Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

It's the same acceleration as the other loops where a lane isn't added. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I drove it daily for months as well and parking lot is a big over exaggeration. NB only starts to slow after Peigan.

Yeah it sucks, but it sure as hell doesn't negate the whole project when the alternative is sitting on Deerfoot for 45 minutes.

[You Need A Thneed]

They don't need to widen the whole NE quite yet, but finishing the widening between 17th and 16th should happen as soon as possible.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

^ that is one crazy looking interchange

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

And the Province is now saying that the SW section is likely to go first

Contracted first or finished first?

[Fuzz]

What is the point of Strathcona street? It seams to add 4 bridges and roundabouts for what? Was this a forced part of the Tsuu Tina deal?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What is the point of Strathcona street? It seams to add 4 bridges and roundabouts for what? Was this a forced part of the Tsuu Tina deal?

One would surmise, not much other purpose in connecting 37th and westhills in that manner.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What is the point of Strathcona street? It seams to add 4 bridges and roundabouts for what? Was this a forced part of the Tsuu Tina deal?

Retail power centre and economic engine of the Tsu Tina FN.

[RWin]

For the 130th interchange, there is no northbound access to the ring road. But there is a lable for a road called Chiila Blvd. No road on the map but a road name. Presumably it connects the 130th and Anderson interchanges. Is that correct? Is there any reason the road isn't actually shown on the map (just the existing one for the golf course)? I was disappointed that there would be no northbound access but to me this is a reasonable alternative.

[freeweed]

Wow, this is looking real finally? Actual dates? Starting 2015, finished by 2021?

Not sure if I've missed parts of the thread. Just perusing the Herald - it's news to me anyway.

Third level 4-lane flyover at Sarcee/Glenmore is going to be awesome.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Glenmore going from 5 lanes (between Sarcee and 37th) to 2 lanes (under Crowchild) in little more than a mile seems like it might be fun.

Fixed.

[Bri-Guy]

Interesting that at 6th Street SW there is no movement permitted from WB Stoney (22X). I get it that this would require another basket weave to allow for this, but will now mean that all traffic from the south and east will have to access the Ctrain station from MacLeod Trail & 162 Ave. Same for exiting. Maybe not as big of a deal when this isn't the end of line stop, but that will add quite a bit of traffic into Shawnessy that is currently using 6th St as a back door access.

Also, I notice that the EB Stoney (22X) to NB MacLeod takes off to the south at first then comes back on it's own bridge to do a quick loop around to NB MacLeod. I wonder why this didn't follow along with the EB traffic further then loop around to NB just as it does now? No extra bridge and shouldn't take up more room I don't think. Heck, if you did that, you might also be able to eliminate the bridge where the WB Stoney to STB MacLeod goes under the EB Stoney to SB MacLeod as they could simply merge. Seems like that idea would work for me.

Looking forward to all of this work getting started.

[Oliver Klozov]

Originally Posted by Bri-Guy

Also, I notice that the EB Stoney (22X) to NB MacLeod takes off to the south at first then comes back on it's own bridge to do a quick loop around to NB MacLeod. I wonder why this didn't follow along with the EB traffic further then loop around to NB just as it does now? No extra bridge and shouldn't take up more room I don't think. Heck, if you did that, you might also be able to eliminate the bridge where the WB Stoney to STB MacLeod goes under the EB Stoney to SB MacLeod as they could simply merge. Seems like that idea would work for me.

It is the way it is because of the SB MacLeod to EB Stoney loop. The acceleration lane for getting onto EB Stoney goes over the bridge over MacLeod. If there was also a deceleration lane (it would be the same lane) for a loop directly from EB Stoney to NB MacLeod, then that would create a bad basket-weave situation right on EB Stoney. We all know what happens in those situations and it ain't pretty.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Bri-Guy

Interesting that at 6th Street SW there is no movement permitted from WB Stoney (22X). I get it that this would require another basket weave to allow for this, but will now mean that all traffic from the south and east will have to access the Ctrain station from MacLeod Trail & 162 Ave. Same for exiting. Maybe not as big of a deal when this isn't the end of line stop, but that will add quite a bit of traffic into Shawnessy that is currently using 6th St as a back door access.

The limited movements at this intersection have led the city to rename the community of Silverado to 'West Cranston'.

I still can't believe that the city is paying ~$50M to connect 194th Ave to McLeod Trail, when a short road to Spruce Meadows Way would accomplish the same goal.

[Bri-Guy]

Originally Posted by Oliver Klozov

It is the way it is because of the SB MacLeod to EB Stoney loop. The acceleration lane for getting onto EB Stoney goes over the bridge over MacLeod. If there was also a deceleration lane (it would be the same lane) for a loop directly from EB Stoney to NB MacLeod, then that would create a bad basket-weave situation right on EB Stoney. We all know what happens in those situations and it ain't pretty.

Ah - yes, missed that. I would expect more traffic for the SB to EB than EB to NB there. So the priority makes sense

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Glenmore going from 5 lanes (between Sarcee and 37th) to 2 lanes (under Crowchild) in little more than a mile seems like it might be an issue.

Hopefully the city will widen Glenmore to Crowchild.

I noticed that initial plans included an interchange at Sarcee Trail and Richmond Road that didn't make the final cut. With W Stoney Trail being constructed, is it safe to assume that the Richmond Road interchange is a permanent casualty?

[MalcolmTucker]

Last go round it was part of the provincial package iirc as it was too close to the system's interchange as to not impact it greatly through traffic back ups. If a redesign means it isn't as bad, then that is good.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Glenmore going from 5 lanes (between Sarcee and 37th) to 2 lanes (under Crowchild) in little more than a mile seems like it might be an issue.

Is the Crowchild - 14th section and the two interchanges one of those things that we just have to accept will never be fixed because there isn't enough space? Can the causeway be widened?

[yyc_engineer]

Open Maps has both SW and W Stoney Trail extensions drawn on - for anyone who would like to see what our future completed ring road will look like (and for the keeners who plan their commutes decades in advance )

http://www.openstreetmap.org/export#map=15/51.0068/-114.1652

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Is the Crowchild - 14th section and the two interchanges one of those things that we just have to accept will never be fixed because there isn't enough space? Can the causeway be widened?

The Causeway was twinned a couple years ago as the 14 St NB --> Glenmore Trail WB onramp is now a seperate bridge. The issue is space under Crowchild Trail and 14 St SW where there's little space to add another eastbound lane.