Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[McMahon]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

The lights at Anderson when they improved 37th street in the mid 2000s was about as good as road access was going to get without a ring road deal. Even the casino access at Glenmore was considered temporary by Bronconier, who was comfortable that he had the power to close that access unilaterally (despite that road being there since before 1877!).

I wrote about the role that access (and utilities) to the reserve played in the ring road story in two parts:
http://calgaryringroad.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/from-no-to-maybe/
and
http://calgaryringroad.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/from-maybe-to-yes/

1877? That can't be right, surely?

EDIT: I see from spending some time on your site that it is indeed as old as that. Well done on the site by the way. Very informative.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

To be honest, most of us will be dead before the second ring road gets going in earnest.

I would be willing to bet that all of us, our children and our grandchildren will be dead before the second ring road gets going in earnest. The second ring road is not in the city's current projected road network as far out as the 2076 horizon, which represents 2.8 million people in the Calgary region.

In the next 20 years or so, Canada is going to trend past zero natural population growth (births minus deaths) to a natural population decline; all future growth past 2030 or so is due to migration and immigration. Migration and immigration is primarily due to economic factors; there are and always will be dozens of cities worldwide with better cultural life and weather than Calgary. In the longer future (past 2050 and definitely by 2100 - assuming past trends), immigration from other countries to Canada will drop substantially; it's a huge upheaval to move from (say) the Philippines to Canada due to different culture and so on - worth it if it makes a huge improvement in the life of your family, but not so if your family is reasonably prosperous at home. Internally within Canada, Calgary will be a strong destination as long as the oilpatch is prosperous; that could be a hundred years, but it's not another hundred past that. Current UN population forecasts have Canada hitting 40 million people by 2050 - and also having 40 million people in 2300.

If Calgary were to hit, say, 4-5 million people - with current travel choices (and there has been some evidence that there is a shifting away from the car) - there could be a need for a second ring road, but that's a population we're at least as likely to never hit as we are to hit.

A right-of-way can be used in the far future for a yet-unforseeable purpose and it can make sense to retain one. But let's not confuse "we might need this someday" with "we need this today", especially when someday may be a hundred years or more from now.

[Doug]

Unless the SWRR is used primarily as a bypass, which is doubtful, won't the traffic from 4 lanes each way overwhelm Glenmore, Bow and Sarcee?

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by Doug

Unless the SWRR is used primarily as a bypass, which is doubtful, won't the traffic from 4 lanes each way overwhelm Glenmore, Bow and Sarcee?

I suspect it will be used as a bypass. I think trucks coming in on the #1 from the west and headed for the industrial areas in the SE will take it and go around the city, for example. In fact I think the city should make that the truck route and force them to go around. Also, everyone who lives south of the reservoir and travels to Banff will take the SWRR instead of Crowchild, Glenmore, and 14th.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Allan83

I suspect it will be used as a bypass. I think trucks coming in on the #1 from the west and headed for the industrial areas in the SE will take it and go around the city, for example. In fact I think the city should make that the truck route and force them to go around. Also, everyone who lives south of the reservoir and travels to Banff will take the SWRR instead of Crowchild, Glenmore, and 14th.

I'm sure both trucks will use it as a bypass, as well as all those people who travel to Banff at 8 AM on a weekday when the other roads you mention are most congested. This is the availability fallacy right at work; it's easy to think of trucks bypassing the city, that's a good thing, so we should build this road. In reality, the last count had less than 50 trucks an hour entering the city on Highway 1 west, total; not all of them are going to the SE industrial area (less than half of all trucks headed to Calgary do). 50 trucks an hour doesn't meet the criteria for paving a gravel road, much less building an eight lane freeway.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Doug

Unless the SWRR is used primarily as a bypass, which is doubtful, won't the traffic from 4 lanes each way overwhelm Glenmore, Bow and Sarcee?

Originally Posted by Allan83

I suspect it will be used as a bypass. I think trucks coming in on the #1 from the west and headed for the industrial areas in the SE will take it and go around the city, for example. In fact I think the city should make that the truck route and force them to go around. Also, everyone who lives south of the reservoir and travels to Banff will take the SWRR instead of Crowchild, Glenmore, and 14th.

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I'm sure both trucks will use it as a bypass, as well as all those people who travel to Banff at 8 AM on a weekday when the other roads you mention are most congested. This is the availability fallacy right at work; it's easy to think of trucks bypassing the city, that's a good thing, so we should build this road. In reality, the last count had less than 50 trucks an hour entering the city on Highway 1 west, total; not all of them are going to the SE industrial area (less than half of all trucks headed to Calgary do). 50 trucks an hour doesn't meet the criteria for paving a gravel road, much less building an eight lane freeway.

