roads combine. Just think about how that kind of highway works. Use the 401 as an example. I don't see the confusion in the methodology at all.

10 lanes would be fine if there wasn't any weaving. The problem is that to eliminate the weave the Crowchild/Glenmore and the 14th st/Glemore interchanges would have to be rebuilt.

Minneapolis had to do something similar recently. Today and Past

[Ferreth]

Looking at the '11-'14 Major Provincial Highway Projects, I see that the Nose Hill Dr. Interchange has made the list, however not really much else for the current ring road. In other news:

Twinning of the 1A to Cochrane is contracted for '10-11 construction. I have not been out there in a while - is any work happening?

#2 improvements on the books to move towards no level crossings - I see Bergthall Road (near Didsbury/Olds) is on the books to build an interchange - I muchly hated that level crossing back in the days when I had to negotiate it with a truck and trailer - glad to see that one go.

No show on Deerfoot/Glenmore - I think we are stuck with that one for a while with the province all focused on ring roads. Wish they'd put a little more into Deerfoot and add that interchange for upgrades.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Looking at the '11-'14 Major Provincial Highway Projects, I see that the Nose Hill Dr. Interchange has made the list, however not really much else for the current ring road. In other news:

Twinning of the 1A to Cochrane is contracted for '10-11 construction. I have not been out there in a while - is any work happening?

#2 improvements on the books to move towards no level crossings - I see Bergthall Road (near Didsbury/Olds) is on the books to build an interchange - I muchly hated that level crossing back in the days when I had to negotiate it with a truck and trailer - glad to see that one go.

No show on Deerfoot/Glenmore - I think we are stuck with that one for a while with the province all focused on ring roads. Wish they'd put a little more into Deerfoot and add that interchange for upgrades.

Perhaps they are waiting for the Deerfoot to go back under City jurisdiction, so they (the Province) won't have to pay for it at all.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Looking at the '11-'14 Major Provincial Highway Projects, I see that the Nose Hill Dr. Interchange has made the list, however not really much else for the current ring road. In other news:

Twinning of the 1A to Cochrane is contracted for '10-11 construction. I have not been out there in a while - is any work happening?

Initial grading started in the fall, some of the deeper drop offs into the coulees nearer to cochrane have been filled (using excess fill from Stoney projects apparently).

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mersar

Initial grading started in the fall, some of the deeper drop offs into the coulees nearer to cochrane have been filled (using excess fill from Stoney projects apparently).

Does the twinning include the big hill? I've always wondered how they'd handle that. Just cut further into the hill?

Any way the grade can be mitigated?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

Minneapolis had to do something similar recently. Today and Past

A four lane tunnel underpass under MSP (which is right beside the Commons) together with a transit/LRT corridor would have been much simpler and more cost effective.

[Seadood]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Does the twinning include the big hill? I've always wondered how they'd handle that. Just cut further into the hill?

Any way the grade can be mitigated?

Yup - bypass!
That whole 1A/22 schmozzle has been failing for several years now. New developments north and west of town. Summer time is a jamup.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Does the twinning include the big hill? I've always wondered how they'd handle that. Just cut further into the hill?

Any way the grade can be mitigated?

Nope, the twinning ends right at the Gleneagles Drive intersection. Traffic volumes down the hill itself aren't too bad, and even adding another lane (since twinning it is pretty much impossible) would be an extremely costly venture since you'd have to cut into the hill and stabilize it in quite a few places. Adding the 4th lane on the hill may need to happen eventually, but not any time soon. As for a bypass, that would be costly as well, since you have a huge coulee to go over (and likely would require a decent sized bridge, or a huge cut into the side on each side and a smaller bridge), and it wouldn't solve too many problems since the biggest problem is the volume of traffic originating in the town itself.

Fortunately they did make some improvements to 1A @ 22 last summer (new turn lanes, etc), but a longer term fix needs to be done (either interchange or increasing the number of lanes at the intersection even more), and there is at least some start to a plan on the books to happen when they finally twin 22 from highway 1 through to 1A.

[Jack Doe]

It appears that the twinning will be extended to Hwy 22.

1A E of Hwy 22 to W of Hwy 766 Twinning - Grade, Base, Stage Paving 6 [km]
Contract for 2010 & 2011 Construction
1A Major Intersection Improvement @ Jct Hwy 1A & 22 Intersection Improvement
1A Bighill Creek Bridge on Highway 1A, at N Boundary of Cochrane (521-1)
Structure Replacement
1A Hwy 22 - E of Hwy 22 Twinning - Grade, Base, Stage Paving 4 [km]

22 CPR Overpass on Highway 22, at W Boundary of Cochrane (77466-1)
Twinning - Structure

This is from the 2011-14 Major Construction Projects. The 4 km from 22 to the current twinning as well as the 22 CPR Overpass twinning is new.

I would like to see an interchange at 1A/22 but I think the budget deficit precludes this.

Planning info can be found here:

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/calgary.aspx

Unfortunately, it doesn't show the configuration of 1A on Cochrane Hill.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

In Lakeview I count less than 90 homes in an 85m corridor pushed right against the boundary, plus two phases of the apartments right at 37th and Glenmore. Plenty of homes loose back lane access, and part of their backyards, but the number even with those is below 200. Maybe 80 apartments on top of that.

To get to 500 homes he must be thinking a full corridor including the future hypothetical outer ring road.

A map with 85 m corridors:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&h...820091103928423336.00049d0d11b5f061fc7ee



Depends where and what we are asking it to do. Certainly I wouldn't want to just add a lane to Glenmore and 14th St and call it a day. Cars aren't bad in and of themselves, and stopping the project won't eliminate the trips that this project is destined to serve.

Interesting to read the Jan 29th Workshop Presentation (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/Production/CSWRR/Communities_workshop_1.pdf), and wasn't surprised to see that the tunnelling options need 60 -80 m of ROW space, which is larger than what is easily available on 37th St in Lakeview.

However, I haven't seen anyone bring up the idea that the tunnels could be stacked so the ROW space can be less than 40 m.

I've taken the cut n cover Schematic from page 25 and re-designed it as a stacked cut n cover tunnel.
Building such a tunnel 25 m deep isn't difficult anymore.