Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[MasterG]

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.

There is no evidence that this route will have any of the same traffic patterns as the rest of the ring. Not all parts of the ring are the same, nor do they have to be completed because it looks better. Each section is it's own project and should have to stand up to scrutiny on it's own. We can't export the traffic counts between Seton and 16th Ave N to 22x to Glenmore, the patterns bear nothing in common.

I am a supporter of the other section of the ring: sprawl-enabling, but a necessary evil given what we have built out there.

This section however, has no basis in fact or study of traffic patterns. Even growth projections of surrounding areas won't add enough traffic to utilize the build out witnessed here.

• Commercial Traffic & Transport: Little industrial traffic, no large cities to the south, no large cities to the West. No industrial centres of any size built or planned along the corridor. Perhaps good for food delivery trucks to safeways scattered along the west edge of the city but these are minimal. The route to Foothills Industrial park is a source, but as others have pointed out are not significant in number from/to the West (~50/hour at peak time I think?), less than half of which will go to Foothills. Even if they did, not indication that Glenmore will be congested enough to detour to a route 4x as long. Even then not enough trucks would take the detour to make it worth it.
  
• Some long-distance commuter traffic (see my last post about my friend who does the extremely popular Rocky Ridge to Mahogany commute) and some weekend "to the mountains traffic". A fallacy to build for weekend traffic, as it can occur just fine on normal existing roads designed for many times the load on weekdays than can ever occur on a Saturday morning or Friday night.
  
• Some SW neighbourhoods will take advantage, likely the ones closest to the edge. Oakridge, Cedarbrae & Woodbine are all mature communities with little densification potential. Population around 20,000 combined, likely 15,000 of driving age. Expect those with jobs in the far NW/SE to take this. Will not attract commuters to major centres like Foothills, NE & Downtown as existing routes are better suited. Soccer moms and dads will have an advantage getting to random fields a bit quicker possibly, but games are outside peak times and can be better handled by existing roads for the majority of the city. Even here, I would expect a small minority to take it for commuting purposes.
  
• Minimal density increases on the tsuu tina lands along most of the route. Current population of the Reserve is 1,777 according to 2011 Federal Census (down from 1,982 10 years ago). Even with planned employment increases, no indication that growth will ever be at a scale requiring this road. Existing neighbourhoods have almost no densification potential foreseeable and current ones are largely stagnant or shrinking.
  
• Currently Undeveloped lands will help to the deep SW and West, but these are several years away and likely decades before full build out at any appreciable number. Same problem goes: the route only attracts those that have jobs scattered in the far NW or SE.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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.

I would be all for comprehensive road pricing and agree tolling one section of one road would not be a good plan.

[Mazrim]

MasterG, you make some good points regarding the usage of the SW portion of the road. However, you keep saying that volumes are such that "the current roads can handle just fine" right now. I have to assume you don't live in the SW as this is not even close to true. The truck bypass route thing is definitely a minor point, but discounting commuter volumes completely is a mistake.

I moved from Signal Hill to Canyon Meadows solely because of how awful Glenmore and Crowchild are for volumes. On a good day, the congestion is bad but you can tolerate it. If absolutely anything varies (accident/break down/some other route has issues), it all goes to hell. Giving people a way to traverse the SW to the penetrator road of their choice (Bow Trail, Glenmore, Anderson, 22X) will significantly improve congestion on Glenmore Trail which is (and always will be) a bottleneck in the city's skeletal network. It's not all downtown destined traffic. The SE Industrial Parks are a major destination, and the area will continue to grow as places like Quarry Park continue to increase in density. People aren't going to sell their home Charleswood so they can live closer to Quarry Park.

I imagine there is an opportunity here for savings if the government can agree to it. For example, instead of these very long bridges crossing the ring road in the SW, why not use earth fill between the initial stage lanes and construct the bridges when they are finally needed? If you look at Highway 2 between Leduc and Edmonton, they will probably never use that wide median in our lifetime, and some proposed interchange improvements in the area are planning to get rid of that wide median.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

This is from 2008 and shows AM and PM peak hourly projected usage. I will look into the methodology when I have time later, if any is given.