Let's really think about this. Let's break down the users of the road into three groups: freight, commuters and leisure (weekend travellers).

Freight: The primary use of this road would be for freight traffic either coming from or to the west on Highway 1 to Foothills industrial. As far as I know, there is very little freight traffic coming from south of Calgary and headed west, simply because there is no major population or industrial centres south of Calgary that wouldn't use the 3 to get to Vancouver (Lethbridge for example). All north/south freight traffic would use the east leg of Stoney. For every other industrial park in the city (Stoney, Greenview, Alyth, Manchester, Highland), this road would be a massive detour from using Glenmore and pretty much useless.

So that leaves us with Foothills. The primary route out west from Foothills would be Glenmore, as it is the most direct. Essentially, for freight traffic, this is a Glenmore bypass. However, freight traffic from Foothills, there is also the Bow River to cross, which can be done at three locations- Glenmore, Anderson and 22x. 22x may be used by some of the very deep south parts of Foothills, but it actually is a pretty large detour from Glenmore (~20km from Glenmore/Barlow intersection), and will probably not be used. So that leaves us with Anderson. 6 sets of lights from Deerfoot to the SWRR (Acadia, Bonaventure, Elbow, 14th, Woodpark Blvd, 24th). So ask yourself, if using Anderson, with 6 sets of lights, really that much of a bypass for freight traffic coming to/from Foothills industrial? Seems like a wash to me over using Glenmore. A $5B road that seems to have very little impact on freight traffic.

Commuters: As opposed to freight traffic, for commuting traffic, this road serves as both a 14th street bypass and a Glenmore bypass. For those living in the west and NW, this provides access to Foothills industrial and the South Hospital without having to use Glenmore. For those going from the south to the UofC/Foothills hospital, this acts as a bypass of 14th street.

Leisure: Seriously? Shortening a weekend trip to the mountains. While that is nice, it sure isn't worth the investment.

Benefit is still hazy in my mind given the cost. A reduced scope makes more sense to me.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by fusili

.

Leisure: Seriously? Shortening a weekend trip to the mountains. While that is nice, it sure isn't worth the investment.

Benefit is still hazy in my mind given the cost. A reduced scope makes more sense to me.

It will benefit this user group the most.

As was pointed out this will be mainly weekend trips to Banff/Louise for those in the deep SW (like me). Also will serve Spruce Meadows and hopefully take pressure off McLeod on those busy weekends, which are 3 maybe 4 weekends a year. CPS actually restricted movements in and out of Silverado during Spruce Meadows events this year.

Does that justify the price tag? Absolutely not. This road is absolutely needed but not at the scope that is presented in the videos. I could see losing a couple interchanges, say 130th Ave SW for example, to keep the cost down.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I'm sure both trucks will use it as a bypass, as well as all those people who travel to Banff at 8 AM on a weekday when the other roads you mention are most congested. This is the availability fallacy right at work; it's easy to think of trucks bypassing the city, that's a good thing, so we should build this road. In reality, the last count had less than 50 trucks an hour entering the city on Highway 1 west, total; not all of them are going to the SE industrial area (less than half of all trucks headed to Calgary do). 50 trucks an hour doesn't meet the criteria for paving a gravel road, much less building an eight lane freeway.

I’m certainly not trying to defend the sprawling freeway monster in those videos, but surely there will be some significant amount to traffic that will use the leg through the reserve. For the sake of round numbers let’s say that 25 trucks per hour will take it. Add to that everyone immediately south of the reservoir who is heading to #1 west or NW Calgary, because it will be shorter and they won’t have to backtrack to 14th. Anyone south of Fish Creek and west of MacLeod will likewise take it so they won’t have to backtrack to McLeod. I think a lot of people to the east of these areas will take it too, to avoid the frequent congestion on 14th, Glemmore, Sarcee, and Crowchild, and few sets of the lights that are still on those routes. I’m not saying that there will be enough traffic to justify an 8 lane freeway, but I’m sure it will be used, and it will take pressure off these other roads.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by fusili

Let's really think about this. Let's break down the users of the road into three groups: freight, commuters and leisure (weekend travellers).

Freight: The primary use of this road would be for freight traffic either coming from or to the west on Highway 1 to Foothills industrial. As far as I know, there is very little freight traffic coming from south of Calgary and headed west, simply because there is no major population or industrial centres south of Calgary that wouldn't use the 3 to get to Vancouver (Lethbridge for example). All north/south freight traffic would use the east leg of Stoney. For every other industrial park in the city (Stoney, Greenview, Alyth, Manchester, Highland), this road would be a massive detour from using Glenmore and pretty much useless.

