Saskatoon Construction II

[Irvin]

COSTCO

I have been told from a very reputable source that Costco is indeed locating in the Rosewood development

[Brutopian]

Corman Park development moves to review stage

Silver Sky hoping to break ground within three years

Reported by Brent Bosker, NewsTalk 650 CKOM

March 21, 2015

An ambitious project to develop 1,700 acres of farmland in the rural municipality of Corman Park is moving to the next stage.

Dream Development, which is spear heading the Silver Sky project, received approval this month from the R.M. council to conduct a comprehensive development report (CDR) for all six phases of the project.

The report will look at everything from transportation, sewage and water to environmental impacts.

Silver Sky would go up beside Furdale, next to the Willows Golf and Country Club. The massive development includes new homes, condos, hotels, retail and office space and assisted living for seniors. Forty per cent of the land would be dedicated to green space.

Developer Chris Murphy said moving to this stage is an important step forward.

[........]

Read more:
http://ckom.com/story/corman-park-development-moves-review-stage/543003

[The S'toon Goon]

Was the Bess owned by Delta (which got sold to Marriot or some other hotel chain if memory serves me correctly) or is it owned privately and leased to the hotel conglomerate?

[casper]

Originally Posted by The S'toon Goon

Was the Bess owned by Delta (which got sold to Marriot or some other hotel chain if memory serves me correctly) or is it owned privately and leased to the hotel conglomerate?

The hotel was owned by Legacy Hotel REIT, at some point in time I believe that REIT was taken over by either a BC or Quebec pension plan. Not certain who owns it now. Most likely it is a pension plan.

Usually the actual property is owned these days by a pension fund, REIT, etc. The actual brand just franchises the name or operates the hotel for the underlying owner.

One of these companies I find interesting is Temple REIT (http://www.templehotels.ca/). They own Saskatoon Inn, Hotel Saskatchewan in Regina, and Temple Garden in Moose Jaw. They also own a large percentage of the hotel in Fort Mac.

[Brutopian]

Speed limit reduction coming on College Drive

Move makes way for interchanges serving Holmwood development area

Reported by CKOM News

March 24, 2015

Drivers will be slowing down on College Drive.

Saskatoon City Council voted Monday night to reclassify the road from a rural highway to an urban expressway.

The move is meant to allow for the long-term construction of seven interchanges meant to serve neighbourhoods in the Holmwood development sector. The sector is expected to be home to as many as 73,000 people once it's fully built up.

[........]

Read more:
http://ckom.com/story/speed-limit-reduction-coming-college-drive/543612

[Arts]

The best news in the article is that Council is directing administration to plan for grade separated interchanges instead of at grade traffic signals. Technically, when built, that will change the road classification from expressway to freeway - which is what city planners should have been pushing for in the first place (scratching my head why the directive should be coming from council and not planners).

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Arts

The best news in the article is that Council is directing administration to plan for grade separated interchanges instead of at grade traffic signals. Technically, when built, that will change the road classification from expressway to freeway - which is what city planners should have been pushing for in the first place (scratching my head why the directive should be coming from council and not planners).

^^maybe city council is thinking ahead and trying to limit anymore city planners mistakes from the past.. for example Circle Drive North, and 22nd street between Circle Dr & highway #7 etc etc etc..

[Echoes]

^ I'm no transportation engineer, and my understanding of this is really just cobbled together from reading reports and news articles, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't this whole reclassification of College Drive from "rural highway" to "urban expressway" just to permit access points (grade separated or not) in closer proximity to each other, according to the applicable engineering standards? The lower speed limit is thus necessitated because the access points are closer together, and as a result there's more "interference" of off/on ramps or turning and merging lanes interacting with the regular traffic lanes.

It seems to me that with this decision, Council has not made a determination on if these future "access points" will be signalized or grade-separated, but simply that there will be more of them in the end than was originally thought, so the road has to be reclassified and the speed limit lowered by 10 km/hr based on this.

Am I wrong?

[Arts]

Originally Posted by Echoes

^ I'm no transportation engineer, and my understanding of this is really just cobbled together from reading reports and news articles, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't this whole reclassification of College Drive from "rural highway" to "urban expressway" just to permit access points (grade separated or not) in closer proximity to each other, according to the applicable engineering standards? The lower speed limit is thus necessitated because the access points are closer together, and as a result there's more "interference" of off/on ramps or turning and merging lanes interacting with the regular traffic lanes.