Here are some things that can be changed to reduce costs:

- The 2nd right turn (see lane with volume 2410) from Stoney northbound to Glenmore eastbound can be deleted and the bridge removed. This movement is already served by the lane to the right of this one.
- Why is there what looks to be a two lane road going under Stoney (I assume this is Grey Eagle drive. Isn't this served by Old Strathcona road?

[speedog]

Originally Posted by fusili

Here are some things that can be changed to reduce costs:

- The 2nd right turn (see lane with volume 2410) from Stoney northbound to Glenmore eastbound can be deleted and the bridge removed. This movement is already served by the lane to the right of this one.
- Why is there what looks to be a two lane road going under Stoney (I assume this is Grey Eagle drive. Isn't this served by Old Strathcona road?

- 2nd right turn allows for free flowing traffic from NB Stoney onto EB Glenmore, the other lane does not.

- That darker line is the Ellbow River course - not a road?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by speedog

- 2nd right turn allows for free flowing traffic from NB Stoney onto EB Glenmore, the other lane does not.

- That darker line is the Ellbow River course - not a road?

The other lane provides free flow as well, there are no lights. Why not add a lane there and avoid a bridge?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

MasterG, you make some good points regarding the usage of the SW portion of the road. However, you keep saying that volumes are such that "the current roads can handle just fine" right now. I have to assume you don't live in the SW as this is not even close to true. The truck bypass route thing is definitely a minor point, but discounting commuter volumes completely is a mistake.

I moved from Signal Hill to Canyon Meadows solely because of how awful Glenmore and Crowchild are for volumes. On a good day, the congestion is bad but you can tolerate it. If absolutely anything varies (accident/break down/some other route has issues), it all goes to hell. Giving people a way to traverse the SW to the penetrator road of their choice (Bow Trail, Glenmore, Anderson, 22X) will significantly improve congestion on Glenmore Trail which is (and always will be) a bottleneck in the city's skeletal network. It's not all downtown destined traffic. The SE Industrial Parks are a major destination, and the area will continue to grow as places like Quarry Park continue to increase in density. People aren't going to sell their home Charleswood so they can live closer to Quarry Park.

I imagine there is an opportunity here for savings if the government can agree to it. For example, instead of these very long bridges crossing the ring road in the SW, why not use earth fill between the initial stage lanes and construct the bridges when they are finally needed? If you look at Highway 2 between Leduc and Edmonton, they will probably never use that wide median in our lifetime, and some proposed interchange improvements in the area are planning to get rid of that wide median.

I have lived in the SW my entire life. It can be frustrating at peak times, and I would not argue that this road will see zero cars. But it is frustrating in most areas of the city at peak times. Deerfoot. Inner Crowchild. Glenmore. City Centre. Ctrains. Building this will solve a problem for such a small number of people compared to other projects for each of these other areas that have much higher growth potential and much higher loads currently. All estimates suggest it will be more expensive than other projects too for less return.

This will not reduce traffic on Glenmore, this will not make it easier to get from most parts of the SW to most other parts of the city. Even if this project works and traffic volumes are higher than anyone could have hoped (not the right word obviously) and an inordinate number of people realize they can take the ring around, Glenmore will open up and then fill back up again because it is more direct and faster than a route like this. What you see in the current roads not being acceptable, get used to it... it will always be this way as long as the city keeps growing. All the bypasses and extra lanes in the world can't save you from being stuck on Glenmore.

Not all traffic is downtown I would agree. But a large portion is. So is a large portion to the NW Hub area. So would be the inner and outer industrial parks of the SE. Some traffic is scattered into smaller employment spread everywhere.

