Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

That's not really a fair comparison. Pilots are highly trained individuals, drivers are generally trained barely enough to get on the road. Also, there are many systems out there that actively assist pilots in their operation of the aircraft (air traffic control, guidance systems) while drivers rely mostly on passive systems like road signs and paint markings to guide them on the road.

If we required every driver to have years of training and extensive testing to have a driver's license, then I would agree.

True, but maybe they should have years of training before they are allowed behind the wheel. Also most pilots would be able to get into a completely manual plane and fly it, I would bet that most people would lose the ability to drive if/when they begin to rely on the active safety systems that seem to be becoming standard. Additionally pilots are operating something exponentially more complex than the average car with exponentially greater chances of a catastrophic failure.

At the end of the day drivers need to be better trained up front and there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that unsafe drivers are removed from the road rather than allowed to continue to drive and endanger others as they are now. Our licencing system is based around the premise that everyone should be able (ability and opportunity) to drive, maybe this is the incorrect idea, maybe we need to base it around the opposite premise that no one is able (again ability and opportunity) to drive and all must be trained and only those that achieve a high benchmark are allowed to drive.

[Bri-Guy]

Has anyone else noticed issues with the "grading" on the road top of the SE leg?  
In particular I have issues with the EB-NB section where it turns left as the ramp EB from Cranston joins. The EB-NB traffic is turning left with a slight angle of the road, which feels proper, then as before the turn is complete, the "slope" flattens out, giving a very uncomfortable feeling as it feels as though you are loosing traction if traveling at any higher speed. I often would get grunts or comments from the better half if I was above 80km/h. Now the speed has been reduced here to 60, in an attempt in my opinion to reduce the appearance of this "mistake".  I believe that this security was intended to be 80km/h, no?  The following section over Deerfoot feels a bit awkward as well. Definitely noticed this become a larger issue we once roads became more snowy/icy. 

Also, on the SE-WB exit, the road is very flat as it takes a somewhat sharp right turn, again making it easy to lose traction as your weight shifts to the outside wheels. Definitely feels that way. Are there any standards for this? I assume it would have been in the specs, and should have been measured for acceptance. 

Also, I'd like to hear other's comments about the existing route that in in place that is in place for the traffic exiting Deerfoot to WB Stoney and how the exit to Mackenzie/Cranston is poorly designed. I think that the traffic exiting to Mackenzie/Cranston should separate from the traffic to Stoney sooner, or at least somewhere that is visible in advance. Too often do I see traffic in the outside lane cutting over to the left lane to get to Stoney. This I going to cause accidents. Yes, they should realize that the right lane is for exit to Mackenzie/Cranston, but it has been some time now and people are still doing it. You can't see the exit in advance because if the curves. I think if the exit pulled off at the section just before that, where it heads west about 100m or so before the current exit is and before it turns South again would be safer, more natural, and more effective. It would avoid the tendency to cut out of the exit lane last minute because the flow of the  road took them that way, and it is too easy to cut over into the lane that travels through to Stoney WB. 

I would be curious if these are all specifically Transportation's intentions, or if it is again evidence of poor execution and cutting corners by the contractor. 

There are specifications for grades in schedule 18. Presumably specs were met as they were allowed to open the road.

We've discussed the McKenzie/Cranston/Auburn exits at length in this thread. General consensus is that it's a "lesser of two evils" type of deal because full access to all movements was impossible without exorbitant cost. Down to the last metre, pretty much everything is the least — way they could've done it. For the most part, signage on the project is terrible, so that is playing a part in the confusion as well.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Acey

There are specifications for grades in schedule 18. Presumably specs were met as they were allowed to open the road.

There might be an article somewhere that mentions it, but I do wonder if the government were able to get their equipment out there to measure the pavement for "wobbles" or variation in smoothness and grade checking before opening. It's something that can be cleaned up in the spring as well I imagine.

Speaking of grades, for the $100 million they spent on the Deerfoot/Stoney interchange in the NE, the flyovers are in pretty bad shape given they're only 5 years old. The roadway has sunken pretty badly before and after the bridges on both flyovers, it's like a roller coaster going over them now. Maybe the fill wasn't adequately compacted, or it has to do with the reinforcing for the MSE walls. I dunno... the EB-NB flyover is particularly bad. Pretty much the same deal at 16 Ave NE/Stoney.