It seems to me that with this decision, Council has not made a determination on if these future "access points" will be signalized or grade-separated, but simply that there will be more of them in the end than was originally thought, so the road has to be reclassified and the speed limit lowered by 10 km/hr based on this.

Am I wrong?

I'm no transportation engineer either, but my job requires I pay a little attention to roadway classifications. From what I can cobble together myself, the designation "highway" refers to any high speed road, but the classification is pretty much up to the jurisdiction that maintains it.

COS doesn't technically classify any roads within city limits as "highway", it's either freeway, expressway, arterial, collector, local or lane. Further, freeways and expressways are categorized as "urban" or "rural" cross-sections depending on the size of right of way and drainage considerations (there is also industrial designation but that's not relevant to this discussion). Roads that are provincial jurisdiction but have agreements with the city for maintenance the city treats as "highway" (for provincial routes) or "local rural"

So when that part of College Dr was annexed, technically it was redesignated as "expressway(rural)" according to the city's own standards, which is based on TAC guidelines and entirely based on functional hierarchy. I don't think the spacing or number of connections factor into the road classification, nor are "rural highway" and "urban expressway" even terms the city standards even reference.

With the original announcement for 80km/h reduction (which I believe should have been done the day the city annexed it) and at-grade connections into Holmwood, it seemed that it was the cross-section that was being redesigned, and as such the classification would change from "expressway(rural)" to "expressway(urban)" which would mean installing storm sewer, curbs and lighting(?) but not eliminate at-grade intersections. I don't think City Council has considered or truly grasps the technical distinctions, but have given clear direction as of last night's on what they want to eventually see ie "freeway(urban)". This seems to contradict what planners had in mind - and perhaps it's all due to differences in understanding the technical language).

Section three of this document has a lot of relevant information about road classifications in Saskatoon:

https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/default/files/design_and_development_standards_-_section_eight.pdf


edit: also, as for the speed limit, that will indeed be influenced by vehicular conditions. And as for the increased number of intersections, one of the main principles of a roadway hierarchy is that locals and connectors do not tie directly into freeways or expressways - if the city ends up clogging College drive with such intersections they would be going against not just Transportation Canada's guidelines but their own standards as well.

[Echoes]

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it.

I think you’re right that there’s confusion here from use of terminology and the way the media reports stories like this. They sensationalize - “City wants to slow College Drive! Trafficgeddon coming!” - which clouds what’s really going on. I’m not convinced that this decision (and City Admin’s intent) is much more than a housekeeping item to reclassify the roadway so that more detailed consideration of College Drive’s eventual form and function can be considered. I think the media just latched on to this as something bigger than what it is.

The design manual you provided a link to states that "freeways and expressways are intended to accommodate heavy volumes of traffic moving at high speeds under free-flow conditions." It also states that "access is only provided to other freeways/expressways or arterial streets at specifically designed interchanges or at-grade intersections" - so, both grade-separated and at-grade intersections are on the table with an urban expressway classification.

The manual also speaks about a "functional planning study" that will be undertaken by the City for all freeways/expressways to "provide detailed design of all facets of the roadway (including intersection and interchange construction)..."

I looked at the City report that went to Council yesterday and it speaks only to reclassifying the roadway so that additional access points may be permitted. Nowhere does it mention the form these access points will take, and at-grade intersections are not mentioned. It does, however, confirm that a "functional planning study" will be undertaken for College Drive in due course. This, I take it, will include consideration for how these additional accesses will connect with College. But they're not there yet.

There’s often much less to these decisions than the way they’re reported. This seems to simply be recognizing that “Hey, there are going to be a lot of people living and working in this area when it’s built. We need to open the door for more ways to move them in and out of the area.”

This does not strike me as some fatal planning blunder that Circle Drive 2.0 is going to be created with full signalized intersections every step of the way. The final design of the roadway still needs to be figured out, and as you’ve stated, Council has already provided direction that it should be grade-separated. Who’s to say that's not what the planners have had in mind all along?

(I apologize to those who feel this kind of chatter is off-topic in this thread. I don't have much more to say on the matter, and it can be moved to the Roads & Infrastructure thread if need be.)

[Arts]

Originally Posted by Echoes

...It also states that "access is only provided to other freeways/expressways or arterial streets at specifically designed interchanges or at-grade intersections" - so, both grade-separated and at-grade intersections are on the table with an urban expressway classification.