So that leaves us with Foothills. The primary route out west from Foothills would be Glenmore, as it is the most direct. Essentially, for freight traffic, this is a Glenmore bypass. However, freight traffic from Foothills, there is also the Bow River to cross, which can be done at three locations- Glenmore, Anderson and 22x. 22x may be used by some of the very deep south parts of Foothills, but it actually is a pretty large detour from Glenmore (~20km from Glenmore/Barlow intersection), and will probably not be used. So that leaves us with Anderson. 6 sets of lights from Deerfoot to the SWRR (Acadia, Bonaventure, Elbow, 14th, Woodpark Blvd, 24th). So ask yourself, if using Anderson, with 6 sets of lights, really that much of a bypass for freight traffic coming to/from Foothills industrial? Seems like a wash to me over using Glenmore. A $5B road that seems to have very little impact on freight traffic.

Commuters: As opposed to freight traffic, for commuting traffic, this road serves as both a 14th street bypass and a Glenmore bypass. For those living in the west and NW, this provides access to Foothills industrial and the South Hospital without having to use Glenmore. For those going from the south to the UofC/Foothills hospital, this acts as a bypass of 14th street.

Leisure: Seriously? Shortening a weekend trip to the mountains. While that is nice, it sure isn't worth the investment.

Benefit is still hazy in my mind given the cost. A reduced scope makes more sense to me.

It’s not just weekend vistors who go to Banff, and it’s not just Banff, although Banff alone gets something like 3.5 million visitors per year these days. Many people take their holidays in the Banff/Canmore/Kananaskis area, and a number of these people will also be driving RVs or towing campers. I assume most of the American car traffic to Banff comes up from the south and many would take that route as well.

Regarding the extra distance for truckers, I think that distance starts to shrink rapidly if it’s free flowing freeway as opposed to often congested city roads, and likely still a few sets of lights. Furthermore, I think the city should require the trucks to go around. If there is no other reasonable option you can’t very well boot them off Glenmore, but with the SWRR you could. Enforcement would be tough in this case, however, because there are still a lot of trucks serving businesses in that area that would have to use Glenmore, and how would you know which ones needed to be there and which ones should be taking the bypass? Dunno.

[fusili]

My point isn't that the road won't be used, it's that the design is so over-the-top for what it does. 2 free-flow lanes, single lane off-ramps at most intersections and just a general reduction in the width of the ROW and the size of bridges can drastically reduce costs. This just seems massively overbuilt.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by fusili

My point isn't that the road won't be used, it's that the design is so over-the-top for what it does. 2 free-flow lanes, single lane off-ramps at most intersections and just a general reduction in the width of the ROW and the size of bridges can drastically reduce costs. This just seems massively overbuilt.

I fully agree there.

[DoubleK]

Agreed. It's definitely not fit for purpose, more like a transportation design engineer's 🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Alberta Provincial Government - "Wait, we have the an agreement with the Tsuu T'ina to acquire the corridor of land required for a fully built out SWRR leg in Calgary?!"

...

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Allan83

It’s not just weekend vistors who go to Banff, and it’s not just Banff, although Banff alone gets something like 3.5 million visitors per year these days. Many people take their holidays in the Banff/Canmore/Kananaskis area, and a number of these people will also be driving RVs or towing campers. I assume most of the American car traffic to Banff comes up from the south and many would take that route as well.

Regarding the extra distance for truckers, I think that distance starts to shrink rapidly if it’s free flowing freeway as opposed to often congested city roads, and likely still a few sets of lights. Furthermore, I think the city should require the trucks to go around. If there is no other reasonable option you can’t very well boot them off Glenmore, but with the SWRR you could. Enforcement would be tough in this case, however, because there are still a lot of trucks serving businesses in that area that would have to use Glenmore, and how would you know which ones needed to be there and which ones should be taking the bypass? Dunno.

Are you trolling? The American drivers from where? I've driven I-15 all the way to Vegas and it's a hell of a long way before you see anything other than trees. The nearest US city that would come from the south to go to Banff of any size* is Salt Lake City; it's a 14 hour drive from Salt Lake to Banff. But we're going to spend $5 billion to bring their trip down to 13 hours and 55 minutes? Assuming they don't have to take a piss.

Maybe we should force everybody in the City to drive on the road twice a day; that would certainly justify building the road to the grotesque extreme the Province proposes.

* by which I mean more than half the size of Saskatoon; don't tell me Billings Montana is a major US city.