This is a $5B solution that will get people to random places along the fringes, some areas in the SE and some areas in the SW. Oh and we can all get out of town 3 minutes faster on the empty roads of a Saturday morning to Banff which is nice.

I am okay with building it. I am. But the design is over-scaled beyond the wildest needs of demographics and growth in the areas / region it serves for many, many years and decades.

Same with the quality Anderson Road is a good example. Does it get congested with it's traffic lights and 6 lane configuration? Yes, a bit at the heaviest of times in certain areas. Does it require interchanges? No, absolutely not. Would they be nice? Sure, but not worth the cost over many other locations with better need.

If you put traffic lights on most of these intersections, scaled it back to a 4 lane / 6 lane configuration and tried not to build a land-bridge over the Elbow River destroying the wetlands in the Weaselhead, this would be an okay project. Acceptable capacity and acceptable price based on demand and projected need for the next decade or two. Expandable if required.

Do I like highways with lights? Not particularly. But we have many intersections with much more traffic than some of these will ever see already and they won't be turning into interchanges until we really need to.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by fusili

Here are some things that can be changed to reduce costs:

- The 2nd right turn (see lane with volume 2410) from Stoney northbound to Glenmore eastbound can be deleted and the bridge removed. This movement is already served by the lane to the right of this one.
- Why is there what looks to be a two lane road going under Stoney (I assume this is Grey Eagle drive. Isn't this served by Old Strathcona road?

THe other right turn for that movement could likely be removed, but I don't see how the one you are talking about could be reasonably removed. It's a freeway to freeway connection that will be busy. You aren't going to send that traffic through a traffic light.

I don't why why the need to build the huge long bridges though. By the time the extra length is required, those bridges are likely reaching replacement age.

I think technology advancement is going to change (reduce) roadway requirements in that timeframe as well.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by fusili

The other lane provides free flow as well, there are no lights. Why not add a lane there and avoid a bridge?

The diagram shows a set of lights there. Regardless of the perceived need for the whole road, I assume the highway engineers know more about how to design a major intersection than you or I, and will have designed that to the spec asked for. I can't imagine 2410 vehicles proceeding through traffic lights would work very well though.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The diagram shows a set of lights there. Regardless of the perceived need for the whole road, I assume the highway engineers know more about how to design a major intersection than you or I, and will have designed that to the spec asked for. I can't imagine 2410 vehicles proceeding through traffic lights would work very well though.

And you want to avoid traffic backing up onto the through lanes.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by fusili

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

My understanding - all second hand and rumour - is that the underlying design principle for the modelling of this road was that it will always function at a high level of service (C or higher); that is, that it will never be significantly congested. This means in practice that all parallel roads are also not highly congested, since if they were, people would switch to the ring road. So it has to accommodate basically every possible person who would be interested in travelling north-south in west Calgary, particularly since it is higher speed than the alternatives.

If we designed city roads like this, Glenmore might be 20 lanes. We don't because it is a terrible misallocation of capital. But the province owns tens of thousands of kilometres of rural roads and maybe a hundred of urban roads, so they come to this with a rural highway perspective. In cities, there are parallel routes and there is congestion.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

THe other right turn for that movement could likely be removed, but I don't see how the one you are talking about could be reasonably removed. It's a freeway to freeway connection that will be busy. You aren't going to send that traffic through a traffic light.

I don't why why the need to build the huge long bridges though. By the time the extra length is required, those bridges are likely reaching replacement age.

I think technology advancement is going to change (reduce) roadway requirements in that timeframe as well.

It doesn't go through a traffic light. Look at it. There is a free-flow connection underneath the bridge. They are basically duplicating this movement to avoid a weave.

EDIT- Ignore that. I see now, I thought it was going under the bridge.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by fusili

It doesn't go through a traffic light. Look at it. There is a free-flow connection underneath the bridge. They are basically duplicating this movement to avoid a weave.