I agree it is largely an exercise in reclassifying College Dr to suit it's current usage as well as planned usage as the city grows.

As to the expressway designation, yes at-grade intersections are on the table under that classification. My concern is ending up with a situation like Circle Dr W at Clancy and Laurier Drives. For a long time those at-grade intersections have worked and designing them that way was inexpensive and allowed connectivity. But now those traffic signals cause kms long backups of heavy truck traffic trying to use the south bridge and the solution (grade separation) is not going to be easy or cheap because the corridor was not treated with due diligence (exact same reason Circle Dr N nightmare exists). Yes this is a boring topic for this forum I would rather be discussing proposed and under construction high-rises!

[skSK]

Originally Posted by Arts

I agree it is largely an exercise in reclassifying College Dr to suit it's current usage as well as planned usage as the city grows.

As to the expressway designation, yes at-grade intersections are on the table under that classification. My concern is ending up with a situation like Circle Dr W at Clancy and Laurier Drives. For a long time those at-grade intersections have worked and designing them that way was inexpensive and allowed connectivity. But now those traffic signals cause kms long backups of heavy truck traffic trying to use the south bridge and the solution (grade separation) is not going to be easy or cheap because the corridor was not treated with due diligence (exact same reason Circle Dr N nightmare exists). Yes this is a boring topic for this forum I would rather be discussing proposed and under construction high-rises!

How backed up does College get at Central right now? To me, this is one of those Laurier/Clancy type-intersections. I remember when they did the interchange at College and Circle, they looked at doing a EB-NB flyover onto Central, but I think the space constraints made it unsafe at 90 km/h.

[jigglysquishy]

The city simply can't afford to be doing interchanges at all these intersections. It costs $25,000,000 - $35,000,000 per grade-separated interchange.

We have three options for tackling traffic in Holmwood

1) Accept that 70,000 will have to use 3-4 interchanges. Stonebridge, which is far far smaller, struggles with only 2 interchanges.

2) Add at-grade intersections for better connectivity. It'll slow traffic down, but only east of the tracks

3) Spend over $100,000,000 to build additional interchanges.

I'm sick of this city subsidizing sprawl and, despite trying to avoid it, it looks like the public backlash may cause it to happen again.

If the city opts for building more interchanges it'll likely come at the expense of BRT.

There's no cheap way to move 70,000 vehicles out Holmwood.

[SaskScraper]

^^ Only 3% of the population uses Saskatoon City Transit anyways, clogging important road ways with at grade intersections isn't going to make people want to jump on a bus to enter in on that traffic jam..

The problem with BRT or any Saskatoon bus transit is that it only serves people that want to commute to either downtown or university, it does absolutely nothing to serve the bursting at the seams north industrial or fringe commuting that the city has pushed out of downtown due to too restrictive building limitations (why is Cameco's head office located on 11st west again?)

Originally Posted by skSK

How backed up does College get at Central right now? To me, this is one of those Laurier/Clancy type-intersections. I remember when they did the interchange at College and Circle, they looked at doing a EB-NB flyover onto Central, but I think the space constraints made it unsafe at 90 km/h.

..there are solutions to these T-intersections, you just have to have the traffic lights below the West bound College Dr traffic at Central, it just takes a bit of proper city planning..



The same thing could have been done at Laurier and Circle Dr..



and also at Clancy and Circle Dr, they were working at grade separation at the railway tracks on Circle Dr just a kilometre south of that intersection, it would have been a nominal cost to put traffic lights below a grade separated south bound Circle Dr. You just have to think like a city & not like a rural small town village when planning for roadways..

[Arts]

Originally Posted by skSK

How backed up does College get at Central right now? To me, this is one of those Laurier/Clancy type-intersections. I remember when they did the interchange at College and Circle, they looked at doing a EB-NB flyover onto Central, but I think the space constraints made it unsafe at 90 km/h.

I don't know what kind of vehicle counts the city has on record for that location, but from my own personal observations, during morning rush hour, College Dr backs up from Central ave traffic signal to the McKercher Interchange. with another 30,000 cars a day and no planned interchange installations or roadway upgrades it will only get drastically worse. I live in Forest Grove area and I avoid College Dr except when Attridge is backed up past Berini.

[jigglysquishy]

There's another thing people aren't taking into consideration.