[lineman]

I would suspect that the 22x/901 to Gleichen will become busier when this is built and become the primary Calgary east/west bypass.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by lineman

I would suspect that the 22x/901 to Gleichen will become busier when this is built and become the primary Calgary east/west bypass.

Is there anyone that bypasses Calgary east-west? How many? Where are they coming from and where are they heading?

These are all good questions that should have been answered and made public before Alberta Transportation engineers blew a load on their computer screens with this monster.

I posted a blog article I wrote on the SWRR and it's ridiculousness proportions and cost. Most agreed, but one person got very offended because this would save him a lot of time and stress driving his commute everyday from Rocky Ridge to Mahogany - a total of 61km one-way currently - by the opposite and already existing direction of the ring road...

There is simply not enough possible sources of trip-generation along this route to warrant building anything remotely this size in the next 50 years. And apparently no one in Alberta Transportation came close to thinking about that otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this right now.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by fusili

2 free-flow lanes, single lane off-ramps at most intersections and just a general reduction in the width of the ROW and the size of bridges can drastically reduce costs.

2 free flow lanes would be useless. Based on current ring road traffic, they should be doing 3 lanes in each direction minimum. 2 lanes are choke points now on the existing road.

I agree that it looks like some of the areas are overbuilt for initial construction, but you guys are suggesting a severe reversal from their plan such that it will be overcrowded on day 1. Let's not make the same mistake as Edmonton on SW Anthony Henday, which they have been working to correct almost since the day it was opened and are continuing to correct to this day.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

2 free flow lanes would be useless. Based on current ring road traffic, they should be doing 3 lanes in each direction minimum. 2 lanes are choke points now on the existing road.

I agree that it looks like some of the areas are overbuilt for initial construction, but you guys are suggesting a severe reversal from their plan such that it will be overcrowded on day 1. Let's not make the same mistake as Edmonton on SW Anthony Henday, which they have been working to correct almost since the day it was opened and are continuing to correct to this day.

Why would 2 lanes be insufficient? Do you have traffic volume estimates for this leg that you can share? Does anyone? Are you basing this on some traffic modeling or lane capacity data? Or are you just making this up?

Stoney Trail has 2 lanes on the entire east side of the city, which sees considerably more freight traffic than this leg will ever see.

I would love to see a traffic volume model (assumptions and all) and then 3-4 different design scenarios and associated budgets.

Or here's a much better suggestion- toll the road. If the road is truly valuable, someone can build it as a toll road and recuperate the costs.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Why would 2 lanes be insufficient? Do you have traffic volume estimates for this leg that you can share? Does anyone? Are you basing this on some traffic modeling or lane capacity data? Or are you just making this up?

Stoney Trail has 2 lanes on the entire east side of the city, which sees considerably more freight traffic than this leg will ever see.

I would love to see a traffic volume model (assumptions and all) and then 3-4 different design scenarios and associated budgets.

Or here's a much better suggestion- toll the road. If the road is truly valuable, someone can build it as a toll road and recuperate the costs.

I don't have the volumes (maybe 5 seconds does), I'm only basing this on driving the NE and SE legs of the Ring Road at various times of the day over the last few months and noting the already crowded conditions in the NE leg where it is only 2 legs in each direction. It will need similar upgrades that the NW is having now, and not too far into the future either. (Thank god they planned ahead for these upgrades, huh?)

I wouldn't have an issue with tolling the road. I was in Vancouver recently and the upgrades they've made to the Trans Canada from Langley to Burnaby made it totally worth the toll they charge at the Port Mann. It was a wonderful change from the all-day nightmare driving through that area was in the past. Of course, I was not a daily commuter on that stretch and I know the Patullo Bridge is much busier because of people avoiding the tolls, so who knows.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Why would 2 lanes be insufficient? Do you have traffic volume estimates for this leg that you can share? Does anyone? Are you basing this on some traffic modeling or lane capacity data? Or are you just making this up?

Stoney Trail has 2 lanes on the entire east side of the city, which sees considerably more freight traffic than this leg will ever see.

I would love to see a traffic volume model (assumptions and all) and then 3-4 different design scenarios and associated budgets.

Or here's a much better suggestion- toll the road. If the road is truly valuable, someone can build it as a toll road and recuperate the costs.

In our system, you just have to trust Treasury Board to require such things when making decisions. In my experience they do. Lots of Highway projects get sent back for revisions, and some never (within a couple years) come back. Releasing cost estimates in particular, especially the 30 year net present value calculations of different ways to phase, and timelines within the initial concession period, would contaminate the P3 process me thinks.

And tolling the road, unless you toll a lot of other roads, you end up with awful traffic flow effects.