You are misreading the drawing. Those are the ramps up onto the bridge.

[WaitWhat?]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

THe other right turn for that movement could likely be removed, but I don't see how the one you are talking about could be reasonably removed. It's a freeway to freeway connection that will be busy. You aren't going to send that traffic through a traffic light.

I don't why why the need to build the huge long bridges though. By the time the extra length is required, those bridges are likely reaching replacement age.

I think technology advancement is going to change (reduce) roadway requirements in that timeframe as well.

I agree with you on this. In 20 to 30 years we could see all cars mandated to be self-driving with full car-to-car communication. This means cars could forms trains approaching at grade intersections and weave between the gaps formed between crossing traffic. This could be done at high speeds (150 km/h or whatever) leaving only 3 or 4 feet of clearance between you and crossing traffic to account for slipstreams. This would mean the elimination of traffic lights and a much higher volume requirement before overpasses are needed.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WaitWhat?

I agree with you on this. In 20 to 30 years we could see all cars mandated to be self-driving with full car-to-car communication. This means cars could forms trains approaching at grade intersections and weave between the gaps formed between crossing traffic. This could be done at high speeds (150 km/h or whatever) leaving only 3 or 4 feet of clearance between you and crossing traffic to account for slipstreams. This would mean the elimination of traffic lights and a much higher volume requirement before overpasses are needed.

Driverless cars could well change things drastically, but what you have said is a commonly stated fantasy. Railways already use this technology, but on much more strictly controlled rights of way. Trains will always maintain a distance where they can safely come to a halt and can't just criss cross through other lines - why else would Translink bother with grade separated junctions on the Skytrain?

[fusili]

Is there a reason Westwinds Drive continues south past Stoney? Can't this be accommodated with two single-lane flyovers onto and off of Stoney eastbound and right-in, right-outs off Stoney westbound. Can't the same be done for Old Strathcona road? I really don't understand the need for these two connections as there is nothing there.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Is there a reason Westwinds Drive continues south past Stoney? Can't this be accommodated with two single-lane flyovers onto and off of Stoney eastbound and right-in, right-outs off Stoney westbound. Can't the same be done for Old Strathcona road? I really don't understand the need for these two connections as there is nothing there.

Future development on the reserve.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

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.

I assume you haven’t spent much time in Banff? I worked there for only a few weeks one summer and I saw licence plates from 48 different states. Those American cars have to get there somehow, and I’m pretty sure they don’t fly them in or truck them in.

I couldn’t quickly find the number of American tourists who visit Banff these days. Whatever it is I’m sure it’s still way down from when passport rules came in post 9/11, but that doesn’t mean it will be down forever. In the mid 90s Banff was drawing about 5 million tourists per year. In any event, American tourism was only one of the sources of traffic I mentioned, which combined surly justify some kind of road there.

As a side note, it looks like the two way traffic at the Banff gate for 2013 was about 6.7 million vehicles. I wonder how much of that will use the SWRR in the future? http://industry.travelalberta.com/Market...20February/MarketMonitorFebruary2014.pdf (See page 4)

Bottom line is, yes what is shown in the videos is overbuilt, but a SWRR of some sort is needed now, and the land acquired needs to be able to handle future expansion.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by MasterG

If you put traffic lights on most of these intersections, scaled it back to a 4 lane / 6 lane configuration and tried not to build a land-bridge over the Elbow River destroying the wetlands in the Weaselhead, this would be an okay project. Acceptable capacity and acceptable price based on demand and projected need for the next decade or two. Expandable if required.

This will never happen. I can guarantee you that traffic lights on the mainline of Stoney will never happen again. The ones on Anthony Henday, and the ones initially done at Harvest Hills Boulevard and 17th Avenue were short lived solutions (<5 years), so there is absolutely no point in pursuing this.

[MalcolmTucker]

Again, up to the P3 partner to look at the data and propose a solution. The road has to be in near opening day condition in 30 years.