There are lots of people who take College because Circle Drive North is too busy. Circle Drive North is too busy because people are using it to commute to the north industrial area (which it isn't designed for). Once the north bridge opens it'll remove thousands (over ten thousand?) vehicles from Circle Drive North, which it turn should open up College more.

Traffic Bridge opening should also alleviate a little traffic.

That being said, if you live in Evergreen you live 12 km from downtown. You can't expect a reasonable commute from that distance.

Saskatoon metro has over 300,000 people and is growing at ~10,000 people a year. Traffic is going to get worse.

There have been some proposals put forward that would really help with traffic. The proposed south-east industrial area would eliminate the need for people in Holmwood or University Heights from having to cross the river. to get to the north industrial area. Alas, it didn't go through because people didn't want industrial near them, but it would have done wonders to reduce traffic.

[n8o]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

There are lots of people who take College because Circle Drive North is too busy.

Should make the summer fun when University bridge is closed

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

^^ Only 3% of the population uses Saskatoon City Transit anyways, clogging important road ways with at grade intersections isn't going to make people want to jump on a bus to enter in on that traffic jam..

The problem with BRT or any Saskatoon bus transit is that it only serves people that want to commute to either downtown or university, it does absolutely nothing to serve the bursting at the seams north industrial or fringe commuting that the city has pushed out of downtown due to too restrictive building limitations (why is Cameco's head office located on 11st west again?)

..there are solutions to these T-intersections, you just have to have the traffic lights below the West bound College Dr traffic at Central, it just takes a bit of proper city planning..

The same thing could have been done at Laurier and Circle Dr..

and also at Clancy and Circle Dr, they were working at grade separation at the railway tracks on Circle Dr just a kilometre south of that intersection, it would have been a nominal cost to put traffic lights below a grade separated south bound Circle Dr. You just have to think like a city & not like a rural small town village when planning for roadways..

May I direct you to my design for the Laurier / Clancy / 22nd Intersections:

Think you might enjoy...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=210815

All drawn by me in AutoCAD

As for College / Central it could be a similar design. I use to live in College park and would rather use 14th street to access Circle than take the ramp from Circle NB to go WB College.

[hunter12]

Building an at grade intersection on College would be a disaster. It would be another infrastructure blunder by our city to go with the every growing list of blunders. (Circle Drive North, Laurier, Clancy, 22nd Street West, etc).

It was suggested to me that the city should build a single point urban interchange (SPUI) at McOrmond and College. Exactly the type of interchange needed at Circle Drive and Idylwyld by the Travelodge. It handles far greater traffic volumes than a diamond interchange in a safer manner.

Surely McOrmond can be designed to handle the volumes of traffic from Brighton. With a SPIU at McOrmond and College, no intersection should be required between McOrmond and Mckercher. That would eliminate the need to spend millions to build another interchange in the future.

Regarding the question raised about traffic at Central, in the morning rush hour I have seen it backed up almost all the way to Mckercher. College needs to remain a freeway.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by hunter12

Building an at grade intersection on College would be a disaster. It would be another infrastructure blunder by our city to go with the every growing list of blunders. (Circle Drive North, Laurier, Clancy, 22nd Street West, etc).

It was suggested to me that the city should build a single point urban interchange (SPUI) at McOrmond and College. Exactly the type of interchange needed at Circle Drive and Idylwyld by the Travelodge. It handles far greater traffic volumes than a diamond interchange in a safer manner.

Surely McOrmond can be designed to handle the volumes of traffic from Brighton. With a SPIU at McOrmond and College, no intersection should be required between McOrmond and Mckercher. That would eliminate the need to spend millions to build another interchange in the future.

Regarding the question raised about traffic at Central, in the morning rush hour I have seen it backed up almost all the way to Mckercher. College needs to remain a freeway.

^^ thanks for the heads up North_Regina_Boy I don't know how to use AutoCAD so I just sketched on paint..

hunter12, I can just imagine a traffic line just as long (if not longer at Holmwood build out) at a new at-grade traffic light intersection on College Dr.. maybe College Drive is just going to become one long parking lot in the mornings/late afternoons even worse than Circle Dr North is right now

..also the new McOr & College interchange's planned west bound on-ramp onto highway 5 from McOrmond Rd south & north bound isn't going to be adequate for the amount of cars already using it.. SPIU could possibly help but clover leafs would help the most.. assuming the city has left enough room with the new houses built last year so close to the highway..