The paint is badly peeling on the MSE wall next to NB Stoney underneath McKnight. They'll need to repaint that whole wall. Curious to see how long the paint lasts on the walls for the bridges in the SE.

Mazrim, your new cantilever WB mainline has the Centre St and HHB text reversed from the order they're in on the ground mount. Any particular reason for this? I like how 'Trail' and 'Road' are not abbreviated on that new WB cantilever at Beddington/Symons Valley, as they are on the ground mount.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Acey

Speaking of grades, for the $100 million they spent on the Deerfoot/Stoney interchange in the NE, the flyovers are in pretty bad shape given they're only 5 years old. The roadway has sunken pretty badly before and after the bridges on both flyovers, it's like a roller coaster going over them now. Maybe the fill wasn't adequately compacted, or it has to do with the reinforcing for the MSE walls. I dunno... the EB-NB flyover is particularly bad. Pretty much the same deal at 16 Ave NE/Stoney.

If it's consistently lower across the whole roadway it might be poor compaction. I also wonder if they installed the Road Weather Information Systems after the fact, which is always hard on the road surface where they dig it up.

Originally Posted by Acey

Mazrim, your new cantilever WB mainline has the Centre St and HHB text reversed from the order they're in on the ground mount. Any particular reason for this? I like how 'Trail' and 'Road' are not abbreviated on that new WB cantilever at Beddington/Symons Valley, as they are on the ground mount.

The overhead sign at the exit itself was HHB first and Centre Street second, so we had to match it. I would have preferred it to be Centre Street first (first exit you encounter after leaving the highway) but then we'd have to adjust the exit panel too. Either way, there are people who prefer a specific priority on what gets shown first on a sign (see the new cantilevers approaching Deerfoot) and people who prefer to put whatever exit happens first when there are multiple "destinations" on a ramp. It depends on the situation.

[5seconds]

...

lol, Drysdale on the cost of the leg: “It will be less than 10 billion and more than the 1.8, how’s that?”

[MalcolmTucker]

You wouldn't want bidders to know what the government thinks it will cost now would you?

[5seconds]

...

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Does anyone know how that budget would actually work? It's $1.8 billion over 3 years, but with the recent P3 agreements for the ring road, the Province's initial outlay was only a few hundred million each. The full price of the SE and NE are spread over 30 years, not all at once.

Does an allocation this large mean that the Province might opt for traditional-delivery? Or is there some financial moves that will mean that money is available over the next 30 years?

Well, the province has to buy the land it doesn't own/buy out the leases on the land it does own that it is turning over plus be ready for approval whenever it happens.

The $1.8 billion lets the province do whatever it wants within that amount, without having to get a second approval from the legislature for the portion of it allocated this fiscal year. How, what, when, is governed by a different financial control at Treasury Board (government ministers and MLAs only).

The government can go back after the fact and ask the legislature to approve spending that has already taken place as well, if there is a sudden opportunity or need.

[5seconds]

...

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Every project goes through a screen of conventional delivery vs. P3 (and some points on the spectrum in between). Large road projects, especially since the province allows proponents to propose innovative designs as long as it still meets the same objectives, are well suited to P3 delivery. We see this around the province with schools: outside of the QE2 corridor most new schools are conventional delivery because they don't offer scale savings.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Thanks! Even with the land purchase coming in at $300 million or so, that leaves $1.5 billion. I assume that means that it's impossible to tell what they intend until the tenders go out.

The Province seems pretty happy with the P3 model for this project, so I assume they will want to do the same again

Beyond the straight cash being transferred to the T'suu T'ina, there will also be costs associated with acquiring the land being transferred. It's Crown land, at least for the most part, but there are grazing leases that will need to be bought out. There may also be private land between Glemore@Sarcee and Stoney@16 Ave that needs to be acquired. It will likely cost a lot more than 300 million.

[5seconds]

...

[5seconds]

...

Jesus Christ.

[5seconds]

...

They're gonna lose it in the transit thread when they see that.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I keep forgetting that the second Bow River bridge is part of this project now. That's a huge figure though.

What second bridge is that?

And holly —, that's a lot of money. I want my NCLRT!